Reasons why Bonds should be our DH next year

[Fan4Life]

If you want to Konw what I'm trying to say read the article in Baseball Almanac. I posted the link in a reply to Drungo's post. However the question you seem to be asking is, is the distance oa baseball travels a result of the velocity of the pitch in combination to the velocity of the bat swing. Taking into

? account the angel of incidence in the collisionne would think this to be so though I'm no physicist. I'm not claiming Ruth is the greatest hitter of all time (though IMO he is)I am saying he is on record as hitting more verifiable long disatance HR's than Bonds or any other contemporary slugger for that matter. Given the fact that he was obviously in poorer condition and smaller he is truly an athletic anomaly.

Dude.. I was supporting that portion of your comment that another poster was trying to refute...

[mweb]

I would want Gibbons to be traded so that he didnt represent our Team, Our City, or be a Role Model to OUR kids. In that light, answer me this:

Bonds has the O's in the World Series.. You and your 8 y/o son are watching the game, Bonds hit's a Grad Slam and you stand and cheer and perhaps make some comment about how great a player Bonds is...

your son says: "Dad, is that the Barry Bonds I hear about in the news that cheats by doing drugs, treats his teammates poorly, and has a girlfriend even though he is married?"...

You say, "yes son that's him, but the drug part hasn't been proven"

Your son says: "And you cheer for him because you like him?"

And you say: "Well son, I think he is a great baseball player, that's all"

Your son says: "Hmm, so it's ok for me to have girlfriends even though I am married, treat my teamates poorly, and maybe cheat so I can perform better than other playees as long as I am a great baseball player?"

And you say:??

Do you also extend this to music, movies, and tv shows? If a Beatles song comes on that you like, is your son going to think it's ok to do drugs because they did?

[Fan4Life]

Do you also extend this to music, movies, and tv shows? If a Beatles song comes on that you like, is your son going to think it's ok to do drugs because they did?

What is it that you are accusing the Beatles of that I should be noticing?

[mweb]

What is it that you are accusing the Beatles of that I should be noticing?

Think I made it clear: drug use.

[ripkenfan]

I see some irony in your comments and your username. Maybe the Ripken you are a fan of isn't the one that played for us, because he is the exact polar opposite of Bonds and your support of him.

I am a huge fan of Ripken. I am also a huge fan of a winning baseball team (though that winning team has to be the O's. Not a fairweather fan). Go ahead and have your nice guys and stay with a losing team. I hear that Bruce Chen is a really nice guy, so I know you would love to see him taking the mound every 5 days. I will take Bonds and have a winning team.

Truth be told, I have heard some stories about Ripken through other people that may make him look like less of a saint. I don't put a lot of creditibility into that, because of how much people try to shame celebrities and athletes at every chance that they get (media).

The fact is that I am not at the scene of the supposed crime, whatever it may be and am only taking the word of the Media or others. Everyone knows that the media will do or say anything that will create a story. Once again, I am not saying that Bonds is innocent by no means. All I am saying is that until Bonds or any other player that the O's sign tests positive, I will support them. How many times has Tejada been linked to steroids? Yet, I don't hear everyone saying that they aren't going to support the O's as long as he is on the team. The difference between everyone supporting Tejada and supporting Bonds is that Tejada is currently an Oriole, while Bonds isn't. Bottom line is that I support my team, period.

[DrungoHazewood]

Drungo, I don't disagree that there are ways to find out how good the AL was in the 1920's. What's impossible to find out, is how good it would have been if all races and colors had been allowed to play in it back then.

That doesn't matter. What matters is how good it was compared to today, when everyone is allowed to play.

[Fan4Life]

Think I made it clear: drug use.

Ok, well other than the fact that Bonds may break the HR record, I really don't care much that he used Steriods although I would think more of him had he pulled a Giambi and just admitted it... many of the pitchers he faced could be users as well so I don't disparage him just for that... it is that to me, he is a ME ME ME person and a failure in almost every area of life that matters:

His Work and Coworkers

His Wife and Family

I think we have already covered that there are fans that only care about the performance on the field, and other fans that look for more from guys that wear our jersey. Enough said. We arent' going to get anywhere belaboring it..

[El Gordo]

Which would make me question the accuracy of some of the statements about the distances. Common sense tells you that a smaller athlete in worse condition, using worse equipment, should not hit a ball further than the althletes of today. Also, it's just common sense that the pitchers of today, as a group, throw harder, than the general pitcher in the 1920's, which further supports the notion of a ball going further on a faster pitch. All common sense points to sluggers of today hitting the ball farther. The only thing that would make me question it, is the huge bat that Ruth used. Against inferior pitching, he was able to get around on almost any fastball and perhaps the size of the bat would outweight all of those other factors.

Did you read the Jenkinson article? What is your specific opinion of the method of verification that he cites? Do you know if Bonds ever hit a ball 500 ft? Do you deny that Ruth did so at least once?

[El Gordo]

Dude.. I was supporting that portion of your comment that another poster was trying to refute...

I'm not argueing with you I'm ecouraging people to read the article, I think it is interesting. I'm also just using your post to try to clarify what I'm trying to say.There seems to be some confusion.

[Fan4Life]

I'm not argueing with you I'm ecouraging people to read the article, I think it is interesting. I'm also just using your post to try to clarify what I'm trying to say.There seems to be some confusion.

I could see how one would wonder how Ruth did what he did considering all the variables... do we know anything of fatc about how the ball was, whether his bat was made from the same materials that today's bats are made.. etc etc.. I'm sure it is an interesting article.. thanks for the tip.

[Fan4Life]

I still don't understand how you can make a comparison, when you can't factor in all of the available players at that time. You don't know how they would have affected the stats for all of the players who did play. Aren't you using the stats from the 1920's to make a comparison? If we took out all of the black & Latin players from today's game, do you still think the white players would have the same exact stats that they do now?

That's a good cultural question... do we know when they started playing ball professionally in relation to when we did?

[Fan4Life]

Can you clarify? I'm not sure what you're asking?

When the Negro leagues and Latin/Central American countries began playing baseball professionally.. at least with respect to having their own leagues, keeping stats, etc

[DrungoHazewood]

I still don't understand how you can make a comparison, when you can't factor in all of the available players at that time. You don't know how they would have affected the stats for all of the players who did play. Aren't you using the stats from the 1920's to make a comparison? If we took out all of the black & Latin players from today's game, do you still think the white players would have the same exact stats that they do now?

Of course not. But if there was a time when everyone was allowed to play you'd have a reference point to make comparisons.

It's just like if you look at everyone who's played in both the majors and Japan you can use that information to infer what a Japanese player who hasn't played in the majors would do here. Only instead of a handful of players we have data on thousands and thousands.

We have information on what the quality of the league is with blacks and whites and Asians and everyone else. We know how that's changed over time, and how the quality of the players has changed each year. We know how good Ruth was in his time, and from all that we can make a pretty darn good estimate of how he'd do today.

[El Gordo]

Of course not. But if there was a time when everyone was allowed to play you'd have a reference point to make comparisons.

It's just like if you look at everyone who's played in both the majors and Japan you can use that information to infer what a Japanese player who hasn't played in the majors would do here. Only instead of a handful of players we have data on thousands and thousands.

We have information on what the quality of the league is with blacks and whites and Asians and everyone else. We know how that's changed over time, and how the quality of the players has changed each year. We know how good Ruth was in his time, and from all that we can make a pretty darn good estimate of how he'd do today.

Is today's Ruth on juice or hotdogs?

[DrungoHazewood]

I dispute this. It's impossible to know how good Ruth was in his time. It's like taking out all of the black & Hispanics from the 1980's forward. Someone would be saying that Cal Ripken or some other white ballplayer was the best of his time. And that would be false.

You have information on the quality of the league today with blacks, whites, etc. You don't have that information for the 20's. With so much information missing, I don't see how it's a prett darn good estimate. In fact, if you took out all of the Black's, Hispanics, etc. the league would be far inferior today. Unfortunately, I think it's impossible to measure. Or at least I haven't seen anyone attempt it.

The only thing you don't know is how good Josh Gibson and other black (and Japanese and Australian and Guatemalan and South African and Martian) players who were Ruth's peers are.

That's it. Just becasue we don't have good numbers for Gibson and Oscar Charleston doesn't mean you can't have a legitimate argument about who's the best ever. The data available says it's Ruth. You can put up a disclaimer that we just don't know if Gibson and Charleston were better, but I don't think that stops you from saying Ruth is best based on the information that exists.