Toggle sidebar

OT: MLB Thread 2025

nyr2k2 said:
IDK what Gwynn would do today, but I do recall as recently as the 90s when pitchers were routinely throwing in the mid-to-high-80s, and if you had a guy who was in the low-to-mid-90s, he was a flamethrower. And you had a handful of teams who could bring on a reliever who could throw 95+, and that was a sight to behold. Now the average fastball velocity is 94+, and guys are throwing breaking pitches 90+. Basically every team has a couple of guys in the pen that can regularly go 98+. It is undoubtedly a different game.
Click to expand...

Yeah launch angles have had some impact for sure but not as much as the guys who are throwing sliders at 95+ and 100 mph cutters.

Now its coming at the expense of long term arm health, but people have gotten really, really, really good at optimizing velocity and spin for pitchers. We're damn near the peak of what the human arm can do and a lot of those developments have come in the last 7-8 years.
 
I love the uneducated "today's players are the best ever" comments that I've been hearing since 1969. If you look at stats that measure everything, if they retired today, none of today's players have a top 50 career all-time.
 
Beliveau said:
I love the uneducated "today's players are the best ever" comments that I've been hearing since 1969. If you look at stats that measure everything, if they retired today, none of today's players have a top 50 career all-time.
Click to expand...

Because the argument is not about the cream of the crop but the average player. Hell even the replacement level player. The average player in any sport today is significantly better than they were in the past.

We’re not talking about Clayton Kershaw vs. Cy Young. We’re talking about 2025 relief pitcher X vs 1977 relief pitcher Y.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raspewtin, Irishguy42 and Beliveau
GoAwayPanarin said:
Devers is obviously struggling and was rushed back too soon but Gwynn is a 150 k+ season if he had to face the pitchers that exist today.

Pitchers have gotten so much better in the last decade, let alone in the last 3.
Click to expand...

lmao, what? No....

Look at Luis Arraez and how (not) often he strikes out while still putting up good offensive results and seasons.

Gwynn was a better, more consistent version of him. Yeah, a few more K's per year but 4-5x more per season?, absolutely not.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: Beliveau and Ranger Tide
Beliveau said:
I love the uneducated "today's players are the best ever" comments that I've been hearing since 1969. If you look at stats that measure everything, if they retired today, none of today's players have a top 50 career all-time.
Click to expand...

*sees Mike Trout at 51st all time in bWar*

So you're just ranking solely based off WAR? That's your problem. Mike Trout is absolutely a Top50 Player/Career of all time if he retired right now.
 
Filthy Dangles said:
lmao, what? No....

Look at Luis Arraez and how (not) often he strikes out while still putting up good offensive results and seasons.

Gwynn was a better, more consistent version of him. Yeah, a few more K's per year but 4-5x more per season?, absolutely not.
Click to expand...

I don't thinking pointing to a guy with elite bat to ball skills (maybe the best ever considering the stuff he's facing) really makes your point. Theres a huge difference in being able to do it when you're growing up facing that level of stuff. Gwynn was that guy against guys topping out at 88.

Have you heard what HOF level players from that same era have said about how they'd fare against today's pitching? They almost universally agree that they'd be f***ed.

I'll take their word for it. A bunch more K's and way fewer hits.
 
If Soto were still in the Bronx, he'd be using a torpedo bat and would already have 5 HR and 15 RBI and a 1.076 OPS. But he's a NYM, so he's got 1 HR and 2 RBI.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: NickyFotiu
GoAwayPanarin said:
I don't thinking pointing to a guy with elite bat to ball skills (maybe the best ever considering the stuff he's facing) really makes your point. Theres a huge difference in being able to do it when you're growing up facing that level of stuff. Gwynn was that guy against guys topping out at 88.

Have you heard what HOF level players from that same era have said about how they'd fare against today's pitching? They almost universally agree that they'd be f***ed.

I'll take their word for it. A bunch more K's and way fewer hits.
Click to expand...

I mean, it's pointless to argue about further, it's a complete hypothetical.

You do seem to be underrating past pitchers he faced. He faced a ton of Hall of Famers including some that threw absolute gas for the time (upper 90's). You are making it seem like he was facing carpenters and firemen in men's league.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Beliveau
GoAwayPanarin said:
Did Luke Weaver get kidnapped?
Click to expand...
What I don't get here is that you took JD out for Grisham in the 7th. I already hate that because there's still at least 2.5 Innings left and Grish is not giving you a competitive at bat if you need one, but whatever, Boone clearly recognized it had the potential to get dicey.

You get two fantastic innings from Cruz. To me......you go with Weaver in the 8th. He hadn't pitched in 3 days and has that 96+ MPH power to rip through the Dbacks order (which, outside of Johnny Lasagna, the Yankees really don't have a bullpen of firethrowers, they rely a lot on tricky pitch mixes). You already made this a defense oriented game by taking JD out, go all the way.

I don't think it was the worst non-decision ever but I just didn't get it?
 
Filthy Dangles said:
lmao, what? No....

Look at Luis Arraez and how (not) often he strikes out while still putting up good offensive results and seasons.

Gwynn was a better, more consistent version of him. Yeah, a few more K's per year but 4-5x more per season?, absolutely not.
Click to expand...
Tony Gwynn was not my kind of player but other MLB players respected him like crazy. Tony really worked on his craft. He loved hitting and looked at it as a science. Came pretty close to hitting 400 one year.

I feared George Brett more because George could do it all and was really clutch at times. Don Mattingly was better than both for a few years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Filthy Dangles
Filthy Dangles said:
I mean, it's pointless to argue about further, it's a complete hypothetical.

You do seem to be underrating past pitchers he faced. He faced a ton of Hall of Famers including some that threw absolute gas for the time (upper 90's). You are making it seem like he was facing carpenters and firemen in men's league.
Click to expand...

They’re basically apples and oranges. 90+% of guys who pitched in the 90's wouldn't sniff the majors today. Yes the HOF level guys would still play and some of them would still be elite, but theres a massive, massive gulf between what an average starter would have been back then and what one is today and this is before getting to bull pen arms who are by in large WAY better today.

Also I don't have the data for Gwynn's prime but average FB velocity was sub 90 as recently as 2002 (after he finished playing.) Guys who threw in the upper 90's certainly existed (Randy Johnson being the most notable) but there may have been a dozen guys in the league who could hit that number and even fewer who lived in that range.

Every roster has a half dozen of those guys now and thats kind of the point. This isn't really an exercise to tear down Tony Gwynn - the guy was obviously a great player in his era and a more than worthy Hall of Famer but I laugh every time someone pulls a "back in my day guys would only strike out x amount of times" like the level of pitchers those guys were facing were even remotely close to what exists today.

Remember when Eric Gagne was a big deal? Every team has an Eric Gagne now. Some teams have an Eric Gagne and he's their 4th best reliever.
 
The Mets have been pitching really well which is great to see, but man those bats are ice cold. I have little doubt that Lindor and some of the other guys will pick it up, but my main concerns are a) do they have a catcher that can hit at all (Alvarez included) and b) is Vientos actually really good or is he going to have a Dominic Smith-like arc.

Baty is hot garbage as well. I used to say regularly that Vientos was the better prospect of the two and despite my fears about Vientos I'm pretty sure I'm still right on that one.
 
Tuned in to my first Mets game of the year just to watch Minter fall over on the mound during wind-up because he tripped when his cleat dragged. Got called for a balk but argued he released the ball.

It’s going to be that kind of season, isn’t it?
 
Diaz reminds me of Armando Benitez. Sometimes he comes in and it's lights out, other times he comes in and it's clear no one in the ball park has any idea where he's going to throw the ball.
 
nyr2k2 said:
The Mets have been pitching really well which is great to see, but man those bats are ice cold. I have little doubt that Lindor and some of the other guys will pick it up, but my main concerns are a) do they have a catcher that can hit at all (Alvarez included) and b) is Vientos actually really good or is he going to have a Dominic Smith-like arc.

Baty is hot garbage as well. I used to say regularly that Vientos was the better prospect of the two and despite my fears about Vientos I'm pretty sure I'm still right on that one.
Click to expand...
torrens has been great at the dish to be fair
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom