POLL .400 or 70

[MilkSpiller22]

They also didn't have relief specialists and the starters often pitched the whole game. How's some washed up pig farmer going to fare against Bonds the third, fourth and fifth time in a day? Not well.

I am not saying baseball back then was tougher... i just don't think it is accurate to disregard baseball back then either...

 

[Voltaire26]

yes and no... the reason for expansion was entirely because of the color barrier... Much more talent created the need for more teams... but by doing this it also watered down the talent at the bottom... so really nobody knows at what proportion the talent increased by...

It could be that the country has doubled in population, with the addition of the Latin ballplayers, Asian ballplayers and even a few Canadian ballplayers, as well as the color barrier being broke. Talent is a lot deeper because of training, nutrition and yes chemistry.

 

[SlinkyRedfoot]

i just don't think it is accurate to disregard baseball back then either...

Then you're taking umbrage with me for something I didn't do.

 

[Inquisitor95]

400 easily.

More of an indication of being a complete player, or hitter at least.

 

[JohnU]

I think we sort of agree. I agree that Ruth and Williams were incredible talents and would likely be among the top hitters in the game today. I also agree that Williams would likely not hit .400.

However, I think Bonds and McGwire would have hit more than 70 homeruns in the 30's or 40's. Of course, I'm assuming that they'd still be enjoying their modern day "training regiments."

I doubt some of the oldtimers would have let these guys stand in there to hit "sliders" ... but it's harder these days to hit for a high average because of the way they manage pitchers. I think Barry would find a few fastballs stuck in his ear, right above that gold cross earring. Pitchers were just nastier back then.

Ruth would face a guy 4 times in one game at least 22 times during the season. They never used relievers in those days unless the guy got a blister or a line drive to the gonads. Still, his HR totals are off the charts for almost any era. Jimmy Foxx is probably the only guy who consistently could make a run at those kinds of numbers.

To that end, Williams hitting .400 was rather odd because it was the same year that DiMaggio had his hit streak. Both are achievements nobody will ever approach again.

I can see a guy hitting 60-some dingers. Stanton almost did it in that airport in Miami.

It's a much different game and we all know that. But there is no doubt the change began with Jackie Robinson and Willie Mays. I don't know that the black pitchers made much of an impact because there were so few of them in the early days. Who knows about the ones in the ***** Leagues other than Satchel Paige.

 

[Mebert]

I always wonder if Gwynn could have improved .006% without the strike.

 

[JohnU]

yes and no... the reason for expansion was entirely because of the color barrier... Much more talent created the need for more teams... but by doing this it also watered down the talent at the bottom... so really nobody knows at what proportion the talent increased by...

I think you are creating a reason for expansion because you want it to be a fact. Expansion occurred as the result of a compromise over the looming reality of the Continental League. I don't think anybody at the time made any sort of census about whether there was sufficient non-white talent. The first New York Mets team strongly suggested an abundance of talent wasn't a prerequisite. In fact, they didn't even care at the time. They just wanted to field a team and tinker with it later. It took 7 years and they did it.

The Latin markets weren't really very lucrative at the time, though. Part of that was because the large number of Cuban players were suddenly shut out of the process after the revolution.

The idea that it watered down the talent is a bit phony. What it did was allow teams to discard their older players and invite younger less experienced ones to the table. The early expansion teams had no farm systems and they knew that going in. They were prepared to take the time to catch up. There were a couple of competing strategies on how that worked.

I'd argue that the second expansion watered the talent down more than the first one did.

But if you say expansion was only the result of an influx of black players, it happened in 1961, not 1948.

 

[JohnU]

It could be that the country has doubled in population, with the addition of the Latin ballplayers, Asian ballplayers and even a few Canadian ballplayers, as well as the color barrier being broke. Talent is a lot deeper because of training, nutrition and yes chemistry.

The concerns voiced by MLB is that baseball is not growing in minority areas of the U.S. While it's still at high levels on the islands and in Asia, the bulk of U.S. players are still white, and there's a number of explanations for that -- the main one being they tend to come from suburban areas where clinics, training, coaching and well-heeled travel teams exist. The inner-city kids get to play at baseball but they aren't getting the coaching they need unless they are able to play in suburban programs.
That's probably throwing a fairly large blanket over it but MLB has given lip service to the matter.
The international kids are taking up way more space on the low Class A rosters than ever before, though most of them will make a few bucks and head back to the islands without you ever knowing their names.
Asian guys are more polished before they come here.

 

[navamind]

400 easily.

More of an indication of being a complete player, or hitter at least.

not really

 

[navamind]

anyway, I'll say .400.

 

[richig07]

Would you rather average .400 for a season or hit 70 homers for a season?

Probably hit .400

Stanton hit 59 last year. JD managed 45 in 119 games. Which puts him at a full season pace for 60+.

Nobody has even hit in the ball park of .400 in forever. Outside of Gwynn hitting .394 in the incomplete strike shortened season of 1994. However, I can't really give that it's full due. Brett and Carew hit .389 and .377 in 1980 and 1977.

I guess it's the same in terms of difficulty, but .400 seems like the cooler accomplishment to me. Probably because I have watched two guys hit 70 in the last 20 years.

 

[black francis]

looks like most people agree with me

as usual

 

[DragonfromTO]

I'm currently conducting the "How bad can you possibly be while hitting a HR every 12 ABs?" experiment with Luis Valbuena in my Diamond Mind league, but early returns seem to be saying "take the .400 BA"

 

[nynasty]

No one has hit .400 in 77 years and in this age of bullpen specialization, it seems to become less likely to ever happen again.

So to me, that would be the far more impressive achievement.

 

[black francis]

nasty is smart as fuck

 

[thedddd]

Baseball purist in me .400 but the women want 70 dingers.

Just make sure hasn't had 70 dingers a week prior to you.

 

[JohnU]

They keep adding vitamins to the balls and 50 HR will be a regular event, depending on launch angle.
The problem with guys hitting at the extremes is that pitchers eventually won't let them get good swings. So you end up with guys who have these bizarre OBP, like Votto who draws a lot of walks. Great, he's on base but for the "chicks" who dig the numbers, a .410 OBP is pretty boring.
But Votto, even if he could, would never get enough pitches to hit that would elevate his batting average.
So maybe a better number is ... how about a .500 OBP?
I already know nobody is going to pitch around a hitter who strikes out 33 percent of the time and compensates by hitting a home run every 15 at-bats.

 

[Wazmankg]

i just don't think it is accurate to disregard baseball back then either...

I agree. I think it's foolish to compare recent athletes with those of 70-90 prior as if you just assume to take a 2000-ish Barry Bonds with his learned skills, size, experience, training, etc. and plop him into the 20s playing with guys who did not have those advantages. Imo, if Ted Williams or Babe Ruth had been born in 1985 they'd still be 2 of the best hitters in baseball.

Today's game draws from a much larger group of people, but there were half as many teams back then and before the 50s if a guy wanted to make a living using his athletic ability,baseball was pretty much his only option. Today you can become a millionaire pursuing dozens of sports, so there are many more lucrative options today for someone with athletic ability. If someone wants to talk about how football or hoops were a joke back in the day compared with today's game they have a point. But I don't think the same holds true for baseball.


Oh and I'll take .400 with no steroids suspicions.

 

[Rock Strongo]

i remember when gwynn came within a dick hair of .400 in the 90's.

.394 and .370

from ages 34-37 he hit .371 (.926 OPS)

we will NOT see that kind of dominance again for a 3 year run, in terms of BA.

over that time frame he struck out a total of 79 times in 510 games.

 

[SU Nittany Tide]

An OBP of .400 or better is pretty fucking good, and you're gonna be guaranteed at least that if you hit .400.

Not if you never walk and get on base by errors often...