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.
Rob - 01:12pm on 12/23/2005
Grand Canyon like?
Shit---I’d say closer to Intergalactic space-like!
Don Myers - 01:12pm on 12/23/2005
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.
How is baseball “watered down” today? If you’re talking about expansion, you’re wrong, as the proportion of teams to population has stayed the same since 1950 (and this doesn’t factor in the dramatic increase in Latin American and Asian players). So did you mean something else by that comment?
Very interesting post, by the way. I’m just a baseball nut.
Dave - 02:12pm on 12/23/2005
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.
likwidshoe - 02:12pm on 12/23/2005
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.)
Dave - 03:12pm on 12/23/2005
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.
Dave - 03:12pm on 12/23/2005
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!
Alex Nunez - 03:12pm on 12/23/2005
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 .
The Noonz Wire - 06:12pm on 12/23/2005
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.
Dave - 08:12pm on 12/27/2005
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.
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.
Grand Canyon like?
Shit---I’d say closer to Intergalactic space-like!
Alex Nunez wrote:
How is baseball “watered down” today? If you’re talking about expansion, you’re wrong, as the proportion of teams to population has stayed the same since 1950 (and this doesn’t factor in the dramatic increase in Latin American and Asian players). So did you mean something else by that comment?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.)
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 .
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.