View Poll Results: How Do We Rank Rogers Hornsby Today?

Voters
151. You may not vote on this poll
  • I rank Rogers Hornsby a Top 10 Position Player.

    89 58.94%
  • I do NOT rank Rogers Hornsby a Top 10 Player.

    33 21.85%
  • I rank Rogers Hornsby a Top 5 All-Time Hitter .

    89 58.94%
  • I do NOT rank Rogers Hornsby a Top 5 All-Time Hitter

    26 17.22%
  • I rank Rogers Hornsby as my #1 Second Baseman.

    96 63.58%
  • I do NOT rank Rogers Hornsby as my #1 Second Baseman.

    27 17.88%
  • I STILL consider Hornsby the finest RH hitter ever.

    71 47.02%
  • I only rank Joe Morgan over Hornsby at 2B.

    6 3.97%
  • I only rank Eddie Collins over Hornsby at 2B.

    10 6.62%
  • I rank both Collins/Morgan over Hornsby at 2B.

    11 7.28%
  • Hornsby was a greater hitter than Gehrig.

    11 7.28%
  • Gehrig was a greater hitter than Hornsby.

    10 6.62%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 18 of 21 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 360 of 408

Thread: Rogers Hornsby Thread

  1. #341
    Quote Originally Posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
    It's very obvious that Bill James dislikes Hornsby and thats putting it mildly so why should we believe his ranking of Hornsby is free of any bias.

    He can call his a horses ass, talk about any flaws in his fielding and anything else he thinks negative about Hornsby. He can factor all that goes into ranking Hornsby when ranking him with other second basemen, hitting, base running, fielding and that club house cancer that is impossible to put a negative value on, tell all the horror stories any poster likes.

    But when Bill James talks from the wrong end says that he doesn't think Hornsby was the best offensive second basemen................ well, what can be said.

    He talks about Hornsby playing most of his career in the best two hitters parks in the NL. That may be true but look at how he did away from home.

    Batted .358 on the road.
    He holds the NL road average for one season, 419 in 1921 also .405 in 1920, .400 in 1922 and .401 in 1928. I believe only Ty Cobb had more .400 seasons on the road but we're dealing with Hornsby here and James comments.

    He had the highest NL road OBA for one season with .505 in 1928 , since broken by Barry Bonds.

    He had the highest career NL road OBA with .430, possible Barry may have topped this, probably not by much.

    He held the highest career NL road slugging average with .565. Bonds probably topped this one, did not check but look who were putting next to Hornsby the middle infielder, Barry Bonds.

    Where does James get the notion that Hornsby was not the best offensive second baseman and than base it on his home parks, looks great on the road.

    Face the fact that James will never give Hornsby his due. He should play the part of a real baseball man, historian and leave personal feelings outside when ranking ball players.
    Bringing this post up for review

  2. #342
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    2,013
    Quote Originally Posted by SavoyBG View Post
    The numbers are so close on peak between Collins and Morgan that I think Collins should get it for his longevity, which would be even more pronounced if they had been play 162 game seasons in his day. He would have played the equivelent of another full season.
    If numbers are that close, I would give it to the modern guy. I would think the league quality had to be higher during Morgan's days than Collins'. Heck, Morgan would not have even been allowed to play in Collins' days; that alone is enough for me to think that the league was weaker back then.

  3. #343
    Looking for a news article, if it even exists dealing with Hornsby.

    Supposedly no one ever cleared the barrier, the clubhouse in centerfield at Baker Bowl. I did see two print articles that claim that Hornsby hit a drive that went through a window of the clubhouse. If I recall it was 408 feet to the clubhouse, not sure how high the window was.

    What I usually do when reading such articles, go to the most reliable source, Proquest newspaper game recaps.
    Game recaps are not hand me down stories, a recap the day after the game was played.
    It is possible that a game recap might not even mention that.
    Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 03-03-2012 at 04:25 AM.

  4. #344
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Home of the Twins
    Posts
    2,580
    I think Hornsby's pure hitting ability has him winning the title of the best 2nd baseman. I have Hornsby over Collins and Morgan due to his insane hitting, even though Morgan and Collins were more well-rounded. Nap Lajoie is the Wild Card to me. Nap Lajoie was a great fielder during his day. His 8.6 defensive WAR seems to back this up and it tops the the guys above by a healthy margin. I will go out on a limb and say that Lajoie's 8.6 defensive WAR is in the top 5 all-time for 2nd baseman. Lajoie also stole 380 bases. Also, Lajoie was a really good Dead Ball hitter. From 1897-1912, Lajoie hit .352 while averaging 48 doubles, 12 triples, and 27 stolens bases per 162 games played. I think that in the Dead Ball era, Lajoie would beat Hornsby pretty badly. However, Hornsby's Live Ball stats were insane. Even though Lajoie was a bulky guy that ripped the cover off the ball, I can't see him hitting .380 with 30 HRs a year in the Live Ball era like Hornsby did. But then again, who knows. Since Lajoie didn't play some time in the Live Ball era, I can't give him credit for something he didn't do. Thus, Hornsby wins. But I think Lajoie may be the most underrated player out there.

  5. #345
    Quote Originally Posted by Joltin' Joe View Post
    If numbers are close, I would give it to the modern guy.
    You really kinda have to, if you're an intellectually honest person, don't you?

    Guys like Hornsby played in bandbox parks like St. Louis and Philadelphia...against pitching that must have been quite poor towards the bottom third of the league, relative to players of the modern era. This seems to be obliquely evidenced by their own relative performance against the bad teams, in the smallest parks.

    Hornsby's career line (158 games) in the Baker Bowl was .399/.482/.654. Yes, he hit .399 in a full season in a (supposed) Major League Park. That's as a visiting player.

    Hornsby's career line in St. Louis (574 games) was .392/.467/.660. The point being no slugger of recent decades could possibly have that kind of career line over 4 full seasons' worth of games in one park.

    It stands to reason that the parks are much more symmetrical and reasonable, and the opposing pitching/defense is much better today. It's either that.....or you have to conclude that the pre-integration players were simply superhuman compared to modern players, and the hitters of today just pale by comparison...

    Which conclusion is more reasonable and supported by all the other evidence?

    Just for yuks, here's a few other players' career lines as visitors in Sportsman's Park:
    Gehrig: .360/.486/.717
    Foxx: .343/.457/.659
    Ted Williams: .399/.531/.750
    Dimaggio: .389/.464/.759
    Last edited by csh19792001; 11-29-2012 at 04:51 PM.

  6. #346
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by csh19792001 View Post
    ---------
    where you been old buddy!!!!
    "By common consent, Ruth was the hardest hitter of history; a fine fielder, if not a finished one; an inspired base runner, seeming to do the right thing without thinking. He had the most perfect co-ordination of any human animal I ever knew." - Hugh Fullerton, 1936 (Chicago sports writer, 1893-1930's)

    ROY / ERA+ Title / Cy Young / WS MVP / HR Title / Gold Glove / Comeback POY / BA Title / MVP / All Star / HOF

  7. #347
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Northern plains
    Posts
    9,803
    Quote Originally Posted by csh19792001 View Post
    You really kinda have to, {If numbers are close, I would give it to the modern guy.} if you're an intellectually honest person, don't you?

    Guys like Hornsby played in bandbox parks like St. Louis and Philadelphia...against pitching that must have been quite poor towards the bottom third of the league, relative to players of the modern era. This seems to be obliquely evidenced by their own relative performance against the bad teams, in the smallest parks.

    Hornsby's career line (158 games) in the Baker Bowl was .399/.482/.654 Yes, he hit .399 in a full season in a (supposed) Major League ParkThat's as a visiting player

    [Hornsby's career line in St. Louis (574 games) was .392/.467/.660 The point being no slugger of recent decades could possibly have that kind of career line over 4 full seasons' worth of games in one park.

    It stands to reason that the parks are much more symmetrical and reasonable, and the opposing pitching/defense is much better today. It's either that.....or you have to conclude that the pre-integration players were simply superhuman compared to modern players, and the hitters of today just pale by comparison

    Which conclusion is more reasonable and supported by all the other evidence?

    Just for yuks, here's a few other players' career lines as visitors in Sportsman's Park:
    Gehrig: .360/.486/.717
    Foxx: .343/.457/.659
    Ted Williams: .399/.531/.750
    Dimaggio: .389/.464/.759
    According your theory, players performance will then always depreciate as time goes by. Then Albert Pujols will be looked at as a scrub 50 years from now. I don't buy that. Also, I assume the entire league got to hit in the parks that you note.

  8. #348
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Hart View Post
    According your theory, players performance will then always depreciate as time goes by. Then Albert Pujols will be looked at as a scrub 50 years from now. I don't buy that. Also, I assume the entire league got to hit in the parks that you note.
    As with anything, we are left to discuss and put things into perspective. More specialized relief pitching, a smaller zone, and smaller fields, etc. Every factor influences other factors, points, counterpoints, the sharing of ideas and opinions continue on until the day we die.

    Remember, the entire league got to hit in that park for some games here and there. Not for 77 home games a year. Big difference. That's why Chris posted visitors' numbers. If THOSE players, had THAT park for 77 games per season, what would their overall numbers look like? Ask yourself.
    "By common consent, Ruth was the hardest hitter of history; a fine fielder, if not a finished one; an inspired base runner, seeming to do the right thing without thinking. He had the most perfect co-ordination of any human animal I ever knew." - Hugh Fullerton, 1936 (Chicago sports writer, 1893-1930's)

    ROY / ERA+ Title / Cy Young / WS MVP / HR Title / Gold Glove / Comeback POY / BA Title / MVP / All Star / HOF

  9. #349
    Quote Originally Posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
    where you been old buddy!!!!
    Randy! I was going to ask you the same thing, old buddy!

  10. #350
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Hart View Post
    According your theory, players performance will then always depreciate as time goes by. Then Albert Pujols will be looked at as a scrub 50 years from now. I don't buy that. Also, I assume the entire league got to hit in the parks that you note.
    So you think Hornsby would hit .392 today for his career in St. Louis? .399 over 160 career games in Philadelphia? Or .400 over a 5 year span?

    Pujols won't ever be a scrub! He's the best hitter and the best player of this century. He has a better case than anyone as being the best hitter since Ted Williams.

    Re: players of pre integration ball dominating much more....Why do you think it is the greatest hitters of the past several decades can't even come close to these kind of video game numbers that Rogers Hornsby put up? Why is it that we had 15 .400 seasons from 1901-1941, and 0 from 1941-2012?

    It isn't my "theory" that athletes have improved exponentially in performance, on average, during the past century. It holds true in every other sport, and while baseball is less purely physical than track, football, weight lifting, etc. etc., the game is still very much improved by the average player being vastly bigger/faster/stronger/better trained.

    In my heart, Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth are easily the greatest two ballplayers that ever lived- in either order- it's mainly a matter of style/team allegiance who is #1. There's an absolute lore and awe to those two that gets me. I'm a sentimentalist and a historian, and those two are considered deities in my family and to some of the people I care about and admire the most.

    Logically, though? Using only my mind, with all emotion and sentimentality removed? The greatest player in history has to be Willie Mays.
    Last edited by csh19792001; 11-30-2012 at 02:39 PM.

  11. #351
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    25,914
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
    As with anything, we are left to discuss and put things into perspective. More specialized relief pitching, a smaller zone, and smaller fields, etc. Every factor influences other factors, points, counterpoints, the sharing of ideas and opinions continue on until the day we die.

    Remember, the entire league got to hit in that park for some games here and there. Not for 77 home games a year. Big difference. That's why Chris posted visitors' numbers. If THOSE players, had THAT park for 77 games per season, what would their overall numbers look like? Ask yourself.
    This is why I stopped ranking players years ago. Trying to determine the greater player between players who may have played 70-80 years apart is a fools errand in my opinion. For me at least, it's more important and fun to study the history of the game and the career and lives of the players. I don't really care what Babe Ruth or Rogers Hornsby or Ty Cobb could do in today's game or what Mike Trout or Albert Pujols or Mike Piazza, or A-Rod could do in 1930. It's all pure speculation and unprovable anyway so who cares? I'm much more interested in what players actually did in their era.
    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

  12. #352
    Quote Originally Posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
    As with anything, we are left to discuss and put things into perspective. More specialized relief pitching, a smaller zone, and smaller fields, etc. Every factor influences other factors, points, counterpoints, the sharing of ideas and opinions continue on until the day we die.
    I always wonder if scorers were much more liberal with ruling hits- and less likely to rule an in between play an error- during the 1900-1930 era than they are today. Esp. before 1920....not only were fielders' gloves a joke compared to today's, but the ball was disgusting, sodden, and blackened, and kept in play as long as was possible.

    What was the actual strike zone- as called- in the 1920's?

    Things that really bolstered offensive numbers of old timers...
    1. Lousy gloves.
    2. Relief pitchers were the opposite of what they are today....they were tired starters or stop-gap/backup pitchers who were usually subpar. Now they platoon incessantly, and all relievers throw 95+. Most relievers have much lower ERA's than starters.
    3. Hitters beat up on pitchers over time if they get a 4th and 5th PA against them. The CG % was around 50% in Babe and Ty's time, 2-4% today!!
    4. Familiarity (tends) to favor hitters. Bonds homered off of 449 pitchers, Ruth off of 219.
    5. Night ball: Nobody hits better at night. In this century, 75% of games are evening/night games.
    6. Massive fields, less athletic/speedy fielders overall: More room for hits to fall, more long extra base hits, esp. triples.

    All I can think of at the moment...have to run.

    Randy, you should take the opposite position.....disadvantages faced by old time hitters....
    Last edited by csh19792001; 11-30-2012 at 03:24 PM.

  13. #353
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Hart View Post
    According your theory, players performance will then always depreciate as time goes by. Then Albert Pujols will be looked at as a scrub 50 years from now. I don't buy that. Also, I assume the entire league got to hit in the parks that you note.
    Actually, your conclusion doesn't follow. And no one looks at Mays, Aaron, Mantle, Koufax, the Robinsons and other players of fifty years ago as scrubs. But . . . . if there were as many revolutionary changes in the baseball world in the next hundred years as there were in the past hundred, yes, in all probability Albert Pujols would be seen as the best of a demonstrably inferior lot, one who would be a star, but not a dominant one.

    For example, suppose baseball became a truly worldwide sport, with the consequent media explosion and the revenue that would bring. And suppose this was accompanied by advances in neurology, kinesiology, nutrition, etc. so that potential stars could be predicted with some success in early childhood and trained in scientifically proven methods. So you would have a pool larger by an order of magnitude, worldwide, well-funded training programs, playing for enormous stakes. Every person in the world who could possibly throw 100 mph would be scouted from childhood, playing every day, and the top 1% might make it to the bigs. Every person in the world who could hit a ball 500 feet . . . likewise.

    In other words, San Pedro de Marcoris would be the model for a global industry devoted to manufacturing the best possible baseball players. From that perspective, yes, our perfectly appropriate contemporary veneration of Albert Pujols will look rather quaint.
    Last edited by Jackaroo Dave; 11-30-2012 at 05:30 PM.

  14. #354
    Quote Originally Posted by csh19792001 View Post
    I always wonder if scorers were much more liberal with ruling hits- and less likely to rule an in between play an error- during the 1900-1930 era than they are today. Esp. before 1920....not only were fielders' gloves a joke compared to today's, but the ball was disgusting, sodden, and blackened, and kept in play as long as was possible.

    What was the actual strike zone- as called- in the 1920's?

    Things that really bolstered offensive numbers of old timers...
    1. Lousy gloves.
    2. Relief pitchers were the opposite of what they are today....they were tired starters or stop-gap/backup pitchers who were usually subpar. Now they platoon incessantly, and all relievers throw 95+. Most relievers have much lower ERA's than starters.
    3. Hitters beat up on pitchers over time if they get a 4th and 5th PA against them. The CG % was around 50% in Babe and Ty's time, 2-4% today!!
    4. Familiarity (tends) to favor hitters. Bonds homered off of 449 pitchers, Ruth off of 219.
    5. Night ball: Nobody hits better at night. In this century, 75% of games are evening/night games.
    6. Massive fields, less athletic/speedy fielders overall: More room for hits to fall, more long extra base hits, esp. triples.

    All I can think of at the moment...have to run.

    Randy, you should take the opposite position.....disadvantages faced by old time hitters....
    Short reply here, I think it's a wash pre 1920 it appears your speaking of how the ball may have effected fielding and I agree, but it didn't help the hitters either.
    I guess we will never know what official scoring was like way back when but I can say seeing the game in the 1960s-1970s, official scorers were not very generous to the hitters. Official scoring in the last couple of decades has gone South, favor the hitters in general, not by much but some. I can't believe some of the fielding plays that go for hits today, fielders getting good leather on a ball and at times , it's a hit.

    Can I prove that, no, thats my take on official scoring in todays game. It's not glaring but it's there.
    What was the strike zone way back then..as called, no way to tell. But anyone on this board that can go back to the 1960's 1970's and some of the 1980's has to be aware that in the 1990's the strike zone on the verticle is a joke. At one time in the 1990's it was almost belt to the knees and even today, not what the book calls for.

    Yes, overall pitching at a higher level today but I'm not going to subtract from Ruth, Foxx and some other because they batted against a smaller number of pitchers to indicate they couldn't hold their own today. Again, we are getting to that place again how would we know.

    What I'm saying because a hitter today hits against more pitchers today, we can't just assume some past players stats would suffer today.
    Batting average yes, home runs, total bases, no way to tell.
    Night baseball, I don't think it hurts that much, not in the parks in recent years.
    Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 11-30-2012 at 05:45 PM.

  15. #355
    Some figure, picked at random but i would bet if we look at the last 20 years in total, the day/night numbers would not have a significant difference.
    OK, could skew the numbers a bit, far more day game than night, I don't think it would matter that much.
    The difference is certainly not like night and day.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  16. #356
    Quote Originally Posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
    I guess we will never know what official scoring was like way back when but I can say seeing the game in the 1960s-1970s, official scorers were not very generous to the hitters. Official scoring in the last couple of decades has gone South, favor the hitters in general, not by much but some. I can't believe some of the fielding plays that go for hits today, fielders getting good leather on a ball and at times , it's a hit.
    That is my sense of it too, but I wonder if some of it isn't old fogeyism. It's an important issue to me, because one of the best indicators of improved quality of play is the decrease in errors and increase in double plays, which persist even after the introduction of the contemporary glove. (And even if an improvement is due to better equipment, it's still an improvement.)

    Part of the improvement (in error rate, not dp) I guess, is due to the increase in strikeouts, but if it's also due to more stringent use of the E, then a big argument for improved quality gets smaller.

    I wonder what the trends in Reached-on-error have to say about this.

    s

  17. #357
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    6,555
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackaroo Dave View Post
    Actually, your conclusion doesn't follow. And no one looks at Mays, Aaron, Mantle, Koufax, the Robinsons and other players of fifty years ago as scrubs. But . . . . if there were as many revolutionary changes in the baseball world in the next hundred years as there were in the past hundred, yes, in all probability Albert Pujols would be seen as the best of a demonstrably inferior lot, one who would be a star, but not a dominant one.

    For example, suppose baseball became a truly worldwide sport, with the consequent media explosion and the revenue that would bring. And suppose this was accompanied by advances in neurology, kinesiology, nutrition, etc. so that potential stars could be predicted with some success in early childhood and trained in scientifically proven methods. So you would have a pool larger by an order of magnitude, worldwide, well-funded training programs, playing for enormous stakes. Every person in the world who could possibly throw 100 mph would be scouted from childhood, playing every day, and the top 1% might make it to the bigs. Every person in the world who could hit a ball 500 feet . . . likewise.

    In other words, San Pedro de Marcoris would be the model for a global industry devoted to manufacturing the best possible baseball players. From that perspective, yes, our perfectly appropriate contemporary veneration of Albert Pujols will look rather quaint.
    It would seem to me that comparing a player to his contemporaries is still the way to go...whether it is 1912 or 2012. The whole 'league quality' thing is ridiculous to me, because it isn't just the 'average' player' that improves...logic would dictate that if the average player improves, then the best players would improve as well, by the same margin. By definition, there could not be 100 Albert Pujols' in any league, simply because Pujols was one of the best hitters around. Likewise, there cannot be any hitter around today as good as Babe Ruth, because he was far and away the best of the best. Even if the average player has improved today, then by definition, if Ruth were around today then he would improve by about the same margin...otherwise he would not be Ruth any longer. No matter how good the average player gets, there has to be those that stand out and excel..and if Ruth couldn't do it, then who could? If a 20 year old rookie centerfielder can hit for a 171 OPS+, then a prime Ruth could top 200 today with relative ease.

    The only way I use 'league quality' is in league leaderships, MVPs, etc, because it is obvious that in some eras there were a lot more top stars around than in other eras.
    Last edited by willshad; 11-30-2012 at 08:18 PM.

  18. #358
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackaroo Dave View Post
    That is my sense of it too, but I wonder if some of it isn't old fogeyism. It's an important issue to me, because one of the best indicators of improved quality of play is the decrease in errors and increase in double plays, which persist even after the introduction of the contemporary glove. (And even if an improvement is due to better equipment, it's still an improvement.)

    Part of the improvement (in error rate, not dp) I guess, is due to the increase in strikeouts, but if it's also due to more stringent use of the E, then a big argument for improved quality gets smaller.

    I wonder what the trends in Reached-on-error have to say about this.

    s
    I doubt that. I've noticed even some ex ballplayers as broadcasters commenting on some fielding plays, that they question, called base hits, questionable calls.
    Not to say it's that frequent in todays game, but it's there.
    As for the DP's, I checked some numbers, team fielding, second base and SS Dp's from 1960-2005 and out of the top 10, only about 4 were from 2000 or later. A good number were from the 1960's -1970's- 1980's. Of course, other factors can effect that, more walks, more strikeouts, balls in play, would have to really consider other factors than fielding alone.

    Some of these plays we see every night on TV highlights, these middle infielders are wizards. What Dp's and these guys making plays in short RF and LF and throwing out runners at first base.
    You have to watch them a couple of time to believe what your seeing.

  19. #359
    Quote Originally Posted by willshad View Post
    It would seem to me that comparing a player to his contemporaries is still the way to go...whether it is 1912 or 2012. The whole 'league quality' thing is ridiculous to me, because it isn't just the 'average' player' that improves...logic would dictate that if the average player improves, then the best players would improve as well, by the same margin. By definition, there could not be 100 Albert Pujols' in any league, simply because Pujols was one of the best hitters around. Likewise, there cannot be any hitter around today as good as Babe Ruth, because he was far and away the best of the best. Even if the average player has improved today, then by definition, if Ruth were around today then he would improve by about the same margin...otherwise he would not be Ruth any longer. No matter how good the average player gets, there has to be those that stand out and excel..and if Ruth couldn't do it, then who could? If a 20 year old rookie centerfielder can hit for a 171 OPS+, then a prime Ruth could top 200 today with relative ease.

    The only way I use 'league quality' is in league leaderships, MVPs, etc, because it is obvious that in some eras there were a lot more top stars around than in other eras.
    I've posed thjat question a number of times on this and other boards.
    Not going to project what Ruth would do in todays game, but again if he could not match the best in todays game. What are we saying, that there was no player born whan he was and played when he did that could be among the best today.
    Not logical, not a single player back then could be as good as any we have today, anyone buying that.

    I have never projected Ruth possible numbers if playing today, but when I see some saying he would be a Jim Thome, Adam Dunn and yes, even Steve Balboni, it's a laugher.
    BTW, no diminishing Jim Thome a legit long ball, slugger.

  20. #360
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackaroo Dave View Post
    Actually, your conclusion doesn't follow. And no one looks at Mays, Aaron, Mantle, Koufax, the Robinsons and other players of fifty years ago as scrubs. But . . . . if there were as many revolutionary changes in the baseball world in the next hundred years as there were in the past hundred, yes, in all probability Albert Pujols would be seen as the best of a demonstrably inferior lot, one who would be a star, but not a dominant one.

    For example, suppose baseball became a truly worldwide sport, with the consequent media explosion and the revenue that would bring. And suppose this was accompanied by advances in neurology, kinesiology, nutrition, etc. so that potential stars could be predicted with some success in early childhood and trained in scientifically proven methods. So you would have a pool larger by an order of magnitude, worldwide, well-funded training programs, playing for enormous stakes. Every person in the world who could possibly throw 100 mph would be scouted from childhood, playing every day, and the top 1% might make it to the bigs. Every person in the world who could hit a ball 500 feet . . . likewise.

    In other words, San Pedro de Marcoris would be the model for a global industry devoted to manufacturing the best possible baseball players. From that perspective, yes, our perfectly appropriate contemporary veneration of Albert Pujols will look rather quaint.
    And in that Utopian World of perfect humanity, CHEATING would no doubt be raised as a moral issue, making all those SUPER players highly suspect and morally disgraced.

    Conversely, Albert Pujols might be viewed as a saintly sample of honest human perfection; and Barry Bonds might be seen as a misunderstood martyr who was ahead of his time but born before his time.

    Human nature being what it is.
    Last edited by leewileyfan; 11-30-2012 at 09:01 PM. Reason: extension

Page 18 of 21 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •