Official MLB Discussion Thread

[GatorBait19]

I was wondering, is it time to remove the ban on Shoeless Joe? The longer it has been the more info comes out that he may have had no connection. Also several years after the trial 7 of the 8 (Joe being left out) said that they used Jackson name to give it some credit.

 

He stats in the series were some of the best and a lot of the fly balls that got past him could have been for the fact that he was 32.

 

Now, did Joe know and eventually took the money..... yes. He tried to warn Comisky, but Comisky wouldn't talk to him (it was later revealed that Comisky knew about it as well according to Harry Grabiner's diary. She was Comisky secretary)

 

Jackson was the star of the Series, he hit the only homerun, fielded flawlessly, batted .375 to lead all players, and his twelve hits set a World Series record that stood until Pepper Martin tied it years later. Joe accounted for 11 of the Sox 20 runs in the Series, he led players on BOTH teams.

 

The man who set up the fix (Bill Burns) never talked to Joe about the fix. (even said that in court)

 

The jury in Joe's 1924 civil suit against Comiskey for back wages also found Joe not guilty of any culpable involvement in the Black Sox Scandal.

 

Now should Joe have been suspened for knowing, yes. To ban him for life though is something that shouldn't have happened.

 

Joe earned the right to be a Hall of Famer and it's time he was given that.

 

Also Landis (the MLB's first commish) was known for his iron fist on the game (think Hitler running MLB) he would ban people for the most minor things.

 

(once again this is how I feel on the sit.)

[BHK1978]

I was wondering, is it time to remove the ban on Shoeless Joe? The longer it has been the more info comes out that he may have had no connection. Also several years after the trial 7 of the 8 (Joe being left out) said that they used Jackson name to give it some credit.

 

He stats in the series were some of the best and a lot of the fly balls that got past him could have been for the fact that he was 32.

 

Now, did Joe know and eventually took the money..... yes. He tried to warn Comisky, but Comisky wouldn't talk to him (it was later revealed that Comisky knew about it as well according to Harry Grabiner's diary. She was Comisky secretary)

 

Jackson was the star of the Series, he hit the only homerun, fielded flawlessly, batted .375 to lead all players, and his twelve hits set a World Series record that stood until Pepper Martin tied it years later. Joe accounted for 11 of the Sox 20 runs in the Series, he led players on BOTH teams.

 

The man who set up the fix (Bill Burns) never talked to Joe about the fix. (even said that in court)

 

The jury in Joe's 1924 civil suit against Comiskey for back wages also found Joe not guilty of any culpable involvement in the Black Sox Scandal.

 

Now should Joe have been suspened for knowing, yes. To ban him for life though is something that shouldn't have happened.

 

Joe earned the right to be a Hall of Famer and it's time he was given that.

 

 

(once again this is how I feel on the sit.)

 

That is a tough call, if you remove his ban then you would almost have to remove the ban from Pete Rose as well. To the modern day world Joe Jackson is a foot note. In fact, I would not think it is that bold of a statement to say that many fans now a days have any idea who he was and what he did.

 

I would say what harm would it cause if he was allowed into the Hall of Fame. I think that when Barry Bonds gets elected that will be more of a blight to me.

[GatorBait19]

Was rose ever said to have thrown a game?

 

see I would assume rose and Joe are different level than bonds. Joe is also (to me) on a different level than Joe. Joe never betted on the game where rose did. Joe I think just got the short end of the stick, it was landis first year, he was there to clean baseball and Joe was a big name. Some who was found not guilty twice as well. Rose publicly admitted to betting on the game

[BHK1978]

Was rose ever said to have thrown a game?

 

see I would assume rose and Joe are different level than bonds. Joe is also (to me) on a different level than Joe. Joe never betted on the game where rose did. Joe I think just got the short end of the stick, it was landis first year, he was there to clean baseball and Joe was a big name. Some who was found not guilty twice as well. Rose publicly admitted to betting on the game

 

That is true, Landis was made the Commish because of the Black Sox scandal. Therefore, he almost had to do what he did to Joe to make an example out of him.

[GatorBait19]

So Doc throws a perfect game against the Marlins.

 

So let's see, 2 perfect games in one season, one in the AL and now NL. The Rays were the AL team to be blanked. Marlins were the NL team to be blanked......... Looks like Florida is covered

[BHK1978]

I was playing OTTPB X, and I saw an interesting tidbit of trivia. Did you know that Joe Niekro only hit one home run in his entire 22 year career? And he hit it off of his brother Phil!

[SHaynes23]

So Doc throws a perfect game against the Marlins.

 

So let's see, 2 perfect games in one season, one in the AL and now NL. The Rays were the AL team to be blanked. Marlins were the NL team to be blanked......... Looks like Florida is covered

 

It's awesome that we've got two perfect games in less than a month. What's even better is that both pitchers were on my fantasy team!

[CQI13]

I don't understand how with baseball being so "about the numbers" much validity can be given to HRs and stuff, when the parks aren't uniform...and keep getting smaller.

[BHK1978]

I don't understand how with baseball being so "about the numbers" much validity can be given to HRs and stuff, when the parks aren't uniform...and keep getting smaller.

 

That is a very valid statement, I think because people enjoy the home run so much the game has been more skewed towards it. Back in the days of Ty Cobb the triple was the king. Just look at some of the dimensions of the pre-WWII ballparks some of them were insane.

[Slagaholic]

I don't understand how with baseball being so "about the numbers" much validity can be given to HRs and stuff, when the parks aren't uniform...and keep getting smaller.

 

What do you mean validity? Homeruns are homeruns, it's the best thing that can happen in any at bat. That's why they're important. You can't poo-poo homers, but you can poo-poo the parks.

[GatorBait19]

The house that ruth built use to be bigger (many forget those black stands had people in them and the legends park and statues were in the field of play).

 

Homeruns are sexy it's what people want.

 

 

Also I hate when people say this player is one of the best ever. How can you compare B. Ruth to A. Pojuls?

 

Babe played less games a year, he played in bigger ball parks. I think when people compare players to others of different times you have to take fact of this.

[SHaynes23]

The house that ruth built use to be bigger (many forget those black stands had people in them and the legends park and statues were in the field of play).

 

Homeruns are sexy it's what people want.

 

 

Also I hate when people say this player is one of the best ever. How can you compare B. Ruth to A. Pojuls?

 

Babe played less games a year, he played in bigger ball parks. I think when people compare players to others of different times you have to take fact of this.

 

I agree with this. Baseball has changed so many times over the years. It's much more effective to make decisions based on era, not all time. You can't possibly know how Babe Ruth would do in today's game because it isn't the same game it was in the 20s and 30s. What you can do is compare him to his peers like Gehrig and Hornsby. Who knows if Albert would be as great as he is now in huge ballparks. I'm sure he'd be a great player still, but there's no possible way of knowing.

[BHK1978]

Well Babe Ruth was one of the better pitchers in baseball before he became a full time outfielder. That is something that Albert can never claim to be true.

[GatorBait19]

Well Babe Ruth was one of the better pitchers in baseball before he became a full time outfielder. That is something that Albert can never claim to be true.

 

lol different time, how would he fair now? Remember most pitcher stats back then are better than those of todays, pitchera aren't pitching every three days and now have a pitch count.

 

Plus we were talking about hitting not who can do the most, silly rabbit lmao (jk bhk)

[BHK1978]

lol different time, how would he fair now? Remember most pitcher stats back then are better than those of todays, pitchera aren't pitching every three days and now have a pitch count.

 

Plus we were talking about hitting not who can do the most, silly rabbit lmao (jk bhk)

 

I do not buy into the train of thought that the players today were leaps and bounds better than the players of the past. If that was the case why has nobody hit .400 since Ted Williams?

 

You would think with the pitching mound being lowered, some players being on roids, pitchers being in the major leagues that would never have made it to the majors even twenty years ago, that someone would be good enough to hit .400.

 

And yet nobody has. So to answer your question, I think Babe Ruth would have been just as good now as he was before. Is there any way to prove such a statement? Well no but with sports there will always be a what if. What if Rocky Marciano fought Ali, who would win? There is just no way of knowing.

[GatorBait19]

I do not buy into the train of thought that the players today were leaps and bounds better than the players of the past. If that was the case why has nobody hit .400 since Ted Williams?

 

You would think with the pitching mound being lowered, some players being on roids, pitchers being in the major leagues that would never have made it to the majors even twenty years ago, that someone would be good enough to hit .400.

 

And yet nobody has. So to answer your question, I think Babe Ruth would have been just as good now as he was before. Is there any way to prove such a statement? Well no but with sports there will always be a what if. What if Rocky Marciano fought Ali, who would win? There is just no way of knowing.

 

lol I was talking about as a pitcher, as a hitter he probably have better stats, babe Ruth was probably all around the best hitter in baseball history. He had a high average (believe in the top 20 in baseball history) great power (in an age where parks were much bigger) his only problem was he wasn't truely and athlete just to big and couldn't run well.

[BHK1978]

lol I was talking about as a pitcher, as a hitter he probably have better stats, babe Ruth was probably all around the best hitter in baseball history. He had a high average (believe in the top 20 in baseball history) great power (in an age where parks were much bigger) his only problem was he wasn't truely and athlete just to big and couldn't run well.

 

I thought Ty Cobb, who hated Babe Ruth's guts, said he ran pretty well for a fat guy.

[Stennick]

Its impossible to anoint one man as the greatest of any one sport. Jordan, Ruth, Gretzky, etc.

 

All of these men are great and clearly the greatest of their generation.

 

However Ruth didn't have to deal with coast to coast travel, night games, television, 24/7 media, 100 years of honing the sport to a perfection.

 

Pujols didn't have to deal with the large parks, a smaller pool of talent concentrated on a smaller number of teams,

 

The argument that Ruth is the greatest ever because he was a great pitcher as well has nothing to do with it. How many of these high school and college pitchers get convereted before they ever get the chance to throw an MLB pitch. Ruth was good, he was great but how would he do with scouting, with working out, with travel schedules. Ruth and other players of his era such as Cobb weren't nice guys a lot of the time. The NY media gets on A Rod's case for AN affair? What would they do to Ruth with his affairs and alleged wife beatings? Not to mention his flashy spending. What would they do to Cobb for his abuse, racist actions. Not too mention how he used to slide in spikes up etc.

 

Each generation has its advantages and its disadvantages. We can't compare the 1970 NFL QB's to the QB's of today and that game has changed in only 40 years and 16 game seasons (less before I know). Imagine how a game like Baseball with over a 150 years of history behind it and 100's of games per team a year has changed throughout the years.

 

Anytime people get into an argument that Pujols, A Rod, Doc, Santana, etc aren't as good or the other side that their better is just a silly argument that can only lead into whatever style of play the debators prefer.

 

I'm just glad that 150 years later we got guys as talented as Pujols, A Rod, etc and that these guys pay respects to the Ruths and Musials of the past.

[GatorBait19]

Its impossible to anoint one man as the greatest of any one sport. Jordan, Ruth, Gretzky, etc.

 

All of these men are great and clearly the greatest of their generation.

 

However Ruth didn't have to deal with coast to coast travel, night games, television, 24/7 media, 100 years of honing the sport to a perfection.

 

Pujols didn't have to deal with the large parks, a smaller pool of talent concentrated on a smaller number of teams,

 

The argument that Ruth is the greatest ever because he was a great pitcher as well has nothing to do with it. How many of these high school and college pitchers get convereted before they ever get the chance to throw an MLB pitch. Ruth was good, he was great but how would he do with scouting, with working out, with travel schedules. Ruth and other players of his era such as Cobb weren't nice guys a lot of the time. The NY media gets on A Rod's case for AN affair? What would they do to Ruth with his affairs and alleged wife beatings? Not to mention his flashy spending. What would they do to Cobb for his abuse, racist actions. Not too mention how he used to slide in spikes up etc.

 

Each generation has its advantages and its disadvantages. We can't compare the 1970 NFL QB's to the QB's of today and that game has changed in only 40 years and 16 game seasons (less before I know). Imagine how a game like Baseball with over a 150 years of history behind it and 100's of games per team a year has changed throughout the years.

 

Anytime people get into an argument that Pujols, A Rod, Doc, Santana, etc aren't as good or the other side that their better is just a silly argument that can only lead into whatever style of play the debators prefer.

 

I'm just glad that 150 years later we got guys as talented as Pujols, A Rod, etc and that these guys pay respects to the Ruths and Musials of the past.

 

uhh, I don't think he'd have a problem with that part

 

http://i951.photobucket.com/albums/ad360/Flashman_album/misc/tigerbolt-Hot_20dogs_20and_20beer_s.jpg

 

 

But I agree, I think it is nearly impossible to compare players of different gens. to each other.

 

I just think Ruth was probably the best (all-around hitter) of all-time.

 

3rd in HR's (cough Bonds)

10th in batting

2nd in RBI's

1st in Slugging %

2nd OBP%

1st OPS%

4th in runs

6th in Total Bases

3rd in BB

[Candyman]

I do not buy into the train of thought that the players today were leaps and bounds better than the players of the past. If that was the case why has nobody hit .400 since Ted Williams?

 

You would think with the pitching mound being lowered, some players being on roids, pitchers being in the major leagues that would never have made it to the majors even twenty years ago, that someone would be good enough to hit .400.

 

And yet nobody has. So to answer your question, I think Babe Ruth would have been just as good now as he was before. Is there any way to prove such a statement? Well no but with sports there will always be a what if. What if Rocky Marciano fought Ali, who would win? There is just no way of knowing.

 

You have to look at the entire picture, not the very best of the best...that's just a silly and meaningless fact. But to answer your question, there are no more .400 hitters because players overall are better today. I know it sounds strange, and in fact contrary to the argument you just made, but it's 100% true.

 

Throughout baseball history, the average player hits about .260. MLB has gone to great lengths to make sure that stays the same, changing rules whenever it starts to go too far in one direction.

 

Now, back in the early 1900's, the average player wasn't very good. I don't think you can argue this, if for no other reason than the talent pool was just so small. The population was miniscule back then, and a smaller percentage of that population was dedicating themselves to baseball as a profession. So when you had great players like Ty Cobb and Ted Williams come along, they were thus much better than average and it showed.

 

Today, it's a different story. There are many more players playing, training and practicing year round, devoting their lives to becoming professional baseball players...so, the average player is much better than they were a century ago. On the other hand, greatness has its limits - there's only so much a human can do. Ichiro and Pujols are at that limit, just like Cobb and Williams were, but the average player is much closer to today's greats. And since the average player is still hitting .260, the greats' batting average has to be lower. Now it makes sense.

 

Incidentally, this also touches on the topic of how players of this era compare to older players...the great players of any era are at the same level. But the further down you go, the better the players of today are. A very good player back then might only be average today, and an average player back then would have trouble making the league today. If for no other reason than there are so many more people playing baseball and playing it seriously that it raises the bar.

 

Think of it like high school football teams...granted, I'm going to greatly exaggerate here to make my point. Think of a small school in a small town with a 40 man roster where everybody who tries out makes the team. And then think of a powerhouse with 100 guys on varsity and a JV team that has to turn people away. The small school likely has some very good players, guys that could easily hold their own on the big school...but they wouldn't look nearly as good in comparison.. Just like the best players on the big school would likely look much much better on the small school. But are any of these players actually getting better or worse by switching teams? Of course not. Well, the small school is Ty Cobb's era, and the big school is today.

 

And, rant over. Can you tell I've put a lot of thought into this?

[BHK1978]

Dontrelle Willis was just traded to the Diamondbacks for Billy Buckner (no not that Bill Buckner). How the mighty have fallen, I wonder what happened to Dontrelle Willis?

[Stennick]

That kid was a stud seven years ago or so. I had completely forgotten about him until now.

[CQI13]

He allegedly had S.A.D. (Social Anxiety Disorder). He needs to go down to the minors and get right or he's pretty much done.

[Slagaholic]

He's changed his delivery and lost all velocity. He wasn't going to stay good for very long anyway.

[Stennick]

Yeah there is no coming back and getting right when you've spent five years being completely meaningless a trip to the minors won't cure you're problems. The kid is done sad but true.

 

Let this be a cautionary tale for GM's out there that fall all over themselves to give phenom pitchers big deals. Most pitchers not named Santana, Halladay or Sabathia don't stay dominant for more than a few years and unless paired with other dominant pitchers (Burnett, etc.) their not worth the large amount of dough spent on them.