OT: Bonds, Clemens, Sosa to be on HOF ballot

[Peter_Spaeth]

It is generally a fruitless exercise to compare players across too much separation of time. Suppose if you magically transported Barry Bonds back to the 20s and he was far better than Babe Ruth. So what, it doesn't undermine Ruth's achievements in any way, which can only be evaluated in the context of his time.

I think athletes do generally get better over time -- we have proof of this in the evolution of objective track and swimming records (among others) and I see no reason this wouldn't be true for other competitive sports. But that said, I don't think it matters.

[barrysloate]

Do you know what Babe Ruth's regimen was? He would eat four hot dogs, drink two beers, toss a medicine ball around for fifteen minutes, and then take a schvitz. That's how he kept in shape.

[packs]

Well I work out every day of my life and I can't hit 60 home runs in 151 games or hit 342 lifetime. Guess what? Neither can anyone else even with their fancy trainers, machines, and specialized drugs.

If Ruth had been born in 1964 instead of 1895, and had benifited from a few generations of evolution, better nutrition and training, he would have been 6'7 and 270 pounds and absolutely dominated MLB.

Had Bonds been born in 1895, and utilized that era's approach to nutrition, training, drinking and tobacco-smoking - and had no access to steroids - he might have been one of the top players (maybe a fast Mel Ott) but he probably would have been 5'9 and 150 pounds and might not have hit 500 HRs. Heck, even in the era Bonds played in, he was only a .280 hitter before and after steroids - I know batting average isn't a terribly important statistic anymore, but for someone considered to possibly be the "greatest ever", I think that's a pretty amazing stat (his grand total of 2 HR titles and 1 RBI title are pretty astounding also).

I just don't see how you make any case for Bonds being greater than Ruth. Or Mays. Or Williams. Or Musial. Or Wagner, Cobb and maybe a few others. Stolen bases are, IMO, very overrated; playing great defense in left field is IMO far less important than most other positions; drawing walks is great, but most of those were during the steroids years (and I also believe - because I like conspiracies - that there was an "understanding" among managers during Bonds' last few years to walk him when convenient to try and prevent him from catching Aaron).

[packs]

Ruth would be a monster today. He's a star in any era you put him in. Doesn't matter one bit. The guy out hit two entire leagues. Greatest ever.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Bonds led the league in walks five times before steroids, and had 8 100 RBI seasons.

According to the new win share metric used by Baseball Reference, Bonds is the best left fielder of all time, Ruth is the best right fielder, and Ruth finishes slightly ahead overall.

[packs]

Even with all that cheating Barry couldn't catch The Babe who played 400 less games.

[tschock]

Among other items already mentioned (and apologies if I am repeating anything here)...

1 ) If both hitters AND pitchers juiced, doesn't that again help level the playing field? What about Bonds striking out in the 6th inning from a juiced pitcher who would be a bit more tired/weaker without "the juice"?

2 ) Weren't "greenies" without a prescription illegal?

3 ) Should a player be REMOVED from the HOF for admitting to cheating or taking a banned substance? For example:
A ) Perry for admitting to using the spitter.
B ) Ruth (and others) for consuming alcohol during prohibition.

4 ) And something that has already been mentioned, but IMHO, the most important point. If management knew this was going on and widespread, and ignored it, how can you hold this against the athlete?

I'm not condoning any of the steroid era abuse, but it's easy to look through rose colored glasses when remembering the "good old days". If a player was among the best of his era, steroids alone didn't get him there.

[packs]

If a good player juices he becomes an elite player. If a crappy player juices he can become a horrible major leaguer for a year or two. The playing field would only be leveled in the rare instances an elite juicing pitcher faces an elite juicing hitter.

[novakjr]

Been juicing since the 19th century...
http://www.history.com/news/baseball...ntain-of-youth

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by packs

Ruth would be a monster today. He's a star in any era you put him in. Doesn't matter one bit. The guy out hit two entire leagues. Greatest ever.

HAHA! Thanks for the laugh. A one-dimensional player (outside of pitching because it was full-time, though he was very very good) cannot be "Greatest ever." You could make the argument for greatest hitter ever, but not player, not even close, that belongs to Bonds, or Mays.

[packs]

I don't even know what to say considering Ruth leads or is in the top 5 of every offensive stat you can come up with despite playing significantly less games. If you think hitting 714 home runs while batting 342 lifetime is a one dimensional player I don't know what it takes to be considered great in your opinion.

Ruth leads all players all time in WAR, Offensive WAR and position player WAR. He played 700 less games than Aaron, and 400 less games than Bonds or Mays.

Not to mention he won 20 games in back to back years and has an ERA title. I don't know what one dimensional outside of pitching means.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't even know what to say considering Ruth leads or is in the top 5 of every offensive stat you can come up with despite playing significantly less games. If you think hitting 714 home runs while batting 342 lifetime is a one dimensional player I don't know what it takes to be considered great in your opinion.

Ruth leads all players all time in WAR, Offensive WAR and position player WAR. He played 700 less games than Aaron, and 400 less games than Bonds or Mays.

Not to mention he won 20 games in back to back years and has an ERA title. I don't know what one dimensional outside of pitching means.

He couldn't field, he couldn't run, he didn't have a good glove. That's what it means. Don't get so obsessed with WAR, it's an overrated stat that sabermaticians got hard for.

[packs]

As far as I know leading all players all time in WAR means you are the best player on the field at all times. He was also in the top 5 in fielding percentage as a right fielder every year and is 24th all time in assists. I don't know what you're trying to say about his glove.

[glynparson]

For the overwhelming majority it was not a 365 day a year job, most had to work second jobs because they did not make enough money, this was true of many players even some into the 1950's. This is not supposition but fact and you can choose not to believe it but that does not make it so. You also cant seem to grasp the concept of the minute number of players ruth was able to participate against compared to the globilization of the game. Even with some not playing baseball its borderline racist to not think that the expanding of the game worldwide has not in fact made many baseball players better athletes than in the past. It was also much harder to find all of the best players and many club teams had mlb caliber talent but never got a shot due to never being noticed. It was just a little harder to get around the entire country back then then it is the world today.

[kcohen]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

He couldn't field, he couldn't run, he didn't have a good glove. That's what it means. Don't get so obsessed with WAR, it's an overrated stat that sabermaticians got hard for.

With all due respect, you don't have a freakin' clue what you're talking about. Ruth had an excellent and complete all around game. As for running, you don't hit .342 lifetime if you can't run.

One can only conclude that your source material concerning Ruth is that stupid movie with John Goodman's farcical portrayal.

[Zeusenbauer]

Allowing a known PED user into the Hall would set a dangerous precedent, because if Sosa is in, how could voters logistically keep out stars of the era like Juan Gonzalez or Bagwell? Furthermore, as far as I know the Hall has no policy for removing a person who has already been enshrined, so I suspect the philosophy is to wait a few years to see how this era settles in the minds of the baseball galaxy. Personally, I have come to feel that the great players of the era should be enshrined because I am not willing to wipe out a decade of baseball history because of gaudy stats that don't fall in line with the time periods around them.

This is a Hall of Fame thread, which means individual performance, but I wonder why few people examine the effect PEDs might have had on team standings and even winning pennants and the World Series. Red Sox fans had the catharsis of 2004, and yet Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz have been accused of juicing, and there is no discussion about the authenticity of their team's victory. Is it inconsistent to judge individual players and yet give the teams they played on a pass? 1989 Athletics, what about them?

Baseball fans, and perhaps people in general, seek simple and clear answers, but upon reflection when has baseball ever offered a simple answer to the questions that arise? Every single aspect of and around the game is up for scrutiny, right down to every pitched ball that the hitter doesn't swing at. Strike or ball? It's not clearcut; it's up to the umpire's interpretation, and Livan Hernandez pitched to the most egregiously large strike zone in in the 1997 game that I have ever witnessed. But it's now in the books, forever. Could baseball fans arbitrarily say that Mel Ott should be punished because he hit most of his home runs at a field where an umpire might call 'infield fly rule' on a ball hit to the warning track? Do fans punish Ed Walsh or Burleigh Grimes because they used a pitch that would be eventually deemed 'unfair'? Should Yankee fans feel embarrassed because Jeffrey Maier turned a non-home run into a home run? When fans left baseball after the 1994 strike and said they would never return, well they have their reasons and that is their prerogative. Speaking for myself, I have not and most likely will not leave this game, because the game is beautiful, even though the players and the owners sometimes (often) behave deplorably. How the game was in the Steroid era may not have been (in hindsight) totally permissable, but neither should pre-1947 Major League Baseball be. There is no way to wrap a neat package around this. It's complicated, just like us. Can we possibly conceive in 2012 how we might feel about this PED baseball era in 2062? Is George High Pockets Kelly truly worthy of Hall of Fame enshrinement? He sure has a good nickname though.

Anyway, first post ever. Apologies for the length.

Nat