No news, I'm drinking, lets fight

[ten ocho recon scout]

Not sure if this has been brought up here before. And should be a good debate.

The all time legends. Ruth. Williams. Mays. Etc etc. How do they stack up today?

(Edit. @Angel Oracle stick with the legends that everyone knows. If you mention random relievers that K'd Willie McCovey in a key at bat in 19 something and ruining the Giant's chance to advance that year, we're all going to get confused.)

(Also edit. @cals, no replying "hell yeah" when @Taylor says "blacks couldnt play back then", because he has a point)

[Inside Pitch]

Today's players are better... It's not close.  Imagine any modern pitcher throwing sliders for the old higher mound....  

Ted Williams was a genuine freak ... Legendary eyesight.

[Lou]

Williams would still have a higher obp than Fletcher if he played today.

[Bronson]

Ruth wouldn’t stand a chance in todays game. Played against mechanics and old men. Now with Mays and Mantle, competition was much more fierce by then. They would stand a better chance for sure. I think Williams would actually be a .300 hitter still in todays game.

Any star player from 1975 and up could probably still hold their own in todays game. 

[Mark68]

Ty Cobb would have been killed by a 100 MPH bean ball.

 

 

 

He would've deserved it, though.

[failos]

I’m drinking too! It’s been a while but feels great. I just want to talk to everyonr

[ten ocho recon scout]

24 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

Today's players are better... It's not close.  Imagine any modern pitcher throwing sliders for the old higher mound....  

Ted Williams was a genuine freak ... Legendary eyesight.

Ok, my first response.

I LOVE ted williams. Hes my fave of the old ghosts. 

I think he would have been fine today.

But by fine I mean more "frank thomas", less "god"

[ten ocho recon scout]

31 minutes ago, Bronson said:

 

Any star player from 1975 and up could probably still hold their own in todays game. 

Theyd be closer... buuuut..

I think the most important factor, by far, is kids. As weird as that sounds. But kids today, who have psycho parents, are "learning" instead of "playing".

Game vs sport

The competition vs talent pool isnt close to what it was back then

[Jay]

Nowadays they can walk a hitter without even throwing.

 

 

 

[Inside Pitch]

32 minutes ago, Lou said:

Williams would still have a higher obp than Fletcher if he played today.

Lol....  

I actually think Ted Williams would be a dominant player today.  One of the few.

[Docwaukee]

why are we assuming that the older players wouldn't have adjusted?  I think it's something with the vision.  We've heard about how Trout and Williams had/have it.  I bet Ruth and Mays and Mantle had it as well.  

Were there some legendary players where their skills wouldn't translate?  Sure.  But for the most part I think its something that's beyond measurable.  

But that's mostly for hitters.  I think the old stud pitchers would have a much tougher time in today's game.  Velo was the true weapon back then and it's not like with additional training they'd be throwing 107 which is essentially the equivalent to what it was back in the day when a guy threw 90.  

But here's a couple things to consider.   Hitters saw certain pitchers way more often back in the day.  And also, any stat from prior to 1900 should be void because the mound and batters box changed so often.  

In general though there is so much more subspecialization.  

The ancillary talent was brutal back then.  There was such a huge difference between the best guys and worst guys.  

And parks were massive.  For the most part.  

[T.G.]

Bob Gibson would still dominate. Hank Aaron would still mash.

[Docwaukee]

1 minute ago, True Grich said:

Bob Gibson would still dominate. Hank Aaron would still mash.

Hank was the poster child for launch angle.  No tape measure hrs but his swing was glorious.   

[Docwaukee]

and the really incredible players had longevity to them that others couldn't match.  

[Angelsjunky]

 

58 minutes ago, Lou said:

Williams cryogenically frozen head would still have a higher obp than Fletcher if he played today.

Fixed.

[Junkballer]

37 minutes ago, True Grich said:

Bob Gibson would still dominate. Hank Aaron would still mash.

I wonder how great Bob Gibson would be in today's game.  His fastball sat between 88-91 although it is said he could top out at 95.  He wouldn't have the benefit of the mound and  it's questionable if he would be as intimidating with his inside game and chin music.  He would be very good I think but not the Bob Gibson as remembered.  Koufax on the other hand...

Edited December 4, 2021 by Junkballer

[Don]

There are certain guys that I think would’ve been good in any era given the chance at modern training/tools available based purely on their talent/natural athleticism. Williams, Mays, Aaron, etc…

[Kotchman]

Hank Williams > hank Aaron 

[RallyMo]

4 minutes ago, Kotchman said:

Hank Williams > hank Aaron > Hank Gathers > Mr. Hanky > Hank Jr.

Fixed

[Blarg]

56 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Ok, my first response.

I LOVE ted williams. Hes my fave of the old ghosts. 

I think he would have been fine today.

But by fine I mean more "frank thomas", less "god"

Now, put Ted Williams on a nutritional diet, have him hit the weight room with a trainer, the batting cage that throws sliders and curve balls, run video and statistical breakdowns of every pitcher he would face all the while set up in private rooms and jetting to stadiums rather than over nighters on railway and he would obliterate baseballs. 

Seriously think for a moment, this guy was destroying MLB pitching with more handicaps than the VA Hospital. You give him all of the advantages of today's players and you'd never hear the name Trout or Ohtani mentioned in MVP conversations. There would be only one name, Ted Williams. 

He was that good and would be even better today. 

Go ahead, disagree and be wrong.

[Angelsjunky]

48 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

why are we assuming that the older players wouldn't have adjusted? 

This. Talent finds a way. It is one thing to imagine Doc Brown stealing Honus Wagner and plopping him down in a modern ballpark, where he'd be overwhelmed with the whole spectacle and even once he got used to bright screens and all the fat people in the stands, he'd have a different style of game to adjust to. But it is quite another if Honus was born 20 years ago and raised to play baseball. Presumably he'd be pretty good.

I have no doubt that, over time--especially a century and more--players get better and better. That's just how athletics work in general. But most of the greats of the past would be really good today, if they had been raised in today's era.

I think Ted Williams is the greatest pure hitter in baseball history - he would have been great in any era, though his BA would have been lower in today's game. As someone said, peak Frank Thomas is a good comp, but more consistent, or maybe peak Todd Helton with twice the walks and outside of Coors. Mickey Mantle might be the most talented overall player - he struggled with chronic injuries and the bottle for his entire career, but still was incredible. He'd be Mike Trout (he's basically the same player, but a better fielder).

But yeah, as someone said, Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig faced 7 teams all year, and only 7 teams - meaning, 7 pitching staffs. They also faced fewer pitchers per team, as pitchers back then weren't big pussies and were expected to pitch an entire game. So they faced guys exhausted from throwing 150 pitches. I think the way this factor shows up statistically is a greater range of statistics. The rise of relievers has had the effect of reducing batting averages, tightening stats up - which is one reason we don't see .400 seasons anymore. I'd say a .350 BA in the 21st century is about what a .400 BA was a century ago. Quite an accomplishment, but not unheard of. There are 34 seasons in which a player hit .400 or higher, all occurring in 1941 or before, most in the 19th century (only 14 from 1901-41). Williams in 1941 was the last, and before him Bill Terry in 1930. In the 21st century, there've been 21 seasons of .350, but not counting 2020, none since Josh Hamilton hit .359 in 2010. So over a decade. So someone hitting .350 next year would sort of be like when Ted Williams hit .406 in 1941.

The other thing to remember, if you're tempted to write off older players, is that there's a 'Six Degrees to Kevin Bacon' thing going on. Or let's play a game: What is the fewest number of players, alternating hitters and pitchers, to get from an active player to Cy Young? I'll give it a shot. I don't have pitcher vs. hitter data as BR now puts that behind a paywall, but we can overlap careers:

Albert Pujols 2000-21

Roger Clemens 1984-2007

Joe Morgan 1963-84

Warren Spahn 1942-65

Jimmie Foxx 1925-45

Ty Cobb 1905-28

Cy Young 1890-1911

So it is six degrees, linking Pujols to CY, or seven players overall spanning 131 years of baseball history (I couldn't alternate pitchers and hitters, because of even numbers, but you get the idea).

 

Edited December 4, 2021 by Angelsjunky

[Angelsjunky]

9 minutes ago, Kotchman said:

Hank Williams > hank Aaron 

Racist

[RallyMo]

6 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

Things change.

edited for brevity

[Inside Pitch]

49 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

and the really incredible players had longevity to them that others couldn't match.  

Like AP!

[AngelsLakersFan]

13 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

This. Talent finds a way. It is one thing to imagine Doc Brown stealing Honus Wagner and plopping him down in a modern ballpark, where he'd be overwhelmed with the whole spectacle and even once he got used to bright screens and all the fat people in the stands, he'd have a different style of game to adjust to. But it is quite another if Honus was born 20 years ago and raised to play baseball. Presumably he'd be pretty good.

I have no doubt that, over time--especially a century and more--players get better and better. That's just how athletics work in general. But most of the greats of the past would be really good today, if they had been raised in today's era.

I think Ted Williams is the greatest pure hitter in baseball history - he would have been great in any era, though his BA would have been lower in today's game. As someone said, peak Frank Thomas is a good comp, but more consistent, or maybe peak Todd Helton with twice the walks and outside of Coors. Mickey Mantle might be the most talented overall player - he struggled with chronic injuries and the bottle for his entire career, but still was incredible. He'd be Mike Trout (he's basically the same player, but a better fielder).

But yeah, as someone said, Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig faced 7 teams all year, and only 7 teams - meaning, 7 pitching staffs. They also faced fewer pitchers per team, as pitchers back then weren't big pussies and were expected to pitch an entire game. So they faced guys exhausted from throwing 150 pitches. I think the way this factor shows up statistically is a greater range of statistics. The rise of relievers has had the effect of reducing batting averages, tightening stats up - which is one reason we don't see .400 seasons anymore. I'd say a .350 BA in the 21st century is about what a .400 BA was a century ago. Quite an accomplishment, but not unheard of. There are 34 seasons in which a player hit .400 or higher, all occurring in 1941 or before, most in the 19th century (only 14 from 1901-41). Williams in 1941 was the last, and before him Bill Terry in 1930. In the 21st century, there've been 21 seasons of .350, but not counting 2020, none since Josh Hamilton hit .359 in 2010. So over a decade. So someone hitting .350 next year would sort of be like when Ted Williams hit .406 in 1941.

The other thing to remember, if you're tempted to write off older players, is that there's a 'Six Degrees to Kevin Bacon' thing going on. Or let's play a game: What is the fewest number of players, alternating hitters and pitchers, to get from an active player to Cy Young? I'll give it a shot. I don't have pitcher vs. hitter data as BR now puts that behind a paywall, but we can overlap careers:

Albert Pujols 2000-21

Roger Clemens 1984-2007

Joe Morgan 1963-84

Warren Spahn 1942-65

Jimmie Foxx 1925-45

Lefty Grove 1925-41

Ty Cobb 1905-28

Cy Young 1890-1911

So it is six degrees, linking Pujols to CY. 

 

I believe someone did an analysis of historical players based on this concept. Using aging curves and year to year data you can sort of back track your way into head to head historical comparisons.