Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
Because of steroids, it is now impossible to say. Part of one's ranking on the Aall time lists is composed of how well the player sustained his excellence into the later years of his career. We are denied the true picture for Bonds and Clemens.
I don't understand why you think the above would be some sweeping settlement of the issue. One big complaint is that the cheaters have made it impossible to evaluate their actual merit places among all who have come before...and you propose to settle this by asking for the answer to the very question which their cheating has made impossible to answer.
Huh?
|
Okay then let me address the issue on your own terms:
Part 1. The age argument, the 180 degree departure from "roobing the cradle," that the likes of Bonds and Clemens have conspired to cheat the age regression, Markhov Chain, standard deviation crowd from a clear appreciation of their expected decrepitude, which conveniently fails to consider the larger picture of actuarial life expectancy [and reasonably, relative physical well-being] since the times of W. Johnson, Cobb, Ruth, Williams, etc.
It further fails to consider the fact that since at least 1960 MLB and its depths of talent can not be superimposed on 192os, '30s or '40s population census numbers, because baseball is competing more and more with football and basketball [the latter booming after the 1950s; the former always there, but also booming since Super Bowl 1]; soccer, the relative upstart, and individual sports that have become professionalized, with even amateur competitions carrying huge prize incentives. Expansion further dimiishes the depth of the talent pool; and most students of the game agree that pitching depth has suffered most.
Which segues indirectly into your complaint #2, which might be addressed to the detriment of Bonds' [and ALL other hitters'] side of the ledger:
-lowered mound;
-shrunken ballparks;
-individualized ump strike zones already shrunken from the TSW era letters or armpits to mid-lower knee;
.... and to the detriment of the pitchers' side in that, aside from the facts that coaches, fans, agents and front offices love long ball, the decline in overall batting skills, which I would personally argue may be traced to several factors, some having made both positive and negative contributions to the game:
-Little League, with early years of oversized "ringers" overpowering hitters and getting inflated confirmation that power is all on the mound;
-aluminum bats, convincing toddlers of their overwhelming bat speed and power, only to learn that wood makes a difference in bat speed and ball distance;
And yet, for all the sturm und drang and emotional moralizing, .260 seems to be the Black Hole of overall batting; 40 connotes power in the HR column; 20 is astounding wins; = < 3 BB/9 IP is decent control; < 4.00 is a solid ERA.
Of course the complete game and the shutout are vanishing because big, strong pitchers are wrapped in the protective bunting of pitch counts and 6 innings is indicative of mastery.
I also thought that extended [or any, for that matter] 'roid use was supposed to have, as a significant side effect, subjection to injury, which might be considered career shortening, for which neither Bonds nor Clemerns would be poster boys.