The Official 2014 Offseason Thread

#2,376
#2,376
n_huffhines said:
Shouldn't have any.

Bonds over Pendleton? Pendleton was the NL batting champ, had a higher slg %, and was a gold glove infielder. I'm not saying he's a clear winner, but I don't think he was a bad choice over Bonds.
Click to expand...

His batting average was 17 pts higher, slg% was 3 pts higher, while Bonds drove in 30 more runners while stealing 33 more bases and having a higher ob%. He also won a GG.
 
#2,378
#2,378
BadJerry20 said:
His batting average was 17 pts higher, slg% was 3 pts higher, while Bonds drove in 30 more runners while stealing 33 more bases and having a higher ob%. He also won a GG.
Click to expand...

GG outfield is not that big of a deal, IMO.

Stolen bases are completely overrated. You have to have 75% or 80% (can't remember exactly) success rate to break even on cost/benefit, according to advanced stats. Bonds was a 77% success rate, so he basically broke even.

RBIs are nice, but you rely too much on teammates to get those.

I'm not saying Bonds wasn't better that year, I'm saying Pendleton wasn't a bad choice.
 
#2,380
#2,380
n_huffhines said:
GG outfield is not that big of a deal, IMO.

Stolen bases are completely overrated. You have to have 75% or 80% (can't remember exactly) success rate to break even on cost/benefit, according to advanced stats. Bonds was a 77% success rate, so he basically broke even.

RBIs are nice, but you rely too much on teammates to get those.

I'm not saying Bonds wasn't better that year, I'm saying Pendleton wasn't a bad choice.
Click to expand...

Billy Bean is that you? Funny that he preaches SB being overrated, then gets 7 bases stolen on him and loses.
 
#2,381
#2,381
If you're asking if steroids should keep them out, my answer is no. 10 years ago I would have said different, but I've changed my mind on that.

They are cheaters in a sense, because not everyone juiced, but as far as breaking concrete rules, this was a blurred line they crossed.

Cheating has also been appreciated over the long history of baseball. Gaylord Perry is in the HOF, and nobody got caught doctoring the ball more than him.

And on top of all that, I wish they would let people put whatever they want into their bodies. Who cares? It's so arbitrary...creatine wasn't available to Babe Ruth...why isn't that cheating and HGH is? It's stupid.
 
#2,385
#2,385
BadJerry20 said:
I agree. But would you put all 4 in? I say yes to Bonds and Clemens, no to Sosa and McGwire.
Click to expand...

Clearly yes to Clemens and Bonds. I think yes to McGwire. Probably no to Sosa.

That being said, I don't have strong opinions about baseball. I don't find statistical analysis as convincing when evaluating individual players.
 
#2,386
#2,386
My problem with the steroids controversy is, it saved baseball while they looked the other way. Then once they got their popularity back, and Bonds started threatening the HR record everyone threw a fit.
 
#2,387
#2,387
n_huffhines said:
Clearly yes to Clemens and Bonds. I think yes to McGwire. Probably no to Sosa.

That being said, I don't have strong opinions about baseball. I don't find statistical analysis as convincing when evaluating individual players.
Click to expand...

Clemens was the best pitcher, not named Doc Gooden that I ever saw. Bonds is the best player I've personally ever seen. I actually think he was better pre steroids though. McGwire is iffy, but he was a terrible hitter.
 
#2,388
#2,388
BadJerry20 said:
Clemens was the best pitcher, not named Doc Gooden that I ever saw. Bonds is the best player I've personally ever seen. I actually think he was better pre steroids though. McGwire is iffy, but he was a terrible hitter.
Click to expand...

You're crazy. He was out of this world late 90s and early 2000s.
 
#2,390
#2,390
n_huffhines said:
Shouldn't have any.

Bonds over Pendleton? Pendleton was the NL batting champ, had a higher slg %, and was a gold glove infielder. I'm not saying he's a clear winner, but I don't think he was a bad choice over Bonds.
Click to expand...

1
 
Last edited:
#2,394
#2,394
BadJerry20 said:
He was all around a better player. IMO His fielding was much worse, he was slow as ****. I think he was clean till 97ish.
Click to expand...

My opinion is based on the idea that fielding isn't nearly as important as hitting. Yeah, you can't have a guy making errors all the time, but the difference between a marginal defender and a GG is nowhere near the difference in impact between a marginal hitter and an elite hitter.
 
#2,398
#2,398
volinreallife said:
Lol give me a break. Does his team win the championship?

How many of his assist are fast break lobs?
Click to expand...

Well he actually averaged more apg in New Orleans around 11 a year for 3 seasons.

How many of the top 15 PGs have a championship? 1 Tony Parker.

In the past 35 years how many great PGs led their team to a ring while they were a top 10 PG? Zeke, Magic, Parker, and Kidd?

That championship argument falls flat
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,400
#2,400
volinreallife said:
No he's not. I'll take steph curry any day of the week over that clown.
Click to expand...

So you are not taking CP3 because of rings. But you are going to take a guy that has made past the first round once in 4 full years, and that's team has a losing record in those 4 years? Throwing out the season he was hurt almost all year. Makes sense.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top