I had this argument the other day with a coworker about athletes now and how they are superior in every way and fashion to athletes of the 40s, 50s, 60s, etc. This argument was sparked on when they were talking about who they would choose for their all time football team and I began to question why they would pick Unitas over some like Peyton Manning. This then digressed into a discussion on Babe Ruth and what kind of player he would be today.
In my opinion if we took the Delorean back to 1927 and pulled Babe Ruth into his prime and placed him in a Yankee uniform tomorrow he would be an above avergae major league baseball player but I'd almost certainly take Albert Pujols over him.
Ruth at 6'2 and 215 in his day was an absolute monster. He had a physical advantage over basically everybody in the league. In addition he was facing pitchers on a day to day basis that were likely never eclipsing the 90 mph mark.* Who knows what Ruth would do if he had to face superior pitchers on a day to day basis and if his physique was nothing more than an average player. In his days he neither had to deal with african americans nor hispanics and that their cultural idea of training was vastly inferior to today's standards. We as a sports community have evolved, it's been 80+ years.
Meanwhile with Pujols we know what we're getting. First off at 6'3 210 he's essentially the same size as Ruth. Most notable we know what he can do against modern day major league pitchers. He's a hitter routinely hits 35+ homers, has .330 average and eclipses 100 runs and 100 rbi. Give me the guy I know who can produce rather than the guy with question marks.
So I leave this debate with you, who would you take on your team, Pujols or Ruth?
*In case you have never played baseball before there is a massive difference between someone who throws 84 and someone who throws 94. I can hit an 84 mile per hour fastball. I couldn't touch a 94 mph fastball, hence why I never amounted to anything more than a Division III baseball player at a small engineering school.
In my opinion if we took the Delorean back to 1927 and pulled Babe Ruth into his prime and placed him in a Yankee uniform tomorrow he would be an above avergae major league baseball player but I'd almost certainly take Albert Pujols over him.
Ruth at 6'2 and 215 in his day was an absolute monster. He had a physical advantage over basically everybody in the league. In addition he was facing pitchers on a day to day basis that were likely never eclipsing the 90 mph mark.* Who knows what Ruth would do if he had to face superior pitchers on a day to day basis and if his physique was nothing more than an average player. In his days he neither had to deal with african americans nor hispanics and that their cultural idea of training was vastly inferior to today's standards. We as a sports community have evolved, it's been 80+ years.
Meanwhile with Pujols we know what we're getting. First off at 6'3 210 he's essentially the same size as Ruth. Most notable we know what he can do against modern day major league pitchers. He's a hitter routinely hits 35+ homers, has .330 average and eclipses 100 runs and 100 rbi. Give me the guy I know who can produce rather than the guy with question marks.
So I leave this debate with you, who would you take on your team, Pujols or Ruth?
*In case you have never played baseball before there is a massive difference between someone who throws 84 and someone who throws 94. I can hit an 84 mile per hour fastball. I couldn't touch a 94 mph fastball, hence why I never amounted to anything more than a Division III baseball player at a small engineering school.
Comments
On the other hand, your were in charge of our Intramural Sports. I do have numerous Championsip T-Shirts from across the board. Most notably going undefeated in Flag Football for our 4 years there.
Don't sell yourself too short.