What if they used today's baseballs?

[Touch'EmAll]

What do you folks think about the depth of talent ? I kinda agree the top players would be top players in any era. However, I feel the bottom 25% of the players today are closer to the top than the bottom 25% of 100 years ago - basically the talent spread is much closer today than way back. That enables the top players way back players to put up better stats - both pitchers and hitters. Could be wrong, food for thought.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by bnorth

We will never know but yes I do, just like I think several others from that era did including Maris. Why wouldn't they, they were not against the rules or even illegal then?

Agreed, if it is not illegal and easy to get would he be doing his job if he didn't? A two minute google tells you that he got that abcess from Jacobson...the exact guy who had the president on methamphimines. His shot mixtures were well known and had animal hormones and steroids.

Chose to believe what you want but the earliest admission of steroid use was HoF member Pud Galvin in the 1800s who was shooting horse testosterone. If you want to pretend that professional athletes ignored steroids in the sixties and the commies were the only ones in the world with their athletes on them with all the evidence in world that that's not the fact then enjoy those Vaseline covered glasses.

That's not for you Brian, it's for the one standing in front of the Darwin Museum ignoring how science works.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Agreed, if it is not illegal and easy to get would he be doing his job if he didn't? A two minute google tells you that he got that abcess from Jacobson...the exact guy who had the president on methamphimines. His shot mixtures were well known and had animal hormones and steroids.

Chose to believe what you want but the earliest admission of steroid use was HoF member Pud Galvin in the 1800s who was shooting horse testosterone. If you want to pretend that professional athletes ignored steroids in the sixties and the commies were the only ones in the world with their athletes on them with all the evidence in world that that's not the fact then enjoy those Vaseline covered glasses.

That's not for you Brian, it's for the one standing in front of the Darwin Museum ignoring how science works.

Do you even know what the Hell you are talking about?

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Agreed, if it is not illegal and easy to get would he be doing his job if he didn't? A two minute google tells you that he got that abcess from Jacobson...the exact guy who had the president on methamphimines. His shot mixtures were well known and had animal hormones and steroids.

Chose to believe what you want but the earliest admission of steroid use was HoF member Pud Galvin in the 1800s who was shooting horse testosterone. If you want to pretend that professional athletes ignored steroids in the sixties and the commies were the only ones in the world with their athletes on them with all the evidence in world that that's not the fact then enjoy those Vaseline covered glasses.

That's not for you Brian, it's for the one standing in front of the Darwin Museum ignoring how science works.

Not completely sure, but you might be the dumbest person I have ever heard pertaining this subject...Pud Galvin shooting horse steriods? Really? Let me ask you something....Barry Bonds went from about 6-1 165 lbs, to 240 lbs and a head the size of a pumpkin. Mickey Mantle, Roger Maris were the same physical stats pretty much throughout their careers. Also, Mark McGwire was a string bean with the A's, and then all of a sudden, the Jolly Green Giant with size 38" thighs....Please know what the Hell you are talking about, OK?

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

Not completely sure, but you might be the dumbest person I have ever heard pertaining this subject...Pud Galvin shooting horse steriods? Really? Let me ask you something....Barry Bonds went from about 6-1 165 lbs, to 240 lbs and a head the size of a pumpkin. Mickey Mantle, Roger Maris were the same physical stats pretty much throughout their careers. Also, Mark McGwire was a string bean with the A's, and then all of a sudden, the Jolly Green Giant with size 38" thighs....Please know what the Hell you are talking about, OK?

What you think steroids do on their own shows you know jack. The best use of steroids is speed of healing and recovery. I guess they only work the way you think and lance Armstrong was 250 with Hogan arms.

Done with talking to you on this because your extent of knowledge consists of things you "think" and ignore any actual subject matter.

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by JustinD

Agreed, if it is not illegal and easy to get would he be doing his job if he didn't? A two minute google tells you that he got that abcess from Jacobson...the exact guy who had the president on methamphimines. His shot mixtures were well known and had animal hormones and steroids.

This is interesting. Could you tell me more about this story? So Mantle was having some issues and the Yankees sent him to see this doctor, and then he developed an abscess from the injection - was this a one time thing? Did Mantle see this doctor in the past? What about the other guys on the team? I need more information.

[TUM301]

Not sure who took what when, launch angles, WAR, MPH off the bat etc. etc, but give me my all time favorite Harmon Killebrew in today`s HR derby against anyone else I`ve seen.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by 100backstroke

What do you folks think about the depth of talent ? I kinda agree the top players would be top players in any era. However, I feel the bottom 25% of the players today are closer to the top than the bottom 25% of 100 years ago - basically the talent spread is much closer today than way back. That enables the top players way back players to put up better stats - both pitchers and hitters. Could be wrong, food for thought.

The population base if far larger today than it was, especially pre- 1947/8

One of the guys who spoke to the club years ago had a couple interesting numbers. He asked how many players were playing when he was vs how many now. At the time he said organized baseball in the US, counting independent leagues had about 17,500 players. Just before WWII the number was supposedly closer to 175,000. Now I don't think those figures are entirely accurate, as they probably don't include international leagues that weren't scouted then, and some of that 175K was in town and industrial leagues which had extremely variable levels of play.

But his point was that unless you were a Ted Williams or DiMaggio or nearly that good, you had to be good, get along, etc, or they could replace you with a phone call.

How many teams today keep guys on the roster because "well, we're paying him X million a year, we'll keep putting him out there until he gets better or the contract is up."

[steve B]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

Not completely sure, but you might be the dumbest person I have ever heard pertaining this subject...Pud Galvin shooting horse steriods? Really? Let me ask you something....Barry Bonds went from about 6-1 165 lbs, to 240 lbs and a head the size of a pumpkin. Mickey Mantle, Roger Maris were the same physical stats pretty much throughout their careers. Also, Mark McGwire was a string bean with the A's, and then all of a sudden, the Jolly Green Giant with size 38" thighs....Please know what the Hell you are talking about, OK?

Since this claim probably needs some backup...

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...her-of-juicing

And from here a bit more balanced look at it. It was actually dog and guniea pig testicles....And apparently didn't actually work
https://sabr.org/bioproj/person/38c553ff

With the publication of Roger I. Abrams’ The Dark Side of the Diamond: Gambling, Violence, Drugs and Alcoholism in the National Pastime, in 2007, Galvin became 21st-century news. He was given the title of baseball’s first user of performance-enhancing drugs. Abrams found an article in the Washington Post from August 14, 1889, that said:
“Galvin was one of the subjects at a test of the Brown-Séquard elixir at a medical college in Pittsburgh on Monday. If there still be doubting Thomases who concede no virtue in the elixir, they are respectfully referred to Galvin’s record in yesterday’s Boston-Pittsburg game. It is the best proof yet furnished of the value of the discovery.”34
In that game Galvin pitched a two-hit shutout and was uncharacteristically successful at the plate. Abrams takes the article at face value, connecting Galvin’s participation in the trial with his success in the following game, in the process defying the long-held and correct notion that correlation does not imply causation.
The Brown-Séquard elixir was invented in 1889 by Charles Brown-Séquard, a French-American doctor. The elixir, which was injected, was based around extracts from guinea-pig and dog testicles and was apparently the first known modern treatment that contained testosterone. Abrams thus relates the elixir to the anabolic steroids that we know of today and ties Galvin to cheating and performance-enhancing drugs.
Abrams, however, fails to take into account the primitive nature of the Brown-Séquard elixir, which made it biologically ineffective according to scientific research published in 2002. The only possible benefit for Galvin, therefore, would have been a placebo effect. Moreover, the instance cited by Abrams appears to have been isolated. Abrams’ association of Galvin’s one-time use of the Brown-Séquard elixir in 1889 with modern-day steroid use is further undermined because the elixir was not banned by professional baseball. It is anachronistic to look back at Galvin’s one-time use of this elixir and consider it performance enhancement, cheating, or unethical behavior. Still, national news outlets and websites publicized and excerpted Abrams’ work, thus helping to slightly tarnish Galvin’s reputation and legacy.

[Misunderestimated]

2 points:
1. The possible population for MLB baseball players today extends beyond the USA far more than it ever has. Before 1947 it was essentially limited to white males in the USA.

2. They change out the baseballs far more than they did in the past. Before 1920 (Mays sidearm kills Chapman and Spitballs legal) they tried assiduously to conserve baseballs during MLB games.

These 2 changes make cross-historical comparison of hitters very difficult. The former clearly means that there was much much less competition in the past. The later meant that hitting was often a very different challenge than it is today.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by steve B

Since this claim probably needs some backup...

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...her-of-juicing

And from here a bit more balanced look at it. It was actually dog and guniea pig testicles....And apparently didn't actually work
https://sabr.org/bioproj/person/38c553ff

With the publication of Roger I. Abrams’ The Dark Side of the Diamond: Gambling, Violence, Drugs and Alcoholism in the National Pastime, in 2007, Galvin became 21st-century news. He was given the title of baseball’s first user of performance-enhancing drugs. Abrams found an article in the Washington Post from August 14, 1889, that said:
“Galvin was one of the subjects at a test of the Brown-Séquard elixir at a medical college in Pittsburgh on Monday. If there still be doubting Thomases who concede no virtue in the elixir, they are respectfully referred to Galvin’s record in yesterday’s Boston-Pittsburg game. It is the best proof yet furnished of the value of the discovery.”34
In that game Galvin pitched a two-hit shutout and was uncharacteristically successful at the plate. Abrams takes the article at face value, connecting Galvin’s participation in the trial with his success in the following game, in the process defying the long-held and correct notion that correlation does not imply causation.
The Brown-Séquard elixir was invented in 1889 by Charles Brown-Séquard, a French-American doctor. The elixir, which was injected, was based around extracts from guinea-pig and dog testicles and was apparently the first known modern treatment that contained testosterone. Abrams thus relates the elixir to the anabolic steroids that we know of today and ties Galvin to cheating and performance-enhancing drugs.
Abrams, however, fails to take into account the primitive nature of the Brown-Séquard elixir, which made it biologically ineffective according to scientific research published in 2002. The only possible benefit for Galvin, therefore, would have been a placebo effect. Moreover, the instance cited by Abrams appears to have been isolated. Abrams’ association of Galvin’s one-time use of the Brown-Séquard elixir in 1889 with modern-day steroid use is further undermined because the elixir was not banned by professional baseball. It is anachronistic to look back at Galvin’s one-time use of this elixir and consider it performance enhancement, cheating, or unethical behavior. Still, national news outlets and websites publicized and excerpted Abrams’ work, thus helping to slightly tarnish Galvin’s reputation and legacy.

This is certainly missing the point and putting up an odd defense by the author. It does not matter if it worked or not. Nor should his reputation be tarnished in anyway.

Intent is what should be measured and certainly he was hoping it would help him. If I either successfully or unsuccessfully rob a bank, the charges are the same.

What I believe is that when you are under pressure to be a professional athlete and a supplement is available that is legal that could better that effort then you are more likely than not to use it. This was what he was trying and what is logical for players of past. To discount that the same guys with candy dishes of speed and pain killers in the locker room next to the tobacco, sunflower seeds and bubble gum had some moral dilemma on a legal practice is absolutely silly.

There are plenty of accounts available if you look for them, but generationally those players are honestly less likely to be "rats" as the Jose's of the 90s that redirected attention every time it came to him by throwing people under the bus.

I just personally hold the notion that the "steroid era" was less of an increase in steroids but a change in user habits as they were using the healing properties in a more modern way for weight training recovery. They didn't just appear in 1987.

Lyle Alzado admitted he started using in college. Mind you this was 1967 at Yankton College in the NAIA in South Dakota. Let's hit some simple logic here, a 19 year old kid at a tiny no-name college in 1967 can find steroids with no effort but a professional athlete in the MLB can't? There is no logical argument to say that based on high moral grounds they ignored it. In all likelihood it was far more common than ever as it was not tested for and probably on par with the other drug use. That is my opinion of course, but I consider it not an excessive leap of faith.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by packs

Everyone always says the old players have nothing on the new players, but I really don't understand that perspective. Other sports have seen increases in talent due increases in the numbers of athletes participating in the sport. That's why I believe the level has risen so much in the NBA and the NFL; you've got way more people playing both sports than you ever did before.

That is not true with baseball. Every year there is the discussion about diminishing participation among even little league players. Whereas every kid used to play baseball, now that population is splintered across three other sports (plus soccer). In my opinion that means Major League Baseball is no longer full of the best of the best in the country; instead it is full of the best who choose to play. If you ask me, the average player in the 1920s would have still had to have been an incredible player to even get a spot on a professional roster by virtue of needing to beat out much more competition to claim it.

NO they haven't. There hasn't been a running back in the NFL that comes close to Jim Brown. Wilt Chamberlain was the greatest athlete to ever play in the NBA. No one has ever been stronger or had his vertical in a 7 foot body. These guys were freaks without the need for modern training. The idea that man has evolved that much is a joke.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by rats60

NO they haven't. There hasn't been a running back in the NFL that comes close to Jim Brown. Wilt Chamberlain was the greatest athlete to ever play in the NBA. No one has ever been stronger or had his vertical in a 7 foot body. These guys were freaks without the need for modern training. The idea that man has evolved that much is a joke.

+1

Evolved?

Tommy John surgery is a rite of passage today.

Complete games - forget about it

More than 200 innings a year for more than a decade - dreamer

Did Nolan Ryan have yesterday’s arm?

Hell, they probably have pitch counts in Tee Ball today.

[jsq]

feller could throw over 100, pretty awesome.
before his injury mantle could run from home plate to first base in 3.1, whos the fastest today? 3.4?
ruth hit more home runs than ANY OTHER TEAM in what, 1921 or so.
jimmy foxx, the beast.
likewise as commented already, what training and what diet did these pre 1970 era guys live on.
still, it is fun to compare. i can't wait for time travel, it will be a blast.

[robw1959]

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.

[eliteco3]

Not really sure why we are comparing the eras here. Yes the baseballs are juiced now but pitching back then was nowhere near what we have now. Night and Day for sure

[steve B]

Originally Posted by JustinD

This is certainly missing the point and putting up an odd defense by the author. It does not matter if it worked or not. Nor should his reputation be tarnished in anyway.

Intent is what should be measured and certainly he was hoping it would help him. If I either successfully or unsuccessfully rob a bank, the charges are the same.

What I believe is that when you are under pressure to be a professional athlete and a supplement is available that is legal that could better that effort then you are more likely than not to use it. This was what he was trying and what is logical for players of past. To discount that the same guys with candy dishes of speed and pain killers in the locker room next to the tobacco, sunflower seeds and bubble gum had some moral dilemma on a legal practice is absolutely silly.

There are plenty of accounts available if you look for them, but generationally those players are honestly less likely to be "rats" as the Jose's of the 90s that redirected attention every time it came to him by throwing people under the bus.

I just personally hold the notion that the "steroid era" was less of an increase in steroids but a change in user habits as they were using the healing properties in a more modern way for weight training recovery. They didn't just appear in 1987.

Lyle Alzado admitted he started using in college. Mind you this was 1967 at Yankton College in the NAIA in South Dakota. Let's hit some simple logic here, a 19 year old kid at a tiny no-name college in 1967 can find steroids with no effort but a professional athlete in the MLB can't? There is no logical argument to say that based on high moral grounds they ignored it. In all likelihood it was far more common than ever as it was not tested for and probably on par with the other drug use. That is my opinion of course, but I consider it not an excessive leap of faith.

Athletes have looked for an edge for a long time. Even if what is then thought to be effective really isn't. Cyclists in the 30's smoked as they thought it "opened up the lungs"
Another early believed PED was strychnine...

[Leon]

It's difficult to compare era's. Babe dominated his peers in HR's more than any player in history.