[quote=jaymoney;2718409]
Quote:
Originally Posted by kutulu
It isn't their fault but half of the list never faced a black pitcher.[/QUO
Or a dominican pitcher so I every era can have some sort of * on it
---------- Post added at 08:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:39 PM ----------
Get off your high horse so what if he juiced he still has to hit the damn ball plus there no real proof that the roids help. Plus it wasn't banned when they were juicing so they were not cheating. Yes it was illegal in america but so is coke and the 86 met team was on that do they get a * for that world series win. And all this respect thing who ever said a baseball player plays for respect none of them do not even your heroes of old
|
The argument about no black pitchers is valid... but then, the great white pitchers of that era never faced any black hitters, either. The records for each era have to stand as they are. Personally, I've always hated that Maris's 61 homers had a "*" next to it. Thank heavens HE wasn't black, they probably wouldn't have recognised the record at all!
Steroids are a definite problem when it comes to evaluating players from different eras. I tend to be fairly laissez-faire about it myself, but they definitely give a unnatural enhancement to natural talent (I won't necessarily say unfair). But then again, the training and equipment available to the players of today is quite different than in earlier eras. Even things like lights in stadiums can change things. How many hitters in the early days were foiled by failing light in late games?
Basically, you have judge the players on their results, not on the era. Correcting for all the differing variables is just impossible, and moves this argument into the realm of opinion, which means no one is right except me,.