Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How will you rank Bonds now?

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

  • #31
    Bonds always was selfish. The fact that he let his desire to be the best go to the extreme of taking questionable supplements and steroids isn't at all surprising to me. McGwire did exactly the same, as did Sosa. The list of users is most likely long and probably includes some guys we don't want to hear about. Is it wrong to turn our heads and ignore it? That depends... its sort of like a loophole in the tax code, there's no doubt about the ethics, but the laws are another matter. I for one use every loophole I can, and consider it my right.

    The question I pose now is:
    Did Bonds et al find the baseball "loophole"?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by baseballPAP
      I'm going to come off as a Bonds supporter here, which I most assuredly am NOT.

      Can anyone show me evidence of Bonds breaking a baseball rule? Sterroids weren't against the rules until recently, and the same goes for all the other supplements etc. I have very little doubt that Bonds was an abuser. But it wasn't breaking the rules.....the law, yes, but not the rules
      By that rationale, players can feel free to smoke crack on second base, or murder someone on the field

      Comment


      • #33
        How do I rank Bonds? I currently rate him 4th all time, behind only Mays, Ruth, and Charleston. I am I guess what you could call a Bonds supporter, because I do like him as a player (one of my favorites actually), although I'm sure he probably did use steroids, and that it did help him. But, you have to realize the magnitude of what Bonds has done in his career, particularly over these past few years. Bonds 2001-2004 averaged about 50 Win Shares a year. 50 Win Shares had previously only been done five times by a position player I believe, once by Wagner in 1908, three times by Ruth in 1920, 1921, and 1923, and Mickey Mantle in 1957. It hadn't been done since Mantle, unitl Bonds came around in 2001 and put up 54. He had almost as good a year in 2002, a little bit of a "let down" in 2003 to I think like 43 or something, and then was back around 50 in 2004 again.

        That, esepecially considering the strength of the league, was a truly amazing performance, probably the best ever. I have no doubts it was largely chemically enhanced, and that it wouldn't have been as good if not for steroids. But, to say Bonds would have just declined and went away those years I think is ridiculous. Steroids do help a baseball player, but they don't make a man declining in old age the best player ever. They just don't.

        Going by his raw numbers and running through my standard rating system which I introduced here once before, Bonds comes out #1 all time by a good margin, about 20 points ahead of Willie Mays. I do give him a steroid discount and move him below Mays, Ruth, and Charleston to the #4 spot. I feel anything larger than that is inappropriate, because Bonds probably still would have been at the 35-40 WS level over the past few years if not chemeically enhanced.

        And I think you guys have lost sight of a truly great player, the pre-1998 Bonds. He was a true complete player who could do just about anything on the field, and hit like hell. Look at his 1993 season, when he came to the Giants and led them to a 100 win season. He posted a 206 OPS+, really great especially considering the era. He was a complete hitter, batting .336 with 46 home runs and walking a ton. He stole bases, and provided gold glove defense in left field (many Bonds critics seem to forget how great a fielder Bonds was. He won 8 Gold Gloves, winning one every year 1990-1998 except 1995). Bonds during that time was close to the perfect player.
        Last edited by 538280; 03-07-2006, 04:08 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Greerman29
          I'm actually really interested to see how guys like 538280, sabr matt and all the other who have Bonds in the top 5 (or even top 10) are going to adjust for this. I assume people who already have him lower than 20 have already adjusted for steroid use.

          I know we're jumping the gun having not read the book or seen the sources of there information, but it does not look very good.
          The 1990-98 skinny Bonds was a top-10 level player. If that's his baseline, and steroids just added to that, I see no reason to rank him lower than 10 all-time now. Ranking him outside the top 20 makes no sense at all.
          "The numbers are what brought me here; as it appears they brought you."
          - Danielle Rousseau

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by [email protected]
            And now we have open season on Barry Bonds. I don't defend steroid use, with or without legal sanction.

            But what bothers me is the sheer level of hatred spewing out now. Some sound gleeful that a cheat is exposed. Does bliss feel so good when someone falls. This should be sobering, not cackling with glee.

            Bill
            Bill,

            For the longest time we've had Bonds supporters hiding behind the "no proof" barracade, even in the face of mountains of circumstantial evidence.

            For those who have known all along about Bonds, and ranked him accordingly, this has been a long time coming. As much as I'd like to thumb my nose at Bonds supporters, I agree with you that this is not only sobering, but sickening. It's a deep problem that won't be solved unless proper steps are taken from this point.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by mac195
              The 1990-98 skinny Bonds was a top-10 level player. If that's his baseline, and steroids just added to that, I see no reason to rank him lower than 10 all-time now. Ranking him outside the top 20 makes no sense at all.
              IF you assume that everything before '98 was legit. Seems unlikely he was at least 10 years behind the trend set by players on Oakland, Texas, Detroit, etc.. Even if it wasn't steroids before '98, it's unlikely that there wasn't SOMETHING being taken. Top 10 even after all of this is absurd imo.

              Comment


              • #37
                Until baseball institutes unannounced, off-season testing, conducted by people of the sophistication of Conti, BB is not serious about cracking down on drugs.

                And no-nonsense suspensions. I would support a 1 year suspension for the first violation, and a 5 year suspension for a second. A 5 year suspension is tantamount to a life suspension.

                Bill

                Comment


                • #38
                  I had Bonds ranked #8 under the assumption that he started juicing in 2001. Three extra years of 'roids will lower his ranking, but not out of the top 15 for sure.
                  1885 1886 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 2011

                  1887 1888 1928 1930 1943 1968 1985 1987 2004 2013

                  1996 2000 2001 2002 2005 2009 2012 2014 2015


                  The Top 100 Pitchers In MLB History
                  The Top 100 Position Players In MLB History

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by 538280
                    Steroids do help a baseball player, but they don't make a man declining in old age the best player ever. They just don't.
                    You're right. And he's not the best player ever. You don't think being 40 and feeling 30 has much impact?

                    His WS are nice, but what goes into those. Think of what all this crap does for him, from eyesight to stamina, strength, quickness, etc. In the end you end up with a player who has a grapefruit size strike zone, crowds the plate against pitchers who can't throw inside, and frankly aren't qualified to hit the black on a regular basis. Of course his WS are going to be high. More walks equates to less AB, a high OPS, and a higher BA. Makes sense.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by [email protected]
                      Until baseball institutes unannounced, off-season testing, conducted by people of the sophistication of Conti, BB is not serious about cracking down on drugs.

                      And no-nonsense suspensions. I would support a 1 year suspension for the first violation, and a 5 year suspension for a second. A 5 year suspension is tantamount to a life suspension.

                      Bill
                      Why the three strikes and you're out policy Bill. Why not throw them out on the first offense. It should be viewed the same way gambling is. There should be signs in every clubhouse saying "NO PED's OF ANY KIND UNLESS APPROVED BY MLB"

                      You can't solve this problem by going light with a one year suspension for the first offense. Where's the deterrant in that?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
                        You're right. And he's not the best player ever. You don't think being 40 and feeling 30 has much impact?
                        He had the best run ever 2001-2004.

                        His WS are nice, but what goes into those. Think of what all this crap does for him, from eyesight to stamina, strength, quickness, etc. In the end you end up with a player who has a grapefruit size strike zone, crowds the plate against pitchers who can't throw inside, and frankly aren't qualified to hit the black on a regular basis. Of course his WS are going to be high. More walks equates to less AB, a high OPS, and a higher BA. Makes sense.
                        So, how much credit do you think Bonds should be given for 2001-2004?

                        And how do steroids help eyesight?

                        Anyway, what you're saying here, unless I'm misunderstanding you, is that Bonds, without steroids, wouldn't even have been much of a player at all 2001-2004, which as I said before is just prepostourous. Bonds had if not the best one of the best runs 2001-2004, we're talking Ruth/Mays/Cobb/Wagner territory here, and you say it was entirely caused by steroids and he would have just declined out of baseball if not for them? If that's the case, then we should be able to pump steroids into any 40 year old declining player and he'd become one of the greatest. Didn't seem to work for Palmeiro.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by 538280

                          And how do steroids help eyesight?

                          I think indirectly, steroids and increased muscle mass do help eyesight when batting (at least in Barry's case). We already know Barry had good eyesight due to the numbers he put up before his 2000 and beyond explosion. Add to that, the increased muscle in the forearms and the increased bat speed that creates. He then is able to wait on pitches for longer than many other players, letting him see the pitch for longer. I believe that combination is what made him so much better than other guys who have taken steroids (and he probably has taken much for than your average steroid using baseball player).

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            The article claims that the book details about Bonds's eyesight improved once he was in the thick of his program.

                            #4th is a little crazy, Chris. I can see top 20 with a normal decline, but fourth...because of his peak which we now know was steroid induced as was beyond any level he'd ever played at previously? Because of his Win Shares?

                            I don't get it. First of all, his pre 1998 peak must remain his peak when projecting him out normally and you must assume a normal decline from there. Those 50 win share seasons post '97 never existed.
                            THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT COME WITH A SCORECARD

                            In the avy: AZ - Doe or Die

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by 538280
                              He had the best run ever 2001-2004.
                              Naturally?


                              So, how much credit do you think Bonds should be given for 2001-2004?
                              James is probably working on a "declining PED formula" as you read this.
                              And how do steroids help eyesight?
                              HGH has been proven to increase vision. On top of that, like Greerman mentioned, the increased strength improves your hitting eye in terms of strike zone recognition.

                              Anyway, what you're saying here, unless I'm misunderstanding you, is that Bonds, without steroids, wouldn't even have been much of a player at all 2001-2004, which as I said before is just prepostourous.
                              Assuming that everything before '98 was natural, he should be judged on that, and from whatever natural decline theory you subscribe to. The problem is, he morphed into a completely different type of player, so we'll never know how he would have declined naturally. Also, who knows if he would have been hurt during the early parts of his decline years, and declined even more rapidly than usual. Nothing is for certain. The only certain thing is that he wouldn't have put up his 2001-2004 numbers naturally.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948
                                Naturally?




                                James is probably working on a "declining PED formula" as you read this.


                                HGH has been proven to increase vision. On top of that, like Greerman mentioned, the increased strength improves your hitting eye in terms of strike zone recognition.



                                Assuming that everything before '98 was natural, he should be judged on that, and from whatever natural decline theory you subscribe to. The problem is, he morphed into a completely different type of player, so we'll never know how he would have declined naturally. Also, who knows if he would have been hurt during the early parts of his decline years, and declined even more rapidly than usual. Nothing is for certain. The only certain thing is that he wouldn't have put up his 2001-2004 numbers naturally.
                                The real shame h is that before 1998, Barry Bonds was a heck of a player. If he could've kept away from the 'go juice' he could have retired as an even greater -all natural- player that would have stood in sharp contrast to the HR pretenders such as Sammy, Big Mac, Jose, et al.
                                Johnny
                                Delusion, Life's Coping Mechanism

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X