Like him or not, he is the best ever

I think this is a hard argument to use in baseball.
That would be like saying Todd Helton is garbage because he hasn't led the Rockies to the playoffs. You can't pin it on one player.
It is the same argument as the irrational ARod sucks because he doesn't singlehandedly win the Yankees a World Series.

 

Um, what point? The question was about Bonds as the greatest left fielder and in his prime he most certainly was. Further, he did not become "below average" which by definition would mean at least half of the left-fielders out there were better than him, until at the very earliest the past three years, which means he was the absolute best for ten seasons and very much above average for five years.

Bulking up was one of his problems, getting old was more of one and the same can be said about Cal Ripken in his later years.

And the fact that you don't get the Jordan comparisons tell me you have a fundamental lack of understanding about athletics and what it takes to be athletic.

I'll bet you probably were going to say next that Jordan, who is considered among the greatest defensive players in NBA history. was still a great defensive player in his later years when in fact, it was Pippen who almost always drew the assignment of covering the other team's top wing player or guard during their last three runs to the NBA title.

So because Jordan got old and spent at least his last seven or eight seasons as not the best defensive player even on his own team, that diminishes what he was in his prime?

That's just plain silly and I think even you know that.

 

But when you say Todd Helton or Griffey or anyother guy who has not played in multiple World Series, they are not in the discussion.

We are comparing Bonds to Ruth, Mays, Rose, Musial, Gehrig and the other true Gods of the sport. There are maybe 12-15 Baseball Gods. Bonds probably is part of them, but the best? No way.

These guys can take you to a post season on their sheer force and will. And, yes, they all went to multiple World Series or they were playing in an era where they were matched with each other head to head.

Who did Bonds get knocked out of the post season by? Terry Pendleton and Ron Gant? Barry Larkin and Eric Davis? I know the Braves had pitching, but somehow it didn't do as well in the World Series.

 

It was Dock Ellis, a no-hitter according to his own testimony. Of course, he also hit three batters in the first inning while claiming to be high on drugs.

 

Zag --

You were clearly sick the day they taugh logic at your school.

Because Pippen was also an excellent defender, Jordan wasn't?

Because Bonds has been terrible the past three seasons, he was the absolute best for 10?

Do better.

And if Bonds has only been below average for three years, how do you explain 2002, when he had twice as many errors as assists?

 

It is nice to romanticize about "sheer will" of a star getting a team to the world series championship --and perhaps you could make an argument for a PITCHER like an Orel Hershisier in 1988 (or was it 1989 I forget), but to try and make an argument like that for a field player -- particularly an outfielder --is wrong.

In 1990, the Reds were better than the Pirates, period.
In 1991, Bonds was a big part of the Pirates lack of offense and deserved to be criticized, though the Braves didn't have to pitch to him because Bonilla and Van Slyke didn't do much either.
In 1992, the Braves were better than the Pirates and the Pirates still had the series won had it not been for the aforementioned pitching and fielding gaffes.

In other words, there are a lot of reasons why teams don't get to the world series and almost all are far bigger than one player.

 

Zeke, the guy is going to turn 43 in two months, so yes, his range has deteriorated quite a bit. Bonds isn't much of a base stealer now, either. Are you going to say he cound never do that, either? For those who have forgotten, Bonds has 510 career steals, including at least 40 on three different occasions with a career-high of 52 in 1990.

I'm talking about the prime of his career. Bonds was outstanding not only in his positioning, but he had great speed and got a great jump on the ball. The reason I compared him to Andruw Jones is because he played center field that way when he first came up... very shallow, because he could get back on the ball so well.

He had excellent range for a center fielder, which made him more of a standout in left. Bonds was moved to left simply because his arm was average at best and because Andy Van Slyke had similar range and a better arm. That is a big part of how that team was able to for hiding a crappy third baseman, Bobby Bonilla, in right field, because Bonds and Van Slyke covered so much territory.

It is unfair to dismiss Bonds as a defensive player just because his skills have deteriorated at such a late stage in his career.

 

Zags: Hershiser was 1988.

Edgar Martinez pretty much beat the Yankees in 1995 as a DH. That is a horrible memory.

 

Zeke, do better than this please.

Pippen defended the best player on the other team because he was a better defender at the time and because Jordan, who had gotten old, had to use so much of his energy to generate similar offense to when he was younger, he needed to rest on defense. He got older, he got a half-step slower and he wasn't able to take the pounding.

Is that easier for you to understand, and oh, I forgot because you are getting crushed in this argument and you know it, you are now pulling out the grammar cop routine so here, to make it easier for you to understand.....

"....until at the very earliest the past three years, which . So if you add it all up, that basically means he was the absolute best in the game for ten seasons and very much above average for five years -- and only below average for the very tail end of his career. I'd say the fact that that he dominated the position for ten years is a long enough sample to say what has happened since his skills have been diminished is the exception and not the rule."

There does that clear it up or did I miss a comma some where as well?

 

Zag --

I'm through with this.

Suffice to say, I don't disagree that Bonds was an excellent outfielder for a stretch of his career.

All I'm saying is that you have to factor in the second half of his career as well, when he has been below average as a defensive player.

If you add all that up in your head and get the best defensive leftfielder of all time, you're entitled to that.
I don't agree.

And it wasn't your grammar I had a problem with. It was your logic, which still leaves a lot to be desired.

 

If my memory is correct -- the first five guys in that lineup killed the Yankees that year. Was that the year they had Edgar Martinez, Tino Martinez, Jay Buhner, Ken Griffey and maybe even a young AROD?

Am I correct on that?

 

Um, yes it was. You tried to argue with two logical leaps that I never even attempted to make and mostly because I didn't use the correct words to make it clear enough for those people who read at a level below say, fifth grade.

And again, you would be hard pressed to find anyone who is an expert on baseball classify Bonds as being "below average" -- meaning he's worse than half the players at his position in the league -- defensively even as late as 2001 or 2002.

That's not half his career by any measure.