Barry Bonds would have hit 616 HR's w/out roids.

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: NYHoustonman

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: CKDragon

I don't have anything scientific in front of me here, but is there a resource that shows pitch speed over the years? I'd imagine that there weren't as many guys throwing in the high-90s as there are now. Granted, speed isn't everything to a pitcher, but that would be just one aspect of many that has improved in today's hurlers.

CK

To counter the pitch speed argument, you can say that players hit the ball farther and into the more remote areas as a result of the pitches coming in faster.

The difference between a fastball being a mistake pitch hit a mile and a decent pitch fouled away can be just a few mph. I think we can all agree that the faster the pitch, generally the harder it is to hit. IMO, the mere fact that, even with all of the conditioning we have today, pitchers can't even come close to 300 IP or numbers like that, and that there are still constant arm injuries, shows that pitchers today at the very least throw a lot harder a lot more often. A young pitcher who takes great care of his body and uses modern methods and tries to throw 280 innings is likely to blow out his arm.

I'm not arguing that pitchers today don't throw harder, I'm arguing that because of the fact that pitchers of the older eras threw slower, it resulted in there being less offensive production across the board. Even thought it is harder to hit, when you do hit the ball, there's a greater chance of it being hit into a place where it's uncatchable or unfieldable, resulting in a higher chance of it being a hit or resulting in a run.

 

[NYHoustonman]

Originally posted by: Tom
CK-

Why were there more no-hitters back then ? Wasn't the average ERA quite a bit lower too ?

And how is it possible to measure speed of pitches before radar ?

With all due respect to all the players who played back then, as has been mentioned numerous times in this thread, with the kind of treatment we have these days for athletes it is inevitable that they are only getting better... And that goes for hitters as well as pitchers.

 

[Shlong]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Imagine how many HR's Ted Williams would have gotten if he didn't serve in WWII and Korea.

Ted Williams missed 5 full seasons. I would estimate he averages around 36HR over thoses 5 seasons (180) added to total: 701 HR.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/willite01.shtml

 

[crownjules]

Originally posted by: joshsquall
It's never been proven that Barry took steroids.

It's funny to me that people get in a pissy fit about Bonds, but nobody mentions Giambi, even though it's been proven that he took roids.

That's because Giambi fessed up (sorta), went through a rough year last year, and came back out on the other side still doing pretty well. And here I am, a Red Sox fan complimenting a Yankee. The world must be ending!

On the other hand, Bond has neither confirmed nor denied his useage. Ambiguity is usually a sign of guilt. If he was clean, he should have just stated it. But he left it for everyone to try and decided for themselves. And the logical conclusion is if you don't say something is that it's just as good as him saying yes. Probably worse, in fact. Taking the 5th can be detrimental.

 

[NYHoustonman]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: NYHoustonman

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: CKDragon

I don't have anything scientific in front of me here, but is there a resource that shows pitch speed over the years? I'd imagine that there weren't as many guys throwing in the high-90s as there are now. Granted, speed isn't everything to a pitcher, but that would be just one aspect of many that has improved in today's hurlers.

CK

To counter the pitch speed argument, you can say that players hit the ball farther and into the more remote areas as a result of the pitches coming in faster.

The difference between a fastball being a mistake pitch hit a mile and a decent pitch fouled away can be just a few mph. I think we can all agree that the faster the pitch, generally the harder it is to hit. IMO, the mere fact that, even with all of the conditioning we have today, pitchers can't even come close to 300 IP or numbers like that, and that there are still constant arm injuries, shows that pitchers today at the very least throw a lot harder a lot more often. A young pitcher who takes great care of his body and uses modern methods and tries to throw 280 innings is likely to blow out his arm.

I'm not arguing that pitchers today don't throw harder, I'm arguing that because of the fact that pitchers of the older eras threw slower, it resulted in there being less offensive production across the board. Even thought it is harder to hit, when you do hit the ball, there's a greater chance of it being hit into a place where it's uncatchable or unfieldable, resulting in a higher chance of it being a hit or resulting in a run.

And I would have to disagree. As CK alluded to, if that was the case, pitchers today wouldn't be striving to throw harder and harder; On the contrary, it'd be the 'in' thing to throw 80mph. IMO, ability to square the ball on the sweet part of the bat has more to do with how far the ball goes than the pitch speed - and it's easier to hit a slower pitch.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: NYHoustonman

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: NYHoustonman

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: CKDragon

I don't have anything scientific in front of me here, but is there a resource that shows pitch speed over the years? I'd imagine that there weren't as many guys throwing in the high-90s as there are now. Granted, speed isn't everything to a pitcher, but that would be just one aspect of many that has improved in today's hurlers.

CK

To counter the pitch speed argument, you can say that players hit the ball farther and into the more remote areas as a result of the pitches coming in faster.

The difference between a fastball being a mistake pitch hit a mile and a decent pitch fouled away can be just a few mph. I think we can all agree that the faster the pitch, generally the harder it is to hit. IMO, the mere fact that, even with all of the conditioning we have today, pitchers can't even come close to 300 IP or numbers like that, and that there are still constant arm injuries, shows that pitchers today at the very least throw a lot harder a lot more often. A young pitcher who takes great care of his body and uses modern methods and tries to throw 280 innings is likely to blow out his arm.

I'm not arguing that pitchers today don't throw harder, I'm arguing that because of the fact that pitchers of the older eras threw slower, it resulted in there being less offensive production across the board. Even thought it is harder to hit, when you do hit the ball, there's a greater chance of it being hit into a place where it's uncatchable or unfieldable, resulting in a higher chance of it being a hit or resulting in a run.

And I would have to disagree. As CK alluded to, if that was the case, pitchers today wouldn't be striving to throw harder and harder; On the contrary, it'd be the 'in' thing to throw 80mph. IMO, ability to square the ball on the sweet part of the bat has more to do with how far the ball goes than the pitch speed - and it's easier to hit a slower pitch.

And you're leaving one HUGE variable out. Hitters today versus hitters of yore. Hitters today have the ability to power balls, and to put them into spots based solely on their own strength and speed. Hitters back in the day didn't.

 

[JRich]

I liked Bonds when he played for the Pirates.

/Bonds

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Hank Aaron, Barry Bonds, Ted Williams, Willie Mays, Mark McGuire and many others would have hit a 1000 HR's if they faced the same caliber pitchers that Ruth did.

What makes you believe pitchers were so much worse back then

Red thinks that Cy Young wouldn't have reached 100 wins today, and that they should just rename the award the "Guy in the White Boy's Club who had it Easy" award. True story.

That is the funniest thing I've read here in a long time - mostly because it's so true.

You simply cannot put someone in a time machine to go play in another era, duh!

But let's imagine that we do, and let's also imagine that blacks were allowed to play in all sports back in the early portion of the century. Here's what would have to be considered:

1) the majority of great black atheletes would play basketball or football back then, same as today, so Bonds still would not have to compete against the majority of black atheletes.

2) Bonds would never be permitted to wear the elbow armor he has today (plays into #3).

3) Bonds would be knocked down with so many beanballs and brush-back pitches, there's no way he'd feel as comfortable in a batters box back then as he does today. Baseball was a more ruthless game back then (really, no pun intended, I just cannot think of a better way of saying that), if someone hits a homerun, someone else is likely getting hit by a pitch.

4) Bonds has a luxory today of the smallest strike zone in baseball. If Bonds played back then, the umps more than likely would not give him the benefit of the doubt on close pitches, meaning that he cannot sit and wait for pitches right down the middle of the plate.

5) Not as much was known back then concerning medicine, operations, nutrition, dietary suppliments, and the like - Bonds would not have been able to keep himself in top shape back then when turning 40 years old. His knee injuries would have put Bonds out of the game many years short of achieving 714 home runs if he played back in the era with Ruth.


And most importantly,

6) Greg Anderson hadn't been born for many years to come. There was no cream and certainly there was no clear for Bonds to pump himself up to mammoth sizes with.


So, I'd like to see an explaintion how one can so difinitely claim 1000+ homeruns hit by Barry Bonds if he played back then.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Hank Aaron, Barry Bonds, Ted Williams, Willie Mays, Mark McGuire and many others would have hit a 1000 HR's if they faced the same caliber pitchers that Ruth did.

What makes you believe pitchers were so much worse back then

Red thinks that Cy Young wouldn't have reached 100 wins today, and that they should just rename the award the "Guy in the White Boy's Club who had it Easy" award. True story.

That is the funniest thing I've read here in a long time - mostly because it's so true.

You simply cannot put someone in a time machine to go play in another era, duh!

But let's imagine that we do, and let's also imagine that blacks were allowed to play in all sports back in the early portion of the century. Here's what would have to be considered:

1) the majority of great black atheletes would play basketball or football back then, same as today, so Bonds still would not have to compete against the majority of black atheletes.

2) Bonds would never be permitted to wear the elbow armor he has today (plays into #3).

3) Bonds would be knocked down with so many beanballs and brush-back pitches, there's no way he'd feel as comfortable in a batters box back then as he does today. Baseball was a more ruthless game back then (really, no pun intended, I just cannot think of a better way of saying that), if someone hits a homerun, someone else is likely getting hit by a pitch.

4) Bonds has a luxory today of the smallest strike zone in baseball. If Bonds played back then, the umps more than likely would not give him the benefit of the doubt on close pitches, meaning that he cannot sit and wait for pitches right down the middle of the plate.

5) Not as much was known back then concerning medicine, operations, nutrition, dietary suppliments, and the like - Bonds would not have been able to keep himself in top shape back then when turning 40 years old. His knee injuries would have put Bonds out of the game many years short of achieving 714 home runs if he played back in the era with Ruth.


And most importantly,

6) Greg Anderson hadn't been born for many years to come. There was no cream and certainly there was no clear for Bonds to pump himself up to mammoth sizes with.


So, I'd like to see an explaintion how one can so difinitely claim 1000+ homeruns hit by Barry Bonds if he played back then.

Great post.

 

[NYHoustonman]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: NYHoustonman

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: NYHoustonman

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: CKDragon

I don't have anything scientific in front of me here, but is there a resource that shows pitch speed over the years? I'd imagine that there weren't as many guys throwing in the high-90s as there are now. Granted, speed isn't everything to a pitcher, but that would be just one aspect of many that has improved in today's hurlers.

CK

To counter the pitch speed argument, you can say that players hit the ball farther and into the more remote areas as a result of the pitches coming in faster.

The difference between a fastball being a mistake pitch hit a mile and a decent pitch fouled away can be just a few mph. I think we can all agree that the faster the pitch, generally the harder it is to hit. IMO, the mere fact that, even with all of the conditioning we have today, pitchers can't even come close to 300 IP or numbers like that, and that there are still constant arm injuries, shows that pitchers today at the very least throw a lot harder a lot more often. A young pitcher who takes great care of his body and uses modern methods and tries to throw 280 innings is likely to blow out his arm.

I'm not arguing that pitchers today don't throw harder, I'm arguing that because of the fact that pitchers of the older eras threw slower, it resulted in there being less offensive production across the board. Even thought it is harder to hit, when you do hit the ball, there's a greater chance of it being hit into a place where it's uncatchable or unfieldable, resulting in a higher chance of it being a hit or resulting in a run.

And I would have to disagree. As CK alluded to, if that was the case, pitchers today wouldn't be striving to throw harder and harder; On the contrary, it'd be the 'in' thing to throw 80mph. IMO, ability to square the ball on the sweet part of the bat has more to do with how far the ball goes than the pitch speed - and it's easier to hit a slower pitch.

And you're leaving one HUGE variable out. Hitters today versus hitters of yore. Hitters today have the ability to power balls, and to put them into spots based solely on their own strength and speed. Hitters back in the day didn't.

Hmmm, I'm guessing I misunderstood your original argument, I thought you were saying that the slower pitch speeds made older pitchers better :x.

 

[arcenite]

If I went and played baseball right now I could hit 800 homeruns no problem. In a single game.

 

[NYHoustonman]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Hank Aaron, Barry Bonds, Ted Williams, Willie Mays, Mark McGuire and many others would have hit a 1000 HR's if they faced the same caliber pitchers that Ruth did.

What makes you believe pitchers were so much worse back then

Red thinks that Cy Young wouldn't have reached 100 wins today, and that they should just rename the award the "Guy in the White Boy's Club who had it Easy" award. True story.

That is the funniest thing I've read here in a long time - mostly because it's so true.

You simply cannot put someone in a time machine to go play in another era, duh!

But let's imagine that we do, and let's also imagine that blacks were allowed to play in all sports back in the early portion of the century. Here's what would have to be considered:

1) the majority of great black atheletes would play basketball or football back then, same as today, so Bonds still would not have to compete against the majority of black atheletes.

2) Bonds would never be permitted to wear the elbow armor he has today (plays into #3).

3) Bonds would be knocked down with so many beanballs and brush-back pitches, there's no way he'd feel as comfortable in a batters box back then as he does today. Baseball was a more ruthless game back then (really, no pun intended, I just cannot think of a better way of saying that), if someone hits a homerun, someone else is likely getting hit by a pitch.

4) Bonds has a luxory today of the smallest strike zone in baseball. If Bonds played back then, the umps more than likely would not give him the benefit of the doubt on close pitches, meaning that he cannot sit and wait for pitches right down the middle of the plate.

5) Not as much was known back then concerning medicine, operations, nutrition, dietary suppliments, and the like - Bonds would not have been able to keep himself in top shape back then when turning 40 years old. His knee injuries would have put Bonds out of the game many years short of achieving 714 home runs if he played back in the era with Ruth.


And most importantly,

6) Greg Anderson hadn't been born for many years to come. There was no cream and certainly there was no clear for Bonds to pump himself up to mammoth sizes with.


So, I'd like to see an explaintion how one can so difinitely claim 1000+ homeruns hit by Barry Bonds if he played back then.

Great post.

if they faced the same caliber pitchers that Ruth did

He never said anything about Bonds playing back then :x.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: NYHoustonman

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Hank Aaron, Barry Bonds, Ted Williams, Willie Mays, Mark McGuire and many others would have hit a 1000 HR's if they faced the same caliber pitchers that Ruth did.

What makes you believe pitchers were so much worse back then

Red thinks that Cy Young wouldn't have reached 100 wins today, and that they should just rename the award the "Guy in the White Boy's Club who had it Easy" award. True story.

That is the funniest thing I've read here in a long time - mostly because it's so true.

You simply cannot put someone in a time machine to go play in another era, duh!

But let's imagine that we do, and let's also imagine that blacks were allowed to play in all sports back in the early portion of the century. Here's what would have to be considered:

1) the majority of great black atheletes would play basketball or football back then, same as today, so Bonds still would not have to compete against the majority of black atheletes.

2) Bonds would never be permitted to wear the elbow armor he has today (plays into #3).

3) Bonds would be knocked down with so many beanballs and brush-back pitches, there's no way he'd feel as comfortable in a batters box back then as he does today. Baseball was a more ruthless game back then (really, no pun intended, I just cannot think of a better way of saying that), if someone hits a homerun, someone else is likely getting hit by a pitch.

4) Bonds has a luxory today of the smallest strike zone in baseball. If Bonds played back then, the umps more than likely would not give him the benefit of the doubt on close pitches, meaning that he cannot sit and wait for pitches right down the middle of the plate.

5) Not as much was known back then concerning medicine, operations, nutrition, dietary suppliments, and the like - Bonds would not have been able to keep himself in top shape back then when turning 40 years old. His knee injuries would have put Bonds out of the game many years short of achieving 714 home runs if he played back in the era with Ruth.


And most importantly,

6) Greg Anderson hadn't been born for many years to come. There was no cream and certainly there was no clear for Bonds to pump himself up to mammoth sizes with.


So, I'd like to see an explaintion how one can so difinitely claim 1000+ homeruns hit by Barry Bonds if he played back then.

Great post.

if they faced the same caliber pitchers that Ruth did

He never said anything about Bonds playing back then :x.

Then it makes the statement even more ridiculous. If the pitchers were brought up into today's era, they'd be taken out immediately, or sent down to A or AA ball, and other position players would be brough in to pitch.

Cubby posts about the most logical and "realistic" scenario.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
1) the majority of great black atheletes would play basketball or football back then, same as today, so Bonds still would not have to compete against the majority of black atheletes.

the NBA didn't exist back then, and the NFL was still new. the way to support yourself through sports at the time was major league baseball. that's not to say that players didn't have offseason jobs back then (they did) but most likely athletes would have played baseball, black or white. i think this lemma of yours is completely off base.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: cubby1223
1) the majority of great black atheletes would play basketball or football back then, same as today, so Bonds still would not have to compete against the majority of black atheletes.

the NBA didn't exist back then, and the NFL was still new. the way to support yourself through sports at the time was major league baseball. that's not to say that players didn't have offseason jobs back then (they did) but most likely athletes would have played baseball, black or white. i think this lemma of yours is completely off base.

While that point may be off-base, if he played in the era, he'd be cleated, beat, beaned, and hurt so often he wouldn't last more than 5 years in the league.

 

[CKDragon]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: cubby1223
1) the majority of great black atheletes would play basketball or football back then, same as today, so Bonds still would not have to compete against the majority of black atheletes.

the NBA didn't exist back then, and the NFL was still new. the way to support yourself through sports at the time was major league baseball. that's not to say that players didn't have offseason jobs back then (they did) but most likely athletes would have played baseball, black or white. i think this lemma of yours is completely off base.

While that point may be off-base, if he played in the era, he'd be cleated, beat, beaned, and hurt so often he wouldn't last more than 5 years in the league.

And that's only by Ty Cobb. 🙂

 

[SludgeFactory]

that's kind of interesting, there are some holes in some of their analyses, but their end result is reasonable to me.

Just eyeballing his career numbers up through the late 90's and making my best guess about what would be a normal decline, I've kind of figured for a while that w/o the ~2000-2004 freakshow, his total would have been 600-650 HR.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: cubby1223
1) the majority of great black atheletes would play basketball or football back then, same as today, so Bonds still would not have to compete against the majority of black atheletes.

the NBA didn't exist back then, and the NFL was still new. the way to support yourself through sports at the time was major league baseball. that's not to say that players didn't have offseason jobs back then (they did) but most likely athletes would have played baseball, black or white. i think this lemma of yours is completely off base.

Well either way it's a slippery slope (arguing that player X would have been better in player Y's era) and pointless. One could just as easily argue that Cy Young would have been a modern day Pedro Martinez with modern training and medicine, it's pointless to argue. And Bonds, w/out his roids + modern training (around 6-1 195lbs), no way in hell he hits more HR's than Babe Ruth (6-2 215) in the
Dead Ball Era:

Between 1900 and 1920, there were 13 occasions when the league leader in home runs had fewer than 10 home runs for the season.

Before 1920, it was very common for a baseball to be in play for over 100 pitches, as in cricket. A ball would be used in a game until it was starting to unravel. The early baseball leagues were very cost-conscious, so fans would have to throw balls back that had been hit in the stands. The longer the ball was in use the softer it would become, and hitting a heavily-used, softer ball for distance is much more difficult than hitting a new, harder one. There is also the argument that the ball itself was softer to begin with, so it was harder to hit.

Another reason that the ball was hard to hit was because pitchers could basically do whatever they wanted to the ball. The spitball pitch was permitted in baseball until 1920. Pitchers often marked the ball or scuffed it or spit on it or anything else they wanted. This made the ball "dance" and curve much more than it does now, making it more difficult to hit. Tobacco juice was often added to the ball, which discolored it. This made the ball difficult to see, especially as baseball parks did not have lights until the late 1930s. Obviously, this too made hitting more difficult.

Ruth led the league in 1918 with 11 HR's in only 95 games played (one guy tied him at 11, then 8,6). In 1919 he hit 29 in 130 games played (the next 3 guys behind him hit 12,10,10 HR's). Furthermore, in 1916 he led the AL in ERA with 23 complete games and shutouts with 9. He wasn't the best pitcher of his era but was still pretty good. Bonds wouldn't have held a candle to Ruth in, or after the Dead Ball era.

Also, just because blacks/foreigners didn't play doesn't mean the talent wasn't good: there were less teams back then, 16 to be exact (vs 30 today) so the talent wasn't as diluted as it is today.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: NYHoustonman

Originally posted by: Tom
CK-

Why were there more no-hitters back then ? Wasn't the average ERA quite a bit lower too ?

And how is it possible to measure speed of pitches before radar ?

With all due respect to all the players who played back then, as has been mentioned numerous times in this thread, with the kind of treatment we have these days for athletes it is inevitable that they are only getting better... And that goes for hitters as well as pitchers.

I don't really agree with this assumption that is frequently brought up, but even if it's right it's meaningless because you either have to compare players in the same conditions. either put today's players back in the bygone era with it's training, or bring the old players forward and let them have the training advantages of today.

Otherwise you aren't comparing players at all, just medical science.