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

[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

[NiceDocter]

One major thing you all are leaving out is the hot dogs today are WAY better than in the past so Ruth would have dominated! Less flies eyes down the hatch means more home runs! He could have whooped Joey Chestnut and Kobiashi on consecutive days no sweat! chomp chomp

[Marckus99]

Absolutely.

Not only was he THE greatest hitter he was also one of the greatest pitchers of ALL TIME.

No other player came close.
No one.

[sycks22]

Ruth would be good, borderline great in today's game, but not an all-time legend. Pitching is 100x's better today than in the 20's and 30's. Back then he'd face the same guy 3-4x's in a game, nowadays you're lucky to see a guy 3x's. Also: every bullpen today has multiple guys who can throw 95 mph with some throwing triple digits, back in the day you were lucky to have a guy throw 90. How many starters in the 20's had 3 legit pitches like most starters today? He also couldn't keep up with the training that all players do on a daily basis.

[nrm1977]

It's hard to say for sure. You can't take away the natural talent he had for the game. Though, if he had modern training routines and nutrition, I'd say it could be possible.

This subject is always hard to debate due to the fact; modern training has evolved so much along with proper nutrition. Which these old-timers never had access to.

[vintagerookies51]

Some of you are answering the question as if Ruth is being transported from the 1920s to modern times, and some as if he was born in 1990. The answer is clear to me...

If you took the Babe out of the 1920s and put him in today's game absolutely he would not be the same player, not even close. Today's game is just too different. Far more difficult pitches to hit as someone else mentioned. The equipment is a lot different. Speed is way more important in today's game unless he played 1st base or pitched. I'd say it would take him awhile to adjust and become a David Ortiz or prince fielder type player

If Ruth was born in 1990 however, then I think we would have dominated today's game just as much, because he'd already be acclimated to everything

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

What I never understand in these scenarios is what exactly is being asked. Are we asking if Babe Ruth was magically brought into the future from let's say 1927 to 2017? Or are we saying Babe Ruth was Born in 1990 and became a player today? Some people operate under the odd misapprehension that humans are fundamentally physically different than 100 years ago. From an evolutionary standpoint this is ludicrous. Was HAS changed is diet, medicine, sports science etc. If you take Babe Ruth of 1927 and transport him to today I think he's probably still successful. If you allow Babe to be born in 1990 I see no reason why he wouldn't dominate today's game to the same degree he dominated the game of his day.

Also for those who talk about globalization etc... remember that in his day there were only 16 teams, so while the population to draw players from was smaller (largely white North American males) the number of available positions to fill was half of what it is today. That's probably not a wash, but it certainly does ameliorate the globalization issue somewhat.

[JollyElm]

Two words: designated hitter.

[Peter_Spaeth]

In the 50s Cobb was asked what he would hit if he were playing today, and he said, around .270. The questioner was shocked and said are today's players really that much better? He said no, but I am 70 years old.

[Jobu]

Now that is awesome in any era.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

In the 50s Cobb was asked what he would hit if he were playing today, and he said, around .270. The questioner was shocked and said are today's players really that much better? He said no, but I am 70 years old.

[Buythatcard]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

In the 50s Cobb was asked what he would hit if he were playing today, and he said, around .270. The questioner was shocked and said are today's players really that much better? He said no, but I am 70 years old.

[paulcarek]

Although he'd be 121 years old if he played today, I'd still gladly put him in left for my Giants.

[PowderedH2O]

Here's a comparison for you: Nobutaka Taguchi of Japan won the Gold Medal in the 1972 100m backstroke (the same Olympics of Mark Spitz's 7 wins) with a time of 104.94. He would have finished second in the 2016 Olympics behind Lilly King's time of 104.93. Of course, he would have been racing against women in the 2016 Olympics, as opposed to the males he won against in 1972.