Trout v. Legendary cards

[HistoricNewspapers]

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.

....and with command in regard to Chapman, and he is six foot four inches tall and a muscular 218 pounds. Wait. Ryne Duren? He couldn't even throw a strike.

Even as late as the 1970's, there were only a handful of pitchers that could hit 95 MPH, now it is only a handful who can't...and they have command too, with elite breaking pitches to match, and of course taller now too.

So you have to imagine Ryne Duren being two inches taller, 28 more pounds of muscle on his body, three more MPH, with an elite breaking pitch...and command. Then you are onto something.

The guys today are physically bigger, run faster, throw the ball better, and catch it better...yet somehow not as good as guys from 1950?


Every shortstop in the league today makes the throw from the hole look routine...throws that only the very few elite shortstops could make even as late as the 1970's.

The baseball world has millions and BILLIONS more athletes to draw from inside the United States AND worldwide in the last 20 years, far more than at any other time in history when(the US population was miniscule compared to now). Accounting for expansion of MLB(or other options. Options that also existed back then BTW) does not even put a dent in the fact that there are more elite athletes to draw from and are playing in MLB now than there ever were.

It is a joke whenever someone says "expansion dilluted talent," when comparing players from now to guys from 1960's and earlier. If the talent got worse...then how are they now bigger, stronger, throwing the ball harder, running faster, and catching it better?? If talent got worse, then those concrete measurements should be getting worse NOT BETTER.

One of the reasons pitchers do not throw complete games anymore is because EVERY GUY in the bullpen throws 95+ with command and breaking stuff....because the world produces far more elite athletes now compared to back then, and it has minimally to do with "evolution." It shouldn't be that hard to deduce that if 100 million men produces 20 guys who throw 95 MPH, then 200 million men will get you 40. Even more when you realize that people are actually training more now to do that exact thing and that money is such a motivator! (Except we are talking in BILLIONS when comparing the elite athlete talent pool of now compared to 1940).

It is like Titans squaring off against Titans now. Back in yesteryear it was more like Man vs. Boys...which is what produced those gaudy statistical achievements (players hitting .424 for a full season or Babe Ruth out homering every team in the league) for the elite, of which are IMPOSSIBLE to achieve when competing against AN ENTIRE LEAGUE full of titans.