I ran across this Ted Talk:
https://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_getting_faster_better_stronger
The question he explores is: "Are we better athletes today?" I found this very interesting in relation to APBA as we often roll many games that are inter-generational. For example; the APBA tournaments that are very popular are a study in this inter-generational argument.
This afternoon my APBA 2015 Kansas City Royals face the 1977 Minnesota Twins in a 7 game series. Could Carew really hit the Royals pen without trouble, or are they timeless?
Was Mantle a better Center Fielder than Griffey Jr? Did equipment and turf slow Mantle down and wreck his knees? Did it give The Kid an edge?
Who was better behind The Dish-Carter or Berra? Think of the equipment alone.
Was Darrin Erstad the best defensive Left Fielder in the history of the game? Did he really outshine Shoeless Joe in the field? Or did coaching, video, the ball park, diet, exercise, and not working in the off-season give him the edge?
Who was the greatest pure hitter? Gwynn or Williams, or the 1980 Brett or 1977 Carew....did Shoeless Joe beat them all?
Given the medical advancements of today what would Mantle's numbers have looked like? What could Tony Oliva have done?
Given the legal and social control MLB organizations have over players (for better and for worse) could that have prevented Shoeless Joe from his entanglement with the gamblers in 1919?
Cobb or Rickey as the greatest on the base-paths? Equipment may play a role.
Randy Johnson or Walter Johnson? All things being equal, move RJ back to the 20s or WJ to the 2000's, who dominates in their new era?
Does Joe Mauer play way over his head today given his natural ability? Or is Mauer a stud in 1920?
Someone who works their way to the HOF given limited tools (Jeter), seems like a ballplayer that would be the same across the decades.
The Ted Talk does a nice job of illuminating this question with categories.
Equipment, Training, Gene Pool, Populations, and selective body types. David Epstein does not discuss baseball but it is worth a short look here.
Equipment: Better gloves seems marginal, a 14" outfield glove with a H pocket is nice, but it may just make a very slight difference on the hand of Joe Jackson compared to his early 20th century glove. Batting gloves, probably as everyone wears them. Bats? I don't know enough technical data about them but the material has not changed much. The field is a boost, even grass, even base-paths, good lighting, hitters blinds, etc. The field of play seems to make a difference in Baseball.
Training and medical aid is a huge advantage today. Read any bio of an early ball player and they worked other jobs, exercised in unscientific ways if they did it at all. Ate and drank what they pleased, and the recovery and preventative medicine is a huge advantage today. Knowing exactly what is going on inside an athlete's knee is sport-changing technology. To be able to take a diagnostic look at Mantel or Oliva's knees and make adjustments could have altered their careers dramatically.
Video analysis is a huge technology boost for the game. Ted Williams did it himself with his baseball mind, but few if any, can replicate his talent of the mind. What if Walter Johnson had been able to study his motion with professional coaches? If he could study hitters he would face? What if Ty Cobb could have studied the motion of pitchers he faced on the base path? Give Babe Ruth video analysis of opposing pitchers and we still have the same single-season home run king? Keep Ruth (if you could) on a decent diet and exercise program?
Sabermetrics? Wow. Intuition, gut feelings, experience, a "baseball eye" as compared to or in conjunction with data analytics makes the game very different today, especially behind the scenes. How many players have been overlooked toady due to data and how many players were lost back in the day due to a lack of data. Current HOFer Piazza didn't make the data analytics cut, but made the Hall.
The Gene Pool and pushing populations into the sport that were underrepresented in the past is fascinating. Think of Jackie Robinson braking the color barrier, the influx of Latin players in the 1970's, the opening up of Japanese and Koran players today. Who did not play in the 1920's in MLB is a staggering question to ask. Think of how many HOF players were not in the game, and are still not in the game today. Baseball is unique (perhaps why he didn't cover it) as there is no clear 100% body type advantage. Tall, short, thin, fat...they all have the ability to play at the top level. Why are Women excluded today? It seems like a social barrier and not physical.
The factor that tends to ground this hypothetical argument is the talent pool. Ruth faced less talented pitchers because so few were in the game at the time as compared to today. Athletic people did different things because the money and exposure was much less, and many classes were not allowed to play, He only faced white pitchers. Perhaps this evens things out and the players of the past are roughly equal to the players of today.
No comments:
Post a Comment