|
Post by allenreed on Mar 6, 2014 9:53:54 GMT -5
Boly -- Steriods or not, I'll take a healthy Mantle, Aaron, or Dimaggio over Bonds in a heartbeat. More complete players. Rog -- I won't get into the other two, but let's compare Barry with Joe in the five tools: Hitting -- If we consider on-base percentage to be an important component of hitting, Barry wins pretty easily. Hitting with Power -- Pretty obvious. Fielding -- I think this one is close, although I'll give the edge to Joe. Throwing -- Pretty obvious. Running -- Barry stole 484 MORE bases than Joe. Again, pretty obvious. I give three of the five areas to Barry and place him fairly close (8 Gold Gloves, after all, even though he wasn't playing center field) in fielding. Joe enjoyed a large advantage in throwing -- about the same as Barry enjoyed in running. Barry also played nine seasons. Oh, wait. That was nine more seasons than Joe. (By the way, I would be very, very remiss if I didn't mention that Joe missed three seasons due to World War II.) Joe was a great player. Barry was one of the VERY greatest. Look at Barry's track record. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2197/top-100-all-time?page=1#scrollTo=19081#ixzz2v4ZRYX4M
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 6, 2014 10:00:31 GMT -5
When comparing Bonds to DiMaggio in the five tools, let's remember that steroids allowed Bonds to play longer, and enhanced his hitting as well as his power hitting. Barry also enjoyed a miniscule strike zone, and was walked alot, enhancing his OBP. Steroids skewed the numbers, so we really don't know how good Bonds was, making the whole argument pretty specious.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 6, 2014 11:29:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 6, 2014 11:31:21 GMT -5
Where's the logic in pretending Barry's numbers as are legitimate?
|
|
|
Post by islandboagie on Mar 6, 2014 11:50:10 GMT -5
The logic is admitting that Bonds was a first ballot hall of famer before he started juicing in 1999.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 6, 2014 12:01:33 GMT -5
Then there was little logic in his using them at all. The only reason he did was because McGwire broke the record, and Barry didn't want a "white boy" having the record. So he foolishly threw his legacy away. As pertains to this topic,what Bonds did before he started using is irrelevant, as it his career in total that we are considering, and steroids skewed his career stats in a number of ways.
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Mar 6, 2014 12:44:12 GMT -5
Not true Don. Not true at all. You label anyone who disagrees with Obama's dismantling of the US as a racist, when in actuality, he isn't even black. My problem with him is that he's a liar, a coward, and totally incompetent and disengaged when it comes to foreign policy. For guys like Putin, Asaad, Karzai, et al, dealing with Obama must be like playing chess with a monkey. Now, I'm sure you'll call me racist for comparing Barack to a monkey.
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Mar 6, 2014 12:45:29 GMT -5
Not true Don. Not true at all. You label anyone who disagrees with Obama's dismantling of the US as a racist, when in actuality, he isn't even black. My problem with him is that he's a liar, a coward, and totally incompetent and disengaged when it comes to foreign policy. For guys like Putin, Asaad, Karzai, et al, dealing with Obama must be like playing chess with a monkey. Now, I'm sure you'll call me racist for comparing Barack to a monkey. dk...my answers keep getting lost.....Allen, the shoe fits you just right.....
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 6, 2014 14:25:12 GMT -5
All your answer proves is that you're lost.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 7, 2014 12:56:52 GMT -5
Whether Bonds should be allowed in the Hall is a murky subject. It may take a vote of the Veterans' Committee to get him there, if he is chosen at all.
Some think there is no question he shouldn't be allowed at all. They're probably sticking their heads in the sand, as the issue isn't really all that cut and dried, no matter how hard they attempt to make it so.
But if we ignore the part the steroids may have played in it, Barry's performance over his career was very nearly the best ever. His Wins Above Replacement are 162.5, second only to Babe Ruth's 163.2. Willie Mays ranks third with 156.1 WAR.
WAR isn't everything, but love (as in Barry is all over the all-time stats boards for hitting, hitting with power, base running and Gold Gloves) says he was great, as well.
It should be noted that WAR includes not just hitting, but base running and defense as well. Barry Bonds had a lousy arm -- but since he wasn't a pitcher, it didn't prevent him from having one of the very best careers ever.
Few players rank in the stratosphere with his godfather, Willie Mays. If we look only at Barry's career, not how outside forces may have affected it, it's pretty hard to argue that Barry isn't one of those few.
Saying Barry isn't one of the very best ever because of his poor arm is pretty much winging it.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 7, 2014 13:01:12 GMT -5
If you want to see an underrated player -- even though he's rated quite highly -- look at Mickey Mantle. I mean, go to his record at Baseball-Reference and really look at it.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 7, 2014 13:43:20 GMT -5
The issue may not be cut and dried, but one has to come down on one side or the other. Why not come down on the side of integrity and fair, clean competition? You can't honestly evaluate Barry's career and ignore the gargantuan role steroids played in it. Again, it defines his career. It's the first word you think of when his name is mentioned. It amazes me that you would discount Koufax's achievements because of the park he played in, but persist in wanting to ignore Barry's steroid use. I don't think Mantle was underrated. He deserved alot of credit, and he got it.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 7, 2014 14:29:00 GMT -5
Allen -- The issue may not be cut and dried, but one has to come down on one side or the other. Why not come down on the side of integrity and fair, clean competition? Rog -- Actually, there are more than two sides: 1. No way, Jose (and yes, we mean Canseco). Use steroids and you don't belong. Period. 2. Don't let in anyone we KNOW took steroids, but if we don't know for sure, guilty until proven innocent. 3. Let's not let in anyone who is even BELIEVED to have taken steroids. 4. Let's not let anyone in from the entire steroids generation. Players might have been taking them without our knowing or even suspecting it. Let the Players' Committee figure it out years from now when we might have more information. 5. Let's allow those players in whose careers qualified them before they took steroids. 6. Let's estimate the impact we think steroids had on a player's career and let him in if he was probably good enough to make it anyway. 7. Since we don't know the impact of steroids and they can vary from player to player, ignore them. 8. Allow those players who used steroids before baseball banned them to qualify, but eliminate those who used after baseball made them illegal. The point is, there are a lot of things to consider. It's not simply a yes or no, black or white issue. Allen --You can't honestly evaluate Barry's career and ignore the gargantuan role steroids played in it. Again, it defines his career. It's the first word you think of when his name is mentioned. Rog -- Who cares what the first word is out of anyone's mouth? What does matter is the role we believe steroids played and whether we would ban him on ethical considerations whether they helped him or not. Allen -- It amazes me that you would discount Koufax's achievements because of the park he played in, but persist in wanting to ignore Barry's steroid use. Rog -- Let's get this straight. I certainly would have placed Sandy in the Hall regardless of the impact pitching in Dodger Stadium may have had. For five years, he was plenty good with or without the advantage. Ignoring the ethical considerations, Bonds was plenty good enough without steroids to make the Hall, as well. I think where Dodger Stadium and steroids enter the picture is in estimating how MUCH they helped. If we assign no help to Dodger Stadium, no one has ever been as good at home over a five-year stretch as Sandy was. He was pretty darn good on the road, as well, but not historically good. If we assign no help to steroids (and there is certainly evidence we should), Barry might have been the greatest player of all time. Without them, he was probably in the top 25 or so ever, but not the top three. There is a chance that using them will keep him out -- at least for a long time. Allen -- I don't think Mantle was underrated. He deserved alot of credit, and he got it. Rog -- One could make an argument that Mantle was even better than Mays and he was perhaps the 2nd-greatest player of all time (who didn't use steroids). Mickey was likely a better all-around player than any of the 9 non-steroid players ahead of him in OPS. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2197/top-100-all-time?page=2#ixzz2vIzb4Wj6
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 7, 2014 15:27:41 GMT -5
To think of steroids as merely an ethical issue seems incredibly naive. Bonds cheated and used substances that were illegal at the time. That's more than ethics. Do you reward someone for cheating? Here the HOF wasn't the issue, the issue was whether Bonds was the third best player of all time. You say top 25, but even that is highly speculative. Steroids just don't allow us to make a realistic evaluation. To bring Mantle into it again, it's like trying to guess what Mickey's numbers would have been had he been healthy.
|
|
|
Post by islandboagie on Mar 7, 2014 18:53:10 GMT -5
I think the fact that Bonds is only #3 is because the creators of the list considered his steriod use, if steroids aren't a consideration he's at least #2, perhaps #1.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 7, 2014 19:12:31 GMT -5
Again boag, without steroids he doesn't have the numbers to be number three. Not even close.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 9, 2014 10:14:35 GMT -5
Boagie -- I think the fact that Bonds is only #3 is because the creators of the list considered his steriod use, if steroids aren't a consideration he's at least #2, perhaps #1. Rog -- I think you're getting carried away on this one, Boagie. Take a look at Barry's stats through the end of the 20th century. Great player, but nowhere close to the top 10. Give Barry a natural decline phase from that point on, and you wind up with a slightly underrated player with excellent -- but not eye-popping -- numbers. The incredible numbers Barry put up came mostly after his age 34 season. That's pretty much unheard of. Barry was intentionally walked an almost unbelievable 688 times. 380 of those came after his age 34 season. 120 of them alone came in his age 39 season. As fine a hitter as he had been through his age 34 season, Barry had only 6 .300 seasons. He then went on to hit .306, .328,.370,.341 and .362 before his 2005 injury. I give the man credit for having an unbelievable career, but that career would have been far more believable without steroids IMO. Those who knock Barry down heavily because of his weak arm are way off base IMO. If we look at his throwing statistically, he did throw out 173 runners over his career, including 10 years in double digits. In Barry's first 12 seasons, he reached double digits nine times and had one other season with 9 cut downs. If we look at what he did on the field to offset his throwing deficiencies, we'll see that he did seven things very well in his efforts to overcome his arm weakness. 1. He positioned players in left field so well that I felt he positioned himself better than any player I had seen since Willie Mays. 2. He used his excellent speed and good breaks on the ball to get to it quickly. 3. That speed to the ball also gave him forward momentum for his throws. 4. He was very agile making turns to throw the ball. 5. He had a very quick release. 6. He threw accurately. 7. He hit the cutoff man. For most position players, throwing is their least important of the five tools. That Barry's lone weakness among the tools was throwing and that he overcame that deficiency decently mean that knocking his game solely on his throwing is a clear overreaction IMO. By the way, Boagie, you thought I was going to stop at the throwing stats, didn't you? When Randy comes back, let's ask him the seven things Barry did to overcome his weak arm and see how many he comes up with!!!! I could have made it eight if I had separated his good jumps from his quickness to the ball. We wouldn't praise Barry's hustle, but he got to balls very quickly when he needed to. Then he used his body control, momentum to the ball and quick release to overcome much of his arm weakness. PLUS he hit the cutoff man. Going back to stats, how much do we think his 173 assists were worth compared to the cost of the extra bases runners DID take on him? It would take a TON of research to evaluate it, but I'll bet when we factor in the benefits of the assists, his net bases given up over average weren't many at all. Not that Barry's arm compared with his godfather's, but Willie had only 22 more outfield assists in his career. And, yes, I realized runners were far more likely to challenge Barry. But the point is they often did so. A very quick quiz regarding the godfather: . How many players named Willie Mays have played professional ball in San Francisco? . How many everyday positions did Willie play in the majors? . How many All-Star games did he play in? . How many Gold Gloves did he win? . What is the most bases he stole on one play? . What was Willie's high in single season outfield assists? . How many times did he lead the NL in stolen bases? . How many 30/30 seasons did he have? . How many times did he lead the NL in triples? . How many times did he hit 50 or more homers? What was his career high? . Willie led the NL in on-base percentage twice. How old was he the latter time? . In what season of 20 or more steals did Willie have his highest stolen base percentage? . What notable Giants event occurred on Willie's 76th birthday? . True or false: Willie had more walks than strikeouts? . True or false: You're getting pretty tired of this quiz? Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2197/top-100-all-time?page=2#ixzz2vTYITE9l
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 9, 2014 11:25:13 GMT -5
On the assist thing, everyone ran on Barry, so he had alot more chances to compile assists. Not too many people ran on Willie.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 9, 2014 20:44:53 GMT -5
Allen -- To think of steroids as merely an ethical issue seems incredibly naive. Bonds cheated and used substances that were illegal at the time. That's more than ethics. Do you reward someone for cheating?
Rog -- Is cheating not an ethical issue?
Allen -- Here the HOF wasn't the issue, the issue was whether Bonds was the third best player of all time. You say top 25, but even that is highly speculative. Steroids just don't allow us to make a realistic evaluation.
Rog -- I'm basing my judgment of Barry solely on what he accomplished. As you say, otherwise it's tough to evaluate him. But we would start with his actual performance before using steroids (which most think came after his 1999 injury). At that point, Barry likely already ranked in the top 50. Give him a normal decline phase, and he likely moves up higher.
After 1999, Barry already had 450 stolen bases and 445 home runs, so it seems highly likely he still would have become the first 500/500 player. At a similar age, Willie Mays had 281 steals and 541 home runs and had already entered a fairly steep decline period. Willie wound up with 338 and 660. Those same additions to Barry's totals would have resulted in 507 steals and 563 homers.
Barry ALREADY had more Wins Above Replacement than all but 15 Hall of Fame hitters. He ranked very close to Lou Gehrig and Mike Schmidt at the end of their careers. Comparing him to a great pitcher whose career was cut short, Barry already had nearly twice as many WAR as Sandy Koufax (who had retired after his age 30 season).
So Barry was pretty close to the top 25 after the 1999 season. His WAR was nearly as high as Hank Aaron's after Hammerin' Hanks' 34-year-old season, although it should be noted that Hank aged gracefully. Barry himself was aging very nicely until his 1999 injury.
Barry had already won 3 MVP's and finished in the top 12 in 9 straight seasons. He had won 9 Gold Gloves. He had posted a 1.000+ OPS in 8 straight seasons. How feared he was as a hitter was illustrated by his leading the NL in intentional walks 7 straight seasons.
Man, he's looking more and more like a top 25 player even BEFORE steroids. My best guess is that without steroids, Barry would have been something like a top 12 player. I'm only making an educated guess, but we pretty much know he was a top 25 player already. He already had more WAR than Roberto Clemente recorded in Roberto's illustrious career.
As mentioned before, Barry was right up there in WAR with Lou Gehrig and Mike Schmidt's careers. I can't think of anyone at all who would question Gehrig as a top 25 player, and most considered Schmidt to be the best 3rd baseman ever.
It is ironic that Barry may never make the Hall, whereas had he passed away after the 1999 season, he would have been a first ballot guy. It's kind of an ethical issue.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 9, 2014 20:48:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 9, 2014 20:53:36 GMT -5
Hard to say. How many took an extra base because he loafed after the ball? Or threw to the cutoff man instead of trying to throw a runner out?
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 9, 2014 22:38:45 GMT -5
Allen -- Hard to say. Rog -- If I get a chance, I'll try to do some research on how many extra bases runners took on Barry. For now, let's take a logical look: . It seems likely that more runners scored against Barry than took third on singles. The throw from left field to third isn't nearly as long, so Barry's positioning, quickness to the ball, quick release and accuracy of arm would have meant more. As far as scoring on doubles, if the Giants had a shortstop with a strong arm (which I believe Rich Aurilia did, for example), moving the shortstop out another 30 feet or so to take the relay should have minimized the damage, especially given Barry's quick release. The throws are longer on that play though, so I suspect that most of the damage done against Barry was on the longer play. . Barry was very good at hitting the cutoff man, which no doubt contributed to his high assist total. It is possible his weak arm did mean more runners tried to score against him, but his ability to hit the cutoff man no doubt limited the number of hitters who took second base on the throw to home. . Don't underestimate the value of throwing a runner out on the bases. We tend to remember how many extra bases were taken against our outfielders and forget how much runners being thrown out aided the defense. Allen -- How many took an extra base because he loafed after the ball? Rog -- Not very many IMO. Barry was pretty calculated in when to hustle and when not to. Allen -- Or threw to the cutoff man instead of trying to throw a runner out? Rog -- Don't know the answer to that. I do know though that throwing through the cutoff man is the correct play. There are a few situations in which overthrowing the cutoff man is the better play, but not many. I would rarely criticized a player for hitting the cutoff man. By the way, throwing to the cutoff man doesn't mean a fielder isn't trying to throw a runner out. It's simply a means of preventing back runners from advancing an extra base. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2197/top-100-all-time?page=2#ixzz2vWipdGc2
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 10, 2014 1:53:49 GMT -5
As the years went by, it came up not to more and more often. I remember watching a game in SD where the ball was hit equidistant between Bonds and Marquis Grissom. Bonds made minimal effort, while Grissom went all out and dove. The ball got between them and rolled up the alley. Who got to the ball first? Why Grissom of course, and not by a llittle. I remember almost countless times when a guy would get a base hit to left with a man on second and Barry would have a good shot at the runner, only to lob the ball towards second.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 10, 2014 10:02:43 GMT -5
Allen -- As the years went by, it came up not to more and more often. I remember watching a game in SD where the ball was hit equidistant between Bonds and Marquis Grissom. Bonds made minimal effort, while Grissom went all out and dove. The ball got between them and rolled up the alley. Who got to the ball first? Why Grissom of course, and not by a llittle. I remember almost countless times when a guy would get a base hit to left with a man on second and Barry would have a good shot at the runner, only to lob the ball towards second. Rog -- I think we might be able to break Bonds' fielding almost into two parts -- pre-steroids and post-steroids. Barry's last Gold Glove came in 1998, and in 1999 he had his first negative defensive WAR. Defensive WAR actually shows Barry to be very good through 1991 and then average to below average after that. Barry's goal though non-hustling unless necessary was to avoid injury. One would guess that he became more prone to injury as he aged and thus hustled less. You follow the Yankees. How many times do you think Robinson Cano is thrown out at first base due to non-hustle? How healthy do you think Cano has been? Bonds had an excellent health record the first dozen seasons of his career. You remember one play where Barry didn't hustle after a hit ball in the outfield. My guess is that he thought Grissom had it and made a serious misjudgment. Bad move for Barry, although he likely cost the Giants only one base and perhaps not even that. As for his lobbing the ball to second when he had a good shot at the runner going to third, why would he do that? It doesn't take a great deal of effort to throw a ball to third. Clearly he disagreed with you about having the good shot at the runner going to third. On occasion you were likely right and he was wrong. But probably not nearly as often as you think. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2197/top-100-all-time?page=2#ixzz2vZM4Kysj
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 10, 2014 13:54:10 GMT -5
The plays I'm speaking of would be for a runner going second to home, not second to third. Perhaps Barry was traumatized by the Bream play early in his career, and didn't want to risk looking bad on another throw home.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 11, 2014 8:48:55 GMT -5
Allen -- The plays I'm speaking of would be for a runner going second to home, not second to third. Perhaps Barry was traumatized by the Bream play early in his career, and didn't want to risk looking bad on another throw home. Rog -- I misread your post. I thought you were talking about runners going from first to third. My sense is that since he was good at hitting the cutoff man, Barry wouldn't have thrown to second unless he didn't think he had much of a shot. I started a survey into the first month of the season in 1998. I mentioned that as Barry's last good season with the glove. I'm only 8 games in, but here is what I have found: . First, the situation of a runner trying to take the extra base on a particular outfielder doesn't come up as much as one would think. In those 8 games, Barry had five situations arise, including two runners on one of the plays. . Preventing a runner from scoring from first on a double, he was 0 for 1. . Preventing a runner from scoring from second on a single, he was 1 for 2. . Preventing a runner from going to third on a single, he was 3 for 3. Very, very VERY brief sample -- and even my goal of looking at a month is more a survey than a sample size -- but so far it's going just about as expected. Fewer chances than one would think, fine at preventing runners from going to third, not so good in keeping runners from scoring. Overall, not much unexpected impact on the 8 games thus far. Preventing four out of six runners is slightly above average for a left fielder. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2197/top-100-all-time?page=2#ixzz2vf43Wa68
|
|
|
Post by Allen on Mar 11, 2014 9:00:49 GMT -5
By the way, Allen, your "guess" that how often runners took extra bases runners on Barry was "Hard to say." I'd certainly call that going out on a limb. I would have been very surprised though if you hadn't guessed too high a percentage.
If it was "hard to say" how many runners took the extra base on Barry, why did you even bring it up?
My guess is that Barry's negative impact on games by allowing runners to take the extra base was minimal (although greater later in his career after his elbow surgery). Not all that many chances; good preventing runners from going from first to third; not so good preventing runners from scoring; very good at not allowing back runners to advance. On balance, that is clearly better than one would have expected from a left fielder with admittedly not a very strong arm.
The two seasons Barry played center field -- where his arm would have been more of a factor -- he posted two of his top five defensive WAR's.
No question Barry had a weak arm. Little question he had defensive strengths -- already outlined here -- that helped him minimize the throwing "damage." Likely that until his elbow surgery, his throwing had little impact either way.
And, sure, cite Sid Bream, but we're talking about only one play. And the throw wasn't horrible; it simply was a little off line. It wasn't the strength of that throw as much as its being (uncharacteristically) off line that cost the game.
If someone has to reach to Barry's throwing to criticize his game, he won't come up with a whole handful with the grab.
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Mar 11, 2014 9:03:04 GMT -5
Oops! I posted that last post under the name of Allen. I looked at the post and said to myself, "That was a darn good post for Allen!"
Just kidding.
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Mar 11, 2014 9:25:35 GMT -5
Don't have to reach at all. Barry cheated.That's as big a handful as you'll ever need.
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Mar 11, 2014 14:26:54 GMT -5
The issue may not be cut and dried, but one has to come down on one side or the other. Why not come down on the side of integrity and fair, clean competition? You can't honestly evaluate Barry's career and ignore the gargantuan role steroids played in it. Again, it defines his career. It's the first word you think of when his name is mentioned. It amazes me that you would discount Koufax's achievements because of the park he played in, but persist in wanting to ignore Barry's steroid use. I don't think Mantle was underrated. He deserved alot of credit, and he got it. dk...and how much better were they than Snider???
|
|