+- CDIH (https://www.cdih.net/cdih)
+-- Forum: General Discussion and Entertainment (https://www.cdih.net/cdih/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: SportsCenter (https://www.cdih.net/cdih/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+--- Thread: 700 (/showthread.php?tid=9381)
- The Jays - 09-18-2004
I was pissed off for about 20 minutes after I heard Michael Kay mention during the Sox-Yanks game that Bonds had hit number 700, because fucking Sportscenter decided to have some douchebag blather on for 10 minutes about how great Bonds was, and then showing every other important HR of Bonds, except for his 700th. Then they switch to fucking college football, which I fucking despise. Then, they start covering EVERY OTHER FUCKING GAME except the Padres-Giants.
And then I finally got to see it. I don't think 700 holds much weight with the general public as 73 does, because breaking a single season record in such a popular stat catagory as HR seems to attract more flash in the media than a career long path toward a plateau that only two men have reached in the MLB. But, to the baseball fans, even those who don't follow the sport every day during the season, 700 is pretty important. 300-500 is the usual HOF range, when combined with some decent fielding and some respectable batting stats. But this man has been able to surpass all of these other great home run hitters, specifically McGwire, that came into the league during his tenure, and even surpass baseball's greats.
People saw this guy McGwire, and in him they saw the embodiement of what a slugger was; merely a man who hits HR, and nothing else. But with guys like him, its kinda 50/50; he's either gonna hit a HR, or he's gonna get out.
Bonds is so above that. The odds are stacked against the pitcher every time he steps to the plate, because he can see a good pitch to hit, and can make a pitch turn into the hit that he wants more often than any other player. In terms of average, he's having a better season than he did when he hit 73, but he's only hit 42. But his OBP is enormous because of all those walks he gets now, but its not just from pussy managers like that douchebag in Arizona; it's also because the dude can see pitches. This is not some guy like Soriano, swinging everything toward the fences, and striking out. We're talking about a patient hitter, who not only can hit HR, who not only can get the base hit, who not only can intimidate pitchers, but can make pitchers work, and draw the walk. If Bonds had a real RBI producer behind him, he'd kill statistics in runs scored.
And he keeps getting better. 98 and 2004 are Bonds's best seasons thus far, and he's now 40. And we know Bonds would get pitched to more often if there was a threat behind him in the lineup. That's just a quick recipe for 756 right there. But what can two years do to a player, at 40 years old? Do we feel he can produce even more in the next two years than he does now, or does he go on a decline, 30 a year? It's so crazy that 30 hr would be considered an off year for a player, but for Bonds, thats what it would be.
Bonds is 40, and he's in his prime, meanwhile, everyday, I hear how Bernie can't field no more cause he's old. He's 36! We have a player out there, at the age of 40, batting .374, hitting 42 HR, and playing in the NL, while Bernie, the staple of the Yanks for 10 years, is permitted to slow down because he's 36. Bonds sets a new bar for players.
I'm still not willing to say that Bonds is the better baseball player than Ruth, and that hangs on the fact that Ruth was a pretty good pitcher, in an age where there were no relievers, and pitchers were workhorses. Pitching is just so much more important of a baseball skill than fielding; you are the one iniating any play that might occur on the field, which means you have more control of the game than any other player. I will say that Bonds is the better batter, and the better fielder, but Ruth could have probably played any position he wanted.
- Arpikarhu - 09-18-2004
ruth was better because he got his records in much bigger ballparks, with much worse equipment, in a dead ball era, with fewer games in a season, and WITHOUT STEROIDS!
If you look at all of the advantages that bonds had over ruth, including modern chemistry, then you will see how ruth dominates him.
Edited By Arpikarhu on 1095497822
- diceisgod - 09-18-2004
Bonds rules.
- Galt - 09-18-2004
the whole "Ruth was better because he pitched" is kind of a crap argument. For anyone that played baseball, you know that most of the time, the guy who was the best hitter on the teach was also a real good pitcher, and ace pitcher was normallly a great hitter.
Darren Driefort is someone I remember who did that in college. He was both one of the best pitchers and best hitters in the nation when he was in college.
For the guy on the field who is the most skilled as Ruth obviously was, it's not uncommon for them to be able to dominate on both sides of the ball.
It's just that as more people began to play, and the game matured people specialized.
I totally understand Arpi's argument, and it's logical to say that if Ruth were born in 1970 rather than 1900 as was able to benefit from all of the technology in baseball, specialization, coaching, and strength training (I still say that Bonds didn't take steroids. For the simple reason that look at every other person who was accused of taking roids; each of them had a major dropoff and/or some nagging injury all year. Giambi, Nomar, Javy Lopez, Bret Boone, Trot Nixon, and Sheffield) his numbers would absolutely dwarf anything that Bonds did.
But since you can't predict that, I can say that if you found a time machine and put Bonds as he his now and played in the 1920s (and made him white so they didn't lynch him) in the "deadball era" with "bigger parks" and whatever else Ruth had to deal with, Bonds would absolutely destroy anyone there.
They were in the stone age of baseball preparedness, specialization, strength training, technology, etc. The pros back then were probably equivalent to minor league baseball or even college baseball now.
- diceisgod - 09-18-2004
Babe might have made the circus if he was born in 1970. He was a big fat slob who could barely haul his ass around the bases. He was great in his day and comparing who could do what when is retarded to begin with. But if people insist on going there all you have to do is look at Ruth and you can tell he'd not even be in the same class as Bonds. He played in a league with 6 teams and they threw 70mph fastballs the size of grapefruits. Pitching today is way tougher to hit than it was back then. The only reason people keep bringing up the shit about Bonds taking steriods is because he's black...period. When Mark MCGwire was hitting all those homeruns there was hardly a peep (relative to what you hear about Bonds) about his very obvious steriod use. Regardless of the fact that he probably used steriods it has zero bearing on his greatness as a baseball player. You just don't shoot steriods and all of a sudden you're ripped and have godly baseball talent. You have to work your ass off day in and out. I'm willing to guess that Bonds has done more to keep himself in shape and practice his game in one week than Babe Ruth ever did in his whole life.
- The Sleeper - 09-18-2004
ruth was only a fat slob at the end of his career.
- 2 tired 2 give N F - 09-18-2004
Bonds hit 700! YAY! Ruth did it almost 80 years ago and the next guy to do it did it 40+ years later. Not to mention that when Ruth did it he was so far ahead of everyone else that his 60 HR in a season was more than any single team had. He almost hit more than the entire league combined. When I was growing up I remember a time when a 40 home run season was a big deal. The year McGwire broke the record there were 12 guys with over 50. A-rod hit 56 a couple of years ago, Manny and Sheff are both having +40 seasons. Soriano had 41 two years ago, Sosa and Alou get +40 all the time too. It's not special to hit +40 in a season any more because I think it's become easier to hit HR's since the time of Ruth. This is seen by the number of guys hitting for 40+ HR in his day, 1, and the number doing it these days, I don't know what the number is but I know it's alot more than 1. Fuck there are 2 or 3 guys on every team that could probably go for +40.
- GonzoStyle - 09-18-2004
Galt also believes movies were born in 1972 and everything before then is non-existent.
It's nonsense to say that players in ruths era weren't highly conditioned athletes. These were guys who made minimal salaries and didnt only play during the regular season but spent the entire off season traveling the country and playing exhibition games in states that didn't have teams. It wasnt just the lower dregs of the MLB but people like ruth, cobb, speaker, alexander, lajoie, etc. Ruth's image of being a fat slob is burned into peoples minds just as the fat elvis is for most, thats what they see when they think ruth, elvis.
The argument that the era was full of crap pitchers is also nonsense, this era is full of crap pitchers cause of expanision the talent is stretched like a rubberband.
And even if you take the argument that ruths era had mediocore pitching then why was Ruth the only one putting up such numbers? Ruth didnt just hit homers he had a lifetime BA of 342.
Its naturally unfair to compare the eras, its like comparing a heavyweight of Jack Dempsy's era when heavyweights mostly weighed in around the 170-190 mark to the heavyweights of today who weigh in at 230-260.
But to dismiss them is also unfair.
And the fact he was a great pitcher is still a valid argument, when Bonds pitches 27 scoreless world series innings, come back then.
- The Jays - 09-18-2004
Seriously. The moment that Wade Boggs became a special player in my eyes is when he stepped on the mound and tosses knuckleballs for a perfect inning.
Pitchers that can hit is just one of the things I love in baseball. To be able to do both at once, you can win a game and carry the team with you. Bill James has that book, Win Shares, where he goes into orgasms over his statistical ananlysis and comes up with a method to determine how much of one winning game can be attributed to a player. It includes pitching and batting, so, I would imagine that there were seasons when Ruth was able to make the largest contributions to winning than any other player ever.
- The Jays - 09-18-2004
Quote:each of them had a major dropoff and/or some nagging injury all year. Giambi, Nomar, Javy Lopez, Bret Boone, Trot Nixon, and Sheffield
Ok, this is the second time you mention Sheffield as having dropped. Fine, his average matches his career average. But, aside from that, this will be the 7th time he has 30 hrs, 7th time he's had 100 rbis, 4th time he's had 30 doubles, his OBP is still over .400, and his slugging is .545.
• Ranks 5th in AL in HR (34) • Ranks 4th in AL in RBI (114)
• Ranks 3rd in AL in R (110) • Ranks 3rd in AL in BB (86)
• Ranks 6th in AL in OBP (.401) • Ranks 8th in AL in SLG (.545)
• Ranks 6th in AL in OPS (.946)
So, his bursitis can be blamed on him not taking steriods anymore?
- The Jays - 09-18-2004
Quote:Manny and Sheff are both having +40 seasons. Soriano had 41 two years ago,
Correction 1- Sheffield might be on pace to get 40, but he doesn't have 40. Manny does.
Correction 2- If Soriano had hit 41 hrs two years ago, then there probably would have been a story about him being a 40-40 player. Sorry, his SB count was 41, his HR count stayed at 39.
- GonzoStyle - 09-18-2004
I must admit, randy johnson can swing a mean bat and watching him run out a triple was an awe inspiring sight.
- Sir O - 09-19-2004
SO much wrong here...
Quote:98 and 2004 are Bonds's best seasons thus far
98?
2001-2003 were all better.
Quote:For anyone that played baseball, you know that most of the time, the guy who was the best hitter on the teach was also a real good pitcher, and ace pitcher was normallly a great hitter.
Darren Driefort is someone I remember who did that in college. He was both one of the best pitchers and best hitters in the nation when he was in college.
For the guy on the field who is the most skilled as Ruth obviously was, it's not uncommon for them to be able to dominate on both sides of the ball.
Bullshit.
Babe Ruth is the only one to ever dominate as both pitcher and batter.
Quote:Pitchers that can hit is just one of the things I love in baseball. To be able to do both at once, you can win a game and carry the team with you. Bill James has that book, Win Shares, where he goes into orgasms over his statistical ananlysis and comes up with a method to determine how much of one winning game can be attributed to a player. It includes pitching and batting, so, I would imagine that there were seasons when Ruth was able to make the largest contributions to winning than any other player ever.
Look...Babe Ruth was as good as any other pitcher at the time. He probably would've won the Cy Young in 1916 had the award been given out then, but whatever; he was an incredible pitcher, as good as HOF'ers Walter Johnson, Grover Alexander, Christy Matthewson...he just hit the ball so damn well, they needed him every day.
Quote:Pitchers that can hit is just one of the things I love in baseball. To be able to do both at once, you can win a game and carry the team with you. Bill James has that book, Win Shares, where he goes into orgasms over his statistical ananlysis and comes up with a method to determine how much of one winning game can be attributed to a player. It includes pitching and batting, so, I would imagine that there were seasons when Ruth was able to make the largest contributions to winning than any other player ever.
Babe was a great hitting pitcher, but no, he didn't play the OF on his days off. His first few years with the Sox he only hit when he pitched...1918 they realized his bat was too valuable to sit 3/4 of the time....
- The Jays - 09-19-2004
Quote:98?
2001-2003 were all better.
I fucked up, I got McGwire mixed wit Bonds. I meant his 2001 season.
- coppelia - 09-20-2004
Quote:Correction 1- Sheffield might be on pace to get 40, but he doesn't have 40. Manny does.
Correction 2- If Soriano had hit 41 hrs two years ago, then there probably would have been a story about him being a 40-40 player. Sorry, his SB count was 41, his HR count stayed at 39.
My bad on the sheff thing. Also I mixed up Sori's numbers. He actually would have had a 40 40 40 season as I believe he had 40 doubles that season as well.
- 2 tired 2 give N F - 09-20-2004
coppelia Wrote:Quote:Correction 1- Sheffield might be on pace to get 40, but he doesn't have 40. Manny does.
Correction 2- If Soriano had hit 41 hrs two years ago, then there probably would have been a story about him being a 40-40 player. Sorry, his SB count was 41, his HR count stayed at 39.
My bad on the sheff thing. Also I mixed up Sori's numbers. He actually would have had a 40 40 40 season as I believe he had 40 doubles that season as well.
uicide: Gotta stop lending her my damn laptop...
- 2 tired 2 give N F - 09-23-2004
I was watchin Bal @ Bos this evening and when Ortiz hit his homer they said that homer made him and Manny the second team mates to hit 40 HR's and 120 RBI's in a season. The First was Ruth and Gherig, who did it 3 times. So I guess I wasn't right about Ruth being the only one who put up big numbers in the 20's. He's still the most staggering in numbers from that era though.
- GonzoStyle - 09-23-2004
Gehrig was an RBI machine and just had the bum luck of being on a team with the greatest player ever and the most charismatic at that, another aspect where he trumps bonds on. When Gehrig retired with 493 Home runs, obviously he retired way before he should have cause of his illness so who knows what his final numbers would have been but his 493 at the time was only second to ruths.