Why wasn't a bigger deal made of Bonds joining the 500-500 Club?

[oykib]

Originally posted by Alan T
So does this mean that we have to wait till 2010 to see if Bonds actually is this great? Since Bonds has been doing something no one else has done up till now (making him a great player), we need to wait for another 6 years to measure it against others who learn from that and are able to do the same thing?


I think you made my point in your post for me. What Ruth did was great since he was so dominant, he changed the game. The fact that he brought in a new era that was significantly (and I can not overstate the word significantly enough here) different in gameplay and overall strategy, shows what an impact he placed on the game.

Like I said before, I have a strong feeling that Bonds will be just like Ted Williams, far more appreciated after he has finished playing and has retired for a few years than he was during his play.

I think that it is SOP to wait a few years before determining where someone places an the all-time list.
We know that Bonds is top ten. But I'm not going to definitely say anything until a few years after he retires.

Basically, I'll wait until his HOF ceremony before making any evaluations that are set in stone.

As for Ruth changing the game, I don't give him much extra credit for that. The accomplishments should speak for themselves. His accomplishments are impressive without all these bonuses people toss in when they feel someone is challenging his standing.

1. Ruth is so great because he... and he was also the best left-handed pitcher of his day before he became an outfielder

Irrelevant-- the best position players are more valuable than the best pitchers. That's why Ruth was switched. The only change is that I'll concede that he'd have been somewhat more valuable in his first few years if he'd have had the benefit of starting out as a right fielder.

2. In the year 192X, Ruth hit more homers than any team in the league

This is another impressive-sounding stat that doesn't mean anything-- I've already gone into this quite a bit. But this stat only means something if he was the only player capable of hitting homeruns. The fact that many other players put up historic slugging seasons within a few years tells us that he was ahead of the curve but not as far above his competition as this stat seems to indicate.

3. Ruth saved baseball or Ruth revolutionized the game.

The first is a misconception. The second is true-- I give him a slight bonus because he was the first historic slugger. But greatness is something that should be able to translate to all eras. Historical quirks should not enter into our discussions that much. Somebody would have eventually been that first slugger. It didn't take a particular internal quality of Ruth's (He was a pitcher and a malcontent so no one tried to correct the sandlot uppercut in his swing).

[ISiddiqui]

I don't follow. Are you saying the pitching he faced was a lot easier then say, that of the Padres, a team Bond's gets to face 20 times a year? What about playing in Coors field another 10 times or so a year. HE also get's to play interleague and the talent is a lot more thin nowadays

No, I'm not saying any of that. I'm saying that he did something that people didn't do. People hit for average and ran the bases, Ruth hit for power. It'd be like, in this age of power, for someone hitting .400ish and stealing 100 bases. It just isn't done today.

Ruth was the first person to hit for the fences. He changed the game by showing that it WAS a viable strategy to go for Homeruns. Before that they thought it was a bad idea.

[Alan T]

Originally posted by oykib
I think that it is SOP to wait a few years before determining where someone places an the all-time list.
We know that Bonds is top ten. But I'm not going to definitely say anything until a few years after he retires.

Basically, I'll wait until his HOF ceremony before making any evaluations that are set in stone.

As for Ruth changing the game, I don't give him much extra credit for that. The accomplishments should speak for themselves. His accomplishments are impressive without all these bonuses people toss in when they feel someone is challenging his standing.

1. Ruth is so great because he... and he was also the best left-handed pitcher of his day before he became an outfielder

Irrelevant-- the best position players are more valuable than the best pitchers. That's why Ruth was switched. The only change is that I'll concede that he'd have been somewhat more valuable in his first few years if he'd have had the benefit of starting out as a right fielder.

2. In the year 192X, Ruth hit more homers than any team in the league

This is another impressive-sounding stat that doesn't mean anything-- I've already gone into this quite a bit. But this stat only means something if he was the only player capable of hitting homeruns. The fact that many other players put up historic slugging seasons within a few years tells us that he was ahead of the curve but not as far above his competition as this stat seems to indicate.

3. Ruth saved baseball or Ruth revolutionized the game.

The first is a misconception. The second is true-- I give him a slight bonus because he was the first historic slugger. But greatness is something that should be able to translate to all eras. Historical quirks should not enter into our discussions that much. Somebody would have eventually been that first slugger. It didn't take a particular internal quality of Ruth's (He was a pitcher and a malcontent so no one tried to correct the sandlot uppercut in his swing).

I haven't used most of t hose arguments.. so not sure if they are replies to others in this thread. I also don't put much weight into Ruth being a pitcher. Sure he looked like he could have had a real nice career as a stud Lefty pitcher. He would not have been Cy Young or Matthewason though, and would not even be talked about the way he is today as a pitcher. In his hayday as a hitter, he had stopped pitching for the most part. So it is an intriguing tidbit, but irrelevant, I agree.

2. I think that it is a relevant stat because it gives you a proportion of his dominance. We can say well Bonds hit alot of home runs or Ruth hit alot of home runs.. but that does not tell you much. Only when you compare it to others of the timeperiod does it give you insight to how much more of a slugger he was. That would be like saying Cecil Fielder was a greater hitter than Mike Schmidt even though the period Mike Schmidt hit in was one of the more offensively deflated periods of baseball.

3. I never really thought of Ruth as having saved baseball. I give more credit to Cal Ripken than to Ruth for that perhaps. Maybe thats just because I don't have enough of an insight to exactly how bad the gambling was tearing apart baseball.. Not sure there.. I do give him alot of credit for revolutionizing parts of baseball. I think any time someone does something so different that it leads to imitation that directly points to future success it is a very worthy note. And to Bonds credit, I have a feeling we will be able to point to certain things he does or has done that others will start to do as well. For example, look at how Gary Sheffield has performed this year after spending some time with Bonds to change his work out regiment. It seems to have done a nice job. Granted both Bonds and Sheffield were nice players before, allstars before.. but both are arguably among the best hitters in baseball right now.

[oykib]

2. I think that it is a relevant stat because it gives you a proportion of his dominance. We can say well Bonds hit alot of home runs or Ruth hit alot of home runs.. but that does not tell you much. Only when you compare it to others of the timeperiod does it give you insight to how much more of a slugger he was. That would be like saying Cecil Fielder was a greater hitter than Mike Schmidt even though the period Mike Schmidt hit in was one of the more offensively deflated periods of baseball.

It's valid to compare him to his era. It's invalid to compare him to a particular year. If we compare Ruth to Jimmy Foxx, Lou Gehrig, or Rogers Hornsby we get a much better idea about his level of dominance. But most people dodn't do that. They compare 1921 Ruth to 1921 everyone else. You get a skewed idea of his ability doing that (for the reasons I've listed in this thread). The way most people talk, the idea seems to be that Ruth had more power than any team in his day. That, of course, is patently absurd.

What he did have was more power than any other player of his day. But, as I said before, the margin of Ruth's greatness is really not better than the margin of Bonds' or Ted Williams best seasons. Ruth did it for significantly longer than either of those to players, though. that's why I still rate him number one.

But if Bonds can finish this season on the pace he's been setting and give another one next year, I'll almost definitely have to rate him as the #1 of all-time.

[ISiddiqui]

It's valid to compare him to his era. It's invalid to compare him to a particular year.

But you don't. You've consistantly talked about Bonds' last two years. Why are you comparing a particular year rather than his career? Bonds is a Top 10 player based on his career, but you seem to say he should be Top 3 simply based on his last two years.

But if Bonds can finish this season on the pace he's been setting and give another one next year, I'll almost definitely have to rate him as the #1 of all-time

So if Bonds has 4 Ruthian seasons in his career, then he's better than Ruth?

[Alan T]

Originally posted by oykib


It's valid to compare him to his era. It's invalid to compare him to a particular year. If we compare Ruth to Jimmy Foxx, Lou Gehrig, or Rogers Hornsby we get a much better idea about his level of dominance. But most people dodn't do that. They compare 1921 Ruth to 1921 everyone else. You get a skewed idea of his ability doing that (for the reasons I've listed in this thread). The way most people talk, the idea seems to be that Ruth had more power than any team in his day. That, of course, is patently absurd.

What he did have was more power than any other player of his day. But, as I said before, the margin of Ruth's greatness is really not better than the margin of Bonds' or Ted Williams best seasons. Ruth did it for significantly longer than either of those to players, though. that's why I still rate him number one.

But if Bonds can finish this season on the pace he's been setting and give another one next year, I'll almost definitely have to rate him as the #1 of all-time. [/b]

You keep saying you can't just judge Ruth on his 1921 season, yet you keep only looking at Bonds 2001 and 2002 seasons. So to help the audience, here is some rough statistics over the course of a 7 year span for Ruth and some comparisons to Bonds..

These comparisons if anything only help show how great Ruth was, and also perhaps how underrated Hornsby and Gehrig were/are.

Using OPS (Not quite as good as a modified OPS, but thats a little too time intensive for me to put together over these years. So using OPS as an attempt to show player's performance):

Ruth led his league in OPS between 1918 and 1931 every single year except for an injury shortened 1925 season. He led all of baseball 9 of those times.

Bonds has led his league in OPS 7 times (1990 - 1993, 1995, 2001 and 2002). It was only 4 of those years that Bonds led all of baseball in OPS.

Bonds in his last two years has had OPS over roughly 200 points higher than the others in his age.. Ruth had a year where he was more than 300 points higher, a year where he was almost 300 points higher (1926), and if you compare Ruth's 1921 OPS to anyone anywhere between 1921 and 1929, They still come up over 100 points short.

I guess I am going to probably just drop the conversation since I have a feeling that I am not going to be able to convince you, and I just can't possibly see how you can at this point say Bonds is close to being compared to Ruth for greatness. Bonds has done it for 2 years, where Ruth did it for 13+.

[Alan T]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
But you don't. You've consistantly talked about Bonds' last two years. Why are you comparing a particular year rather than his career? Bonds is a Top 10 player based on his career, but you seem to say he should be Top 3 simply based on his last two years.



So if Bonds has 4 Ruthian seasons in his career, then he's better than Ruth?

Ok yeah.. what Isiddiqui wrote in alot less words and faster...

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, but you had the stats... so we made a team effort .

[oykib]

I said that you can't compare Ruth's 1920 and 1921 seasons to what other people were doing in 1920 and 21. I never said that they couldn't be compared to what other players were doing on 1925 or 2002. I only said that people use the fact that he had better power numbers than half the league to imply that he was more powerful than whole teams combined. That is the false argument that I was talking about.

Bonds last three and a half seasons don't make him bettr than Ruth. The fact that he was on a pace to be in the Mickey Mantle area of the all-time list before makes him seem to be headed in the neighborhood of Ruth. If you add four of Ruth's best seasons to the career of any top twenty player you are going to get him up into the top five or so. Right now he's had two seasons that are are good as (actually better than) any two seasons of Ruth's. His current season and the 2000 season were Ruthian as well ( if not quite at Ruth's level).

I think that Bonds's Ruthian seasons count for more than Ruth's Ruthian season because of the level of competition. You're free to disagree with me about that, or about how much more they should count even if you do agree with me. I think that there is plenty of evidence that the level of competition was lower. There is no eveidence that Ruth's level of competition was higher.

Like I said, Bonds has probably not gotten there, yet. He probably won't get there without another season of his current pace and then a regular MVP-candidate season or so.

[EagleFan]

Ruth's power numbers:
1921: 59 HR's - more than 8 teams, 35 ahead of 2nd
1922: 35 HR's - more than 1 team
1923: 41 HR's - more than 2 teams
1924: 46 HR's - more than 8 teams, 19 ahead of 2nd
1925: 25 HR's - injured that season
1926: 47 HR's - more than 9 teams, 26 ahead of 2nd
1927: 60 HR's - more than 12 teams, 13 ahead of 2nd
1928: 54 HR's - moer than 7 teams, 23 ahead of 2nd
1929: 46 HR's - more than 4 teams, 3 ahead of 2nd
1930: 49 HR's - more than 1 team
1931: 46 HR's - more than 6 teams
1932: 41 HR's - more than 2 teams
1933: 34 HR's

It wasn't until 1950 that every team in the league had more than 60 homeruns for the first time. The arguement that he wasn't so much better, just no-one wanted to do it that way doesn;t hold a bit of water. Yeah, ther ewere some players that could, but not many. If there were than it wouldn't have taken 23 years for every team in the league to be able to top his 60 homerun total in a season.

Unless everyone involved with baseball back then was so stupid that it took them 23 years to figure out that the homerun helped teams win. Such as the Yankees who boasted the only multiple homerun threats in the entire majors and see what they got for that.

Were the other 15 teams just so blind to the fact that the Yankees dominated while putting up huge homeruns nubmers at the time? Were all the other players that stupid? "Hmm, Ruth is hitting a ton of homeruns and the Yankees are winning everything. I could hit homeruns like that, but I would rather just keep hitting singles and watch the Yankees win the championships."

[oykib]

EagleFan, you neglect to point out that in this same period of time a number of players put up big homerun years that would have nearly identical charts. It's only for the first few that Ruth was the only one. No one did it as often. But after about 1925 there was usually someone other that Ruth every year who put up big power numbers.

[ISiddiqui]

Oykib, did you not read Eaglefan's post? Someone else did put up power numbers, but it wasn't that many people. It wasn't like suddenly everyone was jacking HRs right after Ruth's lessons sunk in. If they had, as you were insinuating, then every team would hit at least 60 HRs.

[oykib]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
Oykib, did you not read Eaglefan's post? Someone else did put up power numbers, but it wasn't that many people. It wasn't like suddenly everyone was jacking HRs right after Ruth's lessons sunk in. If they had, as you were insinuating, then every team would hit at least 60 HRs.

No they wouldn't. The other sluggers slowly sprinkled through both leagues. They didn't realize right away that slugging led to winning. So it took the better part of the decade for every team to try and get one.

So you had a few teams that had sluggers in the late 20s and then a few more in the early thirties. But the established major leaguers weren't changing. Most of the new sluggers were new players entirely. It took them a few years to hit their stride.

I still say that you give Ruth too much credit for being the only one. He wasn't the only one in his era. He was just ahead of the curve by half a decade. Let the numbers speak for themselves.

Because of his particular circumstances, Ruth has a bias in his numbers that none of the other all-time great s has except for Hornsby ( although its less of a factor for Hornsby because he wasn't the player Ruth was.

Just rest on the fact that Ruth's string of seasons in the 20s were so good that no one has even come close to them except for Williams and Bonds. Williams and Bonds seasons are more impressive because of the competition level. But neither of them has nearly as many of them. Tack on two more to Barry Bonds, though, and we have to start talking about him being number one rather than Ruth.

[Alan T]

Not sure what else I can show now that I have used factual stats, reason and common sense to show why Bonds after two great seasons is not the greatest player in history I guess thats the fun thing.. you will always run into those who think a Barry Bonds or a Hank Aaron or a Reggie Jackson or whoever is the best ever. Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

I don't see it the way you do obviously oykib, but thats fine

[oykib]

Originally posted by Alan T
Not sure what else I can show now that I have used factual stats, reason and common sense to show why Bonds after two great seasons is not the greatest player in history I guess thats the fun thing.. you will always run into those who think a Barry Bonds or a Hank Aaron or a Reggie Jackson or whoever is the best ever. Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

I don't see it the way you do obviously oykib, but thats fine

I don't know what you guys are reading ( although it's obviously not my posts ).

Originally, I said that Bonds was a top five player already. Then I said that the gap between the other Top Players (namely Willie Mays and Ted Williams) and Ruth are not as big as most people think. I then illustrated my point.

I never said that Bonds is already better than Ruth. I said that his last two seasons are the best two consecutive seasons that any player has put up since they started playing a brand of baseball that we'd recognize (post-1900).

My point was that if he can tack on a another two or so seasons at his current level I'll seriously have to consider making him the number one rather than Ruth. I've repeated many times that I think that Ruth desrves the number one spot on the list now.

[KWhit]

Originally posted by oykib
I said that you can't compare Ruth's 1920 and 1921 seasons to what other people were doing in 1920 and 21. I never said that they couldn't be compared to what other players were doing on 1925 or 2002.

Are you really saying that it is valid to compare Ruth's numbers from 1921 to numbers from 2002? Oh that's just a difference of 81 years!! And yet you claim that it's not valid to compare his 1921 numbers to other players' numbers from THE SAME YEAR! Huh?

Because it was just Ruth's great idea to try to hit homeruns. Your contention is that if other players would have just thought slugging was a good idea, everyone would be hitting 60 HRs.

Umm... I don't get it.

[KWhit]

Originally posted by oykib
I don't know what you guys are reading ( although it's obviously not my posts ).

Originally, I said that Bonds was a top five player already. Then I said that the gap between the other Top Players (namely Willie Mays and Ted Williams) and Ruth are not as big as most people think. I then illustrated my point.

I never said that Bonds is already better than Ruth. I said that his last two seasons are the best two consecutive seasons that any player has put up since they started playing a brand of baseball that we'd recognize (post-1900).

My point was that if he can tack on a another two or so seasons at his current level I'll seriously have to consider making him the number one rather than Ruth. I've repeated many times that I think that Ruth desrves the number one spot on the list now.

I see what you're saying, but you're not giving enough weight to the fact that Ruth TOTALLY changed the game. Your assertation that "If Ruth wasn't the first slugger, somebody else would've been" does him a disservice.

[oykib]

Originally posted by KWhit
Are you really saying that it is valid to compare Ruth's numbers from 1921 to numbers from 2002? Oh that's just a difference of 81 years!! And yet you claim that it's not valid to compare his 1921 numbers to other players' numbers from THE SAME YEAR! Huh?

Because it was just Ruth's great idea to try to hit homeruns. Your contention is that if other players would have just thought slugging was a good idea, everyone would be hitting 60 HRs.

Umm... I don't get it.

No, I said that it would be more accurate to compare Ruth's 1921 season with Gerhig's 1927 than to compare it to anything anyone else was doing in '21. We are still comparing him to players from his era if we compare his best season to Jimmie Foxx or Gehrig's best seasons. Ruth still comes out on top. HE comes out on top by a wide margin. But that margin is much more realistic.

If we compare Ruth to the league in 1921, at least as far as his power numbers, we have to come to the conclusion that if he played today he'd hit 243 homeruns in single season. That's absurd. We have to correct for that. Maybe he'd hit ninety homers. I don't know. But we all know that he wouldn't hit in the mid 200s.

In 1932, at the age of 24, Jimmie Foxx had a stat line of .364/.469/.749. He hit 58 home runs and drove in 169 runs. Foxx also scored 151 runs himself. That's an all-time season.

Ruth had three seasons better than that. Those three seasons were significantly and noticeably better. Ruth also had a number of seasons that were as good as that. Ruth was obviously much better than Foxx. But when you compare him to Foxx who, though he was ten years younger, was contemporary, you get a much more realistic ( athough still amazing ) impression of his ability compared to the best players of his day.

I suppose it gets down to how you want to define greatness. I want it to encompass the athletes all-around ability on the playing field. I give more weight to skills that transcend the players era ( although I don't discount skills that were considered to be more valuable in previous eras ). Ruth has both of those qualities to a greater extent than anyone else we can document.

But the gap that you get for his early 1920s seasons when you compare them to the other early 20s players has a ridiculously biasing effect on his evaluation. It's not even a bias that he needs to be the best player ever. That bias is only useful if you're trying to make the argument that Ruth was from a totally different planet.

[Alan T]

If you look at skills and athletic ability and such, you will always give an unfair bias to the modern generations. As time goes on, the players learn more and more about nutrition, physical fitness, weight training, etc. As well as learning more and more about the game of baseball, and what are more important skills to have in the game. (see how today people weight batting average far less important than they used to compared to other statistics.)

The players of today on average are better fielders, better batters and better pitchers than the players on average of yesteryear. They have the better training programs, have better equipment (in the way of bats, gloves and full body armor at the plate), and they have modern medicine helping them become overall stronger players as well as coming back from injury quicker and stronger than ever.

So anytime you look at a player's "skills or abilities" then today's players will always win. That minimizes the accomplishments from the past that have made the game great.

[oykib]

I am not comparing his 40 times or how much he could bench to modern guys. But is is fair to say that Bonds plays against 90-some-odd percent of the best players of his day ( and they are all playing the same game ), while Ruth played against half or less of that percentage.

We know that there were a significant number of all-time players that were not playing in the Majors. The absence of those guys is another factor that makes Ruth look like a superman, rather than just the best player in history. I think that it is somewhat the same story for Cobb and Wagner.

[ISiddiqui]

No they wouldn't. The other sluggers slowly sprinkled through both leagues. They didn't realize right away that slugging led to winning. So it took the better part of the decade for every team to try and get one.

THIRTY Years? They couldn't figure it out in a 3rd of a century?! Come on!

I am not comparing his 40 times or how much he could bench to modern guys. But is is fair to say that Bonds plays against 90-some-odd percent of the best players of his day ( and they are all playing the same game ), while Ruth played against half or less of that percentage.

I disagree. I think Ruth played against at least 60-70% of the best players of his day. You have YET to show me that a significant number of the Negro League players or Latin baseball players or Asian baseball players would be among the 'best players of his day'. Since you made the positive assertion, I want some proof of that statement. And no, pointing to the number of minorities in the 60s isn't proof. I want to see how many minorities would be good enough to be starters in the majors in the 1920s. Thinking about the talent in the Negro leagues back then and the Latin leagues, I seriously doubt the number would be above 30% of the league as it was.

You can't just say he didn't play against this group, that group, and that group so his achievements aren't as good as this other guy. Because you have no proof to indicate that those groups would have made a great impact on the game at that time. The sport wasn't that popular yet in Latin and Asian countries, and the Negro leagues were filled with hack teams like major league baseball was in the 1870s (and hardly anyone would say that those players would have made a dent in 1920s baseball), with only a few 'star' teams.

The game has to be popular for a while with a group of potential players before you have many good players coming from that group. The fact is that the US at the time wasn't that amenable to blacks or latinos playing baseball. They had to play by themselves, but the restrictions naturally led to less playing by those groups. While whites could play in the open and were encouraged to at times, blacks had to play away from whites (if they had any leisure time at all... because they had to work harder to make anything close to what a white man was earning) and thus few of them did play. The game of baseball was considered, by many, to be a white man's game. Sure you had your stars, but the average player wasn't as good as the white player at the time, and wouldn't be for a few decades yet.

Basically, the inherant racism in America retarded the development of many potential black baseball players. Only when it was more accepted did the average black player reach the quality of the average major league player.

[oykib]

THIRTY Years? They couldn't figure it out in a 3rd of a century?! Come on!

Where do you get thirty years from? By the mid-30s there had already been a bunch of non-Ruth seasons that were historic as far as power and run production.

As to your point about the excluded players. The only one that we have even a modicum of evidence from is the Negro Leagues. From Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract, in its death throes the Negro Leagues produced five all-time greats ( Jackie Robinson, Roy Campanella, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, and Ernie Banks). Of those five players, four were on the All-Century team. Those were five up-and-comers in the Negro Leagues. None of those players were stars. Unless you think that the Negro Leagues magically started minting All-Time greats, there had to be a comparable amount of stars in the Negro Leagues ( comparing to the majors ).

We also know that the AL and NL teams were not interested in established veteran Negro Leaguers. They only chased the young talent. By the accounts of the baseball people who say him play, Oscar Charleston had to have been Willie Mays ( at least ). Don't you think that the Willie Mays of his day would have had some impact on the leaderboard of his league?

We are not even mentioning the guys who played out west or Mexico or Cuba.

[ISiddiqui]

Where do you get thirty years from?

It wasn't until 1950 that every team in the league had more than 60 homeruns for the first time.

Those were five up-and-comers in the Negro Leagues. None of those players were stars.

How can they be up-and-comers and stars at the same time? There aren't many of those around. If the Negro Leagues HAD stuck around, I'd bet you that all five would have been huge stars in that league.

Unless you think that the Negro Leagues magically started minting All-Time greats, there had to be a comparable amount of stars in the Negro Leagues

Bull! Like I said, they all would have been stars in the Negro Leagues. Also, by that time (the 1950s), black baseball had been an accepted sport for at least a couple generations. This results in better coaching and more opportunities for the '50s kids, and that potential actually gets realized. More and more black kids start playing the game and it catches on.

By the accounts of the baseball people who say him play, Oscar Charleston had to have been Willie Mays ( at least ). Don't you think that the Willie Mays of his day would have had some impact on the leaderboard of his league?

LOL, sure, but not as much as you are thinking, at all! Had to have been Willie Mays at least... hehe. He'd be going into a league with much better up and down talent and betting coaching. Why would he have to be Willie Mays, at least? He would have been good, Hank Aaron good, but I'm not sure he would have been Willie Mays good.

[oykib]

How can they be up-and-comers and stars at the same time? There aren't many of those around. If the Negro Leagues HAD stuck around, I'd bet you that all five would have been huge stars in that league.

They were talented young players. But they were not established stars. There were established stars in the league, though. Those stars would have had the same impact on the majors as they did in the Negro Leagues.

Bull! Like I said, they all would have been stars in the Negro Leagues. Also, by that time (the 1950s), black baseball had been an accepted sport for at least a couple generations. This results in better coaching and more opportunities for the '50s kids, and that potential actually gets realized. More and more black kids start playing the game and it catches on.

Baseball was pretty much always just as popular to blacks in America as whites. In the 1800s there were even a few black major leaguers. To imply that there it took until the 50s for black baseball to develop is absurd.

LOL, sure, but not as much as you are thinking, at all! Had to have been Willie Mays at least... hehe. He'd be going into a league with much better up and down talent and betting coaching. Why would he have to be Willie Mays, at least? He would have been good, Hank Aaron good, but I'm not sure he would have been Willie Mays good.

First of all, why do you assume that the coaching in the Negro Leagues was not as good as in the white majors. It's been documented that the scouting was better. It seems to me that indicates that the brain trusts in the Negro leagues were at least as effective as the ones in the majors.

Second, I'm not the one who compares Charleston to Willie Mays. I don't know him from Adam. John Mcgraw said he was the greatest player that Mcgraw'd ever seen. Plenty of the Negro league experts rate him as the best player that the leagues ever produced. Those same leagues produced Mays. So it's not a strestch to say Charleston=Mays.

It wasn't until 1950 that every team in the league had more than 60 homeruns for the first time.

That's not really an important stat. The problem with the early 20s stats is that no one but Ruth was doing it. Once you get a few sluggers in the league Ruth's numbers are reasonable. He is still above the pack, but not really more so than Williams or Bonds are in their best seasons.

[ISiddiqui]

They were talented young players. But they were not established stars. There were established stars in the league, though. Those stars would have had the same impact on the majors as they did in the Negro Leagues.

Like who? Who are all these stars that no one has heard about? Charleston and Gibson had been out of the league for years!

Baseball was pretty much always just as popular to blacks in America as whites. In the 1800s there were even a few black major leaguers. To imply that there it took until the 50s for black baseball to develop is absurd.

Black Major Leagues? Really? Seeing as how the Negro Leagues weren't a 'major league', I'd be interested in seeing which leagues these were.

And yes, I'm implying that it took until the 50s for black baseball to really mature. Seeing as the Negro Leagues season was only 40-60 games long and then the teams played up to 150 semi-professional games, a majority of the time they didn't even play the best players of their own race! How is a league going to mature that way? Obviously the National League in the late 1800s didn't really mature. It wasn't until the turn of the century, when you could have refered to the Major Leagues as somewhat mature. So yeah, I think in an unorganized Negro League, with teams folding like crazy, and wacky schedules, and mostly playing against inferior talent leads to a retardation of the maturation of skill. You learn and hone your talent by playing the best.

First of all, why do you assume that the coaching in the Negro Leagues was not as good as in the white majors. It's been documented that the scouting was better.

You do realize that coaching and scouting are two different things right? Recognizing raw talent isn't as difficult as coaching it to become good. Why do you think many coaches are former players? Because they know the game better than those outside the game. Why was the coaching not as good? Because most of the coaches did not have good experience in playing the game. There were less oppertunities for blacks to play professional baseball, where they would have learned the game the best way. There were hardly any professional leagues for blacks until the 1910s. Therefore it would take at least a generation for good coaches to develop (just like in the 1800s and for good portions of the '00s , white major league coaches were horrible).

John Mcgraw said he was the greatest player that Mcgraw'd ever seen. Plenty of the Negro league experts rate him as the best player that the leagues ever produced. Those same leagues produced Mays. So it's not a strestch to say Charleston=Mays.

Firstly, I think they are wrong in saying Charleston is the best player the Negro Leagues ever produced. Measuring the stats from a disorganized league is extremely difficult, and since many people said he was good back then, of course more people will continue to say it in the future.

And I know McGraw said that, but I don't think John McGraw is the be all, end all of player evaluation. He made a number of dodgy moves with the Giants.

Furthermore, Charleston would be going into a league that had better overall talent than his own. I think his numbers would have been lower. He wouldn't have been as good as Mays.

That's not really an important stat.

Of cours it is! It totally blows your proposition that after Ruth hit his HRs, everyone saw it and changed to do it the same way. There were a few power hitters, but it wasn't like everyone became a slugger overnight because they suddenly realized it was good to do so.

The problem with the early 20s stats is that no one but Ruth was doing it.

It took THIRTY years for every team to have 60 HRs in a season. That's 7.5 HRs (60/8) per hitting position in the lineup. If teams saw now that slugging was the way to go, why did it take so long for the last team to get an average of 7.5 HRs per player on their team? Were they just not seeing it?

[oykib]

First of all, there were black major leaguers in the white major leagues. You can look up Moses Fleetwood Walker if you want to read about the last one and the institution of the color line.

The Negro league season actually had many more games than the AL and NL schedule. The Negro Leagues were seriously into barnstorming. That's how they devoloped their much more effective scouting season. They had to play everywhere to make money because they didn't have 'legitimacy' and had to generate revenue how they could. Wherever they went they'd pick up the best players and the players would move up the chain to the premier teams based on ability.

THey were doing this as early as the late 1900s. So they had a 'farm system' set up about fifty years before the majors did.

To imply that they weren't developing talent is absurd. There were plenty of guys. The fact that you don't know any names just means that you are ignorant. If you wanted to do a little research then you'd find out about some of them. I'm not much of a student about that either. But I know enough to know that there was nothing wrong with the talent.

Of you are going to make the statement that the best players in the Negro Leagues would not have had an impact until the 50s because they didn't know how to play baseball well enough until then, there is no point continuing the discussion.

In the first place, it's a ludicrous contention that the stars of the Negro Leagues either were not talented or skilled enough to mak an impact, but that in a seven year stretch as the leagues were dying they produced five all-time greats.

Also, how do you account for the fact that it is documented that they played just as well as the white all-stars that they played in the All-Star games that they played between them. Most of those accounts have them playing even with them.

Earlier in the thread you also made the statement that the stars of the league like Gibson and Paige were good, but that the average player was not as good as the average major leaguer. Where do you get this info from?

It very much seems that you want to denigrate the abilities of these players. Just because we don't have a 154 game per season stat line that's endorsed by Elias doesn't mean there is no evidence of their ability. We have plenty of evidence. The track record of Negro Leaguers in the majors once the color line was broken is outstanding. We have documentaion of how they did in All-Star games against major leaguers. We have accounts of knowledgeable baseball men that attest to their ability. It seems to me that you are justifying your conclusion that the Negro League players weren't as good by the conclusion itself.

You say coaching wasn't as good: show me an article that says Jackie Robinson couldn't turn a double play before Branch Rickey got a hold of him.

You say that the average player wasn't as good, even though we know that the best players in the Negro Leagues were as good as the best players in the Majors): Show me a quote, a single quote, from a knowledgeable person from that time period who made that assessment.

Honestly your position in this is asinine.

Of cours it is! It totally blows your proposition that after Ruth hit his HRs, everyone saw it and changed to do it the same way. There were a few power hitters, but it wasn't like everyone became a slugger overnight because they suddenly realized it was good to do so.

You didn't explain how you defeated my argument. I said that Ruth was playing a different game than everyone else. He was. If you look at the early twenties you have only one other great that was trying to hit homers, Rogers Hornsby. Hornsby hit his prime as Ruth hit his. He's the only all-time slugger with basically the same age range as Ruth. But Hornsby was in the NL and was more of an average hitter than he was a slugger.

I said that if you compare Ruth's early twenties seasons to what other sluggers', who came along five years later, seasons from the late 20s and early thirties, that they are still great. But the margin of that greatness is more in line with what the other top ten players or so have been able to accomplish in their best seasons.

This is reasonable if you want to read the numbers for what they mean rather than engage in hero worship. Ruth still owns four to six of the best ten offensive seasons of all time if you do that. His raw numbers from the '20 and '21 seasons don't change. We just compare him to people from his era who were playing the same game as him. His '21 season is better than Jimmie Foxx's '32 season. But it's only as much better than Barry Bonds's 2002 season is to Mark McGwire's 1998 season.

I don't see how that's an absurd stretch. We do compare Bonds to McGwire. We do compare Mantle's best seasons to Mays's best. Those seasons aren't always in the same year. We usually couple that with comparing the player's accomplishments to the league-season context. But that is useless with Ruth. Rather, we should compare it to the average for the seasons later in his career. You're still taking his accomplishments at his best. But you are using a league context that would give them perspective.

It took THIRTY years for every team to have 60 HRs in a season. That's 7.5 HRs (60/8) per hitting position in the lineup. If teams saw now that slugging was the way to go, why did it take so long for the last team to get an average of 7.5 HRs per player on their team? Were they just not seeing it?

Ruth's early seasons are without proper context not because some team was below his home run total. They are without proper context because every team was below.

To put it more simply, Jimmie Foxx hit 58 homers in '32. He led the league and had an all-time season doing it. No one would suggest that he was a demigod, though. This is because there were others hitting homers that season. He still had the best season of anyone, by a fair amount, in '32. I'd guess that the stat you used for Ruth's 60 would work just aswell for Foxx's 58. But his league context was normal and so no one would suggest that he did something only Hercules should be able to accomplish.

[ISiddiqui]

Jesus, could you have failed reading more in grammer school?

There were plenty of guys. The fact that you don't know any names just means that you are ignorant. If you wanted to do a little research then you'd find out about some of them.

I know about plenty of Negro League players. I have done the research, this is why I'm making these assertions .

They had to play everywhere to make money because they didn't have 'legitimacy' and had to generate revenue how they could. Wherever they went they'd pick up the best players and the players would move up the chain to the premier teams based on ability.

So you had a few elite teams which horded all the talent, while the rest languished? Isn't this exactly what I've been saying? The stars were just as good as major league stars, but the average player wasn't as good as his counterpart? Why? Because the average player played on worse semi-pro teams whose stars were raided. They ended up playing mostly against worse competition. The elite teams would come in for one series but most of the time they played against other teams which did not have talent.

Why do you think I say that the Negro Leagues were not good at developing talent. They took the stars, they didn't develop them really. While the average player languished.

It took decades (until the 30s and 40s) for the Negro Leagues to get more organized and allow the average player to join with the big boys and play the best teams for a majority of the season. Before that it was like the Globetrotters.

So they had a 'farm system' set up about fifty years before the majors did.

To imply it was the same as the Major's farm league is disengenous at best. It was a very crude system. They owned one, maybe two, teams, and they didn't have complete control over it. It was more like a 'we have first dibs' type of system.

Of you are going to make the statement that the best players in the Negro Leagues would not have had an impact until the 50s because they didn't know how to play baseball well enough until then, there is no point continuing the discussion.

There's the whole reading thing again. I know a pretty good grammer school close to here, I'm sure they'd let you in .

You say coaching wasn't as good: show me an article that says Jackie Robinson couldn't turn a double play before Branch Rickey got a hold of him.

Wasn't Robinson playing in the hmm... late 40s and 50s? That reading thing again.

Earlier in the thread you also made the statement that the stars of the league like Gibson and Paige were good, but that the average player was not as good as the average major leaguer. Where do you get this info from?

I just told you. HOWEVER, you made the positive assertion that the average player was just as good as the average MLB player. Therefore you need to show me proof of that. You've said that the stars were as good as MLB stars. That isn't contended. However, you cannot trickle down that 'proof'. First the leagues were vastly different. The Majors were well organized and complete, resulting in the average player playing against the stars day in and day out. The Negro Leagues were horribly organized and incomplete, the average player usually played against the average player and only played the stars a few times a year (like a minor league team playing its parent 2 series a year).

You say that the average player wasn't as good, even though we know that the best players in the Negro Leagues were as good as the best players in the Majors

So average players = best players?

Show me a quote, a single quote, from a knowledgeable person from that time period who made that assessment.

Why would any MLB manager have seen an average Negro league team? All they played against are All-Star teams, which were just as good as MLB's All-Star teams... that has no bearing on the average player, however.

I said that Ruth was playing a different game than everyone else.

And you STILL fault him for it! Jeez, the guy changes the entire game, and you diminish that. Throwing it away, saying 'no one else was doing it'. Well, duh! They did it because of Ruth!

Rather, we should compare it to the average for the seasons later in his career.

That reading thing is gonna be the death of you. Eaglefan didn't compare Ruth to just his '21 season. If you look... you can see '21 all the way to the 30s. We have compared it to the average for the seasons later in his career, and he still comes out way on top!

Jimmie Foxx hit 58 homers in '32. He led the league and had an all-time season doing it. No one would suggest that he was a demigod, though.

No one is suggesting Ruth is a demigod. All we are suggesting is that he was the greatest player of all time, and Bonds isn't that close yet.

There is no need for you to exaggerate your opponents' position because you cannot argue with what they really said.

Btw, FYI, I consider Jimmie Foxx the best 1B of all time... and he's in my top 10 all time as well.

[oykib]

I don't know what the point of discussing this with you is. There is nothing in my posts about a few teams hording all the talent. The top teams tended to have the most good players just like the majors.

The system was no different from what developed in the majors. You just had the farm teams fifty yearsd earlier than the majors thought them up.

By the way, when you use the fact that Ruth hit more homers than the any team in the league as a stat to support his greatness, you are saying that it was his ability that made him able to do it. Otherwise, that's a useless stat.

There were guys in his generation that were able to do that. It's only circumstance that allowed him to dominate to that extent. Had Jimmie FOxx been two years younger, rather than ten years, we might have seen something more reasonable.

You are the one that doesn't read his opponents points. I said that Ruth was number one. But that a variety of things that are unique to his situation as well as the differences in the level of competition inflate his statistics.

Of you want to argue that the facts that Ruth played in a non-integrated league, that the majors didn't effectivesly recruit the best talent, and that the game was going through its most profound physical and philosophical changes didn't affect Ruth's numbers I have nothing more to say to you.

You repeatedly say that the Negro Leagues and its players were inferior. To make this assertion you've used no evidence. [i]When I asked you for a quote about what you said about the average players being not as good even though the greats were you say that there is no reason for a major league mind to have ever watched an average player. That's the height of evasion. There is just no evidence of your contention. Why not just admit that it is only your own opinion.

As far as the great players go, we were not only talking about John McGraw and Oscar Charleston. There were many quotes by the players of the day about Gibson, Charleston, Cool Papa Bell and a variety of other players. But the scholars tend to say Charleston was the best. Earlier it was believed that Gibson was better (probably having more to do with the valuation of catchers as compared to outfielders in the fifties and sixties than actual ability).

The only piece of 'evidence' that you have put up in your entire string of posts is that the best players tended to be collected on superteams. How is that different than the majors. The last time I checked half of the Ruth Yankee's starting lineup wa in the Hall of Fame with Connie Mack's entire infield. It seems like it got that way becaise Ed Barrow bouught all the talent from the Red Sox and Connie Mack (like John Mcgraw) had a fairly organized system of scouting the counrty for talent that was like the Negro leagues system.

By your own argument you are saying that more competetive balance equals better talent in a league. It's easy to calculate the index of competetive balance. Competetive balance went up in every single decade of baseball's existence until the last one. Your own nonsense argument would seem to support my contention that we should rate the same feats by more modern players as more impressive than those feats by earlier players (since it was more easy to dominate in the past).

You say that the Negro league system was flawed and that the average player wasn't as good because the stars played the stars and the average players only played mediocre competition. Show me the evidence. It's you who is making a state ment that goes against the facts in hand. We know that once the color lin was broken the best young talents of the Negro Leagues were best players in the Majors. That leads to the conclusion that the talent was as good.

There is no evidence that the average players were not as good as average major leguers. Yet there is all the evidence in the world that the talent level was just as good. Whay don't you admit that you just want to see Ruth kept on his pedestal? You are making all these wild claims with no support. Every cliam I've made is backed up with evidence that either clearly states it or evidence from which we can easily infer the conclusion I'm making.

I'm open to debate. But when I challenge you to provide evidence I get:

1) Why would a major league manager ever watch an average player (i.e. ther is no evidence of your claim)

2) The leagues and competition were inferior so Oscar Charleston wouldn't have been as good as McGraw and other Hall of Fame baseball minds said he'd be( also without a shred of evidence, although we know for a fact that the best Negro League talent when allowed to play were among the best players in Major League history)

I could go on and on...

But let me leave you with this...

I didn't challenge your intelligence. I challenged the intelligence of your argument (which is what people do in a civilized debate). But...

by ISiddiqui
There's the whole reading thing again. I know a pretty good grammer school close to here, I'm sure they'd let you in .

Maybe you can ask one of the teachers to show you how to spell grammar.

[Daimyo]

Ruth was pretty good, but he's no Takeru "Tsunami" Kobayashi. Talk about changing your sport!

[ISiddiqui]

You repeatedly say that the Negro Leagues and its players were inferior. To make this assertion you've used no evidence.

Says the KING of no evidence. What is your evidence that the average Negro League player of the '20s was as good as the average major league player:

1) The stars of the '20s were just as good.

2) The up-and-coming stars during integration were good in the majors.

Talk about evasive. I never asked about stars, yet that's all you have to say.

Did black players gain a majority of players in the late 1950s and 1960s? No, why not? Could it be because the average player just wasn't as good as major league talent, but the stars probably were.

Your 'evidence' is as good as mine. Why was Oscar Charleston as good as Willie Mays would be? Because John McGraw said so. Therefore it MUST be true! Hogwash!

It is FACT that Negro league teams played only 30-40 games in 'league' play (which means about 4-6 teams, basically) and 150 against semi-pro teams (this fact is on the Negro Leagues webpage). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out these semi-pro teams probably didn't have the talent of the pro teams. Semi-pro teams usually don't. Furthermore, Negro League teams only had 14 men on the team (compared to 25 in MLB). Less players in the pros!

So I ask for your evidence that Ruth played against less than 50% of the baseball talent. You say the stars of the pro teams were just as good. If the stars of Negro League Baseball were integrated that might be about 20% of MLB. What about the average black player? If most of them were in semi-pro ball, it stands to reason they weren't as good as the regular MLB ball players, who devoting all of their time during the season to baseball.

Even TODAY:

A study by Northeastern University's Center for the Study of Sport in Society found last year that 17 percent of major league baseball players are black. (For a brief time last season, one team, the Philadelphia Phillies, had no black players.) By comparison, black players make up 67 percent of National Football League rosters and 80 percent of National Basketball Association teams.

http://www.utexas.edu/students/jacki...on/ebbets.html

17%? It probably was less in the 1960s. Even so, if we assume there was integration and the number of blacks was 17% in the 1920s, wouldn't that mean that Ruth played MUCH more than 50% of the talent out there at the time?

I didn't challenge your intelligence. I challenged the intelligence of your argument

Because calling someone else ignorant is challenging his argument? BULL!

Come back with some evidence and I MAY take you seriously. But if you keep coming back with this 'stars were just as good' BS, then don't bother.

[oykib]

I saisd that you were ignorant of the players in the Negro Leagues. You are. I also said that I was ignorant. Are you going to tell me that you are a scholar of Negro Laegue baseball?

I didn't call to question your literacy. Cute comments like that are the refuge of people who have weak arguments.

Second, any reasonable person would admit that integration wasn't total as soon as the color line was broken. The Al stayed largely sgregated until the 60s. Even in the NL, teams were not nearly as likely to give a black player a chance. It's a logical conclusion that if a sizeable contingent of the leagues' personell was racist that even a non-bigoted front office person wouldn't want to deal with the headache of a player unless he thought the player was worth the trouble (i.e. clearly better than average).

I don't see how your assertion that the average player wasn't as good makes any sense at all. So you've got all these superstars and all these scrubs. But there's no one in-between.

As to comparing the population to the poulation of professional athletes, you just have to turn on your TV to see that some groups are vastly over-represented in certain sports. That was true for baseball up until the late 80s with African Americans. By the mid 80s blacks were over 50% of the major league players. There's been a cultural shift and a change of scouting investments that's moved that over to Latin Americans.

You are falling prey to interpreting facts though a filtered lens. What we consider semi-pro or minor leagues today were much closer to the majors back then. The PCL had a better level of competition than the Union Association (which is considered a major league). Lefty Grove was languishing on a 'minor' league team for years until the economic situation of his owner forced his sale to the A's. There are plenty of other white ballplayers that were good enough to be major leaguers that for a variety of factors did not get a chance to play. You couple that with the way the Negro league players were excluded and I'd say that he faced half or less of the best talent in the world.

If you want to believe that he faced all or nearly all of the best talent the way that players form the 50s and 60s on have, go on ahead. I think that is an unreasonable position to have when we look at the impact of western players and Negro League ballplayers.

Here's evidence for you. It's a simple group of stats. These are the stats whose all-time leaders either wouldn't have possibly been able to play or likely wouldn't have been able to play had they been born back when Ruth was.

Home Runs (black)
Runs (black)
Runs Batted In (black)
Stolen Bases (black)
Strikeouts (from far west of the Mississippi)
Walks (black)

How about single season record holders?

Home Runs (black)
Stolen Bases (black)
Strikeouts (far west of the Mississippi)
Longest Hitting Streak (far west of the Mississippi)
Slugging Percentage (black)
On-Base Percentage (black)
Walks (Black)

I'm sure there are others that I'm leaving out. But these players who were either excluded or virtually excluded in Ruth's day have a big chunk of the records that we think are important. My assertion, though, was not that these excluded players would have surpassed Ruth. My assertion is that they'd have raised the average level of play to the point that Ruth's accomplishments would look mortal (though still impressive). My claim is that a few of them might have beat Ruth out for a home run title or two, or otherwise lowered his black and grey ink numbers to the point where he'd more closely resemble the other paragons of the sport.

The only defense you have for your argument is that we don't have documented evidence were great before they were allowed into the majors. To continue to assert your point you have to say that the precursors of Barry Bonds, Rickey Henderson, and Willie Mays were not as good as they were. You have to say that Baseball in Texas and California took a quantum leap when Nolan Ryan and Joe Dimaggio started playing.

I believe that Occam's Razor says that great Negro League players did great in the Majors because the level of competition was comparable. My assertion is the one that needs no evidence, though I've found some to refute your contentions. It's the simplest explanation that is most likely.

[oykib]

Originally posted by Daimyo
Ruth was pretty good, but he's no Takeru "Tsunami" Kobayashi. Talk about changing your sport!

You guys and your f%$@&*! JBL.



By the way, in Japan it's called NPB-- Nippon Professional Baseball.

[Daimyo]

I was talking about the guy who can eat 50.5 hotdogs in 12 minutes.

[oykib]

Oh, sorry, Daimyo. I thought you were down with Marmel and them that play in that OOTP online league. Crazy.

[ISiddiqui]

My assertion is that they'd have raised the average level of play to the point that Ruth's accomplishments would look mortal (though still impressive). My claim is that a few of them might have beat Ruth out for a home run title or two, or otherwise lowered his black and grey ink numbers to the point where he'd more closely resemble the other paragons of the sport.

Why would they have? After all most of Ruth's records did not fall until the power happy '90s, and EVEN THEN Ruth has amazing numbers. Are you telling me that 17% of the players would have changed the game that much? I simply don't believe it.

Bill James, who knows more than the Negro Leagues than both of us combined, has only 12 Negro League players in his Top 100 players of all time. I don't think the Negro League players would have had the impact that you think they would.

The PCL had a better level of competition than the Union Association (which is considered a major league).

Wrongly. The UA was not a major league and shouldn't be considered one.

I don't see how your assertion that the average player wasn't as good makes any sense at all. So you've got all these superstars and all these scrubs. But there's no one in-between.

Why does that make no sense? That was EXACTLY how the majors from 1876-1890 were! You had some great superstars and a bunch of scrubs. This was due to the nature of the game with so many semi-pro and minor league caliber teams and not many professional teams.

Stars have a natural talent and will be able to succeed because of that talent. Average players can't go forth only only on talent. They have to work on it and learn the game better than others. This works the best when you are playing against the best and most talented every day. You learn more and work harder to keep up.

Why do you think some phenom kids play against older competition? Even though they are a star and will be able to succeed based on talent, a lot of people think that playing him against players that are more of a challenge will cause him to work harder and think more, thereby bettering himself, by working on skills they don't really need to succeed but will help.

I believe that Occam's Razor says that great Negro League players did great in the Majors because the level of competition was comparable.

Yes, yes... the simplest explination to a complex world. Sorry, but I don't buy it.

For example, let us look at the Japanese leagues. Ichiro, Matsui, Sasaki, Nomo have all done GREAT in the majors. Is it your opinion then that the average Japanese player is as good as the average major league player? Because that is the leap you will have to make.


Going back to you saying that Ruth was only on the pedestal because he 'did it first', and within a decade there were plenty of people matching up to his feats, I decided to take a look at some numbers. You are familiar with Bill James 'Win Shares' system right? Well James uses 3 Win Shares systems to judge the worth of the player Win Shares per 162 games, Top 5 Win Share Seasons, and Top 3 Win Share Seasons. I'll compare Ruth in ALL of these numbers to his later contemporaries: Gehrig, Foxx, Hornsby and Ott.

Win Shares per 162 Games:

Ruth: 48.93 (1st all time - that's not a typo, btw)
Gehrig: 36.61
Foxx: 30.41
Hornsby: 36.00
Ott: 31.33

Top 5 Win Shares Seasons (sum):

Ruth: 233 (2nd all time to Honus Wagner)
Gehrig: 193
Fox: 173
Hornsby: 190
Ott: 177

Top 3 Win Shares Seasons:

Ruth: 55, 53, 51 (arguably the best)
Gehrig: 44, 42, 41
Foxx: 41, 40, 34
Hornsby: 47,42, 41
Ott: 38, 36, 36

So, if we put Ruth 'on a pedestal' as you think we are... perhaps it is for good reason.

[oykib]

You keep making my points for me. If you look at the stats you have to conclude that three-quarters of the top players of all time played before 1950. In a world where the players for every other soprts have gotten better, How do you justify that assertion.

Abou Bill James's ranking of Negro League Players, he put those players in his top rankings as a bare minimum. He explicitly mentions in his book that this number was the bare minimum he could put in and still have a legitimate list. He also says that he is more disturbed by the fact that he left certain Negro League players off the list than he is by the fact that he dropped a bunch of borderline white players (mostly from the era you talk about).

It is my opinion that the Japanese league today are on par with the level of play that we usually consider to major league baseball. Actually, it's the opinion of some Baseball Prospectus guys who did a study a year and a half ago. According to them the talent in the Japanese Leagues is 92-94% as good as the talent in the Majors.

I doubt that it'd have nearly as much impact if there were full integration of all the capable NPB players as if there had been before 150 with black, latin, and western white players. Right now the majors draw from so many talent sources that the level of the average player might rise 5%. Even though the Japanese players are as good, there are only twelve teams over here and the majors have thirty teams.

Even if we assume that there are three or four players that'd replace lesser players on Major League rosters on each team, we're for the most part talking about marginal improvements.

But I'm open to the fact that in thirty years the impact might have proven to be greater from the influx of Japanese talent, or possibly Cuban talent, and we'll have to eveluate the accomplishments of later generations that seem to be equal to this one as better.

Going back to you saying that Ruth was only on the pedestal because he 'did it first', and within a decade there were plenty of people matching up to his feats, I decided to take a look at some numbers. You are familiar with Bill James 'Win Shares' system right? Well James uses 3 Win Shares systems to judge the worth of the player Win Shares per 162 games, Top 5 Win Share Seasons, and Top 3 Win Share Seasons. I'll compare Ruth in ALL of these numbers to his later contemporaries: Gehrig, Foxx, Hornsby and Ott.

I wonder if you are misquoting me on purpose. You seem to fill your posts with my direct quotes-- except the ones where you feel like misquoting me to make your argument seem stronger. I said the Ruth's numbers, and the numbers of everyone who played before WW2 were skewed. I said that they were skewed as a function of how far back you went from WW2 (so Wagner's numbers are skewed more than Ruth's).

My points, specifically, were:

Ruth looked better than the league because he was playing a different game. If you look at other players from his era that were ten years younger (i.e. Foxx, Ott, and Gehrig) and to the only player from his era who was his age who was doing it (Hornsby, who was in the other league) his numbers are still the most impressive in history. But they are approachable numbers. If we were to subtract the years Ruth had on them form the years of their seasons so that their prime seasons matched up, Ruth's dominance would look like Williams's, Bonds's, McGwire's, or Mantle's dominance. He'd be the very best among a bunch of great players rather than a superman, which is the refuge of people who want to contend that his position as the game's best ever is unassailable.

If you don't adjust for Ruth's context, he is unapproachable. To do what he did in the early twenties you'd have to hit 250-300 homers in a season now. That's impossible. If your analysis of Ruth's seasons makes it literally impossible for anyone to surpass him, then you are misreading the numbers.

There were great players from Ruth's day that he didn't play against. I suppose that you can make that argument for Mays too. But the fact is that guys from the 60s on were playing against so much of the best competition that we have a good idea of their abilities. While it's possible that someone that wasn't in the Majors might have snatched some black ink from Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, or Mickey Mantle (especially Mantle as he was in the mostly unintegrated AL), they were all already fighting it out with each other. So we can pretty clearly see that Mays had the best career, Mantle had the most talent and Aaron had the best career value.

You can't do that Ruth. I'm fairly sure that he'd have been the best. But what would the effect of throwing a Mays-like talent in the AL in Ruth's prime have been on his black ink. That's just one guy. What about the lesser talents that had an effect on the leaderboard. No one thinks that Duke Snider is an all-time great. But he was compared with Willie and Mickey in his prime.

As an example, Derek Jeter is considered to be the least talented of the big three shortstops today. But his '99 season is far and away better than any of Nomar's seasons and was the best season by anyone in baseball that year. That's the sort of thing that changes our interpretation of players.

When A-Rod retires after having hit 837 home runs, people will wquestion the amount of his greatness because Jeter had X championships. THey are going to say that Nomar had a higher bating average and that he never struck out. They are goin to point out that Jeter and Nomar spent their careers playing in parks that favored the pitchers, while A-rod has played in the friendliest confines in the league. All of these arguments are not valid. A-Rod is the best. But they will be factored into A-Rod's evaluation.

You can't do that type of analysis for Ruth without changing his league context. He was in a unique situation. Had Ruth had the stats of Mantle or Williams or any other all-timer, he'd still rate as the best because of his screwy league context. But we know that none of these guys were as good as Ruth. The fact that his league contexts during the first half of his career were so screwy, really screws up the method by which we evaluate players.

[ISiddiqui]

If you look at the stats you have to conclude that three-quarters of the top players of all time played before 1950.

Not true at all! In the Win Shares system it seems to be fairly balanced (perhaps 40% of the top 100 in each position are after 1950 instead of 50%, that's not a big deal). For example let us take James' top 10 rankings for 1B:

1. Gehrig: 1923-39
2. Foxx: 1925-45
3. McGwire: 1986-2000
4. Bagwell: 1991-present
5. Eddie Murray: 1977-1997
6. Mize: 1936-1953
7. Killebrew: 1954-1975
8. Greenberg: 1930-47
9. McCovey: 1959-80
10. Thomas: 1990-present

That's 60% from after 1950! (The next ten is about the same as well). We just don't rank those from 1950 ahead, we rank those from after 1950 in high places as well. Some of the best players of all time played after 1950 (Mays, Morgan, Schmidt, Brett, Berra, Mantle, Bench, Bonds, etc.)... and this IS based on stats.

You seem to assume that all us Ruth fans believe that modern players suck. That just isn't true. We've even said that Bonds will be remembered as a Top 5 player. Ruth will be #1 and then the next 4 will all be interchangable, so if you want him #2 go right ahead.

You can't do that Ruth. I'm fairly sure that he'd have been the best. But what would the effect of throwing a Mays-like talent in the AL in Ruth's prime have been on his black ink. That's just one guy.

I have NO idea why you seem to forget Gehrig constantly. Also Jimmie Foxx as well. And Rogers Hornsby played during Ruth's early career. Three all time greats.

No one thinks that Duke Snider is an all-time great. But he was compared with Willie and Mickey in his prime.

He WAS a great player in his prime, but to be an all-time great, you have to do great for your entire career. His 26.60 Win Shares per 162 games (compared to 34.76 for Mays and 38.12 for Mantle) seems to show that he didn't.

When A-Rod retires after having hit 837 home runs, people will wquestion the amount of his greatness because Jeter had X championships. THey are going to say that Nomar had a higher bating average and that he never struck out.

That is such bull, it borders on crazy. If A-Rod hits 837 HRs, there won't BE any discussion 50 years down the road. People are going to say A-Rod was the best without question. The only people that will argue are Yankees and Red Sox fans.

The only thing that would make me disagree with what I've just said is if Nomar hits .400 for 4 straight years. BUT, if they continue on the paths as they are now, no one will be mentioned as better than A-Rod by serious fans. Hell, A-Rod is already acknowledged as the best by serious fans.

Had Ruth had the stats of Mantle or Williams or any other all-timer, he'd still rate as the best because of his screwy league context. But we know that none of these guys were as good as Ruth.

I doubt he would actually. If Ruth had the stats of Mantle and Williams back in the 30s, he'd still be the first slugger and thus would retain his title as the Bambino. But he'd be passed as #1 on at least a third of the lists by Mays or Williams or Mantle by now.

It is part of Ruth's legacy that his records took so long to fall. It took over 30 years for someone to hit 61. Then even longer for anyone to reach the 60 HR plateau again. His amazing SLG% record in a season took about 70 years to break. His all time HR record took over 30 years to break.

I'm sure in 50 years that Bonds will be ranked high.. and possibly some publications will rank him as the #1 player of all time and Ruth as #2. It could happen. I wouldn't argue that vociferously with them, but right now, in the present Ruth is better than Bonds. IF Bonds stays around long enough to break Aaron's record, then I may change my mind.

[oykib]

I doubt he would actually. If Ruth had the stats of Mantle and Williams back in the 30s, he'd still be the first slugger and thus would retain his title as the Bambino. But he'd be passed as #1 on at least a third of the lists by Mays or Williams or Mantle by now.
It is part of Ruth's legacy that his records took so long to fall. It took over 30 years for someone to hit 61. Then even longer for anyone to reach the 60 HR plateau again. His amazing SLG% record in a season took about 70 years to break. His all time HR record took over 30 years to break.
I'm sure in 50 years that Bonds will be ranked high.. and possibly some publications will rank him as the #1 player of all time and Ruth as #2. It could happen. I wouldn't argue that vociferously with them, but right now, in the present Ruth is better than Bonds. IF Bonds stays around long enough to break Aaron's record, then I may change my mind.

My quote meant that the statistics that these lesser greats put up would still qualify as the best sesons ever if they'd been done in the early 20s context. If guys that we know were top ten, but clearly not the best overall players would be seen as the best just because of the league context, then we have to take that league contest with a grain of salt.

As for the last part, I've been saying thoughout the thread (you can check, since none of my posts has been edited recently) that Ruth still rates higher than Bonds. I said that Bonds needs about two more seasons around his current level to pass Ruth.

But I still disagree that Ruth's numbers dominace are all Ruth. As people love to point out about the players of today, It's just easier to put up numbers in some contexts. The players from the sixties may have been able to break or approach some of Ruth's records had there been more scoring in the league in general and had their been as few great players and the lesser average players of Ruth's era to play against.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Clearly Barry doesn't need the media to blow his horn, he's not the least bit bashful about doing it himself.
What a jackass.
Bonds rips Ruth

[Alan T]

Ahh Mr.Class strikes again