Barry Bonds hints at missing the entire season

[Tredici]

There are some clutch posts in this thread.

There are some choking posts in this thread.

I would do the statistical percentages of said clutch and choke performances but I'm not in the mood.

So I'll make a prediction instead. Somewhere around the first of May Barry will realize it's not all that tiring to walk the bases three or four times a game and make a conquering hero comeback.

[wabbit]

No one is a clutch player.

Michael Jordan is the best basketball player ever, regardless of situation.

Does he perform better than he does in other situations when titles are on the line? No, not particularly.



My God in heaven

This individual is the finest, well spoken, logical hat dancer I've ever seen on a message board

Bet he's all over the net practicing his legal skills this way. How he landed here is better answered with a question how a fly finds the freshest ****.

I'm really not qualified to discuss baseball...the game lost me years ago when these bloated worthless bastards like Barry Bonds started taking over the game.

I am, however, qualified to talk about legal-speak...& this jack-off practices by tweaking your most vulnerable nerve...never really answering a question...only posing a possible answer.

Hey, Mr. paper Chase...Vinatieri is a clutch Kicker because he won two SBs on two kicks.

Don't feed him...maybe he'll just go away

...then again...flys...you know

[SoCalBronco]

My God in heaven

This individual is the finest, well spoken, logical hat dancer I've ever seen on a message board

Bet he's all over the net practicing his legal skills this way. How he landed here is better answered with a question how a fly finds the freshest ****.

I'm really not qualified to discuss baseball...the game lost me years ago when these bloated worthless bastards like Barry Bonds started taking over the game.

I am, however, qualified to talk about legal-speak...& this jack-off practices by tweaking your most vulnerable nerve...never really answering a question...only posing a possible answer.

Hey, Mr. paper Chase...Vinatieri is a clutch Kicker because he won two SBs on two kicks.

Don't feed him...maybe he'll just go away

...then again...flys...you know

nice paper chase reference wabbit. Although i never had a law professor quite as bad as "Professor Kingsfield" although two came close at times. As to this guy i dont see how MJ cant be seen as a clutch player. In the playoffs he took it up a notch all the time. I think this playoff PPG is higher than regular season, and that is saying something considering the quality of competition is even better.

[Lidderer]

My God in heaven

This individual is the finest, well spoken, logical hat dancer I've ever seen on a message board

Bet he's all over the net practicing his legal skills this way. How he landed here is better answered with a question how a fly finds the freshest ****.

I'm really not qualified to discuss baseball...the game lost me years ago when these bloated worthless bastards like Barry Bonds started taking over the game.

I am, however, qualified to talk about legal-speak...& this jack-off practices by tweaking your most vulnerable nerve...never really answering a question...only posing a possible answer.

Hey, Mr. paper Chase...Vinatieri is a clutch Kicker because he won two SBs on two kicks.

Don't feed him...maybe he'll just go away

...then again...flys...you know

It's not like it's my theory wabbit. There are countless sources who verify that the idea of clutch is non-existent, or if it does exist it's so miniscule and difficult to trace(not to mention ever-changing form one year to the next as to who is assigned the 'clutch' tag) that discussion of it should best be relegated to the peremiters of any conversations, not the fore where it so often lands.

I sidestep?

Okay, here ya go:

" David Grabiner did the seminal work more than a decade ago, defining clutch as performance in the late innings of close games. From the article:

The correlation between past and current clutch performance is .01, with a standard deviation of .07. In other words, there isn't a significant ability in clutch hitting; if there were, the same players would be good clutch hitters every year.

A study by Ron Johnson, which is not currently online but is quoted here, covered a 15-year period and concluded that just two players, Paul Molitor and Tony Fernandez met the statistical criteria to be considered clutch hitters. (Johnson didn't argue that the two had this trait, just that of the players in the study, they were the only two whose performance with runners in scoring position showed a statistically significant improvement.)

You can see this yourself if you like, and you don't need to understand correlations to do it. Pick any five players at random, and check out their splits for the last few seasons (you can do this fairly easily at any of the major sports portals). You'll find that their statistics from year to year in the various clutch situations (RISP, late-inning pressure, September) can vary widely, with no rhyme or reason to the splits. But over a large enough sample, players will hit in given situations pretty much as they do overall.

course, these statistical arguments assume both numeracy and a quest for the truth. Too often, neither of these things is in play. The notion of clutch persists because it allows for a storyline with a hero and a goat, and that's both an easy tale to write and an easy one to read. While it's a facile concept, players buy into it because it's flattering. No one wants to believe that they're successful just because they hit the genetic lottery and that, on a particular day, they performed better than the other, equally-gifted guys. It's much more enjoyable to extrapolate a certain moral superiority from on-field success, to attribute that game-winning double to your heart and desire, rather than to your fast-twitch muscles and hitting the fastball at just the right angle to push it past the diving center fielder. It's this need to turn physics and physicality into a statement about the character of people--to stick labels on them based on their day at work and the bounce of a ball--that is the most damning thing about the myth of clutch.

The idea that players' abilities do not change in the clutch is one of those things that gets the anti-stathead crowd riled up, gets them talking about pocket protectors and people who take the fun out of the game. I don't buy it; the fun is the game, in the performances and the competition and the talent that we get to watch. "

And I think I already pointed out that Vinatieri's FGs in the post-season showed no real improvement when compared to his regular season efforts, so by making important FGs that doesn't necessarily mean he has done anything different than he would have normally done in a situation less tense.

[Lidderer]

nice paper chase reference wabbit. Although i never had a law professor quite as bad as "Professor Kingsfield" although two came close at times. As to this guy i dont see how MJ cant be seen as a clutch player. In the playoffs he took it up a notch all the time. I think this playoff PPG is higher than regular season, and that is saying something considering the quality of competition is even better.

I believe "this guy" suggested that Jordan was quite remarkable, and if what you say his true regarding his PPG being significantly higher, well because one player fits the criteria it doesn't necessarily mean that "clutch", then, exists. Rather, it seems that Michael Jordan does.

Here's jordan's career regular-season FG %(a "normal" shot,if you will): 49.6%
Here's jordan's career post-season FG % (a "clutch shot, if you will): 48.6%

So Jordan missed more shots in the "clutch", then.

[wabbit]

It's not like it's my theory wabbit. There are countless sources who verify that the idea of clutch is non-existent, or if it does exist it's so miniscule and difficult to trace(not to mention ever-changing form one year to the next as to who is assigned the 'clutch' tag) that discussion of it should best be relegated to the peremiters of any conversations, not the fore where it so often lands.

I sidestep?

Okay, here ya go:

" David Grabiner did the seminal work more than a decade ago, defining clutch as performance in the late innings of close games. From the article:

The correlation between past and current clutch performance is .01, with a standard deviation of .07. In other words, there isn't a significant ability in clutch hitting; if there were, the same players would be good clutch hitters every year.

A study by Ron Johnson, which is not currently online but is quoted here, covered a 15-year period and concluded that just two players, Paul Molitor and Tony Fernandez met the statistical criteria to be considered clutch hitters. (Johnson didn't argue that the two had this trait, just that of the players in the study, they were the only two whose performance with runners in scoring position showed a statistically significant improvement.)

You can see this yourself if you like, and you don't need to understand correlations to do it. Pick any five players at random, and check out their splits for the last few seasons (you can do this fairly easily at any of the major sports portals). You'll find that their statistics from year to year in the various clutch situations (RISP, late-inning pressure, September) can vary widely, with no rhyme or reason to the splits. But over a large enough sample, players will hit in given situations pretty much as they do overall.

course, these statistical arguments assume both numeracy and a quest for the truth. Too often, neither of these things is in play. The notion of clutch persists because it allows for a storyline with a hero and a goat, and that's both an easy tale to write and an easy one to read. While it's a facile concept, players buy into it because it's flattering. No one wants to believe that they're successful just because they hit the genetic lottery and that, on a particular day, they performed better than the other, equally-gifted guys. It's much more enjoyable to extrapolate a certain moral superiority from on-field success, to attribute that game-winning double to your heart and desire, rather than to your fast-twitch muscles and hitting the fastball at just the right angle to push it past the diving center fielder. It's this need to turn physics and physicality into a statement about the character of people--to stick labels on them based on their day at work and the bounce of a ball--that is the most damning thing about the myth of clutch.

The idea that players' abilities do not change in the clutch is one of those things that gets the anti-stathead crowd riled up, gets them talking about pocket protectors and people who take the fun out of the game. I don't buy it; the fun is the game, in the performances and the competition and the talent that we get to watch. "

And I think I already pointed out that Vinatieri's FGs in the post-season showed no real improvement when compared to his regular season efforts, so by making important FGs that doesn't necessarily mean he has done anything different than he would have normally done in a situation less tense.


Might I count on this being your summation counselor...legal hacks like you seem to get less winded the longer the argument drags on

Go away

The argument that you can appreciate only his achievements on the field while ignoring the human litter he's left strewn across twenty years is tantamount to claiming Hitler was great until he started a war.

It's an empty argument, devoid of human characteristics...unless you're a horse

You a horse son?? Blinders & all

[Rascal]

Wish this thread would die just like his career and his talking abilities.

Asking for him to die is a bit much for me, but I'm sure others here will take up the slack for me.

[Lidderer]

Might I count on this being your summation counselor...legal hacks like you seem to get less winded the longer the argument drags on

Go away

The argument that you can appreciate only his achievements on the field while ignoring the human litter he's left strewn across twenty years is tantamount to claiming Hitler was great until he started a war.

It's an empty argument, devoid of human characteristics...unless you're a horse

You a horse son?? Blinders & all

Sorry you hate the way i phrase things, wabbit. I'm not a lawyer nor do I have any desire to be one.

I'm not "going away", it's a freakin' messageboard, and odd that a claim like this should precede a mention of hitler.

It's a baseball arguement. Ever seen that Deniro film with the wesley "bonds" snipes character? "The Fan" i believe it's called. The underlying message is that people are probably caring a wee too much about what a guy who hits a baseball does in his spare time.

You're around these athletes a lot, so I can understand you view them as more than the aggregate of their output over a span of years, but for the casual fan who simply watches as an escape or a hobby, it seems peculiar to me that they should demand these sportsplayers to abide by their own personal and moral beliefs, or live up to some standard beyond "please get a hit!".

[obligatory hunglikeahorse "touche" joke]

[-Slap-]

I believe "this guy" suggested that Jordan was quite remarkable, and if what you say his true regarding his PPG being significantly higher, well because one player fits the criteria it doesn't necessarily mean that "clutch", then, exists. Rather, it seems that Michael Jordan does.

Here's jordan's career regular-season FG %(a "normal" shot,if you will): 49.6%
Here's jordan's career post-season FG % (a "clutch shot, if you will): 48.6%

So Jordan missed more shots in the "clutch", then.

Gosh, stat regurgitator. Do you think that maybe defenses play a little harder in the playoffs? No formula to quantify that, so you're left with nothing but the cold equations again.

[Lidderer]

Gosh, stat regurgitator. Do you think that maybe defenses play a little harder in the playoffs? No formula to quantify that, so you're left with nothing but the cold equations again.

The guy said that jordan did better in the playoffs, so obviously i was trying to verify if he was right. Do you never read a boxscore? Do you jsut ignore all that stuff? It's a big part of the game.

But so if Defenses play harder(meaning they "step it up") and Jordan's offensive production then goes down, well that seems to mean that the D's jordan faced were clutch, whereas he was not, no?

[-Slap-]

Wish this thread would die just like his career and his talking abilities.

Asking for him to die is a bit much for me, but I'm sure others here will take up the slack for me.

I don't want the ****ing idiot to die. I was mocking Garcia's devil's advocate routine with a comment that was equally worthless.

I do want to see his knee - or any other non-fatal physical ailment - prevent him from hitting 12 more home runs, though.

I'll say this, though, there are plenty of unhinged people out there who fixate on celebrities and I'm sure B*nds' gets some really scary hate mail. I would think that any parent's first instinct would be to shelter his family from the spotlight in that situation. What kind of self absorbed, irresponsible prick would use his own child as a public relations prop under those circumstances?

[FADERPROOF]

It's not like it's my theory wabbit. There are countless sources who verify that the idea of clutch is non-existent, or if it does exist it's so miniscule and difficult to trace(not to mention ever-changing form one year to the next as to who is assigned the 'clutch' tag) that discussion of it should best be relegated to the peremiters of any conversations, not the fore where it so often lands.

I sidestep?

Okay, here ya go:

" David Grabiner did the seminal work more than a decade ago, defining clutch as performance in the late innings of close games. From the article:

The correlation between past and current clutch performance is .01, with a standard deviation of .07. In other words, there isn't a significant ability in clutch hitting; if there were, the same players would be good clutch hitters every year.

A study by Ron Johnson, which is not currently online but is quoted here, covered a 15-year period and concluded that just two players, Paul Molitor and Tony Fernandez met the statistical criteria to be considered clutch hitters. (Johnson didn't argue that the two had this trait, just that of the players in the study, they were the only two whose performance with runners in scoring position showed a statistically significant improvement.)

You can see this yourself if you like, and you don't need to understand correlations to do it. Pick any five players at random, and check out their splits for the last few seasons (you can do this fairly easily at any of the major sports portals). You'll find that their statistics from year to year in the various clutch situations (RISP, late-inning pressure, September) can vary widely, with no rhyme or reason to the splits. But over a large enough sample, players will hit in given situations pretty much as they do overall.

course, these statistical arguments assume both numeracy and a quest for the truth. Too often, neither of these things is in play. The notion of clutch persists because it allows for a storyline with a hero and a goat, and that's both an easy tale to write and an easy one to read. While it's a facile concept, players buy into it because it's flattering. No one wants to believe that they're successful just because they hit the genetic lottery and that, on a particular day, they performed better than the other, equally-gifted guys. It's much more enjoyable to extrapolate a certain moral superiority from on-field success, to attribute that game-winning double to your heart and desire, rather than to your fast-twitch muscles and hitting the fastball at just the right angle to push it past the diving center fielder. It's this need to turn physics and physicality into a statement about the character of people--to stick labels on them based on their day at work and the bounce of a ball--that is the most damning thing about the myth of clutch.

The idea that players' abilities do not change in the clutch is one of those things that gets the anti-stathead crowd riled up, gets them talking about pocket protectors and people who take the fun out of the game. I don't buy it; the fun is the game, in the performances and the competition and the talent that we get to watch. "

And I think I already pointed out that Vinatieri's FGs in the post-season showed no real improvement when compared to his regular season efforts, so by making important FGs that doesn't necessarily mean he has done anything different than he would have normally done in a situation less tense.


There's a reason why geeks are sitting in a room calculating out math equations to prove that there is no such thing asd clutch, while players are still doing well in big games with everything on the line while their emotions are riding high.

You take a guy that kicks 40-41 FG's a season but lets the pressure get to him, I'll take a guy that doesnt have as good of stats but doesnt choke with the game on the line and I'm sure that in a close game my team will win.

Ever heard the phrase "Big time players step up in big time games?" UNless you want to say that there isnt a such thing as a "big game," then it's pretty tough to go against someone who steps up for their team in them.

[delany]

I find this latest line of reasoning concerning how 'clutch' Bonds is to be very humorous.....

To look at it all a different way (without mind-numbing stats), I believe everybody at the Mane probably can agree that Elway was clutch.

Yet IF he would have retired prior to his last two SuperBowls...would any of us think he was less clutch? I bet most on this board wouldn't (I know I wouldn't)...Everyone would be pointing at all of his 4th Qtr comebacks....most of them in the regular season to demonstrate what a clutch player he was.

Yet there would be many, many others out there (read Chief and Raider fans) that would say he sucked on footballs biggest stage in key moments....citing his early SB performances.

If we were talking about Elway and not Bonds, I would bet that all ya'll would then be arguing the other side of this same coin CONCERNING how clutch the player in question was.

I could care less if you hate Bonds....like I said MANY times in this thread...I don't respect him outside the lines....but at least be consistant in your arguments....otherwise you just look churlish and vindictive.

[-Slap-]

I find this latest line of reasoning concerning how 'clutch' Bonds is to be very humorous.....

To look at it all a different way (without mind-numbing stats), I believe everybody at the Mane probably can agree that Elway was clutch.

Yet IF he would have retired prior to his last two SuperBowls...would any of us think he was less clutch? I bet most on this board wouldn't (I know I wouldn't)...Everyone would be pointing at all of his 4th Qtr comebacks....most of them in the regular season to demonstrate what a clutch player he was.

Yet there would be many, many others out there (read Chief and Raider fans) that would say he sucked on footballs biggest stage in key moments....citing his early SB performances.

If we were talking about Elway and not Bonds, I would bet that all ya'll would then be arguing the other side of this same coin CONCERNING how clutch the player in question was.

I could care less if you hate Bonds....like I said MANY times in this thread...I don't respect him outside the lines....but at least be consistant in your arguments....otherwise you just look churlish and vindictive.

You look like a man who's grasping at straws.

Elway has the all time record for 4th quarter comebacks. B*nds reputation down the stretch and in the playoffs was always that of a guy who disappeared, pre-BALCO anyway.

Great comparison to completely torpedo your own argument.

[delany]

You look like a man who's grasping at straws.

Elway has the all time record for 4th quarter comebacks. B*nds reputation down the stretch and in the playoffs was always that of a guy who disappeared, pre-BALCO anyway.

Great comparison to completely torpedo your own argument.

If I am not making my point clear enough...I apologize.

I assumed that people were discussing the fact that Bonds was not clutch in the WS and playoffs (pre-BALCO).

I have heard numerous people argue over the years that prior to the last two Bronco SB that Elway was not clutch in SBs...ie big games (the same mantle that Peyton will wear until he breaks through).

The point is that if ANYBODY claims Elways wasn't clutch because of his early SB performances...I, and most everybody here would refute that claim....to the death.

You guys have your cake and want to eat it to.....Barry you say isn't clutch because of his WS/playoff performances pre Balco......Elway you give a pass on even if we look at his career prior to his SB wins.

Again I say that you are blinded by hate and it is impossible to you to look at this topic rationally.

Hate the guy...dispise him...I could care less.....but at least recognize that you would feel 180 degrees different about his on the field achievements (or lack there of in the WS/playoffs pre Balco) if you didn't want to pour gasoline on him and light a match.

Personally...At the time I thought this analogy of non-performance at the games highest level would make sense to you haters....but even having Elway and Bonds discussed in the same thread much less the same post makes me feel like taking a shower.

[RaiderH8r]

If I am not making my point clear enough...I apologize.

I assumed that people were discussing the fact that Bonds was not clutch in the WS and playoffs (pre-BALCO).

I have heard numerous people argue over the years that prior to the last two Bronco SB that Elway was not clutch in SBs...ie big games (the same mantle that Peyton will wear until he breaks through).

The point is that if ANYBODY claims Elways wasn't clutch because of his early SB performances...I, and most everybody here would refute that claim....to the death.

You guys have your cake and want to eat it to.....Barry you say isn't clutch because of his WS/playoff performances pre Balco......Elway you give a pass on even if we look at his career prior to his SB wins.

Again I say that you are blinded by hate and it is impossible to you to look at this topic rationally.

Hate the guy...dispise him...I could care less.....but at least recognize that you would feel 180 degrees different about his on the field achievements (or lack there of in the WS/playoffs pre Balco) if you didn't want to pour gasoline on him and light a match.

Personally...At the time I thought this analogy of non-performance at the games highest level would make sense to you haters....but even having Elway and Bonds discussed in the same thread much less the same post makes me feel like taking a shower.
If you think Bonds is clutch you weren't around when Sid Slid....Bonds threw a wiffleball from right field. Sid Bream had recently lost a foot race to a one legged civil war vet that week and Bonds still couldn't throw him out. Sid Slid

[football idiot]

What I'm loving is what I've thought all along.

you give any HOF-outfielder all the wisdom/experience/talent/skill of a 15-year vet in the bigs, and then artificially extend their career with science and illegal substances... imagine giving Aaron or Ruth another 5 years in their prime in their late 30's or 40's.

FACT is, Bonds knees have been shot for a while. Without the JUICE/CREAM/CLEAR, he can't play 150 games a year. his age will catch up with him REAL QUICK, just like it did to all the players his career is insulting. he should get traded, and DH his way past the record if he still wants it. his days as an outfielder are over.

[Tredici]

What I'm loving is what I've thought all along.

you give any HOF-outfielder all the wisdom/experience/talent/skill of a 15-year vet in the bigs, and then artificially extend their career with science and illegal substances... imagine giving Aaron or Ruth another 5 years in their prime in their late 30's or 40's.

FACT is, Bonds knees have been shot for a while. Without the JUICE/CREAM/CLEAR, he can't play 150 games a year. his age will catch up with him REAL QUICK, just like it did to all the players his career is insulting. he should get traded, and DH his way past the record if he still wants it. his days as an outfielder are over.

I just find it funny that a fat, overweight alcoholic still managed to produce more home runs than a guy having access to all the modern training technologies and "enhancements".

[delany]

I just find it funny that a fat, overweight alcoholic still managed to produce more home runs than a guy having access to all the modern training technologies and "enhancements".

That fat, overweight, alchoholic was the best player to ever live, 13.

Who knows...he might not have even been that good with out all the alcohol and fat.......Daly tried living a clean life and it just didn't work for him.....he seemed to play better with a sack of cheeseburgers in him and a buzz .

[RaiderH8r]

That fat, overweight, alchoholic was the best player to ever live, 13.

Who knows...he might not have even been that good with out all the alcohol and fat.......Daly tried living a clean life and it just didn't work for him.....he seemed to play better with a sack of cheeseburgers in him and a buzz .
Who knew WhiteCastle and Pabst Blue Ribbon were performance enhancers....

[Tredici]

That fat, overweight, alchoholic was the best player to ever live, 13.



I believe that's my point. Makes Barry look even sillier. He could've used his God given hitting abilities to be the undisputed King of doubles or triples. But no, he has to engage in all this enhancement crap so he can have the Home Run record. Which to me, makes his accomplishment dubious at best if not downright pathetic.

[delany]

I believe that's my point. Makes Barry look even sillier. He could've used his God given hitting abilities to be the undisputed King of doubles or triples. But no, he has to engage in all this enhancement crap so he can have the Home Run record. Which to me, makes his accomplishment dubious at best if not downright pathetic.

Of course it was your point....I just like stating the obvious :)

[-Slap-]

If I am not making my point clear enough...I apologize.

I assumed that people were discussing the fact that Bonds was not clutch in the WS and playoffs (pre-BALCO).

I have heard numerous people argue over the years that prior to the last two Bronco SB that Elway was not clutch in SBs...ie big games (the same mantle that Peyton will wear until he breaks through).

The point is that if ANYBODY claims Elways wasn't clutch because of his early SB performances...I, and most everybody here would refute that claim....to the death.

You guys have your cake and want to eat it to.....Barry you say isn't clutch because of his WS/playoff performances pre Balco......Elway you give a pass on even if we look at his career prior to his SB wins.


Bonds' reputation was for disappearing in September during pennant races. That's one reason he didn't win another legit MVP award and Terry Pendleton got it instead.

Your comparison is still ridiculous. Elway's playoff record was brilliant, even if the Super Bowl performances weren't.

B*rry choked like a dog in every pre-BALCO playoff series. He batted under .200 in three playoff series and he batted .250 and .261 in the others. Not exactly The Drive and The Drive II, you know what I mean.

Keep digging that hole, man.

[Rock Chalk]

How many times have you stroked it over this latest revelation there Slap?

I cant imagine a more ecstatic person on the planet right now.

[FADERPROOF]

How many times have you stroked it over this latest revelation there Slap?

I cant imagine a more ecstatic person on the planet right now.

Go back to your "baseball sucks" posts whenever a baseball topic pops up.

[-Slap-]

How many times have you stroked it over this latest revelation there Slap?

I cant imagine a more ecstatic person on the planet right now.

Your interest in my penis is flattering, Alec, but I'm going to change the subject now.

I've been waiting a long time for one of these cheaters to face the music. Seeing McGwire, Sosa and B*nds exposed and discredited one after another is more than I expected, though. I thought it would happen futher down the road. It probably would have if B*nds hadn't been such a smug and hateful prick every step of the way.

[Lidderer]

Your interest in my penis is flattering, Alec, but I'm going to change the subject now.

I've been waiting a long time for one of these cheaters to face the music. Seeing McGwire, Sosa and B*nds exposed and discredited one after another is more than I expected, though. I thought it would happen futher down the road. It probably would have if B*nds hadn't been such a smug and hateful prick every step of the way.

Can we hear more about Ted Williams please. :)

[-Slap-]

Can we hear more about Ted Williams please. :)

He used to take batting practice before they opened up the stadium sometimes and after every pitch he crushed into the bleachers he would scream, "I'm Ted ****ing Williams, the greatest hitter who ever lived!"

http://espn.go.com/media/mlb/2000/1104/photo/a_williams_vt.jpg

I read The Science of Hitting to tatters.

[-Slap-]

Ted Williams had more John Wayne in him than John Wayne did.

[Lidderer]

He used to take batting practice before they opened up the stadium sometimes and after every pitch he crushed into the bleachers he would scream, "I'm Ted ****ing Williams, the greatest hitter who ever lived!"

http://espn.go.com/media/mlb/2000/1104/photo/a_williams_vt.jpg

I read The Science of Hitting to tatters.

oh cool, tell me about his postseason performance.

Oh and:

"AP Exclusive: McGwire falling short, Bonds getting by with Hall voters, AP survey shows"


:) :) :) :) :) :)

[-Slap-]

oh cool, tell me about his postseason performance.

Oh and:

"AP Exclusive: McGwire falling short, Bonds getting by with Hall voters, AP survey shows"


:) :) :) :) :) :)

Insignificant sample size, but he stubbornly swung into the Williams Shift and batted .200 against the Cardinals in his one chance in the post season.

B*nds choked like a dog in five non-BALCO playoff series.

Obviously B*nds belongs in the Hall, all the BALCO bull**** aside, just like Rose belongs there.

[Lidderer]

Insignificant sample size, but he stubbornly swung into the Williams Shift and batted .200 against the Cardinals in his one chance in the post season.

B*nds choked like a dog in five non-BALCO playoff series.

Obviously B*nds belongs in the Hall, all the BALCO bull**** aside, just like Rose belongs there.

I'm glad we could finally agree, even if only facetiously.

[-Slap-]

BTW, the BoSox tanked as a team in '46. They were favored to win that series, but they batted .240 as a team.

Harry "The Cat" Breechen was pretty much untouchable for St Louis, going 3-0 with an ERA of 0.45.

[-Slap-]

I'm glad we could finally agree, even if only facetiously.

Yeah, I'm all goose pimply about it.

[Lidderer]

the BoSox batted .240 as a team.




wait, now this wouldn't be considered a choke in your book, would it?

[-Slap-]

wait, now this wouldn't be considered a choke in your book, would it?

I dunno, all second hand info for me since they held these contests 18 years before I was born.

Maybe Harry Breechen was a clutch player.

Postseason Pitching

Year Round Tm Opp WLser G GS ERA W-L SV CG SHO IP H ER BB SO
+------------------+-----+--+--+------+-----+--+--+---+-----+---+---+---+---+
1943 WS STL NYY L 3 0 2.45 0-1 0 0 0 3.7 5 1 3 3
1944 WS STL SLB W 1 1 1.00 1-0 0 1 0 9.0 9 1 4 4
1946 WS STL BOS W 3 2 0.45 3-0 0 2 1 20.0 14 1 5 11
+------------------+-----+--+--+------+-----+--+--+---+-----+---+---+---+---+
3 World Series 2-1 7 3 0.83 4-1 0 3 1 32.7 28 3 12 18
+------------------+-----+--+--+------+-----+--+--+---+-----+---+---+---+---+

His post season record is far more impressive than his regular season stats.

[Lidderer]

I dunno, all second hand info for me since they held these contests 18 years before I was born.

Maybe Harry Breechen was a clutch player.



His post season record is far more impressive than his regular season stats.

cause harry breechen is just a typo away from 'ted williams'. I believe wabbit would call this "not answering the question".

[-Slap-]

cause harry breechen is just a typo away from 'ted williams'. I believe wabbit would call this "not answering the question".

I did answer the question. I think you may be a little dense.

[football idiot]

Bonds can't play without the JUICE!!!!!!!!!

(sorry, but I'm LOVING IT! Da-Da-Da-Da-Daaaaaa)

[Garcia Bronco]

Baseball is a freaky sport...take Ted for example.....he's kid freezed his head for his DNA. That's creepy

[Lidderer]

I did answer the question. I think you may be a little dense.

Any sane man would be more inclined to reason that someone who need always bring out the cheap personal attacks during any discussion is the more likely to be dense, or at the very least petty.

The issue was regarding Ted Williams, you brought up the irrelevant fact of harry's numbers. Shall I cite Doug Drabek's ERA when discussing Bonds playoff days? No, no I shouldn't.

THe bosox .240 batting average was still .40 points higher than ol' Teddy.

And if Harry performed better in the postseason, it's from a sample size of 4 (!) games(the 3 others show him with a 2.45 era, which is only fractions below hi career regular season era), so any weight attributed to that should be minimal at most.

this .192 batter also dipped almost .100 points when in the postseason.

Arguement works both ways, which is to say: clutch proves yet again that it doesn't it exist.

I like how we have to traverse our way as far back as 1946 to find a marginal example of clutch, as well.

[-Slap-]

Keep trying to spin B*rry's sub-.200 post season BA all you like, but in almost 100 pre-BALCO post-season ABs he's under the Mendoza Line.

Five post season series, five disappointing performances. He batted .167, .148, .261, .250 and .176. No matter how many true Hall of Famers you try to smear, those numbers aren't going to go away.

[Lidderer]

Keep trying to spin B*rry's sub-.200 post season BA all you like, but in almost 100 pre-BALCO post-season ABs he's under the Mendoza Line.

Five post season series, five disappointing performances. He batted .167, .148, .261, .250 and .176. No matter how many true Hall of Famers you try to smear, those numbers aren't going to go away.

So his .198 avg pre-balco(pretty suspect[edit] to completely disregard his other numbers, but fine, i'll play along) is .002 lower than ted's .200.

Obviously 1 extra hit every 500 at-bats is statistically meaningful, right?

[-Slap-]

So his .198 avg pre-balco(pretty suspect[edit] to completely disregard his other numbers, but fine, i'll play along) is .002 lower than ted's .200.

Obviously 1 extra hit every 500 at-bats is statistically meaningful, right?

B*nds was 19 for 97 over five series spanning several years.

Williams was 5 for 25 in one series, his first year back after three years in the South Pacific.

100% of what Ted accomplished on the field was real. Instead of using drugs to extend his career, he gave away five years in service to his country. Ted's career average was .344 and B*nds wasn't even over .300 before he started using drugs. Whatever ups and down Ted had throughout his career, he retired a hero. B*nds is going out as a disgrace.

[Lidderer]

B*nds was 19 for 97 over five series spanning several years.

Williams was 5 for 25 in one series, his first year back after three years in the South Pacific.




Oh so Ted could only lead his team to the playoffs once. good point.

the rest of the post was irrelevant to the specific issue this discussion turned toward.

[RunByDesign]

Barry Bonds....."I can't take juice anymore cuz they'll test me, so now my body is falling apart."

He's a f ing cheat, not only that, but a freaking whiney cowardly pu**y.

Wipe his name from the books, IMO.

Him and Mac and every other fatass that was on the juice.

[-Slap-]

Oh so Ted could only lead his team to the playoffs once. good point.

the rest of the post was irrelevant to the specific issue this discussion turned toward.

Ever heard of baseball's reserve clause?

The Yankees used to sign so much talent they could have put together several playoff caliber teams just from guys they buried in the minors for life.

Back in 1953, one of their minor leaguers named George Toolson sued the Yankees because he felt the reserve clause kept him toiling in the minors when he could have played for any number of other major league teams. His case predated Curt Flood and Marvin Miller, Andy Messersmith or Catfish Hunter. Toolson got shot down in court, but he paved the way. Not because he wanted to become rich, but because he wanted a shot at the big leagues.

The Red Sox had about as much chance of beating the Yankees in any given season during the 40s and 50s as Tampa Bay does of beating them this year.

Keep spitting on Ted Williams and Babe Ruth to make your boy look good, though. That's the standard mentality of the B*nds fan.

[Bronco LB 59]

Oh so Ted could only lead his team to the playoffs once. good point.

During Ted Williams' career:

8 American League teams

7 stayed home

1 pennant winner went straight to the World Series to play the National League champion

15 times during Teddy Ballgame's career that team was the New York Yankees.

[Lidderer]

During Ted Williams' career:

8 American League teams

7 stayed home

1 pennant winner went straight to the World Series to play the National League champion

15 times during Teddy Ballgame's career that team was the New York Yankees.


yeah, so he never stepped it up a notch, agreed. Wow, only 8 teams.

Anyway, the point is only that there is no difference: Bonds was just as ineffective as Ted. To think someone would bring "but he didn't have as many chances" as a defense is a bit peculiar and counterproductive to the arguement.

[-Slap-]

yeah, so he never stepped it up a notch, agreed. Wow, only 8 teams.

Anyway, the point is only that there is no difference: Bonds was just as ineffective as Ted. To think someone would bring "but he didn't have as many chances" as a defense is a bit peculiar and counterproductive to the arguement.

The main point is 100% of what Ted Williams accomplished was real and 25% of B*nds career was total bull****. In fact, his best years were total bull****. Pretty funny when think about it. Nobody on the planet was mentioning B*rry in the same breath as Ted Williams before Victor Conte and Greg Anderson chemically engineered B*rroid onto the map.

[-Slap-]

Wow, only 8 teams.

Not the watered down league B*rry played in his whole career.

[Lidderer]

Not the watered down league B*rry played in his whole career.

Okay, so the other teams still almost always(save one year) came out ahaed of Ted and his boys anyway.

It would seem to me that if you reasoned Bonds era was easier becaues of watered down talent, you could also argue that Ted had a higher percentage of playoff chance given the lack of teams

[-Slap-]

Okay, so the other teams still almost always(save one year) came out ahaed of Ted and his boys anyway.

It would seem to me that if you reasoned Bonds era was easier becaues of watered down talent, you could also argue that Ted had a higher percentage of playoff chance given the lack of teams

Truthfully, the additional influx of ethnic players in the last 50 years probably evened out the talent level between the eras. Ruth's era had no black players, but there was also practically no other way for a professional athlete to make a living in the 1920s. You couldn't make money playing football or basketball or playing hockey, so just about all the best athletes of that era were playing major league baseball.

Your argument that fewer teams equal more possibilities for success is quite specious. The overwhelming favorite is still the overwhelming favorite whether the field is two teams or two million. Considering most years Bobby Doerr and Johnny Pesky were the only other everyday players on the Red Sox besides Williams who could have even made the Yankees, the only surprise is that Boston even broke through in '46. That probably only happened because they Yankees roster showed a little age in the years immediately following WWII and they paused for a breath between dynasties. Obviously Tom Yawkey's racist attitude cost the Red Sox dearly in the years following '47, too.

[Lidderer]

Truthfully, the additional influx of ethnic players in the last 50 years probably evened out the talent level between the eras. Ruth's era had no black players, but there was also practically no other way for a professional athlete to make a living in the 1920s. You couldn't make money playing football or basketball or playing hockey, so just about all the best athletes of that era were playing major league baseball.

Your argument that fewer teams equal more possibilities for success is quite specious. The overwhelming favorite is still the overwhelming favorite whether the field is two teams or two million. Considering most years Bobby Doerr and Johnny Pesky were the only other everyday players on the Red Sox besides Williams who could have even made the Yankees, the only surprise is that Boston even broke through in '46. That probably only happened because they Yankees roster showed a little age in the years immediately following WWII and they paused for a breath between dynasties. Obviously Tom Yawkey's racist attitude cost the Red Sox dearly in the years following '47, too.


Good points. I'll defer to you on the makeup of baseball in that era as you clearly have a better understanding of its small(but in no way unimportant) machinations.

[TomServo]

i just saw the movie "Cobb" the other night. i wonder what barry on the cross would have really have done back in the racist days of baseball.

[-Slap-]

i just saw the movie "Cobb" the other night. i wonder what barry on the cross would have really have done back in the racist days of baseball.

He would have been playing with Josh Gibson and Cool Papa Bell and if he complained, nobody ever would have heard him.

http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2001/fyi/news/02/02/negro.league/link.josh.gibson.jpg

Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker and most of the other star players from the south were about to allow integrated baseball only over their dead bodies.

Ty Cobb's hatred for Babe Ruth was well known. He was always insanely jealous of Babe's universal popularity. Apparently Cobb saw a photo of Ruth talking to a group of black children and it really drove him nuts. He went around spreading the rumor that Ruth was actually black.

http://www.cnnsi.com/centurys_best/images/baseball/t1_babe_ruth.jpg

Both Ruth's parents were known in the Baltimore area, so questions about his lineage weren't really disputable, but Cobb wasn't to be dissuaded. He made the nearly fatal mistake of calling Ruth a n****r on the field one day. Babe chased him into the lockerroom and beat him unconscious in the showers. None of Cobb's teammates intervened.