[vegascowboy]

I am having a bit of a shootout with a good friend of mine about baseball.

I will not tell you which side I'm on just yet.

He contends that a team has nothing to do with a player's greatness.

He says it is all the player.

I am speaking primarily historically. Did the Yankees, for example, contribute at all to George Herman Ruth's greatness? What of the Tigers to Ty Cobb?

I am very interested for this to become a lengthy discussion. Help me out, ladies and gents. I'd me much obliged.




BTW...why do we not have ANY BASEBALL smilies whatsoever?!

[SaulToPaul]

Originally Posted by vegascowboy

BTW...why do we not have ANY BASEBALL smilies whatsoever?!

[vegascowboy]

Originally Posted by SaulToPaul

I like that one a great deal, but I'm not sure that it counts for the sport.

[vegascowboy]

Which TOLers count themselves among TRUE BASEBALL fans?

Which of you like it occasionally?

Which of you can't stand it?

Which of you would give up breathing for the sport if you had to choose?

[vegascowboy]

Furthermore, how do YOU define a true fan of baseball?

Someone who goes to games as often as possible?

Someone who is a wiz at memorizing stats?

Someone who has played their whole life?

[vegascowboy]

[The Berean]

Ah, Vegas, baseball is one of my true passions. I've been studying the game and it's long and rich history for over 30 years. Here is my two cents.

"Greatness" in baseball is a amorphous, nebulous thing. The one important thing when dealing with baseball greatness is CONTEXT. The game has changed quite a bit over the decades. Baseball, as a professional sport, goes back to the early 1870's. The current National League was founded in 1876. Think about that for a moment. In the early years baseball was more like modern softball in terms of how the game was played on the field. The rules of the game changed constantly in 1870's-1880's. by about 1894 baseball was pretty much "modern" in terms of how it was played on the field.

Despite the game being pretty much the same today as it was in the early 1900's the environment of the game has swung back and forth. In certain decades the environment of the game favored the hitters, in other eras it favored the pitchers. The 1890's was a highly offensive time when the hitters dominated the game and put up gaudy hitting stats.

Then the Dead Ball Era came from about 1900-1919. The pitchers dominated. Why did this happen? The baseball used was pretty dead. No matter how hard the ball was hit it wouldn't go very far. Also, pitchers were allowed to scuff the ball, throw spitballs, etc. Another thing was that the ball was kept in play as much as possible. Even if the ball was hit into the stands someone would go get the ball. You can imagine what happened to a ball that is used to much? You get this dirty misshapen ball. This made hitting ever more difficult. You also had these old ballparks with huge dimensions, much larger than today's ballparks. This made hitting home runs basically impossible.

Since the earliest days of the game baseball was considered an intellectual game. It was duel between the the batter against the pitcher and the fielders. Bunting, hit-and-run, basestealing were are considered vital to being a good ballplayer. Teams stole a lot of bases. To this day pretty much all the highest single season stolen base totals by teams go back to the Dead Ball Era. This was the era that was dominated by Ty Cobb, Honus Wagner, Tris Speaker and a few others. Despite the harsh hitting These great players put up great numbers, minus the home runs. Cobb was considered the greatest of his era by far. Though some believed that Wagner was greater.

Then the game changed. Two things happened. Babe Ruth arrived in 1914 and Cleveland Indians infielder Ray Chapman was killed by a pitch in 1920. Ruth was a pitcher in his early years. Because of this he was pretty much left alone to hit as he pleased. Ruth was different in that he swung very, very hard. He did not slap at the ball like everyone one else was taught to do at that time. But Ruth didn't really hit many home runs early in his career. He hit just nine home runs in his first four seasons. Granted he was a pitcher and didn't bat that often. Then in 1918 Ruth hit 11 home runs to tie for the league lead as a pitcher/part time outfielder. This opened some eyes. Then in1919 Ruth hit 29 home runs which stunned the baseball world. The ironic thing about this is that Fenway Park, Ruth home ballpark, kept his home run total way down. Ruth hit 20 home runs on the road but only 9 home runs at Fenway Park. Back then Fenway Park was HUGE! Had Ruth played in a more normal ballpark he's have hit 40+ HRs in 1919. In 1920 Ruth joined the Yankees and the high offense era of the 1920's-30's began.

I'll post more later.

[vegascowboy]

Originally Posted by The Berean

Ah, Vegas, baseball is one of my true passions. I've been studying the game and it's long and rich history for over 30 years. Here is my two cents.

"Greatness" in baseball is a amorphous, nebulous thing. The one important thing when dealing with baseball greatness is CONTEXT. The game has changed quite a bit over the decades. Baseball, as a professional sport, goes back to the early 1870's. The current National League was founded in 1876. Think about that for a moment. In the early years baseball was more like modern softball in terms of how the game was played on the field. The rules of the game changed constantly in 1870's-1880's. by about 1894 baseball was pretty much "modern" in terms of how it was played on the field.

Despite the game being pretty much the same today as it was in the early 1900's the environment of the game has swung back and forth. In certain decades the environment of the game favored the hitters, in other eras it favored the pitchers. The 1890's was a highly offensive time when the hitters dominated the game and put up gaudy hitting stats.

Then the Dead Ball Era came from about 1900-1919. The pitchers dominated. Why did this happen? The baseball used was pretty dead. No matter how hard the ball was hit it wouldn't go very far. Also, pitchers were allowed to scuff the ball, throw spitballs, etc. Another thing was that the ball was kept in play as much as possible. Even if the ball was hit into the stands someone would go get the ball. You can imagine what happened to ball is used to much? You get this dirty misshapen ball. This made hitting ever more difficult. You alsl had these old ballparks with huge dimensions, much large than today's ballparks. This made hitting home runs basically impossible.

Since the earliest days of the game baseball was considered an intellectual game. It was duel between the the batter against the pitcher and the fielders. Bunting, hit-and-run, basestealing were are considered vital to being a good ballplayer. Teams stole a lot of bases. To this day pretty much all the highest single season stolen base totals by teams go back to the Dead Ball Era. This was the era that was dominated by Ty Cobb, Honus Wagner, Tris Speaker and a few others. Despite the harsh hitting These great players put up great numbers, minus the home runs. Cobb was considered the greatest of his era by far. Though some believed that Wagner was greater.

Then the game changed. Two things happened. Babe Ruth arrived in 1914 and Cleveland Indians infielder Ray Chapman was killed by a pitch in 1920's. Ruth was a pitcher in his early years. Because of this he was pretty much left alone to hit as he pleased. Ruth was different in that he swung very, very hard. He did not slap at the ball like everyone one else was taught to do at that time. But Ruth didn't really hit any home runs early in his career. He hit just nine home runs in his first four seasons. Granted he was a pitcher and didn't bat that often. Then in 1918 Ruth hit 11 home runs to tie for the league lead as a pitcher/part time outfielder. This opened some eyes. Then I n1919 Ruth hit 29 home runs which stunned the baseball world. The ironic thing about this is that Fenway Park, Ruth home ballpark, kept his home run total way down. Ruth hit 20 home runs on the road but only 9 home runs at Fenway Park. Back then Fenway Park was HUGE! Had Ruth played in a more normal ballpark he's have hit 40+ HRs in 1919. In 1920 Ruth joined the Yankees and the high offense era of the 1920's-30's began.

I'll post more later. :happy:

TB...thank you for that. I enjoyed reading it.

BTW, did you ever read Zack Hample's book called The Baseball?

I really enjoyed it. It speaks of the more "nebulous" aspects of the game, as you so aptly mention.

I'd be interested to hear your recommendations for reading on the sport in general. I've read a fair share myself, but I'd be interested in your picks.

[The Berean]

Originally Posted by vegascowboy

TB...thank you for that. I enjoyed reading it.

BTW, did you ever read Zack Hample's book called The Baseball?

I really enjoyed it. It speaks of the more "nebulous" aspects of the game, as you so aptly mention.

I'd be interested to hear your recommendations for reading on the sport in general. I've read a fair share myself, but I'd be interested in your picks.

I have not read Hample's book. There are so many great baseball books. I'd start with the Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract to get a good overview of baseball history.

http://www.amazon.com/Bill-James-His.../dp/0743227220

[john w]

The beer, and the smokes, made him great. And that is why Mrs. Lou dug him.

[Nick M]

Batting in a protected line up makes any hitter better, including the greats.

[kmoney]

Originally Posted by vegascowboy

I am having a bit of a shootout with a good friend of mine about baseball.

I will not tell you which side I'm on just yet.

He contends that a team has nothing to do with a player's greatness.

He says it is all the player.

I am speaking primarily historically. Did the Yankees, for example, contribute at all to George Herman Ruth's greatness? What of the Tigers to Ty Cobb?

I am very interested for this to become a lengthy discussion. Help me out, ladies and gents. I'd me much obliged.




BTW...why do we not have ANY BASEBALL smilies whatsoever?!

Interesting question, VC. I think I lean toward agreeing with your friend (though I wouldn't say "nothing"). I tend to think that baseball is one of the sports where your individual greatness isn't closely connected to how good your team is. Naturally, there are relationships. Nick gave a good one about lineups protecting certain hitters. And pitchers rely on their defense and offense to get wins (which is why I think wins is an overrated stat for pitchers). Fielders rely on the basemen to finish plays. But players can do so much on their own, I think to a greater degree than in other major sports like basketball, football, and hockey. Basketball is probably the most comparable to baseball. Of course, players need good teams to have post-season success, but if you aren't singling out that......

As for your examples, Ruth was good before he went to the Yankees if I remember correctly. Cobb was a career Tiger and I'm not sure how the team complemented his talents.

[kmoney]

Originally Posted by vegascowboy

Which TOLers count themselves among TRUE BASEBALL fans?

Which of you like it occasionally?

Which of you can't stand it?

Which of you would give up breathing for the sport if you had to choose?

I kind of consider myself a backslidden baseball fan.

I grew up loving/playing baseball. I studied a lot of history/stats and had books on it. I'm not as dedicated as I used to be. I think part of that is that I'm a KC fan and I don't live close to them anymore so I never get a chance to watch them. I'd still consider baseball my favorite sport and I will always have a soft spot for it. And going to games is great, though I don't get to go very often. But it's not the sport I watch the most, that would be football.



VC, have you seen Ken Burns's documentary series on baseball? I've only seen parts of it but it is very good. I just found out that you can stream it on Netflix so I plan to watch the entire series now.
http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/baseball/

[kmoney]

VC, and anyone, who is your favorite player?

Mine is Willie Mays.
George Brett, a Royal, is probably 2nd.
Sandy Koufax, 3rd.
Maybe Ty Cobb for 4th.

[The Berean]

The "Lineup Protection" idea has been studied by sabermetricians for years now and the general consensus from the data is that lineup protection doesn't really exist.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/fa...of-protection/

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/..._2003-06-30_0/

http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomi...-doesnt-exist/