04-10-2002, 11:44 PM
04-11-2002, 12:32 AM
Gotta go Sean Connery
04-11-2002, 04:02 AM
i used that already ken....... {
}
}04-11-2002, 05:17 AM
When Hank Aaron broke the single season record it took him over 2,000 more at bats than Babe Ruth had in his career. The babe was the first man to 30, 40, 50, and 60. The babe was also one of the greatest left handed pitchers ever, his record of almost 28 scoreless innings in world series play also stood for many decades. Aaron hit 41 more homers than ruth but also had almost 4,000 more at bats.
Bonds may not be as great as ruth in many ways but he is definetly better than Aaron in my eyes and is the only man who poses a threat to break 755. Aaron hit 755 at 42 years old. If bonds avg's about 40 homers a year he will break the rocrd at 42. Bonds is also very healthy right now and better than ever.
Is he the best ever? Not yet he is not. But here is my rank of the greatest hitters of all times.
1- Ty Cobb
2- Rogers Hornsby
3- Babe Ruth
4- Barry Bonds
5- Lou Gehrig
6 - Pete Rose
7 - Tony Gwynn
8 - Mickey Mantle
9 - Joe Jackson
10 - Ted Williams
11 - Sammy Sosa
12 - Jimmie Foxx
13 - Mark Mgwire
14 - Tris Speaker
15 - Joe Dimaggio
Edited By GonzoStyle on April 11 2002 at 01:21
Bonds may not be as great as ruth in many ways but he is definetly better than Aaron in my eyes and is the only man who poses a threat to break 755. Aaron hit 755 at 42 years old. If bonds avg's about 40 homers a year he will break the rocrd at 42. Bonds is also very healthy right now and better than ever.
Is he the best ever? Not yet he is not. But here is my rank of the greatest hitters of all times.
1- Ty Cobb
2- Rogers Hornsby
3- Babe Ruth
4- Barry Bonds
5- Lou Gehrig
6 - Pete Rose
7 - Tony Gwynn
8 - Mickey Mantle
9 - Joe Jackson
10 - Ted Williams
11 - Sammy Sosa
12 - Jimmie Foxx
13 - Mark Mgwire
14 - Tris Speaker
15 - Joe Dimaggio
Edited By GonzoStyle on April 11 2002 at 01:21
04-11-2002, 05:51 AM
Quote:Bonds may not be as great as ruth in many ways but he is definetly better than Aaron in my eyes and is the only man who poses a threat to break 755.
Actually, if Mantingly was healthy, he would have broken it at 39 with all his moon shots.
add extreeme sarcasm to the above statement.
The one thing about Bonds that I actually respect is that the man is all baout baseball. He may be a bit abrassive at times, but at the end of the day, you know for a fact he will show up and he will play 100% at all times. I never call anyone the greatest while they are still playing but IMO, he is one of the greatest ever and I will leave it at that.
04-11-2002, 06:39 AM
He definetly is in the top 10 right now. If he would quit right now he would still be a top 10 player. I trully am excited to watch him play, more than even sammy and mac when they were going for the Maris record. Mcgwire never had the appeal in my eyes. Sammy did and I rooted for him to break the rocrd more than mcgwire. Sammy is also a threat for 755, any man who can avg 60 homers for 4 years is a threat. Sammy also hits a ton of RBI's and hits for avg. But no one touched bonds, I am actually in awe of him everytime I see him.
The main reason is beacuse of his swing. Up until a year ago I would say the sweetest swing I ever seen was Griffey Juniors. Watching Griffey today makes me wanna cry, all that promise. The guy is only 32 and he has 10 more years to 42 and already is past 400 homers. But at 32 his body is just not holding up, his timing is way off and it's just sad. Griffey always had the most beautiful swing. Mcgwire always looked like he was jacking the ball it was ugly. sammy has a nice swing but it's also too raw.
Bonds has the griffey swing, he swings the bat like nothing I ever seen, it's pure poetry and a thing of beauty to watch.
Forget the homer to at bat ratio. With all his walks and power, bonds hit a homer every 6th swing of the bat last year. That's just sick, plus he is a good out fielder, hits over .300 and it all about the game like sean said. Whatever he says or does off the field I don't care. What I care about is I am watching history in the making. What Ruth was to game in the 20's is what Bonds is to us. We are watching something people will be reading about and discussing a 100 years from now.
The main reason is beacuse of his swing. Up until a year ago I would say the sweetest swing I ever seen was Griffey Juniors. Watching Griffey today makes me wanna cry, all that promise. The guy is only 32 and he has 10 more years to 42 and already is past 400 homers. But at 32 his body is just not holding up, his timing is way off and it's just sad. Griffey always had the most beautiful swing. Mcgwire always looked like he was jacking the ball it was ugly. sammy has a nice swing but it's also too raw.
Bonds has the griffey swing, he swings the bat like nothing I ever seen, it's pure poetry and a thing of beauty to watch.
Forget the homer to at bat ratio. With all his walks and power, bonds hit a homer every 6th swing of the bat last year. That's just sick, plus he is a good out fielder, hits over .300 and it all about the game like sean said. Whatever he says or does off the field I don't care. What I care about is I am watching history in the making. What Ruth was to game in the 20's is what Bonds is to us. We are watching something people will be reading about and discussing a 100 years from now.
04-11-2002, 08:26 AM
I don't think Bonds is the best ever but you all have convincing arguements...here's my 2 cents...
The old single season record was 60. the man had a person right behind him going for that record, but then about 40 years later ONE guy gets 61. Then a few years ago not only did TWO guys break that record but 12 guys were over 50 and that had never happened before that time. The reason has to be something. I say it's the ball. The ball is different than it was. No question in my mind.
So here's another thing. The games. More games played = more opportunity to hit home runs without a question. Ruth didn't get as many as Marris and Marris didn't get as many as Bonds. Also, Ruth lost a few seasons to being a pitcher. Technology has improved and that helps people fix their game. So I feel that since Bonds wouldn't have done this without technology and Ruth did it without and Marris did without as much, then how could you not say that if given the same opportunities and advantages that Ruth or Marris wouldn't get 100 home runs a game.
This is a great thing to talk about and I only wish there was a way to settle it, but if settled then there wouldn't be this great thing to talk about. I'll ask God when I get to heaven what he thinks, maybe he'll say "We're holding that game in about 3 weeks here's 2 tickets". (A guy can dream can't he)
The old single season record was 60. the man had a person right behind him going for that record, but then about 40 years later ONE guy gets 61. Then a few years ago not only did TWO guys break that record but 12 guys were over 50 and that had never happened before that time. The reason has to be something. I say it's the ball. The ball is different than it was. No question in my mind.
So here's another thing. The games. More games played = more opportunity to hit home runs without a question. Ruth didn't get as many as Marris and Marris didn't get as many as Bonds. Also, Ruth lost a few seasons to being a pitcher. Technology has improved and that helps people fix their game. So I feel that since Bonds wouldn't have done this without technology and Ruth did it without and Marris did without as much, then how could you not say that if given the same opportunities and advantages that Ruth or Marris wouldn't get 100 home runs a game.
This is a great thing to talk about and I only wish there was a way to settle it, but if settled then there wouldn't be this great thing to talk about. I'll ask God when I get to heaven what he thinks, maybe he'll say "We're holding that game in about 3 weeks here's 2 tickets". (A guy can dream can't he)
04-11-2002, 08:49 AM
A few things here...
Galt, I see where you're coming from. If you plug the present day Barry Bonds into any season in baseball history, with all skill levels being as they were, he'd dominate almost everyone. I can't argue that. My contention is that Bonds has certain advantages that don't necessarily depend on his personal level of talent, but rather, the knowledge gained of baseball through the years and the advancement of technology, among other factors like ballparks and the construction of the baseball itself. When comparing Ruth vs. Bonds simply as players, you can't deny Ruth had a handicap simply due to the fact that he played during baseball's adolescent years, if that's the way you're going to weigh the issue.
GS, I couldn't agree more with what you said about Bonds. Watching him bat gives me the same thrill as watching Tyson in his prime, Misawa in his prime, Gretzky, Jordan, and Montana in their primes. The fact that he's this good at such an advanced stage in his career is simply amazing. Much like Randy Johnson, he just seems to get better with age. With that said, I do have a problem with your list.
Galt, I see where you're coming from. If you plug the present day Barry Bonds into any season in baseball history, with all skill levels being as they were, he'd dominate almost everyone. I can't argue that. My contention is that Bonds has certain advantages that don't necessarily depend on his personal level of talent, but rather, the knowledge gained of baseball through the years and the advancement of technology, among other factors like ballparks and the construction of the baseball itself. When comparing Ruth vs. Bonds simply as players, you can't deny Ruth had a handicap simply due to the fact that he played during baseball's adolescent years, if that's the way you're going to weigh the issue.
GS, I couldn't agree more with what you said about Bonds. Watching him bat gives me the same thrill as watching Tyson in his prime, Misawa in his prime, Gretzky, Jordan, and Montana in their primes. The fact that he's this good at such an advanced stage in his career is simply amazing. Much like Randy Johnson, he just seems to get better with age. With that said, I do have a problem with your list.
Quote:1- Ty CobbNow, it's really too late for me to do a numbers crunch. I'll wait til tomorrow. But I really can't see the logic in ranking Ted Williams at #10, especially behind guys like Pete Rose and Tony Gwynn. IMO (and again, this is without really breaking things down), Ted's top 3. Care to explain the logic behind the list?
2- Rogers Hornsby
3- Babe Ruth
4- Barry Bonds
5- Lou Gehrig
6 - Pete Rose
7 - Tony Gwynn
8 - Mickey Mantle
9 - Joe Jackson
10 - Ted Williams
11 - Sammy Sosa
12 - Jimmie Foxx
13 - Mark Mgwire
14 - Tris Speaker
15 - Joe Dimaggio
04-11-2002, 02:21 PM
Are we talking about "best hitter" or "best baseball player". Arpi originally was talking about greatest player.
When you talk about that. Sure, a lot of people have great offensive numbers, but you have to take serious consideration into Bonds speed and defense.
Most hitters had stone hands and were slow as dirt. Ted Williams is a great example. He was a defensive liability. If Gonzo's list is best hitters, Williams is top 3 without question. If it's top baseball players, he's not even considered for top 10. Bonds is the greatest all around when you consider hitting, defense, and speed. One could make a very valid argument for Ruth, but aside from him, I can't see anyone comparing with Bonds.
Edited By Galt on April 11 2002 at 10:27
When you talk about that. Sure, a lot of people have great offensive numbers, but you have to take serious consideration into Bonds speed and defense.
Most hitters had stone hands and were slow as dirt. Ted Williams is a great example. He was a defensive liability. If Gonzo's list is best hitters, Williams is top 3 without question. If it's top baseball players, he's not even considered for top 10. Bonds is the greatest all around when you consider hitting, defense, and speed. One could make a very valid argument for Ruth, but aside from him, I can't see anyone comparing with Bonds.
Edited By Galt on April 11 2002 at 10:27
04-11-2002, 02:39 PM
that ted williams was a fielding liability is a popular misconception. he had a lifetime fielding % of .974.
while this is certainly not incredible, its not a liability.
while this is certainly not incredible, its not a liability.
04-11-2002, 02:57 PM
He was slow as hell so he had no range. That's a liability. And in the off chance he got to the ball, he made an error almost 3% of the time. Over the course of a given season, you figure most fielders have let's say AT LEAST 3 chances a game. That's 12 errors in a season for an outfielder. That's horrendous.
Infielders have better fielding percentages than that.
He also had no arm
Infielders have better fielding percentages than that.
He also had no arm
04-11-2002, 11:22 PM
Can we at least all agree that Drew Henson is the worst baseball player ever?
04-15-2002, 01:13 AM
Out of the 6 Bonds…..Pierce Brosnan, Timothy Dalton, Roger Moore, Sean Connery, Gary U. S. Bonds and George Lazenby… Who? …..
George Lazenby (On Her Majesty’s Secret Service)….. yeah that one….
I guess Pierce is the best Bond for my money…..
George Lazenby (On Her Majesty’s Secret Service)….. yeah that one….
I guess Pierce is the best Bond for my money…..
04-15-2002, 06:52 PM
Quote:Out of the 6 Bonds…..Pierce Brosnan, Timothy Dalton, Roger Moore, Sean Connery, Gary U. S. Bonds and George Lazenby… Who? …..
George Lazenby (On Her Majesty’s Secret Service)….. yeah that one….
I guess Pierce is the best Bond for my money…..
you sir are a comic genius. keep the laughs coming. your humor is a much needed tonic in a troubled world. tool
04-15-2002, 07:48 PM
I don't know if anyone brought this up here, but before Babe became one of the best hitters in baseball, he was a damned good pitcher. That, for my money, makes him the greatest of all time. Oh and I gotta go sean connery too, and I'd like to add that Timothy Dalton has got to be the worst Bond, in my opinion
edit:I see that some people mentioned the Babe pitching thing, so I apologize. Just one comment further I had, for those who equate what Bonds is doing today and saying he could hit 100 home runs in the 20's because of his fitness I say this. You are dealing with a drasticall different ball back then as opposed to today. There no talk of "juicing" of the ball like there is today. The ball they used has always been called "flat" as far I've heard, as opposed to the jump the ball has today. That makes a difference I think.
Edited By Faceman on April 15 2002 at 4:12
edit:I see that some people mentioned the Babe pitching thing, so I apologize. Just one comment further I had, for those who equate what Bonds is doing today and saying he could hit 100 home runs in the 20's because of his fitness I say this. You are dealing with a drasticall different ball back then as opposed to today. There no talk of "juicing" of the ball like there is today. The ball they used has always been called "flat" as far I've heard, as opposed to the jump the ball has today. That makes a difference I think.
Edited By Faceman on April 15 2002 at 4:12
04-15-2002, 10:00 PM
Face, I understand what you are saying about the ball, and some others said about the bigger parks etc.
My reason for saying that Bonds is better than Ruth:
Bonds is in much better shape than any athlete ever dreamed of in the 20s. No one went to the gym religiously, no had the dietary supplements, flexibility training, hand-eye drills, meticulously studied every pitcher and charted every pitch, no one could keep a video library of all their at bats and notice any little flaw they had, I could go on for hours. Those advantages have made Bonds and many other players for that matter, head and shoulders above what the athletes were like nearly 100 years ago.
The level of competition is much higher than it was back then. Sure everyone talks about expansion, and crappy pitchers. But, while there might be 3x as many players as there were in the 20s to thin out the talent, the talent pool that exists to draw talent out of is larger exponentially. Not only is the population of the US more than doubled, but more people as a whole play the sport. Every kid plays organized baseball since infancy, which very few people had back then. Kids now have a huge head start because of all the teaching and expertise they have been exposed to. And that's just the US. The majors are international now, so while there are 20 more teams than there were when Ruth was around, those teams cherrypick the best players out of millions of players.
Because the competition is better, people play up to the competition and continuously improve. I guarantee Ruth never saw a 100MPH fastball once.
You give Ruth those tools, training, years of much great competition, and neading to adjust his approach for multitudes of different pitches and pitchers, fine maybe he'll even be that much better. But he didn't have them, and that wasn't the question. The debate is who is better Bonds or Ruth.
And Bonds, as his is now, is better than Ruth as he was then.
The best hockey players now are better now than Bobby Orr and Gordie Howe. The best basketball players now are better than Russell, West, and Baylor. It goes for all sports. The breakthroughs in sports medicine, training, scouting, and all that jazz have made today's athletes dominating compared to when the sports began. I've heard Ted Williams say many times that he would have hit .450 if he had todays technology and training
My reason for saying that Bonds is better than Ruth:
Bonds is in much better shape than any athlete ever dreamed of in the 20s. No one went to the gym religiously, no had the dietary supplements, flexibility training, hand-eye drills, meticulously studied every pitcher and charted every pitch, no one could keep a video library of all their at bats and notice any little flaw they had, I could go on for hours. Those advantages have made Bonds and many other players for that matter, head and shoulders above what the athletes were like nearly 100 years ago.
The level of competition is much higher than it was back then. Sure everyone talks about expansion, and crappy pitchers. But, while there might be 3x as many players as there were in the 20s to thin out the talent, the talent pool that exists to draw talent out of is larger exponentially. Not only is the population of the US more than doubled, but more people as a whole play the sport. Every kid plays organized baseball since infancy, which very few people had back then. Kids now have a huge head start because of all the teaching and expertise they have been exposed to. And that's just the US. The majors are international now, so while there are 20 more teams than there were when Ruth was around, those teams cherrypick the best players out of millions of players.
Because the competition is better, people play up to the competition and continuously improve. I guarantee Ruth never saw a 100MPH fastball once.
You give Ruth those tools, training, years of much great competition, and neading to adjust his approach for multitudes of different pitches and pitchers, fine maybe he'll even be that much better. But he didn't have them, and that wasn't the question. The debate is who is better Bonds or Ruth.
And Bonds, as his is now, is better than Ruth as he was then.
The best hockey players now are better now than Bobby Orr and Gordie Howe. The best basketball players now are better than Russell, West, and Baylor. It goes for all sports. The breakthroughs in sports medicine, training, scouting, and all that jazz have made today's athletes dominating compared to when the sports began. I've heard Ted Williams say many times that he would have hit .450 if he had todays technology and training
04-18-2002, 02:24 AM
Quote:Bonds. greatest of all time?
HEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLL NO!!!
Barry Bonds is nowhere even close to the greatness that is Babe Ruth. Sorry but he ain't the greatet of all time.
Quote:ARod needs about 10 more consistent years before he is even mentioned in the same breath as these other players.
Without a doubt i would not even put Arod in the same sentence.
04-18-2002, 03:31 AM
Quote:HEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLL NO!!!way to back up your claim. go away until you have something intelligent to add, tool
Barry Bonds is nowhere even close to the greatness that is Babe Ruth. Sorry but he ain't the greatet of all time.
04-18-2002, 03:51 AM
Maximus won me over. I can't argue with his logic and well thought out and irrefutable points. damn him.
04-18-2002, 04:23 AM
Galt makes a very compelling arguement. But I still don't think its possible to compare them. They are from different eras with different circumstances and different variables at play. I am inclined to agree with you on all your points but somehow I can't choose Ruth or Bonds because you can't put them on a level playing field. My gut just somehow says Ruth but perhaps thats just nostalgia. Bonds is a monster and i'm glad I get to see a Ruth-ian type player in his prime playing in my time.