:db:
You took my ****ing smiley away?!? Now you've gone too far you bastard!!
Printable View
Absolutely does not affect the question at hand. If the question had been about pitchers perhaps having better numbers due to the exclusion of black players, then there might be some merit. But there is no evidence that it works the other way around, due to several mitigating circumstances.
I know this has the potential to send some of the whining maniacs here over the edge of their tenuous sanity, but it is an accepted scientific fact that natural selection is largely responsible for the fact that many people of southern African heritage are genetically equipped to excel at certain sports/positions due to longer limbs. Millions of years of hunting and survival in the wilds of Africa produced a gene pool of humans better equipped for running, as evidenced by Kenyan dominance at marathon running.
Natural selection is not racism, it is science. It explains why there are few, if any, white Cornerbacks in the NFL.
This advantage, however, apparently does not translate to pitching. If you aggregate lists of the top 50 all time MLB pitchers, be it before or after integration, you'll find that it is overwhelmingly populated by players of non-African descent.
Again, this has nothing to do with anything but the genetic body type and whether it contributes to a competitive advantage at a particular position. It's abundantly clear that it helps with some positions and not others, and that pitching falls into the category of "others."
My point is, that there is almost zero chance that the pitching in the Negro Leagues was superior to that in the American League of Ruth's time, and that these alleged dominant pitchers suddenly ceased to dominate after integration.
You prog pussies will wail "RACISM" because that's what you do. I'm supposed to be stopped dead in my tracks, argument over, once you throw that card. But it's bull****.
My point stands. The fact that Babe Ruth didn't face Satchell Page 50 times over the course of his career is statistical insignificant.
If you want to argue that the disparity between Mays' defensive skills and Ruth's make him an overall more valuable player--fine. You'd be wrong, but at least you're making a sane argument. But the race thing, thrown out reflexively by a non-thinker, is a complete fairy tale with no basis in fact.
Now run along and go watch your soccer boys falling around the "pitch" faking injuries like whiny little *****es.
It must take a lot of energy to be angry most of the time.
You could argue the degree to which is affected the question is debatable but to say absolutely does not affect is wrong simply because you can't possibly prove that. Let's at least keep the discussion in some version of reality and not talk in complete extremes.
Nothing you said here is offensive or even all that wrong, however you specifically mention the area of Southern Africa. The majority of the Atlantic slave trade centered around the atlantic coast (modern day Senegal, Sierre Leone, Guinea, Libera, and Cote d'Ivoire) not Southern Africa. So I'm not sure what you're geographic reference has to do with anything. Additionally Kenya is nowhere near Southern Africa, rather located on Africa's western coast bordered by the Indian Ocean. Kenya in fact is split in half by the equator.Quote:
I know this has the potential to send some of the whining maniacs here over the edge of their tenuous sanity, but it is an accepted scientific fact that natural selection is largely responsible for the fact that many people of southern African heritage are genetically equipped to excel at certain sports/positions due to longer limbs. Millions of years of hunting and survival in the wilds of Africa produced a gene pool of humans better equipped for running, as evidenced by Kenyan dominance at marathon running.
Natural selection is science when its left natural, however that's not what we're talking about and you know that. Also you really don't want to try and cross reference sports like the football where every black QB is called an athlete instead of a QB to this day when in MS and HS. That's a different topic for a different day however.Quote:
Natural selection is not racism, it is science. It explains why there are few, if any, white Cornerbacks in the NFL.
Where do you put Smokey Joe Williams, Ray Brown, Wilbur Rogan, or the aforementioned Paige? Outside of Paige do you even know who they are? Hell even MLB.com wrote this back in 2011;Quote:
This advantage, however, apparently does not translate to pitching. If you aggregate lists of the top 50 all time MLB pitchers, be it before or after integration, you'll find that it is overwhelmingly populated by players of non-African descent.
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?...s_mlb&c_id=mlbQuote:
As great as Christy Mathewson, Walter Johnson, Cy Young, Addie Joss and Lefty Grove were, each had his equal, if not his superior, in black baseball.
Again unprovable and you're letting us know that your entire argument is biased because you can't conceive it was even possible. Not to mention that by the time integration occurred in the MLB (and I mean full scale integration) in the late 50's both the NFL and NBA had already begun full scale integration and had begun taking youths that previously had been trending towards baseball.Quote:
My point is, that there is almost zero chance that the pitching in the Negro Leagues was superior to that in the American League of Ruth's time, and that these alleged dominant pitchers suddenly ceased to dominate after integration.
You whine more than almost any other poster about others whining. Nobody called you a racist or said your point was racist…well except you but that's your thing so whatever.Quote:
You prog pussies will wail "RACISM" because that's what you do. I'm supposed to be stopped dead in my tracks, argument over, once you throw that card. But it's bull****.
Your point is made up and completely ridiculous. You've decided black players of the era were inferior in order to support your thesis. Nevermind you can't possibly prove it or make a coherent argument about it.Quote:
My point stands. The fact that Babe Ruth didn't face Satchell Page 50 times over the course of his career is statistical insignificant.
No games on Monday's…wankers...Quote:
Now run along and go watch your soccer boys falling around the "pitch" faking injuries like whiny little *****es.
You're WAY off. What I'm saying is that there is zero evidence that not facing black pitchers gave Ruth any kind of advantage, and that had he faced black pitchers, his numbers would not have changed in any significant way statistically.
The nonsense argument that Ruth's numbers are somehow less legitimate because he played in an era in which black players weren't allowed to played is ridiculous. It implies that black pitchers were superior to white pitchers, which ha absolutely no basis in fact.
The truth is, the only way to examine the situation is to look at there integrated leagues, and when you do, you not only see no evidence that black pitchers are/were superior, you see lopsided numbers in the other direction.
All of which is not even meant to say that one group was superior, only that no group was. Because this i not a conversation about that. This is a conversation about whether Ruth's numbers would have suffered if he faced Negro League pitching, and like I've said over and over, there's absolutely no basis in fact for that claim, only a misguided emotional argument based on the dominance of black players at other positions in other sports.
I go back to what I originally posted and I stand by it. There is not a legitimate case to be made, based on actual facts, not "what-ifs?" for any other player as the greatest in baseball history. Not only can no there player match Ruth's statistics, no other player in any sport can match Ruth's dominance against his contemporaries. No one else is even close.
:Skooby:
Where is the mystery machine?
Couldn't agree more. This is why I'm starting to love baseball, but specifically Triple AAA baseball. As a Buffalo Bison's season ticket holder (3rd season) I feel a connection to the game and feel appreciated as a fan. Money is truly the root of all evil, and pro sports proves that.
How am I way off? Exactly what point do you think I'm trying to insert here. You have no way of knowing that and applying a bias to make your point.
I don't think anybody is saying they are less legitimate but they at least can be somewhat questioned.Quote:
The nonsense argument that Ruth's numbers are somehow less legitimate because he played in an era in which black players weren't allowed to played is ridiculous. It implies that black pitchers were superior to white pitchers, which ha absolutely no basis in fact.
I'm not sure what this was in response to and it does not answer the issue that the MLB fully integrated later than other pro leagues and lost many of the inner city kids that were african-american.Quote:
The truth is, the only way to examine the situation is to look at there integrated leagues, and when you do, you not only see no evidence that black pitchers are/were superior, you see lopsided numbers in the other direction.
So you dismiss one argument as no basis in fact, but ignore that you point doesn't have one either? How is that at all logical?Quote:
All of which is not even meant to say that one group was superior, only that no group was. Because this i not a conversation about that. This is a conversation about whether Ruth's numbers would have suffered if he faced Negro League pitching, and like I've said over and over, there's absolutely no basis in fact for that claim, only a misguided emotional argument based on the dominance of black players at other positions in other sports.
There is a case for a number of players, the one for Willie Mays has already been established. As for nobody dominating their sport like Ruth? Come on, Gretzky, Jordan, and how many others have dominated their sports. You're attempting to do a cross-sport reference that is even more impossible to prove than that Ruth would of absolutely had not seen his number affected if he had to face Negro League players.Quote:
I go back to what I originally posted and I stand by it. There is not a legitimate case to be made, based on actual facts, not "what-ifs?" for any other player as the greatest in baseball history. Not only can no there player match Ruth's statistics, no other player in any sport can match Ruth's dominance against his contemporaries. No one else is even close.
He didn't say that, but it's interesting that's what you got out of it.Quote:
Posted by Daftboy
Your point is made up and completely ridiculous. You've decided black players of the era were inferior in order to support your thesis. Nevermind you can't possibly prove it or make a coherent argument about it.
It's why a real discussion about race in this country is impossible. Too many guilty white boys that have been brainwashed by the PC media.