Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Let's Deal With Barry Bonds.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I do consider Barry Bonds to be one of the greatest players of all-time. I just don't think he's the greatest player of all-time like some people do.

    Comment


    • I speak only for myself, having watched lots of baseball since before WW II shuffled the careers of so many idols I got a chance to see before ... and after. I missed seeing Lou Gehrig by just about two seasons; but there was some consolation in seeing lots of newsreel footage of him at play before ALS struck him down.

      I personally am witnessing a marked decline in MLB and have given up wrestling with its causes, which, the more I explore them, become more convoluted and with ripple effects. I am guessing that the two overarching factors [three, really] are the siphoning of young talents into other sports that now can compete with MLB for paid talent; the disappearance of pastoral real estate enencumbered by business investment; the dichotomy between the "pure" game and its shrunken preparatory prep grounds and aluminum bats; and the overarching societal pressures that make college education the modern equivalent of an 8th grade education 70 years ago and a high school diploma 50 years ago.

      In my eyes, Barry Bonds is a national treasure. I sat and watched, awestruck [no, not dumbstruck] at a single hitter who, in one plate appearance, recaptured the sudden jolt of Gehrig and the plate discipline of Ted Williams.

      I just checked Barry's run production through age 1998, when those here who seem to know best determined that he was fit for evaluation. He had 1,630 runs created in 8,100 plate appearances, a run creation rate of .2012 or 20.12%. In the modern game of MLB [which I count as 1901-Present] only 11 players have ever put up career numbers that reached .2000. The moral majority closes the curtain on the years 1999 on, when Bonds became, a MLB moral outcast:

      -by bulked up appearance;

      -by statistical numbers generated that were inconsistent with regressed norms for age-performance expectation;

      -by word of mouth rumor amid rampant speculations over sudden talent bursts among inconsistent talents prior;

      -in a MLB regulatory atmosphere, reeling from strikes and needing seats in the stands and eyes on the sets, talking a high-tone morality game [on enhancement "abuses"] while doing everything humanly possible to encourage gargantuan HR production.

      There is something neat and tidy about mathematical models of expectation. They offers us absolute certainties [allegedly] in which the realities must be tested against the truth [models]. They can also define parameters within parameters; so that ther is litle wiggle room for human indivdual differences to surprise.

      I mentioned the fact that fewer than a dozen players over 113 seasons of play created runs at a .2000 rate. Bonds is suspect [hell, no -condemned] after 1998. I figured, what if I look at a few of those .2000 producers [and solid hitters-producers who came close] ... just to see how they performed, having reached Barry's cut off age in 1999:

      Hows about:

      Ted Williams: 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958

      Stan Musial: 1957, 1962

      Tony Gwynn: 1996, 1997, 1999

      Hank Aaron: 1971, 1973

      Wade Boggs: 1994, 1995

      WHOA!!!! Someone says. Certainly Gynn and Boggs don't count because they weren't sluggers.

      Then I ask, What Prescisely, Do Steroids Give a User THat He Did Not Possess Before?

      -batting eye?
      -complete patience and command of the strike zone?
      -improved eyesight for contact with the moving pitch?
      -improved bat speed at contact with the pitched ball?

      I suggest only the last entry, improved bat speed at contact with the pitched ball. In other words, if you are a .240 hitter who fans 155 times a season but hits 17 HR's, you will still be hitting in that .240-.250 range; you will still fan 155 times a season, maybe more; but perhaps 7 long flies that were previously outs may now make it over the wall. [Those extra feet also raise the BA,within given talent level DETERMINED by ability to make contact in the first place.

      If MLB freezes Barry out f the HoF, put them in a pot and roast 'em. Cannibals would have had a better sense of reality and justice.

      Yes. I am firmly in the "do not care" camp; and I don't fell a bit morally compromised in saying it.
      Last edited by leewileyfan; 11-20-2012, 07:45 PM.

      Comment


      • Hatz...these are my projections for a clean Barry Bonds, who plays until 42 years of age, 1999-2007.

        These 9 years will be a reflection of his previous 13 seasons, where he showed himself to be a great all around player and a historic power/speed combination.

        Things to keep in mind....

        Bonds’ career BA through 1998 was .289

        Bonds’ career OBP through 1998 was .410

        Bonds’ career SA through 1998 was .555
        His top three SA seasons were .677, .647, .624. They came in successive seasons, during his prime.

        Bonds’ AB/HR ratio through 1998 was 16.1 and his highest HR total was 46.

        Through 1998 (13 seasons), his per season average was….

        623 PA
        509 AB
        147 H
        104 BB
        4 HBP
        31 doubles
        5 triples
        31 HR

        I have assumed a healthy Bonds for this projection, and again, try to erase from your mind the cartoonish freak show we witnessed and think of what likely would have been.

        It is probably rather generous when you consider his production through 1998 and my projected totals....

        BA----.289----.282
        SA----.555----.509
        OBP---.410---.398
        AB/HR--16.1/18.5





        BONDSDECLINE.jpg

        Comment


        • I speak only for myself, having watched lots of baseball since before WW II shuffled the careers of so many idols I got a chance to see before ... and after. I missed seeing Lou Gehrig by just about two seasons; but there was some consolation in seeing lots of newsreel footage of him at play before ALS struck him down.

          I personally am witnessing a marked decline in MLB and have given up wrestling with its causes, which, the more I explore them, become more convoluted and with ripple effects. I am guessing that the two overarching factors [three, really] are the siphoning of young talents into other sports that now can compete with MLB for paid talent; the disappearance of pastoral real estate enencumbered by business investment; the dichotomy between the "pure" game and its shrunken preparatory prep grounds and aluminum bats; and the overarching societal pressures that make college education the modern equivalent of an 8th grade education 70 years ago and a high school diploma 50 years ago.

          In my eyes, Barry Bonds is a national treasure. I sat and watched, awestruck [no, not dumbstruck] at a single hitter who, in one plate appearance, recaptured the sudden jolt of Gehrig and the plate discipline of Ted Williams.

          I just checked Barry's run production through age 1998, when those here who seem to know best determined that he was fit for evaluation. He had 1,630 runs created in 8,100 plate appearances, a run creation rate of .2012 or 20.12%. In the modern game of MLB [which I count as 1901-Present] only 11 players have ever put up career numbers that reached .2000. The moral majority closes the curtain on the years 1999 on, when Bonds became, a MLB moral outcast:

          -by bulked up appearance;

          -by statistical numbers generated that were inconsistent with regressed norms for age-performance expectation;

          -by word of mouth rumor amid rampant speculations over sudden talent bursts among inconsistent talents prior;

          -in a MLB regulatory atmosphere, reeling from strikes and needing seats in the stands and eyes on the sets, talking a high-tone morality game [on enhancement "abuses"] while doing everything humanly possible to encourage gargantuan HR production.

          There is something neat and tidy about mathematical models of expectation. They offers us absolute certainties [allegedly] in which the realities must be tested against the truth [models]. They can also define parameters within parameters; so that ther is litle wiggle room for human indivdual differences to surprise.

          I mentioned the fact that fewer than a dozen players over 113 seasons of play created runs at a .2000 rate. Bonds is suspect [hell, no -condemned] after 1998. I figured, what if I look at a few of those .2000 producers [and solid hitters-producers who came close] ... just to see how they performed, having reached Barry's cut off age in 1999:

          Hows about:

          Ted Williams: 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958

          Stan Musial: 1957, 1962

          Tony Gwynn: 1996, 1997, 1999

          Hank Aaron: 1971, 1973

          Wade Boggs: 1994, 1995

          WHOA!!!! Someone says. Certainly Gynn and Boggs don't count because they weren't sluggers.

          Then I ask, What Prescisely, Do Steroids Give a User THat He Did Not Possess Before?

          -batting eye?
          -complete patience and command of the strike zone?
          -improved eyesight for contact with the moving pitch?
          -improved bat speed at contact with the pitched ball?

          I suggest only the last entry, improved bat speed at contact with the pitched ball. In other words, if you are a .240 hitter who fans 155 times a season but hits 17 HR's, you will still be hitting in that .240-.250 range; you will still fan 155 times a season, maybe more; but perhaps 7 long flies that were previously outs may now make it over the wall. [Those extra feet also raise the BA,within given talent level DETERMINED by ability to make contact in the first place.

          If MLB freezes Barry out f the HoF, put them in a pot and roast 'em. Cannibals would have had a better sense of reality and justice.

          Yes. I am firmly in the "do not care" camp; and I don't fell a bit morally compromised in saying it
          Great post, keying in to some of the same points I've made about his rare ability even at many things steroids don't help. Though as Sultan pointed out, it adds ability to work out longer and harder. Plus it definitely improves batting average- contact ability or no, Bonds was not a .340 hitter, or anything close to it, before those historic seasons. How much easier is it to foul off questionable pitches when you know you have those extra feet to play with? Plus I grew up seeing Mike Piazza 'muscling' singles into right field. I think it helps batting average in a lot of different ways. Of course so much of what it doesn't help- speed, fielding ability, natural instincts- are the very areas where Bonds excelled, and with the exception of Mays, at more different ones than anyone else.
          Last edited by toomanyhatz; 11-20-2012, 08:35 PM. Reason: Adding in the quote
          Found in a fortune cookie On Thursday, August 18th, 2005: "Hard words break no bones, Kind words butter no parsnips."

          1955 1959 1963 1965 1981 1988 2017?

          Comment


          • There's nothing to deny or argue. Bonds is one of the top 3 hitters in baseball history period. He was an amazing HOF talent who could also field and steal bases.
            This week's Giant

            #5 in games played as a Giant with 1721 , Bill Terry

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
              So let me get this straight Hatz....are you saying legs don't have muscles. Are you saying Bonds only worked out his upper body? LOL seriously, you really need to rethink some of your beliefs. Muscular stamina along with strength is the main benefit. Legs are a part of that, ESPECIALLY for an aging outfielder. His legs needed to be much stronger to carry around his new barrel chest.
              No, you're right. I'm sure it did help his speed. I don't think that's what he was concentrating on, but of course the stamina would've helped him in the field as well. Just not nearly as much as it helped him in other areas. Plus I think the SB%- though it certainly could've been helped a bit by an extra burst of speed in reserve- is mostly attributable to picking his spots, which comes with experience, smarts and instincts- all of which he had more of during his decline, natural or no.

              Still the only 500/500 guy ever, in other words. What that's worth is of course still debatable, but I do think it gives him the advantage over, say, Ted Williams.
              Found in a fortune cookie On Thursday, August 18th, 2005: "Hard words break no bones, Kind words butter no parsnips."

              1955 1959 1963 1965 1981 1988 2017?

              Comment


              • Well, we're always going to disagree a bit. In general I do think you were more than fair. But I'm really not keeping the steroided numbers in my head. Honestly. I don't think it's out of line to assume a slight upswing in HR in 2000 and 2001 based on ballpark- he was only in his mid-30s and he did have a shorter fence to aim for. Think Aaron moving from Milwaukee to Atlanta. For that matter think of the Giants as a team, who added a 25 HR as a team between 1999 and 2000, not counting Bonds' stats. Jeff Kent, whatever else I may think of him, is generally thought to have been clean, and his numbers went up too. So did Rich Aurilia's, though his numbers in 2001 are a bit suspicious too.
                Found in a fortune cookie On Thursday, August 18th, 2005: "Hard words break no bones, Kind words butter no parsnips."

                1955 1959 1963 1965 1981 1988 2017?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by leewileyfan View Post
                  I speak only for myself, having watched lots of baseball since before WW II shuffled the careers of so many idols I got a chance to see before ... and after. I missed seeing Lou Gehrig by just about two seasons; but there was some consolation in seeing lots of newsreel footage of him at play before ALS struck him down.

                  I personally am witnessing a marked decline in MLB and have given up wrestling with its causes, which, the more I explore them, become more convoluted and with ripple effects. I am guessing that the two overarching factors [three, really] are the siphoning of young talents into other sports that now can compete with MLB for paid talent; the disappearance of pastoral real estate enencumbered by business investment; the dichotomy between the "pure" game and its shrunken preparatory prep grounds and aluminum bats; and the overarching societal pressures that make college education the modern equivalent of an 8th grade education 70 years ago and a high school diploma 50 years ago.

                  In my eyes, Barry Bonds is a national treasure. I sat and watched, awestruck [no, not dumbstruck] at a single hitter who, in one plate appearance, recaptured the sudden jolt of Gehrig and the plate discipline of Ted Williams.

                  I just checked Barry's run production through age 1998, when those here who seem to know best determined that he was fit for evaluation. He had 1,630 runs created in 8,100 plate appearances, a run creation rate of .2012 or 20.12%. In the modern game of MLB [which I count as 1901-Present] only 11 players have ever put up career numbers that reached .2000. The moral majority closes the curtain on the years 1999 on, when Bonds became, a MLB moral outcast:

                  -by bulked up appearance;

                  -by statistical numbers generated that were inconsistent with regressed norms for age-performance expectation;

                  -by word of mouth rumor amid rampant speculations over sudden talent bursts among inconsistent talents prior;

                  -in a MLB regulatory atmosphere, reeling from strikes and needing seats in the stands and eyes on the sets, talking a high-tone morality game [on enhancement "abuses"] while doing everything humanly possible to encourage gargantuan HR production.

                  There is something neat and tidy about mathematical models of expectation. They offers us absolute certainties [allegedly] in which the realities must be tested against the truth [models]. They can also define parameters within parameters; so that ther is litle wiggle room for human indivdual differences to surprise.

                  I mentioned the fact that fewer than a dozen players over 113 seasons of play created runs at a .2000 rate. Bonds is suspect [hell, no -condemned] after 1998. I figured, what if I look at a few of those .2000 producers [and solid hitters-producers who came close] ... just to see how they performed, having reached Barry's cut off age in 1999:

                  Hows about:
                  Ted Williams: 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958

                  Stan Musial: 1957, 1962

                  Tony Gwynn: 1996, 1997, 1999

                  Hank Aaron: 1971, 1973

                  Wade Boggs: 1994, 1995

                  WHOA!!!! Someone says. Certainly Gynn and Boggs don't count because they weren't sluggers.

                  Then I ask, What Prescisely, Do Steroids Give a User THat He Did Not Possess Before?

                  -batting eye?
                  -complete patience and command of the strike zone?
                  -improved eyesight for contact with the moving pitch?
                  -improved bat speed at contact with the pitched ball?

                  I suggest only the last entry, improved bat speed at contact with the pitched ball. In other words, if you are a .240 hitter who fans 155 times a season but hits 17 HR's, you will still be hitting in that .240-.250 range; you will still fan 155 times a season, maybe more; but perhaps 7 long flies that were previously outs may now make it over the wall. [Those extra feet also raise the BA,within given talent level DETERMINED by ability to make contact in the first place.

                  If MLB freezes Barry out f the HoF, put them in a pot and roast 'em. Cannibals would have had a better sense of reality and justice.

                  Yes. I am firmly in the "do not care" camp; and I don't fell a bit morally compromised in saying it.
                  Let me deal with two issues in your post Lee.
                  First your closing line.......do not care, that fine, I wouldn't challenge or debate your feelings on the issue. Not a problem.

                  But,your attempting to do something that has been tried many time on this board.
                  Like some others you point out some great seasons by some other, hitting over their heads, upward spikes in offense.
                  The history of the game has many such seasons, but none, none come even close to Barry from age 36-39.
                  So it appears your point is, so what, others have done the same or close to what Barry did age 36-39, some at an earlier age.
                  Let me tell you something Lee, I can tell by your posts, you know the game and it's evident you really do your home work...........but flat out, no one is even on the same page as Barry in spiking, we're not talking about a couple of seasons. He had a dramatic spike that he maintained for 4 to 5 years, late in career.
                  I'll use Ted Williams because the situations are so similar, two geat hitters at the same age, 4 year period..

                  Look at their career numbers before the 4 year period age 36-39. Compare before that 4 years to numbers put up in the 4 years.

                  There is no comparison, the great Ted Wiliams age 36-39 is not even close to Barry age 36-39.
                  I take into account the different conditions played under. Barry in a higher offensive era but that not the point, we are comparing there before the 36-39 and the time period age 36-39 in their own times.

                  Barry age 36-39 his batting average 60 points higher than his earlier career numbers 1986-2000.
                  Slugging 242 points higher--OBA 147 points higher his AB/HR from 15.09 to 7.85 nearly cut in half.


                  Ted age 36-39, he hit only 7 points over his earlier career BA. Is that unusual?
                  Slugging 16 points higher---OBA .004 higher and his AB/HR early career 19.35 then age 36-39 13.37.
                  I don't see the comparison Lee, Ted is not even that much above his norm at age 36-39, Barry in that 36-39 is on another planet.
                  Whats the comparison you see here, both in those 4 year period..............there is none.
                  Attached Files
                  Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 11-21-2012, 03:59 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Long post earlier, let me make it easier to look at.
                    Again, Lee as other posters have done in recent years use the ...."so what line." What did Barry do in late years that some others have not done.
                    The answer is he did something late career that no hitter ever did at that age. In fact some of the greatest in the history of the game have never done over 4 years, when they were much younger than Barry.
                    This is what made many fans wonder, now we know what a big part of the reason was, he was a user.

                    Here it is.
                    Ted
                    1939-1954-----------Ba.348----Slg. .638-----OBA. .486----AB/HR ratio 19.35
                    Age 36-39--------------.355------- .654----------.490----------------13.37
                    Nothing unusual there, no spike, his OBA only .004 higher, other numbers close to norm

                    Barry
                    1986-2000---------Ba. .289----Slg. .567-----OBA .412-----AB/HR ratio 15.09
                    Age 36-39-------------.347--------.809-----OBA .559------------------7.88.
                    Look at the later Ba., slugging +242 points, AB/HR 7.88
                    Babe Ruth's best slugging over 4 years .788, at age 25-28.

                    Another so called similar situation shot down, another failed comparison to Barry's late career spike.
                    Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 11-21-2012, 05:03 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948 View Post
                      [ATTACH]116675[/ATTACH]
                      So steroids made him hit 38 more home runs in 2001 than if he would have been clean? Sorry, I don't buy it.
                      Lou Gehrig is the Truest Yankee of them all!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
                        Well, those are both righties, so not quite sure why you'd compare them to Bonds, but....
                        Because I mistakenly assumed that the LF dimensions got shorter too. Now that I've looked it up, I know it's not so. I've been there several times, so you'd think I"d know better. :stupidme:

                        Now we're getting bogged down in the tiny details when we've finally found a place where we're in basic agreement. So let's just agree to disagree on those bits, and I can sit back and enjoy your responses to the posts like the one above.
                        Found in a fortune cookie On Thursday, August 18th, 2005: "Hard words break no bones, Kind words butter no parsnips."

                        1955 1959 1963 1965 1981 1988 2017?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by leewileyfan
                          That's why the topic of Barry Bonds is STILL worthy of two sided debate. The moral majority plants victory flags where they have hardly established a winning argument.
                          Not sure what you're referring to:

                          1) Bonds is now a convicted felon
                          2) Bonds will likely not make it to the Hall (no need to argue this since we'll all know more soon enough)
                          3) Bonds reputation is thoroughly tarnished (even the 'homers' on his flagship station admit his numbers are suspect)
                          4) his own team all but ignores his attempt to re-enter baseball (his envy for McGuire hit's a new high)
                          5) even people who don't know baseball now know him as much as a cheater as a hitter

                          I think the moral majority must be toasting champaign. After the hall vote, I expect more bubby to be uncorked.
                          "It's better to look good, than be good."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by drstrangelove View Post
                            Not sure what you're referring to:

                            1) Bonds is now a convicted felon
                            Yes, this is, for the moment, correct. To quote the judge's finding that made it so:

                            :Viewed in the light most favorable to the government, the record supports a finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the question was material to the grand jury's investigation of BALCO and Greg Anderson for unlawfully distributing performance enhancing drugs, and that defendant endeavored to obstruct the grand jury by not answering it when it was first asked.

                            "The conviction can be upheld if (the) defendant endeavored to obstruct justice, even if he did not succeed."
                            I would simply add that Bonds was not convicted of cheating in direct violation of enforceable MLB rules and standards providing for his suspension or expulsion from the game; was not convicted on charges of perjuring himself; and his conviction had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with numbers produced as his player legacy.

                            :2) Bonds will likely not make it to the Hall (no need to argue this since we'll all know more soon enough)
                            In our morally ambiguous society, where standards are as fleeting as the latest I-Pad release number, this is not surprising at all. I will lose no sleep over this, because time, historic reflection, future study of film clips and data history will tell the entire tale in greater historical context. By that time, neither Bonds nor I will be here to care. There may or may not be entire new standards of morality dealing with the colliding pressures for athletic performance and longevity ... then juxtaposed against the matrix of challenge and performance. They may be much stricter and Spartan; or they may be more encouraging of supplementing innate talent. Who knows?

                            3.
                            : Bonds' reputation is thoroughly tarnished.
                            I find no solace, satisfaction or glee in such a loss of status for a human being. [Just sayin.']

                            As for Points 4 and 5: His teams weren't blase about him when his performance put a charge into the franchise and its attendance. The last point, about the uninformed masses about baseball, strikes me of giving praise to one of the basest of qualities [B]especially among the uninformed, certainty, 100% conviction, emotional investment and militarism about the very topics about which they are mis-informed or emotionally recruited.

                            I guess I am in the moral minority. Cheers!

                            Comment


                            • My favorite quote from 'This is Spinal Tap', courtesy of bassist Derek Smalls (Harry Shearer): "I'm sort of in the middle, like lukewarm water."

                              1) As far as Bonds being a convicted felon, it's a symbolic charge because they couldn't nail him on anything else. Still under appeal, I believe. Not defending him- I think he knowingly took steroids and lied about it- just saying there's still a lot of debate over a) how guilty he was and of what and b) just who, or what, is served by him doing jail time.

                              2) If Bonds doesn't make the Hall- and you might be right that he won't- that would be a tragedy. Especially with real scumbags like Cobb and Anson in there, it really shouldn't be a moral choice. The only question should be whether their playing record- or if you want to go there, that portion of their playing record that's come by honestly- justifies it. For Bonds I can't imagine anyone disagreeing that the answer is a resounding 'yes'. Arguably self-inflicted, but wrong is wrong.

                              3) His reputation is indeed tarnished, but he has plenty of company. It'd be great if we could come up with an alternate Hall for folks that had a great career without giving in to the temptation to juice, but that's the problem with the era- everyone's under suspicion, and we'll never completely know whose numbers are genuine and whose aren't. Add to it MLB/Selig's complicity, and the waters get muddier and muddier even if you take Bonds out of the equation entirely.

                              4) And to make it worse, the result for the Giants was two World Series titles in 3 years. Karma? Depends on your belief system, but you can't question their logic, it seems to have worked.

                              5) Another tragedy, of Shakespearean proportions. Again, not defending him, just wishing for a world in which his accomplishments and his fall are at least commonly known about, even as a cautionary example. Will baseball ever recover? To me the first step is not closing the book on Bonds, but putting Selig on the next stage out of town. Not that that's going to happen.
                              Found in a fortune cookie On Thursday, August 18th, 2005: "Hard words break no bones, Kind words butter no parsnips."

                              1955 1959 1963 1965 1981 1988 2017?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3 View Post
                                Long post earlier, let me make it easier to look at.
                                Again, Lee as other posters have done in recent years use the ...."so what line." What did Barry do in late years that some others have not done.
                                The answer is he did something late career that no hitter ever did at that age. In fact some of the greatest in the history of the game have never done over 4 years, when they were much younger than Barry.
                                This is what made many fans wonder, now we know what a big part of the reason was, he was a user.

                                Here it is.
                                Ted
                                1939-1954-----------Ba.348----Slg. .638-----OBA. .486----AB/HR ratio 19.35
                                Age 36-39--------------.355------- .654----------.490----------------13.37
                                Nothing unusual there, no spike, his OBA only .004 higher, other numbers close to norm

                                Barry
                                1986-2000---------Ba. .289----Slg. .567-----OBA .412-----AB/HR ratio 15.09
                                Age 36-39-------------.347--------.809-----OBA .559------------------7.88.
                                Look at the later Ba., slugging +242 points, AB/HR 7.88
                                Babe Ruth's best slugging over 4 years .788, at age 25-28.

                                Another so called similar situation shot down, another failed comparison to Barry's late career spike.
                                Anyone show me the comparison here....Lee.
                                You posted the Ted Willams age 36-39...............and I answered with the above comparison of the two.
                                .
                                Look at the numbers, Ted at 36-39 is a blip spike.
                                Barry 36-39 compared to earlier years is an explosion.
                                Show me anyone in the history of the game age 36 to 39 with a spike that even belongs on the same page as Barry. It never happened.
                                Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 11-21-2012, 02:31 PM.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X