Clemens coming back to....

[CommishJoe]

Originally Posted by Dagrims

He also never had the chance to play against SP #5 in a pitching rotation.

Or play in the smaller parks they have today
Or play with the "livlier" baseball
Or have access to the latest "advances" in training programs

That's why I've always said the argument is purely opinion. But, then again, I digress.

I have no problems with Clemens' schedule. However, he shouldn't be parading up there saying he'll help the young guys when he won't be there unless he's pitching.

[Prodigal Son]

Originally Posted by CommishJoe

Or play in the smaller parks they have today
Or play with the "livlier" baseball
Or have access to the latest "advances" in training programs

That's why I've always said the argument is purely opinion. But, then again, I digress.

I have no problems with Clemens' schedule. However, he shouldn't be parading up there saying he'll help the young guys when he won't be there unless he's pitching.

That and the majority of top athletes today play a sport other than baseball. Back in Ruth's day, they all played baseball. And they all played for fewer teams than are out there today.

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by CommishJoe

Or play in the smaller parks they have today
Or play with the "livlier" baseball
Or have access to the latest "advances" in training programs

The first two don't have much to do with the argument because you can adjust across eras pretty easily. INCREDIBLY easily, in fact, when it comes to baseball.

The third one plays more to Jax's implied argument. I think there's elements of a historical slope argument in there. I'm not sure how much I like to talk about things in terms of a historical slope because a) there's no convincing way I've read to quantify it so it is pretty arbitrary, and b) OBVIOUSLY players nowadays are better baseball players than those of the 1920's. People are more athletic and there are, as you say, advances in training.

Also, re: Jax, I would say Ruth's 1923 were better than his 1920 and 1921 seasons. It's also debatable that season could be considered better than any of Barry's best seasons once fielding is accounted for. Overall, I do agree that Barry's peak of 2000-2004 is the highest one of all time, but I think Ruth beats him with his overall performance. Barry and Theodore are my 2 and 2a, though. I go back and forth with them all the time.

[marc]

Originally Posted by Prodigal Son

That and the majority of top athletes today play a sport other than baseball. Back in Ruth's day, they all played baseball. And they all played for fewer teams than are out there today.

"""

People always forget this.

[magnet]

Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera

Probably not, but I think when the offer was put out there to the team that if anyone has any objections to go speak with Joe, and nobody responded, I don't think it's alright to assume that people might be bothered by it. I think it's safe to say that the person that would be bothered by making that concession to a player in Roger's situation who is coming to improve the team's chances at a championship immensely would be the exception and not the rule.



Trust me... feel good rhetoric ain't my thing. He did get a ****load of money and gets to do what he wants. In turn he's, as you say, taking the ball every 5th day, pitching his ass off, and improving the team A LOT by doing so. Whether or not he's a "good teammate" by public standards wouldn't matter to me if I were a Yankees fan given the improvement he's made to the team.

I still don't understand what the big deal is, other than the fact that his contract breaks the convention of the player being at every game. I have no problem differentiating Roger's situation as a very special case.

Maybe it's the fact that there are millions of people in this country who would love to spend time with their families, but they have to work 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year for 50+ years, and will make less money doing so in those years than Clemens will make in June. I'm not saying what he is doing is wrong, but I completely understand any backlash against his "I just want to spend time with my kids!" crap.

[Prodigal Son]

Originally Posted by marc

"""

People always forget this.

Who knows, ya boy Ted Ginn could have been the next Rickey Henderson had he grown up on baseball!

[DougWyatt]

Originally Posted by Prodigal Son

Who knows, ya boy Ted Ginn could have been the next Rickey Henderson had he grown up on baseball!

Naa, lotsa people are fast. Faster than Rickey. He was just uncanny when it came to thievery.

[Prodigal Son]

Originally Posted by DougWyatt

Naa, lotsa people are fast. Faster than Rickey. He was just uncanny when it came to thievery.

Lots of people are fast. Just check out a D-I track meet. But Ted Ginn isn't Ted Ginn because he's fast. He's a much more well-rounded athlete.

Anyway, I'm not saying Ted Ginn would have been the next Rickey Henderson. I'm just saying we'll never know. And we'll never know about hundreds of elite athletes every year who pick other sports over baseball in the transition from HS to college or from college to the professional ranks. One thing I've realized since I started casually following college recruiting is that a lot of very good prospects (in football especially) are also top baseball prospects. It's just that they almost always pick football--guys like Desean Jackson and Jake Christiensen. And they are top baseball prospects coming out of HS despite dedicating a lot of their formative athletic careers to sports other than baseball. That wouldn't have been the case in Ruth's day. They would have played baseball growing up and most likely only baseball. And they would have chosen baseball as a profession.

[Skipaway]

Of course, high school or college sports back in Ruth's days weren't anywhere close to what they are today. The population pool was way smaller, and the school sports programs were way worse.

[Prodigal Son]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Of course, high school or college sports back in Ruth's days weren't anywhere close to what they are today. The population pool was way smaller, and the school sports programs were way worse.

Yeah, but those things would have negatively affected Ruth's level of play as well. Players going on to play other sports in today's era don't negatively affect Barry Bonds' level of play.

Nobody is saying that the actual talent level on the field in 1920 was higher than it is today, I don't think. But that's not how we measure great players. If so, the lists of 100 best players ever to play a sport should all be like 80% current players. Technological, physiological and medical advances have made today's athlete the best athlete ever, along with a general increase in size and strength of the human at a high rate over the past x years and still going strong today.

We measure great baseball players by how they did relative to their eras, and most the things you named would have affected every athlete in the era, while the things I named benefit those who actually decide to play baseball.

IOW, it didn't give Ruth a competitive advantage that schools had spotty sports programs (although that whole argument is pretty poor given the widespread nature of both neighborhood baseball and amateur leagues at a magnitude that is nearly unfathomable today), because Ruth would have been a victim of that too, but it does give Bonds a competitive advantage that a lot of would-be all-star pitchers are playing other sports right now.

[DougWyatt]

Originally Posted by Prodigal Son

And they would have chosen baseball as a profession.

Unless, of course, they were talented black athletes. Or, for the most part, not from America.

What I mean by that is ... I would say that blacks in the MLB and MLB recruiting world wide, have added more than American kids playing other sports have taken away. (speaking in terms of league talent)

[Prodigal Son]

Originally Posted by DougWyatt

Unless, of course, they were talented black athletes. Or, for the most part, not from America.

What I mean by that is ... I would say that blacks in the MLB and MLB recruiting world wide, have added more than American kids playing other sports have taken away. (speaking in terms of league talent)

What percentage of Bonds' at-bats have come against black pitchers? Maybe one-half of one percent? I don't think the absence of black pitchers in Ruth's day made much difference relative to their presence in Bonds' era. Latino pitchers, on the other hand...

I do think you're underestimating how much kids playing other sports is taking away from baseball. What percentage of elite 14 year-old athletes play baseball as their first sport today? 10%? It used to be more like 95%. That's a tremendous difference. You could have a population of 30 million in 1920 producing as much pitching talent as a population of 300 million today.

[DougWyatt]

Don't get me wrong, I do think that the talent in todays MLB could be alot better - if kids played more baseball. I agree with you there.

I'm only saying that the talent level coming in, comparitively to Ruths time, is just as good. In particular with regards to the Latino influx.

IE ..

The US baseball population circa 1920 is <= the US (including blacks), latino, etc. baseball population today.

[Prodigal Son]

Originally Posted by DougWyatt

Don't get me wrong, I do think that the talent in todays MLB could be alot better - if kids played more baseball. I agree with you there.

I'm only saying that the talent level coming in, comparitively to Ruths time, is just as good. In particular with regards to the Latino influx.

IE ..

The US baseball population circa 1920 is <= the US (including blacks), latino, etc. baseball population today.

You also have to remember that all of the talent in 1925 was spread out among just 16 major league teams. So if the baseball talent pool's size today is equal to the talent pool of 1925, then the talent level in modern baseball would be much lower than it was back then. The talent pool today needs to be roughly twice as large as the talent pool of 1925 to maintain the same level of play because there are roughly twice as many teams today as there were then.

[toolboxnj]

Why does it matter what percentage of baseball players are black anyways? When people talk about it, it's always a race issue. Believe me, the baseball market is going to find the talent where ever it is. The Mets opened a camp in Ghana last year I believe (I know people from Ghana and they are super nice individuals, really a pleasure). If you can hit a ball or pitch, you can be colored green and people wouldn't give a damn. I'm tired of this racial argument.

[Joshv02]

Originally Posted by toolboxnj

Why does it matter what percentage of baseball players are black anyways? When people talk about it, it's always a race issue. Believe me, the baseball market is going to find the talent where ever it is. The Mets opened a camp in Ghana last year I believe (I know people from Ghana and they are super nice individuals, really a pleasure). If you can hit a ball or pitch, you can be colored green and people wouldn't give a damn. I'm tired of this racial argument.

Race matters b/c people are comparing a pre-1947 player to a post-1947 player.



Anyway, it just seems remarkable to think that the talent level in baseball in the 1920s was anything remotely close to the talent level, as a whole, today. The professionalism of the sport should make sure of that. Mean salary more than doubled in real dollars b/w 1920 and 1946, stayed steady, and doubled again by the mid-1970s.

Another way to get at comparative league quality is in Gassko's work; the 3rd of his three-part series is here: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/ar...ty-part-three/

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by Prodigal Son

You also have to remember that all of the talent in 1925 was spread out among just 16 major league teams. So if the baseball talent pool's size today is equal to the talent pool of 1925, then the talent level in modern baseball would be much lower than it was back then. The talent pool today needs to be roughly twice as large as the talent pool of 1925 to maintain the same level of play because there are roughly twice as many teams today as there were then.

Another x-factor that hasn't been mentioned: The population of the US was lower in the 20's than it is now. This is why I don't like historical slope... everything is accounted for arbitrarily. Glassko's (sic) article that josh linked to is interesting stuff though.

It's also why when we talk about "greatest player", in reality we're talking about "greatest career".

[Skipaway]

We are talking about greatest player? I thought we were talking about best as best skills, not best in having achievements.

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

We are talking about greatest player? I thought we were talking about best as best skills, not best in having achievements.

The point I was making was that when people normally talk about "greatest player" they actually mean "greatest career."

[darkhorse]

It won't be long.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2875480

"Roger Clemens is four innings closer to his major-league return and pushing himself relentlessly.

With New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner watching from a private box at Legends Field, Clemens threw 58 pitches and gave up only a solo homer Friday night for Class-A Tampa in the first minor-league start of his latest comeback.

He's scheduled to make a start with Double-A Trenton on Wednesday and could join New York's rotation as early as May 28 at Toronto or June 2 or 3 at Boston."