soccer10k

I think that if the players were given the same conditions to play under (i.e. weight training, field conditions, mitt size, etc.), I believe that the old time players would have been just as good as the players from now. I don't think that if Ruth played now he would hit 900 HR's but I also don't think he would have only hit 400. I'm saying that given the same opportunities the current players are afforded, the old time players would have been just fine. Don't forget that everybody played under the same conditions in the early part of the century so ALL of their skills were hindered because of that. I think Treeman's point is that the players today have so much more working in their favor (i.e. weight training, diets, trainers) that the old time players without those opportunities wouldn't be able to keep up.

I agree as well especially regarding the weight training point.

I always wonder when this topic comes up why people rank Babe Ruth ahead of Ted Williams. People always forget that Williams missed 3 years in his prime (1943-1945) because of World War II as well as most of 2 years (1952 and 1953). If you adjust his HR's by adding 37 per year during the first period and 29 and 17 during the second period (for an average of 30 per year), Williams would end up with 678 career HR's which puts him at 4th all time. Do the same thing with RBI's (120 and 90) gives him 2342 which would be 1st all time. Runs (130 and 90) gives him 2349 which would be 1st all time. I don't think these numbers are unreasonable given he numbers before and after those missing years. My list goes as follows. 1. Ted Williams 2. Babe Ruth 3. Lou Gehrig 4. Ty Cobb 5a. Willie Mays 5b. Hank Aaron I refuse to put Barry Bonds on my list because of steroids because he wouldn't have hit 700 HR's without them. I think Bonds would have been a very good hitter without steroids but he wouldn't be in the conversation without them.

he played in an era with like 5 teams. That's a negative strike in my book. He played in the same era as babe ruth... So shouldnt that strike go against ruth too? exactly, and it was 16 teams not 5 teams. A career .366 average and over 4,000 hits, 900+ steals, and five seasons of .400+ gets you on the top 5 list. He was the best pure hitter in history, plain and simple. Actually it was 3 seasons of .400+ http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/cobbty01.shtml

I don't understand how a picture of ARod running down the first base line tells us all we need to know about him. He could be running down the baseline spiking babies in their foreheads and that wouldn't change the fact that he's one of the best baseball players any of us will ever see. Being that this is a public message board, it prevents me from voicing my true feelings about A-Rod. A-Rod is a whiner and a tool. I hate the Yankees, but I will admit that Derek Jeter is a far better shortstop than A-Rod. For you stats people, don't go and post all the statlines comparing the two because everybody knows about that. Jeter goes out everyday and works his butt off. He has never been accused of dogging it at all. And can you name another hitter that has come through more for his team in clutch situations? Only David Ortiz comes to mind in recent years. Jeter just goes out and plays and he plays hard. A-Rod gets his HR's and RBI's in blowout games against the Devil Rays. Jeter hits clutch HR's in the World Series against the Arizona Diamondbacks. Need I say more.

Pendleton made the All Star team in 1992 and Bonds won the MVP award.

Just curious, but do you know all the answers and is this just for the fun of it?

Don Newcombe in 1956 was the MVP but not an All Star

how 'bout the Washington Georges? Or the Washington Bush

I'm hoping that Ronny Cedeno plays well enough to bat in the 2 spot later in the season.

Yes. I understand about the comments which is why they got deleted. That doesn't mean I have to like him.

http://images.radcity.net/4183/816779.jpg This picture shows all you need to know about A-Rod. I posted another name before, but that got deleted. So I guess I'll just have to call him A-Rod.

They should take a page from Charlotte Bobcat's owner Robert Johnson. They should name the team the Washington Seligs or the Washington Buds.

For me, the Edmonds beanings rank right up there with Farnsworth dropping Paul Wilson back in 2003. I know I don't like Farnsworth, but I will never forget that incident just like I will never forget the Edmonds drillings. Totally awesome.

imagine covering a base and you see this coming At least last year you wouldn't have to look how close Zambrano was to you because you could tell by how much the ground shook. Won't be able to do that as much this year since he slimmed down. I'm not trying to make fun of the guy one bit, I love him as much as every other Cubs fan does.

I'm hoping that Ronny Cedeno performs well enough to bat 2nd later in the season. If he does then having Pierre and Cedeno 1-2 in front of Lee and Ramirez could really help the top of the lineup, not to mention Lee's and Ramirez's RBI totals. Instead of them launching solo shots, they'll be launching two and three run shots.

My point is that players often say they won't do something and then they go out and do it. I'm just saying that we shouldn't worry too much about Lee's contract since he's signed for 2006.

:evil: That's a breath of fresh air. Don't forget that Johnny Damon said last year that there was no chance he would sign with the Yankees in 2006 and where did he end up signing? That's right. New York. Just because Lee says $2-3 million more won't change his life doesn't me he wouldn't take it. I wouldn't spend too much energy worrying about this now. Let's wait to see how the season plays out first.

Did they give Daulton a breathalizer before doing the interview? He might have been drinking again.

Haha. Well said. He should think about renting an apartment there also.

The numbers agree with you. The last time no team in the National League won at least 90 games when playing a full season was way back in 1959 when the Los Angeles Dodgers won only 88 games but the Dodgers only played 156 games that year. That stretch, of course, is excludes the strike shortened seasons in 1981, 1994, and 1995. Even if the teams' records in those three seasons are extrapolated for a full 162 games, each would have had at least 2 teams win over 90 games. There would have been 4 in 1981, 4 in 1994, and 2 in 1995. Since MLB adopted the three division per league format in 1994, the least number of wins it took to gain homefield throughout the playoffs was 93 in 2001. Also, since the three division format was adopted, there have only been two seasons in which only two teams won more than 90 games (1995 and 2005). Based on that, I find it highly unlikely that no NL team will win at least 90 games this year and chances are that more than two will win at least 90 games.

Something that you don't understand is that his exceptional bat speed was helped by steroids. I'm not saying that's the sole reason, but it definately helps. That's the one thing I never hear mentioned when people talk about the affects of steroids. Bonds was juiced up and it helped his bat speed. I do think that he would have been a Hall Of Famer without steroids because he was a very good player, but steroids pushed him over the top. Early in his career he always hovered around the .300 BA level, averaged 30-40 HR and got 100 RBI and he probably would have hit 500 HR in his career anyway. But it's unlikely that he would have reached 600 and would NEVER have reached 700 without steroids. That being said. I hope Bonds tears his knee to shreds this year and I hope he doesn't pass Ruth. There is nothing that would please me more than to see Bonds running after a ball in the outfield or running to a base and crumpling into a heap grabbing his knee. Good riddence Barry. I wish you were retired already.

Which is exactly why he won the 1999 Jackie Robinson Humanitarian award for his work in his home country of the Dominican Republic after Hurricanes destroyed it. Right? Look at the pictures I posted above, and then try to honestly write that ignorant trash again. Everyone knows Sammy had an ego. But idiotic statments like "he only cared about himself" are totally untrue and uncalled for. I love Sammy Sosa. I appreciate everything he did for the Cubs, the city of Chicago, and just baseball in general. I will admit that Sammy was one of the reasons why I tuned in to watch Cubs games over the years. But let me set one thing straight. I just want to watch the Cubs play. Watching the highlights on SportsCenter or game recaps on ESPN.com just doesn't do it for me. I'm from California so the only chance I get to watch the Cubs is on ESPN and WGN, which my cable company replaced with another Spanish station for a couple years before bringing it back. I want to watch my team play Sammy or no Sammy. I admit that I did always hope for another Sosa titanic blast. But I also wanted to see the young players. I watched Kerry Wood pitch back in 1998 hoping for another 20 strikeout game. I watched Mark Prior a couple years ago to see how good he actually was. So no, it isn't all about Sammy Sosa. I couldn't have said it any better SCCubsFan. Everything Sammy did was so the fans would like him. I think a great deal of it was an act. Sammy's not an idiot. He knew all of the right things to say to the media so they wouldn't turn against him. Some stars, like Barry Bonds, don't care what the fans and media think about them. Sammy isn't one of those people. He wanted people to like him and did whatever he could to make that happen. As I said before, I appreciate everything he did. I will always remember all of the records he set. But with the good comes the bad. People remember Pete Rose for a few things: playing hard ALL the time, getting the career hits record, and getting banned from baseball for gambling (in no particular order). I am not saying what Sosa did is anywhere near as bad as Rose did because it isn't. Unfortunately for Sosa, his true colors came out in 2004. As a star, you have to recognize that if things go bad and you aren't performing like you should be, you will have to accept a big part of the blame. Sammy couldn't handle being blamed. He couldn't handle being dropped in the order and though he deserved to bad third or fourth because he is Sammy Sosa. I know that his numbers dropped after he got hit in the head but the declining numbers was his fault as well. After he got beaned he started standing further away from the plate and refused to move closer. Everybody knew Sammy was too far away except for Sammy. All pitchers had to do was throw the ball on the outside of the plate and Sammy couldn't hit it. That was Sammy just being stubborn. As I said before, I will remember Sammy for both the good and the bad. He is a Hall of Famer but people shouldn't ignore the bad things because of that. I'm not saying to mention the steroid rumers and corked bat first, but it shouldn't be forgotten. He should be remembered for all of the big home runs and all of the records and I don't think his legacy should be tarnished by the steroids. I do not retract my statement about Sammy being a prima donna and nobody can convince me he isn't one. But that doesn't mean I don't like the guy and don't appreciate his accomplishments. I'm just trying to put everything in perspective.

Until the Cubs win a World Series, you can't judge their players based on that at all. I do agree that at one point Sammy was the face of the franchise but he threw that away with the corked bad incident, leaving early on the last day of the year, and not volunteering to move down in the order to help the team. Sosa should be, and will be, remembered for his titanic blasts and the Home Run chase in 1998 that captivated the nation. But he should be remembered for the negatives also. Even if you don't count the steroids because nothing has been proved, you still have to remember the other things because they are facts. Sammy did give the Cubs a number of good years. On the outside he was somebody who was just having fun but on the inside he was a prima donna that only cared about himself. He kept that on the inside until the end of his career when his skill started to diminish. I will remember Sammy for all of this.

Not to be a hater, but I couldn't agree more with his assessment. He was a fraud who played those fans who worship the stars. I’m with you on this one on the assessment of Sosa. I will never forget anything he did. That includes everything for the Cubs and for baseball in general (the home run chase in 1998), but it also includes the steroid allegations, the corked bat and not being able to realize that his skills were quickly leaving. Sammy is incapable of realizing that he isn’t worth much more than $500k per year. You can't list Hack Wilson as one of the best Cubs ever because didn't play most of his career there. When discussion the best Cubs ever you need to have Billy Williams, Banks, Anson, Sosa, Sandberg, Santo in no particular order. I know I'm missing some here but the point is that to be considered one of the best Cubs of all time, one has to play most of his career with the Cubs. I do agree that Wilson's stretch from 1926-1930 is just as good as Sosa's 1998-2002. If it was me, Ernie Banks is the best Cubs player of all time and it will be hard for anyone to top that.