Paul Skenes Superfractor Bowman Chrome Auto RC Back on Market

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

I'm talking about a general angst that seems to be present among the aging that stretches over a variety of casual interests, like music, movies, sports, etc. I think there's a lot of nostalgia tied up in this dislike of modernity. I realize that the individual preferences that exist within this realm, like what specifically you don't like, are there but I still think it's part of a larger and ever-present trend throughout all of time.

What I call "nostalgia bias" is HUGE on the Board. Not a criticism, I suffer from it myself.

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by calvindog

The game isn’t the same for me due to the lack of dominant starting pitching.

Technology has a habit of being unfair. For quite a while, and especially currently, technology is vastly helping hitters train compared to pitchers.

Being able to use cameras to analyze hitters and pitchers is nearly an even playing field. We can map hitter swing planes, we can count spin rate on a pitch...etc.

However, advanced hitting tools for training are far more advanced compared to pitching tools. Video batting simulators where you can dial up almost anything a pitcher can do and practice with no assistance from anyone is so common there's been different vendors for many years. Pitchers have various digital and non-digital tools, too, but most of theirs are diagnostic in nature to identify points of correction.

When the Japanese-style "sticky" ball shows up in the bigs (currently used in AA), pitchers should get a bit more of their spin-rate tool back. Theoretically, that should help even the game out a bit.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think there's a universal tendency for people as they age to think things were better in the past. If you want to see this phenomenon ask anyone over say 50 for their all time great list, it will be heavily slanted and won't have a single player from the past four decades. From my perspective, as long as they don't move the pitcher's mound or the bases, or change 4 balls and 3 strikes, it would be really hard to kill baseball.

I depends on how many you are asking for on the list. Mike Schmidt is regarded as the best 3rd baseman of all time and I have him high on my list. Bench is just outside your cutoff and is considered the greatest catcher of all time. Albert Pujols is a little lower, but with his Angel's years it is hard to put him too high. His first 12 years hold up against everyone short of Ruth. If Griffey Jr and Trout didn't get hurt, they could have been there. If Ohtani or Judge keep putting up numbers like this year, they will rise.

Part of the problem is you had a generation that got caught up in drugs. Guy like Gooden and Strawberry had the talent to be all time greats. Then you have all the steroids guys who have ruined their legacies in many people's eyes.

However, if you look at other sports, that is not the case. My top 10 list for basketball has Michael Jordan, LeBron James, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Kobe Bryant and Tim Duncan. For Football, Jerry Rice, Joe Montana, Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith, Peyton Manning and Tom Brady with Patrick Mahomes building a resume. For Hockey, Gretzky, Lemieux, Jagr, Ovechkin and Crosby.

Maybe the best athletes are no longer choosing baseball as it is no longer the #1 sport in the US. Jackie Robinson probably plays in the NFL if was active today, Bob Gibson is probably in the NBA.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

I depends on how many you are asking for on the list. Mike Schmidt is regarded as the best 3rd baseman of all time and I have him high on my list. Bench is just outside your cutoff and is considered the greatest catcher of all time. Albert Pujols is a little lower, but with his Angel's years it is hard to put him too high. His first 12 years hold up against everyone short of Ruth. If Griffey Jr and Trout didn't get hurt, they could have been there. If Ohtani or Judge keep putting up numbers like this year, they will rise.

Part of the problem is you had a generation that got caught up in drugs. Guy like Gooden and Strawberry had the talent to be all time greats. Then you have all the steroids guys who have ruined their legacies in many people's eyes.

However, if you look at other sports, that is not the case. My top 10 list for basketball has Michael Jordan, LeBron James, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Kobe Bryant and Tim Duncan. For Football, Jerry Rice, Joe Montana, Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith, Peyton Manning and Tom Brady with Patrick Mahomes building a resume. For Hockey, Gretzky, Lemieux, Jagr, Ovechkin and Crosby.

Maybe the best athletes are no longer choosing baseball as it is no longer the #1 sport in the US. Jackie Robinson probably plays in the NFL if was active today, Bob Gibson is probably in the NBA.

It's interesting that there is much more of a nostalgia bias in baseball for some reason. But I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone of a certain age who -- with the possible exception of Schmidt -- is going to put anyone from the 1980s forward on their team. Can it really be that those 4+ decades (1/3 of the history of baseball if you discount the prehistoric years LOL) didn't produce any players worthy of consideration as all time greats?

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

But I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone of a certain age who -- with the possible exception of Schmidt -- is going to put anyone from the 1980s forward on their team.

Roids tainted careers ruined this even if one believes the roids era of their careers were short compared to their careers on whole. It's not a hill I would die on to argue that any weren't juicing from day one, though.

Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and ARod are/were (whatever) legends of our 1980s+ modern era. Their performances were all-time greatness in the entire history of the game.

That leaves us with Rickey Henderson who's career is suspected by most to be clean as an all-time legend. Guys like Randy Johnson and Greg Maddux are up there, too. Albert Pujols has the counting stats to be an all-time great, but in all honesty his alarmingly big investment kept him on the field longer than his playing ability.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BioCRN

Roids tainted careers ruined this even if one believes the roids era of their careers were short compared to their careers on whole. It's not a hill I would die on to argue that any weren't juicing from day one, though.

Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and ARod are/were (whatever) legends of our 1980s+ modern era. Their performances were all-time greatness in the entire history of the game.

That leaves us with Rickey Henderson who's career is suspected by most to be clean as an all-time legend. Guys like Randy Johnson and Greg Maddux are up there, too. Albert Pujols has the counting stats to be an all-time great, but in all honesty his alarmingly big investment kept him on the field longer than his playing ability.

Most people's all time teams are heavily biased in favor of the first 50 years of baseball. Who doesn't have Ruth, Cobb, Gehrig, Hornsby, Wagner, Johnson, Young, and Mathewson on his team? That's 8 out of 12 assuming a four man rotation.

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Most people's all time teams are heavily biased in favor of the first 50 years of baseball. Who doesn't have Ruth, Cobb, Gehrig, Hornsby, Wagner, Johnson, Young, and Mathewson on his team? That's 8 out of 12 assuming a four man rotation.

Yeah, I wouldn't argue against including any of these guys and they are all-time legends, but guys from this era are almost impossible to compare.

Cy Young is obviously a legend, but if you were picking a single season to have someone go out and pitch for you would it be Cy Young or Roger Clemens? Would that season be 250-275ip or 400-425ip? Is the pitcher expected to throw 40+ complete games? At the very least you'd have to answer those 2 questions before you would pick one even though one is obviously superior based on the stuff coming out of their arm.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BioCRN

Yeah, I wouldn't argue against including any of these guys and they are all-time legends, but guys from this era are almost impossible to compare.

Cy Young is obviously a legend, but if you were picking a single season to have someone go out and pitch for you would it be Cy Young or Roger Clemens? Would that season be 250-275ip or 400-425ip? Is the pitcher expected to throw 40+ complete games? At the very least you'd have to answer those 2 questions before you would pick one even though one is obviously superior based on the stuff coming out of their arm.

Our statisticians have made a great effort to neutralize stats across eras to facilitate these sorts of comparisons, but in the end, not sure it really works, and even a numbers guy like Bill James ends up with lists reflecting his biases.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's interesting that there is much more of a nostalgia bias in baseball for some reason. But I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone of a certain age who -- with the possible exception of Schmidt -- is going to put anyone from the 1980s forward on their team. Can it really be that those 4+ decades (1/3 of the history of baseball if you discount the prehistoric years LOL) didn't produce any players worthy of consideration as all time greats?

I really think it is the talent levels. My football list starts with Unitas and Brown. Basketball starts with Russell and Chamberlain. I think they pushed their sports forward like Wagner, Cobb and Ruth did for baseball. If I start my list with players who debuted with those four, my baseball list starts with Frank Robinson and includes Joe Morgan, Johnny Bench, Mike Schmidt, George Brett, Rickey Henderson, Wade Boggs, Ken Griffey Jr, Albert Pujols and Mike Trout. My top 5 pitchers are Bob Gibson, Tom Seaver, Greg Maddox, Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez. The lists look comparable to with what you see with football and basketball.

The issue becomes when you add another 60 years for baseball with almost all of the best athletes going into that sport. The last 40 years of players for baseball becomes diluted and it looks like it does.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

I really think it is the talent levels. My football list starts with Unitas and Brown. Basketball starts with Russell and Chamberlain. I think they pushed their sports forward like Wagner, Cobb and Ruth did for baseball. If I start my list with players who debuted with those four, my baseball list starts with Frank Robinson and includes Joe Morgan, Johnny Bench, Mike Schmidt, George Brett, Rickey Henderson, Wade Boggs, Ken Griffey Jr, Albert Pujols and Mike Trout. My top 5 pitchers are Bob Gibson, Tom Seaver, Greg Maddox, Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez. The lists look comparable to with what you see with football and basketball.

The issue becomes when you add another 60 years for baseball with almost all of the best athletes going into that sport. The last 40 years of players for baseball becomes diluted and it looks like it does.

The best white athletes anyhow, as the best black ones could not play in the major leagues, however much we now want to call the Negro League a major league. Those men did not have the same chance to establish themselves. Otherwise, our pre 1950 all time teams might look different. That footnoted, I think your points are well taken, pre 1950s football and basketball are essentially prehistoric, nobody is going to put Grange or Mikan on their all time starting team.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by packs

Can you think of some great hit and run players from the past that you admire?

Nellie Fox, who also didn't strike out more than 15 times a season, for one.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by packs

I just feel like you guys are part of this constant, if I may borrow from Lost, where people of a certain age just don't like current things anymore. I feel like you would have been interchangeably annoyed with every new iteration of the game, from catchers wearing pads, to fielders wearing gloves and on up to the 162 game season not being a real 154 gamer or being upset they moved the fences in. I understand the nostalgia that probably drives these feelings. Being a kid is fun and when you realize you've gotten older, you just want things to be like they were when you were a kid. And every new kid isn't getting to experience the best of life like you did. But you're missing out on a lot when you think that way because modern life isn't so terrible either.

Aaron Judge is not Babe Ruth but he did hit 62 homers. If I put myself into the future where I'm asking an older guy about what it was like to see Judge hit 62 homers, I'd be pretty let down if they said they didn't know because baseball wasn't stealing a lot of bases then, so they weren't watching anymore.

I'm not sure if you were referring to me, but I'm 30. Most of the things I'm annoyed with does not effect the product on the field, outside of pitchers no longer going the distance. I still love baseball, I always will. The corporate patches on uniforms and constant gambling adds are something that add nothing to the game, IMO.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by BioCRN

As a younger person, I would have flipped out for the streaming games we have now. I'm still a bit amazed how easy the access is for high quality streams.

MLB Players Alumni Association $25 membership. Half off the $140 MLB.tv streaming package. $95 a year for everything (local blackouts apply). This is a golden era of game consumption.

I watch many 100s of hours of games per season and it's awesome. I'm very thankful to live in this era and if/when the era of local blackouts come it should only get better.

Are you a former player?

Or is the alumni association open to everyone?

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by steve B

Are you a former player?

Or is the alumni association open to everyone?

Not a former player, there's a fan option. $25/year. It comes with some discount perks that may help some chip away at the cost if they use the services.

The main big perk is mlb.tv is 50% off if you're a member.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

That is annoying but so is the lack of stealing bases, the bunt, the hit and run is almost not part of the game and everyone is going yard each AB. I am not as much of fan of the game as I was.

steals are WAY up this year.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Seven

I'm not sure if you were referring to me, but I'm 30. Most of the things I'm annoyed with does not effect the product on the field, outside of pitchers no longer going the distance. I still love baseball, I always will. The corporate patches on uniforms and constant gambling adds are something that add nothing to the game, IMO.

+1, add the extra inning ghost runner to that list.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

Peter,

Wow...
Just because he struck out a lot doesn't mean that he only struck out.

My recollection is seeing him batting successfully in hit and run situations, in person. That was in the mid 60's. He could hit and run then. I saw it. But that is also when he was young and coachable. Gene Mauch survived that for a few years, and once Richie settled into being a talented big leaguer he became somewhat less manageable and developed his own sense of self determination (hardheadedness).

Instead of just grabbing a season's strike out numbers to be determinative proof of one's ability to hit and run, pick a couple of seasons, 1964 through 1967, and go to retrosheet.org, I think they'll have a game log for each of his games.

What you will find is that with a runner on first, he was less likely to strike out, and often, if he got any kind of a hit, it was most likely a single that moved the runner to third. And you'll see that he was more likely to strike out with no one on base (when he was trying to muscle a ball over the fence).

Now, when the 1970's roll around, and he became Dick Allen, I think he swung for the fences a bit more often, he was more about self instead of team, and he was not expected to hit and run as often. That was in his later years,

I'm not saying he didn't strike out a lot in those early years, he did. To some extent, in later years, he was out of the lineup more often, and his strike outs were fewer. partly because he didn't swing as wildly in later years, and partly because he was getting fewer at bats.

I saw him wearing the birds on the bat probably 7 or 8 times in 1970. The attitude had set in by then. He had the ability of generating that loud crack that comes from a ball being well hit with the bat's barrel. Or, to paraphrase, he could shatter the ozone with all of his might. I saw him with the Phillies in 1964 and 1965, and the Dodgers after he left the Cardinals. The man had bat control (when neeeded) and could hit and run.

Baseball Reference disagrees with you. Across all situations, he struck out basically in basically 25% of all ABs, a little less than 20% of all PAs.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

steals are WAY up this year.

The last two years. Steals this year are up up basically 60% the last two years versus 2022.