FanDuel - WFBC

August 02, 2005

Bonds Done For the Rest of 2005: Barry calls it done for 2005 on the advise of his doctors.

posted by jojomfd1 to baseball at 08:18 AM - 89 comments

takes awhile to detox . just sitiing back watching whats going down in the mlb with the 'roids issue . i wonder if he made his decision before or after the palmeiro announcement.

posted by evil empire at 09:22 AM on August 02

I'm guessing he returns in 2006 after spending months on an intense 'weight-loss' program. For the sake of his knee, of course.

posted by dzot at 09:27 AM on August 02

Kind of him to make this announcement exactly one day after the trade deadline. Besides that, you have to take everything he says with a metric tonne of salt.

posted by Ufez Jones at 09:31 AM on August 02

you have to take everything he says let's just be thankful you don't have to take everything he takes...

posted by mayerkyl at 09:45 AM on August 02

Hmmm...now that it seems that Mr. Bud & Co. ARE willing to go against one of the "Big Marquee Players" it looks as if Barry might have finally understood the message. Seems kind of strange that just last week he was stating "don't count me out" for this season. Could he have been waiting to see what happened with Raphael? I guess Barry wants to have a "clean" bill of health upon his return (which will probably be 25 pounds lighter).

posted by BigAl4AU at 09:54 AM on August 02

Just a reminder: He has had 3 surgeries on the same knee in the past 7 months. There is still swelling (according to the MRI). There is fluid on the knee (according to the doctor). There was an infection in the area (reason for last surgery). Unless you've had the same injuries, I think it's a bit petty to assume he must be "faking it" to cover up some sort of "detox" reasoning. However, I do think he should have made this decision earlier in the season. Just announce that he needs to properly heal the knee and that he'll be ready to go in 2006. That said, it's not like the Giants were going to be able to do anything in the playoffs, even if they got there. They are 14 games below .500 right now. I'm not sure even Bonds would be able to make up that difference by being able to play...

posted by grum@work at 10:31 AM on August 02

As if the Giants were really planning on him returning this season? They picked up a new (read: another old guy) outfielder at the deadline anyway, even though they're 14 games under .500. I'm sure Randy Winn's gonna take them alllllll the way to...72-91. Maybe.

posted by brewdudepa at 10:43 AM on August 02

Well, he never was one to do himself any favors PR-wise. I'm guessing he'll come back next year long enough to get to 715 homers and move Babe Ruth back a spot on the big list, and then shut it down for good.

posted by chicobangs at 11:09 AM on August 02

>>>That said, it's not like the Giants were going to be able to do anything in the playoffs, even if they got there. They are 14 games below .500 right now Yeah the Giants stink this year for sure *but* even though they are 14 below 500, they're only 5.5 back from first place. The NL West is amazingly poor with the Pads and DBacks tied for first & playing .486 ball... Regarding Bonds, we saw him and his entourage exiting Morton's Steak House a couple months ago and his knee looked alright to me ;)

posted by JohnSFO at 11:12 AM on August 02

Do you think Bonds knew he would miss the season when he got the Giants to guarantee his contracts for 2005 and 2006?

posted by msacheson at 11:28 AM on August 02

I haven't missed Barry at all. I wouldn't miss him if he never played again. After an entire year off, he will not come back the way we are use to seeing Barry play. If he tries to come back, it will only be to surpass Babe Ruth. I don't think passing Aaron is on his mind so much any more. He just wants to beat the "white guy". I say, "So long and good riddance Barry Bonds."

posted by dbt302 at 12:34 PM on August 02

And thank goodness Aaron's record will remain intact. How many homers do you think he would have hit if he had used any kind of supplements?

posted by trox at 01:06 PM on August 02

i have to agree with dbt303 Barry Bonds can never come back the way he was and even if he does there will always be that suspicion that he's using steroids....I personally will not miss him...I knew from the start that there had to have been more to his hitting than just working out......he may not be faking his knee injury but he's probably using it as an excuse to lay low for a while....as for his contract even if he didn't kno he probably suspected something might happen with the MLB cracking down on steroids

posted by brklyngurl1201 at 01:13 PM on August 02

wanna see something funny , look at barry bonds rookie baseball card (thin barry) vs. todays bonds (juice man) his weight was listed at 183 with a thin face /neck and arms and now he's at 230 with a barrel chest and cannons for arms .

posted by evil empire at 01:32 PM on August 02

Aw, let me get me a hanky. He won't be back til next season {maybe}. I'll miss him quite a bit...NOT! If people would quit talking about this idiot, maybe I can forget him. He is a shining example of what Ryne Sandburg said sports does not need...A guy who doesn't respect the game. There are plenty of players in all sports that little kids can look up to, Bonds the almighty is certainly not one of them. He says he doesn't use enhancers of any kind, prove it, take the damn test now. If it turns out that We were all wrong, I will be the first in line to apologize. Somehow, I don't believe an apology on mine or anyones part will ever be needed. Just disappear into the darkness and let us all forget you once and for all.

posted by melcarek69 at 02:20 PM on August 02

>>>If he tries to come back, it will only be to surpass Babe Ruth. I don't think passing Aaron is on his mind so much any more. He just wants to beat the "white guy". I say, "So long and good riddance Barry Bonds." You know I realize that most everyone doesnt like Bonds but this sort of talk is just ignorant. He wants to beat the "white guy"!?? Reading stuff like this makes it easier to imagine what it must have been like for Aaron when he got close to passing Ruth. He must have loved getting all those death threats and all that hatred. Regardless of whether Bonds did steroids or not (IMO he probably did, just as a large percentage of players have), he is still a tremendously gifted hitter.

posted by JohnSFO at 02:29 PM on August 02

Hank Aaron was and is a credit to baseball and life. What he went through was ignorance at it's worst. Undeserving of anyone alive or dead. I personally don't care why Bonds would come back if he actually does. He does need to understand that the baseball community, fans included have a clue about him and that whatever happens, he will never be in the same bracket as Aaron or Ruth. Ruth was a drunk and who knows what else, but he was also a man of the people. Bonds only cares about himself and his selfish wants. White, Black, Green or Purple, he is just a man who thinks he is above it all. His hitting was always excellent, even when he was a skinny kid with the Pirates in the 80's. Who knows, maybe without the juice he may be instead looking at beating other records in hitting. Difference is, that would have been exciting because he would and could have done it cleanly. Just an opinion of a respectful fan of baseball.

posted by melcarek69 at 02:42 PM on August 02

So he wants to come back and beat the white guy. Fine. The 'white guy' hasn't had the record for thirty years, and if Bonds thinks he can diminsh the legend of the Babe by relegating him to third place then he should go talk to Hank about that - The Babe has all the benefit of history and nostalgia, there's no diminishing the myth. I just wish he'd play. I don't miss Barry the person, or at least the person seen and heard in the media, but I do miss Barry the player - he's fucking amazing to watch. So feared.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 03:01 PM on August 02

"Regardless of whether Bonds did steroids or not (IMO he probably did, just as a large percentage of players have), he is still a tremendously gifted hitter." Thank you, JohnSFO. Everybody seems to forget how many players actually used and still use performance enhancing drugs. Let's not point any fingers cuz there's a whole lot more than 10 players breaking the rules. Either everybody's guilty, or no one at all.

posted by ocmojo at 03:02 PM on August 02

And thank goodness Aaron's record will remain intact. How many homers do you think he would have hit if he had used any kind of supplements? But he did use supplements. He used "greenies" (metamphetamines) to "get up" for baseball games.

posted by grum@work at 03:10 PM on August 02

John, feel free to do a little research -- there's plenty of documentation of racism on the part of Bonds. He's said he doesn't sign autographs for white people. He's said Boston was too racist for him. I can't find a link, but he's also said he didn;t care about Aaron's record -- only Ruth's. He's not only very likely a cheater and a tool -- he's a racist.

posted by wfrazerjr at 03:15 PM on August 02

wanna see something funny , look at barry bonds rookie baseball card (thin barry) vs. todays bonds (juice man) Pictures don't lie.

posted by smithnyiu at 03:26 PM on August 02

nicely done smithnyiu .... i wanted to do that myself but im new at this and havnt figured out how to post pics yet ..... thanx for the pics lol .

posted by evil empire at 03:41 PM on August 02

"Either everybody's guilty, or no one at all." That doesn't make any sense. Care to explain your thinking?

posted by mr_crash_davis at 03:46 PM on August 02

>>>John, feel free to do a little research -- there's plenty of documentation of racism on the part of Bonds. I don't dispute that Bonds has said boneheaded things (including but not limited to racist statements) to the media. Pro baseball players, for the most part, are not widely known for their intelligence or articulateness. Nonetheless, as I posted above, it's my opinion (and apparently that of many MLB managers who give him a free pass with 2 men on or even bases loaded) that he is a tremendously gifted hitter.

posted by JohnSFO at 04:01 PM on August 02

im trying to pinpoint barrys juicing timeline .....check out this site on his career stats , http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bondsba01.shtml take notice of years 4 and 5 : 1989 : 159 games played 19 hr's 58 rbi's 32 stolen bases .248 batting average 1990 : 151 games played 33 hr's 114 rbi's 52 stolen bases .301 batting average

posted by evil empire at 04:10 PM on August 02

Can't say I'll miss Barry's media antics, but he has been fun to watch and last season his stats were astounding. It's too bad that his career will be tainted with this whole steroid/performance enhancing drugs deal. I'm sure we'll all "hear/see" the chip on his shoulder grow as he approaches retirement. Still...I'd be surprised if I saw a hitter more pure in my lifetime.

posted by slackerman at 04:13 PM on August 02

take away the homeruns and there are many better pure hitters .

posted by evil empire at 04:19 PM on August 02

Agreed, John ... Bonds is a tremendous athlete. He's also a tremendous asshole. The latter outweighs the former for me.

posted by wfrazerjr at 04:58 PM on August 02

take away the homeruns and there are many better pure hitters . That's just a bit silly... You could say the same thing about Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle (hit 30 doubles ONCE in his career), Willie Mays, Hank Greenberg, Johnny Mize, Ed Ott, Jimmie Foxx, etc. It's part of what makes him a great hitter. And it's not even true: if you check Bonds' stats, he's 19th all-time in doubles. This is a fun game though: "Take away the singles, and Ichiro Suzuki was a terrible batter last year. He batted .058 without them!" "Take away the strikeouts, and Johan Santana was an average pitcher. Without those outs, his ERA was 4.24!" "Take away the assists, and Vlad Guerrero was regular fielding outfielder. His range isn't even league-average!" take notice of years 4 and 5 : 1989 : 159 games played 19 hr's 58 rbi's 32 stolen bases .248 batting average 1990 : 151 games played 33 hr's 114 rbi's 52 stolen bases .301 batting average Well, that's being a little misleading. Why not mention his 1987 and 1988 seasons as well: 25 and 24 HR, and batting .261 and .283 respectively. If anything, 1989 was a dip in his normal progression as a young power hitter. Don't forget that RBI is a product of batting order and teammates more than it is individual talent. Joe Carter racked up 1400+ RBI, and he was barely a league average hitter (7 of his 16 seasons were below the OPS+ 100 level). I guess you could say that Mickey Mantle was obviously using something since he had a similarly large jump from 1955 to 1956.

posted by grum@work at 05:03 PM on August 02

I bet Barry's got some French in him... ;)

posted by JohnSFO at 05:11 PM on August 02

i used that as a starting point because his numbers increase from then on . as for mantle that was a phenominal year he reached only once again in his career in '61.

posted by evil empire at 05:16 PM on August 02

"Take away the singles, and Ichiro Suzuki was a terrible batter last year. He batted .058 without them!" Take away Steve Carlton's hand and you have Jim Abbot.

posted by smithnyiu at 05:37 PM on August 02

grum .... heres a for instance , Rod Carew : both have played 19 years .... carew has a .328 ba compared to bonds .300 carew 3053 hits bonds 2730 , ok now take away each players hr's carew has 2961 hits w/o hr's ... bonds 2027 hits w/o hr's bonds struck out 400 more times than carew . bonds has more doubles and carew has more triples . tony gwynn using same thinking , played 20 seasons gwynn has .338 ba 3141 hits ...minus hr's 3006 hits (only 77 hits the last 2 seasons combined) ...bonds 2027 bonds struckout 996 times more than gwynn and they both are almost even in doubles and triples . wade boggs 18 seasons .328 ba 3010hits ... minus hr's 2892 .... bonds 2027 bonds struck out 683 more times than boggs and are about the same in doubles and triples . to me these are just a few recent examples of pure hitters better than bonds . numbers dont lie .

posted by evil empire at 05:52 PM on August 02

Fisrt off let me say I dont like Barry I think he is a racises ass. but as a player I respect him. First off the people that dont understand the game or understand what happens to most people as they get older should not post stuff. if you want to go by just stats on one year and another year jsut to make you look smart and think that just because he had a slump year then picks it back up "oh he's on the juice you are the irigant one". think that he was a skinny kid comming out of ASU to become some kinda freak, is stupid How many people out there ways the same as they did when they were 20 you dont think after 20 years your couldnt posibly get any bigger. now if he did it like Sammy one year small guy 2 year later huge guy then ok maybe you could have your doubts. Honestly I hope he never palys again I dont want him to beat Babe would I put him in the same league as a player as him yes But The Babe wins out he could pitch. I am not trying to defend him just point out facts that some people over look. I think it's a shame that all this has happend and baseball is questionable right now. ok go ahead and flame all it just my opinon.

posted by urfreakinidiots at 06:15 PM on August 02

What grade are you in, kid?

posted by smithnyiu at 07:05 PM on August 02

"Either everybody's guilty, or no one at all." 'That doesn't make any sense. Care to explain your thinking?' What's so unclear about my comment?? There is plenty of evidence showing that players from all eras have used PHD. Speed enhances performance. Methanphetamines enhance performance. Unless officials are ready to shut down the game of baseball and/or invent news ways of testing on a DAILY BASIS you'd be a damn fool to think that doping is not present and will not continue till the end of time. So.......Unless we are ready to admit that EVERYBODY uses some form of enhancement (whether it be illegal today or in two years) we don't have the right to point fingers at anybody in particular. I don't give a shit if somebody got caught or not. Everybody's guilty of it in some shape, form, or fashion. I think it's sad, and I'm not defending anybody but it's the truth. Live with it or give up on baseball....... hell, give up on all sports, little league on up.

posted by ocmojo at 07:23 PM on August 02

grum .... heres a for instance , Rod Carew : both have played 19 years .... carew has a .328 ba compared to bonds .300 carew 3053 hits bonds 2730 , ok now take away each players hr's carew has 2961 hits w/o hr's ... bonds 2027 hits w/o hr's Carew has a .393 OBP, Bonds has a .443 OBP. Take away their home runs (92 for Carew, 703 for Bonds) and AB that were home runs, and Carew has a .388 OBP and Bonds has a .404 OBP. So even when you take away his best tool, Bonds is still more valuable than Carew. Advantage, Bonds. bonds struck out 400 more times than carew . bonds has more doubles and carew has more triples . Bonds had a walked 874 times more than he struck out. Carew struck out 10 times more than he walked. Advantage Bonds There is no way anyone could possibly consider Carew a better hitter than Bonds, even if you take away the HR. The HR is the single greatest achievement a batter can have at the plate. To not include HR when comparing batters is like discounting goals when trying to compare hockey players, completed passes when comparing quarterbacks, or baskets made for a b-baller. tony gwynn using same thinking , played 20 seasons gwynn has .338 ba 3141 hits ...minus hr's 3006 hits (only 77 hits the last 2 seasons combined) ...bonds 2027 bonds struckout 996 times more than gwynn and they both are almost even in doubles and triples . Again, I'm not sure where the value is in discounting the HR. Of course a contact-hitter is going to have a higher average and a lower strikeout count. What I don't understand is how you can seriously consider Gwynn as being a better hitter: Bonds' average season (OPS+ 184) is better than Gwynn's best season (OPS+ 169). wade boggs 18 seasons .328 ba 3010hits ... minus hr's 2892 .... bonds 2027 bonds struck out 683 more times than boggs and are about the same in doubles and triples . Again, you are comparing a contact hitter with Bonds, and trying to insist that batting average is the be-all end-all of rating a hitter. OBP and SLG are better evaluators of overall contribution by a hitter. How about a system that evaluates the entirety of a players offensive contribution (including SB): Runs Created / 27 outs. What it means, is how many runs (on average) an entire team of this player would score in one game against regular pitching. Carew: 6.25 Gwynn: 6.77 Boggs: 7.04 Bonds: 9.97 to me these are just a few recent examples of pure hitters better than bonds . But the most purest form of hitting is the HR. In no way are those players better than Bonds in that sense. They might be better for getting a single, but I'd rather have a batter that gets a strikeout, a walk, a double and a HR every game than a batter who gets 3 singles and a groundout. numbers dont lie . You are right about that.

posted by grum@work at 09:29 PM on August 02

Dont even bother with grum, he loves defending bonds for some reason. As soon as i told him bonds admitted using steriods, i felt like i could feel a part of him dying. Who knew people could praise the guy who helped ruin baseball records forever. Thats why this is America's passtime, some people just cant understand. -in reguards to your response to "numbers dont lie"..... none of those other guys could score as many runs because they didnt cheat at the game..period. End of that story. Man I really struggle to see how people like this think they know anything about baseball when all they do is create a bunch of meaningless stats and fail to realize bonds was just a piece of fucking shit bastard who ruined the game forever. I'm gonna be so glad when he gets back and cant hit for shit b/c for the last ten years he's been destroying his body with drugs. Honestly i wish no one would ever pitch to him agian and just walk him, just to spite him so he'd never get his selfish ass another homerun.

posted by gregy606 at 12:07 AM on August 03

Bonds is/was a great player-that is a fact. Carew and Gwynn were different types of hitters.. Carew, for example , was a master of the bunt. He ran the bases very smartly. People who played with him talk about his ability to "know" when to steal a base. He had alot of "steals home" which highlights that ability to tun the bases. Still Carew was a great player. Same goes for Gwynn However, the number "dont Lie" and Bonds is right up near the top as the best player ever. I just wish that his off the field behavior would match. The bottom line, for me, is that I really that this whole steroid issue takes away alot of Bond's "historical greatness" We will just never know just how much benefit he got from "Jucing" This goes for everybody who has taken PHD. So while the numbers will stand, Bond's legacy will not live up to his numbers. HOF? of course! But it wont be much to brag about! Stats are a beautiful thing, but they told tell they whole story!

posted by daddisamm at 12:27 AM on August 03

Hey urfreakin, Most keyboards/computers now come with punctuation, the ability to print Capital letters, spellcheck, as well as a host of other tools that will help you appear NOT so ignorant. Perhaps you should try to use the tools that you have, before you start calling others idiots. But the most purest form of hitting is the HR. In no way are those players better than Bonds in that sense. They might be better for getting a single, but I'd rather have a batter that gets a strikeout, a walk, a double and a HR every game than a batter who gets 3 singles and a groundout. While it is true that a HR drives the crowd wild, as you can clearly see from history, having the HR King on the roster does not necessarily win WS, League, or Division Championship rings. The 3-singles hitter is probably doing more for his TEAM than the HR hitter is doing.

posted by BigAl4AU at 03:57 AM on August 03

The 3-singles hitter is probably doing more for his TEAM than the HR hitter is doing. False.

posted by yerfatma at 06:02 AM on August 03

What grade are you in, kid? Priceless. Hilarious, smithnyiu.

posted by dyams at 06:46 AM on August 03

Grumm, . You were talking "pure hitter " You can't include walks as a hit . Last I knew you need to swing a bat to hit , you don't to get a walk . So throw the walk stat out .

posted by evil empire at 07:34 AM on August 03

Hey, evil empire, have you considered that knowing when not to take the bat off your shoulder is a tool in the pure hitter's toolbox? If you ask me, walks are one of the main signs of a pure hitter. Also, if you have to take away 2 of the 6 (1B, 2B, 2B, HR, BB, HPB) beneficial results a batter can create before other batters start measuring up to Bonds, doesn't that tell you something? I am reminded of the famous story, "Son, if Mr. Williams didn't think that was a strike, it wasn't a strike."

posted by alex_reno at 07:57 AM on August 03

smithnyiu, you're just peeved because he called you out for being "the irigant one."

posted by The_Black_Hand at 08:04 AM on August 03

No, no - Grum is a metrics guy, and to a metrics guy there are no more important stats than OBP, and OPS -and the variety of ways those stats are further crunched to create things like the runs created per 27 outs, win shares and the like. Actually he has me relatively convinced that these stats basically show who the best hitters are. You were talking "pure hitter " You can't include walks as a hit . Last I knew you need to swing a bat to hit , you don't to get a walk . So throw the walk stat out . No way, man. Walks are as much an indication of a pure hitter as any - showing a selective eye is a good indicator of how weel a hitter sees the ball. Certainly a requirement for a 'pure hitter'. Boggs and Gwynn were different hitters than Bonds, but in no way would anyone in their right mind consider them better because they walked less and had more singles.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:05 AM on August 03

I disagree , the phrase pure hitter indeed has the word HITTER in it , a form of the word HIT meaning to strike something . We are not talking On Base Percentage which would include walks , we are talking about hitting .

posted by evil empire at 08:08 AM on August 03

Also Bonds has more intentional walks then anyone in history , so that doesnt exactly tell me he has a superior eye for getting walks.

posted by evil empire at 08:12 AM on August 03

evil empire, you're grasping at straws. Let's look at another player -- a former one; don't know if you go back this far -- with a good OBP: Mickey Rivers, a classic small-ball hitter. I never saw a pitcher pitch out to Rivers, but he drew a lot of walks. What does that tell you: that when Rivers came up to bat, the pitchers all of a sudden would miss the strike zone by an inch? Hardly: it says, more or less, the same thing that a pitch-out to Bonds says: that the pitcher is thinking, "I don't want to put one in the zone for this guy, because he won't stand there looking at a good pitch, and if he swings, he's likely to get good wood on it." IOW, in both cases -- but in very different ways -- the number of walks is indicative of the pitchers' belief that this is a good hitter. And no, it's not the hit, it doesn't have the word "hit" in it, but on the other hand, these are Major League pitchers and/or catchers and/or managers making the call, and I think they've probably seen these guys hit more than you or I have.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:17 AM on August 03

The interllect in this thread is staggering.

posted by mbd1 at 08:18 AM on August 03

Grumm, . You were talking "pure hitter " You can't include walks as a hit . Last I knew you need to swing a bat to hit , you don't to get a walk . So throw the walk stat out . So we can't include home runs (the single greatest achievement by a batter) and we can't include drawing a walk/getting on base (a sign of a good batting eye). You know, once you take away Gretzky's goals and assists, he really wasn't that good of a hockey player. Dont even bother with grum, he loves defending bonds for some reason. As soon as i told him bonds admitted using steriods, i felt like i could feel a part of him dying. Actually, the only time I've felt like a part of me was dying (during a sporting event) was when Norwood went wide-right in 1991, and the Leafs got knocked out of the playoffs by the Kings back in 1993. As for Bonds and steroids, the reason I "defend" him (if you can call it that) is that I despise the very weak arguments put up by some "accusers". "Look at how big he is!" "You can't have a jump in HR like that without being on steroids!" The honest truth of how I feel about Bonds? I think Bonds used a performance-enhancing drug during the off-season between 1999 and 2000. I don't believe he used steroids per se, but was given something by his trainer to help recover from the injuries in the 1999 season (when he only was able to play 103 games). I don't think he took them to get "bigger and stronger", but to help him train in the off-season to recover from those injuries. After recovering from the injuries much quicker, he went and had another great season (one of his best, but not beyond his capabilities). What he took at the time is unclear, but it was definitely not against any rules in MLB at the time (since their weren't any). The 2001 season (73 HR) was a result of maintaining the same training system (including using the same drugs he used to recover from the previous injuries). However, since he didn't have any injuries at the time, it probably gave him a boost in power. After the 2001 season, I believe that he stopped taking the supplements that were provided to him by his trainer (since the HR number sent up a warning signal). He might have been informed (at that time) by his trainer that what he was taking was "suspect". His following seasons (2002-2004) were the result of his astounding batting eye and fear from the pitchers/managers to even challenge him. You'll notice that he dropped back down to 143/130/147 games played (after 153 in 2001), suggesting that his age/injuries were affecting him. There. That's my assumption. Can it be proved? Probably not. That's why I don't trumpet it from the towers every time a thread about Bonds comes up. I believe in facts, not in suppositions.

posted by grum@work at 08:20 AM on August 03

Also Bonds has more intentional walks then anyone in history , so that doesnt exactly tell me he has a superior eye for getting walks. That's why they score intentional walks separately. You know, once you take away Gretzky's goals and assists, he really wasn't that good of a hockey player. 577 career penalty minutes, baby!

posted by DrJohnEvans at 08:25 AM on August 03

Lil Brown Bat ...... i havn't missed many Yankee games since '76 so yes im well aware of Mickey Rivers and his bizarre stance . Grum ... All I can say is you listen to any old ballplayers talk "pure hitters" and they would not include home runs and walks ..... If your talking All Around Best at getting on base then yes Bonds is up there , the numbers show that , but the phrase pure hitter is taken out of context here . mbd1 , interllect ? i assume you hit the r by mistake , lol its always a scream when someone screws up typing a word while trying to put others down .

posted by evil empire at 08:34 AM on August 03

listen to any old ballplayers talk "pure hitters" and they would not include home runs and walks Name these players. Aaron, Ruth, Williams? Who the fuck are you talking about? It's just annoying at this point: I can accept there are people as ignorant as you, but it pains me they're able to plug electrical equipment into a wall without harming themselves.

posted by yerfatma at 08:40 AM on August 03

I disagree , the phrase pure hitter indeed has the word HITTER in it , a form of the word HIT meaning to strike something . We are not talking On Base Percentage which would include walks , we are talking about hitting . Three words: Ted Fucking Williams. By most accounts the greatest pure hitter who ever lived. Aw hell, here's a few more for you: Babe Ruth. Lou Gehrig. Mickey Mantle. Hank Aaron. Take a look at their stats. Notice anything? Like that they all took a LOT of walks?

posted by alex_reno at 08:46 AM on August 03

Lil Brown Bat ...... i havn't missed many Yankee games since '76 so yes im well aware of Mickey Rivers and his bizarre stance . His stance was arguably bizarre, but it wasn't his stance that drew walks. So, clearly, you agree with my point, that the number of walks a batter draws is a metric -- albeit an unquantifiable one -- of a hitter's ability as perceived by pitchers, who ought to know.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:56 AM on August 03

i'd never get in a battle of wits with someone with an id of yer fat ma .... too deep for me . I agree with you all 100% WILLIAMS ,RUTH ,GEHRIG, MANTLE ,AARON and yes BONDS all are some of the greatest hitters and had alot of walks but this all started with grum calling bonds the greatest "pure hitter" of all time which i said if you take away his hr's he doesnt even match up with carew , gwynn and boggs, all considered pure hitters . That was just a small example , I didnt get into the older players just those closer to bonds era and all had the same years played . It's a matter of proper english and the use of the word hitter wish i can only guess isnt being grasped by all of you .

posted by evil empire at 09:06 AM on August 03

the use of the word hitter wish i can only guess isnt being grasped by all of you . Now you're just being obtuse. Part of hitting is knowing when not to swing. a matter of proper english Oh, stop, you're killing me.

posted by alex_reno at 09:21 AM on August 03

ok appearantly your teachers didnt get through to you in english class , here you go ... http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/hit these are definitions of the word hit/hitting .... you find anything in there to support your theory and you win .

posted by evil empire at 09:36 AM on August 03

You know, it's not like Bonds just started drawing walks after he bulked up/took the roids. Check out his early years (you know, when he looked normal) and you'll see that aside from his first couple seasons, the man always drew a lot of walks and didn't strike out an inordinate amount. I can't tell you the number of times I've seen Bonds go the other way with a two-strike pitch. He's just a damned good hitter. Is he the best ever? Oh, GOD, no. I can think of 10-20 guys right now I'd place ahead of him. But he's in the argument, at least. Finally, for God's sake, would someone please tell major-league hitters to take a strike, especially on your first trip through the order? See what the pitcher's got, make him work deeper in the count. If it worked for Ted Williams, you morons, it'll work for you.

posted by wfrazerjr at 09:49 AM on August 03

these are definitions of the word hit/hitting .... you find anything in there to support your theory and you win . Here's a definition for you. There is no art without chaos.

posted by yerfatma at 10:12 AM on August 03

I can almost hear the "old ballplayers" now: "Sorry, we'd like to let you into the club of pure hitters, but you hit too many home runs. And you have to do something about all those walks."

posted by alex_reno at 10:15 AM on August 03

ok appearantly your teachers didnt get through to you in english class Well, somebody sure taught the average SpoFite more about spelling, punctuation, and diction than you seem to have absorbed...so maybe you ought to lay off criticizing others' use of the language, mmmkay? I also think it's about time that you stopped beating the "hitter" thing to death; half a dozen people have addressed your point, and you haven't responded to anything they've said except to quote a general dictionary definition that doesn't even bear you out. From the baseball-specific section of the very definition that you quote: 5. Baseball a. To execute (a base hit) successfully: hit a single. b. To bat against (a pitcher or kind of pitch) successfully: can't hit a slider. Now, don't you think that that b. definition has enough room to include drawing a walk? I'd say if you get on base, you've sure 'nuff "bat[ted] against (a pitcher or a kind of pitch) successfully". You got on base, and that was the objective; therefore, you were successful.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:17 AM on August 03

Man I really struggle to see how people like this think they know anything about baseball when all they do is create a bunch of meaningless stats and fail to realize bonds was just a piece of fucking shit bastard who ruined the game forever. It's this level of anger and hatred toward Bonds that I don't understand. Good god, a "piece of fucking shit bastard who ruined the game forever"!? He's just a baseball player who, like many, many of his peers, has probably taken performance enhancing drugs at some point in his career. Get over it. :)

posted by JohnSFO at 10:20 AM on August 03

Here's a definition for you. There is no art without chaos. thats not a definition , thats a statement . definitions are found in dictionaries not encyclopedias.

posted by evil empire at 10:24 AM on August 03

sorry i didn't put in punctuations , i'm doing a few things at the same time . diction ? what's wrong , i didn't put enough slang in my sentences for you ? i guess i should return my degree back to syracuse u .

posted by evil empire at 10:32 AM on August 03

piece of fucking shit bastard who ruined the game forever Damn that's funny. Can you picture that on his tombstone? Remember when he hit his 600th HR? He wrongfooted, one-handed, golfed an 0 and 2 changeup for an opposite field HR. Just a lazy pop fly 5 years ago. He did change his game, and that was wrong. But I don't hate the guy.

posted by smithnyiu at 10:35 AM on August 03

Uhm, the definition was in the link. The statement was just a comment on my perspective on the issue. I would think someone who graduated from one of the Rust Belt's finest institutions would grasp that intuitively.

posted by yerfatma at 10:36 AM on August 03

i thought it was the Snow Belt

posted by garfield at 10:45 AM on August 03

It is snow belt , I've lived in the area 41 years and have never heard it called the rust belt .

posted by evil empire at 10:49 AM on August 03

I've lived in the area 41 years and have never heard it called the rust belt . Well, I grew up in Schenectady and rust belt is exactly what it is. Given that you're at least 41 years old, I'm surprised you haven't heard the term before.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:05 AM on August 03

I think the problem is you're very narrowly defining the notion of a 'hitter'. And somehow are clinging to this idea that 'pure' hitters don't walk or hit home runs and carry a high batting average. And thirdly that these things equal being better. And you're wrong about the last bit - Batting Average is a stat that is less valuable than OBP.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 11:05 AM on August 03

i said if you take away his hr's he doesnt even match up with carew , gwynn and boggs, all considered pure hitters . But that's deliberately setting limitations in order to prove your point. The other way to play it is "Take away Carew's, Gwynn's and Bogg's singles, and none of them would compare to Bonds in terms of hitting. Take away all the singles, doubles, home runs and walks, and none of these guys would compare to this guy." Fine, I'll concede: Barry Bonds was not as good as Rod Carew, Tony Gwynn or Wade Boggs at slapping singles. If you think that's what it takes to make a "pure hitter", then there really isn't much more to talk about. It is snow belt , I've lived in the area 41 years and have never heard it called the rust belt . You are a graduate of Syracuse and you've lived there for 41 years and you've never heard the term "rust belt" (there is the definition of that phrase, found in an encyclopedia, or a generic description found in a dictionary)? I'm a bit shocked by that.

posted by grum@work at 11:07 AM on August 03

i didn't say i've never heard the term, i said i've never heard the area i live in called rust belt .

posted by evil empire at 11:14 AM on August 03

clicking on your site proves my point , western ny .... i and syracuse u. are in central ny .

posted by evil empire at 11:18 AM on August 03

I was being rude. I went to school in Rah-cha-cha and always considered Buffalo the right end of the Rust Belt. If it's not the end of the Rust Belt, it's still the end of something. And if Buffalo isn't in your definition of the Rust Belt, it's time to redefine.

posted by yerfatma at 11:33 AM on August 03

From grum's link: A heavily industrialized area containing older factories, particularly those that are marginally profitable or that have been closed. I don't see anything in there about "...but not in central New York".

posted by lil_brown_bat at 12:04 PM on August 03

i and syracuse u. are in central ny oh please. anything above westchester is upstate. :-)

posted by goddam at 12:14 PM on August 03

lil brown bat ... look at the map first of all ... everything in red is the rust belt area , now secondly read the text ...The Rust Belt, also known as the Manufacturing Belt, is an area in the northeastern and north-central United States whose economy was formerly based largely on heavy industry, manufacturing, and associated industries. This area is roughly defined as comprising the northern sections of Indiana and Ohio; the northeastern corner of Illinois; the Lower Peninsula of Michigan; the Lake Michigan shoreline of Wisconsin; western New York; at least the western half of Pennsylvania; and the northern part of West Virginia . if you can read this i think you will see it says western ny .... the area shown is around 60 miles from me and 80 miles from s.u. .

posted by evil empire at 02:41 PM on August 03

In summation, shithole 1 != shithole 2?

posted by yerfatma at 03:03 PM on August 03

Actually what he's trying to say is: if (shithole_1 != shithole_2) { trace ("Pack your shit and move to Florida"); }

posted by smithnyiu at 05:37 PM on August 03

Diction, rust-belt, universities, etc. What was the original thread? Time to move on folks. That horse has obviously been beaten to death.

posted by BigAl4AU at 07:01 PM on August 03

In recent years, the big city populations in the Rust Belt are decreasing. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, Detroit, Cleveland, Toledo, Buffalo, Pittsburgh and many more are some of the fastest-shrinking big cities in the US, despite attempts to revitalize their downtown areas. Buffalo's in there.

posted by jojomfd1 at 11:33 PM on August 03

That was also from grums link

posted by jojomfd1 at 11:35 PM on August 03

jojo , i know buffalo's in there , syracuse isn't though and that was the arguement . i live near syacuse and buffalo's 60 miles west of me 80 west of syracuse .

posted by evil empire at 07:47 AM on August 04

Uh, Cleveland's in there to - and decidedly further from Buffalo than Syracuse. Face it - you're rust belt. Look, look - I'm just going to say it. Syracuse sucks. Rust belt or not. Yeah, that's right - I'm trashing your home town annonymously on the internet! How rare. :) Just kidding - lovely town. Nice AAA ballpark; tough place to hit.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:10 AM on August 04

I love it here, so say what you will. You don't have to live here, I do and I chose to!! Plus it was someone else that said buffalo wasn't in the definition of the rust belt. Bonds Done For the Rest of 2005 Barry calls it done for 2005 on the advise of his doctors. Lets get back to the origingal posting

posted by jojomfd1 at 09:47 AM on August 04

That's a great picture of Barry Bonds to save and compare his body size when he returns next season . See if there's any difference from this year to next .

posted by evil empire at 09:58 AM on August 04

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.