Bonds is a selfish prick, Exhibit ZZZQ

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
we all know that cy youngs are the best way to determine this

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, please list all the dominating pitchers in the past 20 years who didn't win any Cy Youngs, and we'll add them to the discussion.

[ QUOTE ]
no one is saying that black pitchers would dominate, but having them out of the league is a definite boon to hitters

[/ QUOTE ]

That's just an assertion without any support. What about the mediocre or bad black pitchers? How would their absence be a boon to hitters? Answer: it wouldn't. It would only be the absence of REALLY, GOOD, DOMINATING BLACK (and other minority) pitchers that would possibly make a difference.

So how many dominant minority pitchers would there have been? How much lower would Ruth's average have been? How many fewer homers would he have hit?

No one wants to address these specific fundamental questions.

[SL__72]

Race doesn't matter. The fact that players were excluded is what matters.

Also, I don't think its a terribly important point. If black players were excluded today, the league would still be much much tougher then it was when Ruth played.

It is the size of the pool of prospective players the league has to draw from that is important. Today that pool is much MUCH larger then it was when Ruth played.

[SL__72]

Graph showing what is probably a good estimate of how much the league has improved over the years. The "rating" is arbitrary and is just set using 2004 as a baseline I think.





If you want to read about how this graph was created, here is part 4 of the series of articles. There are also lots of links to other work in them including a counterpoint (between parts 2 and 3) from Nate at BP.com.

Changes in League Difficulty Part 4

[DesertCat]

So if I read this correctly, does this means Ruth's out-performance should be reduced by 20-25%? That would reduce his 207 career OPS+ to 180-185? I.e. exactly where Barry is now?

Or should his entire performance be reduced by 20-25%, giving him an OPS+ of 155-165?

[SL__72]

I'm not sure how you would use this information to compare individual performances between different eras. I read in some article that the difference in difficulty between the majors and AAA right now is something like 15%, which I imagine means that the 1920 majors were something like the current AA (according to this particular estimate). If you look at the article I linked you will see that this estimate is much more conservative then BP's.

[Thremp]

DC,

I referenced an article for its "facts", not some writers opinion.

I don't know if this is a sick jopke. But are you looking at the numbers before you say this:

[ QUOTE ]
This whole discussion has been me posting facts, and you and others just firing out assertions, "nah, nah, that can't be true". Why don't you do some research? Or are you just having fun pulling my chain?

[/ QUOTE ]


Over that period he has a 2.261 league RF. His over the period is 2.217. This is slightly below average for his best years. I don't see how you can call his range "plus". His best season his range was 8.5% better than the league. At his peak. That is best he ever did. Bonds has had 3 seasons in his career of a range factor less than 8.5% better than the league (granted one season was 8.44% but why shade the numbers when they are so overwhelming). If you call Ruth's defense "gold glove" caliber during his prime, Bonds would still be eons ahead of him.

[gehrig]

guys range factor is a junk stat it doesnt make any adjustment for fielding opportunities. its equivalent to judging hitters by hits per game.

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
Race doesn't matter. The fact that players were excluded is what matters.

Also, I don't think its a terribly important point. If black players were excluded today, the league would still be much much tougher then it was when Ruth played.

It is the size of the pool of prospective players the league has to draw from that is important. Today that pool is much MUCH larger then it was when Ruth played.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree that the league is tougher overall, but how does it follow that RUTH wouldn't have been as good? The guy hit more home runs than any other team! How much worse would he be? Wouldn't he still be awesome? Why don't you think so?

[Thremp]

[ QUOTE ]
guys range factor is a junk stat it doesnt make any adjustment for fielding opportunities. its equivalent to judging hitters by hits per game.

[/ QUOTE ]

That isn't the point. Constructing an argument based on stats, without looking at the stats is standard old school method of journalism and actually what he accused me of doing. Somewhat ironic, no?

[SL__72]

My point was just that he was crushing what was probably similar to AA competition. If someone put up Ruth type numbers today in the Japanese league, would you think they were better then Bonds? Because the Japanese league actually rates out as tougher then the MLB of the 1920s I think.