Would the Legendary Babe Ruth Still Be a Star if He Played Today?

[oldjudge]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Jobu]

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.

[certainteed52]

Throughout his career and post-career Ruth was known for his bombast, overeating, drinking and womanizing today's media would have ate him alive

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by bbcard1

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.

[oldjudge]

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.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

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.

Agree. . . fun thing to debate.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

Pitchers today throw a LOT harder than in past generations. You've got the occasional outlier - Bob Feller, Nolan Ryan, Dazzy Vance, etc - but overall? Not even close. In the 1920s, there was probably 2-4 guys who threw much above 92. In 2006, the Detroit Tigers alone had something like 10.

[Tabe]

To the point of the article, that is Jane Leavy's forthcoming biography of Ruth, do we really need another? I kinda feel like "The Big Bam" was a pretty good last word on Ruth. I haven't been impressed with either of Leavy's previous books, not sure she's up to the task of the definitive bio of Ruth. Maybe Tim Hornbaker can take it on instead.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Pitchers today throw a LOT harder than in past generations. You've got the occasional outlier - Bob Feller, Nolan Ryan, Dazzy Vance, etc - but overall? Not even close. In the 1920s, there was probably 2-4 guys who threw much above 92. In 2006, the Detroit Tigers alone had something like 10.

And part of a batters power comes from the pitcher. So Maybe Ruth hits a few more HR today than before.

Steve B

[drcy]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

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.