|
|
Post by Rog on Oct 21, 2016 17:32:24 GMT -5
One of the greatest offensive runs in history was put on by Barry Bonds in 2001 through 2004. Yet Barry had just 438 RBI's in those four seasons. 438 is a lot of RBI's for four seasons, but it doesn't approach what we would usually expect from one of the all-time great peaks.
There is more to being a great hitter than just RBI's. Regarding scoring, RBI's and runs scored are the two primary measurements. Regarding Brandon Belt, he had more combined RBI's and runs scored (159) than any other Giants player.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Oct 21, 2016 17:52:37 GMT -5
Not just Randy, but all of us should pick up more on this idea of a batter's picking up bases while making as few outs as possible. Bases gained per out made is an EXCELLENT way to evaluate a hitter. The three best at that may have been Babe Ruth, Ted Williams and Barry Bonds, who quite possibly are the three best hitters of all time.
Those guys were all great at creating bases while avoiding making outs.
|
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Oct 22, 2016 16:33:12 GMT -5
Not just Randy, but all of us should pick up more on this idea of a batter's picking up bases while making as few outs as possible. Bases gained per out made is an EXCELLENT way to evaluate a hitter. The three best at that may have been Babe Ruth, Ted Williams and Barry Bonds, who quite possibly are the three best hitters of all time. Those guys were all great at creating bases while avoiding making outs. dk...the fact that Bonds ended up below a career .300 indicates he made a lot more outs than Ruth and Williams...or Mel Ott.... |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Oct 23, 2016 1:52:42 GMT -5
dk...the fact that Bonds ended up below a career .300 indicates he made a lot more outs than Ruth and Williams...or Mel Ott.... Rog -- On face value, it would certainly seem that way. But that would be because one was misinterpreting the stat. Batting average doesn't show how many outs a guy made compared to his trips to the plate. On-base percentage (adjusted to include GDP's, sacrifices and sacrifice flies) does. Let me compare just Bonds and Ott. Ott hit .304 to Bonds' .298, a six point difference. But in terms of outs made per 1000 plate appearances, Barry made 569 to Mel's 601. Ott got six more hits than Bonds per 1000 at bats, but he also made 32 more outs per 1000 plate appearances. The numbers didn't like here, Don. The simply weren't maximally interpreted. Mel was outstanding at avoiding making out. Barry was even more outstanding. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3555/looking-major-league-first-basemen?page=2#ixzz4Nt5xz5as |
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Oct 23, 2016 8:25:51 GMT -5
If we're paying left handed hitters to hit homeruns at AT&T, then we're seriously wasting our money. Barry Bonds is the only lefthander who can do that, and I think I might have read a rumor somewhere that he used PED's. Belt is paid to be Belt, and I applaud Bruce Bochy that in a below par year for him, he finally figured out that it would be wise to take advantage of his ability to get on base and moved him up to the second spot. How many times did Buster Posey bat in the first with two outs and nobody on? Maybe it won't be as often next year
|
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Oct 23, 2016 16:14:10 GMT -5
dk...the fact that Bonds ended up below a career .300 indicates he made a lot more outs than Ruth and Williams...or Mel Ott.... Rog -- On face value, it would certainly seem that way. But that would be because one was misinterpreting the stat. Batting average doesn't show how many outs a guy made compared to his trips to the plate. On-base percentage (adjusted to include GDP's, sacrifices and sacrifice flies) does. Let me compare just Bonds and Ott. Ott hit .304 to Bonds' .298, a six point difference. But in terms of outs made per 1000 plate appearances, Barry made 569 to Mel's 601. Ott got six more hits than Bonds per 1000 at bats, but he also made 32 more outs per 1000 plate appearances. The numbers didn't like here, Don. The simply weren't maximally interpreted. Mel was outstanding at avoiding making out. Barry was even more outstanding. dk...the only problem was that Bond's stats were greatly increased by his years when he was an apparent user...Ott did it all on his own..... Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/3555/looking-major-league-first-basemen?page=2#ixzz4Nt5xz5as |
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Oct 25, 2016 0:00:27 GMT -5
I think Mel was probably the 2nd or 3rd best right fielder of all time. I'm really tempted to go #2, although Hank Aaron might have a legitimate argument with me if I did. I'll still probably go #2 though.
Although Barry has tainted his legacy by using steroids, we shouldn't forget just how good he was prior to using steroids. I think he began using them around the time of his injury in 1999. At that point he already had well over 300 home runs and 400 steals. I believe the only players to accomplish that are Barry and his dad.
Prior to steroids, was Barry a Hall of Famer? I don't think anyone disputes this. Was he as good as Ott? Probably not. Is his career as good when one includes his steroid period? I think just about everyone would say it is. As great as Mel's career was, Barry's turned out even better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Oct 25, 2016 0:03:32 GMT -5
By the way, while I haven't taken the time to do the calculations, my guess is that prior to steroids, Barry made outs more frequently than Mel. Prior to steroids, Mel was also much more powerful. Barry was far ahead in stealing bases, and likely was a better fielder as well. Because he wasn't a good fielder late in his career, Barry's fielding may be the only aspect of his game that is underrated.
|
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Oct 25, 2016 14:59:18 GMT -5
By the way, while I haven't taken the time to do the calculations, my guess is that prior to steroids, Barry made outs more frequently than Mel. Prior to steroids, Mel was also much more powerful. Barry was far ahead in stealing bases, and likely was a better fielder as well. Because he wasn't a good fielder late in his career, Barry's fielding may be the only aspect of his game that is underrated. dk...Barry had a wet noodle for a throwing arm...Mel had one of the best arms in baseball....Mel also played a fair 3B....Mel played the tricky right field in the Polo Grounds to a science as he kept many balls off the wall to singles....and the "triples alley" in right/center, longer than the phone booth, had the additional hazard of having the bull pen in the way....the greatest catch I ever saw in the PG was on Mel Ott Night when Mel crashed into the cement wall over the bull pen bench and robbed Dolf Camilli of a hit...could be why Camilli refused a trade to the Giants... |
|
