Perception of pre war baseball players vs other sports

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by puckpaul

To me, baseball just hasnt changed that much, so the comparisons are still valid.

I know hockey pretty well, and hockey in the first twenty years was a very different sport. There was no forward passing allowed at first for a long time! No curved sticks. No goalie masks (not needed, with no forward passes and that equipment, pucks not raised much). But since it was popular and continuously played as the NHL since the 20’s, their is great respect for the “best” of those days as being relevant. And there is a continuous linkage over time from early superstars overlapping with subsequent generations (morenz and shore take you to Dit Clapper then to Richard and Howe and Howe gets to Gretzky!). Baseball has a similar lineage.

Football and Basketball do not have that, so those are really treated with a huge emphasis on modern.

Trivia question: who was the last goalie allowed to not wear a mask in the NHL?

[Snapolit1]

I had a lot of exposure to hockey in the 70s. Back then hockey players generally looked like guys recruited from a nearby gas station, many of them smoked, and few if any of them looked like they spent a whole lot of time in the gym. Guys today are beasts. Massive studs. Different game and no comparison to the physicality of the players.

One look at star basketball players from the 50s and clear they wouldn't last 10 minutes in today's NBA.

Football players today among the best athletes in existence (other than the really obese guys).

But we can still argue today how good Ted Williams or Walter Johnson would be today. Game hasn't changed like the others have.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

But we can still argue today how good Ted Williams or Walter Johnson would be today. Game hasn't changed like the others have.

This.

[jakebeckleyoldeagleeye]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I had a lot of exposure to hockey in the 70s. Back then hockey players generally looked like guys recruited from a nearby gas station, many of them smoked, and few if any of them looked like they spent a whole lot of time in the gym. Guys today are beasts. Massive studs. Different game and no comparison to the physicality of the players.

One look at star basketball players from the 50s and clear they wouldn't last 10 minutes in today's NBA.

Football players today among the best athletes in existence (other than the really obese guys).

But we can still argue today how good Ted Williams or Walter Johnson would be today. Game hasn't changed like the others have.

I have news for you. Gordie Howe would have kicked anybody in the NHL today back into last week. At age 15 he could take 85 pound cement sack's and hold one in each hand at arms length and not drop them. His dad won a few bets on that but you try it. He never touched a weight in his life. Imagine if he did.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by jakebeckleyoldeagleeye

I have news for you. Gordie Howe would have kicked anybody in the NHL today back into last week. At age 15 he could take 85 pound cement sack's and hold one in each hand at arms length and not drop them. His dad won a few bets on that but you try it. He never touched a weight in his life. Imagine if he did.

Of course there were guys in amazing shape. But a great many of them weren't amazing athletes at all.

[puckpaul]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Of course there were guys in amazing shape. But a great many of them weren't amazing athletes at all.

Wow, that is just not true. You can be in great shape and not an amazing athlete and vice versa. Ruth was overweight or fat most of his career.

In hockey, there were only 6 teams and maybe 20 spots, so you are talking about competing against the 120 best players vs today the top 700 players. Yes, more diverse pool, but the best of these guys were great athletes.

Nutrition and size has changed a lot though, and many early ballplayers in all of these sports were 5’6” and 150 lbs.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by puckpaul

Wow, that is just not true. You can be in great shape and not an amazing athlete and vice versa. Ruth was overweight or fat most of his career.



In hockey, there were only 6 teams and maybe 20 spots, so you are talking about competing against the 120 best players vs today the top 700 players. Yes, more diverse pool, but the best of these guys were great athletes.



Nutrition and size has changed a lot though, and many early ballplayers in all of these sports were 5’6” and 150 lbs.

You may want to do more research on Ruth if you are going to claim he was overweight most of his career and not just base it off images from the tail end of his career.

[G1911]

Ruth was pretty much always overweight. He was obese in his late career, but he was overweight long before he hit obese.

[Yoda]

Track and Field: Jessie Owens

[puckpaul]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

You may want to do more research on Ruth if you are going to claim he was overweight most of his career and not just base it off images from the tail end of his career.

You mean like read the biography on him i just finished that went season by season on his career?

[Ray Van]

Soccer, has anyone even heard of a pre-war player?

A very (American) myopic pov from the OP in my opinion. You referenced serious fans so I can tell you yes, serious soccer fans know pre-war names. Most general soccer fans start with Pele in the late 1950's and go from there. But serious fans can talk your ear off about great prewar players from all different countries. From England alone, Dixie Dean and Stanley Matthews are well known, while Derby County fans still sing about Steve Bloomer.

As mentioned by others, the timing of the development of the game plays a huge role and benefits baseball over other sports. While soccer was also developed in the 1800's, it wasn't until the first World Cup in 1930 that things really started moving internationally, but that's still pre-WWII.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by puckpaul

In hockey, there were only 6 teams and maybe 20 spots, so you are talking about competing against the 120 best players vs today the top 700 players. Yes, more diverse pool, but the best of these guys were great athletes.

120 guys drawn almost exclusively from Canada, a country whose population was 18 million people in 1960.

Now there's 700, yeah, but drawn from a pool of 375 million in North America alone. So a league that's 5.83x as large but drawing from a pool roughly 21x as large. And that's completely ignoring Europe where a huge percentage of the best players in the world are born.

The very best NHL players of that era were really, really good. But, overall, there's absolutely no comparison to today's players.

[puckpaul]

Originally Posted by Tabe

120 guys drawn almost exclusively from Canada, a country whose population was 18 million people in 1960.

Now there's 700, yeah, but drawn from a pool of 375 million in North America alone. So a league that's 5.83x as large but drawing from a pool roughly 21x as large. And that's completely ignoring Europe where a huge percentage of the best players in the world are born.

The very best NHL players of that era were really, really good. But, overall, there's absolutely no comparison to today's players.

I get that but they did use Americans back then in northern states, and it’s a big stretch to say that the US population is the pool today….maybe 3-4 states and a few other pockets. Europe does help a lot today to even it out, especially Russia/Sweden/Finland.

And I made a mistake, only 15 players on a team back in the 20-30’s at most, maybe fewer in the 20’s (don’t have my programs handy). The best players would still be the best players. The depth in the league is a problem today, most teams have little skill on the bottom half/two thirds of the roster even if the guys are in better shape and can skate.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Of course there were guys in amazing shape. But a great many of them weren't amazing athletes at all.

Considering the ESPN study I've mentioned previously, where hockey was ranked the #1 most skilled and difficult team sport in the world, it's fair to say relative to the time that hockey players were and are some of the best overall athletes. Period.

Judged by a "panel of experts, a group made up of sports scientists from the United States Olympic Committee, of academicians who study the science of muscles and movement, of a star two-sport athlete, and of journalists who spend their professional lives watching athletes succeed and fail", the study was based on 10 categories...

- endurance
- strength
- power
- speed
- agility
- flexibility
- durability
- nerve
- hand-eye coordination
- analytic aptitude

Hockey scored the highest for team sports second only to boxing, with football the #2 most skilled team sport. Baseball was ranked #9 overall.

Also, keep in mind that this was a study by an American organization, so there could have been bias towards the "American" Big 3 sports (many consider hockey Canadian), hence, hockey may have scored even higher.

There was also a second study by a group labeled "unbiased" recently where they came to the same top 3 conclusion (can't find it online).

https://www.espn.com/espn/page2/sportSkills

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

Considering the ESPN study I've mentioned previously, where hockey was ranked the #1 most skilled and difficult team sport in the world, it's fair to say relative to the time that hockey players were and are some of the best overall athletes. Period.

Judged by a "panel of experts, a group made up of sports scientists from the United States Olympic Committee, of academicians who study the science of muscles and movement, of a star two-sport athlete, and of journalists who spend their professional lives watching athletes succeed and fail", the study was based on 10 categories...

- endurance
- strength
- power
- speed
- agility
- flexibility
- durability
- nerve
- hand-eye coordination
- analytic aptitude

Hockey scored the highest for team sports second only to boxing, with football the #2 most skilled team sport. Baseball was ranked #9 overall.

Also, keep in mind that this was a study by an American organization, so there could have been bias towards the "American" Big 3 sports (many consider hockey Canadian), hence, hockey may have scored even higher.

There was also a second study by a group labeled "unbiased" recently where they came to the same top 3 conclusion (can't find it online).

https://www.espn.com/espn/page2/sportSkills

"I went to a boxing match and a hockey game broke out."

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

Considering the ESPN study I've mentioned previously, where hockey was ranked the #1 most skilled and difficult team sport in the world, it's fair to say relative to the time that hockey players were and are some of the best overall athletes. Period.



Judged by a "panel of experts, a group made up of sports scientists from the United States Olympic Committee, of academicians who study the science of muscles and movement, of a star two-sport athlete, and of journalists who spend their professional lives watching athletes succeed and fail", the study was based on 10 categories...



- endurance

- strength

- power

- speed

- agility

- flexibility

- durability

- nerve

- hand-eye coordination

- analytic aptitude



Hockey scored the highest for team sports second only to boxing, with football the #2 most skilled team sport. Baseball was ranked #9 overall.



Also, keep in mind that this was a study by an American organization, so there could have been bias towards the "American" Big 3 sports (many consider hockey Canadian), hence, hockey may have scored even higher.



There was also a second study by a group labeled "unbiased" recently where they came to the same top 3 conclusion (can't find it online).



https://www.espn.com/espn/page2/sportSkills

Well, sure. Playing a game on skates adds a level of difficulty no other sport can match. It still amazes me that they used to play without helmets. Or masks.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[Writehooks]

Trivia answer: Andy Brown, 1974 Pittsburgh Penguins ... before he jumped to the WHA's Indianapolis Racers.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Writehooks

Trivia answer: Andy Brown, 1974 Pittsburgh Penguins ... before he jumped to the WHA's Indianapolis Racers.

Good knowledge, and brass balls hanging so low they could block shots.

[jakebeckleyoldeagleeye]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Good knowledge, and brass balls hanging so low they could block shots.

You should have seen how Al Arbour blocked shots. He was called the goalies best friend or the second goalie.

[frankbmd]

I will have to mention Ellsworth Vines, a fine prewar tennis star, but Bill Tilden is probably more recognized.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

I will have to mention Ellsworth Vines, a fine prewar tennis star, but Bill Tilden is probably more recognized.

Frank, your depth of knowledge astounds me, only Alex Trebek can appreciate it more than me.

[z28jd]

It's definitely the popularity of the sport. I've done research extensively for the last few years on the Pittsburgh Pirates franchise and it's amazing how many teams they had during the 1880s in this country. Every town had teams, big towns had multiple leagues in town. The amount of teams in and around Pittsburgh back then was insane to think about now. Everyone was playing baseball, so you grew up playing baseball against people who grew up playing baseball all of the time. It was the sport to play. By the time the all-time great players who came around like Wagner, Cobb, Ruth, Johnson, Mathewson, the country was already many generations into the sport and everyone played.

Compare it to when you were growing up. I played baseball all of the time, but a lot of my baseball was me improvising on how to play by myself, or with 1-2 people because no one else was around. The only time I played 9 on 9 games was organized little leagues, with 10-12 games a year. Kids in the 1880s were playing so much more baseball than anyone you know. They had no trouble finding games. I was playing Little League from ages 5-16 mostly against kids who probably didn't touch their gloves once between games.

The popularity of the sport in the U.S. right now is at an all-time low, so you're seeing a decline in the talent that I'm sure will continue because it's not getting any better, but go to the Dominican right now and the kids there are basically mimicking the 1880s here. They can get games going whenever they want and they all play all of the time. The overall talent there is going to surpass the U.S. if the popularity of the sport continues to decline here. Most kids here aren't growing up surrounded by kids who play the sport.

[wolf441]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Frank, your depth of knowledge astounds me, only Alex Trebek can appreciate it more than me.

Don't give Frank too much credit. Ellsworth was his doubles partner in college!

[Jason19th]

I think that we forget how much older baseball is then basketball and football. By the 1930’s the game had evolved for 75 years to a form,that while is different then today, is recognizable to today fans. People can still compare the stats of 1930 to the stats of 2020. In the 1930’s football and basketball are just beginning to become the games we see today. The styles of play had almost nothing to do with what we see today. There is nothing to compare with players of today. This is why common fans still talk about Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb but have no idea who Don Hutson or Ed Wachter were.

I would argue that we shouldn’t compare football and basketball in the 1930 to 1930’s baseball, we should compare them to 1870’s baseball. While a lot of us on the board know about players like Lip Pike and Cal McVey, most baseball fans will say who’s that

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Trivia question: who was the last goalie allowed to not wear a mask in the NHL?

One look at Gump Worsley's face after years in the net without a mask makes the NHL's move prudent and wise. It would have been only a matter of time until some poor goalie got killed by an unseen, streaking slap shot.