Posted by sjpoker on 2/5/2016 1:40:00 PM (view original):
It minorities had played during that era, those stats would have been way down. And we all know it.

In the 1920s, the United States was well over 80% white.  Adding minorities into the talent pool would only make it about 15% bigger.

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/5/2016 2:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 2/5/2016 1:40:00 PM (view original):
It minorities had played during that era, those stats would have been way down. And we all know it.

In the 1920s, the United States was well over 80% white.  Adding minorities into the talent pool would only make it about 15% bigger.

Hmm. Yeah, no. In Negro League vs Major League exhibition games, The Negro leagues consistantly performed better. So, if you assume the cream of the crop of the Negro and Cuban leagues played in the big leagues, they wouldn't be replacing the top white players. They would have replaced the lower half of the talent pool. So those players would have faced at least double the amount of upper echelon talent and would have lost a lot of production against the lower talented players that they accumulated. It would have been significant.

You or I or anyone else have no idea what would have been different if MLB had not been segregated when Ruth played. If you think you know, you're delusional. We can make somewhat educated guesses, but we don't know.

There were about a dozen significant Cuban contributors to MLB during Aaron's career, and about 3 during Ruth's, so that's not even worth mentioning.

The negro league thing is overstated by people who don't want negro league players discounted.  The Negro League All-Stars could beat MLB teams.  That's good for them.  But suggesting that including the black players would have doubled the talent in MLB is utterly absurd, and even most Negro League historians would certainly support that.  The best Negro League players would have been great MLB players, no doubt about it.  But they don't change the overall talent level of the league by so much as some people like to believe.  It's hard to imagine a black starter on every MLB team in the era of 3- and 4-man rotations.

Posted by wylie715 on 2/5/2016 4:27:00 PM (view original):
You or I or anyone else have no idea what would have been different if MLB had not been segregated when Ruth played. If you think you know, you're delusional. We can make somewhat educated guesses, but we don't know.

If baseball was segregated, I think a well educated and informed guess would be those stats would have gone down. I also think that if Aaron had been facing the same pitching staffs that Ruth had his stats would have been even better.

Posted by dahsdebater on 2/5/2016 4:45:00 PM (view original):
There were about a dozen significant Cuban contributors to MLB during Aaron's career, and about 3 during Ruth's, so that's not even worth mentioning.

The negro league thing is overstated by people who don't want negro league players discounted.  The Negro League All-Stars could beat MLB teams.  That's good for them.  But suggesting that including the black players would have doubled the talent in MLB is utterly absurd, and even most Negro League historians would certainly support that.  The best Negro League players would have been great MLB players, no doubt about it.  But they don't change the overall talent level of the league by so much as some people like to believe.  It's hard to imagine a black starter on every MLB team in the era of 3- and 4-man rotations.

I think if you took the top talent from the Negro leagues they would have been just as good as the majors. Foe every Nap Lajoie or Rogers Hornsby there was a Oscar Charleston or a Cool Papa Bell.

I had started this Aaron better than Ruth discussion to ruffle some feathers and cause some discussion. Deep down, I certainly think that Ruth is the better player. No matter what his glove and baserunning were like, his stats are insane.

What gets me is that you guys think that Ruth is that MUCH better than Aaron, or that the astronomical stats in the early part of the century indicated those players were somehow better than the ones in later periods. Its ridiculous.

The one thing I will note is this - Probably until the 1960s, the best athletes played baseball. So I dunno, maybe a lot of those early players would have player football or basketball if thye grep up 50 years later. Not sure.

During his time, Ruth was at another level.   Aaron was not. 

Posted by sjpoker on 2/5/2016 5:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 2/5/2016 4:27:00 PM (view original):
You or I or anyone else have no idea what would have been different if MLB had not been segregated when Ruth played. If you think you know, you're delusional. We can make somewhat educated guesses, but we don't know.

If baseball was segregated, I think a well educated and informed guess would be those stats would have gone down. I also think that if Aaron had been facing the same pitching staffs that Ruth had his stats would have been even better.

you think that, but you don't know and never will. Yes, some Negro leaguers would have ben fantastic major leaguers, but most would be average major leaguers. There would have to be some change in the stats if the major leagues had never been segregated, but I don't think the changes would be as major as you seem to think they would be. By the same token, couldn't you say the Negro League stats were inflated because they didn't play all the great white talent that was in the major leagues? And don't say that when they did play the Negro leaguers performed better. Extremely small sample size that doesn't mean anything.

Maybe WhatIfSports would be willing to try this:
Replace the 1927 Ruth with the 1959 Aaron and vice versa. The n play the 1927 and 1959 seasons a few hundred times to see what kind of changes there are in everyone's stats. I doubt they would but you're welcome to ask.

Hehe.   You said "negro" and "token" in the same sentence.


RACIST!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by wylie715 on 2/5/2016 6:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 2/5/2016 5:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 2/5/2016 4:27:00 PM (view original):
You or I or anyone else have no idea what would have been different if MLB had not been segregated when Ruth played. If you think you know, you're delusional. We can make somewhat educated guesses, but we don't know.

If baseball was segregated, I think a well educated and informed guess would be those stats would have gone down. I also think that if Aaron had been facing the same pitching staffs that Ruth had his stats would have been even better.

you think that, but you don't know and never will. Yes, some Negro leaguers would have ben fantastic major leaguers, but most would be average major leaguers. There would have to be some change in the stats if the major leagues had never been segregated, but I don't think the changes would be as major as you seem to think they would be. By the same token, couldn't you say the Negro League stats were inflated because they didn't play all the great white talent that was in the major leagues? And don't say that when they did play the Negro leaguers performed better. Extremely small sample size that doesn't mean anything.

If the average talent level was higher, then the stats would go down. The reverse is true as well. Its happened every time there has been expansion.

Randomly - lets say that baseball suddenly, fully integrated in 1916. There was roughly 700 odd players that played at least an inning in both leagues combined. All white. If all negro league players were available, how many of those 700 would lose their jobs? And how much better would they be than the players they replaced? Again, the top white players would - not - lose their jobs. If overall talent increased, then production for the top players would decrease.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/5/2016 6:02:00 PM (view original):
During his time, Ruth was at another level.   Aaron was not. 

I hate to bring WAR into this, but wasn't Hank Aaron top 5 in WAR for like 15 straight years? That's not 'another level'? Wasn't Aaron top 5 in BA for like 10-11 straight years with 2-3 Batting titles? Didn't he win a few Gold Gloves?

Hank Aaron first 17 years (age 20 thru 26)


Babe Ruth first 17 years -

100 more HRs, and 200 more runs and RBIs in 1000 more At bats. Ruth has a pretty decent lead there. But we still are only talking 10 to 15% difference in production.

Also, not sure that that Milwaukee stadium shithole that he played a good portion of his career in was any better a hitting park than Ruths house.

But like I said, Ruth is the greatest player ever. But was Aaron at another level in his era? I'd say yeah.

Posted by sjpoker on 2/4/2016 8:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by d_rock97 on 2/4/2016 5:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 2/4/2016 7:02:00 AM (view original):
Looking at the Tigers projected roster, I see an 87 win team. At best. They ain't going anywhere.

Right now, they are an 87 win team but they got a lot of ifs.
Can Verlander pitch like he did in the second half?
Can Anibal Sanchez stay healthy?
Can Kinsler repeat last season?
Will Castellanos continue to improve?
Can McCann hit righties?
Will Jordan Zimmerman stay healthy (most innings pitched last 5 seasons I believe)?
Will J.D. Continue to be a top 5 hitting RF?
Will Justin Upton finally reach his potential?
Will Anthony Goss take the next step?
Can K-Rod remain an elite closer despite his fastball continuing to lose velocity?
Can Ausmus manage?
It's a good squad but there are too many questions.
Hopefully Shane Greene recovers fully and can pitch like he did last April.

In other words KC ain't worried.

I'm not worried. Baseball "experts" are the ones questioning the Tigers. My only worry is can Ausmus manage a team?

Posted by sjpoker on 2/5/2016 9:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 2/5/2016 6:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 2/5/2016 5:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 2/5/2016 4:27:00 PM (view original):
You or I or anyone else have no idea what would have been different if MLB had not been segregated when Ruth played. If you think you know, you're delusional. We can make somewhat educated guesses, but we don't know.

If baseball was segregated, I think a well educated and informed guess would be those stats would have gone down. I also think that if Aaron had been facing the same pitching staffs that Ruth had his stats would have been even better.

you think that, but you don't know and never will. Yes, some Negro leaguers would have ben fantastic major leaguers, but most would be average major leaguers. There would have to be some change in the stats if the major leagues had never been segregated, but I don't think the changes would be as major as you seem to think they would be. By the same token, couldn't you say the Negro League stats were inflated because they didn't play all the great white talent that was in the major leagues? And don't say that when they did play the Negro leaguers performed better. Extremely small sample size that doesn't mean anything.

If the average talent level was higher, then the stats would go down. The reverse is true as well. Its happened every time there has been expansion.

Randomly - lets say that baseball suddenly, fully integrated in 1916. There was roughly 700 odd players that played at least an inning in both leagues combined. All white. If all negro league players were available, how many of those 700 would lose their jobs? And how much better would they be than the players they replaced? Again, the top white players would - not - lose their jobs. If overall talent increased, then production for the top players would decrease.

That's why Miguel Cabrera is the best of all time! Where were the Kenta Maeda 's and Yu Darvish 's during Hank Aaron's time!
Where were the Asians!

Posted by d_rock97 on 2/5/2016 9:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 2/5/2016 9:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 2/5/2016 6:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 2/5/2016 5:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 2/5/2016 4:27:00 PM (view original):
You or I or anyone else have no idea what would have been different if MLB had not been segregated when Ruth played. If you think you know, you're delusional. We can make somewhat educated guesses, but we don't know.

If baseball was segregated, I think a well educated and informed guess would be those stats would have gone down. I also think that if Aaron had been facing the same pitching staffs that Ruth had his stats would have been even better.

you think that, but you don't know and never will. Yes, some Negro leaguers would have ben fantastic major leaguers, but most would be average major leaguers. There would have to be some change in the stats if the major leagues had never been segregated, but I don't think the changes would be as major as you seem to think they would be. By the same token, couldn't you say the Negro League stats were inflated because they didn't play all the great white talent that was in the major leagues? And don't say that when they did play the Negro leaguers performed better. Extremely small sample size that doesn't mean anything.

If the average talent level was higher, then the stats would go down. The reverse is true as well. Its happened every time there has been expansion.

Randomly - lets say that baseball suddenly, fully integrated in 1916. There was roughly 700 odd players that played at least an inning in both leagues combined. All white. If all negro league players were available, how many of those 700 would lose their jobs? And how much better would they be than the players they replaced? Again, the top white players would - not - lose their jobs. If overall talent increased, then production for the top players would decrease.

That's why Miguel Cabrera is the best of all time! Where were the Kenta Maeda 's and Yu Darvish 's during Hank Aaron's time!
Where were the Asians!

Check this out. They both got to the majors by age 20 -

Aaron through age 32 -


Cabrera age 20 through 32 -

Nearly identical!