Cal Ripken's Legacy

[mdbdotcom]

I Googled some recent results from random SMAC high school swim meets around here, and in 2011 the winner of the 100 freestyle did it in 58.08. In 1936 the Olympic record in the 100 freestyle was 58 flat. In 1924 it was over a minute.

...

The swimmers haven't changed. They're using different water now.

[NJ BIRD FAN]

I Googled some recent results from random SMAC high school swim meets around here, and in 2011 the winner of the 100 freestyle did it in 58.08. In 1936 the Olympic record in the 100 freestyle was 58 flat. In 1924 it was over a minute.

What? Was that supposed to have something to do with the relative quality of play over time?

Not at all, just dreaming. It is nothing you or I can prove. You can pontificate all you want about it, but neither of us could ever be proven correct in any credible way.

[DrungoHazewood]

Track and swimming are boarder line sports in my eyes. To me, there has to be defense for it to be a sport. I love golf, but there is no defense. I can do very little to affect how my opponent will score. Track and swimming, there is some strategy but no real defense. I do feel the same way about MLB, NBA and the NFL. I think the all time greats would do very well in todays times. The poster said Honus Wagner would "be lucky" to be an average player. I think the greats would be very good to great today. Newer isn't always better.

In this case it is. I won't repost what I've said many times in the past, but I think the facts overwhelmingly point to todays players being superior to those of the past. The only thing in question is how steep the slope of history is, how quickly does the game improve.

In all seriousness, I think the 1965 All Star team would be competitive with today's regular MLB teams. But they wouldn't be dominant, might not even be serious contenders. All of MLB is under tremendous pressure to continually improve. That's what I think the Orioles' problem was from the 80s through recently - ownership and management didn't comprehend just how quickly the competition was improving and thought that doing things like they did in 1980 was good enough. And they got trounced.

[DrungoHazewood]

Not at all, just dreaming. It is nothing you or I can prove. You can pontificate all you want about it, but neither of us could ever be proven correct in any credible way.

On the contrary, lots of people have tried to quantify, or at least credibly describe, the pace of improvement in the game.

For example, this article shows several different types of evidence that the slope of history is real and significant. The final paragraph from that piece:

There may be those who still argue that players of the past were every bit as good as players today. For my money, however, the combined evidence of demographics, other sports, technology, shrinking variation, and direct (albeit relative) measurement make for an enormously difficult circumstantial case to overcome. And while we may long for a golden age somewhere deep in our soul, we can be comforted by the fact that we get the privilege of watching the game played at an unparalleled level of excellence.

[NJ BIRD FAN]

In this case it is. I won't repost what I've said many times in the past, but I think the facts overwhelmingly point to todays players being superior to those of the past. The only thing in question is how steep the slope of history is, how quickly does the game improve.

In all seriousness, I think the 1965 All Star team would be competitive with today's regular MLB teams. But they wouldn't be dominant, might not even be serious contenders. All of MLB is under tremendous pressure to continually improve. That's what I think the Orioles' problem was from the 80s through recently - ownership and management didn't comprehend just how quickly the competition was improving and thought that doing things like they did in 1980 was good enough. And they got trounced.

I can appreciate you opinion. However, there are zero facts to back it up. Unless you had some of todays players playing 40 years ago or visa versa, there can be no facts. Everyone is a good shadow boxer, until there is someone standing across from him throwing punches back, you never know.

[NJ BIRD FAN]

On the contrary, lots of people have tried to quantify, or at least credibly describe, the pace of improvement in the game.

For example, this article shows several different types of evidence that the slope of history is real and significant. The final paragraph from that piece:

Again, All an opinion. I have read some of your posts that talk about expanded talent pool and the like. I could not disagree more with you. This is not the place to go into it. But I will argue that the talent pool is now even smaller then it ever was.

[Tony-OH]

When will you get above acting like this? This is your board and you should hold yourself to a higher standard. Yes there are heated arguments on here, but patronizing people should something you dont participate in. There are better ways to disagree with someone, especially from your position.

You could always just ban me for crossing you, like you have done in the past. But that would go against your "sincere" apology you made earlier this year and your devotion to being a better person and running a better board.

Sometimes I like to mix it up occasionally and that's not going to change, sorry. I try to stay above this stuff for the most part, but it gets tiresome when certain posters, that one included, gets under my skin and starts playing victim before there was any reason. I was having a good disagreement with Stotle and Drungo, two guys I respect, when another poster tried to steer it away from the conversation and play victim. I decided since he already was claiming something, I might as well give him something to complain about.

BTW, comments like the bold though are unnecessary and kind of show you have an agenda in this. If you were banned before, then I'm pretty sure it was for more than "crossing me" unless it was because you broke rules in doing so. I'm fine with people disagreeing, be my guest, but there is no reason to get all bent out of shape when you have a differing opinion.

Now that's get back on the subject and stop giving the victims more publicity. I much rather talk about the subject at hand.

[DrungoHazewood]

I can appreciate you opinion. However, there are zero facts to back it up. Unless you had some of todays players playing 40 years ago or visa versa, there can be no facts. Everyone is a good shadow boxer, until there is someone standing across from him throwing punches back, you never know.

I know you can't get players from the 1960s in their prime to line up against those of today. But at the very least there is a very substantial pile of circumstantial evidence that points in the direction I'm suggesting.

For it not to be true you'd have to explain away about a dozen things including vastly bigger pool of players, vastly superior sports medicine, vastly superior training, much better scouting, a completely new field of analysis, whole sets of tools players use to perform better that didn't even exist in 1970 (video, computers, massive reams of data), the fact that sports that have static baselines like track and swimming see their performances regularly get better, money that drives athletes to excel, and on and on and on.

[DrungoHazewood]

Again, All an opinion. I have read some of your posts that talk about expanded talent pool and the like. I could not disagree more with you. This is not the place to go into it. But I will argue that the talent pool is now even smaller then it ever was.

The population of the US is twice as big and half of MLB players come from outside the US. It's almost impossible to believe the player pool isn't dramatically larger.

I think I have most of the hard facts on my side.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Again, All an opinion. I have read some of your posts that talk about expanded talent pool and the like. I could not disagree more with you. This is not the place to go into it. But I will argue that the talent pool is now even smaller then it ever was.

You could argue that 99% of science is theory and not facts I guess. Did you read the article/research he provided?

Subjectively speaking, if you think the talent pool from 1965 as every bit (or nearly) as good as it is today, I'd say you're living in La La Land.

[Tony-OH]

In this case it is. I won't repost what I've said many times in the past, but I think the facts overwhelmingly point to todays players being superior to those of the past. The only thing in question is how steep the slope of history is, how quickly does the game improve.

In all seriousness, I think the 1965 All Star team would be competitive with today's regular MLB teams. But they wouldn't be dominant, might not even be serious contenders. All of MLB is under tremendous pressure to continually improve. That's what I think the Orioles' problem was from the 80s through recently - ownership and management didn't comprehend just how quickly the competition was improving and thought that doing things like they did in 1980 was good enough. And they got trounced.

It makes sense that players today are better than players from past eras. Swing and pitching mechanics have been refined and players train year round for the most part. Add in the fact that kids now a days can play summer and fall ball as well as spring, and kids just have more of an opportunity to play. he internet and it's training videos give players access to coaching and skills they otherwise would not have the opportunity to see. Raw tools wise, I think there are some improvements as well just like players are taller and bigger than ever. Plus, add in the much bigger talent pool of players around the world and it's not close.

Saying that, that's not what Cal said. He said, "Sorry Brooksie, Beltre is the best defensive third baseman ever." Take away the lack of loyalty that Cal showed by dissing the longtime Baltimore hero who is widely accepted (for good reason) as the best defensive 3B ever, the fact that statistically it's not true. Beltre probably has more range and certainly a better arm, but the statistics show Brooks to be the better defensive player overall. Either way, it was a comment that did not need to be made and considering Cal's statements since, it's pretty apparent that he could care less how Brooks or anyone else feels about it.

[NJ BIRD FAN]

I know you can't get players from the 1960s in their prime to line up against those of today. But at the very least there is a very substantial pile of circumstantial evidence that points in the direction I'm suggesting.

For it not to be true you'd have to explain away about a dozen things including vastly bigger pool of players, vastly superior sports medicine, vastly superior training, much better scouting, a completely new field of analysis, whole sets of tools players use to perform better that didn't even exist in 1970 (video, computers, massive reams of data), the fact that sports that have static baselines like track and swimming see their performances regularly get better, money that drives athletes to excel, and on and on and on.

Apples and oranges. Are you going to take the players from the past, plop them down here today and not allow them to utilize video, sports medicine and superior training techniques? Well then they may not be as good. But that can be said for anything. Was Columbus just an average sailer compared to those racing in the America's cup? Were the great doctors from the 1800's completely inferior to todays? Well of course, if you made them come to this era and operate with a hammer and chisel. This is not a winnable argument from either side.

[tntoriole]

Interviewer in 1960: With all the great players playing ball right now, how well do you think you would do against today's pitchers?

Ty Cobb: Well, I figure against today's pitchers I'd only probably hit about .290

Interviewer: .290? Well that's amazing, because you batted over .400 a... a whole bunch of times. Now tell us all, we'd all like to know, why do you think you'd only hit .290?

Ty Cobb: Well, I'm 72 ****ing years old you ignorant son of a b***h!

Every generation of fan thinks their athletes are the best ever. When I was a kid watching Brooks, Frank, Jim Palmer it is hard for me to still not see them as better than the majority of players I see out there today.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Interviewer in 1960: With all the great players playing ball right now, how well do you think you would do against today's pitchers?

Ty Cobb: Well, I figure against today's pitchers I'd only probably hit about .290

Interviewer: .290? Well that's amazing, because you batted over .400 a... a whole bunch of times. Now tell us all, we'd all like to know, why do you think you'd only hit .290?

Ty Cobb: Well, I'm 72 ****ing years old you ignorant son of a b***h!

Every generation of fan thinks their athletes are the best ever. When I was a kid watching Brooks, Frank, Jim Palmer it is hard for me to still not see them as better than the majority of players I see out there today.

Do you honestly believe the talent pool in ML baseball today is not better than in the 1960-1970's?

You might argue that many of those guys might have been better with all the incentives and advantages of today, but that's not the point. The players of today are clearly much better.

[mdbdotcom]

Do you honestly believe the talent pool in ML baseball today is not better than in the 1960-1970's?

You might argue that many of those guys might have been better with all the incentives and advantages of today, but that's not the point. The players of today are clearly much better.

Though he played a very shallow center field, Mays caught this at 420 feet from home plate. And the best part was the throw.

[video=youtube;gUK9lG-7HTc]

I guess everybody makes this play today.