Interesting Test (concerning Barry Bonds and the Giants)

[rem]

Originally Posted by TonyJ

Is there a particular reason this thread is still open?

I think someone has to complain in order for it to be closed.

[treedom]

Originally Posted by TonyJ

Is there a particular reason this thread is still open?

The thinskins haven't been offended yet.

[Joshv02]

Moved, perhaps. But, why would it be closed?

[TonyJ]

Nothing good can come of it.

[Joshv02]

There was a good conversation for most of the thread.

[Gil Thorp]

So how are those tests going anyways?

[rem]

Originally Posted by Joshv02

There was a good conversation for most of the thread.

I agree.

[IatricSB]

Originally Posted by Gil Thorp

So how are those tests going anyways?

Ditto, I've been interested in the results.

[sebastian0622]

Originally Posted by TonyJ

Is there a particular reason this thread is still open?

sixto hasn't red-carded it yet.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by Joshv02

Mal, just come out and post under your normal handle.

ROFL. I am supposed to be, at last count, Tris, Al/Henry, Jaxmagician, my son, Glenn Steele, metball4 (that one just so I could make n00bs look bad), and now YTML. At one point I think I was supposed to be Tigerfan, too. Or maybe it was Cowboys3356. I don't remember.

Al/Henry and I have worked together on stuff, Glenn and my son both quit playing the game but we were in leagues together, and YTML, who is Mister Puresim, is in a league with me now (Jake, next time pick a simpler handle), but none of us are each other. The OT crowd that keeps trying to run me off always assumes that anyone who would defend me must be me, which is both amusing and insulting. When someone posts under a different handle than this one, someone else is doing the typing.

Back to the subject: Ruth was had more impact, Ruth was more dominant, Ruth was a better ballplayer (if Bonds ever starts pitching and wins nearly 100 games, is a multiple 20 game winner, and/or posts a 300 IP season with an ERA of under 2 that is also a full run under the league average I might be persuaded to rethink my opinion; otherwise it remains that he is a cheater with some power who can draw walks). I suspect that it would take a diehard Giants fan or a diehard Bonds fan to think Bonds is better than Ruth was.

If you haven't read it, you might want to read the SF Chronicle article on Bonds, McGwire and steroids today. They were nice to Bonds, but they ripped McGwire a new one:

"McGwire is a broken man in the wake of his Congressional testimony. People in Missouri are demanding removal of those highway signs bearing his name. If he ever considered going back to work for the Cardinals, or elsewhere in baseball, it's inconceivable now. That's no way to live -- and McGwire, a decent man, hardly deserves such a fate. Question his intelligence if you like. For an athlete of his size and talent (49 homers as a rookie) to even think of steroids is monumentally stupid."

The article is at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...PG66BUP6V1.DTL and I recommend it.

[GForce]

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 ?

Couldn't this also be taken as they were not petrified at all of Neifi as opposed to Gehrig? To say opposing managers weren't afraid of Ruth is a bit out of whack.

GH

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by GForce

Couldn't this also be taken as they were not petrified at all of Neifi as opposed to Gehrig? To say opposing managers weren't afraid of Ruth is a bit out of whack.

GH

Fair point - Neifi certainly resulted in Bonds getting walked more than usual (usally batted in front of him, and with 2 outs- why bother pitching to Bonds ?).
Im not arguing that managers weren't afraid of Ruth, but rather that the outright 4 pitches to Bonds is unmatched in history - hell, he had a 120 IW last year, plus a hell of a lot more unintentional-intentional walks..

[Crapshoot]

Btw, recommending Bruce Jenkins as a journalist is akin to recommending the Backstreet Boys as a musical choice- the choirboys don't get much worse than him.

[Jestor]

Originally Posted by IatricSB

Why do you think no? I would say yes since we have these kind of debates all the time (who's the best, who should be in the HOF, etc). If steroids were completely eliminated from the picture, people would still wonder who was best of the two (IMO). And without steroids, I would think they were still very close but personally still give the edge to Ruth though some good points have been made in favor of Bonds.

I don't think he'd be putting up the numbers and whatnot if he wasn't on steroids is what I'm referring to... so therefore, the idea of him being the best ballplayer in history wouldn't even come into being.

[GForce]

Originally Posted by Aadik

Fair point - Neifi certainly resulted in Bonds getting walked more than usual (usally batted in front of him, and with 2 outs- why bother pitching to Bonds ?).
Im not arguing that managers weren't afraid of Ruth, but rather that the outright 4 pitches to Bonds is unmatched in history - hell, he had a 120 IW last year, plus a hell of a lot more unintentional-intentional walks..

But again, if the protection Ruth had was so much better it makes it foolish to pitch to him just to have Gehrig double him home. But we both know this.

You don't think Ruth would have been intentionally walked the same number of times if Neifi Perez were behind him? Hell, he could've used Eddie Gaedel's bat, because he never would've needed to swing it.

Bonds is great, but I am a firm believer he did it largely by cheating, at least in recent years. But even without that, Ruth was better, IMO.

GH

[sebastian0622]

Originally Posted by GForce

You don't think Ruth would have been intentionally walked the same number of times if Neifi Perez were behind him? Hell, he could've used Eddie Gaedel's bat, because he never would've needed to swing it.
GH

What he said.

[DamnYankees]

Originally Posted by GForce

But again, if the protection Ruth had was so much better it makes it foolish to pitch to him just to have Gehrig double him home. But we both know this.

You don't think Ruth would have been intentionally walked the same number of times if Neifi Perez were behind him? Hell, he could've used Eddie Gaedel's bat, because he never would've needed to swing it.

Bonds is great, but I am a firm believer he did it largely by cheating, at least in recent years. But even without that, Ruth was better, IMO.

GH

Not only that, but the culture of 1920s baseball would have never allowed him to be intentionally walked that much walked. Pitchers had too much pride back then, it would never have happened. This isn't to say pitchers today are wusses, but the mentality is different.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by Aadik

Btw, recommending Bruce Jenkins as a journalist is akin to recommending the Backstreet Boys as a musical choice- the choirboys don't get much worse than him.

I didn't "recommend him as a journalist," I suggested reading an article in the SF paper. Jesus Frog, is there ANYONE who disagrees with you that you don't immediately insult except Bill James?

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by GForce

Bonds is great, but I am a firm believer he did it largely by cheating, at least in recent years. But even without that, Ruth was better, IMO. GH

You saw it here first: we agree.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by Jestor

I don't think he'd be putting up the numbers and whatnot if he wasn't on steroids is what I'm referring to... so therefore, the idea of him being the best ballplayer in history wouldn't even come into being.

Exactly.