Trout v. Legendary cards

[Bored5000]

Originally Posted by todeen

Really? Tony Gwynn in 1994.

To me, hitting .400 is still possible. Miggy's Triple Crown a few years back is evidence that some of these rare achievements are still possible. Today's players have traded average for power. It's what managers and general managers are asking of them. If a good hitter today wanted to pursue 400, I believe it's possible.

This reminds me of the Ty Cobb fanatics on this board that talk about how Ty Cobb could have hit more home runs if he wanted to, but he chose not to. Players have to choose a style, and that style allows them to pursue certain accolades. It also stops them from pursuing others.

https://www.mlb.com/news/featured/to...-average-chase

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I loved listening to Tony Gwynn talk about hitting, but his .394 year was two-thirds of a season.

[Exhibitman]

Brett hit .390 in 1980, but everyone seems to forget it. No one will forget this though:

https://youtu.be/i-TMV8Yz9wo

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by todeen

Really? Tony Gwynn in 1994.

How many games did Gwynn play in 1994? I said no one who played 120 games. I also said hitting .395 or above in the last week. Gwynn never got to .395 at all after his 31st game and only played 110 games.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Tabe

How many games did Gwynn play in 1994? I said no one who played 120 games. I also said hitting .395 or above in the last week. Gwynn never got to .395 at all after his 31st game and only played 110 games.

You made so many exceptions to exclude Gwynn to prove your point. He should be pointed out as having a legitimate shot in the strike shortened season. My argument is simply that these achievements of yesteryear are still achievable if that's what a player's style allows. Miggy won the Triple Crown, which many people thought would be extremely difficult. Not many HR leaders in today's game are also the BA leaders. But Cabrera did it. And Gwynn was hitting .394 in AUGUST! WOW! It deserves to be pointed out.

[HistoricNewspapers]

Originally Posted by rats60

You have 32 NFL teams, 30 NBA teams and 30 MLB teams. The US population increase doesn’t come close to covering that and that doesn’t account for other sports. Baseball was pretty much the only major sport for a long time. The NBA didn’t even exist until after WW2. The NFL was an after thought. Jackie Robinson was a much better football player, in fact baseball was his worst sport at UCLA. Yet he ended up in the BBHOF.

The best athletes are not playing baseball. Athletes may be better, but if the second tier athletes are now the ones playing the game, they are not better than the first tier athletes from a previous era. I remember an interview with Darryl Strawberry and Eric Davis about the Crenshaw HS baseball program in the 80s. They said that it was completely different than when they played a decade earlier. Baseball was no longer cool, the guys who would have played with them were now just playing football or basketball due to specialization.

You are throwing out absolutes like they are facts, they are not. They are your opinion. I disagree with them and that is my opinion. If you want to think Trout is great, fine, but I am not convinced. I have been watching the game for over 50 years and he isn’t close to the best player I have seen. He isn’t close to a 5 tool player. Maybe he can improve and convince me or maybe he declines like the other would be “greats.”

You may want to look again.

1950...94.5% of the league was white. 1.7% black. 3% Latino.

2016..63.7% white. 6.7% black. 27.4% Latino.

Where did the talent pool come from:
1950 United States population 150 million people to draw from
2016 7.6 Billion.....players are drawn from all over the world now.

Again, if the baseball players are worse now, then why are they taller, running faster, throwing harder, and catching the ball better?

Baseball could expand to three times the amount of teams right now and still be more talented overall than the lore of yesteryear.

Japan itself can add an entire league of teams now as good as 1900-1950 MLB leagues. So could Cuba.

The 1980's is a little different story. That competitive level is closer to today's level. Their talent pool draw is impressively high amount of players as well, but still not as much as now.

You also mentioned that humans haven't evolved, but in 1870 the average height and weight of a MLB player was 68.9 inches and weighed 163 pounds.

The average height now is 74 inches and 207 pounds. And these guys throw better, run faster, and catch it better...they are bigger and MORE athletic.

Like I said before, it isn't really about evolving, although there clearly has been an increase in human size in a short period of time. It is about the vastly higher numbers of population to draw from that dwarfs the players of yesteryear...we are talking billions of more people to draw from.

We could have three MLB leagues, two NBA, and two NFL RIGHT NOW and STILL have a higher overall level of MLB talent now compared to the pre war times.

There a lot of people I know who picked their wives based on size so they could grow a bigger athlete...so you have the selective aspect too.

The WORLD POPULATION in 1900 was 1.6 billion. Baseball only chose from white America.
The WORLD POPULATION in 1950 was 2.5 billion. Baseball only chose from America, and white America 95% of the time.
The WORLD POPULATION in 1980 was 4.43 billion.
The WOLRD POPULATION in 2020 is now 7.8 billion. Baseball chooses from a world wide population from which athletes are bred and trained in their craft so they can make millions of dollars.

Not that hard to see the difference.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Bored5000

I loved listening to Tony Gwynn talk about hitting, but his .394 year was two-thirds of a season.

+1 some people understand something so well, it's energetic to watch them talk about it.

[Tao_Moko]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Brett hit .390 in 1980, but everyone seems to forget it. No one will forget this though:

https://youtu.be/i-TMV8Yz9wo

Since Brett is pictured with Marine, Rod Carew, you had better be careful not to offend anyone as I have. Just don't mention that Carew thought that his service in the Marines gave him the discipline to be the player he was. He obviously fails in comparison to Trout. He was only a 3000 hit club member and has a batting title named after him. Fire it up boys! Let's hear how Trout is better than Brett and Carew too.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

There a lot of people I know who picked their wives based on size so they could grow a bigger athlete...so you have the selective aspect too.

I didn't pick my wife because she is 5'11.5". I picked her because she stood out among the crowd!

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Brett hit .390 in 1980, but everyone seems to forget it. No one will forget this though:

https://youtu.be/i-TMV8Yz9wo

Sorry, I was born in 1986. But thanks for supporting my point that modern players can come close to .400!

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by todeen

You made so many exceptions to exclude Gwynn to prove your point. He should be pointed out as having a legitimate shot in the strike shortened season. My argument is simply that these achievements of yesteryear are still achievable if that's what a player's style allows. Miggy won the Triple Crown, which many people thought would be extremely difficult. Not many HR leaders in today's game are also the BA leaders. But Cabrera did it. And Gwynn was hitting .394 in AUGUST! WOW! It deserves to be pointed out.

Gwynn failed under both criteria. He played 110 games. If we're going off partial seasons, that means Matt Williams tied the home run record in 1994. Or if Charlie Blackmon somehow gets back over .400 this year then he'll be the first since Williams. C'mon. Gwynn wasn't close to .400 any more than a guy who hits in 35 straight is "close" to Dimaggio.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Tao_Moko

Since Brett is pictured with Marine, Rod Carew, you had better be careful not to offend anyone as I have. Just don't mention that Carew thought that his service in the Marines gave him the discipline to be the player he was. He obviously fails in comparison to Trout. He was only a 3000 hit club member and has a batting title named after him. Fire it up boys! Let's hear how Trout is better than Brett and Carew too.

Hmm...the guy who gets on base 41.7% of the time - with power - while playing a premium defensive position or the guy who gets on base on base 39.3% of the time with no power while playing the easiest defensive position...

[etsmith]

It's impossible to compare hitters across such a wide span of time. Baseball in 1900 was completely different than 1950, and baseball in 1950 was completely different than in 2019. It's a great discussion to have but impossible to come to any kind of real agreement.
I don't think it's at all surprising that more people are moving to football and basketball, same type salaries or higher and much shorter schedules. Playing fewer games for the same money or more money seems like the smart thing to do I imagine.

[Shoeless Moe]

Anybody know the most paid for an Ohtani card a few years ago, and what that same card is going for these days, now that he may be a bust? Or at least not the Babe Ruth "they" were saying he was going to be?