Interesting Test (concerning Barry Bonds and the Giants) - Page 6

IatricSB · 03-24-2005, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackson41

232 is the number of times Barry walked last year. Roids didn't help him not swing at bad pitches. 120 is the number of IBB to Bonds last year. No player has ever been feared more than Bonds.

Bogus argument. Would he have walked that many times had he not been taking the roids and became such a one swing threat? Let's take a look at the number of walks per plate appearances. Prior to 1999, Bonds averaged 16.7% walks per plate appearance with a high of 22.3% in 1996. From 1999 to 2004, Bonds averaged 27.1% walks per PA. An average that is 5 percentage points higher than his previous career high and over 10 percentage points higher than his previous average. Last year alone he walked 37.6% of the time, an amazing 15 percentage points higher than his pre-roid career high in 1996.

Did roids help him not swing at bad pitches, of course not. Did roids make pitchers afraid to pitch to him, the evidence would suggest that.

IatricSB · 03-24-2005, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackson41

Ruth's records can't be compared to baseball today. Baseball is a different game today. Ruth never faced a middle reliever who came into the game in the 7th and threw 95 mph. He never had to hit a slider. He never had to hit a black/Latino/Asian pitcher. The bats today are better, the balls today are better, and the talent today is better.

And of course today's players don't have to spend the whole day riding a train from city to city, or hit dirty/scuffed balls, or hit against pitchers that were legally allowed to throw shine balls, spit balls, etc., or play in lighting conditions that may not have always been ideal. I'm not trying to minimize the conditions today's ballplayer faces, but you can't just ignore the conditions players from the past faced.

IatricSB · 03-24-2005, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dagrims

There is a significantly larger pool of talent to draw on in today's era because minorities are allowed to play. The number of major leaguers today is twice the number of Ruth's day, however. That contributes to a dilution of the overall talent level. Are the two factors (no minorities back then, twice as many teams now) a wash?

And don't forget that baseball didn't have to compete with basketball and football for the most talented athletes (although they probably competed with dad wanting son to work the family farm)

IatricSB · 03-24-2005, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dagrims

I'd also point out that in the 20s, through Aaron's time, most of the best athletes chose baseball - it was America's sport and baseball dominated the landscape. Now baseball fights with football and basketball for those athletes. Sure, the population has grown tremendously in the past eight decades, but I don't think the population of athletes choosing to become professional baseball players has grown nearly as much.

Oops, should have read further on before replying. You already addressed it.

EDIT - Just to be clear I'll say that I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The points brought up in support of the 1920's style of baseball (train rides, poor playing conditions, talent pool that doesn't compete with other sports) are true, but so are the points about present day baseball (middle relievers, night games, larger talent pool, integration). But then I tend to usually see the truth as lying somewhere between most dual party arguments. Must be either my Gemini side coming out or my centrist views (I think that's what someone called it in another thread).

DaveHorn · 03-24-2005, 02:43 PM

I can't believe some people think free agency has ruined or had a negative impact on baseball. Giving the ball players the same right enjoyed by every other US citizen to chose who they work for and for how much. Is that so wrong? God forbid it somehow negatively impacts your form of entertainment. Lets take away the rights 750 players and their families because it decreases your enjoyment of the game. You know what would happen if baseball never had FA? The best athletes would never bother playing for the MLB. They'd be playing for another league in another country or playing in another sport that recognizes basic human rights.

Crapshoot · 03-24-2005, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IatricSB

And of course today's players don't have to spend the whole day riding a train from city to city, or hit dirty/scuffed balls, or hit against pitchers that were legally allowed to throw shine balls, spit balls, etc., or play in lighting conditions that may not have always been ideal. I'm not trying to minimize the conditions today's ballplayer faces, but you can't just ignore the conditions players from the past faced.

Stacy, that's irrelevant though. We aren't comparing Bonds to people in that condition- we're comparing him to his peers. All of Ruth's peers faced that - not just Ruth. My point is his dominance over his league would be reduced with the factors that I mentioned- your point, while valid, doesnt change that.

Crapshoot · 03-24-2005, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swampdragon

Excellent point, which I think is enough for me to disagree that the level of play has gotten better over the last 30 years. Logically, the highest level of play would have been the late 50s and early 60s, with integration, population growth over the previous decades, and before the 5man rotation and major expansion with its accompanying dilution of talent.

Look at the demographics though- The White population (if there was no integration) increased faster than the number of baseball teams - significantly. More so, baseball has the largest Caucasian population of any sport - basketball has maybe 7-8%, and the NFL 20-25% - the overall impact on people who would have gone to baseball is overstated by this case. The overall population population and the economic benefits of baseball today all further counter the stated effect- making it essentialy a nil sum. Then, you add in the fact that baseball has almost 50% minorities now, and you see the effect on the talent level- it will rise significantly. I think I've pointed out the flaw with the arguement - the number's dont bear it out.

Claybor · 03-24-2005, 02:59 PM

I have never found it all that impressive when a power hitter that is payed to knock in runs stands at the plate and takes a base on balls when there are no offensive threats behind him. In Ruths day, he could take a walk and it had value because he had the best RBI man in the history of the game behind him in Lou Gehrig, but Bonds stands there and takes a walk very often when his team needs him to SWING THE BAT. Hes an RBI man, hes payed to knock in runs not stand there and watch. Homeruns are all well and good, but the bottom line is RBI's, and Bonds totals arent that impressive in that area compared to other big name hitters throughout history.

Dagrims · 03-24-2005, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claybor

I have never found it all that impressive when a power hitter that is payed to knock in runs stands at the plate and takes a base on balls when there are no offensive threats behind him. In Ruths day, he could take a walk and it had value because he had the best RBI man in the history of the game behind him in Lou Gehrig, but Bonds stands there and takes a walk very often when his team needs him to SWING THE BAT. Hes an RBI man, hes payed to knock in runs not stand there and watch. Homeruns are all well and good, but the bottom line is RBI's, and Bonds totals arent that impressive in that area compared to other big name hitters throughout history.

Are you suggesting that he should have been swinging during his intentional walks, or the ones that were four straight balls well out of the strike zone?

IatricSB · 03-24-2005, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aadik

Stacy, that's irrelevant though. We aren't comparing Bonds to people in that condition- we're comparing him to his peers. All of Ruth's peers faced that - not just Ruth. My point is his dominance over his league would be reduced with the factors that I mentioned- your point, while valid, doesnt change that.

True, but the passage I quoted didn't seem to be arguing that. It seemed to only say why present day ballplayers have it tough and I just tried to point out how earlier ballplayers had it tough also. Jackson41 was stating that Ruth wouldn't make it out of the minors if he played today.

EDIT - His quote: "If Ruth played today he'd never get out of AA ball." which followed a paragraph that was confusing in that it seemed to defend present day players by talking about Ruth not facing Middle Relievers, but then turned around and said that the bats and balls of today are better so to be honest, I have no idea what his point was exactly. It seemed a bit convoluted. But it's probably just me not understanding what he was getting across.

jaxmagicman · 03-24-2005, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claybor

I have never found it all that impressive when a power hitter that is payed to knock in runs stands at the plate and takes a base on balls when there are no offensive threats behind him. In Ruths day, he could take a walk and it had value because he had the best RBI man in the history of the game behind him in Lou Gehrig, but Bonds stands there and takes a walk very often when his team needs him to SWING THE BAT. Hes an RBI man, hes payed to knock in runs not stand there and watch. Homeruns are all well and good, but the bottom line is RBI's, and Bonds totals arent that impressive in that area compared to other big name hitters throughout history.

There are so many things wrong with this argument I can't even begin to respond.

Crapshoot · 03-24-2005, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IatricSB

True, but the passage I quoted didn't seem to be arguing that. It seemed to only say why present day ballplayers have it tough and I just tried to point out how earlier ballplayers had it tough also. Jackson41 was stating that Ruth wouldn't make it out of the minors if he played today.

EDIT - His quote: "If Ruth played today he'd never get out of AA ball." which followed a paragraph that was confusing in that it seemed to defend present day players by talking about Ruth not facing Middle Relievers, but then turned around and said that the bats and balls of today are better so to be honest, I have no idea what his point was exactly. It seemed a bit convoluted. But it's probably just me not understanding what he was getting across.

Fair enough- that's not my arguement though. I got mixed up as well- I think someone argued the same point against me (might have been Swampdragon), so I was just making my stance clear.

IatricSB · 03-24-2005, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aadik

Fair enough- that's not my arguement though. I got mixed up as well- I think someone argued the same point against me (might have been Swampdragon), so I was just making my stance clear.

Understood. I too found myself getting the various threads mixed up since they dealt with similar issues and a variety of posters.

spleen1015 · 03-24-2005, 03:26 PM

I have learned 2 things by reading this thread.

First, there's still a lot I need to learn about baseball.

Second, whenever someone argues against MD, he always takes it as an attack.

jackson41 · 03-24-2005, 03:48 PM

I'll clarify what I meant when compareing Ruth to today's players. Athletes today are overall more Athletic than in Ruth's day. If you took 1927 Ruth and stuck him in a line up today he wouldn't put up the same numbers. If Ruth was born intodays era, he might have still have put up the same numbers, he might not, it's too hard to say. Heck, he might have played football instead.

As far as comparing players to their era, It's my opinion that Bonds does dominate just as much as Ruth did. Ruth at least had Gehrig hitting behind him. Bonds has carried the Giants the last few years all by himself. Ruth's feats are amazing but so are Bonds, and Hank Aaron may be better than either of them. They are different players from different times and can all be considered the best.

IatricSB · 03-24-2005, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackson41

Athletes today are overall more Athletic than in Ruth's day. If you took 1927 Ruth and stuck him in a line up today he wouldn't put up the same numbers. If Ruth was born intodays era, he might have still have put up the same numbers, he might not, it's too hard to say.

Which was said back on page 2 or 3 (depending on how many posts show on your page).

Was wondering if you had any other comments regarding 'roids and walks?

IatricSB · 03-24-2005, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackson41

Ruth's feats are amazing but so are Bonds, and Hank Aaron may be better than either of them. They are different players from different times and can all be considered the best.

I don't think many in this forum think Aaron is anywhere close to Ruth and Bonds (or for that matter in the top 10 IIRC

Crapshoot · 03-24-2005, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IatricSB

I don't think many in this forum think Aaron is anywhere close to Ruth and Bonds (or for that matter in the top 10 IIRC

I dunno - I might place him in my top 10 all time- longevity is great, but he had some great peak value as well. Not in Bonds or Ruth's class as a player- but no one else is either.

<o> · 03-24-2005, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spleen1015

I have learned 2 things by reading this thread.

Second, whenever someone argues against MD, he always takes it as an attack.

Bingo. I said that a couple of weeks ago, but no one listened.

jackson41 · 03-24-2005, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IatricSB

I don't think many in this forum think Aaron is anywhere close to Ruth and Bonds (or for that matter in the top 10 IIRC

Ruth and Bonds are on another planet, but Aaron deserves honorable mention, and I'm basing this on solely on stats. Look where Aaron ranks among career leaders:

games 3rd
ab 2nd
runs 3rd
hits 3rd
total bases 1st
2b 9th
HR 1st
RBI 1st
extra base hits 1st
sac flies 4th
IBB 2nd

I don't think we will ever see a single player pass him in all of those categories, juiced or not

03-24-2005, 02:43 PM	#105
DaveHorn All Star Starter Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,146	I can't believe some people think free agency has ruined or had a negative impact on baseball. Giving the ball players the same right enjoyed by every other US citizen to chose who they work for and for how much. Is that so wrong? God forbid it somehow negatively impacts your form of entertainment. Lets take away the rights 750 players and their families because it decreases your enjoyment of the game. You know what would happen if baseball never had FA? The best athletes would never bother playing for the MLB. They'd be playing for another league in another country or playing in another sport that recognizes basic human rights. __________________ Dave HFTC Commish

03-24-2005, 02:59 PM	#108
Claybor All Star Starter Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 1,360 Infractions: 0/1 (1)	I have never found it all that impressive when a power hitter that is payed to knock in runs stands at the plate and takes a base on balls when there are no offensive threats behind him. In Ruths day, he could take a walk and it had value because he had the best RBI man in the history of the game behind him in Lou Gehrig, but Bonds stands there and takes a walk very often when his team needs him to SWING THE BAT. Hes an RBI man, hes payed to knock in runs not stand there and watch. Homeruns are all well and good, but the bottom line is RBI's, and Bonds totals arent that impressive in that area compared to other big name hitters throughout history. Last edited by Claybor; 03-24-2005 at 03:02 PM.

03-24-2005, 03:26 PM	#114
spleen1015 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 6,005	I have learned 2 things by reading this thread. First, there's still a lot I need to learn about baseball. Second, whenever someone argues against MD, he always takes it as an attack.

03-24-2005, 03:48 PM	#115
jackson41 Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 41	I'll clarify what I meant when compareing Ruth to today's players. Athletes today are overall more Athletic than in Ruth's day. If you took 1927 Ruth and stuck him in a line up today he wouldn't put up the same numbers. If Ruth was born intodays era, he might have still have put up the same numbers, he might not, it's too hard to say. Heck, he might have played football instead. As far as comparing players to their era, It's my opinion that Bonds does dominate just as much as Ruth did. Ruth at least had Gehrig hitting behind him. Bonds has carried the Giants the last few years all by himself. Ruth's feats are amazing but so are Bonds, and Hank Aaron may be better than either of them. They are different players from different times and can all be considered the best.