Posted on 05/08/2006 1:59:10 PM PDT by PerConPat
Of course they would have been different, possibly even better. They were however impacted by the existence of a professional league of athletes unable to compete with the "Rest of the Best" because of the color of their skin.
Gretsky's numbers would have been affected as well if there had been a similar league in existence.
My point being both Ruth and Bond's numbers stand as whole for the era they were produced. Segregation/Steroids.
If you think Bond's is the only athlete using or having used them in today's athletic enviroment your nuts.
It's as pervasive as Beer and Hotdogs.
Therefore, in my opinion, there is no * necessary.
Josh Gibson never pitched to Babe Ruth or the 27' Yankees for that matter. Maybe Josh Gibson wouldn't have been as great either. We will never know.
"but the numbers speak for themselves." So right.
Ruth 2503 games, at bats 8398, B avg 342, HR 714 life time
Bonds 2730 games, at bats 9140, B avg 300, HR 708 as of 2005
Barry, what's taking you so long?
"Stick with putting down Barry Bonds, where it's deserved. You are not an expert on the Negro League."
But I bet you are?
The crack of a bat? WTF does THAT mean? Where did YOU hear this "crack"? YOU heard Ruths bat? Gibsons? Or are you repeating lore? That's what I thought.
Baseball is a game of STATS. Stats flow from performance. Babe Ruth in the negro leagues would have been an unstoppable force due to the fact that the people around him were for the most part minor league caliber.
Plenty of blacks got screwed out of big league careers. I am also willing to assume that the level of ability and raw talent among those blacks was a jot or two higher than it would be if you tried to assemble an all black league today BUT they played The Game and in doing so they did what they did and and THOSE facts speak.
And oh yeah: Don't tell people what they can comment on and what they can't comment on ESPECIALLY if the basis of your argument otherwise doesn't actually contain a fact.
"*"
Exactly!
If the poster is referring to specific black pitchers who were demonstrably better than the ML pitchers of the day, it's a valid point.
NOW you know what's really in those hot dogs!
Oh so you are merely citing facts? You don't cite facts, you are expressing opinion.
You don't know the caliber of players in the Negro League. I don't have to be an expert on the league. The FACT that they were prevented from competing for a position in the majors doesn't mean they were "for the most part minor league caliber."
You should spend some time applying your own concept of facts to yourself before you indicate opinion as such.
The sound of the bat was an eyewitness report cited on a Bob Costas show on HBO. The fact according to the witness was that only Josh Gibson and Ruth created the same sound when they hit the ball.
That's their fact.
I think that is Ruth's real advantage - nobody else could ever have hit 714 home runs with a constant blood alcohol level over .08. ;)
"You don't cite facts, you are expressing opinion.
You don't know the caliber of players in the Negro League"
I don't know the caliber of INDIVIDUAL players but I know the caliber of the group: THAT is a constant (unless you regard blacks as racially superior to all others)
At 9 or 10% of the population at the time, the number who would have made it into the majors IS VANISHINGLY SMALL!
That's a fact, friend whether YOU admit it or not.
As for that 'crack of the bat' rubbish that you admit to me is lore: I'll take an audio clip of any such sound (since I work with pro audio) and change your perception of its heft, volume, density and force simply by altering the distance from the source and the size of the "soundstage" the number of people present as well as a host of other variables. CONVERSLEY I'll make two totally different bat sounds the same in perception. These variables all obtain in real life with ALL of the things we hear every day INCLUDING the crack of bats.
But then that's all pretty time consuming since the two players in question have STATS--there, there's that word again.
I'm not your friend and your opinions are not fact in regards to the Negro League.
You don't appear to cite your attendance at numerous games in the Negro League and your statistical attempt to dismiss them in total is ludicrous.
Your logic on both counts is a sham. You don't even have measure of the caliber of opinion, yours of which you seem to believe is fact.
It most certainly is not.
You don't appear to cite your attendance at numerous games in the Negro League and your statistical attempt to dismiss them in total is ludicrous. {HERE WOULD BE WHERE YOU WOULD STATE WHY YOUR ASSERTION IS TRUE}???????
"Your logic on both counts is a sham." [HERE WOULD BE WHERE YOU WOULD STATE HOW OR WHY THIS IS SO]??????
You don't even have measure of the caliber of opinion, yours of which you seem to believe is fact." [I CAN'T EVEN BEGIN TO UDERSTAND WHAT THIS NONESENSE MEANS OR WAS INTENDED TO MEAN]
You have a big mouth but nothing comes out.
You have romanticized the underdog for so long you can't stand the truth when you see it.
If you hold that what I have written is WRONG then the natural inference is that blacks are genetically superior to other races. I don't buy this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.