[gorickey]

Originally posted by Mark Tungston:
the baseball world does not revolve around Rickey Henderson and FYI: Barry Bonds is a much better player than Rickey will every be

� Barry has hit more singles than Rickey has hit Home Runs
� Barry is a thief too, he is the only member of the 500 500 club

Runs Scored is important only as a team stat, not individual. Please refer to Barry Bonds total RBI output compared to Rickey...

Wow...so does it revolve around Barry Bonds? Just wondering.

Are you again shocked that a clean-up hitter has more career RBI's than a lead-off hitter? Please refer to all other lead-off hitters career RBI's...

• Rickey has more MLB World Championships than Barry.
• Rickey is All-Time leader in Lead-off HR's...so call him a "Power Hitter" as well based off your reasonings above.

[Phanguye]

Originally posted by gorickey:
Wow...so does it revolve around Barry Bonds? Just wondering.

Are you again shocked that a clean-up hitter has more career RBI's than a lead-off hitter? Please refer to all other lead-off hitters career RBI's...

• Rickey has more MLB World Championships than Barry.
• Rickey is All-Time leader in Lead-off HR's...so call him a "Power Hitter" as well based off your reasonings above.

i am not saying rickey wasnt amazing as a leadoff hitter... i am just saying bonds, although he is a ginormous douche, is a better hitter


if you put barry bonds in the leadoff spot he would be a better leadoff hitter than rickey was

[Phanguye]

Originally posted by gorickey:
Those stats meaning nothing except for that fact that Bonds hasn't played as long as Henderson has (yet) is all.

SB's are overrated? Ironic. I was thinking HR's were these days...

no it means that if barry bonds were to retire today it would mean that bonds would have scored 2% more often per at bat... thats not even counting runs batted in... stealing is all well and good, but it doesn't score a run like a HR does

[gorickey]

Originally posted by Phanguye:
i am not saying rickey wasnt amazing as a leadoff hitter... i am just saying bonds, although he is a ginormous douche, is a better hitter

True.

if you put barry bonds in the leadoff spot he would be a better leadoff hitter than rickey was

False for various reasons. He would be a better "hitter", but he wouldn't be able to create walks like Rickey could and definitely could not move around the bases like Rickey. Therefore, making Rickey the better lead-off hitter overall.

[gorickey]

Originally posted by Phanguye:
...stealing is all well and good, but it doesn't score a run like a HR does

I'd say, for Rickey in particular (not so much others), that's not true. Rickey doesn't own the All-Time runs record for nothing. And for having far less HR's than Bonds, he sure as hell has a TON more runs scored. Why? He put himself in scoring position more often than not by stealing.

[Phanguye]

Originally posted by gorickey:
I'd say, for Rickey in particular (not so much others), that's not true. Rickey doesn't own the All-Time runs record for nothing. And for having far less HR's than Bonds, he sure as hell has a TON more runs scored. Why? He put himself in scoring position more often than not by stealing.

like i said rickey is good, but i would credit his massive numbers of runs scored to his ability to get on base more that his ability to steal.

[gorickey]

Originally posted by Phanguye:
like i said rickey is good, but i would credit his massive numbers of runs scored to his ability to get on base more that his ability to steal.

I'd say they go hand 'n hand...you don't get the record without excelling in both. Cobb (the former runs record holder) was great at both as well. It just makes sense.

However, you of course have to give credit to all of Rickey's teammates who have also driven him in game after game once he gets on base.

[Phanguye]

Originally posted by gorickey:
I'd say they go hand 'n hand...you don't get the record without excelling in both. Cobb (the former runs record holder) was great at both as well. It just makes sense.

However, you of course have to give credit to all of Rickey's teammates who have also driven him in game after game once he gets on base.

i am almost positive that if you looked at the correlation between scoring a run and stealing a base on the same at bat that the correlation would not be very strong at all... on the other hand the correlation between scoring a run and getting on base is 1

[gorickey]

Originally posted by Phanguye:
i am almost positive that if you looked at the correlation between scoring a run and stealing a base on the same at bat that the correlation would not be very strong at all... on the other hand the correlation between scoring a run and getting on base is 1

Either way, Rickey does both better than anybody else in MLB history.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by gorickey:

[*]Rickey is All-Time leader in Lead-off HR's...so call him a "Power Hitter" as well based off your reasonings above.[/list]

NO!

call him a lead-off hitter with power. if he had significantly better numbers he would be a 3-4 hitter. and if he was a 3-4 hitter, he would NOT be the greatest anybody of all time because he would not have been as good as he was hitting first.

3-4 hitters like Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig are recognizeed as the most skilled hitters on the team. That is a baseball fact.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by gorickey:


False for various reasons. He would be a better "hitter", but he wouldn't be able to create walks like Rickey could and definitely could not move around the bases like Rickey. Therefore, making Rickey the better lead-off hitter overall.

Barry Bonds would not have been better than Rickey leading-off because Barry Bonds is too talented to be wasted as a lead-off hitter.

He's going to be the first 700/500 man next year. Barry could have held his own.

[gorickey]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
Barry Bonds would not have been better than Rickey leading-off because Barry Bonds is too talented to be wasted as a lead-off hitter.

He's going to be the first 700/500 man next year. Barry could have held his own.

Of course not, that's why you can't compare a lead-off hitter with a clean-up hitter statistically. They both have different objectives up at the plate. Bonds, especially the "younger days" Bonds, was very apt to striking out and swining at bad pitches. That wouldn't fly in the lead-off position. Rickey only has 200 more strikeouts than Barry, with Rickey having about 8-9 years more experience.

Simply put...Rickey wouldn't be as good as a clean-up hitter, as Bonds wouldn't be as good as a lead-off hitter.

And while 700/500 is remarkable, I don't take shame in knowing that Rickey is only 3 HR's short of 1400+/300...

[Apple Pro Underwear]

actually � argument for argument's sake


I remember Rickey hitting leadoff for the yanks in the mattingly days...

he was pretty nice. recently, having soriano hit lead-off reminded me of him. starting off the game with a 1-0 lead is quite nasty.


I think if a team really wanted to � they could challenge the pre-defined rules of line-up hitting and their duties. Right now Bernie Williams is leading off a lot for the yanks and he was a 3 hitter for awhile with NY. I remember Brady Anderson in his steroid infused body doing a lot of damage leading off games too in his special drug induced year.

_______

700/500 is not remarkable. IT IS FILTHY DISGUSTING NASTY stat. That's greatest evar teritory.

[gorickey]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
700/500 is not remarkable. IT IS FILTHY DISGUSTING NASTY stat. That's greatest evar teritory.

1400/300 is a "nobody will even come close, so stop trying now" kind of stat.

Nobody can ever be considered the greatest ever until they win a damn championship...or a few...

[Mark Tungston]

Originally posted by gorickey:
1400/300 is a "nobody will even come close, so stop trying now" kind of stat.

Nobody can ever be considered the greatest ever until they win a damn championship...or a few...

1400/300?

I don't even know what you are referring to in those numbers. I assume 1400 is steals. 300 is...? (teams? just kidding)

700/500 puts barry in that "greatest ever" list though however. rickey's other notable stats are probably even more important. such as 3000 hits and the 2nd highest walk total.

I would say the "greatest ever" title goes to a "Michael Jordan" type player. Namely: Stats, Championships and your name becomes an adjective rather than a noun. I'm talking about Babe Ruth.

[Phanguye]

Originally posted by gorickey:
Either way, Rickey does both better than anybody else in MLB history.

bonds has a higher on base percentage

damn it... i can't believe i am defending barry bonds

[gorickey]

Originally posted by Mark Tungston:
1400/300?

I don't even know what you are referring to in those numbers. I assume 1400 is steals. 300 is...? (teams? just kidding)

Haha, close with the teams indeed! However, it's HR's! Surprised? Not bad for a lead-off hitter, eh?

[gorickey]

Originally posted by Phanguye:
bonds has a higher on base percentage

Yeah, because he hasn't played as long as Rickey...

[Phanguye]

Originally posted by gorickey:
Yeah, because he hasn't played as long as Rickey...

that makes no sense... its a percentage that is normalized over at bats

henderson's carreer high on base percentage for a season is only .06 higher than bonds average...

[gorickey]

Originally posted by Phanguye:
that makes no sense... its a percentage that is normalized over at bats

henderson's carreer high on base percentage for a season is only .06 higher than bonds average...

gobonds.

[Mark Tungston]

Originally posted by gorickey:
Haha, close with the teams indeed! However, it's HR's! Surprised? Not bad for a lead-off hitter, eh?

I would say that 300 HRs for Rickey is neither impressive nor unimpressive.

Consistant 15 HRs for 20 yr average is remarkable but 15 a year average is not that big a deal.

Especially since Rickey played and is probably still playing through the new hitting era.

[gorickey]

Originally posted by Mark Tungston:
I would say that 300 HRs for Rickey is neither impressive nor unimpressive.

I don't really argue that; however, when you consider that 81 of those have been of the lead-off variety, that's very impressive...

[Mark Tungston]

Originally posted by gorickey:
I don't really argue that; however, when you consider that 81 of those have been of the lead-off variety, that's very impressive...

I don't know what to say...

It is definitely an impressive feat.


But compared to other hall of fame bound players dropping 500+ hitting 3rd or fourth with men in scoring position is more important during the course of a game. (Men on base courtesy of players like Rickey Henderson)

[Mark Tungston]

The 4 most important stats are as follows:

1. Total Hits
2. Homeruns
3. RBIs
4. Walks

Rickey has 2 of the 4 covered nicely

Barry is all over all 4 of them

[gorickey]

Originally posted by Mark Tungston:
The 4 most important stats are as follows:

1. Total Hits
2. Homeruns
3. RBIs
4. Walks

Highly subjective if you ask me...how you don't include "Runs Scored" as the most important of all stats is beyond me. It's the object of the game for pete's sake...

Those you mentioned above look nice on baseball cards. Even there, Rickey is worth more...

[JHromadka]

Originally posted by Phanguye:
i am not saying rickey wasnt amazing as a leadoff hitter... i am just saying bonds, although he is a ginormous douche, is a better hitter

I don't know whether you meant enormous or ignoramus, but either way, you're right.

For the style of playing, I don't think you can compare the two players. That would be like comparing a QB against a field goal kicker.

As for the game itself, meh. And I live in Houston. Sosa and Kent blew it defensively in the first, and after that it was a cake walk for the AL. At least I got a pint glass with the All Star logo and played well at pool that night.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by gorickey:
Highly subjective if you ask me...how you don't include "Runs Scored" as the most important of all stats is beyond me. It's the object of the game for pete's sake...

Those you mentioned above look nice on baseball cards. Even there, Rickey is worth more...

in the context of winning games �_Runs Scored is an important stat.

I think in terms of individual stats to guage a player's importance overall, the 4 stats he listed are right on the money.

A huge Runs Scored total means that he was important in the outcome of the game but that is contextual to the game, season and to the era. 1 (Hits) and 4 (Walks) on the list already indicate whether the player was on base and in position to score.

and if you think about it � 2 (Homeruns) counts as a:
� Hit
� RBI
� ...and a run scored!

thats why power is important and why we luv the homeruns baby!

[gorickey]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
thats why power is important and why we luv the homeruns baby!

And that's fine, as Rickey has possessed probably the most power consistently from the lead-off position.

The (4) stats he mentioned are great to compare individual stats for a 3,4,5-9 hitter...but NOT for lead-off hitters. As I've stated a hundred times, you can't compare these two because they don't hit in the same position and have the same objectives up at the plate.

He claims Henderson is good in 2 of the 4 stats he mentioned. But, for a lead-off hitter, the stats that are of any importance are:
[list=1][*]Walks[*]Stolen Bases[*]Runs Scored[*]OBP%[/list=1]

Henderson excels in all 4 while Bonds is good in 2 of the 4. Why? Different positions in the line-up is all. It doesn't mean one is greater than the other, it just means they are trying to accomplish different things while up at the plate.

[Mark Tungston]

Originally posted by gorickey:
[list=1][*]Walks[*]Stolen Bases[*]Runs Scored[*]OBP%[/list=1]

Henderson excels in all 4 while Bonds is good in 2 of the 4. Why? Different positions in the line-up is all. It doesn't mean one is greater than the other, it just means they are trying to accomplish different things while up at the plate.

I would agree with you on that assessment except � get OBP% outta there and:

1. Hits
2. Walks
3. Stolen Bases
4. Home Runs

I agree with you that what made Rickey special is he had consistant power as a leadoff hitter. But move HRs from 2 to 4 and you'll have a better snapshot of what makes an exceptional 1 hitter.

on comparing RH with BB � then according to your statements we should compare RH with only leadoff hitters. That means RH is hands down the best with his career.

but of course that means RH is not in the upper echelon of "greatest ever" as in Bonds, Aaron, Mays, Ruth territory.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by Mark Tungston:
I would agree with you on that assessment except � get OBP% outta there and:

1. Hits
2. Walks
3. Stolen Bases
4. Home Runs

A leadoff hitter's primary job is to get on base, so a walk is just as good as a hit is just as good as reaching base on an error. As long as a leadoff hitter manufactures a way to get on base, he is doing his job.

His secondary job is to score runs. I say secondary because that depends on the ability of his teammates to drive him in, as well as his own ability on the basepaths. Stolen Bases get him in the position to score runs. Home Runs do the entire job at once, but the leadoff hitter's job is to get in position to score, not necessary to bring himself in all the time.

So I would rate things thusly:

1) OBP
2) Runs Scored
3) Stolen Bases
4) Home Runs

As for Barry, his job is to drive in people like Rickey, so RBI would be at the top of his list. His homeruns are much less harmful if he doesn't bring anyone else in with him.

[wdlove]

In the end it's an unnecessary exercise.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by wdlove:
In the end it's an unnecessary exercise.

You mean baseball, or arguing over baseball statistics?
I would argue that both are necessary.

[Mark Tungston]

Originally posted by dreilly1:

So I would rate things thusly:

1) OBP
2) Runs Scored
3) Stolen Bases
4) Home Runs

I see your logic, however

OBP is hits & walks. I consider hits to be better than walks because a double or triple puts you in scoring position. A hit is more valuable in instances where he is not leading off because a hit will move runners into scoring position. hence why i want them seperated.

Runs Scored is a result of being on base and in scoring position. He does not actually contribute the scoring of himself.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by Mark Tungston:
OBP is hits & walks. I consider hits to be better than walks because a double or triple puts you in scoring position. A hit is more valuable in instances where he is not leading off because a hit will move runners into scoring position. hence why i want them seperated.

A walk + SB is just as good as a double. For that matter, a walk + advancing on an out is just as good as a double in some cases. A good leadoff guy will find multiple ways to get into scoring position without having to hit an extra-base hit. But he can't get into scoring position if he's not on base in the first place.

[Mark Tungston]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
A walk + SB is just as good as a double. For that matter, a walk + advancing on an out is just as good as a double in some cases. A good leadoff guy will find multiple ways to get into scoring position without having to hit an extra-base hit. But he can't get into scoring position if he's not on base in the first place.

yeah, like i said:

1. Hits
2. Walks
3. Stolen Bases
4. Home Runs

A walk + SB is not as good as a double because it involves risk. And it is not reliable because depending on the game, stealing may not be an option (I-Rod, pitch-out). A double involves no risk and is always possible.

[Phanguye]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
[BFor that matter, a walk + advancing on an out is just as good as a double in some cases.[/B]

This is the retardness that forms baseball logic. How are these anywhere near to being the same thing. In baseball offense not getting out is the most important thing. It just blows my mind how people can think this way about the game.


Trying to say that someone is doing there job as a leadoff hitter is nonsensical as well. There is no difference between the job of a leadoff hitter and any other hitter in the line up. The job of a hitter is to either score themselves (via a home run) or get on base so someone else can drive them in. There job is to not get an out.

So therefore, On base plus slugging average is the only real hitting stat that makes sense.

[Mark Tungston]

Originally posted by Phanguye:
Trying to say that someone is doing there job as a leadoff hitter is nonsensical as well. There is no difference between the job of a leadoff hitter and any other hitter in the line up. The job of a hitter is to either score themselves (via a home run) or get on base so someone else can drive them in. There job is to not get an out.

So therefore, On base plus slugging average is the only real hitting stat that makes sense.

your interpretation is a very general description of how baseball offense really operates

the point is not to make outs � but players do not all have the same skill level

that is why they serve roles. lineup orders are specific for this purpose.

[gorickey]

Originally posted by Mark Tungston:
but of course that means RH is not in the upper echelon of "greatest ever" as in Bonds, Aaron, Mays, Ruth territory.

I disagree; Rickey has to be regarded in the upper echelon simply because of what he has accomplished in the game (more than Barry Bonds to this point as well I might add)...

Until Bonds wins a championship (if ever) can you say he has accomplished more than Rickey in his career.

[gorickey]

Originally posted by Mark Tungston:
the point is not to make outs � but players do not all have the same skill level

that is why they serve roles. lineup orders are specific for this purpose.

Exactly.

[Mark Tungston]

Originally posted by gorickey:
I disagree; Rickey has to be regarded in the upper echelon simply because of what he has accomplished in the game (more than Barry Bonds to this point as well I might add)...

Until Bonds wins a championship (if ever) can you say he has accomplished more than Rickey in his career.

for Bonds.... YES.


with all the MVPs he has, he is the most dominant player of his era. (it could have been argued Ken Griffey Jr. was... but his injuries have robbed him of the distinction)


rickey henderson was a great player but was not the most dominant of any era.

[gorickey]

Originally posted by Mark Tungston:
for Bonds.... YES.


with all the MVPs he has, he is the most dominant player of his era. (it could have been argued Ken Griffey Jr. was... but his injuries have robbed him of the distinction)


rickey henderson was a great player but was not the most dominant of any era.

Umm, what era are you calling Bonds has dominated? The "not-over-yet" 2000's? He sure has hell didn't in the 90's, and of course not in the '80's. If you are saying he has recently, then sure. However, I'd venture to say that A-Rod and some others could easily say they have recently. Rickey dominated the game from the mid '80's to early '90's...

[Mark Tungston]

Originally posted by gorickey:
Umm, what era are you calling Bonds has dominated? The "not-over-yet" 2000's? He sure has hell didn't in the 90's, and of course not in the '80's. If you are saying he has recently, then sure. However, I'd venture to say that A-Rod and some others could easily say they have recently. Rickey dominated the game from the mid '80's to early '90's...

6 MVPs.

1990
1992
1993

2001
2002
2003


From the 1986 - 2004, who was the best player?
Bonds. He dominated his era.

RH? 1 MVP � 1990. He was certainly not the best player of his active playing days: 1979 - present.

[I define era as the player's active years as his era. In Hall of Fame voting, one of the criteria is: Did the player dominate his playing years as the best player?]

Bonds did through 3 decades and is still going. RH did for 10 seasons with 1 MVP award. So no, RH is not in the same league.

[Phanguye]

Originally posted by gorickey:
Until Bonds wins a championship (if ever) can you say he has accomplished more than Rickey in his career.

Unless rickey was winning the championships by himself, I dont see how that has any factor. Championships are great, but a lot of great players have never won one

[gorickey]

Originally posted by Mark Tungston:
Bonds did through 3 decades and is still going. RH did for 10 seasons with 1 MVP award. So no, RH is not in the same league.

Bonds has the MVP's, while Rickey has more records and the championships. I'll take what Rickey has anyday over the MVP's.

And, to clarify...Bonds is the best in the "pill-popping" era of baseball. What an accomplishment...

[gorickey]

Originally posted by Phanguye:
Championships are great, but a lot of great players have never won one

Hence, the separation of the "great" and the "greatest"...

[Phanguye]

Originally posted by gorickey:
Hence, the separation of the "great" and the "greatest"...

yea right... like i said, rickey didnt win any championships by himself... championships show great teams not great individual players

[gorickey]

Originally posted by Phanguye:
yea right... like i said, rickey didnt win any championships by himself... championships show great teams not great individual players

But great individuals drive their teams to championships, and seeing that Bonds has been the greatest of an era, he hasn't driven his team to a championship. The greatest player on those A's dominating years was indeed Rickey...

[Phanguye]

Originally posted by gorickey:
But great individuals drive their teams to championships, and seeing that Bonds has been the greatest of an era, he hasn't driven his team to a championship. The greatest player on those A's dominating years was indeed Rickey...

one person can't win a championship, no matter how good they are

[gorickey]

Originally posted by Phanguye:
one person can't win a championship, no matter how good they are

I'm not saying it was all Henderson...of course he had a great team, but he was the best on a team of good players. So again, Henderson led his team to the championship.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by gorickey:
I'm not saying it was all Henderson...of course he had a great team, but he was the best on a team of good players. So again, Henderson led his team to the championship.

hold on hold on...you can't be serious right?!?

Didn't Rickey win only once in his 20 year career with the A's in 89'? So he lead for 1 year and forgot how to lead after that? I think he played a role. Ruth, Dimaggio, Gehrig, Mantle, Puckett...those guys lead.

Wasn't Dave Stewart the World Series MVP? Disn't Jose Canseco sock that HR in one of those games? Rickey Henderson was the best player on the team that consisted of Mark McGuire and Dennis Eckersley?

Rickey is not even mentioned in the summary on the mlb website for 1989 WS:
http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/hi...p?feature=1989