1919 Ruth vs 2021 Ohtani

[packs]

I think baseball had it's Michael Jordans and Wayne Gretzkys far earlier in its lifespan than basketball and hockey. Nothing could convince me that Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig wouldn't have been monsters in any era. Do you think Cobb wouldn't be able to handle a guy like Aroldis Chapman? He'd have to adjust for sure but he hit 366 over three decades of changes to the game in his own time.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

I think baseball had it's Michael Jordans and Wayne Gretzkys far earlier in its lifespan than basketball and hockey. Nothing could convince me that Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig wouldn't have been monsters in any era. Do you think Cobb wouldn't be able to handle a guy like Aroldis Chapman? He'd have to adjust for sure but he hit 366 over three decades of changes to the game in his own time.

Just hard to know. In every other endeavor human athletic performance is dramatically different from 100 years ago, why would baseball be different? It doesn't take anything away from the players of that era to judge them relative to their time. But people want to think you could pick up Cobb and Ruth as they were and drop them into today's game. Why? Why is baseball different?

[packs]

I think it's because at its core the game is essentially the same. There are more specialized pitchers now and there's the shift and analytics but the mound is the same distance and the fences have been moved in.

But in football a person from 1930 would not recognize the game anymore. Same is true for basketball. I don't know enough about hockey to know how the game might have changed over time.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

I think it's because at its core the game is essentially the same. There are more specialized pitchers now and there's the shift and analytics but the mound is the same distance and the fences have been moved in.

But in football a person from 1930 would not recognize the game anymore. Same is true for basketball. I don't know enough about hockey to know how the game might have changed over time.

I see your point but Isn't tennis the same game? But you surely don't think Bill Tilden could handle Roger Federer. The track and field events are the same, you run as fast you can or jump as far or as high as you can. Soccer is the same game, but nobody is going to confuse Dixie Dean with Lionel Messi. Swimming?

[packs]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I see your point but Isn't tennis the same game? But you surely don't think Bill Tilden could handle Roger Federer. The track and field events are the same, you run as fast you can or jump as far or as high as you can. Soccer is the same game, but nobody is going to confuse Dixie Dean with Lionel Messi.

I really don't know enough about those sports to say.

I think for baseball the waters get much murkier when it comes to pitchers. Would Walter Johnson have been the same pitcher today? I have no idea. But when it comes to hitting and timing, I don't think much has changed over time in that respect. The ball is moving faster more often but if you're an elite guy like Cobb I think you adjust.

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I see your point but Isn't tennis the same game? But you surely don't think Bill Tilden could handle Roger Federer. The track and field events are the same, you run as fast you can or jump as far or as high as you can. Soccer is the same game, but nobody is going to confuse Dixie Dean with Lionel Messi. Swimming?

No, tennis isn't even close to the way it was back then. I'm not sure if or how tennis balls have changed over the years, but the old catgut string on a racket had way less tension than the modern string fiber used today. It is a bit like comparing the tension on a large trampoline to the tension on a mini-trampoline. It was way harder to ace your opponent on the serve back then, or even get the serious speed tennis professionals pack today in their swings, chiefly because of the way that the modern metallic rackets can withstand all of that pressure compared to the wooden rackets of yesteryear. Maybe Tilden could have adapted his game to modern equipment and been successful in any era, but my point is that the game has changed considerably over time.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by robw1959

No, tennis isn't even close to the way it was back then. I'm not sure if or how tennis balls have changed over the years, but the old catgut string on a racket had way less tension than the modern string fiber used today. It is a bit like comparing the tension on a large trampoline to the tension on a mini-trampoline. It was way harder to ace your opponent on the serve back then, or even get the serious speed tennis professionals pack today in their swings, chiefly because of the way that the modern metallic rackets can withstand all of that pressure compared to the wooden rackets of yesteryear. Maybe Tilden could have adapted his game to modern equipment and been successful in any era, but my point is that the game has changed considerably over time.

Interesting. So did this start to happen in the 70s with that new racket Connors used, or was it earlier?

[John1941]

I'd like to clear something up regarding MPH for pitchers. Nowadays the speed is measured right after release, while back in the day it was measured at the plate, causing speeds to seem much lower compared to today, but actually being the same. Thus Feller's 98 is not equaled by anyone today.

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Interesting. So did this start to happen in the 70s with that new racket Connors used, or was it earlier?

No, it was far later. I used to play tennis pretty regularly in the '70s, and I remember the catgut-strung rackets very well. Jimmy Connors had to use them
along with Bjorn Borg, Arthur Ashe, etc. The modern ones are incredible! I got a firsthand experience with one of those about ten years ago. It is so easy to get some serious velocity on the ball nowadays compared to the effort it took way back then.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Just hard to know. In every other endeavor human athletic performance is dramatically different from 100 years ago, why would baseball be different? It doesn't take anything away from the players of that era to judge them relative to their time. But people want to think you could pick up Cobb and Ruth and drop them into today's game. Why?

I agree with Peter (for once). I've already mentioned Jim Thorpe earlier, the baseball, football and track star.

Many track and field events are primarily individual records. Tell me in what event would Thorpe have qualified to represent the USA in the Olympics in 2021.

We all love the history of baseball, but one hundred years is a long time to hold a track record. Bob Beamon's long jump at altitude in 1968 is the only one that comes close and not very close at that (only 23 years).

Perhaps Jim Thorpe wouldn't be lapped by a four minute miler, but it wouldn't be close at the finish.

George Mikan played with all those little white guys. What if Kevin Durant played in the 50s. Yikes!!!!

Otto Graham vs Tom Brady in the Super Bowl. Long odds indeed.

Many major league baseball players in the 50s were heavy drinkers and sold used cars in the off-season. Do you really think they could hit Aroldis Chapman? When was the last time a major league player even owned a used car, let alone sold one?

Or go back 150 years if you want to. Would not drones and smart bombs have made a difference in the outcome of the Civil War if only the Confederates had had them? Gettysburg could have been obliterated before lunch on the first day.

Athens was nearly wiped out in the Peloponnesian War not by the Spartans, but by an infectious disease, a mere 2 1/2 millennia ago. I believe the world record in the marathon is better now than it was during the Peloponnesian War.

Romanticize all you want about Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner et al, but I would venture to say that most Triple A batters today could do as well against Walter Johnson as they are doing now against Triple A hurlers.

I will not give any examples but politicians may be the exception.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

I agree with Peter (for once). I've already mentioned Jim Thorpe earlier, the baseball, football and track star.

Many track and field events are primarily individual records. Tell me in what event would Thorpe have qualified to represent the USA in the Olympics in 2021.

We all love the history of baseball, but one hundred years is a long time to hold a track record. Bob Beamon's long jump at altitude in 1968 is the only one that comes close and not very close at that (only 23 years).

Perhaps Jim Thorpe wouldn't be lapped by a four minute miler, but it wouldn't be close at the finish.

George Mikan played with all those little white guys. What if Kevin Durant played in the 50s. Yikes!!!!

Otto Graham vs Tom Brady in the Super Bowl. Long odds indeed.

Many major league baseball players in the 50s were heavy drinkers and sold used cars in the off-season. Do you really think they could hit Aroldis Chapman? When was the last time a major league player even owned a used car, let alone sell one?

Or go back 150 years if you want to. Would not drones and smart bombs have made a difference in the outcome of the Civil War if only the Confederates had had them? Gettysburg could have been obliterated before lunch on the first day.

Athens was nearly wiped out in the Peloponnesian War not by the Spartans, but by an infectious disease, a mere 2 1/2 millennia ago. I believe the world record in the marathon is better now than it was during the Peloponnesian War.

Romanticize all you want about Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner et al, but I would venture to say that most Triple A batters today could do as well against Walter Johnson as they are doing now against Triple A hurlers.

I will not give any examples but politicians may be the exception.

I can't love this more Frank.

I agree, we can't mince facts and romanticize that eras are compatable in any direction. While I can easily surmise that Ruth would likely be average or possibly below in todays world with the skills he had at his peak. Who knows what he would be if the same person were born on 1994 and lived a life used to today's speeds and training?

We can guess that Trout could have been a god with his current abilities in 1928, who would he have been afforded the same training and health regimen of Ruth?

Same for all sports, if I place Gretzky in the checking of the 50's can he weather to score? Could Lebron handle the violence of the 80's defense? It can be argued that Jordan could not as he could not win a championship until the officiating changed.

Era's cannot be compared front or back, so it seems like a waste to try but it happens every night in sports bars around the country as the night goes on.

We should enjoy each for what they were and be able to appreciate the past and the present as each is incomparable.

[packs]

I think some of those things are true but we're talking about hitting a baseball. It will always come down to timing and I don't think a guy like say Bill Terry would have a problem adjusting timing for anyone throwing him the ball.

[Shoeless Moe]

Ohtani is 5-1

6 whopping decisions.

Wins are against Texas, Seattle, Detroit, Boston and Colorado - big deal.

Jeff Springs of Tampa is also 5-1, who? exactly.


Ohtani is a nice 6th starter.

[Shoeless Moe]

Babe Ruth vs Ohtani Career pitching

Ruth
94-46
2.28 era

3-0 in 2 WS with 0.87 era

Owetani
9-4
3.58 era

hasn't sniffed a playoff game (when everybody and their sister gets into the playoffs these days) let alone a WS

GOODNIGHT!

[BobC]

Not so sure dropping a modern day BB player into the game 100 years ago is the equivalent and proper comparison as having that same player being born 120-125 years ago and then growing up during those earlier times, subject to the training and techniques back then, let alone the differences the cultural and economic impact would have on their development. And then lets see how that modern day BB player would then fare playing 100 years ago, if he even played at all.

You guys are looking at just taking someone out of context and dropping them into a completely different situation and expecting a true and proper comparison can ever be made....it can't. Humans over the last few hundred years alone have changed and grown bigger, stronger, and faster due to advances in medicine, nutrition, and even economics. Don't discount things like the industrial revolution and advances in farming allowing for more nutritious food to be mass produced and available for more people than ever before to help in developing those bigger, stronger athletes of today, or the mechanization of society and the change from a formerly agrarian world society affording modern people more freedom and leisure time to play and train for sports now than they ever did in past history. Who's to say if Mike Trout were born 125 years ago if his family situation back then would even allow him time to ever play baseball, or if he had to work to support himself or his family instead. Ballplayers at the top levels back then didn't make the kind of money, relative to everyone else, that they do today. So you didn't have people seeking out and nurtuing young athletic talent like they do today, and put those young people into training regimens at earlier and earlier ages than ever before.

Combine that all with the underlying competetive nature of humans overall and the fact that records and achievements reached 50 or 100 years ago are now looked at and chased by modern athletes who strive to best them and train and practice even harder and more focused than ever just to do that. Those athletes of 50-100 years ago weren't necessarilly motivated or thinking the same way as they were the ones setting those records and achievements that others are now trying to best, or they had already bested those records and achievements set by even earlier athletes, and so could now relax and not necessarily worry and focus on taking their record even higher. Just imagine Ty Cobb growing up after Pete Rose and then setting his sights on besting Rose's all-time hits record.

And there is also the equipment and other intangible factors playing into all this. Balls, bats, gloves, even shoes, uniforms and things like sunglasses impact the way the game is now played. Players 100 years ago didn't have any of these advantages, which even though they may be more subtle, still help out the modern players and their play. And even the way players traveled between games could impact their performances. Back then there were long train rides instead of modern jet flights, and so on.

And lastly, you eventually come to some point where for certain physical, athletic achievements there is a pinnacle the human body can reach, and for some, we've pretty much reached those pinnacles of human performance already. For example, I've read somewhere that based on the human body, the absolute maximum speed someone could ever throw a baseball at was about 110MPH. No current human physiology will ever do that, but instead, you have more players now throwing into the upper 90's and even the 100's than ever before. And while it can be argued that if you took one of these modern pitchers and dropped him into a game 100 years ago, he'd likely blow everyone away.......at first. Don't forget that back then nobody threw baseballs that fast so the hitters of the day were never able to practice hitting against pitchers like that, nor needed to, and adjust accordingly. Its all more relative in baseball than in any other major sport. You take basketball or football, and it is basically about size, strength, and speed. Athletes in those sports from 50-100 years ago wouldn't stand much of a chance against the players in those same sports today, with probably a few exceptions for some of the all-time elite players from back in the day. Baseball though doesn't seem to have the overall glaring differences in the size, speed, and strength of players today versus those of 100 years ago. I'm sure the overall, average BB players of today would be slightly larger than those of 100 years ago, but that difference is more reflective of the fact and difference that the average male of 100 years ago is smaller than the average male of today.

We'll never be able to see any of these switches of players between eras occur to see how they would work out, but that is what makes the discussions so interesting. So maybe the best we can ever do is look at all the advanced analytics and statistics that baseball has available, and use that to compare how well a player performed relative to other players during the era they played in, and use that to compare against how well a player from a different era performed versus other players from his time.

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by JustinD

I can't love this more Frank.

I agree, we can't mince facts and romanticize that eras are compatable in any direction. While I can easily surmise that Ruth would likely be average or possibly below in todays world with the skills he had at his peak. Who knows what he would be if the same person were born on 1994 and lived a life used to today's speeds and training?

We can guess that Trout could have been a god with his current abilities in 1928, who would he have been afforded the same training and health regimen of Ruth?

Same for all sports, if I place Gretzky in the checking of the 50's can he weather to score? Could Lebron handle the violence of the 80's defense? It can be argued that Jordan could not as he could not win a championship until the officiating changed.

Era's cannot be compared front or back, so it seems like a waste to try but it happens every night in sports bars around the country as the night goes on.

We should enjoy each for what they were and be able to appreciate the past and the present as each is incomparable.

Isn't 500 feet the same today as it was back in Ruth's time? Tell me something - how is it that given today's larger talent pool and better training, diet science, etc., and a more aerodynamically designed baseball to boot, how is it that 500+ foot big league game homers are still exceedingly rare, but in 1921 Ruth hit one in every American League park his played? For anyone to say Ruth was anything even close to an average ballplayer of ANY era is to close one's mind to all evidence and deny the truth . . . that he was an absolute freak!

[molenick]

Originally Posted by robw1959

Isn't 500 feet the same today as it was back in Ruth's time? Tell me something - how is it that given today's larger talent pool and better training, diet science, etc., and a more aerodynamically designed baseball to boot, how is it that 500+ foot big league game homers are still exceedingly rare, but in 1921 Ruth hit one in every American League park his played? For anyone to say Ruth was anything even close to an average ballplayer of ANY era is to close one's mind to all evidence and deny the truth . . . that he was an absolute freak!

I don't think anyone has said that 500 feet has changed or that Ruth was an average ballplayer. I think some of us (well, maybe just me) are questioning whether Ruth actually hit as many 500+ foot home runs as has been claimed. I don't think bigger ball parks is the answer because, yes, there were some crazy long distances to center field, but some were way shorter down the lines and to the power alleys (many having been built specifically to fit into a city block).

I guess if someone was able to determine to what field he hit each home run that year, and what row each one landed in, they could work something like that out...and maybe someone has.

And I am not saying that Ruth wasn't the greatest player ever. Just that perhaps some of the quoted home run distances need to be taken with a grain of salt.

I agree with you that that despite today's larger talent pool and better training, diet science, etc., and a more aerodynamically designed baseball to boot, 500+ foot big league game homers are exceedingly rare.

That just makes me question how so many could have been hit 100 years go under worse conditions.

But if anyone could hit 500+ foot home runs in every AL park in a year, it would have been Ruth. I certainly can't say for a fact that he didn't.

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by molenick

I don't think anyone has said that 500 feet has changed or that Ruth was an average ballplayer. I think some of us (well, maybe just me) are questioning whether Ruth actually hit as many 500+ foot home runs as has been claimed. I don't think bigger ball parks is the answer because, yes, there were some crazy long distances to center field, but some were way shorter down the lines and to the power alleys (many having been built specifically to fit into a city block).

I guess if someone was able to determine to what field he hit each home run that year, and what row each one landed in, they could work something like that out...and maybe someone has.

And I am not saying that Ruth wasn't the greatest player ever. Just that perhaps some of the quoted home run distances need to be taken with a grain of salt.

I agree with you that that despite today's larger talent pool and better training, diet science, etc., and a more aerodynamically designed baseball to boot, 500+ foot big league game homers are exceedingly rare.

That just makes me question how so many could have been hit 100 years go under worse conditions.

But if anyone could hit 500+ foot home runs in every AL park in a year, it would have been Ruth. I certainly can't say for a fact that he didn't.

I have read that the original video footage still exists and that it is good enough for us to validate those 500+ foot home runs Ruth hit.