Cal Ripken's Legacy

[The Wedge]

Just because you have never heard anyone utilize a word properly does not make you right. You are wrong.

36 years of anecdotal evidence and a degree in the friggin' language we mutually speak lends me some measure of credibility here.

You go ahead and cling to denotation. That's not pedantic in the slightest. Fact of that matter is, there are hundreds of words that have heavy connotation, and in these contexts, revolutionize has a positive one.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying you're pigheadedly clinging to your absolute viewpoint with no room for concession, and that's wrong. Revolution CAN have a negative connotation in some contexts (like vs government, but in those cases people tend to use rebellion as the negative version while the ones revolting use revolution). I'll even give an obvious baseball example where its negative: "Steroids revolutionized the game." It's all about the context. I really have an itch to add "which wasn't a good thing" to the end of that sentence for a reason.

[The Wedge]

When Honus Wagner was a young player:

1) Most teams played in stadiums that were much more like county fairgrounds than modern MLB parks, and would burn down regularly.

1a) The World Champion 1896 Orioles, coming off titles in '94 and '95, drew 3,723 fans per home game.

2) Scouting as we know it was almost non-existent

3) Analysis as we know it simply didn't exist

4) Pitching rotations were more of a concept than reality

5) Players would frequently lose baseballs in long grass or trash left on the field

6) Several times a year the ump (and there was just one for each game) had to be ushered off the field to avoid being killed by mobs

7) The few minor leagues that existed were rather loosely organized and unaffiliated with the majors

8) The same group of rich guys would own more than one MLB team and "trade" the good players to the team that drew the best.

9) Rosters were on the order of 14 or 15

10) There was no disabled list. If you got seriously hurt you just got released.

11) Of course there were no black players in the majors. There were more former cricket players than racial minorities.

12) Foul balls were not strikes

13) There were no MLB teams west or south of St. Louis

14) Flat-sided bats had only recently been made illegal.

15) There were still a handful of players who didn't use gloves in the field

16) Overflow crowds regularly stood behind ropes in the outfield (and would for another 30+ years).

17) Some parks had fences well under 300', others well over 500'

18) There were cases of paying customers in the 19th century getting into the game. I mean actually playing in a game they paid admission to.

19) The entire front office of a team in Wagner's time was the owner and the captain/manager (sometimes one guy, sometimes two, sometimes he was also a player, sometimes not).

20) No names or numbers on uniforms, no PA system. How did you even know who was up?

I could go on for a while, but I stand by primitive. 1897 was more advanced than, say, 1871. But they did countless things that have been extinct for many decades.

Oh, believe me, I know that stuff. I started a vintage team, remember? I just wouldn't call it primitive. Just evolving with the steady upswing in competitive fervor.

[CA-ORIOLE]

36 years of anecdotal evidence and a degree in the friggin' language we mutually speak lends me some measure of credibility here.

You go ahead and cling to denotation. That's not pedantic in the slightest. Fact of that matter is, there are hundreds of words that have heavy connotation, and in these contexts, revolutionize has a positive one.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying you're pigheadedly clinging to your absolute viewpoint with no room for concession, and that's wrong. Revolution CAN have a negative connotation in some contexts (like vs government, but in those cases people tend to use rebellion as the negative version while the ones revolting use revolution). I'll even give an obvious baseball example where its negative: "Steroids revolutionized the game." It's all about the context. I really have an itch to add "which wasn't a good thing" to the end of that sentence for a reason.

LOL. I was going to warn him, but I was waiting for this. Equally hilarious to see him tell Stotle he is wrong about scouting and that Drungo doesn't know his baseball history.

[El Gordo]

LOL. I was going to warn him, but I was waiting for this. Equally hilarious to see him tell Stotle he is wrong about scouting and that Drungo doesn't know his baseball history.

Castro revolutionized Cuba, Mao revolutionized China, Robespierre revolutionized France. Nixon revolutionized the use of TV in politics. Perhaps we should use the Chinese fan shen.

[ruetica]

since all the advancements in the military i suppose in this day and age the man could had never made it past Colonel

[waroriole]

since all the advancements in the military i suppose in this day and age the man could had never made it past Colonel

That's not relevant. Size is not an important attribute in being a General, but it is in baseball. Also, if you picked him up from his time and dropped him in 2013, he obviously would be behind people who have used current technology for a large portion of their careers.

[ruetica]

That's not relevant. Size is not an important attribute in being a General, but it is in baseball. Also, if you picked him up from his time and dropped him in 2013, he obviously would be behind people who have used current technology for a large portion of their careers.

He was in the 1912 olympics so of course it is relevant. His path would had been vastly different.

[weams]

since all the advancements in the military i suppose in this day and age the man could had never made it past Colonel

He was in the 1912 olympics so of course it is relevant. His path would had been vastly different.

A man with Patton's issues would never make Colonel in today's military. And this thread is not about that. I expect you will drop the derail.

[Il BuonO]

A man with Patton's issues would never make Colonel in today's military. And this thread is not about that. I expect you will drop the derail.

This thread has been on the D Rail for seven pages now except for Tony's reminder of what the thread actually was about. Even that didn't get it back on track.

Cal Ripken's Legacy

Debate on older players vs modern players

Requirements for modern military leaders

Up next: Aliens part of everyday life, whereas in 1951 they were quite the novelty.

[TonySoprano]

This thread has been on the D Rail for seven pages now except for Tony's reminder of what the thread actually was about. Even that didn't get it back on track.

Cal Ripken's Legacy

Debate on older players vs modern players

Requirements for modern military leaders

Up next: Aliens part of everyday life, whereas in 1951 they were quite the novelty.

Yeah, on that note, I'm going to close this for a while. Maybe I'll reopen it if Cal says something else to tick off O's fans this postseason.

[weams]

This thread has been on the D Rail for seven pages now except for Tony's reminder of what the thread actually was about. Even that didn't get it back on track.

Cal Ripken's Legacy

Debate on older players vs modern players

Requirements for modern military leaders

Up next: Aliens part of everyday life, whereas in 1951 they were quite the novelty.

My Bad. Cal is one of the cornerstones of Orioles history. The Ripken family and Cal are always going to be a part of what the Orioles have been and will be.

[weams]