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

[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

[seanofjapan]

The Babe was the right man in the right place at the right time. I don't think he would be the same person if he played today, and if you just time warped 1920s Ruth to now and put him in an MLB game, he would probably strike out each time up and get sent down to the minors.

I like this clip comparing Olympic gymnast gold medalist performances in 1932 and today, which I think sums up the problem:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmyoC6bYbmE

The game and standards have changed so much (maybe not as dramatically in baseball as in gymnastics but still) in small increments over the decades that its basically a different game.

Walter Johnson, who was probably the hardest throwing pitcher who Ruth faced in his career, had a fastball that topped out at about 90mph. Today even guys that never make the majors can throw that hard. And that is just one example. Ruth would be facing a completely different, and much higher, standard of pitchers than what he was used to.

There are a lot of other things too which are worth mentioning. Making it to the majors was undoubtedly a lot easier in his time. The argument made in some comments that MLB quality has been watered down because now there are 30 teams is, I think, completely wrong. The population of the United States in 1920 was 106 million, today it is over three times that. So the number of teams per capita was actually higher back then that it is now and I think that is a more accurate metric for judging that - the number of MLB players is higher now but the number of people competing to become MLB players is also much higher. You also have the fact that in addition to the US population increasing, you also have players from numerous other countries playing in MLB now, so the actual talent pool it draws on is even larger still.

Also a career in MLB was nowhere near as lucrative back then as it is now, so a lot of talented people who could have had HOF careers in the early 20th century may have opted to pursue other careers (Lou Gehrig almost became an engineer instead of a baseball player, perhaps other equal talents made the other choice).

Then of course you have the usual arguments about segregation, the lack of a minor league system to develop talent, differences in sports medicine and training regimens, etc etc. There just really is no comparing the games across that much time.

[BobbyVCP]

Everyone is saying that the pitching is so much better today then back then. You are not taking into consideration that the pitchers doctored the ball, spit on it and the ball stayed in play a lot longer. With that the pitcher could make the ball move a lot more then todays pitcher. So the lack of speed is made up with movement. Much harder to hit a curve ball then a fastball.

[JustinD]

I would say absolutely not.

I think each player was made for the eras they succeeded in and most likely would not be as successful in another...this is why you know their name. This also works in reverse, today's players may be faster and better trained but would never be able to handle the toughness and differences of the past eras. I enjoy the contributions of each player to the history their sport.

[packs]

I guess I just don't understand that viewpoint. Ruth so clearly was an antithesis to that thinking. During the dead ball era he set the home run mark. During the lively ball era he set the home run mark. He set a career home run mark that has only been eclipsed twice in the 80 plus years it's been since he last appeared in a game. He was an atypical player for each era he played in. I don't see why he wouldn't be the same atypical player today. It's not even just about the home runs. The guy hit 342 over his entire career while hitting the home runs. His career OPS plus is over 200. Not even Bonds is close.

[seanofjapan]

Originally Posted by BobbyVCP

Everyone is saying that the pitching is so much better today then back then. You are not taking into consideration that the pitchers doctored the ball, spit on it and the ball stayed in play a lot longer. With that the pitcher could make the ball move a lot more then todays pitcher. So the lack of speed is made up with movement. Much harder to hit a curve ball then a fastball.

This is a fair point, but its worth mentioning that these factors were far more pronounced during the dead ball era prior to 1920 than they were during Ruth's prime, and changes to the rules limiting these (ie requiring balls be replaced when they got dirty) are sometimes cited as one of the things that enabled Ruth to do what he did.

[pcoz]

Absolutely he would still be great. Could you imagine if he weight trained in today's times? How can anyone stick him in today's game based upon the disparity of how good he was vs the rest of baseball then and not think he would still be great now is mind boggling. Era's change, players change, but all you can do is look at how well they did against their competition. If he played today he'd have 20 more pounds of muscle with short fences, in a juiced ball era. He'd still be the Babe.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by seanofjapan

Walter Johnson, who was probably the hardest throwing pitcher who Ruth faced in his career, had a fastball that topped out at about 90mph. Today even guys that never make the majors can throw that hard. And that is just one example. Ruth would be facing a completely different, and much higher, standard of pitchers than what he was used to.

Greg Maddux topped out at about 90mph and he was one of the greatest pitchers of all time. Walter Johnson was timed as high as 99mph. I don't think pitchers throw that much harder, even though that is really irrelevant. It is just easy for people to dismiss pitchers of that era because they didn't have speed guns timing every pitch.

[Snapolit1]

I think the bottom line, for me at least, is that if you put 1925 Babe Ruth in a time machine and dropped him on a field today, I think he'd struggle to hit 25 home runs. If you dropped him in 1992 and gave him all the benefits of modern training, know how, nutrition, etc. . . . .who the hell knows what would happen. I do not believe for one moment however under the later scenario that he'd be hitting 60 home runs in a year or more than entire teams are hitting. I do not believe he would be the man, myth and the legend that is is today. As I send above, he might well be Cecil Fielder.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I think the bottom line, for me at least, is that if you put 1925 Babe Ruth in a time machine and dropped him on a field today, I think he'd struggle to hit 25 home runs. If you dropped him in 1992 and gave him all the benefits of modern training, know how, nutrition, etc. . . . .who the hell knows what would happen. I do not believe for one moment however under the later scenario that he'd be hitting 60 home runs in a year or more than entire teams are hitting. I do not believe he would be the man, myth and the legend that is is today. As I send above, he might well be Cecil Fielder.

To offer a different take on the modern training, equipment, etc. argument, please remember that when Ruth began playing baseball it was at an orphanage. He became Babe Ruth without any advantages at all in his life. I wouldn't hold modern equipment or training up against someone with that kind of perseverance and incredible talent.

[seanofjapan]

Originally Posted by rats60

Greg Maddux topped out at about 90mph and he was one of the greatest pitchers of all time. Walter Johnson was timed as high as 99mph. I don't think pitchers throw that much harder, even though that is really irrelevant. It is just easy for people to dismiss pitchers of that era because they didn't have speed guns timing every pitch.

Yeah, but Maddux, while one of the greatest pitchers, was never considered one of the hardest throwers of his generation. Johnson was, and by a wide margin at that. According to his Wikipedia entry, Johnson was clocked at 91mph (not sure if that is accurate, but its where I got my info).

I'm not saying that pitching speed is a suitable means of measuring a pitcher, tons of great pitchers didn't throw particularly hard while a lot of hard throwers weren't particularly great. It is however one of the few things where you can put a number on how things have changed over the years - I don't think its controversial to state that the top speeds of pitchers today is higher than it was in the early 20th century (correct me if I am wrong on this). For all the other factors that make a pitcher good - control, finesse, ability to read a batter, movement on a breaking ball, etc - they are pretty much impossible to measure and thus impossible to compare in a meaningful way. We might infer however that given all the other ways in which all sports have progressed, probably there have been incremental increases in these areas as well.