1975 Reds vs 1927 Yankees

[kaldaniels]

I’d argue Trevor Bauer (workhorse that can go 9), Tucker Barnhart and 7 decent high schoolers could regularly beat the ‘27 Yankees.

[kaldaniels]

The only thing even remotely valid in dougdirt's stance here, is that segregation is a bad thing. Not exactly a news flash, and again, not at all applicable to the topic at hand.

I’ll march in the streets saying segregation was bad, evil and rotten.

But no need to aggressively shoehorn it into this discussion when comparing MLB teams relative to other MLB teams of their eras.

[westofyou]

While the league was segregated baseball also was the biggest game in town and drew 95% of the premier white athletes, thus teams like the 1927 Yankees also were extremely top heavy historically

[foster15]

While the league was segregated baseball also was the biggest game in town and drew 95% of the premier white athletes, thus teams like the 1927 Yankees also were extremely top heavy historically

Yep, all those great athletes back then, that's why Babe Ruth was the premiere player. What an NBA career he might have had if only.

[Bruce Berenyi]

yes the segregated leagues attracted superior athletes,, just imagine red holtzman bob cousy and george mikan in todays nba surely they would dominate

[westofyou]

Yep, all those great athletes back then, that's why Babe Ruth was the premiere player. What an NBA career he might have had if only.

Football Babe!

[foster15]

Football Babe!

Wow, if I didn't look closely at the face, I would've thought that was Bo Jackson.

[westofyou]

Wow, if I didn't look closely at the face, I would've thought that was Bo Jackson.

You actually think I'm arguing for the 1927 Yankees eh?

Have at it then

[Old school 1983]

yes the segregated leagues attracted superior athletes,, just imagine red holtzman bob cousy and george mikan in todays nba surely they would dominate

Maybe off topic, but when NBA cross generation comparisons come up, my first question is what generations rule book and rule enforcement will they be playing by? 40-50 years ago most players from 95-present day couldn’t make it up the court with the dribbling style they use without being called for traveling. The examples you posed are mostly what I’d call premodern NBA, so it’d be hard to compare. But from around 1960 forward, the question of what rules would matter? Like imagine Wilt Chamberlain being praised for using his strength and getting away with the offense contact that a guy like Shaq was able to. Or get praised for dunking hard like Shaq. Let alone some of the footwork that doesn’t get a travel call now like it would back then. Or even the 3 point line or the lack of hand checks now. Imagine how that would have opened up the game for guys like Pete Maravich.

I think the same rules apply to baseball. Throw modern players in 1920s playing and training conditions and their level of performance as compared to their modern performance would drop, but their performance as compared as to the rest of the league at the time, the 1920s, would likely be similar. And while the segregation argument holds a lot of water, a point could be made to take away from the performance of any generation versus another. So, in my opinion the best way to approach the exercise is each team judged as they performed into the context of their times.

[Bruce Berenyi]

well written and well phrased thanks

[foster15]

You actually think I'm arguing for the 1927 Yankees eh?

Have at it then

Well, you did try to even out the debate with the 95% of best white athletes point. I think that's what you were doing. My point is baseball doesn't take a super athlete to play well, it takes a skilled athlete who has great hand eye coordination to reach the top of the game. Yes, speed helps, strength helps, but are far from necessary. Even today it's not as necessary. I think Big Papi is a perfect example in his later years. Baseball never ever took a certain body type to play, it's closer to golf in that matter than any other physical game that I can think of off the top of my head.

[dougdirt]

https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-a...-Babe-Ruth-era

And I'll go one further, just to completely invalidate dougdirt's segregation over-emphasis.

Take every league from 1927. MLB, Negro Leagues, all of them. Make an all-star team of the best and brightest from 1927.

Those guys don't stand a chance against the 1982 Reds, much less the 1975 Reds.

The only thing even remotely valid in dougdirt's stance here, is that segregation is a bad thing. Not exactly a news flash, and again, not at all applicable to the topic at hand.

I'm very confused here as to what you are saying. On no planet did I ever remotely suggest that some super team from 1927 would be superior to a team 50 years in the future. They'd get absolutely destroyed and it wouldn't be competitive.

What I said is that if you took the players on that super team, as babies, and put them in whatever era and allowed the to grow up with the same nutrition, medicine, and technology of the day, they'd still turn out to be among the best baseball players/athletes in the world. The same stuff that made them the best athletes around in 1927 would make them the best athletes in 2020 if they grew up with the same advantages athletes today have over their 1927 counterparts.

You aren't invalidating anything. You completely misunderstood every single last thing that I was saying.

[BCubb2003]

Considering everything we adjust for, park effects, dead ball, live ball, height of the mound, etc., segregation seems like a legitimate factor, too, with no need for a backlash.

[Bourgeois Zee]

Well, you did try to even out the debate with the 95% of best white athletes point. I think that's what you were doing. My point is baseball doesn't take a super athlete to play well, it takes a skilled athlete who has great hand eye coordination to reach the top of the game. Yes, speed helps, strength helps, but are far from necessary. Even today it's not as necessary. I think Big Papi is a perfect example in his later years. Baseball never ever took a certain body type to play, it's closer to golf in that matter than any other physical game that I can think of off the top of my head.

I'm not arguing for yesteryear, but wouldn't the practice and long hours spent honing control, just throwing the ball, and hitting (in lieu of playing multiple sports or hanging out inside) argue for the 1927 Yankees?

Those guys truly lived in the game. (For the most part.) Especially as boys.

How many kids today play stickball in the streets like Gehrig did?

How many tossed the ball for hours a day like Ruth did in the boys' home?

Kids from that era (and the ones after it) played all the time.

Maybe the 1975 club did as well. (Probably, most of them did too.)

Today? Man, I can't get my boy outside enough. If given his druthers, he's in front of a video screen.

[Old school 1983]

I'm not arguing for yesteryear, but wouldn't the practice and long hours spent honing control, just throwing the ball, and hitting (in lieu of playing multiple sports or hanging out inside) argue for the 1927 Yankees?

Those guys truly lived in the game. (For the most part.) Especially as boys.

How many kids today play stickball in the streets like Gehrig did?

How many tossed the ball for hours a day like Ruth did in the boys' home?

Kids from that era (and the ones after it) played all the time.

Maybe the 1975 club did as well. (Probably, most of them did too.)

Today? Man, I can't get my boy outside enough. If given his druthers, he's in front of a video screen.

Could be off topic too....but as compared to players of yesteryear. Across all sports really, does it seem that players today just don’t seem to have distinct styles? With sports specialization among athletes, it appears that the specialized coaching tries to make standardized carbon copies of eachother rather than letting players make their own style of play that’s successful to them. This could just be me watching and assuming. Just wondering if anyone kind of feels the same way.