Net54baseball.com Forums - Would the Legendary Babe Ruth Still Be a Star if He Played Today?

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)

- Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2)

- - Would the Legendary Babe Ruth Still Be a Star if He Played Today? (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=238750)

I should add that I think he would still be a star - I only used that title because it was the title of the article.

One thing that is left out of the "yeah, but guys are bigger, faster, stronger today ..." line of reasoning is that Ruth would also have been bigger, faster, and stronger had he been born in 1987.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbcard1 (Post 1653885)

I think he would still be a superstar, best player in the game or battling Mike Trout for that honor. I don't agree that the talent is watered down today. The advances in scouting and globalization of the game not to mention the vast financial rewards and the inclusion to African American talent have lead to a greater pool of talent. I would venture to say that the worst player in the majors today would be considerably better than the worst player in the majors during Ruth's time.

I think the skill levels of pro baseball players today absolutely dwarfs the skill level of players in the 20s and 30s. I think many of the teams in that era were filled with guys who would be mediocre mid level AA players today. I will go the extra mile (probably just to piss people off) and say that Tim Tebow would have been a very good professional player in that era. Can I prove any of that. Of course not. Just my strong suspicion. Look at the difference between the numbers track and field guys put up today vs. the 20s. No comparison. I would expect the same thing in baseball, football, and basketball.

Of course had the guys then had the training available today it would have been a much tougher call.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wondo (Post 1653863)

Of course he would, just like Jim Thorpe would run away with the Olympic decathalon, Ernie Nevers would lead the NFL in touchdowns and Johnny Weissmuller would lap Michael Phelps!

Jesse Owens one long jump at the 1935 Big 10 championships would have gotten him 6th at the Olympics last year. 3 of the 6 attempts by the Olympic gold medalist were less than that one jump. Owens only made one attempt because he had to run 3 other races in a 45 minute period in which he set 2 more world records and tied a third.

It is not hard to imagine that Owens could win a world championship today in the long jump using modern equipment and not having to train and compete in other events at the same time. Some athletes do transcend generations. It is not like modern day players have to hit off Walter Johnson. How many great athletes today are playing football or basketball, but would have chosen baseball back in Ruth's day as the nation's favorite sport?

Steve-No question that football, or basketball, or track and field stars are much better today. I don't think that is true for baseball though. However, we will never know so at this point it is just a fun discussion.

I believe they ran on cinder tracks back in Owen's day. As a former track runner who once ran on a cinder track, I can tell you there's a bid difference. A big of an exaggeration, but it can be like running on gravel versus the sidewalk.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rats60 (Post 1653847)

He would be even better in today's watered down 30 team MLB. So many mediocre pitchers today in the majors that would have never seen the big leagues in Ruth's time. That more than makes up for the 8% of African Americans that were banned in Ruth's day or the modern day closers that Ruth might have to face one time in a game.

Could just be my math, but it seems that based on population that existed in Ruth's era, the talent was more watered down in 1920 than in 2010. In 1920 the US had a population of 106.5M while in 2010 had a population of 309.3M. There were 16 teams in 1920 with little to no minorities/foreign players involved while in 2010 30 teams participated with many nationalities represented. In 1920 0.000375% of the US population could occupy one of the 400 available MLB roster spots, while in 2010 0.000242% of the US population could occupy one of the 750 roster spots available. Another words, in 1920 a higher percent of the population would make a MLB roster than in 2010.

Bottom line is with MLB not adding teams as fast as the US population grows and the large number of foreign players currently playing, Ruth's era was far more watered down talent wise than today's era. Facing more evolved pitching strategies (relief pitching), physical training ,etc, might render Ruth a comparison to Adam Dunn in today's MLB.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldjudge (Post 1653899)

Agree. . . fun thing to debate.

The one thing that I think is safe to say is that no player from now could just go back to then and have a dominant career. Their first train ride and night of 1920's living would probably have them waving the white flag. Then imagine they go up to bat with no helmet on? I don't think any 2017 player would last a full season in 1920, and especially not before that. If they did last a season, good luck with the off-season job, rookie.

I saw this earlier this year and thought it was awesome. I feel the same way about Ruth and early baseball players. I dont think much has changed really (football, hockey and basketball are different games than they were).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jas9ff0hdFI

One major thing you all are leaving out is the hot dogs today are WAY better than in the past so Ruth would have dominated! Less flies eyes down the hatch means more home runs! He could have whooped Joey Chestnut and Kobiashi on consecutive days no sweat! chomp chomp