Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Factor in all the intangibles, Ripken. Not just baseball ability. Ripken. You are ****ing out of your ****ing mind. What intangibles are more important than "winning a lot baseball games?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SplashHit25 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Bonds. No question. Greatest hitter of all time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted August 25, 2010 Author Share Posted August 25, 2010 Bonds. No question. Greatest hitter of all time. Lol no. Bonds was very good, but not the greatest of all-time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Lol no. Bonds was very good, but not the greatest of all-time. He's on a very short list...roids or no roids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted August 25, 2010 Author Share Posted August 25, 2010 He's on a very short list...roids or no roids. I'd take Pujols over Bonds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I'd take Pujols over Bonds Tough to argue that. Their HRs are about a push (42-41 Pujols). Pujols has Bonds by about 20 RBIs per season AND about .030 in BA. Bonds has a higher OPS+ by about 10 (181-172) which I can only assume has to do with his higher number of walks per season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Lol no. Bonds was very good, but not the greatest of all-time. He kinda was. Your choices at that level are Bonds, Ruth, Williams, Mantle, Aaron and Gerhig. I wouldn't yell at you for any of them. Pujols is on the short list at the moment. Presuming he does not get hurt, he will be in the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Tough to argue that. Their HRs are about a push (42-41 Pujols). Pujols has Bonds by about 20 RBIs per season AND about .030 in BA. Bonds has a higher OPS+ by about 10 (181-172) which I can only assume has to do with his higher number of walks per season. RBIs are meaningless. I would give Bonds the edge, due to OPS. Bonds was simply always on base. Pujols is otherworldy though. In all honesty, part of me thinks the greatest hitter I've ever seen is Manny. (Do you realize that Manny's worst season of OPS+ is better than Ripken's all time number). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted August 25, 2010 Author Share Posted August 25, 2010 If Bonds wasn't a roider, I think it would be an easier choice. Yeah he put up great numbers before he start juicing, but we don't know how many of his HRs were because of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 If Bonds wasn't a roider, I think it would be an easier choice. Yeah he put up great numbers before he start juicing, but we don't know how many of his HRs were because of that. Everyone was on roids. So...whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 If Bonds wasn't a roider, I think it would be an easier choice. Yeah he put up great numbers before he start juicing, but we don't know how many of his HRs were because of that. Not a bad point, but you're right...we don't know two things: 1) How good he'd be without roids and 2) that Pujols hasn't used them It's not like he was Sammy Sosa and came out of no where. He was one of the best in the game pre-steroids. Even if he kept his 1990s HR pace, he might still be a top hitter of all-time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted August 25, 2010 Author Share Posted August 25, 2010 Not a bad point, but you're right...we don't know two things:1) How good he'd be without roids and 2) that Pujols hasn't used them It's not like he was Sammy Sosa and came out of no where. He was one of the best in the game pre-steroids. Even if he kept his 1990s HR pace, he might still be a top hitter of all-time. 1) True, but without them I feel confident in saying he wouldn't have hit 762 HRs. 2) We don't know that, but he hasn't tested positive and he's consistenly put up 30-40 HRs every year he's been in the league. Pujols' first 10 seasons: 399 HR, 1204 RBI, .333 AVG, 1.052 OPS Bonds' first 10 seaons: 292 HR, 864 RBI, .290 AVG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 i really disagree with dibble about this one, but hes a great color announcer for the nats. he usually has insightful things to say and knows a great deal about pitching and is usually correct on most matters. however, i disagree with his tough guy attitude regarding strasburg. the kid is 22 and has never pitched this much in his life and has some adjusting to go through. dibble can be making these comments when hes 7 years into his career, not 7 weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 1) True, but without them I feel confident in saying he wouldn't have hit 762 HRs.2) We don't know that, but he hasn't tested positive and he's consistenly put up 30-40 HRs every year he's been in the league. Pujols' first 10 seasons: 399 HR, 1204 RBI, .333 AVG, 1.052 OPS Bonds' first 10 seaons: 292 HR, 864 RBI, .290 AVG Yeah, I don't blame you for picking Pujols...just wondering what you'd think if we eventually found out that Bonds first 10 seasons were pure while Pujols' first 10 seasons were aided by HGH or steroids (just that he never was caught). Wouldn't that even the playing field? I think you almost have to throw steroids out the window with any player in this era because we simply have no clue who did it and who didn't. You're right though, Bonds would have fewer HRs without them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 RBIs are meaningless. I would give Bonds the edge' date=' due to OPS. Bonds was simply always on base. Pujols is otherworldy though.In all honesty, part of me thinks the greatest hitter I've ever seen is Manny. (Do you realize that Manny's worst season of OPS+ is better than Ripken's all time number).[/quote'] RBI are meaningless? wow LKB. this is officially the most absurd thing youve ever said. i didnt know producing runs was meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted August 25, 2010 Author Share Posted August 25, 2010 RBI are meaningless? wow LKB. this is officially the most absurd thing youve ever said. i didnt know producing runs was meaningless. I wouldn't say they are meaningless, but I wouldn't put a ton of stock in them. You can only get RBI if people are on base. If no one is on base when you hit HRs or get hits, you're not gonna rack up RBI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 RBI are meaningless? wow LKB. this is officially the most absurd thing youve ever said. i didnt know producing runs was meaningless. Not a LKB defender, but I can assume he meant they are meaningless in terms of comparing two hitters on different teams. RBIs are dependent on opportunity. So, someone with guys who are on base much more often is much more likely to accumulate more RBIs. A better stat might be to look at BA with RISP or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I wouldn't say they are meaningless, but I wouldn't put a ton of stock in them. You can only get RBI if people are on base. If no one is on base when you hit HRs or get hits, you're not gonna rack up RBI. very true, but just because youre on base a lot and get a ton of hits doesnt mean youre producing anything. getting a hit with guys on 2nd and 3rd is much more important than just getting a hit in general. RBI are very situational. hits with RISP is probably my most important stat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Not a LKB defender, but I can assume he meant they are meaningless in terms of comparing two hitters on different teams. RBIs are dependent on opportunity. So, someone with guys who are on base much more often is much more likely to accumulate more RBIs. A better stat might be to look at BA with RISP or something. this is why ryan zimmerman is a juggernaut. the dude has put up 90+ RBIs with nobody batting in front of him. i can only dream of what he could produce with real leadoff batters or #2 batters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SplashHit25 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Lol no. Bonds was very good, but not the greatest of all-time. Only one I would even consider was better would be Willie Mays. But even then, Bonds was better. (notice my screename) I'm a big fan! haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 You are ****ing out of your ****ing mind.What intangibles are more important than "winning a lot baseball games?" I told you before, I'm real biased about this. He was my childhood/teenage sports idol. No one compares. Although Pujols would be my next pick. Stop taking this so seriously. I know there are better players than Ripken, but he's my favorite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 very true, but just because youre on base a lot and get a ton of hits doesnt mean youre producing anything. getting a hit with guys on 2nd and 3rd is much more important than just getting a hit in general. RBI are very situational.hits with RISP is probably my most important stat. Okay, Joe Morgan. Do you also believe that Wins are the most important stat for pitchers? Seriously, this is idiotic. If I hit 1.000 and my teammates hit .000, in your world, I am not a clutch hitter and not very good because I have no RBIs. RBIs are utterly dependent on what others in your lineup are doing. RISP is meaningless as well, because there is no such thing as being a clutch hitter. Generally speaking, close and late stats and batting average with men on base, parallel hitting stats in bases empty situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I told you before, I'm real biased about this. He was my childhood/teenage sports idol. No one compares. Although Puljols would be my next pick. So, grow the **** up. You're 42. Start looking at the world like a rational ****ing human being and not an 11 year old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fullnelson9999 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Yes' date=' you do. Yankee fans think Thurman Munson is the best catcher ever.[/quote']I think you missed the point. Cal played for a divisional rival...he had to be something special to get a standing O. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I looked this up and it appears that Pujols still has the clear edge (.347 vs. .315). I should mention that I got the stats from two different sources so I can't confirm they are both accurate, but the numbers seem in line with their career BAs so it seems reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.