This Week in Baseball 7/30 - 8/5

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Wes Helms? (Former Brewers 3B now playing for the Phillies)

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Wes Helms? (Former Brewers 3B now playing for the Phillies)

Helms is 2nd on the Brewers' single season 3B list. Tommy Harper hit 31 home runs in 1970, 26 while playing third base. Helms hit 23 home runs in 2003. That of course ignores the problem that they said Milwaukee, in which case the top ten are all seasons Eddie Mathews had with the Milwaukee Braves.

 

It's an awful question. Are you asking what current Phillie holds the non-existant record? Is it the record for home runs hit WHILE a Phillie in Milwaukee? Is it a Milwaukee player who hails from Philadelphia?

 

I noticed this a few days ago when they asked about Pirates hitting home runs from both sides of the plate. They got their list from Baseball Almanac which is incomplete, as Orlando Merced had pulled the trick as well (their answers were Bobby Bonilla and Dale Sveum). I hate when they get things wrong on the trivia question.

[Bruiser Chong 0]

This last week has sure made me dislike the Phillies. Adam Eaton is atrocious.

[World's Worst Man 0]

That may be true, but it doesn't make it right. Bonds's record-tying and breaking home runs should go down in history as being totally unaccepted by the baseball public. Of course, the Booyahs still maintain that he's "innocent until proven guilty," as if the testimony never happened: I was told that during a recent Giants-Dodgers game, Chris Berman tried to spin a "Barry sucks" chant into being directed toward Barry Zito. You've gotta be kidding.

Czech's a good guy to respond to in these discussions. The presence of performance enhancing drugs is unfortunate. The problem is that Bonds is hardly alone in their use. He is singled out because of his accomplishments, but their are many other players in the game who took advantage of PEDs, everyone's favorite players possibly among them. MLB needs to do what they can to eliminate PEDs, but I've never been quite comfortable vilifying the players that used them in the past.

 

Fans need to remember that the home run record is just a number. It says nothing more than that Barry Bonds hit 755 home runs in Major League Baseball games. It does not make Bonds the greatest home run hitter of all time, more than Hank Aaron had the honor before.

 

And World's Worst Poster, it is hardly a stretch to ask whether Barry Bonds is the greatest player of all time.

 

Yea actually it is a stretch, unless you live in Bonds' dream world where he is perfectly clean. And even if you did, Ruth's numbers are still inarguably better, and if you want to point to Bonds' speed and defense in his pre-roid career, I'll point to Ruth being a high-end pitcher earlier in his. Good dig though, especially since you really did absolutely nothing to support your claim.

[Bruiser Chong 0]

Didn't Ruth cork his bat?

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

That may be true, but it doesn't make it right. Bonds's record-tying and breaking home runs should go down in history as being totally unaccepted by the baseball public. Of course, the Booyahs still maintain that he's "innocent until proven guilty," as if the testimony never happened: I was told that during a recent Giants-Dodgers game, Chris Berman tried to spin a "Barry sucks" chant into being directed toward Barry Zito. You've gotta be kidding.

Czech's a good guy to respond to in these discussions. The presence of performance enhancing drugs is unfortunate. The problem is that Bonds is hardly alone in their use. He is singled out because of his accomplishments, but their are many other players in the game who took advantage of PEDs, everyone's favorite players possibly among them. MLB needs to do what they can to eliminate PEDs, but I've never been quite comfortable vilifying the players that used them in the past.

 

Fans need to remember that the home run record is just a number. It says nothing more than that Barry Bonds hit 755 home runs in Major League Baseball games. It does not make Bonds the greatest home run hitter of all time, more than Hank Aaron had the honor before.

 

And World's Worst Poster, it is hardly a stretch to ask whether Barry Bonds is the greatest player of all time.

 

Yea actually it is a stretch, unless you live in Bonds' dream world where he is perfectly clean. And even if you did, Ruth's numbers are still inarguably better, and if you want to point to Bonds' speed and defense in his pre-roid career, I'll point to Ruth being a high-end pitcher earlier in his. Good dig though, especially since you really did absolutely nothing to support your claim.

 

Actually, in the book Baseball Between the Numbers they do an in-depth comparison on the careers of Ruth and Bonds, adjusting for era, ballparks, etc. They weight all of their contributions on the field, including their offense, defense and Ruth's pitching. They conclude that they are damn near equal in their accomplishments with maybe the slightest of an edge to Ruth. It is not a stretch by any means to consider Bonds the greatest player of all time.

 

In addition to his home runs record, it will be hard for anyone to touch his 7 MVPs, single season walk record and career walk record. He's had a brilliant career unmatched by anyone in his era. We may suspect steroids (and do have some proof) but that is no reason to disqualify all that he has accomplished in his briliant career.

[World's Worst Man 0]

I don't see how Ruth's numbers are comparable to Bonds when you take into account the era that he played in. If anything, they are more impressive due to the fact that no one who came before him was putting up even close to the numbers he was. I've also often heard that ballparks in that era were a fair bit larger than they are today. Maybe that was before or after Ruth, I don't know.

 

Steroids absolutely are a reason to disqualify the guy, especially when there's such a sharp contrast between his "careers". If two players put up equal numbers (which isn't the case here, but it's just an example), and one of them is a proven steroid user, I'm calling the other guy the better player. There's a reason why steroid users are DQed in the Olympics or other events. It provides obvious advantages in certain areas.

 

If Bonds numbers didn't so sharply ramp up after his steroid use, then maybe there's a case for him. But his numbers early in his career, while impressive, were not going to put him into the "best ever" debate. That's why I don't think he should even be considered.

[Guest •]

Al, while many players may have been on federally banned steroids, we know Bonds was. As for the rest, their time will come.

 

Cheech: "may suspect"? It's right there! He said he did! Just because the testimony was leaked doesn't mean he didn't say it.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Working on the Bonds/Ruth debate, meanwhile the Phillies are back!

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I don't see how Ruth's numbers are comparable to Bonds when you take into account the era that he played in. If anything, they are more impressive due to the fact that no one who came before him was putting up even close to the numbers he was. I've also often heard that ballparks in that era were a fair bit larger than they are today. Maybe that was before or after Ruth, I don't know.

 

In Ruth's era batting averages were 22 points higher, OBP 31 points higher and slugging percentages were 9 points lower. Overall Ruth's era was better for offense than today.

 

Steroids absolutely are a reason to disqualify the guy, especially when there's such a sharp contrast between his "careers". If two players put up equal numbers (which isn't the case here, but it's just an example), and one of them is a proven steroid user, I'm calling the other guy the better player. There's a reason why steroid users are DQed in the Olympics or other events. It provides obvious advantages in certain areas.

 

If Bonds numbers didn't so sharply ramp up after his steroid use, then maybe there's a case for him. But his numbers early in his career, while impressive, were not going to put him into the "best ever" debate. That's why I don't think he should even be considered.

 

If you bring steroids into the discussion, the debate is going to be framed by your personal beliefs and there is no use in trying. You're not going to change someone's mind and there is little concrete evidence to go on.

 

The Barry Bonds argument is fueled by the fact that in two seasons, he broke the single season OBP record. Steroids or not, those statistics resulted in real wins for his team. Bonds in 2004 was perhaps more valuable at the plate than any player in history. There are a few points in Bonds' favor in the discussion. One, the quality of play is remarkably higher in this era. The league in general is tougher, with players coming from a greater segment of the population, better structured to ensure the best players are in the majors, etc. In Ruth's time you could find dozens of players in the Pacific Coast League just as qualified to play MLB. Second, Ruth was an average fielder at best while Bonds won eight gold gloves. Third, Bonds aged better than Ruth. You can argue steroids for Bonds in that regard, but regardless Ruth was not in playing shape in his late 30s.

 

Ruth was probably better than Bonds overall. But Bonds entered the debate the last few years, and blasting McCarver and Buck for simply entering a popular debate is a stretch.

[Mik 0]

I think that anyone who won't even listen to an argument in relation to the greatness of Bonds just clings onto the steroids factoid like a little teddy bear and won't even bother thinking about it critically.

 

Bonds is the best player of this era and my life time, and it's not even a question.

 

It's not like Barry was the only player taking steroids. Countless HUNDREDS of players, both positional and pitchers were doing the exact same thing, if not much worse, and none of them even sniffed Barry's stratosphere.

[TheDevilAndGodAreRagingInsideMe 0]

Gold Gloves are (a) extremley subjective. Once somebody gets one or two, they seem to automatically get them for years on end. Not saying this in Bonds' particular case, but Gold Glove awards are a very bad way of comparing these two. And (b) when were they introduced? I doubt they had them in Ruth's era. That's like marking against Cy Young for not winning any Cy Young Awards. Ruth was such a good hitter that they couldn't afford to not convert him into a postion player. There wasn't a DH until the 1970's.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Bonds is an amazing player, but he's a total jerk as a person, and I'm not going to like him just because he's hit a lot of dingers. He hasn't been through one-hundredth of the crap Hank Aaron had to go through while going for Ruth's record. The steroid factor doesn't have much to do with it for me.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Gold Gloves are (a) extremley subjective. Once somebody gets one or two, they seem to automatically get them for years on end. Not saying this in Bonds' particular case, but Gold Glove awards are a very bad way of comparing these two. And 9b) when were they introduced? I doubt they had them in Ruth's era. That's like marking against Cy Young for not winning any Cy Young Awards. Ruth was such a good hitter that they couldn't afford to not convert him into a postion player.

Gold gloves did not exist in Ruth's era of course. For most of his career he was an average fielder, not a liability. His defense did become problematic late in his career, especially in those last months with the Boston Braves. What's interesting about Ruth's defense is that he usually moved to left field on the road. He couldn't do that in Yankee Stadium because of Death Valley, so he played right there.

[World's Worst Man 0]

In Ruth's era batting averages were 22 points higher, OBP 31 points higher and slugging percentages were 9 points lower. Overall Ruth's era was better for offense than today.

 

Interesting. I guess Ruth's career 207 OPS+ means more than I originally thought (compared to Bonds' 182).

 

If you bring steroids into the discussion, the debate is going to be framed by your personal beliefs and there is no use in trying. You're not going to change someone's mind and there is little concrete evidence to go on.

 

The Barry Bonds argument is fueled by the fact that in two seasons, he broke the single season OBP record. Steroids or not, those statistics resulted in real wins for his team. Bonds in 2004 was perhaps more valuable at the plate than any player in history. There are a few points in Bonds' favor in the discussion. One, the quality of play is remarkably higher in this era. The league in general is tougher, with players coming from a greater segment of the population, better structured to ensure the best players are in the majors, etc. In Ruth's time you could find dozens of players in the Pacific Coast League just as qualified to play MLB. Second, Ruth was an average fielder at best while Bonds won eight gold gloves. Third, Bonds aged better than Ruth. You can argue steroids for Bonds in that regard, but regardless Ruth was not in playing shape in his late 30s.

 

Ruth was probably better than Bonds overall. But Bonds entered the debate the last few years, and blasting McCarver and Buck for simply entering a popular debate is a stretch.

 

I'm not contesting the quality of Bonds' numbers, just the credibility of them. To me, it'd be like arguing that Ben Johnson was the best sprinter in history after his 9.79 at the '88 Olympics, steroids be damned. Steroids are a fairly significant, unfair advantage that Bonds has enjoyed, and that precludes me from ever giving him the credit that his numbers would normally confer.

 

It's not like Barry was the only player taking steroids. Countless HUNDREDS of players, both positional and pitchers were doing the exact same thing, if not much worse, and none of them even sniffed Barry's stratosphere.

 

Where are the legitimate accusations and evidence that point to hundreds of players taking PEDs? Just assuming that there are hundreds of players on the juice with absolutely no evidence is pretty god damned stupid and counter productive. And it still doesn't mean anything when comparing Bonds to guys who played before anabolic steroids even existed. Maybe you should start thinking critically before whining at others to do so.

[TheDevilAndGodAreRagingInsideMe 0]

Were there any individual awards in those days? Bonds has 7 MVPs, but that doesn't stack up with Ruth who didn't have the opportunity to win any.

[Guest •]

I think that anyone who won't even listen to an argument in relation to the greatness of Bonds just clings onto the steroids factoid like a little teddy bear and won't even bother thinking about it critically.

It's not a factoid. It's a fact. A factoid is a piece of speculation reported as fact*. That Bonds used banned substances is a fact.

 

*"Factoid" is misused every day on Headline News and the like as "a small fact."

 

 

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Were there any individual awards in those days? Bonds has 7 MVPs, but that doesn't stack up with Ruth who didn't have the opportunity to win any.

There were awards but they weren't the same as today. Ruth won the MVP in 1923 for example. Why didn't he win another? Because the voting rules at the time excluded prior award winners from winning.

 

 

[Bruiser Chong 0]

Can someone please explain how Jose Mesa continues to not only find work, but find work on contending teams?

[Bored 0]

It is hardly laughable to contend that hundreds of players during the past 20 years have at one point or another used some form of PEDs. There was no testing and almost no chance of getting caught. Hell you'd be almost stupid to not have used them.

 

On the subject of MVPs if they had given out the award through Ruth's entire career and under the current rules (in the 20's you couldn't win the award more than once thus why Ruth only won it 1923) it could be assumed Ruth would have won the award at least six or seven times, possibly as many as ten times. Per Win Shares he was the MVP nine times.

[Guest •]

I know that steroids were widespread for some time, but how many users can we identify by name?

[World's Worst Man 0]

Perhaps, but that's hundreds of players during the "last 20 years" who have "at one point or the other" dabbled in the PEDs. It's not quite on the same level as Bonds or Sosa magically gaining 50 pounds of muscle over a year or two and then hitting inflated numbers of home runs. It's also not worth throwing out accusations when most of these players have never even been linked to steroids. Otherwise you can just say everyone is on the steroids, because who really knows right?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

It is hardly laughable to contend that hundreds of players during the past 20 years have at one point or another used some form of PEDs. There was no testing and almost no chance of getting caught. Hell you'd be almost stupid to not have used them.

 

On the subject of MVPs if they had given out the award through Ruth's entire career and under the current rules (in the 20's you couldn't win the award more than once thus why Ruth only won it 1923) it could be assumed Ruth would have won the award at least six or seven times, possibly as many as ten times. Per Win Shares he was the MVP nine times.

At a glance I'd say Ruth wins in 1920, '21, '23, '26, and 1928. Voters then wouldn't have known about OBP or OPS, and Slugging was a novelty stat. Batting titles were extremely important. 1922 would probably have been George Sisler (.420 batting average for a Browns team that barely missed the pennant). 1924 perhaps Goose Goslin, who led the league in RBIs. 1927 they give it to Gehrig who had a higher batting average and more RBIs. 1929-31 they probably bypass Ruth for the Philadelphia A's.

[Bored 0]

Barry Bonds

Jose Canseco

Gary Sheffield (even if he thinks steroids only go in the BUTT)

Jason Giambi

Rafael Palmeiro

Ken Caminiti

Benito Santiago

Bobby Estalella

Armando Rios

Jason Grimsley

Wally Joyner

David Segui

Matt Lawton

Alex Sanchez

 

That's all I got off the top of my head and doing a quick search of the lesser name players named in the BALCO case (the three former Giants listed besides Bonds).

[Guest •]

Okay, so there they are. Everything else is speculative (though the book will be out on Sosa sooner or later). Bonds is not "innocent until proven guilty" like ESPN says. He said he took steroids.

[Bored 0]

I think Randy Velarde was also mentioned in the BALCO case at some point. Forgot Juan Rincon and Rafael Betancourt both had positive tests. Middle relievers love the juice.

[v.2 0]

Barry Bonds

Jose Canseco

Gary Sheffield (even if he thinks steroids only go in the BUTT)

Jason Giambi

Rafael Palmeiro

Ken Caminiti

Benito Santiago

Bobby Estalella

Armando Rios

Jason Grimsley

Wally Joyner

David Segui

Matt Lawton

Alex Sanchez

 

That's all I got off the top of my head and doing a quick search of the lesser name players named in the BALCO case (the three former Giants listed besides Bonds).

 

And that's just Balco. Benoit had at least two doctors so far that they've busted since his death. So how many times do we have to multiply that factor out before we start getting into the cheap end of Mexico.

[Guest •]

Okay, enough of that. What do the Minnesota Twins need to do, outside of winning almost all their remaining games against the Tigers, Indians, and White Sox, to win the Central? They're 4.5 back right now, and Mike Piazza has cleared waivers. Is that a trade worth trying to make?

 

Oh, and could the Dodgers please stop sucking? I don't like the idea of the Diamondbacks making the postseason. Imagine if they met the Astros in the NLCS: Generic White Guy Showdown. Quien es mas blanco: Conor Jackson or Lance Berkman? Eric Byrnes/Hunter Pence?

[Bruiser Chong 0]

Look at the wind blowing out at Wrigley. Bold prediction: this one's decided by the bullpens.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

For Bored when he does the next thread. Throw Mythbusters in on the schedule. 9pm ET Wednesday they are tackling the National Pastime.