"I never stop looking for things to try and make myself better."
Barry Bonds
In my estimation, the best hitter ever.....What he has accomplished is nothing short of amazing, IMO.....
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Good topic - Doggie.
Nice change in subject.
No deal.
We - finally - broke.
Nice change in subject.
No deal.
We - finally - broke.
I'm not ready to give out all my secrets on hitting, but, if you can catch the ball, you can hit it.
Barry Bonds
Interesting quote....
--------------
http://www.recruit.hittingillustrated.com/Bondschase.htm
Barry Bonds
Interesting quote....
--------------
http://www.recruit.hittingillustrated.com/Bondschase.htm
Bonds couldn't shine Babe Ruth's shoes.
Especially Babe Ruth using HGH.
If one excludes the five year's that Ruth was a pitcher and played during the Dead Ball Era, he averaged 42 home runs a year while still having a lifetime average of .342.
Who comes close?
Especially Babe Ruth using HGH.
If one excludes the five year's that Ruth was a pitcher and played during the Dead Ball Era, he averaged 42 home runs a year while still having a lifetime average of .342.
Who comes close?
Hank Aaron said he believes Bonds is a better hitter than Ruth was.......Jack Mckeon says the same and he saw them both play....
Different eras makes it really tough to judge.....They are/were both great....
Different eras makes it really tough to judge.....They are/were both great....
Babe Ruth played from 1914 until 1935.
Hank Aaron was born in 1934.
Jack McKeon was born in 1930.
Neither saw Ruth play in anything resembling cognitive years.
Hank Aaron was born in 1934.
Jack McKeon was born in 1930.
Neither saw Ruth play in anything resembling cognitive years.
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:
Babe Ruth played from 1914 until 1935.
Hank Aaron was born in 1934.
Jack McKeon was born in 1930.
Neither saw Ruth play in anything resembling cognitive years.
Ted Williams was the most productive hitter of all-time, period. Bonds stole his swing, but could never match his numbers.
In career numbers, he doesn't win.
As "the most feared hitter when in his prime" Bonds is the hands down winner.
In the "mechanics" category....Bonds has the greatest swing mechanics of all time.
Not even close.
In the "performance enhancing" category he is the hands down champion also.
As "the most feared hitter when in his prime" Bonds is the hands down winner.
In the "mechanics" category....Bonds has the greatest swing mechanics of all time.
Not even close.
In the "performance enhancing" category he is the hands down champion also.
quote:Originally posted by Chameleon:
In career numbers, he doesn't win.
As "the most feared hitter when in his prime" Bonds is the hands down winner.
In the "mechanics" category....Bonds has the greatest swing mechanics of all time.
Not even close.
In the "performance enhancing" category he is the hands down champion also.
http://www.teachersbilliards.com/Hitzone/BarryTed.gif
It's the SAME MECHANICS!!!
They are very similar in that clip.
Tell me when you ever saw Bonds swing like this...
Bonds takes the mechanics to a new level with his belly up approach. He produces a swing that was quite a bit shorter than Ted's.
Maybe due to the steroids......that the pitchers are on. No one seems to want to talk about that.
And, that is the reason there should be no asterisk.
P.S. tpg are you reading this? You have got to be kidding when you say Bonds squishes the bug. Will you ever study and learn just what these terms and phrases mean prior to giving an uninformed opinion?
Tell me when you ever saw Bonds swing like this...
Bonds takes the mechanics to a new level with his belly up approach. He produces a swing that was quite a bit shorter than Ted's.
Maybe due to the steroids......that the pitchers are on. No one seems to want to talk about that.
And, that is the reason there should be no asterisk.
P.S. tpg are you reading this? You have got to be kidding when you say Bonds squishes the bug. Will you ever study and learn just what these terms and phrases mean prior to giving an uninformed opinion?
quote:Originally posted by Chameleon:
They are very similar in that clip.
Tell me when you ever saw Bonds swing like this...
Bonds takes the mechanics to a new level with his belly up approach. He produces a swing that was quite a bit shorter than Ted's.
Maybe due to the steroids......that the pitchers are on. No one seems to want to talk about that.
And, that is the reason there should be no asterisk.
P.S. tpg are you reading this? You have got to be kidding when you say Bonds squishes the bug. Will you ever study and learn just what these terms and phrases mean prior to giving an uninformed opinion?
Bonds has hit over .300 11 of his 22 seasons and is a lifetime .298 hitter. Williams hit over .300 18 of 19 seasons and was a .344 lifetime hitter and only struck out 709 times in just over 7700 at bats (pretty good for someone with a long swing), LOL. I don't believe there is a single hitting stat that Bonds is better than him in when you take into consideration per at bat stats. Williams missed 3 years in his prime during the war which would have added 1,500 at bats to his total and would have made him the leader in pretty much every catagory.
quote:Originally posted by Chameleon:
They are very similar in that clip.
Tell me when you ever saw Bonds swing like this...
Bonds takes the mechanics to a new level with his belly up approach. He produces a swing that was quite a bit shorter than Ted's.
Maybe due to the steroids......that the pitchers are on. No one seems to want to talk about that.
And, that is the reason there should be no asterisk.
Williams was always improving his swing. He was the Tiger Woods of baseball. Bonds just stole it when it was at it's best. Why didn't Barry immulate Mays, Aaron, Mantle or even his Daddy???
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:
Babe Ruth played from 1914 until 1935.
Hank Aaron was born in 1934.
Jack McKeon was born in 1930.
Neither saw Ruth play in anything resembling cognitive years.
This is a great quote!
quote:(pretty good for someone with a long swing),
I've always thought your knowledge was suspect.
I now know the reason why.
Your reading commprehension is very poor.
In that clip Bonds is hitting at a HR derby. That it is not his swing at games, when hitting at 90 plus MPH pitch, his swing is a lot shorter than that one. That's basically the difference on mechanics from old timers and today hitters. Anyways it is very difficult to compare them. I think that if Ruth born again he is going to be as good as Bonds and vice versa. Ex. What could Edison invented, if he were living in our times? What were Estein ideas today?...A great player in the past should be great at our times, and a great player in our times should be great in the past. Excepcionals human beens are excepcionals at any time, but you got to judge them with the knowledge available in their era.
When comparing Bonds with anyone else, just remember this.....Nobody has ever been walked as much as Bonds....
He has been intentionally walked and pitched around enough to be put in a league by himself....He is a feared hitter.....
He has been intentionally walked and pitched around enough to be put in a league by himself....He is a feared hitter.....
I attribute this to a lack of quality pitching.
Good theater, Quincy..... 
Quincy,
Not to be critical or argumentative, but I often hear people say there is a lack of quality pitching in the Major Leagues. Guess, I don’t really agree with that unless it were added that there has “always” been a lack of “enough” quality pitching in the Major Leagues and there probably always will be.
If the pitching were in fact, better in the “old” days, then the hitters were much, much better then, too. A look at lifetime batting averages would be the proof, there are a lot of big lifetime Batting aves against that quality pitching in the past. Would those hitters hit .400 every year if they hit against the pitching now?
Why should we assume that only in baseball the players and athletes have gone backwards. Every sport that actually produces statistics that are comparable shows that records continue to be broken. Examples… all areas of Track and Field, Weight lifting, Swimming, everything involving athletic and sports records continue to improve with each generation. Nobody argues that football or basketball players haven’t continued to improve. Only in baseball does it seem there’s talk about the players/pitchers not getting better, but that they are actually worse than many years ago. This just doesn’t make sense to me.
I do believe that pitching has changed over the years. It does require more of it now days and maybe that’s what you mean. But more of it also means hitters are seeing different pitchers more often. They are often seeing at least three completely different pitchers in most games, rather than just one. They are not seeing a tired arm in the 9th for their 4th or 5th ab against him that game. When did the great hitters of the past have to face a Mariano Rivera or even a Bobby Jenks in the late innings?
If we talk about the pitchers during Bonds career… We find some of the very best who ever lived, by anyone’s standards. Nolan Ryan, Greg Maddox, Roger Clemens, Tom Glavine, Randy Johnson, John Smoltz, Pedro Martinez, Johan Santana, etc. And both leagues are full of great young pitchers, some of which will join those above as hall of fame types.
Whether someone likes Barry Bonds or not is one thing. Maybe it was all steroids, but his swing has changed over the years. It is amazing how short and controlled/consistent his swing is compared to when he first came up. He just takes fewer bad swings than everyone else. He has mastered his swing in my estimation. And I think he has done it against quality major league pitching who often will not pitch to him in certain situations.
Not to be critical or argumentative, but I often hear people say there is a lack of quality pitching in the Major Leagues. Guess, I don’t really agree with that unless it were added that there has “always” been a lack of “enough” quality pitching in the Major Leagues and there probably always will be.
If the pitching were in fact, better in the “old” days, then the hitters were much, much better then, too. A look at lifetime batting averages would be the proof, there are a lot of big lifetime Batting aves against that quality pitching in the past. Would those hitters hit .400 every year if they hit against the pitching now?
Why should we assume that only in baseball the players and athletes have gone backwards. Every sport that actually produces statistics that are comparable shows that records continue to be broken. Examples… all areas of Track and Field, Weight lifting, Swimming, everything involving athletic and sports records continue to improve with each generation. Nobody argues that football or basketball players haven’t continued to improve. Only in baseball does it seem there’s talk about the players/pitchers not getting better, but that they are actually worse than many years ago. This just doesn’t make sense to me.
I do believe that pitching has changed over the years. It does require more of it now days and maybe that’s what you mean. But more of it also means hitters are seeing different pitchers more often. They are often seeing at least three completely different pitchers in most games, rather than just one. They are not seeing a tired arm in the 9th for their 4th or 5th ab against him that game. When did the great hitters of the past have to face a Mariano Rivera or even a Bobby Jenks in the late innings?
If we talk about the pitchers during Bonds career… We find some of the very best who ever lived, by anyone’s standards. Nolan Ryan, Greg Maddox, Roger Clemens, Tom Glavine, Randy Johnson, John Smoltz, Pedro Martinez, Johan Santana, etc. And both leagues are full of great young pitchers, some of which will join those above as hall of fame types.
Whether someone likes Barry Bonds or not is one thing. Maybe it was all steroids, but his swing has changed over the years. It is amazing how short and controlled/consistent his swing is compared to when he first came up. He just takes fewer bad swings than everyone else. He has mastered his swing in my estimation. And I think he has done it against quality major league pitching who often will not pitch to him in certain situations.
I thought Quincy was just joking with that comment......
Ya think he was serious???
Ya think he was serious???
Not sure, but I'd like to think that Bonds hit #651 (to pass Mays) against a quality pitcher. Others might disagree. 
PG, I wish you would give your opinion more often...... 
Pitching is like sales, the most important thing is location.
When a pitcher loses or never has the ability to hit quality spots in his delivery, batters will usually look good.
Fireballers like Nolan Ryan were not so much great pitchers as the fact that they faced poor hitters. Ryan's Rebirth took place whe he entered the American League. National League hitters were far more selective and wouldn't swing at the high cheese. Ryan got better when he developed that 'knee buckling curve'.
The same applies to many hard throwers, when they find batters willing to chase the high cheese, they will be effective.
When a pitcher loses or never has the ability to hit quality spots in his delivery, batters will usually look good.
Fireballers like Nolan Ryan were not so much great pitchers as the fact that they faced poor hitters. Ryan's Rebirth took place whe he entered the American League. National League hitters were far more selective and wouldn't swing at the high cheese. Ryan got better when he developed that 'knee buckling curve'.
The same applies to many hard throwers, when they find batters willing to chase the high cheese, they will be effective.
quote:Originally posted by BlueDog:
When comparing Bonds with anyone else, just remember this.....Nobody has ever been walked as much as Bonds....
He has been intentionally walked and pitched around enough to be put in a league by himself....He is a feared hitter.....
He has been pitched around and walked simply because he hasn't had anyone hitting behind him most of the time. Bonds has been walked 3.81 per at bat and Willians was walked 3.84. Not much difference there.
PG, there are other factors you didn't mention as well that make it difficult to compare players of different eras.
Lack of night games in the old era.
Today's night game lights are better.
Today's better player development systems.
No bonus babies taking up an undeserved spot on the bench.
Diluted pitching talent in today's game - 16 teams vs 30.
Lack of African-Americans, not just till '47 but really till the mid to late 50's when race was less of an issue (thanks Jackie!) when signing a kid.
Unfortunately, fewer African-Americans today versus the 60's and 70's
More international players now than in other eras.
The rise of the slider, starting in the 50's.
The ability to focus on the game 365 days a year for today's player.
Relaxed pace of travel in the old days.
Luxury living in today's game makes players soft...not agreeing, just saying I've heard.
The ability to use technical advances like videotape.
Clean balls always in play in today's game. They used fewer balls in other eras and they were dirty and harder to see.
The lack of the spitball (well, legally at least) in today's game.
Grass then Astro-turf then grass.
Small parks then large parks then small parks.
Lower mounds in today's game. By that way, that is a big difference between eras.
(Do some of these thing contradict? Yes, but this goes to the point of it being difficult to compare eras, not whether today is better or not.)
Truth be told, Ruth and Aaron would be great hitters today. Whether or not their numbers would be the same is hard to say. Nothing has ever been perfectly equal in baseball. For example, would we be looking at Mays as the all time home run king (even superior to Bonds) if he hadn't lost time to the service and played at Candlestick at its wind blown, coldest worst? Put him in Philadelphia today and it really makes you wonder. Kinda like there was a reason Griffey Jr. was voted to the all time team list and not Bonds. Have we all forgotten that Junior was the man and not Bonds?
Lack of night games in the old era.
Today's night game lights are better.
Today's better player development systems.
No bonus babies taking up an undeserved spot on the bench.
Diluted pitching talent in today's game - 16 teams vs 30.
Lack of African-Americans, not just till '47 but really till the mid to late 50's when race was less of an issue (thanks Jackie!) when signing a kid.
Unfortunately, fewer African-Americans today versus the 60's and 70's
More international players now than in other eras.
The rise of the slider, starting in the 50's.
The ability to focus on the game 365 days a year for today's player.
Relaxed pace of travel in the old days.
Luxury living in today's game makes players soft...not agreeing, just saying I've heard.
The ability to use technical advances like videotape.
Clean balls always in play in today's game. They used fewer balls in other eras and they were dirty and harder to see.
The lack of the spitball (well, legally at least) in today's game.
Grass then Astro-turf then grass.
Small parks then large parks then small parks.
Lower mounds in today's game. By that way, that is a big difference between eras.
(Do some of these thing contradict? Yes, but this goes to the point of it being difficult to compare eras, not whether today is better or not.)
Truth be told, Ruth and Aaron would be great hitters today. Whether or not their numbers would be the same is hard to say. Nothing has ever been perfectly equal in baseball. For example, would we be looking at Mays as the all time home run king (even superior to Bonds) if he hadn't lost time to the service and played at Candlestick at its wind blown, coldest worst? Put him in Philadelphia today and it really makes you wonder. Kinda like there was a reason Griffey Jr. was voted to the all time team list and not Bonds. Have we all forgotten that Junior was the man and not Bonds?
Oh how the numbers can be "worked".
There has been NO ONE to put up the "per at bat numbers" that Bonds did IN HIS PRIME.
Yes, his career numbers may not match up.
Put all of 'em in their prime and Bond's had the greatest PRIME ever.
There has never been anyone swing the bat as efficiently as Bonds. NEVER.
And the statement about who hit behind Bond's is simply amazing.
Guess who hit behind Dal Maxvill? How many walks did he get?
There has been NO ONE to put up the "per at bat numbers" that Bonds did IN HIS PRIME.
Yes, his career numbers may not match up.
Put all of 'em in their prime and Bond's had the greatest PRIME ever.
There has never been anyone swing the bat as efficiently as Bonds. NEVER.
And the statement about who hit behind Bond's is simply amazing.
Guess who hit behind Dal Maxvill? How many walks did he get?
Remove the stats from the five years that Ruth played during the 'Dead Ball Era' and you will find that Ruth averaged 42 home runs a year while maintaining average.
Both Bonds and Aaron average 32 home runs a year.
The only player comparable to Ruth is A-Rod who is averaging 36 home runs a year.
Now if we throw in Ruth and A-Rod using the HGH boost, Bonds would fall back even further.
Your support of Bonds is admirable but very subjective and not based on the facts.
Both Bonds and Aaron average 32 home runs a year.
The only player comparable to Ruth is A-Rod who is averaging 36 home runs a year.
Now if we throw in Ruth and A-Rod using the HGH boost, Bonds would fall back even further.
Your support of Bonds is admirable but very subjective and not based on the facts.
Quincy pointed out the biggest challenge faced by anyone who champions Bonds as the greatest ever.
We will never know the degree to which his alleged steroid and/or HGH use has helped him. Yeah, he still had to hit the ball but HGH improves eyesight as well.
His swing may have been more efficient in later years but again, you cannot reasonably attribute his numbers solely to that improvement in efficiency and not to the supposed use of the juices.
In effect this is an argument than nobody can really win. People like Ruth and Aaron were apples and guys like Bonds, McGwire and Palmeiro are oranges.
We will never know the degree to which his alleged steroid and/or HGH use has helped him. Yeah, he still had to hit the ball but HGH improves eyesight as well.
His swing may have been more efficient in later years but again, you cannot reasonably attribute his numbers solely to that improvement in efficiency and not to the supposed use of the juices.
In effect this is an argument than nobody can really win. People like Ruth and Aaron were apples and guys like Bonds, McGwire and Palmeiro are oranges.
It's really difficult to have a conversation with people who can not comprehend.
To people not blinded by idol worship, the fact that there was a 'sudden rash' of exceptional home run hitting from about 95 ending in 2001.
Is it coincidental that the steroid scandals began about the same time?
Is it coincidental that players who should be in decline are suddenly rejuvenated with excessive body growth, excessive head growth and unusal longevity in their athetic ability.
What is there not to comprehend?
Is it coincidental that the steroid scandals began about the same time?
Is it coincidental that players who should be in decline are suddenly rejuvenated with excessive body growth, excessive head growth and unusal longevity in their athetic ability.
What is there not to comprehend?
Quincy
Ryans rebirth? He re-entered the AL at age 42. Ryan had a knee buckling curve for 27 seasons, not something he developed when he left the NL. The only thing IMO that re-invented him was his change-up.
quote:Ryan's Rebirth took place whe he entered the American League. National League hitters were far more selective and wouldn't swing at the high cheese. Ryan got better when he developed that 'knee buckling curve'.
Ryans rebirth? He re-entered the AL at age 42. Ryan had a knee buckling curve for 27 seasons, not something he developed when he left the NL. The only thing IMO that re-invented him was his change-up.
Chameleon
Which prime? His first or second?
quote:There has been NO ONE to put up the "per at bat numbers" that Bonds did IN HIS PRIME.
Which prime? His first or second?
Ryan entered the American League at age 25 when he was traded from the New York Mets to the California Angels.
He developed the curve with the Astros.
Why traded Nolan Ryan? He walked too many batters.
American Leage batters would swing at the high heat while National League low ball hitters would take it for a ball.
He developed the curve with the Astros.
Why traded Nolan Ryan? He walked too many batters.
American Leage batters would swing at the high heat while National League low ball hitters would take it for a ball.
So Nolan was re-born in the AL at 25, but didnt develope his curve until he was with the Astros after the age of 33. How was he re-born in the AL again. Thanks.
What would the AL low ball hitters do?
quote:American Leage batters would swing at the high heat while National League low ball hitters would take it for a ball.
What would the AL low ball hitters do?
After five years with the Mets, Ryan was traded with three other players for Jim Fregosi. He never had a winning year with the Mets in the National League.
The American League was a high ball swinging league. There were no low ball swingers in the AL with the exception of former National Leaguers.
Once he became a starter with the Angels, he no longer walked almost as many as he struck out in a season. He also was a winning pitcher in the AL for the first time.
The American League was a high ball swinging league. There were no low ball swingers in the AL with the exception of former National Leaguers.
Once he became a starter with the Angels, he no longer walked almost as many as he struck out in a season. He also was a winning pitcher in the AL for the first time.
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:
I attribute this to a lack of quality pitching.
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:
Fireballers like Nolan Ryan were not so much great pitchers as the fact that they faced poor hitters.
So who s u c k e d? Was it the pitchers or the hitters?
Quincy, sorry, you got it mixed up.
Ryan could alawys break it off. Finding the strike zone was his challenge in youth. But he always had a knee buckler. Liked to throw it at your head, so you'd think that 104 mph heater was about to make your wife a widow, then have it break over the plate.
He developed the circle change as an additional pitch in his 40's, when his fastball had tapered off to the mere mortal range (92-94). That got him one more no-hitter -- and a lot more wins.
Ryan could alawys break it off. Finding the strike zone was his challenge in youth. But he always had a knee buckler. Liked to throw it at your head, so you'd think that 104 mph heater was about to make your wife a widow, then have it break over the plate.
He developed the circle change as an additional pitch in his 40's, when his fastball had tapered off to the mere mortal range (92-94). That got him one more no-hitter -- and a lot more wins.
quote:The American League was a high ball swinging league. There were no low ball swingers in the AL with the exception of former National Leaguers.
I feel you are making things up on the fly and attempting to pawn them off as fact. Any evidence for the above quote would be outstanding.
quote:Once he became a starter with the Angels, he no longer walked almost as many as he struck out in a season. He also was a winning pitcher in the AL for the first time.
Again, so Ryan was re-born at age 25 (he pitched another 23 seasons after this) and then didnt develope a "knee buckling curve" until after the age of 33?....Yet he was re-born in the AL (while with the Astros learning the curve).
-Just trying to clarify...Thanks.
LD,
Both sucked large particularly in the 70's.
MD,
Ryan had no curve with the Mets or Angels. He was a fastball /change up pitcher, but you didn't see many change ups.
I was just as shocked as Kevin Reynolds when Ryan threw a curve that broke over for a strike that was maybe 70 mph in the 86 NLCS.
Both sucked large particularly in the 70's.
MD,
Ryan had no curve with the Mets or Angels. He was a fastball /change up pitcher, but you didn't see many change ups.
I was just as shocked as Kevin Reynolds when Ryan threw a curve that broke over for a strike that was maybe 70 mph in the 86 NLCS.
The next thing that he will say about Ryan is the reason he struck out 5000 was because he was sharing Bonds roids.
Dee,
Looks like too much info is troubling to you.
Ryan was not an effective pitcher in the National League and was thrown in on the Fregosi trade.
In those days there were different strike zones in each league. The National League strike zone was lower than that used by the American League. Most people attributed this to the fact that National League umpires wore the chest protector rather than holding the inflated protector as was done in the AL. Others say that it was because the American League style of play was more suited to power hitters and home runs.
Ryan depended on heat to get him by for his successful years. Once he lost his effectiveness with the Angels, he was signed as a free agent by the Astros. He had a resurgence with the Astros.
Looks like too much info is troubling to you.
Ryan was not an effective pitcher in the National League and was thrown in on the Fregosi trade.
In those days there were different strike zones in each league. The National League strike zone was lower than that used by the American League. Most people attributed this to the fact that National League umpires wore the chest protector rather than holding the inflated protector as was done in the AL. Others say that it was because the American League style of play was more suited to power hitters and home runs.
Ryan depended on heat to get him by for his successful years. Once he lost his effectiveness with the Angels, he was signed as a free agent by the Astros. He had a resurgence with the Astros.
Quincy,
Yes I did mean # 661, thanks for the correction! Bet I’ve seen that home run more than a hundred times.
Regarding this discussion, I’ve never really liked Barry Bonds all that much, with or without steroid accusations. However, in my opinion, it took more than steroids for him to be the kind of hitter he is.
I do get a bit tired of all the steroid discussions at times. It happened and let’s hope it doesn't happen in the future. I know it’s important and needs to be addressed, but it gets kind of old after awhile. It’s almost like people ignore everything else except the steroids when it comes to Bonds. Some of the stuff brought up as proof makes sense, but other things don’t make any sense when it comes to hitting. For example… Is having a bigger head an advantage for a hitter?
Like nearly everyone else, I really do believe that steroids played a part in Bonds being so good in his later years, but I also think there were other things that also made him better. And not the elbow guard either.
Barry Bonds improved his swing and his approach over the years. It was a real big improvement and along with everything else, his improved swing has to be one of the major reasons for his success.
I doubt if Bonds is the strongest and most powerful hitter in baseball. But he does have the best power swing IMO. (with or without any help from other things)
We should at least give him credit for developing that swing! It’s a masterpiece!
Yes I did mean # 661, thanks for the correction! Bet I’ve seen that home run more than a hundred times.
Regarding this discussion, I’ve never really liked Barry Bonds all that much, with or without steroid accusations. However, in my opinion, it took more than steroids for him to be the kind of hitter he is.
I do get a bit tired of all the steroid discussions at times. It happened and let’s hope it doesn't happen in the future. I know it’s important and needs to be addressed, but it gets kind of old after awhile. It’s almost like people ignore everything else except the steroids when it comes to Bonds. Some of the stuff brought up as proof makes sense, but other things don’t make any sense when it comes to hitting. For example… Is having a bigger head an advantage for a hitter?
Like nearly everyone else, I really do believe that steroids played a part in Bonds being so good in his later years, but I also think there were other things that also made him better. And not the elbow guard either.
Barry Bonds improved his swing and his approach over the years. It was a real big improvement and along with everything else, his improved swing has to be one of the major reasons for his success.
I doubt if Bonds is the strongest and most powerful hitter in baseball. But he does have the best power swing IMO. (with or without any help from other things)
We should at least give him credit for developing that swing! It’s a masterpiece!
quote:Originally posted by Chameleon:
Oh how the numbers can be "worked".
There has been NO ONE to put up the "per at bat numbers" that Bonds did IN HIS PRIME.
Yes, his career numbers may not match up.
Put all of 'em in their prime and Bond's had the greatest PRIME ever.
There has never been anyone swing the bat as efficiently as Bonds. NEVER.
And the statement about who hit behind Bond's is simply amazing.
Guess who hit behind Dal Maxvill? How many walks did he get?
What years would you say were his prime? His years with the Pirates??? During the period everyone knew he was on steroids?
This is Williams best season:
1941
AB 456
R 135
H 185
2B 33
3B 3
HR 37
RBI 120
TB 335
BB 145
SO 27
OBP .551
SLG .735
AVG .406
He followed that up with 36 HR, .499 OBP, .648 SLG, .356 AVG. Then he went to war for 3 years. Kind of tough to sit out three years (in your prime)and come back to MLB hitting, huh? Not for Teddy ballgame! 38 HR, .497 OBP, .667 SLG, .342 AVG.
I totally agree.
Bonds has become possibly the biggest attraction in the national league. He may have the most efficient swing in the last 20 years.
I just do not agree that the stats say that Bonds is better than Ruth as a home run hitter or batter overall.
On the Who hit behind issue, how many intentional walks did Roger Maris recieve in '61 the year he hit 61 home runs?
Bonds has become possibly the biggest attraction in the national league. He may have the most efficient swing in the last 20 years.
I just do not agree that the stats say that Bonds is better than Ruth as a home run hitter or batter overall.
On the Who hit behind issue, how many intentional walks did Roger Maris recieve in '61 the year he hit 61 home runs?
quote:Originally posted by Chameleon:
Guess who hit behind Dal Maxvill? How many walks did he get?
Who cares who hit behind a .217 lifetime hitter???
This discussion got me to checking the stats. Baseball Almanac has a section listing the top 100 all time in various statistical categories.
Top 100
Others can go check the where Aaron, Ruth, Williams, Bonds, Mays, etc. rank in all those categories, but here’s one that really amazed me.
Top 100 all time Grounded into Double plays
The top two are Cal Ripken Jr and Hank Aaron. Active players listed include; Julio Franco, Ivan Rodriguez, Vinny Castillo, Bernie Williams, Mike Piazza, Royce Clayton, Frank Thomas, Gary Sheffield, Jeff Kent, Ruben Sierra, Manny Ramirez, Luis Gonzalez, Sammy Sosa.
Willie Mays, Rod Carew, Robin Yount, Ernie Banks, Stan Musial, Wade Boggs, Pete Rose, Tony Gwynn, Frank Robinson, Roberto Clemente, Johnny Bench and Ted Williams are all on the list.
Is it kind of surprising that Babe Ruth and Barry Bonds are not on the list?
Top 100
Others can go check the where Aaron, Ruth, Williams, Bonds, Mays, etc. rank in all those categories, but here’s one that really amazed me.
Top 100 all time Grounded into Double plays
The top two are Cal Ripken Jr and Hank Aaron. Active players listed include; Julio Franco, Ivan Rodriguez, Vinny Castillo, Bernie Williams, Mike Piazza, Royce Clayton, Frank Thomas, Gary Sheffield, Jeff Kent, Ruben Sierra, Manny Ramirez, Luis Gonzalez, Sammy Sosa.
Willie Mays, Rod Carew, Robin Yount, Ernie Banks, Stan Musial, Wade Boggs, Pete Rose, Tony Gwynn, Frank Robinson, Roberto Clemente, Johnny Bench and Ted Williams are all on the list.
Is it kind of surprising that Babe Ruth and Barry Bonds are not on the list?
I would have thought that Dave Winfield would have led that list. He killed more rallies than a good relief pitcher.
Quincy
only when its info you made up.
I like how you support this with fact...Oh, wait.
Ryan was a winning pitcher with the Angels and struck out over a man per inning. Once Ryan "lost his effectivness" the Astros signed him to the first 1,000,000 dollar a year deal ever. I hope im rewarded as such when I lose my effectivness.
quote:Looks like too much info is troubling to you.
only when its info you made up.
quote:In those days there were different strike zones in each league.
I like how you support this with fact...Oh, wait.
quote:Once he lost his effectiveness with the Angels, he was signed as a free agent by the Astros. He had a resurgence with the Astros.
Ryan was a winning pitcher with the Angels and struck out over a man per inning. Once Ryan "lost his effectivness" the Astros signed him to the first 1,000,000 dollar a year deal ever. I hope im rewarded as such when I lose my effectivness.
Makes no difference if you believe me about the different strike zones, but that is fact.
Ryan walked too many batters with the Angels costing them games, as bad as they were (200 walks one year alone).
The Astros felt that Ryan was worth the million for his no-hitters and overall strike outs, but he was not their ticket to the World Series.
He made most of his money with Texas more for his marquee value and seniority.
Careerwise he had a ,526 winning percentage, not very stellar, walked far more batters than any pitcher in baseball history, yet his claim to fame was his flashes of brilliance in the no-hitters.
Having followed his career first hand had he stayed with the National League at 25, he would have been out of baseball by 27 for his lack of control.
Ryan walked too many batters with the Angels costing them games, as bad as they were (200 walks one year alone).
The Astros felt that Ryan was worth the million for his no-hitters and overall strike outs, but he was not their ticket to the World Series.
He made most of his money with Texas more for his marquee value and seniority.
Careerwise he had a ,526 winning percentage, not very stellar, walked far more batters than any pitcher in baseball history, yet his claim to fame was his flashes of brilliance in the no-hitters.
Having followed his career first hand had he stayed with the National League at 25, he would have been out of baseball by 27 for his lack of control.
Oh Please, give me a break.
Outside of Roger Clemens, and even that is a stretch.
Nolen Ryan was one if not the ONE greatest pitcher of all time.
EH
Outside of Roger Clemens, and even that is a stretch.
Nolen Ryan was one if not the ONE greatest pitcher of all time.
EH
quote:Originally posted by PGStaff:
This discussion got me to checking the stats. Baseball Almanac has a section listing the top 100 all time in various statistical categories.
Top 100
Others can go check the where Aaron, Ruth, Williams, Bonds, Mays, etc. rank in all those categories, but here’s one that really amazed me.
Top 100 all time Grounded into Double plays
The top two are Cal Ripken Jr and Hank Aaron. Active players listed include; Julio Franco, Ivan Rodriguez, Vinny Castillo, Bernie Williams, Mike Piazza, Royce Clayton, Frank Thomas, Gary Sheffield, Jeff Kent, Ruben Sierra, Manny Ramirez, Luis Gonzalez, Sammy Sosa.
Willie Mays, Rod Carew, Robin Yount, Ernie Banks, Stan Musial, Wade Boggs, Pete Rose, Tony Gwynn, Frank Robinson, Roberto Clemente, Johnny Bench and Ted Williams are all on the list.
Is it kind of surprising that Babe Ruth and Barry Bonds are not on the list?
It doesn't surprise me that Ruth and Bonds aren't on the list. For one, Bonds had very good speed for most of his career. Two, both struck out a lot, hit a lot of Home runs, and walked a lot. Not many ABs left for DPs.
Aaron played well after he should have been done, so I would guess many of his DPs were in the later years. Williams was never a speed demon and didn't strike out much, therefore more opportunities for DPs.
Not many base stealers (lack of speed) in that group and most of them didn't strike out much, so there aren't many surprises on the list for me.
Ryan was the Ankiel of his day with better coaches and better teammates in his early years.
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:
Ryan was the Ankiel of his day with better coaches and better teammates in his early years.
A bad comparison. Totally different scenerios. I think you are making things up just for the sake of arguement. Thats OK though, these forums need a spark once in while. Kudos.
Nah, not making it up.
Just look at the numbers.
Did Ryan get so much better in the AL or does somethng else give rise to the vast improvement in his strike out totals ?
Just look at the numbers.
Did Ryan get so much better in the AL or does somethng else give rise to the vast improvement in his strike out totals ?
There were a number of factors that resulted in Nolan Ryan being a significantly better pitcher with the Angels than the Mets.
1) According to his biography, when he went to the Angels was the first time he lifted weights. The Angels had a weight room and the Mets didn't (Imagine a major league team without a weight room these days)
2) He went from being a part time starter with the Mets to an every fourth day guy with the Angels.
3) He was no longer under the military commitment which had hampered his development for the first four years with the Mets.
When Nolan became a free agent with the Angels and moved over to the Astros, that was during the free agent draft - where teams could "draft" a free agent - indicating their interest. Nolan was drafted by 12 teams - hardly a lack of interest. His contract with the Astros was for a million dollars - the first such contract - and it was a situation where the Yankees had made that offer and the astros matched it.
Lastly, re the changeup - he threw Bobby Grich a changeup for a called strike three as the last pitch of his 4th no hitter - in 1975. So he obviously had that pitch in his toolbag by then - and was very confident with it...
Tom Seaver claims to have worked with Nolan on his curveball when he was 23 - when "he started to throw it on a regular basis". Given Nolan was born in 1947, that would be the 1970 season - while he was still with the Mets.
08
1) According to his biography, when he went to the Angels was the first time he lifted weights. The Angels had a weight room and the Mets didn't (Imagine a major league team without a weight room these days)
2) He went from being a part time starter with the Mets to an every fourth day guy with the Angels.
3) He was no longer under the military commitment which had hampered his development for the first four years with the Mets.
When Nolan became a free agent with the Angels and moved over to the Astros, that was during the free agent draft - where teams could "draft" a free agent - indicating their interest. Nolan was drafted by 12 teams - hardly a lack of interest. His contract with the Astros was for a million dollars - the first such contract - and it was a situation where the Yankees had made that offer and the astros matched it.
Lastly, re the changeup - he threw Bobby Grich a changeup for a called strike three as the last pitch of his 4th no hitter - in 1975. So he obviously had that pitch in his toolbag by then - and was very confident with it...
Tom Seaver claims to have worked with Nolan on his curveball when he was 23 - when "he started to throw it on a regular basis". Given Nolan was born in 1947, that would be the 1970 season - while he was still with the Mets.
08
In the American League Ryan was mowing em down.
When he returned to the National League with the exception of maybe two years he averaged one strike out per inning.
When he returned to the American League with Texas, he was again hitting three hundred strike outs.
When he returned to the National League with the exception of maybe two years he averaged one strike out per inning.
When he returned to the American League with Texas, he was again hitting three hundred strike outs.
BOTTOM LINE:
This is not to take away from Ryan's accomplishments but he was merely a bit better than a .500 pticher---had it not been for the K's and the No No's he was a very aveage pitcher---I much rather want Seaver on my staff
This is not to take away from Ryan's accomplishments but he was merely a bit better than a .500 pticher---had it not been for the K's and the No No's he was a very aveage pitcher---I much rather want Seaver on my staff
Just got a chance to see the DP top 100 list. That is a group that I would be proud to be on. Those guys played a long time and had great careers. From a fans perspective, give me the top 10 in their prime anyday of the week!!
And the same with Ryan, every time he pitched on TV I was glued to the set. There were better pitchers out there, but none were as electric. He was worth the million on attendance alone.
And the same with Ryan, every time he pitched on TV I was glued to the set. There were better pitchers out there, but none were as electric. He was worth the million on attendance alone.
TR,
Other than his W-L record I've never heard Nolan Ryan called average. If you take away his strikeouts and no hitters, you still have to look at his 324 wins and lifetime 3.19 ERA. How can someone who won 324 games be an average pitcher?
And here's another stat that he is the all time leader in. Fewest hits allowed per 9 innings for a career. (6.55). To put this into perspective, Greg Maddox averages about 8.5 hits per 9 innings over his career.
In 1972 he gave up 5.26 hits per 9 innings to lead the league. 20 years later he gave up 5.31 hits per 9 innings to lead the league.
Nolan Ryan average for a 9 inning game over his entire career would look something like this.
9 IP, 5 hits, 3 Runs, 4 BB, 10 SO
And that was over 27 years, in 807 games.
Other than his W-L record I've never heard Nolan Ryan called average. If you take away his strikeouts and no hitters, you still have to look at his 324 wins and lifetime 3.19 ERA. How can someone who won 324 games be an average pitcher?
And here's another stat that he is the all time leader in. Fewest hits allowed per 9 innings for a career. (6.55). To put this into perspective, Greg Maddox averages about 8.5 hits per 9 innings over his career.
In 1972 he gave up 5.26 hits per 9 innings to lead the league. 20 years later he gave up 5.31 hits per 9 innings to lead the league.
Nolan Ryan average for a 9 inning game over his entire career would look something like this.
9 IP, 5 hits, 3 Runs, 4 BB, 10 SO
And that was over 27 years, in 807 games.
quote:Originally posted by PGStaff:
TR,
Other than his W-L record I've never heard Nolan Ryan called average. If you take away his strikeouts and no hitters, you still have to look at his 324 wins and lifetime 3.19 ERA. How can someone who won 324 games be an average pitcher?
And here's another stat that he is the all time leader in. Fewest hits allowed per 9 innings for a career. (6.55). To put this into perspective, Greg Maddox averages about 8.5 hits per 9 innings over his career.
In 1972 he gave up 5.26 hits per 9 innings to lead the league. 20 years later he gave up 5.31 hits per 9 innings to lead the league.
Nolan Ryan average for a 9 inning game over his entire career would look something like this.
9 IP, 5 hits, 3 Runs, 4 BB, 10 SO
And that was over 27 years, in 807 games.
Thank God someone besides me saw this too! He gave up fewer hits and HRs than Clemens or Seaver. His won/loss record is bad because his teams sucked. Look at his unearned runs stats compared to some of the best in the game. People want to talk about his BBs, but if you walk 2 and strike out 3, guess what? No runs score!
quote:Originally posted by PGStaff:
TR,
Other than his W-L record I've never heard Nolan Ryan called average. If you take away his strikeouts and no hitters, you still have to look at his 324 wins and lifetime 3.19 ERA. How can someone who won 324 games be an average pitcher?
And here's another stat that he is the all time leader in. Fewest hits allowed per 9 innings for a career. (6.55). To put this into perspective, Greg Maddox averages about 8.5 hits per 9 innings over his career.
In 1972 he gave up 5.26 hits per 9 innings to lead the league. 20 years later he gave up 5.31 hits per 9 innings to lead the league.
Nolan Ryan average for a 9 inning game over his entire career would look something like this.
9 IP, 5 hits, 3 Runs, 4 BB, 10 SO
And that was over 27 years, in 807 games.
Looks like you can't say you've never heard Ryan called average anymore.
His win total, in my eyes atleast, is due to his longevity not necessarily his ability---he was in fact barely more than a .500 pitcher---I not downgrading what he did but I still don't put him the class with others like Spahn, Ford, Seaver, Marichal, Koufax et al
When Ryan was on, he was very good. Sadly he was not on enough to be considered a great pitcher in my view.
With such impressive stats, one would think that this pitcher never lost a game or had a winning percentage of .900.
Great pitchers raise the level of their team's ability to win, Ryan was not great. He played for teams that were usually .500 ball clubs. Other pitchers could win twenty games on these clubs, but Ryan couldn't.
Even though Bert Blyleven has over three thousand strike outs, his .534 winning percent and 287 wins do not lead voters to consider him for the Hall of Fame.
With such impressive stats, one would think that this pitcher never lost a game or had a winning percentage of .900.
Great pitchers raise the level of their team's ability to win, Ryan was not great. He played for teams that were usually .500 ball clubs. Other pitchers could win twenty games on these clubs, but Ryan couldn't.
Even though Bert Blyleven has over three thousand strike outs, his .534 winning percent and 287 wins do not lead voters to consider him for the Hall of Fame.
quote:I think you are making things up just for the sake of arguement. Thats OK though, these forums need a spark once in while. Kudos.
Yep.......
From MLB.com - Ask The Umpire
I miss the old-style balloon chest protectors that home-plate umpires used to wear. It was one way to distinguish AL from NL games. It seemed to offer better protection too. Who was the last umpire to use this protection and is their use banned by rules?
-- BlueDog
Jerry Layne: Jerry Neudecker in the mid-80s, somewhere in there. I don't know if it's banned by rules, but it's been common that you don't get to see the ball as good looking up over the head like that. It's better to work with the chest protector inside your shirt and have the pitch come toward you. You can tell more about low pitches and in and out, stuff like that.
I miss the old-style balloon chest protectors that home-plate umpires used to wear. It was one way to distinguish AL from NL games. It seemed to offer better protection too. Who was the last umpire to use this protection and is their use banned by rules?
-- BlueDog
Jerry Layne: Jerry Neudecker in the mid-80s, somewhere in there. I don't know if it's banned by rules, but it's been common that you don't get to see the ball as good looking up over the head like that. It's better to work with the chest protector inside your shirt and have the pitch come toward you. You can tell more about low pitches and in and out, stuff like that.
TR I understand where you are coming from. I agree that maybe he wasn't one of the greatest pitchers, but IMO I haven't seen any "very average" pitchers last 27 years let alone have a career 3.19 ERA.quote:Originally posted by TRhit:
His win total, in my eyes atleast, is due to his longevity not necessarily his ability---he was in fact barely more than a .500 pitcher---I not downgrading what he did but I still don't put him the class with others like Spahn, Ford, Seaver, Marichal, Koufax et al
By average I refer to him being merely a bit n more than a 500 pitcher
quote:Originally posted by TRhit:
By average I refer to him being merely a bit n more than a 500 pitcher
A lot of "great pitchers" would have been "average pitchers" if they would have pitched for the Angels and Astros when he did.
I'd bet that Ted Williams would have been a great pitcher with the Angels and Astros. lol
Couldn't resist.
The 'stros were a good ball club in that era. They played the Mets in a tough NLCS in 86.
Couldn't resist.
The 'stros were a good ball club in that era. They played the Mets in a tough NLCS in 86.
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:
I'd bet that Ted Williams would have been a great pitcher with the Angels and Astros. lol
Couldn't resist.
The 'stros were a good ball club in that era. They played the Mets in a tough NLCS in 86.
Good, but very little run production.
