YASNY Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 QUOTE(Shadows @ Feb 17, 2008 -> 12:06 AM) I don't care in the least little bit.. Bonds is the greatest player of all time Bonds couldn't hold Willie Mays' jock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 24, 2008 -> 05:37 AM) Bonds couldn't hold Willie Mays' jock. Among others. Bonds is the greatest of all time, just like the '72 Dolphins are the greatest of all time... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 24, 2008 -> 02:02 PM) Among others. Bonds is the greatest of all time, just like the '72 Dolphins are the greatest of all time... Wait for it. It'll happen ................ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shipps Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 25, 2008 -> 04:16 PM) Wait for it. It'll happen ................ Much to my dismay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 That is actually an argument that has legitimate credence. And it's one that will never end. I'd give the edge to Mays in large part because he played a more demanding position, and because he was the best player in a period that wasn't nearly as good offensively as the one currently. However, Bonds is still the only 500-500 player ever, he's one of a few 40-40 players, he has 8 gold gloves, and, regardless of how they were achieved, nobody in major league history has more home runs than him. And then some will talk about Ruth because he has the highest OPS and OPS+ of all time (in fact, no one is even close to him in OPS+...Teddy Ballgame is next and his 191 just looks miniature next to Ruth's 207). Add to it that he was a pretty damn good pitcher too, and that's another argument. He also didn't face nearly the diversity that's in today's game, both in types of pitches and ethnicities of players, so that's an argument against him. It's fun to talk about, but I don't see this argument being anything close to the '72 Dolphins argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Feb 26, 2008 -> 01:09 AM) That is actually an argument that has legitimate credence. And it's one that will never end. I'd give the edge to Mays in large part because he played a more demanding position, and because he was the best player in a period that wasn't nearly as good offensively as the one currently. However, Bonds is still the only 500-500 player ever, he's one of a few 40-40 players, he has 8 gold gloves, and, regardless of how they were achieved, nobody in major league history has more home runs than him. And then some will talk about Ruth because he has the highest OPS and OPS+ of all time (in fact, no one is even close to him in OPS+...Teddy Ballgame is next and his 191 just looks miniature next to Ruth's 207). Add to it that he was a pretty damn good pitcher too, and that's another argument. He also didn't face nearly the diversity that's in today's game, both in types of pitches and ethnicities of players, so that's an argument against him. It's fun to talk about, but I don't see this argument being anything close to the '72 Dolphins argument. Ruth and Williams put up some all time great numbers, no doubt. But the difference is I have seen both Bonds and Mays play the game. There is not one little iota of a question in my mind as to which one was the better ballplayer. And for good measure, I'll throw another name out there. Roberto Clemente. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Critic Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3271173 More positive tests? According to this story, yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 QUOTE(The Critic @ Feb 29, 2008 -> 02:58 PM) http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3271173 More positive tests? According to this story, yes. Did they actually get access to the 2003 MLB tests? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Critic Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 29, 2008 -> 06:29 PM) Did they actually get access to the 2003 MLB tests? That, I don't know. It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out. Certainly a black eye for baseball to have arguably the greatest hitter and greatest pitcher of their era both under investigation for PEDs and perjury. Doesn't seem to be affecting ticket sales, though, so I'm not sure how much Joe Fan cares. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 QUOTE(The Critic @ Feb 29, 2008 -> 04:37 PM) That, I don't know. It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out. Certainly a black eye for baseball to have arguably the greatest hitter and greatest pitcher of their era both under investigation for PEDs and perjury. Doesn't seem to be affecting ticket sales, though, so I'm not sure how much Joe Fan cares. I think baseball's a bit lucky in that they care but not enough to stop going. The Boo's for Bonds came from everyone outside of S.F. it seemed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 QUOTE(Shadows @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 09:34 PM) Yessssssssss!!!! Still no failed test eat s*** Bonds haters.. Barry is the man!! lol, only took two weeks for this to be exposed as the stupid and ignorant lie it is. We have positive tests in 2001 and 2003 now, if you want to ignore it, fine. But Bonds is not clean, or the man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 QUOTE(Kalapse @ Feb 14, 2008 -> 09:28 PM) Not so fast. It turns out that he didn't fail a test in 2001 after all. It was a typo. Oh ok, he failed BEFORE he broke the record. that makes it sooooo much better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Feb 29, 2008 -> 11:48 PM) lol, only took two weeks for this to be exposed as the stupid and ignorant lie it is. We have positive tests in 2001 and 2003 now, if you want to ignore it, fine. But Bonds is not clean, or the man. oh, but he is the man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.