- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How would Babe Ruth fare in the steroid era?
Posted on 8/15/16 at 5:47 pm to lsufball19
Posted on 8/15/16 at 5:47 pm to lsufball19
quote:
oh it was obviously sketchy, not debating that. but i think it's safe to say he wasn't throwing in the upper 90s or lower 100s, on average, like today's fastest throwers are.
I don't think you got a high 90 guy until Feller.
Guys in the 1920's paced themselves also - throwing complete games and pitching a lot more - I mean Walter Johnson pitched 371 innings one year.
Now the league leaders are at 230.
2
Posted on 8/15/16 at 6:09 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
I don't think you got a high 90 guy until Feller.
Maybe, but we don't know. There have always been big-arse Paul Bunyuns strong as shite. There may be a lot more now, but I'm sure there were dudes who could pump it up there from time to time.
quote:
Guys in the 1920's paced themselves also - throwing complete games and pitching a lot more - I mean Walter Johnson pitched 371 innings one year.
No doubt. There's no way you could throw every pitch full velocity throwing as much as they did. But I'm gonna bet they weren't grooving em up to ol Babe. I'm sure he amped them up and got their best stuff.
Posted on 8/15/16 at 6:39 pm to Hot Carl
I wonder if anyone has ever changed anyone's mind in one of these time travel threads.
Lots of college sophomores know more physics than Einstein.
Lots of college sophomores know more physics than Einstein.
Posted on 8/15/16 at 9:51 pm to Les Miles Lunchbox
These are always fun questions to ponder because I always end up with new factors to ponder.
I think that he's the greatest homerun hitter of his time. If he had the work ethic, diet, etc, he'd probably be close to that now.
I think that he's the greatest homerun hitter of his time. If he had the work ethic, diet, etc, he'd probably be close to that now.
Posted on 8/15/16 at 10:05 pm to PairofDucks
quote:
I think that he's the greatest homerun hitter of his time.
Bold take.
Posted on 8/16/16 at 6:59 am to LL012697
quote:I mean, we're talking about 100 years ago.
And I think you're overrating it somewhat. The game is different, but the basic skills needed to succeed haven't changed that much. He still had tremendous hand eye coordination and the power to hit balls out of today's ballparks. It comes down to how well could he handle today's pitching. If you just dropped him straight out of the DeLorean into today's game he of course would have to adjust, which could take him a while if he ever fully did. But that is why I said he wouldn't be Babe Ruth as we remember him, i.e. He isn't going to hit 60 bombs and OPS 1.350. But he also isn't going to be a career AA player either as you were implying
I think it's hard to comprehend just how not athletic leagues were back then, especially considering the whole black guys not being allowed thing.
I personally don't think any player dropped into today's game could do much of anything. Basically, guys who never make it to the big leagues in today's game are infinitely better than your average and probably good players back then.
Posted on 8/16/16 at 7:03 am to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:That's another point that can't be overlooked. How would the MLB look if guys were pitching 300+ innings? No SP would come near 100 mph if they were pitching that much, so you can imagine and assume basically all pitchers in the 1910s/1920s weren't even getting near 90mph on the vast majority of their pitches. I think that's a safe assumption.
I don't think you got a high 90 guy until Feller. Guys in the 1920's paced themselves also - throwing complete games and pitching a lot more - I mean Walter Johnson pitched 371 innings one year. Now the league leaders are at 230.
I mean, guys are facing harder pitches in high school and AAU ball nowadays. I really don't know why we'd think a guy could all of a sudden hit pitches 10+mph faster than he's likely ever seen and also actual types of pitches he's never seen before, since pitchers back in that day were most 2 pitch guys, with a 3rd pitch mixed in. It just doesn't seem very realistic to think you can just drop any guy from 90 years ago into today's game and expect anything other than a disaster.
Posted on 8/16/16 at 7:05 am to shel311
Harder pitches means further balls hit upon contact.
Have to account for Ruth playing effectively in the dead ball era
Have to account for Ruth playing effectively in the dead ball era
Posted on 8/16/16 at 7:29 am to Rouge
Good point. Some posters are focused on "today's athletes are so much better" line of thinking (which I don't really agree with in the first place). But more importantly, Ruth's swing mechanics and hand eye coordination are timeless, meaning that you could drop him into the box and his swing would allow him to rake in today's MLB. It may take some adjustment period but not long in my opinion. He might swing a lighter bat than the 50 oz log he swung at times. But his swing is as good or better than anyone in today's game.
Posted on 8/16/16 at 8:03 am to bayoujd
quote:Then almost 100 years ago?
Some posters are focused on "today's athletes are so much better" line of thinking (which I don't really agree with in the first place).
I hope you're joking if you think athletes from the '20s were as good/athletic as guys from today.
quote:Doubtful, almost improbable considering he'd be seeing pitch speeds and actual pitch types like nothing he's remotely ever seen before.
Ruth's swing mechanics and hand eye coordination are timeless, meaning that you could drop him into the box and his swing would allow him to rake in today's MLB
Posted on 8/16/16 at 8:04 am to Les Miles Lunchbox
quote:
How would Babe Ruth fare in the steroid era?
A completely unfair way to examine Babe Ruth.
Posted on 8/16/16 at 9:01 am to shel311
How athletic is Ortiz, dude is 40 yo and listed at 230
BA.312 HR 27 RBI 92
BA.312 HR 27 RBI 92
Posted on 8/16/16 at 9:10 am to StickD
quote:Just want to make sure I have your opinion correct here...
How athletic is Ortiz, dude is 40 yo and listed at 230 BA.312 HR 27 RBI 92
You're saying that athletes from the 1920s are just as good as athletes today? Athletes today are not actually bigger/stronger/faster and dropping any of the top 5-10 hitters or pitchers in today's game, and they wouldn't dominate in the 1920s on an absurd level?
Is that what you're saying?
And to your point on Ortiz, he has proven a great ability to hit pitching in TODAY'S game. That's the difference, and that's no small difference.
This post was edited on 8/16/16 at 9:11 am
Posted on 8/16/16 at 9:18 am to shel311
My point is you don't have to be super athletic.
Are the majority of mlb players, sure.
I don't think you appreciate the skill of hitting a baseball. Babe Ruth would hit today.
Are the majority of mlb players, sure.
I don't think you appreciate the skill of hitting a baseball. Babe Ruth would hit today.
Posted on 8/16/16 at 9:21 am to shel311
quote:
You think the guys was facing in 1920 were 1/100th as good as players today?
I think Walter Johnson threw just as hard as Randy Johnson
That is a little unfair though as Walter Johnson is the most dominant player in his era of all time. Shouldn't be surprising that he could play in multiple eras
This post was edited on 8/16/16 at 9:22 am
Posted on 8/16/16 at 9:24 am to StickD
quote:I just don't see how anyone can be so confident. He never saw pitching 1/10th as good as today's pitching.
I don't think you appreciate the skill of hitting a baseball. Babe Ruth would hit today
I don't think you can just say "well, he'd hit any pitching", there's really no basis for that. He spent his entire life hitting much slower pitching, pitchers with 2 pitches, pitchers pitching wayyyyy more innings and thus not really at full strength. It's just so unlikely that you could drop him into today's game and expect anything at all from him.
Posted on 8/16/16 at 9:32 am to GenesChin
quote:Why would you think that?
I think Walter Johnson threw just as hard as Randy Johnson
quote:Walter Johnson? It's a whole of a lot more likely that he barely reached 90mph than coming anywhere near Randy Johnson. He was measured at 91mph. Seems like it wasn't surely accurate, but there's also no way to know in which direction it may have missed, if it did.
Shouldn't be surprising that he could play in multiple eras
So a guy topping out at 90mph, pitching on 3 day's rest(so he's basically never reaching top speeds), and pitching almost exclusively fastballs as he rarely relied on his other 2 pitches...that guy would fare well in today's game?? How?
This post was edited on 8/16/16 at 9:32 am
Posted on 8/16/16 at 10:20 am to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
is this the one where they used a motorcycle?
In 1914, Johnson was clocked against a motorcycle at 99.7.
Feller was said to have beaten 100 several times, and was measured by the US Army at 98.6.
Ryan broke 100 almost 50 years ago.
Even so, throwing faster does not equal pitching better. I would think facing three pitchers per game may be the biggest adjustment to the modern game an old time player would have to make.
A GOAT level hitter has all the tools and ability, and if given a spring training or so to adjust, I still think they would be fine.
Posted on 8/16/16 at 10:22 am to Master of Sinanju
quote:Holy shite, never really thought to realize that Nolan Ryan starting in the bigs 50 years ago. That's wild.
Ryan broke 100 almost 50 years ago.
quote:Just thinking logically, it makes no sense honestly. Think about how much bigger and better we've gotten in terms of athleticism, and that's basically just not logical to think he can nearly reach 100 in 1914 IMO. The one that recorded him at 91 is more likely.
In 1914, Johnson was clocked against a motorcycle at 99.7.
Throw in those dudes always pitched all 9 innings and went on 3 day's rest, seems even more obvious that they were likely not often hitting 90, much less coming up on 100.
It would probably be the only thing in all of sports that we've gone backwards in the past 100 years, so yea again, it's not logical to think that is accurate.
This post was edited on 8/16/16 at 10:25 am
Posted on 8/16/16 at 10:39 am to shel311
quote:
Think about how much bigger and better we've gotten in terms of athleticism, and that's basically just not logical to think he can nearly reach 100 in 1914 IMO.
Maybe, but I don't think throwing faster is really a function of arm muscle strength. More about technique and putting the correct torque on the shoulder. Maybe that's why so many pitchers look like nerds rather than stud athletes.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News