Barry Bonds,greatest player of all time?

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: maddogchen
<blockquote>Quote
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
<blockquote>Quote
Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
What kind of an ignorant baseball fan would ever say that Barry Bonds only hits home runs? The guy is the only player in the freakin 500/500 club. If you don't know what the numbers stand for then don't even respond.

Yea but look at the stats from a year to year. When he first started and was REG. weight and Mass he put up average HR's but had good feilding and StolneBase numbers. BUT as his Mass BLEW up so did his HR's BUT his SB's went straight down with his feilding.

His EARLY sb's are his, BUT the HR's and other current stats are because he cheated.

If Pete Rose can't get into the hall, neither should Bonds.... EVER.

You're overlooking the fact that people lose a few steps as they grow older. I'm pretty sure all the baseball players weren't as fast as they were in their 20s as they are in their late 30s. Bonds knew this too and changed his workout so that he could last longer in baseball by changing his shape, from a leadoff hitter to a power hitter. Whether he used steroids, I don't know. But I do know and Bonds knew that you aren't going to last long being a 35+ year old leadoff hitter that isn't fast enough to steal bases anymore.[/quote]

Ricky Henderson did it. That was a determined baseball player. Is he STILL playing?[/quote]

Don't think he's still playing. He was one special player though. Last I saw him was on the Padres. Maybe 2 years ago? Flipped my friends off after they taunted him. The only thing I don't like about him is that he charges $30 for an autograph to little kids. Kinda expensive.

 

[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:

Excuse me, I meant to say (screwed up my edit), that the
pitching completely sucked when Ruth played. I don't think he could compete in today's MLB. But time travel isn't my favorite imaginative pasttime. It's stupid, as some have pointed out. Ruth excelled in his time. It was a different time. I get mad when people say that Ruth was the greatest ever. One look at that guy and you just know he wasn't a modern player. He doesn't have the body to play today, put simply.

 

[BigSmooth]

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:

Excuse me, I meant to say (screwed up my edit), that the
pitching completely sucked when Ruth played. I don't think he could compete in today's MLB. But time travel isn't my favorite imaginative pasttime. It's stupid, as some have pointed out. Ruth excelled in his time. It was a different time. I get mad when people say that Ruth was the greatest ever. One look at that guy and you just know he wasn't a modern player. He doesn't have the body to play today, put simply.

But all you can do in virtually any sport is compare people from similar eras. Sports have become a constantly evolving science, and today's top athletes, while highly skilled, are in many cases ongoing experiments. I'm not necessarily talking about steroids/supplements, but even things like training techniques, nutrition, and equipment have all taken massive leaps forward since the Babe's time.

Even if we look at 25 years ago, athletes were very different than they are today. How many Olympic records still stand from that time? Would most NBA players from 1979 be able to play today? Almost certainly not.

So it's somewhat pointless to directly compare a Ruth to a Williams to a Bonds. Bonds is the greatest player in the modern game and possibly the greatest I'll ever see. He is on a different plane, like the Babe was, but (and this is where opinion comes in) not to the same extent. I don't care what his body looked like, Ruth was SO FAR ahead of every other player at the time that he is, in my eyes, the greatest to ever play the game.

 

[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;

Excuse me, I meant to say (screwed up my edit), that the
pitching completely sucked when Ruth played. I don't think he could compete in today's MLB. But time travel isn't my favorite imaginative pasttime. It's stupid, as some have pointed out. Ruth excelled in his time. It was a different time. I get mad when people say that Ruth was the greatest ever. One look at that guy and you just know he wasn't a modern player. He doesn't have the body to play today, put simply.

Comparing Ruth to &quot;modern&quot; players is ridiculous! How can you contradict yourself by saying, yes it was a different time, Ruth excelled in his time, but then go and say he wouldn't match up against &quot;modern&quot; players? How do you know he wouldn't? If he grew up in our era, he would have had access to all the &quot;modern&quot; equipment and training that today's athletes have access to... He might have hit 800+ who knows? He was listed at 6-2 215lbs, and Bonds is listed at 6-1 228lbs. Put some roids onto Ruth (like Bonds did) and see how much muscle he could have packed onto his bigger frame...

Also you state that the pitching completely sucked? Um, Walter Johnson and Christy Mathewson sucked? lol How about Red Faber, Stan Coveleski, Waite Hoyt, Herb Pennock, Lefty Grove, Ted Lyons, Carl Hubbell, and Eddie Rommel?

Let's look at the AL league ERA for the years that Ruth played starting at 1920 after the Dead Ball era:
1920 - 3.79
4.28
4.03
3.98
4.23
4.40
4.02
4.14
4.04
4.24
4.64
4.38
4.48
4.28
1934 - 4.50, avg = 4.53

Now from 1987 - 2003 for NL Bonds:
1987 - 4.08
3.45
3.49
3.79
3.68
3.50
4.04
4.22
4.18
4.22
4.21
4.24
4.56
4.63
4.35
4.10
2003 - 4.28, avg = 4.33

These numbers aren't that much different (.20 better for Bonds era)... If Ruth faced pitching that &quot;completely sucked&quot;, then so did Bonds (if I had avg'd in deadball it would obviously be way lower)!

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...

Let's keep going, shall we? Postseason performances: Bonds had 151 AB's, and Ruth 129. Ruth had a .744SLG vs Bonds' .503. Ruth had a .326 BA vs Bonds' .245. Ruth had a .467 OBP vs Bonds' .433. Ruth also pitched in the World Series going 3-0 with a 0.87 ERA.

Other aspects? Bonds did steal 500 bases to Ruth's 123, while Bonds finished in the top 10 nine times to Ruth's two times in stolen bases. Defensively Bonds had a .985 FP vs Ruth's .968 FP. Yet Ruth led his league in ERA and ERA+ in 1916, and finished in the top ten in ERA three times, Wins three times, Win-Loss% five times, WHIP 3 times, K/9 twice, saves once, K's twice, Games started twice, Shutouts twice, and adjusted ERA+ three times. Ruth also finished as the homerun king when he retired, he had no competition to push him.

Let's look at the new HOF tests:
Black Ink: Batting - 161 (1) (Average HOFer ~ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 340 (7) (Average HOFer ~ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 78.6 (1) Pitching - 34.0 (98) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 422.0 (3)

Bonds' HOF tests:
Black Ink: Batting - 56 (19) (Average HOFer ~ 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 269 (18) (Average HOFer ~ 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 73.5 (8) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 310.0 (12) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

So we have Ruth as first of all time in the Black Ink test (Bonds 19th), Seventh all time in Gray Ink (Bonds 18th), first in the HOF Standards test (Bonds 8th), and third in the HOF Monitor test (Bonds 12th).

Is there even a question as to who the greatest player of all time was? This should clear things up for ya.

 

[pcmodem]

Was at last night's game...

Cold and drizzle... windy... sometimes rain.

The wind and rain kept knocking down fly balls hit into the outfield.

Somehow, Grissom and Bonds hit back-to-back home runs.


PERKNOSE I remember cheering for the '93 Phillies... my amigo "Mongo" got me on the Philly bandwagon that year. They were such a fun and likeable bunch of players... if memory serves Fergosi was their coach too. The Wild Thing's meltdown was tragic... Mitch wasn't a bad guy, they'd not have gotten to the dance without him.

And as for Roberto Clemente... if modern professional athletes were only 25% of the man Clemente was, America would be a better place and the local police and FBI and defense attorneys would have a lot less business. When I made my pilgrimage to Cooperstown, made sure to look at his and Mays and other old school plaques.




Cheers, :beer:
PCM

 

[SP33Demon]

Edited above post by gathering Ruth's league ERA numbers after the deadball era vs Bonds NL league ERA from 1987 - 2003. There is only a .20 difference, yet Muse thinks the pitching back then "completely sucked". lol, the pitching today isn't *that* much better overall.

 

[Vette73]

Oh for the people that THINK bonds has never taken steriods/growth hormaones etc... then look what was in a sports artical I juts read...

Bonds head reportedly grew 2 sizes in 2001 alone.

"Doctors should quite worring about what ballplayers are taking" Bonds has said. "What players take doesn't matter."
:roll:


No records for cheaters.

 

[AmericasTeam]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Oh for the people that THINK bonds has never taken steriods/growth hormaones etc... then look what was in a sports artical I juts read...

Bonds head reportedly grew 2 sizes in 2001 alone.

"Doctors should quite worring about what ballplayers are taking" Bonds has said. "What players take doesn't matter."
:roll:


No records for cheaters.

You're an idiot. You proved it by what you wrote and how you wrote it.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: AmericasTeam

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Oh for the people that THINK bonds has never taken steriods/growth hormaones etc... then look what was in a sports artical I juts read...

Bonds head reportedly grew 2 sizes in 2001 alone.

"Doctors should quite worring about what ballplayers are taking" Bonds has said. "What players take doesn't matter."
:roll:


No records for cheaters.

You're an idiot. You proved it by what you wrote and how you wrote it.

And your a idiot thinking he has NEVER used roids or anything of the like

:roll:
Now whos the REAL idiot.

 

[Aquaman]

No.......... Mr 3000 is the best palyer evar

Cheers,
Aquaman

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Oh for the people that THINK bonds has never taken steriods/growth hormaones etc... then look what was in a sports artical I juts read...

Bonds head reportedly grew 2 sizes in 2001 alone.

"Doctors should quite worring about what ballplayers are taking" Bonds has said. "What players take doesn't matter."
:roll:


No records for cheaters.

Thats from his ego doubling, not steroids

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: AmericasTeam

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Oh for the people that THINK bonds has never taken steriods/growth hormaones etc... then look what was in a sports artical I juts read...

Bonds head reportedly grew 2 sizes in 2001 alone.

"Doctors should quite worring about what ballplayers are taking" Bonds has said. "What players take doesn't matter."
:roll:


No records for cheaters.

You're an idiot. You proved it by what you wrote and how you wrote it.

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)

 

[Shlong]

You could argue Mays as being the greatest hitter of all time, and the greatest defensive player of all time. Greatest for me is Mays.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Is there even a question as to who the greatest player of all time was? This should clear things up for ya.

Wow - fascinating post!

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It's a bit of a stretch to consider a juiced up baseball player the best of all time. He's not exactly playing by the same "rules" that were in existence before.

I always laugh when I see these kinds of posts. No one was hitting homeruns like Ruth either. What was he on? Oh and by the way performance ehancing drugs and supplements have been around since the roman gladiator days. How about Mantle and Mays? People always talk about Bonds' 73 being from roids. Was Roger Maris on roids when he hit 61? The year before he hit 39 and the next year he hit 22 more to make history. Bonds the year before hit 49. The following year he hit 24 more. So was Maris on roids or something else? Great athletes are great, because they are great. Period. Roids don't cause you not to strike out. How many more homeruns would A-Rod hit if he didn't stirke out 120 times a year? How about Thome who strikes even more than that. Barry Bonds is the best player in the last half century. And for anybody to say its crazy to say he's the best of all-time is just plain ignorant. Its foolish to make an arguement against him. Outside of questioning his use of drugs, there is no logical arguement anyone can make against him. Hell I wonder if Gretzsky was using roids to score all those damn goals. I wonder if Rice's 200 plus TDs are the result of roids? Ignorance of professional sports is astounding sometimes.

 

[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.

 

[Saulbadguy]

9 Home runs as of today. Think he is still juicing as of right now, with all the controversy surrounding steroids?

 

[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

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Saulbadguy
9 Home runs as of today. Think he is still juicing as of right now, with all the controversy surrounding steroids?

I just discussed this with a coworker... once a player has used roids to build a large enough mass of muscle, it doesn't just go away. Considering the fact that he could have been on them last year, it really depends how much strength he would have lost after not taking it anymore, and whether he continues the same diet/weight training regimen as when he was on the juice. It varies b/c everyone's bodies are different, although from experience I would say that Bonds is a mesomorph: he can put the weight on quick, but has to keep lifting to maintain it... also if Bonds kept feeding his body the same nutrients as when he was on the juice, I personally don't think he would have lost that much strength/muscle. It's like when Arnold took the juice, he used it to get to the next level. Once he stopped using the anabolic steroids, he didn't get small because he kept lifting heavy. Yes, he wasn't as ripped/massive as when he was on roids, but he was still way larger than before he started taking them. I think it's best to sum it up as, once you get the strength/mass, it will only go away rapidly if you stop eating and lifting weights. Otherwise, you might lose some mass/strength initially, but not enough to make a difference in Bonds' case.

I also bodybuild btw... and I started taking 3 supplements about a year ago. I immediately jumped 30 pounds in weight (170 to 200) and strength (max bench went from 295 to 335). I can tell you that on my week off I could still easily maintain the 200lbs by only supplementing with protein (and not glutamine/creatine/glucose), and I could take a month off and weight would still stay the same. After about 2-3 weeks of not lifting though, I would experience significant loss of strength. Hence, I suspect that as long as Bonds maintains his strength and eats the same as when he was on the "juice", he should not lose a huge amount of weight and strength. Many body builders will use roids to get over that "hump" and take their program to the next level, and then cycle off of it and maintain once they reach their goals.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It's a bit of a stretch to consider a juiced up baseball player the best of all time. He's not exactly playing by the same "rules" that were in existence before.

I always laugh when I see these kinds of posts. No one was hitting homeruns like Ruth either. What was he on? Oh and by the way performance ehancing drugs and supplements have been around since the roman gladiator days. How about Mantle and Mays? People always talk about Bonds' 73 being from roids. Was Roger Maris on roids when he hit 61? The year before he hit 39 and the next year he hit 22 more to make history. Bonds the year before hit 49. The following year he hit 24 more. So was Maris on roids or something else? Great athletes are great, because they are great. Period. Roids don't cause you not to strike out. How many more homeruns would A-Rod hit if he didn't stirke out 120 times a year? How about Thome who strikes even more than that. Barry Bonds is the best player in the last half century. And for anybody to say its crazy to say he's the best of all-time is just plain ignorant. Its foolish to make an arguement against him. Outside of questioning his use of drugs, there is no logical arguement anyone can make against him. Hell I wonder if Gretzsky was using roids to score all those damn goals. I wonder if Rice's 200 plus TDs are the result of roids? Ignorance of professional sports is astounding sometimes.

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 .297), 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???

 

[gistech1978]

Originally posted by: Saulbadguy
9 Home runs as of today. Think he is still juicing as of right now, with all the controversy surrounding steroids?

i dont.
ive said it before in this thread. steroids do not make you hit .512 almost at the end of April.

 

[Geekbabe]

This is quite a good thread,lots of great names being remembered here

 

[Saulbadguy]

Actually, neither Barry nor the Babe are the greatest players. Not Ted Willams, not Mickey Mantle, not A-Rod...not a one of these.

Sadaharu Oh...greatest baseball player that ever played the game. 868 Home Runs, 5 batting titles, 2 triple crowns, 13 rbi titles, nine gold gloves, 15 HR titles, and nine MVPs. Beat that, Barry.

 

[gistech1978]

Originally posted by: Saulbadguy
Actually, neither Barry nor the Babe are the greatest players. Not Ted Willams, not Mickey Mantle, not A-Rod...not a one of these.

Sadaharu Oh...greatest baseball player that ever played the game. 868 Home Runs, 5 batting titles, 2 triple crowns, 13 rbi titles, nine gold gloves, 15 HR titles, and nine MVPs. Beat that, Barry.

japanese baseball and pitching is a complete joke, as is my understanding.
they dont go at players, they dont really try to strike out the batters. they just serve up big ol fat pitches for the players to crush.
the ideal game in japan is a tie.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: classy

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It's a bit of a stretch to consider a juiced up baseball player the best of all time. He's not exactly playing by the same "rules" that were in existence before.

I always laugh when I see these kinds of posts. No one was hitting homeruns like Ruth either. What was he on? Oh and by the way performance ehancing drugs and supplements have been around since the roman gladiator days. How about Mantle and Mays? People always talk about Bonds' 73 being from roids. Was Roger Maris on roids when he hit 61? The year before he hit 39 and the next year he hit 22 more to make history. Bonds the year before hit 49. The following year he hit 24 more. So was Maris on roids or something else? Great athletes are great, because they are great. Period. Roids don't cause you not to strike out. How many more homeruns would A-Rod hit if he didn't stirke out 120 times a year? How about Thome who strikes even more than that. Barry Bonds is the best player in the last half century. And for anybody to say its crazy to say he's the best of all-time is just plain ignorant. Its foolish to make an arguement against him. Outside of questioning his use of drugs, there is no logical arguement anyone can make against him. Hell I wonder if Gretzsky was using roids to score all those damn goals. I wonder if Rice's 200 plus TDs are the result of roids? Ignorance of professional sports is astounding sometimes.

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%