Young People Can't be Trusted With Reporting on MLB History

[Harry Dresden]

Disagree. 158 games is a hell of a lot of games. You could pitch 1000 and it wouldn't be much difference.

lol...you have to be kidding me.....the more innings you pitch the more runs will be scored against you affecting the ERA....and it really doesnt matter because ruth as the seasons went on pitched less and less .....until he was just playing right field...he went from 40 starts to 38 to 19 to 15

 

[protectionist]

lol...you have to be kidding me.....the more innings you pitch the more runs will be scored against you affecting the ERA....and it really doesnt matter because ruth as the seasons went on pitched less and less .....until he was just playing right field...he went from 40 starts to 38 to 19 to 15

What you just said does not make sense. ERA is based on 9 innings. You could pitch MANY more innings and your ERA could go down, and even significantly (as was the case with Sandy Koufax), for just one example.

 

[Harry Dresden]

What you just said does not make sense. ERA is based on 9 innings. You could pitch MANY more innings and your ERA could go down, and even significantly (as was the case with Sandy Koufax), for just one example.

how am i wrong?....the more games you pitch the more innings you will pitch and more runs will be scored ...does that not affect the ERA?....

 

[Oklahoma Journalist]

You can argue the top 10 players of all time are playing right now. They are bigger, faster, stronger, and more talented now than ever.

Babe Ruth was the greatest player of his era.

But if you teleported 1927 Babe Ruth into 2026 MLB, he would be facing velocity, movement, scouting, defensive positioning, nutrition, bullpen depth, and athletic competition that simply did not exist in his time.

Modern MLB players are facing a sport that is dramatically harder than the one Ruth played. Pitchers now throw harder, train year-round, have specialized bullpens, use high-speed video, biomechanics, tunneling, spin-rate optimization, sweepers, splitters, cutters, and 100 mph relievers. Statcast now tracks pitch movement, exit velocity, bat speed, swing path, arm strength, sprint speed, and more — the modern game is built around measurable athletic optimization.

Babe Ruth might not even start on the field. He'd be a DH and come in and pitch in a 20 inning game when they were out of pitchers.

 

[protectionist]

how am i wrong?....the more games you pitch the more innings you will pitch and more runs will be scored ...does that not affect the ERA?....

NO, of course it does NOT affect ERA. The only thing that affects ERA, is how EFFECTIVE you pitch, regardless of the number of innings.

ERA is a QUALITATIVE stat, not QUANTITIVE.
Elementary statistics.

 

[Harry Dresden]

NO, of course it does NOT affect ERA. The only thing that affects ERA, is how EFFECTIVE you pitch, regardless of the number of innings.

ERA is a QUALITATIVE stat, not QUANTITIVE.
Elementary statistics.

how many innings you pitch against the amount of runs scored DOES NOT affect the ERA?..what baseball are you talking about?...

 

[jacksonlamb]

So you have no answer to the question. 10-4.

I do. Mantle had better stats in home runs, RBIs, MVPs, triple crown, world series records galore, and was every bit as good a centerfielder as anyone.

You comments are noticed. And discarded. You take Mantle, I take Mays.

 

[protectionist]

how many innings you pitch against the amount of runs scored DOES NOT affect the ERA?..what baseball are you talking about?...

Major League Baseball. Post # 65 explained it adequately. No need to repeat.

No matter how many innings you pitch, it is how many earned runs you allow (per 9 innings) that creates the ERA. This is true if you pitch 200 innings or 5,000 innings, or 10,000 innings. Get it ?

 

[protectionist]

You comments are noticed. And discarded. You take Mantle, take Mays.

And I note that you discard accurate reports of accomplishment, and instead just go with some favoritism notion. 10-4.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Major League Baseball. Post # 65 explained it adequately. No need to repeat.

No matter how many innings you pitch, it is how many earned runs you allow (per 9 innings) that creates the ERA. This is true if you pitch 200 innings or 5,000 innings, or 10,000 innings. Get it ?

yea no shit i have been saying that....

 

[22lcidw]

I think Babe had a lot of intangibles that would still make him really good. He had elite hand-eye coordination, huge power, and incredible strike-zone judgment. But to suggest he'd be as dominant with today's pitchers... I dont know. Maybe if he came here young and trained like players do today maybe - but if you just teleport him here in his prime as he was, i doubt it.

Sure the mound was higher but the velocities were still slower off the mound and today's ball movement is nothing they've ever seen. Add in the closer specialists and scouting everything and he wouldnt have as many of the advantages as he did.

I am in no way saying those players you mentioned sucked, but I do think they would not have been as good in today's game.

Prime Mickey Mantle was legitimately blazing fast, probably elite even by modern MLB standards. But the famous 3.1-second time is almost certainly not apples-to-apples with today’s Statcast home-to-first numbers. Probably a hand watch and there is not video of it.

There is a distinction between eras with overlap also. It could all be negotiated with the great ones even if alcohol or uppers included. The effect of astro turf in shortening careers and getting more hits also. The strikes and the steroid era screwed everything up for me. It disconnected the pastime. Football surpassed them and never looked back. The crowds are there today and there is action for fans to get into. Yet it is different. Henry Aaron was great and took a lot of guff for his skin color. He also played in two bandbox launching pad stadiums in Milwaukee and Atlanta. He hit monstrous homeruns and also hit many just over the fence.

 

[jacksonlamb]

I think Babe had a lot of intangibles that would still make him really good. He had elite hand-eye coordination, huge power, and incredible strike-zone judgment. But to suggest he'd be as dominant with today's pitchers... I dont know. Maybe if he came here young and trained like players do today maybe - but if you just teleport him here in his prime as he was, i doubt it.

Sure the mound was higher but the velocities were still slower off the mound and today's ball movement is nothing they've ever seen. Add in the closer specialists and scouting everything and he wouldnt have as many of the advantages as he did.

I am in no way saying those players you mentioned sucked, but I do think they would not have been as good in today's game.

Prime Mickey Mantle was legitimately blazing fast, probably elite even by modern MLB staGoond501ards. But the famous 3.1-second time is almost certainly not apples-to-apples with today’s Statcast home-to-first numbers. Probably a hand watch and there is not video of it.

Good observes. Say at 26 or 27 transport vand i'd bet he'd hit .340, 45-55 homers and dr've 'n 150 runs.

 

[jacksonlamb]

And I note that you discard accurate reports of accomplishment, and instead just go with some favoritism notion. 10-4.

Both were great but Mays was better.