Barry Bonds became all-time HR leader with 756th on August 7, 2007...

[edjr 5,572]

7 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Barry Bonds

• Slash line (stage 1): .313 / .439 / .614 - 1.053 OPS (142 HR) / 33.8 WAR
• Slash line (stage 2): .349 / .559 / .809 - 1.368 OPS (209 HR) / 47.3 WAR

In both stages, he won multiple MVP's.  Stage 1, he won twice and 4 times in stage 2.  Why those two parts of his career?  Well, in one of them, he was in what is considered a players "prime" and in the other one, he was in what is considered a players "twilight years".  You'd assume that Stage 1 is his "twilight years" and Stage 2 is his "prime"... but no, Stage 1 was his age 26 to 29 years and Stage 2 was his 36 to 39 years.  Players do NOT get that much better at that stage in their career.  If you don't think steroids was THE REASON he compiled those numbers, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

Sammy Soser hit 14 HR at the age of 36 and was out of baseball the next year.

Mike McGwire his 25 HR at the age of 37 and was out of baseball the next year
 

Bonds hit 28 HR at the age of 42.  Were his steroids better than everyone else's?

[TBayXXXVII 2,124]

10 minutes ago, edjr said:

 

Sammy Soser hit 14 HR at the age of 36 and was out of baseball the next year.

Mike McGwire his 25 HR at the age of 37 and was out of baseball the next year
 

Bonds hit 28 HR at the age of 42.  Were his steroids better than everyone else's?

I think context is also important.  Sosa wasn't really as good of a hitter as Bonds was to being with.  In age 26 to 28, Sosa's slash line was .263 / .320 / .511 with a 13.2 WAR, Bonds had a slash line of .313 / .442 / .606 with a 27.9 WAR.  I mean, the starting point does matter.  The same can be said about McGwire.  McGwire was NOT a very good hitter at all, he was a pure power hitter. At age 26 to 28, McGwire's slash line was .234 / .362 / .485 with 13.4 WAR.  Bonds was clearly twice the hitter (literally), that Sosa and McGwire were.

That said, I think it's obvious that the stuff Bonds was using was clearly better than what Sosa and McGwire used.  Sosa's body was clearly breaking down at an earlier age, as was McGwire's.  I don't see how that can be disputed.  Bonds' never really did.  I mean, you do realize that there isn't only 1 kind of anabolic steroid, right?

[edjr 5,572]

1 minute ago, TBayXXXVII said:

That said, I think it's obvious that the stuff Bonds was using was clearly better than what Sosa and McGwire used.

  stop

[TBayXXXVII 2,124]

3 minutes ago, edjr said:

  stop

I'm willing to bet I know a lot more about steroids than you do.  The topic of my thesis to get my masters was on anabolic steroids.  You're being very close minded if you think that there's a 1-size fits all kind of steroid.

[edjr 5,572]

4 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I'm willing to bet I know a lot more about steroids than you do.  The topic of my thesis to get my masters was on anabolic steroids.  You're being very close minded if you think that there's a 1-size fits all kind of steroid.

it has nothing to do with Bonds being great to begin with, working harder and longer at the gym. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,124]

2 minutes ago, edjr said:

it has nothing to do with Bonds being great to begin with, working harder and longer at the gym. 

That's not what you replied to.  You clearly were commenting on the steroids.

So, you're switching gears, that's fine.  Steroids enhance what you already have, it doesn't give you gifts that you never did.  I already stated that Bonds was a better to being with.  In my very first post in this thread, I said that if Bonds just let his career progress normally, he'd be in the Hall of Fame.  He was a great player.  That said, no one on this planet can do what Bonds did, naturally.  People don't get better in the mid-late 30's than they were in their mid-late 20's.  It doesn't happen.  Ever.  Unless you're artificially enhancing yourself... which all 3 of these guys did.

Yes, to his credit, Bonds did work harder than the other guys.  To circle back to the prior comment, it's clear that the stuff that Bonds had was clearly a better product than what Sosa and McGwire.  Bonds had scientists working on the stuff he was taking.  Sosa got his stuff from back alley suppliers in the Dominican Republic.  McGwire was using a generic prescribed anabolic steroid.  None of them were using the same thing.  To give an analogy, Bonds had Filet mignon, McCwire had a T-bone, and Sosa had Salisbury steak.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,670]

If you don’t know why a base hit and a walk are different, you really need to ask someone. Base hits are better. Full stop. 

[TimmySmith 2,782]

5 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

If you don’t know why a base hit and a walk are different, you really need to ask someone. Base hits are better. Full stop. 

10 ABs

1.  HR<HR<HR<HR<HR<S<S<S<S<S = OPS  3.500

2.  HR<HR<HR<HR<HR<3B<3B<3B<3B<3B = OPS  4.200

3.  HR<HR<HR<HR<HR<W<W<W<W<W = OPS  5.000

Joke Stat.

 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,670]

15 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

10 ABs

1.  HR<HR<HR<HR<HR<S<S<S<S<S = OPS  3.500

2.  HR<HR<HR<HR<HR<3B<3B<3B<3B<3B = OPS  4.200

3.  HR<HR<HR<HR<HR<W<W<W<W<W = OPS  5.000

Joke Stat.

 

Hits produce more runs than walks. Runs is what it’s all about. Nice example of that right here. 

[edjr 5,572]

1 hour ago, TimmySmith said:

10 ABs

1.  HR<HR<HR<HR<HR<S<S<S<S<S = OPS  3.500 

2.  HR<HR<HR<HR<HR<3B<3B<3B<3B<3B = OPS  4.200

3.  HR<HR<HR<HR<HR<W<W<W<W<W = OPS  5.000

Joke Stat.

 

do you even math bro?

a walk is worth 1, not 4.

 

1.  HR<HR<HR<HR<HR<S<S<S<S<S = OPS  3.500 

2.  HR<HR<HR<HR<HR<3B<3B<3B<3B<3B = OPS  4.200

3.  HR<HR<HR<HR<HR<W<W<W<W<W = OPS  2.500

Unless you're saying W is a win?

 

[edjr 5,572]

59 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Hits produce more runs than walks. Runs is what it’s all about. Nice example of that right here. 

you're an even bigger assclown for not realizing how wrong he is

[Hardcore troubadour 12,670]

1 minute ago, edjr said:

you're an even bigger assclown for not realizing how wrong he is

Maybe.  But hits produce more runs than walks. Hits are better. They drew it up that way and it’s still true. 

[edjr 5,572]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

Maybe.  But hits produce more runs than walks. Hits are better. They drew it up that way and it’s still true. 

in today's MLB walks are more important than singles. The deeper in the count, the more pitches a pitcher throws.  There are times when a single is better, sure. But overall walks are more important. facts are facts.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,670]

2 minutes ago, edjr said:

in today's MLB walks are more important than singles. The deeper in the count, the more pitches a pitcher throws.  There are times when a single is better, sure. But overall walks are more important. facts are facts.

 Can’t  get a single after five pitches and a walk after four? Come on man. 

[edjr 5,572]

2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

 Can’t  get a single after five pitches and a walk after four? Come on man. 

Can you walk on 1, 2 or 3 pitches? 

[posty 2,296]

edjr won this thread...

[Hardcore troubadour 12,670]

11 minutes ago, edjr said:

Can you walk on 1, 2 or 3 pitches? 

You can walk on zero pitches. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,670]

I’ve never seen anyone drive in two runs with a walk. That happens all the time with a single. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,670]

I have seen a walk result in allowing the infield to play back and setting up the double play. Hits are better than walks. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,670]

I see pitchers pitch around a hitter all the time. Giving him the base. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,124]

1 hour ago, edjr said:

do you even math bro?

a walk is worth 1, not 4.

 

1.  HR<HR<HR<HR<HR<S<S<S<S<S = OPS  3.500 

2.  HR<HR<HR<HR<HR<3B<3B<3B<3B<3B = OPS  4.200

3.  HR<HR<HR<HR<HR<W<W<W<W<W = OPS  2.500

Unless you're saying W is a win?

 

No, he is right, you're wrong.  Walks don't count as an at-bat, so for #3, the AB's would be 5, not 10.  SLG is total bases divided by at-bats.  So in this scenario, it's 20/5 which is 4.  The OBP is 1 because this batter was on base all 10 plate appearances (as the same with the other two).  So, OPS is SLG (4) + OBP (1) = 5.

 

Though, his math is wrong on his second scenario, but not enough to disprove his point.  The correct number is 4.500, not 4.200.

 

ETA:  Actually, how did you even get 2.5?  If you count the walks as an at-bat, then you'd have a SLG of 20/10 which is 2, plus the 1 for OBP being 3.000, not 2.500.  If you counted the walk as a total base, then you'd have 25/10... which is 2.500, but when you add the 1 for the OBP, you'd end up with 3.500 (which is a single).  What math did you use to get to 2.500?

[posty 2,296]

29 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

I’ve never seen anyone drive in two runs with a walk. That happens all the time with a single. 

Even with no one on base, each single plates two runs?

[TimmySmith 2,782]

6 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

No, he is right, you're wrong.  Walks don't count as an at-bat, so for #3, the AB's would be 5, not 10.  SLG is total bases divided by at-bats.  So in this scenario, it's 20/5 which is 4.  The OBP is 1 because this batter was on base all 10 plate appearances (as the same with the other two).  So, OPS is SLG (4) + OBP (1) = 5.

 

Though, his math is wrong on his second scenario, but not enough to disprove his point.  The correct number is 4.500, not 4.200.

Yeah #2 is wrong. You are right.

ED needs a tutorial on PA vs AB.

 

 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,670]

5 minutes ago, posty said:

Even with no one on base, each single plates two runs?

Of course not. But why is a walk better than a hit in your scenario? 

[TBayXXXVII 2,124]

5 minutes ago, posty said:

Even with no one on base, each single plates two runs?

When situations are identical, a single will drive in more runs than a walk, over time.  I think this is common sense.  I think that's the point he's making.

 

If there's a runner on 1st and the batter gets a single, the runner on first can end up on 3rd... with a walk, he's on second.

If there's a runner on 2nd and the batter gets a single, the runner on first can end up scoring - but at worst is on 3rd... with a walk, he's still on second.

If there's a runner on 3rd and the batter gets a single, the runner on first will score... with a walk, he's still on third.

If the bases are loaded and the batter gets a single, at least 1 run will score, maybe 2 and possibly have runners on 1st and 3rd... with a walk, the bases are still loaded and only 1 run can score.

 

In every scenario, the hit will likely yield better results than the walk.  In no instance will a walk yield better results than a hit.

[posty 2,296]

1 minute ago, TBayXXXVII said:

When situations are identical, a single will drive in more runs than a walk, over time.  I think this is common sense.  I think that's the point he's making.

I know, but that isn't what he stated...

Either way, the object is to get on base and a walk fits the bill...

[TBayXXXVII 2,124]

1 minute ago, posty said:

I know, but that isn't what he stated...

Either way, the object is to get on base and a walk fits the bill...

No, the object is score runs.  Runs win you games, not base runners.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,670]

Just now, TBayXXXVII said:

No, the object is score runs.  Runs win you games, not base runners.

Exactly. Why keep score if it’s not about runs? 

[edjr 5,572]

2 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

No, the object is score runs.  Runs win you games, not base runners.

Does a single score a run with no one on base?  stop it already.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,670]

Just now, edjr said:

Does a single score a run with no one on base?  stop it already.

Does a walk? 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,670]

And I don’t know how anyone can say Bonds is the GOAT when Ruth beats him in nearly every category but Hr’s, with many more at bats, and steals. Ruth has the highest WAR of all time.  20 points higher than Bonds. 

[edjr 5,572]

Who bats 1st in a lineup? a guy with a good average, or a guy with a good OBP?  Why is that? 

[edjr 5,572]

2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

And I don’t know how anyone can say Bonds is the GOAT when Ruth beats him in nearly every category but Hr’s, with many more at bats, and steals. Ruth has the highest WAR of all time.  20 points higher than Bonds. 

did Ruth play against black players? latino players?  The white dudes he did play against, were dudes that went to deliver milk after the game.  Talk about your fake stats. Babe Ruth was a joke

[TBayXXXVII 2,124]

2 minutes ago, edjr said:

Does a single score a run with no one on base?  stop it already.

As I said just a post earlier...

"When situations are identical, a single will drive in more runs than a walk, over time.  I think this is common sense."

"In every scenario, the hit will likely yield better results than the walk.  In no instance will a walk yield better results than a hit."

[TBayXXXVII 2,124]

4 minutes ago, edjr said:

Who bats 1st in a lineup? a guy with a good average, or a guy with a good OBP?  Why is that? 

The guy with the better OBP, because his job is to get on base.  His job isn't to knock in runs.  If you noticed, there aren't too many guys in the H.O.F. for walking a lot as a leadoff hitter.  Most leadoff hitters in the H.O.F. are guys who hit for a high average and/or stole a lot of bases.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,670]

5 minutes ago, edjr said:

did Ruth play against black players? latino players?  The white dudes he did play against, were dudes that went to deliver milk after the game.  Talk about your fake stats. Babe Ruth was a joke

Oh, I thought we were talking about ALL TIME. My bad.  But it’s blasphemy if steroids are mentioned. Checks out. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,670]

 Barry Bonds is the GOHT. Greatest of his time. 20 years. I can get with that.  

[edjr 5,572]

4 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Oh, I thought we were talking about ALL TIME. My bad.  But it’s blasphemy if steroids are mentioned. Checks out. 

Steroids were less than an advantage than playing against carpenters and milk men. 

When you played during a time, when dudes had to stop playing to defend the country in a war. you figure that out.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,670]

3 minutes ago, edjr said:

Steroids were less than an advantage than playing against carpenters and milk men. 

When you played during a time, when dudes had to stop playing to defend the country in a war. you figure that out.

Ruth didn’t play during ww2.  But Ted Williams did, Korea too. DiMaggio and Willie Mays also lost time due to serving their country. All better than Bonds. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,670]

There were twice as many teams when Bonds player than Ruth. Dilution of talent. Ruth played against the best of his time.