OT: The best 3-4-5 in baseball

[primelord]

Keep in mind this is without looking into it real hard, but I would suspect you would be hard pressed to find a better 3-4-5 hitter combination in baseball right now than Pujols, Rolen, and Edmonds.

Name Avg HR RBI OPS
Pujols .323 29 75 1.038
Rolen .334 25 96 1.025
Edmonds .303 28 76 1.053

Total .321 82 247 1.026

My OPS calculations for their total is a little low because I couldn't find stats for the total times they have reached base, but it is close enough to make the point. Their individual OPS numbers show it should be a bit higher as Rolen doesn't have significantly more plate appearances than Pujols and Edmonds.

Just bragging on the Cards some more. :)

[clintl]

I think it will be a big upset if the Cards don't win the World Series this year. They have a great team.

[Crapshoot]

nah- its good.

but for Bragging's sake- a 3-4-5 consisting of Bonds and the pieces of crap around him would probably be in the top 5..

[Karlifornia]

3. Barry Bonds
4.Anyone
5.Anyone

[primelord]

nah- its good.

but for Bragging's sake- a 3-4-5 consisting of Bonds and the pieces of crap around him would probably be in the top 5..
I don't disagree with that, and I am certainly not arguing that individually any of the hitters are better than Bonds (although given age I would still take Pujols over Bonds). However right now without question I would take Pujols, Rolen, and Edmonds over Snow, Bonds, and Alfonzo.

[primelord]

3. Barry Bonds
4.Anyone
5.Anyone
I suspected there would be some arguments for Bonds, but why? Bonds and his current lineup don't produce as much as the Cards trio. It doesn't matter if Bonds is better than them or not. The Cards trio will help you win more ball games than Snow, Bonds, and Alfonzo will.

[Hammer755]

I think it will be a big upset if the Cards don't win the World Series this year. They have a great team.
If their pitching staff holds up, it will be a minor miracle. Placing your hopes on the shoulders of Jeff Suppan, Woody Williams, & Chris Carpenter sounds like a recipe for disaster.

[Crapshoot]

Oh I agree primelord- Im not disputing the point- I was just highlighting another interesting statistic. Its just amusing to me. Last year for example, I believe the 3rd most productive outfield in baseball was Barry Bonds- by himself.

[Ksyrup]

The fact that Barry Bonds doesn't lead the league in RBIs and/or Runs Scored, despite having an OPS 300 points better than the next guy, should tell you that pitching around him works.

[Crapshoot]

btw, I knew the walk to strikeout ratio was ridiculous- but this is crazy:

147 BB - 22 So. He has a BB/K ratio more than 3 times better than anyone else in the game - that's just ridiculous. We're seeing the greatest offensive season in the history of baseball -bar none.

[Masked]

No one matches up with the middle of the Cards lineup. Ones thet immediately come to mind for a distant second are the Cubs (Sosa-Alou-Ramirez-Lee), Phillies (Abreu-Thome-Burrell) and the Reds (Casey-Dunn-Griffey).

[Franklinnoble]

I like the A's lineup from about 1-7...

[Ksyrup]

btw, I knew the walk to strikeout ratio was ridiculous- but this is crazy:

147 BB - 22 So. He has a BB/K ratio more than 3 times better than anyone else in the game - that's just ridiculous. We're seeing the greatest offensive season in the history of baseball -bar none.
Yes and no. When you've got a guy that gets on as much as he does by walk, it obviously limits his run production. Here's a guy who is on track for 41 HRs, but only 92 RBI.

And here's the big kicker - Bonds is on track for 127 hits and 223 walks (a total of 350 times on base, not including errors, FC, HBP, etc.), and he's only on track for 118 runs scored. Scott Rolen, on the other hand, is on track for 193 hits and 67 walks (260 times on base), but he's on track for 114 runs scored. And, he's on track for 2 fewer HRs than Bonds, but 150 RBIs - 58 more than Bonds.

Just from that comparison, it's pretty obvious to me that one guy, no matter how great, can't carry a ballclub and can be pretty well contained. He's putting up gaudy walk numbers, and he's hitting for a high average - but he's not as much of an impact in his lineup as Rolen is.

[Hammer755]

Yes and no. When you've got a guy that gets on as much as he does by walk, it obviously limits his run production. Here's a guy who is on track for 41 HRs, but only 92 RBI.

And here's the big kicker - Bonds is on track for 127 hits and 223 walks (a total of 350 times on base, not including errors, FC, HBP, etc.), and he's only on track for 118 runs scored. Scott Rolen, on the other hand, is on track for 193 hits and 67 walks (260 times on base), but he's on track for 114 runs scored. And, he's on track for 2 fewer HRs than Bonds, but 150 RBIs - 58 more than Bonds.

Just from that comparison, it's pretty obvious to me that one guy, no matter how great, can't carry a ballclub and can be pretty well contained. He's putting up gaudy walk numbers, and he's hitting for a high average - but he's not as much of an impact in his lineup as Rolen is.
All that says to me is that Bonds' lineup sucks and Rolen's is great. I don't think it says anything about either's 'impact' in his respective lineup. Put Bonds in Rolen's spot in the Cardinals lineup, and he would likely win the Triple Crown, IMO. Likewise, put Rolen in Bonds' spot in the Giants lineup, and his 'run production' numbers would disappear as well.

[rkmsuf]

How many intentional walks for Bonds?

[primelord]

All that says to me is that Bonds' lineup sucks and Rolen's is great. I don't think it says anything about either's 'impact' in his respective lineup. Put Bonds in Rolen's spot in the Cardinals lineup, and he would likely win the Triple Crown, IMO. Likewise, put Rolen in Bonds' spot in the Giants lineup, and his 'run production' numbers would disappear as well.
Isn't that what this discussion is about though? What the best 3-4-5 combo in baseball is? Your argument is Bonds is better than Rolen. I don't think anyone disagrees. However your argument the Bonds and any two stiffs is better than the Cards trio is wrong.

[Ksyrup]

All that says to me is that Bonds' lineup sucks and Rolen's is great. I don't think it says anything about either's 'impact' in his respective lineup.
Well, my point is that this is far from the "greatest offensive season in history." And it says to me that Bonds (or anyone's) ability to impact the game is limited by what's around him. He's going to have an OPS through the roof, but Rolen, with less gaudy OPS numbers, is going to produce more than Bonds. If Bonds was truly a transendent figure, he'd be able to overcome the weaknesses in his lineup. But clearly, that's not the case.

Not to pick on Bonds, because this is the case for any hitter. But it demonstrates that walking Bonds is a solid strategy.

[Ksyrup]

How many intentional walks for Bonds?
7,395

[rkmsuf]

7,395

this season jerky.

[primelord]

this season jerky.
80

[rkmsuf]

80 out of 147 walks are intentional. How does this add up to a bar none season...anyone can just stand there.

[Crapshoot]

Yes and no. When you've got a guy that gets on as much as he does by walk, it obviously limits his run production. Here's a guy who is on track for 41 HRs, but only 92 RBI.

And here's the big kicker - Bonds is on track for 127 hits and 223 walks (a total of 350 times on base, not including errors, FC, HBP, etc.), and he's only on track for 118 runs scored. Scott Rolen, on the other hand, is on track for 193 hits and 67 walks (260 times on base), but he's on track for 114 runs scored. And, he's on track for 2 fewer HRs than Bonds, but 150 RBIs - 58 more than Bonds.

Just from that comparison, it's pretty obvious to me that one guy, no matter how great, can't carry a ballclub and can be pretty well contained. He's putting up gaudy walk numbers, and he's hitting for a high average - but he's not as much of an impact in his lineup as Rolen is.

what Hammer said. As you've basically seen, RBI's are a context dependent statistic and its unfair to punish a player in a straight evaluation for that. In terms of VORP, Bonds is at 85.5, and Rolen is at 58 - that's a huge difference. To put it into context, the gap between Bonds and Rolen offensively this year is akin to the gap between Rolen and Vinny Castilla.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/vorp_player2004.html

Just speaking offensively, VORP and RC both tend to agree that Bonds has been worth about 30 runs more than Rolen- which roughly translates into 3 wins. WS tends to agree- offensively, it places Bonds as 9 win shares above Rolen- or about 3 wins. Rolen has been amazing, and is a slam dunk MVP any other year - but we are seeing an offensive on the record books that may just be once in a lifetime.

[Hammer755]

Isn't that what this discussion is about though? What the best 3-4-5 combo in baseball is? Your argument is Bonds is better than Rolen. I don't think anyone disagrees. However your argument the Bonds and any two stiffs is better than the Cards trio is wrong.
Sorry primelord, I was talking about the tangential discussion, not the original 'Best 345' combo. I think it's pretty tough to dispute the Cards in that category.

Well, my point is that this is far from the "greatest offensive season in history." And it says to me that Bonds (or anyone's) ability to impact the game is limited by what's around him. He's going to have an OPS through the roof, but Rolen, with less gaudy OPS numbers, is going to produce more than Bonds. If Bonds was truly a transendent figure, he'd be able to overcome the weaknesses in his lineup. But clearly, that's not the case.

Not to pick on Bonds, because this is the case for any hitter. But it demonstrates that walking Bonds is a solid strategy.
I disagree with your logic. Basically you're saying that while Bonds is good, he's not good enough to will his teammates to either get on base or drive him in. Well, nobody can control what their teammates do, so why is that a factor in a comparison between Bonds & Rolen?

The only real way to do so is to compare team-independent stats. I know that there is no such thing as true team-independent stats, because if the Giants lineup didn't suck, Bonds wouldn't get the number of walks that he does. However, when you compare things which they can control, Bonds' season eclipses Rolen's enormously.

[Fonzie]

I'm with you primelord, nobody is better than Pujols-Rolen-Edmonds right now.

[Crapshoot]

Isn't that what this discussion is about though? What the best 3-4-5 combo in baseball is? Your argument is Bonds is better than Rolen. I don't think anyone disagrees. However your argument the Bonds and any two stiffs is better than the Cards trio is wrong.

Primelord, no one is making that arguement - we can all agree that the Cards have had the best 3-4-5 in baseball. The arguement is simply about how much better than Rolen Bonds has been.

[Fonzie]

80

Dola-

It was nice to see the Cards pitchers go right at Bonds last weekend, as LaRussa said they would. Maybe the Cards just got lucky for those three games, but it worked pretty well: Bonds was 1 for 10, 1 HR, 2 RBI, 1 BB, 1 K.

[primelord]

Sorry primelord, I was talking about the tangential discussion, not the original 'Best 345' combo. I think it's pretty tough to dispute the Cards in that category.
Whoops my fault. I confused your post with one earlier.

[primelord]

Dola-

It was nice to see the Cards pitchers go right at Bonds last weekend, as LaRussa said they would. Maybe the Cards just got lucky for those three games, but it worked pretty well: Bonds was 1 for 10, 1 HR, 2 RBI, 1 BB, 1 K.
I agree it was nice to see (whether it was smart or not can be argued :)). However with as often as LaRussa used to complain about teams pitching around McGwire I would expect he should pitch to Bonds.

[Crapshoot]

If the Giants can somehow pull out the Wild Card, expect them to see the Cardinals- and I dont know if LaRussa will ever pitch to Bonds in that context.

[lynchjm24]

I think it will be a big upset if the Cards don't win the World Series this year. They have a great team.

They have a great lineup. It is hardly a great team.

[primelord]

If the Giants can somehow pull out the Wild Card, expect them to see the Cardinals- and I dont know if LaRussa will ever pitch to Bonds in that context.
They picthed to him in the playoffs two years ago. They only walked him 4 times in the series and 3 of the 4 were in the first game.

[Crapshoot]

They picthed to him in the playoffs two years ago. They only walked him 4 times in the series and 3 of the 4 were in the first game.

right, and they lost then, which is why I think LaRussa might be more carefull this time. Plus, the Giants had Kent then, as well as Aurillia- and they dont have anyone close this year.

[primelord]

They have a great lineup. It is hardly a great team.
I am confused by this. In addition to their great lineup they probably have the best overall defensive team in the league, they have a great bull pen, and while their starting pitching isn't the class of baseball it has been very good. Seems like a great team to me.

[primelord]

right, and they lost then, which is why I think LaRussa might be more carefull this time. Plus, the Giants had Kent then, as well as Aurillia- and they dont have anyone close this year.
Actually I was looking at the wrong numbers. They walked him 10 times in 21 PAs. So they pitched around him and still lost. Damn it! :)

[Crapshoot]

I am confused by this. In addition to their great lineup they probably have the best overall defensive team in the league, they have a great bull pen, and while their starting pitching isn't the class of baseball it has been very good. Seems like a great team to me.

The fact that Marquis, Williams, Suppan and co all seem to be exceeding expectations may be the reason - it can reasonably be expected that their pitching is not as good as it has appeared to be all season. More so, while they are one of the best 2-3 teams in baseball, calling them the prohibitive favorites is dangerous, especially in a short series where a team with higher peak value amongst its starters may be better of- because of the uneccessary nature of the 5th starter.

[Crapshoot]

Actually I was looking at the wrong numbers. They walked him 10 times in 21 PAs. So they pitched around him and still lost. Damn it! :)

right- I expect it to be worse this time.

[Radii]

I expect this year to be a lot like last year. If the Cubs can get into the playoffs they have a great playoff roster and are just as likely as anyone to win the world series, pending a healthy starting rotation of course.

[Radii]

dola, but i have to sadly agree about the cards 3-4-5 this year.

[Ksyrup]

what Hammer said. As you've basically seen, RBI's are a context dependent statistic and its unfair to punish a player in a straight evaluation for that. In terms of VORP, Bonds is at 85.5, and Rolen is at 58 - that's a huge difference. To put it into context, the gap between Bonds and Rolen offensively this year is akin to the gap between Rolen and Vinny Castilla.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/vorp_player2004.html

Just speaking offensively, VORP and RC both tend to agree that Bonds has been worth about 30 runs more than Rolen- which roughly translates into 3 wins. WS tends to agree- offensively, it places Bonds as 9 win shares above Rolen- or about 3 wins. Rolen has been amazing, and is a slam dunk MVP any other year - but we are seeing an offensive on the record books that may just be once in a lifetime.
I understand all of that. My point is, and remains, that regardless of what those numbers say, they don't ultimately mean as much if the guy can't take full advatange of his greatness - which gets back to the lineup issue. He might be worth 30 runs more than Rolen individually, but as part of his lineup, he's not as effective, in terms of runs scored and RBIs.

I don't deny that it's unfair to penalize him for those shortcomings that he has no control over, but on the other hand, I think you have to put this season into perspective, given the fact that he's been effectively limited in his production. And when a large percentage of his value comes from walks that end up producing nothing for his team, I think those numbers are overstated.

I guess it comes down to how much you are willing to value a walk. He's been productive when he actually hits, but that option has been severely limited. When walks are your main statistical advantage, you have to look at the rest of the lineup to judge the player, don't you? A walk is nothing more than an opportunity. And if no one is taking advantage of those opportunities, that player is not as valuable as the stats would suggest he is, because for the most part, they add only to his OBP, but very little to his team's production. And OBP without being driven in, is ultimately worthless - whether it's his fault or not.

[Hammer755]

I understand all of that. My point is, and remains, that regardless of what those numbers say, they don't ultimately mean as much if the guy can't take full advatange of his greatness - which gets back to the lineup issue. He might be worth 30 runs more than Rolen individually, but as part of his lineup, he's not as effective, in terms of runs scored and RBIs.

I don't deny that it's unfair to penalize him for those shortcomings that he has no control over, but on the other hand, I think you have to put this season into perspective, given the fact that he's been effectively limited in his production. And when a large percentage of his value comes from walks that end up producing nothing for his team, I think those numbers are overstated.

I guess it comes down to how much you are willing to value a walk. He's been productive when he actually hits, but that option has been severely limited. When walks are your main statistical advantage, you have to look at the rest of the lineup to judge the player, don't you? A walk is nothing more than an opportunity. And if no one is taking advantage of those opportunities, that player is not as valuable as the stats would suggest he is, because for the most part, they add only to his OBP, but very little to his team's production. And OBP without being driven in, is ultimately worthless - whether it's his fault or not.
But how can you say that the walk is Bonds' main statistical value when he also leads the league in batting and slugging (by 100 points over Rolen)? Take away the intentional walks, and he still has the best numbers in the league, just not as large an advantage. In 100 fewer AB's, Bonds has almost exactly the same number of homers as Rolen and is only 4 behind the major league leader. That is production.

[Ksyrup]

But how can you say that the walk is Bonds' main statistical value when he also leads the league in batting and slugging (by 100 points over Rolen)? Take away the intentional walks, and he still has the best numbers in the league, just not as large an advantage. In 100 fewer AB's, Bonds has almost exactly the same number of homers as Rolen and is only 4 behind the major league leader. That is production.Because at some point, the walks diminish what he's able to accomplish as a hitter. Let's take an extreme example - let's say that he still hits around .350, but instead of finishing with around 365 ABs and 223 walks, he actually walks an additional number of times equal to half of his ABs. So at the end of the year, his stats look like this:

185 ABs, 65 hits, 14 doubles, 21 HR, 47 RBI, and 155 Runs, with 400 walks.

That's still a slugging percentage of over .750, that's an astronomical OBP...and it's not worth to his team nearly what it would be if he had 500 ABs.

I'm not trying to take anything away from him. Clearly, he's being walked precisely because he's the best player in baseball. But I'm not going to ignore the fact that the strategy of walking him is working, and it's making him less of an impact player than he otherwise would be. What good are his walks, if he doesn't score runs? What good is his slugging percentage, if there's no one to drive in?

Baseball's a team sport, so it's pretty difficult to judge a player's impact without looking at the contributions of his teammates. At least I think we can agree that SF probably robbed him (and us, as spectators) of a truly amazing and meaningful statistical year by not putting players around him who protect him in that lineup. As it stands, he's going to end up with far too few HRs, RBIs, and Runs, and far too many walks (which, again, overstate the VORP and RC numbers) for this to be an historic season. It will be an amazing season, no doubt, but I don't think it's the greatest season ever, regardless of what a bunch of calculations say. What matters is scoring and/or driving in runs, and he's been effectively limited from maximizing his potential to do both.

[Crapshoot]

Lets try this again: RBi's are a meaningless, context dependent statistic that have no place in evaluation. It is inane to punish an evaluation of a great season, which my definition here is an individual context, because of factors outside his control. If a pitcher finishes the season with a 0.90 ERA but goes 4-20 in 200 IP, are you going to argue its not a great season because the team didnt win ?

Your line about calculations is without merit- there is no proof there, merely dismissal. By your account (taken to the extreme)- we ought to base great seasons on the amount of game winning hits - a ridiculous idea.

Going back to metrics: things like Win Shares directly attribute contributions to wins- so when it states Bonds has 33 offensive win shares to Rolens 24, we can take away that Bonds has been responsible for about 11 of the Giants wins' offensively- they would be 11 games worse than they are without him. With Rolen, the metric states that offensively, the Cardinals would be 8 games worse of- clearly, Bonds has more value offensively, whether yo dismiss it or not.

[WSUCougar]

I must admit that Bonds is in a class by himself at the plate.

Pujols is the closest thing to Bonds in terms of his hitting capabilities. He’s a threat to take any pitch out of the park, in any direction. But sometimes he is still pitchable, in the sense that a pitcher can overmatch him with select locations and/or stuff.

Scott Rolen has no peers defensively at third, and during the first half of the season he was just “on” in every sense of the word. He hit everything, drove in everyone, made all the plays. He’s still a formidable weapon for the Redbirds. He’s also my favorite player. But he is not a pure, automatic hitter.

Jim Edmonds is a freak. I can’t recall seeing a hitter who basically gives up on one at bat and then absolutely CRUSHES the ball the next time up. But he’s so streaky you never know what you’re going to get. He can carry a team, or be a very easy out.

Bonds is so “on” at the plate it’s downright terrifying. I watched a lot of the San Francisco series, and when the Cards pitchers pitched to him I almost flinched right there on my couch. The guy just massacres mistakes, and by mistakes I mean anything remotely close to the strike zone. The margin for error is measured in millimeters. Woody Williams popped him up on an inside cut fastball early in the game, and then came back later and tried the same pitch. Bonds drilled it around 450’ into McCovey Cove, thankfully foul. One of his outs was a monster fly 400+ feet into the deepest part of the park. The guy is scary.

[Crapshoot]

Honestly, being a Giants fan, I have never had the opportunity to appreciate just how good Pujols is, because he's playing in the company of the greatest hitter ever. Really, down the line, people will look at Pujols numbers his first 3 years without the seasonal context, and will wonder how on earth the best first 3 years in history doesnt include one MVP. Once Bonds is gone, Pujols wil be appreciated as one of the greatest hitters to come along in quite a while (so far at least).

[Hammer755]

Honestly, being a Giants fan, I have never had the opportunity to appreciate just how good Pujols is, because he's playing in the company of the greatest hitter ever.

Man, Pujols is old-school.

http://espn-att.starwave.com/media/mlb/2000/0706/photo/s_ruth.jpg

;)

[Franklinnoble]

Man, Pujols is old-school.

http://espn-att.starwave.com/media/mlb/2000/0706/photo/s_ruth.jpg

;)
Agreed... I'm a little sick of this "Bonds is the greatest ever" B.S.

[Crapshoot]

In terms of peak value, Bonds best 3 seasons (and soon to be best 4) are better than Ruth's best 4. The career difference in OPS+ is about 20 points, but Ruth played in an era where a significant portion of the population was not allowed to participate. If one makes the reasonable extrapolation that adding more talent to the league would increase the average - Ruth's numbers could be fairly reasonably assumed to be lower as a result- and thus cutting the gap even further. Take into account Ruth's lack of defensive value and speed, and it makes for a compelling case. The arguement may not be clear cut, and is certainly debatable, but its not B.S.


Edit: Should be Bonds' greater defensive value.

[Travis]

Heh, Ruth's lack of defensive value? No comment.

Back to original theme of this thread though, kind of, I'll still take WAMCO over the Cards 3-4-5 guys right now, mostly because it's a homer pick, but you need the 1-2 guys setting the dish for the big dogs. Scary part was having Tony Fernandez hitting right after Olerud, that was just one stacked lineup.

[Crapshoot]

Heh, Ruth's lack of defensive value? No comment.

Back to original theme of this thread though, kind of, I'll still take WAMCO over the Cards 3-4-5 guys right now, mostly because it's a homer pick, but you need the 1-2 guys setting the dish for the big dogs. Scary part was having Tony Fernandez hitting right after Olerud, that was just one stacked lineup.

WAMCO ?

[MizzouRah]

They have a great lineup. It is hardly a great team.
Yeah, they only have the best record in baseball. What a shitty team.


Todd

[Huckleberry]

In terms of peak value, Bonds best 3 seasons (and soon to be best 4) are better than Ruth's best 4. The career difference in OPS+ is about 20 points, but Ruth played in an era where a significant portion of the population was not allowed to participate. If one makes the reasonable extrapolation that adding more talent to the league would increase the average - Ruth's numbers could be fairly reasonably assumed to be lower as a result- and thus cutting the gap even further. Take into account Ruth's lack of defensive value and speed, and it makes for a compelling case. The arguement may not be clear cut, and is certainly debatable, but its not B.S.


Edit: Should be Bonds' greater defensive value.

Which is immediately offset by the fact that there were 8 teams in Ruth's league versus 16 in Bonds' league.

[Travis]

WAMCO ?

White (Devon)
Alomar (Roberto)
Molitor (Paul)
Carter (Joe)
Olerud (John)

That was the top of the lineup back when the Jays were actually playing above .500 ball, heh.

[Cards4ever]

Heh, Ruth's lack of defensive value? No comment.

Back to original theme of this thread though, kind of, I'll still take WAMCO over the Cards 3-4-5 guys right now, mostly because it's a homer pick, but you need the 1-2 guys setting the dish for the big dogs. Scary part was having Tony Fernandez hitting right after Olerud, that was just one stacked lineup.

Womack and Renteria aren't setting the dish?

[Travis]

Not saying they aren't, but I'd still take White and Alomar in their primes (which they both were at the time) over Womack and Renteria of today.

Edit:

Sorry, I should clarify, I was just trying to expand the original question to include a bit more of the batting order, as there have been a lot of great 4-5, 3-4, 3-4-5 combo's, but it narrows it down a lot when you start talking about basically the top 2/3 of a team's batting order. There's usually a gap in there somewhere that will take most teams out of the running.

[Chief Rum]

No one matches up with the middle of the Cards lineup. Ones thet immediately come to mind for a distant second are the Cubs (Sosa-Alou-Ramirez-Lee), Phillies (Abreu-Thome-Burrell) and the Reds (Casey-Dunn-Griffey).

There's an American League, too, you know. ;)

I'll toss out a little from over there with some serious skills.

Baltimore (Mora/Lopez/Tejada), New York (Sheffield/ARod/Posada--would be much better with Giambi in place of Posada), and Anaheim (Anderson/Guerrero/Guillen).

Texas deserves notice (Blalock/Soriano/Teixeira) except they bat them 2-3-4. Boston would have been in here before the Nomar deal. Chicago is only a healthy Magglio away from a dominant middle of the order.

CR

[Travis]

And one to watch as an up and coming trio could be Rios/Wells/Hinske for the Jays seeing as how Carlos will be very likely gone after this year. Once Rios gets a few HR's under his belt, he could be big trouble for opposing pitchers.

[Katon]

In terms of peak value, Bonds best 3 seasons (and soon to be best 4) are better than Ruth's best 4. The career difference in OPS+ is about 20 points, but Ruth played in an era where a significant portion of the population was not allowed to participate. If one makes the reasonable extrapolation that adding more talent to the league would increase the average - Ruth's numbers could be fairly reasonably assumed to be lower as a result- and thus cutting the gap even further. Take into account Ruth's lack of defensive value and speed, and it makes for a compelling case. The arguement may not be clear cut, and is certainly debatable, but its not B.S.


Edit: Should be Bonds' greater defensive value.

True. There is, indeed, a plausible argument to be made that Bonds is a better outfielder than Ruth. Not by a lot, but you can argue for putting him slightly ahead.

But the thing is, Ruth wasn't just an outfielder. He started out as a pitcher. And as a pitcher, he was pretty damn good. He had three seasons in which he started at least 25 games; in those seasons, his ERA+ was 114, 158, and 128. He had a career ERA+ of 122, in 1221 innings. There's no way Bonds' edge is big enough to make up for three years of high-quality pitching.

[clintl]

Oh oh. Now you've started something, Katon.

[pennywisesb]

I like the A's lineup from about 1-7...

What ^ said :D

[Crapshoot]

True. There is, indeed, a plausible argument to be made that Bonds is a better outfielder than Ruth. Not by a lot, but you can argue for putting him slightly ahead.

But the thing is, Ruth wasn't just an outfielder. He started out as a pitcher. And as a pitcher, he was pretty damn good. He had three seasons in which he started at least 25 games; in those seasons, his ERA+ was 114, 158, and 128. He had a career ERA+ of 122, in 1221 innings. There's no way Bonds' edge is big enough to make up for three years of high-quality pitching.

aye, but my arguement was only that about who was a better hitter (for now at least :D). I knew the pitching would come up, which is why I restricted the arguement to what we can compare (if I didnt make it clear, I apologize).

[Katon]

Well, I didn't catch it, but I'm not sure whether that's because you didn't make it clear or just because I was reading a bit too quickly and missed that bit. As pure hitters, they're a LOT closer. Sufficiently close that I'd prefer to wait for Bonds to finish before I express an opinion one way or another.

Although I am curious: what does Ruth's fielding ability have to do with his hitting? (see the post I quoted above).

[primelord]

Well the Cardinals lineup as a whole has outproduced the A's lineup by quite a bit. And when you factor in they have to bat a pitcher in there as well I have a hard time thinking the A's first 7 would be a better lineup than the Cards first 7.

[Ksyrup]

Lets try this again: RBi's are a meaningless, context dependent statistic that have no place in evaluation. It is inane to punish an evaluation of a great season, which my definition here is an individual context, because of factors outside his control. If a pitcher finishes the season with a 0.90 ERA but goes 4-20 in 200 IP, are you going to argue its not a great season because the team didnt win ?
Yes, I would make that argument. Amazing stats, but not a great season. Plus, this all stemmed from your "MVP" comment ["Rolen has been amazing, and is a slam dunk MVP any other year - but we are seeing an offensive on the record books that may just be once in a lifetime."], so team performance is quite relevant. It's what made David Ortiz and Shannon Stewart viable candidates last year, somehow. At this point, I'd be inclined to vote for Rolen over Bonds, and Bonds would have no one to thank but his teammates and front office.

[Katon]

San Francisco is four games out of their division lead with a squad that is - apart from Bonds - not very good at all. How do you discount his stats as unimportant to his team when he's keeping them in playoff contention very nearly single-handedly?

[Crapshoot]

Yes, I would make that argument. Amazing stats, but not a great season. Plus, this all stemmed from your "MVP" comment ["Rolen has been amazing, and is a slam dunk MVP any other year - but we are seeing an offensive on the record books that may just be once in a lifetime."], so team performance is quite relevant. It's what made David Ortiz and Shannon Stewart viable candidates last year, somehow. At this point, I'd be inclined to vote for Rolen over Bonds, and Bonds would have no one to thank but his teammates and front office.

And it was ridiculous last year with Shannon Stewart (I call it the Jayson Startk award for misinterpreting correlation and causation), as it was with Ortiz - its a ridiculous misnomer, just like in 2002 when the most valuable player was A-Rod, but Tejeda won the thing. Last year, Ortiz was maybe the the 4th best offensive player on his team- his MVP campaign was entirely the result of a Peter Gammons Love-fest; and the Shannon Stewart thing was equally ridiculous. Stewart's OPS changed 40 points from Toronto - Minnesota's rise was due to Johan Santana, but people like Stark kept carping about stuart. It seems inane to me that Rolen could in any way be seen as valuable as Bonds- any advanced metric that exists values Bonds as miles better. Furthermore, his numbers in these metrics would be even better if he got 500 AB as you put it - but the fact that he's dominating without that even says volumes about his lead.

[clintl]

San Francisco is four games out of their division lead with a squad that is - apart from Bonds - not very good at all. How do you discount his stats as unimportant to his team when he's keeping them in playoff contention very nearly single-handedly?

Yeah, when Bonds fades and/or retires, it's going to be ugly for us Giants fans for a while.

[Franklinnoble]

Yeah, when Bonds fades and/or retires, it's going to be ugly for us Giants fans for a while.
That's what they said in Texas and Seattle when A-Rod left...

If they're not going to spend the money to build around Bonds, they're better off going with younger, hungrier players who won't be corrupted by Bonds' presence. Say what you will about his hitting prowess, but Bonds is worthless to the organization in the locker room and anywhere else off the field.

[SackAttack]

San Francisco is four games out of their division lead with a squad that is - apart from Bonds - not very good at all. How do you discount his stats as unimportant to his team when he's keeping them in playoff contention very nearly single-handedly?

I'd argue that he isn't - the Giants fell behind to the tune of double digits (or very nearly so) early in the season, and it took two bad slumps by the Dodgers to get the Giants back within hailing distance.

Please note that I'm not trying to say that the Dodgers are world-beaters, nor that the Giants suck (even though my heart protests the contrary), but rather that the Dodgers had the opportunity to sew the West up every bit as much as the Cards have the Central locked up, and instead they've let both the Giants and the Padres remain within five of the lead by playing streaky, inconsistent ball.

What doubly kills me about that is that I have no doubt that without the Dodgers' two major slumps this season, Paul LoDuca would still be in the white and blue.

[clintl]

That's what they said in Texas and Seattle when A-Rod left...

If they're not going to spend the money to build around Bonds, they're better off going with younger, hungrier players who won't be corrupted by Bonds' presence. Say what you will about his hitting prowess, but Bonds is worthless to the organization in the locker room and anywhere else off the field.

I agree they need to spend money now to get some talent around Bonds. The window of opportunity is closing fast. The minor league system is kind of thin on talent right now, and the rest of the supporting cast is getting old. Seattle, on the other hand, still had some good young major league talent, and used the A-Rod money to fill in around it. And Texas had Blalock and Texeira. I think the Giants will be going through a rather long rebuild, much as I wish it weren't so.

[Crapshoot]

That's what they said in Texas and Seattle when A-Rod left...

If they're not going to spend the money to build around Bonds, they're better off going with younger, hungrier players who won't be corrupted by Bonds' presence. Say what you will about his hitting prowess, but Bonds is worthless to the organization in the locker room and anywhere else off the field.

Where do you get this stuff ? Bonds is a once in a lifetime player- the Giants are going to suck for a while when he's gone. This "presence" line junk is based on what ?

[panerd]

San Francisco is four games out of their division lead with a squad that is - apart from Bonds - not very good at all. How do you discount his stats as unimportant to his team when he's keeping them in playoff contention very nearly single-handedly?

Why does everyone by making statements like this one bag on Pierzynski all the time? His may not have that great a relationship with the Giant's pitchers, but statistically you don't get much more from a catcher. One of the top catchers in average and RBI's. And he is a career 300 hitter. Not sure why Bonds is always considered the only one worth anything on this team.

EDIT: It looked like I was saying he led in RBI's & Average

[clintl]

The Giants have some decent players. Pierzynski is one of the better ones, I think. Tucker and Snow have been very good OBP guys. The problem is that other than Bonds, they don't really have anyone they can count on for even 20 HRs a year. Grissom maybe. Feliz if he plays enough, but Feliz has such a horrible OBP that it negates the value of power.

[Crapshoot]

Even money says A.J is not a Giant next year...

[Crapshoot]

Which is immediately offset by the fact that there were 8 teams in Ruth's league versus 16 in Bonds' league.

It would, if you imaigned a static US population and international population talent base- which clearly isnt true.

[Huckleberry]

It would, if you imaigned a static US population and international population talent base- which clearly isnt true.

Babe Ruth never had to face whatever Japanese or black pitchers were available. But Barry Bonds only faces the best pitchers in the league maybe twice a year.

Would you rather face Randy Johnson twice, Greg Maddux twice, and Hideo Nomo twice or Randy Johnson 5 times and Greg Maddux six times?

[clintl]

Babe Ruth never had to face whatever Japanese or black pitchers were available. But Barry Bonds only faces the best pitchers in the league maybe twice a year.

Would you rather face Randy Johnson twice, Greg Maddux twice, and Hideo Nomo twice or Randy Johnson 5 times and Greg Maddux six times?

This is not a very good argument. Major league talent was extremely diluted in Ruth's day compared to today. Guys like Ruth, Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx, etc. weren't routinely putting up .370, 45 HR, 175 RBI years because the pitching was good.

[primelord]

This is not a very good argument. Major league talent was extremely diluted in Ruth's day compared to today. Guys like Ruth, Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx, etc. weren't routinely putting up .370, 45 HR, 175 RBI years because the pitching was good.
What are you basing that off of?

[Crapshoot]

Babe Ruth never had to face whatever Japanese or black pitchers were available. But Barry Bonds only faces the best pitchers in the league maybe twice a year.

Would you rather face Randy Johnson twice, Greg Maddux twice, and Hideo Nomo twice or Randy Johnson 5 times and Greg Maddux six times?

Black and hispanic- dont forget the latter- in his time, it was a lily white league. And given that in today's talent determined world, Latin and black players make up over 40% of the league, that's a fairly strong demographic. As for Johnson, he's in the division- so they play often enough. But the obvious counter example is that Babe Ruth got to beat up on the sclubs twice as much as well. that's not a valid arguement.

[clintl]

What are you basing that off of?

Go look at the offensive stats from the '20s and '30s. There were seasons when the league BA was over .300. Baseball Reference has league season-by-season offensive and pitching stats for every major league season in history.

In addition, the simple math tells you that the major leagues were pulling talent from a much smaller pool relative to the number of teams existing at the time. The total population of the US in 1930 was 123 million. It's close to 300 million today, and yet the number of teams has only grown from 16 to 30. And that's even before you subtract the entire US African-American population from the pool, as well as Latin America, which has become a huge supplier of major league talent. And don't bring up the NBA and NFL, either. The NFL existed in that era, and very few NBA players have a physical profile that fits well with baseball skills.

[primelord]

Black and hispanic- dont forget the latter- in his time, it was a lily white league. And given that in today's talent determined world, Latin and black players make up over 40% of the league, that's a fairly strong demographic. As for Johnson, he's in the division- so they play often enough. But the obvious counter example is that Babe Ruth got to beat up on the sclubs twice as much as well. that's not a valid arguement.
Well first of all black and hispanic players make up a smaller percentage of pitching than they do just baseball in general. And the point is while major league baseball wasn't pulling from all of the available talent pools in Ruth's day they had far fewer teams so the talent was condensed. Add in the fact that you generally only had 4 man rotations at that point, and pitchers often picthed on short rest when big games came up and you have in even fewer scrubs on a regular basis.

I think what it boils down to is it is a wash. In Ruth's day he wouldn't ever have had to face Pedro Martinez because Pedro wouldn't have been allowed to play, but then he would have had to face Randy Johnson more often.

[MrIllini]

...because he's playing in the company of the greatest hitter ever.

Take into account Ruth's lack of defensive value and speed, and it makes for a compelling case. The arguement may not be clear cut, and is certainly debatable, but its not B.S.


Edit: Should be Bonds' greater defensive value.

if we're talking about the greatest HITTER ever, what the fuck difference does defensive value make?

and btw, still waiting on those Cards pitchers to fall off of the face of the earth like everyone keeps predicting...should be interesting in the off-season to hear all the talk about how the Cards' staff can't keep it up and win the NL Central in '04 when they've already won ;)

[Crapshoot]

right- my bad. Fundementally, I want to compare Ruth the OF to Bonds the OF - which is why I included defensive value- but if you chose to read the whole thing instead of cursing, you'd note that someone else made that point already. As it is, the debate right now is just about the offensive value.

[Crapshoot]

Well first of all black and hispanic players make up a smaller percentage of pitching than they do just baseball in general. And the point is while major league baseball wasn't pulling from all of the available talent pools in Ruth's day they had far fewer teams so the talent was condensed. Add in the fact that you generally only had 4 man rotations at that point, and pitchers often picthed on short rest when big games came up and you have in even fewer scrubs on a regular basis.

I think what it boils down to is it is a wash. In Ruth's day he wouldn't ever have had to face Pedro Martinez because Pedro wouldn't have been allowed to play, but then he would have had to face Randy Johnson more often.

you're right Primelord, but if they were a greater percentage of the hitters, Ruth would be less of an outlier, and his OPS+ stats would look a little worse- it would hurt him both ways, because he wouldnt be as much of a man amongst boys. As I pointed out- the Randy Johnson example is flawed- if only because he's in Barry's division, but also because Ruth would have gotten to face the sclubs of the league more often as well- it cancels out.

[MrIllini]

right- my bad. Fundementally, I want to compare Ruth the OF to Bonds the OF - which is why I included defensive value- but if you chose to read the whole thing instead of cursing, you'd note that someone else made that point already. As it is, the debate right now is just about the offensive value.

I did read the whole thing, just didn't think anyone had presented it as eloquently as I could :D

as an aside, f00k the cubs

[clintl]

OK, I just looked up Ruth and Bonds for peak and career OPS+ performance, which is both park and era adjusted. Being relative a measure that's relative to their peers, I think this is as close a comparison as we can easily get. I'd say Bonds ranks better for peak, but is still well behind for career performance. For grins, let's throw Ted Williams in, too, since he does pretty well by comparison.

Three best years:

Bonds - 275, 262, 231
Ruth - 255, 239, 239
Williams - 272, 267, 235

Career:

Bonds - 179
Ruth - 207
Williams - 190

[MrIllini]

after the last few seasons, everyone seems to forget the pre-juice years in Pittsburgh

while still good, nowhere near "historic"