View Full Version : A-Rod vs Bonds at age 30
yankeefan24
03-03-06, 02:22 PM
I am doing research for school about A-Rod and Bonds at the age of 30. WHo was the better player at that age.
yankeebot
03-03-06, 02:26 PM
So what have you learned?
Evil Empire
03-03-06, 02:31 PM
So what have you learned?
That asking others yields no information :lol:
yankeefan24
03-03-06, 02:33 PM
I learned that A-Rod was 1000 times the player than Bonds.
TannerBoyle
03-03-06, 02:36 PM
I've learned that as great as A-Rod has been up to age 30, he's gonna have a hard time matching Bonds's 30s and 40s unless he hires a personal, um, 'pharmacist'...
pedromartinezfan
03-03-06, 02:38 PM
Alex Rodriguez has a .307/.385/.577 batting line with a .323 Equivalent Average, 17 FRAA, and 114.8 WARP3, averaging 11.6 WARP3. His OPS+ is 145.
Barry Bonds had a .285/.394/.537 line with a 157 OPS+. He had 88.9 WARP3 and averaged 11.2. His EqA was .326 and he had 82 FRAA.
I'll go with Bonds.
And you can talk about steroids all day long, but they don't help eye/hand coordination.
RhodyYanksFan
03-03-06, 02:45 PM
Alex Rodriguez has a .307/.385/.577 batting line with a .323 Equivalent Average, 17 FRAA, and 114.8 WARP3, averaging 11.6 WARP3. His OPS+ is 145.
Barry Bonds had a .285/.394/.537 line with a 157 OPS+. He had 88.9 WARP3 and averaged 11.2. His EqA was .326 and he had 82 FRAA.
I'll go with Bonds.
And you can talk about steroids all day long, but they don't help eye/hand coordination.
Everything after OPS+ is mumbo-jumbo to me. Is it better to have a higher or lower WARP3 and FRAA? Sounds like a chemical equation...not baseball stats.
yankeefan24
03-03-06, 02:48 PM
Alex Rodriguez has a .307/.385/.577 batting line with a .323 Equivalent Average, 17 FRAA, and 114.8 WARP3, averaging 11.6 WARP3. His OPS+ is 145.
Barry Bonds had a .285/.394/.537 line with a 157 OPS+. He had 88.9 WARP3 and averaged 11.2. His EqA was .326 and he had 82 FRAA.
I'll go with Bonds.
And you can talk about steroids all day long, but they don't help eye/hand coordination.
A-Rod who is still 30 has 429 home runs and Bonds at age 30 had 259. A-Rod could maybe have 200 more home runs than bonds through age 30.
Philip Hughes Fan
03-03-06, 02:50 PM
Everything after OPS+ is mumbo-jumbo to me. Is it better to have a higher or lower WARP3 and FRAA? Sounds like a chemical equation...not baseball stats.
Higher on both.
WARP3 is Wins above replacement player adjusted for all time, IIRC.
FRAA = fielding runs above average. Of course BP's fielding metrics are suspect, especially since they don't use PBP data, but they're probably the best for data before ZR and UZR came around.
Philip Hughes Fan
03-03-06, 02:53 PM
A-Rod who is still 30 has 429 home runs and Bonds at age 30 had 259. A-Rod could maybe have 200 more home runs than bonds through age 30.
There's a lot more to scoring runs than just HR, and Bonds career started in a much lower run environment than A-Rod's did.
PaulieIsAwesome
03-03-06, 02:55 PM
Alex Rodriguez has a .307/.385/.577 batting line with a .323 Equivalent Average, 17 FRAA, and 114.8 WARP3, averaging 11.6 WARP3. His OPS+ is 145.
Barry Bonds had a .285/.394/.537 line with a 157 OPS+. He had 88.9 WARP3 and averaged 11.2. His EqA was .326 and he had 82 FRAA.
I'll go with Bonds.
And you can talk about steroids all day long, but they don't help eye/hand coordination.
Really? EqA difference is so minor, given their positions I'd take A-Rod.
I mean, it's nearly a crapshoot, but take the (guy who can play) shortstop.
However, I'm not exactly sure what the question is here:
1. Who was better before the age of 30?
2. Who was better at the age of 30?
3. Who projected better at the age of 30 given his first years in the big leagues?
Clarification would be appreciated.
yankeefan24
03-03-06, 02:57 PM
There's a lot more to scoring runs than just HR, and Bonds career started in a much lower run environment than A-Rod's did.
A-Rod also had a 600 slg percentage 7 times as compared to bonds 3. A-Rod also kills him in Rbis. A-Rod also played a position where their are very few offensive players.
pedromartinezfan
03-03-06, 02:59 PM
Really? EqA difference is so minor, given their positions I'd take A-Rod.Well, yeah, the difference is minor in EqA and also average WARP, however I am just more comfortable taking the guy with over 80 FRAA to 17.
TannerBoyle
03-03-06, 03:00 PM
And you can talk about steroids all day long, but they don't help eye/hand coordination.
No they don't, but at some point people are going to have to come to grips with the fact that Bonds may be the greatest hitter of his generation AND (this is the key word here- and) he was also helped by using substances that are no longer legal in baseball, and haven't been legal in most other sports for years. The help comes in the form of the extra ??? feet added to fly balls that become home runs, decrease in pitchers challenging him because of those HR, ability to bounce back from minor pains as a 40 year old that would put most people on the shelf for a few days, etc etc etc.
He's not an All-Star because of steroids, but at some point in the future, it MAY be reasonable to say he was the greatest HR hitter of all time partially because of steroids.
Juicing the Game takes a fascinating look at Bonds and his career, mentioning that in a sport where the best people fail 7 times out of 10 (or 6 if you're talking OBP) he's one of the only people in history to have really mastered the art of batting...
Might Bonds (or Giambi for that matter) have 100 or more homers than he 'deserves' at the end of his career? Maybe.
In the context of the era we're in right now, maybe it's not a big deal. But when those 100+ put you ahead of the Mays, Ruths, and Aarons of the world, people start to get a little upset.
It's a messy topic and I'm sorry I introduced it into this thread, but nothing exists in a vacuum anymore.
Philip Hughes Fan
03-03-06, 03:01 PM
A-Rod also had a 600 slg 7 times as compared to bonds 3. A-Rod also kills him in Rbis. A-Rod also played a position where their are very few offensive players.
You need to adjust their repsective slugging averages (and other metrics) for league average and ball park as well. This puts Bonds slightly ahead.
I'm with you on the 2nd part, though.
Mr. Mxylsplk
03-03-06, 03:52 PM
You need to adjust their repsective slugging averages (and other metrics) for league average and ball park as well. This puts Bonds slightly ahead.
If you look just at the 4-5 years leading up to age 30, Bonds is more than slightly ahead. A-Rod was extraordinarily good at a young age, but he hasn't shot upward in production like Bonds did. As said earlier, unless he seeks non-natural methods of improving himself, it's pretty unlikely he'll do post-30 what Bonds has done.
SoxfaninNY
03-03-06, 04:00 PM
And you can talk about steroids all day long, but they don't help eye/hand coordination.
sure they do. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22HGH%22+%22improved+eyesight%22&btnG=Search)
nnysiny
03-03-06, 04:50 PM
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/leaders_30_bat.shtml
as far as placing all-time, here are what ARod and Bonds placed in top 10 lists:
ARod---
runs: 5th
total bases: 5th
HRs: tied for 2nd
RBIs: 5th
Ks: 3rd
runs created: 9th
extra base hits: 7th
times on base: 9th
power/speed number: 2nd
AB/HR: 8th
Bonds---
int. walks: 1st
power/speed number: 1st
CaptainThurman
03-03-06, 05:13 PM
Alex Rodriguez has a .307/.385/.577 batting line with a .323 Equivalent Average, 17 FRAA, and 114.8 WARP3, averaging 11.6 WARP3. His OPS+ is 145.
Barry Bonds had a .285/.394/.537 line with a 157 OPS+. He had 88.9 WARP3 and averaged 11.2. His EqA was .326 and he had 82 FRAA.
I'll go with Bonds.
And you can talk about steroids all day long, but they don't help eye/hand coordination.
Ah, I love that silly hand-eye coordination argument....
Steroids turn 275-foot flyouts into 350-foot home runs. Steroids turn gound balls to the second baseman into scorching doubles down the right field line. Steroids turn lineouts to the outfielders into gappers. Steroids turn popups into blasts.
Hand-eye coordination is also affected by bat speed. Steroids speed up the bat and allow the hitter to connect on the inside fastball that the non-cheater who has the same hand-eye coordination can't touch.....
Save the hand-eye coordination argument for people who don't get it.....Bonds is fraud and a jerk, regardless of his hand-eye coordination.
brosiusbuddy
03-03-06, 05:28 PM
these stats are getting out of hand. whatever happened to good old fashioned Average and solid run production (HR, Runs, RBI's) OPS is about as far as i go with stats.
can anyone in here tell me what babe ruth's WARP was when he hit 60 hrs or what ted williams FRAA was when he won the triple crown? no.
does it even matter? no
The stats that will matter when determining who had the better career will be the ones on the back of the baseball cards, not ones done using long drawn out formulas that were thought up by some guy who just needed to get laid.
Arod is the more talented all around guy thus far, bonds is the better natural hitter, IMO.
But after reading Captain Thurmans post, my previous comment about Bonds being the better hitter may be wrong. Good points Cap'.
JeterRodriguezSheff
03-03-06, 05:43 PM
these stats are getting out of hand. whatever happened to good old fashioned Average and solid run production (HR, Runs, RBI's) OPS is about as far as i go with stats.
can anyone in here tell me what babe ruth's WARP was when he hit 60 hrs or what ted williams FRAA was when he won the triple crown? no.
does it even matter? no
The stats that will matter when determining who had the better career will be the ones on the back of the baseball cards, not ones done using long drawn out formulas that were thought up by some guy who just needed to get laid.
Arod is the more talented all around guy thus far, bonds is the better natural hitter, IMO.
But after reading Captain Thurmans post, my previous comment about Bonds being the better hitter may be wrong. Good points Cap'.
Thanks for all of your evidence on sabermetric stats being useless. You really changed my opinion. I hate when people make fun of what they cant(or choose not to) understand.
brosiusbuddy
03-03-06, 05:52 PM
Thanks for all of your evidence on sabermetric stats being useless. You really changed my opinion. I hate when people make fun of what they cant(or choose not to) understand.
You're right. Im way too stupid to understand mathematics so I'm making fun of it...:uhh:
The fact is, throughout history, no player's greatness is judged on sabremetrics. If I wanted to I could pay attention to those stats, but there really is no point. A players talent and value is visible to the naked eye and through simple stats that show up on box scores and baseball cards. I don't need to look up the sabremetrics on Derek Jeter to know that he is a good ballplayer. I don't need the sabremetrics to tell me that Enrique Wilson is a crappy one. If you turn baseball into a science, it takes the fun out of the game... Keyword is GAME.
So please, because someone elses opinion is different from your own, dont go accusing them of having inferior mental capabilities. Its pretty lame to be so defensive, especially over a comment directed at no one in particular on an online message board.
yankeefan24
03-03-06, 06:02 PM
Arod is the more talented all around guy thus far, bonds is the better natural hitter, IMO..
Bonds from the year 2000 on when I think he took Steriods is the better hitter. A-Rod was the better hitter up untill Bonds took steriods.
these stats are getting out of hand. whatever happened to good old fashioned Average and solid run production (HR, Runs, RBI's) OPS is about as far as i go with stats.
can anyone in here tell me what babe ruth's WARP was when he hit 60 hrs or what ted williams FRAA was when he won the triple crown? no.
16.0 for Ruth, 15 for Williams in 1942 and -4 in 1947. So, yes.
does it even matter? no
It's a lot better than the archaic evaluation using avg/HR/RBI.
The stats that will matter when determining who had the better career will be the ones on the back of the baseball cards, not ones done using long drawn out formulas that were thought up by some guy who just needed to get laid.
Complex, anyone?
This was (laughably) one of the most ignorant posts I have ever read.
pedromartinezfan
03-03-06, 06:19 PM
Bonds from the year 2000 on when I think he took Steriods is the better hitter. A-Rod was the better hitter up untill Bonds took steriods. This is undoubtedly false.
JeterRodriguezSheff
03-03-06, 06:24 PM
You're right. Im way too stupid to understand mathematics so I'm making fun of it...:uhh:
The fact is, throughout history, no player's greatness is judged on sabremetrics. If I wanted to I could pay attention to those stats, but there really is no point. A players talent and value is visible to the naked eye and through simple stats that show up on box scores and baseball cards. I don't need to look up the sabremetrics on Derek Jeter to know that he is a good ballplayer. I don't need the sabremetrics to tell me that Enrique Wilson is a crappy one. If you turn baseball into a science, it takes the fun out of the game... Keyword is GAME.
So please, because someone elses opinion is different from your own, dont go accusing them of having inferior mental capabilities. Its pretty lame to be so defensive, especially over a comment directed at no one in particular on an online message board.
Why do you think I put "choose not to" in there. I said you either didnt understand or didnt want to understand them. You basically just said you didnt want to. I didnt insult your intelligence in anyway. I did however question your open-mindedness. BTW if you dont want insults dont make such an arrogant post next time. I have nothing against people who value traditional stats over saber, but to call them useless and say that the creator needs to be laid is wrong.
pedromartinezfan
03-03-06, 06:27 PM
not ones done using long drawn out formulas that were thought up by some guy who just needed to get laid.Bill James is the "father of sabermetrics" and has been laid atleast three times, considering he has three children.
yankeefan24
03-03-06, 06:31 PM
This is undoubtedly false.
How could you say that when almost every year untill 2001 A-Rod has him beat in Avg, Home Runs, and Rbi in every year.
pedromartinezfan
03-03-06, 06:40 PM
Ah, HR and RBI.
A-Rod from 1996-2000: .320 EqA
Bonds from 1996-2000: .348 EqA
And if you refuse to place your interest in advanced stats:
A-Rod: .314/.380/.576
Bonds: .294/.431/.623
Bill James is the "father of sabermetrics" and has been laid atleast three times, considering he has three children.
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
I don't know what's more funny, the fact that brosiusbuddy said that or you responded seriously.
pedromartinezfan
03-03-06, 07:06 PM
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
I don't know what's more funny, the fact that brosiusbuddy said that or you responded seriously.It was really meant to be toung in cheek :)
It was really meant to be toung in cheek :)
Oh ok, you seemed angry while typing that.
ChewieTobbacca
03-03-06, 07:20 PM
You cannot AT ALL use Slugging % to justify A-Rod a better hitter - A-Rod played in Texas, the Coors Park of the American League.
If Bonds had played in Texas all those years, he would've retired as the home run king long before any steroids issues.
A-Rod is a great player and I'm a fan of the Yankees but lets be honest, he'll be remembered for being a compiler in his stats - he started at a very young age, had a great breakout year, a few slump years, then became consistent. But Texas no doubt helped his home run numbers - if he stayed in Seattle or even if he moved to the Yankees, he would not be at 400 home runs now. Teaxs is just way too inflated (check out the home/road splits for texas hitters you'll see why).
Alex Rodriguez has a .307/.385/.577 batting line with a OPS+ of 145.
Barry Bonds had a .285/.394/.537 line with a 157 OPS+. Bonds is hurt in this analysis by 4 bad years (between callups and trying to make it in the bigs) as well as the fact that Bonds went to college, meaning he didn't make it into the majors much later than A-Rod. This is why you cannot at all make a statement that because A-Rod has collected more compiling statistics (such as HR and RBI totals), he's a better player - lets not forget Griffey had the edge too and he wasn't the same level of hitting as Bonds.
Bonds has a lower average but walked more (higher OBP), his OPS+ was greater than A-Rod (shows park factors), and in terms of pure hitting skill, Bonds is the better hitter - you do not walk 120+ times a year and strike out fewer than 80 times a year. Players don't just put up 200+ OPS years in 1993 and 1994. Three MVPs speak for themselves - probably should have won in 1991 as well.
Both A-Rod and Bonds have had 5 150+ OPS+ years.
Bonds: 1990 (170), 1991 (161), 1992 (205), 1993 (206), 1994 (182) (9 years in MLB by 1994)
A-Rod: 1996 (160), 2000 (167), 2001 (164), 2002 (152), 2005 (167)
Even A-Rods best years he didn't match Bonds 2nd worst year. The 206 OPS+ put up by Bonds in 1993 was the BEST single season OPS+ since Willie McCovey's 211 in 1969 - at that point, the last people to put up 2 consecutive 200+ OPS+ seasons were Mickey Mantle and Ted Williams.
And fielding? Bonds was considered one of the best left-fielders defensively EVER during these years - statistically, A-Rod has been above average as an SS but never a top fielding SS by any means, much less all-time. So you can take any position advantage of that out.
A-Rod is a great player, and is close to being as good as Bonds by age 30, but you asked the quesiton who was the better player at age 30, not who has had the better career.
Better player: Bonds
Better career at age 30: A-Rod
Snatch Catch
03-03-06, 08:08 PM
Further proof that Barry Bonds was the best player in baseball prior to all of the BALCO stuff. He's probably the best player we'll ever see.
pedromartinezfan
03-03-06, 08:15 PM
Further proof that Barry Bonds was the best player in baseball prior to all of the BALCO stuff. He's probably the best player we'll ever see.Yeah. I just LOVE it when people say he became a great player in 2001. He was only behind Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, and Ted Williams before 2001 in terms of WARP3/162.
yankeefan24
03-03-06, 08:15 PM
A-Rod is a great player and I'm a fan of the Yankees but lets be honest, he'll be remembered for being a compiler in his stats - he started at a very young age, had a great breakout year, a few slump years, then became consistent. But Texas no doubt helped his home run numbers - if he stayed in Seattle or even if he moved to the Yankees, he would not be at 400 home runs now. Teaxs is just way too inflated (check out the home/road splits for texas hitters you'll see why).
Better player: Bonds
Better career at age 30: A-Rod
Bonds will be remembered as a cheater. A-Rod will not be remembered as a complier. He will be remembered as one of the best all around players to ever play the game. Oh by the way he did hit 48 home runs in yankee stadium so it seems the stadium had little effect on his numbers. A-Rod could hit home runs at any stadium.
SoxfaninNY
03-03-06, 08:21 PM
Further proof that Barry Bonds was the best player in baseball prior to all of the BALCO stuff. He's probably the best player we'll ever see.
which just goes to show how much he screwed his entire legacy up. I don't care how good you might have been before you started cheating. Once it's shown that you have been cheating, it ultimately reflects on everything you've done before and after.
It's the same with so many others whether it's Rose, Shoeless Joe, Palmeiro, Canseco, or even any expelled college student.
which just goes to show how much he screwed his entire legacy up. I don't care how good you might have been before you started cheating. Once it's shown that you have been cheating, it ultimately reflects on everything you've done before and after.
It's the same with so many others whether it's Rose, Shoeless Joe, Palmeiro, Canseco, or even any expelled college student.
Very true.
ChewieTobbacca
03-04-06, 12:19 AM
Bonds will be remembered as a cheater. A-Rod will not be remembered as a complier. He will be remembered as one of the best all around players to ever play the game. Oh by the way he did hit 48 home runs in yankee stadium so it seems the stadium had little effect on his numbers. A-Rod could hit home runs at any stadium.
He hit 48 home runs but didn't crack 40 the year before - it's known that a down year before a player ages is likely to be followed by a better than normal year from that player (law of averages). Line up his first 2 years with NY and you'll see it added up to an average A-Rod year - not that its bad by any means, but it's not the greatest player type deal. I don't expect him to match his performance from last year at all.
And A-Rod is a compiler - that he leads at age 30 with home runs hit is in no due part to the fact he played in the bigs before 20. That's not saying he's a bad player at all - Hank Aaron was a compiler after all. But the fact remains - A-Rod has gaudy home run and RBI numbers from having played in the big leagues for 10 years already before turning 30 as well as 3 big Texas, though inflated years.
If you're talking about players, the analogy of A-Rod : Aaron :: Bonds : Ruth is a lot more accurate.. doesn't any of them are bad players, they're all absolutely great HoF players.
But if you've got your mind made up already, no amount of convincing with facts and numbers will change your mind...
BillBuckner
03-10-06, 12:26 PM
A-Rod who is still 30 has 429 home runs and Bonds at age 30 had 259. A-Rod could maybe have 200 more home runs than bonds through age 30.
Imagine if A-Rod takes steroids for the remainder of his career. :eek:
Bill James is the "father of sabermetrics" and has been laid atleast three times, considering he has three children.
This has to be the funniest post I've seen on this board. Bravo. :) As for the debate, as much as I hate to say it, I have to lean towards ARod. I really don't like the guy as a player... but he's effin' good.
yanksphan
03-10-06, 12:49 PM
The stats that will matter when determining who had the better career will be the ones on the back of the baseball cards, not ones done using long drawn out formulas that were thought up by some guy who just needed to get laid.
So please, because someone elses opinion is different from your own, dont go accusing them of having inferior mental capabilities. Its pretty lame to be so defensive, especially over a comment directed at no one in particular on an online message board.
Irony much?
effdamets
03-10-06, 12:55 PM
And you can talk about steroids all day long, but they don't help eye/hand coordination.
Look, to make it to the majors, you have to have incredible hand-eye coordination to begin with.
Steroids makes your bat quicker. Therefore, the ball that "Pin Cushion" Barry used to foul off of the left field foul line, is now a home run to center field!
So, although it doesn't improve your hand-eye coordination, it improves reaction times which may allow you to wait on a breaking pitch longer, thereby hitting it more often than without the "help".
Barry Bonds has turned the game that I love into a 3 ring circus. I'll bet his father never thought about cheating like this.... That is because he had integrity!
I found this quote interesting.
– "Bonds also complained of pain in his knee and back, leading Anderson to search for other drugs in 2000. Soon thereafter, Anderson put Bonds on Deca-Durabolin, the excerpt says, and later added human growth hormone (HGH). Bonds favored HGH, according to the excerpt, because it allowed him to stay muscle-bound and maintain his thirst to train while also feeling flexible. It also seemed to improve his eyesight."
http://www.bookstandard.com/bookstandard/news/author/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002117429
Arod for President
03-10-06, 01:04 PM
[QUOTE=
And you can talk about steroids all day long, but they don't help eye/hand coordination.[/QUOTE]
Says who? Yes they do.
Arod for President
03-10-06, 01:05 PM
Alex Rodriguez has a .307/.385/.577 batting line with a .323 Equivalent Average, 17 FRAA, and 114.8 WARP3, averaging 11.6 WARP3. His OPS+ is 145.
Barry Bonds had a .285/.394/.537 line with a 157 OPS+. He had 88.9 WARP3 and averaged 11.2. His EqA was .326 and he had 82 FRAA.
I'll go with Bonds.
And you can talk about steroids all day long, but they don't help eye/hand coordination.
Says who?? Yes they do.
Alex Rodriguez has a .307/.385/.577 batting line with a .323 Equivalent Average, 17 FRAA, and 114.8 WARP3, averaging 11.6 WARP3. His OPS+ is 145.
Barry Bonds had a .285/.394/.537 line with a 157 OPS+. He had 88.9 WARP3 and averaged 11.2. His EqA was .326 and he had 82 FRAA.
I'll go with Bonds.
And you can talk about steroids all day long, but they don't help eye/hand coordination.
Other's have responded to this, but I wanted to add that Bonds apparently took a suppliment that DOES help vision which certainly does help hand eye coordination. If you read the SI article it goes into more detail, but part of his 'coktail' of steroids included something that directly effected his hand eye coordination, so this point is absolutely 100% untrue in this case.
Snatch Catch
03-10-06, 01:40 PM
which just goes to show how much he screwed his entire legacy up. I don't care how good you might have been before you started cheating. Once it's shown that you have been cheating, it ultimately reflects on everything you've done before and after.
It's the same with so many others whether it's Rose, Shoeless Joe, Palmeiro, Canseco, or even any expelled college student.
Couldn't agree more.
OneRedSeat
03-10-06, 01:40 PM
Pedromartinezfan's original claim holds if you parse the sentence the right way. HGH, which is one of the substances Barry took according to the documentation in the book, improves eyesight. However, improved eyesight doesn't necessarily mean improved hand-eye coordination. Sure, it helps, but it isn't the whole thing. For example, I was in the Marines with a guy with 20/15 vision in each eye, and he could make head shots from 500 yards with iron-sights. But he couldn't hit a slow-pitch softball to save his life.
EDIT: I'm not trying to be a Bonds apologist. I agree that his use of "supplements" quickened his bat speed and gave him more power. I just don't think the "supplements" put the fat part of the bat on the ball.
Pedromartinezfan's original claim holds if you parse the sentence the right way. HGH, which is one of the substances Barry took according to the documentation in the book, improves eyesight. However, improved eyesight doesn't necessarily mean improved hand-eye coordination. Sure, it helps, but it isn't the whole thing. For example, I was in the Marines with a guy with 20/15 vision in each eye, and he could make head shots from 500 yards with iron-sights. But he couldn't hit a slow-pitch softball to save his life.
EDIT: I'm not trying to be a Bonds apologist. I agree that his use of "supplements" quickened his bat speed and gave him more power. I just don't think the "supplements" put the fat part of the bat on the ball.
Your sniper example does nothing to address the effects of improving the eyesight who already has the ability to hit a baseball at an advanced level. It is a faulty analogy.
splanky
03-10-06, 01:45 PM
If you read the article, the improved vision he was talking about was seeing the ball better, hence he had better hand-eye coordination. There's a reason why there's the word, umm, "eye" in hand-eye coordination. If you can't see the ball, I doubt you'd have a good chance of hitting it!
Pedromartinezfan's original claim holds if you parse the sentence the right way. HGH, which is one of the substances Barry took according to the documentation in the book, improves eyesight. However, improved eyesight doesn't necessarily mean improved hand-eye coordination. Sure, it helps, but it isn't the whole thing. For example, I was in the Marines with a guy with 20/15 vision in each eye, and he could make head shots from 500 yards with iron-sights. But he couldn't hit a slow-pitch softball to save his life.
EDIT: I'm not trying to be a Bonds apologist. I agree that his use of "supplements" quickened his bat speed and gave him more power. I just don't think the "supplements" put the fat part of the bat on the ball.
OneRedSeat
03-10-06, 01:47 PM
So I guess going to the optometrist and getting a good pair of contacts is out of the question? If he was suffering from macular degeneration, he can get that corrected. It just so happens that what he put into his body to increase his strength did that for him.
So I guess going to the optometrist and getting a good pair of contacts is out of the question? If he was suffering from macular degeneration, he can get that corrected. It just so happens that what he put into his body to increase his strength did that for him.
Of course he could have gotten corrective lenses if he needed them. But that is not the point.
What if he didn't need corrective lenses, and the supplements STILL improved his vision?
BTW: Macular degeneration is an incurable condition, and has nothing to do with this discussion.
Pedromartinezfan's original claim holds if you parse the sentence the right way. HGH, which is one of the substances Barry took according to the documentation in the book, improves eyesight. However, improved eyesight doesn't necessarily mean improved hand-eye coordination. Sure, it helps, but it isn't the whole thing. For example, I was in the Marines with a guy with 20/15 vision in each eye, and he could make head shots from 500 yards with iron-sights. But he couldn't hit a slow-pitch softball to save his life.
EDIT: I'm not trying to be a Bonds apologist. I agree that his use of "supplements" quickened his bat speed and gave him more power. I just don't think the "supplements" put the fat part of the bat on the ball.
I was a Marine from 1998 to 2001. I had 20/15 vision and I could hit an able target (half a body from the waist up) from 500 meters 8 out of 10 times and score roughly 3 head shots consistantly. I also used to go to the batting cages and crush the ball. (I never could hit off speed stuff though) Now my vision is at 20/20 and I don't hit quite as well.
Now, I'm not the end all be all of exmaples, but I am an example that corrolates to your example that works against you. Maybe your buddy just didn't have it in him to hit, that doesn't mean that eyesight has nothing to do with getting the fat part of the bat on the ball. It just means your buddy couldn't hit.
OneRedSeat
03-10-06, 02:02 PM
Macular degeneration is an incurable condition, and has nothing to do with this discussion.
Of course he could have gotten corrective lenses if he needed them. But that is not the point.
What if he didn't need corrective lenses, and the supplements STILL improved his vision?
Sorry, I used the wrong term. I was referring to age-based vision degeneration.
I don't know the science behind the study that showed HGH will improve visual acuity. Did the improvement come from those with impaired vision or was everyone in the test group able to see better? If it is the latter, then I can certainly see where an unfair advantage ocurred (at least in terms of eyesight). If it is the former, then he gained no advantage the corrective lenses wouldn't have fixed. I wish there was more information available in the article (or at least in the book), so that this part of the argument can either be validated or put to rest.
OneRedSeat
03-10-06, 02:09 PM
I was a Marine from 1998 to 2001. I had 20/15 vision and I could hit an able target (half a body from the waist up) from 500 meters 8 out of 10 times and score roughly 3 head shots consistantly. I also used to go to the batting cages and crush the ball. (I never could hit off speed stuff though) Now my vision is at 20/20 and I don't hit quite as well.
Now, I'm not the end all be all of exmaples, but I am an example that corrolates to your example that works against you. Maybe your buddy just didn't have it in him to hit, that doesn't mean that eyesight has nothing to do with getting the fat part of the bat on the ball. It just means your buddy couldn't hit.
I realize my friend wasn't the perfect example, but I only meant to convey that seeing very well and hand-eye coordination isn't a linear relationship. Yes, you need good eyesight to have it, but unless that eyesight is beyond the capability of modern corrective optics, then I see no unfair advantage.
Do you go to the cages as often as you used to? If not, perhaps it is lack of practice rather than decreased visual acuity?
OT, I was in from '98 to '02. What was your MOS and duty station?
I realize my friend wasn't the perfect example, but I only meant to convey that seeing very well and hand-eye coordination isn't a linear relationship. Yes, you need good eyesight to have it, but unless that eyesight is beyond the capability of modern corrective optics, then I see no unfair advantage.
Do you go to the cages as often as you used to? If not, perhaps it is lack of practice rather than decreased visual acuity?
OT, I was in from '98 to '02. What was your MOS and duty station?
That's my point. His inability to hit may have had nothing to do with his eyes. :) And I was 0311, Charlie Co. 1/25, 4th Marine Division. You? Oh, and Ooh Rah. :D
OneRedSeat
03-10-06, 02:22 PM
I was 0331, 2/3, Hawaii. Semper Fi.
I've learned that as great as A-Rod has been up to age 30, he's gonna have a hard time matching Bonds's 30s and 40s unless he hires a personal, um, 'pharmacist'...
Careful:mad:
Physician:D
OneRedSeat
03-11-06, 10:15 AM
I'll admit when I'm wrong. I made a bad analogy and worded my point poorly to begin with, and, as it turns out, HGH does improve visuospatial performance.
HGH and the Damage Undone: What Hormones Are Really good For
High school biology taught you that human growth hormone made you grow. When HGH is administered to people later in life, after the body's natural supplies had declined, researchers began to document a host of other effects, which were every bit as important to our general well-being. Increased levels of HGH can promote:
Bone density, which helps stave off the brittleness of load-bearing bones that comes with age.
Strength and muscle mass, which helps you avoid injury and stay mobile longer.
Cardiac health. The increases fat-burning contributes to a lower risk of atherosclerosis.
Vascular health. Better elasticity of the arteries helps you avoid strokes and heart attacks.
Visuospatial performance, which assists in parallel parking or shooting jump shots-abilities that decline with age.
Verbal memory, which includes vocabulary and Scrabble skills.
Working memory, which involves your ability to recall pertinent facts.
Mood. You're bound to feel better when all of the above are in working order.
link (http://www.hghmagazine.com/archives/warning-hgh-will-reverse-aging-according-to-gq-magazine.html)
Of everything I found online, it seems the eyesight improvement is a result of reversing the decline in visual acuity that is associated with aging. That by itself wouldn't lead me to believe that it was an unfair advantage since modern corrective optics can handle age-based visual decline. But, it's hard to ignore the fact that HGH improves eyesight and brain function, thus improving hand-eye coordination (visuospatial performance). Since HGH is a prescription medication, meaning it's use is disallowed by the MLB per the 1991 ruling, then I don't think this line of defense can stand any longer.
nydeano
03-11-06, 10:31 AM
And you can talk about steroids all day long, but they don't help eye/hand coordination.
True and false. Steroids have little to no effect on eye/hand coordination. HOWEVER, HGH does. HGH improves eye sight my friend.
Check this link for medical studies etc and explanation of HGh benefits
http://search.lef.org/cgi-src-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=0&page_id=1488&query=human (http://search.lef.org/cgi-src-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=0&page_id=1488&query=human%20growth%20hormone&hiword=GROWTHA%20GROWTHBASED%20GROWTHS%20HORMONAL%20HORMONAS%20HORMONEIS%20HORMONES%20HUMANA%20HUMANE%20HUMANITY%20HUMANS%20growth%20hormone%20human%20)
%20growth%20hormone&hiword=GROWTHA%20GROWTHBASED%20GROWTHS%20HORMONAL% (http://search.lef.org/cgi-src-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=0&page_id=1488&query=human%20growth%20hormone&hiword=GROWTHA%20GROWTHBASED%20GROWTHS%20HORMONAL%20HORMONAS%20HORMONEIS%20HORMONES%20HUMANA%20HUMANE%20HUMANITY%20HUMANS%20growth%20hormone%20human%20)
20HORMONAS%20HORMONEIS%20HORMONES%20HUMANA%20HUMANE%20HUMANITY%20HUMANS% (http://search.lef.org/cgi-src-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=0&page_id=1488&query=human%20growth%20hormone&hiword=GROWTHA%20GROWTHBASED%20GROWTHS%20HORMONAL%20HORMONAS%20HORMONEIS%20HORMONES%20HUMANA%20HUMANE%20HUMANITY%20HUMANS%20growth%20hormone%20human%20)
20growth%20hormone%20human%20 (http://search.lef.org/cgi-src-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=0&page_id=1488&query=human%20growth%20hormone&hiword=GROWTHA%20GROWTHBASED%20GROWTHS%20HORMONAL%20HORMONAS%20HORMONEIS%20HORMONES%20HUMANA%20HUMANE%20HUMANITY%20HUMANS%20growth%20hormone%20human%20)
RhodeyYankee2638
03-11-06, 10:59 AM
Ah, HR and RBI.
A-Rod from 1996-2000: .320 EqA
Bonds from 1996-2000: .348 EqA
And if you refuse to place your interest in advanced stats:
A-Rod: .314/.380/.576
Bonds: .294/.431/.623
So those stats compare A-Rods first 5 seasons to 5 of Bonds' seasons after he has been established as a MVP type player entering the begining of his prime? What does each of their first 5 seasons look like?
If you want to see how they compare throughout their first 5 full seasons
A-Rod: .314/.380/.576
Bonds: .263/.357/.478
AMYanks
03-12-06, 12:53 AM
Rodriguez has been the better pure hitter. The thing that hurts him when using most statistics is that his walk rate, and his batting eye developed much later than Bonds'. In his first four full seasons, Rodriguez was .313/.370. In the last six seasons, he has been .308/.401. This brings down his OPS, OPS+, EqA, etc. As a raw, pure hitter, Rodriguez has been better than Bonds throughout their first 10 years. He has nearly 700 more total bases. I'm sure there are plenty other RAW hitting statistics (not factoring in walks, just talking as a pure hitter) that favor A-Rod.
BobbyMurcerFan
03-12-06, 01:22 AM
Bill James is the "father of sabermetrics" and has been laid atleast three times, considering he has three children.Not necessarily :upset: :-notfunny :-sorry-:
chanman7483
03-12-06, 01:34 AM
Once it's shown that you have been cheating, it ultimately reflects on everything you've done before and after.
Has Bonds ever tested positive, admitted to, or anything else in that category, as it pertains to steroids?
Or were you just saying in general?
ChewieTobbacca
03-12-06, 02:13 AM
Rodriguez has been the better pure hitter. The thing that hurts him when using most statistics is that his walk rate, and his batting eye developed much later than Bonds'. In his first four full seasons, Rodriguez was .313/.370. In the last six seasons, he has been .308/.401. This brings down his OPS, OPS+, EqA, etc. As a raw, pure hitter, Rodriguez has been better than Bonds throughout their first 10 years. He has nearly 700 more total bases. I'm sure there are plenty other RAW hitting statistics (not factoring in walks, just talking as a pure hitter) that favor A-Rod.
I guess its up to your definition of being a raw hitter. For me, those are accumulated stats - 700 more total bases isn't a big deal if he had more chances to get those bases. Bonds by age 30 was a better pure hitter than A-Rod - yes his BA wasn't as high (though close), he didn't strikeout nearly as much as A-Rod, walked a lot lot more, and still slugged a good number of home runs as well as doubles. A-Rod has become more and more of a big home run, fewer doubles hitter.
FWIW in their first 5 years, Pujols trumps them all :P
RhodeyYankee2638
03-12-06, 03:25 PM
Has Bonds ever tested positive, admitted to, or anything else in that category, as it pertains to steroids?
he may have in his grand jury testimony
thecaptain
03-12-06, 03:52 PM
A-Rod vs Bonds http://www.baseball-reference.com/compare.cgi just put there names in and compare
donniesrecordholdsup
03-12-06, 10:22 PM
Alex Rodriguez has a .307/.385/.577 batting line with a .323 Equivalent Average, 17 FRAA, and 114.8 WARP3, averaging 11.6 WARP3. His OPS+ is 145.
Barry Bonds had a .285/.394/.537 line with a 157 OPS+. He had 88.9 WARP3 and averaged 11.2. His EqA was .326 and he had 82 FRAA.
I'll go with Bonds.
And you can talk about steroids all day long, but they don't help eye/hand coordination.
hgh does help your eyesight. besides, every player in mlb has hand eye cordination. nobody is saying steroids will make your average joe off the street a hall of famer. but if youre already great, theyre going to make you better. bonds is still a cheater.
donniesrecordholdsup
03-12-06, 10:24 PM
True and false. Steroids have little to no effect on eye/hand coordination. HOWEVER, HGH does. HGH improves eye sight my friend.
Check this link for medical studies etc and explanation of HGh benefits
http://search.lef.org/cgi-src-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=0&page_id=1488&query=human (http://search.lef.org/cgi-src-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=0&page_id=1488&query=human%20growth%20hormone&hiword=GROWTHA%20GROWTHBASED%20GROWTHS%20HORMONAL%20HORMONAS%20HORMONEIS%20HORMONES%20HUMANA%20HUMANE%20HUMANITY%20HUMANS%20growth%20hormone%20human%20)
%20growth%20hormone&hiword=GROWTHA%20GROWTHBASED%20GROWTHS%20HORMONAL% (http://search.lef.org/cgi-src-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=0&page_id=1488&query=human%20growth%20hormone&hiword=GROWTHA%20GROWTHBASED%20GROWTHS%20HORMONAL%20HORMONAS%20HORMONEIS%20HORMONES%20HUMANA%20HUMANE%20HUMANITY%20HUMANS%20growth%20hormone%20human%20)
20HORMONAS%20HORMONEIS%20HORMONES%20HUMANA%20HUMANE%20HUMANITY%20HUMANS% (http://search.lef.org/cgi-src-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=0&page_id=1488&query=human%20growth%20hormone&hiword=GROWTHA%20GROWTHBASED%20GROWTHS%20HORMONAL%20HORMONAS%20HORMONEIS%20HORMONES%20HUMANA%20HUMANE%20HUMANITY%20HUMANS%20growth%20hormone%20human%20)
20growth%20hormone%20human%20 (http://search.lef.org/cgi-src-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=0&page_id=1488&query=human%20growth%20hormone&hiword=GROWTHA%20GROWTHBASED%20GROWTHS%20HORMONAL%20HORMONAS%20HORMONEIS%20HORMONES%20HUMANA%20HUMANE%20HUMANITY%20HUMANS%20growth%20hormone%20human%20)
im glad somebody else knows about this too. actually its been said in pretty much every recent article about performance enhancers but the bonds apologists continue to ignore it. i guess because it makes there argument a lot weaker.
HidekiIrabu
03-13-06, 04:11 PM
A-rod may have more HR's and RBI's by age 30 because he didn't go to college, but his production will most likely decline very much when he gets to the ages of 35-40 when Bonds magically had his best years
Snatch Catch
03-13-06, 04:34 PM
Rodriguez has been the better pure hitter. The thing that hurts him when using most statistics is that his walk rate, and his batting eye developed much later than Bonds'. In his first four full seasons, Rodriguez was .313/.370. In the last six seasons, he has been .308/.401. This brings down his OPS, OPS+, EqA, etc. As a raw, pure hitter, Rodriguez has been better than Bonds throughout their first 10 years. He has nearly 700 more total bases. I'm sure there are plenty other RAW hitting statistics (not factoring in walks, just talking as a pure hitter) that favor A-Rod.
You can't just factor out walks. Being a pure hitter involves having the ability to be disciplined at the plate in order to act on the best pitch possible. Batting eye and the ability to lay off pitches, even strikes, is all a part of being a pure hitter.
Nick Johnson is a prime example of this. The guy is just a fantastic pure hitter, and it is largely drived from his discipline.
apolansk
03-13-06, 06:29 PM
The major difference in their stats are the eras of which they came up in. Baseball changed so much from the late 80's to the late 90's. This causes A-Rod's stats to be better, but Bond's rate stats to be better.
In 1996, A-Rod's first full season, Mark McGwire led the league with 52 home runs. The AL averaged 5.39 runs per game, and the NL averaged 4.68.
In 1986, Bond's first full season, Jesse Barfield led the league with 40 home runs. The AL averaged 4.61 runs per game, and the NL averaged 4.18.
Thats at least half a run per game per team in each league, thats a lot of offense that needs to be accounted for when comparing the two players.
Snatch Catch
02-11-09, 04:02 PM
Bump.
yanksphan
02-11-09, 06:48 PM
Ruthless bump.
nnysiny
02-11-09, 07:45 PM
"it freaks me out when i see a post i made three years ago" bump
kongull
02-11-09, 08:05 PM
Bonds is the best player ever. Period.
sweet_lou_14
02-11-09, 08:54 PM
Bonds is the best player ever. Period.
:lol:
Arod has more money and Bonds will be going to jail soon...Arod wins
sabermet prospectus
02-11-09, 09:25 PM
:lol:
He did have the 4 single best seasons of all time by far.
sweet_lou_14
02-11-09, 10:13 PM
He did have the 4 single best seasons of all time by far.
That statement is a real stretch, and I imagine at least three of the seasons you have in mind are 2001 or later. So you can just mark those with an asterisk and forget about them.
But you really need to go back and look at Babe Ruth's career.
Make sure you compare Ruth to the rest of the league in, say, 1920 or 1921 ... then compare Bonds to the rest of his league in any year you choose, even 2001.
Then factor in Ruth's accomplishments as a pitcher as well.
Huktonfonix
02-12-09, 01:44 AM
That statement is a real stretch, and I imagine at least three of the seasons you have in mind are 2001 or later. So you can just mark those with an asterisk and forget about them.
But you really need to go back and look at Babe Ruth's career.
Make sure you compare Ruth to the rest of the league in, say, 1920 or 1921 ... then compare Bonds to the rest of his league in any year you choose, even 2001.
Then factor in Ruth's accomplishments as a pitcher as well.
I agree, especially about Ruth's dominance as a pitcher. That really sets him apart.
That said, Ruth would not have had to compete against Barry Bonds, had Barry been born at the turn of the century.
sabermet prospectus
02-12-09, 11:25 AM
That statement is a real stretch, and I imagine at least three of the seasons you have in mind are 2001 or later. So you can just mark those with an asterisk and forget about them.
But you really need to go back and look at Babe Ruth's career.
Make sure you compare Ruth to the rest of the league in, say, 1920 or 1921 ... then compare Bonds to the rest of his league in any year you choose, even 2001.
Then factor in Ruth's accomplishments as a pitcher as well.
Well first of all OPS+ adjusts for era and Bonds has the 3 highest OPS+ single seasons of all time. (I was wrong about 4 because actually Ruth has the 4th highest single season)
And Ruths whole career has an asterisk because he never played against black players.
Face it Bonds is the best player of all time.
nnysiny
02-12-09, 07:14 PM
Well first of all OPS+ adjusts for era and Bonds has the 3 highest OPS+ single seasons of all time. (I was wrong about 4 because actually Ruth has the 4th highest single season)
And Ruths whole career has an asterisk because he never played against black players.
Face it Bonds is the best player of all time.
i think its time for your medication
sabermet prospectus
02-12-09, 08:26 PM
i think its time for your medication
Other then the last sentence everything I said was fact.
ChewieTobbacca
02-13-09, 12:05 PM
Bonds will be remembered as a cheater. A-Rod will not be remembered as a complier. He will be remembered as one of the best all around players to ever play the game. Oh by the way he did hit 48 home runs in yankee stadium so it seems the stadium had little effect on his numbers. A-Rod could hit home runs at any stadium.
Ruthless quoting for a ruthless bump :o
CallOfTheCrow
02-13-09, 12:07 PM
Well first of all OPS+ adjusts for era and Bonds has the 3 highest OPS+ single seasons of all time. (I was wrong about 4 because actually Ruth has the 4th highest single season)
And Ruths whole career has an asterisk because he never played against black players.
Face it Bonds is the best player of all time.
What's with you & playing the race card all the time?
ChewieTobbacca
02-13-09, 12:37 PM
Poorly delivered, but I'd agree that comparing numbers over different eras is impossible
sabermet prospectus
02-13-09, 02:10 PM
What's with you & playing the race card all the time?
How is it playing the race card to note that Ruth never faced black players ? Thats a fact.
Personally I think every era had its demons so I dont think any asterisks should be used and we should just look at the numbers but if you want to start with asterisk talk because Bonds used roids well then Im gonna bring up that Ruth never faced black players.
Carbon Fiber
02-13-09, 10:44 PM
if you want to start with asterisk talk because Bonds used roids well then Im gonna bring up that Ruth never faced black players.
It pains me to admit this, sabermet, but I agree with part of your argument. It is pretty fruitless to compare eras to begin with, but still I do agree that Ruth not facing black players has statistical relevance - ... but the difference, of course, is that Ruth didn't *choose* to not face black players --- Bonds *chose* to cheat - big difference, don't you agree?
sabermet prospectus
02-14-09, 11:23 AM
It pains me to admit this, sabermet, but I agree with part of your argument. It is pretty fruitless to compare eras to begin with, but still I do agree that Ruth not facing black players has statistical relevance - ... but the difference, of course, is that Ruth didn't *choose* to not face black players --- Bonds *chose* to cheat - big difference, don't you agree?
Yes but as far as how it effects their numbers I think its the same. Also I dont think Ruth was above cheating. I read once where he used some kind of an illegal bat. Not corked but it was like he made his own bat somehow, Ill try to find where I read it but you get the point.
Ok it was in a biography of Babe Ruth by Wayne Stewart.
Yes but as far as how it effects their numbers I think its the same. Also I dont think Ruth was above cheating. I read once where he used some kind of an illegal bat. Not corked but it was like he made his own bat somehow, Ill try to find where I read it but you get the point.
Ok it was in a biography of Babe Ruth by Wayne Stewart.
That's an impossible thing to determine.
With Bonds, if you know when he began, you can look at his numbers "pre" and "post" steroids and quantify how much it helped him. With Ruth, there are no "pre" and "post" black players. We have no way at all to quantify any affect on Ruth's numbers by having black players in the league.
Soriambi
02-14-09, 11:38 AM
It pains me to admit this, sabermet, but I agree with part of your argument. It is pretty fruitless to compare eras to begin with, but still I do agree that Ruth not facing black players has statistical relevance - ... but the difference, of course, is that Ruth didn't *choose* to not face black players --- Bonds *chose* to cheat - big difference, don't you agree?
This is true, but looking at it another way, Ruth played against only seven other teams (and there were sixteen teams in total in the league, so there were half as many players/pitchers, which would have improved the quality of playing competition dramatically. Also, mediocre middle relievers were used far less in Ruth's days. Does that even things out? Who knows what the impact of things like that would have been, but I think that is significant as well.
Based solely on numbers, I think there is an argument to be made for Bonds being the best player ever. When steroids come into the equation, though, I think that does knock him down at least a few pegs. Even if he hadn't used steroids, I'd still have him below Ruth. Ruth is the best player of all-time, in my opinion, and that's unlikely to change any time soon.
Huktonfonix
02-15-09, 07:21 PM
This is true, but looking at it another way, Ruth played against only seven other teams (and there were sixteen teams in total in the league, so there were half as many players/pitchers, which would have improved the quality of playing competition dramatically. Also, mediocre middle relievers were used far less in Ruth's days. Does that even things out? Who knows what the impact of things like that would have been, but I think that is significant as well.
Based solely on numbers, I think there is an argument to be made for Bonds being the best player ever. When steroids come into the equation, though, I think that does knock him down at least a few pegs. Even if he hadn't used steroids, I'd still have him below Ruth. Ruth is the best player of all-time, in my opinion, and that's unlikely to change any time soon.
I think Ruth beats Bonds even if you give Bonds full credit for the steroid years. The fact that Ruth was an ace pitcher first simply cannot be ignored.
I think Ruth beats Bonds even if you give Bonds full credit for the steroid years. The fact that Ruth was an ace pitcher first simply cannot be ignored.
What's even more amazing is that they have the tendency to use the same baseball over and over again. Being scuff, worn out and all. If you can hit a homerun in one of those then you know you got tremendous power.
Hellsing
02-16-09, 02:38 PM
FWIW in their first 5 years, Pujols trumps them all :P
He is definitely on my "I suspect this guy of using SOME form of PED" list.
DiMaggio5CF
02-16-09, 04:12 PM
There were also only 16 teams when Ruth played. Bonds faced more watered-down pitching.
In comparing their respective best years...
In 1927, Ruth's 60 homeruns accounted for 37.97% of the Yankees' 158 homeruns that year. That year, Ruth's 60 ranked first in the American League (taking out the Yankees) and fourth in baseball (again taking out the Yankees) behind the New York Giants' 109, the St. Louis Cardinals' 84, and the Chicago Cubs' 74; Ruth hit more homeruns than 12 of the 15 teams (other than the Yankees) that year.
In 2001, Barry Bonds' 73 homeruns accounted for 31.06% of the San Francisco Giants' 235 homeruns that year. That year, Bonds' 73 did not match the season total of any of the other 29 teams in baseball; he hit 60.33% as many as the worst-ranking Tampa Bay Devil Rays, who hit 121 that year.
In his career, Ruth hit 714 homeruns in 8398 at-bats, which is one homerun every 11.76 at-bats. Bonds, in his career, hit 762 homeruns in 9847 at-bats, which is one homerun every 12.92 at-bats.
Ruth hit 198 homeruns after age 35. Bonds hit 317 homeruns in his combined full seasons after turning 35, which happened during the 1999 season, which is shortly before the time he supposedly starting using steroids.
Ruth also lost the majority of three full seasons of offensive statistics while he was a pitcher. He threw over 200 innings in 1915 and over 300 innings in each 1916 and 1917. Even in 1918, he had only 317 at-bats while throwing 166.1 innings. It wasn't until 1919 that he finally reached 400 at-bats in a single season for the first time; he still threw 133.1 innings as a pitcher that season. In Ruth's three seasons of over 200 innings pitched, he went 65-33 in 117 appearances (107 starts) and posted ERA+ of 114, 158, and 128, respectively.
Furthermore, though I don't have the source, I believe that in Ruth's era, fly balls that crossed the foul pole in fair territory and then landed in foul territory were foul balls and that Ruth lost several homeruns under this rule.
(Statistics taken from www.baseball-reference.com)
Mr. Mxylsplk
02-16-09, 04:24 PM
Furthermore, though I don't have the source, I believe that in Ruth's era, fly balls that crossed the foul pole in fair territory and then landed in foul territory were foul balls and that Ruth lost several homeruns under this rule.
I believe this is true, and it's my understanding that so-called walk-off home runs also weren't always counted as home-runs. A player was credited with only as many bases were necessary to win the game. So down 1, 1 man on, it would be a home run. But down 1, bases loaded, it would only be a double, since that's all you'd need to knock in the game winning run. However prior to 1930, ground rule doubles were counted as HR's, so Ruth also gained some home runs.
DiMaggio5CF
02-16-09, 05:52 PM
However prior to 1930, ground rule doubles were counted as HR's, so Ruth also gained some home runs.
I heard this also, but I was told that Ruth didn't pick up any of those variety. I don't know if it was in his entire career or only in his 1927 season.
Mr. Mxylsplk
02-16-09, 06:13 PM
I heard this also, but I was told that Ruth didn't pick up any of those variety. I don't know if it was in his entire career or only in his 1927 season.
I know there's one writer who claims Ruth never gained any home runs this way, but as far as I know, it was common practice to award home runs for ground rules doubles, so that's a little hard for me to believe.
Reggie Smith
02-17-09, 08:06 AM
There were also only 16 teams when Ruth played. Bonds faced more watered-down pitching.
I don't necessarily agree with this assessment. In 1927, the US population was 119,000,000. In 2003, it was close to 300,000,000. That is US population alone. When considering that in 1927, pretty much only white American baseball players were playing, vs. today with players from several countries and races, I don't think that argument is valid. Over three times the people to pull from, and twice as many teams.
Not disputing anything else in this discussion.
Carry on....
ChewieTobbacca
02-17-09, 11:24 AM
He is definitely on my "I suspect this guy of using SOME form of PED" list.
And what would the reason be? That he's good he must be using?
I don't necessarily agree with this assessment. In 1927, the US population was 119,000,000. In 2003, it was close to 300,000,000. That is US population alone. When considering that in 1927, pretty much only white American baseball players were playing, vs. today with players from several countries and races, I don't think that argument is valid. Over three times the people to pull from, and twice as many teams.
Not disputing anything else in this discussion.
Carry on....
Also, athletes are much better conditioned and trained today - you literally had people get pulled off teh streets that looked like they could throw a ball and thrown in for a game. Today, you can't make it toe the majors without having been developed in college and/or the minors.
Sure, we might have 5 man rotations, but they are of much higher quality probably than 2 of the 3 in a 3 man rotation back in the history. Also, seeing as to how contemporary Negro League pitchers of the day had some incredible stars (heck, Satchel Paige even threw a game in this late 50's), there's no doubt that back in the day the talent pool was far more diluted than today
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.7 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
0