Cal Ripken's Legacy

[DrungoHazewood]

I'm talking about managers doing things like valuing speed and stolen bases over OBP and batting fast guys at the top of the lineup. Overvaluing "fundamental" plays/skills like bunting and the hit and run. Overvaluing defense based on looks and error rates. Managers like Hank Bauer telling Don Buford he needed to stop taking so many walks and needed to start driving in more runs or he'd be off the team. Billy Martin threatening to drop Reggie Jackson from cleanup to 6th because he struck out to much.

The myriad of dumb things that were done forever in baseball with very large sample sizes...mostly because people were clueless about a lot of things. I'm sure there were many better/valuable players left in the minors over many years and/or that had limited playing time for dumb reasons.

The again, I'm sure you abhor strikeouts (despite meaningful production) and value real baseball skills like sac bunting and the two hand catch.

I recall Drungo making a post in this thread about Bill James and the Red Sox about how fast data is being integrated into every facet and level of baseball managemnt and evaluation and how the change is dramatic, even from year to year. I've seen Maddon of the Rays echo similar sentiments.

Scouts have to look at reasonable probabilites and aren't going to devote significant resources to outliars. Modern scouts. like Stotle I'm sure, know how to balance baseball skills and athleticism. In most cases, players of less caliber and some reasonable level of skill are probably going to get a chance to prove themselves in the minor league system even if they are drafted at a very low level.

His argument is, basically, that the thousands of little (and large) performance and organizational tweaks James refers to being constantly integrated into the game have had a net impact that is actually negative. That the total body of knowledge of baseball and sports in general today compared to 1920, has in fact declined.

[NJ BIRD FAN]

ARod might have been a fine Negro or Mexican or Cuban Leaguer, if he'd have been allowed off the farm or out of whatever job he probably would have held trying to support his family at the age of 13. Cal... who knows. But he certainly wouldn't have been as well nourished, as strong, as dedicated to physical fitness, wouldn't have known as much about positioning. Might have been taught that trying to drive the ball to the opposite field was a fool's errand and he'd be better off choking up and punching the ball. He would have had lesser competition to face, but he also would have had a more perilous journey through a vastly less organized development system. If his Dad was still a coach in this hypothetical world he would have had a giant leg up on the competition just by being noticed and having connections in a world with many fewer scouts, embryonic farm systems and no draft.

I don't see how you can take issue with the idea that a player born 100 years later than his actual birthday wouldn't have had countless advantages. Whether he takes advantage of them is another question, but obviously most top athletes and ballplayers do. There are entire relevant fields of study and disciplines that have revolutionized sports that weren't even concepts when Wagner or Ruth or even Mantle and Mays were playing.

So Arod was not light skinned enough for you to allow into baseball? He is pretty light. Oh an American.

You are making my argument for me. Take the great players from any era give then today's advantages and they would be an elite player. You are steering this argument in the direction that somehow players are dropped into a new era and are not afforded the same advantages as those players. It is nonsense.

By the way look up the word revolutionized. In no way does it mean to make better. Only to change.

[NJ BIRD FAN]

His argument is, basically, that the thousands of little (and large) performance and organizational tweaks James refers to being constantly integrated into the game have had a net impact that is actually negative. That the total body of knowledge of baseball and sports in general today compared to 1920, has in fact declined.

I never said any of that. The game has changed some say for the better, some say for the worse. I will however never back down from my opinion that the great players from the past would still be great players today, as they would have be given the same advantages as the players today have. You on the other hand, have some kind of scenario in your mind, where these players are brought to this era and made to live like they did 100 years ago. It is a nonsense argument.

[Can_of_corn]

So Arod was not light skinned enough for you to allow into baseball? He is pretty light. Oh an American.

You are making my argument for me. Take the great players from any era give then today's advantages and they would be an elite player. You are steering this argument in the direction that somehow players are dropped into a new era and are not afforded the same advantages as those players. It is nonsense.

By the way look up the word revolutionized. In no way does it mean to make better. Only to change.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/revolutionize

to completely change something so that it is much better:

:scratchchinhmm:

[NJ BIRD FAN]

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/revolutionize

:scratchchinhmm:

Try reading the American English definition. Last I checked were are across the pond.

[Can_of_corn]

Try reading the American English definition. Last I checked were are across the pond.

You said, and I quote,

In no way does it mean to make better

.

One should avoid speaking in absolutes.

[NJ BIRD FAN]

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/revolutionize

:scratchchinhmm:

rev?o?lu?tion?ize verb \-shə-ˌnīz\

: to change (something) very much or completely : to cause a revolution in (something)

[NJ BIRD FAN]

You said, and I quote, .

One should avoid speaking in absolutes.

When I'm sure I should.

[Stotle]

So Arod was not light skinned enough for you to allow into baseball? He is pretty light. Oh an American.

You are making my argument for me. Take the great players from any era give then today's advantages and they would be an elite player. You are steering this argument in the direction that somehow players are dropped into a new era and are not afforded the same advantages as those players. It is nonsense.

By the way look up the word revolutionized. In no way does it mean to make better. Only to change.

It's not ridiculous -- I believe this whole convo had to originate with Cal stating Beltre was a better defender than Brooks. That is comparing "now" Beltre to "then" Brooks, not "now" Beltre compared to the hypothetical defender Brooks could have been had he been playing in his prime today.

[NJ BIRD FAN]

It's not ridiculous -- I believe this whole convo had to originate with Cal stating Beltre was a better defender than Brooks. That is comparing "now" Beltre to "then" Brooks, not "now" Beltre compared to the hypothetical defender Brooks could have been had he been playing in his prime today.

I could care less what Cal said. This conversation started for me when someone said that Honus Wagner would be lucky to be a AAA player today.

[Can_of_corn]

When I'm sure I should.

Shame you turned out to be wrong.

[atomic]

Greatest player in the history of the franchise.

Sorry that is Jim Palmer.

[NJ BIRD FAN]

Shame you turned out to be wrong.

If I were I'd admit it. Google words that have different meanings in Britain. There is a list of hundreds. Funny I thought OH was an American site.

[DrungoHazewood]

I never said any of that. The game has changed some say for the better, some say for the worse. I will however never back down from my opinion that the great players from the past would still be great players today, as they would have be given the same advantages as the players today have. You on the other hand, have some kind of scenario in your mind, where these players are brought to this era and made to live like they did 100 years ago. It is a nonsense argument.

The thing you're missing is that there are so many more good players today, and a vastly better system of identifying and developing that talent, than 50 or 100 years ago that even if they had all of those advantages they wouldn't stand as far above everyone else as they did in their time. Huge outliers like Ruth and Wagner would probably still be very good but there are many more players today with very high levels of talent.

[Can_of_corn]

If I were I'd admit it. Google words that have different meanings in Britain. There is a list of hundreds. Funny I thought OH was an American site.

There are posters from all over the globe here.

Stop being so provincial.