9 votes against Jeter?

All Boston fans :D

Makes me wonder how much the votes are skewed upon regional preferences.

With Pujols overlapping his career I don't know how Bonds can ever be considered the Best of our time:
First full 12 years of Bonds compared to the last 12 years of Pujols:

Pujols has a lot more PA's than Bonds, and AB's. Think it would be close to even if Bonds had as many AB's

The poll is " ONE of the the best " , not THE best.

HAHA, Based off Averages then you are right Bonds would have 1092 SO instead of 958 where as Pujols only had 780.

I can't imagine batting avg, OBP, or SLG would have changed much since they are already averages which put them on equal footing.

Then you look at the 162 game average (also included in the screen shot I provided) Pujols still dominates in Hits and Home Runs.

If I was quoting the original poll that would be correct. As seen in my quote above the claim was made that Bonds was "The greatest ever".

Point well taken. But Bonds still must be considered "one of" the best of his time.

I admit to being a bit biased. I witnessed Bonds have incredible games year after year. The two games I saw Pujols he posted O-Fers.

We'll have to see how Pujols holds up over the rest of his career.

im not a boston fan.

I think ruth is the best player ever, Joe d and the mick are top 7 players ever, arod is one of the best hitters I have ever seen and Donnie Baseball is top 3 1st base men fielders ever.

Jeter just isnt one of the best players of his time IMO

lets see how it ends up,

IMO ruth is the best ever, Bonds is the best I have ever seen.

I voted against all but Clemens.

Bonds was great, but I don't think "best of his time" I've never considered MVP to be any sort of reliable indicator, too many times it's given to a very good player on a very good team. Usually teams that would have been good without them. (Or in Arods case, probably better despite the flashy stats)
Of the three pre steroid MVPs for bonds one was a mediocre season among a sea of mediocre seasons. The other one in Pittsburg benefitted from the team being good. The only one of the three that was really great was the last pre steroid one in 93.

Sheffield? I just don't see it. back off a bit on the power late in his career, he's a 450HR guy with a decent average. Maybe not implicated in steroids, I haven't really kept track. But the attacking the bullpen help over a towel is in the roid rage category. There's plenty of guys with similar power and a bit less average, so no Not best of his time, and the good average combined with playing a bit in NY is I think the only thing that gets him into the HOF.
http://voices.yahoo.com/you-re-out-h...n-8328547.html

Heck, I'd take some of those guys over Sheffield every time.

I had a tough time with the other three.
Jeter is I think borderline. If you count his entire career, maybe . But there have been stretches where he wasn't even the best shortstop. Among the best for sure, and he has outlasted Nomar, Tejada, and made Arod move. That's got to count for something. I'm a Boston guy, so maybe I'm biased because of the NY hype "best yankee ever"? Really!? Top 10, but not best.

Clemens I voted for. Maybe shouldn't have. He was amazing to watch, and a very intense competitor. Especially from 86-96 The last four years in Boston he -I think unfairly-took a lot of the heat for a pretty bad team. Yeah, they won the division in 95 but with only 86 wins. He did just fine for Toronto after leaving. A few points off for "it's not about the money" then going with the money. I really liked what he was trying towards the end of his career, I think at some point in the future we'll see more aging players being brought in part-time for a contending team that needs either a good clubhouse presence or just a guy who can win a few down the stretch because he might have 10 game sor so in him but not a full season. (And I know hardly anyone else liked the idea)

As much as I like Ripken I just couldn't count him as Best. And that's always tougher for someone who stayed around so long. Look at the list of guys you'd have to compare him to. Ozzie Smith, Jeter, Arod, Nomar, Tejada, Jay Bell, and probably 10 others. That he led the league in assists at short so many times and doing it by being in the right spot rather than pure quickness is amazing. But it also would depend on having the right sorts of pitcher, If the outfield gets more chances, the infielders might not seem all that good statistically.

Picking a best of any player over a career stretch is challenging because of overlap, changing outlook by management, and loads of other stuff. I prefer to look at stretches of 5-10 years. I think all the players listed were probably the best at their position over some random 5 year stretch. And like it or not if I'm thinking of it as who would I rather have on a team if I owned it Then the value of positive PR enters the equation. Bonds and Shefield No, Clemens, Jeter Maybe. Ripken yes. ( Although I'd make exceptions, I really wanted to see Kingman for a full season in Fenway. We wouldn't even be discussing the steroid guys single season numbers.)

Steve B

Barry's first year and his last 3 years brought his career averages down a bit. We'll have to wait on AP to see how his numbers towards the end of his career affect his averages. I'm curious, does anyone believe Albert is juicing? Drafted in the 13th round ( from my former school Maple Woods Community College ), and debued about 18 months later in the majors. Seriously, nobody saw this career coming. Is he juicing?

Steve,
I think you were very generous not mentioning steroids while opining about Clemens when you did so about Bonds. Maybe he was amazing but I am glad he ended up one win behind Greg Maddux. That's karma for you.

Having seen both Bonds and Pujols (obviously more because I am in STL) and comparing the stats I would say Pujols is clearly better. To say we will have to see how it ends isn't a fair comparison since it is common knowledge that Bonds ended with Steroids. What we do know for sure is that Pujols compared to the pre drugged version of Bonds, Pujols was by far better.

Pujols has been off since being in LA, but only off for him. Compared to Bonds, last years stats for Pujols (his worst year, his 12th in the Majors) was better than the first 4 of Bonds and isn't far from his 6th and 10th years.

All that being said (and I agree with you), as a Cardinal fan I think the smartest thing they ever did was let him walk (hobble) away.

Don't know how it's a laughing matter. Yes, Pujols probably had one of the, if not the greatest first 10 years in Major League history, I'll admit that. But having 1,000 more AB's can change the overall average a decent amount, that's 1 1/2-2yrs worth...I just can't place him as high as other guys because of his defensive value.

I think there would have been some substantial innuendo about by this point. So for now I'll say No. (I do have to say, over 500 doubles at this point is incredible for this day and age).
No one thought when Jeter was first coming into the league that he would ever have this sort of a career either. Haven't heard a word about his juicing either.

In this skeptical day and age, maybe sometimes someone is just having a great career?

+1, that's what matters

I only showed their first 12 years (since Pujols has only played 12 thus far) so the fact that Bond's last three were low doesn't matter.

Also to say that no one saw the career coming is wrong, being in the Stadium the day he debut I know that people were expecting things from him because my dad even told me to watch this guy because he was going to be good as he walked up to the plate. He was drafted late because there was uncertainty about his age, not because he wasn't good.

To say that he may not go anywhere from now on doesn't negate the first 10 years of his career. He is the only player in major league history to bat at least .300 with 30 or more home runs and 100 or more runs batted in in his first 10 seasons.

And who knows how old is he too lol

You are making this a laughing matter. Pujols was 47th for career Fielding Pct. for his postion Bonds is 50th. You are trying to negate a career because the number of at bats isn't the exact same? A thousand ABs more and you believe that would have turned Bonds into a .325 hitter in his first 12 years instead of the .288? HAHA. Ok lets give him 2 more years that puts Bonds AB at 6976 compared to the 6919 of Pujols, is that a closer number for you and you are prepared to look at the stats?

Bonds now has a batting average of....wait for it... .288. What? it didn't change, you said with 1000 more at bats it would be better. Hey his OBP did jump a point from .408 to .409. I was generous on strikeouts though he ended up with 1112.

He's not 33, he's not 33, you can show me indisputable genetic evidence and I still won't believe it.

Here he is at "19":rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

http://www.stlouismemorabilia.com/Al...gh%20Close.JPG

This one 18!

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2011/1018...es_200x300.jpg

And the last one 19!

I believe Pujols was going to be a first or second round (or early around that number) pick by the Rays that year. The scout who got Pujols pretty much made the Cards draft him, RAVED about him in Juco and predicted he'd be a superstar, other scouts viewed him as a guy with moderate power, fat, and a bad fielding first baseman.

Ripken and Jeter are class acts and deserve all the praise they receive......don't have much good to say about the other 3 doucebags you have listed. Barry Bonds was one the first guys to also get heavily into steroids around the mid 90's. I think he's a complete joke with the majority of his stats being inflated by the juice. He deserves NEVER to be voted into the hall of fame.

Darn, I'd planned on mentioning it. I got sidetracked on the whole "part time player" thing.

I don't view Clemens use the way I do Bonds. while the two great years in Toronto might be steroids, the years I see as steroid years for him are the ones in NY, and he really wasn't the same sort of pitcher. More of an aging player using to hold on to a career. The part time thing he worked while with Houston shows he really wasn't ready mentally to retire, but also really couldn't perform over a full season anymore.
Eckersley converted to being a reliever, and has said that worked very well for him. Going from a washed up starter because he'd lose both velocity and motion after a few innings to a reliever who could just fire it for an inning or maybe two was a revelation. But it's also something a lot of starters egos can't handle until it's too late.

Bonds use I see as a far sadder situation. I think he'd have set the career record a couple years after he did without using. He really needed the admiration, and couldn't pass it up short term to get the big reward in the longer term. He probably would have played even a couple years past that as well, Maybe a farewell year with Pittsburg? But the steroids and his attitude made him essentially unsignable once the record had been set.

I do have a bit of a Boston bias. I might be among the few Boston fans to openly admit it.

Steve b

Not totally fair since Bonds best seasons was after his first 12 and Pujols seems to be done as a top-tier ball player. The bigger problem is comparing the old stars to todays stars, its not fair. Humans have grown and evolved over the last 100 years. Take the top 10 players of 2013 put them in a time machine to play the top 10 players of 1913 and the old timers get clobbered. Just like if you did the same with football or basketball players.

Not totally fair since Bonds best seasons was after his first 12

Strange isn't it?

Who cares about fielding percentage, first base is where they put the guys who aren't athletic enough to play elsewhere. And seriously, you just only talk about the big 3 offensive stats. 1B is so much easier to have a higher fielding percentage, because you have 3x and more chances, and you rarely have to move or scoop a ball most of the time. Currently, Pujols has 3x as many chances in half the career length.

Bonds, had it ALL. He ran wait for it...(do you want me to even bother showing you SB comparisons?), he could field with grace before he bulked up as well as throw. Pujols, slow, not a great arm, ever.

Exactly my first thought

Who cares about fielding? You do. You brought it up. Also I didn't compare Fielding to Fielding I compared their overall rank to position. I know bonds Stole bases. So you are saying that because no other stat helps him you are going to look at the one stat that helps your case? I guess stealing bases makes up for the times he didn't get on base because he was fanning the pitcher. I am not saying Bonds wasn't good, but there is no way that he could be considered the greatest as was the claim.

;)

They are different positions, again look at the reasoning on fielding percentage, it's significantly easier to have a higher fielding percentage playing first. Let's see where your beloved Pujols ends up on the all-time charts. I could give two shits about first 10 years. If you looked at my prior post I said I admit Pujols probably had the greatest first 10 years in history, but that doesn't mean anything if he doesn't do it the next 10.

I don't need to dig stats when it's all said and done. Bonds will have the better numbers, across the board other than hits, most likely RBI's and obviously Doubles. Bonds got on base more than Pujols, so what if he k's, had he not k'ed as much, I can't even fathom what his stats would look like.

Look, I love Pujols, I'm so thankful I've gotten to see him play a few times, and he will go down as one of the best of all-time without a doubt (steroid implications or not). Two tremendous players, and Pujols' stretch seems done unfortunately. Yes, 10-11 amazing special seasons, but I want to see what he does over 20 years.

Not strange he was a juice head but if you look at Pujols body type when he came in then the next 5 years or so he was noticably thicker now if you look at him hes thinner again. Has he used? Your guess is as good as mine but you cant count anyone out from that era.

Please stop, you aren't paying attention and stopping for a second to really look at the stats. I said Position to Position their ranks for Fielding pct. I didn't compare Fielding pct. For their position I showed their ranks overall. Bonds for all OF (so I am only comparing him to others in the same position) he is 50th. Pujols among 1st basemen is at 47. So for their position they rank around the same.

Yet again you are just trying to find anything to help support the steroid user as being the better of the two. Ok so I have been told the first 12 weren't good years to compare Bonds and Pujols and I can't use Bonds last three years. So lets look at 93-04 for Bonds. Bonds still is the SO leader and and fails to have the higher BA. At this point Bonds does excel at the other stats, but that is also when we know he was juicing, so for him to only be slightly better in the best stretch of 12 years while on roids then the player I chose to compare him to off I don't know why there really is an argument on who was better.

I know Pujols looks to be going down hill but that is only based off just over 1 season of being off. I really don't know if it will be the end, but if he ends his career now I will still believe that he was the best player I had a chance to see.

Yet again, you are comparing players whom have played different positions, so it's tough to guage, but fielding percentage aside, Bonds was still the suprerior defensive player? Support for a steroid user, please. When did he EVER test positive...not once. It's ALL speculation. Bonds never failed one drug test, Bonds had never got caught using steroids. So please, enough with this steroid crap.

And with that comparison, Bonds destroys Pujols in all but two categories with 1,500 less AB's. In fact, it's pretty much downright embarassing by how much better he was in that span.

Cheers

Brent

I'm not so sure about this. In football and basketball, yes. Baseball, though, would be a bit different.

- The ball used in 1913 wasn't nearly as lively as the ones in use today. This would almost certainly be a factor that favors the old timers.

- The ball was also changed with much less frequency. Modern hitters are accustomed to a new, gleaming white ball to hit at. Not as significant; however, would still tilt things towards the 1913 players.

- Good pitching beats good hitting, and there were some pretty solid hurlers back in 1913. Hard to imagine WaJo and company getting "clobbered," especially playing under conditions they were used to.

- Most modern players would be on the 15-day DL after getting spiked by Cobb. OK, not a game changer...however...thought it was a valid point. The old timers were tough as leather. Today's athlete...maybe not so much.

Just my two cents. Personally, I think it it would be a close matchup.

Respectfully,

Eric

It is a very tough comparison to judge, that's for sure. Modern players are stronger, faster, better equipment, etc. Pre-War or Deadball players have bad baseballs and equipment like you stated, larger fields, but not necessarily as strong or fast. I can say one thing, it sure as hell would be a fun game to watch the best of the best in pre-war vs post-war in a Best of 7. Wow.

Support for a steroid user, please. When did he EVER test positive...not once. It's ALL speculation. Bonds never failed one drug test, Bonds had never got caught using steroids. So please, enough with this steroid crap.

This just in, "Earth Not Flat!"

Show me the proof, show me his positive test results, please. Humor me

I have none and you know it. However to deny that "that" is by far the most plausible explanation for what he was able to accomplish at an advanced age is in a word "myopic."

Look you can admire what he achieved if you like, it was phenomenal. However it like the accomplishments of many of his brethren will always have a stench associated with it.

Hey, I agree. But it's all speculaction, whether he's superhuman or got help, I will go with innocent until proven guilty

Guys,
Sorry, but you're not going to convince Brent about Bonds. He is his favorite player, I think.
We had a very similar debate early last year in a thread "players you refuse to collect." At that time, we were debating Bonds to Ruth. If he feels Barry is flat out better than Ruth, he is surely going to think he is better than Pujols.

If you are interested and want to read the exchange, here is the link.
He begins his debate with other around post 43 and I chimed in around post 69.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...ht=ruth&page=5

BTW, I like Brent. We just disagree significantly on this topic.

Mark

Hmmm.

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture...ictureid=11407

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture...ictureid=11406

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture...ictureid=11405

Thanks for the kind words Mark, I do appreciate it. I really enjoy our civil debates we have in this forum (for the most part), it's a great learning experience and I love reading others views on their favorite players, very fun, and I respect everyone's views, hard to say you can't respect someone's opinion.

Bonds is by far nowhere near close to my favorite player. I think he's an absolute dick, but I truly respect and love his abilities as a player. Mauer is by far my favorite, and no one is close to second, and may be Puckett. What MN kid didn't love Puck growing up :), gosh we miss him.

And as we speak, we are getting no hit :( but my boy Mauer will break it :)

And he did!!!

Everyone's entitled to their opinion. He obviously admires Barry (as a player). That's ok.

Well said, thank you. That's what great about baseball is we can have these debates. You necessarily can't with the other big 3 sports

Here's What I'm Groovin' On
 

The WAS runoff between Clemens and Jeter.

And the difference of WAS and was NOT for a single player. Ripken Jr, for instance.

Jeter was a first round selection, 6th pick, and expected to produce. The power numbers put up by Albert are legendary. You are comparing apples and oranges with the two. They are completely different hitters.

Interesting thread..out of curiosity, did you leave Greg Maddux and Ken Griffey Jr. off this list because everyone already knows they were some of the greatest of all time?
As per the list- Bonds and Clemens stand out- if they hadn't cheated, I would consider them two of the best ever but now i'm honestly too torn to even know what to think of them.