by Arlos » Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:02 am
The thing is, pitchers back then threw just about as hard as they do today, so the task of hitting a baseball has changed remarkably little in the last hundred years. Indeed, in some ways it is easier now, what with domed stadiums that remove the sun and wind as factors, and the fact that players wear lightweight uniforms now, where back then even in summer they wore heavy wool ones, which were hot as hell.
Yes, Ruth would be ponderously slow around the bases compared to modern athletes. But given how many home runs he hit, that wouldn't matter as much. Remember, Ruth was so far ahead of anyone else in the game, that for some of his seasons, he got more homers by himself than did some TEAMS. To duplicate that today, someone would have to hit 4 or 5 hundred home runs. Hell, one author looked at his 1921 season, and found that if modern rules and field dimensions were in place that year (the center field wall was 500' away, balls that went over the wall fair but then hooked foul were foul, rather than the home run they are now, and balls that hit the foul pole were ground rule doubles, rather than the home runs they are now. Those modern rules came into effect in 1931) he would have hit 104 home runs, not 59.
Seriously, Babe Ruth was born to play baseball like Mozart was born to make music. Hell, he was an all-star caliber pitcher as well, before he switched to being an outfielder full time. He set a record for most shutouts in a season as a pitcher in the AL in 1916 that wasn't even TIED until 1978. No, of all of the old greats, Ruth would easily be the one to be ridiculously dominant still today. He might have to play as a DH due to lack of speed in the outfield, but he'd be the best hitter in the league for sure.
I don't know about Ty Cobb, on the other hand. First of all, the man was a vicious racist and a complete raving asshole. You think Barry Bonds is a jackass, well, he's a choirboy compared to Cobb.
-Arlos