[quote]on edge wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Progressed? The guy was on wrong side of 35 when he blew up and hit 73 dingers. How many players do YOU know that get BETTER at 35+?
[/quote]
Roger Clemens!!![/quote]
Glad you pointed that out, considering he was ALSO on steroids!
(According to one of his best friends, Andy Pettite)
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Well, yeah, if you take only the statistics that Bonds was the best in, then sure, he was the GOAT. Why not look at an overall picture?
Babe Ruth hit 714 dingers in 2500 games. Bonds hit 714 dingers in 2700+ games (can’t remember the exact #) including a handful of years he hit 60+ due to steroids.
Babe Ruth has over 100 wins as a pitcher in only 5 years. Plus, he was a way better womanizer.
Edit - and good luck looking at intentional walks for Babe Ruth. I don’t even think that was a stat when he played.[/quote]
It’s pointless trying to compare Bonds and Ruth. Completely different era.
Those stats Bonds was the best in are pretty telling stats. They are pretty telling of the overall hitting picture. Besides, that’s a lot of stats to be the best in. Also, DBC reminds me he was putting up most of those pre '99 numbers in a very tuff park. Probably accounts for why Sosa and Griffey would be hitting more HR’s than Bonds but Bonds was still drawing more intentionals. The opposing teams knew who to fear even with the wind at their backs.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
It will be really hard to ever argue for a GOAT candidate not named Babe Ruth.
Along with all his batting statistics he pitched a complete game shutout in the World Series FFS![/quote]
How about Willie Mays? He could do everything Ruth did better. The only reason Ruth’s numbers are better than Mays is because Ruth played in a joke of a bandbox with that short porch in right, whereas Mays played most of his career in Candlestick where he estimates he lost at least 10-15 HRs every year to the wind. And Ruth couldn’t hold Mays’ jockstrap when it comes to pretty much every other facet of the game: baserunning, stealing, fielding, throwing.[/quote]
I actually have no problem with you throwing up Willie Mays as a GOAT candidate, but LOL @ the “he estimates” part.
I estimate that I lose at least 250 pounds on my squat due to my extra long legs.
[/quote]
I know. I meant to say “by his estimation”. But I’ve been to dozens of games at Candlestick and the winds there starting around 2pm get absolutely brutal in the summer. I don’t think 10-15 is a bad estimate. I remember being at a game when Bonds was in his first season with the Giants and he wasn’t familiar with the winds I guess (which is ridiculous since he grew up in that ballpark with his dad and Willie Mays) because this guy hits a fucking bomb to left and Bonds never moved. None of the outfielders did. The ball shorthopped the fence and the guy got a triple out of it.
[quote]on edge wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Well, yeah, if you take only the statistics that Bonds was the best in, then sure, he was the GOAT. Why not look at an overall picture?
Babe Ruth hit 714 dingers in 2500 games. Bonds hit 714 dingers in 2700+ games (can’t remember the exact #) including a handful of years he hit 60+ due to steroids.
Babe Ruth has over 100 wins as a pitcher in only 5 years. Plus, he was a way better womanizer.
Edit - and good luck looking at intentional walks for Babe Ruth. I don’t even think that was a stat when he played.[/quote]
It’s pointless trying to compare Bonds and Ruth. Completely different era.
Those stats Bonds was the best in are pretty telling stats. They are pretty telling of the overall hitting picture. Besides, that’s a lot of stats to be the best in. Also, DBC reminds me he was putting up most of those pre '99 numbers in a very tuff park. Probably accounts for why Sosa and Griffey would be hitting more HR’s than Bonds but Bonds was still drawing more intentionals. The opposing teams knew who to fear even with the wind at their backs.[/quote]
I agree the comparisons can sometimes be apples and oranges, but how else are we supposed to name a GOAT?
Besides, us baseball fans needs shit to debate over.
[quote]on edge wrote:
Look at slugging percentage, on base percentage, total bases, walks and intentional walks.
Intentional walks is a huge indicator of what the other teams and pitchers really think. I believe only in Mark McGuire’s 70hr season did Bonds not lead in intentional walks but I think he still got more than Sammy Sosa that year. I’m not about to go and check stats, but I also think in the years Ken Griffey was tearing it up and earning all the MVP’s, Bonds was still getting more intentional walks.
Didn’t Bonds go 40:40 a couple of times? I think he’s the only one with 500 hr’s and 500 stolen bases. He got the 500 hrs before steroids and if he hadn’t taken them he would have had 500 steals much sooner.[/quote]
He did go 40/40 once, yes.
I really like the Griffey/Bonds comparison, actually. Griffey is in many ways the antithesis of Bonds, i.e. the aging player who epically breaks down due to lack of proper training. Bonds is obviously the aging player who did everything necessary to keep his body intact and got an extra 10 years out of it.
But as for the numbers, Griffey is similar or better in BA, HRs, RBIs, and Slugging Percentage through age 31 when his injuries derailed his career. Bonds was the better base-stealer, OBP, and OPS guy. So I think Griffey is without a doubt the better power hitter compared to a PED-less Bonds.
On the subject of IBBs, I think they are irrelevant in this case. Bonds’ IBB numbers were high pre-steroids, but didn’t approach what we saw after 73. You can’t look at IBBs without looking at the lineup around the player. And Griffey had a machine batting around him; A-Rod, Buhner, Martinez make for a formidable group with runners on.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
It will be really hard to ever argue for a GOAT candidate not named Babe Ruth.
Along with all his batting statistics he pitched a complete game shutout in the World Series FFS![/quote]
How about Willie Mays? He could do everything Ruth did better. The only reason Ruth’s numbers are better than Mays is because Ruth played in a joke of a bandbox with that short porch in right, whereas Mays played most of his career in Candlestick where he estimates he lost at least 10-15 HRs every year to the wind. And Ruth couldn’t hold Mays’ jockstrap when it comes to pretty much every other facet of the game: baserunning, stealing, fielding, throwing.[/quote]
I actually have no problem with you throwing up Willie Mays as a GOAT candidate, but LOL @ the “he estimates” part.
I estimate that I lose at least 250 pounds on my squat due to my extra long legs.
[/quote]
I was thinking the same thing.
[quote]HeavyTriple wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
Look at slugging percentage, on base percentage, total bases, walks and intentional walks.
Intentional walks is a huge indicator of what the other teams and pitchers really think. I believe only in Mark McGuire’s 70hr season did Bonds not lead in intentional walks but I think he still got more than Sammy Sosa that year. I’m not about to go and check stats, but I also think in the years Ken Griffey was tearing it up and earning all the MVP’s, Bonds was still getting more intentional walks.
Didn’t Bonds go 40:40 a couple of times? I think he’s the only one with 500 hr’s and 500 stolen bases. He got the 500 hrs before steroids and if he hadn’t taken them he would have had 500 steals much sooner.[/quote]
He did go 40/40 once, yes.
I really like the Griffey/Bonds comparison, actually. Griffey is in many ways the antithesis of Bonds, i.e. the aging player who epically breaks down due to lack of proper training. Bonds is obviously the aging player who did everything necessary to keep his body intact and got an extra 10 years out of it.
But as for the numbers, Griffey is similar or better in BA, HRs, RBIs, and Slugging Percentage through age 31 when his injuries derailed his career. Bonds was the better base-stealer, OBP, and OPS guy. So I think Griffey is without a doubt the better power hitter compared to a PED-less Bonds.
On the subject of IBBs, I think they are irrelevant in this case. Bonds’ IBB numbers were high pre-steroids, but didn’t approach what we saw after 73. You can’t look at IBBs without looking at the lineup around the player. And Griffey had a machine batting around him; A-Rod, Buhner, Martinez make for a formidable group with runners on.[/quote]
These are all very good points.
Rajraj - I could never tell - are you a Yankee fan or do you hate the Yankees, hence, the hat burning in your avi?
Edit - you’re from Canada, you’re probably an Expo fan, aren’t ya?
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Rajraj - I could never tell - are you a Yankee fan or do you hate the Yankees, hence, the hat burning in your avi?
Edit - you’re from Canada, you’re probably an Expo fan, aren’t ya?[/quote]
lol you’re quite astute. I’m a Toronto Blue Jays fan.
Question, do you ever get sharp pains in your side when thinking about 1993?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
Rajraj - I could never tell - are you a Yankee fan or do you hate the Yankees, hence, the hat burning in your avi?
Edit - you’re from Canada, you’re probably an Expo fan, aren’t ya?[/quote]
lol you’re quite astute. I’m a Toronto Blue Jays fan.
Question, do you ever get sharp pains in your side when thinking about 1993?[/quote]
Fuck you and Joe Carter.
Biggest whiners in baseball.
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
he hasn’t tested positive for anything and he hasn’t said anything.
The other guys are the assholes: A-Rod, Sosa, McGwire and Clemens [add to list if I’ve missed someone]. Except Manny, he’s the best; just Manny being Manny.[/quote]
Bonds tested positive more than once. Wasnt suspended becauae the policy wasnt in place yet.
I have no idea if that second sentance is a joke or what. Bonds is in the exact same position as everyone else on the Mitchell report. Clemens is the biggest tool beause of all his public comments but theyre all the same. ethically speaking.
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
[quote]TD54 wrote:
He is still the greatest baseball player of all time with or without the roidz. Yeah i said it[/quote]
I agree, although I would say that he’s the greatest power hitter to ever play the game.
[/quote]
You can’t say “with or without the steroids” as if steroids don’t make a difference. He was a great player before the steroids, but no one, and I mean NO ONE would be mentioning him in GOAT discussions without steroids.
[/quote]
Ha how can you say that? You have no clue how he would have progressed without steroids.[/quote]
Well theres a false assumption there. You are assuming that he would have PROGRESSED. NO ONE makes improvements after age 35. Instead of getting worse as he career waned, he got better. Lanky is 10000% right. He extended his ‘prime years’ by at least 5 seasons and increased his production by about 30% in those ‘extra’ prime years. His numbers are completely artificial.
Absolutley would have been a HOFer without drugs. IMO
[quote]on edge wrote:
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
[quote]TD54 wrote:
He is still the greatest baseball player of all time with or without the roidz. Yeah i said it[/quote]
I agree, although I would say that he’s the greatest power hitter to ever play the game.
[/quote]
You can’t say “with or without the steroids” as if steroids don’t make a difference. He was a great player before the steroids, but no one, and I mean NO ONE would be mentioning him in GOAT discussions without steroids.
[/quote]
Ha how can you say that? You have no clue how he would have progressed without steroids.[/quote]
His offensive numbers were the best in modern history before he started PEDs. Hall of Famers were in awe of him before steroids.[/quote]
Categorize “modern era”. And pick the year that you believe he started using drugs. (Im not trying to put you in a corner saying you dont know when he started (even thugh you definitely dont), but you must have an assumption.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I don’t know about the house arrest sentence, Lil Kim was given a year in the pokey for the same charge. If they are willing to lock up Martha Stewart’s country kitchen ass, then they will lock up anyone. He will most likely go to Lompoc Camp, near Santa Barbara. [/quote]
She lied in a MURDER case IIRC. THis is a LITTTTLEEE bit different.
