Did all of the white player's statistics immediately and precipitously decline when the league was integrated? Ted Williams' best season came 2 years after integration. This is a terrible argument because the only way it would make sense is if the pitchers who were being excluded were significantly better than those Ruth was facing. What if there were 2 players today, one that had to face Roger Clemons, Randy Johnson, Tim Hudson, Chris Carpenter, and Mike Mussina, and another that faced Clemons, Johnson, Hudson, Dontrelle Willis, and Felix Hernandez? That is a very similar schedule, and one does not have a significant advantage over the other. With fewer teams and fewer pitchers being used, there were enough white pitchers to go around. Since batting is mostly between the batter and the pitcher, the lack of minority players probably did not have a large effect on Ruth, certainly not the same as playing 6 seasons in the dead ball era, facing pitchers throwing off of a higher mound, not having access to modern weight training, and not using steroids. If anything, the difference in eras argument works in favor of Ruth and against Bonds, which is seen in the fact that Bonds was hitting 3 more homeruns than McGwire, while Ruth was hitting more homeruns than all but a few TEAMS.
How would you know a high point in Astros' history -- you're a Red Sox fan there Garciaparra. I have no doubt though - that a rookie like yourself would jump on the Stros' bandwagon after the amazing World Series run last season.
Been going to Astros games since I was a baby. I remember the Dome vividly, I remember the frustrations of the 90s just as well as the recent successes. Nice try, cheater apologist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem "A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form: 1. A makes claim X. 2. There is something objectionable about A. 3. Therefore claim X is false. The first statement is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The last statement is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit. Ad hominem is one of the best-known of the logical fallacies usually enumerated in introductory logic and critical thinking textbooks. Both the fallacy itself, and accusations of having committed it, are often brandished in actual discourse (see also Argument from fallacy). As a technique of rhetoric, it is powerful and used often, despite its inherent incorrectness. In constrast, an argument that instead relies (fallaciously) on the positive aspects of the person arguing the case is sometimes known as "positive ad hominem," or appeal to authority."
Incorrect. The relevance of my post was to refute the claim that I'm a bandwagon Astros fan. The quote from wikipedia was to illustrate the fallacious reasoning of King Cheetah. Try again.
What relevance does you being an Astros fan have with the fact that Bonds hit his 714th homer? None. The fallacious reasoning of King Cheetah also has no relevance to Bonds hitting the homer. You lose.
This should have been Ken Grumpy Junior. This record won't stand because Brad Lidge's boy, Albert Pujols will make a run at 800, and so will Alex Rodriguez.
Yes, while claiming that somehow KingCheetah wasn't being relevant, but you are? His post is not the subject of the thread, therefore you are not being relevant and as such, hypocritical.
Actually, I said that his claim that it's unlikely that Bonds still uses steroids is not relevant because that doesn't negate a past history of cheating. So what are you talking about again?
You attacked the relevance of KingCheetah's post. You then went on to discuss ad hominems, which have absolutely no relevance to Barry Bonds. That is irrelevant, so you are being hypocritical.
Major League Baseball was and is the highest level of professional baseball. Bonds was the most prolific hitter in his era, and arguably of all time. Despite not having minorities, it's arguable that the quality of pitching overall was better at that time than even now due to the number of teams in the league. There were 18 teams when Ruth played, now we have 30. You're putting words into my mouth. You and Party Boy are claiming that MLB record keeping was questionable in Ruth's time and that there were better players in the Negro Leagues that should be included in the argument as to who was the greatest home run hitter of all time. I'll admit I could have presented what I was trying to convey better, but my point was that I've never heard of anyone questioning the legitimacy of MLB's record keeping, something I can't say about the Negro Leagues. The player in the Negro Leagues that I would assume you are referring to is Josh Gibson, who's Hall of Fame plaque reads "HIT ALMOST 800 HOME RUNS IN LEAGUE AND INDEPENDENT BASEBALL DURING HIS 17-YEAR CAREER." Want to tell me why they don't give an exact number? I don't know, why don't you tell me? Maybe because they both play in what was recognized now and then as the highest professional baseball league? What do you want to do RR, write off everything in MLB history before Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier? What's done is done, but it's not like Ruth played his entire career (or even part for the stats we're talking about) in the minor leagues, for a college, or in Japan. He played for what was considered the top baseball league in the country. Are you seriously comparing Major League Baseball in the early 1900's to "middle kentucky leagues?" If so, that's the dumbest thing I've ever seen you post. Ever.
