or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › Barry Bonds one back of Bambino
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Barry Bonds one back of Bambino - Page 3

post #31 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by aportnoy
I'm one of those who believes that winning championships is part of what makes someone the best, not just their individual stats ot their natural talent.

Only when the stars align do you get both. That's why they call Gretzky "The Great One." IMHO, Bonds and Gretzky don't belong in the same pantheon or conversation.

Look at the list for other sports

BB: Jordan/Bird/Magic
Football: Montana/Jim Brown/Elway
Hockey: Gretzky
Baseball: Ruth/Damaggio/Mantle (and I hate the Yankees)

Does Bonds really belong anywhere near these guys? I think not.


Barry Bonds is the only player in baseball history who completely changes the dynamic of a game simply by being in it. Every team adjusts for him. That was not the case for Ruth, whose HRs were not a lock ( and btw his defensive skills were average). If you pitch to Bonds, he will knock it out of the park.

It was not the case that Dimaggio single handedly altered the dynamics of every game he entered nor was it for Mantle. I am btw, a huge Yankees fan.

Jordan in basketball might have also caused this phenomenom but I was speaking about baseball. Jordan is also credited with ruining the the team ethic of the sport (Even if unintentionally) while baseball has always had a degree of isolation between players by the nature of the rules.

Jim Brown was an incredible play maker but I dont know that he singlehandedly changed the sport as much as say LT did.

Montana and Elway did not force other teams to radically alter their strategies.

Gretzky

Bonds is only denied a ring because of Dusty Baker's incredibly stupid change in pitching in Game 6 of the 2002 World Series.Bond's is incredibly unlikeable at the moment but he is the greatest player the sport has ever seen.

And about winning championships and being great, do we consider Nolan Ryan, Dan Marino, Patrick Ewing and Ted Williams, Don Mattingly, and Barry Sanders 2nd rate because they didnt win a championship? Or Derek Jeter super duper bc he won 4?
post #32 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Film_Noir_Buff

And about winning championships and being great, do we consider Nolan Ryan, Dan Marino, Patrick Ewing and Ted Williams, Don Mattingly, and Barry Sanders 2nd rate because they didnt win a championship? Or Derek Jeter super duper bc he won 4?

Not second rate, just not the greatest to have played. Is the ultimate goal of team sports to win championships or amass statistics? I feel that those who accomplisehd both deserve the designation as the best ever.

Also, Bonds' performance in the post season, until quite recently, has been middling, at best.

Check out Mantle and Ruth's post season numbers.
post #33 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by aportnoy
Not second rate, just not the greatest to have played. Is the ultimate goal of team sports to win championships or amass statistics? I feel that those who accomplisehd both deserve the designation as the best ever.

Also, Bonds' performance in the post season, until quite recently, has been middling, at best.

Check out Mantle and Ruth's post season numbers.

Rightly or wrongly, championships definitely factor in when describing a player's greatness. I am a Miami Dolphins fan and was a huge Dan Marino fan when he was playing. Marino leads John Elway in just about every significant statistical category applicable to a quarterback. However, Elway has two Superbowl rings. This is why you often hear that Elway was one of the greatest, while Marino is often described as a "great, hall of fame quarterback, but..."
post #34 of 81
I think it's less pure championships than leadership. Bonds is not a leader. His teamates (by all appearances) do not like him and aren't rooting for him.

And the best players perform well when it matters. Jordan, for example, was not just an exceptional athlete and performer, but a team leader who brought out the best in his teamates, and who excelled when everything was on the line. He may have gotten the ball, demanded it even at times, but to say he's responsible for the me-first NBA of today is inaccurate. Perhaps the cult of Jordan, but not the way he played the game.

Ruth changed the whole game of baseball, not just the games in which he played. And while Barry is remarkably skilled, there is no way he is the greatest baseball player who ever played. Not even close.
post #35 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Film_Noir_Buff
You are of course entitled to your opinion but I believe the consensus is that Bonds is the best player of all time.
Among those who dislike stats, Mays seems to be the consensus. Among those who like stats, it's not even close. Ruth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aportnoy
The Giants/Pirates would have probably won about the same number of games with or without Barry.
This is quantifiable, and incorrect. Through Aug 2004, Barry contributed 216 wins more than your average left fielder would have done. That amounts to about 12 wins a season. That's the difference between 81-81 and 93-69, every year, for 17ish years. In 2001, the Giants went 90-72. Barry alone contributed 17 of those wins, single handedly lifting the team from 73-89. Wow. Over his career, Ruth accounted for about 250 team wins, Cobb 240, H. Wagner 220, Aaron and Mays each 215. (Here's a good description of win shares.)

This is a good article about good players on bad teams. I can understand if you want to say that winning makes players more memorable, or more likeable, or more interesting. Better, I don't buy it.

Gretzky = Ruth. He really was better than entire teams.

Edit: If you don't believe the stats, you probably also wear brown shoes in town after 6
post #36 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiger02
Among those who dislike stats, Mays seems to be the consensus. Among those who like stats, it's not even close. Ruth.


This is quantifiable, and incorrect. Through Aug 2004, Barry contributed 216 wins more than your average left fielder would have done. That amounts to about 12 wins a season. That's the difference between 81-81 and 93-69, every year, for 17ish years. In 2001, the Giants went 90-72. Barry alone contributed 17 of those wins, single handedly lifting the team from 73-89. Wow. Over his career, Ruth accounted for about 250 team wins, Cobb 240, H. Wagner 220, Aaron and Mays each 215. (Here's a good description of win shares.)

This is a good article about good players on bad teams. I can understand if you want to say that winning makes players more memorable, or more likeable, or more interesting. Better, I don't buy it.

Gretzky = Ruth. He really was better than entire teams.

Edit: If you don't believe the stats, you probably also wear brown shoes in town after 6

It all comes down to weather or not you think winning championships impacts how a player is defined in terms of career greatness. You don't think it's a measure, many people do.

I'm also assuming that you think that Barry never used performance enhancing drugs or that if he did, they shouldn't cast any shadow on his acheivements.
post #37 of 81
Never? That would have been silly of him. I'm quite sure he's on hGH, endothil, creatine, ephedra, NOx, and others. I've used them also, other than hGH, which I would like to get my hands on. Given its greater efficacy and legality compared to steroids, it would be an obvious choice. Do I think he has ever used steroids? Yeah, probably, at some point.

I can see a few rational ways to look at it. None of those make it easier to hit a round ball with a round bat, square. Pitchers have had equal access; steroids really can make your fastball faster, but it can't help you hit your spots or put pressure on the right fingers. Do you want to put an asterisk back on Maris' '61? He only had, what 58 or 59 through 154 games?

You don't have to assume it, I've said it here before. Every player plays in his own era, with his own historical situation. Ruth never played in a league with Josh Gibson.
post #38 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiger02
Never? That would have been silly of him. I'm quite sure he's on hGH, endothil, creatine, ephedra, NOx, and others. I've used them also, other than hGH, which I would like to get my hands on. Given its greater efficacy and legality compared to steroids, it would be an obvious choice. Do I think he has ever used steroids? Yeah, probably, at some point.

I can see a few rational ways to look at it. None of those make it easier to hit a round ball with a round bat, square. Pitchers have had equal access; steroids really can make your fastball faster, but it can't help you hit your spots or put pressure on the right fingers. Do you want to put an asterisk back on Maris' '61? He only had, what 58 or 59 through 154 games?

You don't have to assume it, I've said it here before. Every player plays in his own era, with his own historical situation. Ruth never played in a league with Josh Gibson.

Barry's use of illegal substances, IMHO, precludes him form any real discussion of being the best. The roids may not have helped hit the ball, but maybe it went just a wee bit farther as a result of his mass? I think equating the impact of a shorter season or lack of racial integration on personal performance with juicing is dubious, at best. FWIW, I think McGwire, Palmiero and Sosa are cheaters too.
post #39 of 81
Palmeiro being the only one of the bunch who actually pissed hot. We disagree, which is fine. I think that in 40 years people will look back at the debate with the same skepticism you look at the shorter season and racial integration. The integration debate may even come back into vogue, as Barry never competed against the best of Japan, Korea, Ghana, etc. You still have better shoes than I do, and nothing I say about Barry can change that
post #40 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by aportnoy
...I think equating the impact of a shorter season or lack of racial integration on personal performance with juicing is dubious, at best...
Depends if you are discussing morality and the character of the players in question or the effects on their stats. Racial segregation meant less competition. Players then, including Ruth, padded their stats just as everyone feasts on the Royals. No fault of their own, but there's no doubt in my mind that the statiscital consequences of steroid use and a diluted playing field can be likened though not quantifiably compared. As to the character issues, as I said, that's different. While we have had some real creeps like Ty Cobb, it seems the "greats" are always those who have been seen in consdierably positive light. I don't think Bonds will or can go down as the greatest ever, because of the public judgment and his lack of rings.
post #41 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiger02
Palmeiro being the only one of the bunch who actually pissed hot. We disagree, which is fine. I think that in 40 years people will look back at the debate with the same skepticism you look at the shorter season and racial integration. The integration debate may even come back into vogue, as Barry never competed against the best of Japan, Korea, Ghana, etc. You still have better shoes than I do, and nothing I say about Barry can change that

I agree that every generation will look for a reason why the stats of those who came before them are somehow less relevant than their own.

What do you attribute to the rampant ris ein home runs? The effect of overexpansion on the pitching pool, smaller ballparks, designated hitters, roids? It's probably a combination of all of them.

Call it the "Brady Anderson" syndrome.
post #42 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by aportnoy
I agree that every generation will look for a reason why the stats of those who came before them are somehow less relevant than their own.

What do you attribute to the rampant ris ein home runs? The effect of overexpansion on the pitching pool, smaller ballparks, designated hitters, roids? It's probably a combination of all of them.

Call it the "Brady Anderson" syndrome.
Yes. I would also add tighter wound ball, not sure about overexpansion of pitching pool. The hitting pool has expanded also. I think it's also "just one of those things." Relative importance of various categories seems cyclic. Big time offensive era 1912-29ish, then pitching and defense ruled until the war. After the war it was another decent offensive era followed by the ridiculously low-scoring environment in the 60s into the 70s. I also think--and yeah, this is probably colored by an overemphasis on current stats--but I also think we're seeing some of the greates talent, ever. Whether it's improved scouting or just luck, when you look at the two of the top three pitchers, ever (Clemens and Maddux), arguably the greatest lefty ever (R Johnson), hitters of (Bonds, Pujols, A Rod, Piazza) historic caliber; in 40 years I think we'll see somone at every position on the diamond who was arguably the best, ever, who played from 1995-2005. Cool.
post #43 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiger02
Yes. I would also add tighter wound ball, not sure about overexpansion of pitching pool. The hitting pool has expanded also. I think it's also "just one of those things." Relative importance of various categories seems cyclic. Big time offensive era 1912-29ish, then pitching and defense ruled until the war. After the war it was another decent offensive era followed by the ridiculously low-scoring environment in the 60s into the 70s. I also think--and yeah, this is probably colored by an overemphasis on current stats--but I also think we're seeing some of the greates talent, ever. Whether it's improved scouting or just luck, when you look at the two of the top three pitchers, ever (Clemens and Maddux), arguably the greatest lefty ever (R Johnson), hitters of (Bonds, Pujols, A Rod, Piazza) historic caliber; in 40 years I think we'll see somone at every position on the diamond who was arguably the best, ever, who played from 1995-2005. Cool.


All good points. We should get a SF Fantasy League off the ground for next season. Intersted?
post #44 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by aportnoy
All good points. We should get a SF Fantasy League off the ground for next season. Intersted?
That'd be awesome. I've only been in one league for the last few years because gov't computers block fantasy sports sites. Next year I'll be free to whup all comers
post #45 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiger02
That'd be awesome. I've only been in one league for the last few years because gov't computers block fantasy sports sites. Next year I'll be free to whup all comers

Deal! We need 10 more guys. I suggest the classic 5x5 scoring and using both AL and NL teams. We should post a new thread and start recruiting. I also know of an excellent online stats and transaction service that's not too pricey.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › Barry Bonds one back of Bambino