The players of yesterday

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan Long

Just happened to be traveling today and heard on my XM a couple of DJ's talking about baseball players and can we compare the players of today with Honus Wagner, Babe Ruth, Walter Johnson, ETC. We have talked about this some in the past and, I think, that most people don't think that we can. The game has changed too much. I think I agree for the most part. The interesting point that was brought up was that - baseball is really the only sport that you can STILL compare players of yesterday to today.

For example, if you take players from basketball, football or any other sport the players are smaller (George Mikan vs. Shaq), or the game has simply changed way to much (football). But in baseball the game is largely the same. Cobb was 190lbs in his prime - could he play today? Sure. Walter Johnson was a big man. Could he pitch? Yep. Ruth was huge. Gehrig was no shrimp either. Would they be as good? Now that is the question. No one really can answer that one.

What is my point?? I think this is why baseball is such a great sport. You can compare apples to apples in baseball. Sure it may be a red apple and a green apple, but in every other sport you can't even come close to comparing players from 100 years ago to today.

It is Friday and I just thought I would throw all of this out there and see what happened.

.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Well...I pretty much agree, however, baseball is no longer truly America's sport. They have competition from basketball and football. Also, it has become an international sport, we are getting players from around the world. Also, the World Series may not be the World Series much longer. Other countries have leagues and teams. It would be nice to have a true World Series. Maybe we could rotate countries, like the Olympics.

Also, the best athletes don't necessarily play solely baseball anymore. The ghetto kids play basketball. Football is for tough immigrants and is the game of the suburbs. Thus, baseball probably only gets about a third of the good athletes. Perhaps, less than that.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh Adams

"The ghetto kids play basketball. Football is for tough immigrants and is the game of the suburbs. Thus, baseball probably only gets about a third of the good athletes. Perhaps, less than that."

[Archive]

Posted By: jay wolt

Peter - You're post sounds like a speech from Don Imus.

[Archive]

Posted By: P Spaeth

Peter C.: seriously, are you saying stuff just to be provocative or because you honestly believe it? I can't believe I am reading this crap, honestly.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan Long

I agree that baseball is declining in just about every category. I guess my point was that you can compare baseball players of yesterday to players of today in a much better way you can compare players of any other sport. Baseball has lost ground - most of that is a marketing problem, I think.

I do not think that steriods have ruined baseball, simply because I feel that the younger generation - younger than me that is - care that much about whether their playeris on steriods. I do think that they have marketed to the wrong crowd of people.

.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Bryan, the thing I think is interesting about baseball is the reverence that its fans have for the game.

If you were to ask a fan of just about any sport the question "Who is the greatest of all time?", you will usually get the answer of a modern player. Jordan, Gretzky, Montana, Tiger Woods, etc. But if you were to ask the same question of a baseball fan, to answer with a modern player's name would be sacrelige.

I do find that interesting. When I list Barry Bonds in the top 5 of all-time, I usually get brutalized, and it's not only because of the steroids.

At the same time, I'm one of those people that thinks that baseball hasn't changed much at all. Sure, there have been cosmetic changes to the game - the DH, astroturf, weight training, raising and lowering the mound, bigger gloves, et. al, but the rules of the game are largely the same. I really think there have only been a couple of major changes to the game over its history:

1) Adopting 4 ball/3 strike counts
2) Replacing dirty balls during the game and outlawing the spitter
3) Letting everyone play, regardless of melanin content

I know that the above will probably generate a little ire, which is not my intent - I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that I agree, it's entirely possible to compare players of all eras, and although a fan might make allowances in his mind for a hitter in the deadball era, or a pitcher in the steroid era, it's still possible to get a rough picture in your mind of how Pedro Martinez might stack up against Dizzy Dean.

That's why I love baseball. It's like a huge novel, and each season is like a chapter that works both as a story unto itself and as a part of the bigger story.

-Al

EDIT: Yowch Peter, that's a pretty broad brush you're painting with.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan Long

You are right. Baseball is a game of skill and art and that is why it is great.

Baseball, I think, did wrong when they made it no longer a sport, but a show. They have taken every advantage away from the pitcher and given it to the hitter because that is what drives ticket prices. People want to see the long ball. No one cares about the skill of laying down the perfect bunt to move the runner from second to third.

.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Actually, out of my comments I'm really only concerned with whether Baseball is still the national pastime. Maybe baseball has been beaten out by video games. Now that would truly hurt.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: P Spaeth

Al, Peter is an artist (or is it a great work of art, I forget what Lichtman said about him).

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I just sit back and laugh..

[Archive]

Posted By: quan

if mark m. didn't meet him in person, i would've thought for sure peter c. is actually joe orlando trolling here on the board.

thanks for the lunch laugh.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Why is it that people react so strongly to my posts. I'm just a deep thinker, what can I say?

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: P Spaeth

Peter C. I think we should go further and give you your own forum.

[Archive]

Posted By: scott

last month i went to the baseball HOF..1st time in about 25 years.the best moment was when 2 kids about 10-11 years old ran up to the honus wagner display..yelled to their parents" wow look its honus wagner!"how many other sports have that sense of history?!

[Archive]

Posted By: Brad

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

I think his comment about split sporting allegiances is right on...you guys might be adding racial stereotypes on your own?... but I don't think they were actually there...

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Interesting topic.

People always say that baseball is a stats game - a .300 hitter 100 years ago and a .300 hitter now can be thought of with decent comparison.

But in reality, I think baseball compares for the reasons that Bryan as already stated. The game hasn't changed all that much. You can imagine Babe Ruth standing in against Clemens, or whether Ted Williams could beat out Jeter's throw to first from the hole.

Ironically, when it comes to baseball's greatest feat - the home run - stats are acutally the worst, and I do mean worst, way to compare players.

Not just players from other eras, but even players that played at the same time. Each stadium is built differently. Each has different distance to fence. How can anyone possibly use number of home runs in a season or career to compare players? (Disclosure: I am going to MKE to see Barry Bonds later this month, and hope like heck he breaks the home run record.)

Seriously - can you imagine having conversations about free throw shooting if one team had their line at 12', another at 10', another at 11'6"?? Wouldn't even consider it. Even in baseball there would be no conversations about hitting for average if each team could uniquely set the distance between bases. Right?

So although the fact that baseball has been such a static sport makes direct imaginative comparison possible and probably even reasonable, the quirky ability of teams to choose overall field dimensions has rendered at least one stat all but meaningless.

And I still think Ruth would clean up on all of today's pitchers. Especially in Yankee Stadium with the short right field fence!

Joann

Oh. And Peter ... huh?

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Imagine how many more Hrs Bonds would have he hadn't spent most of his career in notoriously horrible HR parks. Imagine if Bonds had spent most of his career as a Yankee. He'd probably be chasing Oh's record instead.

Jay

I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: P Spaeth

Or how many he would have hit had he juiced much earlier in his career (ducks whatever Behrens just threw at me).

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

We have good ol' Bud Selig to thank for the monster that is Bonds. He created him, he needs to honor him when he breaks the record.

Jay

I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: James Feagin

It's uncomfortable for people to talk about, but alas it is true. The number of black players in post-Robinson major league baseball is at an all-time low, with starting pitchers in the single digits. Why? The NFL has taken over in the past 20 years in terms of popularity. Is it because it appeals to the LCD and fast-paced video game generation? According to an USA Today poll released last month, 9 out of the 10 most popular athletes are football or basketball players. Why? These are interesting questions that I think deserved to be answered without calling people Don Imus or someone else. Admittedly, Peter Chao says some pretty off the wall stuff. However, never did he once mention race or ethnicitiy, never. Others equated ghetto to black, what does that make them?

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob Dewolf

James,

If you read this sentence -- The ghetto kids play basketball. -- and don't think that the writer is referring to blacks, then I'd say you're incredibly naive.

[Archive]

Posted By: James Feagin

Granted, but the real question of why don't "ghetto kids" play baseball to a lesser degree is quite valid.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

I take back the "broad brush" comment, the more that I think of it. There's something to be said for that. But I don't think it's an issue of race, it's an issue of SPACE.

Inner cities get more and more crowded, and have less and less room. With space at a premium, I think there are fewer and fewer parks, and certainly fewer parks large enough to play baseball in.

There are more and more cars, which makes it tougher to play stickball as well.

But it's pretty easy to hang a basket on a telephone pole, or attach one to the side of a building. Many schools and churches have basketball courts, either indoors or outdoors. It's easier to play basketball when you live in a confined area like a city.

Not to say there aren't any baseball fields in the cities - of course there are - I just don't think there are as many. Out here in the middle of nowhere, an hour west of Manhattan, I live in a town of less than 3000 people, and we have four baseball fields. The next town over has seven. The town on the other side has nine.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: boxingcardman

Obviously, Peter made a comment tinged with racial stereotypes. Doesn't make him a racist, though, just a twit . See Peter, I'm workin' for ya!

As far as comparing players over eras, I think it is a little more subtle than has been credited. There are major changes that also have to be considered that are not so readily defined:

1. Introduction of the DH
2. Relief pitching
3. Night games
4. Changes in the height of the mound
5. Decline of inside pitching.

Perhaps the most glaring area of difference between old time baseball and modern baseball is the pitching staff. Most teams carry a five man starting rotation, middle relief specialists and a closer. Clemens and Maddux are even more impressive given starting staffing standards in this era at 350 and 340 wins. The third guy usually mentioned with them is Randy Johnson and he's only at 284 wins; Glavine has 297. After those four guys, we have no one with a shot at 300 for the forseeable future.

Hitters face a very different game plan than they did in the old days. They routinely see three or more pitchers a game, each with different styles, strengths and pitches. Warren Spahn said that hitting is timing and pitching is upsetting timing. Modern hitters face a much tougher time than old time ballplayers simply because they don't get a 3rd, 4th and 5th look at a pitcher.

If you could go back in a time machine and grab them, I think the greats of every era would compete well in the modern era in baseball, more so than any other sport, simply because the physical requirements of the game haven't changed the way they have in other sports. I mean, can you imagine an offensive line of 210-230# players trying to stop a modern defense in football? They'd get killed. Ditto a 6' 195# heavyweight trying to fight a modern era 6'5" 250# fighter; most would never even reach the guy.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

It is not a matter of race. It's a matter of space and the timeline. Less space leads to basketball instead of football and baseball. You can turn pro after your freshman year of college basketball, no lengthy minor league apprenticeship.

If my family was depending on me to make it to the pros the above are important considerations.

Peter