Asterisk Association

Can you show the same periods for Canseco, Sosa, Palmeiro, Brett Boone, and the sacred Mark Mcguire( I want to talk about the future, I am not here to talk about the past?).

Bonds wasn't the only one roiding it up during this period.

quote:

Anyway, whatever Bonds does HR wise, there will always be an asterisk next to him, and the "other alleged and admitted" drug users as far as I am concerned.

That is true, bbbum.

However, Bonds is the only one still active AND still breaking records.

That is why the focus is on him.

Orlando-Exactly. Hard to figure why other names always get dragged into to the
"Bonds" controversy when they are either out of baseball or not going for an all-time record? Try to imagine(difficult for some) Bonds having retired before
this season, don't believe there would be any interest in discussing how far he'd be hitting the golf ball-steroids or not.

IMO every record with the exception of consecutive/total games played and maybe consecutive hittting streaks should be marked with an asterisk because they are associated with a time constant. While the rules have remained basically unchanged (except for the DH) the equipment and other outside factors have made records an apple and oranges scenario.

rz1,

quote:

IMO every record with the exception of consecutive/total games played and maybe consecutive hittting streaks should be marked with an asterisk because they are associated with a time constant. While the rules have remained basically unchanged (except for the DH) the equipment and other outside factors have made records an apple and oranges scenario.

rz1

I would respectively have to disagree.

Ty Cobb
.366 (.36636)
Rogers Hornsby
.358 (.35850)
Joe Jackson
.356 (.35575)
Pete Browning
.349 (.34892)
Ed Delahanty
.346 (.34590)
Tris Speaker
.345 (.34468)
Ted Williams
.344 (.34441)
Billy Hamilton
.344 (.34429)
Dan Brouthers
.342 (.34213)
Babe Ruth
.342 (.34207)
Harry Heilmann
.342 (.34159)
Willie Keeler
.341 (.34129)
Bill Terry
.341 (.34116)
George Sisler
.340 (.34015)
Lou Gehrig
.340 (.34008)
Jesse Burkett
.338 (.33844)
Tony Gwynn
.338 (.33818)
Nap Lajoie
.338 (.33810)
Todd Helton
.337 (.33662)
Riggs Stephenson
.336 (.33607)
Al Simmons
.334 (.33417)
John McGraw
.334 (.33359)
Tip O'Neill
.334 (.33357)
Paul Waner
.333 (.33323)
Eddie Collins
.333 (.33320)
Mike Donlin
.333 (.33264)
Stan Musial
.331 (.33084)
Sam Thompson
.331 (.33072)
Heinie Manush
.330 (.32976)
Cap Anson
.329 (.32909)

Batting Average over a lifetime career (Minimum of 1000 games played), the ultimate equalizer over time.

Note that only Tony Gwynn & Todd Helton are in the top 30.

Albert Pujols has played 833 games but his lifetime average of .332 doesn't even get him into the top 25.

Seems some of the older records are holding up just fine.

NHF,

I would agree except for the fact that the old time hitters did not have to deal with the relieve and situational pitching issues modern players face. Besides the fact that staffs were not as deep and talent laden how many tough lefty's came our of the pen just to face Ruth? Where were the closers? The difference between a .350 hitter and a .325 hitter is 25 hits per 1000 AB's. I can imagine many situational pitching changes in those 1000 AB's.

Now compare old time and modern hitters and see in those 1000 AB's how many different pitchers did a player face. Or, in their career who was hitting behind or in front of them and as a result saw more favorable pitches to hit than if they were a "lone ranger" on the team?

rz,

Point well taken, but they also did not have the advantage of facing todays tremendously diluted pitching staffs.

quote:

Or, in their career who was hitting behind or in front of them and as a result saw more favorable pitches to hit than if they were a "lone ranger" on the team?

Good Point here also, but it is true over all time and every team. A Babe Ruth today would still have similar numbers if he hit in a similar lineup.


Also, in the "old" days, there was no "DH heaven to fall into at the tail end of your career.

quote:

but they also did not have the advantage of facing todays tremendously diluted pitching staffs.

Which is another relative statement, diluted compared to what and how.

Many would not agree but I've always felt that longevity was the measure to a career. Baseball is a team sport and the longer you filled a role that fit into team goals, the more successful your career was. Not every player was built to hit HR's, but everyone was a baseball player and in most cases the longer you are able to play the game at a professional level the more you grew in my book.

diluted by the fact in those days you had far less teams, so only the cream of the crop were pitching at the major league level.

while its true that today you have specialists, and closers...how many times in a game do todays top hitters see these specialists. One AB out of 4 or 5. Over a career (8,000 to 12,000 ABs), the overall effect is negligble. Especially considering there are only a few oF these guys in the league. (i.e. the yankess got Mike Myers specifically to pitch to Ortiz...has not been too effective so far in that role!)

The 'old days' saw alot of really good pitchers whose names are legend. But those teams of yesteryear also had alot of tremendously mediocre pitchers we don't hear about. And some of those average pitchers would also be tremendously diluted themselves by the 8th / 9th inning and they got pounded. Not all of them were Cy Young or Bob Feller.

Dad10,

I agree there were some like that, but look at todays rosters...how many of these guys would even be professional players 25, 35, or 45 yrs ago.

There were only so many spots avialable in the major leagues and they went to the best.

How many pitchers come up from AA and get thrown into the fire today?

example...look at the KC royals pitching stats. wouldn't you like to play 19 games a year against that crew?

quote:

I agree there were some like that, but look at todays rosters...how many of these guys would even be professional players 25, 35, or 45 yrs ago.

Most of them. The shorter mound and better hitters top to bottom have given the impression that the pool is diluted.

quote:

There were only so many spots avialable in the major leagues and they went to the best.

The overall talent pool then is not like it is today and regardless of more teams now the ratio is not comparable. How many kids in HS were 90 mph throwers in HS? Not to say that velocity is a benchmark, but it is a pointer.

i would just like to add that even tho barry bonds took steriods, he is still a great player. steroids made him into an amazing player. anyone who disagrees i ask you this... if many big time players took steroids why didnt they hit 73 home runs in one season?

There are 10 more teams in MLB than in 1965, as an example. That is approximately 140 more pitchers in MLB. Just imagine if you contracted back to 20 teams?

# 1 and 2 starters would be #3 and 4 starters on most of the teams. Forget about relievers right now. Assume 5 starters for 30 teams is 150 starters. With only 20 teams, 50 pitchers are jobless. Those 50 pitchers are basically every 5th starter and most of the #4's.

Back in that era, starters pitched more innings, or so it seemed, and with 10 teams in each league, hitters saw the same guy on the mound many times in a season, and still pitchers dominated. ERA's were around 3.00 and batting averages at .250

Today, ERA's are well over 4.00 collectively, and overall hitting up around .275 collectively. Those numbers can lead one to believe dilution, even with the increase in "world" players.

Are todays players better? Probably

Would Bonds have had a great career regardless of whether he took roids or not? Probably. He was on track for greatness anyway. Just imagine if he would have stayed on the "high road". Maybe people would be celebrating instead of general disdain. That is now history.

I don't know, you can say what you will about less teams and what contracting back to the same number of teams would do, but for starters there are a whole lot more people to choose from today, just population-wise. Add to that the fact that in Ruth's day black players weren't even allowed to play. And now there is a whole new population of Latin players that swell the ranks of the qualified.

I doubt they were all that better in the old days, I really do. Throw a few Mariano Riveras and Satchel Paiges into the mix and see how some of those hitters from yesteryear would do. And likewise, yesteryears #3 and 4 pitchers would be driven from the game if they had to face Ortiz and Pujols etc on a regular basis.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The overall talent pool then is not like it is today and regardless of more teams now the ratio is not comparable. How many kids in HS were 90 mph throwers in HS? Not to say that velocity is a benchmark, but it is a pointer. The shorter mound and better hitters top to bottom have given the impression that the pool is diluted.

quote:

example...look at the KC royals pitching stats. wouldn't you like to play 19 games a year against that crew?

IMO they would be more successful 50 years ago than they are today. But that is an opinion that cannot be validated.

This is my whole point. You cannot compare records that involve intagibles. Baseball records are meant to emphasis the greatness of a player during his time.

Ruth was never in my discussion. Hank Aaron was!!

"Hammerin Hank Aaron achieved what he did consistently in an era of better pitching, before expansion started diluting the talent pool, did it under trying times, stress, and duress, and his name should never appear below some head-case on the all-time lists."

****some Hispanic players back in the day
Cardenas
Clemente
Marichal
Alou
Alou
Alou
Aparicio
Cepeda

***should I keep naming more?

Dad10,

If your theory is true, please explain how KC, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay, ...etc dont have a higher quality pitchng staff than they do.

"And likewise, yesteryears #3 and 4 pitchers would be driven from the game if they had to face Ortiz and Pujols etc on a regular basis.
"

Again, look the pitcher's on the other teams in these two players divisions. The quality of the #3 starter for Tampa Bay is not better than the #3 starter for say the Chicago Cubs in the say the 1950's (wish I had time to look up a few of those pitcher's right now, but I have
a design review to attend in 30 minutes).

Even look back in the mid 1970's, you didnt see too many starters with ERAs in the 6's like you do today.

Listen to interviews of the legends when asked about the quality of players "then & now". I think you will find that they will say the talent and athletisism overall is better now than when they played.

rz1,

Your right, but its what makes the game of baseball so great, we can have these kinds of discussions.

I am one who feels today's atheltes are far better than they were 50 yrs ago in all sports. But while huge strides forward have been made in football, basketball, and other sports, the longtime achievments of the past greats still stand in baseball.

We can argue pitching quality til we are all blue in the face, but is there really any question that today's players are bigger, stronger than 25 or 50 yrs ago?

For the sake of discussion, lets assume for a moment that the point of today's pitching being better is true. Certainly the overall quality of offensive talent is better today.

Mays, Mantle, Robinson never worked out ear round with personal coaches & trainers they way todays players do.

If we assume pitchers today are so much better than 25 or 50 yrs ago, then you have to make the same assumption about the hitters. The cream of the crop today shuld be as good if not better than those of the past.

quote:

Originally posted by NHFundamentalsDad:
rz1,

Your right, but its what makes the game of baseball so great, we can have these kinds of discussions.

I am one who feels today's atheltes are far better than they were 50 yrs ago in all sports. But while huge strides forward have been made in football, basketball, and other sports, the longtime achievments of the past greats still stand in baseball.

Mays, Mantle, Robinson never worked out ear round with personal coaches & trainers they way todays players do.

They had to get jobs

Yeah, I might have exaggerated the point, doubtful they'd have been driven from the game. But they'd still be there with lesser numbers I think, thus making ERA comparisons a bit closer to todays KC guys etc.

I see it as - they were who they were and these guys are what they are.
People enjoy(ed) watching them, kids grew up inspired by them and baseball lives on. And that's a good thing.

Still would like to see Pedro drill the Babe the way he said he would.

Dad10,

LOL...maybe not Pedro now, but what about Papelbon ?