View Single Post
  #12  
Old 04-24-2017, 12:13 PM
Snapolit1's Avatar
Snapolit1 Snapolit1 is offline
Ste.ve Na.polit.ano
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,651
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbcard1 View Post
I think he would still be a superstar, best player in the game or battling Mike Trout for that honor. I don't agree that the talent is watered down today. The advances in scouting and globalization of the game not to mention the vast financial rewards and the inclusion to African American talent have lead to a greater pool of talent. I would venture to say that the worst player in the majors today would be considerably better than the worst player in the majors during Ruth's time.
I think the skill levels of pro baseball players today absolutely dwarfs the skill level of players in the 20s and 30s. I think many of the teams in that era were filled with guys who would be mediocre mid level AA players today. I will go the extra mile (probably just to piss people off) and say that Tim Tebow would have been a very good professional player in that era. Can I prove any of that. Of course not. Just my strong suspicion. Look at the difference between the numbers track and field guys put up today vs. the 20s. No comparison. I would expect the same thing in baseball, football, and basketball.

Of course had the guys then had the training available today it would have been a much tougher call.

Last edited by Snapolit1; 04-24-2017 at 12:14 PM.
Reply With Quote