PDA

View Full Version : Will Arod be best ever?


Bobapples1993
04-21-2007, 11:24 AM
Now I know some of you think he is a choker,but do you think Arod will go down as the greatest player ever?

IlliniSox4Life
04-21-2007, 11:39 AM
No. He'll be amongst them, but unless he starts doing stuff in the playoffs, I don't think he can be considered hands down the best.

If Jordan hadn't performed in the playoffs, he'd be amongst the greats, but I don't think he'd be considered hands down the greatest.

nedlug
04-21-2007, 11:46 AM
These discussions are really really hard - pretty much impossible, actually - to have... there's such a difference between the eras. Also, since no one's actually watched all these guys play, all we have is stories and hearsay. A lot of people would argue with the Jordan best ever designation.

That being said, it's another reason why sports are so popular.

Jjav829
04-21-2007, 12:02 PM
No. He'll be amongst them, but unless he starts doing stuff in the playoffs, I don't think he can be considered hands down the best.

If Jordan hadn't performed in the playoffs, he'd be amongst the greats, but I don't think he'd be considered hands down the greatest.

That's not a fair comparison. In the NBA, superstars rule and can carry teams, as long as they have a somewhat decent supporting cast. In MLB, no matter how great one player may be, they're not going to win a championship by themselves. Arod could hit 2 HRs in every playoff game, make every defensive play and hit .750 for the series, but if the Yankees pitching is awful, and the rest of their defense/hitting fails, they're not going to win the series. Jordan could score 50+ points and the Bulls would most likely win as long as everyone else on the team had a pulse.

Maybe a better way to put it is that Arod has a set number of opportunities. He's only going to bat once out of every 9 players. He can't decide to take an at-bat for Jorge Posada if Posada happens to be struggling. Jordan, on the other hand, had limitless opportunities. As long as he wasn't injured or in foul trouble, he could chose at any point in time to demand the ball and take every shot in order to win the game.

As to the original question, I don't think there's any doubt Arod will go down amongst the top 10 players to ever play the game by the time he is done, barring any kind of health issues.

balke
04-21-2007, 12:02 PM
His only hurdle left to greatness is success in the playoffs.

IndianWhiteSox
04-21-2007, 12:07 PM
No other player in the history of baseball has won 93 games as a starting pitcher while hitting 714 HRS. Therefore, the answer for me is George Herman Ruth.

Now if we went by sluggers I'd have to say Josh Gibson who hit about 982 HRs and 84 of them in one season.

itsnotrequired
04-21-2007, 12:10 PM
There could be a ballplayer floating around in some woman's ovaries right now that could pass them all. To suggest a player is "the best there will ever be" is goofy.

UserNameBlank
04-21-2007, 12:13 PM
I voted yes. I love ARod as long as he isn't playing against the Sox because as long as he is healthy, he will break Barry's soon-to-be home run record. Hopefully after Barry breaks it the government will find something else out about Barry that will keep him from getting in the Hall. Then ARod can break Barry's record and baseball history will be healed somewhat.

balke
04-21-2007, 12:16 PM
No other player in the history of baseball has won 93 games as a starting pitcher while hitting 714 HRS. Therefore, the answer for me is George Herman Ruth.

Now if we went by sluggers I'd have to say Josh Gibson who hit about 982 HRs and 84 of them in one season.

A-Rod (barring injury) is going to destroy the homerun record that Bonds leaves behind, while playing SS and 3B. He's going to go down as the greatest MLB player in history until Pujols does him one better.

I don't think you can beat the Babe, but A-rod will be one of the guys standing side by side with him when his career is through. Greatest SS in MLB history.

itsnotrequired
04-21-2007, 12:18 PM
I voted yes. I love ARod as long as he isn't playing against the Sox because as long as he is healthy, he will break Barry's soon-to-be home run record. Hopefully after Barry breaks it the government will find something else out about Barry that will keep him from getting in the Hall. Then ARod can break Barry's record and baseball history will be healed somewhat.

I did't realize that histoy was (or will be) ailing. Maybe it needs a good "Landis saved baseball" type of myth.

:rolleyes:

IndianWhiteSox
04-21-2007, 12:30 PM
There could be a ballplayer floating around in some woman's ovaries right now that could pass them all. To suggest a player is "the best there will ever be" is goofy.

Yes and I could also buy a few properties out here that end up being worth a few hundred million dollars in the next ten years what's your point?

:?:

We can only talk about the now and past leading until today.

Dibbs
04-21-2007, 01:14 PM
I am a big fan of A-Rod, but it is a joke to say he is better than Babe Ruth. A hot start in April has the vote count at 8-4 in favor of A-Rod....I need some of the good stuff you guys are smoking.

itsnotrequired
04-21-2007, 01:20 PM
Yes and I could also buy a few properties out here that end up being worth a few hundred million dollars in the next ten years what's your point?

:?:

We can only talk about the now and past leading until today.




You want to compare ARod to Bonds and Ruth? No problem.

You want to say any of these guys will be the greatest player ever? No basis. That can only be determined after baseball is no longer played.

getonbckthr
04-21-2007, 05:08 PM
Barry Bonds. Take away the steroids he is still a 500 hr/500 sb guy with a career aver at .299. Like 10 gold gloves, 6 mvps, 14 silver sluggers and I believe 14 all star games. Will finish with over 2000 RBI's.

thomas35forever
04-21-2007, 10:08 PM
Saying A-Rod is better than the Bambino is like saying the band Foreigner is better than The Beatles. He might rank up there in the end, but he'll never be as intimidating as The Babe was.

DSpivack
04-21-2007, 10:50 PM
No other player in the history of baseball has won 93 games as a starting pitcher while hitting 714 HRS. Therefore, the answer for me is George Herman Ruth.

Now if we went by sluggers I'd have to say Josh Gibson who hit about 982 HRs and 84 of them in one season.

I don't understand why this argument isn't made more often. As a pitcher, he was much better than league average, and held the WS scoreless innings
streak, which stood for 43 years. As a batter, the difference between him and the rest of the sport was unparalleled. No one has done more to shape the way the game is played. Today, HRs are king. Before Ruth, they weren't.

white-rox1985
04-25-2007, 05:09 PM
Frank Thomasis definately the best.:gulp:

IlliniSox4Life
04-26-2007, 03:53 AM
That's not a fair comparison. In the NBA, superstars rule and can carry teams, as long as they have a somewhat decent supporting cast. In MLB, no matter how great one player may be, they're not going to win a championship by themselves. Arod could hit 2 HRs in every playoff game, make every defensive play and hit .750 for the series, but if the Yankees pitching is awful, and the rest of their defense/hitting fails, they're not going to win the series. Jordan could score 50+ points and the Bulls would most likely win as long as everyone else on the team had a pulse.

Maybe a better way to put it is that Arod has a set number of opportunities. He's only going to bat once out of every 9 players. He can't decide to take an at-bat for Jorge Posada if Posada happens to be struggling. Jordan, on the other hand, had limitless opportunities. As long as he wasn't injured or in foul trouble, he could chose at any point in time to demand the ball and take every shot in order to win the game.

As to the original question, I don't think there's any doubt Arod will go down amongst the top 10 players to ever play the game by the time he is done, barring any kind of health issues.

I get that an NBA player can carry a team a lot more than an MLB player can, but ARod still hasn't even performed to his career averages in the playoffs. He's struggled. If you are to be considered the best MLB player ever I think that you should help your team win in the playoffs, and if they happen to lose, so be it. But I don't think that they should have to win in spite of you.

Basically, I'm not looking at ARod's teams performances in the playoffs, but his individual performances. He has a set number of opportunities, and to be considered the greatest, he has to at least perform in those opportunities. If he hit .350 and his team still lost, than that's not really a strike on him, but if he hits .150 and the team wins, it is.

IlliniSox4Life
04-26-2007, 04:02 AM
Barry Bonds. Take away the steroids he is still a 500 hr/500 sb guy with a career aver at .299. Like 10 gold gloves, 6 mvps, 14 silver sluggers and I believe 14 all star games. Will finish with over 2000 RBI's.

Ah, but the steroids are part of the package. That's like saying "take away Watergate and Nixon was a good President" (Note: I'm not trying to turn this into a political debate. In fact, being 21, I don't know very much at all about Nixon's politics. Certainly I don't know enough to agree or disagree with them. My sole point in this is trying to illustrate that a scandal which directly affects his job can not be set aside in judging his merits and legacy.)

QCIASOXFAN
04-26-2007, 04:08 AM
Barry Bonds, no teal sorry.

fuzzy_patters
04-26-2007, 11:55 AM
Barry Bonds, no teal sorry.

Ruth hit more homeruns in a season than whole teams did. He changed the way the game was played. Even with steroids, Bonds has not hit more homeruns than whole teams. This comparison is stupid.

As for AROD, he deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Ripken for changing the nature of the shortstop position. That's more impressive than being a power hitting outfielder in an era when almost all outfielders are power hitters. Bonds really wasn't that much better than Sosa.

soxfan13
04-26-2007, 12:25 PM
Ruth hit more homeruns in a season than whole teams did. He changed the way the game was played. Even with steroids, Bonds has not hit more homeruns than whole teams. This comparison is stupid.

As for AROD, he deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as Ripken for changing the nature of the shortstop position. That's more impressive than being a power hitting outfielder in an era when almost all outfielders are power hitters. Bonds really wasn't that much better than Sosa.

That stat alone should raise the flags!!! Ruth was well well ahead of the times, with the use of steroids:wink:

churlish
04-26-2007, 12:27 PM
It's far too early to call Rodriguez the best ever. For instance, in the 1990s, many said that Griffey would re-write the record books. Then, he got hurt in 2001 and has never been the same since.

ARod will be 32 in July, and is ON PACE to shatter a bunch of records. However, it is impossible to say if injuries and age will affect him. But, if he plays at a high level until he is 40 and wins a couple WS rings, he'll be in the conversation.

SpartanSoxFan
04-27-2007, 01:49 AM
Does A-Rod have the talent to be the all-time best? Probably. Does he have the heart? The answer is a resounding NO. Case closed.