Five Products of the Times: Part II

This is of course a continuation from last week's post about "products of the times."  This week, we look at five players from the 21st century whose careers would be much different during baseball's early years than they currently are.  Here we go:

5. Bryce Harper

(Nick Wass/AP Photo)

Harper is an interesting case as far as this blog goes because he is such a unique player, both physically and mentally.  I put Harper on the list because his style of play today is often frowned upon by a lot of baseball fans, yet it is something that would fit in regularly with players and spectators of the early 20th century. What do I mean by that? Well, Harper plays with an intensity that truly makes him stand out because a majority of the players in the MLB do not convey the same level of passion when they play.  During baseball’s early years, players competed with so much passion that Harper would not only fit in, but also be overlooked.

4. Aroldis Chapman

(Charles Rex Arbogast/AP Photo)

Aroldis Chapman has consistently been the hardest throwing pitcher in Major League Baseball for the better part of the decade.  With a fastball that hovers around 101 miles per hour, even today’s hitters have trouble catching up.  That speaks volumes considering how training methods have developed over the years to help players increase bat speed and catch up with, on average, faster pitching in today’s game.  If Chapman played during the early 1900s, I believe he would have more strikeouts than he has today, simply because on average pitchers threw slower back then.  During the 1980s average velocity sat around 88-89 miles per hour, which, by today’s standards, is not fast at all.  Given these numbers, it would be safe to assume that this velocity was even slower seventy years prior. Of course, there are outliers such as Walter Johnson and Bob Feller who are said to have thrown nearly 100 miles per hour, but generally pitchers did not consistently throw as hard as pitchers today, especially as hard as Chapman.

3.  Dustin Pedroia

(Rob Carr/Getty Images)

In my opinion, Dustin Pedroia is one of the best second basemen of the 21st century.  Much of what he has accomplished in his career has been underlined by the fact that he is much shorter than the average baseball player. His height seems to magnify his stats in many people’s opinions because he has defied the odds his entire life.  If he played during the MLB’s early years though, he would not be much different than his fellow competitors.  In fact, the average height of early baseball players was about five feet, eight inches, which hovers right around Dustin Pedroia’s mark.  That’s a big difference than today’s average height of about six feet, one inch.  Similar to Harper’s case, I do not believe Pedroia would stand out as much as he does today because he would fit in more, given that his height would not be as big of a factor.

2. Giancarlo Stanton

(USATSI)

He can hit it farther than anyone in baseball today.  The Miami outfielder is one of the most exciting players in baseball to watch, especially when he’s locked in at the plate.  Despite playing in a park with larger-than-average dimensions, Stanton has continued to be an offensive force for the Marlins.  However, I believe Stanton’s home run totals would be even higher back in the early 1900s because ballparks were constructed much differently. Early parks such as the Polo Grounds, Memorial Stadium, and even "current" parks such as Fenway and Wrigley, were built with much shorter distances down the lines than today’s parks.  With Stanton’s power from the right side, he would seemingly have no problem piling up more and more home runs with shorter distances to the walls.

1. Mike Trout

(Associated Press)

He’s the best player in baseball today, but he would be astronomically better if he played during baseball’s early years.  The twenty-five year old outfielder is one of a kind, possessing the “five tools” that determine a player’s ability: power, contact, throwing, fielding, and speed.  During the early 20th century, players did not typically have all five tools, and those who did certainly didn’t use them to the level that Mike Trout uses them today.  Trout would be even more of a standout player in those times because he would be so much more developed in all aspects of his game than most of the other players.  Now I’m not saying he would hit for more power than Babe Ruth, or hit for a better average than Ty Cobb, but I believe Trout would be the best player to incorporate all five of these skills into a single talent.