Just curious...

[writerman]

I spend most of my time on the NBA board, where I am known as an outspoken defender of the ability of the old-timers--Chamberlain, Oscar, West, Frazier, Havlicek-- to compete in the NBA if they were in their prime today. I'm 64, and saw those guys play in person, and it irritates me when I get a lot of "the game has evolved" stuff from the kids who post there, some of them going so far as to say those guys would be D-Leaguers or bench players today.

I'm just curious to see how posters here think players from my era--late 40s to 70s, after which I essentailly lost intererst in the game for a long time--in their primes would do in the majors today. Does the same kind of "old timers were scrubs and couldn't compete today" exist on the baseball forums as well?

Some examples:

Ted Williams
Bob Feller
Hal Newhouser
Mickey Mantle
Willie Mays
Al Kaline
Brooks Robinson
Jim Palmer
Don Drysdale
Roberto Clemente
Luis Tiant
Tony Oliva
Harmon Killebrew
Gaylord Perry
Jim Bunning
Dave McNally
Camillo Pascual

Comments?

[Bleeding Green]

I have no idea, and have no idea how you can compare eras to be honest. These guys didn't train like today's athletes. They had jobs in the offseason. The game is now a global sport, blah blah blah. Today's athletes have been groomed since they were born; is this true of guys like Bob Feller? I really doubt it.

The players with transcendent talent like Mantle and Williams would almost certainly be elite MVP caliber players in today's game. Guys like Tony Oliva, though, I have doubts about.

[writerman]

I have no idea, and have no idea how you can compare eras to be honest. These guys didn't train like today's athletes. They had jobs in the offseason. The game is now a global sport, blah blah blah. Today's athletes have been groomed since they were born; is this true of guys like Bob Feller? I really doubt it.

The players with transcendent talent like Mantle and Williams would almost certainly be elite MVP caliber players in today's game. Guys like Tony Oliva, though, I have doubts about.

No offense, but you're wrong. I don't believe a single one of those guys on that list that "had jobs" in the offseason, other maybe than promoting the team they were playing for or some sort of hobby/avocation. They were all full-time ballplayers.

I'm also not a believer that better athlete automatically = better ballplayer. Baseball is a game where timing, quickness, and eye-hand coordination--all of which are mostly inborn and none of which can be more than very marginally improved upon by training if at all--are more important than sheer physical strength or stamina.

I'm not impressed with what I see in the game today, to be honest--it seems more and more like a strictly a power game in which the importance of strategy has been significantly diminished, and as a result is to me it is a less interesting game. The ball is clearly livelier, the mound is lower, and it seems performance enhancing drugs (does that count as "training?") are everywhere. Top players are shuffled like a deck of cards every year--unless wins and losses are all that matter to you as a fan, there doesn't seem to be the kind of fan loyalty to a team and attachment to a particular player like there was in the past.

I'll admit I don't spend a lot of time in the MLB forum here, but in the time I have spent here, it seems to me another thing has been lost--I see very little discussion of the great and rich traditions of the game, very little discussion of the storied past of the game and its legends. That's unfortunate. It is something that made baseball unique that seems to be missing, at least in these forums. I guess maybe fantasy baseball is at least in part the cause of that.

The game today is indeed "different"--but I question whether it is better. The guys playing it may be marginally better athletes, but they don't seem to be better ballplayers in any way that can be objectively measured. Teams today have pitchers in their rotation whose ERAs would have gotten them a one-way trip back to the minors in previous decades. Averages are higher and power stats are higher at least in significant part because of the lower mound, the clearly livelier ball, and generally shorter fences.

The one area, it seems to me, where modern training and medicine have made a significant difference is in the number of years a player can expect to have in a career---career records are broken because of that factor.

It's ironic you mention Oliva in particular--the guy was a natural born hitter.

[Da Schwab]

Please explain what a 'livelier' ball is.

[writerman]

Please explain what a 'livelier' ball is.

Don't be disingenuous...there have been studies done that establish beyond a doubt that the ball used in the majors today given the same amount oof force exerted on it comes off the bat faster and flies farther than the balls used in say, the 60s. It's dishonest to deny what is obvious to anyone who observes, and for which there is mounting scientific evidence.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... rther.html

http://major-league-baseball.suite101.c ... hitey_ford

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1002

http://discovermagazine.com/2001/may/featphysics

This last gives a good summary of other facts that favor hitters over pitchers in the game today...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/outdoor ... tml?page=3

[High 5]

We get it, everything was better in the 40's-70's.

[Da Schwab]

Who was being disingenuous? I was asking for clarification. I've always heard the term, but never knew what exactly it meant.

[Schad]

Please explain what a 'livelier' ball is.

Don't be disingenuous...there have been studies done that establish beyond a doubt that the ball used in the majors today given the same amount oof force exerted on it comes off the bat faster and flies farther than the balls used in say, the 60s. It's dishonest to deny what is obvious to anyone who observes, and for which there is mounting scientific evidence.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... rther.html

http://major-league-baseball.suite101.c ... hitey_ford

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1002

http://discovermagazine.com/2001/may/featphysics

This last gives a good summary of other facts that favor hitters over pitchers in the game today...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/outdoor ... tml?page=3

True, though there were also factors which aided the hitter over pitching decades ago. This was an outfielder's glove in the 1960s:



And infielders' gloves were even more unwieldy. If that difference in equipment is worth 15 hits a year (which is a pretty conservative estimate), that translates to a nearly 10% jump in batting average. Plenty of developments today have boosted power in the modern game, but it's not a completely linear process whereby any hitting numbers today can be automatically inferior to hitting numbers in decades past.

That said, you'd have to think that the modern skew toward power would bode really poorly for a guy like El Tiante. During the early half of his career, he gave up home runs at a rate higher than most top pitchers of the era..transpose him into the modern era, where that would be amplified, and he might not have survived his injury-plagued years to pitch into his forties.

[studcrackers]

i think they'd be lucky to be the 25th man on teams today

[writerman]

We get it, everything was better in the 40's-70's.

Maybe not better, but no worse--and I think a lot more interesting. It seems to me there was more strategy involved in the past. Today the game seems to have devolved into just a sheer power game, power vs power. And I think the constant movement from team to team of the stars of the game really hurts the game's popularity among the many who like to see them stay with "the home team" for at least the majority of their careers. I was a major fan of Al Kaline and Brooks Robinson. It would have been hard to accept them as anything but a Detroit Tiger or Baltimore Oriole, respectively. It's unimaginable to think of Mickey Mantle as anything but a Yankee or Willie Mays as anything but a Giant. Yeah, I know things change, but change does not automatically mean improvement. I think the decline of home-town stars hurts the game.

And I see from studcracker's comment--if he was indeed being serious--that this forum has it's share of younger posters who have no respect for the abilities of some of the legends of the game and who hold the absurd idea that players have "evolved" into ubermensch in the span of just five decades. The truth is there have been great natural athletes born into every generation that ever lived, and they would still be great in any era.

[Stanford]

He had that response pre-typed, before anyone posted a thing.

[studcrackers]

i was just trying to piss you off writerman, im sure most of those guys would be stars or near stars today (maybe not gaylord perry, did he use the spitball his whole career? either way, ive heard that guy interviewed funny guy)

but you've got a severe case of good ol' days syndrome

[CentralQB5]

you cant compare eras, even though its the same game the way its played is totally different

[greenbeans]

Brooks Robinson would be a utility guy today. Do you know how athletic infielders are now?

[jumanji]

Brooks Robinson would be a utility guy today. Do you know how athletic infielders are now?

I think you're supposed to put some sort of smiley face next to a comment like that. I hope you were kidding.

[Jersey Generals]

I'm a historian outside of this website, who spends hours researching legal briefs for a firm that I work at, but back when I was getting my master degree, I actually wrote my thesis on how exactly WWI made baseball into the American past time that it became. As such, I consider myself a student of the game, and in fact, my favorite player is Ty Cobb. While I will not say I know the most about any of these players, I do believe that I can give a relatively educated response to most of them.

Some examples:

Ted Williams: He'd be a better player in today's game.
Bob Feller: He would've gotten 300 wins if it wasn't for the war, and if he played today, he'd be just as good.
Hal Newhouser: Probably like an Andy Pettitte or Schilling if he were in today's game.
Mickey Mantle: He'd still be great, but his party-ways may get the better of him if he were playing today.
Willie Mays: I'm fairly certain that he took greenies back in the day, and while he would be a great, great fielder, I think he might have been tempted by HGH if he were playing today.
Al Kaline: His arm would still be spectacular.
Brooks Robinson: Still would be a great fielder. I would have loved to see Cal Ripken, Jr. and him on the same ballfield.
Jim Palmer: He'd be about the same.
Don Drysdale: I think he'd be a closer in today's game, actually.
Roberto Clemente: A little overrated due to his untimely death, but generally, he'd still be able to get 3000 hits today.
Luis Tiant: He's good, would still be good; not great, though.
Tony Oliva: It depends if he'd still have his injuries or not with the advent of better medical practices and procedures. If he didn't, then he'd be better. If he'd still be hurt, well, he'd be the same.
Harmon Killebrew: He had great power, but I don't know if he'd be the same force in today's game.
Gaylord Perry: He'd get suspended in today's game for trying to throw a spitball.
Jim Bunning: He was good in his time, but...I don't see him striking out as many in today's game as he did back then.
Dave McNally: He wouldn't be anything special, an average player in today's game.
Camillo Pascual: Great curveball, but he wouldn't be great in today's game, he'd be about the same.

[sunshinekids99]

I'm not sold that all of the guys that were great back then would be great now.

Luis Tiant for example as somebody already pointed out with his HR totals would get killed in today's game. The league average on homeruns is up 30 hr's per team since 1969 when Tiant gave up 37 hr's.

Guys like Phil Rizzuto and Bill Mazeroski would be nothing more than utility infielders let alone HOF players.

Somebody like Brooks Robinson I'm sure would still be a great defender, but I question how well his hitting would translate to today's game.

Now I'm not saying that all guys back then couldn't play. I'm sure Ruth, Williams, Mantle, Mays, etc would sure still be great players. I'm just not buying that all of them would be great.

[jumanji]

I'm not sold that all of the guys that were great back then would be great now.

Luis Tiant for example as somebody already pointed out with his HR totals would get killed in today's game. The league average on homeruns is up 30 hr's per team since 1969 when Tiant gave up 37 hr's.

Guys like Phil Rizzuto and Bill Mazeroski would be nothing more than utility infielders let alone HOF players.

Somebody like Brooks Robinson I'm sure would still be a great defender, but I question how well his hitting would translate to today's game.

Now I'm not saying that all guys back then couldn't play. I'm sure Ruth, Williams, Mantle, Mays, etc would sure still be great players. I'm just not buying that all of them would be great.

Way to go out on a limb there Sunshine. If nothing else this topic is showing people's age.

[HCYanks]

Way to go out on a limb there Sunshine. If nothing else this topic is showing people's age.

I think it's showing you and writerman should get together at a bar to tell pollock jokes and trade tips on how to keep these damn kids off your lawn.

[Dirty Water]

Baseball was one of those sports that I thought you COULD compare players in different eras. More so than basketball, in my opinion. Better athletes DO make better basketball players. There are things Lebron James can do on the basketball court that would make some guys in the 50s look like they are in grammar school. It’s a much more athletic sport. IS it fair to compare these two eras? No, imo.

The changes in the rules have allowed many aspects of baseball to be passed over… and sometimes forgotten. It seems like more and more prospects reach the majors very early, and most of them have a very poor baseball IQ of the fundamentals of baseball. Many are terrible bunters, have no idea how to take pitches, limited understanding on how to hit to the opposite field, aren’t smart with the baseball on defense or even simple things like backing up throws or lack of knowledge on how to run the bases. I’ve been watching a good amount of MLB games this year because I got MLB.tv… It’s absolutely astonishing how many times I’ve seen young players get doubled off bases this year. It’s mind-boggling. As for bunting, I remember vividly in high school I was one of my coaches favorite players because I knew how to bunt. I’d see the positioning of the 3rd baseman and I’d lay one down. You don’t have to be fast in order to get a hit if you know what you are doing up there. I mean sometimes I’d go up there and change from a bunting stance back to a swinging stance… or vice versa. Mess with the pitcher, even show the same with aggressiveness on the basebaths. You just don’t see enough of it in today’s game. And when you do, it’s a bonehead aggressiveness, like some stupid play getting thrown out at 3rd base for the 1st or 3rd out.

The lowering of the mound, juicing of balls and the installation of the DH in the American League are a few of numerous things about the game that has drastically changed in the last half century. Steroids are a tricky component. Yes, they are a disgrace to the game. Yes, players should not be able to use them and be punished. Yes, it sets a bad example. Do they necessarily make you a better baseball player? In my opinion, answer is no, with shades of gray area. Like the OP stated, a great athlete does not necessarily make a great ballplayer. If you look around the league today there are plenty of examples of this. Look no further than the 2008 AL MVP Dustin Pedroia. Alfonso Soriano is skinny as a rail. Pedro Martinez in his prime? Cecil Fielder? His son Prince? Randy Johnson is a scarecrow, not a professional athlete. But they are all all-star caliber ballplayers.

To address the OP, yes there are still people who care about the traditions and the pureness of the old-time game. Some have no care for it. Many fans as we head deeper into the 21st century have no recollection of it. I am only 23, but I have learned a lot from my father who is a little less than your age.

To sum up my points, I believe baseball is a game where you can compare eras, just not too directly with stats because rules of the game have changed.