Trout v. Legendary cards

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Tabe

What's fun about this reply is you didn't answer the question. Do you think Ted's stats would go up playing today? Or would Trout's go up playing in the 1940s? You think Ted hits .400 against the extreme shifts that they play today, with a 2B in shallow RF? No way. But put Trout in the 1940s against no shift?


Actually, yeah, it is absolutely unquestionable. They've been tracking fastball data for years and guys are throwing multiple mph harder now than they were even 12 years ago (2008: 90.9, 2019: 93.4). Do you think pitchers slowed down immediately after Ted retired to about 12 years ago just so the trend could reverse? Nah. Yeah, Ted hit Bob Feller well but how would he do against Aroldis Chapman, throwing 105 from the left side? And so on.

Bottom line: Ted was great but it defies logic to think that baseball is not much harder now than it was 80 years ago.

If Ted gets the 5 years of his prime that he spent in WWII and the Korean War, his stats absolutely go up. Bob Feller's fastball was clocked as fast as 105 mph, so Ted probably does OK against Aroldis Chapman too. As far as Trout, I don't know. How would Trout react when he picked himself off the dirt when a pitcher actually came inside? It is a completely different game, it is not a given that Trout could adapt and do better.

It is only your opinion that you think the game is harder. I disagree. The game has been watered down by expansion and the best athletes playing in the NBA and the NFL. African American participation is at a level of the mid fifties when some teams had none on their roster. Trout can't even dominate in this environment, no way he does in earlier eras in my opinion.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by rats60

If Ted gets the 5 years of his prime that he spent in WWII and the Korean War, his stats absolutely go up. Bob Feller's fastball was clocked as fast as 105 mph, so Ted probably does OK against Aroldis Chapman too. As far as Trout, I don't know. How would Trout react when he picked himself off the dirt when a pitcher actually came inside? It is a completely different game, it is not a given that Trout could adapt and do better.

It is only your opinion that you think the game is harder. I disagree. The game has been watered down by expansion and the best athletes playing in the NBA and the NFL. African American participation is at a level of the mid fifties when some teams had none on their roster. Trout can't even dominate in this environment, no way he does in earlier eras in my opinion.

So baseball is the one sport where training, conditioning, information, and skill level have NOT improved over the last 70 years? C'mon.

Trout has finished top 2 in MVP 7 times in 8 years and only an injury kept him from 8 for 8. It's simply factually incorrect to say he doesn't dominate now.

Fastest I can find for Feller is 98.6 and he was said to be A LOT faster than everybody else at the time. A guy throwing 98 isn't even remotely unusual today. And doesn't change the fact that I proved guys throw A LOT harder than they did in the 40s.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Tabe

So baseball is the one sport where training, conditioning, information, and skill level have NOT improved over the last 70 years? C'mon.

Trout has finished top 2 in MVP 7 times in 8 years and only an injury kept him from 8 for 8. It's simply factually incorrect to say he doesn't dominate now.

Fastest I can find for Feller is 98.6 and he was said to be A LOT faster than everybody else at the time. A guy throwing 98 isn't even remotely unusual today. And doesn't change the fact that I proved guys throw A LOT harder than they did in the 40s.

Agree. The athletes today are bigger, stronger and faster, but baseball is the one sport where some people think the modern player is actually worse than the older players. The argument makes no sense.

[Snapolit1]

Impossible argument.

No one would possibly argue that a doctor in 2020 is not significantly better informed about medicine, cures, progression of disease, etc., than a doctor in 1920, but I could probably make the argument that a local town doctor (think Burt Lancaster in Field of Dreams) was actually a better doctor all things considered than many doctors today. Similarly, could probably argue Abraham Lincoln was a better lawyer than many lawyers today despite the vast differences in technology available to lawyers. Could Lincoln write a 50 page brief in an afternoon. Probably not. Yet a first year lawyer probably could today. How good would Jack Johnson be at boxing or some golfer from 1910. Answer is always pretty much the same: who the hell knows.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Tabe

So baseball is the one sport where training, conditioning, information, and skill level have NOT improved over the last 70 years? C'mon.

So you are implying that Williams would be even better with modern training, conditioning, and information available, are you not?

You can't just drop a player from one era into another without applying all the factors that got that player to the major leagues and what kept him there. If you want to drop Trout into the 1940s (or any era), they you need to consider how much less of the modern advantage that players now have. Does Trout have the time and the ability to hone his skills if he has to work when he's 14? Or during the off season? Or get stuck in the minors for a few years? Similarly dropping Williams into today's game. Are you applying those same advantages and disadvantages to Williams (or anyone)?

Bottom line... trying to prove player A from one era is better than player B from another era isn't foolproof.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by tschock

So you are implying that Williams would be even better with modern training, conditioning, and information available, are you not?

No, what I said was that baseball today is harder than it was in 1940 or 1950. That's an undeniable fact. The overall skill level of all involved is waaay higher than it was in 1950. That means that the game itself is more difficult.

Put another way: In the 1960s, Ray Oyler managed to play several years while hitting .175 for his career in over 1200 ABs with zero power. There is absolutely zero chance of a guy doing that today. Not a chance. Despite there being 14 more teams, there's no room for a guy that simply can't hit. He hit .135 playing full-time for a world champion in 1968. Would that happen today? Not a chance. Why? Because the requirements and skill level for modern MLB are that much higher.

So, again, we're not talking training or whatever, we're talking the end results of that training. And that is that the game today is much harder than it was in 1940 or 1950.

And, no, there's not a chance in the world Ted hits .400 today. If he could today, how come he never did it again after 1941?

[Touch'EmAll]

Correction taken, thank you. Ryan's pitch was timed at 10 ft. in front of home plate instead of at home plate (I was off by 10 ft. in prior post). However, today's clockings are taken when the pitch leaves the pitchers hand. Remember there is about 60 ft. between pitchers mound and home plate. Two articles I just read says Ryan's pitch would calculate out to 108.5 mph if based on today's clocking measurements - still good enough to be best ever, and remain in Guiness Book records.

[mechanicalman]

Originally Posted by Tabe

And, no, there's not a chance in the world Ted hits .400 today. If he could today, how come he never did it again after 1941?

Dude, do your research. Williams missed 5 years of baseball, 3 in his prime, due to military service. Possibly one reason he didn’t hit .400 after ‘41. I don’t know for certain if he’d hit that mark again, but I do know it’s hard to hit a fastball from the cockpit of a plane.

[Exhibitman]

Ted's .388 in 1957 at the age of 38 is insane.

Re the talent pool, don't forget player choice. Hundreds of the best athletes now end up playing football, basketball, soccer, hockey and even tennis.

One more thing on the art of batting that has been touched on but is really important is inside pitching. The way these guys today dig in, prep and take time in the box...never happened in the old days. As Dizzy Dean once yelled to a batter digging his spikes in the batter's box: “Dig yourself a nice hole, son – cuz ole Diz is gonna BURY you in it!” You come into LA you are going to get Drysdale, St. Louis you get Gibson. And so on. Lots of inside pitching that just doesn't happen today. Joe Kelly throws at a few of the cheating Astros and he gets a major suspension.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by mechanicalman

Dude, do your research. Williams missed 5 years of baseball, 3 in his prime, due to military service. Possibly one reason he didn’t hit .400 after ‘41. I don’t know for certain if he’d hit that mark again, but I do know it’s hard to hit a fastball from the cockpit of a plane.

He had 13 more seasons after ww2 in which he played yet never really came close to .400 (by close, I mean was at like .395 the last week of the year).

He played 17 full seasons, hit .400 once, but you're certain he would hit over .400 when no one who played 120 games has come close (see above) to doing since? Yeah, I'm joy buying it.

Now, just so there's no doubt, I think Ted was an INCREDIBLE player, probably top 10 all-time. But, yeah, his yearly numbers for average would go down in this era.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Tabe

He had 13 more seasons after ww2 in which he played yet never really came close to .400 (by close, I mean was at like .395 the last week of the year).



He played 17 full seasons, hit .400 once, but you're certain he would hit over .400 when no one who played 120 games has come close (see above) to doing since? era.

Really? Tony Gwynn in 1994.

To me, hitting .400 is still possible. Miggy's Triple Crown a few years back is evidence that some of these rare achievements are still possible. Today's players have traded average for power. It's what managers and general managers are asking of them. If a good hitter today wanted to pursue 400, I believe it's possible.

This reminds me of the Ty Cobb fanatics on this board that talk about how Ty Cobb could have hit more home runs if he wanted to, but he chose not to. Players have to choose a style, and that style allows them to pursue certain accolades. It also stops them from pursuing others.

https://www.mlb.com/news/featured/to...-average-chase

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[packs]

Originally Posted by rats60

If Ted gets the 5 years of his prime that he spent in WWII and the Korean War, his stats absolutely go up. Bob Feller's fastball was clocked as fast as 105 mph, so Ted probably does OK against Aroldis Chapman too. As far as Trout, I don't know. How would Trout react when he picked himself off the dirt when a pitcher actually came inside? It is a completely different game, it is not a given that Trout could adapt and do better.

It is only your opinion that you think the game is harder. I disagree. The game has been watered down by expansion and the best athletes playing in the NBA and the NFL. African American participation is at a level of the mid fifties when some teams had none on their roster. Trout can't even dominate in this environment, no way he does in earlier eras in my opinion.

What does dominance look like to you? Trout has won 3 MVP's, he's finished second in 4 more seasons (7 seasons in the top 2 during his first 9 seasons). He is second among active players when it comes to WAR and he's second to Albert Pujols, whose played twice the career. He's already top 100 all time in WAR and he's only 28 years old. He is universally seen as the best player in the game.

Who is dominating if not Trout?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by packs

What does dominance look like to you? Trout has won 3 MVP's, he's finished second in 4 more seasons (7 seasons in the top 2 during his first 9 seasons). He is second among active players when it comes to WAR and he's second to Albert Pujols, whose played twice the career. He's already top 100 all time in WAR and he's only 28 years old. He is universally seen as the best player in the game.

Who is dominating if not Trout?

Honus Wagner in 1908 finishing first or second in every major offensive category. WAR is a made up stat that is pretty meaningless. MVP voting is a popularity contest. Ted Williams won 2 Triple Crowns and wasn’t named MVP either year.

Trout is the best player, but he isn’t dominating the league. He has very little black ink. He is a power hitter that has never led the league in HRs. He has never led the league in BA. Ted Williams Black Ink 122= dominating. Mike Trout Black Ink (mostly from getting pitched around and walking) 33= not dominating.

[packs]

Originally Posted by rats60

Honus Wagner in 1908 finishing first or second in every major offensive category. WAR is a made up stat that is pretty meaningless. MVP voting is a popularity contest. Ted Williams won 2 Triple Crowns and wasn’t named MVP either year.

Trout is the best player, but he isn’t dominating the league. He has very little black ink. He is a power hitter that has never led the league in HRs. He has never led the league in BA. Ted Williams Black Ink 122= dominating. Mike Trout Black Ink (mostly from getting pitched around and walking) 33= not dominating.

I still don't really buy that. If Trout is the best player, he is dominating the league. You can't be the best player without dominating the league. He's led the league in OPS+ 5 years in a row. If you don't like WAR, what don't you like about OPS+? You don't have to lead the league in home runs to be the best player. I don't think there is any argument to make for Ralph Kiner being the best player of his time, is there?

How important is batting average when you're leading the league in on base four seasons in a row? He's led the league in runs four times as well. You can't do either without being on base.