Comparing eras in baseball

[Clarkmeister]

Would the 1915 (picked at random) world series winning MLB team would be able to beat the 2002 Tampa Devil Rays in a best of 9 series? How about a 2002 triple A team? Double A? Single A?

Thoughts?

[J_V]

no to all three.

[IrishHand]

Played in which era's parks? Using which era's balls? Using which era's umpires?

Those three things, among others, dramatically affect how the game would transpire.

[B-Man]

Prtety doubtful the 1915 team could prevail against the Devil Rays, as for the minor leaguers, who knows...

Similarly, I'm pretty sure the 2002 Cincinnati Bengals would destroy the Green Bay Packers of the 1960s.

[patrick dicaprio]

if you think in terms of strength, speed etc then there is no way that a 1915 team could win. but i am not 100% sure this is a valid comparison. baseball is not track or weightlifting. if you gave them a dead ball perhaps the old team would win.

Pat

[Sooga]

Yea, I think an older version of any team from any sport would be beaten by even the worst teams of the present. The 2003 Bengals would probably kill the 1967 Green Bay Packers. Even with Bill Russell, I think those old Celtic teams would have trouble with the 2003 Chicago Bulls. Ditto to the 2002 Devil Rays and some random old baseball team. Am I saying that I would bet the farm on any newer team? No, but at best it would be a close game. At worst it'd be a blowout. Athletes today are so much faster, stronger, and have more knowledge through tapes and whatnot that it's not even close. How many basketball players in the 50's have you seen that have the physique of a Tracy McGrady or a Kobe Bryant? Those old-school players hardly even look like athletes! I'd definitely lean towards the new-school teams beating any old-school team.

[Ray Zee]

of course the new teams would all beat the old. but thats because the new players are so much bigger and stronger. they have computers to make plays and such. if you took the old guys and gave them the same training we have now then they might be champs in these days as well. heck most of them smoked in those days.

[imported_Chuck Weinstock]

This is only slightly apropro of this thread, but there is a great baseball book "If I Never Get Back" by Darryl Brock. It's about a man who goes back to his father's funeral and on the way home by train suddenly finds himself on a different, old-time, train carrying the 1869 Cincinnati Red Stockings...a team that was undefeated that year.

This is a different baseball than what is played today, and the reason I mention it is:

1) This is a fantastic book that all fans should read...especially if they like historical fiction.

2) Comparing teams for eras that are too far apart is inherently unfair because they are really playing different games. This, admitedly, is an extreme, but it illustrates the point.

Chuck

[Clarkmeister]

I don't think any of those things would matter.

Players of either era would simply adjust to things like different strike zones and ballpark sizes. And I fail to see how the dead ball would make a difference. You've still got to hit it.

[Clarkmeister]

Theres a reason I picked baseball.

Obviously Basketball and Football teams of today would destroy older teams. But baseball is different. Size, speed and strength aren't as important as the other sports. Baseball is the everymans sport, where people like David Eckstein can play and be successful. Thats why I only talked about baseball. Its the only team sport where its not 'obvious' just how much difference there is between teams of yesteryear and teams of today.

[Clarkmeister]

I'm inclined to agree, JV. While we obviously can't prove it, I would suspect that a double AA team of today would smoke a 1915 major league team.

So in light of this, my follow up question is: why are so many pre-1940 players listed in the top 50 of all time?

[andyfox]

The average player today if bigger, stronger, faster, better educated, and better trained. It's the same in every sport. Watch a tape of Chris Evert playing Martina Navratilova and comare how they hit the ball with how the Williams sisters hit the ball. No way Evert or Martina can win.

But I would hold out for a difference between "better" and "greater." Evert and Matina were great champions because they wons many major titles against the best competition of their day. Same with the 1915 Boston Red Sox, who won the World Series in 1915, 1916 and 1918.

[IrishHand]

What's a "double AA" team? Is that a AAAA team, or does it have something to do with batteries?

[Phat Mack]

This is a great book. It sounds a little hokey, but I've never heard of a baseball fan who didn't like it. I'll bet that even John Cole has read it.

I think it's true that the games have changed: rules, equipment, training methods, drug dealers. You would have to take the Devil Rays back in time and let them play a whole season under 1915 conditions. I am afraid that what would be discovered is that losers are losers no matter where you stick them.

[Clarkmeister]

I am sending your quote to military intelligence. Clearly batteries is a code word for some nefarious activity. I am sure a court marhsall is forthcoming.

[IrishHand]

Clearly batteries is a code word for some nefarious activity.
Only where your woman is concerned.

[pokerlover]

I beleive they had some guy on that team Babey something or other. If he was playing now he would hit 90 or 100 homers a year. (or be in some rehab program).

[Clarkmeister]

Hmmmmm, maybe our military intelligence is better than I suspected.

[Clarkmeister]

I doubt Ruth would be able to equal his career best if he played today. 90 is a joke.

[pokerlover]

I couldn't disagree more. He played in an era where they didn't even know what a weight room was. Imagine if he was in shape. Not mention the thin pitching that there is now in baseball. He invented the home run. Obviously he had plenty of protection with the Iron Horse behind him for many of his years but players like he was are a once a century deal. You have these small guys hitting 40+ homers a year. He hit 50 and 60 when teams didn't hit as many. Ruth would definately be hitting over 70 and if they pitched to him over 90. As long as he stayed away from drugs I think nothing could stop him.

[John Cole]

Phat Mack,

No, I haven't read it, but I'd like to. I also recommend Harry Stein's Hoopla for good baseball fiction.

John

[andyfox]

The competition is certainly tougher. Bigger domestic population base, no players excluded because of race, players from all over the world play, and fewer (if any) players eschew a career in professional sports for financial considerations. Doubtful, therefore, that the great players would be as dominant as they were. But they would still be great players.

[Clarkmeister]

"Not to mention the thin pitching"

This is IMO the greatest fallacy around today. Do you really think that the pitchers of the 1910s wouldn't get destroyed by todays hitters with their 3 pitches (the not so fastball, the slowball and the occassional spitball)? It is much tougher to hit off todays pitchers.

"He invented the home run"

And players today have perfected it. McGwire and Bonds both have had seasons surpassing Ruth's best HR/AB season, and they do it against all the scouting, preparation, skill and pitch arsenals available to the modern pitcher. I think its silly to suggest that Ruth would hit 60 today. However, I think its entirely possible that Bonds could average close to a HR/game if he so chose during the years that Ruth was setting records. Can you say "batting practice"?

[pokerlover]

Quick question:

If it was so easy in Ruth's day than why did it take 34 years for somebody to break that record and another 37 years after that? To my recollection it wasn't until after the strike that they really started juicing the ball.

[Glenn]

Players today have access to things that players from the 1910's didn't. Does that make them better? I can hit a golf ball farther than the best golfer from 1900, but this means nothing! With the same training/equipment/scouting, many of those players would be stars today. Give Bonds Ruth's 44 oz bat and see if he hits anything. Take away his weights, creatine, elbow pad, and all of the modern treatment he has received for his injuries and then look at him. De la Hoya would probably kill Sugar Ray Robinson in the ring...but that doesn't make him the best.

[pokerlover]

Also to date Ruth has 64 more at bats than Bonds. He has 101 more homers, 411 more hits, 47 higher points in batting avg., and is ahead in most other offensive cattegories. Oh yeah and the 94 wins with the 2.28 ERA isn't to shabby either.

[Clarkmeister]

Glenn,

I think you are using incorrect comparisons.

Golf is a bad comparison because they essentially use the same equipment in baseball. If aluminum bats became legal, then you might have a point.


Boxing is an even worse comparison. Other than heavyweight, the other classes have very narrow weight restrictions. I suspect that Vegas oddsmakers would make de la hoya a rather substantial dog to Robinson. 155 lbs is 155 lbs.

In fact, boxing is one of the easier sports to compare between eras. The easiest IMO is horse racing.

As far as Bonds using a 44oz bat......why should he? Ruth can use whatever he wants and Bonds can use whatever he wants, and as long as both bats are legal, may the best man win. Now if we were comparing Tiger to Bobby Jones, obviously one of them would have to change equipment to the other players' era. But a legal bat is a legal bat.

Far more important is the fact that Bonds has accomplished his feats against a pool of pitchers that includes all races, all countries, and anyone who can possibly become a MLB does so because of the huge dollars involved. He is shattering Ruths records against a pitching talent pool that is literally thousands of times deeper than what Ruth faced.

Sorry, but I don't think hitting HR's off of a part time milkman is that impressive.

[Clarkmeister]

And players in High School today hit .400-.500 sometimes. Are they better than Bonds too?

[ripdog]

Another great baseball book is Ball Four, by Jim Bouton. It's definitely written to the players favor, but I got a very clear understanding of how different the game is 40 years later. It is also absolutely hilarious. A must read for all baseball fans.

[pokerlover]

Obviously not. The point I was trying to make is that while Bonds is a great player I feel Ruth is probably the greatest bsaeball player of all time. Again nobody came close to him while he was playing and I know they did not allow black players at that time. You can't fault Ruth for that as I'm sure you're are not. I think it would be fairly easy for Ruth to increase his production with the tools the modern players have at their disposal today. i.e-the gym, creatine and very advanced scouting along with video tapes of every pitcher he will ever face.