- 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 8/16/16 at 10:44 am to Master of Sinanju
Posted on 8/16/16 at 10:44 am to Master of Sinanju
quote:Don't talk about Pedro like that!!!
Maybe that's why so many pitchers look like nerds rather than stud athletes.
0
Posted on 8/16/16 at 10:56 am to Adam Banks
quote:
Plus baseball is so much hand eye coordination which is purely natural skill that would translate regardless of era
I'm not a baseball guy in any way, so this might be a dumb question but it's purely out of ignorance, because i honestly don't know.
What kind of speeds were pitchers back in teh 20s getting up to?
Posted on 8/16/16 at 11:02 am to shel311
quote:
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.
Because it's not unreasonable to conclude that players with great hand-eye coordination 100 years ago would still have great hand-eye coordination today. Human brain chemistry hasn't changed any since then. And that's the most important talent that the game selects for.
Maybe if all of the biggest strongest players were also the most talented hitters you'd have a point but that's clearly not the case. Jose Altuve is an MVP-level player and look how small he is.
This post was edited on 8/16/16 at 11:06 am
Posted on 8/16/16 at 11:05 am to Goldrush25
quote:I'll answer this way:
Because it's not unreasonable to conclude that players with great hand-eye coordination 100 years ago would still have great hand-eye coordination today. Human brain chemistry hasn't changed any since then. And that's the most important talent that the game selects for.
Take a minor league player who was just not quite good enough for the big leagues in today's game. Do you really not think he'd absolutely wreck shop and completely dominate against much inferior pitching in the 20s?
The difference in pitching would be way too much to get ahold of if we actually just dropped him into today's game and gave him a spring training then started him on day 1 of a season.
Posted on 8/16/16 at 11:08 am to WG_Dawg
quote:They were never able to really measure it. From what I've looked up since this thread started, there are measurements for Walter Johnson(faster pitcher of those days) at around 91 and also 99 with 2 different systems, but who really knows.
I'm not a baseball guy in any way, so this might be a dumb question but it's purely out of ignorance, because i honestly don't know. What kind of speeds were pitchers back in teh 20s getting up to?
I do think we can just use a little logic to point out that over the past 100 years in virtually every aspect of every sport, we've gotten better. So the idea of throwing 99 almost 100 years ago just didn't seem plausible. Throw in they pitched entire games and on 3 day's rest, it's way more likely that day in and day out they were seeing much slower pitching, by a lot I'd think.
Posted on 8/16/16 at 11:37 am to shel311
quote:
I mean, we're talking about 100 years ago. 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.
The racist part of your post aside, we aren't talking about athleticism, that's why it would translate better for a sport like baseball than say football. Someone mentioned it elsewhere in this thread, but you couldn't take a lineman 50 years ago and drop him into today's NFL because so much of the skill is dependent upon sheer size, speed and strength. Let's not pretend that baseball requires some sort of special athletic ability, just look at David Ortiz's stats and his athletic prowess.
Babe Ruth had top notch hand eye coordination and if he had the power to hit a ball out of Yankee Stadium in 1920, I'd wager he has the power to hit a ball out of Yankee Stadium in 2016. He would have to adjust to modern day pitching but those other skills he possessed aren't obsolete in today's game, even if it was 100 years ago. Not all pitchers today are burning 100 mph, the average low 90's fastball is probably as fast as the fastest pitchers threw back then, so there would be an adjustment period, but he's still an MLB caliber ball player.
I've reiterated this multiple times now, and there really isn't any way to truly quantify anything we're arguing, so if you really think Leonys Martin is better at baseball than Babe Ruth, then we're spinning our wheels and can agree to disagree
Posted on 8/16/16 at 11:54 am to LL012697
quote:Sounds like you're saying that part of my post was racist, not that it was a racial element.
The racist part of your post aside
quote:So if I dropped Clayton Kershaw into 1920, you don't think he'd put up the best numbers anyone in those days has ever seen? Same with Griffey Jr? Really?
Let's not pretend that baseball requires some sort of special athletic ability
Posted on 8/16/16 at 12:39 pm to shel311
quote:
Sounds like you're saying that part of my post was racist, not that it was a racial element.
It was. Imagine how unathletic they were back then since the superior black athletes couldn't play! It was all white guys! Besides, that has nothing to do with Babe Ruth's inherent qualities as a baseball player anyways.
quote:
So if I dropped Clayton Kershaw into 1920, you don't think he'd put up the best numbers anyone in those days has ever seen? Same with Griffey Jr? Really?
That isn't being debated here. The thread is about how Babe Ruth would fare in the modern game. Of course basic evolution of technology and science is going to favor current athletes going back in time. This is about a past athlete moving to the future and whether or not he could cut it in today's game. He would be good enough to still be a major league ball player IMO, albeit not a GOAT player that he was
Posted on 8/16/16 at 12:48 pm to shel311
quote:
I hope you're joking if you think athletes from the '20s were as good/athletic as guys from today.
I think you're overestimating the evolution of humans in 100 years. That may seem like a long time, but it's not long enough to evolve athleticism. Today's baseball players are probably better athletes due to the much wider pool of people to choose from. Today's athletes are obviously in better shape due to diet, training, and again that pool of people to pick from. And they're likely much more skilled having more time and resources to train.
And I agree that a fringe player today would be really good in 1920, and a fringe player then couldn't sniff the bigs now. But there's just no way to count out the greats of 100 years ago being able to compete today. And to think that some outlier couldn't throw in the 90s is absurd. You think there was no such thing as a 6'4" man 100 years ago? One that maybe didn't work out with weights, but bailed hay all day long?
I was trying to find out how big Walter Johnson was and came across this some interesting tidbits. He grew up on a farm in Kansas, then started working in the oilfields when he was 14. He was "only" 6'1", but was nicknamed "The Big Swede" or "The Big Train." He also had freakishly long arms at 34." Much longer than normal for his height, longer even than Cy Falkenburg and Carl Weilman of the Sam era, who stood 6'5" and 6'6" respectively.
So, I'd imagine he had a Pedro-like whip, generating much more velocity than he would appear to have been able to.
Ty Cobb said this the first time he faced him:
quote:
"On August 2, 1907, I encountered the most threatening sight I ever saw in the ball field. He was a rookie, and we licked our lips as we warmed up for the first game of a doubleheader in Washington. Evidently, manager Pongo Joe Cantillon of the Nats had picked a rube out of the cornfields of the deepest bushes to pitch against us. ... He was a tall, shambling galoot of about twenty, with arms so long they hung far out of his sleeves, and with a sidearm delivery that looked unimpressive at first glance. ... One of the Tigers imitated a cow mooing, and we hollered at Cantillon: 'Get the pitchfork ready, Joe—your hayseed's on his way back to the barn.' ... The first time I faced him, I watched him take that easy windup. And then something went past me that made me flinch. The thing just hissed with danger. We couldn't touch him. ... every one of us knew we'd met the most powerful arm ever turned loose in a ball park
And this is just Walter Johnson. Ty Cobb was 6'1" and Cy Young was 6'2". I agree that players on the whole are much better today. But to pretend that it was a bunch of midgets running around against each other throwing 70 mph iin 1920 is absurd. Greatness plays. In any era.
This post was edited on 8/16/16 at 12:51 pm
Posted on 8/16/16 at 12:56 pm to LL012697
I think people look at old footage of basketball and how lame they look and translate that to every sport which isn't a fair comparison. "Because basketball in the 30's looks slow and lame, baseball must've been slow and lame."
There's no doubt people have gotten faster and jumped higher. The WR in the 100M dash was 10.2 in 1936 by Jesse Owens.
The progression of the 100M is interesting. It goes down. .01 about every 10-20 years from 1921 onwards to the early 60's.
Then it makes a giant leap in the late 60's and starts making more giant leaps from the 80's until now. The late 60's was the birth of PEDs on the sports scene...started with weightlifters, moved to football players and then sprinters and then all athletes.
I don't know how awesome Ruth would be today, but without drugs...human progression in sports isn't as great as some of you make it out to be. It's only been 80 years since Ruth...that's not a lot of time to get that much better in terms of evolution...it doesn't work like that. If Ruth had today's trainers and nutrition and took those "special vitamins" his ability would still be his ability and he'd adapt to the Bonds way.
But ability is skill. Skill doesn't get that much better in 80 years. All we have evolved is training, a little more advanced play, nutrition and of course, lots of drugs.
There's no doubt people have gotten faster and jumped higher. The WR in the 100M dash was 10.2 in 1936 by Jesse Owens.
The progression of the 100M is interesting. It goes down. .01 about every 10-20 years from 1921 onwards to the early 60's.
Then it makes a giant leap in the late 60's and starts making more giant leaps from the 80's until now. The late 60's was the birth of PEDs on the sports scene...started with weightlifters, moved to football players and then sprinters and then all athletes.
I don't know how awesome Ruth would be today, but without drugs...human progression in sports isn't as great as some of you make it out to be. It's only been 80 years since Ruth...that's not a lot of time to get that much better in terms of evolution...it doesn't work like that. If Ruth had today's trainers and nutrition and took those "special vitamins" his ability would still be his ability and he'd adapt to the Bonds way.
But ability is skill. Skill doesn't get that much better in 80 years. All we have evolved is training, a little more advanced play, nutrition and of course, lots of drugs.
Posted on 8/16/16 at 12:57 pm to Les Miles Lunchbox
without steroids, 58 HR, 59 HR, 58 HR, 60 HR.
his edge was his vision.
He could not enjoy motion pictures because he could see the frames advancing.
his edge was his vision.
He could not enjoy motion pictures because he could see the frames advancing.
Posted on 8/16/16 at 1:19 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
The WR in the 100M dash was 10.2 in 1936 by Jesse Owens.
Which still would have made the semi final in Rio, against the best in the world today. I think people are too quick to dismiss athletes of yesteryear.
This post was edited on 8/16/16 at 1:24 pm
Posted on 8/16/16 at 1:26 pm to Les Miles Lunchbox
Posted on 8/16/16 at 1:33 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
The late 60's was the birth of PEDs on the sports scene...started with weightlifters, moved to football players and then sprinters and then all athletes.
LA Tech gave steroids to football players in the early 60's.
1. Some guys just used them to heal from injuries.
2. Some guys used all the time and were ferocious to be around,
"roid rage".
Posted on 8/16/16 at 2:16 pm to shel311
quote:
Take a minor league player who was just not quite good enough for the big leagues in today's game. Do you really not think he'd absolutely wreck shop and completely dominate against much inferior pitching in the 20s?
I guess we're arguing two different things. You're talking about traveling back in time and dropping some minor leaguer of today into MLB of 100 years ago. That's not what I'm arguing.
I'm arguing that Ruth had decent size by any era's measure. He obviously hit everything they had to offer back then. Someone with his height and weight with great hand-eye coordination is going to be able to play in the league. I'm arguing that you really don't even need the height and the weight if you have the hand-eye coordination. You look at Dustin Pedroia, Pedro Martinez, Jose Altuve, I'm sure MLB guys can list more players that aren't physically imposing yet have had HOF-level careers. That hand-eye coordination is not something that the modern era developed. It was in us 100 years ago. It was in us 300 years ago.
How good would Ruth be? No way to tell.
This post was edited on 8/16/16 at 2:27 pm
Posted on 8/16/16 at 3:34 pm to LL012697
quote:I assume you're joking, but I can't tell.
Imagine how unathletic they were back then since the superior black athletes couldn't play! It was all white guys!
Posted on 8/16/16 at 3:42 pm to Hot Carl
quote:The difference is like night and day in the evolution of the modern athlete compared to 100 years ago IMO.
I think you're overestimating the evolution of humans in 100 years. That may seem like a long time, but it's not long enough to evolve athleticism
quote:Probably?
Today's baseball players are probably better athletes due to the much wider pool of people to choose from.
quote:I keep going back to the most dominant pitcher ever, Walter Johnson. Not just a random SP, the most dominant ever. Even if I concede he always threw in the 90s(which is seemingly impossible), how much easier do you think it was to face a guy who only basically relied on 1 low 90s fastball in his career to be the most dominant SP ever. Now factor he pitched 9 innings virtually every start and pitched on 3 day's rest. Now take the AVERAGE starter back in that day and compare them to the average starter today. I feel like this is bizarre, think about all of that, the gulf between the 2 are hard to even comprehend, so I don't get how I'm overstating it.
But there's just no way to count out the greats of 100 years ago being able to compete today.
I'll repeat, the most dominant SP of that time(and probably ever) relied on mostly 1 pitch that MAY have reached 90mph on occasion.
quote:Well, I didn't say 70mph, to start. And you've even said a fringe player today would be really good then, so there's that as well.
But to pretend that it was a bunch of midgets running around against each other throwing 70 mph iin 1920 is absurd.
quote:Baseball would be the most likely, but I don't agree with that in the least.
Greatness plays. In any era.
I'll go Walter Johnson again. How do you think he'd fare on mostly 1 pitch, a fastball that was at the very best, average by today's definition, and possibly below average? Would his greatness play in today's era? If so, how?
Posted on 8/16/16 at 3:51 pm to shel311
quote:
The difference is like night and day in the evolution of the modern athlete compared to 100 years ago IMO.
Of course. But it's due to training, diet, and the vastly larger pool of players to choose from. Not genetic evolution which you seem to be suggesting.
Posted on 8/16/16 at 3:58 pm to shel311
From wiki: Johnson was also friendly with Babe Ruth, despite Ruth's having hit some of his longest home runs off him at Griffith Stadium.
The harder they throw the further the ball flies.
The harder they throw the further the ball flies.
Posted on 8/16/16 at 4:00 pm to Hot Carl
quote:am I?
Of course. But it's due to training, diet, and the vastly larger pool of players to choose from. Not genetic evolution which you seem to be suggesting.
I've specifically said multiple times I'm talking about if you dropped him into today's game as is, not if you gave him a career of everything today has to offer.
But I'll ask again, how do you think Walter Johnson would fare in today's game?
This post was edited on 8/16/16 at 4:02 pm
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News