Quote:
Originally Posted by cat's meow
You are sort of preaching to the choir here because in the end statistics over the long term are the great equalizer. When I look at a player I look at statistics or the long haul.
SN, I had long talk with my Pop the last two days who is another statistics and history guy. He is very good this way, here are some things we discussed you might what to put in you hat too.  
- Bonds or no Bonds...he had the hall of fame #s before the 'off season in question,' he was very well on track to do great things whether you think he is the enemy or not.
|
Hi Cat,
No doubt....he was already one of the greatest players of all time.
Quote:
- The historical points about Mountain Landis and baseball getting pass after pass in controversies over the years. This is a problem with all of MLB not just a single player. If they had cracked down on this very early way back when people like Lyle Alzado were dying of brain cancer due to being 'roided out' then a difference could have been made. The MLB owners and commissioner's office stayed in denial.
|
It's always easier to just ride the wave than rock the boat. Baseball is a business first and foremost.
Quote:
- Go all the way back to the 1920s during Babe Ruth's formidable slugger days and check out what happened (below)...the ball itself was 'juiced'...should Ruth’s enormous increase in #s have an asterisk? Hey, who is to say; baseball will not allow anything but wood bats but they DID change the ball (and they have slightly other later times too)...just before that time a cork centered ball had been introduced and many changes in the rules and pitching after Black Sox scandal were put into place...that is big changed in the fundamentals of the game.
|
Actually, Cat, there is considerable debate about wether or not the ball became "juiced" after the 1919 season. The claim is that the ball didn't change one bit. Instead,
- They outlawed the spitter and shine ball
- Made more of an effort to keep clean, new balls in play especially after Ray Chapman's death
- Ruth was the first guy to really swing for the fences. He did hit 29 home runs in 1919 for the Red Sox....that was a record.
But, let's assume they did juice the ball, then that would be the case for everyone...not just Ruth. So, no....no (*). Ruth rose above his contemporaries playing under the same conditions they did. BTW, that is what the Win Shares statistic is based entirely on....how much did a player help his team win. With all things being equal, it would rate a .230 hitter in 1965 in the Houston Astrodome near the same as a .300 hitter in the 1930 National League.