Hypothetical Question, could Ruth hit modern pitching

[Peter_Spaeth]

It's interesting how people's personalities and biases feed into how they answer the question or others like it.

Personally, I think baseball has probably evolved in terms of athleticism the same way as other sports. Jesse Owens and Paavo Nurmi probably would be average high school runners now based solely on their times. Can you imagine Bill Tilden against Roger Federer? Why would baseball be different?

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's interesting how people's personalities and biases feed into how they answer the question or others like it.

What do you see as the personality traits that correlate with different answers?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

What do you see as the personality traits that correlate with different answers?

I think a large number of collectors, especially older ones, have a big nostalgia bias that comes through in the "in those days men were men" type of comments. I think people more attuned to tech, data, etc. more easily recognize the huge gap in athleticism 100 years brings about. For example.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think a large number of collectors, especially older ones, have a big nostalgia bias that comes through in the "in those days men were men" type of comments. I think people more attuned to tech, data, etc. more easily recognize the huge gap in athleticism 100 years brings about. For example.

Makes sense. Thanks for elaborating

[Centauri]

In the past, the best most elite athletes played baseball, whereas today football/basketball/even soccer take most of the best.

Ruth was elite at putting bat to ball with power. Those skills would translate just fine to today’s game.

[Snowman]

Babe Ruth swung a 50 oz bat in his early years, and later transitioned to 44 and 42 oz bats during his prime. The only reason that was possible is because he was facing slow pitching. Extremely slow pitching. You can watch old footage and clearly see him waiting on pitches as he sets his weight back in his stance and turns on balls with his large frame and as he swings a lamp post at a ball of leather.

But he was still the best hitter of that era. Could he hit fast pitching? I don't think we have any way of knowing. Some hitters can learn to hit faster pitching, but others can't. It's why some top prospects eventually fail at the big leagues. Some guys are absolute monsters at the plate when facing 88 to 92 mph pitching, but they reach the end of their limits after that and can't turn on 96+ mph pitches. If Ruth were alive today, he'd have to drop down to a 35 oz bat just to get it around in time. His entire swing would have to change. Could he do it? Possibly. But we'll never know. He prepared and trained for the world he lived in, and that was a very different world of baseball.

[Snowman]

And before you guys chime in with "Walter Johnson threw 100 mph and Ruth could hit against him", I'll just say bullshit ahead of time lol. Walter Johnson want throwing anywhere near 100 mph. Most of the pitching in that era was in the 70 to 80 mph range. Guys throwing 80+ were throwing heat. WaJo might have touched 90. And I'd wager my right nut that he never once threw a ball above 92 mph.

[Fred]

Originally Posted by Snowman

And before you guys chime in with "Walter Johnson threw 100 mph and Ruth could hit against him", I'll just say bullshit ahead of time lol. Walter Johnson want throwing anywhere near 100 mph. Most of the pitching in that era was in the 70 to 80 mph range. Guys throwing 80+ were throwing heat. WaJo might have touched 90. And I'd wager my right nut that he never once threw a ball above 92 mph.

Travis, I'd have to believe that he threw at least one pitch over 92 mph. What happens if you won? What do you get in return? I'd settle for a T206 Joss "lstoi" card....

[robw1959]

A well-aged Ruth, in 1935, hit a fastball off of Satchel Paige still in his prime. Satch almost got whiplash turning his head around in amazement when that pitch went screaming well over a 450-foot centerfield wall.

How can we be so sure the old pitchers had no gas in the tank? MLB baseball was deprived of the international pool it has today, but a lot of those guys back then grew up as farm hands or ranchers of some kind. The point is that they were strong and durable back then, probably more so back then than today, especially Walter Johnson.

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by Snowman

And before you guys chime in with "Walter Johnson threw 100 mph and Ruth could hit against him", I'll just say bullshit ahead of time lol. Walter Johnson want throwing anywhere near 100 mph. Most of the pitching in that era was in the 70 to 80 mph range. Guys throwing 80+ were throwing heat. WaJo might have touched 90. And I'd wager my right nut that he never once threw a ball above 92 mph.

So young kids that can hit 85-90+ in high school just didn’t exist back then? I went to high school in Maine and we faced Matt Kinney (eventually made the majors with the Twins) and he was routinely hitting 90+ then. Was there some training that a small town kid in Maine had in the 1990’s that was impossible in the 1910-30’s?

Did Something happen at some nebulous point in history that made humans able to throw faster?

I will never understand this logic.

[Peter_Spaeth]

In 1930 the world record for the mile was 4:10. It's now 3:43. Over the same time the shot put record has gone from 16+ meters to 23+ meters.

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

In 1930 the world record for the mile was 4:10. It's now 3:43. Over the same time the shot put record has gone from 16+ meters to 23+ meters.

Weight training is far more advanced today than it was then and that is obviously true. Most workouts were calisthenics at the time and that combined with the unnatural things also done by those in strength sports has aided in a lot of the increase in the shotput record.those same things don’t help in all sports but there are obvious sports where the sports themselves hardly resemble the sport played 100 years ago or even 50 years ago…baseball is not that sport.

The mile time difference has a lot more to do with equipment and track conditions than you are giving it credit for but i think you know that

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

In 1930 the world record for the mile was 4:10. It's now 3:43. Over the same time the shot put record has gone from 16+ meters to 23+ meters.

Training plans and how weight training is used has also changed drastically over that same time. As has technique.

Here's a video showing shot put over about a century. You can see the gradual transition from everyone using a slide step, to nearly everyone using the current rotary approach. Plus differences in both techniques.
The guys winning modern competitions with the slide step are amazing, but obviously have weight trained for explosiveness compared to the earlier competitors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDslPFs3Irw&t=281s

The old idea was that in many althletic areas weight training just added mass and hurt speed and flexibility. Done right, that hasn't been a thing for a long time.

[jakebeckleyoldeagleeye]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

In 1930 the world record for the mile was 4:10. It's now 3:43. Over the same time the shot put record has gone from 16+ meters to 23+ meters.

And how shot putters have been banned for roids?

[Lucas00]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

So young kids that can hit 85-90+ in high school just didn’t exist back then? I went to high school in Maine and we faced Matt Kinney (eventually made the majors with the Twins) and he was routinely hitting 90+ then. Was there some training that a small town kid in Maine had in the 1990’s that was impossible in the 1910-30’s?

Did Something happen at some nebulous point in history that made humans able to throw faster?

I will never understand this logic.

In all honesty the competition was possibly higher back then due to the immense popularity of baseball. More kids played and discovered their natural gifts. The odds of a kid in 1920 discovering their natural ability to throw a baseball 90 mph is far higher than today.

You're talking most small towns in America were fielding full teams easily. And on top of that company and factory teams lined the streets.

If you were a Male in the 20th century between the ages of 15-40 you had a very high chance of being on a serious ball club.

The only thing separating today's players from back then is the time taken to train and practice etc. Sure they are more advanced today. But if we gave the slew of guys 100 years ago the bare bones of what we do today for training we would get slaughtered, their periods best vs ours. It would simply be a numbers game, and we would lose. We have the science today to win but it doesn't mean we are better at baseball.


This isn't even mentioning the sharp decrease in male testosterone in the last few decades.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

In all honesty the competition was possibly higher back then due to the immense popularity of baseball. More kids played and discovered their natural gifts. The odds of a kid in 1920 discovering their natural ability to throw a baseball 90 mph is far higher than today.

You're talking most small towns in America were fielding full teams easily. And on top of that company and factory teams lined the streets.

If you were a Male in the 20th century between the ages of 15-40 you had a very high chance of being on a serious ball club.

The only thing separating today's players from back then is the time taken to train and practice etc. Sure they are more advanced today. But if we gave the slew of guys 100 years ago the bare bones of what we do today for training we would get slaughtered, their periods best vs ours. It would simply be a numbers game, and we would lose. We have the science today to win but it doesn't mean we are better at baseball.


This isn't even mentioning the sharp decrease in male testosterone in the last few decades.

Your hypothesis isn't even true though. Today, baseball is a global sport. Back then, it wasn't. Also, there were only about 2 billion people alive in 1920. Today, there are over 8 billion. Athletes are drawn from MUCH larger pools today. Also, the financial incentives today for the best athletes to pursue a career as an athlete is remarkably higher than it was back then. Many of the best athletes in the 1920s simply weren't playing pro ball. They were providing for their families by other means. And then there's the fact that integration hadn't even happened yet.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

So young kids that can hit 85-90+ in high school just didn’t exist back then? I went to high school in Maine and we faced Matt Kinney (eventually made the majors with the Twins) and he was routinely hitting 90+ then. Was there some training that a small town kid in Maine had in the 1990’s that was impossible in the 1910-30’s?

Did Something happen at some nebulous point in history that made humans able to throw faster?

I will never understand this logic.

Just because we didn't have radar guns back then doesn't mean we can't make fairly accurate retrodictions about how fast pitchers were throwing during that era. Anecdotally, we know that guys were pitching complete games with regularity, and were even on the mound in back to back games sometimes. Yet they rarely got injured. But it's not because they had magic ligaments, it's because they weren't creating enough torque to damage their arms. We also know that players like Ruth and Hornsby were swinging 50 oz bats! That's truly bonkers. If you tried to swing a bat that heavy against today's pitching, you'd never get a hit. You simply wouldn't have time to get the bat around. We also have video footage of what can only be described now as suboptimal, if not outright silly, pitching forms from numerous players. Guys practically playing catch.

But we don't even need those sorts of observations to know that guys weren't throwing nearly as hard back then. We can look at the peak of human performance in other sports which we do have measurements for like discuss, shot put, and javelin events at the Olympics. We can sit and hypothesize about how and why humans have evolved to become stronger and faster over the last 100 years, but the fact is we have for one reason or another. And that's absolutely irrefutable.

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Yet they rarely got injured. But it's not because they had magic ligaments, it's because they weren't creating enough torque to damage their arms.

100% comically false statement. You really think with the rudimentary understanding of medicine they had then (compared to now) that more players didn’t get seriously injured or throw out their arms?

There were tons of players that got “dead arms” as they used to call it.

There many players would have a few good seasons in the majors or minors and then disappear. Smokey Joe Wood being a very prominent example.

[robw1959]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Just because we didn't have radar guns back then doesn't mean we can't make fairly accurate retrodictions about how fast pitchers were throwing during that era. Anecdotally, we know that guys were pitching complete games with regularity, and were even on the mound in back to back games sometimes. Yet they rarely got injured. But it's not because they had magic ligaments, it's because they weren't creating enough torque to damage their arms. We also know that players like Ruth and Hornsby were swinging 50 oz bats! That's truly bonkers. If you tried to swing a bat that heavy against today's pitching, you'd never get a hit. You simply wouldn't have time to get the bat around. We also have video footage of what can only be described now as suboptimal, if not outright silly, pitching forms from numerous players. Guys practically playing catch.

But we don't even need those sorts of observations to know that guys weren't throwing nearly as hard back then. We can look at the peak of human performance in other sports which we do have measurements for like discuss, shot put, and javelin events at the Olympics. We can sit and hypothesize about how and why humans have evolved to become stronger and faster over the last 100 years, but the fact is we have for one reason or another. And that's absolutely irrefutable.

I don't buy into that stuff for a second. The theory that is bandied about that pitchers weren't really giving it their all just doesn't make any sense to me. Somehow, they weren't as competitive back then? Come on! Where is the evidence for that? And to compare progressive track and field records to pitching performances to infer that they have progressed as well doesn't make much sense either.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Snowman

And before you guys chime in with "Walter Johnson threw 100 mph and Ruth could hit against him", I'll just say bullshit ahead of time lol. Walter Johnson want throwing anywhere near 100 mph. Most of the pitching in that era was in the 70 to 80 mph range. Guys throwing 80+ were throwing heat. WaJo might have touched 90. And I'd wager my right nut that he never once threw a ball above 92 mph.

Travis, I like you from afar. You almost always nail it. Not this time, sir. There is no chance that average major league pitching in the 1920s/30s was 70/80 mph. 70/80 is what I faced in high school and American Legion ball. I could hit that stuff, and I wasn't even close to major league, talent wise. Sorry. Not nostalgia. Reality. If Ruth was facing 70/80, he most likely would have finished with 2,000+ home runs, and a .500 batting average. I simply don't understand why people think this watered down talent pool, injury prone era of today is so much better, and they cling desperately to that as if it's some sort of insult, or stupidity, to think that pitchers in "the good ole days" threw pretty darned fast. Yes, pitchers throw fast today. They threw fast back in the day too. Baseball is baseball, then and now.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Personally, I think baseball has probably evolved in terms of athleticism the same way as other sports. Jesse Owens and Paavo Nurmi probably would be average high school runners now based solely on their times. Can you imagine Bill Tilden against Roger Federer? Why would baseball be different?

Note that I didn't pickup 1920s Babe Ruth and drop him in the 2020s, I move his birthday 100 years...

Roger Federer is only Roger Federer because of the bedrock of Bill Tilden, there is no reason to think that "new" Bill Tilden given the same bedrock of "old" Bill Tilden wouldn't be able to complete with Roger Federer.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

Note that I didn't pickup 1920s Babe Ruth and drop him in the 2020s, I move his birthday 100 years...

Roger Federer is only Roger Federer because of the bedrock of Bill Tilden, there is no reason to think that "new" Bill Tilden given the same bedrock of "old" Bill Tilden wouldn't be able to complete with Roger Federer.

Right but you've changed the hypothetical. The hypothetical is you just beam the player into the present time.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Right but you've changed the hypothetical. The hypothetical is you just beam the player into the present time.

I would posit that I haven't "changed" it but, as I said in my original post, I am "re-interpreting the question a bit"

[71buc]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's interesting how people's personalities and biases feed into how they answer the question or others like it.

Personally, I think baseball has probably evolved in terms of athleticism the same way as other sports. Jesse Owens and Paavo Nurmi probably would be average high school runners now based solely on their times. Can you imagine Bill Tilden against Roger Federer? Why would baseball be different?

I absolutely agree