Home Sports Talk

Who would the nine starters be on your MLB all-time team??

MaywoodMaywood Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭✭✭

Lou Gehrig.
Rogers Hornsby.
Honus Wagner.
Brooks Robinson.
Ted Williams.
Willie Mays.
Babe Ruth.
Johnny Bench.
Greg Maddux.

Maywood.

«1

Comments

  • perkdogperkdog Posts: 29,160 ✭✭✭✭✭

    C Roy Campanella
    1B Albert Pujols
    2B Joe Morgan
    3B Mike Schmidt
    SS Barry Larkin
    OF Willie May's
    OF Ted Williams
    OF Joe Dimaggio
    P Pedro Martinez

  • LandrysFedoraLandrysFedora Posts: 1,700 ✭✭✭✭✭

    C Johnny Bench
    1B Lou Gehrig
    2B Joe Morgan
    SS Derek Jeter
    3B Chipper Jones
    OF Mickey Mantle
    OF Roberto Clemente
    OF Ted Williams
    P Walter Johnson

  • 1951WheatiesPremium1951WheatiesPremium Posts: 6,201 ✭✭✭✭✭

    C Yogi Berra
    1B Albert Pujols
    2B Rogers Hornsby
    3B Mike Schmidt
    SS Honus Wagner
    OF Babe Ruth
    OF Willie Mays
    OF Rickey Henderson
    P Bob Gibson

    Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?

    https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,098 ✭✭✭✭✭

    ^^That's a pretty good team, maybe Ted instead of Rickey for me.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • 1951WheatiesPremium1951WheatiesPremium Posts: 6,201 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JoeBanzai said:
    ^^That's a pretty good team, maybe Ted instead of Rickey for me.

    I left of lots of great players but I wanted a lead off hitter and he’s the best to ever do it. Rickey Henderson may have been a few screws loose but he may have also been the most complete player ever.

    Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?

    https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest

  • DarinDarin Posts: 6,229 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Batting order and position

    CF Ty Cobb
    SS Honus Wagner
    RF Ted Williams
    LF Babe Ruth
    FB Lou Gehrig
    3B George Brett
    C Johnny Bench
    2B Joe Morgan
    P Randy Johnson

    Alternates….

    Hank Aaron, Willie Mays
    Stan Musial, Ryne Sandberg
    Tom Seaver, Yogi Berra

    DISCLAIMER FOR BASEBAL21
    In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
  • 1951WheatiesPremium1951WheatiesPremium Posts: 6,201 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Darin said:
    Batting order and position

    CF Ty Cobb
    SS Honus Wagner
    RF Ted Williams
    LF Babe Ruth
    FB Lou Gehrig
    3B George Brett
    C Johnny Bench
    2B Joe Morgan
    P Randy Johnson

    Alternates….

    Hank Aaron, Willie Mays
    Stan Musial, Ryne Sandberg
    Tom Seaver, Yogi Berra

    Nice lineup. You threw me a little with ‘FB.’

    Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?

    https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest

  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,081 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @1951WheatiesPremium said:

    @JoeBanzai said:
    ^^That's a pretty good team, maybe Ted instead of Rickey for me.

    I left of lots of great players but I wanted a lead off hitter and he’s the best to ever do it. Rickey Henderson may have been a few screws loose but he may have also been the most complete player ever.

    Henderson was the greatest to ever bat leadoff. Had the Red Sox used Williams as their leadoff hitter, though, Williams would be the greatest leadoff hitter ever. Someone else is the greatest ever to bat 8th in the order. Whoever that may be, I do not recommend picking him for an all-time team either.

    My team:

    2B Morgan
    SS Wagner
    RF Ruth
    LF Williams
    1B Gehrig
    CF Mays
    3B Schmidt
    C Bench
    P Martinez

    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
  • MaywoodMaywood Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Henderson was the greatest to ever bat leadoff

    Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't that just happen once every game??

  • spacehaydukespacehayduke Posts: 5,419 ✭✭✭✭✭

    They'd all be SF Giants bc that is my team. And that is the SF Giants, not the NY Giants (I was not alive then), meaning had to play in SF at least in part. For most of them at least at their career peaks, they were as good or better than anyone and 10 MVP's between 'em.

    In batting order plus number of MVP's as Giant:

    C Buster Posey, 1
    1rst Willie McCovey, 1
    LF Barry Bonds, 5
    CF Willie Mays, 2
    3rd Matt Williams, 2nd in MVP voting '94
    2nd Jeff Kent, 1
    RF Bobby Bonds (coulda put Kevin Mitchell here with 1 MVP as SFG, but only played 5 years for the G's)
    SS Brandon Crawford
    P Madison Bumgarner

    Even Maddie could (can?) hit the ball one of the better hitting pitchers.


    Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
  • HydrantHydrant Posts: 7,773 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 4, 2023 1:21PM

    I would choose my team not based on who was the best all time at their position but who was the best that I never saw play......
    With the exception of two players.
    Lou Gehrig ...First Base

    Rodgers Hornsby...Second Base

    Honus Wagner...Shortstop

    Eddie Matthews...Third Base

    Yogi Berra...Catcher

    Babe Ruth....Outfield

    Try Cobb...Outfield

    Stan Musial...Outfield

    Christy "Bix Six" Mathewson....Pitcher

    Walter "Big Train" Johnson...Pitcher

    "Dandy Sandy" Koufax....Pitcher

    Not a Bad Team...

  • 1951WheatiesPremium1951WheatiesPremium Posts: 6,201 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @dallasactuary
    @Maywood

    Instead of lead off hitter, since that was interpreted literally based off my typing too quickly, I will just say I would want someone with skills to create havoc on the basepaths and score from first base on a single to right field while maintaining a solid average, solid power and playing their position well defensively.

    If there’s a DH, Teddy Ballgame can have have at it. If he’s playing left?

    Hard pass…

    Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?

    https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest

  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,081 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I hear you and I don't mean to imply that Henderson was anything less than great. But your team will score more runs with Williams in the lineup than with Henderson. Even if you have to play him at shortstop, your team will win more games with Williams in your lineup than without him.

    Alternatively, you also left off Joe Morgan, the greatest 2B in history, and he could serve the role you're looking for as the leadoff hitter.

    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
  • 1951WheatiesPremium1951WheatiesPremium Posts: 6,201 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @dallasactuary said:
    I hear you and I don't mean to imply that Henderson was anything less than great. But your team will score more runs with Williams in the lineup than with Henderson. Even if you have to play him at shortstop, your team will win more games with Williams in your lineup than without him.

    Alternatively, you also left off Joe Morgan, the greatest 2B in history, and he could serve the role you're looking for as the leadoff hitter.

    You are very smart and I always appreciate your opinions.

    Always.

    Can you please lay out the case for Morgan over Hornsby?

    I know you love Morgan and rightly so but Hornsby might be the most underrated player ever. I k ie he was in a hitter friendly era but they were a ridiculous resume of hits…

    Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?

    https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest

  • MaywoodMaywood Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Can you please lay out the case for Morgan over Hornsby?

    In any type of question which asks about the entire history of players or teams the advantage tends to go to the most modern or recent players or teams.

  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,081 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @1951WheatiesPremium said:
    Can you please lay out the case for Morgan over Hornsby?

    First, it is my opinion that Morgan is the best, it is not a fact. If you think anyone besides Morgan, Hornsby, or Collins is the GOAT then I'll say you're wrong. As it is, I'll just say I disagree.

    My case for Morgan starts with OPS+. For Hornsby it's 175 and for Morgan it's 132. But as we move on from there, everything favors Morgan.

    As I've talked about at interminable length, OPS+ doesn't consider baserunning and it gives greater credit for a bases empty single than for a bases empty walk. Adjust for that (what I call OPS++), and Hornsby's OPS+ inches up to 181 and Morgan's zooms up to 182. Now, there's nothing sacred about OPS++ but I think the evidence, if you look at all of it, says that Morgan and Hornsby were, relative to the people they were playing against, about equals as overall offensive forces.

    Neither Morgan nor Hornsby are in the conversation for greatest fielders at 2B, but Morgan was very good for a while and better than Hornsby overall.

    Hornsby hit 75% better (adjusted: 81%) than one group of players, Morgan hit 32% (adjusted: 82%) better than a different group of players. I do not know how much better Morgan's peers were than Hornsby's, but I know they were better. Were they enough better that Julian Javier becomes a better hitter than Hornsby? Surely not, not even close. But with Hornsby and Morgan we're talking about two players (see 1. above) who are already about equal offensively ignoring strength of competition. And in this case, where all we need to do is break a tie, I think the tie is broken.

    So, I am reasonably sure that Morgan was better than Hornsby offensively, and nearly certain that he was better than Hornsby defensively. In the end, I'm pretty comfortable saying Morgan was the GOAT at 2B.

    Interesting, and tangentially relevant, note about Morgan. Bill James invented, solely for his own amusement as far as I can tell, something he calls the "percentage player index". It's a way of measuring how good a player is at the things that the commonly used stats don't measure. Being Bill James the formula got very complicated, but the things he measured were fielding % compared to league average, stolen base %, strikeout to walk ratio, and walks per plate appearance. Joe Morgan was, on this basis, the best "percentage player" in history (Dick Stuart was the worst).

    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,098 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Would you really need good baerunning on this team?
    I'll take Hornsby. He came up as a shortstop not known for being a great hitter, so he must have been a good fielder.
    Would LOVE to see him and Williams on the same team. Those two would have gone insane competing for who was the better hitter.😁

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,081 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JoeBanzai said:
    Would you really need good baerunning on this team?

    Well, no, once you've filled out the other 8 spots you could play Cecil Fielder at second base and you'd still win every game.

    But that's not the point. The point is that Morgan, through a combination of getting on base via a walk and stealing second, is the equivalent of a hitter who gets 70-80 doubles a year. This team doesn't "need" a second baseman who hits 70-80 doubles a year, but that player will be scoring as many runs as anyone else on the team.

    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
  • MaywoodMaywood Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'll be honest, guys, when I thought of the topic and the players I'd want on my roster it never occurred to me who would be the best lead-off guy or who might get the most walks, so Ricky Henderson or Joe Morgan never came to mind. In the whole scheme of things, much of what those two did had a lot to do with who they were playing with. That's part of the reason I chose Willie Mays over Mickey Mantle in CF. I don't know if that makes sense but it's how I was thinking.

    Also, I know the names picked by some members will be their personal favorites and I accept that. The thing is that if I chose Vic Davilillo as my CF'er I'd get laughed off the boards!! In the same light, I don't know how members could leave Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig or Johnny Bench off their lists, but that's what makes the world go 'round.

    As a friend of mine used to say, "If any two of us were the same, one would be unnecessary."

  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,081 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Maywood said:
    I'll be honest, guys, when I thought of the topic and the players I'd want on my roster it never occurred to me who would be the best lead-off guy or who might get the most walks, so Ricky Henderson or Joe Morgan never came to mind.

    I can understand that, and there's no compelling reason why "most walks" should necessarily come to mind in this exercise. What should come to mind, though, is "creates the most runs" and "saves the most runs". The player who has the greatest total of those two, as always adjusted for ballpark and era, is the one you want on your team. The contributions that "most walks" and other often ignored stats make towards creating runs are significant and however one thinks of them - directly, indirectly, in combination with other stats - is not that important, provided they aren't being ignored.

    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,098 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @dallasactuary said:

    @JoeBanzai said:
    Would you really need good baerunning on this team?

    Well, no, once you've filled out the other 8 spots you could play Cecil Fielder at second base and you'd still win every game.

    But that's not the point. The point is that Morgan, through a combination of getting on base via a walk and stealing second, is the equivalent of a hitter who gets 70-80 doubles a year. This team doesn't "need" a second baseman who hits 70-80 doubles a year, but that player will be scoring as many runs as anyone else on the team.

    I think that Hornsby was one of the top 5 hitters of all time and while Joe Morgan was a superb 2nd baseman, not the better of the two.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • HydrantHydrant Posts: 7,773 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 5, 2023 5:42PM

    There is something that has been left out of this thread.....Maybe the most important part!.....
    Who Would You Choose To Be The Manager of Your All Time Team!!!!
    Makes All The Difference In The World!
    John McGraw

    Walter Alston

    Sparky Anderson


    Doesn't Get Any Better!
    They Made The Difference!
    They Knew How To Handle The Boys..

    Gene Mauch..

    He didn't know how to handle the boys
    Or Winning...
    1964 and 1986..
    He turned Winners into Losers
    He was hired to manage losers..
    He was the Biggest Loser of Them All...
    Choke Artist!
    Managers Make a Difference!

  • MaywoodMaywood Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Hydrant said: Who Would You Choose To Be The Manager of Your All Time Team?

    Billy Martin.

    Maybe not the best but I think he'd fit in good with guys like the Babe. It'd be fun to watch. :p

  • HydrantHydrant Posts: 7,773 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 5, 2023 6:53PM

    @Maywood said:
    @Hydrant said: Who Would You Choose To Be The Manager of Your All Time Team?

    Billy Martin.

    Maybe not the best but I think he'd fit in good with guys like the Babe. It'd be fun to watch. :p

    Yea, Billy Martin!....One of the All Time Great managers!! He was a case!!
    He and Mickey would go on benders!

    I read something long ago that Yogi Berra's wife said.
    Something to the effect that Mantle would have been the greatest player of all time if it wasn't for Billy Martin. Martin was a bad influence on Mickey according to her.......🍻💃🍻💃
    Don't Mess With Billy!

    He was a Great manager.....
    But as a player?... Teams wanted to dump him because he was uncontrollable!....Wild Child!..
    Martin died on Christmas Day, 1989. Single car accident. He was the driver. He ran into a ditch. He was drunk. DOA at the hospital.

    He Was a Character....

    R.I.P.

  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,081 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @JoeBanzai said:
    I think that Hornsby was one of the top 5 hitters of all time and while Joe Morgan was a superb 2nd baseman, not the better of the two.

    Yes, Hornsby was a great hitter (although top 5 seems a stretch). And I think where the disconnect is may be in that last word - "hitter". I'll even concede that Hornsby was a much better "hitter" than Morgan, if the word is confined to hitting the ball with the bat. But offense is more than "hitting", and the gap between Hornsby and Morgan as "hitters" closes, and closes fast, once you throw walks and baserunning into the mix.

    Even then, I don't think it closes completely, and what's left - an era adjustment and fielding - are a lot more subjective. The gap between the two is small, whichever one you think is better (and Eddie Collins is right in there, too, although there's even more subjectivity in evaluating Collins). You're not wrong to think Hornsby is better; you're only wrong if you think he's more than a little bit better.

    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,098 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Earl Weaver would be a good choice, as would Casey Stengel.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • craig44craig44 Posts: 10,229 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I will throw my hat in the ring.

    1b. Gehrig
    2b. R. Alomar
    SS. Ripken
    3B. Boggs
    LF. Bonds
    CF. Cobb
    RF. Ruth
    C. Bench
    SP. Clemens

    George Brett, Bobby Orr and Terry Bradshaw.

  • GroceryRackPackGroceryRackPack Posts: 2,329 ✭✭✭✭✭

    my 1st pick would be Mario Mendoza to be my lead-off guy and then I’ll draft the other 8 at another time… :)

  • galaxy27galaxy27 Posts: 7,044 ✭✭✭✭✭

    2B - Axtell
    SS - joestalin
    RF - MGLICKER
    1B - DIMEMAN
    CF - Justacommeman
    3B - itzagoner
    LF - Skinpinch
    C - greencrow
    P - rube26105

    Bullpen - stown, LarkinCollector, baseball, WinPitcher, garnettstyle, stevek, Boopotts

    Manager - bronco2078

  • spacehaydukespacehayduke Posts: 5,419 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Folks can go back and choose the legends from the 50s back, but honestly, would any of them be the best players in modern times? Athletes get better over time in every sport, so it is hard IMO to believe that someone like Ruth with his anti-athletic, paunchy, physique would be any better than say, Kung Fu Panda Pablo Sandoval (another paunch dude) in these times, meaning good some seasons, but not the best. Sure some of the guys from the 60s, 70s, 80s, but probably not the real old timers is what I am thinking. Did Ruth have a 100 mph fast ball? Even 90 mph? What was his bat speed? Was he playing against pitchers that had a 100 mph fastball when he hit all of the HRs way back when? Anyone have thoughts on this?


    Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
  • spacehaydukespacehayduke Posts: 5,419 ✭✭✭✭✭

    This is what I am talking about here:

    https://americansportsplanet.com/how-fast-did-babe-ruth-throw-all-the-facts/

    Probably this old timers would not be able to be the best players in modern times, so I did not pick anyone that far back.


    Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
  • Basebal21Basebal21 Posts: 1,817 ✭✭✭✭

    I'll just leave out pitcher since theres legitimately so many that cant really be argued against and some are even still active. That said if it was a big left handed lineup we were facing than Randy Johnson might have to be a pick

    For my team though
    OF would be Bonds, Griffey, Ruth
    1st Pujols
    2nd Hornsby
    SS Arod
    3rd Schmidt (There is a chance Arenado and/or Manny will end up better when all is said and done with their careers)
    Catcher Bench though with such a potent lineup a defensive specialist would be tempting

  • daltexdaltex Posts: 3,461 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @dallasactuary said:

    @JoeBanzai said:
    I think that Hornsby was one of the top 5 hitters of all time and while Joe Morgan was a superb 2nd baseman, not the better of the two.

    Yes, Hornsby was a great hitter (although top 5 seems a stretch). And I think where the disconnect is may be in that last word - "hitter". I'll even concede that Hornsby was a much better "hitter" than Morgan, if the word is confined to hitting the ball with the bat. But offense is more than "hitting", and the gap between Hornsby and Morgan as "hitters" closes, and closes fast, once you throw walks and baserunning into the mix.

    Even then, I don't think it closes completely, and what's left - an era adjustment and fielding - are a lot more subjective. The gap between the two is small, whichever one you think is better (and Eddie Collins is right in there, too, although there's even more subjectivity in evaluating Collins). You're not wrong to think Hornsby is better; you're only wrong if you think he's more than a little bit better.

    Lajoie?

  • perkdogperkdog Posts: 29,160 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 7, 2023 3:18AM

    @Maywood said:
    I'll be honest, guys, when I thought of the topic and the > @galaxy27 said:
    2B - Axtell
    SS - joestalin
    RF - MGLICKER
    1B - DIMEMAN
    CF - Justacommeman
    3B - itzagoner
    LF - Skinpinch
    C - greencrow
    P - rube26105

    Bullpen - stown, LarkinCollector, baseball, WinPitcher, garnettstyle, stevek, Boopotts

    Manager - bronco2078

    Outstanding!!!

    I forgot about some of those guys

    I'm surprised Lawnmowerman and CDSNuts didn't make the lineup

  • perkdogperkdog Posts: 29,160 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @spacehayduke said:
    Folks can go back and choose the legends from the 50s back, but honestly, would any of them be the best players in modern times? Athletes get better over time in every sport, so it is hard IMO to believe that someone like Ruth with his anti-athletic, paunchy, physique would be any better than say, Kung Fu Panda Pablo Sandoval (another paunch dude) in these times, meaning good some seasons, but not the best. Sure some of the guys from the 60s, 70s, 80s, but probably not the real old timers is what I am thinking. Did Ruth have a 100 mph fast ball? Even 90 mph? What was his bat speed? Was he playing against pitchers that had a 100 mph fastball when he hit all of the HRs way back when? Anyone have thoughts on this?

    I usually hold similar arguments about NFL players but I think Baseball is different, hitting a baseball at 90+ is something you can do or cannot do as opposed ti trucking a 195 pound LB vs 260 pound LB ect

    I don't know how far the old timers pitched but I'm sure it was fast lol

  • MaywoodMaywood Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @spacehayduke said: would any of them be the best players in modern times?

    There is video of attempts to clock pitchers back in the 1940's, one I have seen is of Bob Feller when they were using a guy on a motorcycle as Feller pitched to a target. It's widely accepted that Feller was capable of throwing his fastball at or in excess of 100 mph, and he wasn't the only "old timer" capable of that. The problem is that there was just no way to measure until radar was developed and the technology we have today came into being.

    The notion that the players of the past couldn't match those of today is a false narrative. The point of Babe Ruth being incapable of hitting today's pitchers is a fairy tale best left untold, I'm sure he'd do just fine.

  • 1951WheatiesPremium1951WheatiesPremium Posts: 6,201 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 7, 2023 5:13AM

    @spacehayduke said:

    This is what I am talking about here:

    https://americansportsplanet.com/how-fast-did-babe-ruth-throw-all-the-facts/

    Probably this old timers would not be able to be the best players in modern times, so I did not pick anyone that far back.

    https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/just-because-bob-fellers-fastball-measured-by-army-equipment/amp/

    In 1946, Bob Feller’s fastball was clocked at 98.6 MPH and this after ten years of MLB service (lots and lots of innings).

    Bob Feller debuted one year after Babe Ruth retired, for what it’s worth.

    Also, Walter ‘Big Train’ Johnson got the nickname from his fastball…it whistled different than everyone else’s and was considered the fastest in the game when he played, likely also in the mid to upper 90’s.

    Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?

    https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest

  • craig44craig44 Posts: 10,229 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @spacehayduke said:
    Folks can go back and choose the legends from the 50s back, but honestly, would any of them be the best players in modern times? Athletes get better over time in every sport, so it is hard IMO to believe that someone like Ruth with his anti-athletic, paunchy, physique would be any better than say, Kung Fu Panda Pablo Sandoval (another paunch dude) in these times, meaning good some seasons, but not the best. Sure some of the guys from the 60s, 70s, 80s, but probably not the real old timers is what I am thinking. Did Ruth have a 100 mph fast ball? Even 90 mph? What was his bat speed? Was he playing against pitchers that had a 100 mph fastball when he hit all of the HRs way back when? Anyone have thoughts on this?

    Great athletes from the 20s would be great athletes today and vice versa. Ruth would have all the modern training/nutrition available to players today. likewise, modern players' athleticism would regress if they lived in the 20s because of the lack of previously mentioned advantages.

    George Brett, Bobby Orr and Terry Bradshaw.

  • 1951WheatiesPremium1951WheatiesPremium Posts: 6,201 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 7, 2023 6:00AM

    @craig44 said:

    @spacehayduke said:
    Folks can go back and choose the legends from the 50s back, but honestly, would any of them be the best players in modern times? Athletes get better over time in every sport, so it is hard IMO to believe that someone like Ruth with his anti-athletic, paunchy, physique would be any better than say, Kung Fu Panda Pablo Sandoval (another paunch dude) in these times, meaning good some seasons, but not the best. Sure some of the guys from the 60s, 70s, 80s, but probably not the real old timers is what I am thinking. Did Ruth have a 100 mph fast ball? Even 90 mph? What was his bat speed? Was he playing against pitchers that had a 100 mph fastball when he hit all of the HRs way back when? Anyone have thoughts on this?

    Great athletes from the 20s would be great athletes today and vice versa. Ruth would have all the modern training/nutrition available to players today. likewise, modern players' athleticism would regress if they lived in the 20s because of the lack of previously mentioned advantages.

    Babe was a beast as a Red Sock…

    He went to NY, became an even bigger star and got out of shape by 1925…

    Then we get Babe Ruth - workout fiend? After a career worst season, Babe Ruth got serious and hired a personal trainer…

    https://sportsedtv.com/blog/babe-ruth-never-worked-out

    …and this article details the work he put in. Mock it if you like but Babe Ruth wasn’t the guy he’s often depicted as being. He has a big, unique face and it always makes him look heavier than he is; for most of his career, he was a pretty imposing physical specimen:


    That photo is from circa 1921 and he can’t really be described as ‘a fat guy’ there…

    …recognize that ill fitting pinstripes have often created bad optics on more than a few Yankees players. He was definitely playing overweight the last 2-3 years of his career but that has become an overdone narrative, as a result.

    Here’s a final shot from 1934’s Tour of Japan. A little belly, maybe, but not really ‘too heavy’ here either…

    Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?

    https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest

  • JoeBanzaiJoeBanzai Posts: 11,098 ✭✭✭✭✭

    There is/was a show on Netflix (?) About the fastball.
    It was difficult, but the pitch could be accurately measured for speed back in the dark ages.
    The difference was, the speed was determined when the ball was going over the plate, (sometimes behind) while now the radar gun measures the velocity as it's leaving the pitchers hand, where it's traveling several MPH faster.
    Feller's fastball was most likely around 102 MPH.
    Today's athletes are a LITTLE better, in general, than those of the past.
    Guys like Ruth, Foxx, Gehrig would do very well in today's game. There's no way of knowing if they would dominate like they did in the past.

    2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
  • craig44craig44 Posts: 10,229 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I agree that Babe seemed to have a round face that made him appear more rotund. The loose-fitting wool uniforms didnt help that either. He really wasnt all that out of shape until the last few seasons.

    George Brett, Bobby Orr and Terry Bradshaw.

  • MaywoodMaywood Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @1951WheatiesPremium said: recognize that ill fitting pinstripes have often created bad optics on more than a few Yankees players.

    The uniform encasing the Babe with his large, round head and the disproportionally small legs made the center of his body look bigger than it was. I think the quintessential "Babe" image is video of him tip-toeing around the bases after an HR.

  • dallasactuarydallasactuary Posts: 4,081 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @daltex said:

    Lajoie?

    Great hitter, but not in the same class as the big three.

    This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
  • Basebal21Basebal21 Posts: 1,817 ✭✭✭✭

    @perkdog said:

    @spacehayduke said:
    Folks can go back and choose the legends from the 50s back, but honestly, would any of them be the best players in modern times? Athletes get better over time in every sport, so it is hard IMO to believe that someone like Ruth with his anti-athletic, paunchy, physique would be any better than say, Kung Fu Panda Pablo Sandoval (another paunch dude) in these times, meaning good some seasons, but not the best. Sure some of the guys from the 60s, 70s, 80s, but probably not the real old timers is what I am thinking. Did Ruth have a 100 mph fast ball? Even 90 mph? What was his bat speed? Was he playing against pitchers that had a 100 mph fastball when he hit all of the HRs way back when? Anyone have thoughts on this?

    I usually hold similar arguments about NFL players but I think Baseball is different, hitting a baseball at 90+ is something you can do or cannot do as opposed ti trucking a 195 pound LB vs 260 pound LB ect

    I don't know how far the old timers pitched but I'm sure it was fast lol

    Its a bit of a fallacy the whole modern players are better thing. While its true that if you took the allstar team from 1920 and now the now team would win, if you took the best players from that era and had them grow up with modern training they would be just as good and vice versa. The elite of a generation is the elite. There were also guys throwing 90+ even without the modern training and in the case of Ruth he was hitting more HRs a year than entire teams

  • perkdogperkdog Posts: 29,160 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Basebal21 said:

    @perkdog said:

    @spacehayduke said:
    Folks can go back and choose the legends from the 50s back, but honestly, would any of them be the best players in modern times? Athletes get better over time in every sport, so it is hard IMO to believe that someone like Ruth with his anti-athletic, paunchy, physique would be any better than say, Kung Fu Panda Pablo Sandoval (another paunch dude) in these times, meaning good some seasons, but not the best. Sure some of the guys from the 60s, 70s, 80s, but probably not the real old timers is what I am thinking. Did Ruth have a 100 mph fast ball? Even 90 mph? What was his bat speed? Was he playing against pitchers that had a 100 mph fastball when he hit all of the HRs way back when? Anyone have thoughts on this?

    I usually hold similar arguments about NFL players but I think Baseball is different, hitting a baseball at 90+ is something you can do or cannot do as opposed ti trucking a 195 pound LB vs 260 pound LB ect

    I don't know how far the old timers pitched but I'm sure it was fast lol

    Its a bit of a fallacy the whole modern players are better thing. While its true that if you took the allstar team from 1920 and now the now team would win, if you took the best players from that era and had them grow up with modern training they would be just as good and vice versa. The elite of a generation is the elite. There were also guys throwing 90+ even without the modern training and in the case of Ruth he was hitting more HRs a year than entire teams

    The training part of it along with genetic growth is the rub, I've always agreed on that.

  • Basebal21Basebal21 Posts: 1,817 ✭✭✭✭

    @perkdog said:

    @Basebal21 said:

    @perkdog said:

    @spacehayduke said:
    Folks can go back and choose the legends from the 50s back, but honestly, would any of them be the best players in modern times? Athletes get better over time in every sport, so it is hard IMO to believe that someone like Ruth with his anti-athletic, paunchy, physique would be any better than say, Kung Fu Panda Pablo Sandoval (another paunch dude) in these times, meaning good some seasons, but not the best. Sure some of the guys from the 60s, 70s, 80s, but probably not the real old timers is what I am thinking. Did Ruth have a 100 mph fast ball? Even 90 mph? What was his bat speed? Was he playing against pitchers that had a 100 mph fastball when he hit all of the HRs way back when? Anyone have thoughts on this?

    I usually hold similar arguments about NFL players but I think Baseball is different, hitting a baseball at 90+ is something you can do or cannot do as opposed ti trucking a 195 pound LB vs 260 pound LB ect

    I don't know how far the old timers pitched but I'm sure it was fast lol

    Its a bit of a fallacy the whole modern players are better thing. While its true that if you took the allstar team from 1920 and now the now team would win, if you took the best players from that era and had them grow up with modern training they would be just as good and vice versa. The elite of a generation is the elite. There were also guys throwing 90+ even without the modern training and in the case of Ruth he was hitting more HRs a year than entire teams

    The training part of it along with genetic growth is the rub, I've always agreed on that.

    Equipment too. Simply giving them a modern bat and/or using a modern ball would make a much bigger difference than a lot of people realize

  • perkdogperkdog Posts: 29,160 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Basebal21 said:

    @perkdog said:

    @Basebal21 said:

    @perkdog said:

    @spacehayduke said:
    Folks can go back and choose the legends from the 50s back, but honestly, would any of them be the best players in modern times? Athletes get better over time in every sport, so it is hard IMO to believe that someone like Ruth with his anti-athletic, paunchy, physique would be any better than say, Kung Fu Panda Pablo Sandoval (another paunch dude) in these times, meaning good some seasons, but not the best. Sure some of the guys from the 60s, 70s, 80s, but probably not the real old timers is what I am thinking. Did Ruth have a 100 mph fast ball? Even 90 mph? What was his bat speed? Was he playing against pitchers that had a 100 mph fastball when he hit all of the HRs way back when? Anyone have thoughts on this?

    I usually hold similar arguments about NFL players but I think Baseball is different, hitting a baseball at 90+ is something you can do or cannot do as opposed ti trucking a 195 pound LB vs 260 pound LB ect

    I don't know how far the old timers pitched but I'm sure it was fast lol

    Its a bit of a fallacy the whole modern players are better thing. While its true that if you took the allstar team from 1920 and now the now team would win, if you took the best players from that era and had them grow up with modern training they would be just as good and vice versa. The elite of a generation is the elite. There were also guys throwing 90+ even without the modern training and in the case of Ruth he was hitting more HRs a year than entire teams

    The training part of it along with genetic growth is the rub, I've always agreed on that.

    Equipment too. Simply giving them a modern bat and/or using a modern ball would make a much bigger difference than a lot of people realize

    I played softball from 1991 to 2011

    I remember the first few years we played with old school aluminum bats and softballs, towards the mid 90's we started using more modern expensive bats along with Red & Blue Dot balls and it was literally like we were playing slow pitch baseball, one year in 20 something games I hit 51 HR's

    The equipment makes a massive difference

  • MaywoodMaywood Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The baseball bat, the baseball itself, the difference in the height of the mound and other rules would negate any supposed advantage modern day pitchers have and the players from Babe's era would gain an advantage. One thing to remember: Babe Ruth had to protect a much larger area, from his shoulders to his knees. The strike zone today is much smaller, perhaps a foot shorter from the top.

  • Basebal21Basebal21 Posts: 1,817 ✭✭✭✭

    @perkdog said:

    @Basebal21 said:

    @perkdog said:

    @Basebal21 said:

    @perkdog said:

    @spacehayduke said:
    Folks can go back and choose the legends from the 50s back, but honestly, would any of them be the best players in modern times? Athletes get better over time in every sport, so it is hard IMO to believe that someone like Ruth with his anti-athletic, paunchy, physique would be any better than say, Kung Fu Panda Pablo Sandoval (another paunch dude) in these times, meaning good some seasons, but not the best. Sure some of the guys from the 60s, 70s, 80s, but probably not the real old timers is what I am thinking. Did Ruth have a 100 mph fast ball? Even 90 mph? What was his bat speed? Was he playing against pitchers that had a 100 mph fastball when he hit all of the HRs way back when? Anyone have thoughts on this?

    I usually hold similar arguments about NFL players but I think Baseball is different, hitting a baseball at 90+ is something you can do or cannot do as opposed ti trucking a 195 pound LB vs 260 pound LB ect

    I don't know how far the old timers pitched but I'm sure it was fast lol

    Its a bit of a fallacy the whole modern players are better thing. While its true that if you took the allstar team from 1920 and now the now team would win, if you took the best players from that era and had them grow up with modern training they would be just as good and vice versa. The elite of a generation is the elite. There were also guys throwing 90+ even without the modern training and in the case of Ruth he was hitting more HRs a year than entire teams

    The training part of it along with genetic growth is the rub, I've always agreed on that.

    Equipment too. Simply giving them a modern bat and/or using a modern ball would make a much bigger difference than a lot of people realize

    I played softball from 1991 to 2011

    I remember the first few years we played with old school aluminum bats and softballs, towards the mid 90's we started using more modern expensive bats along with Red & Blue Dot balls and it was literally like we were playing slow pitch baseball, one year in 20 something games I hit 51 HR's

    The equipment makes a massive difference

    The 1990s were a wild time for bats. If you had an ERA under 5 in college baseball you were an absolute stud. It was always pretty funny when the college WS would look like football scores. They got it under control for a while but its come back a little bit now with how hard guys throw and how strong the hitters are.

    One of the little known facts about the bats that the actual MLB players use today is theyre basically metal bats that break. They get first pick of all the best wood and anything they reject gets sent to the minors and some of the bad stuff ultimately ends up at stores. No matter how much a store is charging for a bat you simply cannot buy an MLB star quality wood bat at the store

  • galaxy27galaxy27 Posts: 7,044 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @perkdog said:

    @Maywood said:
    I'll be honest, guys, when I thought of the topic and the > @galaxy27 said:
    2B - Axtell
    SS - joestalin
    RF - MGLICKER
    1B - DIMEMAN
    CF - Justacommeman
    3B - itzagoner
    LF - Skinpinch
    C - greencrow
    P - rube26105

    Bullpen - stown, LarkinCollector, baseball, WinPitcher, garnettstyle, stevek, Boopotts

    Manager - bronco2078

    Outstanding!!!

    I forgot about some of those guys

    I'm surprised Lawnmowerman and CDSNuts didn't make the lineup

    only because my old brain forgot about them

    Lee made me laugh like no other

Sign In or Register to comment.