Ruth had years where his personal home run totlas were more than other TEAMS totals. You can't deny what he did in his time. Bonds is great great player - there is no doubt. But he is still an asswipe and in the long run he will be remembered for everything but his playing ability and he has nobody to blame but himself.
Whats so hard to understand about what he said. He's just saying that Ruth played against teams without maybe some of the best players (including pitchers) because of the Negro Leagues shutting them out.
Willie Mays played in the Negro's for three seasons before playing for the Giants (1947-50) for the Birmingham Barons. Imagine if he had played in the MLB. He could have been a whole lot higher than (now) fourth in the league in homers.
I noticed you said that whites at a high percentage were dominant pitchers. Actually Joe Williams and Satchel Paige were very dominant during their times while in the Negro Leagues (Joe Williams beat Walter Johnson (a HOF) in exhibition play).
Willie Mays played in the Negro's for three seasons before playing for the Giants (1947-50) for the Birmingham Barons. Imagine if he had played in the MLB. He could have been a whole lot higher than (now) fourth in the league in homers.
I noticed you said that whites at a high percentage were dominant pitchers. Actually Joe Williams and Satchel Paige were very dominant during their times while in the Negro Leagues (Joe Williams beat Walter Johnson (a HOF) in exhibition play).
chiefssth said:
Never said it was his fault. Just stating facts. And youre right, he dominated the competition he faced.
Personally it would have been interesting how some of the match-ups would have been with some of the guys that were in the MLB and the NL.
I remember reading how Joe Dimaggio faced Satchel and he went 1-4 and he was glad to get that one hit against him.
ironman_8 said:
Over the long haul White Pitchers have dominated baseball to a higher %. Paige was dominant.That doesn't mean there hasn't been great Black pitchers, Bob Gibson for one, but my point is that there have been MORE dominant white Pitchers in Baseball's history then blacks. Barry Bonds actually had it easier in this era, he gets to face black pitchers, unlike Ruth which had to face all white pitching staffs. Ruth definately had the tougher challenge for his era.
NoTax said:Why are we talking about Ruth?
He could never compare to the players of todays game. It's like saying George Washington could be a capable general in todays military. Bonds is so many other higher levels compared to Ruth. Ruth is a poor mans Giambi in the modern world.
ope:
That's the same in any sport. Today's players have all the advantages of technology to train and workout. Plus they have steroids.
RED EYE said:
I don't think it makes a difference if the pitchers are black or white to decide which guys are more dominant. I don't know that he had a tougher challenge. Back then starters pitched complete games all the times. You can't tell me they weren't worn out in the late innings and made a lot of mistake pitches that Ruth hit for homeruns.
I'm not afraid of anything. But you saying that Barry has it easier today because he "gets" to face black pitchers, and black pitchers are less good than white pitchers......it is untrue. And it makes you sound like a racist. The pitchers that pitch today are there because they are the best available. It makes no difference whether they are black, white, or any other race. I think Barry is an idiot, and is probably racist towards whites. I think he probably thinks blacks are better pitchers than whites in the same way that you think whites are better pitchers than blacks. You are both wrong. Barry isn't smart enough to figure out why his point does have a little bit of merit, but it does nonetheless. There were probably some guys that belonged, but never got to play because they were prohibited because of their skin color. They weren't superior because they were black, but no doubt there were some people that belonged and were left out, and that diluted the talent pool. Similar to right now, there are probably a few players that are in the league because Fidel Castro is in power. If Cubans could freely come to this country, there would be many more of them in the league, and that would mean less spots available for the players that are in the league.RED EYE said:
RED EYE said:
Hmm, I see youre not understanding my point. All I'm saying is that Ruth (not his fault) didnt face some of the greatest throwers of his day. I'm sure that if you add some of the great blacks in and take out some of the lesser whites of the time you would have all around better group of pitchers right?
It seems like youre equating black (and hispanic) pitching to less dominant or inferior which I have to respectfully disagree. If anything you would have to blame expansion and with that diluting the talent pool in today's game rather than race as far as having it "easier" in your words.
IM_8
Illini said:
Actually this was what I was afraid of. If someone brings up a black or white subject then the idiotic foolishness comes with it and you start pointing fingers and start calling people racists.Whatever makes you happy. You don't get what I'm trying to say. If there are more successful pitchers over a course of time and have better stats and more Hall of Famers I would think that there have been more successful White Pitchers then Blacks. Making that statement doesn't make one a racist. Just like Hoops, there are more successfull Black players then white. What does that make me now when I make that statement. Your watching to much TV bro trying to be politically correct and all, pull your head out of the sand. I didn't say anything wrong, just a freaking observation
Re-read my long post. It makes complete sense and I stand by it. I'm not trying to be politically correct, and will discuss race anytime. I call a spade a spade, and am not afraid of offending anyone. I would agree that blacks are more athletic than whites, and that makes them better basketball players. Anyone can see that. But to say that whites are better pitchers than blacks is just idiotic. What is it that the white race has that would make them a better pitcher? Nothing. Of course there have been more dominant white pitchers than black pitchers. Much bigger population would tend to do that. Tell me why a white person would have a pitching advantage. If you can't, then my advice would be to let it go, because you will just dig yourself into a deeper hole.RED EYE said:
Just because you say it , doesn't mean I'm digging myself in a bigger hole.I stand by my statements. I think you should reread my posts, if you still can't get it. There have been more successful white Pitchers then blacks. Its a fact, I don't know why that is, but I can't ignore it, just like I can't ignore there are more successful Black Basketball players. Time for you to move on instead of arguing against a fact.Illini said:
Listen, you started this thread asking for explanations about what Bonds means. I explained my take that I do think he is a fucking idiot, and is most likely a racist. That being said, his comments indirectly have some validity for the reasons I mentioned previously. I have read and reread your posts and have given my take on them as well. In a sport where athletic ability means little, like baseball, then there will be more whites than other other race, because there are more whites, period. Bob Gibson was a helluva pitcher, and so is Roger Clemens. And their skin color had no correlation with why they were good pitchers. I'm not arguing against the fact that there have been more dominant white pitchers, like you claim I am. Just arguing that their race didn't mean anything. I think most anyone would agree with me.RED EYE said:
Why did you even start this thread if you came in not trying to understand any opposing viewpoints? The start of this is "Can someone help me understand......?"
Basically let me break this down: If you have the 100 greatest players in one position and for some reason or another you take 40 out. Would you still have the greatest 100 in that position? The answer is no.
Its not about greatest whites, blacks, browns or whatever, it's the best playing the best, right?
Basically let me break this down: If you have the 100 greatest players in one position and for some reason or another you take 40 out. Would you still have the greatest 100 in that position? The answer is no.
Its not about greatest whites, blacks, browns or whatever, it's the best playing the best, right?
