OT: Geno Rips His Team

[whaler11]

Not to get sidetracked from another UConn Women/Geno vs. UConn Men/Calhoun debate, but I've often wondered the same thing myself about Ruth.

Let me ask you to clarify your point though.

I think we all know the player pool is much larger with Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier and then the influx of international players to the sport. The players are more athletic due to training and the players are smarter due to scouting.

That said is your point that 1925 Ruth, as he was, wouldn't be able to compete today due to the physical/mental nature of the game, or more so his skills wouldn't translate?

The numbers Ruth was putting up in comparison to his competition were just utterly absurd. More home runs than whole teams, etc. but again the game isn't the same today as then. I feel like his natural skill is hard to discount.

If you have any good links about projecting a player from the 20s, to current day, I'd love to check them out.

Also, at what point in history do you think you could drop a guy in today's game at they'd be the same? Ruth, DiMaggio, Mantle, Jackson, Mattingly, eras for instance?

If you took actual 1925 Ruth and dropped him in the league he couldn’t compete.

If you took 1895 infant Ruth and let him be born in 1995? Who knows.

How bad do you think the 2017 Browns beat the 1972 Dolphins? 55-0?

 

[August_West]

Babe Ruth is a top 10 baseball player to most people. If you dropped 1925 Ruth into the 2017 American League he couldn’t compete.

No duh. Hed be like a 136 years old.

 

[nomar]

So you’ve carved out a spot for Geno because women’s basketball is a different sport in your opinion.

Fair enough I guess.

Seems that you should agree with my initial premise which is what he does then has nothing to do with men’s basketball since he is coaching a different sport.

The discussions about athletes is a completely different discussion because of the advancements in what humans are capable of over the last 150 years.

Babe Ruth is a top 10 baseball player to most people. If you dropped 1925 Ruth into the 2017 American League he couldn’t compete.

I do agree with that premise.

I agree with your point about Babe Ruth but it's a different point from the one I was making. You could argue that Bolt is more impressive than Phelps because literally everybody has tried running fast and the fastest people on earth have at least tried competitive track, whereas only a small fraction of the people who would actually be the best swimmers have actually tried competitive swimming. That was my point.

There is a connection, I guess, to the Ruth point, because it does go to my point that in judging an athlete, all you can do is judge whether they beat the best competition out there (in Ruth's case, he didn't even compete against blacks). I think Chamberlain and Russell should be judged on their actual accomplishments, not on whether you could, say, drop a 200-pound Russell, without the benefit of 2017 training, into today's NBA and expect him to pull down 20 boards a game. Same for Ruth.

Interesting issues.

 

[whaler11]

I do agree with that premise.

I agree with your point about Babe Ruth but it's a different point from the one I was making. You could argue that Bolt is more impressive than Phelps because literally everybody has tried running fast and the fastest people on earth have at least tried competitive track, whereas only a small fraction of the people who would actually be the best swimmers have actually tried competitive swimming. That was my point.

There is a connection, I guess, to the Ruth point, because it does go to my point that in judging an athlete, all you can do is judge whether they beat the best competition out there (in Ruth's case, he didn't even compete against blacks). I think Chamberlain and Russell should be judged on their actual accomplishments, not on whether you could, say, drop a 200-pound Russell, without the benefit of 2017 training, into today's NBA and expect him to pull down 20 boards a game. Same for Ruth.

Interesting issues.

I got your point about Phelps. It’s a bit different comparing coaches to athletes because coaching is more similar over time than athletic competition.

It’s easier to compare say Chuck Noll to Bill Belechick than it is to compare Mark Spitz to Michael Phelps.

Brett Gardner is a better baseball
player in an absolute sense than Babe Ruth but clearly Ruth is more accomplished.

Geno is more accomplished than say Gregg Marshall - is he an absolute better coach? Probably but I don’t think the gap is anywhere near the gap in their accomplishments.

I think it’s a lot easier to compare Dean Smith to John Calipari than it is to compare Michael Jordan to Lebron James if your goal is ‘who is better’.

And I agree if you ask me who the ten best athletes of all time are I wouldn’t just name 10 people from the Rio Olympics.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

We had all watched Calhoun in the first 30 seconds of a game call a timeout, pull a player, and rip them a new _____ in front of 15,00 fans. Announcers had a great time with this poking fun while explaining why he did it, but don’t for a second think that the other players on the team didn’t get the message. That could be them and no one wants to be called out. Of course the team circumstances and talent levels are different.

We also saw JC silently tolerate a handful of players who didn't really want to work up a sweat in the tournament a dozen years ago. I personally believe if he pulled and berated a couple starters from that team (in a manner similar to what he did with many other players) that team wouldn't have needed overtime to beat Washington and they would have figured out how to beat George Mason.

 

[HuskyBandDad]

That’s not what Geno did.

He sat the starters to embarrass the backups.

Not the other way around.

Geno had no problem with the starters in the first quarter.
I don't think Geno did this to intentionally embarrass the backups. They did that on their own.

 

[whaler11]

Geno had no problem with the starters in the first quarter.
I don't think Geno did this to intentionally embarrass the backups. They did that on their own.

Based on his comments they met his expectations was my point.

 

[InKembaITrust]

Damn Whaler, you just owned like 6 or 7 dudes on the boneyard.

Usually I feel the effort isn't worth it and give up after my 1st retort.

Props

 

[jibsey]

Brett Gardner is a better baseball player than Babe Ruth in an absolute sense? This is sense-less.

 

[nomar]

I got your point about Phelps. It’s a bit different comparing coaches to athletes because coaching is more similar over time than athletic competition.

It’s easier to compare say Chuck Noll to Bill Belechick than it is to compare Mark Spitz to Michael Phelps.

Brett Gardner is a better baseball
player in an absolute sense than Babe Ruth but clearly Ruth is more accomplished.

Geno is more accomplished than say Gregg Marshall - is he an absolute better coach? Probably but I don’t think the gap is anywhere near the gap in their accomplishments.

I think it’s a lot easier to compare Dean Smith to John Calipari than it is to compare Michael Jordan to Lebron James if your goal is ‘who is better’.

And I agree if you ask me who the ten best athletes of all time are I wouldn’t just name 10 people from the Rio Olympics.

Jibsey hit on this, but I think Babe Ruth would probably be a lot better than Gardner, today. He was so far above the hitters of his era, I have to think he could turn on a 95 MPH fastball and hit good off-speed stuff. Plus, he'd benefit from video scouting, strength training, etc.

 

[whaler11]

Jibsey hit on this, but I think Babe Ruth would probably be a lot better than Gardner, today. He was so far above the hitters of his era, I have to think he could turn on a 95 MPH fastball and hit good off-speed stuff. Plus, he'd benefit from video scouting, strength training, etc.

That’s if Ruth’s DNA was born in 1995, not if you picked him up and dropped him in a game today.

2017 Brett Gardner dropped into the mid 1920’s AL would be ridiculous. He would destroy that league.

 

[nomar]

That’s if Ruth’s DNA was born in 1995, not if you picked him up and dropped him in a game today.

2017 Brett Gardner dropped into the mid 1920’s AL would be ridiculous. He would destroy that league.

I don't think Brett Gardner would put up Babe Ruth's numbers in 1920.

If you went into a time machine, grabbed Babe Ruth, and returned to 2018, put him with a trainer and a nutrition, and showed him what video scouting was, he'd do just fine.

 

[whaler11]

I don't think Brett Gardner would put up Babe Ruth's numbers in 1920.

If you went into a time machine, grabbed Babe Ruth, and returned to 2018, put him with a trainer and a nutrition, and showed him what video scouting was, he'd do just fine.

So you think baseball is immune to what would happen in every other sport?

I know a lot of people think that - but I don’t agree.

 

[nomar]

So you think baseball is immune to what would happen in every other sport?

I know a lot of people think that - but I don’t agree.

Not immune, but when a guy hits more homers than EVERY TEAM but one (which is what happened in 1920), I'm going to say that he was a transcendent talent whose skills would still yield good results today.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

Babe Ruth is a top 10 baseball player to most people. If you dropped 1925 Ruth into the 2017 American League he couldn’t compete.

Which Babe Ruth? The Homerun King? Or the Cy Young Pitcher. Please don't make ridiculous comments like that. Babe Ruth, for those reasons, was the best MLB player to ever have played the game.

 

[whaler11]

Not immune, but when a guy hits more homers than EVERY TEAM but one (which is what happened in 1920), I'm going to say that he was a transcendent talent whose skills would still yield good results today.

So not the sport - just this one guy.

Who was trancendent against a tiny pool of players compared to today.

Who ran up numbers against starting pitchers who didn’t come out of games and didn’t have to worry about advanced defensive shifts etc.

Who had a swing that had him hitting with a windup and hitch off his front foot.

He’d just show up and play better than Brett Gardner.

Maybe I guess. Seems like quite a stretch to me with everything else we know about sports.

 

[nomar]

So not the sport - just this one guy.

Who was trancendent against a tiny pool of players compared to today.

Who ran up numbers against starting pitchers who didn’t come out of games and didn’t have to worry about advanced defensive shifts etc.

Who had a swing that had him hitting with a windup and hitch off his front foot.

He’d just show up and play better than Brett Gardner.

Maybe I guess. Seems like quite a stretch to me with everything else we know about sports.

Right, the guy who twice out-homered almost every team in MLB. He was pretty special!

You've well stated the argument against Babe Ruth excelling today. I think he'd be a lot better than Brett Gardner in any era.

 

[HuskyBandDad]

Damn Whaler, you just owned like 6 or 7 dudes on the boneyard.

Usually I feel the effort isn't worth it and give up after my 1st retort.

Props

Oh great. Just what we need. A bigger Whaler head.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

So not the sport - just this one guy.

Who was trancendent against a tiny pool of players compared to today.

Who ran up numbers against starting pitchers who didn’t come out of games and didn’t have to worry about advanced defensive shifts etc.

Who had a swing that had him hitting with a windup and hitch off his front foot.

Bet his record for 1st trip to the plate was pretty good (maybe someone will Google that). Oh, and he didn't have 25 different ways to scout (i.e., watch tape) of opposing pitchers. Note to Aaron Judge - and Gary Sanchez - the pitchers you face will be throwing sliders, low and away. Again and again and again. Most of those pitches - especially early in the count - will be outside the stike zone. I know this because I watch games and replay after replay. In fact, I gotten so familiar with the pattern, I can practically predict the pitching sequence. So, how about gluing the bat to your shoulder and taking enough pitches that eventually they will have to bring them up into the strike zone. I know this flys in the face of modern day thinking "I don't get paid to walk, I get paid to hit". News flash, you don't get paid to be an automatic out in key situations either.

As for those advanced shifts, here's a thought. Bunt down the third base side (or 1st) of the field til they stop shifting. Think of how many more hits you'd have, how much of a increase in OB % and runs scores. Chicks may dig the long ball, put they are put off by strikout after strikeout or grounding out into the shift 3 to 4 times a game.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

So let's get this straight: kids who don't play a lot got the yips in the game. Yet the second period score wasm16-16 (not at all uncommon in realty based basketball). Should have reamed them at halftime and sent thm back out to see how they responded. Bet that would have made for fairer assessement. I also agree that for the balance of the season, he should put one or two of these players in with his top players and let them have the chance to relax and do their thing.

 

[Sonova]

(Not to knock Calhoun, at all, but we lucked out by getting 3* and 4* guys who stayed 3 or 4 years. He beat better recruiters because they had more turnover.)

What? Thats just absurd. To begin with, we had an equal share of early departures throughout the 90s and 00s. Too many to list actually. You think we “lucked out” because we had older players or lesser players that stayed until graduation? We weren’t Bucknell. Take a look at how many guys we had in the NBA (most of them early entrants). We flipping led all of college basketball at one point. For years we had more guys in the league than any other school. Not sure how you measure “better recruiters,” but it needs some serious calibrating. If you meant to suggest that he was better at evaluating and developing talent...we couldn’t agree more. Aye yae yae.

And John Wooden couldn’t be John Wooden today. That’s a crazy post

 

[Husky68]

Ty Cobb stacked up with the Babe, the Babe Stacked up with Lou G., Lou G. stacked up with Jolting Joe, Jolting Joe stacked up with the Splendid Splinter, the Splendid Splinter stacked up with the Say Hey Kid, the Say Hey Kid stacked up with Reggie, Reggie stacked up with Mike Schmidt, Mike Schmidt staked up with Bonds, Bonds stacked up with Alex Rodriguez, Alex Rodriguez stacked up with Mike Trout.
All these stars mentioned 1st in each group were the equivalent of the new stars (mentioned second) that came in later in their careers. Does it mean Ty Cobb would be as good Mike Trout today, hardly, all it means is that guys who are good can compete (given the same rules) with the guys who came later in their careers who competed well with guys who came later in their careers, etc..
As Oscar once famously said (or maybe not but sounds good) when asked if he could beat Michael Jordon one on one, he pondered for a few seconds and said "I think so, but you know I'm almost 60 now".

 

[mauconnfan]

He also banged a tranny, that has to count for something.

Ok

 

[The Funster]

But what if Geno coached Babe Ruth. How good a basketball player would he be?

 

[joober jones]

That's like complaining about being poor because you only have a few million in the bank.