Perception of pre war baseball players vs other sports

[Peter_Spaeth]

We've touched a little on this in part, but to put it more directly.

In baseball, any list of all time greats by any serious fan is going to be dominated by pre-war players: Ruth, Cobb, Gehrig, Wagner, Johnson, Young, Mathewson, and so on and so on.

Football? Not one would make the list for the vast majority of fans, maybe Nagurski in a footnote.

Basketball? Nobody pre-Bill Russell (1956 debut), maybe Mikan in a footnote but not a serious one. And the advent of Black players doesn't explain it, baseball too was lily white until 1947.

Hockey? Maybe a couple of players like Morenz, but the lists are dominated by players starting in the late 40s (M Richard, Howe).

Soccer, has anyone even heard of a pre-war player?

Tennis? Maybe Bill Tilden in a footnote, but otherwise all modern.

I could probably go on.

You could quibble a bit with the above, but it's hard to deny there is a HUGE disparity between baseball and all other sports in terms of the status and stature of pre war players.

Why?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

We've touched a little on this in part, but to put it more directly.

In baseball, any list of all time greats by any serious fan is going to be dominated by pre-war players: Ruth, Cobb, Gehrig, Wagner, Johnson, Young, Mathewson, and so on and so on.

Football? Not one would make the list, maybe Nagurski in a footnote.

Basketball? Nobody pre-Bill Russell (1956 debut), maybe Mikan in a footnote but not a serious one.

Hockey? Maybe a couple of players, but the lists are dominated by players starting in the late 40s (M Richard, Howe).

Soccer, has anyone even heard of a pre-war player?

Tennis? Maybe Bill Tilden in a footnote, but otherwise all modern.

I could probably go on.

You could quibble a bit with the above, but it's hard to deny there is a HUGE disparity in the perception of baseball and all other sports in terms of the status and stature of pre war players.

Why?

Because baseball was far more developed far earlier than the other major sports and their leagues. The best were centered in the 'major league(s)' for, since the 1870's. Football, basketball, hockey did not have a half century of top levels centralized professionalism. There is a very long history of this centralized talent, the best playing together.

Baseball was also far more popular than any of these and has a more widespread oral tradition of legend.

Baseball has, more than any other sport, remembered its past, paid homage to it, and kept its memory alive. Football and Basketball are more popular now than Baseball, but what percentage of the population can name anyone pre-war for them?

These other sports are also less easily converted into statistics that can be quickly converted into comparisons against the league of their time.

[RCMcKenzie]

In a playoff post-game show, Frank Thomas laughed about having never heard of Home Run Baker, and they all laughed with him.

I think the only people that know about Hans Lobert, Eddie Collins and Old Eagle Eye are the people that read this board.

People know Aaron Judge and Kris Bryant and Altuve and those guys, just like the other sports.

[Snowman]

I was just thinking about this exact topic yesterday. I think the disparity in large part can be explained by how likely it is that collectors believe athletes from that era would fare in today's game in each of their respective sports.

Baseball is quite different from other mainstream sports in that you don't really have to be a great athlete to be a great player. That is to say you don't have to be able to run fast, jump high, have a quick first step, etc. Although it certainly helps. You have to be a good athlete to be a good center fielder, shortstop, or second baseman, but you certainly don't have to be an athlete to be a great pitcher or hitter. Babe Ruth wasn't going to win any foot races, and Bartolo Colon isn't going to be dunking any basketballs anytime soon. Baseball is more about timing, hand-eye coordination, and game theory.

I think this allows us to envision players of the past still performing at least somewhat well in today's game (fairly or unfairly). Whereas with basketball, there isn't a single player from that era who would even start on a 4A high school squad in Los Angeles today. Even George Mikan wouldn't make the NBA today. The game has just changed so much. Basketball requires by far the most athleticism of any of the major sports, and the players from that era simply weren't athletes. Not in comparison to today's players. Anything from before the Wilt & Russell era just feels like an entirely different sport. The same is true with football before black athletes were allowed to play. Particularly with the skill positions. Obviously, for offensive linemen, it doesn't really matter, but the hobby doesn't care about them anyhow.

[jingram058]

The perception by most people is that most of the truly great baseball players were in that earlier era. Perception is reality, factually or otherwise.

[packs]

Nearly every American born male was playing baseball in the pre-war era. Whereas George Mikan was the best in his era, he was only the best of the people who actually played basketball. For you to have earned even the last spot on the last place team in the worst year of the pre-war era you would have had to beat out nearly every other American male in the country for it.

Big difference in skill level relative to era.

[SAllen2556]

I would suggest golf and boxing as counter-examples to your theory. Those sports were way more popular in 1930 than football, basketball, or hockey.

Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney in boxing - just to name a few, would still be considered among the all-time greats.

Ben Hogan, Bobby Jones, Walter Hagen in golf.

The popularity of the sport has more to do with it than anything.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by jingram058

The perception by most people is that most of the truly great baseball players were in that earlier era. Perception is reality, factually or otherwise.

I don't think this is true, broadly speaking. It may be true with respect to this forum and the tendencies here to romanticize that era, but I don't think the rest of the sports world has fallen prey to those same delusions. Perhaps most will agree that Ruth is the GOAT, but I don't think you'll find that extended to pretty much anyone else. Maaaaybe Cobb, but certainly not with guys like Wagner, Hornsby, or Gehrig.

[jakebeckleyoldeagleeye]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

In a playoff post-game show, Frank Thomas laughed about having never heard of Home Run Baker, and they all laughed with him.

I think the only people that know about Hans Lobert, Eddie Collins and Old Eagle Eye are the people that read this board.

People know Aaron Judge and Kris Bryant and Altuve and those guys, just like the other sports.

He's to busy worrying about those useless supplements he push's on TV.

[Lobo Aullando]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Basketball? Nobody pre-Bill Russell (1956 debut), maybe Mikan in a footnote but not a serious one. And the advent of Black players doesn't explain it, baseball too was lily white until 1947.

Yet the consensus best college and professional coaches played pre-war, so it's not like IQ or will were lacking back then.

[Lucas00]

I think the direct correlation of the amount of pre war collectables obtainable for pre war baseball greats when comparing other sports explains why very well.

Americans are infatuated with baseball, it's aura and history are far superior for us. Even as other sports have gotten more popular the same feelings of awe did not come with them for us.

Maybe if you asked this question on a European forum you would be surprised how flipped this thought is.

[perezfan]

It's always bothered me that star players like Unitas, Berry, Mackey, Starr, Sayers, Jim Brown, Red Grange, Nagurski, Baugh, Tittle, Otto Graham, Don Hutson, etc. don't get any recognition today. Heck, fans today barely even remember Joe Montana and John Elway.

The NFL and NBA seem to promote only "the here and now". Professional Baseball was popular eons before Football or Basketball, as there was no NFL prior to 1920 and no NBA before 1946. So that explains at least a portion of it.

[Natswin2019]

Was talking to some friends of mine about this and I think its cause baseball is pretty much the same sport as it was 100 years ago and the stats we use are the same. It also helps that some of the major records are held by players of past eras. Football and basketball are pretty different than they were 100 years ago and have and major rule changes in a time that people still remember.