You're replying to, "Bonds is the greatest hitter of his time".

 

Hes still the greatest of all time regardless

Edited August 5, 200718 yr by Shadows

He isn't either.

Bonds is the most prolific (highest HR production) mlb power hitter who has ever played.

 

He played within the rules of major league baseball as they were at the time.

 

There was no drug policy and anything he may or may have not done was fully legal under mlb rules at the time it happened.

 

Same with everyone else in the "HGH/Steroid" era.

 

 

If he gets the record, big deal.

 

Alex Rodriguez will pass him in 7 years anyway.

Edited August 5, 200718 yr by knightni

Check out Bonds' 1992-1997 seasons, and consider that Bonds was also an elite defender and baserunner during those years, and you have arguably the greatest six year periods ever.

He isn't either.

 

And __________ is *clearly* better?

Check out Bonds' 1992-1997 seasons, and consider that Bonds was also an elite defender and baserunner during those years, and you have arguably the greatest six year periods ever.

 

Elite defender -- in left field? Take that for what it's worth.

I'm at a hotel right now, and they don't have ESPN2. I didn't think I could hate extreme sports more than I already did.....but I do now.

I'm at a hotel right now, and they don't have ESPN2. I didn't think I could hate extreme sports more than I already did.....but I do now.

 

Ah man, youre gonna have to catch the replay it was awesome..

And __________ is *clearly* better?

 

That is a debate for another time that someone else will have. There were plenty of players in his time who were at or around his level, and that have a legit argument as being better than him or less than him.

I'm at a hotel right now, and they don't have ESPN2. I didn't think I could hate extreme sports more than I already did.....but I do now.

 

ESPN.com has it.

I'm at a hotel right now, and they don't have ESPN2. I didn't think I could hate extreme sports more than I already did.....but I do now.

 

Aren't you on your honeymoon?

Hes still the greatest of all time regardless

No, no, he's not. Even with his absurdly roid-reliant golden years, he's nowhere close to Ruth. Not even ballpark.

Ah man, youre gonna have to catch the replay it was awesome..

 

I saw the first homer...actually, the local news here in Miami cut to it about a minute after it happened.

That is a debate for another time that someone else will have.

 

You brought it upon yourself. If you don't want to debate it, don't make comments like:

 

I don't think Bonds is the greatest hitter of his time.

Aren't you on your honeymoon?

 

Leave on the cruise tomorrow...we're in the hotel tonight. We went to the Astros/Marlins game last night....not exactly a full house. I can proudly say I went to the same spot today where Anna Nicole Smith died.

I saw the first homer...actually, the local news here in Miami cut to it about a minute after it happened.

 

They haven't broke that I lit the fuse have they? Just asking...

No, no, he's not. Even with his absurdly roid-reliant golden years, he's nowhere close to Ruth. Not even ballpark.

 

Haha yes, Ruth who not only played against inferior talent than Bonds has but also doesn't even have better overall numbers than Bonds is clearly better..

You brought it upon yourself. If you don't want to debate it, don't make comments like:

 

I have the right to decline a debate, and I am exercising that right. I merely stated my opinion that Bonds isn't the greatest hitter of his time, which is not an invitation to debate. It was a counter to a different assertion, and merely that.

 

If you're so anxious to defend Bonds, then I'll throw these names out and you can busy yourself refuting their cases as better hitters than Bonds: Griffey, Thomas, McGwire, Sosa. Only throwing the clear juicers for kicks.

Haha yes, Ruth who not only played against inferior talent than Bonds has but also doesn't even have better overall numbers than Bonds is clearly better..

 

He was fat, too.

 

PS: some would say, Bonds got to play in Coors Field, and Bonds played in the Expansion Era against pitchers that would've been in AAA in Ruth's day.

Bonds is a dick.

He was fat, too.

 

PS: some would say, Bonds got to play in Coors Field, and Bonds played in the Expansion Era against pitchers that would've been in AAA in Ruth's day.

 

I seriously doubt that, I am sure that a lot of AAA pitchers in this day of age would have been great back when Ruth played..

 

Sorry, but Ruth played against all white players back in a time where there is no way players were as athletic or just flat out good as they are today..

Haha yes, Ruth who not only played against inferior talent than Bonds has but also doesn't even have better overall numbers than Bonds is clearly better..

Please. It's convenient but absurd to ignore the era in which they played. Bonds was an excellent player, often the best in the league. Ruth was a phenomenon. When Bonds outhomers every other team in his league, let me know.

 

And if he could do it without steroids, I might even consider your argument.

If you're so anxious to defend Bonds, then I'll throw these names out and you can busy yourself refuting their cases as better hitters than Bonds: Griffey, Thomas, McGwire, Sosa. Only throwing the clear juicers for kicks.

 

I've looked it up plenty of times, no need to do it again -- Bonds beats all of them quite easily.

 

That's fine though -- I can't force you to debate if you don't want to. I just called you on your "assertion" and since you haven't really done a whole lot to prove your side, I think I know that nothing more needs to be said from me.

Haha yes, Ruth who not only played against inferior talent than Bonds has but also doesn't even have better overall numbers than Bonds is clearly better..

 

Ruth's numbers are quite a bit better than Bond's numbers actually. Significantly higher BA, OBP, SLG, and OPS.

I seriously doubt that, I am sure that a lot of AAA pitchers in this day of age would have been great back when Ruth played..

 

Sorry, but Ruth played against all white players back in a time where there is no way players were as athletic or just flat out good as they are today..

 

The quality of the leagues that Ruth played in are a very interesting topic, especially with regard to the effect that they had on the numbers, but I don't accept any contention that says, Today's leagues are better -- tougher! -- because players are more athletic and racial now! Therefore, players today > past, just because.[/i]