I think they're largely incomparable... but it doesn't change the fact that I think Bonds is the greatest player of the last 50 years.
Exactly. Instead of aruging about whether he's the greatest ever or if he's a jerk or not, we should be taking advantage of the fact that we have the opportunity to watch one of the greatest players ever.
Im not invalidating anything that Bonds has done, he IS the greatest player of the last 30 years, period. But come on, Ruth won 94 games in his career, with back to back 20+ win seasons... Until a player comes along that can hit AND pitch like Ruth, the babe will continue to be the all-time best player.
This does not mean what you say it does. This just means that they haven't finished their careers, and numbers involving averages tend to go down. I doubt all 10 will still be in the Top 20, when it is all said and done. I mean, you can't run stats for 3000 plate appearances and call it the all time best. That's ridiculous. The rule at mlb.com looks to be 5000 at bats. And that list only has 8 players from this era vs 7 players who had their best years in the 20s and/or 30s. And if Chipper Jones drops .001 % he's out, and it's 7 to 7. And had the HR been invented in before 1920, there would have been way more guys in the Top 20 from earlier eras. You simply cannot use that argument against Bonds' OPS.
I could go to the top 50 and it would still be similarly dominated by players from this era. Fact is Ruth was so far seperated than the pack in his era than Bonds. Your argument about the home run basically diminishes the players in this era which was pretty much my point.
I saw Barry Bonds hit a homerun against Colorado earlier this year. It was one of the most amazing things I've ever seen. This poor pitcher didn't make a mistake, he just threw a good pitch at Barry twice. First time for a strike, second for a dinger. This guy doesn't let you make the same pitch twice. If he's seen it more than once, then he is hitting it. RM95, if you go you won't regret it. He's the best ball player of our lifetime.
September 22, 2003. Astros host the Giants at MMP. And I have tickets. I got them because Barry is my favorite player in baseball. Besides I'm an Astros fan and it's the middle of a pennant chase . On Pac Bell, no question it is the most beautiful park in baseball, imho. I want to watch at least one game there soon.
Ahem. Just letting you all know that this date will mark my third week in Houston and it's also my b-day. Anyone that wants to take me to the game is welcome.
There is no doubt that Bonds is the greatest player of the past 50 years. My Bonds story, I went to all three of the games in the series against the Astros when he tied Mcguire's record. The Astros (Dierker) pitched around him that entire series except for his last AB. When he finally got his one chance, he blasted probably the longest homer I've seen hit at Enron Field/Minute Maid park. It was a truly amazing moment and one that I will never forget.
"similarly dominated." dude. but it ISN"T dominated by this era. You were just wrong. I just proved that. You used 3000 AB, and MLB uses 5000. Did you not read the stats. I'm sure many guys in the 20s/30s had great OPS early in their careers, too. Even looking unfairly at the guys now in their peak, It is still just 8 to 7. And guys like Chipper Jones will drop out of the list. As for the Top 50 List: You are wrong again. There are only 19 guys who played extensively in the 80s, 90s, 00s....and they are all Active (except Schmidt/McGuire), so they could drop out of the list. There are 11 guys that had significant playing time in the 20s, 30s. So that makes it 19 to 18....and some of those guys are going to fall out of the list. It is a tie. There is no domination in numbers. As for Ruth dominating way more than Bonds. Again, not true. Ruth, Williams, Lou Gehring, Foxx, Greenberg and Hornsby are the only players above. 1.000 with Bonds. There are no other players over 1.000....and Bonds is still going up. When you look at best seasons it is even more revealing how Bonds is so far ahead of others vs Ruth was ahead of Foxx, Hornsby, Greenberg and Gehrig. What we can say is Ruth had phenomenal OPS numbers for longer than Bonds or anyone. But take those guys out of the stats, and the OPS numbers of the 20s and 30s are very similar to now. You cannot even argue that; the numbers are there to look up.
link Not my words...but I agree. That said...Bonds is unbelievable and the best in our lifetime. If you get the chance to see him.....DO. To belittle his talent and dedication because you dislike his attitude is to rob yourself of the opportunity to see a man who will, undoubtedly, be a considered a legend one day.
You're basically making a prediction, not an observation of data. If you want to come back in 20 years when these players are done then fine but I could take your argument and say that since players long ago played much longer because there was so much less money in the game that the deterioration of the stats due to age prior to this era was easily more significant than it is currently, not to mention the differences in weight training that enable players today to get better as they get older like Bonds and McGwire. Either way, if you want to quibble with that the difference between Ruth and #2 Gehrig is and will continue to be far greater than the difference between Bonds and the next closest hitter of his era.
Nice post, my friend keeps saying Bonds is the greatest player ever hands down. Going to have to send that link to him.
I'm not making a prediction. Dude, I used the damn MLB top 20 and 50 list. you're just in denial and not looking at the list. You made up a phoney 3000 AB list, when MLB.com using a 5000 AB list. Your stats are wrong. right now, OPS numbers at mlb.com are 8 to 7 for the top 20. The only prediction I made was Chipper Jones was going to drop out of that list. further, right now, Top 50 numbers are 19 for 80s, 90s, and 00s versus 18 for late 10s, 20, 30s. Same length of time...and it is 19 to 18. <b>I made no predictions. Those are the current stats for 5000 ABs.</b>
I didn't make up a phoney darn list, those stats are straight off of Baseball-Reference.com which is what I always use when looking up stats. Mr Conspiracy theory over here. You're making a prediction that the current MLB'ers on the list I provided will fall off the list because as they age their performance will decline. I pointed out that players today don't have the same incline, peak, decline that former players had. You're making a prediction, not an observation. Are you still upset about that Cuttino thing?
Timing, mlb.com is the holder of the stats. They state that 5000 AB is the measure you are wrong and retreating lamely with some "hp is still upset about Cuttino thing" crap. Timing...is it really that hard to admit you got your stats wrong? next time use mlb.com. OK?
it's like trying to compare pilots of fighter aircraft from the 1920s with those now no one dominated his time like the Babe, not Bonds
MLB.com is the holder of the stats? Give me a freakin break. Are you saying the stats are baseball-reference.com are wrong? Do you want to cross reference the stats I posted with the career numbers on MLB.com and show me how they're wrong? You're just complaining about the amount of at bats to be included in order to loophole your argument. My stats aren't "wrong" and I didn't conspire to find some arbitrary at bat level that would help my assertion. I just posted what they had, that's it.
