Poll: Greatest hitter ever (that went to college)

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by clintl

It's not cheating if there's not a rule against it. And there wasn't a rule against it in baseball until 2004.

That's incorrect. There was a rule in baseball against using illegal substances. As soon as steroids were made illegal they became against baseball rules.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

That's incorrect. There was a rule in baseball against using illegal substances. As soon as steroids were made illegal they became against baseball rules.

And baseball teams supplied illegal substances (greenies), too. (Or at least their trainers did, presumably with management knowledge, if not outright approval). You cannot expect the players to take that seriously when there were no specified penalties, and their own employers were complicit in enabling them to violate it with respect to another illegal, performance-enhancing substance. That's essentially the same thing as not having a rule.

[oykib]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

That's incorrect. There was a rule in baseball against using illegal substances. As soon as steroids were made illegal they became against baseball rules.

Like amphetamines, cocaine, and pot-- oh, and beer in the twenties...

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by clintl

And baseball teams supplied illegal substances (greenies), too. (Or at least their trainers did, presumably with management knowledge, if not outright approval). You cannot expect the players to take that seriously when there were no specified penalties, and their own employers were complicit in enabling them to violate it with respect to another illegal, performance-enhancing substance. That's essentially the same thing as not having a rule.

We can't expect athletes to obey the law?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

We can't expect athletes to obey the law?

Have we ever?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Have we ever?

OJ Simpson says "good point."

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by clintl

And baseball teams supplied illegal substances (greenies), too. (Or at least their trainers did, presumably with management knowledge, if not outright approval). You cannot expect the players to take that seriously when there were no specified penalties, and their own employers were complicit in enabling them to violate it with respect to another illegal, performance-enhancing substance. That's essentially the same thing as not having a rule.

No, it's not. You said there was no rule against it. I pointed out that the statement was incorrect.

Your points in the above post may make things different in your eyes, but the fact remains that they were against baseball rules.

[clintl]

Here's another reason why I think there really wasn't a rule against it (despite that frequently quoted, never enforced rule): management negotiated a new rule with the MLBPA to deal with steroids. Now why would they think they had to do that if they already had an enforceable rule?

The reason - they knew they didn't really have a rule.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Only 5 runs?

On average.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Henderson's post season stats:

.284/.389/.441 5 HRs 20 RBIs 47 Runs 33 SB and 6 CS
14 Postseason series (60 games)

Bonds' post season stats:

.245/.433/.503 9 HRs 24 RBIs 33 Runs 9 SB and 1 CS
9 Postseason series (48 games)

I'll take Barry.

You can quote whatever stats you want, but count the rings. Rickey was the best player, and a dominant post-season force, on teams that won championships. Barry was, until that one year in '02, most famous for laying an egg in the post-season for teams that were disappointing, year after year.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

You can quote whatever stats you want, but count the rings. Rickey was the best player, and a dominant post-season force, on teams that won championships. Barry was, until that one year in '02, most famous for laying an egg in the post-season for teams that were disappointing, year after year.

Count the rings?! I'm sure Bonds wishes he could have the talent of 1989 Oakland and 93 Toronto around him!

As for Bonds 'laying an egg', the fact that there were less than 100 ABs, ie, a small sample size doesn't matter, right (which 'that one year in '02' doesn't demonstrate, right)? Oh, and btw, in the '92 NLCS, Bonds was great with an OBP of .433.

I'll still take Barry.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Count the rings?! I'm sure Bonds wishes he could have the talent of 1989 Oakland and 93 Toronto around him!

As for Bonds 'laying an egg', the fact that there were less than 100 ABs, ie, a small sample size doesn't matter, right (which 'that one year in '02' doesn't demonstrate, right)? Oh, and btw, in the '92 NLCS, Bonds was great with an OBP of .433.

I'll still take Barry.

The playoffs themselves are a small sample size - the sample size argument is useful when trying to evaluate what somebody will do in the future. But in terms of what was done, those sample sizes are absolutely meaningful.

I've been over this argument with other people on other boards, I've pored over the stats of both players, and I stand by my assertion that Rickey is easily the best player of the last 50 years.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The playoffs themselves are a small sample size - the sample size argument is useful when trying to evaluate what somebody will do in the future. But in terms of what was done, those sample sizes are absolutely meaningful.

In terms of what was done is still based on a small sample size. Sample size is NOT just useful in evaluating what someone will do in the future contrary to what you've been told. It is also useful for realizing that the numbers may be an aberration because of the few plate appearances.

I've been over this argument with other people on other boards, I've pored over the stats of both players, and I stand by my assertion that Rickey is easily the best player of the last 50 years.

And I think you are easily off your rocker, especially if you pour over the stats.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

In terms of what was done is still based on a small sample size. Sample size is NOT just useful in evaluating what someone will do in the future contrary to what you've been told. It is also useful for realizing that the numbers may be an aberration because of the few plate appearances.



And I think you are easily off your rocker, especially if you pour over the stats.

I don't POUR over the stats. I PORE over the stats. Sometime look up the won-loss record of Rickey Henderson's teams, before he arrived, while he was there, and after he left. It's really amazing.

If I had a team, I would absolutely hire Rickey Henderson as a coach.

[st.cronin]

dola

It's been firmly established that I AM off my rocker, so that particular taunt affects me not.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I don't POUR over the stats. I PORE over the stats. Sometime look up the won-loss record of Rickey Henderson's teams, before he arrived, while he was there, and after he left. It's really amazing.

If I had a team, I would absolutely hire Rickey Henderson as a coach.

You are nuts if Henderson is your best player of the last 50 years. But lets look over the won-loss record of Oakland before/during/after his first tour of duty (79 to 84). I don't see any real change there. The Yanks from 85-89? Before 85, the Yanks were doing well (91 wins in 1983 for example), and did well during Henderson's stay. They sucked after 1989, but instead of saying it was just because Henderson left, perhaps because Henderson left in a mass exodus of players around the same time including David Winfield and Jack Clark. Also 1988 started the merry go round of managers when from '88 to '90, the Yanks had two managers a season. That may lead to problems. Henderson joined Oakland in 1989. The A's actually won more in 1988 than they would during their years with Henderson, though they did win their one WS with Henderson on the team. He was dealt to the WS defending champions Toronto Blue Jays in mid 1993, and they won it again. He went back to Oakland half a year after he was dealt. He left in 1995 well after the A's went into the toilet (starting in 1993). Then he joined San Diego for a couple of years, where the Pads went to the WS the year after he left. After that he bounced around... most notably was released by the Mets the year they went to the World Series.

So where is this amazing change in record due to Henderson? I've just looked it over and it doesn't exist.

Btw, if you don't care about playoffs being small sample sizes and really think they are that important, what about Ted Williams' .200/.333/.200 in the only WS he was ever in? Does that make him suck?

[Arctus]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I don't POUR over the stats. I PORE over the stats. Sometime look up the won-loss record of Rickey Henderson's teams, before he arrived, while he was there, and after he left. It's really amazing.

If I had a team, I would absolutely hire Rickey Henderson as a coach.

Just out of curiosity, what stats do you consider to be the most important indicators of how good a player is?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Arctus

Just out of curiosity, what stats do you consider to be the most important indicators of how good a player is?

I think you have to be flexible in your understanding of what stats tell you. I don't look at any one thing like ops or obp or runs created. I try to consider the whole story.

To assert that Rickey is better than Barry does not mean I don't think Barry is/was a great player.

But consider this: Bill James ran a simulator where he plugged Willie Mays and Ricky Henderson in the same lineup. When they both batted leadoff, team Henderson had a better record. When they both batted cleanup, team Henderson STILL had a better record. I don't know what that proves.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

But consider this: Bill James ran a simulator where he plugged Willie Mays and Ricky Henderson in the same lineup. When they both batted leadoff, team Henderson had a better record. When they both batted cleanup, team Henderson STILL had a better record. I don't know what that proves.

Cite? After all in his New Baseball Historical Abstract, Mays is ranked 3rd all time. While Henderson? 26th.

Speaking of which in all time LF, Henderson is ranked 4th. BEHIND Barry Bonds. And this was written right after 2000. Also...

I think you have to be flexible in your understanding of what stats tell you. I don't look at any one thing like ops or obp or runs created. I try to consider the whole story.

How about Win Shares? Henderson has 29.43 per 162 games. Bonds had 35.30 per 162 after the 2000 season. In Top 3 and Top 5 seasons, Bonds beat Henderson in Win Shares.

For reference sake, Mays had 34.76 WS per 162.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Cite? After all in his New Baseball Historical Abstract, Mays is ranked 3rd all time. While Henderson? 26th.

Speaking of which in all time LF, Henderson is ranked 4th. BEHIND Barry Bonds. And this was written right after 2000. Also...



How about Win Shares? Henderson has 29.43 per 162 games. Bonds had 35.30 per 162 after the 2000 season. In Top 3 and Top 5 seasons, Bonds beat Henderson in Win Shares.

For reference sake, Mays had 34.76 WS per 162.

It was one of his annuals, no idea which one. He himself said he didn't believe the result meant anything other than that the study was flawed. And I know that all the other numbers that get crunched say this that and the other thing - but I don't care. We all have our preferences and prejudices, this is one of mine. Neither one of us is a major league executive, so it matters not at all.

[st.cronin]

dola

I also think that Sergei Fedorov was better than Steve Yzerman, that Tom Brady is better than Peyton Manning, and that JJ Redick is better than Smush Parker.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Count the rings?! I'm sure Bonds wishes he could have the talent of 1989 Oakland and 93 Toronto around him!

As for Bonds 'laying an egg', the fact that there were less than 100 ABs, ie, a small sample size doesn't matter, right (which 'that one year in '02' doesn't demonstrate, right)? Oh, and btw, in the '92 NLCS, Bonds was great with an OBP of .433.

I'll still take Barry.

Hmm, the 1990 Pirates come to mind. Wait that is the year Pittsburg had the best talent in baseball and got smoked 4 games to 2 by the Reds in the NLCS, Oops. That Darn Jose Rijo, Paul O'Neill, Hal Morris and Mariano Duncan.

Bonds batted .168, zero dingers and 1 RBI for the series. Yeah he is a real winner. That is some of the worst clutch playing available. In case you are curious, Doug Drabek the pitcher also hit .168 for that series.

The Pirates had John Smiley and Doug Drabek pitching that season. Bonilla, Van Slyke, Bonds, Bream, Bell and Lind. The Pirates had more talent than anyone.

Just for note, Bonds hit .148, zero HR and zero RBI in the 1991 NLCS where the talent laden Pirates lost the series to the Braves. Tom Glavine and John Smoltz, the opposing teams pitchers both hit over .200.

In the 1992 NLCS, the year you mentioned as a stand out OBP, he raised that avg. to .261 and actually got 1 dinger and 2 RBI. Still not what you are looking for to win.

If you want to see how a real winner plays in post season and championship games, go check out Pete Rose, George Brett or Paul Molitor's stats.

[clintl]

If post-season stats were a good indicator of player value, Brian Doyle would be in the Hall of Fame.

[Arctus]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I think you have to be flexible in your understanding of what stats tell you. I don't look at any one thing like ops or obp or runs created. I try to consider the whole story.

To assert that Rickey is better than Barry does not mean I don't think Barry is/was a great player.

That's kind of a non-answer, but based on it I can't understand why you wouldn't put a lot of value on Win Shares and/or RC/9.

And yes, they are both truely great players.

[Arctus]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

It was one of his annuals, no idea which one. He himself said he didn't believe the result meant anything other than that the study was flawed. And I know that all the other numbers that get crunched say this that and the other thing - but I don't care. We all have our preferences and prejudices, this is one of mine. Neither one of us is a major league executive, so it matters not at all.

So pretty much the entire basis for your assertion rests on the results of one simulation for which the conclusion was that the study itself was flawed.

I really can't stand Bonds, but his offensive value is clearly significantly better than Henderson's.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by clintl

Here's another reason why I think there really wasn't a rule against it (despite that frequently quoted, never enforced rule): management negotiated a new rule with the MLBPA to deal with steroids. Now why would they think they had to do that if they already had an enforceable rule?

The reason - they knew they didn't really have a rule.

Actually, the problem wasn't the rule, it was testing that they had in the labor agreement. Fehr refused to allow any testing of players. Hell, the problem still is the testing since they don't use blood tests, they only allow urine samples.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Hmm, the 1990 Pirates come to mind. Wait that is the year Pittsburg had the best talent in baseball and got smoked 4 games to 2 by the Reds in the NLCS, Oops. That Darn Jose Rijo, Paul O'Neill, Hal Morris and Mariano Duncan.

Bonds batted .168, zero dingers and 1 RBI for the series. Yeah he is a real winner. That is some of the worst clutch playing available. In case you are curious, Doug Drabek the pitcher also hit .168 for that series.

The Pirates had John Smiley and Doug Drabek pitching that season. Bonilla, Van Slyke, Bonds, Bream, Bell and Lind. The Pirates had more talent than anyone.

Just for note, Bonds hit .148, zero HR and zero RBI in the 1991 NLCS where the talent laden Pirates lost the series to the Braves. Tom Glavine and John Smoltz, the opposing teams pitchers both hit over .200.

In the 1992 NLCS, the year you mentioned as a stand out OBP, he raised that avg. to .261 and actually got 1 dinger and 2 RBI. Still not what you are looking for to win.

If you want to see how a real winner plays in post season and championship games, go check out Pete Rose, George Brett or Paul Molitor's stats.

*Gasp* He did poorly in less than 20 games! Stop the presses! As his wonderful postseason in 2002 shows, small sample sizes are a warning for good reason. If he wasn't a 'clutch' player (leave aside if such thing even existed) then why did he do so good in '02? What, the juice makes you clutch as well!

Speaking of the 1990s Pirates. In the postseason, the only one of the batters you mentioned who had a good series was Bream. Van Slyke hit .208 with 0 HR and 3 RBI. Bonilla? .190 with 0 HR and 1 RBI. Bell? .250 with 1 HR and 1 RBI. Lind? .238 with 1 HR and 2 RBI.

Also, Bonds had a .375 OBP in that series, and was 3rd on the team in the series in that stat (behind Breem and Bell).

And, btw, in '90, it was the Mets who had the most talent in the NL, not the Pirates.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Arctus

So pretty much the entire basis for your assertion rests on the results of one simulation for which the conclusion was that the study itself was flawed.

I really can't stand Bonds, but his offensive value is clearly significantly better than Henderson's.

Out of curiosity, how old are you?

I ask because if anyone followed baseball in the 80s, one of the big stories in the game was Ricky Henderson. While I don't want to make the claim that Henderson was greater than Bonds, I will argue that he had a bigger impact in games than Bonds. Heck, in his prime, Ricky would draw a walk or get a single, and then two pitches later he was on third. Pitchers would go nuts while he was on the base paths.

I'm not saying that Bonds doesn't change the game, he does. But all he affects is his at bat. Henderson affected his at bat, and if he got on, the at bats of the two or three players behind him.

[ISiddiqui]

You do remember that Bonds has over 500 steals, so he wasn't exactly a slouch on the basepaths himself. And I would not argue that Henderson had a bigger impact in games than Bonds.

[Warhammer]

When was the last time Bonds was a great basestealer? I'm not saying he was a slouch, but it is certainly debateable who had the bigger impact in a game. Today, even with Bonds hitting all the homeruns, I don't think he had a greater impact than Henderson did. The crux of the matter though is that it doesn't matter, you'll bring stats about Bonds, I can bring stats about Henderson, yet this is all opinion.

[ISiddiqui]

Well, if you want go in depth into it, get "Baseball Between the Numbers" by the Baseball Prospectus guys. There is a chapter about basestealers. It shows that they have an impact on the defense, but it isn't that big at all and may, over a season, be worth 1 win. Maybe in Henderson's case it was more like 3 wins, but still peanuts.

[Arctus]

I'm 35.

I saw Henderson play in his prime. As I stated earlier Henderson was a truely great player.

I'm not looking to debate the fact of whether Henderson is better than Bonds.

However, I stand my earlier statement that Bonds' offensive value is clearly significantly better than Henderson's.

And I really dislike Barry Bonds.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

When was the last time Bonds was a great basestealer?

1997

I'm not saying he was a slouch, but it is certainly debateable who had the bigger impact in a game. Today, even with Bonds hitting all the homeruns, I don't think he had a greater impact than Henderson did. The crux of the matter though is that it doesn't matter, you'll bring stats about Bonds, I can bring stats about Henderson, yet this is all opinion.

I live in Northern California, so I've seen a lot of both Henderson and Bonds in their prime. Rickey Henderson was no Barry Bonds. The only thing Henderson did better than Bonds was steal bases. Bonds hit for better average, hit for more power, and was the superior defensive player. In fact, in his defensive prime when he was winning his 8 Gold Gloves, Bonds was widely regarded as the greatest defensive left fielder in baseball history. I remember when Bonds came to the Giants in 1993, my reaction to seeing him play that season was that it was the greatest season I'd ever seen a player have. He dominated games in ways Henderson never did, and was the main reason the Giants went from 72 wins to 103 in one season (and did it while Will Clark was having an off-year). I remember thinking during that season, this must have been what it was like to watch Willie Mays every day when he was in his prime. Henderson never had that kind of impact with the A's.

[Huckleberry]

This is all so rude. My thread has been hijacked. Rickey never went to college!!!

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

That's incorrect. There was a rule in baseball against using illegal substances. As soon as steroids were made illegal they became against baseball rules.

The difficulty in enforcing steroid law, as I understand it, especially with cutting edge, marketed as undetectable substances, is that they aren't specifically listed as being illegal. In other words I'm not sure that taking "the Cream" and "the Clear" would have been considered illegal, as I don't think they are specifically controlled substances.

I could be way off, and years behind in the way the legal system addresses these substances, but I'm pretty sure what I described used to be the case...I think I saw it on "Quincy" or something

[JS19]

I still can't believe there is a debate going on over who is better, Bonds or Henderson.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Arctus

So pretty much the entire basis for your assertion rests on the results of one simulation for which the conclusion was that the study itself was flawed.

No. The entire basis for my assertion is the sum total of every baseball game I have ever watched or played in, and my understanding of the statistical record. You are free to disagree, of course.

I've never understood why it's such a big deal when people have differing opinions on who was a better ballplayer. Why is there such a need to convince somebody of your case.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JS19

I still can't believe there is a debate going on over who is better, Bonds or Henderson.

I never really saw many games in which Bonds played except for the 92 NLCS and the 02 (03?) WS. In both those series, Bonds didn't do anything that I thought was extraordinarily special.

Don't get me wrong, he is a great player, but I don't think that he is one of the top 3 players of all time, top 10, sure, but I also put Ricky in my top 10.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I never really saw many games in which Bonds played except for the 92 NLCS and the 02 (03?) WS. In both those series, Bonds didn't do anything that I thought was extraordinarily special.

Maybe if you said the 91 and 92 NLCS, I could see where you were coming from with this Bonds didn't do anything special... but the 2002 World Series?!

Here is Bonds stats for that series (7 games):

BA: .471
OBP: .700
SLG: 1.294
OPS: 1.994
HR: 4
RBI: 6
Runs: 8
BB: 13
K: 3

You must have some MASSIVE standards .

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I never really saw many games in which Bonds played except for the 92 NLCS and the 02 (03?) WS. In both those series, Bonds didn't do anything that I thought was extraordinarily special.

Don't get me wrong, he is a great player, but I don't think that he is one of the top 3 players of all time, top 10, sure, but I also put Ricky in my top 10.

Bonds went 8-for-17 with 4 home runs, two doubles, and 13 walks in the 2002 World Series. He struck out only 3 times and finished with .700 OBP and 1.294 slugging percentage in the seven games. That's a 1.994 OPS.

If that's not anything extraordinarily special then I don't think there's any way to impress you.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by JS19

I still can't believe there is a debate going on over who is better, Bonds or Henderson.

For me they are different kinds of players these days. Back around 1990, they were much more similar in their offerings. But, If I were a major league GM or Manager, I would rather have Henderson on my team (looking at both Bonds and Henderson in their prime). I would just get my power hitting from a different source. Although Henderson in his prime could pull some power when he needed too. My primary buy not only reason is, I like the fact that Ricky is a guy that plays to win. In my opinion Ricky is far more intense and competitive and has a pervasive winning nature about him.