OT: Mike Trout

[Tom McAndrew]

I heard that when Ruth played balls that hooked foul after passing inside the foul pole were counted as foul balls. He would have had a lot more HRs.

that's correct. I believe it was 1931 or 1932 when the rule was changed.

other oddities regarding home runs:

- until 1931, what we now call a ground-rule double was a home run
- until the mid-1920s, what we now call a walk-off HR was recorded as a single, double, or triple if there was a player (or players) on base. The hitter was awarded what was considered sufficient to score the winning run by the base runner

 

[LafayetteBear]

I heard that when Ruth played balls that hooked foul after passing inside the foul pole were counted as foul balls. He would have had a lot more HRs.

Really?! Never heard that before. Wonder if it is true. If it is, it makes me wonder why they would even have a foul pole. Wouldn't they just wait to see where the ball ultimately landed, and make the call based on that?

Edit: I now see Tom's post about this rule. I still don't see why foul poles were deemed necessary, then. Perhaps to facilitate the home plate umpire's assessment of whether a ball landed in fair or foul territory?

 

[WDLion]

While I disagree that Ruth is the GOAT, I think he would have been a star even today. Hitting ability in baseball is much more a skill than it is a function of athletic prowess. Yeah, hitting for power requires some physical strength, but the hand-eye coordination and reflexes needed for making instantaneous decisions on which pitches to swing at, and for making consistent contact with the baseball, are more an innate skill that comes in all body sizes and shapes.

If we were comparing football or basketball players from the 1920's with today's football or basketball players, I think your argument would carry more force. IMHO, the pure physicality in football and basketball distinguishes much more significantly the 1920's player from the modern player.

IMO The difference in pitching today is like night and day.

 

[Ceasar]

How is talent diluted? In the 20s the talent pool consisted of less than 25% of white America. There was very little organized baseball. Most High Schools didn't have teams. The majority of kids never owned a bat, ball or glove.
The talent pool today has to be 30-35 times what it was in the 20s.

Well, more people today play football, basketball, soccer, hockey. Guys are jumping from college to MLB in less than a year whereas not to long ago most kids spent 5+ years in the minors learning to play the game, make contact, advance runners. I would argue the mere fact that kids are rushed to MLB is an indicator the talent is diluted.

 

[bdgan]

IMO The difference in pitching today is like night and day.

Speaking of pitching, Babe Ruth started 38 games in 1917 and he completed 35.

Cy Young started 815 games in his career and completed 749.

Last year's MLB complete games leader had 5.

 

[ILLINOISLION]

IMO The difference in pitching today is like night and day.

Speaking of night and day.....were most games played in daylight “way back when”? I’ve never seen any discussion of that anywhere / anytime.

I can’t imagine how poor the lighting must have been if / when they had night games.

 

[WDLion]

Speaking of pitching, Babe Ruth started 38 games in 1917 and he completed 35.

Cy Young started 815 games in his career and completed 749.

Last year's MLB complete games leader had 5.

I have no clue what that has to do with the quality of the pitching.

 

[MJG-90]

But that said, do we accept it as fact that facing Cristy Matthewson or Cy Young or Bob Gibson or Tom Seaver in the 8th or 9th inning is preferable to facing Jonathon Papplebon of Adam Warren? I would not assume that.

Sure but you're pulling out the best of the best starting pitchers of all time (not from 1923) and comparing them to a couple of middle of the road relievers. Would you want to face Goose Gossage in his prime? Bruce Sutter? Dennis Eckersley?

If you want to compare all of the other starters from back in the day to Papplebon or Warren, I'll take Papplebon or Warren almost every time though. And that's the point.

 

[olelion]

Give WAR a chance

 

[LionJim]

In 1923 Ruth batted .393 with 41 HR's, 141 RBI's, 205 hits, 170 walks and 155 runs scored. His OBP was .545.

I like Trout, but Ruth's numbers are off the chart.

Go look at the American League stats in 1923, or, better yet, from 1921-1924. The numbers are inflated across the board.

 

[rohrmd9]

I think it’s too hard to compare players from different eras. Ruth and Trout were/are both damn good at baseball. Ruth is listed at or near the top of most people’s lists. Where everyone thinks Trout ends up among the perceived GOAT candidates remains to be seen...he’s only in his mid-20s! But to get back to the OPs point....you can still see Trout play so go see him.

 

[bdgan]

I think it’s too hard to compare players from different eras. Ruth and Trout were/are both damn good at baseball. Ruth is listed at or near the top of most people’s lists. Where everyone thinks Trout ends up among the perceived GOAT candidates remains to be seen...he’s only in his mid-20s! But to get back to the OPs point....you can still see Trout play so go see him.

Agree it's difficult to compare players from different areas. Remember, they played fewer games back then.

One thing you can do is compare how players dominated when they played. In 1921 Ruth had 59 HRs and all MLB teams combined had 937. Last year Trout had 32 HRs and all MLB players combined had 6,105. Ruth dominated his era more than any modern day player dominates today.

 

[artsandletters]

after his 3 for 4 game last night, Trout is currently at a 5.5 WAR according to Baseball Reference

the highest single season total in baseball history is Babe Ruths 1923 total of 14.1 WAR

Trout has currently played in all 61 Angels games. At his current pace, if he plays 155 games this year, he will sit at a total of 13.97 WAR (not sure if that gets rounded up or not)

If he plays in 162, at his pace he would achieve a WAR of 14.6

if you have the chance, make sure you watch this kid play... he may just be the best ever

Jersey boy.

 

[Relayer]

Go look at the American League stats in 1923, or, better yet, from 1921-1924. The numbers are inflated across the board.

My point is Trout has this WAR statistic that's better than Ruth's 1923 season. Yet, Trout's overall projected stats are not even close and he will most likely will play 8 more games to compile those stats.

 

[Aardvark86]

I have been calculating a home brew offensive stat that I call bases advanced per plate appearance. It is all based advanced regardless of cause, plus steals, minus caught stealing or pickoffs, divided by total plate appearances. He’s at like 1.2, which is about a full tenth better than anybody else - Harper, Blackmon, goldschmidt, etc.

 

[Raffycorn]

I have been calculating a home brew offensive stat that I call bases advanced per plate appearance. It is all based advanced regardless of cause, plus steals, minus caught stealing or pickoffs, divided by total plate appearances. He’s at like 1.2, which is about a full tenth better than anybody else - Harper, Blackmon, goldschmidt, etc.

I really like that - it gives players like Trout credit for value added as a baserunner for things other than steals. Trout’s as good as almost anyone at going from first to third.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

But you must also acknowledge that the population of the country has also increased by a larger percentage than the number of MLB players in the last 95 years. It has almost tripled. 112 million to 327 million.

In 1923 there were 16 teams. Now there are 30. So, even with the expanded rosters, the percentages are not equal. Then, you have to reduce the 1923 population to account for those who were not allowed to play. And you need to expand the 2018 population to other countries like the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Japan, etc. See what I'm getting at?

Then taking a stab at your pitching argument, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, teams roll out 5 man rotations, specialized bullpens and a much larger array of pitches. Nobody is facing a tired arm anymore. The homeruns are probably more the result of better baseballs and closer fences than bad pitching.

I appreciate your logical approach. I do wonder how many people were playing baseball in the Dominican Republic, Japan, Venezuela and other countries in 1923 that are currently laden with talent. My guess is not many and they were not MLB ready.

 

[MJG-90]

I appreciate your logical approach. I do wonder how many people were playing baseball in the Dominican Republic, Japan, Venezuela and other countries in 1923 that are currently laden with talent. My guess is not many and they were not MLB ready.

Sure. But my post is arguing that current rosters are not diluted because there are way more people to choose from now. How many people were playing in other countries in 1923 is irrelevant unless they were eligible to play.

 

[delcoLion]

Ruth’s position is weakened, though, by his competition. The fact alone that Major League Baseball wouldn’t allow some of the all-time greats compete alongside Ruth means that Ruth never truly faced the cream of the crop of his era.

Yes, but, they didn't face him, either. This goes both ways, IMHO.

 

[delcoLion]

Speaking of night and day.....were most games played in daylight “way back when”? I’ve never seen any discussion of that anywhere / anytime.

I can’t imagine how poor the lighting must have been if / when they had night games.

Night baseball in the majors began in the mid-1930s. I don't think it became prevalent until the 50s.

I think the consensus belief is that hitting is better in the daylight. I think that's why more offense occurred at Wrigley, although the winds are blamed mostly.

 

[Nittany.Lion]

Agree it's difficult to compare players from different areas. Remember, they played fewer games back then.

One thing you can do is compare how players dominated when they played. In 1921 Ruth had 59 HRs and all MLB teams combined had 937. Last year Trout had 32 HRs and all MLB players combined had 6,105. Ruth dominated his era more than any modern day player dominates today.

This could validate that the level of competition wasn't comparable to what it is today.... how many 95+ mph fastballs did ruth face in his day?

 

[Aardvark86]

I really like that - it gives players like Trout credit for value added as a baserunner for things other than steals. Trout’s as good as almost anyone at going from first to third.

Precisely. And when you do the work to actually calculate this, which is heavily manual, you realize what an incredible baserunner he truly is. Another player like that -- though not nearly as good as Trout -- is Ryan Zimmerman. Just always makes the right baserunning decisions.

The other thing I like about the stat is that it teases out the significant value of seemingly "disruptive" players, and that is what I was initially curious about. When you look at a guy like Trea Turner (I'm a Nats fan), you will find that his BAPPA is nearly as high (currently round 1.0) as the elite players in the league.

 

[PSUcup1]

Just thought I’d bump this

In his last 8 games, Trout has made 7 outs .... And his OPS is over 2.000 during that stretch

 

[ericstratton-rushchairman]

PLUS a Baby Ruth tastes better than a trout!

That is wicked funny

 

[Chickenman Testa]

Jersey boy.

Big fan of the Super Bowl Champion Philadelphia Eagles

 

[royboy]

Of all of Trout's great stats, one is kind of unfortunate:

23 HRs and only 48 RBIs -- guys are just not getting on base ahead of him.

 

[Mister Magoo]

Gm 6 1963 Finals. Lakers vs Celtics.


Here's a video for the geezers. It's a different sport. Basketball.
But, it's 40 years after the Bambino went to NY. The difference
in athleticism is laughable compared to the modern player. The
same holds true for baseball. Nothing athletically was better 100
years. Nor, even in the same continent.

 

[scueng77]

It’s baseball. Zzzzzzzzzzzz.....

 

[harbest]

So, you're saying baseball in 1923 is better than it is right now?
Hard to take you seriously.

Expansion has watered down the game, especially in pitching. When Ruth played, there were only 8 teas in each league. Figure each team carries at least 10 pitchers, Ruth theoretically faced at worst the 70th worst pitcher of his era. With today's expansion, you've got some pitchers in the majors today who should be in A or AA. Look at how any teams today are looking for pitching. Ruth's record of 60 HR'S lasted until 1961 which coincidentally was the first year of expansion in the AL.

 

[OKC Nittany]

Ruth’s position is weakened, though, by his competition. The fact alone that Major League Baseball wouldn’t allow some of the all-time greats compete alongside Ruth means that Ruth never truly faced the cream of the crop of his era.

While MLB doesn't get a pass, Ruth certainly does. He was suspended for the first five weeks of the '22 season for barnstorming against the Negro Leagues.

I have no idea where to find his numbers in Cuba, but he dominated in Japan. 13 HRs in 18 games. It's a small sample size against the Negro League too, but equally as impressive. Per Bill Jenkinson: " in the sixteen games for which we have documentation, Babe went 25 for 54 with eleven home runs." Judy Johnson was quoted saying “We could never seem to get him out no matter what we did.”

He not only faced the cream of the crop, he demolished them - regardless of league or location.

 

[Rollin Stone]

Also a Nats fan, a friend posed this question the other day.

Would you trade Bryce Harper and Steven Strasburg for Mike Trout?

Interesting because of free agency and signing potential of each of the players.

 

[lj4heisman1]

he wasnt taking now vs then, he was talking about Ruth's competition in that era. the claims that he wasnt playing against the best players, and I asked how he knew he wasnt playing against the best players.
Now all that said, I dont care the era, when someone hits 714 hr, hits .342, and has 90+ career wins as a pitcher, we can talk, okay. Everybody else is fighting for second.

Batting average: .342
Home runs: 714
Hits: 2,873
RBI: 2,213
Pitching W/L record: 94-46
ERA: 2.28

I agree it isruth and then everone else

 

[LemonEars]

Also a Nats fan, a friend posed this question the other day.

Would you trade Bryce Harper and Steven Strasburg for Mike Trout?

Interesting because of free agency and signing potential of each of the players.

I would never trade Trout for Harper and Strasburg. Strasburg is almost always hurt and Harper is about half as good as Trout. Scherzer and Harper for Trout might be something to think about except Scherzer is 33 years old, so that wouldn't fly either.

 

[2PBC22]

I find it very hard to compare talent in different generations. Today, I think it’s very hard to be an outlier with the internet, recruiting, and all the training available. I’d imagine most mlb players are doing similar training with small tweaks here and there. 70 years ago, there was less standardization and natural talent played a bigger role. Place Trout back then and he could have been a beast. Likewise, Ruth probably would have been good today, but everybody now is centered around a normal distribution.

 

[PSU Dave]

after his 3 for 4 game last night, Trout is currently at a 5.5 WAR according to Baseball Reference

the highest single season total in baseball history is Babe Ruths 1923 total of 14.1 WAR

Trout has currently played in all 61 Angels games. At his current pace, if he plays 155 games this year, he will sit at a total of 13.97 WAR (not sure if that gets rounded up or not)

If he plays in 162, at his pace he would achieve a WAR of 14.6

if you have the chance, make sure you watch this kid play... he may just be the best ever