Which pre-war stars could play today?

[Touch'EmAll]

The most likely type of yesteryear player to make it today would be singles hitters - more of just a pure hand/eye coordination issue. I doubt if athlete hand/eye coordination has improved over the years like strength.

The strength required to be a top HR hitter today - I don't know if many prewar players could bring that to the table successfully.

Ty Cobb - time warp him up - would be been Pete Rose/Rod Carew.
Rogers Hornsby - time warp him up - would be George Brett/Tony Gwynn.

Cobb would have to lay off the basepath tactics/antics, however. Today he would get his ass so fast picked off and thrown out it would make his head spin.

And Mr. Walter Johnson & Mr. Cy Young would have to "bring it" on most every single pitch nowadays - no more laying off until they needed it mentality enabling them to stockpile mind boggling Inning Pitched and Wins totals.

Pitcher wise, I would be comfortable that Satchell Paige and Lefty Grove would be in a starting rotation today. Tables turned, how many no-hitters do you think Nolan Ryan would have had back then?

[Mark]

There's a question whether Cobb would have adjusted his swing to adapt to the new game. But hitters like Wheat, Jackson, and Ruth would do more than just fit in. I suspect that Hornsby would put up nice power numbers today: he combined the linear and rotational motions that gave the others great power. As for the pitching, even today's starters pace themselves at times.
As for Ryan's ability to throw a no hitter way back when, I would guess he would sneak one in there, maybe pitching against the Browns.

[DanP]

I had a feeling I would be in the minority, but I didn't think I'd be the only one who felt the old-timers couldn't compete in today's game!

I have an open mind here .. So let me ask these questions:
Why is baseball the only sport where guys from 100 years ago could compete today? All Olympic Sports: No way, Football: No way, Basketball: No way, etc. etc. but Baseball, yes??

Let's say Walter Johnson did throw around 100mph. I don't know of any star pitchers with just a fastball. Why would it be different for him? Yes, he could develop another pitch, but that wasn't the question. We would be taking him from 1910 with what he had then and insert him into the 2011 season.

The old-timers didn't grow up playing organized baseball from the 6 years old. They didn't play 100 games in a single little league season (or even play little league), they didn't play year round in high school and college, they were much smaller and weaker than today's players, they didn't face competition from all over the world, there wasn't anywhere near the financial incentive there is today to become a great player, the hitters didn't have to face relief specialists starting from the 6th inning, the hitters never saw a slider, etc. etc.

I believe some of the pitchers could have done OK, and of course some could have been stars (Feller, Ruth, Grove, Hubbell, etc.) but not many of the hitters.

I believe Babe Ruth probably could have been a great pitcher, but I still believe he would have batted .250 in today's game.

I'm trying to rationalize what I'm missing here!

Dan

[Touch'EmAll]

Tim Lincecum has top form and mechanics - thats how he pitches so well. The form and mechanics enable him to acheive maximum effectiveness for his given body. It would be scary to see Tim Lincecum, same awesome proportional mechanics, but with a bigger body.

When i swim, I swim fast because I have great technique. I am definitely not the most buff guy on the starting blocks. If the really buff guys had the same technique and flexibility as I, then they would record setters.

So the question is: Did Walter Johnson, or other, have form and mechanics comparable to todays pitchers? If so, he would probably do well.

[ElCabron]

Walter Johnson had arms that were like 40 feet long. He'd throw gas in any era. The only thing you're really proving with your arguments is that you're a kick-ass swimmer.

The only real differences would be that Wagner would hit like 40+ homers a year today and Cobb would only see pitches on the outside corner or off the plate since he would never be able to reach them with that goofy grip.

-Ryan

[rhettyeakley]

It's a fallacy to think that we as humans are constantly getting better at everything. All the examples you show are where bigger bodies, strength and new training techniques have completely altered the form of the competition. Baseball has changed to some degree but not to the point that basketball, football, hockey, etc. have changed.

Do you honestly think people 100 years ago were worse at chess, pool/billiards, rifle shooting, etc.? I'd argue that pitching is more similar to these types of activities than trying to compare the game of basketball in 1910 to today's game--they aren't even the same game.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by DanP

The old-timers didn't grow up playing organized baseball from the 6 years old. They didn't play 100 games in a single little league season (or even play little league), they didn't play year round in high school and college, they were much smaller and weaker than today's players, they didn't face competition from all over the world, there wasn't anywhere near the financial incentive there is today to become a great player, the hitters didn't have to face relief specialists starting from the 6th inning, the hitters never saw a slider, etc. etc.
Dan

In fact, back then, kids who played sports played almost nothing BUT baseball spring, summer, and fall. Every small town had its own semi pro or pro team, and many factories and clubs played baseball, too. As for their size and strength, it is a factor in athletics. but not the only factor in the game of baseball. The great players were both great physical specimens (e.g. Wagner and Ruth) and highly skilled baseball players. As for relief pitching, it's a solid point in your favor. Many starters burned out their arms trying to go hard the whole game. But as for the slider, it is more than made up for by the spitball, the emery ball, and the simple fact that they used the same ball for entire games. The old, game used ball is a dirty, rough item.

[prewarsports]

You cant think of Baseball like the other sports because it is completely different. Throwing a baseball is COMPLETELY seperate than anything else in other sports. The "bigger faster stronger" argument means nothing when it comes to throwing a baseball. No amount of weight training/nutrition/science can make a person who throws 90 MPH be able to throw 99 MPH. You can either do it or you cant which is why players 100 years ago ABSOLUTELY could throw just as fast as players today can.

I played Baseball at a very high level (College and semi-pro Summer Leagues with tons of Professional players). I was a VERY good player and hit .449 in the last league I played in during College. I was a big/strong/fast guy but I never once hit 80 MPH on the radar gun.

Science making a fastball faster is as absurd as science being able to make a chess player better with gatorade.

I would challenge ANYONE to answer these questions regarding these three players and explain how they are products of the modern game and that players like this did not exist before.


1. Is Prince Fielder (at least 80 pounds overweight) really taking advantage of all that modern science?

2. Is Tim Lincecum any bigger/faster/stronger than the pitchers of 100 years ago?

3. at 5'9" should we assume that "science" made Billy Wagner able to throw 103 MPH and there is no way he could have done it in 1910?


Rhys