Any player cards you dont collect because of morals

[packs]

I don’t see how this helps your cause either. Average batting average went from 252 in 1992 to 264 in 1993. Very clearly demonstrating a decline in the quality of pitching and average players hitting for a higher batting average.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by packs

I don’t see how this helps your cause either. Average batting average went from 252 in 1992 to 264 in 1993. Very clearly demonstrating a decline in the quality of pitching and average players hitting for a higher batting average.

If we can debate using the same statistics over the same periods it would be way easier. I see no reason for me to debate something I never brought up like ERA.

Another HUGE thing you and others seem to overlook. In my very first post I clearly stated my reason was "beyond silly". How do you argue against that?

[G1911]

I'll take folks' Speakers, Hornsby's and Ansons, just to help them out. I will even pay with the preferred US bill denomination picturing the person they are least offended by. I will vow to forever keep these items out of the view of impressionable children. I don't know if Marty Bergen ever had a real card but I'll take him too if he did.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by bnorth

If we can debate using the same statistics over the same periods it would be way easier. I see no reason for me to debate something I never brought up like ERA.

Another HUGE thing you and others seem to overlook. In my very first post I clearly stated my reason was "beyond silly". How do you argue against that?

Ben- I don't think your reason is 'beyond silly', though perhaps stubborn...and we all do that.

As far as comparing BAs from different ERAs, even short ERAs, it goes against your believe as the earlier ERA's BAs (1988-1992) were in the 250s, while the later ERA's BAs (1993-2008) were all in the 260s...except for dipping to .259 one season.

So...there...BAs from different ERAs can be used in the same argument.

Now, THAT's 'beyond silly'!

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Ben- I don't think your reason is 'beyond silly', though perhaps stubborn...and we all do that.

As far as comparing BAs from different ERAs, even short ERAs, it goes against your believe as the earlier ERA's BAs (1988-1992) were in the 250s, while the later ERA's BAs (1993-2008) were all in the 260s...except for dipping to .259 one season.

So...there...BAs from different ERAs can be used in the same argument.

If you want to make sense on this subject with me it will NOT work. Plain and simple BLEEP Tony Gwynn and absolutely NOTHING posted will even remotely change my opinion.

I do agree that league ERA went up and so did batting averages, so what it was not even remotely close to 51 points by an over the hill guy gaining a lot of weight around the mid section. For you guys that know nothing about PEDs and only believe they make you look like Jose Canseco please remind me of that muscle bound Lance Armstrong guy.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by bnorth

If you want to make sense on this subject with me it will NOT work. Plain and simple BLEEP Tony Gwynn and absolutely NOTHING posted will even remotely change my opinion.

I do agree that league ERA went up and so did batting averages, so what it was not even remotely close to 51 points by an over the hill guy gaining a lot of weight around the mid section. For you guys that know nothing about PEDs and only believe they make you look like Jose Canseco please remind me of that muscle bound Lance Armstrong guy.

...and THAT's stubborn.

...and there's nothing wrong with that.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

...and THAT's stubborn.

...and there's nothing wrong with that.

Thank you Sir for understanding.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by bnorth

If you want to make sense on this subject with me it will NOT work. Plain and simple BLEEP Tony Gwynn and absolutely NOTHING posted will even remotely change my opinion.

I do agree that league ERA went up and so did batting averages, so what it was not even remotely close to 51 points by an over the hill guy gaining a lot of weight around the mid section. For you guys that know nothing about PEDs and only believe they make you look like Jose Canseco please remind me of that muscle bound Lance Armstrong guy.

It's an interesting point, and I think most are looking at it too simply.

But to try and be brief...

Point for - If someone who hits a lot of fly balls gets stronger, you get more HR.
If someone hits a lot of line drives or hard ground balls gets stronger, you probably get a higher BA... Because the ball gets past the infielders more quickly.

Point against - Batting (or so I'm told) has a fairly large mental component, guessing or "knowing" what pitch is coming next. A player might just get better at that as they get older.

Midway point- speaking of getting older, not everyone ages the same. I remember all my friends complaining about aches and pains on a ski trip in our mid 30's. I had none. That stuff didn't really catch up to me until around 40, maybe even a bit later. Did Gwynn just not age and have the typical 30's aches and pains? No way of knowing, but it's possible.

Lances PEDs were not strength related, but more along the lines of assuring better oxygen usage in the body. He was supposedly helped by a complicit cycling governing body AND Nike. None of them got any punishment at all.

[G1911]

I have no idea if Gwynn used. Just as Boggs power rose in 1987 when the leagues power jumped, so did Gwynn’s average. Not necessarily something wrong.

Definitely one of the best hitters I’ve ever seen, all the way until the end, when he was fat and had a hard time staying in the lineup. His Topps cards maxed his weight at like 220, which seemed awfully generous. Considering that he struck out 20 times a year or so, always made contact, and was obese, his GDP are not nearly as bad as I’d have expected.

[steve B]

And that's just a big part of it.
I'm not aware of anything that would improve the raw hitting ability.
A 90mph fastball from a machine that's not trying to fool me is essentially invisible to me. The best I get is seeing a bit of a blurry spot halfway between me and the machine.
I suspect Gwynn could not only see a LOT more, and could choose where he made contact so the ball would more likely be in a gap instead of right to someone.

I was just pointing out that Bens idea isn't entirely insane. It hopefully isn't true.

It could just as easily be a bit of the "Boggs or Gwynn" debates popular back in the day.