The Official "756" Thread

...

Re: The Official "756" Thread

...

Re: The Official "756" Thread

Yeah, probably.

...

Re: The Official "756" Thread

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Captain @ Jul 19 2007, 05:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'></div>

Re: The Official "756" Thread

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SBoyd415 @ Jul 19 2007, 08:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I hope you realize he's linked to BALCO as well. Anyone have any predictions as to when he's going to break the record? Here's the upcoming games:Jul 20: @ MILJul 21: @ MIL Jul 22: @ MILJul 23: vs. ATLJul 24: vs. ATLJul 25: vs. ATLJul 26: vs. ATLJul 27: vs. FLAJul 28: vs. FLAJul 29: vs. FLAJul 30: Day OffJul 31: @ LADAug 1: @ LADAug 2: @ LAD</div>Yeah, that's why I disliked him almost as much as Bonds. Only plus is that he's on my team. I never wanted him here in the first place. I like him for now because he's on my team, but once he's gone I'll hate him again.

...

Re: The Official "756" Thread

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SBoyd415 @ Jul 19 2007, 07:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't think I could do that...I either like or dislike a player and it's hard to change. I'll never like Gary Sheffield for the simple fact that he thinks everyone is out to get him and he used to be a Dodger. He's probably one of the biggest clubhouse distractions in the MLB...</div>I hated Sheffield as a Dodger... :no1:

...

Re: The Official "756" Thread

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SBoyd415 @ Jul 19 2007, 11:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Seriously, was this guy liked anywhere? I now know Yankees, Dodgers, and Tigers fans who didn't like the guy while he was there...What did he do as a Dodger?</div>I liked Sheffield on the Yankees. Loves the way he played the game, played it hard and played aggressively and didn't care to share his opinions. One of my favorite MLB players

...

Re: The Official "756" Thread

I dunno what to think about this guy. Sure, he cheated, but he's also pretty much the game's best power hitter even if he hadn't taken steroids

Re: The Official "756" Thread

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SBoyd415 @ Jul 19 2007, 10:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Greatest Player: This is for me, MardyC, & The Captain...(Stats for Barry Bonds as of July 3rd, 2007)::::Barry Bonds - Mickey Mantle - Ted Williams::::AVG: .299 / .298 / .344Runs: 2196 / 1677 / 1789Hits: 2,901 / 2,415 / 2,654RBI's: 1,972 / 1,509 / 1,839HR: 753 / 536 / 5212B: 597 / 344 / 5253B: 77 / 72 / 71TB: 5,905 / 4,511 / 4,884SB: 514 / 153 / 24OBP: .444 / .421 / .482SLG%: .607 / .634 / .557Gold Gloves: 8 / 1 / 0MVP's: 7 / 3 / 2Triple Crown: 0 / 1 / 2All-Star: 14 / 16 / 17World Series: 0 / 7 / 0Final: Bonds 9, Mantle 3, Williams 4Barry Bonds: http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bondsba01.shtmlMickey Mantle: http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mantlmi01.shtmlTed Williams: http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/willite01.shtml</div>All would have been William's if he didn't serve for his country. Even then, Bonds would still have 1000 more at bats.And take away Gold Gloves because there was no such thing when Williams played.

...

Re: The Official "756" Thread

Going to war in the prime of your career is not the same as pulling a hammy and getting to sit on your couch for a couple weeks. Next time Bonds gets his plane shot down and you land in the heart of enemy territoryI'm just making everything even. If Williams got those extra 2000 at-bats, he'd be outdueling Bonds in almost every category.EDIT: And I just noticed it was FIVE years, not two that he missed to war.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>While these absences, which took almost five years out of the heart of a great career, significantly limited his career totals, he never publicly complained about the time devoted to military service. According to the Leigh Montville book, privately Williams was not happy about being pressed into service in Korea, but he did what he felt was his patriotic duty.</div>

...

Re: The Official "756" Thread

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SBoyd415 @ Jul 19 2007, 11:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's unfortunate that Ted Williams missed so many years at war, but there's no way he'd be anywhere near Bonds in HRs, SB's, SLG%, Runs, or MVPs.</div>Williams slg% was higher. Check it again.On the MVP's, I really think Williams got robbed at least 3 or 4 times. Go click through some of the ones where it says MVP - 2 or MVP -3. Pretty much everytime he got beat out by someone from NY who had worse stats. Just a thought.I kinda think runs, stolen bases, and even RBI are only slightly related to hitting, which I thought was the original argument. If we're going into best players overall, we could also add in a Greg Maddux type guy.

Re: The Official "756" Thread

sboyd, no matter if u like barry or not you cant just throw out the fact that 1. williams was serving in the army for two seasons 2. mantle DID play 18 years, yes, but not AS many games a normal person that played 18 years did - and many of those years he could barely run...the dude was a warrior. Bonds has had an incredibly strong body from 35+ because he took steroids...it lets you work out longer and harder without nearly as much fatigue, something guys like mantle (bad knees) and williams would've never been able to do.

Re: The Official "756" Thread

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MaRdYC26 @ Jul 20 2007, 09:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>sboyd, no matter if u like barry or not you cant just throw out the fact that 1. williams was serving in the army for FIVE seasons 2. mantle DID play 18 years, yes, but not AS many games a normal person that played 18 years did - and many of those years he could barely run...the dude was a warrior. Bonds has had an incredibly strong body from 35+ because he took steroids...it lets you work out longer and harder without nearly as much fatigue, something guys like mantle (bad knees) and williams would've never been able to do.</div>Fixed.

Re: The Official "756" Thread

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SBoyd415 @ Jul 19 2007, 11:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Bonds missed all but 14 games in 2005, and not b/c of a "pulled hammy" He had knee surgery and missed almost the whole season...It's unfortunate that Ted Williams missed so many years at war, but there's no way he'd be anywhere near Bonds in HRs, SB's, SLG%, Runs, or MVPs.</div>1. Williams was ahead of Bonds in SLG%. He's 2nd all-time behind Ruth. 2. Runs and stolen bases have nothing to do with hitting. You could say to an extent that MVP's do not either.

Re: The Official "756" Thread

plagiarism :no1:

Re: The Official "756" Thread

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Justice @ Jul 20 2007, 01:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>plagiarism :no1:</div>Hmm?

...

...

Re: The Official "756" Thread

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SBoyd415 @ Jul 20 2007, 03:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Oops, I guess I misread. It doesn't even matter if you take away runs, SBs, and RBI's because Bonds will still win.[...]And Runs, SB's and RBI's are all major categories- I don't think it's fair just to ignore those stats when RBI's and runs especially are a sign of a great hitter...</div>The problem with you saying he "will still win" is that it's a poorly defined system. You arbitrarily decided that gold gloves (which apparently didn't even exist in that time) and MVP awards actually have anything to do with the original point, which was that Bonds is the better hitter (hint: he's not).Stolen bases have absolutely nothing to do with hitting. I think we can all agree on that. RBI's depend on your teammates getting on base and into scoring position. Runs also depend on your teammates. They have to hit you in, or you have to steal home, which I'm sure you know is ridiculously difficult. I'd say that runs have almost nothing to do with hitting except for those you attain off your own homeruns, and RBI's only have some to do with hitting.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SBoyd415 @ Jul 20 2007, 03:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Maddux wouldn't even be worthy enough to be in the same room as a player like Cy Young.Edit: I don't even think Maddux is the best active pitcher right now. No one has anywhere near the control that Maddux does, but I think overall Clemens is a better pitcher.</div>I'm not going to say that either of the other two pitchers you listed are garbage, but Maddux has better ERA than both of them. Clemens only beats him in wins-losses, which really has nothing to do with how great of a pitcher you are (please argue otherwise, please. I'd love to see that). Cy Young was a great pitcher as well, but has a lower ERA. I'd probably give him the bump because he has an insane number of innings, but I think it's impressive that Maddux has such a low ERA in a huge homerun era. Clemens did a great job with that as well (I kinda think he's on 'roids too, though).

...

Re: The Official "756" Thread

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SBoyd415 @ Jul 20 2007, 05:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I stand by the fact that Bonds is a better all-around player and better power hitter. Bonds doesn't hit for a high average like Ted Williams did, but he has produced better numbers despite being on bad teams with average teammates.</div>So it goes from better hitter than Williams, to better player than Williams, to better power hitter than Williams. I'm not discussing fielding, or stolen bases, or world series rings. You said Bonds is a better hitter than Ted Williams, and I disagreed. I never mentioned anything else. This debate is about HITTING.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I hope you're not seriously saying that RBI's and runs are not part of hitting. How do you think Bonds got on base to even be able to steal those bases? He wasn't walked 514 times, so he had to get hits to get on base. If you want to argue about runs being all about your teammates, let's compare Ted Williams notable teammates (Jimmie Foxx (HOF), Doc Cramer, Joe Cronin, Lou Finney, Dom DiMaggio (7-Time All-Star), Bobby Doer, Bob Johnson, Johnny Pesky, Billy Goodman, Frank Malzone, and Pete Runnels) not to mention he was on one of the most dominant teams at that time. Here are some of Barry Bonds' best teammates: (Bobby Bonilla, Andy van Slyke, Matt Williams, Robby Thompson, Jeff Kent, Ellis Burks, J.T. Snow, Moises Alou & Omar Vizquel) There's a reason Bonds doesn't have a World Series ring, and the team around him has a lot to do with it. If you want to compare Jimmie Foxx & Jeff Kent (two best teammates of Bonds & Williams IMO) than be my guest. Williams was on dominant teams throughout his career yet Bonds has the better runs, RBI and SB numbers.</div>RBI's aren't the best tool to rate hitters by. But if you want to, Williams only had 133 less RBI than Bonds, in less at-bats. 133 could be done in one season.Stealing a base has nothing, zilch, zero, nada to do with hitting. Neither do runs. All of that takes place when the bat is out of your hands.Bond's team was just as dominant as Ted's. Both teams never won a World Series, and they both made it to the WS once.

Re: The Official "756" Thread

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SBoyd415 @ Jul 20 2007, 04:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I stand by the fact that Bonds is a better all-around player and better power hitter. Bonds doesn't hit for a high average like Ted Williams did, but he has produced better numbers despite being on bad teams with average teammates.</div>Your argument is that he has better numbers. While he has better cumulative numbers in HR's and SB's, nothing else is that better considering how many more at bats he has. Neither of those categories are team based, so your point about being on bad teams is moot.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SBoyd415 @ Jul 20 2007, 04:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I hope you're not seriously saying that RBI's and runs are not part of hitting. How do you think Bonds got on base to even be able to steal those bases? He wasn't walked 514 times, so he had to get hits to get on base. If you want to argue about runs being all about your teammates, let's compare Ted Williams notable teammates (Jimmie Foxx (HOF), Doc Cramer, Joe Cronin, Lou Finney, Dom DiMaggio (7-Time All-Star), Bobby Doer, Bob Johnson, Johnny Pesky, Billy Goodman, Frank Malzone, and Pete Runnels) not to mention he was on one of the most dominant teams at that time. Here are some of Barry Bonds' best teammates: (Bobby Bonilla, Andy van Slyke, Matt Williams, Robby Thompson, Jeff Kent, Ellis Burks, J.T. Snow, Moises Alou & Omar Vizquel) There's a reason Bonds doesn't have a World Series ring, and the team around him has a lot to do with it. If you want to compare Jimmie Foxx & Jeff Kent (two best teammates of Bonds & Williams IMO) than be my guest. Williams was on dominant teams throughout his career yet Bonds has the better runs, RBI and SB numbers.</div>Bonds doesn't have better RBI numbers when you consider at bats. That's obvious and you know it. Runs is arguable, but it is not an aspect of hitting. I didn't say RBI's are not a part of hitting. I would love to see it quoted where I said that. I said that RBI's entirely depend on your teammates, unless you hit a homerun. It could be used to see who is better in the clutch, but there are better stats for that (if you can find them).There are players that can score after getting a single, and others that cannot after getting a double. The reason is because some are better baserunners than others. Baserunning requires hitting or getting a walk as a prerequisite, but it is not a part of hitting. I see what you're saying, but I disagree entirely as it requires no batting skills to get a stolen base. A player can get a stolen base or a run without even getting a hit. Stolen bases and runs also require your coach to make the call. Williams had comparable triples in 2000 less at bats, so I'd think the guy can run to some extent.This is exactly what CB32 always says. Stats don't tell the whole story, especially when you look at it from such an obstinate point of view. Barry Bonds is your favorite player, so obviously he's the best hitter. You just have to look at it from a completely skewed point of view!<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SBoyd415 @ Jul 20 2007, 04:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not going to argue Maddux vs. Cy Young. There's a pitching award named after the guy for God's sake and he has 511 career wins and a 2.63 ERA vs. Maddux's 340 career wins and 3.07 ERA...</div>There was a Cy Young award before Greg Maddux was born. I never said he was better; I said he deserves note because he's a great pitcher in a longball era.