How would the all time Baseball greats - DO IN TODAY'S GAME?

[The Moz 69]

Babe Ruth - The most famous player in the history of the game

Ty Cobb - maybe the most famous villain in the history of the game

Shoeless Joe Jackson - maybe the best pure hitter ever - would be in everyone's top 5 ever if not for the 1919 black sox scandal.

Joe DiMaggio - greatest streak

Cy Young - Person the award is named after

Walter Johnson - the best pitcher in the golden age

Lou Gehrig- never missed a game

Willie Mays - Best outfielder of all time

Ted Williams - last person to hit .400

Honus Wagner - his baseball card is the most expensive in the world

Mickey Mantle - replaced Joe D and no beat was missed

Nolan Ryan - King of the fast ball

Josh Gibson - The black Babe Ruth

Stan "the Man" Musial

Bob Gibson - maybe the most feared Pitcher for a few years I ever heard of

Mike Schmitt - re-defined the 3rd base position as a power hitter

 

Would these players still be the legends they are in today's game? Be worse and nothing special? or maybe even better today than they were then?

 

 

 

 

 

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I think that Ty Cobb said it best, when he responded to why he would "only" hit .300 against today's pitchers, "You've got to remember - I'm seventy-three."

[patweisers44 697]

No love for Henry Aaron? I think guys that can hit, would always be able to hit. Same with running and defense. Pitching is what i question. Nolan Ryan walked a metric shiat ton of guys and was finishing his career as they were really shrinking the strike zone. Also, i think older guys benefitted from higher mounds.

[patweisers44 697]

I think that Ty Cobb said it best, when he responded to why he would "only" hit .300 against today's pitchers, "You've got to remember - I'm seventy-three."

Thats a great line.

[The Moz 69]

I think that Ty Cobb said it best, when he responded to why he would "only" hit .300 against today's pitchers, "You've got to remember - I'm seventy-three."

Ty Cobb was maybe the best hitter ever in the game but damn he was vicious as hell. The man would aim for people to bury his spikes into whenever he slid, he would purposely let his bat go after he swung to hit the catcher or Umpire.

[edjr 5,547]

Ty Cobb was maybe the best hitter ever in the game

 

You saw him play how many times?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Ty Cobb was maybe the best hitter ever in the game but damn he was vicious as hell. The man would aim for people to bury his spikes into whenever he slid, he would purposely let his bat go after he swung to hit the catcher or Umpire.

He sharpened his spikes up and came in with them high. He was a total a-hole.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Put em on a strict round of hgh and horse testosterone, and they'd be fine.

[The Moz 69]

 

You saw him play how many times?

I read all the first hand accounts from Phurfur!

[flap 1]

Lou Gehrig and Honus Wagner kicked butt in my Strat-o-matic games.

[edjr 5,547]

Lou Gehrig and Honus Wagner kicked butt in my Strat-o-matic games.

 

OH MY GOD!

 

Strat O Matic was the absolute NUTS!

 

2 - 12 - INJURY!

[patweisers44 697]

 

OH MY GOD!

 

Strat O Matic was the absolute NUTS!

 

2 - 12 - INJURY!

Played this like crazy as a kid. Played a few years ago on a rained out day during a guys golf trip. I lost $100 on of all things, a "Line out into as many outs as possible" with bases loaded, no outs in the 9th.

[jerryskids 5,172]

If you dropped any of them into a game today they would be average at best, because players have gotten bigger/faster/stronger (sometimes through questionable means of course). That is why I hate these kinds of comparisons. IMO you can only compare players with their peers, or if you want to time-warp them into the future, presume that their skills would scale appropriately (e.g., give Ryan a 110 MPH fastball).

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

If you dropped any of them into a game today they would be average at best, because players have gotten bigger/faster/stronger (sometimes through questionable means of course). That is why I hate these kinds of comparisons. IMO you can only compare players with their peers, or if you want to time-warp them into the future, presume that their skills would scale appropriately (e.g., give Ryan a 110 MPH fastball).

 

That is definitely debateable. Baseball is not a game of speed, size and strength. Hitting a baseball is a coordination thing. I also think that the pitchers of the past were better thinkers/pitchers vs. today's throwers. I am not sure how "hungry" today's baseball players are vs. the past.

[jerryskids 5,172]

 

That is definitely debateable. Baseball is not a game of speed, size and strength. Hitting a baseball is a coordination thing. I also think that the pitchers of the past were better thinkers/pitchers vs. today's throwers. I am not sure how "hungry" today's baseball players are vs. the past.

Let's debate then! Baseball is indeed a game of speed and strength; you need at least one of them to have a chance at being successful. Hitting a baseball requires not only timing and intelligence but also tremendous core strength, core flexibility, and leg drive. It looks easy when a pro does it, much like it looks easy when a golf pro swings and the ball goes 300 yards.

 

Training has improved: winter leagues, diet, strength and flexibility, minor league coaching and development, etc.

 

I don't know where you get the "thinker" comment about pitchers so I can't really argue it.

[NewbieJr 540]

_{They'd all be superstars in any era. The talents they had (hand-eye coordination, explosiveness, hand speed, wrist strength) is a natural born talent that can't be taught or learned. The all-time greats in any sport were born with a gift. And while it's true that today's athletes are in better shape and have better training equipment/methods, etc, the old timers would have access to it, also.}

[Mungwater 588]

Hack Wilson 191 RBIs..

[The Moz 69]

If you dropped any of them into a game today they would be average at best, because players have gotten bigger/faster/stronger (sometimes through questionable means of course). That is why I hate these kinds of comparisons. IMO you can only compare players with their peers, or if you want to time-warp them into the future, presume that their skills would scale appropriately (e.g., give Ryan a 110 MPH fastball).

I disagree - I think Ty Cobb , Willie Mays , Mickey Mantle, Ruth , and Gehrig would all do great Today! it's the pitchers like Johnson and Cy Young that would get torched.

 

Cobb was a base hit guy who would get 200 hits a year easily in any era.

Ruth - Hell he was hung over most of the games he played and still dominated in a dead ball era with people throwing spuit balls and vasoline balls

Mays - was an un real athlete for any era

[The Moz 69]

 

That is definitely debateable. Baseball is not a game of speed, size and strength. Hitting a baseball is a coordination thing. I also think that the pitchers of the past were better thinkers/pitchers vs. today's throwers. I am not sure how "hungry" today's baseball players are vs. the past.

Players back then played becasue they loved the game not for a pay check.

[The Moz 69]

Let's debate then! Baseball is indeed a game of speed and strength; you need at least one of them to have a chance at being successful. Hitting a baseball requires not only timing and intelligence but also tremendous core strength, core flexibility, and leg drive. It looks easy when a pro does it, much like it looks easy when a golf pro swings and the ball goes 300 yards.

 

Training has improved: winter leagues, diet, strength and flexibility, minor league coaching and development, etc.

 

I don't know where you get the "thinker" comment about pitchers so I can't really argue it.

No - A player can do pretty damn well for himself just sticking to base hits. Don't even need great bat speed there just great coordination ............ for a modern era example see Wade Boggs

[Mike Honcho 4,010]

I disagree - I think Ty Cobb , Willie Mays , Mickey Mantle, Ruth , and Gehrig would all do great Today! it's the pitchers like Johnson and Cy Young that would get torched.

 

Cobb was a base hit guy who would get 200 hits a year easily in any era.

Ruth - Hell he was hung over most of the games he played and still dominated in a dead ball era with people throwing spuit balls and vasoline balls

Mays - was an un real athlete for any era

 

For nearly five decades after his retirement, "The Big Train"(Walter Johnson) was considered the hardest throwing pitcher in big league history. It was Johnson who held all of the strikeout records before Nolan Ryan came around. Obviously there were not radar guns in Johnson's day, but two experiments clocked Johnson's fastball at 134 feet per second and 99.7 MPH.

[patweisers44 697]

A good hitter would be a good hitter in any era. Pitching is the thing that i thing changes most from era to era.

[JT 137]

 

OH MY GOD!

 

Strat O Matic was the absolute NUTS!

 

2 - 12 - INJURY!

This.

[southcarolina 166]

Talent transcends time. Barrelling up a baseball is an innate talent...it cant be learned, taught, bought or injected. Good hitters of the past would be good hitters today.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Let's debate then! Baseball is indeed a game of speed and strength; you need at least one of them to have a chance at being successful. Hitting a baseball requires not only timing and intelligence but also tremendous core strength, core flexibility, and leg drive. It looks easy when a pro does it, much like it looks easy when a golf pro swings and the ball goes 300 yards.

 

Training has improved: winter leagues, diet, strength and flexibility, minor league coaching and development, etc.

 

I don't know where you get the "thinker" comment about pitchers so I can't really argue it.

I think that strength and speed can help, but they can also hurt. How many of these guys go up there and just think HR when they step up? How many of these guys are really thinking about flexibility? They don't know how to bunt or move a runner along.

 

More importantly, how many of them are really putting in the time to practice and understand the nuances of the game? Why are Dominican players so prominent in the major leagues today when compared with the overall population there? Because that is all they eat, sleep and think about from when they are little kids.

 

On the pitching thing - today's pitchers are throwers. They are not as good at mixing speeds and locations and they don't understand how to set up a hitter like they used to do. They are also specialists in that they don't have to go all game because there are a handful of relievers waiting in the wings to play the matchups.

 

I contend, that if you took any one of those stars from the past and put them into today's game with all other things being equal, they would still be superstars because the physical differences between today's athlete and yesterday's is not that big of a deal in baseball. Now, football and basketball...

[The Moz 69]

and basketball...

Disagree in any era -- Oscar would still be the best all around player of all time and Wilt still the greatest player of all time

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Disagree in any era -- Oscar would still be the best all around player of all time and Wilt still the greatest player of all time

 

See. Another debate. Wilt was stronger and taller than everyone else and very athletic. Imagine him trying to move Shaq out of the middle to have a swooping shot. Wouldn't happen. He didn't have the outside shot to counter the size and strength of most NBA centers today.

 

The Big O was probably the most complete player of his era, but I think that he would have had a much harder time dishing passes with a guy who could guard him one-on-one, which pretty much every team has today.

[Mike Honcho 4,010]

 

See. Another debate. Wilt was stronger and taller than everyone else and very athletic. Imagine him trying to move Shaq out of the middle to have a swooping shot. Wouldn't happen. He didn't have the outside shot to counter the size and strength of most NBA centers today.

 

The Big O was probably the most complete player of his era, but I think that he would have had a much harder time dishing passes with a guy who could guard him one-on-one, which pretty much every team has today.

 

Wilt was 7'1'' and had a listed playing weight of 275 pounds, he would compete and be a dominant center today.

[The Moz 69]

 

See. Another debate. Wilt was stronger and taller than everyone else and very athletic. Imagine him trying to move Shaq out of the middle to have a swooping shot. Wouldn't happen. He didn't have the outside shot to counter the size and strength of most NBA centers today.

 

The Big O was probably the most complete player of his era, but I think that he would have had a much harder time dishing passes with a guy who could guard him one-on-one, which pretty much every team has today.

Ummmmmmmmmm Wilt would have dumped 40 points easily a game on Shaq so much so it would of been laughable. Also Wilt had a very good medium range jumper just for some reason struggled with FT's

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

 

Wilt was 7'1'' and had a listed playing weight of 275 pounds, he would compete and be a dominant center today.

 

So, he only would have been outweighed by Shaq by 50 pounds. Hell, even Andrew Bynum is 285.

 

The point is that Wilt's dominance was predicated that he was that much bigger and stronger than his contemporaries. That disparity would not exist against today's players. Would he be a good NBA player? I believe so, but he would not be a "dominant center today" IMO.

[jerryskids 5,172]

_{They'd all be superstars in any era. The talents they had (hand-eye coordination, explosiveness, hand speed, wrist strength) is a natural born talent that can't be taught or learned. The all-time greats in any sport were born with a gift.}

 

 

Talent transcends time. Barrelling up a baseball is an innate talent...it cant be learned, taught, bought or injected. Good hitters of the past would be good hitters today.

 

Chronic Husker would be disappointed if I didn't vehemently disagree with this. People aren't "born" with an innate ability to hit a baseball, just like Mozart wasn't born with an innate skill to write masterpiece concertos. It is a skill learned through thousands of hours of deliberate practice. Read "Talent is Overrated."

 

That being said, people ARE born with certain physiological features: height, musculature, flexibility to an extent. So for a physical endeavor, there is a ceiling on any one person's success.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

That being said, people ARE born with certain physiological features: height, musculature, flexibility to an extent. So for a physical endeavor, there is a ceiling on any one person's success.

 

God, I miss Gutterboy.

[The Moz 69]

 

So, he only would have been outweighed by Shaq by 50 pounds. Hell, even Andrew Bynum is 285.

 

The point is that Wilt's dominance was predicated that he was that much bigger and stronger than his contemporaries. That disparity would not exist against today's players. Would he be a good NBA player? I believe so, but he would not be a "dominant center today" IMO.

To sqaush this right now

 

Wilt benched 500 pounds -- Shaq's best ever was 450 - at 59 Wilt could still lift more weight than Shaq ever has! There isn't a single facet of the game other that FT shooting that Shaq was even remotely close to Wilts talent level.

 

Wilt played against a center average HT of 6'10 through his career also against many monster players like The greatest defender ever Bill Russell , Bob Lanier, Kareem , Willis Reed.

 

The only center that since Kareem retired even in Wilts area code is Hakeem.

[NewbieJr 540]

To sqaush this right now

 

Wilt benched 500 pounds -- Shaq's best ever was 450 - at 59 Wilt could still lift more weight than Shaq ever has! ng

I call BS on that. Never in a million years do I believe Wilt ever benched 500 or even 450.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I call BS on that. Never in a million years do I believe Wilt ever benched 500 or even 450.

 

I am sure that he said it in his book. The same one where he stated that he banged 10,000 women.

[NewbieJr 540]

 

I am sure that he said it in his book. The same one where he stated that he banged 10,000 women.

I'd need to see a video to ever believe that load of crap. Anyone who lifts weights knows that height is a big detriment to bench pressing. Short arms and a thick chest are ideal to bench press heavy weight. Tall, lanky guys hardly ever have a big bench. I doubt Wilt could even do 315 without a struggle.

 

On the other hand, I bet he could probably curl a very heavy amount of weight. Long arms are advantageous to the pulling-type of exercises.

[edjr 5,547]

 

 

This.

http://www.strat-o-matic.com/

[The Moz 69]

I call BS on that. Never in a million years do I believe Wilt ever benched 500 or even 450.

Maybe it is but I was going by what I have seen online. Though I admit there no set documented proof but he was a work out freak.

 

The guy was a Track and field stud , a complete athletic freak - like a 7'1 Michael Jordan , a track star -- sorry but he is the one player I have watched a lot of old game films of - and at IMO is the greatest athlete I have ever seen in any sport at any time

[Mike Honcho 4,010]

 

So, he only would have been outweighed by Shaq by 50 pounds. Hell, even Andrew Bynum is 285.

 

The point is that Wilt's dominance was predicated that he was that much bigger and stronger than his contemporaries. That disparity would not exist against today's players. Would he be a good NBA player? I believe so, but he would not be a "dominant center today" IMO.

 

I think the problem the disconnect between us is what do you consider "dominant"? Now I don't believe Wilt would put up 50/25 numbers like he did in the 60's, but if guys like Hakeem, Robinson and Shaq are considered dominant centers, than yeah I think prime of his career Wilt would step right on to the floor and would be considered a dominant player. If you disagree, well, then agree to disagree...

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

 

I think the problem the disconnect between us is what do you consider "dominant"? Now I don't believe Wilt would put up 50/25 numbers like he did in the 60's, but if guys like Hakeem, Robinson and Shaq are considered dominant centers, than yeah I think prime of his career Wilt would step right on to the floor and would be considered a dominant player. If you disagree, well, then agree to disagree...

 

I think that he would be an All Star Center. I don't think that he would dominate a game like he did when he was playing.

 

What started this whole thing off was that I don't believe that baseball is as much driven by physical characteristics (height, weight, strength) as basketball and football are.