Posted by d_rock97 on 12/22/2018 1:48:00 PM (view original):
Pedro has WHIP, ERA+, OAV, K/9, BB/9, and a more dominant stretch on Clemens.

BL: But Innings...

So is Craig Kimbrel better than Pedro? He has a better WHIP, ERA+, K/9 etc.

1885-1892: Guys were hitting against pitchers who were a lot closer to the plate: In 1893, pitching distance increased from 50 feet to 60 feet 6 inches.

Prior to 1903, the pitching mound could be significantly taller than today. In 1904, height of the mound was limited to 15 inches higher than the level of the baselines - which is still 5 inches higher than today.

1920 - All freak deliveries, including the spitball, were outlawed. Prior to this, they could throw virtually anything.

1925 - The minimum home-run distance was set at 250 feet. Prior to this, the boundaries for ballparks could be whatever the home-team wanted. Today's home run hitters might take issue with that.

With rule changes over the years, there's really no way you can tell how good Mike Trout would be against a guy throwing from only 50 feet away and using the fielding equipment they had back then. Plus, he'd probably be eating a ton of crap that today is considered about as unhealthy as you can get. Then again, give "The Babe" today's conditioning and all and let him play in some of these bandboxes, 714 would only be the beginning...

Posted by d_rock97 on 12/22/2018 1:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/22/2018 11:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by d_rock97 on 12/21/2018 10:24:00 PM (view original):
Y’all are treating these old-timers like they’re idiot Neanderthals or something. They’re athletes capable of learning and adjusting to today’s game. There’s no way you can convince me Ty Cobb wouldn’t be a perennial all-star in today’s game.

But if you do think that way, does it apply to all modern hitters too? Are Miggy, Pujols, and Man-Ram the best RH hitters of all time over Hornsby, Lajoie, and Delahanty? I mean, with the whole level of competition, scouting, and every pitchers throwing 95+ nowadays...

I don’t think they were neanderthals but I do think that, like in any major sport, old timers wouldn’t be able to compete in today’s game.

I think greats of the 1950’s and 1960’s would have a hard time. Guys from the turn of the century would be so utterly overmatched that they wouldn’t stand a chance. It’s a completely different game.

So Miggy, Pujols, and Man-Ram are the best RH hitters of all time. Better than Hornsby, Delahanty, Lajoie, Mays, Aaron, Robinson, etc.

In fact, Chipper Jones and Lance Berkman are better than Mickey Mantle.

Cuz you know, they’d struggle in today’s game, and Jones and Berkman would dominate all those 50s and 60s pitchers

Yup. And people should stop thinking of Jesse Owens as fast because he'd have trouble making a good high school varsity track team today. And while we're at it, how could Albert Einstein compete with the great intellects of today when he didn't even know how to text his friends? And so on...

so what yer sayin is, me today = einstein yesterday

i am buyin it

lookit me text lookit me

Posted by bad_luck on 12/22/2018 11:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by d_rock97 on 12/21/2018 10:24:00 PM (view original):
Y’all are treating these old-timers like they’re idiot Neanderthals or something. They’re athletes capable of learning and adjusting to today’s game. There’s no way you can convince me Ty Cobb wouldn’t be a perennial all-star in today’s game.

But if you do think that way, does it apply to all modern hitters too? Are Miggy, Pujols, and Man-Ram the best RH hitters of all time over Hornsby, Lajoie, and Delahanty? I mean, with the whole level of competition, scouting, and every pitchers throwing 95+ nowadays...

I don’t think they were neanderthals but I do think that, like in any major sport, old timers wouldn’t be able to compete in today’s game.

I think greats of the 1950’s and 1960’s would have a hard time. Guys from the turn of the century would be so utterly overmatched that they wouldn’t stand a chance. It’s a completely different game.

so, you think guys like Mantle, Mays, Ted Williams, Duke Snider and Aaron in their prime would not be able to make it in today's game? You have said a lot of stupid things here, but that one is in the top 2 or 3.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/21/2018 7:23:00 PM (view original):
Eat a dick, you pedantic fart.

if I were ever to eat a dick, which is unlikely, it sure wouldn't be yours. I'd have to find it first. In the time that took, I would die of hunger, asswipe.

Posted by wylie715 on 12/22/2018 5:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/22/2018 11:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by d_rock97 on 12/21/2018 10:24:00 PM (view original):
Y’all are treating these old-timers like they’re idiot Neanderthals or something. They’re athletes capable of learning and adjusting to today’s game. There’s no way you can convince me Ty Cobb wouldn’t be a perennial all-star in today’s game.

But if you do think that way, does it apply to all modern hitters too? Are Miggy, Pujols, and Man-Ram the best RH hitters of all time over Hornsby, Lajoie, and Delahanty? I mean, with the whole level of competition, scouting, and every pitchers throwing 95+ nowadays...

I don’t think they were neanderthals but I do think that, like in any major sport, old timers wouldn’t be able to compete in today’s game.

I think greats of the 1950’s and 1960’s would have a hard time. Guys from the turn of the century would be so utterly overmatched that they wouldn’t stand a chance. It’s a completely different game.

so, you think guys like Mantle, Mays, Ted Williams, Duke Snider and Aaron in their prime would not be able to make it in today's game? You have said a lot of stupid things here, but that one is in the top 2 or 3.

I think Mantle, Mays, and Williams would be good hitters today. I don’t think they’d be anywhere near the legends they were in their time.

which is it, would the greats of the 50s and 60s have a hard time or would they be good hitters? Those seem to be contradicting statements

This is incredibly funny.

Posted by bagchucker on 12/22/2018 4:25:00 PM (view original):
so what yer sayin is, me today = einstein yesterday

i am buyin it

lookit me text lookit me

ikr, like totally. This is so, like radical man. Like omg, I can’t even, like. Like, I’m like Einstein. Like totally can’t even rn

Posted by bad_luck on 12/22/2018 2:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by d_rock97 on 12/22/2018 1:48:00 PM (view original):
Pedro has WHIP, ERA+, OAV, K/9, BB/9, and a more dominant stretch on Clemens.

BL: But Innings...

So is Craig Kimbrel better than Pedro? He has a better WHIP, ERA+, K/9 etc.

Different positions. Unrelatable.

Posted by d_rock97 on 12/23/2018 2:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/22/2018 2:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by d_rock97 on 12/22/2018 1:48:00 PM (view original):
Pedro has WHIP, ERA+, OAV, K/9, BB/9, and a more dominant stretch on Clemens.

BL: But Innings...

So is Craig Kimbrel better than Pedro? He has a better WHIP, ERA+, K/9 etc.

Different positions. Unrelatable.

Same position: pitcher.

Posted by wylie715 on 12/22/2018 10:14:00 PM (view original):
which is it, would the greats of the 50s and 60s have a hard time or would they be good hitters? Those seem to be contradicting statements

Oh ok. I revise my original statement and go with the second one.

Posted by bad_luck on 12/23/2018 9:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by d_rock97 on 12/23/2018 2:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/22/2018 2:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by d_rock97 on 12/22/2018 1:48:00 PM (view original):
Pedro has WHIP, ERA+, OAV, K/9, BB/9, and a more dominant stretch on Clemens.

BL: But Innings...

So is Craig Kimbrel better than Pedro? He has a better WHIP, ERA+, K/9 etc.

Different positions. Unrelatable.

Same position: pitcher.

Starters and relievers can be judged by the same criteria?

Posted by tecwrg on 12/23/2018 2:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/23/2018 9:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by d_rock97 on 12/23/2018 2:33:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 12/22/2018 2:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by d_rock97 on 12/22/2018 1:48:00 PM (view original):
Pedro has WHIP, ERA+, OAV, K/9, BB/9, and a more dominant stretch on Clemens.

BL: But Innings...

So is Craig Kimbrel better than Pedro? He has a better WHIP, ERA+, K/9 etc.

Different positions. Unrelatable.

Same position: pitcher.

Starters and relievers can be judged by the same criteria?

I thought relievers were failed starters. In that case Pedro > Kimbrel