Cal Ripken's Legacy

[NJ BIRD FAN]

I don't necessarily disagree, that is one potential factor. I think there's a good argument to be made that one of the primary factors driving talent pool is demand. That certainly explains the DR. It explains why Puerto Rico was a much bigger source of talent prior to being under the draft umbrella. And with 30 MLB teams and $8B+ in annual revenues baseball has as much or more demand for top-level talent as ever.

I don't really know what you are trying to say here. The DR is explained with one word, money. Cheap labor, outside the draft. MLB created that pool out of greed. It could have been created in any number of places, including the US. They just chose to do it where they could profit the most. The demand for talent has always been there. You are kidding yourself if you believe there is more baseball talent in the DR then anywhere else. This corrupt system could be created in any number of places. To create this system and then say "look at this huge talent pool in the DR, the pool is much greater then 20 years ago", is dishonest. It was a business decision to create this pool and ignore other more expensive avenues. I do not know where to look to prove it, but id be willing to bet, that there are less kids playing baseball world wide then 30 years ago. That is your pool. The DR only has 10 mil people, more then half of which are women. That leaves less then 5 mil people. Now start factoring in the boys from say 5-17, that actually play baseball. There is your pool. A few hundred thousand maybe? Half a million? So a pool of a couple hundred thousand players account for 10% of MLB players. Sounds impossible right? Doesn't sound like a big pool either, does it? The US population is around 316 mil and in 2010 only 2 mil played little league. As posted above Little League lost half a million players from 1996-2010 alone! I can buy into some of your thoughts on training, sports medicine, video ect. to support your point that players are better today, but I have been hearing often from you about how large the pool of players is compared to 30 years ago and it is simply not supportable.

[CA-ORIOLE]

The US population is around 316 mil and in 2010 only 2 mil played little league. As posted above Little League lost half a million players from 1996-2010 alone! I can buy into some of your thoughts on training, sports medicine, video ect. to support your point that players are better today, but I have been hearing often from you about how large the pool of players is compared to 30 years ago and it is simply not supportable.

There a difference between pools of baseball players and pools of talent. The "talent pool" is greater now for many reasons.

[weams]

I don't really know what you are trying to say here. The DR is explained with one sentence.

B12 from age 8.

[NJ BIRD FAN]

There a difference between pools of baseball players and pools of talent. The "talent pool" is greater now for many reasons.

Give me some facts.

[NJ BIRD FAN]

B12 from age 8.

This may be true. It is the fastest way out of poverty, why not.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Give me some facts.

You've already been provided a pretty in depth article with associated research about this and completely dismissed it. Other than you, I don't think there is anyone left that is arguing the point that the talent level is better today than years past. It's just a matter of why.

[NJ BIRD FAN]

I was provided with an article that talked about talent level being superior now then years ago. Its conclusion was an opinion, one I happen to not agree with. Above, you stated that the talent "pool " was greater now for many reasons. Id love to hear just one. Just give me one credible fact that shows that the talent pool is greater or larger then it was say 30 years ago.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I was provided with an article that talked about talent level being superior now then years ago. Its conclusion was an opinion, one I happen to not agree with. Above, you stated that the talent "pool " was greater now for many reasons. Id love to hear just one. Just give me one credible fact that shows that the talent pool is greater or larger then it was say 30 years ago.

Yeah, again, that's called research and analysis ... with similar results echoed by many notable researchers (James/Tango/Silvers etc) as indicated in the article. It's a little stronger than just an "opinion". Certainly a lot stronger than anything you've provided. You could argue that science is not factual, but I'd choose to pay attention to it over the ravings of somebody who has provided nothing in the way of logic or analysis themselves.

You're not going to get a "fact" from anyone that the talent level was as good 30-40 years ago as it is today, but I'd argue the most people with an open mind and a reasonable ability to look at the evidence (subjective and objective) would conclude that you are pretty far out there for believing it.

Some reasons why the talent pool is greater today:

1. Better training methods.

2. Better medical care.

3. Better physical conditioning.

4. Better focus and dedication due to monetary compensation.

5. Better development methods.

6. Broader exposure to International markets.

7. Better and more efficient recognition, evaluation, and channeling of talent pools.

[fansince71]

"There?s one difference with Cal. He is rated the fourth-best defensive player in history by defensive WAR. He once made three errors in a full season at SS and had astronomical assist numbers (range). So, even when he was in a slump he had more value to his team, because of his glove, than players like Rose. So there was even less reason ? NO reason ? for him to take a day off."

This should be a sticky on the board!

[NJ BIRD FAN]

Yeah, again, that's called research and analysis ... with similar results echoed by many notable researchers (James/Tango/Silvers etc) as indicated in the article. It's a little stronger than just an "opinion". Certainly a lot stronger than anything you've provided. You could argue that science is not factual, but I'd choose to pay attention to it over the ravings of somebody who has provided nothing in the way of logic or analysis themselves.

You're not going to get a "fact" from anyone that the talent level was as good 30-40 years ago as it is today, but I'd argue the most people with an open mind and a reasonable ability to look at the evidence (subjective and objective) would conclude that you are pretty far out there for believing it.

Some reasons why the talent pool is greater today:

1. Better training methods.

2. Better medical care.

3. Better physical conditioning.

4. Better focus and dedication due to monetary compensation.

5. Better development methods.

6. Broader exposure to International markets.

7. Better and more efficient recognition, evaluation, and channeling of talent pools.

The point I was making and you chose to ignore or didn't understand, was that there were not as many players available. By definition "pool" is a number of people or objects. I asked you to show me how the pool is larger or greater, as in more, larger, greater. Not better. This was one of the reasons spouted as proof that players now a days are superior. The original poster was talking about population numbers to prove his point before you got involved.You either don't understand or refuse to answer because you cannot prove it.

What you have done is provided 7 reasons why you think players are better today. Not why the pool is greater. I will amuse myself and address them

1- I'm pretty sure the training methods get the same results.

2- Probably, but it also keeps a lot of guys off the field.

3- No way in the world. Give me a farm boy from 1955 over a juice head any day.

4-This on is funny. You think a guy wasn't motivated back in the day? Let's see, play ball or dig ditches.

5- This is so vague I can't comment.

6-There is no proof that any country produces better players then the US. It's just a game, see past posts.

7-I fail to see where this makes better players, it just identifies them better.

[CA-ORIOLE]

The point I was making and you chose to ignore or didn't understand, was that there were not as many players available.

I think you're the one choosing to ignore things. I pretty clearly stated there is a difference between "pools of players" (your term) and "pools of talent" in a previous post. It was a short and direct post that you acknowledged. Maybe you should amuse yourself by getting your terms and facts straight and paying attention.

The fact that there are less inferior leagues for MLB to choose players from is pretty irrelevant to me.

If you think the training methods from 30-40 years ago are just as good as today, there is really nothing more to say. We can quit at number 1.

[NJ BIRD FAN]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Is your technique to confuse? Call them what you will. There are no more quality players available today then there was in say the 70's for MLB to chose from and thus should not be used as a reason to support a conclusion that players are better today.

[NJ BIRD FAN]

I will go as far as saying that baseball players were trained better 30 years ago. In the art of playing baseball for sure. If you want to talk weight training ect. We'll there is equipment that was not available years ago, so I cannot argue that point.

[DrungoHazewood]

Since nothing else seems to be getting through I guess we could pull out the "have you seen a game from the 70s on ESPN Classic?" defense. The players look skinny (or fat), pitchers obviously aren't throwing as hard, batters swing at junk no one would offer at today... it's pretty obvious.

[NJ BIRD FAN]

Since nothing else seems to be getting through I guess we could pull out the "have you seen a game from the 70s on ESPN Classic?" defense. The players look skinny (or fat), pitchers obviously aren't throwing as hard, batters swing at junk no one would offer at today... it's pretty obvious.

Adam Jones says hi. I think Nolan Ryan was throwing plenty hard. This started when you said that one of the greatest players of all time would be lucky to be average today. If you cannot admit that that was an absurd statement, then I give up.