Buffalo range NEW OWNER

[SpikedLemonade]

It must take a lot of energy to be angry most of the time.

[DraftBoy]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Natural selection is not racism, it is science. It explains why there are few, if any, white Cornerbacks in the NFL.

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.

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.

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;

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.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?...s_mlb&c_id=mlb

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.

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.

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****.

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.

My point stands. The fact that Babe Ruth didn't face Satchell Page 50 times over the course of his career is statistical insignificant.

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.

Now run along and go watch your soccer boys falling around the "pitch" faking injuries like whiny little *****es.

No games on Monday's…wankers...

[Discotrish]

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.

The racism is "settled!"

How old are you, 81?

Patti

[swiper]

[WagonCircler]

Your point is made up and completely ridiculous. You've decided black players of the era were inferior in order to support your thesis.

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.

[The Popcorn]

Are there threads this long about the BillsZone over on The Range?

Patti

Didn't somebody say the word Billszone was banned over at the range? Thought I read that somewhere.

[Skooby]

:Skooby:

Where is the mystery machine?

[feldspar]

...unless you're an asswhole.

[Rockstar]

In general, pro sports have all taken a gigantic **** as far as your entertainment dollar.

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.

[DraftBoy]

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.

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.

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 don't think anybody is saying they are less legitimate but they at least can be somewhat questioned.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

[pmoon6]

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.

He didn't say that, but it's interesting that's what you got out of 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.

[pmoon6]

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.

PM me Rock. I'm interested to know where you are working in WNY. I would like to stop in next time I am in Buffalo and make your acquaintance.

[chernobylwraiths]

The home run's place in baseball changed dramatically when the live-ball era began after World War I. First, the materials and manufacturing processes improved significantly, making the now-mass-produced, cork-centered ball somewhat more lively. Batters such as Babe Ruth and Rogers Hornsby took full advantage of rules changes that were instituted during the 1920s, particularly prohibition of the spitball, and the requirement that balls be replaced when worn or dirty. These changes resulted in the baseball being easier to see and hit, and easier to hit out of park. Meanwhile, as the game's popularity boomed, more outfield seating was built, shrinking the size of the outfield and increasing the chances of a long fly ball resulting in a home run. The teams with the sluggers, typified by the New York Yankees, became the championship teams, and other teams had to change their focus from the "inside game" to the "power game" in order to keep up.

Prior to 1931, a ball that bounced over an outfield fence during a major league game was considered a home run. The rule was changed to require the ball to clear the fence on the fly, and balls that reached the seats on a bounce became ground rule doubles in most parks. A carryover of the old rule is that if a player deflects a ball over the outfield fence without it touching the ground, it is a home run.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_run

I must have missed this being disputed. A good portion of Ruth's career was played prior to 1931.

But it IS Wikipedia, so it must have been written by an Aaron or Mays fan.

[DraftBoy]

He didn't say that, but it's interesting that's what you got out of 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.

Actually he did...

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...

It is interesting though that you've taken that position and decided it can be expanded to all race discussions.

[JATMtheJATM]

Sorry coastal. I love me some baseball talk.

[JATMtheJATM]

"Slapshot" or "Field of Dreams"?

i win.

field of dreams. slapshots good. field of dreams is spectacular.

[chernobylwraiths]

field of dreams. slapshots good. field of dreams is spectacular.

I don't know. I still have a problem with a doctor slapping a kid on the back who is choking to death.

[WagonCircler]

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. .

You're way off because you're trying to say that Ruth's numbers would have changed had he faced an integrated group of pitchers. As I've said repeatedly, not only is there no basis in fact for this contention, history bears out the reality that pitching in general wasn't dominated by black pitchers once integration did occur, which completely disproves your point.

And as far as baseball losing inner city kids, I don't even know what you're trying to say. First of all, that's only a recent phenomenon, within the past 20 years. During Ruth's career and all of Mays' career, baseball was still the national pastime. Pro football and basketball lagged behind college football and basketball and enjoyed nothing remotely like the popularity of today's NFL. And the NBA in those days? The definition of statistically insignificant. We're talking about a few dozen players total.

But, again, you're conflating arguments. The only question is whether Ruth's numbers would have been different had he faced Negro League pitchers. And again, there's not just a lack of evidence to support that claim, there's negative evidence.

The case for Willie Mays has not been established, and you're totally ignoring Ruth's records that I posted earlier, regarding his comparative numbers against players of his era.

Gretzky was amazing, but at the end of his career, his goal total was 894, to Gordie Howe's 801. I'll repeat this, in case you missed it. When Ruth broke the all time MLB home run record, it stood at 139. He ended his career with 714 HOME RUNS.

Reread that, then read it again. Then tell me that you can compare Gretzky's dominance to Ruth's.

When Gretzky set the single season goals record with 92, he broke Phil Esposito's single season mark of 76. When Ruth hit 60 HRs, the most anyone had ever hit in a season, other than Ruth, was 29. In order to match that, Gretzky would have had to score 150 goals.

Seriously, you've brought a knife to a gunfight. Nobody has ever crushed records like Ruth. Not in any sport. Ever.

[DraftBoy]

You're way off because you're trying to say that Ruth's numbers would have changed had he faced an integrated group of pitchers. As I've said repeatedly, not only is there no basis in fact for this contention, history bears out the reality that pitching in general wasn't dominated by black pitchers once integration did occur, which completely disproves your point.

No, what I'm actually trying to say is that there is a legitimate discussion to be had about what the impact would be. Unlike you I know its not possible to prove that his numbers would either not be influenced or greatly influenced.

And as far as baseball losing inner city kids, I don't even know what you're trying to say. First of all, that's only a recent phenomenon, within the past 20 years. During Ruth's career and all of Mays' career, baseball was still the national pastime. Pro football and basketball lagged behind college football and basketball and enjoyed nothing remotely like the popularity of today's NFL. And the NBA in those days? The definition of statistically insignificant. We're talking about a few dozen players total.

No its not...Nobody is arguing it wasn't the national pastime either. You're talking about hundreds and thousands of players. Not dozens.

But, again, you're conflating arguments. The only question is whether Ruth's numbers would have been different had he faced Negro League pitchers. And again, there's not just a lack of evidence to support that claim, there's negative evidence.

There is no evidence to suggest they wouldn't have had an affect either. You choose to ignore that when making your point but utilize it when trying to defeat the contrary point which nobody has actually made for the record.

The case for Willie Mays has not been established, and you're totally ignoring Ruth's records that I posted earlier, regarding his comparative numbers against players of his era.

Yes it has been and any ignoring I've done of Ruth's records are to the same level you have when talking about Mays defensive accomplishments. Baseball doesn't happen in a vacuum, your argument is not that he was the best player of his era, or is it?

Gretzky was amazing, but at the end of his career, his goal total was 894, to Gordie Howe's 801. I'll repeat this, in case you missed it. When Ruth broke the all time MLB home run record, it stood at 139. He ended his career with 714 HOME RUNS.

Yes 894 a record he still holds, which Ruth does not. The closest active player to Gretzky is Jagr and Selanne and both are more than 200 goals behind.

Reread that, then read it again. Then tell me that you can compare Gretzky's dominance to Ruth's.

Was there a point to this other than to show that Ruth was one hell of a HR hitter? I don't think anybody has challenged that.

When Gretzky set the single season goals record with 92, he broke Phil Esposito's single season mark of 76. When Ruth hit 60 HRs, the most anyone had ever hit in a season, other than Ruth, was 29. In order to match that, Gretzky would have had to score 150 goals.

Again a record Gretzky still holds and Ruth does not.

Seriously, you've brought a knife to a gunfight. Nobody has ever crushed records like Ruth. Not in any sport. Ever.

A gunfight? About what? That Babe Ruth was one of the greatest HR hitters of all time? Nobody is arguing that.

[WagonCircler]

No, what I'm actually trying to say is that there is a legitimate discussion to be had about what the impact would be. Unlike you I know its not possible to prove that his numbers would either not be influenced or greatly influenced.

And yet you made the claim that they would be, by saying that Ruth never had to face black pitchers--clearly implying that it would have changed his numbers.

No its not...Nobody is arguing it wasn't the national pastime either. You're talking about hundreds and thousands of players. Not dozens

During the 1950s, the prime of Mays' career, there were 8 teams in the NBA. Each team has roughly 12 players. So, quite literally, dozens.

There is no evidence to suggest they wouldn't have had an affect either. You choose to ignore that when making your point but utilize it when trying to defeat the contrary point which nobody has actually made for the record..

Quite the contrary. There is simple logic. Had black pitchers been superior during segregation, there's no logical reason that they would have join the AL and been at least better than the average pitchers. Yet they were not. This leads to the inescapable conclusion that they never were.

Yes it has been and any ignoring I've done of Ruth's records are to the same level you have when talking about Mays defensive accomplishments. Baseball doesn't happen in a vacuum, your argument is not that he was the best player of his era, or is it?



Yes 894 a record he still holds, which Ruth does not. The closest active player to Gretzky is Jagr and Selanne and both are more than 200 goals behind..

Defensive accomplishments do not meet the impact level of Offensive accomplishments, and even if they did, Ruth's accomplishments of a SERIOUSLY dominant pitcher before joining the Yankees more than close that gap.

And your comparison of Gretzky's still holding the goals record is intellectually dishonest and you know it. Ruth held the HR record for 40 years. And those who have passed it since Aaron (by the way NOT a contemporary of Ruth's and who had whopping 33% more at bats than Ruth--12,000 to 8,000), were chemically enhanced frauds.

When Ruth retired, he held over 50 all time MLB records. Gretzky? Not even close.

I'm not even going to get into Dead Ball era details. They make Ruth's numbers even more staggering.

Not only was Ruth the greatest HR hitter, he was the MVP of all time. His impact on baseball is unparalleled by any other figure in any sport.