Interesting Test (concerning Barry Bonds and the Giants)

[Bobbuttons]

It's only a reference to his wife if he chose to take it that way. I saw nothing wrong with it. I didn't particularly find it funny (sorry, Stacy), but I didn't see where it was an insult to anybody.

[kingcharlesxii]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

Oh, yes, it was so really, really stylish of him to insult my wife like that.

Despicable.

I wouldn't call it despicable. It was an attempt at a joke.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

Back. Aadik, I had no idea you were such a fanatic on this subject, to the point of such total blindness. I'm through, but you can argue with Bill James.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...15/ai_n6134067

TAE: Was Babe Ruth the finest player in the history of the majors?

JAMES: Yes. Mays may have been as good, Honus Wagner may have been as good, Bonds may be as good. But Ruth had more impact.

Well yes, and I'm going to dispute James. He's arguing impact - which is different then best. For the 100th time, I'm going ask you to rebut the statistical arguement - or acknowledge your failure to do so. How the hell would Ruth measured against his compatriots (which is how he should be- we both agree) greater than Bonds when all measures say otherwise ?

[Vris]

I'm with Tiger Fan. One of the top 2 or 3 funniest things I've seen on these boards lately.

That, and someone said Bonilla was a HOFer. I was gonna post that as a joke as well.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

Oh, yes, it was so really, really stylish of him to insult my wife like that.

Despicable.

Roffle!

[Bobbuttons]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

Roffle!

+1 karma for you.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by swampdragon

All of Bonds' stats are distorted by the unbelievably high IW totals. But if no one will pitch to the man, that has to be some proof of greatness. OTOH, it's hard to say Ruth isn't as good just because he didn't get all the IWs that Bonds has received. I think I can cheerfully argue both sides of this one.

To counter an earlier point, while most statheads agree that protection is overrated, there is some value to having Lou Gehrig come up behind you as opposed to Neifi "el Malo" Perez. Bonds gets walked because managers are so damn petrified of him in a way that they weren't of Ruth- isnt that the ultimate compliment ?

[jnshmoo]

Originally Posted by Bobbuttons

It's only a reference to his wife if he chose to take it that way. I saw nothing wrong with it. I didn't particularly find it funny (sorry, Stacy), but I didn't see where it was an insult to anybody.

I suppose if he happened to spend a lot of quality time with it, he could think of it as his wife.

I found it quite funny.

[IatricSB]

Originally Posted by Bobbuttons

It's only a reference to his wife if he chose to take it that way. I saw nothing wrong with it. I didn't particularly find it funny (sorry, Stacy), but I didn't see where it was an insult to anybody.

Most of my joke attempts miss the mark it seems (but I still keep trying), at least a couple got a kick out of it and I'm happy it made someone smile.

[Joshv02]

I don't think it is clear cut that Bonds is better than Ruth. I think it is more likely than not, but not unreasonable to think otherwise.

I think it is IS unreasonable to not even think that there is a good argument.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Joshv02

I don't think it is clear cut that Bonds is better than Ruth. I think it is more likely than not, but not unreasonable to think otherwise.

I think it is IS unreasonable to not even think that there is a good argument.

Fair enough- Im genuinely torn myself, but I simply don't like the "Ruth is the best there's no comparison" arguement. Hell, one might argue Wagner was better as well. Not appreciating the context Ruth put up his numbers seems illogical to me.

[DamnYankees]

Aadik, can you answer one quandry for me? For all the numbers and stats and OPS+ people are throwing out, one sentence, one fact still compels me to give Ruth a nod.

In 1920, he hit more home runs than 14 of the 15 other teams.

That's flabbergasting. I'm a pretty scholarly baseball fan, if such a term can be used, but that's a hump I can't get over. Frankly, it stupefies me. How can you overcome this fact, which seems to be such a proof a ridiculous dominance it doesn't even seem possible? I'm genuinely interested.

[Joshv02]

Barry's 2002 year was higher than Ruth's 1920 year in OPS+ and WARP3 (but not WARP1, fwiw; and, I think it is really just worth a PING: DH/Doug).

[Bobbuttons]

Originally Posted by IatricSB

Most of my joke attempts miss the mark it seems (but I still keep trying), at least a couple got a kick out of it and I'm happy it made someone smile.

Not to say that I haven't found anything you have posted to be funny. Do continue to keep trying!

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by DamnYankees

Aadik, can you answer one quandry for me? For all the numbers and stats and OPS+ people are throwing out, one sentence, one fact still compels me to give Ruth a nod.

In 1920, he hit more home runs than 14 of the 15 other teams.

That's flabbergasting. I'm a pretty scholarly baseball fan, if such a term can be used, but that's a hump I can't get over. Frankly, it stupefies me. How can you overcome this fact, which seems to be such a proof a ridiculous dominance it doesn't even seem possible? I'm genuinely interested.

DY- HR"s are great, but they are simply one way to score. My understanding is that while Ruth was impressive, no doubt - he was one of the first hitters who spent time actually trying to hit them- there's a famous Ty Cobb story where he talks about HR being less useful - and to prove a point hits 3 that day. But a measure likes OPS+ takes that into context (remember, triple totals were higher then as well- and the downgrade from a HR to a triple isnt that great) and looks at his overall measure.

For example, in 1920 - Ruth's SLG pct was .847 - with a league slg pct of .407.

In 2001 - Bonds Slg pct was .863, with a league slg pct of .422 - the overall power displayed compared to their leagues was about equal .

Bonds OBP was .515 (his lowest in the period from 2001- consider that for a second.. ), compared to a league OBP of .327 - Ruth's was .532, compared to a league OBP that was actually higher at .362.

There is a grave train of thought that because people didnt hit as many HR's, Slg's was a lot worse- but that usually fails to account for the increased no of doubles and triples that year. When you add in the fact that he played in a league with a higher OBP, - Ruth probably was as good as Bonds that year.

(That was Ruth's best season compared to Bonds' 3rd best btw)..

[IatricSB]

Originally Posted by Aadik

To counter an earlier point, while most statheads agree that protection is overrated, there is some value to having Lou Gehrig come up behind you as opposed to Neifi "el Malo" Perez. Bonds gets walked because managers are so damn petrified of him in a way that they weren't of Ruth- isnt that the ultimate compliment ?

Good points, but I wish we knew how many IBB there were back in the 20's. Were they even tracked back then? I know in historical leagues, I always adjust my player strategies to not intentionally walk people since so few can hurt you with one swing. But then that would make it seem that everyone would be even more likely to walk Ruth since other hitters wouldn't hurt as much (I'm referring to the early 20's before Gehrig became a feared hitter). As usual, I find myself back near the middle ground seeing both sides of an argument. But I'll still stick by my belief that Ruth was more amazing (at least until Bonds starts his 2nd career as a feared starting pitcher)

[IatricSB]

Originally Posted by Bobbuttons

Not to say that I haven't found anything you have posted to be funny. Do continue to keep trying!

No problem there, I'll go with Merril's logic (from Signs), It just doesn't feel right to not take a cut. So I "Swing away Merrill"

[Crapshoot]

Dola, in 2004- Bonds had more intentional walks than 90% of the teams. Doesnt it say something when they are too afraid to even give him the chance ?

[treedom]

Originally Posted by Aadik

Dola, in 2004- Bonds had more intentional walks than 90% of the teams. Doesnt it say something when they are too afraid to even give him the chance ?

Nope. Sorry.

[Eckstein 4 Prez]

Originally Posted by DamnYankees

In 1920, he hit more home runs than 14 of the 15 other teams.

That's flabbergasting. I'm a pretty scholarly baseball fan, if such a term can be used, but that's a hump I can't get over. Frankly, it stupefies me. How can you overcome this fact, which seems to be such a proof a ridiculous dominance it doesn't even seem possible? I'm genuinely interested.

Personally, I still like Ruth as better than Bonds, but I think too much is made of this "outhomering all the other teams" argument. What actually happened in the early 1920s was that once Babe Ruth started showing it was possible to hit home runs, the Yankees started swinging for the fences and it took the rest of the AL two or three years to catch up. Once they did, Ruth was still the best home run hitter, but not by margins like 59-3 or anything.

A good analogy would be if people suddenly realized you were allowed to steal bases, and so one player got 125 steals for the year while the best player not on his team got maybe 10. It's just that the game was played differently - most players on other teams weren't swinging for the fences.

A better measure of this is comparing Ruth to the Yankees teams on which he played. Throughout the 1920s, Ruth led the Yankees (and baseball) in home runs, but do you know how many times in his career he hit more homers than his Yankee teammates combined? None. Meanwhile, there have been other players through history (albeit generally on bad teams) that have accomplished this feat.

So while I still think Babe Ruth is the best player ever to have played the game, be careful not to overcredit him for the fact that from 1919-22 he was playing a different game than the rest of the league.