Devers vs Foxx

[bosoxmal]

Both men listed as 6-9m 195

 

Jimmie had 6 HR in his first 171 ABs (in Philly)

 

Devers has 10 in his first 171 ABs

 

And Devers is 29 years old!

[jacksonianmarch]

Are you high?

[Bellhorn04]

Are you high?

 

He's not high. But tell him how old you are, mal.

[illinoisredsox]

Are you high?

 

He's not high. But tell him how old you are, mal.

 

Hint, he's old enough to have actually seen Foxx play.

[oldtimer]

Hint, he's old enough to have actually seen Foxx play.

 

Foxx wrapped up his baseball career in 1945. I was a boy but too young to be concerned about him at that point. He's got to be into his 80's. I guess he gets a break for that.

[bosoxmal]

Are you high?

 

No, are you blind? I saw Jimmie Foxx at least a dozen times after he came to theSox. The likeness is obvious. One swings from the right side, one from the left. In my opinion Jimmie Foxx was the greatest RH hitter of all times. Of course I was blind in one eye, and about about 13-14 years old. Why don't you print and sace this post, then look at it 5 or 10 years from now!

Edited September 25, 2017 by bosoxmal

[bosoxmal]

Hint, he's old enough to have actually seen Foxx play.[/quote

 

 

I had been ithe Army for 2 1/2 years befpre Foxx retired. Stationed in Kunming, China at the time. Hank Greenburg was one of the very few USO people that came around. And Hank was a Colonel! Did nothing but visit gar away troops/ He and Foxx would have made some kind od 3-4 hitters!

[cp176]

No, are you blind? I saw Jimmie Foxx at least a dozen times after he came to theSox. The likeness is obvious. One swings from the right side, one from the left. In my opinion Jimmie Foxx was the greatest RH hitter of all times. Of course I was blind in one eye, and about about 13-14 years old. Why don't you print and sace this post, then look at it 5 or 10 years from now!

 

Fox a better hitter than M. Ramirez/Mays/Aaron?

[S5Dewey]

Foxx wrapped up his baseball career in 1945. I was a boy but too young to be concerned about him at that point. He's got to be into his 80's. I guess he gets a break for that.

 

Add 10 to that, and a fine gentleman to boot. I met him at ST a couple of years ago and he almost ripped my shoulder off with his handshake.

 

Mal is now my idol.

[bosoxmal]

Add 10 to that, and a fine gentleman to boot. I met him at ST a couple of years ago and he almost ripped my shoulder off with his handshake.

 

Mal is now my idol.

 

Thanls. Dewey! That was a great day for me, The only live look I've had since! I am at Barkley Place, now (old folks) I may get to see a couple of ST games. We have cars and buses tht tht mak the VA clinic run, as well as 2 or 3 Publox run each week. I hear they went to the 3 games last year. 2 Sox and 1 Twins. U'll look forward to that; maybe catch this Devers kid catch hold of a 102.5 fast ball!

[Northern Star]

Hint, he's old enough to have actually seen Foxx play stickball as a kid.

 

...

[Northern Star]

Both men listed as 6-9m

 

Um, what?

[Maxbialystock]

Add 10 to that, and a fine gentleman to boot. I met him at ST a couple of years ago and he almost ripped my shoulder off with his handshake.

 

Mal is now my idol.

 

Nice post. And bosoxmal certainly deserves it.

[Maxbialystock]

Fox a better hitter than M. Ramirez/Mays/Aaron?

 

Yeah, but none of them ever managed in the all American girls professional baseball league. Plus mays and Aaron never played for the Sox. Wise up.

[cp176]

Yeah, but none of them ever managed in the all American girls professional baseball league. Plus mays and Aaron never played for the Sox. Wise up.

 

Oh I will try Max - I must have misunderstood what he was saying when he wrote that in his opinion Fox was the greatest right handed hitter of all time. For me, as much as I really didn't care for how he played the game, I would still go with Manny. Willie gets my vote for the greatest of all time.

[bosoxmal]

Um, what?

 

Hm-m-m I think that should read 6-0, don't you? Sorry about that. One eye totally blind, the other headed that way! What I should do is type them out in a 20 font, then cut and paste.,

[cp176]

Hm-m-m I think that should read 6-0, don't you? Sorry about that. One eye totally blind, the other headed that way! What I should do is type them out in a 20 font, then cut and paste.,

 

lol So should I!!!

[mvp 78]

Devers is great, but he still needs a great nickname to be in the conversation with Double X.

[Maxbialystock]

Oh I will try Max - I must have misunderstood what he was saying when he wrote that in his opinion Fox was the greatest right handed hitter of all time. For me, as much as I really didn't care for how he played the game, I would still go with Manny. Willie gets my vote for the greatest of all time.

 

For Sox righty hitters, Manny get my vote too. When he entered the HOF Mays said in all honesty he never saw anyone better, and I'm inclined to agree with that. He hit over 600 dingers before PED's, and he was a terrific centerfielder with a great arm and great eye for the ball, and he ran the bases well. His lifetime BA was only around .300, maybe lower, but I don't care. He also played well past his prime, and I'm fine with that too. He also missed 266 games in 1952-3--after getting Rookie of the Year in 1951--because he was drafted into the Army thanks to the Korean War (but he didn't go to Korea).

[bosoxmal]

Devers is great, but he still needs a great nickname to be in the conversation with Double X.

 

Agreed. And I hope it happens naturally, and not made up beccause of a single incident.

[bosoxmal]

Try these on for size, Jimmie Foxx in

 

Year BA HR RBI

 

1929 .354 23 118

1932 .364 32 116

1937 356 48 163

1938 .349 50 175

 

Note that ehes numbers ae 9 years apart!

[S5Dewey]

I don't think we can compare current players with players of any previous era. Things are so different now. Within the past 10 years we've seen nearly every team now having at least one pitcher who can hit 100 mph on the gun whereas back then 95 was almost unheard of. The bats were different. The gloves were different. Their training (or lack of it!) is different. Now we have these damn shifts that everyone and his illegitimate grandmother is facing (ugh), and now we have the technology to video and study every hitter and pitcher to find - and try to exploit - their weaknesses.

 

Would Jimmy Foxx have been one of the best players in baseball in 2017? We don't know that he would and we don't know that he wouldn't. But comparing baseball players of now with players of the 30's is comparing kiwi and eggplant. Some people like one or the other and some people like both.

 

When it comes to baseball players I'm one who likes both. I"m wiling to call them the best of their era and let it go at that and celebrate both rather than try to pit one against the other.

[Spudboy]

I don't think we can compare current players with players of any previous era. Things are so different now. Within the past 10 years we've seen nearly every team now having at least one pitcher who can hit 100 mph on the gun whereas back then 95 was almost unheard of. The bats were different. The gloves were different. Their training (or lack of it!) is different. Now we have these damn shifts that everyone and his illegitimate grandmother is facing (ugh), and now we have the technology to video and study every hitter and pitcher to find - and try to exploit - their weaknesses.

 

Would Jimmy Foxx have been one of the best players in baseball in 2017? We don't know that he would and we don't know that he wouldn't. But comparing baseball players of now with players of the 30's is comparing kiwi and eggplant. Some people like one or the other and some people like both.

 

When it comes to baseball players I'm one who likes both. I"m wiling to call them the best of their era and let it go at that and celebrate both rather than try to pit one against the other.

 

This is all common sense.

 

But someone will make an issue out of at least part of it!

[S5Dewey]

This is all common sense.

 

But someone will make an issue out of at least part of it!

 

Well... I have been told that I "have an unusual grasp of the obvious". :-)

[Spudboy]

Well... I have been told that I "have an unusual grasp of the obvious". :-)

 

I would say that you have a clear and objective perspective.

 

But since you have posted no supporting data your opinions are not valid!

[S5Dewey]

I would say that you have a clear and objective perspective.

 

But since you have posted no supporting data your opinions are not valid!

 

Hahahahah.. Damn! I knew I was leaving something out!!

[Slasher9]

i would take 10 years of XX in a heartbeat.

[mvp 78]

i would take 10 years of XX in a heartbeat.

 

No, we need to move him for Moustakas.

[greenwell]

I don't think we can compare current players with players of any previous era. Things are so different now. Within the past 10 years we've seen nearly every team now having at least one pitcher who can hit 100 mph on the gun whereas back then 95 was almost unheard of. The bats were different. The gloves were different. Their training (or lack of it!) is different. Now we have these damn shifts that everyone and his illegitimate grandmother is facing (ugh), and now we have the technology to video and study every hitter and pitcher to find - and try to exploit - their weaknesses.

 

Would Jimmy Foxx have been one of the best players in baseball in 2017? We don't know that he would and we don't know that he wouldn't. But comparing baseball players of now with players of the 30's is comparing kiwi and eggplant. Some people like one or the other and some people like both.

 

When it comes to baseball players I'm one who likes both. I"m wiling to call them the best of their era and let it go at that and celebrate both rather than try to pit one against the other.

 

I agree for the most part, except the fastball difference. I do think their are more pitchers throwing faster now, but also the technology to measure fastball speed has changed. There's a documentary on Netflix called 'Fastball' that talks about this. One big change is that they now are able to measure velocity shortly after the ball leaves the pitchers hand, which adds several mph to the speed.

[illinoisredsox]

I don't think we can compare current players with players of any previous era. Things are so different now. Within the past 10 years we've seen nearly every team now having at least one pitcher who can hit 100 mph on the gun whereas back then 95 was almost unheard of. The bats were different. The gloves were different. Their training (or lack of it!) is different. Now we have these damn shifts that everyone and his illegitimate grandmother is facing (ugh), and now we have the technology to video and study every hitter and pitcher to find - and try to exploit - their weaknesses.

 

Would Jimmy Foxx have been one of the best players in baseball in 2017? We don't know that he would and we don't know that he wouldn't. But comparing baseball players of now with players of the 30's is comparing kiwi and eggplant. Some people like one or the other and some people like both.

 

When it comes to baseball players I'm one who likes both. I"m wiling to call them the best of their era and let it go at that and celebrate both rather than try to pit one against the other.

 

IMO, a great player from one era would have been a great player in another era for the simple reason that talent is talent. A player from the 30s who grew up in the modern era would have had the same training, the same travel, been exposed to the current pitches and pitching philosophies (sliders/split fingers and multiple relievers) as the modern player. If you took the modern player and transported him back so that he grew up in the 20s and 30s, he would have none of the advantages of modern training, etc. Hitting philosophies have evolved as well. A talented player adjusts to the era they are in and would excel. The less talented would find themselves in the same pecking order no matter when they played.

 

What you really shouldn't do is try and compare numbers. 5 man rotations vs. 4 man rotations. Relief pitchers. Mostly night games vs. mostly or all day games. 15 inch mound vs. 10 inch mound. Coast to coast plane travel vs. train travel. The swing from small ball parks to large ones and then back again. Artificial turf.

 

There really are only 2 things that have remained the same across the decades:

 

1) 90 feet between the bases

2) 60' 6" from the plate to the pitching rubber

 

I was gong to add Fenway and Wrigley to that list, but those have changed as well.