Trout v. Legendary cards

[Tao_Moko]

This is a pretty fun argument. Would be very interesting to hear Mike Trout defend himself as a player and if he would recommend spending millions on his card. I wonder what he thinks when he hears comparisons to the past greats.

On another note - I never intend on shedding a negative light on my Marine Corps. I look at it through a different set of lenses. All my brothers in all branches are my heroes, not an athlete. So I give cred to those who did both. I've earned the distinction of being "ignorant" and being responsible for "the stupidest thing" ever heard/read on this site. I've spent my life ensuring the safety of civilians so my apologies for any discredit I've brought upon the Corps with my idiot thoughts and clear annoyance to a few card collectors with my opinion on probably one of the most privileged of all communities. Suggesting a lifelong ball player might fall short overall in a comparison to Ted Williams. Roberto Clemente probably falls short too since he was also a humanitarian and Marine and had better stats because those don't matter. I just can't believe I ever considered an entire impact beyond on field. I'm just a stupid, ignorant fool. I'm going off to apologise to my kids for what they have as a father. If only their dad could be a more passionate and intelligent baseball card collector.

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by packs

But doesn't a sale of a modern card like this one upset that vision of the hobby? We don't know who bought the Trout. If it's a young collector, the future may be modern.

The future has always been modern. It dwarfs vintage by a large margin.

[puckpaul]

Originally Posted by maniac_73

I would agree if it was actually kids in the hobby but I don't know any kids collecting baseball cards. This hobby is geared to people 25 and over with disposable income right now. If there are kids they are probably collecting basketball but even that's priced out of their range.

But, today’s kids will grow up and become those 25 and over card collectors.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yeah... just like Trout.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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 .......

..

[Shoeless Moe]

Don't look now, but the BEST player EVER is now hitting .255 and 86th in BA.


might be time for a little juice

[Touch'EmAll]

Comparing fastest pitches of today vs. way back - be careful as the measuring has changed. I have heard a pitch loses up to 8 mph from release to plate. I do not know how/where Feller was timed, but Nolan Ryan was timed when pitch went over the plate. Today, pitches are clocked when released. Big Difference. Todays 100mph is Ryans 92 mph.

[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.

[packs]

The discussion about fastballs from yesteryear and who would be a star in today's game takes place on this board all the time. In almost every other instance the board's consensus opinion is that players today are more physically gifted than players in the past, except in this thread where people want to make weird arguments against Mike Trout.

[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

[ls7plus]

Adam hit the nail squarely on the head with his post re comparing modern players to those playing in past eras. Sabermetrics have devised multiple tools to compare players across eras, WAR among them. Others include Bill James' win shares, and for offensive abilities, runs created compared to league average. OPS+ is also popular for quick reference, as it is readily obtainable thru BaseballReference.com. The later, incidently, bears an approximate 93% or better correlation to runs produced, despite its shorthand character. At the heart of all such stats is the premise that comparing players across eras must be based on the relationship of their performance to that of the average MLB player, and that the latter, while shifting perhaps over time, is flexible enough to serve as a baseline because old time players would improve if magically transported to today's game upon implementation of modern training methods. If a modern player could be transported back into the days of old, i.e., was born in that time and played in that era, he would not have the benefit of those training methods. It is interesting to note in this regard in relation to Ted Williams that based on extrapolation of the Bill James' runs created stat and phrasing it as a % increase over the average player of the day, Ted comes in a very solid, absolute number one of all time, at 250% runs created over the average player during the course of his long career. Ruth is actually second, at 240%.

It is also interesting to note the reference above to Bob Feller's best fastball being clocked at 98.6 mph. Bob quite candidly, if perhaps somewhat immodestly, stated that in order to have his pitch register on the timing device, he had to throw it through a relatively small opening. Hardly having been known for his control (I believe he had 153 walks in his 1946 348K season), Mr. Feller indicated he had to slow his fastball down to get it through the opening. It is certainly quite likely, if not absolutely ascertainable, that Feller threw significantly over 100 mph in the late '30's through the mid-to late forties. Note should also be taken that Nolan Ryan in his prime was clocked at 102 mph in the ninth inning, after throwing more than 150 pitches.

I think it is naive to suggest that old timers could not adjust to the conditions of today's game. Babe Ruth was tested by Columbia University in the '20's, and found to have 20/10 vision, as well as what were termed nearly super-human reflexes and hand-to-eye coordination. He would likely be quite good at detecting the very tight spin on the slider quite early in its journey to the plate (Ted stated he was able to see it and react to it as soon as it left the pitcher's hand). Babe would simply trade in his legendary 48 oz. club for something more like the 32 or 33 ouncer today's sluggers use. In addition, if your big screen, high-def TV has a remote which allows you to slo-mo one of today's hitters going up against a pitcher with an ultra-high velocity fastball, what you will see is that the hitter starts earlier. Rather than starting his stride when the pitcher's arm and hand comes up into a little box above his shoulder, just as he is about to release the ball, today's batter going up against a 100 mph fastball actually starts his hip-cock and stride WHILE THE PITCHER'S ARM IS STILL GOING BACK. Yesterday's hitters would adjust, no question about it.

Sorry to be this verbose, but insofar as the OP in this thread is concerned, IMHO, "Trout's Clout" will markedly diminish over time, starting with the time he hits his down years (at 29, he is in the heart of his prime, yet his OPS+ is 176 to Mantle's 172. Mantle ended up at that figure--one of the best of all time, by the way--after three very bad seasons, 1965, 1967, and 1968). Trout has yet to experience the deterioration of his skills with age, yet the length and lucrative character of his contract all but ensures that he will. My prediction is that he will end up in the low 160's if he is fortunate enough to avoid a career-impairing injury.

And who is to say that Trout will not be like Vern Stephens (7 all-star appearances, multiple top ten MVP vote years), Ted Kluzewski, Rocky Colavito, Dale Murphy, or Cecil or Prince Fielder, among many others, who were top-notch stars only to peter out in their very early thirties?

In any event. Trout will eventually fade from the spotlight and join the ranks of other great, but long-gone players. I politely suggest it would be absurd to suggest that after a generation or two, his star will shine as bright as the Babe's, Ted's, Ty Cobb's, or a number of others. The value of this card will be measured against theirs then, and not be bolstered by the benefit of the grandiose spotlight it enjoys now. And then we have interesting comments from Adam to consider with regard to whether this type of card will weather the ravages of time well (kudos also to Bill Avery's comment that the signature itself looks a lot more like "Mr. 7-up" than "Mike Trout").

Boy, I sure can get really verbose when I get wound up on a topic! Congratulations to those who have made it through all of the above, and especially to puckpaul for his acquisition of the W600 Cobb--great card!.

With great regard,

Larry

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by 100backstroke

Comparing fastest pitches of today vs. way back - be careful as the measuring has changed. I have heard a pitch loses up to 8 mph from release to plate. I do not know how/where Feller was timed, but Nolan Ryan was timed when pitch went over the plate. Today, pitches are clocked when released. Big Difference. Todays 100mph is Ryans 92 mph.

Ryan's was measured 10 feet in front of the plate.

And that point is immaterial - they've been measuring the same way for at least a couple decades now. And the average fastball has gone up significantly in that time (2.5mph from 2008 to 2019 alone). Regardless of any adjustments you make, guys are throwing harder now than they did 12 years ago. And harder than 70 years ago.

The "dilution" of talent was mentioned earlier because of expansion. That's an argument that holds no water. The US has roughly 220% of the population (150m - 328m) now that it had in 1950. Meanwhile, MLB has 188% of the teams. AND MLB now draws players from around the world, which it did not do in 1950. In other words, not only has the talent not been diluted by expansion, it's actually been concentrated. Expansion hasn't kept up with population growth.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by irishdenny

You are Correct... jus maybe not so on how ole' the "Kids in the Hobby' are taday!? In this era's time, the 'Kid in the Hobby' are 25+ years ole'...

The Hobby Card Industry of taday have Re Focus'd on that Money's Age Group!
Guys like 'Vegas Dave', are in trusted by these 25 year ole's as sumwhat of a mentor! This is hard to swallow fir guy who grew up wit CSN, Marshall Tucker, Lynyrd Skynyrd, etc... Howevar it's True!

They actually trust a guy who calls himself "Vegas Dave" ?

Back in the day the only way a guy called that would go near baseball cards is if he hijacked a truckfull.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Tabe

The "dilution" of talent was mentioned earlier because of expansion. That's an argument that holds no water. The US has roughly 220% of the population (150m - 328m) now that it had in 1950. Meanwhile, MLB has 188% of the teams. AND MLB now draws players from around the world, which it did not do in 1950. In other words, not only has the talent not been diluted by expansion, it's actually been concentrated. Expansion hasn't kept up with population growth.

Except that a huge percentage of that population is no longer playing baseball in favor of basketball, football and soccer. That used not to be the case.

[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.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Except that a huge percentage of that population is no longer playing baseball in favor of basketball, football and soccer. That used not to be the case.

More than offset by the millions outside the US that are playing.

[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!

[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.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Ryan's was measured 10 feet in front of the plate.

And that point is immaterial - they've been measuring the same way for at least a couple decades now. And the average fastball has gone up significantly in that time (2.5mph from 2008 to 2019 alone). Regardless of any adjustments you make, guys are throwing harder now than they did 12 years ago. And harder than 70 years ago.

The "dilution" of talent was mentioned earlier because of expansion. That's an argument that holds no water. The US has roughly 220% of the population (150m - 328m) now that it had in 1950. Meanwhile, MLB has 188% of the teams. AND MLB now draws players from around the world, which it did not do in 1950. In other words, not only has the talent not been diluted by expansion, it's actually been concentrated. Expansion hasn't kept up with population growth.

You have 32 NFL teams, 30 NBA teams and 30 MLB teams. The US population increase doesn’t come close to covering that and that doesn’t account for other sports. Baseball was pretty much the only major sport for a long time. The NBA didn’t even exist until after WW2. The NFL was an after thought. Jackie Robinson was a much better football player, in fact baseball was his worst sport at UCLA. Yet he ended up in the BBHOF.

The best athletes are not playing baseball. Athletes may be better, but if the second tier athletes are now the ones playing the game, they are not better than the first tier athletes from a previous era. I remember an interview with Darryl Strawberry and Eric Davis about the Crenshaw HS baseball program in the 80s. They said that it was completely different than when they played a decade earlier. Baseball was no longer cool, the guys who would have played with them were now just playing football or basketball due to specialization.

You are throwing out absolutes like they are facts, they are not. They are your opinion. I disagree with them and that is my opinion. If you want to think Trout is great, fine, but I am not convinced. I have been watching the game for over 50 years and he isn’t close to the best player I have seen. He isn’t close to a 5 tool player. Maybe he can improve and convince me or maybe he declines like the other would be “greats.”

[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

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by todeen

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

I don't doubt that "someone" will hit .400 again...someday...BUT...ICHIRO would have been my pick to do over anyone in recent times...and he couldn't!

[todeen]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

I don't doubt that "someone" will hit .400 again...someday...BUT...ICHIRO would have been my pick to do over anyone in recent times...and he couldn't!

I'm from WA State, love Ichiro. At what point does playing for a crappy team like Seattle suck away some of your talent? I'm thinking of Joey Votto too.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by todeen

I'm from WA State, love Ichiro. At what point does playing for a crappy team like Seattle suck away some of your talent? I'm thinking of Joey Votto too.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Dunno? So if Trout were on a winner...he'd have better stats?

[Throttlesteer]

Originally Posted by todeen

I'm from WA State, love Ichiro. At what point does playing for a crappy team like Seattle suck away some of your talent? I'm thinking of Joey Votto too.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Holds true for Gwynn for most of his career.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

Dunno? So if Trout were on a winner...he'd have better stats?

I think so. I think the same could be said for Ted Williams, too.

A lot of baseball is mental. When you personally disagree with choices of the general manager and manager to call it a season and bring up younger players, or to sell at the deadline to "reap rewards for next year," it all plays on one's psyche....whether they will say it or not. And in today's game of REBUILDING, that has to hinder offensive production. The Reds have been rebuilding forever, and they were tied to some pretty big names this offseason in an effort to win. Many signed elsewhere. How many of those players said, "I don't want to play in Cincinnati because they can't win"?

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by todeen

I think so. I think the same could be said for Ted Williams, too.

A lot of baseball is mental. When you personally disagree with choices of the general manager and manager to call it a season and bring up younger players, or to sell at the deadline to "reap rewards for next year," it all plays on one's psyche....whether they will say it or not. And in today's game of REBUILDING, that has to hinder offensive production. The Reds have been rebuilding forever, and they were tied to some pretty big names this offseason in an effort to win. Many signed elsewhere. How many of those players said, "I don't want to play in Cincinnati because they can't win"?

if one is on a better team I'd surmise the concept of being pitched around might be greater?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

I don't doubt that "someone" will hit .400 again...someday...BUT...ICHIRO would have been my pick to do over anyone in recent times...and he couldn't!

Believe it or not walks are an enormous help in hitting .400. Ichiro didn't walk nearly enough.

[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.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

if one is on a better team I'd surmise the concept of being pitched around might be greater?

Maybe, I can only think of Barry Bonds. It turned out alright for him.

And taking a walk doesn't count toward total at bats, and doesn't hurt batting average.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[ullmandds]

good points re. walks...I agree!