`
Connect With Us!
IOS Store
Share Thread:
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Biggio, Smoltz, Pedro and Big Unit are in
#31
Let's also send back Dustin Pedroia and Greg Holland to 1885 while we're at it because they didn't get the message about having to be a physical specimen to play in today's game.

Obviously the scout that signed Pedro Martinez didn't get the memo either.

No, I don't believe today's players are superior.

Al Spalding threw 617 innings in a year with a 1.92 ERA.

Nobody will ever throw half those innings in a season again.

Cy Young threw 749 complete games with a 2.63 ERA for his career.

Nobody will ever throw more than 100 complete games again.

They all threw complete games back then. The modern pitcher is throwing 6 innings on a five-man rotation and he is done.

Honus Wagner won 8 batting titles because he was a beast and he would be a beast today.

Cap Anson hit 21 home runs in a year where the dead ball meant dead ball and seven guys had a minus 2 era.

I could spend a whole month writing about the feats of the dead ball era.

Guys back then were working on farms and building railroads in the off season while the modern player plays video games and lifts weights.

(01-07-2015, 08:51 PM)jacobystealshome Wrote: ill get point by point at some point, but:
rod carew played more games at first than at 2nd
jackie maybe, because of his overall game *cough* defense* cough* (of course, hof isnt just about numbers, and he is one of the three most IMPORTANT players to the game)

lofton: two points: runs is a dependent stat, and lofton's teams were much better than raines. but additionally, lofton benefitted from the diluted pitching of the expansion era and also benefitted from park factors and league factors. adjusted stats should be looked at here

lots to get to later

but you shouldnt be so wary of WAR. it's just a state based on the stats you know and love. it's a concrete number. not a bible, of course, but it's just a simple way of looking at a complex equation of stats you already like
If you are going by wins above replacement (and I don't believe in it), Raines is ranked 106th and Lofton is ranked 114th which is the same sentence in my book.
Reply
#32
(01-08-2015, 12:52 AM)natejeffries Wrote: Let's also send back Dustin Pedroia and Greg Holland to 1885 while we're at it because they didn't get the message about having to be a physical specimen to play in today's game.

Obviously the scout that signed Pedro Martinez didn't get the memo either.

No, I don't believe today's players are superior.

Al Spalding threw 617 innings in a year with a 1.92 ERA.

Nobody will ever throw half those innings in a season again.

Cy Young threw 749 complete games with a 2.63 ERA for his career.

Nobody will ever throw more than 100 complete games again.

They all threw complete games back then. The modern pitcher is throwing 6 innings on a five-man rotation and he is done.

Honus Wagner won 8 batting titles because he was a beast and he would be a beast today.

Cap Anson hit 21 home runs in a year where the dead ball meant dead ball and seven guys had a minus 2 era.

I could spend a whole month writing about the feats of the dead ball era.

Guys back then were working on farms and building railroads in the off season while the modern player plays video games and lifts weights.


If you are going by wins above replacement (and I don't believe in it), Raines is ranked 106th and Lofton is ranked 114th which is the same sentence in my book.
The truth is my friend, some of those guys numbers are so impressive because the the talent around them just wasn't there. The competition wasn't what it is today where every player is a genetic freak whose one purpose in life has been baseball driven. These guys have been built and programmed to play since birth. I told you before, a handful of the older generations probably could play today. But very few. Your trying to argue there is no difference in the modern athlete and the guys from the early 1900's is absolutely insane. The Olympians from then could not compete with todays Olympians. They were too slow and too weak by todays standards. Take a look at the progressions of any olympic event. Times have gone steadily down while weight increments have gone steadily up. The football players from the 2 generations wouldn't mix. The older guys were far too slow, too small and too weak to even dream of being in the NFL. We have running backs that are bigger than the old school linemen, and linemen who are faster than their backs. Basketball, really? You see anyone from the turn of last century up into the 40's being able to play in the NBA? You see any of those guys being able to hang with the dream team? Come on. Im not too familiar with hockey but I'm guessing if I asked someone who really knew they would say the modern players are far too big, fast and strong to even think about the older generations being able to play with them. But baseball is where we draw the line in the sand? Across the board it's historically and statisticaly proven that the athlete has evolved in every aspect... except baseball. Really? 100 years of athletic and physical evolution (and yes, there has been a huge leap) and your going to tell me that the guys who smoked and drank heavily during the game could play modern era baseball? Your one main point is that I said they were short. Yes, they were much shorter. And smaller. And weaker. And slower. And lesser athletes. I have no clue what your talking about when you say send Pedroia back to the tobacco era because he's too small. You trying to tell me he fits the profile of the common MLB player? He doesn't. He's an exception.
Reply
#33
If you simply grabbed a player from a different era and brought them here today they probably could not compete with today's talent. But, if that player were BORN in this day and time and grew up with all the additional benefits that today's players have then I believe they would be just as great.
[Image: Jones%20Kershaw_zpswfyrmlav.jpg]
Reply
#34
(01-08-2015, 09:15 AM)randall44 Wrote: If you simply grabbed a player from a different era and brought them here today they probably could not compete with today's talent. But, if that player were BORN in this day and time and grew up with all the additional benefits that today's players have then I believe they would be just as great.
I agree with you 100%. I've had that conversation as well. And just to be clear, for the last time, I am a far bigger fan of the the greats of the game than I am of modern players, especially the golden age gentlemen. They seemed to play with more dignity and class than the guys do today. There seemed to be a real sense of team back then. But I'm also a realist.
Reply
#35
So now baseball players don't drink? I guess Miguel Cabrera and Josh Beckett didn't get that memo either.

Too bad the 1986 Mets didn't play sober they really could have done something.

And no kids were trying to become baseball players until when? 1910? 1920?

You have to judge players based on how they dominated their era which is what makes the steroid era tough to judge.

But to say that guys in the old days couldn't play today because the league did not have as many physical specimens is lunacy.

Dan Brouthers, at 6'2, 205, with four batting titles in the dead ball era, would suddenly flop? Why? How?

Nap Lajoie, a five-time batting champ gets cut from the Astros roster now?

George Wright can't catch and throw baseballs anymore?

6'2, 200 pound Amos Rusie not going to get drafted because he can only throw 548 innings in a year?

So Pedroia, Pedro Martinez, Altuve and Holland are exceptions.

How about Andrew McCutchen, Jimmy Rollins, Josh Harrison, Cespedes and Rafael Furcal?

All under 5'11.

Ever hear of Hack Wilson? He still holds the single-season RBI record and he was 5'6.
Reply
#36
(01-08-2015, 10:23 AM)Hofcollector Wrote: They seemed to play with more dignity and class than the guys do today.
Been following this conversation and just thought I would say that this statement in my opinion is very hard not to agree with. Though not true of 100% of todays athelete, it does ring true for the majority.

Reply
#37
(01-08-2015, 12:43 PM)natejeffries Wrote: So now baseball players don't drink? I guess Miguel Cabrera and Josh Beckett didn't get that memo either.

Too bad the 1986 Mets didn't play sober they really could have done something.

And no kids were trying to become baseball players until when? 1910? 1920?

You have to judge players based on how they dominated their era which is what makes the steroid era tough to judge.

But to say that guys in the old days couldn't play today because the league did not have as many physical specimens is lunacy.

Dan Brouthers, at 6'2, 205, with four batting titles in the dead ball era, would suddenly flop? Why? How?

Nap Lajoie, a five-time batting champ gets cut from the Astros roster now?

George Wright can't catch and throw baseballs anymore?

6'2, 200 pound Amos Rusie not going to get drafted because he can only throw 548 innings in a year?

So Pedroia, Pedro Martinez, Altuve and Holland are exceptions.

How about Andrew McCutchen, Jimmy Rollins, Josh Harrison, Cespedes and Rafael Furcal?

All under 5'11.

Ever hear of Hack Wilson? He still holds the single-season RBI record and he was 5'6.
Your still rolling right over the fact the modern athlete is so far superior to those guys, there is no comparison. You can name as many players and their accomplishments as you like, I know them all. Your not telling me anything I didnt learn 20 years ago. If you cant recognize that the talent pool back then was questionable, there's no use having this discussion. You keep bringing up the minor points I make and dont address the major points. I mentioned most of them were drunks, undersized by todays standards, etc. You dont address the evolution of the athletes. You've never mentioned how they would fair against the best from all over the world. Those guys played against and with "talent" from select regions of America. The players today are black, latino, Asian, you name it. The best the world has to offer. Are you telling me that was the standard back then? At any point in time, the modern MLB can pluck a superstar from thin air, from any country. Once again, THE BEST THE WORLD HAS TO OFFER. What say you?

BTW, Hack Wilson played in the 20's and 30's. Thats the golden era.
Reply
#38
I know when Hack Wilson played. He was being used as an example of how a short guy played in the time of Babe Ruth and Foxx and did things they never did.

I will agree to disagree on the other points.

By the way, your organize is off the charts. Let me know if I have anything you can use for a trade.

Very impressive Hall of Fame collection.
Reply
#39
(01-08-2015, 05:58 PM)natejeffries Wrote: I know when Hack Wilson played. He was being used as an example of how a short guy played in the time of Babe Ruth and Foxx and did things they never did.

I will agree to disagree on the other points.

By the way, your organize is off the charts. Let me know if I have anything you can use for a trade.

Very impressive Hall of Fame collection.
Ok man, I'll take a look. I have a lot of stuff constantly coming and going. If you had viewed my org 2 months ago it was mostly high grade graded hof rookies. I ended up selling a large collection of graded rc's of Ruth, DiMaggio, Mays, Banks, you name it. Im actually low on vintage right now but that will be changing starting next week.
Reply
#40
I can't compete with you there
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)