Perception of pre war baseball players vs other sports

[G1911]

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

[packs]

Wasn’t Ruth’s poor conditioning always a point of contention in the press and with his managers? How else does a guy become known for the bellyache heard around the world? That was in 1925.

[bbcard1]

I think the thing about baseball is that it is plausible or even likely that the best players or the early game (Wagner, Ruth, Johnson, Speaker, etc) would likely be stars today. I remember being a "fly on the wall" with a group of pro football players from the 1950s talking about whether they could compete with the teams of the mid-to-late 80s. There was a bunch of "we were double tough and we'd give them a scrap" Then finally one said, "The would kill us." Their running backs are as big as our lineman were." What's more, today's DLs are unimaginatively huge, strong and run faster than Jim Brown.

[Lorewalker]

One thing that could be said is that those who played the game and even excelled in it before even the 1960s and 1970s, played because they loved the game. Sure it was a paycheck and a business to sell tickets but most players really seemed to love the game.

I will likely catch shit for this but I am not one of those who believe that some of the very best pre war players would be as great if they played today. The game is so different that I am not certain it is fair to compare the eras even with the analysis/stats that we have.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

^^^

On the other hand, wouldn't you just love to see Ty Cobb playing against today's comparative panty-waists?!

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

^^^

On the other hand, wouldn't you just love to see Ty Cobb playing against today's comparative panty-waists?!

How many bases do you think Cobb would steal today?

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Snowman

How many bases do you think Cobb would steal today?

Wow, that's a great question. My thoughts hadn't strayed beyond Cobb's being tough as nails vs. more modern players getting on the DL for a hangnail!

Fewer opportunities for an extra base due to bad throws of mashed-up Deadball Era baseballs, that's for sure. There are quite a few factors that would have to be taken into consideration. I don't have a good answer to your question! What are your thoughts?

Conversely, Cobb hitting only pristine, white Manfred balls would naturally lead me to wonder how many more hits he'd have today. His already staggering number would have to be even greater in my mind. Pitchers may be throwing faster now, but the perfect and predictable spheres of the modern game would have to be a much greater advantage to Cobb vs. the speed of delivery adding any hindrance.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Snowman

How many bases do you think Cobb would steal today?

Actually, there is an easy answer. The number would be 5 or 6, but keep in mind that he'd be 136 years old!

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Snowman

How many bases do you think Cobb would steal today?

Would and could are very different.

He played in an era where stealing bases was what was done by everyone who could. Getting a good jump I've been told is the key, maybe more important than speed.
So I think, given a perpetual green light like Henderson was Cobb would still steal a lot of bases.

But I also think he was all about the competition, and winning. If someone explained the concepts that usually a stolen base attempt isn't always "better" he would probably make fewer attempts.

And that's one of the big differences between the way it was played then and now.

[nwobhm]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

I will likely catch shit for this but I am not one of those who believe that some of the very best pre war players would be as great if they played today. The game is so different that I am not certain it is fair to compare the eras even with the analysis/stats that we have.

It’s certainly difficult to compare eras…. I can’t imagine Trout being all that good in 1923. Once the injuries started stacking up the bus rides on dusty gravel roads without A/C and eating a roadside diners wouldn’t help alleviate the swelling and discomfort. Ol’ Earl Smith spitting tobacco juice on him at the plate wouldn’t have gone well either. Once the headhunters had him on their radar his melon better be on a swivel to compensate for the lack of batting helmets. No medications, no 5 star hotels, no AC, longer travel schedules…. Most modern day guys would fold up so fast their names would never have been known.

Modern players are better in the modern day not because they are “better” but because their era is better equipped to maximize their performance.

[ClementeFanOh]

Ding ding ding! Many of your points were solid singles or doubles, but Chris
aka "nwobhm" just hit a homer with his comment. Spot on!

On a related note, it was funny that someone above called golf a sport.
That's a non-starter

Trent King

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by nwobhm

It’s certainly difficult to compare eras…. I can’t imagine Trout being all that good in 1923. Once the injuries started stacking up the bus rides on dusty gravel roads without A/C and eating a roadside diners wouldn’t help alleviate the swelling and discomfort. Ol’ Earl Smith spitting tobacco juice on him at the plate wouldn’t have gone well either. Once the headhunters had him on their radar his melon better be on a swivel to compensate for the lack of batting helmets. No medications, no 5 star hotels, no AC, longer travel schedules…. Most modern day guys would fold up so fast their names would never have been known.



Modern players are better in the modern day not because they are “better” but because their era is better equipped to maximize their performance.

It's interesting how people think. My take is completely opposite. 90 years ago, hitters most days got 4 at bats against a sore arm pitcher. Starters were not throwing smoke back then, for most of them 4-5 k's per game was standard. Relievers were just the guys who were not good enough to be starters.

When Feller threw one 98 mph, it was incredible. Now, a team has several pitchers who can break 100. Batters have to face 2 or 3 different pitchers a game, and many of the relievers are better than the starters.

On top of that, every pitch a batter swings at is now recorded and studied. Any weak spots are identified and exploited. Batters used to be able to wait for their pitch. Now, they need to be able to hit a lot of different pitches to be successful.

If Trout went back in time to play, it would be like batting practice for him. And on the other side of the coin, I think a lot of the top old time hitters would not be able to adjust to the speed and intensity of today's game.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[nwobhm]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

It's interesting how people think. My take is completely opposite. 90 years ago, hitters most days got 4 at bats against a sore arm pitcher. Starters were not throwing smoke back then, for most of them 4-5 k's per game was standard. Relievers were just the guys who were not good enough to be starters.

When Feller threw one 98 mph, it was incredible. Now, a team has several pitchers who can break 100. Batters have to face 2 or 3 different pitchers a game, and many of the relievers are better than the starters.

On top of that, every pitch a batter swings at is now recorded and studied. Any weak spots are identified and exploited. Batters used to be able to wait for their pitch. Now, they need to be able to hit a lot of different pitches to be successful.

If Trout went back in time to play, it would be like batting practice for him. And on the other side of the coin, I think a lot of the top old time hitters would not be able to adjust to the speed and intensity of today's game.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Interesting points. Would Trout be taking his shoes, gloves and bats with him? Will his Chiropractor be going too?

MLB is becoming a sterile vacuum where the key skill is hitting a 100mph fastball deep.

[Snapolit1]

Delete. ..

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by G1911

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

Lot of Ruth's career he was like 210-225. Hardly massive by todays standards. Personally speaking.