soccer10k

The last time I checked, we weren't talking about who was the scariest player of all time.

Not to nit pick but I consider Ted Williams the best hitter of all time.

Then you must have changed your view, because two pages ago you were agreeing with Tree that Cobb would have "done nothing" today and that not a single player before 1940 could play in the bigs today. I said that if you took the old players as they were and didn't give them any of the amenities the players have now that they would be unlikely to succeed. My last point was that if you gave Cobb or Ruth the amenities that players have now, that they would still be All Stars. The same goes for taking everything away from the best players of today, that they would be All Stars back in the 1920's if they didn't have everything they do have. Again, I don't buy that. If you plucked Mr. Cobb from 1909 playing the World Series against the Cubs and gave him a bat and threw him up to the plate in a 2006 MLB game, you think he wouldn't be able to hit the pitcher? Do you think he'd just sit there and shake and pee his pants and say, OH MY GOD!!!! The speed of the game has not evolved that much. Humans throw just as hard now as they did then, and ran just as fast. I said that they "wouldn't be likely to succeed" not that they for sure would not succeed. Of course the great players would succeed in any era but without the amenities, I don't think that a majority of the old time players would succeed in today's game.

Tree said that if the old players DID NOT HAVE the same benefits that they wouldn't be playing. He never mentioned what he thought if the old players did have those same benefits. Read his statement correctly.

Then you must have changed your view, because two pages ago you were agreeing with Tree that Cobb would have "done nothing" today and that not a single player before 1940 could play in the bigs today. I said that if you took the old players as they were and didn't give them any of the amenities the players have now that they would be unlikely to succeed. My last point was that if you gave Cobb or Ruth the amenities that players have now, that they would still be All Stars. The same goes for taking everything away from the best players of today, that they would be All Stars back in the 1920's if they didn't have everything they do have.

I don't need to give any specific reasons to show that some modern players might not do so hot back in the day. The whole argument about "they wouldn't do well in modern times because conditioning and technology is better" doesn't work at all if you are trying to make the argument that classic players wouldn't do well in today's world. Because what we have in modern times are more BENEFITS. Exposing these legends to the benefits that modern baseball has would only serve to make them better, not worse. On the contrary, it's a much easier argument to make that players now would do worse back then because of the DETRIMENTS and the loss of these benefits that they would have to endure to have played back then. Added benefits can only serve to make one better, case in point the latinos who grow up playing with milk carton gloves. At the same time, the players today have gotten used to having all of the amenities that are available to them and adjusted accordingly. I'm saying that because there are players that didn't have those amenities available to them and they still made the majors that the players that did get used to them would have adjusted without them. They wouldn't have gotten used to all of the amenities because they wouldn't have had them at all. The same goes for the old time players. They would have adjusted to having the amenties. For the most part, I think that an All Star now would be an All Star then and vice versa. Obviously there are some exceptions, but I think a player is what he is.

Not every great player right now grew up playing with crap for equipment. That isn't a requirement for greatness. It just so happens that there are some players now that didn't have good equipment available to them. I don't see how I helped your point one bit. You haven't given me a reason to believe that some of the current players wouldn't excel if they played in the 1920's.

That point actually works against his argument, in my opinion. Because you can easily flip that and say that the pampered players today, with their post and pre-game massages, sauna's, advanced medical treatment, proper equipment, manicured fields, couldn't be able to hack it back in the day when those types of things were unheard of. We as people tend to think that our time is the best, our generation is the best, brightest, strongest, fastest. Every generation feels that way, but when you boil it all down, people are people. My meaning is that the human body is the human body. A person could run just as fast back then as they can now, a person could throw a ball just as far or just as fast back then as they can now. The human body is limited. It is of course true that our athletes are better conditioned, but the majority of baseball is NOT conditioning, so much of it is mental and just inherent ability. How many awesomely conditioned players are ALWAYS going to be second-tier players? What separates the top tier from the second tier? It's natural ability and mental knowledge. All the strength conditioning in the world won't help you hit .380 if you don't have the inherent knowledge and skill. There are always going to be players with "inherent knowledge and skill." That's never going to change. The difference is all of the amenities that the players now have available to them. Treeman was saying that if you brought those old time players to the league now that they wouldn't be as good as the old time players. Also, you say that the pampered players today wouldn't be able to hack it back in the old days because they are so pampered. How about all of the Latino players that grow up using broomsticks as bats and don't have any formal training? You think that they have more available to them growing up than the players in the early part of the century? I think not.

I think that if the players were given the same conditions to play under (i.e. weight training, field conditions, mitt size, etc.), I believe that the old time players would have been just as good as the players from now. I don't think that if Ruth played now he would hit 900 HR's but I also don't think he would have only hit 400. I'm saying that given the same opportunities the current players are afforded, the old time players would have been just fine. Don't forget that everybody played under the same conditions in the early part of the century so ALL of their skills were hindered because of that. I think Treeman's point is that the players today have so much more working in their favor (i.e. weight training, diets, trainers) that the old time players without those opportunities wouldn't be able to keep up.

I agree as well especially regarding the weight training point.

I always wonder when this topic comes up why people rank Babe Ruth ahead of Ted Williams. People always forget that Williams missed 3 years in his prime (1943-1945) because of World War II as well as most of 2 years (1952 and 1953). If you adjust his HR's by adding 37 per year during the first period and 29 and 17 during the second period (for an average of 30 per year), Williams would end up with 678 career HR's which puts him at 4th all time. Do the same thing with RBI's (120 and 90) gives him 2342 which would be 1st all time. Runs (130 and 90) gives him 2349 which would be 1st all time. I don't think these numbers are unreasonable given he numbers before and after those missing years. My list goes as follows. 1. Ted Williams 2. Babe Ruth 3. Lou Gehrig 4. Ty Cobb 5a. Willie Mays 5b. Hank Aaron I refuse to put Barry Bonds on my list because of steroids because he wouldn't have hit 700 HR's without them. I think Bonds would have been a very good hitter without steroids but he wouldn't be in the conversation without them.

he played in an era with like 5 teams. That's a negative strike in my book. He played in the same era as babe ruth... So shouldnt that strike go against ruth too? exactly, and it was 16 teams not 5 teams. A career .366 average and over 4,000 hits, 900+ steals, and five seasons of .400+ gets you on the top 5 list. He was the best pure hitter in history, plain and simple. Actually it was 3 seasons of .400+ http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/cobbty01.shtml

I don't understand how a picture of ARod running down the first base line tells us all we need to know about him. He could be running down the baseline spiking babies in their foreheads and that wouldn't change the fact that he's one of the best baseball players any of us will ever see. Being that this is a public message board, it prevents me from voicing my true feelings about A-Rod. A-Rod is a whiner and a tool. I hate the Yankees, but I will admit that Derek Jeter is a far better shortstop than A-Rod. For you stats people, don't go and post all the statlines comparing the two because everybody knows about that. Jeter goes out everyday and works his butt off. He has never been accused of dogging it at all. And can you name another hitter that has come through more for his team in clutch situations? Only David Ortiz comes to mind in recent years. Jeter just goes out and plays and he plays hard. A-Rod gets his HR's and RBI's in blowout games against the Devil Rays. Jeter hits clutch HR's in the World Series against the Arizona Diamondbacks. Need I say more.

Pendleton made the All Star team in 1992 and Bonds won the MVP award.

Just curious, but do you know all the answers and is this just for the fun of it?

Don Newcombe in 1956 was the MVP but not an All Star

how 'bout the Washington Georges? Or the Washington Bush

I'm hoping that Ronny Cedeno plays well enough to bat in the 2 spot later in the season.

Yes. I understand about the comments which is why they got deleted. That doesn't mean I have to like him.

http://images.radcity.net/4183/816779.jpg This picture shows all you need to know about A-Rod. I posted another name before, but that got deleted. So I guess I'll just have to call him A-Rod.

They should take a page from Charlotte Bobcat's owner Robert Johnson. They should name the team the Washington Seligs or the Washington Buds.

For me, the Edmonds beanings rank right up there with Farnsworth dropping Paul Wilson back in 2003. I know I don't like Farnsworth, but I will never forget that incident just like I will never forget the Edmonds drillings. Totally awesome.

imagine covering a base and you see this coming At least last year you wouldn't have to look how close Zambrano was to you because you could tell by how much the ground shook. Won't be able to do that as much this year since he slimmed down. I'm not trying to make fun of the guy one bit, I love him as much as every other Cubs fan does.

I'm hoping that Ronny Cedeno performs well enough to bat 2nd later in the season. If he does then having Pierre and Cedeno 1-2 in front of Lee and Ramirez could really help the top of the lineup, not to mention Lee's and Ramirez's RBI totals. Instead of them launching solo shots, they'll be launching two and three run shots.

My point is that players often say they won't do something and then they go out and do it. I'm just saying that we shouldn't worry too much about Lee's contract since he's signed for 2006.