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

[Number5]

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?

The post you quoted was a clear and direct response to your question. I am not asking you a question. That you brought up the international presence is a fact, not a question.

That increased international scouting is in response to a decreased domestic talent pool seems rather self-evident, and I frankly cannot understand how you can seriously argue against it.

As I have stated, I am not saying that an individual player with certain natural talent was better in the past than today. In fact, today's same player is likely able to better maximize his gifts due to the advantages today's players enjoy. The player pool, however, is smaller today, and the number of major league spots available to them is greatly increased. Again, we were discussing on aggregate. I was responding to your assertion that today's players were better on aggregate and, for the reasons I have noted, I disagree.

I do not think conditioning and health aids and/or technological advances trump superior natural talent in baseball. You cannot take a AA-ceiling player and make him a HOFer with conditioning, supplements, and the newest and best glove. On the other hand, a guy with true major-league talent will perform well with "a beat up glove, a homemade bat, and a brand new pair of shoes."

More guys with that natural talent pursued baseball in the past than today. I talk to a lot of young people who play basketball and football who have told me that they have never played baseball. Today's Willie Mays might be playing soccer. And he may not be a major-league caliber soccer player. Believe it or not, there are major league players in all major sports that are not playing professionally in the sport they liked best as a teenager. They had to be exposed to that sport, however, for coaches, scouts, and the players themselves to discover that they had the talent. If they never play the game, the talent goes untapped.

[Number5]

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?

You have somehow managed to misrepresent everything that I have said.

Blacks and Latinos most certainly were playing 40-50 years ago, and I have already clearly discussed the population issue. The baseball-playing population is, indeed, smaller today than then. There are obviously more recreational options available to young people today, and far less of them are pursuing baseball. The professional-level baseball-playing population is also much smaller, due to the far fewer minor leagues in existence. Yet there are quite a few more major league teams and, therefore, major league player jobs available to them.

Please read what's been posted. CA ORIOLE stated that players today are better on aggregate, which is what I am responding to. An individual player with the same natural talent may well be a bit better today due to today's advantages, but we are discussing on aggregate, and my opinion is that the greater talent pool that existed at that time trumps today's advantages for the individual player. The top individual players like Cabrera are as good or better than their counterparts from 40-50 years ago. I have clearly stated that, and I have never said otherwise.

That the major leagues have heightened international scouting as the result of a markedly decreased domestic talent pool is, quite frankly, self-evident. That this point is being argued against is rather amazing to me, to be honest. Of course the increased international presence increases today's smaller player pool - by definition. It does not, however, increase the player pool of 40-50 years ago.

[El Gordo]

One thing to consider is what is meant by baseball "talent". If it means bigger, faster ,stronger, no doubt players are more '"talented" today. If it means better schooled in baseball skills and baseball IQ, I would argue that they were more tallented back in the day. We used to have the Oriole way. Doubt anyone ever develops that again. Different game. Power pitcher vs power hitter. I am not sure bigger, faster, stronger, makes a better basball player. It does contribute to better power pitchers and hitters.

[stomperspc]

The post you quoted was a clear and direct response to your question. I am not asking you a question. That you brought up the international presence is a fact, not a question.

That increased international scouting is in response to a decreased domestic talent pool seems rather self-evident, and I frankly cannot understand how you can seriously argue against it.

As I have stated, I am not saying that an individual player with certain natural talent was better in the past than today. In fact, today's same player is likely able to better maximize his gifts due to the advantages today's players enjoy. The player pool, however, is smaller today, and the number of major league spots available to them is greatly increased. Again, we were discussing on aggregate. I was responding to your assertion that today's players were better on aggregate and, for the reasons I have noted, I disagree.

I do not think conditioning and health aids and/or technological advances trump superior natural talent in baseball. You cannot take a AA-ceiling player and make him a HOFer with conditioning, supplements, and the newest and best glove. On the other hand, a guy with true major-league talent will perform well with "a beat up glove, a homemade bat, and a brand new pair of shoes."

More guys with that natural talent pursued baseball in the past than today. I talk to a lot of young people who play basketball and football who have told me that they have never played baseball. Today's Willie Mays might be playing soccer. And he may not be a major-league caliber soccer player. Believe it or not, there are major league players in all major sports that are not playing professionally in the sport they liked best as a teenager. They had to be exposed to that sport, however, for coaches, scouts, and the players themselves to discover that they had the talent. If they never play the game, the talent goes untapped.

You don't think increased international scouting has anything to do with the fact that that there is no international draft and therefore one less boundary to signing an international amateur player than a domestic amateur player? Or that internal amateur players can often be had cheaper than top flight high school and college players? Or that organizations can lock up foreign players at younger ages and begin their development earlier compared to American college and high school kids?

I could add other examples but the point is there are plenty of legitimate reasons for why teams have increased international scouting throughout the years that has nothing to do with the fact that the domestic talent pool has or has not decreased.

[Number5]

I haven't done the research so just guessing here. You can probably argue that at one time there were more minor league teams. Of course, you have to take into account the independent leagues of today that I didn't really notice in the 70's and 80's. The Atlantic League and the like. Also, although college baseball certainly existed back in the 60's and 70's, I'm not sure it did to the extent that it does today with so many programs and small and 2 year college baseball programs out there. In short, anyone who wants an opportunity to get into professional baseball has a pretty good opportunity if they have any kind of talent. The real proving ground is college baseball. I would argue that the talent pool is just as great today that is was 40 years ago just here in the states. As far as overall, I would say it's much greater, when you consider how much more teams are involved in Latin America, the Carribean, and the Far East in particular.

Of course anyone with talent has a pretty good opportunity today. I don't know what makes you think that I said otherwise. In fact, if anything, I'd say that they probably have a better opportunity today, given that there is less competition, coupled with more MLB jobs.

Yes, college baseball existed and flourished at that time. Jim Palmer, Reggie Jackson, Dave Winfield, Freddie Lynn, etc. This is not new.

No, the domestic talent pool is not what it was at that time. Seriously, the number of kids that play baseball now is a fraction of the numbers of that day. Yes, there are certainly plenty of athletes, it is just that far fewer of them pursue baseball.

Yes, there were independent leagues and many semi-pro leagues at that time.

Yes, MLB is reaching more and more into international player pools. What I am saying is that this is out of necessity. No, I do not for one minute agree that today's international players as a whole are more talented than the domestic players were 40-50 years ago. MLB did, in fact, have international players then. Not many, but a few.

[Number5]

You don't think increased international scouting has anything to do with the fact that that there is no international draft and therefore one less boundary to signing an international amateur player than a domestic amateur player? Or that internal amateur players can often be had cheaper than top flight high school and college players? Or that organizations can lock up foreign players at younger ages and begin their development earlier compared to American college and high school kids?

I could add other examples but the point is there are plenty of legitimate reasons for why teams have increased international scouting throughout the years that has nothing to do with the fact that the domestic talent pool has or has not decreased.

No, I don't consider the economic, political, and sociological fine points to be the primary reason that MLB teams decide to deal with the rampant fraud, crime, and visa issues inherent with international scouting. They do it because they need to find major-league caliber talent, and there is far less of it available domestically today. The minor points that facilitate the practice are not what caused the increased search.

Contrary to your assertion, all of these points have everything to do with the fact that the domestic talent pool has decreased.

[CA-ORIOLE]

You have somehow managed to misrepresent everything that I have said.

Blacks and Latinos most certainly were playing 40-50 years ago, and I have already clearly discussed the population issue. The baseball-playing population is, indeed, smaller today than then. There are obviously more recreational options available to young people today, and far less of them are pursuing baseball. The professional-level baseball-playing population is also much smaller, due to the far fewer minor leagues in existence. Yet there are quite a few more major league teams and, therefore, major league player jobs available to them.

Please read what's been posted. CA ORIOLE stated that players today are better on aggregate, which is what I am responding to. An individual player with the same natural talent may well be a bit better today due to today's advantages, but we are discussing on aggregate, and my opinion is that the greater talent pool that existed at that time trumps today's advantages for the individual player. The top individual players like Cabrera are as good or better than their counterparts from 40-50 years ago. I have clearly stated that, and I have never said otherwise.

That the major leagues have heightened international scouting as the result of a markedly decreased domestic talent pool is, quite frankly, self-evident. That this point is being argued against is rather amazing to me, to be honest. Of course the increased international presence increases today's smaller player pool - by definition. It does not, however, increase the player pool of 40-50 years ago.

Disagreeing with you does not misrepresent what you said. I've given you several chanes to clarify if I was misrepresenting what you said. You declined.

On aggregate ML players from today are better than 40-50 years go. Quite simply I can look at a rosters from 40-50 years ago and pretty easily conclude that a large percentage of those players woud not sniff a major league roster today, much less have fairly productive major league careers in many cases. I'm not sure why we could not have just disagreed at that point rather than run through this verbal kabuki dance.

The player talent pool is fairly irrelelvant to that point and I have agreed with you that it probably is less even with international presence. I only mentioned international presence because maybe the talent pool isn't quite as low as you think it is.

The available talent pool is just not a significant factor in this discussion because I disagree with your point that players from 40-50 years ago are better than today. They clearly are not imo.

Whatever player pool deficency that may exist has been replaced by better selection, development, technology, and training processes. That's a product of economics and better efficiencies.

[CA-ORIOLE]

One thing to consider is what is meant by baseball "talent". If it means bigger, faster ,stronger, no doubt players are more '"talented" today. If it means better schooled in baseball skills and baseball IQ, I would argue that they were more tallented back in the day. We used to have the Oriole way. Doubt anyone ever develops that again. Different game. Power pitcher vs power hitter. I am not sure bigger, faster, stronger, makes a better basball player. It does contribute to better power pitchers and hitters.

If it means that players were better at "fundamentals" 40-50 years ago, then I would not disagree with that. My only contention would be that I'm not sure how important some fundamentals really were.

[PaulFolk]

Why is every single thread turning into a Brooks/Beltre/old-vs-new-players debate? How is that even remotely related to this thread?