Perception of pre war baseball players vs other sports

Lorewalker · #1 01-07-2023, 04:14 PM

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 · #2 01-07-2023, 04:20 PM

^^^

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

Snowman · #3 01-08-2023, 03:40 AM

Quote:

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 · #4 01-08-2023, 06:42 AM

Quote:

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 · #5 01-08-2023, 08:16 AM

Quote:

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!

Seven · #6 01-08-2023, 08:36 AM

Baseball itself is predicated on its history. Baseball has prided itself that it is nothing without its past. I think also being the National Pastime and the most popular sport for the majority of the 20th century also helps. The basics of the game have barely changed, I think it's well agreed upon that the hardest thing to do in any era is to hit a baseball. The gaudy numbers that players like Cobb, Ruth, Johnson, Gehrig, Wagner, put up also have a ton of staying power. Plus we have the mythos and legend that surrounds the pre-war era, which, only adds to the prestige of these players. Even at the nations worst moments, baseball was there. It provided an escape. It endured the first world war, the depression, it became the great equalizer.

steve B · #7 01-09-2023, 09:11 AM

Quote:

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.

BobC · #8 01-09-2023, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve B

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.

Yes, but isn't the idea to "get into scoring position" even more important? Back during Cobb's prime, there were very few home runs hit, so someone getting on 1st base wasn't actually a person considered in scoring position. Having a guy on 1st steal 2nd to get into scoring position was a big deal back then. Nowadays with all the big guns going for home runs, once a player gets on 1st base, to the home run hitters that may be coming up to bat behind them they are already in scoring position. So why take a chance on stealing and getting thrown out, and thus removing them from a scoring position in today's modern game, right?

In Cobb's case it would likely depend on the type of modern team he was playing on. A team like the Indians/Guardians this past year were not all about the home run, like most current MLB teams, and Cobb would have fit in a lot better. They were into players getting on base, and then moving them around via steals, hit and run, etc. Plus, if you had a guy that could steal bases like Cobb was able to, it could change some of the dynamic of the team, and how much stealing they would consider doing. Good food for thought question though.

steve B · #9 01-09-2023, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobC

Yes, but isn't the idea to "get into scoring position" even more important? Back during Cobb's prime, there were very few home runs hit, so someone getting on 1st base wasn't actually a person considered in scoring position. Having a guy on 1st steal 2nd to get into scoring position was a big deal back then. Nowadays with all the big guns going for home runs, once a player gets on 1st base, to the home run hitters that may be coming up to bat behind them they are already in scoring position. So why take a chance on stealing and getting thrown out, and thus removing them from a scoring position in today's modern game, right?

In Cobb's case it would likely depend on the type of modern team he was playing on. A team like the Indians/Guardians this past year were not all about the home run, like most current MLB teams, and Cobb would have fit in a lot better. They were into players getting on base, and then moving them around via steals, hit and run, etc. Plus, if you had a guy that could steal bases like Cobb was able to, it could change some of the dynamic of the team, and how much stealing they would consider doing. Good food for thought question though.

Generally, but there's a whole thing about who is on what base and how many outs. Run expectancy.

So the risk/reward of a steal
Lets say cobb gets a single.
No outs, runner on first will expect .94 for the rest of the inning.
If he steals second that's good! 1.17
If he gets caught? Oh, down to .56

Generally the father the runners are and the fewer outs the better off you are.
But as those odds get better, the reward is less and the risk larger.

I'm not so sure I agree with the math, but the people that do calculate the expected runs for each season. And I'd bet that the teams get more detailed, like which pitcher and what runner/batter combination.

https://baseballwithr.wordpress.com/...omment-page-1/

BobC · #10 01-09-2023, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve B

Generally, but there's a whole thing about who is on what base and how many outs. Run expectancy.

So the risk/reward of a steal
Lets say cobb gets a single.
No outs, runner on first will expect .94 for the rest of the inning.
If he steals second that's good! 1.17
If he gets caught? Oh, down to .56

Generally the father the runners are and the fewer outs the better off you are.
But as those odds get better, the reward is less and the risk larger.

I'm not so sure I agree with the math, but the people that do calculate the expected runs for each season. And I'd bet that the teams get more detailed, like which pitcher and what runner/batter combination.

https://baseballwithr.wordpress.com/...omment-page-1/

Steve, I agree with you, which is part of my point. Those factors/percentages they are using today, are based on today's game, and the number of HRs that are being hit. I did not, and don't have the data or resources to, do the math, and am only offering an opinion based on the use of some logic. My guess is that if you were to run the same kind of math using information and data from back in Cobb's prime playing days, the answers are going to definitely be different. Depending on what other teammates Cobb would have batting behind him if he were playing today, I agree with you that if he had some HR bashers coming up behind him, his manager would be screaming at him to stay put and not take as many chances as he may otherwise to steal a base. Now if he just had a bunch of singles hitters behind him.............

nwobhm · #11 01-08-2023, 08:06 AM

Quote:

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 · #12 01-08-2023, 08:13 AM

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 · #13 01-09-2023, 12:45 AM

Quote:

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 · #14 01-09-2023, 07:38 AM

Quote:

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.

jakebeckleyoldeagleeye · #15 01-09-2023, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nwobhm

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.

Let's see all those 100 mph guys go back in time and chop cotton or bail hay to help the family out instead of playing on traveling All-Star teams as teenagers.
Zinc mines were a lot of fun to. Here's your pick Verlander now go get your ton an hour.

BillyCoxDodgers3B · #16 01-09-2023, 07:54 AM

Let's not forget today's strength & conditioning coaches and numerous medical staff vs. yesteryear's lone old guy with a bottle of worthless liniment, replete with stogie and undershirt.

Gorditadogg · #17 01-09-2023, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nwobhm

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.

When I was a kid we played baseball all day all summer. We found scrap wood and built our own backstop. One time while I was on deck the kid at the plate threw his bat and I caught the barrel square in the mouth, breaking both my front teeth.

My boys played ball too, with professional coaches in travel leagues, and they had classes with video feedback to teach them mechanics and swing speed.

I loved my life growing up and it was a bit tougher then, and more independent. It taught me a lot and I am better for it, but it didn't make me a better ballplayer than my children.

If you have a gripe about how the game has evolved, join the club. If you wish life could be simpler again, I hear you. But if you think that Trout is somehow lesser for that, you're wrong.

Snapolit1 · #18 01-09-2023, 11:57 AM

Stan Coveleski worked in a coal mine when he was 12. Over 70 hours a week. Don't think anyone is hankering to get back to those good old days.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

When I was a kid we played baseball all day all summer. We found scrap wood and built our own backstop. One time while I was on deck the kid at the plate threw his bat and I caught the barrel square in the mouth, breaking both my front teeth.

My boys played ball too, with professional coaches in travel leagues, and they had classes with video feedback to teach them mechanics and swing speed.

I loved my life growing up and it was a bit tougher then, and more independent. It taught me a lot and I am better for it, but it didn't make me a better ballplayer than my children.

If you have a gripe about how the game has evolved, join the club. If you wish life could be simpler again, I hear you. But if you think that Trout is somehow lesser for that, you're wrong.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
1943 photos 3x5 of baseball players in the navy baseball game	sflayank	Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T	1	02-05-2022 08:28 PM
Babe Ruth/Tom Mix stereoview depth perception	GrayGhost	Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T	2	06-19-2020 01:42 PM
New direction and perception to my collecting	garymc	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	8	11-24-2017 03:42 PM
Need Help Please ID'ing Baseball Players	GoCubsGo32	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	4	03-08-2015 07:57 AM
Pittsburgh Sports Players	Archive	Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T	0	01-16-2009 05:59 PM