Hypothetical Question, could Ruth hit modern pitching

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

In all honesty the competition was possibly higher back then due to the immense popularity of baseball. More kids played and discovered their natural gifts. The odds of a kid in 1920 discovering their natural ability to throw a baseball 90 mph is far higher than today.

You're talking most small towns in America were fielding full teams easily. And on top of that company and factory teams lined the streets.

If you were a Male in the 20th century between the ages of 15-40 you had a very high chance of being on a serious ball club.

The only thing separating today's players from back then is the time taken to train and practice etc. Sure they are more advanced today. But if we gave the slew of guys 100 years ago the bare bones of what we do today for training we would get slaughtered, their periods best vs ours. It would simply be a numbers game, and we would lose. We have the science today to win but it doesn't mean we are better at baseball.


This isn't even mentioning the sharp decrease in male testosterone in the last few decades.

Your hypothesis isn't even true though. Today, baseball is a global sport. Back then, it wasn't. Also, there were only about 2 billion people alive in 1920. Today, there are over 8 billion. Athletes are drawn from MUCH larger pools today. Also, the financial incentives today for the best athletes to pursue a career as an athlete is remarkably higher than it was back then. Many of the best athletes in the 1920s simply weren't playing pro ball. They were providing for their families by other means. And then there's the fact that integration hadn't even happened yet.

[Lucas00]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Your hypothesis isn't even true though. Today, baseball is a global sport. Back then, it wasn't. Also, there were only about 2 billion people alive in 1920. Today, there are over 8 billion. Athletes are drawn from MUCH larger pools today. Also, the financial incentives today for the best athletes to pursue a career as an athlete is remarkably higher than it was back then. Many of the best athletes in the 1920s simply weren't playing pro ball. They were providing for their families by other means. And then there's the fact that integration hadn't even happened yet.

Baseball was a global sport from the beginning, South American baseball roots go back nearly as far as american. Same with Japan.
So you're wrong there.

I would almost bet everything I own in saying 100 years ago there were more people playing baseball than today. Photos and postcards from literally every corner of north and south america and Japan prove this. Cards as well. You're talking company baseball teams across the country are the norm. When is the last time you've seen a company baseball team? Never in this lifetime. Navy ships had teams, Army bases had teams, hell they had a field on Alcatraz (granted they used a softball). You could travel across the United States on a train and get off anywhere inhabited and have a very high chance of catching a game, if not that day the next.

Baseball essentially isn't played in India, China (The majority of the population rise being these two countries.) Africa or Much of Europe. So, well over half of the world doesn't even have a field, aside from maybe some big cities. Certainly nothing local.

Not sure what integration has to do with my statement, just because they were on all black teams doesn't mean they weren't equally as capable of beating players today.

The monetary point is your best, it's kind of true but on a very small scale. Most people even kids know this will never make them money.

[rhettyeakley]

Interesting hypothetical question that always gets heated.

Nobody will ever know the answer but that doesn’t stop all of us from making our opinions I suppose, some more right than others! 🤣