rossiter@cornell.UUCP (David G. Rossiter) (05/28/85)
I can't think of a polite way to phrase this, so here goes...
Cobb's records are worthless. He never had to face the Bob Gibsons,
J.R. Richards, Dwight Goodens, Dennis Boyds etc. etc. of his day.
Walter Johnson's records are worthless. He never had to pitch to
Mays, Aaron, Clemente, Campanella...
The game is fundamentally different now that the best available players
are on the field, whether they are of English or African ancestry, or
whether they were born in the US, Venezuela, or Japan.
Baseball history has its prehistory with Jackie Robinson. As late as
1957 (I was looking over my baseball card collection the other night...)
about half the teams had NO Afro-americans. This included well-known
racist teams like St. Louis Cardinals and Washington Senators. So the
real modern era begins about 1964, with the passage of the Civil Rights
Act and the acceptance of the marginal Afro-american ballplayer (not just
the Frank Robinsons and Henry Aarons).
David Rossiter / CS Dep't / Cornell University / Ithaca / NY / 14850 / USA
{uw-beaver,ihnp4,decvax,vax135}!cornell!rossiter (UUCP)
rossiter@Cornell.ARPA (ARPAnet) ; rossiter@CRNLCS (BITNET)gersh@dartvax.UUCP (Jeff Gershengorn) (05/29/85)
> I can't think of a polite way to phrase this, so here goes... > > Cobb's records are worthless. He never had to face the Bob Gibsons, > J.R. Richards, Dwight Goodens, Dennis Boyds etc. etc. of his day. > > Walter Johnson's records are worthless. He never had to pitch to > Mays, Aaron, Clemente, Campanella... > > The game is fundamentally different now that the best available players > are on the field, whether they are of English or African ancestry, or > whether they were born in the US, Venezuela, or Japan. > > Baseball history has its prehistory with Jackie Robinson. As late as > 1957 (I was looking over my baseball card collection the other night...) > about half the teams had NO Afro-americans. This included well-known > racist teams like St. Louis Cardinals and Washington Senators. So the > real modern era begins about 1964, with the passage of the Civil Rights > Act and the acceptance of the marginal Afro-american ballplayer (not just > the Frank Robinsons and Henry Aarons). > > David Rossiter / CS Dep't / Cornell University / Ithaca / NY / 14850 / USA > {uw-beaver,ihnp4,decvax,vax135}!cornell!rossiter (UUCP) > rossiter@Cornell.ARPA (ARPAnet) ; rossiter@CRNLCS (BITNET) worthless, huh? to say that their records are worthless is pretty extreme. i'll agree that it might be a bit useless to compare, for example, cobb and rose because of the reasons you suggested, but to say that their records are worthless isn't the way to go about it. in 20 years baseball might have twice as many superstars as it does now, and the records that stand now are probably not going to seem worthless. it's important to put things into perspective, but worthless is an ill choice of words. flame me, i go home on sunday. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Eternal nothingness is okay if you're dressed for it." -Woody Allen Jeff Gershengorn '88 ihnp4!dartvax!gersh Hinman Box 1772 Dartmouth College Hanover, New Hampshire 03755 Real World: 5 Fairway Drive San Rafael, CA 94901 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
pete@umcp-cs.UUCP (Pete Cottrell) (05/30/85)
>I can't think of a polite way to phrase this, so here goes... > >Cobb's records are worthless. He never had to face the Bob Gibsons, >J.R. Richards, Dwight Goodens, Dennis Boyds etc. etc. of his day. > Do you mean THE Dennis Boyd, possessing a lifetime 16-21 record and a 3.93 ERA? I can see Ty shaking now... >Walter Johnson's records are worthless. He never had to pitch to >Mays, Aaron, Clemente, Campanella... > ...or to Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb, Sisler... >The game is fundamentally different now that the best available players >are on the field, whether they are of English or African ancestry, or >whether they were born in the US, Venezuela, or Japan. > or whether the talent is diluted with 26 teams instead of 16, or with fielders wearing baskets on their hands for gloves... You said it yourself: the game is fundamentally different, and I think the best you might expect from most people is that they consider ALL the differences when comparing records or careers. But to say that the old records are worthless suggests a lack of due consideration or a tongue-in-cheek submittal to get things stirred up (either of which is ok, I guess, since we are all here to talk ball and hopefully learn something). So I, for what it is worth, cannot agree with your black/white interpretation of a very gray area. Boy, talk about your can of worms... ;-) -- Call-Me: Pete Cottrell, Univ. of Md. Comp. Sci. Dept. UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!pete CSNet: pete@umcp-cs ARPA: pete@maryland
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (06/03/85)
> or whether the talent is diluted with 26 teams instead of 16,
The greatest myth perpetuated by the old-timers! Those 16 teams were
lily-white. Since there no more white players today in the majors
then there were pre-Robinson (then: 16*25=400; now, at most:
.6*26*25=390) and since baseball is a much more attractive profession
in real financial terms then it was in Cobb's day, we can conclude
that there is NO evidence that talent has been diluted. Indeed, there
is reason to believe that talent is more concentrated then it was then.
Please don't throw back any red herrings about the decline of the
lower minors; fact is, most of the top performers entering the game
today play in college, from whence they can often go straight into AAA.
These are the good old days.
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!daviddpb@philabs.UUCP (Paul Benjamin) (06/05/85)
> The greatest myth perpetuated by the old-timers! Those 16 teams were > lily-white. Since there no more white players today in the majors > then there were pre-Robinson (then: 16*25=400; now, at most: > .6*26*25=390) and since baseball is a much more attractive profession > in real financial terms then it was in Cobb's day, we can conclude > that there is NO evidence that talent has been diluted. Indeed, there > is reason to believe that talent is more concentrated then it was then. Although I tend to agree with the assertion that today's athletes are, on the average, better than yesteryear's, your arguments aren't very good that old records are much less meaningful. You might try arguing that the population increase has increased the concentration of talent, BUT: 1) Back then, such sports as football and basketball did not draw away so much of the athletic talent as they do now. Back then, baseball was THE game. 2) Your above argument does not show that old-timers were less talented than present ballplayers - there are black and latin players in the majors now, but there are also more players total, too. Thus, there could easily be the same overall level of talent as 75 years ago. To disparage old records, you need to show clear superiority of present talent. 3) The assertion that the records of old-time stars are meaningless implies that NONE of the dominant players of previous eras (Cobb, Ruth, Gehrig, Cy Young, etc.) would have been superstars today. You are making a basic error in applying group characteristics to individuals. The exclusion of black and latin ballplayers no doubt kept fans from seeing many great players, but that is irrelevant to the abilities of the white stars. The fact is, there have always been white superplayers in every era of baseball (Sutter, Murphy, Schmidt, etc.) There have also always been many very good white players, and many good ones, etc. Nobody worth listening to would claim that the old-time numerical records should be compared with today's. The vast differences in the game ensure that such comparisons are meaningless (different fields, gloves, night baseball, artificial turf, planes instead of trains between games, ...) but to say that the dominant players of previous eras would not also be great stars today is to say that there were no super white players in those eras. That's rubbish. So, Cobb's records are still phenomenal. To be able to set career records in so many areas (average, batting titles, stolen bases, hits, ...) in the professional level of the major national sport of his era shows that he was a tremendous talent, and would have been in any era. The moment that Rose passes Cobb in total hits means nothing. They accomplished their feats in totally different ways, and times. The same applies to Aaron and Ruth. I personally feel that comparing players of the very highest caliber is a worthless exercise. How many hits would Cobb have had in the 1970's and 1980's? Who knows? Who cares?
pete@umcp-cs.UUCP (Pete Cottrell) (06/06/85)
>> or whether the talent is diluted with 26 teams instead of 16, > >The greatest myth perpetuated by the old-timers! Those 16 teams were >lily-white. Since there no more white players today in the majors >then there were pre-Robinson (then: 16*25=400; now, at most: >.6*26*25=390) and since baseball is a much more attractive profession >in real financial terms then it was in Cobb's day, we can conclude >that there is NO evidence that talent has been diluted. Indeed, there >is reason to believe that talent is more concentrated then it was then. > What you say is basically true, and supports statements made by the original author (the one who thought Cobb's and Johnson's records were meaningless). Today, playing ball is a way to get rich, whereas in the old days, players would quit baseball because they couldn't afford to not have a conventional job. Thus, good players stay in the game. Many people think today's athletes are simply superior because they are bigger, stronger and have access to better and more specialized training. Diluted is probably the wrong word, in retrospect; but what has happened, and was intended in the first message, is that there have been several expansions in recent times that have concentrated copious amounts of under-skilled ballplayers in one park for many years in a row, and many teams and players have feasted on them. I know that Baltimore was something like 23-0 against KC before the Royals finally won one. This fact may not be anything in itself, but it is reasonable to think that it might be one of many considerations it when discussing the current validity of old-time records. -- Call-Me: Pete Cottrell, Univ. of Md. Comp. Sci. Dept. UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!pete CSNet: pete@umcp-cs ARPA: pete@maryland
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (06/08/85)
[">>" and "" => David Rubin; ">" => Paul Benjamin] >> The greatest myth perpetuated by the old-timers! Those 16 teams were >> lily-white. Since there no more white players today in the majors >> then there were pre-Robinson (then: 16*25=400; now, at most: >> .6*26*25=390) and since baseball is a much more attractive profession >> in real financial terms then it was in Cobb's day, we can conclude >> that there is NO evidence that talent has been diluted. Indeed, there >> is reason to believe that talent is more concentrated then it was then. > Although I tend to agree with the assertion that today's athletes are, > on the average, better than yesteryear's, your arguments aren't very > good that old records are much less meaningful. You might try arguing > that the population increase has increased the concentration of talent, First, that posting was a response to a claim by someone else that talent was not as concentrated today as in Cobb's day, and I sought to refute it in the easiest fashion possible. But now that you mention it, yes, I believe that old records are less meaningful, for two very different reasons: (1) In the modern era, there have been no superstars of the statistical magnitude of a Cobb, or a Ruth, or a Williams. If the men who were capable of such feats were simply opting out of baseball, then we could expect a DECLINE in the number of these extraodinary careers, rather than the apparent lack of them entirely. Why, then? Simply put, the TYPICAL ballplayer of today is better than the typical ballplayer of yesteryear, thus closing the gap between league performance and the best men are capable of. It is just harder to shine under such circumstances then it was in the past. Unless you wish to explain the lack of Cobb-type careers as species degeneration, I see no alternative to the conclusion that the best of each generation are of comparable ability, with the apparent differences in their performances due to the caliber of the competition. (2) The environment in which the players operate can change dramatically as changes in the way the game is played alters the balance between offense and defense. The league average for the NL in 1930 was over .300; Yazstremski led the AL in 1968 with an average of .301. To state therefore that in 1968, Yazstremski demonstrated as much skill as the average 1930 National Leaguer is absurd. Intergenerational comparisons should be made, if at all, on the basis of relative, not absolute, performance. Now back to your specific points: > BUT: > > 1) Back then, such sports as football and basketball did not draw away > so much of the athletic talent as they do now. Back then, baseball > was THE game. First, football draws very little talent away from baseball. Careers in football are brutish, short, and not particularly lucrative. Thus, those who have solid prospects in both overwhelmingly choose baseball. Basketball is more of a problem. Basketball "enjoyed" its salary explosion a few years ahead of baseball (do the salary caps also portend baseball's future), and there is likely to be some loss. There are perhaps half a dozen major league baseball players (e.g. Winfield) who were offered a chance at a basketball career; perhaps if we knew how many basketball players passed up on opportunities in baseball, we'd know the two sports relative strength in attracting those who would excel at either. I know of no basketball players presently playing who had that choice, although I think DeBusschere actually pitched for the White Sox in the late '60s. > 2) Your above argument does not show that old-timers were less talented > than present ballplayers - there are black and latin players in the > majors now, but there are also more players total, too. Thus, there > could easily be the same overall level of talent as 75 years ago. > To disparage old records, you need to show clear superiority of > present talent. I am not disparaging old records; I am merely pointing out that the improvement in the mediocre players has made the excellent ones stick out somewhat less. I would never argue that Cobb was LESS talented then Rose, only that it was EASIER for Cobb to shine, and differences, e.g., in batting average are due in no small measure to the different environments the two played in. > 3) The assertion that the records of old-time stars are meaningless > implies that NONE of the dominant players of previous eras (Cobb, > Ruth, Gehrig, Cy Young, etc.) would have been superstars today. > You are making a basic error in applying group characteristics to > individuals. The exclusion of black and latin ballplayers no doubt > kept fans from seeing many great players, but that is irrelevant > to the abilities of the white stars. The fact is, there have always > been white superplayers in every era of baseball (Sutter, Murphy, > Schmidt, etc.) There have also always been many very good white > players, and many good ones, etc. Nobody worth listening to would > claim that the old-time numerical records should be compared with > today's. The vast differences in the game ensure that such comparisons > are meaningless (different fields, gloves, night baseball, artificial > turf, planes instead of trains between games, ...) but to say that > the dominant players of previous eras would not also be great stars > today is to say that there were no super white players in those eras. > That's rubbish. You misunderstood me. My assumption is that Ruth, Gehrig, etc. are about as talented as Schmidt, Aaron, etc., and the difference in their records is due largely to where and when they played. They are not meaningless when used for comparison with other players of the SAME era. I am not criticizing those who say "Cobb was a great hitter because he hit about 70 points higher than the rest of the league"; I am criticizing those who say "Cobb was obviously a better hitter than Rose, as his lifetime average is 60 points higher". > So, Cobb's records are still phenomenal. To be able to set career records > in so many areas (average, batting titles, stolen bases, hits, ...) in > the professional level of the major national sport of his era shows that > he was a tremendous talent, and would have been in any era. The moment > that Rose passes Cobb in total hits means nothing. They accomplished > their feats in totally different ways, and times. The same applies to > Aaron and Ruth. I personally feel that comparing players of the > very highest caliber is a worthless exercise. How many hits would Cobb > have had in the 1970's and 1980's? Who knows? Who cares? I agree whole-heartedly with every word in this paragraph. I suspect you were responding both to my expressed sentiments and those you imagined I have. It appears we agree very much. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (06/10/85)
> ................................................................ Diluted > is probably the wrong word, in retrospect; but what has happened, and > was intended in the first message, is that there have been several > expansions in recent times that have concentrated copious amounts of > under-skilled ballplayers in one park for many years in a row, and > many teams and players have feasted on them....................... > Pete Cottrell, Univ. of Md. Comp. Sci. Dept. I disagree. Concentrations of under-skilled players on one team for extended periods of time have been LESS of a problem since expansion, and will probably become a non-problem due to the institution of the amateur draft. While there will be horror stories ala Cubs with regard to winning pennants or even titles (after all, very few teams win a pennant in a given year...), there have not been the prolonged periods of absolutely horrible play for any one team since 1961 that plagued teams such as the Browns and Phillies for decades at a time. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david