@1970s said:
Some of you are out of your freaking mind over Barry Bonds. You're saying he was good before steroids ??? Really ??? Compare Barry's numbers from age 21 through 24 to Hank Aaron or Ted Williams age 21 to 24. Don't EVER put Barry in the same company as the elites. He demonstrated before steroids that he was TOTALLY sub par to the elites. Case closed.
So he got off to a “”slow” Start? He was a 5 tool player and we don’t know exactly when he started the PEDS
The only thing Bonds was best at was CHEATING. He was a TOOL....not a 5 tool player. He shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as Mantle or Mays.....PERIOD! CASE CLOSED!
We agree on a lot of things Paul...….But not even in the same Universe on Bonds.
@dallasactuary said:
Skin, I follow your analysis to the degree that anyone here is arguing that Ruth out-homering entire teams for a year or two early in his career is important to his status as the GOAT. But nobody is making that argument, and in fact you're the only one who ever mentions it.
Leaving aside that bit of trivia, your argument appears to be that Ruth's level of competition was so low that it is not possible for him to have been the GOAT. Logically, that argument doesn't work, so I assume there's more to it than that. It would help a lot if you would list, in order, who you believe to be the 5 or 10 greatest baseball players of all time. From that, I can figure out what kind of era adjustment you're making. If Ruth comes out lower than 2nd, then it will simply not be possible for anyone else from pre-WWII to overcome your era adjustment to make the top 10, and you will then have created the same "insane" result - but in reverse - that you're criticizing.
As for post-Mays players who can be considered GOAT candidates, who do you have in mind (please, for the love of God, don't say Barry Bonds)? Morgan and Schmidt were certainly great, but I don't see how they can be considered as good as Mantle. Who is it that you think compares favorably to Mantle in the past 50 years?
What is more logical or reasonable? The standard way where every best player comes from before 1960? Or the 'in reverse' way where every best player comes from 1970 and on?
Currently, none of the era adjustments work...I know this because even with them, all the best position players come from before 1970....yet somehow many of the modern pitchers make the all-time lists(which ironically, would make it an even better case for my point, in that none of the best position players come after 1970, yet they are facing many of the best pitchers who do rank on the all time lists).
It isn't just Ruth outhomering teams for those two years. The subsequent years he outhomered peers to a great deal as well, maybe not entire teams, but enough guys where it was impossible for a player from 1990 to come anywhere close to it.
All you have to do is look at the fielders' gloves back then and you realize that any missile hit two steps to their sides are hits. That isn't the case with a modern glove. The punch and judy hitters back then did not hit missiles, yet the big stronger hitters did more, taking more advantage of that facet, thus out hitting their peers to a degree unattainable in modern age.
So if I made a list and it was in reverse of the typical lists where Mike Schmidt was actually better than Lou Gehrig, Mike Trout actually better than Ty Cobb, etc...I would actually feel more comfortable with that, as opposed to Tris Speaker being better than ANY modern player, even though several from Speaker's era(and the next era) are better than him.
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
We don’t disagree on Bonds. You, like many, choose to ignore his existence. If you acknowledged his existence, he’s the best. Maybe ever. And Arod is up there, too. maybe 2nd. Again, maybe.
Point is, they played pro baseball.
This is where we disagree. There is a rule in baseball that steroids are not allowed. Bonds took steroids. Therefore, Bonds was not playing baseball. You can argue the point if you wish - it's a free country - but if you do you'll be wrong.
As for the pre-cheating Bonds, he was great. He wasn't anywhere near Mantle/Ruth great, but he was great. His closest comparison would probably have been Frank Robinson if he'd finished out his career with a shred of dignity. But, since he chose to make a mockery of the game and fools of the people who rooted for him, where his baseball career actually ended leaves him with a closest comparison of Dick Allen.
I never can understand how someone so intelligent can say something so silly. I hate so break it to you, but bonds was in fact playing baseball.
When people can’t handle the truth, they turn to this stuff.
I was the same way a long time. Qualifiers and context are always important > @craig44 said:
And, the race card just got played...
If Mantle has Mays stats and vice versa, would ANYONE call it a tie?
By the way, here’s what I collect and the baseball player I worship...
And that’s not even cards! Mickey is number 2 behind the Babe for me and I can argue it until the cows come home.
The idea of the thread was position players better than Mickey. Barry Bonds and what he did on the field SHOULD BE discussed. Clearly the guy is a lightning rod. No doubt. But again, plenty of guys took PEDs.
I can take them! The HR king I will never be. Pretend he ‘didn’t play baseball’ or ‘he’s a cheater’ all you want. He played, he hit, no o e ever told him he could t play and when he did he performed at a higher level than just about anyone ever.
PS - Mickey’s first 6 seasons of production were basically identical to Bonds. Thanks to those who brought it up as I wouldn’t have looked otherwise...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Paul - ever notice there’s ALWAYS A REASON why the black guy with the better numbers isn’t actually better?
1951WheatiesPremium - Ever notice that a black guy with lower test scores and a lesser resume gets into a college over a more superior student just because he's black ?
For every card you play, I've got a hundred in my hand to play right back at you.
So you have a stack of race cards is what you are saying?
I am asking why the two best black guys - with superior stats to just about everyone else not named Babe - are being explained off the list. It’s funny that way.
I’m white and love Mickey Mantle; I just have a hard time pretending Barry Bonds didn’t play because I saw him actually playing.
A bit of a paradox.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Mark McGwire with steroids hits 583 homers and hits .263. Mark McGwire without steroids is down to 412 homers and a .240 average. This is based on averaged before and after steroids.
PS - Mickey’s first 6 seasons of production were basically identical to Bonds. Thanks to those who brought it up as I wouldn’t have looked otherwise...
Nice try. Just the first 4 seasons, as Barry gained 15+ pounds from season 3 to season 5.
Mickey's OPS from 20 to 24 was .924, .895.,.933.,1.042, 1.169
Bonds OPS from 20 to 24 was .746, .821.,.859., .777
Nice try my friend, but the facts are clearly against you. LOL+
Never been a one column guy...
Mantle
Bonds
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@ArtVandelay said:
The stats actually do speak for themselves.
Mark McGwire with steroids hits 583 homers and hits .263. Mark McGwire without steroids is down to 412 homers and a .240 average. This is based on averaged before and after steroids.
It makes a difference.
Now do Bonds.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Williams, Musial, and Bonds were all better. Bonds had help with the steroids, but until there is a official asterisk in place, his history making 7 MVP's will never be touched.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
@perkdog said:
Dallas hate to break it to you but Bonds was actually playing baseball when he was on steroids , just like 95% of his peers were at that time. You can keep repeating that same stupid “He wasn’t playing baseball “ over and over again but it simply don’t make you right regardless of how smart you think you are.
Rosie Ruiz "won" the Boston Marathon a long time ago by taking a shortcut. It didn't take very long for evidence to come forward that proved she had cheated and they took her medal away. But imagine that a large group of runners had followed Rosie on her shortcut instead of running the race by its rules and that one of them crossed the finish line first. My position is that a marathon is 26+ miles and if you take a shortcut then you didn't run a marathon. The winner is the one who completed the 26+ miles the fastest, and that what the cheaters did doesn't even enter in to it. Your position is that the ones who ran 26+ miles were nothing but saps and the true winner is whoever crossed the finish line first, regardless of how many miles she ran. You can argue the point (free country, etc.) but this is your position, and it's absurd.
In logical terms, that Bonds wasn't playing baseball is known as a tautology. My statement that Bonds wasn't playing baseball was true the first time I said it and, obviously, remains true. I repeat it only for the benefit of the benighted few who can't seem to grasp such an obvious point.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
All I will add as far as Race goes is I swear on my family I never have even thought of the racial aspects of this, I think the guys that love Mantle and Ruth are the same type of guys who automatically say Jim Brown was the best, they discount every reasonable argument as rubbish and will not consider any other points or thoughts, they are set in their ways and nothing will change that. Some I’m sure prefer Ruth/Mantle because they were white but I think that is a small percentage and I definitely don’t think anyone here cares about any ball players skin color.
@craig44 said:
It all boils down to the fact that we will never know exactly how many did or did not use PED. We will never know how many players used illegal substances or equipment. Baseball has never had a level plAying field. I cannot account for what percentage of any players stats should be deducted for breaking rules. I will not make moral judgements about what some players did or didn't do. I just let the stats speak for themselves
Offensive stats can not speak for themselves when guys gain 43 pounds of muscle in their big league careers, and their exit velocity for singles, doubles, and home runs increases big time.
Take away 43 pounds of muscle and those rocket line drives for singles turn into double plays, and those 445 foot home runs turn into warning track outs.
So you have no "moral judgement" on a guy who averages 20+ home runs his first four years in the majors, but then can hit 73 home runs after he gained 43 pounds of muscle ? LOL.
The rest of us will choose to make that judgement rather easily. Because it is what it is, and what it is, is cheating.
20+ home runs for his first 4 years then lots and lots of home runs after. Sure sounds familiar... Take a look at Ken griffey jr. Was he on PED as well? I don't know, and neither do you. We can't white knight for certain players and vilify others if you don't know. We can't judge one players cheating as a huge offence to God and country and then call another p!ayers cheating gamesmanship when you cannot quantity how much extra advantage each player got. The only thing we know for sure is the statistical record. All moral judgements aside, the statistical record happened and is how players can be judged
@perkdog said:
Dallas hate to break it to you but Bonds was actually playing baseball when he was on steroids , just like 95% of his peers were at that time. You can keep repeating that same stupid “He wasn’t playing baseball “ over and over again but it simply don’t make you right regardless of how smart you think you are.
Rosie Ruiz "won" the Boston Marathon a long time ago by taking a shortcut. It didn't take very long for evidence to come forward that proved she had cheated and they took her medal away. But imagine that a large group of runners had followed Rosie on her shortcut instead of running the race by its rules and that one of them crossed the finish line first. My position is that a marathon is 26+ miles and if you take a shortcut then you didn't run a marathon. The winner is the one who completed the 26+ miles the fastest, and that what the cheaters did doesn't even enter in to it. Your position is that the ones who ran 26+ miles were nothing but saps and the true winner is whoever crossed the finish line first, regardless of how many miles she ran. You can argue the point (free country, etc.) but this is your position, and it's absurd.
In logical terms, that Bonds wasn't playing baseball is known as a tautology. My statement that Bonds wasn't playing baseball was true the first time I said it and, obviously, remains true. I repeat it only for the benefit of the benighted few who can't seem to grasp such an obvious point.
An analogy has to make some sense and yours doesn’t seem to fit. Unless you are saying Barry threw the ball over the wall instead of hitting it, it doesn’t work. I’ll fix it.
He ran the race - all 26.2. On steroids. And won. And people thought he was cheating but no one tested him. So he kept running and kept winning. And when he slowed down at the end and the stopped racing, people said he cheated again. Loudly. Starting pretending he never really even ran the races or wasn’t really running marathons but was instead not running - despite years of footage of him running and winning said marathons.
Now as disappointing as it was for me, they never got Bonds coming off the subway. I think he took PEDs, of course, and I think most people think he did, too. However, the testing policies were lax and beatable. So, many guys - Jose Canseco often as the poster child - took them. MANY. However, steroids don’t make a .250 hitter a .350 hitter. They don’t take a 5 HR guy and make him a 50 HR guy. Now that is ridiculous. They allow guys to train more and recover faster BUT you still have to train and work out and train and work out. As an example, I went to a very competitive high school. I did not play football but about 40% of the team was on some type of steroid. Of them, about half worked out and saw some appreciable benefit - the rest were bloated guys with boobs. Taking them is one thing, deriving benefit is another. And you need the inherent talent to begin with (debatable, but i think it is so).
What I think is often overlooked, too, is that it’s been around forever - taking things to get an edge. You heard of people doing crazy stuff to get an edge (didn’t some Tobacco era HOF guy injest/inject some type of horse or gorilla testicle product?!?) and they still do. For women, money, Fame, glory, championships, ego - the reasons are innumerable and humans are fallible - it will end the same way most of the time. Just because the best stuff then sucks now doesn’t mean it wasn’t the edge they needed - even if just the placebo effect.
We laugh at the nonsense of it - the crazy stuff guys were on - now though perhaps in 2119 they’ll be like ‘Remember when humans tried to improve their bodies and fix health issues after birth instead of during the prenatal stage? Stupid 21st Century humans...’
Again, Barry is the unique case - there’s plenty of guys from the era who failed tests and/or were suspended. He’s neither. He may have started in high school or in 1989 or in 1998 (motivated by being left off all century team was the one I’d heard, not that it matters) or maybe he never took them (yeah, right!).
Still, he played baseball and smashed records. He came back and coached, after (Marlins). By all accounts, he was a likable teammate to many. He stole a ton of bases and played a solid (not spectacular, especially late) defensive outfield and the dude could hit - a ton.
It’s also funny that most of you, when asked about Pete Rose - who broke actual on the books rules of the game - will argue for his inclusion in the Hall of Fame and also be happy and willing to explain that away.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@ArtVandelay said:
The stats actually do speak for themselves.
Mark McGwire with steroids hits 583 homers and hits .263. Mark McGwire without steroids is down to 412 homers and a .240 average. This is based on averaged before and after steroids.
It makes a difference.
Can you please reveal to us the exact seasons or parts of seasons Mac took steroids?
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
An analogy has to make some sense and yours doesn’t seem to fit. Unless you are saying Barry threw the ball over the wall instead of hitting it, it doesn’t work. I’ll fix it.
He ran the race - all 26.2. On steroids. And won. And people thought he was cheating but no one tested him. So he kept running and kept winning. And when he slowed down at the end and the stopped racing, people said he cheated again. Loudly. Starting pretending he never really even ran the races or wasn’t really running marathons but was instead not running - despite years of footage of him running and winning said marathons.
My analogy was fine before you broke it. You are doing two things which simply don't work:
You are saying, perhaps through some sort of divine wisdom you possess, that SOME rules are OK to break and you're still deserving of the "win", but OTHER rules are important enough to cause the "win" to be taken away if broken. My argument made no such distinction: rules are rules. If by "fix it" you meant "make it incomprehensible", then mission accomplished.
You are allowing for the possibility that Bonds didn't take steroids. As a gesture of understanding I could allow for the possibility that the sun will rise in the West tomorrow, but I'm too smart (or as perkdog would say, I think I'm too smart) to really believe something so stupid. Fact: Bonds took steroids. Any argument that doesn't acknowledge the known facts is pointless. And why you keep bringing up your opinion of how many other people also weren't playing baseball along with Bonds is a mystery to me. Whether I'm right or the rest of your argument is right makes no difference; either way, the number of cheaters is irrelevant.
Still, he played baseball and smashed records. He came back and coached, after (Marlins). By all accounts, he was a likable teammate to many. He stole a ton of bases and played a solid (not spectacular, especially late) defensive outfield and the dude could hit - a ton.
No, he didn't play baseball (at least in the record-smashing years), and by all accounts he was the most disliked player on his team.
It’s also funny that most of you, when asked about Pete Rose - who broke actual on the books rules of the game - will argue for his inclusion in the Hall of Fame and also be happy and willing to explain that away.
The situations for Bonds and Rose are very different, but for the record I'd put Bonds in the HOF before I'd allow Rose in, but I hope neither one ever does get in. Honoring either one of them would be a disgrace to the game.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
From 1986-1998, the years Bonds was not doing roids(best guess based on evidence), he had a 164 OPS+ over 8,100 plate appearances.
That's pretty darn elite of the elite. Now think of this aspect....there certainly were players doing steroids during that time, so then Bonds is being compared to those guys with inflated stats....making that 164 OPS+ better, because he was clean competing against steroid players.
Add that his era was facing better pitching, better fielding(including far better gloves), and more better hitters to be compared to...how is it a stretch that he is every bit as good or better than Cobb, even before the steroids??
Geronimo was still living while Cobb was playing. Not Cesar Geronimo, Geronimo the Sioux Indian.
Sorry, I have no problem saying pre-steroid Bonds, the best player in the world from 1990-1995, was better than Cobb, the best player in the world from 1910-1915.
According to the current metrics, it says that not only was Cobb better, but Hornsby, Speaker, and Wagner too....and nobody sees the folly of thinking all those guys from then were better than the absolute best in 1990??? Sorry. Doesn't add up.
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
An analogy has to make some sense and yours doesn’t seem to fit. Unless you are saying Barry threw the ball over the wall instead of hitting it, it doesn’t work. I’ll fix it.
He ran the race - all 26.2. On steroids. And won. And people thought he was cheating but no one tested him. So he kept running and kept winning. And when he slowed down at the end and the stopped racing, people said he cheated again. Loudly. Starting pretending he never really even ran the races or wasn’t really running marathons but was instead not running - despite years of footage of him running and winning said marathons.
My analogy was fine before you broke it. You are doing two things which simply don't work:
You are saying, perhaps through some sort of divine wisdom you possess, that SOME rules are OK to break and you're still deserving of the "win", but OTHER rules are important enough to cause the "win" to be taken away if broken. My argument made no such distinction: rules are rules. If by "fix it" you meant "make it incomprehensible", then mission accomplished.
You are allowing for the possibility that Bonds didn't take steroids. As a gesture of understanding I could allow for the possibility that the sun will rise in the West tomorrow, but I'm too smart (or as perkdog would say, I think I'm too smart) to really believe something so stupid. Fact: Bonds took steroids. Any argument that doesn't acknowledge the known facts is pointless. And why you keep bringing up your opinion of how many other people also weren't playing baseball along with Bonds is a mystery to me. Whether I'm right or the rest of your argument is right makes no difference; either way, the number of cheaters is irrelevant.
Still, he played baseball and smashed records. He came back and coached, after (Marlins). By all accounts, he was a likable teammate to many. He stole a ton of bases and played a solid (not spectacular, especially late) defensive outfield and the dude could hit - a ton.
No, he didn't play baseball (at least in the record-smashing years), and by all accounts he was the most disliked player on his team.
It’s also funny that most of you, when asked about Pete Rose - who broke actual on the books rules of the game - will argue for his inclusion in the Hall of Fame and also be happy and willing to explain that away.
The situations for Bonds and Rose are very different, but for the record I'd put Bonds in the HOF before I'd allow Rose in, but I hope neither one ever does get in. Honoring either one of them would be a disgrace to the game.
I still don’t see anything above the bolded (which I agree with, by the way) that tells me that Barry Bonds wasn’t playing baseball. I am not allowing for the possibility he didn’t (Quite obviously and repeatedly I asserted he has) but simply putting out there that he played the game I marred by steroids while he played. Speculation aside, we don’t have the evidence like we have ARod, Manny, Palmiero, etc.
So aside from pretending he doesn’t exist, you have to acknowledge him - that continues to be my only point....
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
I think it is interesting that baseball seems to be the only sport where fans still cling to the belief that their heroes of yesterday are better than the athletes of today. The athletes of today are superior to those 50, 80, 100 years ago. Today athletes are stronger, faster, and better trained but somehow that doesn't seem to matter in these discussions. Look at the average fastball speed increase in just the last 20 years, now extrapolate that further back. The greats of yesteryear were feasting on 70-85 mph fastballs thrown by part time pitchers with dead arms half the season. Almost any elite modern baseball player would destroy the competition Mantle, Mays, Williams and Ruth played against. It is a whole lot easier to appear to be exceptional when the average level of competition is vastly inferior.
@fergie23 said:
I think it is interesting that baseball seems to be the only sport where fans still cling to the belief that their heroes of yesterday are better than the athletes of today. The athletes of today are superior to those 50, 80, 100 years ago. Today athletes are stronger, faster, and better trained but somehow that doesn't seem to matter in these discussions. Look at the average fastball speed increase in just the last 20 years, now extrapolate that further back. The greats of yesteryear were feasting on 70-85 mph fastballs thrown by part time pitchers with dead arms half the season. Almost any elite modern baseball player would destroy the competition Mantle, Mays, Williams and Ruth played against. It is a whole lot easier to appear to be exceptional when the average level of competition is vastly inferior.
Robb
Agree. MLB should clear everything out of the HOF that is over 50 years old. Sell it all on Ebay. Put Bonds and Clemens in. Gamblin' Pete too.
@Skin2 said:
Sorry, I have no problem saying pre-steroid Bonds, the best player in the world from 1990-1995, was better than Cobb, the best player in the world from 1910-1915.
And you may be right, but I'd still need to know your top 10, in order, to know whether your era adjustment makes sense. Is Bonds, when he was playing baseball, the only one post-Mays who was better than Cobb, or are there others? Do you have anyone from the Mays-Bonds gap in the GOAT conversation?
I'll note, too, that pre-steroids Bonds put up his 164 OPS+ in a career of 2,000 games. Hank Aaron has a stretch of 2,500 games (1957-1973) with an OPS+ of the same 164, and in an era (which you have often pointed out) in which it was much harder to put together such a high OPS+. I don't know how you're weighting career and peak, but I think you have to be close to 100% peak to get Bonds over Aaron. I could go on with this, but my point is that if you've got pre-steroids Bonds higher than Cobb, I think you're going to get a lot of WTF results applying the same rules elsewhere, and you're not going to have anyone, except maybe Ruth, from the first half of MLB history in your top 10.
And Wheaties, if I'm understanding your last post correctly, you're hanging your hat on the fact that nobody has proven that Bonds took steroids. And technically, that's correct. But, seriously, rather than wait for other people to tell us something we already know, why can't we use the brains God gave fleas and just reach that conclusion for ourselves? You are pretending something didn't happen that you know happened, and then mocking the people using their brains for "pretending Bonds doesn't exist". We're not pretending he doesn't exist, and we're not pretending he didn't cheat. Bonds existed, Bonds cheated, and recognizing both realities makes him a man who existed playing a sport other than baseball. You bolded that he broke records, but since he did so by cheating you'll have to explain to me why a marathoner taking a shortcut isn't a perfect analogy for what Bonds did. I could run a marathon in under an hour taking a big enough shortcut, but nobody would take what I did seriously. It remains a mystery to me why anyone takes what Bonds did seriously.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Of course there were players from earlier eras who threw just as hard as today. Some make it seem as though the human race has evolved (if you believe in that) into a more highly skilled stronger species in just 125 years. Not how it works and not how it happened. Let a Mel ott or ty Cobb be born in an era with our nutrition and training methods and they would be just as big, strong and fast as players today.
Conversely, Do you really think that if Mike trout had been born 125 years ago that he would be 6-3 245 pounds with 7 % body fat. I will answer it for you. Nope.
@Skin2 said:
Sorry, I have no problem saying pre-steroid Bonds, the best player in the world from 1990-1995, was better than Cobb, the best player in the world from 1910-1915.
And you may be right, but I'd still need to know your top 10, in order, to know whether your era adjustment makes sense. Is Bonds, when he was playing baseball, the only one post-Mays who was better than Cobb, or are there others? Do you have anyone from the Mays-Bonds gap in the GOAT conversation?
I'll note, too, that pre-steroids Bonds put up his 164 OPS+ in a career of 2,000 games. Hank Aaron has a stretch of 2,500 games (1957-1973) with an OPS+ of the same 164, and in an era (which you have often pointed out) in which it was much harder to put together such a high OPS+. I don't know how you're weighting career and peak, but I think you have to be close to 100% peak to get Bonds over Aaron. I could go on with this, but my point is that if you've got pre-steroids Bonds higher than Cobb, I think you're going to get a lot of WTF results applying the same rules elsewhere, and you're not going to have anyone, except maybe Ruth, from the first half of MLB history in your top 10.
And Wheaties, if I'm understanding your last post correctly, you're hanging your hat on the fact that nobody has proven that Bonds took steroids. And technically, that's correct. But, seriously, rather than wait for other people to tell us something we already know, why can't we use the brains God gave fleas and just reach that conclusion for ourselves? You are pretending something didn't happen that you know happened, and then mocking the people using their brains for "pretending Bonds doesn't exist". We're not pretending he doesn't exist, and we're not pretending he didn't cheat. Bonds existed, Bonds cheated, and recognizing both realities makes him a man who existed playing a sport other than baseball. You bolded that he broke records, but since he did so by cheating you'll have to explain to me why a marathoner taking a shortcut isn't a perfect analogy for what Bonds did. I could run a marathon in under an hour taking a big enough shortcut, but nobody would take what I did seriously. It remains a mystery to me why anyone takes what Bonds did seriously.
I’m having a very hard time understanding what Barry Bonds was doing all those years? He stood in Left Field for half an inning, sat out in the dugout when his team was batting and when it came his turn to bat, pitchers pitched to him. I’m pretty sure that is baseball.
You, @dallasactuary, are repeatedly saying ‘he wasn’t playing baseball’ as if repetition will make it true. You are a very smart guy but logic is failing you here. I have said - repeatedly - that Bonds took steroids. I have no doubt and I’m not defending him.
A marathon is 26.2 miles. If you don’t run all 26.2 you did not run a marathon. You cheated.
In baseball, you can cheat as well. And if they catch you cheating, you get thrown out. Too much pine tar - on bat or neck? Tossed. Sandpaper on the mound? Gone.
If you say Bonds cheated off the field in preparation for games, I agree. On the field, mashed baseballs, stole bases, walked (a lot) caught balls, threw balls in from the outfield and in general, played baseball. Really, really well.
By the way, I know you’re big on winning and losing these types of things. So, I’ll remind you that the premise of your argument is ‘Barry Bonds did not play baseball’ so maybe don’t focus too much on outcomes this time.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
You, @dallasactuary, are repeatedly saying ‘he wasn’t playing baseball’ as if repetition will make it true. You are a very smart guy but logic is failing you here. I have said - repeatedly - that Bonds took steroids. I have no doubt and I’m not defending him.
A marathon is 26.2 miles. If you don’t run all 26.2 you did not run a marathon. You cheated.
For the record, and at the risk of being insulted again by perkdog, logic never fails me. You may disagree with one or more of my assumptions or I may have a fact wrong, but my conclusions always follow logically from my facts and assumptions.
My assumption here is that if someone does not follow the rules of X then he is not playing X. Your assumption is that sometimes that's true and sometimes that's not true, depending on which game and depending on which rule and depending on how many other people are also not following the rules. Since your assumption is so vague it can't be called wrong, but there's also no way to have a satisfactory discussion on the topic. You can bend your argument as much as needed to fit your predetermined conclusion while I'm constrained by the requirement to be consistent.
Since I'm afraid I might injure myself if I smack my forehead any harder than I already have, I'm going to let this topic go.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@DIMEMAN said:
The Bonds/Rose comparison make me laugh and see RED at the same time. Bonds cheated to get his stats....period!
Rose didn't cheat to get his stats. Yes, Rose broke a rule, but breaking this rule had NOTHING to do with his stats!
That's why Bonds should NEVER get in the HOF and Rose SHOULD. Not having the ALLTIME Hit Leader in the HOF because
he broke a rule and bet on Baseball is a CRIME! Comparing Rose to Bonds is comparing Apples to Oranges!
Professional sports only survive if fans trust that the games are played and officiated with integrity. In an era where corruption is the norm, losing the trust of the fan is a dister to any major sport.
The one rule...the only rule that matters is no betting on games, period.
Rose didn't care. he was an addict and put his addiction before the game that he loved.
Personally I don't care if Steve Bartman goes in the Hall. The game has left me and I don't plan on visiting Cooperstown. But Rose compromised the game and is not worthy of entry.
@DIMEMAN said:
The Bonds/Rose comparison make me laugh and see RED at the same time. Bonds cheated to get his stats....period!
Rose didn't cheat to get his stats. Yes, Rose broke a rule, but breaking this rule had NOTHING to do with his stats!
That's why Bonds should NEVER get in the HOF and Rose SHOULD. Not having the ALLTIME Hit Leader in the HOF because
he broke a rule and bet on Baseball is a CRIME! Comparing Rose to Bonds is comparing Apples to Oranges!
Professional sports only survive if fans trust that the games are played and officiated with integrity. In an era where corruption is the norm, losing the trust of the fan is a dister to any major sport.
The one rule...the only rule that matters is no betting on games, period.
Rose didn't care. he was an addict and put his addiction before the game that he loved.
Personally I don't care if Steve Bartman goes in the Hall. The game has left me and I don't plan on visiting Cooperstown. But Rose compromised the game and is not worthy of entry.
We will have to agree to disagree on that! The HOF is not worthy of my acknowledgement let alone visit until Rose is in!
My top 10 Willie Mays, Ted Williams, Barry Bonds, Joe DiMaggio, Alex R> @dallasactuary said:
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
You, @dallasactuary, are repeatedly saying ‘he wasn’t playing baseball’ as if repetition will make it true. You are a very smart guy but logic is failing you here. I have said - repeatedly - that Bonds took steroids. I have no doubt and I’m not defending him.
A marathon is 26.2 miles. If you don’t run all 26.2 you did not run a marathon. You cheated.
For the record, and at the risk of being insulted again by perkdog, logic never fails me. You may disagree with one or more of my assumptions or I may have a fact wrong, but my conclusions always follow logically from my facts and assumptions.
My assumption here is that if someone does not follow the rules of X then he is not playing X. Your assumption is that sometimes that's true and sometimes that's not true, depending on which game and depending on which rule and depending on how many other people are also not following the rules. Since your assumption is so vague it can't be called wrong, but there's also no way to have a satisfactory discussion on the topic. You can bend your argument as much as needed to fit your predetermined conclusion while I'm constrained by the requirement to be consistent.
Since I'm afraid I might injure myself if I smack my forehead any harder than I already have, I'm going to let this topic go.
You of all people should talk, you are the most arrogant person here ( Maybe a close second to markj ) if you took a break from your soap box once in a while people might engage you to the point where you might not need to punch yourself in the face out of frustration. You single out Bonds for cheating yet completely discount that perhaps he was on a fair playing field with potentially more than 50% of his peers, which in my way of thinking puts his stats on a somewhat legit level. We all know your baseball smart but to just categorize everyone else’s opinions as nonsense is just ridiculous. In your way of thinking your not actually debating your just posting
@perkdog said:
You of all people should talk, you are the most arrogant person here ( Maybe a close second to markj ) if you took a break from your soap box once in a while people might engage you to the point where you might not need to punch yourself in the face out of frustration. You single out Bonds for cheating yet completely discount that perhaps he was on a fair playing field with potentially more than 50% of his peers, which in my way of thinking puts his stats on a somewhat legit level. We all know your baseball smart but to just categorize everyone else’s opinions as nonsense is just ridiculous. In your way of thinking your not actually debating your just posting
I may be the most arrogant person here, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. If you want to insult me just for the sake of insulting me, surely you can do better than that.
And I'm not sure why you're calling what I'm doing "discounting" with respect to the number of people cheating and therefore not playing baseball. What I've said is that it's irrelevant how many people follow Rosie on her shortcut; the winner is the one who crosses the finish line first from among those who followed the rules. Whether the percentage of people playing whatever the game was that Bonds was playing, as opposed to baseball, was 5%, 50%, or 95% changes nothing. Logically, I mean; I'm sorry if that's a subject with which you are unfamiliar. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@DIMEMAN said:
The Bonds/Rose comparison make me laugh and see RED at the same time. Bonds cheated to get his stats....period!
Rose didn't cheat to get his stats. Yes, Rose broke a rule, but breaking this rule had NOTHING to do with his stats!
That's why Bonds should NEVER get in the HOF and Rose SHOULD. Not having the ALLTIME Hit Leader in the HOF because
he broke a rule and bet on Baseball is a CRIME! Comparing Rose to Bonds is comparing Apples to Oranges!
Professional sports only survive if fans trust that the games are played and officiated with integrity. In an era where corruption is the norm, losing the trust of the fan is a dister to any major sport.
The one rule...the only rule that matters is no betting on games, period.
Rose didn't care. he was an addict and put his addiction before the game that he loved.
Personally I don't care if Steve Bartman goes in the Hall. The game has left me and I don't plan on visiting Cooperstown. But Rose compromised the game and is not worthy of entry.
We will have to agree to disagree on that! The HOF is not worthy of my acknowledgement let alone visit until Rose is in!
Fair enough, certainly. When the shrine was envisioned, no one could have anticipated the truculence that would ensue.
It is a logical fallacy to believe that the elite athletes of yesteryear would benefit from the training of today to become faster, stronger or better. Modern science and medicine does a much better job of realizing an athletes full potential, which is why the average athlete is so much better now than even 40 years ago. Those outliers from the past managed to reach their full potential without the aid of enhanced weight training, speed training, nutrition, etc. That is why they stood out so much compared to their peers and are regarded as the "greats" of the game. It is much more difficult for someone to stand out in the same manner today because the bar is significantly higher for the average athlete in pretty much every major sport.
@fergie23 said:
It is a logical fallacy to believe that the elite athletes of yesteryear would benefit from the training of today to become faster, stronger or better. Modern science and medicine does a much better job of realizing an athletes full potential, which is why the average athlete is so much better now than even 40 years ago. Those outliers from the past managed to reach their full potential without the aid of enhanced weight training, speed training, nutrition, etc. That is why they stood out so much compared to their peers and are regarded as the "greats" of the game. It is much more difficult for someone to stand out in the same manner today because the bar is significantly higher for the average athlete in pretty much every major sport.
Robb
Pre roids, the difference between good, great and goat should have been minimized as the PEDs were not a factor. Level playing field for all participants.
Bonds, McGwire and Sosa were hitting out unprecedented numbers of homers.
Ruth was a once in a 1000 year athlete and should be appreciated as such.
@craig44 said:
Of course there were players from earlier eras who threw just as hard as today. Some make it seem as though the human race has evolved (if you believe in that) into a more highly skilled stronger species in just 125 years. Not how it works and not how it happened. Let a Mel ott or ty Cobb be born in an era with our nutrition and training methods and they would be just as big, strong and fast as players today.
Conversely, Do you really think that if Mike trout had been born 125 years ago that he would be 6-3 245 pounds with 7 % body fat. I will answer it for you. Nope.
Thats not the entire point. There are several factors, outside of evolution, that created statistical giants in the first half of the century, and its those factors that create statistical achievement that is impossible to surpass in later eras. THat doesn't make those players better because Babe Ruth played with a league of Punch and Judy dead ball hitters to be compared to. Also, the giants of the day were being defended by different gloves and different rough fielding surfaces.
Those are huge factors.
Population is another huge factor. There were simply less avaialble athletes to draw from in 1910. The waves of immigrants that populated the nation in the early 1900's were not MLB candidates until their next generation.
Like I said, Geronimo the Sioux Indian was still alive when Cobb was playing. That should paint a picture of the competition coming out of the southwest United states when Cobb was being signed.
Not to mention excluding players based on race. That is a very big factor too. Compare Mike Schmidt ONLY to the white hitters in 1980 and his OPS+ will rise. Compare Schmidt to only the punch and judy hitters and his OPS+ rises.
Dallas, and I say again, if my list means that Babe Ruth is the only one from that era in the top ten, then that makes more sense than nobody from 1970 and beyond being in the top ten.
@perkdog said:
My top 10 Willie Mays, Ted Williams, Barry Bonds, Joe DiMaggio, Alex R> @dallasactuary said:
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
You, @dallasactuary, are repeatedly saying ‘he wasn’t playing baseball’ as if repetition will make it true. You are a very smart guy but logic is failing you here. I have said - repeatedly - that Bonds took steroids. I have no doubt and I’m not defending him.
A marathon is 26.2 miles. If you don’t run all 26.2 you did not run a marathon. You cheated.
For the record, and at the risk of being insulted again by perkdog, logic never fails me. You may disagree with one or more of my assumptions or I may have a fact wrong, but my conclusions always follow logically from my facts and assumptions.
My assumption here is that if someone does not follow the rules of X then he is not playing X. Your assumption is that sometimes that's true and sometimes that's not true, depending on which game and depending on which rule and depending on how many other people are also not following the rules. Since your assumption is so vague it can't be called wrong, but there's also no way to have a satisfactory discussion on the topic. You can bend your argument as much as needed to fit your predetermined conclusion while I'm constrained by the requirement to be consistent.
Since I'm afraid I might injure myself if I smack my forehead any harder than I already have, I'm going to let this topic go.
You of all people should talk, you are the most arrogant person here ( Maybe a close second to markj ) if you took a break from your soap box once in a while people might engage you to the point where you might not need to punch yourself in the face out of frustration. You single out Bonds for cheating yet completely discount that perhaps he was on a fair playing field with potentially more than 50% of his peers, which in my way of thinking puts his stats on a somewhat legit level. We all know your baseball smart but to just categorize everyone else’s opinions as nonsense is just ridiculous. In your way of thinking your not actually debating your just posting
There is the rub. Bonds WAS on a level playing field with more than 50% of the athletes he was compared to. Most likely, that number is closer to 75% of people taking PED's that Bonds is compared to, inclding pitchers.
Add that Bonds played more than half of his career NOT on PED's...while others WERE on PED's...how much of a competitive advantage did he really get for his career in sum total?
THe years he was clean playing against users, could very well negate the advantage he had over the 25% of the guys not juicing when he was.
@perkdog said:
You of all people should talk, you are the most arrogant person here ( Maybe a close second to markj ) if you took a break from your soap box once in a while people might engage you to the point where you might not need to punch yourself in the face out of frustration. You single out Bonds for cheating yet completely discount that perhaps he was on a fair playing field with potentially more than 50% of his peers, which in my way of thinking puts his stats on a somewhat legit level. We all know your baseball smart but to just categorize everyone else’s opinions as nonsense is just ridiculous. In your way of thinking your not actually debating your just posting
I may be the most arrogant person here, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. If you want to insult me just for the sake of insulting me, surely you can do better than that.
And I'm not sure why you're calling what I'm doing "discounting" with respect to the number of people cheating and therefore not playing baseball. What I've said is that it's irrelevant how many people follow Rosie on her shortcut; the winner is the one who crosses the finish line first from among those who followed the rules. Whether the percentage of people playing whatever the game was that Bonds was playing, as opposed to baseball, was 5%, 50%, or 95% changes nothing. Logically, I mean; I'm sorry if that's a subject with which you are unfamiliar. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
Oh I could do much better but your irrelevant to me so I don’t feel the need to. As far as the topic on hand is concerned when you come up with a correct list of all the players that were clean during Bonds era then you can categorize them as “playing baseball” and go from there. And no need to “explain” anything to me just stop talking foolish about Bonds “not playing baseball” I don’t need to educate you on the fact/s that ballplayers - even your heroes - have not always done everything squeaky clean and up to your fabled standards. Accept that or or continue wasting your time crunching all the numbers you want from the players you chose to think should count and argue aimlessly with everyone.
I'm not going through the trouble of putting together the all time list. I will note that George Brett is a candidate being better than Cobb, even though Brett could not catch a ball in the post season, i'll forgive him for that.
I want to see Brett's OPS+ being compared only to white players, and eliminate anyone coming out of the southwest United States from Brett's competition.
I also want to loop off a flat percentage of white MLB players to compare Brett to that will mimic the the available population MLB talent that they drew from during the early 1900's.
I also want to take the Dave Kingman's of the MLB world, and replace them with the stats of Frank Taveras to make it more like the style of player Cobb and Ruth mostly competed against.
I'm pretty sure Brett's OPS+ will be as good as Cobbs when the same competition factors are applied to Brett that Cobb benefitted from.
Then those all time lists won't look so ridiculous with nobody post 1970 on them.
Comments
The only thing Bonds was best at was CHEATING. He was a TOOL....not a 5 tool player. He shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as Mantle or Mays.....PERIOD! CASE CLOSED!
We agree on a lot of things Paul...….But not even in the same Universe on Bonds.
What is more logical or reasonable? The standard way where every best player comes from before 1960? Or the 'in reverse' way where every best player comes from 1970 and on?
Currently, none of the era adjustments work...I know this because even with them, all the best position players come from before 1970....yet somehow many of the modern pitchers make the all-time lists(which ironically, would make it an even better case for my point, in that none of the best position players come after 1970, yet they are facing many of the best pitchers who do rank on the all time lists).
It isn't just Ruth outhomering teams for those two years. The subsequent years he outhomered peers to a great deal as well, maybe not entire teams, but enough guys where it was impossible for a player from 1990 to come anywhere close to it.
All you have to do is look at the fielders' gloves back then and you realize that any missile hit two steps to their sides are hits. That isn't the case with a modern glove. The punch and judy hitters back then did not hit missiles, yet the big stronger hitters did more, taking more advantage of that facet, thus out hitting their peers to a degree unattainable in modern age.
So if I made a list and it was in reverse of the typical lists where Mike Schmidt was actually better than Lou Gehrig, Mike Trout actually better than Ty Cobb, etc...I would actually feel more comfortable with that, as opposed to Tris Speaker being better than ANY modern player, even though several from Speaker's era(and the next era) are better than him.
When people can’t handle the truth, they turn to this stuff.
I was the same way a long time. Qualifiers and context are always important > @craig44 said:
If Mantle has Mays stats and vice versa, would ANYONE call it a tie?
By the way, here’s what I collect and the baseball player I worship...
And that’s not even cards! Mickey is number 2 behind the Babe for me and I can argue it until the cows come home.
The idea of the thread was position players better than Mickey. Barry Bonds and what he did on the field SHOULD BE discussed. Clearly the guy is a lightning rod. No doubt. But again, plenty of guys took PEDs.
I can take them! The HR king I will never be. Pretend he ‘didn’t play baseball’ or ‘he’s a cheater’ all you want. He played, he hit, no o e ever told him he could t play and when he did he performed at a higher level than just about anyone ever.
PS - Mickey’s first 6 seasons of production were basically identical to Bonds. Thanks to those who brought it up as I wouldn’t have looked otherwise...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
So you have a stack of race cards is what you are saying?
I am asking why the two best black guys - with superior stats to just about everyone else not named Babe - are being explained off the list. It’s funny that way.
I’m white and love Mickey Mantle; I just have a hard time pretending Barry Bonds didn’t play because I saw him actually playing.
A bit of a paradox.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
The stats actually do speak for themselves.
Mark McGwire with steroids hits 583 homers and hits .263. Mark McGwire without steroids is down to 412 homers and a .240 average. This is based on averaged before and after steroids.
It makes a difference.
Never been a one column guy...
Mantle
Bonds
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Now do Bonds.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Williams, Musial, and Bonds were all better. Bonds had help with the steroids, but until there is a official asterisk in place, his history making 7 MVP's will never be touched.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Rosie Ruiz "won" the Boston Marathon a long time ago by taking a shortcut. It didn't take very long for evidence to come forward that proved she had cheated and they took her medal away. But imagine that a large group of runners had followed Rosie on her shortcut instead of running the race by its rules and that one of them crossed the finish line first. My position is that a marathon is 26+ miles and if you take a shortcut then you didn't run a marathon. The winner is the one who completed the 26+ miles the fastest, and that what the cheaters did doesn't even enter in to it. Your position is that the ones who ran 26+ miles were nothing but saps and the true winner is whoever crossed the finish line first, regardless of how many miles she ran. You can argue the point (free country, etc.) but this is your position, and it's absurd.
In logical terms, that Bonds wasn't playing baseball is known as a tautology. My statement that Bonds wasn't playing baseball was true the first time I said it and, obviously, remains true. I repeat it only for the benefit of the benighted few who can't seem to grasp such an obvious point.
All I will add as far as Race goes is I swear on my family I never have even thought of the racial aspects of this, I think the guys that love Mantle and Ruth are the same type of guys who automatically say Jim Brown was the best, they discount every reasonable argument as rubbish and will not consider any other points or thoughts, they are set in their ways and nothing will change that. Some I’m sure prefer Ruth/Mantle because they were white but I think that is a small percentage and I definitely don’t think anyone here cares about any ball players skin color.
20+ home runs for his first 4 years then lots and lots of home runs after. Sure sounds familiar... Take a look at Ken griffey jr. Was he on PED as well? I don't know, and neither do you. We can't white knight for certain players and vilify others if you don't know. We can't judge one players cheating as a huge offence to God and country and then call another p!ayers cheating gamesmanship when you cannot quantity how much extra advantage each player got. The only thing we know for sure is the statistical record. All moral judgements aside, the statistical record happened and is how players can be judged
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
An analogy has to make some sense and yours doesn’t seem to fit. Unless you are saying Barry threw the ball over the wall instead of hitting it, it doesn’t work. I’ll fix it.
He ran the race - all 26.2. On steroids. And won. And people thought he was cheating but no one tested him. So he kept running and kept winning. And when he slowed down at the end and the stopped racing, people said he cheated again. Loudly. Starting pretending he never really even ran the races or wasn’t really running marathons but was instead not running - despite years of footage of him running and winning said marathons.
Now as disappointing as it was for me, they never got Bonds coming off the subway. I think he took PEDs, of course, and I think most people think he did, too. However, the testing policies were lax and beatable. So, many guys - Jose Canseco often as the poster child - took them. MANY. However, steroids don’t make a .250 hitter a .350 hitter. They don’t take a 5 HR guy and make him a 50 HR guy. Now that is ridiculous. They allow guys to train more and recover faster BUT you still have to train and work out and train and work out. As an example, I went to a very competitive high school. I did not play football but about 40% of the team was on some type of steroid. Of them, about half worked out and saw some appreciable benefit - the rest were bloated guys with boobs. Taking them is one thing, deriving benefit is another. And you need the inherent talent to begin with (debatable, but i think it is so).
What I think is often overlooked, too, is that it’s been around forever - taking things to get an edge. You heard of people doing crazy stuff to get an edge (didn’t some Tobacco era HOF guy injest/inject some type of horse or gorilla testicle product?!?) and they still do. For women, money, Fame, glory, championships, ego - the reasons are innumerable and humans are fallible - it will end the same way most of the time. Just because the best stuff then sucks now doesn’t mean it wasn’t the edge they needed - even if just the placebo effect.
We laugh at the nonsense of it - the crazy stuff guys were on - now though perhaps in 2119 they’ll be like ‘Remember when humans tried to improve their bodies and fix health issues after birth instead of during the prenatal stage? Stupid 21st Century humans...’
Again, Barry is the unique case - there’s plenty of guys from the era who failed tests and/or were suspended. He’s neither. He may have started in high school or in 1989 or in 1998 (motivated by being left off all century team was the one I’d heard, not that it matters) or maybe he never took them (yeah, right!).
Still, he played baseball and smashed records. He came back and coached, after (Marlins). By all accounts, he was a likable teammate to many. He stole a ton of bases and played a solid (not spectacular, especially late) defensive outfield and the dude could hit - a ton.
It’s also funny that most of you, when asked about Pete Rose - who broke actual on the books rules of the game - will argue for his inclusion in the Hall of Fame and also be happy and willing to explain that away.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Can you please reveal to us the exact seasons or parts of seasons Mac took steroids?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
My analogy was fine before you broke it. You are doing two things which simply don't work:
You are saying, perhaps through some sort of divine wisdom you possess, that SOME rules are OK to break and you're still deserving of the "win", but OTHER rules are important enough to cause the "win" to be taken away if broken. My argument made no such distinction: rules are rules. If by "fix it" you meant "make it incomprehensible", then mission accomplished.
You are allowing for the possibility that Bonds didn't take steroids. As a gesture of understanding I could allow for the possibility that the sun will rise in the West tomorrow, but I'm too smart (or as perkdog would say, I think I'm too smart) to really believe something so stupid. Fact: Bonds took steroids. Any argument that doesn't acknowledge the known facts is pointless. And why you keep bringing up your opinion of how many other people also weren't playing baseball along with Bonds is a mystery to me. Whether I'm right or the rest of your argument is right makes no difference; either way, the number of cheaters is irrelevant.
No, he didn't play baseball (at least in the record-smashing years), and by all accounts he was the most disliked player on his team.
The situations for Bonds and Rose are very different, but for the record I'd put Bonds in the HOF before I'd allow Rose in, but I hope neither one ever does get in. Honoring either one of them would be a disgrace to the game.
From 1986-1998, the years Bonds was not doing roids(best guess based on evidence), he had a 164 OPS+ over 8,100 plate appearances.
That's pretty darn elite of the elite. Now think of this aspect....there certainly were players doing steroids during that time, so then Bonds is being compared to those guys with inflated stats....making that 164 OPS+ better, because he was clean competing against steroid players.
Add that his era was facing better pitching, better fielding(including far better gloves), and more better hitters to be compared to...how is it a stretch that he is every bit as good or better than Cobb, even before the steroids??
Geronimo was still living while Cobb was playing. Not Cesar Geronimo, Geronimo the Sioux Indian.
Sorry, I have no problem saying pre-steroid Bonds, the best player in the world from 1990-1995, was better than Cobb, the best player in the world from 1910-1915.
According to the current metrics, it says that not only was Cobb better, but Hornsby, Speaker, and Wagner too....and nobody sees the folly of thinking all those guys from then were better than the absolute best in 1990??? Sorry. Doesn't add up.
I still don’t see anything above the bolded (which I agree with, by the way) that tells me that Barry Bonds wasn’t playing baseball. I am not allowing for the possibility he didn’t (Quite obviously and repeatedly I asserted he has) but simply putting out there that he played the game I marred by steroids while he played. Speculation aside, we don’t have the evidence like we have ARod, Manny, Palmiero, etc.
So aside from pretending he doesn’t exist, you have to acknowledge him - that continues to be my only point....
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I think it is interesting that baseball seems to be the only sport where fans still cling to the belief that their heroes of yesterday are better than the athletes of today. The athletes of today are superior to those 50, 80, 100 years ago. Today athletes are stronger, faster, and better trained but somehow that doesn't seem to matter in these discussions. Look at the average fastball speed increase in just the last 20 years, now extrapolate that further back. The greats of yesteryear were feasting on 70-85 mph fastballs thrown by part time pitchers with dead arms half the season. Almost any elite modern baseball player would destroy the competition Mantle, Mays, Williams and Ruth played against. It is a whole lot easier to appear to be exceptional when the average level of competition is vastly inferior.
Robb
Agree. MLB should clear everything out of the HOF that is over 50 years old. Sell it all on Ebay. Put Bonds and Clemens in. Gamblin' Pete too.
Bob Feller v Harley Davidson
Check YouTube
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
And you may be right, but I'd still need to know your top 10, in order, to know whether your era adjustment makes sense. Is Bonds, when he was playing baseball, the only one post-Mays who was better than Cobb, or are there others? Do you have anyone from the Mays-Bonds gap in the GOAT conversation?
I'll note, too, that pre-steroids Bonds put up his 164 OPS+ in a career of 2,000 games. Hank Aaron has a stretch of 2,500 games (1957-1973) with an OPS+ of the same 164, and in an era (which you have often pointed out) in which it was much harder to put together such a high OPS+. I don't know how you're weighting career and peak, but I think you have to be close to 100% peak to get Bonds over Aaron. I could go on with this, but my point is that if you've got pre-steroids Bonds higher than Cobb, I think you're going to get a lot of WTF results applying the same rules elsewhere, and you're not going to have anyone, except maybe Ruth, from the first half of MLB history in your top 10.
And Wheaties, if I'm understanding your last post correctly, you're hanging your hat on the fact that nobody has proven that Bonds took steroids. And technically, that's correct. But, seriously, rather than wait for other people to tell us something we already know, why can't we use the brains God gave fleas and just reach that conclusion for ourselves? You are pretending something didn't happen that you know happened, and then mocking the people using their brains for "pretending Bonds doesn't exist". We're not pretending he doesn't exist, and we're not pretending he didn't cheat. Bonds existed, Bonds cheated, and recognizing both realities makes him a man who existed playing a sport other than baseball. You bolded that he broke records, but since he did so by cheating you'll have to explain to me why a marathoner taking a shortcut isn't a perfect analogy for what Bonds did. I could run a marathon in under an hour taking a big enough shortcut, but nobody would take what I did seriously. It remains a mystery to me why anyone takes what Bonds did seriously.
Of course there were players from earlier eras who threw just as hard as today. Some make it seem as though the human race has evolved (if you believe in that) into a more highly skilled stronger species in just 125 years. Not how it works and not how it happened. Let a Mel ott or ty Cobb be born in an era with our nutrition and training methods and they would be just as big, strong and fast as players today.
Conversely, Do you really think that if Mike trout had been born 125 years ago that he would be 6-3 245 pounds with 7 % body fat. I will answer it for you. Nope.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I’m having a very hard time understanding what Barry Bonds was doing all those years? He stood in Left Field for half an inning, sat out in the dugout when his team was batting and when it came his turn to bat, pitchers pitched to him. I’m pretty sure that is baseball.
You, @dallasactuary, are repeatedly saying ‘he wasn’t playing baseball’ as if repetition will make it true. You are a very smart guy but logic is failing you here. I have said - repeatedly - that Bonds took steroids. I have no doubt and I’m not defending him.
A marathon is 26.2 miles. If you don’t run all 26.2 you did not run a marathon. You cheated.
In baseball, you can cheat as well. And if they catch you cheating, you get thrown out. Too much pine tar - on bat or neck? Tossed. Sandpaper on the mound? Gone.
If you say Bonds cheated off the field in preparation for games, I agree. On the field, mashed baseballs, stole bases, walked (a lot) caught balls, threw balls in from the outfield and in general, played baseball. Really, really well.
By the way, I know you’re big on winning and losing these types of things. So, I’ll remind you that the premise of your argument is ‘Barry Bonds did not play baseball’ so maybe don’t focus too much on outcomes this time.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
The Bonds/Rose comparison makes me laugh and see RED at the same time. Bonds cheated to get his stats....period!
Rose didn't cheat to get his stats. Yes, Rose broke a rule, but breaking this rule had NOTHING to do with his stats!
That's why Bonds should NEVER get in the HOF and Rose SHOULD. Not having the ALLTIME Hit Leader in the HOF because
he broke a rule and bet on Baseball is a CRIME! Comparing Rose to Bonds is comparing Apples to Oranges!
For the record, and at the risk of being insulted again by perkdog, logic never fails me. You may disagree with one or more of my assumptions or I may have a fact wrong, but my conclusions always follow logically from my facts and assumptions.
My assumption here is that if someone does not follow the rules of X then he is not playing X. Your assumption is that sometimes that's true and sometimes that's not true, depending on which game and depending on which rule and depending on how many other people are also not following the rules. Since your assumption is so vague it can't be called wrong, but there's also no way to have a satisfactory discussion on the topic. You can bend your argument as much as needed to fit your predetermined conclusion while I'm constrained by the requirement to be consistent.
Since I'm afraid I might injure myself if I smack my forehead any harder than I already have, I'm going to let this topic go.
Professional sports only survive if fans trust that the games are played and officiated with integrity. In an era where corruption is the norm, losing the trust of the fan is a dister to any major sport.
The one rule...the only rule that matters is no betting on games, period.
Rose didn't care. he was an addict and put his addiction before the game that he loved.
Personally I don't care if Steve Bartman goes in the Hall. The game has left me and I don't plan on visiting Cooperstown. But Rose compromised the game and is not worthy of entry.
We will have to agree to disagree on that! The HOF is not worthy of my acknowledgement let alone visit until Rose is in!
My top 10 Willie Mays, Ted Williams, Barry Bonds, Joe DiMaggio, Alex R> @dallasactuary said:
You of all people should talk, you are the most arrogant person here ( Maybe a close second to markj ) if you took a break from your soap box once in a while people might engage you to the point where you might not need to punch yourself in the face out of frustration. You single out Bonds for cheating yet completely discount that perhaps he was on a fair playing field with potentially more than 50% of his peers, which in my way of thinking puts his stats on a somewhat legit level. We all know your baseball smart but to just categorize everyone else’s opinions as nonsense is just ridiculous. In your way of thinking your not actually debating your just posting
I may be the most arrogant person here, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. If you want to insult me just for the sake of insulting me, surely you can do better than that.
And I'm not sure why you're calling what I'm doing "discounting" with respect to the number of people cheating and therefore not playing baseball. What I've said is that it's irrelevant how many people follow Rosie on her shortcut; the winner is the one who crosses the finish line first from among those who followed the rules. Whether the percentage of people playing whatever the game was that Bonds was playing, as opposed to baseball, was 5%, 50%, or 95% changes nothing. Logically, I mean; I'm sorry if that's a subject with which you are unfamiliar. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
Fair enough, certainly. When the shrine was envisioned, no one could have anticipated the truculence that would ensue.
It is a logical fallacy to believe that the elite athletes of yesteryear would benefit from the training of today to become faster, stronger or better. Modern science and medicine does a much better job of realizing an athletes full potential, which is why the average athlete is so much better now than even 40 years ago. Those outliers from the past managed to reach their full potential without the aid of enhanced weight training, speed training, nutrition, etc. That is why they stood out so much compared to their peers and are regarded as the "greats" of the game. It is much more difficult for someone to stand out in the same manner today because the bar is significantly higher for the average athlete in pretty much every major sport.
Robb
@dallasactuary
Way to double down on bad logic. Here’s what you just did - in .gif form
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Pre roids, the difference between good, great and goat should have been minimized as the PEDs were not a factor. Level playing field for all participants.
Bonds, McGwire and Sosa were hitting out unprecedented numbers of homers.
Ruth was a once in a 1000 year athlete and should be appreciated as such.
Thats not the entire point. There are several factors, outside of evolution, that created statistical giants in the first half of the century, and its those factors that create statistical achievement that is impossible to surpass in later eras. THat doesn't make those players better because Babe Ruth played with a league of Punch and Judy dead ball hitters to be compared to. Also, the giants of the day were being defended by different gloves and different rough fielding surfaces.
Those are huge factors.
Population is another huge factor. There were simply less avaialble athletes to draw from in 1910. The waves of immigrants that populated the nation in the early 1900's were not MLB candidates until their next generation.
Like I said, Geronimo the Sioux Indian was still alive when Cobb was playing. That should paint a picture of the competition coming out of the southwest United states when Cobb was being signed.
Not to mention excluding players based on race. That is a very big factor too. Compare Mike Schmidt ONLY to the white hitters in 1980 and his OPS+ will rise. Compare Schmidt to only the punch and judy hitters and his OPS+ rises.
Dallas, and I say again, if my list means that Babe Ruth is the only one from that era in the top ten, then that makes more sense than nobody from 1970 and beyond being in the top ten.
There is the rub. Bonds WAS on a level playing field with more than 50% of the athletes he was compared to. Most likely, that number is closer to 75% of people taking PED's that Bonds is compared to, inclding pitchers.
Add that Bonds played more than half of his career NOT on PED's...while others WERE on PED's...how much of a competitive advantage did he really get for his career in sum total?
THe years he was clean playing against users, could very well negate the advantage he had over the 25% of the guys not juicing when he was.
Oh I could do much better but your irrelevant to me so I don’t feel the need to. As far as the topic on hand is concerned when you come up with a correct list of all the players that were clean during Bonds era then you can categorize them as “playing baseball” and go from there. And no need to “explain” anything to me just stop talking foolish about Bonds “not playing baseball” I don’t need to educate you on the fact/s that ballplayers - even your heroes - have not always done everything squeaky clean and up to your fabled standards. Accept that or or continue wasting your time crunching all the numbers you want from the players you chose to think should count and argue aimlessly with everyone.
I'm not going through the trouble of putting together the all time list. I will note that George Brett is a candidate being better than Cobb, even though Brett could not catch a ball in the post season, i'll forgive him for that.
I want to see Brett's OPS+ being compared only to white players, and eliminate anyone coming out of the southwest United States from Brett's competition.
I also want to loop off a flat percentage of white MLB players to compare Brett to that will mimic the the available population MLB talent that they drew from during the early 1900's.
I also want to take the Dave Kingman's of the MLB world, and replace them with the stats of Frank Taveras to make it more like the style of player Cobb and Ruth mostly competed against.
I'm pretty sure Brett's OPS+ will be as good as Cobbs when the same competition factors are applied to Brett that Cobb benefitted from.
Then those all time lists won't look so ridiculous with nobody post 1970 on them.
100!