Posted by d_rock97 on 8/28/2015 1:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pinotfan on 8/27/2015 12:07:00 PM (view original):
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.

I don't like guys that strike out 200 times. And he's getting worse.

Trout has never struck out 200 times in a season, and he's not close to that pace this season. Also, remember he's 4-6 years from his peak. Not counting his short first season (didn't appear enough to lose his rookie status) he's batted .308; Miggy, throwing out his first season to be fair (although he appeared in 87 games; I don't want to be accused of cooking the stats in Trout's favor) he batted .318. Their HRs are exactly the same at 126; Miggy's RBI numbers were much better (and Trout's SBs blow Miggy away, but we're talking batting), but remember that Trout batted lead-off and second a lot of his first two seasons. Put Trout in Detroit's line-up (and park) and his power/RBI numbers would be better than Miggy's, as would his average. And as a happy coincidence, their ages were the same when they came up so the comparison is accurate.

Posted by pinotfan on 8/28/2015 5:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by d_rock97 on 8/28/2015 1:49:00 AM (view original):

Posted by pinotfan on 8/27/2015 12:07:00 PM (view original):
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.

I don't like guys that strike out 200 times. And he's getting worse.

Trout has never struck out 200 times in a season, and he's not close to that pace this season. Also, remember he's 4-6 years from his peak. Not counting his short first season (didn't appear enough to lose his rookie status) he's batted .308; Miggy, throwing out his first season to be fair (although he appeared in 87 games; I don't want to be accused of cooking the stats in Trout's favor) he batted .318. Their HRs are exactly the same at 126; Miggy's RBI numbers were much better (and Trout's SBs blow Miggy away, but we're talking batting), but remember that Trout batted lead-off and second a lot of his first two seasons. Put Trout in Detroit's line-up (and park) and his power/RBI numbers would be better than Miggy's, as would his average. And as a happy coincidence, their ages were the same when they came up so the comparison is accurate.

He struck out 184 times last year didn't he? Also, I've never seen a game at the Angels stadium so I couldn't tell if it was a pitcher's or hitter' spark but you saying it's a bigger pitcher' spark than Comerica, I gotta check it out. I know about the marine layer but this year it hasn't been coming in so you see a rise in homers over in the west coast, but I'll have to check it out

Yes, he struck out 8% less than 200 times, a statistically significant number. 184 does not equal 200, at least when I went to school.

I admit I made an error in my post, mea culpa. In computing their numbers for the first four full seasons of their careers - at the same ages, coincidentally - I counted Trout through this season which, of course, is not over. His Home Run numbers are actually better than Miggy's (assuming he doesn't go homerless the rest of the season, of course).

Posted by pinotfan on 8/28/2015 6:42:00 PM (view original):
Yes, he struck out 8% less than 200 times, a statistically significant number. 184 does not equal 200, at least when I went to school.

I admit I made an error in my post, mea culpa. In computing their numbers for the first four full seasons of their careers - at the same ages, coincidentally - I counted Trout through this season which, of course, is not over. His Home Run numbers are actually better than Miggy's (assuming he doesn't go homerless the rest of the season, of course).

Well Angels stadium is much better for homers than Comerica but Comerica is better for doubles. Idk about Sun Life where Miggy first played.

So you concede the following:

- through the first four years of their careers, at the same age, Trout has more HR (or will have, with one more this season)
- same period, Miggy has a better average by .310 to .318, which amounts to 17 hits over four SEASONS
- Trout has never come within 8% of 200 Ks in a season
- Miggy has had much better teams around him
- Trout has spent much of his time batting 1 or 2, diminishing his power numbers which are still better than Miggy's
- at worst, their ballparks are a wash
- Trout is at the beginning of his career, and barring injury won't peak for 4-6 years then should plateau (as Miggy has)

So, with all that, Miggy is the best hitter ever and Trout is a terrible hitter. Just want to be clear.

Posted by pinotfan on 8/28/2015 8:55:00 PM (view original):
So you concede the following:

- through the first four years of their careers, at the same age, Trout has more HR (or will have, with one more this season)
- same period, Miggy has a better average by .310 to .318, which amounts to 17 hits over four SEASONS
- Trout has never come within 8% of 200 Ks in a season
- Miggy has had much better teams around him
- Trout has spent much of his time batting 1 or 2, diminishing his power numbers which are still better than Miggy's
- at worst, their ballparks are a wash
- Trout is at the beginning of his career, and barring injury won't peak for 4-6 years then should plateau (as Miggy has)

So, with all that, Miggy is the best hitter ever and Trout is a terrible hitter. Just want to be clear.

Yes. The game in watch, he has terrible swings

I*

Dude, why didn't you say that from the beginning?  Here I've been wasting my time with research, evidence, and, well, facts, and all along all I had to do was ask you who saw one game and have pronounced Trout's swing terrible: QED.  You win, debate closed.

Posted by d_rock97 on 8/28/2015 1:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by The_Creeper on 8/27/2015 5:42:00 PM (view original):
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.

Yeah, but seeing Dean 4-5 times then next game facing him again, wouldn't that bring hitter's the advantage? Seeing him 5-6 times, they know his stuff. Pedro Martinez said, he hated divisional games because those teams have seen him so many times, they know what to expect. As for the evolution of hitting. We are currently in the most dominant pitching era in history. OBP is at an all time low, strikeouts are up (mostly because it's not a big deal as it use to be when you strikeout) runs per game is super low. And from another guys comment, Miggy is obviously the best active hitter, which active hitter would you say is better? Also, I kinda went to baseball-reference.com and kinda messed around. I got to a point where I was putting 1927 Babe Ruth in Comerica Park with 2013 pitching. His AVG and SLG were lower than Miggy's but his OBP was a lot higher

FWIW re: OBP - of the 15 lowest OBP seasonss in ML history, six fall from 1904 to 1909 with another two at 1916-17.  The other seven fall from 1963-1972. None are more recent than 1972, so the current era isn't even close to being the lowest.  But now I'm falling into Pinotfan's trap of confusing the issue with facts.

The line for greatest ever wanabees begins after Ruth, Hornsby, Cobb, Heilmann, Williams, Dimaggio, Musial, Sisler.

Gwynn, Pujols, Brett and Miggy are among the best in the past 30 years.

Even the finest of this generation get themselves out far more than most from years ago. Pujols in his first 7 or 8 seasons was an exception. Since then even he has greatly expanded his strikezone. I will agree that specialized pitching has improved pitching overall, but advanced scouting and video training has negated much of the pitcher's advantage. Hitting fundamentals is mostly a lost art. The lure of big contracts for power numbers is a real detriment to the game...now it is all about being on SportsCenter...

Posted by DoctorKz on 8/29/2015 4:54:00 PM (view original):
Even the finest of this generation get themselves out far more than most from years ago. Pujols in his first 7 or 8 seasons was an exception. Since then even he has greatly expanded his strikezone. I will agree that specialized pitching has improved pitching overall, but advanced scouting and video training has negated much of the pitcher's advantage. Hitting fundamentals is mostly a lost art. The lure of big contracts for power numbers is a real detriment to the game...now it is all about being on SportsCenter...

I'm trying to explain it the best I can but I guess I'm not good at that. It's the way I view the game. Yes technology has taken away pitchers advantage but I feel like it's worse for hitter. Hitters get a tenth of a second to decide whether or not to swing, they can expect pitches but that's only guessing. Pitchers know that Mike Trout has a .100 BA on low and inside pitches, a .400 BA on up and middle pitches. A .180 BA on sinkers, a .300 average on fastballs, and they can plan accordingly. (Those were made up facts) hitters can see that a pitcher throws a splitter 67% of the time on 1-2 counts but that's still guessing and they only get a tenth of a second to react while a pitcher can plan what he's gonna throw next for 20 seconds if the pitch clock ever comes in. But it's how I view the game. I see all the advantages technology gives pitchers nowadays that they didn't have way back. I see specialist and talent all over the world that they didn't have way back. It's how I see it