Tim

I'm not sure what kind of support you could possibly have for such a statement. The team went from 88 to 89 to desperate for 80 wins. I don't know how a GM can do more good than bad and have his team get worse. If I look at the structure of the team today and compare it to the structure of the team at the beginning of 2003, I'd say he's improved the overall talent level and condition of the team (including age of core, etc.). Talent is worthless without production. The team has gotten worse under his watch. But Hendry didn't take over an 88 win team. He inherited a 67 win team at the end of 2002, didn't he? 80 is still greater than 67, isn't it?

I'm not sure what kind of support you could possibly have for such a statement. The team went from 88 to 89 to desperate for 80 wins. I don't know how a GM can do more good than bad and have his team get worse. If I look at the structure of the team today and compare it to the structure of the team at the beginning of 2003, I'd say he's improved the overall talent level and condition of the team (including age of core, etc.).

That just says that the stuff is still there, but he's not as sharp with his location. Sometimes he's missing off the plate, but sometimes he's catching way too much of the zone. Wouldn't that statement be true of most pitchers who's ERA is high? The second part of the statement is really meant to be considered to be in combination with the first part. Given his K/9 and BAA, Prior's stuff is still way above average. He just has been susceptible to grooving more pitches than in the past.

I think Delgado would significantly outpace Lowell in a footrace. I can't see either one in LF. I'm not sure why Derrek couldn't play out there, but perhaps his reads & jumps would be atrocious. Otherwise, he's got the speed & arm required.

That just says that the stuff is still there, but he's not as sharp with his location. Sometimes he's missing off the plate, but sometimes he's catching way too much of the zone.

130 to 130 looks plenty tight to me.

The point is that pre-1999, there were other players at or near Bonds performance level, but Bonds somehow raised his game to an unimaginable level between 2000 and 2004 in spite of his age. Combine that fact with the fact that he did use steroids and it creates a doubt not only regarding his numbers the last 4 to 5 years, but also whether other players, who didn't use steroids, would have put up similar numbers if they had used them the last 4 to 5 years. Two that immediately came to mind for me where A Rod and Ken Griffey Jr. Is there any doubting that A Rod and Ken Griffey would have put up Bonds like numbers the last 4 to 5 years if they were using steroids? I just don't understand how people can say that even if Bonds was a regular user of steroids, that they didn't help him improve power, bat speed, recovery from injuries, etc. I doubt Bonds would have put the kind of distance between himdelf and A Rod or Jr. the last 4 to 5 years if those players had used steroids. In fact, I tend to believe if they had used steroids, they might be mentioned as the greatest hitters of our era rather than Bonds. If you want to limit the comparison to players with similar AVG OBP SLG OPS to Bonds during the same years in the early to mid 1990s, then imagine Frank Thomas on steroids. Why did all these other great players fail to achieve what Bonds achieved between 2000 and 2004? Isn't it obvious that it wasn't all just Bond's unique baseball skills when he also admits to using steroids? Perhaps we're simply not debating the same thing. In my eyes, even before 2000, there was no player in the past 20 years who has been all that close to Bonds' level of performance over an extended period of 10 years. He was flat out the best player in the game. I don't believe that ARod or Griffey would have put up Bondsian numbers because they do not have the eye at the plate that Bonds has. Do you actually believe that either of them would have had a .600 OBP? I also think you have to credit more than just the steroids for Bonds increase in performance from 2000 and on. There is no evidence of anyone else who took steroids getting that much of a performance boost from them. Now that he's fully recovered from his life-threatening illness, look at Giambi's second half numbers, as an example. Not quite what he did in his MVP-worthy years, but the difference isn't that great. I think Barry has to be credited for much of the lift in performance from 2000 and on. The steroids (assuming he did them for that full time) certainly helped. But I think he would have seen much of that increase without them. Obviously, that is jmo.

Hell, forget steroids, how good would his numbers have been if he hadn't spent 6 years of the prime of his career bravely serving his country flying combat missions? That's the biggest reason I can't decide whether Williams was actually better than Ruth. :(

Okay, I'm sorry. What age is it that Junior was putting up better numbers than Bonds? Should we compare their overall performance for the first 10 years of their careers? Or are you so against Bonds that you just can't see his pre-steroids greatness? He was a three time MVP by 1993 (and deservedly so). He was jobbed of a couple more MVP awards before he is accused of going on 'roids. He was simply a better player than anyone else out there, with or without steroids.

Agreed. Do you think, though, that that might be a better lesson taught by whoever ends up being our new pitching coach in ST? It couldn't hurt to have them start working on it now.

That would make sense, too, but I don't think Baker and to a lesser extent Rothschild have the sort of control to exercise that strict PC. Rothschild might, but I'm not sure how much Baker listens to him anymore. It's all hypothetical anyway since the guys won't be shut down. I'm just saying what I would do. Understood. Although in Prior's case they do have more justification to shut him down. 90 pitches for him right now might only be 4 innings. Hence why I would stress to them that they should become more efficient if they want to stay out there for 6 or 7 innings. I think it would be an ideal time to have them learn something of that lesson.

VERY good point about Ruth's competition. And of course i'm sure some dude is going to come on here and say that "well, pitchers weren't as good back then" That's BS. The average BA among hitters back in 1910 is about the same as it is now. That proves nothing. The averages in A, AA, AAA and MLB are very similar, but I don't think you'd say that the talent level is equivalent. I think that's because the overall talent pyramid remains balanced between hitting and pitching in those leagues and those eras. However, I believe there was a far greater differential between the elite players and the run of the mill players in the early days of the game. It would be as if you expanded baseball to about 60 teams these days. The elite players' stats would go through the roof because they'd feast on the lesser players. But the overall league average would probably stay the same because you'd also have lousy pitchers facing lousy hitters.

That would make sense, too, but I don't think Baker and to a lesser extent Rothschild have the sort of control to exercise that strict PC. Rothschild might, but I'm not sure how much Baker listens to him anymore. It's all hypothetical anyway since the guys won't be shut down. I'm just saying what I would do.

I think Prior and Z would take it as an insult if you shut them down now. Instead, I'd just tell them that they're going to be limited to 90 or 100 pitches per outing and that the primary goal should be to see how efficiently they could use them.

Yes, you and Tim raise good points about Barry's high walks the past several years. But to suggest that he would have gotten hits in those AB's is speculative. All we have to go on in baseball is statistics, and he doesn't have the stats to be considered the greatest hitter ever in my opinion. Well, if all you consider is batting average and hit totals when ranking hitters, then your opinion is right on. But not considering the total package of what a hitter brings to the plate is what I would deem "short-sighted". Well then this begs the question, are we talking about greatest offensive threat of all time or best hitter of all time. If we are discussing greatest all around offensive weapon then Barry would certainly be in my top few. I think when most people say "best hitter of all time", they mean the all-around contributions at the plate. If you simply want the guys who had the best batting average, it's not open for much debate. Just pull up the list on baseball-reference.

Yes, you and Tim raise good points about Barry's high walks the past several years. But to suggest that he would have gotten hits in those AB's is speculative. All we have to go on in baseball is statistics, and he doesn't have the stats to be considered the greatest hitter ever in my opinion. Well, if all you consider is batting average and hit totals when ranking hitters, then your opinion is right on. But not considering the total package of what a hitter brings to the plate is what I would deem "short-sighted".

Griffey needs to have another season or two like this one and he'll be a lock. I'd probably vote for him, as is. Barry was the best player of the '90's. Griffey was the face of the game for that decade.

The only reason he doesn't have 3000 hits is because he has walked more often than any of the above players. Compare any of those players other than Williams and Ruth to Bonds and see how many outs they made. Making outs is still bad, right? Being a great hitter is not only about batting average. Being a great hitter is having the largest possible impact on the game while at the plate.

Neither of them has been as good as Barry was pre-1999. Junior was at least equal or better than Barry pre-1999, check the stats. Griffey's plate discipline was not as good as Bonds, but his eye was far better than Bonds at a similar age. A Rod was just getting started, but was far better than Bonds his first few years in the league. Stats 1996 through 1998 Bonds: 42, 40, & 37 HRs; 129, 101, & 102 RBIs; .308, .291, .303 AVG Griffey : 49, 56, & 56 HRs; 140, 147, & 146 RBIs; .303, .304, & .284 AVG I really don't care about RBI - that's a team measure based upon who is on base in front of that player and how often they are given the opportunities to drive in the runs. What I do care about is a player's overall performance, of which walks are a big part. Limiting the discussion to the years you picked to make things look as equal for Griffey as possible, here are the numbers they put up: Avg OBP SLG Barry 1996 .308 .461 .615 1997 .291 .446 .585 1998 .303 .438 .609 Junior 1996 .303 .392 .628 1997 .304 .382 .646 1998 .284 .365 .611 Junior has an edge in SLG, but Barry just dominates in making fewer outs than KGJ. To put that in perspective, let's look at more advanced metrics for those seasons: EqA BRAA VORP Barry 1996 .362 82 98.1 1997 .349 73 95.8 1998 .348 74 92.7 Junior 1996 .318 72 87.8 1997 .324 65 99.8 1998 .310 53 85.8 I have to admit that it is closer than I would have thought. Junior actually beats Barry in one stat in one year. However, this is the sampling of years that makes Juniors case most strongly. Looking at VORP, for example, Griffey only tops Barry twice in the 90's. I think Barry is in the top 10 in every single season during that time frame. Not only was his peak higher than anyone else's, he was also astonishingly consistent from season to season.

If you feel compelled to boo him, I'd say you care about Barry quite a bit. Unless you just like having any ol' excuse to boo someone.

Neither of them has been as good as Barry was pre-1999.

Omg Choi's not producing? Have you seen his ops??? :wink: Seriously though LA makes lots of sense. However, Giles may take precedence over Delgado due to Lowell being added. Did you have to introduce your sarcasm here? Aren't enough threads polluted with that argument already? Back to the point. I could see them going after Giles, but they will have money to spend on more than one position this offseason, especially if they trade Bradley. Lowell's had an enormously disappointing season. But he's not necessarily washed up. He might be worth a flier for the Dodgers while they wait for LaRoche or Guzman to take over third base. Not sure why you need to pick me out here when there's so many other's who are guilty of sarcasm. Perhaps if I ripped Neifi or Baker it would be ok. *shrug* Well, I'd say that part of getting along in a community is knowing how a person is going to respond if you press a particular button. Mouthing off directly to me (especially when it is out of context) about my favorite players is likely to draw a response. My feeling is that you know that and decided to push that particular button anyway. I guess you are free to play the martyr if you like, but when you purposefully stir up trouble, you really shouldn't act picked on if people respond.

They should consider it. That lineup looks a lot better if you replace Erstad with Delgado and move Figgins up into the leadoff spot. Their whole team would look a lot better if they put Kotchman at first base, put Erstad back in CF where he has value, put Figgins at the top of the lineup where he has value and Erstad in the ninth spot where he belongs. They have both Kotchman and Kendry Morales as in-house solutions for first base. I can't think of anyone ready to fill an OF spot for them (though the need isn't great if they just put Erstad out there and relegate Finley or Anderson to being an expensive bench player).

To answer the original question, Bonds' performance puts him amongst the top 3 hitters ever, in my opinion. Ruth & Williams being the other top two for me. Barry is certainly the greatest hitter we've ever seen, based purely upon what he has accomplished. Do I like Barry? No. Do I like that he's probably benefited from cheating? No. Do I think he was on a path to be recognized as one of the 10 greatest before the "cheating" took place? Absolutely. But I'll tell you what, I enjoy watching him hit more than any player, ever. The best swing mechanics, the best eye and the ultimate in coordination. I rather despise the persona (I don't know enough about the man to say anything), hate the actions, but love the hitter. Before he started aging, he was a heck of a fielder, too.

Omg Choi's not producing? Have you seen his ops??? :wink: Seriously though LA makes lots of sense. However, Giles may take precedence over Delgado due to Lowell being added. Did you have to introduce your sarcasm here? Aren't enough threads polluted with that argument already? Back to the point. I could see them going after Giles, but they will have money to spend on more than one position this offseason, especially if they trade Bradley. Lowell's had an enormously disappointing season. But he's not necessarily washed up. He might be worth a flier for the Dodgers while they wait for LaRoche or Guzman to take over third base.