Barry Bonds one back of Bambino

[Steve B.]

All good points. We should get a SF Fantasy League off the ground for next season. Intersted?

Im in.

classic 5x5 scoring

For wimps. We play 11x11.

Next year I'll be free to whup all comers

Think so, eh?

Although I am VERY impressed with your statistical command.

Prize should be enough cash for a pair of EGs.

 

[aportnoy]

Originally Posted by Steve B.

Im in.



For wimps. We play 11x11.



Think so, eh?

Although I am VERY impressed with your statistical command.

Prize should be enough cash for a pair of EGs.


Excellent Steve, you're in! Now we need 9 more. I'm completely open to playing 11x11 and I also agree that Edward Green's need to somehow figure into the prize quotient. I love it.

 

[whoopee]

Count me in. Might as well try and parlay my wasted hours scouring ESPN and YES into a pair of shoes.

 

[aportnoy]

Originally Posted by whoopee

Count me in. Might as well try and parlay my wasted hours scouring ESPN and YES into a pair of shoes.

Gotcha Whoopee. You're in!

 

[tiger02]

Originally Posted by whoopee

ESPN and YES
Here's one fish

(Tom = devoted Yankees fan since '86. Couldn't get into the coked up Miracles)

 

[aportnoy]

Draft with your heads fellas, not your hearts.

 

[Film Noir Buff]

Originally Posted by aportnoy

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.

Lower pitching mound, having to change balls so often, the age of the individual over the team player, smaller strike zone, crummier umps, better diets training and conditioning. Also the love affair that teams have with the radar gun. The need to throw heat blows out arms like never before and shortens the life of a pitcher. Off speed and junk are neglected but should be appreciated for the mental strategy of the game.

 

[Film Noir Buff]

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.

Are we discussing players or teams? It is the mission of a team in professional sports to make the owners money. The history of MLB franchises and their behaviors tends to prove that. It is questionable whther the mission of a professional team is to win championships. This might be the mission in the mind of a fan. Also in small markets teams need to win trophies for survival and a need to up season ticket subscription. But the most valuable teams in the last decade, with one or two glaring exceptions, exist in the biggest markets and have some of the worst records.

Your feelings are well noted, most people dont want to be reminded of losing seasons for teams. For instance, Im not a big fan of reliving 2001 WS moments. But that is a fan's feelings. From a players point of view it is different. Look at A-Rod winning MVP on a terrible Texas team 4 years ago. Roger Clemens was having a Cy Young season when he first joined the Astros.

Teams usually only issue books and tapes or dvds in championship seasons which might beg the idea that only championship years are worth anything if you go by what is avaialble in old bookstores. I do believe that especially in the modern sports era, winning a championship revolves around so many factors that it just cant be placed on the shoulders of a player to be only great if he wins one. BArry Sanders shoulda, Ewing shoulda as well

Will LeBron stick around to win one for Cleveland? Does anyone give a damn that the Marlins have won two? Will A-Rod not be an all time sports god if the Bombers dont win another one while he is in the Bronx?

Stay tuned next post...

A palyer's role is to be the best he can under the circumstances. Perhaps imbuing team spirit is a goal but being a leader isn't a pressure id ever heard of. I respect good players on bad teams. Thats Barry Sanders, thats

And to respond to Tiger, Barry Bonds, not Ruth or Mays is again the only player in the history of baseball to completely alter the game dynamic, thats a fact. Ruth did not, although yes his post season record was excellent, but Ruth also played on some of the "all time" Yankee teams.


I dont really like Barry Bonds that much, his attitude is crap but he is without doubt the single most strategy changing force in the history of the sport. His walks, intentional walks, obp and his practical certainty to smack any ball out of the park that is in the strike zone is without equal. Maybe, maybe Satchel Paige or Ryan are runners up in terms of game changing dynamics.

 

[whnay.]

Originally Posted by Film_Noir_Buff

And to respond to Tiger, Barry Bonds, not Ruth or Mays is again the only player in the history of baseball to completely alter the game dynamic, thats a fact. Ruth did not, although yes his post season record was excellent, but Ruth also played on some of the "all time" Yankee teams.
A fact? Total rubbish. The home run was an anomoly during the early to mid-twenties, Ruth's power dominance completely atlered the way the game was played. He lead the league in slugging for 13 straight seasons from 1918 to 1931, lead the league in homers 11 of those 13 same seasons and is still the most dominant player ever to play any sport in comparison to his peers. In 1921 he hit 59 dingers, the second place finisher was teammate Long Bob Meusel who hit 24! In 1920, second place in dingers was acheivable with 19 homers to Ruth's 54! And altogether he did it in 800 at bats less than Bonds without the aid of substances unless you count hot dogs and beer as superhuman additives, plus he would have been a hall of fame pitcher. Hell he put sports superstars on the map.

 

[countdemoney]

You both seem to forget Firpo Marberry. I think that the advent of relief pitching and managing to the bullpen has changed the game much more directly and dramatically.

Having a bullpen that is "on" as the Reds did with the Nasty Boys and the Yankees had when Rivera was legitimately called, "The Hammer of God" have been much more game altering IMO.

Knowing that you can win the game if you can get through the sixth inning with the lead is huge. It makes for a much different game dynamic, and almost creates two games - the first six innings and then the final three.

No question that Ruth was far more dominant than Bonds.

 

[tiger02]

What Bill said. And now that countdemoney brings it up, reliever usage has definitely contributed to the greater offensive environment right now. The idea that your best reliever has to be saved for one inning when you're already up by three runs absolutely kills some teams, yankees included. Game tied, bases loaded in the sixth or seventh? Damn straight I'm bringing in Rivera.

 

[Film Noir Buff]

Originally Posted by whnay.

A fact? Total rubbish. The home run was an anomoly during the early to mid-twenties, Ruth's power dominance completely atlered the way the game was played. He lead the league in slugging for 13 straight seasons from 1918 to 1931, lead the league in homers 11 of those 13 same seasons and is still the most dominant player ever to play any sport in comparison to his peers. In 1921 he hit 59 dingers, the second place finisher was teammate Long Bob Meusel who hit 24! In 1920, second place in dingers was acheivable with 19 homers to Ruth's 54! And altogether he did it in 800 at bats less than Bonds without the aid of substances unless you count hot dogs and beer as superhuman additives, plus he would have been a hall of fame pitcher. Hell he put sports superstars on the map.


Barry Bonds may have a lot more at bats but Ruth got pitched to. No one pitches to Barry Bonds who often has to chase balls well outside of the zone to slap them out of the park.

Im not explaining myself well. Ruth changed the game and he changed it forever but the "no one changed the game like Bonds" comment is meant to mean no one has caused opposing teams to make as many in game adjustments. Ruth might have dominated and contributed to winning more games, and he may have changed the sport but individual teams did scramble to adjust for Ruth, and they do for Bonds.

By the time Ruth was hitting HRs, the Iron Horse was also hitting 'em. Ruth also had a terrific team with crazy pitching, most of it brought down from Boston by the former Red Sox manager. Bonds' teams have often been second rate.

I dont want to take anything away from Ruth, I am a die hard Bombers fan and I love Ruth but though he is a great player, Barry Bonds is still someone who has completely altered each and every game in the minds of his opponents for a decade. Ruth just making the other team nervous is a factor but not the same thing Im speaking about with Bonds.

Relief pitching existed back then, so did saves. Casey Stengel was one of the first masters of swithing pitchers and using a closer.True, the Bullpen wasnt nearly as specialized as it is now or used with as much predictability.

Poor Barry Bonds may never get a ring, he may collapse in his own arrogance and bitterness, and substance abuse revelations may well line his future but as a player, he is going to be remembered as a Giant.

 

[whnay.]

With respect I disagree, there was a "Ruth shift". He also lead the league in walks in 11 seasons. Ballparks were bigger, a lot bigger in some cases, across the board.

B.Ruth NYY
Year: 1921
BA: .378
R: 177
HR: 59
RBI: 171
BB: 145
SB: 17
OBP: .512
SLG: .846

B.Bonds SFG
Year: 2001
BA: .328
R: 129
HR: 73
RBI: 137
BB: 177
SB: 13
OBP: .515
SLG: .863

 

[Film Noir Buff]

Originally Posted by whnay.

With respect I disagree, there was a "Ruth shift". He also lead the league in walks in 11 seasons. Ballparks were bigger, a lot bigger in some cases, across the board.

B.Ruth NYY
Year: 1921
BA: .378
R: 177
HR: 59
RBI: 171
BB: 145
SB: 17
OBP: .512
SLG: .846

B.Bonds SFG
Year: 2001
BA: .328
R: 129
HR: 73
RBI: 137
BB: 177
SB: 13
OBP: .515
SLG: .863


In terms of overall value, Im not saying that Bonds is quantitavely much better than Ruth. Im just saying tha ttheres no way Ruth is better than Bonds hands down. Ruth doesnt have to prove anything, but neither does barry. And of course, Ruth won 4 rings and 10 pennants!

Inside the park homeruns were more common and pitching was tougher, that might factor into Ruth having an overall more valuable contribution.

But as I stated, Im not trying to prove that Bonds is the best player by leaps and bounds over Ruth, its just that its far from a consensus that Ruth and Mays are way better than Bonds. It just isnt so.

Additionally, if you look at their historical obp and intentional walks youll see a difference. Bonds might have 1000 HRs if they pitched to him the last 5 years. Its interesting to note that bc of his 2001 performance, pitchers avoided pitching to him.

Also, as I said before also, Ruth was on great teams. yes he was a huge morale booster and in the WS it was all about Ruth, so much so that the NY Giants kicked the team out of the Polo Grounds but Bonds has played on generally average to above average and not great teams.

 

[Steve B.]

Excellent Steve, you're in! Now we need 9 more. I'm completely open to playing 11x11 and I also agree that Edward Green's need to somehow figure into the prize quotient. I love it.

Actually I'm not sure I like GP and IP.

They're new to our league this year, added to keep owners from benching players as part of their strategy.

Not that I or my brother would ever use such a strategy...

Or fail to win for the first time in the last 4-5 years.