Official Barry Bonds Countdown Thread

[bottomset]

[ QUOTE ]
Consider the fact that he played 15% of his games versus the Red Sox, and teams were using 4 man rotations, and pitchers threw a lot of complete games, and the impact of a single pitcher in, say, 1921 is several times greater than the impact of a single pitcher today. Infusing 3-4 HoF quality pitchers and maybe 6-10 sometimes-All Star quality pitchers would have certainly made SOME impact on his numbers. What if it cost him 5 HRs a year? Is that a stretch? And maybe 50 pts of OPS? I'm making these numbers up, but are they THAT unreasonable? 5 HR a year = 110 less home runs. 50 pts in OPS puts him at 1.114, which is still a bit over Bonds. I don't think its hard to imagine that these pitchers could have had an even greater impact on Ruth's numbers, but I am by no means saying its a certainty. Obviously, we can never know for sure. I just think its very reasonable that, since Ruth and Bonds are so close, adding in 5 or 6 great black pitchers could have tipped the scale. Ruth would still be amazing, but Bonds is ridiculously good.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if there is data on this, but I imagine that even if you are talking about some sick season like say Pedro 00, you would rather face Pedro with him on 110pitches than the best closer in baseball that year, if I had to guess I think you'd rather face a the #1starter in the 9 when he's >100pitches than league average closer

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
I just think its very reasonable that, since Ruth and Bonds are so close, adding in 5 or 6 great black pitchers could have tipped the scale.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just looked it up, and there are exactly 10 black pitchers in the Hall of Fame whose careers overlapped with Ruth's. Interesting stuff.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Consider the fact that he played 15% of his games versus the Red Sox, and teams were using 4 man rotations, and pitchers threw a lot of complete games, and the impact of a single pitcher in, say, 1921 is several times greater than the impact of a single pitcher today. Infusing 3-4 HoF quality pitchers and maybe 6-10 sometimes-All Star quality pitchers would have certainly made SOME impact on his numbers. What if it cost him 5 HRs a year? Is that a stretch? And maybe 50 pts of OPS? I'm making these numbers up, but are they THAT unreasonable? 5 HR a year = 110 less home runs. 50 pts in OPS puts him at 1.114, which is still a bit over Bonds. I don't think its hard to imagine that these pitchers could have had an even greater impact on Ruth's numbers, but I am by no means saying its a certainty. Obviously, we can never know for sure. I just think its very reasonable that, since Ruth and Bonds are so close, adding in 5 or 6 great black pitchers could have tipped the scale. Ruth would still be amazing, but Bonds is ridiculously good.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if there is data on this, but I imagine that even if you are talking about some sick season like say Pedro 00, you would rather face Pedro with him on 110pitches than the best closer in baseball that year, if I had to guess I think you'd rather face a the #1starter in the 9 when he's >100pitches than league average closer

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant, who would you rather face on 110 pitches, Pedro or Paul Byrd?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just think its very reasonable that, since Ruth and Bonds are so close, adding in 5 or 6 great black pitchers could have tipped the scale.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just looked it up, and there are exactly 10 black pitchers in the Hall of Fame whose careers overlapped with Ruth's. Interesting stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, it is more of an "interesting stuff" than a "HA beat that argument chump!" kind of thing. Its just something to think about and its fun to argue about, and its impossible to settle. All the makings of a good sports debate.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

Lack of expansion also precluded him from facing many pitches who were decidedly less than Hall of Fame quality. I just hear people say that Ruth never played against black players etc., etc., and was just wondering if any of these people take into account the fact that the league was much, much smaller.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great point.

Let's do the math:

We take away 100 homeruns for Ruth having to face black pitchers.

BUT

We add 150 home runs for the resulting expansion. (need to expand the league much sooner than expected, since we only had 16 teams, and all these black guys just showed up, so now we need 30 teams.)

714 - 100 = 614
614 + 150 = 764

Bingo, Bango, Bong...ladies and gentleman, we have a new homerun champ, and his name is George Herman Ruth.

Somebody call ESPN and tell them the chase is back on, the road to 764....Barry is 7 away to tie, 8 to break.....we'll have to get Erin's sweet little ass back on the road, and put the Gents back on TV every night.

And somebody tell Hank thanks for playing, but find out if we can get Goodman to step into character for a spot on the jumbotron.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Right, imagine making an All-Star team this year from only white players, and see how they'd stack up against an average, "integrated" team like, say, the Twins. They'd crush the Twins. Even though they are all white. Now, extrapolate this to two or three or four All-Star White teams and eventually you get to a point where the Twins would win. Its at a number lower than 16, but it makes the point that those teams are still tougher than is implied in "but Ruth played in a weaker all-white league."

[/ QUOTE ]

This begs the question.

Is a 12-team league of the best Asians significantly weaker than a 30-team integrated league?

Using the same logic to lend validity to 714 during an all-white 16 team league, should lend validity to 868 during a mostly 12 team Asian league?

Is 2007 MLB that much more different compared to 1930's MLB than 1930's MLB is compared to 1980 NPB?

Is the real issue here not Bonds or Ruth, but instead "A-Rod chasing the Oh...the road to 868"?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Right, imagine making an All-Star team this year from only white players, and see how they'd stack up against an average, "integrated" team like, say, the Twins. They'd crush the Twins. Even though they are all white. Now, extrapolate this to two or three or four All-Star White teams and eventually you get to a point where the Twins would win. Its at a number lower than 16, but it makes the point that those teams are still tougher than is implied in "but Ruth played in a weaker all-white league."

[/ QUOTE ]

This begs the question.

Is a 12-team league of the best Asians significantly weaker than a 30-team integrated league?

Using the same logic to lend validity to 714 during an all-white 16 team league, should lend validity to 868 during a mostly 12 team Asian league?

Is 2007 MLB that much more different compared to 1930's MLB than 1930's MLB is compared to 1980 NPB?

Is the real issue here not Bonds or Ruth, but instead "A-Rod chasing the Oh...the road to 868"?

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't begging the question, its illustrating the fact that playing in a 16 team league is harder than playing in a 30 team league, and playing in an integrated league is harder than playing in an all-white league, and that these two things come into conflict in the person of Babe Ruth. IOW, even if you COULD figure out exactly the impact that black players would have on Ruth, you could not factor in 100% of this impact, since you'd have to subtract the expansion effects. It is just like you did above, but with less sarcasm and condescension. You seem to be making the argument that since we cannot do it PERFECTLY, and since we cannot figure out exactly what numbers to add and subtract in each case, that the entire discussion is stupid and illegitimate and a waste of time. This seems to be lazy, black/white thinking, IMO. Why can't you use some subjective judgment to determine a reasonable impact black players would have had, a reasonable impact the hundred-fold increase in the available player pool would have had, and the impact of 14 more teams, and get some subjective impression of what this does to Ruth's numbers? The fun part is, you can't be wrong.

[MuresanForMVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We're seeing major reduction in the African-American population in baseball. In post-integration pre-expansion, we had a ridiculous amount of players for almost HALF the teams we have today.

[/ QUOTE ]

What role does the latino infusion play in this?

Oh sorry....I mean..."DEY TOOK ER JABS!!!"

[/ QUOTE ]


I just wrote this quote to my friend. For using this in the discussion I give RedBean + 1 million points hahaha

[SL__72]

The Japanese league is somewhere between our AAA and MLB according to Clay Davenport.

/edit in 2002.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
It is just like you did above, but with less sarcasm and condescension. You seem to be making the argument that since we cannot do it PERFECTLY, and since we cannot figure out exactly what numbers to add and subtract in each case, that the entire discussion is stupid and illegitimate and a waste of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Careful with the ax, Eugene. I'm not intending to be sarcastic or condescending. I'm being dead serious.

Can we apply the same reasoning to the 12 team NBL made up of mostly Asians? Dead serious question.

[ QUOTE ]
This seems to be lazy, black/white/yellow thinking, IMO

[/ QUOTE ]

See what I did there? Do you see what I did right there?

[ QUOTE ]

Why can't you use some subjective judgment to determine a reasonable impact black players would have had, a reasonable impact the hundred-fold increase in the available player pool would have had, and the impact of 14 more teams, and get some subjective impression of what this does to Ruth's numbers? The fun part is, you can't be wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

I did all that. I think Ruth may have hit more than 714, about 764. Dead serious.