SubscribeAnyway, Bonds has been keeping me awake these past nights, courtesy of KNBR's commentary. And I just wonder whether Dierker finally decided to pitch to him late in the series to give him a PacBell 71st... not doing so certainly screwed over the Astros' run-in, given that Kent and Galarraga were on fire, and probably sowed enough seeds of discontent in the dressing room to make St Louis' life that bit easier over the weekend.
posted by holgate at 1:18 AM on October 5, 2001
When Bonds hit his 500th home run, in April, only one person came out of the dugout to greet him at the plate: the Giants' batgirl.
The batgirl (which, btw, shows how cool SF is that they have a batgirl) was the first to greet him, and a nice gesture at that, and then the rest of the players mobbed him mere seconds later.
And is Jeff Kent any better than Barry? He's just as gruff to the fans, certainly not a better player, but he's white and kisses the right sportswriter asses. So which is really more divisive: having a barcalounger inside the clubhouse, or ripping on your team's best player in the press during the heat of a pennant race?
Besides, if you wanna talk sports figures who deserve to get knocked down a peg, how about fawkin' Cal Ripken? What did this guy ever do to deserve such unabashed fellatio from the sports media? We hear he's a "class act" and even sometimes "bigger than baseball" (I thought no one was bigger than baseball) yet never really why we're supposed to believe that crap. Great, seminal shortstop? Yeah, sorta- basically, he was that rarity of a 3rd baseman moved to short instead of the other way around, which is why he stood out; had he stayed at 3rd like most 6'+ athletic infielders do, he wouldn't have been quite as remarkable. And the streak at a certain point was selfish, pure and simple. Great numbers, hall of famer, but a "great guy"? Never met him, never heard specific tales great selflessness or class- all I've ever heard is that sportswriters seem to like him for some vague, unspecified reason. Maybe he picks up dinner tabs, and that's all it takes. Bill Simmons, ESPN's resident Boston fan, sums it up as to why Cal leaves him feeling... just "eh". Me, I'd argue that Cal Ripken is baseball's Mother Teresa- glorified in the press, but upon close examination doesn't remotely live up to the hype...
Holgate's a red sox fan? Is it just me, or do the Red Sox have a disproportionate fan base overseas? It's just something I've noticed...I grew up in NH as a Boston fan, although I've had a much better time this year watching these local Mariner fellows romp through the season than another crumbling Red Sox team... :)
posted by hincandenza at 1:41 PM on October 5, 2001
ABSOLUTELY true- the talent pool to draw the very very very best players on the planet has gotten vastly larger since Ruth's time- due to population increase of the country, the removal of the color barrier, and then international scouting in this hemisphere and the other. Let me say it clearly: Babe Ruth was not the best player to ever play the game, he just had weaker opposition to beat up on and look better by comparison. If we put Barry Bonds into AA or AAA next season, he'd beat up on sub-par pitching and look far better than Ruth ever did. Oh sure, there'd be a few pitchers in AAA next season with major league ability- but today, they'd just be pulled to the next level. In Ruth's day, they were the Walter Johnsons and Christy Mathewsons.
The ability to not only draw from a much larger pool but also identify and maintain the most talented players is the key- in Ruth's day, people like him or Gehrig or Walter Johnson or Rogers Hornsby were the outliers- the genuinely talented players in what was otherwise beer league. Now, the outliers are the rule, not the exception, a little more so than 10 years ago and a LOT more so since 1920. Remember when a 7' center was something special on a basketball team? Remember when a 95mph fastball was some kinda heat, not the typical speed of half your bullpen? Remember when slugging centerfielder Willie Mays was 5'10", 180 pounds, yet today some shortstops are 6'3"/ 215? Somewhere in the heart of China or former Russia right now is a li'l kid who will grow up to throw regular 104mph gas and make his contemporaries look foolish. Fortunately, today's and yesterday's stars don't ever have to face him... :) Add in the fact that the entire sport has gotten better due to training, educational tools, and improving athleticism as a whole, and it's no stretch to say that today's players are both talentwise and in absolute terms far, far better across the board.
posted by hincandenza at 11:27 PM on October 5, 2001
And I utterly dismiss the great pitcher part- I recall reading something by credible sports physiologists saying that what little film and photos exist of Walter Johnson's pitching motion suggests that he didn't throw 95-100mph but more likely 85-88mph- the speed of modern day finesse pitchers, like Jamie Moyer, basically. And this guy was called "The Big Train"?! Mark McGwire, like Olerud, had something like a 90mph fastball in college; Ichiro Suzuki had been clocked at 94-95 (and anyone who's seen him unleash a bullet from right-field to third base can believe that). Innumerable shortstops and right-fielders and other position players around the league can throw into the 90's, some with decent accuracy. But they aren't quite good enough to be pitchers- today. That tells you how good today's pitchers are, and thus how much harder it is to be a hitter. But against college players, I bet Olerud would look really good...
College tennis players put up scores similar to the finals at Wimbledon- [6-4, 4-6, 6-2]- but if Sampras or Agassi walked onto the court, they'd make them look foolish. The underlying point is that Ruth was a statistical outlier in a time of relatively mediocre talent, the same way the few really gifted kids stand out like supernovas in their high schools- until they get to a college like MIT where EVERYONE is the gifted kid in their class. So of COURSE Ruth seemed fantastic by comparison, as did Johnson, Cobb, etc. The greats of yesteryear were big fish in little ponds, making them look all the more titanic.
Let me reiterate the mental experiment: take the top 10 pitchers and the top 10 hitters of the 2001 season, and put them in AAA next year. While AAA as a whole looks, statistical, similar to the majors- 90 feet to first base and everything- the talent level isn't close- every AAA team has maybe 1 or 2 players with legitimate ML ability, while every ML team has at least 20 if not all 25 players at that level. Those 10 pitchers and 10 hitters will DESTROY the competition, not because they suddenly became better but because we put those big fish into a little pond.
This doesn't mean Ruth wasn't talented, or even supremely talented- rather, it means that his statistical accomplishments were made against a league that wasn't exactly the best of the best, and that has to be taken into consideration when discussing his greatness. Some of the greatest players in the game today are from the Dominican Republic or Puerto Rico; think Ruth in 1920 had to hit against his generation's Pedro Martinez? Nope... because MLB in 1920 wasn't scouting the globe to get the very very best- they weren't even completely scouring their OWN nation to get the best (Satchel Paige) of the best (Josh Gibson).
posted by hincandenza at 6:50 PM on October 6, 2001
« Older The Darwin Award wining story... | Will a changing world change f... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by geoff. at 8:58 PM on October 4, 2001