Quote:
Originally Posted by glynparson
I have to laugh when some
Seem to think vintage players were better than the modern stars. Sure in every sport they got better except baseball. It’s undebatable in track, and other sports that compete against a clock or a measurable distance we have improved tremendously. Yet baseball fans still cling to the notion thy somehow the vintage players were better than those of today. Honestly it is a laughable notion. Now I prefer vintage cards but I would never believe any vintage star is truly a better athlete or player than the modern stars. . Trout would have crushed even Ruth’s numbers if they were playing in the same era.
|
The Babe Ruth, Mike Trout comparison is total malarkey, my friend! How many 500-foot home runs has Trout ever hit? Zero. In 1921, Babe Ruth hit at least one 500+ foot homer in every single ballpark he played in - all eight American League cities. If he didn't lose five prime years to pitching for Boston, Ruth's career home run totals would have been well over 800, despite playing out seasons of only about 154 games each instead of 162.
Now the rest of your argument has merit. Today's athletes are generally better than the vintage era athletes for two primary reasons: 1) Modern resources have allowed today's athletes to exercise more effectively and efficiently, and 2) Modern worldwide recruiting has dramatically increased the size and scope of the talent pool available to perform professionally.