PDA

View Full Version : Barry Bonds or Babe Ruth



Pages : [1] 2

Sabres39
12-24-2008, 03:52 AM
Both are regarded as two of the best hitters ever. Who do you guys feel was the better player?

ShinobiNYC
12-24-2008, 03:59 AM
As a hitter it's clearly Ruth. Bonds was a better all-around player.

Sabres39
12-24-2008, 04:01 AM
As a hitter it's clearly Ruth. Bonds was a better all-around player.

I also said Ruth due to the better career AVG, OBP, OPS, wOBA, etc.

baseball4ever
12-24-2008, 05:00 AM
I go with Ruth as well.

Bonds had over 1400 more at bats in order to top Ruth in runs scored by 53 runs; base hits by 62, doubles by 95 and of course Home Runs by 48 although in addition to 1400 more at bat. Keep in mind that Ruth was a starting Pitcher as well. Translate those years on the mound (which I'll get to in a few seconds) into four to five bats per game, I'm certain the babe would have topped 48 more dingers

Ruth's carrer slg. pct. was .690 compared to Roid Boys .607 and his career batting average was .342 compared to Bond's .298 !!

In Post-Season Play Ruth starred in 10 world series with a cummlative batting average of .326. Bonds played in one with a batting average of .471 yet in 10 Ruth had a .744
slugging pct while Barry had 509slg. pct in his one trip to the show.

When it came to pitching, Ruth pitched in 140 games wth a cummulatve record of 94 wins and 46 losses. Add those 140 games into his batting stats (4 to 5 at bats more over 140 games....well I think you know what the outcome would have been in adjusted
offensive stats. Then there was Ruth's OBP, OPS, WOBA.

But back to pitching...94-46 won-lost total;with an e.r.a. of 2.28. Two wins, zero losses
in 2 world series with a 0.87 e.r.a.!!!!!!!!

So Bonds a better over-all player. Not A Chance.

Finally there comes that intangible which rates at the top of my list, Being Fan-Friendly.

Ruth's reputation of a fan-friendly as a player; especially to kids is legendary. A few days ago I saw and olld new reel showing the Babe handing out thousands of pairs of shoes to kids left homeless from the great depression;all bought by him. The list of fan-friendly acoomplishments by Ruth are in the hundreda and well-documented.

Bonds reputation with the fans?? I'll use one quote from the man about such things. "What do they think I am? Some kind of Steppin-Fetchet here to entertain them? I play the game for me, not for them".

Case Closed. Hope there is plenty of beer and hot dog's in heaven Babe.

baseball4ever
12-24-2008, 05:04 AM
Oh I almost forgot. The fat man had 136 triples compared to Bonds 77.

futureheisman
12-24-2008, 09:47 AM
this even a question Babe Ruth

Tragedy
12-24-2008, 09:49 AM
It's too difficult to compare people from such amazingly different eras.

baseball4ever
12-25-2008, 10:22 AM
Bonds did it on steroids, Ruth did it on hot dogs and beer. Go babe

jetsfan28
12-25-2008, 10:31 AM
Bonds did it on steroids, Ruth did it on hot dogs and beer. Go babe

Ruth did it without facing Satchel Paige, Pedro Martinez, Johan Santana, Mariano Rivera, CC Sabathia, and bullpen specialists. Not facing non-whites and facing starters who pitched over 300 innings a year while not facing bullpen specialists is a definite advantage, possibly as much or even more than steroids, considering how many of the pitchers Bonds faced were on steroids as well.

Tragedy
12-25-2008, 10:37 AM
Bonds did it on steroids, Ruth did it on hot dogs and beer. Go babe
Your proof is where..?

Old Sweater
12-25-2008, 11:43 AM
Had to go with Bonds here. Had a lot more leather an speed in the outfield.


Ruth for his era was superior to Bonds though. As we all know, it is impossible to compare players from different era's fairly, even though many try with relative adjusted stats. There is just to many invariables in the comparisons.

bagwell368
12-25-2008, 11:54 AM
It's pretty tough to call. If you assume stats or even corrected stats are correct on paper, Ruth wins. But he played against a much lower class of player then Bonds faced.

For Bonds if we throw off the steroid years - year 2000 and later by my judgment then he can't match up that well with Ruth on power, but comes somewhat closer on OBP, and goes ahead on base running and fielding.

If I had to make a choice I'd take Bonds, but, not happily.

baseball4ever
12-25-2008, 01:04 PM
The proof on Bonds is documented in the Mitchell Report. The year he is reported as begining to take steroids his offensive numbers skyrocketed as did his weight. In fact, his team-mates in the clubhouse began to call him the incredible hulk! Before then he was an above-average player. I find it comical that fans over-all detest steriod taking atheletes...EXCEPT when it's their player. Example? When Bonds would come to sandy eggo he was booed roundly and had things thrown at him like plastic toy syringes BUT when ken caminitti came to the inaugrial game at petco he was cheered and given a standing ovation although he admitted to using roids his mvp season and beyond. You'll get more proof when barry is convicted at trial. As far as Ruth goes, his insatiable addiction to hot dogs and beer is pretty well documented in dozens of books.

Bargnani
12-25-2008, 03:12 PM
Babe Ruth no doubt about it. Here's a bit of information on the Great Bambino.

We have that image of that big overweight guy and his famous home run trot. Most of that footage came in later years. As a young player he was an excellent base runner. Not to be confused with his poor base stealing percentage, something he never learned. As strictly a base runner he could take the extra base, his judgement on the bases was very good.

Younger, he could also cover ground in the outfield and runner feared his rifle arm.
Can anyone imagine Babe Ruth pulling off the following. In one game in the early 1920s, playing left field he chased down a fly curving away from him towards the foul line, close to grandstand. He did not catch up with the ball and unable to stop, hit the railing and did a complete somersault into the bleachers as the runner was circling the bases. The NY Times description, "All that could be seen was Babe's feet sticking straight up into the air. His upper body and head buried between the seats. In a second he righted himself, jumped the railing, chased down the ball and threw out Chick Galloway who was shooting for an inside the park homer. That was the last out of the inning, Galloway was injured on the play at home. There was another casualty, The Babe. On his way to the dugout the fans stood and cheered, his face was bruised and his left hand, held at his side was bleeding."

Just had to get that little story in, to show there was more to him than just a big guy that hit home runs and ate lots of hot dogs. On the playing field he always went all out.

As a pitcher, only two pitchers had better stats than him in the years he was a pitcher only 1915-16-17. Two of the greatest Walter Johnson and Grover Alexander and he wasn't far behind them in those three seasons
A natural. Think about it, confined in an institution from the age of 7 to 19 years old. Playing on a poorly kept field at St. Marys, not exposed to the outside world. He goes right to the International League and is the best pitcher.
His record 23-8 and he leads the league in winning percentage, innings pitched and strikeouts. Also the league leader an outfielder with twice as many at bats leads the league in triples has 15, Babe a pitcher is second with 11 triples, already a hint of his power at the plate.

1916 could have been a Cy Young Award year, had there been an award. In 1917 he almost no-hit the best hitting team in both leagues, the Detroit Tigers. With two outs in the 8th inning a hard hit grounder off his leg, infield hit was the only hit. A could have been Cy Young Award and almost a no-hitter, the same player who also missed a .400 season in 1923. He hit .393 and 4 more hits would have put him at .400. One player, the same man possible award for the best pitcher of the year, almost a no-hitter and almost a .400 season.

World Series record 3-0 and he still has the second lowest ERA in the WS for a starting pitcher with 30 or more innings, .087.

Up against the great Walter Johnson, in 9 matchups Babe won 6 times. To be fair to Walter Babe played for a better team but they were no give me games, Babe had to really pitch. Of his 6 wins, 3 were by a 1-0 score.

Credit to ShoelessJoe

giantspwn
12-25-2008, 10:14 PM
Bonds did it on steroids, Ruth did it on hot dogs and beer. Go babe

First off, wheres the evidence he took steroids? Even if he did, who hasn't used them in this era.

Second, Ruth faced much inferior talent. Ruth didn't even get to face black players. Bonds also put up his offensive numbers in a stadium where LHH's go to die. Bonds probably would have hit 900 HR had he played in Yankee stadium.

Not to mention Bonds defensive and base running ability far exceed Ruth's extra ability to pitch. IMHO.

baseball4ever
12-26-2008, 05:57 AM
Yeah in Ruth's day they played on infields full of pebbles. The outfield grass was uneven and didn't resemble the putting greens these outfielders play on today. The gloves were hardly bigger than your hand; not like the tennis racket-sized gloves used now and all the body armour and batting gloves! Give me those old guys from the classic era. Today's players may be bigger, stronger and faster but they sure are not as durable. How many times did Ruth spend on the D. L. compared to "roid boy"?

baseball4ever
12-26-2008, 05:59 AM
Oh yeah, the outfield in old Yankee Stadium was much more immense than the one Bonds would have played on. Monument park behind the outfield wall was part of the outfield back then.

nygiants242
12-26-2008, 06:06 AM
Bonds was a much bette overall player. Bonds faced better players. As for the steroids it has NOT been proven yet. Trust me, I hate the guy, I think he's despicable.. but there hasn't been any evidence yet!!

baseball4ever
12-26-2008, 08:24 AM
Evidence is where you find or look for it. The Mitchell report is being dissed just like the report that indicted pete rose. At the time everyone called it b.s. but it turned out to be true. How is it that a guy at the age of 37 explodes in body mass and offensive stats so much so that his team-mates called him the incredible hulk?

In any event I guess we will find out when the jury returns it's verdict. As fas as Bonds statement that "I'll be back". Ummm barry I know you want the 3,000 hits but hey roids or not, you had a great career. Time to step aside. On the other hand he has more than likely racked up some huge legal bills and needs to reoup that. So where is he going to go? To the A.L. as a D.H. Would he "lower" himself to do that?

todu82
12-26-2008, 10:50 AM
Babe Ruth.

NYMetros
12-26-2008, 11:26 AM
Ruth.

Old Sweater
12-26-2008, 11:30 AM
The proof on Bonds is documented in the Mitchell Report. The year he is reported as begining to take steroids his offensive numbers skyrocketed as did his weight. In fact, his team-mates in the clubhouse began to call him the incredible hulk! Before then he was an above-average player. I find it comical that fans over-all detest steriod taking atheletes...EXCEPT when it's their player. Example? When Bonds would come to sandy eggo he was booed roundly and had things thrown at him like plastic toy syringes BUT when ken caminitti came to the inaugrial game at petco he was cheered and given a standing ovation although he admitted to using roids his mvp season and beyond. You'll get more proof when barry is convicted at trial. As far as Ruth goes, his insatiable addiction to hot dogs and beer is pretty well documented in dozens of books.

The wieght gain by Bonds wasn't put on in 1 or 2 years. He put on wieght 1993-1996 to weight between 210-220. It's just easier for Bonds haters to believe Canseco.

I think I typed this up from the book Asterisk that debunked a lot of myth about Bonds and steroids. Plus muscle from PED's drives the ball no further then muscle from training hard, which Bonds was a freak of. Especially compared to Ruth. At least he looks like a baseball player in his latter years.





Many people believe Bond used stroids say the way Bonds looks is itself evidence of significant steroid use. From the pages of 'Shadows' we learn that "to some experts, the changes in Bond's body over the course of his career constitute persuasive evidence of steroid use." They say Bonds gained 43 pounds over a 17-year peroid-an average of 2.5 pounds per year. Because the weight gain is said to consist primarily of muscle, as opposed to fat, it is viewed as evidence of significant steroid use.But it isn't the weight gain. The (rat bastard) Shadows authors and others believe that Bonds head or skull has grown significantly over the years. As Shadows tell us.......The Barry Bonds of 2001 didn't look anything like the lithe, young pirate who used to knock the ball into the gap, acclerate as he took the turn at first base, and fly into second for a double. Actually, with his massive, pumped-up musculate, his shaven head, his fierce game face, and the diamond earring danging from his left ear, the Bonds of 2001 didn't look like any baseball player you had ever seen. Bond's looked like a WWE wrestler, or a toy superhuman action figure, but not a ballplayer.

"It Looks Like He's on Steroids"Barry Bonds just looks like he's on steroids! As "proof" of Bond's alleged steroid use, his accusers say Bonds:

1. Gained all that weight
2. Suddenly had muscles
3. Had acne on his back
4. Saw his head grow
5. Saw his hair fall out
6. Saw his testicles shrink

Is the way a person looks really evidence of anything? Does the way a person looks really prove anything?In the off-season between 1992 and 1993, Bonds started working out under the supervision of Jim Warren, a personal trainer who usually worked with football players. According to Warren,"Our goal was for Bonds to become a 50 home run, 50 steal player." Warren explains:We done a ton of sprinting and weights. Bonds was as thin as a whippet when I started working with him. But by the time he reported, he was an athletic freak-Terrell Owens with a baseball bat. We're talking about a 4.4 sprinter who can dunk a basketball, shoot bows and arrows, and throw with either hand.Bonds reported to camp with a newley barreled chest, oak tree arms, powerful legs, and 8% body fat."So long before 2001, Bonds no longer had the build of a whippet. Although he still had speed, he was gaining weight, gaining muscle and getting bigger. This was early in 1993, more then five years before anyone accuses of having taken steroids and seven years before Canseco falsely says Bonds suddenly grew muscles and gained 40 pounds all at once. By 1996, Bonds was bench pressing 315 pounds, (up from 230), hitting the ball harder then ever, and looking more and more like a football player in a baseball uniform. And this was still years before anyone says he may have started taking steroids.Think about it-before Bonds ever purportedly took a single dose of any steroid, he had mataured and already weighed between 210 and 220 pounds. He had already improved his bench press capability by a whopping 35 percent. Those who contend Bonds must have been on steroids because he suddenly gained 40 pounds are relying on falsehoods. It's as simple as that.Also from Bonds trainer Jim Warren for those who think that Bonds got all his magic out of a needle and for those that think steroids grows a red cape and blue suit with a big "S" on it.Mid 90's from Jim Warren (Bonds Trainer)I've trained a couple hundred NFL players and probably 50 MLB players and a ton of world-class sprinters and triathletes, but in 25 years I've never found anyone who took training as seriously, with as much passion and commitment, as Barry. I've never had anyone show up early, work hard, stay on task, do the **** nobody wants to do, and stick with it every single day.



No one has ever been more committed to being the world's best baseball player then Bonds. If weight training can produce muscle without steroid ingestion(and we know it can), then Bonds physique is not proof of steroid use.Get ready for this-there was no change in Bonds arm size after 1995. That's right, Silva says he hasn't had to re-mold Bonds arm size(for custom elbow pad) since 1995 and that is at least 3 years before Bonds allegedly started using steroids. In a paperback version of Game of Shadows, the authors include as afterword that implies that Bonds must have been using HGH because his shoe size increased from 10 1/2 to 13.This is another good example of the hysteria that has been devoted to the "Get Bonds" campaign. An increaced shoe size does not prove Bonds used HGH. In recent years, people have come to understand that a slightly larger shoe is usually more comfortable and better for the foot. But that recognition may not be the only reason Bonds started searing larger shoes. Dr. Matt Ward, president of Podiatric Sports Medicine, explains: "Keep in mind that foot size will often increase with age, due to a weakening and loosening of the muscles, tendons, and the ligaments that hold together the bones and joints in are foot. As our waistline and body increases, so does the size of our feet."Like Williams, Hornsby, Ruth and Shoeless Joe Jackson, Bonds gained 30 or more pounds over the course of his career. It would really be strange if Bonds stil wore the same shoe size he was wearing 20 years ago. But an increased shoe size is perfectly concistent with aging and weight gain. In addition, a two and a half-size increase typically means less than one inch in actual foot elongation. To the extent any part of the increase reflects comfort concerns, as opposed to actual foot expansion, we're talking about even more minimal expansion.Perhaps the weakest and most shamless indictment of Bonds is based on the argument that his head grew suddenly and dramatically. Ther are two basic flaws with the head-size argument. Both sort of jump out at you. First, how do we know that Bon's head has grown? There are rumors that the Gieants started ordering larger hats for Bonds, but Bonds says his ha size has stayed the same--7 1/4 to 7 3/8. Kraanz says the Bonds hats he collected were never that big, ranging from 7 1/8 to 7 1/4, but Bonds accused Kranz of selling countefeit merchandise. At this point it seems people may be confusing face size with head size. Take a look at before-and-after weight-loss photos. They'r easy to find. You will often note that the before picture depicts aperson who weights more than the person in the after photo. Some of that weight is stored in the face, and it makes the head appear larger.There is a second reason why the head-size argument seems particularly flimsy. As far as we know, none of the attackers is using actual medical evidence to support the claim that adult head size can only increase if one suffers from acromegaly or takes large quantities of HGH.

MVPedroia
01-01-2009, 01:35 AM
Babe.

steroid boy shouldn't even be in the same sentence as Ruth

yaowowrocket11
01-01-2009, 02:20 PM
I have a hard time comparing these 2 players, but Bonds played in a much harder era, and succeeded as one of the greatest hitters of all time. I voted for Barry Bonds here, but Ruth was one of the greatest players in history, no doubt about it.

ShinobiNYC
01-01-2009, 02:57 PM
I have a hard time comparing these 2 players, but Bonds played in a much harder era, and succeeded as one of the greatest hitters of all time. I voted for Barry Bonds here, but Ruth was one of the greatest players in history, no doubt about it.

This is the real Bonds as a hitter:


Year Ag Tm Lg G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG *OPS+ TB SH SF IBB HBP GDP
+--------------+---+----+----+----+---+--+---+----+---+--+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+---+---+
1986 21 PIT NL 113 413 72 92 26 3 16 48 36 7 65 102 .223 .330 .416 103 172 2 2 2 2 4 RoY-6
1987 22 PIT NL 150 551 99 144 34 9 25 59 32 10 54 88 .261 .329 .492 114 271 0 3 3 3 4
1988 23 PIT NL 144 538 97 152 30 5 24 58 17 11 72 82 .283 .368 .491 148 264 0 2 14 2 3
1989 24 PIT NL 159 580 96 144 34 6 19 58 32 10 93 93 .248 .351 .426 126 247 1 4 22 1 9
1990 25 PIT NL 151 519 104 156 32 3 33 114 52 13 93 83 .301 .406 .565 170 293 0 6 15 3 8 SS,MVP-1,AS
1991 26 PIT NL 153 510 95 149 28 5 25 116 43 13 107 73 .292 .410 .514 160 262 0 13 25 4 8 SS,MVP-2
1992 27 PIT NL 140 473 109 147 36 5 34 103 39 8 127 69 .311 .456 .624 205 295 0 7 32 5 9 SS,MVP-1,AS
1993 28 SFG NL 159 539 129 181 38 4 46 123 29 12 126 79 .336 .458 .677 204 365 0 7 43 2 11 SS,MVP-1,AS
1994 29 SFG NL 112 391 89 122 18 1 37 81 29 9 74 43 .312 .426 .647 183 253 0 3 18 6 3 SS,MVP-4,AS
1995 30 SFG NL 144 506 109 149 30 7 33 104 31 10 120 83 .294 .431 .577 168 292 0 4 22 5 12 MVP-12,AS
1996 31 SFG NL 158 517 122 159 27 3 42 129 40 7 151 76 .308 .461 .615 188 318 0 6 30 1 11 SS,MVP-5,AS
1997 32 SFG NL 159 532 123 155 26 5 40 101 37 8 145 87 .291 .446 .585 170 311 0 5 34 8 13 SS,MVP-5,AS
1998 33 SFG NL 156 552 120 167 44 7 37 122 28 12 130 92 .303 .438 .609 178 336 1 6 29 8 15 MVP-8,AS
1999 34 SFG NL 102 355 91 93 20 2 34 83 15 2 73 62 .262 .389 .617 155 219 0 3 9 3 6 MVP-24
2000 35 SFG NL 143 480 129 147 28 4 49 106 11 3 117 77 .306 .440 .688 188 330 0

Clearly one of the best but he is no Ruth stats wise.

Westbrook36
01-01-2009, 03:36 PM
Babe did it drunk half the time. I had to go with him

:laugh2: He use to swing the bat with disregard.

bagwell368
01-01-2009, 03:39 PM
The wieght gain by Bonds wasn't put on in 1 or 2 years. He put on wieght 1993-1996 to weight between 210-220. It's just easier for Bonds haters to believe Canseco.

I think I typed this up from the book Asterisk that debunked a lot of myth about Bonds and steroids. Plus muscle from PED's drives the ball no further then muscle from training hard, which Bonds was a freak of. Especially compared to Ruth. At least he looks like a baseball player in his latter years.

I'm sorry, that's wrong. He put on 26 lbs in one 4 months span, when he went from thin but ultra solid, to pumpkin headed freak. Every muscle building expert - scientific, training, whatever has said it is impossible w/o artificial means. The most they agreed a man of his age could add in that time would be 5 lbs, and even that was right at the outside limit even for a world class athlete. It was either before 1999 or before 2000 - at the moment I cannot remember which.

About 7-10 months ago I posted a series of pictures of Bonds covering his career - and showing the progression about every two years. 1999-2002 progression is all you need to see. Freakish.

So, he goes from being a great at a level somewhere between Mantle/FRob/Musial - IE .315/.435/.615 to a mutant who posts .340/.570/.800 at ages 36, 37, 38, 39. No other player in the history of the game has done anything like that amount of improvement, and those that might be seen as close did it comparing what they did pre age 25 compared to age 26-30, not a man with a long resume of 14 years as one type of player, who became another type.

You want us to believe that a man who typically hit (33 HR in 1992 in 506 AB's at age 30 - 1 HR every 15.33 AB) becomes a guy with 45 HR in 2004 in 373 AB's - 1 HR every 8.28 AB - at age 39??

Honestly, this is a joke right?

fishfan79
01-01-2009, 08:15 PM
barry = cheater
shouldnt be in the conversation he isnt even the best giant of all time

ruth was better wih the bat and heck was a better pitcher then most folks have ever seen.

bagwell368
01-01-2009, 08:45 PM
barry = cheater
shouldnt be in the conversation he isnt even the best giant of all time

ruth was better wih the bat and heck was a better pitcher then most folks have ever seen.

Look, I just cut up Barry right? Barry wasn't a cheater before, the stats and pics make the case quite easily. Barry Bonds's best 7 seasons before Y 2000 blow away Willie Mays best 7 seasons - with the bat, on the bases, and while Willie gets extra credit for CF over Bonds in LF, its pretty easy to argue that Bonds and Mays were the #1 fielders at their positions all time - so the edge is maybe 4-5 runs a year prevented by Mays. Mays big problem is that he didn't walk much.

The issue is, neither Bonds (if you exclude pre 2000) nor Mays is in the argument for best hitter of all time. Best 10-20? Sure thing.

It is doubtful that Ruth threw the baseball more then 92 MPH in a game, and if that high more then 3-4 times per game because it wasn't necessary. He along with pitchers of his time look more like BP guys then anything else these days.

If Pedro, RC. RJ, Gibson, Seaver were to go to 1916 they would wipe out all the pitching records of that time - with ease.

IRNMN
01-02-2009, 01:09 AM
I'm looking past any steriod aligations and still going with Ruth. Both great players, but since this is about hitting the Babe wins. All around Bonds by far.

07MVPPatBurrell
01-02-2009, 02:07 AM
First off, wheres the evidence he took steroids? Even if he did, who hasn't used them in this era.

tim lincecum!

Bargnani
01-02-2009, 11:13 AM
Sorry, but anyone who says Barry Bonds is better then Ruth then they dont know about the history of the game. You can try to defend your opinion, but I'll counter it and make you look wrong.

So any members that voted for Bonds over Ruth want a debate with me? Maybe Bagwell does it seems he's one of the most knowledgable members at these forums when it comes to the history of the game.

bagwell368
01-02-2009, 12:31 PM
Firstly, it's basically impossible to come to a true reading of what is what. If you just take what's on paper - then Ruth's advantage as a hitter and a pitcher swallows up Bonds advantage on the bases, and the first 10 years or so as a fielder.

However - there is something suspicious when a player like Ruth looks like he's odds on favorite to still be in #1 500 years from now.

Why?

#1. more people play the game today - a lot more around the world, that are allowed to play in the US, the training, diet, etc. is better. Players can afford to not work and stay in shape all off season. Given the money few want to become barflys and have the game toss them out at age 33. This means that there isn't 1 or 2 babe ruth's playing today, there are 40.

#2. Babe brought back the long fly after it died in the 1880's. The BS scandal made the game more then ready for a change, he brought it, and he dominated. But then between 1925 and 1935 a whole generation of hitters nearly his equal appeared. Gehrig, Foxx, etc. 4 more years, and Ted showed up.

Therefore while Ruth is basically untouchable in a book, my measure is the current game - 2007 AL rules for instance. I am quite sure Mr Ruth would not bat in the .340's, nor hit for anywhere near those numbers as he did. What would become of him if he grew up now? Who knows that's even more speculative then what I already touched on.

I have a 25 man AS team, and Ruth isn't on it. The earliest guys would be Grove, Ted, Musial.

So, it comes down to biases, what you believe, and all of that. If I had to play a 7 game Series, and I needed a corner OF and my choice was Bonds or Ruth, and the rules/equipment was today, I'd take Bonds. I might even take Jason Bay over Ruth.

Bargnani
01-02-2009, 05:27 PM
#1. more people play the game today - a lot more around the world, that are allowed to play in the US, the training, diet, etc. is better. Players can afford to not work and stay in shape all off season. Given the money few want to become barflys and have the game toss them out at age 33. This means that there isn't 1 or 2 babe ruth's playing today, there are 40.


I don't believe this is true. In Ruth's day baseball was bigger than today. When Ruth began playing baseball was THE sport, the National Pastime. Baseball enjoyed about a 30-year headstart over football and basketball. By 1920 these were well established amateur sports but lagged baseball as a profession. Baseball's minor leagues were a huge part of the game and formed a rich talent pool. In 1910 there were 44 "official" minor leagues which played complete seasons, probably containing at least 300+ professional teams. While this was the high-water mark until after WW2 (The Great War and the Depression hit baseball hard) it indicates just how huge baseball was. The opportunities baseball offered far exceeded other sports.

It is true that the Major Leagues were not scouting in other nations (Cuba being the lone exception), but baseball was also big throughout the Caribbean countries. With so many home-grown players available teams didn't have to go far to find talent. And, of course, segregation prevented great black athletes from competeing vs. white major leaguers except for the occasional exhibition game. Still, even with those restrictions, The talent pool available was enormous. The skill of the "replacement level" players of 1920 or 1930 probably wasn't much different from today, the main difference being modern players are a bit stronger and more likely to hit the occasional HR. But what they have gained in strength they have given up in bat control. In a HR-friendly era you take the power over the singles.

Modern players do have many advantages. They benefit from everything that has been learned over the decades since Ruth played. But there is no way the 40th best hitter today is anywhere close to Babe Ruth. Talent like that comes along just a few times a generation. Barry Bonds, aided by chemicals, became a more dangerous hitter than Babe Ruth was in the 1920s. Barry Bonds before PEDs was a brilliant player but did not have as much power as Babe Ruth. I would rank that version of Barry just behind Mays and Aaron.

MORE TO COME LATER

k_rock923
01-02-2009, 05:38 PM
In addition to better hitting numbers, Ruth was also a successful pitcher. How can he not be a better all around player?

The L Train
01-02-2009, 05:46 PM
you cant compare the two... many have tried, all have failed...

too much has changed in the game, too much time has passed, and NO ONE here ever saw babe ruth play, so it's not a question that can be answered...

now if the question is, who do YOU like more, who in your OPINION is better, fine, i pick bonds... and a lot of people with pick ruth, but there's no factual or statistical way to prove either side because its a different game...

but i'd pick barry bonds all day long... and dont give me that BS about ruth being able to pitch... i'd LOVE to see him pitch against the guys in the league today... what a joke...

plus im pretty sure you're not allowed to play while drunk in todays league... right?

he wouldnt survive today, being the raging alcoholic and douchebag that history says he was...

The L Train
01-02-2009, 05:54 PM
Ruth did it without facing Satchel Paige, Pedro Martinez, Johan Santana, Mariano Rivera, CC Sabathia, and bullpen specialists. Not facing non-whites and facing starters who pitched over 300 innings a year while not facing bullpen specialists is a definite advantage, possibly as much or even more than steroids, considering how many of the pitchers Bonds faced were on steroids as well.


:clap: BRAVO :clap:

i would LOVE to see pedro in his prime against ruth in his prime, two at bats... a strikeout, and a fastball to the skull...

Bargnani
01-02-2009, 05:58 PM
you cant compare the two... many have tried, all have failed...

too much has changed in the game, too much time has passed, and NO ONE here ever saw babe ruth play, so it's not a question that can be answered...

now if the question is, who do YOU like more, who in your OPINION is better, fine, i pick bonds... and a lot of people with pick ruth, but there's no factual or statistical way to prove either side because its a different game...

but i'd pick barry bonds all day long... and dont give me that BS about ruth being able to pitch... i'd LOVE to see him pitch against the guys in the league today... what a joke...

plus im pretty sure you're not allowed to play while drunk in todays league... right?

he wouldnt survive today, being the raging alcoholic and douchebag that history says he was...


Sorry, but if you knew the history of the game, then yes it's easy to determine who the better player was, if you dont then you won't.

Also I don't even want to bother with your last sentence, it makes me laugh, it shows that you dont know the history of the game.

vick27m
01-02-2009, 06:25 PM
its clearly ruth he was a great pitcher and a great batter bonds was a great hitter on steroids and i just cant stand bonds. so i voted for ruth.

The L Train
01-02-2009, 06:51 PM
Sorry, but if you knew the history of the game, then yes it's easy to determine who the better player was, if you dont then you won't.

Also I don't even want to bother with your last sentence, it makes me laugh, it shows that you dont know the history of the game.


oh im sorry sir, i apologize... i didnt realize there was a hundred year old man posting on this forum...

you're right, since im just over only a quarter of your age, i have no way of knowing the history of the game from the perspective of someone who was there to see it all live, like you...

would you mind, if your fingers arent too tired, telling me what it was like to see the babe play in person?

maybe you would care to share your amazing knowledge of the history of baseball with the rest of us, the ignorant and unknowing peons who happen not to have been born when ruth played...

The L Train
01-02-2009, 06:58 PM
Sorry, but if you knew the history of the game, then yes it's easy to determine who the better player was, if you dont then you won't.

Also I don't even want to bother with your last sentence, it makes me laugh, it shows that you dont know the history of the game.


and DO correct me if my last sentence was wrong... i dont know where i got the crazy idea that babe ruth drank alcohol and had a myriad of problems in his personal life...

paint me a picture of the REAL babe ruth, who was apparently a sober, soft spoken, non violent racially unbiased pillar of his community who spent his spare time planting flowers, writing poetry and kissing babies on the forehead...

JAYZFAN9
01-02-2009, 07:07 PM
The Babe was a beauty ill take im over the juicer

The L Train
01-02-2009, 07:23 PM
Firstly, it's basically impossible to come to a true reading of what is what. If you just take what's on paper - then Ruth's advantage as a hitter and a pitcher swallows up Bonds advantage on the bases, and the first 10 years or so as a fielder.

However - there is something suspicious when a player like Ruth looks like he's odds on favorite to still be in #1 500 years from now.

Why?

#1. more people play the game today - a lot more around the world, that are allowed to play in the US, the training, diet, etc. is better. Players can afford to not work and stay in shape all off season. Given the money few want to become barflys and have the game toss them out at age 33. This means that there isn't 1 or 2 babe ruth's playing today, there are 40.

#2. Babe brought back the long fly after it died in the 1880's. The BS scandal made the game more then ready for a change, he brought it, and he dominated. But then between 1925 and 1935 a whole generation of hitters nearly his equal appeared. Gehrig, Foxx, etc. 4 more years, and Ted showed up.

Therefore while Ruth is basically untouchable in a book, my measure is the current game - 2007 AL rules for instance. I am quite sure Mr Ruth would not bat in the .340's, nor hit for anywhere near those numbers as he did. What would become of him if he grew up now? Who knows that's even more speculative then what I already touched on.

I have a 25 man AS team, and Ruth isn't on it. The earliest guys would be Grove, Ted, Musial.

So, it comes down to biases, what you believe, and all of that. If I had to play a 7 game Series, and I needed a corner OF and my choice was Bonds or Ruth, and the rules/equipment was today, I'd take Bonds. I might even take Jason Bay over Ruth.

GREAT post...

my guess is, if ruth grew up in our time, he would probably be in prison for a hate crime, drunk driving, or beating his wife... just a guess...

The L Train
01-02-2009, 07:24 PM
oh, and he wouldnt have made it to MLB...

unless B stands for Bowling... MAYBE...

bagwell368
01-02-2009, 07:31 PM
I don't believe this is true. In Ruth's day baseball was bigger than today.

Thanks for walking into that one.

What was the population of the US in his time 90 million? So 45 million males. Of which maybe a 1/3 were between 18-40 years old. Say 18 million males. Oops, better toss out people of color.

Today, the S. American rim, Japan, Korea, Canada, even Australia together with the US (including people of color now) have numbers that stagger 1920 US. It is true that there are more other sports and amusements sucking people away, but there is a potential population of maybe 700 million males of that age to pick from. Whoa.

I can personally attest to the fact that the coaching my 11 gets is as good as anything I saw in Vasrsity High School. And that's the 70's to today. You think any player would go from a pitcher today into the #1 hitter? Ankiel, Tony C. and a few others have done OK switching, but none was anywhere near great at both - hence the need for the change. Like I said, a guy that does something nobody else can do is as much or more proof of unusual circumstances then once in a millenium talent.

Oh yes, I would suggest that the most baseball crazy country of all time is the Dominican Republic, and its most crazy time is now, the US of Ruth's time can't touch that ferocity of love for the game nor outpouring of talent.


But there is no way the 40th best hitter today is anywhere close to Babe Ruth.

Says you.... And I say he's just as likely to be Steve Balboni in 2007, then Albert Pujols - actually more so to be Balboni or Dunn, then anything at an elite level.

Bargnani
01-02-2009, 07:35 PM
First off, I've been studying the game for about 40 years now, so I believe I know what I'm talking about.

Also do you actually realize that almost every ball player during Ruths time were Alcoholics? One of best pitchers of all time Grover Alexander was a bigger drunk then Babe Ruth. If you would read up on the History of the game then I am sure you'd realize that.

I'm sorry that I sounded rude, it wasn't my intention, but saying what you just said, especially Ruth wouldn't be able to play in todays game is simply ridiculous and laughable.

I never said he wasnt a drunk and a womanizer, all I did is that I was laughing at your last sentence that you saying that he wouldn't survive in todays game.

The L Train
01-02-2009, 09:26 PM
First off, I've been studying the game for about 40 years now, so I believe I know what I'm talking about.

Also do you actually realize that almost every ball player during Ruths time were Alcoholics? One of best pitchers of all time Grover Alexander was a bigger drunk then Babe Ruth. If you would read up on the History of the game then I am sure you'd realize that.

I'm sorry that I sounded rude, it wasn't my intention, but saying what you just said, especially Ruth wouldn't be able to play in todays game is simply ridiculous and laughable.

I never said he wasnt a drunk and a womanizer, all I did is that I was laughing at your last sentence that you saying that he wouldn't survive in todays game.


you have been studying baseball for a long time, and i dont dispute that you know what you're talking about... i suppose i may have overemphasized my point, and im sorry if i came off sounding rude... i was expecting to deal with another bonds basher with no evidence to back up their claims... there are a lot of them on this forum, and i've dealt with them a lot, so my guard is up when barry bonds is the topic...

also, i never really thought about how many alcoholics there were in the game back then, but it makes sense that there were a lot, and certainly that ruth wasnt the only one...

based on what i know of baseball, what ive seen personally, i cant imagine a player being better than barry bonds all around... i've read the transcript from his indictment, and i dont believe there is sufficient, if ANY proof that he used steroids... i do know that a lot of pitchers in todays game have been caught red handed...

given that, it's hard for me to believe that a player from ruth's era, an era before steroids and hgh and hardcore diet and workout regimens, could compete against todays pitchers...

i may be naive, but how could ruth's natural talent be SO superior to anyone who has walked the earth that he could be better than guys today who are cheating?

it also seems unlikely that the best player of all time would be dead... i know that sounds funny, but it seems to me that in most areas of life, the abilities and skills of human beings improve as time goes on, so it would seem logical that it would be the same in the sports world...

ten years ago, if you said michael jordan was the greatest basketball player of all time, NO ONE would have argued with you... except kobe, maybe... but now, we see a guy like lebron james, and it seems possible to some that he could eclipse MJ one day... there will always be some people who say michael is the greatest no matter WHO comes along, but im sure as humanity and technology continue to evolve, players will continue to improve, and who knows what the limit is...

so it seems unlikely that in all the time that has passed since babe ruth played that players havent improved significantly.... could ruth really be the be all end all greatest player ever? it's my opinion, but i dont think so, based on what i've seen...

another poster made an excellent point, that ruth only had to face and compete against white guys... a similar argument is often presented in the michael jordan debate, people say he didnt have the same kind of competition that exists today... it's very hard to know what it would be like if michael and kobe and lebron were all in their prime at the same time, same goes for barry and the babe...

also, we all know the stories about josh gibson and sadaharu oh... where would you rank them among the all time greats? yes they both hit more home runs than bonds, but they cant be called king because they didnt play in the same league, and therefore a fair comparison cant be made... i feel the same way about this discussion, i dont think there's any definitive way of proving who is/was a better player...

k_rock923
01-02-2009, 10:22 PM
Wouldn't Ruth benefit from the new training methods and diets, though? He'd also get better.

bagwell368
01-02-2009, 10:44 PM
Sorry, but if you knew the history of the game, then yes it's easy to determine who the better player was, if you dont then you won't.

Poppycock. You mean if we agree with you, we are the cognoscenti, and if not, we are the great unwashed?

I was brought up to believe Ruth, Cobb, etc. were great - burnished into golden bronze statues by the adoring writers who wouldn't know Adjust OPS+ from their own belly button lint.

The 20's is hard to figure for sure due to lack of good film - but the 30's is another story - I've seen a lot of film of Ott, DiMaggio, etc. and I have yet to witness anybody from that time that really matches on film what the stats say that they were. If anything the players in 1921 were weaker - especially compared to 1936.

The reason Ruth becomes harder for me to accept every year I look at him is simple statistics - especially outlying events. He was great in his time, and he totally changed the game - at the same time. Those two events had a statistical effect not unlike Bonds and HGH.

Let's look at some great years, all the best OPS+ of the year in their league. The first set is dead ball guys.

Brou 1886: .370/.445/.581 11 HR 206 OPS+
Wagn 1908: .354/.415/.542 10 HR 205 OPS+
Cobb 1910: .383/.456/.551 8 HR 206 OPS+

The second set is not. Notice how once Babe showed up with the deep fly, he was nearly equaled right away (careful OPS+ in a league full of dead ball hitters is a lie - so his numbers need to be adjusted down. Now look at the parade of guys that followed, many years look a lot like Babe Ruth years. An accident of timing, and the nerve he had to go back to the long fly. I promise that Mantle in '56 and Bags in '94 would mop the floor with Ruth in reality.

You want to live you life in a book go ahead. He's dead.

Ruth 1921: .378/.512/.846 59 HR 256 OPS+
Horn 1925: .403/.489/.756 39 HR 210 OPS+
Gehr 1927: .373/.474/.765 47 HR 221 OPS+
Foxx 1932: .364/.469/.749 58 HR 205 OPS+
TedW 1941: .406/.553/.735 37 HR 235 OPS+
Musl 1948: .376/.450/.702 39 HR 200 OPS+
Mant 1956 .353/.464/.705 52 HR 223 OPS+
McCv 1969: .320/.453/.656 45 HR 209 OBP+
Bags 1994: .368/.451/.750 39 HR 213 OBP+
Bond 1993: .336/.458/.677 46 HR 204 OBP+

bagwell368
01-02-2009, 10:47 PM
there will always be some people who say michael is the greatest no matter WHO comes along, but im sure as humanity and technology continue to evolve, players will continue to improve, and who knows what the limit is...


Not me, with traveling called correctly most "super stars" since the 70's would be lost. Jordan had weak competition due to a watered down league. The Celts, Lakers, Pistons, and 76'ers of the 80's would have wiped the floor with the Bulls.

The game today has somewhat recovered and this year and last years Celts also would stomp the Bulls...

sorry, back to baseball.

bagwell368
01-02-2009, 10:50 PM
GREAT post...

my guess is, if ruth grew up in our time, he would probably be in prison for a hate crime, drunk driving, or beating his wife... just a guess...

Actually I'm a little kinder. I have him wiping out his knee in High School Football and never setting foot on the diamond after age 12 because of his dislike of authority, and love of contact sports.

bagwell368
01-02-2009, 10:54 PM
Wouldn't Ruth benefit from the new training methods and diets, though? He'd also get better.

sure but how far do you go? He was orphan. Orphan's still play sandlot? Not really. They play video games and basketball since its cheaper. Bye Bye Babe.

The L Train
01-02-2009, 10:57 PM
Wouldn't Ruth benefit from the new training methods and diets, though? He'd also get better.

he would, but that would change the whole discussion... if the question is which of the two is better, as is, bonds or ruth, thats one thing... but if the question is 'what if ruth played today?' that's completely different...

i mean, if you or i had grown up doing nothing but training and special diets and workouts and devoted our entire childhood and early life to baseball, one could argue that we could have become the best of all time too...

i think that adds yet another variable to a question that simply cannot be answered...

k_rock923
01-03-2009, 12:15 AM
he would, but that would change the whole discussion... if the question is which of the two is better, as is, bonds or ruth, thats one thing... but if the question is 'what if ruth played today?' that's completely different...

i mean, if you or i had grown up doing nothing but training and special diets and workouts and devoted our entire childhood and early life to baseball, one could argue that we could have become the best of all time too...

i think that adds yet another variable to a question that simply cannot be answered...

I agree, it's impossible to make a real comparison. However, I really like Ruth, so I voted for him :D

bagwell368
01-03-2009, 12:46 AM
he would, but that would change the whole discussion... if the question is which of the two is better, as is, bonds or ruth, thats one thing... but if the question is 'what if ruth played today?' that's completely different...

i mean, if you or i had grown up doing nothing but training and special diets and workouts and devoted our entire childhood and early life to baseball, one could argue that we could have become the best of all time too...

i think that adds yet another variable to a question that simply cannot be answered...

He was an orphan, wake up! they do not get this type of life. at best if he got into college on a sports scholarship. But then he's not playing until he's what 24-25 years old... face it, he wouldn't make it today - either as he was, or as he would have become.

championmets
01-03-2009, 01:22 AM
First off, I've been studying the game for about 40 years now, so I believe I know what I'm talking about.

Also do you actually realize that almost every ball player during Ruths time were Alcoholics? One of best pitchers of all time Grover Alexander was a bigger drunk then Babe Ruth. If you would read up on the History of the game then I am sure you'd realize that.

I'm sorry that I sounded rude, it wasn't my intention, but saying what you just said, especially Ruth wouldn't be able to play in todays game is simply ridiculous and laughable.

I never said he wasnt a drunk and a womanizer, all I did is that I was laughing at your last sentence that you saying that he wouldn't survive in todays game.

I can't believe someone can actually think that being a drunk in this day and age wouldn't survive in todays day and age. Wasn't there a perfect game pitched by some fat man, o yea david wells, and look at every player on the 86 mets all drunks, you can be an alcholic in todays game. It was also tougher times alcoholism was just a way to realize how bad of a world the depression really was.

Also If your comparing era's there is no way the pitching was better today than it was in early 1900's, also if you look up the ballparks back they, they were a lot bigger

Old Sweater
01-03-2009, 03:45 AM
I'm sorry, that's wrong. He put on 26 lbs in one 4 months span, when he went from thin but ultra solid, to pumpkin headed freak. Every muscle building expert - scientific, training, whatever has said it is impossible w/o artificial means. The most they agreed a man of his age could add in that time would be 5 lbs, and even that was right at the outside limit even for a world class athlete. It was either before 1999 or before 2000 - at the moment I cannot remember which.

About 7-10 months ago I posted a series of pictures of Bonds covering his career - and showing the progression about every two years. 1999-2002 progression is all you need to see. Freakish.

So, he goes from being a great at a level somewhere between Mantle/FRob/Musial - IE .315/.435/.615 to a mutant who posts .340/.570/.800 at ages 36, 37, 38, 39. No other player in the history of the game has done anything like that amount of improvement, and those that might be seen as close did it comparing what they did pre age 25 compared to age 26-30, not a man with a long resume of 14 years as one type of player, who became another type.

You want us to believe that a man who typically hit (33 HR in 1992 in 506 AB's at age 30 - 1 HR every 15.33 AB) becomes a guy with 45 HR in 2004 in 373 AB's - 1 HR every 8.28 AB - at age 39??

Honestly, this is a joke right?

26lbs in 4 weeks? Where did you get that info? I actually contribute more of a boost from his elbow pad then the assumed PED use. Every Bonds disser has their own long tale of the weight gain of Bonds. You work out as much as this workout freak did and you're going to gain mass over the years.

As far as the increase in HR power, Aaron had his two best slugging years right at 40 years of age. Bonds also could tell what pitch it was that came out of a pitchers hand and helped himself my attending pitchers meetings. Even if Bonds used PED's it isn't near the boost that Ruth got with a live ball and weaker competition.


About 7-10 months ago I posted a series of pictures of Bonds covering his career - and showing the progression about every two years. 1999-2002 progression is all you need to see. Freakish.

Pictures is about as accurate record of weight gain as the supposedly large head is. He weighted between 210-220 in 1996.

What PED boost do you give a batter? I give pitchers 1% and hitters 2%

PED's add to a hitters weapon and reloads a pitchers weapon.



Steroids have a markedly greater effect on upper-body strength than on lower-body strength.

Batting is almost exclusively powered by lower-body strength.

Beefcake doesn't drive long balls.



For this thought experiment, I used ratios of both 4:1 and a more moderate 3:1 upper/lower differential. I'll take the example of that 200-pound man who adds 20 extra pounds of pure muscle, a pretty substantial gain (and almost identical to that attributed to Barry Bonds).

Skipping over the arithmetic, if the upper/lower ration is 4:1, he'll be able to drive the ball an extra 30 inches or so; if it's 3:1, that would go up to maybe 45 inches.

Right away, we see that that's not much. And remember, too, that we have assigned all of his muscle gain to steroids, which is just silly: if he went through the same exercise regime without any steroids, he'd still gain some significant muscle. Just what does 2 to 4 extra feet mean? It's hard to say, but (and the line of thought is on the longer page) that kind of difference--that is, without the extra muscle the ball falls 2 to 4 feet short but with it it just clears the fence--might mean one extra home run a year for an average man; and, again, the purely steroidal component might not even mean that. So it's not at all surprising that the actual stats of the game show no effect from putative steroid use, bulked-up biceps or no.


http://steroids-and-baseball.com/

If steroids improved performance as much as a lot of fans think, the minor league record would be around 80 or 90 homeruns. 60 players in the Dominican Summer League got caught alone in 2008.

Bargnani
01-03-2009, 10:32 AM
Firstly, it's basically impossible to come to a true reading of what is what. If you just take what's on paper - then Ruth's advantage as a hitter and a pitcher swallows up Bonds advantage on the bases, and the first 10 years or so as a fielder.

However - there is something suspicious when a player like Ruth looks like he's odds on favorite to still be in #1 500 years from now.

Why?

#1. more people play the game today - a lot more around the world, that are allowed to play in the US, the training, diet, etc. is better. Players can afford to not work and stay in shape all off season. Given the money few want to become barflys and have the game toss them out at age 33. This means that there isn't 1 or 2 babe ruth's playing today, there are 40.

#2. Babe brought back the long fly after it died in the 1880's. The BS scandal made the game more then ready for a change, he brought it, and he dominated. But then between 1925 and 1935 a whole generation of hitters nearly his equal appeared. Gehrig, Foxx, etc. 4 more years, and Ted showed up.
Therefore while Ruth is basically untouchable in a book, my measure is the current game - 2007 AL rules for instance. I am quite sure Mr Ruth would not bat in the .340's, nor hit for anywhere near those numbers as he did. What would become of him if he grew up now? Who knows that's even more speculative then what I already touched on.

I have a 25 man AS team, and Ruth isn't on it. The earliest guys would be Grove, Ted, Musial.

So, it comes down to biases, what you believe, and all of that. If I had to play a 7 game Series, and I needed a corner OF and my choice was Bonds or Ruth, and the rules/equipment was today, I'd take Bonds. I might even take Jason Bay over Ruth.


This one always comes up, the whole generation, after a while there were others who could put up numbers as Ruth did earlier. Yes it's true, Babe was the forerunner of the home run putting s great distance between him and the other hitters early in his career, a little later there were others with a number of 40 and 50 home run seasons.
But how often could they do it, how consistent were they, with all respect to these great ballplayers, Ruth was in his own league, even compared to others who came after him.

Gehrig, Foxx and Williams combined hit 40 or more 11 times, so did Ruth

Combined those 3 sluggers hit 50 or more in two seasons, that was Foxx, Ruth topped 50 in 4 seasons.

Combined they had a far greater number of seasons and one hitter matches them.
The clincher, yes some of the older posters have seen me post this a dozen or more times, here it is again.
Babe Ruth never hit 40 or 50 in a season until his 7th season 1920.

1921 Babe said he would 60 home runs. He lost one at the Polo Grounds when a fan attempting to catch one of his drives knocked the ball back on to the playing field. He hit 59 that season.
1930, Shibe Park, April and September of that season he hit drives that cleared the wall and hit speaker supports, two lost home runs. That year he hit 49, that could have been his 5th season with 50 or more.
The old story is true, after a while some put up Ruthian numbers but how consistent were they.The gap between Ruth and those in his time was narrowed down by hitters who came into the game later but it's still Ruth by a wide margin.

bagwell368
01-03-2009, 10:33 AM
Also If your comparing era's there is no way the pitching was better today than it was in early 1900's, also if you look up the ballparks back they, they were a lot bigger

I just dropped by breakfast in my lap.

Ballparks bigger means pitchers better? Nobody tried to hit HR's. Also no pitcher faced a DH, nor men with thin handled bats ripped through the strike zone with the intent to destroy the ball on every swing (ever see Thome swing? artless - totally, also total control of the strike zone, and a very dangerous man. In those conditions most pitchers never threw over 90 MPH, and those that could only did it a few times a game in key situations.

Pitching just to make it clear to you consists of making the batter miss - or not swing at strikes. Location is one way (think Maddux). Movement is another way, and speed is the 3rd. Back in 1915, nobody had the speed - except WJ. Nobody threw sliders, cut fastballs, screwballs, splits - they had fastballs (2 and 4 seam), change ups, curve balls. So the amount of movement a batter saw in 1915 was also less. Location? Yup I think that if you throw less pitches slower there is a real good chance you have better location then a larger man throwing as hard as he can on every pitch - say RJ.

Both the hitters and pitchers of 1915 as a group pale in comparison to each and every season since 1931 - with the possible exception of the war years - 1942/45.

Pedro of '99 or '00 would have had a sub .5 ERA in 1915.

bagwell368
01-03-2009, 10:35 AM
26lbs in 4 weeks? Where did you get that info?

Please re-read - 4 months not 4 weeks.

Yes his elbow brace was a plus for him, and the how much it was I don't think anyone can know for sure.

Bargnani
01-03-2009, 10:35 AM
Says you.... And I say he's just as likely to be Steve Balboni in 2007, then Albert Pujols - actually more so to be Balboni or Dunn, then anything at an elite level.

OK, not only the 714 home runs but the 5th highest career batting average in modern times. If he's Balboni or Dunn, who are all the others in his time. .

bagwell368
01-03-2009, 01:05 PM
OK, not only the 714 home runs but the 5th highest career batting average in modern times. If he's Balboni or Dunn, who are all the others in his time. .

Not much. It's been said that Hack Wilson (there is good film of him) would not even be able to make a Division 1 program as a freshman, at his peak.

So Mt. Ruth looks amazing, but its with a bunch of mole hills around him. That's like take me at age 26 at my baseketball peak, and put me on a Freshman boys team - I'd score 50 a night and everyone would be talking about me decades later. Once you see it clearly that way, Ruth can only exist as Superman in his own time, he's kaput in our game.

JAYZFAN9
01-03-2009, 01:16 PM
Not much. It's been said that Hack Wilson (there is good film of him) would not even be able to make a Division 1 program as a freshman, at his peak.

So Mt. Ruth looks amazing, but its with a bunch of mole hills around him. That's like take me at age 26 at my baseketball peak, and put me on a Freshman boys team - I'd score 50 a night and everyone would be talking about me decades later. Once you see it clearly that way, Ruth can only exist as Superman in his own time, he's kaput in our game.

lol please dont ever compare your own athletic career to that of the great Babe Ruth

Bargnani
01-03-2009, 03:22 PM
I have a 25 man AS team, and Ruth isn't on it. The earliest guys would be Grove, Ted, Musial.



So Grove, a contemporary of Ruth, makes it but not Ruth? Grove rose above his pitching peers to a much less extent than Ruth did, and they played at the same time. But Grove would still be an elite all-time pitcher today, and Ruth wouldn't even be one of the top 40 hittes in baseball today? That doesn't make ANY sense. Your saying that Ruth is no better than Jason Bay, while Grove, as a member of your all-time All-Star team, is at least in the same ballpark as Pedro or Clemens or Randy Johnson.

So if Pedro went back and pitched in the 1920's, where the best hitter in the league was worse than Jason Bay - and nobody was even close - wouldn't you think he would have dominated more than he did? I would think Grove would have thrown at least 5 or 6 perfect games every year against those kind of subpar hitters.

Bargnani
01-03-2009, 03:24 PM
Not much. It's been said that Hack Wilson (there is good film of him) would not even be able to make a Division 1 program as a freshman, at his peak.



Don't know if you realized it, but Hack Wilson was able to get two hits in the 1929 world series off of Lefty Grove, who you consider great enough to make your 25 man AS team. How would a guy not good enough to make a Division 1 college team be able to do that against one of the best pitchers who ever lived? I can imagine how the average freshman ballplayer who can't make a division 1 team would fair against Pedro or Randy Johnson or Clemens or any of the other guys that are probably on your all-time AS team.

bagwell368
01-03-2009, 05:57 PM
lol please dont ever compare your own athletic career to that of the great Babe Ruth

Its an example of how hopeless it is to compare Babe to this time. Take it for what it is worth.

bagwell368
01-03-2009, 06:00 PM
Don't know if you realized it, but Hack Wilson was able to get two hits in the 1929 world series off of Lefty Grove, who you consider great enough to make your 25 man AS team. How would a guy not good enough to make a Division 1 college team be able to do that against one of the best pitchers who ever lived? I can imagine how the average freshman ballplayer who can't make a division 1 team would fair against Pedro or Randy Johnson or Clemens or any of the other guys that are probably on your all-time AS team.

Pitiful really.

Pedro Martinez, Dean Chance, and Randy Johnson are among the most putrid hitting pitchers I ever saw, and they have plenty of AB's and plenty Hits, I imagine against some all stars. Proving what?

The problem I fear is that you take this stuff personally. It's not personal, it can't be clear headed if it is. You are afraid your 40 years might be a waste in some way, so you fight all the harder to prove it is not.

Believe what you want, clearly it is too expensive for you to do otherwise.

Bargnani
01-03-2009, 06:34 PM
The only reason why I am taking this person is because your not giving the greatest player of all time any credit, you dont believe he would fair well against a division 1 pitcher, that's outrageous, you dont even think he would make the Major Leagues today. I'm trying to convince you to realize that theres a reason why he's still considered the best of all time. And you say the only reason why he's had success in the Major Leagues is because he played in an easy ERA. That is mind boggling.

Also if you say Ruth doesn't deserve any credit, then these names mean nothing to you.

Wagner
Gehrig
Hornsby
Collins
Cobb
Foxx
Lajoie
Cochrane
Walter Johnson
Grover Alexander
Christy Mathewson

And so many others, there considered some of the best players of all time, but according to you there not because they played an ERA that was easy to play baseball.

beast montero
01-03-2009, 06:57 PM
As a hitter it's clearly Ruth. Bonds was a better all-around player.
well technically if you are talking about best overall ballplayer, babe was much better because he was also a great pitcher:p

bagwell368
01-03-2009, 09:30 PM
The only reason why I am taking this person is because your not giving the greatest player of all time any credit, you dont believe he would fair well against a division 1 pitcher, that's outrageous

Save your outrage. You have it wrong. I panned Hack Wilson, not Babe Ruth.



I'm trying to convince you to realize that theres a reason why he's still considered the best of all time. And you say the only reason why he's had success in the Major Leagues is because he played in an easy ERA. That is mind boggling.

And I already laid out the reasons he is vastly overrated if you try to bring him forward from the past:

#1. He reinvented the long fly as a strategy, and for that he is a trail blazer and father of the game we know today - Huzza. But because he was playing one game while everybody else was playing another game, his OPS+ numbers are insane the first few years of the 20's. Notice that they tone down after a bit, and its not age, its the arrival of other great hitters (by the standards of that time).

#2. Within a few years - say 1921 to 1939 which is only 18 years, a number of great hitters arrived, and they put up seasons very much like Ruth, and very much unlike Wagner, Collins, Cobb and other great dead ball hitters of the 1900-1920 period - because the game changed, and he changed it.

These two things lead to a huge statistical bubble for Ruth, and that is what everyone pay homage to, and outlying bubble.

Now, I made these arguments already and I noticed that you have not paid them heed. Answer them, and please use something other then the shibboleth logic "because its axiomatic". Thank you.

Now for the next argument - you see I've been through this quite a few times when I decided around 1985 that Ruth was overrated in a modern context.

Other sports:

George Mikan, voted the greatest basketball player of the first half of the 20th Century. Ever see him? Do you think he could handle Wilt, Jabbar, Akeem, and say any of 25 other centers I could name? The answer is no, and his heyday was the late 40's and early 50's. In fact he couldn't even make a team today. His heyday was 25 years after Ruth, and he was already out of it by sometime in the '65-'75 bracket.

You think Joe Perry (49'ers early 50's HOF RB) or Raymond Berry Colts WR later 50's HOF) could play in the NFL today, or even make a team? No, also 30-35 years after Ruth, and already no chance by what 1975?


Also if you say Ruth doesn't deserve any credit, then these names mean nothing to you.

Wagner
Gehrig
Hornsby
Collins
Cobb
Foxx
Lajoie
Cochrane
Walter Johnson
Grover Alexander
Christy Mathewson

Oh no a sacrilegious dog! Actually in a historical context I have respect for all of them. As for being able to play in the live ball era I have more respect for the players that played dead/live (WJ, Alexander) or all live (Foxx, Gehrig, Cochrane) etc. But as for guys that could play today? I am not convinced 100% that a single one of them could have. However as a group I am sure 1-3 could come through quite nicely, but why take a risk? I know Pujols can play because I have seen him. I saw FRob play too, and I know he can do the job as well. Kaline, Clemente, Schmidt, Mathews, Morgan, etc.


And so many others, there considered some of the best players of all time, but according to you there not because they played an ERA that was easy to play baseball.

Honestly, its not a Jihad. I find the questions of race, lack of training, equipment, lack of knowledge of diet, coaching, much lower population to draw players from, and a totally different game before 1931 or so to cast a very deep shadow of doubt upon the skill and talent of those players and what they did projected forward into todays game. If you want to venerate them in the past go ahead. But when you say that Ruth will also be the best hitter of all time if he started playing in 1985 as a 23 year old with a background as an orphan missing the sorts of training and coaching of rich suburban kids in the West and South, not to mention the play all day kids of the Dominican, I can't see any way - NONE - that he could attain that level. Take a look at New England. Some pitchers, some fielders come from here, but since Fisk I do not believe a real important hitter at a position has come from NE. What does that mean - Fisk grew up in the 60's, it means 50 years for a baseball crazy area, and nobody of ML level ability has come from here? It means that if you play 275 days/year like in warm weather climates you develop a lot more hitters. Baltimore is warm, and like I said, video games, and basketball and perhaps football would catch the Babe's eye. And if he had decided to go after baseball at the expense of all else, where would he get the hitting lessons, coaching, and leadership to excel from? It's just inborn is it?

Grow up.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-04-2009, 05:42 PM
This one will end the way they always do, Ruth/Cobb...Ruth/Williams and now Ruth/Bonds, take a back seat Barry, it's going to be Ruth. The only legit debate would Ruth and Ted Williams. I could have told you this before the voting even started, I've seen a dozen or two over the years on the boards, Babe has too much ammo to be knocked off.

Has the game improved over the years, yes it has but that doesn't mean that players from the 1910s-20s-30s had it all their way.

Integration has raised the level

Relief pitching a plus in todays game.

Coast to coast travel.......what about this one. It's not all about distance, what about conditions. Air conditioned plane or a loud, hot train that has a good number of stops along the way, at times by traveling night.
When you get off the plane you go to an air conditioned hotel, a feature that was not available until the mid to late 1930s.

Night baseball, check the league stats, a number of teams carry an equal and at time higher batting average at night.

Beats playing under the Sun every day, wearing those old heavy flannel uniforms.

Sunday doubleheaders, at least 20 per season, that was the case up to the 1960s, talk about a drain on the players.

Smaller parks today, Maple bats, a ball that was found to be out of MLB specs in a test at the Rhode Island University around 2000-2001. By the was it was the 1990s ball that was out, a few from 1980, 1970s and 1960s balls were within specs.
1990's balls contained an over the limit amount of synthetic material in the wool windings.

I'm being fair about the whole deal, past players had some more favorable conditions but so do those of recent years, it's not all one sided

SHOELESSJOE3
01-04-2009, 05:50 PM
GREAT post...

my guess is, if ruth grew up in our time, he would probably be in prison for a hate crime, drunk driving, or beating his wife... just a guess...

Bad guess at that Train. Ruth born in recent years, a whole different world, may have had a better up bringing, may not have been placed in an institution most of his childhood. Could have been a whole different story, we're discussing the possibilities of a man born over 100 years ago.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-04-2009, 06:32 PM
Poppycock. You mean if we agree with you, we are the cognoscenti, and if not, we are the great unwashed?

I was brought up to believe Ruth, Cobb, etc. were great - burnished into golden bronze statues by the adoring writers who wouldn't know Adjust OPS+ from their own belly button lint.

The 20's is hard to figure for sure due to lack of good film - but the 30's is another story - I've seen a lot of film of Ott, DiMaggio, etc. and I have yet to witness anybody from that time that really matches on film what the stats say that they were. If anything the players in 1921 were weaker - especially compared to 1936.

The reason Ruth becomes harder for me to accept every year I look at him is simple statistics - especially outlying events. He was great in his time, and he totally changed the game - at the same time. Those two events had a statistical effect not unlike Bonds and HGH.

Let's look at some great years, all the best OPS+ of the year in their league. The first set is dead ball guys.

Brou 1886: .370/.445/.581 11 HR 206 OPS+
Wagn 1908: .354/.415/.542 10 HR 205 OPS+
Cobb 1910: .383/.456/.551 8 HR 206 OPS+

The second set is not. Notice how once Babe showed up with the deep fly, he was nearly equaled right away (careful OPS+ in a league full of dead ball hitters is a lie - so his numbers need to be adjusted down. Now look at the parade of guys that followed, many years look a lot like Babe Ruth years. An accident of timing, and the nerve he had to go back to the long fly. I promise that Mantle in '56 and Bags in '94 would mop the floor with Ruth in reality.

You want to live you life in a book go ahead. He's dead.

Ruth 1921: .378/.512/.846 59 HR 256 OPS+
Horn 1925: .403/.489/.756 39 HR 210 OPS+
Gehr 1927: .373/.474/.765 47 HR 221 OPS+
Foxx 1932: .364/.469/.749 58 HR 205 OPS+
TedW 1941: .406/.553/.735 37 HR 235 OPS+
Musl 1948: .376/.450/.702 39 HR 200 OPS+
Mant 1956 .353/.464/.705 52 HR 223 OPS+
McCv 1969: .320/.453/.656 45 HR 209 OBP+
Bags 1994: .368/.451/.750 39 HR 213 OBP+
Bond 1993: .336/.458/.677 46 HR 204 OBP+

Not surprised BAGS, that after some years some put up some Ruthian numbers. Not going to deny the gap between Babe in slugging compared to those in his time was wide because he was the forerunner of the long ball. So it would stand to reason in later years others would go long ball and narrow the gap.

With that said, your posting some single seasons by others, how many times did they have seasons like this compared to the number Ruth had. Yes, the gap narrowed but Babe is still a distance away because he was more consistent.

We often hear about some heavy hitters who came in the late 1920s-1930s that showed they could do what Ruth did, 40 and 50 home run seasons. Often mentioned Hack Wilson, Jimmie Foxx and Hank Greenberg.

Lets take a look and remember these three spent some years in one of the most potent offensive decades the 1930s.

Combined Wilson-Foxx-Greenberg hit 40 or more home runs 10 times.
Ruth hit 40 or more--------------------------------------11 times.

Combined Wilson-Foxx-Greenberg hit 50 or more home runs--4 times
Ruth hit 50 or more ---------------------------------------4 times

Three sluggers, think of all their number of seasons combined, compared to only one hitter Babe Ruth, and he matches them.

I should add that two times, April and September of 1930 Ruth hit balls that cleared the wall in deep right centerfield at Shibe Park. Both times the ball struck speaker supports and bounded back on to the playing field. Both times the Yanks lost the argument, two lost home runs, he was sent back to second base. That season he finished with 49, could have been his 5th season with 50 or more.

The clincher, Babe Ruth never and a 40 or 50 home run season until his 7th season 1920, his career was already one quarter over.
For those who may not know after 6 seasons in MLB Babe Ruth had the grand total of 49 career home runs, some how he gets to 714.

Bonds and Aaron with almost 40 seasons between them had 16 seasons with 40 or more only 7 more than Ruth had in 16 seasons 1920-1935.

So you can see BAGS your correct some in later years matched some Ruth numbers, but the fact that he did it so many more times takes some out of the wind out of that statement he's still far out in front.

This is the very thing that separates Ruth from the rest, 4 years spent pitching only 1914-1917, part time position player/pitcher 1918-1919, that he did so much in a 16 year period 1920-1935 as a full time every day position player. The bulk of his numbers, home runs, RBI, runs, EBH's, Walks, total bases came in those 16 years, others took many more years to match him, thats why he's number one.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-04-2009, 07:01 PM
First off, wheres the evidence he took steroids? Even if he did, who hasn't used them in this era.

Second, Ruth faced much inferior talent. Ruth didn't even get to face black players. Bonds also put up his offensive numbers in a stadium where LHH's go to die. Bonds probably would have hit 900 HR had he played in Yankee stadium.
Not to mention Bonds defensive and base running ability far exceed Ruth's extra ability to pitch. IMHO.

You should do some research on parks over the years.
Is it that 296 "short porch" at Yankee Stadium that leads you to believe that.
Have you looked at some of the other dimensions at Yankee Stadium, lets look at some others, those on the right side since Babe batted lefty.

Deep right centerfield-------429, thats deeper than almost every park today in dead center.
Centerfield----------------487, not a misprint 487.
Just to the left of dead centerfield 490-493.
You think Babe and Lou lost a couple of home runs in those areas.
Ruth was not a pull hitter, Ruth hit more home runs on the road.

Some other CF distances when Babe played.
Chicago- Comiskey Park-----------450-455-440-447
Philadelphia- Shibe park-----------448
Boston -Fenway Park-------------488-468 in 1930
Detroit- Navin Park----------------455- 461 in 1931
On average, much deeper than todays centerfield distances.

Some of those "bombs" we see nightly on ESPN, those tape measure home runs to centerfield, long ago at best they would be IPH's, triples and just long fly outs.



If one has Proquest you can read daily game recaps and you will see that Babe had very few "cheap ones", in all parks.

bagwell368
01-04-2009, 07:31 PM
This one will end the way they always do, Ruth/Cobb...Ruth/Williams and now Ruth/Bonds, take a back seat Barry, it's going to be Ruth. The only legit debate would Ruth and Ted Williams. I could have told you this before the voting even started, I've seen a dozen or two over the years on the boards, Babe has too much ammo to be knocked off.

Has the game improved over the years, yes it has but that doesn't mean that players from the 1910s-20s-30s had it all their way.

Integration has raised the level

Relief pitching a plus in todays game.

Coast to coast travel.......what about this one. It's not all about distance, what about conditions. Air conditioned plane or a loud, hot train that has a good number of stops along the way, at times by traveling night.
When you get off the plane you go to an air conditioned hotel, a feature that was not available until the mid to late 1930s.

Night baseball, check the league stats, a number of teams carry an equal and at time higher batting average at night.

Beats playing under the Sun every day, wearing those old heavy flannel uniforms.

Sunday doubleheaders, at least 20 per season, that was the case up to the 1960s, talk about a drain on the players.

Smaller parks today, Maple bats, a ball that was found to be out of MLB specs in a test at the Rhode Island University around 2000-2001. By the was it was the 1990s ball that was out, a few from 1980, 1970s and 1960s balls were within specs.
1990's balls contained an over the limit amount of synthetic material in the wool windings.

I'm being fair about the whole deal, past players had some more favorable conditions but so do those of recent years, it's not all one sided

No comments on coaching improvements? Diet improvement? Size of the athletes? Size of the talent pool? That is surely missing a lot more then the difficulty of sweating into flannel uniforms...

What about other sports such as football and basketball where the changes were televised, and easy to see. Name me how many players other then Jim Brown in 1962 could make an NFL team today? How about how many BB players - less then 10. Bob Cousey couldn't even play D1 college now.

Under the hot sun? -- The sun is a lot hotter now, don't you know about globabal warming?? :)

This settles nothing, just another attempt to hold the flood of logic from toppling a bronzed god with clay feet. He can only be a god in his time, because he melts if you bring him forward. Like most gods he needs reverence to survive. Critical analysis - like with the fictional god up above is sure to destroy the foundation of belief, and get people pissed off at the same time. I don't care, so I make a great spokesman for "the other side". Hate away. I'm right, and its clear to anyone that has connected their brain to the problem under study.

BTW, I didn't choose this debate, I would also choose Ted to fight Ruth and not Bonds, but I took what I was given.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-04-2009, 08:11 PM
No comments on coaching improvements? Diet improvement? Size of the athletes? Size of the talent pool? That is surely missing a lot more then the difficulty of sweating into flannel uniforms...

What about other sports such as football and basketball where the changes were televised, and easy to see. Name me how many players other then Jim Brown in 1962 could make an NFL team today? How about how many BB players - less then 10. Bob Cousey couldn't even play D1 college now.

Under the hot sun? -- The sun is a lot hotter now, don't you know about globabal warming?? :)
This settles nothing, just another attempt to hold the flood of logic from toppling a bronzed god with clay feet. He can only be a god in his time, because he melts if you bring him forward. Like most gods he needs reverence to survive. Critical analysis - like with the fictional god up above is sure to destroy the foundation of belief, and get people pissed off at the same time. I don't care, so I make a great spokesman for "the other side". Hate away. I'm right, and its clear to anyone that has connected their brain to the problem under study.

BTW, I didn't choose this debate, I would also choose Ted to fight Ruth and not Bonds, but I took what I was given.

Maybe you missed my point, how often do they play day games in todays baseball. Until the late 1930s all game were played in the heat of day.

You mention coaching, diet improvements, thats the point bring a past player in to our time he benefits from the times we live in.

Not a good comparison, size means much more in football and basketball, much more than it does in baseball.

I don't treat todays players with disdain, I don't see them having it all their way. I've already stated that Ruth had some favorable conditions and todays hitters have some favorable conditions.

From your words, you seem to believe that Ruth had it all his way.

Get off the 1920s, your comparison to only those who played in his time. His dominance over those who followed him, matched some of his numbers was narrowed down, but not enough to knock him off the top.
From all the polls I've seen, Ruth hasn't melted enough to be replaced, still on top.

OK so you didn't pick the debate, you make your case, I make mine.
I find your Balboni/Dunn comparison to Ruth a real laugher. You make some good points but why make such a silly statement. You and I both know that even those that pick Bonds over Ruth aren't buying that one.

Bring on any you like, it's still going to be Ruth, I see Ted as his only rival

bagwell368
01-04-2009, 08:18 PM
population of the US:

decade - million

1890 - 63
1900 - 76 -- Babe born in 1895
1910 - 92 -- Ted born 1918 - so the size of Ted's cohort was about 30% more then Ruth's, increased more as AL at last integrated, even if more slowly then NL.
1920 - 106 (subtract 10.4 million non eligible blacks against Ruth cohort
1930 - 123 -- Mays born in '31 - almost double cohort size over Ruth, and some blacks could play
1940 - 132
1950 - 151
1960 - 179 Barry born in 1964 more then 3x Ruth's cohort size, baseballs hold on the US starts to fade at about this time. Of course blacks are at a high point and begin to fall away in favor of latin and far eastern players another 15 years later. And of course the very heavily prepared youth coming out of California, Arizona, Texas, Florida, etc.
1970 - 203
1980 - 227
1990 - 249
2000 - 281

So, purely on numbers alone with no other factors coming in. Ruth and those of earlier times had less competition to make the Majors. Those born between 1930 and 1960 had both blacks and latin players being added to the talent pool, and baseball held the interest of US fans like never before during these years.

While the US population continues to surge it continues to overshadow the slacking interest in baseball. Just go to any solid D1 or D2 game this spring, or a single A game, and you will see a lot of young men that are very very good, fighting to land a job in the Majors. Workouts all year, careful diets, coaching not just from a Manager, but pitching coaches, hitting coaches, fielding coaches, and weight lifting.

My elder son is 17. If healthy will be the #2 SP of his Varsity as a Junior. A 6' 4" 190 lb lefty with plus control and command, and way plus make-up. Local D3 schools have already asked him to come in and work out. If he can get his fastball up to 87 in the next 16 months, it will be D2 and D1. Why do I bring it up? I was a Varsity pitcher (in a league of larger schools - our catcher was drafted), and he is far more in command of his stuff and what he is doing then anybody I ever saw in my day, and that was in the mid 70's.

Babe invented more then anybody the modern game, you also expect that he perfected it too??

bagwell368
01-04-2009, 08:20 PM
Maybe you missed my point, how often do they play day games in todays baseball. Until the late 1930s all game were played in the heat of day.

Goodness, I know I am very serious and all, but that was a joke.

I think the issues of comfort and travel you bring up are interesting, but cannot really find what kernel is in them that really alters the argument in a specific direction that you would like. I.E. they are of limited importance.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-04-2009, 08:55 PM
population of the US:

decade - million

1890 - 63
1900 - 76 -- Babe born in 1895
1910 - 92 -- Ted born 1918 - so the size of Ted's cohort was about 30% more then Ruth's, increased more as AL at last integrated, even if more slowly then NL.
1920 - 106 (subtract 10.4 million non eligible blacks against Ruth cohort
1930 - 123 -- Mays born in '31 - almost double cohort size over Ruth, and some blacks could play
1940 - 132
1950 - 151
1960 - 179 Barry born in 1964 more then 3x Ruth's cohort size, baseballs hold on the US starts to fade at about this time. Of course blacks are at a high point and begin to fall away in favor of latin and far eastern players another 15 years later. And of course the very heavily prepared youth coming out of California, Arizona, Texas, Florida, etc.
1970 - 203
1980 - 227
1990 - 249
2000 - 281

So, purely on numbers alone with no other factors coming in. Ruth and those of earlier times had less competition to make the Majors. Those born between 1930 and 1960 had both blacks and latin players being added to the talent pool, and baseball held the interest of US fans like never before during these years.

While the US population continues to surge it continues to overshadow the slacking interest in baseball. Just go to any solid D1 or D2 game this spring, or a single A game, and you will see a lot of young men that are very very good, fighting to land a job in the Majors. Workouts all year, careful diets, coaching not just from a Manager, but pitching coaches, hitting coaches, fielding coaches, and weight lifting.

My elder son is 17. If healthy will be the #2 SP of his Varsity as a Junior. A 6' 4" 190 lb lefty with plus control and command, and way plus make-up. Local D3 schools have already asked him to come in and work out. If he can get his fastball up to 87 in the next 16 months, it will be D2 and D1. Why do I bring it up? I was a Varsity pitcher (in a league of larger schools - our catcher was drafted), and he is far more in command of his stuff and what he is doing then anybody I ever saw in my day, and that was in the mid 70's.

Babe invented more then anybody the modern game, you also expect that he perfected it too??

I've already addressed that one. The level of play only deals with Babe in his time and how he dominated. You can compare his overall numbers to any hitter right up until today and he's still at the top. All those who top him in career home runs, RBI, Runs, Total bases EBH's and some other career numbers needed hundreds and in some cases thousands of more at bats to top him. Who gets the spot here, kind of evens things out the way I see it.
Had he started out as a full time position player we wouldn't even be debating who is number one.

He spent his first 6 seasons in the dead ball era, he didn't have it all his way.
Bigger population, bigger talent pool that true, but with all the teams today, there are pitchers in MLB who would be in the minors if it were not all those teams.
What about the ball, what about that funny little strike zone, not it's almost at the belt line, thats not whats in the rule book. What about the smaller parks. Do you really believe that Barry and the rest would be putting up the numbers they do without that ball, strike zone and smaller parks.

Your problem is you keep harping on all the so called advantages that ruth had but ignore whats happening today. I'm being fair, I see advantages on both sides, both time periods.

Great hitters with some adjustment hit in any era. Cobb, Ruth, Gehrig move them up and they run with the best. Gwynn, Carew, Brett, send them back to the 1920s and they still hit great.

Old Sweater
01-04-2009, 09:14 PM
Please re-read - 4 months not 4 weeks.

Yes his elbow brace was a plus for him, and the how much it was I don't think anyone can know for sure.


Sorry about that. I read right and typed wrong. There supposedly a 40lb total weight gain by Bonds. If he weighted 210-220 in 1996 as the author of Asterisk claimed, that would put Bonds at 235-245 with an extra 25 lbs.

A lot of fans give 100% credit to PED boosts for Bonds and discredit all the other factors Bonds had going for him.

here is the number 1 factor............. http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd280/OldSweater/BarryTed2.gif

He perfected his Williams like stroke with the eye to go with it.

The smaller new ballparks, plus the move to AT&T from CandleStick around 2000.

The livelier ball

The expansion pitching in 1998

Improved at reading the tell tales of a pitcher.

Body armor, taking away some of the fear factor of a pitcher. Plus being able to stay in longer on a pitch, which is very critical considering the average time of the bat thru the hit zone is .17

You just get so sick of fans giving all the credit for Bonds to PED's. Most players could take a bath in PED's and take a lunch box full of them to work every day and still couldn't do what Bonds done. It's like a lot of fans think there was a special PED made for Bonds only. The man was a workout freak and would have had extra power with or without PED's. If you don't work out like a mad man your receptors shut down and you wind up going across the border to get bitoch pills like Canseco.

Old Sweater
01-04-2009, 09:27 PM
Save your outrage. You have it wrong. I panned Hack Wilson, not Babe Ruth.




And I already laid out the reasons he is vastly overrated if you try to bring him forward from the past:

#1. He reinvented the long fly as a strategy, and for that he is a trail blazer and father of the game we know today - Huzza. But because he was playing one game while everybody else was playing another game, his OPS+ numbers are insane the first few years of the 20's. Notice that they tone down after a bit, and its not age, its the arrival of other great hitters (by the standards of that time).

#2. Within a few years - say 1921 to 1939 which is only 18 years, a number of great hitters arrived, and they put up seasons very much like Ruth, and very much unlike Wagner, Collins, Cobb and other great dead ball hitters of the 1900-1920 period - because the game changed, and he changed it.

These two things lead to a huge statistical bubble for Ruth, and that is what everyone pay homage to, and outlying bubble.

Now, I made these arguments already and I noticed that you have not paid them heed. Answer them, and please use something other then the shibboleth logic "because its axiomatic". Thank you.

Now for the next argument - you see I've been through this quite a few times when I decided around 1985 that Ruth was overrated in a modern context.

Other sports:

George Mikan, voted the greatest basketball player of the first half of the 20th Century. Ever see him? Do you think he could handle Wilt, Jabbar, Akeem, and say any of 25 other centers I could name? The answer is no, and his heyday was the late 40's and early 50's. In fact he couldn't even make a team today. His heyday was 25 years after Ruth, and he was already out of it by sometime in the '65-'75 bracket.

You think Joe Perry (49'ers early 50's HOF RB) or Raymond Berry Colts WR later 50's HOF) could play in the NFL today, or even make a team? No, also 30-35 years after Ruth, and already no chance by what 1975?



Oh no a sacrilegious dog! Actually in a historical context I have respect for all of them. As for being able to play in the live ball era I have more respect for the players that played dead/live (WJ, Alexander) or all live (Foxx, Gehrig, Cochrane) etc. But as for guys that could play today? I am not convinced 100% that a single one of them could have. However as a group I am sure 1-3 could come through quite nicely, but why take a risk? I know Pujols can play because I have seen him. I saw FRob play too, and I know he can do the job as well. Kaline, Clemente, Schmidt, Mathews, Morgan, etc.



Honestly, its not a Jihad. I find the questions of race, lack of training, equipment, lack of knowledge of diet, coaching, much lower population to draw players from, and a totally different game before 1931 or so to cast a very deep shadow of doubt upon the skill and talent of those players and what they did projected forward into todays game. If you want to venerate them in the past go ahead. But when you say that Ruth will also be the best hitter of all time if he started playing in 1985 as a 23 year old with a background as an orphan missing the sorts of training and coaching of rich suburban kids in the West and South, not to mention the play all day kids of the Dominican, I can't see any way - NONE - that he could attain that level. Take a look at New England. Some pitchers, some fielders come from here, but since Fisk I do not believe a real important hitter at a position has come from NE. What does that mean - Fisk grew up in the 60's, it means 50 years for a baseball crazy area, and nobody of ML level ability has come from here? It means that if you play 275 days/year like in warm weather climates you develop a lot more hitters. Baltimore is warm, and like I said, video games, and basketball and perhaps football would catch the Babe's eye. And if he had decided to go after baseball at the expense of all else, where would he get the hitting lessons, coaching, and leadership to excel from? It's just inborn is it?

Grow up.

I mostly agree with Bagwell368 here. I do believe that Ruth would be a good player today with all the better training(would the fat boy do it?) and technology to go with it. But with the gap closing between the average player and the stars like Ruth, IMO, there is just no way that Ruth would have been able to create the stats he did from 1914-1935 that makes him the automatic choice as baseballs all time #1 as he enjoys now.

IMO, a lot of SABR's have their Ruths and Walter Johnsons because there is no way to compare them accurately with the other all time greats. Bagwell368 uses a lick of common sense to go with his numbers.

Ruth was a man amongst boys(overall), there ain't no way around that fact.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-04-2009, 09:37 PM
I should add that Ruth hit some very good pitchers. Walter Johnson 10 home runs.
Lefty Grove I found 9 home runs off of Grove. One lost home run against Grove, hitting speaker support at Shibe Park.
Add to that Ruth never faced Grove until Ruth was in his 11th season, 1925.

Some black pitchers. Buck ONeil black star tells of one at bat that matched up Babe Ruth and Satchel Paige.
Satch Paige was on the mound. Ruth grounded out to second base his first at bat. The words of Buck..............his second at bat, Ruth hit one of the longest home runs I have ever seen, into a distant farm field.The game was held up for a few minutes and a young boy sent out to retrieve the ball. Satch wanted the ball, had Babe sign the ball and the game went on.

John Donaldson, star black pitcher on facing Babe. His first at bat, he nearly killed our second baseman with a one hopper off his chest.
I was told to keep the ball down on Ruth in his next at bat. I did and he hit a long home run, high over the wall and struck a building across the street. I never threw Babe another low pitch.

Dick Redding regarded as one of the best black pitchers in his time.
Our manager Charlie Stephens came out to the mound, there were two men on. We spoke about walking Babe, set up a force play. i decided to pitch to him and he one into the next county.

All small samples, I agree, no one owned Paige not even Babe but he did impress Satchel in that one at bat.

I've yielded some BAGS, agreed Babe would not be as dominant in later time periods. Agreed that he had some things going for him, agreed that the level of play today is higher.

Problem here is, you see it like he had it all his way. I could see you chipping away some, your chipping too much off The Babe.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-04-2009, 09:49 PM
I mostly agree with Bagwell368 here. I do believe that Ruth would be a good player today with all the better training(would the fat boy do it?) and technology to go with it. But with the gap closing between the average player and the stars like Ruth, IMO, there is just no way that Ruth would have been able to create the stats he did from 1914-1935 that makes him the automatic choice as baseballs all time #1 as he enjoys now.

IMO, a lot of SABR's have their Ruths and Walter Johnsons because there is no way to compare them accurately with the other all time greats. Bagwell368 uses a lick of common sense to go with his numbers.

Ruth was a man amongst boys(overall), there ain't no way around that fact.

I've adressed that more than once. Don't compare him to those who played when he did, take him out of his time. Match his overall numbers to any who came after him. There have been many changes over the years and no one has yet matched Ruth as the overall hitter. Again may I remind, most of it came in 16 years 1920-35.

Had he batted .315 or .320 I could agree more so, OK big slugger who distanced himself in slugging and homers because he was the only one playing that game. But he bats .355 in the 1920's decade, he's playing long ball and still beating 90+ percent of all the contact hitters in his time, and remains the 5th (.342) highest career batting average in modern times.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-04-2009, 09:54 PM
Sorry about that. I read right and typed wrong. There supposedly a 40lb total weight gain by Bonds. If he weighted 210-220 in 1996 as the author of Asterisk claimed, that would put Bonds at 235-245 with an extra 25 lbs.

A lot of fans give 100% credit to PED boosts for Bonds and discredit all the other factors Bonds had going for him.

here is the number 1 factor............. http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd280/OldSweater/BarryTed2.gif

He perfected his Williams like stroke with the eye to go with it.

The smaller new ballparks, plus the move to AT&T from CandleStick around 2000.

The livelier ball

The expansion pitching in 1998

Improved at reading the tell tales of a pitcher.

Body armor, taking away some of the fear factor of a pitcher. Plus being able to stay in longer on a pitch, which is very critical considering the average time of the bat thru the hit zone is .17

You just get so sick of fans giving all the credit for Bonds to PED's. Most players could take a bath in PED's and take a lunch box full of them to work every day and still couldn't do what Bonds done. It's like a lot of fans think there was a special PED made for Bonds only. The man was a workout freak and would have had extra power with or without PED's. If you don't work out like a mad man your receptors shut down and you wind up going across the border to get bitoch pills like Canseco.


So, should we give him extra credit, cut him some slack because he may have broke a rule but at least he supplemented it with tough workouts.

bagwell368
01-04-2009, 10:56 PM
I've yielded some BAGS, agreed Babe would not be as dominant in later time periods. Agreed that he had some things going for him, agreed that the level of play today is higher.

Problem here is, you see it like he had it all his way. I could see you chipping away some, your chipping too much off The Babe.

I'm just a ruthless debater. I think that there is room for people who believe in the old verities and have faith in the tried and true. For instance I have a very complex garden that I've been working on for 14 years - .8 acres all by hand: trees, mid story trees, shrubs, perennials, ground covers, ivies, a 3k gallon pool. I would never in a million years use any mechanized tools on it, use pesticides, use a snow blower...

I also think there is room for people to challenge these old ideas. Sometimes they walk into walls, and sometimes they carry us all forward.

I would never engage anyone on this debate that didn't want to do it, its too personal. But I'll never back off from what I've learned to make others comfortable either - if they want to debate, or more to the point if they want to convert me.

The L Train
01-04-2009, 11:07 PM
GREAT post...

my guess is, if ruth grew up in our time, he would probably be in prison for a hate crime, drunk driving, or beating his wife... just a guess...

Bad guess at that Train. Ruth born in recent years, a whole different world, may have had a better up bringing, may not have been placed in an institution most of his childhood. Could have been a whole different story, we're discussing the possibilities of a man born over 100 years ago.


it's all speculation... i may or may not have been placed in an institution, it's ALL a guess... you think my guess is bad, fine, it's just a guess like i said...

sure, it COULD have been a different story, but who knows? it's a pointless discussion, we can never know what would have happened if ruth grew up in the same era as bonds, so we can never determine which player is better...

obviously bonds was and is in better shape than ruth EVER was, for what it's worth... plus he had to bat against many pitchers who were juicing, which ruth never did...

bagwell368
01-04-2009, 11:16 PM
There have been many changes over the years and no one has yet matched Ruth as the overall hitter. Again may I remind, most of it came in 16 years 1920-35.

Notable, historic even. But the point is made by the kernel of your sentence "no one has yet matched Ruth". It's because he was playing one game - that he pioneered, and then a few other guys showed up in his time, and matched him, not every year, but with years as great as his (Foxx and Gehrig)

Later with the additional competition of his time, Willy McCovey could have been better then Ruth, but with Mays, Mantle, Clemente, Kaline, etc. playing the difference between the best and the next best was much more subtle.
Does that mean they were not as good as Ruth, or that the top 20 of 1965 as a group was a lot better then the top 20 hitters of 1928 in aggregate, so the top guys would never stick out as as much now as then? I think this is clear as a bell from a statistical or common sense point of view.

Now please explain the rise of the offensive players at 3B (post WWII), CF post 1950, SS and 2B (post 1980), and contrast it with the players of 1920-35. If 85% of the players today can hit, and hit for power and OBP, then the top guy cannot statistically stand out, can not be compared to 1920-35. No, he cannot - but not because he is not as good, but because there were less standouts - nice reason to venerate the guy - and false as well.

Let's go the other way. Look at the numbers of Pujols. You think he wouldn't meet or exceed Ruth in say 1927 in that same line-up? Albert Pujols is a product of much more training, a higher level of competition, and he would eviscerate Babe Ruth on Ruth's own turf. If you think not, then all the changes in diet, coaching, year round play, training regimens, use of film, etc. yield NO difference - all for nothing. Is that what you are saying, or are you saying you cannot change despite any arguments, any reasoning except that your hero is a thing of the past? If your answer is no, its time to stop because clearly you are not even attempting to give the correct weight to what was and what is. You are just trapped by the outlying stats of one guy in a time of transition. And you are a zealot.

The L Train
01-04-2009, 11:21 PM
bottom line, if bonds had been pitched to anywhere near as much as ANY other player in the league, he would absolutely have over 1000 home runs for his career...

when you consider the amount of times he was walked, and how many AB's bonds lost to the intentional walk, you have to realize that he would have well over 1000 HR's...

ruth did not get walked like that, and he still didnt have as many home runs as bonds...

obviously bonds was FAR more athletic than ruth and a much better fielder and baserunner...

bonds will DIE in better shape than ruth was EVER in, so please, overall, based on what we know, you have to admit that bonds has the edge, IF you absolutely insist on making this impossible comparison... bonds is better, period... next topic...

JAYZFAN9
01-04-2009, 11:40 PM
bonds is a juicer , ruth.. not so much

Kyle916
01-05-2009, 12:01 AM
I don't know if this is comparable for one reason.

Ruth and Bonds played in completely different eras of baseball.

bagwell368
01-05-2009, 12:14 AM
I don't know if this is comparable for one reason.

Ruth and Bonds played in completely different eras of baseball.

Thanks for injecting some levity in the proceedings, or was that serious? Either way. It's true, and I'll buy a stand-off. But Ruth uber alles - NFW!

Like I said under some analysis Ruth is not better then Ted, and they are close enough in time to compare. Mt. Rushmore in baseball is not one guy over everybody, its a lot of guys that are roughly even to each other (if totally towering over the average), and with the passage of time, damn right its tough to tell more then that.

Kyle916
01-05-2009, 12:23 AM
Thanks for injecting some levity in the proceedings, or was that serious? Either way. It's true, and I'll buy a stand-off. But Ruth uber alles - NFW!

Like I said under some analysis Ruth is not better then Ted, and they are close enough in time to compare. Mt. Rushmore in baseball is not one guy over everybody, its a lot of guys that are roughly even to each other (if totally towering over the average), and with the passage of time, damn right its tough to tell more then that.

I was serious. It's not a valid comparison. The time periods are just too different.

bagwell368
01-05-2009, 12:51 AM
Well... in the parlors of intrigue and intellect - its a valid topic, so...

One angle I did not touch on much was lifestyle, and it is of far more impact then playing double headers and wearing flannel in the summer.

Lifestyle:

From the inception of the game into the 1980's all these things were true:

#1. Most men smoke and drank

#2. Most baseball players were done by about age 34 - by two factors - one the need to get a job or a career, the other the poor shape they were in compared to younger players since they didn't have the time, or understanding of the need for training to stave off middle age.

#3. With the exception of the top 1-2% paid players, or ones that were wealthy to begin with, everybody had an off season job to go to. No work outs, just bread and butter, and fatty meat, and booze, and work.

As the Players Union made salaries skyrocket first for the stars and then for everyone, nobody needs to work in the off season anymore, and nobody drinks (to excess) or smokes because it will hasten the time to when they leave this amazingly well paid profession and have to get a job, or at least manage the money they have made.

You guys ever watch a game from say 1984 lately? The guys all look like stick figures, today they all look like Michelin men. Some are juiced in whole or part, but whatever these guys can pull out of themselves to get a $40M 6 year contracts they are doing it. In 1960 only Mays and Mantle made $100k, which was about 12-14 times an average upper middle class guy made. Today $10M a year is hundreds of time more, even the league minimum is enough to be basically set for life after 3 years. Back then, no such luck. They played cause they loved it, so yeah something was lost, but professionalism was gained. And the pros of today would blast the guys of the past away. There isn't any shame in it, its just a cold hard fact in a world full of them.

Kyle916
01-05-2009, 12:53 AM
I'm not saying you can't compare, but there isn't a right or wrong answer.

Old Sweater
01-05-2009, 12:57 AM
So, should we give him extra credit, cut him some slack because he may have broke a rule but at least he supplemented it with tough workouts.


No you should............................

Cut Bonds some slack until there is proof he took PED's

Cut Bonds some slack because he did not and has not broken one rule of MLB's regarding PED's.

Give Bonds more recognition for talent then assumed PED's.

Realize that workouts will increase mass with or without PED's.

Realize that more mass will increase bat speed slightly no matter how the mass is attained.

Realize that Bonds is better then 99.9999999% of the hitters who ever played the game

Realize that if Bonds and Ruth crawled thru the worm hole of time that Ruth would come out on the short end of the stick.


If I had the choice between the advantages that Ruth had and the assumed boost that Bonds got from PED's, I'd take Ruths advantage in a heart beat.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-05-2009, 01:01 AM
Notable, historic even. But the point is made by the kernel of your sentence "no one has yet matched Ruth". It's because he was playing one game - that he pioneered, and then a few other guys showed up in his time, and matched him, not every year, but with years as great as his (Foxx and Gehrig)

Later with the additional competition of his time, Willy McCovey could have been better then Ruth, but with Mays, Mantle, Clemente, Kaline, etc. playing the difference between the best and the next best was much more subtle.
Does that mean they were not as good as Ruth, or that the top 20 of 1965 as a group was a lot better then the top 20 hitters of 1928 in aggregate, so the top guys would never stick out as as much now as then? I think this is clear as a bell from a statistical or common sense point of view.

Now please explain the rise of the offensive players at 3B (post WWII), CF post 1950, SS and 2B (post 1980), and contrast it with the players of 1920-35. If 85% of the players today can hit, and hit for power and OBP, then the top guy cannot statistically stand out, can not be compared to 1920-35. No, he cannot - but not because he is not as good, but because there were less standouts - nice reason to venerate the guy - and false as well.

Let's go the other way. Look at the numbers of Pujols. You think he wouldn't meet or exceed Ruth in say 1927 in that same line-up? Albert Pujols is a product of much more training, a higher level of competition, and he would eviscerate Babe Ruth on Ruth's own turf. If you think not, then all the changes in diet, coaching, year round play, training regimens, use of film, etc. yield NO difference - all for nothing. Is that what you are saying, or are you saying you cannot change despite any arguments, any reasoning except that your hero is a thing of the past? If your answer is no, its time to stop because clearly you are not even attempting to give the correct weight to what was and what is. You are just trapped by the outlying stats of one guy in a time of transition. And you are a zealot.

Looks like were still on different pages. I've already said, already agreed that Ruth would not stand out as much as a slugger had he played in a later time period because there would be others playing the same game, the long ball.

Again that is not the reason why I rank him number one, not because he stood out in his time, can we put that one to sleep, why debate a point we both agree on.
It's because he put up some of the best single seasons ever, some of the best 3 year peaks, 5 year peaks and total career numbers. Are you forgetting that he was a pitcher only his first 4 seasons batting every 4th or 5th day, never played a 154 game schedule as an every day player until his 7th season in MLB 1920, 1919 was a short season.
I don't get your McCovey comparison. Even if he had no competition his level of hitting is no where near Ruth's, again your talking about standing out. AGAIN, it's not about standing out in a players time.

If Pujols was playing in the 1920s, he wouldn't be the same player. He would be subject to the same conditions all others would be that were born in those times, nutrition, training methods.

Your bringing up the advances that todays player enjoy... more training, changes in diet, coaching, year around play, training regimens, use of film etc. These are things that Pujols would not enjoy if he were born and played back then

Lets get serious here, you want to send Pujols back in time as he is today, thats silly. You don't send them back as is, you put them back under the same conditions all players were subject to in that era, not as is. Thats the way it would be in real life, all would be playing under the same conditions. Of course any player going back as is would have all the advantages. As is, that not real life.
I take exception to that line..... [U]that I don't want to change despite any arguments................. I could say the same thing, you don't want to change despite the case I'm making for Ruth. But I am certainly not going to say that, I don't expect you to change, you make your case and I make mine.

Your missing the spirit of the board, what debating is all about when you say...."it's time to stop" because I won't change.

It's like your declaring yourself as the winner, you may end the discussion because I stick to my case, because I won't change. Something I would never declare to any poster.
If you choose to end it, nothing I could do about that, your choice.

Kyle916
01-05-2009, 01:08 AM
No you should............................

Cut Bonds some slack until there is proof he took PED's

Cut Bonds some slack because he did not and has not broken one rule of MLB's regarding PED's.

Give Bonds more recognition for talent then assumed PED's.

Realize that workouts will increase mass with or without PED's.

Realize that more mass will increase bat speed slightly no matter how the mass is attained.

Realize that Bonds is better then 99.9999999% of the hitters who ever played the game

Realize that if Bonds and Ruth crawled thru the worm hole of time that Ruth would come out on the short end of the stick.


If I had the choice between the advantages that Ruth had and the assumed boost that Bonds got from PED's, I'd take Ruths advantage in a heart beat.

Thank You.

cambovenzi
01-05-2009, 01:31 AM
skillwise if compared directly im sure bonds is better. hes from more advanced+skilled generation of baseball players.
but ruth was so so much better than his era, so i voted him.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-05-2009, 01:37 AM
No you should............................

Cut Bonds some slack until there is proof he took PED's
Cut Bonds some slack because he did not and has not broken one rule of MLB's regarding PED's.

Give Bonds more recognition for talent then assumed PED's.

Realize that workouts will increase mass with or without PED's.

Realize that more mass will increase bat speed slightly no matter how the mass is attained.

Realize that Bonds is better then 99.9999999% of the hitters who ever played the game

Realize that if Bonds and Ruth crawled thru the worm hole of time that Ruth would come out on the short end of the stick.


If I had the choice between the advantages that Ruth had and the assumed boost that Bonds got from PED's, I'd take Ruths advantage in a heart beat.

Is that a miracle. The older Bonds after age 35 when most level off, some how he puts up a 3 year peak that matches any 3 year peak that the younger Babe Ruth and younger Ted Williams put up when they were in their prime, ten years younger than Bonds.

Some how he makes the younger Bonds himself look almost puny. A 3 or 4 year peak after age 35, not just one fluike season, a 3 or 4 year peak where he almost cuts his AB/HR ratio in half incredible almost in half and maintains a sugging average around 200 points higher than when he was younger.........OPEN your eyes.

Are you that same OLD SWEATER from another board. That still defends Roger Clemens and his weak defense against possible steroid use.
It was supposed to be his former trainer McNamee that was the liar. After that hearing it was clear who was tossing the BS around, Roger got caught with more inconsistencies, thats another word, a nicer word for being caught in a pack of lies.

It doesn't matter that others used, Barry and Roger will have that dark cloud over their head, some of their numbers will always be in doubt. Use some common sense it's the guys with the big numbers that become the target.
Mention pitchers suspected of throwing the spitter, who is the first name, thats right Gaylord Perry, why because he won 300 games. There were others suspect but he's the target because he won so many games, who cares about spit ballers that were so so pitchers.

From the looks of things, it's Barry that came out on the short end.

This is the Barry that said of Ruth a few years ago, " I took his slugging and I'll take his home runs. Don't talk about him (Ruth) no more."

More words of wisdom from Barry's mouth from some years ago on steroid use in the game, "It's none of the people's business what the players do."

My favorite Barryism, " If you wear glasses to do your job better, isn't that cheating, whats the difference."
Yea Barry, that makes sense, sure it does. A legal prescribed pair of glasses compared to using a steroid.
And he wonders why he is so looked down on, his flippant attitude on steroid use in the game.
This guy was a great player but he's lacking something upstairs, talk about dumb statements.

cambovenzi
01-05-2009, 01:39 AM
he obviously did steroids and/or HGH.
your in serious denial if you dont think so.

Old Sweater
01-05-2009, 01:43 AM
Thank You.


Your welcome!

You just get so sick of Bonds haters using him as his own measuring stick for assumed PED use. You still have to have the stroke of Bonds, and his many other talents and work ethic that his trainer ways was unmatched by any other athlete he trained.

I read where a Giants teammate came back to the bench and said " how does anyone hit this guy?" he was referring to the Rockies Curtis Leskanic. Bonds said easy, when he holds his glove in, it's a slider, when he holds his glove out, it's a fastball. Dusty Baker took a long gander at Leskanic and told Bonds, you're BSing us, he holds the glove the same for the slider and the fastball. Bonds then called slider or fastball correct on like 6 or 7 pitches amazing Baker an his teammates. Now Baker has a trained eye and was a good MLB player an he couldn't pick up on what Bonds could pick up on. Bonds also done this at an all star game that led the other NL stars to be amazed. Ped's can not help pick up on pitches, or hit the ball, get a Ted Williams like uppercut swing, swing at balls only in the hit zone. Bonds is a #1 dick but I ain't going to diss him for all his talents and enjoyment he has given me over the years because of hate, like many fans do.

Like I said before, I only give a hitter a 2% boost for PED's anyways. If Bonds used PED's, IMO, that is still 98% Bonds talent out on the field and batters box. PED's does not grow a blue suit with a red cape on any player including Bonds. PED's does not give Bonds more of a boost then any other player. You can not accurately or fairly use Bonds as his own PED measuring stick like many Bonds haters do.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-05-2009, 01:51 AM
bottom line, if bonds had been pitched to anywhere near as much as ANY other player in the league, he would absolutely have over 1000 home runs for his career...

when you consider the amount of times he was walked, and how many AB's bonds lost to the intentional walk, you have to realize that he would have well over 1000 HR's...
ruth did not get walked like that, and he still didnt have as many home runs as bonds...

obviously bonds was FAR more athletic than ruth and a much better fielder and baserunner...

bonds will DIE in better shape than ruth was EVER in, so please, overall, based on what we know, you have to admit that bonds has the edge, IF you absolutely insist on making this impossible comparison... bonds is better, period... next topic...

Get yourself a calculator, Barry was walked more but Ruth had the lower and better AB/HR ratio, Ruth had the better home run frequency.

Barry had 9847 at bats thats 1448 more at bats than Babe's 8399.
Using Ruth's AB/HR ratio if he had Barry's 9847 at bats he could have reached 800 home runs.

Kyle916
01-05-2009, 01:59 AM
Get yourself a calculator, Barry was walked more but Ruth had the lower and better AB/HR ratio, Ruth had the better home run frequency.

Barry had 9847 at bats thats 1448 more at bats than Babe's 8399.
Using Ruth's AB/HR ratio if he had Barry's 9847 at bats he could have reached 800 home runs.

Okay, you forgot about pitching. Ruth would not have been as successful in today's baseball. Athleticism has improved, scouting reports have improved, strategy has improved. Ruth did more for baseball than most players, but he would not have been nearly as successful playing when Barry was playing.

That AB/HR ratio is not an accurate way to judge.

Old Sweater
01-05-2009, 02:00 AM
Is that a miracle. The older Bonds after age 35 when most level off, some how he puts up a 3 year peak that matches any 3 year peak that the younger Babe Ruth and younger Ted Williams put up when they were in their prime, ten years younger than Bonds.

Some how he makes the younger Bonds himself look almost puny. A 3 or 4 year peak after age 35, not just one fluke season, a 3 or 4 year peak where he almost cuts his AB/HR ratio in half incredible almost in half and maintains a slugging average around 200 points higher than when he was younger.........OPEN your eyes.

Are you that same OLD SWEATER from another board. That still defends Roger Clemens and his weak defense against possible steroid use.
It was supposed to be his former trainer McNamee that was the liar. After that hearing it was clear who was tossing the BS around, Roger got caught with more inconsistencies, thats another word, a nicer word for being caught in a pack of lies.

It doesn't matter that others used, Barry and Roger will have that dark cloud over their head, some of their numbers will always be in doubt. Use some common sense it's the guys with the big numbers that become the target.
Mention pitchers suspected of throwing the spitter, who is the first name, thats right Gaylord Perry, why because he won 300 games. There were others suspect but he's the target because he won so many games, who cares about spit ballers that were so so pitchers.

From the looks of things, it's Barry that came out on the short end.

This is the Barry that said of Ruth a few years ago, " I took his slugging and I'll take his home runs. Don't talk about him (Ruth) no more."

More words of wisdom from Barry's mouth from some years ago on steroid use in the game, "It's none of the people's business what the players do."

My favorite Barryism, " If you wear glasses to do your job better, isn't that cheating, whats the difference."
Yea Barry, that makes sense, sure it does. A legal prescribed pair of glasses compared to using a steroid.
And he wonders why he is so looked down on, his flippant attitude on steroid use in the game.
This guy was a great player but he's lacking something upstairs, talk about dumb statements.


Now what did Barry take that broke MLB's rules? No different then a prescribed pair of glasses.

I blame MLB/Owners/MLBPA a heck of a lot more then any player who took PED's. An I think that anybody that gives more then a 2% boost for PED's is wrong. I'm the same Old Sweater, you the same Shoeless Joe that gave Bonds like a 30 something % boost for slugging% due to PED's for Bonds.

Goofy or not. Dick or not. PED's or not. Bonds is one of the greatest hitters ever to swing a bat.


Some how he makes the younger Bonds himself look almost puny

Bonds weighted 210-220 in 1996 and was bench pressing 350lbs, long before the accusations came about.

cambovenzi
01-05-2009, 02:02 AM
Get yourself a calculator, Barry was walked more but Ruth had the lower and better AB/HR ratio, Ruth had the better home run frequency.

Barry had 9847 at bats thats 1448 more at bats than Babe's 8399.
Using Ruth's AB/HR ratio if he had Barry's 9847 at bats he could have reached 800 home runs.

yeah but that is skewed b/c bonds started fulltime at a much younger age.(21)
his power wasnt fully developed yet.
while ruth didnt get over 400 ABs in a season until he was 24.
also ruth figuratively fell off a cliff when he got old. he wasnt going to keep up that pace. or start on that pace from an earlier age.

cambovenzi
01-05-2009, 02:04 AM
Now what did Barry take that broke MLB's rules? No different then a prescribed pair of glasses.

I blame MLB/Owners/MLBPA a heck of a lot more then any player who took PED's. An I think that anybody that gives more then a 2% boost for PED's is wrong. I'm the same Old Sweater, you the same Shoeless Joe that gave Bonds like a 30 something % boost for slugging% due to PED's for Bonds.

Goofy or not. Dick or not. PED's or not. Bonds is one of the greatest hitters ever to swing a bat.



Bonds weighted 210-220 in 1996 and was bench pressing 350lbs, long before the accusations came about.

thats like blaming gun stores for murders.:eyebrow:

how do you figure 2%. its not really an exact science.
he took it and got bigger. which means more strength, which leads to more HRs, which leads to teams being afraid of him and walking him at an ungodly rate.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-05-2009, 02:05 AM
Your welcome!

You just get so sick of Bonds haters using him as his own measuring stick for assumed PED use. You still have to have the stroke of Bonds, and his many other talents and work ethic that his trainer ways was unmatched by any other athlete he trained.

I read where a Giants teammate came back to the bench and said " how does anyone hit this guy?" he was referring to the Rockies Curtis Leskanic. Bonds said easy, when he holds his glove in, it's a slider, when he holds his glove out, it's a fastball. Dusty Baker took a long gander at Leskanic and told Bonds, you're BSing us, he holds the glove the same for the slider and the fastball. Bonds then called slider or fastball correct on like 6 or 7 pitches amazing Baker an his teammates. Now Baker has a trained eye and was a good MLB player an he couldn't pick up on what Bonds could pick up on. Bonds also done this at an all star game that led the other NL stars to be amazed. Ped's can not help pick up on pitches, or hit the ball, get a Ted Williams like uppercut swing, swing at balls only in the hit zone. Bonds is a #1 dick but I ain't going to diss him for all his talents and enjoyment he has given me over the years because of hate, like many fans do.

Like I said before, I only give a hitter a 2% boost for PED's anyways. If Bonds used PED's, IMO, that is still 98% Bonds talent out on the field and batters box. PED's does not grow a blue suit with a red cape on any player including Bonds. PED's does not give Bonds more of a boost then any other player. You can not accurately or fairly use Bonds as his own PED measuring stick like many Bonds haters do.

Whats your qualifications for arriving at 2%, why should anyone accept that, I'm being honest, I have no idea.

If a player used, no one is going to play around with percentages because no one really knows. Use steroids, if proven and some of your numbers will always be suspect, thats life. You may be indifferent on the steroid issue, thats your choice, but your not the last word I can tell you that a great number of posters on other boards, not all Barry bashers have dropped him down a bit on the all time list because he is suspect.
An example of how some view steroid use, already some have said they will not vote the HOF for Mark McGwire because at the hearings under oath when asked about steroid use..... he said, he didn't want to talk about the past and there was no steroid ban or program in the game at that time even if he did use.

Barry a different case, some may not vote for him but I'm betting he makes it, he was ten times the player McGwire ever was, even a clean Barry was. Still he won't be viewed the same as was thought years ago, the cloud stays with him.

Old Sweater
01-05-2009, 02:06 AM
Okay, you forgot about pitching. Ruth would not have been as successful in today's baseball. Athleticism has improved, scouting reports have improved, strategy has improved. Ruth did more for baseball than most players, but he would not have been nearly as successful playing when Barry was playing.

That AB/HR ratio is not an accurate way to judge.


True, not unless you take off your Ruth pajamas and use some common sense. Ruth backers aren't just happy to have him as the greatest player of any era when the gap between the average player and Ruth was as wide as the Grand Canyon. They want to use those "gap stats" as proof compared to any era of any player.

Old Sweater
01-05-2009, 02:16 AM
Whats your qualifications for arriving at 2%, why should anyone accept that, I'm being honest, I have no idea.

If a player used, no one is going to play around with percentages because no one really knows. Use steroids, if proven and some of your numbers will always be suspect, thats life. You may be indifferent on the steroid issue, thats your choice, but your not the last word I can tell you that a great number of posters on other boards, not all Barry bashers have dropped him down a bit on the all time list because he is suspect.
An example of how some view steroid use, already some have said they will not vote the HOF for Mark McGwire because at the hearings under oath when asked about steroid use..... he said, he didn't want to talk about the past and there was no steroid ban or program in the game at that time even if he did use.

Barry a different case, some may not vote for him but I'm betting he makes it, he was ten times the player McGwire ever was, even a clean Barry was. Still he won't be viewed the same as was thought years ago, the cloud stays with him.

Well none of us fans will ever know the true percentage of the PED boost until they train a lab rat to swing a bat, since they don't allow human testing as you know.

I give my 2% boost from reading 30 or so articles on PED's and their assumed boost. Plus PED's can't locate the ball or give it movement for pitchers. Most pitching coaches have location/movement/velocity in that order plus the biggest benefit of PED's for pitchers is recovery.

PED's for batters can actually add to their weapon but the only article that I have found that gives added distance for muscle, only gives the hitter an added 40 inches at best. I posted it earlier in this thread. Plus, PED's don't hit the ball or anything that may add to hitting the ball.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-05-2009, 02:25 AM
yeah but that is skewed b/c bonds started fulltime at a much younger age.(21)
his power wasnt fully developed yet.
while ruth didnt get over 400 ABs in a season until he was 24.
also ruth figuratively fell off a cliff when he got old. he wasnt going to keep up that pace. or start on that pace from an earlier age.
Theres no skew at all. The number covers the start to the end of the career of both players.

You don't even have to go back to the much younger Barry.

Lets take the older Barry age 32-35 1997-2000 AB/HR ratio 11.99
slugging percentage .623

Barry age 36-39 2000-2004 AB/HR ratio 7.85 slugging .809

Is that more fair, I'm using an older Barry, the drop in AB/HR ratio not as great as compared to his career from 1986-2000. But take a look at the jump, that 7.85 and .809 slugging over a 4 year period is off the chart and add to that the player is closing in on 40 years of age.

This just doen't happen from pumping iron, not at that age, it's like two completely different players.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-05-2009, 02:32 AM
Well none of us fans will ever know the true percentage of the PED boost until they train a lab rat to swing a bat, since they don't allow human testing as you know.

I give my 2% boost from reading 30 or so articles on PED's and their assumed boost. Plus PED's can't locate the ball or give it movement for pitchers. Most pitching coaches have location/movement/velocity in that order plus the biggest benefit of PED's for pitchers is recovery.

PED's for batters can actually add to their weapon but the only article that I have found that gives added distance for muscle, only gives the hitter an added 40 inches at best. I posted it earlier in this thread. Plus, PED's don't hit the ball or anything that may add to hitting the ball.

You have to be kidding, how in the heck could anyone ever come up with a 40 inch increase in distance, thats a laugher.
If a player uses steroids which can increase muscle mass, add bodyweight and increase body strength how does that add a little more than a yard to distance. As far as I know there was never any distance test so to just add inches to distance is a joke.

cambovenzi
01-05-2009, 02:32 AM
oh i agree that he most likely took PED's.
i just thought that you were also using HR ratios to show that ruth was better.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-05-2009, 02:35 AM
Now what did Barry take that broke MLB's rules? No different then a prescribed pair of glasses.

I blame MLB/Owners/MLBPA a heck of a lot more then any player who took PED's. An I think that anybody that gives more then a 2% boost for PED's is wrong. I'm the same Old Sweater, you the same Shoeless Joe that gave Bonds like a 30 something % boost for slugging% due to PED's for Bonds.

Goofy or not. Dick or not. PED's or not. Bonds is one of the greatest hitters ever to swing a bat.



Bonds weighted 210-220 in 1996 and was bench pressing 350lbs, long before the accusations came about.

OK lets blame everyone except those that chose to use steroids.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-05-2009, 02:39 AM
oh i agree that he most likely took PED's.
i just thought that you were also using HR ratios to show that ruth was better.

Thats exactly what I'm saying. Thats the measure of the home run hitters, AB/HR ratio. It's the only fair way since the two players have a wide gap in at bats. It's not just Ruth, it's the accepted method to rank power hitters.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-05-2009, 02:44 AM
Okay, you forgot about pitching. Ruth would not have been as successful in today's baseball. Athleticism has improved, scouting reports have improved, strategy has improved. Ruth did more for baseball than most players, but he would not have been nearly as successful playing when Barry was playing.

That AB/HR ratio is not an accurate way to judge.

Kyle, the only way to attempt to judge a past player coming into todays game is to assume that player would be using all the modern advances that are in use today. He wouldn't be the same, better trained, better nutrition, watching videos of opposing pitchers.

Your also missing the point I've said over and over. I never said Ruth would be as dominant in todays game.

cambovenzi
01-05-2009, 03:08 AM
Thats exactly what I'm saying. Thats the measure of the home run hitters, AB/HR ratio. It's the only fair way since the two players have a wide gap in at bats. It's not just Ruth, it's the accepted method to rank power hitters.

yeah and that # is skewed b/c bonds' extra ABs came from an age where his power wasnt developed as much. i seriously doubt ruth would have been able to put up even close to similar power #'s at a younger or older age then when he played.

Kyle916
01-05-2009, 04:14 AM
Kyle, the only way to attempt to judge a past player coming into todays game is to assume that player would be using all the modern advances that are in use today. He wouldn't be the same, better trained, better nutrition, watching videos of opposing pitchers.

Your also missing the point I've said over and over. I never said Ruth would be as dominant in todays game.

That's why i'm saying you cannot compare these two to see who's the "better" player.

They played in different eras.

The only thing you can compare is the impact they had on the game in their respective time periods.

And Ruth had the bigger impact.

Old Sweater
01-05-2009, 06:02 AM
You have to be kidding, how in the heck could anyone ever come up with a 40 inch increase in distance, thats a laugher.
If a player uses steroids which can increase muscle mass, add bodyweight and increase body strength how does that add a little more than a yard to distance. As far as I know there was never any distance test so to just add inches to distance is a joke.


I posted the link in the thread earlier. It's back there. What is a joke is that you one time gave Bonds a 30% or so boost in slg and other stats due to PED's alone, using him as his own PED measuring stick.

Old Sweater
01-05-2009, 06:10 AM
Thats exactly what I'm saying. Thats the measure of the home run hitters, AB/HR ratio. It's the only fair way since the two players have a wide gap in at bats. It's not just Ruth, it's the accepted method to rank power hitters.



Kyle, the only way to attempt to judge a past player coming into todays game is to assume that player would be using all the modern advances that are in use today. He wouldn't be the same, better trained, better nutrition, watching videos of opposing pitchers.

Your also missing the point I've said over and over. I never said Ruth would be as dominant in todays game.

It's not really fair to use Ruths gap stats compared to any player past 1930. The league done nothing to correct the advantage the hitters had from 1920-1930 till the league averages were .300...........league averages have always been around .260 in other eras.

Old Sweater
01-05-2009, 06:18 AM
OK lets blame everyone except those that chose to use steroids.


Using who as a source? Canseco who said 85% of MLB players used PED's or Caminiti who claimed around 50%? Or maybe Tom House House that said about 6 or 7 pitchers on every staff were fooling with steroids in the early 70's. Little white bunnies don't play the game. It ain't a church league. Players in the NFL use PED's and nothing is made of it, like it is to be expected from them. Of course their commissioner and owners don't have nothing to hide about PED's since the late 60's, like the owners and Selig have in baseball.

Old Sweater
01-05-2009, 06:41 AM
thats like blaming gun stores for murders.:eyebrow:

how do you figure 2%. its not really an exact science.
he took it and got bigger. which means more strength, which leads to more HRs, which leads to teams being afraid of him and walking him at an ungodly rate.

Not really, it's like the stores selling guns to murderers to increase business then after the store has made about all the profit they can off the muderers they turn them in, to the law, while they get off scott free after encouraging murder in the first place.

You, as same as anybody don't know that Bonds took PED's. The workouts alone would increase the body mass. Bonds never expanded the zone is the reason teams walked him. PED's don't give you a hitters eye.

cambovenzi
01-05-2009, 06:48 AM
walks werent the reason why bonds was good.
he was roided up and had godly power.
which led to teams not pitching to him.
combine that with an already good ballplayer and you have something "special".

he was already caught using some of that stuff.
and its quite clear that he did take PED's.

btw the MLB didnt sell or promote PED's to players that i know of.
the guys cheated, and got caught. its their fault. they were the ones who used.
sure, the MLB profited off of it. but at the end of the day it was the players choice to use.

Old Sweater
01-05-2009, 07:21 AM
walks werent the reason why bonds was good.
he was roided up and had godly power.
which led to teams not pitching to him.
combine that with an already good ballplayer and you have something "special".

he was already caught using some of that stuff.
and its quite clear that he did take PED's.

btw the MLB didnt sell or promote PED's to players that i know of.
the guys cheated, and got caught. its their fault. they were the ones who used.
sure, the MLB profited off of it. but at the end of the day it was the players choice to use.

Where did you find the fact that PED power is greater then workout power?

How do you know Bonds took PED's when Kemberly Bell that lived with him for years never saw him take PED's?

No matter how much power you have if you swing out of the zone it does you no good. That is why teams walked Bonds. He didn't go fishing for the bait.


the MLB didnt sell or promote PED's to players that i know of.
the guys cheated, and got caught. its their fault. they were the ones who used.
sure, the MLB profited off of it. but at the end of the day it was the players choice to use.

Read some books, some clubs even encouraged PED use and certainly didn't scorn the use of PED's. Crap rolls down hill and as usual the top never gets caught or penalized.

Old Sweater
01-05-2009, 07:25 AM
I dont want to leave the Garbage in the bin, I want to destroy this guy, and that's why I go to you guys my friends. I will continue to post what he says and hopefully you'll just rip apart what he says. Like I said I want to embarass him, and want him to pay for saying that Ruth wouldn't be able to play in todays game because he's a fat drunken player.

Thanks for all your help so far.

Keep up the good work.

http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=86087&page=2


Alright! Some little rat fink to lazy to do their own research is using BBF. This has to be the most pathetic use of boards I have ever seen. This little lazy rat goes by George H Ruth over there.


ShoelessJoe3, I find it surprising that you would take part in a setup like this. Let the Rat, George H Ruth do his own research.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-05-2009, 08:05 AM
I posted the link in the thread earlier. It's back there. What is a joke is that you one time gave Bonds a 30% or so boost in slg and other stats due to PED's alone, using him as his own PED measuring stick.

I never gave Bonds or any player a 30 percent boost, my answer has always been the same, no specific number, I don't know.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-05-2009, 08:12 AM
Using who as a source? Canseco who said 85% of MLB players used PED's or Caminiti who claimed around 50%? Or maybe Tom House House that said about 6 or 7 pitchers on every staff were fooling with steroids in the early 70's. Little white bunnies don't play the game. It ain't a church league. Players in the NFL use PED's and nothing is made of it, like it is to be expected from them. Of course their commissioner and owners don't have nothing to hide about PED's since the late 60's, like the owners and Selig have in baseball.

Your using the old "ghetto defense", OH I may have used a steroid but look at my surroundings, look what was taking place around me, others were using, why single out me, give me a break.

Poor excuse, no excuse.
What leads you to believe that Conseco's 85 percent is valid, and even if it was, how does that let any user that gets caught off the hook................because others used, tell that to the judge.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-05-2009, 08:20 AM
Alright! Some little rat fink to lazy to do their own research is using BBF. This has to be the most pathetic use of boards I have ever seen. This little lazy rat goes by George H Ruth over there.


ShoelessJoe3, I find it surprising that you would take part in a setup like this. Let the Rat, George H Ruth do his own research.

This is not the first time I visited another board to enter a discussion that was brought to the attention of the BBF board.
I came in here not to glorify Babe Ruth, how many times must I say out of his times he does not dominate as he did in the 1920s.
I came in here to shoot down the notion that he would be little more than an also ran in modern times. It looks as though thats not enough yield for some posters here, they want him a little to lower on the list.

Old Sweater
01-05-2009, 08:48 AM
I never gave Bonds or any player a 30 percent boost, my answer has always been the same, no specific number, I don't know.


Well when you lumped those assumed years of PED use compared to the other years of Bonds you're actually giving all the boost to PED's. Been a while since you posted them but the slg% was like a 30% boost. You never even mentioned any other factors for Bonds besides PED's.

Old Sweater
01-05-2009, 08:53 AM
This is not the first time I visited another board to enter a discussion that was brought to the attention of the BBF board.
I came in here not to glorify Babe Ruth, how many times must I say out of his times he does not dominate as he did in the 1920s.
I came in here to shoot down the notion that he would be little more than an also ran in modern times. It looks as though thats not enough yield for some posters here, they want him a little to lower on the list.

I to believe that Ruth would have been a great player today. I have stated so. He just wouldn't have the "gap stats" that would have made him the auto #1 pick that he gets in each an everyone of these polls. When I went over to BBF it just ticked me off that a poster was using info from there like it was a case of vendetta for him/her. The rat is taking info from here and posting it over there. I'm quite sure the poster here don't appreciate it and I don't blame him.

Old Sweater
01-05-2009, 09:08 AM
Your using the old "ghetto defense", OH I may have used a steroid but look at my surroundings, look what was taking place around me, others were using, why single out me, give me a break.

Poor excuse, no excuse.
What leads you to believe that Canseco's 85 percent is valid, and even if it was, how does that let any user that gets caught off the hook................because others used, tell that to the judge.

Nothing is valid what the rat Canseco says, including the 40lb weight gain by Bonds in a year or so. It's just a counter view of a ghetto defense that Bonds haters always use as giving near 100% of Bonds accomplishments to steroids during the assumed PED years. Not one of them ever cite his workout dedication, his stroke or anything. Every Bonds disser or hater uses nothing but assumption of PED use.

Players are human, if the people who run the league allows sinning to be tolerated, players are going to sin with the risk of being caught being minimal and the rewards in the millions. Look at that guy that just ripped off the Mets owner in a white collar crime.

An you give me a break, if MLB/Commissioners Kuhn-Selig had been on the PED ball since 1970 or so, we wouldn't be having this dicussion about Bonds. Why do most fans never blame the top of the hill compared to the bottom. Owners have been exploiting players since day 1 for money gain and never get the rap. Buck Weaver done no more then Charles Comiskey/John Heydler or Ban Johnson and got banned for life. Comiskey and Johnson that knew about the 1919 WS fix and did nothing got elected into the HOF.

ESPNisBiased
01-05-2009, 10:14 AM
As a hitter it's clearly Ruth. Bonds was a better all-around player.

Are you serious? How many games has Bond won as a pitcher? Oh yes Ruth was a 20 game winning left handed pitcher as well as played the outfield on the days he did not pitch. Ruth was by far the better Baseball Player!

bagwell368
01-05-2009, 10:36 AM
I've already said, already agreed that Ruth would not stand out as much as a slugger had he played in a later time period because there would be others playing the same game, the long ball.

If he does not stand out, then the core of the argument in favor of him as the best falls down to the level of conjecture as opposed to a given fact.


best 3 year peaks, 5 year peaks and total career numbers. Are you forgetting that he was a pitcher only his first 4 seasons batting every 4th or 5th day, never played a 154 game schedule as an every day player until his 7th season in MLB 1920, 1919 was a short season.

No, I am quite in mind of what Ruth did and when he did it. If Foxx and Gehrig put up seasons that do not look out of place in Ruth's collection of years, then Ruth is not unique, he is just first. Again one of my major points. A stat like OPS+ works best when there is an some distribution of talent, a single point will always skew the results. There was not in 1921. There were guys with big OBP's and OK SLG, and higher BA's then Ruth, so he takes over the stat. What guys dominated since - Ted, Musial, Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Bonds, Schmidt - six of those seven hit during eras in whole or part that were offensively ******** compared to what Ruth had. So by raw numbers they were never going to put up the wild numbers of Ruth. Because they were first among equals, and not the first period, a stat like OPS+ will always tamp them down.


I don't get your McCovey comparison. Even if he had no competition his level of hitting is no where near Ruth's, again your talking about standing out. AGAIN, it's not about standing out in a players time.

McCovey is your basic HOF level player, who happened to put up a season in 1969 that ranks with the best Ruth ever put up. .320/.453/.656 45 HR - do raw numbers say that - no. 4.05 runs scored per team per game in the NL in 1969. In 1931 Ruth put up a .373/.495/.700 46 HR year, which on the surface appears to be better. But in this year and league 5.14 runs scored per game - or 22.2% more offense in McCovey's year. Viola - apply corrections and McCovey's year is going to be better - perhaps not in BA, but for sure in OBP and SLG.


If Pujols was playing in the 1920s, he wouldn't be the same player. He would be subject to the same conditions all others would be that were born in those times, nutrition, training methods.

If Pujols was born in that time, he would not have been allowed to play MLB!!


Your bringing up the advances that todays player enjoy... more training, changes in diet, coaching, year around play, training regimens, use of film etc. These are things that Pujols would not enjoy if he were born and played back then

Arrrgh! But the point is he has enjoyed them, he is enjoying them, and he will continue to enjoy them. It isn't Ruth and Pujols man to man - on some weird field of battle where the stat sheet of Ruth says to you that Ruth has already won, it is Ruth vs. Pujols man to man and system to system. Because that's how they were created. It is a team game, a game of observation, a game of sudden activity with much longer periods of boredom. Coaching, film study, workouts, etc. Pujols and his system is better now and better in Ruth's time then Ruth. Otherwise you are saying that the genes in Ruth obviate anything and everything about Pujols's genes and his training and diet vs the beer, hot dog and cigarette training of Ruth and the Manager that says "play ball".


Lets get serious here, you want to send Pujols back in time [U]as he is today, thats silly. You don't send them back as is, you put them back under the same conditions all players were subject to in that era, not as is. Thats the way it would be in real life, all would be playing under the same conditions. Of course any player going back as is would have all the advantages. As is, that not real life.

Since either way is impossible, I'll choose my way.

I learned a long time ago - and many times over that when someone is set, all you get is high blood pressure from arguing with them. I have argued (in a somewhat sprawling fashion I admit) quite a few angels on this topic, and actually seem to have more support then usual - but you continue to talk about Ruth's seasons as stand alone to anything else. So let me ask:

#1. Do you agree that Ruth re-popularized the long ball as a strategy?
#2. Do you agree that the pitchers of the time had to scramble to change, and even all time greats like WJ and Alexander did worse after 1920 then before?
#3. Do you agree that Foxx had 5 seasons and Gehrig 7 seasons in the same time frame as Ruth, that could fit into Ruth's career? If so, then Ruth was not unique, but did have 1920-1926 when nobody on the hitting side matched him (more Collins, Cobb type hitters) - not because Ruth was super great, but because they hadn't learned how to do it. The same goes for pitchers.

In the 1940-60 time frame Ted came along, and he almost had the same BA (.002 over Ruth but -- Ted .067 over league, Ruth .057 over league), and a higher OBP (.130 over league, and .008 over Ruth) then Ruth (.121 over league) - year in and year out. While not possessing the same power of Ruth, his SLG was still nothing to sneeze at, and he batted in an era - the 50's which was very low in runs scored which ******** his overall numers, and served his country twice losing perhaps a solid edge of his hitting skills - not to mention a LOT of numbers. He also had more competition to face then Ruth in raw numbers of white men in the 40's (population growth), and a somewhat integrating AL in the 50's (even more ball players). Also the hitters and pitchers of the 50's were fully steeped in the power game, unlike the guys feeling there way along after Ruth exploded on them in 1920. Also baseball was at its peak as a fan sport, so every kid played sandlot or wherever they could.

Ted was .226 ahead of the league in SLG. Ruth was .290 ahead. .056 ahead of Ted, but Ruth played at least two years too long , and Ted probably 3, and all those lost years of Ted at prime age (24, 25, 26) and again most of age 33 and 34 - and whatever he lost from not playing in all in those years would have made it much tighter. Ruth didn't hit until age 19-24, but his teams thought he was worth more as a pitcher. Most hitters do not hit stride until at least 23 if not 25, so I would have expect good things if he hit, but not .290 ahead of league - and if so, the live ball era would have started earlier.

And again of course Ruth's biggest SLG advantages came early on when he racked up:

1920 .849 > .407
1921 .846 > .424
1924 .739 > .409 (and then held around here or went down thereafter)
1932 .661 > .410

Bonds is the only other guy with > .800 SLG numbers

1993 .677 > .407
2001 .863 > .426
2004 .812 > .439

I notice that the SLG numbers of Bonds time is higher then Ruth's - not surprising. And I have presented information on Ted and Bonds here and in the past that should at least put them at Ruth's level if not well ahead due to the advantages of the time, which are inescapable.

Think of Boxing. Do you think Ali would have been as great had he come along now with the brand X boxers that are around today? He was grilled and tested by Liston, Frazier, Norton, Foreman and emerged as an all time great. Ruth is like that, he KO'd (although strangely the Yanks won a LOT more titles in DiMaggio's and Mantle's time) - oh yeah, the 1931 Athletics would have killed the 1927 Yankees too, but who pressed him to be better? What pressed him to be better?



What about

SHOELESSJOE3
01-05-2009, 05:22 PM
If he does not stand out, then the core of the argument in favor of him as the best falls down to the level of conjecture as opposed to a given fact.



No, I am quite in mind of what Ruth did and when he did it. If Foxx and Gehrig put up seasons that do not look out of place in Ruth's collection of years, then Ruth is not unique, he is just first. Again one of my major points. A stat like OPS+ works best when there is an some distribution of talent, a single point will always skew the results. There was not in 1921. There were guys with big OBP's and OK SLG, and higher BA's then Ruth, so he takes over the stat. What guys dominated since - Ted, Musial, Mantle, Mays, Aaron, Bonds, Schmidt - six of those seven hit during eras in whole or part that were offensively ******** compared to what Ruth had. So by raw numbers they were never going to put up the wild numbers of Ruth. Because they were first among equals, and not the first period, a stat like OPS+ will always tamp them down.



McCovey is your basic HOF level player, who happened to put up a season in 1969 that ranks with the best Ruth ever put up. .320/.453/.656 45 HR - do raw numbers say that - no. 4.05 runs scored per team per game in the NL in 1969. In 1931 Ruth put up a .373/.495/.700 46 HR year, which on the surface appears to be better. But in this year and league 5.14 runs scored per game - or 22.2% more offense in McCovey's year. Viola - apply corrections and McCovey's year is going to be better - perhaps not in BA, but for sure in OBP and SLG.



If Pujols was born in that time, he would not have been allowed to play MLB!!



Arrrgh! But the point is he has enjoyed them, he is enjoying them, and he will continue to enjoy them. It isn't Ruth and Pujols man to man - on some weird field of battle where the stat sheet of Ruth says to you that Ruth has already won, it is Ruth vs. Pujols man to man and system to system. Because that's how they were created. It is a team game, a game of observation, a game of sudden activity with much longer periods of boredom. Coaching, film study, workouts, etc. Pujols and his system is better now and better in Ruth's time then Ruth. Otherwise you are saying that the genes in Ruth obviate anything and everything about Pujols's genes and his training and diet vs the beer, hot dog and cigarette training of Ruth and the Manager that says "play ball".



Since either way is impossible, I'll choose my way.

I learned a long time ago - and many times over that when someone is set, all you get is high blood pressure from arguing with them. I have argued (in a somewhat sprawling fashion I admit) quite a few angels on this topic, and actually seem to have more support then usual - but you continue to talk about Ruth's seasons as stand alone to anything else. So let me ask:

#1. Do you agree that Ruth re-popularized the long ball as a strategy?
#2. Do you agree that the pitchers of the time had to scramble to change, and even all time greats like WJ and Alexander did worse after 1920 then before?
#3. Do you agree that Foxx had 5 seasons and Gehrig 7 seasons in the same time frame as Ruth, that could fit into Ruth's career? If so, then Ruth was not unique, but did have 1920-1926 when nobody on the hitting side matched him (more Collins, Cobb type hitters) - not because Ruth was super great, but because they hadn't learned how to do it. The same goes for pitchers.

In the 1940-60 time frame Ted came along, and he almost had the same BA (.002 over Ruth but -- Ted .067 over league, Ruth .057 over league), and a higher OBP (.130 over league, and .008 over Ruth) then Ruth (.121 over league) - year in and year out. While not possessing the same power of Ruth, his SLG was still nothing to sneeze at, and he batted in an era - the 50's which was very low in runs scored which ******** his overall numers, and served his country twice losing perhaps a solid edge of his hitting skills - not to mention a LOT of numbers. He also had more competition to face then Ruth in raw numbers of white men in the 40's (population growth), and a somewhat integrating AL in the 50's (even more ball players). Also the hitters and pitchers of the 50's were fully steeped in the power game, unlike the guys feeling there way along after Ruth exploded on them in 1920. Also baseball was at its peak as a fan sport, so every kid played sandlot or wherever they could.

Ted was .226 ahead of the league in SLG. Ruth was .290 ahead. .056 ahead of Ted, but Ruth played at least two years too long , and Ted probably 3, and all those lost years of Ted at prime age (24, 25, 26) and again most of age 33 and 34 - and whatever he lost from not playing in all in those years would have made it much tighter. Ruth didn't hit until age 19-24, but his teams thought he was worth more as a pitcher. Most hitters do not hit stride until at least 23 if not 25, so I would have expect good things if he hit, but not .290 ahead of league - and if so, the live ball era would have started earlier.

And again of course Ruth's biggest SLG advantages came early on when he racked up:

1920 .849 > .407
1921 .846 > .424
1924 .739 > .409 (and then held around here or went down thereafter)
1932 .661 > .410

Bonds is the only other guy with > .800 SLG numbers

1993 .677 > .407
2001 .863 > .426
2004 .812 > .439

I notice that the SLG numbers of Bonds time is higher then Ruth's - not surprising. And I have presented information on Ted and Bonds here and in the past that should at least put them at Ruth's level if not well ahead due to the advantages of the time, which are inescapable.

Think of Boxing. Do you think Ali would have been as great had he come along now with the brand X boxers that are around today? He was grilled and tested by Liston, Frazier, Norton, Foreman and emerged as an all time great. Ruth is like that, he KO'd (although strangely the Yanks won a LOT more titles in DiMaggio's and Mantle's time) - oh yeah, the 1931 Athletics would have killed the 1927 Yankees too, but who pressed him to be better? What pressed him to be better?



What about
When someone is set you say, I could say the same thing about you. You accuse me of being stuck in cement, unwilling to change, thats what you say, we could turn that around and point the finger at you, but I won't, just illustrating how foolish that "set" statement looks
First, I never use the stat OPS+ when making the case for Ruth. I realized that he separated himself from those in his time because he was the forerunner of the long ball, is that fair enough. Add to that, he doesn't need that stat to boost him to the top.

Ruth 1931 and McCovey 1969. First question, why 1931, Ruth had a number of better seasons, that one I don't get at all.

Pujols, can we get serious about that one, we could assume that "if" he was allowed to play, I didn't toss Pujols into the mix, I only replied to a post. I'm not saying anything about Ruth's genes. All I said regarding any of todays players going into the past, you don't send them back "as is" with all the advancments over the years. If one of todays were actually playing in that time he would be living under the same conditions all other would be living in.

Now your getting sarcastic but you make no point when you say.... "strangely the Yanks won a LOT more titles in Dimaggo's and Mantle's time. What does that mean, surprised that one as you that appears to know a good deal about the game would even make such a statement. Should we think less of Ruth because the Yanks won more with Dimaggio and Mantle. How many did the Bosox win with Ted, did the Giant ever win a World Series with Bonds. Do I think less of Ted or Barry because of that, no I don't. You fail with that one, linking great players to championships, some of the best have never won even one time. Are you anti Yank, some how you know the "31" Philadelphia team could whip the "27" Yanks, how do you know

The L Train
01-05-2009, 06:48 PM
bonds is a juicer , ruth.. not so much

provide a link with PROOF, or kindly shut your yap.

The L Train
01-05-2009, 07:00 PM
Get yourself a calculator, Barry was walked more but Ruth had the lower and better AB/HR ratio, Ruth had the better home run frequency.

Barry had 9847 at bats thats 1448 more at bats than Babe's 8399.
Using Ruth's AB/HR ratio if he had Barry's 9847 at bats he could have reached 800 home runs.


maybe i'll get YOU a calculator... read my post again, i said if bonds had been pitched to the amount of times that any other player has, he would easily have over 1000 HR... and it wouldnt matter if you're right about ruth having 800 because that would still leave bonds ahead of him by, um, hold on, let me grab the calculator, ok, by 200 or more HR...

look at the amount of at bats barry lost to pitchers who refused to pitch to him... consider barry's AB/HR ratio, and that puts him well over 1000...

however you slice it up, bonds is king...

The L Train
01-05-2009, 07:08 PM
walks werent the reason why bonds was good.
he was roided up and had godly power.
which led to teams not pitching to him.
combine that with an already good ballplayer and you have something "special".

he was already caught using some of that stuff.
and its quite clear that he did take PED's.

btw the MLB didnt sell or promote PED's to players that i know of.
the guys cheated, and got caught. its their fault. they were the ones who used.
sure, the MLB profited off of it. but at the end of the day it was the players choice to use.


i ask you to provide one of two things

1. a link backing up your claims
2. a phone number to your drug dealer so i can buy some of what you've been smoking

bagwell368
01-05-2009, 07:20 PM
When someone is set you say, I could say the same thing about you.

I demonstrated the ability to change my mind to go from hidebound yes man to an iconoclast in the 1985-1990 period. I was certainly not raised to be that way, and my boyhood bookshelf was full of hero worship books about baseball players.


You accuse me of being stuck in cement, unwilling to change, thats what you say, we could turn that around and point the finger at you, but I won't, just illustrating how foolish that "set" statement looks

Then please demonstrate a time when you changed your mind on Ruth being #1? If you never changed then by definition you are set, and if you have then I didn't know and I withdraw my prior statement with a sincere sorry.


First, I never use the stat OPS+ when making the case for Ruth. I realized that he separated himself from those in his time because he was the forerunner of the long ball, is that fair enough. Add to that, he doesn't need that stat to boost him to the top.

Good.


Ruth 1931 and McCovey 1969. First question, why 1931, Ruth had a number of better seasons, that one I don't get at all.

Because the BA/OBP/SLG numbers are close enough overall that when you contrast the league difference in runs (substantial) it is easy to see the argument. Taking one of Ruth's .800+ SLG years would be harder to demonstrate don't you think?


Pujols, can we get serious about that one, we could assume that "if" he was allowed to play, I didn't toss Pujols into the mix, I only replied to a post. I'm not saying anything about Ruth's genes. All I said regarding any of todays players going into the past, you don't send them back "as is" with all the advancments over the years. If one of todays were actually playing in that time he would be living under the same conditions all other would be living in.

Again I argue that the man + the time = the player. Ruth is a product of his time and Pujols is a product of his. There is no way to cut out the man from his time. But I do think that if you take the man and his wrappings as they were and thrust them in another time it is a valid way to compare, or at least imagine what would happen. Visualization will help come to an answer. Saying it can't be done or should not be done simply locks the question away in a way that always supports Ruth because you have a 2D sepia picture of Ruth the player, and his surrounding times. I want Ruth in 3 or at least 2.5 dimensions, because the game of baseball is meant to be played not talked about if there is a choice.


Now your getting sarcastic but you make no point when you say.... "strangely the Yanks won a LOT more titles in Dimaggo's and Mantle's time. What does that mean, surprised that one as you that appears to know a good deal about the game would even make such a statement. Should we think less of Ruth because the Yanks won more with Dimaggio and Mantle. How many did the Bosox win with Ted, did the Giant ever win a World Series with Bonds. Do I think less of Ted or Barry because of that, no I don't. You fail with that one, linking great players to championships, some of the best have never won even one time. Are you anti Yank, some how you know the "31" Philadelphia team could whip the "27" Yanks, how do you know

You know, when one gets frustrated one hits the levers available. I do think its surprising that Ruth/Gehrig/Lazzeri/etc. didn't do better. The #1 hitter of all time, with maybe the #5 at his side. Hmmm. DiMaggio had a killer team, but Mantle? He had Berra, Ford, and every year it was another hitter and a pitcher that made up the core.

For one thing the '27 team is overrated - much like Ruth. So having studied comparative teams I arrived at the conclusion the '31 Athletics was the greatest team of all time - compared to their time.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-05-2009, 10:19 PM
maybe i'll get YOU a calculator... read my post again, i said if bonds had been pitched to the amount of times that any other player has, he would easily have over 1000 HR... and it wouldnt matter if you're right about ruth having 800 because that would still leave bonds ahead of him by, um, hold on, let me grab the calculator, ok, by 200 or more HR...

look at the amount of at bats barry lost to pitchers who refused to pitch to him... consider barry's AB/HR ratio, and that puts him well over 1000...

however you slice it up, bonds is king...

I got ya, I never did say Bonds mught not hit 1000 home runs if he was pitched to. I just countered and said Ruth with the number of at bats Barry did have would have hit around 800, maybe 800 plus.

Barry, king of what, he has the most but that does not make him king. Did you forget Aaron hit more than Ruth and he was not regarded as the best or greatest home run hitter.

Big difference between the most.......which can't be disputed............and the best or greatest which is often debated.
Is Cy Young the greatest because he won the most games
Is Pete Rose the greatest because he had the most hits, his name doesn't even come up when great hitters are discussed

cambovenzi
01-05-2009, 10:33 PM
i ask you to provide one of two things

1. a link backing up your claims
2. a phone number to your drug dealer so i can buy some of what you've been smoking


Barry Bonds told a federal grand jury that he used a clear substance and a cream supplied by the Burlingame laboratory now enmeshed in a sports doping scandal, but he said he never thought they were steroids, The Chronicle has learned.

Federal prosecutors charge that the Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative, known as BALCO, distributed undetectable steroids to elite athletes in the form of a clear substance that was taken orally and a cream that was rubbed onto the body.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/12/03


Conte indicates that Bonds knew about steroidshttp://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=2589733/MNGGFA0UDU65.DTL

like its such a stretch that barry freakin bonds used steroids. lmao.:eyebrow:

maybe i should have gone to his house, brought some rope, and tied him up while he was using. and brought him back to you.
then what would the excuse be? that i gave it to him? lol.

cambovenzi
01-05-2009, 10:35 PM
I got ya, I never did say Bonds mught not hit 1000 home runs if he was pitched to. I just countered and said Ruth with the number of at bats Barry did have would have hit around 800, maybe 800 plus.

Barry, king of what, he has the most but that does not make him king. Did you forget Aaron hit more than Ruth and he was not regarded as the best or greatest home run hitter.

Big difference between the most.......which can't be disputed............and the best or greatest which is often debated.
Is Cy Young the greatest because he won the most games
Is Pete Rose the greatest because he had the most hits, his name doesn't even come up when great hitters are discussed

bonds also has the single season monster numbers and performances tho.
its not just a longevity thing.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-05-2009, 10:43 PM
I demonstrated the ability to change my mind to go from hidebound yes man to an iconoclast in the 1985-1990 period. I was certainly not raised to be that way, and my boyhood bookshelf was full of hero worship books about baseball players.



Then please demonstrate a time when you changed your mind on Ruth being #1? If you never changed then by definition you are set, and if you have then I didn't know and I withdraw my prior statement with a sincere sorry.



Good.



Because the BA/OBP/SLG numbers are close enough overall that when you contrast the league difference in runs (substantial) it is easy to see the argument. Taking one of Ruth's .800+ SLG years would be harder to demonstrate don't you think?



Again I argue that the man + the time = the player. Ruth is a product of his time and Pujols is a product of his. There is no way to cut out the man from his time. But I do think that if you take the man and his wrappings as they were and thrust them in another time it is a valid way to compare, or at least imagine what would happen. Visualization will help come to an answer. Saying it can't be done or should not be done simply locks the question away in a way that always supports Ruth because you have a 2D sepia picture of Ruth the player, and his surrounding times. I want Ruth in 3 or at least 2.5 dimensions, because the game of baseball is meant to be played not talked about if there is a choice.



You know, when one gets frustrated one hits the levers available. I do think its surprising that Ruth/Gehrig/Lazzeri/etc. didn't do better. The #1 hitter of all time, with maybe the #5 at his side. Hmmm. DiMaggio had a killer team, but Mantle? He had Berra, Ford, and every year it was another hitter and a pitcher that made up the core.

For one thing the '27 team is overrated - much like Ruth. So having studied comparative teams I arrived at the conclusion the '31 Athletics was the greatest team of all time - compared to their time.

Thats what you say.



Has nothing to do with set, what are you talking about, thats my opinion, why would I change my mind. What are you trying to say, if some one thinks any player from the past is number one and don't change their opinion, thats called set
I've debated dozens of posters on greatest hitters, sluggers, starting and relief pitchers and I never expect any of them to change their mind, it's an opinion, it's their choice, doesn't bother me at all.


No surprise to me, there have been some great teams with a great core of players that never won the big one. Why not just say what you really mean..........your not surprised, you use the winning of Joe's and Mick's team to make the inference that if Ruth was as great as some think, why didn't his team win as often. Thats your point isn't it, why beat around the bush. It's a very weak point.

OH I have 2D because I have a different opinion of Ruth than you do and you see all in 3D.

Plain English Bags, your wasting time now, going after another poster and how he thinks, how he views the game in 2D why can't he change his mind. Do I ever ask the Ty Cobb people who thinks he is the greatest to change or even ask them why they can't change, no thats their opinion. Your completely off the subject now. Stick to the issue, the subject, don't go after the poster and question why he thinks like he does.

You see it one way, I see it another way.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-05-2009, 11:36 PM
i ask you to provide one of two things

1. a link backing up your claims
2. a phone number to your drug dealer so i can buy some of what you've been smoking

Lets see what we have here. Barry said he "never knowingly used steorids."
OK, so his best buddy, his right hand man, his personal trainer may have lied to Barry. supplied Barry with a substance that was a steroid but told Barry it was something else

What a BS story this is.......somebody, in this case Barry's personal trainer slipped Barry a mickey.........................HELLO, anyone buying that Barry story. Isn't it obvious, by saying he may have used a steroid but did not know he was using a steroid he covers his rear end in case at a later date it's proved he did use sterids, he can always say................I didn't lie, I never said I didn't use, I said I "never knowingly"
used.
You don't have to be a lawyer to see through Barry's "never knowingly" BS line. It's like some under oath saying"I don't remember, I dont recall", that way they can't be accused of not being truthful.

Guess what Gary Sheffield's attorneys said, that Gary "never knowingly" used steroids. Who is Barry and Gary fooling, no one with common sense.

Yea, sure these two fools were lied to, they didn't know.

bagwell368
01-06-2009, 12:44 AM
Barry, king of what, he has the most but that does not make him king. Did you forget Aaron hit more than Ruth and he was not regarded as the best or greatest home run hitter.

That's actually a troubling topic IMO. He beat Ruth's totals, but did not get the accolades. Maris didn't really get any either.

People were juiced up over Sosa and McGwire but white America was glad at the time McGwire hit the 70 and not Sosa. Nnd its been easy for them to write off Bonds's 73 due to HGH as well and right after have to write off McGwire.

So is it iconic hero worship, or racism, or a complex mix of both. I vote C.

The L Train
01-06-2009, 12:54 AM
I got ya, I never did say Bonds mught not hit 1000 home runs if he was pitched to. I just countered and said Ruth with the number of at bats Barry did have would have hit around 800, maybe 800 plus.

Barry, king of what, he has the most but that does not make him king. Did you forget Aaron hit more than Ruth and he was not regarded as the best or greatest home run hitter.

Big difference between the most.......which can't be disputed............and the best or greatest which is often debated.
Is Cy Young the greatest because he won the most games
Is Pete Rose the greatest because he had the most hits, his name doesn't even come up when great hitters are discussed

barry bonds is the home run king... i dont see how that can be disputed at all... single season and career...

and i dont know, but where i come from, before bonds broke the record, we considered hank aaron the home run king because, well, he had the most home runs... call me simple minded if you like but thats the fact...

we dont have to call him 'king' if you dont like that title, but like it or love it, he hit more home runs in a season and in his career than any other player in the history of MLB...

bagwell368
01-06-2009, 12:58 AM
Has nothing to do with set, what are you talking about, thats my opinion, why would I change my mind. What are you trying to say, if some one thinks any player from the past is number one and don't change their opinion, thats called set

What you believe is not the definition of "un set", where as mine is more "un set", so ipso facto you are more set then me on this topic, or if you like, I am more "un set" then you.


OH I have 2D because I have a different opinion of Ruth than you do and you see all in 3D.

No! It's a battle to try and pull out the real meanings. I do not see in 3D. I'm striving to see in 2.3D.


Stick to the issue, the subject, don't go after the poster and question why he thinks like he does.

But that's all that is left. Arguments on this side or that, and when they are all made, its time to construct meaning out of them, try and create a structure.

No insult to you, just explaining me - I made my living architecting very complex software, I love complexity. Single answers, passed on "wisdom" - they are lacking in explaining my field, and the field of baseball which is the only sport that contains enough complexity to be worthy of very deep study IMO.

I haven't heard back on the working life/booze/cigarettes of Ruth's time vs. the clean living workout hounds of this time. Comment?

The L Train
01-06-2009, 01:09 AM
Lets see what we have here. Barry said he "never knowingly used steorids."
OK, so his best buddy, his right hand man, his personal trainer may have lied to Barry. supplied Barry with a substance that was a steroid but told Barry it was something else

What a BS story this is.......somebody, in this case Barry's personal trainer slipped Barry a mickey.........................HELLO, anyone buying that Barry story. Isn't it obvious, by saying he may have used a steroid but did not know he was using a steroid he covers his rear end in case at a later date it's proved he did use sterids, he can always say................I didn't lie, I never said I didn't use, I said I "never knowingly"
used.
You don't have to be a lawyer to see through Barry's "never knowingly" BS line. It's like some under oath saying"I don't remember, I dont recall", that way they can't be accused of not being truthful.

Guess what Gary Sheffield's attorneys said, that Gary "never knowingly" used steroids. Who is Barry and Gary fooling, no one with common sense.

Yea, sure these two fools were lied to, they didn't know.


this is nothing personal man, but i get tired of dispelling this stupid rumor... if people were able to do some thinking and look at the FACTS instead of the trickery i wouldnt still be explaining this point, but here it is...

barry bonds NEVER SAID 'i never knowingly used steroids'... he simply never said it... read the transcript from court, i have...

let me give you an example... if someone asked you to answer YES or NO to the question 'have you ever knowingly killed a unicorn?' you would have to answer NO...

and then the media and everyone else could say "ShoelessJoe says he never KNOWINGLY killed a unicorn, therefore he must have killed a unicorn unkowingly"... it's a trick question, and its not even that good of a trick and im frankly surprised that it hasnt died yet, im really surprised that people are falling for that... if he had come out and said the statement 'i never knowingly used steroids' then i would think he used them too, but that never happened, he never said that... it's trickery...

if you read the transcript, bonds flatly denies, in no uncertain terms, ever using any type of illegal performance enhancing substance... he explains that 'the clear' was a workout supplement that you drink, and that 'the cream' was something similar to bengay or aspercreme, something to rub on his joints for pain... neither of those substances are illegal, and neither of them have ever been proven to be anything but what i just told you... both of them were given to bonds by his trainer in front of teammates, members of the press, and even fans... i absolutely urge you to read the transcript, and you'll see that the media has made a mountain out of absolutely nothing... there's not even a molehill...


and furthermore, do you really believe there is some type of cream you can rub on your body that will make you hit home runs like a machine? really?? or even some clear liquid that could give you that kind of power? i dont... and if there were, barry's lifelong friend wouldnt have given it to him unknowingly... that's just ridiculous on its face...

there's absolutely nothing to substantiate any of the claims about bonds cheating in any way shape or form... nothing... just because it's been repeated over and over that bonds 'never knowingly used steroids, wink wink, nudge nudge' means absolutely dick... i can understand falling for that if you dont know the whole story, but i cant understand condemning the guy when you clearly dont know...


read the court transcript, and then we can have a real debate... until then im just debating against speculation and lies, which is pointless...

SHOELESSJOE3
01-06-2009, 01:15 AM
That's actually a troubling topic IMO. He beat Ruth's totals, but did not get the accolades. Maris didn't really get any either.

People were juiced up over Sosa and McGwire but white America was glad at the time McGwire hit the 70 and not Sosa. Nnd its been easy for them to write off Bonds's 73 due to HGH as well and right after have to write off McGwire.

So is it iconic hero worship, or racism, or a complex mix of both. I vote C.


No trouble at all. On a number of other boards when discussing greatest home run hitters, there were some with lower numbers who were ranked above some with higher totals. It was a combination, 40, 50 home run seasons, home run frequency, AB/HR ratio and other factors. For one, Harmon Killebrew ranked higher than some with more career home runs.
It wasn't about the most, it was a mix of home run hitting stats.

Here we go again, your injecting the race card. How do you know that they were happier that it was Mac and not Sammy and if some were, how do you prove it was skin color. Could Mac have been just more liked and not because of skin color..
As for the country being so carried away with the Mac/ Sammy home run derby, are you forgetting, that was in the late 1990s before the lid really blew off the steroid use in the game. You can add to that some are now looking back on their totals with doubt knowing what we know today.

Of course they do not endear or give Barry a pass, not because of skin color, he's high on the list of suspect users.

Of all those you mention, Maris is the one who really got little respect.
Yes, it's true partly because he was thought of as a below average hitter all around and did not deserve to pass Babe Ruth.
Guess what Bags, even though I hold Ruth in high respect, I for one stood behind Maris. he may not have been Babe Ruth, but he did break the record and he did deserve the honor.
One more thing, I witnessed that year and the feeling back then. It wasn't only passing Ruth that some held against Maris. Many wanted who they called the "real Yankee" Mickey Mantle to break the record, they were both in the chase till Mick suffered an injury to knock him out. This was also not fair to Maris.
It was a shame, he broke the record in his own park and had to be pushed out on to the field by his teammates to take a bow.

The L Train
01-06-2009, 01:21 AM
Lets see what we have here. Barry said he "never knowingly used steorids."
OK, so his best buddy, his right hand man, his personal trainer may have lied to Barry. supplied Barry with a substance that was a steroid but told Barry it was something else

What a BS story this is.......somebody, in this case Barry's personal trainer slipped Barry a mickey.........................HELLO, anyone buying that Barry story. Isn't it obvious, by saying he may have used a steroid but did not know he was using a steroid he covers his rear end in case at a later date it's proved he did use sterids, he can always say................I didn't lie, I never said I didn't use, I said I "never knowingly"
used.
You don't have to be a lawyer to see through Barry's "never knowingly" BS line. It's like some under oath saying"I don't remember, I dont recall", that way they can't be accused of not being truthful.

Guess what Gary Sheffield's attorneys said, that Gary "never knowingly" used steroids. Who is Barry and Gary fooling, no one with common sense.

Yea, sure these two fools were lied to, they didn't know.


one other thing, where have you been dude? barry bonds has ALWAYS said he never used... he answered that question a million times and said NO NEVER every time, and then eventually he got tired of answering it and told the media he wouldnt talk about it anymore...

SHOELESSJOE3
01-06-2009, 02:01 AM
this is nothing personal man, but i get tired of dispelling this stupid rumor... if people were able to do some thinking and look at the FACTS instead of the trickery i wouldnt still be explaining this point, but here it is...

barry bonds NEVER SAID 'i never knowingly used steroids'... he simply never said it... read the transcript from court, i have...

let me give you an example... if someone asked you to answer YES or NO to the question 'have you ever knowingly killed a unicorn?' you would have to answer NO...

and then the media and everyone else could say "ShoelessJoe says he never KNOWINGLY killed a unicorn, therefore he must have killed a unicorn unkowingly"... it's a trick question, and its not even that good of a trick and im frankly surprised that it hasnt died yet, im really surprised that people are falling for that... if he had come out and said the statement 'i never knowingly used steroids' then i would think he used them too, but that never happened, he never said that... it's trickery...

if you read the transcript, bonds flatly denies, in no uncertain terms, ever using any type of illegal performance enhancing substance... he explains that 'the clear' was a workout supplement that you drink, and that 'the cream' was something similar to bengay or aspercreme, something to rub on his joints for pain... neither of those substances are illegal, and neither of them have ever been proven to be anything but what i just told you... both of them were given to bonds by his trainer in front of teammates, members of the press, and even fans... i absolutely urge you to read the transcript, and you'll see that the media has made a mountain out of absolutely nothing... there's not even a molehill...


and furthermore, do you really believe there is some type of cream you can rub on your body that will make you hit home runs like a machine? really?? or even some clear liquid that could give you that kind of power? i dont... and if there were, barry's lifelong friend wouldnt have given it to him unknowingly... that's just ridiculous on its face...

there's absolutely nothing to substantiate any of the claims about bonds cheating in any way shape or form... nothing... just because it's been repeated over and over that bonds 'never knowingly used steroids, wink wink, nudge nudge' means absolutely dick... i can understand falling for that if you dont know the whole story, but i cant understand condemning the guy when you clearly dont know...


read the court transcript, and then we can have a real debate... until then im just debating against speculation and lies, which is pointless...

There is no trickery, why would I make up a story when I know it can be checked out and look foolish.

Info leaked out in the news media from the Grand Jury hearing in 2003
What the news said, "Barry said he never knowingly used steroids".
That was a leak and what the news said were not the exact words Barry used but I certainly hope we're not going to split hairs and get in to word semantics
Why do I say this, because Barry may not have used those exact words but his own words, from the transcript carry the same message..............that if he did he did not know.

From the transcript.....Barry's own words.
Question...Did you ever take any steroids that he ( Greg Anderson) gave you.
Answer.....Not that I know off.

Now we can play with words but there is no doubt his message, if he did use he did not know it.

The L Train
01-06-2009, 02:22 AM
There is no trickery, why would I make up a story when I know it can be checked out and look foolish.

Info leaked out in the news media from the Grand Jury hearing in 2003
What the news said, "Barry said he never knowingly used steroids".
That was a leak and what the news said were not the exact words Barry used but I certainly hope we're not going to split hairs and get in to word semantics
Why do I say this, because Barry may not have used those exact words but his own words, from the transcript carry the same message..............that if he did he did not know.

From the transcript.....Barry's own words.
Question...Did you ever take any steroids that he ( Greg Anderson) gave you.
Answer.....Not that I know off.

Now we can play with words but there is no doubt his message, if he did use he did not know it.

ok so the bottom line is, he said a million times straight out flat out no uncertain terms that he never used them... but you want to hold on to one statement where he supposedly says 'not that i know of'... and thats all the evidence there is... which is none...

i would understand if everytime someone asked him he said 'uh, no, not that i recall, not that i know of' but this guy has denied across the board ever using them for years now... he's made it very clear that he never used any of that stuff... and there's no proof that he did...

granted, if he did use, he didnt know it... fine... but that is nowhere NEAR proof or an admission of guilt, or even barry trying to cover his ***... in the same transcript, they ask him the same question over and over, and every other time he just says NO... if he was covering his *** he wouldve just said 'if i did i didnt know about it'...

point is dude, if he did it, then he lied about it straight out... he's not going to be able to say 'wait i didnt lie, i said i didnt know about it' because he said so many times that he never did, and that he was sure his trainer didnt and would never give him something like that...

barry was and is a workout freak, and he took supplements, some of which i've taken myself... you could make an argument that somebody at GNC snuck some HGH into my supplements, and therefore if they did, i didnt know about it... but trust me, i've known guys who use winstrol and hgh and whatnot, it's not the kind of thing you can give to someone without them knowing...

if they had evidence he would have been in prison BEFORE he broke the record... they have no case, and thats why he's still a free man, he has not broken any rules...

barry breaks records, not rules... and i can PROVE that he breaks records, can you PROVE that he's ever broken a rule?

The L Train
01-06-2009, 02:24 AM
like i said, dont just rely on whats been leaked out by the media who obviously hates barry, read the court transcript for yourself, i promise you'll see things differently... i wasnt sure until i read it...

i would bet you anything in the world that barry didnt use that stuff... anything...

SHOELESSJOE3
01-06-2009, 02:29 AM
one other thing, where have you been dude? barry bonds has ALWAYS said he never used... he answered that question a million times and said NO NEVER every time, and then eventually he got tired of answering it and told the media he wouldnt talk about it anymore...

Yes, thats what he said to reporters when not under oath.
Go get the transcript... asked if he ever took any steroids that (Anderson) he gave him at the grand Jury UNDER OATH.

Barry answers.............."not that I know of."

How many hints do we need. Mark McGwire, over and over to reporters, 'I never used steroids.
Mark McGwire when UNDER OATH at the hearings, asked about using steroids
his answer, never denied it...............his answer, he didn't want to talk about the past... under oath.
That may not be his exact words but words to that effect, he never said no.

It's a whole different show when your talking to reporters and then under oath.

Tell you what, tomorrow I'll go back and give the page number of that statement.

The L Train
01-06-2009, 02:36 AM
Yes, thats what he said to reporters when not under oath.
Go get the transcript... asked if he ever took any steroids that (Anderson) he gave him at the grand Jury UNDER OATH.

Barry answers.............."not that I know of."

How many hints do we need. Mark McGwire, over and over to reporters, 'I never used steroids.
Mark McGwire when UNDER OATH at the hearings, asked about using steroids
his answer, never denied it...............his answer, he didn't want to talk about the past... under oath.
That may not be his exact words but words to that effect, he never said no.

It's a whole different show when your talking to reporters and then under oath.

Tell you what, tomorrow I'll go back and give the page number of that statement.

bro thats just not the whole truth... i promise you, he absolutely said NO he never used anything UNDER OATH... i HAVE the transcript dude, i've read it... they asked him over and over, and he said absolutely not, never... there may have been ONE time he said 'not that i know of' but you're just wrong if you're saying he never said no under oath...

i swear on my life, barry bonds said NO he never used PED's while he was under oath... i read it, many times... PLEASE read it...

SHOELESSJOE3
01-06-2009, 02:39 AM
ok so the bottom line is, he said a million times straight out flat out no uncertain terms that he never used them... but you want to hold on to one statement where he supposedly says 'not that i know of'... and thats all the evidence there is... which is none...



Now your playing games, I delivered the proof, from the court transcripts and thats not enough for you. You can say what you like to reporters on the street, the court room is a different story.

Benito Santiago's lawyer.............. Benito "never knowingly" injested steroids.
There it is again...........come on, Bonds, Sheffield and Santiago were all "tricked", whats needed to convince you that it's a lawyers strategy, say you didn't know.

The L Train
01-06-2009, 02:40 AM
Shoeless joe, let me ask you a question, and i know we're getting way off topic, but i just want a yes or no from you... im just curious...

do you believe that alex rodriguez has used PEDs?

The L Train
01-06-2009, 02:41 AM
now your playing game, i delivered the proof, from the court transcripts and thats not enough for you. You can say what you like to reporters on the street, the court room is a different story.

Benito santiago's lawyer.............. Benito "never knowingly" injested steroids.
There it is again...........come on, bonds, sheffield and santiago were all "tricked", whats needed to convince you that it's a lawyers strategy, say you didn't know.

barry bonds under oath said he never used peds!

cambovenzi
01-06-2009, 03:13 AM
how about all the people that say they gave bonds roids, or knew he did it, or all that?
the cream and the clear?
he took roids guys.
its sooo obvious.
someone didnt just make it up one day.

The L Train
01-06-2009, 03:46 AM
how about all the people that say they gave bonds roids, or knew he did it, or all that?
the cream and the clear?
he took roids guys.
its sooo obvious.
someone didnt just make it up one day.

so all of a sudden hearsay is proof?

sorry, no...

if i tell you i gave ped's to derek jeter, does that prove that i did? get real...

and, as i asked before, do you REALLY believe there is a magical cream that you can rub on yourself that makes you a better baseball player?

a cream? you are so brainwashed that i cant even continue to debate with you...

cambovenzi
01-06-2009, 03:52 AM
i am not a court.
i dont need 100% confession and irrefutable proof to think that he did roids.
its quite obvious that he most likely did.

and you really missed the boat on the past history of bonds usage.
ill repost what i found.

Barry Bonds told a federal grand jury that he used a clear substance and a cream supplied by the Burlingame laboratory now enmeshed in a sports doping scandal, but he said he never thought they were steroids, The Chronicle has learned.

Federal prosecutors charge that the Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative, known as BALCO, distributed undetectable steroids to elite athletes in the form of a clear substance that was taken orally and a cream that was rubbed onto the body.
he admitted that his trainer gave him it.

""The cream" is a testosterone-based ointment that is used in conjunction with anabolic steroids such as tetrahydrogestrinone (THG, also known as "the clear") in order to mask doping in professional athletes."

...is that good enough for you?\
its funny that just b/c you dont know what something is, you try to badmouth my posts.

Old Sweater
01-06-2009, 03:52 AM
how about all the people that say they gave bonds roids, or knew he did it, or all that?
the cream and the clear?
he took roids guys.
its sooo obvious.
someone didnt just make it up one day.


Maybe Bonds haters just didn't make it up in one day but over a course of time. It's just all to convenient for the press(Shadows Authors) Head Fed Jeff Novitsky to made facts out of nothing more then leaked grand jury testimony in their vendetta like pursuit of Bonds. Nothing should be valid coming from leaked grand jury testimony from authors who absolutely hate Bonds and were able to turn a profit in doing so.

Things I do know.......

The testimony from Kimberly Bell stated nothing more then assumption of Ped use. This gal stayed with Bonds thru 2 marriages and she never once saw Bonds taking PED's.

Head Fed Jeff Novitsky, dug thru BALCO garbage bins and never came up with any paper or proof of Bonds buying PED's. Bonds got free legal supplements from BALCO because of an endorsement deal and that is it.

250 NFL players were on the BALCO list and congress never pursued one of them.

Jeff Novitsky said Conte told him about Bonds using PED's but he didn't get it on tape. Don't you think it is odd that a head investigator for a Federal Agency isn't smart enough to record a sworn testimony from Conte about Bonds? Bonds probably would have had charges pressed against him right there.

Jeff Novitsky also stuck an undercover federal agent who was into training on Greg Anderson for a month or 2 and came up empty.

Greg Anderson was also told by the Feds that he wouldn't ever have to testify against Bonds again after his first stint in jail. Once again the Feds are treating this case as a personal vendetta against Bonds.

BTW cambovenzi, have you read any court transcripts or any books about Bonds, or do you just go off of the leaked grand jury testimony of the Shadow authors Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams? Who wouldn't pour water on Bonds head if it caught fire? IMO>>>> any fan that takes leaked grand jury testimony from a couple of rat fink authors out to make a buck on a player they hate, isn't giving Bonds a fair shake, or don't care if he gets a fair shake.

Kyle916
01-06-2009, 04:13 AM
how about all the people that say they gave bonds roids, or knew he did it, or all that?
the cream and the clear?
he took roids guys.
its sooo obvious.
someone didnt just make it up one day.

I'm not choosing any sides on whether he did take them or not, but it's not "sooo obvious".

Until they can prove it, he's innocent, and therefore it's not obvious.

With or without steroids he's still one of the top all around players of all time.

Old Sweater
01-06-2009, 04:15 AM
Bagwell368> good use of numbers and common sense again.

SHOELESSJOE3> good replies but I think the Clique Club is persuading a little of your common sense. Great info at BBF in the history section, but way to much clique. Look how they all treated Savoy and ganged up on him and the guy has a system as good as anyone's. That poll that Bill ran on Savoy was the cheapest tactic I ever seen done over there. Guy throws a few numbers an statements at Bills Boy an he completely loses his respect towards another boarder who has followed the game forever.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-06-2009, 03:15 PM
Shoeless joe, let me ask you a question, and i know we're getting way off topic, but i just want a yes or no from you... im just curious...

do you believe that alex rodriguez has used PEDs?

I don't think he has, difficult to offer a real answer. I just don't know. I realize why you would ask of AROD, one of the top sluggers in the game, I don't know.

For sure there has to be some .260 hitters out there doing steroids but it's only natural, maybe not fair but natural to zero in on the big numbers guys.
Some of the guys I thought suspect, Giambi, Clemens, Barry, Sammy Sosa and some others.

Since Barry is in the spotlight I thought he used, I'll give my reasons why in another post.
But I should add, no matter what I or some others think, no matter what it appears to be in Barry's case, at this time I have to call him innocent.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-06-2009, 03:28 PM
Bagwell368> good use of numbers and common sense again.

SHOELESSJOE3> good replies but I think the Clique Club is persuading a little of your common sense. Great info at BBF in the history section, but way to much clique. Look how they all treated Savoy and ganged up on him and the guy has a system as good as anyone's. That poll that Bill ran on Savoy was the cheapest tactic I ever seen done over there. Guy throws a few numbers an statements at Bills Boy an he completely loses his respect towards another boarder who has followed the game forever.

I know the situation there, at BBF. It may not have been the proper thing to do but he got under everyones skin. Right off the start, insulting other posters, using foul language, given a warning by one of the mods.

I think what brought everything to a head was when one of the long time members called Savoy a troll and was suspended for a few days. The thinking was that the member did nothing even close to what Savoy did in a number of posts, Savoy warning and the other member suspended.
As soon as Savoy came on to the board I posted a message telling others what was coming their way, I remembered him from a few years prior. No secret, Savoy himself read the post, he knows I don't care for him or his ways. Why, because I saw his tactics on an AOL board where the mods let him run wild, some posters left the board because of him, a number of them had him on ignore.
Again maybe not the right thing to do by some BBF posters but Savoy brings problems on any board he comes to.

Now I can get back to the real game.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-06-2009, 03:35 PM
barry bonds under oath said he never used peds!

Not doubting your word, are you speaking of the actual transcript.
I can say he may have said that at the hearing under oath but I also say at one point, under oath at the Grand Jury, from the actual transcript, his answer was " Not that I know of."

No matter where the truth lies, one has to admit it's certainly reasonable to at least doubt these players.
No one knew what they were using.......... they were given false info from their supplier, hard to swallow.

Also is it not reasonable to believe that they use that line in case it's proven they did use. Those who were under oath can't be charged with perjury, they didn't lie, they didn't say no, they said they didn't know, may not have been aware it was a steroid.

JAYZFAN9
01-06-2009, 03:40 PM
Anyone who claims that Barry wasnt roided up (and is serious), loses any and all credibility in future conversations

Old Sweater
01-06-2009, 03:55 PM
My last say on the matter...........

Babe Ruth is the best player of any era due to the advantage he had where the leagues done nothing to help the pitchers of that time.

Best hitter between Ruth and Bonds if they had played in each others era under the same circumstances? My choice is Bonds because of his work ethic compared to Ruth's. Even if Bonds used PED's and they were available to Ruth I don't think he had the work ethic to perform today as Bonds has, with or without PED use. Ruth would have had to change his ways and personality a lot more then Bonds an it's hard to change one's bad habits no matter when you were born.

Old Sweater
01-06-2009, 04:40 PM
Anyone who claims that Barry wasnt roided up (and is serious), loses any and all credibility in future conversations


An statements like this cause you to lose all credibility as a poster if you take assumption that seriously.

Bargnani
01-06-2009, 05:51 PM
Old Sweater just wondering if you knew that Babe Ruth had a personal trainer to help keep him in shape? He helped him go back in shape after a rough season, when Ruth realise that he needs to stop his wild party ways, and he was finally realising that his body was failing on him. So he decided to hire the best trainer in New York City. His name was Art McGovern, he helped him keep in shape by doing some excercise, he boxed with him, he always made sure Ruth's kept his diet and not only eat hot dogs and drink beer.

So I wouldn't say Ruth's work ethic was bad at all the time.

JAYZFAN9
01-06-2009, 06:05 PM
An statements like this cause you to lose all credibility as a poster if you take assumption that seriously.

Wasnt referring to you ( L train seems pretty hell bent on proving Barry was clean, or just piss off all the posters), hard to tell sometimes on the net what is sarcasm and what isnt

johnnylee722
01-06-2009, 06:17 PM
Wow... this is really close.

I'm really not sure. I want to say Ruth, but remember how amazing of fielder and base stealer Bonds was at the beginning of his career.

And while even if Bonds was on steroids, pitching going against him could of also been on steroids.

Old Sweater
01-06-2009, 06:45 PM
Old Sweater just wondering if you knew that Babe Ruth had a personal trainer to help keep him in shape? He helped him go back in shape after a rough season, when Ruth realise that he needs to stop his wild party ways, and he was finally realising that his body was failing on him. So he decided to hire the best trainer in New York City. His name was Art McGovern, he helped him keep in shape by doing some exercise, he boxed with him, he always made sure Ruth's kept his diet and not only eat hot dogs and drink beer.

So I wouldn't say Ruth's work ethic was bad at all the time.


If I ever knew it I forgot. From looking at the pictures thru the years I would have to say that Ruth got a trainer a few years to late or didn't train year around like Bonds.


under the supervision of Jim Warren, a personal trainer who usually worked with football players. According to Warren,"Our goal was for Bonds to become a 50 home run, 50 steal player." Warren explains:We done a ton of sprinting and weights. Bonds was as thin as a whippet when I started working with him. But by the time he reported, he was an athletic freak-Terrell Owens with a baseball bat. We're talking about a 4.4 sprinter who can dunk a basketball, shoot bows and arrows, and throw with either hand.Bonds reported to camp with a newly barreled chest, oak tree arms, powerful legs, and 8% body fat."So long before 2001, Bonds no longer had the build of a whippet. Although he still had speed, he was gaining weight, gaining muscle and getting bigger. This was early in 1993, more then five years before anyone accuses of having taken steroids and seven years before Canseco falsely says Bonds suddenly grew muscles and gained 40 pounds all at once. By 1996, Bonds was bench pressing 315 pounds, (up from 230), hitting the ball harder then ever, and looking more and more like a football player in a baseball uniform. And this was still years before anyone says he may have started taking steroids.Think about it-before Bonds ever purportedly took a single dose of any steroid, he had matured and already weighed between 210 and 220 pounds. He had already improved his bench press capability by a whopping 35 percent. Those who contend Bonds must have been on steroids because he suddenly gained 40 pounds are relying on falsehoods. It's as simple as that.Also from Bonds trainer Jim Warren, Mid 90's from Jim Warren (Bonds Trainer)I've trained a couple hundred NFL players and probably 50 MLB players and a ton of world-class sprinters and triathletes, but in 25 years I've never found anyone who took training as seriously, with as much passion and commitment, as Barry. I've never had anyone show up early, work hard, stay on task, do the **** nobody wants to do, and stick with it every single day.

^That is quite the feather that Jim Warren stuck in Bonds hat when you consider all the world class and Pro athletes he trained. IMO>>>Ruth wouldn't and couldn't do this as Bonds did and wasn't near the all around athlete that Bonds was, with some of that coming from a great gene pool.

The L Train
01-06-2009, 06:59 PM
i am not a court.
i dont need 100% confession and irrefutable proof to think that he did roids.
its quite obvious that he most likely did.

and you really missed the boat on the past history of bonds usage.
ill repost what i found.

he admitted that his trainer gave him it.

""The cream" is a testosterone-based ointment that is used in conjunction with anabolic steroids such as tetrahydrogestrinone (THG, also known as "the clear") in order to mask doping in professional athletes."

...is that good enough for you?\
its funny that just b/c you dont know what something is, you try to badmouth my posts.

and thats the problem... you, and so many other brainwashed 'fans' dont care about proof, they just say 'well, i THINK bonds used steroids, therefore, he is guilty'...

and i coverer this before, i guess you're not reading my posts... YES bonds admitted that his trainer gave him a cream which is a topical pain reliever, as well as a clear drink for energy...

and here's the key, where you say "Federal prosecutors charge that the Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative, known as BALCO, distributed undetectable steroids to elite athletes in the form of a clear substance that was taken orally and a cream that was rubbed onto the body."

so now, just because someone CHARGES you with something it proves your guilt?

i can CHARGE that the apple juice you drank with breakfast was really urine, but that doesnt make it so without PROOF... someone accusing you of something with no proof means nothing, why dont you understand that?

there is no proof that 'the cream' or 'the clear' were anything but what bonds and his trainer say they were...

NO PROOF, NO EVIDENCE

The L Train
01-06-2009, 07:05 PM
I don't think he has, difficult to offer a real answer. I just don't know. I realize why you would ask of AROD, one of the top sluggers in the game, I don't know.

For sure there has to be some .260 hitters out there doing steroids but it's only natural, maybe not fair but natural to zero in on the big numbers guys.
Some of the guys I thought suspect, Giambi, Clemens, Barry, Sammy Sosa and some others.

Since Barry is in the spotlight I thought he used, I'll give my reasons why in another post.
But I should add, no matter what I or some others think, no matter what it appears to be in Barry's case, at this time I have to call him innocent.


my only point about a-rod is this... most people think he never used any peds... even though he came up in texas around MANY guys who were caught red handed using them...

many people put a-rod in the same class as bonds, in terms of overall talent...


so i ask you to consider this... if a-rod is clean, and bonds and so many others are 'roided up', imagine what that says about a-rods natural talent... that would make him easily the greatest athlete to ever play any sport... which is just not true...

i personally believe a-rod juiced, because he hung around SOOO many known juicers... it is ludacris to assume that he didnt but bonds did...

The L Train
01-06-2009, 07:07 PM
Not doubting your word, are you speaking of the actual transcript.
I can say he may have said that at the hearing under oath but I also say at one point, under oath at the Grand Jury, from the actual transcript, his answer was " Not that I know of."

No matter where the truth lies, one has to admit it's certainly reasonable to at least doubt these players.
No one knew what they were using.......... they were given false info from their supplier, hard to swallow.

Also is it not reasonable to believe that they use that line in case it's proven they did use. Those who were under oath can't be charged with perjury, they didn't lie, they didn't say no, they said they didn't know, may not have been aware it was a steroid.

one more time... bonds said UNDER OATH in no uncertain terms that he never used peds... several times... so if he DID use them, he lied straight out... he wasnt saying 'not that i know of' to cover his ***, because if he DID use them, he already flatly denied it, which would be perjury, which there is absolutely no proof of...

cambovenzi
01-06-2009, 07:08 PM
thats too funny.
idk what a great word would be here, but gullible works.
the head guy of balco said bonds was involved.
bonds admitted to using a Cream and a clear substance that he received from his personal trainer who was a steroids dealer...

so b/c bonds didn't admit that he knowingly used steroids, that means i should believe that he didnt? :rolleyes: come on now.

The L Train
01-06-2009, 07:10 PM
Anyone who claims that Barry wasnt roided up (and is serious), loses any and all credibility in future conversations


what causes one to lose credibility is jumping on a bandwagon filled with media hatred and Z E R O evidence...

you have convicted and sentenced bonds before ever seeing one piece of evidence... purely based on assumption, you are SURE that he used peds...


YOU have no credibility here, and Jay-Z would be ashamed to know that you are a fan...

The L Train
01-06-2009, 07:13 PM
thats too funny.
idk what a great word would be here, but gullible works.
the head guy of balco said bonds was involved.
bonds admitted to using a Cream and a clear substance that he received from his personal trainer who was a steroids dealer...

so b/c bonds didn't admit that he knowingly used steroids, that means i should believe that he didnt? :rolleyes: come on now.


back up your claims or STFU...

the head guy of balco said bonds did a commercial for him... thats it... he was involved in the sense that balco supplied his trainer with LEGAL supplements... so in that sense, yes, he was involved with balco...

second, PROVE to me that greg anderson is or was a steroid dealer...

then prove to me that the cream and the clear were illegal...

you know what? think what you want... im tired of debating with people who dont use facts and logic and only present arguments based on assumptions and speculation...

its a sad world...

The L Train
01-06-2009, 07:16 PM
Old Sweater just wondering if you knew that Babe Ruth had a personal trainer to help keep him in shape? He helped him go back in shape after a rough season, when Ruth realise that he needs to stop his wild party ways, and he was finally realising that his body was failing on him. So he decided to hire the best trainer in New York City. His name was Art McGovern, he helped him keep in shape by doing some excercise, he boxed with him, he always made sure Ruth's kept his diet and not only eat hot dogs and drink beer.

So I wouldn't say Ruth's work ethic was bad at all the time.


babe ruth had a personal trainer??

who was it, william taft? w.c. fields perhaps?

from what i understand he had THREE personal trainers:

Jim Beam
Jack Daniels
Johnnie Walker

JAYZFAN9
01-06-2009, 07:16 PM
what causes one to lose credibility is jumping on a bandwagon filled with media hatred and Z E R O evidence...

you have convicted and sentenced bonds before ever seeing one piece of evidence... purely based on assumption, you are SURE that he used peds...


YOU have no credibility here, and Jay-Z would be ashamed to know that you are a fan...

ha ha h a..... weak

anyways.. read game of shadows.. might open your eyes a little... look at the size barroids head... might open your eyes a little... look at the career years he had when most players are shadows of their former selves... he aint the only one, but hes the most prolific

Bargnani
01-06-2009, 07:24 PM
I am sure your very knowledgable when it comes to Ruth Old Sweater, so you must know that the media didn't start taking most of the pictures of Ruth when he first started in the Major Leagues, and when he was a full time out fielder. A lot of people have in mind when they think of Ruth that he was an over weight slob, but that was only at the end of his career. Ruth was in amazing shape when he first started to play baseball. I'll admit he let himself go after awhile, but then he realize that his body was failing him and got himself a personal trainer, because he was embarass on how bad he performed.

Now I'm not denying that Bonds was a great trained athelete, he was also in tremoundous shape, but you have to admit that he had more oppurtunity to stay in shape then Ruth did, the training habits are way more advance today then they were back in Ruth's time.

If you could find old video's of Ruth running bases you'll realise that he was quite quick, he was also a good defensive outfielder in his early days.

Here's one great video of Babe Ruth, you'll see he's not the fat slob that everyone thinks he is, also he's a pretty fast runner for his size.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB1Z-7yDSAY&feature=related

L Train, yes Babe Ruth had a personal trainer, have you ever actually read a book about Babe Ruth, or you just take your information about him by an average baseball fan who doesn't know what he's talking about? Sorry to be rude again, but from I understand you have no clue of what your talking about when it comes to Babe Ruth

Bargnani
01-06-2009, 07:31 PM
I dont want to get into the steroids issue to much, but just take a look at these two pictures.

http://www.hollywoodcollectibles.com/autographed/memorabilia/sports/collectibles/authentic/Baseball/8x10%20Photos/Barry_Bonds_Auto_Photo6_mid.jpg

http://www.bustedplay.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/barry.jpg

http://www.wisecamel.com/images/Bonds%20B%20and%20A%202.jpg

There's a huge difference. Just look at the head size, the body size, the arm sizes.

JAYZFAN9
01-06-2009, 07:33 PM
^ lol if that aint a juicer, i dunno what is

cambovenzi
01-06-2009, 07:41 PM
back up your claims or STFU...

the head guy of balco said bonds did a commercial for him... thats it... he was involved in the sense that balco supplied his trainer with LEGAL supplements... so in that sense, yes, he was involved with balco...

second, PROVE to me that greg anderson is or was a steroid dealer...

then prove to me that the cream and the clear were illegal...

you know what? think what you want... im tired of debating with people who dont use facts and logic and only present arguments based on assumptions and speculation...

its a sad world...

he is a known steroid dealer, and admitted it.

Greg Anderson, 39, personal trainer to baseball slugger Barry Bonds, told the court he had distributed steroids to athletes he did not name and admitted to laundering money.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/general/176393/key_figures_in_balco_steroid_case_admit_guilt/

im putting article after article out there.
implication after implication.
what type of evidence do you need?
ofcourse they dont have him videotaped using steroids for me to post here. lol. so we can go off of other facts.
he took a cream and clear from his trainer, ATLEAST. his trainer is a steroid dealer.
Barry Bonds testified to a grand jury that he used a clear substance and a cream given to him by a trainer who was indicted in a steroid-distribution ring


"The cream" is a testosterone-based ointment that is used in conjunction with anabolic steroids such as tetrahydrogestrinone (THG, also known as "the clear") in order to mask doping in professional athletes.

Old Sweater
01-06-2009, 08:51 PM
I dont want to get into the steroids issue to much, but just take a look at these two pictures.

http://www.hollywoodcollectibles.com/autographed/memorabilia/sports/collectibles/authentic/Baseball/8x10%20Photos/Barry_Bonds_Auto_Photo6_mid.jpg

http://www.bustedplay.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/barry.jpg

http://www.wisecamel.com/images/Bonds%20B%20and%20A%202.jpg

There's a huge difference. Just look at the head size, the body size, the arm sizes.

Me niether so I'll use some files.


Jim Warren (Bonds Trainer)I've trained a couple hundred NFL players and probably 50 MLB players and a ton of world-class sprinters and triathletes, but in 25 years I've never found anyone who took training as seriously, with as much passion and commitment, as Barry. I've never had anyone show up early, work hard, stay on task, do the **** nobody wants to do, and stick with it every single day.

^now tell me that won't put some weight on your butt. Even if you use PED's they don't do you a lick of good if you take them and sit on your butt. Why do a lot of you think the only way a baseball player can gain weight is with PED's? when monster football players are running around on 16 inch centers? Baseball players are human also.


There's a huge difference. Just look at the head size, the body size, the arm sizes.[/


Although he still had speed, he was gaining weight, gaining muscle and getting bigger. This was early in 1993, more then five years before anyone accuses of having taken steroids and seven years before Canseco falsely says Bonds suddenly grew muscles and gained 40 pounds all at once. By 1996, Bonds was bench pressing 315 pounds, (up from 230), hitting the ball harder then ever, and looking more and more like a football player in a baseball uniform


Bonds says his hat size has stayed the same--7 1/4 to 7 3/8. Kraanz says the Bonds hats he collected were never that big, ranging from 7 1/8 to 7 1/4, but Bonds accused Kranz of selling countefeit merchandise. At this point it seems people may be confusing face size with head size. Take a look at before-and-after weight-loss photos. They're easy to find. You will often note that the before picture depicts a person who weights more than the person in the after photo. Some of that weight is stored in the face, and it makes the head appear larger.There is a second reason why the head-size argument seems particularly flimsy. As far as we know, none of the attackers is using actual medical evidence to support the claim that adult head size can only increase if one suffers from acromegaly or takes large quantities of HGH.


No one has ever been more committed to being the world's best baseball player then Bonds. If weight training can produce muscle without steroid ingestion(and we know it can), then Bonds physique is not proof of steroid use.Get ready for this-there was no change in Bonds arm size after 1995. That's right, Silva says he hasn't had to re-mold Bonds arm size(for custom elbow pad) since 1995 and that is at least 3 years before Bonds allegedly started using steroids.


Now show some rookie pictures of Ted Williams and Babe Ruth and then some many years later after they put on 30 or 40 lbs.

JAYZFAN9
01-06-2009, 09:06 PM
I honestly didnt think there were ppl out there ( besides the usual homer nostalgic giants fans) who truly believe Bonds wasnt a huge juicer.. to each their own I guess

The L Train
01-06-2009, 10:00 PM
I am sure your very knowledgable when it comes to Ruth Old Sweater, so you must know that the media didn't start taking most of the pictures of Ruth when he first started in the Major Leagues, and when he was a full time out fielder. A lot of people have in mind when they think of Ruth that he was an over weight slob, but that was only at the end of his career. Ruth was in amazing shape when he first started to play baseball. I'll admit he let himself go after awhile, but then he realize that his body was failing him and got himself a personal trainer, because he was embarass on how bad he performed.

Now I'm not denying that Bonds was a great trained athelete, he was also in tremoundous shape, but you have to admit that he had more oppurtunity to stay in shape then Ruth did, the training habits are way more advance today then they were back in Ruth's time.

If you could find old video's of Ruth running bases you'll realise that he was quite quick, he was also a good defensive outfielder in his early days.

Here's one great video of Babe Ruth, you'll see he's not the fat slob that everyone thinks he is, also he's a pretty fast runner for his size.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB1Z-7yDSAY&feature=related

L Train, yes Babe Ruth had a personal trainer, have you ever actually read a book about Babe Ruth, or you just take your information about him by an average baseball fan who doesn't know what he's talking about? Sorry to be rude again, but from I understand you have no clue of what your talking about when it comes to Babe Ruth

all i was saying is if babe ruth had a personal trainer, he wasn't doing a very good job...

Kyle916
01-06-2009, 10:39 PM
I honestly didnt think there were ppl out there ( besides the usual homer nostalgic giants fans) who truly believe Bonds wasnt a huge juicer.. to each their own I guess

Why hasn't Bonds been proven to have taken steroids.

Innocent until proven guilty.

With or without steroids, he's still one of the greatest players of all time.

bagwell368
01-06-2009, 10:51 PM
Now show some rookie pictures of Ted Williams and then some many years later after they put on 30 or 40 lbs.

Ted put on very little weight as a player, there is a famous picture of him from about '69 when he managed the Senators, he had a pot belly, not from "joice", maybe the other kinds.....

cambovenzi
01-06-2009, 10:58 PM
Why hasn't Bonds been proven to have taken steroids.

Innocent until proven guilty.

With or without steroids, he's still one of the greatest players of all time.

its very hard to prove it. and it takes alot of time.
but there is signifcant evidence that he did indeed use roids. read some of my other posts. his trainer gave him the clear and teh cream, and is a roids dealer.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-06-2009, 11:34 PM
my only point about a-rod is this... most people think he never used any peds... even though he came up in texas around MANY guys who were caught red handed using them...

many people put a-rod in the same class as bonds, in terms of overall talent...


so i ask you to consider this... if a-rod is clean, and bonds and so many others are 'roided up', imagine what that says about a-rods natural talent... that would make him easily the greatest athlete to ever play any sport... which is just not true...

i personally believe a-rod juiced, because he hung around SOOO many known juicers... it is ludacris to assume that he didnt but bonds did...

Whats ludicrous about thinking Barry may have used and yet not so with AROD.
Two different cases, AROD never seemed to explode, his path to hitting seems on track. OK you could say maybe he started at an earlier point in his career, you could say that.

Barry exploded at an age when most level off or decline, after age 35 and it was not just one year, it was a 3 to 4 year peak. Numbers Barry never reached in his prime. A peak that challenged any 3 year peak of Babe, Ted Williams, Mays, Aaron when they were in their prime, younger than the 35 year old Barry.
Add to that his personal trainer admitted to supplying steroids to other athletes but not to Barry. That could be true, maybe not Barry but his association to Barry only make Barry more suspect. I certainly will not convict Barry on the fact that he was close to Greg Anderson.

Page 81 of the transcript.

Barry is confronted with the following....A number associated on a document with your name and corresponding to Barry B. It has two anobolic steroids as testing positive in connection with it.

Do you follow my question?

Barry answers....."I follow where your going, yeah."

Documents found showing Barry was tested for testosterone, usually a part of being tested for steroids.

Asked why he would be subjected to this test at Balco.
Barry answers," I don't know."

Another document, a steroid test only this time only initials used BLB.
Barry is asked, what is your middle name.
Answer, " Lamar."

A calender with the initials BB and some dates kept by Greg Aanderson.
It's not clear to be fair to Barry, BB could be some one else, but the question is asked of Barry, .. why would his name be kept on a calender owned by Anderson..............not the best answer.."Maybe he ran out of paper."
I think Barry would have looked better on this one by just ssaying.. I don't know. How do you run out of paper and then enter on a calender.

TRAIN are you listening to my next line before you come at me. In my eyes at this time Barry has to be considered innocent and I agree.

All of the above is not enough to convict Barry, some of the entries are not clear.
I only posted the above in answer to your thought why Barry and not AROD.
AROD could be a user, anyone could be but Barry's explosion, association with Anderson known to and admitted to supplying others ( not Barry) with steroids and a paper trail that does show his close tie to Balco, test results show a positive..............all does not make him guilty but certainly could lead to a reasonable thinking person, that he may have, I did say " may have."

SHOELESSJOE3
01-06-2009, 11:43 PM
Me niether so I'll use some files.



^now tell me that won't put some weight on your butt. Even if you use PED's they don't do you a lick of good if you take them and sit on your butt. Why do a lot of you think the only way a baseball player can gain weight is with PED's? when monster football players are running around on 16 inch centers? Baseball players are human also.










Now show some rookie pictures of Ted Williams and Babe Ruth and then some many years later after they put on 30 or 40 lbs.

I think most of us would know the cause of Babe packing it on in later years.

As for Ted putting on some weight, not out of the ordinary for many players.

I don't play the...........packed on weight game.
I look at the older Barry going on another planet, not visited by many others, not even the younger Barry.
We could post all the pictures we want showing other players putting on weight later in their careers.

Put it this way, if Barry turned into the incredible hulk late in his career it wouldn't matter, it was his going into orbit that made some wonder.

cHi8DaL5LA420
01-06-2009, 11:56 PM
no question about it... i mean barry bonds is great too but he has been on steroids for the past 5 years... ruth was all natural... and he did so much for the community to me its not even a choice... the babe lives for ever

bagwell368
01-07-2009, 12:51 AM
We could post all the pictures we want showing other players putting on weight later in their careers.

Yeah, but a guy putting on 26 lbs of muscle in 4 months, find me another one of those.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-07-2009, 01:48 AM
Yeah, but a guy putting on 26 lbs of muscle in 4 months, find me another one of those.


Not sure Bags, are you speaking of Bonds.

The L Train
01-07-2009, 05:37 AM
well im done here... i dont think bonds used peds, and i havent seen any evidence that leads me to believe otherwise...

yeah his performance peaked at an age when most players decline, THAT is why he's the best of all time... i mean, the guy just cant win, he does amazing things and no one gives him credit, they just say 'well, no one could possibly be that good so he must be cheating'...


well i got news for you, bonds is that good... but i wont change anyone's mind, and no one will change mine, so everybody think what you like... im tired of this ridiculous debate...

Kyle916
01-07-2009, 06:07 AM
its very hard to prove it. and it takes alot of time.
but there is signifcant evidence that he did indeed use roids. read some of my other posts. his trainer gave him the clear and teh cream, and is a roids dealer.

If there is "significant" evidence, then after all this time why hasn't there been a verdict?

cambovenzi
01-07-2009, 06:42 AM
good lawyers.
and the law is not perfect.
its also hard to get perfect evidence of a guy using steroids, if he hasnt failed a drug test due to masking them.

his trainer is a roids dealer. he got significantly bigger and better at an old age.
he admitted to getting a cream and clear substance from said steroids/HGH dealer.
the cream and clear is steroids/things to mask steroid use.
put 2 and 2 together.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-07-2009, 08:13 AM
well im done here... i dont think bonds used peds, and i havent seen any evidence that leads me to believe otherwise...

yeah his performance peaked at an age when most players decline, THAT is why he's the best of all time... i mean, the guy just cant win, he does amazing things and no one gives him credit, they just say 'well, no one could possibly be that good so he must be cheating'...


well i got news for you, bonds is that good... but i wont change anyone's mind, and no one will change mine, so everybody think what you like... im tired of this ridiculous debate...


That reason you think makes him the greatest is the very reason he became suspect. Saying his performance peaked at that age is putting it mildly, he exploded, started rewriting the record book, even as he was closing in on 40 years of age. This just doesen't happen in the real world

I gave my reasons why is so suspect in a previous post post #191, why I think, why many think he may have used.
I can't be any more fair thanI have been. In my previous post I gave reasons why he's suspect but bottom lined my post with the statement he has to be considered innocent at this time.
I don't undestand with what we do know how some can't understand some at the least making steroid use by Barry as a possibility.

Bargnani
01-07-2009, 10:54 AM
all i was saying is if babe ruth had a personal trainer, he wasn't doing a very good job...


Once again it shows you know very little about Babe Ruth. Read the Book The Life and Times about Babe Ruth, you might learn a little about him, then maybe you'll realise that he wasn't an over weight player through out his career.

Did you see the video that I posted as well, did you see that Ruth was in great shape as well? I don't understand how that cannot make you realise that he was tremoundous athelete.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-07-2009, 01:11 PM
How do we ever believe these guys, anyone would have to be a fool to not say............wait a minute, these storys strain credibility, common sense.

Barry and his close ties to Balco, ties to known steroid supplier Greg Anderson, a supposed test for zinc in his system, thats not what it was. Documents read at the Grand Jury show the test was to check testosterone level, part of a series of tests to show steroid in the system. Barry's name linked to that document with Barry's name, the test comes back positive. Asked why Balco would perform this test on him, his answer he doesn't know. OK thats a bit muddy, maybe nothing there, we might find out.

Comments by Barry, this was in the late 1990s before he was even suspect..........asked about steroid us in the game, not him in particular.....he answers, "it's none of the peoples business what the players do".

Only in the last year or two.........." you wear glasses to do your job better, isn't that cheating, whats the difference". Is this guy kidding, comparing prescription glasses, reading glasses you pick off a rack, both legal...............he compares that to steroid use.
Does it make him guilty, no it doesn't but his flippant "so what" attitude does nothing for his already tarnished image.

The cloud stays with him for all time. sad ending for one of the greatest before he got into this mess, some of his numbers will always be in doubt.

This is why Barry always gets trounced in any poll when up against Babe Ruth or Ted Williams, it's the doubt factor.

Sheffield's attorney....Gary never knowingly used a steroid.
Benito Santiago's attorney, Benito never knowingly used a steroid

At one hearing McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro and Sammy Sosa.

When asked about steroid use.......Mac's answer, didn't want to talk about the past.

Palmeiro come right out said he never used steroids, later turns out he did.

Sammy Sosa, what happened here. Suddenly Sammy forgets how to speak English, his attorney shows at the hearing and speaks for Sammy. Only a week before the hearing and few days after the hearing, Sammy does an interview, now he can understand and speak english again.

Come on folks can we use some common sense here, what do you think
Anyone going to swallow these tales.
Some may have used but were not aware............OH the supplier lied to them....what for.

Then we have the three stooges at the hearing, one denied and was caught, the other doesn't want ot talk about the past and the other guy can no longer speak English........... at least on that one day he can't.

If the above doesn't at least put the possibility that the above might possibly have used, or are dodging the questions, then nothing will.
I didn't say convict them but how is it some of the above doesn't make one wonder, that maybe they did.

bagwell368
01-07-2009, 01:55 PM
Once again it shows you know very little about Babe Ruth. Read the Book The Life and Times about Babe Ruth, you might learn a little about him, then maybe you'll realise that he wasn't an over weight player through out his career.

Did you see the video that I posted as well, did you see that Ruth was in great shape as well? I don't understand how that cannot make you realise that he was tremoundous athelete.

No doubt that the speeded up film of the human ice cream cone doesn't help him look good, but that was all post 1930 stuff when he was way cooked.

There are pictures of him from 1916 through 1924 that make it clear he was one strong guy. He might have carried around an extra 12 lbs from too much gravy and beer, but it did not get in his way - it was a lot less then CC carries around thats for sure.

It's OK to pick at the guy - god knows I do - but - pick for the right reasons.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-07-2009, 02:21 PM
Part of Barry's team drawn up to make his case, a battery of lawyers and Barry's personal doctor, Dr. Arthur Ting. Ting performed surgury on Barry

It appears that Ting has been dropped from the team and will only come forward if ordered by the court.

Wondering why Ting has slipped out of the picture. Could it be on the advice of Barry's attorneys. Could it be they do not want the connection of the doctor to Barry because of the following.

Ting is well respected and highly regarded as surgeon.
But he has twice been investigated 1996 and 2004.
Investigated for prescribing "dangerous drugs" and controlled substances to some patients, in particular to athletes for whom he kept fictitious records and in some cases no records at all.

Supposedly when Barry went to Balco for some blood testing he used his own doctor, Doctor Ting to draw the blood even though Balco had their own staff.

Barry sure knows how to pick them, his trainer admits to supplying steroids to some athletes and his personal doctor, twice investigated for prescribing drugs and controlled substances to some athletes and keeping no records in some cases.
Make him any more guilty, his trainer and now his doctor, I say no, no guilt simply by association no ,but lets face it, it makes that cloud hanging over him a little darker.

Kyle916
01-07-2009, 06:12 PM
good lawyers.
and the law is not perfect.
its also hard to get perfect evidence of a guy using steroids, if he hasnt failed a drug test due to masking them.

his trainer is a roids dealer. he got significantly bigger and better at an old age.
he admitted to getting a cream and clear substance from said steroids/HGH dealer.
the cream and clear is steroids/things to mask steroid use.
put 2 and 2 together.

He did not get better with age.

Look at 1992-1998 (the year he supposedly started taking steroids). He hit no fewer than 32 HR in a season and eclipsed 40 twice. He hit .308 over that span. His OPS was over 1.000. He drew over 100 walks in 5 of those 7 seasons. Not to mention he was playing gold glove caliber defense ever year while averaging 31 stolen bases. The only thing that increased with age were his HRs. Yes, that is a bit concerning, but the only thing that happened with age was that the ball went a little bit farther.

And that could be because he possibly took steroids, but it hasn't been proven.

He is a top 10 position player of all time no matter what.

Old Sweater
01-07-2009, 07:42 PM
All of you that assume that Bonds took PED's, I would like to know what assumed PED %Boost, do you give him???


All of you that assume that the weight gain and physique is due to PED use, what is your assumed PED weight boost you give him? Over the hard training he did?

All of you that assume that the weight gain was in short period, I'd like to know how much assumed weight did Bonds gain after 1996 where he weighted between 210-220?


I assume you should have some ballpark figures since you are all experts at assuming what only Bonds knows for sure.


All of you that assume that Bonds couldn't have great years at an advanced age how do you assume Bonds had good years in 2006 and 2007 with the assumed better PED MLB Policy in effect at the age 41 and 42 and how Ted Williams managed to put up the about the same numbers at about the same age? How did Manny manage to put up those numbers for 2 months with the Dodgers at age 36, which is the same age as Bonds in 2001? Do you assume that Manny is using PED's also?

SHOELESSJOE3
01-07-2009, 07:50 PM
He did not get better with age.

Look at 1992-1998 (the year he supposedly started taking steroids). He hit no fewer than 32 HR in a season and eclipsed 40 twice. He hit .308 over that span. His OPS was over 1.000. He drew over 100 walks in 5 of those 7 seasons. Not to mention he was playing gold glove caliber defense ever year while averaging 31 stolen bases. The only thing that increased with age were his HRs. Yes, that is a bit concerning, but the only thing that happened with age was that the ball went a little bit farther.

And that could be because he possibly took steroids, but it hasn't been proven.

He is a top 10 position player of all time no matter what.

Not sure what your looking at KYLE.
He not only got better with age he went on another planet.

Some numbers career stats.

----------------BA--------Slugging-----------AB/HR ratio
1986-2000-----.289---------.567--------------15.09------AGE 21-35
2001-2005-----.347---------.805---------------7.86 -----AGE 36-40
Am I not being fair to Barry, am I going back to far to 1986, he probably picked up some skill as he matured.

OK, how is the the older more experienced Barry 1997-2000 then compare those years to 2001-2005.

--------------BA---------Slugging------------AB/HR
1997-2000---.297---------.623----------------11.93-----AGE 32-35
2001-2005---.347---------.805-----------------7.86-----AGE 36-40

Still a hugh leap between the more experienced Barry 1997-2000 compared to 2001-2005, hugh leap.

Closing in on 40 and add to that in 2000 he moves into a less favorable hitter's park Pac Bell. That 2001-2005 is no fluke, it's over 5 years, older and the new park and he makes the younger Barry look oh so just very good.
Agreed Kyle thats what makes some believe he was using, thats all some are saying, just what you said.

And yes, Barry from the start could be a top 10 or 12 and for sure the best in his time, no dispute there.
I don't agree with your notion he did not improve with age, late age past 35, he did.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-07-2009, 08:05 PM
All of you that assume that Bonds took PED's, I would like to know what assumed PED %Boost, do you give him???


All of you that assume that the weight gain and physique is due to PED use, what is your assumed PED weight boost you give him? Over the hard training he did?

All of you that assume that the weight gain was in short period, I'd like to know how much assumed weight did Bonds gain after 1996 where he weighted between 210-220?


I assume you should have some ballpark figures since you are all experts at assuming what only Bonds knows for sure.


There is no slide ruling, no formula to know how much any athlete gains from PED use, some may not improve at all.
"If" Barry used, if any used some their numbers will be in doubt and if still active subject to punishment.

Your going down the wrong road, baseball, football, cycling any sport that finds one using PEDS if banned at that time, subject to punishment. No sport organization is going to attempt to determine how much anyone benefitted from steroid use, thats silly, you did or you didn't.

You will notice I didn't say he did, in fact in prior posts I declare him innocent at this time. I think he did but that certainly not a conviction.

My dispute is with your notion that some how we can assess some numbers, how much of a boost did he get. You know it, I know it, no way to tell how much any athlete gained by using PED's.

How do we assume the impossible involving numbers, why waste time.

Kyle916
01-07-2009, 08:13 PM
Not sure what your looking at KYLE.
He not only got better with age he went on another planet.

Some numbers career stats.

----------------BA--------Slugging-----------AB/HR ratio
1986-2000-----.289---------.567--------------15.09------AGE 21-35
2001-2005-----.347---------.805---------------7.86 -----AGE 36-40
Am I not being fair to Barry, am I going back to far to 1986, he probably picked up some skill as he matured.

OK, how is the the older more experienced Barry 1997-2000 then compare those years to 2001-2005.

--------------BA---------Slugging------------AB/HR
1997-2000---.297---------.623----------------11.93-----AGE 32-35
2001-2005---.347---------.805-----------------7.86-----AGE 36-40

Still a hugh leap between the more experienced Barry 1997-2000 compared to 2001-2005, hugh leap.

Closing in on 40 and add to that in 2000 he moves into a less favorable hitter's park Pac Bell. That 2001-2005 is no fluke, it's over 5 years, older and the new park and he makes the younger Barry look oh so just very good.
Agreed Kyle thats what makes some believe he was using, thats all some are saying, just what you said.

And yes, Barry from the start could be a top 10 or 12 and for sure the best in his time, no dispute there.
I don't agree with your notion he did not improve with age, late age past 35, he did.

The only thing that improved is the distance the ball flew. LOOK at 1992 to 1998 (the last season Bonds is believed to have played without steroids) when he solidified himself as a super star in the league. The only change is the HR total and that happens to impact SLG and AB/HR.

I don't see how he got better because HRs increased when every other number was there?

HRs don't interpret a player's skill.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-07-2009, 08:30 PM
All of you that assume that Bonds took PED's, I would like to know what assumed PED %Boost, do you give him???


All of you that assume that the weight gain and physique is due to PED use, what is your assumed PED weight boost you give him? Over the hard training he did?

All of you that assume that the weight gain was in short period, I'd like to know how much assumed weight did Bonds gain after 1996 where he weighted between 210-220?


I assume you should have some ballpark figures since you are all experts at assuming what only Bonds knows for sure.


All of you that assume that Bonds couldn't have great years at an advanced age how do you assume Bonds had good years in 2006 and 2007 with the assumed better PED MLB Policy in effect at the age 41 and 42 and how Ted Williams managed to put up the about the same numbers at about the same age? How did Manny manage to put up those numbers for 2 months with the Dodgers at age 36, which is the same age as Bonds in 2001? Do you assume that Manny is using PED's also?


Your comparing Ted and Barry in a much smaller sample age 41 and 42 and add to that Barry played ony 14 games in the season leading up to those two seasons at age 41 and 42. Ted Williams at 41 and 42 was in better shape than Barry at that age, that was the shell of Barry.

Here is a real comparison, over 4 years both at age 36-39, lets not downplay the 4 seasons that made many wonder.-------------------------------------BA---------SLG--------OBA----AB/HR
Ted age 36-39------ 1955-1958---.355--------.654--------.490------13.37
Barry age 36-39------2001-2004--.339--------.781--------.535--------8.22
No comparison at all, Ted is close to his career stats, Barry way above his career stats at that point in their careers.

Old Sweater
01-07-2009, 08:51 PM
There is no slide ruling, no formula to know how much any athlete gains from PED use, some may not improve at all.
"If" Barry used, if any used some their numbers will be in doubt and if still active subject to punishment.

Your going down the wrong road, baseball, football, cycling any sport that finds one using PEDS if banned at that time, subject to punishment. No sport organization is going to attempt to determine how much anyone benefited from steroid use, thats silly, you did or you didn't.

You will notice I didn't say he did, in fact in prior posts I declare him innocent at this time. I think he did but that certainly not a conviction.

My dispute is with your notion that some how we can assess some numbers, how much of a boost did he get. You know it, I know it, no way to tell how much any athlete gained by using PED's.

How do we assume the impossible involving numbers, why waste time.

I know ther isn't a slide rule. That's why I asked for a ballpark figure. You give him a heck of a PED every time you post something like this with your "I think he did" but "he's not proven guilty" stand.


Originally Posted by SHOELESSJOE3
Not sure what your looking at KYLE.
He not only got better with age he went on another planet.

Some numbers career stats.

----------------BA--------Slugging-----------AB/HR ratio
1986-2000-----.289---------.567--------------15.09------AGE 21-35
2001-2005-----.347---------.805---------------7.86 -----AGE 36-40
Am I not being fair to Barry, am I going back to far to 1986, he probably picked up some skill as he matured.

OK, how is the the older more experienced Barry 1997-2000 then compare those years to 2001-2005.

--------------BA---------Slugging------------AB/HR
1997-2000---.297---------.623----------------11.93-----AGE 32-35
2001-2005---.347---------.805-----------------7.86-----AGE 36-40

Still a hugh leap between the more experienced Barry 1997-2000 compared to 2001-2005, hugh leap.

Closing in on 40 and add to that in 2000 he moves into a less favorable hitter's park Pac Bell. That 2001-2005 is no fluke, it's over 5 years, older and the new park and he makes the younger Barry look oh so just very good.
Agreed Kyle thats what makes some believe he was using, thats all some are saying, just what you said.

And yes, Barry from the start could be a top 10 or 12 and for sure the best in his time, no dispute there.
I don't agree with your notion he did not improve with age, late age past 35, he did.

You always use the assumed PED years that started in 1998 but this time to bend the numbers more I noticed that you threw the 1998 and 1999 years in with the numbers starting in 1986??? Hey, if you think Bonds used PED's you should throw the 98 and 99 seasons in with the 2000-2005 seasons and point out that Bonds only played 14 games in 2005.

Then you always leave out the 2006 and 2007 years that shows Bonds done pretty well at an advanced age with a supposedly stronger PED testing program.

IMO<<<<>>>> Without much mention of hard training, improved skill, body armor, expansion pitching, reading of pitchers better, improved batters eye at the plate, no protection in the Giants batting order....etc...every time you post those stats from those years you are giving Bonds one heck of a PED boost.

BTW: CandleStick wasn't much of a better park to hit at and it's a shorter shot to the RF foul pole at AT&T. If AT&T wasn't fitted better for Bonds he wouldn't have all those splash down hits.

BTW 2: Bonds didn't fail no PED tests and I doubt if a couple of masking agents make that big of a difference for Bonds as steroids. That is 98% Bonds out there for me even if he used PED's. Pre 2003, nothing should matter if he used or not. That is MLB's fault and not Bonds.

bagwell368
01-07-2009, 09:13 PM
He did not get better with age.

Look at 1992-1998 (the year he supposedly started taking steroids). He hit no fewer than 32 HR in a season and eclipsed 40 twice. He hit .308 over that span. His OPS was over 1.000. He drew over 100 walks in 5 of those 7 seasons. Not to mention he was playing gold glove caliber defense ever year while averaging 31 stolen bases. The only thing that increased with age were his HRs. Yes, that is a bit concerning, but the only thing that happened with age was that the ball went a little bit farther.

And that could be because he possibly took steroids, but it hasn't been proven.

He is a top 10 position player of all time no matter what.

I don't see him as taking steroids until before the '99 season at the earliest and for sure before '00.

I don't get the point, twice Barry went over .800 SLG and went over 220 OPS+ a few times as well in the ott's....

and yes throw away 2000 and beyond and take his earlier stats and give him a mathametical finish to meet others of his ilk, and he's top 10 positional easily, even w nothing added he's top 20.

Kyle916
01-07-2009, 09:30 PM
I don't see him as taking steroids until before the '99 season at the earliest and for sure before '00.

I don't get the point, twice Barry went over .800 SLG and went over 220 OPS+ a few times as well in the ott's....

and yes throw away 2000 and beyond and take his earlier stats and give him a mathametical finish to meet others of his ilk, and he's top 10 positional easily, even w nothing added he's top 20.

I just don't like how steroids accusations take away from the fact that he's still one of the greatest players to ever live.

Bargnani
01-07-2009, 09:33 PM
How did Manny manage to put up those numbers for 2 months with the Dodgers at age 36, which is the same age as Bonds in 2001? Do you assume that Manny is using PED's also?


There's a differnce between what Manny did at the age of 36 and what Bonds put up at age 36. Manny never put up 73 home runs this season, Bonds did in 2001. HUGE DIFFERENCE

iangallagher29
01-07-2009, 10:32 PM
IMO u cant get better then the babe

bagwell368
01-07-2009, 10:54 PM
IMO u cant get better then the babe

IMO u can, there are guys playing right now today that would blow Babe off the map. Pujols for one, just so you know everyone here isn't a rubber stamp Babe uber alles guy.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-07-2009, 11:10 PM
IMO u can, there are guys playing right now today that would blow Babe off the map. Pujols for one, just so you know everyone here isn't a rubber stamp Babe uber alles guy.

Again your take Bags and again Barry gets trounced in another poll and I would bet many who voted for Babe are not Babe groupies, oldies or sentimental fools.

Your problem is you don't think any great hitters existed before the 1950s or there about. How could it possibly be that no hitters from the 1920s could compete today, none of them.
Let me see, according to you there couldn't be anyone born around the turn of the century and even a bit later that could have great eyes, reflexes, timing and the ability to hit a ball with authority. News to me, that you have to be born in modern times to possess those qualities.......nonsense.

The only real poll of the greatest would have to be Ruth and his only rival as the complete hitter, Ted Williams combo hitter/slugger. If thise was a boxing match it would have been stopped long ago before Barry gets knocked out, he's staggering right now. His only chance is a knock out and he ain't gonna get it.

Your in the minority be it scribes or the everyday fan, Babe still on top. It always ends the same way.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-07-2009, 11:16 PM
I just don't like how steroids accusations take away from the fact that he's still one of the greatest players to ever live.

I'm in agreement Kyle, under a cloud but no doubt one of the greatest.
Even a clean Barry is better than most taking steroids.

JAYZFAN9
01-07-2009, 11:36 PM
^ I for one never questioned whether or not Barry was a great player. We all know he was... BUT, to argue that he didnt use PED's? Come on...

bagwell368
01-07-2009, 11:57 PM
Again your take Bags and again Barry gets trounced in another poll and I would bet many who voted for Babe are not Babe groupies, oldies or sentimental fools.

Your problem is you don't think any great hitters existed before the 1950s or there about. How could it possibly be that no hitters from the 1920s could compete today, none of them.
Let me see, according to you there couldn't be anyone born around the turn of the century and even a bit later that could have great eyes, reflexes, timing and the ability to hit a ball with authority. News to me, that you have to be born in modern times to possess those qualities.......nonsense.

The only real poll of the greatest would have to be Ruth and his only rival as the complete hitter, Ted Williams combo hitter/slugger. If thise was a boxing match it would have been stopped long ago before Barry gets knocked out, he's staggering right now. His only chance is a knock out and he ain't gonna get it.

Your in the minority be it scribes or the everyday fan, Babe still on top. It always ends the same way.

I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to our new friend. Why are you so upset for me to have an opinion other then yours?

Who cares who wins a poll? Tyranny of the majority/popularity is an argument for fools and knaves.

Again, I didn't pick Barry, and I would not champion him unless I have no choice. As I said Ted is the battle I prefer to fight. But yes the Barry from pre 2000 at his best I believe would mop up the street with Mr. Ruth.

In Ruth's time he was great. In this time for quite a few reasons already given (most of which have not been addressed, or poorly addressed), Ruth would not be great. I have said, and you probably missed it (probably in another thread) that he might turn out to be as lame as Steve Balboni in this time.

Since this is all speculation, why cannot I be allowed to speculate?

Now for guys close in time, like say Brooks Robinson and Mike Schmidt, I do expect people voting to excercise common sense and the verdict to mean something.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-08-2009, 12:21 AM
I know ther isn't a slide rule. That's why I asked for a ballpark figure. You give him a heck of a PED every time you post something like this with your "I think he did" but "he's not proven guilty" stand.



You always use the assumed PED years that started in 1998 but this time to bend the numbers more I noticed that you threw the 1998 and 1999 years in with the numbers starting in 1986??? Hey, if you think Bonds used PED's you should throw the 98 and 99 seasons in with the 2000-2005 seasons and point out that Bonds only played 14 games in 2005.

Then you always leave out the 2006 and 2007 years that shows Bonds done pretty well at an advanced age with a supposedly stronger PED testing program.

IMO<<<<>>>> Without much mention of hard training, improved skill, body armor, expansion pitching, reading of pitchers better, improved batters eye at the plate, no protection in the Giants batting order....etc...every time you post those stats from those years you are giving Bonds one heck of a PED boost.

BTW: CandleStick wasn't much of a better park to hit at and it's a shorter shot to the RF foul pole at AT&T. If AT&T wasn't fitted better for Bonds he wouldn't have all those splash down hits.

BTW 2: Bonds didn't fail no PED tests and I doubt if a couple of masking agents make that big of a difference for Bonds as steroids. That is 98% Bonds out there for me even if he used PED's. Pre 2003, nothing should matter if he used or not. That is MLB's fault and not Bonds.

I'm not bending anything, the reason I started with 2000 and left out 98-99 was to show his hitting from the age of 35 on, he was 35 in 2000. That is what raised eybrows, his hitting from the age of 35 to 39 or 40, years when most hitters level off or decline, he shot up in those years.

I have no idea if he started using in 1998, 2000, 2001 again used the starting point 2000 because he reached age 35.

You say I included the 1998 and 1999 when I used 1986 as the start, same answer I wanted to compare Barry's career numbers before age 35 (1986-99) and from age 35 (2000) on. What ever I did was carried over from another board when the discussion was based on Barry, Aaron, Ruth and Ted Williams and how they performed from the age of 35 and was based on 3 and 4 year peaks, from 35 and 39 or 40 and no later. This is why I did not go past 2006.

I'm not trying to skew any numbers or fool anyone, those are the reasons why I didn't go past 2005

If we got to 2007 of course his numbers drop, he was playing hurt and was past the age of 40. 1998-2000 slugging .697--- AB/HR ratio 9.7.

Nothing is going to change what Barry did from age 35 to 40, even if we include 2006 and 2007, thats not going to change what he did at age 35 to 40, what no other great hitter did in that age period, what Barry never did in his prime.

Your reason why you want me to include 2006-07 is to make him look more human because that brings his late career numbers closer to the real world. And again I say, that will not take away from the explosion he had earlier.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-08-2009, 12:26 AM
I know ther isn't a slide rule. That's why I asked for a ballpark figure. You give him a heck of a PED every time you post something like this with your "I think he did" but "he's not proven guilty" stand.



You always use the assumed PED years that started in 1998 but this time to bend the numbers more I noticed that you threw the 1998 and 1999 years in with the numbers starting in 1986??? Hey, if you think Bonds used PED's you should throw the 98 and 99 seasons in with the 2000-2005 seasons and point out that Bonds only played 14 games in 2005.

Then you always leave out the 2006 and 2007 years that shows Bonds done pretty well at an advanced age with a supposedly stronger PED testing program.

IMO<<<<>>>> Without much mention of hard training, improved skill, body armor, expansion pitching, reading of pitchers better, improved batters eye at the plate, no protection in the Giants batting order....etc...every time you post those stats from those years you are giving Bonds one heck of a PED boost.

BTW: CandleStick wasn't much of a better park to hit at and it's a shorter shot to the RF foul pole at AT&T. If AT&T wasn't fitted better for Bonds he wouldn't have all those splash down hits.

BTW 2: Bonds didn't fail no PED tests and I doubt if a couple of masking agents make that big of a difference for Bonds as steroids. That is 98% Bonds out there for me even if he used PED's. Pre 2003, nothing should matter if he used or not. That is MLB's fault and not Bonds.

Come in to the real world, it's not the fault of the user. You guys are really something, first you ask for proof that he ever did, now you say if he did, it wasn't his fault.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-08-2009, 12:46 AM
I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to our new friend. Why are you so upset for me to have an opinion other then yours?
Who cares who wins a poll? Tyranny of the majority/popularity is an argument for fools and knaves.

Again, I didn't pick Barry, and I would not champion him unless I have no choice. As I said Ted is the battle I prefer to fight. But yes the Barry from pre 2000 at his best I believe would mop up the street with Mr. Ruth.

In Ruth's time he was great. In this time for quite a few reasons already given (most of which have not been addressed, or poorly addressed), Ruth would not be great. I have said, and you probably missed it (probably in another thread) that he might turn out to be as lame as Steve Balboni in this time.

Since this is all speculation, why cannot I be allowed to speculate?

Now for guys close in time, like say Brooks Robinson and Mike Schmidt, I do expect people voting to excercise common sense and the verdict to mean something.

I'm not upset because you differ from my opinion, thats a problem, you have.
Want to look at your post#137, where you tell us of your ability to change your mind. Then you ask me to demonstrate a time when I changed my mind on Ruth being number one and say if I never did then you say I'm set It appears you have a problem with others opinions, it's not set, it's what I believe. I have no intention of changing anyones mind.

No Bags, I didn't miss it, did you forget I replied to your Balboni post.
Your not looking good with he Ruth/Balboni comparison, matter of fact your looking foolish. Shows your disdain for Ruth, making a statement that is beyond absurd.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-08-2009, 01:06 AM
All of you that assume that Bonds took PED's, I would like to know what assumed PED %Boost, do you give him???


All of you that assume that the weight gain and physique is due to PED use, what is your assumed PED weight boost you give him? Over the hard training he did?

All of you that assume that the weight gain was in short period, I'd like to know how much assumed weight did Bonds gain after 1996 where he weighted between 210-220?


I assume you should have some ballpark figures since you are all experts at assuming what only Bonds knows for sure.


All of you that assume that Bonds couldn't have great years at an advanced age how do you assume Bonds had good years in 2006 and 2007 with the assumed better PED MLB Policy in effect at the age 41 and 42 and how Ted Williams managed to put up the about the same numbers at about the same age? How did Manny manage to put up those numbers for 2 months with the Dodgers at age 36, which is the same age as Bonds in 2001? Do you assume that Manny is using PED's also?

You talk about me picking and choosing the years for Barry. I gave my reasons why in another post, I wanted to show Barry.....3 or 4 year peak from age 35 on, thats why.

Your taking two months of Manny age 36 compared to Barry and his entire season age 36.
Lets do it the legit way, here they are both age 36 seasons.

-------------------------BA------OBA-----SLG------HR-----AB/HR
Manny------------------.328-----.430-----.601-----37-------14.9
Bonds-------------------.332----.515------863------73--------6.52

One of the most feared hitters in the game, he looks minor league compared to Barry........ 260+ points in slugging.... almost twice as many home runs and that AB/HR ratio....................WOW.
Sweater we could go on for all time. When I gave the 3 and 4 year peak for Barry from age 35 and up thats all it was supposed to be and compared to other great sluggers and he buries them, he even rivals 3 and 4 year peaks of them when they were younger.

I'm not here to skew or slant numbers, the point was 3 and 4 years peak, 35 years of age, thats why I didn't go any further. I had or have no intention of using numbers to bolster my opinion.

Old Sweater
01-08-2009, 02:08 AM
There's a differnce between what Manny did at the age of 36 and what Bonds put up at age 36. Manny never put up 73 home runs this season, Bonds did in 2001. HUGE DIFFERENCE


Yeah, but with Manny being Manny you have to figure what he could do with 100% effort for a full year. 53 rbi's in 53 games ain't to shabby considering he had that week where he only got a couple rbi's.


Bonds hit 46 hr's in 93 so with the improved skill and hard training it isn't all that much for him to hit 27 more hr's. Then you have to consider that he never has hit 50 or more hr's in any other season. PED's only work one year??? You assumers always use selective years for Bonds PED use. Not one of you have said why Bonds still had good years in 2006 and 2007.

Take the fans that give Grimsly credit for an increased velocity of up to 10mph and then found out that Grimsly was a career PED user. I guess the PED's only had a positive effect for him a few chosen years.

Old Sweater
01-08-2009, 02:20 AM
You talk about me picking and choosing the years for Barry. I gave my reasons why in another post, I wanted to show Barry.....3 or 4 year peak from age 35 on, thats why.

Your taking two months of Manny age 36 compared to Barry and his entire season age 36.
Lets do it the legit way, here they are both age 36 seasons.

-------------------------BA------OBA-----SLG------HR-----AB/HR
Manny------------------.328-----.430-----.601-----37-------14.9
Bonds-------------------.332----.515------863------73--------6.52

One of the most feared hitters in the game, he looks minor league compared to Barry........ 260+ points in slugging.... almost twice as many home runs and that AB/HR ratio....................WOW.
Sweater we could go on for all time. When I gave the 3 and 4 year peak for Barry from age 35 and up thats all it was supposed to be and compared to other great sluggers and he buries them, he even rivals 3 and 4 year peaks of them when they were younger.

I'm not here to skew or slant numbers, the point was 3 and 4 years peak, 35 years of age, thats why I didn't go any further. I had or have no intention of using numbers to bolster my opinion.


What you are skewing is an assumed PED use for the age 35+ years and then you leave out the 2006 and 2007 years. If you believe that Bonds used PED's you should include 1998 and 1999 with the other assumed PED years going up to 2007.

How could another poster think that you ain't giving Bonds nothing but a PED boost for those years? PED's are going to give a player as much of a boost at age 33 as age 35 or any other year if not more. Why didn't the assumed use work until age 35? or 36? Not only are you assuming use, you are being selective of the assumed PED years. If that is your intent or not, that is how it looks on paper.


Your taking two months of Manny age 36 compared to Barry and his entire season age 36.
Lets do it the legit way, here they are both age 36 seasons.

No, the proper way is to pro rate his days in LA. My point is that it is not impossible for a hitter to have a peak at 36. Manny had one of the best 2 months I have ever seen. You have to figure in the Manny being Manny factor for 2008 since he wanted to leave Boston. The guy had a mysterious knee injury and didn't even take his bat off of his shoulder against Mo. No way are Manny's BoSox stats up to his potential. The LA ones are..........

Manny LA/.396/.489/.743/2008
Bonds.../.328/.515/.863/2001

Considering Manny don't have the Ted Williams like uppercut stroke like Bonds he didn't do to shabby for a player aged 36.

Kyle916
01-08-2009, 02:40 AM
Again your take Bags and again Barry gets trounced in another poll and I would bet many who voted for Babe are not Babe groupies, oldies or sentimental fools.

Your problem is you don't think any great hitters existed before the 1950s or there about. How could it possibly be that no hitters from the 1920s could compete today, none of them.
Let me see, according to you there couldn't be anyone born around the turn of the century and even a bit later that could have great eyes, reflexes, timing and the ability to hit a ball with authority. News to me, that you have to be born in modern times to possess those qualities.......nonsense.

The only real poll of the greatest would have to be Ruth and his only rival as the complete hitter, Ted Williams combo hitter/slugger. If thise was a boxing match it would have been stopped long ago before Barry gets knocked out, he's staggering right now. His only chance is a knock out and he ain't gonna get it.

Your in the minority be it scribes or the everyday fan, Babe still on top. It always ends the same way.

The reason that Barry loses these polls is because of the accusations, and the fact that Ruth is a legend.

The poll says at the beginning "Who do you guys feel was the better player?"

People go with Ruth for what he did to baseball. He impacted baseball like few have. Any uninformed fan knows what Ruth has done.

If it was based on who had the bigger impact, it's clearly Ruth.

On who's the better player, it's undoubtedly Bonds.

Old Sweater
01-08-2009, 02:46 AM
Come in to the real world, it's not the fault of the user. You guys are really something, first you ask for proof that he ever did, now you say if he did, it wasn't his fault.


In the real world MLB/Owners/MLBPA would have had a strong PED program testing in effect in the early 70's and IMO Bonds would still have his records.

Humans sin, if the league doesn't do nothing about PED use, the players who are human are going to sin more. Why are some fans so self righteous jerks without knowing what they would have done if they had a chance to remain in the big show or make millions more if they already had superior talent?

Payers have been cheating since the invention of the game. Why wouldn't they cheat with PED's? They have since the late 60's with PED's and since 1945 with amphetamines. Why not? The league or owners don't care and in some cases have encouraged it.

You think the owners today have quit exploding players for money or that the players today have changed their morals?

The game will never be played by white bunny rabbits in a field of flowers.

Old Sweater
01-08-2009, 03:03 AM
The reason that Barry loses these polls is because of the accusations, and the fact that Ruth is a legend.

The poll says at the beginning "Who do you guys feel was the better player?"

People go with Ruth for what he did to baseball. He impacted baseball like few have. Any uninformed fan knows what Ruth has done.

If it was based on who had the bigger impact, it's clearly Ruth.

On who's the better player, it's undoubtedly Bonds.

Agreed, at least Bonds got 24% of the vote here. You do a nation or world wide vote and Bonds is going to get 5-10% at the most.

Ruth is without a doubt the most famous and the best ambassador the game has ever had, plus he had the catchy name to go with it.

Kyle916
01-08-2009, 04:12 AM
Agreed, at least Bonds got 24% of the vote here. You do a nation or world wide vote and Bonds is going to get 5-10% at the most.

Ruth is without a doubt the most famous and the best ambassador the game has ever had, plus he had the catchy name to go with it.

Exactly

SHOELESSJOE3
01-08-2009, 08:10 AM
The reason that Barry loses these polls is because of the accusations, and the fact that Ruth is a legend.

The poll says at the beginning "Who do you guys feel was the better player?"

People go with Ruth for what he did to baseball. He impacted baseball like few have. Any uninformed fan knows what Ruth has done.

If it was based on who had the bigger impact, it's clearly Ruth.

On who's the better player, it's undoubtedly Bonds.

I can't speak for everyone, impact had nothing to do with my vote.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-08-2009, 08:16 AM
In the real world MLB/Owners/MLBPA would have had a strong PED program testing in effect in the early 70's and IMO Bonds would still have his records.

Humans sin, if the league doesn't do nothing about PED use, the players who are human are going to sin more. Why are some fans so self righteous jerks without knowing what they would have done if they had a chance to remain in the big show or make millions more if they already had superior talent?

Payers have been cheating since the invention of the game. Why wouldn't they cheat with PED's? They have since the late 60's with PED's and since 1945 with amphetamines. Why not? The league or owners don't care and in some cases have encouraged it.

You think the owners today have quit exploding players for money or that the players today have changed their morals?

The game will never be played by white bunny rabbits in a field of flowers.

With respect Sweater, thats a poor argument. You have no idea what others would do, has nothing at all to do with those who made that choice, PED's. I'm sure some of the critics would do the same, doesn't change what the users in the game today did.

For that matter there are at this time some who do not use steroids. No matter what the percentage is for sure some are clean. We know it's not 100 percent.
In the end it all comes down to the player who decided to use.
we're back to the ghetto defense.........give me a break, go easy on me, look at whats going on around me.
No, user, all the blame.

bagwell368
01-08-2009, 09:43 AM
I'm not upset because you differ from my opinion, thats a problem, you have.


Unh Hunh.



Want to look at your post#137, where you tell us of your ability to change your mind. Then you ask me to demonstrate a time when I changed my mind on Ruth being number one and say if I never did then you say I'm set It appears you have a problem with others opinions, it's not set, it's what I believe. I have no intention of changing anyones mind.

If you have always believe Ruth was the best (from the time you had that opinion) through today, then your opinion/belief is set. Since I went from thinking that was true from 1966-1987 (or so), and then started to migrate away from that to the point I am at now, that means I am not set. Hope that finally clears it up for you.



No Bags, I didn't miss it, did you forget I replied to your Balboni post.
Your not looking good with he Ruth/Balboni comparison, matter of fact your looking foolish. Shows your disdain for Ruth, making a statement that is beyond absurd.

Its not a matter of looking foolish, it's a matter of bringing up the absurdity of a guy playing one game with one set of training, etc. coming up to today and putting up the same numbers against a set of players with much more professional skill now. Its idiotic in football and basketball in a smaller time slice to claim a guy (Mikan say) could dominate in the 70's, a mere 25 years after his peak, why is it sacred that Ruth should be great today in baseball? Makes no sense. None.

I have no disdain for Ruth the historic figure in his time. I do have a very high level of disregard for the game of baseball in terms of skills that the players had in Ruths time compared to now. Even more so for the earlier guys. Cy Young as he was couldn't make one of the top 10 varsity college teams today - no way.

Just keep going with the sepia colored glasses, too bad you missed the changes in the game, they have been exciting and profound.

Old Sweater
01-08-2009, 11:51 AM
With respect Sweater, thats a poor argument. You have no idea what others would do, has nothing at all to do with those who made that choice, PED's. I'm sure some of the critics would do the same, doesn't change what the users in the game today did.

For that matter there are at this time some who do not use steroids. No matter what the percentage is for sure some are clean. We know it's not 100 percent.
In the end it all comes down to the player who decided to use.
we're back to the ghetto defense.........give me a break, go easy on me, look at whats going on around me.
No, user, all the blame.


Seems like everything is a ghetto defense to you that coincide's with a player being human that will sin if the risk is low and the reward is high. If you don't enforce laws there is going to be more violators.


This PED crap should have happened in the 70's and you know it. Even if you don't believe Tom House saying that half the pitchers on all the clubs were using livestock steroids it is pretty evident the MLB should have started a PED testing program at first sight or whiff of PED use.

Then there is the matter of amphetamines since WW II.

You think that as many players would have used amphetamines if the clubs didn't have bowls of greenies in the club house along with the amphetamine spiked coffee they served?<<<>>> or is this an example of ghetto defense again? I think not, it's owners exploitation of players in which they have always done and will continue to do as long as the game is played.

Old Sweater
01-08-2009, 12:17 PM
Unh Hunh.



If you have always believe Ruth was the best (from the time you had that opinion) through today, then your opinion/belief is set. Since I went from thinking that was true from 1966-1987 (or so), and then started to migrate away from that to the point I am at now, that means I am not set. Hope that finally clears it up for you.



Its not a matter of looking foolish, it's a matter of bringing up the absurdity of a guy playing one game with one set of training, etc. coming up to today and putting up the same numbers against a set of players with much more professional skill now. Its idiotic in football and basketball in a smaller time slice to claim a guy (Mikan say) could dominate in the 70's, a mere 25 years after his peak, why is it sacred that Ruth should be great today in baseball? Makes no sense. None.

I have no disdain for Ruth the historic figure in his time. I do have a very high level of disregard for the game of baseball in terms of skills that the players had in Ruths time compared to now. Even more so for the earlier guys. Cy Young as he was couldn't make one of the top 10 varsity college teams today - no way.

Just keep going with the sepia colored glasses, too bad you missed the changes in the game, they have been exciting and profound.

I'm with you as far as players like Ruth and Cy Young not being able to have the big gap over the average player to compile the stats that they did but pitching the ball and hitting the ball hasn't changed all that much thru the years. I believe you could take Ted Williams with that stroke of his and place him in the year 3015 and it's still going to have great results. Same goes for Ruths stroke and Cy Young from what I have read had a blazer of a fastball with the control so IMO he should be an above average pitcher in MLB today.

And to tell you the truth, I think that a young Ali today would cakewalk thru the heavyweight class that they have today. Evander Holyfield just went the distance with a champ at the age of 44. A young Ali would have killed that Russian. Nothing has changed in boxing but the training. There isn't even no equipment in boxing. It probably is the most primitive of sports that there is.

I think it would be ridiculous if a conversation like this takes place in the next century and they thought any of our top athletes couldn't compete with the current athletes with their current training available to today's athletes. Your Ruths, Williams and Bonds are gonna smack the heck outta the ball in any era. I just watched a DVD of Baseballs Greatest Legends and slowed the DVD down to 1/7 speed on Ruth's stroke and have no doubt that it is a beauty that would work in any era.

Old Sweater
01-08-2009, 12:47 PM
I can't speak for everyone, impact had nothing to do with my vote.


Not even the impact of Ruth being able to compile those stats because of the gap between him and the average Joe's? If MLB have done something to help the pichers maintain the .260 average that MLB always seems ot hover around. Ruths stats wouldn't have near the impact in his era.

So how can you say that Ruths MLB enhanced boosted stats didn't have no impact on your vote?

You really think he could perform at Bonds level in todays game for as long? And I don't care if we assume he took a daily bath in PED's. I sure as heck don't.

bagwell368
01-08-2009, 01:07 PM
I'm with you as far as players like Ruth and Cy Young not being able to have the big gap over the average player to compile the stats that they did but pitching the ball and hitting the ball hasn't changed all that much thru the years. I believe you could take Ted Williams with that stroke of his and place him in the year 3015 and it's still going to have great results.

Ted is the guy, but he played his entire career in the live ball era across basically two generations of players, and proved what he could do - even with some integration coming in as well.

By about 1931 when one could say the live ball era was here and everyone was on the same page (even it is a more primitive page then today) Ruth started to fade. Age? The impossibility of dominating on an equal playing the field the same as earlier?

Young had a blazer of a fastball in his day. But according to newspaper write ups and interviews it was seen over time to be this way in terms of speed: Young < WJ < Grove < Feller

As makes sense the biggest jump up was WJ to Grove. Feller was said to been clocked over 100. Somewhere I remember Grove as being 95. WJ 90, so where does that leave Young? For all we know 86 may have been really fast back then, but there were no radar guns or film of him so...

Another problem with both WJ and Alexander is neither one did as well after 1920. Lower IP, higher ERA (or evern ERA+), so there is no way of knowing about Young - and like I said he did stuff in an era that is generally or should generally not count. Pre 1901.


And to tell you the truth, I think that a young Ali today would cakewalk thru the heavyweight class that they have today. Evander Holyfield just went the distance with a champ at the age of 44. A young Ali would have killed that Russian. Nothing has changed in boxing but the training. There isn't even no equipment in boxing. It probably is the most primitive of sports that there is.

Yes - boxing is the only well known sport that went backwards. The trouble is that nobody except the very poorest in North America and other places goes into it, so the interest, money, and population to support it are all badly down. I was talking Ali and his time compared to earlier.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-08-2009, 01:51 PM
Seems like everything is a ghetto defense to you that coincide's with a player being human that will sin if the risk is low and the reward is high. If you don't enforce laws there is going to be more violators.


This PED crap should have happened in the 70's and you know it. Even if you don't believe Tom House saying that half the pitchers on all the clubs were using livestock steroids it is pretty evident the MLB should have started a PED testing program at first sight or whiff of PED use.

Then there is the matter of amphetamines since WW II.

You think that as many players would have used amphetamines if the clubs didn't have bowls of greenies in the club house along with the amphetamine spiked coffee they served?<<<>>> or is this an example of ghetto defense again? I think not, it's owners exploitation of players in which they have always done and will continue to do as long as the game is played.

I'm with you on that one, MLB should have had a PED's testing program in force long ago.
Same with the greenies that go way back, way back.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-08-2009, 02:06 PM
Unh Hunh.



If you have always believe Ruth was the best (from the time you had that opinion) through today, then your opinion/belief is set. Since I went from thinking that was true from 1966-1987 (or so), and then started to migrate away from that to the point I am at now, that means I am not set. Hope that finally clears it up for you.



Its not a matter of looking foolish, it's a matter of bringing up the absurdity of a guy playing one game with one set of training, etc. coming up to today and putting up the same numbers against a set of players with much more professional skill now. Its idiotic in football and basketball in a smaller time slice to claim a guy (Mikan say) could dominate in the 70's, a mere 25 years after his peak, why is it sacred that Ruth should be great today in baseball? Makes no sense. None.

I have no disdain for Ruth the historic figure in his time. I do have a very high level of disregard for the game of baseball in terms of skills that the players had in Ruths time compared to now. Even more so for the earlier guys. Cy Young as he was couldn't make one of the top 10 varsity college teams today - no way.

Just keep going with the sepia colored glasses, too bad you missed the changes in the game, they have been exciting and profound.

You know BAGS you should get back to the issue, the game and stop telling other because they have an opinion and have not changed......they are set.

There are others who think that Cobb is the greatest, some Williams, Aaron and they go back years, is that a negative because over the years they kept the same opinion. Pitchers, some say Johnson, some come in later years, Grove, Spahn, Koufax, so something is wrong with their thinking because of what they believe.

So your right because you changed and others who haven't changed are set, your kidding.

Ok first I'm set now it the sepia glasses, I missed the changes.

I'm much closer than you are, saying Ruth could make it today and agree not as dominant.
Thats way closer than your Steve Balboni comparison.

Your looking more foolish because instead of discussing the issue, your critical of anothers thinking process and judgment.............. why, because their opinion is different than yours.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-08-2009, 03:04 PM
Don't know what else to say guys, and girls there are some out there. I may not be done, could come up with something later.

I can only say those with an opinion that differed from mine made some good points and even scored with some points. Thats what the board is all about, read the other opinions and make your own case.

SHOELESSJOE3
01-08-2009, 04:30 PM
Unh Hunh.



If you have always believe Ruth was the best (from the time you had that opinion) through today, then your opinion/belief is set. Since I went from thinking that was true from 1966-1987 (or so), and then started to migrate away from that to the point I am at now, that means I am not set. Hope that finally clears it up for you.



Its not a matter of looking foolish, it's a matter of bringing up the absurdity of a guy playing one game with one set of training, etc. coming up to today and putting up the same numbers against a set of players with much more professional skill now. Its idiotic in football and basketball in a smaller time slice to claim a guy (Mikan say) could dominate in the 70's, a mere 25 years after his peak, why is it sacred that Ruth should be great today in baseball? Makes no sense. None.

I have no disdain for Ruth the historic figure in his time. I do have a very high level of disregard for the game of baseball in terms of skills that the players had in Ruths time compared to now. Even more so for the earlier guys. Cy Young as he was couldn't make one of the top 10 varsity college teams today - no way.

Just keep going with the sepia colored glasses, too bad you missed the changes in the game, they have been exciting and profound.

BAGS, your missing the whole point, the foolish part is your notion that if I hold on to an opinion that I'm set, well what about it. Forget about what we think, what we're debating, forget about the subject matter, it's your take on the poster himself, your not talking about the game, the debate point, your talking about the poster and his opinion,, should I change because you did.

Two people have the same opinion, one changes his opinion, the other does not, how is the one not changing wrong. Don't even get into the game, what we're debating because thats not the point here. The point, the only point is you think me not changing is not the right path, it's not only foolish, it's silly.

bagwell368
01-08-2009, 04:56 PM
Here we go again, your injecting the race card. How do you know that they were happier that it was Mac and not Sammy and if some were, how do you prove it was skin color. Could Mac have been just more liked and not because of skin color..

I missed this before. I am introducing the race card? I am commenting on the race card as it was, not twisting it to make an argument. McGwire was the stern quiet one and Sosa the bubbly outgoing fellow. But in sports groups similar to this one, and in Fenway, and around other places, the undercurrent was clear. People wanted Mac and it wasn't based on popularity or likability or the AL/NL thing, it was rascism.


As for the country being so carried away with the Mac/ Sammy home run derby, are you forgetting, that was in the late 1990s before the lid really blew off the steroid use in the game. You can add to that some are now looking back on their totals with doubt knowing what we know today.

I am not forgetting anything, why would I? And it wasn't some, it was almost universal blindness, the whole Andro thing came later. That was the first bell weather to the public. So, the feelings about Sosa/Mac were more related to the renewal of baseball after the strike, not 'roids!!


Of course they do not endear or give Barry a pass, not because of skin color, he's high on the list of suspect users.

By the time he hit 73, the tenor of the sport/roids issue was entirely different. But yes, if we extract that part of it out -- I suspect strongly that if some nice fellow - say Jeff Bagwell hit 73, there would have been more acclaim - but it did not happen, so I can't say so with 100% assurance.


Of all those you mention, Maris is the one who really got little respect. Yes, it's true partly because he was thought of as a below average hitter all around and did not deserve to pass Babe Ruth.
Guess what Bags, even though I hold Ruth in high respect, I for one stood behind Maris. he may not have been Babe Ruth, but he did break the record and he did deserve the honor.
One more thing, I witnessed that year and the feeling back then. It wasn't only passing Ruth that some held against Maris. Many wanted who they called the "real Yankee" Mickey Mantle to break the record, they were both in the chase till Mick suffered an injury to knock him out. This was also not fair to Maris.
It was a shame, he broke the record in his own park and had to be pushed out on to the field by his teammates to take a bow.

I did not witness it, but yes I understand people either wanted Mick to do it (he was ahead at around 50 or so I believe), or have it not be beaten. Funny that he held it longer then Ruth did, and sad that the Commish gave him the *

bagwell368
01-08-2009, 04:59 PM
Not sure Bags, are you speaking of Bonds.

Oh yes, 26 lbs in 4 months, impossible according to experts for a man/world class athlete his age without help of something. They estimate 5 lbs would be the absolute max in that time period.

Kyle916
01-08-2009, 05:33 PM
I can't speak for everyone, impact had nothing to do with my vote.

I don't see how anybody can say Ruth was better player than Bonds (keyword player).

Bargnani
01-10-2009, 03:11 PM
I don't see how anybody can say Bonds was better player than Ruth (keyword player).

Fixed!

Kyle916
01-10-2009, 07:19 PM
Fixed!

Ruth faced nowhere near the competition Bonds faced. They were in different eras. If you were judging solely on who was the better player, there's no argument that Ruth is better than Bonds.

drdirt
01-11-2009, 01:37 AM
Oh I almost forgot. The fat man had 136 triples compared to Bonds 77.

:speechless: what did the third base coach hold the hot dogs?:)

Ragun
01-11-2009, 12:13 PM
bonds cause i havent seen ruth play. plus the game was much different back in the day.

MJ-BULLS
01-20-2009, 01:21 PM
ruth!!

SHOELESSJOE3
06-02-2009, 02:57 PM
bonds cause i havent seen ruth play. plus the game was much different back in the day.

I get your point but according to your point, you really can't pick either.
I am understanding your pick, your choice. What I don't understand is if you have no way to judge Ruth since you never saw him play, how do you pick one or the other.

Zep
06-02-2009, 03:26 PM
Picked the Babe. Stats are all I have to go on. Debating as to what would have happened had Ruth played in this era, or what would have happened if Bonds never juiced is immaterial to me.