Rich Rod SAGA

Now let me start off by saying that I think Rich-Rod is one hellauva coach. He has changed the way college football is played with his spread offense. I also wish him luck at Michigan, where I think that he will be a dominate coach. However I still have a problem with him leaving and here's why:

1. You left your team before a BCS bowl game. This most important fact has even non-interested fans up in arms. Many WVU fans are more upset about leaving his team and fans without a coach in the biggest game of the program. Then there is the many factual reporting problems that some of you are told. Interestingly enough, all of the national papers that I read stated that Rich-Rod had a team meeting and told his players about his soon to be departure. Some players were  quoted as  saying he was a "stand up guy" for telling the team first. There are many problems with this of course, first being that potential recruits(for Michigan) knew of Rich-Rod's decision before any of his WVU players did, nice touch of class. Another interesting point is that half of his team walked out of his 10min meeting regarding his departure, nice that was not mentioned in any national papers.

2. He is going to a team where is just another coach. At WVU he could have been a god. He was rebuilding a program that many considered to be a joke. He was a native of WV and supposedly "loved" the area. Fans were of course upset that he lost to Pitt, but there was never a question that he was our coach, no mention of ever being on the hot seat. At Michigan you are not the hometown hero, you lose and your out. Just to give you a peak into how much he meant to a state that does not have any professional teams, there was talk of a tax to help pay his salary and many residents were for it. The importance of the hometown hero argument, Major Harris still makes appearances. If you have no idea who that is, you have just proven my point.

3. There is a saying in Politics that you have no chance of becoming president if you can not win your own state. Look if former Michigan coaches and or alumni do not want the coaching job, then why are you taking it. This signals that they determine the job to either be worse then their current position, or an expectation level that cannot be met. Either way, that does not look very appeasing. Especially when all I heard this week is that there is "only one Michigan", last time I checked there is only one USC, UF, WVU and just about another other school out there.

Now I will explain why I think that he accepted the position:

1. Since going to Michigan there is an article regarding him everyday. He and or his program never received the attention that he has gotten thus far at Michigan.

2. I know that many Big Ten fans will be upset but here goes, your conference sucks!. Look your best team lost to Illinois, they are not a rival, Zook is a good recruit but is not considered to be a great coach and they run a similar offense that WVU does, but with less talent at QB and Rb. Your conference is getting by on name alone. The Big East was dominate in Bowl games last year and get no respect. If Michigan had the same record as WVU and was in the same position, they would be playing in the national championship.

One last comment:

I do not think this will happen and there is very little evidence but know this, Belein left the WVU basketball program for Michigan last year, he was replaced with a former player and hometown guy Huggins. Currently with Belein's players WVU is 10-1. I am not sure what Belein's record is at Michigan, but I know that is not 10-1. WVU will get a hometown guy for it football program, I am not saying that they will surpass the success that Rich-Rod had or that Rich-Rod will have a defunct program, but is something to consider.

So I know that the AP poll has not been posted yet, but I just looked at the Coaches Poll and I have a question. Why is it that WVU lost to South Florida who was ranked at the time and dropped further in the polls then the top teams who lost to unranked opponents? Just this past week USC lost to unranked Stanford and they fell 6 spots! Oklahoma lost to unranked Colorado and dropped five spots, but WVU loses to ranked South Florida and drops 8. Please do not tell me that it is because WVU plays no one. At least half of the teams WVU has played thus far this season competed in bowl games last year. Wisconsin is another example. They dropped 10 spots in the coaches’ poll for losing this past weekend. It appears that if you are a considered an elite program the voters will do whatever is in their power to maintain your standing in the polls.

I am not sure what the big deal is, so 1-AA Michigan lost to 1-AA
Appalachian, this kinda stuff happens all of the time. What I really
love is how the media and fans are trying to make App better then they really are by saying things like "App won the 1-AA Championship recently" or my favorite, "App could probably compete in the Big 10". What I like about it is that the integrity of the conference has not come into question. You better believe that if a Big East team lost to a 1-AA school people would be clamoring to say that the Big East conference is a joke! I am just waiting to see how Michigan fans are going to spin this one. Michigan #### the Big Ten conference this year. Now To Other Musings......
 
-App deserves credit for going to Michigan and beating them at “the big house”, which after this post, will never be referred to by me as “the big house”.

-I do not want to hear any SEC fan tell me again that the Media is bias against you. The only games on this weekend were SEC games. LSU, UGA, TENN, Auburn. However the best Headline comparison goes to Fox Sports, "LSU justifies their ranking by blowing out Mississippi St" or something along those lines, in comparison Louisville beats Murray St 73-10, but that is not considered a blow out or a justification of their ranking.

-Why is it that the networks can not or will not televise the top ranked teams the first week, Florida was not on t.v, WVU was not on t.v, hell even the Michigan game was not on t.v. Only three of the top 10 teams were on television this weekend and two of those games occurred before the weekend officially started. The networks in my area did not even switch to the Michigan game in the final minutes when it was close.

-ESPN, I have watched you for hours this weekend, can I see just 1 WVU
highlight, I mean they are ranked third in the nation!

-Notre Dame proves that either there is no God or that he does not like
football, they stink. I thought that I would get joy out of their
lackluster play, however I just realized that they will still be on t.v no matter how bad they are.

-Auburn, Kansas St, I mean really. If you did not watch that game, know
this, Kansas St looked really good against them or Auburn looked really
bad. Saban you might have a chance!

-I never would have thought that Florida would move up in the polls by
beating Western Kentucky, again Michigan you stink.

I did not want to do it, but you made me. I promised myself that I would not bring up Babe Ruth again this year, but there are just so many misinformed people out there. In the text of this post I will also answer questions/statements that have been posted on other blogs.

 

Babe Ruth is the greatest ballplayer of all time. Yep there I said it. Now I know you are going to tell me that he did not play against Black players, but you would be wrong.  Once Ruth switch to the outfield he went “barnstorming” in the off-season, playing against #### league teams and All-Stars, Cuban ball clubs and other “barnstorming teams” In those games, Ruth was known to put on a show. Overall, he excelled in those games; even Buck O’Neil admitted that Babe Ruth did not play his hardest, while everyone wanted to strike him out. The truth is that Ruth faced some of the best pitchers of all time. Stats show that 4 out of the top 7 pitchers played in the “Ruth Era” according to adjusted E.R.A. One argument has been made that the pitchers of that era only had a few pitches and did not throw hard. The fact is that there is no evidence to back that statement up. If you do a little research the only pitch that I have come across that did not exist in the “Ruth Era” was a slider. Ruth had to content with a pitch that does not exist today, the spitball. Also there are plenty of pitchers that only command 1 or 2 pitches, Mariano throws only a cutter, how effective is he? Oh one more thing, one person has suggested that this era was dominated by knuckleball pitchers. The fact is that knuckleball pitchers have been some of the most effective pitchers throughout baseball history. Some have stated that Ruth was hitting against pitchers who had day jobs at the saw mill. Funny, because in 1910 many minor league players made more then the average worker in the United States, sometimes as much as 30% more. To think that all MLB players had day jobs demonstrates ignorance and the inability to separate history from different sports. There are those that would also argue that Ruth did not face pitching specialist, just pitchers with tired arms. What they fail to realize is that there were also less teams and games. Also, pitchers throw everyday, not just game day, while also throwing in winter leagues. Babe also hit the majority of his homeruns in the early innings, actually the most in the 1st inning. In 1919 Ruth hit more homeruns then 10 MLB teams. In 1920 Ruth hit more Homeruns then 14 out of 15 MLB clubs. In 1927, Ruth hit more homeruns then 7 other American league teams.

 

Now for some Quotes:

 

“Sweet. We always hoped he’d miss the ball so we could see the whole swing. Sweet, just sweet”       -Buck O’Neil, speaking about Ruth’s Swing.

 

“Only heard that sound three times. Babe, Josh Gibson, Bo Jackson”

-Buck O’Neil, speaking about the sound of the ball hitting the bat.

 

“To understand him, you had to understand that he wasn’t human”

-teammate Joe Dugan

 

Buck O'Neil stated that his most cherished possession was a baseball that Babe Ruth hit for a homerun.

 

Everywhere you turn there is talk about equality, in the workplace, at school and in sports. People say that they want to be considered as equal, however what they truly mean is that they want to be considered equal until it no longer benefits them. A perfect example would be those with disabilities. Now I know what you are thinking, I am going to attack cripples (your words not mine), but that’s not the case. In the employment world I am not allowed to base my decision on a potential employee based on their physical limitations, unless those disabilities would prevent one from completing tasks that are entailed in a specific job. Meaning I do not have to hire a wheelchair bound applicant for labor intensive landscaping position. However, if they were to work around the office, then I would be discriminating by not hiring a handicapped individual, if I took their disability in consideration in the hiring process. Now here is the problem that I have with that, I am supposed to treat this disabled individual as equal, yet ignore the fact they have specialized parking closer to buildings, make special arrangements/ install more facilities to accommodate them all the while possibly working extra to compensate for their lack of physical ability. Gloria Steinem once made the argument that female firefighters should not be subject to the same testing as male firefighters. Her point of contention was that many females who wanted to be firefighters could not pass the physical exam and carry a 150 lbs dummy up/down three flights of stairs in a specific amount of time. Gloria felt that female firefighters should be tested with a lighter dummy’s then their male counterparts. However, Gloria feels that males and females should be considered as equals, but components of equality can not be interchangeable. With the Imus mess, the same situation exists. I am sure that many people have no idea that the Chappelle show was partially written by Dave’s partner who is white. What if Chappelle was not the host, but a white guy? How long do you think that it would have taken for the show to get canceled? Actually it probably would have not been green lit. Do you think that the next on air personality will be fired for calling someone a hillbilly, #### or backwoods? Of course not and I think I know why, because white people do not give a rat’s #### what they are called. I am from the south and I have heard every derogatory term that can be used to describe someone and it does not bother me. I can laugh at a black joke, a Jewish joke, and a #### joke, which by the way I heard this really funny joke about….well I tell you about it later. Anyway the ability to use certain terms and or tell certain jokes makes you equal. Previously Jesse Jackson has made some comments regarding the guilt of the Duke Lacrosse players and just yesterday after the charges were dropped he stated that he would not apologize for any comments that he made regarding that issue. Where is the outcry for his firing? Hey I believe in equality, but I just feel that if you really want equality, then you have to take all aspects of it, such as having to park in the green section of Mickey 3 and walking your #### a half a mile to Disney, taking comedy for what it’s worth, ignoring comments from idiots, enjoying the tension with your college roommate (Dawan) while you insert ODB’s #### Please album while he (ODB) goes on for about 3 minutes about hating white people. O.k. that last part did not really fit, but was a funny experience.

 

1. Florida
2. Boise State
3. Louisville
4. LSU
5. USC
6. Wisconsin
7. Auburn
8. WVU
9. Ohio State
10. Rutgers

                             

-         Michigan is not in my top 10, nor should they be, their schedule was weak, like Ohio State.

-         Boise St should be ranked at least 2nd

-         I can not believe that Louisville wins their game and drops in the polls.

-         LSU played a great game against Notre Dame. They are ranked lower then Louisville because they have 2 losses.

-         USC was ranked 8th in the AP so they move up some to 5

-         Wisconsin won their game, they stay put, in the AP they also drop from winning which makes no sense.

-         Auburn wins they move up.

-         WVU moves up (although I am a fan), but because they won coming from behind without their key player, actually according to stats, Slaton is in the Top 3 for running backs in the nation.

-         Ohio State, I feel that I was nice by keeping you in the Top 10, you played no one this season and coasted in on reputation alone. People gave Florida #### saying that they barely beat opponents. Ohio beats Illinois 17-10, Rutgers beats Illinois 33-0, no one mentions that, go figure.

-         Rutgers, you were one of the darlings this year, have a good defense, a great running back and a great coach.

 

 

 

Now I know some of you might be upset by how many Big East teams are in the Top 10, but the Big East is undefeated in Bowl games this year, the only conference to do that. I also want to point out that many detractors said that the “spread offense” that was invented by WVU head coach Rodriguez would never work in the SEC or other “Major Conferences”. Florida uses it and they won the National Title.

-         Notre Dame should not start the season ranked in the Top 15 next year, much less the top 25.

-         Michigan is not #2, or in my opinion, #3, #4 or #5. In fact I am not sure Michigan should be ranked in the Top 10.

-         There will never be a playoff system, because it puts larger more established programs at risk.

-         I hope that Florida beats Ohio State, because I am so sick and tired about hearing how great the “golden five” are. (Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame, Texas, USC). Although USC looked pretty damn good!

-         How did Troy Smith win the Heisman?

-         Since they will never have a playoff system, the NCAA should institute a flex schedule, meaning if you finish the season in the Top25, in the following year you have to schedule at least one out of conference opponent that also finished the previous year in the Top 25.

-         I refuse to believe that there is a bias against the SEC. They have a contract with CBS to televise games on Saturday. If anyone has a complaint it has to be teams from the West Coast, which get no love.

-         How does Dennis Green keep getting head coaching jobs?

-         Maybe Bonds took steroids, maybe he did not, but they have been illegal in baseball since 1990, if you do not believe me, do some research.

-         I refuse to believe that a golfer can be athlete of the year. You walk, someone else carries your clubs and you can be considered a “professional” until you die.

-         Believe me, the Nintendo Wii is worth every penny.

-         Why on earth did the Diamondbacks trade for Randy Johnson, he was washed up when they traded him to the Yankees.

-         Why do professional basketball players whine so much?

Please add or comment, or both.

Maybe this is the first year that I have really paid attention to the heisman award, but does anyone else feel that this year has got to be the worst finalist ever. Let’s look at some numbers to see what I mean.

 

Troy Smith

Passing Efficiency (4), Brennan (1), Beck (2), Russell (3) all rank above him

Total Offense (32), Brennan (1), Beck (4)

Total Passing Yards (33), Brennan (1), Beck (6)

Points Responsible for (7), Brennan (1), Beck (3)

Actually as far as stats go, Smith is not even the best Q.B in the country, much less the runaway heisman winner.

 

Brady Quinn

Passing Efficiency (14)

Total Offense (8)

Total Passing Yards (8)

Points Responsible for (5)

Out of both of these quarterbacks, neither one of them is ranked 1st in any statistical summary as located here, actually Brennan from Hawaii looks amazing.

 

Now let’s look at the R.B McFadden

Rushing (10), Wolfe (1), Johnson (2), Slaton (3), Rice (4)

Total Offense, not in top 100, Wolf (80), Johnson (89), Slaton (90) Rice (100)

Scoring (26), Johnson (1), Bradshaw (2), Rice (6), Slaton (9)

Points Responsible for (65), Johnson (19), Bradshaw (34), Wolf (47), Rice (53), Slaton (61)

As you can see with all of these players that none of them statistically are at the top of their respective categories and yet they are the top three in the hesiman voting, why? I think that out of these three, McFadden is the best athlete and out of these three should win, but he is not even ranked consistently above these other backs. I realize that Smith is the runaway favorite and that has more to do with the fact that he is from one of the “golden 5 “ schools then anything else, but how is he even a runaway favorite. Give me your thoughts.

I was browsing the blog today and I see that LSUfan has made a personal attack against me. His allegation is that I have deleted one of his posts. His rational is that I am a poor sport. However, with most of what LSUfan says, you have to dig a little deeper to get the truth. A couple of weeks ago I posted some comments defending my team and showing some facts about the SEC conference on one of LSUfan’s blog. These comments were then deleted and I was told that they were off topic. LSUfan then posted comments on the very same blog attacking my arguments that he had just deleted; thus giving only one side of the argument. My questions is, if my comments were off topic, then why did you address them on the very same blog? I thought the whole idea of blogging was to hear others thoughts and ideas. It is for this reason that I delete LSUfan’s comment on one of my blogs. Now he has taken offense to his own ignorance. LSUfan I would hope that one day you actually make an argument that is fact based, however I realize that would take some level of intelligence. I do not think you will ever graduate from sitting in the corner and eating glue sticks.

Talking to ESPN Radio's Dan Patrick, Michael Irvin said that Tony Romo's stellar play might be attributable, not to talent and hard work, but to black heritage. Irvin suggested there might have been "some brother down in that line somewhere." Since Romo is almost as white as I am, it is possible that Irvin was joking. But Patrick apparently didn't think so and asked Irvin if black heritage was mandatory for athletic prowess. "That's not the only way, but it's certainly one way," Irvin replied. "If great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandma pulled one of them studs up out of the barn ... `Come on in here for a second,' you know ... " Joke or not, by my count, that's offensive to blacks, whites, grandmothers and humanity in general. And if it was a joke, it's as unfunny as that Michael Richards' tirade. At this point, Irvin and ESPN have been silent on the issue though one hopes that Irvin will issue an apology on Sunday's NFL pre-game show. And let's hope it's not one of those phony "if I offended anyone" apologies. But the networks who hire people like Irvin are the ones who should be apologizing, and not just ESPN

 

 

By these comments I would say that Irvin is a racist and that ESPN should fire him. This matter is no different then Rush Limbaugh’s comments regarding Donavan McNabb and is just one of many idiotic comments made by the former cowboys receiver. What do you think?

 

 

It is amazing to me that so many people come onto fox sports and make statements that just do not have any facts behind them. They regurgitate them over and over again hoping to get other sports fan to eat up their supposed knowledge and become a believer. The main focus of my argument today is the Lie that the SEC is the best conference in football. Now, let me start off by saying that I am a Big East fan (WVU). So I take a special interest considering most people who blog on fox sports considers our conference the “Big Easy”. Listed below are a couple of statements made by other bloggers and my reply with statistical evidence to the contrary.

 

1. The Big East plays 1-AA schools, get a real schedule.

Reply – Actually many teams in D-1 play 1-AA schools, I would say the majority do at one time during the year. But, if you look at the stats, the SEC teams have more games against 1-AA schools then the Big East. 8 out of 12 SEC teams play 1-AA schools or 66%. 5 out of 8 Big East schools play 1-AA schools or 62%.

 

2. The out of conference teams that are played by the Big East are easy wins because they do not play anyone.

Reply – In reality this is not the case. With the season not over yet, it is difficult to add up total wins and losses but as of Thursday, here are the stats.

 

WVU’s out of conference opponents winning percentage 41%

Rutgers out of conference opponents winning percentage 43%

Louisville out of conference opponents winning percentage 43%

LSU’s out of conference opponents winning percentage 35%

Florida’s out of conference opponents winning percentage 45%

Auburn’s out of conference opponents winning percentage is 44%

The difference breaks down to about a game, nothing more.

 

Now for the sake of argument listed below is Ohio State’s and Michigan’s out of conference opponent’s schedule

Ohio State’s out of conference opponents winning percentage 62%

Michigan’s out of conference opponents winning percentage 47%

 

3. Any SEC team could play in the Big East and win the conference

Interesting considering that the Big East is 2-0 verses the SEC this year. I think that same thing was said before WVU played UGA in the Sugar Bowl, I forget what happened to your reigning SEC Champions again.

 

4. WVU should not be ranked as high as they are what have they done.

Reply, actually they have done a lot; they beat the best team the SEC had in the Sugar Bowl, in Atlanta no doubt. They have remained undefeated thus far this year. Have two legitimate Heisman trophy candidates in Slaton and White. Thus far they have done everything that the pollsters have asked of them.

 

As you can see the SEC is not as great and powerful as many would have you believe. If you prescribe to the antidote that you are only as strong as your weakest link(s), the bottom three teams by record in the SEC are a combined 8-19. The bottom three teams in the Big East are 11-14.

 

 

There are many people out there who are under the belief that Babe Ruth played in an era where pitchers had “dead arms” due to their overuse. Listed below are a couple of numbers that might surprise you

Average Innings Pitched Per Decade                             Babe Ruth’s Homerun Per Decade

1910-1919             370.1                                                   1910-1919       49

1920-1929             328.9                                        
           1920-1929       467

1930-1939             312.9                                        
           1930-1939       198

 

Now listed below are pitchers of recent era’s who have pitched 300 innings or more

Bob Gibson

1968    Innings Pitched 304.2               E.R.A   1.12

1969    Innings Pitched 314.0               E.R.A   2.18

Nolan Ryan

1974    Innings Pitched 332.2               E.R.A   2.89

1973    Innings Pitched 326.0               E.R.A   2.87

Don Drysdale

1962    Innings Pitched 314.1               E.R.A   2.83

1963    Innings Pitched 315.1               E.R.A   2.63

1964    Innings Pitched 321.1               E.R.A   2.18

1965    Innings Pitched 308.1               E.R.A   2.77

Sandy Koufax

1963    Innings Pitched 311.0               E.R.A   1.88

1965    Innings Pitched 335.2               E.R.A   2.04

1966    Innings Pitched 323.0               E.R.A   1.73

Juan Marichal

1963    Innings Pitched 321.1               E.R.A   2.41

1966    Innings Pitched 307.1               E.R.A   2.23

1968    Innings Pitched 326.0               E.R.A   2.43

Jim Palmer

1970    Innings Pitched 305.0               E.R.A   2.71

1975    Innings Pitched 323.0               E.R.A   2.09

1976    Innings Pitched 315.0               E.R.A   2.51

1977    Innings Pitched 319.0               E.R.A   2.91

The reason that I have given these numbers is to show that a pitcher can be dominate and throw for over 300 innings. As you can see some of the best years these pitchers had were when they pitched more innings. Pitchers can pitch more innings and still be successful. Please remember also that most if not all MLB pitcher throw/pitch everyday of the season. Many also play winter ball, so basically they play all year. 11 of the top 20 pitcher at baseballreference.com are from The Babe’s era, so by statistics the pitching was superior. The  “Dead Arm” era was non existent.

 

It seems as though every body has a different opinion on the recent steroid problems in Baseball. Many people will cite that steroids were not illegal until recently, however they would be mistaken. There are others who would tell you that you can not compare generations as they seek to prove or disprove and athlete’s past or present worth. However when looking at steroids in sports and particularly in Baseball there are often a few thoughts that are often forgotten,

1. Not every ball player was taking steroids
2. Though the game has changed, the rules still effect how it is played
3. Unfair advantages

 

Now all of these points are intertwined the first is that if not all players were taking steroids, then some players had an unfair advantages. Unlike other rules that have changed the game such as lowering the pitching mound, steroids did not have a universal effect. Since not everyone was taking them, those that were had an unfair advantage. This unfair advantage was not based on height, speed or athleticism, but merely on an illegal substance. Those that took steroids seemed to elevate themselves above other clean players. To put it simply, all of you former athletes were robbed of some glory, money, power because if you took steroids who knows how far you would have gone. Secondly the rules of the game are the rules. In the 1920’s everyone played in the same parks, on uniform mounds with uniform equipment just as today. Meaning that the Yankees play in Yankee Stadium, but so do there visitors. Both teams pitch from the same mounds with the same baseballs and the same bats. But what if someone used and aluminum bat? What if Albert Pujols used and aluminum bat? If he was the only player that did it would that give him and unfair advantage? Would his records still be as amazing? Of course not, just as many baseball fans do not consider the records of the Japanese leagues. Thirdly, talent does not afford you amnesty. Those that took steroids did it because they want more then just the gift of playing professional baseball. They wanted more money and fame then they could have achieved on their own and thus they have not only cheated baseball, but all of us who follow the rules of society and work off butts off honestly.

 

The Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990 became law on November 29, 1990, when President Bush signed the Omnibus Crime Control Bill. The law applies in every Federal court across the country. It places steroids in the same legal class - Schedule III -- as amphetamines, methamphetamines, opium and morphine. Simple possession of any Schedule III substance is a federal offense punishable by up to one year in prison and/or a minimum fine of $1,000.

 

Shortly after this act Commissioner Fay Vincent deemed steroids and illegal substance in Baseball.

I have sought to understand why some athletes of the past are given proper credits for their accomplishments, while others are not. I have to admit this thought started with the Barry/Babe debate. Now, I understand that most people will say that you can not compare superstars of different eras or the dominance of those athletes against their counterparts. Some of these superstars are in constant debate such as Bonds/Ruth and others are not. I have never heard anyone complain that when Wilt scored 100 points in one game the competition was non existent. Interestingly enough, talk is centered on the thought that athletes of today’s era are superior athletically, yet many if not most boxing experts feel that Ali could dominate against the best fighters of today. In other aspects of life however, “superstars” transcend their era, Da Vinci is still considered a genius as is Einstein. Those who did not have access to the technology that we have today are not thought of as less intelligent, actually many people consider them more fascinating because of this. Yet, in sports we like to think that pure athletic ability is only superior in the present era. While certain aspects in sport change such as training, equipment and strategy, the gift of athleticism remains constant. There are certain people throughout sports, that just have it. Barry Sanders was not particularly fast but made All Pros look like mediocre Football Players. Nolan Ryan pitch dominantly in nearly three decades, did the game not change during his tenure? How many players have you seen like Shaq? There are a few athletes that change the way we view sports, they dominate their sport to the level of legends. For some unknown reason we would like to believe that The Babe did not have to contend with talent similar as today. Yet the only pitch the Babe probably did not see was a slider. That the talent was not as good because of the “dead arm era”, yet if you look at the top ERA leaders of all time, many pitched in his era. Does anyone question the force/power of an Ali uppercut? Then why is the distance of Ruth’s homeruns in question? It is also interesting how rules reflect the time. If you stopped watching basketball 20 years ago and recently started watching again you would probably see that most people travel or carry. Jordan carried the ball plenty of times, and yet no one questions his dominance, why? If you asked any of Jordan’s contemporaries what they thought of him, the answer would probably be the best basketball player ever. I personally am waiting, with great anticipation for an athlete that posses similar attributes of Bo Jackson to come along again. Then there is the argument that today’s players are just stronger then in the past. Last time I checked, Roy Oswalt, Billy Wagner and Flash Gordan throw amazingly fast, yet all of these men are not big or particularly well built. Doug Flutie and Jeff Blake can launch a football, neither one of them are giants. Athleticism dominates time, no matter what the era.

A response to Don't get sentimental about Babe being passed:

I find Dayn Perry article to completely ignore some interesting points when considering Babe Ruth's stats as overvalued. First let’s point out that many people consider Ted Williams to be the greatest hitter of the game. It is interesting to note that Babe Ruth batted 2 points lower in lifetime average than Ted Williams, .342 to .344 while also amassing 193 more homeruns. It is also interesting to note that the all time hits leader Pete Rose's lifetime batting average is .303. Perry also brings up the subject of Babe Ruth taking advantage of smaller parks. Just as in baseball ball today some parks are smaller than others. It is important to note that the dimensions of some parks were also bigger. Most of the parks of that era were known for there size, such as Shibe Park, Polo Grounds. It is a folly to assume that Babe Ruth pulled all of his homeruns down the line, especially when you consider his batting average, which proves his hitting prowess. It is also interesting to note that Babe Ruth played some of his years in an era where spitballs and scuffing the balls was a legal part of the game, interesting that is not the case now. Also most of the time baseballs were used the entire game, with the markings and scuffs giving the pitcher and advantage over the batter. To note, most historians say that a one baseball was used per 100 hundred pitches. In today’s environment a pitcher can request a new baseball at anytime. There was also no presence of batting helmets and shin guards or elbow guards. How often do you think Barry Bonds would crowd the plate if he did not employ some of these protective measures? Until the advent of lighted stadiums, games were called because of darkness, meaning that games were played until the umpire thought that they could not be played anymore. Though I was not present I assume that this rule was much like the rain rule is today, meaning darkness has to be present for the game to be called. Have you ever tried to hit a baseball with diminished light? It is also interesting to point out that most early baseball players did not have the luxury to hit with advanced equipment, use computers with scouting reports or hit a baseball that are woven as tight as those of present day. The argument is also presented, that sense baseball did not admit certain ethnicities into the game, and the records should not be taken as seriously. This argument makes no sense for the simple reason that not all ethnicities are present in today's baseball environment. Those players of indigenous of the Pacific Rim are just recently trickling into baseball, so does that mean that Cal Ripken streak is not as significant because those players from the Pacific Rim have not fully integrated into baseball? What about players from Siberia, or remote tribes of Africa and South America. How many players are from India, Pakistan, Afghanistan exist in baseball? According to the author, until they are represented no baseball record is significant enough to be taken seriously. In ending I also think that it is important to realize that although Babe Ruth was not a model human, he did grow up in an environment that was very drastic from today’s standards. Though he was not considered the model baseball player by his peers in his era, very few people if any did not think that he was the best baseball player.

Babe Ruth played part of his career in the Dead Ball era,

Barry Bonds played the majority of his career in the steroid era.