Old Timers

[bpj]

Watching some of these old timers play in old clips, it seems pretty obvious that the level of athlete in MLB has improved tenfold.

In the same way that the competition got harder when blacks joined MLB, it makes sense to me that adding the best players from (nearly) every nationality has pushed the level of overall talent much higher.

I don't think 75% of the guys that played alongside the old greats would make it past AA and even some of the greats hardly look like they would make a team now.

It's odd watching some of them, they don't look athletic in the slightest.

Wondering what some of you that actually watched them play think.

Look at some of these dopes. Babe Ruth has one of the ugliest swings I've ever seen. I think he'd get eaten alive by today's pitchers.
https://youtu.be/_EJxVFU8UNo

[D-train]

The uniforms and the terrible quality of the film didn't do them any favors but the population of the US was only a little over 100M in 1920, less than one third of the 330M that it is today. Japan's population today is higher at 125M. Also, only the best players made enough to not need a job in the off season so I am sure a lot of guys that could have played baseball went with professional or blue collar careers instead.

Now throw in all the AAs and Latin players and you are drawing from a pool that is at least 5x bigger....

Also, today the training and technology is huge relative to almost nothing back then.

Yeah I would guess that the average MLB team in the 1920s would be maybe a high A team today.

[gil]

I agree. I think it is pretty true of all team sports, plus a lot of other athletic endeavors (rock climbing or mountaineering, for example). The old timers had endurance and grit and natural ability, but they didn't train in ways that today's athletes do. Athletes keep getting faster and stronger, in addition to developing new tools to outperform.

[Donn Beach]

You had athletes spread over fewer sports opportunities and fewer baseball teams so there be a concentration of talent. I also wonder if there were more highly skilled teams prior to FA

[bpj]

The uniforms and the terrible quality of the film didn't do them any favors but the population of the US was only a little over 100M in 1920, less than one third of the 330M that it is today. Japan's population today is higher at 125M. Also, only the best players made enough to not need a job in the off season so I am sure a lot of guys that could have played baseball went with professional or blue collar careers instead.

Now throw in all the AAs and Latin players and you are drawing from a pool that is at least 5x bigger....

Also, today the training and technology is huge relative to almost nothing back then.

Yeah I would guess that the average MLB team in the 1920s would be maybe a high A team today.

That all definitely makes sense. Just makes me wonder how the records and everything would really look if they were batting off guys throwing 95 with a nasty slider half the time. Guys that weren't bucking hay in the offseason or whatever.

[Phishphan91]

i always find these arguments/debates to be the stupidest of all for a multitude of reasons.

first off, take ruth, cobb, gehrig, foxx, etc. if you put them in "todays" baseball, they have their natural talent with all of the advantages today. if you take the best players today and put them back then, you would need to take away the training, nutrition, etc.

second, in every part of time, making professional sports was for the few percent and extremely difficult. how many board members here have relatives who played back then if it was so easy? if the competition was so bad why did our relatives schlep doing mundane jobs instead of playing alongside babe ruth?

third, for the idiots who try to downgrade the accomplishments of a russell or chamberlain simply dont understand math. everytime i hear people say, well russell won when their were only 9-11 teams. somehow, these people dont understand that the nba today with 30 teams is completely watered-down. if the nba contracted lets say 14 teams so they had 16 teams total and split the east and west 8-8 and the top 6 teams made the playoffs and bottom two missed it. each team would be stacked with great talent and would be a much more enjoyable product. winning when there are fewer teams is more impressive compared to more and more expansion.

all anyone can do is just compare players among their eras. to compare qbs today to the 80s qbs and before is asinine. to compare the 90s-80s qbs to the qbs before the mel blount rule is asinine.

[bpj]

You think it's such a dumb topic you wrote a book about it.

That's called having an opinion there, bud.

You're welcome to pass by posts you don't like.

It's not one or the other, it's probably a good mix. Some of them wouldn't make it against the competition today, that's pretty obvious.

A few would still be special players, the majority probably pretty average at best.

[Captain 97]

If you transported them through time. They would have major issues. However, if Babe Ruth had been born in 2000 with the exact same physical gifts and had the opportunity to grow up with todays training, coaching and youth playing opportunities, I think he would still be great. His swing would look nothing like it did on the 20's and his physique would be improved as well. In the end the only fair way to judge a player is in comparison to his peers. No one has ever stood head and shoulders above everyone else in the league, the way that Ruth did.

I'd also be interested to see what would happen in reverse. What would Mike trout look like if you sent him back in time and gave him a three fingered oven Mitt for a glove, a 40 ounce rolling pin for a bat then madehim hit lopsided balls with all kinds of dead spots. Then have him play a double header and then ride 12 hours on a train for a day game the next day. And then when the seasons over instead of relaxing and working on his body he would have to go and work in a factory all winter. I suspect it would be tough for him as well.

[Donn Beach]

Not to mention trying to hit an oblong baseball, grey with grime and coming apart at the seams, oh and with some spit on it. And a pitcher happy to toss one under his chin without any repercussions. Like football, it's really two different sports, it's hard to make comparisons. Sure, there are better athletes today, but does that make them better baseball players? For me basketball is about athletes, but baseball transcends athletics.

[D-train]

Not to mention trying to hit an oblong baseball, grey with grime and coming apart at the seams, oh and with some spit on it. And a pitcher happy to toss one under his chin without any repercussions. Like football, it's really two different sports, it's hard to make comparisons.

The Early Days of the Baseball Helmet
Baseball’s first years were brutal. In fact, pitchers intentionally hurled balls at batters in an attempt to throw off their focus. This strategy wasn’t considered poor sportsmanship—it’s just how the game was played.

Though some players wore basic, padded caps for protection, most chose to forgo extra protection. Even when Cleveland Indians batter Ray Chapman died after getting beaned by pitcher Carl Mays in 1920, teams and players alike were hesitant to instill stricter regulations. It would take decades for the batting helmet to become integral to baseball safety.

So, why the hesitancy to adopt basic protective gear? In the ultra-masculine sports world, some players thought helmets made them appear weak. Others found the extra equipment distracting or too heavy. Either way, they’d rather risk injury—or even death—to play baseball their way.

It’d take over twenty years after Chapman’s death for a team to mandate head protection. In 1941, it was the Brooklyn Dodgers that became the first team to require head protection. After two players experienced serious head injuries, Dodgers general manager Larry MacPhail required the entire team to wear helmets. They were designed much like a regular baseball hat, but with protective plate inserts. These caps didn’t offer the protection we see today, but it was a step in the right direction.