|
>Cream of the crop of a select ethnicity. I woulda loved
>watching Satchel Paige and nem sit Babe's ass down.
You act as if the competition in the majors was that much worse than the Negro Leagues. Certainly, the inclusion of black players would have strengthened the field, but the competition was still very good. Satchel was a special pitcher and there weren't many like him black or white. You speak as if Ruth would not have a chance against black pitchers. It's not like the whiteys were throwing 50 and the black pitchers were throwing 100. You seem to be giving Ruth no credit at all. The fact is, he was hitting 60 home runs when entire teams couldn't hit that many. A-Rod led the league in homers last year with what 47? How many players hit 30? Jeromy Burnitz hit 31 home runs last year.
>>As for the slider...it is an overrated pitch.
>
>I can see you've never faced one.
I have faced some very good pitching in my life, especially the last 3 years, playing university baseball. I haven't actually faced a slider, but I know enough about it to make this comment. What I meant is that the slider is a good pitch, but that a lot of pitchers whop throw it have trouble controlling it, and when it is thrown in the wrong location, it is essentially a medium speed fastball. It is very easy to hit when not thrown properly. Pitching coaches these days actually shy away from the slider because of this. A good curveball is more effective, because of the change in speed as well. When the slider came out, it was the pitch du jour, but it didn't last. Hitters adjusted, and now it's just another pitch. If it was so unstoppable, everyone would throw it. Most pitchers prefer to throw a fastball, curve and change. A good fastball and great changeup are the most important pitches actually.
>> It is the
>>easiest pitch to hit in baseball when it isn't thrown
>>properly. Ruth would have adjusted to new pitches, just
>>like any hitter does. To think he wouldn't is ludicrous.
>
>The slider was a quantum leap in baseball. Don't sleep son.
>A high velocity breaking pitch that breaks away from the
>hitter. Its not little variation. It did change the game.
See above. It changed the game for a short while. It really isn't all that significant nowadays.
>
>>As for the question of velocity...how can you say that
>>pitchers have more velocity today? Can you prove it?
>
>Well, there is live footage of some of them pitchers and
>while not 100% accurate, its safe to say that none of them
>threw 100 mph, especially when you consider the following:
>
>Pitchers pitched on a LOT LESS REST
>There were NO CLOSERS
>Pitchers threw far more COMPLETE GAMES
>
>meaning Ruth faced a LOT OF TIRED ARMS. This is the truth.
This doesn't prove anything. There wasn't a quantum leap in how hard guys could throw a baseball. That never happened. Maybe there are more guys who can throw 100 now, but you can't tell me guys were throwing 85 back then. These were still big league pitchers, and again, they were the cream of the crop.
>
>Just
>>because there weren't radar guns back then doesn't mean
>>pitchers weren't hitting the high 90s.
>
>debunked above.
Not really.
>If your argument is
>>that pitchers are better conditioned today, then forget it.
>>Velocity has nothing to do with conditioning and weight
>>lifting. Look at Pedro. Look at Billy Wagner. Guys like
>>Kerry Wood aren't exactly top athletes, but they throw hard
>>as hell. Guys like Bob Feller were th same way back then.
>
>Right, but Bob Feller didn't have a 5 man rotation, and
>didn't have middle relief or a Marianon Rivera to close.
That's a whole other sack of potatoes. I will ask you this though...who would be better...Feller after 8 innings or a fresh David Weathers, Curtis Leskanic or Cliff Politte. The fact is, most middle relievers suck. That's why they are middle relievers. And look at the class of closers this year. Most of them suck too.
>
>>The fact is, hitters have the advantage in this era, because
>>weight training and conditoning helps them more than it
>>helps pitchers. Technology has given the hitters several
>>edges, from the use of video to study swings and pitchers to
>>the advent of laser eye surgery.
>
>No doubt about that.
>
>>The greatest players from other eras would thrive today.
>
>Okay. I'm talking about Ruth. I can say that Ted W, Joe D,
>Willie, Hank, Stan the Man, and those guys definately would
>have thrived in today's game, because the era they played in
>was much, much, more similar. Ruth simply played too long
>ago, and too many thigns were different.
There wasn't a quantum leap from Ruth's to Williams' era, so why couldn't Ruth thrive either? All I'm saying is that Ruth would have thrived in this era, because he was a tremendous hitter and would have made the adjustments. Put guys from this era back then, in those circumstances, and they probably wouldn't do as well.
-----------------------------
Peace to the okay community!
-----------------------------
"I can't talk to YOU...you
don't even have a sig."
-bshelly
Just say no to sigs.
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
Okay Sports 
