Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How come Rajah doesn't get enough love?

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

  • Jackaroo Dave
    replied
    Originally posted by leewileyfan;2081882
    With all due respect, JD, there is most certainly a way around that LQ supposition. For example, If I state that LQ, 2009-2012 is in a decline similar to the 1960s and the War years [WW II
    , I'd love to see the arguments put forth to squash the idea, convincingly and rationally.
    Then too, if I select time periods for comparison with today, in four generational sets, I'd love to see the rankings, with supportive reasons for them [as to relative league quality]. Say,:

    Set 1. [1927 through 1942]
    Set 2. [1947 through 1961]
    Set 3. [1974 through 1998]
    Set 4: [2001 through 2012]
    OR, if someone has another time set, then fine.
    I'll get back to you in the stat forum. I got interested in retention rates when comparing Dominican and US players. I want to see how those work for leagues that are relatively strong and weak by consensus: e.g. 12 team vs 8 team NL, ML vs Federal, pre- and post- vs war years. I hadn't ever thought of the 60s as a period of decline before.
    Last edited by Jackaroo Dave; 10-28-2012, 07:11 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • leewileyfan
    replied
    [QUOTELeague quality is higher overall, though. There's not getting around that.[/QUOTE]

    With all due respect, JD, there is most certainly a way around that LQ supposition. For example, If I state that LQ, 2009-2012 is in a decline similar to the 1960s and the War years [WW II], I'd love to see the arguments put forth to squash the idea, convincingly and rationally.

    Then too, if I select time periods for comparison with today, in four generational sets, I'd love to see the rankings, with supportive reasons for them [as to relative league quality]. Say,:

    Set 1. [1927 through 1942]

    Set 2. [1947 through 1961]

    Set 3. [1974 through 1998]

    Set 4: [2001 through 2012]

    OR, if someone has another time set, then fine.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jackaroo Dave
    replied
    Originally posted by JR Hart View Post
    Thanks
    sometimes the only way to demonstate absurdity is to be absurd yourself.

    I'm amazed at how posters here can take theories and formulas and make them into absolutes. I love a good baseball discussion, but we really don't know how good Rogers Hornsby would be today. We do know that he was dominant player of his time. There may not be a right-handed as good as Horrnby for 500 more years for all we know. Just because a player had a career 90 years ago, doesn't make him something less. It's a silly exercise to try to prove otherwise
    I pretty much agree with this, but I don't know anyone here who takes "theories and formulas and tries to make them into absolutes." Except maybe . . . oh never mind.

    I remember watching a clip of Jack Johnson fighting some white guy. They were stalking around, stiff-legged, shoulders squared, fists up like a poster from the 1890s. It was kind of comical. Then for an instant there was this blur where Johnson's fists and forearms had been, and the white guy was sitting down, very surprised. I'd seen a fair amount of boxing, but never anything like that.

    So I'm agnostic when it comes to comparisons between players from different eras. I've almost never seen anyone change his mind, and I see many discussions degenerate into utterly pointless bickering or fatuous rhetoric. For goodness sake, it doesn't really matter whether Cabrera is better than Trout, much less whether he's better than Hornsby. You might as well argue how Roy Hobbs or Alibi Ike would do against today's pitchers.

    League quality is higher overall, though. There's not getting around that.
    Last edited by Jackaroo Dave; 10-28-2012, 03:46 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • JR Hart
    replied
    Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
    LOL yeah you pretty much nailed it
    Thanks
    sometimes the only way to demonstate absurdity is to be absurd yourself.

    I'm amazed at how posters here can take theories and formulas and make them into absolutes. I love a good baseball discussion, but we really don't know how good Rogers Hornsby would be today. We do know that he was dominant player of his time. There may not be a right-handed as good as Horrnby for 500 more years for all we know. Just because a player had a career 90 years ago, doesn't make him something less. It's a silly exercise to try to prove otherwise

    Leave a comment:


  • Sultan_1895-1948
    replied
    Originally posted by JR Hart View Post
    Where did Rogers Hornsby go? Let me see if I have this right.

    Players like Hornsby or any player who played X number of years ago, can’t be any good because their league was full of white guys, who lived in the east, who drank and smoked and didn’t really care?

    Players like Hornsby or any player who played X number of years ago, can’t be any good compared to the superhuman players of today because of historic human growth, nutrition, training, and dedication of today’s players?

    There is no possibility of great talent ever being produced X number of years ago, because the players were genetically inferior and they played against inferior talent. Therefore any player who dominated back then, must be dismissed as something less?

    Players today don’t abuse their bodies and are totally dedicated?

    The only logical progression to such theories is that 50 years from now Babe Ruth will looked at as Tom Thumb. Albert Pujols will be laughed at as nothing more than the equivalent of Wee Man on the TV show “Jackass.” We can watch the 8 ft Giants hit 130 mph fastballs for 600 ft HRs. The talent pool will be increased by the influx of aliens, who have won 5 of the last 6 Most Valuable Something awards
    LOL yeah you pretty much nailed it

    Leave a comment:


  • leewileyfan
    replied
    Using the incursions of the Mexican League and the idyllic and baseball-friendly atmosphere of the PCL to deny the fact that MLB was the best compensated professional baseball league in the 20th Century is ludicrous, cherry picks to deny a given, and compounded by the arrogant challenge to a dissenter's "historical myopia and ignorance" is a real treat to read. [More hysterical than historical].

    Yes, many PCL players loved the sun, the glamor, the night life and the "stardom;" but not too many played at home to all of those perks. Moreover, the big bucks were out there for "stars" of various ages and MLB exposure [many starred for 10, 15, 20 seasons or more in the PCL who had washed out or sputtered in MLB].

    Leave a comment:


  • leecemark
    replied
    Originally posted by csh19792001 View Post
    Not discounting the validity/veracity of the rest of your post, but have you looked at the salaries of the PCL of 75-100 years ago? How about the Mexican Contingent which stole several of our best players- coming back from WWII.

    MLB was certainly NOT always the most well compensated professional baseball league available during the 20th Century.

    Your supposition suggesting as such- forgive me- demonstrates absolute historical myopia and ignorance.
    --You are forgiven. However, the Mexican League's raid was a very brief episode and not an ongoing option. Also, so far as I know (feel free to enlighten me) they targeted proven players not young talent. The PCL did pay salaries close to - and in a few cases better than - the major leagues in their heyday. At its peak it was something close to a 3rd major league, signing most of the best talent in the western US. In fact the PCL was one of the reason the majors did not always have the best available talent. It was generally not a place for young players to start out though. Most players worked their way up to the PCL though less well paying leagues.

    Leave a comment:


  • SHOELESSJOE3
    replied
    Originally posted by csh19792001 View Post
    Hi Joe,
    The point is that there were parks built before 1950 which obviated home runs...almost completely. Ruth and Gehrig's records are proof.
    OK, got that, not an easy park in Cleveland.
    320 down the lines but in deepest right and left center 435 and 470 CF.

    Leave a comment:


  • csh19792001
    replied
    Originally posted by leecemark View Post
    --This is not true. Minor league baseball paid even worse then than it does now and many potential players choose to get a real job instead of, of perhaps after a year or two of, chossing baseball.
    Not discounting the validity/veracity of the rest of your post, but have you looked at the salaries of the PCL of 75-100 years ago? How about the Mexican Contingent which stole several of our best players- coming back from WWII.

    MLB was certainly NOT always the most well compensated professional baseball league available during the 20th Century.

    Your supposition suggesting as such- forgive me- demonstrates absolute historical myopia and ignorance.

    Leave a comment:


  • leecemark
    replied
    Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
    LOL

    . When they scouted and found a kid back in the day, there was 100% chance he'd want to sign and play ball

    --This is not true. Minor league baseball paid even worse then than it does now and many potential players choose to get a real job instead of, of perhaps after a year or two of, chossing baseball. Moreover, many youth were actively discourage from "wasting their time with sports" instead of doing something more usefull. As mentioned above, quite a few bios of old time players talk about how they had to sneak out to play ball because their parents didn't approve. I'm sure many other just gave it up for that reason.
    --My grandfather was a big strong man and good at every game he tried his hand at. However, he dropped out of school after 6th grade (in the 1920s) to work on the family farm. My father was a terrific high school athlete. He was offered both a minor league baseball contract and a college football scholarship but opted for neither (in the 1950s) to marry his high school sweetheart and start working for a living. I don't think either of these are unusual examples of life in those days.

    Leave a comment:


  • leewileyfan
    replied
    Thank you.

    Leave a comment:


  • csh19792001
    replied
    Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
    Is this a reply to an earlier post, missing the point.
    Hi Joe,
    The point is that there were parks built before 1950 which obviated home runs...almost completely. Ruth and Gehrig's records are proof.

    Leave a comment:


  • JR Hart
    replied
    Where did Rogers Hornsby go? Let me see if I have this right.

    Players like Hornsby or any player who played X number of years ago, can’t be any good because their league was full of white guys, who lived in the east, who drank and smoked and didn’t really care?

    Players like Hornsby or any player who played X number of years ago, can’t be any good compared to the superhuman players of today because of historic human growth, nutrition, training, and dedication of today’s players?

    There is no possibility of great talent ever being produced X number of years ago, because the players were genetically inferior and they played against inferior talent. Therefore any player who dominated back then, must be dismissed as something less?

    Players today don’t abuse their bodies and are totally dedicated?

    The only logical progression to such theories is that 50 years from now Babe Ruth will looked at as Tom Thumb. Albert Pujols will be laughed at as nothing more than the equivalent of Wee Man on the TV show “Jackass.” We can watch the 8 ft Giants hit 130 mph fastballs for 600 ft HRs. The talent pool will be increased by the influx of aliens, who have won 5 of the last 6 Most Valuable Something awards

    Leave a comment:


  • Jackaroo Dave
    replied
    Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
    LOL
    I seriously can't believe your'e still on here trying to defend your hollow point, because of some baseball forum website where coaches and fathers seek advice, you think that is proof that baseball is "alive and well" in America? I have been in the 101 forums, and could and have offered legit advice that 90% of people on there couldn't, just based on real life baseball experience.

    The mistake you're making, is comparing today's advanced scouting and extensive team resources to scout, to yesteryears. Of course it's not the same. But realize this. When they scouted and found a kid back in the day, there was 100% chance he'd want to sign and play ball because baseball was THE sport. In this day and age, they might be scouting a kid who is also interested in becoming a quarterback..or maybe he dabbled in some UFC, or who knows. So many options today. That is my point. And that is part of the reason MLB teams have started to scout so heavily in foreign land. My point remains, and is backed by numerous scholars and baseball historians.
    It seems to me, actually, that sports specialization is increasing and starting earlier. The resources for those who do dedicate themselves to the sport are far in advance of what athletes back in the day dreamed of. It's not just that athletes are easier to find; the have more means to become more athletic. As we agree, a population without a strong sport-oriented infrastructure doesn't amount to anything. Canada could whomp India in ice hockey. But if the infrastructure is there--the coaches, the equipment, the supportive parents, and most important a plenitude of competitive teams graduated from t-ball to the Cape Cod league, then a smaller population will do just fine.

    Simply because kids in general are offered a multitide of choices, that does not mean that an individual athlete will be pondering alternatives when it's time to sign something. Really, I asked before but got no answer, which recent draftable athletes opted for another sport over baseball? How many were playing multiple sports in college?

    The resources are abundant, but the competition for them is very strong, too, and postponing specialization gives everyone else a head start.

    Think of it this way: Canada is a force in ice hockey. They hold their own with the US and Russia, even though their population is about a tenth of the US. And we both know why: everybody plays all day all the time. Now suppose the US and Canada decided to unite. Hockey would be the number 4 sport. Many young athletes would find it less attractive than the others for a variety of reasons. But it would be very strong, because of the addition of a relatively small but dedicated hockey nation. Now think of Baseball USA in the same fashion as Canada; a small but dedicated population with abundant wealth, resources, leisure, and motivation. It's just not all in one place the way Canada would be.

    You see, it's you who are playing the numbers game. You see other sports sucking talent out of the pool. I'm struck by the dedication and ability of those who choose to play ball. I just don't buy your claim that athletes are fleeing major league careers in droves. Maybe it's a limitation of my imagination, but for goodness' sake, Michael Jordan, perhaps the greatest basketball player ever, was so smitten with the game that he left his game at the top to try baseball starting at the bottom.
    Last edited by Jackaroo Dave; 10-27-2012, 04:29 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sultan_1895-1948
    replied
    Originally posted by willshad View Post
    The whole idea that old time players abused their bodies, did not train properly etc, and that the modern players are 'supermen' is so overblown. It appears to me that players still decline at roughly the same age, still get injured just as often, and end their careers at about the same age. About the only 'advancement' that I've noticed is steroids. Babe Ruth, who 'abused' his body as much as anyone, was still putting up all time great seasons into his late 30s. ..let's see any modern 'superman' player do that, without steroids. If anything, I think the modern athlete is pampered, and paid so much money that they lose their desire to excel. I've said this before. If your job told you were guaranteed 20 million a year for the next 10 years, no matter how you perform, would you really be motivated to do your best?
    Well modern players have benefited from technology and what not...you don't think if rockstar recovery was available to Joe Jackson, he wouldn't have drank it? The substance abuse is overblown I agree. For instance Ruth was one of the hardest workers of anyone ever, and he gets movies made about him with 300 pound John Goodman playing him from 19 years old on. Those movies never show all the work he put into getting himself into shape. It's easier to just say he ate 10 hot dogs and hit 2 home runs.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X