OT: Bonds, Clemens, Sosa to be on HOF ballot

[glynparson]

Once again the most intelligent thought out post comes from Mr. Sloate.

PS 71 buc as a fellow Pirates fan I have always blamed Belinda, go back and watch he could have easily picked Bream off had he been paying attention that sloth was practically on third when Stan finally delivers the pitch.

[barrysloate]

Thanks Glyn. Once in a while I get lucky.

Scott- agreed that much of what goes on in the Hall is political. That's why I pay so little attention to it. It's why Maz gets in but Bonds will stay out. Now that's a joke.

[packs]

These era debates are so strange to me. There is no way today's players are better than the players of Ruth's era. That is not to say that Ruth played against ALL of the best players, but I would say the average major leaguer (in whatever league they played in) was better then. I'd say the average minor league player was better too.

When Ruth played the game EVERYONE in America played baseball. You had to beat out everyone to get a spot on a team. Now hardly anyone plays baseball. There are so many other sports. Today you only get the best baseball players on a baseball team. When Ruth played you had the best athletes in the country period on every baseball team you went against.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by packs

These era debates are so strange to me. There is no way today's players are better than the players of Ruth's era. That is not to say that Ruth played against ALL of the best players, but I would say the average major leaguer (in whatever league they played in) was better then. I'd say the average minor league player was better too.

When Ruth played the game EVERYONE in America played baseball. You had to beat out everyone to get a spot on a team. Now hardly anyone plays baseball. There are so many other sports. Today you only get the best baseball players on a baseball team. When Ruth played you had the best athletes in the country period on every baseball team you went against.

The athletes today are absolutely amazing physical specimens to the human body. The fundamentals in today's game are FAR superior than the days of Ruth, the talent level and playing ability. Just because more people played a sport, doesn't necessarily make it the better generation. Ruth played against the best of his era, and the players today are playing against the best of there era. There are far more in professional baseball than there were in Ruth's day, so I completely disagree with the minor league part as well.

You still need to beat out everyone to get a spot on a team. How often do you just walk up to a team and are automatically on it because no one tries out? Never.

[sycks22]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

The athletes today are absolutely amazing physical specimens to the human body. The fundamentals in today's game are FAR superior than the days of Ruth, the talent level and playing ability. Just because more people played a sport, doesn't necessarily make it the better generation. Ruth played against the best of his era, and the players today are playing against the best of there era. There are far more in professional baseball than there were in Ruth's day, so I completely disagree with the minor league part as well.

You still need to beat out everyone to get a spot on a team. How often do you just walk up to a team and are automatically on it because no one tries out? Never.

Physical specimens alright. Coffey, Colon are in top physical shape.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by sycks22

Physical specimens alright. Coffey, Colon are in top physical shape.

Did I say it was everyone, did I specifically just mention baseball? Have you seen Adrian Beltre, or most NBA and NFL players?

[Runscott]

There were plenty of players with long careers who probably had thoughts on the general skill level from one period to another. Most of what I heard the guys on the 'Glory of Their Times' cd say was that the modern players could probably play with the old-time players....no, the debate wasn't whether or not the old-timers could play with the modern generation.

There was also some mentioning of the '60s players being babies, pulling themselves out for any little injury. Funny, given that players from the '60s say the same thing about today's players. There certainly is a missing degree of toughness to today's players, despite easy access to conditioning, diet, etc., that the old guys didn't have.

[MW1]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/tur...-basebal,6581/

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by MW1

http://www.theonion.com/articles/tur...-basebal,6581/

Hilarious

[glynparson]

you are failing to count the large growth in population, particularly latino who do play baseball. combine this with the globilization of ther sport and the increase in training and scouting techniques and there is absolutely no way they were better ball players back then. I find this notion laughable. Today it is a 365 day a year job for ball players. not so back then when many needed to work second jobs. Athletes are better in every recordable sport why not in baseball?

[packs]

Todays best athletes don't play baseball. They play football and basketball. But in Ruth's era those athletes were playing baseball. Like I said, today is just the best baseball players on a team. In Ruth's era it was the best athletes in the country on a baseball team.

I don't agree with you guys at all. Baseball was just as much a 365 day a year sport back then. You had barnstorming tours, exhibition games, winter leagues, cuban leagues, baseball was at its highest point in its existence. All the same year round games you have now. Add that to the fact that baseball players today have to cheat to even come close to putting up the numbers guys like Ruth and Hornsby and Gehrig put up. And they did that against some of the greatest legends of the game. How can you say that when today's players cheat they still come up short but are better than past players? You would say its because competition has gotten better. I would say athleticism and skill level went down amongst baseball players. Not amongst athletes in general.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It is generally a fruitless exercise to compare players across too much separation of time. Suppose if you magically transported Barry Bonds back to the 20s and he was far better than Babe Ruth. So what, it doesn't undermine Ruth's achievements in any way, which can only be evaluated in the context of his time.

I think athletes do generally get better over time -- we have proof of this in the evolution of objective track and swimming records (among others) and I see no reason this wouldn't be true for other competitive sports. But that said, I don't think it matters.