vajerzy Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 Tigers are now the slowest team in MLB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 Isn't Fielder a little long in the tooth? He'll be 28 in May. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul secor Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 Isn't Fielder a little long in the tooth? He'll be 28 in May. How old is that in fat guy years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 Isn't Fielder a little long in the tooth? He'll be 28 in May. How old is that in fat guy years? Years? Still 28. Knees? That remains to be seen... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alocispepraluger102 Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 (edited) Isn't Fielder a little long in the tooth? He'll be 28 in May. How old is that in fat guy years? Years? Still 28. Knees? That remains to be seen... i've been asserting the 'fatman' issue, with absolutely no success, concerning cc for 7 years. Edited January 25, 2012 by alocispepraluger102 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JETman Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 cc's a pitcher and plays only 1 out of every 5 games. Different situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted January 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 Isn't Fielder a little long in the tooth? He'll be 28 in May. How old is that in fat guy years? Years? Still 28. Knees? That remains to be seen... OK. Now, it makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BERIGAN Posted January 28, 2012 Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 (edited) Isn't Fielder a little long in the tooth? He'll be 28 in May. How old is that in fat guy years? Years? Still 28. Knees? That remains to be seen... i've been asserting the 'fatman' issue, with absolutely no success, concerning cc for 7 years. But eventually.... you will be right! Babe Ruth played fat(not at first of course) smoked, whored around, drank too much, ate meat (unlike Fielder) and at the age of 36 he struggled to hit 46 Hrs', drive in 163 RBI's and only batted .373. And he didn't drive in 100 runs after he turned 38! So sad... Clearly, Fielder should start drinkin' smokin, and eatin' like a man, and he should do fine over the life of the contract! Edited January 28, 2012 by BERIGAN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quincy Posted January 28, 2012 Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 After too many years of steroids & HGH stories I can't help but laugh at the Wall St. Journal's headline "Will Cholesterol Kill Baseball?" There's a quote from John Kruk who takes the position you'd expect from him. "I can go to the gym right now and find 10 guys in great shape, but I wouldn't want them on my baseball team," he said. "For years the sport has been hooked on guys who are 6-foot-3 with 4% body fat. But those guys seem to spend as much time on the disabled list." Cecil Fielder faded after age 32 and he was (still is I guess) 6'3" and allegedly just 230. (Maybe in his rookie year.) And he has 4 inches of height on his son. However there's ample evidence that genes don't matter a whole heck of a lot in baseball so I wouldn't put an expiration date on Prince at that age because of that. I would hope that Detroit would be able to require that Prince have a trainer to shed some of the poundage in the coming years, but I kind of doubt a Boras client would allow such a thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted January 29, 2012 Report Share Posted January 29, 2012 Brooks Robinson injured in fall: http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/1/29/2756251/brooks-robinson-injured-fall-hall-of-fame C'mon Brooks, take care of yourself now, please! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave James Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 After too many years of steroids & HGH stories I can't help but laugh at the Wall St. Journal's headline "Will Cholesterol Kill Baseball?" There's a quote from John Kruk who takes the position you'd expect from him. "I can go to the gym right now and find 10 guys in great shape, but I wouldn't want them on my baseball team," he said. "For years the sport has been hooked on guys who are 6-foot-3 with 4% body fat. But those guys seem to spend as much time on the disabled list." Cecil Fielder faded after age 32 and he was (still is I guess) 6'3" and allegedly just 230. (Maybe in his rookie year.) And he has 4 inches of height on his son. However there's ample evidence that genes don't matter a whole heck of a lot in baseball so I wouldn't put an expiration date on Prince at that age because of that. I would hope that Detroit would be able to require that Prince have a trainer to shed some of the poundage in the coming years, but I kind of doubt a Boras client would allow such a thing. Baseball is very different from other professional sports. It's not an "endurance" sport requiring that one be in tip top shape to play well. It's only relatively recently that baseball players paid any attention to being in condition. Isn't that why they have spring training? Also, it's pretty common knowledge that weight training for baseball is entirely different that it is for other sports. The muscle groups you use are different, so the way you work in the weight room is different as well. I'm not making an argument that you don't have to be in shape to play at the major league level, but it's such a twitch reflex/eye-hand coordination sort of game that it's not going to make the sort of difference that is does in other sports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted January 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Isn't Fielder a little long in the tooth? He'll be 28 in May. How old is that in fat guy years? Years? Still 28. Knees? That remains to be seen... i've been asserting the 'fatman' issue, with absolutely no success, concerning cc for 7 years. But eventually.... you will be right! Babe Ruth played fat(not at first of course) smoked, whored around, drank too much, ate meat (unlike Fielder) and at the age of 36 he struggled to hit 46 Hrs', drive in 163 RBI's and only batted .373. And he didn't drive in 100 runs after he turned 38! So sad... Clearly, Fielder should start drinkin' smokin, and eatin' like a man, and he should do fine over the life of the contract! Babe Ruth never faced a slider, sinker or 100+ MPH fastball either. Never played against any of the best Black ballplayers of the time. And played at a time when the ballplayers worked winter jobs and/or passed on professional ball to earn a living. Today, he would be either a bench player or in the bullpen. And as fat and out of shape as he was, optioned out before he hit 30. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quincy Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) Babe Ruth was 6'3" and weighed between 215 to around 250 or so. We don't know how he would handle today's pitching if he was teleported from 1927 or if you gave him the chance to grow up in Florida with year round training & video, but I wouldn't bet against him in either scenario for reasons David James mentions. But there's a big difference between being 6'3" and 250 and 5'11" and 275! I'm half an inch taller than Prince and I can't imagine walking around weighing about 100 lbs. As others have noted, it's hard to see this ending well for the Tigers or Prince once he starts life in his 30s. Edited January 30, 2012 by Quincy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted January 30, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 (edited) Babe Ruth was 6'3" and weighed between 215 to around 250 or so. We don't know how he would handle today's pitching if he was teleported from 1927 or if you gave him the chance to grow up in Florida with year round training & video, but I wouldn't bet against him in either scenario for reasons David James mentions. Maybe. His nutrition and exercise regimine would have to be drastically different. However, 6'3" and corpulent simply does not lend itself to longevity or quality play on the field. But let's be honest here. The ballplayers of that time period weren't up to the caliber playing level of what is on the field today. I dare say, most minor leaguers would out-compete Ruth. The League just wasn't that stacked with outstanding players back then and there were far fewer teams and a much shorter and softer schedule as well. And you're right, there is no way to ever tell if Ruth could handle today's players...but I doubt it. Edited January 31, 2012 by GoodSpeak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) I'd like to think that real talent is forever, and that it will rise to the level of whatever competition with which it is presented. Which is just to say - you take the old school and pull them straight out of 1927 and drop them right into 2012, hell no, most of them would fold. But you take those guys out of their cradle at birth and move them ahead 80+ years and let them come up facing this level of skill, and, yeah, I think a lot of the guys that excelled then would still excel now, assuming that they didn't get sidetracked playing video games or some such. Edited January 31, 2012 by JSngry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted January 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 I'd like to think that real talent is forever, and that it will rise to the level of whatever competition with which it is presented. Which is just to say - you take the old school and pull them straight out of 1927 and drop them right into 2012, hell no, most of them would fold. But you take those guys out of their cradle at birth and move them ahead 80+ years and let them come up facing this level of skill, and, yeah, I think a lot of the guys that excelled then would still excel now, assuming that they didn't get sidetracked playing video games or some such. No doubt. But there were far fewer of them than there are today. Let's not forget that college baseball or HS baseball was not widely played like it is now. So, the "gene pool" would be a lot shallower, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) Barring some basic genetic mutation in the species, my hunch is that the % of true talent relative to the overall population is probably close to a constant over time. I don't think the species suddenly developed a special baseball gene, if you know what I mean. What changes is # of opportunities, the size of the "venue", if you will. Let's face, there's a lot of pros today who wouldn't have made it to the bigs (or still be in them) if it was still just a sixteen team affair. Pitchers and utility players, especially. Edited January 31, 2012 by JSngry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quincy Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 There's a great deal of potential talent siphoned away by football & basketball, and in all likelihood soccer is increasingly doing so too. I think another point in Babe's favor in being successful is it's important to remember that bodies built like Pujols are far from the norm. Lance Berkman, John Kruk and Jim Thome are few examples of guys who at times were as porky per inch as the Bambino at his worst, yet all are or were highly successful hitters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted January 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 Barring some basic genetic mutation in the species, my hunch is that the % of true talent relative to the overall population is probably close to a constant over time. I don't think the species suddenly developed a special baseball gene, if you know what I mean. What changes is # of opportunities, the size of the "venue", if you will. Let's face, there's a lot of pros today who wouldn't have made it to the bigs (or still be in them) if it was still just a sixteen team affair. Pitchers and utility players, especially. I disagree. Sports were not even close to as widely played then as they are today. The vast reach and recruitment of ballplayers today is far and away more active now. There's a great deal of potential talent siphoned away by football & basketball, and in all likelihood soccer is increasingly doing so too. I think another point in Babe's favor in being successful is it's important to remember that bodies built like Pujols are far from the norm. Lance Berkman, John Kruk and Jim Thome are few examples of guys who at times were as porky per inch as the Bambino at his worst, yet all are or were highly successful hitters. True. But Babe never broke down film or trained like those guys did, either. The training is a huge part of success in today's game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted January 31, 2012 Report Share Posted January 31, 2012 Barring some basic genetic mutation in the species, my hunch is that the % of true talent relative to the overall population is probably close to a constant over time. I don't think the species suddenly developed a special baseball gene, if you know what I mean. What changes is # of opportunities, the size of the "venue", if you will. Let's face, there's a lot of pros today who wouldn't have made it to the bigs (or still be in them) if it was still just a sixteen team affair. Pitchers and utility players, especially. I disagree. Sports were not even close to as widely played then as they are today. The vast reach and recruitment of ballplayers today is far and away more active now. Uh...that's pretty much what I'm saying... There's more sheer number of high-talent players today, but there's also more people playing and more opportunities for them to play. But relative to the overall # of player population, I think the # of high-talent players is no better now than then. 5% of 100 = 5, 5% of 10,000 = 500, and sure, 500 is 100 times more than 5, but otoh, 5% is still 5%. That's all I'm saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BERIGAN Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 Isn't Fielder a little long in the tooth? He'll be 28 in May. How old is that in fat guy years? Years? Still 28. Knees? That remains to be seen... i've been asserting the 'fatman' issue, with absolutely no success, concerning cc for 7 years. But eventually.... you will be right! Babe Ruth played fat(not at first of course) smoked, whored around, drank too much, ate meat (unlike Fielder) and at the age of 36 he struggled to hit 46 Hrs', drive in 163 RBI's and only batted .373. And he didn't drive in 100 runs after he turned 38! So sad... Clearly, Fielder should start drinkin' smokin, and eatin' like a man, and he should do fine over the life of the contract! Babe Ruth never faced a slider, sinker or 100+ MPH fastball either. Never played against any of the best Black ballplayers of the time. And played at a time when the ballplayers worked winter jobs and/or passed on professional ball to earn a living. Today, he would be either a bench player or in the bullpen. And as fat and out of shape as he was, optioned out before he hit 30. Congrats Goodspeak, your goofiest post ever, quite the feat! on the slider... The innovator of the slider is debated, but some credit Chief Bender as the first to use the slider, also George Blaeholder was credited with using it with the St. Louis Browns then called a "nickel curve", in the 1910s.[8] Bender used his slider to help him achieve a no-hitter and win 212 games in his career.[9] As for fastballs. Ever hear of Walter Johnson? Widely regarded as the best pitcher ever? Some interesting talk on fastball pitcher throughout history. http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/fastest-pitcher-in-baseball.shtml It's true Babe Ruth faced pitchers out of gas, (a better example would have been he never faced split finger pitches, though a few guys threw spitters, as they always have )and in some smaller parks. But, as others mentioned, He didn't have videotape to watch, didn't work out like players today... The best player of any era would be one o the bests player of any era. Why? What you and I can't see. Most baseball players have extraordinary capabilities to coordinate physical and mental processes, including fast reaction times, focus and high visual acuity. Studies conducted by Columbia University on Babe Ruth while he was playing showed that he could react to visual and sound cues much faster than the average person and that he had better hand-eye coordination than 98.8 percent of the population. More Ever see the bat Babe Ruth used??? Think it was a bit harder to whip thru the zone than what Bonds used??? Would you feel better if it was proven Babe had some black blood in him??? As some old timey folks mentioned about Babe in the Ken Burns baseball documentary, how many white guys have noses like he did? I wish he had played with the Josh Gibsons of the world, but he didn't. I also wish he hadn't "wasted" all those years being the best left handed pitcher in the game (and setting W.S. records that took decades to break) I also wish he hadn't started playing in the dead ball era too..can't change those facts either. All I know is he was the best baseball player ever, period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHILLYQ Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 His homer totals were so extraordinary that he outhomered entire teams! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted February 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) Walter Johnson is only one pitcher and Ruth didn't face him every time at bat. And the "Black blood" comment is beneath contempt, Berigan. Additionally, Ruth's HR totals were huge because the pitching was mediocre at best...illegal big bats notwithstanding. He was probably seeing a lot of gofer balls and high hangers. But, hey, if you Ruth purists want to believe he was better than anybody we see today with high BAs and HR totals, have a blast. I just don't happen to agree with you. Edited February 1, 2012 by GoodSpeak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 I'd like to know how the increased window of opportunity to sober up before game time that night games provide would have affected Ruth. I'm not a Babe Ruth fetishist. Far from it. But I also don't want to underplay or dismiss his skills either, especially relative to his time. Both extremes seem more emotional than rational to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted February 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 I'd like to know how the increased window of opportunity to sober up before game time that night games provide would have affected Ruth. I'm not a Babe Ruth fetishist. Far from it. But I also don't want to underplay or dismiss his skills either, especially relative to his time. Both extremes seem more emotional than rational to me. I don't know that there would be any measurable difference in sobriety, Jim. I mean, 24 hours is 24 hours, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.