I am NOT a Bonds fan. That being said he was not ever found to be guilty of using PEDs. Photographs reveal dramatic changes to his physique begining around 1999. If considered as evidence the photos raise suspicion but that is all (see Ryan Franklin). I think his overall game declined after 1999. He was far more of a complete player prior to that IMO. That could be attributed to age as much as the rapid changes to his body. I think that his pre 1999 numbers were HOF worthy. Those years alone his ability would land him in any discussion regarding the greatest players of all time. When he reached his second prime thats an entirely different story. Nonetheless, he belongs in Cooperstown next to my favorite players Clemente and Aaron. His inclusion does not deminish either of them. His numbers will always be looked at with a jaundiced eye by everyone who watched that generation of players.

I am a firm believer that if every player from that generation was honest about PED usage we would find more pitchers than hitters used them. PEDs make much more sense for a pitcher not in terms in size gains or increased velocity but in their value to aid in recovery especially for relievers.

His game declined after 1999???? He had by any measure one of the greatest five year stretches in history if not the greatest including 4 straight mvp awards.

His overall game declined. No dispute over his offense post 1998 those numbers are unbelievable. His defense was limited and his speed absent. He no longer was the 4 tool player he had been. I cannot say he had five tools ever as his arm was questionable just ask Sid Bream:mad:

fair enough but with those numbers it seems a minor quibble

So what do you think about Thome? Thome was a stick when he came up, now look at him...Just cause a guy 'blew up' doesn't necessarily mean they juiced, and Thome has never been questioned because he's never been as high profile as Bonds, A-Rod etc.

I agree e was a more complete player in the aspects of his five tools, he did it all, but he did more damage at the plate later and got on base and produced and drove in more runs at an absurd rate.

Okay, I'll start the merge process by bringing the following part of the discussion over here.

We have been making a mockery of the process since shortly after it began, by letting in less than stellar players. Too many of them were friends with the voters and players like Albert Belle, who pissed everyone off, will never get voted in. Guys like Bonds are being denied because what they did is considered a very significant violation of the rules by the voters.

It's all about the voters - write a few letters to them, letting them know that you think steroid users are okay and should be allowed in. It would be interesting to hear their explanations as to why Niekro, Sutton and Rizzuto are in, but great steroid users like McGwire, Bonds and Sosa will not get their vote.

The HOF should impose a maximum allowable hat size of 9 3/8 for entry eligibility. Bonds would likely not meet that criterion.

[QUOTE=Runscott;1057051]Okay, I'll start the merge process by bringing the following part of the discussion over here.



We have been making a mockery of the process since shortly after it began, by letting in less than stellar players. Too many of them were friends with the voters and players like Albert Belle, who pissed everyone off, will never get voted in. Guys like Bonds are being denied because what they did is considered a very significant violation of the rules by the voters.

QUOTE]

+1, Maz got voted in the his HR in the WS, good example there, and he was beloved by his peers

Thank you Barry
 

Once again the most intelligent thought out post comes from Mr. Sloate.

PS 71 buc as a fellow Pirates fan I have always blamed Belinda, go back and watch he could have easily picked Bream off had he been paying attention that sloth was practically on third when Stan finally delivers the pitch.

Thanks Glyn. Once in a while I get lucky.:)

Scott- agreed that much of what goes on in the Hall is political. That's why I pay so little attention to it. It's why Maz gets in but Bonds will stay out. Now that's a joke.

These era debates are so strange to me. There is no way today's players are better than the players of Ruth's era. That is not to say that Ruth played against ALL of the best players, but I would say the average major leaguer (in whatever league they played in) was better then. I'd say the average minor league player was better too.

When Ruth played the game EVERYONE in America played baseball. You had to beat out everyone to get a spot on a team. Now hardly anyone plays baseball. There are so many other sports. Today you only get the best baseball players on a baseball team. When Ruth played you had the best athletes in the country period on every baseball team you went against.

The athletes today are absolutely amazing physical specimens to the human body. The fundamentals in today's game are FAR superior than the days of Ruth, the talent level and playing ability. Just because more people played a sport, doesn't necessarily make it the better generation. Ruth played against the best of his era, and the players today are playing against the best of there era. There are far more in professional baseball than there were in Ruth's day, so I completely disagree with the minor league part as well.

You still need to beat out everyone to get a spot on a team. How often do you just walk up to a team and are automatically on it because no one tries out? Never.

Hilarious

packs
 

you are failing to count the large growth in population, particularly latino who do play baseball. combine this with the globilization of ther sport and the increase in training and scouting techniques and there is absolutely no way they were better ball players back then. I find this notion laughable. Today it is a 365 day a year job for ball players. not so back then when many needed to work second jobs. Athletes are better in every recordable sport why not in baseball?

Todays best athletes don't play baseball. They play football and basketball. But in Ruth's era those athletes were playing baseball. Like I said, today is just the best baseball players on a team. In Ruth's era it was the best athletes in the country on a baseball team.

I don't agree with you guys at all. Baseball was just as much a 365 day a year sport back then. You had barnstorming tours, exhibition games, winter leagues, cuban leagues, baseball was at its highest point in its existence. All the same year round games you have now. Add that to the fact that baseball players today have to cheat to even come close to putting up the numbers guys like Ruth and Hornsby and Gehrig put up. And they did that against some of the greatest legends of the game. How can you say that when today's players cheat they still come up short but are better than past players? You would say its because competition has gotten better. I would say athleticism and skill level went down amongst baseball players. Not amongst athletes in general.

It is generally a fruitless exercise to compare players across too much separation of time. Suppose if you magically transported Barry Bonds back to the 20s and he was far better than Babe Ruth. So what, it doesn't undermine Ruth's achievements in any way, which can only be evaluated in the context of his time.

I think athletes do generally get better over time -- we have proof of this in the evolution of objective track and swimming records (among others) and I see no reason this wouldn't be true for other competitive sports. But that said, I don't think it matters.

Do you know what Babe Ruth's regimen was? He would eat four hot dogs, drink two beers, toss a medicine ball around for fifteen minutes, and then take a schvitz. That's how he kept in shape.

Well I work out every day of my life and I can't hit 60 home runs in 151 games or hit 342 lifetime. Guess what? Neither can anyone else even with their fancy trainers, machines, and specialized drugs.

If Ruth had been born in 1964 instead of 1895, and had benifited from a few generations of evolution, better nutrition and training, he would have been 6'7 and 270 pounds and absolutely dominated MLB.

Had Bonds been born in 1895, and utilized that era's approach to nutrition, training, drinking and tobacco-smoking - and had no access to steroids - he might have been one of the top players (maybe a fast Mel Ott) but he probably would have been 5'9 and 150 pounds and might not have hit 500 HRs. Heck, even in the era Bonds played in, he was only a .280 hitter before and after steroids - I know batting average isn't a terribly important statistic anymore, but for someone considered to possibly be the "greatest ever", I think that's a pretty amazing stat (his grand total of 2 HR titles and 1 RBI title are pretty astounding also).

I just don't see how you make any case for Bonds being greater than Ruth. Or Mays. Or Williams. Or Musial. Or Wagner, Cobb and maybe a few others. Stolen bases are, IMO, very overrated; playing great defense in left field is IMO far less important than most other positions; drawing walks is great, but most of those were during the steroids years (and I also believe - because I like conspiracies - that there was an "understanding" among managers during Bonds' last few years to walk him when convenient to try and prevent him from catching Aaron).

Ruth would be a monster today. He's a star in any era you put him in. Doesn't matter one bit. The guy out hit two entire leagues. Greatest ever.

Bonds led the league in walks five times before steroids, and had 8 100 RBI seasons.

According to the new win share metric used by Baseball Reference, Bonds is the best left fielder of all time, Ruth is the best right fielder, and Ruth finishes slightly ahead overall.

Even with all that cheating Barry couldn't catch The Babe who played 400 less games.

A couple things to consider...
 

Among other items already mentioned (and apologies if I am repeating anything here)...

1 ) If both hitters AND pitchers juiced, doesn't that again help level the playing field? What about Bonds striking out in the 6th inning from a juiced pitcher who would be a bit more tired/weaker without "the juice"?

2 ) Weren't "greenies" without a prescription illegal?

3 ) Should a player be REMOVED from the HOF for admitting to cheating or taking a banned substance? For example:
A ) Perry for admitting to using the spitter.
B ) Ruth (and others) for consuming alcohol during prohibition.

4 ) And something that has already been mentioned, but IMHO, the most important point. If management knew this was going on and widespread, and ignored it, how can you hold this against the athlete?

I'm not condoning any of the steroid era abuse, but it's easy to look through rose colored glasses when remembering the "good old days". If a player was among the best of his era, steroids alone didn't get him there.

If a good player juices he becomes an elite player. If a crappy player juices he can become a horrible major leaguer for a year or two. The playing field would only be leveled in the rare instances an elite juicing pitcher faces an elite juicing hitter.

Been juicing since the 19th century...
http://www.history.com/news/baseball...ntain-of-youth

HAHA! Thanks for the laugh. A one-dimensional player (outside of pitching because it was full-time, though he was very very good) cannot be "Greatest ever." You could make the argument for greatest hitter ever, but not player, not even close, that belongs to Bonds, or Mays.

I don't even know what to say considering Ruth leads or is in the top 5 of every offensive stat you can come up with despite playing significantly less games. If you think hitting 714 home runs while batting 342 lifetime is a one dimensional player I don't know what it takes to be considered great in your opinion.

Ruth leads all players all time in WAR, Offensive WAR and position player WAR. He played 700 less games than Aaron, and 400 less games than Bonds or Mays.

Not to mention he won 20 games in back to back years and has an ERA title. I don't know what one dimensional outside of pitching means.

He couldn't field, he couldn't run, he didn't have a good glove. That's what it means. Don't get so obsessed with WAR, it's an overrated stat that sabermaticians got hard for.

As far as I know leading all players all time in WAR means you are the best player on the field at all times. He was also in the top 5 in fielding percentage as a right fielder every year and is 24th all time in assists. I don't know what you're trying to say about his glove.

Who said Ruth couldn't field or run?

Allowing a known PED user into the Hall would set a dangerous precedent, because if Sosa is in, how could voters logistically keep out stars of the era like Juan Gonzalez or Bagwell? Furthermore, as far as I know the Hall has no policy for removing a person who has already been enshrined, so I suspect the philosophy is to wait a few years to see how this era settles in the minds of the baseball galaxy. Personally, I have come to feel that the great players of the era should be enshrined because I am not willing to wipe out a decade of baseball history because of gaudy stats that don't fall in line with the time periods around them.

This is a Hall of Fame thread, which means individual performance, but I wonder why few people examine the effect PEDs might have had on team standings and even winning pennants and the World Series. Red Sox fans had the catharsis of 2004, and yet Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz have been accused of juicing, and there is no discussion about the authenticity of their team's victory. Is it inconsistent to judge individual players and yet give the teams they played on a pass? 1989 Athletics, what about them?

Baseball fans, and perhaps people in general, seek simple and clear answers, but upon reflection when has baseball ever offered a simple answer to the questions that arise? Every single aspect of and around the game is up for scrutiny, right down to every pitched ball that the hitter doesn't swing at. Strike or ball? It's not clearcut; it's up to the umpire's interpretation, and Livan Hernandez pitched to the most egregiously large strike zone in in the 1997 game that I have ever witnessed. But it's now in the books, forever. Could baseball fans arbitrarily say that Mel Ott should be punished because he hit most of his home runs at a field where an umpire might call 'infield fly rule' on a ball hit to the warning track? Do fans punish Ed Walsh or Burleigh Grimes because they used a pitch that would be eventually deemed 'unfair'? Should Yankee fans feel embarrassed because Jeffrey Maier turned a non-home run into a home run? When fans left baseball after the 1994 strike and said they would never return, well they have their reasons and that is their prerogative. Speaking for myself, I have not and most likely will not leave this game, because the game is beautiful, even though the players and the owners sometimes (often) behave deplorably. How the game was in the Steroid era may not have been (in hindsight) totally permissable, but neither should pre-1947 Major League Baseball be. There is no way to wrap a neat package around this. It's complicated, just like us. Can we possibly conceive in 2012 how we might feel about this PED baseball era in 2062? Is George High Pockets Kelly truly worthy of Hall of Fame enshrinement? He sure has a good nickname though.

Anyway, first post ever. Apologies for the length.

Nat

The greatest players of every generation could compete in any generation. The difference is that the average players have improved in every aspect of the game. This served to make the competition deeper and the quality of the game progressively better.

I really think that if MLB wanted PEDs gone they would punish the team that benefited from the cheating of the individual player. They punished Melky Cabrera but the Giants organization benefited from his use. He played 113 games prior to getting caught. Make all of those games forfeits and there is no WS for the Giants in 2012. Instead they win the World Series and Melky is given a $377,000 share.

Packs
 

For the overwhelming majority it was not a 365 day a year job, most had to work second jobs because they did not make enough money, this was true of many players even some into the 1950's. This is not supposition but fact and you can choose not to believe it but that does not make it so. You also cant seem to grasp the concept of the minute number of players ruth was able to participate against compared to the globilization of the game. Even with some not playing baseball its borderline racist to not think that the expanding of the game worldwide has not in fact made many baseball players better athletes than in the past. It was also much harder to find all of the best players and many club teams had mlb caliber talent but never got a shot due to never being noticed. It was just a little harder to get around the entire country back then then it is the world today.

Physical specimens alright. Coffey, Colon are in top physical shape.

Did I say it was everyone, did I specifically just mention baseball? Have you seen Adrian Beltre, or most NBA and NFL players?

There were plenty of players with long careers who probably had thoughts on the general skill level from one period to another. Most of what I heard the guys on the 'Glory of Their Times' cd say was that the modern players could probably play with the old-time players....no, the debate wasn't whether or not the old-timers could play with the modern generation.

There was also some mentioning of the '60s players being babies, pulling themselves out for any little injury. Funny, given that players from the '60s say the same thing about today's players. There certainly is a missing degree of toughness to today's players, despite easy access to conditioning, diet, etc., that the old guys didn't have.

With all due respect, you don't have a freakin' clue what you're talking about. Ruth had an excellent and complete all around game. As for running, you don't hit .342 lifetime if you can't run.

One can only conclude that your source material concerning Ruth is that stupid movie with John Goodman's farcical portrayal.

Ruth was an amazing baseball player probably the best of all time.

but

he didnt work out, he didnt eat right, we wasnt in great shape even when he was young. When i say great shape im comparing him to todays (most of todays) players who work out every day, have a 6 pack, (not of budwiser) bench 300 or so pounds and are all cut up and train every day.

even thought he wasnt any of that he was still the best

but bonds is damn close

The type of training done by today's players is not necessarily conducive to superiority. Guys seem to get injured just swinging a bat -- how many guys have down time due to 'oblique strains' and the like compared to a generation ago, and hamstring pulls, and all sorts of other injuries suggesting overstrengthening and insufficient stretching and flexibility/

I'm not challenging the point you're making. We're actually making similar points. Your point is that Ruth didn't play against the best. My point is today's athletes aren't playing against the best either.

When Ruth played the best athletes in the country played baseball. Today they don't. My point applies to all professional baseball players in Ruth's time, not just white players. I think the average professional baseball player at the top of their game was better in the past than they are now.

Not at all. And I'm hardly a fan of Bonds.

But if you believe the 1999 start of steroids for him, he was a pretty consistent HR hitter, upper 30's lower 40's most years.

Then
2000 49
2001 73
2002 46
2003 45
2004 45
2005 5
2006 26
2007 28

That's 317 or almost exactly 40 a year

Figure the first three years he might have been close to that,
The next three maybe only mid-low 30's and the last two the same as he did.
The breakdown in 05 I'm almost positive was a "coming off steroids" injury.
That looks like
2000 41
2001 37
2002 39
2003 35
2004 32
2005 33
2006 26
2007 28
(The numbers aren't scientifically applied, just made up)
That's 271, only 46 short of where he actually got.

Although he was hitting pretty well for his age (And not bad for any age)at the end, he was dropped very quickly after he got the record. Mostly because of the juicing and his splendid personality. Think about it, a guy hitting .276 with 28 homers got precisely 0 interest as a free agent. Not even from an AL team that could hide him at DH

A nicer guy who was about 40 HR short of the all time record and hitting 26-28 a year would have had a bunch of interest even if it was only as a gate draw for a weak team. A couple years, a record, and a graceful retirement or final year back in Pittsburg and there it is.

Steve B

And - He maybe could have done it quicker, without the monster year with 73 he'd have seen a lot more good pitches.

i think he would have tailed off a lot more than that in his late 30s early 40s without the juice.

There is one very simple truth. Nearly 100 years after Ruth first took the field he is still being considered one of the greatest players who ever lived. And it is safe to say he will still be considered that 100 years from now.

With Bonds, as technology and science continues to progress Bonds will be an after thought.

Ruth's success was based strictly on raw ability. So much so HE CHANGED THE WAY THE GAME WAS PLAYED. Bonds' success was due in a very large part to progression in sports medicine and science... the best bats, the best balls, body armor, the best nutrition, the best medicine, the best training, and the best drugs.

Make no mistake about it, if MLB opens the door to freely allow players to do what Bonds was doing, Bonds won't look so great. Can you imagine a player with Mantle's natural ability having the advantages Bonds' had? For most of Bonds' career he wasn't even the best player in the league. That would be Griffey Jr. It wasn't until he started using that he because so feared.

And since we are pointing out difference in eras, ponder these two:

Ruth hit 54 homers in 1920. Ray Chapman died late in the 1920 season. MLB did not start using new balls until after. Ruth hit 54 homers while playing with beat up baseballs.

And do you think for a second Bonds would have gotten away with crowding the plate in the 1920's? Think he would have tried without his body armor?


Playing D-3 college baseball is not a path of a pro career.

It's possible. And that's the great thing about baseball "what if " discussions.

I figured on a gradual dropoff to his final two years which I assumed were done clean.
A sharp dropoff would have maybe left him at the upper 600's ?

The big tripping point is his attitude. It cost him at least a year. clean with the same attitude and a quick dropoff? Maybe he doesn't stay around long enough for even 600.


Of course, while we're onto whatifs, If the Sox had ever signed Kingman we'd be wondering how none of these guys could hit 90 even with steroids.

And does anyone recall the Topps "cyber stats" cards from 94? They did projected stats based on some computer program and used them for an insert set. The computer had Barry at something like 73 HR. :eek:

Steve B

I'm sure some of the best athletes back then wound up as doing something else, because the risk/reward for playing baseball just wasn't worth it. I just don't think that in the olden days, that playing baseball was necessarily the glamorous job that it is today..

With all due respect, you must not know shit. Ruth did not have an excellent and complete all around game, you're arrogant for that assumption. To hit .342 he didn't need speed. As an earlier poster stated, the fields were deep. Anyone person could generalize Ruth was not fast, as evidenced by his steals and fielding, which you seem lacking to grasp. He had more triples than steals because of the deep fields. If a player hits at a .342 clip and gets on base nearly every other at bat, wouldn't you think they would run?

No Bonds was complete, 500-500. Unreal

Yes because I forgot how much you knew about my life. When you googled me, did you find anything about the scholarships I had that gotten taken away because I blew everything in my shoulder. Did it tell you about the scouts and the pro teams I worked out for?

Just shut the up and don't bring a personal matter into this fun and interesting debate, that is extremely classless and immature on your end. All because of a disagreement over someone's opinion.

You must not know shit about baseball, they find talent in all levels. Ever heard of Jordan Zimmermann? 2nd round pick of the Nats a few years ago. Guess where he came from. Yeah D3.

Just cause you were a terrible athlete and rode the pine, doesn't mean you just go and post about someone else because your daddy couldn't convince the coach to not cut you.

:)

Lets just please get back to this discussion, because I love hearing everyone's opinions and arguments, and that helps make this game great.