Barry Bonds - you better read this before you post about him - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Barry Bonds - you better read this before you post about him

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby Guest » Sun Aug 24, 2003 3:39 pm

eftda wrote:AND WE DONT KNOW IF RUTH WAS ON DRUGS!

Ruth was on beer and hotdogs before games, makes him even more impressive.
Guest


Home Cafe: Football
Friendliness: %

Postby LCBOY » Sun Aug 24, 2003 3:42 pm

DK wrote:fifth of all, ruth hit a ball an estimated 625 feet. id like to see bonds do that.


Another urban legend. There is no evidence that Ruth did this other than stories.
LCBOY
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 2838
Joined: 10 Jun 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: On third base trying to steal home.

Postby fvilla18 » Sun Aug 24, 2003 4:01 pm

I take steroids so that i can post on here like crazy!!! yeah!!! lol
[b]A wise classmate once said:[/b]
"If you can't impress them with your intellect,
baffle them with your"
fvilla18
College Coach
College Coach

User avatar

Posts: 160
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby tal1286 » Sun Aug 24, 2003 4:03 pm

Lofunzo wrote:wrveres.......I find it humorous that you can tell me that I take someone else's point of view and then you sit there and copy and paste someone else's article. :-P I have looked at the numbers. Unfortunately, with Ruth, most of us need to do that. I have said it before and I'll say it again. Bonds is great. I will never dispute that. What gets me is the guys who have seen nothing more than Bonds and just want to put him up there all alone. I never said that he cares what I think but apparentyly you think that he cares what YOU think. Again, Bonds is awesome and you tell me to look at the stats. Well, I did and you know what? As of right now, the only cats that Bonds has the edge are in 2B's and SB's while Ruth obviously has the edge in pitching wins. I think that YOU should look at the stats but I will give you the rundown:

FYI - :-t = Bad for Bonds

AVG - Ruth has a 45 point higher career average :-t
GAMES - Bonds has already played 42 more games :-t
AB - Bonds already has 263 more AB's :-t
RUNS - Ruth has 252 more runs scored :-t
HITS - Ruth has 300 more hits than Bonds (in less AB's) :-t
2B's and 3B's - Bonds has a slight edge in 2B while Ruth runs away with 3B :-o
HR - Ruth has the edge in less AB's :-t
RBI - Almost 500 more in less AB's :-t
WALKS - Ruth has a slight edge in less games :-t
K's - Very similar
OBP - Ruth is 42 points better :-t
SLG - Ruth is 89 points better :-t

I now ask you.......Which stats is it that you are looking at? Yes. Bonds will beat some of the records by compiling his stats in more games. Yes. He is a great player that is 1 of the greatest ever but Ruth IS the greatest ever.

You list the community stuff. That is nice and I am actually 1 of the few that praises him for staying out of trouble. My only problem with him is that he usually puts his foot in his mouth when he opens it.

I will admit that Bonds was a great outfielder but Gold Gloves are subjective (ie. Palmiero). Even Bernie won the award. As for the MVP's, since you apparently know all of the stats of all time, then you would know that when Ruth played, you were disqualified from winning the award once you won 1. Do you really think that's all that he would have won?

You told me to look at the stats so now I ask you to do the same. I actually like discussions like this. We learn from them.



geez...touchy touchy

Wrv...whatever, i think, got it exactly right. maybe you got the updated version of his post but i don't recall him saying Bonds was better than ruth. anyone who says that needs to look at numbers and then compare them to the players of their eras. Ruth>>>>>>>>players of his time
bonds>>>players of his time

when ruth was hitting 60 hrs in a season the next closest was hitting 20. bonds is hitting 50/60 but so do a handful of other players each year. I don't think that anyone would deny that Ruth is better than bonds(especially with pitching). however i think that wrveres put it perfectly. Bonds IS great, undeniably. Take that for what it's worth and stop knocking bonds for his personal problems. basically, he without sin cast the first stone.
Image

Leyland said, "We thought we were getting a hell of a player, but Neifi simply did not perform well."

really?
tal1286
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar
CafeholicPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 1830
Joined: 31 May 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Verizon Center, Cheering on the Hoyas

Postby Lofunzo » Sun Aug 24, 2003 6:46 pm

eftda wrote:you just picked that stats that Ruth edges bonds with.


I picked the stats that Ruth edges him in? What other stats would you like me to use? If you tell me, I will research them. What would you like? Most balls hit between center and right-center? I gave you the stolen bases. I also conceded the pitching to Ruth. To me, that's a wash. You saying that you can't compare pitchers to hitters is fair but I didn't do that. I only added a stat to Ruth's side and added SB's to Bonds.


eftda wrote:AND WE DONT KNOW IF RUTH WAS ON DRUGS!
You're right although it would have been hard to fit it in with all of that beer drinking. We also don't know that about Bonds, either. :-D

eftda wrote:And walk, you have to be jokeing. Look, he had 198 walks last year. that a single season record. Also, bonds hit 73 hr in a year.
Yes. Bonds broke the record for walks. That is impressive. He also broke the HR record. That is also impressive although I say this. Ruth set his mark in a dead ball era with much larger parks. McGwire and Sosa both broke Maris' record in the same year and then Bonds broke that a few years later. There is a reason that Bonds ball didn't fetch as much. The fact that 2 guys broke the record in the same year and then it was broken shortly thereafter diminished it's value. 73 homers is very impressive but the fact that the record had just been broken decreases it's value IMHO. Bonds' feat is impressive as hell but let me see him outhomer ENTIRE TEAMS like Ruth did.

eftda wrote:Yes Bonds will 'never' we as good as ruth because all of you who say that he had less atbats, but look, bonds gets walked like crazy, and he still hits 40+ homeruns.
Bonds is impressive. There is no other way around it. To say that all of "us" who say that Ruth had less at bats is crazy. He did and he still had the better numbers. Bonds gets walked like crazy? Apparently Ruth did as well because he has slightly more in less games and at bats.

tal1286 wrote:geez...touchy touchy


I am? I guess that you are entitled to your opinion as we all are but I was asked to look at the stats and I did.

tal1286 wrote:bonds>>>players of his time


I agree 100% but as of a few years ago, people were saying that about Griffey. There was never a question during Ruth's era and NOW there is no question about Bonds.

tal1286 wrote:however i think that wrveres put it perfectly. Bonds IS great, undeniably. Take that for what it's worth and stop knocking bonds for his personal problems.


I never said that Bonds wasn't great. All that I said was that if you want to put Bonds way up there with the greatest players ever, IMHO, you have to put Ruth above him. I NEVER knocked him for anything other than making stupid comments. He has made them.
Lofunzo
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerEagle EyeHockey ModPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 23698
(Past Year: 11)
Joined: 9 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Central Jersey

Postby stevelabny » Sun Aug 24, 2003 9:05 pm

the other part of the bonds-ruth equation that everyone is forgetting is this:

bonds plays against a few hundred of the best baseball players in the world. since high school, these guys have done NOTHING but practice to be the best in the world at baseball.

ruth played against a few white guys from a few american cities who either loved the game enough, were lazy enough, or had enough money to get paid nothing to play baseball. most of them had jobs during the offseason. ruth was paid enough in comparison to worry about nothing but baseball.

in bonds favor: much better talent, chosen from all races and countries. who have done nothing but train for baseball for years while ruth played against a limited, less talented pool of players who then had to go be stockboys.

plus i never understood the more abs thing. unless u want to turn don mattingly into a hall of famer based on a few good years. or maybe kevin maas into a superstar (doesnt he STILL have one of the best hr to ab ratios? he fell out of the majors so quick, he might) or just project out the stats of guys who died and went to war and had a broken arm or whatever. this isnt how its done.

bonds shouldnt get punished in this comparison because ruth spent time as a pitcher or played a shorter season or didnt stay in superior shape (drug induced or not) to play longer.


was ruth the best player of his time? yes
is bonds the best player of his time ? yes
was ruth so much better than his peers than barry is then his? YES NO QUESTION.
is ruth the reason we are all here? yes

whos the better player? BONDS.

why? its all about the OPPOSING TALENT.
stevelabny


Home Cafe: Football
Friendliness: %

Postby LCBOY » Sun Aug 24, 2003 9:37 pm

Lofunzo wrote:Ruth set his mark in a dead ball era with much larger parks. McGwire and Sosa both broke Maris' record in the same year and then Bonds broke that a few years later. There is a reason that Bonds ball didn't fetch as much. The fact that 2 guys broke the record in the same year and then it was broken shortly thereafter diminished it's value. 73 homers is very impressive but the fact that the record had just been broken decreases it's value IMHO. Bonds' feat is impressive as hell but let me see him outhomer ENTIRE TEAMS like Ruth did.


Babe Ruth hit all his HR records AFTER the dead Ball era ended. The Dead Ball ended in 1919. This whole thing about Ruth outhomering entire teams, while true, is not that impressive if you look at the details of the history of the game. If you look at the context of the game in Ruth's time you will notice some interesting things. The reason that Ruth outhomered teams in the few seasons was becasue he was playing the game diferently. He was the first to swing for the fences. Ruth showed what a hitter can do if they swung for the fences. As soon as others saw what COULD be done in the game they started doing it, too. Right after Ruth came some great power hitters. Just to name a few

Rogers Hornsby
Lou Gerhig
Hack Wilson

Here is Hornsby's 1922

.409 BA
.459 OBP
.722 SLG
141 Runs
250 hits
46 2B
18 3B
42 HR
152 RBI
55/29 BB/K ratio

This would fit right in line with Ruth's best seasons. This was right after Ruth's huge 1920-21 seasons. Ruth paved the way for all the others. The fact the Ruth was the first was an accident of history. It doesn't really impress me that Ruth outhomered entire teams. He was playing the game differently.

It is difficult to compare players from different eras. People don't realize that Ruth played his peak years in the most offensive dominating era in baseball history (1920s and 30s). Even the offensive explosion of the past decade does not compare th Ruth's era. People always argue that Bonds has benefitted feom the era he played in (and he has benefitted) but so did Ruth. Most of the the single season records for RBI, Runs, Total bases, Doubles and BA are from this era. So Ruth's time was even more skewed toward offense thus his numbers were inflated. Ruth is the greatest player of all time not becasue of his numbers (which in themselves are incredible) but because he changed the game. He was the games' biggest name and always will be because of the mythic image that he has with people today.
LCBOY
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 2838
Joined: 10 Jun 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: On third base trying to steal home.

Postby Sevillano » Mon Aug 25, 2003 1:13 am

Not to gang up on Lofunzo here, because I do respect your opinion and think you've made some excellent points, but one thing really irks me about your argument.

Lofunzo wrote: What gets me is the guys who have seen nothing more than Bonds and just want to put him up there all alone.


You've made a point of consistently arguing that Bond's proponents are all people of a younger generation. While this may be the case here, I don't think that it necessarily lessens their opinion on the matter. Not all, but most of the posters have presented well thought out arguments for why Barry is in or above Ruth's class as a player.

Much of baseball's appeal is entrenched in its history and tradition and most young fans have heard extensively the legends of Ruth and his contemporaries and know their accomplishments well. If anything there is a mythical reverence surrounding Ruth that causes people to place him on an unreachable pedestal. You do make some very valid points for Ruth's case, and I think more than anything it's a matter of personal opinion.

All in all I have really enjoyed reading this discussion.
Sevillano
College Coach
College Coach


Posts: 279
Joined: 1 Jun 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

Postby Lofunzo » Mon Aug 25, 2003 1:19 am

Sevillano wrote:
Lofunzo wrote: What gets me is the guys who have seen nothing more than Bonds and just want to put him up there all alone.


You've made a point of consistently arguing that Bond's proponents are all people of a younger generation. While this may be the case here, I don't think that it necessarily lessens their opinion on the matter. Not all, but most of the posters have presented well thought out arguments for why Barry is in or above Ruth's class as a player.


If I have argued this point, that is not my intention and I apologize. My point was meant that IMHO, MOST of the people who believe that Bonds is the greatest of all time are younger fans. I don't fault them for that because sports fans can have short memories and we remember what we see, especially recently. I'm sure that it also helps that I am a Yanks fan, albeit an objective 1, who felt more of a need to study the history of the team and the greatest players in the history of the game. My comments have been written with the intention of giving Ruth his due rather than diminishing Bonds' accomplishments.

Sevillano wrote:All in all I have really enjoyed reading this discussion.


Agreed 100%. I have learned some things from this thread and I hope that I have given some insight to others.
Lofunzo
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerEagle EyeHockey ModPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 23698
(Past Year: 11)
Joined: 9 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Central Jersey

Postby wrveres » Mon Aug 25, 2003 1:57 am

Lofunzo wrote:wrveres.......I find it humorous that you can tell me that I take someone else's point of view and then you sit there and copy and paste someone else's article. :-P


First of all ..
it is not an "Article" .. If you read it, you would see that it is basically a list of his accoplishments. Nobody else's opinion, Not skewded by a "Reporter who got a Scoop on Barry" .. It's Called a "Bio" ... Now if you are done reading .. You will see that it is pretty damn long.
And you know what? You wan't to know the best part? You can't take it away. You can't Minimize it, You can only knock it. Why? Well because he is not the person YOU want him to be ....

Lofunzo wrote:I now ask you.......Which stats is it that you are looking at?

Run this one for me ... Since Ruth has less 2B ... How many of Ruth's homeruns were actually Ground Rule Doubles?
I figure that that short porch should be kinda nice for a left handed batter. Oh and look at how high that fence is out there. Yeah let me know what you find on that ..

Lofunzo wrote:You list the community stuff. That is nice and I am actually 1 of the few that praises him for staying out of trouble. My only problem with him is that he usually puts his foot in his mouth when he opens it.

So would it fair to say .. "Barry is not the person you wan't him to be?"


Lofunzo wrote:We learn from them.

Yes we do .. :-)
25                "Love the Padres"
Rafael

Dodgers FAIL|Mets FAIL|Canada FAIL
wrveres
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe WriterEagle EyeInnovative MemberCafe Musketeer
Posts: 31755
(Past Year: 746)
Joined: 2 Mar 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: buiviopaufamp, Google [Bot] and 5 guests

cron
Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Saturday, Aug. 2
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

NY Yankees at Boston
(4:05 pm)
Kansas City at Oakland
(4:05 pm)
Seattle at Baltimore
(7:05 pm)
Texas at Cleveland
(7:05 pm)
Philadelphia at Washington
(7:05 pm)
Colorado at Detroit
(7:08 pm)
LA Angels at Tampa Bay
(7:10 pm)
indoors
San Francisco at NY Mets
(7:10 pm)
Cincinnati at Miami
(7:10 pm)
indoors
Toronto at Houston
(7:10 pm)
Minnesota at Chi White Sox
(7:10 pm)
Milwaukee at St. Louis
(7:15 pm)
Pittsburgh at Arizona
(8:10 pm)
Atlanta at San Diego
(8:40 pm)
Chi Cubs at LA Dodgers
(9:10 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact