Still stuck on 4 called third strikes through 12 games.
I give Trout mad props for at least making it look good with 6 swinging strikeouts in the 3 game series with the Royals. Take a look at the game situations in each instance. Close game, runners on, and whiff!
Homerun in garbage time off of a just recalled scrub reliever to pump up the stats (pitcher foolishly thought he could go down/middle vs down/in, so I got that wrong).
Those of you that think this is an aberration just haven't really been paying attention to Trout's career.
I just wanted to point this out early, from the beginning of the season, so when we see the same thing during the pennant race, or in a postseason series, we don't hear the garbage excuse of "small sample size". This is who he is. The called third strikes are coming, believe me!
if it is your assertion that Bonds cheated and therefore does not deserve mention as a GOAT candidate, that is fine. But in order to be intellectually honest, you better do the same with all players who "cheated" you know who I am going to bring up. to name just a very few: Ruth, Mantle, Williams, Aaron, Mays, Schmidt, Rose, Ford, Drysdale, Perry and so many others.
I know I am going to regret asking this, but please tell me how Babe Ruth cheated.
And I know, or think I know, what you would say if I asked you about most of the others, and if you were intellectually honest you would recognize the vast difference between what they did and what Tater Head, King of the Mutants did.
Dallas, you already know the answer, we have been over this before. Ruth used both an illegal Bat and used Testosterone injections.
Cheating has been happening in sports since cavemen were throwing rocks for distance and accuracy. for some reason, some forms of cheating are acceptable to you, others are not. in my book, that is intellectually dishonest.
there is absolutely no way to quantify how much cheating helped different players or if their statistics should be altered to reflect cheating. nor is there any way to conclusively tell who cheated and who did not. we all have our suspicions, but short of a failed drug test, hard physical evidence or an admission, everything else is hearsay.
Bonds bat speed through the zone and torque increased by at least a factor of 5 after gaining all that muscle weight from steroids, When a person bats they’re (usually) seeking to maximize the force of contact between the ball and the bat through efficient use of their body. Since the person is swinging, the action is akin to pulling a lever. That is, something is (approximately) rotating about a point or axis. There are a lot of variables that go into this, but roughly the force of contact is related to a torque created by the motion of the arms and bat (as well as a portion of the torso). With Bonds increased strength due to steroids, a lot of his line drives to the short stop became line drives to the left field wall. A lot of his pull shots to the second basemen became line drives off the right field wall.
if it is your assertion that Bonds cheated and therefore does not deserve mention as a GOAT candidate, that is fine. But in order to be intellectually honest, you better do the same with all players who "cheated" you know who I am going to bring up. to name just a very few: Ruth, Mantle, Williams, Aaron, Mays, Schmidt, Rose, Ford, Drysdale, Perry and so many others.
You bring this flawed argument up all the time.
The guys you listed may have cheated, but it didn't make them great ballplayers. In fact the (possible) steroid shot Mantle got actually ended his season and he went 1 for 6 in the World Series, playing in only 2 of the 5 games.
Bonds without steroids was certainly a top 20 player, but never in the GOAT conversation.
A firecracker and a nuclear bomb are both explosives, so I guess they are the same too.
Oh Joe, we have been over this so many times...
it is not a flawed argument, but it is one you don't like.
it is indisputable that most of the above-mentioned players used amphetamines. it is also true that said drug gives you greater mental acuity. that is to say, improves your NATURAL abilities. If it didn't work, those guys (with the possible exception of Aaron) would not have been such heavy users. They took it for the same reason WWII fighter pilots used them.
the problem is, we don't know how much any drug "helps" a certain player. Do Amphetamines help out 7%, 19% 37% no one knows. if you ask some former users, they felt like superman. Do Steroids "help" a player 5%? 21%? 39? again, no one knows. it is really unquantifiable.
furthermore, we don't even know who used and who didn't. we do have a few failed tests and admissions, but we don't know the half of it really.
In my opinion, we really have to compare players to their contemporaries and see where they ranked. then we can compare that ranking across eras.
I know you feel differently, and that's cool. they are just opinions.
In hitting mechanics when a left hand hitter lifts his front leg when he swings, he creates more hand speed through the zone because of the natural nature of his swing. Big Papi is a good example of this. Barry Bonds didn't even have to use a big front foot leg kick to generate power. Just think if he did perfect that front leg kick to generate even more speed through the zone the way Big Papi did.
@Goldenage said:
Bonds bat speed through the zone and torque increased by at least a factor of 5 after gaining all that muscle weight from steroids, When a person bats they’re (usually) seeking to maximize the force of contact between the ball and the bat through efficient use of their body. Since the person is swinging, the action is akin to pulling a lever. That is, something is (approximately) rotating about a point or axis. There are a lot of variables that go into this, but roughly the force of contact is related to a torque created by the motion of the arms and bat (as well as a portion of the torso). With Bonds increased strength due to steroids, a lot of his line drives to the short stop became line drives to the left field wall. A lot of his pull shots to the second basemen became line drives off the right field wall.
how do you know his bat speed increased by a factor of 5?
if by a factor of 5 you mean x^5 i would have to disagree. he would have been hitting home runs about 25,000 feet.
Dallas, you already know the answer, we have been over this before. Ruth used both an illegal Bat and used Testosterone injections.
No, the bat Ruth used for 40 games in 1923 was not illegal, although the league made him stop using it anyway. The rules regarding bat construction that occurred long after the Ruth incident made the bat Ruth had briefly used illegal.
And I am dying to know how Ruth injecting himself with some quack testosterone mixture, making himself sick and causing him to miss several games, inflated his career numbers. In any event, I am not aware of any rule in MLB in the 1920's that prohibited players from injecting sheep testicle extract.
And more to the point, you are being intellectually dishonest to an extreme degree is you think either of these incidents amounts to a pimple on the inflated noggin of Tater Head, King of the Mutants. And, by the way, when a grown man's skull grows, that is not "hearsay", it's a frightening amount of steroids.
Tater Head, King of the Mutants, more than every other player in history (combined) not on the 1919 White Sox, tarnished the integrity of the game itself. First because he used steroids to such an extreme degree and so late in his career that no sentient being could claim not to know for certain that he was cheating, and second because the records he broke mean the stain he left behind will be permanent since no human being can do what Tater Head, King of the Mutants, did.
You can be a baseball fan, or you can be a Tater Head, King of the Mutants, fan; it is not possible to be both.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Tater Head, King of the Mutants, more than every other player in history (combined) not on the 1919 White Sox, tarnished the integrity of the game itself. First because he used steroids to such an extreme degree and so late in his career that no sentient being could claim not to know for certain that he was cheating, and second because the records he broke mean the stain he left behind will be permanent since no human being can do what Tater Head, King of the Mutants, did.
You can be a baseball fan, or you can be a Tater Head, King of the Mutants, fan; it is not possible to be both.
>
Absolutely, positively 100% correct!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Goldenage said:
Bonds bat speed through the zone and torque increased by at least a factor of 5 after gaining all that muscle weight from steroids, When a person bats they’re (usually) seeking to maximize the force of contact between the ball and the bat through efficient use of their body. Since the person is swinging, the action is akin to pulling a lever. That is, something is (approximately) rotating about a point or axis. There are a lot of variables that go into this, but roughly the force of contact is related to a torque created by the motion of the arms and bat (as well as a portion of the torso). With Bonds increased strength due to steroids, a lot of his line drives to the short stop became line drives to the left field wall. A lot of his pull shots to the second basemen became line drives off the right field wall.
how do you know his bat speed increased by a factor of 5?
if by a factor of 5 you mean x^5 i would have to disagree. he would have been hitting home runs about 25,000 feet.
An exaggeration to point out how much steroids he took rather than mathematical accuracy.
Dallas, you already know the answer, we have been over this before. Ruth used both an illegal Bat and used Testosterone injections.
No, the bat Ruth used for 40 games in 1923 was not illegal, although the league made him stop using it anyway. The rules regarding bat construction that occurred long after the Ruth incident made the bat Ruth had briefly used illegal.
And I am dying to know how Ruth injecting himself with some quack testosterone mixture, making himself sick and causing him to miss several games, inflated his career numbers. In any event, I am not aware of any rule in MLB in the 1920's that prohibited players from injecting sheep testicle extract.
And more to the point, you are being intellectually dishonest to an extreme degree is you think either of these incidents amounts to a pimple on the inflated noggin of Tater Head, King of the Mutants. And, by the way, when a grown man's skull grows, that is not "hearsay", it's a frightening amount of steroids.
Tater Head, King of the Mutants, more than every other player in history (combined) not on the 1919 White Sox, tarnished the integrity of the game itself. First because he used steroids to such an extreme degree and so late in his career that no sentient being could claim not to know for certain that he was cheating, and second because the records he broke mean the stain he left behind will be permanent since no human being can do what Tater Head, King of the Mutants, did.
You can be a baseball fan, or you can be a Tater Head, King of the Mutants, fan; it is not possible to be both.
Wrong, the bat was illegal at the time and Commissioner Johnson said as much and forced Ruth to discontinue use. in modern times, Ruth would have been suspended. The rules at the time Ruth used the bat stated that a bat had to be round and made entirely of wood. Ruths bat was round, but was not entirely made of wood. it was made of a form of plywood, which is constructed of wood and glue. therefore, Ruths bat was not made entirely of wood and was Illegal at the time Ruth was using it.
"After about six weeks using the special bat, the Bambino and the Yankees were informed by American League president Ban Johnson that the bat was illegal. An article that ran in numerous papers across the country as early as August 14, 1923, quoted Johnson as stating that the “special bat George Ruth is now using does not conform to the regulations prescribed by the rules and must be discarded at once.”
Ruth was absolutely cheating in 1923. it is indisputable.
now, as far as ruths testosterone being against the rules...
What makes PED use "cheating" to you? is it because it breaks a baseball bylaw? Or, is it because of the perceived end result of better statistics?
as far as PED being against baseballs official rules, that didn't happen until 2005. there is a common misconception that in 1991 Commissioner Vincent Issued a memo that outlawed PED in baseball. that is incorrect. Vincent himself says so.
"Vincent has said that the memo was intended as a "moral statement" to the players, rather than a "legal one",that "the only way a change could be made was through collective bargaining," and "When I left baseball, there was no written policy on drug activity in baseball."
The 1991 memo did not ban the use of steroids. Steroids were first banned from use in MLB in 2005, with HGH banned from use in 2011. Fay Vincent is on record of saying that he in no way banned steroids from MLB
If you are of the opinion that PED use is only cheating if it is against an official "rule" of baseball, you must include everything Bonds did through 2004 whether you think he used or not.
If you are against PED use because of the end result and not because of a "rule" you have to include all players who used even prior to the 2005 rule.
If you are against more modern PED because of how effective YOU think they are, lets step back and have some context. How would players from the 1880's or 1930's view the over the counter supplements players take today? should modern players taking perfectly legal supplements be considered cheaters because it offers them an advantage players of old never had?
I am sure there will be both over the counter and PED in the next 20-30 years that makes the current crop look weak and ineffective, just like you see the testosterone that Ruth took in the 1920's to be ineffective and therefore "not cheating"
Just because YOU see Ruths injections (or Galvins from the 1890's, or Mantle's from the 1960's) as ineffective or "quack mixtures" doesn't mean they weren't seen as highly effective in the context of their times. why else would the players have used them. Those players were ABSOLUTELY using those injections to gain an edge on their competition, effective by modern standards or not.
The mixtures that make Bonds "king of the mutants" to you will surely be looked at as weak and ineffectual to people 50-100 years from now.
Dallas, you already know the answer, we have been over this before. Ruth used both an illegal Bat and used Testosterone injections.
No, the bat Ruth used for 40 games in 1923 was not illegal, although the league made him stop using it anyway. The rules regarding bat construction that occurred long after the Ruth incident made the bat Ruth had briefly used illegal.
And I am dying to know how Ruth injecting himself with some quack testosterone mixture, making himself sick and causing him to miss several games, inflated his career numbers. In any event, I am not aware of any rule in MLB in the 1920's that prohibited players from injecting sheep testicle extract.
And more to the point, you are being intellectually dishonest to an extreme degree is you think either of these incidents amounts to a pimple on the inflated noggin of Tater Head, King of the Mutants. And, by the way, when a grown man's skull grows, that is not "hearsay", it's a frightening amount of steroids.
Tater Head, King of the Mutants, more than every other player in history (combined) not on the 1919 White Sox, tarnished the integrity of the game itself. First because he used steroids to such an extreme degree and so late in his career that no sentient being could claim not to know for certain that he was cheating, and second because the records he broke mean the stain he left behind will be permanent since no human being can do what Tater Head, King of the Mutants, did.
You can be a baseball fan, or you can be a Tater Head, King of the Mutants, fan; it is not possible to be both.
Wrong, the bat was illegal at the time and Commissioner Johnson said as much and forced Ruth to discontinue use. in modern times, Ruth would have been suspended. The rules at the time Ruth used the bat stated that a bat had to be round and made entirely of wood. Ruths bat was round, but was not entirely made of wood. it was made of a form of plywood, which is constructed of wood and glue. therefore, Ruths bat was not made entirely of wood and was Illegal at the time Ruth was using it.
"After about six weeks using the special bat, the Bambino and the Yankees were informed by American League president Ban Johnson that the bat was illegal. An article that ran in numerous papers across the country as early as August 14, 1923, quoted Johnson as stating that the “special bat George Ruth is now using does not conform to the regulations prescribed by the rules and must be discarded at once.”
Ruth was absolutely cheating in 1923. it is indisputable.
now, as far as ruths testosterone being against the rules...
What makes PED use "cheating" to you? is it because it breaks a baseball bylaw? Or, is it because of the perceived end result of better statistics?
as far as PED being against baseballs official rules, that didn't happen until 2005. there is a common misconception that in 1991 Commissioner Vincent Issued a memo that outlawed PED in baseball. that is incorrect. Vincent himself says so.
"Vincent has said that the memo was intended as a "moral statement" to the players, rather than a "legal one",that "the only way a change could be made was through collective bargaining," and "When I left baseball, there was no written policy on drug activity in baseball."
The 1991 memo did not ban the use of steroids. Steroids were first banned from use in MLB in 2005, with HGH banned from use in 2011. Fay Vincent is on record of saying that he in no way banned steroids from MLB
If you are of the opinion that PED use is only cheating if it is against an official "rule" of baseball, you must include everything Bonds did through 2004 whether you think he used or not.
If you are against PED use because of the end result and not because of a "rule" you have to include all players who used even prior to the 2005 rule.
If you are against more modern PED because of how effective YOU think they are, lets step back and have some context. How would players from the 1880's or 1930's view the over the counter supplements players take today? should modern players taking perfectly legal supplements be considered cheaters because it offers them an advantage players of old never had?
I am sure there will be both over the counter and PED in the next 20-30 years that makes the current crop look weak and ineffective, just like you see the testosterone that Ruth took in the 1920's to be ineffective and therefore "not cheating"
Just because YOU see Ruths injections (or Galvins from the 1890's, or Mantle's from the 1960's) as ineffective or "quack mixtures" doesn't mean they weren't seen as highly effective in the context of their times. why else would the players have used them. Those players were ABSOLUTELY using those injections to gain an edge on their competition, effective by modern standards or not.
The mixtures that make Bonds "king of the mutants" to you will surely be looked at as weak and ineffectual to people 50-100 years from now.
Havent seen this thread bumped in a while. Maybe it's because Trout is leading the league in virtually any category of significance and is batting .420 with an OPS over 1.300 and an OPS+ of 267. Yeah, he needs to improve.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@grote15 said:
Havent seen this thread bumped in a while. Maybe it's because Trout is leading the league in virtually any category of significance and is batting .420 with an OPS over 1.300 and an OPS+ of 267. Yeah, he needs to improve.
According to the OP, his .420 batting average means nothing because he looked at a strike early in the at bat instead of swinging and hitting it over the fence, because 'if he was so good, he wouldn't be having ANY strikes called on him.'
I really was looking forward to the OP criticizing Trout's 04/20 performance where he went 3-4 with a HR, double, 2 runs scored and an RBI since he took a called 3rd strike in his first plate appearance. I believe at this point, Trout has more home runs than called 3rd strikes but I'm sure the OP will explain that those home runs were just stat padders when the Angels were well ahead.
@fergie23 said:
I really was looking forward to the OP criticizing Trout's 04/20 performance where he went 3-4 with a HR, double, 2 runs scored and an RBI since he took a called 3rd strike in his first plate appearance. I believe at this point, Trout has more home runs than called 3rd strikes but I'm sure the OP will explain that those home runs were just stat padders when the Angels were well ahead.
Robb
Yup.
Trout got two hits last night with two runs scored, but according to the OP since he struck out looking once, those hits don't count....and since they lost, any player that was on a winning team last night is better than him.
First inning two run home run last night. Two for four with a walk....even though according to OP, walks don't matter because you are supposed to swing at balls outside of the strike zone and hit a home run not walk.
In the end, what matters is .300/.400/.600....and Trout can strike out at least one time every single game of the year and he will still be light years better hitter than someone who goes .300/.333/.433 even if they NEVER strike out.
This guy makes A LOT of videos breaking down everything MLB. Including at bats, fights, celebrations, etc,. Some of you,I think , would enjoy his stuff, which is why I am posting this here. Also, I just checked and @countdouglas is still around but not commenting after this thread sort of went sideways. I can only speak for myself, but I would like the count to reappear.
@thisistheshow said:
This guy makes A LOT of videos breaking down everything MLB. Including at bats, fights, celebrations, etc,. Some of you,I think , would enjoy his stuff, which is why I am posting this here. Also, I just checked and @countdouglas is still around but not commenting after this thread sort of went sideways. I can only speak for myself, but I would like the count to reappear.
Everything in that video goes against what the Count is trying to promote.
The primary thing it shows is how good Trout is hitting fastballs in the zone compared to the rest of the league. 99% of the people in MLB know this. The few fans who focus on strikeout totals don't.
I'm not sure if the commentator realizes it, but those at bats are actually set up with great breaking pitches by Lynn...and then Lynn uses his fastball superbly as he has a great one. Also notice how good Trout lays off the pitches out of the zone...something else he does on an elite level.
Baseball history is littered with players who have low totals or high totals vs one pitcher. Most of that is because those totals are based on a small amount of plate appearances. In this case, a mere 31 plate appearances....
You can go back and find several pitchers where George Brett hit absolutely garbage against...but that doesn't mean those pitchers have some sort of secret that got Brett out. Most of it is simply randomness and luck because they only have a small amount of plate appearances against each other.
The commentator thinks Lynn has some secret way to get Trout out and claims it is throwing fastballs in the zone to do so...yet he flahses up on the screen that Trout hits those fastballs in the zone at an elite rate, lol. Which is it?
The nature of baseball hitting will produce wild ups and down when using a small amount of plate appearances to gauge anything.
In the end, Trout ends up going .300/420/.600....better than any other hitter in his era. And that is all that matters. He could strike out every single time he makes an out, and if he finishes with .300/.420/.600 he is still better hitter than anyone else.
thisistheshow- I enjoy the count's posts and wish he would reappear also.
My feelings on Trout are I wish I could watch him play in the post season but the Angels
are always terrible and may never get there again. I think the one time they made it
with Trout playing the Royals destroyed them.
Remember a few years ago the talk of baseball was always Trout and Harper?
Well Trout still is the talk of baseball but nobody ever talks about Harper anymore.
Now its Acuna and Soto. Wonder which one of those will end up being better?
@1951WheatiesPremium I did not post that video because I thought he was making a case for or against Trout in any way. I just thought it fit here, and wanted to see if any others were missing the count. That guy makes a lot of videos, some of them are pretty entertaining, imo.
@thisistheshow said: @1951WheatiesPremium I did not post that video because I thought he was making a case for or against Trout in any way. I just thought it fit here, and wanted to see if any others were missing the count. That guy makes a lot of videos, some of them are pretty entertaining, imo.
@thisistheshow said: @1951WheatiesPremium I did not post that video because I thought he was making a case for or against Trout in any way. I just thought it fit here, and wanted to see if any others were missing the count. That guy makes a lot of videos, some of them are pretty entertaining, imo.
Actually, what I wanted to say earlier is that the video showed more than anything how good the pitchers have become. Lance Lynn has a 96-98 MPH fastball, which would have made him a God in 1974....but now he has developed tremendous command of it in addition to breaking pitches. Lynn has gotten realllllly good. It should be no wonder why strikeouts are so high now.
Lance Lynn is a great example of size, stuff, command, and developing it better than ever and becoming what he is the last few years. That is happening across all of baseball with pitchers. The pitchers who struggle in MLB right now throwing 98 with command...dont' forget how great these hitters have become. Every single one of them is a threat 1-9. The days of getting a break with three Felix Fermin types in the lineup and saving your arm are over.
The fact that Trout has done what he has vs this level of pitching is simply astounding.
The MLB average fastball was 88.6 MPH in 2002 and has been steadily climbing and was up to 93.1 MPH in 2020. That is an absolute significant increase. That is 2002, not 1902!
This is a chart that only goes up to 2016, but highlights it visually quite well.
They aren't just out there firing fastballs as hard as they can either. They have command. They are actually throwing breaking pitches more often now too(and they are filthier than ever and spin rate can attest to that). They most certainly are being trained to maximize velocity(without losing command)...and it is showing.
In addition to throwing harder, the pitchers are getting taller and stronger as well....releasing the ball closer to home plate more than ever before.
Average MLB pitcher height in 1960 was six foot one and 190 pounds.
Average MLB pitcher height in 2000 was six foot two and 197 pounds.
Average MLB pitcher height in 2019 was six foot three and 215 pounds.
There may be a human limit to velocity, some guys had it in the past, but now there are simply more people in the world to choose from that could possess such natural ability, and they are being trained better to develop it, so there are simply more of them possessing 95+ with command on the MLB level.
Then every guy who comes out of the pen is six foot four and throwing 96 with command and breaking pitches.
The hitters now are soooo good too. Any hitter who is excelling vs that type of stuff which has never been seen before ACROSS THE ENTIRE LEAGUE(not just the few elite like in the past)
@thisistheshow said: @1951WheatiesPremium I did not post that video because I thought he was making a case for or against Trout in any way. I just thought it fit here, and wanted to see if any others were missing the count. That guy makes a lot of videos, some of them are pretty entertaining, imo.
Another pitcher that is putting it together with ungodly stuff is Carlos Rodon. He is AVERAGING 95 MPH on his four seam fastball. In his no-hitter this year he was throwing 99mph in the ninth inning.
He is getting better at repeating his mechanics and his command has gotten ridiculous...in addition to being fully healthy again.
At 6 foot 3 and 245 pounds, a left hander AVERAGING 95 MPH with filthy breaking pitches and command....it is ridiculous.
League wide 5PMH increase in velocity in MLB compared to 2002. In 2002 it was the same gun clocking Randy Johnson at 100 MPH as was the one in 1989 clocking Randy Johnson at 100 MPH.
This is concrete. The 1/2 MPH difference in radar gun readings from now to the Johnson years is there, but thats it. Does not come anywhere close to close the 5MPH increase in velocity.
Think about that when anyone gives Trout such a hard time for striking out.
Pitchers are taller, stronger, and throwing harder across the entire league. It is a league filled with Nolan Ryan arsenals, but with better command, and taller pitchers. It is not a slight on Ryan, just an explosion of pitchers to choose from around the world and far better baseball mechanical science. Hitters have also had to adapt by swinging for the fences more because stringing hits together is harder...so the hitters do contribute to the higher strikeout totals too.
Doing what Trout has done in this league is remarkable.
My eyes were opened during the 2006 playoffs. I started paying attention and noticed the Tigers had a roster full of guys throwing 95. EVERY guy could hit that number. Including Kenny Rogers who "doesn't throw that hard". If one team has 10 or 12 guys doing that, things had changed. And treat was FIFTEEN years ago.
@Tabe said:
My eyes were opened during the 2006 playoffs. I started paying attention and noticed the Tigers had a roster full of guys throwing 95. EVERY guy could hit that number. Including Kenny Rogers who "doesn't throw that hard". If one team has 10 or 12 guys doing that, things had changed. And treat was FIFTEEN years ago.
Tabe, it snuck up on me too. I would be watching a game, and then some middle reliever I never heard of comes out of the pen, and he is six foot five and throwing 97. Then the next guy out of the pen, the same thing. They were all throwing harder than the starter was....and they hit their spots too.
Some teams are still lacking though. The Cubs staff is quite unimpressive. I'm watching the Roayls vs Sox last night and the Royals pitching is quite unimpressive too.
The Sox on the other hand, good lord. Its not a surprise they have the best ERA in baseball, and from an AL team contending with DH. Interleague play has evened out the DH factor a bit, but it is still a factor. They have a stable of arms that can pitch. Kopech is ridiculous. Crochet is ridiculous. Those two pitching out of the pen for now. Cease is still learning, but jesus he has it all. Rodon, good lord. That fastball is off the charts and he has filthy breaking pitches. He is hitting his spots now.
Obviously, the Greg Maddux's of the world still can excel...but people forget that Maddux was still throwing 90MPH with extreme movement and impeccable command....which is also a rare skill set. But some guys are getting that same stuff and throwing 95 now.
In ten years the league avg fastball will be 95....not because of human evolution, just because there are billions more people in the world now compared to 1980.
There are twice as many humans in the world right now than there were in 1973. TWICE AS MANY.
Plus there are more countries to choose players from as well....and the pitching science is better than ever, so we are getting those extra three-five MPH that were hidden within the natural talent that gets you 90% of the way there.
The 'get off my lawn' fans can romanticize all they want...but the talent pool and ability to develop that talent is such much higher now that ever before that there is not even a comparison. Twice as many humans now than in 1973 and a lot of us were around in 1973. It is a crazy number to think of and very hard to grasp....but it is making a big difference.
BIG PS: The same things all apply to the hitters now too. There are no lineups with three Fermine, Patek, Belanger type hitters where they are zero threat with the bat. Every hitter in the lineup is a threat for an extra base hit, the thing is, the pitching is sooooo dang good that you just don't notice it. Put those 'weak' hitters now vs pitchers throwing 86 MPH, then you would see it more, because they are darn good. The elite hitters today? They are amazing.
This entire thread picking on Trout is completely lacking in substantial baseball and societal facts, and the logic is completely non existent. Trout is every bit as advertised, and then some more. Considering we still have the 'get off my lawn' fans bashing Trout, Trout is actually UNDERRATED
Comments
Still stuck on 4 called third strikes through 12 games.
I give Trout mad props for at least making it look good with 6 swinging strikeouts in the 3 game series with the Royals. Take a look at the game situations in each instance. Close game, runners on, and whiff!
Homerun in garbage time off of a just recalled scrub reliever to pump up the stats (pitcher foolishly thought he could go down/middle vs down/in, so I got that wrong).
Those of you that think this is an aberration just haven't really been paying attention to Trout's career.
I just wanted to point this out early, from the beginning of the season, so when we see the same thing during the pennant race, or in a postseason series, we don't hear the garbage excuse of "small sample size". This is who he is. The called third strikes are coming, believe me!
Keep watching 162.
And c'mon now! Give me some love! Give it up!
.
Dallas, you already know the answer, we have been over this before. Ruth used both an illegal Bat and used Testosterone injections.
Cheating has been happening in sports since cavemen were throwing rocks for distance and accuracy. for some reason, some forms of cheating are acceptable to you, others are not. in my book, that is intellectually dishonest.
there is absolutely no way to quantify how much cheating helped different players or if their statistics should be altered to reflect cheating. nor is there any way to conclusively tell who cheated and who did not. we all have our suspicions, but short of a failed drug test, hard physical evidence or an admission, everything else is hearsay.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Bonds bat speed through the zone and torque increased by at least a factor of 5 after gaining all that muscle weight from steroids, When a person bats they’re (usually) seeking to maximize the force of contact between the ball and the bat through efficient use of their body. Since the person is swinging, the action is akin to pulling a lever. That is, something is (approximately) rotating about a point or axis. There are a lot of variables that go into this, but roughly the force of contact is related to a torque created by the motion of the arms and bat (as well as a portion of the torso). With Bonds increased strength due to steroids, a lot of his line drives to the short stop became line drives to the left field wall. A lot of his pull shots to the second basemen became line drives off the right field wall.
Oh Joe, we have been over this so many times...
it is not a flawed argument, but it is one you don't like.
it is indisputable that most of the above-mentioned players used amphetamines. it is also true that said drug gives you greater mental acuity. that is to say, improves your NATURAL abilities. If it didn't work, those guys (with the possible exception of Aaron) would not have been such heavy users. They took it for the same reason WWII fighter pilots used them.
the problem is, we don't know how much any drug "helps" a certain player. Do Amphetamines help out 7%, 19% 37% no one knows. if you ask some former users, they felt like superman. Do Steroids "help" a player 5%? 21%? 39? again, no one knows. it is really unquantifiable.
furthermore, we don't even know who used and who didn't. we do have a few failed tests and admissions, but we don't know the half of it really.
In my opinion, we really have to compare players to their contemporaries and see where they ranked. then we can compare that ranking across eras.
I know you feel differently, and that's cool. they are just opinions.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
In hitting mechanics when a left hand hitter lifts his front leg when he swings, he creates more hand speed through the zone because of the natural nature of his swing. Big Papi is a good example of this. Barry Bonds didn't even have to use a big front foot leg kick to generate power. Just think if he did perfect that front leg kick to generate even more speed through the zone the way Big Papi did.
Barry had more of a slide step.
Big Papi generated more bat speed with the higher leg kick.
how do you know his bat speed increased by a factor of 5?
if by a factor of 5 you mean x^5 i would have to disagree. he would have been hitting home runs about 25,000 feet.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
No, the bat Ruth used for 40 games in 1923 was not illegal, although the league made him stop using it anyway. The rules regarding bat construction that occurred long after the Ruth incident made the bat Ruth had briefly used illegal.
And I am dying to know how Ruth injecting himself with some quack testosterone mixture, making himself sick and causing him to miss several games, inflated his career numbers. In any event, I am not aware of any rule in MLB in the 1920's that prohibited players from injecting sheep testicle extract.
And more to the point, you are being intellectually dishonest to an extreme degree is you think either of these incidents amounts to a pimple on the inflated noggin of Tater Head, King of the Mutants. And, by the way, when a grown man's skull grows, that is not "hearsay", it's a frightening amount of steroids.
Tater Head, King of the Mutants, more than every other player in history (combined) not on the 1919 White Sox, tarnished the integrity of the game itself. First because he used steroids to such an extreme degree and so late in his career that no sentient being could claim not to know for certain that he was cheating, and second because the records he broke mean the stain he left behind will be permanent since no human being can do what Tater Head, King of the Mutants, did.
You can be a baseball fan, or you can be a Tater Head, King of the Mutants, fan; it is not possible to be both.
>
Absolutely, positively 100% correct!
An exaggeration to point out how much steroids he took rather than mathematical accuracy.
Wrong, the bat was illegal at the time and Commissioner Johnson said as much and forced Ruth to discontinue use. in modern times, Ruth would have been suspended. The rules at the time Ruth used the bat stated that a bat had to be round and made entirely of wood. Ruths bat was round, but was not entirely made of wood. it was made of a form of plywood, which is constructed of wood and glue. therefore, Ruths bat was not made entirely of wood and was Illegal at the time Ruth was using it.
"After about six weeks using the special bat, the Bambino and the Yankees were informed by American League president Ban Johnson that the bat was illegal. An article that ran in numerous papers across the country as early as August 14, 1923, quoted Johnson as stating that the “special bat George Ruth is now using does not conform to the regulations prescribed by the rules and must be discarded at once.”
Ruth was absolutely cheating in 1923. it is indisputable.
now, as far as ruths testosterone being against the rules...
What makes PED use "cheating" to you? is it because it breaks a baseball bylaw? Or, is it because of the perceived end result of better statistics?
as far as PED being against baseballs official rules, that didn't happen until 2005. there is a common misconception that in 1991 Commissioner Vincent Issued a memo that outlawed PED in baseball. that is incorrect. Vincent himself says so.
"Vincent has said that the memo was intended as a "moral statement" to the players, rather than a "legal one",that "the only way a change could be made was through collective bargaining," and "When I left baseball, there was no written policy on drug activity in baseball."
The 1991 memo did not ban the use of steroids. Steroids were first banned from use in MLB in 2005, with HGH banned from use in 2011. Fay Vincent is on record of saying that he in no way banned steroids from MLB
If you are of the opinion that PED use is only cheating if it is against an official "rule" of baseball, you must include everything Bonds did through 2004 whether you think he used or not.
If you are against PED use because of the end result and not because of a "rule" you have to include all players who used even prior to the 2005 rule.
If you are against more modern PED because of how effective YOU think they are, lets step back and have some context. How would players from the 1880's or 1930's view the over the counter supplements players take today? should modern players taking perfectly legal supplements be considered cheaters because it offers them an advantage players of old never had?
I am sure there will be both over the counter and PED in the next 20-30 years that makes the current crop look weak and ineffective, just like you see the testosterone that Ruth took in the 1920's to be ineffective and therefore "not cheating"
Just because YOU see Ruths injections (or Galvins from the 1890's, or Mantle's from the 1960's) as ineffective or "quack mixtures" doesn't mean they weren't seen as highly effective in the context of their times. why else would the players have used them. Those players were ABSOLUTELY using those injections to gain an edge on their competition, effective by modern standards or not.
The mixtures that make Bonds "king of the mutants" to you will surely be looked at as weak and ineffectual to people 50-100 years from now.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Interesting take.
Havent seen this thread bumped in a while. Maybe it's because Trout is leading the league in virtually any category of significance and is batting .420 with an OPS over 1.300 and an OPS+ of 267. Yeah, he needs to improve.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
According to the OP, his .420 batting average means nothing because he looked at a strike early in the at bat instead of swinging and hitting it over the fence, because 'if he was so good, he wouldn't be having ANY strikes called on him.'
I really was looking forward to the OP criticizing Trout's 04/20 performance where he went 3-4 with a HR, double, 2 runs scored and an RBI since he took a called 3rd strike in his first plate appearance. I believe at this point, Trout has more home runs than called 3rd strikes but I'm sure the OP will explain that those home runs were just stat padders when the Angels were well ahead.
Robb
Yup.
Trout got two hits last night with two runs scored, but according to the OP since he struck out looking once, those hits don't count....and since they lost, any player that was on a winning team last night is better than him.
First inning two run home run last night. Two for four with a walk....even though according to OP, walks don't matter because you are supposed to swing at balls outside of the strike zone and hit a home run not walk.
In the end, what matters is .300/.400/.600....and Trout can strike out at least one time every single game of the year and he will still be light years better hitter than someone who goes .300/.333/.433 even if they NEVER strike out.
This guy makes A LOT of videos breaking down everything MLB. Including at bats, fights, celebrations, etc,. Some of you,I think , would enjoy his stuff, which is why I am posting this here. Also, I just checked and @countdouglas is still around but not commenting after this thread sort of went sideways. I can only speak for myself, but I would like the count to reappear.
Everything in that video goes against what the Count is trying to promote.
The primary thing it shows is how good Trout is hitting fastballs in the zone compared to the rest of the league. 99% of the people in MLB know this. The few fans who focus on strikeout totals don't.
I'm not sure if the commentator realizes it, but those at bats are actually set up with great breaking pitches by Lynn...and then Lynn uses his fastball superbly as he has a great one. Also notice how good Trout lays off the pitches out of the zone...something else he does on an elite level.
Baseball history is littered with players who have low totals or high totals vs one pitcher. Most of that is because those totals are based on a small amount of plate appearances. In this case, a mere 31 plate appearances....
You can go back and find several pitchers where George Brett hit absolutely garbage against...but that doesn't mean those pitchers have some sort of secret that got Brett out. Most of it is simply randomness and luck because they only have a small amount of plate appearances against each other.
The commentator thinks Lynn has some secret way to get Trout out and claims it is throwing fastballs in the zone to do so...yet he flahses up on the screen that Trout hits those fastballs in the zone at an elite rate, lol. Which is it?
The nature of baseball hitting will produce wild ups and down when using a small amount of plate appearances to gauge anything.
In the end, Trout ends up going .300/420/.600....better than any other hitter in his era. And that is all that matters. He could strike out every single time he makes an out, and if he finishes with .300/.420/.600 he is still better hitter than anyone else.
thisistheshow- I enjoy the count's posts and wish he would reappear also.
My feelings on Trout are I wish I could watch him play in the post season but the Angels
are always terrible and may never get there again. I think the one time they made it
with Trout playing the Royals destroyed them.
Remember a few years ago the talk of baseball was always Trout and Harper?
Well Trout still is the talk of baseball but nobody ever talks about Harper anymore.
Now its Acuna and Soto. Wonder which one of those will end up being better?
@1951WheatiesPremium I did not post that video because I thought he was making a case for or against Trout in any way. I just thought it fit here, and wanted to see if any others were missing the count. That guy makes a lot of videos, some of them are pretty entertaining, imo.
Did you mean @1948_Swell_Robinson ?
I hadn’t posted in this thread.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Actually, what I wanted to say earlier is that the video showed more than anything how good the pitchers have become. Lance Lynn has a 96-98 MPH fastball, which would have made him a God in 1974....but now he has developed tremendous command of it in addition to breaking pitches. Lynn has gotten realllllly good. It should be no wonder why strikeouts are so high now.
Lance Lynn is a great example of size, stuff, command, and developing it better than ever and becoming what he is the last few years. That is happening across all of baseball with pitchers. The pitchers who struggle in MLB right now throwing 98 with command...dont' forget how great these hitters have become. Every single one of them is a threat 1-9. The days of getting a break with three Felix Fermin types in the lineup and saving your arm are over.
The fact that Trout has done what he has vs this level of pitching is simply astounding.
The MLB average fastball was 88.6 MPH in 2002 and has been steadily climbing and was up to 93.1 MPH in 2020. That is an absolute significant increase. That is 2002, not 1902!
This is a chart that only goes up to 2016, but highlights it visually quite well.
https://theatlas.com/charts/S1-DccGC
They aren't just out there firing fastballs as hard as they can either. They have command. They are actually throwing breaking pitches more often now too(and they are filthier than ever and spin rate can attest to that). They most certainly are being trained to maximize velocity(without losing command)...and it is showing.
In addition to throwing harder, the pitchers are getting taller and stronger as well....releasing the ball closer to home plate more than ever before.
Average MLB pitcher height in 1960 was six foot one and 190 pounds.
Average MLB pitcher height in 2000 was six foot two and 197 pounds.
Average MLB pitcher height in 2019 was six foot three and 215 pounds.
There may be a human limit to velocity, some guys had it in the past, but now there are simply more people in the world to choose from that could possess such natural ability, and they are being trained better to develop it, so there are simply more of them possessing 95+ with command on the MLB level.
Then every guy who comes out of the pen is six foot four and throwing 96 with command and breaking pitches.
The hitters now are soooo good too. Any hitter who is excelling vs that type of stuff which has never been seen before ACROSS THE ENTIRE LEAGUE(not just the few elite like in the past)
Yes, my mistake. 😂😂😂😂
Another pitcher that is putting it together with ungodly stuff is Carlos Rodon. He is AVERAGING 95 MPH on his four seam fastball. In his no-hitter this year he was throwing 99mph in the ninth inning.
He is getting better at repeating his mechanics and his command has gotten ridiculous...in addition to being fully healthy again.
At 6 foot 3 and 245 pounds, a left hander AVERAGING 95 MPH with filthy breaking pitches and command....it is ridiculous.
League wide 5PMH increase in velocity in MLB compared to 2002. In 2002 it was the same gun clocking Randy Johnson at 100 MPH as was the one in 1989 clocking Randy Johnson at 100 MPH.
This is concrete. The 1/2 MPH difference in radar gun readings from now to the Johnson years is there, but thats it. Does not come anywhere close to close the 5MPH increase in velocity.
Think about that when anyone gives Trout such a hard time for striking out.
Pitchers are taller, stronger, and throwing harder across the entire league. It is a league filled with Nolan Ryan arsenals, but with better command, and taller pitchers. It is not a slight on Ryan, just an explosion of pitchers to choose from around the world and far better baseball mechanical science. Hitters have also had to adapt by swinging for the fences more because stringing hits together is harder...so the hitters do contribute to the higher strikeout totals too.
Doing what Trout has done in this league is remarkable.
My eyes were opened during the 2006 playoffs. I started paying attention and noticed the Tigers had a roster full of guys throwing 95. EVERY guy could hit that number. Including Kenny Rogers who "doesn't throw that hard". If one team has 10 or 12 guys doing that, things had changed. And treat was FIFTEEN years ago.
Tabe, it snuck up on me too. I would be watching a game, and then some middle reliever I never heard of comes out of the pen, and he is six foot five and throwing 97. Then the next guy out of the pen, the same thing. They were all throwing harder than the starter was....and they hit their spots too.
Some teams are still lacking though. The Cubs staff is quite unimpressive. I'm watching the Roayls vs Sox last night and the Royals pitching is quite unimpressive too.
The Sox on the other hand, good lord. Its not a surprise they have the best ERA in baseball, and from an AL team contending with DH. Interleague play has evened out the DH factor a bit, but it is still a factor. They have a stable of arms that can pitch. Kopech is ridiculous. Crochet is ridiculous. Those two pitching out of the pen for now. Cease is still learning, but jesus he has it all. Rodon, good lord. That fastball is off the charts and he has filthy breaking pitches. He is hitting his spots now.
Obviously, the Greg Maddux's of the world still can excel...but people forget that Maddux was still throwing 90MPH with extreme movement and impeccable command....which is also a rare skill set. But some guys are getting that same stuff and throwing 95 now.
In ten years the league avg fastball will be 95....not because of human evolution, just because there are billions more people in the world now compared to 1980.
There are twice as many humans in the world right now than there were in 1973. TWICE AS MANY.
Plus there are more countries to choose players from as well....and the pitching science is better than ever, so we are getting those extra three-five MPH that were hidden within the natural talent that gets you 90% of the way there.
The 'get off my lawn' fans can romanticize all they want...but the talent pool and ability to develop that talent is such much higher now that ever before that there is not even a comparison. Twice as many humans now than in 1973 and a lot of us were around in 1973. It is a crazy number to think of and very hard to grasp....but it is making a big difference.
BIG PS: The same things all apply to the hitters now too. There are no lineups with three Fermine, Patek, Belanger type hitters where they are zero threat with the bat. Every hitter in the lineup is a threat for an extra base hit, the thing is, the pitching is sooooo dang good that you just don't notice it. Put those 'weak' hitters now vs pitchers throwing 86 MPH, then you would see it more, because they are darn good. The elite hitters today? They are amazing.
This entire thread picking on Trout is completely lacking in substantial baseball and societal facts, and the logic is completely non existent. Trout is every bit as advertised, and then some more. Considering we still have the 'get off my lawn' fans bashing Trout, Trout is actually UNDERRATED