Display size, tech, resolution, refresh rate 6.3-inch OLED; 2,622 x 1,206 pixel resolution; 1-120Hz variable refresh rate6.2-inch AMOLED; 2,340×1,080 pixels; 1 to 120Hz adaptive refresh rate6.3-inch OLED; 2,622 x 1,206 pixel resolution; 1-120Hz variable refresh rate6.9-inch OLED; 2,868 x 1,320 pixel resolution; 1-120Hz variable refresh rate4-inch pOLED, 2,992×1,224p, up to 165Hz variable refresh rate; 7-inch AMOLED; 1,272×1,080p, up to 165Hz variable refresh rate6.5-inch AMOLED, 2,520×1,080p, 1 to 120Hz refresh rate; 8-inch AMOLED, 2,184×1,968p, 1 to 120Hz refresh rate6.3-inch LTPO OLED; 2,856×1,280 pixels; 1 to 120Hz variable refresh rate6.8-inch LTPO OLED; 2,992×1,344 pixels; 1 to 120Hz variable refresh rate6.8-inch AMOLED; 3,120×1,440 pixels; 1 to 120Hz adaptive refresh rate6.3-inch OLED; 2,424×1,080 pixels; 60-120 Hz variable refresh rate6.1-inch OLED; 2,556 x 1,179 pixel resolution; 60Hz refresh rate4.1-inch AMOLED, 948×1,048p, 120Hz refresh rate; 6.9-inch AMOLED, 2,520×1,080p, 1 to 120Hz refresh rate6.3-inch OLED; 2,424×1,080 pixels; 60 to 120 Hz variable refresh rate6.7-inch AMOLED; 3,120×1,440 pixels; 1 to 120Hz adaptive refresh ratePixel density 460 ppi416 ppi460 ppi460 ppiCover: 417 ppi; 464 ppiCover: 422 ppi; Internal: 368 ppi495 ppi486 ppi501 ppi422 ppi460 ppiCover: 342 ppi; Internal: 397 ppi422 ppi509 ppiDimensions (inches) 5.89 x 2.81 x 0.31 in5.78 x 2.78 x 0.28 in.5.91 x 2.83 x 0.34 in6.43 x 3.07 x 0.34 inOpen: 2.91 x 6.75 x 0.28 inches Closed: 2.91 x 3.47 x 0.62 inchesOpen: 5.63 x 6.24 x 0.17 in; Closed: 2.87 x 6.24 x 0.35 in6 x 2.8 x 0.3 in6.4 x 3 x 0.3 in6.41 x 3.06 x 0.32 in.6.1 x 2.9 x 0.4 in5.81 x 2.82 x 0.31 inOpen: 2.96 x 6.56 x 0.26 in; Closed: 2.96 x 3.37 x 0.26 in6 x 2.8 x 0.3 in6.24 x 2.98 x 0.29 in.Dimensions (millimeters) 149.6 x 71.5 x 7.95 mm146.9 x 70.5 x 7.2 mm150.0 x 71.9 x 8.75 mm163.4 x 78.0 x 8.75 mmOpen: 73.99 x 171.48 x 7.19mm
Closed: 73.99 x 88.12 x 15.69mmOpen: 143.2 x 158.4 x 4.2mm; Closed: 72.8 x 158.4 x 8.9mm152.8 x 72 x 8.5 mm162.8 x 76.6 x 8.5 mm162.8 x 77.6 x 8.2 mm154.7 x 73.3 x 8.9 mm147.6 x 71.6 x 7.8 mmOpen: 75.2 x 166.7 x 6.5mm; Closed: 75.2 x 85.5 x 13.7mm152.8 x 72 x 8.5 mm158.4 x 75.8 x 7.3 mmWeight (grams, ounces) 177 g (6.24 oz)162 g (5.71 oz.)206 g (7.27 oz)233 g (8.22 oz)199g (7 oz)215g (7.58 oz.)207 g (7.3 oz)232 g (8.2 oz)218 g (7.69 oz.)186g (6.6 oz)170 g (6 oz.)188g (6.63 oz.)204 g (7.2 oz)190 g (6.70 oz.)Mobile software iOS 26Android 15iOS 26iOS 26Android 15Android 16Android 16Android 16Android 15Android 15iOS 18Android 16Android 16Android 15Camera 48-megapixel (wide)
48-megapixel (ultrawide)50-megapixel (wide), 12-megapixel (ultrawide), 10-megapixel (3x telephoto)48-megapixel (wide)
48-megapixel (ultrawide)
48-megapixel (4x, 8x telephoto)48-megapixel (wide)
48-megapixel (ultrawide)
48-megapixel (4x, 8x telephoto)50-megapixel (wide), 50-megapixel (ultrawide) 200-megapixel (wide), 12-megapixel (ultrawide), 10-megapixel (telephoto)50-megapixel (wide), 48-megapixel (ultrawide), 48-megapixel (5x telephoto)50-megapixel (wide), 48-megapixel (ultrawide), 48-megapixel (5x telephoto)200-megapixel (wide), 50-megapixel (ultrawide), 10-megapixel (3x telephoto), 50-megapixel (5x telephoto)48-megapixel (wide), 13-megapixel (ultrawide)48-megapixel (wide), 12-megapixel (ultrawide)50-megapixel (wide), 12-megapixel (ultrawide)48-megapixel (wide), 13-megapixel (ultrawide), 10.8-megapixel (5x telephoto)50-megapixel (wide), 12-megapixel (ultrawide), 10-megapixel (3x telephoto)Front-facing camera 18-megapixel12-megapixel 18-megapixel18-megapixel50-megapixel10-megapixel (inner screen); 10-megapixel (outer screen)42-megapixel42-megapixel12-megapixel 13-megapixel12-megapixel10-megapixel10.5-megapixel12-megapixel Video capture 4K8K4K4K4K 8K8K8K8K4K4K4K4K8KProcessor Apple A19Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite for GalaxyApple A19 ProApple A19 ProSnapdragon 8 EliteQualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite for GalaxyGoogle Tensor G5Google Tensor G5Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite for GalaxyGoogle Tensor G4Apple A18Samsung Exynos 2500Google Tensor G5Qualcomm Snapdragon 8 Elite for GalaxyRAM + storage RAM N/A + 256GB, 512GB12GB RAM + 128GB, 256GBRAM N/A + 256GB, 512GB, 1TBRAM N/A + 256GB, 512GB, 1TB, 2TB16GB + 512GB, 1TB12GB + 256GB, 12GB + 512GB, 16GB + 1TB16GB RAM + 128GB, 256GB, 512GB, 1TB16GB RAM + 256GB, 512GB, 1TB12GB RAM + 256GB, 512GB, 1TB8GB + 128GB, 256GBRAM N/A + 128GB, 256GB, 512GB12GB + 256GB, 12GB + 512GB12GB RAM + 128GB, 256GB12GB RAM + 256GB, 512GBExpandable storage NoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone (Face ID)NoneNoneNoneBattery Up to 30 hours video playback; up to 27 hours video playback (streamed)4,000 mAhUp to 33 hours video playback; up to 30 hours video playback (streamed).Up to 39 hours video playback; up to 35 hours video playback (streamed).4,700 mAh4,400 mAh4,870 mAh5,200 mAh5,000 mAh5,100 mAhUp to 22 hours video playback; up to 18 hours video playback (streamed). 20W wired charging. MagSafe wireless charging up to 25W with 30W adapter or higher; Qi2 up to 15W4,300 mAh4,970 mAh4,900 mAhFingerprint sensor None (Face ID)Under displayNone (Face ID)None (Face ID)SideYesUnder displayUnder displayUnder displayUnder displayNone (Face ID)YesUnder displayUnder displayConnector USB-CUSB-CUSB-CUSB-CUSB-CUSB-CUSB-CUSB-CUSB-CUSB-CUSB-CUSB-CUSB-CUSB-CHeadphone jack NoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneSpecial features Apple N1 wireless networking chip (Wi-Fi 7 (802.11be) with 2×2 MIMO), Bluetooth 6, Thread. Action button. Camera Control button. Dynamic Island. Apple Intelligence. Visual Intelligence. Dual eSIM. 1 to 3,000 nits brightness display range. IP68 resistance. Colors: black, white, mist blue, sage, lavender. Fast charge up to 50% in 20 minutes using 40W adapter or higher via charging cable. Fast charge up to 50% in 30 minutes using 30W adapter or higher via MagSafe Charger.2,600-nit peak brightness; 7 years of OS and security updates; 5G (mmWave); IP68 water and dust resistance; wireless PowerShare to charge other devices; 25W wired charging (charger not included); Galaxy AI; Wi-Fi 7Apple N1 wireless networking chip (Wi-Fi 7 (802.11be) with 2×2 MIMO), Bluetooth 6, Thread. Action button. Camera Control button. Dynamic Island. Apple Intelligence. Visual Intelligence. Dual eSIM. ProRes Raw video recording. Genlock video support. 1 to 3,000 nits brightness display range. IP68 resistance. Colors: silver, cosmic orange, deep blue. Fast charge up to 50% in 20 minutes using 40W adapter or higher via charging cable. Fast charge up to 50% in 30 minutes using 30W adapter or higher via MagSafe Charger.Apple N1 wireless networking chip (Wi-Fi 7 (802.11be) with 2×2 MIMO), Bluetooth 6, Thread. Action button. Camera Control button. Dynamic Island. Apple Intelligence. Visual Intelligence. Dual eSIM. ProRes Raw video recording. Genlock video support. 1 to 3,000 nits brightness display range. IP68 resistance. Colors: silver, cosmic orange, deep blue. Fast charge up to 50% in 20 minutes using 40W adapter or higher via charging cable. Fast charge up to 50% in 30 minutes using 30W adapter or higher via MagSafe Charger.IP48 rating, 68-watt wired charging, 30-watt wireless charging, 5-watt reverse charging, dual stereo speakers, Corning Gorilla Glass Ceramic cover dispaly, 3,000 nits peak brightness on cover display, 4,500 nits peak brightness on main display, 5G. One UI 8, 25W wired charging speed, Qi wireless charging, 2,600-nit peak brightness, Galaxy AI, NFC, Wi-Fi 7, Bluetooth 5.4, IP48 water resistanceGorilla Glass 2 Victus cover glass; 3,300 nits peak brightness; Satellite SOS; Dual-eSIM; Wi-Fi 7; NFC; Bluetooth 6; 30W fast charging (wall charger not included); Qi2 15W wireless charging; support for PixelSnap magnetic accessories; Google VPN; Pro Res zoom up to 100x; Camera Coach; Add Me; Macro mode; Face Unblur; Auto Best Take; High-Res Portrait mode; IP68 rating for dust and water resistance; 7 years of OS, security, and Pixel Drop updates; Corning Gorilla GlassVictus 2 silky matte back with polished finish aluminum frame; ultrawideband chipGorilla Glass 2 Victus cover glass; 3,300 nits peak brightness; Satellite SOS; Dual-eSIM; Wi-Fi 7; NFC; Bluetooth 6; 45W fast charging (wall charger not included); Qi2.2 25W wireless charging; support for PixelSnap magnetic accessories; Google VPN; Pro Res zoom up to 100x; Camera Coach; Add Me; Macro mode; Face Unblur; Auto Best Take; High-Res Portrait mode; IP68 rating for dust and water resistance; 7 years of OS, security, and Pixel Drop updates; Corning Gorilla GlassVictus 2 silky matte back with polished finish aluminum frame; ultrawideband chipTitanium frame, 2,600-nit peak brightness; 7 years of OS and security updates; 5G (mmWave); IP68 water and dust resistance; wireless PowerShare to charge other devices; integrated S Pen; UWB for finding other devices; 45W wired charging (charger not included); Galaxy AI; Wi-Fi 7; Gorilla Glass Armor cover glass; ultrawideband7 years of OS, security and Pixel feature drops; Gorilla Glass 3 cover glass; IP68 dust and water resistance; 2,700-nit peak brightness; 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio; 23W fast charging (charger not included); 7.5W wireless charging Qi certified; Wi-Fi 6E; NFC; Bluetooth 5.3; dual-SIM (nano SIM + eSIM); Add Me; Best Take; Magic Eraser; Magic Editor; Photo Unblur; Super Res Zoom; Circle To SearchApple Intelligence, Action button, Camera Control button, Dynamic Island, 1 to 2,000 nits display brightness range, IP68 resistance. Colors: black, white, pink, teal, ultramarine.One UI 8, IP48 water resistance, 25W wired charging, Qi wireless charging, Wi-Fi 7, Bluetooth 5.4, Galaxy AIGorilla Glass 2 Victus cover glass; 3,000 nits peak brightness; Satellite SOS; Dual-eSIM; Wi-Fi 6E; NFC; Bluetooth 6; 30W fast charging (wall charger not included); Qi2 15W wireless charging; support for PixelSnap magnetic accessories; Google VPN; Super Res Zoom up to 20x; Camera Coach; Add Me; Macro mode; Face Unblur; Auto Best Take; IP68 rating for dust and water resistance; 7 years of OS, security, and Pixel Drop updates; Corning Gorilla Glass Victus 2 polished back
with satin finish aluminum frame2,600-nit peak brightness; 7 years of OS and security updates; 5G (mmWave); IP68 water and dust resistance; wireless PowerShare to charge other devices; 25W wired charging (charger not included); Galaxy AI; Wi-Fi 7; ultrawidebandUS price starts at $829 (256GB), $1,029 (512GB)$800 (128GB)$1,099 (256GB)$1,199 (256GB)$1,300$2,000 (256GB)$999 (128GB)$1,199 (256GB)$1,300 (256GB)$499 (128GB)$829 (128GB)$1,100$799 (128GB)$1,000 (256GB)
Source link
compared
David SchoenfieldSep 17, 2025, 07:00 AM ET
Close
- Covers MLB for ESPN.com
- Former deputy editor of Page 2
- Been with ESPN.com since 1995
Baseball fans who grew up on 20-game winners understand — sometimes with much chagrin, sometimes with more emphatic degrees of horror — that the expectations for a starting pitcher are much different in 2025 than 10 years ago, let alone 20, 30 or 40 years ago.
The complete game is all but dead — no pitcher has more than one nine-inning complete game this season. One hundred pitches is now viewed as the top limit for a pitch count, with pitchers rarely exceeding 110 — Randy Johnson had more 110-pitch outings just in 1993 than every starter combined in 2025. Pitchers get more days off between starts. And the list goes on.
Forty years ago in 1985, 20-year-old right-hander Dwight Gooden went 24-4 with a 1.53 ERA while leading the National League with 16 complete games and 268 strikeouts; left-hander John Tudor went 21-8 with a 1.93 ERA, 14 complete games and 10 shutouts.
Paul Skenes and Tarik Skubal are this season’s equivalents to Gooden and Tudor, the top starting pitchers in the majors, but when you dig into their numbers compared to their 1985 counterparts, the change in the modern game for pitchers is obviously apparent and raises the question: What does an ace look like in 2025?
Skenes, who’s the heavy favorite to win the NL Cy Young Award and should finish with the highest WAR for a Pittsburgh Pirates pitcher since the lively ball era began in 1920, has an MLB-best 2.03 ERA while leading the NL in strikeouts and WAR. He has had 11 scoreless outings this season — but his win-loss record is just 10-10. Skubal is the favorite to win the AL Cy Young Award for the second straight season with just 13 wins and may not reach 200 innings, just as he didn’t this past season.
While Tudor had 10 shutouts in one season, there have been just 12 complete game shutouts across the entire major leagues in 2025, nobody with more than one. The only pitcher with a shot to win 20 games, which was once the longstanding prerequisite to win a Cy Young Award, is Max Fried, who has 17 but might make just two more starts. And Skubal’s and Skenes’ numbers aren’t even unique from recent Cy Young winners: We’ve seen starters secure the honor with 13 wins (Robbie Ray in 2021 and Felix Hernandez in 2010), 11 (Corbin Burnes in 2021 and Jacob deGrom in 2019) and even a mere 10 (deGrom in 2018).
How Skubal and Skenes dominate
Here’s what separates the Cy Young favorites from other aces, according to those who watch them most.
Jesse Rogers »
But even if their stat lines differ from past top hurlers, Skenes and Skubal are having great seasons within the context of how the game is played in 2025 and how pitchers are now managed. We’re not going back anytime soon to 1969, when 15 pitchers won 20 games, or 1974, when 34 pitchers threw at least 250 innings (we’ll be lucky to get two or three pitchers to reach 200 innings in 2025).
So, as the regular season winds down, we set out to find what defines a great season for an ace in 2025. How should we compare the aces of the past to those of today? And what is the measure of success for an ace in 2025 compared to years prior?
To answer these questions, we went back 50 years to compare 2025 to 1975, 1985, 1995, 2005 and 2015. My colleague Kiley McDaniel suggests that there are generally about 12 aces in any given season, so we’ll use that: the 12 aces from each of those seasons. Let’s get into it.
Note: The 12 aces for each season were selected using Baseball-Reference WAR, innings pitched, ERA and ERA+ (which adjusts for each pitcher’s league and home park run-scoring context) as the primary guidelines.
1975
Aces: Jim Palmer, Catfish Hunter, Tom Seaver, Jim Kaat, Randy Jones, Frank Tanana, Andy Messersmith, Bert Blyleven, Steve Busby, Gaylord Perry, Jerry Reuss, Vida Blue
Average ace line: 20-12, 2.69 ERA, 288 IP, 244 H, 191 SO, 80 BB, 37 GS, 19 CG, 5 SHO, 138 ERA+, 6.8 WAR
Average MLB starter: 3.80 ERA, 4.9 SO/9, 1.49 SO/BB ratio
What defined an ace in 1975: Durability … and wins.
Defining stat: Our aces completed 226 of their 439 starts (51%) and averaged 7.8 innings per start.
The 1970s were a pitching-rich decade — there were 96 20-win seasons in the decade — with starters carrying big workloads, especially early in the decade when 40-start seasons and 300 innings were routine. If you were an ace, the expectation was that you would finish the game. No pitcher exemplified this quite like Gaylord Perry: From 1970 to 1975, he averaged 321 innings per season and completed 64% of his starts.
The Cy Young winners in 1975 were Palmer (23-11, 2.09 ERA, 8.4 WAR, 323 IP) and Seaver (22-9, 2.38 ERA, 7.8 WAR, 280 IP), and like all the Cy Young winners in the 1970s — except Seaver in 1973 (when he won 19 games) and three relievers who won — they won 20 games. The Cy Young-winning starters in this decade averaged 23 wins — and often, wins were the deciding factor in the vote.
There was no shortage of aces to choose from in 1975 — among those who failed to make the cut were Nolan Ryan (missed time with an injury and had just 2.6 WAR), Steve Carlton (3.56 ERA, 2.2 WAR), Fergie Jenkins (25 wins in 1974, but a 3.93 ERA in ’75), Don Sutton (16 wins, 3.5 WAR) and Phil Niekro (15 wins, 3.20 ERA). In other words: five future Hall of Famers in their primes.
1985
Aces: Dwight Gooden, John Tudor, Bret Saberhagen, Dave Stieb, Charlie Leibrandt, Bert Blyleven, Rick Reuschel, Orel Hershiser, Fernando Valenzuela, Jack Morris, Ron Guidry, Bob Welch
Average ace line: 18-8, 2.54 ERA, 248 IP, 204 H, 67 BB, 167 SO, 33 GS, 12 CG, 4 SHO, 157 ERA+, 6.6 WAR
Average MLB starter: 3.96 ERA, 5.2 SO/9, 1.65 SO/BB ratio
What defined an ace in 1985: A great secondary pitch.
Defining stat: The 157 ERA+ was a big increase from 1975.
Editor’s Picks
2 Related
It’s probably not fair to compare Skenes to Gooden, since Gooden’s 1985 season ranks as one of the best pitching seasons of all time. In a normal season, Tudor would have cruised to a Cy Young Award, but he finished second to Gooden in ’85 while Saberhagen — another right-hander who was just 21 years old — won AL honors after going 20-6 with a 2.87 ERA. Thanks to Gooden and Tudor, the average ERA+ of the 1985 aces soared much higher than in 1975, but because they were pitching fewer innings, their overall value remained almost identical.
Gooden and Saberhagen had blistering fastballs, and just them and Welch probably fit the description of “fastball pitcher” — unlike many of the 1970s aces who did rely heavily on a fastball. For the most part, however, this group stands out for a notable secondary pitch as the best weapon — and even Gooden had that monster 12-to-6 curveball. Tudor and Leibrandt were lefties with great changeups. Stieb had one of the best sliders of all time and Blyleven one of the best curveballs. The young Hershiser certainly had above-average fastball velocity, but changed speeds with his sinker, cutter, curveball and changeup. Fernando had the famous screwball, Morris a forkball and Guidry a slider.
By 1985, we had started to see an increase in the power game — home runs had increased from 0.70 per game in 1975 to 0.86 in 1985. It wasn’t quite so easy to rely primarily on a great fastball with more power up and down the lineup. Case in point: The 1975 Reds, with one of the best lineups of all time, hit just 124 home runs, which would be below average by 1985 and would outrank only the Pirates in 2025. We also see the transformation from four-man to five-man rotations and the advent of the modern closer, which led to fewer innings and fewer complete games — although our aces still averaged nearly 250 innings.
The 1980s was the worst decade for Cy Young selections. Four relievers won, but even worse were the selections of Pete Vuckovich in 1982 (3.34 ERA, 2.8 WAR) and LaMarr Hoyt in 1983 (3.66 ERA, 3.7 WAR), who won only because they led their respective leagues in wins. Leaving out the relievers and the 1981 strike season, the average Cy Young winner in the 1980s won 22 games.
1995
Aces: Greg Maddux, Randy Johnson, David Cone, Mike Mussina, Kenny Rogers, Dennis Martinez, David Wells, Tim Wakefield, Tom Glavine, Hideo Nomo, Kevin Brown, John Smoltz
Average ace line: 16-7, 2.99 ERA, 202 IP, 170 H, 61 BB, 166 SO, 29 GS, 5 CG, 2 SHO, 157 ERA+, 5.9 WAR
Average MLB starter: 4.53 ERA, 6.0 SO/9, 1.82 SO/BB ratio
What defined an ace in 1995: Figuring out how to survive the PED era of increased offense.
Defining stat: We start to see an increase in K’s per nine from our aces. In 1975, it was 6.0; in 1985, 6.1; in 1995, it increased to 7.4.
This was the strike-shortened 144-game season, so the aces are missing about three or four starts from a full 162-game season, which would have given us at least a couple 20-game winners (Maddux and Mussina each won 19) and a bunch more pitchers with 200 innings.
Around this time, the game’s top-level pitchers became even more dominant in comparison to the league average starter as an offensive boom arrived due to PED usage and a livelier baseball. Our group of aces in 1995 — which didn’t include Roger Clemens or a young Pedro Martinez — had an ERA 52 percentage points better than the average starter and a strikeout rate per nine that was 23 percentage points higher. Despite the high-run environment, Maddux went 19-2 with a 1.63 ERA while Johnson went 18-2 with a 2.48 ERA and 294 strikeouts in just 30 starts to win Cy Young honors.
MLB playoff tracker: Who can clinch next?
From current playoff matchups to league races to the postseason schedule, we’ve got you covered. Everything to know »
In one sense, we were entering the era of the super pitcher: Maddux, Johnson, Clemens and Pedro all arguably rank among the 10 greatest starting pitchers of all time, dominating in a high-offense era, while Mussina, Glavine and Smoltz are Hall of Famers. In 1995, the MLB average was 4.85 runs per game — compared to 4.21 in 1975 and 4.33 in 1985 — and would climb above five runs per game in 1996, 1999 and 2000. The increased offense across the sport contributed to the decline in innings pitched, along with the continued evolution of the modern bullpen.
The average nonreliever Cy Young winner in the 1990s (skipping the shortened 1994 season) won 20 games per season, with a few still securing the honor mainly because of their win total (most famously, 27-game winner Welch in 1990 over 21-game winner Clemens, despite Clemens posting an ERA more than a run lower, 1.93 to 2.95).
2005
Aces: Roger Clemens, Dontrelle Willis, Johan Santana, Pedro Martinez, Andy Pettitte, Roy Oswalt, Randy Johnson, Chris Carpenter, Roy Halladay, John Smoltz, Mark Buehrle, Jake Peavy
Average ace line: 16-8, 2.82 ERA, 220 IP, 190 H, 46 BB, 185 SO, 32 GS, 4 CG, 2 SHO, 155 ERA+, 6.1 WAR
Average MLB starter: 4.36 ERA, 6.0 SO/9, 2.08 SO/BB ratio
What defined an ace in 2005: Striking out a lot more batters than they walked.
Defining stat: Strikeout-to-walk ratio. In 1975, our aces had a SO/BB ratio of 2.4; in 1985, 2.5; in 1995, 2.7; but in 2005, it was all the way up to 4.0.
For whatever reason, 2005 saw a minor dip in offense from surrounding seasons (the MLB average was 4.81 runs per game in 2004 and 4.86 in 2006 but 4.59 this season). Clemens had his last great season, leading the NL with a 1.87 ERA and 7.8 WAR, although with 13 wins, he finished third in the Cy Young voting behind Carpenter (21-5, 2.83 ERA, 5.8 WAR) and Willis (22-10, 2.63 ERA, 7.3 WAR). The AL Cy Young voting similarly registered wins as the priority: Santana was 16-7 with a 2.87 ERA and 7.2 WAR and should have won, but 21-game winner Bartolo Colon with a 3.48 ERA captured the honor.
Overall, our aces carried a similar workload to 1995 and remained as productive, with a high ERA+ while averaging over 6.0 WAR. The biggest difference, of course, was how the aces got there: more strikeouts and fewer walks. Halladay best symbolized this new generation of aces, who combined strikeout stuff with great control. Indeed, he made the list of aces even though he made just 19 starts in 2005 — but he went 12-4 with a 2.41 ERA and 5.5 WAR, good enough to crack the top 12. Call that season a sign of things to come, where you wouldn’t need to pitch 220 innings to be one of the most valuable starters.
The typical Cy Young winner in the 2000s still averaged 19.5 wins, with new “lows” set in 2006 when Brandon Webb won with just 16 wins and then Tim Lincecum in 2009 with 15 wins.
2015
Aces: Zack Greinke, Jake Arrieta, Clayton Kershaw, Max Scherzer, Dallas Keuchel, David Price, Sonny Gray, Jacob deGrom, Madison Bumgarner, Felix Hernandez, Corey Kluber, Gerrit Cole
Average ace line: 17-8, 2.56 ERA, 218 IP, 172 H, 45 BB, 225 SO, 32 GS, 3 CG, 2 SHO, 156 ERA+, 6.1 WAR
Average MLB starter: 4.10 ERA, 7.4 SO/9, 2.73 SO/BB ratio
What defined an ace in 2015: Strikeouts!
Defining stat: The strikeout rate for our aces climbed to over one per inning at 9.3 K’s per nine.
The extraordinary mystery of Tarik Skubal
“I wasn’t good until I was 26,” the All-Star pitcher says. Here’s how Skubal rose from Little League lore to Cy Young. Tim Keown »
This season featured one of the best three-way Cy Young races of all time, when Greinke and Arrieta posted ERAs under 2.00 while Kershaw had a 2.13 ERA with 301 strikeouts. Greinke was 19-3 with a 1.66 ERA and 8.9 WAR, but Arrieta won after going 22-6 with a 1.77 ERA and 8.3 WAR.
The increased strikeout rate is a reflection of a couple of things: We were near the beginning of the high-velocity era for pitchers, but what set apart these aces is multiple strikeout pitches to go along with their fastballs. Arrieta featured two fastballs, a slider, curveball and changeup, and Greinke had the same five-pitch repertoire. Kershaw had pinpoint control of his fastball and two unhittable off-speed pitches in his curveball and slider. King Felix had an A+ changeup and a great curveball. Kluber parlayed a cutter/slider/curveball combo into two Cy Youngs. Scherzer and deGrom had everything — overpowering fastballs, control and multiple off-speed weapons. It was a new wave of dominance that we had never seen before.
The typical Cy Young winner in the 2010s still averaged 18.8 wins. It was a very controversial selection when Hernandez won in 2010 despite going just 13-12 for a terrible Mariners team, and wins still generally remained a key factor in Cy Young voting during this decade. As late as 2016, Rick Porcello (22-6, 4.7 WAR) beat out Justin Verlander (16-9, 7.4 WAR) primarily because he won more games (Verlander actually had more first-place votes, 14 to 8). However, the tide had shifted by the time deGrom took home the honor in 2018 and 2019 despite winning just 10 and 11 games, respectively. He was clearly the best pitcher in the NL and received 29 of 30 first-place votes both years.
2025
Aces: Paul Skenes, Cristopher Sanchez, Tarik Skubal, Hunter Brown, Garrett Crochet, Nick Pivetta, Freddy Peralta, Ranger Suarez, Zack Wheeler, Yoshinobu Yamamoto, Logan Webb, Max Fried
Average ace line: 13-6, 2.65 ERA, 174 IP, 137 H, 44 BB, 195 SO, 16 HR, 29 GS, 1 CG, 0 SHO, 162 ERA+, 5.4 WAR
Average MLB starter: 4.23 ERA, 8.2 SO/9, 2.77 SO/BB ratio
What defines an ace in 2025: Dominance over shorter outings.
Defining stat: Our aces have allowed no runs or one run in 171 out of 346 starts.
Those totals will climb a bit over the final days of the season, but we’re still seeing a 30-to-40-inning drop in workload from a decade prior, and thus a slight drop in overall value despite a high rate of productivity. The trade-off with fewer innings is that these aces are expected to dominate over those shorter outings, which often now last just six or seven innings. Skenes has pitched more than seven innings just three times and Skubal just twice (although, one of those was his first career complete game).
Of course, fewer innings means fewer decisions and thus fewer wins from the elite starters. The eight Cy Young winners from 2021 to 2024 averaged just 15.1 wins per season and the last 20-game Cy Young winner was Verlander in 2019.
Conclusion
The days of multiple 20-game winners vying for Cy Young honors are long gone, but I hope we’ve adjusted our thinking and can still appreciate what Skenes and Skubal — and Sanchez, Crochet, Brown and the other top starters — have accomplished in an era that is much different from 1975 or 1985.
Inside Paul Skenes’ rise to superstar status
Amid the noise that comes with arriving as MLB’s next megastar, the Pirates’ ace is finding himself in the quiet. Jeff Passan »
A stat like WAR is a good way to look at this. Skenes has 7.2 WAR — higher than nine of the Cy Young starting pitchers of the 1970s and eight from the 1980s. Skenes is just as valuable in 2025 as many of the top pitchers were 40 and 50 years ago in their era.
Will his 2025 campaign go down as a legendary season like Gooden had in 1985? No, 10-10 is not the same as 24-4, and losing that aspect of baseball history no doubt stirs up much of the consternation about the “decline” of the starting pitcher. But let’s leave it at this: Dwight Gooden was a must-watch star in 1985, just as Randy Johnson and Greg Maddux were in 1995, just as Clayton Kershaw in 2015 and just as Skenes and Skubal are in 2025.
Now that the iPhone 17, iPhone 17 Pro and iPhone Air have been announced, iOS 26 is set to hit older iPhone devices soon. The latest version of the OS brings several new features to iPhones, as well as Apple’s updated design language, Liquid Glass.
Liquid Glass adds a combination of translucency and shiny, glass-like accents throughout the user interface, giving the operating system a new look in more than one way. And despite all of the differences between it and what’s found on current iPhones right now, iOS 18, Liquid Glass isn’t nearly as dramatic as it looks upon first glance. That’s a good thing, since there’s no real learning curve, so anyone familiar with iOS will feel right at home.
Watch this: The New iPhone Air Changes the Game for Preorders
05:34
If you want a glimpse of just how Liquid Glass changes the look of your iPhone compared to iOS 18, I’ve highlighted some of the changes below. And if you’re looking to get one of the new iPhones, don’t miss the best iPhone 17 and iPhone Air pre-order deals.
Home screen
Apple kept the new Liquid Glass minimal on the home screen (left), with only minor changes to the default home screen appearance versus iOS 18’s.
Screenshots by Jeff Carlson, Nelson Aguilar/CNET
Looking at the home screens, the primary difference you’ll find is that in iOS 26, the dock background and the search option that sits between the dock and the home screen icons are more transparent and have a sheen to the edges, whereas in iOS 18, these are slightly darker.
Other smaller changes are that the icons on iOS 26 look slightly larger, and some app icons seem to have been more influenced by the redesign than others, most notably (from the screenshots) Settings, Camera and Mail.
For Liquid Glass to really shine on the home screen, you’ll want to opt for the “All Clear” mode, which will create the most dramatic change to your icons and widgets. Going this route could potentially introduce some viewability issues, but the “reduce transparency” setting remedies this quite well.
Control Center
Things here are largely unchanged. Outside of the new glassy look in iOS 26 (left), the 1×2 and 2×1 controls are more rounded than those of iOS 18.
Screenshots by Jeff Carlson, Nelson Aguilar/CNET
Things here are largely unchanged. Outside of the new glassy look in iOS 26, the 1×2 and 2×1 controls are more rounded than those of iOS 18.
Lock screen
Screenshots by Jeff Carlson, Nelson Aguilar/CNET
It’s easy to see the differences that Liquid Glass brings to the iPhone lock screen. The digital clock in iOS 26 dynamically resizes depending on the wallpaper and the number of notifications you have at any given moment, which is pretty cool. The clock itself on iOS 18 can be changed, but it won’t change in size in response to content displayed on the lock screen.
The background on notifications is clearly different between the two OS versions, with iOS 18 providing more opacity and black text versus iOS 26’s near-transparent background on white text. The controls at the bottom in iOS 26 also appear more like physical buttons with depth and more of a see-through background.
The new unlock effect in iOS 26 is that the motion of unlocking your iPhone will appear as though you’re lifting a sheet of glass, highlighted by a shiny edge to give it form when you begin to slide your finger up.
Menus and dynamic tab bars
iOS 26’s new Dynamic Tab (top) gives you a cleaner look and more space to view your content.
Screenshots by Jeff Carlson, Nelson Aguilar/CNET
A new addition in iOS 26 is the introduction of dynamic tab bars in apps that will change depending on whether you’re scrolling or trying to perform a specific action. Apple says this will create a more intuitive experience while freeing up space for your content. If you were to replace the glass effect with heavily saturated colors, no one would blame you for mistaking this new tab bar with what Google’s doing in Android 16 in some of its apps — they look a lot alike. But compared to iOS 18, this new dynamic tab bar should not only reduce sifting through multiple menus, but it looks pretty good in the process.
iOS 26 will dynamically adapt to light and dark backgrounds
In iOS 26, the color of menu icons and icon text will adapt depending on the background.
Apple/GIF by CNET
While it’s harder to compare Liquid Glass to iOS 18 here, an upcoming feature is that buttons and menus will adapt depending on the content’s background color. For instance, when you’re scrolling through an app with a light background, the floating menu options will appear with black text for easier viewing and will automatically change to white upon scrolling to a dark background.
In iOS 18 (top), some aspects of the user interface would appear darker depending on the color of the background. Take a look at the top and middle examples to see how it compares to Liquid Glass at the bottom.
Screenshots by Jeff Carlson, Nelson Aguilar/CNET
iOS has had this type of feature show up in a less dramatic fashion before, as you can tell from the photos app screenshots above. Comparing these to what’s on the horizon, it’s hard not to get excited about the small tweaks Liquid Glass has in store, too.
Those are just a few of our initial findings, and we’ll likely add more once we surface them. If you want more about iOS 26, check out three upcoming features that are a bigger deal than Liquid Glass.
Watch this: iPhone Air Is a Wild Card – and Starts a Big Change for Apple
06:39
Source link
The iPhone 17 Pro Max is here, packing a variety of upgrades from the cameras to the design. But how does it compare with its predecessor, the iPhone 16 Pro Max? Let’s take a close look at the specs and find out. Keep in mind that specs don’t tell the whole story so make sure to check out CNET’s ongoing coverage of the iPhone 17 Pro Max — as well everything else from Apple’s “awe-dropping” event — for more information.
Watch this: iPhone 17 Pro Hands-On: Higher Price and Newish Design
03:41
Don’t miss any of our unbiased tech content and lab-based reviews. Add CNET as a preferred Google source.
iPhone 17 Pro Max: Design and display
Both phones are huge, with 6.9-inch displays that will be equally difficult to wrap your hands around and will stretch out your jeans pockets in just the same way. The two phones have largely the same dimensions. They both use Apple’s Super Retina XDR panels, so we don’t really expect to see any noticeable differences in overall quality here, and both phones have the Dynamic Island cutout at the top.
The 17 Pro Max’s design has had some big changes, though, with a new camera bar that stretches across the width of the back, and the phone is made from aluminum instead of titanium. Apple says this design dissipates heat 20 times better than the titanium design of the previous model, helped too by the new vapor chamber, which uses de-ionized water to actively cool the phone while in use. Despite that, the 17 Pro Max is only 4 grams heavier than the 16 Pro Max. Will you ever notice 4 grams more? Almost certainly not.
I guess it’s not a spec, but I do think it’s worth calling out the 17 Pro Max’s new cosmic orange colour — love it or hate it, it’s certainly a vibrant option, and I personally love seeing a bit of fun being injected back into our phones. I’d personally pick it over another shade of boring gray.
Tell me the orange doesn’t stand out.
Apple
The 17 Pro Max has Ceramic Shield 2 on the front and back, which Apple says is three times more scratch-resistant than before. Both phones are IP68 water-resistant.
iPhone 17 Pro Max: Processor and storage
The 17 Pro Max uses Apple’s latest A19 Pro chip, which the company reckons is significantly faster, especially for graphically intense tasks like gaming, while its new neural accelerators are designed to help it handle AI tasks with better efficiency. The A18 Pro chip in the 16 Pro Max was already something of a beast, so it’ll be exciting to see how these two perform both on benchmarks and in real-world use.
While both phones have a base capacity of 256GB, the new 17 Pro Max can now be specced up with a whopping 2TB of storage. You’ll pay handsomely for the privilege at $1,999 for that configuration, but if you plan to film a lot of ProRes Raw video with the phone, then it might be worth it. There’s also the option to attach an external SSD when filming at that quality.
iPhone 17 Pro Max: Cameras
Both phones pack the usual trio of standard zoom, ultrawide and telephoto cameras, but the 17 Pro Max makes some key upgrades. Most notably in the telephoto camera, which now has an optical zoom range up to 8x, which is a big step up over the fixed 5x zoom of the 16 Pro Max. Its sensor is physically bigger too, and its resolution has gone from a meager 12 megapixels on the 16 Pro Max to a much more generous 48 megapixels on the 17 Pro Max. Nice.
Apple’s new cameras are so good it shot its whole keynote video using one. Well, that and an enormous cinema crane and multiple Hollywood-standard lights.
Apple/Screenshot by CNET
All three rear cameras are now 48 megapixels, although there are fewer hardware differences on the other cameras.
The 17 Pro does have some upgraded video skills, however. This includes its ability to shoot in ProRes Raw, which captures unprocessed footage without any software adjustments like sharpening in order to give much greater flexibility in post-production. ProRes Raw isn’t on the 16 Pro Max, so it’s presumably demanding enough that it requires the extra power from the new A19 chip to manage it.
The 17 Pro Max also supports dual capture, which allows you to film with the front and rear cameras at the same time if that’s something you think you’d particularly want to do. Both phones can shoot 4K video at up to 120 frames per second, and if you want to slow things down even more, they will shoot 240 frames per second in 1,080p.
The front selfie camera — or the Centre Stage camera, as Apple now calls it — has seen a boost up to 18 megapixels on the 17 Pro Max, along with a new sensor design that allows for vertical or horizontal cropping and better digital stabilization in video.
iPhone 17 Pro Max: Battery and charging
Apple doesn’t give specific battery specs, but it has said that the iPhone 17 Pro Max has the biggest battery ever seen inside an iPhone. That must mean it’s bigger than the battery in the 16 Pro Max, even though we don’t know its actual capacity. And that makes sense as Apple reckons you’ll get an additional four hours of video playback from the new model. How they actually fare in everyday use remains to be seen.
Apple says the iPhone 17 Pro Max’s battery is the largest it has ever put inside an iPhone.
Apple/Screenshot by CNET
Apple also says that the 17 Pro Max will charge faster. Its 40-watt wired charging speed takes it from empty to 50% full in 20 minutes, a significant boost over the 35 minutes the 16 Pro Max would take to do the same.
So those are some of the key differences — and similarities — between the new iPhone 17 Pro Max and last year’s iPhone 16 Pro Max. The upgrades won’t feel huge if you’re already using an iPhone 16 Pro, so those of you already rocking last year’s model almost certainly won’t need to upgrade here, but if you’re on much older handsets then you’ll definitely notice the difference in the cameras and power — and, yeah, you can also have a bright orange Pro iPhone now, so that’s something.
iPhone 17 Pro Max vs. iPhone 16 Pro Max specs comparison chart
Apple iPhone 17 Pro MaxApple iPhone 16 Pro Max Display size, tech, resolution, refresh rate, brightness 6.9-inch OLED; 2,868 x 1,320 pixel resolution; 1-120Hz variable refresh rate6.9-inch OLED; 2,868 x 1,320 pixel resolution; 1 to 120Hz adapative refresh ratePixel density 460 ppi460 ppiDimensions (inches) 6.43 x 3.07 x 0.34 in6.42 x 3.06 x 0.32 inDimensions (millimeters) 163.4 x 78.0 x 8.75 mm163 x 77.6 x 8.25 mmWeight (grams, ounces) 233 g (8.22 oz)227 g (7.99 oz.)Mobile software iOS 26iOS 18Camera 48-megapixel (wide) 48-megapixel (ultrawide) 48-megapixel (4x, 8x telephoto)48-megapixel (wide), 48-megapixel (ultrawide) 12-megapixel (5x telephoto) Front-facing camera 18-megapixel12-megapixelVideo capture 4K4KProcessor Apple A19 ProApple A18 ProRAM/storage RAM N/A + 256GB, 512GB, 1TB, 2TBRAM N/A + 256GB, 512GB, 1TBExpandable storage NoneNone (Face ID)Battery/charging speeds Up to 39 hours video playback; up to 35 hours video playback (streamed). Fast charge up to 50% in 20 minutes using 40W adapter or higher via charging cable. Fast charge up to 50% in 30 minutes using 30W adapter or higher via MagSafe Charger.Up to 33 hours video playback; up to 29 hours video playback (streamed). 20W wired charging. MagSafe wireless charging up to 25W with 30W adapter or higher; Qi2 up to 15WFingerprint sensor None (Face ID)None (Face ID)Connector USB-CUSB-CHeadphone jack NoneNoneSpecial features Apple N1 wireless networking chip (Wi-Fi 7 (802.11be) with 2×2 MIMO), Bluetooth 6, Thread. Action button. Camera Control button. Dynamic Island. Apple Intelligence. Visual Intelligence. Dual eSIM. ProRes Raw video recording. Genlock video support. 1 to 3000 nits brightness display range. IP68 resistance. Colors: silver, cosmic orange, deep blue.Apple Intelligence, Action button, Camera Control button, 4x audio mics, Dynamic Island, 1 to 2,000 nits display brightness range, IP68 resistance. Colors: black titanium, white titantium, natural titanium, desert titanium.US price off-contract $1,199 (256GB)$1,199 (256GB)UK price £1,199 (256GB)£1,199 (256GB)Australia price AU$2,199 (256GB)AU$2,149 (256GB)
Source link