Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Roger Clemens- The Greatest Pitcher Ever?

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

  • Bill Burgess
    replied
    Eddie lad,

    Modern athletes are more disciplined and possessed of a much stronger work ethic than their forefathers.

    (Bill - I just can't express how much we disagree on that belief. The earlier generations that I've met in my life, usually worked until they were old men. Example: When the Post Office told my Dad that he had to retire when he was 70 yrs. old, he sued them to keep working. He won the suit, and continued working until he couldn't, in his 80's. And he did it for 1/2 pay. They refused to pay him his full pay for a full days work. Know why? Because he had already earned a full Army pension, SS, and some service-related disability. But his work ethic was unbreakable. And I know many others who were just as industrious.)

    They have to be: the stakes are higher, the money's bigger, the rewards are greater, the focus is more intense, the spotlights are brighter, the stage is bigger. It's weird; it almost seems as though, as the rest of us get lazier, our demands for vicarious thrills from the feats of others seem to get greater.

    (Bill - And that is supposed to be the bad stuff? Any older star would have done whatever necessary to reach the promised land you just described.)

    Bill
    Last edited by Bill Burgess; 05-04-2005, 06:55 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Burgess
    replied
    Eddie boy!


    Billy-boy! You're bouncing around here like a Mexican jumping bean. You say that "our fathers were possessed of a toughness of fiber, and a lack of coddling" right after pointing out that athletes spent far less time training than modern athletes do. I believe you pointed to modern runners spending 6 hours day training compared to barely an hour a day for runners of the past. Who is "coddled" here?

    I'm weary of hearing about modern "coddling", laziness, and television-watching. You need to make the distinction between the average couch potato and the elite athlete. Our culture is one of extremes: the average person these days is physically lazier than ever; but the average athlete these days is more maniacal and extreme than ever. Spending 6 hours a day abusing yourself in the gym, and following a rigorous diet and lifestyle that makes a normal social life impossible, isn't "coddling". Modern athletes are more disciplined and possessed of a much stronger work ethic than their forefathers. They have to be: the stakes are higher, the money's bigger, the rewards are greater, the focus is more intense, the spotlights are brighter, the stage is bigger. It's weird; it almost seems as though, as the rest of us get lazier, our demands for vicarious thrills from the feats of others seem to get greater.

    I think that somehow my attempt to throw some love to the previous generations, the forfathers, is not receiving its just due. I am not merely mouthing ancestor worship. Well, OK, maybe I am, but they surely have earned our highest respect/admiration. They are my HEROES! And for very good reason. They did so much with so little.

    They played baseball so well, with such enthusiasm, with so little, in comparison to us, in training, pay, or medical remedies. They did well in so many sports, with next to nothing in the way of training knowlege. They just went out there and ran, or boxed, or played hoops, or football, whatever.

    And when you compare their minimum training to ours, and ask, "Who was coddled?", it sure wasn't them! Most of their careers got aborted to stuff we can fix, and they only trained so briefly, because the world culture of their day told them that that was how it was done son. They were hardly slackers / laggards or lazy by any stretch of the imagination.

    To compare our athletes to those of the 20-40's, is highly unfavorable to the older stars, and in many ways unjust. An apt comparison would be to send 2 men into a caged area, to fight it out, and one arrives in his shorts, bare-chested and ready to box, grapple, whatever, and his opponent arrives with body armour, a headguard, brass knuckles, a knife, gun and battle axe.

    Would you call that a "fair fight"? Of course not. But to compare current stars with their ancestors, is similarly tilted in terms of advantages.

    If our ancestors could be shown a crystal ball, and see the benefits of our modern trainings, do you really believe that they wouldn't want to do it our way?! You bet your life they'd do anything to have our longer, harder, better methods of training themselves. And that's not even mentioning medical remedies, money, endorsement opportunities, recognition, TV glory, and many other things which you seem to hold to be "worse conditions". If the older stars only had them.



    Bill Burgess
    Last edited by Bill Burgess; 05-04-2005, 06:38 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Burgess
    replied
    Ed,

    Perhaps my example of the Kalenjins tribe was not the best example. But it does bring up a point of mine. The 2 common theories that are thrown around here, "talent pools" and genetics seem to cancel each other out on countless occasions. Or perhaps they balance and complement.

    Since the end of WWII, the Olympic Games are a convenient yardstick. The nations which traditionally sent the largest teams were the largest "talent pools". The US, Soviet Union, Great Britain, East Germany. But . . . the Soviet Union and E. Germany also dominated not just because they had the most people, but because they gave their athletes anabolic steroids. American athletes took them also.

    Interestingly, around 1990, the 2 Germanys reunited, and doubled their "talent pool", but hence, have done little in the Olympics, since the sports medicine Institute in East Germany, which dispensed steroids to their athletes, was closed down. Talent pool doubles, results collapse. No steroids!

    The 2 largest "talent pools", China and India never did a thing, because they never invested in sports programs. Oh maybe ping-pong, bad-minton, and diving, but that's it. China did produce a world-class sprinter/high hurdler in the 60's, and a world record setting high jumper in the 70's, but that was about it.

    Now, let me establish something here. I am not saying that the "talent pool" theory is bunk. It's not. It is valid. Only makes common sense. What I am trying to show is that so many times, other factors force their way into the picture, and "make a mockery" of the "talent pool" theory. Such as the genetics theory.

    Now we have established that some African tribes have explosive "fast twitch" muscles, and some have "slow twitch" muscles. And that accounts for why some American blacks are predisposed to do well in certain types of sports and other American blacks would not. Non-American blacks from around the world give American blacks a lot of competition in the Olympic events, such as sprinting, long jumping, hurdling, and other non-American blacks have dominated distance running.

    So, the genetics factor seems to over-ride the "talent pool" factor, time and time again. Another factor is which complicates the argument is that some cultures get caught up with a certain event or sport and pychology propels them to do disproportionately well, due to cultural motivations.

    In the 20's, Finland did quite well in world distance running, led by the immortal Paavo Nurmi. They were called "The Flying Finns". So we presume they had slow twitch muscles. Yet, after 1935, they haven't done a thing until Lasse Viren and some other guy. Why no more? But they have always done well in the Javelin Throw, which one would assume requires "fast twitch" muscles for explosive arm speed.

    Another historical anomaly is why American blacks don't do well as baseball pitchers. We would assume that they have the necessary "fast twitch" muscles to run faster, etc. I don't know why.

    Canada in hockey, certain European nations for skiing, are other examples of small "talent pools", where highly motivated athletes do well in sports which their countrymen seem to value.

    So it's not so much that the size of a population is irrelevant, but that the other factors of genetics, cultural motivations, pychology are also equally relevant and take precedence so often.

    Bill
    Last edited by Bill Burgess; 05-03-2005, 06:19 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Metal Ed
    replied
    >>>>And the same could be said of Our constant stating that Baseball is no longer a premium sport today


    Correct. There is competition from other sports. This cuts into the very talent pool that desegretation, foreign involvement, and improved scouting and "funneling" through the minor leagues, helps to build up. They are competing forces. This is very relevant to era comparisons, and you are correct for pointing it out.



    >>>>so it 'balances' out


    No, you mean to say that "it may or may not balance it out."

    Tell me, how did you determine that the offset in talent pool caused by competition from other sports exactly equals and counterbalances the increase in talent pool caused by scouting, geographical factors, development of a minor league funneling system, and desegration?

    There is the possibility that it is completely counterbalanced.

    At the same time there exists a second possibility that it is only partially counterbalanced, and that talent is deeper today, albeit not as much deeper as it would be if football and basketball were not so popular.

    And, hey! You could also say that there exists a third possibility: that competition from other sports has more than offset these other factors, and not only has it counterbalanced it, it's gone so far as to reverse it - that talent is actually less dense today, and moderns should have their records "marked down" by a certain amount.

    All three are possibilities. Tell me, how did you divine that the second one is the correct one? I picked the first one - for what I feel are logical reasons (Stephen Jay Gould's work on the STD of individual and team stats, which I mentioned above, and Bill James's PQI - all of which demonstrate that competition is tighter today than before). Now, how did you pick yours - other than that's the one you'd prefer to be true (so that the issue can be dropped and the old-timers' accomplishments never be questioned again)?



    >>>>> therefore it shouldn't even be a relevant point,


    Oh, well, that's just swell. And here I thought that maybe some thought and research were needed to determine the proper balance between the two competing forces. But thankfully you've shown me just how cut-and-dry it is.



    >>>>and I would be happy if the ideal of segregation in effect of talent pool never be mentioned again.



    I'm sure you would be happy with that - with sweeping the whole issue under the rug and asking that we never speak of it again. So that the accomplishments of the old timers could never come under scrutiny again (or even face the possibility of it).
    Last edited by Metal Ed; 05-03-2005, 01:10 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Imapotato
    replied
    well I don't think that was 'short' in either definition of the word
    No apology needed

    And the same could be said of Our constant stating that Baseball is no longer a premium sport today so it 'balances' out and therefore it shouldn't even be a relevant point, and I would be happy if the ideal of segregation in effect of talent pool never be mentioned again. Yea bigger talent pool today, but less people playing baseball

    Leave a comment:


  • Metal Ed
    replied
    >>>>Wait, are you not on the side that Ruth wouldn't have been as good with black players in the mix? Thus insuinating that blacks are better overall players? If I am mistaken I apologize, either way that is a good rebuttal for saying baseball before 1947 was weak because black players were not involved


    Potato:

    I'm gonna get short with you, unfortunately, so I apologize in advance. I'm just tired of explaining the same thing over and over again. My introduction to this forum, which you obviously missed, was a post in which I explained my position on this thoroughly. I've not the time or inclination to rewrite it all, so you're getting the Donnie treatment. (Walter chastised Donnie for coming in during the middle of a conversation "You have no frame of reference, Donnie....you wander in during the middle of a conversation...")

    You are so badly turned around on the issue of racial integration, I cannot help but shake my head in disbelief.

    1. I do NOT believe that either black or whites are genetically better than one or the other at baseball.

    2. I DO believe that the BEST blacks are better than the WORST whites - and vice versa.

    3. I believe that the best blacks and the best Latins in the Negro and Latin leagues were better than the worst whites in the major leagues - but not necessarily better than the best whites in the major leagues.

    4. I do NOT believe that whites from California are genetically better at baseball than whites from the Eastern states.

    5. I DO believe that the best whites in the PCL were better than the worst whites in the majors.

    So, from the bottom of the league up, it is not hard to see how Babe Ruth (or Cy Young, or Walter Johnson, or Josh Gibson or Satchel Paige whoever) accomplished their dominance releative to their peers IN PART because they weren't as held back by the competition. That's why ERA+ and OPS+ are regarded as insufficient era adjustments by astute posters here. This can be easily seen by the well documented reductions in the standard deviation of both individual and team performance over time in baseball - as the league improves from the bottom up, the distance between the best and the worst decreases, not because the best are getting worse, but because the worst are getting better. Just how much better is one issue that we all struggle with when making era comparisons, and it will always be a factor in these discussions, no matter how much you, Bill, and ElHalo dislike our (me, Leece, Nod) annoying, constant harping on it.
    Last edited by Metal Ed; 05-03-2005, 11:18 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • leecemark
    replied
    --You don't have to believe blacks are more genetically suited for baseball than whites to believe the leagues were weaker due to their exclusion. At a minimim they were an additional source of talent that was playing elsewhere rather than competing in the majors. Moreover, it isn't just genetics that gave us such a high proportion of black stars after integration. Economically challenged ethnic groups have always been disproportionally represented in the sporting world regardless of color. Sports has long been seen as an avenue for success in communities where fewer other options exist.

    Leave a comment:


  • Imapotato
    replied
    Originally posted by Metal Ed
    The reason why this has no bearing on baseball is that no one has ever shown where people of different nationalities have particular genetic advantages for baseball-playing skills. If you can show me an example of this, I'd like to hear it. So far, the closest thing anyone's got for a geographic "hotspot" of baseball talent is Latin America - which (if it's true, which I doubt - cultural factors are probably more important than genetic ones here) only furthers the modern-player argument. Bottom line: what evidence is there that white America east of the Mississippi is to baseball what East Africa is to distance running, or West Africa is to sprinting? None that I know of.
    Wait, are you not on the side that Ruth wouldn't have been as good with black players in the mix? Thus insuinating that blacks are better overall players? If I am mistaken I apologize, either way that is a good rebuttal for saying baseball before 1947 was weak because black players were not involved

    As for the time theory, it gives all the advantage to modern day players and NIL positive effects for yesterdays players, its biased research and thus must be thrown out. There is no counter for that argument, because you can't say how Walter Johnson would do with todays advantages.

    Johnson could have learned a forkball and been dominant, OR never made it past AA because som "expert" said his whip motion was terrible mechanics

    Two guys you can look at are Sisler and Hafey.
    Sisler is said to be overrated, and Hafey is most cited as being one of the worse in the HOF.
    Today, however, they both could have had Lasik surgery, and Hafey could have surgery to correct his sinus problem....and been 10x better then they were. But truth is, they didn't, and no one could use that argument and say for certain if they would succeed or not
    Last edited by Imapotato; 05-03-2005, 10:41 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Imapotato
    replied
    Originally posted by Metal Ed
    Bill wrote:

    I'd think that if one were to take a lot of the old stars, let them train like they do today, give them the same advantages, the results might be just as great, maybe better. Our fathers and their fathers were possessed of a toughness of fiber, and a lack of coddling, that made them heroes in many folks minds.


    Billy-boy! You're bouncing around here like a Mexican jumping bean. You say that "our fathers were possessed of a toughness of fiber, and a lack of coddling" right after pointing out that athletes spent far less time training than modern athletes do. I believe you pointed to modern runners spending 6 hours day training compared to barely an hour a day for runners of the past. Who is "coddled" here?

    I'm weary of hearing about modern "coddling", laziness, and television-watching. You need to make the distinction between the average couch potato and the elite athlete. Our culture is one of extremes: the average person these days is physically lazier than ever; but the average athlete these days is more maniacal and extreme than ever. Spending 6 hours a day abusing yourself in the gym, and following a rigorous diet and lifestyle that makes a normal social life impossible, isn't "coddling". Modern athletes are more disciplined and possessed of a much stronger work ethic than their forefathers. They have to be: the stakes are higher, the money's bigger, the rewards are greater, the focus is more intense, the spotlights are brighter, the stage is bigger. It's weird; it almost seems as though, as the rest of us get lazier, our demands for vicarious thrills from the feats of others seem to get greater.

    Maybe it's too extreme???

    They try and fix your stance, your pitching motion,give you supplements, a nutrientist...blah, blah, blah

    How many players are 'forced out' nowadays because they have a weird stance that was 'corrected' and they failed. How many pitchers motions and mechanics were 'fixed' and thus never heard from again?

    I look back at Cy Young, the greatest Pitcher who ever lived, and his workout were chores...he chopped wood, ALOT of wood, in the offseason, and according to Cy himself, never had a sore arm.

    SO maybe the extreme excercise today is TOO extreme?

    It makes wonder that if all this unnatural workout hinders our bodys rather then fit with our structure. Sure guys can get HUGE, but maybe the best fit for our evolution is a "not so much" frame, and % of body fat should be higher...in most sports, the "athletic Gods" sure get tired alot quicker

    Just a thought...and if that's the case maybe yesterdays athletes weren't as fast or strong but were actually better overall then today's athletes because it was natural

    Leave a comment:


  • Metal Ed
    replied
    Chris wrote:

    I think we disagree here because I feel that only some (perhaps a majority) of the disparity between oldtimers and new guys should be placed on modern amenities, training, nutrition, etc, etc (things beyond their control). I think we differ because you seem to think that almost all (if not all) of the difference between old guys and modern guys is due to these external (environmental) differences, and not due to the fact that they (or at least the average guy they were playing against) were simply not as athletic, regardless of external factors. I think I'm putting more accord into genetics and human evolution, and not as much as you are into environmental factors.



    I'd steer clear of genetic evolution as an argument here - changes in the gene pool don't happen that fast. Better to argue from the standpoint of genetic selection - a better selection of the best genetic talents from the available population. Not a greater frequency of talented athletes, just a better way of finding and training them.

    I cannot bring myself to believe that talented genes are more, or less, common today compared to yesterday.

    I do not believe that our gene pool has changed much in 100 years. I do not believe that genetic phenoms are less common now than they were 100 years ago. Bill seems to think so. I say "seems" because I can't fathom why anybody would toss aside the "world talent pool" theory if one DIDN'T believe that genetic talent is less rare today.

    I also cannot believe that genetic talent is MORE common today, either. And I reject that as a reason for improved athletics.

    The boom in athletic talent has resulted not from genetic evolution, but social evolution. It's come from the higher stakes of modern athletics. Let's face it - athlethics have boomed into a multi-trillion dollar industry; more time, personnel, money, and effort are put into scouting, recruitment, and training, because more money and more jobs and more reputations are at stake - what possible argument is going to convince us that a larger pool of better trained men and women will make poorer athletes than a smaller pool of indifferently trained men and women?

    Let me explain a bit- I read once that the average American male was 5'6" and 150 pounds in 1950. Today, the average man is almost 5'10" and weighs about 175 pounds. I don't know what size the average ballplayer was in 1950, but today he is 6'1", 205 pounds and probably far larger and more athletic than a player 65 or 105 years ago.


    Most striking is the increase in size of middle infeilders. A-Rod is 6'3", 215 lbs. - bigger than almost all the outfielders of the days of yore. Had he played 50 years ago, he would without a doubt be an outfielder, because that's where you'd put a guy that big. He'd have been made a centerfielder, with his speed and all-around ability. Cal Ripken, Derek Jeter - those are big (6'3" - 6'4") men. You never saw guys this big playing middle infield in the past - because they had to be agile and quick to be shortshops.

    Now think of the sheer athleticism it takes to be that big AND that quick and agile. Shoot, today's middle infielders are as big as or bigger than notable "big men" like Hank Greenberg and Jimmie Foxx. A-Rod's as big as Hank Greenberg - and Greenberg was your typical, big, slow, stick-em-over-at-first-base-'cause-he-can-hit slugger. You never saw guys that big who were quick and agile enough to play middle infield. You never had that (okay, Honus Wagner - you almost never had that) 100 years ago. The filling out of talent at formerly "all glove-no hit" positions like infield and also catcher, just illustrates a "talent surplus" to me - there's so many qualified candidates for the glamorous positions now, we can afford to stick some of them at other, traditionally neglected positions. To me, that's striking evidence of improved selection. I don't think that these types of athletes are more common than before (although improved nutrition certainly helps them grow to their maximum potential size) - we're just more pre-occupied with finding them than before.

    Also, what about medical science keeping more of these guys around, once they're found? How many great arms have been lost that could have been saved by Tommy John surgery? That, too, plays a factor in any talent-density argument. Naturally Bill will turn modern science a "coddling" argument, ignoring the maniacal dedication to rehab and conditioning that follows any recovery from injury - even with today's modern medicine. This isn't Starship Troopers or a science fiction novel, where a machine reknits your flesh and bone in seconds, like magic, while you sit around reading a magazine. Modern medicine usually involves a lot of work and dedication from the involved athlete. Modern science, in many cases, hasn't made things easier on athletes; rather, it has allowed them to work harder.
    Last edited by Metal Ed; 05-03-2005, 08:37 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Metal Ed
    replied
    Bill wrote:

    I'd think that if one were to take a lot of the old stars, let them train like they do today, give them the same advantages, the results might be just as great, maybe better. Our fathers and their fathers were possessed of a toughness of fiber, and a lack of coddling, that made them heroes in many folks minds.


    Billy-boy! You're bouncing around here like a Mexican jumping bean. You say that "our fathers were possessed of a toughness of fiber, and a lack of coddling" right after pointing out that athletes spent far less time training than modern athletes do. I believe you pointed to modern runners spending 6 hours day training compared to barely an hour a day for runners of the past. Who is "coddled" here?

    I'm weary of hearing about modern "coddling", laziness, and television-watching. You need to make the distinction between the average couch potato and the elite athlete. Our culture is one of extremes: the average person these days is physically lazier than ever; but the average athlete these days is more maniacal and extreme than ever. Spending 6 hours a day abusing yourself in the gym, and following a rigorous diet and lifestyle that makes a normal social life impossible, isn't "coddling". Modern athletes are more disciplined and possessed of a much stronger work ethic than their forefathers. They have to be: the stakes are higher, the money's bigger, the rewards are greater, the focus is more intense, the spotlights are brighter, the stage is bigger. It's weird; it almost seems as though, as the rest of us get lazier, our demands for vicarious thrills from the feats of others seem to get greater.
    Last edited by Metal Ed; 05-03-2005, 07:55 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Metal Ed
    replied
    Bill wrote:

    Some may surmise that today's world-wide "talent pool" must improve the quality of today's player. Nonsense.

    As rebuttal, I offer today's Kenyan tribe, high in the Kenyan plateau, as proof of the absurdity of "talent pools". They have won most of the world's metals in track and field, during the last 20 yrs. Most of the Olympic distance running metals. One tribe in Kenya has shown what a motivated "tiny minority" can do. America/Europe has depaired of ever matching them! Imagine.

    Kalenjins of the Great Rift Valley, who represent 1/2000th of Earth's population, win 40% of top international distance-running honours. One tiny district, the Nandi, with only 500,000 people, sweeps an unfathomable 20% of major international distance events -- by almost any measure, the greatest concentration of raw athletic talent in the history of sports.

    This example is a poor one. Here's why:

    These people dominate long distance running partly for genetic reasons - they have a genetic propensity for an inordinate number of slow twitch muscle fibers, which is ideal for distance running. You could take 500,000 Americans, 500,000 Japanese, whatever - put them through them same workout regimen - and not get a fraction of the world-class distance runners that you get from Kenya.

    Notice that none of these East Africans are very good sprinters. Why? Sprinting requires lots of fast twitch fibers - which happens to be the genetic forte of West Africans. Who, not coincidentally, dominate sprinting events - to the total exclusion of East Africans. And you never see West Africans winning marathons, either.

    The reason why this has no bearing on baseball is that no one has ever shown where people of different nationalities have particular genetic advantages for baseball-playing skills. If you can show me an example of this, I'd like to hear it. So far, the closest thing anyone's got for a geographic "hotspot" of baseball talent is Latin America - which (if it's true, which I doubt - cultural factors are probably more important than genetic ones here) only furthers the modern-player argument. Bottom line: what evidence is there that white America east of the Mississippi is to baseball what East Africa is to distance running, or West Africa is to sprinting? None that I know of.






    So, no, Chris, I don't buy the time argument, nor the "talent pool" argument. Sounds plausible enough, but has been disproven and made a mockery of too many times. And, the 2 ballplayers who keep getting most of the attention as the best, is Cobb/Ruth, with some folks caring to bring the names Wagner/Mays into the conversation, as after-thoughts. Sorry, good friend. We're still pals though.




    Is that right? "Disproven" and "made a mockery of"? I must have missed this. I'm a firm believer in the talent pool argument, until I hear something resembling a rationale argument against it.

    All:

    Is anyone here familiar with Bill James's PQI?
    Last edited by Metal Ed; 05-03-2005, 09:09 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • leecemark
    replied
    --The reason those base circling times have held up over time is becasue people stopped doing it. Those weren't game condition times. They were done as exhibitions and that sort of thing fell out of favor many years ago. Same with contests to see how far players could throw a ball and so on. Archdeacon and Swanson were famous (well, to the extent they had any fame) for being good at these exhibition runs. They weren't very good ball players.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bill Burgess
    replied
    In 1921, Maurice Archdeacon timed 13.4 in circling the bases, while 10 yrs. later, Evar Swanson timed 13.3. in circling the bases. Ty Cobb's best was 13.5.

    The 1st 2 did it on blinding pure speed, while running wide, while Cobb did it by keeping his corners tighter.

    Bill Burgess
    Last edited by Bill Burgess; 05-02-2005, 10:37 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Splendid Splinter
    replied
    Originally posted by csh19792001
    What guy was this? I'd love to read about it. Someone setting an objective record then (without all the modern advantages) would have to be considered MORE impressive, wouldn't they?

    Why do you believe Jones would be better than Woods?

    "So they are cases where athletes from 80-100 years ago can be better or greater in any sport or an event."

    Perhaps this is why people feel we can make exceptions for guys like Ruth and Cobb, right?


    The record for the fastest time for circling the bases is 13.3 seconds, set by Evar Swanson at Columbus, Ohio in 1932. His average speed around the bases was 18.45 mph.

    This is from the Guiness World Records. You can find it in Baseball Almanac in the records book section. The closest guy I know of breaking that record is Joey Gathwright from Tampa Bay Devil Rays. He hit a triple and ran the bases so fast that they timed it on ESPN. I believe he got to third in like 10 something or 11 seconds. And he slids into third. He might've not broke the record but he would've been real close. Most scouts believe Gathwright is the fastest player that they have seen in baseball in a long time.


    Jones was so good at his times. Then he retired at the age of 28. And he won 13 majors by then. Tiger won his 9th this year and he's 29 now. You can say all these variables saying Tiger is better or Jones is better. I believe given the technology and the training they have now, Jones can be better than Woods, but again this is my opinion. If you think Tiger is better, that's cool with me. I have no problem with that. I wouldn't have a problem with Palmer or Nicklaus being better than them either.

    Yep, I believe that could be one of the reasons why Cobb or Ruth or the old time players could be the exceptions and people think that way.

    Another reason that someone could use, the guys from old times had more or as much talent as the guys today. Put them today, they'd be just as good or better. Just because guys today have it easier to work out doesn't make their talent any more than old time guys.

    There's my 2 cents... I really enjoys reading all of these threads and partcipate in them.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X