Were they the best......

[Julz24]

Far and away the greatest player I've ever seen play in person was Barry Bonds. A 7-time MVP, Bonds was in the zone at the plate for years. He was the most feared hitter of our time, and got pitched around more than anyone in history.

[EvilKing00]

Originally Posted by Julz24

Far and away the greatest player I've ever seen play in person was Barry Bonds. A 7-time MVP, Bonds was in the zone at the plate for years. He was the most feared hitter of our time, and got pitched around more than anyone in history.

Agree^

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by Julz24

Far and away the greatest player I've ever seen play in person was Barry Bonds. A 7-time MVP, Bonds was in the zone at the plate for years. He was the most feared hitter of our time, and got pitched around more than anyone in history.

My thoughts exactly, as I view him as THE greatest ever. I really regret not seeing him play, had tried to convince my dad for years...

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Julz24

Far and away the greatest player I've ever seen play in person was Barry Bonds. A 7-time MVP, Bonds was in the zone at the plate for years. He was the most feared hitter of our time, and got pitched around more than anyone in history.

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

My thoughts exactly, as I view him as THE greatest ever. I really regret not seeing him play, had tried to convince my dad for years...

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:

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

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

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

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

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.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

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.

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.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

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.

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.

[KCRfan1]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

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:

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

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

My thoughts exactly, as I view him as THE greatest ever. I really regret not seeing him play, had tried to convince my dad for years...

Originally Posted by KCRfan1

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

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".

[Julz24]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

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:

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.

[EvilKing00]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

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:

lets see how it ends up,

[EvilKing00]

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

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by EvilKing00

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

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.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

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.

[KCRfan1]

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?

[HRBAKER]

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.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

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.

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

[Paul S]

Originally Posted by KCRfan1

... 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?

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?

[KCRfan1]

Originally Posted by Paul S

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?

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.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by KCRfan1

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?

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.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

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.

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.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by KCRfan1

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?

And who knows how old is he too lol

[Jlighter]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

And who knows how old is he too lol

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"



This one 18!



And the last one 19!

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by EvilKing00

lets see how it ends up,

+1, that's what matters

[timber63401]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

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:

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.

[HRBAKER]

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

Strange isn't it?

[Paul S]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

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

Strange isn't it?

Exactly my first thought

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

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

Strange isn't it?

[timber63401]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

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

Strange isn't it?

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.

[EvilKing00]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

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

Strange isn't it?

Strange but a lot of players have their, better years later on. Almost like a light gets switched on, or the game slows down. Bonds was using, Just like almost everyone else of his time, but as he got older he also learned to hit better. Here are a few examples of players who got better as some years went bye. (off the top of my head)

RA dickey, Jose Bautista, Encarnacion, Randy Johnson, Roy Halladay, Carlos Gomez, AJ Pierzynski had his best season last year at age 35 and hes a catcher, blew away his notmal stat lines. Paul Konerko had his best 2 season at 34 and 35.

Im sure you guys could name ever more players.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by timber63401

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.

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

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by Eric72

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.

[HRBAKER]

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!"