Hooligans Sportsbook

Happy 81st Birthday Willie Mays

  • Start date •
  • Replies
    157 Replies •
  • Views 12,875 Views
Follow
Here's a more visual depiction of the data. The following are year-to-year AB/HR regressions for those players. Notice the negative slope for the steroid users versus an almost flat slope for Mantle and Aaron.

Steroid Trendlines.jpg

I had to take Brady Anderson out of the graph because his data was SO skewed.
 
For the sake of this discussion, lets say its not Mays who's the greatest of all time (but understand that Mays is probably the greatest fielder of all time at his position).

It's got to be either Ruth or Bonds. Both come with hugh asterisks (Bonds = steroids; Ruth = greatly diluted talent pool), however their domination of the leagues they played in was so pronounced that it's hard to ignore them. Ruth never played against a black or dark-skinned hispanic player, however neither did anyone else in the league at his time, and nobody else was close to him when he played. And Bonds almost certainly used steroids, however it was rampant (make no mistake about it) in his time, and again, nobody even TOUCHED him when he was in the league.

It depends whether you consider Bonds' defense to be more valuable than Ruth's pitching, and whose asterisk you are most willing to overlook.

I lean towards Bonds. One of the best defensive left fielders of all time, a phenomenal base runner, and one of the three best hitters ever (Ruth, Williams, Bonds).

Top-5 position players is probably this for me:
Bonds
Ruth
Mays
Williams
Mantle
 
Last edited:
What on Earth do you mean nobody touched him?

McGwire and Sosa were just as dominant several years earlier. It was a race to the most ridiculous record ever broken. There is no asterisk. Those guys probably won't even get into the HOF, and they don't deserve to. Nor should Bonds. And it's a pity because McGwire and Bonds probably didn't need steroids to get into the Hall.

The ONLY reason that Bonds was dominant and had the longevity in his career that he had was because of steroids. He was NEVER that dominant in the years leading up to that. There weren't pitchers pitching any more no hitters or breaking any more strikeout records. In fact, it was quite the opposite. Steroids helped hitters. Peroid. The benefit to pitchers was minimal. It helped them recouperate and could maybe add a couple of MPH to their fastball. That's extremely trivial compared to the benefit that hitters got from steroids.

The facts are right above. There is a blatant correlation between steroid use and performance of hitters. You can ignore them. But that's pretty stupid to do.
 
I wish Musial and Hornsby got more mentions in the greatest hitter converstions. I don't think they are THE greatest but I think they should be in the conversation with the greats more than I hear or read them...
 
I'm going to have to look at McGuire and Sosa's career OPS. My gut is telling me their OPS's won't be nearly as ridiculous as Bonds' was (and remember, Sosa and McGuire were borderline albatrosses defensively and defense plays a part in this discussion whether you like it or not).

If I'm wrong I'll eat crow.
 
What? You want me to regress OPS for these guys too?

HINT: It's going to look almost identical. In fact, it will probably be a lot more pronounced.

Williams had a ridiculous OPS anyway. Bonds wasn't as good as Williams even with the help of steroids.
 
Archie
seriously Dafy, you want him to regress OPS too?

c'mon


seriously though, Sosa had Pedestrian OPS numbers
Click to expand...

Funny. It can't be more obvious. I guess I shouldn't expect you two to understand a simple correlation though. My bad.

And Sosa's OPS was not pedestrian when he was roided up. Every one of them had huge spikes in OPS during the steroid era.

Without roids, Sosa's name would have hardly ever been mentioned.
 
mcbaseball10
Is baseball the only sport that we don't factor in the the greatest ever by the number of championships won? That is the number one criteria mentioned in basketball and for quarterbacks.
Click to expand...

That is a negative for Bonds for sure. Ruth was a pitching star in the 1918 WS but there is a lot of proof that the Cubs threw that series.

Let's not forget the main reason Bonds took roids - he was jealous of McGuire, Sosa and others.
 
FairWarning
That is a negative for Bonds for sure. Ruth was a pitching star in the 1918 WS but there is a lot of proof that the Cubs threw that series.

Let's not forget the main reason Bonds took roids - he was jealous of McGuire, Sosa and others.
Click to expand...

this thread has diverged quite a bit from its Willie Mays and then Ted Williams Fanboy appreciations....

but I do often wonder when exactly Bonds started with the Roids.... first year in SF? I think in his first or 2nd year after the Pirates he won his 3rd MVP. So he was already GREAT. But yeah, his ego couldn't take Big Mac getting all that love.
 
This has very enjoyable reading for me, but does anyone have the VID of the pic that Archie was able to find of the remarkable catch by Willie?

If not then Potato your assignment for this week is to get me the vid! Not asking for any BS opinion of yours, just plain and simple VID!
 
MonkeyF0cker
What on Earth do you mean nobody touched him?

McGwire and Sosa were just as dominant several years earlier.
Click to expand...


Career OPS:

Sosa - .878

McGuire - .982

Bonds - 1.051



Neither of the two other monsters of the steroid era are within 65 points of Bonds in OPS. That is HUGH. And neither Sosa or McGuire could sniff Barry's glove or base running.


He dominated his era (his era being the very modern era). I don't even like Bonds but the #'s are staggering
 
You must log in or register to reply here.