Are baseball players more skilled now than ever?
Posted by Andy on January 26, 2011
Some readers and I had a brief debate in another thread about whether players today are the most skilled they've ever been in history.
I feel that they are. Players are the fittest they've ever been, strongest they've ever been. On average, I expect they are also faster and have better eyesight. They have a lot more tools at their disposal for improving their game, ranging from specialized coaching to video replays to advanced statistics.
Chuck argues that pitchers are far more specialized and, I presume, lack the breadth of skills that pitchers used to have. I guess the argument goes that modern pitchers succeed because they're not asked to do as much as pitchers used to be, and if they were, they would fail more often.
Barkie argues that hitters can't bunt as well as they used too, or hit behind a runner, or hit a fly ball on purpose, and that most hitters just swing for the fences all the time.
What do you think?
January 27th, 2011 at 2:58 pm
#98/ #99/ #100 - so who's generally accepted as hitting the very longest HRs ever - is it still Babe Ruth? Are J. Foxx, T. Williams, Mantle, F. Howard, and McGwire also in the running?* If it IS several of the above (Ruth, Foxx), who played 70-95 years ago, is this an indication that perhaps overall baseball skills have not increased as much as some people think?
This is one subject where it's almost impossible to sort out myth-making from reality...
* there's at least a couple dozen other sluggers I could've listed
January 27th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
In the new book on Mantle by Jane Leavy some of the players in the 1963 Facade game said it was still going up and up (I believe Tony Larusso was one). Mantle always said it was the hardest ball he ever hit, which is really saying something. Whether anyone wants to believe the distances or not, there is no denying that the players of his era certainlly thought he was the most powerful hitter in baseball. In the book mentioned I learned of another one which I never knew about -the one in Pittsburgh during the '60 WS. Dick Groat told Bill Virdon, who was in the trainers room and missed it, that he had missed the grandaddy of them all. The man obviously was incredibly powerful. As far as the 3.1 to first, it occurred I believe in Spring training 1953, and all players were timed. Even if that is wrong, his speed was also legendary, and when mixed with the HRs he hit, it is simply incredible that the same man accomplished all this while being handicapped.
January 27th, 2011 at 4:00 pm
#101, as we've said before in earlier comments, what a few exceptional players have done isn't really the point of comparison...it's what the average ballplayer does. Exactly who hit the longest HR doesn't tell us anything about the strength of the average ballplayer. That's a very small sample taken from itself a very small sample.
January 27th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
#103/... Andy Says: "#101, as we've said before in earlier comments, what a few exceptional players have done isn't really the point of comparison...it's what the average ballplayer does... ...That's a very small sample taken from itself a very small sample."
Andy, I do agree with you about the small sample size, but I was also currious about the subject of "who hit the longest HRs ever" - it's always been a fun topic for me...
January 27th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
#95, 98, 101, 104
In March 1951 in a Yankee exhibition game against USC at their field,(the Yankees trained in Phoenix that year), Mantle hit a ball out of the park and completely across the width of a practice football field behind the baseball field, The distance was estimated at up to 660 feet.
January 27th, 2011 at 6:03 pm
@105... Yes, I've read about the USC HR Mantle hit in 1951, I think there was another one he hit against USC that was almost as long. I'm rather skeptical of a claimed distance of 660 feet, as several different physicists have stated that it's almost impossible to hit a baseball more than 550 feet on the fly. Of course, atmospheric conditions could also help the distance.
I checked the "hittracker" link in #98 (thanks, it was quite interesting) and none of the spotlighted "tape measure" HR's were more than 540 feet; as I said, there's a lot of myth-making at work.
Actually, my question was not "what is the single longest HR ever?", but "which player is regarded as hitting the longest HRs ever?" Sorry for the misunderstanding.
January 27th, 2011 at 6:33 pm
@106
A football field is 160 feet wide and assuming the distance to outfield fence where the ball left the park is 380 feet that's 540 feet right there. Then there is the distance between the fence and the football field plus the distance from the other side of the football field to the point where landed. I am surprised the distance was not measured as the point where the ball landed was known and the distance between home plate and that point was unobstructed.
January 27th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
@7
Sorry, there are two typos in #106. I meant "...distance to the outfield fence..." and ..."to the point where the ball landed..."
January 27th, 2011 at 6:55 pm
@105, Richard Chester -- I think the problem many have when they see things like "660 feet" is, well, we've never seen that, so we're not sure we can believe it!
I have no doubt that Mantle hit some of the longest HRs ever, and he may very well have hit the longest HR ever at Griffith Stadium. That HR gave birth to the term "tape measure" HR, so something happened that day, but there are some physicists who question if a man to hit a ball much over 520 feet. There's no universal agreement on that (even among physicists) so not sure that matters. Yet we also have a story of Ruth hitting a ball in 1926 at Navin Field in Detroit that went about 580 feet. Most "Ruthian" shots (hit by Ruth and non-Ruth players) never go 500 feet because they usually hit some part of the stadium's structure. Griffith had a low grandstand, so it would be a logical place for one of the longest HRs to be hit since it gives the player a chance to clear the stadium on a fly. (How far would have Reggie Jackson's 1971 All-Star HR traveled if it didn't hit the light tower?) I will say there's no way Mantle's shot was still rising, but the fact the people think Mantle's HR was rising probably says something about how hard it was hit and the speed it left the park. I think Jane Leavy's recent bio on Mantle estimated it probably landed around 530 feet from home plate and then bounced into the yard where it was found. If it's not the longest HR ever, it's probably in the top few. The few that actually leave a park are the ones that have the best chance for true distance.
The longest HR ever hit probably belongs to someone with a name of Ruth, Mantle, Jackson, Schmidt, Kingman (I really hate putting his name in this group, but I must!), Howard or a McGwire. (Not meant to be all inclusive). Home run hitters known for distance. My guess is we actually knew the exact distance a ball traveled for every player, we'd find a few outliers at the very top of the distance list, but with several names (probably the ones I mentioned) clustered at the top, and then a gap to down to other mortals.
Does it matter? The Mantle HR is now part of baseball myth and landed in a place where only legends exist. In the baseball version of Who Shot Liberty Valance, when the legend becomes fact, print the legend.
January 27th, 2011 at 7:08 pm
#109/ MikeD - great post; you're right, in this case it's sometimes better to accept the legend, instead of breaking down every event into truth and exaggeration (love the "...Liberty Valance" reference).
I'd add Jimmie Foxx to the list of tape-measure sluggers, he hit almost as many legendary shots as Ruth. As I said in #101, we could add several dozen names to this list.
January 27th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
In the event that anyone doesn't know this old story about Ty Cobb:
[A story] attributed to Cobb comes when an interviewer in the 1950's asked Cobb how he would hit against the pitchers of that era. Cobb replied, "Oh, I'd hit .310, .315!"
The interviewer asked Cobb why he would only hit .310. Cobb replied, "I'm 72 years old now!"
January 27th, 2011 at 11:18 pm
Over the past week or so, Matt Anderson, Bartolo Colon, Marc Kroon and Nick Bierbrodt have all been signed to ML contracts.
Say what you want about size, strength, nuitrition, eyesight (got a good laugh at that one), the facts are clear.
If players were more skilled today, these guys would NOT be getting signed.
The same could be said for position players as well, just look at the half dozen or so mid-thirties utility infielders the Diamondbacks have signed.
Not sure if they're trying to compete in the NL West or the Sun City West Softball League.
January 27th, 2011 at 11:19 pm
Tape-measure HRs aren't really my bag, but I'm surprised no one has mentioned Josh Gibson. Granted, he never played in MLB, but as far as legendary power goes, he's right up there with Ruth.
January 27th, 2011 at 11:30 pm
@112, Chuck -- Bill Bergen was a regular for 11 seasons (1901-11), getting over 3,000 PAs. He batted .170, with a .194 OBP, and an OPS+ of 21. Does that prove something about the talent level of the early 1900s?
I don't know what you hope to prove through the signing of a handful of scrubs, most of whom won't even play in the majors this year.
Incidentally, the 4 guys you mentioned in your opening all signed minor-league deals.
January 28th, 2011 at 12:08 am
If players were more skilled today, these guys would NOT be getting signed.
A meaningless comment.
If players were even more skilled than that, Albert Pujols wouldn't find a job either.
January 28th, 2011 at 3:00 am
@110, Lawrence Azrin -- You're right. A player doesn't get nicknames like Double X or The Beast for being a singles hitter. With those arms, if Foxx played today, he'd be accused of being a steroid user!
@113, John Autin -- Regarding Gibson, someone asked Keith Law during one of his chats a few weeks ago if he could be transported back in time, which old-time player he'd like to see. He said Josh Gibson. I thought about it, and agreed. While I'd like to have seen games with Ruth and Gehrig, or even earlier with Cobb, I think Gibson would be the answer. We know he's one of the legendary power hitters, yet we know even less about him than we do many of the old-time players. As you probably have read, he supposedly hit a ball out of old Yankee Stadium. I don't believe it, but if he even came close, his power must have been extraordinary. There is more myth around him than almost any other player, so it would be interesting to see him actually play and swing a bat.
January 28th, 2011 at 5:32 am
Gentleman: I refer you to trhe eminent Baseball Historian, Bill Jenkinson. previously he wrote 'The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs" Considering where they would have landed in a standard modern stadium, using '21. His latest is "Baseball's Ultimate Power". He makes more cursory analysis of fastest & furthest throwers (Mantle, Colavito), but does an in depth analysis of the longest shots, ever. He ranks & describes the best players, & top 10 shots, & uses interviews, microfilm, newspaper reports, physics as his main tools.
His results seem to differ sometimes with the hit tracker, though often about the same. Here is his ranking of the best distance hitters ever. He goes by top few more than top drive, which makes much sense: atmospheric conditions, chiefly a tailing wind, can give a significant advantage, & we should be looking at what one can do under neutral conditions (aside from bat). I may have transposed a guy at the bottom:
1) Ruth
2) Foxx
3) Mantle
4) Howard
5) Allen
6) McGuire
7) Stargell
8) Jackson
9) Killebrew
10) McCovey
11) Gibson
14) Williams
Gibson might have been higher, but just not enough evidence. Allen lost the least to the opposite field. Also, I believe he hit often at less than optimum angle, so in sheer force perhaps was a bit higher. Foxx edged out Mantle due to more 450-500' shots. Some of the greatest HR hitters ever were not very close to the furthest-Aaron, Mays, & even 'roided Bonds never hit 500'! Big Mac would not have made the top 30, except for his more than suspect power surge in his 30's.
Ruth stands alone. I read recently that 5 of the 9 longest ever were by him, including the top 3: but that list did not include the longest EVER: post season barnstorming in Wilkes Barre PA. That was supposedly the better part of 650', or well over 600. Almost all balls are obstructed: he hit a 585' over an absurdly distant fence that struck ground 1st. Nobody else but Mantle (551', & NOT the '63 shot) has more than 540.
Now you may fairly say: sheesh, this is an old sentimentalist who has bought into Unicorns & rainbows. How could players much less conditioned, not nearly as physically strong as many gym rats, & with thick handled heavier bats have possibly hit it further then? And that may be correct.
But i do not think so. 1) Physical muscular strength HELPS distance hitting & throwing, but it is only one important factor, with eventual diminishing returns. Bat speed is helped, but not generated only through weight room power. 2) A heavier bat, all other things being equal, drives a ball further. Though it is true that normally, even super strong guys cannot generate enough speed to make up for the increased bat mass. But that has me wondering about an in, or more likely less, tangible factor:
3) Mass behind a blow. Not just weight, but % of body force used. I do not know how to describe this, indeed, am no physicist, so could be talking twaddle. But I do not think it is ONLY bat mass x MPH it is swung.
Look at McLiar. He became one of the tape measure giants, & had huge bat speed. He did not NEED to swing as long & hard. But a Mantle & Ruth put a lot more into the swing. Look at the beautiful youtube 10 minute analysis of his swing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bUvU4gH1GI. He transfers his weight superbly, swing in the zone a long while (Area of impact), great bat lag, leads with his hips, & "walks away" from his hands while torquing his body. This latter factor seems a large factor in generating force, maximizing the torso & lower body effect when he finally whips his arms forward.
The AOI & slot position/angles help him make it more likely he strikes the ball at all & effectively, but many of these things also maximize his power. Back arm/elbow, rollover...All things of beauty. Where his body, including his knee snap & hip rotation, are so superbly deployed. Though he finds room for improvement...
Anyway, when Ruth ONCE used a 32 ounce "toothpick", Jenkinson said he hit 2 HRs, one 525'! So is it possible he could have done even better with lighter bats? Maybe, it boggles the mind.
About the accuracy of measurements: there were many good accounts of even the old shots. Ruth was followed around more than anyone, played in the biggest stage, & there were more papers then. While I would never say that we should actually believe or print the legend, it seems in this case that the legend was TRUE.
One more observation: guys are more athletic & stronger today, though the author points out how physical labor like Foxx & Mantle did made them very strong. It seems that besides outliers being an exception to the rules, looking at the very top blasters ever, being naturally bug & strong, by old standards, not pumped up weight room ones, gives most of your power. The top guy who was more lanky than bulky, stretch, barely cracked the top 10. The others averaged over 6', but not a lot, & not much over 200 lbs lean.
The shortest to drive it extremely far were at least ~ 5 '11". Theoretically, other Physicists have said a Hondo or bigger player could generate more force. Though whether they could coordinate things effectively is a big question.
He listed Adam Dunn as the biggest bopper today. There are sure some questions I have for him! TRUE 500' blasts are really rare (of course with wood bats). I hope all of this is helpful.
5)
January 28th, 2011 at 5:35 am
For :Richard Chester
Hey, thanks for help, it's very nice from You.
I want to have any information it is possible to get.
Mainly, when he study and how marks he had on Virginia's college, and some about his baseball career.
Thank you a lot, Kamil
(Pls write on email kamilsmieszek360@gmail.com - it will be easier to contact each other)
K
January 28th, 2011 at 5:46 am
Foxx, Gibson Ruth, Wagner...were powerful men. But there amount of muscle mass was not commensurate with their strength, & especially swing power. Foxx's arms would not be very impressive today, even after the 'roid era. Weight training can add more strength, & especially disproportionate hypertrophy. I built a 19" arm naturally, & doubt I could hit a ball very far. And like virtually everyone here, if miraculously given playing time, would undoubtedly put together the worst season ever!
The ability to hit, throw, or to some degree run fast is largely a natural talent. It can be tweaked, training can help-my avatar here though might have thrown as hard as anyone, since outliers in CERTAIN largely natural talents (& Johnson/Ruth today might well have never been allowed to develop & keep the 'feel' that gave them their eccentric & so effective styles befitting outliers), unlike most raw abilities which can be so much more developed-muscular strength & endurance chief amongst them-
Might actually be superior in rare circumstances, despite minimal, primitive training.
January 28th, 2011 at 9:23 am
Mantle running to first in 3.1 seconds is surely a myth. Whatever the cause, most likely a mistake by the guy with the stopwatch, it's a myth, and can't be anything else.
I have a lot of difficulty understanding how Ruth could hit longer home runs than McGwire. The only possible explanation I think is that Ruth used huge bats (made of hickory), and McGwire sacrificed power by using a lighter bat that he could more consistently make solid contact with.
I've watched baseball for 20 years, and in those years nobody has hit the ball as hard or as far as McGwire 1996-2001. I'm surprised anyone disputes this. His fly balls had the most hang time, his long ones were the longest, he could hit 480+ foot moonshots to the opposite field, it was ridiculous. I'm not sure who I would rank 2nd. Maybe 2001-2002 Bonds, even though he doesn't have any 500+ footers credited. It's not surprising, that those who could hit the farthest, would hit the most, since they could hit home runs when hitting the ball far from optimal, the opposite of a guy like Juan Pierre or David Eckstein, who can only score a home run when they strike it absolutely 97%+ of their optimal strike.
January 28th, 2011 at 10:32 am
@117, @119- Mike Felber - great posts. I did buy the Bill Jenkinson book ("...104 home runs"), it was quite fascinating. You made a great point about Ruth swinging a heavier bat than most anyone else (up to 48 ounces?), which would generate greater force on his swing than with a lighter bat.
Josh Gibson is a name that should be mentioned along with Mantle, Ruth, and Foxx; unfortunately there's a huge grey area where we will never be able to separate fact from myth.
Being a Red Sox, I feel obligated to mention that Ted Williams, Yaz, Jim Rice, and Manny Rameriz hit some prodigious shots. I'm sure some of you know about the famous "painted red seat" in deepest field, where Williams hit a 502- foot shot in 1946...
January 28th, 2011 at 10:43 am
@121, meant "Red sox FAN..."
January 28th, 2011 at 10:54 am
"I'm not sure this reasoning works, however, if you compare the top ten players from 1930 to the top ten from 2010, but that is a different debate."
The stats of the top 10 players from 1930 look so outrageously good because they are somewhat relative to the level of the average player of their day. In the cases of some advanced stats, directly (OPS+ and ERA+ compare you to the average player in your league), and in other cases, indirectly.
If the average pitcher in your league is really poor (as in AA/AAA) by today's standards, and only the top guys (i.e. all-star/HoF track or close) were actually pitching at a level that would get you more than a cup of coffee in today's major leagues (something I think is accurate), then it was one heck of a lot easier to hit 60 home runs or .300, than it is in today's game. Same with fielders. Think how much easier it is for major league batters to hit .300 in Coors, versus a less wide-open park. Well, if the average fielder has significantly less range than today's average fielders, it would be as if every park was like Coors field.
Which is not to say that the hall of fame players of 1930 were not great -- the immortal names towered above their peers, and most of them, growing up today, would almost certainly have made the majors and been excellent players -- It's concievable that a couple could even still have rated among the best ever playing in today's majors -- if they had the same coaching and training available to today's players.
But that gives them credit for playing much better under modern circumstances than they actually did. If you took actual 1927 Babe Ruth or 1928 Lou Gehrig or 1947 Ted Williams, and could somehow time warp them into a 2010 major league game, I'd be very surprised if they were even average right away, or if any of them would be dominant on just a year or two of acclimation to the modern environment without having grown up in it.
January 28th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
@123, Michael E Sullivan -- I suppose that would work in the other direction. Transport players from today back to 1910:
"Welcome to to our game today, Mr. Utley. We hear you're pretty good. Couple things before you take the field. Sorry, no helmets or body armor, so you might want to hang loose in the batter's box, because pitchers will throw at you and the umpires won't stop them. The pitchers also get mad if you're standing close to the plate. They make their living there, so best take a step back. The pitchers will get especially mad if you take a really big cut. Not to mention, if you really take a big cut, your back swing is going to hit the catcher, and you'll be called out. Of course, before you get back to the dugout, the catcher will have no doubt slugged you for hitting him, so yeah, you're going to have to change your swing if you hope to cut it in our time. You'll have to do that anyway, since you won't have those lighter bats with the thinner handles you can whip through the strikezone. Your bat will be heavier, and more importantly have a very thick handle. You also might want to stand a little furthur up in the box. I understand they throw things like cutters in your time, causing the hitter to stand further back in the box. The good news if you're not going to see cutters, or many sliders, but you are going to see a lot of curves. I hear that pitch is a bit of dying art in your time. Well, we throw a lot of them and the pitchers are really good with them, so I suggest standing a bit further up in the box to try and hit the curve before it's really into its break.
"Here are you new cleets. You probably won't get as good traction with them when running the bases or in the field, but I'm sure you'll do fine. You'll be given a new wool uniform. They're a bitch on hot days. You'll be carrying an extra ten poinds of sweat in the uniform. Oh, and here's your oven mit for playing second. It's a little tougher to catch the ball, but we still expect you will. We don't groom the fields as well during our times, so watch out for tricky bounces. Just be careful out there. There's no such thing as the proximity play, and the runners do come in spikes up if you're on the bag. We have this guy Cobb. He's heard about you and he already doesn't like you. You couldn't pay me enough right now to be you. He'll be visiting you at second base. You look like you can take care of yourself. Pretty muscular. That's gonna fade, though. No weight rooms here, so I hope those extra muscles aren't what makes you a good hitter, because you're not gonna have them much longer. We don't really have this thing called "video" and our scouting reports are not exactly probably what you're used to, so you're gonna have to figure these pitchers out as you go along. You'll have plenty of time on the long train rides to talk about it with the other guys. I'm sure they'll get to like you eventually, although they don't treat rookies too well at the start.
"Last, we play through injuries. Sore hamstring? We don't even know what a hamstring is. See you nice and early for extra BP. I think you're gonna need some before your first game.
"Welcome, Mr. Utley. We hear you're pretty good. Let's find out."
-----------------
All for good fun, but to make a point, the transfer works both ways. I have no doubt Chase would adapt well, because I do believe a great player would be a great player in any time, after a few adjustments, but I think it's the older-time players who would benefit more.
And for the record, I believe that if Ted Williams played today, he would be the best hitter in the game.
January 28th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Andy (way back) @92-
Point taken. It wasn't the most convincing argument. I suppose I was simply trying to draw attention to the fact that bunting isn't COMPLETELY dead. But, you are right, my list says nothing of the average player. I don't know how, or if it's even possible, to get some sort of year-by-year bunt success rate. And, still, how useful is that? Many would argue that a "successful" bunt is a well placed sacrifice. Or something like that. So I don't even know if there is any data that would get us anywhere on it.
January 28th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
JA, I missed your questions at #55, sorry. I think we've answered them as best as we could afterwards.
January 28th, 2011 at 6:09 pm
Well point taken -- time warped stars of today would not do very well on their first day in 1910 either (or probably 1940/1960 for that matter). But I suspect on average (meaning average of star/all-star level players, not just whole major leagues, they would do better than their older counterparts time warped to today, after some reasonable adjustment time.
Would Babe Ruth still be a big star and hall of famer today? (assuming same guy growing up today, as opposed to time warping in as an adult) Almost certainly, but I doubt he would stand out from the pack to the extent that Mays, Aaron and Mantle did in the 60s/70s or Bonds or Pujols have in the 90s/2000s. And the weaker hall of famers of that era would probably be average at best today.
But you make one good point, which is that guys who did well primarily on their grit and constitution would be disadvantaged today, while guys who are stars today despite injuries, due to the wonders of modern sports medicine, might have fared poorly in the past.
January 28th, 2011 at 8:29 pm
I think part of the issue people have with this date is the assumption that those arguing on behalf of today's players are somehow disparaging players of yesteryear. I think for most of us, nothing could be further from the truth. My feeling is that just about every player maximized their talent to the furthest extent possible, given the times they played in. This takes into account technology, methods, ideologies, medicine, and lifestyle. I doubt there is much Babe Ruth could have done to be better, given his circumstances. And I doubt there is much David Eckstein could do to be better, given his circumstances. Most ball players maximize their skills (I'm sure there are some exceptions, but probably less than media narratives would lead us to believe). This is not to say all potential is realized (plenty of guys never make it or fizzle or get hurt), but that guys are doing the best they can, whether it be with advanced training techniques in the 21st century or by finding part-time jobs that allowed them to practice in the off-season back in the 20's.
January 28th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Thanks Lawrence, see what you think of his latest book! Jimbo, I tried to explain why it seems improbable, but is likely true, that several of the old timers could have hit further than anyone. Jenkinson affirms that a 'roided big mac hit further than anyone since the 70's. I do not know if hickory made the difference-& I am not aware that ruth usually used this-but he did allegedly use a bat up to I think 54 Oz. though in the 40's was more routine.
As I stated, the mystery is how the extra distance that is garnered by heavier bats can compensate for the slower swing. Maybe only a few could do this well. And i said perhaps Ruth would have hit even further on average with a lighter bat-as when he hit an epic shot & 2 HRs when he borrowed a 32 Oz model.
Williams did hit 502', & it would have been a little further if it was able to hit the ground (true distance). Though there was some wind assistance. But I see no likelihood that with the research Jenkinson did, he did not come very close to where the shots landed. Ruth in particular is well documented due to his fame, & others like Allen, swinging a heavy bat, are well recorded.
Considering how much they put into the swings, & that outliers were then allowed to keep distinctive styles, AND that something like throwing & hitting force is still mostly natural, & stuff like lifting provides some assistance generally, but nothing remotely proportionate to increase in strength:
I fully believe that the order of slugger power above is accurate, or pretty close to the absolute truth.
January 29th, 2011 at 2:46 am
Wagner lifted dumbbells, & Utley could improvise a weight room. Ruth growing up decades later, so he could have access to the same training & technology? He should stand out at least as much as the top players from Mays-Pujols. That his peers were worse on average would be at lest very nearly counterbalanced by all advances in training. if he had the same small strike zone as Bonds & the same training, he should do at least nearly as well-likely better if he took PEDs, instead of his anti-PED hot dogs & boozing regimen. Though as he got older, he did better in taking care of himself, though the training was poor.
January 30th, 2011 at 10:56 am
Hello! I am from Reno,Nv and am a big FAN of Butch Wynegar! I am trying to write him,but can't seem to make contact! This is regarding the old Reno Silver Sox days.Does anyone know how to contact Butch?
January 30th, 2011 at 11:07 pm
@133, Wynegar is the hitting coach for the NY Yankees AAA affiliate, Scranton/Wilkes-Barre.
Just do a search for the team's web site. I'm sure there's a "contact" link somewhere on the site.
February 2nd, 2011 at 12:40 am
@124, MikeD's hypothetical address to Chase Utley time-warped to 1910) --
"Last, we play through injuries. Sore hamstring? We don't even know what a hamstring is."
What evidence can you present showing that players of that period did a better job of staying in the lineup than today's players? I believe you are just repeating an old canard -- one which every generation of retired players claims for itself in comparison to "today's babies."
Shall we compare Utley to Nap Lajoie, superstar 2B of that era? Here are the seasons in which Lajoie missed at least 15 games:
-- 75 games in 1899
-- 36 games in 1900
-- 49 games in 1902
-- 89 games in 1905
-- 15 games in 1907
-- 25 games in 1909
-- 63 games in 1911
-- 36 games in 1912
-- [In 1913-16, Lajoie missed at least 17 games each year, but as he was age 38-41 in this time, let's cut him some slack.]
How about Ty Cobb? He missed 31 games in 1913 (age 26), 55 in 1914, 15 in 1918, 24 in 1919, 42 in 1920, 25 in 1921, 17 in 1922 (age 35). Cobb averaged 135 games a year from age 20-34.
How about the 1907 Cubs, who went 107-45 and took their 2nd straight WS? Three of their top eight regulars missed considerable time: 1B Frank Chance missed 41 games, SS Joe Tinker missed 35, CF Wildfire Schulte missed 55 games.
I would love to see your evidence.