I am quite certain that is the case, yes. If an average player like, say, Kevin Pillar went back to 1925, he’d be one of the five greatest players in baseball. He would be delighted at the pitchers all throwing 10 MPH slower than he’s used to and throwing a much more limited range of breaking balls.
If he went back to 1965 I still think he’d be better, but not as better as he’d be in 1925.
Looking at it subjectively - well, look at it. When I watch games from the past it is really apparent to my eyes that the average level of skill isn’t as good as it is today. The hitters aren’t as consistently technically skilled. Most of the pitchers aren’t throwing as hard and their breaking balls aren’t quite as sharp. If you watch the 1965 World Series, to pick one at random, it strikes me as being apparent that they’re obviously great ballplayers but not as great as today’s. Obviously the odd player like Sandy Koufax would still be a terrifying force today.
Not only is it possible, it’s to my mind quite clearly true. Ruth was an exceptional talent, and his natural athletic skills were apparent when he was a child. When I say he’d be “less dominant” it’s a relative thing. He’d still be a perennial MVP candidate. Ruth had power, plate discipline, and outstanding contact skills, and he was a naturally gifted fielder with a terrific arm. Those will always deliver success.
The point, I think, is the difference between what you asked in this post (“he would have dominated any era”) with your earlier post (“None of that explains why Ruth would be a less dominant player today”). The key word in your earlier post (and what RickJay and I are reacting to) is “less.”
None of us are saying that Ruth, transplanted to 2018, wouldn’t still be one of the very best players in MLB (and, thus, “dominant”). What we’re saying is that success in baseball in the 1920s was more of a factor of natural talent (and fortune at being born white), and that modern training and coaching likely evens the field to an extent, and lets players with strong (but not epic) natural talent make the most of it. It seems very likely that the gap between him and the other players wouldn’t be as great today as it was when he actually played – and, thus, he would likely be “less dominant” in 2018 than he was in the 1920s.
He’d be less than thrilled at having to face pitchers like Burleigh Grimes or Stan Coveleski, part of the limited cadre of spitballers after 1920 who were allowed to keep throwing loaded pitches for the remainder of their careers (Coveleski for example went 20 and 5 for the Senators in 1925).
Pillar also would be less than happy about using 1920s equipment and training facilities, not having baseballs taken out of play if they happened to make contact with ooh, dirt, not having access to water or other hydration during play because it wasn’t manly (or whatever excuse they were using in those days) and other benefits current major leaguers take for granted.
My personal opinion (and that’s all such comparisons are) is that modern MLB players would’ve stomped their 1920s-30s counterparts over the course of a season. All-Stars against All-Stars, less of a differential. I’m not so sure the 1919 Reds couldn’t have beaten the 2018 Reds in a World Series under 1919 conditions.
By the way, Bob Feller was clocked at 98.6 mph by this machine in 1946 (considered an underestimate of pitch speed since it didn’t measure speed right out of the pitcher’s hand as in modern measurements). It was once determined he threw a pitch at 107 mph, which strains credulity.
Someone wrote a book with the title When Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs. His main thesis was that old parks tended to have one, or both, fields (L/R) be huge expanses, and that Ruth, in today’s ballparks, would easily clear many modern day fences. Many of his home runs and even fly outs were fairly well documented (*or so he says).
Issue there is that Ruth swung a huge bat, much heavier than today’s bats (c. 45 ounces vs. 33). He could get away with it then because most pitchers didn’t break 90 MPH (absent Walter Johnson or my old neighbor Bob Feller), and the extra mass combined with his strength gave his balls more carry. Today he wouldn’t be able to get around on most fastballs swinging a club like that.
Tell any modern player that he would have to hit without a batting helmet and no body armor and see what happens. Not to mention train travel and the low pay.
I’m not sure how travelling on trains would make a difference when all your opponents are travelling on trains, too. Baseball is a sport of relative skill.
As to batting helmets and body armor, what would happen is a few guys would get really seriouslty hurt.
As to low pay, that absolutely results in fewer good ballplayers. To the extent it would change things it would be that the odd Kevin Pillar would just never have been drawn to wanting to be a pro ballplayer. It remains the case he’d kick the shit out of the 1925 American League if we transported him back there.
I think the point is, after traveling around on trains, and working a job in the off season, lack of access to cutting edge facilities & nutrition… suddenly hitting an 85mph fastball then becomes as hard hitting a 95mph fastball is today.
So yeah, on day one after arriving via time machine, Pillar is gonna rake. after 100 games? maybe not so much.
Yeah, if a modern player had to play (and live) in 1920s conditions for years, I imagine there’d be a very high likelihood that his condition (and performance) would suffer. But, IMO, that’s a different question.
Compared to years ago players dig in and crowd the plate. Before helmets and when pitchers were allowed to throw at hitters pitchers tended to own the outside part of the plate.
Another factor is that bats were heavier. This may make an 85 mph pitch a little harder to hit.
I guess my overall point is that different conditions work both ways.
