Net54baseball.com Forums

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)

Jobu 04-24-2017 11:51 AM

Would the Legendary Babe Ruth Still Be a Star if He Played Today?
 
For your reading enjoyment:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smiths...um=socialmedia

I am looking forward to getting Leavy's book next year.

rats60 04-24-2017 12:04 PM

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.

KMayUSA6060 04-24-2017 12:19 PM

Not to mention the technology and quality improvement for the equipment (bats, gloves, etc.). And I'm sure the ballparks today are much simpler than the ones he played in.

wondo 04-24-2017 12:25 PM

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!

oldjudge 04-24-2017 12:31 PM

I agree with rats60; I think baseball is the one sport where the stars of yesterday, who actually mastered the game's fundamentals, would be better than the stars of today.

Snapolit1 04-24-2017 12:50 PM

One of those "who would win, Batman or Superman" type questions. No right answer.

I think Ruth would be a very good player today but not the greatest of all time. He may have been Cecil Fielder or David Ortiz but probably not the record he compiled in the 20s and 30s. He saw a lot of pitchers in his day but those pitchers were not MadBum, Scherzer and Syndagaard.

glynparson 04-24-2017 01:01 PM

I think Ruth would do fine
 
And so may others but I think it's wishful thinking to believe he would be better. Today's game is more than just the addition of blacks it's global and the best are more likely to be discovered and get to the bigs today then they were back then. I believe the average guy off the street in 1927 would be better than today, they played it a lot more back then, but I don't think Ruth would be putting up juiced Bonds numbers.

Peter_Spaeth 04-24-2017 01:02 PM

One thing that's interesting about baseball is that for all the improvements in training methods and all the advances generally in terms of athletes' strength, speed and size, pitchers don't seem to be throwing any harder than they did way back in the day and hitters don't seem to be hitting balls any further. I'm not sure why that is.

bbcard1 04-24-2017 01:07 PM

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.

drcy 04-24-2017 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldjudge (Post 1653865)
I agree with rats60; I think baseball is the one sport where the stars of yesterday, who actually mastered the game's fundamentals, would be better than the stars of today.

Good point. Perhaps the baseball players of yesteryear were better at the fundamentals.

Maybe it wouldn't be a power hitter like Ruth, but one of the other sharp hitters of the day who would thrive today due to their technical skills. Rogers Hornsby and Ty Cobb come to mind. Cobb obviously had running speed that would translate physically to today.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.