best span of 10 seasons??

[Blackout]

gehrig .350/.457/.660, 41 doubles, 12 triples, 41 HR, 160 RBI, 149 Runs, 8 SB, 9 CS, 117 BB, 191 OPS+

mantle 55-64: .314/.443/.614, 24 doubles, 5 triples, 44 HR 112 RBI 128 Runs 14 SB 2 CS 129 BB 188 OPS+

mays 56-65: .315/.390/.594, 32 doubles, 9 triples, 41 HR, 113 RBI, 124 Runs, 24 SB 8 CS, 77 BB, 165 OPS+

speaker 12-21: .352/.438/.498, 47 doubles, 15 triples, 4 HR, 86 RBI, 117 Runs, 33 SB, 11 CS, 85 BB, 165 OPS+

Hornsby 20-29: .382/.460/.637, 46 doubles, 13 triples, 28 HR, 130 RBI, 135 Runs, 8 SB, 7 CS, 85 BB, 188 OPS+

Foxx: .336/.440/.652, 35 doubles, 10 triples, 46 HR, 154 RBI, 137 Runs, 7 SB, 5 CS, 112 BB, 173 OPS+

williams 41-53: .351/.495/.649 39 doubles, 5 triples, 39 HR, 144 RBI, 142 runs, 2 SB, 1 CS, 158 BB, 200 OPS+

bonds 95-04: .315/.485/.684 32 doubles, 4 triples, 50 HR, 122 RBI, 133 Runs, 22 SB, 5 CS, 168 BB, 206 OPS+

Cobb 09-18: .386/.457/.541, 37 doubles, 19 triples, 7 HR, 103 RBI, 128 Runs, 74 SB, 9 CS, 73 BB, 195 OPS+

Ruth 19-28: .353/.491/.737, 37 doubles, 10 triples, 52 HR, 150 RBI, 156 Runs, 10 SB, 10 CS, 147 BB, 218 OPS+

Dimaggio 37-49: .332/.407/.591, 35 doubles, 12 triples, 35 HR, 147 RBI, 130 Runs, 3 SB, 1 CS, 76 BB, 162 OPS+

Vlad 98-07: .327/.394/.586, 38 doubles, 4 triples, 38 HR, 122 RBI, 106 Runs, 18 SB, 8 CS, 64 BB, 151 OPS+

A-rod 98-07: .304/.394/.589, 31 doubles, 2 triples, 47 HR, 133 RBI, 129 Runs, 22 SB, 5 CS, 84 BB, 151 OPS+

Yaz 72-71: .296/.396/.497, 35 doubles, 3 triples, 26 HR, 90 RBI, 97 Runs, 11 SB, 7 CS, 98 BB, 145 OPS+

Manny 97-06: .319/.418/.614, 39 doubles, 1 triple, 44 HR, 140 RBI, 117 runs, 2 SB 2 CS, 97 BB 161 OPS+

thomas 91-00: .320/.439/.581, 39 doubles, 1 triple, 37 HR, 127 RBI, 115 runs, 3 SB, 2 CS, 126 BB, 168 OPS+

musial .347/.434/.589, 46 doubles, 14 triples, 26 HR, 111 RBI, 125 runs, 6 SB, 2 CS, 94 B, 173 OPS+

Schmidt 77-86: .275/.389/.550, 27 doubles, 5 triples, 40 HR, 111 RBI, 108 runs, 10 SB, 6 CS, 156 OPS+

Griffey jr 91-00: .299/.386/.590 34 doubles, 3 triples, 46 HR, 131 RBI, 117 Runs, 16 SB, 5 CS, 152 OPS+

Aaron 56-65: .324/.382/.579, 35 doubles, 7 triples, 38 HR, 120 RBI, 119 Runs, 15 SB, 4 CS, 163 OPS+

Mcgwire: .277/.424/.663, 22 doubles, 0 triples, 60 HR, 135 RBI, 111 Runs, 1 SB, 0 CS, 181 OPS+

Wagner 00-09: .352/.417/.508, 43 doubles, 17 triples, 6 HR, 111 RBI, 118 Runs, 56 SB, 60 BB, 175 OPS+

Greenberg 34-45: .327/.423/.635, 49 doubles, 10 triples, 40 HR, 159 RBI, 134 Runs, 8 SB, 4 CS, 165 OPS+

Allen 65-74: .297/.386/.554, 29 doubles, 8 triples, 36 HR, 109 RBI, 104 Runs, 13 SB, 5 CS, 87 BB, 165 OPS+

Sheffield 95-04: .305/.424/.558, 30 doubles, 1 triple, 37 HR, 114 RBI, 113 Runs, 15 SB, 6 CS, 113 BB, 157 OPS+

Kaline 55-64: .310/.382/.507, 32 doubles, 6 triples, 26 HR, 104 RBI, 103 Runs, 10 SB, 4 CS, 72 BB, 138 OPS+

[STLCards2]

gehrig .350/.457/.660, 41 doubles, 12 triples, 41 HR, 160 RBI, 149 Runs, 8 SB, 9 CS, 117 BB, 191 OPS+

mantle 55-64: .314/.443/.614, 24 doubles, 5 triples, 44 HR 112 RBI 128 Runs 14 SB 2 CS 129 BB 188 OPS+

mays 56-65: .315/.390/.594, 32 doubles, 9 triples, 41 HR, 113 RBI, 124 Runs, 24 SB 8 CS, 77 BB, 165 OPS+

speaker 12-21: .352/.438/.498, 47 doubles, 15 triples, 4 HR, 86 RBI, 117 Runs, 33 SB, 11 CS, 85 BB, 165 OPS+

Hornsby 20-29: .382/.460/.637, 46 doubles, 13 triples, 28 HR, 130 RBI, 135 Runs, 8 SB, 7 CS, 85 BB, 188 OPS+

Foxx: .336/.440/.652, 35 doubles, 10 triples, 46 HR, 154 RBI, 137 Runs, 7 SB, 5 CS, 112 BB, 173 OPS+

williams 41-53: .351/.495/.649 39 doubles, 5 triples, 39 HR, 144 RBI, 142 runs, 2 SB, 1 CS, 158 BB, 200 OPS+

bonds 95-04: .315/.485/.684 32 doubles, 4 triples, 50 HR, 122 RBI, 133 Runs, 22 SB, 5 CS, 168 BB, 206 OPS+

Cobb 09-18: .386/.457/.541, 37 doubles, 19 triples, 7 HR, 103 RBI, 128 Runs, 74 SB, 9 CS, 73 BB, 195 OPS+

RUTH 19-28: .353/.491/.737, 37 doubles, 10 triples, 52 HR, 150 RBI, 156 Runs, 10 SB, 10 CS, 147 BB, 218 OPS+

Dimaggio 37-49: .332/.407/.591, 35 doubles, 12 triples, 35 HR, 147 RBI, 130 Runs, 3 SB, 1 CS, 76 BB, 162 OPS+

Vlad 98-07: .327/.394/.586, 38 doubles, 4 triples, 38 HR, 122 RBI, 106 Runs, 18 SB, 8 CS, 64 BB, 151 OPS+

A-rod 98-07: .304/.394/.589, 31 doubles, 2 triples, 47 HR, 133 RBI, 129 Runs, 22 SB, 5 CS, 84 BB, 151 OPS+

Yaz 72-71: .296/.396/.497, 35 doubles, 3 triples, 26 HR, 90 RBI, 97 Runs, 11 SB, 7 CS, 98 BB, 145 OPS+

Manny 97-06: .319/.418/.614, 39 doubles, 1 triple, 44 HR, 140 RBI, 117 runs, 2 SB 2 CS, 97 BB 161 OPS+

thomas 91-00: .320/.439/.581, 39 doubles, 1 triple, 37 HR, 127 RBI, 115 runs, 3 SB, 2 CS, 126 BB, 168 OPS+

musial .347/.434/.589, 46 doubles, 14 triples, 26 HR, 111 RBI, 125 runs, 6 SB, 2 CS, 94 B, 173 OPS+

Schmidt 77-86: .275/.389/.550, 27 doubles, 5 triples, 40 HR, 111 RBI, 108 runs, 10 SB, 6 CS, 156 OPS+

Griffey jr 91-00: .299/.386/.590 34 doubles, 3 triples, 46 HR, 131 RBI, 117 Runs, 16 SB, 5 CS, 152 OPS+

Aaron 56-65: .324/.382/.579, 35 doubles, 7 triples, 38 HR, 120 RBI, 119 Runs, 15 SB, 4 CS, 163 OPS+

Mcgwire: .277/.424/.663, 22 doubles, 0 triples, 60 HR, 135 RBI, 111 Runs, 1 SB, 0 CS, 181 OPS+

Wagner 00-09: .352/.417/.508, 43 doubles, 17 triples, 6 HR, 111 RBI, 118 Runs, 56 SB, 60 BB, 175 OPS+

Greenberg 34-45: .327/.423/.635, 49 doubles, 10 triples, 40 HR, 159 RBI, 134 Runs, 8 SB, 4 CS, 165 OPS+

Allen 65-74: .297/.386/.554, 29 doubles, 8 triples, 36 HR, 109 RBI, 104 Runs, 13 SB, 5 CS, 87 BB, 165 OPS+

Sheffield 95-04: .305/.424/.558, 30 doubles, 1 triple, 37 HR, 114 RBI, 113 Runs, 15 SB, 6 CS, 113 BB, 157 OPS+

Kaline 55-64: .310/.382/.507, 32 doubles, 6 triples, 26 HR, 104 RBI, 103 Runs, 10 SB, 4 CS, 72 BB, 138 OPS+


Why does Ruth get all capitals and nobody else? Are you trying to run a baised poll or what?

[ItsOnlyGil]

Somewhere? I read that Hornsby had 2000+ hits in the 1920-1930 interval. That seems like a number which entitles you to a title of "the best < insert achievement here >"

[Blackout]

1920-1930 is 11 years

[Blackout]

Why does Ruth get all capitals and nobody else? Are you trying to run a baised poll or what?

1-not intended

2-does it really mean that big of a difference for you? you get 25 selections to choose from, plenty of them.

[STLCards2]

1-not intended

2-does it really mean that big of a difference for you? you get 25 selections to choose from, plenty of them.

Coming off of your strong defense of Ruth compared to Bonds in a recent poll, you can't fault me for thinking of the posibility of it being intentional. Oh well, I do believe you, and it really doesn't matter. I'd probably lean towards Ruth anyway.

[ItsOnlyGil]

1920-1930 is 11 years

Not only that, but with a little checking, I find that Pete Rose attained 2067 hits from 1968 thru 1977; and Keeler did the same (2065 hits) somewhat earlier: 1894-1903. Theres gotta be others, or maybe not, who knows.
So far tho, Hornsby is in the lead with 2085 hits from 1920-1929.

[Blackout]

hornsby wasn't too shabby

[Blackout]

who else is gonna vote

[BSmile]

I guess Pujols could/should be added to the list after next season...
Anyways, I voted Ruth.

[Blackout]

yeah he's only played 9 so far

[willshad]

Are we taking position into account? If so, I have to wonder why Piazza is not on this list....during his first 10 seasons he was a better hitter than most of these guys, and he did it from the catcher's spot. Just sayin.

[BSmile]

Are we taking position into account? If so, I have to wonder why Piazza is not on this list....during his first 10 seasons he was a better hitter than most of these guys, and he did it from the catcher's spot. Just sayin.

Good call! I still vote Ruth...but Piazza had an amazing 10 year run.

[Blackout]

well if you were to take position into account wouldn't Piazza get a major downgrade for stinking at defense?? just sayin :D

[willshad]

well if you were to take position into account wouldn't Piazza get a major downgrade for stinking at defense?? just sayin :D

Not really, because you have to consider that he would be right up there if you account for the missed games and wear and tear of the position.

[Bill Burgess]

Are you asking who was the best player for 10 years or who created the best set of stats?

The 2 questions might seem identical, but are far from it. The best player and the best statistical player are not the same thing.

[gman5431]

Say Hey Say Who? Say Willie!

G Man

[Blackout]

Say Hey Say Who? Say Willie!

G Man

for what reasons?

[brett]

Ruth though Wagner looks quite close. 175 OPS+ for SS with speed v. 218 for corner outfielder.

And Williams has to spread his over 13 years and lost 3 that could have been his best. His 200 OPS+ over 13 years in a more developed live ball game is more impressive than Ruth's 218 in a league playing punch and judy.

Ruth makes up for it in other areas, but Williams edges him as the best hitter.

[gman5431]

for what reasons?

Mainly because i love Willie Mays, but also....

He won his MVPs 11 years apart so i think that speaks to his sustained excellence. He is the best all around player of all time. No one could do all the things Willie could do at the level he could do them. For me, when he was at his best, he was THE best we have ever had.

G Man

[KCGHOST]

Babe. Babe Ruth.

[BigRon]

1. Babe Ruth
2. Barry Bonds
3. Ty Cobb
4. Rogers Hornsby
5. Ted Williams

[Iron Jaw]

Say Hey Say Who? Say Willie!

G Man

Aikens? Stargell? McCovey? Keeler? Montanez?

Oh, I know.....Willie Bloomquist!:D

Just having fun..........Mays was in his own league.

[brett]

I forgot to add that Cobb's 10 year 195 OPS+ may even be better than Ruth's 208 or Williams 200 (over 13 actual years). I might rate Ruth's 208 THIRD on hitting only, except that Cobb and Williams had some seasons with chunks of missed games.

[538280]

I choose Bonds. 206 OPS+ over a ten year period in leagues of much higher quality than all the other players who put up similar hitting numbers. He also had time in that period when he was still a great fielder and baserunner. I realize that that wasn't for his best hitting seasons but on the whole in the 10 year period you still have him averaging 22 SBs at 81%, and who won three Gold Gloves. BP has him 6 runs above average in LF over the period. I don't care about steroids.

[EricAnno]

I choose Bonds. 206 OPS+ over a ten year period in leagues of much higher quality than all the other players who put up similar hitting numbers. He also had time in that period when he was still a great fielder and baserunner. I realize that that wasn't for his best hitting seasons but on the whole in the 10 year period you still have him averaging 22 SBs at 81%, and who won three Gold Gloves. BP has him 6 runs above average in LF over the period. I don't care about steroids.

Agreed, and very well said.

I voted Bonds as well.

[538280]

Another thing worth mentioning is that Bonds 1990-1999 also deserves to be in this discussion. Bonds in that period hit .302/.434/.602, good for a 179 OPS+, he also stole 39 bases per 162 games. He won 8 Gold Gloves in that period out of the 10 years and BP has him 74 runs above average, 7.4 per year. I don't really think he was as good as Ruth in that period but I could see a case for that period as around the 3rd best 10 year stretch of all time. This was a player who was almost always one of the top hitters in a period of very high league quality. With the exception of 1999, when he was hurt for much of the year, he was 3rd or higher every single year in OPS+. 3rd was his lowest finish! And he also was among the league leaders in SB and won the GG every single year! What more can a player do?

[CTaka]

Another thing worth mentioning is that Bonds 1990-1999 also deserves to be in this discussion. Bonds in that period hit .302/.434/.602, good for a 179 OPS+, he also stole 39 bases per 162 games. He won 8 Gold Gloves in that period out of the 10 years and BP has him 74 runs above average, 7.4 per year. I don't really think he was as good as Ruth in that period but I could see a case for that period as around the 3rd best 10 year stretch of all time. This was a player who was almost always one of the top hitters in a period of very high league quality. With the exception of 1999, when he was hurt for much of the year, he was 3rd or higher every single year in OPS+. 3rd was his lowest finish! And he also was among the league leaders in SB and won the GG every single year! What more can a player do?

Do it without cheating.

[White Knight]

Put me in the minority, I chose Lou Gehrig.

[Seattle1]

The main thing dragging Griffey down in this particular analysis is his injured year smack in the middle in 1995.

[willshad]

Where do these stats come from? Are they the 162 game averages for each player? That really doesn't mean much, because it doesn't include how MUCH the player actually played. You should have probably at least included the games played or at bats. Id go with Gehrig as well, mainly because he played EVERY game, and averaged an RBI a game for 10 years! Ive never been a huge fan of the sluggers who walk TOO much ( Williams, Bonds, Ruth); their OPS+ scores seem somewhat cheapened by the excessive walking, alomst like they are cheating.

[Joltin' Joe]

The main thing dragging Griffey down in this particular analysis is his injured year smack in the middle in 1995.

Yes I agree. I remember it very well. Very painful year for us Yankee fans. :hissyfit:

[BigRon]

Somebody's kidding, right? Ken Griffey Jr. got a vote.

No offense- Griffey was a great player, but to vote his best 10 year run over Ruth, Williams, Bonds, Hornsby, Musial, Gehrig, Wagner, and several others is absurd. Even giving him appropriate credit for better fielding and baserunning compared to several of these guys doesn't come close to closing the gap.

During his best 10 year run Griffey may have been somewhere around the 20th- 25th best position player- a far cry from number 1.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Somebody's kidding, right? Ken Griffey Jr. got a vote.

No offense- Griffey was a great player, but to vote his best 10 year run over Ruth, Williams, Bonds, Hornsby, Musial, Gehrig, Wagner, and several others is absurd. Even giving him appropriate credit for better fielding and baserunning compared to several of these guys doesn't come close to closing the gap.

During his best 10 year run Griffey may have been somewhere around the 20th- 25th best position player- a far cry from number 1.

If only Ichiro had played in MLB for 10 years . . .

[BigRon]

If only Ichiro had played in MLB for 10 years . . .

Captain- lots of humor on this thread today. Since you've got a lot of insight, I'm confident you're joking. However, for those who may not have historical perspective, let's compare Ichiro to a HOF rightfielder who exhibited many similar traits- Paul Waner.

I'll compare Waner's 27-36 run (10 seasons) to Ichiro's complete ML career (8 3/4 seasons to date). Due to the longer ML seasons today, more PAs in modern AL games, and Suzuki hitting at the top of the order most of the time, they've amassed almost identical ABs.

Waner Suzuki
AB 5950 5951
H 2074 1984
2B 416 221
3B 143 67
HR 89 80
BB 673 403
BA .349 .333
OBA .418 .378
SA .511 .433
TB 3043 2579
OPS+ 142 118

It's not close. Waner wins every rate and counting stat. Even giving Ichiro another full season at historical rates, Waner will lead in all rate stats and all counting stats except hits. OPS+ is especially revealing. As far as power goes, Waner hit nearly twice as many doubles and more than twice as many triples during his run. Waner won 3 batting titles during this stretch.

Of course, Waner played in a higher BA era, but also in a lower power era. His real BA advantage is less than raw numbers indicate, but his power edge is higher.

Waner was also an outstanding defensive outfielder and an excellent baserunner. Any edge here to Ichiro is small, if it exists.

So- Ichiro Suzuki is a terrific player, but not one for the ages.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Captain- lots of humor on this thread today. Since you've got a lot of insight, I'm confident you're joking. However, for those who may not have historical perspective, let's compare Ichiro to a HOF rightfielder who exhibited many similar traits- Paul Waner.

I'll compare Waner's 27-36 run (10 seasons) to Ichiro's complete ML career (8 3/4 seasons to date). Due to the longer ML seasons today, more PAs in modern AL games, and Suzuki hitting at the top of the order most of the time, they've amassed almost identical ABs.

Waner Suzuki
AB 5950 5951
H 2074 1984
2B 416 221
3B 143 67
HR 89 80
BB 673 403
BA .349 .333
OBA .418 .378
SA .511 .433
TB 3043 2579
OPS+ 142 118

It's not close. Waner wins every rate and counting stat. Even giving Ichiro another full season at historical rates, Waner will lead in all rate stats and all counting stats except hits. OPS+ is especially revealing. As far as power goes, Waner hit nearly twice as many doubles and more than twice as many triples during his run. Waner won 3 batting titles during this stretch.

Of course, Waner played in a higher BA era, but also in a lower power era. His real BA advantage is less than raw numbers indicate, but his power edge is higher.

Waner was also an outstanding defensive outfielder and an excellent baserunner. Any edge here to Ichiro is small, if it exists.

So- Ichiro Suzuki is a terrific player, but not one for the ages.

Waner never played for a certain team in the Pacific NW . . .

Seriously, though, it looks like Waner does not get the recognition he deserves. I had no idea his peak was that good.

[willshad]

Captain- lots of humor on this thread today. Since you've got a lot of insight, I'm confident you're joking. However, for those who may not have historical perspective, let's compare Ichiro to a HOF rightfielder who exhibited many similar traits- Paul Waner.

I'll compare Waner's 27-36 run (10 seasons) to Ichiro's complete ML career (8 3/4 seasons to date). Due to the longer ML seasons today, more PAs in modern AL games, and Suzuki hitting at the top of the order most of the time, they've amassed almost identical ABs.

Waner Suzuki
AB 5950 5951
H 2074 1984
2B 416 221
3B 143 67
HR 89 80
BB 673 403
BA .349 .333
OBA .418 .378
SA .511 .433
TB 3043 2579
OPS+ 142 118

It's not close. Waner wins every rate and counting stat. Even giving Ichiro another full season at historical rates, Waner will lead in all rate stats and all counting stats except hits. OPS+ is especially revealing. As far as power goes, Waner hit nearly twice as many doubles and more than twice as many triples during his run. Waner won 3 batting titles during this stretch.

Of course, Waner played in a higher BA era, but also in a lower power era. His real BA advantage is less than raw numbers indicate, but his power edge is higher.

Waner was also an outstanding defensive outfielder and an excellent baserunner. Any edge here to Ichiro is small, if it exists.

So- Ichiro Suzuki is a terrific player, but not one for the ages.


To be fair to Ichiro, he has picked up a lot more value with his steals than Waner ever did. It wont be enough to offset the hitting advantage, but also consider that Waner was about done at age 34, and Ichiro shows no signs of slowiing down in his mid 30s. Plus he is known as an all time fielder, while Waner really isn't. It isnt a stretch to imagine that Ichiro would have had a better career if he had played his entire time in the US.

[BigRon]

To be fair to Ichiro, he has picked up a lot more value with his steals than Waner ever did. It wont be enough to offset the hitting advantage, but also consider that Waner was about done at age 34, and Ichiro shows no signs of slowiing down in his mid 30s. Plus he is known as an all time fielder, while Waner really isn't. It isnt a stretch to imagine that Ichiro would have had a better career if he had played his entire time in the US.

I'm mentally giving Ichiro credit for his SBs. I don't know who was the better fielder, but Waner was widely regarded as an outstanding defensive OFer with a strong, accurate arm. There are still older Pirates fans who claim that Waner was better defensively than Clemente. I'm not saying that he was, but he was held in very high regard defensively.

Waner actually had a very good season at age 36, but I agree that his best seasons ended then. His last 4- 5 years he was an OK to pretty decent player.

Suzuki MAY continue to play at a high level, but that remains to be seen. He also, as a modern player, has access to superior training/conditionning methods- few old timers remained top flight players after 35- not just Waner.


My biggest "complaint" with Ichiro is his almost complete lack of pop. Not just the lack of homers- he doesn't hit a lot of doubles. Where is his gap power? Waner, on the other hand, is one of the leading doubles/triples players of all time. He was helped a little by Forbes Field, but not anywhere near the degree of disparity between the two.

Ichiro may end up with the better career, giving some credit to time in Japan, but it's not clear to me that he will. Let's wait and see.

[Blackout]

I forgot to add that Cobb's 10 year 195 OPS+ may even be better than Ruth's 208 or Williams 200 (over 13 actual years). I might rate Ruth's 208 THIRD on hitting only, except that Cobb and Williams had some seasons with chunks of missed games.

where you get 208 from dog??

218 is what i posted

[Blackout]

Where do these stats come from? Are they the 162 game averages for each player? That really doesn't mean much, because it doesn't include how MUCH the player actually played. You should have probably at least included the games played or at bats. Id go with Gehrig as well, mainly because he played EVERY game, and averaged an RBI a game for 10 years! Ive never been a huge fan of the sluggers who walk TOO much ( Williams, Bonds, Ruth); their OPS+ scores seem somewhat cheapened by the excessive walking, alomst like they are cheating.

well 1 of those guys WAS a cheater, but walking has nothing to do with the batter cheating...

[Blackout]

Another thing worth mentioning is that Bonds 1990-1999 also deserves to be in this discussion. Bonds in that period hit .302/.434/.602, good for a 179 OPS+, he also stole 39 bases per 162 games. He won 8 Gold Gloves in that period out of the 10 years and BP has him 74 runs above average, 7.4 per year. I don't really think he was as good as Ruth in that period but I could see a case for that period as around the 3rd best 10 year stretch of all time. This was a player who was almost always one of the top hitters in a period of very high league quality. With the exception of 1999, when he was hurt for much of the year, he was 3rd or higher every single year in OPS+. 3rd was his lowest finish! And he also was among the league leaders in SB and won the GG every single year! What more can a player do?



well considering I've already used some of those bonds seasons (95-04) that won't be necessary


what more can a player do? steroids...oh wait ;)



what more can a player do than what Babe Ruth did?

[Blackout]

how can someone slug .737 over 10 years???

damn, thats crazy

[538280]

what more can a player do? steroids...oh wait ;)

My post was referring to Bonds 1990-1999, which was before he got on the BALCO program, or I actually believe he may have started using in 1999 but overall he didn't get the benefits yet in that period.


what more can a player do than what Babe Ruth did?

Well, Babe Ruth wasn't really the greatest fielder or baserunner for much of that period. Those are clear advantages for Bonds 1990-1999. I guess I could say Bonds could have had a little more impressive slugging numbers though to get up with Ruth. I wouldn't say 1990s Bonds quite matches up to Ruth's best 10 year period-but considering his superior fielding/baserunning, and that he played against superior competition I think he's close.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Where do these stats come from? Are they the 162 game averages for each player? That really doesn't mean much, because it doesn't include how MUCH the player actually played. You should have probably at least included the games played or at bats. Id go with Gehrig as well, mainly because he played EVERY game, and averaged an RBI a game for 10 years! Ive never been a huge fan of the sluggers who walk TOO much ( Williams, Bonds, Ruth); their OPS+ scores seem somewhat cheapened by the excessive walking, alomst like they are cheating.

How do you consider high number of walks a "almost cheating".
It's the fear factor involved one of the results of some heavy hitting, well deserved.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

My post was referring to Bonds 1990-1999, which was before he got on the BALCO program, or I actually believe he may have started using in 1999 but overall he didn't get the benefits yet in that period.



Well, Babe Ruth wasn't really the greatest fielder or baserunner for much of that period. Those are clear advantages for Bonds 1990-1999. I guess I could say Bonds could have had a little more impressive slugging numbers though to get up with Ruth. I wouldn't say 1990s Bonds quite matches up to Ruth's best 10 year period-but considering his superior fielding/baserunning, and that he played against superior competition I think he's close.

For sure in those seasons 1919-1928 Ruth was a very good outfielder.

Just a few numbers.

------------------- Games-----Assists--------DP-----PO-----Percentage
Bonds 1990-1999----1413-------86-----------10----2810-------.985
Bonds 1995-2004----1380-------75-----------14----2525-------.982
Ruth--1919-1928----1366------153-----------36----2920-------.968

On the fielding percentages. Better mitts and maybe some changes in official scoring, historically average fielding percentages from 1910s-20s on average lower than later decades.

Highest career fielding per. 1919-1928
Speaker-----.975
C. Williams---.974
Jacobson----.973
Ruth--------.968


1995-2004
Grissom-------.991
B. Williams----.990
J. Damon-----.990
G. Amderson--.989

To be fair to Barry it has to be considered he was strictly a left fielder, played only one game in right field. Ruth split, left and right field.

Only point to be made here Ruth was among the leaders in his time and the numbers show him to be very good outfielder in the years 1919-1928

[538280]

For sure in those seasons 1919-1928 Ruth was a very good outfielder.


I agree that Ruth was a very good outfielder in those years. I probably shouldn't have stated that like I did, I meant Ruth could have done more by being an outstanding fielder. Bonds got attention when he played as probably the best fielding LFer of all time, and he has some metrics that do show this such as BP's numbers. Ruth was a very good outfielder for a time and had some great seasons but I don't think that he's usually considered to have kept up his greatness in the field for the whole decade. Over his career and over that period IMO he's more just a good fielder with some great seasons.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I agree that Ruth was a very good outfielder in those years. I probably shouldn't have stated that like I did, I meant Ruth could have done more by being an outstanding fielder. Bonds got attention when he played as probably the best fielding LFer of all time, and he has some metrics that do show this such as BP's numbers. Ruth was a very good outfielder for a time and had some great seasons but I don't think that he's usually considered to have kept up his greatness in the field for the whole decade. Over his career and over that period IMO he's more just a good fielder with some great seasons.

I agree, the time period I listed 1919-1928 were probably some of his best in the outfield.
By the end of the 1920s he was pushing 35 and the added weight he had trouble shedding in later years did not help.