West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Sports & Entertainment => Topic started by: MistaNova on February 12, 2014, 02:34:52 PM
-
Or at least he will after this season ends.
Expect another 6 months (technically 7 but the Yankees won't make it to the postseason so only 6) of people giving Jeter gifts, people saying goodbye to him and talking about how great Jeter was.
Despite that, I appreciate everything Jeter did for us during his career. Hopefully his last at-bat is a walk-off home run in game 162 that helps the Yankees just barely beat out the Orioles for 3rd place in the AL East.
-
:( baseball is never going to be the same
-
Favorite athlete of all-time.
Absolutely depressing. Hope he hits .304 & stays for one more.
-
So who do you guys think should deserve the 4th spot in the Yankees' Mt. Rushmore after Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle and Lou Gehrig? Joe DiMaggio or Derek Jeter?
-
Yankees can't have a Mt. Rushmore.
Some could make the case Mariano is more deserving than Joe or Jeter.
All six mean the same to the organization.
-
A reliever (who's not white) over one of the greatest shortstops (who's half white) and one of the greatest outfielders (who's even whiter) of all time?
-
Can't forget Yogi either. 8)
-
A reliever (who's not white) over one of the greatest shortstops (who's half white) and one of the greatest outfielders (who's even whiter) of all time?
You trollin', being sarcastic or just plain racist? lmao.
-
Can't forget Yogi either. 8)
Yeah sure, and let's include everybody from Whitey Ford to Roberto Kelly!
You trollin', being sarcastic or just plain racist? lmao.
At this point you should know that my posts are 40% serious and 60% trolling.
-
He's the greatest closer of all-time...
His meaning to the New York Yankees (at least to New Yorkers) is as important as anyone mentioned in this thread.
-
He's the greatest closer of all-time...
His meaning to the New York Yankees (at least to New Yorkers) is as important as anyone mentioned in this thread.
But does he surpass the two players that two generations of Yankees fans refered to as Jesus Christ?
All I'm saying is that you don't see too many people naming their kids Mariano after Mo, at especially compared to the number of people who named their kids Derek after Jeter and Joe after DiMaggio.
-
Yankees can't have a Mt. Rushmore.
Some could make the case Mariano is more deserving than Joe or Jeter.
All six mean the same to the organization.
5 of the 6 maybe, but no one touches Ruth. It's not even close. I could see Jeter in 100 years time being seen as just as big to the Yankees as Mickey, or Lou, or Joe. But Babe Ruth will forever be the guy who single-handedly created the dynasty. I mean the second he got there he was leading the league in HRs and RBIs by more than doubling the next guy and still hitting in the high 300s. Show me any other player that can average 350 in ten years while leading the league in slugging 9 out of those tens years, in HRs 8 out of those tens years, and RBIs 6 out of those ten years. Derek Jeter will never be mentioned alongside Babe Ruth.
-
but no one touches Ruth.
A-Rod disagrees.
-
Or at least he will after this season ends.
Expect another 6 months (technically 7 but the Yankees won't make it to the postseason so only 6) of people giving Jeter gifts, people saying goodbye to him and talking about how great Jeter was.
Despite that, I appreciate everything Jeter did for us during his career. Hopefully his last at-bat is a walk-off home run in game 162 that helps the Yankees just barely beat out the Orioles for 3rd place in the AL East.
I don't get it..would you rather not have people show appreciation for one of the generations greats that happens to play on your team?
-
but no one touches Ruth.
A-Rod disagrees.
Based on what? I love A-Rod and in his prime he is a great argument for the best among those he played against, but A-Rod in the 90s had rivals that you could argue for. Ruth in the 20s did not. It would be easier to argue a better baller than Jordan in the 90s than a better baseball player than Ruth in the 20s. And who knows much much better the Yankees could have been if they let him pitch as well. This was a Cy Young caliber pitcher who could hit nearly .400 and rack up 40 to 50 HRs. NOT EVEN CLOSE!
-
I don't get it..would you rather not have people show appreciation for one of the generations greats that happens to play on your team?
I don't mind people saying goodbye to Jeter in say September or near the end of the season. I do mind people (or rather the media) hyping everything up and constantly shoving down the fact that this is Jeter's last year all throughout the summer.
But who knows, maybe I just think that that's going to happen because it happened last year with Rivera and this time it's for Jesus Christ.
Based on what? I love A-Rod and in his prime he is a great argument for the best among those he played against, but A-Rod in the 90s had rivals that you could argue for. Ruth in the 20s did not. It would be easier to argue a better baller than Jordan in the 90s than a better baseball player than Ruth in the 20s. And who knows much much better the Yankees could have been if they let him pitch as well. This was a Cy Young caliber pitcher who could hit nearly .400 and rack up 40 to 50 HRs. NOT EVEN CLOSE!
Based on my eagerness to argue with somebody.
Your post is an incoherent mess. Are you trying to say that Babe Ruth is better than A-Rod because A-Rod wasn't as dominant in the 90's/00's as Babe Ruth was in the 20's?
A-Rod managed to be one the best (fuck it, he was the best) in his prime during one of the most offensive and competitive eras known to baseball whereas Babe Ruth pretty much played with dead-ball era players who couldn't hit home runs against pitching staffs that rarely ever used bullpens. A-Rod managed to beat out other offensive all-time greats like Barry Bonds and Ken Griffey Jr. while hitting against juiced up pitching like Roger Clemens. Meanwhile Babe Ruth was playing with guys who finished their 10 year MLB careers with 40-50 HRs total, meaning his competition was FAR weaker.
-
Based on my eagerness to argue with somebody.
That explains a majority of your posts in this section lmfao.
-
Based on my eagerness to argue with somebody.
That explains a majority of your posts in this section lmfao.
Lol, true.
-
I don't get it..would you rather not have people show appreciation for one of the generations greats that happens to play on your team?
I don't mind people saying goodbye to Jeter in say September or near the end of the season. I do mind people (or rather the media) hyping everything up and constantly shoving down the fact that this is Jeter's last year all throughout the summer.
But who knows, maybe I just think that that's going to happen because it happened last year with Rivera and this time it's for Jesus Christ.
Based on what? I love A-Rod and in his prime he is a great argument for the best among those he played against, but A-Rod in the 90s had rivals that you could argue for. Ruth in the 20s did not. It would be easier to argue a better baller than Jordan in the 90s than a better baseball player than Ruth in the 20s. And who knows much much better the Yankees could have been if they let him pitch as well. This was a Cy Young caliber pitcher who could hit nearly .400 and rack up 40 to 50 HRs. NOT EVEN CLOSE!
Based on my eagerness to argue with somebody.
Your post is an incoherent mess. Are you trying to say that Babe Ruth is better than A-Rod because A-Rod wasn't as dominant in the 90's/00's as Babe Ruth was in the 20's?
A-Rod managed to be one the best (fuck it, he was the best) in his prime during one of the most offensive and competitive eras known to baseball whereas Babe Ruth pretty much played with dead-ball era players who couldn't hit home runs against pitching staffs that rarely ever used bullpens. A-Rod managed to beat out other offensive all-time greats like Barry Bonds and Ken Griffey Jr. while hitting against juiced up pitching like Roger Clemens. Meanwhile Babe Ruth was playing with guys who finished their 10 year MLB careers with 40-50 HRs total, meaning his competition was FAR weaker.
Before I address the rest of your post the topic was Rushmore, as in who will be seen as the greatest Yankee, and it's Ruth by far because of what he did for the team and for the sport.
As for who was better, I still say Ruth. Fuck the era. You take Babe Ruth out of 1920 give him trainers and the A-Rod HGH diet and he'll still lead the league in HRs and bat .350 against 16 different teams with barely an ace on each team. You take A-rod, from 1999 or 2000 and take away his modern sports medical training, and replace his HGH with beer and hot dogs and throw him in a league that only has 7 other teams to play against stacked with aces on each team and he won't lead the league in shit.
People like to tear down the old days of sport like it's not even comparable as if the human body took three steps in evolution since 1920. You had only a handful of teams in each League, and only so many sports for pitchers, an ace on each team could throw high 90s. Factor in the spit ball, the vaseline on their caps, and it was at least as hard then to get a hit. Lets not even factor in the fact that Yankee Stadium was 460 up the middle. Go read the book The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Homeruns to see what I mean.
And the Dead Ball era applied to Ruth to. You think it was a coincidence Ruth jumped from under 30 to over 50 when they brought in new balls every few days? And there were guys hitting HRs in the 20s and 30s during the 1920s when Ruth was on that tear. Guys like Ken Williams, and Lou were hitting dingers. And Joe Hauser could have been a real HR stud had he not broken his leg early in his career and then get screwed over by Ty Cobb.
-
Okay, so you're saying that if you put Babe Ruth in any other era and gave him the proper training and diet and only had him face 15 teams that don't have any ace-caliber pitchers he'd still dominate the game, but if you put A-Rod back in the 1920's without proper training or a proper diet and had him face 7 teams with really good pitching he wouldn't be shit. Correct?
If so, no fucking shit. You put Babe Ruth or anybody with that much talent in a 16 team league with terrible pitching staffs and give them proper training and put them on a proper-ish diet then it shouldn't be a surprise if they dominate the league. Especially as time goes on and Ruth gets used to how the pitchers (who probably aren't talented enough to make adjustments) all pitch.
Meanwhile if you put A-Rod in a 8 team league with incredible pitching staffs without giving him proper training or a proper diet, yeah, he'll have a tough time.
Your situation is full of holes and only serves to give Ruth an advantage.
And look I'm not the kind of person who thinks that everything before the "modern era of baseball" should be thrown out completely. I'm aware of how shit was different back then. How there were shittier pitchers, how heavier bats were, how travelling everywhere wasn't as great as it is today, how they played with dirty lumpy balls that couldn't fly out of stadiums and how they played in stadiums that were so big that balls couldn't fly out of them anway. I think players from back them do deserve some credit for all that.
But at the same time things have changed for the better and baseball is a tougher sport now then it was when Ruth was playing. Especially considering how when Ruth was playing the MLB was all whiteys (except for some people that weren't white looked white). Imagine how different Ruth's career would've been if the MLB had as many races back then as it does now.
-
Okay, so you're saying that if you put Babe Ruth in any other era and gave him the proper training and diet and only had him face 15 teams that don't have any ace-caliber pitchers he'd still dominate the game, but if you put A-Rod back in the 1920's without proper training or a proper diet and had him face 7 teams with really good pitching he wouldn't be shit. Correct?
If so, no fucking shit. You put Babe Ruth or anybody with that much talent in a 16 team league with terrible pitching staffs and give them proper training and put them on a proper-ish diet then it shouldn't be a surprise if they dominate the league. Especially as time goes on and Ruth gets used to how the pitchers (who probably aren't talented enough to make adjustments) all pitch.
Meanwhile if you put A-Rod in a 8 team league with incredible pitching staffs without giving him proper training or a proper diet, yeah, he'll have a tough time.
Your situation is full of holes and only serves to give Ruth an advantage.
And look I'm not the kind of person who thinks that everything before the "modern era of baseball" should be thrown out completely. I'm aware of how shit was different back then. How there were shittier pitchers, how heavier bats were, how travelling everywhere wasn't as great as it is today, how they played with dirty lumpy balls that couldn't fly out of stadiums and how they played in stadiums that were so big that balls couldn't fly out of them anway. I think players from back them do deserve some credit for all that.
But at the same time things have changed for the better and baseball is a tougher sport now then it was when Ruth was playing. Especially considering how when Ruth was playing the MLB was all whiteys (except for some people that weren't white looked white). Imagine how different Ruth's career would've been if the MLB had as many races back then as it does now.
I didn't mean to say A-Rod would be shit. I said he wouldn't lead the league, mainly because Babe Ruth was playing. But A-Rod would still be one of the greats of that era.
And I showed the difference in the number of teams and the leeway pitchers had with substances that weren't banned yet to show more of a parity, rather than a dominance. So when you update all the medicine and training and let anyone who can play into the league I think it evens out.
I don't think blacks being allowed to play would have any effect on Ruth's numbers. Well, not none at all. There would have been some deep balls that went for doubles that may have been chased down by the best black outfielders, and a few superfast groundball singles may have been scooped up before getting past the outfield, but most of the numbers would rely on pitching and the black pitcher never really existed. Even if they let blacks into the league back then I'm not sure many would have won the jobs. A lot of white outfielders and shortstops would be out of work completely but the white pitcher was safe. Latin America didn't have baseball yet so they wouldn't be a factor. The American Black pitcher is a rare thing. There's barely a handful even worth mentioning after the color lines were broken. I think the few that would have made it would have been among the very best of that era but Babe only would have had to face them every so often.