There's no stars in racing? Is that right?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Round Pen

CHuck Chuck Chuck you need to go look up some statistics before you start making these posts. If Cabrera Plays 10 More seasons he would have to average 200 hits per year to close in on RC 3000 lifetime hits. and in 10 years that would but him at 17 or 18 years service in the big leagues.


No Doubt Cabrera is a good hitter But he strikes out way to Much in fact at his current rate in 5 years (which would make his 11th or 12th season) he will have struck out more times than RC did in 18 seasons

Actually since he is averaging 189 hits a season and has yet to hit his prime years it is hardly a stretch to think he wont surpass Clemente in total hits. You do realize that he just turned 26 and already has 1100 hits? Clemente "led" the league in GIDP's which are quite a bit worse than strikeouts.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Actually since he is averaging 189 hits a season and has yet to hit his prime years it is hardly a stretch to think he wont surpass Clemente in total hits. You do realize that he just turned 26 and already has 1100 hits? Clemente "led" the league in GIDP's which are quite a bit worse than strikeouts.

Imagine Clemente on steriods? I would suggest that comparing baseball players today to 30 years ago is a dicey proposition. I really have no fundamental issue with going home to the DR and cycling for the winter. They all were doing it so I figure it was fair for everybody. I think its pretty obvious Caberra's body has dramatically changed since his 167lbs 19 year old days in Florida.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Clemente was a great player but Cabrera is a better hitter by almost every measure. In 4 or 5 years he will have surpassed Clemente in every meaningful hitting measure while having played 60% of the time RC did.

The fallacy of statistics.

Cabrera, a player that just last season was sent to triple A, being compared to Roberto Clemente (favorably, no less) is...

And now I get it.

Great point!

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

The fallacy of statistics.

Cabrera, a player that just last season was sent to triple A, being compared to Roberto Clemente (favorably, no less) is...

And now I get it.

Great point!

Before you start your (usually misguided) rantings, YOU should check the numbers. Since he became a starter in 2004 he has played in 160, 158, 158,157, and 160 games. He is better than babe ruth if during that time he actually had time to play in the minors while playing virtually every game in the majors too. At least make sure you get the correct Cabrera before you post nonsense.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Before you start your (usually misguided) rantings, YOU should check the numbers. Since he became a starter in 2004 he has played in 160, 158, 158,157, and 160 games. He is better than babe ruth if during that time he actually had time to play in the minors while playing virtually every game in the majors too. At least make sure you get the correct Cabrera before you post nonsense.

I thought you meant melky who was mentioned earlier in the thread which is about as misguided as delonte west being a player.

carry on.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Kasept

As was discussed yesterday on ATR, the 'past year's relation' is a seperate discussion. It's not a matter of valuating the current elite runners versus the elite runners of yesteryear, because this is today and that was yesterday.

Oh boy.

Originally Posted by Kasept

Constantly harping that so and so pales in comparison to the Skip Aways of halcyon days of yore only serves to diminish the enjoyment of what we have right now.

Speak plain.

Pretending some of these horses are really good when they're not only serves to diminish the enjoyment of being right.

Originally Posted by Kasept

I don't get the eagerness to do that. And more importantly, it quells newer, younger fans enthusiasm if they constantly hear that the game sucks now by comparison to when "it was great and I was there".

If I wanted to be like that I'd be all like 'dude... if you think the last two divisions of 3yo males royally suck ... go back and look at the rats from '93'

Originally Posted by Kasept

No matter how good they look in their era, Derek Jeter ain't Al Kaline, Miguel Cabrera ain't Roberto Clemente and no one pitching is Bob Gibson, but that doesn't diminish the respective player's current roles as 'stars'.

I watch ESPN Classic and the MLB station every once and a while. The newer athletes are way better than the older ones as far as I can tell. My favorite is watching the place kickers in the old football games. Those guys suck.

Originally Posted by Kasept

We're doing ourselves a diservice if we go out of our way to pedestal salad day stars for what we have now.

If the whole point is to make us feel good about what we have today ... why not just pick the really bad stars from weak divisions of years past and compare todays stars with them?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Kasept

As was discussed yesterday on ATR, the 'past year's relation' is a seperate discussion. It's not a matter of valuating the current elite runners versus the elite runners of yesteryear, because this is today and that was yesterday.

Constantly harping that so and so pales in comparison to the Skip Aways of halcyon days of yore only serves to diminish the enjoyment of what we have right now. I don't get the eagerness to do that. And more importantly, it quells newer, younger fans enthusiasm if they constantly hear that the game sucks now by comparison to when "it was great and I was there".

No matter how good they look in their era, Derek Jeter ain't Al Kaline, Miguel Cabrera ain't Roberto Clemente and no one pitching is Bob Gibson, but that doesn't diminish the respective player's current roles as 'stars'.

We're doing ourselves a diservice if we go out of our way to pedestal salad day stars for what we have now.

This is tremendously misguided. The supposed " stars " aren't bringing people to the track anyway. Now, if you want to argue if there were actually some good horses around, and they raced more than occasionally ( how exactly should anyone be excited by Kip Deville when he actually deviated from last year's ambitious three race schedule to make a rare fourth appearance in the Poker? ), as well as against each other, maybe we could generate some enthusiasm. However, the bottom line is that the appeal of substance is the game and that is what generates excitement....and what can make the game healthy. This is what we need to promote. What we don't need to do is promote by lying and pretending.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

However, the bottom line is that the appeal of substance is the game and that is what generates excitement....and what can make the game healthy. This is what we need to promote. What we don't need to do is promote by lying and pretending.

No one is lying or pretending. If the competition is balanced, albeit at a reduced level of quality as judged by the top performance valuations, than how is that not as much of an excitement generator as the competition level of an earlier era?

We're always reminded that it's the players that drive the game. Well, the mutuels are still returning as much or more as they ever have with the innovations of multi-horse and multi-race wagers. You could even argue that the excitement has been enhanced by those mutuel innovations and bonanza returns.

The horses we have are the horses we have. The esthetics haven't changed. Our view of the current generation versus previous only makes it 'feel' like they have.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Kasept

No one is lying or pretending. If the competition is balanced, albeit at a reduced level of quality as judged by the top performance valuations, than how is that not as much of an excitement generator as the competition level of an earlier era?

We're always reminded that it's the players that drive the game. Well, the mutuels are still returning as much or more as they ever have with the innovations of multi-horse and multi-race wagers. You could even argue that the excitement has been enhanced by those mutuel innovations and bonanza returns.

The horses we have are the horses we have. The esthetics haven't changed. Our view of the current generation versus previous only makes it 'feel' like they have.

I agree that the wagering aspect of the game is better in many ways....but I don't agree with the rest. Pretending that a bunch of less than stellar horses are as exciting as truly good horses does not generate any real excitement or interest.....and I think it shows. It is unfortunate that the high level talent plateau has become so low that many people seem to already believe Rachel Alexandra is an all-time great.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Pretending that a bunch of less than stellar horses are as exciting as truly good horses does not generate any real excitement or interest.....and I think it shows.

Who's pretending? And I think this is the crux... Your passion for the game, and Chuck's, pre-dates mine by a good 10-15 years. While I remember the truly great horses that you are holding up to today's horses for scrutiny, I don't require that today's best be as good as them. I find Proud Spell and Music Note battling to the wire in the Alabama earning 101 Beyers every bit as exciting as Heavenly Prize earning a 111 over Lakeway. Would Proud Spell or Music Note beat Mom's Command? Or Open Mind or Maplejinsky or Go For Wand? No... But that's OK for me personally.

This is a great discussion. And my underlying issue partially is that since the vast majority of younger fans can only relate to what they see, it doesn't serve much benefit to abjectly belittle what they are embracing as great in their time.

The objective is to appreciate the modern 'stars' while educating the unenlightened or neophyte as to why Rachel Alexandra and Curlin aren't even in the Top 50 All Time let alone among the Top 10 or 20. (Which brings up the issue of who is going to handle the assignment with Jess Jackson?)

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Who's pretending? And I think this is the crux... Your passion for the game, and Chuck's, pre-dates mine by a good 10-15 years. While I remember the truly great horses that you are holding up to today's horses for scrutiny, I don't require that today's best be as good as them. I find Proud Spell and Music Note battling to the wire in the Alabama earning 101 Beyers every bit as exciting as Heavenly Prize earning a 111 over Lakeway. Would Proud Spell or Music Note beat Mom's Command? Or Open Mind or Maplejinsky or Go For Wand? No... But that's OK for me personally.

This is a great discussion. And my underlying issue partially is that since the vast majority of younger fans can only relate to what they see, it doesn't serve much benefit to abjectly belittle what they are embracing as great in their time.

The objective is to appreciate the modern 'stars' while educating the unenlightened or neophyte as to why Rachel Alexandra and Curlin aren't even in the Top 50 All Time let alone among the Top 10 or 20. (Which brings up the issue of who is going to handle the assignment with Jess Jackson?)

While there are still great races, cards, days, etc. the quality of top horses simply doesnt match up anymore in most cases. It is like saying that that a triple A game is the same as a major league game because the score was close. Both may be entertaining events that you had a good time watching (or even betting on) but when push comes to shove you know that the AAA game isnt the same as the majors. Horses like Einstein, while nice horses that are versatile and game, simply arent much better than AAA all stars posing as major leaguers. He and Commentator are far from great horses yet have had longevity which allows them to add to the their list of accomplishments against other less than stellar competition (for the most part) but have never been considered or done anything truly extraordinary. Our society loves lists and all time greats and other rankings. Racings current problem is that historically the modern "stars" simply dont measure up no matter how hard we try to accept the new reality of horseracing.

[satan's twin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

While there are still great races, cards, days, etc. the quality of top horses simply doesnt match up anymore in most cases. It is like saying that that a triple A game is the same as a major league game because the score was close. Both may be entertaining events that you had a good time watching (or even betting on) but when push comes to shove you know that the AAA game isnt the same as the majors. Horses like Einstein, while nice horses that are versatile and game, simply arent much better than AAA all stars posing as major leaguers. He and Commentator are far from great horses yet have had longevity which allows them to add to the their list of accomplishments against other less than stellar competition (for the most part) but have never been considered or done anything truly extraordinary. Our society loves lists and all time greats and other rankings. Racings current problem is that historically the modern "stars" simply dont measure up no matter how hard we try to accept the new reality of horseracing.

All I know is that Bob Gibson would have struck out Skip Away every time he faced him.

[KirisClown]

Originally Posted by Kasept

And my underlying issue partially is that since the vast majority of younger fans can only relate to what they see, it doesn't serve much benefit to abjectly belittle what they are embracing as great in their time.

That's why they need to watch the older races and get an appreciation for the great stars of the past.. If they are only exposed to what's happening now.. they'll have a very flawed view of what greatness in racing is..

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Who's pretending? And I think this is the crux... Your passion for the game, and Chuck's, pre-dates mine by a good 10-15 years. While I remember the truly great horses that you are holding up to today's horses for scrutiny, I don't require that today's best be as good as them. I find Proud Spell and Music Note battling to the wire in the Alabama earning 101 Beyers every bit as exciting as Heavenly Prize earning a 111 over Lakeway. Would Proud Spell or Music Note beat Mom's Command? Or Open Mind or Maplejinsky or Go For Wand? No... But that's OK for me personally.

This is a great discussion. And my underlying issue partially is that since the vast majority of younger fans can only relate to what they see, it doesn't serve much benefit to abjectly belittle what they are embracing as great in their time.

The objective is to appreciate the modern 'stars' while educating the unenlightened or neophyte as to why Rachel Alexandra and Curlin aren't even in the Top 50 All Time let alone among the Top 10 or 20. (Which brings up the issue of who is going to handle the assignment with Jess Jackson?)

Who's pretending? Should I submit the list?

I understand what you're saying, and don't completely disagree ( last year's Alabama was as good as it gets from a lot of perspectives ). However, it would be nice if people had a better sense of history.

Come on, Steve, you were as outraged as anyone when Jess Jackson was talking about Curlin being the best of all time. You have to be slightly less subjective and look at the bigger picture.