I think you're stretching it man. Frank Thomas has a higher OPS than Barry and Manny Ramirez is just barely behind Barry. Throw in Pedro and that's three guys who are arguably as good or better than Barry. Also, Manny Ramirez is 29 years old so if he starts popping out 60 homers a year (which is certainly a possibility) where is he going to rank? The truth is that offense is so screwed up right now that nobody knows where the limit is or what it means. Two years from now someone might hit 80 homers and then what? Are they the new best player of all-time? Bonds was a HOF lock before last year and has had arguably the best statistical season of any hitter ever but we don't know what those stats mean and one season doesn't make Barry the greatest of anything. Now if Barry keeps hitting 70 for the next 3/4 years and nobody is getting there with him then that's a different story.
He is four home runs away from becoming the 18th player to hit 400 home runs for one club. Bagwell will probably be the 19th. Barry's slugging percentage as a Giant (in a little over 9 years) is .656. To put this in context, Aaron's slugging percentage as a Brave was .569, Mays' as a Giant was .564, Gehrig's as a Yankee was .632 and Williams as a Red Sox was .634. Only Ruth as a Yankee (.711) has done better than Bonds as a Giant. And, Barry won 2 MVP awards (he should have won 3) before becoming a Giant. Are you honestly saying Frank Thomas has had a career that is as good as Barry's?? Please say you're not saying that!! Again...Barry Bonds is the greatest player of my era. He was a great player before his power surge...it is an offensive era, but Bonds hasn't played his entire career in the crazy numbers era...remember, he came into the league in 86/87. He's a great baserunner, a smart player and an amazing hitter. Within this era, he is clearly the best...hell, read the above posted article and you'll see even the other players agree with that. This isn't the first offensive era in the history of baseball. Bonds' bat speed would rank him among the greatest hitters of any era, in my opinion.
I'll take that bet. I think Bonds' 2001 season had nearly as much to do with the current state of the game (heavily tilted towards hitters) as it did with Bonds, and I think it will only be a matter of time before another hitter produces similar numbers. People are always saying, in fits of hyperbole, that "we'll never see (that) again!" They're usually wrong.
maybe homeruns...maybe one of the categories he exceeded in...but not the sum total. Again...no one put up the kind of season he did in complete numbers last year since Babe Ruth. He either walked (got on base) or he hit it out of the park, basically. Ruth had two comparable seasons...but we haven't seen Ruth play in our lifetimes. So again...I repeat...i don't think I'll ever see such a complete season again in my lifetime.
BoBfinn: refer to the chart. In aggregate, Bonds was 36.5% better, in terms of OPS, than the rest of the league while he has played. Mays was only 29.1%. Hence, even in the "juiced ball era," Bonds has statistically outplayed Mays, since he's done so in relation to his peers.
Originally posted by MadMax He is four home runs away from becoming the 18th player to hit 400 home runs for one club. Bagwell will probably be the 19th. Barry's slugging percentage as a Giant (in a little over 9 years) is .656. To put this in context, Aaron's slugging percentage as a Brave was .569, Mays' as a Giant was .564, Gehrig's as a Yankee was .632 and Williams as a Red Sox was .634. Only Ruth as a Yankee (.711) has done better than Bonds as a Giant. And, Barry won 2 MVP awards (he should have won 3) before becoming a Giant. While you're putting things into context you're failing to put things into context. Aaron played years of his career with the higher mound and played in a pitcher's era. Bonds has so many advantages over Aaron that have nothing to do with Bonds' talent that comparing their stats is pretty meaningless IMHO. If you want to talk about Barry vs Ruth well that's just insane. Ruth hit more home runs than entire baseball teams and spent the first 5 years of his career as primarily a pitcher, something that would never happen today. If he had been solely a hitter for those five years, it's certainly possible he'd have hit 900 home runs. Ruth, Williams, and Gehrig are 1,2,3 in career OPS and they did that when that was not the measure of hitting like it is today. If they'd known that was the measure and that strikeouts "didn't matter" then it's likely their numbers would be even higher. The funny thing about OPS is that Barry is 8th all-time and 10 of the top 20 OPS figures are players of THIS era. So what does Barry's really mean? It reminds me of when Jose Canseco went 40/40 and became the first player ever to do it and they asked Bobby Bonds about it and he said if he'd known it was a big deal he would have done it a couple times already. Are you honestly saying Frank Thomas has had a career that is as good as Barry's?? Please say you're not saying that!! I'm honestly saying that if OPS is the current measure of the quality of a hitter then Frank Thomas has a higher career OPS than Barry Bonds and Manny Ramirez is just below Barry Bonds. Barry is older than Frank Thomas and has played 5 more seasons than Frank so comparing their career accumulation stats is probably not fair at this point. Your statement about Barry being far and away the greatest player of my era is simply an exagerration and an ESPN hype induced statement. Again...Barry Bonds is the greatest player of my era. He was a great player before his power surge...it is an offensive era, but Bonds hasn't played his entire career in the crazy numbers era...remember, he came into the league in 86/87. He's a great baserunner, a smart player and an amazing hitter. Within this era, he is clearly the best...hell, read the above posted article and you'll see even the other players agree with that. Bonds didn't do much until 1990 so the 86/87 thing doesn't mean anything. You might think he's clearly the best but again if the measure of a hitter is OPS then he's clearly not the best and much less far and away the best. What Pedro Martinez has done in an era of offense is much more impressive to me then what Barry does. This isn't the first offensive era in the history of baseball. Bonds' bat speed would rank him among the greatest hitters of any era, in my opinion. What about without his personal trainer and modern medecine? What would his bat speed be without that armor on his elbow and the showboating at the plate? You think Bob Gibson wouldn't love to see Barry doing that at the plate? Barry plays in the softest era of baseball in history just like all of the other stars today.
Bonds is the greatest player of his generation, but the greatest of all-time? Hardly...you just can't compare players from different eras. Finn (who I don't agree with much) has a point in today's quality of pitching. I mean, Bonds, is hardly having to face great star pitchers like Bob Gibson, Don Drysdale, Juan Marichal, Sandy Koufax, Gaylord Perry, etc. Add to the fact that there exists 2 teams that probably shouldn't (in Tampa Bay and Montreal) and you can see that the talent in MLB has been diluted. To hit 73 home runs is impressive, but it is nothing to get so excited about that one starts saying ridiculous conjectures like "He must be the greatest player of all-time." Babe Ruth, because of his versatility as a pitcher then outfielder, is the greatest baseball player of all-time. Period. Ty Cobb and Ted Williams both are greater hitters than Bonds, IMO. Bonds would be in my top 10, but not in my top 5.
why the derogatory tone?? seriously, we're just talking baseball. clearly i'm stating my opinion...my opinion is that Barry Bonds is the greatest player of this generation. ESPN hype?? man, i don't even watch ESPN commentators!!! I have no idea what those guys think..except maybe the Joe Morgan-type guys who do color analysis and play-by-play during MLB games. I am on record as saying Ruth is the greatest ever, so you'll get no argument there. You speak to Aaron...but he isn't the only player we've compared Bonds to. Bonds isn't the only player we've discussed who's played in an offensive era. Again, this isn't the first offensive era in the history of the game. You clearly don't like Bonds personally...what the heck does bat speed have to do with body armor?? His bat speed has always been good...and he hasn't ALWAYS worn body armor. Bob Gibson is a great pitcher..no doubt...but if you're assuming Bonds couldn't hit him, I think you're wrong. And speaking of keeping it in context...Gibson definitely benefitted from pitching in the era he pitched in. But that doesn't diminish his legend. You can only play the competition before you in the game you play that day...among players doing that today, I'd rank Bonds as the best. You're free to disagree.
I wonder if one day we'll say...yeah, but Player X never had to face Greg Maddux...Randy Johnson..Curt Schilling...Roger Clemens...Tom Glavine... of the aforementioned, Bonds has faced 4. You're taking the cream of the crop of another generation and comparing it to the "watered down" pitchers of today. that's not apples to apples.
Hold up, Max. You are right that I picked some outstanding pitchers from the '60's, but let's dig deeper and look at the "not-so-cream of crop" pitchers from yesteryear. I'm going to back to 1965 and looking at the National League. There were 10 teams, and only one team had a team ERA over 4! That team was the Mets and they finished in last place. So, even the not-so-good pitchers of that season were just as good or a shade below the great ones of today. Look at the Dodger's top 4 starters for that year: 1)Sandy Koufax, 26 wins, 8 losses, 41 starts, 27 complete games , 336 innings pitched, 216 hits allowed, 71 walks, 382 strikeouts , 8 shutouts, and a 2.04 ERA 2)Don Drysdale, 23 wins, 12 losses, 42 starts, 20 complete games, 308 innings pitched, 270 hits allowed, 66 walks, 210 strikeouts, 7 shutouts, and a 2.78 ERA 3) Claude Osteen (hardly a HOF, but a good representation of the average starter of the '60s), 15 wins, 15 losses, 40 starts, 9 complete games, 287 innings pitched, 253 hits allowed, 78 walks, 162 strikeouts, 1 shutout, and a 2.79 ERA 4) Johnny Podres, 7 wins, 6 losses, 22 starts, 2 complete games, 134 innings pitched, 126 hits allowed, 39 walks, 63 strikeouts, and a 3.43 ERA Granted that team won the World Series that year, but how many teams now a days can brag that 4 of their starters had less hits allowed compared to innings pitched?? I can think of one team that would have 2 in the D-Backs with Randy and Schilling, but 4?? That's crazy, man. Other pitchers from '65 and their ERAs (National League only) Juan Marichal, 2.14 Bob Shaw, 2.64 Gaylord Perry, 4.18 (off-season for him, but a really good ERA for today's pitchers) Vern Law, 2.16 Bob Veale, 2.84 Don Cardwell, 3.19 Bob Friend, 3.24 Sammy Ellis, 3.78 Jim Maloney (Matt's dad), 2.54 Joe Nuxhall, 3.44 Tony Cloninger, 3.29 Wade Blasingame, 3.76 Ken Johnson, 3.20 Jim Bunning, 2.60 Chris Short, 2.82 Ray Culp, 3.22 Bob Gibson, 3.07 Tracy Stallard, 3.39 Ray Washburn, 3.63 Dick Ellsworth, 3.81 Larry Jackson, 3.85 Cal Koonce, 3.69 Dick Farrell, 3.50 Bob Bruce, 3.72 Larry Dierker (as an 18 year old), 3.49 Jack Fisher (led the league in losses with 24), 3.93 That is at least one starting pitcher from each team that had an ERA under 4. Granted, a lot of those guys, no one but a die-hard baseball historian would have heard of, but it is safe to say that many of them weren't considered "cream of the crop", yet these guys have the stats to show that they are right there with today's pitchers. The point is this: what Bonds did last season was great, but could he have done this 35 to 40 years ago or even longer? I doubt it very seriously. However, the point is not to get into comparison of different eras; it's to show how much the game has changed and for people to think that he is one of the greatest of all-time is absurd hyperbole, IMO.
Manny, you just sound foolish. You can't compare ERA's "straight." You have to do it via league dominance. As in, Player X played so well against his peers, compared to Player Y. No, this doesn't prove who's "better" in absolute terms. But the answer to that, imo, is pretty obvious. Players now, are stronger and faster. Modern strength training has allowed muscle mass to be built, without sacrificing quickness. Moreover, players make much more money now. Whereas, once, players had jobs during the off-season... now they spend almost the entire time training for the next year. Today's players are much better than those of yester-year. Does this mean that Bonds is greater than Ruth? No. It's silly to compare them in absolute terms. Ruth dominated his league in a way that nobody else has since then. For me, that's enough.
So, haven, are you trying to say that today's pitchers are better than the ones of yesteryear?? Pftt..whatever. Look, I know stats might lie, but if 9 out of 10 teams have a team ERA under 4, that shouldn't be dismissed. Mayber, I went a little over-the-top but I was trying to prove a point, that the quality of baseball now is just not like it was back then. I guess I'm a baseball purist, but I enjoy it better to see a 1-0 game or 2-1 game that is done in less than 3 hours compared to some ridiculous 15-14 game in which no one can get anyone out. I won't argue with you that today's players are stronger and faster, but why have the hitters improve so dramatically and the pitchers haven't? Really, I don't know why I'm arguing about this because it is pointless. I guess I shouldn't have tried to compare 2 different eras of baseball. However, it really irks me that there are people out there that get so caught up in one great year and start proclaiming stuff like Barry Bonds is the greatest ever. He is the greatest of his generation, but not of all-time (which I know you have never said that..talking about just hearing that in general). I would just love to see if Bonds could hit 73 homers 35 to 40 years ago when the quality of pitching was better. Let me ask you this haven: if today's athletes are that much stronger and faster (which I don't doubt), then why is it that so many pitchers get hurt with injuries like rotator cuff problems and sore shoulders and have to have Tommy John surgery? Logically, to me it seems that if they are stronger, then they should be able to prevent these injuries from happening. This is not meant to be a smart-ass question, but one that really has me wondering.
Originally posted by MadMax why the derogatory tone?? seriously, we're just talking baseball. clearly i'm stating my opinion...my opinion is that Barry Bonds is the greatest player of this generation. ESPN hype?? man, i don't even watch ESPN commentators!!! I have no idea what those guys think..except maybe the Joe Morgan-type guys who do color analysis and play-by-play during MLB games. What derogatory tone? You have no idea what those guys say but the article quoted in the first post here is from Jayson Stark who works for ESPN. Barry Bonds benefits from ESPN hype and these players you're comparing him to never showed up every night on SportsCenter. I am on record as saying Ruth is the greatest ever, so you'll get no argument there. You speak to Aaron...but he isn't the only player we've compared Bonds to. Bonds isn't the only player we've discussed who's played in an offensive era. Again, this isn't the first offensive era in the history of the game. There is a difference between offensive eras and 10 of the top 20 OPS players of all-time all playing major league baseball last year. Using AL stats, there have been 10 seasons where there was at least 1 hr/game and 8 of those have been from 1994-2001. You've heard of the 27 Yankees I'm sure, murderer's row etc. Well in 1927 when Ruth hit 60 there were .35 hr/game in the AL and last year when Barry hit 73 there were 1.15 hr/game in the NL. So really do you want to compare OPS and home runs between those eras? You clearly don't like Bonds personally...what the heck does bat speed have to do with body armor?? You ever tried to hit with someone throwing at you? Bonds has no fear factor and that allows him to stand on the plate and dig in. My not liking Bonds has nothing to do with any of the statistics I've posted here. They're all 100% accurate. His bat speed has always been good...and he hasn't ALWAYS worn body armor. He wore it last year didn't he? In fact he's worn it the last several years if my memory serves. Did Babe Ruth or Hank Aaron ever wear big armor pads on their arms? Did Hank have a personal trainer and a nutrionist? Bob Gibson is a great pitcher..no doubt...but if you're assuming Bonds couldn't hit him, I think you're wrong. If you think Bob Gibson wouldn't hit Barry time and again then I think you're wrong. And if you think Gibson's beanings and brushbacks of Barry wouldn't have an effect on Barry's swing then you're really wrong. And speaking of keeping it in context...Gibson definitely benefitted from pitching in the era he pitched in. But that doesn't diminish his legend. You can only play the competition before you in the game you play that day...among players doing that today, I'd rank Bonds as the best. You're free to disagree. This has nothing to do with Gibson really. He could pitch fine today but he's not getting any 1.10 ERA or whatever because guys wear padding, charge the mound, and stand on top of the plate. Gibson would get suspended by the pansy asses that run baseball if he tried to brush players like Bonds off the plate. Conversely, Barry in 1968 wouldn't be standing on the plate, would have that fear factor, and wouldn't be hitting 43 homers much less 73.
Your preference does not make it "better." For a variety of reasons, that I posted recently in the astros forum. Some of these include: 1. Improved scouting reports, which tend to benefit hitters more. 2. Strength training, which also benefits hitters more. Especially since there's less of a quickness/strength trade-off now. 3. Smaller ball parks than in the past few decades (though a looong time ago they were even smaller than today) 4. Lack of development of new pitches recently. 5. Improvement of bats. But it was not better. Pitchers now throw harder... and there's a larger population to draw from. Those factors, alone, should tell you that your assertion is untrue. Also, pitchers still have the added advantage of training in the off-season, now. Hitting has simply increased in quality relative to pitching. Both have probably made absolute gains. A remarkable # of careers ended, once upon a time, that could now be continued. Basically, the guys we look back at, and say, "wow, what a great career..." are those that made it. Some people don't blow out their arms. Some don't today. Also, and this is just a guess, I would suppose that throwing the ball harder would result in more injuries. And pitchers do have more velocity now.
I'm not disputing your points, but I still find it hard to believe that you think today's quality of pitching is as good or better than it was 35-40 years ago. I also find it hard to believe that hitters have improved that much more than pitchers but yet you feel that pitchers have improved tremendously....it's almost like the hitters are improving at an exponential rate while the pitchers are improving at a linear rate. I think that expansion has diluted a lot of the talent & you have teams whose 5th and sometimes 4th starter would be hard-pressed to be a starting pitcher even as recently as 10 years ago. However, I'll cry uncle here & drop it. After all, you are a future lawyer and I have ADHD, remember?
How can you prove that pitchers throw with more velocity today than pitchers of the 60's, 50's ...etc?
how so. if we are going to discredit some of barry's numbers by saying he played in an offensive era, then it would stand to reason that these stats must be discredited somewhat b/c it was a pitchers era. i mean do we honestly believe that somehow pitchers of the 60's were just magically better than today's pitchers. it's always been my opinion that essentially anything you did relative to your era would be exactly the same relative to another era. bonds 73 wouldn't be 73 in 1965, but it would be 10 percent ahead of whoever else there was. and bob gibson's 1.12 wouldn't be 1.12 today, but it would be 1.80 or so and still the best in the game. hell, when i look at 585 homers (?) and 485 steals and think barry is about to join the 600/500 club i am astonished. from someone who rooted against him every second last year and doesn't like barry the person i can't argue against his numbers. then you add on 8 gold gloves and the freakin best season in 80 years and you start getting impressed. and what is with this "if they knew these statistics were important they woulda gotten them" stuff. i might understand a little with the OPS for williams or something b/c baseball was more make contact with 2 strikes than swinging away today but then again that might've hurt ted's on base part of the OPS. and anything gehrig did came partially from the huge offensive explosion of the 30's. i think there are quite a few records left over from then and some ridiculous stuff like 48 homers with 350 averages. as for 40/40 and mays just not doing it, i don't understand. so mays often stood at first base thinking "well i could go ahead and steal second no problem and get in scoring position, but steals aren't important so i'll just stick to first." i mean come on, you got the stats you got. saying someone coulda had more if they thought they were supposed to don't mean ****. anyway, looking at the overall stats relative to everyone else, i really can't argue against a top 5 all time ranking for bonds. ruth is obviously the best and then just put whoever you want next and so on and so forth. edit: holy fleurking shnit, a whole bunch of new replies popped up while i was replying so i probably just said a whole bunch of stuff that's already been said.
We don't pitch them as much. They are fresher. We use bullpens now. We don't descriminate agaist black pitchers like in the first 50 years of baseball. There are much more specialty pitchers. 100 pitches and you sit. Then they bring in the serious heat. How many teams have a heater in the bullpen now. How many before? Most pitchers can't maintain top velocity for 120-130 pitchers right now. So they let the bullpen have the last 20-30. If many pitchers tire and lose velocity now, why should we believe all oldtimers magically maintained velocity and didn't need a bullpen. They couldn't. They game eventually scientifically proved it, and now the coaches know better. Thus, there is a strong case for team pitching as having improved, at least regarding velocity. You are such a champion of old-timers, in everything. Why don't you believe team sports can get better when all the individual talent records in the Olympics are broken over and over?
you win, Timing! oh, well... yes...this article was posted by ESPN...I didn't post the article here!! Long before I read this article I said Barry was the greatest of this generation. So my statement is not "ESPN hype induced!!" I am capable of formulating opinions on my own, thanks! You act as if I'm way off on that assumption...it's at the very least a judgment call. Would Barry hit 73 homers in 1981...no. But would Babe Ruth hit 60?? I'm not sure of that either. But to diminish the impact Barry has had on the game of baseball is a mistake, in my opinion. Within the era he plays, he has been AT THE VERY LEAST among the very best in the game. I think he's been THE best. You do not have to subscribe to my opinion....
Okay, I believe that I have done a poor job of relaying what I really mean by some of my posts in this thread. I basically believe that the quality of major league baseball is less now than it was back in the '60's, '70's, and '80's....but definitely the 60's and before then. Now, it is true that all of the major sports have their athletes bigger, stronger, and faster than their counterparts from years' past, but there is more to it than that. Every major sport(not sure about football) has had some radical changes to try to "improve" the game. Basketball added the 3 point shot, shot clock, and now did away with the strict playing of man-to-man defense. Football moved the goalposts back to the end of the endzone, and instituted instant replay (I know those sound minor, but I can't think of any biggies off the top of my head..would need help on that). But baseball has had major changes...different ball now ("juiced"), adding the Designated Hitter in the AL starting in 1973, lowering and raising the pitcher's mound at various different times, and of course, something that I have eluded to earlier...expansion. There are currently 30 franchises in MLB, 14 have been added since 1961! So, close to 47% of the franchises in MLB are less than 40 years old! To me that is an amazing stat and one that shows that there are players playing today that wouldn't have come close to even sniffing the big leagues 40 years ago. I doubt very seriously any of the other major professional leagues have that large of a percentage in their younger franchises. So, yes it is true, haven and crispee, that today's athletes are bigger, stronger, and faster. However, it is also true that there exists a great quantity of players that 40 years ago would have been languishing in AAA or even lower. This tells me, logically, that the players from an older era were playing against the best of the best and not against journeymen and career minor leaguers. I find it hard to believe that 350 players (14 X 25) who would have been hard-pressed to make it to the majors or at the very best get a cup of coffee are now....all of the sudden...good enough to be quality major leaguers. There is nothing wrong with expansion, but MLB has gone overboard and overdone it with this concept. Thus, I believe that has diluted talent immeasurably and is the biggest reason you are getting these incredible hitting accomplishments like what Bonds did. I remember when Cecil Fielder hit 50 or 51 home runs one season either in 1989, 1990, or 1991 (somewhere along that timeframe). Well, I remember thinking to myself, "Damn, 50 homers, that's something that you don't see very often." Well, in 1993 2 franchises were added in the Marlins and the Rockies. Then if that wasn't enough, 2 more were added in 1998 with the D-Backs and the Devil Rays. Well, now a 50 home run season ain't nothing. The connection there makes me think that is not a coincidence.
