- 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 2:48 pm to Les Miles Lunchbox
Posted on 8/15/16 at 2:48 pm to Les Miles Lunchbox
He'd have been a stud. His swing is timeless and is better than 99% of current MLB players. He might not use a 40-50 oz bat nowadays but he would still mash.
0
Posted on 8/15/16 at 3:02 pm to lsufball19
quote:
While that number is probably not exact, one would at least surmise that pitchers of his day, on average, were considerably slower than today. If Johnson was the fastest throwing pitcher, clocking in at 91 MPH, imagine what an average pitcher was throwing
Yeah but the batters were not in the shape that they're in today either so I believe it's a wash.
100 years is a fraction of a drop in the bucket as far as human evolution of neurobiology goes. The same type of hand-eye coordination that exists today, existed back then. Ruth had it to be as good as he was.
This post was edited on 8/15/16 at 3:10 pm
Posted on 8/15/16 at 3:32 pm to Fletch F Fletch
quote:
The Babe is, sure, one of the best rye whiskey drinkers of all time, but how would he fare in this new Fireball era?
I'm reminded of an anecdote from Bill James about the Tigers 2B, Charlie Gehringer. After a game against the Indians in 1936, Gehringer was asked who threw harder: Bob Feller or Walter Johnson? Gehringer was one of the few hitters who played long enough to face both pitchers. Gehringer replied that Johnson unquestionably threw harder. Since Johnson was in the twilight of his career when Gehringer faced him while Feller was 17, that statement seemed to clearly indicate that Johnson must have thrown much harder than Feller at his peak. But that really isn't the case. Gehringer faced Johnson when he was a 23-year-old rookie. He wasn't used to hitting against major league pitchers so a fastball from Johnson probably seemed like 100+ MPH. When Gehringer hit against Feller, he had been in the big leagues for 10+ years and was used to hitting against the best pitchers in the world. So even if Feller threw harder than Johnson, his fastball wouldn't appear to be as fast or difficult to hit.
And that's how I view this situation. All of the great old-time position players would be awful in the beginning trying to adjust to the velocity of current major league fastballs and movement of the breaking balls. But if you give them enough at-bats, their hand-eye coordination will get used to the movement and velocity and they would probably do just fine. Now would they be as dominant as they were back in their day? Certainly not. But they would be good enough to be on a major league roster.
Posted on 8/15/16 at 3:34 pm to lsufball19
quote:
While that number is probably not exact, one would at least surmise that pitchers of his day, on average, were considerably slower than today. If Johnson was the fastest throwing pitcher, clocking in at 91 MPH, imagine what an average pitcher was throwing
The counter-argument to that (if we assume such rudimentary measurements back then are valid and can be translated today - is this the one where they used a motorcycle?)
They doctored the baseball like crazy back then, umps were lassez-faire and sometimes the baseballs were so scuffed they were black.
And yes, most of the pitches were fastball, change-up and curve...a few had a screwball.
This post was edited on 8/15/16 at 3:36 pm
Posted on 8/15/16 at 3:43 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
is this the one where they used a motorcycle?
i wanna say the motorcycle was someone else. i feel like with johnson they used an apparatus where he threw the ball through an opening of some device at home plate. it's been awhile since i've watched that documentary so i can't be certain. really interesting though. the most interesting was clocking nolan ryan when he was with the angels. he was clocked somewhere around 100 but the measurement was taken from further away than pitchers of today are clocked. using math far above anything i can understand, they estimated him actually throwing like 106+
ETA: here is a link that explains how they clocked Johnson
LINK /
think it was bob fellar who was clocked against a motorcycle
LINK
This post was edited on 8/15/16 at 3:46 pm
Posted on 8/15/16 at 3:52 pm to Les Miles Lunchbox
The best way to handle these time-travel questions is to look at it as a comparison versus the player's contemporaries.
In 1920, Ruth hit more HR's than all but one team. In 1998, that would equal 222 HR's. Hell, the Pirates had the least homeruns, and they hit 107.
Yes, if you put 1920's Ruth into the 2000's, he wouldn't be as big or fast or strong. But that is an unfair proposition.
Ruth was so much better than his competition, it took 40 years for someone to break his total homerun record.
It took 60 years for a juiced up McGuire to break his single season record.
He still holds the top 3 single season WARs of all time (and 4 of the top 6).
Give him the same training, development, and benefit as modern players.... who can honestly say that he wouldn't have been equal to or better than Bonds/McGuire/Sosa?
In 1920, Ruth hit more HR's than all but one team. In 1998, that would equal 222 HR's. Hell, the Pirates had the least homeruns, and they hit 107.
Yes, if you put 1920's Ruth into the 2000's, he wouldn't be as big or fast or strong. But that is an unfair proposition.
Ruth was so much better than his competition, it took 40 years for someone to break his total homerun record.
It took 60 years for a juiced up McGuire to break his single season record.
He still holds the top 3 single season WARs of all time (and 4 of the top 6).
Give him the same training, development, and benefit as modern players.... who can honestly say that he wouldn't have been equal to or better than Bonds/McGuire/Sosa?
Posted on 8/15/16 at 3:55 pm to lsufball19
quote:
"In 1917, a Bridgeport, Connecticut munitions laboratory recorded Johnson's fastball at 134 feet per second, which is equal to 91.36 miles per hour (147.03 km/h), a velocity which was virtually unique in Johnson's day,"
1917 was still the dead ball era. Spitballs were still allowed. They would retrieve foul balls/HRs from the stands and would keep using them until they began to unravel. You could scuff the shite out of a ball w/pretty much no worries of getting into trouble. Balls would often turn dark brown from being used all game making them very difficult to see. Brushing back a hitter was far easier b/c you weren't as easily tossed for throwing at a batter on purpose. Batters didn't have helmets or protective gear that allows them to stand in there and take a shot w/o fear like they do now. The mounds weren't even a consistently regulated height. They could be changed according to the pitcher's preference and could be high as 15 inches, in some cases were completely flat, or even had inward depression (today is a strict 10 inches). Pitchers didn't throw in the 90s b/c they really didn't have to.
People saying you couldn't drop the greats into the modern era should recognize that same applies to today's greats getting dropped into the past.
This post was edited on 8/15/16 at 4:15 pm
Posted on 8/15/16 at 4:03 pm to LL012697
quote:I just think we're underrating how different the game is today and how much better and more athletic players are today.
Whoa lets pump the brakes here . I get the spirit of what you're saying, and he wouldn't be the Babe Ruth we know, at least at first. However he also isn't going to be worse than Colby Rasmus either
My disclaimer was that if you dropped him into today's game, meaning he didn't have a lifetime of training, nutrition, understanding today's game. He wouldn't have a chance, to be honest.
Posted on 8/15/16 at 4:05 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:I can't actually prove that, but we all know they were throwing slower.
So unless you can prove that Walter Johnson and the like were throwing so much slower back then, your assertion isn't really based on anything but assumption of time.
And in fairness, you can't prove me wrong either.
Posted on 8/15/16 at 4:12 pm to Goldrush25
quote:If we assume that to be somewhat or close to true about the faster SP topping out at 91mph, now make that so in today's game. Honestly, half the league would put up Babe Ruth style numbers, especially when you consider they didn't have the arsenal of off speed stuff like they do nowadays, then throw in the fact that they pitched 300-400 innings, which will just further lessen their stuff/speed of pitches. Put the most average hitter in today's game and let him face that type of pitching. How does he NOT put up Ruth type numbers?
Yeah but the batters were not in the shape that they're in today either so I believe it's a wash. 100 years is a fraction of a drop in the bucket as far as human evolution of neurobiology goes. The same type of hand-eye coordination that exists today, existed back then. Ruth had it to be as good as he was.
Posted on 8/15/16 at 4:14 pm to lsufball19
quote:Even if you're just close, that basically means just about the entire league's hardest pitches were under 90, but if we dropped Ruth into today's game, we're supposed to believe he'd fare just fine? That makes no sense to me.
they were. there is actually a documentary on netflix called Fastball that goes through the history of different best fastball pitchers of their time. Walter Johnson is specifically documented. Johnson was actually the first pitcher to ever have his pitch speed measured "In 1917, a Bridgeport, Connecticut munitions laboratory recorded Johnson's fastball at 134 feet per second, which is equal to 91.36 miles per hour (147.03 km/h), a velocity which was virtually unique in Johnson's day," While that number is probably not exact, one would at least surmise that pitchers of his day, on average, were considerably slower than today. If Johnson was the fastest throwing pitcher, clocking in at 91 MPH, imagine what an average pitcher was throwing
The pitching is world's better, like nothing he would have ever seen.
It's page 2, and I feel the need to add my disclaimer again, that I have Ruth as the GOAT, because I judge it by dominance of your contemporaries. But you can't drop any player from the '20s into today's game and expect them to have any kind of chance IMO.
Posted on 8/15/16 at 4:17 pm to shel311
quote:
The pitching is world's better, like nothing he would have ever seen.
Once again, that is not necessarily true.
Just go up a few posts to see what I was saying about the rules (or lack thereof) for the pitcher's mound and the balls.
This post was edited on 8/15/16 at 4:17 pm
Posted on 8/15/16 at 4:28 pm to shel311
quote:
My disclaimer was that if you dropped him into today's game, meaning he didn't have a lifetime of training, nutrition, understanding today's game. He wouldn't have a chance, to be honest.
I'm not one to say that nobody from yesteryear would be good enough to play today. Someone in a recent thread suggested Wilt Chamberlain couldn't play in today's NBA, which is absurd. I think if Babe had grown up to play now--and if he cared enough to work as hard as he'd have to--his superior hand-eye coordination and pure power would make him one of the best hitters in the game.
But in your scenario of dropping 1920s Babe Ruth into 2016, I think he'd be Adam Dunn or somebody. No way he's getting that 40 inch/40 ounce telephone pole around on relievers throwing 98+ in the 7th-9th innings. But he obviously was a cock-strong SOB. I know the Polo Grounds was shot down the lines, but wasn't it 450 or something to center? To launch so many over that in the dead ball era is impressive, no matter how slow the pitching was.
Posted on 8/15/16 at 4:47 pm to Hot Carl
quote:
but wasn't it 450 or something to center?
think it was closer to 500 to dead center
Posted on 8/15/16 at 4:48 pm to lsufball19
Thanks for the link.
That Walter Johnson timing seems pretty sketchy.
. It measured the speed of the ball as it passed the front end of the tunnel until it smashed into a steel plate at the end of the tunnel. The first-ever measured pitching velocities were 83 mph (Walter Johnson) and 77 mph (Nap Rucker). As the device measured the pitches at the end of their flight, after they’d lost several miles per hour of initial speed, one could hardly say the measurements were accurate or comparable to the later measurement efforts.
That Walter Johnson timing seems pretty sketchy.
. It measured the speed of the ball as it passed the front end of the tunnel until it smashed into a steel plate at the end of the tunnel. The first-ever measured pitching velocities were 83 mph (Walter Johnson) and 77 mph (Nap Rucker). As the device measured the pitches at the end of their flight, after they’d lost several miles per hour of initial speed, one could hardly say the measurements were accurate or comparable to the later measurement efforts.
Posted on 8/15/16 at 4:51 pm to Hot Carl
quote:
No way he's getting that 40 inch/40 ounce telephone pole around on relievers throwing 98+ in the 7th-9th innings.
Well the OP said steroid era.
Assuming Ruth is taking roids and working out and not just eating hot-dogs and chasing women, there's no reason he couldn't remain the Colossus.
There are some athletes that are so much better than everyone else when they played they can cross timelines.
Posted on 8/15/16 at 4:52 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
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 think it's also safe to say the average pitchers were not throwing anywhere near as hard as guys today either. i do find it interesting looking at all the different methods used to clock pitchers. i highly recommend that doc if you have netflix
This post was edited on 8/15/16 at 4:53 pm
Posted on 8/15/16 at 5:02 pm to shel311
quote:
I just think we're underrating how different the game is today and how much better and more athletic players are today.
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
Posted on 8/15/16 at 5:06 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
Assuming Ruth is taking roids and working out and not just eating hot-dogs and chasing women, there's no reason he couldn't remain the Colossus.
I don't care how many steroids a guy is taking, you're not turning around and squaring up a 98-mile/hour heater with a 40/40 pole on the reg.
Posted on 8/15/16 at 5:28 pm to Master of Sinanju
You put any great athlete in any era, and they would conform to the standards of the day and excel.
In other words, he had natural talent and if brought up today he would look much different but perform about the same.
In other words, he had natural talent and if brought up today he would look much different but perform about the same.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News