Cedric Mullins’ defense of late

[NCRaven]

Money is the driving factor in the improvement of play over time.  Money provides more incentive to the players to improve, more time for them to concentrate on the sport instead of off season jobs, better nutrition and training methods, advanced statistical analysis, etc..  Given all that, I expect that a 2022 version of Babe Ruth would still be good.  The only way that he's bad is if Ruth is static while everyone enjoys the benefits of 21st century advances.  You just can't compare players from 1922 with those in 2022 fairly.

[Just Regular]

Something I don't know if it could ever happen, but I imagine baseball nuts somewhere are trying is if modern metrics could be extracted from the grainy videos in the MLB archives.

Obviously the picture detail generations behind, but maybe AI doing frame by frame could make better estimations of Gooden's fastball or Vlad Sr's exit velocity than presently exist.

[DrungoHazewood]

8 minutes ago, Just Regular said:

I agree.   Having followed the teams 40-some years, on a gut level, I don't see John Means navigating Ripken-Murray-Singleton, and pretty sure Boddicker would have the upper hand on Mountcastle, etc.

In BP Book Tour days, I did hear Kevin Goldstein opine (perhaps to entertain a Seattle audience pre-Bedard trade) Adam Jones was about as good as Willie Mays, but that take felt and feels too aggressive.

The thing I struggle with is the radical change in pitching approach over my lifetime.  When I was a kid it was not uncommon for a starter to throw 300+ innings and a reliever 130 or more. To do that and not break the vast majority of pitchers can't be throwing their best, hardest stuff most of the time.  Remembering Mike Boddicker, I don't think he ever topped 90 mph, or not by much.  I clearly remember Scott McGregor sitting in the mid-80s. So a lot of really good pitchers from 30-40 years ago would struggle to stay in the majors today unless they could quickly adapt to throwing much harder in somewhat shorter stints.  And it's not hugely longer outings - John Means averages 5 1/3 innings a start, McGregor averaged 3-4 more outs per start (6.5 innings).

For the sake of argument let's say I'm right and MLB improves 0.5% a year.  You could argue that 100 runs in 1960 is the equivalent of 73 runs today (ignoring things like league run levels).  According to bb-ref Adam Jones created 77 runs per 600 PAs, Mays 114.  The midpoint of their careers was separated by about 50 years, so I'd discount Mays by roughly 25%.  That would leave Mays ahead of Jones 85 to 77. Hard to say if that's correct, but I don't think it's implausible.

[NCRaven]

2 minutes ago, Just Regular said:

Something I don't know if it could ever happen, but I imagine baseball nuts somewhere are trying is if modern metrics could be extracted from the grainy videos in the MLB archives.

Obviously the picture detail generations behind, but maybe AI doing frame by frame could make better estimations of Gooden's fastball or Vlad Sr's exit velocity than presently exist.

But, what do we really get out of it and how does it enhance our enjoyment of the game.  I think it's up to each generation to enjoy their game.

[SteveA]

2 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

The thing I struggle with is the radical change in pitching approach over my lifetime.   

In a recent game thread, after Melanie Newman said on a broadcast that there had been 734 complete games in 1982 and 1 this year, someone made fun of her and said she got it wrong because the 734 number seemed so ridiculously absurd to the person make the post.

Turns out she did get it wrong... she was right about the 734 but there have bee 11 CGs in he majors this year, not 1 (as of whatever day it was, a week or so ago).

But to at least one fan, the idea of their being 734 CGs in a major league season was so ridiculou8s that it had to be a misstatement on Melanie's part.

[RZNJ]

Remember, weight training was frowned upon all the way through most of the 70's.   You had a few guys like Brian Downing of the Angels who lifted but not too many.   Teams realized that weight training could improve performance.   Now you have players who are like thoroughbreds.  They are finally tuned machines but they are also more succeptible to breaking.    You can't compete unless you are finally tuned but you are also more likely to pull a lat muscle or pull a hamstring or whatever.    They used to have superstars competition on TV between all different types of athletes from baseball, football, hockey, etcetera back in the 70's.   It's laughable if you see the physique of some of the baseball players back in the 70's.   

 

[DrungoHazewood]

5 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

Money is the driving factor in the improvement of play over time.  Money provides more incentive to the players to improve, more time for them to concentrate on the sport instead of off season jobs, better nutrition and training methods, advanced statistical analysis, etc..  Given all that, I expect that a 2022 version of Babe Ruth would still be good.  The only way that he's bad is if Ruth is static while everyone enjoys the benefits of 21st century advances.  You just can't compare players from 1922 with those in 2022 fairly.

That gets to the crux of the argument.  If you're asking how Babe Ruth would have done had he been born in 1975, I think you'd have to say that he'd benefit from all the things everyone else born in 1975 had.  So he'd still be really good, he'd have taken industrial tankers worth of steroids, and he still wouldn't have dominated like it was 1925 because the major leagues were vastly better, especially the lower-end talent. Or he would have been a linebacker.

But if you took 1890s-born Ruth and in 1920 stuck him in a time machine and brought him to today the odds are he would struggle pretty mightily.  Perhaps he could eventually adapt.  But there's no guarantee he'd even be a good player when suddenly thrust into a much more competitive league with vastly different training expectations and far more optimized strategies.

[NCRaven]

3 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

The thing I struggle with is the radical change in pitching approach over my lifetime. 

Tony LaRussa broke baseball with his use of relievers.  Not to mention his tolerance of players using illegal substances - and I don't believe he didn't know.   Guess I'm not a Tony L. fan. 

 

[SteveA]

1 minute ago, NCRaven said:

Tony LaRussa broke baseball with his use of relievers.  Not to mention his tolerance of players using illegal substances - and I don't believe he didn't know.   Guess I'm not a Tony L. fan. 

 

Are there any LaRussa fans anywhere?   He doesn't seem to be very popular with White Sox fans right now.   Doesn't seem like most of the rest of us like him either.

[NCRaven]

1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

That gets to the crux of the argument.  If you're asking how Babe Ruth would have done had he been born in 1975, I think you'd have to say that he'd benefit from all the things everyone else born in 1975 had.  So he'd still be really good, he'd have taken industrial tankers worth of steroids, and he still wouldn't have dominated like it was 1925 because the major leagues were vastly better, especially the lower-end talent. Or he would have been a linebacker.

But if you took 1890s-born Ruth and in 1920 stuck him in a time machine and brought him to today the odds are he would struggle pretty mightily.  Perhaps he could eventually adapt.  But there's no guarantee he'd even be a good player when suddenly thrust into a much more competitive league with vastly different training expectations and far more optimized strategies.

I don't disagree at all.  Just don't see much value in even trying to compare the game across eras.  Each era is unique and can be enjoyed on it's own merits.

[MCO'sFan]

I am of the opinion that the best players in each generation would likely still be one of the best players of this generation assuming they had modern day training and development opportunities. 

[DrungoHazewood]

3 minutes ago, SteveA said:

In a recent game thread, after Melanie Newman said on a broadcast that there had been 734 complete games in 1982 and 1 this year, someone made fun of her and said she got it wrong because the 734 number seemed so ridiculously absurd to the person make the post.

Turns out she did get it wrong... she was right about the 734 but there have bee 11 CGs in he majors this year, not 1 (as of whatever day it was, a week or so ago).

But to at least one fan, the idea of their being 734 CGs in a major league season was so ridiculou8s that it had to be a misstatement on Melanie's part.

Someone should introduce them to the 1980 Oakland A's.  That was the team where Billy Martin decided that he was going to get fired a week from Thursday anyway, so he was going to damn the torpedoes and have all his starters just pitch all of every possible game.  They ended up with 94 complete games.  And within a few years all their starters were out of the league with arm problems.

[DrungoHazewood]

7 minutes ago, MCO'sFan said:

I am of the opinion that the best players in each generation would likely still be one of the best players of this generation assuming they had modern day training and development opportunities. 

That's not unreasonable, but just need to keep in mind that the further back in time you go the less the player would dominate today because of the lesser competition they faced.

[NCRaven]

I mentioned money earlier.  The money in sports today also induces young people to enter sports when they may well have opted for other pursuits that paid better back in the early years of professional sports.  For much of the 1900's even college sports, particularly football and basketball, were considered more prestigious than the pros.

[Sydnor]

I didn’t post this earlier this month, but now that there’s a thread about Cedric’s defense, it seems reasonable to post it. This breakdown is consistent with his ability on balls that require him to move laterally (noted by @Frobby above). I’ll add that I really enjoy watching Mullins play.