Jake Peavy on Past Players

[AstrosFan]

I want the opinions of our history buffs, so I am requesting this stay in the History forum.

Jake Peavy was commenting on a video of the 1971 World Series he had seen, between the Orioles and Pirates, and he said, "There would be a no-hitter a week with the guys' stuff today and those swings. Everything is evolution. The game's gotten to be a whole different thing."

Thoughts, comments? And if you believe Peavy is on to something here, what does that say about players from way back, say, in Cobb and Ruth's day? Could they even survive in today's game?

[brett]

I want the opinions of our history buffs, so I am requesting this stay in the History forum.

Jake Peavy was commenting on a video of the 1971 World Series he had seen, between the Orioles and Pirates, and he said, "There would be a no-hitter a week with the guys' stuff today and those swings. Everything is evolution. The game's gotten to be a whole different thing."

Thoughts, comments? And if you believe Peavy is on to something here, what does that say about players from way back, say, in Cobb and Ruth's day? Could they even survive in today's game?

I don't think what he was spotting had to do with poor swings in the past. I think what he saw was poor swings in the 70s! That's why I simply can not rate 70s players as high as some do. I watched videos of Joe Morgan, Cesar Cedeno and other batting and those swings would have a seriously hard time getting around on stuff today and hitting it with authority. 70s hitting SUCKED!

Swing mechanics went backwards with the pitching dominance of the late 60s and guys either went for power or contact. George Brett had a good swing, as well as others, but overall, the hitting didn't really start to improve until Bonds and Thomas around '91.

I believe in league quality, I just happen to believe that the best LQ is not necessarily the latest.

I think the 4 highest LQ's ever were around 1915-1917, 1958-1960, 1991-1992, and 2003-Present.

[steelcurtain76]

I just think that it's extremely hard to compare generations. Today's ballplayers have an added advantage of advanced training methods, nutrition, and are bigger and stronger because of that.

I think every generation of players can make the claim that Peavy made of those who played decades earlier, but that doesn't make it true. How many times do you hear veterans...of any generation...say "the players today don't (fill in the blank)...."

I have a hard time believing that there would be a no-hitter every single week...and...I believe that if you threw some players from today in the game 3 or 4 decades ago, it would be fair to say that they may struggle in some capacity as well.

[Los Bravos]

Yeah, I'm sure Jake Peavy could have dominated Frank Robinson, Roberto Clemente and Willie Stargell.

I wouldn't have thought it possible, but my opinion of him is a bit lower than it was this morning.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I just think that it's extremely hard to compare generations. Today's ballplayers have an added advantage of advanced training methods, nutrition, and are bigger and stronger because of that.

I think every generation of players can make the claim that Peavy made of those who played decades earlier, but that doesn't make it true. How many times do you hear veterans...of any generation...say "the players today don't (fill in the blank)...."

I have a hard time believing that there would be a no-hitter every single week...and...I believe that if you threw some players from today in the game 3 or 4 decades ago, it would be fair to say that they may struggle in some capacity as well.

Not buying Jake's story, how can you really evaluate by looking at some videos. Does it make sense, some good and great hitting, great swings in the 1950s-1960s and then for some reason the hitting on average goes down the tubes, pathetic swings and then it gets better. That reasoning is a laugher.

What I'm wondering does Jake think that hitting and taking good cuts before the 1970s was at a lower level, or did he just zero in on the 1970s.

Just a quick glance correct if wrong.

---------------------------AL---------------------NL
No hitters 1970s----------15----------------------16
No hitters 1990s----------17----------------------14

Not even sure what those numbers could really prove, no DH till 1973 and there was some expansion in the later years but overall not much of a difference and besides 4 of those no-hitters in the 1970s were by one pitcher Nolan Ryan.

Jake is talking nonsense, if the hitters were so inept as he believes in the 1970s, what does that say about the pitching in the 1970s.

The bottom line he makes a statement that could never be proven, never.

[Wade8813]

Not buying Jake's story, how can you really evaluate by looking at some videos.

I dunno, a lot of great players these days use video extensively to study their rivals...

[steelcurtain76]

Not buying Jake's story, how can you really evaluate by looking at some videos. Does it make sense, some good and great hitting, great swings in the 1950s-1960s and then for some reason the hitting on average goes down the tubes, pathetic swings and then it gets better. That reasoning is a laugher.

What I'm wondering does Jake think that hitting and taking good cuts before the 1970s was at a lower level, or did he just zero in on the 1970s.

Just a quick glance correct if wrong.

---------------------------AL---------------------NL
No hitters 1970s----------15----------------------16
No hitters 1990s----------17----------------------14

Not even sure what those numbers could really prove, no DH till 1973 and there was some expansion in the later years but overall not much of a difference and besides 4 of those no-hitters in the 1970s were by one pitcher Nolan Ryan.

Jake is talking nonsense, if the hitters were so inept as he believes in the 1970s, what does that say about the pitching in the 1970s.

The bottom line he makes a statement that could never be proven, never.

One thing for sure, if you took some of today's hitter's and put them in that batters box against Bob Gibson...and he just so happened to throw some chin music....players like Richie Sexton would go crying to mama because the game would be too rough.

There were better pitchers and harder throwers than Peavy in the 70's...Seaver and Ryan come to mind...and they didn't throw no-hitters as often as Peavy implies that a flame thrower would.

Stick to your steroid era Jake. It doesn't sound like you know the 70's all that well. Something tells me that Aaron goes deep on him more often than not if they faced each other.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I dunno, a lot of great players these days use video extensively to study their rivals...

Yes that true to study opposing hitters/pitchers, thats not Peavy's point. Some how he has determined by looking at a video that 1970s hitters, could not get the bat though the zone fast enough, they would be dead meat today.

Can we get off jake for a second and think this one over. Why would 1970s hitters have weak hacks, why wouldn't they want to really drive the ball, were they incapable. And then, rebirth the 1980s-1990s hitters can really pull the trigger, how is that. This ones' betting funnier as it goes along, get serious Jake.

[soberdennis]

Yeah, I'm sure Jake Peavy could have dominated Frank Robinson, Roberto Clemente and Willie Stargell.

I wouldn't have thought it possible, but my opinion of him is a bit lower than it was this morning.

Many of the players on those teams he may have dominated. Teams didn't often have a whole lineup of dominant hitters like the Yankees, Red Sox, and Tigers do these days.
But you're right. The first person that came to my mind when I heard that quote was Clemente. He was such a complete player, I think he would have done well in any era. Frank Robinson could teach today's players a thing or two about how to play the game, too.
I have heard this kind of argument for years, more from fans than players. I think the safest argument to make is that we don't know. Times change. There are players in all eras who could probably have been stars in any era. But to say one era is better than another is ridiculous.

[Moses Fleetwood-Walker]

And if you believe Peavy is on to something here, what does that say about players from way back, say, in Cobb and Ruth's day? Could they even survive in today's game?

No they wouldnt.

[Los Bravos]

Many of the players on those teams he may have dominated. Teams didn't often have a whole lineup of dominant hitters like the Yankees, Red Sox, and Tigers do these days.

That's probably true. He has excellent stuff, so I think Davey Johnson or Milt May would be at a real disadvantage against him.

The thing that gets me, and that makes him look like a callow dope, is that he seems to think all those old men were just out there clowning around and that even average pitchers of today could handle them all pretty easily, which is absurd. As several people have noted, it's not like the leagues were bereft of quality pitching at the time. Maybe he'd like to amplify this and claim that Khalil Greene and Brian Giles could eat Steve Carlton's lunch for him :disbelief:

There are players in all eras who could probably have been stars in any era.

I believe that. It's a main criterion I use to judge players, at least in my own mind, for their rank as greats in the whole history of the game.

[brett]

Not buying Jake's story, how can you really evaluate by looking at some videos. Does it make sense, some good and great hitting, great swings in the 1950s-1960s and then for some reason the hitting on average goes down the tubes, pathetic swings and then it gets better. That reasoning is a laugher.

You have to look at the "science" of hitting prevalent in the 70's and early 80's which resulted largely from the utter pitching dominance of the late 60's. I have hitting manuals with chapters from hitting coaches in the 70s and batters were instructed to basically "put" the bat in the hitting zone in a straight and smooth path. The "goal" was to put the ball in play and if you hit .300 you were considered a great hitter regardless of power or patience.

Then I read the chapter from Ralph Kiner and he talked about attacking the ball, and using rotation to your advantage. Because offense was so low in the late 60s the approach of making contact made sense to many, but home runs were largely viewed as "accidents" by great hitters.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

No they wouldnt.

Care to back that up with some logic, reason, or evidence?

[Moses Fleetwood-Walker]

Care to back that up with some logic, reason, or evidence?

A few of the players back then could probably still play in the big leagues today, but the vast majority couldnt and none would be as great as they were in their era. None of them saw the pitching velocity that is so common in today's game. None of them played in a single night game or a day game immediately following a night game. And none of them endured a coast to coast road trip, STL was the furthest west they went in their 10 team leagues. Today's pitching is more specialized, you've got starters, multiple set up men, and closers. Teams throw more fresh arms at batters and can use more strategy when facing them. Players normally faced 1 pitcher for nearly the entire game back then giving hitters a HUGE advantage. In Cobb's historic 1911 season, there were 9 pitchers who pitched over 20 complete games, in 07 no one pitched more than 4.

No one's gonna argue that today's players arent faster, stronger, and better conditioned. No one's gonna deny how much more advanced technology has made scouting and preperation. I guess some will deny how having 1 ethnic group playing the sport=weaker talent pool, but thats another thread. It aint even close IMO. As for the 60's and 70's players, a stronger argument can be made for those guys.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

A few of the players back then could probably still play in the big leagues today, but the vast majority couldnt and none would be as great as they were in their era.

We've had discussions in the past about the time-machine method of comparing eras. Might wanna run a search and read all about it.

None of them saw the pitching velocity that is so common in today's game.

How much does velocity mean? It's all relative. Pitchers on average throw harder but hitters are also bigger and stronger, and use lighter better made bats. Pitching was and always will be about location over velocity.

None of them played in a single night game or a day game immediately following a night game.

I would suggest reading up on the conditions that past eras dealt with. Then you tell me which you would rather have. This is pretty laughable. Makes it look like you're grasping at ideas because it's really silly.

And none of them endured a coast to coast road trip, STL was the furthest west they went in their 10 team leagues.

Even better.

Today's pitching is more specialized, you've got starters, multiple set up men, and closers. Teams throw more fresh arms at batters and can use more strategy when facing them. Players normally faced 1 pitcher for nearly the entire game back then giving hitters a HUGE advantage. In Cobb's historic 1911 season, there were 9 pitchers who pitched over 20 complete games, in 07 no one pitched more than 4.

Hitters today do face more fresh arms. This, combined with better positioned and faster fielders, along with the smaller fields would lead to a decrease in batting average imo. I think most would agree. Twenty points lower in career BA is reasonable. On the other hand, the numerous advantages gained would help in the power department. Having that been said, most relievers today are either failed starters, or are really inexperienced, or way too experienced. Really young, or really old. They are not some cream of the crop. For that matter, most staffs past the third starter is below mediocre.

No one's gonna argue that today's players arent faster, stronger, and better conditioned. No one's gonna deny how much more advanced technology has made scouting and preperation. I guess some will deny how having 1 ethnic group playing the sport=weaker talent pool, but thats another thread. It aint even close IMO. As for the 60's and 70's players, a stronger argument can be made for those guys.

And here we have it. Conditions have made the players appear better. See response #1 and the time-machine method. As far as the one ethnic group...baseball was main sport every boy wanted to play back then. The same cannot be said now. Too many options.