Baseball Teams PAST vs. PRESENT

[Nolan Dalla]

I was involved in an interesting discussion last night. I was in a local bar where we were discussing baseball.

The topic came up about just how good the "great" teams of the past were, in contrast with today's major league teams. For example, in football if ANY NFL team were to play against the great teams of the past (60s Packers, 70s Steelers, etc.) the modern NFL team would probably beat the older teams badly. Even the 2001 Bengals would probably beat the 1962 Packers or the 1978 Steelers because today's football players are much faster and larger. The game has also progressed beyond rather simple offensive and defensive schemes.

However, baseball likes to think of itself as a "timeless" game. Walter Johnson, arguably, would still be a 20-game winner in the modern era and Babe Ruth would still hit 714 home runs -- according to purists.

I wonder what the opinion is out there on this subject.

Let's say the 2001 PITTSBURGH PIRATES are playing the 1979 Pirates, the 1973 A's, the 1970 Orioles, the 1956 Yankees, or the 1948 Indians.

Where would you set the line on these imaginary matchup? If you like, you can use the TAMPA DEVIL RAYS instead of the Pirates as the representation of the worst team in MLB.

To complicate matters, let's say the 2001 TEXAS RANGERS (bad pitching staff) were to play a 7-game series with the 1927 Yankees (great hitting team). Who would be the favorite -- and why?

I have my opinion, but will reserve judgment until others chime in.

-- Nolan Dalla

 

[dawgball]

Great topic.

I think baseball is the sport with the least amount of advancements. A pure fundamentals will conquer pure power in baseball any day of the week. Not true in other sports. Shaq would one up Russell, etc. -- but let's save that topic for another thread.

I believe the only advantage teams today have is the use of the BEST talent. Robinson breaking through the color barrier was a huge step for all sports, but this occurrence is the biggest change in baeball over the course of history.

If there is an advantage that current teams hold over teams of the past is the talent that exist from the top of the lineup on through. Of course, this is practically evened out by the over-expansion of the league. MLB has diluted talent throughout, but they continue to grow to more cities. The fourth and fifth pitcher on many rosters are bums (as much as a professional pitcher can be a bum).

So, to sum my opinion up, I think current teams would have a slight advantage in a 1-3 game series. But in a 7-game series, I believe it would be a toss-up. I don't think you would have to go to the bottom of the barrell teams of today to find a good match-up.

------------------
Sic 'em
dawgball

 

[neverteaseit]

We could debate on this topic for a long time. I am a baseball fanatic from the early years. I will talk a little about some of the great older teams, that I believe could compete if not dominate in this era. First off back in the early days of baseball pitchers pitched a whole game if it went 17 innings they where still pitching not much relieve pitching back then. Some pitchers pitched 500 + innings in a year.Which Is what I think has made todays baseball alot different. But that is a whole different discussion.

Could a team like the 1909 Pitt Pirates compete today. I believe so. They had speed and PITCHING. No power back then as 7 home runs led the league. They had a great team with honus wagner at ss. They could also runs the bases like no one else and do the fundamentals that are not that great today. This team could bunt. not just sacrifices but for hits. This is a lost art today.

1931 Phil Athletics could win a couple of world series today. They had pitching,power and defense. Gold glovers all over the place.They lost in the world series to the cardinals in 7 games. They had probably the greatest manager ever Connie Mack.

1927 Yankees they would dominate. Power,Power,Power. Ruth and Gehrig would thrive today. Pitching was excellent also.

1906 Chicago Cubs this was a well rounded team. scored 750 runs and only gave up 381.
1.75 e.r.a as a team and 30 shutouts. Arguably the greatest pitching staff ever, led by Mordecai Brown (3 fingers).

I could go on for days about teams that could compete today.N.YGiants,Cardinals,Red Sox, Brooklyn. Great teams in the older years.

Back then pitchers could pitch inside and would demand the plate. Today it is impossible. Umpires are out of control on this pitching inside rule they seem to have. Batters own the plate and this is why offensive numbers are up. Pithcing today suffers. Too many relief pitchers, that aren't that great.

Would love to have see the rangers play back in the 1900's they would be destroyed and I bet there offensive numbers would be no where near they are today. Pitching is the best equalizer period.


Great topic Nolan. I am sure people will think I am crazy but if you know the game, the way used to be played. Then you may see what I mean.

 

[IK]

I've had this discussion many times over the past few years with a number of different baseball fans....here's the best way I can explain my feelings....Take a team from now, let's say , the Twins....and take a team from whatever era you want, let's say the Dodgers circa 1966....create a 3 game series and be the bookie...set the line....

gm 1 Koufax vs Radke
gm 2 Drysdale vs Milton
gm 3 Osteen vs Mays

remember you're the book so you have to set what you believe to be, a line that gets 2-way action.....

I think when you give this approach a shot you'll be surprised at what you discover....baseball is a game that offers great teams, great players from all timeframes...bigger, faster, stronger sure helps but in my imaginary series the Twins aren't chalk.....

 

[pepin46]

before we can even start to analyze this, we need some information, like:

how many drinks had you all had before this discussion came up?

this is pandora's box; i won't even try to analyze them, having enough problems picking one or two a day.

but just to change the subject, my most admired teams were the cinci reds and milwaukee braves of mid-late fifties. the yankees, well, we all took them for granted.


pep

 

[djv]

Just don't now ware to start. Baseball is so over expanded today. Some these teams today belong in triple AAA. Pitching shows the effects of the expansion forsure. Coaches out pulling pitchers every other 3 /4 batters. Not so much playing the odds. Darn pitchers can't pitch.
Nolan maybe it was so back then. If that is true. Then today, 10 years ago,50 years ago 70 years ago. Could all play each other and have much the same results. Not sure how to capp them.
I guess if someone wanted to give me the 61 Yankes vs anyone today as dogs. In a 5 or 7 game series. I would be happy to take them.

[This message has been edited by djv (edited 07-19-2001).]

 

[kneifl]

I have always liked the new york yankees win or lose, even though they have been doing quite well this past few years.

About 10+ yrs ago I really liked watching them when Don Mattingly, Dave Winfield, Rickey Henderson, Dave Righetti and a few others played for them too. They've always been my favorite since I watched these guys as a kid.

You can't get bored watching a yankees game.

Kneifl

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Don't remember what year it was but thought it was pretty impressive one team having their whole infield start in the all star game.St Louis Cardinals 1st Bill White 2nd Julian Javier SS Dick Groat 3d Ken Boyer Catcher Tim McCarver.However McCarver started only as result of injury to Johnny Bench.

 

[djv]

Nolan, just gettin back to this on your part on football. True the players today are bigger and faster over all. There are a few back 30/40 years of course that were very large. Coaching and execution still are what win. Size can be over come. Speed is not as easy to over come. However again execution can help do that. Years ago if they had a burner many times teams would play zone. Today they do the same. The 60 Packers and 70 Steelers, would be in the thick of things. They may not win against the best of today. But I could see those teams 10&6 or 11&5 and in the playoffs. The big question to me. Would they win the Super Bowl if they made it that far. Let's look at Balt not a huge team. Not the best Q B. There offense was not real fast. Great Defense. Either of the teams above would have played Balt as good as anyone else playing today. Just my dimes worth.

 

[Nolan Dalla]

djv:

I disagree with you about the 60s Packers and 70s Steelers, etc. Those athletes were simply not as well-conditioned -- not as strong, not as fast. Thus, they would not fare well in today's game.

If you were to line up the 2000 Cinncinati Bengals against either team, the Bengals power and size would probably win out (this assumes Rich Kotite is not the head coach and Ernie Zampese is not running the offense, of course). The old saying that "football is won in the tenches" applies here. There's just no way Jerry Kramer and Fuzzy Thurston and the rest of the DL and OL lines -- who weighed all of 240 pounds on average are going to have the momentum to win the battle on the line of scrimmage against 320 pounders. Furthermore, Corey Dillon is going to run rough-shod through those tiny linebackers -- who just don't have the speed or size to keep up. There is no way a Donny Anderson or a Max McGee would even make an NFL team today. With quarterbacks, the size and strength of this position has not increased so much in the last few decades -- so bart Starr and the others of that era might still be able to play and do well today, assuming a good conditioning program exists for them (Ken Stabler and Billy Kilmer are big question marks). And of course, "leadership" transcends all eras, so a Roger Staubach or John Unitas could very well be a starter in today's game and perhaps even be an MVP. In terms of coaching, the game has certainly progressed and become much more complex. I give Paul Brown all the credit in the world as a master innovator during his era. But, as we saw -- Brown, Landry, Shula, and the other great coaches were not nearly as effective in the last five years of their careers. As to the question of whether or not Vince Lombardi could win 4 Super Bowls in today's era, I seriously wonder if those abrasive tactics would work today. The modern athlete making $5 million a season in a guaranteed contract probably is not going to be intimidated, and so Lombardi and the other icons might have trouble in todays game. This last argument, of course, is probably mute, since it assumes the coaches are not flexible, which they may very well be. My point is that if you ran the 2000 Detroit Lions playbook (average team) and put it up against the 1966 Packers playbook, the Lions would probably destroy Green Bay.

I'm oversimplifying to make my point here -- and you can argue specifics. Do you disagree with my hypothesis, djv ?


Nolan Dalla

[This message has been edited by Nolan Dalla (edited 07-23-2001).]

 

[djv]

I agree with many things you say. I do believe the great coaches of those teams would coach and teach as needed. Execution is still a must. You may have some good teams today. But some play like block heads. Today you still see that pass rusher 250/265 lbs, line up at defensive end. They use there quickness vs that 320 lb guy and eat them alive. So yes there bigger today but not all are better. Cinncy is bad. Those great teams had big hearts. I think they listen to there coaches better then some do today. There is to much I this, I that, these
days. In the long run that can hurt a team just at the wrong time. Expansion here has cut into the talent pool also. What have we got tops 5 maybe 6 very ,very good Q B today I will not say great that is over used.
But sure long run the better teams today would win out. But might be harder then you think.