English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I've always wondered how good Ty Cobb was, how good Cy Young was, etc. Were they good only because no one else was in that time period OR were they really that dominant? Consider pitchers like Santana, Schilling, Rivera facing players like Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, etc.

2007-03-30 14:20:20 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports Baseball

17 answers

LOL I love these questions...listen dude, if Joe D stepped up to the plate today, I'm sorry, I love Johan, but he would run off the mound crying! And if Gehrig's there, I think Mo would just step off the mound, and escort the man to second. They are legends for a reason-they belong to no "era" for they echo in baseball eternity!

2007-03-30 15:48:43 · answer #1 · answered by pitsargenaf 4 · 0 0

It depends. Some early 1900s pitchers (Cy Young, Walter Johnson) would have slightly deflated stats with today's 5-man rotation, and some older sluggers (Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Lou Gehrig) would have slightly inflated stats because of the steroid era (not implying they would use performance- enhancers, but all power hitting has increased since the late 80's).

A very good site for these questions is
http://www.whatifsports.com They have leagues that cost 12.99 for a 162- game season playing with and against teams of all- time greats (10-game free trials are available)

2007-03-31 09:46:27 · answer #2 · answered by Mike M 2 · 0 0

Obviously, this is a tough one. My guess is the greats from the past would be good, but not as good.

Two related factors here. I think more good athletes are going into sports now than, say 80 years ago. The money is much more attractive. Therefore, I would guess the talent base is deeper, making that much more difficult to dominate.

Second, good athletes today are probably better than yesterday's. Ty Cobb was considered huge at 6-foot-2. Now he'd be pretty normal. If today's athletes are considered faster and stronger, it makes sense that they would be better. Would Babe Ruth still be a slugger? Sure. But relative to the competition, he probably wouldn't jump out ahead of the pack so much.

2007-03-30 16:30:09 · answer #3 · answered by wdx2bb 7 · 0 0

NO!!! Today, there are relief pitchers, DH's, and a home run mentality in the game that trumps even winning ball games. Pitchers these days would walk Ruth, which is about all he could handle physically. Ty Cobb would be constantly suspended for racial slurs and Starting fights. Neither of them would have the speed to run bases these days. There is way more strategy involved these days too. And the press/TV/ESPN people would put them under too much scrutiny to play.

2007-03-30 14:27:12 · answer #4 · answered by Brad 4 · 0 1

Baseball is about muscle memory as much as it is about anything else.

Once they've had a chance to adjust to night games, artificial turf, domes and the travel involved, of course they would perform at least as well, if not better, today. After all, in those days, there were only 16 teams, and there are too many current players in MLB who might never have gotten out of the low minors then.

2007-03-30 14:29:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

How about we imagine Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Honus Wagner, Hank Greenberg and Jimmie Foxx in an era with steroid and tiny ball parks, Bonds wouldn't be even close to the Babe and Hank Aaron would have retired sooner instead of trying to extend a record he wouldn't have held, thus not having a couple of horrible years for us to remember him by.

2007-03-30 14:28:47 · answer #6 · answered by John H 5 · 1 0

I once heard that late in his life around 1960 Ty Cobb was asked what would he hit if he was still playing today and his responce was about .270.The person said "that's all"and Cobb replied"Hey I'm an old man".

2007-04-01 12:03:38 · answer #7 · answered by tim b 3 · 0 0

The players from the eraly era would hold there own but they probably wouldnt dominate. If u were to take them out of a time machine and make them play a team of today the team of today would probably win. I say this because the guys of today are better all around athletes. They are always lifting and fixing their mechanics

2007-04-02 21:32:56 · answer #8 · answered by greenberets25 1 · 0 0

I think the great players from the past would kick butt in todays game. I think a better question is how would players of today done 60 years ago? I think the answer is that they would have sucked. There weren't private jets to take you home between starts, and there weren't the advancements in physical equipment that some of todays stars need for greatness. Don't get me wrong, some great players are just great players, but todays players have it made compared to years past.

2007-03-30 14:41:46 · answer #9 · answered by gehrig_fan 2 · 0 0

The Players from the early era were more engrossed in the game. The lived it. Todays players are seemingly in it for the money. I think the early era guys would out hustle, out think, and just flat out play, the Players now..Any Hall of Famer from the past could play in this era , and be VERY rich...

2007-03-30 14:34:17 · answer #10 · answered by K M 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers