Ahhh! Articles by bloggers on the internets, one of whom summarizes his blog entry by saying "I'm not advocating that Ty wasn't a racist. Merely a racist who mirrored his origins. Which is not an acceptable excuse.". I am waiting on pins and needles to see what references you will point to in regard to your theory that blacks not being able to compete against Cobb didn't matter. Let me guess that dynamic duo Goebbels and Fritzsche?
He played in a more competitive era in my opinion and he led his teams to 6 World Series, and shined during the post-season where it counts. An amazing accomplishment for a non-Yankee.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Personal life aside, admittedly this is hard because everyone likes to be a critic especially on internet forums, it is pretty clear that Cobb statistically was the better ballplayer.
Rose is the all time hit leader but also the all time outs leader as well.
Matt Looking for post-war hof rc's, raw or graded. Successful dealings: grote15, wilkiebaby11, BPorter26 and gregmo32.
<< <i>I wonder about these statements about Rose playing in a better league.
I guess my question is major league baseball a better league in 2014 then it was in 1970 ?
If so, then was baseball a better league in 1970 then let's say 1946 ?
Or was baseball better in 1946 then it was in 1910 ?
Just wondering. >>
I don't know about 2014 vs. 1970, but it has been widely accepted that pre-integration baseball was a less competitive period than post-integration baseball. Imagine if every team today could only field white players? How deep in our minor league system would our clubs need to go? AAA? AA? A? Probably AA or single A ball.
It looks like roughly 38% of players today are minorities. If 38% of major league baseball players today were replaced by white minor league players, how much less competitive would the league be? A heck of a lot. All of this is excluding modern day work out routines and practice methods. Players today are better than they were 100 years ago - they throw faster, hit harder and run faster than before.
There are are also more than twice as many teams today than there were in Cobb's era. Expansion, smaller ballparks and the lowering of the mound (see 1968 Bob Gibson) have all favored hitters.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>There are are also more than twice as many teams today than there were in Cobb's era. Expansion, smaller ballparks and the lowering of the mound (see 1968 Bob Gibson) have all favored hitters. >>
If hitters have an advantage today, than why hasn't anyone hit 400 since the 40's?
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Could you imagine what Pete Rose's WAR would have been if every time he faced Bob Gibson, Juan Marichal or any other minority it was replaced with a white minor league player?
<< <i>There are are also more than twice as many teams today than there were in Cobb's era. Expansion, smaller ballparks and the lowering of the mound (see 1968 Bob Gibson) have all favored hitters. >>
If hitters have an advantage today, than why hasn't anyone hit 400 since the 40's? >>
There hasn't been anyone as good as Ted Williams. Though Gwynn was close and Brett too (to hitting. 400, that is).
League BA is higher now though as well as league ERA which are the true indicators.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Why is that everyone that thinks older ball players like Ruth would only be fat and slow in today's game never concede that today's players would be in the same shape as him then. They wouldn't have the advantages like the training of today then. That argument to me is just a wash. The simple fact is Ruth dominated the sport like no one else has for a longer period than anyone else since. When another player comes along and throws as many lifetime shutouts as P.martinez and OBPS+ of 200 year after year at the plate I'll accept that he was an out of shape slob argument. Cobb dominated his era, Rose although great just isn't close.
I was responding to garnett"s post about batting. 400 since the 40s, not the dead ball era.
Both league BA and ERA are hugher now than that point (or since they lowered the mound, for that matter).
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Would Ruth be much slower than Cecil Fielder, David Ortiz, Miguel Cabrera, Boog Powell, Greg Luzinski, Dmitri Young, Prince Fielder, Carlton Fisk, Johnny Bench, Harmon Killebrew, or any of the Molina brothers ? >>
Most of those people would not be allowed on the field to compete back then, so, it would be impossible to know the answer.
If your only argument is the segregation one that's pretty weak in my opinion. The fact that the league is twice as large now cancels that out in my opinion. It sucked that men where kept out that clearly belonged but you could also say that the best athletes normally played baseball then, no NFL no NBa etc
<< <i>Not to change the subject, but I guess I am.
I find it interesting how left handed hitters have always had the best life time batting averages in their era.
Tony Gwynn, Rod Carew, and Wade Boggs lead the way for their "era".
Ted Williams led the way for his "era".
Ty Cobb leads the way for his "era".
BTW, I have no problem if anyone says that Ted Williams was the greatest hitter of all time. Part of me believes he was. >>
I'd agree with that. Cobb is definitely in top 5, though, if not top 3.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Lol can we get off segregation already for every Willie Mays there was a Cho cho Colman and a Dave Pope etc! Not every Negro league ball played was Josh Gibson
<< <i>Lol can we get off segregation already for every Willie Mays there was a Cho cho Colman and a Dave Pope etc! Not every Negro league ball played was Josh Gibson >>
Is this serious? So if the league was still segregated today and only white players took the field, would the league be more competitive or less?
The highest career batting average in baseball history at .367. Comparing the Cobb to Rose is like comparing apples to oranges.
Cobb was arguably the greatest and most feared player to ever play the game. He brought an extreme intensity to the game never seen before. He stole home plate 54 times in his career!
Whatever I plainly stated that there where plenty of men that played in that era that clearly belonged. If they where there the league would have obviously been better. Go ahead and make it about racism or whatever. The years of 50'60's are called the golden years for a reason the best players where in baseball with fewer teams equals better competition. Don't make something outta nothing. I've led and been led by every race of man on this earth in a combat environment I clearly know that it's what's inside the skin that matters. Ruth and whoever facing another great arm or two on each staff of 7 other teams isn't gonna cause him to hit 305 instead of 342.
The "expansion of MLB diluted the talent pool" explanation just doesn't hold any water. There may have been fewer teams back in the early 1900's, but the population the country was much smaller then. By the time Rose played, not only was the US almost three times as large, but there was another 25 million in other parts of the world who had the opportunity to participate. When Rose started in 1963, there were 20 teams, 10 in each league. In 1969, four teams were added for a total of 24. The additional 8 teams (only 16 teams in Cobb's era) would have combined to add 200 additional players into the league. Those players would have been drawn from a pool of roughly 100 million more men. I would argue that even with the additional teams, the talent and skill level in the league by the 1960's and 1970's was far superior to that of the era of 1900-1920.
That comment had nothing to do with racism. Go ahead and make that out to be that. I clearly stated that plenty of great ball players were kept out. If allowed to play of course the league would have been better. There's a reason the fifties and sixties are called the golden era, fewer teams, integrated ball equals best competition. Do you really think another great arm or two on 7 other teams causes Ruth to hit 305 instead of 340? Today there are twice as many teams kinda thins the herd a bit. Please don't assume to know a persons character via a post on a message board that's kinda idiotic don't you think
I don't disagree totally with your post because I think its a valid point but my only retort there is that most kids then grew up throwing a baseball not a football or bouncing a basketball. Today some of your best players are probably lost to other sports.
<< <i>That comment had nothing to do with racism. Go ahead and make that out to be that. I clearly stated that plenty of great ball players were kept out. If allowed to play of course the league would have been better. There's a reason the fifties and sixties are called the golden era, fewer teams, integrated ball equals best competition. Do you really think another great arm or two on 7 other teams causes Ruth to hit 305 instead of 340? Today there are twice as many teams kinda thins the herd a bit. Please don't assume to know a persons character via a post on a message board that's kinda idiotic don't you think >>
No one is calling you racist or claiming your opinion on the matter is racist (I'm certainly not anyway).
What I am saying is that minorities make up 38% of the league today. That's not just "another great arm or two" that's the difference between the majors and minors. 38% of the pitcher's Ty Cobb faced would have been in the minor leagues if the league was integrated at the same level as it was today. That's not the difference of a couple ticks on the batting average, that's the difference between batting .400 and batting .350 or .325.
This isn't even taking into account what PSASAP commented on!
I don't disagree totally with your post because I think its a valid point but my only retort there is that most kids then grew up throwing a baseball not a football or bouncing a basketball. Today some of your best players are probably lost to other sports. >>
Exactly. There is also no question that expansion has diluted the talent pool. There are more than 100 players in the league now that wouldnt have had a job 20 years ago. That's common sense.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
There is another factor. Big strong athletes played baseball in Cobb's time. If an athlete was capable of playing in the major leagues (and was not discriminated against), he did. How many great athletes now play football and basketball professionally that might have been MLB players in another era? Btw, I think Cobb was generally a racist towards the human race, not any minority in particular. There were plenty of Caucasians that he despised as much or more than anyone else.
I agree (like I posted) that integration would have resulted in better play but taking into account other factors also like more roster spots today etc I simply believe there are just as many players that DONT belong today as would have then with integration. For my money the best overall era was the late 40's to the early sixties. Also I apolagize for the rant I was amp'd up at the time on a pre workout. I can see how it could come across wrong after I re read it.
Baseball at the turn of the century was played by HARD men. They may not have been chemically enhanced or lived in a weight room but they generally were laborers in the off season that where as roughed as they came then. Watch old film reels off guys going into second or taking a fastball to the back they played every game like there jobs were at stake generally because they where. I tend to think the greats of any era given the same conditions and lifestyle could excel regardless.
<< <i>I agree (like I posted) that integration would have resulted in better play but taking into account other factors also like more roster spots today etc I simply believe there are just as many players that DONT belong today as would have then with integration. >>
I can agree with this to an extent, but if minorities make up 30-40% of the baseball talent pool that means 30-40% of white players during the dead ball era were minor league level players who were only in the league due to integration. The amount of teams is irrelevant because the talent per roster spot ratio during the 1910's was actually smaller than it was during the 1960's due to population increases.
Once again my come back there is less and less of the population play the sport. At the turn of the century baseball was the undisputed king. Most kids wanted to be Cobb or lajoie. Today there's a huge percentage of young boys that don't like baseball. I hate that fact but I think its true. I mean sure Ruth beat up on some bums but it's not like Trout ain't getting a boost hitting against the Astros and rangers this year! That happens in every era to some extent.
Ill also make the argument that if you were forced to have a white league and a negro leagues today the latter would be hard to fill. Back then baseball was just played more I think. Ok just to make sure that's taken right...... Not hard to fill due to talent... But lack of interest.
<< <i>Tim, you really think that fat slob Ruth would have been able to keep up with today's well conditioned athletes? >>
Ruth was actually in good shape for much of his career. >>
Yeah? So then why did he have to drop down to a 40oz bat from the 54oz bat he used when he first started. Because he became a fat out of shape slob!
The man was a freak of nature:
After thinking back to my playing days, it seems that when it came to batting, about the only thing I gave particular attention to, was the bat itself. Blessed with strength, two good eyes, and, I guess, a pretty fair share of natural ability for baseball, the bat was the one other thing I needed, and it had to feel right.
Since I gave bats quite a bit of thought, you might profit from an account of my experiences and the opinion they left with me.
In my first three years as a fielder, following five or six years of pitching, I used bats 36 inches long and anywhere from 40 to 54 ounces in weight. I then began experimenting with the length, and found out what I should have known all along, that I could do better with a shorter bat. So I switched to 35 inches and sometimes slightly less in the twelve or thirteen years that followed.
I continued to use heavy bats, though, and never went to anything lighter than 40 ounces until my last two years, when it dropped to 37 and 38 ounces.
Going to the shorter bat was one of my best moves, and I have wondered many times since why any player would bother with swinging a stick an inch or two longer than was absolutely necessary.
My idea on weight is that you should use a bat as heavy as you can handle. If you can swing a bat weighing, say, 38 ounces as fast as one weighing 35 ounces, you're bound to get a longer hit. What's more, you get real solid timber in the heavier bats, and that, too, adds to driving power.
I learned recently that according to the records of Hillerich & Bradsby, who made every bat I ever used, more Louisville Sluggers were made up for my personal use than for any other single player. That no doubt is true. However, compared with most other players I really broke very few, all because mine were heavier and could stand a whole lot more punishment. I gave away dozens of bats each season to friends as souvenirs.
As I have said, bats were always important to me, and it is no wonder that I like to recommend Louisville Sluggers every chance I get. Every hit and every hitting record to my credit speaks for the oval Slugger trademark.
I hope someday to get around to writing for you other things I learned about batting, both from the mound and at the plate."
Exactly. There is also no question that expansion has diluted the talent pool. There are more than 100 players in the league now that wouldnt have had a job 20 years ago. That's common sense.
That argument would only make sense if the population was static. However, not only is the population growing, but new markets have opened up that heretofore did not exist. How many pitchers from Asia in MLB were there 25 years ago? The answer is none. And while there are certainly players in other sports who could conceivably have played MLB if they had chosen to focus on the sport, that is more than compensated by the influx of talent from other countries.
<< <i>Exactly. There is also no question that expansion has diluted the talent pool. There are more than 100 players in the league now that wouldnt have had a job 20 years ago. That's common sense.
That argument would only make sense if the population was static. However, not only is the population growing, but new markets have opened up that heretofore did not exist. How many pitchers from Asia in MLB were there 25 years ago? The answer is none. And while there are certainly players in other sports who could conceivably have played MLB if they had chosen to focus on the sport, that is more than compensated by the influx of talent from other countries. >>
That is not really accurate. There are only about 15-18 Asian players in MLB at any given time, most of whom are mediocre at best. That in no way offsets the talent dilution of 125 additional players brought on by expansion over the past 20 years.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>I do wonder about those 54 steals of home Cobb had.
Some would say that pitchers and catchers were inept.
Others would say that the same eye he had for hitting the baseball was also used to judge wind ups, throws, and his anticipatory skills were the greatest the game ever had. >>
Pitchers routinely stayed in full windup back then with guys on third. You see it even now on occasion with the bases loaded. It's not like guys were throwing from the set and Cobb was stealing home anyway.
<< <i>That is not really accurate. There are only about 15-18 Asian players in MLB at any given time, most of whom are mediocre at best. That in no way offsets the talent dilution of 125 additional players brought on by expansion over the past 20 years. >>
The 125 additional players is met with the roughly 60 million new people in the country. The league has been expanding slower than the talent pool creating a much more competitive environment.
Comments
<< <i>Ty Cobb
Commissioner Landis said no to blacks, Cobb said yes. >>
Ahhh! Articles by bloggers on the internets, one of whom summarizes his blog entry by saying "I'm not advocating that Ty wasn't a racist. Merely a racist who mirrored his origins. Which is not an acceptable excuse.". I am waiting on pins and needles to see what references you will point to in regard to your theory that blacks not being able to compete against Cobb didn't matter. Let me guess that dynamic duo Goebbels and Fritzsche?
Kiss me twice.....let's party.
He played in a more competitive era in my opinion and he led his teams to 6 World Series, and shined during the post-season where it counts. An amazing accomplishment for a non-Yankee.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Rose is the all time hit leader but also the all time outs leader as well.
Looking for post-war hof rc's, raw or graded.
Successful dealings: grote15, wilkiebaby11, BPorter26 and gregmo32.
<< <i>I wonder about these statements about Rose playing in a better league.
I guess my question is major league baseball a better league in 2014 then it was in 1970 ?
If so, then was baseball a better league in 1970 then let's say 1946 ?
Or was baseball better in 1946 then it was in 1910 ?
Just wondering. >>
I don't know about 2014 vs. 1970, but it has been widely accepted that pre-integration baseball was a less competitive period than post-integration baseball. Imagine if every team today could only field white players? How deep in our minor league system would our clubs need to go? AAA? AA? A? Probably AA or single A ball.
It looks like roughly 38% of players today are minorities. If 38% of major league baseball players today were replaced by white minor league players, how much less competitive would the league be? A heck of a lot. All of this is excluding modern day work out routines and practice methods. Players today are better than they were 100 years ago - they throw faster, hit harder and run faster than before.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>There are are also more than twice as many teams today than there were in Cobb's era. Expansion, smaller ballparks and the lowering of the mound (see 1968 Bob Gibson) have all favored hitters. >>
If hitters have an advantage today, than why hasn't anyone hit 400 since the 40's?
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>
<< <i>There are are also more than twice as many teams today than there were in Cobb's era. Expansion, smaller ballparks and the lowering of the mound (see 1968 Bob Gibson) have all favored hitters. >>
If hitters have an advantage today, than why hasn't anyone hit 400 since the 40's? >>
There hasn't been anyone as good as Ted Williams.
League BA is higher now though as well as league ERA which are the true indicators.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>League BA is higher now though as well as league ERA which are the true indicators. >>
League batting average is down compared to the dead ball era. Heck, in 1921, the league batting average was .291 compared to .252 today!
Link
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>
<< <i>League BA is higher now though as well as league ERA which are the true indicators. >>
League batting average is down compared to the dead ball era. Heck, in 1921, the league batting average was .291 compared to .252 today!
Link >>
I was responding to garnett"s post about batting. 400 since the 40s, not the dead ball era.
Both league BA and ERA are hugher now than that point (or since they lowered the mound, for that matter).
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Would Ruth be much slower than Cecil Fielder, David Ortiz, Miguel Cabrera, Boog Powell, Greg Luzinski, Dmitri Young, Prince Fielder,
Carlton Fisk, Johnny Bench, Harmon Killebrew, or any of the Molina brothers ? >>
Most of those people would not be allowed on the field to compete back then, so, it would be impossible to know the answer.
<< <i>Not to change the subject, but I guess I am.
I find it interesting how left handed hitters have always had the best life time batting averages in their era.
Tony Gwynn, Rod Carew, and Wade Boggs lead the way for their "era".
Ted Williams led the way for his "era".
Ty Cobb leads the way for his "era".
BTW, I have no problem if anyone says that Ted Williams was the greatest hitter of all time. Part of me believes he was. >>
I'd agree with that. Cobb is definitely in top 5, though, if not top 3.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Pick: ROSE
He played in a more competitive era in my opinion and he led his teams to 6 World Series, and shined during the post-season where it counts. >>
As Ted Williams proved, no matter how good you are, you will never win a World Series without very good teammates. Having very good teammates is luck.
<< <i>Lol can we get off segregation already for every Willie Mays there was a Cho cho Colman and a Dave Pope etc! Not every Negro league ball played was Josh Gibson >>
Is this serious? So if the league was still segregated today and only white players took the field, would the league be more competitive or less?
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
The highest career batting average in baseball history at .367. Comparing the Cobb to Rose is like comparing apples to oranges.
Cobb was arguably the greatest and most feared player to ever play the game. He brought an extreme intensity to the game never seen before. He stole home plate 54 times in his career!
I don't disagree totally with your post because I think its a valid point but my only retort there is that most kids then grew up throwing a baseball not a football or bouncing a basketball. Today some of your best players are probably lost to other sports.
<< <i>That comment had nothing to do with racism. Go ahead and make that out to be that. I clearly stated that plenty of great ball players were kept out. If allowed to play of course the league would have been better. There's a reason the fifties and sixties are called the golden era, fewer teams, integrated ball equals best competition. Do you really think another great arm or two on 7 other teams causes Ruth to hit 305 instead of 340? Today there are twice as many teams kinda thins the herd a bit. Please don't assume to know a persons character via a post on a message board that's kinda idiotic don't you think >>
No one is calling you racist or claiming your opinion on the matter is racist (I'm certainly not anyway).
What I am saying is that minorities make up 38% of the league today. That's not just "another great arm or two" that's the difference between the majors and minors. 38% of the pitcher's Ty Cobb faced would have been in the minor leagues if the league was integrated at the same level as it was today. That's not the difference of a couple ticks on the batting average, that's the difference between batting .400 and batting .350 or .325.
This isn't even taking into account what PSASAP commented on!
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>PSAASP,
I don't disagree totally with your post because I think its a valid point but my only retort there is that most kids then grew up throwing a baseball not a football or bouncing a basketball. Today some of your best players are probably lost to other sports. >>
Exactly. There is also no question that expansion has diluted the talent pool. There are more than 100 players in the league now that wouldnt have had a job 20 years ago. That's common sense.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I agree (like I posted) that integration would have resulted in better play but taking into account other factors also like more roster spots today etc I simply believe there are just as many players that DONT belong today as would have then with integration. For my money the best overall era was the late 40's to the early sixties. Also I apolagize for the rant I was amp'd up at the time on a pre workout. I can see how it could come across wrong after I re read it.
<< <i>I agree (like I posted) that integration would have resulted in better play but taking into account other factors also like more roster spots today etc I simply believe there are just as many players that DONT belong today as would have then with integration. >>
I can agree with this to an extent, but if minorities make up 30-40% of the baseball talent pool that means 30-40% of white players during the dead ball era were minor league level players who were only in the league due to integration. The amount of teams is irrelevant because the talent per roster spot ratio during the 1910's was actually smaller than it was during the 1960's due to population increases.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>Tim, you really think that fat slob Ruth would have been able to keep up with today's well conditioned athletes? >>
Ruth was actually in good shape for much of his career. During his best season - 1921 - he looked like this:
<< <i>
<< <i>Tim, you really think that fat slob Ruth would have been able to keep up with today's well conditioned athletes? >>
Ruth was actually in good shape for much of his career. >>
Yeah? So then why did he have to drop down to a 40oz bat from the 54oz bat he used when he first started. Because he became a fat out of shape slob!
The man was a freak of nature:
After thinking back to my playing days, it seems that when it came to batting, about the only thing I gave particular attention to, was the bat itself. Blessed with strength, two good eyes, and, I guess, a pretty fair share of natural ability for baseball, the bat was the one other thing I needed, and it had to feel right.
Since I gave bats quite a bit of thought, you might profit from an account of my experiences and the opinion they left with me.
In my first three years as a fielder, following five or six years of pitching, I used bats 36 inches long and anywhere from 40 to 54 ounces in weight. I then began experimenting with the length, and found out what I should have known all along, that I could do better with a shorter bat. So I switched to 35 inches and sometimes slightly less in the twelve or thirteen years that followed.
I continued to use heavy bats, though, and never went to anything lighter than 40 ounces until my last two years, when it dropped to 37 and 38 ounces.
Going to the shorter bat was one of my best moves, and I have wondered many times since why any player would bother with swinging a stick an inch or two longer than was absolutely necessary.
My idea on weight is that you should use a bat as heavy as you can handle. If you can swing a bat weighing, say, 38 ounces as fast as one weighing 35 ounces, you're bound to get a longer hit. What's more, you get real solid timber in the heavier bats, and that, too, adds to driving power.
I learned recently that according to the records of Hillerich & Bradsby, who made every bat I ever used, more Louisville Sluggers were made up for my personal use than for any other single player. That no doubt is true. However, compared with most other players I really broke very few, all because mine were heavier and could stand a whole lot more punishment. I gave away dozens of bats each season to friends as souvenirs.
As I have said, bats were always important to me, and it is no wonder that I like to recommend Louisville Sluggers every chance I get. Every hit and every hitting record to my credit speaks for the oval Slugger trademark.
I hope someday to get around to writing for you other things I learned about batting, both from the mound and at the plate."
That argument would only make sense if the population was static. However, not only is the population growing, but new markets have opened up that heretofore did not exist. How many pitchers from Asia in MLB were there 25 years ago? The answer is none. And while there are certainly players in other sports who could conceivably have played MLB if they had chosen to focus on the sport, that is more than compensated by the influx of talent from other countries.
<< <i>Exactly. There is also no question that expansion has diluted the talent pool. There are more than 100 players in the league now that wouldnt have had a job 20 years ago. That's common sense.
That argument would only make sense if the population was static. However, not only is the population growing, but new markets have opened up that heretofore did not exist. How many pitchers from Asia in MLB were there 25 years ago? The answer is none. And while there are certainly players in other sports who could conceivably have played MLB if they had chosen to focus on the sport, that is more than compensated by the influx of talent from other countries. >>
That is not really accurate. There are only about 15-18 Asian players in MLB at any given time, most of whom are mediocre at best. That in no way offsets the talent dilution of 125 additional players brought on by expansion over the past 20 years.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>I do wonder about those 54 steals of home Cobb had.
Some would say that pitchers and catchers were inept.
Others would say that the same eye he had for hitting the baseball was also used to judge wind ups, throws, and his anticipatory skills
were the greatest the game ever had. >>
Pitchers routinely stayed in full windup back then with guys on third. You see it even now on occasion with the bases loaded. It's not like guys were throwing from the set and Cobb was stealing home anyway.
<< <i>That is not really accurate. There are only about 15-18 Asian players in MLB at any given time, most of whom are mediocre at best. That in no way offsets the talent dilution of 125 additional players brought on by expansion over the past 20 years. >>
The 125 additional players is met with the roughly 60 million new people in the country. The league has been expanding slower than the talent pool creating a much more competitive environment.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss