Buffalo range NEW OWNER

[chernobylwraiths]

Re: Buffalo range NEW OWNER

Ok, just got home from the club and the Range is back up.

I was worried!

[chernobylwraiths]

Re: Buffalo range NEW OWNER

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.

[feldspar]

Re: Buffalo range NEW OWNER

I think not.

I think not, therefore I aren't.

[Rockstar]

Re: Buffalo range NEW OWNER

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?

[swiper]

Re: Buffalo range NEW OWNER

I heard Donald Sterling hates Babe Ruth.

[chernobylwraiths]

Re: Buffalo range NEW OWNER

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)

[Rockstar]

Re: Buffalo range NEW OWNER

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.

“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.

[chernobylwraiths]

Re: Buffalo range NEW OWNER

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.

[Rockstar]

Re: Buffalo range NEW OWNER

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.

[upstart]

Re: Buffalo range NEW OWNER

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.

[TacklingDummy]

Re: Buffalo range NEW OWNER

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.

[The Popcorn]

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.

[WagonCircler]

Re: Buffalo range NEW OWNER

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.

[pmoon6]

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.

[TacklingDummy]

Re: Buffalo range NEW OWNER

Mantle if he didn't drink and have bum knees is another one.