Give Bonds and McGwire some respect

[Einstein'sCurve]

For all the flaws of OPS it is still one of the most accurate stats out there in terms of tracking runs. "advanced metrics" for all their perceived greatness are only slightly better. OPS also double counts doubles, triples, and homers. By doing this it helps weight these events to a more reasonable level, not to mention walks as well.

--- Far be it for me to disagree with a stats moderator about stats, but it's in my genes.

OPS does not double count the extra base value of doubles, triples, HRs which is the point I poorly made with singles. Singles, ie, meaning the designation of being safe at the first base which is all hits, walks, HBP, ie, OBPs What is leftover is the value of the extra bases expressed as a percentage which the SA clumsily attempts to weight by double counting the hit values again.

To put it simply, a player with 110 hits, 100 singles and 10 HR, has a hypothetical OBP of .500 with no walks, HBP, or sacrifices to keep it simple. Add the extra base value of 30 extra bases/220 AB yields 0.136% for a "true" OPS value of .500 + .136 = 0.636.

The current OPS model would yield a value .500 + .682 = 1.182.

The "singles or pure hits" are overvalued in the current OPS model. The true additional base value of the double/triple/HR becomes watered down, so a Pete Rose ends up smelling a bit better in head to head comparisons.

Let's compare Will Clark, .880 to Eddie Matthews, .885. Both fine hitters, but by OPS you wouldn't think there was more than a dime's difference between them, when clearly Matthews is the more valued hitter.

[Ubiquitous]

For all the flaws of OPS it is still one of the most accurate stats out there in terms of tracking runs. "advanced metrics" for all their perceived greatness are only slightly better. OPS also double counts doubles, triples, and homers. By doing this it helps weight these events to a more reasonable level, not to mention walks as well.

[Einstein'sCurve]

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

--- OPS is grossly flawed as a stat.

Really never figured out why it caught on other than it was new in it's day and overall sabremetrics improved the offensive analysis of the game.

OPS and thusly OPS+ is flawed because OPS double counts singles. I can't imagine any viable statistician wantonly double counting single events to make a valid point unless he's pulling a scam.

It should be corrected with a new designation, say OBEX= OBP + EXtra bases/AB.

At any rate, both Bonds and Mac were projected allstars and HOFers coming into the league. Anyone who saying otherwise based on their careers has an agenda beyond the realm of baseball.

As far as steroid accusations go, Mac has never admitted to steroid use, never been formally charged for any offense involving steroids, and only has the unvalidated claims of a convicted, bankrupted felon promoting a book claiming otherwise.

Mac was the Babe Ruth of USC such was his parallel to the pitching/slugging start of the Babe. Quickly relieved of pitching to become a hitter, he "Babed" the USC homerun and slugging records. First year as a pro sets the still standing rookie HR record. He tails off some as part of a heady WS quality team and injuries not to mention marital problems, but he's always up there, ready to break out which he does in his first healthy season back. His numbers improve dramatically after the baseball strike, but so did other players because of obvious changes that reduced the strike zone and size of the ball parks.

Bonds, the anti-Mac literally, misses out on most of these changes, "just" being a consistant all star quality player season after season. However, when the dust clears after the Mac/Sosa/Griffey duels, he gets injured halfway through a season, and in the process of recovery makes his first Balco connections and is now indicted on perjury charges regarding testimony he made in a fed investigation of Balco.

The spike in his batting numbers is astounding on because it comes at an age when every athlete in history is showing declines from their prime seasons.

What's interesting to me is a certain parallel between the two in their injuries, very serious leg injuries that would be career ending in previous gens. Modern surgery and rehabilitation programs makes them as good as new, and boys, I'm hear to tell you, those surgeons prescribed steroids as part of rehabilitations. You can bet your grandmum's pension on it.

Now, that has nothing to do with the use of PEDs for professional performance gains. Bond's clearly standing next to a huge smoking cannon in that regard, but Mac a mystery because of his modest circumspect manner.

I would guess close to half the players fooled around with steroids/HGH, but most didn't stay with it, lacking the faith in the health consequences and the poor quality of trainers. A minority stayed with it, but nobody will ever know the numbers and few names will surface. My conclusion is that Mac doubtless fiddled around a little, but never really played with the band. If he did, he played private parties only save the appearences with the useless glass jawed Canseco.

[jaxxr]

Interesting thread, sorry to get in a bit late.

However, I would like to comment on Mark McGwire.

He was a 230 pound rookie, when he hit a still standing MLB rookie HR record of 49. He was an Olympic team member shortly prior, and was subject to drug testing. He always was a big man, and it is very normal to gain 15-20 pounds over the years for a professional athlete or a couch potatoe, without any illegal substances.

His defense was fairly good, his lifetime FA and his Range factors are both above average, He did even win one Gold Glove.

He NEVER once led the league in strikeouts, like so many he is improperly compared to. He was a 12 time all-star who hit over .300 three times. He has led the league in getting on base several times.

He once held the all time seasonal HR record, he still is the most prolific HR hitter of all time, no one ever was more likely to homer than Big Mac, not Ruth, not Bonds, not any one ever in the history of MLB.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Jackie Robinson was a better football player at UCLA than a baseball player. In fact, baseball was considered his weakest sport.

He enrolled as a transfer student from Pasadena City College and made an immediate impact on the ’39 Bruin football team, averaging 12 yards per carry and 20 per punt return to lead the nation. In basketball, he twice led the Pacific Coast Conference Southern Division in scoring, and in track he won the PCC and NCAA broad jump competitions. Oddly, given his historic role in breaking the major league’s color barrier with the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1947, baseball was Robinson’s worst sport at UCLA.

I find that debatable. Obviously Jackie wasn't as accomplished in baseball as the other sports simply because baseball, on the collegiate level, has never been as popular. For all the rhetoric about baseball being king in America (a view I find highly exaggerated), baseball has never had the same hold as football, basketball, or track amongst college sports. Another issue is that both track and baseball are spring sports in college so obviously it would have been very difficult for Jackie to delve full time in baseball at UCLA since he was very busy on the track. But Jackie was an incredible and highly skilled baseball player from high school onward. In 1936 he was named to the Pamona High School Tournament All-Star team. Two other members of that All-Star team were Ted Williams and Bob Lemon. In 1938, he was elected to the All-Southland Junior College baseball Team and selected as the region's Most Valuable Player. Think about that for a moment. Jackie was the MVP off the entire southland area. That speaks to how good Jackie was as a baseball player before he even went to UCLA.

So saying that baseball was Jackie's worst sport is not historically accurate. He simply didn't focus on baseball at UCLA. I am curious to know if Jackie had seriously considered playing professional football after WW II? There was certainly plenty of opportunity right after WW II with the formation of the All America Football Conference in 1946. The AAFC and NFL battled with each other for the top football talent in the country at that time.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Bonds is the best player of all time. He gets respect even from those who claim to hate him. They hate him because his career resume is greater than baseball's pagan god Ruth. So there is respect there, if it wasnt he wouldnt be perceived as a threat to that legacy. The fact he was able to accomplish what he did in an integrated league is what makes him so legendary. Dominating 1 particular monolithic group of people really isnt that impressive. Thats why you'll never see me hype a Negro league player over a present day one. I feel to do such a thing you'd almost have to feel a certain way about people and I dont feel that way. The game is at its best when EVERYONE is playing.

As for McGwire, he deserves some respect as well. He was one of the premier home run hitters in baseball in the 90s decade and he was able to win a World Series in 89.

Where did you see that, looking at stats based on total numbers only. Have you considered that Barry had 1990 more plate appearances and over 1400 more at bats, thats almost equal to playing 3 more seasons than Ruth. Have you looked at all their career stats, not just stats based on totals, everything, how about including stats based on percentages.

Match them up, all stats and you will see it's Ruth.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

.



Because baseball fans are in love with Jim Crow unlike the other major sports. When the nostalgic fans get out of that era and stop romanticizing it baseball may be able to catch up with the rest of the sports world.

Huh, how does the fans thinking effect the game in todays time. Maybe you should rethink your words.

That statement doesn't back up your thinking, that the game is so much stronger today............come again.

So if some think that there was some greats in the game long ago that were as good or better than todays players, that hurts the image of the game. I don't get this one at all.

[csh19792001]

He played in 2 ballparks with right fields shorter than 295 feet. Give Bonds that same advantage and we're looking at 900 HRs easy.

Actually, it might surprise you that Ruth hit more homers on the road than he did at home (347 vs. 367). Bonds hit 379 at home and 383 on the road.

Yankee Stadium was 490 to center, 460 to left center, and 430 to right center.

Ruth was anything but a dead pull hitter- he was a very complete hitter and would take the outside pitch the other way and defend the zone with two strikes. If you have any doubts, read Jenkinson's book (judging by completely uninformed statements like the one made above, you clearly haven't yet). He documented the location of each of Ruth's 714 home runs. I assure you very few of them were directly down the line.

900 home runs? The parks Bonds has played in have quite small, on average, in comparison to those Ruth played in. Actually, they would have been the dimensions of semi-pro parks in Ruth's day.

Major League wall distances from home plate for the 1910's-20's:
Left Field Line: 345
Left Center: 401
Center Field: 453
Right Center: 371
Right Field Line: 318

2008 Major League Average Park Dimensions:
Lines: 330
LC/RC: 375
Center: 405

The parks were at least 50 feet farther to center, 30 feet deeper in the alleys, and had higher walls and more foul territory, on average. This all favors Ruth, not Barry.

1. Barry Bonds has never hit a single ball 500 feet in his 23 year career, and had only hit 3 balls 450 feet prior to to his rendezvous with BALCO in a 15 year career. Bonds hit a 493-foot HR off of Seth Etherton on June 7, 2000. It was about 45 feet longer than any other non-wind-aided HR he'd hit in the first 35.8 years of his life.

Ruth hit approximately 87 balls at least 500 feet during official MLB games in his career.

2. Moreover, take Barry's 2004 season...the location of every ball he hit was tracked. Bonds hit 45 home runs, 22 of which would not have been out of the Yankee Stadium of Ruth's day. He would have gained four from the short porch, which brings him to a grand total of 27 for the year. HALF of what he actually hit with today's conditions. Sure, he would adjust, but he would lose a ton in the HR/SLG department, regardless of how much he adjusted. Bonds never hit a single ball that would have cleared the left center field fence OR center field fence in old Yankee Stadium.

Aside from the actual disparity in dimensions, everything in Barry's prime in the 90's- and his steroid years afterward- was set up to perfectly cater to a slugger/home run hitter. The steroids, the juiced ball, the body armor, the tiny strike zone, the bloated NL pitching staffs full of Lance Cormier's and Dennis Tankersley's....

I never said they were equal. The best players in the Negro Leagues were better than the players in the majors.

The best negro league players were better than which major league players?

Baseball is #3 of the major American sports and falling.

Exactly the point people here have been trying to make. Baseball doesn't have the best of the best today in America. Decades ago, baseball was the only sport in town and got the cream of the crop of available athletes. Basketball and football were nascent in their professional development and a joke compared to MLB. Today football dwarfs MLB in popularity and the NBA is simply much more glamorous and much more lucrative. The average NBA salary was about twice as much in 2006 as the average MLB salary.

Jackie Robinson was a better football player at UCLA than a baseball player. In fact, baseball was considered his weakest sport.

He enrolled as a transfer student from Pasadena City College and made an immediate impact on the ’39 Bruin football team, averaging 12 yards per carry and 20 per punt return to lead the nation. In basketball, he twice led the Pacific Coast Conference Southern Division in scoring, and in track he won the PCC and NCAA broad jump competitions. Oddly, given his historic role in breaking the major league’s color barrier with the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1947, baseball was Robinson’s worst sport at UCLA.

All the greatest athletes ended up playing baseball decades ago. Today, the majority of them end up playing other sports professionally. Hence, African-Americans only comprising a paltry 7% of all MLB roster sports.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I think we should just leave it to asterisks. Just ignore Bonds' single season homer record. Just ignore Sosa having multiple 60+ homer seasons. They should still get in the Hall. Obviously, skill is still needed if you are going to hit 50+ homers, even with steroids. Not only this, but players who use steroids are getting an advantage. Other players who are the firts to start using new bat types, new training techiniques, etc. are not punished if this helps them do better than other players. Steroids cause a larger advantage, and people should be cautious when ranking players who have used them. But they shouldn't be completely shut out from baseball.

I have my doubts about some of Barry's and Sammy's seasons and numbers of some other players. I'm certainly not alone. But. I can't see use of the asterisk. If they and others used any PED's there is no way to ever know what that use may have added to thier numbers. Now we have on the other side Roger Clemens who is in deeper trouble. We have a trainer who has admitted to injecting Roger with a PED. Some can challenge that trainer but he came off being more truthful than Roger. Can't asterisk him either, how do we know the effect it had on him.

It's going to be an asterisk in the minds of some fans, long after they have left the game. Some kid themselves that doubting the numbers of Barry and Roger doesn't matter to those two. Not buying that, both want to be known as 100 percent legit, not having to be doubted by some fans.

The numbers have to go into the book as is, but always in doubt and even worse for Barry, Roger and some others being factored in when ranking them on the all time list of greats.

[Moses Fleetwood-Walker]

You put far too much emphasis on integration.

And you put too little into it.

What you should be concerning yourself with, is the fact that baseball is nowhere near the #1 sport in America and a ton of talent is drawn away from it.

Because baseball fans are in love with Jim Crow unlike the other major sports. When the nostalgic fans get out of that era and stop romanticizing it baseball may be able to catch up with the rest of the sports world.

Everyone faced the same circumstances, and in the #1 sport, by far, in America, Ruth put up offensive numbers in a game that wasn't setup primarily for power hitters, unlike today.

He played in 2 ballparks with right fields shorter than 295 feet. Give Bonds that same advantage and we're looking at 900 HRs easy.

Your insinuation that the Negro Leagues and the MLB of Ruth's day were on equal levels is absurd.

I never said they were equal. The best players in the Negro Leagues were better than the players in the majors. The majors had more depth, but both pale in comparison to todays modern game and players.

The game is also at its best when EVERYONE wants to play baseball.

So going by your logic theres some white kid on a skateboard or on a swimming team that if he wanted to play baseball he could be better than Barry Bonds or Ken Griffey or Albert Pujols. And because of that fact we shouldnt regard those guys talents or contributions to the game. Like I said before, to deify segregation era players you almost have to be sympathetic to segregation to not hold that against those guys. Its one thing to study that era and admire it from afar, but to place segregation era athletes above today's modern integrated ones is the reason why baseball is #3 of the major american sports and falling.

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

I think we should just leave it to asterisks. Just ignore Bonds' single season homer record. Just ignore Sosa having multiple 60+ homer seasons. They should still get in the Hall. Obviously, skill is still needed if you are going to hit 50+ homers, even with steroids. Not only this, but players who use steroids are getting an advantage. Other players who are the firts to start using new bat types, new training techiniques, etc. are not punished if this helps them do better than other players. Steroids cause a larger advantage, and people should be cautious when ranking players who have used them. But they shouldn't be completely shut out from baseball.

[csh19792001]

That's so not true. Extreme minority is less than 5%. I'm willing to bet 25% or more would view Bonds as the best player ever. Not saying I do, just going by what I've heard others say.

Actually, extreme minority is an overstatement. I've seen hundreds of people express their beliefs here (and in real life) and basically no one answers "Bonds".

We had over 50 regulars/die hards here opine, not a single person put Bonds #1, even with his steroid numbers. The vast majority put Ruth #1.

We've also had many, many rounds of polls in the 5 years I've been here, starting by electing the greatest ever, and on down from there. Ruth wins in a landslide, every time, year after year. The BB-F constituency has usually elected him somewhere between 10th and 15th all time, IIRC.

Bonds certainly wasn't a greater player before age 35 than anyone in history was (as of the same age). His circus numbers that followed will forever be taken with a grain of salt by anyone with any sense.

The natural Bonds was more or less Frank Robinson playing in an era with a different ethos and emphases, both offensively and defensively. He was one hell of a ballplayer, and- given that there was nobody of the caliber of Mays and Aaron around- the best of his generation.

He's simply not in the class of Ruth, Cobb, or Mays in accomplishments and historical stature.

[White Knight]

Without question that is merely your opinion. An extreme minority opinion at that.

That's so not true. Extreme minority is less than 5%. I'm willing to bet 25% or more would view Bonds as the best player ever. Not saying I do, just going by what I've heard others say.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

One more thing: players don't win World Series. Teams win World Series.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

First of all, nothing Babe Ruth did was tarnished. The fact that he only played against whites was outside his control - it was not a conscious decision he made. Furthermore, it was true of every other MLB player at the time he played. Secondly, Bonds and McGwire were historically great baseball players. They both deserve our respect as players. Whether they deserve our respect as people, well that's up to each of us individually and I'm not going to go there. Finally, for the last time, McGwire was NOT one-dimensional (who am I kidding - that was far from the last time I'll have to say that).