Controversial article on baseball today?

[Tank]

1 hour ago, #CF8 said:

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

No, I don't, and I haven't suggested this. I've said he played in the best professional league available at the time. That those in charge limited it to one race by excluding others was a terrible decision, but it wasn't something Ruth could change. He put up such staggering numbers against the best players in the best league. You seem to be suggesting that there were other leagues that were better than the MLB, and I've asked you twice to give evidence of this , something you have yet to do. 

[ABC]

1 hour ago, Tank said:

No, I don't, and I haven't suggested this. I've said he played in the best professional league available at the time. That those in charge limited it to one race by excluding others was a terrible decision, but it wasn't something Ruth could change. He put up such staggering numbers against the best players in the best league. You seem to be suggesting that there were other leagues that were better than the MLB, and I've asked you twice to give evidence of this , something you have yet to do. 

1

you = ruth's accomplishments were against the best talent in the world

that's not true. yet you are arguing that point.

and, nowhere do i say or even suggest there is a league with better talent..  the reality is that ruth didnt play against the best overall pool of talent in the u.s. your line of reasoning makes you seem obtuse.

 

[ettin]

On 4/5/2017 at 8:26 PM, Geoff said:

 

You shut your filthy hooker mouth!  Mike Trout has never ... I repeat, NEVER, changed lanes in Orange County without signaling!!! Period!

 

 

 

Fixed with the Sean Spicer exclamation added.

[Second Base]

14 hours ago, Blarg said:

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.

You're still not really catching on to the concept of career vs. ability. Ruth had an amazing career against lesser competition. No one today can match his career numbers because the competition is much better today than it was in 1930.

Breaking it down Barney-style here. Babe Ruth from 1930 is magically transported to the year 2017. Will he be as good as Mike Trout in 2017? Absolutely not. 

[Stradling]

Even if he had all the advantages Trout has?  So Trout without the nutrition or the year round training and without the plane rides would put up better numbers in the 20's and 30's than Ruth?  Sure ok.  Then Ruth takes the mound and makes this argument stupid. 

[Stradling]

6 minutes ago, hangin n wangin said:

See, this is why this debate is kind of ridiculous. It's just too tough compare and it ends up with people just insulting each other's opinion. Realistically, you don't know and no one else knows either. It's impossible to know.

I completely agree.  When Scotty comes in and is completely arrogant like it's a FACT it is simply dumb.  

[Second Base]

51 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Even if he had all the advantages Trout has?  So Trout without the nutrition or the year round training and without the plane rides would put up better numbers in the 20's and 30's than Ruth?  Sure ok.  Then Ruth takes the mound and makes this argument stupid. 

And Trouty was throwing 90-95 off the mound in high school, and probably would've thrown harder than the Babe as pitcher.

Babe Ruth played against a bunch of white guys from the Northeast who played ball after work. Apparently they're better than athletes 80+ years into the future from all over the world that have played ball their whole life and who's sole job is to be good at baseball.

If you're going to start name calling, then I'd have to say if you believe this Strad, then there's no hope for you. 

Answer this simple question Strad, yes or no. No explanation needed. Are today's baseball players better than they were in the 1930's?

[Second Base]

39 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I completely agree.  When Scotty comes in and is completely arrogant like it's a FACT it is simply dumb.  

Strad thinking he's smarter than everyone on the board isn't arrogant but Scotty thinking Mike Trout is a better ball player than beer and hotdog Babe Ruth is arrogant. 

God I love your logic.

I suppose Lebron James couldn't ball with Jerry West because saying so is simply arrogance. I suppose JJ Watt wouldn't be that great of a football player in the 1940's is arrogant too. 

[Stradling]

2 hours ago, Scotty@AW said:

Strad thinking he's smarter than everyone on the board isn't arrogant but Scotty thinking Mike Trout is a better ball player than beer and hotdog Babe Ruth is arrogant. 

God I love your logic.

I suppose Lebron James couldn't ball with Jerry West because saying so is simply arrogance. I suppose JJ Watt wouldn't be that great of a football player in the 1940's is arrogant too. 

I have no belief that I'm smarter than people on here, but you certainly have no issues being that guy.  Are guys more athletic sure.  Could Ruth with today's advantages be dominating, sure I believe he could be.  I had no idea Trout threw that hard in high school, because it's his one skill that is merely average in the bigs.  Everything else he's above average.  

[Stradling]

2 hours ago, Scotty@AW said:

And Trouty was throwing 90-95 off the mound in high school, and probably would've thrown harder than the Babe as pitcher.

Babe Ruth played against a bunch of white guys from the Northeast who played ball after work. Apparently they're better than athletes 80+ years into the future from all over the world that have played ball their whole life and who's sole job is to be good at baseball.

If you're going to start name calling, then I'd have to say if you believe this Strad, then there's no hope for you. 

Answer this simple question Strad, yes or no. No explanation needed. Are today's baseball players better than they were in the 1930's?

Also, someone has already corrected you about the players all being from the upper northeast, but you chose to ignore it and keep preaching it like it's a fact, again.  

[Angels#1Fan]

Scotty, in your opinion is Trout a better hitter than Ty Cobb (Cobb hit .367 lifetime and hit .400 twice) or Rogers Hornsby? (Hornsby had a lifetime .358 avg. and hit .400 three times)

Just curious.

[Second Base]

8 minutes ago, Angels#1Fan said:

Scotty, in your opinion is Trout a better hitter than Ty Cobb (Cobb hit .367 lifetime and hit .400 twice) or Rogers Hornsby? (Hornsby had a lifetime .358 avg. and hit .400 three times)

Just curious.

Ty Cobb did something very interesting, batting with his hands separated by several inches on the bat. It offers so much more bat control, and it's actually been effectively deployed in softball, but never in baseball to my knowledge, with the exception of Cobb.

If I had to guess, I'd say no, Cobb from his prime (without the advantages of today) probably wouldn't be very good, but at the very least I am intrigued by the batting style. There has to be a reason why it never worked.

[Stradling]

So Trout gets the advantages if he goes back in time but the players of yesteryear don't get those advantages if they played today? 

[YouthofToday]

On 4/5/2017 at 3:35 PM, WeatherWonk said:

Jayson Stark of ESPN speculates why great baseball players aren't nearly as "well-known" to the general public as basketball and football stars. He seems to be saying that baseball is in trouble due to this, for some reason. I pretty much disagree with his premise, to begin with, but agree about baseball being more of a team oriented sport that cant be dominated by single players. Just too many variables in baseball.

There is also some discussion as to why Mike Trout has not reached the popularity of Michael Jordan or Tom Brady. I think part of this is that many of the stars of basketball and football seem to find themselves in controversy, which gets reported, which gets noticed by the John Q. Public, which shows up in polls like the one in the article. Probably the most controversial thing Mike Trout has done is change lanes on the Orange Freeway without signaling, or something.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/19074938/where-all-mlb-superstars-gone

His most faulty premise is that he feels football and basketball are someplace that baseball should aspire to when, in fact, NBA attendance and viewing continues it's downward spiral and football has a huge white elephant in the room with the whole CTE thing. 

I like that baseball is a team thing first and individual players second. I sure hope Man-Freddy doesn't go ballistic over this article and start cramming stars down our throats. I like the laid-back demeanor of KB and Trout. Bryce is a bit much for me, at times, but the kid is young and I am pretty old at 64.

Should make for some good discussion.

I really liked Stark's article and generally agree with his premise. Baseball needs to change to match the expectations of the upcoming generation of fans. 

[Spirit]

11 hours ago, ettin said:

Fixed with the Sean Spicer exclamation added.

You know, if you want to add these political posts here, you're required to participate in the Political Forum. 

Required!!!

 

 

 

[stormngt]

On 4/6/2017 at 10:58 AM, Angels#1Fan said:

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.

Plus the best athletes during Ruth's time played baseball.  The best athletes today play basketball or football.   You can't objectively compare eras.  That is why I just look at theb f om

 

20 hours ago, Angel Oracle said:

I know there has been a lot of back and forth on what Sosh has meant for this org.   Heck, I've thrown out my fair share of critiques over the past several years. 

Two stats by the close of 2018 will stand out though, as promoting possible HOF induction down the road.

By then, he will be top 5 all time in managerial wins with one team, the others (Mack, McGraw, Alston, and Cox) are all in the HOF.   By then, he likely will have a better W/L % and for sure will have more wins than another HOF manager, Tommy Lasorda.   Currently, Sosh's winning % is at .541.   Lasorda's winning % was .526.  

 

On 4/6/2017 at 0:02 PM, 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. 

Please take into account that the best athletes in the USA today play basketball or football over baseball.  During Ruth's era baseball was the nation's dominant sport.

[Chuck]

Comparing Trout and Ruth is like apples and oranges IMO.

Two different eras and two different types of ball players.

IMHO, Ruth is one of the best, if not THE best sluggers/power hitters the game ever had. 

Trout is a more well rounded player who can do a lot of things to win a ball game. 

[Ohtaniland]

29 minutes ago, Chuckster70 said:

Comparing Trout and Ruth is like apples and oranges IMO.

Two different eras and two different types of ball players.

IMHO, Ruth is one of the best, if not THE best sluggers/power hitters the game ever had. 

Trout is a more well rounded player who can do a lot of things to win a ball game. 

Ruth said it best.

 

[Second Base]

Fine, don't take my word for it....take an actual major league manager's (and former hitting guru, and Yankees hitting coach) Kevin Long

"Honestly, I think it would’ve been tough for Ruth to succeed against that,” said Kevin Long, the Yankees’ hitting instructor. “I see too much movement in his stride, he’s hitting off his front foot. That’s OK only if you’re sitting on an 80-mph fastball or waiting on a curveball that only breaks on two [up and down] planes.”

Long went on to say “Hitters today have to be more centered because pitching has changed radically. The ball moves in so many different directions now. There isn’t time for all the movement Ruth had in his swing.”

How many successful major league hitters have hit off their front foot?  How many successful major league hitters have hit off their front foot while having as much movement in their swing as the Babe?  Hank Aaron was front foot hitter with a quiet swing and no hitch.  Ruth had a long swing with a big hitch and swung off his front foot, which isn't completely damning, but also doesn't look good.  And Long brings up a good point, 80 mph fastballs.

I mean what the frick would Ruth do with Aroldis Chapman's fastball, which is a solid 20+ mph harder than anything he is used to.  It's like stepping up from high school straight to the majors.  On top of which, Ruth never saw a slider, cut fastball or splitter as those hadn't even been invented yet.  Couple that with he fact that he played against very localized white guys (not the CA, TX, FL, GA powerhouse kids that are churned out every year) and you see that Ruth not only never saw the athletes there are today, he also never faced pitching as good as it is today.  

Then there's Curt Schilling, blow hard that he may be, he knows more about pitching and hitting a baseball than any of us.  He says Ruth wouldn't be anything more than an average hitter today.  You can also take into account Babe Ruth never once played under the lights, which adds an entirely new dimension this equation. 

Now granted, Ruth did have to deal with the "spitball", but as USC pitching coach Tom House has indicated, that works with a kid that throws 80, not 95.  So while the Babe dealt with movement, he never dealt with the type of movement or velocity you see today.  Then there are measurements that indicate the average MLB fastball velocity during Ruth's era was approximately 83 mph.  83.

So not playing against international competition or even as many players from powerhouse states, not playing against black, Dominican, Puerto Rican, or Japanese players, facing fastballs that are a solid 10 mph slower than your average major league pitch today, playing during an era where people were more concerned with making ends meet than playing ball, since it didn't pay as well, and actual professionals casting serious doubt as to how good Ruth would've been. 

I'm sorry but I don't see how the level of play Ruth was facing would've been much better than the So-Cal high school circuit (which is primed with hundreds of future major leaguers, but still just kids).  He put up great numbers against that competition, and he's an American hero. Would he have made the adjustments?  Undoubtedly, yes.  Babe Ruth would've adjusted to this level of play.  There's no doubt in my mind he would have.

But would Babe have been able to do anything with Kershaw or Chapman are throwing at him?  No, neither does anyone else really.  

And if it comes down to simply comparing Trout and Ruth, Trout is bigger, stronger, faster, refined against much better competition, has the advantage or training and nutrition, and playing his whole life.  Furthermore, put Trout in a timewarp and he's playing in the 1920's and 30's.  Those 83 mph fastballs are BP for Trout.  It wouldn't be a question of whether Trout would hit HR's, but more a question of where he'd hit them.  This is a guy that pinpoints his shots in BP, with regularity.  Then let's pretend that somehow, a pitcher manages to hold him to single.  How would they stop a freight train like him from stealing second and third base every single freakin' time?

Mike Trout is a better baseball player than Babe Ruth.

Now, give Ruth all of today's modern advantages and have him start playing from a very early age, then I think you're on to something.  But that's not the debate, and not really one I'd care to even investigate as there are just too many factors.

If it's just Mike Trout vs Babe Ruth, it's Mike Trout, and it isn't even close. 

 

[WeatherWonk]

Arguing Trout vs Ruth is a bit like arguments between atheists and believers in God. WHY?????? 

If someone wants to believe that the universe was created in six earth days, or that Noah corralled all living beasts into an ark, or that Ruth was inferior to today's players, how is one to prove/ refute it? It can't be done.

[Blarg]

4 hours ago, Scotty@AW said:

Fine, don't take my word for it....take an actual major league manager's (and former hitting guru, and Yankees hitting coach) Kevin Long

"Honestly, I think it would’ve been tough for Ruth to succeed against that,” said Kevin Long, the Yankees’ hitting instructor. “I see too much movement in his stride, he’s hitting off his front foot. That’s OK only if you’re sitting on an 80-mph fastball or waiting on a curveball that only breaks on two [up and down] planes.”

Long went on to say “Hitters today have to be more centered because pitching has changed radically. The ball moves in so many different directions now. There isn’t time for all the movement Ruth had in his swing.”

How many successful major league hitters have hit off their front foot?  How many successful major league hitters have hit off their front foot while having as much movement in their swing as the Babe?  Hank Aaron was front foot hitter with a quiet swing and no hitch.  Ruth had a long swing with a big hitch and swung off his front foot, which isn't completely damning, but also doesn't look good.  And Long brings up a good point, 80 mph fastballs.

I mean what the frick would Ruth do with Aroldis Chapman's fastball, which is a solid 20+ mph harder than anything he is used to.  It's like stepping up from high school straight to the majors.  On top of which, Ruth never saw a slider, cut fastball or splitter as those hadn't even been invented yet.  Couple that with he fact that he played against very localized white guys (not the CA, TX, FL, GA powerhouse kids that are churned out every year) and you see that Ruth not only never saw the athletes there are today, he also never faced pitching as good as it is today.  

Then there's Curt Schilling, blow hard that he may be, he knows more about pitching and hitting a baseball than any of us.  He says Ruth wouldn't be anything more than an average hitter today.  You can also take into account Babe Ruth never once played under the lights, which adds an entirely new dimension this equation. 

Now granted, Ruth did have to deal with the "spitball", but as USC pitching coach Tom House has indicated, that works with a kid that throws 80, not 95.  So while the Babe dealt with movement, he never dealt with the type of movement or velocity you see today.  Then there are measurements that indicate the average MLB fastball velocity during Ruth's era was approximately 83 mph.  83.

So not playing against international competition or even as many players from powerhouse states, not playing against black, Dominican, Puerto Rican, or Japanese players, facing fastballs that are a solid 10 mph slower than your average major league pitch today, playing during an era where people were more concerned with making ends meet than playing ball, since it didn't pay as well, and actual professionals casting serious doubt as to how good Ruth would've been. 

I'm sorry but I don't see how the level of play Ruth was facing would've been much better than the So-Cal high school circuit (which is primed with hundreds of future major leaguers, but still just kids).  He put up great numbers against that competition, and he's an American hero. Would he have made the adjustments?  Undoubtedly, yes.  Babe Ruth would've adjusted to this level of play.  There's no doubt in my mind he would have.

But would Babe have been able to do anything with Kershaw or Chapman are throwing at him?  No, neither does anyone else really.  

And if it comes down to simply comparing Trout and Ruth, Trout is bigger, stronger, faster, refined against much better competition, has the advantage or training and nutrition, and playing his whole life.  Furthermore, put Trout in a timewarp and he's playing in the 1920's and 30's.  Those 83 mph fastballs are BP for Trout.  It wouldn't be a question of whether Trout would hit HR's, but more a question of where he'd hit them.  This is a guy that pinpoints his shots in BP, with regularity.  Then let's pretend that somehow, a pitcher manages to hold him to single.  How would they stop a freight train like him from stealing second and third base every single freakin' time?

Mike Trout is a better baseball player than Babe Ruth.

Now, give Ruth all of today's modern advantages and have him start playing from a very early age, then I think you're on to something.  But that's not the debate, and not really one I'd care to even investigate as there are just too many factors.

If it's just Mike Trout vs Babe Ruth, it's Mike Trout, and it isn't even close. 

 

I don't think you understand just how wrong your entire argument is. Mike Trout is not changing the way the game is played. That makes him the lesser of the two players. There was no singular player that made a bigger impact on the game than Ruth. Trout can win 10 more MVPs and he still isn't changing the game as it is played. 

You can keep yapping about Trouts physical skills but in 80 years he is not going to be the name of the player that changed baseball. Just one of the greats that played the game and was the best of his era.

[Second Base]

13 hours ago, Blarg said:

I don't think you understand just how wrong your entire argument is. Mike Trout is not changing the way the game is played. That makes him the lesser of the two players. There was no singular player that made a bigger impact on the game than Ruth. Trout can win 10 more MVPs and he still isn't changing the game as it is played. 

You can keep yapping about Trouts physical skills but in 80 years he is not going to be the name of the player that changed baseball. Just one of the greats that played the game and was the best of his era.

You read that entire thing and that's what you took away? Holy crap. Reading comprehension.

[Chuck]

The real question is this. 

How would Babe do against the pitchers, ballpark dimensions, better defensive players today, vs. how would Trout do against the same competition that Babe played against during his day.

I would put my $$$ on Trout having an even better career to date in Babe's era than Babe would do nowadays. 

[Blarg]

No that's not the question. The question which player is more of an impact in their era. Everything else is noise.

[Stradling]

1 hour ago, Blarg said:

No that's not the question. The question which player is more of an impact in their era. Everything else is noise.

Was that Scotty's original point?  I don't even remember.  Obviously if that was his point then it is obviously the Babe.