Barry Bonds opens big mouth again

[B-Man]

good article on espn.com:
Bonds is no Ruth

Barry Bonds thinks he can erase the Babe by passing his homerun total? Please. Barry Bonds, as great and dominating as he has been, hasn't dominated even close to the way the Babe dominated his league. And Ruth didn't need steriods, either [he just needed a lot of hot dogs [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]].

Barry Bonds is an all-time great, but he also has a super-human ego, and I believe he is a cheater (he would have been a Hall of Famer even if he quit before he started taking the juice, so I wont take that away from him, but he never would have hit 73 home runs). He also should know better than to take the Babe's name in vain--a couple of years ago, Pedro pitched a dominating game at Yankee Stadium, and afterward boasted, "Wake up the damn Bambino and get him to face me, maybe I'll drill him in the ass." Pedro went on the DL a week later. Coincidence? Maybe... but I wont shed a tear if Bonds pulls a muscle this week, thats for sure.

[Uston]

Barry Bonds, as great and dominating as he has been, hasn't dominated even close to the way the Babe dominated his league.

Let Bonds compete against only white Americans and I highly doubt that would be the case. I find it sad that Bonds' comments about Babe Ruth are getting more attention than Bonds' comments about Henry Aaron and the Negro Leagues.

[B-Man]

Let Bonds compete against only white Americans and I highly doubt that would be the case.

Oh really? You think Bonds would hit more home runs than most of the other teams in the league? Or that he could be a dominating pitcher? Think again.

I find it sad that Bonds' comments about Babe Ruth are getting more attention than Bonds' comments about Henry Aaron and the Negro Leagues.

Don't be sad. When public figures say stupid things, that is going to get attention. What did Bonds say about Aaron (who hit 755 home runs WITHOUT steroids) and the Negro Leagues?

[adios]

"Oh really? You think Bonds would hit more home runs than most of the other teams in the league? Or that he could be a dominating pitcher? Think again."

It's not about how Bonds does it's about others who in Babe Ruth's era that were denied the same opportunities that Ruth had. How can you categorically state that some player(s) excluded from the game because of the color of their skin couldn't have accomplished more than Ruth accomplished? Or perhaps that pitchers who were excluded from the game because of the color of their skin would not have gotten Ruth out more? Highly skilled black baseball players didn't show up starting in 1948.

[Uston]

Thank you, Tom, for not completely ignoring my point.

[B-Man]

How can you categorically state that some player(s) excluded from the game because of the color of their skin couldn't have accomplished more than Ruth accomplished?

Well, I never said that, but I would agree with it. No player in the history of baseball, whether black, white, yellow, red or purple, has ever dominated the game like Babe Ruth did, just looking at his performance at the plate. Now add to the mix the fact that he would have been a Hall of Fame pitcher had he not switched to the outfield and the debate becomes ludicrous.

I didn't say black players wouldn't have done well in the 20s or 30s; of course Satchel Paige, Josh Gibson and some others would have been stars in any league, and that would have added to the competitiveness of MLB in Ruth's era. But it is ridiculous for Barry Bonds to think he will "erase" Babe Ruth if/when he hits 715 home runs, or that he is a better player than Ruth.

When Bonds learns to pitch, I will consider this point open for discussion, but no sooner.

[Clarkmeister]

There is little doubt in my mind that Bonds is the Best player to ever play the game. Whether or not he is the Greatest is much more open to debate.

[B-Man]

There is little doubt in my mind that Bonds is the Best player to ever play the game. Whether or not he is the Greatest is much more open to debate.

I know what you are saying, but I disagree with him being the "best." His 2001 and 2002 seasons are probably the best back-to-back seasons anyone has ever had--his numbers are outrageous. However, I also think it is blatantly obvious the guy is cheating. In my opinion, he should be ranked based on what he did before he started taking the juice. He would still be a first-ballot Hall of Famer... but I don't think anyone would be discussing him as the best player ever.

Here are the all-time leaders in career OPS+:

1. Babe Ruth 207
2. Ted Williams 190
3. Lou Gehrig 179
4. Barry Bonds 177

Very impressive list. Now consider that the last 2 years, Barry has shattered the single-season record for OPS+, coming in at 262 in 2001 and then 275 in 2002; prior to 2001, he had an OPS+ of over 200 twice, in 1992 and 1993, coming in at 205 and 206. Those were his career years, pre-juice. If you discount the steroid years, he drops way down on the all-time list. Even if you give him full-credit for the steroid years, he is not close to Ruth or Williams, and also behind Gehrig.

I guess what it comes down to is whether or not you believe the guy has been cheating the last few years. If you think he is clean, a case can be made that he is one of the top 5 (or higher, according to some) players in history. If you think he is juicing and look at his lengthy career pre-juice, he is probably a top-20 player. Since he wont take a drug test, we'll probably never know for sure... but I find it hard to believe informed people really think he is clean. Then again, a lot of people think O.J. was innocent, too...

[Clarkmeister]

3 thoughts, which you are quite free to disagree with:

1. While I doubt he is on actual steriods, I'm sure Bonds is, in fact, using supplements much as McGwire was. It really doesn't bother me for a few reasons. First, many players are "juiced" now. They aren't all hitting 70 hr's. Its not like being muscular is a requirement for success in baseball like it is in football. I've heard several interviews with former players who opine that extra bulk could actually hurt in some instances. Also, until this season, baseball hasn't even thought it was worthy of testing for steroids, and all kinds of other supplements are still legal. Creatin was legal and I don't fault McGwire for using it. Similar situation to Barry.

2. There are more factors than simply OPS+. I know you know this but you are representing it in such a way that a players entire ability is represented by one number, which we both know isn't the case.

3. Barry's OPS+ (and his other stats) came against competition that is worlds ahead of what Ruth and even Gherig and Williams faced. I don't doubt for a second that Barry could transport back to Ruth's time and hit 100 home runs. With a few exceptions, it would be like playing against minor league A ballers.

Finally, of course his recent years are given disproportionate weight in the recent discussion surrounding Barry's place in history. But that's OK in my mind due to the mind boggling nature of those years. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt it. Every time someone talks about Ruth, the first thing out of their mouth is the year he hit more HR's than several teams. Using Barry's ungodly last 2 years as a cornerstone of an argument in favor of him is only natural and appropriate.

[B-Man]

I am just going to respond to the steroid issue.

While I doubt he is on actual steriods, I'm sure Bonds is, in fact, using supplements much as McGwire was. It really doesn't bother me for a few reasons. First, many players are "juiced" now. They aren't all hitting 70 hr's. Its not like being muscular is a requirement for success in baseball like it is in football.

1. I can't prove Bonds is on steroids (as opposed to supplements), but there sure is a lot of circumstantial evidence. I also think Sosa and McGwire took/take steroids, too, as well as many others (Manny Alexander was caught with steroids in his car--proof that they can't work miracles!), but that is no excuse. Of course steroids alone wouldn't allow someone to hit 70 home runs, but they could sure help a great hitter like Bonds make a quantum leap, as it appears they did. The guy was a Hall of Fame player who consistently, for 10+ years, hit 35-45 home runs per year, and then all of a sudden in his late 30s he becomes the most-dominating slugger the game has ever seen? That in and of itself looks suspicious. Combine that with the muscle growth and the large skull (Sammy has this, too) and there are a lot of reasons to question how he made the leap.

2. As for OPS+, I wasn't suggesting it was the only measure, but it is a damn good one, because it compares a player's performance to the rest of the league, and thus takes into account the era he plays in. But lets forget about that and just compare the raw numbers; Bonds' career average, on base% and slugging % do not compare to Ruth or Williams (who missed a few prime years to go to war and is probably the best pure hitter in history); take away the last few years (which I think are steroid-tained) and he is not even in the discussion. He is a great player... but before 2001 nobody would have claimed he was the best ever. And I don't think cheating should change that.

P.S. I don't think any hitter can be considered the greatest player ever unless he can pitch like Babe Ruth.