Deadball Player Skill???

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by ctownboy

Here is my take on this subject;

The differences mostly have to do with the baseball.

Back then, the baseballs were softer than they are today. Then you start adding in factors like:

1) they only used a few balls a game (thus making the mushy balls even mushier).

2) those balls got stained with grass and dirt so they weren't as easy to see as a clean white ball.

3) the balls got nicked and scuffed thus allowing the pitcher to get different grips and more movement on their pitches.

4) the spit ball was still legal.

So, a batter back then might be trying to hit a mushy, mud stained ball with small cuts and spit on it and be attempting to do so at dusk. I don't think that would be too easy to do even if the pitchers were only throwing 70 MPH.

Things changed after Ray Chapman was hit and killed. Offenses (Home Run hitters) were the recipients of this good luck while slap.contact Singles hitters were made less relevant.

On top of all of that, fields back then were not as well groomed as today and the gloves were MUCH smaller. So, it made ALL the sense in the world to try and just make contact and put the ball in to play instead of just swinging with everything they had like a lot of batters do today.

A slow, defensively challenged, strike out prone player like Adam Dunn would NOT have very much of a chance to make the Major Leagues back then because his skill set did NOT match up well with the type of play. Today, he gets paid millions of dollars for basically being a beer league soft ball player.

David

David,

All are very valid points and all contribute to the differences in the game. But in 1927, the World record in the 100 Meters was 10.4 seconds. It's now 9.58. That's an improvement of 7.9%, before we even account for Electronic Timing differences.

In the Shot Put the World record in 1927 was just under 51'. It's now 75' 10 3/4". That's an improvement of 48.8% (Also indicative of a steroid problem, as that record has stood for almost 20 years.)

We are bigger, stronger and faster than we used to be. (I, on the other hand, seem to be bigger, stronger, and much slower.)

[rhettyeakley]

Certainly a lot different then and now, but I wouldn't read too much into the difference in the 100 meters. As a former sprinter myself the equipment and tracks being used alone can account for a significant difference in the overall speed. Also, better technique, full year training, full time coaches...and potential juice problems also come into play.

One thing that wouldn't have changed from then to now is natural talent. Just like a Billy Wagner could somehow hit 100 mph it isn't outside the realm of possibilties that some of these guys (even then) were just kinda freaks.

-Rehtt

[prewarsports]

I would argue that Baseball was a MORE skilled game in the deadball era whereas this argument obviously can not be made for any other sport. Here are my reasonings:

1. Throwing a baseball fast is a god-given talent and not a skill that can be learned or enhanced by wiehgts. If 5' 9" Billy Wagner can throw 100 mph now, what is there to really think that pitchers like Walter Johnson could not do it 100 years ago. Factor in the spitball and other deadball tricks, I think it was harder to hit a ball 100 years ago than today.

2. 100 years ago there was no TV, IPODS, Basketball, hockey, Pop Waner Football, Video Games etc to compete for kids free time attention, kids played Baseball all day everyday. Today even skilled ballplayers would have a fraction of the time that kids did 100 years ago under their belt. They knew the game better.

3. There was only a fraction of the teams 100 years ago as compared to today so the talent pool was not spread nearly as thin, and this does not even include the exluded players because of their race.

These are just my thoughts but I think a stronger case can be made for their being BETTER Baseball skill 100 years ago than today. The game is different, but not that much. Players today would have a harder time hitting 1910 pitching than 1910 hitters would have hitting todays pitchers!

Rhys

[Mark]

I was thinking what Rhys said. And he said it well. We sometimes get caught up in the idea that everything is always making progress, but if you look at the craftsmanship of old furniture and at classical music and art, you can see that newer isn't necessarily better. If Waddell could strike out 349 batters in one year in the deadball inside baseball era, he must have been fast.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

I would argue that Baseball was a MORE skilled game in the deadball era whereas this argument obviously can not be made for any other sport. Here are my reasonings:

1. Throwing a baseball fast is a god-given talent and not a skill that can be learned or enhanced by wiehgts. If 5' 9" Billy Wagner can throw 100 mph now, what is there to really think that pitchers like Walter Johnson could not do it 100 years ago. Factor in the spitball and other deadball tricks, I think it was harder to hit a ball 100 years ago than today.

2. 100 years ago there was no TV, IPODS, Basketball, hockey, Pop Waner Football, Video Games etc to compete for kids free time attention, kids played Baseball all day everyday. Today even skilled ballplayers would have a fraction of the time that kids did 100 years ago under their belt. They knew the game better.

3. There was only a fraction of the teams 100 years ago as compared to today so the talent pool was not spread nearly as thin, and this does not even include the exluded players because of their race.

These are just my thoughts but I think a stronger case can be made for their being BETTER Baseball skill 100 years ago than today. The game is different, but not that much. Players today would have a harder time hitting 1910 pitching than 1910 hitters would have hitting todays pitchers!

Rhys

Actually point 3 isn't quite right. The club I'm in had Lenny Merullo speak a few years ago. One thing he brought up was the overall numbers of people involved in organised baseball. It was more in the context of whether certain problem players would have been kept in the big leagues when he played.
The numbers he had were - About 17,500 players now in all levels of pro ball. And about 175,000 when he played. His numbers may be a bit skewed, because he counted a only "professional" baseball, meaning college was out, but industrial leagues were in. I think it still shows a very deep pool of natural talent. As he put it , if you weren't a Williams or DiMaggio you'd better be likeable and not a nuisance come contract time, because they could replace an average player very easily. he played in the 30's -40's but I can't imagine that aspect of the game being that much different from the deadball era.

Steve

[rhettyeakley]

Steve, you are actually making his point for him. When Rhys said there were only a fraction of the teams then he was speaking ONLY of the Major Leagues, as the Minor League system during that time period was everywhere, any city with a decent population had a minor league ballclub. In that time period there were only 16 teams in the "majors". The rosters of those 16 teams were also not as large as they are today.

Thus, there were perhaps 10X the number of organized players competing during that time period for only half the number of teams with smaller rosters. I think this is what Rhys was getting at w/ #3. Even taking into consideration the "excluded" players from the Negro Leagues there were more people trying to get to the majors then.

-Rhett