Controversial article on baseball today?

[JustATroutFan]

If Trout walked in public in downtown LA, a lot of people wouldn't even know who he is. Like Trout cares though. People are more interested in football and basketball more than they are interested in baseball.

[Angels#1Fan]

23 minutes ago, Scotty@AW said:

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. 

When you agreed that Willie Mays could play in any era, then out of the other side of your mouth claimed that Ruth couldn't compete in todays game you completely blew any credibility you may have had on this subject. 

What I see is someone that hasn't given this much thought.

Again I appreciate your enthusiasm and I enjoy reading your takes on the game but you are really off base on this one and we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Tank]

28 minutes ago, Scotty@AW said:

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.

ruth had no control over who he played against. can't really hold that against him. 

[Tank]

42 minutes ago, #CF8 said:

ok

if you'd like to prove otherwise, go ahead and make your argument.

[Angels#1Fan]

19 minutes ago, Scotty@AW said:

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.

Scotty you seem to be confused about "who" played baseball versus "where" professional baseball was played.

MLB was played in the east mostly but players from that era came from all over the country. Baseball was in fact at it's height of popularity at that time. It was the National Pastime! Players who played in the 30's or earlier like Bob Feller (who came from Iowa in 1936) Walter Johnson (was from Kansas hardly the northeast) Joe Dimaggio (who came from San Francisco in 1936) or Ted Williams (who came from San Diego in 1939) were scouted all over the country just as they are today. Your take about MLB being a "regional game" is accurate only as it pertains to "where" the game was played. The players themselves came from all over the country just as they do today. I think you need to give this a little more thought.

[Second Base]

38 minutes ago, hangin n wangin said:

I try not to get too serious on this topic because it really is pretty impossible to be sure of an answer. It's just too hard to compare players from eras so far apart.

Ruth and Trout have advantages and disadvantages going both directions.

Ruth would have more training, PED's, year round training, video scouting, etc.

Trout wouldn't have to face foreign players, breaking pitches and multiple relievers, etc.

It's definitely not as easy as saying, Ruth had the higher WAR so he is better.

It's impossible to truthfully compare these guys 75 years a part, but in my honest opinion, the era that Ruth played in is to hard for me to oversee.

Baseball was a joke back then compared to what it is today and that's why I think Trout is better now than Ruth ever was. That's not to say that Trout has had a better career than Ruth, because no one really has, but those numbers are also extremely inflated.

Just my opinion, but to each his own.

Couldn't have said it better. You make an important distinction. Babe Ruth has the better career, and likely will have the better career because no one really can have it in the modern game.

But if you take Babe Ruth in his prime and line him up against Mike Trout in his prime, it's no contest. Trout has had the advantages of weight training, better scouting, playing all his life, refining his game against the best players from all over the world regardless of ethnicity. 

The Babe just did not have that at his disposal.

So put them side by side, Trout is bigger, stronger, faster, healthier, more polished. 

No one is holding Ruth's external limitations against him. Baseball was comparatively a joke back then compared to the global game it is now. That's not the Babe's fault.

Its simple, the game is better. Trout is better. It doesn't change Ruth or what he did. American hero. The best of a former era.

[stormngt]

1 hour ago, Scotty@AW said:

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.

Common sense is.not a standard of objective anslysis. A deeper talent pool does not necessarily mean Ruth faced lessor talent. 

[SlappyUtilityMIF]

16 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. 

Mike Trout plays against the best in the world, who are better than anyone Ruth ever faced.  He plays on an international stage, against highly specialized pitchers, against professionals who devote their time and energy toward getting better. 

Mike is bigger, stronger, faster than the Babe was.  It's just the natural progression of the game.  No one was close to as good as Babe in the 1920's, and no one is all that close to Trout 90 years later. 

And he swung a Tree Trunk!

[AngelsFanSince86]

I don't know if it's been said yet in this thread, but there is one major reason that baseball stars will never be at the celebrity status as basketball or football stars.

In basketball and football, a casual fan or any random person can flip on a game and 90% of the time will see those stars do their thing. You can flip on a cavaliers game and watch a few minutes and watch Lebron James do Lebron James things. You can flip on a Patriots game and see Tom Brady or Gronk (if he isn't injured) do something great.

With the Angels you can watch 20-30 minutes here and there and never see the ball hit to him or watch him strike out or ground out every at bat you see. Heck you could watch a whole game and see him make an error and go 0-5 with 3 strikeouts.  

Your never going to turn on a football game and watch a star QB fail to make a single completion and you'll never turn on a basketball game and watch a star player miss every basket.

Its my opinion that this plays the biggest role in baseball stars not reaching the level of recognition that some other sports do.

[Stradling]

36 minutes ago, Scotty@AW said:

Couldn't have said it better. You make an important distinction. Babe Ruth has the better career, and likely will have the better career because no one really can have it in the modern game.

But if you take Babe Ruth in his prime and line him up against Mike Trout in his prime, it's no contest. Trout has had the advantages of weight training, better scouting, playing all his life, refining his game against the best players from all over the world regardless of ethnicity. 

The Babe just did not have that at his disposal.

So put them side by side, Trout is bigger, stronger, faster, healthier, more polished. 

No one is holding Ruth's external limitations against him. Baseball was comparatively a joke back then compared to the global game it is now. That's not the Babe's fault.

Its simple, the game is better. Trout is better. It doesn't change Ruth or what he did. American hero. The best of a former era.

Ok, so if you are going to basically going to minimize Ruth's career, which is stupid, but whatever.  What if Ruth had all the advantages Trout has?  Shorter mounds, year round training, air travel, better nutrition, better ability to scout the opposing pitcher.  Or what if Trout didn't have all of those advantages and played back then. 

[Brandon]

1 hour ago, Catwhoshatinthehat said:

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.  

kind of my thought process, as well.

this will ruffle some feathers, but baseball is pretty damn boring in comparison to other sports. it's why you see them trying to tinker with the game speed (which is the biggest problem) or mess with the strike zone to create more offense.

the numbers are declining in every aspect of baseball because it's slow as shit. i'm more likely to have someone ask me to go to a game to grab beers and hangout than to watch player x or certain teams. it's become a casual hangout sport where the game takes a back seat then just doing something with friends. it's also why you see everyone on their cell phones at games.

it's slow and there are way too many games. in the nfl, every game matters. in baseball, there isn't that sense of urgency or "must win" games by the mid-point of the season. there also just isn't that constant excitement. what was it, 2012?, when the last day of the season had all those games in the evening go down to the wire for post-season spots? you just don't get that constantly like other sports.

i think a lot of it is you are also seeing a more instant gratification society. soccer is blowing up because it's non-stop with no breaks or commercials, mma is still running strong because of quick fights and exciting knockouts, hockey is a fast action sport, and even basketball is seeing a resurgence. you just see other sports catering to this faster paced instant gratification world. even the nfl is looking to decrease commercials to stop slowing up the game.

the sad truth is more and more people are caring less about baseball....although the playoffs and watching the cubs break history was fun as hell.

[Brandon]

5 minutes ago, AngelsFanSince86 said:

I don't know if it's been said yet in this thread, but there is one major reason that baseball stars will never be at the celebrity status as basketball or football stars.

In basketball and football, a casual fan or any random person can flip on a game and 90% of the time will see those stars do their thing. You can flip on a cavaliers game and watch a few minutes and watch Lebron James do Lebron James things. You can flip on a Patriots game and see Tom Brady or Gronk (if he isn't injured) do something great.

With the Angels you can watch 20-30 minutes here and there and never see the ball hit to him or watch him strike out or ground out every at bat you see. Heck you could watch a whole game and see him make an error and go 0-5 with 3 strikeouts.  

Your never going to turn on a football game and watch a star QB fail to make a single completion and you'll never turn on a basketball game and watch a star player miss every basket.

Its my opinion that this plays the biggest role in baseball stars not reaching the level of recognition that some other sports do.

oh yeah, this too.

you see so many athletes perform and compete at a high level and we enjoy seeing athletes go above the norm. baseball is a game of mediocrity and small edges. if you are hitting .300 you're an all-star and having a great year. in any other sport where you are only good 30% of the time, you're on the bench or out of the sport.

i find myself watching less games and more highlights to catch up on games to simply save myself the time. it's become a niche sport where purists will damn change while everyone else just moves on by.

[Second Base]

17 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Ok, so if you are going to basically going to minimize Ruth's career, which is stupid, but whatever.  What if Ruth had all the advantages Trout has?  Shorter mounds, year round training, air travel, better nutrition, better ability to scout the opposing pitcher.  Or what if Trout didn't have all of those advantages and played back then. 

Now that would be fascinating! I mean what you're asking there is straight genetics. From what I understand, Trout is just a freak of nature, so I think regardless, Trout is a bigger, stronger, better athlete than Ruth. But baseball player? I don't know. 

But that's not the debate. The debate is, put Ruth in his prime, can he match up with a 25 year old Trout. The answer is absolutely not.

Not the Babe's fault, just a different era. That's it. We already saw what Trout did against a bunch of East Coast white kids in high school. 

 

[ABC]

1 hour ago, Tank said:

if you'd like to prove otherwise, go ahead and make your argument.

whites only.

that's obvious. you're digging yourself a hole. an embarrassing one.

[well_red]

But in the sports marketing community, he is viewed as a guy who owes it to his employers to do more to promote the game.

"If you're signing this big contract and you're benefiting, you have to try to grow the game," says Bill Sutton, director of the Sports and Entertainment Management MBA program at the University of South Florida. "I feel this way about any sport. It's the athlete's obligation to grow the game. Other people made it better for you coming in. You need to make it better for the people coming after you and the people who are there with you."

 

Probably the most nauseating quote I've ever read in my life.  Evidently it isn't Trout's "obligation" to play good baseball, but to do more shitty advertisements or fake more laughs on late night shows so that a bunch of nobody marketing execs can make more money and gatorade can sell more drinks.

[Troll Daddy]

8 hours ago, Taylor said:

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

 

[Blarg]

9 hours ago, Scotty@AW said:

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. 

Take Trout and play him against players 80 years in the future. I'll bet he sucks.

[Blarg]

8 hours ago, Scotty@AW said:

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.

Trout is a white kid from the North East coast.

 

[Second Base]

Just now, Blarg said:

Trout is a white kid from the North East coast.

 

Yeah and we already saw what he did against his peers in high school. 

[Second Base]

4 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Take Trout and play him against players 80 years in the future. I'll bet he sucks.

IT'll be interesting to see for sure.  Some guys are good in any era. I think the athlete from the 1920's and 30's had so much to improve upon.  Everything from conditioning, nutrition, experience, stretching, strength, day job, and just flat out letting kids that aren't white compete.  These are all reasons why the modern athlete is immeasurably better than the athletes of the past, Trout and Ruth included.  

I can't even begin to imagine what sort of advances there will be 80 years from now that will legally (I say this because PED's aren't the direction they're trying to go) make an athlete better.  I don't know what does and doesn't need to be shored up as far as their preparation.  For all we know, we're living at the pinnacle of athletic development. I doubt it, but in some sort of dystopian way it's possible.  

[Blarg]

8 minutes ago, Scotty@AW said:

Yeah and we already saw what he did against his peers in high school. 

So fucking what, Scotty? You think Ruth didn't excel at a young age?

[Tank]

6 hours ago, #CF8 said:

whites only.

that's obvious. you're digging yourself a hole. an embarrassing one.

Really? Okay.

was there a league with better talent professionally than the major leagues during Ruth's time? If so, I again invite you to make a case. 

[Blarg]

5 minutes ago, Scotty@AW said:

IT'll be interesting to see for sure.  Some guys are good in any era. I think the athlete from the 1920's and 30's had so much to improve upon.  Everything from conditioning, nutrition, experience, stretching, strength, day job, and just flat out letting kids that aren't white compete.  These are all reasons why the modern athlete is immeasurably better than the athletes of the past, Trout and Ruth included.  

I can't even begin to imagine what sort of advances there will be 80 years from now that will legally (I say this because PED's aren't the direction they're trying to go) make an athlete better.  I don't know what does and doesn't need to be shored up as far as their preparation.  For all we know, we're living at the pinnacle of athletic development. I doubt it, but in some sort of dystopian way it's possible.  

So you're argument is times changed but it doesn't diminish the accomplishments Ruth made in his era. For christsakes, Scoty, Magellan died circumnavigating the Globe and we can hitch a ride any where in the world by plane, train, boat or automobile. It doesn't make him less of historically great man just because mankind moved on.

Ruth played with a guy nicknamed Home Run Baker. He never hit more than 12 a season his entire career. Ruth had 11 for the Red Sox when he was a pitcher. Ruth practically invented the home run as a stat once he played full time in the outfield.

Trout is not re-inventing the game with his game.

[arch stanton]

Look at how baseball fans follow baseball. We're dedicating whole threads and a large slice of the forum to monitoring players who are expected to debut in 2021 as a best case scenario. The best way to market baseball is to market the game as a whole.

Personally, I'd rather leave the People Magazine bullshit to the other sports. No baseball player gets to have the ball on every possession like Jordan or stand behind center like Brady. The game itself is the seller for me. Of course I had my favorite players as a kid and I followed them as closely as the era allowed but I followed their on-field accomplishments not their endorsements.

 

[ABC]

your line of thinking cannot be real. you believe that the best pool of athletes at that time was all white?

i'm guessing an integrated league would raise the floor of talent. and i presume that ruth would still be the best player of the era. he'd also mash in this era if he was born and bred during this time. however, he wouldn't pitch and he'd probably be an m-cab/manny type player.