Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Wrong. You guys seem to be suggesting that people "evolved" in two or three generations. There still has never been anyone who threw harder than Nolan Ryan. And nobody in the majors right now throws harder than Feller. Sure, they can take some middling reliever and throw 104 on the scoreboard so goofs like you jizz in your pants but that doesn't mean the guy threw harder than Walter Johnson.
And now you want to shrink Ruth. Well then, I think Carlos Zambrano was 6'0", 220. Hell, I saw the fearsome Teddy Bruschi on Sports Center last night and he looked about 5'8", 160.
That's why I asked before how well the teams Ruth played on would do today.
Well, if you took the '27 Yankees and brought them en masse in a time machine to 2018 I don't think they would dominate. In general people were smaller, nutrition was worse, etc. But if you could implant the fetuses of the guys on that team into women who would give birth to them in 1990, I would say they would dominate more than they did in 1927.
That really has nothing to do with Ruth though. He's a complete outlier. He was so big and fast for a guy that size in his time. He's just like Harper but playing back then.
Here's why this is a dumb argument. What if I said Michael Jordan would be a good bench player if he played today. I mean, players are bigger, stronger, and they shoot better. Jordan had to beat slobs like Charles Barkley who got drunk every night and ate hot dogs. That would be pretty fucking silly, right? But it's like every generation thinks that "evolution" somehow peaked with their favorite players.
I'm with you about Ruth being great in any era but comparing him to Harper is laughable.
Look at some of the photos of the basketball players from the 70's and 80's. Most had very little body fat and ALL had better endurance than the players today.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
