Author Topic: Interesting Thing About Baseball…  (Read 8649 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Interesting Thing About Baseball…
« Reply #15 on: January 02, 2023, 03:21:02 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58540
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
I think the best players of all time are probably more recent. More competition.

Who would you rather pitch one game: prime Pedro or prime Ruth/Cy Young? I’m going with the guy with the filthier pitches- Pedro.

Because of technology, I think modern day athletes, machines (computers, vehicles), and society as a whole improve year over year. The Apple in 1984 was awesome. Apple’s products are much better today.

That’s why part of any assessment needs to be performance against one’s peers. 


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Interesting Thing About Baseball…
« Reply #16 on: January 02, 2023, 03:27:57 PM »

Offline MarcusSmartFanClub

  • NCE
  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1096
  • Tommy Points: 59
I think the best players of all time are probably more recent. More competition.

Who would you rather pitch one game: prime Pedro or prime Ruth/Cy Young? I’m going with the guy with the filthier pitches- Pedro.

Because of technology, I think modern day athletes, machines (computers, vehicles), and society as a whole improve year over year. The Apple in 1984 was awesome. Apple’s products are much better today.

That’s why part of any assessment needs to be performance against one’s peers.

I think that’s a different conversation. Greatest competitor/most dominant vs the best player to ever play the game. I’d imagine 18/20 top baseball players are from the last 30 years. Ruth was playing against guys that had part time jobs. The league was less legitimate 100 years ago.

Re: Interesting Thing About Baseball…
« Reply #17 on: January 02, 2023, 05:22:50 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58540
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
I think the best players of all time are probably more recent. More competition.

Who would you rather pitch one game: prime Pedro or prime Ruth/Cy Young? I’m going with the guy with the filthier pitches- Pedro.

Because of technology, I think modern day athletes, machines (computers, vehicles), and society as a whole improve year over year. The Apple in 1984 was awesome. Apple’s products are much better today.

That’s why part of any assessment needs to be performance against one’s peers.

I think that’s a different conversation. Greatest competitor/most dominant vs the best player to ever play the game. I’d imagine 18/20 top baseball players are from the last 30 years. Ruth was playing against guys that had part time jobs. The league was less legitimate 100 years ago.

Not really.  The NBA wasn't less legitimate when Russell played, either.  It was just a different era.  Just like in 50 years when guys are being genetically engineered to be 6'10" in the womb, and are getting eye surgery to give them 20-10 vision, it won't mean that the 1993 or 2023 seasons are less legitimate.

Sure, if you drop Peak DeAndre Jordan in 1963, he'd be a Hall of Famer.  That's because he'd have advantages that guys back then didn't have.  It doesn't mean we should rank him higher than Bill Russell.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Interesting Thing About Baseball…
« Reply #18 on: January 02, 2023, 05:50:28 PM »

Offline Csfan1984

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8825
  • Tommy Points: 289
Usually when someone ask me, "who the Goat in baseball is”, I assume he means post 1947. Which was my answer above. So I wouldn't give the OP a hard time about Ruth being the known Goat. Some don't consider pre1947 in the books for mlb modern sports.

Yes Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in 1947, however, that in no way should diminish what Babe Ruth accomplished.

Consider this race breakdown in MLB today:
White 58%
Hispanic 32%
Black 7%
Asian 3%

I don't know what those percentages have looked like every year since 1947, but I can't imagine the percent of black players ever being over 15% in any given year. Now if we're talking the NFL or NBA, then the color barrier significantly makes a historic difference. However, if there is a race barrier in MLB, it would have to start with the inclusion of players of Hispanic descent.
Really? There were professional Negro leagues since 1885. Baseball was the only sport seeing major participation by people of all colors as basketball and football wasn't even a thing yet. Football picked up in the late 30s professionally. Basketball in the late 40s picked up professionally. So yeah things would have been way different if people of all colors were allowed to play early on. Some teams didn't add color players till the mid/late 50s. That's over 70 years of full "pro" sports talent pool lost to segregation. So yeah I can see why post 1947 is a line for many people to draw.

And I can also see 1967 as an additional line due to that's when minimum salary was truly established and cba. That's when most players were legit full time players.

Re: Interesting Thing About Baseball…
« Reply #19 on: January 02, 2023, 05:58:36 PM »

Online Silas

  • 2020 CelticsStrong Draft Guru
  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10679
  • Tommy Points: 1772
Usually when someone ask me, "who the Goat in baseball is”, I assume he means post 1947. Which was my answer above. So I wouldn't give the OP a hard time about Ruth being the known Goat. Some don't consider pre1947 in the books for mlb modern sports.

Yes Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in 1947, however, that in no way should diminish what Babe Ruth accomplished.

Consider this race breakdown in MLB today:
White 58%
Hispanic 32%
Black 7%
Asian 3%

I don't know what those percentages have looked like every year since 1947, but I can't imagine the percent of black players ever being over 15% in any given year. Now if we're talking the NFL or NBA, then the color barrier significantly makes a historic difference. However, if there is a race barrier in MLB, it would have to start with the inclusion of players of Hispanic descent.
Really? There were professional Negro leagues since 1885. Baseball was the only sport seeing major participation by people of all colors as basketball and football wasn't even a thing yet. Football picked up in the late 30s professionally. Basketball in the late 40s picked up professionally. So yeah things would have been way different if people of all colors were allowed to play early on. Some teams didn't add color players till the mid/late 50s. That's over 70 years of full "pro" sports talent pool lost to segregation. So yeah I can see why post 1947 is a line for many people to draw.

And I can also see 1967 as an additional line due to that's when minimum salary was truly established and cba. That's when most players were legit full time players.

Good and bad memories of the Red Sox Impossible Dream.
I've lived through some terrible things in my life, some of which actually happened.   -  Mark Twain

Re: Interesting Thing About Baseball…
« Reply #20 on: January 02, 2023, 06:57:52 PM »

Online hwangjini_1

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17835
  • Tommy Points: 2661
  • bammokja
I think the best players of all time are probably more recent. More competition.

Who would you rather pitch one game: prime Pedro or prime Ruth/Cy Young? I’m going with the guy with the filthier pitches- Pedro.

Because of technology, I think modern day athletes, machines (computers, vehicles), and society as a whole improve year over year. The Apple in 1984 was awesome. Apple’s products are much better today.

That’s why part of any assessment needs to be performance against one’s peers.

I think that’s a different conversation. Greatest competitor/most dominant vs the best player to ever play the game. I’d imagine 18/20 top baseball players are from the last 30 years. Ruth was playing against guys that had part time jobs. The league was less legitimate 100 years ago.

Not really.  The NBA wasn't less legitimate when Russell played, either.  It was just a different era.  Just like in 50 years when guys are being genetically engineered to be 6'10" in the womb, and are getting eye surgery to give them 20-10 vision, it won't mean that the 1993 or 2023 seasons are less legitimate.

Sure, if you drop Peak DeAndre Jordan in 1963, he'd be a Hall of Famer.  That's because he'd have advantages that guys back then didn't have.  It doesn't mean we should rank him higher than Bill Russell.
i feel very, very ,very sorry for those moms.  :-[
I believe Gandhi is the only person who knew about real democracy — not democracy as the right to go and buy what you want, but democracy as the responsibility to be accountable to everyone around you. Democracy begins with freedom from hunger, freedom from unemployment, freedom from fear, and freedom from hatred.
- Vandana Shiva

Re: Interesting Thing About Baseball…
« Reply #21 on: January 02, 2023, 07:11:21 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58540
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
I think the best players of all time are probably more recent. More competition.

Who would you rather pitch one game: prime Pedro or prime Ruth/Cy Young? I’m going with the guy with the filthier pitches- Pedro.

Because of technology, I think modern day athletes, machines (computers, vehicles), and society as a whole improve year over year. The Apple in 1984 was awesome. Apple’s products are much better today.

That’s why part of any assessment needs to be performance against one’s peers.

I think that’s a different conversation. Greatest competitor/most dominant vs the best player to ever play the game. I’d imagine 18/20 top baseball players are from the last 30 years. Ruth was playing against guys that had part time jobs. The league was less legitimate 100 years ago.

Not really.  The NBA wasn't less legitimate when Russell played, either.  It was just a different era.  Just like in 50 years when guys are being genetically engineered to be 6'10" in the womb, and are getting eye surgery to give them 20-10 vision, it won't mean that the 1993 or 2023 seasons are less legitimate.

Sure, if you drop Peak DeAndre Jordan in 1963, he'd be a Hall of Famer.  That's because he'd have advantages that guys back then didn't have.  It doesn't mean we should rank him higher than Bill Russell.
i feel very, very ,very sorry for those moms.  :-[

Haha.  Funny.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes