80's VS 90's Baseball. Decade apart, seems like 50.

TheThrill

I would first like to say thanks to all on this board. I have enjoyed posting here. I have enjoyed the responses to my topics. Great group! So I was just wondering what all of you who are interested think.

First of all, I graduated High school in 1989. I dont know if it's just me, but I have always felt a special "bond" with that decade. Since I was old enough to play any kind of organized baseball, my heroes were from the 80's. A few from the 70's as well. But the rookies of the 80's are my favs. Something about watching these guys first at bats, season after season, milestone after milestone, and now in the Hall Of Fame or on their way. Thats so cool I think.

From 1980 to 1990, the game was pretty consistant. Simply put, .300 Avg, 30+ Homeruns, 100 R.B.I.
That was an All-Star and then some. That used to make a player.

Batting titles were won with .325 to .350+ Avg by Boggs or Gwynn on a regular bases. that Avg still holds today.

Homerun hitters were always around 40, R.B.I.'s around 120, but their Avg's were .270, .280, not much higher than that. Tons of strike outs. 40-45 Homers won the Homerun title 9 out of 10 times. Sometimes less.

That was the trade off for those tape measure shots. And it was totally excepted. Thats the way it was.

Base stealers were stealing bases like it was going out of style. Henderson would steal 130, Raines was WAY behind stealing 80. Amazing number for being a not close in 2nd place! Vince Coleman was awesome.

Now the 90's. Manny Ramirez, Chipper Jones, Frank Thomas, Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds, A-Rod, Larry Walker, Albert Belle, Juan Gonzalez, Jeff Bagwell, Griffey Jr, Todd Helton. Anyone of these guys could hit for a Boggs like Avg, Cecil Fielder power, R.B.I.'s of Mattingly. All in one season.

What happened? When Cecil hit 51, It was amazing. Brady Anderson? 50? Luis Gonzalez 57? What?....

Anyone look at Albert Belles numbers from 1990 to 1999? How the hell did that just happen in a decade.
Same with Helton, Ramirez, Thomas, Sosa.

Thats why I miss the 80's. Hitters were hitters, Power had it's price, and .300 Avg, 36 Homers, 125 R.B.I. was a stud.

I miss the base stealers. They all had flare, you knew they were going. Still couldnt stop them.

Anybody else.

Estil

Want to do an analysis on how card collecting was 80s vs 90s? That'd be interesting too.

TheThrill

Your so right! No grading companies. Just your eyes made the call.

I can remember it like yesterday.

If you had a "Mint" 84 Donruss Mattingly, 86 Donruss Canseco, 87 Fleer Clark and Bo Jackson. You were a "Top Notch Collector"

Kids would treat you like a rock star. Shops that had these had kids drooling at the counter. Trying to figure out how many years it would take to save their allowance for that Canseco Rookie that booked for $125 in 1989 Beckett.

Estil

I was kinda hoping for a more detailed analysis like you did with the sport of baseball. Now, I only started to seriously collect in the mid-90s, but here's how it was then:

1. There was no such thing as the Internet or Ebay as we know it. The only cards you could get were at your local store, or through mail-order catelogs.

2. In hindsight, I liked how back then there was a good variety of sets but at least it was kept within somewhat reason. But even back then people complained (as early as 1992!!!) about there being too many sets in a year.

3. In the 2000s, it's all about getting jersey, cut signature, and/or 1/1 cards. In the 1990s it was insertmaina but even back then people complained about how quickly they went from the Hottest thing out there (remember when Beckett did Hot and Cold capitalized to match their Hot/Cold lists?) to being yesterday's news. Of course, as you all know I'm using that fact to my advantage.

4. In the 1990s, Beckett was about the only price guide you ever saw used. I don't even know what price guides are used today, if any at all.

5. And back then there were still 12-15 cards a pack and you could still find packs for less than $2 (and there were still a few $1 packs). Do <$2 packs or even 12-15 card packs even exist anymore?

6. As proud as I am of what my collection is so far (about 65,000 cards, all sets), it was compiled mainly through Ebay/Internet and was LOT cheaper than what it used to go for back when the lack of Internet made the supply look MUCH smaller than it really was. Of course, the fact I don't even collect anything from this decade (besides the regular Topps sets) might have something to do with that...

Well, I guess that's more 1990s vs. 2000s. But what about 1980s vs 1990s for those who collected in the 80s?

BobaFett72

i like the 80's early 90's because you could make good money on cards without worrying about plastic coffins. You had real relationships with customers and face to face transactions, honest transactions were key to repeat business. I love ebay, but it killed a lot of shops and card shows.

They players in the 80's weren't doing steroids they were sniffing coke lol..

DeutscherGeist

During the 80s, I was a kid with a good eye. Card shops did not like me because I look at the condition of the card before buying. There was no where else to buy but the local card shop and shows were out of reach since I could not drive then. Now with the grading companies, I have the last laugh because of all those cards dealers tried to sell me as MINT was really junk and PSA vindicated me. I collected quite a few clean cards that today are PSA gradeable. I was told several times that I was being unrealistic about condition or too focused on it--LOL, last laugh is mine.

I have done one PSA submission so far, but the results were promising. There were 4 four cards which I thought could get a 10, but for sure a PSA 9. One did come back a PSA 10. Not a bad ratio.

TomGshotput

Baseball in the 1980s featured as many paradoxes and as much diversity in style as any sport in history

Bery Blyleven threw 24 complete games one year, while the one-inning relief specialist was created

The first full decade of free-agency, which grew every year, yet the Royals and Twins were winning World Series'

First decade since the 1910s that no hitter reached 50 homeruns, but homeruns were being hit more often than ever

Perhaps the second best player in a whole league for the entire decade -- Dale Murphy -- wasn't even good enough for the Hall-of-Fame

For some reason 1987 has been the biggest offensive anomoly ever

TheThrill

Good call on Dale Murphy!!!!

He was a total BADA**!!!!

Great Glove!
Awesome Power!
R.B.I.'s Big Time.
Alway's up for the M.V.P.

Funny thing is back then 500 Homerun Club was much more respected back then. Not that it is easy now. But back then it was a LOCK for the Hall. A HUGE feat. I still beleive it is a HUGE feat, but it's getting easier every decade or so now.

Dale Murphy, Darryl Strawberry, were the next future club members. Everyone just knew they were going to Cooperstown. Remember those day's?

RedHeart54

The speed on the basepaths has definitely dwindled over the last 10 years. By that I mean base stealing has become a lost art. Sure, there are a few speedsters left but I wonder if managers believe stealing bases is too risky a strategy now, especially when a team has three or four power hitters who can move runners along with one swing.

Yes, it was exciting when guys like Rickey, Willie Randolph, Tim Raines, Willie Wilson, and most of the 1985 Cardinals (Smith, Coleman, McGee, etc) got on base. You could only imagine what was going through a pitcher's mind.


As far as collecting back then, I have fond memories of going to card shows and shops nearly every weekend. It seems I'd come home with a huge stack of cards every time. I too was very picky about condition, alas, I probably pi$$ed off a lot of dealers when they couldn't convince me that their off-centered and chipped '87 Donruss Bo Jackson rookies were "mint".

stitzen

Baseball, really more than any other sport, sees these changes happen in cycles.

It seems you think that somehow the power numbers, especially by people no associated with home runs, took away from the sport. Would you say Roger Maris, hitting 61 home runs, when he never hit over 40 before or after, somehow diminished the game? Base stealing was never really a wide spread tool, but there were a handful of players from the early 60s to the mid 80s, but there weren't a ton of players stealing tons of bases...before that run, look at the league leaders in SB, they look to be very, very similar to the leaders of the past few years.

TheThrill

Maris did hit 61.

Brady Anderson was a 20 homer at best guy.

Luis Gonzalez was a 20 homer guy, sometimes 30.

Maris hit 61 in 1961. 45 years ago. .

Sosa, Mcgwire, Bonds did it 6 times. Mcgwire had 58 between 2 teams. Thats in a ten year span.

Maris was a lefty, in Yankee staduim. Very favorable.

In other words, 60+ was common for a period of time. Uncommon for the last 45 years.

Since baseball is well over 100 years old. It still uses a wooden bat, and a baseball. Same rules, same concept. And yes I know the ball did change. Point is that something happened. That is plain as day.

So yes, I think something is wrong. Just wondered what others think on that.

And yes, it does take away from the game for me. I had the priviledge to meet and talk with many 500 homerun club members. Not at card shows for autographs. I work for a large corporation that does yearly golf tourny's. Mays, Killabrew, McCovey, Banks, Jackson, Murray ect...

Maybe just short conversations, or a few questions. But I get the feeling they feel the same way. Some just shook their heads and smiled. Some said "those boys must be eating real good or something".

That told me they knew something was wrong.

stitzen

<< <i>Maris did hit 61. >>



And hit no more than 39 in any other season...one year aberrations of home runs are nothing new...



<< <i>Brady Anderson was a 20 homer at best guy.

Luis Gonzalez was a 20 homer guy, sometimes 30.

Maris hit 61 in 1961. 45 years ago. . >>



And your point is? I can (and have) gone back through the years and found all sorts of weird one year spurts like that.



<< <i>Sosa, Mcgwire, Bonds did it 6 times. Mcgwire had 58 between 2 teams. Thats in a ten year span. >>



And your point is? What are you trying to say?



<< <i>Maris was a lefty, in Yankee staduim. Very favorable. >>



And yet he only hit more than 39 once, when he blasted 61 which was a huge aberration....if it was about his being a left in a favorable situation, he'd have done a lot more damage.



<< <i>In other words, 60+ was common for a period of time. Uncommon for the last 45 years. >>



You have a great deal more players playing now, and you have players who know more about nutrition, strength, and scouting of pitchers than ever - of course scoring is up.

Since baseball is well over 100 years old. It still uses a wooden bat, and a baseball. Same rules, same concept. And yes I know the ball did change. Point is that something ha

<< <i>ppened. That is plain as day.

So yes, I think something is wrong. Just wondered what others think on that. >>



They aren't the same rules...the pitcher's mound is different...the parks are smaller...the bats are much, much lighter, the players in much better shape.



<< <i>And yes, it does take away from the game for me. I had the priviledge to meet and talk with many 500 homerun club members. Not at card shows for autographs. I work for a large corporation that does yearly golf tourny's. Mays, Killabrew, McCovey, Banks, Jackson, Murray ect...

Maybe just short conversations, or a few questions. But I get the feeling they feel the same way. Some just shook their heads and smiled. Some said "those boys must be eating real good or something".

That told me they knew something was wrong. >>



They knew something was wrong? Yet they didn't stand up and say anything? They 'knew' something was amiss and did *nothing*? If that is the case, then they are as responsible for misleading us as those who allegedly did steroids and HGH, they are accomplices to crimes against baseball. If they knew something was wrong and they allowed baseball's consumers to be misled, then how are they any less responsible? They are accomplices and should be held as accountable as those who we accuse of taking illegal substances.

grote15

If they knew something was wrong and they allowed baseball's consumers to be misled, then how are they any less responsible? They are accomplices and should be held as accountable as those who we accuse of taking illegal substances.


Really, that seems to be an extreme accusation. After all, many of these players have no real involvement anymore in the game of baseball, and unless MLB is willing to seriously tackle this issue (which they have yet to do, IMO), why should a retired ballplayer be expected to say anything different, for the record, or to the media, at least.

stitzen

How so? If, as he says, they 'knew something was wrong', then how can they not be held accountable for not coming forward and saying something was wrong? Why did they not seek an audience with Congress and come forward with what they 'knew'?

Seems like a lot of sour grapes to me...they see these guys hitting bombs, getting paid truckloads of cash, and are mad its not them.

grote15

How so? If, as he says, they 'knew something was wrong', then how can they not be held accountable for not coming forward and saying something was wrong? Why did they not seek an audience with Congress and come forward with what they 'knew'?

Problem there, though, is that even if they "knew something was wrong," (of course, unless these players are actively involved in MLB, there really isn't any way they can "know" for sure, anyway), it would be irresponsible, without any direct knowledge of the facts, to accuse or name specific players for using steroids. In short, it shouldn't be the responsibility of retired ballplayers to make these kinds of accusations in the first place. That doesn't mean, though, that these guys aren't entitled to opionions on the subject like any other fan.

stitzen

Willie McCovey isn't connected to the game, isn't connected to the Giants? Same with Mays?

Ernie Banks isn't Mr. Cub?

Come on, many of these guys are still deeply, deeply connected to the game...and if they are making offhand comments to random people (thrill stated these interactions were less than 15 minutes) that there was definitely something going on, then they are saying it to everyone.

If they honestly felt something was amiss in the game, and truly wanted to protect the game, do you honestly think that they would have no power if they were to stand up before Congress and testify?

grote15

If they honestly felt something was amiss in the game, and truly wanted to protect the game, do you honestly think that they would have no power if they were to stand up before Congress and testify?

Well, if Congress calls them up to Capitol Hill to testify under oath, then yes, that may be true, but again, you can't expect players who have been away from the game for X number of years to volunteer information about active players using steroids. That would be irresponsible, and mere speculation. The responsibility lies with MLB, not with Mr. Cub.

stitzen

But if they are going around telling random people that there is something wrong, then they have a responsibility to either divulge what they know or stop making these accusations.

grote15

But if they are going around telling random people that there is something wrong, then they have a responsibility to either divulge what they know or stop making these accusations.

Source?

stitzen

<< <i> But if they are going around telling random people that there is something wrong, then they have a responsibility to either divulge what they know or stop making these accusations.

Source? >>



Read 'thethrill's' comments:



<< <i> I had the priviledge to meet and talk with many 500 homerun club members. Not at card shows for autographs. I work for a large corporation that does yearly golf tourny's. Mays, Killabrew, McCovey, Banks, Jackson, Murray ect...

Maybe just short conversations, or a few questions. But I get the feeling they feel the same way. Some just shook their heads and smiled. Some said "those boys must be eating real good or something".

That told me they knew something was wrong. >>

grote15

<< But if they are going around telling random people that there is something wrong, then they have a responsibility to either divulge what they know or stop making these accusations.

Source? >>



Read 'thethrill's' comments:



<< I had the priviledge to meet and talk with many 500 homerun club members. Not at card shows for autographs. I work for a large corporation that does yearly golf tourny's. Mays, Killabrew, McCovey, Banks, Jackson, Murray ect...

Maybe just short conversations, or a few questions. But I get the feeling they feel the same way. Some just shook their heads and smiled. Some said "those boys must be eating real good or something".

That told me they knew something was wrong. >>

C'mon Ax, you must be kidding, right? That's your source?

TheThrill

They didnt make random accusations. A smile with a nod is not proof, or anything like it. If they are just bitter, than so be it. They didnt testify for me. Some of these guys dont know what the hell HGH is. they take Viagra. Wake up 5 times a night to take a piss.

They are just old ballplayers from a very different time.

When I raced BMX as a kid, tabletops were cool. Now Moto cross riders do double back flips.

Sometimes knowing is not the same as KNOWING.

stitzen

My source? What are you talking about?

This entire discussion devolved because he was saying that these players of the 90s were somehow inferior that they must have cheated....and he had these discussions with these old timers who 'knew' something was amiss. I simply was trying to call him out and say if that was the case, then these old timers were as guilty as those who have had allegations of cheating put at their feet.

grote15

My source? What are you talking about?

This entire discussion devolved because he was saying that these players of the 90s were somehow inferior that they must have cheated....and he had these discussions with these old timers who 'knew' something was amiss. I simply was trying to call him out and say if that was the case, then these old timers were as guilty as those who have had allegations of cheating put at their feet.

You really do try to sit & spin, don't you, AX? I don't doubt that these players said what they said to Thrill and that they feel the way they do about the juicers playing ball today. These guys, ex-ballplayers or not, have every right to express their opinion, as private citizens. And to suggest that they cannot do so unless they are willing to testify to Congress is just ludicrous, even for you, Ax.

stitzen

Let's theorize that these ex-ballplayers have, in fact, on many occasions, made these types of remarks to all sorts of random people and have personal knowledge said cheating exists.

How are they not accomplices then to the cheating that has occurred? How is their silence any less damning than the silence of someone who has knowledge of a robbery?

If there is indeed widespread knowledge of cheating among these ex-players, they are then being hypocritical in damning those who have cheated while they themselves remain silent, and reap the benefits of the rebounding of baseball's glory and spotlight.

grote15

If there is indeed widespread knowledge of cheating among these ex-players,

There is no way to prove such knowledge exists, though, and that is why it would be incredibly irresponsible for anyone without direct knowledge of the facts to make such accusations. (You, Ax, of all people, a champion of the liberal left, should appreciate that standard.) Unless the former player is a member of the front office or involved in the day to day activity of a club, there is no way we should expect these retired players to provide the public, and MLB, for that matter, with anything but rumors, innuendo and/or personal opinion.

ziggy29

<< <i>4. In the 1990s, Beckett was about the only price guide you ever saw used. >>

And in the 2000s, Beckett is the guy you want out there to pitch a Game 7.

How times have changed!