Pre-color barrier stats worthless?

[NOMAR22]

Are pre color (1947) barrier MLB stats worthless? I mean after all the best athletes of that ERA were not allowed to be in major league baseball because of their black race. Just look how Blacks dominated the MVP AWARDS from 1947-1970. I am sure Hank Aaron was not the best negro league player in the negro leagues of his ERA ,i doubt even Willie Mays was.


Thats why the pre 1947 stats to me really don't count. They are worthless to me.

[runningshoes]

Taking your "argument," for lack of a better word, a bit to the extreme, don't you think?

There were some great black players who never got to play MLB but to group them together as the best athletes is a little much.

[rockin500]

nice to know there are still trolls in the world. :rolleyes:

[GnomeansGno]

Are pre color (1947) barrier MLB stats worthless? I mean after all the best athletes of that ERA were not allowed to be in major league baseball because of their black race. Just look how Blacks dominated the MVP AWARDS from 1947-1970. I am sure Hank Aaron was not the best negro league player in the negro leagues of his ERA ,i doubt even Willie Mays was.


Thats why the pre 1947 stats to me really don't count. They are worthless to me.

I hope you are kidding. I do agree that players who played in segregated league's numbers are a bit " inflated " due to inferior competition, but worthless ?

That's pushing it, it's just as idiotic as baseball purist's who say today's " expansion, steroid inflated " stats are worthless.

[DoubleX]

I agree with this opinion to some extent. I don't think we can take the stats of the pre-integration period at face value becaues the league was purposely watered-down. The ML players of the day were not playing in a league composed of the best players available. I'm of the opinion that had integration occurred earlier, we would have a very, very different idea of who the stars were of the day. That's not to say that Ruth and Cobb and Gehrig and others would not have been great players, it is to say that some the players on the next tier would have been bumped even further down and more obscured by history. I look no further than the number of great black players just after integration in the 50s and 60s. Who was the Willie Mays, the Frank Robinson, the Jackie Robinson, the Roberto Clemente, the Larry Doby, the Ernie Banks, the Bob Gibson, the Roy Campanella, the Willie McCovey, the Orlando Cepeda, the Minnie Minoso, the Jimmy Wynn, the Reggie Jackson, the Joe Morgan, the Rod Carew, the Billy Williams, the Dick Allen, and so forth, of earlier generations? Seriously, just imagine what the list of the best players of the 60s would look like without all of those names. Guys like Norm Cash, Boog Powell, Frank Howard, and others, could very well have looked like Hall of Famers if not for being overshadowed by so many of their black contemporaries. So I think there are a number of players we consider stars and who are Hall of Famers from earlier periods that would not have received so much praise if they had competed against the Mays' and Robinsons and Banks' and Campanellas and so forth of those eras.

I know some people like to point to the fact that a lot of African-Americans were just not playing ball earlier in the century, and thus there was less chance that there would have been a number of African-American stars in the Majors. I'm sure if black ballplayers were featured in the Majors, generations of black youths would have been inspired to play, instead of seeing baseball as just another painful reminder of the inequity of injustice of society (in this regard, the NAACP studies from Brown v. Board of Ed. are relevant because they provide empiral evidence that segregation had the result of making African-American youths feel inferior - I'm sure this argument could be applied to baseball in that African-American youths were more reluctant to seriously pursue baseball because segregation sent an message of inferiority and futility in the pursuit).

My basic point is that segregation has resulted in many of the ML stars from that day being overrated due to the waterdowned competition of the day. I tend to account for this in my rankings by giving a boost to post-integration players, especially when its close between a post-integration player and a pre-integration player.

[leecemark]

--I pretty much agree with Double X here. Worthless greatly overstates the case, but some discounting is merited.

[NOMAR22]

I agree with this opinion to some extent. I don't think we can take the stats of the pre-integration period at face value becaues the league was purposely watered-down. The ML players of the day were not playing in a league composed of the best players available. I'm of the opinion that had integration occurred earlier, we would have a very, very different idea of who the stars were of the day. That's not to say that Ruth and Cobb and Gehrig and others would not have been great players, it is to say that some the players on the next tier would have been bumped even further down and more obscured by history. I look no further than the number of great black players just after integration in the 50s and 60s. Who was the Willie Mays, the Frank Robinson, the Jackie Robinson, the Roberto Clemente, the Larry Doby, the Ernie Banks, the Bob Gibson, the Roy Campanella, the Willie McCovey, the Orlando Cepeda, the Minnie Minoso, the Jimmy Wynn, the Reggie Jackson, the Joe Morgan, the Rod Carew, the Billy Williams, the Dick Allen, and so forth, of earlier generations? Seriously, just imagine what the list of the best players of the 60s would look like without all of those names. Guys like Norm Cash, Boog Powell, Frank Howard, and others, could very well have looked like Hall of Famers if not for being overshadowed by so many of their black contemporaries. So I think there are a number of players we consider stars and who are Hall of Famers from earlier periods that would not have received so much praise if they had competed against the Mays' and Robinsons and Banks' and Campanellas and so forth of those eras.

I know some people like to point to the fact that a lot of African-Americans were just not playing ball earlier in the century, and thus there was less chance that there would have been a number of African-American stars in the Majors. I'm sure if black ballplayers were featured in the Majors, generations of black youths would have been inspired to play, instead of seeing baseball as just another painful reminder of the inequity of injustice of society (in this regard, the NAACP studies from Brown v. Board of Ed. are relevant because they provide empiral evidence that segregation had the result of making African-American youths feel inferior - I'm sure this argument could be applied to baseball in that African-American youths were more reluctant to seriously pursue baseball because segregation sent an message of inferiority and futility in the pursuit).

My basic point is that segregation has resulted in many of the ML stars from that day being overrated due to the waterdowned competition of the day. I tend to account for this in my rankings by giving a boost to post-integration players, especially when its close between a post-integration player and a pre-integration player.

I agree with everything you said.

[digglahhh]

XX,

I agree with most of what you said. But, I think it is always important to remember that the distribution of elite talent is always thin, whether it is applied to limited sample, like just blacks or a broader sample, all potential ball players.

So, I think in terms of the dominance of the elite, it would make less difference if the leagues were intergrated earlier. Most of the players in the league are not stars, so the biggest difference would be that more of the non-descript players would be Black or Latin American. There would be a few superstars sprinkled along with the white superstars, but in terms of the OVERALL competitive landscape, intergration might not have had AS big an impact as we are sometimes inclined to think.

Also, why do we always talk about all the other hitters, the quality of pitching is equally important.

[DoubleX]

XX,

I agree with most of what you said. But, I think it is always important to remember that the distribution of elite talent is always thin, whether it is applied to limited sample, like just blacks or a broader sample, all potential ball players.

So, I think in terms of the dominance of the elite, it would make less difference if the leagues were intergrated earlier. Most of the players in the league are not stars, so the biggest difference would be that more of the non-descript players would be Black or Latin American. There would be a few superstars sprinkled along with the white superstars, but in terms of the OVERALL competitive landscape, intergration might not have had AS big an impact as we are sometimes inclined to think.

Also, why do we always talk about all the other hitters, the quality of pitching is equally important.

I agree, and that's why I think that the status of the elite would not be affected. I'm going down to the next tier. The Earl Averills, the Enos Slaughthers, the Joe Medwicks, the Chuck Kleins, the Jim Bottomleys, the Ernie Lombardis, and so forth. Try this exercise out. Make a list of the top 40 players of the 50s-70s. Then make a list of the top 40 white players from that period. The list will become drastically different, and white players that would be around 20, could jump into the top 10 without competition from black players. That's why I think if integration occurred earlier, a number of those top 40 white players, would be bumped down quite a bit by the best black talent.

[dl4060]

I think some adjustment is valid, but really not too much. As Diglahh stated, the graph has a very skinny tail, meaning that the truly great are less likely to be affected all that much. I do not think Ted Williams gained all that much, and I think Dimaggio would still have looked great. Many very good players, guys who made several allstar teams, would have had a more difficult time, as they would have been competing with more people who could play at their level and above. I am curious about the assertion that Hank Aaron and Willie Mays were not the best players in the negro leagues at that time. Who were the best? I have heard of the great early stars, Charleston, Gibson....But I am wondering who the best players of the early 40's to early 50's were. I know Satchel Paige once said that the greatest hitters he ever saw were Ted Williams and Josh Gibson. I am curious as to who the best negro leaguers of that era were that I may not have heard of.

[WJackman]

The greatest player that you never heard of was Cannonball Bill Jackman who worked mostly in the New England area. He pitched professionally from 1917 through 1952 and likely won more games and struck out more batters than any pitcher who ever lived. So far I have reconstructed his career at 112 wins and 44 losses. I have found 39 games with double digit strikeouts. Currently I have him at 15-1 when the opposing starter had big league experience. While it is certain not all of his games can be located I hope to document at least 300 wins.

[Buzzaldrin]

But why is he greater than players from the 1860s and 1870s who have equally impressive pitching records, but are often discounted on this forum because of the leagues they played for and the competition they played against?

[GnomeansGno]

XX,

I agree with most of what you said. But, I think it is always important to remember that the distribution of elite talent is always thin, whether it is applied to limited sample, like just blacks or a broader sample, all potential ball players.

So, I think in terms of the dominance of the elite, it would make less difference if the leagues were intergrated earlier. Most of the players in the league are not stars, so the biggest difference would be that more of the non-descript players would be Black or Latin American. There would be a few superstars sprinkled along with the white superstars, but in terms of the OVERALL competitive landscape, intergration might not have had AS big an impact as we are sometimes inclined to think.

Also, why do we always talk about all the other hitters, the quality of pitching is equally important.

I sort of agree with you, but you have to realize that today's era has produced A LOT of young VERY talented players. Every year there seems to be more and more incredibly talented players entering the league, from arod, to vlad, to helton, to pujols, to cabrera, to francour, to howard, these players are entering the majors VERY young and DOMINATING.

That's simply incredible.

IMO, today's league is considerably stronger than the league of ruth, williams, etc, because today's players are stronger ( naturally, not even including illegal muscle building products), and the impact minorities have had on baseball has been HUGE, the best players are currently latino.

As for pitching, you could make a case that today's players face better, more effective relief pitching than players pre 1947. They also face them 5x more times. The article also states this interesting tidbit - The relief ace of the 1990’s is a much better pitcher than the ace of the 1940’s, relative to other pitchers of the day.

http://www.baseballgraphs.com/blog/comments.php?id=81_0_1_0_C

[Sultan_1895-1948]

XX,

I agree with most of what you said. But, I think it is always important to remember that the distribution of elite talent is always thin, whether it is applied to limited sample, like just blacks or a broader sample, all potential ball players.

So, I think in terms of the dominance of the elite, it would make less difference if the leagues were intergrated earlier. Most of the players in the league are not stars, so the biggest difference would be that more of the non-descript players would be Black or Latin American. There would be a few superstars sprinkled along with the white superstars, but in terms of the OVERALL competitive landscape, intergration might not have had AS big an impact as we are sometimes inclined to think.

Also, why do we always talk about all the other hitters, the quality of pitching is equally important.

I agree with this. The elites played whoever was put in front of them, and they would still remain elite post-integration. In fact, it might raise their game even more, facing better competition top to bottom.

[WJackman]

But why is he greater than players from the 1860s and 1870s who have equally impressive pitching records, but are often discounted on this forum because of the leagues they played for and the competition they played against?

Yes, Jackman faced hundreds of major leaguers. He also faced top Negro League opposition. Most of the top Negro League researchers will tell you that Jackman, though having a poorly documented career, was considered by his contemporaires as being in the same class as any of the top Negro League hurlers of the 20s and 30s. If I recall correctly, from data published in the Chicago Defender, he was outpolling Paige for votes in the 1935 Negro League All-Star game, though to be fair, what I read may not have been the final tabulation.

[Mike D.]

To totally discount statistics before 1947 is a bit harsh, but it has to be looked at with an objective eye.

The pool of players was smaller, but there were also fewer teams. Also, we can't just look at someone's Negro League stats and say they'd have been dominant in the majors...as the quality of that league was obviously not as high as it could have been (since it left out a huge chunk of the demographic). Also, in 20-30 years, will we talk about the time before the explosion of latin american, japanese, etc players came to the majors in the same way?

Basically, I don't think the stats should be thrown out or discounted all that strongly...but the situation should always be mentioned, from now until eternity, so future generations will learn from the mistakes made (and being made) by not just baseball, but by society in general.

[Buzzaldrin]

Yes, Jackman faced hundreds of major leaguers. He also faced top Negro League opposition. Most of the top Negro League researchers will tell you that Jackman, though having a poorly documented career, was considered by his contemporaires as being in the same class as any of the top Negro League hurlers of the 20s and 30s. If I recall correctly, from data published in the Chicago Defender, he was outpolling Paige for votes in the 1935 Negro League All-Star game, though to be fair, what I read may not have been the final tabulation.

On these forum pages today, i read little bits about Benny Kauff and Levi Meyerle being "excluded" from greatness consideration because their best stuff was played in leagues other than the accepted two major ones. Now, with Kauff I took this with a grain of salt, since his career was iced by war and scandal, but nevertheless- in every minor league he played in, and- of course. his 2 federal league seasons, he was the premier player of the league, a real five tooler. Why should he not receive the same consideration that you say Jackman should? Don't get me wrong- although I know a lot about Kauff, i know very little about Jackman, but if Federal League, American Association, and National Association stars (and the PL and UA, but, well...you know) are not given cred for their monumental acheivements, but instead have them taken with a grain of salt because they didn't happen in the "real" leagues, then why should this not be the case for Jackman?

And as for Meyerle- he wasn't simply a good player or great player- he was one of the best two hitters of the early NA (Mr. Barnes can claim the honor of the top spot according to me) and even before. He was unquestionably one of the best players in the entire nation- not hypothetically, but REALLY- in the papers, on the field, everywhere.

I don't know where I'm going with this. I'm sure you're right that Jackman was one of the top Negro League hurlers of the 20s and 30s, and he may have done well at the major league level, on the other hand he may not have- look at Jigger Statz or Smead Jolley, two of the greatest minor league players in history, in a league that many considered as strong as any major league, who could not make the transition. Same era. Then again, look at Lefty Grove- he managed it pretty well in that era. Can't really call it that simply- I don't think.

[WJackman]

I don't know where I'm going with this. I'm sure you're right that Jackman was one of the top Negro League hurlers of the 20s and 30s, and he may have done well at the major league level, on the other hand he may not have- look at Jigger Statz or Smead Jolley, two of the greatest minor league players in history, in a league that many considered as strong as any major league, who could not make the transition. Same era. Then again, look at Lefty Grove- he managed it pretty well in that era. Can't really call it that simply- I don't think.[/QUOTE]


I jusr finished reading "Fair Dealing and Clean Playing: The Hilldale Club and the Development of Black Professional Baseball, 1910-1932" by Neil Lanctot. I am reading because Jackman pitched for the Philadelphia Giants, a team that many of the Hilldale players also played for.

Hilldale crushed Grove a couple of times in the 1920s. The Hilldale players didn't like Grove becaused he was pretty liberal with racial slurs. Grove later denied that he ever face any Negro League competition.

[Bench 5]

I think it's better to look at the Major Leagues and the Negro Leagues as separate but viable major leagues. The quality and depth of talent in the Negro Leagues was not at the same level as the Majors but it was a legit league with talented teams and players. I am sure that the top Negro League players would have been great players in the majors. Plus there was a great deal of exhibition games between the leagues. I think that those games have shed some light on the quality of players in each league.

Although Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in 1947 it took many years before the majors were truly integrated. So if you are going to claim that the stats of players prior to 1947 should be discarded I would argue that you should also discard 1/2 of the accomplishments of players like Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Ernie Banks, etc. Using the same logic they were not playing against the "best" competition. Even in the late 70s there were whispers that certain teams shied away from black players (e.g. Cubs, Twins).

I've said this here before but I disagree with the contention that certain races are "better athletes". There aren't nearly as many American blacks in baseball as there were 30 years ago. If there are only 8-10% blacks in the game today does that mean that if the leagues were integrated prior to 1947 that the same percentage would apply. Of course not. The cream rises to the top in each generation of players.

There weren't many Asian players prior to the past 10 years. Following the same logic, does that mean that we make the stats of players prior to 1995 invalid because the best Asian players weren't in the league? Of course not.

Treat the Major Leagues and Negro Leagues as legit major leagues and research the quality of individual players based upon the information available. I don't think we should use revisionist history to invalidate the accomplishments of past greats just to make up for the sins of the past.

[Goooooo]

Are pre color (1947) barrier MLB stats worthless? I mean after all the best athletes of that ERA were not allowed to be in major league baseball because of their black race. Just look how Blacks dominated the MVP AWARDS from 1947-1970. I am sure Hank Aaron was not the best negro league player in the negro leagues of his ERA ,i doubt even Willie Mays was.


Thats why the pre 1947 stats to me really don't count. They are worthless to me.

I agree. What makes you really think a guy (RUTH) from the 1920's could hold up to a current superstar. We have all kinds of evidence that would emphatically lead us to say "NO".


The men's world record in the 100 meters was 10.4 seconds in 1929. Flo Jo ran that in the 1988 Olympics. Does anyone really think George Mikan would even make a COLLEGE team today? The guy won five NBA titles in the 1950's and was the dominant player of his time. Women today routinely beat swimming records of the men in the 1920's.

Ruth was clearly the dominant player in his era, but don't even try to tell me he's the best player ever. He'd probably struggle to even make a major league team today (history that we can quantify already suggests that).

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I agree. What makes you really think a guy (RUTH) from the 1920's could hold up to a current superstar. We have all kinds of evidence that would emphatically lead us to say "NO".


The men's world record in the 100 meters was 10.4 seconds in 1929. Flo Jo ran that in the 1988 Olympics. Does anyone really think George Mikan would even make a COLLEGE team today? The guy won five NBA titles in the 1950's and was the dominant player of his time. Women today routinely beat swimming records of the men in the 1920's.

Ruth was clearly the dominant player in his era, but don't even try to tell me he's the best player ever. He'd probably struggle to even make a major league team today (history that we can quantify already suggests that).

I just felt my IQ drop 2 points from reading this. Seems you're a fan of "transplanting" which will always favor todays players for obvious reasons. Reasons which I'm not convinced you are aware of, or else you would take them into consideration. Brutal post; even before the last paragraph, which says a lot.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I agree. What makes you really think a guy (RUTH) from the 1920's could hold up to a current superstar. We have all kinds of evidence that would emphatically lead us to say "NO".


The men's world record in the 100 meters was 10.4 seconds in 1929. Flo Jo ran that in the 1988 Olympics. Does anyone really think George Mikan would even make a COLLEGE team today? The guy won five NBA titles in the 1950's and was the dominant player of his time. Women today routinely beat swimming records of the men in the 1920's.

I have one word, "So?" Baseball is NOT a 100 meter sprint. Baseball is different in that it is a skill sport. Do you have any actual evidence that George Mikan couldn't play today? Mearly asserting that he couldn't is NOT evidence. The man was 6'10" and could shoot and rebound. Do you think NBA teams could use a guy like that today? I think George Mikan could hold his own today. But that is besides the point. Having great strength and great speed gives one only a small advantage in baseball, much less than in "power" sports like football, track, weighlifting ,etc. Ruth was hitting 500 ft HRs back in the 1920s. Most major leaguers can't do that today. Who was a better baseball player John Kruk or Bo Jackson. Simple answer: John Kruk.


Ruth was clearly the dominant player in his era, but don't even try to tell me he's the best player ever. He'd probably struggle to even make a major league team today (history that we can quantify already suggests that).
Do you have more to offer than just assertions. This is a baseball debate forum you know...

[NOMAR22]

I agree. What makes you really think a guy (RUTH) from the 1920's could hold up to a current superstar. We have all kinds of evidence that would emphatically lead us to say "NO".


The men's world record in the 100 meters was 10.4 seconds in 1929. Flo Jo ran that in the 1988 Olympics. Does anyone really think George Mikan would even make a COLLEGE team today? The guy won five NBA titles in the 1950's and was the dominant player of his time. Women today routinely beat swimming records of the men in the 1920's.

Ruth was clearly the dominant player in his era, but don't even try to tell me he's the best player ever. He'd probably struggle to even make a major league team today (history that we can quantify already suggests that).

Yeah i completly agree with you. I doubt Babe Ruth could have hit 30 hrs or bat.310 in this ERA. The players back in that area were not athletic at all. Imagine a fat guy like Babe Ruth was considered the greatest of his time. He couldn't ever competed against the All time greats like Williw Mays,Hank Aaron, Barry Bonds,etc.

[NOMAR22]

I agree, and that's why I think that the status of the elite would not be affected. I'm going down to the next tier. The Earl Averills, the Enos Slaughthers, the Joe Medwicks, the Chuck Kleins, the Jim Bottomleys, the Ernie Lombardis, and so forth. Try this exercise out. Make a list of the top 40 players of the 50s-70s. Then make a list of the top 40 white players from that period. The list will become drastically different, and white players that would be around 20, could jump into the top 10 without competition from black players. That's why I think if integration occurred earlier, a number of those top 40 white players, would be bumped down quite a bit by the best black talent.


Im going to make a list later on.but you are correct.

[Oosches]

Yeah i completly agree with you. I doubt Babe Ruth could have hit 30 hrs or bat.310 in this ERA. The players back in that area were not athletic at all. Imagine a fat guy like Babe Ruth was considered the greatest of his time. He couldn't ever competed against the All time greats like Williw Mays,Hank Aaron, Barry Bonds,etc.

Your ignorance on every facet of baseball "history" is utterly amazing. Ruth wasn't "fat" (Sultan, please back me up on this myth !!), the Royals of the late 1970's weren't the Royals of the 1990s/2000s (common sense and obvious to everyone in the world except for NOMAR), Ron Guidry does NOT belong in the HOF, and the reason Dizzy Dean is in the HOF is more for his personality than his stats - deal with it and move on to other baseball conspiracy theories...those are facts. I will go now and carry on a more rewarding conversation with my wall...NOMAR - You could care less, but to lower the stress in my life I will NEVER respond to anything else you write. In conclusion I have 2 words for you...WIN SHARES !!!

[digglahhh]

Babe Ruth couldn't do anything, today- he's dead! Wouldn't that be eventual conclusion of the path that Nomar and Goo are heading down?

How about this, Richie Sexson wouldn't make a Major League team in 1915...

The eras each have their strengths and weaknesses, their own identities, if you will. Only, the elite talents could dominate in any era, Ruth was one of them.

Could you just transplant him from the 20's and expect him to dominate, of course not. But give him today's training and technology and why wouldn't he dominate? Would he hit 60 HRs? Maybe not. But the specifics of what he would do is secondary, Ruth would be amazing.

I assume you don't think Walter Johnson could strike out Neifi Perez either.

Johnson probably threw, what 85 mph?:ughh

Do some research, man.

[Goooooo]

I have one word, "So?" Baseball is NOT a 100 meter sprint. Baseball is different in that it is a skill sport. Do you have any actual evidence that George Mikan couldn't play today? Mearly asserting that he couldn't is NOT evidence. The man was 6'10" and could shoot and rebound. Do you think NBA teams could use a guy like that today? I think George Mikan could hold his own today. But that is besides the point. Having great strength and great speed gives one only a small advantage in baseball, much less than in "power" sports like football, track, weighlifting ,etc. Ruth was hitting 500 ft HRs back in the 1920s. Most major leaguers can't do that today. Who was a better baseball player John Kruk or Bo Jackson. Simple answer: John Kruk.


Do you have more to offer than just assertions. This is a baseball debate forum you know...



There is an evolutionary process in EVERY aspect of life including sports. Look at the changes in technology. Compare airplanes from 1905 to now. Look at cars. Look at swimmers. Look at runners.

There is a collective group of knowledge that one generation passes to the next and this is true in sports. Albert Einstein was brilliant, but Stephen Hawking has gone further by using the principles that Einstein left. Roger Bannister was a miracle man with a sub four minute mile in 1954. Today the record is 3:43. Don't you think speed is important in baseball? Don't you think hand eye coordination would improve too?

I agree that Ruth was a great icon for this game. He just wasn't the best player in an absolute sense.

[Goooooo]

Baseball people crack me up. No serious football or basketball enthusiast would actually claim that a team from that time could compete against a team from today unless they had a few too many to drink.

What you have to understand is that, yes, Ruth hit 714 homeruns and hit .342, but he did it against competition that would be the equivalent of a junior college level (at best) today.

Once again, if you people want to look through a clear lens, how do you think LeBron James' high school basketball team would have done against the best pro basketball team of the 1920's?

[DoubleX]

Baseball people crack me up. No serious football or basketball enthusiast would actually claim that a team from that time could compete against a team from today unless they had a few too many to drink.

What you have to understand is that, yes, Ruth hit 714 homeruns and hit .342, but he did it against competition that would be the equivalent of a junior college level (at best) today.

Once again, if you people want to look through a clear lens, how do you think LeBron James' high school basketball team would have done against the best pro basketball team of the 1920's?

You're right about that. If you just took a team from 1920 and dumped them into the present, they likely will not be able to compete. However, if you take the best players of yesteryear, with their natural talents and passion for the game, and raise them in today's environment, in which they can benefit from modern training and conditioning techniques, and grow up in today's better health conditions with better medical treatment, I think they would be able to compete and excel in today's atmosphere. Today's players have a lot of inherent advantages over the players of the past; if you level the playing field, then I think many of the greats from yesteryear would be great today.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Ruth wasn't "fat" (Sultan, please back me up on this myth !!)

You're right, but it doesn't matter. If ignorant people would rather believe a John Goodman movie, I'm not going to waste my time with silly details such as facts. These people aren't worth the time to type out the truth. This site is falling downhill imo, and these morons are a big reason why. They're allowed to spew nonsense and make ridiculous statements that have no factual basis or logic. Yeah, Cobb and Ruth would really struggle in today's game, lol. Amazing these mouth-breathers can funtion in society.

[538280]

You're right, but it doesn't matter. If ignorant people would rather believe a John Goodman movie, I'm not going to waste my time with silly details such as facts. These people aren't worth the time to type out the truth. This site is falling downhill imo, and these morons are a big reason why. They're allowed to spew nonsense and make ridiculous statements that have no factual basis or logic. Yeah, Cobb and Ruth would really struggle in today's game, lol. Amazing these mouth-breathers can funtion in society.

I agree, Sultan. We have had two thread (this one and the Ron Guidry one), where pretty much everything said was a complete waste of time and energy because this fool has no sense of...anything.

I'll echo Oosches here, this is the last post I will ever post in response to him.

[Bench 5]

Yeah i completly agree with you. I doubt Babe Ruth could have hit 30 hrs or bat.310 in this ERA. The players back in that area were not athletic at all. Imagine a fat guy like Babe Ruth was considered the greatest of his time. He couldn't ever competed against the All time greats like Williw Mays,Hank Aaron, Barry Bonds,etc.

Ruth had some weight issues here and there but he was not fat. He usually weighed about 225 which isn't bad at 6'2".

Cecil Fielder was the best power hitter of the early 90's and he was as big as a house - probably 50 pounds overweight. Bonds has a gut on him and so did Tony Gwynn. They seem to have done pretty well. Dave Parker was about 25 pounds overweight and he was a star in the 70s and 80s.

[Goooooo]

You're right about that. If you just took a team from 1920 and dumped them into the present, they likely will not be able to compete. However, if you take the best players of yesteryear, with their natural talents and passion for the game, and raise them in today's environment, in which they can benefit from modern training and conditioning techniques, and grow up in today's better health conditions with better medical treatment, I think they would be able to compete and excel in today's atmosphere. Today's players have a lot of inherent advantages over the players of the past; if you level the playing field, then I think many of the greats from yesteryear would be great today.

You're making my point about guys in the 1920's. Let's call it the way it is. These people were not playing at the same level that the game is played at today. The truth is that college baseball teams today would route those professional teams in the 1920's. You can hypothisize all you want about training etc, but it is not relevant to whether Ruth was as good as Bonds, pujols, arod, etc, he simply wasn't.

The truth is that Ruth is probably the most significant player to ever play baseball and dominated his era like only Wayne Gretzky has done in hockey, but he wouln't even make a major league team today if he were transported from 1927 via a time machine.

[csh19792001]

What you have to understand is that, yes, Ruth hit 714 homeruns and hit .342, but he did it against competition that would be the equivalent of a junior college level (at best) today.


This is so over-the-top, off base, and patently ridiculous on so many levels that I won't even bother addressing it. Either you're just here to pull people's chains, or you are possessing of basically nihilo in terms of knowledge of baseball history.

I'm with Diglahh. Go do some research, man.

[ESPNFan]

George Mikan probably to this day still has a better grasp of fundimentals and basketball insticts than a good portion of players today. If Manute Bol and George Muresan could play in the NBA so could Mikan.
George Mikan was 6'10" and 240 lbs and he wouldn't get a spot on a college team? Your completely out of your mind.

And Ruth would Struggle to make a major league team today!?!?!?!?
So your basicly saying that Babe Ruth is less of a player than Kevin Millar? :crazy




Is it me or does anyone else suddenly have the urge to watch Dumb and Dumber?

[ElHalo]

This is so over-the-top, off base, and patently ridiculous on so many levels that I won't even bother addressing it. Either you're just here to pull people's chains, or you are possessing of basically nihilo in terms of knowledge of baseball history.

I'm with Diglahh. Go do some research, man.

In fairness to this guy, the level of baseball discussion on BBFever is so ridiculously much higher than on any other baseball board that he can't really be expected to come in and make cogent arguments right off the bat. Gotta give the guy some time to get acclimated, as it were. I'm sure that the idea of putting the '27 Yankees in a time machine and watching them lose to the Devil Rays gives him pleasure, and he wants to share his joy.

[Goooooo]

And Ruth would Struggle to make a major league team today!?!?!?!?
So your basicly saying that Babe Ruth is less of a player than Kevin Millar? :crazy




Look, I'm not saying ruth sucks. I'm merely saying that you don't hear anyone claiming that someone from the 1920's is the best basketball player, the best swimmer, or track star that ever lived. That would be laughed out of the building.

What I am also saying is that you need to look at Ruth's .342 average,714 homeruns, and .690 SLG and place it in its proper historical context. He was clearly the best of his era, but it was against inferior competition. It has no relevance as to how he would stack up against Bonds, pujols, etc today. For arguments sake, let's assume they found some records from 1755 that clearly indicated that baseball had existed back then. Let's also assume that this player named daniel had hit 900 homeruns. Nobody would start claiming that daniel was the greatest of all time or that with proper training and diet he would have been as good as Ruth. That's way too speculative. They would say that daniel was clearly the best player of his era, but nobody would be saying he was as good as ruth in his day.

[Goooooo]

This is so over-the-top, off base, and patently ridiculous on so many levels that I won't even bother addressing it. Either you're just here to pull people's chains, or you are possessing of basically nihilo in terms of knowledge of baseball history.

I'm with Diglahh. Go do some research, man.

I think you are the one who needs to do research.

Look, as I said before, ruth stacks up better in his time period than any other player before or since, but that doesn't make him the best player ever. Look, if you found out that some guy was averaging 100 points a game in professional basketball leagues in the 1920's, you wouldn't start claiming he was better than Jordan because Jordan only averaged 30 points per game would you? The fact that Ruth hit 700 homeruns has no meaning to me in terms of calling him the best ever. The competition wasn't at todays level, period. So it doesn't carry much weight in the "best player of all time argument". However, the fact that Ruth walloped everyone else at that time makes him VERY significant (the most significant ever) in the baseball world.

[ElHalo]

Look, I'm not saying ruth sucks. I'm merely saying that you don't hear anyone claiming that someone from the 1920's is the best basketball player, the best swimmer, or track star that ever lived. That would be laughed out of the building. Ding ding ding ding ding! You're wrong on this one. Ask pretty much anybody with a scintilla of sports knowledge who the greatest athlete of all time is, and they'll tell you it's an Olympic decathlete from Prague, Oklahoma, born on May 28, 1887. What I am also saying is that you need to look at Ruth's .342 average,714 homeruns, and .690 SLG and place it in its proper historical context. He was clearly the best of his era, but it was against inferior competition. It has no relevance as to how he would stack up against Bonds, pujols, etc today. For arguments sake, let's assume they found some records from 1755 that clearly indicated that baseball had existed back then. Let's also assume that this player named daniel had hit 900 homeruns. Nobody would start claiming that daniel was the greatest of all time or that with proper training and diet he would have been as good as Ruth. That's way too speculative. They would say that daniel was clearly the best player of his era, but nobody would be saying he was as good as ruth in his day. Actually, it's not way too speculative. We've got lots of people here who've spent literally thousands of hours of work trying to answer these exact questions. It's not easy, but it is possible to work out how these types of things should be compensated for. Stick around a while, and you might learn something.

[ESPNFan]

Look, I'm not saying ruth sucks. I'm merely saying that you don't hear anyone claiming that someone from the 1920's is the best basketball player, the best swimmer, or track star that ever lived. That would be laughed out of the building.

What I am also saying is that you need to look at Ruth's .342 average,714 homeruns, and .690 SLG and place it in its proper historical context. He was clearly the best of his era, but it was against inferior competition. It has no relevance as to how he would stack up against Bonds, pujols, etc today. For arguments sake, let's assume they found some records from 1755 that clearly indicated that baseball had existed back then. Let's also assume that this player named daniel had hit 900 homeruns. Nobody would start claiming that daniel was the greatest of all time or that with proper training and diet he would have been as good as Ruth. That's way too speculative. They would say that daniel was clearly the best player of his era, but nobody would be saying he was as good as ruth in his day.

Dude you post is about 2 days early.

[csh19792001]

I think you are the one who needs to do research.


Fair enough, I'll join EH in being the only other member to be remotely civil/receptive here.

Goooo, where should I start with my reserach? Do you have any recommended sources that might serve to help me understand this issue in greater depth? I'm honestly not being sarcastic at all, I'd really like to hear where your knowledge of the game is derived from (other than intuition and hunches, of course- we all use those from time to time).

We've had a thousand discussions regarding comparing players across eras (in fact, it comprises perhaps the bulk of the debate here). I've no idea as to the extent of your mathematical background, but the threads I've posted in the links below is what might be the best currently available evidence apropos to the question at hand.

Schell's Fully Adjusted Stats (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=26497&highlight=schell)

Here is the source. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691115575/qid=1143696964/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6/102-8930282-7761757?s=books&v=glance&n=283155)

Hope you find it interesting, if nothing else.

[NOMAR22]

Baseball people crack me up. No serious football or basketball enthusiast would actually claim that a team from that time could compete against a team from today unless they had a few too many to drink.

What you have to understand is that, yes, Ruth hit 714 homeruns and hit .342, but he did it against competition that would be the equivalent of a junior college level (at best) today.

Once again, if you people want to look through a clear lens, how do you think LeBron James' high school basketball team would have done against the best pro basketball team of the 1920's?

LOL, you got them good! To many people on this forum are stuck on win shares,black ink etc. But in reality Babe Ruth might have been an average DH in this Era. He was over weight and couldnt run.

BABE RUTH-EQUALS=>JOHN KRUK

[NOMAR22]

Look, I'm not saying ruth sucks. I'm merely saying that you don't hear anyone claiming that someone from the 1920's is the best basketball player, the best swimmer, or track star that ever lived. That would be laughed out of the building.

What I am also saying is that you need to look at Ruth's .342 average,714 homeruns, and .690 SLG and place it in its proper historical context. He was clearly the best of his era, but it was against inferior competition. It has no relevance as to how he would stack up against Bonds, pujols, etc today. For arguments sake, let's assume they found some records from 1755 that clearly indicated that baseball had existed back then. Let's also assume that this player named daniel had hit 900 homeruns. Nobody would start claiming that daniel was the greatest of all time or that with proper training and diet he would have been as good as Ruth. That's way too speculative. They would say that daniel was clearly the best player of his era, but nobody would be saying he was as good as ruth in his day.


Yes! finally a reasonable voice on the forum.

[NOMAR22]

Your ignorance on every facet of baseball "history" is utterly amazing. Ruth wasn't "fat" (Sultan, please back me up on this myth !!), the Royals of the late 1970's weren't the Royals of the 1990s/2000s (common sense and obvious to everyone in the world except for NOMAR), Ron Guidry does NOT belong in the HOF, and the reason Dizzy Dean is in the HOF is more for his personality than his stats - deal with it and move on to other baseball conspiracy theories...those are facts. I will go now and carry on a more rewarding conversation with my wall...NOMAR - You could care less, but to lower the stress in my life I will NEVER respond to anything else you write. In conclusion I have 2 words for you...WIN SHARES !!!

I have great knowledge of Baseball and it's history. I just don't believe in bs stats like win shares and black inc.

[runningshoes]

LOL, you got them good! To many people on this forum are stuck on win shares,black ink etc. But in reality Babe Ruth might have been an average DH in this Era. He was over weight and couldnt run.

BABE RUTH-EQUALS=>JOHN KRUK

You have to assume that if Babe Ruth were to play in the majors today he would be conditioned to play the game the way it is now.

I have to believe he would have the same God-given talents he did then and would use them to be one of the greats in this or any other era.

He certainly would be no John Kruk.

[ElHalo]

Honestly, this discussion isn't worth it any more. I tried.

[yest]

Does anyone really think George Mikan would even make a COLLEGE team today?
no he'd be drafted in to the NBA out of high school

though I would realy like to see Iverson play in a leauge with 50's shoes, 50's courts, players who know how to play team defense and where they call travilling