</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
A few things.
1) Dennis Martinez and Lee Smith were both very good, near hall of famers.
2) It's not just Barry Bonds facing non-white pitchers. It's Bonds facing non-white defenders (quick, name some of the best defenders of all time. Ozzie Smith. Pudge Rodriguez. Willie Mays) and, by comparison, non-white hitters. How much more impressive would Bonds's accomplishments be without guys like Mays and Aaron before him, and guys like Pujols and Beltre in his own league? It's much easier to dominate a league that isn't drawing from its whole talent pool.
[/ QUOTE ]
i can argue just as easily that although there are obviously some talented non white players, there is also an overabundance of below average players in general who wouldnt be in the league if there were 16 teams instead of 30. this dilluted talent pool allows bonds to accel.
how impressive would bonds' numbers be if he didnt do juice? very. but he wouldnt have approached mays, ruth, and aarons hr totals, thats pretty obvious.
[/ QUOTE ]
Diluted talent pool? You have to be kidding. There are 6 billion people on the planet. I think we can find 700 MLB ballplayers out of that pool.
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. Versus 400 out of less than a billion then.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not true. Unlike today, many players back then were exluded from playing. Also, today baseball is played in parts of the world where it was never played back then. The pool of players was much, much smaller then.