Bonds takes aim at the Babe

[MrBug708]

Link (http://espn.go.com/mlb/allstar03/s/2003/0716/1581348.html)


Bonds thinks he's better since he's a lefty.


Side note about the article, Bonds mentions playing for the Angels. To anser, HELL NO. Malone to the Lakers was bad enough

[Franklinnoble]

I lost what little respect I ever might have had for Bonds upon reading this:


"And if it does happen, the only number I care about is Babe Ruth's. Because as a left-handed hitter, I wiped him out. That's it. And in the baseball world, Babe Ruth's everything, right? I got his slugging percentage and I'll take his home runs and that's it. Don't talk about him no more."


Whatever. Asswipe. :rolleyes:

[QuikSand]

Memo to Barry Bonds:

Shut the fuck up, you punk.











I like being a dick.

[scooper]

I doubt the Babe's cigars offered the same help as Barry's roids.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Memo to Barry Bonds:

Shut the fuck up, you punk.Note to self: clear away any folding steel chairs before having QuikSand over to visit.

[MrBug708]

Disses Pujols, then says he's too good to be in the Derby, then Aaron and Ruth in the same article.


Anyone have anyless Class? I think Bonds blows Horns out of the water

[Swaggs]

Originally posted by MrBug708

Side note about the article, Bonds mentions playing for the Angels. To anser, HELL NO. Malone to the Lakers was bad enough

Please. The Angels are as big a one-hit wonder as the Macarena. In a few more years, you will take your 45-year old Barry Bonds, and you will like it. :)

[MrBug708]

No way in hell. If he does break the record as a DH, I hope he gets a big freaking astriek next to the record

[primelord]

Someone should remind Barry that if he wants to be considered better than the Babe he still needs to be able to win 20 games as a pitcher.

[albionmoonlight]

I am not one to critique journalistic style. However, I must ask, why the hell is the last sentence in this story? What does it have to do with the rest of the story (other than the fact that they are both about baseball?)




CHICAGO -- Barry Bonds keeps climbing the home run charts, edging closer to Willie Mays' mark and drawing more and more questions about whether he will break Hank Aaron's record.

Bonds, however, is also taking aim at The Babe.

“ In the baseball world, Babe Ruth's everything, right? ”
— Barry Bonds

The San Francisco slugger leads the majors with 30 home runs at the All-Star break and has hit 643 in his career, putting him just 17 shy of matching his godfather -- Mays -- for third on the all-time list.

"Willie's number is always the one that I've strived for," Bonds said before Tuesday's All-Star Game.

"And if it does happen, the only number I care about is Babe Ruth's. Because as a left-handed hitter, I wiped him out. That's it. And in the baseball world, Babe Ruth's everything, right? I got his slugging percentage and I'll take his home runs and that's it. Don't talk about him no more."

Ruth hit 714 home runs, a mark that stood for many years until Aaron came along. Aaron finished with 755, but Bonds said "755 isn't the number that's always caught my eye."

At 38, Bonds' drive to reach Aaron has been slowed a bit by his high walk total. With each year, the daily grind of playing left field might take its toll, too. Bonds has said recently that he would welcome playing for an AL team -- he's specifically mentioned the Angels -- as a full-time DH once his contract with the Giants is up.

"The toughest thing about getting older is playing defense. That is where you get hurt. Guys can hit from a wheelchair," said Cubs manager Dusty Baker, Bonds' former manager. "I always thought someday Barry might be a first baseman or a DH."

The AL beat the NL 7-6 to gain home-field advantange for the World Series.

[ISiddiqui]

I wish he had more class... like Ted Williams... oh wait ;).

[MrBug708]

Find a quote where Williams dissed Ruth

[primelord]

Originally posted by MrBug708
Disses Pujols, then says he's too good to be in the Derby, then Aaron and Ruth in the same article.


Anyone have anyless Class? I think Bonds blows Horns out of the water

In addition he also asked to be taken out of the lineup last nigth in the all-star game. So let's see home field advantage is on the line and you play for a team that not only has a shot at making the world series this year, but saw first hand just last year how important that game 7 at home can be. And you ask out of the game?

[ISiddiqui]

Come on... Williams was total dick when he played and no one liked him. It's funny he is lionized now, but then again so will Bonds. Sometimes you wonder why only Cobb is shown for how unpopular he was.

[Ksyrup]

How come these comments weren't an issue when I read them yesterday? It's like they purposefully held this story until after the game, so that they could release it on a slow sports day to get as much mileage as they could out of it. It wasn't a big deal yesterday, but all of a sudden, it's a top story today.

As for the comments, who cares what Barry Bonds thinks about Babe Ruth? Does it matter?

[TLK]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
Note to self: clear away any folding steel chairs before having QuikSand over to visit.

Yep, like you said in the Rick Ankiel thread, it's Bret Hart all over again, and I like it.....

TLK

[QuikSand]

I need a slogan that doesn't include the word "dick."

[Fonzie]

Originally posted by QuikSand
I need a slogan that doesn't include the word "dick."

How about "I like being a big meanie?" :p

[Subby]

Originally posted by QuikSand
I need a slogan that doesn't include the word "dick." How about "I heart cock"

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by Subby
How about "I eat cock"
;)

[bigdawg2003]

"I heart cock"

Subby loves the cock

[mckerney]

"And if it does happen, the only number I care about is Babe Ruth's. Because as a left-handed hitter, I wiped him out. That's it. And in the baseball world, Babe Ruth's everything, right? I got his slugging percentage and I'll take his home runs and that's it. Don't talk about him no more."

Bonds has said recently that he would welcome playing for an AL team -- he's specifically mentioned the Angels -- as a full-time DH once his contract with the Giants is up.


Babe Ruth never needed to play no DH

[mckerney]

Dola: Also, I hear Ruth actually showed up in the playoffs. Strike two on Bonds.

[cmp]

Originally posted by mckerney
Dola: Also, I hear Ruth actually showed up in the playoffs. Strike two on Bonds.

Bonds 2002 Playoffs

17 Games,.356 AVG, 8 HR, 16 RBI, .581 OBP, .978 SLG

[mckerney]

You forgot one stat: 0 Rings

[cmp]

Originally posted by mckerney
You forgot one stat: 0 Rings

What more was Bonds supposed to do? He can't bat for his teammates too.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Memo to Barry Bonds:

Shut the fuck up, you punk.











I like being a dick.

You are sexy when you talk dirty

[MrBug708]

Maybe Bonds should try his hand at pitching when it counts. Plus I dont think John Goodman could ever play Barry Bonds in a movie. Christopher Walken maybe, but not Goodman

[Craptacular]

Needs more cowbell.

[primelord]

Name G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO AVG OBP SLG OPS
Bonds 44 142 30 35 7 2 9 22 44 27 .246 .425 .514 .939
Ruth 41 129 37 42 5 2 15 33 33 30 .326 .463 .744 1.207

Seems pretty obvious Ruth was the better post season hitter. Oh ye and when you add in Ruth's pitching record in the post season is it really even close?

Name G ERA W L SV CG IP H ER BB SO
Ruth 3 0.87 3 0 0 2 31.0 19 3 10 8

[EagleFan]

Every time I try to get to a point where I can tolerate Bonds, he comes out with something stupid like this. He's an a$$hole, plain and simple.

There wouldn't even be a question about him reaching Ruth if he hadn't been a pitcher for several seasons, that record would be completely out of reach.

Also, when Barry can put up more homeruns in one season than half of the teams in the league, or something comparable, then we'll talk.

[clintl]

Originally posted by EagleFan
There wouldn't even be a question about him reaching Ruth if he hadn't been a pitcher for several seasons, that record would be completely out of reach.



Actually, that is probably not true. He had over 300 at-bats at age 23, and only hit 11 HRs (which was a lot at the time, but certainly no indication of what was to come). Prior to that, he had a total of 9 career HRs in 361 AB over his first 3+ years, when he was basically a full-time pitcher. You might make a case that he could have added 30 or so HRs to his career total had he been an OF instead of a pitcher during those years, but there's no evidence it would have been any more than that, and there's nothing in his batting record during that time that hints at what he would eventually accomplish as a hitter.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/ruthba01.shtml

Of course, that does not excuse Bonds for his comments about Ruth.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Subby
How about "I heart cock"

From the news clippings I've seen around here - that one's already taken. (cf. "Man Cuts Off, Eats Own Penis")

Thanks just the same, though.

[EagleFan]

Counter-point to clintl, In the time he was a full time pitcher, it should be safe to say that his batting practice time was limited, as are most pitchers. Had be been an outfielder, he would have placed more emphasis on hitting, and therefore reach his potential a lot quicker than getting a handful of bat a season.

[EagleFan]

dola: Bonds needs 95 wins as a pitcher if he really wants to pass Ruth in everything.

[clintl]

I guess you could make that argument, but it seems like more evidence of that effect would have shown up in 1918 if that were the case. He cut back his pitching quite a bit that year, and played a lot in hte field. In fact, his batting stats in 1918 look a lot like his 1914-1917 stats. He improved his OPS, but his HR/AB is not that much better - certainly within expected variation and improvement for a player his age.

[clintl]

Originally posted by EagleFan
dola: Bonds needs 95 wins as a pitcher if he really wants to pass Ruth in everything.

I am not saying Bonds is better. In fact, I am yet to be convinced that Bonds is better than Mays, and I think Ruth was a better player than Mays. I do think, though, that Aaron probably still would have passed Ruth's HR mark even if Ruth had not been a pitcher, and that Bonds, while no lock, is getting close enough to have a legitimate shot at Aaron. Until it happens, though, there's not guarantee he will pass either of them.

[ISiddiqui]

Well, I for one, think that Bonds is better than Mays. However, I don't think he is at Ruth level, or will be at Ruth's level in his career. He could end up as the 2nd best player of all time in my book, though.

[MrBug708]

Ruth has 714 HR's in 2503 games with only 8399 at bats. Barry has 643 and has already played in 2519 games. Barry has 643 and has already played in 2519 games and has 8591 AB's. Factor int he pitching Babe had to do which meant he didnt play every day.

Babe > Barry

[clintl]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
Well, I for one, think that Bonds is better than Mays. However, I don't think he is at Ruth level, or will be at Ruth's level in his career. He could end up as the 2nd best player of all time in my book, though.

As a hitter, yes. However, Mays was probably the greatest defensive OF of all time as well as one of the greatest hitters, and I think when you add that into the equation, it's a close call. Bonds, in his prime, was a great defensive LF, but he didn't have the arm to play CF, and wouldn't have had the range Mays did even if could have played CF.

[ISiddiqui]

As a hitter, yes. However, Mays was probably the greatest defensive OF of all time as well as one of the greatest hitters, and I think when you add that into the equation, it's a close call. Bonds, in his prime, was a great defensive LF, but he didn't have the arm to play CF, and wouldn't have had the range Mays did even if could have played CF

But you have to add in those steals, I think. Bonds could run and hit. I'm not saying that Bonds is easily above Mays, I think he slides in right ahead of him, but just barely. I don't think Mays' defense overcomes Barry's offensive prowess, considering Bonds was no slouch on D either in his prime.

In terms of offensive stars, Bonds is closing in on 2nd, IMO. Ruth is 1st (of course), and after that you have Wagner, Cobb, Mays and Williams. I believe he can overtake them all by the end of his career, and probably has overtaken Williams and Mays (but by just a hair).

[primelord]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
Well, I for one, think that Bonds is better than Mays. However, I don't think he is at Ruth level, or will be at Ruth's level in his career. He could end up as the 2nd best player of all time in my book, though.

I think it is too hard to say something like that. For example what makes Bonds better than Ted Williams. Looking at their career numbers they seem to be pretty close.

Name G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO AVG OBP SLG OPS
Bonds 2519 8591 1898 2543 525 74 643 1715 500 140 2006 1368 .296 .430 .599 1.029
Williams 2292 7706 1798 2654 525 71 521 1839 24 17 2021 709 .344 .482 .634 1.116

Then when you factor in the Williams missed 3 years right in the middle of his prime the numbers start to not even be that close. If Williams had hit his career average for those 3 years (probably a low estimate since he was in his prime at that point) He would have been well ahead of Bonds in every category, but HR's and SB's and he whould have only been 11 behind him in the HR dept. Now Bonds still has a few years to go, but if you give Ted those years I say they finish pretty close in most categories with Willimas in the end producing more runs. So who was better?

[ISiddiqui]

Even with those three years you say that Williams would have been behind Bonds in HRs, and he is world's behind in Stolen Bases. Also Bonds was a better defensive player than Williams.

I imagine Bonds will play at least three seasons more. By that time I believe he'll easily have over 700 HRs, to go with his 550 (or so) SBs. If Bonds' next three years are similar to his last three, I think he easily beat Williams, even if you factor those three lost years in for Teddy.

[Subby]

Originally posted by primelord
Seems pretty obvious Ruth was the better post season hitter. Are their post-season stats taken from a large enough sample size to really make a compelling argument either way? I don't really think so.

[Craptacular]

Bonds also doesn't have the luxury of batting before Lou Gehrig (although Babe's best two seasons came pre-Gehrig).

[primelord]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
Even with those three years you say that Williams would have been behind Bonds in HRs, and he is world's behind in Stolen Bases. Also Bonds was a better defensive player than Williams.

I imagine Bonds will play at least three seasons more. By that time I believe he'll easily have over 700 HRs, to go with his 550 (or so) SBs. If Bonds' next three years are similar to his last three, I think he easily beat Williams, even if you factor those three lost years in for Teddy.

HR's and SB' are nice and all, but only because they lead to run production. How many runs you produce is all that really matters. Right now Bonds and Willimas are just about dead even in Runs and RBI's combined. You give Williams his 3 years and Bonds his extra years and they probably finish about dead even. Looking at their seasonal averages.

Bonds: .296, 41 HR's, 110 RBI's, 122 R's, .430 OBP, .599 SLG, 1.029 OPS
Williams: .344, 37 HR's, 130 RBI's, 127 R's, .482 OBP, .634 SLG, 1.116 OPS

Looking at their season averages I think you have to give the nod to Teddy Ballgame. Granted Bonds hit more HR's, but he didn't produce more runs. Plus like I said using his career averages to add on to Williams stats is being very conservative. He didn't have his career cut short 3 years at the end. He missed '43, '44, and '45 when he was 24, 25, and 26 years old. It's very possible he would have exceded his career avearges in those years and would have raised his overall averages.

I'll give you Bonds is better defensively, but the numbers sure seem to say Williams was better offensively. And I am not certain you can say Bonds defense saved his team the 25 runs a year he was producing less than Williams. But that is hard to determine which is why I think it si too hard to say which one is better.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally posted by Subby
Are their post-season stats taken from a large enough sample size to really make a compelling argument either way? I don't really think so.

I do, and furthermore, I think they're the fairest stats to use for comparison.

You can easily make the argument that Bonds faces diluted pitching on a regular basis. If you assume that the post-season pitching is better than the regular season pitching, you can also assume that the post-season stats are made under the closest possible set of circumstances across the two eras that both men played in.

The bottom line is what Babe Ruth accomplished over his career will likely never be surpassed. Most sane baseball people accept this, just as they accept that Ted Williams hitting streak will never be touched, nor will Cal Ripken Jr's consecutive games streak. Bonds would do well to show a little more respect to the game's most legendary player ever.

[clintl]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
But you have to add in those steals, I think. Bonds could run and hit.

So could Mays.

Mays - 338 SB/441 Attempts (76.6%)
Bonds - 500 SB/640 Attempts (78.1%)

They are very close percentage-wise.

If you look at Mays' career, he basically stopped stealing bases about the time Willie McCovey (who batted behind him in the order) blossomed as a star. Teams would pitch around McCovey if first base was open, thus Mays, if he got on, would stay at first to force teams to pitch to McCovey. Mays could have easily stolen 500 career bases if he wanted. He was still capable of being a great base-stealer at age 40 (when he stole 23 bases in 26 attempts in a season in which McCovey missed a lot time with injuries).

[primelord]

Originally posted by Subby
Are their post-season stats taken from a large enough sample size to really make a compelling argument either way? I don't really think so.

That's a fair point. Although you can say Ruth produced with his opportunities and Bonds until last season didn't. But your right 40 at-bats is not really a good measuring stick. Every major leaguer has had a bad 40 at-bat stretch at some point.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by clintl
So could Mays.

Mays - 338 SB/441 Attempts (76.6%)
Bonds - 500 SB/640 Attempts (78.1%)

They are very close percentage-wise.

If you look at Mays' career, he basically stopped stealing bases about the time Willie McCovey (who batted behind him in the order) blossomed as a star. Teams would pitch around McCovey if first base was open, thus Mays, if he got on, would stay at first to force teams to pitch to McCovey. Mays could have easily stolen 500 career bases if he wanted. He was still capable of being a great base-stealer at age 40 (when he stole 23 bases in 26 attempts in a season in which McCovey missed a lot time with injuries).

I know it's hindsight, but Mays has said (or had the comment attributed to him) that if he had known back then that 500 SBs meant so much, he would have stolen 500 bases. I don't think he was necessarily a lesser SB threat than Bonds, he just didn't do it as much because SBs were not as valued during his younger years as they were by 1962, when Maury Wills helped to bring them back into fashion. By then, Mays was in his early 30's. The most SBs during the 50's was 51, and Mays lead the NL 4 times, once with as few as 27.

[ISiddiqui]

You give Williams his 3 years and Bonds his extra years and they probably finish about dead even.

But would Williams have the same 3 years that Bonds would? I don't think so. These last three years Bonds has put together are Ruthian. If you give both their three, I think Bonds comes out ahead.

You can easily make the argument that Bonds faces diluted pitching on a regular basis.

You can also make the oykib argument that Bonds faces against better pitching because there are more oppertunities for Latinos these days, and more scouting and picking up these players.

[clintl]

Just to impose myself into the Ted Williams debate, he really missed close to 4 3/4 seasons (he served in Korea as well as in WWII), and in the quarter season he did play in 1953, he was on pace to have perhaps the greatest offensive season ever. So I think it's well within reason to think that Williams lost close to 200 HRs because of military service.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/willite01.shtml

[primelord]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
But would Williams have the same 3 years that Bonds would? I don't think so. These last three years Bonds has put together are Ruthian. If you give both their three, I think Bonds comes out ahead.

Again even using his past 3 years Bonds would have only been significantly better in HR's. Over the past 3 full season Bonds has avreage 117 RBI's and 125 Runs. Neither of which are equal to Williams seasonal averages. So while you could argue Bonds put on a better show plunking Balls into the bay he still wouldn't have produced as many runs.

[Ksyrup]

I have a hard time giving much credence to the "coulda" argument. Yes, Williams and other stars missed time because of the war, but he "coulda" sustained a career-ending injury during those years, or he "coulda" hit 200 HRs. So how can you give too much of a bump to someone for those missed years? You can't presume that only great things would have happened had he played.

[primelord]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
I have a hard time giving much credence to the "coulda" argument. Yes, Williams and other stars missed time because of the war, but he "coulda" sustained a career-ending injury during those years, or he "coulda" hit 200 HRs. So how can you give too much of a bump to someone for those missed years? You can't presume that only great things would have happened had he played.

My point was Williams may have been a better player than Bonds, but missing those years made his stats look inferior. When you look at what they did on a per year basis Williams numbers are actually better.

[MrBug708]

Originally posted by Craptacular
Bonds also doesn't have the luxury of batting before Lou Gehrig (although Babe's best two seasons came pre-Gehrig).

No, but apparently it was good enough for Kent to earn MVP honors huh?

[oykib]

Originally posted by MrBug708
No, but apparently it was good enough for Kent to earn MVP honors huh?

Actually, I think that Bonds got Kent that MVP. Putting aside their actual value, Bonds scored as many runs as Kent Drove in. The margin of OBP that Bonds had is the difference between Kent and all the other 'run producers' in the league. Baseball writers are fascinated with the RBI (See Juan Gonzalez: two time MVP). Although the NL guys tend to be somewhat more thoughtful, it really comes down to the fact that Kent led the league in RBIs by such a wide margin that got him the MVP. If I'm not mistaken, that was another year that Barry led the league in both OBP and SLG.

As for the article, I don't have a problem with it. If he thinks he's better than Babe Ruth, that's his opinion. He didn't say that Ruth sucked. He said that if he gets Ruth's HR total, then he thinks that proves he's better. He's not the only one that has made that case. I don't see anything immoral about what he said. The "I blow [him] away..." bit is a little silly.

As for Bonds/Williams, None of you seem to be taking league and park contexts into account. Williams had more favorable contexts for most of his career-- specifically his chronological prime. When you add in defense, I think that Bonds can't be anything less than equal now. Bonds is also going to play another two or three seasons. He's going to be clearly ahead by the end of his career.

I saw another one of those watered-down pitching quotes in this thread. I'm still waiting for someone to provide me with some evidence of this watered-down pitching argument. I've been hearing it for ten years and have yet to see any.

While I'm discussing pitching, I'll point out that the fact that Babe Ruth was a pitcher doesn't really add to his best of all time argument. If anything, it detracts from it. When I evaluate the Babe I lend no credence to that argument, anyway.

The best pitchers are not anywhere near as valuable as the best position players except in the post season, where they,essentially, pitch twice as often. A top picthing season is worth somewhere in the range of about 60% of the value of a top position player's season. The Babe did much better to switch to the outfield. Or do you guys think that if he'd pitched for thirty years, we'd still be talking about him as the best ever?

Bonds may retire as the best player of all-time. I don't think he's there, yet. If he doesn't agree with that assessment, it doesn't bother me.

[clintl]

Originally posted by oykib
While I'm discussing pitching, I'll point out that the fact that Babe Ruth was a pitcher doesn't really add to his best of all time argument. If anything, it detracts from it. When I evaluate the Babe I lend no credence to that argument, anyway.

The best pitchers are not anywhere near as valuable as the best position players except in the post season, where they,essentially, pitch twice as often. A top picthing season is worth somewhere in the range of about 60% of the value of a top position player's season. The Babe did much better to switch to the outfield. Or do you guys think that if he'd pitched for thirty years, we'd still be talking about him as the best ever?



Technically, I agree with you that a top position player is more valuable than a top pitcher. However, I disagree with the conclusion you reach from this relative to assessing Ruth's career. A player who can be both a great pitcher and a great position player has a more versatile skill set. The value a team gets from him depends on how they choose to use him, but the fact that he could do both means (and do both as well as he did) adds to his greatness in terms of the skills he possessed. And when I think when we're talking about great players, that's what we're talking about - the combination of skills they possessed, not the optimum way a team could get value from those skills. And Ruth was unique in MLB history in the combination of skills he possessed.

[oykib]

Originally posted by clintl
Technically, I agree with you that a top position player is more valuable than a top pitcher. However, I disagree with the conclusion you reach from this relative to assessing Ruth's career. A player who can be both a great pitcher and a great position player has a more versatile skill set. The value a team gets from him depends on how they choose to use him, but the fact that he could do both means (and do both as well as he did) adds to his greatness in terms of the skills he possessed. And when I think when we're talking about great players, that's what we're talking about - the combination of skills they possessed, not the optimum way a team could get value from those skills. And Ruth was unique in MLB history in the combination of skills he possessed.

Not really. His team just misused him for his first seasons. John Olerud was a great college pitcher. I don't think he'd have been Greg Maddux. But he had the skill set for both. He just one example. The list is actually pretty long: Dave Winfield, Ron Darling, Rick Ankiel, and so on.

Double Duty Radcliffe, a player in the Negro Leagues, was famous for pitching one half of a double header and catching the other.

Most pitchers are just good athletes all while they are growing up. The top hitter on the little league team is likely to be the pitcher. At lower levels a pitcher is more valuable because of the high percentage of his team's innings that he uses up.

[JW]

Another way to look at the Ruth-Bonds debate might be to ask which player has had the biggest impact on the game of baseball itself.

And another thought. Baker's comments at the end of the story are a tremendous argument, imho, against the DH, i.e., >"The toughest thing about getting older is playing defense. That is where you get hurt. Guys can hit from a wheelchair," said Cubs manager Dusty Baker, Bonds' former manager. "I always thought someday Barry might be a first baseman or a DH."<

[MrBug708]

Darren Dreifort hit .420 in college

[ISiddiqui]

Then maybe he should try hitting instead... lord knows the Dodgers need some ;).

[MrBug708]

LOL. His knee is messed up right now. For once, not his arm

[vulcan]

After what Bonds said......I have no respect for the nimrod.

[clintl]

Originally posted by oykib
Not really. His team just misused him for his first seasons. John Olerud was a great college pitcher. I don't think he'd have been Greg Maddux. But he had the skill set for both. He just one example. The list is actually pretty long: Dave Winfield, Ron Darling, Rick Ankiel, and so on.

Ruth was on pace to be a potential Hall of Famer as a pitcher. Probably not a top 10 of all time caliber pitcher, but his short pitching career extrapolated compares favorably with a lot of pitchers who are in the Hall. It's possible that there are a few other players who were talented enough to be HOFers as either a pitcher or a position player, but there is no real hard evidence of it. As far as the guys you listed are concerned, none of the hitters were close to as good as Ruth as hitters, and none of the pitchers were close to as good as Ruth as pitchers.

[clintl]

Originally posted by JW

And another thought. Baker's comments at the end of the story are a tremendous argument, imho, against the DH, i.e., >"The toughest thing about getting older is playing defense. That is where you get hurt. Guys can hit from a wheelchair," said Cubs manager Dusty Baker, Bonds' former manager. "I always thought someday Barry might be a first baseman or a DH."<

Actually, if you look at the great hitters of the past, even before the DH, most of them played until they couldn't hit anymore. If they didn't have enough range to play defense in their original position, they typically finished up their careers as 1B. Teams will always find a place for good hitters to play. I can buy the argument that without the DH they would need more days off, but they would still play.

[JW]

Originally posted by clintl
Actually, if you look at the great hitters of the past, even before the DH, most of them played until they couldn't hit anymore. If they didn't have enough range to play defense in their original position, they typically finished up their careers as 1B. Teams will always find a place for good hitters to play. I can buy the argument that without the DH they would need more days off, but they would still play.

However, being able to play DH and not having to play defense could extend the hitting career of a player by putting less wear and tear on an older body, preventing fatigue, nagging little injuries, serious injury. So the DH does indeed provide a possible extra advantage to a player at the end of his career that was not available before the DH. Remember, Baker said the toughest thing about getting older is playing defense. Even at first base, that adds to the physical strain and increases the chance of injury.

[Craptacular]

Originally posted by MrBug708
No, but apparently it was good enough for Kent to earn MVP honors huh?

I hope you're not even thinking of comparing the two.

[clintl]

We have had the DH for 30 years, and so far, there's no evidence that careers have been extended. I think there's a good case that can be made that they can get more at bats per season in their later years because they don't have to rest as much, and certainly the risk of down time due to injury is greater, but we still are not seeing the greats play past their early 40s. The only two non-pitchers that did play into their mid-40s are Pete Rose and Carlton Fisk; Rose never played in the AL and Fisk didn't DH that much.

Probably the best three players who did DH a fair amount late in their careers are Reggie Jackson, Dave Winfield, and Paul Molitor, and the way they aged was pretty typical of their pre-DH counterparts of comparable ability.

BTW, I am not pro-DH; I wish baseball would get rid of it. I just don't think the evidence exists that it is a big factor in extending the careers of HOF-caliber players.

[JW]

Originally posted by clintl

BTW, I am not pro-DH; I wish baseball would get rid of it. I just don't think the evidence exists that it is a big factor in extending the careers of HOF-caliber players.

I can agree with that. I was using the Baker quote more to express my own personal disgust with the DH. I think the DH can extend the career of some players and probably had done so, but that you are probably right in stating that it is not a major factor.

[andy m]

Originally posted by vulcan
After what Bonds said......I have no respect for the nimrod.

bonds just called, he was in tears. he told me he was devestated that some anonymous dude on the internet no longer had any respect for him. poor bonds! you have reduced one of baseball's all time greats to a shrivelling wreck, i really think you owe him an apology.

[Sybot]

For some reason I thought this was about James Bond and another kind of "Babe".

Head in the gutter again.

[MrBug708]

I wasn't comparing them, but you said that Bonds never had protection. I said that Bond's protection won him an MVP award and that wasnt even Bond's best year

[Senator]

I wonder when Bonds goes into the Hall as the greatest player of all time; if his steroid needle collection will be for public viewing?