Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Rob Ellis, One of baseball's greatest goofs. Maybe he can open a school with Walter Hriniak and ruin some more hitters.
Interesting how Ellis condemns major league hitting instruction and instructors yet that is what he is and does. He must be the exception!
His article is a good example of why so much of what passes for hitting instruction is marketing hype designed to carve out a niche distinct from the 'other guys.' Marketing is a fact of life for any one in business. I don't condemn it, but I am aware of it when I evaluate a product. I have heard Ellis speak and read the Schmidt book. There is very little to recommend.
His article is a good example of why so much of what passes for hitting instruction is marketing hype designed to carve out a niche distinct from the 'other guys.' Marketing is a fact of life for any one in business. I don't condemn it, but I am aware of it when I evaluate a product. I have heard Ellis speak and read the Schmidt book. There is very little to recommend.
quote:Joe’s hitting instructor, a man whose skill is in getting and keeping a professional hitting coach’s job, not teaching hitting, is as baffled as Joe.
Sounds more like a web coach than a pro hitting coach to me
Yeah, that major league baseball has a great track record.
Every organization is lucky if they have more than 2-3 hitting prospects in their minor leagues. Out of how many? Over how many years?
They get the best talent available and that's the best they can do?????
If I was no better at my job than that I'd find other work.
Every organization is lucky if they have more than 2-3 hitting prospects in their minor leagues. Out of how many? Over how many years?
They get the best talent available and that's the best they can do?????
If I was no better at my job than that I'd find other work.
I don't know much about this person, but I found the article to be interesting, true or not true.
I might add, a few scouts did tell my son he would get better instruction in college rather than in the minor leagues. I also hear it depends upon the organization and their farm system. Don't know if this is true either, but found it quite interesting.
I hear more and more about the players who make it are the ones who really need very little instruction, hitters and pitchers, naturals and gifted with their stuff, not those who require years of instruction
Any parents of minor league players, would like to hear your thoughts on instruction in the minor league system.
I might add, a few scouts did tell my son he would get better instruction in college rather than in the minor leagues. I also hear it depends upon the organization and their farm system. Don't know if this is true either, but found it quite interesting.
I hear more and more about the players who make it are the ones who really need very little instruction, hitters and pitchers, naturals and gifted with their stuff, not those who require years of instruction
Any parents of minor league players, would like to hear your thoughts on instruction in the minor league system.
I wonder what the record is for the Web coaches? I think it is oh for whatever.
I just think it's funny how he makes up a story with Joe Linedrive rather than coming up with a real story with a real character which would prove why you don't get good coaching in the Minors.
Practice and instruction does not end because you have (made it) to the college level or the pro level. But should it not be presumed that if a kid is drafted by a club because he can hit that he should be able to hit. And if he can not he will not be around very long. The reason that so many kids dwell in the minors has more to do with the fact that they are not major league calibre hitters rather than poor instruction. If outstanding instruction was all a kid needed then Pete Rose Jr for example and all the rest that have had all the best for their entire life would be major league hitters. For all you guru hitting instructors out there name the kids that you have instructed in hitting that are playing in the ML. #1 Natural born ability at the plate. #2 A self motivated desire to work at it and be the best you can be. #3 Experience.
Interesting thread. Do any of you remember Yaron Peters? He was the SEC Player of the Year and set SEC HR records a few seasons ago. He was drafted by the Braves and made it all the way to...(drum roll)... High "A".
Begs the question, how do you pick 'em? If arguably one of the best college hitters ever can't make the transition, then how do scouts find the player's that can? And why can't they make the transition? Is it purely because of wood? I don't know if Yaron would have benefited from better hitting instruction or not, but it seems to me that something is missing somewhere.
bbscout, you have a tough job!
R.
Begs the question, how do you pick 'em? If arguably one of the best college hitters ever can't make the transition, then how do scouts find the player's that can? And why can't they make the transition? Is it purely because of wood? I don't know if Yaron would have benefited from better hitting instruction or not, but it seems to me that something is missing somewhere.
bbscout, you have a tough job!
R.
Interesting column by Rob Ellis. I know him, have coached against him, have spoken at a couple of the same clinics he has spoken at, and have listened to him speak. He is educated and opinionated!
Just my two cents...
Aside from the questions about his relationship with Balco and steroid use, Barry Bonds has for years proven to be one of the best pure hitters in the MLB, yet his hitting mechanics are questioned and denigrated as incorrect. I've read many such post here.
So much is made of Pujols of the Cardinals and yet the guy hasn't done a thing even coming close to Bonds, even when Bonds was with the Pirates his numbers were better than Pujols at the same points in their careers.
If I was coaching a team at any level I would be looking, learning and teaching the Bonds method of hitting from both the right and left side of the plate. It's not necessary to reinvent the hitting mechanics when there is an example of excellent hitting technique available to emulate.
The problem is that so much of the baseball decision making about hitting, at all levels is made on whether a guy is liked and respected personally, not whether he has the goods.
It was the same when comparisons were made between Aaron and Ruth about their hitting prowess. For me both are examples to be emulated and studied for correctness for hitting techniques. Ruth from the left side and Aaron from the right side. Both have the template for hitting to be a standard of measurement.
Aside from the questions about his relationship with Balco and steroid use, Barry Bonds has for years proven to be one of the best pure hitters in the MLB, yet his hitting mechanics are questioned and denigrated as incorrect. I've read many such post here.
So much is made of Pujols of the Cardinals and yet the guy hasn't done a thing even coming close to Bonds, even when Bonds was with the Pirates his numbers were better than Pujols at the same points in their careers.
If I was coaching a team at any level I would be looking, learning and teaching the Bonds method of hitting from both the right and left side of the plate. It's not necessary to reinvent the hitting mechanics when there is an example of excellent hitting technique available to emulate.
The problem is that so much of the baseball decision making about hitting, at all levels is made on whether a guy is liked and respected personally, not whether he has the goods.
It was the same when comparisons were made between Aaron and Ruth about their hitting prowess. For me both are examples to be emulated and studied for correctness for hitting techniques. Ruth from the left side and Aaron from the right side. Both have the template for hitting to be a standard of measurement.
quote:Originally posted by Ramrod:
Just my two cents...
And it's not even worth that.
quote:So much is made of Pujols of the Cardinals and yet the guy hasn't done a thing even coming close to Bonds, even when Bonds was with the Pirates his numbers were better than Pujols at the same points in their careers...
Nothing like talking before you have the facts.
Originally posted by ozzir:
Just my two cents...
And it's not even worth that.
So much is made of Pujols of the Cardinals and yet the guy hasn't done a thing even coming close to Bonds, even when Bonds was with the Pirates his numbers were better than Pujols at the same points in their careers...
Nothing like talking before you have the facts
***********************************************
I didn't know that Pujols was a member of the 40-40 club? You're right about that.
Just my two cents...
And it's not even worth that.
So much is made of Pujols of the Cardinals and yet the guy hasn't done a thing even coming close to Bonds, even when Bonds was with the Pirates his numbers were better than Pujols at the same points in their careers...
Nothing like talking before you have the facts
***********************************************
I didn't know that Pujols was a member of the 40-40 club? You're right about that.
Bonds 1st 4 years
2082 ab, 84 hr, .256 avg
Pujols 1st 4 years
2,363 ab, 160 hr, .333 avg
Bonds improved significantly in his 5th season but still not up to Pujols this season.
2082 ab, 84 hr, .256 avg
Pujols 1st 4 years
2,363 ab, 160 hr, .333 avg
Bonds improved significantly in his 5th season but still not up to Pujols this season.
quote:If I was coaching a team at any level I would be looking, learning and teaching the Bonds method of hitting from both the right and left side of the plate.
I'd like to see that lesson being given....might it go something like this,
"NO, NO, NO John, you're doing it wrong... you rub "The Cream" in a counter-clockwise motion, in one area only. Not all over. This isn't SUNBLOCK folks!"
quote:So much is made of Pujols of the Cardinals and yet the guy hasn't done a thing even coming close to Bonds, even when Bonds was with the Pirates his numbers were better than Pujols at the same points in their careers.
yeah he's only had 100 RBI's in the first five years of his career, no other MLB player has ever done that.
quote:Originally posted by CADad:
Bonds 1st 4 years
2082 ab, 84 hr, .256 avg
Pujols 1st 4 years
2,363 ab, 160 hr, .333 avg
Bonds improved significantly in his 5th season but still not up to Pujols this season.
***********************************************
So you show me Pujols last four years and and compare that against Bonds first four years. Nice try but your logic doesn't wash.
Compare apples to apples last four years to the last four years.
Bonds is a much better ballplayer, has more tools, complete in all of his skills. No comparison there.
Originally posted by Glove Man:
I'd like to see that lesson being given....might it go something like this,
"NO, NO, NO John, you're doing it wrong... you rub "The Cream" in a counter-clockwise motion, in one area only. Not all over. This isn't SUNBLOCK folks!"
yeah he's only had 100 RBI's in the first five years of his career, no other MLB player has ever done that.
***********************************************
Based upon the MLB's and MLBPA's attitude toward the "cream", THEY don't know what you're talking about...WHAT CREAM...THEY DON'T KNOW NUTTING Wonder what Pujols is using? Hmmm?
PUJOLS first are also his last...all depends which way you want to look at it, top down or bottom up.
When Pujols has played 19 years and has the stats of Bonds then mayube I'll say Pujols deserves the same kudos.
I'd like to see that lesson being given....might it go something like this,
"NO, NO, NO John, you're doing it wrong... you rub "The Cream" in a counter-clockwise motion, in one area only. Not all over. This isn't SUNBLOCK folks!"
yeah he's only had 100 RBI's in the first five years of his career, no other MLB player has ever done that.
***********************************************
Based upon the MLB's and MLBPA's attitude toward the "cream", THEY don't know what you're talking about...WHAT CREAM...THEY DON'T KNOW NUTTING Wonder what Pujols is using? Hmmm?
PUJOLS first are also his last...all depends which way you want to look at it, top down or bottom up.
When Pujols has played 19 years and has the stats of Bonds then mayube I'll say Pujols deserves the same kudos.
I'm confused, Ramrod. You state that Bonds numbers were better than Pujols at the same points in their careers. CADad showed you that they weren't. Now you want to compare the last four years.
Sorry, that logic doesn't wash --- you want to compare a rookie to a veteran? Or did you just want your position justified?
What evidence have you seen that Pujols is using anything? Do you think he hasn't been tested? Bonds has admitted using the clear and the cream, he just didn't admit to knowing what was in it.
Based on Pujols work ethic, team play, and defense at first, he will be playing, maintaining, and improving for considerable years to come. I also prefer Pujols situational hitting, as opposed to Barry "I'll pull no matter what" Bonds.
Personally, I see no point in attacking Pujols. The game is only enhanced by quality players on any team.
And I would believe that you are alone in your opinion that any player is undeserving of kudos until they've matched what Bonds has done, which must include the serious doubt cast over his accomplishments.
Sorry, that logic doesn't wash --- you want to compare a rookie to a veteran? Or did you just want your position justified?
What evidence have you seen that Pujols is using anything? Do you think he hasn't been tested? Bonds has admitted using the clear and the cream, he just didn't admit to knowing what was in it.
Based on Pujols work ethic, team play, and defense at first, he will be playing, maintaining, and improving for considerable years to come. I also prefer Pujols situational hitting, as opposed to Barry "I'll pull no matter what" Bonds.
Personally, I see no point in attacking Pujols. The game is only enhanced by quality players on any team.
And I would believe that you are alone in your opinion that any player is undeserving of kudos until they've matched what Bonds has done, which must include the serious doubt cast over his accomplishments.
Mr. Rod, In the last 4 years,2002-2005 here are some Bonds-Pujols stats.
Ave. Bonds .358 Pujols .334
Home runs Bonds 136, Pujols 158
RBI Bonds 301 Pujols 474
2B Bonds 80 Pujols 175
Of course, Bonds has not played this year, but you wanted the last 4 years, so here they are. At age 25 Albert Pujols may be the greatest hitter at his age of anyone who ever played.
As far as their first four years in the big leagues, it is not even close. Pujols' stats are much better than Bonds.
Ave. Bonds .358 Pujols .334
Home runs Bonds 136, Pujols 158
RBI Bonds 301 Pujols 474
2B Bonds 80 Pujols 175
Of course, Bonds has not played this year, but you wanted the last 4 years, so here they are. At age 25 Albert Pujols may be the greatest hitter at his age of anyone who ever played.
As far as their first four years in the big leagues, it is not even close. Pujols' stats are much better than Bonds.
Ramrod,
The stats CADad gave you were rookie year thru year 4 in each player's career. He posted them to counter your claim that "even when Bonds was with the Pirates his numbers were better than Pujols at the same points in their careers".
Pujols has one of the best starts EVER. You mention that he did not have a 40-40 year and you are correct. Speed is not part of Albert's game. But, he can hit.
Now that CADad posts the info you change the comparison you made. I'm confused. Please explain.
The stats CADad gave you were rookie year thru year 4 in each player's career. He posted them to counter your claim that "even when Bonds was with the Pirates his numbers were better than Pujols at the same points in their careers".
Pujols has one of the best starts EVER. You mention that he did not have a 40-40 year and you are correct. Speed is not part of Albert's game. But, he can hit.
Now that CADad posts the info you change the comparison you made. I'm confused. Please explain.
bbscout
So let's see what we have according to your logic.
In order to get Pujols an equal shot at Bonds accomplishments
Lets see 2001 to 2005 for Pujols, and 2001 to 2004 for Bonds, hmmm.
Sounds about right for a rookie against a vet.
So let's see what we have according to your logic.
In order to get Pujols an equal shot at Bonds accomplishments
Lets see 2001 to 2005 for Pujols, and 2001 to 2004 for Bonds, hmmm.
Sounds about right for a rookie against a vet.
Orlando
You said: I'm confused, Ramrod. You state that Bonds numbers were better than Pujols at the same points in their careers. CADad showed you that they weren't. Now you want to compare the last four years.
*************************************************
I didn't say that, Someone said first four years, and that would also equate with Pujols to his last four years since he is a rookie in comparison to Bonds.
I'm Saying compare 2000 to 2004 for both players...no contest Bonds hands down, and that's even with both being tested according to the MLBPA.
You said: I'm confused, Ramrod. You state that Bonds numbers were better than Pujols at the same points in their careers. CADad showed you that they weren't. Now you want to compare the last four years.
*************************************************
I didn't say that, Someone said first four years, and that would also equate with Pujols to his last four years since he is a rookie in comparison to Bonds.
I'm Saying compare 2000 to 2004 for both players...no contest Bonds hands down, and that's even with both being tested according to the MLBPA.
Is there a realistic chance that A-Rod or Pujols will break either the single season record or the overall record? Well A-Rod might because he does slap balls pretty hard.
Redbird5 said:
************************************************
I wasn't interested in the comparison to their first four years. The other posters had to present it like that because Pujols is just the newbie on the block and they know he is nowhere near the ballplayer that Bonds is even at 43yo.
Now Pujols over time may prove his worth and he has started strong and I will give him that, but the great ballplayers like Mays, Yaz, Fox, Williams, DiMaggio, etc performed well above average throughout most of their careers.
Pujols at best is a three tool player, Bonds has five tools and probably six if you count game awareness.
quote:The stats CADad gave you were rookie year thru year 4 in each player's career. He posted them to counter your claim that "even when Bonds was with the Pirates his numbers were better than Pujols at the same points in their careers".
************************************************
I wasn't interested in the comparison to their first four years. The other posters had to present it like that because Pujols is just the newbie on the block and they know he is nowhere near the ballplayer that Bonds is even at 43yo.
Now Pujols over time may prove his worth and he has started strong and I will give him that, but the great ballplayers like Mays, Yaz, Fox, Williams, DiMaggio, etc performed well above average throughout most of their careers.
Pujols at best is a three tool player, Bonds has five tools and probably six if you count game awareness.
YOUR post, 5.40 pm today:
"So much is made of Pujols of the Cardinals and yet the guy hasn't done a thing even coming close to Bonds, even when Bonds was with the Pirates his numbers were better than Pujols at the same points in their careers."
You did say that. Disproven by CADad. You may or may not have been interested in the facts, but you did solicit them by making that statement.
Hmmmm your own self. Now you want to compare 2000 to 2004 to give it to Bonds "hands down"? If you didn't like bbscout referencing 2005 with Bonds not playing, why are you asking for 2000 numbers when Pujols started his major league career in 2001?
2001-2004 (which WOULD be 4 seasons):
BA Bonds .350 Pujols .333
HR Bonds 209 Pujols 160
2B Bonds 112 Pujols 189
RBI Bonds 438 Pujols 504
Don't see the "hands down" myself. Yes, Bonds hits home runs....but Albert drives in more runs. Runs win ball games. Maybe it's those doubles and situational hitting.
Bonds over Pujols in a 6th tool of Game Awareness? I don't think so if he lives by the hr.
And I guess I don't know what kind of ballplayer will be in 2007. He's 41 at the moment.
"So much is made of Pujols of the Cardinals and yet the guy hasn't done a thing even coming close to Bonds, even when Bonds was with the Pirates his numbers were better than Pujols at the same points in their careers."
You did say that. Disproven by CADad. You may or may not have been interested in the facts, but you did solicit them by making that statement.
quote:Originally posted by Ramrod:
bbscout
So let's see what we have according to your logic.
In order to get Pujols an equal shot at Bonds accomplishments
Lets see 2001 to 2005 for Pujols, and 2001 to 2004 for Bonds, hmmm.
Sounds about right for a rookie against a vet.
Hmmmm your own self. Now you want to compare 2000 to 2004 to give it to Bonds "hands down"? If you didn't like bbscout referencing 2005 with Bonds not playing, why are you asking for 2000 numbers when Pujols started his major league career in 2001?
2001-2004 (which WOULD be 4 seasons):
BA Bonds .350 Pujols .333
HR Bonds 209 Pujols 160
2B Bonds 112 Pujols 189
RBI Bonds 438 Pujols 504
Don't see the "hands down" myself. Yes, Bonds hits home runs....but Albert drives in more runs. Runs win ball games. Maybe it's those doubles and situational hitting.
Bonds over Pujols in a 6th tool of Game Awareness? I don't think so if he lives by the hr.
And I guess I don't know what kind of ballplayer will be in 2007. He's 41 at the moment.
quote:Originally posted by Ramrod:
Orlando
You said: I'm confused, Ramrod. You state that Bonds numbers were better than Pujols at the same points in their careers. CADad showed you that they weren't. Now you want to compare the last four years.
*************************************************
I didn't say that, Someone said first four years, and that would also equate with Pujols to his last four years since he is a rookie in comparison to Bonds.
I'm Saying compare 2000 to 2004 for both players...no contest Bonds hands down, and that's even with both being tested according to the MLBPA.
Nice logic.......2000-2004. Pujols was not yet in the big leagues in 2000.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ramrod:
Just my two cents...
So much is made of Pujols of the Cardinals and yet the guy hasn't done a thing even coming close to Bonds, even when Bonds was with the Pirates his numbers were better than Pujols at the same points in their careers.
--------------------------------------------
Bonds numbers were not near as good as Pujols at the same points in their careers.
Just my two cents...
So much is made of Pujols of the Cardinals and yet the guy hasn't done a thing even coming close to Bonds, even when Bonds was with the Pirates his numbers were better than Pujols at the same points in their careers.
--------------------------------------------
Bonds numbers were not near as good as Pujols at the same points in their careers.
quote:Originally posted by Ramrod:
Redbird5 said:quote:The stats CADad gave you were rookie year thru year 4 in each player's career. He posted them to counter your claim that "even when Bonds was with the Pirates his numbers were better than Pujols at the same points in their careers".
************************************************
I wasn't interested in the comparison to their first four years. The other posters had to present it like that because Pujols is just the newbie on the block and they know he is nowhere near the ballplayer that Bonds is even at 43yo.
Now Pujols over time may prove his worth and he has started strong and I will give him that, but the great ballplayers like Mays, Yaz, Fox, Williams, DiMaggio, etc performed well above average throughout most of their careers.
Pujols at best is a three tool player, Bonds has five tools and probably six if you count game awareness.
They both have 4 tools. Pujols is a below average runner and Bonds has a below average arm, and that is why he has been in LF for his career. Game awareness? they both are very aware. Also, Bonds is 41, not 43.
Why do you guys make it such a big point to argue over the most minute things? I don't mind if you have a debate, but to beat each other up over small things is just plain stupid.
Orlando | bbscout | Redbird5
Look at the baseball-almanac
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=bondsba01
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=pujolal01
What I meant was the total picture of the two players
Two web pages for Bonds and Pujols...and after complete and total review it's Bonds hands down.
Pujols played some OF his first years before he was relegated to first base, why because his fielding stats look poor for 4 years (20 errors) in comparison to Bonds (10).
Bonds with the Pirates stats are comparable over the period he was there though not as strong offensively as Pujols with the Cardinals but Bonds contributed much more to his team than Pujols when you look at the factors such as defense, and total offense including stolen bases. Pujols at best is only 50% at SB's while Bonds is at 78% = Bonds hands down.
Bonds is a better batter contrary to what someone said here Pujols 14.8 AB's/HR while Bonds's 12.9 AB's/HR is superior. Pujols
Bonds gets an RBI every 4.9AB's while Pujols is at 4.7 AB's/RBI not much difference there = Bonds hands down.
Even now, for one single year, I would take Bonds over Pujols.
Bonds can hurt you in so many ways...Pujols can be shut down with a good pitcher. Bonds thrioves on good pitchers.
Does anyone remember Eric Gagne's 101mph FB hit by Bonds on a 3-2 count bottom of the ninth walk off HR. Never ever saw that before. Nor do I think I will ever see it again in my lifetime.
Look at the baseball-almanac
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=bondsba01
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=pujolal01
What I meant was the total picture of the two players
Two web pages for Bonds and Pujols...and after complete and total review it's Bonds hands down.
Pujols played some OF his first years before he was relegated to first base, why because his fielding stats look poor for 4 years (20 errors) in comparison to Bonds (10).
Bonds with the Pirates stats are comparable over the period he was there though not as strong offensively as Pujols with the Cardinals but Bonds contributed much more to his team than Pujols when you look at the factors such as defense, and total offense including stolen bases. Pujols at best is only 50% at SB's while Bonds is at 78% = Bonds hands down.
Bonds is a better batter contrary to what someone said here Pujols 14.8 AB's/HR while Bonds's 12.9 AB's/HR is superior. Pujols
Bonds gets an RBI every 4.9AB's while Pujols is at 4.7 AB's/RBI not much difference there = Bonds hands down.
Even now, for one single year, I would take Bonds over Pujols.
Bonds can hurt you in so many ways...Pujols can be shut down with a good pitcher. Bonds thrioves on good pitchers.
Does anyone remember Eric Gagne's 101mph FB hit by Bonds on a 3-2 count bottom of the ninth walk off HR. Never ever saw that before. Nor do I think I will ever see it again in my lifetime.
Can I interupt here? Why are we arguing over whether Pujols or Bonds is/will be better? Like what's the big ferking deal?
And now ladies and gentlemen back to our regualr programming. So what exactly do they teach hitters in the minors and college then? Is it the little league stuff like "throw your hands at the ball" or "shift your weight back then forward" which both don't work very well, or are they more advanced like in what they teach at http://www.batspeed.com , do they teach such things as how to apply torque to the bat through the hands and shoulder rotation? I'm curious. So far I've played for many different teams and they all teach me to shift my weight back then forwardand throw my hands at the ball, yet science has proven that shifting weight or throwing your hands straight forward at the ball has won't gain much batspeed at all. Plus the coaches obviosuly haven't noticed that this technique that they preach not just to me but everyone, isn't working for me. It seems to me that coaches only teach what they've beeen taught and that only their way will work and no other way. Is it the same in the minors?
Tune in a few or maybe even the next post from now for more on whether Pujols is better than Bonds or Bponds is better than Pujols whne he was in Little League...er.....2000-2005 plus steroids vs the last 4 season not knowing what a steroid was....er....I dunno, just tune in folks...
And now ladies and gentlemen back to our regualr programming. So what exactly do they teach hitters in the minors and college then? Is it the little league stuff like "throw your hands at the ball" or "shift your weight back then forward" which both don't work very well, or are they more advanced like in what they teach at http://www.batspeed.com , do they teach such things as how to apply torque to the bat through the hands and shoulder rotation? I'm curious. So far I've played for many different teams and they all teach me to shift my weight back then forwardand throw my hands at the ball, yet science has proven that shifting weight or throwing your hands straight forward at the ball has won't gain much batspeed at all. Plus the coaches obviosuly haven't noticed that this technique that they preach not just to me but everyone, isn't working for me. It seems to me that coaches only teach what they've beeen taught and that only their way will work and no other way. Is it the same in the minors?
Tune in a few or maybe even the next post from now for more on whether Pujols is better than Bonds or Bponds is better than Pujols whne he was in Little League...er.....2000-2005 plus steroids vs the last 4 season not knowing what a steroid was....er....I dunno, just tune in folks...
By "total picture" (and the stats you use), you want to compare Bonds' 19 year career to Pujols not-quite-five. That doesn't wash. Check the very same statistics you quoted, but just for Bonds' first four years: AB/HR-25.2 and AB/RBI-9.3 to Pujol's 4.9 and 4.7 respectively. To date, Pujols has been a model of consistency, so we have no reason to suspect he's suddenly (or, for that matter, eventually) going to tank. No sophomore slump with him.
They're both in the National League --- how is it that Pujols has better offensive stats at the same point in their careers, but Bonds is still better "against good pitching"?
You must have noticed when looking at the defensive stats that Pujols played a fairly balanced number of games at four different positions his rookie year, and continued to play multiple positions until this year when he's settled at first. All credit to him for being a teamplayer, and doing what the club needed. And their overall fielding percentages for those first four years? .983 Bonds; .986 Pujols.
Your a Bonds fan. That's great --- enjoy. But I don't see the point in trying to discredit Pujols. Particularly when the numbers to support your case aren't there.
Sorry, Mr3000, but there are many, many forms of baseball discussion. That's just another reason why it's an endlessly fascinating game.
They're both in the National League --- how is it that Pujols has better offensive stats at the same point in their careers, but Bonds is still better "against good pitching"?
You must have noticed when looking at the defensive stats that Pujols played a fairly balanced number of games at four different positions his rookie year, and continued to play multiple positions until this year when he's settled at first. All credit to him for being a teamplayer, and doing what the club needed. And their overall fielding percentages for those first four years? .983 Bonds; .986 Pujols.
Your a Bonds fan. That's great --- enjoy. But I don't see the point in trying to discredit Pujols. Particularly when the numbers to support your case aren't there.
Sorry, Mr3000, but there are many, many forms of baseball discussion. That's just another reason why it's an endlessly fascinating game.
Heh heh, np doubt it's an endlessly fascinating game. I just don't see what we're trying tp prove here. Are we trying to prove whether Pujols is better than Bonds? Or whether Pujols will be better than Bonds?
M<y take on the Bonds vs Pujols issue. I wasn't really old enough to watch Bonds carefully whne he started out but I did see him play a little bit when he was young and skinier, he was pretty good, but I've never seen anyone hit as well as Pujols at that age. But baseball is such an unpredictable sport. Pujols might just go into a career long slump then ext few years like Ben Grieve has done after his rookie season, he might get caught for steroids, he might let all the attention get to his head, he might get injured, who knows? So that's why I'm not picking any sides to this case. Ted Williams could have hit .200 for the rest of his career after his .406 season, so who knows? It just seems that this forum has turned into who's right and who's wrong. If the point is to see whether Pujols or Bonds will be better, why not bet some money on it and compare stats when Pujols is 40 then?
M<y take on the Bonds vs Pujols issue. I wasn't really old enough to watch Bonds carefully whne he started out but I did see him play a little bit when he was young and skinier, he was pretty good, but I've never seen anyone hit as well as Pujols at that age. But baseball is such an unpredictable sport. Pujols might just go into a career long slump then ext few years like Ben Grieve has done after his rookie season, he might get caught for steroids, he might let all the attention get to his head, he might get injured, who knows? So that's why I'm not picking any sides to this case. Ted Williams could have hit .200 for the rest of his career after his .406 season, so who knows? It just seems that this forum has turned into who's right and who's wrong. If the point is to see whether Pujols or Bonds will be better, why not bet some money on it and compare stats when Pujols is 40 then?
Guys and Gals when you argue with RAMROD AKA PIC you never win--he sees what he wants to see and nothing more.
Ramrod,
At least admit what you posted was incorrect. No harm in admitting you were wrong.
bbscout,
You beat me to the tool analysis and Bonds playing LF.
At least admit what you posted was incorrect. No harm in admitting you were wrong.
bbscout,
You beat me to the tool analysis and Bonds playing LF.
Sid Bream!
quote:Originally posted by Ramrod:
bbscout
So let's see what we have according to your logic.
In order to get Pujols an equal shot at Bonds accomplishments
Lets see 2001 to 2005 for Pujols, and 2001 to 2004 for Bonds, hmmm.
Sounds about right for a rookie against a vet.
Actually - in order to give Pujols a fair shot - you would first have to pump him up with massive amounts of HGH.
Then - you could have a contest. LOL
Bonds and Pujols can hit.
Reminds me of Mantle and Mays era.
Such a great game!
Reminds me of Mantle and Mays era.
Such a great game!
Sorry to get back on the original thread...
One thing that I didn't mention about Yaron Peters was that all through college his setup was very much like Craig Counsel's, with his arms and bat held straight up high over his head. It was obviously very unothodox, yet he was VERY successful using it.
When I watched him play "A" ball, I hardly recognized him. He had been converted to a conventional stance. Was this good coaching?
How could one of the all-time great college hitters fail so miserably? Was this a coaching blunder to completely re-invent his setup? Or was it simply a case that he couldn't transition to wood, no matter what his setup? Or is that simply the excuse when someone with obvious talent doesn't make it? Does a player have to be able to at least make it to "AA" ball to get quality instruction?
I have a great deal of respect for the Braves organization. I believe that somewhere in their farm system is some very good hitting instruction. So many of the rookies coming up this year have very similar looking stances and are having great success. Does anyone know who the hitting coach responsible is? at what level?
Another South Carolina player from that same year was Drew Meyer. He was the Ranger's number one pick in 2002. He also struggled with his bat. The difference, I think, is that the club's investment was so much greater with Drew, that he was given more time to work it out. He actually had a pretty good season this past year in "AA".
I'm just trying to understand and maybe someone can offer some insight. Is the transition from metal to wood the key factor? Or is the pitching that much better in "A" ball than in college? And who, in the scout's opinion, has the greatest "chance" of success transitioning from college ball to the minors, the high percentage hitter or the power hitter?
Thanks in advance.
R.
One thing that I didn't mention about Yaron Peters was that all through college his setup was very much like Craig Counsel's, with his arms and bat held straight up high over his head. It was obviously very unothodox, yet he was VERY successful using it.
When I watched him play "A" ball, I hardly recognized him. He had been converted to a conventional stance. Was this good coaching?
How could one of the all-time great college hitters fail so miserably? Was this a coaching blunder to completely re-invent his setup? Or was it simply a case that he couldn't transition to wood, no matter what his setup? Or is that simply the excuse when someone with obvious talent doesn't make it? Does a player have to be able to at least make it to "AA" ball to get quality instruction?
I have a great deal of respect for the Braves organization. I believe that somewhere in their farm system is some very good hitting instruction. So many of the rookies coming up this year have very similar looking stances and are having great success. Does anyone know who the hitting coach responsible is? at what level?
Another South Carolina player from that same year was Drew Meyer. He was the Ranger's number one pick in 2002. He also struggled with his bat. The difference, I think, is that the club's investment was so much greater with Drew, that he was given more time to work it out. He actually had a pretty good season this past year in "AA".
I'm just trying to understand and maybe someone can offer some insight. Is the transition from metal to wood the key factor? Or is the pitching that much better in "A" ball than in college? And who, in the scout's opinion, has the greatest "chance" of success transitioning from college ball to the minors, the high percentage hitter or the power hitter?
Thanks in advance.
R.