|
Post by allenreed on Dec 22, 2012 16:22:19 GMT -5
Bigger, stronger, faster, better conditioned, better trained and better coached. How can today's game NOT be better?
Allen- Are we still having this argument here? Baseball isn't a game that requires size, strength, or extraordinary conditioning. Energy is expended in spurts, most of the time is spent standing or sitting. Better coached? Perhaps the coaches are more knowledgable, but that has been more than offset by the inflated salary and guaranteed contract. Many players give less than stellar effort once they know they'll make big dollars no matter how they perform. Keeping your job and keeping a paycheck coming is a huge incentive. If today's game is truly better, where are the record breaking performaces? We just had our first triple crown winner since the 60s. The all time hit leader played in the 60s-80s. Legitimate home run champ? 50s-70s. Last 30 game winner? 60s. Stolen base king? 80s. Legitimate single season HR champ? 60s. Single season ERA champ? 60s. And on and on.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 24, 2012 2:41:19 GMT -5
Allen -- If today's game is truly better, where are the record breaking performaces? Rog -- A couple of things. First, do record-breaking performances indicate the game is better -- or worse? Babe Ruth put up the game's most phenomenal numbers when he played in the 20's. I happen to think he was the game's best player ever (compared to his peers). But do we honestly think players were as good back then? Really? Allen -- We just had our first triple crown winner since the 60s. Rog -- Again, doesn't that indicate the talent is more spread out now? And if you want a record-breaker, look at all the records Miguel Cabrera could threaten with his career. Allen -- The all time hit leader played in the 60s-80s. Rog -- Pete Rose's greatest baseball skill was in being able to play seemingly forever. You don't think he's anywhere near the best hitter in history, do you? Allen -- Legitimate home run champ? 50s-70s. Rog -- Grow up, Allen. If steroids were what made Bonds set the home run record (and I agree they most certainly did), doesn't that mean he was one of the best power hitters ever, wouldn't steroids be yet another reason the game is played at a higher level? You can't have it both ways, Allen. Allen -- Last 30 game winner? 60s. Rog -- Apparently you don't see that the game has changed, right? By the way, Denny McLain was indeed something great for two straight years. But when all was said and done, he posted a 101 ERA+ over his career, meaning his ERA was only slightly better than average when park-adjusted. Allen -- Stolen base king? 80s. Rog -- The game is more of a power game now, making the stolen base less meaningful. Perhaps you should instead look at how stealing percentages are higher now. Allen -- Legitimate single season HR champ? 60s. Rog -- Again, Allen, you can't have it both ways. If the other home run seasons were illegitimate, it simply shows that players were better -- even if only because they were chemically ehanced. You can't have it both ways. Allen -- Single season ERA champ? 60s. Rog -- Bob Gibson's 1.12 ERA was a great accomplishment by a great pitcher. He set the record in what is now called "the year of the pitcher." Why is it called that? From a process perspective, it was the last season with the higher mound and larger strikeout. From a results standpoint, his ERA was 1.87 lower than the league average of 2.99. Got that? A league AVERAGE of less than 3.00. In 2000, Pedro Martinez -- pitching against all those steroid guys, and pitching in hitter-happy Fenway Park -- fashioned a 1.74 ERA that more than THREE runs lower than the 4.92 league ERA. Which was the greater accomplishment? Well, let's examine some facts. No question Bob's 1.12 is lower. That's obvious. Yet, in hitter-happy Fenway, Pedro's 0.737 WHIP looks a lot better than Gibby's 0.853. His 11.8 K/9 doesn't exactly pale to Gibby's 7.9. Pedro's K/BB ratio of 8.9 was a tad better than Gibby's 4.3. Bob's 13 complete games were far and away better than Pedro's 4, and his innings were nearly 100 more. But Bob also gave up nearly twice as many walks as Pedro, while striking out fewer despite the extra innings. Since pitchers usually have a chance to pitch their way through errors, and because errors can be affected by official scorekeepers, some like to look at a pitcher's TOTAL runs allowed per nine innings rather than his ERA. An extremely high 22% of Bob's runs were unearned, while only 2% of Pedro's were. Which was the better season? ERA+ says it was Pedro's by a margin of 291 (the highest ever of any season after 1900) to 258 (the 6th-best post-1900 season). One can argue either way on that one. But you seem to be ignoring Pedro's incredible season. Allen -- And on and on. Rog -- Of course. You maintain a very narrow perspective. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1367&page=3#ixzz2FwzPGKjT
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 24, 2012 13:02:24 GMT -5
Allen -- If today's game is truly better, where are the record breaking performaces? Rog -- A couple of things. First, do record-breaking performances indicate the game is better -- or worse? Allen- Is the game better? It's the same game, other than the DH (makes it worse), interleague play (makes it worse), steroids (worse), juiced up equipment, (hard to say). I'd say the players were better than they are now, based simply on the fact that players now have to cheat to equal the accomplishments of their predecessors, and in most cases can't even do it while cheating. Babe Ruth put up the game's most phenomenal numbers when he played in the 20's. I happen to think he was the game's best player ever (compared to his peers). But do we honestly think players were as good back then? Really? Allen- I'd say Babe like Wilt, was an anomaly. A player far ahead of his time physically. I'd say that in the 50s-60s there were many good players. Rog -- Again, doesn't that indicate the talent is more spread out now? And if you want a record-breaker, look at all the records Miguel Cabrera could threaten with his career. For instance? Cabrera just enjoyed his first 40+ HR season. If he equals his output of his first ten years over the next 10, he'll be entering his age 40 season with 642 homers. I don't see him as a threat to Aaron. Rog -- Pete Rose's greatest baseball skill was in being able to play seemingly forever. You don't think he's anywhere near the best hitter in history, do you? Allen- I'd say he's certainly among them. Do you see anyone currently playing touching his record? Jeter? Allen -- Legitimate home run champ? 50s-70s. Rog -- Grow up, Allen. If steroids were what made Bonds set the home run record (and I agree they most certainly did), doesn't that mean he was one of the best power hitters ever, wouldn't steroids be yet another reason the game is played at a higher level? Allen- Wow. Like saying the increased murder rate is due to there being more crazies walking the streets, and thinking that's a good thing. The fact that cheating is prevalent in today's game does not make it a better game. You can't have it both ways, Allen. Allen -- Last 30 game winner? 60s. Rog -- Apparently you don't see that the game has changed, right? By the way, Denny McLain was indeed something great for two straight years. But when all was said and done, he posted a 101 ERA+ over his career, meaning his ERA was only slightly better than average when park-adjusted. Allen- Does the fact that pitchers can't perform to the standards of their predecessors make the game better? Rog -- The game is more of a power game now, making the stolen base less meaningful. Perhaps you should instead look at how stealing percentages are higher now. Allen- Does the fact that the players' skill set is less diverse make the game better? Rog -- Again, Allen, you can't have it both ways. If the other home run seasons were illegitimate, it simply shows that players were better -- even if only because they were chemically ehanced. Allen- That just makes them cheaters, not better players, nor does it make for a better game. Allen -- Single season ERA champ? 60s. Rog -- Bob Gibson's 1.12 ERA was a great accomplishment by a great pitcher. He set the record in what is now called "the year of the pitcher." Why is it called that? From a process perspective, it was the last season with the higher mound and larger strikeout. From a results standpoint, his ERA was 1.87 lower than the league average of 2.99. Got that? A league AVERAGE of less than 3.00. Allen- Yet many of the games greatest hitters played (and set records) during that era, as did the pitchers. An overall better game.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 24, 2012 13:21:14 GMT -5
Allen -- I'd say the players were better than they are now, based simply on the fact that players now have to cheat to equal the accomplishments of their predecessors, and in most cases can't even do it while cheating. Rog -- Your argument is circular. We're talking about the game overall, not just individuals. We're talking about the game AS IT IS PLAYED ON THE FIELD, not about how it WOULD be played without steroids. And we're talking about a game in which if I argue that teams score more runs today, you say that's simply because the pitching isn't as good. Pure guesswork. What we do know is that athletes are a whole lot better now than they used to be. We know that with video and statistical analysis, a lot more is known by the players who play the game and by the managers who manage them. We know that pitchers throw faster than they did, and that there is a positive correlation between pitchers' speeds and their performances. How does one PROVE whether the game is better or worse? I don't think he can. What he can do is look at what IS known and try to draw reasonable conclusions. Not simply say that hitters hit better today only because pitchers aren't as good. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1367&page=3#8061#ixzz2FziYkgyr
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 24, 2012 13:23:44 GMT -5
Rog -- Grow up, Allen. If steroids were what made Bonds set the home run record (and I agree they most certainly did), doesn't that mean he was one of the best power hitters ever, wouldn't steroids be yet another reason the game is played at a higher level? Allen- Wow. Like saying the increased murder rate is due to there being more crazies walking the streets, and thinking that's a good thing. Rog -- Actually, it's like saying that the murder rate has increased because there are more crazies walking the streets, and thus the murder rate has increased. No comment was made as to whether steroids, or murder, is a good thing. Let's stay logical here please. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1367&page=3#ixzz2FzkWZx5g
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 24, 2012 13:30:04 GMT -5
Rog -- Again, doesn't that indicate the talent is more spread out now? And if you want a record-breaker, look at all the records Miguel Cabrera could threaten with his career. Allen -- For instance? Cabrera just enjoyed his first 40+ HR season. If he equals his output of his first ten years over the next 10, he'll be entering his age 40 season with 642 homers. I don't see him as a threat to Aaron. Rog -- You were away from the board, Allen, so you missed my post listing the various records Miguel could challenge. The ones that come to mind are doubles, extra base hits, total bases, RBI's and runs scored. And, yes, even home runs and total hits. Will Miguel reach any of these milestones? He may not reach a single one. But he could also reach a handful of them and become known as one of if not THE best right-handed hitter of all time. Oh, and did you notice that Barry Bonds set a few records, including OBLITERATING both the walk record and the record for intentional walks. You realize, don't you, that Barry was INTENTIONALLY walked in a season more than all but a handful of players were walked unintentionally? Do you think baseball was better 90 years ago than it is today? THAT was when Babe Ruth obliterated the record book for home runs. Think about it, Allen. The WORSE a game is, the easier it is to dominate it. Like the Babe. Like Wilt Chamberlain. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1367&page=3#ixzz2FzlDnfsw
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 24, 2012 13:33:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 24, 2012 13:35:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 24, 2012 13:40:54 GMT -5
Allen- Yet many of the games greatest hitters played (and set records) during that era, as did the pitchers. An overall better game. Rog -- Really? Remember, it is easier to set records in a less-developed game. We're talking about the overall LEVEL the game is played at, not how many players are able to dominate it. Don't you think it is easier for more players to dominate in Little League -- and by a greater margin -- than in the major leagues? The standard deviation of play in the majors has decreased over time. In other words, players are closer to each other in skill and performance levels. That shows more depth. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1367&page=3#ixzz2Fzo8WKla
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 24, 2012 13:43:13 GMT -5
Allen -- I'd say the players were better than they are now, based simply on the fact that players now have to cheat to equal the accomplishments of their predecessors, and in most cases can't even do it while cheating. Rog -- Your argument is circular. We're talking about the game overall, not just individuals. We're talking about the game AS IT IS PLAYED ON THE FIELD, not about how it WOULD be played without steroids. Allen- Not at all. To call a game in which the participants have to cheat to equal their predecessors a better game because they are cheating is a pretty weak argument. And we're talking about a game in which if I argue that teams score more runs today, you say that's simply because the pitching isn't as good. Pure guesswork. Allen- Who's guessing? The pitching talent simply isn't there. The numbers bear that out. Not in the depth that it was in the 60s. Offense? Even with the jacked up equipment and smaller parks, the players can't equal the records of their predecessors without doping. What we do know is that athletes are a whole lot better now than they used to be. We know that with video and statistical analysis, a lot more is known by the players who play the game and by the managers who manage them. Allen- Do better atheletes necessarily make for better baseball players? I don't think it matters as much as it does in the other sports. We know that pitchers throw faster than they did, and that there is a positive correlation between pitchers' speeds and their performances. How does one PROVE whether the game is better or worse? I don't think he can. Allen- Quite probably not. If one could prove it absolutely, I doubt we would be having this argument. What he can do is look at what IS known and try to draw reasonable conclusions. Not simply say that hitters hit better today only because pitchers aren't as good. Allen - What is known is that pitchers now pitch less often and with generally worse results. What other conclusion could you come to?
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 24, 2012 13:47:33 GMT -5
Oh, and did you notice that Barry Bonds set a few records, including OBLITERATING both the walk record and the record for intentional walks. You realize, don't you, that Barry was INTENTIONALLY walked in a season more than all but a handful of players were walked unintentionally?
Allen- He cheated. Disregard.
Do you think baseball was better 90 years ago than it is today? THAT was when Babe Ruth obliterated the record book for home runs. Think about it, Allen. The WORSE a game is, the easier it is to dominate it.
Allen- 90? No. 40-50? Yes. I'd say the color line is a huge factor there.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 24, 2012 14:03:00 GMT -5
Rog -- Pete Rose's greatest baseball skill was in being able to play seemingly forever. You don't think he's anywhere near the best hitter in history, do you? Allen- I'd say he's certainly among them. Rog -- Really? I doubt he was among the top 10 of his generation. The key to his record for hits was his longevity. Do you truly think that he compared to Babe Ruth, Ted Williams or Barry Bonds as a hitter? Allen- No. Pete couldn't hit for power. On the other hand Pete hit .300+ 15 times. Bonds did it 11. Rose had 200 hits 10 times. Bonds never did it. Williams never did it. Babe did it thrice. None of the three even got 3000 hits. As we know Rose got 4256. Pete also won three rings, and was an integral part in obtaining each. I don't believe Ted or Barry have even one.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 24, 2012 14:06:05 GMT -5
Allen- Does the fact that pitchers can't perform to the standards of their predecessors make the game better? Rog -- No. But the factors LEADING to pitchers' not being able to pitch as many innings might. Your point is like Don's saying that football players used to be better because they could play both ways. Allen- Not really. Players in football played both ways but didn't play as well. The numbers support that. In baseball, the pitchers pitched more, and (according to the numbers) pitched better.
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Dec 24, 2012 16:28:05 GMT -5
you guys sure can twist things to back your own point of view....I'm saying that the two way football players were better athletes than the overweight monsters playing the game today....just think the way today's game is played...starting off, players only are expected to play part of half the game....you constantly have guys running on and off the field....an end, who runs a deep route, goes to the bench to catch his breath and have a drink.....you have third down linemen come in to replace the fatsos who have trouble rushing the passer...Don Hutson put up numbers that lasted many,many years and he very seldom came out of a game and they played far fewer games....Mel Hein, great center, never missed a minute of any game.....Wilt never fouled out of a game and I believe he played whole seasons without ever coming out of a game...today's baseball players play more games and almost no double headers...and they have the right to eliminate night games on travel days (very seldom pushed) and days off....and they end up with more players on the DL than were on active rosters in the '40's and '50's....the lights and equipment are better...and the slighest hint of a speck of dust on a baseball gets a new one put in the game.....and as far as athletes being bigger and faster...really not an issue in baseball....use the 100 meter guys...mostly all small guys who get paid to train all years and for many years...with much better tracks, starting blocks, better shoes, electronic timing still have been only able to take .62 seconds off the record held by Jessie Owens in 1933....and there are very few baseball players who could be called sprinters...
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 25, 2012 23:23:27 GMT -5
Allen- Not at all. To call a game in which the participants have to cheat to equal their predecessors a better game because they are cheating is a pretty weak argument. And we're talking about a game in which if I argue that teams score more runs today, you say that's simply because the pitching isn't as good. Pure guesswork. Allen- Who's guessing? The pitching talent simply isn't there. Rog -- This all sounds pretty circular to me. The pitching talent isn't there because more runs are scored. But the hitters aren't as good either, since the pitching isn't good. You're better than this, Allen. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1367&page=3#ixzz2G824Vm2I
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 25, 2012 23:23:48 GMT -5
Allen- Not at all. To call a game in which the participants have to cheat to equal their predecessors a better game because they are cheating is a pretty weak argument. And we're talking about a game in which if I argue that teams score more runs today, you say that's simply because the pitching isn't as good. Pure guesswork. Allen- Who's guessing? The pitching talent simply isn't there. Rog -- This all sounds pretty circular to me. The pitching talent isn't there because more runs are scored. But the hitters aren't as good either, since the pitching isn't good. You're better than this, Allen. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1367&page=3#ixzz2G824Vm2I
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 25, 2012 23:27:57 GMT -5
Allen- Do better atheletes necessarily make for better baseball players? I don't think it matters as much as it does in the other sports. Rog -- I agree that better athletes don't necessarily make for better baseball players. Sometimes -- often even -- less athletic players are better than another more athletic player. It doesn't matter as much as in many if not most other sports. But it still matters. All other things being equal, the better athlete will be the better player. This is kind of like saying better pitchers don't necessarily win more games. Because of varying run support, this is absolutely true. But overall, the better pitchers win more games. Are we to believe that baseball is the only major sport in which the players aren't better? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1367&page=3#ixzz2G82mxYqe
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 25, 2012 23:31:00 GMT -5
Rog --What he can do is look at what IS known and try to draw reasonable conclusions. Not simply say that hitters hit better today only because pitchers aren't as good. Allen - What is known is that pitchers now pitch less often and with generally worse results. What other conclusion could you come to? Rog -- What is known is that major league pitchers pitch less often and with generally worse results than when they pitched in kid leagues. Clearly they aren't as good now as they were when they were young. What other conclusion could you come to? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1367&page=3#ixzz2G83rRDqx
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 25, 2012 23:32:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 25, 2012 23:44:12 GMT -5
Rog -- Do you think baseball was better 90 years ago than it is today? THAT was when Babe Ruth obliterated the record book for home runs. Think about it, Allen. The WORSE a game is, the easier it is to dominate it. Allen- 90? No. 40-50? Yes. I'd say the color line is a huge factor there. Rog -- I mentioned 90 years because I was talking about Babe Ruth. I wasn't aware he was playing 40 or 50 years ago. Perhaps I can give an example of how much baseball has improved. Some call Willie Mays' famous catch in the first game of the 1954 World Series the greatest catch of all time. It was said that the catch had never been made before. In describing it, Russ Hodges said Willie made the catch with what "a lot of people out there must have thought was an optical illusion." Now that type of catch has been made MANY times. No question it was a great catch, but do you know how deep Willie was when he caught the ball? Some will tell you the Polo Grounds was around 470 feet deep, and it was. But that isn't the part of the field where Willie caught the ball. Willie caught the ball less than 425 feet from the plate. And how long would you guess the ball was in the air? It was pretty close to six seconds. Willie went a long, long way for that ball -- but he had a lot of time to do so. I think Willie's catch likely WAS one of the best catches made at that time. Today it wouldn't be all that uncommon. Shortstops throw fast runners out 10 or 15 feet on the outfield grass -- sometimes by more than a step. Did we see that happen 40 or 50 years ago? Davey Concepcion became known for his throw in the hole, which he bounced on AstroTurf. A lot of shortstops today make that throw on the fly. Joe DiMaggio said Willie had the strongest arm he had ever seen. Today there are lots of arms that strong. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1367&page=3#ixzz2G84wdc00
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 25, 2012 23:59:31 GMT -5
Got that? A league AVERAGE of less than 3.00. Allen- Yet many of the games greatest hitters played (and set records) during that era, as did the pitchers. An overall better game. Rog -- And yet the average hitting of players overall was much lower. Perhaps those hitters were able to achieve those records because they stood out more above a lower average level of talent. In 1968, Carl Yastrzemski led the AL in hitting with a batting average of .3006. Danny Cater finished 2nd at .290. No other player in the AL hit as high as .290. The average AL batting average that season was .230. Boagie recently spoke about how horrible Omar Vizquel was at the plate his last two seasons with the Giants. Omar batted .246 and .222 those two seasons. His average over the two seasons combined was ... .237. Allen, you're using some deficient logic and presenting it as being factual. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1367&page=3#ixzz2G88BUJFg
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 26, 2012 0:09:41 GMT -5
Don -- I'm saying that the two way football players were better athletes than the overweight monsters playing the game today.... Rog -- You're flat-out joking, right? I believe Chuck Bednarik was the last flat-out, every down type of two-way player. He is listed at 6-foot-3 and 233 pounds. He played middle linebacker and center. Are you going to tell me he is as good an athlete as Patrick Willis (6-foot-1, 242 pounds and way, way faster than Bednarik) or Maurkice Pouncey (6-foot-4, 304 pounds and likely also faster than Chuck)? Willis has been an All-Pro his first five seasons in the league, and Pouncey has been All-Pro in each of his two seasons. If Chuck had been as fast, strong and agile as Willis, he would have been Jim Brown -- who, by the way, didn't play both ways. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1367&page=3#ixzz2G8C7KgPv
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 26, 2012 0:31:06 GMT -5
Don -- with much better tracks, starting blocks, better shoes, electronic timing still have been only able to take .62 seconds off the record held by Jessie Owens in 1933.... Rog -- Actually, Don, it's 0.72 seconds, not 0.62 seconds. (10.3 seconds minus 9.58 seconds). I don't think math is better now than it was 80 years ago, but who knows? And 0.72 seconds is a HUGE difference. We're talking not about neck and neck, but about 7 yards or so difference. In addition, hand timing has more variation than electronic timing, which means if a player runs his best with a timer who is slow, his time will be better with hand held timing than with electronic. Don -- and there are very few baseball players who could be called sprinters... Rog -- Not to prove a point, but rather to make an intriguing one: Wait till you see Billy Hamilton. In the Reds' organization, he stole 155 bases in 132 combined games between High A and AA ball this past season. The previous season he stole only 103. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1367&page=3#ixzz2G8EonHo5
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Dec 26, 2012 2:52:28 GMT -5
Rog -- Do you think baseball was better 90 years ago than it is today? THAT was when Babe Ruth obliterated the record book for home runs. Think about it, Allen. The WORSE a game is, the easier it is to dominate it. Allen- 90? No. 40-50? Yes. I'd say the color line is a huge factor there. Rog -- I mentioned 90 years because I was talking about Babe Ruth. I wasn't aware he was playing 40 or 50 years ago. dk...the Babe played until 1935...77 years ago...and he hit 3 homers in his last game..... Perhaps I can give an example of how much baseball has improved. Some call Willie Mays' famous catch in the first game of the 1954 World Series the greatest catch of all time. It was said that the catch had never been made before. In describing it, Russ Hodges said Willie made the catch with what "a lot of people out there must have thought was an optical illusion." dk...this is a bunch of BS, I saw Mel Ott make a better catch in the Giants bull pen.....and I saw Willies, too...Mel's was a better catch as he was twisting and crashing into the concrete fence.....what made Willies catch so over blown was it was in the World Series...and on TV....shoot I made a couple better catches playing softball...but who's counting... Now that type of catch has been made MANY times. No question it was a great catch, but do you know how deep Willie was when he caught the ball? Some will tell you the Polo Grounds was around 470 feet deep, and it was. But that isn't the part of the field where Willie caught the ball. Willie caught the ball less than 425 feet from the plate. dk...glad you finally acknowledge the distance from the plate...last time you brought it up you, yourself, said 470.......and I had to take out a map and correct you..... And how long would you guess the ball was in the air? It was pretty close to six seconds. Willie went a long, long way for that ball -- but he had a lot of time to do so. I think Willie's catch likely WAS one of the best catches made at that time. Today it wouldn't be all that uncommon. dk..once more, you are full of it...it was a normal catch...overblown by the media.....there were very few center fielders that couldn't make a catch like that and stay in the big leagues...I really don't know where you get your info from, but you are wrong.... Shortstops throw fast runners out 10 or 15 feet on the outfield grass -- sometimes by more than a step. Did we see that happen 40 or 50 years ago? dk....wow, you are really knowledge deprived...shortstops have always had to make the throw deep in the hole.....but very few ever get a ball 15 on the outfield grass....unless it was Dick Bartell throwing Ernie Lombardi at first from short left field....there are very few short stops or second basemen who make the relay home on the fly...even Crawford who is known for his arm strength....the old timers never had that trouble because the fields were rougher and you wouldn't get a true bounce... Davey Concepcion became known for his throw in the hole, which he bounced on AstroTurf. A lot of shortstops today make that throw on the fly. dk..he made that throw on purpose...quicker and easier to catch...you got to be kidding about modern infielders.....a good percent of infielders throw bouncers to first...that is why the first basemen have such big gloves and have to be able to scoop throws.....I only remember one throw in the dirt in 3 years of high school ball..... Joe DiMaggio said Willie had the strongest arm he had ever seen. Today there are lots of arms that strong. dk...Joe was just being nice to Willie...and mid way in his career, Willie could only make one strong throw a game...that was when he stopped taking fielding practice....and Willie used to tuck his right thumb into his belt between pitches...a little trick I used to use when my bursa was acting up...took the weight off my shoulder...Mel Ott and Roberto Clemente had arms as strong as Willie...and there were others... Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1367&page=3#ixzz2G84wdc00
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 26, 2012 11:57:21 GMT -5
But it still matters. All other things being equal, the better athlete will be the better player.
Allen- Ah, but are all other things equal? We have the era of the guaranteed contract and hyperinflated salary, which takes the edge off a player's desire. We have players who are rushed to the majors, often because of athletic ability, who don't know the game as well. As in many areas of our society, standards for what is considered good performance have been significantly lowered, and excuses are made.
Are we to believe that baseball is the only major sport in which the players aren't better?
Allen- The numbers seem to bear this out. Even with all the advantages given to the modern player (better equipment, better playing conditions, easier schedule and travel) they just can't seem to equal the numbers of their predecessors without cheating.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 26, 2012 12:08:19 GMT -5
Perhaps I can give an example of how much baseball has improved. Some call Willie Mays' famous catch in the first game of the 1954 World Series the greatest catch of all time.
It was said that the catch had never been made before. In describing it, Russ Hodges said Willie made the catch with what "a lot of people out there must have thought was an optical illusion."
Now that type of catch has been made MANY times.
No question it was a great catch, but do you know how deep Willie was when he caught the ball? Some will tell you the Polo Grounds was around 470 feet deep, and it was. But that isn't the part of the field where Willie caught the ball. Willie caught the ball less than 425 feet from the plate.
And how long would you guess the ball was in the air? It was pretty close to six seconds. Willie went a long, long way for that ball -- but he had a lot of time to do so.
I think Willie's catch likely WAS one of the best catches made at that time. Today it wouldn't be all that uncommon.
Allen- I think anyone who knows much about baseball would say that catch was overhyped, probably because it occured in the World Series. Willie himself has said that he made many catches better than that one. I would say a catch he made in early 1970, leaping over Bobby Bonds in right center o pull one back into the park, was much better. On the 54 play, the throw was far better than the catch.
Joe DiMaggio said Willie had the strongest arm he had ever seen. Today there are lots of arms that strong.
Allen- But are the players who own those arms as good defensively as Willie? Nope. Other than Don, I don't think anyone doubts that the players of today are more talented, but are they better. Is Matt Kemp better than Willie, Verlander better than Gibson? Jay Bruce better than Frank Robinson? Hard argument to make.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 26, 2012 15:18:02 GMT -5
dk...glad you finally acknowledge the distance from the plate...last time you brought it up you, yourself, said 470....... Rog -- I don't think you're meaning to misquote me, Don, but in fact I have never said it was 470. In fact, I was the one who pointed out it was far less than that. The only time I may have mentioned something like 470 feet was in describing the total distance of the fence in the cut-out area of straight away center field. I have read that the distance varied from time to time, but it seemed to be in the high 400's in almost every case. It is frustrating to have you misquote me so often, Don. Please cite that you could be misremembering when you quote me (unless you are able to look something up and are sure of the context) -- or acknowledge that you are quoting me from memory, not having been able to directly find what I said. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1367&page=3#ixzz2GBsCCVcj
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Dec 26, 2012 15:46:53 GMT -5
Rog -- Joe DiMaggio said Willie had the strongest arm he had ever seen. Today there are lots of arms that strong. Allen- But are the players who own those arms as good defensively as Willie? Nope. Rog -- In most cases, very likely not. My comment didn't say one way or the other. It addressed only the arm, as an area that appears to have improved over the past 50 years. Allen -- Other than Don, I don't think anyone doubts that the players of today are more talented, but are they better. Rog -- Almost everyone here seems to be saying that baseball was better half a century ago than it is now. Give me 500 players who are more talented than 500 others, and alomst every time, the former group will also be better. Allen -- Is Matt Kemp better than Willie, Verlander better than Gibson? Rog -- Kemp and Verlander both likely face better competition, so that is a tough one to answer. In terms of what they have accomplished compared to their peers, absolutely not. Allen -- Jay Bruce better than Frank Robinson? Hard argument to make. Rog -- Same answer, although I'm not sure Bruce is the player I would choose to compare to Frank, who I personally believe is underrated. It is hard to compare the two generations with absolute certainty, but here is the primary logic I am using for today's players to be better: . Hitters are hitting better, so the question is, are the pitchers weaker? . Pitchers are throwing faster than they used to. . A positive correlation has been shown between pitching speed and performance. . Ergo, the hitters are hitting better against what appear to be better pitchers. Since hitting and pitching are easily the primary components of the game, it would appear the game is better. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1367&page=3#ixzz2GBvNUZQO
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Dec 26, 2012 20:40:16 GMT -5
Rog -- Kemp and Verlander both likely face better competition, so that is a tough one to answer. Allen- I'm not sure that's true. Even the bad teams in the 60s had players who were HOF quality. Look at the Cubs of the 60s. Never won a damn thing, and they had Banks, Santo, Billy Williams, Fergie Jenkins. Four HOFers. Name me four Padres, Pirates, Astros, or Marlins who will make the Hall. The Giants have won two of the last three years. Name me four Giants that will make the Hall.
It is hard to compare the two generations with absolute certainty, but here is the primary logic I am using for today's players to be better:
. Hitters are hitting better, so the question is, are the pitchers weaker?
Allen- Are they? They don't seem to be up to the standards of the good hitters of the 60s, (Mays, Aaron, Mantle, FRobby) at least not without chemical help. I would also look at the equipment and the ballparks as factors in so-called "better hitting".
. Pitchers are throwing faster than they used to.
Allen- Most ML hitters, at least good ones, aren't impressed with a fastball. Unless it's a Nolan Ryan fastball.
. A positive correlation has been shown between pitching speed and performance.
Allen- How many pitchers can survive, let alone dominate, with just a fastball? Most have at least another pitch that is also outstanding. Ryan and Koufax had their curves, Randy Johnson and Carlton had their sliders, etc.
. Ergo, the hitters are hitting better against what appear to be better pitchers. Since hitting and pitching are easily the primary components of the game, it would appear the game is better.
Allen- Again, for the most part, the players of today can't live up to the standards of those of 50 years ago. Not without chemical help. They can't pitch as often, or as long. They can't equal the hitting records of smaller, slower, weaker players who played with equipment and under conditions inferior to those that exist now.
|
|
donk
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by donk on Dec 26, 2012 21:12:44 GMT -5
Don -- I'm saying that the two way football players were better athletes than the overweight monsters playing the game today.... Rog -- You're flat-out joking, right? I believe Chuck Bednarik was the last flat-out, every down type of two-way player. He is listed at 6-foot-3 and 233 pounds. He played middle linebacker and center. Are you going to tell me he is as good an athlete as Patrick Willis (6-foot-1, 242 pounds and way, way faster than Bednarik) or Maurkice Pouncey (6-foot-4, 304 pounds and likely also faster than Chuck)? Willis has been an All-Pro his first five seasons in the league, and Pouncey has been All-Pro in each of his two seasons. If Chuck had been as fast, strong and agile as Willis, he would have been Jim Brown -- who, by the way, didn't play both ways. dk...well, he did go both ways in college.......what you people don't seem to get my point .....if I guy can be good going both ways, just imagine how good he could be if he only concentrated on one side of the ball.....and your overweight slobs of today can't stay in the game full time even when they play on both sides of the ball ...how good would they be if they couldn't go to the sidelines and take a rest???and could you picture these guys trying to block without using their hands...or avoiding a cut back block..... or any b;ock below the knees...and how many ball carriers would last if they couldn't run out of bounds to avoid a tackle?
|
|