Will anyone ever hit 400 again?
- Thread starter Charlie Marlow_rivals363743
- Start date
I don’t think WAR is a metric to use when comparing all time greatness. It just compares how valuable you are to your team. It is a comparison of a specific player to the “average” player in the current year. At that point you are no longer comparing 2 players, you are comparing basically every player from 1 season to another.
Nobody is saying everybody today is better than Puckett
someone is correctly saying Mike Trout is better than him (easily provable by comparing literally any stat you want)
the only thing Puckett is better than Trout at, based on both traditional and advanced metrics, is strikeout avoidance.
I will go ahead and say Puckett played in a much easier era to hit since he saw way less pitchers per game and way, way less guys who can throw 97mph+. He also played in an era where striking out was something to avoid at all costs, so he choked up and slapped at the ball with 2 strikes while facing a hungover unfit guy who smoked cigs between innings
SLG and OBP aren’t ”advanced metrics” and tell you pretty plainly who impacted the game more on a per at-bat basis
defensively it’s not even close
This is, of course, not true
that weird Minn fan has one right in his own backyard (doubt he even knows it)
Luis Arraez is currently hitting .343 for the twins, with 10 more walks than strikeouts over 300 plate appearances. He is the definition of a bat-to-ball, spray-to-all-fields, pure hitter
you just don’t hear about him because singles hitters are just that
Multiple reasons exist today that will ensure no one ever hits .400 ever again. Athletes are faster, the last .400 season was against all white athletes. The shift is much more prevalent today and hitting charts are much more advanced. Specialized pitching, no one gets to see a pitcher more than three ABs per game. And the baseball gloves are butterfly nets compared to the small gloves of the pre 1950s.
plus the baseball nerds have ruined baseball. Hitters are all about launch angle, exit velocity, and the long ball and that’s the one hitter through nine. Luis Areaez may be the only player in today’s game that compares to the pure hitters of the 1980-90s era.
plus the baseball nerds have ruined baseball. Hitters are all about launch angle, exit velocity, and the long ball and that’s the one hitter through nine. Luis Areaez may be the only player in today’s game that compares to the pure hitters of the 1980-90s era.
On this we agree. You should post sober more often.
Puckett waltzed into the Hall of Fame almost immediately after an abbreviated career. The reason he doesn't make a lot of all-time-great lists is because he didn't stay long enough to accumulate enormous career stats, and baseball loves its "compilers."
I think Puckett would still be a great player in today's MLB, but no way would his stats be significantly better.
Mike Trout in 12 years,
303 batting average
40 home runs
103 RBI
416 OBP
554Slugging percentage
Kirby Puckett in his 12 year career
318 Batting average
19 HR
99 RBI
360 OBP
477 slugging percentage
Trout with way more HR , but more strike outs , even with the big difference in HRs , Kirby came close in RBI , so Trout is better, but not easily better, and as far as pitchers , only time will tell who faced better and more Hall if Famers .
Kirby has 2 rings and Mike has zero and a long list of being on the DL. Let’s not underestimate winning and actually playing and being there for your team.
Kirby will live in the MLB history books for his game winning HR in the 11th in the 1991 World Series. Mike Trout doesn’t have a single moment even close to like that.
Mike should have been the best player of all time but he’s just not. He’s a dude people won’t really talk about too much in 25 years cause he hasn’t Left us with the memories
and before you give me the “he ain’t got no one around him”. A) his contract did that to the franchise. B) the 1987 Twins team was very underwhelming and Trouts been on much more talented teams then that team was. C) he’s had dudes around him. Don’t play that card
Last edited:
Yeah I see Trout is batting .083 in the postseason. 1 for 12. And that was during an MVP season.
Sorry, you never know how to take people on here. what you think is a sarcastic commit could be totally serious !
Not sure why World Series rings have anything to do with this conversation? Some of the best players of all time have 0 rings. Does that make them worse? There are 9 players, and if you are a great player surrounded with 7 or 8 plumbers on the field or a sub par pitching staff, you aren’t winning any rings.
He’s had a nice start to his career. 300 games in and a first time All Star. An outlier but doesn’t change what has changed in MLB. The game will continue to evolve and likely shift back to a more small ball approach at some point. Or somewhere in the middle.
Not likely. That's like saying the NBA will stop shooting 3 pointers. Statheads may have ruined the game to some extent, but they aren't wrong.
MLB has really never been a small ball game , the NL with the pitchers bunting was as close to it , but now both leagues have the DH , it’s mostly been the Earl Weaver approach ( I play for the 3 run HR)
Many players (especially before the expanded playoff) don't get more than 1 or 2 postseason opportunities. So when they do, they need to capitalize. Trout went 1-for-12 in his only opportunity so far.
And Barry Bonds went 8 for 17 in his only World Series, with 4 homers and was drove in 7, and walked 13 times, 7 times intentionally. Had an OBP of .700. They have the same number of World Series rings to date. Why, because Trout had a bunch of plumbers around him who couldn’t pick up the slack when he wasn’t performing at a high level at the same time the Royals were finding lightning in a bottle. In Bonds case, the Angels were completely aware of all the plumbers around Bonds and they couldn’t do their part with Bonds going god mode. So it has way more to do with 1 player in the World Series. It takes a team.
Good that you bring up Bonds. In his first 5 postseason appearances, he absolutely stunk up the entire field. 5 series', all losses, 1990-2000.
He batted .196 (19 for 97) with 1 homer.
I put him way below Puckett.
Possibly this guy but he is pretty funny.
First half of his career he was worse than Puckett. Second half of his career he the best player possibly in the history of baseball. I like Puckett, he was a great player as well, don’t get me wrong. But Bonds was god mode the 2nd half of his career and very few even come close to his numbers.
I was at Royals Stadium that August Sunday in 1980 when George Brett went over .400. He stayed there for another month before finishing the season at .390. In fact, he finished Sept. 19 at .400, but then went 0-for-4 and 1-for-4 in his next two games to drop to .394, then 1-for-4 again to drop to .393.
Bonds absolutely stunk up the field in the postseasons of:
1990
1991
1992
1997
2000
He did great in 2002.
In 2003 he batted .222 (2 for 9) with 0 homers. But he had 8 walks.
And that's it.