Harry Heilmann

There is no doubt the old time Hall of Fame players and great all" white" players could still perform well today, the question is how would the rest of the pre war players do? How many would make MLB teams of today? So I am calling into question Hugh Duffy's .424 batting average and other feats like that.

Obviously, the big change in baseball was the ball and it's almost impossible to compare dead ball era players to post dead ball era players. Going back before 1900 also tough as game was still evolving.
As for the rest of pre war players, obviously if the color barrier was torn down sooner, some of those marginal players wouldn't have been in the big leagues.

100 years ago major league baseball had virtually no competition for elite (white) athletes. Other professional sports either didn't exist or were either in their infancy. What else was there - boxing? The pinnacle of talent flowing into MLB was in the 1950s and 1960s after desegregation - along with an influx of Latin American payers, and before the rise of professional football and basketball as alternatives for the most gifted athletes. I believe the very best baseball players today are off playing some other sport - football, basketball, soccer, MMA ... whatever, but not baseball anymore.

The truth is the only way we can truly settle who might have done what in various eras would be to invent a time machine. We cannot truly know what Ruth or Cobb would do today if they had access to the nutrition and training methods we have today. Also no way to know for sure what athletes of today would have done given the advantages enjoyed by the old timers.

We all have beliefs. I do not believe if they had to compete today the old timers would have put up frequent .400 BAs. Some of those extreme numbers would have come down. I believe given the influx of international talent, improved scouting, etc. there is more concentration of talent top to bottom than at any time in history. But none of that should decrease from our appreciation of the best players of each and every era of baseball.

Now let's get rid of this joke rule they call the DH and return to playing real baseball.

The truth is the only way we can truly settle who might have done what in various eras would be to invent a time machine. We cannot truly know what Ruth or Cobb would do today if they had access to the nutrition and training methods we have today. Also no way to know for sure what athletes of today would have done given the advantages enjoyed by the old timers.

We all have beliefs. I do not believe if they had to compete today the old timers would have put up frequent .400 BAs. Some of those extreme numbers would have come down. I believe given the influx of international talent, improved scouting, etc. there is more concentration of talent top to bottom than at any time in history. But none of that should decrease from our appreciation of the best players of each and every era of baseball.

Now let's get rid of this joke rule they call the DH and return to playing real baseball.

But I heard something recently about the National League seriously considering the DH?

But I heard something recently about the National League seriously considering the DH?

Lord I hope this is true.... People say having pitchers hit creates more strategy and to that I say so would making your punter play QB once every nine plays... This is supposed to be professional sports, so let's see the best. Why should some great hitter sit on the bench so some pitcher who hits at a college or even high school level can hit? We live in an era of specialization and having pitchers hit is just dated and silly.... Just because something has been that way forever is not reason enough to keep things that way... I want to see the very best do their very best, if I want to see a high school caliber hitter bat, I will go to a high school game. Let's get the very best in the game doing what they do best.

But I heard something recently about the National League seriously considering the DH?

Heard the same thing. Came from an off the cuff statement by Manfred that NL owners were not as hard core against it as in the past. But owners asked about it did not confirm the topic is even on the table for discussion.

I personally do not like the DH. Forget the strategy angles. It has changed the game in other ways. Players who would not even have been on the field without it because they could not field worth a darn considered worthy of HOF. Need for a bench has almost disappeared on many AL teams. They have utility IFers but they are as much emergency place holders in case of in game injury. Call up from AAA replaces the injured player as often as not soon as a roster move can be made. Those bench roles more and more are being replaced with more relievers in the bullpen leading to more specialization and waves of fresh arms. In the long run that reduces offense. You can see the subtle signs in the roster moves just before an AL team goes to a NL city to bolster the bench.

Once the DH is adopted by the NL so teams no longer have to at least have contingency plans for a bench I believe bullpens will grow even more important.

When the DH first started I thought complete games would go up because now pitchers would no longer need to be pinch hit for. But it has had the opposite effect. Now with no more need to stretch and extra inning from a starter so a double switch need is eliminated starters actually get pulled faster.

Someone wrote:

100 years ago major league baseball had virtually no competition for elite (white) athletes. Other professional sports either didn't exist or were either in their infancy. What else was there - boxing? The pinnacle of talent flowing into MLB was in the 1950s and 1960s after desegregation - along with an influx of Latin American payers, and before the rise of professional football and basketball as alternatives for the most gifted athletes. I believe the very best baseball players today are off playing some other sport - football, basketball, soccer, MMA ... whatever, but not baseball anymore.

The player pool of 100 years ago was about 1000 times (or more) smaller than today. Most MLB players from 100 years ago would have a tough time making minor league rosters of today.

Way too general to make statement like players today are better. Just the fact that Ruth was hitting more hrs than entire teams puts him in a category of one....and then you can start listing everyone else. I understand that pitching today from the bullpen is far superior but mainly because for the most part starters are yanked very quickly today and are not allowed to pitch themselves out of jams. Todays players are better.... I guess who ever thinks that is comfortable with the top players striking out 150 -200 times a year. A lot more banjo ballparks today. Even Stanton with his monstrous home runs falls far short of Mantle's routine blasts. Still have not seen a center fielder compare to Willie Mays in all aspects of the game. So for those thinking the Trouts and Harpers are better than Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, Williams, Hornsby, Mays and the Mantles....it may be time for a labotomy. (didn't check the spelling on that)

I think Ruth hitting more HRs than entire teams is due more to how slow people are to change their thinking. Teams won with a certain style and type of player during the dead ball days. When they livened up the ball it opened the door for HR hitters but likely it took most teams a while to change the type of player they scouted and recruited and how teams were built. That is the only era in which Ruth could have outhomered entire teams. He would not do that at any time since. That he was able to do it at all speaks more toward the quality and depth of competition than about Ruth.

we all realize Ruth would not out hr any teams since that era....duhh....but if you don't think everyone lines up behind Ruth and for that matter, Hornsby....it may be time for electric shock.