Trout v. Legendary cards

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Say what? He's on track to be a top-tier HOFer. No one - no one - has 7 top 2 MVPs finishes in their first 8 seasons. And his 8th year he was the frontrunner for MVP when he got hurt. Played 3/4 of a season, still finished 4th.

It's weird the way baseball fans simply refuse to believe current players can possibly be as great as their heroes of the past. But let's be clear - Trout is as great as anybody we'll ever see.

You mentioned Trout won't hit .400. You're right, he won't. But Ted wouldn't hit .400 today either. Ted played in a completely different environment - not integrated, no one throwing 100 mph (let alone dozens of guys), no short relievers, no cross-country travel, barely any night games and so on.

As for manufactured scarcity, yep, it's an issue. Not a new one, given the Goudey Lajoie, etc. Would *I* pay $4m for a Trout rookie? No. But I totally get why somebody would.

Yes, but he hit .388 at age 38 a decade after integration. There were pitchers who threw 100 mph, Ryne Duran for one who also was a short reliever. Ted didn't get to play in a league watered down by expansion either. Ted absolutely could hit .400 today. Gwynn, Brett and Carew all came close. Trout also won't come close to Ted's .344 BA or .634 SLG.

[maniac_73]

Originally Posted by rats60

Yes, but he hit .388 at age 38 a decade after integration. There were pitchers who threw 100 mph, Ryne Duran for one who also was a short reliever. Ted didn't get to play in a league watered down by expansion either. Ted absolutely could hit .400 today. Gwynn, Brett and Carew all came close. Trout also won't come close to Ted's .344 BA or .634 SLG.

And we don't even know what we missed in Ted's prime years when he was in the war

[drcy]

Mike Trout is a poor man's Ron Kittle, and that is just stating undisputible fact.

. . . . That should keep this discussion continuing for a while.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by rats60

Yes, but he hit .388 at age 38 a decade after integration. There were pitchers who threw 100 mph, Ryne Duran for one who also was a short reliever. Ted didn't get to play in a league watered down by expansion either. Ted absolutely could hit .400 today. Gwynn, Brett and Carew all came close. Trout also won't come close to Ted's .344 BA or .634 SLG.

Gwynn & Brett both played 2/3 of a season. They don't count.

Ryne Duren? Sure, one guy. There are numerous guys hitting 100 now and DOZENS hitting 98. It's unquestionable that guys throw A LOT harder now.

Ted was great but lemme ask you this - if the two guys switch places, whose stats would improve and whose wouldn't?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Gwynn & Brett both played 2/3 of a season. They don't count.

Ryne Duren? Sure, one guy. There are numerous guys hitting 100 now and DOZENS hitting 98. It's unquestionable that guys throw A LOT harder now.

Ted was great but lemme ask you this - if the two guys switch places, whose stats would improve and whose wouldn't?

Trout has never led the league in hits, doubles, triples, home runs or BA. Led in RBI, SB, TB once and SLG 3 times. Williams led doubles 2 times, HR 4 times RBI 4 times, BA 6 times SLG 9 times and TB 6 times. He won 2 triple crowns. Williams would be dominant in any era. Trout is just a good player on a bad team that gets pitched around a lot. He is not a 5 tool player. He is an average OF with a weak arm. He is a power hitter with speed. That is not the best player I gave ever seen, not even close. Being the best player of the current generation does not make him one of the best all time.

It is not unquestionable that guys are throwing a lot harder, maybe 1 or 2 MPH on average. Man hasn't made some huge genetic leap in 60 years. Ted Williams hit Bob Feller slightly better than his career averages. He would have done very well against today's hard throwers.

[packs]

Originally Posted by rats60

Trout has never led the league in hits, doubles, triples, home runs or BA. Led in RBI, SB, TB once and SLG 3 times. Williams led doubles 2 times, HR 4 times RBI 4 times, BA 6 times SLG 9 times and TB 6 times. He won 2 triple crowns. Williams would be dominant in any era. Trout is just a good player on a bad team that gets pitched around a lot. He is not a 5 tool player. He is an average OF with a weak arm. He is a power hitter with speed. That is not the best player I gave ever seen, not even close. Being the best player of the current generation does not make him one of the best all time.

It is not unquestionable that guys are throwing a lot harder, maybe 1 or 2 MPH on average. Man hasn't made some huge genetic leap in 60 years. Ted Williams hit Bob Feller slightly better than his career averages. He would have done very well against today's hard throwers.

Why does your argument that Ted would be a star in any era discount the same fact about Trout? I'm not sure why anyone would think that the best player in the game by far (Trout) who is playing the game at the highest level at a time when the game is at its most complex, would not be a star if he were playing a simpler version of the same game.

[Snapolit1]

For the new generation of investor driven mega refractor cards, it's clear the allure is not all about skills, but pizazz and style as well. Hottest new cards on the market now are Tatis and Vlad Jr. Also Yankee prospect Dominquez. (Imagine paying $20,000 for a kid years away from the majors?) Hottest basketball player by far is Zion, followed by Ja Morant. Funny how a great player like DeGrom commands basically no interest in the high end market. Follow who the kids want to be next. There's you next mega refractor card star. Sounds absurd but isn't that how the Mickey Mantle card became what it is today. Seemed larger than life, doing stuff kids of the day were wowed by.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

For the new generation of investor driven mega refractor cards, it's clear the allure is not all about skills, but pizazz and style as well. Hottest new cards on the market now are Tatis and Vlad Jr. Also Yankee prospect Dominquez. (Imagine paying $20,000 for a kid years away from the majors?) Hottest basketball player by far is Zion, followed by Ja Morant. Funny how a great player like DeGrom commands basically no interest in the high end market. Follow who the kids want to be next. There's you next mega refractor card star. Sounds absurd but isn't that how the Mickey Mantle card became what it is today. Seemed larger than life, doing stuff kids of the day were wowed by.

The few card investors who put big $ into unproven prospects did the same thing during the junk wax boom, but it was just done in a different way. Instead of spending 20 k on a Dominguez card, they'd try to get a few thousand Gregg Jefferies '88 Fleer or John Olerud '90 Upper Deck

[Snapolit1]

John Olerud. Wow. Good hitter, but I'm hard pressed to think of a player in my life time who was more boring. Guy hardly spoke.

Originally Posted by cardsagain74

The few card investors who put big $ into unproven prospects did the same thing during the junk wax boom, but it was just done in a different way. Instead of spending 20 k on a Dominguez card, they'd try to get a few thousand Gregg Jefferies '88 Fleer or John Olerud '90 Upper Deck

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by rats60

Trout has never led the league in hits, doubles, triples, home runs or BA. Led in RBI, SB, TB once and SLG 3 times. Williams led doubles 2 times, HR 4 times RBI 4 times, BA 6 times SLG 9 times and TB 6 times. He won 2 triple crowns. Williams would be dominant in any era. Trout is just a good player on a bad team that gets pitched around a lot. He is not a 5 tool player. He is an average OF with a weak arm. He is a power hitter with speed. That is not the best player I gave ever seen, not even close. Being the best player of the current generation does not make him one of the best all time.

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?

Originally Posted by rats60

It is not unquestionable that guys are throwing a lot harder, maybe 1 or 2 MPH on average. Man hasn't made some huge genetic leap in 60 years. Ted Williams hit Bob Feller slightly better than his career averages. He would have done very well against today's hard throwers.

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.

[mechanicalman]

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.

I have no real interest in this debate, but you should know that the shift you mentioned was actually deployed to defend against Ted Williams in 1941, so that part of your argument is not accurate. It was literally called the Ted Williams shift.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by mechanicalman

I have no real interest in this debate, but you should know that the shift you mentioned was actually deployed to defend against Ted Williams in 1941, so that part of your argument is not accurate. It was literally called the Ted Williams shift.

I'm aware of the shift but it's applied different and more thoroughly and often today.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

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?

Um, you do realize that radical shifts were practically invented for Ted Williams. He also stubbornly refused to hit to the opposite field even though he was completely capable.

[RCMcKenzie]

If a T206 Wagner is the Mona Lisa of baseball cards, the Trout refractors are the Jeff Koons' giant colored balloon animals.

baseball -reference has Trout trending as a batter with Wally Joyner and Tommy Henrich.

[GasHouseGang]

Rob that's a great and hilarious comparison. I actually laughed out loud when I saw it.

[MikeGarcia]

Originally Posted by RCMcKenzie

If a T206 Wagner is the Mona Lisa of baseball cards, the Trout refractors are the Jeff Koons' giant colored balloon animals.

baseball -reference has Trout trending as a batter with Wally Joyner and Tommy Henrich.

.....ANY EXCUSE TO SHOW AN UNDER-RATED PLAYER


..


A pre-war rookie sooooo overshadowed by Joe and Ted and .......

..

[todeen]

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.

Personally, I think today's players might not be as good if they played 70+ years ago. I'm not saying that necessarily about Trout, but most players then didn't train as hard, or didn't train exclusively for one sport. They really did take the winters off. Ted Kluszewski was muscular, but he wasn't a chiseled body like some of today's players. Think of the winter Babe Ruth trained and lost weight by working around his farm. That isn't the same as going to a gym for training with experts standing around instructing what to do. There wasn't the same data or video for players to evaluate themselves. If you wanted scouting reports they were much different and taught differently. Ted Williams excelled because he was ahead of his time. He saw hitting as a science and was a precursor of today's science driven baseball training. Tony Gwynn was interviewed by Bob Costas about Teddy Ballgame, and Tony said the way Williams spoke about hitting was beyond anything most people were saying even in the 90s (still before StatCast). Personally, I think Ted Williams would still be able to hit .400 today, but not many players today could replicate their success if they played with Ted, or Hornsby, or Speaker, or Anson.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[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.

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

....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.

+1 and that difference is even more drastic in football and basketball and pretty much every other professional/amateur sport. It's not disrespecting our predecessors, just a stone cold fact.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

.

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?

.

You have to factor in being a product of the time. The elite talent today would still probably be elite 70+ years ago. But every other player is a crap shoot. They weren't surrounded by trainers, physicians, tech geeks with statcast, nutritionists, etc. Back then, think about how many team-paid doctors told players to play thru possible career ending arm injuries? How many of today's average players would be able to survive in a different era? A lot of retired players make comments that today's players are babied. If they aren't being babied, would they be as good?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Exhibitman]

Seems to me that the advantages run both ways, hitters and pitchers, and have more to do with things done to the game itself than with the athletes.

You cannot assume that a person born in 1920 would come out the same if he was born in 1990. That applies to hitters and pitchers. In other words, Ted Williams today isn't the same physical specimen as Ted Williams in 1939 because of a lifetime of proper training, medical and nutrition. I mean, the voodoo medical and training of the prewar era was laughable. Players were told not to work with weights because it would make them "musclebound". Players were denied water during spring training because of an erroneous belief that drinking water caused cramps.

The conditions of play were vastly different as well. Stadiums were constructed with poor sight lines for batters. Fields were tailored for the home team. For example, by the late 1960s pitchers' mounds were so tailored to a Koufax or Gibson that hitters barely hit. The rules were changed to limit the customization of mounds and the game rebalanced. New balls were not substituted as often. Players routinely played double-headers. Travel was horrible. Today players go from car to plane to bus to first-class hotel, all with appropriate heating and AC. Prewar players had to ride trains with no HVAC to hotels in sweatboxes like St. Louis in August with no AC. I took a no-AC train in Europe when I did my student trip. It was miserable. You don't sleep all night because it is so hot and stuffy, and the sweat just pours off you.

The team composition goes both ways. Sure, black players were excluded, reducing the pool of possible players by about 20%, but there were also 50% fewer MLB slots for the whites who were allowed to play. Unless you believe that a higher % of black players would have made the majors than was the norm with white players, you cannot argue that losing 20% of the pool overrides having 50% fewer slots for the applicants. That just doesn't make mathematical sense.

I kind of like the WAR concept because it negates much of these effects. WAR over 100:

1. Babe Ruth+ (22) 182.5 L
2. Walter Johnson+ (21) 164.5 R
3. Cy Young+ (22) 163.8 R
4. Barry Bonds (22) 162.8 L
5. Willie Mays+ (22) 156.2 R
6. Ty Cobb+ (24) 151.0 L
7. Hank Aaron+ (23) 143.1 R
8. Roger Clemens (24) 139.2 R
9. Tris Speaker+ (22) 134.2 L
10. Honus Wagner+ (21) 130.8 R
11. Stan Musial+ (22) 128.3 L
12. Rogers Hornsby+ (23) 127.1 R
13. Eddie Collins+ (25) 123.9 L
14. Ted Williams+ (19) 121.9 L
15. Pete Alexander+ (20) 119.0 R
16. Alex Rodriguez (22) 117.5 R
17. Kid Nichols+ (15) 116.3 B
18. Lou Gehrig+ (17) 114.1 L
19. Rickey Henderson+ (25) 111.2 R
20. Mel Ott+ (22) 110.7 L
21. Mickey Mantle+ (18) 110.2 B
22. Tom Seaver+ (20) 109.9 R
23. Nap Lajoie+ (21) 107.3 R
24. Frank Robinson+ (21) 107.2 R
25. Mike Schmidt+ (18) 106.9 R
26. Lefty Grove+ (17) 106.7 L
27. Greg Maddux+ (23) 106.6 R
28. Christy Mathewson+ (17) 106.0 R
29. Randy Johnson+ (22) 101.1 R
30. Albert Pujols (20, 40) 100.6 R
31. Joe Morgan+ (22) 100.5 L
32. Warren Spahn+ (21) 100.1 L

[steve B]

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.

Your second point makes my argument against the first.

Would Ted Williams bat better today? Of course. Fewer double headers, quicker travel, more rest, better physical Training, and not least.... Massive data that the hitters can study about what pitches a pitcher tends to throw when, both historically and recently. And all with video so if a pitcher has a tell about a particular pitch the batter might pick up on it.
(never mind shifts, when one was tried Williams hit the other way. )

Would Trout do as well without the training and data about pitchers? He'd probably be ok, maybe not as good as he is now.
Part of the power of a HR comes from the pitch, some of his HR might fall short.

[guy3050]

Originally Posted by steve B

Your second point makes my argument against the first.

Would Ted Williams bat better today? Of course. Fewer double headers, quicker travel, more rest, better physical Training, and not least.... Massive data that the hitters can study about what pitches a pitcher tends to throw when, both historically and recently. And all with video so if a pitcher has a tell about a particular pitch the batter might pick up on it.
(never mind shifts, when one was tried Williams hit the other way. )

Would Trout do as well without the training and data about pitchers? He'd probably be ok, maybe not as good as he is now.
Part of the power of a HR comes from the pitch, some of his HR might fall short.

Plus hitting a juiced up ball!