If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
All: The new Billszone site with the updated software is scheduled to be turned on Tuesday, May 21, 2024. The company that built it, Dynascale, estimates a FOUR HOUR shut down, from 8pm Pacific, (5pm Eastern) while they get it up and running. Nobody will be able to post in any forum until they are done. Afterwards, you may need to do a web search for the site, as old links will not work, because the site is getting a new IP address. Please be patient. If there are bugs, we will tackle them one at a time. Remember the goal is to be up and running with no glitches by camp. Doing this now assures us of that, because it gives us all summer to get our ducks in a row. Thank you!
I am?? Damnit what the hell am I supposed to do with all my birther stuff now?
For the love of God can somebody write a competent memo at least once that can keep me straight about what I am now being accused of being?
Inuit.
Patti
Note: Discotrish information is Conspiralicious and has NO BASIS IN FACT. Considering her opinions may be HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH. Please do not get your medical advice from a subforum of a subforum of a sports message board.
regardless of any of that, MLB still excluded a number of players that excelled at their craft, like Paige.
It is not just that blacks are necessarily better - but that good and great players were not allowed to play
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.
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.
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.
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
Note: Discotrish information is Conspiralicious and has NO BASIS IN FACT. Considering her opinions may be HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH. Please do not get your medical advice from a subforum of a subforum of a sports message board.
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.
Tweet
Comment