Who are the greatest players ever?

[jjgman21]

 

old timey's can bring up Christy Mathewson and Walter Johnson all they want, but pitching has gotten infinitely better in the past 40 years.

 

While I would tend to agree with you on the front end of the rotation, I would say the #4 and #5 pitchers in most rotations are not infinitely better, in fact I would think they are infinitely worse (for the most part).

 

that's part of my point though. back then, there were no 4 and 5 starters, nor was there alot of relief pitching. there was just the top of the rotation putting in massive workloads. so not only were batters probably much more familiar with the pitchers, but the pitchers probably tended to be gassed. if they weren't gassed, the simplest explanation is that they did not throw nearly as hard as pitchers do today.

 

if old timey pitchers were anywhere near the equal of today's pitchers, one would think a few of them would be able to come close to striking batters out like they do in the modern era, but that's just not the case. while there is no way to measure or know for sure, my guess is Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth would crap in their pants the first time they saw a Kerry Wood fastball.

[goonys evil twin]

The only reason people think there were no Glendon Rusch or Joel Pineiro, or other similar back of the rotation starters, is because everybody likes to pretend the old days were nothing but golden days, and they only talk about the great. We hear about all these tough guys who gutted out a bunch of complete games and never got hurt, because all the guys who blew out there arms were forgotten. This is not a watered down age. The size of the talent pool available to fill the league nowadays dwarves the numbers that were available back in the day. Not only is the population that much bigger, and the facilities that much better for a larger group to get the opportunity, but the amount of black or foreign born players adds to that increased talent pool.

 

Any list of the games best that doesn't include any players from this era is an absurdly illegitimate list.

[CubDad4Ever]

I think as long as specs are utilized in terms of the mean statistically of an era, it is somewhat sound evaluating players of different eras against one another. That is obviously Bill James premise on his top 100 at each position all time. My vote goes to Wagner because of his amazing ability to dominate in 4 areas. OPS, small ball areas (bunting , stealing etc) fielding at the toughest position on the defensive spectrum , and helping his team win championships. Coach L

[jjgman21]

The only reason people think there were no Glendon Rusch or Joel Pineiro, or other similar back of the rotation starters, is because everybody likes to pretend the old days were nothing but golden days, and they only talk about the great. We hear about all these tough guys who gutted out a bunch of complete games and never got hurt, because all the guys who blew out there arms were forgotten. This is not a watered down age. The size of the talent pool available to fill the league nowadays dwarves the numbers that were available back in the day. Not only is the population that much bigger, and the facilities that much better for a larger group to get the opportunity, but the amount of black or foreign born players adds to that increased talent pool.

 

Any list of the games best that doesn't include any players from this era is an absurdly illegitimate list.

 

there also are no longer players that don't give the baseball thing a go because they have to stay working on the farm/in the coal mine/at the foundary etc etc. nowadays, taking the gamble to go play baseball isn't a gamble. it pays better than the farm/coal mine/factory even if you don't make it.

[badgercub]

The only reason people think there were no Glendon Rusch or Joel Pineiro, or other similar back of the rotation starters, is because everybody likes to pretend the old days were nothing but golden days, and they only talk about the great. We hear about all these tough guys who gutted out a bunch of complete games and never got hurt, because all the guys who blew out there arms were forgotten. This is not a watered down age. The size of the talent pool available to fill the league nowadays dwarves the numbers that were available back in the day. Not only is the population that much bigger, and the facilities that much better for a larger group to get the opportunity, but the amount of black or foreign born players adds to that increased talent pool.

 

Any list of the games best that doesn't include any players from this era is an absurdly illegitimate list.

 

I do agree with some of the points you make. The size of the talent pool may be a lot bigger, but so is the competition from other sports like basketball, football, soccer, etc.... Back in to olden days the best athletes did not have all of these other options, or at least they werent' as popular. I think the thing I agree with the most is that it was an "all white" league and from that perspective they werent always playing against the best talent. I know you didn't say this Goony, but for someone to make the comment that Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth would "crap their pants" if they stood in against a Kerry Wood fastball is ridiculous. I still also contend that their hand/eye coordination, bat speed, and all other natural abilities would allow them to be great in any era.

[UBlink]

there also are no longer players that don't give the baseball thing a go because they have to stay working on the farm/in the coal mine/at the foundary etc etc. nowadays, taking the gamble to go play baseball isn't a gamble. it pays better than the farm/coal mine/factory even if you don't make it.

 

That's true after you get to the majors, but I suspect many a player in the minors could make more in a real job, and some for whom the probablity of getting to the majors is low probably quit because of it. You probably don't see many Stanford grads coming back to the same level in the minors for 3 years.

[jjgman21]

for someone to make the comment that Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth would "crap their pants" if they stood in against a Kerry Wood fastball is ridiculous. I still also contend that their hand/eye coordination, bat speed, and all other natural abilities would allow them to be great in any era.

 

not as ridiculous as the notion that pitchers that threw 35 complete games per year threw any where near as hard or with as much movement as pitchers today. their arms simply could not have withstood the abuse.

 

while I don't think Cobb or Ruth would literally crap their pants, i assure you they would be shocked to see a pitcher throw 95 mph into the late innings, every inning, every batter, all season long. with that said, it's impossible to say what their natural abilities would have allowed them to do if facing today's pitchers. saying they could not only adapt, but still be great, is about as presumptuous as it gets.

[jjgman21]

there also are no longer players that don't give the baseball thing a go because they have to stay working on the farm/in the coal mine/at the foundary etc etc. nowadays, taking the gamble to go play baseball isn't a gamble. it pays better than the farm/coal mine/factory even if you don't make it.

 

That's true after you get to the majors, but I suspect many a player in the minors could make more in a real job, and some for whom the probablity of getting to the majors is low probably quit because of it. You probably don't see many Stanford grads coming back to the same level in the minors for 3 years.

 

choices for alot of 18 year olds

 

1915 - help the family not starve or go play baseball

2006 - flip burgers for minimum wage or go play baseball

 

what would you choose as an 18 year old in 1915? how about in 2006?

 

 

also, not sure if he graduated, but here's one

 

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/G/john-gall.shtml

[OleMissCub]

 

my guess is Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth would crap in their pants the first time they saw a Kerry Wood fastball.

 

 

 

What, you think pitchers back then threw 80mph or something? When I was in high school, I faced lanky redneck kids who never touched a weight in their lives who could throw 90mph or higher. A human body is a human body, training or no training. There are high schoolers all across the country who have no problem hitting at least 90mph, and they have no serious training at all. Some people can pitch that hard naturally and some can't. Just like some people are naturally fast and others aren't.

 

 

not as ridiculous as the notion that pitchers that threw 35 complete games per year threw any where near as hard or with as much movement as pitchers today. their arms simply could not have withstood the abuse.

Here are some examples of 300+ inning pitchers who you've probably actually seen film of and can testify that they didn't just lob the ball up there

Bob Feller - 1946 - 371 ip, 1941 - 343 ip

Steve Carlton - 1972 - 346 ip

Gaylord Perry - 1973 - 344 ip, 1972 - 342 ip, 1970 - 328 ip

Denn McClain - 1968 - 338 ip

Sandy Koufax - 1965 - 335 ip

Nolan Ryan - 1972 - 332 ip, 1973 - 326 ip

Ferguson Jenkins - 1974 - 328 ip, 1971 - 325ip

Juan Marichal - 1968 - 328 ip

 

 

There is a theory that i've read in a Deadball-Era book about old timey pitchers and their massive amount of innings. Basically, it suggested that there are some people who can naturally throw huge amounts of pitches and have a quick recovery time for their arm. Other pitchers cannot do this. People like our beloved Kerry Wood, with all his arm troubles would have not been able to hack it as a pitcher back then because his arm would have exploded and there were no ways to fix a pitcher. Some people are just physically able to sustain massive pitching workloads and some are not.

 

Durings Cobb's career years, only 24 times in a season did a pitcher throw for over 350 innings. 5 of these seasons were by Grover Cleveland Alexander, 4 of them were Walter Johnson, 4 were Ed Walsh, and 3 were Mathewson.

 

So 16 of the 24 350ip+ seasons during Cobb's career were pitched by 4 men. So your suggestion that pitchers routinely piled up massive and abnormal amounts of innings is just wrong. A 350ip+ season was then, like today, an anomaly.

[erik316wttn]

there also are no longer players that don't give the baseball thing a go because they have to stay working on the farm/in the coal mine/at the foundary etc etc. nowadays, taking the gamble to go play baseball isn't a gamble. it pays better than the farm/coal mine/factory even if you don't make it.

 

That's true after you get to the majors, but I suspect many a player in the minors could make more in a real job, and some for whom the probablity of getting to the majors is low probably quit because of it. You probably don't see many Stanford grads coming back to the same level in the minors for 3 years.

 

choices for alot of 18 year olds

 

1915 - help the family not starve or go play baseball

2006 - flip burgers for minimum wage or go play baseball

 

what would you choose as an 18 year old in 1915? how about in 2006?

 

 

also, not sure if he graduated, but here's one

 

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/G/john-gall.shtml

 

There are more options than flipping burgers or playing baseball today.

 

Anyway, if you're an athletically gifted teenager now, you're usually pushed more toward football or basketball. Back in the 30's up through the 70's or so, the biggest sport was baseball, far and away. The best athletes all wanted to play baseball.

 

I'm not at all saying that there aren't some damned good atheletes in MLB today. There are quite a few of them. But not a vast majority of the best like there were back in the day.

[barryfoote]

I loved reading this thread.

 

while I don't think Cobb or Ruth would literally crap their pants, i assure you they would be shocked to see a pitcher throw 95 mph into the late innings, every inning, every batter, all season long.

 

One factor about this though is in the olden days, pitchers would not only throw inside more but also throw at players more. I think Don Drysdale would be an example of that. If someone hit a homer vs. Drysdale, the next batter better watch out. There used to be an intimidation factor that is not the same now. So a player that throws the ball 95 mph but doesn't work inside could very well be less intimidating.

 

choices for alot of 18 year olds

 

1915 - help the family not starve or go play baseball

2006 - flip burgers for minimum wage or go play baseball

 

what would you choose as an 18 year old in 1915? how about in 2006?

 

This argument could cut both ways. If you were playing in 1915 you were playing for the love of the game, not to make money. Even though modern players make far more money, it doesn't seem to translate into better fundamental play, in fact you can make the case that it's quite the opposite because stats often drive contracts.

Edited February 23, 2006 by barryfoote

[dougdescenzo]

Ha Ha :lol: PEDRO IS NOT THE BEST PITCHER OF ALL TIME. Ill give you top 5 if you insist, but of all time no way. Probably the best of the 90's though.

 

Since you are so reluctant to put Pedro in your list of top 5 I'd like to see your top 5 pitchers of all-time. Read the list of credentials i provided on the first page and the link to career era+ leaders Tim provided and let me know who your #1 is.

[jjgman21]

 

my guess is Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth would crap in their pants the first time they saw a Kerry Wood fastball.

 

 

 

What, you think pitchers back then threw 80mph or something? When I was in high school, I faced lanky redneck kids who never touched a weight in their lives who could throw 90mph or higher. A human body is a human body, training or no training. There are high schoolers all across the country who have no problem hitting at least 90mph, and they have no serious training at all. Some people can pitch that hard naturally and some can't. Just like some people are naturally fast and others aren't.

 

 

not as ridiculous as the notion that pitchers that threw 35 complete games per year threw any where near as hard or with as much movement as pitchers today. their arms simply could not have withstood the abuse.

Here are some examples of 300+ inning pitchers who you've probably actually seen film of and can testify that they didn't just lob the ball up there

Bob Feller - 1946 - 371 ip, 1941 - 343 ip

Steve Carlton - 1972 - 346 ip

Gaylord Perry - 1973 - 344 ip, 1972 - 342 ip, 1970 - 328 ip

Denn McClain - 1968 - 338 ip

Sandy Koufax - 1965 - 335 ip

Nolan Ryan - 1972 - 332 ip, 1973 - 326 ip

Ferguson Jenkins - 1974 - 328 ip, 1971 - 325ip

Juan Marichal - 1968 - 328 ip

 

 

There is a theory that i've read in a Deadball-Era book about old timey pitchers and their massive amount of innings. Basically, it suggested that there are some people who can naturally throw huge amounts of pitches and have a quick recovery time for their arm. Other pitchers cannot do this. People like our beloved Kerry Wood, with all his arm troubles would have not been able to hack it as a pitcher back then because his arm would have exploded and there were no ways to fix a pitcher. Some people are just physically able to sustain massive pitching workloads and some are not.

 

Durings Cobb's career years, only 24 times in a season did a pitcher throw for over 350 innings. 5 of these seasons were by Grover Cleveland Alexander, 4 of them were Walter Johnson, 4 were Ed Walsh, and 3 were Mathewson.

 

So 16 of the 24 350ip+ seasons during Cobb's career were pitched by 4 men. So your suggestion that pitchers routinely piled up massive and abnormal amounts of innings is just wrong. A 350ip+ season was then, like today, an anomaly.

 

nice selective use of stats. fact is, most of the 60's and 70's pitchers you list had their careers fizzle after their monster inning years. see also Mickey Lolitch, Catfish Hunter, Andy Messersmith, etc. etc. etc. sure, there were some freaks, ie Ryan and Carlton, but Perry was not a hard thrower and Fergie saved wear and tear by not walking anyone.

 

sure 350 was an anomoly in old timey days. it's unheard of now. in Cobbs day, year after year, almost every year, 10-15 pitchers were over 300. you sir are the one that is wrong about old timey pitchers racking up abnormal amounts of innings. its's been 25 years since a 300 ip year, 30 since 350. in 1910 alone there were at least 10 pitchers that racked up 300+.

 

so the question must be asked, if some pitchers can rack up huge amounts of pitches and recover, why did a country with a population of 80 million that didn't allow a big chunk of its population play baseball have more of these types of guys than a country of nearly 300 million that allows everyone to play? or was it something else besides the proverbial rubber arm that allowed these guys to rack up these kinds of seasons?

 

facts are, the very average pitchers and below average pitchers of Cobb and Ruth's days racked up 250 inning years consistently. what would Arod do with all the Jason Marquis's and Mark Redman's in the league racking up 250 innings in a year and completing 15 games?

 

and in the same vein, let's assume what you say is true about rubber arms guys v. non-rubber arm guys. seems to me Z is a rubber arm guy. so the Cubs should run him out every 3-4 days and let him rack up 300-325 innings, right? afterall, under your theory, it will do no harm no matter how hard he throws.

[jjgman21]

I loved reading this thread.

 

while I don't think Cobb or Ruth would literally crap their pants, i assure you they would be shocked to see a pitcher throw 95 mph into the late innings, every inning, every batter, all season long.

 

One factor about this though is in the olden days, pitchers would not only throw inside more but also throw at players more. I think Don Drysdale would be an example of that. If someone hit a homer vs. Drysdale, the next batter better watch out. There used to be an intimidation factor that is not the same now. So a player that throws the ball 95 mph but doesn't work inside could very well be less intimidating.

 

I know what you're saying. I'm really not one that thinks today's players are better, but I think saying that yester years players were better is absurd. plus, we hear lot's of those kinds of stories, but consider

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/HBP_p_career.shtml

 

seems we've had alot of pitchers unafraid to come inside the past 20 years.

 

furthermore, seems pitchers have pretty much gotten this message. the league leader in beanballs is appreciably higher in the 90's-00's than it was in the 70's-80's

 

choices for alot of 18 year olds

 

1915 - help the family not starve or go play baseball

2006 - flip burgers for minimum wage or go play baseball

 

what would you choose as an 18 year old in 1915? how about in 2006?

 

This argument could cut both ways. If you were playing in 1915 you were playing for the love of the game, not to make money. Even though modern players make far more money, it doesn't seem to translate into better fundamental play, in fact you can make the case that it's quite the opposite because stats often drive contracts.

 

the only reason I brought that point up was to illustrate that baseball, no matter how good you were, was not always an option in the early decades of the 1900's, thus cutting down the talent pool. today, there are few misgivings. if you have an opportunity to play baseball, you take it, unless you're some kind of a genius or, as others have suggested, play another sport.....

 

although the 'basketball and football now cut into the talent pool' argument is lost on me considering how huge college football was back then and the popularity of other sports, especially boxing and track and field, not to mention those little things called World War I and World War II that severely cut into the talent pool.

 

today, you get your signing bonus, a few grand minimum, and deal with making $850/month with all expenses paid for one year. usually that puts you above the average 18 year old anyway. if you make it to your second year, you're making more than everone you graduated with, other than those born with silver spoons in their mouths. so really, it only cuts one way. playing baseball these days is a wise financial choice. back then, it was often considered a foolhearty gamble.

Edited February 23, 2006 by jjgman21

[OleMissCub]

facts are, the very average pitchers and below average pitchers of Cobb and Ruth's days racked up 250 inning years consistently. what would Arod do with all the Jason Marquis's and Mark Redman's in the league racking up 250 innings in a year and completing 15 games?

 

The fact is, if you looked at the stats I showed earlier, less than 10 players in 1910 had batting averages over .300. So either the hitters were really crappy or the pitchers were actually good.

 

and in the same vein, let's assume what you say is true about rubber arms guys v. non-rubber arm guys. seems to me Z is a rubber arm guy. so the Cubs should run him out every 3-4 days and let him rack up 300-325 innings, right? afterall, under your theory, it will do no harm no matter how hard he throws.

 

When did I say it's wise to send someone out there for 300+ innings? They did it back in the day out of necessity, and they either blew their arm out or they were able to maintain their health. I never said that's a wise thing to do, I don't think it is. I was just saying that's how it was back then: either you had the rubber arm or you didn't pitch.

 

Again though, your argument about them not throwing very hard is silly. Like i've said a million times, a human body is a human body. It hasn't miraculously changed in the past 100 years. People threw a ball just as hard, threw it just as far, ran just as fast. No doubt modern strength training helps makes someone of average strength become someone of good strength, but it shouldn't make that much of a difference. If certain high schoolers with no mechanical training or weight training are able to throw a ball 90+ then so could someone back then. Carl Mays clearly threw hard enough to kill Ray Chapman in 1919.

[OleMissCub]

If you were playing in 1915 you were playing for the love of the game, not to make money. Even though modern players make far more money, it doesn't seem to translate into better fundamental play, in fact you can make the case that it's quite the opposite because stats often drive contracts.

 

Cobb would agree with you, in 1960, he wrote:

 

"The great trouble with baseball today is that most of the players are in the game for the money and that's it, not for the love of it, the excitement of it, the thrill of it. "

[barryfoote]

I know what you're saying. I'm really not one that thinks today's players are better, but I think saying that yester years players were better is absurd. plus, we hear lot's of those kinds of stories, but consider

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/HBP_p_career.shtml

 

seems we've had alot of pitchers unafraid to come inside the past 20 years.

 

furthermore, seems pitchers have pretty much gotten this message. the league leader in beanballs is appreciably higher in the 90's-00's than it was in the 70's-80's

 

I would generally agree with you on the yesterday vs. today comparison. The one thing I would add about the recent upswing in HBP is what I would call the Biggio factor, having an elbow guard and then leaning into pitches. I wouldn't claim that this in and of itself is the reason for the increased HBP, but I'm sure that it is a factor.

[treebird]

If you were playing in 1915 you were playing for the love of the game, not to make money. Even though modern players make far more money, it doesn't seem to translate into better fundamental play, in fact you can make the case that it's quite the opposite because stats often drive contracts.

 

Cobb would agree with you, in 1960, he wrote:

 

"The great trouble with baseball today is that most of the players are in the game for the money and that's it, not for the love of it, the excitement of it, the thrill of it. "

 

he sounds exactly like every bitter old player ever

[OleMissCub]

If you were playing in 1915 you were playing for the love of the game, not to make money. Even though modern players make far more money, it doesn't seem to translate into better fundamental play, in fact you can make the case that it's quite the opposite because stats often drive contracts.

 

Cobb would agree with you, in 1960, he wrote:

 

"The great trouble with baseball today is that most of the players are in the game for the money and that's it, not for the love of it, the excitement of it, the thrill of it. "

 

he sounds exactly like every bitter old player ever

 

indeed he does. However, I think he was pretty much true to what he said there. He was offered 100,000 to bail on the tigers and join the renegade Federal League, but decided to stay with the Tigers and keep receiving his 30,000 a year he was getting at the time. However, he did die one of the wealthiest ballplayers in history, but nit had nothing to do with his ballplaying days. When he was about 21, during the offseason he was playing golf in Atlanta and this guy he met at the golf course kept pestering him to buy stock in his upstart product, finally Cobb gave into the man's request just to shut him up. This stock he bought into turned out to be Coca-Cola.

[jjgman21]

 

The fact is, if you looked at the stats I showed earlier, less than 10 players in 1910 had batting averages over .300. So either the hitters were really crappy or the pitchers were actually good.

 

interesting. if only it were true

 

AL - Lajoie, Cobb, Speaker, Collins, Knight, Oldring, Easterly, Murphy

NL - Magee, Campbell, Hofman, Snodgrass, Wagner, Lobert, Bates, Devore, Konetchy, Schulte

 

 

When did I say it's wise to send someone out there for 300+ innings? They did it back in the day out of necessity, and they either blew their arm out or they were able to maintain their health. I never said that's a wise thing to do, I don't think it is. I was just saying that's how it was back then: either you had the rubber arm or you didn't pitch.

 

you didn't. it was a tool for illustration. so, good enough for Grover Cleveland Alexander, but not good enough for Z? I mean if Alexander can rack up 350+ innings year after year, according to you throwing full bore like Z does, there won't be adverse consequences? of course pitchers knew they had to pitch alot more innings back then, so they paced themselves. they would not have lasted if they didn't. throwing like Z does for 350+ would blow out his arm. had Alexander been throwing like Z does, he too would have blown out his arm. this is where your point about human bodies being human bodies makes sense.

 

you also made another good point. pitchers blew their arms out after throwing so many innings, so alot of really good pitchers were replaced with lesser pitchers. a guy like Pedro Martinez would have lasted 5 years in the league back then with the workloads they put in. now, with lesser workload and the ability to always let it all hang out because of the lesser workload, he's dominated for a dozen years, with probably a few left in him.

 

furthermore, modern medical science keeps great pitchers in the game longer. that alone keeps the level of pitching way up over what attrition did to pitchers back then.

 

Again though, your argument about them not throwing very hard is silly. Like i've said a million times, a human body is a human body. It hasn't miraculously changed in the past 100 years. People threw a ball just as hard, threw it just as far, ran just as fast.

 

it's not silly. your notion of modern technology, hoards of coaches, nutrition, medicine, off season conditioning instead of working in a coal mine, etc etc. not making a difference is silly. how do you explain the rapid advancement in how fast women's softball pitchers throw. 10-15 mph faster than they did only 20 years ago, mostly due to mechanical changes.

 

I have seen the improvement in velocity in my lifetime. in the 80's, 88-89 was an above average fastball (outside of Ryan and JR Richard). 91 was an impressive fastball. these days entire rosters of pitchers are 90+. in the 80's, a handful of pitchers hit 95. the 2004 Cubs had as many all by themselves.

 

hitting on the other hand, always has been and always will be, primarily a matter of reflexes, something that cannot be appreciably improved upon by training, coaching, technology, etc.

 

Carl Mays clearly threw hard enough to kill Ray Chapman in 1919.

 

and yet his high strike out mark for a season was 114, a year he finished 5th in the league. you don't need 90+ to kill a guy with no helmet. you do however need 90+ to strikeout more than 8 per 9 innings, something that happened all of three times before 1953.

[OleMissCub]

 

The fact is, if you looked at the stats I showed earlier, less than 10 players in 1910 had batting averages over .300. So either the hitters were really crappy or the pitchers were actually good.

 

interesting. if only it were true

 

AL - Lajoie, Cobb, Speaker, Collins, Knight, Oldring, Easterly, Murphy

NL - Magee, Campbell, Hofman, Snodgrass, Wagner, Lobert, Bates, Devore, Konetchy, Schulte

 

 

I was going off my stats on page 5, that were AL only, i should have made that clear. You don't need to be snide in every debate we get into.

 

 

I have seen the improvement in velocity in my lifetime. in the 80's, 88-89 was an above average fastball (outside of Ryan and JR Richard). 91 was an impressive fastball. these days entire rosters of pitchers are 90+. in the 80's, a handful of pitchers hit 95. the 2004 Cubs had as many all by themselves.

 

I'm just going off my personal experience where I've seen plenty of kids without the benefit of mechanical training manage an 85+ fastball. Also have seen quite a few over 90+. On the high school team I coached last year we had 1 kid who could hit 92, and he was 5'9. Our no.2 averaged at 86. My basic point is to say that if those few people who were exceptionally natural athletes in their own time like a Cobb (who was once considered for an olympic track spot), Wagner or Johnson, it would only make sense that they would greatly benefit from modern technology and strength training, and thus be at least on par with our top tier players athletically. Like i've pointed to previously, these guys weren't very small, Cobb was 6'2, 200, Johnson 6'1, 200. Give them our modern benefits and there should be little doubt that these natural athletes would be just as good athletically as our people now.

 

hitting on the other hand, always has been and always will be, primarily a matter of reflexes, something that cannot be appreciably improved upon by training, coaching, technology, etc..

 

That we can agree on, and regardless what one things of their competition level, this is the reason why people like Cobb, Wagner, Lajoie, Speaker, should be respected. Clearly they had something going for them if they were able to hit over .100 points higher than the league average.

[biittner77]

Apologies if someone has mentioned this before:

 

The biggest difficulty in comparing eras is that the approach to the game was different. Players used to be embarassed to strike out. During the dead ball era the emphasis was on small ball and making contact. That would drive down the number of Ks but would also drive down slg% against in terms of number of HRs but might very well even out in terms of extra base hits in the more spacious ballparks.

 

I suspect someone has already mentioned the effects of segregation on baseball. Iseen a lot of debate regarding the quality of play in the Negro League. What I would focus on is not whether the Satchel Paige's of the world would be as effective so much as the average, non superstar player. How good was he? That seems like it would be pretty hard to quantify (in terms of the Negor League which didn't keep very good stats)

[badgercub]

for someone to make the comment that Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth would "crap their pants" if they stood in against a Kerry Wood fastball is ridiculous. I still also contend that their hand/eye coordination, bat speed, and all other natural abilities would allow them to be great in any era.

 

not as ridiculous as the notion that pitchers that threw 35 complete games per year threw any where near as hard or with as much movement as pitchers today. their arms simply could not have withstood the abuse.

 

while I don't think Cobb or Ruth would literally crap their pants, i assure you they would be shocked to see a pitcher throw 95 mph into the late innings, every inning, every batter, all season long. with that said, it's impossible to say what their natural abilities would have allowed them to do if facing today's pitchers. saying they could not only adapt, but still be great, is about as presumptuous as it gets.

 

Why is that presumptious to assume that their hand/eye coodination and bat speed would be just as good today. If I recall, Ted Williams still has the highest test score for some kind of hand/eye coordination drill. Even players of today have not bested it, including guys like Tony Gwynn. In fact I think Gwynn has even made statements that he thinks guys like Williams would probably be better hitters in todays game than they were in their own era.

[jjgman21]

I was going off my stats on page 5, that were AL only, i should have made that clear. You don't need to be snide in every debate we get into.

 

oh will you come off of it. you're just as snide to me in our discussions, and you were chastised by the founder in this very thread for being snide. then you turn around and cry when someone is the same way to you?

 

 

I'm just going off my personal experience where I've seen plenty of kids without the benefit of mechanical training manage an 85+ fastball. Also have seen quite a few over 90+. On the high school team I coached last year we had 1 kid who could hit 92, and he was 5'9. Our no.2 averaged at 86. My basic point is to say that if those few people who were exceptionally natural athletes in their own time like a Cobb (who was once considered for an olympic track spot), Wagner or Johnson, it would only make sense that they would greatly benefit from modern technology and strength training, and thus be at least on par with our top tier players athletically.

 

 

 

I think we've been talking past one another to an extent. I do not think that humans today are geneticly superior and CAN throw harder. it's not a question of whether they had the ability. it's a question of whether they actually DID throw harder and threw hard as consistently as pitchers do today, a question of whether ability was maximized. all one has to do is look at the pitching stats, ie innings pitched, complete games, strikeouts/9, walks, etc. to come up with some pretty damn convincing circumstantial evidence that there was no way in hell that pitchers in Cobbs era were throwing as hard as they are today.

[OleMissCub]

I think we've been talking past one another to an extent. I do not think that humans today are geneticly superior and CAN throw harder. it's not a question of whether they had the ability. it's a question of whether they actually DID throw harder and threw hard as consistently as pitchers do today, a question of whether ability was maximized. all one has to do is look at the pitching stats, ie innings pitched, complete games, strikeouts/9, walks, etc. to come up with some pretty damn convincing circumstantial evidence that there was no way in hell that pitchers in Cobbs era were throwing as hard as they are today.

 

But let's examine the flip side of those pitching stats: hitting stats. If pitchers were not throwing as hard as they do now, one would think that more people back then would hit for higher averages. Pitchers had very low ERA's back then. Indeed, I would credit most of this to the style of ball that was played back then, which I would almost classify as looking more like modern softball than modern baseball i.e. slap hits, drag bunts, etc.

 

However, like someone mentioned earlier, if you study up on deadball baseball, like reading books like "Eight Men Out", Stump's "Cobb" or Creamer's "Babe", you'll see that players thought more about contact than perhaps players now. In Cobb's book "My Life in Baseball", he talks about his plate discipline.

 

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

 

I think the majority of players back then, knowing that hitting the hell out of the ball was going to accomplish very little, spent the majority of their time attempting to make solid contact, rather than free swinging. Look at someone like Ichiro, who averages 64 K's a year, and the way he swings. Basically he looks like he's using a tennis racquet up there, the same holds true if you look at how Gwynn played. He averaged an amazing 29 k's a year. His entire strategy was based on contact and placement.

 

I think it's so tempting for a player today to look at those fences only 330 feet away and want to put one over and get a quick run...back in the day, when the outfield fences were 400-500, the thought probably rarely entered their minds and so they focused purely on contact hitting.