Is collecting modern cards a sickness?

[steve B]

So Trout is better because

A) He plays centerfield
B) The league overall is worse (If he dominates with the same numbers this must be true right? )

He's a great player, but comparing any stats leaves so much out. Base stuff on base percentage, and fancy stats, and you get the As. A good team that competes without a huge budget. But also a team that won't generally win a big series like playoffs. And since it's a fairly random collection of slightly above average guys the team won't draw fans.

Base it just on power and you get a team that's exciting, fills the stands, and costs a bundle and also usually won't win it all. (78 Red Sox)


One thing that everyone forgets about baserunning stats is that they're very dependent on the general outlook of most teams at the time. For a decent part of Mantles career the AL was led with <30 stolen bases. Things changed towards the end, but when he was younger AL players didn't really do much base stealing. Very early in his career the NL wasn't stealing many bases either. The attitude of the team towards stealing counts too. in his best year Mantle stole 21. Nobody else on the team even got double digits. The team total was 45. Trouts best year he had 49. But there were three other players on the team in double digits, and the team stole 134. 59 Yankees 45sb 22cs 2012 Angels 134sb 33cs. The Angels stole twice as many bases as the 59 Yankees even attempted. There aren't a lot of good ways to compare the two eras or teams.

Steve B

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by steve B

So Trout is better because

A) He plays centerfield
B) The league overall is worse (If he dominates with the same numbers this must be true right? )

He's a great player, but comparing any stats leaves so much out. Base stuff on base percentage, and fancy stats, and you get the As. A good team that competes without a huge budget. But also a team that won't generally win a big series like playoffs. And since it's a fairly random collection of slightly above average guys the team won't draw fans.

Base it just on power and you get a team that's exciting, fills the stands, and costs a bundle and also usually won't win it all. (78 Red Sox)


One thing that everyone forgets about baserunning stats is that they're very dependent on the general outlook of most teams at the time. For a decent part of Mantles career the AL was led with <30 stolen bases. Things changed towards the end, but when he was younger AL players didn't really do much base stealing. Very early in his career the NL wasn't stealing many bases either. The attitude of the team towards stealing counts too. in his best year Mantle stole 21. Nobody else on the team even got double digits. The team total was 45. Trouts best year he had 49. But there were three other players on the team in double digits, and the team stole 134. 59 Yankees 45sb 22cs 2012 Angels 134sb 33cs. The Angels stole twice as many bases as the 59 Yankees even attempted. There aren't a lot of good ways to compare the two eras or teams.

Steve B

I have heard the argument that Trout being better because the league is worse. This disregards the pitching and defense. It is making the assumption the pitching talent and defense is always the same.

You will never be able to compare straight stats for players playing against different players, but you can compare their dominance in the league for the time they played. That is what I attempt to show.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I have heard the argument that Trout being better because the league is worse. This disregards the pitching and defense. It is making the assumption the pitching talent and defense is always the same.

You will never be able to compare straight stats for players playing against different players, but you can compare their dominance in the league for the time they played. That is what I attempt to show.

What I was saying was mostly about the collection of arguments for Trout being better than other great players.
I'm not a big fan of some stats like WAR as indicators of a player being great. Getting a bonus because you play a different position seems pretty silly to me as far as that goes. How great would any centerfielder be if there was say no right fielder? Or a really poor one.
I do however agree with it as far as a tool to assemble a competitive team. A really good centerfielder will make two other fielders better as well as covering more area.

Saying a player dominated more also seems a bit suspect. Is he that good because he really is better? Or does he look better because the league is a bit weak? That's a really tough question. Some very good pitchers don't do well in some stats because as a #1 starter they're pitching against better starters more often. Pujols stats may appear less dominant, but then yes as someone said it was the silly era, and lots of stats were inflated for various reasons.

Oddly, I hear the same argument about the Patriots. They're only great because the division is weak. Of course the division is weak, they all have to play the Pats twice a season. (Plus at least a couple of them are more than a little dysfunctional)

That's what makes comparisons so hard.

I'd really like to see the results of some of the hardcore stats guys accounting for management style etc. Following the 78 Sox was one of the biggest early lessons, Zimmer would leave pitchers out way too long, especially Torrez who always seemed to fall apart very quickly.

Steve B