How will history assess 2020 for individuals?

[DrungoHazewood]

Let's say the worst case scenario plays out, and there is no 2020 season.  How will history treat this hole in everyone's career?

When I look back at players born in the 1920s I kind of give them a pass for missing seasons in WWII.  Not just a pass like you'd give a guy who was hurt, but I make the assumption that they were active players at the time.  I think you have to assume Joe DiMaggio was something like a 7-win player in each of 1943-45.  He had 2214 hits, but history should judge him as someone who was a 2800 hit kind of player.  DiMaggio and the others were that good, they were healthy, they were among the best players in the world, but outside circumstances meant they couldn't play.  A little bit like the assumption that Oscar Charleston is one of the best players in history despite no MLB numbers.  Segregation, completely outside his control, kept him from playing.

I was thinking about this because Mike Trout has the record for WAR through age 27.  He probably won't through 28, because Ty Cobb had a nearly 10-win season at 28 and Trout will miss most (or at least half) of his.  Trout needs a little over five wins to keep pace with Cobb.

So when 2043 rolls around and you're pondering the storied career of Renato Nunez, remember it should have been six wins total, not just five.

[Moose Milligan]

I agree.  It'll just be a hole and history will look kindly on the players (although it's probably going to be their fault if there's no season) who might not have hit career stats they otherwise would have.

 

[makoman]

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

So when 2043 rolls around and you're pondering the storied career of Renato Nunez, remember it should have been six wins total, not just five.

This made me laugh.

And remember that Chris Davis should have ended up at 11 fWAR, rather than retiring at 12.7 (hopefully). 

[atomic]

NHL missed a whole season. I don’t think people think about it too much anymore. 

[Just Regular]

The pitching has gotten wickeder than in George Brett and Tony Gwynn's day, but somebody usually hangs around .400 for a month, and that's a story that will snowball, asterisks and all, if BABIP's favorite son among MLB's 10-best hitters can keep it going a second month.

Hunter Harvey and all his middle innings friends will likely stifle it, but the chances are through the roof.  I wonder if Trout would be happy to give that lost 5 WAR for a .401 on his baseball card!

[drjohnnyfeva]

It's funny, I was thinking about a similar question the other day... To answer yours, Drungo, I think it's just a forgotten year.  But Trout, as you point out, might get the asterisk to address a "drop" from Ty Cobb, when it sure looked like Trout would be the most valuable player in history... I think he still will be, btw.  But that leads me to what I was thinking about...

What player(s) benefit(s) the most by NOT playing this year?  And as Markoman, hysterically, points out, Chris Davis could benefit greatly by getting a whole extra year of practice and recovery/recuperation. lol.

 

But I think the flip side to what you are asking, Drungo, is also interesting.  Good topic!

[Tony-OH]

7 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

So when 2043 rolls around and you're pondering the storied career of Renato Nunez, remember it should have been six wins total, not just five.

Sneaky mean..

[Redskins Rick]

[DrungoHazewood]

12 hours ago, OrioleDog said:

The pitching has gotten wickeder than in George Brett and Tony Gwynn's day, but somebody usually hangs around .400 for a month, and that's a story that will snowball, asterisks and all, if BABIP's favorite son among MLB's 10-best hitters can keep it going a second month.

Hunter Harvey and all his middle innings friends will likely stifle it, but the chances are through the roof.  I wonder if Trout would be happy to give that lost 5 WAR for a .401 on his baseball card!

It is true, as samples decrease standard deviation increases.  We won't get the counting stats but someone could hit .400 or have a 0.00 ERA in 33 innings or something. 

The other side of the coin is we might see even shorter pitcher outings with large rosters and short schedules.  So it might be an endless stream of one-inning relievers throwing 96 mph, so overall offense might be down and even more three true outcomes (blech).

[Redskins Rick]

53 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

It is true, as samples decrease standard deviation increases.  We won't get the counting stats but someone could hit .400 or have a 0.00 ERA in 33 innings or something. 

The other side of the coin is we might see even shorter pitcher outings with large rosters and short schedules.  So it might be an endless stream of one-inning relievers throwing 96 mph, so overall offense might be down and even more three true outcomes (blech).

then the stats will have a nasty little asterisk beside it. ***********************************************

[atomic]

13 hours ago, drjohnnyfeva said:

It's funny, I was thinking about a similar question the other day... To answer yours, Drungo, I think it's just a forgotten year.  But Trout, as you point out, might get the asterisk to address a "drop" from Ty Cobb, when it sure looked like Trout would be the most valuable player in history... I think he still will be, btw.  But that leads me to what I was thinking about...

What player(s) benefit(s) the most by NOT playing this year?  And as Markoman, hysterically, points out, Chris Davis could benefit greatly by getting a whole extra year of practice and recovery/recuperation. lol.

 

But I think the flip side to what you are asking, Drungo, is also interesting.  Good topic!

Most baseball players missed 3 years due to WW2.  No one got an asterisk because of it.  

[Redskins Rick]

12 minutes ago, atomic said:

Most baseball players missed 3 years due to WW2.  No one got an asterisk because of it.  

I believe the asterisk was first used in 1961 for Maris's HR record.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, atomic said:

Most baseball players missed 3 years due to WW2.  No one got an asterisk because of it.  

Not a literal one, but when folks are drawing up best-of lists almost every single one gives extra credit for time missed due to WWII and Korea.

[DrungoHazewood]

53 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

I believe the asterisk was first used in 1961 for Maris's HR record.

There was never an asterisk.  But for a while there were two entries in the official MLB records, one for Maris and one for Ruth.  Because commish Ford Frick had previously written a bio of Ruth and kind of worshiped him, couldn't stand to see his record broken.

[Redskins Rick]

3 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

There was never an asterisk.  But for a while there were two entries in the official MLB records, one for Maris and one for Ruth.  Because commish Ford Frick had previously written a bio of Ruth and kind of worshiped him, couldn't stand to see his record broken.

LOL I forgot about that, the asterisk that was never there.

https://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/yankees/roger-maris-still-61-after-all-these-years-1.12358581#:~:text=In July 1961%2C Frick ruled,a scarlet letter for Maris.

Quote

After 55 years, The Asterisk That Never Existed continues to haunt the legend and family of Roger Maris, the first player to hit more home runs than Babe Ruth in a single season.

“That asterisk has traveled around like crazy,’’ Roger Maris Jr. said in early September from Gainesville, Florida. “It was never in the books but just because it was always talked about, people presumed it was. Even today, all the time, some people will say there’s an asterisk.’’ Perception somehow became fact

I remember my daddy and granddaddy arguing about this, as late as the early 70s, they both knew how to poke the other's button.