Wow Babe Ruth won his 7th MVP award!!! Thats incredible considering he's been dead for at least 50 years. Bonds is a great player, but not the greatest, maybe even not top ten greatest. Remeber he's playing in an era of inflated stats and inflated players and for some reason can't avoid those accusations either. This award needs to go back to its roots and rotate it around, thats the reason Ruth didn't win the award year in and year out. As for most valuable to a team this award rarely goes to the actual most valuable. some exceptions include Larkin in 95 or gibson in 88, those players didn't have the prettiest stats, but were certainly the most valuable players to those teams.

615266[/snapback]

 

Not top-ten greatest? :blink: WTF?

 

Nostalgia is nice and all, but let's be honest, I'd take this year's Devil Rays over the 1927 Yankees if we're talking a time machine series. Babe Ruth and Co. never dreamed of facing a pitcher with the velocity of Dewane Brazelton or a lefty with the filthy-stuff of Scott Kazmir. The Babe would sit there and take three strikes from Kazmir, swing weakly at maybe the third one, and walk back to the dugout muttering about not being able to see the ball.

 

Here's the thing, any player from this era is greater than any player from a past era. Hell, Andy Fox could be sent back to the '20s and be a HOF calibre player. And it's not just baseball.

 

You think Bob Cousy could guard Allen Iverson?

 

Shaq in the '70's? Scarier than now.

 

Peter Forsberg, a healthy Pavel Bure, Ilya Kovalchuk. If they played in the 30's or 40's we'd be talking about them as the greatest ever.

 

Athletes today are simply better prepared physically, nutritionally, and mentally to play. Scouting and stretching to excess isn't just for the coaches to have a piece of mind, it's for the players to better themselves.

 

Sure, Babe Ruth dominated his time in a manner similar to or greater than what Barry is doing now, but Bonds is beyond question the greatest of all time. If he were stuck in a time machine and sent back to Ruth's era, he may hit 250 HR's (or one for every at bat he's given with a pitch to hit).

 

And to say it's debateable that he's in the top-ten, I want you to name ten (with a convincing argument for each).

615288[/snapback]

 

I usually like your posts, but this is possibly the dumbest post I've ever read on this site. Take away Barry Bonds' helmet, elbow armor, and tiny little bat and give him the bats players in that era hit with and lets see how good he is. Mark McGwire said he couldn't hit anything with Ruth's bat when he swung it one time. If McGwire couldn't swing it, Bonds sure as hell would be too weak to use it.

 

If you were going to use a time machine and give equal equipment to each side, Ruth would still be a MUCH better player than Bonds could ever dream about. You can't leave one team with sorry 1920s equipment and allow today's teams to have current equipment. The 1927 Yankees would kill the Devil Rays if you gave each team equal equipment.

 

Your statement about pitching is also flawed. If you gave the old era pitchers as much rest as today's guys get, they'd pitch much better and have more velocity throughout the season. If today's pitchers had to pitch as many games and innings as pitchers did in Ruth's era, their velocity and effectiveness would drop like the stock market during the Great Depression.

Wrong title! Bonds is not the best of all time. However, Bonds deserves the 05 MVP.

Wow Babe Ruth won his 7th MVP award!!! Thats incredible considering he's been dead for at least 50 years. Bonds is a great player, but not the greatest, maybe even not top ten greatest. Remeber he's playing in an era of inflated stats and inflated players and for some reason can't avoid those accusations either. This award needs to go back to its roots and rotate it around, thats the reason Ruth didn't win the award year in and year out. As for most valuable to a team this award rarely goes to the actual most valuable. some exceptions include Larkin in 95 or gibson in 88, those players didn't have the prettiest stats, but were certainly the most valuable players to those teams.

615266[/snapback]

 

Not top-ten greatest? :blink: WTF?

 

Nostalgia is nice and all, but let's be honest, I'd take this year's Devil Rays over the 1927 Yankees if we're talking a time machine series. Babe Ruth and Co. never dreamed of facing a pitcher with the velocity of Dewane Brazelton or a lefty with the filthy-stuff of Scott Kazmir. The Babe would sit there and take three strikes from Kazmir, swing weakly at maybe the third one, and walk back to the dugout muttering about not being able to see the ball.

 

Here's the thing, any player from this era is greater than any player from a past era. Hell, Andy Fox could be sent back to the '20s and be a HOF calibre player. And it's not just baseball.

 

You think Bob Cousy could guard Allen Iverson?

 

Shaq in the '70's? Scarier than now.

 

Peter Forsberg, a healthy Pavel Bure, Ilya Kovalchuk. If they played in the 30's or 40's we'd be talking about them as the greatest ever.

 

Athletes today are simply better prepared physically, nutritionally, and mentally to play. Scouting and stretching to excess isn't just for the coaches to have a piece of mind, it's for the players to better themselves.

 

Sure, Babe Ruth dominated his time in a manner similar to or greater than what Barry is doing now, but Bonds is beyond question the greatest of all time. If he were stuck in a time machine and sent back to Ruth's era, he may hit 250 HR's (or one for every at bat he's given with a pitch to hit).

 

And to say it's debateable that he's in the top-ten, I want you to name ten (with a convincing argument for each).

615288[/snapback]

 

I usually like your posts, but this is possibly the dumbest post I've ever read on this site. Take away Barry Bonds' helmet, elbow armor, and tiny little bat and give him the bats players in that era hit with and lets see how good he is. Mark McGwire said he couldn't hit anything with Ruth's bat when he swung it one time. If McGwire couldn't swing it, Bonds sure as hell would be too weak to use it.

 

If you were going to use a time machine and give equal equipment to each side, Ruth would still be a MUCH better player than Bonds could ever dream about. You can't leave one team with sorry 1920s equipment and allow today's teams to have current equipment. The 1927 Yankees would kill the Devil Rays if you gave each team equal equipment.

 

Your statement about pitching is also flawed. If you gave the old era pitchers as much rest as today's guys get, they'd pitch much better and have more velocity throughout the season. If today's pitchers had to pitch as many games and innings as pitchers did in Ruth's era, their velocity and effectiveness would drop like the stock market during the Great Depression.

617258[/snapback]

 

We're debating two different things now, but here it goes:

 

1) The McGwire comments actually are more of a condemnation of Ruth than a complement. Read between the lines, Mark "Lumberjack" McGwire wasn't saying he couldn't swing the bat, what he was saying was that he didn't see how anyone could get enough bat-speed or get around on a hard inside fastball swinging a 60 oz bat. What this boils down to is that because today's pitchers throw harder (which is absolutely true) bats have to be lighter to allow players to make better contact. Also, if we were to give the '27 Yankees and the D-Rays equal equipment, I'd still say the D-Rays win simply because if there's an aspect that's unquestionably improved, it's the quality and velocity of pitching. Quite frankly, they couldn't ever be prepared for Kazmir or Brazelton's velocity.

 

2) Jack McKeon actually commented on the pitching thing at the beginning of ST this season. Basically, he said that today's pitchers could go on the "old system" of pitching and be fine, but he said that it would be harder on anyone currently in the majors simply because throughout their development in the minors, the new rest system (and pitch counts) was ingrained in their head. Also, what the pitchers during Ruth's era were doing could hardly be compared to now. There's a reason pitchers were able to go on 1 and no days rest some times, there wasn't as much torque on their arm because they weren't throwing as hard, nor were they pitching as strategically. Basically, every tape I've seen of baseball before 1940 involves the pitcher basically putting the same velocity of pitch in the strikezone, giving the batter a chance to hit. And it was like this quite a bit early on, many pitchers felt their only job was to get the ball to the batter, so their fielders could do the job behind them. It wasn't until later that pitchers actually "thought" about the strikeout, most of the time, the strikeout just came.

 

Baseball has changed so much since then that I really think it's laughable to suggest that the old era could (athletically) hold a candle to this era. Hell, Tim Raines had quite a telling comment from the year he retired. He said (because he was discussing the Marlins young pitching) something to the extent of "when I was coming up, if a guy threw 88-90 we'd say 'he's a hard thrower, step up and get around on him quickly' now, if he's throwing 88-90 it'd be like 'stay back and wait on it.'" That gives you an interesting perspective on how much baseball has changed in two decades, can you imagine the changes in eight?

 

Nostalgia is wonderful, and I'm not devaluing the effect or the "greatness" of any past player, but a lot of the mystique around these guys is that we've never seen them play or only heard about their legends. Fourty years from now, if baseball is still as popular as it is today, McGwire and Bonds will live with this same legendary lore and be put in the same breath historically, and without issue, as Ruth, Mays, and Aaron. Appreciate the present because we are seeing, right now, the greatest to ever play the game.

Swift,

 

The players in that day had little choice regarding equipment. Technology has allowed for selecting better wood and making bats that can be lighter and not break like a twig. If you give Babe Ruth today's players' bats, he'd easily be able to get around on any fastball. You want to compare today's players with the old era and stick them with the same equipment. When you do that, your entire point is flawed. Stick Bonds back in that era with no helmet, no pads, and a bat that is almost twice as heavy as his and see how he does. His nuts would shrivel up into his throat. He wouldn't be able to hold Babe Ruth's jockstrap. Hell, give Bonds a bigger bat like McGwire's and his numbers would drop by quite a bit. To think he could do what Ruth did in that era is hilarious to me. Bonds didn't become a great power hitter until he magically grew to twice his old size and, when he did that, he became a shelf of his formerself in all non-hitting aspects of baseball. He's the best player of today's era, but he is no Babe Ruth.

good points Nirvana...i dont see Bonds Or McGuire being able to bat with a 60oz. bat back in the 20's 30's...but i know for sure that the Babe would be able to hit today with a lighter bat cause he would be able to get the bat around on the inside heat..the Babe not only was a great power hitter,he was also a great for Ave. hitter....

MVP=THE BEST PLAYER ...just because a player doesnt make the playoffs doesnt mean what he did during the year is worthless....there has been a bunch of guys that won the MVP with there teams not making the playoffs and thats because they were the best...

615230[/snapback]

 

Newsflash...MVP doesn't not equate with best player

 

I love how people bring up the fact that Bonds didn't take steriods because his stats didn't slump...yet every other tie Bonds has with steriods is somehow washed away. Entertaining how alot of people think that they are such experts in this subject as to endorse the opinion that had Bonds stopped taking steriods all of sudden his production would fall tremendously. This guy has been a client of BALCO for how long? He's one of the hardest conditioning players in the game, do you really think that his performance will decline that rapidly assuming he dropped steriods heading into last season?

 

The Feds have tapes and memos in which BALCO officials ranging from Conte, to the VP, to Anderson all have testified that they gave supplied Bonds with steriods.

 

I could understand some Giants homer being skeptical about whether or not he took steriods, but what I can't understand is how anyone with any bit of intelligence could even try to argue strongly that he didn't.

good points Nirvana...i dont see Bonds Or McGuire being able to bat with a 60oz. bat back in the 20's 30's...but i know for sure that the Babe would be able to hit today with a lighter bat cause he would be able to get the bat around on the inside heat..the Babe not only was a great power hitter,he was also a great for Ave. hitter....

617586[/snapback]

 

If a Nole and Gator agree, we know it must be true.

 

 

 

 

One more point I forgot to add for Swift. You claim that today's fireballers throw about 10 MPH different. Here is a challenge I have for you. Go out and get two bats and have one roughly twice as heavy as the other. Go to the batting cage and get two machines 10 MPH difference. Use the heavy bat against the slower pitching and the lighter bat against the faster pitching. Come back and tell me which is harder to hit. You'll have a new respect for Babe Ruth then.

 

That doesn't even include the fact he had to concentrate on not being hit in the head or elbow with no protection. Make Barry have that element and he'll be bailing out of a lot more pitches.