The Baseball Thread 2007

[Chalupa]

If Ichiro could just improve his vision and timing he could have 100 homers this year.

Alas.

[J Larsen]

Babe Ruth was fat, not muscular.

Right - he was such a weak lardass that the legend that he picked up a piano and threw it into a river was plausible in his own time.

Since strength has absolutely nothing to do with one's ability to hit homeruns the dimensions of little league parks obviously ought to be extended from 200 feet to 400 feet, since one's ability to hit a ball a far distance is entirely a matter of hand-eye coordination and has nothing to do with strength.

[Tim McG]

Babe Ruth was fat, not muscular.

Right - he was such a weak lardass that the legend that he picked up a piano and threw it into a river was plausible in his own time.

Since strength has absolutely nothing to do with one's ability to hit homeruns the dimensions of little league parks obviously ought to be extended from 200 feet to 400 feet, since one's ability to hit a ball a far distance is entirely a matter of hand-eye coordination and has nothing to do with strength.

Uh-huh.

And pitchers didn't throw split-finger fastballs or baseballs which reached 100 mph.

Ruth was in the baby stages of baseball.

Fat, smoking cigars and a boozer [illegal during Prohibition]...he would have made the single-A team of today's ballclub.

At best.

Edited April 30, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[J Larsen]

Babe Ruth was fat, not muscular.

Right - he was such a weak lardass that the legend that he picked up a piano and threw it into a river was plausible in his own time.

Since strength has absolutely nothing to do with one's ability to hit homeruns the dimensions of little league parks obviously ought to be extended from 200 feet to 400 feet, since one's ability to hit a ball a far distance is entirely a matter of hand-eye coordination and has nothing to do with strength.

Uh-huh.

And pitchers didn't throw split-finger fastballs or baseballs which reached 100 mph.

It's hard to say how fast a guy like Walter Johnson or Joe Woods threw, but it is generally believed to have been up there. Anyway, Ruth really DID suck, but ain't that a bait and switch?

[Tim McG]

Babe Ruth was fat, not muscular.

Right - he was such a weak lardass that the legend that he picked up a piano and threw it into a river was plausible in his own time.

Since strength has absolutely nothing to do with one's ability to hit homeruns the dimensions of little league parks obviously ought to be extended from 200 feet to 400 feet, since one's ability to hit a ball a far distance is entirely a matter of hand-eye coordination and has nothing to do with strength.

Uh-huh.

And pitchers didn't throw split-finger fastballs or baseballs which reached 100 mph.

It's hard to say how fast a guy like Walter Johnson or Joe Woods threw, but it is generally believed to have been up there. Anyway, Ruth really DID suck, but ain't that a bait and switch?

No.

It is the reality of today's baseball players vs. the 1920's.

There is no comparison.

[J Larsen]

But no one said any different - so it is a bait and switch.

[donald byrd 4 EVA]

apparently things have gone completely insane in the baseball thread during the course of my weekend trip to baja

[J Larsen]

Sorry, 'roid rage acting up again.

[Quincy]

This was to go in the "Your Claim To Fame" thread, but maybe it'd be better to post it here. More details than you want to know provided by the internet.

My claim to fame (ignoring "brushes with greatness") is I've (sort of) witnessed the birth of 2 franchises.

I was sick from school on April 7, 1977, but not too sick to grab an AM radio and tune into the Toronto Blue Jays first game. It snowed, Harry Carry announced and Doug Ault hit 2 home runs. I figured he'd go on to be a franchise cornerstone and All-Star.

Then on June 16th of '92 the first game by the Colorado Rockies organization was going to be played 115 miles away in Bend in a minor-league short season A game vs. the Boise Hawks. Seemed like a great excuse to head to the mountains with some friends and witness baseball history, or some silly semblance thereof.

Here's why the Rockies have sucked so as a franchise. The ceremonial first pitch battery was the CFO from Denver and some other suit/accountant type. Boo.

Nice little ballpark with a view of the mountains, and after seeing where players were hitting the balls I started to worry that I may have parked the car within range. (I had but lucky me no "hits," though a ball went through the windshield of a car just 4 away from mine.) The home team was down 4-1 in the bottom of the 8th when catcher Will Scalzitti hit a grand slam, and the Rockies won it 6-4. (I think the franchise used all of its miracle mojo that night.) The Colorado Rockies didn't start playing until the next year, so this was the first game in the franchise history.

I was most impressed by the tall RF Angel Echevarria and his 7 year career eerily equals almost a full season. If you forget his cozy home park for most of those at bats he even looks pretty good. 2 other future major leaguers in the park were Quinton McCracken and John Thomson but neither played, or at least Quinton didn't start. For short-season class A games, 3 future major leaguers (no matter what kind of career they have) is about the limit.

Edited April 30, 2007 by Quincy

[Matthew]

[Tim McG]

But no one said any different - so it is a bait and switch.

No, it is a valid point.

Look, you want to believe muscle mass makes you a great ballplayer, knock yourself out, OK?

I prefer to believe skill, talent and vision make you great....the HOF will prove me out, too.

Edited April 30, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[Aggie87]

I'm still baffled that you don't see how steroids increase muscle mass, which increases power, which can cause a hit ball that would normally just travel to the warning track to be able to go over the fence.

Barry might get into the HOF because he's a good ball player, but he's a cheater. There's no way to tell how many of his home runs wouldn't have been home runs if he hand't been taking steroids, but certainly a number of them would fall in this category.

He deserves an asterisk (hell, two asterisks) by any record with his name next to it.

[Tim McG]

I'm still baffled that you don't see how steroids increase muscle mass, which increases power, which can cause a hit ball that would normally just travel to the warning track to be able to go over the fence.

Barry might get into the HOF because he's a good ball player, but he's a cheater. There's no way to tell how many of his home runs wouldn't have been home runs if he hand't been taking steroids, but certainly a number of them would fall in this category.

He deserves an asterisk (hell, two asterisks) by any record with his name next to it.

I fully understand that.

What I can't understand is how anyone can equate that with the actuality of hitting HRs. If you can't see the ball you simply will not hit it....no matter how big you get. And truth to tell, the size of your arms will actually hinder your swing rather than help, so I still don't get all this adrennaline over steroids.

As to an asterisk, fine. Then I want every single ballplayer who ever held a record or has been enshrined in the HOF since 1960 to be investigated for steroids and given an astrisk as well. Otherwise, it is just plain foolishness.

[Quincy]

Given his political leanings my guess is he used Hunt's, not Heinz.

*Better add a here too. I don't think he used catsup or ketchup, though I do find the hubbub hilarious.

[Aggie87]

What I can't understand is how anyone can equate that with the actuality of hitting HRs. If you can't see the ball you simply will not hit it....no matter how big you get. And truth to tell, the size of your arms will actually hinder your swing rather than help, so I still don't get all this adrennaline over steroids.

Having good vision certainly contributes to being able to effectively hit a ball, whether it's a home run or a line drive or a bunt. Having good eye-hand coordination helps too. Bonds certainly has good vision and coordination. Those things aren't in question, and I don't understand why you keep harping on his vision.

Muscle mass increases power. That's where the steroid use is an issue. 99% of America believes Bonds' use of steroids contributed to him hitting some of those homeruns.

How many will never be known, so it's impossible to "dock him" any certain number of substance-assisted HR's. Since that can't be done, the easier solution is to give him a *.

[J Larsen]

But no one said any different - so it is a bait and switch.

No, it is a valid point.

Look, you want to believe muscle mass makes you a great ballplayer, knock yourself out, OK?

I prefer to believe skill, talent and vision make you great....the HOF will prove me out, too.

What are you, man? The Karl Rove of steroids? Your debate style is to respond to an obviously flawed argument that isn't being made!

Edited April 30, 2007 by J Larsen

[Soulstation1]

looks like the royals are on their way to 100 losses

[Dan Gould]

What I can't understand is how anyone can equate that with the actuality of hitting HRs. If you can't see the ball you simply will not hit it....no matter how big you get. And truth to tell, the size of your arms will actually hinder your swing rather than help, so I still don't get all this adrennaline over steroids.

Having good vision certainly contributes to being able to effectively hit a ball, whether it's a home run or a line drive or a bunt. Having good eye-hand coordination helps too. Bonds certainly has good vision and coordination. Those things aren't in question, and I don't understand why you keep harping on his vision.

Its an utterly false and deceptive argument from a fool who will say anything to defend the indefensible.

The simple fact is that ballplayers who make the majors already have superior vision and hand-eye coordination.

From the article I quoted from (and this destroys the fool's argument):

The issue isn't whether steroids will help you or me become a major league ballplayer; the issue is whether guys with the pre-existing skills to play professional baseball will have those skills enhanced. To deny that, among other things, you have to argue that strength has no impact on the ability to hit for power. Of course, this is ridiculous. Since the introduction of the home run as a regular part of the game in the 1920s, it has always been the case that big, strong guys with powerful chests and arms have tended to be home run hitters, and skinny little guys have not. To deny that steroids have an impact on hitting for power in particular, you have to look at all the home runs hit by the Gehrigs and Foxxes and Mantles and Kluzewskis and Killebrews and all the singles hit by the Willie McGees and Vince Colemans and Nellie Foxes of the world, and argue that it is just a coincidence that physical strength has always been so strongly correlated with home run power. You have to not only look at Bonds and Giambi and all the other guys who have been placed under one sort of cloud or other and say that whatever they took or were given didn't matter; you actually have to say that all the muscle Barry Bonds has added has had nothing to do with his power surge, that Jason Giambi's increased power production as he gained muscle was just a coincidence. Sorry, I'm not buying that.

As to his asinine claim about steroid use "from the 60s on" - there is simply no evidence of it. When steroids became available in the "60s", ballplayers:

A) typically had off-season jobs because salaries for most players were so low. Training in the offseason was minimal, and before the free agent era, players were more likely to work in the offseason than work out.

B) (and more importantly) strength training was to be avoided at all costs. Players and coaches were fearful of "lost flexibility" and becoming "muscle bound" and therefore losing their baseball skills.

C) unfortunately, by the late 80s, strength training did become popular. And has been the case since Ah-nold's day or before, access to steroids and using them is endemic to the gym culture. Once ballplayers started doing strength training, it was inevitable that steroid use would follow.

There is no evidence whatsoever that steroid use existed to any significant extent before this happened.

Edited April 30, 2007 by Dan Gould

[Tim McG]

What I can't understand is how anyone can equate that with the actuality of hitting HRs. If you can't see the ball you simply will not hit it....no matter how big you get. And truth to tell, the size of your arms will actually hinder your swing rather than help, so I still don't get all this adrennaline over steroids.

Having good vision certainly contributes to being able to effectively hit a ball, whether it's a home run or a line drive or a bunt. Having good eye-hand coordination helps too. Bonds certainly has good vision and coordination. Those things aren't in question, and I don't understand why you keep harping on his vision.

Muscle mass increases power. That's where the steroid use is an issue. 99% of America believes Bonds' use of steroids contributed to him hitting some of those homeruns.

How many will never be known, so it's impossible to "dock him" any certain number of substance-assisted HR's. Since that can't be done, the easier solution is to give him a *.

99%?

I seriously doubt that. Any time Bonds goes yard, home or away, the crowd errupts with applause and cheers. That doesn't sound like 99% of Americans believe much of anything about Bonds or they are at least ambivalent about it. They, like me, recognize history is being made each and every time he comes to bat.

Strength is a factor, but there again, you can have all the strength in the world, but it won't make you a HR hitter. It can't.

Steroids have been around since the Russians and Eastern Bloc Nations had their female athletes use them to get ready for the Olympics in the 60s. It is entirely possible they were used by American pros, as well. So if we're going to fire up on Bonds, then that makes everyone suspect. Otherwise, it kinda pointless, don't you think?

Edited April 30, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[Tim McG]

But no one said any different - so it is a bait and switch.

No, it is a valid point.

Look, you want to believe muscle mass makes you a great ballplayer, knock yourself out, OK?

I prefer to believe skill, talent and vision make you great....the HOF will prove me out, too.

What are you, man? The Karl Rove of steroids? Your debate style is to respond to an obviously flawed argument that isn't being made!

Speaking of baiting....

[Aggie87]

99%?

I seriously doubt that. Any time Bonds goes yard, home or away, the crowd errupts with applause and cheers. That doesn't sound like 99% of Americans believe much of anything about Bonds or they are at least ambivalent about it. They, like me, recognize history is being made each and every time he comes to bat.

I don't doubt that number. Maybe 97% or something, but it's up there. Take off your black-and-orange colored glasses. And I don't think the fans in other ballparks are errupting with applause or even ambivalent:

Strength is a factor, but there again, you can have all the strength in the world, but it won't make you a HR hitter. It can't.

He was a HR hitter to start with. Sure. No dispute there. Dude could hit the ball.

But he also used steroids. The steroids caused some of his hits that were only warning-track hits to become home runs, and artificially increased his numbers.

Steroids have been around since the Russians and Eastern Bloc Nations had their female athletes use them to get ready for the Olympics in the 60s. It is entirely possible they were used by American pros, as well. So if we're going to fire up on Bonds, then that makes everyone suspect. Otherwise, it kinda pointless, don't you think?

Irrelevant to the discussion on hand. That's more of the "bait and switch" thing you're doing.

Edited April 30, 2007 by Aggie87

[donald byrd 4 EVA]

[donald byrd 4 EVA]

bud selig sucks.

[Tim McG]

99%?

I seriously doubt that. Any time Bonds goes yard, home or away, the crowd errupts with applause and cheers. That doesn't sound like 99% of Americans believe much of anything about Bonds or they are at least ambivalent about it. They, like me, recognize history is being made each and every time he comes to bat.

I don't doubt that number. Maybe 97% or something, but it's up there. Take off your black-and-orange colored glasses. And I don't think the fans in other ballparks are errupting with applause or even ambivalent:

Strength is a factor, but there again, you can have all the strength in the world, but it won't make you a HR hitter. It can't.

He was a HR hitter to start with. Sure. No dispute there. Dude could hit the ball.

But he also used steroids. The steroids caused some of his hits that were only warning-track hits to become home runs, and artificially increased his numbers.

Steroids have been around since the Russians and Eastern Bloc Nations had their female athletes use them to get ready for the Olympics in the 60s. It is entirely possible they were used by American pros, as well. So if we're going to fire up on Bonds, then that makes everyone suspect. Otherwise, it kinda pointless, don't you think?

Irrelevant to the discussion on hand. That's more of the "bait and switch" thing you're doing.

You must put an awful lot of trust in the media, then.

Four pictures of less than 100 people total only proves there are a few misguided people out there looking for a photo op.

Maybe that's why you take upon face value hearsay as proof, I won't speculate.

[Dan Gould]

Can you believe this idiot, Aggie?

Apparently 40,000 individuals who boo their lungs out when Bonds comes to their home stadium is "hearsay" too.

Seriously, you need to drop this with this IQ challenged individual. Just wait until the Feds finally make their move, and then remind him how stupid he is. And pray that he doesn't get picked for Bonds' jury.