Barry Bonds,greatest player of all time?

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

First off, anabolic steroids were NOT around until the 1950's. Yes, performance enhancing drugs (like caffeine lol) have been around for a long time. But not something as potent as anabolic roids, which can increase muscle mass and strength 50%+ (depends on actual drug and person's body type). You could argue and say that Maris could have been using them in 61, but it's highly unlikely given that anabolic steroids were new then. You could not argue that Ruth or anyone before the 50's took them, yes you could argue that Mays or Mantle took them. Very highly unlikely though.

I agree, that Bonds is a great player, even before 2001. He hit roughly 500 HR's, and averaged a .571% SLG before 2001 (to put this into perspective, Ruth's career SLG% was .690). However, I don't find it a coincidence that: a)Feds report that Bonds received anabolic steroids in 2001 from Balco, a company that was found guilty in court that it has distributed THG, a designer steroid with a chemical used to pack mass onto cattle before slaughter b)Bonds had a trainer from Balco already indicted for providing his athletes with THG, including the ripped/massive Giambi and Sheffield c)Bonds grew 2 sizes in 2001 d)Bonds averaged roughly .175% pts over his already stellar career SLG% (.571) from 2001 to present. Now those are just the facts.

Subjectively speaking, I don't know of many (if any at all) players who have put on muscle mass in such a rapid rate the Bonds did at age 36/37. Usually, by that age, you have already maxed your body out physically in your late 20's/early 30's. Why? Because testosterone production is at an all time high in your body. From here: "Testosterone levels decline gradually in men, starting from approximately age 30, and this decline continues throughout life. In women, levels decline precipitously at menopause, along with estrogens and progesterone. In both sexes, along with this decline in testosterone, comes a decrease in libido, lean body mass, strength, energy, mood, sexual performance and mental acuity." Ask any body builder who is around the age of 40 and ask them if they've ever gone up 2 sizes in mass EVER after age 35, after lifting their whole life. The answer will 99.9% of the time be "no, and I don't know anyone who has". Baseball players such as Bonds have been lifting all their lives, strength plays a huge role in bat speed. For someone at age 37 to go up 2 sizes in mass after lifting their whole life in time of decreased testosterone can only mean that they had to have dramatically increased their testosterone (and I'm not talking about Andro which is weak!) with anabolic steroids.

Furthermore, you claim he's the best of all time, and that making an argument against him is "foolish". Well I just compared Ruth to him up top and Ruth handily beat him in all offensive stats relative to his peers. He also rocks Bonds in career batting average (.342 to 2.97), aside from all the power hitting. How can you claim that someone is even the greatest hitter, let alone player, of all time when they aren't even batting over .300 for their career???

Well written and Agree 100%

I also looked up Bonds' weight from some baseball cards (not sure of the accuracy but probably close):

In 1994, at age 30, he weighed 190lbs.
In 1999, at age 35, he weighed 210lbs.
In 2002, at age 38, he weighed 228lbs.

Now for normal men, it's natural to put on 20 lbs. in fat in your 30's due to lower testosterone production and slower metabolism. But adding almost 20 lbs of ripped muscle after age 35, and 2 pants sizes? Hard to believe, but probably possible if you were in the gym 5 days a week for a 8 months to a year straight and not playing baseball IMHO.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

What's wrong with how he wrote it? Bonds head *did* reportedly grow 2 sizes. While I can't confirm the quote attributed to Bonds (but I don't doubt it), you has many of the signs of steroid/performance enhancing drugs. Face it, he uses them. If you doubt it, I think one of the recent Maxim magazines had pictures of him before and after. There's absolutely no way that working out alone would account for the change in his body dimensions.

That being said... who said that steroids/human growth hormone/other performance enhancing drugs were cheating? Seems to me that they're fairly common in Baseball because the pansy-a$$ owners don't dare make a stand against them. The players union either wants them allowed, or is using them as a huge negotiating card. Saying a player "cheated" by using those drugs in baseball would be akin to saying that someone was committing a crime by driving 1 mile an hour over the speed limit. While there are rules, there are degrees to the severity of offenses. And, in the collective eyes of pro baseball, drug use is a minor infraction (hint: Darryl Strawberry) Baseball's $$ is about attracting fans. And fans apparently would rather see consistant 100mph fastballs and 60 home run seasons. Hence a comparison between crowd size for college baseball/pro baseball pales when compared to college football/NFL. As much as baseball is the "national pasttime", why isn't college baseball big? Why do we all watch the bowl games between college football rivalries, but we don't see anything going on at that magnitude for baseball (at the college level)? The answer - because college baseball isn't as entertaining. It takes steroid using/human growth hormone using professional players to turn it into an exciting game.

Ethically, though, I can't see how something like gambling on the game is so much worse than drugs. (bringing Pete Rose into this now) The very worst would be if Pete gambled that his team would lose... that he effected the outcome of the game, against the rules, for his own advantage. What's so different than taking these drugs, which also effect the outcome of the game, and which are also to the drug using players advantage to use (bigger contracts when they perform better)

Totally agree, the owners don't care what players do to their bodies! As long as the balls are leaving the yard 😉 Also, college baseball uses metal bats... it kind of takes the fun out of the game when a little guy is hitting 400ft blasts! Plus the skill level between college and pros is huge... you won't see any high schooler come out and join MLB, because the learning curve is alot greater than say, basketball.

I also agree with the roids/gambling, both affect the outcome, so both should be bannable offenses. If they can prove Barry USED the drug THG, and not just received it, then they should wipe all of his records clean for 2001(or whenever they prove he started use) and after. Look at the size of Ken Caminiti when he was juicing and compare to Bonds, if u want something amusing.

Bonds in 2001 (his Donruss 2002 Originals HIT LIST Total Bases card)

Caminiti when he was juicing (1997 card).

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: BigSmooth
Bonds comes as close as anyone but no one tops the Babe.

Ruth's numbers are ridiculous as it is, but then you look at the era he was playing in and it's even more amazing. In 1918 he led the league with 11 home runs, and in 1920 he hit 54 (the second-place guy had 19). Edit: part of this was due to the end of the dead-ball era but his numbers were still unheard of. He was the first and greatest slugger and he changed the game of baseball. Add to that his pitching accomplishments and the Babe is without doubt the greatest player of all time in my mind.

The completely sucked when Babe Ruth played. He couldn't even make the majors today.

Based on what? The stuff you are pulling out your azz?

The same could be said for John Kurk, David Wells, etc...... going by YOUR standards.

:roll:

Now to the meat of things. Why is Ruth the greatest you ask? Because raw numbers wise, he can't be touched, not even by today's era players. He led the league in adjusted OPS+ THIRTEEN times vs Bonds EIGHT.
He is number one in all time career adjusted OPS+ at 207, then Ted Williams at 190, and then Bonds and Gehrig at 179 apiece. Even if Barry averaged 250 for the next FIVE years (I don't think any player has ever done this) he still would only be at a career 195 OPS+, Babe at 207+ over 23 years. Even regular non adjusted OPS the Babe is first, murdering Bonds by over .125 pts! The Babe led the league in HR's TWELVE TIMES to Bonds' TWO. Ruth led the league in total bases SIX times to Bonds' ONE. Ruth led the league EIGHT times to Bonds' ONE in Runs. Ruth led the league in SLG% THIRTEEN TIMES to Bonds' SIX. Ruth finished in the top ten in Batting Average TWELVE TIMES to Bonds' FIVE. Ruth is TENTH all time in Career Batting Average at .342, and Bonds isn't even listed at .297...

Interesting that you are now using OPS+, which you previously called a 'garbage statistic'. You're again showing very poor consistency in applying your arguments equally.

I personally would put the top 3 hitters as: Ruth, Williams, and Bonds - in that order. I don't think it's really grossly wrong for anyone to rearrange this in any order that they feel fit.

Um, OPS+ was only ONE stat I used out of seven comparisons. If Ruth led in OPS, he sure enough would have led in OPS+, there was no difference back then. Just b/c I listed it first, don't get all excited (since you usually do when any type of park adjustment stat is mentioned). I said it before and I'll say it again, park adjustment is inaccurate b/c it doesn't factor field type, weather, or dimensions into its equation. Its equation also only averages THREE years of total runs and then divides it (Definition can be found here.)! The playing surface, wind patterns, and dimensions could all change in a 3 year span, skewing the three year total, do you not agree. I only listed OPS+ b/c while inaccurate, it's better than nothing and is the closest we have to any type of park adjustment at the moment (Bonds and Ruth also both played in hitter's parks so the final stats wouldn't be that different for %diff of OPS to park adjusted OPS). If you look above, I also did add "SLG%" as I did for Bench/Piazza, the only difference is I'm comparing overall hitting whereas Bench/Piazza was just for power. Is that too hard for you to understand, lol?

I still don't think u could ever put Bonds over Ruth, unless he can catch Ruth in OPS+, OPS, career batting average, HR/AB (Ruth hit 1 HR for every 11.75 AB vs 13.25 for Bonds, Big Mac had 10.X AB's to put how great he was into perspective as well), and total HR's (which he should due to the fact that Ruth pitched 4.5 years in the deadball era). Bonds has ALOT of catching up to do in a very short time, it's highly doubtful he will every overtake Ruth in any of these categories.

Comparing Ruth to Williams, Ruth still beat Williams by 17 points in OPS+ , and edges him out on 0.05 pts in OPS. Pure hitting wise, you can't even say that Williams is better than Ruth to his peers, Ruth led the league in BA 12 times to Williams six. OPS Ruth led 13 to Williams' 9. Williams did edge Ruth in career BA, .344 to .342 (numbers Bonds will NEVER EVER come close to). Yet Ruth murdered him in SLG (Ruth 13 to Ted 8) and HR's (Ruth led league 12 to Ted's 4). Yes, you could argue that Ted Williams could have eventually equalled/edged out the Babe in seasons that he missed due to wars (5). But in order to catch the Babe he would have had to lead the league in SLG% all five years just to equal Ruth, OPS 4 more times, BB 3 more times, RBI twice, and Runs scored twice. Even if Williams accomplished this, he still would have never caught him in years batting average leading the league or HR (or HR/AB). This is assuming that Williams has career years during the 5 he missed in his prime. And this is aside from the fact that Williams could not have ever made the Hall of Fame as a pitcher (let alone go 3-0 in the World Series with a 0.87 ERA), nor Bonds.

Let's go through some of Ruth's achievements:
1914: Finished 22-9 with a 3.23 ERA
1915: Finished 18-8 in 217.2 IP with a 2.44 ERA
1916: Finished 23-12, 1.75 ERA
1917: Finished 24-13, 2.01 ERA (last season as purely a pitcher)
1918: Finally put at 1st base mid season and led league in HR's, and still finished 13-7 with 2.22 ERA. Dubbed the "best lefthander in the league" by his manager which was why it took so long to convince him to let Ruth hit instead of pitch.
1919: Hit 29 HR's, shattering all baseball HR records and 1st player to hit a HR in every park in his league for a season. Still pitched 133 innings, finishing 9-5 with a 2.97 ERA.
1920: In 142 games, he hit 54 HR's which was more than every AL and NL team except the Phillies. Set SLG% single season record that stood until Bonds' 73HR season (81 years!!).
1921: Led NYY to their first pennant ever. Picks up personal bests in Total Bases, Runs, RBI, and HRs. Pitches and won 2 games as well.
1922: Hits 35 HR's in only 406AB's due to a month suspension.
1923: Led NYY to pennant, Batted .368 with 3 HR's in WS. Led AL in HR's, won MVP, and came in 2nd in BA at .393
1924: Let AL in HR's and average, missed Triple Crown by finishing 2nd in RBI.
1925: Had stomach surgery, only played 98 games and hit 25 HR's.
1926: Let NYY to pennant after finishing 69-85 the previous season. Hit 4 HR's in the WS, 3 in one game. Led league in HR's, Runs, Total Bases, RBI, and BB.
1927: Teamed up iwth Gehrig, Lazzeri, and Meusel to form "Murderer's Row" and cruised to win WS. Ruth set new single season HR record of 60, he hit more HR's than any team combined in the AL.
1928: Won the WS again and batted .625 in the WS, a record not broken until 1990 (Billy Hatcher). He led league in HR's, Runs, and BB.
1929: Led AL in HR's.
1930: Led AL in HR's.
1931: Tied with Gehrig to lead league in HR's, team scored a record 1,067 runs.
1932: Ruth led NYY to pennant hits 2HR's in WS, his famous HR prediction to right happened.
1933: Led league in BB, hit 1st HR ever in the "All Star game".
1934: Last full season at age 39, bats .288 with 22 HR's and 84 RBI.
1935: Ruth retires after hitting 3 HR's in a game. Still holds Yankee single season records for Runs (177), Total Bases (457), Batting Average(.393), and SLG% (.847). Holds Yankee career records in Runs (1,959), HR's(659), Total Bases (5,131) and Batting Average (.349).

No question in my mind that the Sultan of Swat was by far the greatest player in their respective era!
And think about a)if he had chosen a pitching career instead of hitting he could have been one of the greatest pitchers ever b)if he had been a hitter for the 4 years he missed pitching his numbers would have been ever greater! My personal top 4 greatest players ever: 1)Ruth 2)Williams 3)Mays 4)Bonds

I personally wouldn't put Bonds over Ruth, but I can certainly understand why some people might. It's not a ridiculous thought to say that Bonds is the best all time considering that right now he's probably the third best of all time.

And again, it's absolutely hilarious now that you use OPS+ as an argument. Even if you used it to show once, why wouldn't you accept it before? Why did you PM me a link to a thread where you had no idea what OPS+ was and mocked it? Why did you call it a garbage stat? Why did you completely dismiss it before and now completely accept it? Is it because you let your personal feelings cloud your judgement?

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

I personally wouldn't put Bonds over Ruth, but I can certainly understand why some people might. It's not a ridiculous thought to say that Bonds is the best all time considering that right now he's probably the third best of all time.

And again, it's absolutely hilarious now that you use OPS+ as an argument. Even if you used it to show once, why wouldn't you accept it before? Why did you PM me a link to a thread where you had no idea what OPS+ was and mocked it? Why did you call it a garbage stat? Why did you completely dismiss it before and now completely accept it? Is it because you let your personal feelings cloud your judgement?

Yes, I would never put Bonds over Ruth at this moment, but at the end of his career who knows? He could have a monstrous 5 seasons coming up and have found a new steroid to take that can't be detected yet... remember THG was undetectable until summer of 2002 (by the Olympic committee), Bonds had been receiving it since 2001.

OPS is relevant when talking about overall hitting, which is why I used it. Technically, OPS+ IS a garbage stat b/c park adjustment COULD be skewed dramatically for reasons I previously explained. I put it, and regular OPS (which is NOT a garbage stat again) in the Ruth/Bonds comparison b/c some people (such as yourself) accept OPS+ more and can relate to it better. It really doesn't matter, Ruth dominates in almost every offensive category, OPS+ was used to display 1/7 different categories of dominance, lol. It's really not that complicated to understand.

And for the 20th time already, OPS+, OPS, and OBP were not used in the Piazza/Bench discussion b/c POWER HITTING (i.e. SLG%) was argued, not hitting ability (i.e. not getting out) which consists of BA/OBP/OPS or OPS+!!!

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

I personally wouldn't put Bonds over Ruth, but I can certainly understand why some people might. It's not a ridiculous thought to say that Bonds is the best all time considering that right now he's probably the third best of all time.

And again, it's absolutely hilarious now that you use OPS+ as an argument. Even if you used it to show once, why wouldn't you accept it before? Why did you PM me a link to a thread where you had no idea what OPS+ was and mocked it? Why did you call it a garbage stat? Why did you completely dismiss it before and now completely accept it? Is it because you let your personal feelings cloud your judgement?

Yes, I would never put Bonds over Ruth at this moment, but at the end of his career who knows? He could have a monstrous 5 seasons coming up and have found a new steroid to take that can't be detected yet... remember THG was undetectable until summer of 2002 (by the Olympic committee), Bonds had been receiving it since 2001.

OPS is relevant when talking about overall hitting, which is why I used it. Technically, OPS+ IS a garbage stat b/c park adjustment COULD be skewed dramatically for reasons I previously explained. I put it, and regular OPS (which is NOT a garbage stat again) in the Ruth/Bonds comparison b/c some people (such as yourself) accept OPS+ more and can relate to it better. It really doesn't matter, Ruth dominates in almost every offensive category, OPS+ was used to display 1/7 different categories of dominance, lol. It's really not that complicated to understand.

And for the 20th time already, OPS+, OPS, and OBP were not used in the Piazza/Bench discussion b/c POWER HITTING (i.e. SLG%) was argued, not hitting ability (i.e. not getting out) which consists of BA/OBP/OPS or OPS+!!!

They were used in the beginning. You only went to 'peak power hitting' when you were basically cornered into clinging to that one last hope. And your reasoning for hating park factors makes no sense since if these factors effect hitting, then it would show in the park factor.

You say that OPS+ is a garbage stat, but previously you used ERA+ as a significant stat for your own team's player. Strange.

 

[Perknose]

For history's sake, the home run rate in Major League Baseball from 1954 through 1976 -- essentially the careers of Willie Mays and Henry Aaron -- was one homer per 44 at-bats. The rate from 1993, when Barry Bonds first hit 43 homers, through this week was one homer per 32 at-bats. Thank you, Elias Sports Bureau.

On the other hand, looks like Bonds may make a bid to hit .400 this year. Homers or no, the guy has become a premier hitter.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Perknose
For history's sake, the home run rate in Major League Baseball from 1954 through 1976 -- essentially the careers of Willie Mays and Henry Aaron -- was one homer per 44 at-bats. The rate from 1993, when Barry Bonds first hit 43 homers, through this week was one homer per 32 at-bats. Thank you, Elias Sports Bureau.

On the other hand, looks like Bonds may make a bid to hit .400 this year.  Homers or no, the guy has become a premier hitter.

Look here.

The only player with a higher career HR % than the Babe was Big Mac. It's questionable whether Bonds will ever catch Big Mac or the Babe in this statistic. Furthermore, Big Mac had a career BA of .263, Bonds .297, and the Babe towers above both at .342... This is something that Bonds will never catch the Bambino in, is average. Even IF he did hit .400 this year, it still wouldn't matter (maybe when hell freezes over!!). The Babe hit .393 in his best season, finished in the top 10 twelve times for batting average, and batted over .300 sixteen times! Bonds' highest average was .370 (2002), finished in the top 10 five times, and has batted over .300 ten times.

Bonds isn't even the greatest hitter, let alone player, of all time due to his very low career batting average.