I feel bad for Barry Bonds

[James282]

Barry Bonds has said he won't be playing until midseason, and is possibly not playing at all this season. He is citing extreme emotional duress and media harassment of his family.

"I don't wan't my kids to cry anymore."

And this is what happens when the media takes something like baseball just a little bit too seriously.

Thank God I drafted Bobby Abreu instead of Bonds in my keeper league!
-James

[GrekeHaus]

[ QUOTE ]
"I don't wan't my kids to cry anymore."

And this is what happens when the media takes something like baseball just a little bit too seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bonds is always trying to elicit sympathy by bringing his kids into it. This just pisses me off more than anything. He got to the be one of the greatest players ever by cheating, then whines about it when he gets caught. Give me a [censored]' break. He knew the possible consequences of his actions when he started taking steroids, now he's trying to make the rest of us feel bad about the decisions he conciously made.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't wan't my kids to cry anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Barry, you think this is bad, wait til the feds nail your ass for perjury.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

[istewart]

[ QUOTE ]
He got to the be one of the greatest players ever by cheating

[/ QUOTE ]

Unlike McGwire, I think he was clearly on the greatest player track before *alleged* steroid use.

[GrekeHaus]

[ QUOTE ]
Unlike McGwire, I think he was clearly on the greatest player track before *alleged* steroid use.

[/ QUOTE ]

McGwire had 49 home runs his rookie season and has admitted to taking supplements that were legal when he was taking them.

Bonds would have been a HOFer even if he didn't use steroids, but never would have gotten to the point he's at now.

[istewart]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unlike McGwire, I think he was clearly on the greatest player track before *alleged* steroid use.

[/ QUOTE ]

McGwire had 49 home runs his rookie season and has admitted to taking supplements that were legal when he was taking them.

Bonds would have been a HOFer even if he didn't use steroids, but never would have gotten to the point he's at now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. His stature wouldn't have been close to what it is today, but he still had 3 MVPs prior to his post-2000 home-run spree and got gypped out of another, IMHO.

[ QUOTE ]
Unlike McGwire, I think he was clearly on the greatest player track before *alleged* steroid use.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is absolutely untrue. Let's assume he started using steroids in the late 90's. Look at his numbers. He was a very good player. Maybe even a great player. But he was far from "greatest player ever". What he has done since he turned ~ 35 is what brings him into the stratosphere, and unfortunately it seems that it was all done while on the juice.

PS, we don't know when he started taking them. They've been around for a while. Remember Lyle Alzado? Bonds could have been on them as early as 1990 or 1991, when his career started to take off.

[istewart]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unlike McGwire, I think he was clearly on the greatest player track before *alleged* steroid use.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is absolutely untrue. Let's assume he started using steroids in the late 90's. Look at his numbers. He was a very good player. Maybe even a great player. But he was far from "greatest player ever". What he has done since he turned ~ 35 is what brings him into the stratosphere, and unfortunately it seems that it was all done while on the juice.

PS, we don't know when he started taking them. They've been around for a while. Remember Lyle Alzado? Bonds could have been on them as early as 1990 or 1991, when his career started to take off.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, I exaggerated a bit too much. My main point was that his career was obviously not completely created by steroids. He was clearly a great player when he was "thin."

[sublime]

"I don't wan't my kids to cry anymore."

stop cheating on thier mother

[B Dids]

I have always believe that Barry was mostly misunderstood and got a bad rap from the media.

Barry is going a good job of make me think otherwise as of late, and that is sad.

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
I have always believe that Barry was mostly misunderstood and got a bad rap from the media.

Barry is going a good job of make me think otherwise as of late, and that is sad.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is pretty much exactly how I feel about it. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the media, since I know how pushy the media can be, but he's just sounding like a jerk now.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]

Bonds is always trying to elicit sympathy by bringing his kids into it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, I have to disagree with you here. Bonds' primary concern during interviews is not eliciting sympathy (and never has been) perhaps until this last one (in which I also don't think he really was trying to elicit sympathy).

[ QUOTE ]

This just pisses me off more than anything. He got to the be one of the greatest players ever by cheating, then whines about it when he gets caught.


[/ QUOTE ]

He got caught? When?

[ QUOTE ]

Give me a [censored]' break. He knew the possible consequences of his actions when he started taking steroids, now he's trying to make the rest of us feel bad about the decisions he conciously made.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, maybe he knew the consequences but it's more likely he never expected the steriod thing to go this far. He's not really trying to make 'us' feel guilty in any broad sense (perhaps the 'media' although I'm sure he'd be happier being left alone than making anyone in the media feel guilty). He just hates the media, is very frustrated right now and has an ego bigger than Kobe Bryant.

FWIW I think Bonds is scared by the way the hearings are going, frustrated with his neverending rehabilitation and can barely fathom the ever increasing media attention he gets.

Yugoslav

[Ray Zee]

why would baseball allow anyone that used steroids or is taking them to ever play in the leagues again. they should be stripped of all records and forgotten. this makes baseball a sham the way they are trying to poo-poo it and have self regulation.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
why would baseball allow anyone that used steroids or is taking them to ever play in the leagues again. they should be stripped of all records and forgotten. this makes baseball a sham the way they are trying to poo-poo it and have self regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

B/c there aren't enough 'fans' like you, /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

Seriously though, the MLB will try to do whatever they think will maximize profit (generally short term). Keeping players like Bonds in the league is quite possibly in their best interest entertainment-wise....but who knows what it will do to the longevity of the league.

Yugoslav

[Myrtle]

Ray,

I'm in total agreement with the sentiment of your post, but.........

....to answer your rhetorical question, "Deep Throat" said it best....

......"Follow the Money"

He did.....the owners did....other players did.....MLB did.

....very, very sad.

[JinX11]

[ QUOTE ]
"I don't wan't my kids to cry anymore."

stop cheating on their mother

[/ QUOTE ]

Sublime wins. nh

[Jack of Arcades]

I dunno, why doesn't the NFL do this either?

[Jack of Arcades]

The fact of the matter is that Bonds was one of the top ten position players of all time pre 1999, or, at least, on the track to becoming it.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
This is absolutely untrue.

[/ QUOTE ] no its not. 3 MVPs before his alleged steroid use(should have been 4).

[rusellmj]

The governing body of MLB is a joke. They gave numerous chances to addicts back in the 80's. Roger Maris had an asterisk next to his record just for doing it in a season with more games for Pete's sake. He never got the credit he deserved. I'm not a baseball fan by any means but, as an outside observer, I have no idea why they are letting these juice heads steal their game's soul. Shameful.

Russ

[Jack of Arcades]

Actually, I'll tell you why it wouldn't be a good idea.

We have no idea how much steroids affect a player's performance, and we never will unless they become openly legal and records are taken and tests are run.

I'm all for testing and the possibility of removing steroids from the game. It's unhealthy for the game. But what's even worse is the fact that we have no idea how performance enhancing these performance enhancing drugs are.

[billyjex]

I feel Bonds is an arrogant person. A very personal person. I think what the media does and says affects him *a lot* and always has no matter how he tries to play it off. Maybe it's because I'm a Giants fan, but I have always liked Bonds despite his questionable attitude. He is just a person that cannot handle the spotlight of being such a large athlete.

He was a jackass before the steroid thing blew up this year. While the "i just won't my kids to stop crying" is a great exaggeration, Bonds is just the type of person that would like to spend his time with his family and never see a camera again.

Go Giants!

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
Roger Maris had an asterisk next to his record just for doing it in a season with more games for Pete's

[/ QUOTE ]

False.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact of the matter is that Bonds was one of the top ten position players of all time pre 1999

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't agree. Not even close.


[ QUOTE ]
Or, at least, on the track to becoming it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hindsight certainly is 20-20. But if you asked in 1999, I think most people would have disagreed with you. Nobody could have expected his performance not simply to sustain itself but to improve at his age.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is absolutely untrue.

[/ QUOTE ] no its not. 3 MVPs before his alleged steroid use(should have been 4).

[/ QUOTE ]

So what. He wasn't "on track" to be the greatest player ever. It's a ridiculous thing to say. A lot has to happen to get that title. Such as hitting 73 home runs in a season.

[The Dude]

I feel bad for his kids. No, really I do. They have to live with this A-hole.

[Jake (The Snake)]

I don't think he meant a literal asterik. But people did not give him credit, the extra games were talked about all the time.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
A lot has to happen to get that title. Such as hitting 73 home runs in a season.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not his most impressive feat.

Although it was very impressive.

Yugoslav

[BeerMoney]

People have no idea how many people use steroids. Tons of HS kids take steroids for football season, and people are surprised that PRO Baseball players are using them?? Posters on here have kids, friends, neighbors who use them.. But they think, "he just works out a lot."

I blame the league for it and not the players. If you saw people around you using steroids, you would probably feel it almost necessary to take steroids to keep up. If Carl Lewis knew that Ben Johnson was doping, would you blame him for using them too if he knew he wasn't going to be tested? Well, there were tests, so he didn't have to use them. This would be the same case if baseball had strict guidelines all along.

Really makes you appreciate Roger Maris.

[ThaSaltCracka]

no one considers him the greatest player(in fact that whole argument is stupid to begin with), but he was most certainly on track to being one of the greatest players ever.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]

No, I don't agree. Not even close.

[/ QUOTE ]

He was easily the best position player of the 90s, the only two people even remotely close are Big Hurt and Griffey.

He was, at his prime, an amazing left fielder.

From 1990-1998, his lowest OBP was .406. From 90-98 he was never lower than 5th on the NL leaderboards, leading the league 4 times.

From 1990-1998, he had a SLG below .550 once. He was never below sixth on the NL leaderboards, leading thrice.

From 1990-1998, his lowest OPS was .914 - which lead the league in 1992. He was never below THIRD on the NL leaderboard, leading five times.

From 1990-1998, his lowest OPS+ was 161, which lead the league. This measure compares park-adjusted OPS to the league average - 100 would avarage. He lead the league 4 times during this period, and was never below third.

He also made the top ten in steals in the NL 7 times during this period.

For his career until 1998, he had a career OPS+ of 164 in 8100 atbats. This would make him 9th all time, behind a few people that it would be hard to make a case being better than Bonds - Shoeless Joe (who had 1000 less PAs and was out of the game at 30), Dan Brouthers (who played the overwhelming majority of his time pre-1900), and the upper echelon of position players - Ruth, Mantle, Cobb, Williams - most of whom played pre-integration, in a league without talented black hitters, making it easier to dominate their leagues.

Please list your top ten list of position players, all time, start of the majors-1998, and I'll ridicule it for not including Barry.

[istewart]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No, I don't agree. Not even close.

[/ QUOTE ]

He was easily the best position player of the 90s, the only two people even remotely close are Big Hurt and Griffey.

He was, at his prime, an amazing left fielder.

From 1990-1998, his lowest OBP was .406. From 90-98 he was never lower than 5th on the NL leaderboards, leading the league 4 times.

From 1990-1998, he had a SLG below .550 once. He was never below sixth on the NL leaderboards, leading thrice.

From 1990-1998, his lowest OPS was .914 - which lead the league in 1992. He was never below THIRD on the NL leaderboard, leading five times.

From 1990-1998, his lowest OPS+ was 161, which lead the league. This measure compares park-adjusted OPS to the league average - 100 would avarage. He lead the league 4 times during this period, and was never below third.

He also made the top ten in steals in the NL 7 times during this period.

For his career until 1998, he had a career OPS+ of 164 in 8100 atbats. This would make him 9th all time, behind a few people that it would be hard to make a case being better than Bonds - Shoeless Joe (who had 1000 less PAs and was out of the game at 30), Dan Brouthers (who played the overwhelming majority of his time pre-1900), and the upper echelon of position players - Ruth, Mantle, Cobb, Williams - most of whom played pre-integration, in a league without talented black hitters, making it easier to dominate their leagues.

Please list your top ten list of position players, all time, start of the majors-1998, and I'll ridicule it for not including Barry.

[/ QUOTE ]

VNH.

[ThaSaltCracka]

trying to convince someone whom hates Barry with all their heart that he is one of the best baseball players ever(even "pre-steroid") is a lesson in futility.

[imported_stealthcow]

i honestly think that players like barry bonds are ruining sports.

no one in their right mind ever believed (or still believes) he wasn't taking steroids.

allowing him to break hank aarons all time home run record or pass babe ruth's would be horrible for baseball and for fans who believe in integrity

stealthcow-

[ThaSaltCracka]

^ Jack, see. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[andyfox]

We don't know what kind of father he is. He might not be an a-hole.

But he definitely is a spoiled crybaby with a distorted sense of his own self-importance. He's coming up on Babe Ruth's lifetime home run total and all sorts of other achievements, he could really set an example for others if he showed some humility and generosity and graciousnesss.

What a shame.

[Bulldog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No, I don't agree. Not even close.

[/ QUOTE ]

He was easily the best position player of the 90s, the only two people even remotely close are Big Hurt and Griffey.

He was, at his prime, an amazing left fielder.

From 1990-1998, his lowest OBP was .406. From 90-98 he was never lower than 5th on the NL leaderboards, leading the league 4 times.

From 1990-1998, he had a SLG below .550 once. He was never below sixth on the NL leaderboards, leading thrice.

From 1990-1998, his lowest OPS was .914 - which lead the league in 1992. He was never below THIRD on the NL leaderboard, leading five times.

From 1990-1998, his lowest OPS+ was 161, which lead the league. This measure compares park-adjusted OPS to the league average - 100 would avarage. He lead the league 4 times during this period, and was never below third.

He also made the top ten in steals in the NL 7 times during this period.

For his career until 1998, he had a career OPS+ of 164 in 8100 atbats. This would make him 9th all time, behind a few people that it would be hard to make a case being better than Bonds - Shoeless Joe (who had 1000 less PAs and was out of the game at 30), Dan Brouthers (who played the overwhelming majority of his time pre-1900), and the upper echelon of position players - Ruth, Mantle, Cobb, Williams - most of whom played pre-integration, in a league without talented black hitters, making it easier to dominate their leagues.

Please list your top ten list of position players, all time, start of the majors-1998, and I'll ridicule it for not including Barry.

[/ QUOTE ]

VNH.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Game, set, match.

[Soul Daddy]

I'm sure Barry haters will simply skim this and move on to their ridiculous anti-steroid rhetoric. But, um... pwned!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No, I don't agree. Not even close.

[/ QUOTE ]

He was easily the best position player of the 90s, the only two people even remotely close are Big Hurt and Griffey.

He was, at his prime, an amazing left fielder.

From 1990-1998, his lowest OBP was .406. From 90-98 he was never lower than 5th on the NL leaderboards, leading the league 4 times.

From 1990-1998, he had a SLG below .550 once. He was never below sixth on the NL leaderboards, leading thrice.

From 1990-1998, his lowest OPS was .914 - which lead the league in 1992. He was never below THIRD on the NL leaderboard, leading five times.

From 1990-1998, his lowest OPS+ was 161, which lead the league. This measure compares park-adjusted OPS to the league average - 100 would avarage. He lead the league 4 times during this period, and was never below third.

He also made the top ten in steals in the NL 7 times during this period.

For his career until 1998, he had a career OPS+ of 164 in 8100 atbats. This would make him 9th all time, behind a few people that it would be hard to make a case being better than Bonds - Shoeless Joe (who had 1000 less PAs and was out of the game at 30), Dan Brouthers (who played the overwhelming majority of his time pre-1900), and the upper echelon of position players - Ruth, Mantle, Cobb, Williams - most of whom played pre-integration, in a league without talented black hitters, making it easier to dominate their leagues.

Please list your top ten list of position players, all time, start of the majors-1998, and I'll ridicule it for not including Barry.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't compare numbers in the 90s with numbers in other eras. You seem to know baseball. You should know that.

He is one of the top 10 today because of what he has done from 1999. 292 HRs since then, for example. He was not as of 1999.

Ruth
Gehrig
Mays
Mantle
Musial
Ted Williams
Honus Wagner
Rogers Hornsby
Cobb
DiMaggio

Off the top of my head, for starters. As of '99, Bonds didn't rank ahead of a single one of them. And I'm sure I am not the only one that thinks so.

[Soul Daddy]

[ QUOTE ]
You can't compare numbers in the 90s with numbers in other eras. You seem to know baseball. You should know that.

[/ QUOTE ]
He showed how Barry dominated the league for the 90s, not how his raw numbers compared to those of past eras. Statistics as they compare to one's peers is a pretty powerful gauge of one's dominance.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
You can't compare numbers in the 90s with numbers in other eras. You seem to know baseball. You should know that.

[/ QUOTE ] He didn't until the very end, your argument (while valid and correct) does not apply here to Jack's argument.

[ QUOTE ]
Off the top of my head, for starters. As of '99, Bonds didn't rank ahead of a single one of them. And I'm sure I am not the only one that thinks so.

[/ QUOTE ] sure you aren't the only one, but what does that prove? Nothing.

[ QUOTE ]
trying to convince someone whom hates Barry with all their heart that he is one of the best baseball players ever(even "pre-steroid") is a lesson in futility.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know I "hate" Barry Bonds "with all my heart"? Have we met? Talked about Bonds? I don't like his attitude, for sure. But I don't "hate" him. I don't even know him.

Anyway, what one thinks of him as a person should not have any effect on how a reasonable person should discuss or evaluate his talent. One thing has nothing to do with another. I like to think that, at certain rare instances, I am a reasonable person.

Criticize the argument. That's fair. Don't criticize me. You've got no reason to do so. It's fun to talk baseball, especially in March. Let's keep it fun.

[ThaSaltCracka]

my comment was more general in nature.

It has been my experience though that people will either hate Bonds(and not give him his props) or like him and give him his props.

The same thing happens with Shaq too.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can't compare numbers in the 90s with numbers in other eras. You seem to know baseball. You should know that.

[/ QUOTE ]
He showed how Barry dominated the league for the 90s, not how his raw numbers compared to those of past eras. Statistics as they compare to one's peers is a pretty powerful gauge of one's dominance.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. The OPS stat was used by the poster both to show that Bonds dominated the league and how he ranked all time. Any stat that includes slugging percentage will favor hitters in the '90s.

2. What are we arguing about? That Bonds didn't dominate in the '90s? I agree. He did dominate. He was the best player of the decade. He was as of 1998. He was a great player as of 1998.

The original post said he was a top-10 all-time as of 1998. That's a different matter. Reasonable people certainly can disagree about this one. I think that folks who think Bonds was top-10 as of '98 undervalue the careers of those who played earlier in the 20th century.

[ QUOTE ]
my comment was more general in nature.

It has been my experience though that people will either hate Bonds(and not give him his props) or like him and give him his props.

The same thing happens with Shaq too.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean about Bonds not getting his "props"? I don't hear people saying that Bonds is not a great player. Do you? Anyone who says that he's not an all-time great -- maybe the best of all time -- doesn't know what he's talking about. But it appears that he also is a cheater. That damages his legacy, and criticizing him for taking steroids is, in my opinion, legitimate.

[Soul Daddy]

[ QUOTE ]
1. The OPS stat was used by the poster both to show that Bonds dominated the league and how he ranked all time. Any stat that includes slugging percentage will favor hitters in the '90s.

2. What are we arguing about? That Bonds didn't dominate in the '90s? I agree. He did dominate. He was the best player of the decade. He was as of 1998. He was a great player as of 1998.

The original post said he was a top-10 all-time as of 1998. That's a different matter. Reasonable people certainly can disagree about this one. I think that folks who think Bonds was top-10 as of '98 undervalue the careers of those who played earlier in the 20th century.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) How a player compares to the rest of the league favors no era. It's why OPS+ was also given.
2) No. No reasonable person would argue that. I'm simply stating that this is all that Jack's post illustrated.

The next step is to find the other candidates for this mythical top 10 and find their stats relative to the rest of the league. You may be right about undervaluing players of past eras. Statistics can actually provide the answers if one were to dig deep enough.

[ThaSaltCracka]

no, people do. They say he is nothing but a steroid ingesting freak and thats why he is good. You need to understand how stupid your everyday hater is.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
Ruth
Gehrig
Mays
Mantle
Musial
Ted Williams
Honus Wagner
Rogers Hornsby
Cobb
DiMaggio

Off the top of my head, for starters. As of '99, Bonds didn't rank ahead of a single one of them. And I'm sure I am not the only one that thinks so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Take a look at your list - the latest anyone on your list played was 1973. Why's this? Well, in a smaller league, with a smaller talent pool, it's much easier to dominate. Factor in modern medicine which allows the careers of useful players to continue on despite what used to be career ending injuries, and there's an environment in which it's MUCH harder to dominate.

Do you honestly think every single one of the top ten position players of all time started their careers over 50 years ago?

[billyjex]

Do you guys think that taking steroids makes you that great of a player? It makes you stronger, so you hit farther.

It doesn't make his eye/hand coordination great, his pitch reading ability great, his bat speed great.

[sublime]

trying to convince someone whom hates Barry with all their heart that he is one of the best baseball players ever(even "pre-steroid") is a lesson in futility.

i cant stand him (hate is a strong word for somebody i have never met) but have to admit he was a phenominal baseball player pretty much his whole career.

[jstnrgrs]

You Suck!

[GrekeHaus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No, I don't agree. Not even close.

[/ QUOTE ]

He was easily the best position player of the 90s, the only two people even remotely close are Big Hurt and Griffey.

He was, at his prime, an amazing left fielder.

From 1990-1998, his lowest OBP was .406. From 90-98 he was never lower than 5th on the NL leaderboards, leading the league 4 times.

From 1990-1998, he had a SLG below .550 once. He was never below sixth on the NL leaderboards, leading thrice.

From 1990-1998, his lowest OPS was .914 - which lead the league in 1992. He was never below THIRD on the NL leaderboard, leading five times.

From 1990-1998, his lowest OPS+ was 161, which lead the league. This measure compares park-adjusted OPS to the league average - 100 would avarage. He lead the league 4 times during this period, and was never below third.

He also made the top ten in steals in the NL 7 times during this period.

For his career until 1998, he had a career OPS+ of 164 in 8100 atbats. This would make him 9th all time, behind a few people that it would be hard to make a case being better than Bonds - Shoeless Joe (who had 1000 less PAs and was out of the game at 30), Dan Brouthers (who played the overwhelming majority of his time pre-1900), and the upper echelon of position players - Ruth, Mantle, Cobb, Williams - most of whom played pre-integration, in a league without talented black hitters, making it easier to dominate their leagues.

Please list your top ten list of position players, all time, start of the majors-1998, and I'll ridicule it for not including Barry.

[/ QUOTE ]

VNH.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Game, set, match.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you know how had more hits than anybody else during the '90's?

It was Mark Grace. Does this mean that Mark Grace should be considered one of the top singles hitters of all time?

I have nothing against Bonds and he certainly was a great player prior to the whole steroids thing, but he wasn't considered remotely in the class he's in now.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Bonds is always trying to elicit sympathy by bringing his kids into it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, I have to disagree with you here. Bonds' primary concern during interviews is not eliciting sympathy (and never has been) perhaps until this last one (in which I also don't think he really was trying to elicit sympathy).

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually have heard him bring his kids into it before this one. In an interview I saw a year or two ago, he said something along the lines of "My son came up to me the other day and asked 'Daddy, why are all these people saying you do those things you don't do.'"

[7ontheline]

[ QUOTE ]
why would baseball allow anyone that used steroids or is taking them to ever play in the leagues again. they should be stripped of all records and forgotten. this makes baseball a sham the way they are trying to poo-poo it and have self regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's because they have deliberately had their heads in the sand for a long time. Steroids weren't even banned in baseball until the late '90s (I think - correct me someone if necessary). Androstenedione, which was banned by EVERY pro sport and the Olympics was still legal in baseball in 2001 with Mcgwire. Baseball and it's leadership are huge hypocrites. Did you see Bud Selig's testimony about how he wasn't aware there was even a problem in 1998? RIGHT. . .

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
Why's this? Well, in a smaller league, with a smaller talent pool, it's much easier to dominate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the exact opposite of this statement is correct.......

[Ray Zee]

was it in the sand or were they looking the other way. big difference i dont know which.
but anyone that breaks records or even plays and defies the rules to use methods that are illegal should have all his feats erased. no longer can it be determined which things he did was because he was great or because of performance enhancing drugs. like him or hate him anyone that does this stuff, accomplishments mean nothing and should be treated as such.

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
I feel bad for his kids. No, really I do. They have to live with this A-hole.

[/ QUOTE ]

Awsome.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why's this? Well, in a smaller league, with a smaller talent pool, it's much easier to dominate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the exact opposite of this statement is correct.......

[/ QUOTE ]

If the league was smaller NOW it'd be harder - because there'd be less roster spots.

However, since the 1920s the talent pool has grown exponentially with the addition of blacks, hispanics, asians, and the large population boom, not to mention advances in modern medicine allowing player to play that would not have been able to otherwise.

Think of every player pitching right now that's had Tommy John surgery, and replace him with guys that didn't quite make the team. How much worse would pitching be?

Think about every roster spot taken up by a non-white. How much worse would the talent be without it?

Players are much better, on average, than they were years ago.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you know how had more hits than anybody else during the '90's?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, Mark Grace

[ QUOTE ]
It was Mark Grace.

[/ QUOTE ]

No kidding.

[ QUOTE ]
Does this mean that Mark Grace should be considered one of the top singles hitters of all time?

[/ QUOTE ]

I compared Barry year to year to the rest of his league from the beginning of his peak, to 1998, since by all accounts, he likely started taking steroids in 1999. I then compared his career numbers up to that point with what is widely considered to be the best players of all time, and showed that he stands up favorably, once eras are taken into account.

You've taken a simple aggregate that doesn't mention that, say, Mark Grace is 94th on the all time hit list, or that he's never lead the league in hits. Furthermore, you're using a meaningless stat such as H.

To compare the two is absurd.

[Jack of Arcades]

"Erased"? That's such bullshit. It happened, and you want to pretend it didn't? Baseball is a game of extensive information and statistics. You can't pretend it didn't happen - do you want to strip the Giants of their NL Pennant and NL West titles?

Just about every single record in the game was born out of the context it was played in. Baseball's not a uniform game; with different ballparks and talent levels, and stategies used in different eras, it's easy to see trends. Why were all the triples records set in the first 40 years of the game? Are they meaningless?

Furthermore, we don't have a damn clue about how different drugs affect players' ability. None. Making rash judgments based on a witch hunt mentality is idiotic and overreacting. Of course, we'll never know the full extent because everyone sticks their fingers in their ears and screams when people start talking about steroids in any manner that isn't related to burning offenders at the stake.

Baseball has never used asterisks. Instead, they give people the information and let them interpret it how they want. That's the way it should be.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why's this? Well, in a smaller league, with a smaller talent pool, it's much easier to dominate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the exact opposite of this statement is correct.......

[/ QUOTE ]

If the league was smaller NOW it'd be harder - because there'd be less roster spots.

However, since the 1920s the talent pool has grown exponentially with the addition of blacks, hispanics, asians, and the large population boom, not to mention advances in modern medicine allowing player to play that would not have been able to otherwise.

Think of every player pitching right now that's had Tommy John surgery, and replace him with guys that didn't quite make the team. How much worse would pitching be?

Think about every roster spot taken up by a non-white. How much worse would the talent be without it?

Players are much better, on average, than they were years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't really believe this, do you? In an expanded league, with watered down talent, it is much easier for a great player to dominate, particularly a power hitter, with the awful pitching prevalent these days.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I agree with Jack completely.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ruth
Gehrig
Mays
Mantle
Musial
Ted Williams
Honus Wagner
Rogers Hornsby
Cobb
DiMaggio

Off the top of my head, for starters. As of '99, Bonds didn't rank ahead of a single one of them. And I'm sure I am not the only one that thinks so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Take a look at your list - the latest anyone on your list played was 1973. Why's this? Well, in a smaller league, with a smaller talent pool, it's much easier to dominate. Factor in modern medicine which allows the careers of useful players to continue on despite what used to be career ending injuries, and there's an environment in which it's MUCH harder to dominate.

Do you honestly think every single one of the top ten position players of all time started their careers over 50 years ago?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

Identify the position player who cracks the top 10 who played after 1980, other than Bonds due to his post-98 feats. Griffey would have but for injuries. Maybe A. Rodriguez will one day. Mike Schmidt? A reasonable argument can be made for him, but who does he replace? Rickey Henderson? Nah.

The last 20 years have seen some of the great talent, wasted for one reason or another, such as Eric Davis (injuries), Ken Griffey Jr. (injuries), and Darryl Strawberry (nose candy). But sorry, I don't see a position player other than Bonds who cracks the top 10. Who do you suggest?

PS, there are about 11 1/2 decades of pro baseball. There are 10 names on the top 10 position player list, obviously. That's less than one player per decade. So the idea that no players from the 80s or 90s make the list is not crazy.

[Myrtle]

I think we're in total agreement?

As the talent pool size decreases, the average talent level of a smaller pool increases, thereby making the over-all level of talent in a smaller league better?

[Jack of Arcades]

But the talent pool has grown very very very much so. Think of it like this: since Ruth's time, the league has less than doubled in size. How much larger is the talent pool now? It's HUGE! There's a higher level of competition because the talent in the leagues is much more concentrated at the top percentile.

[Jack of Arcades]

Awful pitching is far from prevalent. Unless you somehow think with the population boom brought on from the 1940s, the addition of blacks, latinos, and asians, as well as increases in medicine has not doubled the talent pool that the MLB draws from since the time of, say, Ruth.

[Jack of Arcades]

What I'm saying is that the league, at 30 teams, is much smaller now in comparison to the talent pool than it was 80 years ago.

[ QUOTE ]
But the talent pool has grown very very very much so. Think of it like this: since Ruth's time, the league has less than doubled in size. How much larger is the talent pool now? It's HUGE! There's a higher level of competition because the talent in the leagues is much more concentrated at the top percentile.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Have you seen the pitching these days? In the mid-70s, a 3.00 ERA was considered average. Today, 4.50 is considered respectable. You think that's all due to the increase in the hitters talent pool? Steroids? New stadiums? Live ball? Sammy Sosa's corked bat? Or maybe it has more to do with the fact that a terrible pitcher like Jimmy Haynes (just to pick one) seems to find his way into a rotation every season. I think you have an uphill battle if you're going to argue that the talent in baseball is not diluted.

[ThaSaltCracka]

the talent may be diluted, but overall, the quality of players are much better now then they were 60 years ago.

[ QUOTE ]
Awful pitching is far from prevalent. Unless you somehow think with the population boom brought on from the 1940s, the addition of blacks, latinos, and asians, as well as increases in medicine has not doubled the talent pool that the MLB draws from since the time of, say, Ruth.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I don't disagree with you or TSC here. The average player today is better than the average player in the 1940s. No question about that. My point I think is that great players today play against a greater percentage of players that are far inferior to them than the great players of, say, the 40s. That makes it easier for a player like Bonds, A-Rod, Sosa, etc., to be so far ahead of the rest of the league.

[jesusarenque]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Awful pitching is far from prevalent. Unless you somehow think with the population boom brought on from the 1940s, the addition of blacks, latinos, and asians, as well as increases in medicine has not doubled the talent pool that the MLB draws from since the time of, say, Ruth.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I don't disagree with you or TSC here. The average player today is better than the average player in the 1940s. No question about that. My point I think is that great players today play against a greater percentage of players that are far inferior to them than the great players of, say, the 40s. That makes it easier for a player like Bonds, A-Rod, Sosa, etc., to be so far ahead of the rest of the league.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? The talent pool is not diluted. There are 6 billion people on the planet. Do you really think there arent enough great baseball players to fill 30 teams?

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
Identify the position player who cracks the top 10 who played after 1980, other than Bonds due to his post-98 feats. Griffey would have but for injuries. Maybe A. Rodriguez will one day. Mike Schmidt? A reasonable argument can be made for him, but who does he replace? Rickey Henderson? Nah.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the thing. All the players you listed rightly dominated their leagues. However, that dominance is artificial.

How is a league that draws from 5 continents, 25 countries, and a booming population watered down, yet the league that drew from two continents and largely once race isn't?

[ QUOTE ]
But sorry, I don't see a position player other than Bonds who cracks the top 10. Who do you suggest?

[/ QUOTE ]

Then again, "top 10" seems a bit too limited given the scope of the MLB. The fact of the matter is, ranking the different players is an exercise in futility. Rather, it seems we should expand it to something like 25 or so, where all of the players are roughly equal to each other in value. From the 80s-90s, we'd have guys like Mike Schmidt, Bonds, A-Rod, Frank Thomas, and Jeff Bagwell. I'd feel confident in saying those were probably the best players. The 70s and 80s are the worst times not only due to wasted talent, but do to the fact that the league was probably the smallest it'd been in relation to the talent pool: integration had fully kicked in, latin players were coming in, and we had four less teams.

[ QUOTE ]
PS, there are about 11 1/2 decades of pro baseball. There are 10 names on the top 10 position player list, obviously. That's less than one player per decade. So the idea that no players from the 80s or 90s make the list is not crazy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it isn't. But look at your list again, you essentially only drew from 4 decades of the 11 1/2.

1900-1920: Wagner
1920-1940: Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb, Hornsby
1940-1960: Dimaggio, Williams, Musial
1950-1970: Mays, Mantle

Perhaps instead of thinking that there's something *wrong* with post 1970, maybe there's something wrong with 1920-1960. Maybe their dominance was a product of the times, not the players. They were certainly great players, but it seems a little suspect.

[istewart]

This is really enjoyable to read, actually. Good argument.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Awful pitching is far from prevalent. Unless you somehow think with the population boom brought on from the 1940s, the addition of blacks, latinos, and asians, as well as increases in medicine has not doubled the talent pool that the MLB draws from since the time of, say, Ruth.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I don't disagree with you or TSC here. The average player today is better than the average player in the 1940s. No question about that. My point I think is that great players today play against a greater percentage of players that are far inferior to them than the great players of, say, the 40s. That makes it easier for a player like Bonds, A-Rod, Sosa, etc., to be so far ahead of the rest of the league.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? The talent pool is not diluted. There are 6 billion people on the planet. Do you really think there arent enough great baseball players to fill 30 teams?

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on. I assume you follow the sport. You make like this is the first time you've ever heard this. I'm flattered you think that this is stuff I'm coming up with.

[jesusarenque]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Awful pitching is far from prevalent. Unless you somehow think with the population boom brought on from the 1940s, the addition of blacks, latinos, and asians, as well as increases in medicine has not doubled the talent pool that the MLB draws from since the time of, say, Ruth.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I don't disagree with you or TSC here. The average player today is better than the average player in the 1940s. No question about that. My point I think is that great players today play against a greater percentage of players that are far inferior to them than the great players of, say, the 40s. That makes it easier for a player like Bonds, A-Rod, Sosa, etc., to be so far ahead of the rest of the league.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? The talent pool is not diluted. There are 6 billion people on the planet. Do you really think there arent enough great baseball players to fill 30 teams?

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on. I assume you follow the sport. You make like this is the first time you've ever heard this. I'm flattered you think that this is stuff I'm coming up with.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say you came up with the idea. I said the idea was crazy, which it is.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
My point I think is that great players today play against a greater percentage of players that are far inferior to them than the great players of, say, the 40s.

[/ QUOTE ] I think the opposite is more likely.

As for this whole, top 10 BS, just stop doing it. There are way to many factors from every era to truely compare players fairly. Those you listed were obviously some of the greatest players ever, but there were also several all time greats from the 70's, 80's, and 90's(Griffey is one of them).

I think as a whole, the athletes of today are far far better than those of the past. Clearly its harder to make it to the top level, just look at the sheer number of training leagues (college, minor leagues).

IMO, baseball fans still have this romanticized opinion on many of the old time greats, from the games "golden age". IMO, these guys get maybe too much credit. But lets be honest with ourselves, baseball is [censored] great right now, it hasn't gotten worse at all and people need to accept that and embrace many of the young great players in the game right now (Phat Albert, Vlad, Johan, A-Rod, Beltran, Ichiro etc.) (BTW, those arguing baseball is diluted, take a look at those players I listed, and compare them to the names of those from the 50''s, 60's and 70's.)

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Bonds is always trying to elicit sympathy by bringing his kids into it. This just pisses me off more than anything. He got to the be one of the greatest players ever by cheating, then whines about it when he gets caught. Give me a [censored]' break. He knew the possible consequences of his actions when he started taking steroids, now he's trying to make the rest of us feel bad about the decisions he conciously made.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read the thread, just the OP and this repsonse. Even if everything you say of Bonds is true, why does this give anyone the right to bring his family into it? Barry Bonds choose to play baseball, not his children. Bringing people's family into the spotlight when they haven't done anything other than be born into a family where one person is famous, is, IMO, disgusting.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Identify the position player who cracks the top 10 who played after 1980, other than Bonds due to his post-98 feats. Griffey would have but for injuries. Maybe A. Rodriguez will one day. Mike Schmidt? A reasonable argument can be made for him, but who does he replace? Rickey Henderson? Nah.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the thing. All the players you listed rightly dominated their leagues. However, that dominance is artificial.

How is a league that draws from 5 continents, 25 countries, and a booming population watered down, yet the league that drew from two continents and largely once race isn't?

[ QUOTE ]
But sorry, I don't see a position player other than Bonds who cracks the top 10. Who do you suggest?

[/ QUOTE ]

Then again, "top 10" seems a bit too limited given the scope of the MLB. The fact of the matter is, ranking the different players is an exercise in futility. Rather, it seems we should expand it to something like 25 or so, where all of the players are roughly equal to each other in value. From the 80s-90s, we'd have guys like Mike Schmidt, Bonds, A-Rod, Frank Thomas, and Jeff Bagwell. I'd feel confident in saying those were probably the best players. The 70s and 80s are the worst times not only due to wasted talent, but do to the fact that the league was probably the smallest it'd been in relation to the talent pool: integration had fully kicked in, latin players were coming in, and we had four less teams.

[ QUOTE ]
PS, there are about 11 1/2 decades of pro baseball. There are 10 names on the top 10 position player list, obviously. That's less than one player per decade. So the idea that no players from the 80s or 90s make the list is not crazy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it isn't. But look at your list again, you essentially only drew from 4 decades of the 11 1/2.

1900-1920: Wagner
1920-1940: Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb, Hornsby
1940-1960: Dimaggio, Williams, Musial
1950-1970: Mays, Mantle

Perhaps instead of thinking that there's something *wrong* with post 1970, maybe there's something wrong with 1920-1960. Maybe their dominance was a product of the times, not the players. They were certainly great players, but it seems a little suspect.

[/ QUOTE ]

You make many valid points. Reasonable people can disagree about them. There are only a couple of things I'd add:

Pre-1950, say, it was mostly Americans playing baseball. It wasn't the global sport it was today. So to say the league was watered down back then because they didn't include Cubans or Dominicans or Japanese I think is inaccurate. Yes, there was a whole race of fabulously gifted players that were excluded, and the league could have been so much better than it was, but that doesn't mean that the league was "watered down" at that time. The talent level for players at that time was outstanding, as evidenced by the fact that the stats of many players that played in those eras have held up for decades. Yes of course it could have been even better had they allowed blacks to play.

With respect to the "top 10", I think I've said that I agree that top 10 is ridiculous. It came up only because I think that was what the original poster referenced. Top 10 is too arbitrary for anyone to be right.

This has been a good discussion. Not sure where you are, but I am in NJ where out of the blue we are getting snowed on like nuts. It's enough already. So it's good to talk baseball, because tonight it seems like opening day is 6 months away. I've enjoyed it and thank you, TSC, and everyone else that has participated.

[Jack of Arcades]

R/G in the NL in 1936: 4.71
R/G in the NL in 2004: 4.64

I can't find the baseball graph that charts it, but it goes up and down, up and down.

Pitching was just as "diluted" in the middle of your golden era. Baseball goes in cycles. It has to do with a lot of things, and the talent of the pitchers isn't always one of them. There's been changes in balls, ballparks, strike zones (Questec?), equipment, etc that increase the R/G.

Furthermore, you're comparing raw numbers, when, in this whole thread, I've been comparing numbers against the league average. It doesn't matter that Barry Bonds has an OPS of 1.300, it's that the league average is .750 and his OPS is 1.3000.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Niss,
if anyone tries to list the top 10 players of all time from baseball, simply stop listening to them. They are most likely a narrow minded moron, seriously. I have argued like a mutha on this site for a while about baseball and after a while I realized it was pointless. I just like listing all time greats, and my lists of those is growing and that makes me happy.
-TSC
Baseball guru second only to the uber-nerd Dynasty.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
Pre-1950, say, it was mostly Americans playing baseball. It wasn't the global sport it was today. So to say the league was watered down back then because they didn't include Cubans or Dominicans or Japanese I think is inaccurate. Yes, there was a whole race of fabulously gifted players that were excluded, and the league could have been so much better than it was, but that doesn't mean that the league was "watered down" at that time. The talent level for players at that time was outstanding, as evidenced by the fact that the stats of many players that played in those eras have held up for decades. Yes of course it could have been even better had they allowed blacks to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's certainly true that the top level of talent was amazing, but there were many many players on the bad side, as well. What I'm saying was, when you think of league size as roster spots-to-talent-pool ratio, the league is smaller than it was 50 years ago.

[Jack of Arcades]

You forgot Nate tha Great. I know sthief and Bison are both very intelligent about baseball.

[ThaSaltCracka]

the minor leagues were smaller too. Much much smaller.

[ThaSaltCracka]

oh [censored], nvm.

Nate is a G fo sho and he knows his [censored]. He hooked me up phat on an assignment, but you know he rarely posts in OOT, except for around playoff time.

third place is okay, I don't mind being the second loser.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm saying is that the league, at 30 teams, is much smaller now in comparison to the talent pool than it was 80 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

......what leads you to believe that your above statement is correct?

Please expand/explain further.

[Jack of Arcades]

I've already stated them many times.

- The league has effectively doubled in size in terms of roster spots
- Integration alone has a huge effect on the talent pool.
- Population has boomed; easily more than doubled.
- Rich become richer / poor become poorer - MLB draws from the poor.
- Medical advances allow people to play who previously would not be able to - replace John Smoltz, Kerry Wood, and a multitude of other Tommy John surgery recepients with the best players in the minors. Do the same for hitters with torn ACL's... you get the idea.