My Official divorce from baseball

[spit ball]

Originally Posted by wireman

I think the pitching is a lot better than what I used to see at the ballpark when I was a kid. Most pitchers have more pitches, and they can hit spots and change speeds better.

And, back in the day, when a starter had thrown till his arm fell off, he likely would be told to pick it up and finish the game. (Robin Roberts threw 305 complete games in his career.) Today, you get a starter for six innings, followed by a succession of specialists. You rarely get to face a pitcher who's just gassed.

I agree that Ted Williams would have found a way to dominate in any era. But most of the guys I used to see playing for the Nats wouldn't make the majors today.

I think you're right about the pitching being better in the modern era especially with the very frequent use of relief specialists. But hitting isn't better and that's my whole point. If hitting had improved the way pitching improved, you'd still occasionally find a great hitter. Maybe another Ty Cobb or Babe Ruth or Ted Williams.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by Caporegime

BTW, why are people still frothing at the mouth over '94 strike? That was TWENTY YEARS ago. I've gotten over the deaths of loved ones quicker than that. The thing I find strange about it is that the NHL had three absolutely catastrophic work stoppages since then, and the NBA had a pretty nasty one as well if my memory serves me correctly. And yet, it's the MLB strike of '94 that people still carry on about. Why?

It was the first to cancel it's offseason, at a time when strikes didn't last for longer then a few weeks.

[Questdog]

Both the big work stoppages of 1981 and 1994 cost the Reds post season berths.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by spit ball

I think you're right about the pitching being better in the modern era especially with the very frequent use of relief specialists. But hitting isn't better and that's my whole point. If hitting had improved the way pitching improved, you'd still occasionally find a great hitter. Maybe another Ty Cobb or Babe Ruth or Ted Williams.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. The pitcher batter interaction is a "zero-sum" game. Each interaction is a separate event with a winner and a loser. Globally, pitching and batting both can't get better or worse at the same time. That's why a stat like WAR has value because it shows how well each player did relative to the competition faced.

I'm not going to argue the minutiae of individual batters but I do know that Mike Trout's contribution to the Angels in 2012 was the same as Ted Williams MVP contribution to the Red Sox in 1946. Does this horrify you? It intrigues me. If you check the players just above and just below Trout and Williams you see:

Willie Mays 1964
Stan Musial 1948 MVP
Joe Morgan 1975 MVP
Rogers Hornsby 1921
Ty Cobb 1911 MVP (according to BR)

I followed Joe Morgan in 1975. I remember how dominant he was. It helps me understand how dominant players I never saw must have been.

YMMV

[spit ball]

Originally Posted by RchW

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. The pitcher batter interaction is a "zero-sum" game. Each interaction is a separate event with a winner and a loser. Globally, pitching and batting both can't get better or worse at the same time. That's why a stat like WAR has value because it shows how well each player did relative to the competition faced.

I'm not going to argue the minutiae of individual batters but I do know that Mike Trout's contribution to the Angels in 2012 was the same as Ted Williams MVP contribution to the Red Sox in 1946. Does this horrify you? It intrigues me. If you check the players just above and just below Trout and Williams you see:

Willie Mays 1964
Stan Musial 1948 MVP
Joe Morgan 1975 MVP
Rogers Hornsby 1921
Ty Cobb 1911 MVP (according to BR)

I followed Joe Morgan in 1975. I remember how dominant he was. It helps me understand how dominant players I never saw must have been.

YMMV

It's funny, I never heard of Mike Trout prior to reading this thread. I looked at his stats and he's a very good young player. But he's not a great player. Not yet and imo never will be.

And I'm not going to argue that as pitching improves then hitting doesn't improve. I think it can but not necessarily as much as pitching and you'll see the same basic result. I also think there's no way to prove that one way or the other.

But here's the thing, even if pitching improves and hitting goes down, you can still have individual hitters excelling. The deadball era proves that. Pitchers ruled. League batting averages were way down and home runs were rare. Even so, you had a few great hitters hitting over 400 and maintaining high lifetime averages.

So Mike Trout, winning the MVP and being the hero of 2012, theoretically should have hit 375 with 45 home runs. But he didn't come close. That's what I've been talking about. The American league batting average was higher in 2012 than in 1910 by about 10 points.

Yet Cobb won in 1910 with 385. Cabrera won in 2012 with 330. We're looking at the difference between a great hitter and a very good hitter.

There have been no great hitters in baseball since Ted Williams. Major League baseball has been mediocre for a long time with most players just not caring enough to go the extra mile. Baseball players go to work because it's their job and they make a lot of money. Baseball players used to go to work to play baseball and also make some money. Big difference. It's no wonder so many of us older folks have given up on major league baseball.

[John Madden]

Originally Posted by spit ball

It's funny, I never heard of Mike Trout prior to reading this thread. I looked at his stats and he's a very good young player. But he's not a great player. Not yet and imo never will be.

And I'm not going to argue that as pitching improves then hitting doesn't improve. I think it can but not necessarily as much as pitching and you'll see the same basic result. I also think there's no way to prove that one way or the other.

But here's the thing, even if pitching improves and hitting goes down, you can still have individual hitters excelling. The deadball era proves that. Pitchers ruled. League batting averages were way down and home runs were rare. Even so, you had a few great hitters hitting over 400 and maintaining high lifetime averages.

So Mike Trout, winning the MVP and being the hero of 2012, theoretically should have hit 375 with 45 home runs. But he didn't come close. That's what I've been talking about. The American league batting average was higher in 2012 than in 1910 by about 10 points.

Yet Cobb won in 1910 with 385. Cabrera won in 2012 with 330. We're looking at the difference between a great hitter and a very good hitter.

There have been no great hitters in baseball since Ted Williams. Major League baseball has been mediocre for a long time with most players just not caring enough to go the extra mile. Baseball players go to work because it's their job and they make a lot of money. Baseball players used to go to work to play baseball and also make some money. Big difference. It's no wonder so many of us older folks have given up on major league baseball.

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by spit ball

It's funny, I never heard of Mike Trout prior to reading this thread. I looked at his stats and he's a very good young player. But he's not a great player. Not yet and imo never will be.

And I'm not going to argue that as pitching improves then hitting doesn't improve. I think it can but not necessarily as much as pitching and you'll see the same basic result. I also think there's no way to prove that one way or the other.

But here's the thing, even if pitching improves and hitting goes down, you can still have individual hitters excelling. The deadball era proves that. Pitchers ruled. League batting averages were way down and home runs were rare. Even so, you had a few great hitters hitting over 400 and maintaining high lifetime averages.

So Mike Trout, winning the MVP and being the hero of 2012, theoretically should have hit 375 with 45 home runs. But he didn't come close. That's what I've been talking about. The American league batting average was higher in 2012 than in 1910 by about 10 points.

Yet Cobb won in 1910 with 385. Cabrera won in 2012 with 330. We're looking at the difference between a great hitter and a very good hitter.

There have been no great hitters in baseball since Ted Williams. Major League baseball has been mediocre for a long time with most players just not caring enough to go the extra mile. Baseball players go to work because it's their job and they make a lot of money. Baseball players used to go to work to play baseball and also make some money. Big difference. It's no wonder so many of us older folks have given up on major league baseball.

If you haven't even heard of these players, what position are you in to judge them?

Trout did not win the MVP, by the way.

And who cares what you think of them if you've never seen them play?

And how can you judge their motives for playing? 100 years ago your players that mostly cared about the game used to hold out for more money all the time. Who's the last MLB player to hold out for more money? Hasn't happened in eons.

Heck your players from 100 years ago not only held out for more money, but they figured out other ways to make money on the sly, like throwing games and World Series for cash. You telling me they cared a whit about anything but making money?

You telling me that Brandon Phillips doesn't enjoy baseball, that it's just a job? I've never seen a player look like he's having as much fun as Phillips.

And I've never heard someone spew such uneducated drivel.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by wireman

For one thing, it seems to me like there could be a huge difference in attitude between a '50s-era player who could have made just as much money doing something mundane and a 21st-century player making millions.

That actually wasn't the case. One of the reasons a major league baseball career was attractive was because it paid better than a lot of other jobs. Even during the reserve clause era when salaries were artificially constrained major league players were on average making between five to eight times the average non-agricultural wage, depending on the year. And that for only six months' work.

To put some numbers to that, in 1950 the average annual wage for a US male worker (in nominal dollars) was about $2,570. The minimum major league salary that year was $5,000, nearly twice as much. The average major league salary was $13,288—that's five times higher. Even in the minor leagues—which traditionally have paid not nearly as well as the majors—the wages were still often pretty good compared to working in other industries, at least in the higher classifications. The average player salary in Triple-A in 1950 was about $850 per month. With a five-month season that works out to an annual wage of $4,250. That's some 65% better than the national average. In Double-A the average was $639 per month, or $3,195 per year based on a five-month playing season. In Class A the average salary was $391 per month, or $1,955 per month—a figure finally below the average national wage.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

It was the first to cancel it's offseason, at a time when strikes didn't last for longer then a few weeks.

Sure. But the NHL topped that by cancelling an entire season. And in any case baseball learned from that apocalypse, and labour strife with anywhere near that degree of animosity has not been repeated since (though things did come down to the wire in 2002). Contrast that with the NHL, NBA, and NFL which have all had lockouts and/or strikes since 1994.

[wireman]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

That actually wasn't the case. One of the reasons a major league baseball career was attractive was because it paid better than a lot of other jobs. Even during the reserve clause era when salaries were artificially constrained major league players were on average making between five to eight times the average non-agricultural wage, depending on the year. And that for only six months' work.

To put some numbers to that, in 1950 the average annual wage for a US male worker (in nominal dollars) was about $2,570. The minimum major league salary that year was $5,000, nearly twice as much. The average major league salary was $13,288—that's five times higher. Even in the minor leagues—which traditionally have paid not nearly as well as the majors—the wages were still often pretty good compared to working in other industries, at least in the higher classifications. The average player salary in Triple-A in 1950 was about $850 per month. With a five-month season that works out to an annual wage of $4,250. That's some 65% better than the national average. In Double-A the average was $639 per month, or $3,195 per year based on a five-month playing season. In Class A the average salary was $391 per month, or $1,955 per month—a figure finally below the average national wage.

You're saying this proves you COULDN'T have made as much money doing something mundane? On the other hand, what ordinary job in 2014 pays you millions? Any idea what I'm getting at here?

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by wireman

You're saying this proves you COULDN'T have made as much money doing something mundane? On the other hand, what ordinary job in 2014 pays you millions? Any idea what I'm getting at here?

Sure. But most pro baseball players don't make millions. Most guys, even those who end up having successful MLB careers go through the long slog of years of college and/or milb ball for (at best) a thousand+ or so dollars a month, with very, very little likelihood of ever being one of the select few guys who makes the millions.

Frankly from any rational point of view, becoming an milb baseball player is a very poor career choice, choosing a thousand or so a month along with a brutal travel and training schedule in exchange for a minuscule chance of just possibly making millions, or more likely, hundreds of thousands.

So frankly I bet a lot of these guys love baseball even more than the old time players did, otherwise they'd never stick with it so long, or spend 8-10 or more years playing in the minors making less than McDonald's employees, way less than minimum wage, with little to no chance of ever getting more than a few months in the majors at best and the 50-75,000 a month that would bring.

Even for the select few who do get an MLB cameo, the high pay they get as MLB minimum or slightly higher guys is in no way enough to make their long MiLB careers a financially prudent or successful choice. To even make the millions you have to have an MLB career longer than 6 years. And that takes any given player's odds of getting to that level down from slim to nearly none.

That's not even considering the thousands of guys who play indy or even semi-pro ball and know they'll never make the majors. All those guys are clearly playing for love of the game. That maybe, just maybe, a couple superstars aren't doing the same is a terrible, foolish, myopic reason to brand most pro ballplayers with the same brush and somehow assume they're all morally inferior, as well as inferior in talent apparently, to such giants of past years as Hal Chase, Chick Gandil and Eddie Cicotte.

[RchW]

[

Originally Posted by spit ball

it's funny, i never heard of mike trout prior to reading this thread. I looked at his stats and he's a very good young player. But he's not a great player. Not yet and imo never will be.

snipped

there have been no great hitters in baseball since ted williams. Major league baseball has been mediocre for a long time with most players just not caring enough to go the extra mile. Baseball players go to work because it's their job and they make a lot of money. Baseball players used to go to work to play baseball and also make some money. Big difference. It's no wonder so many of us older folks have given up on major league baseball.

lol

[TheMaus2]

smh

[Green & Gold Heart]

In 2014!

That does remind me of this piece I read a few weeks ago. I can't remember if I shared it here or not:

Why doesn?t anyone care about Mike Trout?

After I read it, I asked my husband (not a baseball fan) if he knew who Mike Trout was, and he said, "Pitcher?" So, he at least knew he was a baseball player, but yeah.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by Green & Gold Heart

In 2014!

That does remind me of this piece I read a few weeks ago. I can't remember if I shared it here or not:

Why doesn?t anyone care about Mike Trout?

After I read it, I asked my husband (not a baseball fan) if he knew who Mike Trout was, and he said, "Pitcher?" So, he at least knew he was a baseball player, but yeah.

Well...Steve Trout and Dizzy Trout were pitchers, so...Close...I guess.

[Izz]

Interesting thread... especially the part with the guy who hadn't followed baseball in 40 years trying to argue how poor today's players are.

[Rasmuth]

Hitting is inherently harder today, if only because generally after the 5th inning, you are facing a fresh pitcher every inning...perhaps more...lol.

and all those pitching changes...is the biggest reason why games take so damn long today. I just don't have 3 - 4 hours to watch the average game any more.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by spit ball

It's funny, I never heard of Mike Trout prior to reading this thread. I looked at his stats and he's a very good young player. But he's not a great player. Not yet and imo never will be.

And I'm not going to argue that as pitching improves then hitting doesn't improve. I think it can but not necessarily as much as pitching and you'll see the same basic result. I also think there's no way to prove that one way or the other.

But here's the thing, even if pitching improves and hitting goes down, you can still have individual hitters excelling. The deadball era proves that. Pitchers ruled. League batting averages were way down and home runs were rare. Even so, you had a few great hitters hitting over 400 and maintaining high lifetime averages.

So Mike Trout, winning the MVP and being the hero of 2012, theoretically should have hit 375 with 45 home runs. But he didn't come close. That's what I've been talking about. The American league batting average was higher in 2012 than in 1910 by about 10 points.

Yet Cobb won in 1910 with 385. Cabrera won in 2012 with 330. We're looking at the difference between a great hitter and a very good hitter.

There have been no great hitters in baseball since Ted Williams. Major League baseball has been mediocre for a long time with most players just not caring enough to go the extra mile. Baseball players go to work because it's their job and they make a lot of money. Baseball players used to go to work to play baseball and also make some money. Big difference. It's no wonder so many of us older folks have given up on major league baseball.

EDIT: Nahhh ...

[Statsman1]

Just wow.

I read this resurrected thread from beginning to end, and while it was entertaining, and the participants were some of the guys in the OOTP world I respect the most, the best I could come up with, in terms of the OP's motivation, was, "Hey, Baseball, get off my lawn!"

[TheMaus2]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Yeah, but he faced Bob Feller and that's all that matters.

Another great who lost time to war. Probably would have landed in the top three category pitching-wise.