NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. When you click on links to eBay on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
ebay GSB
T206s on eBay
Babe Ruth Cards on eBay
t206 Ty Cobb on eBay
Ty Cobb Cards on eBay
Lou Gehrig Cards on eBay
Baseball T201-T217 on eBay
Baseball E90-E107 on eBay
T205 Cards on eBay
Baseball Postcards on eBay
Goudey Cards on eBay
Baseball Memorabilia on eBay
Baseball Exhibit Cards on eBay
Baseball Strip Cards on eBay
Baseball Baking Cards on eBay
Sporting News Cards on eBay
Play Ball Cards on eBay
Joe DiMaggio Cards on eBay
Mickey Mantle Cards on eBay
Bowman 1951-1955 on eBay
Football Cards on eBay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main Forum - WWII & Older Baseball Cards > Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-24-2017, 09:51 AM
Jobu's Avatar
Jobu Jobu is offline
Bry@n
member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: WI
Posts: 3,721
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-24-2017, 10:04 AM
rats60's Avatar
rats60 rats60 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,898
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-24-2017, 10:19 AM
KMayUSA6060's Avatar
KMayUSA6060 KMayUSA6060 is offline
Kyle May
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 1,895
Default

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.
__________________
Need a spreadsheet to help track your set, player run, or collection? Check out Sheets4Collectors on Etsy.
https://www.etsy.com/shop/Sheets4Collectors

- Hall of Famers
Progress: 318/340 (93.53%)

- Grover Hartley PC
Needs: T207 Anonymous Factory 25 Back, 1914 New York Evening Sun Supplements, 1917 D328 Weil Baking Co., and (possibly) 1917 Merchant's Bakery

- Jim Thome PC

- Cleveland Indians Franchise Hall of Fame
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-24-2017, 10:25 AM
wondo wondo is offline
John Wondowski
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,320
Default

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!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-24-2017, 11:23 AM
rats60's Avatar
rats60 rats60 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,898
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wondo View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-24-2017, 11:31 AM
drcy's Avatar
drcy drcy is offline
David Ru.dd Cycl.eback
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,466
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-24-2017, 12:26 PM
wondo wondo is offline
John Wondowski
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,320
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rats60 View Post
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?
Good point, and Jesse was the best of an generation and more. But his 1935 winning big jump is still 2 1/2 feet short of the current record. Athletes are faster, stronger, bigger and better coached.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-24-2017, 10:31 AM
oldjudge's Avatar
oldjudge oldjudge is offline
j'a'y mi.ll.e.r
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: The Bronx
Posts: 5,353
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-24-2017, 10:50 AM
Snapolit1's Avatar
Snapolit1 Snapolit1 is offline
Ste.ve Na.polit.ano
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 5,760
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-24-2017, 11:01 AM
glynparson's Avatar
glynparson glynparson is offline
Glyn Parson
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Blandon PA
Posts: 2,184
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-24-2017, 11:02 AM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is offline
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 30,264
Default

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.
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at
https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/

He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-24-2017, 11:08 AM
drcy's Avatar
drcy drcy is offline
David Ru.dd Cycl.eback
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,466
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldjudge View Post
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.

Last edited by drcy; 04-24-2017 at 11:16 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-24-2017, 11:33 AM
savedfrommyspokes's Avatar
savedfrommyspokes savedfrommyspokes is offline
member
Larry More.y
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,984
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rats60 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-24-2017, 01:07 PM
Huysmans Huysmans is offline
Br.ent So.bie
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,013
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes View Post
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.
This per capita ratio would only be relevant if the same amount of kids in both eras, relative to the population, played baseball.
Does anyone honestly believe that the same amount of kids in this modern age of video games, and general on-line shenaningans play baseball? Not to mention additional sports that presently garner considerable attention that weren't as popular in those days like football, baseball, hockey...etc.

Look at the WWII Beano T-13 hand grenades, made not only to simulate the size, but also the weight of a baseball, as it was expected that any and all American boys could throw a baseball. What would they fashion them after now??? Cell phones?
Also, as Peter mentioned, pitchers don't seem to throw any harder now, and hitters don't seem to hit the ball any further these days....
Plus are we not forgetting the absolutely pampered lifestyle a modern athlete enjoys?
As mentioned, interesting discussion, and its fun to ponder the "what ifs".
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-24-2017, 02:26 PM
savedfrommyspokes's Avatar
savedfrommyspokes savedfrommyspokes is offline
member
Larry More.y
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,984
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huysmans View Post
This per capita ratio would only be relevant if the same amount of kids in both eras, relative to the population, played baseball.
Does anyone honestly believe that the same amount of kids in this modern age of video games, and general on-line shenaningans play baseball? Not to mention additional sports that presently garner considerable attention that weren't as popular in those days like football, baseball, hockey...etc.

Look at the WWII Beano T-13 hand grenades, made not only to simulate the size, but also the weight of a baseball, as it was expected that any and all American boys could throw a baseball. What would they fashion them after now??? Cell phones?
Also, as Peter mentioned, pitchers don't seem to throw any harder now, and hitters don't seem to hit the ball any further these days....
Plus are we not forgetting the absolutely pampered lifestyle a modern athlete enjoys?
As mentioned, interesting discussion, and its fun to ponder the "what ifs".
My guess is that there is probably the same percentage of those with the desire/ability to participate across earlier generations as there is now....my Dad didn't play ball in the late 1940s-1950s because he lived/worked on a farm, didn't have the time (like many boys in the 1920s-1950s that worked) OR the opportunity due to their being no local team. The small town I grew up in in the 70s, did not field a team in any age group, we had to play in with the next town over. Forty year later, the town has grown minimally and there are two teams in most age groups. Were I live now, 2 springs ago a "new" league started and the "original" league continued to grow....the population for my area grew 10% over the past 5 years, but there are 33% more teams playing across both leagues than there were 5 years ago when my oldest started playing. Could be just a local thing though.

Then consider Mark Armour's recent article about participation of Asian and Latinos in baseball and how it has grown since 1947. It shows that 70% or 525 roster spots (ONLY 125 more than in 1920) are currently held by US players versus the nearly 400 roster spots held by US players in 1920 with approx. a third of the population. Clearly, the talent in the 1920s was far more diluted then than it is now.

https://sabr.org/bioproj/topic/baseb...hics-1947-2012
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-24-2017, 02:47 PM
JeremyW's Avatar
JeremyW JeremyW is offline
Jeremy W.
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Midwest
Posts: 1,002
Default

For baseball, I believe hand-eye coordination is the key. Even though athletes have gotten bigger, stronger & faster, there's no getting by the hand-eye coordination factor. If Babe Ruth was born in 1990, he'd be 27 years old & dominating.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-19-2017, 07:39 PM
darwinbulldog's Avatar
darwinbulldog darwinbulldog is offline
Glenn
Glen.n Sch.ey-d
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: South Florida
Posts: 3,231
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huysmans View Post
Also, as Peter mentioned, pitchers don't seem to throw any harder now, and hitters don't seem to hit the ball any further these days....
But they do, don't they? Even if they don't "seem to." WaJo was probably throwing in the 90s pretty consistently over the first several innings, but not in the high 90s and not after the 5th inning. 90 mph was a serious fastball back then. And who, other than Ruth himself, hit more than a few shots beyond 450'?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-19-2017, 07:46 PM
rats60's Avatar
rats60 rats60 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2,898
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darwinbulldog View Post
But they do, don't they? Even if they don't "seem to." WaJo was probably throwing in the 90s pretty consistently over the first several innings, but not in the high 90s and not after the 5th inning. 90 mph was a serious fastball back then. And who, other than Ruth himself, hit more than a few shots beyond 450'?
Johnson was tested on two different occations where his fastball was clocked in the high 90s. So, he probably was throwing in the high 90s in games.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-27-2017, 02:13 PM
EvilKing00's Avatar
EvilKing00 EvilKing00 is offline
Steve P
Steven Pacc.hiano
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New York
Posts: 2,405
Default

He not only would be great today but he would b the best player in the league, yes over trout and harper. He would hit third on any team every day, except the days he pitches as the teams 1 or 2 starter.
__________________
Successful transactions with: Drumback, Mart8081, Obcmac, Tonyo, markf31, gnaz01, rainier2004, EASE, Bobsbats, Craig M, TistaT202, Seiklis, Kenny Cole, T's please, Vic, marcdelpercio, poorlydrawncat, brianp-beme, mybuddyinc, Glchen, chernieto , old-baseball , Donscards, Centauri, AddieJoss, T2069bk,206fix, joe v, smokelessjoe, eggoman, botn, canjond

Looking for T205's or anything Babe Ruth...email or PM me if you have any to sell.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-27-2017, 03:02 PM
ksfarmboy's Avatar
ksfarmboy ksfarmboy is offline
Clint
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,391
Default

I'd love to see how Mike Trout would hit with a 46+ ounce bat against a 90+ mph fastball. Even an 80+ mph fastball would be interesting.
__________________
Buying Kansas CDVs, Cabinets, RPPCs and other pre 1930 memorabilia.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
100 years ago today, Babe Ruth made his Major League Debut the 'stache Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 40 07-15-2014 11:06 AM
How popular is Babe Ruth today billyb Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used 8 01-26-2014 08:12 AM
99 years ago today (7/11/14)....Babe Ruth's debut....show your Ruth stuff tedzan Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 88 07-20-2013 06:32 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:14 AM.


ebay GSB