It is currently Wed Jan 22, 2025 10:55 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 100 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2022 1:22 pm 
Online
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 80093
Location: Rogers Park, USA
pizza_Place: JB Alberto's
Tall Midget wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
I find the argument that segregation-era records shouldn't be questioned because a higher percentage of white people during that time wanted to play pro ball than they do today to be curious at best.



Why? Surely you aren't suggesting that darker skin makes you a superior baseball player. If a greater percentage of the population is competing in a particular pursuit, that necessarily makes excelling a greater accomplishment, doesn't it?

There's a reason the 50s were a golden age for baseball. Baseball was still basically the only professional sport to aspire to AND it was open to black players.


Why? Because a competition--and the records attained during that competition--cannot be considered beyond reproach if 10% of potential competitors are arbitrarily excluded from participating in it.


I never claimed any results were "beyond reproach." I stated that the talent pool was likely just as deep in 1935 as it is today. Certainly not drastically different. My position is that the 50s and early 60s were a brief stretch when everyone wanted to play and everyone could play.

Do you agree with Regular Reader that MLB was "devoid of talent" until black players were allowed to play?


So you're now saying that segregation-era records should be questioned due to the systematic exclusion of black players? Because that's certainly not what you've previously stated.


:lol: I never said that. I'm not saying that now.

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2022 1:23 pm 
Online
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 80093
Location: Rogers Park, USA
pizza_Place: JB Alberto's
Walt Williams Neck wrote:
Gotta say Bennie Holt



I'm going with Bobby Lamont. I'll take the OBP over the power.

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2022 1:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2018 9:19 pm
Posts: 32452
pizza_Place: What??
Tall Midget wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
I find the argument that segregation-era records shouldn't be questioned because a higher percentage of white people during that time wanted to play pro ball than they do today to be curious at best.



Why? Surely you aren't suggesting that darker skin makes you a superior baseball player. If a greater percentage of the population is competing in a particular pursuit, that necessarily makes excelling a greater accomplishment, doesn't it?

There's a reason the 50s were a golden age for baseball. Baseball was still basically the only professional sport to aspire to AND it was open to black players.


Why? Because a competition--and the records attained during that competition--cannot be considered beyond reproach if 10% of potential competitors are arbitrarily excluded from participating in it.


I never claimed any results were "beyond reproach." I stated that the talent pool was likely just as deep in 1935 as it is today. Certainly not drastically different. My position is that the 50s and early 60s were a brief stretch when everyone wanted to play and everyone could play.

Do you agree with Regular Reader that MLB was "devoid of talent" until black players were allowed to play?


So you're now saying that segregation-era records should be questioned due to the systematic exclusion of black players? Because that's certainly not what you've previously stated.

I had thought that's a given, that's why the previous smart aleck post I made. The better the competition, the faster the evolution. Even back then, from talking to old timers, they knew the coloreds smashed the ball.

And this isn't about a quick twitch muscle as JORR has alluded to. It's about opportunities. And lack thereof. A black guy in the 20's is going to hang on HARD if he finds something, anything, he is good at. Doesn't mean a white guy won't either, but there's that extra edge that can be meaningful.

Pitching is still a white man's game, so cheer up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2022 2:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:15 pm
Posts: 41439
Location: Small Fringe Minority
pizza_Place: John's


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2022 2:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 93136
Location: To the left of my post
I didn't know his dad was Ukrainian.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2022 2:16 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
I find the argument that segregation-era records shouldn't be questioned because a higher percentage of white people during that time wanted to play pro ball than they do today to be curious at best.



Why? Surely you aren't suggesting that darker skin makes you a superior baseball player. If a greater percentage of the population is competing in a particular pursuit, that necessarily makes excelling a greater accomplishment, doesn't it?

There's a reason the 50s were a golden age for baseball. Baseball was still basically the only professional sport to aspire to AND it was open to black players.


Why? Because a competition--and the records attained during that competition--cannot be considered beyond reproach if 10% of potential competitors are arbitrarily excluded from participating in it.


I never claimed any results were "beyond reproach." I stated that the talent pool was likely just as deep in 1935 as it is today. Certainly not drastically different. My position is that the 50s and early 60s were a brief stretch when everyone wanted to play and everyone could play.

Do you agree with Regular Reader that MLB was "devoid of talent" until black players were allowed to play?


So you're now saying that segregation-era records should be questioned due to the systematic exclusion of black players? Because that's certainly not what you've previously stated.


:lol: I never said that. I'm not saying that now.


You are a trip, JORR.

I originally pointed out that segregation-era records should be questioned in the same manner that steroid-era records are and you responded that this isn't the case:

Quote:
I see that argument made all the time but it doesn't make sense. The talent pool was far deeper relatively during the segregation era simply because baseball and boxing were the only professional sports. And only the most deperate people wanted to get their brains beaten in.

Sure, 10% of the population was excluded from playing, but the athletes among the remaining 90% all played baseball. There may be a Babe Ruth out there today who is playing football or riding a skateboard. In 1930 those weren't options.


If this wasn't meant to defend segregation era records, then what was your point?

_________________
Antonio Gramsci wrote:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2022 2:21 pm 
Online
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 80093
Location: Rogers Park, USA
pizza_Place: JB Alberto's
Tall Midget wrote:
You are a trip, JORR.


I don't think segregation era records require defending unless you're suggesting- as Reader has- that a significant number of the best baseball players come from a subset made up of ten percent of the population at the time.

I do agree with Nardi's point that marginalized groups excel at sports because they often lack other opportunties. You can follow the waves of American immigration by the names of some of the best baseball players, first the Irish, then the Italians, up until today with the Dominicans.

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2022 2:25 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
OK, so you are arguing for the validity of segregation-era records. Good talk.

_________________
Antonio Gramsci wrote:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2022 2:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2021 5:29 am
Posts: 15235
pizza_Place: Eduardo's
This Ends in Antioch wrote:
The Missing Link wrote:
This Ends in Antioch wrote:
The Missing Link wrote:
This Ends in Antioch wrote:
Bonds is the greatest baseball player I’ve ever seen and it’s not all that close.


Ken Griffey Jr. would like a word with you.

Nah, he spent 10+ years either injured, old or bad.


Peak Ken Griffey Jr. was Better than Barry Bonds Pre Steroids. And even with the Steroid Use Peak Ken Griffey Jr. was definitely still in the conversation.

Peak Griffey was nowhere near steroid Bonds. Griffey’s best year would maybe - plausibly arguable - be Bonds’ 6th or 7th best year.

Pre-roids I’m still taking Bonds by a considerable margin. Griffey was a better slugger for a year or two and played good defense at a premium position. Every other aspect of the game goes in Bonds’ favor (pre & post steroid).


Without the injuries Ken Griffey Jr. would be in the conversation for one of the greatest of All time. That is how good he was. He was a better slugger and defender than Bonds. He would have easily hit 700 homers without the injury or the use of steroids. Even if a person prefers Bonds its tough to suggest that It "ain't even close".

_________________
pittmike wrote:
Technically I was drunk (big surprise) and asked her if she liked a tongue up her ass.


Frank Coztansa wrote:
Again, your comprehension needs work.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2022 2:45 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 102661
pizza_Place: Vito & Nick's
Judge is now the AL Single Season HR Champ. I am working 100% sure the op didn't know that when he titled his thread though. Accidentally correct is the only way he ends up being correct.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
It's more fun to be a victim
Caller Bob wrote:
There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2022 3:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:15 pm
Posts: 41439
Location: Small Fringe Minority
pizza_Place: John's
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2022 3:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2018 9:19 pm
Posts: 32452
pizza_Place: What??
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
You are a trip, JORR.


I don't think segregation era records require defending unless you're suggesting- as Reader has- that a significant number of the best baseball players come from a subset made up of ten percent of the population at the time.

I do agree with Nardi's point that marginalized groups excel at sports because they often lack other opportunties. You can follow the waves of American immigration by the names of some of the best baseball players, first the Irish, then the Italians, up until today with the Dominicans.

None of us saw negro league baseball. All I can tell you is what I was told as a little kid. Reader is probably balls deep in negro league history. I wouldn't disregard what he says, 10% of the population or not. I have read where more than a few MLB teams signed guys only to make sure they didn't get out of the Bushes. There were certain guys with a boatload of skill they couldn't stop. Mays, Aaron, Howard, Doby... I mean, was there such a thing as a black scrub in the 50's and early 60's?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2022 3:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:05 pm
Posts: 25102
pizza_Place: Pizanos
The Missing Link wrote:

Without the injuries Ken Griffey Jr. would be in the conversation for one of the greatest of All time. That is how good he was. He was a better slugger and defender than Bonds. He would have easily hit 700 homers without the injury or the use of steroids. Even if a person prefers Bonds its tough to suggest that It "ain't even close".

Not really. Bonds had an OPS at or north of 1.000 for his last 16 years. Griffey did it 4 times in 22 years.

Bonds had early Seattle Griffey on every metric, save for a couple years of slugging. Even in those years, Bonds’ ability to get on base was far superior. Peak Bonds was a significantly better base runner than peak Griffey. He’d already won 3 MVPs before the 4 tainted by steroids (Griffey had 1 his whole career).

Griffey was a better defender at a harder position.

It’s not an insult to Griffey to say his numbers don’t compare favorably with the greatest of all time. Nobody compares favorably to Bonds.

_________________
Peter Clavin wrote:
Because you are stupid, maybe read some books educate yourself.
Nardi wrote:
We walk, talk, and won't shit our pants


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2022 3:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 38609
Location: "Across 110th Street"
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
You are a trip, JORR.


I don't think segregation era records require defending unless you're suggesting- as Reader has- that a significant number of the best baseball players come from a subset made up of ten percent of the population at the time.

I do agree with Nardi's point that marginalized groups excel at sports because they often lack other opportunties. You can follow the waves of American immigration by the names of some of the best baseball players, first the Irish, then the Italians, up until today with the Dominicans.

Number one, as I noted, it's fact that the fifties and sixties where inordinately dominated by players who were barred prior to 1947. Two, when the gates were opened the talent pool was much greater and led to the golden age of the game. That's indisputable. Unlike the ridiculous and predictably irrational and right wing positions you've taken here. I didn't diminish Koufax, Mantle or any of the other greats of that time or going forward but rather that it enhances their great legacy. But in your peculiar anger you seem to only see it through your colored lens. That it's apparent to many around here seems to be lost on you. But you insist that everyone who isn't of your political bent has changed.

But in your usual fashion you have this zeal to defend a dead, half assed sport (era) that wasn't worth the adoration that angry old guys like you have hard ons for in the last few years. Then you are offended when you get called on your curious posts. Or ascribe meanings that are wrong, enabling MANY and flat out offensive. Maybe you should stick to Twitter inspired conspiracy in the politics section.

And being haunted by Hillary.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.


Last edited by Regular Reader on Wed Oct 05, 2022 3:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2022 3:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 8:10 pm
Posts: 38609
Location: "Across 110th Street"
This Ends in Antioch wrote:
The Missing Link wrote:

Without the injuries Ken Griffey Jr. would be in the conversation for one of the greatest of All time. That is how good he was. He was a better slugger and defender than Bonds. He would have easily hit 700 homers without the injury or the use of steroids. Even if a person prefers Bonds its tough to suggest that It "ain't even close".

Not really. Bonds had an OPS at or north of 1.000 for his last 16 years. Griffey did it 4 times in 22 years.

Bonds had early Seattle Griffey on every metric, save for a couple years of slugging. Even in those years, Bonds’ ability to get on base was far superior. Peak Bonds was a significantly better base runner than peak Griffey. He’d already won 3 MVPs before the 4 tainted by steroids (Griffey had 1 his whole career).

Griffey was a better defender at a harder position.

It’s not an insult to Griffey to say his numbers don’t compare favorably with the greatest of all time. Nobody compares favorably to Bonds.

Sad thing is that neither were nearly as good in their postseason games. But yeah, Bonds was like Barry Sanders, Bonds or M Jeff, transcendent video game type talents.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2022 3:57 pm 
Online
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 80093
Location: Rogers Park, USA
pizza_Place: JB Alberto's
Tall Midget wrote:
OK, so you are arguing for the validity of segregation-era records.


Of course I am.

You're arguing for the innate superiority of black players. Whether you understand that's what you're doing or not.

If there were two high schools, one with 500 students and one with 50 and you told me that an inordinate number good players were in the smaller school, I'd ask you to explain your basis for that belief.

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2022 3:59 pm 
Online
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 80093
Location: Rogers Park, USA
pizza_Place: JB Alberto's
Nardi wrote:
I mean, was there such a thing as a black scrub in the 50's and early 60's?


Yes.

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2022 4:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2021 5:29 am
Posts: 15235
pizza_Place: Eduardo's
This Ends in Antioch wrote:
The Missing Link wrote:

Without the injuries Ken Griffey Jr. would be in the conversation for one of the greatest of All time. That is how good he was. He was a better slugger and defender than Bonds. He would have easily hit 700 homers without the injury or the use of steroids. Even if a person prefers Bonds its tough to suggest that It "ain't even close".

Not really. Bonds had an OPS at or north of 1.000 for his last 16 years. Griffey did it 4 times in 22 years.

Bonds had early Seattle Griffey on every metric, save for a couple years of slugging. Even in those years, Bonds’ ability to get on base was far superior. Peak Bonds was a significantly better base runner than peak Griffey. He’d already won 3 MVPs before the 4 tainted by steroids (Griffey had 1 his whole career).

Griffey was a better defender at a harder position.

It’s not an insult to Griffey to say his numbers don’t compare favorably with the greatest of all time. Nobody compares favorably to Bonds.



Who said (besides yourself that is) that it is an "insult to Griffey"? Bonds was always a "great player". He didn't walk amongst the gods until he became roided up however.

Ken Griffey Jr. is the most naturally gifted baseball player that I have ever seen. Without the injuries he was well on a pace to hit 800 homers. With a superior glove at that.

_________________
pittmike wrote:
Technically I was drunk (big surprise) and asked her if she liked a tongue up her ass.


Frank Coztansa wrote:
Again, your comprehension needs work.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2022 4:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:15 pm
Posts: 41439
Location: Small Fringe Minority
pizza_Place: John's
Looks like Judge will lose the triple crown today thanks to some dominant SP from the White Sox.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2022 4:15 pm 
Online
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 80093
Location: Rogers Park, USA
pizza_Place: JB Alberto's
Caller Bob wrote:
Looks like Judge will lose the triple crown today thanks to some dominant SP from the White Sox.



How do you expect Martin to win without run support?

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2022 4:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:50 pm
Posts: 16078
pizza_Place: Malnati's
The Missing Link wrote:
This Ends in Antioch wrote:
The Missing Link wrote:

Without the injuries Ken Griffey Jr. would be in the conversation for one of the greatest of All time. That is how good he was. He was a better slugger and defender than Bonds. He would have easily hit 700 homers without the injury or the use of steroids. Even if a person prefers Bonds its tough to suggest that It "ain't even close".

Not really. Bonds had an OPS at or north of 1.000 for his last 16 years. Griffey did it 4 times in 22 years.

Bonds had early Seattle Griffey on every metric, save for a couple years of slugging. Even in those years, Bonds’ ability to get on base was far superior. Peak Bonds was a significantly better base runner than peak Griffey. He’d already won 3 MVPs before the 4 tainted by steroids (Griffey had 1 his whole career).

Griffey was a better defender at a harder position.

It’s not an insult to Griffey to say his numbers don’t compare favorably with the greatest of all time. Nobody compares favorably to Bonds.



Who said (besides yourself that is) that it is an "insult to Griffey"? Bonds was always a "great player". He didn't walk amongst the gods until he became roided up however.

Ken Griffey Jr. is the most naturally gifted baseball player that I have ever seen. Without the injuries he was well on a pace to hit 800 homers. With a superior glove at that.


Griffey Jr made baseball cool. Nuff said.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2022 4:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:54 pm
Posts: 13340
pizza_Place: Home Run Inn
The Missing Link wrote:
This Ends in Antioch wrote:
The Missing Link wrote:

Without the injuries Ken Griffey Jr. would be in the conversation for one of the greatest of All time. That is how good he was. He was a better slugger and defender than Bonds. He would have easily hit 700 homers without the injury or the use of steroids. Even if a person prefers Bonds its tough to suggest that It "ain't even close".

Not really. Bonds had an OPS at or north of 1.000 for his last 16 years. Griffey did it 4 times in 22 years.

Bonds had early Seattle Griffey on every metric, save for a couple years of slugging. Even in those years, Bonds’ ability to get on base was far superior. Peak Bonds was a significantly better base runner than peak Griffey. He’d already won 3 MVPs before the 4 tainted by steroids (Griffey had 1 his whole career).

Griffey was a better defender at a harder position.

It’s not an insult to Griffey to say his numbers don’t compare favorably with the greatest of all time. Nobody compares favorably to Bonds.



Who said (besides yourself that is) that it is an "insult to Griffey"? Bonds was always a "great player". He didn't walk amongst the gods until he became roided up however.

Ken Griffey Jr. is the most naturally gifted baseball player that I have ever seen. Without the injuries he was well on a pace to hit 800 homers. With a superior glove at that.


Griffey - flashier, made the game cooler, better fielder.
Bonds- better overall baseball player, less injury-prone

Griffey was Mantle, Bonds was Mays.

_________________
Sherman remarked, "Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?" Grant looked up. "Yes," he replied, followed by a puff. "Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow, though."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2022 4:41 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38592
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
veganfan21 wrote:
The Missing Link wrote:
This Ends in Antioch wrote:
The Missing Link wrote:

Without the injuries Ken Griffey Jr. would be in the conversation for one of the greatest of All time. That is how good he was. He was a better slugger and defender than Bonds. He would have easily hit 700 homers without the injury or the use of steroids. Even if a person prefers Bonds its tough to suggest that It "ain't even close".

Not really. Bonds had an OPS at or north of 1.000 for his last 16 years. Griffey did it 4 times in 22 years.

Bonds had early Seattle Griffey on every metric, save for a couple years of slugging. Even in those years, Bonds’ ability to get on base was far superior. Peak Bonds was a significantly better base runner than peak Griffey. He’d already won 3 MVPs before the 4 tainted by steroids (Griffey had 1 his whole career).

Griffey was a better defender at a harder position.

It’s not an insult to Griffey to say his numbers don’t compare favorably with the greatest of all time. Nobody compares favorably to Bonds.



Who said (besides yourself that is) that it is an "insult to Griffey"? Bonds was always a "great player". He didn't walk amongst the gods until he became roided up however.

Ken Griffey Jr. is the most naturally gifted baseball player that I have ever seen. Without the injuries he was well on a pace to hit 800 homers. With a superior glove at that.


Griffey Jr made baseball cool. Nuff said.


Rickey Henderson made baseball cool. Nuff said.

Fixed that for you.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2022 4:58 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
OK, so you are arguing for the validity of segregation-era records.


Of course I am.

You're arguing for the innate superiority of black players. Whether you understand that's what you're doing or not.

If there were two high schools, one with 500 students and one with 50 and you told me that an inordinate number good players were in the smaller school, I'd ask you to explain your basis for that belief.


Your statements above are utterly bizarre whether you understand that fact or not. Chinese musicians are becoming increasingly prominent in the world of classical music--and they are doing so at the expense of musicians of European ancestry. Is that because Chinese musicians are somehow genetically superior to musicians of European descent? Or is it because of social factors, including the massive investment in music conservatories made by the Chinese government, investments that come in the wake of reciprocal cutbacks to support for the performing arts in the U.S and Europe?. I'd say its the latter not the former. In the case of baseball, you immediately assume that the disproportionate success of blacks in the major leagues following the end of segregation must be explained by an argument based on racial determinism. Such an assumption reveals the reductiveness of your thinking on this issue since you never bother to consider how social factors such as segregation impacted black economic prospects, particularly by rendering professional baseball as a more appealing career pursuit for blacks than it was for most whites.

I should also note that you scoff at the idea that the arbitrary exclusion of 10% of a population from a competition could possibly call into question the results of that competition. Could you imagine what your response would be if 10% of eligible voters--all Trump supporters--were arbitrarily prevented from voting in the next presidential election?

_________________
Antonio Gramsci wrote:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.


Last edited by Tall Midget on Wed Oct 05, 2022 5:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2022 5:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:07 pm
Posts: 1945
pizza_Place: Roseangela's
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
You are a trip, JORR.


I don't think segregation era records require defending unless you're suggesting- as Reader has- that a significant number of the best baseball players come from a subset made up of ten percent of the population at the time.

I do agree with Nardi's point that marginalized groups excel at sports because they often lack other opportunties. You can follow the waves of American immigration by the names of some of the best baseball players, first the Irish, then the Italians, up until today with the Dominicans.

Krauts first

_________________
Warren Newson wrote:
I like black prostitutes from the 70's


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2022 5:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2018 9:19 pm
Posts: 32452
pizza_Place: What??
Thomas-Sox-WorldSeries wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
You are a trip, JORR.


I don't think segregation era records require defending unless you're suggesting- as Reader has- that a significant number of the best baseball players come from a subset made up of ten percent of the population at the time.

I do agree with Nardi's point that marginalized groups excel at sports because they often lack other opportunties. You can follow the waves of American immigration by the names of some of the best baseball players, first the Irish, then the Italians, up until today with the Dominicans.

Krauts first

Coal mining krauts


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2022 5:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2018 9:43 am
Posts: 2566
pizza_Place: Palermo's 95th
When discussing the current talent pool vs. the talent pool in the 50's and 60's, I'm surprised no one has mentioned international players. I don't think there were many Asian players coming over in the 50's and 60's. I also don't think the baseball factories that are currently cranking out players in Latin America were doing the same thing in the 50's and 60's. Whatever you think about the current domestic talent pool, MLB is drawing from a broader global talent pool than at any time in the past.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2022 5:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:07 pm
Posts: 1945
pizza_Place: Roseangela's
Warren Newson wrote:
When discussing the current talent pool vs. the talent pool in the 50's and 60's, I'm surprised no one has mentioned international players. I don't think there were many Asian players coming over in the 50's and 60's. I also don't think the baseball factories that are currently cranking out players in Latin America were doing the same thing in the 50's and 60's. Whatever you think about the current domestic talent pool, MLB is drawing from a broader global talent pool than at any time in the past.

I think there were four (seriously). Only one lasted a year, a pitcher in the 60s

_________________
Warren Newson wrote:
I like black prostitutes from the 70's


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2022 5:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:15 am
Posts: 27591
pizza_Place: nick n vito's
Tony Gwynn is the best hitter I've ever seen, you got guys like schwarber pushing 50 hrs and 200ks.. keep it, not impressed.

_________________
The Original Kid Cairo wrote:
Laurence Holmes is a fucking weirdo, a nerd in denial, and a wannabe. Not a very good radio host either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2022 7:00 pm 
Online
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 80093
Location: Rogers Park, USA
pizza_Place: JB Alberto's
Tall Midget wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
OK, so you are arguing for the validity of segregation-era records.


Of course I am.

You're arguing for the innate superiority of black players. Whether you understand that's what you're doing or not.

If there were two high schools, one with 500 students and one with 50 and you told me that an inordinate number good players were in the smaller school, I'd ask you to explain your basis for that belief.


Your statements above are utterly bizarre whether you understand that fact or not. Chinese musicians are becoming increasingly prominent in the world of classical music--and they are doing so at the expense of musicians of European ancestry. Is that because Chinese musicians are somehow genetically superior to musicians of European descent? Or is it because of social factors, including the massive investment in music conservatories made by the Chinese government, investments that come in the wake of reciprocal cutbacks to support for the performing arts in the U.S and Europe?. I'd say its the latter not the former. In the case of baseball, you immediately assume that the disproportionate success of blacks in the major leagues following the end of segregation must be explained by an argument based on racial determinism. Such an assumption reveals the reductiveness of your thinking on this issue since you never bother to consider how social factors such as segregation impacted black economic prospects, particularly by rendering professional baseball as a more appealing career pursuit for blacks than it was for most whites.

I should also note that you scoff at the idea that the arbitrary exclusion of 10% of a population from a competition could possibly call into question the results of that competition. Could you imagine what your response would be if 10% of eligible voters--all Trump supporters--were arbitrarily prevented from voting in the next presidential election?


There's so many idiotic strawmen and piss poor analogies above, I'm not even going to bother responding to them. Are you actively trying to destroy your reputation as the Board Intellectual?

_________________
Ecclesiastes 5:8


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 100 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 63 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group