Topic: I'm going to say something controversial

[Proud Virgin]

Even if Ruth never did drugs he never had to play against the best players.

And by best players I mean blacks and latinos.

So if roids make you better and you add that to the fact he was playing in the era of blacks and latinos some of whom were also on roids does that make Bonds more impressive than Ruth?

Haters gonna hate

[A Very Smug Bear]

Ruth did all that as a fat, drunk slob. Plus he was a great pitcher early in his career.

So in short.


No.

Eat Dix.

[EDGECRUSHER]

Ruth did play against the best. The league was a lot smaller back then and only the best made it. No scrubs like Tony Womack or Cody Ransom were around to fill out 32 separate team rosters. He just didn't play against blacks and latinos.

[Chus-Kay]

Ruth did play against the best. The league was a lot smaller back then and only the best made it. No scrubs like Tony Womack or Cody Ransom were around to fill out 32 separate team rosters. He just didn't play against blacks and latinos.

well, as you allude to, yeah the league was smaller, but in addition to it being limited to white guys, it probably took a lot more luck to get noticed than it does today.

[BlackLight]

Why is it assumed that that blacks and latinos in the 1920s and 30s would've been better ballplayers than the white guys who played during that era? Baseball is not an innate skill. You have to practice and learn the game to be any good.
 

[Chus-Kay]

Why is it assumed that that blacks and latinos in the 1920s and 30s would've been better ballplayers than the white guys who played during that era? Baseball is not an innate skill. You have to practice and learn the game to be any good.
 

i don't think anyone made that assumption.

[TH]

i don't think anyone made that assumption.

You must not have read the OP.

Even if Ruth never did drugs he never had to play against the best players.

And by best players I mean blacks and latinos.

[TH]

Even if Ruth never did drugs he never had to play against the best players.

And by best players I mean blacks and latinos.

You can't make the assumption that because blacks and Latinos are the best players now that they would have been back then.

So if roids make you better and you add that to the fact he was playing in the era of blacks and latinos some of whom were also on roids does that make Bonds more impressive than Ruth?

No, because Bonds was on roids and played in an era where expansion diluted pitching to the point where some teams' "aces" would have been the third or fourth starter on a big league club's minor league affiliate back then.

[Chus-Kay]

i don't think anyone made that assumption.

You must not have read the OP.

Even if Ruth never did drugs he never had to play against the best players.

And by best players I mean blacks and latinos.

oh yeah.  i tend not to really read weazy's stuff.

[BlackLight]

For the record, even if we were to discount the steroid effect on the quality of today's players, I don't think too many of the players from Ruth's era could play in today's MLB. You have organized baseball being played in this country starting at the age of five, modern fitness and strength training, even the players making the league minimum are paid more than enough that they can (and are expected to) focus only on baseball as their profession, pitchers having a wider array of pitches at their disposal.

I tend to think an 21st century (clean) All-Star team vs. a 1920s All-Star team would end up being a laugher.

[Proud Virgin]

i don't think anyone made that assumption.

You must not have read the OP.

Even if Ruth never did drugs he never had to play against the best players.

And by best players I mean blacks and latinos.

oh yeah.  i tend not to really read weazy's stuff.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight 

[Proud Virgin]

Ruth did all that as a fat, drunk slob. Plus he was a great pitcher early in his career.

So in short.


No.

Eat Dix.

You mad?

Bonds>Ruth

[Proud Virgin]

He just didn't play against blacks and latinos.

So he didn't play against the best.

[Proud Virgin]

For the record, even if we were to discount the steroid effect on the quality of today's players, I don't think too many of the players from Ruth's era could play in today's MLB. You have organized baseball being played in this country starting at the age of five, modern fitness and strength training, even the players making the league minimum are paid more than enough that they can (and are expected to) focus only on baseball as their profession, pitchers having a wider array of pitches at their disposal.

I tend to think an 21st century (clean) All-Star team vs. a 1920s All-Star team would end up being a laugher.

Exactly

[Chus-Kay]

hey weazy, check out the Add Multi Quote feature.

[TH]

For the record, even if we were to discount the steroid effect on the quality of today's players, I don't think too many of the players from Ruth's era could play in today's MLB. You have organized baseball being played in this country starting at the age of five, modern fitness and strength training, even the players making the league minimum are paid more than enough that they can (and are expected to) focus only on baseball as their profession, pitchers having a wider array of pitches at their disposal.

I tend to think an 21st century (clean) All-Star team vs. a 1920s All-Star team would end up being a laugher.

And if I lived in the Renaissance, I'd pick up as many bitches as tdub claims he can. Times change, we get it. However, relative to what Ruth had to face then? What he did was damn impressive, moreso than what other guys today were doing. Even when Bonds was creaming records (and he was great, don't get it twisted), A-Rod and Pujols among others were still in his wheelhouse. Ruth was dominating in an era before expansion and without peer.

This is the same flawed argument that the SEC homers use to debunk Boise State or TCU's legitimacy by saying "if they played an SEC schedule, they'd go 8-4 at best". It's a fallacy because that would assume that they'd pick up, leave their conferences and somehow convince 8 SEC schools to play them in a fair balance of home and away games. If Boise or TCU played an SEC schedule, they'd be part of the SEC, and it'd be reasonable to believe that they'd be even better than they are now because they'd get all the benefits of being an SEC member with the added bonus of having the administration and coaching in place that made them so dominant in the first place. If Babe Ruth were alive today, he'd have all the benefits of diluted pitching, steroids, premium conditioning etc. If Bonds were alive back then, assuming that he somehow was the first to break the color barrier, he'd have all the same disadvantages that Ruth would have had. I'd think that the results would be somewhat the same for both guys, no matter what era.

[Little Jimmy]

For the record, even if we were to discount the steroid effect on the quality of today's players, I don't think too many of the players from Ruth's era could play in today's MLB. You have organized baseball being played in this country starting at the age of five, modern fitness and strength training, even the players making the league minimum are paid more than enough that they can (and are expected to) focus only on baseball as their profession, pitchers having a wider array of pitches at their disposal.

I tend to think an 21st century (clean) All-Star team vs. a 1920s All-Star team would end up being a laugher.

And if I lived in the Renaissance, I'd pick up as many bitches as tdub claims he can. Times change, we get it. However, relative to what Ruth had to face then? What he did was damn impressive, moreso than what other guys today were doing. Even when Bonds was creaming records (and he was great, don't get it twisted), A-Rod and Pujols among others were still in his wheelhouse. Ruth was dominating in an era before expansion and without peer.

This is the same flawed argument that the SEC homers use to debunk Boise State or TCU's legitimacy by saying "if they played an SEC schedule, they'd go 8-4 at best". It's a fallacy because that would assume that they'd pick up, leave their conferences and somehow convince 8 SEC schools to play them in a fair balance of home and away games. If Boise or TCU played an SEC schedule, they'd be part of the SEC, and it'd be reasonable to believe that they'd be even better than they are now because they'd get all the benefits of being an SEC member with the added bonus of having the administration and coaching in place that made them so dominant in the first place. If Babe Ruth were alive today, he'd have all the benefits of diluted pitching, steroids, premium conditioning etc. If Bonds were alive back then, assuming that he somehow was the first to break the color barrier, he'd have all the same disadvantages that Ruth would have had. I'd think that the results would be somewhat the same for both guys, no matter what era.

This is pretty much the correct answer.

[BlackLight]

And if I lived in the Renaissance, I'd pick up as many bitches as tdub claims he can. Times change, we get it. However, relative to what Ruth had to face then? What he did was damn impressive, moreso than what other guys today were doing. Even when Bonds was creaming records (and he was great, don't get it twisted), A-Rod and Pujols among others were still in his wheelhouse. Ruth was dominating in an era before expansion and without peer.

If Babe Ruth were alive today, he'd have all the benefits of diluted pitching, steroids, premium conditioning etc. If Bonds were alive back then, assuming that he somehow was the first to break the color barrier, he'd have all the same disadvantages that Ruth would have had. I'd think that the results would be somewhat the same for both guys, no matter what era.

But what disadvantages? See, you're not comparing apples to apples. Your argument is that because there were so many fewer teams in the 1920s, only the best of the best made it to the major leagues. And you're probably right. But that's as far as you can reasonably advance the argument. Because so much has changed about the sport and culture of baseball in the last 80-90 years, it no longer follows that we must conclude that Ruth faced tougher pitching than today's players. Frankly, I don't think he did - I think the best pitching of today probably far exceeds the best pitching of Ruth's era.

All we can reasonably say is that Ruth was, by far and away, the best player of his era. Was his era better than this era? Well, I think the steroid issue muddies the waters a lot, but on balance, I still say no. I'm talking about dropping these guys in each other's respective era, handing them a baseball bat and telling them to go play and seeing how they do - not bringing them up in each other's system and see how the outcomes differ. I don't really know how Ruth would fare in 21st century baseball - I suspect poorly. But I'd bet a lot of money that Bonds, clean or not, would make a mockery of 1920s professional baseball.

[Proud Virgin]

You know if we really wanted to know about the Renaissance we could just ask Bo....oh too easy

[TH]

But what disadvantages? See, you're not comparing apples to apples.

Disadvantages being lack of conditioning and everything else you brought up. You're the one not comparing apples to apples. I made no comparisons at all, actually.

[Zandrax]

I have neither the time nor patience to go through this thread right now. But the standard comeback (if it hasn't been used already):

The game has evolved.

True, Ruth never had to pitch against that blackie, or never had to take a pitch from that blackie, or have to catch a ball hit by that blackie, or have to never had to throw a ball to that blackie, or never had to field a ball with that blackie, or never had to steal a base from that blackie

But he also never had to bat against a Greg Maddux or take direction from a Tony La Russa. The game is much more strategic now.

[Webweaver]

Why is it assumed that that blacks and latinos in the 1920s and 30s would've been better ballplayers than the white guys who played during that era? Baseball is not an innate skill. You have to practice and learn the game to be any good.
 

It was a fact that many black players were better than some players in MLB so Ruth didn't face the best. Having said that, black pitchers have traditionally not been on the same level as white pitchers. That could be for the same reason there were very few black quarterbacks. Blacks natural speed made them better fielders so they would have been pushed towards those positions. Not to mention the racism that would have been a part of the day where pitching is for the 'thinking' man so blacks would not have been given that opportunity as often.

So Ruth's numbers would have likely been about the same since even in the 20's and 30's there was no defense against the HR no matter what colour you were.

Having said that Bonds is still the best player to ever play the game. You have to remember that just as many pitchers are on the gas. So Bonds did not really have an advantage.

[Proud Virgin]

Oh I think crackers are definitely better pitchers and qbs than blacks and latinos.