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

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

what are you, a mets fan??

No even you have to admit watching Moyer pitch is liking watching paint dry.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

You can't have stars that the public cares about when they perform maybe at most 8 times a year on 6 week breaks.

That would be the best case scenario

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

No even you have to admit watching Moyer pitch is liking watching paint dry.

He's a great teacher and mentor for our younger men... but yes, very boring to watch... except still exciting when he wins games for the World Champs.

Need to hire him as a coach next year or the year after...

It was funny, I was watching him pitch and he threw a strike.. curveball I think.. the commentator says "That pitched looked to be about 55 MPH"... good stuff!!

I am glad all the horses mentioned plan to run on.
They are fun to watch.

[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?

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

I'm curious. That hot one legged chick you scored with from the 24 hour supermarket, is she in the former group of females, or is she hanging out at Camp Fat too?

By scored I assume you mean she rang up my frozen pizza and donuts?

[slotdirt]

Al Kaline or Roberto Clemente - depending on one's personal opinion - are still considered the two greatest right fielders of all-time. So in that regard, I would suggest both of those guys are much more highly regarded in their respective positions than is Jeter as a shortstop. Jeter's been a downright defensive liabilty - with all due respect - compared to the average major league shortstop for the vast majority of his career.

[docicu3]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Miguel Cabrera is a much better hitter than Clemente and Jeter is likely ranked quite a bit higher historically at his position than Kaline is at his though I will give you Gibson though Randy Johnson while over the hill now probably has had a better overall carer than Gibson. Now if you said Grady Sizemore isnt Mickey Mantle or Ryan Howard isnt Lou Gehrig I would agree.

I ran out of nitro after the Cabrera is a better hitter than Clemente statement......

As you know I respect your knowledge, historical organization and strategic game savy especially in baseball but if your stirring some statistical drink that makes you believe that one of the purest hitters and fielders the game has ever known is somehow inferior to a 5 year .271 hitter we have to get you a mental status evaluation as I fear a screw has come very very loose. Really Chuck,gulp, Cabrera for Clemente..........please 'xplain this one further.

I would never challenge your horse sense, think you actually know quite a bit about hoops as does my famous neighbor who ghosts on the site from time to time but I think your a little over the top on Cabrera's upside.

[slotdirt]

I could see making the case that Cabrera is a better hitter than Clemente, but Cabrera has hit like crap for the better part of a month and is really killing my fantasy team.

[ARyan]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Outside of Indian Blessing and Kip Deville they make up a bunch of 2nd raters that simply stuck around. The others have risen in stature because of the defection of better horses. It is a bunch of Jamie Moyers, nice careers, you go see them if you get free tickets but soon forgotten.

Kip Deville gets 1st rate status, yet Einstien gets relegated to second tier?

I do not see that big of a gap between these two horses, espically not enough of a difference to call one a 2nd rater, while giving the other "star" status.

Einstien is no Satchel Paige, but calling him a Jamie Moyer is an insult. Maybe a Gaylord Perry comparison might fit...

[Split Rock]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Skip Away was punished in the voting because he, Formal Gold, Will's Way, and Gentleman were taking turns beating each other in what possibly was the all-time deepest handicap division I've seen in my time.

I would vote for the 1988 season when you had Alysheba, Bet Twice, Lost Code, Gulch, Java Gold, Polish Navy, Cryptoclearance and others.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

That was just slightly before I started following racing seriously ... or could figure out how to tie my shoes.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

It does seem like a lot fewer horses are actually progressing from the 3YO to 4YO seasons, right? And by progressing I mean two things: actually racing as an older horse and/or actually improving once a horse turns four.

it's been that way, but i think while sales are down and breeders are gun shy you'll see more stay on the track.

[MisterB]

Can we go back when they ran the Preakness and Belmont the same day

[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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Al Kaline or Roberto Clemente - depending on one's personal opinion - are still considered the two greatest right fielders of all-time. So in that regard, I would suggest both of those guys are much more highly regarded in their respective positions than is Jeter as a shortstop. Jeter's been a downright defensive liabilty - with all due respect - compared to the average major league shortstop for the vast majority of his career.

Seriously? Jeter is arguably the third or 4th best SS ever. Outside of Honus Wagner, ARod, Ernie Banks and maybe Robin Yount (who played 1/2 his career in CF) who is better? Jeter's defense has slipped but the majority of his career was fine.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Seriously? Jeter is arguably the third or 4th best SS ever. Outside of Honus Wagner, ARod, Ernie Banks and maybe Robin Yount (who played 1/2 his career in CF) who is better? Jeter's defense has slipped but the majority of his career was fine.

Ozzie Smith was a better gymnast.

[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.

[ARyan]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Seriously? Jeter is arguably the third or 4th best SS ever. Outside of Honus Wagner, ARod, Ernie Banks and maybe Robin Yount (who played 1/2 his career in CF) who is better? Jeter's defense has slipped but the majority of his career was fine.

Including the players you listed, a case could be made for at least these guys over Jeter;

Barry Larkin
Luke Appling
Cal Ripken
Arky Vaughan

A case (at least a weak one) could even be made for Alan Trammell, but I would still put Jeter in front of Trammell.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by docicu3

I ran out of nitro after the Cabrera is a better hitter than Clemente statement......

As you know I respect your knowledge, historical organization and strategic game savy especially in baseball but if your stirring some statistical drink that makes you believe that one of the purest hitters and fielders the game has ever known is somehow inferior to a 5 year .271 hitter we have to get you a mental status evaluation as I fear a screw has come very very loose. Really Chuck,gulp, Cabrera for Clemente..........please 'xplain this one further.

I would never challenge your horse sense, think you actually know quite a bit about hoops as does my famous neighbor who ghosts on the site from time to time but I think your a little over the top on Cabrera's upside.

You should really think these things over before posting. Cabrera has a .310 lifetime batting average (Clemente is .317). He has 5 straight seasons with over 108 rbi's (Clemente had two 100 rbi seasons in 18 seasons) Cabrera has 186 HR's in roughly 6 seasons (clemente had 240 in 18)
Cabrera's typical season line is .310 with 98 runs 189 hits 40 2bs 32 HR's 119 Rbis .382 OBP .540 slg
Clementes typical season is .317 with 94 runs 200 hits 29 2bs 16 HRs 87 Rbis .359 OBP and .475 slg.

Obviously the eras are different but mitigated by Cabrera playing in poor hitting parks his entire career. And this is also without cabrera reaching his prime late 20's hitting peak. If you took the first 6 years of each player it is embarrasing. Surely Clemente was a better fielder but cabrera is a better hitter.