View Poll Results: Who do you have ranked higher?

Voters
66. You may not vote on this poll
  • Barry Bonds

    38 57.58%
  • Hank Aaron

    28 42.42%
Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 268

Thread: Barry Bonds vs Hank Aaron

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by pheasant View Post
    Granted, the pitchers were probably only throwing 85-95(100 mph was highly unlikely, except for possibly Sir Walter)during Babe's day with less stuff, but better control. I don't buy the fact that Ruth faced 75 mph fastballs(competitive for Junior Varsity high school), like some people have said he may have faced. That is ridiculous. Beanpoles on my high school team were clocked at 78 mph, and they weren't very good at all. I was clocked in the low 70s and I played 1st base! The fact that the Babe could swing a whopping 42 ounce bat and clock those pitches 500+ feet is unbelievable. He truly made a mockery of the pitching back then, albeit unintentionally. I can't see how that's even possible. However, he wouldn't be afforded the luxury of being able to completely tee off against the 100 mph pitchers of today with their assortment of new junk. And bringing the Babe to this era with his ridiculous 42 ounce bat would hurt him immensely. And since he wouldn't be able to take advantage of all of the bennies today like medicine, better diet, weight training, A LIGHTER BAT, etc, then comparing him to Bye Bye Balboni or Dave Kingman looks about right. I used a very light 28 ounce bat and that felt heavy enough. I believe that swinging a 32 ounce bat takes a lot of strength to swing it fast enough to even clock high school pitching. OK, I'll admit that I wasn't very good in HS. Actually, I kind of sucked. And to set the record straight: Lasek does not give you Ted Williams eyes. It is simply a corrective surgery. I.e, it brings you back to the 20/20 or 20/15 vision that you originally had, but nothing better. I found this out when I went to TLC, the same company that Tiger Woods and Bill used. Although Lasek is very convenient and worth every penny of the 4250.00 that I spent, it won't give you the ability to pick up the spin on a curve like Ted Williams could, recognize which part of the plate the ball will pass over in under 1/10th of a second, nor increase your depth perception(this killed me personally on fly balls). I'm personally waiting for a lens that I can wear that'll increase my depth perception and give me more of a 3D vision. I clearly lacked it. But it'd be very valuable for fielding high fly balls and hitting a ball.


    Ruth could "tee-off" in part because the pitches didn't move as much though. Pitchers varied speed and timing more, but if your a little early or late on a straight pitch you are still going to make solid contact a lot of the time.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    12,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
    Sorry, I disagree 100%. It is a very valid analogy and I consider it strong evidence that the players of the past would struggle today. Genetic constraints on Asian males? Seriously? I won't touch that one...
    Is it a coincidence that every Asian import besides Matsui hasn't been anything close to a HR hitter? Any reasonable observer can see why a shorter skinnier player is less likely to succeed. MLB has access to Asian players and their numbers pale in comparison to white players who pale in comparison to the more common latino's. Baseball has recently fallen out of favor with the majority of black athletes but they dominated whites and latino's since the color barrier was broken.
    Last edited by milladrive; 04-01-2012 at 06:53 AM. Reason: Removed personal attack.
    "No matter how great you were once upon a time — the years go by, and men forget,” - W. A. Phelon in Baseball Magazine in 1915. “Ross Barnes, forty years ago, was as great as Cobb or Wagner ever dared to be. Had scores been kept then as now, he would have seemed incomparably marvelous.”

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by fenrir View Post
    I think Ruth probably would be an excellent hitter in today's game, but I'm not sure if he would be the best, meaning better than Pujols.

    I remember when Berkman made that comment about Pujols being better than Ruth, and nearly everyone thought it was ridiculous, and I'm not sure why. Pujols could very well be better than Ruth ever was. We'll sadly never know though.
    If I recall that comment was made after Pujol's 3 homer World Series game. To witness something like that, possible he was a bit excited. Also Ruth did that twice in the WS and had two WS games with two home runs.
    That was Berkman's opinion, not a problem with that.

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by brett View Post
    Ruth could "tee-off" in part because the pitches didn't move as much though. Pitchers varied speed and timing more, but if your a little early or late on a straight pitch you are still going to make solid contact a lot of the time.
    We can go down this road again, the pitching then, also Ruth not facing relief pitching and today the shrunken strike zone, suspect ball, smaller parks and the lower mound. Ruth had some things going his way and todays player have some things in their favor.
    No one era had everything going their way for the batters.
    The problem is, how does anyone ever know how to make an adjustment, we can't.

  5. #65
    Small sample here but Ruth had some long ball success with two of the best. Walter Johnson, Ruth hit 10 homers against him. A pretty fair lefty, Lefty Grove Ruth and Gehrig hit the most home runs against him, both with 9 homers. Ruth lost one off of Lefty at Shibe in 1930 when he cleared the wall but the ball struck speaker supports, Yanks bitch but lose the argument, Babe sent back to second, a double
    Keep in mind Ruth never faced lefty Grove until 1925 or 1926.
    Again, small sample.

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
    We can go down this road again, the pitching then, also Ruth not facing relief pitching and today the shrunken strike zone, suspect ball, smaller parks and the lower mound. Ruth had some things going his way and todays player have some things in their favor.
    No one era had everything going their way for the batters.
    The problem is, how does anyone ever know how to make an adjustment, we can't.
    My point here is not about productivity, its about the image I have of Ruth shuffling up into the pitch and trying to hit it out of the stadium.

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by CandlestickBum View Post
    US Population 1920: 106M
    US Population 2010: 310M

    And baseball recruits worldwide. So the top 500 players are drawn from a much larger pool. If a player had to be in the top 5% in 1920, they would have to be in the top 2% (something smaller anyway) today.
    I did yield some on that 5 percent in an earlier post, asking the poster if he thought 5 percent was to high.
    I think the point is there had to be a small percentage in any era that could comptete in any other era.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Home of the Twins
    Posts
    2,580
    Quote Originally Posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
    I did yield some on that 5 percent in an earlier post, asking the poster if he thought 5 percent was to high.
    I think the point is there had to be a small percentage in any era that could comptete in any other era.
    I agree wholeheartedly.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Home of the Twins
    Posts
    2,580
    Some of my friends take it to the extreme: They've said that baseball has had a steep linear improvement from Cobb's time, up until the 1980s(our era). Then, the linear improvement got even steeper, due to advances in weight training, techology, nutrition, etc, and hence, a new era altogether. They've argued that Bonds was the best ever, until recently. Nowadays, they have Pujols as the best ever. They've even said that Mays is from a different era altogether(I agree). And they have Mays getting crushed by today's players(I strongly disagree). And forget about Ruth and Cobb. They laugh at them and call them High School players in today's game.


    Although I believe that baseball has improved modestly over time, I believe that the very greatest from each generation would still be great, regardless of which era he played in. I would still say that Cobb would finish #1 during the 1910s style of ball. He'd have much, much more competition. But he'd be the best. Similarly, Ruth takes the 1920s in those gigantic parks and large strike zone, while dealing with beanballs with no hardware at the plate. It's reasonable to think this way for Mays in the 1960s, and for Pujols the past 10 years(unless steroids players count). Could the slow-footed yet incredible hitting Pujols take down Cobb in the 1910s? I don't think so. Could he take down Cobb in today's game? Definitely, unless Cobb took advantage of today's tools. Then Cobb would make it close, due to his overall play. Of course, nobody can prove any of this, which makes it fun! With all of that being said, I'll still rank players in the following order, when considering their cumulative rankings of all eras combined: Ruth, Mays, Cobb, then Bonds. I like the representation of each era and generation here. And these four always pop into my head when I think about all-time greats. Unfortunately, my favorite is Lou Gehrig, who never quite hits the top 5. And I believe Mr Pujols will eventually crack the top 5, while putting Gehrig into the rear-view mirror. That's a shame. But I try to be objective. On the flip side, Mr. Bonds was a jerk and is a very unpopular answer here. But I respect his pre-steroids play, especially since I saw a lot of it. And I like my list. Let the debates continue....

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    14,504
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by bluesky5 View Post
    Is it a coincidence that every Asian import besides Matsui hasn't been anything close to a HR hitter? Any reasonable observer can see why a shorter skinnier player is less likely to succeed. MLB has access to Asian players and their numbers pale in comparison to white players who pale in comparison to the more common latino's. Baseball has recently fallen out of favor with the majority of black athletes but they dominated whites and latino's since the color barrier was broken.
    Blacks haven't really dominated whites and latinos. What you are witnessing for the most part is a selection bias. If instead of integrating a white league with the very best black players they had integrated a black league with the very best white players we would be saying that whites have dominated blacks in baseball.
    Last edited by milladrive; 04-01-2012 at 06:52 AM. Reason: Removed personal attack from quote.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    12,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Ubiquitous View Post
    Blacks haven't really dominated whites and latinos. What you are witnessing for the most part is a selection bias. If instead of integrating a white league with the very best black players they had integrated a black league with the very best white players we would be saying that whites have dominated blacks in baseball.
    Eh, I think I'm gonna just agree to disagree on this one. I think Mays, Aaron, Bonds > Williams, Mantle, Schmidt on the top side of things. I could go on but it's not worth it.
    "No matter how great you were once upon a time — the years go by, and men forget,” - W. A. Phelon in Baseball Magazine in 1915. “Ross Barnes, forty years ago, was as great as Cobb or Wagner ever dared to be. Had scores been kept then as now, he would have seemed incomparably marvelous.”

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Ubiquitous View Post
    Blacks haven't really dominated whites and latinos. What you are witnessing for the most part is a selection bias. If instead of integrating a white league with the very best black players they had integrated a black league with the very best white players we would be saying that whites have dominated blacks in baseball.

    Clarify this. I believe that something like half of the top 30 or 40 players by WAR since 1950 have been black. How is that due to selection bias?

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by pheasant View Post
    Some of my friends take it to the extreme: They've said that baseball has had a steep linear improvement from Cobb's time, up until the 1980s(our era). Then, the linear improvement got even steeper, due to advances in weight training, techology, nutrition, etc, and hence, a new era altogether. They've argued that Bonds was the best ever, until recently. Nowadays, they have Pujols as the best ever. They've even said that Mays is from a different era altogether(I agree). And they have Mays getting crushed by today's players(I strongly disagree). And forget about Ruth and Cobb. They laugh at them and call them High School players in today's game.

    I think we underestimate early 1900s athletes. Humans were probably genetically superior 100 years ago compared to today because they were not many generations removed from hard labor. I have tended to be an advocate for putting recent players near the top of lists, but Ruth and Mays and Cobb were primal beasts.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    6,548
    Blog Entries
    1
    I think that the idea of old time players being humbled by today's game is due to shortsightedness on people's part. We tend to think of 1900 as the beginning of time, and act as though men 'evolved' from that time into a superior 'modern' man. It seems laughable, but it seems as though that's how some people think. So, somehow, in a 100 or so year time frame, the human race has evolved into superior athletes? What about the thousands of years before that? If humans developed as athletes as quickly as these people claim, then the people of 400 or 500 years ago would not even be as children compared to the modern man. If you heard someone from 1850 saying that the 'modern' man was superior athletically to the men of 1750, you'd laugh. Well guess what, it's the same concept.

    The best athletes of 1900 were every bit as good as the best athletes of 2012. To argue against such a statement is akin to saying that men of a few hundred years ago were all weak and couldn't run at all, and that we will become a race of superhumans in another couple hundred years.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    12,334
    Quote Originally Posted by willshad View Post
    I think that the idea of old time players being humbled by today's game is due to shortsightedness on people's part. We tend to think of 1900 as the beginning of time, and act as though men 'evolved' from that time into a superior 'modern' man. It seems laughable, but it seems as though that's how some people think. So, somehow, in a 100 or so year time frame, the human race has evolved into superior athletes? What about the thousands of years before that? If humans developed as athletes as quickly as these people claim, then the people of 400 or 500 years ago would not even be as children compared to the modern man. If you heard someone from 1850 saying that the 'modern' man was superior athletically to the men of 1750, you'd laugh. Well guess what, it's the same concept.

    The best athletes of 1900 were every bit as good as the best athletes of 2012. To argue against such a statement is akin to saying that men of a few hundred years ago were all weak and couldn't run at all, and that we will become a race of superhumans in another couple hundred years.
    I'm glad someone else has the perspective to see this.
    "No matter how great you were once upon a time — the years go by, and men forget,” - W. A. Phelon in Baseball Magazine in 1915. “Ross Barnes, forty years ago, was as great as Cobb or Wagner ever dared to be. Had scores been kept then as now, he would have seemed incomparably marvelous.”

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by willshad View Post
    I think that the idea of old time players being humbled by today's game is due to shortsightedness on people's part. We tend to think of 1900 as the beginning of time, and act as though men 'evolved' from that time into a superior 'modern' man. It seems laughable, but it seems as though that's how some people think. So, somehow, in a 100 or so year time frame, the human race has evolved into superior athletes? What about the thousands of years before that? If humans developed as athletes as quickly as these people claim, then the people of 400 or 500 years ago would not even be as children compared to the modern man. If you heard someone from 1850 saying that the 'modern' man was superior athletically to the men of 1750, you'd laugh. Well guess what, it's the same concept.

    The best athletes of 1900 were every bit as good as the best athletes of 2012. To argue against such a statement is akin to saying that men of a few hundred years ago were all weak and couldn't run at all, and that we will become a race of superhumans in another couple hundred years.
    I think thats what being missed here. The discussion is not about the average player of the past, it's a select group, Wagner, Cobb, Ruth and some others. So though they might not stand out or be as dominant in todays game because the quality of players in general is higher we can't just write them off and say, they might not be able to play at high level today, may not even make it today. No one would debate that the average player of today is better conditioned than the average player of the past.

    I find the Ruth being a modern day Steve Balboni or some saying he might not even make the starting nine on some teams to be a joke. Even if one thinks it would be a different Ruth in todays game, how can anyone buy Balboni and even worst Ruth being a bench player. If Ruth could have a problem making a team today, what does that say for some other great and the very good ballplayers from the past, none from the past could play today, silly.
    I still rank him at the top and have repeated he would not be as dominent today but to some, thats not enough, they want to make a legit heavyweight hitter form the past into a modern day lightweight.

    Is it that difficult to believe that some players born around 1900 could be born with some of the qualities that make them very good and great at the game.
    I also don't buy the nonsense about moving past greats in to todays game as is If they were playing today they would and should be judged as benefitting from all of todays advancements, same as todays's players.
    Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 04-01-2012 at 06:38 AM.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    14,504
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by brett View Post
    Clarify this. I believe that something like half of the top 30 or 40 players by WAR since 1950 have been black. How is that due to selection bias?
    If you had a league with 500 black players from all over the country and then slowly added 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, so on and so on up to about 100 of the very best white players would you think that whites are dominating the league? If half of the best 30 or 40 players since whites integrated the black league happened to be white would that be further proof that whites are dominating the league?

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    14,504
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by willshad View Post
    The best athletes of 1900 were every bit as good as the best athletes of 2012.

    Well, no they weren't and for the most part it has little to do with genetics. You are right in that evolution doesn't work that quickly but an environment can change very rapidly. We have come along way since 1900 in terms of medical care, nutrition, and just generally avoiding many toxic and destructive forces to the human body.

  19. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by csh19792001 View Post
    Cobb's walk rate was actually significantly above the league average during his time in the AL. About the 65th percentile.
    How do you arrive at this? Cobb had a .434 on base percentage and .366 batting average giving a difference of .434-.366=.068, or 6.8% of his plate appearances that he got on base by walk or HBP. His league had a .341 on base percentage and a .273 batting average for a difference of .341-.273 or .068, the same rate as Cobb.

    So as far as walks + HBP per plate appearance, he was average. We could see him as being a little "better" because he had fewer non-hit plate appearances with which to draw the walks.

    Cobb also only produced slightly above the league rate of total bases per hit. The league went 1.34 and Cobb 1.39.

  20. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Ubiquitous View Post
    If you had a league with 500 black players from all over the country and then slowly added 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, so on and so on up to about 100 of the very best white players would you think that whites are dominating the league? If half of the best 30 or 40 players since whites integrated the black league happened to be white would that be further proof that whites are dominating the league?
    No because only 15-20% of the population is black and over 50% is white.

Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •