O's the club on 30 Clubs in 30 Days tomorrow night, 3/6!

[CA-ORIOLE]

The overall population has increased by a lot, but the baseball population has decreased to an even larger degree, as I pointed out above. Despite there being more people, there are far fewer people playing baseball, which is what is pertinent to this discussion.

The number of people in the overall population that might have the natural talent to be major league ballplayers may well be greater, but most of them are playing soccer, lacrosse, or video games.

As I said, today's advantages can, and usually does, make the same player better than before, but there were far greater numbers of players with true major-league talent trying to make it in baseball to begin with back then. .

Again, I think the issue with population has has been replaced with selection and efficiencies as well as access to broader international markets. Is baseball deeper at lower levels than in the past ... probably not.

You were talking about on aggregate, not individually, and to that I have to say that from what I've seen, major-leaguers were better ballplayers 40-50 years ago

I strongly disagree with this.

[Number5]

Again, I think the issue with population has has been replaced with selection and efficiencies as well as access to broader international markets. Is baseball deeper at lower levels than in the past ... probably not.

I strongly disagree with this.

Of course the much-diluted talent pool has forced major league teams to scout more internationally. This is an effect, not a cause. The very fact that there is an increased international presence strongly supports what I am saying.

Yes, it is clear that we disagree. Doubtful that any resolution is possible.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Of course the much-diluted talent pool has forced major league teams to scout more internationally. This is an effect, not a cause. The very fact that there is an increased international presence strongly supports what I am saying.Yes, it is clear that we disagree. Doubtful that any resolution is possible.

If what you're saying is that ML players were better 40 years ago than they are today because of the highlighted comment (even partially) it really doesn't support what you're saying. It's not a logical supposition at all. More does not mean better. There are multiple factors. I agree that it sounds like we've reached an impass.

[Frobby]

Of course the much-diluted talent pool has forced major league teams to scout more internationally. This is an effect, not a cause. The very fact that there is an increased international presence strongly supports what I am saying.

Yes, it is clear that we disagree. Doubtful that any resolution is possible.

I don't want to get too deep into this debate, but with the money in the game today, the search for talent worldwide would have increased exponentially regardless of whether the talent pool in the US had gotten better, declined or stayed the same.

I don't think I can be convinced that Beltre is as good as Brooks was, though. Brooks was a freak of nature, a defensive savant unlike anyone I've seen.

[Number5]

If what you're saying that ML players are better 40 years ago than they are today because of the highlighted comment (even partially) it really doesn't support what you're saying. It's not a logical supposition at all. There are multiple factors. I agree that it sounds like we've reached an impass.

You are again confusing cause and effect. I'm saying that major league teams have been forced to look internationally to try to find potential major-league talent because the talent pool is much smaller today than in the past. Not the other way around. Looking internationally today is not the reason there was more talent then. There is less talent today, causing the international talent search.

They are, of course, filling out their rosters, but the talent level, on aggregate, is not better, as you assert, IMO. The very top players are as good or better, but there are more lesser players in the majors today than before. And far fewer players in the minors competing for a shot at the big leagues, with many more spots available to them.

[Number5]

I don't want to get too deep into this debate, but with the money in the game today, the search for talent worldwide would have increased exponentially regardless of whether the talent pool in the US had gotten better, declined or stayed the same.

I don't think I can be convinced that Beltre is as good as Brooks was, though. Brooks was a freak of nature, a defensive savant unlike anyone I've seen.

Impossible to know for either of us, but I would think the money would be channeled differently if there was the same kind of talent pool readily available in this country that we enjoyed previously. Why would a farmer with an acre of corn buy a dozen ears at the grocery store? The real world, however, is that the talent pool is not there.

[CA-ORIOLE]

You are again confusing cause and effect. I'm saying that major league teams have been forced to look internationally to try to find potential major-league talent because the talent pool is much smaller today than in the past. Not the other way around. Looking internationally today is not the reason there was more talent then. There is less talent today, causing the international talent search.

They are, of course, filling out their rosters, but the talent level, on aggregate, is not better, as you assert, IMO. The very top players are as good or better, but there are more lesser players in the majors today than before. And far fewer players in the minors competing for a shot at the big leagues, with many more spots available to them.

I'm not confusing anything. There might have been more engineering schools in 1950 than today, that doesn't mean that engineers were better in 1950 than today. More is not an efficiency.

[Number5]

I'm not confusing anything. There might have beenore engineering schools in 1950 than today, that doesn't mean that engineers were better in 1950 than today. More is not an efficiency.

Apples and oranges.

You said in post number 49 that I said that the reason there was a bigger talent pool before was at least partially because there is a bigger international presence today. I said nothing of the kind and, yes, you most definitely confused cause and effect there. What happens today in no way whatsoever causes anything that happened in the past.

This was your post:

" Quote Originally Posted by Number5 View Post

Of course the much-diluted talent pool has forced major league teams to scout more internationally. This is an effect, not a cause. The very fact that there is an increased international presence strongly supports what I am saying.Yes, it is clear that we disagree. Doubtful that any resolution is possible.

If what you're saying is that ML players were better 40 years ago than they are today because of the highlighted comment (even partially) it really doesn't support what you're saying."

[CA-ORIOLE]

Apples and oranges.

You said in post number 49 that I said that the reason there was a bigger talent pool before was at least partially because there is a bigger international presence today. I said nothing of the kind and, yes, you most definitely confused cause and effect there. What happens today in no way whatsoever causes anything that happened in the past.

This was your post:

" Quote Originally Posted by Number5 View Post

Of course the much-diluted talent pool has forced major league teams to scout more internationally. This is an effect, not a cause. The very fact that there is an increased international presence strongly supports what I am saying.Yes, it is clear that we disagree. Doubtful that any resolution is possible.

If what you're saying is that ML players were better 40 years ago than they are today because of the highlighted comment (even partially) it really doesn't support what you're saying."

You have stated that ML players were more talented 40 years ago than today and cited the dilluted talent pool and international scouting as evidence of that opinion. If I'm misrepresenting what you said, let me know.

[Number5]

You have stated that ML players were more talented 40 years ago than today and cited the dilluted talent pool and international scouting as evidence of that opinion. If I'm misrepresenting what you said, let me know.

You cited the increased international presence as supposed proof that players are better today. It in no way proves that, and as I responded, the increased international presence was cause by the diluted talent pool. You brought up the international presence, not I. I simply responded to your unsubstantiated assertion.

[CA-ORIOLE]

You cited the increased international presence as supposed proof that players are better today. It in no way proves that, and as I responded, the increased international presence was cause by the diluted talent pool. You brought up the international presence, not I. I simply responded to your unsubstantiated assertion.

Please answer my question first. Ill happily answer yours. Am I misrepresenting your opinion or not? Ignore international presence if you want. Do you believe players of 40 years ago are better than today or not? If yes, is it because of a dilluted talent pool?

[Hallas]

The only aspect of the "better athlete" argument that holds water, in my opinion, is the talent pool argument. Yeah, the talent pool was much smaller in Brooks' day, due to less globalization of baseball and a smaller population in general.

But, that said, you have to assume that if Babe Ruth were transported to today, and (assuming he doesn't get crushed by the media spotlight) with a support staff of athletic trainers, nutritionists, flight attendents, and charter planes to take care of his every need and want, he'd still be supremely talented and suited to hit large numbers of home runs. Same goes with any player.

Hell, if Palmer had access to modern medicine, he might have gotten Tommy John surgery or labrum surgery and maintained his velocity better throughout his career.

[CA-ORIOLE]

The only aspect of the "better athlete" argument that holds water, in my opinion, is the talent pool argument. Yeah, the talent pool was much smaller in Brooks' day, due to less globalization of baseball and a smaller population in general.

But, that said, you have to assume that if Babe Ruth were transported to today, and (assuming he doesn't get crushed by the media spotlight) with a support staff of athletic trainers, nutritionists, flight attendents, and charter planes to take care of his every need and want, he'd still be supremely talented and suited to hit large numbers of home runs. Same goes with any player.

Hell, if Palmer had access to modern medicine, he might have gotten Tommy John surgery or labrum surgery and maintained his velocity better throughout his career.

Well, number5 seems to be arguing that the talent pool was much larger in the past. I don't really disagree with that, only that you have to consider how much actual talent is in the talent pool. Which I think is what you're saying as well. The bottom line is past players didnt have the benefits you mentioned and weren't as good. I'd also question that premium players of the past would be nearly as good in a relative context.

[Hallas]

You cited the increased international presence as supposed proof that players are better today. It in no way proves that, and as I responded, the increased international presence was cause by the diluted talent pool. You brought up the international presence, not I. I simply responded to your unsubstantiated assertion.

Wait a second, where do you get the idea that the talent pool is smaller today? Today there are 310,000,000 people in the US. In 1920, there were around 100,000,000. And on top of that, blacks and Latinos were not allowed to play in the major leagues. So, as a conservative estimate, the baseline of available population is 70-75% smaller in 1920 than it is today. And, now, you have large baseball-playing populations in Mexico, Venezuela, Dominican, etc. So unless you think that Miguel Cabrera wouldn't be a triple-crowner and legit MVP candidate in other eras, then I'm not sure what you're arguing here.

Are you arguing that there is no proof that the existence of international ballplayers increases the available MLB talent, so the existence of international ballplayers could be in response to a reduction in local talent?

[CA-ORIOLE]

Wait a second, where do you get the idea that the talent pool is smaller today? Today there are 310,000,000 people in the US. In 1920, there were around 100,000,000. And on top of that, blacks and Latinos were not allowed to play in the major leagues. So, as a conservative estimate, the baseline of available population is 70-75% smaller in 1920 than it is today. And, now, you have large baseball-playing populations in Mexico, Venezuela, Dominican, etc. So unless you think that Miguel Cabrera wouldn't be a triple-crowner and legit MVP candidate in other eras, then I'm not sure what yoEu're arguing here.

Are you arguing that there is no proof that the existence of international ballplayers increases the available MLB talent, so the existence of international ballplayers could be in response to a reduction in local talent?

I don't know the data but I don't doubt that he's right that minor league and semipro affiliations might be down from say 40-50 years ago. Not to mention lower levels. I think this is the timeframe he was making his point about. Aren't black players down from that era as well?