Greatest Leftfielder of All Time

[tycobb420]

KalineCountry[/color]]This is why I try to never get into arguments about players that were caught or implied to do ped's etc.

Fans/posters like them for varied reasons. I can and try to respect that.

I just won't pick them on my all time teams or best ever.
Manny, McGwire, Bonds, A-Rod, or any other player that is caught, admitted, or implied.

Great players with or without, but 'for Me' the code of baseball is to "play the game to the best of your natural ability".

and it doesn't make me think any less of any poster that likes and stands up for these players.

I am often amazed at the loyalty Bonds gets outside of San Fran. The guy was a jerk to fans and an ass most of the time in the media. Yet, people cling to him like a herpes virus. If it were Jeter or someone like that, I could understand. It may come down to people refusing to be let down even though in their hearts they know he cheated. So, they rationalize it away.

 

[tycobb420]

PS: I doubt rightfield will get this contentious! lol I am probably most looking forward to the left handed pitcher vote...

 

[tigers99888]

I have a hard time comparing guys from different generations. Back when Williams played it was a different game with inferior athletes.

I don't think many of today's players would last long back then. The game was tougher. They'd go home crying to mama. Many of the greats would be great in any era. Bob Feller or Walter Johnson are still going to throw around 100 MPH. Ted Williams is still going to be able to turn on a fastball. On the other hand, someone like Bonds is not going to be able to go to bat with a wuss pad. Roger Clemens is not going to be able to take 5 days off to be at home. Guys are not going to be able to take a day off for a hang nail.

The problem with this statement is that Walter Johnson didn't throw 100 mph.. The high heat in that era was 90 mph at best..

 

[jimrice]

For the record, I dislike Bonds. But, I'm judging by the numbers. If it was favorite left fielder, I'd pick Rice.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Rice was a great ball player.

 

[Rebbiv]

Baseball is unique to other sports. Football, the field dimensions are the same wherever you play. Same in basketball and hockey.

Ebbets Field 1931 (Brooklyn Dodgers)

LF = 384 ft (9.9 ft wall)
CF = 461 ft (9.9 ft wall)
RF = 296 ft (9.0 ft wall)
backstop = 64 ft

Navin Field 1931 (Tiger Stadium)

LF = 367 ft (5 ft)
CF = 464 ft (5 ft)
RF = 367 ft (5 ft)
backstop = 54 ft

Connie Mack 1931 (Phillies)

LF = 334 ft (12 ft wall)
CF = 468 ft (20 ft wall)
RF = 331 ft (34 ft wall)
backstop = 90 ft


Griffith Stadium 1931 (Senators)

LF = 407 ft (12 ft)
CF = 422 ft (30 ft)
RF = 320 ft (30 ft)
backstop = 61 ft

Comiskey 1931

LF = 362 ft (12 ft)
CF = 450 ft (15 ft)
RF = 362 ft (12 ft)
backstop = 98 ft

Fenway (1931)

LF = 318 ft (25 ft)
CF = 468 ft (8.7 ft)
RF = 325 ft (5 ft)
basckstop = 68 ft

Yankee Stadium (1931)

LF = 301 ft (4 ft)
CF = 487 ft (13.8 ft)
RF = 295 ft (3.75 ft)
backstop = 82 ft


Most ballparks early on favored lefthanded power hitters, which IMHO, makes Jimmie Foxx' 534 career HRs a little more special, but even his home stadiums (Connie Mack and Fenway) was more accommodating to right hand hitters.

Now, thrown in the fact that gloves were about 1/3 - 1/2 the size of today's gloves and you add another element. How many more "hits" would have been outs with today's gloves.

Certainly, players are physically different today. But other factors are just as important, IMHO, and is why judging players in baseball from different eras more difficult. Keep in mind, outfielders had to play deeper back in the day and more hits dropped in front. Also, once they did get by, with 400 feet or more from the power alleys to center, triples and inside-the-park HRs happened more frequently. There were almost no such thing as ground rule doubles in some ballparks. Not just because of the distance to the wall, but the height (20 or more feet).

 

[tycobb420]

I don't think many of today's players would last long back then. The game was tougher. They'd go home crying to mama. Many of the greats would be great in any era. Bob Feller or Walter Johnson are still going to throw around 100 MPH. Ted Williams is still going to be able to turn on a fastball. On the other hand, someone like Bonds is not going to be able to go to bat with a wuss pad. Roger Clemens is not going to be able to take 5 days off to be at home. Guys are not going to be able to take a day off for a hang nail.

The problem with this statement is that Walter Johnson didn't throw 100 mph.. The high heat in that era was 90 mph at best..

I have seen interviews with old timers that claim he threw harder than anyone they have seen save Nolan Ryan.

 

[tycobb420]

Baseball is unique to other sports. Football, the field dimensions are the same wherever you play. Same in basketball and hockey.

Ebbets Field 1931 (Brooklyn Dodgers)

LF = 384 ft (9.9 ft wall)
CF = 461 ft (9.9 ft wall)
RF = 296 ft (9.0 ft wall)
backstop = 64 ft

Navin Field 1931 (Tiger Stadium)

LF = 367 ft (5 ft)
CF = 464 ft (5 ft)
RF = 367 ft (5 ft)
backstop = 54 ft

Connie Mack 1931 (Phillies)

LF = 334 ft (12 ft wall)
CF = 468 ft (20 ft wall)
RF = 331 ft (34 ft wall)
backstop = 90 ft


Griffith Stadium 1931 (Senators)

LF = 407 ft (12 ft)
CF = 422 ft (30 ft)
RF = 320 ft (30 ft)
backstop = 61 ft

Comiskey 1931

LF = 362 ft (12 ft)
CF = 450 ft (15 ft)
RF = 362 ft (12 ft)
backstop = 98 ft

Fenway (1931)

LF = 318 ft (25 ft)
CF = 468 ft (8.7 ft)
RF = 325 ft (5 ft)
basckstop = 68 ft

Yankee Stadium (1931)

LF = 301 ft (4 ft)
CF = 487 ft (13.8 ft)
RF = 295 ft (3.75 ft)
backstop = 82 ft


Most ballparks early on favored lefthanded power hitters, which IMHO, makes Jimmie Foxx' 534 career HRs a little more special, but even his home stadiums (Connie Mack and Fenway) was more accommodating to right hand hitters.

Now, thrown in the fact that gloves were about 1/3 - 1/2 the size of today's gloves and you add another element. How many more "hits" would have been outs with today's gloves.

Certainly, players are physically different today. But other factors are just as important, IMHO, and is why judging players in baseball from different eras more difficult. Keep in mind, outfielders had to play deeper back in the day and more hits dropped in front. Also, once they did get by, with 400 feet or more from the power alleys to center, triples and inside-the-park HRs happened more frequently. There were almost no such thing as ground rule doubles in some ballparks. Not just because of the distance to the wall, but the height (20 or more feet).

and the rules have changed. One historian estimates Ruth would have had a 100 homer season under today's rules, but lost homers because of rule changes.

 

[tycobb420]

Williams leads with 9 votes. Bonds-4. Five others with a vote. Seeing some love for Ed Delahanty.

 

[beez]

See thats what frustrates me though. I don't even like Bonds, I'm just saying throw an asterisk by it if you want but just looking at what he did on the baseball field over his career he was one of the top players of all time without question to me. Mark McGwire getting ANYTHING over Bonds is a joke so I guess thats enough discredit to the AC team as you could get. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that would make me believe MM was a better player than Bonds. Not even in the same league.

 

[tycobb420]

See thats what frustrates me though. I don't even like Bonds, I'm just saying throw an asterisk by it if you want but just looking at what he did on the baseball field over his career he was one of the top players of all time without question to me. Mark McGwire getting ANYTHING over Bonds is a joke so I guess thats enough discredit to the AC team as you could get. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that would make me believe MM was a better player than Bonds. Not even in the same league.

Different positions. MM was a 1b and BB is an OF.

 

[beez]

Wow..is he really the best 1B? Thats a serious question....I have to imagine McGwire only has like a .270 avg for his career, I know he hit some bombs but man...

 

[Mitchrapp]

I guess in the 1990's they had. Is Bonds a great player because of what he did late in his career or was he great before that? The answer is probably both but when I'm asked about how good he was I go only with his numbers from before roids. Which wasn't top 5 but a hell of a player. Imagine if Griffey was a roid user, never got hurt - he'd be the one we'd be talking about and would probably have better numbers than Bonds.

 

[beez]

Mitch[/color]]I guess in the 1990's they had. Is Bonds a great player because of what he did late in his career or was he great before that? The answer is probably both but when I'm asked about how good he was I go only with his numbers from before roids. Which wasn't top 5 but a hell of a player. Imagine if Griffey was a roid user, never got hurt - he'd be the one we'd be talking about and would probably have better numbers than Bonds.

If Griffey did have the numbers I'd make a case for him. As I said before I don't condone roids, I think its a shitty thing to have happen but if I'm just comparing SSTRAIGHT UP, on the field numbers, and talking about the best players of all time Bonds is in there. He cheated to get there but he is there. It's kind of like a sprinter....if a sprinter gets busted with roids n theie titles are stripped, they were still the fastest person on earth regardless of how they did it. Bonds cheated but either way he dominated and it was amazing. On roids he was a top 5 player of all time. In his playing condition I would pick him over any LF in the history of baseball to hit 3 or 4 and play lf.

I think this is the fairest way to put it. You can't tell me in his playing condition you wouldn't consider Bonds and top player of all time, can you? Moral issues aside.

 

[tycobb420]

Wow..is he really the best 1B? Thats a serious question....I have to imagine McGwire only has like a .270 avg for his career, I know he hit some bombs but man...

Nope. I expected Jimmie Foxx and Lou Gehrig. It was Lou and Big Mac.

 

[tycobb420]

Mitch[/color]]I guess in the 1990's they had. Is Bonds a great player because of what he did late in his career or was he great before that? The answer is probably both but when I'm asked about how good he was I go only with his numbers from before roids. Which wasn't top 5 but a hell of a player. Imagine if Griffey was a roid user, never got hurt - he'd be the one we'd be talking about and would probably have better numbers than Bonds.

If Griffey did have the numbers I'd make a case for him. As I said before I don't condone roids, I think its a shitty thing to have happen but if I'm just comparing SSTRAIGHT UP, on the field numbers, and talking about the best players of all time Bonds is in there. He cheated to get there but he is there. It's kind of like a sprinter....if a sprinter gets busted with roids n theie titles are stripped, they were still the fastest person on earth regardless of how they did it. Bonds cheated but either way he dominated and it was amazing. On roids he was a top 5 player of all time. In his playing condition I would pick him over any LF in the history of baseball to hit 3 or 4 and play lf.

I think this is the fairest way to put it. You can't tell me in his playing condition you wouldn't consider Bonds and top player of all time, can you? Moral issues aside.

If Bonds had not cheated, he would not be in the conversation.

 

[tomdalton22]

If Griffey did have the numbers I'd make a case for him. As I said before I don't condone roids, I think its a shitty thing to have happen but if I'm just comparing SSTRAIGHT UP, on the field numbers, and talking about the best players of all time Bonds is in there. He cheated to get there but he is there. It's kind of like a sprinter....if a sprinter gets busted with roids n theie titles are stripped, they were still the fastest person on earth regardless of how they did it. Bonds cheated but either way he dominated and it was amazing. On roids he was a top 5 player of all time. In his playing condition I would pick him over any LF in the history of baseball to hit 3 or 4 and play lf.

I think this is the fairest way to put it. You can't tell me in his playing condition you wouldn't consider Bonds and top player of all time, can you? Moral issues aside.

If Bonds had not cheated, he would not be in the conversation.

He would still be in the conversation. Even if you take away 1/2 of his HRs from 2000-2007 he still had over 600 HR and over 500 steals.

 

[tycobb420]

If Bonds had not cheated, he would not be in the conversation.

He would still be in the conversation. Even if you take away 1/2 of his HRs from 2000-2007 he still had over 600 HR and over 500 steals.

He does not play to 2007 and probably does not get to 600 HR. He's still a 500-500 player. The fact he did not make the AC team as he was exiting his prime is one good indication of where he'd rank....second tier. The Gray Ink test has him #15 all time (pitchers not included). With pitchers included, he'd be 26th. That is not in the conversation.

 

[beez]

But he DID put up those numbers. lol

If you could have Barry Bonds IN HIS PLAYING CONDITION would he make your top 5 all time and if not why?

 

[tomdalton22]

He would still be in the conversation. Even if you take away 1/2 of his HRs from 2000-2007 he still had over 600 HR and over 500 steals.

He does not play to 2007 and probably does not get to 600 HR. He's still a 500-500 player. The fact he did not make the AC team as he was exiting his prime is one good indication of where he'd rank....second tier. The Gray Ink test has him #15 all time (pitchers not included). With pitchers included, he'd be 26th. That is not in the conversation.

The AC team was voted on by the fans. Barry Bonds was not a popular player with the media or the fans. The AC was just a popularity contest. I mean....Mark McGwire made the AC team and he was a .262 hitter with 1626 hits.