|
Post by islandboagie on Mar 8, 2014 12:45:29 GMT -5
But even if he hadn't used steriods, I can't pick him over Joe D. or even Ty Cobb or maybe Rogers Hornsby.
Was Bonds a better hitter than Cobb? Or Hornsby, or even Musial?
Boagie- Power-wise, yes. Before '99 Bonds had already amassed more homeruns than any of the players mentioned. None of the players even surpassed 500.
Stolen bases, Bonds beats them all except Cobb. But Cobb only had 117 homeruns.
Average-wise, clearly the averages back then were much higher than they are now. Which tells me most pitchers back then didn't throw as hard. Which is why it's difficult to compare players from different eras.
Prior to the '50s I believe the competition was thin. Which is why we see Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth's ridiculous numbers. Clearly they were men amongst boys.
|
|
|
Post by islandboagie on Mar 8, 2014 12:48:17 GMT -5
Boly- Now throw in that today, ballplayers train all year long. They have so much video to watch and study.
Taken IN CONTEXT, that makes what Stan and Ty and Rogers accomplished, in my eyes, much larger than what Barry did.
Boagie- That would make sense if the players that Bonds played against weren't studying the same videos.
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Mar 9, 2014 10:55:47 GMT -5
Boly- Now throw in that today, ballplayers train all year long. They have so much video to watch and study.
Taken IN CONTEXT, that makes what Stan and Ty and Rogers accomplished, in my eyes, much larger than what Barry did.
Boagie- That would make sense if the players that Bonds played against weren't studying the same videos.
---boly says----
Boagie, it still makes sense. Bonds simply has more natural talent than they do.
Now, throw in modern medicine and training techniques and equipment, and for me at least, the picture becomes a lot clearer as to why Bonds has such bigger numbers.
And as to throwing harder, I would disagree.
When I was vying for a major league contract in the mid 1960's... the ONLY players being signed were guys that could flat out bring it. And it had been that way for quite a while.
boly
|
|
|
Post by islandboagie on Mar 9, 2014 13:51:17 GMT -5
I'm sorry, Boly. I usually agree with you, so when I don't I feel bad. But your argument isn't logical.
Being able to watch video and researching the numbers gives a hitter like Bonds a disadvantage compared to players before all that information was available. I'm fairly certain pitchers who were up against Bonds studied videos and hit charts more than Bonds studied each pitcher.
Also, pitchers are far more groomed to pitch to major leaguers than they were back in the era when numerous hitters regularly hit over .400. That's obvious just from the numbers. Or are you just going to claim all those hitters who hit .400 were better hitters than everyone since those eras?
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 9, 2014 20:58:22 GMT -5
Boly -- And as to throwing harder, I would disagree. When I was vying for a major league contract in the mid 1960's... the ONLY players being signed were guys that could flat out bring it. And it had been that way for quite a while. Rog -- When in baseball history have their been so many pitchers who can throw in the high 90's? I remember back -- and not all THAT far back -- when the average fastball was around 88. Now it's around 90 or 91. How many splits and cutters were thrown when we were kids? I know I certainly hadn't heard of them. With bigger, faster and stronger, why WOULDN'T pitchers throw harder now? Heck, even curmudgeon Ty Cobb admitted the game had improved. When asked what he would hit against (then) modern-day pitchers, Ty admitted he would hit only about .300. Since his career average was a best-ever .367, his interviewer asked if he surely wouldn't have hit more. "You've got to remember," explained Ty, "I'm 65 years old." Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2196/super-stars?page=2#ixzz2vWKvt6nF
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 9, 2014 22:24:04 GMT -5
Boagie -- Or are you just going to claim all those hitters who hit .400 were better hitters than everyone since those eras? Rog -- Most .400 hitting was done in the dead ball era. Batters swung for contact and thus put the ball in play more. Fielders didn't have as much range, less was known about how to position for various hitters, and the gloves weren't nearly as good as today. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2196/super-stars?page=2&scrollTo=19159#ixzz2vWhWNEhp
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Mar 10, 2014 16:41:13 GMT -5
Boagie -- Or are you just going to claim all those hitters who hit .400 were better hitters than everyone since those eras? Rog -- Most .400 hitting was done in the dead ball era. Batters swung for contact and thus put the ball in play more. Fielders didn't have as much range, less was known about how to position for various hitters, and the gloves weren't nearly as good as today. dk...Rog, I don't know what fielders you were talking about, but they have to be way before my youth....there is very little difference in the range of the '30's fielders and the ones today..as far as knowing how to play hitters, no difference at all...players kept books on hitters and the "mind" is a computer without power cords or batteries.....the gloves have changed for the better, but the expensive ones weren't much different than today's models...the biggest difference is in catcher's equipment....
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 11, 2014 9:13:50 GMT -5
Don -- there is very little difference in the range of the '30's fielders and the ones today..as far as knowing how to play hitters, no difference at all...players kept books on hitters and the "mind" is a computer without power cords or batteries..... Rog -- Today's players are faster overall than those of 80 years ago. They have spray charts available that pinpoint where hitters hit the ball, broken down by pitcher and type of pitcher and showing the most recent data. The use of shifts is far more prevalent and does impact the hitter's ability to get a hit. The mind is quite a bit different than a computer in that the mind can understand far more than 0 and 1, but it does so at almost infinitessimal speed compared to the computer. Don -- the gloves have changed for the better, but the expensive ones weren't much different than today's models...the biggest difference is in catcher's equipment.... Rog -- The gloves I've seen from the 30's or so weren't very good. But if you say they were indeed as good or close to it, the fielders just weren't nearly as good back then. They made far more errors -- more than any changes in score keeping would have produced. I continue to be amazed at how much we glamorize the sports of our youths. They simply weren't as good as we remember them. The players weren't truly larger than life, but we were young and small, and they seemed bigger than life. If one looks at the error curve over baseball's history, he sees that there has been a decline to about a fifth as many errors are originally. Part of that is the gloves; part of that is the fielders are better; part is better positioning. The ball is being hit harder (although not nearly as often), yet the fielders are handling it better than in the past. Today's fielders are simply better. They get to balls that wouldn't have been reached in the past, and they handle them better once they do. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2196/super-stars?page=2#ixzz2vfA4mIjT
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 11, 2014 9:39:49 GMT -5
In answer to the question as to whether Barry Bonds was a better hitter than Cobb or Hornsby or Musial, there is evidence that he was. Not absolutely conclusive evidence, but impressive evidence.
Barry's OPS+ of 182 is the third-highest ever, behind only Babe Ruth and Ted Williams. Hornsby was close, placing 5th at 175; Cobb was 9th, at 168; and Musial was 15th at 159.
Without steroids I believe the others were better than Barry, but the steroid-aided Bonds put up seasons that could be challenged by only Ruth. Bonds was a great hitter who was made superhuman by steroids.
If we want to see just how good Barry was, take a look at his homers in AT&T. You know how Mike Krukow (overly IMO) says that a player got "AT&T'd?" Barry just hit the ball right through the obstacles.
I know I personally have never seen a hitter who was CLOSE to the steroid-aided Bonds. I don't think anyone else here has, either.
Just in the 2002, 2003 and 2004 season, Bonds was intentionally walked 249 times. Only four other players have reached that total in their entire CAREER.
Intentional walks weren't recorded in Babe Ruth's time. But in only 10 of his seasons did Babe walk overall more than the 120 times Barry was walked INTENTIONALLY in 2004. In each case Babe led the American League.
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Mar 11, 2014 14:16:26 GMT -5
Don -- there is very little difference in the range of the '30's fielders and the ones today..as far as knowing how to play hitters, no difference at all...players kept books on hitters and the "mind" is a computer without power cords or batteries..... Rog -- Today's players are faster overall than those of 80 years ago. They have spray charts available that pinpoint where hitters hit the ball, broken down by pitcher and type of pitcher and showing the most recent data. The use of shifts is far more prevalent and does impact the hitter's ability to get a hit. The mind is quite a bit different than a computer in that the mind can understand far more than 0 and 1, but it does so at almost infinitessimal speed compared to the computer. Don -- the gloves have changed for the better, but the expensive ones weren't much different than today's models...the biggest difference is in catcher's equipment.... Rog -- The gloves I've seen from the 30's or so weren't very good. But if you say they were indeed as good or close to it, the fielders just weren't nearly as good back then. They made far more errors -- more than any changes in score keeping would have produced. I continue to be amazed at how much we glamorize the sports of our youths. They simply weren't as good as we remember them. The players weren't truly larger than life, but we were young and small, and they seemed bigger than life. If one looks at the error curve over baseball's history, he sees that there has been a decline to about a fifth as many errors are originally. Part of that is the gloves; part of that is the fielders are better; part is better positioning. The ball is being hit harder (although not nearly as often), yet the fielders are handling it better than in the past. Today's fielders are simply better. They get to balls that wouldn't have been reached in the past, and they handle them better once they do. dk..once more Rog digs into the stats and makes a l call on something he can only read about...one of the big difference today is that they rake the infield after every three innings..or anytime the field is scuffed up....they raked the field in the old days prior to a game..and that was it...I don't glamorize anything from my youth...my youth was a terrible time with the Hoover depression and the tough time growing up among the have nots of the country and being flooded with debt because health insurance was not available...there is a real bent for people to feel that times, and man, have improved...maybe the wars have brought about big technical changes, but man is very little changed ...Jessie Owens running today would still be a winner providing he was racing on the same tracks and with the same new equipment that has enabled todays so called bigger and faster men to cut his 100 meter time by a fraction of a second....people have grown bigger but that has little effect on baseball, except for the modern players spending more time on the DL and giving up double headers because they get too tired... Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2196/super-stars?page=2#ixzz2vfA4mIjT
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Mar 11, 2014 14:23:36 GMT -5
In answer to the question as to whether Barry Bonds was a better hitter than Cobb or Hornsby or Musial, there is evidence that he was. Not absolutely conclusive evidence, but impressive evidence. Barry's OPS+ of 182 is the third-highest ever, behind only Babe Ruth and Ted Williams. Hornsby was close, placing 5th at 175; Cobb was 9th, at 168; and Musial was 15th at 159. Without steroids I believe the others were better than Barry, but the steroid-aided Bonds put up seasons that could be challenged by only Ruth. Bonds was a great hitter who was made superhuman by steroids. If we want to see just how good Barry was, take a look at his homers in AT&T. You know how Mike Krukow (overly IMO) says that a player got "AT&T'd?" Barry just hit the ball right through the obstacles. I know I personally have never seen a hitter who was CLOSE to the steroid-aided Bonds. I don't think anyone else here has, either. Just in the 2002, 2003 and 2004 season, Bonds was intentionally walked 249 times. Only four other players have reached that total in their entire CAREER. Intentional walks weren't recorded in Babe Ruth's time. But in only 10 of his seasons did Babe walk overall more than the 120 times Barry was walked INTENTIONALLY in 2004. In each case Babe led the American League. dk...maybe men were men back then and walking someone was taboo...although I saw Ott get the IBB 3 times after hitting a homer...but it is also possible that Ruth preferred to hit the ball and thought nothing about the strike zone..but he wanted to win and how many rings did he win compared to Bonds....and would you walk Ruth to pitch to Gehrig...name your poison ..and neither of them were on drugs....
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 12, 2014 2:48:45 GMT -5
dk..once more Rog digs into the stats and makes a l call on something he can only read about... Rog -- You brought up the 1930's, but the original context of this post was .400 hitters. I mentioned that most of them came a long time ago, and indeed all but one of the 28 .400 seasons came after 1930. If you want to include the entire 1930's and after, Bill Terry's .400 came in 1930 and Ted Williams' .406 was in 1941. So, yeah, most of the .400 seasons came over 80 years ago. Don -- one of the big difference today is that they rake the infield after every three innings..or anytime the field is scuffed up....they raked the field in the old days prior to a game..and that was it... Rog -- Which is another reason it was easier to get hits and errors back in the 1930's. Along with lesser gloves, poorer positioning, fewer overshifts and slower players. Don -- I don't glamorize anything from my youth... Rog -- Possibly the baseball players. Don -- my youth was a terrible time with the Hoover depression and the tough time growing up among the have nots of the country and being flooded with debt because health insurance was not available...there is a real bent for people to feel that times, and man, have improved...maybe the wars have brought about big technical changes, but man is very little changed ... Rog -- I think man is worse (ethically), and life from my youth (about 20 years after yours) is both better and worse. Worse in that things are far more complicated and happen with breakneck speed, and better because of technological advances we couldn't even have dreamed about as kids. Don -- Jessie Owens running today would still be a winner providing he was racing on the same tracks and with the same new equipment that has enabled todays so called bigger and faster men to cut his 100 meter time by a fraction of a second.... Rog -- You have no way of knowing that. My guess is that Hussein Bolt would be faster, but I'm guessing just as you are. Perhaps the reason is that I realize I am guessing at something which is beyond both your ability and mine to judge. It might be possible now or soon for someone to evaluate that scientifically, but you nor I are able to do so. Don -- people have grown bigger but that has little effect on baseball, except for the modern players spending more time on the DL and giving up double headers because they get too tired... Rog -- All other things being equal, Don, being bigger IS better. A hitter gets more leverage, and a pitcher gets to pitch downhill similarly to the way the pitchers did until the year of the pitcher when the mound was lower. The combination of size and agility is much better than it used to be, which if nothing else, helps in fielding. Notice the big shortstops we see today as compared to the past? As for giving up on double headers, how can you say the PLAYERS gave up on them, when clearly it has been an economic move by the teams? Don, you DO have some good ideas here -- and a better knowledge of baseball history than just about any of us. But why do you make a statement such as the players' giving up on double headers because they get too tired? How much do you think the players had to do with that? If anything, my guess is that they would like more double headers so they could have more days off. Whereas the owners like having 162 paydays as opposed to 150 or 155. As a kid I LOVED double headers. Now, on the rare occasions when they DO have them, they are usually day/night affairs with separate admissions. Hey, I don't want to upset you, but I have too much respect for you not to wonder why you sometimes make comments that don't seem to be well thought out. On the other hand -- and please don't take this the wrong way -- I have tremendous respect for how sharp you are at your age. I have a feeling that 20 years from now we will be speaking of this era of baseball as another golden one. Mike Trout has a chance to become as good as any player ever. He hits, hits with power, gets on base, fields and is thus far one of the best base runners ever. And the guy's entering his 22-year-old season. I don't think any player -- not even Mel Ott, who was certainly fabulous at a young age -- has been as good as quickly as Trout. I think Mike has a chance to be thought of in Mays-ian terms. In his age 20 and 21 seasons, Mike has finished 2nd in the MVP voting in each of his two full seasons. Many think he should have been #1 each year. Trout has already led the AL in runs each of his two seasons, led in steals once, led in stolen base percentage once, led in walks, and led in OPS+. What I doubt many here fully realize is Mike's base running prowess. Not only is his base stealing success rate nearly 88%, he took the extra base on something like 62% of all hits last season. He's been just a PHENOMENAL base runner. Now don't go saying I'm annointing Mike for the Hall of Fame. With just two full seasons, he's got a LONG way to go. But I don't think any player ever has had seasons as good at age 20 and 21 as Trout has. If we want to nit pick, he doesn't have the strongest arm, but at Mike's age another great player with a so-so at best arm whom we discuss a lot here was still in college. Babe Ruth was still a pitcher. Mickey Mantle had already missed 39 games in his first two full seasons. Willie Mays was in the army. Mel Ott had been playing since age 17 and was a marvelous player, but he had finished in the MVP voting only once (11th place), didn't run the bases or apparently field nearly as well as Trout, and had a career 17.9 Wins Above Replacement -- or less than the combined 20.1 WAR Trout put up in just his first two full seasons. I consider Ott to be the 3rd or 4th best right fielder ever -- and right field is a very strong position headed by Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron -- and I think Trout might well make an eventual argument as the best (and I would hate to admit this if it happens) center fielder ever. I'm certainly not annointing him that honor. Simply pointing out no other center fielder has ever gotten off to such a strong start. Another guy who would be considered a top right fielder if we considered right field to be his position would be Stan Musial. Stan played all three outfield positions and first base. He even pitched one game. In that game pitched, Stan faced one batter but pitched 0.0 innings. The batter he faced didn't get a hit, didn't walk, and didn't get hit by a pitch. What did that batter do? Back to today's great players, one can certainly make an argument for Trout, Clayton Kershaw and Craig Kimbrel as getting off to all-time best starts. An argument can also be made for Andrelton Simmons' getting off to the best fielding start of all time. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2196/super-stars?page=2#ixzz2vjDtqWEh
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 12, 2014 2:51:01 GMT -5
Don -- Intentional walks weren't recorded in Babe Ruth's time. But in only 10 of his seasons did Babe walk overall more than the 120 times Barry was walked INTENTIONALLY in 2004. In each case Babe led the American League. dk...maybe men were men back then and walking someone was taboo... Rog -- Are you saying that managers and players are wiser than they were back then? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2196/super-stars?page=2&scrollTo=19176#ixzz2vjUK7Vsl
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 12, 2014 2:53:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 12, 2014 2:58:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 14, 2014 13:39:07 GMT -5
Allen -- Bob Feller won 93 games in his first four full seasons. Rog -- Now that you brought it up, Allen, during those first four full seasons, Bob's numbers in ERA, WHIP, H/9, BB/9 and K/9 were shockingly similar to those of Jonathan Sanchez from his no-hitter in 2009 through the end of May, 2011. Innings pitched per game and won-loss record were quite different, but on an inning-for-inning basis, the two were indeed shockingly similar. You could look it up. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2196/super-stars#ixzz2vxo1fWXY
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 14, 2014 14:30:10 GMT -5
Difference in w-l though. Feller competed, Sanchez was basically a female body part.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 14, 2014 14:36:41 GMT -5
Sanchez is in his thirties and isn't half way to 93 wins. It isn't likely he'll win 50 ML games.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 14, 2014 16:36:40 GMT -5
Allen- Difference in w-l though. Feller competed, Sanchez was basically a female body part. Rog -- HUGE difference in won-loss record. Huge difference in run support, as well. Run support is as important a part of the equation as ERA. Bob's run support in those four seasons was 5.62, 5.77, 4.88 and 4.99. In order to have the same run differential, Jonathan would have needed to post an ERA below 2.00. I'm in now way trying to say Jonathan -- even in those peak two years -- was as good as Feller. He didn't pitch nearly as many innings. What I am trying to say and have pretty much proven is that inning-for-inning, Jonathan -- amazingly, I agree -- pitched very similarly to Bob -- including extrememly low hit rate and very high walk and strikeout rates. Let's look at an inconsistency in your argument that is as huge as the won-loss and run differential difference between the two. You chide Jonathan for walking about a batter every two innings, as if that alone caused him to be a "poor" pitcher. It certainly wasn't his very low hit rate or his very high strikeout rate. But what we see upon closer examination is that Bob himself posted a slightly HIGHER walk rate than Jonathan over their comparitive periods. We can see that Bob and Jonathan were eerily close in hit rate, walk rate and strikeout rate. We can see that their difference in won-loss record percentage was due far more to run support differential than to a difference in their inning-for-inning pitching. The only thing we can't rather equally compare the two is in innings pitched. Bob enjoyed a huge advantage there -- part reflective of the difference in the two eras, but a lot reflective of the difference in their stamina. My point isn't that Jonathan was as good as Bob. He wasn't. My point is that inning-for-inning the two were so close that your calling Jonathan "poor" is way off base. When you have a pitcher who goes just 13-12 -- very few wins and a record just barely over .500 -- winning the Cy Young Award, it is plain to see that most have become much smarter about the importance of won-loss record, realizing the pitcher has less than 50% control thereof. Just look at the salient facts and realize that from 2009 through 2011, Jonathan was far more an average pitcher than a poor one. Or, if you must, simply remain in denial. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2196/super-stars?page=2#ixzz2vyRJXHxF
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 14, 2014 16:42:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Mar 14, 2014 17:42:39 GMT -5
dk..once more Rog digs into the stats and makes a l call on something he can only read about... Rog -- You brought up the 1930's, but the original context of this post was .400 hitters. I mentioned that most of them came a long time ago, and indeed all but one of the 28 .400 seasons came after 1930. If you want to include the entire 1930's and after, Bill Terry's .400 came in 1930 and Ted Williams' .406 was in 1941. So, yeah, most of the .400 seasons came over 80 years ago. dk...hitters in the '30's and '40's choked the bat and went for basehits...Ichiro would fit in just right.... Don -- one of the big difference today is that they rake the infield after every three innings..or anytime the field is scuffed up....they raked the field in the old days prior to a game..and that was it... Rog -- Which is another reason it was easier to get hits and errors back in the 1930's. Along with lesser gloves, poorer positioning, fewer overshifts and slower players. dk...easier??? I wish you had been with me for a simple double header in the '40's when Lou Stringer and Bobby Sturgeon made play after play going into the hole or in back of second, you would never question the range of players of that era..... Don -- I don't glamorize anything from my youth... Rog -- Possibly the baseball players. dk...there were all kinds of players in those days and they didn't have to go to foreign shores to pad the roster...very few.... Don -- my youth was a terrible time with the Hoover depression and the tough time growing up among the have nots of the country and being flooded with debt because health insurance was not available...there is a real bent for people to feel that times, and man, have improved...maybe the wars have brought about big technical changes, but man is very little changed ... Rog -- I think man is worse (ethically), and life from my youth (about 20 years after yours) is both better and worse. Worse in that things are far more complicated and happen with breakneck speed, and better because of technological advances we couldn't even have dreamed about as kids. Don -- Jessie Owens running today would still be a winner providing he was racing on the same tracks and with the same new equipment that has enabled todays so called bigger and faster men to cut his 100 meter time by a fraction of a second.... Rog -- You have no way of knowing that. My guess is that Hussein Bolt would be faster, but I'm guessing just as you are. Perhaps the reason is that I realize I am guessing at something which is beyond both your ability and mine to judge. It might be possible now or soon for someone to evaluate that scientifically, but you nor I are able to do so. dk...please, Rog, just the advent of the starters blocks cut the time down...try running on cinders versus the modern tracks and try the new shoes and tell me there isn't a big difference.... Don -- people have grown bigger but that has little effect on baseball, except for the modern players spending more time on the DL and giving up double headers because they get too tired... Rog -- All other things being equal, Don, being bigger IS better. A hitter gets more leverage, and a pitcher gets to pitch downhill similarly to the way the pitchers did until the year of the pitcher when the mound was lower. The combination of size and agility is much better than it used to be, which if nothing else, helps in fielding. Notice the big shortstops we see today as compared to the past? dk...and we still have smaller players today that hit and field with the best....and the Giants of 2012 had more pitchers under 6' than the 1936 Giants.... As for giving up on double headers, how can you say the PLAYERS gave up on them, when clearly it has been an economic move by the teams? dk..probably.... Don, you DO have some good ideas here -- and a better knowledge of baseball history than just about any of us. But why do you make a statement such as the players' giving up on double headers because they get too tired? How much do you think the players had to do with that? If anything, my guess is that they would like more double headers so they could have more days off. dk...some catchers have trouble catching a day game after a night game....what would they do for DH? Whereas the owners like having 162 paydays as opposed to 150 or 155. As a kid I LOVED double headers. Now, on the rare occasions when they DO have them, they are usually day/night affairs with separate admissions. Hey, I don't want to upset you, but I have too much respect for you not to wonder why you sometimes make comments that don't seem to be well thought out. On the other hand -- and please don't take this the wrong way -- I have tremendous respect for how sharp you are at your age. I have a feeling that 20 years from now we will be speaking of this era of baseball as another golden one. Mike Trout has a chance to become as good as any player ever. He hits, hits with power, gets on base, fields and is thus far one of the best base runners ever. And the guy's entering his 22-year-old season. dk..as I warned before on getting Tim and Buster into the HOF before they had a career was wrong, there have been many young stars who burned out quickly.... I don't think any player -- not even Mel Ott, who was certainly fabulous at a young age -- has been as good as quickly as Trout. I think Mike has a chance to be thought of in Mays-ian terms. In his age 20 and 21 seasons, Mike has finished 2nd in the MVP voting in each of his two full seasons. Many think he should have been #1 each year. dk..Mel and Kaline and others came right out of school into the bigs... Trout has already led the AL in runs each of his two seasons, led in steals once, led in stolen base percentage once, led in walks, and led in OPS+. What I doubt many here fully realize is Mike's base running prowess. Not only is his base stealing success rate nearly 88%, he took the extra base on something like 62% of all hits last season. He's been just a PHENOMENAL base runner. Now don't go saying I'm annointing Mike for the Hall of Fame. With just two full seasons, he's got a LONG way to go. But I don't think any player ever has had seasons as good at age 20 and 21 as Trout has. If we want to nit pick, he doesn't have the strongest arm, but at Mike's age another great player with a so-so at best arm whom we discuss a lot here was still in college. Babe Ruth was still a pitcher. Mickey Mantle had already missed 39 games in his first two full seasons. Willie Mays was in the army. Mel Ott had been playing since age 17 and was a marvelous player, but he had finished in the MVP voting only once (11th place), didn't run the bases or apparently field nearly as well as Trout, and had a career 17.9 Wins Above Replacement -- or less than the combined 20.1 WAR Trout put up in just his first two full seasons. dk...everyone back in the day felt that Hub took a MVP away from Mel....Mel was the best fielding RF'er of his time...and he had one of the strongest throwing arm in baseball....and when the Giants needed him, he switched to 3B and won a pennant.... I consider Ott to be the 3rd or 4th best right fielder ever -- and right field is a very strong position headed by Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron -- and I think Trout might well make an eventual argument as the best (and I would hate to admit this if it happens) center fielder ever. I'm certainly not annointing him that honor. Simply pointing out no other center fielder has ever gotten off to such a strong start. Another guy who would be considered a top right fielder if we considered right field to be his position would be Stan Musial. Stan played all three outfield positions and first base. He even pitched one game. In that game pitched, Stan faced one batter but pitched 0.0 innings. The batter he faced didn't get a hit, didn't walk, and didn't get hit by a pitch. What did that batter do? dk...Stan started his pro career as a pitcher...if he hadn't hurt his arm, he might never made it to the bigs....and his throwing was poor for the outfield... Back to today's great players, one can certainly make an argument for Trout, Clayton Kershaw and Craig Kimbrel as getting off to all-time best starts. An argument can also be made for Andrelton Simmons' getting off to the best fielding start of all time. dk...and you could go back into the records and find many guys who started out big....like Pete Reiser.... Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2196/super-stars?page=2#ixzz2vjDtqWEh
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 14, 2014 18:39:00 GMT -5
dk...hitters in the '30's and '40's choked the bat and went for basehits. Rog -- And they succeeded to an extent. Year-by-year batting averages for MLB ranged from .270 to .296 in the 30's and from .256 to .267 in the non-war years of the 40's. Scoring in the 30's compared to that of the 2000's, while scoring in the 40's was similar to that of the present decade. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2196/super-stars?page=2#ixzz2vz09fbWs
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 14, 2014 18:40:17 GMT -5
Rog -- All other things being equal, Don, being bigger IS better. A hitter gets more leverage, and a pitcher gets to pitch downhill similarly to the way the pitchers did until the year of the pitcher when the mound was lower. The combination of size and agility is much better than it used to be, which if nothing else, helps in fielding. Notice the big shortstops we see today as compared to the past? dk...and we still have smaller players today that hit and field with the best....and the Giants of 2012 had more pitchers under 6' than the 1936 Giants.... Rog -- Don, your few exceptions tend to prove the rule. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2196/super-stars?page=2&scrollTo=19205#ixzz2vz2RdE42
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 14, 2014 18:43:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 14, 2014 18:45:30 GMT -5
Don -- Jessie Owens running today would still be a winner providing he was racing on the same tracks and with the same new equipment that has enabled todays so called bigger and faster men to cut his 100 meter time by a fraction of a second.... Rog -- You have no way of knowing that. My guess is that Hussein Bolt would be faster, but I'm guessing just as you are. Perhaps the reason is that I realize I am guessing at something which is beyond both your ability and mine to judge. It might be possible now or soon for someone to evaluate that scientifically, but you nor I are able to do so. dk...please, Rog, just the advent of the starters blocks cut the time down...try running on cinders versus the modern tracks and try the new shoes and tell me there isn't a big difference.... Rog -- As I said, you have no way of knowing. What we do know is that Hussein Bolt has moved toward the old 100 yard dash times -- while running the 100 meters. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2196/super-stars?page=2&scrollTo=19207#ixzz2vz3ae3le
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 14, 2014 18:48:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 14, 2014 18:52:28 GMT -5
Rog -- In that game pitched, Stan faced one batter but pitched 0.0 innings. The batter he faced didn't get a hit, didn't walk, and didn't get hit by a pitch. What did that batter do? dk...Stan started his pro career as a pitcher...if he hadn't hurt his arm, he might never made it to the bigs....and his throwing was poor for the outfield... Rog -- Did you answer the question? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2196/super-stars?page=2&scrollTo=19209#ixzz2vz5RQhTB
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 14, 2014 18:53:47 GMT -5
Rog -- Back to today's great players, one can certainly make an argument for Trout, Clayton Kershaw and Craig Kimbrel as getting off to all-time best starts. An argument can also be made for Andrelton Simmons' getting off to the best fielding start of all time. dk...and you could go back into the records and find many guys who started out big....like Pete Reiser.... Rog -- True. Very, very few of them started out as well as Trout, Kershaw or Kimbrel. You could look it up. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2196/super-stars?page=2&scrollTo=19210#ixzz2vz5mylJ2
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Mar 15, 2014 0:15:28 GMT -5
dk...in 1946, there were 46 pro leagues...and almost every town had a semi-pro team...that was a while lot of guys competing for a spot on 16 major league teams...
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 15, 2014 2:08:20 GMT -5
Talent pool was definitely smaller, but then there were a little over half as many spots available.16 teams vs. 30.
|
|