Started By
Message

re: Will any baseball slugger break Bonds' record and hit 800+ HR's?

Posted on 7/16/18 at 11:50 am to
Posted by lsufball19
Franklin, TN
Member since Sep 2008
64549 posts
Posted on 7/16/18 at 11:50 am to
quote:

The added strength comes into play when it turns a ball hit 324 ft into a ball hit 337 ft etc etc

I see that, but you basically used that as a qualifier for someone without Judge's stature. You don't think Mark McGwire, a comparable physical specimen, hit wall scraping home runs that were aided by his PED inflated strength?
Posted by lsufball19
Franklin, TN
Member since Sep 2008
64549 posts
Posted on 7/16/18 at 11:51 am to
quote:

I generally assume every player in the major leagues is doing whatever they can to gain an advantage. Why wouldn't they?

agree although I don't believe everyone does, but I think plenty do.
Posted by lsupride87
Member since Dec 2007
94976 posts
Posted on 7/16/18 at 11:54 am to
quote:

You don't think Mark McGwire, a comparable physical specimen, hit wall scraping home runs that were aided by his PED inflated strength?

Of course he did

And there are times judge would too
Posted by dukke v
PLUTO
Member since Jul 2006
202785 posts
Posted on 7/16/18 at 11:55 am to
Ruth did not play against blacks... so what.... he still dominated the sport like no other......
Posted by lsupride87
Member since Dec 2007
94976 posts
Posted on 7/16/18 at 11:57 am to
quote:

Ruth did not play against blacks... so what....
I mean thats a pretty big deal

42.5% of MLB is non white

Imagine Trouts numbers if 43% of the majors were replaced by worse players
This post was edited on 7/16/18 at 11:58 am
Posted by kciDAtaE
Member since Apr 2017
15727 posts
Posted on 7/16/18 at 12:00 pm to
I just disagree that pitchers have gotten better at a quicker pace than hitters and therefore is a reason why no one will ever hit 800 HRs
Posted by tduecen
Member since Nov 2006
161244 posts
Posted on 7/16/18 at 12:09 pm to
That's all easy to say but by the time African Americans could play they had new rules, ballparks, etc that made a few things more beneficial to the hitter.

Smaller parks because the home run was king, not allowing pitchers to throw certain types of pitches, I mean for every rule that favored one great player it hurt another and vice versa.
Posted by Starchild
Member since May 2010
13550 posts
Posted on 7/16/18 at 12:09 pm to
What could have been with Griffey w/o all the injuries. To me he still has the purest swing and is the best HR hitter I’ve ever watched. Imo he would have shattered the record, likely got to 800, and coupled with over 3000 hits and defensive accolades be seen as possibly tGOAT if not for missing a large portion of his career
Posted by ProjectP2294
South St. Louis city
Member since May 2007
70154 posts
Posted on 7/16/18 at 12:10 pm to
quote:

I just disagree that pitchers have gotten better at a quicker pace than hitters and therefore is a reason why no one will ever hit 800 HRs


It's definitely A reason. I didn't say it was the only reason. If you don't think the consistency with which hitter now face high velos is affecting things, I don't really know what to tell you.

ETA: Pitchers have gotten better at a quicker pace recently. I would argue that it's because they're playing catch up, but they've definitely improve at a more rapid rate lately.
This post was edited on 7/16/18 at 12:13 pm
Posted by lsufball19
Franklin, TN
Member since Sep 2008
64549 posts
Posted on 7/16/18 at 12:13 pm to
quote:

Imagine Trouts numbers if 43% of the majors were replaced by worse players


imagine if Ruth had the nutrition, training regimen, and better equipment of players of today. The "Ruth didn't play against black players" has become such a tired argument. What about the argument that the best athletes of today don't generally play baseball when baseball was the most popular sport back in Ruth's playing days? There are fewer kids playing baseball now, so the pool of elite athletes playing baseball is, in theory, smaller than it was back then.
Posted by tduecen
Member since Nov 2006
161244 posts
Posted on 7/16/18 at 12:14 pm to
Imagine of Ruth would have played in some of the smaller parks from his hey day, had batted when certain types of pitches we're illegal as well, and was not a pitcher for the first years of his career.
Posted by lsupride87
Member since Dec 2007
94976 posts
Posted on 7/16/18 at 12:18 pm to
Well Ruth’s counterparts that were pitching to him also didn’t have the nutrition

So not sure how that really makes a point


Looks, the fact a segment of the population that makes up 43% of today’s mlb was g allowed to play is a valid and material argument against Ruth
Posted by lsufball19
Franklin, TN
Member since Sep 2008
64549 posts
Posted on 7/16/18 at 12:19 pm to
quote:

Imagine of Ruth would have played in some of the smaller parks from his hey day, had batted when certain types of pitches we're illegal as well, and was not a pitcher for the first years of his career.


also a valid point. I'd love to see a player today trying to hit a home run to center field at the polo grounds. Ruth was hitting more home runs by himself than some entire teams. IMO, Ruth is still the true home run king.
Posted by lsufball19
Franklin, TN
Member since Sep 2008
64549 posts
Posted on 7/16/18 at 12:23 pm to
quote:

Well Ruth’s counterparts that were pitching to him also didn’t have the nutrition

So not sure how that really makes a point

how about the dead balls comparative to today? I see you didn't address the equipment aspect.
quote:

Looks, the fact a segment of the population that makes up 43% of today’s mlb was g allowed to play is a valid and material argument against Ruth

and there are also valid counter-arguments of other aspects where Ruth was at a disadvantage. And would today's MLB be made up of 43% non-white players if the best athletes chose to play baseball instead of other sports? White people still make up almost 80% of the population in this country. And if it was such an advantage for Ruth, why weren't his white counter-parts able to dominate like he did or even close to it?
This post was edited on 7/16/18 at 12:24 pm
Posted by tduecen
Member since Nov 2006
161244 posts
Posted on 7/16/18 at 12:25 pm to
The argument is Ruth didn't play against blacks, however, look how few play baseball. Could I argue that Aaron didn't really play against the Japanese or Dominican players that Bonds did therefore Bonds is the true home run champ
Posted by Prominentwon
LSU, McNeese St. Fan
Member since Jan 2005
93702 posts
Posted on 7/16/18 at 12:45 pm to
quote:

Why do you think the penalties are severely different?


Because they (media/fans) didn’t nor care the advantages or what it ultimately was doing to their body.

The steroids issues were witchhunts. And there was not a morality issue until about 1998
This post was edited on 7/16/18 at 12:47 pm
Posted by lsupride87
Member since Dec 2007
94976 posts
Posted on 7/16/18 at 12:48 pm to
quote:

The argument is Ruth didn't play against blacks, however, look how few play baseball.
43% of MLB is people of color


So you could argue it, but it would seem like a bad argument
Posted by tduecen
Member since Nov 2006
161244 posts
Posted on 7/16/18 at 12:54 pm to
Today, that includes anyone not-white. However, in the 70's and before MLB was still basically white. You had a few Latinos but not many. Bonds would have played against the highest percentage of people of color, thus is record should be the true record.
Posted by LL012697
Member since May 2013
3963 posts
Posted on 7/16/18 at 12:54 pm to
quote:

The argument is Ruth didn't play against blacks, however, look how few play baseball

That may be true today, but in Ruth’s time baseball was far and away the most popular sport in America, it wasn’t competing with the NFL or the NBA. The exclusion of blacks meant that a lot of great athletes didn’t get a chance to play their preferred sport at the highest level.

FWIW I’m arguing to take anything away from Ruth, just stating that the sports landscape is way different today
Posted by TigerintheNO
New Orleans
Member since Jan 2004
41177 posts
Posted on 7/16/18 at 12:56 pm to
quote:

Looks, the fact a segment of the population that makes up 43% of today’s mlb was g allowed to play is a valid and material argument against Ruth


blacks make up less than 8% of MLB roster, lower than the total population. 43% of baseball is non white, and non whites were allowed to play, blacks weren't.

Jim Thorpe, an Indian, played half dozen years in the league, same time as Ruth. Big Chief Bender, a Hall of Famer, pitched for 22 years. Baldomero Almada the first Mexican born player, signed with the Red Sox in '33

The first Latin player was Lou Castro, Colombian, played for the A's in 1902. The first Cubans came into the league in 1911.

quote:

"They were presented to the public as, 'He’s not black; he’s Cuban.' 'He’s not black; he’s Puerto Rican,'" Burgos said.

"Latinos who made it into the major leagues are not welcomed as fellow whites. They are welcomed as not black."

Early on, both players and managers recognized how flexible the color line was when it came to Latinos, and they tried their best to take advantage of it. Take the New York Cuban Giants, a team made up entirely of African-Americans who, legend has it, would speak gibberish to each other on the field in the hopes of convincing crowds that they weren’t black but rather Cuban.

Then there's the story of the manager who plotted to send black players down to Cuba, have them learn Spanish and bring them back to try pass them off as authentically Latino.
first pageprev pagePage 6 of 7Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram