if Gehrig hadn't gotten ALS

[Blackout]

would it be reasonable to say he could've hit:

.330/.440/.620, 600 home runs, 6,000 total bases, 175 OPS+ and an UNREACHABLE 2500 RBI?

[Iron Jaw]

Lou would have been 38-39 in 1942. He might have joined up or have been drafted to serve in WWII, as many professional athletes were (the draft age was 18-44).

[Blackout]

not everyone. maybe he would've stayed until 1944. quite a few players only missed '45.

[steve rogers]

Why don't we just say "what if Lou Gehrig had been able to play out his entire career". I think the numbers you mentioned were within reach. He probablt would have played at least another 5 years. Making conservative estimates let's say he would have averaged 100 RBI's, 30 HR's and .300 batting average. That would more than make up for a natural decline due to norman aging. His totals would be at least 2500 RBI's, 650 HR's and a .330 batting average.

Scott

[stejay]

He would have maybe become the greatest of all time. But who knows. We cannot bring back time, and he may have had a slump in his later career. Unlikely, but you never know. Those stats seem very reachable if he would have continued as he was, and being allowed to carry on to finish his career.

[brett]

would it be reasonable to say he could've hit:

.330/.440/.620, 600 home runs, 6,000 total bases, 175 OPS+ and an UNREACHABLE 2500 RBI?

I ran hypothetical career finished for Gehrig, Bonds and Hornsby based on the rate of decline in all stats for Ruth, Aaron and Williams a while back. Ruth Aaron and Williams had possibly the 3 greatest natural declines among similar players.

Gehrig projected to finish with about 630 home runs and a 176 OPS+. Bonds (starting from '98) projected to 655 home runs and a 161 OPS+ (which I would definitely put higher than a 176 for Gehrig in his era given integrations and the use of steroids around the league). Bonds was a better fielder and baserunner, so I see absolutely no way of ranking Gehrig ahead of Bonds on an all-time list. If Gehrig had declined like Williams he would have ended up well below Williams in career value (176 OPS+ to 189 for Williams with little else statistically to move Gehrig up).

By the way, I do not currently give Bonds that much decline credit, but he likely would have produced MORE than that because his OPS+ was held back by his early years-more than others-and I think he was physically a player who in his era could have exceeded the longevity of Williams/Aaron etc.

[csh19792001]

Another member contributed this:

Bill James' extrapolation:

Home Runs: 689
BA: Lifetime .330
Hits: 3928
RBIs: 2,879 (which is about 600 more than the current holder Aaron)
Walks: 2,475

"But these are not unreasonable numbers. They only look unreasonable because they are so extraordinary." -James

[EdTarbusz]

I don't know if Gehrig received any negative press during career, but I think he would have got some during WWII, because of his parents, and I don't know if that would have affected his play, but it might have. My guess is that he would have entered the military to play ball or be a PT instructor. I thibnk he would have been to old to see combat, however, unless he was some kind of staff officer. I doubt if he would have played past 1942 if he hadn't become ill.

[Proctor, CF]

... so I see absolutely no way of ranking Gehrig ahead of Bonds on an all-time list.

How about on the simple and undeniable basis that Gehrig was a FAR more valuable ballplayer to have on one's team. Anyone who would select Bonds over Gehrig for a team would have to be out of their mind.

There is no more important factor in rating a ballplayer than how he contributed to his team's success. Gehrig was a god in that regard. He brought his whole heart & soul to the ballpark, every game - along with his immense talent. Bonds? Well, he brought his preeminent selfishness, all time arrogance, and whatever illegal drugs he could muster up to boost his ability to hit more home runs than truly great home run hitters. He should also be applauded for his wonderful clubhouse demeanor and creature comforts.

Bonds over Gehrig! What a joke.

[stejay]

Stats wise, Bonds is better. However, as the thread specifies, Gehrig didn't play his whole career, and probably played in inner pain. Sorry Barry, but Lucky Lou is the better player, and of what I have heard the much better man.

[Proctor, CF]

Stats wise, Bonds is better.

Sorry Barry, but Lucky Lou is the better player, and of what I have heard the much better man.

When alleged "stats" don't reflect the full reality of one's greatness or lack therof, those stats are incomplete and/or erroneous.

Any team that would take Bonds over Gehrig would need an adjustment from the neck up. Gehrig will give you everything he has, day-in day-out, with his primary goal being his team's success. With Bonds, you end up spending more time making room for an upscale Lazy Boy, quelling lockerroom dissent, covering for blatant lying & cheating, and answering interrogatories from the U.S. Attorney. With Lou, you get RBI's, World Championships, and the Pride of the Team.

Who would any sane person take? It's not even close - especially when one considers what Gehrig's home run totals would be with today's bats, balls, small strike zone & miniaturized ballparks.

Your right, Stejay - he was the better player AND the better man.

[brett]

How about on the simple and undeniable basis that Gehrig was a FAR more valuable ballplayer to have on one's team.

Bonds? Well, he brought his preeminent selfishness, all time arrogance, and whatever illegal drugs he could muster up to boost his ability to hit more home runs than truly great home run hitters. He should also be applauded for his wonderful clubhouse demeanor and creature comforts.

In a post, perhaps a year ago, I showed that Bond's teams outwon their statistical (run based) projections by 28 games during his career-one of the best totals in history. Most great players over the course of their careers have their teams net +/-10 or fewer games than run based projections.


From '25-'38 Gehrig's teams netted +10 wins above run based projections.

[Proctor, CF]

In a post, perhaps a year ago, I showed that Bond's teams outwon their statistical (run based) projections by 28 games during his career-one of the best totals in history. Most great players over the course of their careers have their teams net +/-10 or fewer games than run based projections.


From '25-'38 Gehrig's teams netted +10 wins above run based projections.

I know you do excellent statistical research & analysis, Brett, though I'm not aware of the post you refer to above. Even so, any statistics or statistic analyses purportedly establishing Bonds to be a greater player than Lou Gehrig are erroneous, incomplete, and/or misapplied. Lou Gehrig was far and away the greater player.

Have you statistically profiled and assessed every aspect of Bonds' record-breaking negative qualities, such as his prodigiously corrosive lack of team spirit and leadership, abuse of performance-enhancing drugs, and cancerous clubhouse conduct? If so, could you provide that data and analyses, contrasting it with how powerfully inspiring and productive Lou Gehrig's use of his talents were for his team. Have you also examined and factored how today's stadiums, equipment & strike zone would have dramatically boosted Gehrig's already Herculean numbers? And how high would PED use at the massive levels Bonds used catapulted The Iron Horse's home run totals?

[leecemark]

--So if research arrives at a conclusion contrary to what you believed prior to the study then the research is flawed? What is the point of bothering with all that then? We could just ask for your opinion and save alot of time.

[Proctor, CF]

--So if research arrives at a conclusion contrary to what you believed prior to the study then the research is flawed? What is the point of bothering with all that then? We could just ask for your opinion and save alot of time.

Show me your statistics I requested above. If it shows Bonds to be the better ballplayer, then I'll rate him the better player. But, as you well know, you can provide no such statistics. They don't exist. What so many do is try to fallaciously conform their ratiings to available statistics - statistics that are dramatically incomplete and thus often misapplied.

Can you provide the pivotal data & analyses I requested of Brett in the post you so flippantly dismiss? [Post No. 13] Then, please do so. It will save us all alot of time, if you either provide them, or admit you don't have them.