it's time to stop talking about babe ruth and start talking about BARRY BONDS

it's time to stop talking about babe ruth and start talking about BARRY BONDS

Post by F » Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:21:25


jingus snip>
one of the things that makes this record so ridiculous is that it is
influenced by things that the batter can't control. for example, bonds
had nearly 700 *recorded* intentional walks, and you can be that he had
at least as many unrecorded intentional walks. bonds drew walks at a
higher rate than did ruth. the reason why bonds drew so many walks is
because pitchers have been afraid to pitch to him. you can't blame barry
bonds for that, but the "games/home run" statistic to which these feeble
minds so desparately cling doesn't take into account the fact that
pitches were more prone to avoid pitching to barry bonds than they were
to ruth. it was a different time, and i'm sure that the notion of given
an intentional walk would have been frowned upon in ruth's time.
-------------------------
if bonds had lou gehrig batting behind him during his most "productive"
years, his intentional walks would be nowhere near the number he's
amassed.

frank

 
 
 

it's time to stop talking about babe ruth and start talking about BARRY BONDS

Post by jingu » Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:32:20

Quote:


> BTW, Bonds *has* admitted to taking steroids (the clear and the cream)
> in this era. Even if his claims he didn't know what they were are
> true, he was still got the benefits of the steroids during that time.

i'll tell you what BARRY BONDS has admitted: he has "admitted" that he
is threatening to sue anyone who accuses him of using steroids.

i'm glad to see that BARRY BONDS has decided that he is tired of being
a punching bag for idiot sportswriters and commentators and has started
to take the attitude that those who want to accuse him had better either
produce some *evidence* or risk getting *sued*.  i'm sick of reading
comments from complete morons who are making definitive statements based
on nothing more than a premise of "my gut tells me..."

Quote:
>>the person holding all of these statistics is BARRY BONDS - who is
>>without *reasonable* doubt, the greatest home run hitter to ever play
>>major league baseball.

> Even if that were true, so?

so BARRY BONDS holds an impressive list of records.

you see, when aaron broke ruth's career home run record, there was much
consternation - people like you couldn't bear the though of having to
let go of your fantasies about how ruth was the greatest player to ever
play baseball.  but after the shock wore off from ruth no longer holding
the career home run record.  people then re-characterized aaron's career
to something along the following lines: it's not that aaron was a great
home run hitter, he never had an impressive number of home runs
*in any single season*, aaron was just a steady player who plugged along
until he got the career home run record.  consequently, people
eventually ignored aaron's record and continued to hold ruth out as the
paragon of home-run hitting prowess.

BARRY BONDS doesn't afford you that luxury.  BARRY BONDS is a great
hitter anyway you look at it - he simply holds too many records to try
to marginalize him based on his on-field performance.  so half-wits like
you are left with little more than to assasinate bonds' character (and
by inference, hold ruth up as some kind of saint) to try to salvage some
justification for wanting to keep ruth on some kind of baseball
pedestal.

as an aside, i found it amusing that as BARRY BONDS approached aaron's
career home run record, there was this sudden praise for henry aaron -
largely from people who had *completely ignored* his accomplishment
until recently.  it wasn't like they were actually trying to praise
aaron - they were just trying to knock down BARRY BONDS.

Quote:
>>the best that these half-wits can offer is a concocted "games/home run"
>>statistic.  keep in mind that *nobody* every considered such a statistic
>>when ruth held the record for career home runs - it was only invented
>>after he no longer held the record.

> The didn't need it before Ruth held the HR record because he would
> have crushed other player's HR records.

...which means that the games/home run statistic was secondary because
if it weren't people would have been talking about ruth's games/home
run statistic all along *instead* of talking about his career home run
statistic.

Quote:
> Oh, and Bonds never outhomered multiple *teams* in any season.

bonds has outhomered, in a single season, *every* individual who has
*ever* played major league baseball.  a player can't control what other
players, or teams, do - but he can influence his own performance -
that's what counts.  all that your comment reflects is yet another
desparate attempt to discount BARRY BONDS, the greatest home run hitter
to ever play major league baseball.

 
 
 

it's time to stop talking about babe ruth and start talking about BARRY BONDS

Post by Bob Roma » Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:41:40

Quote:

> i'll tell you what BARRY BONDS has admitted: he has "admitted" that he
> is threatening to sue anyone who accuses him of using steroids.

Did he?  OK, what the hell.  I accuse.

--
Bob Roman

 
 
 

it's time to stop talking about babe ruth and start talking about BARRY BONDS

Post by cop.. » Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:58:45


Quote:


> i'll tell you what BARRY BONDS has admitted: he has "admitted" that he
> is threatening to sue anyone who accuses him of using steroids.

Still waiting for him to do it.

Quote:
> >>the person holding all of these statistics is BARRY BONDS - who is
> >>without *reasonable* doubt, the greatest home run hitter to ever play
> >>major league baseball.

> > Even if that were true, so?

> so BARRY BONDS holds an impressive list of records.

Most of which were probably reached via the use of illegal performance
enhancing ***.

Quote:
> you see, when aaron broke ruth's career home run record, there was much
> consternation - people like you couldn't bear the though of having to
> let go of your fantasies about how ruth was the greatest player to ever
> play baseball.

I was nine years and, as best as I can recall, didn't give a ***who
held the record.

Brsndon

 
 
 

it's time to stop talking about babe ruth and start talking about BARRY BONDS

Post by jingu » Tue, 28 Aug 2007 01:08:39

Quote:

> On Aug 25, 8:09 pm, "David M. Nieporent"


>>>BTW, Bonds *has* admitted to taking steroids (the clear and the cream)
>>>in this era. Even if his claims he didn't know what they were are
>>>true, he was still got the benefits of the steroids during that time.

>>No, he didn't "admit" that.  At no point did Bonds ever say he used the
>>clear and the cream.

> http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1937594

let's be clear about what the article above really *does* state.
it states that bonds said that he used a pain-relieving cream.  he
*did not* state that the cream contained steroids.

even if the creams did contain steroids, is it your contention that
there topical creams are what "bulked up" bonds???  if so, YOU'VE GOT
TO BE KIDDING!!!

 
 
 

it's time to stop talking about babe ruth and start talking about BARRY BONDS

Post by jingu » Tue, 28 Aug 2007 01:13:23

Quote:



>>most single season intentional walks 12

> I do not think this number is correct.  It has to be much higher. If he
> has 700 in his career over 20 years he averages 35 a year.

i left off a "0", BARRY BONDS' single season record is 120 intentional
walks.
 
 
 

it's time to stop talking about babe ruth and start talking about BARRY BONDS

Post by jingu » Tue, 28 Aug 2007 01:16:04

Quote:

> Babe Who?

i forgot already, "babe bonds" perhaps?
 
 
 

it's time to stop talking about babe ruth and start talking about BARRY BONDS

Post by jingu » Tue, 28 Aug 2007 01:17:28

Quote:

> Hey troll, in the immortal words of Avlin Dark, "Take a hike, son!"

in a newsgroup about baseball, how is it "trolling" to discuss the great
BARRY BONDS?
 
 
 

it's time to stop talking about babe ruth and start talking about BARRY BONDS

Post by Wooki » Tue, 28 Aug 2007 01:21:49

The Babe was the greatest ball player during his lifetime and Bonds the
greatest baseball player in his time.  They were both great ball players ..
what if Bonds had played in the early 1900's like Ruth did ... where the
only pro sport was baseball .. so arguably the best athletes played
baseball.  Today the best athletes play many sports .. the equipment is so
much better and so are the traveling and the ball parks.  You can't say
Bonds is the best ever .. as the two era's are so far apart that they truly
can't be compared equally.

Besides everyone has been talking about Barry Bonds ... not too sure what
cave you've been in if you hadn't noticed ..STFU

 
 
 

it's time to stop talking about babe ruth and start talking about BARRY BONDS

Post by jingu » Tue, 28 Aug 2007 02:16:23

Quote:

> The Babe was the greatest ball player during his lifetime and Bonds the
> greatest baseball player in his time.

 >

you can't even make the statement that ruth was the greatest baseball
player in his own time because at that time major league baseball was
racially segregated to keep out competition from people who weren't
white.  the only reason that racial segregation was neceassry in the
major leagues was because of the realization that there were good
baseball players who were *not* white.

the case in point was the great josh gibson of the negro leagues (and
other leagues, largely in latin america).  gibson reputedly hit over
1,000 home runs in his career and 89 in one season (BARRY BONDS
recognizes gibson's 89 home runs as being the *real* single-season home
run record).  gibson was legend for hitting towering home runs that
traveled prodigious lengths.

Quote:
> They were both great ball players ..
> what if Bonds had played in the early 1900's like Ruth did ... where the
> only pro sport was baseball .. so arguably the best athletes played
> baseball.  Today the best athletes play many sports .. the equipment is so
> much better and so are the traveling and the ball parks.  You can't say
> Bonds is the best ever .. as the two era's are so far apart that they truly
> can't be compared equally.

of course, there are limitations when it comes to comparing players
across eras.  however, baseball is a sport in which you compete against
players who are trying to prevent you from hitting a home run.  so while
the training techniques are better for hitters (don't know that the bats
have changed much since equipment is regulated by the major league),
the techniques and strategies have also improved for pitchers and
fielders.  so BARRY BONDS' home run record must be viewed as a measure
of how much better he was than his contemporary peers, just like babe
ruth's records are to be viewed as a measure of how he performed against
his contemporaries.  the reason for putting an asterisk beside ruth's
results, however, is due to the fact that he played in segregated
leagues that kept out competition.  the same cannot be said with respect
to BARRY BONDS.

BARRY!!!  BARRY!!!  BARRY!!!  BARRY!!!  BARRY!!!  BARRY!!!  BARRY!!!

 
 
 

it's time to stop talking about babe ruth and start talking about BARRY BONDS

Post by PaulMofAT » Tue, 28 Aug 2007 02:52:32



Quote:

>> The Babe was the greatest ball player during his lifetime and Bonds the
>> greatest baseball player in his time.

>you can't even make the statement that ruth was the greatest baseball
>player in his own time because at that time major league baseball was
>racially segregated to keep out competition from people who weren't
>white.  the only reason that racial segregation was neceassry in the
>major leagues was because of the realization that there were good
>baseball players who were *not* white.

>the case in point was the great josh gibson of the negro leagues (and
>other leagues, largely in latin america).  gibson reputedly hit over
>1,000 home runs in his career and 89 in one season (BARRY BONDS
>recognizes gibson's 89 home runs as being the *real* single-season home
>run record).  gibson was legend for hitting towering home runs that
>traveled prodigious lengths.

>> They were both great ball players ..
>> what if Bonds had played in the early 1900's like Ruth did ... where the
>> only pro sport was baseball .. so arguably the best athletes played
>> baseball.  Today the best athletes play many sports .. the equipment is so
>> much better and so are the traveling and the ball parks.  You can't say
>> Bonds is the best ever .. as the two era's are so far apart that they truly
>> can't be compared equally.

>of course, there are limitations when it comes to comparing players
>across eras.  however, baseball is a sport in which you compete against
>players who are trying to prevent you from hitting a home run.  so while
>the training techniques are better for hitters (don't know that the bats
>have changed much since equipment is regulated by the major league),
>the techniques and strategies have also improved for pitchers and
>fielders.  so BARRY BONDS' home run record must be viewed as a measure
>of how much better he was than his contemporary peers, just like babe
>ruth's records are to be viewed as a measure of how he performed against
>his contemporaries.  the reason for putting an asterisk beside ruth's
>results, however, is due to the fact that he played in segregated
>leagues that kept out competition.  the same cannot be said with respect
>to BARRY BONDS.

>BARRY!!!  BARRY!!!  BARRY!!!  BARRY!!!  BARRY!!!  BARRY!!!  BARRY!!!

It wasn't just steroids, it was HGH.   Barry grew in height, foot
size, and head size.  What a freak.  All for about another 10 million
a year or so that he made more than if he would have just been a
fading ballplayer.  
 
 
 

it's time to stop talking about babe ruth and start talking about BARRY BONDS

Post by Realto Margarin » Tue, 28 Aug 2007 03:53:05


Quote:
>The Babe was the greatest ball player during his lifetime and Bonds
>the greatest baseball player in his time.  They were both great
>ball players ..  what if Bonds had played in the early 1900's like
>Ruth did ... where the only pro sport was baseball .. so arguably
>the best athletes played baseball.

Actually the best athletes eschewed professionalism altogether.
While it might be hard for the modern American mind to fathom, at
one time most Americans looked down at professional athletes.  The
best athletes in Ruth's day were invariably amateurs, or folks like
Jim Thorpe, who were pretending to be amateurs.

Quote:
>Today the best athletes play many sports .. the equipment is so
>much better and so are the traveling and the ball parks.  You can't
>say Bonds is the best ever .. as the two era's are so far apart
>that they truly can't be compared equally.

Since "best ever" only became connected to Baby Bonds after he
started doing steroids, the notion of Baby Bonds being better than
everybody else is easily dismissed.

cordially, as always,

rm

 
 
 

it's time to stop talking about babe ruth and start talking about BARRY BONDS

Post by Realto Margarin » Tue, 28 Aug 2007 03:57:47


Quote:

>> The Babe was the greatest ball player during his lifetime and
>> Bonds the greatest baseball player in his time.
>the only reason that racial segregation was neceassry in the major
>leagues was because of the realization that there were good
>baseball players who were *not* white.

Here's a statement born out of total ignorance.

Quote:
>the case in point was the great josh gibson of the negro leagues
>(and other leagues, largely in latin america).  gibson reputedly
>hit over 1,000 home runs in his career and 89 in one season (BARRY
>BONDS recognizes gibson's 89 home runs as being the *real*
>single-season home run record).  gibson was legend for hitting
>towering home runs that traveled prodigious lengths.

How many did you see?

Quote:
>> They were both great ball players ..  what if Bonds had played in
>> the early 1900's like Ruth did ...

What if Ruth had steroids available?

Who gives a shit?  Ruth won lots of WS.  Bonds won 0.

The point is to be a part of the best team, and not be the best part
of a team.

When you finally learn that lesson, you might have some interesting
insight to add to the debate.

Until then, *** off.

cordially, as always,

rm