General 2016 Blue Jays discussion thread

[Grant77]

I wish we could tell just how good historic players could be in today's game, or say if Mike Trout were dropped in to the 1920s, how beastly he'd be... I mean there were only 8 teams in the AL in 1923 and less great players throughout the league as there are today.

 

What makes you say there were fewer great players in 1923? You had the greatest hitter (Ruth) and greatest pitcher (Johnson) of all time, not to mention Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Rogers Hornsby, and a laundry list of other hall of famers. I'd almost call it a golden age of star players.

[intentional wok]

It's too bad there are many pictures of Ruth in his twilight years as a pudgy old guy in the 30's and relatively few from his 1920's prime. For most of his career as an ace pitcher and feared slugger, he was nothing at all like Ortiz, he was an incredibly strong and fit guy like Trout.

 

Most folks don't realize Ted Williams would have amassed >160 WAR, right up there with Ruth and Barry "The Clear" Bonds if he didn't fight in WWII missing 3 of his prime years.

 

Holy.

 

Dude puts up 11.6 WAR in '42, goes to fight some Nazis for three years, then puts up 11.8 in '46.

 

That's legitimately surreal. What a life.

[Jimcanuck]

Holy.

 

Dude puts up 11.6 WAR in '42, goes to fight some Nazis for three years, then puts up 11.8 in '46.

 

That's legitimately surreal. What a life.

 

Exactamundo. He was a marine fighter pilot in both WWII and the Korean War. All-American boy if there ever was one.

[intentional wok]

Exactamundo. He was a marine fighter pilot in both WWII and the Korean War. All-American boy if there ever was one.

 

Wow, and I thought the six games in '52 listed on FG was an injury season.

[Thaddeus Malice]

Well then Mike Tyson is the greatest boxer of all time. Or we could say we'll never know.

 

Because a sport where you get to select your opponent a lot of the time and you're not obligated to fight anyone is a great and perfectly acceptable comparison to baseball.

[HERPDERP]

Barney is dreamy

 

https://vimeo.com/30648368

[G-Snarls]

Jays starters have pitched the most innings of any starting rotation in MLB

[vdubmvp]

Barney is dreamy

 

https://vimeo.com/30648368

 

How did you even come across this?

[King]

How did you even come across this?

 

It's been said that he copies all of his posts from reddit.

[vdubmvp]

It's been said that he copies all of his posts from reddit.

 

I went there to look for this and found something even better.

 

[HERPDERP]

It's been said that he copies all of his posts from reddit.

 

close

 

[Stangstag]

What makes you say there were fewer great players in 1923? You had the greatest hitter (Ruth) and greatest pitcher (Johnson) of all time, not to mention Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Rogers Hornsby, and a laundry list of other hall of famers. I'd almost call it a golden age of star players.

 

But isn't that exactly why those players are overrated? There were so many "stars" because a lot of the players in the league weren't very good. So the players that actually were good at baseball just dominated everyone else.

 

I don't think those guys would be stars if they played in the 50s-now.

 

My opinion is that guys in the early 1900s wouldn't hold up to today's standards. I understand that some of you might say i'm an idiot, but we'll never really know unless someone invents time travel.

 

Those guys are all hall of famers because they dominated during the time they played. I'm fine with that. I just don't think they should be compared to today's players.

[RealAccountant]

In Keeping with Tradition of the second birth of the John Gibbons Era,

 

Jays have the second worst record in 1 run games, at 8-14. Only Twins at 8-15 have a worst record

 

Some might say that it is in one run games that the manager has the most play.

[Grant77]

But isn't that exactly why those players are overrated? There were so many "stars" because a lot of the players in the league weren't very good. So the players that actually were good at baseball just dominated everyone else.

 

I don't think those guys would be stars if they played in the 50s-now.

 

My opinion is that guys in the early 1900s wouldn't hold up to today's standards. I understand that some of you might say i'm an idiot, but we'll never really know unless someone invents time travel.

 

Those guys are all hall of famers because they dominated during the time they played. I'm fine with that. I just don't think they should be compared to today's players.

 

I get what you're trying to say and it's a tough subject to discuss. Babe Ruth didn't take care of his body like today's athletes and he didn't have access to the same on and off the field technology ao obviously he wouldn't be very good today. However, it's absurd to think that Mike Trout would be miles ahead of guys like Ruth and Cobb had he been born in 1900. The genetics are the same, society and technology have changed. I think it's silly to single out a gneration as inferior ballplayers.

[RealAccountant]

I get what you're trying to say and it's a tough subject to discuss. Babe Ruth didn't take care of his body like today's athletes and he didn't have access to the same on and off the field technology ao obviously he wouldn't be very good today. However, it's absurd to think that Mike Trout would be miles ahead of guys like Ruth and Cobb had he been born in 1900. The genetics are the same, society and technology have changed. I think it's silly to single out a gneration as inferior ballplayers.

 

Neither did the pitchers who pitched to babe Ruth

 

Stats are relative to competition

[John_Havok]

I get what you're trying to say and it's a tough subject to discuss. Babe Ruth didn't take care of his body like today's athletes and he didn't have access to the same on and off the field technology ao obviously he wouldn't be very good today. However, it's absurd to think that Mike Trout would be miles ahead of guys like Ruth and Cobb had he been born in 1900. The genetics are the same, society and technology have changed. I think it's silly to single out a gneration as inferior ballplayers.

 

I don't think it's silly at all to make the assumption that players who played baseball, hockey, football, or basketball... when the sports were in their infancy, wouldn't be able to hold a candle to the athletes of today.

 

If you took Babe Ruth out of his era and put him in today's era with pitchers throwing 95 mph with insane breaking balls, changeups, and different pitchers not just every game but multiple different pitchers in the same game... it just wouldn't compare. He'd probably strike out like 70% of the time.

 

The overall skill level of sports back then was just completely inferior to what it is today. Pro athletes back then didn't have to be on a pro teams radar when they were 12 years old, compete nationally and internationally multiple times before they were even thought about being signed.

[Grant77]

I don't think it's silly at all to make the assumption that players who played baseball, hockey, football, or basketball... when the sports were in their infancy, wouldn't be able to hold a candle to the athletes of today.

 

If you took Babe Ruth out of his era and put him in today's era with pitchers throwing 95 mph with insane breaking balls, changeups, and different pitchers not just every game but multiple different pitchers in the same game... it just wouldn't compare. He'd probably strike out like 70% of the time.

 

The overall skill level of sports back then was just completely inferior to what it is today. Pro athletes back then didn't have to be on a pro teams radar when they were 12 years old, compete nationally and internationally multiple times before they were even thought about being signed.

 

I would respond, but you quoted me and didn't read what I said. You may agree with me.

[Governator]

I don't think it's silly at all to make the assumption that players who played baseball, hockey, football, or basketball... when the sports were in their infancy, wouldn't be able to hold a candle to the athletes of today.

 

If you took Babe Ruth out of his era and put him in today's era with pitchers throwing 95 mph with insane breaking balls, changeups, and different pitchers not just every game but multiple different pitchers in the same game... it just wouldn't compare. He'd probably strike out like 70% of the time.

 

The overall skill level of sports back then was just completely inferior to what it is today. Pro athletes back then didn't have to be on a pro teams radar when they were 12 years old, compete nationally and internationally multiple times before they were even thought about being signed.

 

I think Ruth would be suspended indefinitely for his behaviour if he were playing today. I mean he punched an umpire in the neck, jailed for drunk driving, his nightly whore parties, etc. He was a wreckless talented fool.

[Grant77]

I think Ruth would be suspended indefinitely for his behaviour if he were playing today. I mean he punched an umpire in the neck, jailed for drunk driving, his nightly whore parties, etc. He was a wreckless talented fool.

 

Do you really think he'd be like that today? His antics were probably no worse than Manny Machado types today when taken in context.

[THANOS]

 

Trevor May on the cheap?

 

13.5 K/9, 3.38 BB/9, 3.4 xFIP, and a 6.08 ERA to make Minnesota sell on him !

 

It could be another Grilli move!

[Krylian]

But isn't that exactly why those players are overrated? There were so many "stars" because a lot of the players in the league weren't very good. So the players that actually were good at baseball just dominated everyone else.

 

I don't think those guys would be stars if they played in the 50s-now.

 

My opinion is that guys in the early 1900s wouldn't hold up to today's standards. I understand that some of you might say i'm an idiot, but we'll never really know unless someone invents time travel.

 

Those guys are all hall of famers because they dominated during the time they played. I'm fine with that. I just don't think they should be compared to today's players.

 

Completely agree.

 

You can't compare players from 80-100 years ago to today's. The game is completely different. Technology is completely different. They didn't train the way athletes train today. Did they train at all in the off-season? It's just evolution.

 

That said, the only way you can compare those players is to compare them to players of their own era. They were the absolute best of their time...and really that's all that matters. In 100 years, people will be saying the same thing about our stars of today. Mike Trout might not be able to hold a candle to players of 2116.

[KingKat]

It's insane, but Donaldson, at 4.8WAR now, is pacing to have a better season than last year. With Trout on the Angels, it looks really promising for him to repeat as MVP.

 

Altuve is right up there with them. I could see the voters simply preferring to give the award to the players who hasn't won it yet.

 

http://www.dobberbaseball.com/could-jose-altuve-win-the-american-league-mvp-award/

[Brownie19]

I think Ruth would be suspended indefinitely for his behaviour if he were playing today. I mean he punched an umpire in the neck, jailed for drunk driving, his nightly whore parties, etc. He was living the dream.

 

fify

[Governator]

fify

 

lol

[Brownie19]

But isn't that exactly why those players are overrated? There were so many "stars" because a lot of the players in the league weren't very good. So the players that actually were good at baseball just dominated everyone else.

 

I don't think those guys would be stars if they played in the 50s-now.

 

My opinion is that guys in the early 1900s wouldn't hold up to today's standards. I understand that some of you might say i'm an idiot, but we'll never really know unless someone invents time travel.

 

Those guys are all hall of famers because they dominated during the time they played. I'm fine with that. I just don't think they should be compared to today's players.

 

Incredibly difficult subject to discuss - yet such an amazing debate.

 

One factor I don't see mentioned yet is there were only 8 teams. Yes there was a smaller talent pool (no black player or players from other countries) - but there were significantly fewer player and thus only the best played. Think about how much better teams would be today if there were only 20-25 teams.

 

Ruth his more HR's in a season than any other TEAM did - twice.

 

Back in the day Wrigley Field didn't even have a fence to hit HR's over. Fans were holding a rope, which they would move in when the Cubs were up and move back when the visiting team came to the plate.

 

CF in a lot of parks was 450+ feet.

 

 

 

The history of baseball is a beautiful thing.

[Governator]

Incredibly difficult subject to discuss - yet such an amazing debate.

 

One factor I don't see mentioned yet is there were only 8 teams. Yes there was a smaller talent pool (no black player or players from other countries) - but there were significantly fewer player and thus only the best played. Think about how much better teams would be today if there were only 20-25 teams.

 

Ruth his more HR's in a season than any other TEAM did - twice.

 

Back in the day Wrigley Field didn't even have a fence to hit HR's over. Fans were holding a rope, which they would move in when the Cubs were up and move back when the visiting team came to the plate.

 

CF in a lot of parks was 450+ feet.

 

 

 

The history of baseball is a beautiful thing.

 

 

That's freakin' hilarious.

 

There were 16 teams in the MLB when Ruth played, only 8 in his league though, equivalent of maybe 12 in the AL?

 

I'm on the other side about competition though. I think the best players were amazing while the average at best guys wouldn't even crack a line up in today's game. Just think how different development & competition is and it wasn't until the 1950s when MLB set up training camps in the Dominican Republic, the game has changed drastically since a large international pool of players joined the game.

[Governator]

Wow. Josh Thole has a wRC+ of 8.

[Brownie19]

That's freakin' hilarious.

 

There were 16 teams in the MLB when Ruth played, only 8 in his league though, equivalent of maybe 12 in the AL?

 

I'm on the other side about competition though. I think the best players were amazing while the average at best guys wouldn't even crack a line up in today's game. Just think how different development & competition is and it wasn't until the 1950s when MLB set up training camps in the Dominican Republic, the game has changed drastically since a large international pool of players joined the game.

 

Correct - my bad. There's probably some truth to what you're saying. So many variables.

 

 

I've given up trying to compare - I simply love baseball BECAUSE of it's history and all the quirks in it. Ruth and Gerhig - and the folklore surrounding them is simply amazing and I see no need to try and compare them to Mike Trout.

[Stangstag]

Hence my Kc trade offer I offered up

And nobody as given a reason as why it can't work!

 

Plus they can get on the plane and leave town tomorrow after Dickey gets us the win!!!

 

No team is going to give up good young players for mediocre old players. Give your head a shake.

[flafson]

No team is going to give up good young players for mediocre old players. Give your head a shake.

 

Syndergaard is young and good, Dickey is old and mediocre...