Interesting Test (concerning Barry Bonds and the Giants)

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

Barry Bonds' percentage of hits that were home runs, by season (data from "Edmund Dantes" over on the redsoxnation board)

1986 (Age 22): 17.4
1987 (Age 23): 17.4
1988 (Age 24): 15.8
1989 (Age 25): 13.2
1990 (Age 26): 21.2
1991 (Age 27): 16.8
1992 (Age 28): 23.1
1993 (Age 29): 25.4
1994 (Age 30): 30.3
1995 (Age 31): 22.1
1996 (Age 32): 26.4
1997 (Age 33): 25.8
1998 (Age 34): 22.2
1999 (Age 35): 36.6
2000 (Age 36): 33.3
2001 (Age 37): 46.8
2002 (Age 38): 30.9
2003 (Age 39): 33.8
2004 (Age 40): 33.3

Plot this on a chart and look at what mysteriously happens in 1999. Interesting point 1: Bonds hired Greg Anderson as his "personal weight trainer" in 1998. Interesting point 2: Bonds' ex-girlfriend, Kimberly Bell, testified before a grand jury that Bonds told her in 2000 that he was using steroids.

Based on that, Bonds' "records" and all of his performances from 1999 on mean nothing and should be expunged, because that wasn't him performing; it was the chemicals.

How does quoting Barry's HR% and saying he took steroids have ANYTHING to do with the initial arguement that baseball is in a sad state? This looks to me like you are just getting Aadik's goat because you know he's a Giants fan. You seem to flip back and forth in your arguments, first it's the roids as why baseball is in a sad state, then it's the money, then it's free agency, then it's Barry.

Pick one, and christ, if it is so bad, why don't you follow like Basketball or some other sport instead of having sour grapes? THIS AIN'T THE GOOD 'OL DAYS ANYMORE. It's called modern civilization, where people do bad things and the mass media and the internet makes sure everyone knows about it, hears about it, sees it first-hand via internet streaming video until a satellite TV channel is devoted to it. You take the good with the bad.

I think a person's opinion on this topic is directly correlated to their personality. If someone is naturally an optimist, they see parity, increased talent pool, more at-the-ready coverage as a bonus. If someone is a pessimist, they see the roids and the overpaying of players and all that is bad.

I'm just tired. I'm so tired. MD's done it, I finally jumped off the bridge...

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Dagrims

This is one of the five most ludicrous posts I've ever read, aside from the "different game today" sentence and the mention of Ruth never having to hit against a minority pitcher. You honestly believe that all batters in the major leagues today are better than Ruth would be, because they face middle relievers, sliders, and have better equipment. You'd argue that Mike Cameron is better than Ruth would be. Somehow, a guy like Phil Nevin has been able to learn to hit different pitches and adapt to middle relievers, but Ruth could not. I wonder if Phil Nevin could hit a spitball. I wonder if Phil Nevin's productivity would decrease if he had to travel by bus instead of chartered aircraft. I wonder if Phil Nevin would see baseballs as clearly that weren't switched out for brand new ones every other pitch. I wonder if Phil Nevin could adapt to inside fastballs that didn't result in umpire warnings/ejections. I wonder how he'd do without the benefits of modern strength training and dietary supplements. Wow, if Phil Nevin played in the 20s he'd never get out of D ball.

Okay, is the talent pool level today equal to that of 80 years ago ? Can you reasonably argue that the inclusion of African American and Hispanic players 80 years ago would not have raised the talent pool significantly (or the corollary - Ruth wasnt playing against the best) ? We're simply measuring against the league at the time ( a measure MD and I actually agree on), and when the league has a lower talent level, outliers appear to be more so.

[Crapshoot]

Going back to the original topic- Mariners Fan- how did the result turn out ?

[Wheele8]

This has been a most fascinating read.
People are so passionate about their specific stances. I love seeing that no matter what the topic is, or how much I might disagree with the individual.
I just wanted to make the point that I think everyone is comparing apples with oranges. The game of baseball is so much different now then it was in Ruth's era, and is also much more different than it was in the 60s and 70s. I respect people that love a specific era, but don't insult someone else's preference - that is all it is, a personal preference.
Arguements over the meaningfullness of records is what brings about this anamosity - but records should be judged against the era they are accomplished. Ruth dominated his era regardless of whether it was integrated or they used bullpens differently-everyone else played in that same era. Bonds has also dominated his era regardless of whether he's taking performance enhancing drugs-clearly Bonds isn't the only one juicing.
If things were different, all we would know is that things would be different. It's not worth trying to figure out how Ruth would do today, or how Bonds would do in the 20s, they both were great in the era they played in, and that's the only way you can fairly judge them.

[jackson41]

Originally Posted by Wheele8

Arguements over the meaningfullness of records is what brings about this anamosity - but records should be judged against the era they are accomplished. Ruth dominated his era regardless of whether it was integrated or they used bullpens differently-everyone else played in that same era. Bonds has also dominated his era regardless of whether he's taking performance enhancing drugs-clearly Bonds isn't the only one juicing.
If things were different, all we would know is that things would be different. It's not worth trying to figure out how Ruth would do today, or how Bonds would do in the 20s, they both were great in the era they played in, and that's the only way you can fairly judge them.

Very well said. I guess we should all enjoy baseball as it is today and remember the way it was in the past. We can't bring back the way baseball was, and we can't send todays players back in time. As a baseball fan, I love the sport as a whole, modern baseball as well as baseball history. The comparison conversatons are still fun though, because there is no correct answer. I guess the only true way to compare players is to fire up ootp and play them against each other.

[Dagrims]

Originally Posted by Aadik

Okay, is the talent pool level today equal to that of 80 years ago ? Can you reasonably argue that the inclusion of African American and Hispanic players 80 years ago would not have raised the talent pool significantly (or the corollary - Ruth wasnt playing against the best) ? We're simply measuring against the league at the time ( a measure MD and I actually agree on), and when the league has a lower talent level, outliers appear to be more so.

Let me ask you a similar question: Can you reasonably argue that the contraction of the major leagues of today by 50% would not raise the talent pool significantly?

There is a significantly larger pool of talent to draw on in today's era because minorities are allowed to play. The number of major leaguers today is twice the number of Ruth's day, however. That contributes to a dilution of the overall talent level. Are the two factors (no minorities back then, twice as many teams now) a wash?

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Dagrims

Let me ask you a similar question: Can you reasonably argue that the contraction of the major leagues of today by 50% would not raise the talent pool significantly?

There is a significantly larger pool of talent to draw on in today's era because minorities are allowed to play. The number of major leaguers today is twice the number of Ruth's day, however. That contributes to a dilution of the overall talent level. Are the two factors (no minorities back then, twice as many teams now) a wash?

No, because the population increase has mirrored the increase in baseball teams. More so, the pool for baseball talent now has a large proportion outside the US, which didnt exist (and wouldnt have been allowed) back then. Population washes out the no of teams (check the teams: population ratio), which still leaves race and the larger international pool.

[Mike D]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

From the second link:

"The San Francisco Chronicle reported Sunday that the BALCO prosecutors subpoenaed Bonds' former girlfriend, Kimberly Bell, 35, last week and questioned her in front of a grand jury about her relationship with Bonds.

Bell reportedly testified that Bonds had notified her in 2000 that he had begun using steroids. Though she never saw him use the performance-enhancing drugs, she saw changes in Bonds -- such as baldness, acne and a shorter temper -- consistent with steroid use."

God only knows I dislike Barry Bonds, but there are a few things I dislike more.

Anyway. Don't you think, that maybe, just maybe, she's saying things like that to help get her away from the possible IRS case that the governement might try to bring against Bonds? You know, a 'plea bargin"

[Dagrims]

Originally Posted by Aadik

No, because the population increase has mirrored the increase in baseball teams. More so, the pool for baseball talent now has a large proportion outside the US, which didnt exist (and wouldnt have been allowed) back then. Population washes out the no of teams (check the teams: population ratio), which still leaves race and the larger international pool.

My contention is that the average talent level of today's major league pitcher is lower than the average talent level of the major league pitcher of the 1920s. I don't believe that the increase in population (and eligible players) has been enough to supply the major leagues with enough talented pitching. It certainly appears easier to find major league caliber hitting talent than pitching talent. The success ratios of high-round pitching draftees and the seemingly continuous search for pitchers to round out a staff seem to back this up. Obviously, this is anecdotal.

I'd also point out that in the 20s, through Aaron's time, most of the best athletes chose baseball - it was America's sport and baseball dominated the landscape. Now baseball fights with football and basketball for those athletes. Sure, the population has grown tremendously in the past eight decades, but I don't think the population of athletes choosing to become professional baseball players has grown nearly as much.

[treedom]

Originally Posted by Mike D

God only knows I dislike Barry Bonds

But now we know too.

[Mike D]

Originally Posted by treedom

But now we know too.

Should I change that to everyone?

[Gil Thorp]

Regarding the talent pool one thing that needs to be taken into account, for a long time baseball truly was America's past time and MLB was what young athletes aspired to. Today, and I read and hear this discussed by baseball people, the best young athletes, especially young Black athletes, simply aren't playing baseball anymore.

Edit: I didn't see Dagrims' post.

[Crapshoot]

1920 Census:

U.S. population: 106M
White: 95.5M

2000 Census:
US: 281,421,906
White: 211M


Major league teams:
1920: 16
2000: 30

% Increase:
ML teams: 87.5%
White US population (holding talent pool constant essentialy): 120%

Among the big 3, Caucasians are the biggest segment only in baseball - so even if you account for other sports, they don't tend to gravitate elsewhere as much. More so, you then have to take into account the economics that make baseball a valued profession today- the best players will play baseball, instead of becoming doctors, lawyers, salesman due to income needs. We can't say the same in 1920.

As for the pitching - you hit my arguement - its anectodal. I just don't see see the logic behind it - we aren't even playing in the greatest offensive era (that would be the 1930's).

[jackson41]

Originally Posted by Dagrims

I'd also point out that in the 20s, through Aaron's time, most of the best athletes chose baseball - it was America's sport and baseball dominated the landscape. Now baseball fights with football and basketball for those athletes. Sure, the population has grown tremendously in the past eight decades, but I don't think the population of athletes choosing to become professional baseball players has grown nearly as much.

This is true, in the US. Kids in the DR still primarily play baseball and the best of the best end up in MLB. This influx of foreign players fills the gap left by the best US athletes who chose other sports. I have no actuall facts to back up this stance, but it seems to make sense to me.

[IatricSB]

Originally Posted by Tiger Fan

In the early 70's I dreamed of being able to watch virtually every game like you now can. Unfortunately, now that we are able to see every game I no longer have any desire to do so because it is not the same game.

Bingo.

[IatricSB]

Originally Posted by Aadik

See, I understand that- but before, baseball had people working for a labor that was unfair. I expect the right to earn as much as I'm worth, and I find it very hard to oppose anyone essentialy asking for the same thing. I see the idea on the large scale, but the owners would be making more money if players made less- what they charge you is almost irrelevant of their costs- its what you can bear.

And they'll end up pricing some fans right out of it. I have no problem with players getting their cut, but instead of sticking it to the fans, reduce tickets/concessions to make it more affordable for the average family and distribute the money back to the players and owners without one side or the other trying to get the lion's share of the loot. It would be nice to be able to pick up a magazine or newspaper and have stories about the players themselves rather than their salary or contract negotiations. It would be nice to not have to read about a greedy owner holding a city for hostage over a stadium by threatening to move if they don't get what they want. It would be nice to not have to read about that highly paid prima donna who's unhappy because Joe down the road got a million more than he did.

When you make 2 million, 5 million, 10 million, and more you don't have to worry about making ends meet. Ends are meeting like a mofo so why does the fan end up paying more out of their 30 to 100K salary so that some athlete/owner can have 6 hummers instead of 5. I'm not on the side of the player and I'm definitely not on the side of the owner. I feel sorry for the fan that is unable to enjoy watching a "game" because they can only afford to take their family out once or twice a year.

[twins15]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

Totally legal under the board rules (you should read them sometime) and appropriate in cases where the other side is wrong and doesn't know what they're talking about.

No point to read them really, as they seem to be enforced sporadically anyway.

[IatricSB]

Originally Posted by twins15

I actually agree. Since he wouldn't have been allowed to play in the MLB, he'd be a rumor in the same sense guys like Oscar Robertson or Josh Gibson are.

EDIT: Not sure how this helps prove your point, though.

Who? Mixing up your sports?

[twins15]

Whoops! Oscar Charleston, I meant. Bad mistake.

[swampdragon]

Originally Posted by Dagrims

I'd also point out that in the 20s, through Aaron's time, most of the best athletes chose baseball - it was America's sport and baseball dominated the landscape. Now baseball fights with football and basketball for those athletes. Sure, the population has grown tremendously in the past eight decades, but I don't think the population of athletes choosing to become professional baseball players has grown nearly as much.

Excellent point, which I think is enough for me to disagree that the level of play has gotten better over the last 30 years. Logically, the highest level of play would have been the late 50s and early 60s, with integration, population growth over the previous decades, and before the 5man rotation and major expansion with its accompanying dilution of talent.