2005 All Star Rosters

[Attezzobal]

Though if the AL had fewer teams in 87 and still hit more HRs, then 29 would seem less valuable, since there were fewer players but bigger numbers.

Same amount of teams however.

[TbT]

what im trying to say was that back in that era of the 80's, there were a slug of years where a guy would lead the league with something like 34-38 homers.
so as it was pointed out by JD, 29-30 homers was a pretty big year for a guy homer wise as he would have been somewhat on the heelas of a league leader.

with that said 87' was a year very much speculated that the ball was juiced as the balls left the parks in droves.

another point, is that nowadays there are many guys who are aproaching the 30 homer mark at the all star break, which was probably unheard of in the 80's.  Anymore a big homer year is easily 40 or so, with the league leaders clocking in with 45-50.

i realize your argument/point is that there were more homers hit in 87 with fewer teams than in 04......but that year was an anomally.  I dont see 87 as a true representation of the power numbers put up thru most of the 80's.

1984 armas had 43...next closest was murphy with 36.
85 and 86...the league leader in homers had 40...88 had 42 with canseco.  in 89 mitchel lead with 47, and the next closest guy had once again 36.  much smaller numbers overall than today.

now to 1987 where there were 2 guys with 49, and 2 more that cranked up 40+.  much more output that eyar than the others.

compare those numbers with multiple guys(probably 10 or more) hitting over 40 every year, and you can see theres more power numbers put up nowadays.

[Shooty]

I still like the idea of having one rep per team.  Imagine how much it sucked for RBI fans growing up in Seattle and Texas. 

[ultimate7]

Though if the AL had fewer teams in 87 and still hit more HRs, then 29 would seem less valuable, since there were fewer players but bigger numbers.

Oh no you didn't

[TβG]

I still like the idea of having one rep per team. Imagine how much it sucked for RBI fans growing up in Seattle and Texas.

yes, give the AL west some respect

[Attezzobal]

i realize your argument/point is that there were more homers hit in 87 with fewer teams than in 04......but that year was an anomally.

TBT, that was idiotic. From 1980 to 1986 29 home runs would have been a big number, my point is that in 1987 it wasn't a big number. Being tied for 29th in home runs does not 'big power" make.

So yes, "back then" 29 was a big number, but not specifically in 1987. 29th in home runs last year had 31, not exactly "big power" (yes, power, but not "big power")

That was seriously the stupidest argument I've heard.

[TbT]

Attezz......i dont think were on the same page here, or else we got our wires crossed with this discussion....so lemme try to make more sense here.  you post above is something that i am agreeing with, i just dont think you understand my point i was trying to make.

i believe that we both agree that 87 was a good year for homeruns.  and I think we both agree that before 87. home runs were not leaving the parks in a fast and furious pace.  The main point i was trying to back up was with joe's statement that 29 dingers was a huge year back then.  I believe though that Joe might not have been reffering to 87 in particular but just around the 80's era in general.  Seems 29 homers nowadays is somehting a guy can hit out by mid july, since weve been around to witness sammy, mark, and barry putting up rediculoous numbers homer wise in a half of a season.

To me 87 was a totaly different animal compared to any other year in the 80's.  why?  cause that year you had 3 guys fall just short of 50 homers(49-49-47which is a typical stat now), as to where most other years the closest a guy came was with 43(84'/armas) or 42(88'/canseco) and 47(89'/mitchell), and then youd find the next closest guy in the race only had 30 some.

so in summary, i think were agreeing, but i could be wrong.   

[TβG]

That was seriously the stupidest argument I've heard.

welcome back, vit!

[JoeDirt]

Yeah, attebozzle--stop being an ass!!

TBT was correct...I was saying that "back then," in the 80s, 29 was a good HR total.  I do not think that once 1987 hit, the baseball nation suddenly changed its view point on what makes a good HR total...it took some time.  And I still say, back then, in the 1980s, 29 was a good HR total...after all, Mattingly's second highest HR total was 30 (also 1987, I think)...

[TommyD (MrOJ)]

No AJ + no Pujols = omfg...

[BeeJay]

No AJ + no Pujols = omfg...

It's called "reading."  You might want to try it some time, you'll probably learn some things.

[Shooty]

No AJ + no Pujols = omfg...

Also, please write in complete sentences as I'm not sure what fucking point you are trying to make.

[ultimate7]

No AJ + no Pujols = omfg...

Also, please write in complete sentences as I'm not sure what fucking point you are trying to make.

Basically he doesn't understand why Pujols and A. Jones aren't All-Stars

[Stock]

No AJ + no Pujols = omfg...

Also, please write in complete sentences as I'm not sure what fucking point you are trying to make.

Basically he doesn't understand why Pujols and A. Jones are white.

[Gantry]

Jeez, what a bunch of nasty folks on this thread...

Mr. OJ - The All Star rosters only include players from teams that did not make the playoffs... 

[OctoFranco]

Jeez, what a bunch of nasty folks on this thread...

Mr. OJ - The All Star rosters only include players from teams that did not make the playoffs... 

fkn softie.

[Gantry]

I listen to the hardest of the hard German Industrial music, no way I'm soft...

[TbT]

I listen to the hardest of the hard German Industrial music, no way I'm soft...

you dont happen to take roids and viagra like palmiero too do yah?

sounds like hes kinda hard.

[TommyD (MrOJ)]

No AJ + no Pujols = omfg...

Also, please write in complete sentences as I'm not sure what fucking point you are trying to make.

Basically he doesn't understand why Pujols and A. Jones aren't All-Stars

Touchè