Announcement

Collapse

Updated Baseball Fever Policy

Baseball Fever Policy

I. Purpose of this announcement:

This announcement describes the policies pertaining to the operation of Baseball Fever.

Baseball Fever is a moderated baseball message board which encourages and facilitates research and information exchange among fans of our national pastime. The intent of the Baseball Fever Policy is to ensure that Baseball Fever remains an extremely high quality, extremely low "noise" environment.

Baseball Fever is administrated by three principal administrators:
webmaster - Baseball Fever Owner
The Commissioner - Baseball Fever Administrator
Macker - Baseball Fever Administrator

And a group of forum specific super moderators. The role of the moderator is to keep Baseball Fever smoothly and to screen posts for compliance with our policy. The moderators are ALL volunteer positions, so please be patient and understanding of any delays you might experience in correspondence.

II. Comments about our policy:

Any suggestions on this policy may be made directly to the webmaster.

III. Acknowledgments:

This document was based on a similar policy used by SABR.

IV. Requirements for participation on Baseball Fever:

Participation on Baseball Fever is available to all baseball fans with a valid email address, as verified by the forum's automated system, which then in turn creates a single validated account. Multiple accounts by a single user are prohibited.

By registering, you agree to adhere to the policies outlined in this document and to conduct yourself accordingly. Abuse of the forum, by repeated failure to abide by these policies, will result in your access being blocked to the forum entirely.

V. Baseball Fever Netiquette:

Participants at Baseball Fever are required to adhere to these principles, which are outlined in this section.
a. All posts to Baseball Fever should be written in clear, concise English, with proper grammar and accurate spelling. The use of abbreviations should be kept to a minimum; when abbreviation is necessary, they should be either well-known (such as etc.), or explained on their first use in your post.

b. Conciseness is a key attribute of a good post.

c. Quote only the portion of a post to which you are responding.

d. Standard capitalization and punctuation make a large difference in the readability of a post. TYPING IN ALL CAPITALS is considered to be "shouting"; it is a good practice to limit use of all capitals to words which you wish to emphasize.

e. It is our policy NOT to transmit any defamatory or illegal materials.

f. Personal attacks of any type against Baseball Fever readers will not be tolerated. In these instances the post will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the personal attack via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue personal attacks will be banned from the site.

g. It is important to remember that many contextual clues available in face-to-face discussion, such as tone of voice and facial expression, are lost in the electronic forum. As a poster, try to be alert for phrasing that might be misinterpreted by your audience to be offensive; as a reader, remember to give the benefit of the doubt and not to take umbrage too easily. There are many instances in which a particular choice of words or phrasing can come across as being a personal attack where none was intended.

h. The netiquette described above (a-g) often uses the term "posts", but applies equally to Private Messages.

VI. Baseball Fever User Signature Policy

A signature is a piece of text that some members may care to have inserted at the end of ALL of their posts, a little like the closing of a letter. You can set and / or change your signature by editing your profile in the UserCP. Since it is visible on ALL your posts, the following policy must be adhered to:

Signature Composition
Font size limit: No larger than size 2 (This policy is a size 2)
Style: Bold and italics are permissible
Character limit: No more than 500 total characters
Lines: No more than 4 lines
Colors: Most colors are permissible, but those which are hard to discern against the gray background (yellow, white, pale gray) should be avoided
Images/Graphics: Allowed, but nothing larger than 20k and Content rules must be followed

Signature Content
No advertising is permitted
Nothing political or religious
Nothing obscene, vulgar, defamatory or derogatory
Links to personal blogs/websites are permissible - with the webmaster's written consent
A Link to your Baseball Fever Blog does not require written consent and is recommended
Quotes must be attributed. Non-baseball quotes are permissible as long as they are not religious or political

Please adhere to these rules when you create your signature. Failure to do so will result in a request to comply by a moderator. If you do not comply within a reasonable amount of time, the signature will be removed and / or edited by an Administrator. Baseball Fever reserves the right to edit and / or remove any or all of your signature line at any time without contacting the account holder.

VII. Appropriate and inappropriate topics for Baseball Fever:

Most concisely, the test for whether a post is appropriate for Baseball Fever is: "Does this message discuss our national pastime in an interesting manner?" This post can be direct or indirect: posing a question, asking for assistance, providing raw data or citations, or discussing and constructively critiquing existing posts. In general, a broad interpretation of "baseball related" is used.

Baseball Fever is not a promotional environment. Advertising of products, web sites, etc., whether for profit or not-for-profit, is not permitted. At the webmaster's discretion, brief one-time announcements for products or services of legitimate baseball interest and usefulness may be allowed. If advertising is posted to the site it will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the post via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue advertising will be banned from the site. If the advertising is spam-related, pornography-based, or a "visit-my-site" type post / private message, no warning at all will be provided, and the member will be banned immediately without a warning.

It is considered appropriate to post a URL to a page which specifically and directly answers a question posted on the list (for example, it would be permissible to post a link to a page containing home-road splits, even on a site which has advertising or other commercial content; however, it would not be appropriate to post the URL of the main page of the site). The site reserves the right to limit the frequency of such announcements by any individual or group.

In keeping with our test for a proper topic, posting to Baseball Fever should be treated as if you truly do care. This includes posting information that is, to the best of your knowledge, complete and accurate at the time you post. Any errors or ambiguities you catch later should be acknowledged and corrected in the thread, since Baseball Fever is sometimes considered to be a valuable reference for research information.

VIII. Role of the moderator:

When a post is submitted to Baseball Fever, it is forwarded by the server automatically and seen immediately. The moderator may:
a. Leave the thread exactly like it was submitted. This is the case 95% of the time.

b. Immediately delete the thread as inappropriate for Baseball Fever. Examples include advertising, personal attacks, or spam. This is the case 1% of the time.

c. Move the thread. If a member makes a post about the Marlins in the Yankees forum it will be moved to the appropriate forum. This is the case 3% of the time.

d. Edit the message due to an inappropriate item. This is the case 1% of the time. There have been new users who will make a wonderful post, then add to their signature line (where your name / handle appears) a tagline that is a pure advertisement. This tagline will be removed, a note will be left in the message so he/she is aware of the edit, and personal contact will be made to the poster telling them what has been edited and what actions need to be taken to prevent further edits.

The moderators perform no checks on posts to verify factual or logical accuracy. While he/she may point out gross errors in factual data in replies to the thread, the moderator does not act as an "accuracy" editor. Also moderation is not a vehicle for censorship of individuals and/or opinions, and the moderator's decisions should not be taken personally.

IX. Legal aspects of participation in Baseball Fever:

By submitting a post to Baseball Fever, you grant Baseball Fever permission to distribute your message to the forum. Other rights pertaining to the post remain with the ORIGINAL author, and you may not redistribute or retransmit any posts by any others, in whole or in part, without the express consent of the original author.

The messages appearing on Baseball Fever contain the opinions and views of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of Baseball Fever, or of the Baseball Almanac family of sites.

Sincerely,

Sean Holtz, Webmaster of Baseball Almanac & Baseball Fever
www.baseball-almanac.com | www.baseball-fever.com
"Baseball Almanac: Sharing Baseball. Sharing History."
See more
See less

Rogers Hornsby Thread

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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

    Comment


    • 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.
      This week's Giant

      #5 in games played as a Giant with 1721 , Bill Terry

      Comment


      • 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

        Comment


        • 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!

          Comment


          • 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, 02:39 PM.

            Comment


            • 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

              Comment


              • 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, 03:24 PM.

                Comment


                • 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, 05:30 PM.
                  Indeed the first step toward finding out is to acknowledge you do not satisfactorily know already; so that no blight can so surely arrest all intellectual growth as the blight of cocksureness.--CS Peirce

                  Comment


                  • 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, 05:45 PM.

                    Comment


                    • 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 Files

                      Comment


                      • 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
                        Indeed the first step toward finding out is to acknowledge you do not satisfactorily know already; so that no blight can so surely arrest all intellectual growth as the blight of cocksureness.--CS Peirce

                        Comment


                        • 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, 08:18 PM.

                          Comment


                          • 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.

                            Comment


                            • 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.

                              Comment


                              • 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, 09:01 PM. Reason: extension

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X