TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Sports Discussion
-- #756!
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]

he's no hank aaron 'cuz hank aaron is the most overrated professional athlete ever.

now why do you say that? he is in the top 5 in hits, home runs, total bases, rbis, and extra base hits.

because it took him 23 full seasons to do it. Sure, he was remarkably consistent, but I'd rather go with somebody who had 5 unbelievable years than somebody who chugged out 10 great ones.

quote:

Originally posted by inconspicuous because it took him 23 full seasons to do it. Sure, he was remarkably consistent, but I'd rather go with somebody who had 5 unbelievable years than somebody who chugged out 10 great ones.

if we would go by these standards, curtis martin and patrick ewing will never make the Hall of Fame.

/edit
not like we can compare martin and ewing to aaron.

quote:

Originally posted by inconspicuous because it took him 23 full seasons to do it. Sure, he was remarkably consistent, but I'd rather go with somebody who had 5 unbelievable years than somebody who chugged out 10 great ones.

.305/.374/.555 37 HRs 113 RBI 107 Runs.

He AVERAGED that over his career. And I don't think many people overrate him at all. He's rarely talked about in any capacity besides the 755 home runs. If he didn't do that, and only had, let's say, 680 Home Runs, no one would ever talk about him.

well i have to say this. anyone "pre-steroids era" who can hit .300+ 35 +hrs 100+ rbis consistently is pretty good.

I'm not saying he shouldn't be in the hall of fame, so the martin/ewing comparison doesn't apply. He's not one of the top 5 greatest players of all-time, though, imo, simply because he didn't have the truly spectacular seasons that those guys had, and, to me, greatness is more about the absolute limit of someone's talent than it is his totals for a career. If that wasn't the case, to counter your argument, Gale Sayers wouldn't be in the hall of fame.

Just can't ever think anyone can say Barroid is better than Mays because he juiced for the last 9 years. Barroid would have at least 100 less HR's in my estimation. His slugging % pre 1999 was around a little over .600% and after it's over .800%. Sorry, but juicers aren't gonna cut it. If that holds, than Sosa was the ultimate guy with THREE 60 homer years.

1999 All-Century Team

The Team

Pitchers

* Nolan Ryan (992,040 votes)
* Sandy Koufax (970,434)
* Cy Young (867,523)
* Roger Clemens (601,244)
* Bob Gibson (582,031)
* Walter Johnson (479,279)
* Warren Spahn* (337,215)
* Christy Mathewson* (249,747)
* Lefty Grove* (142,169)

Catchers

* Johnny Bench (1,010,403)
* Yogi Berra (704,208)

First Basemen

* Lou Gehrig (1,207,992)
* Mark McGwire (517,181)

Second Basemen

* Jackie Robinson (788,116)
* Rogers Hornsby (630,761)

Third Basemen

* Mike Schmidt (855,654)
* Brooks Robinson (761,700)

Shortstops

* Cal Ripken, Jr. (669,033)
* Ernie Banks (598,168)
* Honus Wagner* (526,740)

Outfielders

* Babe Ruth (1,158,044)
* Hank Aaron (1,156,782)
* Ted Williams (1,125,583)
* Willie Mays (1,115,896)
* Joe DiMaggio (1,054,423)
* Mickey Mantle (988,168)
* Ty Cobb (777,056)
* Ken Griffey, Jr. (645,389)
* Pete Rose (629,742)
* Stan Musial* (571,279)


Oops.............Where's Barry Bonds? 1999 what? The year he was beginning to juice? Nuff said. Game set match.

well if the baseball hall of fame panel can ban pete rose from being inducted into the hall of fame, because of his gambling issues, i am sure they will ban barry bonds from the hall of fame.

quote:

Originally posted by Member of X 1999 All-Century Team The Team Pitchers * Nolan Ryan (992,040 votes) * Sandy Koufax (970,434) * Cy Young (867,523) * Roger Clemens (601,244) * Bob Gibson (582,031) * Walter Johnson (479,279) * Warren Spahn* (337,215) * Christy Mathewson* (249,747) * Lefty Grove* (142,169) Catchers * Johnny Bench (1,010,403) * Yogi Berra (704,208) First Basemen * Lou Gehrig (1,207,992) * Mark McGwire (517,181) Second Basemen * Jackie Robinson (788,116) * Rogers Hornsby (630,761) Third Basemen * Mike Schmidt (855,654) * Brooks Robinson (761,700) Shortstops * Cal Ripken, Jr. (669,033) * Ernie Banks (598,168) * Honus Wagner* (526,740) Outfielders * Babe Ruth (1,158,044) * Hank Aaron (1,156,782) * Ted Williams (1,125,583) * Willie Mays (1,115,896) * Joe DiMaggio (1,054,423) * Mickey Mantle (988,168) * Ty Cobb (777,056) * Ken Griffey, Jr. (645,389) * Pete Rose (629,742) * Stan Musial* (571,279) Oops.............Where's Barry Bonds? 1999 what? The year he was beginning to juice? Nuff said. Game set match.

Brian, I know you can be objective. There NO reason Bonds should've been left off that list. I know how you feel about the steroids shit, but honestly... Bonds was and is one of the best players ever. And here's why I said Bonds > Mays:

If you keep all of Bonds years, including the steroids years, it's definitely true. But I'm not. I'm stopping after 1998, because 1999 is the year Bonds came back looking like Ronnie Coleman.



Mays hit for higher averages. But Bonds wasn't FAR behind in that.

Bonds had 411 HRs by then, and he was 33. Mays had 453 by the time he was 33, so it's not far fetched to say Bonds would've had 600 home runs in his career, without steroids.

Only counting seasons with 300 ABs or more, Bonds had 9 seasons with an OBP above .400. Mays had 5 seasons.

Mays won 12 gold gloves, Bonds won 8.

Mays won 2 MVPs, Bonds won 3.

Mays had an OPS above 1.000 5 times. Bonds did it 7 times.

Mays stole 338 bases. Bonds had 445.

And, remember, this is all with Bonds' career ending after 1998. Couting stats would've gone up and there really wasn't much decline in Bonds' stats leading up to the 1999 season, so it's within reason that he could've led the league in OBP, OPS, and what not many more times.

no, it's not with his career ending after '98. before '99, he was 35 years old and didn't yet have 411 home runs. It's very debatable whether he would have gotten to 600 without steroids.

and most players don't decline much by that point. They may drop off a bit in those past few years, but until then, they're just gaining experience with bodies still in decent shape. after 35, though, they start to fall off. As I mentioned earlier, he had what was nearly a career-ending injury in 2002, even WITH steroids to help him get back.

The thing that is hard when you're comparing era's is that nowadays, there is more teams (watering down pitchers), tighter balls, smaller ballparks, and more. However, nowadays there is also more specialty relief pitching (guys throwing 101 mph in the 7th inning vs. a tired starter) and perhaps more nastier selection of pitches (splitter for example). So anytime we compare, one can never be sure of how great the differences would have been. Mays could have hit 800 Homers on the juice too. I'll never know.

quote:

Originally posted by inconspicuous he's no hank aaron 'cuz hank aaron is the most overrated professional athlete ever.

when I said "he's no Hank Aaron" I meant personality wise, Aaron has class... he's not an asshole like Mays/Bonds...

quote:

Originally posted by King Ecnal when I said "he's no Hank Aaron" I meant personality wise, Aaron has class... he's not an asshole like Mays/Bonds...

I'll give you that. He also had real death threats & prejudice thrown at him, while Barry Bonds doesn't, but makes just as big of a deal out of it.

does anybody have that Bonds quote about getting Ruth's "white ass out of the history books," or something to that effect? I wish I still did...

i am sure it has been mentioned before, but i think the Baseball Committee should set a standard change. There was "the dead ball" era, and now we should call this "the juiced" era. average numbers from 1999 are through the roof.

back in 2000, i did a statistical analysis of the change in baseball in my probability and statistics class, from the 1990s compared to the past, covering everything from batting to pitching. damn it i wished i saved it. i somehow lost it somewhere, thinking it wasn't really important. i had some really good data.

or they could just raise the mound again. problem solved. that's been long overdue, anyway.

the problem is, Selig gave more thought to putting spiderman logos on the bases than he ever has to anything that would lower home run totals.

quote:

Originally posted by inconspicuous or they could just raise the mound again. problem solved. that's been long overdue, anyway.

that too. then again, wasn't the reason why they lowered the mound, because the baseball panel was afraid baseball was getting too boring, and needed to speed up the games, and increase the number of runs scored?

nvm. this was before edit.

quote:

Originally posted by LeopoldStotch that too. then again, wasn't the reason why they lowered the mound, because the baseball panel was afraid baseball was getting too boring, and needed to speed up the games, and increase the number of runs scored?

yep. see edit

quote:

Originally posted by inconspicuous yep. see edit

I just remembered that Spiderman nonsense and now I hate Selig even more...again. One of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

so how long before the winner of the home run derby earns aluminum bat privileges for his team in the playoffs?

quote:

Originally posted by inconspicuous no, it's not with his career ending after '98. before '99, he was 35 years old and didn't yet have 411 home runs. It's very debatable whether he would have gotten to 600 without steroids.

Huh? Bonds age at the begining of the 1998 season was 33. And, yes, he did have 411 homeruns at the end of the '98 season. He could have averaged 25 homeruns and had 600 by the time he was 41. Mays played till he was 42.

quote:

Originally posted by Shamez214 Huh? Bonds age at the begining of the 1998 season was 33. And, yes, he did have 411 homeruns at the end of the '98 season. He could have averaged 25 homeruns and had 600 by the time he was 41. Mays played till he was 42.

We're both off--he was 34 when he started the '99 season. He turned 35 halfway through it.

Also, he had a knee which, by 2002, had deteriorated to the point of having no cartilage left anyway, so it's not as if it's such a lock that he'd play that long.

As for Mays, yes, he played 'til 43, but he had a total of 73 home runs in his last 5 seasons, and only 32 in the last 3, so it's not like you can just assume that Barry's going to have 25 a year based on that. Consider also that in Mays's 3-year stretch from ages 31-34 (Bonds's ages in his last 4 years before steroids), he had 186 home runs to Barry's 152 over that same stretch, so that comparison falls apart even more. Bonds was already less productive at that age than Mays was, and Mays only managed 132 more home runs in his career. It's fair to say Barry would have had a chance to do a bit better, but to take it as a given that he was going to hit 70 more home runs at that age than Willie Mays is unreasonable.

quote:

Originally posted by inconspicuous We're both off--he was 34 when he started the '99 season. He turned 35 halfway through it. Also, he had a knee which, by 2002, had deteriorated to the point of having no cartilage left anyway, so it's not as if it's such a lock that he'd play that long. As for Mays, yes, he played 'til 43, but he had a total of 73 home runs in his last 5 seasons, and only 32 in the last 3, so it's not like you can just assume that Barry's going to have 25 a year based on that. Consider also that in Mays's 3-year stretch from ages 31-34 (Bonds's ages in his last 4 years before steroids), he had 186 home runs to Barry's 152 over that same stretch, so that comparison falls apart even more. Bonds was already less productive at that age than Mays was, and Mays only managed 132 more home runs in his career. It's fair to say Barry would have had a chance to do a bit better, but to take it as a given that he was going to hit 70 more home runs at that age than Willie Mays is unreasonable.

Regardless of whether or not Bonds hit 600 homeruns, everything else I said still holds water.

Bonds was equal to or better than Mays in almost all offensive categories.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.