Re: Buffalo range NEW OWNER
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DraftBoy
That's not a claim, that's a statement of fact. You do know the difference, correct?.
WTF are you talking about? The fact part (that he didn't face black pitchers) was only part of you speculating that Ruth wouldn't have fared as well against black pitchers. Are you SERIOUSLY trying to claim your speculation as fact? Are are you lying about your implication?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DraftBoy
Yes but as you've already pointed out college basketball (and youth league basketball) was booming amongst inner city kids. So now it was quite literally hundreds and thousands..
That's NOT AT ALL what I was saying (not that it matters what I say--you just ascribe your own twisted meaning to everything). When I say that college versions of basketball and football were popular, I mean with spectators. And I mean as compared to their pro league counterparts. And when compared to the late 70s forward, basketball was not even a major sport. It lagged FAR behind boxing and other sports.
And I won't even get into the percentage of black college students there were in those days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DraftBoy
Yes it very simple, but that doesn't make it right. You're not accounting for the fact that in the Negro Leagues pitchers often pitched multiple days in a row, threw more innings, and didn't have anything close to the same training, nutrition, or coaching as in the MLB. You're trying to say it was only about talent without even beginning to understand the disparity in how the two league functioned. You have to start there before you can even begin to talk about individual players and their talent level. Like I said I know your logic is extremely simple, that's the only way your argument works..
Whaaaatttt?????? Wow. You're really reaching now. You pretzel logic becomes more twisted with each asinine reply.
The pitchers you refer to also faced a very small talent pool. But even that is beside the point. Your thesis is still that black pitchers would have been superior to their white counterparts, had they only enjoyed more days off and better nutrition, training, coaching (off the ****** chart ridiculous). For starters, many of these alleged privileged white ballplayers had offseason jobs. About 1/3 of Ruth's career was played during the Great Depression. You're trying to paint a picture--IN THE 1930s!- of training rooms and catered designer nutritional foods? Hahahahahahaha! Oh my GOD.
And why would you say the whites were better coached? If that isn't a straight up racist statement, I don't know what is.
My argument is ironclad, even if argued under your ridiculous bizarre fantasy scenario. Let's take what you say as a given. That black pitchers would have been Supermen, were it not for the fact that they had to pitch 200 games a year and feed themselves dirt and twigs. Then what happened when integration began? Why did black pitchers not dominate baseball the way black players dominate NFL Defensive backfields today? Your argument is simply stupid. Do you think before you type this ****?
You say I DON'T offer any facts? Wow. Have you read the thread at all? I've offered nothing but facts. Dozens of Ruth's records and comparisons to players of his era. Comparison of his numbers to those of Mays and Aaron, and more, and I've even gone easy on you--leaving out slugging percentage, OPS and a crapload of other stats.
And what have you offered? Jack sh - t. Just the same circular nonsense regurgitated over and over.
Weak sauce. Weak ass sauce.
From here on out, before you offer up gems like "Of course it was unparalleled for its time, nobody had ever seen it before. Same with Gretzky, same with Jordan, same with players from a number of different sports" go back and read my posts. Look at the numbers. Your contentions are garbage.
I'd keep posting back and forth with you if we were having an honest conversation, but you just continue to ignore facts that I post and act like they don't exist, while offering none of your own.
Seriously, the longer you post this nonsense, the dumber you sound.
Keep living in your fact-less fantasy world. It's what people like you do best. Facts don't matter to you. You and I are arguing in to different languages, and yours is Pig Latin.
Enjoy your blissful ignorance, Draft Boy.
Re: Buffalo range NEW OWNER
Quote:
Originally Posted by
WagonCircler
Your thesis is still that black pitchers would have been superior to their white counterparts, had they only enjoyed more days off and better nutrition, training, coaching (off the ****** chart ridiculous). For starters, many of these alleged privileged white ballplayers had offseason jobs. About 1/3 of Ruth's career was played during the Great Depression.
This is good...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
WagonCircler
You're trying to paint a picture--IN THE 1930s!- of training rooms and catered designer nutritional foods? Hahahahahahaha! Oh my GOD.
But this is epic...
I'd keep posting back and forth with you if we were having an honest conversation, but you just continue to ignore facts that I post and act like they don't exist, while offering none of your own.
It's possible that Wagon has been know to get ummm......... A little fired up and personal, but this baseball conversation has been an absolute education. To argue his multiple points aren't concrete are absurd.
This is a message board so disagree with him sure, offer some points you did. He dissected them. There comes a point that you have to tap out bro.
That has happened.
Winner by decision (although knockout was only avoided by him helping you up a handful of times) is WAGONCIRCLER
Re: Buffalo range NEW OWNER
BTW I hope that commenting on this post by Wagon doesn't offend Chickie and start the vicious cycle of this thread all over again....... or do I? (insert horror movie music in background)
Re: Buffalo range NEW OWNER
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rockstar
Ok, just got home from the club and the Range is back up.
I was worried!
Re: Buffalo range NEW OWNER
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rockstar
It's possible that Wagon has been know to get ummm......... A little fired up and personal, but this baseball conversation has been an absolute education. To argue his multiple points aren't concrete are absurd.
This is a message board so disagree with him sure, offer some points you did. He dissected them. There comes a point that you have to tap out bro.
That has happened.
Winner by decision (although knockout was only avoided by him helping you up a handful of times) is WAGONCIRCLER
I think not.
Re: Buffalo range NEW OWNER
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chernobylwraiths
I think not.
I think not, therefore I aren't.
Re: Buffalo range NEW OWNER
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chernobylwraiths
I think not.
Why? Please give me details. Wagon has spent pages going in depth proving his point. Short rebuttals have not put a chink in his armor. Is this a personal thing?
Re: Buffalo range NEW OWNER
Re: Buffalo range NEW OWNER
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rockstar
Why? Please give me details. Wagon has spent pages going in depth proving his point. Short rebuttals have not put a chink in his armor. Is this a personal thing?
His rebuttals seem to completely disregard the lack of minorities. I can't believe that minorities would have NO effect on his numbers though I would agree they would have only a slight effect. But that is only a small part of it. Nobody seemed to be hitting for power backt then, which would lead me to believe that clubs weren't even looking for people that could hit for power. There weren't any players with big numbers because nobody seemed to even try to do it. Plus, nobody seemed to say anything about my posting on how until 1931, balls that bounced over the fence were home runs. I believe his argument is based almost soley on his offensive prowess and his numbers.
In all honesty, I would say that Ruth was without a doubt the greatest power hitter that ever lived and he was a pretty damned good pitcher too, but when you say "greatest baseball player" there are other aspects of baseball that he just isn't known for. Mayes could hit, could hit for power, was a great fielder and was one of the best baserunners of all time. There is not one part of his game which was considered lacking.
So, if I were starting a team, I would pick Mays first. But if I needed someone up at the plate to win a game, Ruth would be the one. But it is impossible to argue about people from different eras, especially when one person dominated his so thoroughly. It's like the argument of who is better Chamberlain or Jordan (or Bird or Johnson)
Re: Buffalo range NEW OWNER
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chernobylwraiths
His rebuttals seem to completely disregard the lack of minorities. I can't believe that minorities would have NO effect on his numbers though I would agree they would have only a slight effect. But that is only a small part of it. Nobody seemed to be hitting for power backt then, which would lead me to believe that clubs weren't even looking for people that could hit for power. There weren't any players with big numbers because nobody seemed to even try to do it. Plus, nobody seemed to say anything about my posting on how until 1931, balls that bounced over the fence were home runs. I believe his argument is based almost soley on his offensive prowess and his numbers.
In all honesty, I would say that Ruth was without a doubt the greatest power hitter that ever lived and he was a pretty damned good pitcher too, but when you say "greatest baseball player" there are other aspects of baseball that he just isn't known for. Mayes could hit, could hit for power, was a great fielder and was one of the best baserunners of all time. There is not one part of his game which was considered lacking.
So, if I were starting a team, I would pick Mays first. But if I needed someone up at the plate to win a game, Ruth would be the one. But it is impossible to argue about people from different eras, especially when one person dominated his so thoroughly. It's like the argument of who is better Chamberlain or Jordan (or Bird or Johnson)
Fair rebuttal. I don’t have the time to go into this too much (last week of my semester) and quite frankly I’m not that knowledgeable on MLB. But I would argue as a jock and a fan of all sports that your statement below is not likely in my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chernobylwraiths
“Nobody seemed to be hitting for power back then, which would lead me to believe that clubs weren't even looking for people that could hit for power”
I guess it’s possible managers were preaching against swinging the bat, but it seems unlikely in what was the great American pastime and a man’s sport that if you had the power to hit the ball deep you wouldn't. It’s counter intuitive.
It’s basic jock mentality. “look how big my balls are” To think that was any different then? It doesn’t make sense to me.
Re: Buffalo range NEW OWNER
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rockstar
Fair rebuttal. I don’t have the time to go into this too much (last week of my semester) and quite frankly I’m not that knowledgeable on MLB. But I would argue as a jock and a fan of all sports that your statement below is not likely in my opinion.
I guess it’s possible managers were preaching against swinging the bat, but it seems unlikely in what was the great American pastime and a man’s sport that if you had the power to hit the ball deep you wouldn't. It’s counter intuitive.
It’s basic jock mentality. “look how big my balls are” To think that was any different then? It doesn’t make sense to me.
I can understand the "jock mentality" but it didn't seem as if anybody really hit many over the years unit Ruth started hitting them out. Soon after, the top home run totals jumped up. Why do you think that is? Now again, many factors went into that. One of which I quoted in which MLB made the balls better and the umpires made sure that balls that got dirty and scuffed were taken out. It made the ball easier to see and better to hit.
Again, more factors were in Ruth's favor in that the Yankees in his prime were an awesome offensive team. It was difficult to pitch around him when Gehrig would be up next.
Another factor was that pitchers in his era would pitch whole games. Relief pitching wasn't big and I don't believe the pitching was that great back in his day.
To be honest, had Ruth been able to hit regularly his whole career, his numbers would have probably been so far out of reach, all the steroids in the world wouldn't have helped. But like I said, HRs and great hitting do not make a person the greatest baseball player of all time. But he definitely deserves to be in the argument.
Re: Buffalo range NEW OWNER
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chernobylwraiths
To be honest, had Ruth been able to hit regularly his whole career, his numbers would have probably been so far out of reach, all the steroids in the world wouldn't have helped. But like I said, HRs and great hitting do not make a person the greatest baseball player of all time. But he definitely deserves to be in the argument.
It's a gosh dam shame that Ruth didn't bat more simply because I ***** HATE seeing Bonds and Mcgwire's names in the record books. I hope they never make the Hall Of Fame.
Re: Buffalo range NEW OWNER
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rockstar
It's a gosh dam shame that Ruth didn't bat more simply because I ***** HATE seeing Bonds and Mcgwire's names in the record books. I hope they never make the Hall Of Fame.
Don't forget Ruth spent years as a LHP in Boston before he went to NY. He only batted when he pitched during those years.
Re: Buffalo range NEW OWNER
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chernobylwraiths
So, if I were starting a team, I would pick Mays first. But if I needed someone up at the plate to win a game, Ruth would be the one.
As a NY Yankees fan I'd have to say Ted Williams was the greatest hitter of all time.
Re: Buffalo range NEW OWNER
Let's not forget that Ruth was a lifetime .340 hitter. Surely, he has to be near the top 10 for lifetime batting average.
Re: Buffalo range NEW OWNER
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chernobylwraiths
I can understand the "jock mentality" but it didn't seem as if anybody really hit many over the years unit Ruth started hitting them out. Soon after, the top home run totals jumped up. Why do you think that is? .
I can tell you EXACTLY why that was. And it has nothing to do with race, equipment, pitching or playing conditions. It's simple physics.
No player ever had a swing like Ruth's until he did. It's a line in Field of Dreams that Ruth copied Shoeless Joe Jackson's swing. That's subject to dispute, but even if it did, Ruth perfected it and was stronger, quicker through the strike zone and had better eyes than Jackson.
Ever see films of Ty Cobb? He held the bat with his hands six inches apart! Players before Ruth were hackers. Choppers. The had short, controlled swings.
Ruth's power came from staying back on the ball, transferring his weight and rotating his hips with perfect timing, and generating ridiculous bat speed thanks to powerful, fast hands that swung through the zone into a huge full cut. The key to Ruth's power was centrifugal force, power and talent.
He literally revolutionized the game. Changed it forever, from a "Get'em on, get 'em over, get 'em in" game to one in which the Home Run is king.
He is, to put it in hockey terms, Bernie Geoffrion (inventor of the snapshot), combined with Howe and Gretzky.
Re: Buffalo range NEW OWNER
Regardless of some animosity, a lively discussion on baseball and baseball during it's Golden Age. My support of Mays is because he was my favorite player from the time I was 5. Wagon makes a strong case for Ruth and his knowledge is formidable. That said, even though I tossed out the moniker "Greatest Player Of All Time", it's almost impossible to pick just one. Certainly, Williams, Jackson (although we have to speculate because his career was cut short) Gherig, Mays, Cobb, Clemente, Dimaggio and more belong in the discussion. That's not even counting pitchers.
Re: Buffalo range NEW OWNER
Mantle if he didn't drink and have bum knees is another one.
Re: Buffalo range NEW OWNER
Any current players that might play their way into the discussion?
Re: Buffalo range NEW OWNER
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IlluminatusUIUC
Any current players that might play their way into the discussion?
It's really hard because of PEDs. Nothing is real anymore. That's not to say that all players use them, but it's just so hard to figure who does and who doesn't.
Take a guy like Big Papi. He CLEARLY uses. Look at his and Manny's numbers before they got to Boston. Same with A-Fraud. And although he's never been directly implicated, I have my doubts about Pujols.
Occasionally you get these physical freaks of nature come along like Josh Hamilton, but their bodies break down, and their numbers follow.
Bryce Harper is Mantle-like physically, but I really wonder about his psychological makeup.
But even if you ignore PEDs, there's no one out there who's a Ruth or Jordan or Gretzky, IMO. I don't even know that there's anyone with the potential to be called the all-time greatest player at his position.
We just had one of those retire, in Mariano Rivera, but that's only a specialist position. He wasn't the greatest Pitcher of all time, but definitely the greatest reliever.
In other sports, LeBron is interesting, but I don't think he'll surpass Jordan. To me, Jordan is like no one else in any sport. His incredible physical skills were matched, maybe even exceed, by his mental toughness and competitiveness. I think he was probably the greatest athlete of all time, overall.