Should Rivera have changed his number?

[DodgerBlue8188]

Back when the commisioner retired number 42 in honor of Robinson some players kept there number 42. Do you think players like Rivera should have been forced to chagne in honor of it? This question was posted on another forum I post on and I was just trying to get some more sides to it. I said that he should not have to because he had it before they probably even thought about retireing Robinsons' number. Some people were saying he's selfish but I dont really see how.

[Mattingly]

It was called "grandfathering", meaning a clause that allows players doing the same thing to continue until they retire, but that no new players may wear this as a new number.

As when spitballs were outlawed in 1920, pitchers who'd pitched spitballs in the past had continued.

The last two who'd used #42 were Mo Vaughn when he was with the Mets, and now Mariano. It's debatable, but many Brooklyn Dodgers fans have strong feelings that he should've changed his number.

[rockin500]

in a word: no.

[Cubsfan97]

If the Yankees decide to could Rivera get his number retired, even though its already retired?

[Mattingly]

If the Yankees decide to could Rivera get his number retired, even though its already retired?
If the Yankees decided to retire Mariano Rivera's number, they always could. However, they've got more retired numbers than anyone else. There's also the quiet debate as to who the number would be retired for: Mariano Rivera or Jackie Robinson. Could be a dual retirement in the Retired Numbers section in CF, adjacent to Monument Park where the statues and plaques are in YS-II.

They obviously can't re-issue #42 to someone else, as it's already retired throughout baseball to those who've never worn it before. This would obviously differ from, say, Paul O'Neill's #21, when they simply don't give that number to others. Heck, even Clemens had to give up his old #21 from Boston and Toronto, as Paulie was wearing this.

When ex-Mets closer Armando Benitez was traded to the Yanks, he was denied using his #49, as the very popular Ron Guidry, now the pitch coach, wore that, and #49 was later officially retired on Guidry's official day around 2003.

[otis89]

I don't think he should've changed it. Why can't players wear whatever number they want to?

[digglahhh]

In some parks the team's retried numbers are displayed separately from Robinson's #42. Also, the team's numbers are usually in the team's colors while Robinson's isn't. So, I don't see why the Yanks couldn't retire Rivera's 42 and display it where they display the rest of the retired numbers and then display the Robinson's 42 somewhere else.

I don't think he should have had to change his number.

In fact, I don't think MLB should have retired it league-wide in the first place. I think the greater tribute would be the endless string of stars who would choose to wear #42 in homage to Robinson. He would be forever honored on the field, by living, breathing players.

[wamby]

Any player wearing number 42 should have changed their number the day after Bud Selig's announcement. I thought it was really ridiculous that Mo Vaughn was allowed to continue using it when he changed teams, especially considering that he wore it while he played in New York.

[rockin500]

Any player wearing number 42 should have changed their number the day after Bud Selig's announcement. I thought it was really ridiculous that Mo Vaughn was allowed to continue using it when he changed teams, especially considering that he wore it while he played in New York.
why? I dont think it should have been retired in the first place. not league wide at any rate.

[wamby]

why? I dont think it should have been retired in the first place. not league wide at any rate.

If a number's retired, it should be retired.

[rockin500]

If a number's retired, it should be retired.
you cant just say "mariano, your number? change it". How would that be fair?

[wamby]

you cant just say "mariano, your number? change it". How would that be fair?

I forgot that life is always fair. You can say 'Mariano, it's a league mandate. Pick a new number.'

[ESPNFan]

Call me crazy but I really don't think Robinsons number should have been retired leaguewide either. Quite Honestly I think It minimizes (cheapens is to strong a word I think) the level of impact, achivement and significance both for baseball and for society that Jackie Robinson's Career had. Retired numbers are for great players, people who hit the ball, pitched skillfully or otherwise excelled on the baseball diamond for thier particular team.

Jackie Robinson brokedown barriers for an entire race of people and blazed a train for generations of Blacks, athletes and otherwise. His accomplishments, like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. are on a Different Level from Mo Vaughn or Mariano Rivera.

Instead of a Retired Number I have always said that every April 15th across the country should be Jackie Robinson Day in Every Major League Ball park (and if we can have secretery's day on the Calender we certainly could have Jackie Robinson Day).
Add a wing to the baseball hall of fame truely detailing the history of Blacks in baseball the negro leagues and the new inductees into the hall of fame etc...

To me Jackie Robinson transends uniform numbers and athletic achivement.

(In the issue of clarity let me also state that this opinion in no way is a reflection on Mariano who very well could be as respected as a player and feared as a closer as anyone in the game.)

[DodgerBlue8188]

I forgot that life is always fair. You can say 'Mariano, it's a league mandate. Pick a new number.'


More problems would have occured if they tried to force players to change there numbers. Then players would be labeled racist if they had a problem changing it.

[Captain Cold Nose]

More problems would have occured if they tried to force players to change there numbers. Then players would be labeled racist if they had a problem changing it.
So Rivera and Vaughn would have been racist if they had problems with changing their number?
They would have been labeled racist by people who don't seem to understand the meaning of the word.

[trosmok]

I wouldn't have retired #42 throughout MLB, and this is coming from a HUGE Jackie Robinson fan. I wore the number with pride and considered it an inspiration to be on a ballfield with my hero's number on my purple and white jersey, albeit amateur and indy semi-pro ballfields. If MLB saw fit to honor the civil rights champion and baseball pioneer in this manner, with the blessings of Rachel and the rest of the Robinson family, far be it for me to say they are not right. I would, like Rivera and Vaughn however, hang on to the near sacred #42 until they tore it off my back. Having Jackie Robinson Day league wide seems more appropriate to me; they even pay tribute at minor league, High School, and University ballparks on April 15th. The former Rookie of the year award has been renamed the Jackie Robinson Award since 1987, but people including myself still call it ROY. I likewise believe the highest honor one can receive is being named the recipient of the Clemente Award, or MLB man of the year. I think Smoltz was the most recent winner among the 30 nominees, and Sept. 7th 2005 was Roberto Clemente Day throughout MLB. Unless my memory has the hiccups, donations collected that day at the fifteen ballparks were matched by MLB and donated to the Hurricane relief fund. To me, that means a world more than uniform number retirements, but since it is tradition I have no real problem with this.

[DodgerBlue8188]

So Rivera and Vaughn would have been racist if they had problems with changing their number?
They would have been labeled racist by people who don't seem to understand the meaning of the word.


I forgot that they were the only two. I was thinking out of all the teams there would have been more than 2 players with 42.

[Brooklyn]

If the Yankees decide to could Rivera get his number retired, even though its already retired?

It wouldn't be unprecedented. the Knicks retired #15 twice - for Early Monroe and Dick McGuire

[Captain Cold Nose]

It wouldn't be unprecedented. the Knicks retired #15 twice - for Early Monroe and Dick McGuire
Did the Yankees retire #8 for Dickey and Berra at the same time?

[efin98]

More problems would have occured if they tried to force players to change there numbers. Then players would be labeled racist if they had a problem changing it.

Racist? Two of the three players then were black- how the heck could it be racist if they refused to change

[rockin500]

Racist? Two of the three players then were black- how the heck could it be racist if they refused to change
to be fair, i think he did say he didnt realize there were only a couple of players wearing 42. If there were like 15 players, with more than half being white (or latino) than he could have a point.

[Mattingly]

More problems would have occured if they tried to force players to change there numbers. Then players would be labeled racist if they had a problem changing it.
Perhaps something on the Brooklyn Dodger forum here can enlighten you, but you may need to vary your search words before arriving at something.

As to the thought that players would somehow be labelled as this, I've never known Mo Vaughn, a black man, to have any negative racial feelings re Jackie Robinson, nor of the increase any other players who were black or Hispanic.

I can tell you for a fact that Mariano Rivera is one of the classiest individuals I've ever known, and certainly one to wear the Yankee pinstripes, just based upon his persona alone, as was as his obvious skills. You'd have a hard time proving to me that he's got negative racial thoughts.

I could simply be a baseball decision, as the Yankees, like Mo Vaughn, when he'd gone from the Red Sox to Anaheim to the Mets, wore #42. I'm presuming that's the number Mo had always worn from his rookie days, but #42 is the number that Mariano has always worn.
to be fair, i think he did say he didnt realize there were only a couple of players wearing 42. If there were like 15 players, with more than half being white (or latino) than he could have a point.
I could only consider that valid if the players had actually expressed negative racial views. Otherwise, I couldn't agree one bit.

[The Big C]

Alot of the players that chose 42 probably did it in honor of Jackie Robinson, if I had to guess, so I doubt anyone in their right mind would consider them racists under normal circumstances.

[efin98]

I forgot that they were the only two. I was thinking out of all the teams there would have been more than 2 players with 42.

Here is the complete list of players who wore the number in 1997 and kept it past that season:

Scott Karl held the number until 2000, switched after he joined the Rockies(wore it for a short time there)

Lenny Webster wore it until 1999(retired in Boston when he arrived)

Mike Jackson wore it in until 1999, switched to #38 in 2001, then switched back again in 2002- the only person to return to #42 after wearing another number

Fernando Hernandez wore #42 in his only two games in the majors with Detroit, but more than likely would have been allowed to wear it past 1997(if he chose)

Tom Goodwin changed his number to #24, Jason Schmidt changed his to #22. They are the only ones to change numbers while still with the same team.

Dennis Cook changed his number when he went to the Mets after the 1997 season(in use there)

Jose Lima kept the number through one team change but gave it up when he moved to Kansas City

Buddy Groom changed to #24 during the 1997 season

Butch Huskey wore the number through 1999, changing after a trade to Boston(retired there previously)

For some odd reason, Ken Griffey, Jr. wore the number in Seattle during 1997 and may have been allowed to keep it after the 1997 season depending on the exemption

Kirk Rueter changed his number during the season twice, to #45 then #46

You already know Mo Vaughn and Mariano Rivera wore #42 as well

That's them all. Everyone who wore #42 during the 1997 season- all 14 people.

[efin98]

to be fair, i think he did say he didnt realize there were only a couple of players wearing 42. If there were like 15 players, with more than half being white (or latino) than he could have a point.

It's actually a fair mix of hispanic, black, and white players. Some chose to give up their number, others gave it up when they moved to another team, others gave it up due to someone on their new team wearing it or it was already retired there.

Race isn't even in the ballpark regarding the number, just personal choice and team choices.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Can we stop the big race BS. The answer is no, no one should be obliged to give up that number. If they want to fine if they choose not to, thats fine.

[Astro]

Well... I dont think 42 should have been retired across the majors anyway... but I wont get into that

So: no

[Pghfan987]

I seem to be in the minority here, but that hasn't stopped me before...

I think that Rivera and Vaughn should have given up their numbers, either voluntarily or by force. Personally, I never really understood some players' attachments to their uniform numbers. Those two should have switched.

I don't think that either of those two kept wearing #42 because they were "honoring" Jackie. I think that they were just being selfish. MLB enforces dress code violations all the time, so they certainly have the authority to tell Rivera that he can not wear his number anymore. I thought that retiring the number league-wide was a great way to remind people of just how great and influential a person Jackie was. Just give up the #, Rivera. Give honor where honor is due.

[BoofBonser26]

I seem to be in the minority here, but that hasn't stopped me before...

I think that Rivera and Vaughn should have given up their numbers, either voluntarily or by force. Personally, I never really understood some players' attachments to their uniform numbers. Those two should have switched.

I don't think that either of those two kept wearing #42 because they were "honoring" Jackie. I think that they were just being selfish. MLB enforces dress code violations all the time, so they certainly have the authority to tell Rivera that he can not wear his number anymore. I thought that retiring the number league-wide was a great way to remind people of just how great and influential a person Jackie was. Just give up the #, Rivera. Give honor where honor is due.
I've heard it stated as fact that Mariono was honoring Robinson when he chose 42 a long time ago.

And I don't think retiring 42 league-wide was the best way to honor him. Like a previous poster said, imagine all the stars that would certainly choose to wear 42 in tribute.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I seem to be in the minority here, but that hasn't stopped me before...

I think that Rivera and Vaughn should have given up their numbers, either voluntarily or by force. Personally, I never really understood some players' attachments to their uniform numbers. Those two should have switched.

I don't think that either of those two kept wearing #42 because they were "honoring" Jackie. I think that they were just being selfish. MLB enforces dress code violations all the time, so they certainly have the authority to tell Rivera that he can not wear his number anymore. I thought that retiring the number league-wide was a great way to remind people of just how great and influential a person Jackie was. Just give up the #, Rivera. Give honor where honor is due.


I don't think they're being selfish at all. With that out of the way if you want to make a legal issue out of it and it appears that way, how could MLB use a dress code violation to force them to give it up. What chapter of the rule book would cover this issue, none.

[BadKarma]

I seem to be in the minority here, but that hasn't stopped me before...

I think that Rivera and Vaughn should have given up their numbers, either voluntarily or by force. Personally, I never really understood some players' attachments to their uniform numbers. Those two should have switched.

I don't think that either of those two kept wearing #42 because they were "honoring" Jackie. I think that they were just being selfish. MLB enforces dress code violations all the time, so they certainly have the authority to tell Rivera that he can not wear his number anymore. I thought that retiring the number league-wide was a great way to remind people of just how great and influential a person Jackie was. Just give up the #, Rivera. Give honor where honor is due.

Have you ever played sports? Just about everybody I have ever played ball with had their own number that meant something to them. Me personally, I always wore #4. I wore it in Football, Basketball, and Baseball. Being able to choose your number is sort of like a right of passage, and shows that you have have earned to be on a team. Once you deem a specific number as "your" number, you feel better when you are wearing it. Maybe that is just me, but that is my personal experience. I am sure that there are people who really don't care what number they wear, but there are a lot who do get attached to those numbers. Believe it or not, a lot of playing is mental. So if wearing a certain number makes you feel better, therefore allowing you to play better; then what's the problem with that?

[trosmok]

Here is the complete list of players who wore the number in 1997 and kept it past that season:........
That's them all. Everyone who wore #42 during the 1997 season- all 14 people.

Outstanding, efin98. I had tried to search the list but became bogged down going team by team and became very frustrated. Thanks for the info, but a dull knife is quite the misnomer, eh? Like calling a really huge guy "Tiny":waving

[Pghfan987]

Have you ever played sports? Just about everybody I have ever played ball with had their own number that meant something to them. Me personally, I always wore #4. I wore it in Football, Basketball, and Baseball. Being able to choose your number is sort of like a right of passage, and shows that you have have earned to be on a team. Once you deem a specific number as "your" number, you feel better when you are wearing it. Maybe that is just me, but that is my personal experience. I am sure that there are people who really don't care what number they wear, but there are a lot who do get attached to those numbers. Believe it or not, a lot of playing is mental. So if wearing a certain number makes you feel better, therefore allowing you to play better; then what's the problem with that?

Um, yes I have played sports. Baseball, basketball, golf, tennis, and swimming- all competitively. I didn't realize being non-superstitious didn't make me an athlete.

My baseball number is #17, because I wanted to be like Todd Helton. (Insert obvious Coors Field joke here). I guess that number had moderate importance to me, but it certainly was not a huge deal.

If I found out that the league I play in was retiring the number league-wide because of a person like J-Rob, then I would give it up. If the league decided that was how they wanted to honor that player, then I would respect their decision.

[Pghfan987]

I don't think they're being selfish at all. With that out of the way if you want to make a legal issue out of it and it appears that way, how could MLB use a dress code violation to force them to give it up. What chapter of the rule book would cover this issue, none.
I don't know the story behind Rivera, but MLB can easily enforce this rule. I mean, if they can retire a # league-wide, then they can do it right now. They make the rulebook.

[BadKarma]

Um, yes I have played sports. Baseball, basketball, golf, tennis, and swimming- all competitively. I didn't realize being non-superstitious didn't make me an athlete.

My baseball number is #17, because I wanted to be like Todd Helton. (Insert obvious Coors Field joke here). I guess that number had moderate importance to me, but it certainly was not a huge deal.

If I found out that the league I play in was retiring the number league-wide because of a person like J-Rob, then I would give it up. If the league decided that was how they wanted to honor that player, then I would respect their decision.


Nobody said that not being superstitious didn't make you an athelete. I asked if you had played sports, because I figured if you had, you would know other people, if not yourself, who had a certain number of importance to them. Obviously, like I stated, to some people, the number doesn't really matter, but to others it is very important. I was just trying to make this point as you originally stated you didn't understand some player's attachments to their numbers.

[KCGHOST]

The players who had #42 should have done the proper thing and gave up the number. Saying they are wearing the number out of respect to Robinson is flimsier than Pete Rose saying he didn't have a gambling problem.

[Pghfan987]

I just think that it sends a bad message to not give up the #42. It tells me that your # is more important than honoring Jackie Robinson to you. Even if Mo Rivera originally selected #42 to honor Jackie, the league decided that the best way to honor his legacy was by retiring his number on every team. I think that seeing his banner in every stadium across America is more of a tribute than some guys wearing it to honor him.

Badkarma- Sorry I got a little upset, I was out of line. I understand your point that #s mean more people than to others. I did have some teammates who fought over #24 in high school. But I just think that if I was a Big Leaguer who wore #42, and they told me that they were going retire it to honor Jackie, I would give it up in a heartbeat. For what he did for baseball, the least I can do is pick a different #.

[digglahhh]

The players who had #42 should have done the proper thing and gave up the number. Saying they are wearing the number out of respect to Robinson is flimsier than Pete Rose saying he didn't have a gambling problem.

Words from the omniscient...

Are you implying that although some people may have claimed to wear the number in tribute their real motivations for wearing the number were otherwise, and then they selfishly used this explanation as justification to keep their number? And do you have the gaul to posit this, with zero evidence as to its validity?

I thought I would be voted "most likely to subscribe to conspiracy theory" on this site...

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I don't know the story behind Rivera, but MLB can easily enforce this rule. I mean, if they can retire a # league-wide, then they can do it right now. They make the rulebook.

As far as I know, they do not have the authority to retire the number of an active player. The ruling was that no new player could wear number 42, those already wearing it were not obligated to give it up.They would have to amend the rule book and that would be kind of silly, an amendment after the fact to force an active player to give up his number.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I just think that if I was a Big Leaguer who wore #42, and they told me that they were going retire it to honor Jackie, I would give it up in a heartbeat. For what he did for baseball, the least I can do is pick a different #.

Not a problem your choice. Rivera his choice.

[Ursa Major]

I don't think it's fair to assume that players are lying when they say that one of the reasons that they wear #42 is out of respect to Robinson. There are some good points raised here, but I lean towards the thought that retiring a number sort of trivializes Robinson's impact. And, it deprives others of the right to honor him by wearing it themselves, just like many players choose #21 to honor Clemente. (Ironically, some in Clemente's family are now pushing to have his number retired league wide and some players resisted because they'd lose the right to honor him. See what got started?)

Since the import of the retirement is that Robinson's number goes up in ballparks in a manner similar to the way the clubs honor their own greats with retired numbers, why not just give him the honor that way, but let others honor him by wearing it?

[BadKarma]

Badkarma- Sorry I got a little upset, I was out of line. I understand your point that #s mean more people than to others. I did have some teammates who fought over #24 in high school. But I just think that if I was a Big Leaguer who wore #42, and they told me that they were going retire it to honor Jackie, I would give it up in a heartbeat. For what he did for baseball, the least I can do is pick a different #.


No need to apologize. I didn't see your words as being out of line. You didn't personally attack me or anything. You were just trying to get me to understand your point of view, just as I was trying to get you to see mine. ;)
Though we do not agree personally, at least we see each other's point of view, which is something at least.

[bigtrain]

Edited post. Misunderstood original post.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I just think that it sends a bad message to not give up the #42. It tells me that your # is more important than honoring Jackie Robinson to you. Even if Mo Rivera originally selected #42 to honor Jackie, the league decided that the best way to honor his legacy was by retiring his number on every team. I think that seeing his banner in every stadium across America is more of a tribute than some guys wearing it to honor him.

Badkarma- Sorry I got a little upset, I was out of line. I understand your point that #s mean more people than to others. I did have some teammates who fought over #24 in high school. But I just think that if I was a Big Leaguer who wore #42, and they told me that they were going retire it to honor Jackie, I would give it up in a heartbeat. For what he did for baseball, the least I can do is pick a different #.

I give Jackie all his due. Could any other black being the first in MLB handle all he endured as well as he did, I don't know. I'm sure I'll get some flack for this but consider this. If you were black and you were offered a chance to get out of the minors, away from the bus rides, the low pay and a chance to play in the bigs. Would you say no, I doubt any would, it was the chance of a lifetime, who would refuse.It was his only chance to prove that he was capable to play in white MLB, how could he refuse. I'm sure Jackie knew what was coming, it took courage but the choice was possibly spend the rest of your career in the minors or make the move and try to endure what was coming.

It was hell, all the name calling, being shunned even by some of his own teammates. I admire him, I respect the way he carried himself and showed that he could play with the best. With that I finish, if it were not Jackie it would have been another black to be the first in MLB, it was coming sooner or later. He was chosen and he was terrific, but who would not make that choice to make that move, stay in minor league ball or go to MLB.

BTW, he did not come into MLB with a big splash, was not there on opening day but one Larry Doby seldom gets any recognition for what he did, what he had to put up with. He came in mid season and it was no picnic. Of course he was black and no more welcome than Jackie. Add to that he played in some of the same cities in front of the same hostile fans, New York, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia it had to be tough sailing for Larry also.

I'll say it again, a matter of choice gve up that #42 or not. I don't hold anything against Rivera that was his choice.

[Astro]

If you were black and you were offered a chance to get out of the minors, away from the bus rides, the low pay and a chance to play in the bigs. Would you say no, I doubt any would, it was the chance of a lifetime, who would refuse.

Not sure I'd call the Negro Leagues minor leagues... look at baseball today, it is dominated by hispanic players, who usually played in the Negro Leagues...

There is no doubt in my mind that if Babe Ruth had played against Negro League players aswell, he would not have hit near as many homeruns as he did... perhaps 540 or so

It was hell, all the name calling, being shunned even by some of his own teammates.

So what Barry Bonds goes through now?

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Not sure I'd call the Negro Leagues minor leagues... look at baseball today, it is dominated by hispanic players, who usually played in the Negro Leagues...

There is no doubt in my mind that if Babe Ruth had played against Negro League players aswell, he would not have hit near as many homeruns as he did... perhaps 540 or so


So what Barry Bonds goes through now?


I would not also call the Negro leagues minor. There were some blacks that could have matched up against those in MLB and were better than some, a shame their color was the only thing that kept them out. Had blacks been in the game years earlier the history of MLB would have been greatly enriched.

Getting back to Jackie he was not in the Negro league when called up, Montreal of the International League.


On what you say about Ruth and 540 or so career home runs, how do we know. That would him put way down on the career home run list, there are 11 hitters on the list with more than 540 and look at some of todays hitters, some almost sure to get at least to the 500 club. What about Ruth in todays game? Sammy Sosa hits 60+ home runs three times, in a four year period. Sammy is an all or nothing guy, not half the hitter Ruth was.

Put it this way, Ruth could hit as many as anyone that was playing in any era under the same conditions. I would think send Barry or a Mike Schmidt back in time and they would be hitting the long ball. Good hitters hit in any era, maybe some adjustments.


As for what Barry's going through, a different situation. Barry and some others had problems getting along because of what ever the reason, who knows. Jackie was shunned just because of his skin color.

[Astro]

If you inserted Ruth into today's era, he would most likely struggle... the game today is played at a much much higher level than it was back when Ruth played... today's worst major league players most likely would have been great back in Ruth's day...

Ruth exactly as he was would most likely struggle, he was out of shape (by today's baseball standards) and had a horrible workout routine... now if he were to work out like today's players it may be different

[SHOELESSJOE3]

If you inserted Ruth into today's era, he would most likely struggle... the game today is played at a much much higher level than it was back when Ruth played... today's worst major league players most likely would have been great back in Ruth's day...Ruth exactly as he was would most likely struggle, he was out of shape (by today's baseball standards) and had a horrible workout routine... now if he were to work out like today's players it may be different

I certainly don't agree with that first paragraph statement, todays worst most likely would have been great back in Ruth's day, thats a real stretch. What does that mean, if todays worst would shine in Ruth's day what would we expect todays good and great to do in Ruth's time. Bonds, AROD maybe 90 or 100 home runs, Gwynn, Carew maybe hitting .close to .400 like it was routine, anyone buying that. I do say that the whole of todays game in general is at a higher level but there had to be great hitters back then just as there is now.

Don't know what Ruth would have done as far as staying in shape in todays world. It's not unreasonable to believe that his life style may have been different in todays world. He may not have even been put into an institution where he spent most of his years from the age of 7 to 19. We're talking about decades 70/80 years apart the general population lives in a whole different environment. Ruth, Hornsby past greats could hit in any era, they would have to adjust to the changes in pitching strategy that we see today. Only 4 hitters in modern time had a higher career batting average than Ruth and he was going for the long ball, they were not except for one Ted Williams.

[digglahhh]

If you inserted Ruth into today's era, he would most likely struggle... the game today is played at a much much higher level than it was back when Ruth played... today's worst major league players most likely would have been great back in Ruth's day...

Ruth exactly as he was would most likely struggle, he was out of shape (by today's baseball standards) and had a horrible workout routine... now if he were to work out like today's players it may be different

Greatness is about how much you do with what you are given, Astro.

Perhaps a high school track star could set a world record in 1906 or something, but what does that mean? What would he owe that to, his athleticism or the modern training techniques that allowed him to achieve what he did?

I don't understand how a below average modern player who used tools unavailable to the previous greats, going back in time and doing well is a poignant comment about his greatness or the others' weakness. That same player, when put on a level playing field with those who have the same advantages available to them, is a poor player- period.

We've been through this ad naseum, but I actually don't think a below average major leaguer would be able to make the adjsutments needed to even hold a roster spot on a team from Ruth's era. Beanballs, trick pitches, terrible lodging and transportation, larger strike zone, huge parks... The greats from either era could step in and take care of business and the below average guys couldn't hold a job in the other era, and that goes both ways, IMO.

[Bluesteve32]

One thing that cannot be forgotten is that there were only 16 teams prior to 1961, and there are 30 today. That does popah some of those trying to compare different eras' players with today's players.

The percentage of kids playing baseball in this country is not nearly the same as it was back a generation ago. Many kids today opt playing that "communist kickball" game where you cannot use your hands. Many longstanding youth programs in my area are suffering to field a full compliment of teams and must interleague and leagues are merging. granted we have many more foriegn players in today's game, the talent pool of American kids, especially Blacks, is diminishing.

Ruth would be a great player in any era.