Bonds is a selfish prick, Exhibit ZZZQ

[Pudge714]

DrewDevil,
Don't you see that adding one black pitcher or one of the extra 200 million americans into Babe Ruths era that they overall pitching of the league will increases. Also Babe Ruth is compared to his peers adding black hitters will increase the quality of his peers and decrease his value

[prohornblower]

I heard Ripken on Rome about 2 months ago and he seems ridiculously full of himself. Maybe it's that he is like 6 inches taller than his brother and has baby blue eyes. But I was not impressed with his character.

He's one of those guys that could keep his mouth shut, and run for office and probably win, but when he actually lets you into his character, it's unappealing.

So because of this, I'm going to assume he's on Roids. That is how my biased logic works. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When anyone says "Ruth didn't have to play against black guys," I guess it's assumed that if blacks had been allowed to play back then, there would have been 2 or 3 black pitchers on every team who would have struck Ruth out every time or something.

The man hit .342 lifetime against the best white pitchers of his day. Are people trying to argue that if the amazing black athlete had been allowed to play, he would have hit .267 or something? How many black pitchers would have made it to the majors? How many would have had Ruth's number? Any evidence that he wouldn't have been just as good against the black pitchers as the white pitchers?

These are the questions I have.

Not only that, but Bonds is playing in the greatest offensive era in MLB history (whether or not you believe steroids are responsible). Ruth began his career in the "dead ball" era and hit more home runs than every other team in the majors a couple of times. Hell, some historians think that Ruth single-handedly ENDED the dead ball era.

But I guess now the theory is that if black pitchers had been playing, he'd have sucked. I don't buy it.

Ruth >>>>>>>>>> Bonds

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is, the pool from which MLB players are currently selected from is VASTLY larger than the pool they were selected from in Ruth's day. Its not even close. Thus, his competition was almost certainly (unless the MLB just ran sick hot for like 20 years) vastly inferior to today. Why is this not obvious?

[/ QUOTE ]

That certainly is obvious. What is less obvious is that there were hundreds of overpowering black pitchers in the 1920s and 1930s who would have greatly diminished Ruth's numbers.

Even today, if you look at the last 10-20 years of major league baseball, most of the dominating, Cy Young award winning pitchers have been white, even with this vast talent pool you speak of.

I agree that the pitching would have been better had blacks, Dominicans, etc. been allowed to play in the majors back when Ruth was playing. But is there any evidence to suggest Ruth would have been significantly worse? How much lower would his batting average have been? How many fewer home runs would he have hit?

I don't think there's any real evidence that an integrated MLB would have affected his dominance much at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hundreds? Quick question, what do you think is the GRAND TOTAL number of pitchers Ruth faced in any one season?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
In 1920 Babe Ruth hit 54 HRs. That number is more than every other TEAM in the American League. He had nearly 3X the number of HRs as #2, George Sisler.

In 1921, Babe Ruth hit 59 HRs. That number is more than 5 of the 7 other teams in the AL. He hade more than twice the number of HRs of the guys tied for 2nd.

These are just two examples of how Babe Ruth was light years better than almost every other player in the major leagues at the time.

So even if you agree that Ruth played against a somewhat lower level of competition by virtue of the exclusion of blacks and latinos ... so what? Do those of you arguing this point really think it would have made that much of a difference, that we would view Ruth any differently today?

[/ QUOTE ]

It wouldn't have had to make THAT great of a difference. Ruth isn't THAT much better than Bonds, from a raw data standpoint. How much of an impact would it need to make in order to tip the scales? Probably about 5%. Do I think it makes that big of a difference? Absolutely, without a doubt.

[reddnigg]

id like to see him play in it but its very understandable not to for a few reasons:
1. the derby is extremely tiring if you go the whole way
2. it can mess up your season
- david wright had 20 hr going into the all star break last year, played the hr derby and said it kinda messed up his swing: he finished the season with only 27 hr
3. obv at his age bonds would like some time off

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is absurd. The absence of ANY pitchers who are above replacement level or above league average would make a difference. You again seem to be overestimating the number of players, total, that were even IN MLB during Ruth's day. 1 or 2 dominating pitchers, 3 or 4 really good ones, and 7 or 8 above average ones would have probably SIGNIFICANTLY reduced Ruth's outputs. He would still have been the champ, no doubt about that, still led the league in everything, but you don't need to reduce his numbers by much in order for Bonds to come out on top.

[vhawk01]

[ 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 ]

Exactly.

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When anyone says "Ruth didn't have to play against black guys," I guess it's assumed that if blacks had been allowed to play back then, there would have been 2 or 3 black pitchers on every team who would have struck Ruth out every time or something.

The man hit .342 lifetime against the best white pitchers of his day. Are people trying to argue that if the amazing black athlete had been allowed to play, he would have hit .267 or something? How many black pitchers would have made it to the majors? How many would have had Ruth's number? Any evidence that he wouldn't have been just as good against the black pitchers as the white pitchers?

These are the questions I have.

Not only that, but Bonds is playing in the greatest offensive era in MLB history (whether or not you believe steroids are responsible). Ruth began his career in the "dead ball" era and hit more home runs than every other team in the majors a couple of times. Hell, some historians think that Ruth single-handedly ENDED the dead ball era.

But I guess now the theory is that if black pitchers had been playing, he'd have sucked. I don't buy it.

Ruth >>>>>>>>>> Bonds

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is, the pool from which MLB players are currently selected from is VASTLY larger than the pool they were selected from in Ruth's day. Its not even close. Thus, his competition was almost certainly (unless the MLB just ran sick hot for like 20 years) vastly inferior to today. Why is this not obvious?

[/ QUOTE ]

That certainly is obvious. What is less obvious is that there were hundreds of overpowering black pitchers in the 1920s and 1930s who would have greatly diminished Ruth's numbers.

Even today, if you look at the last 10-20 years of major league baseball, most of the dominating, Cy Young award winning pitchers have been white, even with this vast talent pool you speak of.

I agree that the pitching would have been better had blacks, Dominicans, etc. been allowed to play in the majors back when Ruth was playing. But is there any evidence to suggest Ruth would have been significantly worse? How much lower would his batting average have been? How many fewer home runs would he have hit?

I don't think there's any real evidence that an integrated MLB would have affected his dominance much at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hundreds? Quick question, what do you think is the GRAND TOTAL number of pitchers Ruth faced in any one season?

[/ QUOTE ]

Way to focus on the least significant part of my post. But fine, have it your way:

[ QUOTE ]
What is less obvious is that there were any overpowering black pitchers in the 1920s and 1930s who would have greatly diminished Ruth's numbers.

[/ QUOTE ]

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When anyone says "Ruth didn't have to play against black guys," I guess it's assumed that if blacks had been allowed to play back then, there would have been 2 or 3 black pitchers on every team who would have struck Ruth out every time or something.

The man hit .342 lifetime against the best white pitchers of his day. Are people trying to argue that if the amazing black athlete had been allowed to play, he would have hit .267 or something? How many black pitchers would have made it to the majors? How many would have had Ruth's number? Any evidence that he wouldn't have been just as good against the black pitchers as the white pitchers?

These are the questions I have.

Not only that, but Bonds is playing in the greatest offensive era in MLB history (whether or not you believe steroids are responsible). Ruth began his career in the "dead ball" era and hit more home runs than every other team in the majors a couple of times. Hell, some historians think that Ruth single-handedly ENDED the dead ball era.

But I guess now the theory is that if black pitchers had been playing, he'd have sucked. I don't buy it.

Ruth >>>>>>>>>> Bonds

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is, the pool from which MLB players are currently selected from is VASTLY larger than the pool they were selected from in Ruth's day. Its not even close. Thus, his competition was almost certainly (unless the MLB just ran sick hot for like 20 years) vastly inferior to today. Why is this not obvious?

[/ QUOTE ]

That certainly is obvious. What is less obvious is that there were hundreds of overpowering black pitchers in the 1920s and 1930s who would have greatly diminished Ruth's numbers.

Even today, if you look at the last 10-20 years of major league baseball, most of the dominating, Cy Young award winning pitchers have been white, even with this vast talent pool you speak of.

I agree that the pitching would have been better had blacks, Dominicans, etc. been allowed to play in the majors back when Ruth was playing. But is there any evidence to suggest Ruth would have been significantly worse? How much lower would his batting average have been? How many fewer home runs would he have hit?

I don't think there's any real evidence that an integrated MLB would have affected his dominance much at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hundreds? Quick question, what do you think is the GRAND TOTAL number of pitchers Ruth faced in any one season?

[/ QUOTE ]

Way to focus on the least significant part of my post. But fine, have it your way:

[ QUOTE ]
What is less obvious is that there were any overpowering black pitchers in the 1920s and 1930s who would have greatly diminished Ruth's numbers.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't the least significant part of your post at all. Its incredibly significant, and its an error that fuels much of your argument. You seem to have this idea that it would have taken this great wave of Hall of Fame players into the league in order to reduce Ruth's value to Bonds levels. Thats simply not true. There were fewer teams, and fewer pitchers, and they pitched more innings. This means that even a small handful of better than league average players, and maybe even just one or two really good/great pitchers, could have had a very real impact on Ruth's numbers. Take away only 5 or 6 HRs and 5 or 6 doubles every year from Ruth, and see how the numbers come out.

[SL__72]

That doesn't really matter. Even if you banned non-white players from today's MLB it would still be tougher.