I haven’t done this in awhile, but Hammerin’ Hank and the Jews would be a good band name.
Sure. Not too many people even know who Gordie Howe is (outside of hockey fans), so I don’t think about that story as often as I should. Every once in a while I run across the pictures, or a thread like this has his name pop up. But he was a very nice and approachable man.
[not related]
Another story along the same lines, but not really pertaining to the OP… Well, maybe I can make a comment on it, was I met Mike Webster once. It was some time after he was inducted into the HOF, and he was signing autographs. I was taller than Iron Mike too, but when I shook his hand, my hand disappeared into his. It almost reminded me of those shots of Andre the Giant shaking hands with someone. Or a small child holding hands with an adult.
Mike Webster had the biggest, most gnarled hands I’ve ever seen. When I shook them, they felt like sandpaper… Completely calloused and rough. Another good guy. Unfortunately, he was dead about 6 months after I met him. I’d like to think he could play in today’s game, but the guys today on the O and D lines are just huge! They are all close to the 300 lb mark, and they can all motor. It’s amazing. The 70 Steelers, who were always rumored to be steroid users, were still relatively small guys on the line of scrimmage. Not the monstrosities of today. I honestly don’t know if Webster could have put enough weight on his body to compete. And Lambert? He was tall and skinny. I think out of Kent State he was 6’5" and 215. (I just googled him and found two different measurements. One was 6’4" and 220. I was close.)
[/not related]
Some do, some don’t. But I think there is evidence people are taller and bigger than they were in decades past. Whether that is all genetic is up for debate. However, what I think is more relevant in these discussions is that most mature sports have become highly incentivized meritocracies that do a better job of identifying the most talented people. Like, it by some magic you could obtain a list of the people who in ideal situations would be the best basketball players on Earth, I think there would be a good deal of overlap with those who are actually playing in the NBA. In the past, that was certainly not the case. So even though guys like Babe Ruth clearly have good sports genes, they are likely not much better than nearly every other MLB player now given that there is a much bigger pool today, and far more people testing their mettle. Being 1 in 10 million back then in a professional player pool of x is much better than 1 in 10 million today in a roughly similar player pool.
There were eight teams at the time.
Well, yes, that’s true, but nobody’s presented that as a scenario and I’m not sure what it has to do with anything.
There being 15 AL teams today (or, more pertinently, 30 MLB teams as opposed to 16) is a different matter than the deliberate exclusion of a large number of high quality ballplayers; the rate of expansion has merely kept up with the pool of talent.
There’s not a doubt in my mind - none at all - that the calibre of baseball played today is much higher than in Babe Ruth’s day. That’s not a shot against Babe Ruth, who if he played today would, obviously, benefit from many things not available to a developing ballplayer in the 1910s.
[QUOTE=Lute Skywatcher]
Greenberg was getting hit, see post 48.
[/QUOTE]
In 1938, Hank Greenberg was hit by a pitch exactly three times all season. Not one of them was in September.
It is also inescapably the fact that his walk rate was NOT higher when he was threatening the record. He did have a spate of walks early in September… when he had 46 home runs and wasn’t a serious threat to the record. But after a run of four games September 3-5 (September 5 was a doubleheader) in which he drew eight walks, his walk rate returned to normal, as he drew an additional 18 walks over 27 games, which was actually a slight downward trend in his walk rate. And over those 27 games he hit 12 home runs (actually, those 12 homers all came in a 19-game stretch.) So at exactly the time people claim he was being walked and not getting pitched to, he wasn’t getting walked any more than he had, and he was hitting home runs like crazy.
If Don Bradman, at the age he retired (40), using the equipment he played with in his last Test in 1948, was a member of the current Australian cricket team, they’d be favourites to win back the Ashes.
Respectfully, Ricky Jays argument doesnt hold up. African Americans make up 10% of the population. Since Jackie Robinson, have the number of pitchers in MLB eer been close to that percentage? How many dominant AA pitchers have there been over the years? An insignificant number compared to hitters/ Is it a matter of Racism?How many great white sprinters have there been in the last fifty years?
Black pitchers, or any other nationality, would likely have little effect on Ruths stats, IMO.
Agreed, I can’t think of any major reason why the very best batsmen of yore wouldn’t be just as effective today.
The pitches may be different but most likely they are more consistent and predictable.
Perhaps the doosra etc, may be innovate and unfamiliar? Reverse swing could also be a bit of a surprise, maybe the height of modern bowlers produces a different line and length of bouncer but I doubt that outright speed and accuracy is much changed.
No, maybe the trickiest aspect for the pre-war batsmen would be the quality and athleticism of fielding. They would certainly have to re-calibrate their running but I reckon if you took Bradman, Hutton or Hammond and let them play a bit of modern county cricket they’d be good to go.
Nate’s a local pitch-man for bariatric surgery around here, as he had the surgery successfully; I don’t think I’d lump him into that category of svelte in his post-playing days, at least not in the way you’re thinking.
However, I met Ray Childress once at a chili dog restaurant in Houston about 5 years after he quit playing and he was more tall than anything else- not particularly huge, fat or even powerfully built. Certainly not what I’d have thought an All-American/Pro Bowl/All Pro defensive end would look like, that’s for sure.
So there’s merit to the idea.
Wrong! Try doing some research before you spout off. Teammate Billy Rogell in a 2009 biography:
Did you miss post 47?
In the same 2009 biography:
[QUOTE=Lute Skywatcher]
Did you miss post 47?
[/QUOTE]
No, and I replied to it in detail. The NYT’s analysis is badly flawed, and I specifically explained why. The facts are the facts. There is no actual evidence Greenberg was walked or hit by pitches an unusual amount when he was a threat to Ruth’s record. There is quite literally no objective evidence to the contrary.
What Billy Rogell claimed to have heard and repeated years after the fact doesn’t change the simple fact that Greenberg, in his last 27 games, hit 12 home runs and was walked 18 times and wasn’t hit by a pitch once.
Rather than replying on hoary old stories and newspaper rabble rousing, why don’t you just look at the game logs? All the actual primary evidence is easily available.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?id=greenha01&t=b&year=1938
Why don’t you look at the fact that Greenberg was deliberately trying to not be walked?
Most of those old great boxers could compete very easily now. The sport has actually gotten easier. No more 15 round fights, championship level boxers fighting at most 3 times a year. Sugar Ray Robinson used to fights dozens of times a year. It’d be a cakewalk for him now.
Would be nice if there was some way could see how often he was swinging at ball four.
Robinson, definitely. Many others, not so clear. Joe Louis would be a small heavyweight in modern times, he would do well, but he’d have real trouble against guys as big as the Klitchko’s. Jake LaMotta was tough as all get out, but modern boxers would just run away from him and take a decision. And reducing the championship fights to 12 rounds makes it easier for modern boxers, they don’t need the incredible stamina of a 15 round fighter. Many title fights were won in the later rounds since the contenders had never fought past 10 rounds before their first title fight. Now you’ll see a lot of fighters who win a 12 round decision that obviously would have been knocked out if the fight went on any longer. The quality boxers of yore would be quality boxers now, but they wouldn’t necessarily dominate in the way they once did.
I suppose that’s possible. Can you provide me with the tapes?
Yeah, I definitely agree about the heavyweights. They’d have to move down to light heavyweight to compete. LaMotta would probably fall in that Ricky Hatton range–tough fighter, win some belts, but outclassed by the truly great fighters.
As indicated in post 75, it’s not quantifiable. All I know is that saw every homer as a way for everyone of his faith to stick it to Hitler and that a period article from the Detroit Free Press mentions him striking out on ball four at least once.
Without seeing how many times he did swing at ball four, or even just bad pitches, and the fact that intentional walks weren’t tracked at the time, I think we should call this a draw.
Well, when he wasn’t Shanabanned, that is. 