Orlando
All I say is consider all records to be equal---who knows who is clean and who isnt--- not mention the changes in the game itslef over the years--making stadiums smaller---revisions to the mound height---artificial turf vs natural grass---the length of the season---importance of the middle relief guy and the closer
I do not see anyone here defending PEDS or their users---just simply discussing the aspects of the situation
TR: What is funny is that nobody wants to talk about the older players like Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Mickey Mantle etc----among the oldsters were boozers and womanizers just to begin with----baseball history is not as clean as they want us to believe
Bum: All I'm saying is, the old-timers, truth be told, did drugs too.. should their records be taken away? I think these records will stand.
And now you say you consider all records to be equal.
Nobody here is going to come right out and defend A-Rod et al (hence the use of 'semi-defend'). Not on this forum. But even tangentially equating booze, coke, and greenies with PEDs is disingenuous.
Booze wasn't the gateway drug to steroids. Greenies weren't used to hit the long ball. And no player thought, "oh thank heavens I can get ahold of some Primobolan; that'll replace my cocaine use." PEDs are a whole other path designed to create, enhance, or lengthen careers.
Bum: All I'm saying is, the old-timers, truth be told, did drugs too.. should their records be taken away? I think these records will stand.
And now you say you consider all records to be equal.
Nobody here is going to come right out and defend A-Rod et al (hence the use of 'semi-defend'). Not on this forum. But even tangentially equating booze, coke, and greenies with PEDs is disingenuous.
Booze wasn't the gateway drug to steroids. Greenies weren't used to hit the long ball. And no player thought, "oh thank heavens I can get ahold of some Primobolan; that'll replace my cocaine use." PEDs are a whole other path designed to create, enhance, or lengthen careers.
quote:baseball history is not as clean as they want us to believe
I think applicable rules and laws are key here. While certain things are despised by today's standards, one cannot judge yesterday's players by today's rules and laws. If we did that then every MLB club would be in violation of federal guidelines on equal rights and minimum wage. I also doubt if those old wooden stadiums would pass fire code.
I seen this proposal put forth in other forums and publications:
Break the HOF into eras---thus you can see who did what especially since eras had different lengths of schedule---they played in daylight only up to a certain point---
Break the HOF into eras---thus you can see who did what especially since eras had different lengths of schedule---they played in daylight only up to a certain point---
.
Probably not Fungo. But if we could make a good return on our money we might try it...
...at least once!
quote:Originally posted by Fungo:
I also doubt if those old wooden stadiums would pass fire code.
Probably not Fungo. But if we could make a good return on our money we might try it...
...at least once!
quote:Originally posted by Orlando:
But even tangentially equating booze, coke, and greenies with PEDs is disingenuous.
Booze wasn't the gateway drug to steroids. Greenies weren't used to hit the long ball.
Maybe not. But maybe some guy went 3-4 on greenies when he would have otherwise gone 0-4. Or a pitcher who was particularly crisper than otherwise. Every five nights. Because there are more records than power records.
Just so you know, Orlando, I don't condone or semi-defend any of these guys. Alex Rodriguez at one time was my favorite player.. now I can only think of him in lesser terms. I suppose any mid-30's man who would drop his wife for a 50-y.o. Madonna is, in retrospect, probably a little kooky anyway. So all I'm saying is, records are records and they happened, good or bad. The time to catch these clowns was before, not after.
I'm not so concerned about the Hall of Fame. There are voters that will take that upon themselves to pass judgment and these abusers will have to live with the consequences of their actions and I feel confident that the honest players, in the long-run, will be justified by their membership.
Finally, I am particularly glad all of this has happened. For the sake of our children who follow in their footsteps.
BTW Orlando, be careful describing the opinions of others as disingenuous. My posts are as carefully considered as your own. The irony in such labeling is that it may rather be construed as disingenuous on your part.
Harold Reynolds, whom I respect immensely , had a great idea regarding the HOF---let them all in but for those records in the alleged steroid era just put a didsclaimer on the plaque saying "Record set in the alleged steroid era"
The one fault here is that the voters do what they want to do---knowing the problems Jim Rice had with the media I am sure that is why it took as long as it did for him to get voted in
The one fault here is that the voters do what they want to do---knowing the problems Jim Rice had with the media I am sure that is why it took as long as it did for him to get voted in
quote:Bum: All I'm saying is, the old-timers, truth be told, did drugs too
"Did drugs too." As if drugs are drugs.
I stand by my opinion.
The discussion on MLB TV hit this same discussion --and I believe it was Verducci who said bringing up greenies, corked bats, or slit baseballs to gain an edge in the same discussion as steroids to diminish the import was much the same as saying all crime is crime. But crime is divided into misdemeanors and felonies.
One of their main points was that beyond the increased strength is the recovery assistance. Over the course of a season, players wear down. With PEDs, a player feels good every day; ultimately, that can be a greater advantage than the increase in strength.
You can chill now, O. The original question--is baseball history in jeopardy--the answer is no. Once one tries to reduce baseball into packets of time, like TR Hit says, what then.. day vs. night games?
154 vs. 162?
2003 vs. 1993?
Greenies vs. Roids?
Why not pre-Jackie Robinson vs. post-Jackie Robinson?
It can't be done. And it won't be done. The records will stand, whether you take your stand or not.
154 vs. 162?
2003 vs. 1993?
Greenies vs. Roids?
Why not pre-Jackie Robinson vs. post-Jackie Robinson?
It can't be done. And it won't be done. The records will stand, whether you take your stand or not.
That's what Ty Cobb said. The game is bigger than any player. The game cleans itself up. The beat goes on until the next event.quote:Blame it all on the almighty dollar.
Want to make the water murkier?
What if the great black players in the Negro Leagues played in the bigs way back then---would Aaron have had his record ?---would Nolan Ryan be regaled as he is as a pitcher?
One can disect it all in any way they want but the bottom line is simple---the numbers are what they are
What if the great black players in the Negro Leagues played in the bigs way back then---would Aaron have had his record ?---would Nolan Ryan be regaled as he is as a pitcher?
One can disect it all in any way they want but the bottom line is simple---the numbers are what they are
TR, good point. (Except Nolan Ryan and his seven no-hitters would be regaled in any era.)
BUM
All that and yet he was barely a .500 pitcher
All that and yet he was barely a .500 pitcher
I'm willing to categorize spit balls and corked bats as misdemeanors. But to suggest that greenies are a minor transgression in comparison to steriods is, I think, more a reflection of our desire to keep baseball royalty on the throne than an objective view of the differences. It's bad enough seeing the latter day heroes as cheaters. Few of us want to also tear down the players of the 50s, 60s, and 70s.
Perhaps it is true that some wish to justify the steriod era by seeing it as an extension of earlier sins. It's a poor rationalization, but in properly rejecting that, we shouldn't supress the facts-- the old guys used PED's too.
Is the potential enhancement to performance greater with steriods than with uppers? It is if you define performance as bat speed or pitch velocity, or muscle recovery time. It's not if you think performance is dependent on focus, or on competitive fire, or on the health of a player's joints.
Both types can extend a player's career, and boost his stats. Since making it to the bigs is a zero sum game, don't both steroids and uppers put a clean player at a disadvantage?
It's a personal thing with me. I have a young player who at some point will find that his talent or work ethic won't support advancement in baseball. The less temptation he'll have to compensate by using steroids or uppers, the better. I don't want to see either trivialized as a misdemeanor, or as almost acceptable.
Perhaps it is true that some wish to justify the steriod era by seeing it as an extension of earlier sins. It's a poor rationalization, but in properly rejecting that, we shouldn't supress the facts-- the old guys used PED's too.
Is the potential enhancement to performance greater with steriods than with uppers? It is if you define performance as bat speed or pitch velocity, or muscle recovery time. It's not if you think performance is dependent on focus, or on competitive fire, or on the health of a player's joints.
Both types can extend a player's career, and boost his stats. Since making it to the bigs is a zero sum game, don't both steroids and uppers put a clean player at a disadvantage?
It's a personal thing with me. I have a young player who at some point will find that his talent or work ethic won't support advancement in baseball. The less temptation he'll have to compensate by using steroids or uppers, the better. I don't want to see either trivialized as a misdemeanor, or as almost acceptable.
3Fingered..
The important thing is cleaning up baseball, once and for all. For the sake of our children.
The important thing is cleaning up baseball, once and for all. For the sake of our children.
quote:Originally posted by Bum:
Maybe not. But maybe some guy went 3-4 on greenies when he would have otherwise gone 0-4. Or a pitcher who was particularly crisper than otherwise. Every five nights. Because there are more records than power records.
Or maybe a guy went 0-4 on greenies when he could have gone 3-4 by staying in the night before and getting all his rest.
If we are going to include greenies in the PED sentence, I want some proof that the players drinking from the 'hot' coffee pot had better stats than the players drinking from the regular pot.
Right now, I see greenies as a drug that can only bring a player artificially closer to his maximum potential.
Steroids allow a player to increase his maximum potential. For me, that is the difference and the one reason I don't accept the argument that the old time players somehow took PED's too.
TR, what was your point about Nolan Ryan?
DOD
My point is this---we debate about who are record holders, HOF talents etc but Nolan Ryan was a 500 pitcher, plain and simple---yea he had the no hitters and strikeouts but still he was simply a little better than 500 pitcher
Had the black pitchers been in the pros would he be looked at as the player he is is terms of stats
The whole situation now is ludicrous---who was clean? who was not? --
My point is this---we debate about who are record holders, HOF talents etc but Nolan Ryan was a 500 pitcher, plain and simple---yea he had the no hitters and strikeouts but still he was simply a little better than 500 pitcher
Had the black pitchers been in the pros would he be looked at as the player he is is terms of stats
The whole situation now is ludicrous---who was clean? who was not? --
quote:Originally posted by TRhit:
DOD
Had the black pitchers been in the pros would he be looked at as the player he is is terms of stats
Black pitchers were in the pros when he played. Bob Gibson comes to mind. The percentage of black players in MLB was at its highest during Ryan's career.
DOD
You must be a lot younger than I
How about Satch Paige ?
You are missing the point---the baseball field has always been unbalanced-- for players of all ethnic groups, for players clean or not clean
It was always SOS the huge stars were protected in some way or another
You must be a lot younger than I
How about Satch Paige ?
You are missing the point---the baseball field has always been unbalanced-- for players of all ethnic groups, for players clean or not clean
It was always SOS the huge stars were protected in some way or another
quote:one cannot judge yesterday's players by today's rules and laws.
...BUT you can judge them in terms of historical evidence....at the time!
I sat up (all night) in a London hotel room on September 8-9, 1998 watching the Cards/Cubs.
Everyone seemed to completely buy into it.
It never seemed right to me.
Athletic records are broken incrementally and, when there is a quantum leap, its either one exceptional person (i.e. Bob Beaman) or a technological leap (like the new speedos used during the 2008 Olympics or PEDs).
Two freakishly large men simultaneously surpassing long-standing world-class athletic records..... by 20%?
I think not.
Baseball chose to ignore the obvious.
As such, permission was given.
Nolan Ryan had 7 no-hitters, 12 1-hitters, and 18 2-hitters. He also threw over 100MPH after age 40. Had a career ERA of 3.19 which would have been top 5 in the AL this past year. Won/lost record is not a very good judgement of a pitcher's value.
Who would you pick? Pitcher A: 20-5 w/l record with an ERA of 5.1(his team averages 7 runs /game)
Pitcher B: 13-12 w/l record with an ERA of 3.1(his team averages 2.5 runs/game)
Hard to get a W when your team doesn't score many runs. Most overrated stat in baseball. IMO
Who would you pick? Pitcher A: 20-5 w/l record with an ERA of 5.1(his team averages 7 runs /game)
Pitcher B: 13-12 w/l record with an ERA of 3.1(his team averages 2.5 runs/game)
Hard to get a W when your team doesn't score many runs. Most overrated stat in baseball. IMO
Throwing over 100 at age 40?
Makes you think does it not ?
I am speaking heresy but the box has now been opened---everyone is suspect
Makes you think does it not ?
I am speaking heresy but the box has now been opened---everyone is suspect
TR,
I'm not that young.
I understand your point but I don't agree with the comparison. For me, steroids is an issue by itself and should not be lumped in with any other issue(like greenies). PED's give a player an advantage that is indisputable. The other comparison's, like the color barrier or natural grass vs turf, day vs night, are unclear.
Let's say that MLB was open to all colors from the start. Babe Ruth might have more home runs than he does now. If Pete Rose had played without the luxury of air conditioning, as Ty Cobb had to do, who knows if he would have broken his record. I wonder how many MLB quality players there were in the Dominican Republic in 1910. I wonder how many errors Cal Ripken Jr. would have now if he had to play on the poorly manicured fields of yesteryear. I wonder how many stars of today would never have made it if not for modern surgical techniques that saved their career.
Comparing the different conditions of play during the different era's of MLB can be a fun topic of conversation, but I don't see anyone enjoying the topic of steroids much.
Getting back to Nolan Ryan, the one comparison I have heard about him is his inflated strikeout totals. He came along in an era where striking out was more acceptable than in previous era's.
I'm not that young.
I understand your point but I don't agree with the comparison. For me, steroids is an issue by itself and should not be lumped in with any other issue(like greenies). PED's give a player an advantage that is indisputable. The other comparison's, like the color barrier or natural grass vs turf, day vs night, are unclear.
Let's say that MLB was open to all colors from the start. Babe Ruth might have more home runs than he does now. If Pete Rose had played without the luxury of air conditioning, as Ty Cobb had to do, who knows if he would have broken his record. I wonder how many MLB quality players there were in the Dominican Republic in 1910. I wonder how many errors Cal Ripken Jr. would have now if he had to play on the poorly manicured fields of yesteryear. I wonder how many stars of today would never have made it if not for modern surgical techniques that saved their career.
Comparing the different conditions of play during the different era's of MLB can be a fun topic of conversation, but I don't see anyone enjoying the topic of steroids much.
Getting back to Nolan Ryan, the one comparison I have heard about him is his inflated strikeout totals. He came along in an era where striking out was more acceptable than in previous era's.
quote:Getting back to Nolan Ryan, the one comparison I have heard about him is his inflated strikeout totals. He came along in an era where striking out was more acceptable than in previous era's.
So players from the 60's to the 90's weren't as concerned about their batting averages as players from previous eras?
If Nolan Ryan had pitched in previous decades with his same stuff during his career his strikeout total would have been one record that no one would ever sniff at. Even Jack Bauer would have been in awe.
No disrespect DOD but I think someone fed you a line.
BTW, If his strikeout total is inflated what happened to EVERY OTHER pitcher. Clemens and Johnson are still a 1000 behind.
Ah, Moc, and don't forget the assessment of Gibby :
"Bob Gibson is the luckiest pitcher I ever saw. He always pitches when the other team doesn't score any runs." - Former Cardinal Catcher Tim McCarver
:"Bob Gibson is the luckiest pitcher I ever saw. He always pitches when the other team doesn't score any runs." - Former Cardinal Catcher Tim McCarver
It was brought up earlier, (A while ago) why they do not post the other 103 names. According to what I heard, it is a legal battle. The union is fighting it because of the way the players were tested. They were told it was Anonymous. How the one name leaked? Who knows, but the wind always blows harder at the top of the mountain. So i am sure this a legal battle of sorts. In this economic time it continues to amaze me the amount of money we are willing to pay just to clean up the game.
quote:"Bob Gibson is the luckiest pitcher I ever saw. He always pitches when the other team doesn't score any runs." - Former Cardinal Catcher Tim McCarver
Those batters Gibson faced weren't concerned about getting hits or scoring runs, that's the only reason he had a 1.12 ERA in 1968. No other pitcher came close, funny how the batters tanked only when he pitched.BTW-IMO Bob Gibson and Sandy Koufax were the best pitchers of all-time-righty-lefty. Gibson had 17 k's in a '68 Series game against Detroit. He owned the outside of the plate. Best pitching performance I ever saw.
quote:Originally posted by Moc1:
So players from the 60's to the 90's weren't as concerned about their batting averages as players from previous eras?
I said strikeout totals, not batting average. Please read and understand what a poster is saying before replying.
And it's not just the players today who ignore their strikeout totals, it's the coaches as well. The very fabric of baseball has changed. High strikout totals by batters(over 100 per season) is commonplace and we now have the 200 strikeout season as well.
If Nolan Ryan had pitched in previous decades with his same stuff during his career his strikeout total would have been one record that no one would ever sniff at.
History shows that his strikeout totals would have been lower, not higher.
No disrespect DOD but I think someone fed you a line.
No disrespect Moc1, but if you had just taken even a quick glance at the career leaders in strikout totals, you would have seen that almost all of the pitchers who pitched in the 60's to present and almost all of the batters who hit from the 60's to present are at the top of the leader board. I have no doubt the the same applies to single season totals as well.
Dear old Dad,
You're right. Don't know what I was thinking. Ryan is overated. He should thank those players that gave him
5714 k's and those players and managers that weren't that concerned about getting hits in those SEVEN no-hitters. And strikouts obviously don't directly relate to batting averages.
You're right. Don't know what I was thinking. Ryan is overated. He should thank those players that gave him
5714 k's and those players and managers that weren't that concerned about getting hits in those SEVEN no-hitters. And strikouts obviously don't directly relate to batting averages.
I'm not sure what this might tell anyone, but some interesting numbers.
League pitching stats from present to 2000 and at 10 year intervals before that to 1920. Before 1920 wouldn't really mean much. I apologize to anyone here who followed baseball earlier than 1920.
National League Games ERA HRs Ks
NL 2008 TOTALS 2588 4.30 2632 17959
NL 2000 TOTALS 2593 4.63 2997 17323
NL 1990 TOTALS 1944 3.79 1521 11164
NL 1980 TOTALS 1946 3.60 1243 9849
NL 1970 TOTALS 1942 4.05 1683 11417
NL 1960 TOTALS 1238 3.76 1042 6824
NL 1950 TOTALS 1236 4.14 1100 5007
NL 1940 TOTALS 1234 3.85 688 4327
NL 1930 TOTALS 1236 4.97 892 3850
NL 1920 TOTALS 1234 3.13 261 3636
American League Games ERA HRs Ks
AL 2008 TOTALS 2268 4.36 2246 14925
AL 2000 TOTALS 2265 4.91 2696 14033
AL 1990 TOTALS 2266 3.90 1796 12689
AL 1980 TOTALS 2264 4.03 1844 10363
AL 1970 TOTALS 1946 3.71 1746 10957
AL 1960 TOTALS 1234 3.87 1086 5993
AL 1950 TOTALS 1240 4.58 973 4558
AL 1940 TOTALS 1238 4.38 883 4729
AL 1930 TOTALS 1232 4.64 673 4080
AL 1920 TOTALS 1234 3.79 369 3633
BTW... Nolan Ryans Career 1966 to 1993
A few things I noticed.
Expansion and 162 game schedule changed the number of total games.
Many more home runs and many more strike outs since 2000, definite decrease in HRs from 2000 to 2008.
Worst league ERA National League - 1930
Worst league ERA American League - 2000
National League Most HRs per game - 2000
American League Most HRs per game - 2000
National League Most Strikeouts per game - 2008
American League Most Strikeouts per game - 2008
League ERAs fluxuate from one era to the other.
Sure looks like Babe Ruth was the best HR hitter ever if you look at the numbers closely.
Anything else stick out about these numbers?
League pitching stats from present to 2000 and at 10 year intervals before that to 1920. Before 1920 wouldn't really mean much. I apologize to anyone here who followed baseball earlier than 1920.
National League Games ERA HRs Ks
NL 2008 TOTALS 2588 4.30 2632 17959
NL 2000 TOTALS 2593 4.63 2997 17323
NL 1990 TOTALS 1944 3.79 1521 11164
NL 1980 TOTALS 1946 3.60 1243 9849
NL 1970 TOTALS 1942 4.05 1683 11417
NL 1960 TOTALS 1238 3.76 1042 6824
NL 1950 TOTALS 1236 4.14 1100 5007
NL 1940 TOTALS 1234 3.85 688 4327
NL 1930 TOTALS 1236 4.97 892 3850
NL 1920 TOTALS 1234 3.13 261 3636
American League Games ERA HRs Ks
AL 2008 TOTALS 2268 4.36 2246 14925
AL 2000 TOTALS 2265 4.91 2696 14033
AL 1990 TOTALS 2266 3.90 1796 12689
AL 1980 TOTALS 2264 4.03 1844 10363
AL 1970 TOTALS 1946 3.71 1746 10957
AL 1960 TOTALS 1234 3.87 1086 5993
AL 1950 TOTALS 1240 4.58 973 4558
AL 1940 TOTALS 1238 4.38 883 4729
AL 1930 TOTALS 1232 4.64 673 4080
AL 1920 TOTALS 1234 3.79 369 3633
BTW... Nolan Ryans Career 1966 to 1993
A few things I noticed.
Expansion and 162 game schedule changed the number of total games.
Many more home runs and many more strike outs since 2000, definite decrease in HRs from 2000 to 2008.
Worst league ERA National League - 1930
Worst league ERA American League - 2000
National League Most HRs per game - 2000
American League Most HRs per game - 2000
National League Most Strikeouts per game - 2008
American League Most Strikeouts per game - 2008
League ERAs fluxuate from one era to the other.
Sure looks like Babe Ruth was the best HR hitter ever if you look at the numbers closely.
Anything else stick out about these numbers?
quote:Originally posted by TRhit:
BUM
All that and yet he was barely a .500 pitcher
Only because he played on teams that couldn't spell runs.
quote:Originally posted by PGStaff:
I'm not sure what this might tell anyone, but some interesting numbers.
League pitching stats from present to 2000 and at 10 year intervals before that to 1920. Before 1920 wouldn't really mean much. I apologize to anyone here who followed baseball earlier than 1920.
National League Games ERA HRs Ks
NL 2008 TOTALS 2588 4.30 2632 17959
NL 2000 TOTALS 2593 4.63 2997 17323
NL 1990 TOTALS 1944 3.79 1521 11164
NL 1980 TOTALS 1946 3.60 1243 9849
NL 1970 TOTALS 1942 4.05 1683 11417
NL 1960 TOTALS 1238 3.76 1042 6824
NL 1950 TOTALS 1236 4.14 1100 5007
NL 1940 TOTALS 1234 3.85 688 4327
NL 1930 TOTALS 1236 4.97 892 3850
NL 1920 TOTALS 1234 3.13 261 3636
American League Games ERA HRs Ks
AL 2008 TOTALS 2268 4.36 2246 14925
AL 2000 TOTALS 2265 4.91 2696 14033
AL 1990 TOTALS 2266 3.90 1796 12689
AL 1980 TOTALS 2264 4.03 1844 10363
AL 1970 TOTALS 1946 3.71 1746 10957
AL 1960 TOTALS 1234 3.87 1086 5993
AL 1950 TOTALS 1240 4.58 973 4558
AL 1940 TOTALS 1238 4.38 883 4729
AL 1930 TOTALS 1232 4.64 673 4080
AL 1920 TOTALS 1234 3.79 369 3633
BTW... Nolan Ryans Career 1966 to 1993
A few things I noticed.
Expansion and 162 game schedule changed the number of total games.
Many more home runs and many more strike outs since 2000, definite decrease in HRs from 2000 to 2008.
Worst league ERA National League - 1930
Worst league ERA American League - 2000
National League Most HRs per game - 2000
American League Most HRs per game - 2000
National League Most Strikeouts per game - 2008
American League Most Strikeouts per game - 2008
League ERAs fluxuate from one era to the other.
Sure looks like Babe Ruth was the best HR hitter ever if you look at the numbers closely.
Anything else stick out about these numbers?
Yeah, it's pretty obvious when the steroid era was by looking at these numbers. It also looks like the power hitters in the NL either got drafted more or volunteered into the service than the AL in the 40s. That's a pretty drastic drop in HRs. Also, more HRs than games in the 2000s and it's the only decade to do so. Is it just steroids or are there other factors as well?
The one thing that is mostly glossed over is how many pitchers were also using steroids in the 90's and early to mid 2000's. I watch probably numerous major league games on TV and have been doing so since the late 1960's and have a baseball library of 500-600 books and I have read all of them many multiple times. Guess I need to get a life! Anyway,in the mid to late 1990's to around 2005 there was definitely a spike in pitchers, especially relief pitchers who were throwing 95 and up. While we can all name pitchers who still pitch over 95 , there has been a real drop off in the middle relievers and such who throw this hard consistantly. I think the roided up batters were also facing a lot of pitchers who were just as guilty. One comment in this thread I've never come across in all my reading is that players of the 1920's were using cocaine in the dugout as Bum stated. I will say that I was something of a gym rat in my late twenties and early thirties starting in about 1981 and steroids were already pretty pervasive in the gyms I worked out at. I think they did not really start reaching baseball until the mid to late 1980's and didn't become widespread until about 1993. Remember as late as the 1970's it was considered taboo to lift weights and play baseball especially for pitchers. The first two guys that started lifting quite a bit and one of whom's career stats changed drastically were Lance Parrish and Brian Downing. I cannot say for sure of course he was doing anything but look at how Downing's HR's and other stats spiked well into his 30's after being a pretty weak hitter until he came in all bulked up . He also played in California and this was the bodybuilding mecca of the US at that time. Most people don't realize all anabolic steroids don't do the same thing. At the gym I learned certain ones were for cutting up--lean muscle mass and others were better for gaining huge mass and strength gains. I would like to see Luis Gonzalez explain how he went from being a guy who hit 15-20 hrs in his 20's and suddenly in his 30's goes from 29 to 57 HRs. This has never happened in baseball history and we're supposed to believe guys like him and Brady Anderson just became 50 hr guys overnight. You can be doing roids but still be very lean looking depending on what you're taking.
quote:Originally posted by Moc1:
Dear old Dad,
You're right. Don't know what I was thinking. Ryan is overated. He should thank those players that gave him
5714 k's and those players and managers that weren't that concerned about getting hits in those SEVEN no-hitters. And strikouts obviously don't directly relate to batting averages.
Wow! When I read posts like this, I wonder if I am actually on a baseball website.
PGStaffs info states in clear numbers how the strikeout totals have gone. Here is a link to a list of the top 1000 batters for strikeouts. Notice that Babe Ruth, once the all-time leader in strikouts has dropped down all the way to number -- no. People here can check it out for themselves.
Career strikeout leaders
Ruth is going to continue to drop every year. In less than ten years, he will be out of the top 100.
I don't want to make it seem like I am singling out Nolan Ryan as the sole beneficiary of increased strikeout totals. He isn't. But the fireballers of the past, like Walter Johnson, Lefty Grove, and Bob Feller should not be discounted because of their lower strikeout totals.
quote:PGStaffs info states in clear numbers how the strikeout totals have gone.
I think another big reason for the strikeout totals going up, is that much more emphasis has been put on the HR and guys are swinging for the fences.
I have been wondering if Pettitte or Clemmons would have ever taken steroids or HGH if they knew they could get away with only playing half a season and not having to go through Spring training earlier???
Babe Ruth hit a HR every 11.76 at bats and struck out every 6.3 at bats.
Hank Aaron hit a HR every 16.38 at bats and struck out every 8.9 at bats.
Barry Bonds hit a HR every 12.93 at bats and struck out every 6.4 at bats.
Babe Ruth played in a dead ball era until 1920 with pitchers also throwing from a higher mound, not lowered until 1969, bigger parks, and no steroids.
He played 6 years under the deadball rules, and 4 of those were mostly as a pitcher with limited at bats.
Babe Ruth was the man!
Bob Feller, whose total numbers were reduced with lesser games and honorably serving our country in his prime had a K/IP of .674 and a WHIP of 1.32.
Nolan Ryan had a K/IP of 1.06 and a WHIP of 1.25.
The Ryan Express was outrageously good!
Randy Johnson had a K/IP of 1.19----yikes!
To compare baseball Era's, averages work best as well as the variables that existed.
Hank Aaron hit a HR every 16.38 at bats and struck out every 8.9 at bats.
Barry Bonds hit a HR every 12.93 at bats and struck out every 6.4 at bats.
Babe Ruth played in a dead ball era until 1920 with pitchers also throwing from a higher mound, not lowered until 1969, bigger parks, and no steroids.
He played 6 years under the deadball rules, and 4 of those were mostly as a pitcher with limited at bats.
Babe Ruth was the man!
Bob Feller, whose total numbers were reduced with lesser games and honorably serving our country in his prime had a K/IP of .674 and a WHIP of 1.32.
Nolan Ryan had a K/IP of 1.06 and a WHIP of 1.25.
The Ryan Express was outrageously good!
Randy Johnson had a K/IP of 1.19----yikes!
To compare baseball Era's, averages work best as well as the variables that existed.
I think we definitely have to look at baseball stats in the context of the era or timeframe in which they were set. If a player hit .300 in 1930 when the whole National league hit .303, that is no more impressive than someone hitting .275 now. Yet if we look at that player's lifetime average we and Hall of Fame voters often forget to discount that the player played in one of the highest aveage era's of all time. Carl Yastrzemski's .301 that led the AL in 1968 when the whole league hit .230 is actually much more impressive than it seems today.
By Dear old Dad- "Wow! When I read posts like this, I wonder if I am actually on a baseball website."
Pinch yourself.
You've made a few valid points in some previous posts, IMO, but to make a silly statement like you did about Nolan Ryan having inflated strikeout totals because players weren't as concerned about striking during his career just shows how naive you are about the game. If his strikeout totals were inflated then you could also say that the batting averages in previous eras were inflated because pitchers weren't as concerned about giving up hits as they are today.
There may be a few hitters through the years that didn't really care about striking out that much as long as they could hit a long ball every now and then but If you think a batter looks forward to walking back to the dugout after being K'd and overmatched then you just don't get it. Maybe you can understand it this way, Michael Jordan was probably the best offensive player of his time(maybe all time). The players that had to match up with him on any given night knew he was the best and "upped" their game to try to keep him under his average. Most of the time it didn't make any difference-Jordan was the best and he just "upped" his game because he knew that he was getting the best the opposing team had to offer.
Getting a hit off Nolan Ryan was the same thing as stopping Jordan on defense. Players batting against Ryan knew what they were up against and "upped" their game as best they could but just like Jordan he succeeded more times than not. By the way, I've talked to players that have faced Ryan and they said they would do anything to keep from striking out-choking up 5-6 inchs on the bat, swinging at every pitch in hopes that they would get lucky, one player said it was a success just to foul the ball off.
I know you're trying to make your argument based on stats and I guess when that's all you have to go on sometimes you'll make statements that come off as a little goofy.
BTW this IS a baseball site and quite a few become enlightened.
Do I think Ryan was the best pitcher of all time-not at all.
Pinch yourself.
You've made a few valid points in some previous posts, IMO, but to make a silly statement like you did about Nolan Ryan having inflated strikeout totals because players weren't as concerned about striking during his career just shows how naive you are about the game. If his strikeout totals were inflated then you could also say that the batting averages in previous eras were inflated because pitchers weren't as concerned about giving up hits as they are today.
There may be a few hitters through the years that didn't really care about striking out that much as long as they could hit a long ball every now and then but If you think a batter looks forward to walking back to the dugout after being K'd and overmatched then you just don't get it. Maybe you can understand it this way, Michael Jordan was probably the best offensive player of his time(maybe all time). The players that had to match up with him on any given night knew he was the best and "upped" their game to try to keep him under his average. Most of the time it didn't make any difference-Jordan was the best and he just "upped" his game because he knew that he was getting the best the opposing team had to offer.
Getting a hit off Nolan Ryan was the same thing as stopping Jordan on defense. Players batting against Ryan knew what they were up against and "upped" their game as best they could but just like Jordan he succeeded more times than not. By the way, I've talked to players that have faced Ryan and they said they would do anything to keep from striking out-choking up 5-6 inchs on the bat, swinging at every pitch in hopes that they would get lucky, one player said it was a success just to foul the ball off.
I know you're trying to make your argument based on stats and I guess when that's all you have to go on sometimes you'll make statements that come off as a little goofy.
BTW this IS a baseball site and quite a few become enlightened.
Do I think Ryan was the best pitcher of all time-not at all.