Controversial article on baseball today?

[Angels#1Fan]

3 hours ago, Scotty@AW said:

Yeah, I genuinely believe Mike Trout is a better baseball player the Babe Ruth was.  Ruth played in different era, against regionalized competition, against guys throwing 600 innings a year, in ball parks that sometimes had fences 260 feet away, and other times 500 feet.  He played when baseball wasn't a profession as much as it was a competition. 

Yeah, that's pretty damning proof, except NO ONE equaled him under those very same conditions.

This nonsense about Ruth's era being so easy is debunked by the fact that he had no equal in his era.

Plus he was possibly the best left handed pitcher in the league for several years.

Seriously Scotty, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but the Babe is thus far light years ahead of Trout. Maybe 15 years from now that won't be the case but I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Angels#1Fan]

2 hours ago, WeatherWonk said:

Heck with Babe Ruth. I'm not sure Trout is as good as a player that some of us saw play..............Willie Mays.  660 HRs. 338 steals. 140 TRIPLES!!! How about 195 assists. Typically struck out only about 60-70 times/year in his hey day. Struck out only once over 100 times in a season.

Ruth's stats are untouchable, of course. 700+ HRs with a .342 lifetime average is unbelieveable.

Trout will have to have a sensational career to match Mays! 

[WeatherWonk]

It's obvious why Trout is just not marketable.

What is the one trait that virtually all of these "faces of the sport" have that Trout doesnt have?

Facial hair!! Trout needs to grow a beard (like Bryant, Lebron, Brady) or a goatee (like Curry). He looks too much like a boy, not a man.

Or maybe he needs a shorter haircut.........mebbe go Jordan style.

 

BTW, I listened to three different broadcast teams tonight (BOS, LAA, OAK) and all three teams mentioned the "face of baseball" article in ESPN.

[Taylor]

If only Trout were more of a loudmouth douche like Harper, the whole sports world would love him.

[Second Base]

10 hours ago, Angels#1Fan said:

Yeah, that's pretty damning proof, except NO ONE equaled him under those very same conditions.

This nonsense about Ruth's era being so easy is debunked by the fact that he had no equal in his era.

Plus he was possibly the best left handed pitcher in the league for several years.

Seriously Scotty, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but the Babe is thus far light years ahead of Trout. Maybe 15 years from now that won't be the case but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Take Babe Ruth and put him against today's pitchers. Take Babe Ruth and put him against today's hitters. Take Babe Ruth and put him in a running race with Trout. 

I'm sorry but hitting against 5'7 white guys that just finished a shift at the mill and threw 12 innings last night is not even close to the same as facing a 95 mph darting fastball and exploding slider.

Teo different worlds. Fact if the matter is, Babe Ruth was a hero, but Babe Ruth wouldn't hit today the way he did in the 20's. He may not hit at all.

Anyone that's unwilling to accept the fact that baseball players are better today than they were 100 years ago is either blind, stupid, or both.

[Second Base]

13 hours ago, stormngt said:

Talk to me when. TROUT pitches a no hitter and wins 20 games.

Talk to me when the Babe plays against Japanese, Dominicans, Puerto Rican's, African Americans or anyone that is an actual professional ball player. 

You can't just ignore the fact that Ruth's competition was probably similar to an average high school game in Southern California today. Guys had other jobs. It was 100 years ago, every facet of life was different.

As I said, there's a gigantic freakin difference between facing a 36 year old that just got off a shift at the mill and threw 12 innings the night before versus a modern day 26 year old whose sole purpose is to strike you out. 

[Second Base]

13 hours ago, WeatherWonk said:

Heck with Babe Ruth. I'm not sure Trout is as good as a player that some of us saw play..............Willie Mays.  660 HRs. 338 steals. 140 TRIPLES!!! How about 195 assists. Typically struck out only about 60-70 times/year in his hey day. Struck out only once over 100 times in a season.

Ruth's stats are untouchable, of course. 700+ HRs with a .342 lifetime average is unbelieveable.

Yeah Mays is freakin awesome in any era. Baseball is better now than it was then, but Mays was so ridiculously good then that he'd still be a Hall of Famer today. Mantle too. 

Ruth, I'm not so sure he'd succeed against today's competition. 

[Tank]

2 hours ago, Taylor said:

If only Trout were more of a loudmouth douche like Harper, the whole sports world would love him.

that's a clown comment, bro.

[Angels#1Fan]

3 minutes ago, Scotty@AW said:

Yeah Mays is freakin awesome in any era. Baseball is better now than it was then, but Mays was so ridiculously good then that he'd still be a Hall of Famer today. Mantle too. 

Ruth, I'm not so sure he'd succeed against today's competition. 

Willie Mays came into the league about 20 years after Ruth retired. So are you trying to say that in the short span between Ruth and Mays that the human species evolved so much that Ruth couldn't compete against todays players but Mays could?

Do you actually think that Mays could play in any era but Ruth couldn't??

Anyone that thinks Trout is better than Ruth at this point in his career is, to quote you, "either blind, stupid or both".

[Angels#1Fan]

14 minutes ago, Scotty@AW said:

You can't just ignore the fact that Ruth's competition was probably similar to an average high school game in Southern California today. Guys had other jobs. It was 100 years ago, every facet of life was different.

 

20 minutes ago, Scotty@AW said:

I'm sorry but hitting against 5'7 white guys that just finished a shift at the mill and threw 12 innings last night is not even close to the same as facing a 95 mph darting fastball and exploding slider.

If this is your view of what the game was, then I just have to say you are wrong.

Funny but I never realized that Bob Feller was 5'7, worked at a mill before he pitched, and only threw 80 mph. lol

Sorry Scotty, you can try and spin this anyway you want to, but there is no way Trout is better than Ruth and I think that you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that would agree with you. Plus your definition of the game that the guys played in the 20's, 30's, 40's, and 50's is insulting to the players that played in those eras. 

[ABC]

14 hours ago, WeatherWonk said:

Heck with Babe Ruth. I'm not sure Trout is as good as a player that some of us saw play..............Willie Mays.  660 HRs. 338 steals. 140 TRIPLES!!! How about 195 assists. Typically struck out only about 60-70 times/year in his hey day. Struck out only once over 100 times in a season.

Ruth's stats are untouchable, of course. 700+ HRs with a .342 lifetime average is unbelieveable.

2

Whites only league.

[stormngt]

24 minutes ago, Scotty@AW said:

Yeah Mays is freakin awesome in any era. Baseball is better now than it was then, but Mays was so ridiculously good then that he'd still be a Hall of Famer today. Mantle too. 

Ruth, I'm not so sure he'd succeed against today's competition. 

That's where I disagree.  Its unfair to speculate by saying subjectively (baseball is better now)  Objectively we can only look at the production.  

[Second Base]

3 minutes ago, Angels#1Fan said:

Willie Mays came into the league about 20 years after Ruth retired. So are you trying to say that in the short span between Ruth and Mays that the human species evolved so much that Ruth couldn't compete against todays players but Mays could?

Do you actually think that Mays could play in any era but Ruth couldn't??

Anyone that thinks Trout is better than Ruth at this point in his career is, to quote you, "either blind, stupid or both".

Nice straw man argument, tool.

I didn't say any of that. What I am telling you is that the Babe played the majority of his games between the years of 1919 and 1933. Mays played in 1954-1971 (mostly). 

Now try to think of what was happening in the country in the middle of Ruth's career. The Great Depression. Fact is, baseball took a back seat tonother things. Not only did Babe never face a black man, he never faced the elite competition from other countries. He played solely against white men from his part of the world, but only the select few who could afford to play baseball rather than try to find extra work.

Mays played in an era where baseball had grown to include folks out west, and any other race. The talent pool was larger and the country was in an economic boom. The baby boomers were coming of age and entering pro ball. The circumstances could not be any more different.

Furthermore, if you have any concept of time, you'd understand that in today's world, 20 years makes a huge difference. 20 years ago, there really wasn't much in the way of Internet. We still ate whatever the F we wanted and didn't understand the consequences of improper nutrition. 20 years ago, the majority of major league ball players were using performance enhancing drugs. Today's players can't even be compared to players from 20 years ago because 20 years ago players were juiced and no one did or said anything. 

That's much life changes in 20 years.

This whole human experience is ever changing, and there's a big difference between America in 1929 and America in 1960. There's a huge difference between the quality of play in 1930 and 1960.

[Ohtaniland]

2 hours ago, Taylor said:

If only Trout were more of a loudmouth douche like Harper, the whole sports world would love him.

He's going to be heard loud and clear next time he negotiates a contract.

[ABC]

[Second Base]

2 minutes ago, stormngt said:

That's where I disagree.  Its unfair to speculate by saying subjectively (baseball is better now)  Objectively we can only look at the production.  

Common sense. The talent pool is so much more vast. The quality of life is so much higher. Professional athletes today aren't the same as they were in 1930, when only white Lisa from NY played.

[Tank]

12 minutes ago, Scotty@AW said:

Talk to me when the Babe plays against Japanese, Dominicans, Puerto Rican's, African Americans or anyone that is an actual professional ball player. 

You can't just ignore the fact that Ruth's competition was probably similar to an average high school game in Southern California today. Guys had other jobs. It was 100 years ago, every facet of life was different.

As I said, there's a gigantic freakin difference between facing a 36 year old that just got off a shift at the mill and threw 12 innings the night before versus a modern day 26 year old whose sole purpose is to strike you out. 

at the time, ruth's accomplishments were against the best talent in the world. while the talent level has improved and expanded, and while trout is certainly a dominant player in the MLB today against a much broader spectrum of talent, that in no way nullifies what ruth accomplished as both a hitter and a pitcher. 

[WeatherWonk]

Well, this certainly DID become a controversial discussion............though not in the way I expected.

But, all discussion is good discussion.

[ABC]

Just now, Tank said:

at the time, ruth's accomplishments were against the best talent in the world. while the talent level has improved and expanded, and while trout is certainly a dominant player in the MLB today against a much broader spectrum of talent, that in no way nullifies what ruth accomplished as both a hitter and a pitcher. 

 

ok

[Second Base]

9 minutes ago, Angels#1Fan said:

 

If this is your view of what the game was, then I just have to say you are wrong.

Funny but I never realized that Bob Feller was 5'7, worked at a mill before he pitched, and only threw 80 mph. lol

Sorry Scotty, you can try and spin this anyway you want to, but there is no way Trout is better than Ruth and I think that you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that would agree with you. Plus your definition of the game that the guys played in the 20's, 30's, 40's, and 50's is insulting to the players that played in those eras. 

Babe Ruth never once faced Bob Feller, but yeah nice concept of history. 

I guess you think white people from the localized north eastern portion of the United States are physically superior to those out west, or black people, or Asians or Latin Americans. I didn't realize I was debating with neo-nazi racist and elitist. 

I hope you see what I'm doing there. It's the same form of logical fallacy you're guilty of. Making it seem as if someone is saying or is one thing to try and discredit them. 

[Second Base]

5 minutes ago, Tank said:

at the time, ruth's accomplishments were against the best talent in the world. while the talent level has improved and expanded, and while trout is certainly a dominant player in the MLB today against a much broader spectrum of talent, that in no way nullifies what ruth accomplished as both a hitter and a pitcher. 

Ruth was the best player from the east coast in the 1920's and 1930's that played against only white kids that could afford to play. I will say that. He wasn't just the best, he dominated against that level of competition. 

Now try to picture Trout playing against only white people. Now picture him against only white people on the east coast, no California, Texas or even Florida/Georgia powerhouses. Now picture Trout playing against only white kids from that localized area that were wealthy enough to afford to play a game that hardly pays.

[yk9001]

MLB doesn't capture the imagination of today's fans like in the 50s and 60s.

Mike Trout plays for a team that has two cities in its name, and never plays for a title.  He's a fantastic player who is bland as melba toast.

Brady is also bland, but has engineered countless comebacks in the biggest sporting event that occurs in this country.  And f's a super model.

 

[Angels#1Fan]

Sorry Scotty, but you are waaaay off base if you think Trout at this point in his career is better than Ruth..not even close!

You are always talking shit about the game Ruth played but what about the changes baseball has made to generate more offense over the years since Ruth played, like lowering the pitching mound in the 60's to make it easier for hitters or the shrinking strike zone that's so small now that it's tantamount to having to throw it straight down the middle? How about throwing the ball out of play every couple of pitches to put a nice shiny white one in play that makes it much easier to see? Or what about expansion that has diluted the game to the point that there are twice as many teams today than there were in the 60's when there were only 8 teams in the league?

Straw man my ass. Mays came into the league just about 20 years after the Babe retired and you seem to be of the opinion that the game evolved sooo much in that time that Ruth wouldn't have been able to compete but Mays could. To that I say bull shit!!!! 

Sorry Scotty, not only am I not buying your assertion that Trout is better than Ruth but I think it's fair to say you'd have a hardly time finding anyone else that agrees with you.

[Second Base]

2 minutes ago, Angels#1Fan said:

Sorry Scotty, but you are waaaay off base if you think Trout at this point in his career is better than Ruth..not even close!

You are always talking shit about the game Ruth played but what about the changes baseball has made to generate more offense over the years since Ruth played, like lowering the pitching mound in the 60's to make it easier for hitters or the shrinking strike zone that's so small now that it's tantamount to having to throw it straight down the middle? How about throwing the ball out of play every couple of pitches to put a nice shiny white one in play that makes it much easier to see? Or what about expansion that has diluted the game to the point that there are twice as many teams today than there were in the 60's when there were only 8 teams in the league?

Straw man my ass. Mays came into the league just about 20 years after the Babe retired and you seem to be of the opinion that the game evolved sooo much in that time that Ruth wouldn't have been able to compete but Mays could. To that I say bull shit!!!! 

Sorry Scotty, not only am I not buying your assertion that Trout is better than Ruth but I think it's fair to say you'd have a hardly time finding anyone else that agrees with you.

Ok, so I guess white kids from the northeast coast in the 1920's and 30's are better athletes than everyone else in the world 100 years later. Got it. Now I understand who I'm talking to. That would've been useful information before.

[Catwhoshatinthehat]

I'm glad baseball season is here and I look forward to going to games but baseball on TV is pretty boring when you listen to 2-3 people try to fill air time while nothing is really happening in the game.  Say what you will about the other sports as none of them are perfect but they're more entertaining to tune into for a lot of casual viewers as they're more fast paced.  To play baseball you need two teams whereas kids can play basketball or football with far less people.  As kids growing up in OC it was a lot easier to get a football, basketball or even roller hockey game going than it was a baseball game.  When you're younger you tend to play multiple sports and the kids who were good athletes and thrived at multiple sports tended to end up playing something other than baseball by the time they got to high school.