Say Anything Blog

Your baseball analogy is apt.

Back when Bonds was tearing up baseball records he was often compared to Ruth, which is totally absurd.  Ruth dominated his era.  He hit more home runs than entire teams combined, and did it at a time when baseball fences were dozens of feet further from the plate on average, the ball was little more than a loosely knotted ball of rags covered with cowhide and Ruth’s training regime consisted of hot dogs, beer and nailing dames.

Bonds won his records with closer fences, the latest in equipment technology, juiced balls and steroids.

As for Carey and her #1 hits, I’m not sure that’s the best way to quantify an artist’s success.  I would think that overall album sales would be a better indicator, but at the end of the day who really cares?  Sure the Beatles have mass appeal, but that doesn’t mean you have to like them.  Every person is different.  Just because the Beatles sold more albums than everybody else doesn’t mean they’re the best.  The “best” is for every person to define for themselves.  Maybe, for some, it is Carey.  For others maybe its Big & Rich.

For me its Johnny Cash, but that’s mostly just because I have better taste than everybody else.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Grand Canyon like?

Shit---I’d say closer to Intergalactic space-like!

Alex Nunez wrote:

Comparing this accomplishment by Mariah Carey to those of Elvis and the Beatles is akin to comparing baseball stats from the 1950s to those of today. The guys of yesteryear did much more with far less. Today’s stats are positively gaudy by comparison, but the product is so watered down, they don’t mean nearly as much.

Very interesting post, by the way. I’m just a baseball nut.

I’m just a baseball nut.

Do you have a favorite baseball player from the 80’s? 90’s?

Did you ever collect baseball cards?

I was always partial to Ken Griffey Jr. for some reason. Started collecting cards in 1987. Only wish I would have taken better care of those ‘87 Topps. That year and particular brand is worth a pretty penny nowadays for a multitude of reasons; not the least of which is that it was a great year for soon-to-be-stars rookies. It wasn’t until ‘88 or ‘89 did I realize that I should strive to keep my cards in “near-mint” or the elusive “mint” condition.

I’m not much into baseball nowadays and haven’t been for a good 14 or so years. Was just wondering if you had a favorite player.

I’ve never been into baseball cards, but my favorite player by far is Sammy Sosa.

I started watching baseball in ‘96 (I was 11), and I immediately started following the Cubs--largely because their games were always on tv (WGN baby!).

So can you imagine how amazing the summer of 1998 was? My favorite team was defying all the odds and making a run for the playoffs while their best player was making a run for 61 homers--how does that happen? (Interestingly enough, my uncle--who did the most to get me into baseball--was from Boston, so he got to experience that miraculous 1967 team firsthand as a 13-year old.)

Pitching, more often than not, is uneven at best across the league save for a few teams who have the cash to buy the best. I buy that expansion doesn’t affect offense as much (look at Tampa), but I think it is evident (seat-of-the-pants observation) that pitching has suffered.

You’re right that pitching has suffered in baseball, but that’s the fault of juiced-up baseballs and smaller strike zones and stadiums--not expansion. If expansion really were hurting the quality of baseball players, it would hurt the quality of hitters as well. Of course, that hasn’t been the case; hitting statistics have exploded in recent years.

Thanks Dave, what I meant is that back in the day, the numbers were more pure (imo, of course)...guys like Mantle hit tape-measure bombs regularly in stadiums where the fences were far deeper than what you have today (Camden Yards? I mean, it’s a gorgeous place to see a game, but come on, it’s a pinball machine). They also did it wothout the aid of specialty supplements, designer “juice”, and the professional strength training available today. I also still factor in expansion despite the interesting stat you point out. Pitching, more often than not, is uneven at best across the league save for a few teams who have the cash to buy the best. I buy that expansion doesn’t affect offense as much (look at Tampa), but I think it is evident (seat-of-the-pants observation) that pitching has suffered.

Lik, as for my fave, it’s Donnie Baseball. Jersey #23 is one that we Yankee fans hold very dear. Of the guys playing today, I love Jeter because he is so clutch. Carl Crawford is also a super player, in my opinion. Pitching-wise, Mariano Rivera is the best there is as far as I’m concerned.

Boston Sucks!

to comparing baseball stats from the 1950s to those of today. The guys of yesteryear did much more with far less. Today’s stats are positively gaudy by comparison, but the product is so watered down, they don’t mean nearly as much.  Cross-posted to Say Anything .

Another argument against baseball being “diluted” is the expansion of the talent pool through international scouting. As the number of teams have increased there have also been major efforts afoot to bring in talent from other parts of the world. Asia, most notably.

Absolutely. In 1940, Major League Baseball’s talent pool was limited almost exclusively to white Americans. Since then, not only has the overall population of America more than doubled, but we’ve seen dramatic increases in participation in foreign countries. Rob noted Asia, and Hispanics now make up 30% of the MLB population. The talent pool hasn’t been diluted at all. Major League Baseball could expand to 60 teams overnight without experiencing a drop in quality compared to MLB in 1950.

Another argument against baseball being “diluted” is the expansion of the talent pool through international scouting.  As the number of teams have increased there have also been major efforts afoot to bring in talent from other parts of the world.  Asia, most notably.

As for my favorite ballplayer...I’ve always been partial to Ruth.  I know, cliche, but the man fascinates me.

Of course, the whole reason I love baseball (and the reason why I’m a Yankees fan) is because of Gary Cooper’s portrayl of Lou Gehrig in Pride of the Yankees.

I still get emotional during the farewell speech.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

The talent pool hasn’t been diluted at all. Major League Baseball could expand to 60 teams overnight without experiencing a drop in quality compared to MLB in 1950.

Actually, here you’re wrong.  Such massive expansion would dillute the talent pool considerably.  In fact, stats show that every time baseball has expanded the talent pool in certain positions (pitching, most noticeably) decreases.  The decrease is usually negligible and evens out within a season or two, but it is there.  A drastic increase in the number of teams would badly deplete the talent pool.

There are some very talented players in the international leagues, but nothing compares to playing in the bigs here in the U.S.  It takes time to prepare a player, physically and mentally, not to mention compensate for different playing styles internationally.

As far as a drop in talent compared to 1950, maybe you have a point, but then it is a different game now.  I’m not a fan of comparing the sport across that long of a timeline (see my Bonds/Ruth example above).

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I should have explained myself better.

If we wanted to keep our quality of talent the exact same as it was in 1950, to keep up with population changes (and scouting changes) we’d have to expand to 50-60 teams. That’s what I was trying to establish. With only 30 right now, we have a much higher quality of players.

In fact, stats show that every time baseball has expanded the talent pool in certain positions (pitching, most noticeably) decreases. The decrease is usually negligible and evens out within a season or two, but it is there.

You’re right; I mean, it’s not just a coincidence that every single home-run record has come within 3 years of expansion (with McGwire’s and Maris’s coming in expansion years). I’d have to leave the “why” for that (and for why it balances out in a few years) to Stephen Jay Gould, however.

I knew what you were getting at, Dave, I was just trying to clarify things.  And keep this discussion going.  I love talking baseball.  I’ve thought about starting a baseball blog just for the hell of it, but I think it would kill me trying to keep both that and SA updated.

I think the expansion year home run records are pretty easy to explain.  When teams expand the overall quality of pitching goes down.  This is because pitching is a highly specialized talent.  There has rarely been a pitcher who has been able to come into the leage and pitch effectively, or at least up to his potential, in the first year.  Yet expansion often forces pitchers into the league, and into important spots of the rotation/bullpen, before they are ready.

Plus, more teams typically means more games.  This means more at-bats and more games pitched for the pitchers.  It makes a difference.  That was especially true in Maris’ case with the whole asterisk thing.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs: