T1B

Blueblood wrote:


755*

MuchoBulls wrote: ***

Ace wrote:And the only person to greet him at home plate was the batboy, who happens to be his son. By comparison, the whole team greeted ARod. Fuck Bonds

Bonds hit the tying homer off a former Giants draft pick who was suspended in 2005 for violating baseball's minor league steroids policy.

R-Jack wrote:Are you saying the Negro Leagues were far superior to the American League in the 1920's?

Kierland wrote:

R-Jack wrote:Are you saying the Negro Leagues were far superior to the American League in the 1920's?

No Sir, only that there were enough good pitchers to drop Ruth's HR numbers. Maybe only by one HR (I would say many more than that), but one is enough to necessitate an *.

RumpleForeskin wrote:Taking a page out of Chris Rock's theory, Kierland?

Smackie Chan wrote: An argument can be made that almost every baseball record deserves an asterisk based on differences in playing conditions over the years. Not sure what those might be in Aaron's case, but I'm sure someone could come up with one (or more).

Kierland wrote:ALL pre-Jackie players should get an *.

Kierland wrote: But what field you play in is always different. Keeping people OFF the field that might blow smoke by you is 'cheating up' your stats as is taking 'roids. This is a thread about the * and I was just putting my 2cents into who should have one.

Kierland wrote:

Smackie Chan wrote: An argument can be made that almost every baseball record deserves an asterisk based on differences in playing conditions over the years. Not sure what those might be in Aaron's case, but I'm sure someone could come up with one (or more).

But what field you play in is always different. Keeping people OFF the field that might blow smoke by you is 'cheating up' your stats as is taking 'roids. This is a thread about the * and I was just putting my 2cents into who should have one.

You're up a bit early for a stoner aren't you.

I know it's not very funny

I am new to this whole 'have to add a personal dig with every post' stuff. I will try harder in the future.

RumpleForeskin wrote:Taking a page out of Chris Rock's theory, Kierland?

America Online: Chris Rock keeps it real about Barry Bonds

Bob Costas: Is race irrelevant?

Chris Rock: Ty Cobb's numbers are bullshit and Babe Ruth's numbers are bullshit.

Bob Costas: Because of segregation –

Chris Rock: Because they didn't play against black players. It's like saying I won the New York City Marathon but no Kenyans ran that year. Babe Ruth has 714 Affirmative Action home runs.

http://www.racewire.org/archives/2007/0 ... ion_1.html

The better part of Costas Now however, was Chris Rock's hilarious rip on Babe Ruth versus Satchel Paige, a Black ball player. One of his best lines came when Bob Costas asked about why Rock is not a fan of Babe Ruth:

"It's not that I don't like Babe Ruth, I just don't think he was the best of his time. Satchel Paige was striking people out from his wheel chair at age 63! And he was tenth best. There were nine Negro players better than him!"

"It's almost like saying - I won the New York City Marathon this year - but no Kenyans ran!"

"It's not a sport until brothers show up - it's just a game."

To view the Costas Now show, check the HBO listings in your area.

Meanwhile, here's a clip of Chris Rock laying into the Barry Bonds issue on the Late Show with David Letterman. "The government 'ain't trying to get Osama Bin Laden," Rock said. "They trying to get Barry Bonds."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdiS91OguJc

Rumple Pum Pum wrote:Okay. What if there were blacks in baseball back then? I bet I can argue the same point about lineup protection for Ruth. What if the Yankees acquired someone similar to Josh Gibson during the 1920's and you stuck the Babe between him and Gerhig? You don't think there would have been more opportunities for the Babe to hit more homeruns and draw less walks? The argument can work both ways. Also, what if the Babe had the same number of ABs as Aaron or Barry. Dude would be in the 800 HR department...no question.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/archive/i ... 39148.html

Bench 502-01-2006, 09:47 PM
I’ve read in a few sources where Negro Leaguers beat Major Leaguers 60-65% of the time they played each other. Some people interpret this to mean that blacks tried harder in inter-league exhibition games, or else major leaguer teams consisted of rag-tag combinations of assorted players playing out of position. And some have interpreted this to mean that Negro League teams were better than the Major Leaguers. In my opinion, all things being equal if teams from one league are winning 60+% of the games versus teams from another league, I would argue that the former is a stronger league than the latter.

I decided to gather as much info as I could find and interpret the data available. So I input all of the games listed in John Holway’s “Complete Book of Baseball’s Negro Leagues” into a spreadsheet. I also found several games on ProQuest that were not listed in his book and got all of the games from Bob Feller’s barnstorming from the book by John Sickels. I kept track of the dates, teams, scores, number of major leaguer position players, and number of major league pitchers. Most of the games from Holway's book are based upon games in the East and Midwest. Games from the California Winter League are not included.

Holway states in his book that black big leaguers won 57.1% of the games against white major leaguers. He credits Cuban teams, which usually consisted of several players from the Negro Leagues, with having a 43.5% winning percentage versus white major leaguers. I know there’s been other research but I think that Holway’s information is the source of the idea that Negro League teams won most of the inter-league match-ups.

Holway states that he considers a team to be a “big league” team if they have five or more white major leaguers - including the pitcher. Looking at the data, one of the biggest variables that relates to the won/lost records of games between Major League vs. Negro League is the number of major leaguers present on the team. Another variable is whether the major league team consists of players from the same team versus a mix of players from multiple teams.

Here is what the data shows in games between teams from both leagues involving a major league pitcher. The number of non-pitchers is listed in parentheses after the major league team. I broke it down into 3 levels. Major league pitcher plus zero to three position players. Major league pitchers plus 4 to 6 position players and major league pitchers plus 7 or more position players. Won Lost is indicated by the record of Negro League teams. Ties counted as 0.5 wins. Games included are between 1902 – 1946. “All Star” teams consists of major leaguers from multiple teams. “Major League Team” is a team with all or most of the players from the same team.

Negro League Teams vs. Major League “All Stars” (0-3)
36 - 12 (.750)

Negro League Teams vs. Major League “All Stars” (4-6)
23 - 15 (.605)

Negro League Teams vs. Major League “All Stars” (7+)
41 – 49 (.456)


Negro League Teams vs. Major League Team (4-6)
9 - 5 (.643)

Negro League Teams vs. Major League Team (7+)
23 - 29 (.442)


Total

Negro League vs. Major Leaguers (4-6)
32 – 20 (.615)
Negro League vs. Major Leaguers (7+)
64 – 78 (.451)

My interpretation of this data is that Negro League teams were very strong in comparison to Major Leaguers teams. Negro League teams overmatched teams of a few major leaguers playing with minor leaguers winning 75% of the games. Playing against teams with 5-7 major leaguers, the Negro league teams still won over 60% of the games. Against nearly full to full major league teams, the Negro League teams won 45% of the games. I think this shows the strength of the Negro League teams. They were extremely competitive in games against Major Leaguers. At the same time, it also shows the strength of the Major League teams. When complete or nearly complete ML teams played against Negro League teams they were the stronger league by this measure.

Another way to measure the quality of the leagues is to compare their records versus common competition. Major leaguers as well as Negro Leaguers often played against Cuban teams. Here is a record of the games by Negro League and Major League Teams against Cuban teams when they played during a similar span of time:

Major Leaguers record versus Cuba from 1908 – 1921
92 – 61 (.601)

Negro League Teams versus Cuba from 1903 – 1925
65 – 71 (.478)

The Major League teams were clearly superior to the Negro League teams in their performance versus Cuban teams. What I take from this is that the Cuban teams are very strong. The Negro League was obviously a very powerful league. I think that several NL teams could have competed in the Major leagues. But this data shows me that the Major Leagues were clearly stronger and I think that the idea that black teams routinely beat Major League teams comes down to an interpretation of the data. If you take a loose interpretation of “big league” team, then that’s a true statement. I don’t think that there is a need to make a loose definition just to make the point that the Negro League teams were strong. The evidence shows that they were a “Major League” even while measuring them against a more reasonable definition of “big league” team.

The Giants and the Color Barrier

"Get that mvscal off the field!" With that statement Cap Anson set down the Color Barrier that would last for 60 years. Anson was one of the most popular baseball players of the 1800's, and he was also quite a bigot. His infamous statement was uttered in 1887 when he found that the International League team he was facing in an exhibition featured George Stovey and Fleet Walker, two black men. Stovey and Walker were removed from play, and that same day the owners of the International League decided not to hire any more black players. This "Gentleman's Agreement" spread throughout white organized baseball. While African- Americans could not play in either the major or minor leagues, they still played baseball. The relationship between the New York Giants and the Negro Leagues has a very interesting history. It involves the Giants' greatest manager, riots, no-hitters and Hall of Famers.

...

One of the uglier incidents between the Giants and Negro Leaguers occurred in 1912... The first problem came when the Giants' only pitcher refused to take the mound. According to the New York Times, "The only pitcher taken along was Louis Drucke, who comes from Texas. Drucke flatly refused to play against the colored team. All sorts of arguments were brought to bear, and Drucke finally consented to pitch if he was announced as 'Pitcher O'Brien' instead of Drucke." .... To put [the entire game, the white pitcher's attempts to cheat and the riot that followed] into its proper historical perspective, this game occurred roughly a week after Ty Cobb went up into the stand to beat up a fan who had no hands. Cobb brutalized the man and was suspended by the American League. The Detroit Tigers went on a strike in support of Cobb and the American League lifted the suspension. The fan's sin? He had called Ty Cobb a "half-mvscal."

....After the success of early black teams such as the Lincoln Giants, Giants became a code word for black teams. Newspapers of the day wouldn't print pictures of black men, but if a reader saw a team named the Giants coming to town, then he or she would know that if was a black team.....

...Eventually Commissioner Kennesaw Mountain Landis grew weary of seeing white teams getting beaten by their black competition. He ruled that when major leaguers played in exhibitions, no more than three players from one team may play. In this way black teams could not claim that they had defeated an intact major league franchise.

Voice of Reason wrote:Comparing one era against another is meaningless anyway, in any sport. Jim Brown wouldn't have been able to run over today's defensive linemen, Wilt Chamberlin wouldn't have been able to score 100 against today's centers.

R-Jack wrote:Your speculate that facing negro pitchers would affect Ruth's numbers.

That my be the case, but only if the level of pitching was as good (or better) as it was in the majors at the time.

Since the Negro Leagues started in 1920 and their pitchers were facing a much smaller talent pool in mostly unorganized barnstorming sessions prior to that, I would doubt many black pitchers would make a major league roster on talent alone.

At least in the era that Ruth played in, just because they were segregated doesn't mean they were better. Your arguement is flawed at best.

Actually you didn't present an argument. You just threw out some revisionist PC retoric that makes no sense whatsoever.

Hell, your point is a valid as giving Hank an * because he saw more pitches over the middle because pitchers didn't want throw inside and bean him on the lips.

Smackie Chan wrote:It seems we're in violent agreement.

But another element of this board is that once a reputation or label is applied, it's there forever. I've learned to live with it.

Rich Fader wrote: WAR the guys who did it the right way. Especially the Babe. Any knucklehead can crush the ball on the juice. That guy did it on a diet of steak, potatoes, bourbon and hookers. RACK.

Rich Fader wrote:Barring the Negro Leaguers from the mainstream Show, as much of a shame as it was, simply was not cheating in the way that roiding up is.

mvscal wrote:

Risa wrote:Dude wasn't a saint -- and Ty Cobb not being a saint and still being in the Hall of Fame is proof sainthood and likeability is irrelevant to enshrinement and celebration -- so why force Barry Bonds to be? If what Barry was juicing on was legal at the time, it's no big deal. If Barry hasn't tested positive, it shouldn't be allowed to be a big deal.

Ruth and Cobb didn't cheat, you fucking tard.

http://frankslog.com/baseballs-greatest-cheaters/

The most notable offenders and cheating title holders would be: John McGraw, Gaylord Perry, Ty Cobb, Mike Scott, Ken Hrbeck, Joe Niekro, Pete Rose, and Albert Belle. Later, and to add some variety to this interesting topic, one of the many baseball scandals include the 1919 Chicago White Sox sellout.

Kierland wrote:I have no problem with giving Barry an * if there is also one next to Ruth's name.
Segregation made it possible for Ruth to hit silly numbers, there is no way he would have hit those numbers if there was fair competition, and fair competition is what most people bitch about when they bring up the * argument when talking about Bonds.

Rumple wrote:Taking a page out of Chris Rock's theory, Kierland? Okay. What if there were blacks in baseball back then? I bet I can argue the same point about lineup protection for Ruth. What if the Yankees acquired someone similar to Josh Gibson during the 1920's and you stuck the Babe between him and Gerhig? You don't think there would have been more opportunities for the Babe to hit more homeruns and draw less walks? The argument can work both ways. Also, what if the Babe had the same number of ABs as Aaron or Barry. Dude would be in the 800 HR department...no question.

Kierland wrote:

But another element of this board is that once a reputation or label is applied, it's there forever. I've learned to live with it.

So I am some Chris Rock wanna be who knows nothing about the military? Ouch!

R-Jack wrote:Since the Negro Leagues started in 1920 and their pitchers were facing a much smaller talent pool in mostly unorganized barnstorming sessions prior to that,

I would doubt many black pitchers would make a major league roster on talent alone.

Mace wrote:Satch may have looked good mowing down the no-names of the Negro Leagues but might have had a bit more trouble doing the same against the Yanks' murderers row. You can make the bullshit Chris Rock argument, or come up with some other weak ass angle, but the truth is.....we'll never know what might have been. It's an injustice and a shame that the very best players of that era were not all playing in the major leagues, and a further injustice that blacks had to form a race based league, but we cannot change history. Nor can we accurately speculate as to "what if" they had been allowed to play as it pertains to baseball records because NO ARGUMENT will hold water. Satch might have dominated Ruth....or maybe the Babe would have had another 20 dingers if he'd had the opportunity to hit off him. It's a shame that the country never got to see that matchup.

The Indians were in a heated pennant race on August 20, 1948. Coming into the game against the White Sox, Bob Lemon, Gene Bearden and Sam Zoldak had thrown shutouts to run up a thirty-inning scoreless streak, eleven shy of the big league record. 201,829 people had come to see his last three starts. For this game in Cleveland, 78,382 people came to see Paige, a full 6,000 more people than when he last broke the night attendance record. Paige went the distance, giving up two singles and one double for his second consecutive three hit shutout. At that point in the season, Paige was 5-1 with an astoundingly low 1.33 ERA. He made one appearance in the 1948 World Series. He pitched for two-thirds of an inning in Game Two while the Indians were trailing the Boston Braves, giving up a sacrifice fly to Warren Spahn, got called for a balk and struck out Tommy Holmes. The Indians ended up winning the series in six games. Paige ended the year with a 6-1 record with a 2.48 ERA, 2 shutouts, 43 strikeouts, 22 walks and 61 base hits allowed in 72 2/3 innings.

Mace wrote: One thing that I do know......pitching 2/3 of an inning and giving up a run scoring sac fly to a pitcher, being called for a balk, and striking out Tommy Holmes (he ain't Babe Ruth) does NOT automatically qualify someone for enshrinement in the HOF (nor do his mediocre stats at age 42).

I don't doubt that Satch was a great pitcher...or maybe even the best of all time...but I know that he didn't get a chance to prove it in the big leagues and, for that reason, we will never really know how great he might have been. That's our loss.

Mace wrote:My claim is simply that not ALL of the players in the Negro leagues were of major league talent.

Mace wrote:Everything discussed in this thread on this topic is nothing more than speculation and bullshit......and a waste of time.....except that it's a discussion about baseball and well worth my time. :)

I totally respect the baseball accomplishments of Satchel Paige and appreciate all that he and the other negro league players had to overcome in their quest to become major league players, but I'm not inclined to demean the accomplishments of someone like Babe Ruth to elevate the what might have beens of the black players of that era.

War Wagon wrote:And lastly, if Satch had pitched in the majors, he would have easily won 500 games. Put that in your pipe and inhale it. :wink:

• Players now have strength and conditioning coaches
• Players are conditioning for 12 months
• Better equipment (maple bats, etc.)
• Over the counter "bulk up" goodies
• Smaller ballparks (exceptions are AT&T, Petco, etc.)
• Diluted pitching due to expansion, some pitchers who should be in AAA or out of baseball all together are on MLB rosters.
• Oh and the league still is not testing for HGH, just steriods and amphetamines.