Ted Williams and Barry Bonds

[onejayhawk]

I should probably throw in Stan Musiel. Is it possible to definitively say which one is the best LF in history?

J

[Eddie Collins]

MINNIE MINOSO!:gt

[NickG]

Originally posted by onejayhawk
I should probably throw in Stan Musiel. Is it possible to definitively say which one is the best LF in history?

J

I'll take Barry, myself. He is currently far more dominant than Ted Williams ever was, and, in his career, has been a total of 200 runs better (using RAA) defensively than Ted.

Barry Bonds (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/cards/bondsba01.shtml)

Ted Williams (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/cards/willite01.shtml)

[Brad Harris]

Williams is the "purest" hitter in MLB history and people forget how astonishing his numbers would be without all those missed seasons due to war.

Bonds, however, is simply the most complete left fielder in history. He has the best combination of peak and career performance.

I'd give my left arm to have Williams somewhere in the lineup; can you say "designated hitter"? (I knew you could!) But if I have to play someone in left field, it's Bonds.

Not by a landslide, but he's enough just enough that I can make the statement with confidence.

I pick Bonds.

[The Commissioner]

Originally posted by onejayhawk
Is it possible to definitively say which one is the best LF in history?

Nope, it just isn't. They all three have extremely compelling cases to be made in their favor. Also, being that Musial and Williams played in a different era from Bonds the comparisons are all the more difficult to make.

[nightal]

1. Musial- personal choice, great teammate etc. Plus a great hitter.
2. Williams
3. Bonds ( I could never put him ahead of those 2 because of jerkitus)

[Eddie Collins]

1.Barry(sadly, I hate him though)
2.Stan
3.Teddy

[BoSox Rule]

Stan's great, not better than Barry, though. Definetly not better than Ted.

[Eddie Collins]

Originally posted by BoSox Rule
Stan's great, not better than Barry, though. Definetly not better than Ted.

Not even as an all-round player?

[Etheridge2]

What about the Rickey???? The Rickey would be very upset that you left him off your list and I am sure the Rickey would tell you that the Rickey does not like to be disrespected because the Rickey is the greatest ever...just ask him...


Seriously though most SB ever, most RUNS ever, most WALKS ever and 300 HR to boot (well 297). Potentially the most dangerous lead off man ever and a GG to boot (granted only 1 but he was a pretty solid fielder..oh and he does have 3000 hits to go with all those walks...

he shoudl at least be in the discussion although I wouldn't mind him at #4 it would be a close #4

[nightal]

Originally posted by BoSox Rule
Stan's great, not better than Barry, though. Definetly not better than Ted.


Is this about hitting only?, not fielding, teams winning championships, being a great teammate etc?

Oh!

[Etheridge2]

Originally posted by nightal
Is this about hitting only?, not fielding, teams winning championships, being a great teammate etc?

Oh!

The Rickey says it's about fielding and running too and the Rickey says he i s a great teammate he once went out of the way to help a teammmate who had to wear this funny helmet all the time and then he had another teammmate like that and he came right over to introduce himself and make him feel welcome because that is the kind of guy The Rickey is..

Seriously though Musial wasn't exactly known for his glove so Bonds would win any comparison of the glove between Musial, Williams, himself, and yes even The Rickey..but don't tell the The Rickey I said that

[nightal]

Originally posted by Etheridge2
The Rickey says it's about fielding and running too and the Rickey says he i s a great teammate he once went out of the way to help a teammmate who had to wear this funny helmet all the time and then he had another teammmate like that and he came right over to introduce himself and make him feel welcome because that is the kind of guy The Rickey is..

Seriously though Musial wasn't exactly known for his glove so Bonds would win any comparison of the glove between Musial, Williams, himself, and yes even The Rickey..but don't tell the The Rickey I said that

Agreed, but gosh wouldn't you rather have Musial around?

[Jose_Reyes_Revolution]

I'd take Barry. He's the best hitter ever. His OBP and SLG is always sky high, he's a decent defender, and has decent speed.

[Eddie Collins]

Originally posted by Jose_Reyes_Revolution
I'd take Barry. He's the best hitter ever. His OBP and SLG is always sky high, he's a decent defender, and has decent speed.

You're asking for it!:D

[Jose_Reyes_Revolution]

Originally posted by Eddie Collins
You're asking for it!:D Yeah, I'm willing to bet theres a fair share of Bonds haters here.

[Etheridge2]

Originally posted by nightal
Agreed, but gosh wouldn't you rather have Musial around?

If your asking the Cards fan in me if I would rather have Stan the answer is YES
If you are asking the human being in me if I would rather have Stan the answer is YES
If you are asking me purely on physical skill and talent to play the game at it's highest level in all areas...then the answer is probably not.


Still in the end if I am making my DREAM TEAM and have to pick 1 of them I take Stan even at the risk of offending the Rickey

[nightal]

Originally posted by Etheridge2
If your asking the Cards fan in me if I would rather have Stan the answer is YES
If you are asking the human being in me if I would rather have Stan the answer is YES
If you are asking me purely on physical skill and talent to play the game at it's highest level in all areas...then the answer is probably not.


Still in the end if I am making my DREAM TEAM and have to pick 1 of them I take Stan even at the risk of offending the Rickey

I, too am a huge Card and Musial fan and you are probably right about the talent and skill comments.
What a pain it would be to have Bonds or the Rickey around on a daily basis.

[Etheridge2]

Originally posted by nightal
I, too am a huge Card and Musial fan and you are probably right about the talent and skill comments.
What a pain it would be to have Bonds or the Rickey around on a daily basis.

Ted Williams is no bowl of Cherries either..but the Rickey might be good if for nothing else but comic relief

[TroyW]

How would Barry have done with the Monster? Or the Boston press? Williams made no bones about his feelings for the media there.
What if Williams played nowadays in San Fransisco? Of course, we are blessed to not be living in times of World War, so Ted could get the four years back. You've got to think that Ted would still ahve a chance at .400 today.

Then again, put Bonds back in the 1940s andthey wouldn't know what to do with him. He may have put up les home runs, but more stolen bases. Hell, who am I kidding? Barry would have rocked it back then as well.

Tough call. I'm going with Barry Bonds.

[Biofury]

Wow, this is such a difficult choice. (Like a lil kid deciding over chocalote or strawberry ice cream) Either way you still got a great deal no matter who you pick, heck, you could pick for me and i'd still be thrilled at the outcome.

The "Thumper" gets my vote by a hair (especially if my team plays in a pitchers ballpark), when it comes down to it id prefer high average over high power, and Williams couldve repeated another +400 season with an easy +500 obp had he played those years that he missed in his prime. Such a Splendid Splinter he swung.

[Ravenlord]

http://www.aarongleeman.com/

Posted 1/23/2004 by Aaron Gleeman


What if?
My entry from earlier this week about Albert Pujols segued nicely into one of my favorite subjects, a man by the name of Theodore Samuel Williams.

As I've said many times in many places, Ted Williams is my favorite baseball player of all-time. That is probably a fairly strange thing for a 21-year-old who never saw Williams play to say, but it is true. I've read about him, I've heard about him, I've seen him interviewed and I've read his magnificent book on hitting. Everything about him, from his background and upbringing to his life in and out of baseball, is incredibly intriguing to me. Plus, the guy wasn't a bad ballplayer either.

Sticking strictly to the baseball stuff, there is so much about Williams that is interesting. For one thing, he is the only guy in the history of baseball who it can be honestly said gave Babe Ruth a run for his money for the title of Best Hitter Ever.

In addition to that, there is the fact that he was a two-time MVP and should have won more. He was a two-time Triple Crown winner. He's the last man to hit .400. He won the league batting title in nearly half the seasons he qualified for it. He led the league in on-base percentage in every single one of his full seasons after his rookie year. His career OBP of .482 is the highest in the history of the sport. His career slugging percentage of .634 is second all-time to The Babe, as is his 190 career OPS+. He was a 17-time All-Star.

Williams' batting average dropped from .328 as a 39-year-old to .254 as a 40-year-old. Unsatisfied with retiring after a season like that, he came back and hit .316 with a .451 on-base percentage and a .645 slugging percentage at 41, and then called it a career.

I could go on and on all day, just as I could stare at his numbers all day.

As I said on Wednesday, perhaps the most amazing thing about Williams' career numbers is that he was able to compile them despite missing all of 1943, 1944 and 1945, and the majority of 1952 and 1953, serving in the military. Because of his time in the service, Williams did not play a single game as a 24, 25 or 26-year-old, and played just 43 total games combined in his age-33 and age-34 seasons.

Here's another way of looking at it...

Everyone knows just how extraordinary Barry Bonds' career numbers are. Here's a look at some of the most impressive ones:

AVG OBP SLG H HR 2B SB RBI RUN BB
.297 .433 .602 2595 658 536 500 1742 1941 2070


Now, let's pretend for a moment that Barry Bonds had missed the same time at the same ages Ted Williams missed because he was serving in the military. Here are what Bonds' "new" career totals would look like:

AVG OBP SLG H HR 2B SB RBI RUN BB
.303 .445 .627 1909 519 383 334 1270 1458 1592


His average, on-base percentage and slugging percentage actually all go up, but his "counting stats" all plummet. Bonds loses nearly 700 hits, including 139 homers and 153 doubles. He also drops 166 stolen bases and nearly 500 RBIs, runs and walks. The "lost" years obviously don't turn Bonds into anything less than an all-time great, but they do drop him down quite a bit on most of the all-time leaderboards.

- He goes from #4 all-time in homers to #16, and he goes from being just 97 homers shy of tying Hank Aaron's record to being 236 homers behind Hammerin' Hank.

- He goes from ranking 70th all-time in hits and needing 405 for 3,000, to not ranking among the top-250 all-time hit leaders and needing nearly 1,100 more for 3,000.

- He goes from being the only man in the history of the sport to ever hit 500 homers and steal 500 bases, to simply being in the 300/300 Club, along with three other guys.

- He goes from being 9th all-time in runs scored and 16th all-time in runs batted in, to ranking 65th in all-time runs and 96th in all-time RBIs.

You see what missing all that time would have done to Bonds' numbers, so you can imagine what it did do to Williams'. I thought it might be fun to attempt to figure out what Ted Williams' career numbers would have been like, had he been able to play his entire career without having to step away for years at a time.

To figure out what Bonds' numbers would have looked like with him missing time, all I had to do was delete his age-24, 25 and 26 seasons, and then give him only a fraction of his totals from age-33 and 34. To figure out Williams' "missing" numbers, it's a little tougher.

If we wanted to be really technical about it, we could try to figure out how Williams would have aged, so that we could have really gotten a handle on his stats from 24-26 year old. And then we'd try to do the same thing for the huge chunks of two seasons he missed in his 30s.

I'm more interested in getting a good rough estimate though, so we'll try to keep things fairly simple. To figure out his missing numbers from 1943, 1944 and 1945, I am simply going to take the average season from the two years prior to his absence and the two years after he returned.

So, we take 1941 and 1942 and add them together with 1946 and 1947, and then figure out the average of those four years that surrounded his missing seasons.

Here's what the average season from 1941, 1942, 1946 and 1947, combined, looks like:

G AVG OBP SLG H HR 2B 3B TB RBI RUN BB
150 .360 .509 .669 182 36 36 6 338 124 136 153


Not a bad average season, huh?

Then what we do is simply take that average season and plug it into Williams' career three times - in 1943, 1944 and 1945. That takes care of filling in the blanks for ages 24, 25 and 26, but it still leaves ages 33 and 34.

This part is a little more complicated, because Williams actually did play parts of both the 1952 season and 1953 season. In 1952 he played six games, hitting .400/.500/.900. Then he came back in 1953 and played 37 games, hitting .407/.509/.901 with 13 homers. I think you're starting to see why I think Ted Williams is so amazing now.

I'm sure there are several intelligent ways to try to figure out what he might have done in 1952 and 1953, but we're going to go for simplicity over preciseness. All I am going to do is add up all his numbers from the two years prior (1950, 1951) and the two years after (1954, 1955), plus the stuff he did in the 43 games he did play in 1952/1953. Then I'm going take that and make two full seasons out of it. We'll make the "full seasons" just 135 games, since the schedule was shorter then and Williams did often miss games later on in his career.

Those four total years surrounding his second group of missing time and the 43 games from the years he missed time add up to a total of 495 games. So, if we take the per game averages and make two 135-game seasons out of them, we get two seasons that look like this:

G AVG OBP SLG H HR 2B 3B TB RBI RUN BB
135 .337 .483 .641 153 35 28 3 292 118 104 129


So, we just plug that "season" into both 1952 and 1953 and...PRESTO!...Ted Williams has a full career without any interruptions.

Ready to see the new final numbers?

(Drum-roll please...)
TED WILLIAMS (1939-1960)

AVG OBP SLG H HR 2B TB RBI RUN BB
.345 .485 .637 3465 685 683 6391 2410 2395 2717


Those are simply monstrous numbers across-the-board.

Here is where he would rank among the all-time leaders in each stat with his new numbers, along with where he actually ranks with old numbers:

NEW OLD
Games 11 91
Batting Average 6 7
On-Base Percentage 1 1
Slugging Percentage 2 2
OPS 2 2
Hits 6 62
Home Runs 3 14
Doubles 5 30
Total Bases 2 19
Extra-Base Hits 2 12
Runs Batted In 1 12
Runs Scored 1 16
Walks 1 4

By my rough estimation, Ted Williams lost 677 games while serving his country. In those games, he lost 811 hits equaling 1,507 total bases. Included among the lost hits were 158 doubles, 23 triples and 164 homers. He also lost 571 RBIs, 597 runs and 696 walks.

By giving him credit for all that missed time, he shoots up to the very top of almost every all-time list that he isn't already at the top of.

Williams would rank first all-time in on-base percentage, RBIs, runs and walks. He would rank second all-time in slugging percentage, OPS, total bases and extra-base hits. He would move from 30th all-time in homers to third, behind only Aaron and Ruth, and would move from 62nd all-time in hits to sixth.


"A man has to have goals - for a day, for a lifetime - and that was mine, to have people say, 'There goes Ted Williams, the greatest hitter who ever lived.'"
--- Ted Williams

[csh19792001]

Excellent work. Of course it is all supposition, even using weighted averages, but it was about time that people speak up about Williams getting screwed. I might do the same with Gehrig.... even if you put a regular "age decline" on his career, imagine the numbers. WOW.

When I have more time (just on break here), Ill get into how ludicrous the people are who consistently assert that Bonds is a better hitter than Williams now.

Basically, people have devalued batting average and hits completely, focusing ONLY on on base percentage, walks, and slugging. There is NO comparison between a .344 hitter and a .297 hitter, who both played for 20 plus years. I don't care what formulas you inculcate.

Chris

[Sgt. Bob]

I dont know about the rest of you, but if i had to make a choice between the 3 i dont know if i would hang myself or have cardiac arrest. I would take any of the 3... if i had to!

But I like Ravenlord am a gigantic Williams fan, and if he hadnt missed those years... who knows.

I woulda loved to have seen Williams in todays game, and see what he could of done.

[potluck]

http://www.aarongleeman.com/

Posted 1/23/2004 by Aaron Gleeman


What if?
My entry from earlier this week about Albert Pujols segued nicely into one of my favorite subjects, a man by the name of Theodore Samuel Williams.

As I've said many times in many places, Ted Williams is my favorite baseball player of all-time. That is probably a fairly strange thing for a 21-year-old who never saw Williams play to say, but it is true. I've read about him, I've heard about him, I've seen him interviewed and I've read his magnificent book on hitting. Everything about him, from his background and upbringing to his life in and out of baseball, is incredibly intriguing to me. Plus, the guy wasn't a bad ballplayer either.

Sticking strictly to the baseball stuff, there is so much about Williams that is interesting. For one thing, he is the only guy in the history of baseball who it can be honestly said gave Babe Ruth a run for his money for the title of Best Hitter Ever.

In addition to that, there is the fact that he was a two-time MVP and should have won more. He was a two-time Triple Crown winner. He's the last man to hit .400. He won the league batting title in nearly half the seasons he qualified for it. He led the league in on-base percentage in every single one of his full seasons after his rookie year. His career OBP of .482 is the highest in the history of the sport. His career slugging percentage of .634 is second all-time to The Babe, as is his 190 career OPS+. He was a 17-time All-Star.

Williams' batting average dropped from .328 as a 39-year-old to .254 as a 40-year-old. Unsatisfied with retiring after a season like that, he came back and hit .316 with a .451 on-base percentage and a .645 slugging percentage at 41, and then called it a career.

I could go on and on all day, just as I could stare at his numbers all day.

As I said on Wednesday, perhaps the most amazing thing about Williams' career numbers is that he was able to compile them despite missing all of 1943, 1944 and 1945, and the majority of 1952 and 1953, serving in the military. Because of his time in the service, Williams did not play a single game as a 24, 25 or 26-year-old, and played just 43 total games combined in his age-33 and age-34 seasons.

Here's another way of looking at it...

Everyone knows just how extraordinary Barry Bonds' career numbers are. Here's a look at some of the most impressive ones:

AVG OBP SLG H HR 2B SB RBI RUN BB
.297 .433 .602 2595 658 536 500 1742 1941 2070


Now, let's pretend for a moment that Barry Bonds had missed the same time at the same ages Ted Williams missed because he was serving in the military. Here are what Bonds' "new" career totals would look like:

AVG OBP SLG H HR 2B SB RBI RUN BB
.303 .445 .627 1909 519 383 334 1270 1458 1592


His average, on-base percentage and slugging percentage actually all go up, but his "counting stats" all plummet. Bonds loses nearly 700 hits, including 139 homers and 153 doubles. He also drops 166 stolen bases and nearly 500 RBIs, runs and walks. The "lost" years obviously don't turn Bonds into anything less than an all-time great, but they do drop him down quite a bit on most of the all-time leaderboards.

- He goes from #4 all-time in homers to #16, and he goes from being just 97 homers shy of tying Hank Aaron's record to being 236 homers behind Hammerin' Hank.

- He goes from ranking 70th all-time in hits and needing 405 for 3,000, to not ranking among the top-250 all-time hit leaders and needing nearly 1,100 more for 3,000.

- He goes from being the only man in the history of the sport to ever hit 500 homers and steal 500 bases, to simply being in the 300/300 Club, along with three other guys.

- He goes from being 9th all-time in runs scored and 16th all-time in runs batted in, to ranking 65th in all-time runs and 96th in all-time RBIs.

You see what missing all that time would have done to Bonds' numbers, so you can imagine what it did do to Williams'. I thought it might be fun to attempt to figure out what Ted Williams' career numbers would have been like, had he been able to play his entire career without having to step away for years at a time.

To figure out what Bonds' numbers would have looked like with him missing time, all I had to do was delete his age-24, 25 and 26 seasons, and then give him only a fraction of his totals from age-33 and 34. To figure out Williams' "missing" numbers, it's a little tougher.

If we wanted to be really technical about it, we could try to figure out how Williams would have aged, so that we could have really gotten a handle on his stats from 24-26 year old. And then we'd try to do the same thing for the huge chunks of two seasons he missed in his 30s.

I'm more interested in getting a good rough estimate though, so we'll try to keep things fairly simple. To figure out his missing numbers from 1943, 1944 and 1945, I am simply going to take the average season from the two years prior to his absence and the two years after he returned.

So, we take 1941 and 1942 and add them together with 1946 and 1947, and then figure out the average of those four years that surrounded his missing seasons.

Here's what the average season from 1941, 1942, 1946 and 1947, combined, looks like:

G AVG OBP SLG H HR 2B 3B TB RBI RUN BB
150 .360 .509 .669 182 36 36 6 338 124 136 153


Not a bad average season, huh?

Then what we do is simply take that average season and plug it into Williams' career three times - in 1943, 1944 and 1945. That takes care of filling in the blanks for ages 24, 25 and 26, but it still leaves ages 33 and 34.

This part is a little more complicated, because Williams actually did play parts of both the 1952 season and 1953 season. In 1952 he played six games, hitting .400/.500/.900. Then he came back in 1953 and played 37 games, hitting .407/.509/.901 with 13 homers. I think you're starting to see why I think Ted Williams is so amazing now.

I'm sure there are several intelligent ways to try to figure out what he might have done in 1952 and 1953, but we're going to go for simplicity over preciseness. All I am going to do is add up all his numbers from the two years prior (1950, 1951) and the two years after (1954, 1955), plus the stuff he did in the 43 games he did play in 1952/1953. Then I'm going take that and make two full seasons out of it. We'll make the "full seasons" just 135 games, since the schedule was shorter then and Williams did often miss games later on in his career.

Those four total years surrounding his second group of missing time and the 43 games from the years he missed time add up to a total of 495 games. So, if we take the per game averages and make two 135-game seasons out of them, we get two seasons that look like this:

G AVG OBP SLG H HR 2B 3B TB RBI RUN BB
135 .337 .483 .641 153 35 28 3 292 118 104 129


So, we just plug that "season" into both 1952 and 1953 and...PRESTO!...Ted Williams has a full career without any interruptions.

Ready to see the new final numbers?

(Drum-roll please...)
TED WILLIAMS (1939-1960)

AVG OBP SLG H HR 2B TB RBI RUN BB
.345 .485 .637 3465 685 683 6391 2410 2395 2717


Those are simply monstrous numbers across-the-board.

Here is where he would rank among the all-time leaders in each stat with his new numbers, along with where he actually ranks with old numbers:

NEW OLD
Games 11 91
Batting Average 6 7
On-Base Percentage 1 1
Slugging Percentage 2 2
OPS 2 2
Hits 6 62
Home Runs 3 14
Doubles 5 30
Total Bases 2 19
Extra-Base Hits 2 12
Runs Batted In 1 12
Runs Scored 1 16
Walks 1 4

By my rough estimation, Ted Williams lost 677 games while serving his country. In those games, he lost 811 hits equaling 1,507 total bases. Included among the lost hits were 158 doubles, 23 triples and 164 homers. He also lost 571 RBIs, 597 runs and 696 walks.

By giving him credit for all that missed time, he shoots up to the very top of almost every all-time list that he isn't already at the top of.

Williams would rank first all-time in on-base percentage, RBIs, runs and walks. He would rank second all-time in slugging percentage, OPS, total bases and extra-base hits. He would move from 30th all-time in homers to third, behind only Aaron and Ruth, and would move from 62nd all-time in hits to sixth.


"A man has to have goals - for a day, for a lifetime - and that was mine, to have people say, 'There goes Ted Williams, the greatest hitter who ever lived.'"
--- Ted Williams
If you didn't know but Ted Williams first homerun in New England was in 1939
in Worcester Mass during an exhibition game against Holy Cross College at
Fitton Field

[west coast orange and black]

after all that excellant work, ravenlord, i still go with bonds: i gotta go with reality, not "what-if".

[leecemark]

--I do give Williams full credit for the time he missed to military service, but also still pick Bonds. Williams played in a much better hitters park against weaker competition. Even considering that he probably still has a slight edge as a hitter. Bonds, however, has a huge advantage in the field and on the basepaths. Teddy is amoung the 10 best players ever (maybe 6th or 7th?). Bonds is amoung the top 5.

[LouGehrig]

I have stated this before and will continue to state it because individuals accept things superficially or without analysis, especially when reported by the media.

Too many individuals accept what the media present, especially if those individuals have seen an event themselves.

Yes, Barry Bonds hit 73 home runs in a single season and Ichiro has the record for the most hits in a 162 game season.

But Barry and Ichiro did not face pitchers who threw off a 15 inch high mound.

Barry and Ichiro did not have to swing at pitches one inch above the belt or else have it called a strike.

Think those things might have made a difference?

Can you imagine what Williams and Musial would have done if they had today's strike zone? Both were left handed hitters and we all know where they like the ball, but good pitchers could pitch them up and in. Good pitchers could pitch them at the letters and they would either swing or have a called strike.

[The Commissioner]

I have stated this before and will continue to state it because individuals accept things superficially or without analysis, especially when reported by the media.

Too many individuals accept what the media present, especially if those individuals have seen an event themselves.

Yes, Barry Bonds hit 73 home runs in a single season and Ichiro has the record for the most hits in a 162 game season.

But Barry and Ichiro did not face pitchers who threw off a 15 inch high mound.

Barry and Ichiro did not have to swing at pitches one inch above the belt or else have it called a strike.

Think those things might have made a difference?

Can you imagine what Williams and Musial would have done if they had today's strike zone? Both were left handed hitters and we all know where they like the ball, but good pitchers could pitch them up and in. Good pitchers could pitch them at the letters and they would either swing or have a called strike.

All this is true, which is why you can't directly compare numbers across eras. However, if we must try to compare players from different time periods, all we really have to go on is how they were in comparison to their peers. It really pains me to say this, but at this point, that's why I'd have to give the edge to Bonds. As tremendous as Williams was and as great as he was, even he wasn't as dominant as Bonds has been. Without these past few seasons Bonds would have still entered the discussion as being amongst the greatest LFs of all-time. Now after his continued success, he has entered the Ruthian stratosphere.

[LouGehrig]

Yes, they must be compared to their peers, but just as you correctly stated how difficult, if not impossible it is to compare different eras (which were, to a great degree, artificially created), comparing players of one era to their peers and then comparing players of another era to THEIR peers assumes that the players of each era were about equal.

What I mean is that when Yaztrezemski led the league in 1968 with .301, there were no other .300 hitters. When Sisler hit .407, there were many .300 hitters.

Sisler was among the best of his era, and Yaz was among the best of his era, but there may have been better players in one era than in a different era, which introduces a variable that cannot be controlled.

Do you know what I just said? If you do, please explain it to me.

[The Commissioner]

Do you know what I just said? If you do, please explain it to me.

Lol, sadly I think I actually do. However, explaining it to the explainer would require more brain power than I am capable of generating.

[RuthMayBond]

1. Musial- personal choice, great teammate etc. Plus a great hitter.
2. Williams
3. Bonds ( I could never put him ahead of those 2 because of jerkitus)Yes, Teddy WAS such an endearing sweetie :laugh

[nightal]

Yes, Teddy WAS such an endearing sweetie :laugh


What in the h--- are you talking about?????

[RuthMayBond]

What in the h--- are you talking about?????
It's called sarcasm

[nightal]

It's called sarcasm

No kidding? what a post

[RuthMayBond]

No kidding? what a postWhy, thank you very kindly :waving

[julusnc]

Teddy Ballgame, Barry US Bonds and The Pricky Rickey were all jerks in their own time but I have never heard anyone say anything negative about Stan the Man.

You asked who is the best not the nicest.Barry Bonds modern numbers and all around ability place him first in my book but Barry Bonds will never be a "LEGEND" like Ted and Stan.

[cubbieinexile]

That is probably what they said about Ted. Give it some time. Wait 30 or so years and see what people think of Barry then. By that point all us crotchety old man will be defending our players against fans of the "newer" players. Over time warts tend to be forgotten/forgiven while the stats remain.

[csh19792001]

That is probably what they said about Ted. Give it some time. Wait 30 or so years and see what people think of Barry then. By that point all us crotchety old man will be defending our players against fans of the "newer" players. Over time warts tend to be forgotten/forgiven while the stats remain.

Warts and cantankerous personalities? Sure- Ted Williams has been largely forgiven.

Using illegal, performance enhancing drugs for years, while shattering most of the important alltime records of OUR game?

Sorry- that'll never be forgiven, just like the black sox and their blatant cheating hasn't been, compadre. Certain acts aren't forgivable; and a fraud is a fraud.

[leecemark]

--Actually, a large percentage of our membership and baseball in general has forgiven the Black Sox, or at least some of them. The support for Joe Jackson for the Hall of Fame is strong and growing. I think this is misguided, but it exists none the less.
--Steriod use, while very troubling, is not nearly as black a mark on a players record as throwing a World Series. It is only slightly worse than the many other forms of cheating prevelant through baseball history.

[csh19792001]

--Actually, a large percentage of our membership and baseball in general has forgiven the Black Sox, or at least some of them. The support for Joe Jackson for the Hall of Fame is strong and growing. I think this is misguided, but it exists none the less.
--Steriod use, while very troubling, is not nearly as black a mark on a players record as throwing a World Series. It is only slightly worse than the many other forms of cheating prevelant through baseball history.

They're still not in the HOF, Mark, 85 years later- and I doubt they'll ever be. Because a few dozens fans have forgiven them on a particular website is insignificant- the baseball world clearly has not forgiven them or they would have been cleared long ago.

And as to Bonds and the excoriation- well, like time tell. Also read Jackie's thread "most fans want steroid users banned". Because there are several very vocal Bonds fans here that don't want to see him culpable for anything, they'll rationalize it to the Nth degree how "steroids are no different than any other 'cheating'." This doesn't mean the baseball world at large feels the same way; in fact, they clearly do not, judging from everything I've read.

[cubbieinexile]

For the most part White Sox players have been forgiven. Joe Jackson consistently gets rated high in all-time lists and there are plenty of people who think he shuld be in the hall. Most people don't even know that Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker got into some trouble over gambling. The greenie junkies of the 60's and 70's are all but forgotten. The coke-heads of the 80's are forgotten, and so too will be the steroid users of the 90's.

Maybe I missed it but how is the baseball world clearly against steriod users and Barry Bonds? Also those who are against Bonds are more against Bonds because they dislike him then because of his actions. Look at how quickly Giambi was forgotten once Bonds name has surfaced. Nobody talks about Sheffield or Sosa or McGwire. People have been trying to get Barry Bonds for years and now that they got some dirt they are going to ride it for all its worth.

[csh19792001]

For the most part White Sox players have been forgiven. Joe Jackson consistently gets rated high in all-time lists and there are plenty of people who think he shuld be in the hall. Most people don't even know that Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker got into some trouble over gambling. The greenie junkies of the 60's and 70's are all but forgotten. The coke-heads of the 80's are forgotten, and so too will be the steroid users of the 90's.

Maybe I missed it but how is the baseball world clearly against steriod users and Barry Bonds? Also those who are against Bonds are more against Bonds because they dislike him then because of his actions. Look at how quickly Giambi was forgotten once Bonds name has surfaced. Nobody talks about Sheffield or Sosa or McGwire. People have been trying to get Barry Bonds for years and now that they got some dirt they are going to ride it for all its worth.

If the world has forgiven the Black Sox, why aren't they in the HOF? Why haven't petitions by alltime greats like Williams and Feller made a dent? The baseball world has not forgiven them.

Sosa an Mcgwire weren't involved with a drug distributing company and a personal trainer that was himself and illegal drug distributor. If they had been, they'd be equally as censured. As it is, I see their use of steroids as in the same likelihood as Bonds (almost certainly), however they weren't dumb enough to do what Bonds did, and didn't admit to using multiple substances. People should be talking be talking about their "records", too, but obviously the case against them is tenuous and speculative- they haven't admitted to anything nor have they tested positive.

As to Sheffield, he was never an alltimer anyway (or even close), and hasn't been shattering alltime records (and does not stand to shatter more) while using illegal performance enhancers. Is he equally as guilty? Of course. Is he going to get nearly as much attention as someone as blatantly egregious as Bonds and his "records"? A guy who will break the most important record not just in baseball- but in all of sports? Of course not. Same with Giambi.

"Greenies" and cocaine are a far, far cry from very specific, synthetically developed artificial performance enhancers and anabolic steroids that are specifically designed to drastically improve athletic performance over long periods of time, if need be. Whether the things you named even have a longlasting, significant, positive effect on performance has not been supported by evidence. Cocaine actualy weakens the body dramatically over time, and the effects of pep pills are shortlived and do not dramatically change one's body for the better.

[cubbieinexile]

There have been petitions, there have been books written, so forth and so forth about the Black Sox. There are plenty of people who want to see Joe Jackson in the hall. Just because he is not does not mean there is a majority against him. In fact only one man needs to be against him and that is the commissioner.

Greenies are artificial and they were used to help a player during the game and season. Viewing them any differently then a performance enhancer for ballplayers is just odd to me. Nor has steroids andy actual concrete proof that it helps ballplayres. For every study that says they do I can supply one that says it does nothing.

Finally Mark McGwire did admit to taking a supplement, remember 1998? The brouhaha passed that incident and it will passed for Bonds as well.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

The greenie junkies of the 60's and 70's are all but forgotten. The coke-heads of the 80's are forgotten, and so too will be the steroid users of the 90's.

People have been trying to get Barry Bonds for years and now that they got some dirt they are going to ride it for all its worth.

No comparison, greenies or cocaine an amhetamine, quick shots in the arm. Steroids, build skeletal muscle, add body weight, increase endurance during work outs, shorten recovery time between work outs.

None of the above are acceptable but greenies and cocaine are in the minors when compared to steroids a big league chemical when attempting to build strength, improve performance, gain an edge on the non users.

As for trying to get Barry, he is the guy that is in orbit, the last 4 seasons. If it were another hitter that was putting up the gigantic numbers, the spotlight would be on that hitter.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

There are plenty of people who want to see Joe Jackson in the hall. Just because he is not does not mean there is a majority against him. In fact only one man needs to be against him and that is the commissioner.


Those that want to see Joe in the HOF are sentimentalists', thinking with the heart and not the brain, foolish way to think.

He took part in throwing a World Series, no way should he ever enter the HOF.

[Imapotato]

When they say Barry Bonds ahs a great eye and Ted Williams has a great eye...it's not the same thing

Williams had a LARGE strikezone...Barry has one the size of a soccer ball...not even close

Ted Williams

[Aegis]

Nor has steroids andy actual concrete proof that it helps ballplayres. For every study that says they do I can supply one that says it does nothing.

Yes, and there were studies that claimed that tobacco was harmless and nicotine wasn't an addictive substance.

Saying steroids don't improve muscle mass and the other things ShoelessJoe3 said is like saying alcohol doesn't make you drunk.

[Aegis]

When they say Barry Bonds ahs a great eye and Ted Williams has a great eye...it's not the same thing

Williams had a LARGE strikezone...Barry has one the size of a soccer ball...not even close

Ted Williams

Thank you! Williams all the way, although I am quite the fan of Stan the Man.

Yes, that rhyme is grounds for me being shot.

[west coast orange and black]

...What I mean is that when Yaztrezemski led the league in 1968 with .301, there were no other .300 hitters. When Sisler hit .407, there were many .300 hitters.
this is true, lou.
but might also be a red herring:

danny cater (.290 / 11 pts), tony oliva (.289 / 12), willie horton (.285 / 16) and teddy uhlaender (.283 / 18) were closer to yaz in '68...

than tris speaker (.388), joe jackson (.382), babe ruth (.376) and eddie collins (.372) were behind sisler - 19, 25, 32 and 35 points, respectively.

[west coast orange and black]

--Steriod use, while very troubling, is not nearly as black a mark on a players record as throwing a World Series. It is only slightly worse than the many other forms of cheating prevelant through baseball history.
i will go along with you that steroid use is not nearly as troubling as throwing a world series, or even plotting to do the same - the former is widespread thoughout both leagues and has occurred tens of thousands of times, whereas the latter has occurred, well, not nearly as many times.

(but i can not quite agree that steroids are only "slightly worse" than the other forms of cheating that baseball has had to overcome.)

[cubbieinexile]

Yes, and there were studies that claimed that tobacco was harmless and nicotine wasn't an addictive substance.

Saying steroids don't improve muscle mass and the other things ShoelessJoe3 said is like saying alcohol doesn't make you drunk.

How do you know? Did you do the studies? Do you work for a company that studies these drugs? Probably not. If you are like the rest of us you have probably read news report or heard about the drugs on the TV. You haven't done any independent research whatsoever. Yet you feel confident in telling me what steroids do to the human body. Me I'm skeptical until further evidence and research is available. Look at what is going on in the medical industry right now, and those are the regulated ones. Most of these supplement drugs are not even regulated, so they don't even get the investigation that these other drugs get. At one Andro was touted as this drug that could do all the things you needed it to do. Now after years of research they have found it does almost nothing for you except harm you in the long run.

[cubbieinexile]

No comparison, greenies or cocaine an amhetamine, quick shots in the arm. Steroids, build skeletal muscle, add body weight, increase endurance during work outs, shorten recovery time between work outs.

None of the above are acceptable but greenies and cocaine are in the minors when compared to steroids a big league chemical when attempting to build strength, improve performance, gain an edge on the non users.

As for trying to get Barry, he is the guy that is in orbit, the last 4 seasons. If it were another hitter that was putting up the gigantic numbers, the spotlight would be on that hitter.


I really don't understand your logic. Are you saying that some "illegal" performance enhancing is okay, but more then some is no good? Are you saying that we should discredit Barry Bonds achievements because his performance enhancers we choose not to like while Willie Mays achievements are acceptable because his performance enhancers are okay? If taking a performance enhancing drug is wrong then to me taking a performance enhancing drug is wrong. Doesn't matter whether it happened yesterday or 30 years ago.

[Aegis]

How do you know? Did you do the studies? Do you work for a company that studies these drugs? Probably not. If you are like the rest of us you have probably read news report or heard about the drugs on the TV. You haven't done any independent research whatsoever. Yet you feel confident in telling me what steroids do to the human body. Me I'm skeptical until further evidence and research is available. Look at what is going on in the medical industry right now, and those are the regulated ones. Most of these supplement drugs are not even regulated, so they don't even get the investigation that these other drugs get. At one Andro was touted as this drug that could do all the things you needed it to do. Now after years of research they have found it does almost nothing for you except harm you in the long run.

Uhm, Andro does indeed help build muscle mass. It's been banned from the Olympics for years for that reason.

I haven't done independent research, nor have you. But what about documented clinical evidence concerning the effects of various steroids on the human body? What about medical steroids given to sickly people to help boost their body mass to healthy levels? I've seen the effects of those. They cause you to gain weight, although you need to work out if you want that weight to be muscle.

Where are these studies that say steroids don't build muscle mass? I'd like to see them.

[iPod]

When they say Barry Bonds ahs a great eye and Ted Williams has a great eye...it's not the same thing

Williams had a LARGE strikezone...Barry has one the size of a soccer ball...not even close

Ted Williams

There certainly are reasons why Ted Williams might have been a better player than Barry Bonds has been. The size of their strike zones is not one of them. That's like saying, "Yeah, well Williams played in Fenway Park, but Bonds played most of his career in Candlestick Park. Not even close. Barry Bonds." That's just as true as what you said, but OK, what of it? Analysts have been developing useful formulas for measuring and quantifying the precise effects of things like those for years now. And from those, its pretty clear that while Williams is definitely the better batter, its not a landslide; and on top of that, Bonds has 8 gold gloves, 9 finishes in the top 10 in stolen bases and 5 more MVP awards.

If you wanted to say that Williams' hitting advantage over his peers outweighs Bonds' speed and glove, or that Bonds' MVP awards are the result of a different breed of sportswriters and that Williams was easily deserving of that many awards, or that Bonds deserves to be demoted on the all-time list because of steroid abuse, or even just that a AA team in the 1950s could beat the Yankees today and therefore Bonds isn't dominating any quality competition, fine. That's a different matter.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I really don't understand your logic. Are you saying that some "illegal" performance enhancing is okay, but more then some is no good? Are you saying that we should discredit Barry Bonds achievements because his performance enhancers we choose not to like while Willie Mays achievements are acceptable because his performance enhancers are okay? If taking a performance enhancing drug is wrong then to me taking a performance enhancing drug is wrong. Doesn't matter whether it happened yesterday or 30 years ago.


No, in no way do I say that some or any illegal performance enhancing is ok. Only saying that steroids that can add muscle, add body weight, increase body strength would be more beneficial if one wanted to gain an edge. Greenies could fight off fatigue, short term, not on the same level as steroids when the goal is boosting performance. I use the word "beneficial" carefully and actually do not care to use the word because possibly in the long run it could do bodily damage.

[wamby]

How would Barry have done with the Monster? Or the Boston press? Williams made no bones about his feelings for the media there.
What if Williams played nowadays in San Fransisco? Of course, we are blessed to not be living in times of World War, so Ted could get the four years back. You've got to think that Ted would still ahve a chance at .400 today.

Then again, put Bonds back in the 1940s andthey wouldn't know what to do with him. He may have put up les home runs, but more stolen bases. Hell, who am I kidding? Barry would have rocked it back then as well.

Tough call. I'm going with Barry Bonds.

Barry would have missed most of the 1940s.

[antihipster]

I will take Williams as he was more dominent than Bonds during their respective eras.

If you take ob% and slg% of these players [while I divide these numbers by four] and divide it by the league's average slugging percentage of their playing years, Williams comes out ahead.

On the other hand, with more competetive balance these days, Bond's case could be elevated since competition is more even.

1. Ruth .808
2. Williams .773
3. Bonds .717

[antihipster]

What about the Rickey???? The Rickey would be very upset that you left him off your list and I am sure the Rickey would tell you that the Rickey does not like to be disrespected because the Rickey is the greatest ever...just ask him...


Seriously though most SB ever, most RUNS ever, most WALKS ever and 300 HR to boot (well 297). Potentially the most dangerous lead off man ever and a GG to boot (granted only 1 but he was a pretty solid fielder..oh and he does have 3000 hits to go with all those walks...

he shoudl at least be in the discussion although I wouldn't mind him at #4 it would be a close #4

His all time numbers would be in better shape if he decided to retire light years earlier.

[Imapotato]

Listen

too much of ANYTHING is not good

and that goes for walks...and how they effect SABR stats like OPS.

You have Williams, you have Bonds

During Bonds MONSTER (alleged steroids) years he averaged 150 plus walks...

ok let's say tie game, they walk bonds 1st and 4th innings
Now the opposing team is winning 6-0...no one on base Bonds homers in the 9th (1-1)
Opposing team winning 7-3, Bonds in the 9th one on...HR (2-2, 3 rbi, 2 hr...OPS up the wazoo)

Did he do anything?
Player wise...yes, but he didn't help the team.

Now when he was walking 120 times...yes he was valuable...he had 150 more AB's in order to cause damage....that was the Ted Williams Bonds...the one with speed and power.

Too bad he wanted to take the easy route (allegedly)

Oh and ummmm, Bonds park's (3 Rivers, Candlestick and whatever that corporate name is now)
3 Rivers had 335 down the lines 385 power alleys
Candlestick was a laughable 328 RF 365 power alley (changed in 1993...wonder why?)
3Com...307 RF (MY GOD!!)

And that's not counting all the other bandboxes in the league

Teddy Ballgame?

Hard to tell it looks like it was 380 RCF, but 405 right of RCF and RF was 330 in the beginning but went down to 304 at the expense of the smallest foul terriotry ever

Now think about OTHER AL ballparks Teddy played in...except for Yankee Stadium...all were terrible. Maybe why they shortened RF later in his career.
Comiskey was huge, Griffith Stadium was huge. Tiger Stadium was great...for RH power hitters...etc. etc.

Anyway, that is what I feel about OPS and walks

90-120...good
120- overkill, you are NOT helping anything but your % offensive stats


Of course these 2 couldn't compete with Ruth...nor Cobb..nor Mays..nor Speaker and heck not even Musial as best LF!!!
and maybe not even Hornsby (he of 80-90 walks)

A player with less walks and a high OPS is a better player than a player with 150 walks. I'm sorry, that's terrible 'baseball'

[RuthMayBond]

Listen

too much of ANYTHING is not good

ok let's say tie game, they walk bonds 1st and 4th innings
Now the opposing team is winning 6-0...no one on base Bonds homers in the 9th (1-1)
Opposing team winning 7-3, Bonds in the 9th one on...HR (2-2, 3 rbi, 2 hr...OPS up the wazoo)
Did he do anything?
Player wise...yes, but he didn't help the team.

Candlestick was a laughable 328 RF 365 power alley (changed in 1993...wonder why?)
3Com...307 RF (MY GOD!!)

90-120...good
120- overkill, you are NOT helping anything but your % offensive stats
1) I guess too many of Williams' hits isn't a good thing then
2) Yes. Bonds helped the team. It's not his fault no one else can hit or pitch
3) Have you ever tried to hit in Candlestick's swirling winds?
4) I'm glad you've figured out the magic number for walks. Modern guys need the walks to keep up with the BA from late 20s/early 30s

[cubbieinexile]

Anytime you have an extreme player you have results that are skewed. But Barry Bonds walking does help his team. To say he shouldn't walk so much is to imply that you are not really watching Barrys plate appearances. Last year he was intentionally walked 120 times. That means only 112 times did Barry actaully have a chance to hit but still got walked anyway. Now I'm willing to bet that a vast majority of those walks were of the intentional unintentional walk. Quite a few were probably of the 4 straight balls low and outside. Barry isn't choosing to walk so many times, it is the opposing team that is choosing that for him. In otherwords Barry had gotten so good they no longer wanted to take a chance on him. If Babe had played in today's era and with the same effectiveness that he showed back then they would treat him the same way.

Anyway Barry must be doing something right because since 2000 the Giants have gone to 3 playoffs and won over 90 games each and every time. Despite the fact that most if not all the hitters around him are mediocre on a yearly basis. Look at last years team, and the year before that teams hitters and explain to me how they won all those games. The first reason you wil find is Barry Bonds.

[rich]

Jeff Kent should kissed his butt when he won M.V.P..

[RuthMayBond]

Jeff Kent should kissed his butt when he won M.V.P..True, but Kent would rather fight with him, and wash that car :laugh

[Appling]

What a pain it would be to have Bonds or the Rickey around on a daily basis.
Why not have both at the same time? A manager's dream job!

[donzblock]

To return to the topic, Bonds is not in the same league as either Musial or Williams. The latter two compiled impressive statistics consistently in their lengthy careers. Bonds' stats became incredible only during the years when he is alleged to have taken steroids. Williams and Musial were great and honest ballplayers, but there is a very dark cloud hanging over Bonds that cannot be ignored. If Bonds cheated, and I firmly believe that he did, then you should begin your search for a third LFer who can compete with Stanley and Mr. Ballgame.

Furthermore, anybody who wishes to downgrade Ted Williams needs to refute Ravenlord's impressive discussion of Williams. And "refute" does not simply mean dismissing it.

[cubbieinexile]

Bonds stats did not become incredible only when he took steroids. He was a great player before this. His stats did skyrocket but he was already a hall of famer before the take off.
As for Musial, well he isn't even a left fielder. Played more first base, played more Right Field and Center Field combined then left field. Most of his best years he had were right field or predominately another position other than LF.

Last 4 seasons LF, then 5 seasons at 1B, then 1 at right, 1 in left, 1 in center, 2 at first and left, 1 again in right, one in the outfield, 1 at first, 2 in right and finally 1 in left.

[rich]

Bonds has played 93% of his games as a leftfielder. Teddy is just about the same percentage. Stan, who definitely is "The Man" played over !,000 games at firstbase(34%). So, at 66% in the outfield, including RF, he doesn't belong in the discussion that OneJayHawk started on 11/19/03.

[MrRuss]

As recently as 1998 Bonds was mortal, .303/.438/.609. Still very, very good but nowhere near what he does now. Ted's better and this is my theory. Ted hit the ball from the armpits to the bottom of the knees. To throw a strike on Bonds or anyone now you have about a 30inch X 21inch area to throw to. Plus, with Bonds robocop elbow, he's got nothing to be afraid of. Oh yeah, and he used steroids.

[rich]

MrRuss, I agree on all points. The strike zone is absurd! I'm sure Ted got the benefit of the doubt on close calls but Barry's strike zone, or what the umps call his strike, is a joke. As is the body crap.

[csh19792001]

As recently as 1998 Bonds was mortal, .303/.438/.609. Still very, very good but nowhere near what he does now. Ted's better and this is my theory. Ted hit the ball from the armpits to the bottom of the knees. To throw a strike on Bonds or anyone now you have about a 30inch X 21inch area to throw to. Plus, with Bonds robocop elbow, he's got nothing to be afraid of. Oh yeah, and he used steroids.

You're correct in everything you said, except the numbers (Bonds' weren't nearly that good).

Through 1998- Barry Bonds-

.290/.411/.556 (OPS+ 163)

And, for comparison's sake- Ted Wiliams, through age 33-
.347/.484/.634 (OPS+ 190)

[csh19792001]

Bonds stats did not become incredible only when he took steroids. He was a great player before this. His stats did skyrocket but he was already a hall of famer before the take off.
As for Musial, well he isn't even a left fielder. Played more first base, played more Right Field and Center Field combined then left field. Most of his best years he had were right field or predominately another position other than LF.

Last 4 seasons LF, then 5 seasons at 1B, then 1 at right, 1 in left, 1 in center, 2 at first and left, 1 again in right, one in the outfield, 1 at first, 2 in right and finally 1 in left.

Bonds became incredible only when he took steroids- you say it correctly yourself- he was great before. This is a fact. He was a great all around ballplayer before, but he was no Ted Williams or Babe Ruth at the plate; he needed illegal steroids to do that.

Before 2001

.289/.415/.567 (OPS+ 167) (No 50 homerun seasons)

2001-present (Barry's nearing 40 phase of his career)

.350 BA/.560 OBP/.805 SLG (OPS+ 258)

He hit 73 homers in 2001.

Going by his homerun percentage the last 4 years (which, by the way, is 13%--far higher than Babe Ruth was ever able to perform in his BEST SINGLE season), and give Bonds him a reasonable number of at bats, see how many home runs he would have hit.

Give him 125 walks/year the last 4 years (certainly still a very high figure for a slugger (especially one nearing 40)- Bonds himself only averaged 103 walks for the first 15 years of his career)-

With this more reasonable number of plate appearances, Bonds would have hit 81, 54, 48, and 58 home runs (he never hit 50 before 2001). Tell me that isn't a totally unnatural jump from his previous averages- esp at his age, and after moving to the worst HR park in the bigs)- and I'm being very generous on the walks- I should use his real average of 103/season- things would far MORE disparate if I did.

Hey, just look at the slugging numbers (you don't even have to look at homeruns). They speak for themselves.

As Thomas Boswell said, the steroids worked too well.

You want to say Bonds was a better all around player than Ted Williams (naturally, without steroids), this is true. You want to put them in the same league as hitters? Don't bother trying.

Oh, and here is Bonds playing in a league similar (in dilution-expansion value) to Willie Mays and Hank Aaron, his two comtemporary historical rivals.

.275/.380/.503 (OPS+ 146)

Bonds needed expansion and the advent of the incredibly inflated HR era to become a great hitter, and he needed steroids to become incredible.

[Appling]

(Bonds) Before 2001 -- (up to age 35)
.289/.415/.567 (OPS+ 167) (No 50 homerun seasons)

2001-present (After age 35)

.350 BA/.560 OBP/.805 SLG (OPS+ 258)

Hey, just look at the slugging numbers (you don't even have to look at homeruns). They speak for themselves.

So in four seasons after turning age 35, Bonds improved his batting average by 60 points, his OBP by 145 points, and his slugging average by 238 points over his "prior to age 36" career averages! Has any other player with 3000 career PA improved his career ratios by even half those numbers?

I wonder if any other player has improved all three ratios (BA, OBP and SA) by even a single point!

His remarkable late-career improvement ... His amazing increase in body mass and muscle ... His professional and personal closeness to known dealers in PEDs ... Nothing is proven yet, but it begins to look suspicious!

(Edit): Another way of looking at these numbers:
Compare the career trend for Bonds with those of four other great sluggers:
Number of seasons with Slg. Pct. of .700 or better thru age 35,
versus # seasons of .700 or better after age 35:
Babe Ruth: 8 times above .700 by age 35, 1 time after age 35
Ted Williams: 1 time above .700 before age 35, 2 times after 35
Lou Gehrig: 3 times above .700 before age 35, 0 after (career shortened due to illness)
Jimmy Foxx: 3 times above .700 thru age 35, 0 after (Jimmie peaked early)
Barry Bonds: 0 times above .700 thru age 35, 4 of 4 after age 35

Bonds is the only one of this group who NEVER had a .700 slugging season thru age 35; yet he has been .749 or better in every season after age 35.. Isn't that strange?
Ted Williams may well have had a few more .700+ seasons if military service hadn't caused him to miss 5 peak playing years (all before age 35).

[csh19792001]

So in four seasons after turning age 35, Bonds improved his batting average by 60 points, his OBP by 145 points, and his slugging average by 238 points over his "prior to age 36" career averages! Has any other player with 3000 career PA improved his career ratios by even half those numbers?

I wonder if any other player has improved all three ratios (BA, OBP and SA) by even a single point!

His remarkable late-career improvement ... His amazing increase in body mass and muscle ... His professional and personal closeness to known dealers in PEDs ... Nothing is proven yet, but it begins to look suspicious!

I'll say it looks suspicious, Appling! :p

Someone made a post about Williams and Bonds a long time ago, and I'd like to give them proper credit and citation, but I only saved the text (and not the screen name of the poster). In any case, with that in mind, here is what he had to say about Bonds vs. Williams, (and keep in mind this incorporates Barry's post 2001 numbers, which are "suspicious", to say the least).



What if?

There is the fact that he was a two-time MVP and should have won more. He was a two-time Triple Crown winner. He's the last man to hit .400. He won the league batting title in nearly half the seasons he qualified for it. He led the league in on-base percentage in every single one of his full seasons after his rookie year. His career OBP of .482 is the highest in the history of the sport. His career slugging percentage of .634 is second all-time to The Babe, as is his 190 career OPS+. He was a 17-time All-Star.

Williams' batting average dropped from .328 as a 39-year-old to .254 as a 40-year-old. Unsatisfied with retiring after a season like that, he came back and hit .316 with a .451 on-base percentage and a .645 slugging percentage at 41, and then called it a career.

As I said on Wednesday, perhaps the most amazing thing about Williams' career numbers is that he was able to compile them despite missing all of 1943, 1944 and 1945, and the majority of 1952 and 1953, serving in the military. Because of his time in the service, Williams did not play a single game as a 24, 25 or 26-year-old, and played just 43 total games combined in his age-33 and age-34 seasons.

Here's another way of looking at it...

Everyone knows just how extraordinary Barry Bonds' career numbers are. Here's a look at some of the most impressive ones:
Code:
AVG OBP SLG H HR 2B SB RBI RUN BB
.297 .433 .602 2595 658 536 500 1742 1941 2070


Now, let's pretend for a moment that Barry Bonds had missed the same time at the same ages Ted Williams missed because he was serving in the military. Here are what Bonds' "new" career totals would look like:
Code:
AVG OBP SLG H HR 2B SB RBI RUN BB
.303 .445 .627 1909 519 383 334 1270 1458 1592


His average, on-base percentage and slugging percentage actually all go up, but his "counting stats" all plummet. Bonds loses nearly 700 hits, including 139 homers and 153 doubles. He also drops 166 stolen bases and nearly 500 RBIs, runs and walks.

- He goes from #4 all-time in homers to #16, and he goes from being just 97 homers shy of tying Hank Aaron's record to being 236 homers behind Hammerin' Hank.

- He goes from ranking 70th all-time in hits and needing 405 for 3,000, to not ranking among the top-250 all-time hit leaders and needing nearly 1,100 more for 3,000.

- He goes from being the only man in the history of the sport to ever hit 500 homers and steal 500 bases, to simply being in the 300/300 Club, along with three other guys.

- He goes from being 9th all-time in runs scored and 16th all-time in runs batted in, to ranking 65th in all-time runs and 96th in all-time RBIs.

You see what missing all that time would have done to Bonds' numbers, so you can imagine what it did do to Williams'. I thought it might be fun to attempt to figure out what Ted Williams' career numbers would have been like, had he been able to play his entire career without having to step away for years at a time.

To figure out what Bonds' numbers would have looked like with him missing time, all I had to do was delete his age-24, 25 and 26 seasons, and then give him only a fraction of his totals from age-33 and 34. To figure out Williams' "missing" numbers, it's a little tougher.

If we wanted to be really technical about it, we could try to figure out how Williams would have aged, so that we could have really gotten a handle on his stats from 24-26 year old. And then we'd try to do the same thing for the huge chunks of two seasons he missed in his 30s.

I'm more interested in getting a good rough estimate though, so we'll try to keep things fairly simple. To figure out his missing numbers from 1943, 1944 and 1945, I am simply going to take the average season from the two years prior to his absence and the two years after he returned.

So, we take 1941 and 1942 and add them together with 1946 and 1947, and then figure out the average of those four years that surrounded his missing seasons.

Here's what the average season from 1941, 1942, 1946 and 1947, combined, looks like:
Code:
G AVG OBP SLG H HR 2B 3B TB RBI RUN BB
150 .360 .509 .669 182 36 36 6 338 124 136 153


Not a bad average season, huh?

Then what we do is simply take that average season and plug it into Williams' career three times - in 1943, 1944 and 1945. That takes care of filling in the blanks for ages 24, 25 and 26, but it still leaves ages 33 and 34.

This part is a little more complicated, because Williams actually did play parts of both the 1952 season and 1953 season. In 1952 he played six games, hitting .400/.500/.900. Then he came back in 1953 and played 37 games, hitting .407/.509/.901 with 13 homers. I think you're starting to see why I think Ted Williams is so amazing now.

I'm sure there are several intelligent ways to try to figure out what he might have done in 1952 and 1953, but we're going to go for simplicity over preciseness. All I am going to do is add up all his numbers from the two years prior (1950, 1951) and the two years after (1954, 1955), plus the stuff he did in the 43 games he did play in 1952/1953. Then I'm going take that and make two full seasons out of it. We'll make the "full seasons" just 135 games, since the schedule was shorter then and Williams did often miss games later on in his career.

Those four total years surrounding his second group of missing time and the 43 games from the years he missed time add up to a total of 495 games. So, if we take the per game averages and make two 135-game seasons out of them, we get two seasons that look like this:
Code:
G AVG OBP SLG H HR 2B 3B TB RBI RUN BB
135 .337 .483 .641 153 35 28 3 292 118 104 129


So, we just plug that "season" into both 1952 and 1953 and...PRESTO!...Ted Williams has a full career without any interruptions.

Ready to see the new final numbers?

(Drum-roll please...)
TED WILLIAMS (1939-1960)
Code:
AVG OBP SLG H HR 2B TB RBI RUN BB
.345 .485 .637 3465 685 683 6391 2410 2395 2717


Those are simply monstrous numbers across-the-board.

Here is where he would rank among the all-time leaders in each stat with his new numbers, along with where he actually ranks with old numbers:
Code:
NEW OLD
Games 11 91
Batting Average 6 7
On-Base Percentage 1 1
Slugging Percentage 2 2
OPS 2 2
Hits 6 62
Home Runs 3 14
Doubles 5 30
Total Bases 2 19
Extra-Base Hits 2 12
Runs Batted In 1 12
Runs Scored 1 16
Walks 1 4

By my rough estimation, Ted Williams lost 677 games while serving his country. In those games, he lost 811 hits equaling 1,507 total bases. Included among the lost hits were 158 doubles, 23 triples and 164 homers. He also lost 571 RBIs, 597 runs and 696 walks.

By giving him credit for all that missed time, he shoots up to the very top of almost every all-time list that he isn't already at the top of.

Williams would rank first all-time in on-base percentage, RBIs, runs and walks. He would rank second all-time in slugging percentage, OPS, total bases and extra-base hits. He would move from 30th all-time in homers to third, behind only Aaron and Ruth, and would move from 62nd all-time in hits to sixth.

[antihipster]

So in four seasons after turning age 35, Bonds improved his batting average by 60 points, his OBP by 145 points, and his slugging average by 238 points over his "prior to age 36" career averages! Has any other player with 3000 career PA improved his career ratios by even half those numbers?

I wonder if any other player has improved all three ratios (BA, OBP and SA) by even a single point!

His remarkable late-career improvement ... His amazing increase in body mass and muscle ... His professional and personal closeness to known dealers in PEDs ... Nothing is proven yet, but it begins to look suspicious!

Steroids or not, Williams was a lot more valuable Bonds. Bonds may have the raw numbers compared to Wiliams, but if you divide his ops [after dividing his personal ops by half] by the ops league average, Williams beats Bonds.

1.Ruth .813
2.Williams .776
3. Gehrigh .7212
4. Bonds .7209

This stat helps prove Williams had much more league impact than Bonds during his playing days.

[Appling]

What if? ... [/I]
This is a great analysis -- and I missed it the first time around!
Does anyone in this forum remember creating this "good stuff" the first time around?

[Aegis]

Silly me. I had seen that somewhere before, and not only on this site, on this very same thread. Credit goes to Ravenlord for posting an article by Aaron Gleeman. Good show.

Seriously. Same thread. (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=131932&postcount=22)

[csh19792001]

Silly me. I had seen that somewhere before, and not only on this site, on this very same thread. Credit goes to Ravenlord for posting an article by Aaron Gleeman. Good show.

Seriously. Same thread. (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=131932&postcount=22)

Man, am I dumb- it was on this very thread....

Well, Aaron does an excellent job with his research. Kudos to you, Aaron, silent rogue. :D

[antihipster]

Man, am I dumb- it was on this very thread....

Well, Aaron does an excellent job with his research. Kudos to you, Aaron, silent rogue. :D

Helps prove my point that Williams was more dominent than Bonds!

[cubbieinexile]

Not to beat a dead horse, but like I said before there are many different opinions performance enhancers.

The trainer, who spoke anonymously, said amphetamines "are more performance-enhancing than steroids." He said, "An average ballplayer on steroids is still an average ballplayer, with a little more power. An average ballplayer on greenies has increased awareness, increased hand-eye coordination and increased energy."

What's more, the trainer said amphetamines are far more prevalent than steroids, ticking off various greenie options: "There's 24 hours, eight hours and time release." The trainer said, "If 50 percent do steroids, maybe 80 percent do amphetamines."


here is the link (http://www.newsday.com/sports/columnists/ny-spflash164116960jan16,0,5743176.column?coll=ny-sports-columnists)

[csh19792001]

Not to beat a dead horse, but like I said before there are many different opinions performance enhancers.



here is the link (http://www.newsday.com/sports/columnists/ny-spflash164116960jan16,0,5743176.column?coll=ny-sports-columnists)


The Olympics, the NFL, and even the NBA must have steroid policies for nothing, then.

You want to excuse the behavior of illegal drug users who are a disgrace to the game; this much is clear. How valiant.

[cubbieinexile]

If it is clear then it is clear to you and not to me. Because I don't recall every thinking that was what I was doing.

How is the steroid policy for sports have anything to do with amphetamines? Without knowing for sure I am willing to bet that these sports also have a policy against amphetamines as well. So what exactly is your point and what exactly is the relationship between amph and your first statement?

To me it has become apparent that some people in the baseball world want to excuse the drug use of past players while shining the spotlight on the present players for their drug use. The two are not seperate issues, they go hand in hand. Or a better analogy would be from father to son. The drug use of the 60's led the way for the drug use of the 90's.

I don't care what a person took or takes to do what they do. Never have, never will. Baseball stats are not some sort of lost bible passage to me. They are just numbers. I watch baseball because I enjoy baseball, and watching a player who is stronger, faster, quicker, and stays in the lineup longer does not adversely effect my view on baseball. I would say that for most fans these players have increased the popularity of baseball. I remember one conversation on this site in which a poster thought baseball in the 70's and 80's was horrible and that the 90's and 00's was where the real baseball players resided. The decades of drugs.

[donzblock]

I don't care what a person took or takes to do what they do. Never have, never will. Baseball stats are not some sort of lost bible passage to me. They are just numbers. I watch baseball because I enjoy baseball, and watching a player who is stronger, faster, quicker, and stays in the lineup longer does not adversely effect my view on baseball. I would say that for most fans these players have increased the popularity of baseball. I remember one conversation on this site in which a poster thought baseball in the 70's and 80's was horrible and that the 90's and 00's was where the real baseball players resided. The decades of drugs.
These words are among the most wretched I have ever read on this board. Apparently, to you, cubbieinexile, the end justifies the means. Perhaps baseball should set aside an extra inning during which players can shoot up in the dugout.

And I love the support you give to your views. If "most fans" like baseball more because players take drugs, then it is okay for players to take them. That is very astute. What most fans want is what baseball should be. The majority is always right. You do realize that the minor leagues will now have to work harder to produce more potential druggie-players to replace those who OD or break down. And I know that you did careful research and can prove convincingly that "most fans" do want players who use performance enhancers.

I also like the way you cite as an authority the poster who believes that baseball in the 90s and 00s has the "real baseball players." Clearly, this poster is a very clear thinking individual, and everybody should think the way he does. It is now clear that players like Ted Williams, Stan Musial, Willie Mays, Sandy Koufax, and Roberto Clemente were unreal players, probably figments of some non-chemically enhanced person's diseased imagination.

Thank you very much for shedding so much light on this topic, cubbieinexile.

[cubbieinexile]

People take drugs all the time in this country. Some legal some deemed illegal. We as a society generally turn on drugs that are considered illegal, while giving the thumbs up on the drugs that are considered legal. Even though many of the drugs that are legal are far more lethal and addictive then the illegal ones.

I attached no stigma to the word drug like most people do. You can be a raging alcoholic and it is okay but smoke a little weed and you get fired from your job. Be addicted to pain killers, "poor baby". Do steroids, "ban him for life".

I am not my brothers keeper, if a grown man wishes to do something to himself then so be it. Who are you or me to tell him what to do? Do you want some stranger in your house deciding what you can and cannot do?

So most fans don't like to see stronger, faster, and quicker players?

I don't need to give support for any of my views. I am not trying to sway anyone or shed light on anything. Frankly I don't care what your opinion is on this, and you probably don't care what mine is. I am simply stating my opinion, as you are as well. You have no facts to back up your case either.

[donzblock]

People take drugs all the time in this country. Some legal some deemed illegal. We as a society generally turn on drugs that are considered illegal, while giving the thumbs up on the drugs that are considered legal. Even though many of the drugs that are legal are far more lethal and addictive then the illegal ones.
You are muddying the waters here. We are discussing illegal substances that ballplayers use to enhance their abilities. It is wrong to take those substances, and Bonds needs to be severely punished if he took them. As for the legal drugs that are far more lethal and addictive, like alcohol, that is a separate evil that in no way can put a stamp of approval on a ballplayer who uses steroids. The fact that people take drugs all the time in this country is also a serious problem that needs to be dealt with; but you seem to be implying that since "[p]eople take drugs all the time in this country," it is not a problem.

I attached no stigma to the word drug like most people do. You can be a raging alcoholic and it is okay but smoke a little weed and you get fired from your job. Be addicted to pain killers, "poor baby". Do steroids, "ban him for life".
Society should not, did not, and does not say that it is okay to be a raging alcoholic: what society are you living in? If you are also implying that society is hypocritical in the way it punishes addicts, you are probably right, but that does not mean that the addict should not be punished. And if Bonds has taken steroids, his records are worthless, and he should be punished. By pointing to other evils in society, you are avoiding coming to grips with the Bonds' issue in this thread's topic.

I am not my brothers keeper, if a grown man wishes to do something to himself then so be it. Who are you or me to tell him what to do? Do you want some stranger in your house deciding what you can and cannot do?
If a grown man wishes to do something to himself, that is fine as long as you can guarantee that that something will affect only himself. I assume you are okay with an intoxicated person driving himself home. Apparently, you are not worthy enough or knowledgeable enough to tell that person not to drive himself home. Is that really your position, cubbieinexile?

In the case of Bonds, if he uses steroids that improve his vision, his bat speed, and his strength, then he is also not limiting the effects to himself. He is giving himself an unfair advantage over those players who have not taken steroids.

As for the stranger in your house deciding what you can and cannot do, occasionally even that is justifiable. When a cop breaks up a violent domestic dispute, he is a stranger in the house where the dispute is occurring, and clearly he has the right to tell the occupants of that house what they can and cannot do. The fact that he is a stranger is irrelevant.

So most fans don't like to see stronger, faster, and quicker players?Of course, they do. But the stronger, faster, and quicker players should be the honest players, the ones whose speed, strength, and quickness were not acquired through cheating.

I don't need to give support for any of my views. I am not trying to sway anyone or shed light on anything. Frankly I don't care what your opinion is on this, and you probably don't care what mine is. I am simply stating my opinion, as you are as well. You have no facts to back up your case either.

Which case have I failed to support with facts? Is it necessary to prove with facts that steroids are bad? What facts have I failed to give? What argument have I failed to support?

If you don't support your views, then they are hollow. You're simply a person screaming on a street corner. If you are not trying to shed light on anything, then why are you writing your views on a public forum? If you don't care what my opinion is, then why do you put your views on a public forum where someone like me is likely to respond to you? If you don't care what my opinion is, then why are you responding to it?

Finally, you write that the source of "I am my brother's keeper" is not important, only the meaning of it. Apparently, then, you do not know the meaning of it. In the context of Genesis, Cain is wrong and should be his brother's keeper. Recall that Cain says that he is not his brother's keeper after he has killed his brother. (Aegis is absolutely correct in pointing that out to you.) If you take Cain's statement literally, then you are saying that the bible is saying that it is okay to kill one's brother. Your interpretation of Genesis is as wrong as your opinion about drugs in baseball.

[cubbieinexile]

Why is it a problem that ballplayers take performance enhancing drugs?

Society does say it is okay to be an alcoholic. Mickey Mantle was an alcoholic. Mickey's substance abuse cost the Yankees and their fans yet he is adored and fondly remembered. Mickey when his liver failed (yes I am not a Doctor but I think it is assumed that drinking did not help) was able to recieve a transplant almost immediately. So please don't tell me that alcoholism is not condoned in society. There are alcoholics everywhere and they are allowed to be one freely in our society. We have always had a cavalier attitude about drinking in this country.

How is steroid use the same as drunk driving? I was not implying that I would let someone drive drunk. I said if he wishes to do something to himself. Even your Cop example involves another human being into the equation.

How is an artificial advantage any different then any other natural advantage one recieves? Randy Johnson is a major league pitcher largely because of his genetics. If he was 5ft 6inches we wouldn't even know he exists. Kerry Wood wouldn't even be playing right now if it wasn't for modern medical techniques. Kerry Wood is taking a spot on a roster away from somebody else because of artificial help. Kerry Wood does not deserve that spot any more then the guy who does not get the call up. Kerry injured himself by having poor mechanics, so in effect artificial advantages allowed him to avoid having to pay the price for that. While a pitcher who works harder and has proper mechanics could concievably be forced into the minors because of Kerry.

All you have said is that steroids are bad. You assume it to be true, how is that supporting your argument? I don't care what your view is, I am talking to you because it is called having in idle conversation. Is every conversation you have ever had had earth altering ramifications?


As for the keeper part. I tend not view things from over a thousand years ago but the modern view of said quote.

You say that Bonds records are worthless because of steroids. I say fine but so is Whitey Fords, Gaylord Perrys, Willie Mays, the 1919 and 1920 White Sox, and anyone else that has ever cheated, used greenies, used steroids, or artificially altered the playing environment. Bill Veeck and his White Sox with their altered baseballs no longer count. Colorado Rockies and their humidor gone. Giants and their sign stealing gone. The point I have always been trying to make is that baseball stats basically have invisible asteriks around them from the beginning of organized baseball. Baseball has and probably always will be a dishonest sport. Bonds is just another player in a very very long line of players that has done something to alter his performance.

[Appling]

Why is it a problem that ballplayers take performance enhancing drugs?

Perhaps it is "ok" if a player chooses to shorten his life or ruin his long-term health by indulging in PEDs now. Perhaps I don't even care if he sold his soul to the Devil in return for one Norm Cash-type super season. But I don't respect his actions if this choice gives him an unfair and "outlawed" advantage over players who honor the rules.

I honor the baseball records of the past because I admire the skill and dedication needed to achieve them. I would not honor any MLB records if I believed that all the record holders were cheaters -- any more than I would admire a student who gets high grades only because he cheats (stolen exams, etc.) Or a jockey who wins a race becauses he bribed someone to let him run with a lighter-than-specified weight.

I want to know that record achievements were achieved honestly.

Excessive use of alcohol may shorten a player's life, but I don't think it would ever give him competitive advantage in the game of baseball. So in that case let him do it; he is hurting only himself (and his unfortunate teammates).

[cubbieinexile]

So do you respect Willie Mays, Whitey Ford, and Gaylord Perry, and their achievements?

[antihipster]

Why is it a problem that ballplayers take performance enhancing drugs?

Society does say it is okay to be an alcoholic. Mickey Mantle was an alcoholic. Mickey's substance abuse cost the Yankees and their fans yet he is adored and fondly remembered. Mickey when his liver failed (yes I am not a Doctor but I think it is assumed that drinking did not help) was able to recieve a transplant almost immediately. So please don't tell me that alcoholism is not condoned in society. There are alcoholics everywhere and they are allowed to be one freely in our society. We have always had a cavalier attitude about drinking in this country.

How is steroid use the same as drunk driving? I was not implying that I would let someone drive drunk. I said if he wishes to do something to himself. Even your Cop example involves another human being into the equation.

How is an artificial advantage any different then any other natural advantage one recieves? Randy Johnson is a major league pitcher largely because of his genetics. If he was 5ft 6inches we wouldn't even know he exists. Kerry Wood wouldn't even be playing right now if it wasn't for modern medical techniques. Kerry Wood is taking a spot on a roster away from somebody else because of artificial help. Kerry Wood does not deserve that spot any more then the guy who does not get the call up. Kerry injured himself by having poor mechanics, so in effect artificial advantages allowed him to avoid having to pay the price for that. While a pitcher who works harder and has proper mechanics could concievably be forced into the minors because of Kerry.

All you have said is that steroids are bad. You assume it to be true, how is that supporting your argument? I don't care what your view is, I am talking to you because it is called having in idle conversation. Is every conversation you have ever had had earth altering ramifications?


As for the keeper part. I tend not view things from over a thousand years ago but the modern view of said quote.

You say that Bonds records are worthless because of steroids. I say fine but so is Whitey Fords, Gaylord Perrys, Willie Mays, the 1919 and 1920 White Sox, and anyone else that has ever cheated, used greenies, used steroids, or artificially altered the playing environment. Bill Veeck and his White Sox with their altered baseballs no longer count. Colorado Rockies and their humidor gone. Giants and their sign stealing gone. The point I have always been trying to make is that baseball stats basically have invisible asteriks around them from the beginning of organized baseball. Baseball has and probably always will be a dishonest sport. Bonds is just another player in a very very long line of players that has done something to alter his performance.

Yes, I must admit it makes sense to decriminalise drugs [a big reason I am in the Libertarian party], but then again, MLB can tell its players what to intake and what not to [kind of like a company]. The government should not be the ones presurring MLB what to do.

[donzblock]

Why is it a problem that ballplayers take performance enhancing drugs?Rather than answer a question that has already been adequately answered for you, let me ask you this question: What would convince you that there is a problem with ballplayers taking performance enhancing drugs?

Society does say it is okay to be an alcoholic. Mickey Mantle was an alcoholic. Mickey's substance abuse cost the Yankees and their fans yet he is adored and fondly remembered. Mickey when his liver failed (yes I am not a Doctor but I think it is assumed that drinking did not help) was able to recieve a transplant almost immediately. So please don't tell me that alcoholism is not condoned in society. There are alcoholics everywhere and they are allowed to be one freely in our society. We have always had a cavalier attitude about drinking in this country.
The number of AA chapters alone in this country should tell you that society does not say that it is okay to be an alcoholic. From Bryn Mawr to Exton, there are over 200 AA chapters. Does an AA chapter condone drinking? Do the thousands of substance abuse clinics in this nation condone drinking?

In addition, you are making an assumption that needs to be examined. Does it follow that if society condones something, that this something is therefore okay? Do you use society as your standard to determine rightness? And by citing Mickey Mantle, you reveal another assumption that needs to be examined. If a celebrity exhibits a weakness, does it follow that it is okay to exhibit that weakness? Yet incredibly, despite the harm that Mantle's drinking did to himself, to his family, and to his teammates, you use him as an example of society condoning alcohol. Did society adore Mantle because he drank or because he could play ball? Do you deny that his ballplaying would have been far more impressive had the Mick been able to lay off the booze?

The fact that Mantle received a transplant almost immediately is completely beside the point of your argument, but it does point out another evil in this imperfect society we live in. The fact that Mantle did receive a transplant he should never have gotten indicates that doctors do not play the transplant game fairly. But this unfairness does not prove or even suggest that society says it is okay to be a raging alcoholic.

How is steroid use the same as drunk driving? I was not implying that I would let someone drive drunk. I said if he wishes to do something to himself. Even your Cop example involves another human being into the equation.
Steroids and alcohol are both substances that can be abused. And you were implying that you would let someone drive drunk. Did you not say, "I am not my brother's keeper. If a grown man wishes to do something to himself, then so be it. Who are you or me to tell him what to do." Apparently, your words are indeed "idle," for you appear to be completely insensitive to what your own words mean. And, yes, my cop example brings another human being into the equation because in the situation described--domestic violence--another human being must be brought into the equation. There are situations in life that require bringing another human being into the equation.

How is an artificial advantage any different then any other natural advantage one recieves? Randy Johnson is a major league pitcher largely because of his genetics. If he was 5ft 6inches we wouldn't even know he exists. Kerry Wood wouldn't even be playing right now if it wasn't for modern medical techniques. Kerry Wood is taking a spot on a roster away from somebody else because of artificial help. Kerry Wood does not deserve that spot any more then the guy who does not get the call up. Kerry injured himself by having poor mechanics, so in effect artificial advantages allowed him to avoid having to pay the price for that. While a pitcher who works harder and has proper mechanics could concievably be forced into the minors because of Kerry.
You know the difference between an "artificial advantage" and a natural one. For example, I am confident that you would never say that Johnson's 6 feet and 10 inches were acquired artificially. The artificial advantages that Caminiti and Giambi acquired harmed both, and each of the players could have taken steps not to harm himself. The height of Randy Johnson has proved to be an asset on the playing field and it has not harmed him. But even if his height does eventually shorten his life, there are no steps that Johnson can take to make himself shorter. As for Kerry Wood, think really hard about this one. Do you see any significant differences between the surgery performed on Wood and the steroids taken by a ballplayer?

All you have said is that steroids are bad. You assume it to be true, how is that supporting your argument? I don't care what your view is, I am talking to you because it is called having in idle conversation. Is every conversation you have ever had had earth altering ramifications?
That is not all I have said. That is all you have chosen to remember. Whether you care about what my view is happens to be beside the point, but your uncaring words explain why you are right about your own contributions to this discussion being "idle." Rather than address a question that should not even be asked, let me ask you once again, "What would convince you that steroids are bad?"


As for the keeper part. I tend not view things from over a thousand years ago but the modern view of said quote. The modern view of said quote is that Genesis is saying that one should be one's brother's keeper. Biblical exegesis is not your specialty.

The point I have always been trying to make is that baseball stats basically have invisible asteriks around them from the beginning of organized baseball. Baseball has and probably always will be a dishonest sport. Bonds is just another player in a very very long line of players that has done something to alter his performance.If these asterisks are invisible, how are you able to see them so clearly? Now that you are acknowledging that Bonds' records deserve asterisks, at last we are in agreement.

[cubbieinexile]

I just wrote about 5 or 6 paragraphs but then I just erased it all.

To sum it all up you think steroids are wrong and dishonest. Yes?
I don't care about steroids.
You think that is deplorable. Yes?
I don't care.

We have now basically repeated that view several times. I have nothing new to add. You may now get in the last word if you wish.

[csh19792001]

I just wrote about 5 or 6 paragraphs but then I just erased it all.

To sum it all up you think steroids are wrong and dishonest. Yes?
I don't care about steroids.
You think that is deplorable. Yes?
I don't care.



Yes- you DON'T care. That's the point. You bitch and moan about how corrupt the game was in the 1890's because of drinking and gambling (dismissing the accomplishments of that era), and yet could care less about people using illegal drugs that can vastly enhance performance while destroying the bodies of their users. You don't care about baseball records or the integrity of said records.

Good to know that those in charge of the Olympics and nearly every major professional sport want no part of your incredulous, hopelessly apathetic opinion on steroid and drug use (in fact, it isn't even apathy; you SUPPORT steroid use- which is even more ridiculous). You aren't worth the time to argue with, but I'm glad you got thrashed here by someone else that DOES actually care about the game of baseball.

[Appling]

The fact that Mantle received a transplant almost immediately is completely beside the point of your argument, but it does point out another evil in this imperfect society we live in. The fact that Mantle did receive a transplant he should never have gotten indicates that doctors do not play the transplant game fairly.
I agree that it seemed unfair at the time, that because of Mantle's popularity and fame he was moved "to the front of line" of recipients waiting for a liver transplant -- but I also recall that his plight led to several dozen persons donating a liver for transplant.

I don't think it was any medical group that put Mantle ahead of the others. Some donors offered a liver specifically for Mantle, and without his situation those livers would not have been made available for transplant. Mantle used only one of these, so in effect his condition led to a number of other persons getting a needed liver sooner than they would otherwise have.

of course this has nothing to do with your main point, with which I agree: use of PEDs is bad for the health of the player and bad for the health of the game. In its purest form, baseball needs players who play by the rules.

[cubbieinexile]

Odd I don't remember getting thrashed. I didn't even realize it was a competition.

[donzblock]

Essentially, your position is that you don't care. Did you not once say, "I don't care what your opinion is on this!"? Therefore, there is no need for you to respond to such a charge. In fact, since you don't care, there is no need for you to respond to anything. What you might respond most viscerally to would be a video game of Barry Bonds hitting virtual HRs. The shots could be programmed to travel more than 500 feet, and Barry could even be streamlined back to the ballplayer who used to play outfield so brilliantly before he became the bloated mastodon who now patrols left field. You could even have a pre-game show in which Barry demonstrates how he applies the clear so that he can derive the most benefits from it. During the video, Barry could be the spokesman in some commercials: I see him in one scene explaining to children how they too can acquire chemically enhanced muscles once they are old enough to purchase some Balco Balm. Steroids and video games: a natural--make that "great"--combo.

[west coast orange and black]

wow. the thread morphed from onejayhawk’s initial : “Is it possible to definitively say which one is the best LF in history?” to donzblock, in #99 definitively stating that bonds used a specific illegal drug: “You could even have a pre-game show in which Barry demonstrates how he applies the clear so that he can derive the most benefits from it.”

between #1 and #99, donzblock posted #88: “We are discussing illegal substances that ballplayers use to enhance their abilities. It is wrong to take those substances, and Bonds needs to be severely punished if he took them.” [my italics]. so donzblock has taken both sides of an issue. but by the weight of some of his other posts, i figure that #99 is where his heart actually lies.

in #89, cubbie posted: “The point I have always been trying to make is that baseball stats basically have invisible asteriks around them from the beginning of organized baseball. Baseball has and probably always will be a dishonest sport. Bonds is just another player in a very very long line of players that has done something to alter his performance.” and in #90, appling posted: “I want to know that record achievements were achieved honestly.”

well, the public-at-large will never know which records were achieved “honestly”. the players know, but they ain’t talking. they weren’t talking in the 50s and 60s when performance enhancers hit baseball mainstream and they still are keeping quiet. i understand the passion and even the anger behind wanting to know. and i understand the positions of those who think that the baseball numbers of certain players ought to be erased. but because the passion and anger has been pointed at just a handful, it seems to me that the pointing is misplaced. that the anger is misplaced. don’t forget that we were told “between 5-7%” tested positive. (whatever that really means- we were told a percentage range that tested positive, even though mlb knew exactly how many were tested and exactly how many tested positive, so this is a sham and a continuance of the ongoing secrecy.) that works out to how many players? yet how many have been scorned in and by the media and here at b-f?

so, we’ll never know, appling. we’ll just never know.

now, back to the finger-pointing.
…………………………………………..
cubbinexile has born a brunt of attacks merely because his point of view differs from most others who post here at b-f, and because many believe that the majority is always correct. in fact, that exact phrase was used in this thread along the way in an attempt to silence cubbie. but the way that i look at it, cubbie is just expressing his opinion. now, it happens to differ from most, but because i already know what I have to say on the matters discussed, with great interest i read how he thinks and feels about the topic. i have found it refreshing.

[donzblock]

wow. the thread morphed from onejayhawk’s initial : “Is it possible to definitively say which one is the best LF in history?” to donzblock, in #99 definitively stating that bonds used a specific illegal drug: “You could even have a pre-game show in which Barry demonstrates how he applies the clear so that he can derive the most benefits from it.”

between #1 and #99, donzblock posted #88: “We are discussing illegal substances that ballplayers use to enhance their abilities. It is wrong to take those substances, and Bonds needs to be severely punished if he took them.” [my italics]. so donzblock has taken both sides of an issue. but by the weight of some of his other posts, i figure that #99 is where his heart actually lies.
WCOB has made a habit of saying with stupefying regularity that he knows more about the Bonds/Steroid issue than anybody else but that he is not at liberty to reveal what he knows. Count the number of times he makes this non-point on the SF Giants forum (the Bonds and Drugs thread). Now he is making a new non-point in saying that I am definitively stating on #99 that Bonds used a specific illegal drug. You are all invited to reread #99 and try to find where I have made this definitive statement. I firmly believe that Mr. Bonds did cheat, but post #99 does not definitively say that he did. In post #99, I create an imaginary video game that cubbieinexile might enjoy. Why might cubbieinexile enjoy it? Because he has stated definitively that he does not care if a player resorts to illegal substances to improve his performance. Cubbieinexile simply wants to see the ball travel farther and leave the park more frequently. WCOB's interpretation of #99 suggests that his powers of comprehension are on the same level as his ability to write clearly.

in #90, appling posted: “I want to know that record achievements were achieved honestly.”

well, the public-at-large will never know which records were achieved “honestly”. the players know, but they ain’t talking. they weren’t talking in the 50s and 60s when performance enhancers hit baseball mainstream and they still are keeping quiet. i understand the passion and even the anger behind wanting to know. and i understand the positions of those who think that the baseball numbers of certain players ought to be erased. but because the passion and anger has been pointed at just a handful, it seems to me that the pointing is misplaced. that the anger is misplaced. don’t forget that we were told “between 5-7%” tested positive. (whatever that really means- we were told a percentage range that tested positive, even though mlb knew exactly how many were tested and exactly how many tested positive, so this is a sham and a continuance of the ongoing secrecy.) that works out to how many players? yet how many have been scorned in and by the media and here at b-f?

so, we’ll never know, appling. we’ll just never know.
On the contrary, we may discover that we do know something: this Balco scandal may reveal that Bonds cheated. And if we learn that Bonds cheated, then he will have to be punished. WCOB is implying that since we cannot catch everybody, we should not catch Bonds. If you apply this logic to the judicial system, then we should release all criminals. After all, even as we speak, there are criminals out there who have avoided capture and punishment. There are many uinsolved mysteries. Obviously, if you are fortunate enough to catch and convict one person, then you are doing some good. The cheaters cannot be allowed to pollute baseball with their cheating, and we cannot invoke the specter of mass cheating to paralyze an important inquiry into the heart of baseball.

now, back to the finger-pointing.
…………………………………………..
cubbinexile has born a brunt of attacks merely because his point of view differs from most others who post here at b-f, and because many believe that the majority is always correct. in fact, that exact phrase was used in this thread along the way in an attempt to silence cubbie. but the way that i look at it, cubbie is just expressing his opinion. now, it happens to differ from most, but because i already know what I have to say on the matters discussed, with great interest i read how he thinks and feels about the topic. i have found it refreshing.
It is absurd to say that Cubbieinexile has borne the brunt of the attacks because his point of view is different. Cubbieinexile thinks steroids are okay and that performance enhancers improve baseball. Such a view is so clearly repugnant that it boggles the mind that anybody can support it, but here we have good old WCOB finding this view "refreshing." Yes, espousing the use of steroids is a different view and therefore refreshing. How refreshing it is to have the steroid-laced winds blow through this forum and aerate the entire place. How refreshing it is to have somebody blatantly advocate cheating and not care a whit what anybody thinks! That is truly refreshing. WCOB is clearly (you should pardon the adverb) writing with a clear (you should pardon the adjective) mind.

[Appling]

If Barry Bonds should ever be PROVEN to have never used PED's, he should sweep into the Hall of Fame as the hall's first unanimous choice.

But with the circumstantial evidence piling up, he is being tried in a court of public opinion that makes him GUILTY UNLESS PROVEN INNOCENT. When Barry finally qualifies to be on the ballot, it will be interesting to see how he fares (assuming we know no more then than we do now about his use of steroids).

[west coast orange and black]

WCOB has made a habit of saying with stupefying regularity that he knows more about the Bonds/Steroid issue than anybody else but that he is not at liberty to reveal what he knows. Count the number of times he makes this non-point on the SF Giants forum (the Bonds and Drugs thread).

>>>> i have not written that i know more than anybody else. those are your words from your own interpretation. where in my post did i write of esoteric knowledge? why beat a dead horse? i have posted that i can not reveal a few certain things, but only as an answer to someone's pointing finger. and the total truth is that i admitted that i went to far, that i ought not have written such, even though it is true.
.......................................
Now he is making a new non-point in saying that I am definitively stating on #99 that Bonds used a specific illegal drug. You are all invited to reread #99 and try to find where I have made this definitive statement. I firmly believe that Mr. Bonds did cheat, but post #99 does not definitively say that he did. In post #99, I create an imaginary video game that cubbieinexile might enjoy.

>>>> hide behind an imaginary video game premise, but what is truly behind the passage that children can be shown how they can acquire chemically enhanced muscles once they are old enough to purchase some balco balm is easy to decode. what, then, could be behind describing that bonds could demonstrate how he applies the clear, which is a steroid?
.....................................
...we may discover that we do know something: this Balco scandal may reveal that Bonds cheated. And if we learn that Bonds cheated, then he will have to be punished. WCOB is implying that since we cannot catch everybody, we should not catch Bonds.

>>>> this is absolutely false. i have implied no such thing. there in so need for anyone here at b-f to infer, as i have stated matter-of-factly my opinion as far as what ought to happen to bonds and anyone else who are found to be guilty of breaking baseball's rules. i also posted an answer to how i would personally feel about it.
.......................................
The cheaters cannot be allowed to pollute baseball with their cheating, and we cannot invoke the specter of mass cheating to paralyze an important inquiry into the heart of baseball.

>>>> sadly, thus far, the drug use has been impossible to overcome. the players and the owners both have their vested interests and they are protecting them with all that they have. i agree that the sport must rid itself of the drugs, but the harsh reality is that they have been around for decades, are deeply entrenced in the game, and both sides have not tried to the best of their abilities.
.................................
It is absurd to say that Cubbieinexile has borne the brunt of the attacks because his point of view is different. Cubbieinexile thinks steroids are okay and that performance enhancers improve baseball. Such a view is so clearly repugnant that it boggles the mind that anybody can support it, but here we have good old WCOB finding this view "refreshing."

>>>> because i did not judge does not inherit that i agree. what was refreshing was the different point of view, another person's thoughts. that which i find distasteful, difficult or even repugnant can also be appreciated on some level. maybe it is just the artist in me shining through. also, i did not write what i actually thought of cubbie's perspective, only that i appreciated it.
..................................
Yes, espousing the use of steroids is a different view and therefore refreshing. How refreshing it is to have the steroid-laced winds blow through this forum and aerate the entire place. How refreshing it is to have somebody blatantly advocate cheating and not care a whit what anybody thinks! That is truly refreshing.

>>>> this is where the train jumps the tracks. it is the differences in the point of view, not the view itself that i found refreshing. cubbie was just expressing his opinion. i read his post about the topic and found it refreshing to do so- stressing, again, without judging the person.

maybe some have posted / are arguing what they have because the idea that "the majority is always correct" (posted on this thread) is being threatened by just one man's voice. or maybe it's just something else.

[donzblock]

>>>> i have not written that i know more than anybody else. those are your words from your own interpretation. where in my post did i write of esoteric knowledge? why beat a dead horse? i have posted that i can not reveal a few certain things, but only as an answer to someone's pointing finger. and the total truth is that i admitted that i went to far, that i ought not have written such, even though it is true.
How does one respond to incoherence? If I understand you correctly, you are calling yourself a dead horse and would like me to stop beating you. I agree with you; therefore, I will stop beating you.

You are also acknowledging that you "ought not to have written such"; if the "such" is the statement that you are "not at liberty to reveal what you know," then I agree with you again. You should not have written that, and written that, and written that, and written that.

As for knowing more than anybody else, that is precisely the line that you use whenever you respond to somebody who believes Bonds has cheated. "I happen to know more than you, dude!" is your stock reply. And then you add, "But I am not at liberty to reveal what I know."

>>>> hide behind an imaginary video game premise, but what is truly behind the passage that children can be shown how they can acquire chemically enhanced muscles once they are old enough to purchase some balco balm is easy to decode. what, then, could be behind describing that bonds could demonstrate how he applies the clear, which is a steroid?

More incoherence. I am having trouble translating the above. What exactly is being decoded here? Did I write in code? I would say that WCOB's interpretation of my video game example is wrong, but I am not really sure what he is talking about. I do note that he has not mentioned cubbieinexile in relation to the game, and I do not see how it is possible to discuss my video game without mentioning him. Can anybody decipher WCOB's meaning here? Is it even necessary to do so?

>>>> this is absolutely false. i have implied no such thing. there in so need for anyone here at b-f to infer, as i have stated matter-of-factly my opinion as far as what ought to happen to bonds and anyone else who are found to be guilty of breaking baseball's rules. i also posted an answer to how i would personally feel about it.
When a person is not in control of his words, then he does not know what he is implying. Perhaps WCOB will be kind enough to explain why he referred to the numerous anonymous cheaters from the 50s and the 60s? Who were the many cheaters of the 50s? Why refer to other cheaters at all, WCOB, if it is not your purpose to lose Bonds in a crowd of cheaters? Reread what you wrote. Carefully, this time.
.......................................
>>>> sadly, thus far, the drug use has been impossible to overcome. the players and the owners both have their vested interests and they are protecting them with all that they have. i agree that the sport must rid itself of the drugs, but the harsh reality is that they have been around for decades, are deeply entrenced in the game, and both sides have not tried to the best of their abilities.
We agree on this point, but your emphasis is not where it should be. If baseball finds Bonds guilty and punishes him appropriately, then the Majors will be sending a strong message to future cheaters. You do agree that Bonds should be investigated, don't you? And you do agree that he should be severely punished if it turns out that he cheated? The fact that baseball has allowed cheating to go on does not mean that it should continue to allow it. Therefore, I am sure you will find it refreshing, won't you, WCOB, if baseball launches a serious investigation of Barry Bonds.
.................................
>>>> because i did not judge does not inherit that i agree. what was refreshing was the different point of view, another person's thoughts. that which i find distasteful, difficult or even repugnant can also be appreciated on some level. maybe it is just the artist in me shining through. also, i did not write what i actually thought of cubbie's perspective, only that i appreciated it.
Huh? How does one "inherit that" one agrees? What language do you imagine you are using, SIR? Subsequently, are you saying that it is the artist in you that can appreciate that which is repugnant? When the artist in you appreciates what is repugnant, is that the artist "shining through"? What a refreshing point of view! And how nice of you to keep to yourself what you actually thought of cubbie's perspective but to share with us only your appreciation of it! Truly, to be an artist is to be refreshing, indeed. And how nice of you to acknowledge that cubbieinexile's views are repugnant.
..................................
>>>> this is where the train jumps the tracks. it is the differences in the point of view, not the view itself that i found refreshing. cubbie was just expressing his opinion. i read his post about the topic and found it refreshing to do so- stressing, again, without judging the person.

maybe some have posted / are arguing what they have because the idea that "the majority is always correct" (posted on this thread) is being threatened by just one man's voice. or maybe it's just something else.
Huh? Such clarity! Where did the tracks come in? Has anybody seen a train? Is the artist in WCOB being metaphorical? If it is "differences in the point of view" that you find refreshing, WCOB, then clearly my point of view must be the most refreshing to you. Always glad to help you out, sir, with some much needed refreshments. Feeling better now?

[west coast orange and black]

oh, brother. :laugh

[donzblock]

oh, brother.
Easily your best post.

[RuthMayBond]

Who were the many cheaters of the 50s?There have been references to Mays' "red juice", Yanks & others using greenies (if not in the 50s, at least by the 60's. You've heard of these, right?

[west coast orange and black]

that is not my pat answer. my pat answer is “i can not say for certain that bonds has, and so i won’t.” i have written that i happen to know more than most about bonds and the steroid situation, true. but what happened is that i got to a place where i could say nothing further, because bonds himself had not (and has not yet) advanced a statement. the repetition comes not from making that my sole arguement; the repetition comes from reponding to many individual posts. anyone who has read my position on the steroid situation understands that i believe that steroids have no rightful part in the game of baseball and that i hope that they are soon eradicated. also, i have written several times that if bonds is found to have broken baseball’s rules regarding drugs then he ought to pay whatever price baseball deems necessary.

the players of the 50s and 60s were mentioned by me because appling posted that he wishes that he could know that "that record achievements were achieved honestly." but that one line cited by donzmark was just part of my nod towards appling’s worries. fully, i wrote “the public-at-large will never know which records were achieved “honestly”. the players know, but they ain’t talking. they weren’t talking in the 50s and 60s when performance enhancers hit baseball mainstream and they still are keeping quiet. i understand the passion and even the anger behind wanting to know. and i understand the positions of those who think that the baseball numbers of certain players ought to be erased.” this is far from me attempting to draw attention away from bonds. and it is certainly not to “lose Bonds in a crowd of cheaters”, as i have been accused of doing- i have not concluded that bonds cheated, so i certainly would not butt him up against those we know who have.

i find donzmark’s “What language do you imagine you are using, SIR?” very condescending for two reasons. one, although english is not my first language, i try to communicate the best that i can. and at times, admittedly, i miss the mark. but this is not the first time that donzblock has attacked my specific word(s) or phrasing rather than the emotional plea. part of donzmark’s argument is is to cut down someone’s english/grammar/spelling- i thought that this message board exists to encourage an exchange of information amongst fans. also, the use of “sir”, is to do nothing else but to try to put down and to be condescending. it is unreasonable to think otherwise because of the carefully-selected placement of the term, in all caps. donzmark has addressed whom else this way, and under what circumstances?

regarding cubbie’s posts: what i found and still find refreshing is the opportunity to read a point of view that differs from my own. this, after all, is the main reason that i visit baseball-fever. i sarcastically got thanked for keeping my perspective to myself, yet certainly we all do not post a response to everything that we read here at b-f. yet i got singled out. that made it personal, not about baseball. ( by the way, i visited and read for about two months before actually posting my first post.) i do not know what donzblok feels that i owe to him. the fact of the matter is that i did not write that i found cubbie’s words repugnant. but if i did, it would not be because i am an artist. my profession is but a small slice of how i define myself.

lastly, i do not find donzmark’s point of view to be refreshing. i find them to be an attack of a very personal nature. the viewpoints of cubbie, specifically, were regarding something related to baseball – which is why this site exists to begin with. but donzmark ends his post with sarcasticness and several put-downs. perhaps if donzmark and i could arrange to meet, i would be better able to express myself. and that is something that i definitely would find refreshing.

[this was posted publicly because that is how it came towards me. that is why i chose not to p.m.]

[Appling]

I'd like to "digress" back to the original question: who is the greatest left-fielder of all time?

I believe that greatness can best be measured with the perspective of time. I think five years after retirement (the HOF waiting time) is a good number. We are too close right now to judge fairly.

IF the world of baseball concludes at that time that Barry is innocent of any wrong-doing (that is, of using outlawed drugs or PEDs) he will be judged the most dominent hitter and the greatest position player of all time. This would put him ahead of Williams and Musial, ahead of any left fielder, ahead of any other POSITION PLAYER in the history of the game.

But this is a big "IF".

[cubbieinexile]

I never really understood the whole Stan Musial in left field but I think Ted probably still edges out Barry. Couple of factors:

Ted Williams-lost significant amount of time to wars, but did not play in a fully integrated league. Great hitter, average at best fielder and runner.

Barry Bonds-Played in a significantly different era and was probably on PEDS. Just because he was on PEDS does not mean he should be ignored, to me it simply must be factored in. PEDS are not some genie in a bottle, to get results one must be dedicated to a workout regime that very few people (even in baseball) are willing to commit to. Barry's numbers were going to rise in this era regardless of PEDS just like deadball players numbers rised in the 20's.

In the end because of the two phantoms I would rate Ted ahead of Barry. Without the two phantoms I would rate Barry ahead of Ted. Barry was the better fielder and runner and a close second or equal to Ted with the bat, but when you factor in the time loss to wars and PEDS he falls behind.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I'd like to "digress" back to the original question: who is the greatest left-fielder of all time?

I believe that greatness can best be measured with the perspective of time. I think five years after retirement (the HOF waiting time) is a good number. We are too close right now to judge fairly.

IF the world of baseball concludes at that time that Barry is innocent of any wrong-doing (that is, of using outlawed drugs or PEDs) he will be judged the most dominent hitter and the greatest position player of all time. This would put him ahead of Williams and Musial, ahead of any left fielder, ahead of any other POSITION PLAYER in the history of the game.

But this is a big "IF".

I don't think it will ever be proven, that Barry did or did not use steroids. MLB and Bud Selig wish this whole mess would just disappear and I doubt they will ever try to put more light on the issue, Barry, Sheffield or any of the big names. Barry and Sheffield have made statements to the effect that they may have used a substance that could have been a steroid. Months ago attorneys made the same statements, their client never "knowingly" used steroids. This one is not difficult to figure out. Obviously the attorneys knew what Barry and Sheffield told investigators before the testimony was leaked out and were trying some damage control and preparing their defense if need be at a later time, "I didn't know the gun was loaded".

Proof or no proof their own words, they may have unknowingly used a steroid will never sit well with the public, there will always be a doubt. These two and some others, Giambi for one were in doubt before their own words reinforced what some already thought why would there be less suspicion now.

Does it mean Barry and Sheffield are guilty, no nothing proven at this time. Are many fans even more suspicious at this time, it appears that way.

How does Barry surpass Ruth and Williams as the most dominant, for that explosion late in his career, the last 4 seasons. He was already great before that but Ruth and Williams were dominant over a longer period, whole careers.

When it's all over Barry's batting average over the league will still trail Ruth and Williams. No one has an advantage in this stat, all playing under the same rules and conditions as all other hitters in their time.

When it's all over Barry will trail in some stats that have in recent years become the tools thatmost now believe make the great hitter, slugging, OBA and of course the sum of those two, OPS. Barry has been knocking the cover off the ball the last 4 seasons, but Ruth and Williams consistency over a WHOLE career have put them out of Barry's reach in some stats.

[donzblock]

There have been references to Mays' "red juice", Yanks & others using greenies (if not in the 50s, at least by the 60's. You've heard of these, right?
No, I have never heard of Mays using "red juice." I view the 50s as a clean era, and I will repeat the question: who are the many cheaters who played in the 50s? And what is "red juice"?

[donzblock]

perhaps if donzmark and i could arrange to meet, i would be better able to express myself. and that is something that i definitely would find refreshing.

[this was posted publicly because that is how it came towards me. that is why i chose not to p.m.]
If we could meet, I would explain to you why I feel Ted Williams and Stan Musial are heads and shoulders above Barry Bonds. I would also explain to you why I feel certain that Bonds cheated, and I would then argue for a serious investigation of Mr. Bonds and a very stiff punishment for Mr. Bonds if the investigation finds him guilty.

However, WCOB, I get the distinct feeling that you have infused additional meaning into your words "I would be better able to express myself." Would you be kind enough to elaborate on what that additional meaning happens to be, and would you be kind enough to explain why you would "definitely...find... that...refreshing"? Try to respond without being disingenuous. And who is this "donzmark"?

[west coast orange and black]

I should probably throw in Stan Musiel. Is it possible to definitively say which one is the best LF in history?

J
digressing all the way back.
i do not think that it is possible to say which of the three is the best leftfielder ever.
the problems that arise when comparing players from different eras seems to always end up in not even being able to agree on what the factors are.
some put greater weight on head-to-head matchups of individual areas such as fielding, hitting, slugging, baserunning, fear of the opposing team, team leadership, etc. whereas others lean towards by what margin the player dominated others statistically during that player's own time.
this particular question introduces even more roadblocks than usual- the time on the field lost to williams by his honorable military service, and the questions of just how much weight to place on bonds' alleged use of steroid use, for starters. (or, possibly, if found, definitive steroid use.)

because onejayhawk did not ask for the best hitter, slugger, baserunner, fielder, etc, of the three, i am going with bonds as the game's best overall leftfielder. (this ain't a history or reference book we're writing) the determining factors for me: comparisons with players of their own eras of runs scored and rbi per at-bat, and that bonds has changed the game.

[four tool]

Stan played a good chunk of his career at first base, so his left field numbers only cover his career through about 1955. That gives Ted an edge because he always played LF.

As for Bonds, the problem is no one can prove innocence, only guilt. If innocence could be proven, then the legal system would not need a double jeopardy rule.

[antihipster]

Williams vs Bonds vs Musial

Dividing ops by league average ops during the player's career to get this figure{era adjusted Value or EAV for short}. This figure is a percentage compared to the league avg. This is why another reason why I think Williams is the best of these three, even though there is the valid arguement of quality of play being better today.

1. Williams : 155.139 EAV OPS/1117 OPS
2. Bonds : 144.186 EAV OPS/1054 OPS
3. Musial : 139.601 EAV OPS/977

[donzblock]

As for Bonds, the problem is no one can prove innocence, only guilt. If innocence could be proven, then the legal system would not need a double jeopardy rule.
Then baseball needs to investigate Bonds to determine if he is guilty of cheating. The evidence that has surfaced requires--absolutely requires--such an investigation, and it must be thorough and honest.

[four tool]

I agree we need to know, but I doubt the truth will come out. By truth I mean what he used (if anything) that was illegal at the time. If it wasn't illegal when he used it, then we have some judgement calls to make, like with players from earlier eras who used greenies, etc.

[PeteReiser]

Ted Williams on steroids.