Which modern players would do well in the deadball era? [Archive]

Beady

08-06-2009, 04:27 AM

Of course, Ruth was in fact a very good dead ball player.

It's interesting to consider marginal players who lack the range of skills to thrive under any conditions, as Ruth could have, but would have been more valuable in the dead ball era than playing after 1920. Off the top of my head, I can think of Matty Alou, Jerry Zimmerman (roughly speaking, the reincarnation of Bill Bergen) and Mark Belanger (a continuation of George McBride by other means).

Actually, I don't know how close Zimmerman came to Bergen. Probably the modern Bergen never made the major leagues except perhaps for a quick cup of coffee and I am not even aware of him.

Keith Hernandez, Mattingly and Willie Montanez were hardly marginal players but I think they all would have been even more valuable before 1920. Hernandez is pretty much the template for the ideal dead ball first baseman.

Ubiquitous

08-06-2009, 06:20 AM

Any player nowadays that has done well could have potentially done well in the deadball era.

nerfan

08-06-2009, 06:29 AM

Except guys whose only skill was power: Kingman, Balboni, etc.

mwiggins

08-06-2009, 06:41 AM

Except guys whose only skill was power: Kingman, Balboni, etc.

Maybe. Who knows though. Maybe Kingman in the Deadball Era would equal a poor man's Buck Freeman. Who knows what Kingman would have played like if he'd not spent all his efforts trying to hit home runs.

Ubiquitous

08-06-2009, 07:43 AM

Except guys whose only skill was power: Kingman, Balboni, etc.

They would still do well as well.

Kingman would have been a giant (literally) if he had played in the deadball era. A 6'6" man weighnig 210 pounds with good athletic skill would have been a beast back then. No pitcher on the planet back then would have been able to overpower him. That isn't to say that he would have been the greatest of them all or even a hall of famer but Kingman would have done just fine back then. Same with the 6'3" Balboni.

brett

08-06-2009, 09:41 AM

I wonder which modern players would be best-suited to the deadballe style of base ball.

Here's my modern All Star deadball lineup:

C: Joe Mauer
1B: Rod Carew
2B: Joe Morgan
SS: Ozzie Smith
3B: Wade Boggs
LF: Pete Rose
CF: Ichiro
RF: Tony Gwynn

Without strikeout pitchers, I'd think that hitters who hit .260 with 150 Ks and a lot of power would have been the best back then (if they could run). Granted you want line drives rather than flyes. Carew, Gwynn, Ichiro and Boggs were magicians with the bat. They were a few who did really have control over where the ball went. They changed the trajectory of their swings in mid flight. They could hit in any era and all would be relative power hitters, but Boggs was slow.

I think a Mike Schmidt maybe hits .320 with 50-60 Ks and the power to knck off a few guys heads.

Iron Jaw

08-06-2009, 09:49 AM

I think David Eckstein would appreciate playing in the deadball era.

Iron Jaw

08-06-2009, 09:52 AM

Gaylord Perry would have loved the legal spitter.

PVNICK

08-06-2009, 10:23 AM

Without strikeout pitchers, I'd think that hitters who hit .260 with 150 Ks and a lot of power would have been the best back then (if they could run). Granted you want line drives rather than flyes. Carew, Gwynn, Ichiro and Boggs were magicians with the bat. They were a few who did really have control over where the ball went. They changed the trajectory of their swings in mid flight. They could hit in any era and all would be relative power hitters, but Boggs was slow.

I think a Mike Schmidt maybe hits .320 with 50-60 Ks and the power to knck off a few guys heads.

I would have thought double, gap hitters would have been best. Your namesake may have been a cross between Ty Cobb and Frank Baker while his brother would have been Babe Ruth before there was a Babe Ruth (in MLB).

Paul Wendt

08-06-2009, 10:35 AM

We can't know which recent players would fare exceptionally well or poorly in a recreated deadball era game, relative to their peers.

For a few baseball generations now, everyone has learned batting with much lighter and generally smaller bats than everyone used a hundred years ago. Beside changes in geometry, bats are lighter because the white ash may be about 25% less dense today. Certainly the players would all need some retraining and those who would emerge as the greatest batters would not be precisely those we know as the greatest.

For more than fifty years, everyone has used gloves shaped and laced like baskets, where everyone used mitts a hundred years ago. Big or small hands make relatively little difference in fielding today. It isn't likely that Ozzie Smith would be the very best of his time after he and his peers all made the transition to mitts; he would "gain a disadvantage" under the deadball era conditions, the disadvantage of relatively small hands. Nor is it likely that Hans Wagner would be so good at shortstop if he and his peers learned to play with baskets; he would lose one advantage under the conditions of his time, the advantage of relatively big hands. Down in the ranks of marginal shortstops, probably among average ones, some would not make the major league grade if all were competing under alternative conditions; some of the marginal would be superior.

Permitting the spitball and other "trick pitches" or replacing the baseball only when lost in the stands would make some change in the ranks of the modern pitchers, as would the modern rules and practices for the deadball pitchers.

--

It's interesting to consider marginal players who lack the range of skills to thrive under any conditions, as Ruth could have, but would have been more valuable in the dead ball era than playing after 1920. Off the top of my head, I can think of Matty Alou, Jerry Zimmerman (roughly speaking, the reincarnation of Bill Bergen) and Mark Belanger (a continuation of George McBride by other means).
I believe Mark Belanger played at a great time in a great organization for Mark Belanger to enjoy a 2000-game, 6600-pa career. He was a regular major league shortstop for 13 seasons, McBride for 9 or 10.

Brad Harris

08-06-2009, 10:40 AM

What's the cutoff year for 'modern'? Lots of people would have shone to great advantage in deadball.

Aaron, Mays, Clemente, Nellie Fox, Luis Aparicio, Omar Viszel, A-Rod, Jeter, Bench. Lots of great players would have transitioned beautifully. Including Mantle and Bonds.

My thoughts exactly.

RuthMayBond

08-06-2009, 10:46 AM

It isn't likely that Ozzie Smith would be the very best of his time after he and his peers all made the transition to mitts,Um, he also wouldn't have to deal with live-era balls being hit by livelier bats onto rocket-fast turf

<nor that Hans Wagner would be so good at shortstop if he and his peers learned to play with baskets.>

So nobody would be good? If not Ozzie nor Honus, then who?

Paul Wendt

08-06-2009, 11:02 AM

I edited one paragraph to emphasize the (dis)advantage of big (or small) hands in fielding, shortstop in this case.
>>
For more than fifty years, everyone has used gloves shaped and laced like baskets, where everyone used mitts a hundred years ago. Big or small hands make relatively little difference in fielding today. It isn't likely that Ozzie Smith would be the very best of his time after he and his peers all made the transition to mitts; he would "gain a disadvantage" under the deadball era conditions, the disadvantage of relatively small hands. Nor is it likely that Hans Wagner would be so good at shortstop if he and his peers learned to play with baskets; he would lose one advantage under the conditions of his time, the advantage of relatively big hands.
<<

Um, he also wouldn't have to deal with live-era balls being hit by livelier bats onto rocket-fast turf

That would hurt him. Quickness in dealing with those sharply batted balls on rocket-fast turf was part of Ozzie Smith's game and he would lose that advantage. His peers would not be dealing with all that either and those not so adept at dealing would, in the deadball game, lose that disadvantage of relative slowness. At the same time, those among them with bigger hands than Smith would gain the advantage of bigger hands using mitts.

The illustration is easy enough to develop for Wagner and his peers using baskets, on rocket-fast turf if you wish.

Of course hand size is only an illustration of the general point, as bat weight and trick pitch regulation are illustrations.

Bill Burgess

08-06-2009, 12:12 PM

Good is good and talent is talent. A great baseball superstar should excel in any era, under any conditions.

Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, Ewing? You just drop them onto any moment on the time-continuum, and they will shine and sparkle like the diamonds they were.

Push Babe Ruth back to 1900-1920, and he will simply adjust his stroke and become a more-powerful Joe Jackson.

Push Ty Cobb up to 1950-1970, and he will simply adjust his stroke and incorporate 35-40 homers into his attack arsenal.

Wagner/Mays? Sheesh. Just drop them anywhere and they will fit in and star. The toolset is just so broad and wide that the timeline just doesn't matter.

RuthMayBond

08-06-2009, 12:14 PM

Push Ty Cobb up to 1950-1970, and he will simply adjust his stroke and incorporate 35-40 homers into his attack arsenal.
Except that he didn't do similar in the 1920s

Bill Burgess

08-06-2009, 12:20 PM

Except that he didn't do similar in the 1920s
Quibble with my details if thou must, but I make a bigger point.

Ty would have been freed of his deadball mindset if born later. He had a powerful, psychological hostility to the home run in his own time, born of a quasi-religious belief as to how the game should be played.

Born later, he would have not been so emotionally shackled.

RuthMayBond

08-06-2009, 12:23 PM

Quibble with my details if thou must, but I make a bigger point.

Ty would have been freed of his deadball mindset if born later. He had a powerful, psychological hostility to the home run in his own time, born of a quasi-religious belief as to how the game should be played.

Born later, he would have not been so emotionally shackled.So he wouldn't have stolen hardly at all. How is that working?

Bill Burgess

08-06-2009, 12:25 PM

So he wouldn't have stolen hardly at all. How is that working?
You are one slippery rascal.

RuthMayBond

08-06-2009, 12:29 PM

You are one slippery rascal.You're the slippery one, I just won't let you have it both ways :laugh:laugh:laugh:laugh

Bill Burgess

08-06-2009, 12:31 PM

You're the slippery one, I just won't let you have it both ways :laugh:laugh:laugh:laugh
Moi? I will have it both ways, 3 ways and occasionally, 4 ways. Any questions, my young apprentice?

RuthMayBond

08-06-2009, 12:35 PM

Moi? I will have it both ways, 3 ways and occasionally, 4 ways. Any questions, my young apprentice?Why bother with questions to a shady one, oh crooked grasshopper? :D

mwiggins

08-06-2009, 12:55 PM

Push Ty Cobb up to 1950-1970, and he will simply adjust his stroke and incorporate 35-40 homers into his attack arsenal.

So what you're saying is that Ty Cobb = Duke Snider?

nerfan

08-06-2009, 12:57 PM

Moi? I will have it both ways, 3 ways and occasionally, 4 ways. Any questions, my young apprentice?

I've got a question. How many thousands of home runs would Cobb have? And how many ten thousands of hits?
:laugh

Cobb would probably have the all-time hit record if he played in the '70's.

RuthMayBond

08-06-2009, 12:58 PM

Moi? I will have it both ways, 3 ways and occasionally, 4 ways. Any questions, my young apprentice?
This is Bill's general, overall credibility: :applaud::highfive::thumbsup:

This is Bill's credibility in this argument: :disbelief::laugh:waving:choke::banghead: :rolleyes: :blah:

RuthMayBond

08-06-2009, 01:00 PM

I've got a question. How many thousands of home runs would Cobb have? And how many ten thousands of hits?
:laugh

Cobb would probably have the all-time hit record if he played in the '70's.Ty Cobb was a poor, poor victim of his own environment. In ANY other era, he would have had the ALL-TIME RECORD for EVERYTHING

nerfan

08-06-2009, 01:16 PM

Ty Cobb was a poor, poor victim of his own environment. In ANY other era, he would have had the ALL-TIME RECORD for EVERYTHING

Including strikeouts (pitcher) and wins (pitcher). Don't forget about complete games, shutouts, and of course WHIP. One time in 1977 he no-hit the California Angels for 22 innings. He went 7-7 in that game with 7 triples, but no one managed to score him. Then he got pissed and stole home in the bottom of the 22nd against a right-handed pitcher. For good measure, Cobb hit 5 home runs the next day and pitched another shutout.

nerfan

08-06-2009, 01:17 PM

So what you're saying is that Ty Cobb = Duke Snider?

With a longer career, higher BA and OBP (and therefore higher SLG), more speed, and probably more ISO power even? Sure. But then we're comparing Babe Ruth to Ralph Kiner.

Eyeshade

08-06-2009, 01:19 PM

A few things to keep in mind about comparisons.
DEADBALL era players had a better grasp of fundamentals from what I can gather and baseball got most of the athletes, as making a living in any other team sport was very iffy. No NBA, NFL, NHL MLS etc. From speaking with old-timers, they also will tell you that they were used to harder work and tougher conditions. They also had more tendon and ligament strength supporting less muscle mass and were less prone to a lot of the problems that ballplayers today have.
MODERN DAY GUYS have better nutrition, health care, equipment, smaller "inplay" areas (generally) in ballparks with better playing surfaces, cleaner baseballs- no spit, shine ball, etc. They are generally, larger, stronger and faster.

A handful of guys who I would love to see play in the past: Vizquel, Ozzie Smith, Thome, Ripken, Ichiro, Nolan Ryan.

nerfan

08-06-2009, 01:22 PM

rsuriyop

08-06-2009, 02:26 PM

I'm surprised no one's mentioned Jackie Robinson as I'm sure he would have been awesome playing under deadball era conditions. Likewise, I would think that guys are good at bunting and base stealing would also do quite well. Brett Butler, Carl Crawford, Rickey Henderson, and Tim Raines are just some of the names that come immediately to mind.

Bill Burgess

08-06-2009, 02:29 PM

So what you're saying is that Ty Cobb = Duke Snider?
Oh no. I'm saying that Ty would have had Hornsby/Musial power. Logic suggests that he would have chosen to limit himself to mid-range pop.

In order to go over 40 yearly would have required him to focus on homers to the point of bringing down his BA. I truly believe that he had the natural strength to get 35-40 homers in his prime seasons without trying for homers.

I don't believe that Hornsby got his homers by focusing on them. They resulted from his natural power of his level swing.

And I also believe that the same held true for some others. I remember hearing Willie Mays say when he was interviewed on 'Home Run Derby', that when he went for homers, he almost never got them. He'd pop up. He said that was why he didn't specifically try to hit homers. He got them from his natual power. Same for Hank Aaron, Clemente.

I also read an article by Stan Musial where he said that after he hit 39 homers in 1948, he changed his hitting style the next season. He said in the article that he tried to hit homers. And consequently, he never again hit as many as 39 homers in a season. And he also said that he thought he lost many poinst off of his BA due to having misguidedly changed his style.

I do not believe that Musial, Cobb, Speaker, DiMaggio, or Hornsby were true power hitters. They were composite hitters who got some homers in the mid-range due to natural power.

But others were power hitters. Lajoie, Wagner, Crawford, Cravath, Foxx, Gehrig, Mantle, Killebrew, Stargel, McCovey, Frank Howard were true power hitters.

Hope I've answered the question somewhere in there.

Bill Burgess

08-06-2009, 02:30 PM

Thanks guys for the good-natured ribbing. I love you guys, even when you're peeing on my leg and telling me it's raining.

Brad Harris

08-06-2009, 02:48 PM

Thanks guys for the good-natured ribbing. I love you guys, even when you're peeing on my leg and telling me it's raining.

Which reminds me of a classic!

Q: Why was Helen Keller's leg yellow?
A: Her dog was blind too! :silent:

Ubiquitous

08-06-2009, 03:15 PM

A few things to keep in mind about comparisons.
DEADBALL era players had a better grasp of fundamentals from what I can gather

There is no inherent reason that the deadball players would be particularly more gifted in this area than anyone else. In otherwords it wasn't a genetic reason for their edge if there was one. Deadball players may have been better fundamentally than players of today but that is because they had to be. Either because of genetic reasons or becuase of environmental reasons or some combination of the two.

and baseball got most of the athletes, as making a living in any other team sport was very iffy. No NBA, NFL, NHL MLS etc. They hardly got most of the athletes. In fact they got zero, absolutely none, black athletes.

From speaking with old-timers, they also will tell you that they were used to harder work and tougher conditions. They also had more tendon and ligament strength supporting less muscle mass and were less prone to a lot of the problems that ballplayers today have.

They were not less prone to them they simply had no remedy for these injuries. A pitcher that hurts his arm vanishes from the league back then. Nowadays they get it fixed and come back. Players got hurt all the time back then, perhaps even more so than today. Though I don't know about the last part.

Paul Wendt

08-06-2009, 03:48 PM

good one, or three

I doubt one point but I'm not sure I know what it means.

Deadball players may have been better fundamentally than players of today but that is because they had to be. Either because of genetic reasons or because of environmental reasons or some combination of the two.
Do you mean people with genetic disposition to be better at fundamentals? That seems odd to me, but if there were such genetic variation it makes sense that baseball competition selects more intensely for fundamental skills in some conditions and less intensely in other conditions. Voila, major league players under the former conditions are better at fundamentals.

Ubiquitous

08-06-2009, 04:04 PM

What I mean is that being good fundamentally is not a genetic thing. Being good fundamentally is not like being a red head or being 6'6".

It is a learned skill which means for the most part everybody could learn. Sure some players will be able to throw the ball farther or have quicker reflexes which will help them in the fundamental department. But you can be as slow as a mule and the reflexes of a sloth and still have great fundamentals it just that you won't be very good in utilizing those skills.

Ubiquitous

08-06-2009, 04:17 PM

PS:

I also happen to notice that I probably didn't really explain that last sentence in which I mentioned genetic or environmental and that this might be the cause of the confusion. What I meant was that in that era you might very well have "undersized" players playing positions who were not physically capable of performing what needed to be done on a reliable basis therefore one needed other players, or really all players, to be fundamentally sound to protect against this. Meaning it is quite possible that an outfielder didn't have the arm strength to throw the ball adequately to home plate or the foot speed to track down a liner thus requiring a cutoff man because the ball rolled to the wall or because your second basemen happens to be 5'7" and 140 pounds while the guy barreling down at him is 6'1" and 190 pounds so somebody might very well be needed to go get the ball should it get knocked loose or he happens to sail the ball past the first basemen or the batter happens to be a 5'6" 130 pound hitter so he better be able to execute a good bunt to move that runner over.
The environmental part I don't think I need to explain.

Eyeshade

08-06-2009, 04:28 PM

Never meant that the fundamentals were genetic in any way. It is a matter of learning, practicing and how the game is played. The focus of todays batter for example is on power, so a lot of non-power approaches to hitting- ball placement, bat control are not as emphasized. There are exceptions- like Ichiro is and Tony Gwynn and Rod Carew were. Also- smart baserunning isn't as big a deal as it was back in the day, not stealing necessarily, just knowing how to advance, read a pitcher's moves, etc.

Ubiquitous

08-06-2009, 04:46 PM

But those skills for the most part are not needed. Take baserunning for instance. The fields have gotten so small, the gloves have gotten so big, and the turf has gotten so manicured that the danger of trying to take the extra base is so great that it isn't worth it to try and stretch the run to an extra base. Now then some might see a player "loaf" it into second or first and say "what has this game come to" but isn't it also a skill to know that you cannot make it or that the risk too great to try? Yes, playing it safe will occasionally result in a missed opportunity but you also don't get thrown out. Unfortunately we can all recognize a missed opportunity but it is much harder for us to see a correct safe call on the part of the runner's part.

Take hitting the cutoff man. Again, fields are smaller which means that most throws from the outfield don't require a cutoff.

How about backing up a base? Again, gloves have gotten better, fields are more consistent and so are baseballs. Which means the chance that a ball gets by a fielder is much more remote. It no longer becomes necessary to back up a bag.

That isn't to say all fundamentals are pointless. I think Whitey in his book did a pretty good job pointing out which "fundamentals" are still important and when they are important.

nerfan

08-06-2009, 06:45 PM

I wonder which deadball players would NOT play well in the lively ball era... I guess guys who couldn't hit a good fastball, guys who had poor plate discipline, and maybe guys who were marginal players to begin with.

Honus Wagner and Ty Cobb, along with Speaker, Lajoie, and a number of other players I feel could easily make the adjustment with only a little loss to their OPS+, but most "average" players would become poor.

Ubiquitous

08-06-2009, 06:51 PM

Tinkers, Evers, Wee Willie, and pretty much any of the players that were more noted for their defense than their offensive prowess. Then throw in the midget up the middle fielders or really any midget fielders as well. So guys like Donie Bush and Rabbit would get double whacked.

Blackout

08-06-2009, 10:06 PM

pete rose, MODERN? lol joe morgan???

you must be 150

Blackout

08-06-2009, 10:07 PM

derek jeter would've been the perfect SS in the deadball era

imagine mariano being able to throw spit on his cutter

or how many bases carl crawford would steal

nerfan

08-07-2009, 03:50 AM

pete rose, MODERN? lol joe morgan???

you must be 150

Pete Rose could be modern to a guy that's 30. So could Joe Morgan. And Derek Jeter would not have been the best deadball SS of all time. I'm pretty sure that title would belong to Honus Wagner.

Blackout

08-07-2009, 08:38 AM

no way

Jeter's size and strength would trump Wagner. Wagner wasn't better than Pop Lloyd btw.

Victory Faust

08-07-2009, 10:39 AM

no way

Jeter's size and strength would trump Wagner. Wagner wasn't better than Pop Lloyd btw.

There's simply no way to arrive at that conclusion because you don't have any material with which to compare the two players.

Honus Wagner Rules

08-07-2009, 10:53 AM

no way

Jeter's size and strength would trump Wagner.
You think Jeter is bigger and stronger than Honus Wagner? Surely, you jest. That's not even close to being true. In 1903, during the Dead ball Era, Honus hit a 450 ft home run. The following is from the book Honus Wagner: A Biography. This is from a game in 1903:

At Brooklyn on June 30th, Wagner had a second consecutive four hit game. He tripled, drove in four runs, scored three times, and his 450-foot home run over the centerfield fence was heralded as one of the longest ever hit at Washington Park.

You think Jeter could do that? Has Jeter even hit a 450 ft during his career? Honus was a very muscular player with huge hands, thick forearms and powrful sinewy wrists. Though, Wagner was four inches shorter than Jeter, Wagner was slightly heavier.

Wagner wasn't better than Pop Lloyd btw.

He wasn't? Is that why they referred to Lloyd as the "Black Honus Wagner"?

TonyK

08-07-2009, 03:56 PM

I wonder which modern players would be best-suited to the deadballe style of base ball.

Here's my modern All Star deadball lineup:

C: Joe Mauer
1B: Rod Carew
2B: Joe Morgan
SS: Ozzie Smith
3B: Wade Boggs
LF: Pete Rose
CF: Ichiro
RF: Tony Gwynn

I think your team would have finished in the First Division unless their Day/Night splits worked against them.

I also like Tony Oliva, Brett Butler, and Roberto Clemente as other good dead-ballers.

RuthMayBond

08-07-2009, 06:41 PM

I wonder which modern players would be best-suited to the deadballe style of base ball.

Here's my modern All Star deadball lineup:

SS: Ozzie SmithI might go with Larkin

<LF: Pete Rose>

Well, there WAS that Rickey guy

nerfan

08-07-2009, 06:50 PM

I might go with Larkin

<LF: Pete Rose>

Well, there WAS that Rickey guy

Yeah, I'd take Rickey over Rose. Rickey might hit like .330 in the deadball era and steal 100+ bases every year.

joshfan

08-08-2009, 06:46 AM

how about all of them?
bigger faster stronger and better conditioned
would be a cakewalk

nerfan

08-08-2009, 06:17 PM

how about all of them?
bigger faster stronger and better conditioned
would be a cakewalk

You're underestimating the athletic prowess of deadball players. Severely. If Ty Cobb played today he'd be just as well conditioned as any modern player.

mwiggins

08-08-2009, 07:23 PM

how about all of them?
bigger faster stronger and better conditioned
would be a cakewalk

Since none of them would be lifting weights or taking supplements or training year round, it might not be such a cake walk. Most of the modern players we're talking about would look far different if they had played in the deadball era.

Iron Jaw

08-11-2009, 09:37 AM

Yeah, I'd take Rickey over Rose. Rickey might hit like .330 in the deadball era and steal 100+ bases every year.

Could he handle the extra "physical" action of the era, which really wasn't enforced by the umpires or the league? A few extra intentional HBP's without a batting helmet, along with trips, kicks, punches and spikes (of course, as the base runner he'd be doing some spiking himself).

My grandfather played minor league baseball as a catcher in the early part of the 20th Century. He had spike marks up and down his legs and all of his fingers had been broken at least once. He always said, they gave it to you and you gave it right back. Problems were settled on the field.....and sometimes under the bleachers after the game.

Iron Jaw

08-11-2009, 09:45 AM

how about all of them?
bigger faster stronger and better conditioned
would be a cakewalk

True - the average player is bigger, faster and stronger than in 1910. But, swinging for the fences wouldn't work very well against the baseballs of the times, which were often doctored wet, or discolored with chewing tobacco - legally. And no batting helmet, which might make a modern player gunshy when he gets a brushback pitch around the head and the umpire just.....calls a ball. He would also have to get used to the bats of the times, along with the tiny gloves when in the field - no DH position available.

The game on the field featured so many different things. A player could be bigger, faster and stronger, but he also had to adapt to the style of play, including the physically rough aspects of the game that might garner a suspension in the modern game.

He would have to do a lot of homework to fit in the era.

In reverse, the player from the earlier era might find himself getting suspended quite often if he did some of the antics of his time in the modern game.

PVNICK

08-11-2009, 10:21 AM

Could he handle the extra "physical" action of the era, which really wasn't enforced by the umpires or the league? A few extra intentional HBP's without a batting helmet, along with trips, kicks, punches and spikes (of course, as the base runner he'd be doing some spiking himself).

My grandfather played minor league baseball as a catcher in the early part of the 20th Century. He had spike marks up and down his legs and all of his fingers had been broken at least once. He always said, they gave it to you and you gave it right back. Problems were settled on the field.....and sometimes under the bleachers after the game.
I doubt either Rickey or Rose would be headfirst sliding.

Iron Jaw

08-11-2009, 10:38 AM

I doubt either Rickey or Rose would be headfirst sliding.

It seems everyone wants to headfirst slide nowadays. I coached a 14-15 year old Babe Ruth League team this year, and when we were doing sliding drills in practice every kid except one started off with the head first slide. I teach the hook slide and others. One of the mothers of the kids on the team gave me her advice on the hook slide, suggesting it could cause serious injury. I told her it was probably less apt to cause an injury than the head first slide, but......I couldn't get the kids to buy into the slide anyway. Oh, they'd do it in practice, but during the games, head first! My own son was the lone player who led with his feet on the slide (primarily because that is what I taught him from the first time he stepped onto a ballfield).