My Official divorce from baseball

[Leo_The_Lip]

Originally Posted by spit ball

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?

Since that's not what Gould wrote, you obviously don't understand the scientific basis of his theory. Every player has gotten better at every skill and so the Bell Curve has gotten more narrow. The worst players (and the best players) in the league now are closer to the center of the Bell Curve than when people hit .400.

"one book"? Gould had a lifetime of scientific experience, dozens of books and hundreds of articles--all leading him to his conclusions. He is still the acknowledged world expert on evolutionary biology. This is also the theory currently accepted by the scientific community. Which you would have found out if you had read any Gould and not merely Schermer's synopsis.

If Steven Jay Gould disagrees with your opinion, the odds are overwhelming that you are the one who is utterly wrong. In fact, to paraphrase another science great, Richard Feynman, "You are so far from the truth, you'd have to move closer to even be considered wrong."

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Carlton

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

Really? You know what controls me? Or is it just insult because you can't formulate an argument?

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.

Thanks for making my point. Are you arguing that no one from the South had access to Baseball? If not then my point stands.

Originally Posted by Carlton

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.

Actually no. There were two migrations 1910-1930 and 1940-1970 and a lesser reverse migration starting in the late 1960's. The depression temporarily halted the first migration. This is just blowing smoke. It's irrelevant where people were located. A policy of segregation existed and that by definition skewed the pool of available talent. Argue the point please.

Originally Posted by Carlton

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.

I don't remember saying that. Can you point that out? No comments were made about the value of any player. The discussion was about relative dominance in an artificially limited pool of talent.

Originally Posted by Carlton

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

You keep addressing points not made by me. In any pool of talent, dominant players are not over or under rated they just are what they are relative to the pool. Do you understand that the first Black players by definition must have been very good but in the case of the first cohort (Jackie Robinson et al) might have been past their prime. Later Black players were also very good because the pool was not normalized until the 1960's. They showed some dominance for the same reason as earlier white players vs the pool. As the pool normalized and average talent increased because of that, the ability to dominate reduced proportionally. Many sports show a similar pattern of reduced individual dominance with wider access to talent.

Originally Posted by Carlton

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

I made no comment that discredited the accomplishments of any player. Please withdraw that accusation. As for the emotionally driven thing. I'll leave it to others to decide which one of us appears driven by excess emotion.

[wireman]

Rich, Carlton throws out so many assertions, in what for me is often an indigestible soup of syntax, that I don't even want to deal with it head-on. I'm glad you and some others are tackling it.

For me, I just hope Carlton gets over baseball and learns to enjoy his new direction.

[spit ball]

Originally Posted by Questdog

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....

I agree many players came from the south but have no idea whatsoever how many black players or competitive black teams there were. Do you have any evidence for that? You might be right about this. Or Carlton might.

[spit ball]

Originally Posted by Leo_The_Lip

Since that's not what Gould wrote, you obviously don't understand the scientific basis of his theory. Every player has gotten better at every skill and so the Bell Curve has gotten more narrow. The worst players (and the best players) in the league now are closer to the center of the Bell Curve than when people hit .400.

"one book"? Gould had a lifetime of scientific experience, dozens of books and hundreds of articles--all leading him to his conclusions. He is still the acknowledged world expert on evolutionary biology. This is also the theory currently accepted by the scientific community. Which you would have found out if you had read any Gould and not merely Schermer's synopsis.

If Steven Jay Gould disagrees with your opinion, the odds are overwhelming that you are the one who is utterly wrong. In fact, to paraphrase another science great, Richard Feynman, "You are so far from the truth, you'd have to move closer to even be considered wrong."

Thank you for your analysis and condescension, professor. <sarcasm now off>

First, it's a theory. Second, it's based on assumptions that are not necessarily accurate - "Every player has gotten better at every skill."

Really, it looks very much like hitters haven't gotten better. Unless you have some real evidence they have.

[spit ball]

Originally Posted by wireman

Rich, Carlton throws out so many assertions, in what for me is often an indigestible soup of syntax, that I don't even want to deal with it head-on. I'm glad you and some others are tackling it.

For me, I just hope Carlton gets over baseball and learns to enjoy his new direction.

I think it's an interesting discussion and don't agree with everything anybody has said. I think hitting is a lost art and nobody has taken the baton after Ted Williams did so well with it. He was the last truly great hitter of the 20th century and in baseball. Hitting was obsessive with him and I don't believe anybody with his potential cares all that much as long as they do well enough and continue to cash those million dollar paychecks.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by spit ball

I think it's an interesting discussion and don't agree with everything anybody has said. I think hitting is a lost art and nobody has taken the baton after Ted Williams did so well with it. He was the last truly great hitter of the 20th century and in baseball. Hitting was obsessive with him and I don't believe anybody with his potential cares all that much as long as they do well enough and continue to cash those million dollar paychecks.

Tony Gwynn? Wade Boggs? Rod Carew? Miguel Cabrera? Albert Pujols(before he got prematurely old). Barry Bonds? George Brett? Manny Ramirez? Edgar Martinez? Paul Molitor?

[spit ball]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Tony Gwynn? Wade Boggs? Rod Carew? Miguel Cabrera? Albert Pujols(before he got prematurely old). Barry Bonds? George Brett? Manny Ramirez? Edgar Martinez? Paul Molitor?

I would eliminate Bonds and any other druggie. The others were good hitters and I could name many more good hitters. But none were great hitters. How many of them hit 400 even once? How many hit 500 home runs? (again eliminating Bonds) The difference is Williams was a great hitter and those you named, who didn't take drugs, were merely very good hitters. And how much better could Williams have been without fighting in two wars? He was in a class elevated above those you named.

[Questdog]

I also don't think Ted Williams was any more obsessed with hitting than Pete Rose....

Ted was a better hitter, for sure, but Pete was a good player mostly because of his obsession.

George Brett is the best hitter of my lifetime. If he had played in Yankee or Fenway instead of Royals Stadium, his numbers would be quite a bit better and he probably would have hit .400 in 1980.

[spit ball]

Originally Posted by Questdog

I also don't think Ted Williams was any more obsessed with hitting than Pete Rose....

Ted was a better hitter, for sure, but Pete was a good player mostly because of his obsession.

George Brett is the best hitter of my lifetime. If he had played in Yankee or Fenway instead of Royals Stadium, his numbers would be quite a bit better and he probably would have hit .400 in 1980.

Absolutely about Rose and Williams. Brett I don't know about much. He played after I quit following baseball. I wrote above about Williams being obsessive about hitting. I liked Pete Rose from his rookie year. He had the desire to win and it showed. I always thought he got a raw deal with a lifetime ban. Yes, it was the rule but it's a bad rule. Landis was right to make it. It was needed at the time. But times change and a lifetime ban is too much for Rose's offense. Many states don't even have the death penalty anymore. Baseball has changed other rules and they should have changed that one as well.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by spit ball

I would eliminate Bonds and any other druggie. The others were good hitters and I could name many more good hitters. But none were great hitters. How many of them hit 400 even once? How many hit 500 home runs? (again eliminating Bonds) The difference is Williams was a great hitter and those you named, who didn't take drugs, were merely very good hitters. And how much better could Williams have been without fighting in two wars? He was in a class elevated above those you named.

So in the end, this is all about Ted Williams? Heck, Mays, Mantle, Musial, Aaron etc were simply very good hitters as well. Ted Williams was the only great hitter. Interesting.

[spit ball]

Originally Posted by David Watts

So in the end, this is all about Ted Williams? Heck, Mays, Mantle, Musial, Aaron etc were simply very good hitters as well. Ted Williams was the only great hitter. Interesting.

No, I didn't say that. I said he was the last great hitter. Imo of course. Of the four you just named, Musial comes closest. Excellent hitter. But not quite in the same class as Williams. To be truly great, I think you need at least one 400 season or hit a ton of home runs to go with your high lifetime average. Two examples - Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth were great hitters. Rogers Hornsby also comes to mind. There were a few more but none after Ted Williams.

[wireman]

Originally Posted by spit ball

Absolutely about Rose and Williams. Brett I don't know about much. He played after I quit following baseball. I wrote above about Williams being obsessive about hitting. I liked Pete Rose from his rookie year. He had the desire to win and it showed. I always thought he got a raw deal with a lifetime ban. Yes, it was the rule but it's a bad rule. Landis was right to make it. It was needed at the time. But times change and a lifetime ban is too much for Rose's offense. Many states don't even have the death penalty anymore. Baseball has changed other rules and they should have changed that one as well.

Brett broke in in '73. I f you haven't followed the game for 40 years, you've got some catching up to do before you can make these comparisons.

(There's a thread about Rose's ban where you can comment.)

[wireman]

Originally Posted by spit ball

No, I didn't say that. I said he was the last great hitter. Imo of course. Of the four you just named, Musial comes closest. Excellent hitter. But not quite in the same class as Williams. To be truly great, I think you need at least one 400 season or hit a ton of home runs to go with your high lifetime average. Two examples - Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth were great hitters. Rogers Hornsby also comes to mind. There were a few more but none after Ted Williams.

Did Wee Willie Keeler impress you when you saw him play?

[mirrf]

Originally Posted by wireman

Did Wee Willie Keeler impress you when you saw him play?

[spit ball]

Originally Posted by wireman

Did Wee Willie Keeler impress you when you saw him play?

I was too young to watch him in his prime.


But this is exactly my point. There aren't any great hitters in the modern era. You need to go back to find any. Really great hitting is a lost art.

[spit ball]

Originally Posted by wireman

Brett broke in in '73. I f you haven't followed the game for 40 years, you've got some catching up to do before you can make these comparisons.

(There's a thread about Rose's ban where you can comment.)

I don't need to catch up to know there haven't been any 400 hit seasons and nobody that I know of has a lifetime average of more than 340 and more than 450 home runs even if they were on drugs.

I saw that thread and have been thinking about posting there.

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by wireman

Did Wee Willie Keeler impress you when you saw him play?

Fun fact (and little known) about Keeler: He was not known as Wee Willie because of his stature, but because he had a habit of whizzing on other people's shoes.......absolutely not true, I swear....

I think it is obvious that Ted Williams was the greatest hitter that ever lived. Had he not missed most of 5 seasons due to 2 wars, he would have hit probably at least 150 more home runs and been within shouting distance of Ruth and may have played another season or two to try and catch him He would also easily be the career leader in runs scored and RBIs. And he'd be the career leader in WAR, too.

One thing the old farts have right in their arguments is that hitting is more of a skill than a physical attribute and as such, I don't think the old-time hitters are as far behind the modern players as the old-time pitchers are.

But those numbers Williams put up were done against pitchers who were FAR inferior overall to today's group. Williams never faced a left-hander that even remotely resembled Aroldis Chapman.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Questdog

Fun fact (and little known) about Keeler: He was not known as Wee Willie because of his stature, but because he had a habit of whizzing on other people's shoes.......absolutely not true, I swear....

I think it is obvious that Ted Williams was the greatest hitter that ever lived. Had he not missed most of 5 seasons due to 2 wars, he would have hit probably at least 150 more home runs and been within shouting distance of Ruth and may have played another season or two to try and catch him He would also easily be the career leader in runs scored and RBIs. And he'd be the career leader in WAR, too.

One thing the old farts have right in their arguments is that hitting is more of a skill than a physical attribute and as such, I don't think the old-time hitters are as far behind the modern players as the old-time pitchers are.

But those numbers Williams put up were done against pitchers who were FAR inferior overall to today's group. Williams never faced a left-hander that even remotely resembled Aroldis Chapman.

Yeah, but he faced Bob Feller and that's all that matters.

[wireman]

Originally Posted by Questdog

Fun fact (and little known) about Keeler: He was not known as Wee Willie because of his stature, but because he had a habit of whizzing on other people's shoes.......absolutely not true, I swear....

I think it is obvious that Ted Williams was the greatest hitter that ever lived. Had he not missed most of 5 seasons due to 2 wars, he would have hit probably at least 150 more home runs and been within shouting distance of Ruth and may have played another season or two to try and catch him He would also easily be the career leader in runs scored and RBIs. And he'd be the career leader in WAR, too.

One thing the old farts have right in their arguments is that hitting is more of a skill than a physical attribute and as such, I don't think the old-time hitters are as far behind the modern players as the old-time pitchers are.

But those numbers Williams put up were done against pitchers who were FAR inferior overall to today's group. Williams never faced a left-hander that even remotely resembled Aroldis Chapman.

I think the pitching is a lot better than what I used to see at the ballpark when I was a kid. Most pitchers have more pitches, and they can hit spots and change speeds better.

And, back in the day, when a starter had thrown till his arm fell off, he likely would be told to pick it up and finish the game. (Robin Roberts threw 305 complete games in his career.) Today, you get a starter for six innings, followed by a succession of specialists. You rarely get to face a pitcher who's just gassed.

I agree that Ted Williams would have found a way to dominate in any era. But most of the guys I used to see playing for the Nats wouldn't make the majors today.