Perception of pre war baseball players vs other sports

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by rats60

However, I don't think there is any doubt that the best era for baseball was 1947-1979. Williams, Musial, Jackie Robinson, Mays, Mantle, Aaron, Clemente, Koufax, Gibson, Seaver, Bench, Schmidt, etc. No other era had that depth of great players.

I have to beg to differ. You can take any 30 year period between, say, 1900-79, rattle off a list of contemporaneous greats and say the same thing. A lot happens in thirty years, and many legends in every era.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

I have to beg to differ. You can take any 30 year period between, say, 1900-79, rattle off a list of contemporaneous greats and say the same thing. A lot happens in thirty years, and many legends in every era.

This. For exzmple 1905-1934. Cobb Speaker Wagner Ruth Jackson Lajoie Collins Sisler Hornsby Gehrig Young Mathewson Johnson Alexander Grove shall I continue? That can't rival 47-79?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

This. For exzmple 1905-1934. Cobb Speaker Wagner Ruth Jackson Lajoie Collins Sisler Hornsby Gehrig Young Mathewson Johnson Alexander Grove shall I continue? That can't rival 47-79?

Definitely not preintegration.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by rats60

Definitely not preintegration.

True, the major leagues were sadly missing out on a lot of great black talent, but on the other hand, baseball was THE game for all kids back then, and MLB got the cream of a much larger white crop. I've always thought--and Goose Goslin says this on the "Glory of Their Times" audio--that the big stars then would also be great today, but because of better conditioning, training, travel conditions, etc., the average ballplayer of yesteryear wouldn't be able to compete with those of today.

[packs]

I’ve always felt like the average pre-war player was most likely much better than the average player today. Today the pool of major leaguers is only made up of those who decide to play baseball. Way less of the population is playing than during pre-war days. If you were a player on any pre-war team you beat out almost ever of age male in the country for your spot. Today you only compete against of a tiny percentage of the people you would have in 1910.

[Snapolit1]

It's a fun question to debate and no right answer of course.

I would argue that professional baseball players today are much better baseball players and far far (far) better athletes than prewar players, with limited exceptions. Guys today are cultivated for MLB careers sometimes as early as 12 years old.

Gehrig is always touted as looking like a football player body. Was consider huuuuuuge for his time. Look at all those muscles. What a monster. And he was a great raw athlete. But he was 6 feet tall 200 pounds. Just a little bigger than Francisco Lindor today. Guys today and so ripped and so strong and (most of them) so fast. Except in rare case would be no comparison on physicality and skills.

I'd argue that a fringe major leaguer today -- let's say Tomas Nido on my Mets -- probably has hitting and fielding skills better than 95% of the catchers of the prewar era.

[nwobhm]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I'd argue that a fringe major leaguer today -- let's say Tomas Nido on my Mets -- probably has hitting and fielding skills better than 95% of the catchers of the prewar era.

You may be right. Game became easier for his generation.

I’m guessing Nido has the advantages of better footwear, padding, helmets, gloves, uniforms…. How about the ball…is it easier to see now? Easier to judge fielding it now? It’s round now, it’s clean now. How about the field? Now they are immaculate, how about 1923? Weeds, divots, bald spots…. No Astroturf for sure.

[jakebeckleyoldeagleeye]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

True, the major leagues were sadly missing out on a lot of great black talent, but on the other hand, baseball was THE game for all kids back then, and MLB got the cream of a much larger white crop. I've always thought--and Goose Goslin says this on the "Glory of Their Times" audio--that the big stars then would also be great today, but because of better conditioning, training, travel conditions, etc., the average ballplayer of yesteryear wouldn't be able to compete with those of today.

Put today's players back in those times. I can't see Mike Trout working in a coal mine in the off season.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by jakebeckleyoldeagleeye

Put today's players back in those times. I can't see Mike Trout working in a coal mine in the off season.

Of course not, but 20 of the other guys on his team would have been working instead of spending the offseason working out, focusing on nutrition, hitting the batting cage, etc. Not sure what your point is in response to my post. Today's players are just so much bigger, stronger, well trained and coached year round, etc., the players of old wouldn't stand a chance of competing with them, IMO.

[jakebeckleyoldeagleeye]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Of course not, but 20 of the other guys on his team would have been working instead of spending the offseason working out, focusing on nutrition, hitting the batting cage, etc. Not sure what your point is in response to my post. Today's players are just so much bigger, stronger, well trained and coached year round, etc., the players of old wouldn't stand a chance of competing with them, IMO.

What's your point? Only an idiot would think yesterday's players could compete with todays players but let's have Trout born in 1915 and see how he would do during the depression era with no advantages because they weren't known. By the way Mike also go off for 4 years and fight in WW 2.