Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ted Williams and Barry Bonds

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by cubbieinexile
    There are plenty of people who want to see Joe Jackson in the hall. Just because he is not does not mean there is a majority against him. In fact only one man needs to be against him and that is the commissioner.
    Those that want to see Joe in the HOF are sentimentalists', thinking with the heart and not the brain, foolish way to think.

    He took part in throwing a World Series, no way should he ever enter the HOF.

    Comment


    • #47
      When they say Barry Bonds ahs a great eye and Ted Williams has a great eye...it's not the same thing

      Williams had a LARGE strikezone...Barry has one the size of a soccer ball...not even close

      Ted Williams

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by cubbieinexile
        Nor has steroids andy actual concrete proof that it helps ballplayres. For every study that says they do I can supply one that says it does nothing.
        Yes, and there were studies that claimed that tobacco was harmless and nicotine wasn't an addictive substance.

        Saying steroids don't improve muscle mass and the other things ShoelessJoe3 said is like saying alcohol doesn't make you drunk.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Imapotato
          When they say Barry Bonds ahs a great eye and Ted Williams has a great eye...it's not the same thing

          Williams had a LARGE strikezone...Barry has one the size of a soccer ball...not even close

          Ted Williams
          Thank you! Williams all the way, although I am quite the fan of Stan the Man.

          Yes, that rhyme is grounds for me being shot.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by LouGehrig
            ...What I mean is that when Yaztrezemski led the league in 1968 with .301, there were no other .300 hitters. When Sisler hit .407, there were many .300 hitters.
            this is true, lou.
            but might also be a red herring:

            danny cater (.290 / 11 pts), tony oliva (.289 / 12), willie horton (.285 / 16) and teddy uhlaender (.283 / 18) were closer to yaz in '68...

            than tris speaker (.388), joe jackson (.382), babe ruth (.376) and eddie collins (.372) were behind sisler - 19, 25, 32 and 35 points, respectively.
            "you don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. just get people to stop reading them." -ray bradbury

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by leecemark
              --Steriod use, while very troubling, is not nearly as black a mark on a players record as throwing a World Series. It is only slightly worse than the many other forms of cheating prevelant through baseball history.
              i will go along with you that steroid use is not nearly as troubling as throwing a world series, or even plotting to do the same - the former is widespread thoughout both leagues and has occurred tens of thousands of times, whereas the latter has occurred, well, not nearly as many times.

              (but i can not quite agree that steroids are only "slightly worse" than the other forms of cheating that baseball has had to overcome.)
              "you don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. just get people to stop reading them." -ray bradbury

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Aegis
                Yes, and there were studies that claimed that tobacco was harmless and nicotine wasn't an addictive substance.

                Saying steroids don't improve muscle mass and the other things ShoelessJoe3 said is like saying alcohol doesn't make you drunk.
                How do you know? Did you do the studies? Do you work for a company that studies these drugs? Probably not. If you are like the rest of us you have probably read news report or heard about the drugs on the TV. You haven't done any independent research whatsoever. Yet you feel confident in telling me what steroids do to the human body. Me I'm skeptical until further evidence and research is available. Look at what is going on in the medical industry right now, and those are the regulated ones. Most of these supplement drugs are not even regulated, so they don't even get the investigation that these other drugs get. At one Andro was touted as this drug that could do all the things you needed it to do. Now after years of research they have found it does almost nothing for you except harm you in the long run.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by SHOELESSJOE3
                  No comparison, greenies or cocaine an amhetamine, quick shots in the arm. Steroids, build skeletal muscle, add body weight, increase endurance during work outs, shorten recovery time between work outs.

                  None of the above are acceptable but greenies and cocaine are in the minors when compared to steroids a big league chemical when attempting to build strength, improve performance, gain an edge on the non users.

                  As for trying to get Barry, he is the guy that is in orbit, the last 4 seasons. If it were another hitter that was putting up the gigantic numbers, the spotlight would be on that hitter.

                  I really don't understand your logic. Are you saying that some "illegal" performance enhancing is okay, but more then some is no good? Are you saying that we should discredit Barry Bonds achievements because his performance enhancers we choose not to like while Willie Mays achievements are acceptable because his performance enhancers are okay? If taking a performance enhancing drug is wrong then to me taking a performance enhancing drug is wrong. Doesn't matter whether it happened yesterday or 30 years ago.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by cubbieinexile
                    How do you know? Did you do the studies? Do you work for a company that studies these drugs? Probably not. If you are like the rest of us you have probably read news report or heard about the drugs on the TV. You haven't done any independent research whatsoever. Yet you feel confident in telling me what steroids do to the human body. Me I'm skeptical until further evidence and research is available. Look at what is going on in the medical industry right now, and those are the regulated ones. Most of these supplement drugs are not even regulated, so they don't even get the investigation that these other drugs get. At one Andro was touted as this drug that could do all the things you needed it to do. Now after years of research they have found it does almost nothing for you except harm you in the long run.
                    Uhm, Andro does indeed help build muscle mass. It's been banned from the Olympics for years for that reason.

                    I haven't done independent research, nor have you. But what about documented clinical evidence concerning the effects of various steroids on the human body? What about medical steroids given to sickly people to help boost their body mass to healthy levels? I've seen the effects of those. They cause you to gain weight, although you need to work out if you want that weight to be muscle.

                    Where are these studies that say steroids don't build muscle mass? I'd like to see them.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Imapotato
                      When they say Barry Bonds ahs a great eye and Ted Williams has a great eye...it's not the same thing

                      Williams had a LARGE strikezone...Barry has one the size of a soccer ball...not even close

                      Ted Williams
                      There certainly are reasons why Ted Williams might have been a better player than Barry Bonds has been. The size of their strike zones is not one of them. That's like saying, "Yeah, well Williams played in Fenway Park, but Bonds played most of his career in Candlestick Park. Not even close. Barry Bonds." That's just as true as what you said, but OK, what of it? Analysts have been developing useful formulas for measuring and quantifying the precise effects of things like those for years now. And from those, its pretty clear that while Williams is definitely the better batter, its not a landslide; and on top of that, Bonds has 8 gold gloves, 9 finishes in the top 10 in stolen bases and 5 more MVP awards.

                      If you wanted to say that Williams' hitting advantage over his peers outweighs Bonds' speed and glove, or that Bonds' MVP awards are the result of a different breed of sportswriters and that Williams was easily deserving of that many awards, or that Bonds deserves to be demoted on the all-time list because of steroid abuse, or even just that a AA team in the 1950s could beat the Yankees today and therefore Bonds isn't dominating any quality competition, fine. That's a different matter.
                      "Hall of Famer Whitey Ford now on the field... pleading with the crowd for, for some kind of sanity!"

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by cubbieinexile
                        I really don't understand your logic. Are you saying that some "illegal" performance enhancing is okay, but more then some is no good? Are you saying that we should discredit Barry Bonds achievements because his performance enhancers we choose not to like while Willie Mays achievements are acceptable because his performance enhancers are okay? If taking a performance enhancing drug is wrong then to me taking a performance enhancing drug is wrong. Doesn't matter whether it happened yesterday or 30 years ago.

                        No, in no way do I say that some or any illegal performance enhancing is ok. Only saying that steroids that can add muscle, add body weight, increase body strength would be more beneficial if one wanted to gain an edge. Greenies could fight off fatigue, short term, not on the same level as steroids when the goal is boosting performance. I use the word "beneficial" carefully and actually do not care to use the word because possibly in the long run it could do bodily damage.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by TroyW
                          How would Barry have done with the Monster? Or the Boston press? Williams made no bones about his feelings for the media there.
                          What if Williams played nowadays in San Fransisco? Of course, we are blessed to not be living in times of World War, so Ted could get the four years back. You've got to think that Ted would still ahve a chance at .400 today.

                          Then again, put Bonds back in the 1940s andthey wouldn't know what to do with him. He may have put up les home runs, but more stolen bases. Hell, who am I kidding? Barry would have rocked it back then as well.

                          Tough call. I'm going with Barry Bonds.
                          Barry would have missed most of the 1940s.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            I will take Williams as he was more dominent than Bonds during their respective eras.

                            If you take ob% and slg% of these players [while I divide these numbers by four] and divide it by the league's average slugging percentage of their playing years, Williams comes out ahead.

                            On the other hand, with more competetive balance these days, Bond's case could be elevated since competition is more even.

                            1. Ruth .808
                            2. Williams .773
                            3. Bonds .717
                            antihipster
                            SABR Redbird
                            Last edited by antihipster; 01-12-2005, 09:44 PM.
                            unofficial Cardinals
                            Playing HardballUpdated 12-06-07

                            Congratulations Cardinals in 2006 World Series
                            Winners in 1926, 1931, 1934, 1942, 1944, 1946, 1964, 1967, 1982, & 2006

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Etheridge2
                              What about the Rickey???? The Rickey would be very upset that you left him off your list and I am sure the Rickey would tell you that the Rickey does not like to be disrespected because the Rickey is the greatest ever...just ask him...


                              Seriously though most SB ever, most RUNS ever, most WALKS ever and 300 HR to boot (well 297). Potentially the most dangerous lead off man ever and a GG to boot (granted only 1 but he was a pretty solid fielder..oh and he does have 3000 hits to go with all those walks...

                              he shoudl at least be in the discussion although I wouldn't mind him at #4 it would be a close #4
                              His all time numbers would be in better shape if he decided to retire light years earlier.
                              unofficial Cardinals
                              Playing HardballUpdated 12-06-07

                              Congratulations Cardinals in 2006 World Series
                              Winners in 1926, 1931, 1934, 1942, 1944, 1946, 1964, 1967, 1982, & 2006

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Listen

                                too much of ANYTHING is not good

                                and that goes for walks...and how they effect SABR stats like OPS.

                                You have Williams, you have Bonds

                                During Bonds MONSTER (alleged steroids) years he averaged 150 plus walks...

                                ok let's say tie game, they walk bonds 1st and 4th innings
                                Now the opposing team is winning 6-0...no one on base Bonds homers in the 9th (1-1)
                                Opposing team winning 7-3, Bonds in the 9th one on...HR (2-2, 3 rbi, 2 hr...OPS up the wazoo)

                                Did he do anything?
                                Player wise...yes, but he didn't help the team.

                                Now when he was walking 120 times...yes he was valuable...he had 150 more AB's in order to cause damage....that was the Ted Williams Bonds...the one with speed and power.

                                Too bad he wanted to take the easy route (allegedly)

                                Oh and ummmm, Bonds park's (3 Rivers, Candlestick and whatever that corporate name is now)
                                3 Rivers had 335 down the lines 385 power alleys
                                Candlestick was a laughable 328 RF 365 power alley (changed in 1993...wonder why?)
                                3Com...307 RF (MY GOD!!)

                                And that's not counting all the other bandboxes in the league

                                Teddy Ballgame?

                                Hard to tell it looks like it was 380 RCF, but 405 right of RCF and RF was 330 in the beginning but went down to 304 at the expense of the smallest foul terriotry ever

                                Now think about OTHER AL ballparks Teddy played in...except for Yankee Stadium...all were terrible. Maybe why they shortened RF later in his career.
                                Comiskey was huge, Griffith Stadium was huge. Tiger Stadium was great...for RH power hitters...etc. etc.

                                Anyway, that is what I feel about OPS and walks

                                90-120...good
                                120- overkill, you are NOT helping anything but your % offensive stats


                                Of course these 2 couldn't compete with Ruth...nor Cobb..nor Mays..nor Speaker and heck not even Musial as best LF!!!
                                and maybe not even Hornsby (he of 80-90 walks)

                                A player with less walks and a high OPS is a better player than a player with 150 walks. I'm sorry, that's terrible 'baseball'

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X