Poll shorty
Printable View
Poll shorty
Poojals
BondsQuote:
".517 Bonds's on-base percentage for the entire decade. I've tried to avoid the impulse to make this an entire list of Barry Bonds stats, but even though he stopped playing before the end of it, Bonds dominated the decade like no other player has ever offensively dominated, since Babe Ruth himself. His average for the decade would be the seventh-highest single-season OBP of all time as it is, he owns the two highest all by himself. His OPS+ for the decade was 221 in other words, he was 120 percent better than the average player all decade. It was unnatural, and it was remarkable. Like nothing we've ever seen before."
Bonds
I hate to say it, but Bonds.
I am fine saying it, Bonds.
B*nds
Bondsy
I hate Bonds, and the limited amount that he played in comparison to my man albert is a slight against him, but those numbers he put up are flat our ridiculous and other worldly.
Pujols
Anyone who votes for Pujols or anyone else most likely cannot overcome their hatred for Barry Bonds.
That being said, Bonds, even though it took a while to not hate him enough to vote.
Well, there are 3 reasons that I can think of that could lead one to vote for someone other than Bonds:Quote:
Originally Posted by President
1) He's an *******.
2) The steroids issue.
3) The fact that he wasn't active for the entire decade.
Only the 3rd reason is really a good one IMO, but I think that the level at which he performed outweigh the fact that he wasn't active the last 2 seasons. Still, I can understand if someone wouldn't vote for him for that reason.
The only slight against Bonds, that is a fair argument is that he hasn't played since 07. I would say being active for 70 percent of the decade and leaving us with numbers that only exist in arcade games, I am going to say Bonds easily wins this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by dps
Pujols, easy runner up, and if you put Albert's numbers against players in the 80's or 90's, than he might have case there.
If you count 2000, Bonds by his 2000 production.
If you start in 2001, Pujols by his production this year.
ARod is a close 3rd.
Starting in 2000, and using Fangraphs data (estimated for 2000/2001) I get roughly 550 runs above replacement for Bonds, about the same for Pujols, and right around 500 for A-Rod. If we are talking peaks it is Bonds and isn't close, for overall batting value it is quite close.
Anybody who doesn't vote for Bonds is an idiot
http://images.damncrows.com/img/upld...1247928299.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Red Sox Fan 734
I see some intense squirrel spamming going on.
It's not a squirrel ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
I am just anti Bonds. I disregard him all together.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Sox Fan 734
He is clearly, the best offensive player of the decade, and that's what the question is asking, not "Do you like Barry Bonds"Quote:
Originally Posted by rschusta24
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by alloutwar
From the idiots at the Sporting News:Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Sox Fan 734
http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/arti...s-1b-cardinals
Considering they don't even mention Bonds, yeah you're right, they are idiots.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldYankFan
I don't like him and don't respect anything he had done. He is gone from my mind. Never existed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Sox Fan 734
http://i45.tinypic.com/2910t1w.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
WeebayQuote:
Originally Posted by Slingshot
Prairie dogs (Cynomys) are burrowing rodents (not actually dogs) native to the grasslands of North America. There are five different species of prairie dogs: black-tailed, white-tailed, Gunnison, Utah, and Mexican prairie dogs. They are a type of ground squirrel.Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
The only reason you can dismiss Bonds is because he didn't play the entire decade, and in fact, really only played 5 or 6 seasons. But his number rates were incredible. Being a big time Albert fan, I still say it is Bonds. But to omit him? Well then as a writer, you are as dense as the guy that said greatest hitter of all time and left off Ruth.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldYankFan
Batting runs this decade (2000-2009):
Barry Bonds - 562
Albert Pujols - 556
Alex Rodriguez - 463
If you include 2000Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
uhhhQuote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
What? Why WOULDNT you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Well decades TECHNICALLY are 2000-2009, but some would argue and thus why I said that.Quote:
Originally Posted by 200tang
some people will argue that a decade is actually 2001-2010.
Doesn't really matter, I just remember someone on here arguing if the year 2000 should be included or not.
I thought it was HGM
Or I guess it was SirKQuote:
Originally Posted by SirKodiak
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_zeroQuote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
oh I know, technically, the new Millennium and century started on Jan. 1, 2001. But everything I know and can find seems to state a decade is 2000-2009Quote:
Originally Posted by SirKodiak
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/decade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DecadeQuote:
Originally Posted by SirKodiak
however, if we're talking centuries;Quote:
The term usually refers to a period of ten years starting with 0 and ending in 9. For example, "the 1950s" refers to 1950 through to 1959 (inclusive)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century
Quote:
According to the Gregorian calendar, the 1st century AD started on January 1, 1 and ended on December 31, 100. The 2nd century started at year 101, the third at 201, etc. The n-th century started/will start on the year 100Śn - 99. A century will only include one year, the centennial year, that starts with the century's number (e.g. 1900 is the final year in the 19th century).
ill go with pujols since i havent heard about him using steroids
has he?
Yes, he has.Quote:
Originally Posted by slickydo
Now that somebody's accused him, it's true.