Greatest LF since 1969

[mattym]

Let us go to that pesky old stat board, shall we?

Bonds, from 1986 through 1998. I'll leave off his suspected steroid years, because that was apparently all because of PEDs, remember all those Nefei Perez 50 HR seasons?

And Henderson, 1979 through 1992, first 13 years each of them. Remember, I'm not including most of Bonds' unreal years, and I'm not including Rickey's drop off years. First 13 years of their career, each of 'em:

Runs: Bonds 1364, Henderson 1472. Home Runs: Bonds 411 (but he would've only had about 450 without steriods, yeah right), Henderson 199. RBI: Bonds 1216, Henderson 725. OBP: Bonds .411, Henderson .404. OPS: Bonds .966, Henderson .845. Stolen bases: Bonds 445, Henderson 1042. Gold Gloves: Bonds 8, Henderson 1. MVPs: Bonds 3, Henderson 1 (that most of you think Fielder should've won, of course the "Not Me" contingent will show up because it serves their argument today).

Yep, Henderson dominated games more. It's crystal clear. Stolen bases are the most important stat, it's the main reason Tim Raines is better than Babe Ruth.

(Anxoiusly awaiting the "Bonds was probably juicing before 1999" crowd. You might be right, seeeing as he was on a team with Canseco and McGwire. Oh wait, that was Rickey. We all know what you'd be thinking if it was Bonds...)

Henderson dominated games more than Bonds in one universe: The "I Hate Bonds So Much I Can't Look at Things Objectively" Universe.

 

[tycobb420]

Let us go to that pesky old stat board, shall we?

Bonds, from 1986 through 1998. I'll leave off his suspected steroid years, because that was apparently all because of PEDs, remember all those Nefei Perez 50 HR seasons?

And Henderson, 1979 through 1992, first 13 years each of them. Remember, I'm not including most of Bonds' unreal years, and I'm not including Rickey's drop off years. First 13 years of their career, each of 'em:

Runs: Bonds 1364, Henderson 1472. Home Runs: Bonds 411 (but he would've only had about 450 without steriods, yeah right), Henderson 199. RBI: Bonds 1216, Henderson 725. OBP: Bonds .411, Henderson .404. OPS: Bonds .966, Henderson .845. Stolen bases: Bonds 445, Henderson 1042. Gold Gloves: Bonds 8, Henderson 1. MVPs: Bonds 3, Henderson 1 (that most of you think Fielder should've won, of course the "Not Me" contingent will show up because it serves their argument today).

Yep, Henderson dominated games more. It's crystal clear. Stolen bases are the most important stat, it's the main reason Tim Raines is better than Babe Ruth.

(Anxoiusly awaiting the "Bonds was probably juicing before 1999" crowd. You might be right, seeeing as he was on a team with Canseco and McGwire. Oh wait, that was Rickey. We all know what you'd be thinking if it was Bonds...)

Henderson dominated games more than Bonds in one universe: The "I Hate Bonds So Much I Can't Look at Things Objectively" Universe.

Rickey could have won in 1985 as well.

Rickey was a leadoff hitter. Bonds was not. They had different roles on their teams.

Rickey was significantly more disruptive than Bonds. He changed games on the bases and at the plate in ways that no statistics can quantify.

I grant Bonds was a better fielder.

When it came down to it, Rickey was a winner while Bonds was not. Rickey's teams won and he was involved. Bonds' teams did not win and at one point he told his teammates they were on their own in the postseason (per Andy Van Slyke).

 

[mjsb2]

My take on the six candidates:

Rickey: Greatest leadoff hitter ever. This guy could dominate. He could hit a HR or he could steal second, third, and then score a hundred different ways.

Raines: Perhaps one of the most underrated players of all time. He is like Trammell in that he is overshadowed. In Tram's case, Ripken and Yount. In Raines, Henderson.

Yaz: The AL's first 3000/400 man. His best season was before 1969.

Bonds: In reality, a 450-550 homer man. Without steroids, he is not in any discussions for the greatest ever. He has his own cult of followers, which makes little sense, but Jim Jones had followers too!

Stargell: Loved Stargell. Tree-mendous power. Became a lovable father figure toward the end.

Rice: The AL's scariest hitter from 1975-1986. (Well him or Brett). His 1978 season is probably the best (legitimate season) for any LF since 1969.

I just wanna say, even without steroids Bonds is a top 10 player of all-time.

And he would have been a 550-600 HR guy, well more than 450-500.

 

[mjsb2]

And Rickey over Bonds is pretty lolworthy.

 

[tycobb420]

And Rickey over Bonds is pretty lolworthy.

Not in Rickey's prime. What's LOL-worthy is folks that think Bonds is a top 10 player without roids.

...and the board obviously agrees...they know a winner when they see it!

 

[Thumb]

My take on the six candidates:

Rickey: Greatest leadoff hitter ever. This guy could dominate. He could hit a HR or he could steal second, third, and then score a hundred different ways.

Raines: Perhaps one of the most underrated players of all time. He is like Trammell in that he is overshadowed. In Tram's case, Ripken and Yount. In Raines, Henderson.

Yaz: The AL's first 3000/400 man. His best season was before 1969.

Bonds: In reality, a 450-550 homer man. Without steroids, he is not in any discussions for the greatest ever. He has his own cult of followers, which makes little sense, but Jim Jones had followers too!

Stargell: Loved Stargell. Tree-mendous power. Became a lovable father figure toward the end.

Rice: The AL's scariest hitter from 1975-1986. (Well him or Brett). His 1978 season is probably the best (legitimate season) for any LF since 1969.

I just wanna say, even without steroids Bonds is a top 10 player of all-time.

And he would have been a 550-600 HR guy, well more than 450-500.

Easy to assume, but we will never know now will we?

And because he consistently denies ever using PED's we have no idea what constitutes pre-'riods Bonds to post-'roids Bonds.

 

[tycobb420]

I just wanna say, even without steroids Bonds is a top 10 player of all-time.

And he would have been a 550-600 HR guy, well more than 450-500.

Easy to assume, but we will never know now will we?

And because he consistently denies ever using PED's we have no idea what constitutes pre-'riods Bonds to post-'roids Bonds.

All depends on the rate of decline. Some guys go from good to suck overnight.

 

[Mitchrapp]

And he might have gotten injured that kept him out back then. He was on his way to a HOF career but he didn't have the numbers by the time he started roids.

 

[mattym]

Let us go to that pesky old stat board, shall we?

Bonds, from 1986 through 1998. I'll leave off his suspected steroid years, because that was apparently all because of PEDs, remember all those Nefei Perez 50 HR seasons?

And Henderson, 1979 through 1992, first 13 years each of them. Remember, I'm not including most of Bonds' unreal years, and I'm not including Rickey's drop off years. First 13 years of their career, each of 'em:

Runs: Bonds 1364, Henderson 1472. Home Runs: Bonds 411 (but he would've only had about 450 without steriods, yeah right), Henderson 199. RBI: Bonds 1216, Henderson 725. OBP: Bonds .411, Henderson .404. OPS: Bonds .966, Henderson .845. Stolen bases: Bonds 445, Henderson 1042. Gold Gloves: Bonds 8, Henderson 1. MVPs: Bonds 3, Henderson 1 (that most of you think Fielder should've won, of course the "Not Me" contingent will show up because it serves their argument today).

Yep, Henderson dominated games more. It's crystal clear. Stolen bases are the most important stat, it's the main reason Tim Raines is better than Babe Ruth.

(Anxoiusly awaiting the "Bonds was probably juicing before 1999" crowd. You might be right, seeeing as he was on a team with Canseco and McGwire. Oh wait, that was Rickey. We all know what you'd be thinking if it was Bonds...)

Henderson dominated games more than Bonds in one universe: The "I Hate Bonds So Much I Can't Look at Things Objectively" Universe.

Rickey could have won in 1985 as well.

Rickey was a leadoff hitter. Bonds was not. They had different roles on their teams.

Rickey was significantly more disruptive than Bonds. He changed games on the bases and at the plate in ways that no statistics can quantify.

I grant Bonds was a better fielder.

When it came down to it, Rickey was a winner while Bonds was not. Rickey's teams won and he was involved. Bonds' teams did not win and at one point he told his teammates they were on their own in the postseason (per Andy Van Slyke).

Rickey was a winner, and his teams won and he was involved. Mabye he should've won the all-time left fielder vote, then. Ted wasn't a winner, and in his only World Series, he certainly wasn't involved.

(By the way, your namesake wasn't all that involved in his three World Series appearances, either.)