The debate surfaces periodically and revolves around the "is today's player better than players from other eras", whether it be the 70's and 80's -- the WWI era -- or the Ruth / Cobb era.
For certain, I believe the quality of the
athlete that baseball is recruiting is better now than ever before. Whether that always translates into better players centers around my belief that coaching, especially at the major league level -- but in the minors as well -- has not kept up.
Coaching may be as good or better than ever at the collegiate and HS level. The youth level, IMO still leaves something to be desired. Generally speaking the level of coaching is improving there, if only sporadically.
Putting aside for a moment the segue arguments
- "Do bigger players equal better players?"
and the pejorative fallback argument
- "How did they get bigger and stronger?"
clearly the trend toward bigger, stronger, faster equaling "more productive" players has pretty much been settled. "Better" is in the eye of the beholder and is dependent on many variables that can not be extracted or accounted for through statistical analysis or the dreaded "eyeball" test.
Some fans will prefer 1-0, 2-0 pitching duels and some will continue to prefer the "chicks dig the long ball" era. The pendulum tends to swing from one extreme to another and back again.
The following article touches on many of the relevant areas of discussion.
DOES SIZE REALLY MATTER? Today's major leaguers are bigger and stronger than those of earlier eras - physical size of baseball players | Baseball Digest | Find Articles at BNET:
"Current baseball scouts generally focus their attention on larger prospects, particularly pitchers
BABE RUTH STILL STANDS AS ONE of the legendary giants of baseball, but if he were alive today, he would stand taller than only 48 percent of the players who were on major-league 40-man rosters at the start of spring training.
The Bambino was listed at 6-2 and 195 pounds before his weight became a major problem during the second half of his career. He is remembered as a much larger man because most newsreel footage of him was taken during his last few seasons-- and because he was always much bigger than the average player of his time.
But if the young, strapping Ruth were magically transported into the 21st century, he would not stand out in the team picture of any major-league club. His wonderful baseball skills aside, he would be--in terms of vital statistics--a very average guy."
The 1927 "Murderers' Row" New York Yankees were one of the most dominating, intimidating teams in history, yet the average height and weight of a member of that storied group, even with such big bruisers as Ruth, Lou Gehrig and Bob Meusel at the heart of the lineup, was just 5-11 and 176 pounds.
The 1975 world champion Cincinnati Reds--immortalized as "The Big Red Machine"--illustrated what a difference a half-century can make. The players on that Reds club averaged 6-1 and 188 pounds.
The 2001 three-time defending world champion Yankees are not really known as one of the most physically imposing teams on the planet, but they weigh in with an average height and weight of 6-2 and 204 pounds.
Changes.....through the years. Sometimes, it's difficult to see the forest for the trees and remember how things used to be in the 'good old days'. Then you see an old ESPN classic and you realize that "Hey, Jennie Finch actually looks more athletic than some major leaguers from the 70's appeared.
BUD HARRELSON - 1969 METS 5'11", 165 POUNDS (MAYBE)
JENNIE FINCH - USA!!! USA!!! - 6'1", 170 POUNDS
Advantage Finch!!!!
My money is on Finch even if it goes this far...
Specialization and AAU-ization...always a factor. Participation in other sports, in conjunction with or to the exclusion of other sports has changed the landscape somewhat.
If it were totally a matter of evolution, the process presumably would take place at a much slower rate. It appears, in this case, that the Darwinian notion of natural selection has been replaced with just plain selection. Baseball players are taller because scouts are out looking for taller baseball players.
"In our industry, as far as evaluating talent, you're driven to larger bodies," said Cardinals director of baseball operations John Mozeliak. "When you go to the Dominican Republic, for instance, you get all these kids at the tryouts. The first thing you look at is how a guy looks in the uniform. You're very unlikely to give any money to a guy who's 5-9 and 170 pounds."
This isn't necessarily a new concept, but several other factors may contribution to the greater availability of tall athletes during the past decade or so--most notably a vast increase in the number and diversity of youth sports programs.
The average 1960s kid played Little League and maybe Pop Warner football. The 1980s kid also had soccer, basketball and other team and individual sports to keep them active year-round.
"I think one thing that's happening is that participation is at its highest level as far as youth sports, so the pool of talent to choose from has grown," said Cardinals trainer Barry Weinstein. "And you're developing a more well-rounded athlete, so a kid doesn't have to like basketball just because he's 6-9."
And the generational shift from sandlot sports to highly organized youth programs probably has the added effect of weeding out kids with less natural athletic ability much earlier--creating a better youth talent pool at the expense of some of the young people they were supposed to benefit.
You can see from the following table that HR champs have been getting bigger over the course of the last few decades. The typical HR slugger from the good old days would be average sized today.
BIG LEAGUE SLUGGERS ARE GETTING BIGGER--Despite the fact that league home run champions have had little change in size over the last 80 years, the most dramatic change has been the number of power hitters. From 1921 through 1940, hitting 40 or more homers in a season was accomplished 32 times by 12 different players. From 1941 through 1960, it was accomplished 44 times by 17 different sluggers. From 1961 through 1980, the number rose to 54 times that a player hit 40 homers in a season, reached by 30 different players. And during the last 20 years (1981-2000), the number of 40-homer hitters jumped to 98 times accomplished by 49 different players. Below is a chart of the average size of league home run champions dating back to 1921.
Total Avg. Avg. Avg.
ERA HR Champs Height Weight HR Output
1991-2000 15 6-3 218 48
1981-1990 20 6-3 208 40
1971-1980 13 6-2 201 40
1961-1970 11 6-1 202 46
1951-1960 15 6-1 194 42
1941-1950 13 6-0 195 36
1931-1940 11 6-0 194 40
1921-1930 10 6-0 187 41
Largest HR Smallest HR
ERA Champion Champion
1991-2000 Mark McGwire (6-5, 250) Howard Johnson (5-11, 178)
1981-1990 Jose Canseco (6-4, 240) Kevin Mitchell (5-11, 210)
1971-1980 Dave Kingman (6-6, 210) Dick Allen (5-11, 190)
1961-1970 Frank Howard (6-7, 255) Willie Mays (5-11, 180)
1951-1960 Hank Sauer (6-4, 200) Al Rosen (5-10, 180)
1941-1950 Hank Greenberg (6-3-210) Mel Ott (5-9, 170)
1931-1940 Hank Greenberg (6-3, 210) Ripper Collins (5-9, 165)
1921-1930 Babe Ruth (6-2, 215) Hack Wilson (5-6, 190)
COPYRIGHT 2001 Century Publishing
COPYRIGHT 2001 Gale Group
From the table in this article, the player of today has to compete against more potential players today than ever before,
even with expansion. Although they do accommodate for the exclusion of black and Hispanic players in the past, the pre-war major leaguer did not see the diversity of talent culled from around the globe that today's player competes against.
Another factor, to be considered but not readily apparent from the table above is the effect of the various wars on the availability of 18 - 30 year old males, a crucial variable at times.
Think of how much that talent pool was diluted during the war years -- a time during which "One-armed" Pete Gray played.
Pete Gray, Universal Newsreels, 1945.ogv
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pete_Gray,_Universal_Newsreels,_1945.ogv
Other current stars gave up years of their career to the war effort, as illustrated in the following two articles.
Baseball in Wartime
http://www.baseballinwartime.com/
Baseball in Wartime is dedicated to preserving the memories of all baseball players (major league, negro league, minor league, semi-pro, college, amateur and high school), who served with the military between 1940 and 1946.
World War II was a trying time for the United States and equally so for baseball. More than 4,500 professional players swapped flannels for military uniforms to serve their nation and future Hall of Famers like Bob Feller, Hank Greenberg, Joe DiMaggio and Ted Williams lost vital playing time in the prime of their careers. What is far less commonly known is that at least 130 minor league players lost their lives while serving their country.
Major League Baseball's Popularity During WWII by Joey Corso
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/161265-major-league-baseballs-popularity-during-wwii
Before WWII began, Major League Baseball enjoyed record popularity. Ted Williams batted a record-setting .406, Joe DiMaggio, set a record with hits in 56 consecutive games, 41-year-old Lefty Grove won his 300th career win, and the New York Yankees collected an unprecedented ninth World Series championship.(Baseball in Wartime)
Following Pearl Harbor, overwhelming patriotism spread throughout the nation, causing many young men to enlist including future Hall of Fame players Hank Greenburg and Bob Feller who gave up the prime their careers to be a part of the war effort.
Greenburg summed up what all players at the time were feeling, telling the Sporting News that “If there's any last message to be given to the public, let it be that I'm going to be a good soldier.”
Although a small minority of Americans expressed displeasure towards apparently fit men participating in sports and shirking military duties, Private John E Stevenson, expressed the more widely held view that, "baseball is part of the American way of life. Remove it and you remove something from the lives of American citizens, soldiers and sailors."
Along with future Hall of Famers, many other quality major league players enlisted or were drafted, significantly lowering the quality of play. Average players were now stars, and scrubs who were destined to be career minor leaguers received opportunities to play significant roles on big league clubs.
Using David Finoli’s highly embraced statistical formula, as seen in For the Good of the Country: World War II Baseball in the Major and Minor Leagues, a list of the top 64 ball players during the war seasons (1942-1945) was developed, headed by a Roy Sanders.
Although a fine player, it was clear a somewhat obscure player today, benefited playing against lesser competition. This can be seen by comparing his statistics during and after the war.
The list contains several other fine players, but does not include a future Hall of Fame player until the 14th player on the list, Cleveland Indians shortstop Lou Boudreau. Four highly productive seasons along with six to eight above average ones can usually make a player’s case for entry into the Hall of Fame.
Yet none of the top 13 players during the war made the Hall, proving that these players were unable to perform at the same level when up against the best and that statistically speaking the level of play during the time was lower.
Over time, we have seen baseball players, and the game at large, adapt to many significant changes that have collided to bring about many of the observed changes to the perceived caliber of play.
- The mound was lowered in 1969 from 15 inches to 10 inches in height after the dominance of pitching ( think Bob Gibson's 1.12 ERA ). As a result, scouts and coaches preferred to select taller pitchers to make up the lost difference in leverage the lower mound provided. The short (under 6-foot) RHP became an endangered species in baseball as a result IMO.
- Free agency and guaranteed contracts resulting from the Curt Flood battle against the Reserve Clause has resulted in players beginning treated as more valuable commodities. Prior to 1969, even star players were considered expendable if productivity diminished even slightly. Players were on year to year contracts, security was day to day. Pitch Counts and increased use of bullpen specialists has been the slow, but inevitable outgrowth.
Structural changes such as Astroturf, Questec and increased use of PED's have brought about both observed and statistical changes and anomalies that can never be fully accounted for and so the debate will continue forever.
If you don't think that Questec was a huge and underrated development in the offense / defense equilibrium, take a look at the "strikes" called in some of those Braves - Twins World Series highlights or the infamous Eric Gregg / Livan Hernandez playoff game. There's a reason why Curt Schilling took a bat to an early version of Questec machinery that was in the Diamondbacks dugout. The handwriting was on the wall that a subtle but important pitching advantage was about to be lost.
It's one reason why I like to look to the Olympic sports, specifically track and field or swimming events, to observe and evaluate macro changes in athletes over different eras. The skill sports are too complex to assess causes and effects. The Olympic sports are ideal for statistical analysis because of their inherent simplicity: Running is a universal and fundamental athletic event. Distances don't change, gravity and friction are constants. Even in swimming, the resistance that water provides doesn't change materially over time.
----
In swimming, the 1924 Men's Olympic champion and symbol of virility for machismo for the era, Johnny Weismuller of
Tarzan fame, swam a 59.0 sec. 100 meter freestyle.
USA'S JOHNNY WEISMULLER - 1924 PARIS OLYMPICS CHAMPION
In the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Germany's Britta Steffen swam the same event in 53.12 seconds. American Natalie Coughlin swan it in 53.39 seconds for an American record. Both times would have obliterated Weismuller's time.
GERMANY'S BRITTE STEFFEN - 2008 BEJING OLYMPIC CHAMPION
In fact, Weismuller's time would have finished 47th in the world in the 2008 100 meter freestyle qualifying heats.
In the women's qualifying heats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swimming_at_the_1924_Summer_Olympics_-_Men%27s_100_metre_freestyle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swimming_at_the_2008_Summer_Olympics_-_Women%27s_100_metre_freestyle
---
In track and field, the 1936 Olympic champion Jesse Owens would be challenged to beat the current women's 100 meter champion, Jamaica's Shelly-Ann Fraser. Owens won the 1936 event with a 10.3 sec. time. Fraser's 2008 100 meter time of 10.78 would have placed her
sixth in the 1936 men's 100 meter championship heat and made her the
fourth fastest American at the time.
Jesse Owens was 5'10" and 165. Fraser tips in at 5'3" and 115. A shorter version, pound for pound of Owens. Looking at some of these comparisons, I am with David Wells -- a Babe Ruth fan -- when he says "15-70-.270" to state what he believes Babe Ruth's stat line would be today.
No night games, no sliders, he may have been exaggerating a little bit, but not by much.
The pre-war American athlete, in many instances, can only compare favorably to female athletes today. Once again demonstrating that the Nixon-era Title IX legislation may have been one of the most underrated pieces of legislation of all time in this country.
There are simply too many factors to consider to make a definitive answer to the underlying question we started with, which is why this question will continue to be fuel for debate for many generations to come.
.jpg)
