Retired, but Deserving Hall of Famers

Originally posted by myteamtrulystinks
Aaron played for 23 years there are great pitchers in every era. You think they were just in the 50s and 60s? It is silly to think there were great pitchers then but now there are only great hitters but no great pitchers. There are great pitchers today.
Finally, it is not just the hitters who train more. Pitchers are far better athletes than t ...[text shortened]... both irrelevant and untrue. There have been 17 perfect games since 1880. 8 of them since 1981.

Ok, I will spell this out for you because you just don't seem to get it. Follow this closely because there is math involved. How many teams were in the league when Aaron played versus now? Look at the number of HOF pitchers that came out of his era in ratio to the number of total pitchers of his era. Now do the same thing today, and even giving a lot of latitude for who MIGHT make the HOF, you will discover that the current league is far more diluted than in Aaron's era, which was my point that pitching is diluted today, so the hitters are going to dominate more than in Aaron's era.

The second point. You obviously don't know what you are talking about with respect to pitching. I was a pitcher, and I do know. You are extremely wrong when you say the split finger fastball (the "split"😉 is hard on the arm. Wrong, quite the opposite. It is arm friendly. The difficulty in throwing the pitch is due to the spread that is required between the first two fingers on the pitching hand in order to throw the pitch. Unless the pitcher has large hands or long fingers, they end up stretching the tendons or splitting the skin web between the fingers. The reason pitchers are not throwing as long anymore is due primarily to incorrect weight training which is leading to a huge number of muscular tears and ligament tears due to the torque exerted on the arm and shoulder. This can be further complicated by poor mechanics which many pitchers coming out of college have to some degree. This is why the pros try to draft pitchers out of high school so they can develop the pitcher's mechanics before too many bad habits are engrained. I can go on for quite a while on this, but it is a digression from where we were.

Your theory that the 4th AB against a pitcher is where all of the damage is occurring is meritless. In well pitched ballgames, more often than not, the pitcher is in the "zone" and generally has the hitters in his command. If the pitcher is not in the zone, he has probably been removed from the game already anyway, so he is not there to face them in the 4th AB.

Your arguement of increased foreign players making up for the larger number of teams does not hold water. It is generally considered around baseball that the pure quality of players, as a whole, is diminished from what it used to be. That is not saying the athletes aren't better, but that there are several who would not make it in the league currently playing who would never have made it before. Furthermore, with the increases in injuries, even more are pressed into service who are either unprepared or less talented than they need to be to excel at the big league level, from a pitching standpoint. From a hitting standpoint, they are better trained and better prepared than ever before. How many years do you think it takes to devlop a pitcher through a farm system to the majors, before that pitcher is producing as he should, relative to a hitter.

With regard to Aaron 's wrists, they are thick and strong. I did not say unusually big. There is a difference. You are up in a tree if you are trying to claim his succcess was due to PHD's. I also did not say that A-Rod was using PHD's, but I did allude to the fact that they are far more often used in today's games, and that the possibility that he is or has used them at some time is very realistic. He denies it, but of course virtually every other player denied the use as well, until presented with evidence to the contrary. I hope he has not used the stuff. I hope none of them have or will use it. But, my point originally was that A-Rod has much easier conditions, better training, better equipment, and more diluted pitching than Aaron faced. He should hit more home runs, because the conditions favor it. I believe if he had to face the same conditions Aaron did, his numbers would be far less than they are. This is conjecture on my part since it is impossible to prove it either way.

On your perfect game comment. I said no-hitters and even perfect games. Now, since there are more games played every year due to the increased number of teams, divide the number of no-hitters and perfect games by the number of games per season(s) and you will see the numbers are diminishing. Also, there have been several combined no-hitters. Starting pitchers rarely throw complete games anymore. Roy Halladay probably throws as many CG's as anyone, and he is in the AL where there is a DH which allows him to stay in games when trailing late, although he also has to face another offensive player in lieu of a pitcher during the game which explains the elevated ERA's copmpared to the NL.

If you go back and do the math correctly, you will see that my statements are accurate in all of the points above.

I think a lot of your arguements favor A-rod accomplishments.
Your ratio argument merely shows that a higher percentage of pitchers in the 50s and 60s were in the Hall of Fame. It in no way shows that the pitchers were better. In fact because of innings pitched many of the pitchers in Aaron's era got in because their aggregate numbers were great.
Teams don't just baby pitchers; the math shows pitchers are less effective after throwing 100 pitches. Specialization in the bullpen (and fewer complete games) does not help batters. If the "in the groove" factor was true guys would complete games. It is a business and teams are better pitching fewer complete games.
In the non-DH, pitchers are taken out for reasons other than pitching. It means that A-rod is more likely to face the best available pitcher at any given moment. It just isn't true that you faced a better pitcher every day in the 50s.
The pressures of the day argument is silly too. Maybe since you know Hank Aaron you can compare the discomfort of a train ride down the coast to the discomfort of long plain rides as well as the extra press, the pushiness of the average fan, the off the field opportunities and responsibilities but I am not going to say everyone who played today has tainted numbers but people who played with your buddy Hank when better than the generation before and after.
All this adds up to my conlusion, that I thin A-Rod's number speak for themselves and he has a chance to be one of the handful of greatest players.

Originally posted by myteamtrulystinks
I think a lot of your arguements favor A-rod accomplishments.
Your ratio argument merely shows that a higher percentage of pitchers in the 50s and 60s were in the Hall of Fame. It in no way shows that the pitchers were better.

Real slowly now. If a higher percentage of the pitchers in the 50's & 60's were in the HOF, you don't believe it would be true that the overall quality of pitching was better? How can that possibly be?

I am tired of argueing the case. You just are not able to grasp it. So be it.

For the record, I think A-Rod will be among the greatest players ever to play the game. I never said he wouldn't. I took exception to the home run tital if he breaks Aaron's record, just as I did when Bonds broke it. The times were different and I believe Aaron's mark is still the best because of all the arguements. That is all.

Bill James wrote an article how he thinks the 75% rule makes it much harder for guys in the expansion era to get into the Hall of Fame.

It seems conceivable to me that six guys (although probably not these specific ones at the same time) like Clemens, Biggio, Ramirez, Thomas, Thome and Raines were on the ballot and you only could vote for two (maybe because you already voted for guys like Henderson, Maddux, Glavine, Jeter or whomever or maybe because you feel enough is enough). I don't think any of those six would get enough votes. However, if there were fewer on the ballot even if they has the same career they are more likely to get votes. Simply more players = fewer Hall of Famers even if the players are the same ability.

I never said A-Rod would be the greatest homerun hitter even if he hit 756 homeruns (Bond doesn't count -- we can agree he cheated) becuase it is true that you can't just count homeruns. Actually, I think no one ever passed Ruth (he out homered teams) and hit 60 in a season when guys were nicknamed Homerun Baker and had fewer than 100 in their career.
But, I think to dismiss what a shortstop/ third baseman like A-Rod could potentially accomplish because you know others cheated is his era is unfair.