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!
There is work to be done and things to be learned. We are going to try to get the old look back - or something close to it. We also know there are bugs. A thread will be started to report bugs and then we can pass those onto the host.
Thank you for all the patience and support with this - hopefully this will greatly reduce the crashes and other site issues we have had lately.
Please use this thread to report any issues you come across
http://www.billszone.com/fanzone/forum/feedback-forums/billszone-q-a/6521455-upgrade-report-bugs-here
Babe Ruth was great, but there is no way you could say that his numbers wouldn't be affected by the integration of not only blacks but all the other nationalities (I know Mays didn't have to play against Japanese either). Putting very good blacks and other nationalities on the mound would reduce the number of marginal white pitchers, that alone could have an effect.
There are more factors too that I'm really not sure of. Ruth had some really good teammates too during his heyday, so it would be a little more difficult to pitch around him. And of course there is the little fact that today's ground rule double would be considered a home run in Ruth's time.
Babe Ruth was great, but there is no way you could say that his numbers wouldn't be affected by the integration of not only blacks but all the other nationalities (I know Mays didn't have to play against Japanese either). Putting very good blacks and other nationalities on the mound would reduce the number of marginal white pitchers, that alone could have an effect.
There are more factors too that I'm really not sure of. Ruth had some really good teammates too during his heyday, so it would be a little more difficult to pitch around him. And of course there is the little fact that today's ground rule double would be considered a home run in Ruth's time.
hard to say about cobb. apparently, in his later years, he really changed his views on blacks.
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.
That's not a claim, that's a statement of fact. You do know the difference, correct?
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Again you offer no actual fact to back up your statement.
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.
Only as dishonest as you attempting to assert that the number that Ruth broke a record by somehow correlates into his dominance. Which was never in question. How many records does Ruth currently hold? I honestly don't know.
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.
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.
COMING SOON...
Originally posted by Dr.Lecter
We were both drunk and Hillary did not look that bad at 2 AM, I swear!!!!!!
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?
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.
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.
Last edited by WagonCircler; 04-30-2014, 05:15 PM.
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.
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
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)
Tweet
Comment