Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snowman

The answers to most of your questions are explained above. The fact that you don't understand how a hierarchical mixed-effect model works (or even my high-level explanation of it) does not mean that it in fact does not work. I was responding to AndrewJerome, who asked, "The value of a replacement level player could be very different in a time period where quality of play overall is very high as compared to a time period where quality of play was lower. But how in the world can we figure out relative quality of play? If you want the coeffecients (or "weights") from such a model, you'd have to build one. But it's a LOT of work, and I don't see anyone here volunteering to pay me for my efforts. I'm simply explaining, at a very high level, how one could solve for it. I have better things to do with my time than to prove to you guys that Lefty Grove benefitted greatly from pitching in an era where his competition was lacking or that Babe Ruth was effectively swinging at home run derby "pitches" a significant percentage of the time. That much should be obvious to anyone operating on the right side of the bell curve.

No one's paying you to claim Ruth played in a home run derby (there were less home runs when he played than now) or that Spahn was mediocre or that Grove sucked because of his birth year. Yet here you are, incessantly making unsupported claims. Your time doesn't seem to be all that valuable either.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by G1911

No one's paying you to claim Ruth played in a home run derby (there were less home runs when he played than now) or that Spahn was mediocre or that Grove sucked because of his birth year. Yet here you are, incessantly making unsupported claims.

The notion that modern athletes are far superior to those of a century ago isn't exactly a controversial statement in the real world. This might be the only community on earth who wishes to pretend otherwise.

Your time doesn't seem to be all that valuable either.

It takes minutes to respond to your ignorant drivel. It would take multiple weeks of full time effort to build out a statistical model like the one I described above. I build statistical models for people who are capable of understanding and appreciating them; of which there is no shortage.

[brianp-beme]

I am not following this thread, but thought I would chime in...I am tired of seeing the misspelling on the title thread "Best lefty OFF all time".

The thing is I can't shame the OP to change it because he is banned...maybe a moderator or Leon can make my life a little more 'of' and little less 'off'.

Brian (best Lefty is Lefty Grove, because he was obviously better than Lefty Gomez).

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snowman

The notion that modern athletes are far superior to those of a century ago isn't exactly a controversial statement in the real world. This might be the only community on earth who wishes to pretend otherwise.



It takes minutes to respond to your ignorant drivel. It would take multiple weeks of full time effort to build out a statistical model like the one I described above. I build statistical models for people who are capable of understanding and appreciating them; of which there is no shortage.

I've never argued that modern athletes are not superior in many ways. You take it to extreme lengths, and apply it very inconsistently where it is true for one pitcher and not true for his exact contemporary. All you do is make up some crap, fail to back up any of it, and insult people.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by G1911

I've never argued that modern athletes are not superior in many ways. You take it to extreme lengths, and apply it very inconsistently where it is true for one pitcher and not true for his exact contemporary. All you do is make up some crap, fail to back up any of it, and insult people.

You interpret my claims as being extreme because I say something like "I'm taking Hyun Jin Ryu over Warren Spahn any day". Obviously, I said that knowing it would get a rise out of you, but I'm also not joking. Hyun Jin Ryu has better stuff than Warren Spahn had. Ryu is a pretty good pitcher. He was 2nd and 3rd in CYA voting in 2019 and 2020, and he led the league in ERA+ with 179 in 2019 as well, and he had an ERA+ of 198 the year before that. In contrast, Warren Spahn's top 3 ERA+ seasons were 188, 170 and wait for it... 130! Yes, that's right, the year Warren Spahn won the CYA his ERA+ was 130. That's a staggering statistic. 130 is NOT great. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that no other pitcher since has won the CYA with a lower ERA+ than that. And ERA+ is better than ERA (though still not as good as xFIP or SIERA). ERA+ adjusts for ballparks and peers. It's less useful when comparing across different eras, as you'd need to control for other variables too, but it's still useful when examining performance within a single season. You can interpret an ERA+ of 130 as meaning he was 30% better than an average pitcher that season. However, it fails to account for luck. But you can get a pretty good sense of that just by looking at a pitcher's BABIP during that season as well. It should come as no surprise then, that the two seasons where Spahn had his best ERA+ values of 188 and 170 were also his two luckiest seasons where batters only hit 0.243 against him on balls in play (pretty damn lucky). In contrast, Ryu wasn't so lucky when he had 198 and 179 ERA+ values, as his BABIPs were 0.282 and 0.303 those seasons. This means that Ryu's two best seasons were not just a little bit better. They were better despite Spahn benefitting from being extremely lucky those two seasons and Ryu not. Add in that level of luck to Ryu, and his ERA+ jumps significantly. Or conversely, take away the luck that Spahn benefitted from those two seasons and his ERA+ values drop signficantly. And remember, these values are relative to the overall talent level of the league that season.

So in Spahn's BEST season, he was 88% better than the average 1953 MLB pitcher AFTER benefitting from a significant amount of good luck. In Ryu's best full season, he was 79% better than the average 2019 MLB pitcher WITHOUT benefitting from good luck. Once you adjust for luck and for how much better the average 2019 pitcher was than the average 1953 pitcher, then it's really not even close at all if you're asking who had the better peak or who had the best "stuff". Obviously, I fully realize that Ryu's overall career is hardly a shred of Spahn's overall career, and that there is tremendous value in being an above average pitcher for a very long time. But if you could teleport Ryu back to the 1940s and 50s, he's would absolutely terrorize the league. We'd probably all be talking about him being the GOAT right now. The same is true of any other top 10 pitcher in the league today. They would just absolutely rape hitters from the 40s and 50s.

As far as your claim about me being "inconsistent", again, that's nonsense. You're the one who keeps claiming I only discount Grove's era and Spahn's era but not Koufax's. That's nonsense. You made that assumption and keep perpetuating it. I said no such thing. Koufax's numbers would absolutely suffer from any statistical model I would build. He pitched in a pitcher's park (so did Spahn), he pitched from a high mound, he pitched from an expanded strike zone in his best 4 years, he also had a lucky BABIP (though the entire league had a low BABIP at that time). His numbers would absolutely suffer from controlling for these variables. The reason I haven't focused on that fact is because it simply doesn't matter. I don't need to discount Spahn's era in order for Koufax to have a better peak 4, 5, or 6 years. Koufax's numbers themselves are simply miles better than Spahn's, WIHTOUT demoting Spahn for having pitched in a weaker era. But even if I did make the necessary adjustment to be able to compare apples to apples, Koufax's numbers would go down, Spahn's numbers would go down even more, and Grove's numbers would go down even more than Spahn's. The talent pool of the league gets worse the further back in time you go, not better.

Here's a glimpse of a few stats from Spahn's best 5 year peak and Koufax's best 5 year peak that are actually predictive, unlike Wins and ERA.

Spahn - 136 ERA+ average
Koufax - 168 ERA+ average

Spahn - 3.21 FIP average
Koufax - 2.02 FIP average

Spahn - 1.18 WHIP
Koufax - 0.94 WHIP

Spahn - 2.8 BB/9
Koufax - 2.1 BB/9

Spahn - 5.2 K/9
Koufax - 9.5 K/9

Spahn - 1.9 K/BB
Koufax - 4.6 K/BB

These differences are remarkable. There is no amount of adjusting (sizes of strike zone, talent level of their contemporaries, mound heights, ballparks, BABIP, etc) that you could possibly implement that would put these 5-year numbers on an even remotely similar playing field. Perhaps you should read those deltas again if you're not getting this. The differences between 5-year-peak Koufax and 5-year-peak Spahn are difficult to exaggerate. I could probably find 100 pitchers between them value-wise. That's how far apart these guys were. The only possible argument anyone could ever make for Spahn is by looking at cumulative career value. He was an above-average pitcher for a very long time. Value adds up, and WAR gives him extra credit because his peers sucked. But he was never even the best pitcher in a single season. Not even when he won the CYA, and not even in his best two seasons.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

[QUOTE=Snowman;2165342] Yes, that's right, the year Warren Spahn won the CYA his ERA+ was 130. That's a staggering statistic. 130 is NOT great. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that no other pitcher since has won the CYA with a lower ERA+ than that.

Um, not even close:

Pete Vuckovich 1982 (the worst Cy Young winner ever) 114
Steve Stone 1980 - 123
Bob Welch 1990 - 125
Mike McCormick 1967 - 118
Early Wynn 1959 - 120

and I'm going to stop because there's too many to list them all. 130 is actually lower tier of the middle of the pack.

"Record" appears to be Jim Lonborg 1967 at 112

[Snowman]

[QUOTE=Aquarian Sports Cards;2165354]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Yes, that's right, the year Warren Spahn won the CYA his ERA+ was 130. That's a staggering statistic. 130 is NOT great. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that no other pitcher since has won the CYA with a lower ERA+ than that.

Um, not even close:

Pete Vuckovich 1982 (the worst Cy Young winner ever) 114
Steve Stone 1980 - 123
Bob Welch 1990 - 125
Mike McCormick 1967 - 118
Early Wynn 1959 - 120

and I'm going to stop because there's too many to list them all. 130 is actually lower tier of the middle of the pack.

"Record" appears to be Jim Lonborg 1967 at 112

Ouch! That's disturbing. Smells like some serious politics involved.

[cardsagain74]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Ouch! That's disturbing. Smells like some serious politics involved.

Not politics there. Just the typical reverence for wins that the era had.

Palmer and Sutcliffe had the best seasons in the AL that year, but at 15-5 and 14-8, it was heresy to give them the Cy Young. Vuckovich 18-6 with that low ERA+ and a WHIP of 1.502. Now that is something that's probably a record for the worst WHIP of any CYA winner.

And it wasn't even close. 14 first place votes for Vuck. No one else had more than five.

But as far as politics (or would it be better described as simply popularity and reputation)....look at Steve Carlton winning the NL CYA over Steve Rogers that year ('82). Though that also included the obsession with wins. Because even though Rogers went 19-8 and had vastly superior numbers, a 23 win Steve Carlton season was all that mattered.

Oh and 20 out of 24 first place votes for that one

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

[QUOTE=Snowman;2165360]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Ouch! That's disturbing. Smells like some serious politics involved.

A lot of them were based on wins. Notice a dearth of post 2000 players on that list.

Nolan Ryan should've won in 1987 leading the league in ERA, ERA+, FIP, K/9, H/9 and K/BB but there was no way in hell an 8 - 16 pitcher was going to win an award back then. It's amazing that he finished 5th actually.

[Carter08]

[QUOTE=Aquarian Sports Cards;2165354]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Yes, that's right, the year Warren Spahn won the CYA his ERA+ was 130. That's a staggering statistic. 130 is NOT great. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that no other pitcher since has won the CYA with a lower ERA+ than that.

Um, not even close:

Pete Vuckovich 1982 (the worst Cy Young winner ever) 114
Steve Stone 1980 - 123
Bob Welch 1990 - 125
Mike McCormick 1967 - 118
Early Wynn 1959 - 120

and I'm going to stop because there's too many to list them all. 130 is actually lower tier of the middle of the pack.

"Record" appears to be Jim Lonborg 1967 at 112

Yup. Plus Sandy led the league in the category exactly twice. Spahn led the league in it, yup, twice. Not equating the two. Just defending Spahnie from a certain Spahn hater. Again, they named the darn award after the guy.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Snowman

The notion that modern athletes are far superior to those of a century ago isn't exactly a controversial statement in the real world. This might be the only community on earth who wishes to pretend otherwise.

I actually don't think most here question that. They question the idea that they are somehow evolved in 3 or four generations. Their superiority is of methods and science not innate. Therefore if you could magically transport a Grove to 2021 and allow him to grow up in this era he would, in all likelihood, still be a superior player because he also would benefit from these advances.

In short, players today are of COURSE superior, but they aren't genetically any different than their forerunners, so the best way to compare across eras is to compare a player to his peers and then compare the comparisons.

Where THAT falls short is, as everyone has access to today's advances it flattens the curve of greatness and reduces outliers like Ruth or possibly Grove, because today's "lesser players" have made themselves greater through modern methods, whereas the players with greater natural advantages can only improve so much.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I actually don't think most here question that. They question the idea that they are somehow evolved in 3 or four generations. Their superiority is of methods and science not innate. Therefore if you could magically transport a Grove to 2021 and allow him to grow up in this era he would, in all likelihood, still be a superior player because he also would benefit from these advances.

In short, players today are of COURSE superior, but they aren't genetically any different than their forerunners, so the best way to compare across eras is to compare a player to his peers and then compare the comparisons.

Where THAT falls short is, as everyone has access to today's advances it flattens the curve of greatness and reduces outliers like Ruth or possibly Grove, because today's "lesser players" have made themselves greater through modern methods, whereas the players with greater natural advantages can only improve so much.

Good post Scott. I've been saying the same thing all along trying to get people to understand that in looking at and comparing players from different times and eras, you can't just look at baseball numbers and statistics alone, and completely ignore the context of all non-direct baseball factors. As you said, there are superior methods and science, among other things, that really explain the differences in today's players to those of the past. But statisticians still try to explain everything with just the baseball numbers and stats they have. They completely ignore the human element and all the intangibles athletes bring to the table. Statisticians ignore those kinds of things because they can't measure a player's heart or their competitiveness, and they just tell you those are meaningless things anyway because their baseball numbers and stats override all. And don't ask them to prove anything as they'll just keep telling you they don't have time, and you wouldn't understand them anyway. Statistics are fine and have a very good place in predicting behaviors and outcomes, but there is no definitive outcome to a question like who's the best lefty of all time. And because there is no outcome to prove that some statistician's formula is right or wrong, they simply assert their formula is the answer. And in doing so, ignore the context of players in different times and eras, the human element, and in my opinion, commen sense. The statisticians can't prove they're right, but we can't prove they're definitively wrong. So they get away with it.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by BobC

Good post Scott. I've been saying the same thing all along trying to get people to understand that in looking at and comparing players from different times and eras, you can't just look at baseball numbers and statistics alone, and completely ignore the context of all non-direct baseball factors. As you said, there are superior methods and science, among other things, that really explain the differences in today's players to those of the past. But statisticians still try to explain everything with just the baseball numbers and stats they have. They completely ignore the human element and all the intangibles athletes bring to the table. Statisticians ignore those kinds of things because they can't measure a player's heart or their competitiveness, and they just tell you those are meaningless things anyway because their baseball numbers and stats override all. And don't ask them to prove anything as they'll just keep telling you they don't have time, and you wouldn't understand them anyway. Statistics are fine and have a very good place in predicting behaviors and outcomes, but there is no definitive outcome to a question like who's the best lefty of all time. And because there is no outcome to prove that some statistician's formula is right or wrong, they simply assert their formula is the answer. And in doing so, ignore the context of players in different times and eras, the human element, and in my opinion, commen sense. The statisticians can't prove they're right, but we can't prove they're definitively wrong. So they get away with it.

To put it another way: If a statistician's model is good at analyzing the past, then it should be reasonably good for predicting the future. Otherwise your model needs adjusting to consider other factors. That didn't seem to play out very well when 'the best team in baseball' this year didn't even get close to winning the World Series (as one example).

[Peter_Spaeth]

It's funny, if you were to have a discussion of (for example) who was the best midfielder ever in soccer, statistics probably wouldn't enter into the discussion at all. Baseball is unbelievably rich in statistics and even more so with all the advanced metrics, but they don't seem to settle anything.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's funny, if you were to have a discussion of (for example) who was the best midfielder ever in soccer, statistics probably wouldn't enter into the discussion at all. Baseball is unbelievably rich in statistics and even more so with all the advanced metrics, but they don't seem to settle anything.

You're right, there are too many variables in play, especially when comparing people or games from different times/eras. And you can't prove who really is right or wrong. It is really no more than an educated guess.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's funny, if you were to have a discussion of (for example) who was the best midfielder ever in soccer, statistics probably wouldn't enter into the discussion at all. Baseball is unbelievably rich in statistics and even more so with all the advanced metrics, but they don't seem to settle anything.

Players in various sports serve their team best by finding the role that is most helpful for his/her team. If a guy like Grove has a 6-0 lead after 4 innings, he serves his team best by not trying for perfection, but by laying the ball over the plate and making the opposition hit it. If they get a couple base runners, then he has to bear down to prevent too much damage, but otherwise, for expediency, he'd rather throw 90 pitches and win 6-3 than throw 120 pitches, striking out 10, and winning 6-0. In the age of the 4 man rotation and no relief specialists, complete games helped the rest of the staff get through the long season, especially when rain-outs made double-headers pile up towards the end. And if a pitcher can save a little wear on his arm, that's common sense. I don't remember who it was, but some pitcher said he very rarely threw over to first to hold a runner on, because he figured he only had so many throws in his arm.

Your soccer midfielder is a great example of a player's value being non-statistical. The best way to help your team win might have nothing to do with stats.

When I was in grade school, we played a game called Battle Ball. It was like Dodge Ball except you could catch the ball. If you dropped it, or if the opposition caught your throw on the fly, you were out and had to go to the sidelines where you could still throw at the other team whenever you got the ball.

We played it during gym class, at recess, and after school. Not to mention weekends. We had about 100 kids in each grade, divided into 4 classrooms. So the first day of each school year, we'd eagerly look at all the class lists to see what room/teacher we had, and also to see what room would have the best Battle Ball team. Well, in 6th grade, I was in room 303 and we had an all star team. The first time we played another class during our 30 minute gym time, we won 4 games - wiping out their class, starting a new game, doing it again, and again, and again.

So, one of our best and smartest players, Richard Lord, started getting out on purpose at the beginning of each game, so he could move to the out sideline and set up a crossfire attack. If we'd kept stats, Lord would look like the worst player in the whole grade, getting out in the first 10 seconds of every game. But with our team loaded, there was no chance we would lose - so eliminating the opponent as quickly as possible was the goal and he figured that out and played his role superbly.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's funny, if you were to have a discussion of (for example) who was the best midfielder ever in soccer, statistics probably wouldn't enter into the discussion at all. Baseball is unbelievably rich in statistics and even more so with all the advanced metrics, but they don't seem to settle anything.

Statistics may not enter the discussion, but it probably should. Interestingly, I also build predictive models for soccer that estimate the value of every midfielder, both offensively and defensively. I've used it to bet on each of the past 3 world cups, and it's been by far my best ROI of all the sports I bet on.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by tschock

To put it another way: If a statistician's model is good at analyzing the past, then it should be reasonably good for predicting the future. Otherwise your model needs adjusting to consider other factors. That didn't seem to play out very well when 'the best team in baseball' this year didn't even get close to winning the World Series (as one example).

Dead on!

If you go back and read an earlier post in this thread it was stated that sabermetrics and statistical analysis was basically developed for gambling purposes. Well that is only for predicting games between two teams today. And over time, statisticians could tweak and refine those as they'd actually get to see how well it predicted the winner of a game. But there is no outcome or winner when you try to use statistics to decide the best lefty of all time. The formulas being used don't predict anything, and there is no winner decided that allows you to prove your formula was right, or to tweak your statistical formula if it was proven wrong. Statisticians just use the numbers they pull directly from baseball, ignoring outside and human influences, and interpret those stats in how they feel they would. The stats and formulas are nothing but talking points, as they can't prove or disprove anything regarding who really was the best. You can interpret the numbers how you want.

And they are certainly not infallible for gambling purposes either, as they don't always pick the winner.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by tschock

To put it another way: If a statistician's model is good at analyzing the past, then it should be reasonably good for predicting the future. Otherwise your model needs adjusting to consider other factors. That didn't seem to play out very well when 'the best team in baseball' this year didn't even get close to winning the World Series (as one example).

At the end of the regular season, every statistical model worth its salt would have said that the Dodgers were the best team in baseball this season. They also would have given the Dodgers a mere 25% chance of winning the world series despite being the best team because there is a tremendous amount of short term luck involved in baseball. This doesn't happen in football, basketball, hockey, or soccer. The best teams in those sports win the championship far more often.

[Snowman]

Let y = 2x + 3

If x = 5, then y = 13

BobC - "Well that's just like, your opinion, man."

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Snowman

At the end of the regular season, every statistical model worth its salt would have said that the Dodgers were the best team in baseball this season. They also would have given the Dodgers a mere 25% chance of winning the world series despite being the best team because there is a tremendous amount of short term luck involved in baseball. This doesn't happen in football, basketball, hockey, or soccer. The best teams in those sports win the championship far more often.

Then I would counter that your statistical model needs tweaking because it's not accounting for all the variables. The Dodgers weren't "The Best Team in Baseball" as they didn't win the championship. Though they may have had the best group of individuals in baseball playing for the same team. There's a difference.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I actually don't think most here question that. They question the idea that they are somehow evolved in 3 or four generations. Their superiority is of methods and science not innate. Therefore if you could magically transport a Grove to 2021 and allow him to grow up in this era he would, in all likelihood, still be a superior player because he also would benefit from these advances.

In short, players today are of COURSE superior, but they aren't genetically any different than their forerunners, so the best way to compare across eras is to compare a player to his peers and then compare the comparisons.

Where THAT falls short is, as everyone has access to today's advances it flattens the curve of greatness and reduces outliers like Ruth or possibly Grove, because today's "lesser players" have made themselves greater through modern methods, whereas the players with greater natural advantages can only improve so much.

Really has nothing to do with evolution. Population and selective breeding have produced more physically gifted and bigger players. When you have 8.5 billion people in the world to choose from compared to 2.5, it doesn't take much of a leap to see why you would have more people throwing 95+ MPH just by the that aspect alone.

When you consider that during the pre war era that the rest of the world population wasn't even used like it is in modern times(and none of the minority american population was used either), that pool of available athletes gets even more smaller.

If you take a look at the average height of a MLB pitcher from now and compare it generation by generation you will see it increasing. That isn't evolution, yet the players are indeed taller. Weight and strength have increased too and that has some aspects of nutrition and training, but height is not really something that is easily changed from what you are already programmed to be(unless maybe extreme malnourishment impedes it).

On top of the population there are many people who choose mating partners for the express purpose of producing a larger and more athletic off spring so the off spring has a better shot at scholarships and the big money contracts.

Size does matter indeed.

The median height of a pitcher in 1920 was 6 feet and 178 pounds.
The median height of a pitcher in 1960 was 6 feet 1 and 191 pounds.
The median height of a pitcher in 2000 was 6 feet 2 and 197 pounds.
The median height of a pitcher in 2019 was 6 feeet 3 and and 215 pounds.

MPH data has not always been recorded, but the the average fastball has been steadily increasing.

In 2002 the avg fastball was 88.6 MPH
In 2006 the avg fastball was 88.9 MPH
In 2008 the avg fastball was 90.1 MPH
In 2016 the avg fastball was 92.3 MPH
In 2019 the avg fastball was 93.1 MPH
In 2021 the avg fastball was 93.5 MPH

Looking at those two concrete examples of the height/weight changes, and the MPH changes, in addition to the population disparity, there is not a smidge of logic that would point to the average player in 1930 throwing anywhere near as hard as the average player in 2020, and evolution has nothing to do with it.

The size and strength of the hitters have also seen the same increase. Every hitter in the lineup can hit a home run off of a mistake. There are no weak spots where a pitcher can 'ease up'.

Baseball science plays some part in those increases in MPH, but only a part. The majority of it comes from population, more world wide players being available, and selective breeding....And no discrimination like Pre-War years.

So comparing players, when one has a weaker set of peers to be compared to, is NOT a valid comparison.

How valid can it be when Ryu has to somehow be better than everyone in the league when the AVERAGE pitcher is the same size as him and throws just as hard, and a guy from another era had to only compete against pitchers three inches smaller, 37 pounds lighter, and throwing anywhere from five to ten MPH slower on average?

Have you ever seen that photo of Nolan Ryan standing next to Randy Johnson?? He makes Ryan look like a midget. That photo alone explains everything I'm saying without the use of a single word.

This is no disrespect to the early players, because they paved the way. Ruth out homered every team in the league, not because he is that much better of a hitter than Vlad Guerroro JR, but because his environment allowed that to happen. Ruth simply could not do that today because he would have to hit 300 home runs in a season, and off of BETTER pitchers. Different environment.

People marvel at Nolan Ryan. Longevity aside, Vlad Jr. sees Nolan Ryan type stuff 'almost' every game, and most with much better command. Ryan was a freak even as late as the 1970's. Today, he is just another pitcher(again, longevity aside)...and he would be just an averaged sized pitcher too.

It isn't a dig at old time players as the respect will always be there for them. It is however a nod to players like Vlad Jr. and company who get disrespected by fans because they strike out too much, or for whatever other reason.

When players in the 1970's faced stuff like the pitchers throw today, they struck out a lot too....when facing Nolan Ryan ....there just weren't as many guys with that stuff and size in the league, and that is why Ryan was considered a circus freak back then and that is the 1970's. Imagine doing that same exercise going back to 1930.