@Skin2 said:
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.
It might make more sense, but that doesn't mean either one makes a lot of sense.
And I think you're getting too hung up on statistical distributions that aren't meaningful. There are 11 decades (1900's through 2000's) from which to draw a GOAT candidate. The ones I identified had their best decades in the 1900's, 1910's, 1920's, 1940's (Williams, had he played every year), 1950's and 1960's. That's as evenly distributed as is possible with such a small sample. If you expand that to Top 10 candidates, then I do think you'd bring the 70's and 80's into it; if Trout plays longer, then he'll bring the 2010's into it, and pre-steroids Bonds brings the 90's into it. Pujols probably brings the 2000's into it, and Gehrig the 1930's.
I'm not sure which list it is that you're criticizing, but I'm not seeing any era bias in what I'm doing, I see a strong era bias in what you're doing. Maybe you're right, and maybe Cecil Fielder was better than Nap Lajoie, but the right answer depends entirely on unprovable assumptions about the era adjustment. And going back to my first post, what I said was "With Ruth and Cobb, and especially Wagner, any comparison to Mantle is going to begin and end with the era adjustment." My era adjustment produces 6 GOAT candidates from 6 different decades; why you find that seriously flawed I don't know. I don't know what your adjustment produces because you won't share your list, but if it knocks Cobb out, and presumably Wagner, then I suspect your Top 10, let alone GOAT candidates, would be clumped in 3 or 4 decades. Again, you could be right about that, but I just don't see the evidence that baseball or baseball players have changed as dramatically as would be required to produce that result.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@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.
I will play. So your assumption is that if a player breaks the rules, he is not playing that sport at all, correct? So, were whitey ford,Don drysdale, Gaylord perry, babe Ruth Chris sabo, Billy hatcher, Jay howell, graig nettles, Mike scott, Don Sutton and many many others who broke rules not playing baseball at all? Were they only way playing when they were not cheating or does one incident of cheating preclude them from ever having played the sport. I am truly interested.
@craig44 said:
Were they only way playing when they were not cheating or does one incident of cheating preclude them from ever having played the sport. I am truly interested.
They were playing when they were not cheating. That answer seems really, really obvious to me, so I'm not sure where you're going with this.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@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.
When exactly has there EVER been a level playing field in any sport? No such thing. There have always been cheaters in every era and every 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.
When exactly has there EVER been a level playing field in any sport? No such thing. There have always been cheaters in every era and every sport.
Baseball did not see the likes of Barry "Puffy" Bonds until the latter part of the last century.
@craig44 said:
Were they only way playing when they were not cheating or does one incident of cheating preclude them from ever having played the sport. I am truly interested.
They were playing when they were not cheating. That answer seems really, really obvious to me, so I'm not sure where you're going with this.
The point is, you don't know when they were or were not cheating. We know different times when they were caught, but other than that, we don't know if they were cheating 5% of the time, 27% or 100% of the time. So according to your thought experiment, you don't know when any player ever was playing baseball. See how silly that is. We know when Ruth was playing with an illegal bat. So I guess he wasn't playing baseball for those 6 weeks, but we don't know if he played with an illegal bat for 18% of the rest of his career and never got caught or was he cheating 100% of the time? 0% of the time?
We know the times Manny Ramirez was caught cheating, so you would say he was not playing baseball then. Do you think he was caught EVERY time he cheated? I highly doubt it. So what is the number? 55% of the time?85% of the time? How often was he playing baseball and we can use his statistical record?
You have an impossible to meet standard. You can't tell anyone of us here now often Don Sutton was cheating and was not playing baseball. You can't tell us because you don't know. Only Sutton knows. It is folly and it seem s you are the only one here who can't see that
@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.
When exactly has there EVER been a level playing field in any sport? No such thing. There have always been cheaters in every era and every sport.
Baseball did not see the likes of Barry "Puffy" Bonds until the latter part of the last century.
@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.
When exactly has there EVER been a level playing field in any sport? No such thing. There have always been cheaters in every era and every sport.
Which is painfully obvious, However Dallas just wants to pretend that a 20 year period in MLB history just simply didn’t exist for 50%+ of the players, actually just Barry Bonds.,Excuse Me
@Skin2 said:
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.
It might make more sense, but that doesn't mean either one makes a lot of sense.
And I think you're getting too hung up on statistical distributions that aren't meaningful. There are 11 decades (1900's through 2000's) from which to draw a GOAT candidate. The ones I identified had their best decades in the 1900's, 1910's, 1920's, 1940's (Williams, had he played every year), 1950's and 1960's. That's as evenly distributed as is possible with such a small sample. If you expand that to Top 10 candidates, then I do think you'd bring the 70's and 80's into it; if Trout plays longer, then he'll bring the 2010's into it, and pre-steroids Bonds brings the 90's into it. Pujols probably brings the 2000's into it, and Gehrig the 1930's.
I'm not sure which list it is that you're criticizing, but I'm not seeing any era bias in what I'm doing, I see a strong era bias in what you're doing. Maybe you're right, and maybe Cecil Fielder was better than Nap Lajoie, but the right answer depends entirely on unprovable assumptions about the era adjustment. And going back to my first post, what I said was "With Ruth and Cobb, and especially Wagner, any comparison to Mantle is going to begin and end with the era adjustment." My era adjustment produces 6 GOAT candidates from 6 different decades; why you find that seriously flawed I don't know. I don't know what your adjustment produces because you won't share your list, but if it knocks Cobb out, and presumably Wagner, then I suspect your Top 10, let alone GOAT candidates, would be clumped in 3 or 4 decades. Again, you could be right about that, but I just don't see the evidence that baseball or baseball players have changed as dramatically as would be required to produce that result.
Babe Ruth out homering every team in the league suggests that the way baseball is played has changed a great deal. Heck, it's even changed compared to 20 years ago.
Here is what Babe Ruth, Cobb and Wagner had to compete with:
1890: 2.15 million boys age 12-17.....from total U.S. Population of 62 million.
1900: 2.65 million age 12-17
1910: 3.2 million age 12-17
1920: 3.7 million age 12-17
1950: 6.4 million age 12-17............159 million total pop.
1970: 12.1 million age 12-17........203 million total pop.
1980 11.5 million age 12-17
1990 10 million age 12-17
Notice, 1970 is the highest point, even in the years past it. The 70's and 80's had the most competition.
So right there, compare what George Brett and Mike Schmidt are competing with in 1970's, as to what Wagner, Cobb, Ruth were when they had little competition. Even Mantle, Mays etc...had much less competition, though not nearly as bad as the early part of 1900's.
It is such a large jump in available athletes in 1970, even compared to 1950 and 1940. Compared to the turn of the century, there isn't even a comparison.
Now, take out the U.S. minorities from the turn of the century!! Now ADD the foreign players that were arriving in the 1970's to further the competition!!!
So if I'm going to make a list of the all time best players, and yet somehow the list is mostly dominated by players from 1910-1950....I'm really going to scratch my head when I look at those facts above.
With that many more million boys to compete against, there are simply going to be more boys in similar ability as Schmidt and Brett...thus much harder for them to separate themselves from the group.
It has nothing to do with evolution!! With that many more million teenagers, you are going to have X amount more who can throw 95 MPH, X amount more who can run like a deer, X amount more who can hit the ball 430 feet, and X amount more who are bigger and stronger.
So evolution and science are not even part of the equation in this debate, and it is very clear(or should be clear), as to why/how Ruth and Co. were so much better than their peers, compared to later eras.
Then add the league playing styles and equipment...and everyone in this thread should reconsider their belief that Wagner, Ruth, Cobb, Gehrig, Horsnby, SPeaker are all better than anyone past 1970 and will forever be 'better' than anyone to come from now on.
The estimate of boys age 12-17 before 1950 is based on decades that have the exact number of such and based on total US population.
Here’s some post 1970 ball players in no particular order (not answers, at all, just some names that could be considered and probably rejected ultimately):
Mike Trout
Ken Griffey, Jr.
Frank Thomas
Rickey Henderson
Albert Pujols
Derek Jeter
Cal Ripken
Better than Mickey Mantle? Probably not. I mention Derek and Cal mainly because they played a very important position defensively (well enough) and were good hitters for the position.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
Maybe we can never agree on who is better all-time, but I can say this with great certainty:
Being the best out of 12 million other boys is certainly more impressive than being the best out of 2 million other boys.
Think of it like this, if Thanos snapped his fingers again, wouldn't it be easier to become 'elite', or the greatest, now that much of your competition is removed?
Honus Wagner's competition was 2 million kids in his age range....then minus non-whites.
Ripken, over 11 million americans his age range...plus foreigners.
Jeter, over 10 million americans his age range...plus foreigners.
@craig44 said:
You have an impossible to meet standard.
Actually, I'd say "we" have an impossible to meet standard. I recognize the uncertainty involved in determining which players were cheating and when even though none of that uncertainty applies specifically to Bonds who we know to a metaphysical certainty was cheating.
But surely your standard - just ignore cheating and either pretend it's not happening or pretend everyone is doing it - is even more unsatisfying. At the end of your road lies the conclusion that there is no baseball at all, and what we're constantly debating here is not who were the best baseball players but who were the best cheaters. Absolutely, Bonds was the best cheater in history and if that inclines someone to erect monuments honoring him then I want no part of it.
The distinction that I'm making, I guess, is that we know for certain that Barry Bonds was cheating each and every time he took the field and each and every time he stepped to the plate starting in 2000 at the latest. Was he cheating prior to that? I don't know, but everyone else here seems convinced that he was, along with every other player ever. But since I don't know, I give him credit for having a career pretty comparable to Dick Allen (a great player) and let it go at that. If you're aware of anyone else whose place in history would be meaningfully changed by ignoring the stats we know for certain were obtained by cheating, then I'm sure I'm OK with treating those stats the same way. But no matter how often you and others repeat the mantra that cheating doesn't matter and we should just ignore it, I'm not going to buy it.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Bonds's performance and dominance while on PED was very similar to Ruth's.
Bonds got there via steroids, Ruth got there due to having inferior competition in the league.
Both showed what could happen when someone is put into a league with a physical ability unmatched by nearly every player in the league.
Not blaming Ruth BTW....but neither of their dominance should be taken at face value when compared to other players who did not have such luxuries, and whom had to battle with millions more competition and many more people similar in ability to them.
@craig44 said:
You have an impossible to meet standard.
Actually, I'd say "we" have an impossible to meet standard. I recognize the uncertainty involved in determining which players were cheating and when even though none of that uncertainty applies specifically to Bonds who we know to a metaphysical certainty was cheating.
But surely your standard - just ignore cheating and either pretend it's not happening or pretend everyone is doing it - is even more unsatisfying. At the end of your road lies the conclusion that there is no baseball at all, and what we're constantly debating here is not who were the best baseball players but who were the best cheaters. Absolutely, Bonds was the best cheater in history and if that inclines someone to erect monuments honoring him then I want no part of it.
The distinction that I'm making, I guess, is that we know for certain that Barry Bonds was cheating each and every time he took the field and each and every time he stepped to the plate starting in 2000 at the latest. Was he cheating prior to that? I don't know, but everyone else here seems convinced that he was, along with every other player ever. But since I don't know, I give him credit for having a career pretty comparable to Dick Allen (a great player) and let it go at that. If you're aware of anyone else whose place in history would be meaningfully changed by ignoring the stats we know for certain were obtained by cheating, then I'm sure I'm OK with treating those stats the same way. But no matter how often you and others repeat the mantra that cheating doesn't matter and we should just ignore it, I'm not going to buy it.
I never said cheating doesn't matter, my point is there is no way to quantify its effect. There is no one who can with any certainty tell any of us what whitey fords era would have been had he never doctored a ball. Likewise, there is no one who can tell us with any certainty now many home runs Manny Ramirez would have it without PED. If you think you can do that you are being disingenuous with yourself.
You do not know for certain that every time bonds stepped to the plate post 2000 that he was cheating. You THINK you do, but you dont. Because he never failed a test, only he knows what seasons, or months or weeks he was using PED. did he only use during the off season? Most users cycle on and off from PED. Because, as you say, everyone else seems to be convinced of the periods of time bonds was using doesn't make it so, it just means many people think it. Come on, you are too smart to think this illogically. All we have are the numbers. They happened. and yes, bonds did play baseball, so did whitey, drysdale and the babe when they were cheating.
@craig44 said:
I never said cheating doesn't matter, my point is there is no way to quantify its effect. There is no one who can with any certainty tell any of us what whitey fords era would have been had he never doctored a ball. Likewise, there is no one who can tell us with any certainty now many home runs Manny Ramirez would have it without PED. If you think you can do that you are being disingenuous with yourself.
OK, tell me how cheating matters. Tell me who you think the 10 greatest players of the past 30 years are, and then make a different list where you ignore cheating. If the two lists are the same then despite your protest, you don't think cheating matters. If you do think cheating matters, then the differences in your two lists will tell me how much cheating matters to you.
You do not know for certain that every time bonds stepped to the plate post 2000 that he was cheating. You THINK you do, but you dont. Because he never failed a test, only he knows what seasons, or months or weeks he was using PED. did he only use during the off season? Most users cycle on and off from PED. Because, as you say, everyone else seems to be convinced of the periods of time bonds was using doesn't make it so, it just means many people think it.
Here's where you're wrong. I DO know that Bonds cheated. Now, we can get into a long epistemological discussion of how any of us "know" anything but let's not. Suffice it to say that I am as certain that Bonds cheated as I am that grass is green. What is the point of having a brain that elevates us over lower life forms if we're not willing to use it? I know he cheated, you know he cheated, all God's chillun know he cheated. I don't know what game it is that requires we pretend otherwise, but I'm not playing.
Come on, you are too smart to think this illogically. All we have are the numbers. They happened. and yes, bonds did play baseball, so did whitey, drysdale and the babe when they were cheating.
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of not only how logic works, but also what it is. No, I am not thinking (or arguing) illogically. You disagree with one or more of my premises, apparently the one that says Rosie Ruiz did not, in fact, win the Boston marathon. You are entitled to list Rosie on your personal winners list, and I am entitled not to; neither is a failure of logic.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@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.
Ask and you shall receive.
It is a bit trickier with Bonds as there is no doubt he would have seen a steady decline after age 35 without the steroids.
Pre-steroids 1986-1992
3584 AB's 984 hits 176 home runs (1hr per 20.36 AB's) .275 avg .502 slugging .883 ops
Steroids 1993-2007
6263 AB's 1951 hits 586 home runs (1hr per 10.68 AB's) .312 avg .666 slugging 1.143 ops
without steroids....
9847 AB's 2707 hits 484 home runs .275 average
Basically....he is Fred McGriff with 500+ steals. Where McGwire would not have a chance for the HoF...Barry would still be a first ballot HoF with the all around game.
@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?
It's pretty well documented that steroid use became rampant in the early 90's around 1992-1993. It's fairly obvious statistically to see where a said player began his usage simply by looking at the giant jump in his stats. The effects are blatantly obvious. As someone that worked for a pro team and was around the players during this time it was obvious to just about everyone. When you are trying to recover from strikes and fan discontent as well as a very noticeable decrease in interest in MLB due to the NBA and NFL the powers that be decide the game is in need of a ratings boost and home runs do that sort of thing.
6263 AB's 1951 hits 586 home runs (1hr per 10.68 AB's) .312 avg .666 slugging 1.143 ops
without steroids....
9847 AB's 2707 hits 484 home runs .275 average
Basically....he is Fred McGriff with 500+ steals. Where McGwire would not have a chance for the HoF...Barry would still be a first ballot HoF with the all around game.
Your analysis here may be spot on, but I think Bonds was more likely clean through 1999. He was only 28 in 1993 and that's too early too assume a decline would have started. And after 1993 he did show a steady decline through 1999, at age 34. It's after that point that there is simply know way for a sentient human being to not know he was cheating.
If I use 2000 as the first "with steroids" year I show Bonds with 575 or so HR. That was the basis of my comparison to Frank Robinson earlier; Bonds wasn't quite the hitter Robinson was, but the fielding and baserunning make them pretty close overall.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
6263 AB's 1951 hits 586 home runs (1hr per 10.68 AB's) .312 avg .666 slugging 1.143 ops
without steroids....
9847 AB's 2707 hits 484 home runs .275 average
Basically....he is Fred McGriff with 500+ steals. Where McGwire would not have a chance for the HoF...Barry would still be a first ballot HoF with the all around game.
Your analysis here may be spot on, but I think Bonds was more likely clean through 1999. He was only 28 in 1993 and that's too early too assume a decline would have started. And after 1993 he did show a steady decline through 1999, at age 34. It's after that point that there is simply know way for a sentient human being to not know he was cheating.
If I use 2000 as the first "with steroids" year I show Bonds with 575 or so HR. That was the basis of my comparison to Frank Robinson earlier; Bonds wasn't quite the hitter Robinson was, but the fielding and baserunning make them pretty close overall.
Wait - Barry Bonds played baseball now?
I’m a little confused.
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?
It's pretty well documented that steroid use became rampant in the early 90's around 1992-1993. It's fairly obvious statistically to see where a said player began his usage simply by looking at the giant jump in his stats. The effects are blatantly obvious. As someone that worked for a pro team and was around the players during this time it was obvious to just about everyone. When you are trying to recover from strikes and fan discontent as well as a very noticeable decrease in interest in MLB due to the NBA and NFL the powers that be decide the game is in need of a ratings boost and home runs do that sort of thing.
you are arbitrarily placing Macs steroid use around 92-93 because other people did. you dont know If Mac started in 92, 97 or 1986 yet you have come up with some sort of formula to figure batting average and home run production.
If you are going to use statistical evidence, you are going to have to use it for all players when it is fairly obvious. Would you not say that statistically Nolan Ryan, Randy Johnson, Rickey Henderson and Tony Gwynn all used PED? Check out their late career stat lines.
@craig44 said:
I never said cheating doesn't matter, my point is there is no way to quantify its effect. There is no one who can with any certainty tell any of us what whitey fords era would have been had he never doctored a ball. Likewise, there is no one who can tell us with any certainty now many home runs Manny Ramirez would have it without PED. If you think you can do that you are being disingenuous with yourself.
OK, tell me how cheating matters. Tell me who you think the 10 greatest players of the past 30 years are, and then make a different list where you ignore cheating. If the two lists are the same then despite your protest, you don't think cheating matters. If you do think cheating matters, then the differences in your two lists will tell me how much cheating matters to you.
You do not know for certain that every time bonds stepped to the plate post 2000 that he was cheating. You THINK you do, but you dont. Because he never failed a test, only he knows what seasons, or months or weeks he was using PED. did he only use during the off season? Most users cycle on and off from PED. Because, as you say, everyone else seems to be convinced of the periods of time bonds was using doesn't make it so, it just means many people think it.
Here's where you're wrong. I DO know that Bonds cheated. Now, we can get into a long epistemological discussion of how any of us "know" anything but let's not. Suffice it to say that I am as certain that Bonds cheated as I am that grass is green. What is the point of having a brain that elevates us over lower life forms if we're not willing to use it? I know he cheated, you know he cheated, all God's chillun know he cheated. I don't know what game it is that requires we pretend otherwise, but I'm not playing.
Come on, you are too smart to think this illogically. All we have are the numbers. They happened. and yes, bonds did play baseball, so did whitey, drysdale and the babe when they were cheating.
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of not only how logic works, but also what it is. No, I am not thinking (or arguing) illogically. You disagree with one or more of my premises, apparently the one that says Rosie Ruiz did not, in fact, win the Boston marathon. You are entitled to list Rosie on your personal winners list, and I am entitled not to; neither is a failure of logic.
I am saying there is absolutely no way to devise an accurate metric to adjust for any type of cheating. There are just too many variables. It is silly to even try.
1. we dont know how many players have ever cheated, only the ones who got caught.
2. we dont know how to adjust for each type of cheating: PED, Amphetamines, Illegal equipment
3. for the players who we DO know cheated, we only know the short period of time when they were caught. Did chris sabo only use the illegal bat during the one game in which he was caught? (highly unlikely) does that invalidate his entire statistical record, or only that one game? Did Ruth only use an illegal bat just for the period in which he was caught, or did he continuously use one and not get caught? Do we only invalidate those 6 weeks of stats for the Babe or do we assume if he was caught cheating once he did it repeatedly and have to invalidate his entire career?
4. we can never prove that a player did not use PED or cheated. Do we assume Griffey was clean? Do we assume Frank Thomas was clean? Cal Ripken?
5. I do think Bonds used PED. he said as much in a court deposition. but...how often? when did he start? how much did he use? when did he stop? did he start and stop numerous times? what effect did they have on his specific body? did he use during the season? did he only use during the off season? how many pitchers did Bonds face who were using? how level was the playing field? we dont know the answers to ANY of these questions, only Barry does. way too many variables to arive at any sort of a usable conclusion.
It is not that I dont think cheating matters. there is just no way to adjust for it. anything you try to do is going to be arbitrary and biased. I think the best we can do is era adjustments, ballpark effect etc. way way way too many variables to even attempt to adjust for all the different types of cheating. any adjustments of that type are not really useful.
and no, I have never made all time lists of greatest players. I tend to more enjoy player comparisons.
i like to defer to my old man when it comes to players i never saw. after reading this thread, i called my dad last night and posed a single question.........."who was better, mantle or musial?"
on the face that might seem like a somewhat inane question, but i did so because stan the man is his all-time fav player and the cards are -- still to this very day -- his fav team. and that's understating things. his computer/office room is inundated with musial memorabilia, and he purchases the mlb package every single offseason just so he can watch as many st. louis games as humanly possible while living a couple of states away. in fact, he and my mother are embarking on an odyssey starting tomorrow that will include a pitstop in STL to see a 3-game set against chicago. (he loathes the cubs with every ounce of his being.) in other words, he doesn't bleed red for a singular reason. so i set the ball on a tee for him to dish out a partisan response....
"who was better, mantle or musial?"
"had mantle's career not been truncated by a combination of injuries & a series of poor life choices, he may very well have been the best ever. your mom is calling me, gotta go."
granted the convo was cut short, but still, nary a mention of musial.
and that kinda ties in with what i'm reading here. we can play the if & buts, candy & nuts game all day long and we'll never come to a consensus. but the conjecture is fun. if so-and-so hadn't cheated. if so-and-so hadn't gotten hurt. and my own personal speculative question, if vlad the impaler (MY fav player) hadn't been subjected to the concrete at olympic stadium for 8 seasons, which ostensibly turned him into a geriatric by the time he retired.
@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.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@craig44 said:
I never said cheating doesn't matter...
I am saying there is absolutely no way to devise an accurate metric to adjust for any type of cheating. There are just too many variables. It is silly to even try.
So you're saying that cheating matters, and it matters so much that it would be silly to do anything other than ignore it. Thanks for clearing that up.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I had never heard of Jim Creighton before he was brought up in this thread, so I looked him up and besides learning that he died at age 21, I learned this:
"In 1862, he batted 1.000, getting hits in all 65 of his at-bats."
@craig44 said:
I never said cheating doesn't matter...
I am saying there is absolutely no way to devise an accurate metric to adjust for any type of cheating. There are just too many variables. It is silly to even try.
So you're saying that cheating matters, and it matters so much that it would be silly to do anything other than ignore it. Thanks for clearing that up.
I used to be just like you and took a very hard line stance on cheating. then i realized there is no way to ever know how many cheated, how much that cheating helped them or how to adjust for it. We only know those who were caught or admitted to it. am not going to apply morality to a statistical comparison when there is absolutely no way to adjust for cheating. it is a waste of time and is folly.
you refuse to respond to my previous post. you can use the statistical data we have from the last 140 years, or you can invent a biased, statistically faulty formula to attempt to do the impossible. please explain to me how to adjust for rule breakers.
what percentage of players in the last 150 years do you think were cheating?
@nam812 said:
I had never heard of Jim Creighton before he was brought up in this thread, so I looked him up and besides learning that he died at age 21, I learned this:
"In 1862, he batted 1.000, getting hits in all 65 of his at-bats."
Ruptured inguinal hernia after a mighty swing hitting a home run...and died four days later.
@craig44 said:
you refuse to respond to my previous post. you can use the statistical data we have from the last 140 years, or you can invent a biased, statistically faulty formula to attempt to do the impossible. please explain to me how to adjust for rule breakers.
what percentage of players in the last 150 years do you think were cheating?
I think I already addressed that, but I will again if it wasn't clear. The adjustment? There is no adjustment. There are the people we know cheated and those we don't know. If they cheated, then we throw out whatever happened while we know they were cheating.
And that's the big difference between using a corked bat or throwing a spitball and using steroids. It could be that the corkers and spitters were cheating every or nearly every at bat or pitch, but there's no evidence that they were and, like you, I just ignore it. But steroid users can't turn it off from at bat to at bat or game to game; that kind of cheating negates entire seasons or even careers. Where we disagree, I think, is that you are unwilling to say that you know Bonds cheated for, at minimum, the last eight years of his career and I'm not. I phrase it that way because I am certain that, like me, you know Bonds cheated, but for reasons unknown to me you aren't willing to say so.
My question to you is, if you did know that Bonds was cheating from 2000 through the end of his career, would you just ignore it, and group him with the greatest players ever, or would you group him somewhere lower than that?
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@craig44 said:
you refuse to respond to my previous post. you can use the statistical data we have from the last 140 years, or you can invent a biased, statistically faulty formula to attempt to do the impossible. please explain to me how to adjust for rule breakers.
what percentage of players in the last 150 years do you think were cheating?
I think I already addressed that, but I will again if it wasn't clear. The adjustment? There is no adjustment. There are the people we know cheated and those we don't know. If they cheated, then we throw out whatever happened while we know they were cheating.
And that's the big difference between using a corked bat or throwing a spitball and using steroids. It could be that the corkers and spitters were cheating every or nearly every at bat or pitch, but there's no evidence that they were and, like you, I just ignore it. But steroid users can't turn it off from at bat to at bat or game to game; that kind of cheating negates entire seasons or even careers. Where we disagree, I think, is that you are unwilling to say that you know Bonds cheated for, at minimum, the last eight years of his career and I'm not. I phrase it that way because I am certain that, like me, you know Bonds cheated, but for reasons unknown to me you aren't willing to say so.
My question to you is, if you did know that Bonds was cheating from 2000 through the end of his career, would you just ignore it, and group him with the greatest players ever, or would you group him somewhere lower than that.
I gave you five points above, bonds was addressed in the fifth point but I guess you didn't read that.
You said above that even if corkers and spittballers were cheating on every pitch, you would ignore it Because you don't have evidence. Can you show me evidence where bonds cheated every game of every season for the last 8 years of his career? If you have it, it truly would be game changing because you would be the only one in the world other than bonds himself with that evidence.
@craig44 said:
You said above that even if corkers and spittballers were cheating on every pitch, you would ignore it Because you don't have evidence. Can you show me evidence where bonds cheated every game of every season for the last 8 years of his career? If you have it, it truly would be game changing because you would be the only one in the world other than bonds himself with that evidence.
People have been executed on less evidence than exists on Bonds' baseball-reference page. The standard for a finding of guilty is not "beyond any doubt" it's "beyond any REASONABLE doubt".
Is it possible that aliens from another galaxy taught him how to use the power of his mind to increase his shoe size and the size of his head and to become stronger than he had ever been before? Sure, it's possible. And I rank that in second place on the list of possibilities. In the top spot, occupying 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the available probability is that he took steroids. If you want to chop off the last two or three 9's, I won't take issue. If you want to chop off more than that, then I will just shake my head in befuddlement at why you think Barry Bonds is the only human being in the history of the world to do to his body what he did by any means other than steroids. To even entertain the possibility that Bonds didn't take steroids is simply not reasonable.
On a related note, you may spend whatever sum you wish on whatever diet or workout or whatever you choose, and I promise you I will reimburse all of your costs times 10. The only requirement is that as a result of all of your steroid-free efforts, your hat size has to increase.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
"There are the people we know cheated and those we don't know. If they cheated, then we throw out whatever happened while we know they were cheating."
The key parts of your statement are "know cheated" and "while we know they were cheating" now, how exactly do you know exactly when bonds or any other player cheated? Petitte said he only did HGH once for healing purposes and i believe that was during an off season. so, because it happened during the off season, does that mean he didnt cheat? Do we believe what he said? was it really only one time? I never said i didnt think Bonds used PED, but you, I or anyone else who isnt Barry Bonds have no idea WHEN he used.
What about Palmiero. we know he cheated at some point during his final season. do we throw away his entire last season? only the part of his last season when he cheated? or his whole career? by your reasoning, we should only delete the part of his final season where we KNOW he was cheating. this would still leave him with well over 500 home runs and all kinds of counting stats. so Dallas, shouldnt Palmeiro be in the HOF?
By your standard, we are only allowed to throw out whatever happened while we KNOW they were cheating. Do you KNOW Bonds was cheating in 2000? how? what about 2004? how do you know then. was he cheating during the spring of 2006?
your standard is impossible to apply if you are being honest with yourself.
now, you are throwing out known cheaters statistics when we know they were cheating. by your reasoning, you also would say the cheater was not even playing baseball at that point. What about a pitcher who gave up a home run to Manny Ramirez during a period of time he was known to be cheating. can we take those earned runs away from the pitcher and award him with an out? what about a strikeout? What about a hitter who was struck out by Don Sutton in an at bat he was known to be greasing the ball up. can we award him with a hit? a double? a home run? Because, as you say, Sutton was not playing baseball at that time... can we change the outcome of games during times when we know certain players were cheating? what if a team would have missed the playoffs retroactively because a player was later found out to have been using PED and therefore not even playing baseball at the time.
Do you see how nonsensical and silly your argument is. You cannot erase statistics as though they never happened. if you did that, it would effect all of the other players statistics who also competed in that game. at bats do not happen in a vacuum, there is context. its like the butterfly effect.
last point,
"People have been executed on less evidence than exists on Bonds' baseball-reference page."> @dallasactuary said:
Does this mean you are using statistical evidence to convict players? If so, then it needs to be applied across the boards. there are lots of very suspicious late career surges throughout baseball history. I guess you would say that Tony Gwynn, Ted Williams, Hank Aaron, Warren Spahn, Randy Johnson and Nolan ryan all used steroids because
"people have been executed on less evidence than exists on ___________ baseball-reference page"
@mapleman said:
Perhaps Roberto Clemente. should be mentioned here?
What for? He is not even in the same level as these guys.
HOF. 3K HITS 240 HR 317 BA
15x all star 12x golden glove
Etc.etc. good enough for me to consider. Career cut short when died at sea. Jmho.
,
His hitting for power was a bit too low to be in the consideration for being "better" than Mantle. Probably a better fielder. Mantle's OPS was almost .150 better, that's quite a bit.
Roberto was a great player and person, he was still playing at a high level at the end of his career, WITHOUT the benefit of being walked a lot, in fact his lack of walks hurt him throughout his playing days.
Musial comes a LOT closer to Mickey than Roberto imo.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@mapleman said:
Perhaps Roberto Clemente. should be mentioned here?
What for? He is not even in the same level as these guys.
HOF. 3K HITS 240 HR 317 BA
15x all star 12x golden glove
Etc.etc. good enough for me to consider. Career cut short when died at sea. Jmho.
,
His hitting for power was a bit too low to be in the consideration for being "better" than Mantle. Probably a better fielder. Mantle's OPS was almost .150 better, that's quite a bit.
Roberto was a great player and person, he was still playing at a high level at the end of his career, WITHOUT the benefit of being walked a lot, in fact his lack of walks hurt him throughout his playing days.
Musial comes a LOT closer to Mickey than Roberto imo.
Can't disagree but he was playing for Pittsburgh which I believe impacted his stats . I for one consider him one of the greats. I really can't argue with mantle, DiMaggio etc. So perhaps my pick wasn't specific to the greater than mantle question.
@mapleman said:
Perhaps Roberto Clemente. should be mentioned here?
What for? He is not even in the same level as these guys.
HOF. 3K HITS 240 HR 317 BA
15x all star 12x golden glove
Etc.etc. good enough for me to consider. Career cut short when died at sea. Jmho.
,
His hitting for power was a bit too low to be in the consideration for being "better" than Mantle. Probably a better fielder. Mantle's OPS was almost .150 better, that's quite a bit.
Roberto was a great player and person, he was still playing at a high level at the end of his career, WITHOUT the benefit of being walked a lot, in fact his lack of walks hurt him throughout his playing days.
Musial comes a LOT closer to Mickey than Roberto imo.
Can't disagree but he was playing for Pittsburgh which I believe impacted his stats . I for one consider him one of the greats. I really can't argue with mantle, DiMaggio etc. So perhaps my pick wasn't specific to the greater than mantle question.
Just curious, why would playing in Pittsburgh impact his stats?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@mapleman said:
Perhaps Roberto Clemente. should be mentioned here?
What for? He is not even in the same level as these guys.
HOF. 3K HITS 240 HR 317 BA
15x all star 12x golden glove
Etc.etc. good enough for me to consider. Career cut short when died at sea. Jmho.
,
His hitting for power was a bit too low to be in the consideration for being "better" than Mantle. Probably a better fielder. Mantle's OPS was almost .150 better, that's quite a bit.
Roberto was a great player and person, he was still playing at a high level at the end of his career, WITHOUT the benefit of being walked a lot, in fact his lack of walks hurt him throughout his playing days.
Musial comes a LOT closer to Mickey than Roberto imo.
Can't disagree but he was playing for Pittsburgh which I believe impacted his stats . I for one consider him one of the greats. I really can't argue with mantle, DiMaggio etc. So perhaps my pick wasn't specific to the greater than mantle question.
Just curious, why would playing in Pittsburgh impact his stats?
Forbes field was gigantic. 462 feet to deepest center field, 360 to left, 372 to right. certainly hurt Clemente's power numbers
@mapleman said:
Perhaps Roberto Clemente. should be mentioned here?
What for? He is not even in the same level as these guys.
HOF. 3K HITS 240 HR 317 BA
15x all star 12x golden glove
Etc.etc. good enough for me to consider. Career cut short when died at sea. Jmho.
,
His hitting for power was a bit too low to be in the consideration for being "better" than Mantle. Probably a better fielder. Mantle's OPS was almost .150 better, that's quite a bit.
Roberto was a great player and person, he was still playing at a high level at the end of his career, WITHOUT the benefit of being walked a lot, in fact his lack of walks hurt him throughout his playing days.
Musial comes a LOT closer to Mickey than Roberto imo.
Can't disagree but he was playing for Pittsburgh which I believe impacted his stats . I for one consider him one of the greats. I really can't argue with mantle, DiMaggio etc. So perhaps my pick wasn't specific to the greater than mantle question.
Just curious, why would playing in Pittsburgh impact his stats?
Forbes field was gigantic. 462 feet to deepest center field, 360 to left, 372 to right. certainly hurt Clemente's power numbers
Yankee Stadium was pretty big too. Just as deep to center and deeper to left at 400. Was a bit shorter to the right field "porch", but was pretty much 400 ft everywhere else.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I guess you would say that Tony Gwynn, Ted Williams, Hank Aaron, Warren Spahn, Randy Johnson and Nolan ryan all used steroids because
"people have been executed on less evidence than exists on ___________ baseball-reference page"
Come on now.........NONE of the guys you mentioned had numbers that were anywhere CLOSE to what Bonds did.
I agree, Bonds was the best of the lot, but just because he was the best doesnt mean everyone else was innocent because they didnt do it as well. Pablo Escobar was the biggest drug importer, but that doesnt mean all the other drug importers should be considered innocent just because they didnt do it as well does it?
Dallas is the one who gave us a standard of using statistical evidence to judge who was and was not a cheater. In order for him to be consistent, that standard needs to be applied across the board. That standard sure does make Tony Gwynn seem guilty doesnt it. He certainly improved quite a bit after the age of 33.
@mapleman said:
Perhaps Roberto Clemente. should be mentioned here?
What for? He is not even in the same level as these guys.
HOF. 3K HITS 240 HR 317 BA
15x all star 12x golden glove
Etc.etc. good enough for me to consider. Career cut short when died at sea. Jmho.
,
His hitting for power was a bit too low to be in the consideration for being "better" than Mantle. Probably a better fielder. Mantle's OPS was almost .150 better, that's quite a bit.
Roberto was a great player and person, he was still playing at a high level at the end of his career, WITHOUT the benefit of being walked a lot, in fact his lack of walks hurt him throughout his playing days.
Musial comes a LOT closer to Mickey than Roberto imo.
Can't disagree but he was playing for Pittsburgh which I believe impacted his stats . I for one consider him one of the greats. I really can't argue with mantle, DiMaggio etc. So perhaps my pick wasn't specific to the greater than mantle question.
Just curious, why would playing in Pittsburgh impact his stats?
Forbes field was gigantic. 462 feet to deepest center field, 360 to left, 372 to right. certainly hurt Clemente's power numbers
Yankee Stadium was pretty big too. Just as deep to center and deeper to left at 400. Was a bit shorter to the right field "porch", but was pretty much 400 ft everywhere else.
very good point. I had forgotten that Yankee Stadiums dimensions were shortened after Mantle retired.
I guess you would say that Tony Gwynn, Ted Williams, Hank Aaron, Warren Spahn, Randy Johnson and Nolan ryan all used steroids because
"people have been executed on less evidence than exists on ___________ baseball-reference page"
Come on now.........NONE of the guys you mentioned had numbers that were anywhere CLOSE to what Bonds did.
I agree, Bonds was the best of the lot, but just because he was the best doesnt mean everyone else was innocent because they didnt do it as well. Pablo Escobar was the biggest drug importer, but that doesnt mean all the other drug importers should be considered innocent just because they didnt do it as well does it?
Dallas is the one who gave us a standard of using statistical evidence to judge who was and was not a cheater. In order for him to be consistent, that standard needs to be applied across the board. That standard sure does make Tony Gwynn seem guilty doesnt it. He certainly improved quite a bit after the age of 33.
Really?
What I see is the players you mentioned having great years late in their careers that are about EQUAL to their early years.
When I look at Bonds' numbers I see someone OBLITERATING the BEST numbers he put up for the first 14+ years.
After 14 years he had an OPS of .968, the next 5 years it was 1.317. A .350 jump!
It's pretty obvious there's a HUGE difference here.
Gwynns OPS was about the same all through his career. You might look at 1997 as unusual (1994 was only a partial year), but it was still only .100 or so above his average OPS.
Mentioning Aaron and Williams were simply ridiculous; Aaron was chasing Ruth's record and that kept him focused and Williams career arc was pretty normal. He did finish with a nice year after a sub par (for him) 1959.
Could these guys have been cheating? I guess one never knows. With the earlier guys; I would doubt that Williams would cheat from all that I have read about him. Aaron also seemed to be a pretty straight guy as well. I don't know about Gwynn.
I realize you consider drinking an extra cup of coffee the same as injecting steroids and gaining 50 pounds of muscle as the same, but they're not, even if they both help you play better.
You are correct in stating that Bonds was the best cheater of them all!!!!!
Not going to discuss pitchers here.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
It doesn’t get mentioned because most old time “Heroes” are immune to any negativity. Truth is there was cheating, domestic violence, drug and alcoholism, crimes covered up etc.. the digital age sheds light on a lot of things that the old timers were lucky enough to have kept under wraps.
"Growth hormone (GH) first was isolated from the human pituitary gland in 1956, by both Li and Papkoff, in California, and Raben, in Massachusetts, but its biochemical structure was not elucidated until 1972."
1972 was when House first played in the majors. He began his pro career in 1967.
There was all kinds of cheating going on long before this. We all know this.
Prior to the 1970's there wasn't much you could do to reliably, consistently get better.
The NFL was using steroids in the 1960's, but many/much/most of the baseball people were not into weight training at that time. All you have to do is look at the guys from the 1960's-1980's and there were just not many muscular players, so if they were taking steroids they weren't getting the benefit from them that guys like Bonds, McGwire etc got.
If you can't see the insanity of a guy like Bonds, who was NOT a slugger hitting 73 HR in 153 games. Nothing anyone will ever say will convince you.
Back in the day the "heroes" were shielded by the press, but we now know a lot of them were not that well behaved.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@craig44 said:
Dallas is the one who gave us a standard of using statistical evidence to judge who was and was not a cheater. In order for him to be consistent, that standard needs to be applied across the board. That standard sure does make Tony Gwynn seem guilty doesnt it. He certainly improved quite a bit after the age of 33.
I don't know if you're intentionally missing my point, but it is increasingly obvious I'm wasting my time.
But I will comment on one ridiculous thing you said:
@craig44 said:
...there are lots of very suspicious late career surges throughout baseball history. I guess you would say that Tony Gwynn, Ted Williams, Hank Aaron, Warren Spahn, Randy Johnson and Nolan ryan all used steroids...
Lots of different reference points we could use, but I'll use offensive WAR:
Top3 for Bonds: 12.4 (age 36), 11.8 (37), 11.5 (39); best season as a baseball player - 8.9 (31). As a baseball player, he averaged about 6 oWAR per season; as an old man playing drugball he averaged over 8.5. There is no player in history with stats even remotely comparable to that. I can't even imagine the determination it takes to force an otherwise functioning brain to keep from understanding a concept so simple and obvious.
Tony Gwynn's best season, by a mile, was at age 27 with 7.8. He had seasons in the same ballpark (between 5.1 and 5.9) at ages 26, 29, 34, and 37. His next two best (between 4 and 5) were ate ages 24 and 35. You are seeing a "surge" that simply didn't happen. Gwynn didn't decline as much as most players do, and it may be that was because he was taking steroids, but what he did is hardly unprecedented and provides very much weaker evidence than Bonds. And his head didn't grow.
Ted Williams top 7 seasons came, in order, at ages 22, 27, 23, 28, 38, 30, and 29. Pre-Korea, he averaged about 8 oWAR per season; post-Korea he averaged less than 6. He did have a great year in 1957, at age 38, but mostly he stopped facing as many LHP. And his head didn't grow.
You don't say when "late career" starts for Aaron, but there is absolutely nothing unusual in his stats at least through age 34. Aaron's top 5 oWAR all came before that, then come ages 35 and 37, then come 9 more seasons pre-35, then, at the bottom of his oWAR list, come all the rest of his post-35 seasons. A lot of novice baseball fans confuse his 1973 season with a "surge" but it was Aaron's 18th best season. Hitting HR in Atlanta was really, really easy that year; and Aaron didn't "surge"; nor did his head grow.
Spahn's top 6 WAR seasons came before age 33; his ERA+ from 25-35 was 128, and 109 after that. And his head didn't grow.
Ryan and Johnson have first and second halves of careers that are unusually close (they barely declined), but whatever "surge" they had resulted in them being as good, not better, as they had been all along (although Ryan's best four seasons are all from the first half of his career). And neither of their heads grew.
If I were a betting man, I'd bet everything I own that Bonds took steroids (and you are a freaking moron if you wouldn't do the same). I'd also put some money down on Johnson; he, and he alone among the people you listed, appears to have crossed the "more likely than not" line. But only Bonds provides evidence so overwhelming, and overwhelmingly obvious, that we can know with such certainty which years can be ignored.
You also mentioned the HOF, a different topic. I would obviously keep Bonds out, and I also wouldn't have voted for Johnson (no problem whatsoever voting for the others). The HOF is an honor, and Bonds doesn't deserve honors. Johnson may, or may not, deserve the HOF; I'd save my vote until I knew more.
And this will be my last post in this thread, since nobody is listening to them anyway (undoubtedly including this one).
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Comments
It might make more sense, but that doesn't mean either one makes a lot of sense.
And I think you're getting too hung up on statistical distributions that aren't meaningful. There are 11 decades (1900's through 2000's) from which to draw a GOAT candidate. The ones I identified had their best decades in the 1900's, 1910's, 1920's, 1940's (Williams, had he played every year), 1950's and 1960's. That's as evenly distributed as is possible with such a small sample. If you expand that to Top 10 candidates, then I do think you'd bring the 70's and 80's into it; if Trout plays longer, then he'll bring the 2010's into it, and pre-steroids Bonds brings the 90's into it. Pujols probably brings the 2000's into it, and Gehrig the 1930's.
I'm not sure which list it is that you're criticizing, but I'm not seeing any era bias in what I'm doing, I see a strong era bias in what you're doing. Maybe you're right, and maybe Cecil Fielder was better than Nap Lajoie, but the right answer depends entirely on unprovable assumptions about the era adjustment. And going back to my first post, what I said was "With Ruth and Cobb, and especially Wagner, any comparison to Mantle is going to begin and end with the era adjustment." My era adjustment produces 6 GOAT candidates from 6 different decades; why you find that seriously flawed I don't know. I don't know what your adjustment produces because you won't share your list, but if it knocks Cobb out, and presumably Wagner, then I suspect your Top 10, let alone GOAT candidates, would be clumped in 3 or 4 decades. Again, you could be right about that, but I just don't see the evidence that baseball or baseball players have changed as dramatically as would be required to produce that result.
I will play. So your assumption is that if a player breaks the rules, he is not playing that sport at all, correct? So, were whitey ford,Don drysdale, Gaylord perry, babe Ruth Chris sabo, Billy hatcher, Jay howell, graig nettles, Mike scott, Don Sutton and many many others who broke rules not playing baseball at all? Were they only way playing when they were not cheating or does one incident of cheating preclude them from ever having played the sport. I am truly interested.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
They were playing when they were not cheating. That answer seems really, really obvious to me, so I'm not sure where you're going with this.
When exactly has there EVER been a level playing field in any sport? No such thing. There have always been cheaters in every era and every sport.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Baseball did not see the likes of Barry "Puffy" Bonds until the latter part of the last century.
The point is, you don't know when they were or were not cheating. We know different times when they were caught, but other than that, we don't know if they were cheating 5% of the time, 27% or 100% of the time. So according to your thought experiment, you don't know when any player ever was playing baseball. See how silly that is. We know when Ruth was playing with an illegal bat. So I guess he wasn't playing baseball for those 6 weeks, but we don't know if he played with an illegal bat for 18% of the rest of his career and never got caught or was he cheating 100% of the time? 0% of the time?
We know the times Manny Ramirez was caught cheating, so you would say he was not playing baseball then. Do you think he was caught EVERY time he cheated? I highly doubt it. So what is the number? 55% of the time?85% of the time? How often was he playing baseball and we can use his statistical record?
You have an impossible to meet standard. You can't tell anyone of us here now often Don Sutton was cheating and was not playing baseball. You can't tell us because you don't know. Only Sutton knows. It is folly and it seem s you are the only one here who can't see that
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
That is not answering the question.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Which is painfully obvious, However Dallas just wants to pretend that a 20 year period in MLB history just simply didn’t exist for 50%+ of the players, actually just Barry Bonds.,Excuse Me
Babe Ruth out homering every team in the league suggests that the way baseball is played has changed a great deal. Heck, it's even changed compared to 20 years ago.
Here is what Babe Ruth, Cobb and Wagner had to compete with:
1890: 2.15 million boys age 12-17.....from total U.S. Population of 62 million.
1900: 2.65 million age 12-17
1910: 3.2 million age 12-17
1920: 3.7 million age 12-17
1950: 6.4 million age 12-17............159 million total pop.
1970: 12.1 million age 12-17........203 million total pop.
1980 11.5 million age 12-17
1990 10 million age 12-17
Notice, 1970 is the highest point, even in the years past it. The 70's and 80's had the most competition.
So right there, compare what George Brett and Mike Schmidt are competing with in 1970's, as to what Wagner, Cobb, Ruth were when they had little competition. Even Mantle, Mays etc...had much less competition, though not nearly as bad as the early part of 1900's.
It is such a large jump in available athletes in 1970, even compared to 1950 and 1940. Compared to the turn of the century, there isn't even a comparison.
Now, take out the U.S. minorities from the turn of the century!! Now ADD the foreign players that were arriving in the 1970's to further the competition!!!
So if I'm going to make a list of the all time best players, and yet somehow the list is mostly dominated by players from 1910-1950....I'm really going to scratch my head when I look at those facts above.
With that many more million boys to compete against, there are simply going to be more boys in similar ability as Schmidt and Brett...thus much harder for them to separate themselves from the group.
It has nothing to do with evolution!! With that many more million teenagers, you are going to have X amount more who can throw 95 MPH, X amount more who can run like a deer, X amount more who can hit the ball 430 feet, and X amount more who are bigger and stronger.
So evolution and science are not even part of the equation in this debate, and it is very clear(or should be clear), as to why/how Ruth and Co. were so much better than their peers, compared to later eras.
Then add the league playing styles and equipment...and everyone in this thread should reconsider their belief that Wagner, Ruth, Cobb, Gehrig, Horsnby, SPeaker are all better than anyone past 1970 and will forever be 'better' than anyone to come from now on.
The estimate of boys age 12-17 before 1950 is based on decades that have the exact number of such and based on total US population.
Here’s some post 1970 ball players in no particular order (not answers, at all, just some names that could be considered and probably rejected ultimately):
Mike Trout
Ken Griffey, Jr.
Frank Thomas
Rickey Henderson
Albert Pujols
Derek Jeter
Cal Ripken
Better than Mickey Mantle? Probably not. I mention Derek and Cal mainly because they played a very important position defensively (well enough) and were good hitters for the position.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Maybe we can never agree on who is better all-time, but I can say this with great certainty:
Being the best out of 12 million other boys is certainly more impressive than being the best out of 2 million other boys.
Think of it like this, if Thanos snapped his fingers again, wouldn't it be easier to become 'elite', or the greatest, now that much of your competition is removed?
Honus Wagner's competition was 2 million kids in his age range....then minus non-whites.
Ripken, over 11 million americans his age range...plus foreigners.
Jeter, over 10 million americans his age range...plus foreigners.
Actually, I'd say "we" have an impossible to meet standard. I recognize the uncertainty involved in determining which players were cheating and when even though none of that uncertainty applies specifically to Bonds who we know to a metaphysical certainty was cheating.
But surely your standard - just ignore cheating and either pretend it's not happening or pretend everyone is doing it - is even more unsatisfying. At the end of your road lies the conclusion that there is no baseball at all, and what we're constantly debating here is not who were the best baseball players but who were the best cheaters. Absolutely, Bonds was the best cheater in history and if that inclines someone to erect monuments honoring him then I want no part of it.
The distinction that I'm making, I guess, is that we know for certain that Barry Bonds was cheating each and every time he took the field and each and every time he stepped to the plate starting in 2000 at the latest. Was he cheating prior to that? I don't know, but everyone else here seems convinced that he was, along with every other player ever. But since I don't know, I give him credit for having a career pretty comparable to Dick Allen (a great player) and let it go at that. If you're aware of anyone else whose place in history would be meaningfully changed by ignoring the stats we know for certain were obtained by cheating, then I'm sure I'm OK with treating those stats the same way. But no matter how often you and others repeat the mantra that cheating doesn't matter and we should just ignore it, I'm not going to buy it.
Bonds's performance and dominance while on PED was very similar to Ruth's.
Bonds got there via steroids, Ruth got there due to having inferior competition in the league.
Both showed what could happen when someone is put into a league with a physical ability unmatched by nearly every player in the league.
Not blaming Ruth BTW....but neither of their dominance should be taken at face value when compared to other players who did not have such luxuries, and whom had to battle with millions more competition and many more people similar in ability to them.
I never said cheating doesn't matter, my point is there is no way to quantify its effect. There is no one who can with any certainty tell any of us what whitey fords era would have been had he never doctored a ball. Likewise, there is no one who can tell us with any certainty now many home runs Manny Ramirez would have it without PED. If you think you can do that you are being disingenuous with yourself.
You do not know for certain that every time bonds stepped to the plate post 2000 that he was cheating. You THINK you do, but you dont. Because he never failed a test, only he knows what seasons, or months or weeks he was using PED. did he only use during the off season? Most users cycle on and off from PED. Because, as you say, everyone else seems to be convinced of the periods of time bonds was using doesn't make it so, it just means many people think it. Come on, you are too smart to think this illogically. All we have are the numbers. They happened. and yes, bonds did play baseball, so did whitey, drysdale and the babe when they were cheating.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
OK, tell me how cheating matters. Tell me who you think the 10 greatest players of the past 30 years are, and then make a different list where you ignore cheating. If the two lists are the same then despite your protest, you don't think cheating matters. If you do think cheating matters, then the differences in your two lists will tell me how much cheating matters to you.
Here's where you're wrong. I DO know that Bonds cheated. Now, we can get into a long epistemological discussion of how any of us "know" anything but let's not. Suffice it to say that I am as certain that Bonds cheated as I am that grass is green. What is the point of having a brain that elevates us over lower life forms if we're not willing to use it? I know he cheated, you know he cheated, all God's chillun know he cheated. I don't know what game it is that requires we pretend otherwise, but I'm not playing.
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of not only how logic works, but also what it is. No, I am not thinking (or arguing) illogically. You disagree with one or more of my premises, apparently the one that says Rosie Ruiz did not, in fact, win the Boston marathon. You are entitled to list Rosie on your personal winners list, and I am entitled not to; neither is a failure of logic.
Ask and you shall receive.
It is a bit trickier with Bonds as there is no doubt he would have seen a steady decline after age 35 without the steroids.
Pre-steroids 1986-1992
3584 AB's 984 hits 176 home runs (1hr per 20.36 AB's) .275 avg .502 slugging .883 ops
Steroids 1993-2007
6263 AB's 1951 hits 586 home runs (1hr per 10.68 AB's) .312 avg .666 slugging 1.143 ops
without steroids....
9847 AB's 2707 hits 484 home runs .275 average
Basically....he is Fred McGriff with 500+ steals. Where McGwire would not have a chance for the HoF...Barry would still be a first ballot HoF with the all around game.
It's pretty well documented that steroid use became rampant in the early 90's around 1992-1993. It's fairly obvious statistically to see where a said player began his usage simply by looking at the giant jump in his stats. The effects are blatantly obvious. As someone that worked for a pro team and was around the players during this time it was obvious to just about everyone. When you are trying to recover from strikes and fan discontent as well as a very noticeable decrease in interest in MLB due to the NBA and NFL the powers that be decide the game is in need of a ratings boost and home runs do that sort of thing.
Your analysis here may be spot on, but I think Bonds was more likely clean through 1999. He was only 28 in 1993 and that's too early too assume a decline would have started. And after 1993 he did show a steady decline through 1999, at age 34. It's after that point that there is simply know way for a sentient human being to not know he was cheating.
If I use 2000 as the first "with steroids" year I show Bonds with 575 or so HR. That was the basis of my comparison to Frank Robinson earlier; Bonds wasn't quite the hitter Robinson was, but the fielding and baserunning make them pretty close overall.
Wait - Barry Bonds played baseball now?
I’m a little confused.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
you are arbitrarily placing Macs steroid use around 92-93 because other people did. you dont know If Mac started in 92, 97 or 1986 yet you have come up with some sort of formula to figure batting average and home run production.
If you are going to use statistical evidence, you are going to have to use it for all players when it is fairly obvious. Would you not say that statistically Nolan Ryan, Randy Johnson, Rickey Henderson and Tony Gwynn all used PED? Check out their late career stat lines.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I am saying there is absolutely no way to devise an accurate metric to adjust for any type of cheating. There are just too many variables. It is silly to even try.
1. we dont know how many players have ever cheated, only the ones who got caught.
2. we dont know how to adjust for each type of cheating: PED, Amphetamines, Illegal equipment
3. for the players who we DO know cheated, we only know the short period of time when they were caught. Did chris sabo only use the illegal bat during the one game in which he was caught? (highly unlikely) does that invalidate his entire statistical record, or only that one game? Did Ruth only use an illegal bat just for the period in which he was caught, or did he continuously use one and not get caught? Do we only invalidate those 6 weeks of stats for the Babe or do we assume if he was caught cheating once he did it repeatedly and have to invalidate his entire career?
4. we can never prove that a player did not use PED or cheated. Do we assume Griffey was clean? Do we assume Frank Thomas was clean? Cal Ripken?
5. I do think Bonds used PED. he said as much in a court deposition. but...how often? when did he start? how much did he use? when did he stop? did he start and stop numerous times? what effect did they have on his specific body? did he use during the season? did he only use during the off season? how many pitchers did Bonds face who were using? how level was the playing field? we dont know the answers to ANY of these questions, only Barry does. way too many variables to arive at any sort of a usable conclusion.
It is not that I dont think cheating matters. there is just no way to adjust for it. anything you try to do is going to be arbitrary and biased. I think the best we can do is era adjustments, ballpark effect etc. way way way too many variables to even attempt to adjust for all the different types of cheating. any adjustments of that type are not really useful.
and no, I have never made all time lists of greatest players. I tend to more enjoy player comparisons.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Better: Mays, Aaron, Musial, Ted Williams
Equal: Griffey Jr, Rickey Henderson, Frank Robinson, Schmidt, Pujols, Eddie Mathews
Yaz Master Set
#1 Gino Cappelletti master set
#1 John Hannah master set
Also collecting Andre Tippett, Patriots Greats' RCs, Dwight Evans, 1964 Venezuelan Topps, 1974 Topps Red Sox
i like to defer to my old man when it comes to players i never saw. after reading this thread, i called my dad last night and posed a single question.........."who was better, mantle or musial?"
on the face that might seem like a somewhat inane question, but i did so because stan the man is his all-time fav player and the cards are -- still to this very day -- his fav team. and that's understating things. his computer/office room is inundated with musial memorabilia, and he purchases the mlb package every single offseason just so he can watch as many st. louis games as humanly possible while living a couple of states away. in fact, he and my mother are embarking on an odyssey starting tomorrow that will include a pitstop in STL to see a 3-game set against chicago. (he loathes the cubs with every ounce of his being.) in other words, he doesn't bleed red for a singular reason. so i set the ball on a tee for him to dish out a partisan response....
"who was better, mantle or musial?"
"had mantle's career not been truncated by a combination of injuries & a series of poor life choices, he may very well have been the best ever. your mom is calling me, gotta go."
granted the convo was cut short, but still, nary a mention of musial.
and that kinda ties in with what i'm reading here. we can play the if & buts, candy & nuts game all day long and we'll never come to a consensus. but the conjecture is fun. if so-and-so hadn't cheated. if so-and-so hadn't gotten hurt. and my own personal speculative question, if vlad the impaler (MY fav player) hadn't been subjected to the concrete at olympic stadium for 8 seasons, which ostensibly turned him into a geriatric by the time he retired.
por favor continúa...
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
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 HR per game the last four years are actually higher than during the steroid era.
2019 1.33
2018 1.15
2017 1.26
2016 1.16
2001 1.12
2000 1.17
1999 1.14
1998 1.04
So you're saying that cheating matters, and it matters so much that it would be silly to do anything other than ignore it. Thanks for clearing that up.
I had never heard of Jim Creighton before he was brought up in this thread, so I looked him up and besides learning that he died at age 21, I learned this:
"In 1862, he batted 1.000, getting hits in all 65 of his at-bats."
I used to be just like you and took a very hard line stance on cheating. then i realized there is no way to ever know how many cheated, how much that cheating helped them or how to adjust for it. We only know those who were caught or admitted to it. am not going to apply morality to a statistical comparison when there is absolutely no way to adjust for cheating. it is a waste of time and is folly.
you refuse to respond to my previous post. you can use the statistical data we have from the last 140 years, or you can invent a biased, statistically faulty formula to attempt to do the impossible. please explain to me how to adjust for rule breakers.
what percentage of players in the last 150 years do you think were cheating?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Ruptured inguinal hernia after a mighty swing hitting a home run...and died four days later.
Perhaps Roberto Clemente. should be mentioned here?
I think I already addressed that, but I will again if it wasn't clear. The adjustment? There is no adjustment. There are the people we know cheated and those we don't know. If they cheated, then we throw out whatever happened while we know they were cheating.
And that's the big difference between using a corked bat or throwing a spitball and using steroids. It could be that the corkers and spitters were cheating every or nearly every at bat or pitch, but there's no evidence that they were and, like you, I just ignore it. But steroid users can't turn it off from at bat to at bat or game to game; that kind of cheating negates entire seasons or even careers. Where we disagree, I think, is that you are unwilling to say that you know Bonds cheated for, at minimum, the last eight years of his career and I'm not. I phrase it that way because I am certain that, like me, you know Bonds cheated, but for reasons unknown to me you aren't willing to say so.
My question to you is, if you did know that Bonds was cheating from 2000 through the end of his career, would you just ignore it, and group him with the greatest players ever, or would you group him somewhere lower than that?
I gave you five points above, bonds was addressed in the fifth point but I guess you didn't read that.
You said above that even if corkers and spittballers were cheating on every pitch, you would ignore it Because you don't have evidence. Can you show me evidence where bonds cheated every game of every season for the last 8 years of his career? If you have it, it truly would be game changing because you would be the only one in the world other than bonds himself with that evidence.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
People have been executed on less evidence than exists on Bonds' baseball-reference page. The standard for a finding of guilty is not "beyond any doubt" it's "beyond any REASONABLE doubt".
Is it possible that aliens from another galaxy taught him how to use the power of his mind to increase his shoe size and the size of his head and to become stronger than he had ever been before? Sure, it's possible. And I rank that in second place on the list of possibilities. In the top spot, occupying 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the available probability is that he took steroids. If you want to chop off the last two or three 9's, I won't take issue. If you want to chop off more than that, then I will just shake my head in befuddlement at why you think Barry Bonds is the only human being in the history of the world to do to his body what he did by any means other than steroids. To even entertain the possibility that Bonds didn't take steroids is simply not reasonable.
On a related note, you may spend whatever sum you wish on whatever diet or workout or whatever you choose, and I promise you I will reimburse all of your costs times 10. The only requirement is that as a result of all of your steroid-free efforts, your hat size has to increase.
What for? He is not even in the same level as these guys.
HOF. 3K HITS 240 HR 317 BA
15x all star 12x golden glove
Etc.etc. good enough for me to consider. Career cut short when died at sea. Jmho.
,
You are missing the point completely. YOU said
"There are the people we know cheated and those we don't know. If they cheated, then we throw out whatever happened while we know they were cheating."
The key parts of your statement are "know cheated" and "while we know they were cheating" now, how exactly do you know exactly when bonds or any other player cheated? Petitte said he only did HGH once for healing purposes and i believe that was during an off season. so, because it happened during the off season, does that mean he didnt cheat? Do we believe what he said? was it really only one time? I never said i didnt think Bonds used PED, but you, I or anyone else who isnt Barry Bonds have no idea WHEN he used.
What about Palmiero. we know he cheated at some point during his final season. do we throw away his entire last season? only the part of his last season when he cheated? or his whole career? by your reasoning, we should only delete the part of his final season where we KNOW he was cheating. this would still leave him with well over 500 home runs and all kinds of counting stats. so Dallas, shouldnt Palmeiro be in the HOF?
By your standard, we are only allowed to throw out whatever happened while we KNOW they were cheating. Do you KNOW Bonds was cheating in 2000? how? what about 2004? how do you know then. was he cheating during the spring of 2006?
your standard is impossible to apply if you are being honest with yourself.
now, you are throwing out known cheaters statistics when we know they were cheating. by your reasoning, you also would say the cheater was not even playing baseball at that point. What about a pitcher who gave up a home run to Manny Ramirez during a period of time he was known to be cheating. can we take those earned runs away from the pitcher and award him with an out? what about a strikeout? What about a hitter who was struck out by Don Sutton in an at bat he was known to be greasing the ball up. can we award him with a hit? a double? a home run? Because, as you say, Sutton was not playing baseball at that time... can we change the outcome of games during times when we know certain players were cheating? what if a team would have missed the playoffs retroactively because a player was later found out to have been using PED and therefore not even playing baseball at the time.
Do you see how nonsensical and silly your argument is. You cannot erase statistics as though they never happened. if you did that, it would effect all of the other players statistics who also competed in that game. at bats do not happen in a vacuum, there is context. its like the butterfly effect.
last point,
"People have been executed on less evidence than exists on Bonds' baseball-reference page."> @dallasactuary said:
Does this mean you are using statistical evidence to convict players? If so, then it needs to be applied across the boards. there are lots of very suspicious late career surges throughout baseball history. I guess you would say that Tony Gwynn, Ted Williams, Hank Aaron, Warren Spahn, Randy Johnson and Nolan ryan all used steroids because
"people have been executed on less evidence than exists on ___________ baseball-reference page"
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
His hitting for power was a bit too low to be in the consideration for being "better" than Mantle. Probably a better fielder. Mantle's OPS was almost .150 better, that's quite a bit.
Roberto was a great player and person, he was still playing at a high level at the end of his career, WITHOUT the benefit of being walked a lot, in fact his lack of walks hurt him throughout his playing days.
Musial comes a LOT closer to Mickey than Roberto imo.
Can't disagree but he was playing for Pittsburgh which I believe impacted his stats . I for one consider him one of the greats. I really can't argue with mantle, DiMaggio etc. So perhaps my pick wasn't specific to the greater than mantle question.
Just curious, why would playing in Pittsburgh impact his stats?
Forbes field was gigantic. 462 feet to deepest center field, 360 to left, 372 to right. certainly hurt Clemente's power numbers
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I guess you would say that Tony Gwynn, Ted Williams, Hank Aaron, Warren Spahn, Randy Johnson and Nolan ryan all used steroids because
Come on now.........NONE of the guys you mentioned had numbers that were anywhere CLOSE to what Bonds did.
Yankee Stadium was pretty big too. Just as deep to center and deeper to left at 400. Was a bit shorter to the right field "porch", but was pretty much 400 ft everywhere else.
I agree, Bonds was the best of the lot, but just because he was the best doesnt mean everyone else was innocent because they didnt do it as well. Pablo Escobar was the biggest drug importer, but that doesnt mean all the other drug importers should be considered innocent just because they didnt do it as well does it?
Dallas is the one who gave us a standard of using statistical evidence to judge who was and was not a cheater. In order for him to be consistent, that standard needs to be applied across the board. That standard sure does make Tony Gwynn seem guilty doesnt it. He certainly improved quite a bit after the age of 33.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
very good point. I had forgotten that Yankee Stadiums dimensions were shortened after Mantle retired.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Really?
What I see is the players you mentioned having great years late in their careers that are about EQUAL to their early years.
When I look at Bonds' numbers I see someone OBLITERATING the BEST numbers he put up for the first 14+ years.
After 14 years he had an OPS of .968, the next 5 years it was 1.317. A .350 jump!
It's pretty obvious there's a HUGE difference here.
Gwynns OPS was about the same all through his career. You might look at 1997 as unusual (1994 was only a partial year), but it was still only .100 or so above his average OPS.
Mentioning Aaron and Williams were simply ridiculous; Aaron was chasing Ruth's record and that kept him focused and Williams career arc was pretty normal. He did finish with a nice year after a sub par (for him) 1959.
Could these guys have been cheating? I guess one never knows. With the earlier guys; I would doubt that Williams would cheat from all that I have read about him. Aaron also seemed to be a pretty straight guy as well. I don't know about Gwynn.
I realize you consider drinking an extra cup of coffee the same as injecting steroids and gaining 50 pounds of muscle as the same, but they're not, even if they both help you play better.
You are correct in stating that Bonds was the best cheater of them all!!!!!
Not going to discuss pitchers here.
https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2005-05-03-steroids-house_x.htm
No one ever mentions this one.
Worth the read...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
ssshhhhhhhhh. people dont want to hear this...
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
.> @1951WheatiesPremium said:
It doesn’t get mentioned because most old time “Heroes” are immune to any negativity. Truth is there was cheating, domestic violence, drug and alcoholism, crimes covered up etc.. the digital age sheds light on a lot of things that the old timers were lucky enough to have kept under wraps.
It gets brought up all the time.
Let's look at it (again).
"Growth hormone (GH) first was isolated from the human pituitary gland in 1956, by both Li and Papkoff, in California, and Raben, in Massachusetts, but its biochemical structure was not elucidated until 1972."
1972 was when House first played in the majors. He began his pro career in 1967.
There was all kinds of cheating going on long before this. We all know this.
Prior to the 1970's there wasn't much you could do to reliably, consistently get better.
The NFL was using steroids in the 1960's, but many/much/most of the baseball people were not into weight training at that time. All you have to do is look at the guys from the 1960's-1980's and there were just not many muscular players, so if they were taking steroids they weren't getting the benefit from them that guys like Bonds, McGwire etc got.
If you can't see the insanity of a guy like Bonds, who was NOT a slugger hitting 73 HR in 153 games. Nothing anyone will ever say will convince you.
Back in the day the "heroes" were shielded by the press, but we now know a lot of them were not that well behaved.
I don't know if you're intentionally missing my point, but it is increasingly obvious I'm wasting my time.
But I will comment on one ridiculous thing you said:
Lots of different reference points we could use, but I'll use offensive WAR:
Top3 for Bonds: 12.4 (age 36), 11.8 (37), 11.5 (39); best season as a baseball player - 8.9 (31). As a baseball player, he averaged about 6 oWAR per season; as an old man playing drugball he averaged over 8.5. There is no player in history with stats even remotely comparable to that. I can't even imagine the determination it takes to force an otherwise functioning brain to keep from understanding a concept so simple and obvious.
Tony Gwynn's best season, by a mile, was at age 27 with 7.8. He had seasons in the same ballpark (between 5.1 and 5.9) at ages 26, 29, 34, and 37. His next two best (between 4 and 5) were ate ages 24 and 35. You are seeing a "surge" that simply didn't happen. Gwynn didn't decline as much as most players do, and it may be that was because he was taking steroids, but what he did is hardly unprecedented and provides very much weaker evidence than Bonds. And his head didn't grow.
Ted Williams top 7 seasons came, in order, at ages 22, 27, 23, 28, 38, 30, and 29. Pre-Korea, he averaged about 8 oWAR per season; post-Korea he averaged less than 6. He did have a great year in 1957, at age 38, but mostly he stopped facing as many LHP. And his head didn't grow.
You don't say when "late career" starts for Aaron, but there is absolutely nothing unusual in his stats at least through age 34. Aaron's top 5 oWAR all came before that, then come ages 35 and 37, then come 9 more seasons pre-35, then, at the bottom of his oWAR list, come all the rest of his post-35 seasons. A lot of novice baseball fans confuse his 1973 season with a "surge" but it was Aaron's 18th best season. Hitting HR in Atlanta was really, really easy that year; and Aaron didn't "surge"; nor did his head grow.
Spahn's top 6 WAR seasons came before age 33; his ERA+ from 25-35 was 128, and 109 after that. And his head didn't grow.
Ryan and Johnson have first and second halves of careers that are unusually close (they barely declined), but whatever "surge" they had resulted in them being as good, not better, as they had been all along (although Ryan's best four seasons are all from the first half of his career). And neither of their heads grew.
If I were a betting man, I'd bet everything I own that Bonds took steroids (and you are a freaking moron if you wouldn't do the same). I'd also put some money down on Johnson; he, and he alone among the people you listed, appears to have crossed the "more likely than not" line. But only Bonds provides evidence so overwhelming, and overwhelmingly obvious, that we can know with such certainty which years can be ignored.
You also mentioned the HOF, a different topic. I would obviously keep Bonds out, and I also wouldn't have voted for Johnson (no problem whatsoever voting for the others). The HOF is an honor, and Bonds doesn't deserve honors. Johnson may, or may not, deserve the HOF; I'd save my vote until I knew more.
And this will be my last post in this thread, since nobody is listening to them anyway (undoubtedly including this one).