Who are the greatest players ever?

[OleMissCub]

I wonder if anyone agrees with me on this, but I think if you did that time machine thing and brought Ty Cobb to the game today, he wouldn't do much at all. The players are so much bigger and stronger, I really believe that there isn't one person who played before, say, 1940, who'd be anything more than maybe a poor back-up if transported to the game today. Allow them to have a proper upbringing and weight training and such, and that's one thing, but there's no doubt in my mind that the true greatest players of all time are in the league today.

.

 

Dude, that's the most absurd thing i've ever heard you say. You act like these guys were David Eckstein's or something. Ty Cobb was 6'2, 200 pounds, Babe Ruth was 6'2, 215; Honus Wagner was 5'11, 200; Gehrig 6', 200; Tris Speaker 5'11, 200; Walter Johnson 6'1, 200; 6'2, 195; Cy Young 6'2, 210; Joe Jackson 6'1, 200.

 

As good as these guys were when they played with crappy equipment, horribly kept fields (Casey Stengal once disappeared from sight in the outfield one game because he felt into an abandoned well that caved in), they would have REALLY been good given today's training and batting cages and pitching machines, mechanics videos, scouting reports, etc.

 

Cobb was good because of 2 things a) natural physical ability...when he was younger people wanted him to be an olympic track runner, and b) he UNDERSTOOD the game.

 

Look at two of the men whom Cobb regularly gave advice to about hitting and they always talked about how he helped them: Dimaggio and Williams. His book "My Life in Baseball" has detailed chapters about baserunning, bunting, hitting to the outfield, where to stand at the plate on certain pitches, how to outthink pitchers, etc. I read this book like a madman when I was a JV player and I put alot of his techniques to work and they helped me tremendously all the way through college.

 

Ty Cobb would be a bench player and wouldn't do anything in today's game ...what a joke. I mean really c'mon. With Cobb you are looking at a man who regularly hit OVER .100 points higher than the league average...and yet...well, he wouldn't do anything in today's game. That's hogwash Tree, and you must know it.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

All things being equal, the legends of yesteryear would compare more favorably to the players of today. i.e. Babe Ruth wouldn't be a 5th OFer, but he wouldn't be heads and shoulders above the likes of ARod, Pujols, or even Cabrera.

[soccer10k]

I think that if the players were given the same conditions to play under (i.e. weight training, field conditions, mitt size, etc.), I believe that the old time players would have been just as good as the players from now. I don't think that if Ruth played now he would hit 900 HR's but I also don't think he would have only hit 400. I'm saying that given the same opportunities the current players are afforded, the old time players would have been just fine. Don't forget that everybody played under the same conditions in the early part of the century so ALL of their skills were hindered because of that.

 

I think Treeman's point is that the players today have so much more working in their favor (i.e. weight training, diets, trainers) that the old time players without those opportunities wouldn't be able to keep up.

[erik316wttn]

All things being equal, the legends of yesteryear would compare more favorably to the players of today. i.e. Babe Ruth wouldn't be a 5th OFer, but he wouldn't be heads and shoulders above the likes of ARod, Pujols, or even Cabrera.

 

I think he'd be right up there, actually.

 

Babe Ruth hit 714 career home runs in some of those ballparks of yesteryear. He'd hit 800 without breaking a sweat in some of the bandboxes today, hitting against some of the pitchers of today. He just knew how to hit. Period.

 

Cobb used his greatest strengths: his knowlege of the game and blinding speed, and turned them into deadly weapons. Cobb was easily one of the smartest players of all time. He understood the game like few ever have, and it showed. He knew all of his opponents strengths and weaknessess, and exploited them mercilessly. Few players are that smart today. I'm not saying that none are, just very darn few.

[OleMissCub]

 

I think Treeman's point is that the players today have so much more working in their favor (i.e. weight training, diets, trainers) that the old time players without those opportunities wouldn't be able to keep up.

 

That point actually works against his argument, in my opinion. Because you can easily flip that and say that the pampered players today, with their post and pre-game massages, sauna's, advanced medical treatment, proper equipment, manicured fields, couldn't be able to hack it back in the day when those types of things were unheard of.

 

We as people tend to think that our time is the best, our generation is the best, brightest, strongest, fastest. Every generation feels that way, but when you boil it all down, people are people. My meaning is that the human body is the human body. A person could run just as fast back then as they can now, a person could throw a ball just as far or just as fast back then as they can now. The human body is limited.

 

It is of course true that our athletes are better conditioned, but the majority of baseball is NOT conditioning, so much of it is mental and just inherent ability. How many awesomely conditioned players are ALWAYS going to be second-tier players? What separates the top tier from the second tier? It's natural ability and mental knowledge. All the strength conditioning in the world won't help you hit .380 if you don't have the inherent knowledge and skill.

[Tim]

The talent pool was so much smaller back then. There were half as many teams -- but the US population is 4-5 times as great. Back then there was a very small percentage of the population that had the liberty to play the game instead of working the farm, having a job and supporting the family, etc. There were racial barriers to limit the competition. The process of discovering and scouting players was incredibly inefficient compared to today.

 

And that's not even including the flood of foreign players into MLB.

 

It was by far the most stretched the talent pool has ever been. To get the same relative quality of players per team, we'd have to have over 100 baseball teams to account for the relative talent pools.

 

Of course the great players stood out more from their peers.

 

The peers sucked.

[OleMissCub]

 

Cobb used his greatest strengths: his knowlege of the game and blinding speed, and turned them into deadly weapons. Cobb was easily one of the smartest players of all time. He understood the game like few ever have, and it showed. He knew all of his opponents strengths and weaknessess, and exploited them mercilessly. Few players are that smart today. I'm not saying that none are, just very darn few.

 

Some of his tips from his baseball book:

 

- Don’t slug at full speed; learn to meet the ball firmly, and you will be surprised at the results.

 

- Now, to hit as I ask, to right-center or center. You stand away from plate the distance you can see with mind’s eye that you can hit the ball that curves on inside corner, to center. This distance away from plate will allow you to hit the outside ball to right. In other words, you protect the plate both on inside pitches and outside.

 

- Don’t pull a curve ball from a righthander. The ball is revolving away from you. Hit with the revolution and to right field.

 

- Keep your left elbow cocked on level with your hands or even higher. Never let the elbow down below the hands, and keep your hands always well away from your body – keep pushing them out, even with your body or back. (When I began doing this I truly became a much much better hitter)

 

- Take position at plate, especially against right-hand pitchers, back of plate, and against a man with a real curve, you can stay on back line of batting box. Now try to hit to right-center. I don’t mean you should place the ball in any one spot, but start now practicing to hit your righthanders to the opposite field. An inside ball from a right-hand pitcher you will naturally pull, say, to left-center.

 

As well as he understood the game back then, If Cobb had the ability now to watch game film of upcoming pitchers, he would eat them alive.

[soccer10k]

 

I think Treeman's point is that the players today have so much more working in their favor (i.e. weight training, diets, trainers) that the old time players without those opportunities wouldn't be able to keep up.

 

That point actually works against his argument, in my opinion. Because you can easily flip that and say that the pampered players today, with their post and pre-game massages, sauna's, advanced medical treatment, proper equipment, manicured fields, couldn't be able to hack it back in the day when those types of things were unheard of.

 

We as people tend to think that our time is the best, our generation is the best, brightest, strongest, fastest. Every generation feels that way, but when you boil it all down, people are people. My meaning is that the human body is the human body. A person could run just as fast back then as they can now, a person could throw a ball just as far or just as fast back then as they can now. The human body is limited.

 

It is of course true that our athletes are better conditioned, but the majority of baseball is NOT conditioning, so much of it is mental and just inherent ability. How many awesomely conditioned players are ALWAYS going to be second-tier players? What separates the top tier from the second tier? It's natural ability and mental knowledge. All the strength conditioning in the world won't help you hit .380 if you don't have the inherent knowledge and skill.

 

There are always going to be players with "inherent knowledge and skill." That's never going to change. The difference is all of the amenities that the players now have available to them. Treeman was saying that if you brought those old time players to the league now that they wouldn't be as good as the old time players.

 

Also, you say that the pampered players today wouldn't be able to hack it back in the old days because they are so pampered. How about all of the Latino players that grow up using broomsticks as bats and don't have any formal training? You think that they have more available to them growing up than the players in the early part of the century? I think not.

[OleMissCub]

 

Also, you say that the pampered players today wouldn't be able to hack it back in the old days because they are so pampered. How about all of the Latino players that grow up using broomsticks as bats and don't have any formal training? You think that they have more available to them growing up than the players in the early part of the century? I think not.

 

Again I should thank you for helping out my argument by raising that issue. One of the reasons why so many poor Latino players are so good and excel at baseball when they come to the majors is because they were raised playing the game with CRAPPY equipment on CRAPPY fields. When they come to the pros with all the fancy gear and technology and luxuries, they excel. This is exactly why I think some of the older players would also be successful in the modern era. When you are good and you play with crap, you have a large possiblity of being really good with all the extra benefits.

[XZero771679666304]

The talent pool was so much smaller back then. There were half as many teams -- but the US population is 4-5 times as great. Back then there was a very small percentage of the population that had the liberty to play the game instead of working the farm, having a job and supporting the family, etc. There were racial barriers to limit the competition. The process of discovering and scouting players was incredibly inefficient compared to today.

 

And that's not even including the flood of foreign players into MLB.

 

It was by far the most stretched the talent pool has ever been. To get the same relative quality of players per team, we'd have to have over 100 baseball teams to account for the relative talent pools.

 

Of course the great players stood out more from their peers.

 

The peers sucked.

 

You hit the nail right on the head. The level of overall talent today is far above what it was 50 or 60 years ago.

[soccer10k]

Not every great player right now grew up playing with crap for equipment. That isn't a requirement for greatness. It just so happens that there are some players now that didn't have good equipment available to them. I don't see how I helped your point one bit. You haven't given me a reason to believe that some of the current players wouldn't excel if they played in the 1920's.

[XZero771679666304]

 

Also, you say that the pampered players today wouldn't be able to hack it back in the old days because they are so pampered. How about all of the Latino players that grow up using broomsticks as bats and don't have any formal training? You think that they have more available to them growing up than the players in the early part of the century? I think not.

 

Again I should thank you for helping out my argument by raising that issue. One of the reasons why so many poor Latino players are so good and excel at baseball when they come to the majors is because they were raised playing the game with CRAPPY equipment on CRAPPY fields. When they come to the pros with all the fancy gear and technology and luxuries, they excel. This is exactly why I think some of the older players would also be successful in the modern era. When you are good and you play with crap, you have a large possiblity of being really good with all the extra benefits.

 

SOME of the great players of yesterday would be good today. I would even go so far as to say an elite few. Ruth, Cobb, Gehrig, Feller, etc., would be good today, but not nearly as good as they were in their own time. That's not a knock on their ability, but as Tim pointed out, the ability of their peers.

[XZero771679666304]

Not every great player right now grew up playing with crap for equipment. That isn't a requirement for greatness. It just so happens that there are some players now that didn't have good equipment available to them. I don't see how I helped your point one bit. You haven't given me a reason to believe that some of the current players wouldn't excel if they played in the 1920's.

 

If you transported players like Pujols and ARod back in time, they would be elite. While the facilities and equipment were substandard when compared to today, a lot of innovation has taken place since then, such as new pitces, etc.

Plus logic dictates that the average player today is better than the average player 60 years ago.

[OleMissCub]

Not every great player right now grew up playing with crap for equipment. That isn't a requirement for greatness. It just so happens that there are some players now that didn't have good equipment available to them. I don't see how I helped your point one bit. You haven't given me a reason to believe that some of the current players wouldn't excel if they played in the 1920's.

 

I don't need to give any specific reasons to show that some modern players might not do so hot back in the day. The whole argument about "they wouldn't do well in modern times because conditioning and technology is better" doesn't work at all if you are trying to make the argument that classic players wouldn't do well in today's world. Because what we have in modern times are more BENEFITS. Exposing these legends to the benefits that modern baseball has would only serve to make them better, not worse. On the contrary, it's a much easier argument to make that players now would do worse back then because of the DETRIMENTS and the loss of these benefits that they would have to endure to have played back then. Added benefits can only serve to make one better, case in point the latinos who grow up playing with milk carton gloves.

[jjgman21]

All things being equal, the legends of yesteryear would compare more favorably to the players of today. i.e. Babe Ruth wouldn't be a 5th OFer, but he wouldn't be heads and shoulders above the likes of ARod, Pujols, or even Cabrera.

 

I think he'd be right up there, actually.

 

Babe Ruth hit 714 career home runs in some of those ballparks of yesteryear. He'd hit 800 without breaking a sweat in some of the bandboxes today, hitting against some of the pitchers of today.

 

 

while the old timey stadiums were often deep to center, there were places to hit homeruns. some of the places Ruth played and the right field dimensions back then with some modern parks for comparison, rfline/rightcenter

 

 

Polo Grounds - 258/4350ish

League Park - 290/415ish

Yankee Stadium - 295/429 (with a four foot wall. more like the House Built for Ruth)

PacBell - 307/420

Fenway - 314/402

Griffith Stadium - 320/380ish

Minutemaid Park - 325/375

Turner Field - 330/390

Sportsman's Park - 335/390ish

Shibe Park - 360/393

Comiskey - 363/382

Tiger Stadium - 370/400ish

 

that's alot of hooking line drives and pop ups down the line that turned into homeruns instead of outs and foulballs.

[XZero771679666304]

Not every great player right now grew up playing with crap for equipment. That isn't a requirement for greatness. It just so happens that there are some players now that didn't have good equipment available to them. I don't see how I helped your point one bit. You haven't given me a reason to believe that some of the current players wouldn't excel if they played in the 1920's.

 

I don't need to give any specific reasons to show that some modern players might not do so hot back in the day. The whole argument about "they wouldn't do well in modern times because conditioning and technology is better" doesn't work at all if you are trying to make the argument that classic players wouldn't do well in today's world. Because what we have in modern times are more BENEFITS. Exposing these legends to the benefits that modern baseball has would only serve to make them better, not worse. On the contrary, it's a much easier argument to make that players now would do worse back then because of the DETRIMENTS and the loss of these benefits that they would have to endure to have played back then. Added benefits can only serve to make one better, case in point the latinos who grow up playing with milk carton gloves.

 

That argument makes sense, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that today's players compete against a much stronger pool of talent. Joe average in 1925 might be an A-baller today. Even if you bring the deficiency of conditions and equipment into the argument, it still doesn't balance out with the absolute saturation of the MLB talent pool that has taken place in the past 40 years or so.

[soccer10k]

Not every great player right now grew up playing with crap for equipment. That isn't a requirement for greatness. It just so happens that there are some players now that didn't have good equipment available to them. I don't see how I helped your point one bit. You haven't given me a reason to believe that some of the current players wouldn't excel if they played in the 1920's.

 

I don't need to give any specific reasons to show that some modern players might not do so hot back in the day. The whole argument about "they wouldn't do well in modern times because conditioning and technology is better" doesn't work at all if you are trying to make the argument that classic players wouldn't do well in today's world. Because what we have in modern times are more BENEFITS. Exposing these legends to the benefits that modern baseball has would only serve to make them better, not worse. On the contrary, it's a much easier argument to make that players now would do worse back then because of the DETRIMENTS and the loss of these benefits that they would have to endure to have played back then. Added benefits can only serve to make one better, case in point the latinos who grow up playing with milk carton gloves.

 

At the same time, the players today have gotten used to having all of the amenities that are available to them and adjusted accordingly. I'm saying that because there are players that didn't have those amenities available to them and they still made the majors that the players that did get used to them would have adjusted without them. They wouldn't have gotten used to all of the amenities because they wouldn't have had them at all. The same goes for the old time players. They would have adjusted to having the amenties. For the most part, I think that an All Star now would be an All Star then and vice versa. Obviously there are some exceptions, but I think a player is what he is.

[OleMissCub]

 

If you transported players like Pujols and ARod back in time, they would be elite. While the facilities and equipment were substandard when compared to today, a lot of innovation has taken place since then, such as new pitces, etc.

.

 

What new pitches??

 

And besides, how does saying "alot of innovation" has occured since then help your argument? All you are doing is handicapping the modern players by saying that they have advantages that the old guys didn't have. If you sent them back in time, they wouldn't take their advantages with them.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

 

If you transported players like Pujols and ARod back in time, they would be elite. While the facilities and equipment were substandard when compared to today, a lot of innovation has taken place since then, such as new pitces, etc.

.

 

What new pitches??

 

And besides, how does saying "alot of innovation" has occured since then help your argument? All you are doing is handicapping the modern players by saying that they have advantages that the old guys didn't have. If you sent them back in time, they wouldn't take their advantages with them.

 

Yes they would. Isn't the argument that if you sent Ty Cobb as he was into today's game he wouldn't be very good, and if you sent Pujols to 1912 he'd shatter records?

[OleMissCub]

For the most part, I think that an All Star now would be an All Star then and vice versa. Obviously there are some exceptions, but I think a player is what he is.

 

Then you must have changed your view, because two pages ago you were agreeing with Tree that Cobb would have "done nothing" today and that not a single player before 1940 could play in the bigs today.

[XZero771679666304]

 

If you transported players like Pujols and ARod back in time, they would be elite. While the facilities and equipment were substandard when compared to today, a lot of innovation has taken place since then, such as new pitces, etc.

.

 

What new pitches??

 

And besides, how does saying "alot of innovation" has occured since then help your argument? All you are doing is handicapping the modern players by saying that they have advantages that the old guys didn't have. If you sent them back in time, they wouldn't take their advantages with them.

 

There are more pitches today than there were in the 1920's, you know that. Plus, the pithces that there were have been refined. But that whole issue is a side to the talent pool issue, which there is no logical argument against.

[OleMissCub]

 

If you transported players like Pujols and ARod back in time, they would be elite. While the facilities and equipment were substandard when compared to today, a lot of innovation has taken place since then, such as new pitces, etc.

.

 

What new pitches??

 

And besides, how does saying "alot of innovation" has occured since then help your argument? All you are doing is handicapping the modern players by saying that they have advantages that the old guys didn't have. If you sent them back in time, they wouldn't take their advantages with them.

 

Yes they would. Isn't the argument that if you sent Ty Cobb as he was into today's game he wouldn't be very good, and if you sent Pujols to 1912 he'd shatter records?

 

Pujols would have a size and power advantage, that's about it. You give him crappy cleats, a lumpy field to play on, gravel and rocks as an infield on which to field his position, no scouting reports, a distorted black blob of a baseball hurtling towards him, a uniform that hasn't been washed in weeks, and a tiny crappy glove, and I doubt he'd shatter any records. He'd do extremely well because Pujols is someone who "understands" the game and has some amazing natural ability, much like a Cobb or Williams.

 

On the contrary, as good as a Cobb or Honus Wagner was when they played in all those dreadful conditions, you give them all the amazing benefits that today's players have and I think given their mental knowledge and natural ability, they would do very well.

 

"When I began playing the game, baseball was about as gentlemanly as a kick in the crotch. " - Ty Cobb, 1960

[soccer10k]

For the most part, I think that an All Star now would be an All Star then and vice versa. Obviously there are some exceptions, but I think a player is what he is.

 

Then you must have changed your view, because two pages ago you were agreeing with Tree that Cobb would have "done nothing" today and that not a single player before 1940 could play in the bigs today.

 

I said that if you took the old players as they were and didn't give them any of the amenities the players have now that they would be unlikely to succeed. My last point was that if you gave Cobb or Ruth the amenities that players have now, that they would still be All Stars. The same goes for taking everything away from the best players of today, that they would be All Stars back in the 1920's if they didn't have everything they do have.

[XZero771679666304]

 

If you transported players like Pujols and ARod back in time, they would be elite. While the facilities and equipment were substandard when compared to today, a lot of innovation has taken place since then, such as new pitces, etc.

.

 

What new pitches??

 

And besides, how does saying "alot of innovation" has occured since then help your argument? All you are doing is handicapping the modern players by saying that they have advantages that the old guys didn't have. If you sent them back in time, they wouldn't take their advantages with them.

 

Yes they would. Isn't the argument that if you sent Ty Cobb as he was into today's game he wouldn't be very good, and if you sent Pujols to 1912 he'd shatter records?

 

Yes it is. The argument (as I understand it) is if you transplanted respective players, indepent of pysical conditions and equipment. New and refined pitches are an innovation of skill, not an issue of substandard equipment. Those skill innovations, as well as the relative talent levels of the eras, are why today's players have an inherent adavntage, IMO. Their competition is better and more skilled.

 

Remember, skill and raw talent are two different things.

[OleMissCub]

 

If you transported players like Pujols and ARod back in time, they would be elite. While the facilities and equipment were substandard when compared to today, a lot of innovation has taken place since then, such as new pitces, etc.

.

 

What new pitches??

 

And besides, how does saying "alot of innovation" has occured since then help your argument? All you are doing is handicapping the modern players by saying that they have advantages that the old guys didn't have. If you sent them back in time, they wouldn't take their advantages with them.

 

There are more pitches today than there were in the 1920's, you know that. Plus, the pithces that there were have been refined. But that whole issue is a side to the talent pool issue, which there is no logical argument against.

 

In all of my research concerning the deadball era for my thesis and personal enjoyment, i've come across every pitch we have now, except the slider, which didn't officially come about until the 1950's-60's. If a ball can be thrown a certain way by a human hand, it's naive to think that someone in the past wouldn't have already figured out how to throw it. Satchel Paige had like 8 pitches he threw and Walter Johnson had several different types of fastballs.

 

I understand the talent pool argument, and i'm not going to argue against that because that argument DOES make alot of sense. However, exceptional talent is exceptional talent and Cobb, Speaker, Hornsby, Williams, Wagner, Ruth, they all had exceptional talent, and give these same people all the benefits that modern players enjoy, and they would AT THE VERY LEAST be playing. Tree said Cobb would have "done nothing" and no player before 1940 would be playing on a modern team.