Ruth/Gehrig combo would be difficult to beat

Posted by DoctorKz on 8/22/2015 11:34:00 PM (view original):
Ruth/Gehrig combo would be difficult to beat

I'll say it's impossible to beat

Posted by redwingscup on 8/23/2015 2:57:00 AM (view original):

Posted by DoctorKz on 8/22/2015 11:34:00 PM (view original):
Ruth/Gehrig combo would be difficult to beat

I'll say it's impossible to beat

Nah, d_rock97 will tell you it's Miggy and __________________.  lol

Miggy is the greatest hitter of all time. But lol. V-Mart had Pujols type season. Homers and strikeouts the same, 30 homers, .330 aversge

What about whoever hit 3rd and 4th for the 1894 Phillies.  They had four .400 hitters, and three others that hit over .350.  I would have guessed Ed Delahanty and Sam Thompson, but I saw a box score online that had Lave Cross third and Delahanty fourth, followed by Thompson.

miggy, as good as he surely is, is not even in the best twenty,

Posted by cleansox on 8/26/2015 10:37:00 PM (view original):
miggy, as good as he surely is, is not even in the best twenty,

Well, my argument is the evolution of pitching. Scouting reports aren't what they are now. Technology is so advanced that pitchers know what their worst pitch to hit and their worst location and then they try to abuse that. Not all pitchers are accurate but they know where to throw. Then there are many more pitch types than there were a long time ago. I don't even think there were scouting reports back in Ruth's age. Anyways. Average pitch velocity is the highest it's ever been, I think this year it was around 94 MPH on average. Pitchers throw way harder than say 1920. A lot harder. Also there are specialist. Now you got guys for specific occasions. You got sinker ballers when you need a DP, you got guys like Steve Delabar striking out 15 per 9 innings. You got guys like Rondon, Chapman, that throw in the triple digits. And back in the old days of Ruth, Gehrig, I don't think there were pitching mounds. It was flat. So you got no mounds where the pitchers are throwing on a plane. The velocity is around 88-89 back then. There were spitballs, fastballs, and curveballs. Not much else. You go on MLB: the Show and you got like 18 different pitches to choose from. Back then you could have a guy with a 5 era pitch 300 innings so the pitcher quality wasn't that great. You don't have competition from blacks or other countries. The only counter argument I can think of is smaller ballparks and hitters can scout report pitchers. That's it. Baseball has changed so much against he hitter nowadays. I don't think they shifted the infield for say Ted Williams

Everything is relative, you can only judge someone against hiss peers.  Ruth was lightyears ahead of the competition; Miggy wouldn't even be mh first choice among  current non-pitchers to start my team.

Posted by slotterhodge on 8/27/2015 12:04:00 AM (view original):
Everything is relative, you can only judge someone against hiss peers.  Ruth was lightyears ahead of the competition; Miggy wouldn't even be mh first choice among  current non-pitchers to start my team.

Remeber, this is hitting we talking about. Don't talk about starting your team with Trout cuz he isn't a good hitter

Trout's not a good hitter?  Dude, whatever you're smokin' pass some here.  Sure, he's in a slump the last couple weeks but everyone - yes, even Miggy - has slumps.

Miggy is the greatest hitter of all time, followed by Trout isn't a good hitter.....


that's a helluva 3-4 combo of comedy right there - I haven't stopped laughing yet.....

Posted by d_rock97 on 8/26/2015 11:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cleansox on 8/26/2015 10:37:00 PM (view original):
miggy, as good as he surely is, is not even in the best twenty,

Well, my argument is the evolution of pitching. Scouting reports aren't what they are now. Technology is so advanced that pitchers know what their worst pitch to hit and their worst location and then they try to abuse that. Not all pitchers are accurate but they know where to throw. Then there are many more pitch types than there were a long time ago. I don't even think there were scouting reports back in Ruth's age. Anyways. Average pitch velocity is the highest it's ever been, I think this year it was around 94 MPH on average. Pitchers throw way harder than say 1920. A lot harder. Also there are specialist. Now you got guys for specific occasions. You got sinker ballers when you need a DP, you got guys like Steve Delabar striking out 15 per 9 innings. You got guys like Rondon, Chapman, that throw in the triple digits. And back in the old days of Ruth, Gehrig, I don't think there were pitching mounds. It was flat. So you got no mounds where the pitchers are throwing on a plane. The velocity is around 88-89 back then. There were spitballs, fastballs, and curveballs. Not much else. You go on MLB: the Show and you got like 18 different pitches to choose from. Back then you could have a guy with a 5 era pitch 300 innings so the pitcher quality wasn't that great. You don't have competition from blacks or other countries. The only counter argument I can think of is smaller ballparks and hitters can scout report pitchers. That's it. Baseball has changed so much against he hitter nowadays. I don't think they shifted the infield for say Ted Williams

Most of what you say is true.  But, they've had pitching mounds since the very early 1900s.  I've seen old videos of Walter Johnson pitching from a mound.  And for what it's worth, Wikipedia says: "From 1903 through 1968, this height limit was set at 15 inches, but was often slightly higher, sometimes as high as 20 inches"

There's an underlying error in his entire argument, though.  He assumes that pithing has evolved but batting has not.  Yes, the array of pitches thrown and the presence of 'specialists' has changed pitching - but it didn't happen overnight.  As today's pitchers were developing, and as today's managers were adjusting their strategy, batters evolved right along with it.  If you're used to seeing 95 mph fastballs, they're not exceptional.  Again, everything is relative.

Also, I find it hilarious he chose Williams as his example of no shifts in the old days.  The Williams Shift was FAMOUS - both left-side infielders moved to the right and the left fielder played shallow in case he needed to cover third.  The Williams Shift was more extreme than the cr*p we see today

While there were exceptions.....years ago, the hitters were not as big/strong as they are today. (Steroids aside).  They had heavier bats where todays are optimized by player a lighter/more dense bat,  guarantee ruth did not have the bat speed of Stanton. Umpires who do not call low strikes, no knockdown pitches today therefore hitters are more comfortable lots of reasons why it is inaccurate to try and normalize.

Not to mention, how many times did Dizzy Dean pitch a complete game and then relief the next day....a bit different than facing Chapman.

Posted by pinotfan on 8/27/2015 5:18:00 PM (view original):
There's an underlying error in his entire argument, though.  He assumes that pithing has evolved but batting has not.  Yes, the array of pitches thrown and the presence of 'specialists' has changed pitching - but it didn't happen overnight.  As today's pitchers were developing, and as today's managers were adjusting their strategy, batters evolved right along with it.  If you're used to seeing 95 mph fastballs, they're not exceptional.  Again, everything is relative.

Also, I find it hilarious he chose Williams as his example of no shifts in the old days.  The Williams Shift was FAMOUS - both left-side infielders moved to the right and the left fielder played shallow in case he needed to cover third.  The Williams Shift was more extreme than the cr*p we see today

Really? Didn't know he had a shift, should've read more carefully