Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

[ QUOTE ]
You can't compare numbers in the 90s with numbers in other eras. You seem to know baseball. You should know that.

[/ QUOTE ] He didn't until the very end, your argument (while valid and correct) does not apply here to Jack's argument.

[ QUOTE ]
Off the top of my head, for starters. As of '99, Bonds didn't rank ahead of a single one of them. And I'm sure I am not the only one that thinks so.

[/ QUOTE ] sure you aren't the only one, but what does that prove? Nothing.

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

[ QUOTE ]
trying to convince someone whom hates Barry with all their heart that he is one of the best baseball players ever(even "pre-steroid") is a lesson in futility.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know I "hate" Barry Bonds "with all my heart"? Have we met? Talked about Bonds? I don't like his attitude, for sure. But I don't "hate" him. I don't even know him.

Anyway, what one thinks of him as a person should not have any effect on how a reasonable person should discuss or evaluate his talent. One thing has nothing to do with another. I like to think that, at certain rare instances, I am a reasonable person.

Criticize the argument. That's fair. Don't criticize me. You've got no reason to do so. It's fun to talk baseball, especially in March. Let's keep it fun.

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

my comment was more general in nature.

It has been my experience though that people will either hate Bonds(and not give him his props) or like him and give him his props.

The same thing happens with Shaq too.

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can't compare numbers in the 90s with numbers in other eras. You seem to know baseball. You should know that.

[/ QUOTE ]
He showed how Barry dominated the league for the 90s, not how his raw numbers compared to those of past eras. Statistics as they compare to one's peers is a pretty powerful gauge of one's dominance.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. The OPS stat was used by the poster both to show that Bonds dominated the league and how he ranked all time. Any stat that includes slugging percentage will favor hitters in the '90s.

2. What are we arguing about? That Bonds didn't dominate in the '90s? I agree. He did dominate. He was the best player of the decade. He was as of 1998. He was a great player as of 1998.

The original post said he was a top-10 all-time as of 1998. That's a different matter. Reasonable people certainly can disagree about this one. I think that folks who think Bonds was top-10 as of '98 undervalue the careers of those who played earlier in the 20th century.

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

[ QUOTE ]
my comment was more general in nature.

It has been my experience though that people will either hate Bonds(and not give him his props) or like him and give him his props.

The same thing happens with Shaq too.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean about Bonds not getting his "props"? I don't hear people saying that Bonds is not a great player. Do you? Anyone who says that he's not an all-time great -- maybe the best of all time -- doesn't know what he's talking about. But it appears that he also is a cheater. That damages his legacy, and criticizing him for taking steroids is, in my opinion, legitimate.

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

[ QUOTE ]
1. The OPS stat was used by the poster both to show that Bonds dominated the league and how he ranked all time. Any stat that includes slugging percentage will favor hitters in the '90s.

2. What are we arguing about? That Bonds didn't dominate in the '90s? I agree. He did dominate. He was the best player of the decade. He was as of 1998. He was a great player as of 1998.

The original post said he was a top-10 all-time as of 1998. That's a different matter. Reasonable people certainly can disagree about this one. I think that folks who think Bonds was top-10 as of '98 undervalue the careers of those who played earlier in the 20th century.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) How a player compares to the rest of the league favors no era. It's why OPS+ was also given.
2) No. No reasonable person would argue that. I'm simply stating that this is all that Jack's post illustrated.

The next step is to find the other candidates for this mythical top 10 and find their stats relative to the rest of the league. You may be right about undervaluing players of past eras. Statistics can actually provide the answers if one were to dig deep enough.

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

no, people do. They say he is nothing but a steroid ingesting freak and thats why he is good. You need to understand how stupid your everyday hater is.

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ruth
Gehrig
Mays
Mantle
Musial
Ted Williams
Honus Wagner
Rogers Hornsby
Cobb
DiMaggio

Off the top of my head, for starters. As of '99, Bonds didn't rank ahead of a single one of them. And I'm sure I am not the only one that thinks so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Take a look at your list - the latest anyone on your list played was 1973. Why's this? Well, in a smaller league, with a smaller talent pool, it's much easier to dominate. Factor in modern medicine which allows the careers of useful players to continue on despite what used to be career ending injuries, and there's an environment in which it's MUCH harder to dominate.

Do you honestly think every single one of the top ten position players of all time started their careers over 50 years ago?

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

Do you guys think that taking steroids makes you that great of a player? It makes you stronger, so you hit farther.

It doesn't make his eye/hand coordination great, his pitch reading ability great, his bat speed great.

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

trying to convince someone whom hates Barry with all their heart that he is one of the best baseball players ever(even "pre-steroid") is a lesson in futility.

i cant stand him (hate is a strong word for somebody i have never met) but have to admit he was a phenominal baseball player pretty much his whole career.

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

You Suck!

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No, I don't agree. Not even close.

[/ QUOTE ]

He was easily the best position player of the 90s, the only two people even remotely close are Big Hurt and Griffey.

He was, at his prime, an amazing left fielder.

From 1990-1998, his lowest OBP was .406. From 90-98 he was never lower than 5th on the NL leaderboards, leading the league 4 times.

From 1990-1998, he had a SLG below .550 once. He was never below sixth on the NL leaderboards, leading thrice.

From 1990-1998, his lowest OPS was .914 - which lead the league in 1992. He was never below THIRD on the NL leaderboard, leading five times.

From 1990-1998, his lowest OPS+ was 161, which lead the league. This measure compares park-adjusted OPS to the league average - 100 would avarage. He lead the league 4 times during this period, and was never below third.

He also made the top ten in steals in the NL 7 times during this period.

For his career until 1998, he had a career OPS+ of 164 in 8100 atbats. This would make him 9th all time, behind a few people that it would be hard to make a case being better than Bonds - Shoeless Joe (who had 1000 less PAs and was out of the game at 30), Dan Brouthers (who played the overwhelming majority of his time pre-1900), and the upper echelon of position players - Ruth, Mantle, Cobb, Williams - most of whom played pre-integration, in a league without talented black hitters, making it easier to dominate their leagues.

Please list your top ten list of position players, all time, start of the majors-1998, and I'll ridicule it for not including Barry.

[/ QUOTE ]

VNH.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Game, set, match.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you know how had more hits than anybody else during the '90's?

It was Mark Grace. Does this mean that Mark Grace should be considered one of the top singles hitters of all time?

I have nothing against Bonds and he certainly was a great player prior to the whole steroids thing, but he wasn't considered remotely in the class he's in now.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Bonds is always trying to elicit sympathy by bringing his kids into it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, I have to disagree with you here. Bonds' primary concern during interviews is not eliciting sympathy (and never has been) perhaps until this last one (in which I also don't think he really was trying to elicit sympathy).

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually have heard him bring his kids into it before this one. In an interview I saw a year or two ago, he said something along the lines of "My son came up to me the other day and asked 'Daddy, why are all these people saying you do those things you don't do.'"

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

[ QUOTE ]
why would baseball allow anyone that used steroids or is taking them to ever play in the leagues again. they should be stripped of all records and forgotten. this makes baseball a sham the way they are trying to poo-poo it and have self regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's because they have deliberately had their heads in the sand for a long time. Steroids weren't even banned in baseball until the late '90s (I think - correct me someone if necessary). Androstenedione, which was banned by EVERY pro sport and the Olympics was still legal in baseball in 2001 with Mcgwire. Baseball and it's leadership are huge hypocrites. Did you see Bud Selig's testimony about how he wasn't aware there was even a problem in 1998? RIGHT. . .

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why's this? Well, in a smaller league, with a smaller talent pool, it's much easier to dominate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the exact opposite of this statement is correct.......

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

was it in the sand or were they looking the other way. big difference i dont know which.
but anyone that breaks records or even plays and defies the rules to use methods that are illegal should have all his feats erased. no longer can it be determined which things he did was because he was great or because of performance enhancing drugs. like him or hate him anyone that does this stuff, accomplishments mean nothing and should be treated as such.

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

[ QUOTE ]
I feel bad for his kids. No, really I do. They have to live with this A-hole.

[/ QUOTE ]

Awsome.

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why's this? Well, in a smaller league, with a smaller talent pool, it's much easier to dominate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the exact opposite of this statement is correct.......

[/ QUOTE ]

If the league was smaller NOW it'd be harder - because there'd be less roster spots.

However, since the 1920s the talent pool has grown exponentially with the addition of blacks, hispanics, asians, and the large population boom, not to mention advances in modern medicine allowing player to play that would not have been able to otherwise.

Think of every player pitching right now that's had Tommy John surgery, and replace him with guys that didn't quite make the team. How much worse would pitching be?

Think about every roster spot taken up by a non-white. How much worse would the talent be without it?

Players are much better, on average, than they were years ago.

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you know how had more hits than anybody else during the '90's?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, Mark Grace

[ QUOTE ]
It was Mark Grace.

[/ QUOTE ]

No kidding.

[ QUOTE ]
Does this mean that Mark Grace should be considered one of the top singles hitters of all time?

[/ QUOTE ]

I compared Barry year to year to the rest of his league from the beginning of his peak, to 1998, since by all accounts, he likely started taking steroids in 1999. I then compared his career numbers up to that point with what is widely considered to be the best players of all time, and showed that he stands up favorably, once eras are taken into account.

You've taken a simple aggregate that doesn't mention that, say, Mark Grace is 94th on the all time hit list, or that he's never lead the league in hits. Furthermore, you're using a meaningless stat such as H.

To compare the two is absurd.

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

"Erased"? That's such bullshit. It happened, and you want to pretend it didn't? Baseball is a game of extensive information and statistics. You can't pretend it didn't happen - do you want to strip the Giants of their NL Pennant and NL West titles?

Just about every single record in the game was born out of the context it was played in. Baseball's not a uniform game; with different ballparks and talent levels, and stategies used in different eras, it's easy to see trends. Why were all the triples records set in the first 40 years of the game? Are they meaningless?

Furthermore, we don't have a damn clue about how different drugs affect players' ability. None. Making rash judgments based on a witch hunt mentality is idiotic and overreacting. Of course, we'll never know the full extent because everyone sticks their fingers in their ears and screams when people start talking about steroids in any manner that isn't related to burning offenders at the stake.

Baseball has never used asterisks. Instead, they give people the information and let them interpret it how they want. That's the way it should be.

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why's this? Well, in a smaller league, with a smaller talent pool, it's much easier to dominate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the exact opposite of this statement is correct.......

[/ QUOTE ]

If the league was smaller NOW it'd be harder - because there'd be less roster spots.

However, since the 1920s the talent pool has grown exponentially with the addition of blacks, hispanics, asians, and the large population boom, not to mention advances in modern medicine allowing player to play that would not have been able to otherwise.

Think of every player pitching right now that's had Tommy John surgery, and replace him with guys that didn't quite make the team. How much worse would pitching be?

Think about every roster spot taken up by a non-white. How much worse would the talent be without it?

Players are much better, on average, than they were years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't really believe this, do you? In an expanded league, with watered down talent, it is much easier for a great player to dominate, particularly a power hitter, with the awful pitching prevalent these days.

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

I agree with Jack completely.

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ruth
Gehrig
Mays
Mantle
Musial
Ted Williams
Honus Wagner
Rogers Hornsby
Cobb
DiMaggio

Off the top of my head, for starters. As of '99, Bonds didn't rank ahead of a single one of them. And I'm sure I am not the only one that thinks so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Take a look at your list - the latest anyone on your list played was 1973. Why's this? Well, in a smaller league, with a smaller talent pool, it's much easier to dominate. Factor in modern medicine which allows the careers of useful players to continue on despite what used to be career ending injuries, and there's an environment in which it's MUCH harder to dominate.

Do you honestly think every single one of the top ten position players of all time started their careers over 50 years ago?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

Identify the position player who cracks the top 10 who played after 1980, other than Bonds due to his post-98 feats. Griffey would have but for injuries. Maybe A. Rodriguez will one day. Mike Schmidt? A reasonable argument can be made for him, but who does he replace? Rickey Henderson? Nah.

The last 20 years have seen some of the great talent, wasted for one reason or another, such as Eric Davis (injuries), Ken Griffey Jr. (injuries), and Darryl Strawberry (nose candy). But sorry, I don't see a position player other than Bonds who cracks the top 10. Who do you suggest?

PS, there are about 11 1/2 decades of pro baseball. There are 10 names on the top 10 position player list, obviously. That's less than one player per decade. So the idea that no players from the 80s or 90s make the list is not crazy.

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

I think we're in total agreement?

As the talent pool size decreases, the average talent level of a smaller pool increases, thereby making the over-all level of talent in a smaller league better?

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

But the talent pool has grown very very very much so. Think of it like this: since Ruth's time, the league has less than doubled in size. How much larger is the talent pool now? It's HUGE! There's a higher level of competition because the talent in the leagues is much more concentrated at the top percentile.

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

Awful pitching is far from prevalent. Unless you somehow think with the population boom brought on from the 1940s, the addition of blacks, latinos, and asians, as well as increases in medicine has not doubled the talent pool that the MLB draws from since the time of, say, Ruth.

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

What I'm saying is that the league, at 30 teams, is much smaller now in comparison to the talent pool than it was 80 years ago.

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

[ QUOTE ]
But the talent pool has grown very very very much so. Think of it like this: since Ruth's time, the league has less than doubled in size. How much larger is the talent pool now? It's HUGE! There's a higher level of competition because the talent in the leagues is much more concentrated at the top percentile.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Have you seen the pitching these days? In the mid-70s, a 3.00 ERA was considered average. Today, 4.50 is considered respectable. You think that's all due to the increase in the hitters talent pool? Steroids? New stadiums? Live ball? Sammy Sosa's corked bat? Or maybe it has more to do with the fact that a terrible pitcher like Jimmy Haynes (just to pick one) seems to find his way into a rotation every season. I think you have an uphill battle if you're going to argue that the talent in baseball is not diluted.

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

the talent may be diluted, but overall, the quality of players are much better now then they were 60 years ago.

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

[ QUOTE ]
Awful pitching is far from prevalent. Unless you somehow think with the population boom brought on from the 1940s, the addition of blacks, latinos, and asians, as well as increases in medicine has not doubled the talent pool that the MLB draws from since the time of, say, Ruth.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I don't disagree with you or TSC here. The average player today is better than the average player in the 1940s. No question about that. My point I think is that great players today play against a greater percentage of players that are far inferior to them than the great players of, say, the 40s. That makes it easier for a player like Bonds, A-Rod, Sosa, etc., to be so far ahead of the rest of the league.

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Awful pitching is far from prevalent. Unless you somehow think with the population boom brought on from the 1940s, the addition of blacks, latinos, and asians, as well as increases in medicine has not doubled the talent pool that the MLB draws from since the time of, say, Ruth.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I don't disagree with you or TSC here. The average player today is better than the average player in the 1940s. No question about that. My point I think is that great players today play against a greater percentage of players that are far inferior to them than the great players of, say, the 40s. That makes it easier for a player like Bonds, A-Rod, Sosa, etc., to be so far ahead of the rest of the league.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? The talent pool is not diluted. There are 6 billion people on the planet. Do you really think there arent enough great baseball players to fill 30 teams?

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

[ QUOTE ]
Identify the position player who cracks the top 10 who played after 1980, other than Bonds due to his post-98 feats. Griffey would have but for injuries. Maybe A. Rodriguez will one day. Mike Schmidt? A reasonable argument can be made for him, but who does he replace? Rickey Henderson? Nah.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the thing. All the players you listed rightly dominated their leagues. However, that dominance is artificial.

How is a league that draws from 5 continents, 25 countries, and a booming population watered down, yet the league that drew from two continents and largely once race isn't?

[ QUOTE ]
But sorry, I don't see a position player other than Bonds who cracks the top 10. Who do you suggest?

[/ QUOTE ]

Then again, "top 10" seems a bit too limited given the scope of the MLB. The fact of the matter is, ranking the different players is an exercise in futility. Rather, it seems we should expand it to something like 25 or so, where all of the players are roughly equal to each other in value. From the 80s-90s, we'd have guys like Mike Schmidt, Bonds, A-Rod, Frank Thomas, and Jeff Bagwell. I'd feel confident in saying those were probably the best players. The 70s and 80s are the worst times not only due to wasted talent, but do to the fact that the league was probably the smallest it'd been in relation to the talent pool: integration had fully kicked in, latin players were coming in, and we had four less teams.

[ QUOTE ]
PS, there are about 11 1/2 decades of pro baseball. There are 10 names on the top 10 position player list, obviously. That's less than one player per decade. So the idea that no players from the 80s or 90s make the list is not crazy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it isn't. But look at your list again, you essentially only drew from 4 decades of the 11 1/2.

1900-1920: Wagner
1920-1940: Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb, Hornsby
1940-1960: Dimaggio, Williams, Musial
1950-1970: Mays, Mantle

Perhaps instead of thinking that there's something *wrong* with post 1970, maybe there's something wrong with 1920-1960. Maybe their dominance was a product of the times, not the players. They were certainly great players, but it seems a little suspect.

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

This is really enjoyable to read, actually. Good argument.

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Awful pitching is far from prevalent. Unless you somehow think with the population boom brought on from the 1940s, the addition of blacks, latinos, and asians, as well as increases in medicine has not doubled the talent pool that the MLB draws from since the time of, say, Ruth.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I don't disagree with you or TSC here. The average player today is better than the average player in the 1940s. No question about that. My point I think is that great players today play against a greater percentage of players that are far inferior to them than the great players of, say, the 40s. That makes it easier for a player like Bonds, A-Rod, Sosa, etc., to be so far ahead of the rest of the league.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? The talent pool is not diluted. There are 6 billion people on the planet. Do you really think there arent enough great baseball players to fill 30 teams?

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on. I assume you follow the sport. You make like this is the first time you've ever heard this. I'm flattered you think that this is stuff I'm coming up with.

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Awful pitching is far from prevalent. Unless you somehow think with the population boom brought on from the 1940s, the addition of blacks, latinos, and asians, as well as increases in medicine has not doubled the talent pool that the MLB draws from since the time of, say, Ruth.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I don't disagree with you or TSC here. The average player today is better than the average player in the 1940s. No question about that. My point I think is that great players today play against a greater percentage of players that are far inferior to them than the great players of, say, the 40s. That makes it easier for a player like Bonds, A-Rod, Sosa, etc., to be so far ahead of the rest of the league.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? The talent pool is not diluted. There are 6 billion people on the planet. Do you really think there arent enough great baseball players to fill 30 teams?

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on. I assume you follow the sport. You make like this is the first time you've ever heard this. I'm flattered you think that this is stuff I'm coming up with.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say you came up with the idea. I said the idea was crazy, which it is.

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

[ QUOTE ]
My point I think is that great players today play against a greater percentage of players that are far inferior to them than the great players of, say, the 40s.

[/ QUOTE ] I think the opposite is more likely.

As for this whole, top 10 BS, just stop doing it. There are way to many factors from every era to truely compare players fairly. Those you listed were obviously some of the greatest players ever, but there were also several all time greats from the 70's, 80's, and 90's(Griffey is one of them).

I think as a whole, the athletes of today are far far better than those of the past. Clearly its harder to make it to the top level, just look at the sheer number of training leagues (college, minor leagues).

IMO, baseball fans still have this romanticized opinion on many of the old time greats, from the games "golden age". IMO, these guys get maybe too much credit. But lets be honest with ourselves, baseball is [censored] great right now, it hasn't gotten worse at all and people need to accept that and embrace many of the young great players in the game right now (Phat Albert, Vlad, Johan, A-Rod, Beltran, Ichiro etc.) (BTW, those arguing baseball is diluted, take a look at those players I listed, and compare them to the names of those from the 50''s, 60's and 70's.)

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

[ QUOTE ]
Bonds is always trying to elicit sympathy by bringing his kids into it. This just pisses me off more than anything. He got to the be one of the greatest players ever by cheating, then whines about it when he gets caught. Give me a [censored]' break. He knew the possible consequences of his actions when he started taking steroids, now he's trying to make the rest of us feel bad about the decisions he conciously made.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read the thread, just the OP and this repsonse. Even if everything you say of Bonds is true, why does this give anyone the right to bring his family into it? Barry Bonds choose to play baseball, not his children. Bringing people's family into the spotlight when they haven't done anything other than be born into a family where one person is famous, is, IMO, disgusting.

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Identify the position player who cracks the top 10 who played after 1980, other than Bonds due to his post-98 feats. Griffey would have but for injuries. Maybe A. Rodriguez will one day. Mike Schmidt? A reasonable argument can be made for him, but who does he replace? Rickey Henderson? Nah.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the thing. All the players you listed rightly dominated their leagues. However, that dominance is artificial.

How is a league that draws from 5 continents, 25 countries, and a booming population watered down, yet the league that drew from two continents and largely once race isn't?

[ QUOTE ]
But sorry, I don't see a position player other than Bonds who cracks the top 10. Who do you suggest?

[/ QUOTE ]

Then again, "top 10" seems a bit too limited given the scope of the MLB. The fact of the matter is, ranking the different players is an exercise in futility. Rather, it seems we should expand it to something like 25 or so, where all of the players are roughly equal to each other in value. From the 80s-90s, we'd have guys like Mike Schmidt, Bonds, A-Rod, Frank Thomas, and Jeff Bagwell. I'd feel confident in saying those were probably the best players. The 70s and 80s are the worst times not only due to wasted talent, but do to the fact that the league was probably the smallest it'd been in relation to the talent pool: integration had fully kicked in, latin players were coming in, and we had four less teams.

[ QUOTE ]
PS, there are about 11 1/2 decades of pro baseball. There are 10 names on the top 10 position player list, obviously. That's less than one player per decade. So the idea that no players from the 80s or 90s make the list is not crazy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it isn't. But look at your list again, you essentially only drew from 4 decades of the 11 1/2.

1900-1920: Wagner
1920-1940: Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb, Hornsby
1940-1960: Dimaggio, Williams, Musial
1950-1970: Mays, Mantle

Perhaps instead of thinking that there's something *wrong* with post 1970, maybe there's something wrong with 1920-1960. Maybe their dominance was a product of the times, not the players. They were certainly great players, but it seems a little suspect.

[/ QUOTE ]

You make many valid points. Reasonable people can disagree about them. There are only a couple of things I'd add:

Pre-1950, say, it was mostly Americans playing baseball. It wasn't the global sport it was today. So to say the league was watered down back then because they didn't include Cubans or Dominicans or Japanese I think is inaccurate. Yes, there was a whole race of fabulously gifted players that were excluded, and the league could have been so much better than it was, but that doesn't mean that the league was "watered down" at that time. The talent level for players at that time was outstanding, as evidenced by the fact that the stats of many players that played in those eras have held up for decades. Yes of course it could have been even better had they allowed blacks to play.

With respect to the "top 10", I think I've said that I agree that top 10 is ridiculous. It came up only because I think that was what the original poster referenced. Top 10 is too arbitrary for anyone to be right.

This has been a good discussion. Not sure where you are, but I am in NJ where out of the blue we are getting snowed on like nuts. It's enough already. So it's good to talk baseball, because tonight it seems like opening day is 6 months away. I've enjoyed it and thank you, TSC, and everyone else that has participated.

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

R/G in the NL in 1936: 4.71
R/G in the NL in 2004: 4.64

I can't find the baseball graph that charts it, but it goes up and down, up and down.

Pitching was just as "diluted" in the middle of your golden era. Baseball goes in cycles. It has to do with a lot of things, and the talent of the pitchers isn't always one of them. There's been changes in balls, ballparks, strike zones (Questec?), equipment, etc that increase the R/G.

Furthermore, you're comparing raw numbers, when, in this whole thread, I've been comparing numbers against the league average. It doesn't matter that Barry Bonds has an OPS of 1.300, it's that the league average is .750 and his OPS is 1.3000.

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

Niss,
if anyone tries to list the top 10 players of all time from baseball, simply stop listening to them. They are most likely a narrow minded moron, seriously. I have argued like a mutha on this site for a while about baseball and after a while I realized it was pointless. I just like listing all time greats, and my lists of those is growing and that makes me happy.
-TSC
Baseball guru second only to the uber-nerd Dynasty.

Re: I feel bad for Barry Bonds
 

[ QUOTE ]
Pre-1950, say, it was mostly Americans playing baseball. It wasn't the global sport it was today. So to say the league was watered down back then because they didn't include Cubans or Dominicans or Japanese I think is inaccurate. Yes, there was a whole race of fabulously gifted players that were excluded, and the league could have been so much better than it was, but that doesn't mean that the league was "watered down" at that time. The talent level for players at that time was outstanding, as evidenced by the fact that the stats of many players that played in those eras have held up for decades. Yes of course it could have been even better had they allowed blacks to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's certainly true that the top level of talent was amazing, but there were many many players on the bad side, as well. What I'm saying was, when you think of league size as roster spots-to-talent-pool ratio, the league is smaller than it was 50 years ago.