My Official divorce from baseball

[BaseballMan]

I enjoy looking at stats but when a game is on TV I'm watching the game. I'm not a manager so my job is to enjoy the game.

[spit ball]

Originally Posted by Leo_The_Lip

This is utterly wrong, and Steven Jay Gould, who was the smartest man in the world when died, said so.

Here's a review of Gould's book, FULL HOUSE by the almost as awesome Michael Schermer, that explains precisely why your are wrong.

Michael Shermer » Bicycles, Baseball, Bacteria & Bach

It would be presumptuous of me to attempt to summarize Gould's genius, but his specific rebuttle to your comment above is:

>>It was easier for Ted Williams to “hit ’em where they ain’t” 50 years ago than it is for Wade Boggs today, because every position in the field is manned by players whose average level of play is much better than before.<<

Please take the time to not only read the link, but go to the library and check out a copy of FULL HOUSE. Remember, Gould was a huge baseball fan and knew how to write for popular consumption, too.

Interesting article. But just because one book says something, doesn't mean it's absolutely right. So fielders have gotten so excellent? But hitters haven't?

My feeling is too many players today don't have the fire in the gut to win and excel like they used to. They're more interested in checking the market to see how their stocks are doing than study and talk about baseball. It's more of a job to them than an obsession. I think more modern players would be at the top of the WAR chart if they had better attitudes. They certainly are better athletes. But they're not better ball players. At least, not better hitters. If they were, there would be more modern players at the top in spite of (maybe) better fielding.

[spit ball]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Anyone who doesn't think professional sports has always been about the money is someone who is either unaware of the history involved, rather naive, hopelessly romantic, or blinded by nostalgia.

You're the one who said, "Then that beautiful girl, "baseball" cheated on me...for money". This would seem to indicate you think money became more of an influence than it was in earlier years. History is against this view. While the amount of dollars has certainly grown, the concern for dollars has changed little.

Originally Posted by wireman

This is pretty sweeping for you. Do you have any data on the historical concern for dollars?How far back are you going with this?

Hello Louie. Yeah, baseball owners were always interested in making money. And players were always interested in making the most they could. But it seems like the game has changed over the years where, in general, both are now more interested in money and less in the sport. TV revenue. Airplane travel. The rise of other major sports. Changing culture. I'd be surprised if baseball hadn't changed too. Unfortunately the change isn't for the better. Just my opinion, of course.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by spit ball

Hello Louie. Yeah, baseball owners were always interested in making money. And players were always interested in making the most they could. But it seems like the game has changed over the years where, in general, both are now more interested in money and less in the sport. TV revenue. Airplane travel. The rise of other major sports. Changing culture. I'd be surprised if baseball hadn't changed too. Unfortunately the change isn't for the better. Just my opinion, of course.

You still miss the point regarding relative performance vs the pool of talent. This happens in every endevour, sport business crime art and politics!.

Before 1947 the best white players were working in an artificially suppressed pool of lesser talent so they could dominate. Integration of MLB didn't happen overnight. It took more than a decade. The black players who made it had to be exceptional so they benefited from a not yet complete pool of talent in the early 50's as well. It's noticeable that in the 1960's you have the double whammy of a better talent pool via integration and the Hispanic market combined with a low scoring environment suppressing offensive performances across the board. Most of the exceptional seasons came from pitchers.

Over the last decade or more the international explosion of baseball has increased the pool incredibly but also skewed it as teams bring in exceptional talent such as Darvish, Tanaka, Puig, Abreu, Ryu and the infield magicians from Curacao and Aruba. Add all that to the cyclic domestic production of talent such as Trout Kershaw Strasburg and many others. The average talent level is higher than ever which makes dominant performances difficult but not impossible. The great players of history playing today would still be great but they would not dominate as they did in their era.

[spit ball]

Originally Posted by RchW

You still miss the point regarding relative performance vs the pool of talent. This happens in every endevour, sport business crime art and politics!.

Before 1947 the best white players were working in an artificially suppressed pool of lesser talent so they could dominate. Integration of MLB didn't happen overnight. It took more than a decade. The black players who made it had to be exceptional so they benefited from a not yet complete pool of talent in the early 50's as well. It's noticeable that in the 1960's you have the double whammy of a better talent pool via integration and the Hispanic market combined with a low scoring environment suppressing offensive performances across the board. Most of the exceptional seasons came from pitchers.

Over the last decade or more the international explosion of baseball has increased the pool incredibly but also skewed it as teams bring in exceptional talent such as Darvish, Tanaka, Puig, Abreu, Ryu and the infield magicians from Curacao and Aruba. Add all that to the cyclic domestic production of talent such as Trout Kershaw Strasburg and many others. The average talent level is higher than ever which makes dominant performances difficult but not impossible. The great players of history playing today would still be great but they would not dominate as they did in their era.

Rich, I got the point and answered it.

You posts continue to make my point. If the talent has been so much better (in the last 20-30 years), you would find many more modern players at the top of the WAR chart. That's not happening. Again, better athletes but not better ball players. Or maybe better ball players who don't try as hard. Because, according to your logic, the WAR chart should be dominated by modern players. If the fielders are better, then the hitters should be also.

[wireman]

Originally Posted by spit ball

Hello Louie. Yeah, baseball owners were always interested in making money. And players were always interested in making the most they could. But it seems like the game has changed over the years where, in general, both are now more interested in money and less in the sport. TV revenue. Airplane travel. The rise of other major sports. Changing culture. I'd be surprised if baseball hadn't changed too. Unfortunately the change isn't for the better. Just my opinion, of course.

This sounds very subjective and nostalgic.

I have similar feelings, because I remember when a lot of ballplayers were mere mortals. When I was a kid, my favorite player was an undersized first baseman called Bob Boyd. Not the most effective player in the world (a singles hitter in a power position), but he was a sweet, level, unassuming guy -- and everything he hit was a line drive. He retired in his 40s after making thousands of dollars in pro ball, then he spent 20 years driving a bus. A regular guy.

I miss guys like that who couldn't possibly be playing baseball to get rich. But, yeah, it's a different world now. In those days, I had a doctor who made house calls.

And, really, when a guy's hitting line drives in 2014, I can't tell if it's because he's making millions or because loves the game. Same line drives.

[spit ball]

Originally Posted by wireman

This sounds very subjective and nostalgic.

I have similar feelings, because I remember when a lot of ballplayers were mere mortals. When I was a kid, my favorite player was an undersized first baseman called Bob Boyd. Not the most effective player in the world (a singles hitter in a power position), but he was a sweet, level, unassuming guy -- and everything he hit was a line drive. He retired in his 40s after making thousands of dollars in pro ball, then he spent 20 years driving a bus. A regular guy.

I miss guys like that who couldn't possibly be playing baseball to get rich. But, yeah, it's a different world now. In those days, I had a doctor who made house calls.

And, really, when a guy's hitting line drives in 2014, I can't tell if it's because he's making millions or because loves the game. Same line drives.

Yeah, I also had a doc who made house calls. I went to a Dodger game in the summer of '63 right after high school graduation. Stomach hurt the whole time. After the game (Koufax was pitching iirc) I went home and it got worse. On a Sunday night my dad called the doc. He left a party and came over to the house. Then they rushed me to the hospital to have my appendix removed. Those days are long gone. And so are ballplayers like Bob Boyd. Now they all seem to be generic. You can look at player pics in the ootp photo pack. Modern players look like they all came from the same mode. Doesn't matter their color or ethnicity. They mostly all look kind of the same. Then look at pics from bygone years. You can see their faces have character. They are individuals. Times have really changed. But those are just thoughts from an old man. Younger folks need not pay attention. They wouldn't understand anyway. It's like cars. Nowadays you can't tell a chevy from a ford without looking really close. Cars don't have character anymore either.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by spit ball

Rich, I got the point and answered it.

You posts continue to make my point. If the talent has been so much better (in the last 20-30 years), you would find many more modern players at the top of the WAR chart. That's not happening. Again, better athletes but not better ball players. Or maybe better ball players who don't try as hard. Because, according to your logic, the WAR chart should be dominated by modern players. If the fielders are better, then the hitters should be also.

That's not really true. WAR measures players against their peers, not players from the past.

So if the typical replacement or even average player now is significantly better than the typical average or replacement player in the past (as is being argued by Rich and others in this thread), the current WAR leaders could be (and are imo) significantly better than players from the past and yet put up smaller WAR numbers.

All WAR really measures is the spread between the best and worst players playing at a specific time. It's not really a good tool to use for comparisons across eras.

[Lukas Berger]

I'd like to believe that past players were the greatest. In my mind they're the true legends of the game and I'm kind of sad I was born too late to watch Mantle, Mays, Koufax, Gehrig, Ruth, etc. etc play.

That being said, one thing that convinces me that modern players are much better than past players is simply watching the surviving video of games from the 40's, 50's, and 60's.

Especially in the games from the 40's and 50's, the guys just don't look half as athletic as guys nowadays. They look more like the D2 and D3 college guys I regularly watch play in my area than they do modern MLB players.

The pitchers don't properly repeat their motions, batters swings are all over the place, guys just look really awkward running, throwing, moving etc.

At first I wondered if this didn't have something to do with the video technology of the time, but I see a huge difference when watching some of the truly elite guys in those old videos, like DiMaggio f.e. They look more like today's players in their overall athleticism and baseball skills.

Given that, I don't think it's a video issue. From what I can see on tape, I genuinely think that 95%+ of those old players had significantly inferior athleticism and overall skills to the guys playing now.

I may be wrong and don't want to be too dogmatic, but that's my take on the subject fwiw.

[Déjà Bru]

You know, capitalization counts. You can be divorced from Baseball and I would not blame you. Heck, I might even join you. But you cannot ever be divorced from baseball itself if you have ever been a fan of the game at all.

[canadiancreed]

Personally I'm surprised the OP took this long to get rid of that cheating so and so, I kicked her to the curb back in 1994 when I was told "more money or I stop delivering". Obviously, she found a new sugar daddy, and I started hanging out with her younger sister, minor league baseball. She may not have the fanciest parks, or the supposed best players, but she's got heart, and likes having me around without expecting me to max my credit card every time I come over. Oh I'm sure MLB still has her fans that pay her way, just like the old saying "fools and their money are soon parted" is still alive and well, but when we visit her older sisters fancy place, all I can think of is when can we go back to my new beau's simple parks and non ten dollar a cup beers.

EDIT: Wow it's amazing how hard it is to write something like that without gender pronouns.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by wireman

This is pretty sweeping for you. Do you have any data on the historical concern for dollars?How far back are you going with this?

Owners being concerned about profits is as old as professional sports. It is a business after all. Conflict between owners and players goes back almost to the beginning of baseball.

Why was the Players League formed? What happened to player salaries after its demise? Why did some players jump from the AL and NL to the Federal League? Why did some players jump from MLB to the Mexican League in 1946? Why did clubs fight so hard for so long to retain the reserve clause? Why was it implemented in the first place? Why was there numerous attempts to unionize major league players before Marvin Miller successfully molded the MLBPA into a powerful entity? How did the pay of major league ballplayers compare to wages for other jobs?

Professional sports is a business first and foremost. Given this, why should its concern for revenue and profits be any less important or less influential over its operation than that of any other business entity?

Originally Posted by spit ball

But it seems like the game has changed over the years where, in general, both are now more interested in money and less in the sport.

And therein lies my issue. Plenty of folks say this (several have in this very thread), but the problem is most can't really quantify it in any meaningful way. It seems it's just something they 'feel' but can't really put any details to. I suspect it's more about baseball simply doing things in a way they simply don't like.

[Le Grande Orange]

I regards to the relative 'quality' of present athletes to those in the past, I saw a TED talk a couple of weeks ago that might be of interest.

David Epstein: Are athletes really getting faster, better, stronger?

From the video description:

When you look at sporting achievements over the last decades, it seems like humans have gotten faster, better and stronger in nearly every way. Yet as David Epstein points out in this delightfully counter-intuitive talk, we might want to lay off the self-congratulation. Many factors are at play in shattering athletic records, and the development of our natural talents is just one of them.

[wireman]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

And therein lies my issue. Plenty of folks say this (several have in this very thread), but the problem is most can't really quantify it in any meaningful way. It seems it's just something they 'feel' but can't really put any details to. I suspect it's more about baseball simply doing things in a way they simply don't like.

It seems to me like folks are "feeling" and you're "feeling" back at them. I know it's always been a business (at least since the very early days, when even being a professional was considered disreputable), but I don't think that necessarily means the business end of things has always been as important as it is now.

For one thing, it seems to me like there could be a huge difference in attitude between a '50s-era player who could have made just as much money doing something mundane and a 21st-century player making millions. It seems like it's just human nature. But, as you say, I'm just "feeling" that.

[Carlton]

Originally Posted by spit ball

No doubt? You know this how?

I think there is no doubt today's players are much better athletes and they're in much better shape. But in the past, virtually all the baseball players in a decade were about the same physically. It was no easier for them to rise above the crowd than it is now. So your argument really doesn't hold up.

I think it's fair to say that, based on the WAR chart, the better players of the past were better than the better players of the present. And there were more of them. Beyond that, your statement above might be correct. Or it might not.

I disagree with Questdog on this as well.

I've been saying this for awhile now, but when MOST of your players (in majors and minors) are from two islands in the Carribean, something is VERY wrong with your sport.

Americans have very little athletic ability nowadays (2/3rds obesity) and the few athletes we have, go into basketball, football and extreme type sports. Baseball is "the offseason" hobby for these guys in HS and college.

But why are we talking about ATHLETES? As John Kruk stated, "I am no athlete, I am a baseball player!" And that is true...you don't have to be an athlete to be a baseball player and even then they fail Jim Thorpe, Pinch runner Herb Washington, a slew of players that never made the majors.

The way baseball is setup allows a huge hispanic population because the wages in the minors for undrafted players is a huge strain on Americans, but for Dominicans, it's a better wage than they could get staying home.

Take that into context of 1955 when segregation was gone, baseball was the #1 game in town and you had Jackie Robinson, whose 4th best sport was baseball, and everyone in the western hemisphere wanted to play baseball. That was competition and showed the cream rises to the top.

Like I stated, the best player in the game today, Mike Trout can only worry about 1/3rd of the strikezone, because pitchers and umpires are shaky using the top half of the strikezone, wherein Stan Musial had to make sure he could hit a high fatsball, a low curve, an outside changeup and hit the deck on a brushback pitch.

Baseball players better than 1910-1980's? No...not in my mind
Better athletes? Sure, sure...fragile ones. But give me a stout Nellie Foxx over athletic Matt Kemp anyday

[Carlton]

Originally Posted by RchW

Not true. Segregation artificially reduced the pool of available talent so the very good players dominated.

Such an artifical hive mind statement...it's tiring. It's never backed up with facts either...people say that and others just nod.

The population of African Americans in the early 20th century were mostly in the South, no access to baseball, therefore your statement holds no merit.

The Great Migration really took hold in the 30's which greatly coincided with a spike in birth rates, and of course opportunity including greater access to baseball. These kids would later lead to desegregation in the 40's and the Civil Rights movement in the 50's/60's.

Just because great players took hold in the 50's (many more did not get out of the minors) does not mean about 1-3 Males (.001 of the 10% Northern available pool, most in Kansas City) who could have made MLB in 1910 would have made Ty Cobb a slightly average player.

Looking at the Negro Leagues in the 20s you had 2 good teams and a bunch of scrub teams, so one could use the arguement that THOSE players were over rated as well, and if allowed to be in MLB, they would have been average players with short careers.

In conclusion, don't discredit the accomplishments of great players for some emotionally driven inaccurate statement.

[Caporegime]

Divorcing MLB? Good luck with that. I hope you get a better divorce lawyer than I did. If my ex can win a tidy severance package, I can't imagine what a monstrously greedy bitch like MLB will walk away with.

BTW, why are people still frothing at the mouth over '94 strike? That was TWENTY YEARS ago. I've gotten over the deaths of loved ones quicker than that. The thing I find strange about it is that the NHL had three absolutely catastrophic work stoppages since then, and the NBA had a pretty nasty one as well if my memory serves me correctly. And yet, it's the MLB strike of '94 that people still carry on about. Why? It just doesn't make any sense to me to carry such a silly little grudge around for two whole decades, especially with all the infinitely more horrible things that have occurred in the world since then. A little perspective, please....just a little.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Caporegime

Divorcing MLB? Good luck with that. I hope you get a better divorce lawyer than I did. If my ex can win a tidy severance package, I can't imagine what a monstrously greedy bitch like MLB will walk away with.

BTW, why are people still frothing at the mouth over '94 strike? That was TWENTY YEARS ago. I've gotten over the deaths of loved ones quicker than that. The thing I find strange about it is that the NHL had three absolutely catastrophic work stoppages since then, and the NBA had a pretty nasty one as well if my memory serves me correctly. And yet, it's the MLB strike of '94 that people still carry on about. Why? It just doesn't make any sense to me to carry such a silly little grudge around for two whole decades, especially with all the infinitely more horrible things that have occurred in the world since then. A little perspective, please....just a little.

QFT. Very well said.

It's reminiscent of Flagellants.

[spit ball]

Originally Posted by Caporegime

Divorcing MLB? Good luck with that. I hope you get a better divorce lawyer than I did. If my ex can win a tidy severance package, I can't imagine what a monstrously greedy bitch like MLB will walk away with.

BTW, why are people still frothing at the mouth over '94 strike? That was TWENTY YEARS ago. I've gotten over the deaths of loved ones quicker than that. The thing I find strange about it is that the NHL had three absolutely catastrophic work stoppages since then, and the NBA had a pretty nasty one as well if my memory serves me correctly. And yet, it's the MLB strike of '94 that people still carry on about. Why? It just doesn't make any sense to me to carry such a silly little grudge around for two whole decades, especially with all the infinitely more horrible things that have occurred in the world since then. A little perspective, please....just a little.

Who is still frothing at the mouth over the '94 strike?

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by Carlton

The population of African Americans in the early 20th century were mostly in the South, no access to baseball, therefore your statement holds no merit.

This is the stupidest statement yet.....There was TONS of baseball in the South......

As an ex-college player I know that most good baseball teams and players came from the South for 1 reason.....their weather allowed them to play more baseball and thus get more practice than Northern teams.....To say that blacks had no access to baseball is ludicrous.......plus fewer people in the South lived in an urban environment which meant that a greater percentage of them had access to fields where they could play ball.....

In 1925 I count around 75 minor league teams in former slave-holding states....and that is only the teams in Organized Ball......there were zillions of semi-pro and school teams.....

no access.....ludicrous....