Give Bonds and McGwire some respect

[leecemark]

--Bonds led the league in OPS+ 4 times and was top 3 9 times in a row before he started using. What does it take to be "elite" in your world?

--Edit: Great minds think alike MR!

[Murderers Row]

I'd prefer Tony over MR.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--Bonds led the league in OPS+ 4 times and was top 3 9 times in a row before he started using. What does it take to be "elite" in your world?

--Edit: Great minds think alike MR!

Having a career batting average over .290 pre-steroids would be a start.

He was an amazing all-around player before steroids. He was a great hitter in his era before steriods. Historically speaking though, his numbers as a hitter pre-steroids are not elite imo. For God's sake, he led in OPS+ with 160 one year.

[Murderers Row]

Having a career batting average over .290 pre-steroids would be a start.

He was an amazing all-around player before steroids. He was a great hitter in his era before steriods. Historically speaking though, his numbers as a hitter pre-steroids are not elite imo.

What about his on base and power talents? BA doesn't define a great hitter.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

What about his on base and power talents? BA doesn't define a great hitter.

Doesn't define one, but not hitting .300 is pretty pathetic. In other areas he was a great hitter though. Maybe our definitions of elite differ. You could make a case that for his era he was elite level, but when you're talking historically, his pre-steroid hitting numbers don't hold up to the titans.

[frehleyscomet]

I disagree. He might have been an elite level offensive player which includes everything, but not an elite hitter. No way, no how.

Oh really? Then you're saying he wasnt an elite hitter when he won 3 mvp's in the 90's and was the best player in the national league? Cmon.

[Murderers Row]

Doesn't define one, but not hitting .300 is pretty pathetic. In other areas he was a great hitter though. Maybe our definitions of elite differ. You could make a case that for his era he was elite level, but when you're talking historically, his pre-steroid hitting numbers don't hold up to the titans.

Maybe his BA doesn't hold up with the titans, but everything else does.

[leecemark]

--Being the best hitter of your generation is elite enough for me. If he had played in the 20s and 30s his BA would have been way above .300 - and that would not have made him any better than the numbers he put up in the 90s.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Maybe his BA doesn't hold up with the titans, but everything else does.

How so?

Not in homer totals. 40+ just three times and never more than 46.

Not in slugging average. 650+ just once.

Not in OPS+. 200+ just twice.

Not in runs created. He averaged 125 a year before steroids and never had even a 175 season. In fact, Ruth had nine seasons higher than Bonds' best season. Doesn't exactly scream elite.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--Being the best hitter of your generation is elite enough for me. If he had played in the 20s and 30s his BA would have been way above .300 - and that would not have made him any better than the numbers he put up in the 90s.

lol, and he'd get through 10 games before someone drilled him in the head for his antics. The lean Bonds would do very well back then playing small ball but too many factors would hurt his power numbers. Who knows how he would handle the bigger zone and much bigger fields.

[leecemark]

--Fewer walks and HR with alot higher BA and more doubles and triples would be my guess. No way to tell though. And "just" two season of over 200 OPS+? How many guys do you think have 2 to their credit? Nobody had 2 in the 1960s or 70s or 80s. Being twice as good a hitter as the average player was never an easy thing to achieve and became extremely rare in modern baseball. The average guy became too good for even elite players to be twice as good except in a few special seasons.

[Milwaukee T]

Removal of Emotion

Emotion would force me to go on a rant as to how too many players in this stretch have cheapened every aspect of the game. This group having both of these players as poster children for the destruction of integrity.

Rather than carrying on with an arguement that we have no way of proving nor dispoving anything; just look at the players on the field.

No one that watched Cardinal games will ever claim that Big Mac was a star on defense just as the same should be said about Bonds. If a ball was hit down the line; MM wasn't going to stop it unless it was within a step of him. Watch film of him and you will see that. Bonds also was not fleet of feet. There was a reason that nothing ever made it past him: he played almost to the wall for every batter. When has anyone seen he run into the corner to make a catch?

You could make the point that Bonds was a real threat at the plate at all times. McG; not so much. He really was either a home run hitter or an out.

If you are to be considered a great player; I say that you must excell on both offense and defense. These guys don't.

And if you really want to envoke the name of Ruth; let's talk about how he excelled despite what he put into his body. A mortal man should be so lucky to do have of what he was able to do drunk or hung over. Let's also compare apple to apples. The the times frame that these two were in were a time when all the numbers were up for eveyone. Ruth was putting numbers up that were staggering compared today not even mention how they doubled and tripled the compition of the day. He out hit AND out pitched complete teams season after season.

Not even close!

[Sultan_1895-1948]

And "just" two season of over 200 OPS+? How many guys do you think have 2 to their credit?

Two over 200 is certainly good, even if the two years in question are 205 and 204. It puts him in good company. The dropoff for him is pretty steep though. After a 188 and 183, we're talking a few 170s, a couple 160s and a 148. The four years in a row that he won the OPS+ "crown", he averaged 184. A guy like Joe Jackson, had three straight years in the 190s, something Bonds never did. Hornsby had four years of 200+, Ruth had eleven, Ted had six, Mantle had three, Gehrig had three, Foxx had two, Cobb had three. Actually the pre-roid Bonds numbers look similar to Foxx's with a less power but more speed.

[leecemark]

--The best players of that earlier era tended to separate from the league more than the best players of the modern era. I say that is because the league was a little easy to separate from. I'm sure you'll disagree though.

[Skin & Bones]

Two over 200 is certainly good, even if the two years in question are 205 and 204. It puts him in good company. The dropoff for him is pretty steep though. After a 188 and 183, we're talking a few 170s, a couple 160s and a 148. The four years in a row that he won the OPS+ "crown", he averaged 184. A guy like Joe Jackson, had three straight years in the 190s, something Bonds never did. Hornsby had four years of 200+, Ruth had eleven, Ted had six, Mantle had three, Gehrig had three, Foxx had two, Cobb had three. Actually the pre-roid Bonds numbers look similar to Foxx's with a less power but more speed.

It's kind of interesting that all the guys you listed careers either happened before integration, or in a league that wasn't full integrated (Mantle).

In the integration era, how many players had two straight seasons over a 200 OPS+? Other than Bonds himself from 2001-2004, only the 92-93 Bonds has done it.

If that doesn't qualify as a "titan", I don't know what does. And I'm not sure what was your point of bringing up Joe Jackson, but back 2 back 200+ OPS+ seasons in a stronger league is more impressive, IMO, then Jackson's three straight seasons with a 190 OPS+ (in the lower 190's at that).