Andruw Jones 29 hr's now! HOF for sure!
kuhlmann
Posts: 3,326 ✭✭
in Sports Talk
i hate the braves make no mistake about it! they are my worst hated team in all of sports.
but andruw jones just continues to impress me. he now has 279 career homers. like 7 gold gloves already. this kid is putting up numbers quietly! he will make 600 home runs baring injury.
but andruw jones just continues to impress me. he now has 279 career homers. like 7 gold gloves already. this kid is putting up numbers quietly! he will make 600 home runs baring injury.
0
Comments
JS
yeah yeah i know beltran did. i dont think beltran even deserved to be there. cliff floyd did over him. but i dont make the rules.
<< <i>I can't belive he didn't start in the all star game....what a joke
yeah yeah i know beltran did. i dont think beltran even deserved to be there. cliff floyd did over him. but i dont make the rules. >>
There are usually at least one or 2 overlooked starters, but for the most part, I think fans go a good job in picking the starters.
But I think that if something as important as home field advantage for the world series is at stake, the manager should get to pick the starters. But MLB wants fans to get to see who they want....MLB wants to have it both ways.
I suspect in the next couple years the world series home field will be taken away.
I had no problem with Beltran making the team. He got hosed last year because he switched leagues and he deserved to be there for what he did in the second half last year. I could overlook his horrible start because of that.
Year after year I hear so called 'experts' predict the demise of the Braves...yet they keep on rolling. Yes, they should have won more world series, but wow, what consistency.
bobby cox = worst post season manager in baseball...
its a hard knock on him but until he wins another it will not go away. and they are not good enough this year to win it all.
Smoltz pitched an awesome game the other night against the mets but it looked like he was injured. i wont be surprized if he is on the dl in the next 2 weeks.
its a hard knock on him but until he wins another it will not go away. and they are not good enough this year to win it all.
Smoltz pitched an awesome game the other night against the mets but it looked like he was injured. i wont be surprized if he is on the dl in the next 2 weeks. >>
Not good enough to win it this year huh? That song has been repeated many times in the last ten years. About the same amount of times the Mets have been chasing the Braves in the eastern division.
<< <i>Smoltz pitched an awesome game the other night against the mets but it looked like he was injured. i wont be surprized if he is on the dl in the next 2 weeks. >>
Kuhlmann,
I recently traded for Smoltz and haven't read anything about him being hurt what made you stay that? Should I be worried, I was hoping to get at least another good month out of him.
and jaybyrd yeah they look like they will got knocked out again in the first round. not being a d$ck i gove credit when its due like i did to andruw. but this is not a world series team.
If he is indeed entering his prime and starts cracking those lists more often, and you add his value from centerfield defense, then he has a chance. But if he continues the way he is now, you can just see how a man who is on pace for 500 home runs does not mean what we are accustomed to it meaning.
Since Eddie Murray joined the club, only a handful have have followed suit.
as for the parks being bandboxes, they are not called retro'sfor nothing!
Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, PALMIERO and Griffey Jr. that is 5 guys!
between 59 Williams and 75 McCovey nine guys entered the club.
since then and until now only 3 . Jackson, Schmidt and Murray
yes many are on the cusp. but until they do so they are not in the club. Other era's have had guys on the cusp too. Notably Gerhig, Stargell, Yaz, etc etc etc
My point? the more baseball changes the more it seems to stay the same.
Yes we may see a guy like A Jones reach that milestone with 25 a yr for 20 years. But with so many players today that was inevitable.
Just my opinion...
SD
You know I'm a Braves fan and won't hold that against me.
When people thought that Jones wasn't all that, I picked up his GU bat for my collection - I felt he was worth the chance - plus the price/sale was right!
This one is GU auto'ed - got stitch and scuff marks - PSA/DNA and COA from Grey Flannel and ASI - I highly recommend JT Sports.
The guy has been a fan with me due to his tremendous defense - tho I can do without the nonchalant way he catches a ball - I have seen him drop one from time to time.
mike
Jeff Bagwell, Frank Thomas both stand outside (but good) chances of making it.
Gary Sheffield, Arod, and Manny all are near locks.
Add in the number of players hitting bombs in bunches like Pujols and Jones, and the 500 HR mark will no longer be the revered mark it once was. The increased numbers of teams means not so many more members because of the number of hitters, but more so because there are more pitchers who wouldn't be in the majors if there were fewer teams = dilluted pitching talent.
There's a reason why a 'good' ERA can be considered close to 4, where in years past the mark of a good pitcher was a 3 ERA.
And I guess hitting 25 a year for 20 years means he's a lock for the hall, right?
possibly
as for your triple AAA contention for pitchers that is hog wash.
The more baseball changes the more it stays the same........
SD
<< <i>
as for your triple AAA contention for pitchers that is hog wash.
SD >>
Fact or fiction: with more teams, that is more pitchers that would normally not be in the big leagues?
FACT.
Put down the baseball abstract and the hidden game and browse through the baseball encyclopedia...........the answer can be found there.
Hint....back then with 16 teams MLB chose from basically white america
Today they choose from the entire worlds male population.
Id go into this further but your basically not worth the time it would to inform.
SD
edited to add the word "male" to population lest you play the thick game.
<< <i>
Today they choose from the entire worlds male population.
Id go into this further but your basically not worth the time it would to inform.
>>
Yet you continue to reply and reply?
So what if they are playing with the world's population...there are still MORE pitchers with more teams...more pitchers that would normally be in the minors.
Wrong again, when I made that statement i had yet to reply. COMPRHENSION you lack
<< <i> COMPRHENSION you lack >>
Apparently you lack a spell check or a dictionary.
So you are telling me that there would be the same number of pitchers in the majors regardless of the number of teams?
Uhm.....
If there are 16 teams, and each team has lets say for the sake of easy math (lord knows you probably need it as simple as possible), that's 160 total pitchers.
Now let's skip ahead to today, 30 teams, 10 pitchers per team, that's 300 pitchers. How is that not more pitchers? Then take into account the number of pitchers who are in the minors have grown exponetially since there were 16 teams. How is that not more pitchers? Are you saying because we are using players from around the world now that it some how offsets that?
You're saying we never had players from other countries playing MLB before?
ill try again
you claimed that the pitchers of today (in your own words above)
that 140 of them would be in the minors?
300 - 160 = 140 RIGHT???
I say that today they can choose from a larger pool, a much larger pool.The whole world pool
before 1950 or so ONLY WHITE American males played. perhaps a few WHITE CUBANS.
Does this answer you??
SD
ps now if you waqnt to split hairs and claim that MLB has too many teams in relation to the WORLD POOL it can choose from that is another story. I go by what they have and it is 30 teams.
NO that is what you were trying to say. hense your original comment that MLB has all these triple a guys pitching.
I said that was hog wash then Ill say its hog wash now.
at any given time in the history of MLB their have always been guys that were marginal and were up and down etc. the moment they are on the ML field they are major leaguers.
what is so hard to comprehend about that.
you think that all the pitchers in the 20's and 30's etc were all bonifide major leaguers? teams went through guys left and right, more so then today where big money is involved.
But, WINPICHER, Axtell is correct when you are looking at the era of 50's-1990. Lets look at the 80's since it is right next door. They had four less teams to fill compared to 2000.
If you look at the population there were approximately 82,846 baseball age 28 Year old males available per team in 1985.
In 2000 there were only 52,282 baseball age 28 year old males available PER TEAM in 2000. Those rates are also very similar for the five years sandwiching 1985, and sandwiching 2000.
So as you can see there were more teams to fill, and LESS playing age players available. If you look at ages 23-33 in 1985, compared to 2000, then there were approximatley FOUR MILLION more men available in 1985! FOUR MILLION. But the year 2000 had to spread FOUR MILLION less men over FOUR ETRA TEAMS. It results in the average similar to the example of 28 yr olds above.
WORLD POPULATION! The pacific rim is the only population that baseball is currently drawing from, that the 1980's wasn't. We can count on one hand the amount of players from there that have had any impact. Maybe two hands on where you defne impact.
MINORITY POPULATION. The minority population is basically the same. The difference is that the Latin population in MLB has gone up, and the African American has gone down. In the end though It is still basically the same percent though.
This population study cements the fact that there are less players competing for Jobs in 2000 compared to 1985, and 2000 has FOUR MORE TEAMS TO FILL ON TOP OF THAT! So there are lots of players that don't belong, compared to just 15 years prior.
NOW you get to the wild card! How many players has this era lost to other sports, that 1985 didn't have to content with as much? The dominant sport being played in the 1960's was baseball, plain and simple! Only Football gave a glimmer of competition, and basketball was always an afterthought(those who played it still played baseball though). I chose the 60's because those guys come of age in the 80's. By the time the late 80's/early 90's come around other sports have just as big a stronghold on the youth as baseball does. Basketball is bigtime, and so is soccer. Then you have all the extreme sports that take good athletes away. Not as many kids played baseball then as did twenty odd years before.
So, we already know the facts about the population, and that in itself is a big difference as you can see that 1985 would have 82,000 players per team to chose from, and 2000 had only 52,000 per team to choose from.
What is the resulting effect? Well, this era is one of the easiest era's to dominate the league average, AND to put up monster numbers. Pre War era is similarly as easy. The toughest era is the 80's, followed by the 70's, 60's, and 50's.
All one has to do is go down the lists of greatest seasons(both in raw form and relative to league average)...and you will see the vast majority of them occured post 1994, or pre WAR. Now unless people forgot how to play baseball as well in the 60's-80's, and then all of a sudden remembered again in 1995(after their 50 year memory loss dating back to 1944 when they did know how to play well again), doesn't common sense dictate that other factors created those environments to make it easy to dominate? Well yes, 30,000 less players per team to choose from is one heckuva factor!!
Of the top 100 seasons ALL TIME in OPS+(which compares to the average player), 16 of them occured 1995 to now! The 70's and 80's combined saw a total of FOUR make that list(that is during twice as many years!!). The 50's and 60's saw 10 on the list! The 40's saw six on the list. NINETEEN came from 1885-1899...NINETEEN, boy I geuss they knew something we didn't. Was there something in the water that mothers drank in 1860 that produced such great baseball players? The rest came pre war, post 1900.
I myself would like to get my wife to drink whatever mothers in 1860 were drinking, and mothers in 1980 were drinking, because boy I tell you those guys blossomed into players that dominated their leagues in unprecedented fashion!! I geuss the mothers during the baby boom didn't know what to drink/eat during breast feeding, because their sons didn't domiante anything!! Oh wait!! Maybe they didn't dominate anything because there were far more of them, thus making it harder to separate themselves from the pack because the competition was at an ALL TIME HIGH!!!
Offense is up due to more factors then 30.000 less players per team to draw from. (if that is even true) it just is not that simple.
skin the baseball pool now covers the wolrd population. where they draw from is up to them. they would draw from Mars if a martian could hit a curveball.
SD
The above posts contain FACTS! It is only the pacific rim that has been added, boy Kazo Matsui is awesome! The Latins increased, and African Americans Decreased! Unless you believe Afrocan American players are no good(which is wrong), then that is a wash!
And winpitcher, offense is up for other reasons, and that is well documented. OPS+ isn't a raw measure like total home runs. You are speaking to the choir when you are saying offense is up for other reasons, and actually that contradicts your statement of how thing stay the same.
OPS+ measures vs. the league average, but the average player now is not as good as the average player 1985....mainly because of less players to draw from, and more teams to fill, many of these players wouldn't have jobs in an environment like 1985. SO now the star players get to be measured vs. players that aren't good, thus making the star players looking far better than they actually are. A guy in 1985 didn't have the luxury of competing against soo many players that didn't belong, thus he is at a disadvantage when being compared to the average player, because the average player will be closer in ability to them because there were more people to choose from, and less teams to fill.
WINPITCHER, ERA+ seasons MIRROR the hitting season. ERA+ meaures vs. the league average. Well, the majority of the best seasons in ERA+ come from this same era, and the 1880's-pre war era. Only a couple come from the 70s-80's. WHY? It isn't because they aren't as good, thus not able to dominate at the same rate. It is because they don't ahve the luxury of competing against more LESSER players to MAKE THEM LOOK BETTER. Example, Pedro Martinez gets to compete against pitchers who are just aren't that good. Those pitcher plump up the league ERA, and that makes Pedro distance himself from the league ERA with great ease. Tom Seaver did not have that luxury. He didn't have a bunch of scrubs plumping up the league ERA to make him look better. So it is nearly impossible to better the league average ERA to the extent Pedro did. DOn't believe me, just look at the post again, and look at the leaderbaords.
THe population facts are undeniable. The leaders facts are undeiable, and are all laid out in black and white. What is up for debate is how many kids were lost to other sports now, as compared to then. What is also up for debate is how good kid athletes are now compared to then. Kids played EVERY DAY then. Now they sit around a lot more typing on computers and playing video games. Both of these debatable things will certainly swing towards then, as opposed to now. So that is in addition to that.
If you cannot understand these things, or REFUSE to accept them, then that puts you into the school that thinks Mothers from 1861 did a better job of raising baseball players...this trend continued for some years until the late 1940's when for the next 20 years mothers forgot how to raise a dominating baseball player, as evidenced by the rare apperances they made on the all-time leaderboards. Then a miracle occured! The late 70's early 80's mothers remembered, or uncovered some old archives on what it takes to raise a dominating baseball player, and boy it worked, because those leader boards just fill the all-time landscape.
Assuming baseball doesn't expand again....side note....boy just think how baseball would look if you knocked off six other teams, and just basketball alone didn't take away any ahtletes, AND all of a sudden FOUR MILLION MORE AMERICAN MALES WERE FOUND IN CALIFORNIA WHO JUST HAPPENED TO PLAY BASEBALL. How hard would it be then for a star to separate himself from the league average!! HE wouldn't have the crappy players bringing down the percentages to make him look better, compared to a Tom Seaver or Mike Schmidt. He would have more guys equal in his ability, AND that would even thins out more... and guess what? His dominance would like much like that of the 70's and 80's.
my take on why players from 1980 and up are so much better?
if that is what you are saying?
is a simple one.
It has to do with economics.
in the bygone era players would have to work during the off season. not all but most.
With the advent of the players Union and free agency players no longer had to do that. they could train during the off season. Could this be a factor in why we have more (by a pct) of power numbers today? The 25th man on the roster makes 300.000 today and the average guy is a millionaire. No need for Off season work there.
.
mothers milk has nothing to do with it.
SD
their are more minorities playing today then ever. yes the blacks decreased while the hispanics increased. but it has increased overall.
listen you can have your opinion and I can have mine.
You make great points.
i just don't think it is that simple.
players evolve...........some era's it is pitchers. other times it is hitters.
and yet other times its both
SD
hense my quote about baseball always changes yet stays the same.
Winpitcher, baseball also got from the World Population in the
1980's
I never said they didnt!! as a matter of fact that was my contention the whole time.
<< <i>my take on why players from 1980 and up are so much better? >>
I'm not so sure they are better it's just a different game now. People want the home run and other parts of the game have been sacrificed for it. Ball Parks for the most part are much smaller then they were in the 80's. Hitter's attitudes have changed, it used to be if you struck out a 100 times you probably wouldn't have a job, you tried to move runners over, now it doesn't matter, many players just swing for the fences. There are very few jitters who change their approach with 2 strikes they still try to go for homer because that is what their paycheck relies on.
i did not mean better, I think what i meant was "better overall offensive numbers" If that is even true. I think numbers are up just cuz we have more players. averages are just that averages. they change all the time, to pinpoint one variable for that does not wash
i assume many variables produce the stats that we see.
threads begin one place and then tangent off in all directions.
this was about andrew jones.....if i remm
1)1980's guys didn't work in the offseason either. Yet they pale in comparison to both the raw numbers AND more importantly the appearances on the all-time OPS+ leaderboards! Why? MORE PLAYERS AVAILABLE AND LESS TEAMS TO FILL! All explained in the above post.
2)It isn't just hitting that is easy to dominate! The pitchers also had it easier to domiante the league average in this era! They also benefitted from scrubs pumping up the league average.
3) Guys from 1980 and up aren't soo much better!! The FACT is a guy in 2000 is made to look better than a guy in 1985 because of all the FACTS I stated above.
4)1880's guys certainly didn't train in the offseason, and they dominate quite well thank you.
5)It is the 70's and 80's guys who are at the most disadvantage in the cross era comparisons. These guys played baseball as kids more than anyone else in history(as kids). Yet they cannot crack the OPS+ and ERA+ all-time leaderboards. WHY? It is explained above!
6) It is briefly laid out in my two longer posts above. No need to repeat here. Just read those more thoroughly.
ONE GUY. The rest of the years are filled with Pre war and this era. OPS+ measures vs. the league average so it is supposed to equalize the advantages the hitters have in the environment, kind of what cardsfan is talking about, and I think what winpitcher is saying.
However OPS+ isn't even enough, as again the leaderboards are still dominated by those specific eras in OPS+(like i showed above), and the 70's and 80's are barely there. This is because the league averages in this era are being brought down by a bunch of bad players, similar type players that George Brett did not have the luxury of competing against! Had George Brett had the luxury, like Jim Thome, to compete against a bunch more bad players in his league, then he too would have had an easier time separating himself from the league average to make him look better than he actually was, thus giving him a higher OPS+. ******But he had millions more people that were born in a similar time frame to compete against! And they had to be spread out over LESS teams than what Thome had to compete with!*******
That should paint it out pretty clear right there. Those facts are undeniable.
Yes, Ruth also had it easier too for sure.
It's meaningless to show WP any facts...he'll ignore them and blindly follow whatever reasoning he's thinking that day.
The dilluted pitching pool is not the sole reason that scoring is up, but I can't help but feel it's a big reason. Combine it with the smaller ballparks and steroid use of the 90s, and you have the offensive explosion.
No Axhole I fully understand what skip is attempting to say...I just disagree with his analysis, furthermore stats can be interpreted many ways.
And as for the world pool I believe that Andrew Jones is a perfect example of it.
And as for ....he'll ignore them and blindly follow whatever reasoning he's thinking that day.
if that isnt the pot calling the kettle black! And I will say id rather be blind then ignorant. (Golf remm)?
SD
smaller then when? the old parks were small.....the river front tyoe stadia were larger yes, so what is your point?
Now you say the so called diluted pitching is not the sole reason, last night that was your only reason!
I say simply this
The more the game changes the more it stays the same.
Skin
If you look at the population there were approximately 82,846 baseball age 28 Year old males available per team in 1985.
Where do you get your numbers from? your whole argument is based on numbers that you have taken out of thin air it appears.
Please do not tell me that you divided the worlds pop by the amt of 28 yr olds.
1)1980's guys didn't work in the offseason either.
I never claimed they did, I said it was about that time that they did not have too.
This whole debate3 was based on Axtell saying the reason guys hit so much better now is cuz of diluted pitching, I disagree with that assumption. It may be part of the reason but not the sole one. many factors are involved, some you have stated ,others like what cardfan expressed too. The fact is that we can now since 1950 choose from the world instead of the white males of the americas.
spin it and twist it anyway you like
Please stop saying "we can choose from the World population." Yes we CAN choose from the world population, but we never get anyone from there. The only relevant regions are the U.S., and a select few latin countries! You are sounding like Pud Selig. Plus, my comparison is based from the 70's and 80's to the thinball era of now. THe 70's and 80's had the same population to chose from. What exactly are you missing here? Baseball isn't a world game, as Pud Selig wants you to believe.
Also please stop saying, "the more things change, the more they stay the same" Things have changed a lot, but the consisteny of in-era stats do stay very similar, if that is what you mean. But when you compare cross era's, there are vast things to consider, one of which is population, and as I have shown with the numbers....well.
Just re-read my post with the Brett/Thome comment as that puts it into perfect light.
As for the parks, yes that is a factor. In the 1980's Wrigley field, when measured up against all the parks in the league was the best hitters park in the league. Wrigley Field now, when measured up against all the parks in the league now leans more towards a pitchers park. Wrigley has not changed, but the other parks were either built smaller, or the fences were brought in. SO yes, parks have gotten smaller. That is something that affects the OPS. OPS+ takes that into account as it measure vs. the league average so that everybody gets weighted for that. OPS+ in addition to understanding the thin or tough competition narrows it down closer to the truth, and that is what I am showing here.
Question? How many European born players are in MLB? How many central Asian? How many African? Heck, how many Canadians ?
Did you know that from 1901-1930 there were 36 Canadian born, and 22 British Isles? That is more than now. Baseball has always taken some players from places other than the U.S. and the select latin countries, and that percentage isn't any different now.
Why are you fighting the truth so much?
I still ask, can I get some of that mothers milk from 1860 and from 1980 so I can bottle it and sell it to create the baseball player that can dominate like in no other time? Forget the milk from the baby boom years, that stuff doesn't work. I don't want it. Those players just can't cut it, even though there were millions more born to choose from.
Please stop saying "we can choose from the World population." Yes we CAN choose from the world population, but we never get anyone from there. The only relevant regions are the U.S., and a select few latin countries! You are sounding like Pud Selig. Plus, my comparison is based from the 70's and 80's to the thinball era of now. THe 70's and 80's had the same population to chose from. What exactly are you missing here? Baseball isn't a world game, as Pud Selig wants you to believe.
Also please stop saying, "the more things change, the more they stay the same" Things have changed a lot, but the consisteny of in-era stats do stay very similar, if that is what you mean. But when you compare cross era's, there are vast things to consider, one of which is population, and as I have shown with the numbers....well.
Just re-read my post with the Brett/Thome comment as that puts it into perfect light.
As for the parks, yes that is a factor. In the 1980's Wrigley field, when measured up against all the parks in the league was the best hitters park in the league. Wrigley Field now, when measured up against all the parks in the league now leans more towards a pitchers park. Wrigley has not changed, but the other parks were either built smaller, or the fences were brought in. SO yes, parks have gotten smaller. That is something that affects the OPS. OPS+ takes that into account as it measure vs. the league average so that everybody gets weighted for that. OPS+ in addition to understanding the thin or tough competition narrows it down closer to the truth, and that is what I am showing here.
Question? How many European born players are in MLB? How many central Asian? How many African? Heck, how many Canadians ?
Did you know that from 1901-1930 there were 36 Canadian born, and 22 British Isles? That is more than now. Baseball has always taken some players from places other than the U.S. and the select latin countries, and that percentage isn't any different now.
Why are you fighting the truth so much?
I still ask, can I get some of that mothers milk from 1860 and from 1980 so I can bottle it and sell it to create the baseball player that can dominate like in no other time? Forget the milk from the baby boom years, that stuff doesn't work. I don't want it. Those players just can't cut it, even though there were millions more born to choose from.
The whole debate was simply that pitchers were no better then triple A today and as usual we went off into multiple tangents. I dispute that pitching is any better or any worse then it ever was. it is not the sole cause of the exploding stats we see today. that is the crux of my debate.
the reasons why we had less power (or whatever you want to call it in the 1980's could be somthing that both of us never considered. It could be as simple as 20 or 30 guys that would have been superstars got sidetracked and never made it to the MLB. It could very well be moms milk too.
SD
Yes, good old Tommy Bond with a career 2.25 ERA over 2,779 innigs. I would take him any day over Pedro and his 2.71 ERA over 2,200+ innings. You like complete games? How about 294 of them for Bond! That is more than Maddux, Clemens, Unit, and Pedro all put together!! How about 36 shutouts for Bond?
TOMMY BOND! Better than Koufax, Seaver, Clemens, Maddux, Carlton, you name it! 2.25 career ERA! 294 complete games!! None of them can contend, because the more things change, the more they stay the same
what exactly are you trying to say? a better anology would be walter johnson/ clemens etc etc etc...yes the more things change in baseball the more they seem to stay the same.
your comment seems to bare out what i have been trying to say all along. I think you need to put that into context.
and your correct the more things change in baseball the more they seem to stay the same. batters get better, pitchers likewise do too.
its called evolution
to compare Tommy Bond's with koufax is just being silly. had koufax with his ability played during bonds era and against the batters of that era and there ability...i think you know what im saying.
and speaking of andrew jones where does he hail from?
huh?
Lets ignore the millions of extra men born to be of age in the 80's, compared to that of this era. Lets ignore that there were also four less teams to fill back then which meant stiffer competition. Ok. Ignore that.
OK. Go ahead and subtract the top 20 hitters from 2000 to be fair for the "20 that got sidetracked in 1985". Make the new league totals replacing those 20 guys with a league average player. Becasue those spots wouldn't be vacant... a replacement player would fill in. Go ahead and give me the new league slugging percentage, the new league OB%, and the new league HR per at bat numbers when you subtract 20 guys in 2000 who got sidetracked. Replace them with average players and tell me what the new league percentages look like. Forget all the population facts, and less team facts that are laid out. GO ahead and sidetrack those 20 and see what you come up with.
Then sidetrack those 20 guys now from 2000.
listen lets just bot agree to disagree before this goes off into another tangent.
sd
sheesh your much smarter then that
SD winpitcher, Tommy Bond was a pitcher....
no kidding!
Throw out the population facts, and player used facts. Stick to your guns now, and show me your case.
you say that tommy bonds is better then pedro?? yes?
just cuz of stats? across the yrs as if I am saying they are all equal? well pal that is exactly what i was NOT saying.
I simply state that during the 1920's the batters then, faced the pitching then, 'todays batters face todays pitchers.....is that making it clear?
you can't compare what tommy bonds woyuld do against todays batters.
as for the sidetracked thing i explained that above....i was just trying to show you that it is POSSIBLE that somthing totally off the wall contributed to the fact that during a specific time batters were not as good as pitchers or vice versa.
now do you understand?
I just do not believe all the statistical hog wash that you seem to crave.
SD
yes?
SD