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

[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.

[z28jd]

The one thing that I think is safe to say is that no player from now could just go back to then and have a dominant career. Their first train ride and night of 1920's living would probably have them waving the white flag. Then imagine they go up to bat with no helmet on? I don't think any 2017 player would last a full season in 1920, and especially not before that. If they did last a season, good luck with the off-season job, rookie.

[prewarsports]

I saw this earlier this year and thought it was awesome. I feel the same way about Ruth and early baseball players. I dont think much has changed really (football, hockey and basketball are different games than they were).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jas9ff0hdFI

[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