Are there any player's autographs that you refuse to collect?

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by mr2686

I'll agree with that...just look at Ruben Sierra. He got as big as a house and had to start his bat swing in a different zip code.

That is great example! Spot on! Thank you!

[J.McMurry]

Whoaaa now Compadre, That Cobb killing is an urban legend that I believe has been proven false by a SABRE member. As far as Lewis goes,If I remember ,he was only proven to have been at the killing, not actually committing the murder,but I could be wrong on that as I didnt really follow the case that close.

In the end, just collect,or dont collect who you want. Thats a beautiful thing.

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

Bonds' eyes were so good, he could pick-up the seems on the pitchers release point and know what type of pitch was coming. And based off of where his arm would be angled, he knew whether that pitch would be in his zone or not. He never struck out, and had a pretty good average. Obviously top tier players were blessed with those abilities.

Before he started taking steroids, Bonds averaged 90 strikeouts per 162 games played, and batted .289. His amazing eyes apparently didn't kick in until he was 36 years old, at which point his strikeouts dropped by nearly a third and his batting average jumped 35 points. I'm guessing that's also when the steroid regimen began.

Pre-steroids, Bonds was an excellent player, but I see no statistical measures that would make the pre-steroids Bonds the greatest player ever. Adjusted for their different eras, Mays beats him in most categories.

Pre-steroids, Bonds won 1 HR title, 1 RBI crown, 0 batting titles. Even with steroids, he failed to hit .300 for his career, earned 4 fewer Gold Gloves than Mays while playing the easier outfield position, won only 1 RBI crown and a grand total of 2 HR titles. Also, despite playing 22 seasons, Bonds is not in the top 14 in All-Star nominations.

Had he not used steroids, I don't think he would have made it to 600 home runs, and I don't think he would have managed much better than a .280 lifetime BA. He would have had his 500-500 accomplishment, 3 or 4 MVPs, and maybe another Gold Glove or two - and I think he would have been regarded as one of the top 20 position players ever (behind Ruth, Wagner, Cobb, Williams, Mays, Gehrig, Musial, Mantle, Aaron, etc.).

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by Karl Mattson

Before he started taking steroids, Bonds averaged 90 strikeouts per 162 games played, and batted .289. His amazing eyes apparently didn't kick in until he was 36 years old, at which point his strikeouts dropped by nearly a third and his batting average jumped 35 points. I'm guessing that's also when the steroid regimen began.

Pre-steroids, Bonds was an excellent player, but I see no statistical measures that would make the pre-steroids Bonds the greatest player ever. Adjusted for their different eras, Mays beats him in most categories.

Pre-steroids, Bonds won 1 HR title, 1 RBI crown, 0 batting titles. Even with steroids, he failed to hit .300 for his career, earned 4 fewer Gold Gloves than Mays while playing the easier outfield position, won only 1 RBI crown and a grand total of 2 HR titles. Also, despite playing 22 seasons, Bonds is not in the top 14 in All-Star nominations.

Had he not used steroids, I don't think he would have made it to 600 home runs, and I don't think he would have managed much better than a .280 lifetime BA. He would have had his 500-500 accomplishment, 3 or 4 MVPs, and maybe another Gold Glove or two - and I think he would have been regarded as one of the top 20 position players ever (behind Ruth, Wagner, Cobb, Williams, Mays, Gehrig, Musial, Mantle, Aaron, etc.).

Steroids do not make your vision better!!! Players just get better, for the jump in average that is easily explained by HE WALKED MORE! Obviously if you walk a ton more, your strikeouts will go down and your average will go up naturally.

It doesn't matter how many times you lead the league in a statistical category, because his MVP's show otherwise, that's flawed thinking. He was in TOP 5 in MVP voting from 1990-2000, that's 10 YEARS of consistency, and won it 3 times, second once, and should have won more if you compare the winner's stats to his since that's what your basis is on.

Bonds easily would have hit 600+ home runs, there is no way using steroids will give you 200+ home runs, or EVERYONE would do that. If Bonds didn't get as many free passes as he did, he would have been closer to 900-1000 home runs. He average 140 walks a year! That's absurd! Usually it's "good" if a player can manage half that many, or almost half that. One year he had over 200 walks, that is a lot of wasted at bats. Bonds IS the most feared hitter of ALL TIME, plain and simple, and while he didn't win home run titles, he couldn't. Hard to win when you have hundreds of less at bats due to walks.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

And Ruth being mentioned everywhere as the best baseball player ever, IMO is a JOKE. He was a one dimenshional player, that's it. He ONLY could hit. A god awful fielder, base runner. I don't consider him top 5. When I look at best players ever, I look at players who can do it all, the five tools, Ruth was waaaaaay off from that.

[David Atkatz]

Why don't you look at Ruth's record, and read a bit about what his contemporaries had to say before you embarrass yourself again with another stupid post.

[mr2686]

Thanks David...I was too much in shock to respond to his post.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Why don't you look at Ruth's record, and read a bit about what his contemporaries had to say before you embarrass yourself again with another stupid post.

What so you think a players' opinion is going to matter? Many players said Feller was the best pitcher ever, as well as hardest throwing.

Ruth's record, all hitting since he really wasn't a pitcher all that long. That's it. Ruth was BARELY 1 WAR defensively each year. That's terrible for someone who's supposedly the best baseball player ever. Obviously Ruth was a tremendous pitcher, but he only had about 3-3 1/2 full seasons as a pitcher. He could field, and he couldn't run. He was a one-dimensional offensive player, again because he was a pitcher too long.

Plus, this was my opinion, didn't realize my opinion affected you so much to warrant your response.

[David Atkatz]

You just don't care how ignorant you sound, do you?

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

You just don't care how ignorant you sound, do you?

This is my opinion, and no, not ignorant by any means. You think Babe was a good fielder? Are you saying he would have won a ton of gold gloves, maybe stole more than the 8 stolen bases he averaged per year? Quit being arrogant pal, and wasting my time. "Look at the records." Not saying Ruth isn't good, just saying he's not the best IMO. And that's what you don't seem to get, this is my opinion.

[39special]

How many home runs do you think Ruth would have hit if he took steriods?

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by 39special

How many home runs do you think Ruth would have hit if he took steriods?

No clue, different game from then and now. But to be honest, I think Bonds and Ruth would still have very close home run totals regardless of steroids or not. I think they easily would have hit 900-1,000 if they didn't walk as much as well. I do believe is one of the greatest hitters of all time. I love Ruth, but he was a hitter, he didn't do it all. But again, this is all my opinion, so please just take it with a grain of salt.

[39special]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

No clue, different game from then and now. But to be honest, I think Bonds and Ruth would still have very close home run totals regardless of steroids or not. I think they easily would have hit 900-1,000 if they didn't walk as much as well. I do believe is one of the greatest hitters of all time. I love Ruth, but he was a hitter, he didn't do it all. But again, this is all my opinion, so please just take it with a grain of salt.

I was just wondering.Not just Ruth,but Mays,Aaron,T.Williams.I not sticking up for players that used,just wondered what the record book would look like if
roids would have been around back then.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by 39special

I was just wondering.Not just Ruth,but Mays,Aaron,T.Williams.I not sticking up for players that used,just wondered what the record book would look like if
roids would have been around back then.

I understand, honestly, I don't think it would be as construed as people think. Steroids will only help so much, the rest is upon the individual. You still have to be able to do your job in hitting the ball etc. Averages may go up a few tenths of a point at best, and home runs maybe around 35-50 more per career I'd say. Those close balls hit to the track or off the fence could go over.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

I understand, honestly, I don't think it would be as construed as people think. Steroids will only help so much, the rest is upon the individual. You still have to be able to do your job in hitting the ball etc. Averages may go up a few tenths of a point at best, and home runs maybe around 35-50 more per career I'd say. Those close balls hit to the track or off the fence could go over.

I think you miss the reason for taking steroids, at least for a baseball player. It's not to make you much stronger, it's to keep your body in top shape. A normal body wears down after exertion, so over the course of a 162-game season, anyone will have lulls in performance. But on steroids, the body bounces back at an extremely high rate, meaning there are no lulls, therefore players can play at peak for every single game. That's why so many on the busted list were relievers. There have been many in baseball's history who have come out of the gate at a much higher HR rate than Ruth or even Maris, but by the end of the season they've worn down. This is how Mac, BB, and Sammy kept the pace going.

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

I think you miss the reason for taking steroids, at least for a baseball player. It's not to make you much stronger, it's to keep your body in top shape. A normal body wears down after exertion, so over the course of a 162-game season, anyone will have lulls in performance. But on steroids, the body bounces back at an extremely high rate, meaning there are no lulls, therefore players can play at peak for every single game. That's why so many on the busted list were relievers. There have been many in baseball's history who have come out of the gate at a much higher HR rate than Ruth or even Maris, but by the end of the season they've worn down. This is how Mac, BB, and Sammy kept the pace going.

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com

No I totally agree with that. And in some of my earlier posts I emphasized on how steroids are popularily used as a means in recovering from surgeries.

[mr2686]

Ok, well if you agree with that, then how can you say that a players avg would only go up a few tenths of a point and only 35 - 50 homeruns (per career) if they are performing at a constant peak level?

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by mr2686

Ok, well if you agree with that, then how can you say that a players avg would only go up a few tenths of a point and only 35 - 50 homeruns (per career) if they are performing at a constant peak level?

Just because a player is taking steroids does not correlate to said player producing at that level consistently throughout the whole season. You REALLY think right now if Matt Kemp took steriods throughout the whole season that he would hit .450, 100 home runs, 230 rbi's, 172 runs and 276 hits as he's projected to do so? NO CHANCE!

[Lordstan]

I've been watching this debate from the sidelines and have decided to chime in.

Let's compare Bonds to Ruth, since that is the example used before.

Comparison from start of career to age 32. This is approximately the year before Bonds started using steroids.
Player From To Yrs WAR G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG SB CS OPS+
Ruth 1914-27 14 127.3 1501 4959 1283 1731 341 98 416 1265 1221 832 .349 .480 .709 92 85 214
Bonds 1986-97 12 94.1 1742 6069 1244 1750 359 56 374 1094 1227 958 .288 .408 .551 417 118 162

Comparison from age 33 to the end of their careers
Player From To Yrs WAR G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG SB CS OPS+
Ruth 1928-35 8 62.7 1002 3440 891 1142 165 38 298 948 841 498 .332 .465 .662 31 32 195
Bonds 1998-07 10 77.7 1244 3778 983 1185 242 21 388 902 1331 581 .314 .496 .697 97 23 209


Totals
Player From To Yrs WAR G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG SB CS OPS+
Ruth 1914-35 22 190.0 2503 8399 2174 2873 506 136 714 2213 2062 1330 .342 .474 .690 123 117 206
Bonds 1986-07 22 171.8 2986 9847 2227 2935 601 77 762 1996 2558 1539 .298 .444 .607 514 141 181

When you look at the splits, it certainly appears that the steroids increased things more than a little bit for Bonds. In 2 less years he hit 14 more HRs, BA went up 26 points, OBP went up 90points(mostly due to walks as people wouldn't pitch to him with all the HRs he was hitting), and slugging went up 147 points. This discrepancy is even more exaggered when you realize he only played 14g in 2005, so all of these stats were done in 9, not 10, seasons
It's seems hard to say that the steroids only helped him a couple of BA points and 30- 35 total HR. He was getting better when 99% of MLers get slower and less productive.

Here is a list of other notables WAR scores from age 32 and up. The last column is their total WAR before age 32.

Player From To Yrs 33up <32

Babe Ruth 1928-1935 8 62.7 127.3
Barry Bonds 1998-2007 10 77.7 94.1
Ted Williams 1952-1960 9 39.1 86.2
Lou Gehrig 1936-1939 4 22.3 96.1
Jimmie Foxx 1941-1945 4 5.2 90
Willie Mays 1964-1973 10 57.6 97.1
Hank Aaron 1967-1976 10 44.3 97.3
Mel Ott 1942-1947 6 18.0 91.3
Frank Robinson 1969-1976 8 27.5 79.9
Ken Griffey 2003-2010 8 3.1 75.5
Ty Cobb 1920-1928 9 40.8 118.7
Tris Speaker 1921-1928 8 41.2 91.7
Cap Anson 1885-1897 13 54.8 44.5
Honus Wagner 1907-1917 11 63.0 71.5
Pete Rose 1974-1986 13 23.3 52.0
Paul Waner 1936-1945 10 19.0 54.8
Stan Musial 1954-1963 10 38.2 89.6
Paul Molitor 1990-1998 9 29.7 45.1
Nap Lajoie 1908-1916 9 33.7 70.5
Sam Crawford 1913-1917 5 15.6 61.0
George Brett 1986-1993 8 17.1 67.9
Only three players had their WAR drop by less than half, Cap Anson( who went up for some reason), Honus Wagner, and Bonds.
All these other great players had their WAR pretty low after age 32. Only Wagner and Ruth are close, and his dropped from 127, less than half of what it was the first half of his career. This probably would've been an even bigger difference if Ruth'sfirst 4yrs weren't pitching. Bonds' dropped less than 20pts.

A few more interesting items.
Bonds won no gold gloves after he started taking steroids.
Bonds stole over 400bases before roids and only 97 after.
Also interesting to note is that's Ruth's overall WAR is first (Bonds is second) despite the first 4yrs of his career being a pitcher.

Even if the contention that Bonds didn't get better with the roids is true, I think it's certainly clear that he was able to maintain his peak productivity for a number of years longer that would be expected. This certainly inflated his overall numbers. i don't think he would've gotten anywhere close to 700HR without them.

Lastly, we can debate back and forth forever about who was better, but we'll never be able to compare them directly because Bonds CHEATED. It doesn't matter why. He used steroids. It also doesn't matter that others did it as well. I don't excuse bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. How many less of this, or more of that, he would've had is purely speculation.
Bonds can never be the greatest in my mind, no matter what the numbers are, because he cheated. Game. Set. Match!

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Very nice list, sorry you had to spend time in doing that. Start of career to age 32: 42 home run difference. After: 90. Bonds has ONE outlier year for the increase in home runs. You take that outlier year, his numbers don't look at skewed. He if he hit 50, he would have had less home runs than through age 32. Batting average went up due to walks, which you stated, as well as other stats.

We don't know how long Bonds used steroids. But saying how "he wouldn't come close" to hitting 700 home runs is ridiculous. He was pretty damn close to the Babe through age 32, and that one year makes it look like a huge difference. Not going to look cause I don't care, but I believe Hank Aaron as well hit more home runs later in his life as well.

In regards to batting average and home run production I had stated, I believe you helped my cause. More walks = higher average. Regards to home run output, his one year makes it look ridiculous, but it's not too far off from his production through age 32.

What are their defensive WAR's. Bet it's not even close. Not going to count, but your stolen base total is wrong, Bonds has over 500. We don't know how many years Bonds was on them, or what type of steroids they were. Could be one year, could be 5 years, could be 3 months, who knows.

[drc]

My opinion is you get straight zeroes where you cheat. Just like in the Olympics. Just like on a college test, just like in a poker game. In fact, that's the standard philosophy used in sports on a play by play basis. In football, if you are offsides the 50 yard pass is negated. They don't debate how many yards you would have gotten if you hadn't been offside. They say you get zero. In fact they say you get negative yards with the penalty.

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

Very nice list, sorry you had to spend time in doing that. Start of career to age 32: 42 home run difference. After: 90. Bonds has ONE outlier year for the increase in home runs. You take that outlier year, his numbers don't look at skewed. He if he hit 50, he would have had less home runs than through age 32. Batting average went up due to walks, which you stated, as well as other stats.

We don't know how long Bonds used steroids. But saying how "he wouldn't come close" to hitting 700 home runs is ridiculous. He was pretty damn close to the Babe through age 32, and that one year makes it look like a huge difference. Not going to look cause I don't care, but I believe Hank Aaron as well hit more home runs later in his life as well.

In regards to batting average and home run production I had stated, I believe you helped my cause. More walks = higher average. Regards to home run output, his one year makes it look ridiculous, but it's not too far off from his production through age 32.

What are their defensive WAR's. Bet it's not even close. Not going to count, but your stolen base total is wrong, Bonds has over 500. We don't know how many years Bonds was on them, or what type of steroids they were. Could be one year, could be 5 years, could be 3 months, who knows.

OK
First off, Ruth hit only 20HR total the first 5yrs of his career due to him pitching. So if we remove those years, now we have Ruth hitting 396Hr in 9yrs(44avg) vs Bonds 374 in 12yrs(32avg). This isn't "pretty damn close to the Babe through age 32."

After 32, Ruth hit 298HR in 8yrs(37avg). Bonds hit 388 in 10. BUT he only hit 5 in the year he didn't play. So, we can adjust 383 HR in 9yrs(43vg).

So Ruth went down 7HR per year on avg(16% reduction), after age 32, and Bonds went up 11 per year(34% improvement). I guess you're right. There was no significant statistical effect of being able to perform at his maximum, or enhanced, production for those extra years.

BTW, Aaron had 75 less HR in the last 10 yrs of his career than Bonds(388-313). Interestingly enough, Aaron had 68 more HR than Bonds before age 32 while playing only 1 more year(442-374).

So Aaron went from avg 34 per year, before age 32, to 31 per yr after age 32. This represents a 9% decrease. As above, Bonds went up 34% in the same span.

Even if you remove 25Hr from Bonds outlier year he still hits 358 in 9yrs (40avg). This is still 9hr per year extra or a 25% increase in production. It seems ludicrous to believe that he "just got better" at a time in his life when every one else gets worse.

You should read more closely, in the totals chart, you can clearly see that Bonds is listed as having 514 SB. He had 417 prior to steroids and 97 after.

I didn't list defensive WAR, because I used the totals. Of course Bonds is higher than Ruth. Nobody in this thread has stated otherwise. I used the total WAR, because in takes into account all aspects of their play.

Lastly, perhaps you are unaware of the physiology of steroids. I am. You don't go from skinny to a monster in a couple of months. It takes years of use along with aggressive working out to pull off the changeover he did.



All in all, this is an interesting discussion, but after everything is said and done, BONDS STILL CHEATED!

Addendum: While we are postulating, I wonder how much further separated from the pack would Ruth be if he never pitched? If we estimate 25HR per year his first 5yrs, instead of 20 total, he would have 820HR. Plus all his other categories would be that much higher. HMM. Perhaps some investigation can be done into the performance enhancing effects of Beer, Hot Dogs, and women.

[J.McMurry]

HMM. Perhaps some investigation can be done into the performance enhancing effects of Beer, Hot Dogs, and women.

I know they get me "juiced up"

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by J.McMurry

I know they get me "juiced up"

In what order?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

And Ruth being mentioned everywhere as the best baseball player ever, IMO is a JOKE. He was a one dimenshional player, that's it. He ONLY could hit. A god awful fielder, base runner. I don't consider him top 5. When I look at best players ever, I look at players who can do it all, the five tools, Ruth was waaaaaay off from that.

HOF Rookies,
Maybe you should look at his career pitching statistics as well. The Big Bam was more than a one dimensional player. If he continued down the path of pitching he was good enough that he might have been a HOF pitcher, FWIW.

Just my 2 cents...

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

HOF Rookies,
Maybe you should look at his career pitching statistics as well. The Big Bam was more than a one dimensional player. If he continued down the path of pitching he was good enough that he might have been a HOF pitcher, FWIW.

Just my 2 cents...

I have said multiple times in my previous posts saying I'm disregarding his pitching. I know he was a hell of a pitcher, and most likely would have been a HOF'er as a pitcher if healthy. But, when he played the field, not pitching, one-dimensional.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

But this topic is getting boring. Good debate all

[mr2686]

Since you keep using words like Awful and one demensional in regards to his fielding, I thought I'd dig up some quotes that were published over the years. Even if you don't believe he was a great fielder, I don't believe you can possibly think he was awful.
This is MUST-READING for any fan of the Babe.
Don't miss the comments by Christy Mathewson,
Tris Speaker, George Sisler and the long description
of how Ruth fooled Charley Gehringer).


"Most enthusiasts think of Ruth only as a mighty batsman.
As a matter of fact, he is a very finished outfielder
with a marvelous throwing arm. . . Ruth plays a hard-hit ball
as well as any outfielder in the business. He goes after
a ground ball like an infielder, and for all his size
he is a smart and daring base runner."
(Christy Mathewson, Collier's, October 11, 1924, pp.45)

"I have been asked my opinion of great outfielders I have known.
By outfielders I mean solely the ability to play the position
quite apart from batting or base running talent. I will say,
without hesitation, that Babe Ruth is one of the half dozen
greatest outfielders I ever saw. This is aside from his
slugging ability, which is unrivaled, and his base running ability
which is much greater than is commonly supposed.
Purely as an outfielder, Babe will rank among the game's greatest.
He was not always so. When he first shifted from the pitching slab
to the outfield, he did not seem to take his work seriously.
His thoughts were mainly devoted to his batting. No doubt
they still are. But for all that, Babe has become a great outfielder.
He covers a lot of ground, primarily because he plays the batter correctly.
He has a sure pair of hands, a wonderful throwing arm and he always
knows exactly what to do with the ball when he gets it."
(Tris Speaker, Baseball Magazine, October 1928)

"He is really a great outfielder, one of the greatest.
He plays batters correctly, covers a lot more ground than
you'd think he'd be able to do with his bulk,
and has one of the deadliest throwing arms ever known.
Besides, Babe has an accurate baseball judgment and
never throws to the wrong base."
(George Sisler, (Baseball Magazine, April 1931, pp. 484)

"By common consent, Ruth was the hardest hitter of history;
a fine fielder, if not a finished one; an inspired base runner,
seeming to do the right thing without thinking. He had the most
perfect co-ordination of any human animal I ever knew."
(Hugh Fullerton, Chicago sportswriter)

"Ruth could make marvelous catches of fly balls that were
as spectacular in their cleverness as made by any outfielder
playing ball. Especially was this true of those long high flies which,
to a slower man, it would have been impossible to get under."
(John B. Foster (Editor-in-Chief of the Official Spalding Baseball Guide),
1938 Spalding Official Baseball Guide)

"But there also were numerous occasions when the Babe made plays
which he had craftily thought up beforehand. Such as the day
he played left field in Detroit and trapped no less an experienced hand
than Charley Gehringer into thinking a fly ball had cleared the fence
for a homer instead of coming down for an easy out. This was before
the present double deck stands had been erected in what then
was call Navin Field. There was just a board fence in left and
to the Babe one day it occurred that with a runner on second
it could be possible, with a high fly ball hit out toward left,
to fake all the notions of a dejected outfielder who knows a homer
is about to sail over his head. So he bided his time and
one afternoon it came. With Gehringer on second, a high fly soared
out to left. The Babe ran back to the fence, looked up at the ball
for a moment and then with a motion of utter disgust shrugged
his shoulders and cast his eyes on the ground. It was a beautiful piece
of acting and fooled Gehringer completely. Certain the ball was
clearing the fence, the Tiger second baseman headed for home.
And in that same moment Ruth darted forward, got his eyes back
on that ball and caught it some five feet in front of the fence.
Doubling up Gehringer at second was then a simple matter.
Of course, in order to accomplish the trick an outfielder
must be equipped with the gift of being able to take his eye
off the ball for an appreciable length of time. But then
the effervescent Babe Ruth was ever a very gifted hand at anything
he tried on a ball field.
(Ferdinand Cole Lane, Baseball Magazine, 1946)

"Few modern fans may realize it, but Babe Ruth was a great outfielder.
We mean defensively. The Babe rarely dropped a ball he got his glove on
and nobody can remember when he threw to the wrong base.
How did he get that way? Not by sitting around,
watching other outfielders practice."
(Ed Rumill, Baseball Magazine, September 1947)

"As a defensive outfielder he was top-hole despite his great bulk,
and his throwing arm was one of the most feared."
(Shirley Povich, Baseball Digest, March 1959)

". . .Ruth?. . . But he wasn't just a great pitcher and a great hitter,
he was a great outfielder. His throws were very accurate and
he made long throws. He was a good ballplayer. Great ballplayer.
(Joe Wood, interview by Mark Alvarez in 1975 and published in the
Baseball Research Journal, 1987, #16, pp. 54)
.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Very nice post Mike, that's pretty neat. But, all do respect to those greats, his defensive WAR speaks for itself. Honestly, what coach/manager/former player who's so highly thought of, is going to negatively knock on his own peers in regards to saying, "Wow, Babe Ruth, tremendous ball player. Could hit the raw-hide off the ball, boy could he ever. Was a terrific pitcher as well, extremely deceptive. But 'ol Babe in the field, was a sight for sore eyes. Though he typically knew where and what to do with the ball, looked like he was running around with a load in his pants, stumblin' and fumblin' around. " That's not going to happen. That wasn't in that time period, from on HOF'er to another to rip on them. He wasn't a good fielder. His defensive metrics and WAR prove that. Unless, they reflected poorly on his actual abilities. Granted, some fields were a mile deep. Hard to say without whitnessing him. IMO

[Lordstan]

It's interesting that the person who made such demonstrative statements as the following is getting bored with the topic.

Your quote was
"Bonds is the best ever, plain and simple, who cares about steroids. Was going to be best ever even before he started juicing. He was a player who did it all. Stole, hit for power, hit for average, strong arm, amazing fielder. There is no one better IMO."

You then followed with
"Bonds IS the most feared hitter of ALL TIME, plain and simple,"

And then you went on to Ruth
"And Ruth being mentioned everywhere as the best baseball player ever, IMO is a JOKE. He was a one dimenshional player, that's it. He ONLY could hit. A god awful fielder, base runner. I don't consider him top 5. When I look at best players ever, I look at players who can do it all, the five tools, Ruth was waaaaaay off from that"

You keep coming back to the difference in defensive WAR as the crux of your argument for Bonds.
Here are a couple of interesting "defensive metrics" for you
1) Ruth has more outfield assists than Bonds(215-173), in approx 500 less games. I guess that kind of kills the Bonds is better because Ruth can't throw theory. Now that I think about it, that theory is kind of silly even without this, considering Ruth was a pitcher many think would've been HOF worthy. Edge to Ruth.

2) Non pitcher fielding percentage - Ruth's was .968 vs the league average of .965. Bonds was .984 when the league avg was .981. So they both fielded .003 above the league avg. You could interpret the data above that Bonds had a much higher percent, but he also had the advantage of the improved glove technology. I think the only way to really compare fairly is to compare them both to the league at the time. Even

3) Range Factor per game. Ruth - 2.07 vs league avg 2.35. Bonds - 2.02 vs League avg 2.22. Bonds slightly better.

4) OF Putouts/g. Ruth 1.98. Bonds 1.96 Ruth slightly better. You could use total putouts as well. Bonds has about 1200 more than in approx 600 more games played. Bonds is 7th all time. Ruth is 44th. Fun fact: All time PO leader Willie Mays has 1300 more than Bonds in 40 less games.

5) Errors. Ruth 164 or 0.07/g. Bonds 97 or 0.03/g. Edge to Bonds.

6) OF double plays Ruth 45. Bonds 25. Edge to Ruth.

7) Defensive WAR(Your favorite stat) Ruth 7.4. Bonds 20.4. Edge Bonds. So in a 22yr career Bonds defense was responsible for 13 more games won than Ruth. WOW. 3/5ths of a game more per year.

There are a hundred more examples of fielding stats I could give you that would go back and forth between Ruth and Bonds.
It seems when you dig deeper into the statistics it appears Ruth and Bonds are pretty close from a fielding standpoint.
There are a hundred other things to consider interpreting this info. Bonds had so many advantages in physical training compared to what players in Ruth's day had. Bonds was a better athlete. Ruth was a better baseball player.

5 tools
Run -Bonds SB 514 to 143
Throw -Ruth (More Assists and Dp from outfield, plus was a pitcher) Bonds had avg arm
Hit for avg - Ruth .342 vs .298 (would've been abigger difference if no juice. Bonds avg prior to age 32 .278. After .314. Hmm)
Hit for Power - Ruth (Only after steroids did Barry approach Ruth in the Power categories)
Fielder -Bonds

So your original assertation about Ruth being one dimensional is obviously incorrect. Additionally, I think the numbers show pretty conclusively that Bonds wasn't going to come close to Ruth's power or average numbers before he was juicing.

I also have grown a bit tired of this debate. I have attempted to show you clear evidence in the statistics of why a group of us responded to your statements with shock.

If stats aren't enough, them perhaps the last evidence of their place in history is their legacy. Babe Ruth went down as the man who both saved the game after the Black Sox scandal and revolutionized the way the game was played in regards to what could be done with power. Barry Bonds will go down in history as a great player who was feared to pitch to because he cheated by taking steroids and everything ball he did hit after that went for miles.

I think the most unfortunate part of this thread is that Barry robbed all of us baseball enthusiats of having a real conversation and comparison as to whether he was the greatest. Once he took them, all comparison is theoretical, because there is no way to tell what he would've done.

[Mr. Zipper]

Thanks for the very informative posts, LordStan. Fascinating.

[Lordstan]

No problem Steve. Glad you liked them
All the stats are pulled directly from Baseball Reference website.

[David Atkatz]

Terrific work, Mike. If he could, I'm sure the Babe would hoist a cold one for ya!

[Lordstan]

David,
I think you meant me?! If so, Thanks.
What I wouldn't give to hoist a cold one with the Babe.
That would be an unforgettable experience.

Mark

[Scott Garner]

Boy Mike and Mark,
Those were two huge posts! Excellent points that were defended beautifully.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Yes, it's getting boring because it's the same repetitive information over and over and over again. Again, you can quote this and alllllll the other times I have said so, this is my opinion. When did my opinion affect you so much? Am I hurting your feelings by saying Babe's not the best? Who do YOU think is? Hell, Pete Rose can be a solid answer, if you want to go by stats, most hits over, how isn't he.

Your whole basis towards your point is stats. Number, number and more numbers. While that makes sense, you're missing a huge key importance. ERA. When Ruth played, there were no scouting reports, there were not nearly as many team meetings for situational aspects, hell they didn't really have too many scouts. Pitchers didn't throw as hard, runners didn't run as fast, fielders didn't have as strong of an arm or range, mechanics weren't a focus as they were today.

In saying that, Bonds played in a tougher generation of players. He played with and against...better players. Were there extreme shifts to take advantage of this advanced scouting. Mound height was a difference. What does it tell you that Ruth has more inside the park home runs, simple, players weren't as good as they are now. In 8 season, Ruth had more triples than stolen bases, Ruth's highest single season total of triples is 16, which is ridiculous. Jose Reyes had 16 last year. Ruth has more triples than stolen bases, what does that tell you about the era? Ruth had twice as many triples in his career as Bonds.

Now, when you have advanced scouting reports, specific situations, extreme shifts, strike zone analysis, relief match-ups etc., you honestly cannot say now who had the more difficult time playing. Bonds played against better players, and it's not close. Half, if not more of players in that era wouldn't make it to AA ball. If Ruth were to play in modern times, he would not hit 500 home runs. No way, no how. The pitchers today would EMBARRASS him. Ruth would not hold his own, no chance. All of his hitting would be exploited, holes in his swing, where to pitch him, what to pitch him, what he chases. Bonds in Ruth's era, Bonds would obliterate and dwarf all his numbers. Player against a weaker competition, screw steroids, he wouldn't need them then, he didn't need them now. Bonds in his era, if you want to do adjusted numbers, I'm sure the numbers are there for ya, since that's what you go all about.

Have a good night, this is boring, waste of my time, because it's my opinion. All you had to say was, "well, I respect your opinion, but I feel you're wrong..." I totally respect yours, and other members' because I know what I said, people will not agree with it. I am not going to insult you or any other members on it, because they are your opinions, and you guys can say whatever you would like, that's your freedom. We both got our pieces in, and I respect all the time you spent on this, but my opinion stands, I may be wrong, and I don't care. But it has been fun, insightful, and educational looking deeper into everything...

See you on other posts.

[Scott Garner]

HOF,

You also have made some good points and I appreciate the fact that you have your own opinion (See, we can play nice) .

I mean no disrespect, but...

I'd like to make a few small points to make before you grab your ball and go home:

I forget who brought up the point, but I don't think that we can diminish the massive changes in the equipment of The Big Bam's era vs. now.

Babe's era = small, primitive gloves that really lent themselves to players making more errors than now. There can't be any debate that the substantial improvements made in modern glove design have given position players advantages over players from Babe's era. Babe played during part of the deadball era. It's no secret that the crappy balls of his era weren't designed to fly out of the park like the tightly wound rabbit balls of today.

Barry's era = Modern gloves, rabbit balls, lowering the mound height for opposing pitchers all helped Barry and the modern players. Perhaps a lesser point, but what about the alleged advantages of Barry's maple bats vs. the ash bats of Babe's era?

Just wondering if this is really a fair comparison at all... Both were excellent players of their own eras, no doubt.

Barry the superior player?? I'm not so sure about that...

Just my opinion...

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

HOF,

You also have made some good points and I appreciate the fact that you have your own opinion (See, we can play nice) .

I mean no disrespect, but...

I'd like to make a few small points to make before you grab your ball and go home:

I forget who brought up the point, but I don't think that we can diminish the massive changes in the equipment of The Big Bam's era vs. now.

Babe's era = small, primitive gloves that really lent themselves to players making more errors than now. There can't be any debate that the substantial improvements made in modern glove design have given position players advantages over players from Babe's era. Babe played during part of the deadball era. It's no secret that the crappy balls of his era weren't designed to fly out of the park like the tightly wound rabbit balls of today.

Barry's era = Modern gloves, rabbit balls, lowering the mound height for opposing pitchers all helped Barry and the modern players. Perhaps a lesser point, but what about the alleged advantages of Barry's maple bats vs. the ash bats of Babe's era?

Just wondering if this is really a fair comparison at all... Both were excellent players of their own eras, no doubt.

Barry the superior player?? I'm not so sure about that...

Just my opinion...

Ruth and his eye-popping stats were also, to some extent, a product of the rule changes that came about in 1920.

There is the further fact that Ruth was NOT facing the best possible competition, for whatever small part that is worth in this debate.

[sylbry]

Originally Posted by J.McMurry

I agree on Anne Frank. I actually toured her home in Amsterdam back in '89 and secretly snapped a pic of the hidden door(pictures were not allowed), if I can find it I'll scan and post.

I did as well. How can you not take a photo of it?

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

David,
I think you meant me?! If so, Thanks.
What I wouldn't give to hoist a cold one with the Babe.
That would be an unforgettable experience.

Mark

I certainly did mean you, Mark. Bit of a senior moment, there.

[slidekellyslide]

The Steroided Bonds was a lazy outfielder...I once saw him in a game watch a fly ball go over his head and hit off the fence and he didn't move because he thought it was a home run.

And speaking of overrated outfielders I thought Paul O'Neill and all those Gold Gloves was ridiculous...anyone can play errorless ball in the outfield if they never take chances. I can't say I watched every game he ever played, but it sure seemed that every time I did watch him play he let a lot of balls hit the ground that a good outfielder would have gotten to or tried to get to.

[J.McMurry]

Sylbry,

Your pic is a lot better than mine. nice shot!

[thenavarro]

Here's an OJ that even OJ haters might like. I made it a few minutes ago from an authentically signed OJ book.

[Mr. Zipper]

Lol

:d

[MacDice]

I have a major issue with Bryce Harper. I have coached several guys who have played against him and the stories they have told me about how he plays the game and the respect have gave opponents, I have no respect for the kid as a person. If he pulls that stuff in the show a lot of fastballs will be thrown at his head

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by MacDice

I have a major issue with Bryce Harper. I have coached several guys who have played against him and the stories they have told me about how he plays the game and the respect have gave opponents, I have no respect for the kid as a person. If he pulls that stuff in the show a lot of fastballs will be thrown at his head

I can't attest to any of the above, but after seeing him play last night on MLB Network, I might refuse to collect him based on his horrible trailer park haircut.