Reddit Discussion: Who is the Tom Brady/LeBron James of MLB?

[Taylor]

 

Barely anyone is saying Trout, because he's not a "household name." Very sad. A few idiots have said Jeter. One person speculated it could be Ohtani when all is said and done.

[Tank]

I’d think Babe Ruth would be the forever face of baseball. 

[Lou]

Otis Nixon 

[Taylor]

4 minutes ago, Tank said:

I’d think Babe Ruth would be the forever face of baseball. 

If the question was "Who is the Michael Jordan of baseball?" I think Babe Ruth would be the answer.

[Slegnaac]

Jackie Robinson?

 

Bruin

[tdawg87]

It's a shitty question because "muh ringz" have a far more significant impact in basketball and football, which is stupid in and of itself.

I'm guessing someone mentions Trout and then the "lol playoffs" comments come out because baseball fans are fucking stupid.

Also who gives a shit? We all know it's Trout.

[Tank]

9 minutes ago, Lou said:

Otis Nixon 

I hope a lot of the younger guys here are googling him right now.

[Lou]

Just now, tdawg87 said:

Also who gives a shit? We all know it's Trout.

Taylor 

[Taylor]

2 minutes ago, Lou said:

Taylor 

We younger people.

[tdawg87]

5 minutes ago, Tank said:

I hope a lot of the younger guys here are googling him right now.

I remember his Ethiopian lookin ass.

[Lou]

The Brewers announcer just said Trout was the face of MLB but now it's Ohtani. 

 

Locking thread.

[Taylor]

When Lou said Otis Nixon I was thinking Trot Nixon.

[Lou]

1 minute ago, Taylor said:

When Lou said Otis Nixon I was thinking Trot Nixon.

Why?

[Angelsjunky]

Babe Ruth - he's the archetype of baseball greatness and will never be supplanted in that regard.

But the issue is complex. Just as I think some put too much emphasis on subjective  historical memory and reputation, focusing only on hard stats also has problems because context is so important and no matter how sophisticated a stat might be, it cannot account for every factor.

The game of Ruth's era allowed for more statistical outliers. Ruth only had to face 7 other teams the entire season, and pitching staffs that saw starters pitch the whole game, no fresh and high octane relievers, not to mention no Black or Latino players.

Chances are no one surpasses or even equals Ruth's career (168.4 WAR) or best year (15.0 WAR!) in our lifetimes - unless the game changes in an unforeseen way (e.g. players are allowed cybernetic enhancement in an unregulated way, and whoever has the best tech is advantaged, so we have "Juan Soto Jr, brought to you by Musk Technologies").

Over history, statistics tend to equalize. Notice that we rarely see a .350 BA anymore. Ignoring 2020, the last one was Josh Hamilton (.359) in 2010. A lot of this has to do with the ascendancy of Three True Outcomes (and emphasis on power and getting on base, at the expense of more strikeouts), so that could conceivably change. But if you look back further, BA leaders have gradually diminished from the 1920s to the present, with some fluctuation and the expected outliers here and there (especially in the 90s), but a clear trajectory. This is true of most stats "tightening up."

Similarly with WAR. Bonds crazy four-year Ruthian span was an outlier with specific reasons (I'm a huge Bonds fan, but there's no denying that he was enhanced and wouldn't have put up numbers like he did in 2001-04). We could see something like that again (say with technological enhancement), but chances are MLB will crack down on it so it will be another aberrational 1990s-00s period.

Other than Bonds, the last 11 fWAR season was Joe Morgan in 1975, and there are simply far fewer 10 WAR seasons in recent decades than there were in the 1960s and before. The way long-term equalization works, 10 WAR is the new 11 - it is a statistical anomaly that comes about only very rarely. And a .330 BA Is the new .350, etc.

Now even if we saw the emergence of a player who set a new standard, they'll almost certainly they'd never have the glamour of Babe Ruth, who is a mythic figure at this point.

Edited March 31, 2022 by Angelsjunky

[T.G.]

What the hell does that question even mean?

[Taylor]

17 minutes ago, Lou said:

Why?

I had them confused in my mind. I now know they're from different decades and don't look similar at all.

[Angelsjunky]

11 minutes ago, True Grich said:

What the hell does that question even mean?

I think you know. It is sloppy, of course, but it basically means "Who is the player that best represents baseball greatness?" Meaning, who is the archetype of greatness in that particular sport?

In basketball, it is Michael Jordan - and maybe LeBron James added in, especially among younger folks who didn't watch Jordan live.

In hockey, it is Wayne Gretsky for whom, I think, the term GOAT was invented.

For football, it is Tom Brady (although football is tricky in that you really have to consider position more than in other sports).

For soccer, Pele or maybe Maradona. I don't follow soccer, but I've heard some people put Messi in the same category, probably in a somewhat similar manner as they equate James with Jordan, even though long-term fans tend to feel that Jordan was better. 

For tennis, it is tricky because of the switch to the Open Era in 1968. But it was Rod Laver, and now is the trio of Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic, and hotly debated among fans of each.

For golf, Tiger Woods - although I imagine that some consider Jack Nicklaus.

For baseball, Ruth is the consensus pick, and he's almost certainly the best choice of what is, ultimately, an artificial and "just for fun" question.

 

Edited March 31, 2022 by Angelsjunky

[T.G.]

In basketball it should be Bill Russell if you’re measuring championships. LeBron shouldn’t even be in the same sentence as Brady.

[Taylor]

29 minutes ago, True Grich said:

What the hell does that question even mean?

[UndertheHalo]

My policy is to completely ignore Reddit on account of Reddit. 

[Make Angels Great Again]

Reddit is great for stuff that's as far away from politics as possible.

[m0nkey]

As dumb as it is, I can see how to the average American/baseball fan it's not Trout.  No one in Arkansas is going to turn on the TV/computer to watch him hit for the cycle against Minnesota in June.  

[Angelsjunky]

1 hour ago, True Grich said:

In basketball it should be Bill Russell if you’re measuring championships. LeBron shouldn’t even be in the same sentence as Brady.

I'm mostly teasing, but your comment reminds me of my 80-year old father's view on such things. He goes entirely on memory, reputation, and championships. This, of course, is problematic for team sports, and every sport has their examples of great players on perennially mediocre teams (e.g. Ted Williams, Dan Marino, etc etc).

Quarterbacks are a bit different, as there is no team sport (that I can think of) that relies so much on a single position. But basketball? Well, dial back to 1990 and Jordan had been in the NBA for six seasons and was considered the best player in the game, but had yet to win a Final. Was he not the best player in the NBA at that point? I think he was.

Russell, I think, is more in the second tier - of "almost GOATS" - along with Kareem, Chamberlin, etc.

[T.G.]

2 hours ago, True Grich said:

In basketball it should be Bill Russell if you’re measuring championships. LeBron shouldn’t even be in the same sentence as Brady.

 

Edited March 31, 2022 by True Grich

[AngelsFaninGA]

1 hour ago, UndertheHalo said:

My policy is to completely ignore Reddit on account of Reddit. 

The average Redditor's age is about 14. So my guess is the answer to the above question is mostly Judge and Betts.