Barry Bonds within 15 of Hammer

[BDS]

Barry Bonds, the best hitter I’ve ever seen, is 15 homers away from catching Hank (“Bad Henry”) Aaron. He jacked #740 of his fabulous career yesterday.

I’m old enough to have seen The Hammer play live, and I’ve seen Barry as well. In terms of sheer hitting ability, Bonds is better. The statistical comparison:

AB HR R RBI Avg SLG OBP BB
Bonds 9553 740 2164 1942 .299 .609 .443 2437
Aaron 12364 755 2174 2297 .305 .555 .374 1402

The only knock against Barry is in run production – he’s not quite the RBI machine his numbers suggest he should be. Nevertheless, he’s produced 4106 runs (R+RBI), compared to Aaron’s 4471, and done so while making 1654 fewer outs. By way of comparison, Bonds has made only 908 outs in the 5+ seasons since his 73 homerun year, while producing 854 runs.

Everyone hates Bonds, including his ex-wives, mistresses, and probably his dogs. The spectre of drugs hangs over his record. Still, the guy can flat-out smack a baseball.

[Dingfod]

It'll ge a record always denoted with an asterisk.

*assisted by steroids

[beyelzu]

but it shouldnt be, even if bonds is guilty as hell so fucking what. for much of his career mlb didnt even have drug testing.

who knows how many players, including pitchers took steroids.

i dont particularly like bonds but he so obviously belongs in cooperstown and he is definitely a hell of a hitter.

[TomJoe]

but it shouldnt be, even if bonds is guilty as hell so fucking what. for much of his career mlb didnt even have drug testing.

who knows how many players, including pitchers took steroids.

i dont particularly like bonds but he so obviously belongs in cooperstown and he is definitely a hell of a hitter.

Aaron never did steroids (or HGH). And while Ruth had a penchant for drinking, he never did steroids or HGH either. If you looked at unassisted talent, Bonds is a good player and a HoF'er (but maybe not first ballot)... but Aaron and Ruth were greats. Without steroids and HGH, Bonds' career would either be over or he would have about 150 HR's less.

[D. Scarlatti]

I thought there were steroids in hot dogs. Lord knows there's everything else in them.

[Dingfod]

Lips and assholes.

[D. Scarlatti]

Anyway, how can you say a guy with a .299 batting average is the best hitter you've ever seen?

Don't you remember George Brett?

[beyelzu]

but it shouldnt be, even if bonds is guilty as hell so fucking what. for much of his career mlb didnt even have drug testing.

who knows how many players, including pitchers took steroids.

i dont particularly like bonds but he so obviously belongs in cooperstown and he is definitely a hell of a hitter.

Aaron never did steroids (or HGH). And while Ruth had a penchant for drinking, he never did steroids or HGH either. If you looked at unassisted talent, Bonds is a good player and a HoF'er (but maybe not first ballot)... but Aaron and Ruth were greats. Without steroids and HGH, Bonds' career would either be over or he would have about 150 HR's less.

i admit that im a little biased as i have recently read some of stephen jay gould's writings on baseball.

but simply the players that bonds has hit all those home runs against are also much better, some probably did steroids or human growth hormone, and by some and probably i mean quite a few and definitely.

i think it is impossible to suggest that bonds somehow isnt that great because of steroids.

and if you are going to put an asterisk on his record or not allow him in the hall than you should do it for just about everyone else in this era. since we really dont know.

[D. Scarlatti]

George Brett was on 'roids too, except they were the kind that kept him from hitting .400.

[TomJoe]

but simply the players that bonds has hit all those home runs against are also much better, some probably did steroids or human growth hormone, and by some and probably i mean quite a few and definitely.

With baseball's expansion, one could argue (rightfully so) that the talent pool has been diluted (which is also part of Stephen Jay Goulds examples regarding baseball), which means Bonds has faced less quality pitching on a daily basis, than Aaron and Ruth had. Plus stadiums have been decreasing in size (well, the field has, the stands and boxes continue to grow) and don't forget the 29 HRs he's hit in Denver since the Rockies came onto the scene. He's had four three-homer games. Two of them at Coors Field.

If you had to rate Aaron, Ruth and Bonds based on talent alone ... Bonds would come in a distant third.

[BDS]

Anyway, how can you say a guy with a .299 batting average is the best hitter you've ever seen?

Don't you remember George Brett?

Maybe I should have said, "most effective offensive player" instead of "best hitter". Brett's On Base % was .369, his slugging % .487. He wasn't even in the same league as Bonds as an offensive threat (even before Bonds is known to have taken steroids).

As far as a pure hitter -- making good contact and hitting the ball solidly -- I can think of a couple of players that are as good as Bonds, including, perhaps, Brett. But none were nearly as feared or as valuable offensively. They didn't have the power. They made far more outs. (Brett's lifetime average, by the by, was a mere .305 -- same as Aaron's. Brett produced 3178 runs -- almost 1000 fewer than Bonds, while making 7550 outs, compared to Bonds' 6931. Who ya gonna take?)

Anyone who has read "Ball Four" knows that "greenies" were the performance enhancing drug of choice back in the 60s and 70s. Are we supposed to give those who used them a break because they are not as effective as steroids?

I have nothing against an asterisk -- the late '20s and '30s had an offensive explosion that warped statistics as much as th late '90s and early '00s, however. WE just don't know what caused it.

"I'm no different from any other man with two arms, two legs, and 4200 hits." -- Pete Rose.

[BDS]

P.S. I don't think Brett should be in the Hall of Fame because he used illegal pine tar on his bat.

[BDS]

By the way, Bonds won 3 MVP awards BEFORE he reputedly started using steroids (acc. the Sports Illustrated article -- he's won 3 more since). In addition, his pre-steroid career included: 8 Gold Gloves; 4 OB% titles; 3 Slg% titles, 5 OBP+SLG titles. The negatives: no batting crowns (2 since), one home run crown (1 since), only 1 RBI crown (none since, mainly because he's walked if he ever comes up with people on base).

By comparison, Aaron won only one MVP, 2 batting crowns, 3 OB+SLg (the stat the Bill James sabremeticians like). However, he won 4 HR titles, 4 RBI titles, and 3 Runs titles - beating Bonds out in those categories. However, it's hardly obvious who was the superior player -- Aaron, or the pre steroid Bonds. The post steroid Bonds was better than anyone except possibly Ruth.

Bonds hit 407 HR pre-steroid, 333 post. Even if we cut his post steroid total in half (which seems extreme) he'd be a first ballot Hall of Famer.

[D. Scarlatti]

Alright, alright, you got me. Anyway I don't think I've watched an entire baseball game since Joe Pepitone was on the cover of Baseball Digest (as a player).

eta:
http://i11.ebayimg.com/06/i/000/95/8e/a788_1_b.JPG

9/71, Yikes.

[TomJoe]

Bonds hit 407 HR pre-steroid, 333 post. Even if we cut his post steroid total in half (which seems extreme) he'd be a first ballot Hall of Famer.

I don't think it seems extreme, considering HGH may have prolonged his career. It is certain he would never have come close to breaking Aaron's record.

As for being a lock as a first ballot HoF'er. Maybe. Maybe people would have excluded him from their ballots for being such a prick. There has never been a unanimous first ballot HoF'er. Not even Cal Ripken, and he was much more beloved than Bonds.

Plus there is that morals clause (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/rules.htm) (integrity, sportsmanship, character) which will result in Mark McGwire never making the Hall because of the presumption of steroid use. And if you had to consider integrity, sportsmanship and character ... I'd say McGwire outshines Barry.

[Dingfod]

I have nothing against an asterisk -- the late '20s and '30s had an offensive explosion that warped statistics as much as th late '90s and early '00s, however. WE just don't know what caused it.Technology?

I can think of several reasons that might have come about, more uniformly milled bats, balls that were made more consistently due to mass production techniques, a better scouting system better at finding raw talent, discovery of the value of batting practice, or perhaps the steroids in hot dogs.

[BDS]

Plus there is that morals clause (http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/rules.htm) (integrity, sportsmanship, character) which will result in Mark McGwire never making the Hall because of the presumption of steroid use. And if you had to consider integrity, sportsmanship and character ... I'd say McGwire outshines Barry.


For that matter, if you have to consider integrity, sportsmanship and character, Pete Rose outshines Barry (from what one reads, anyway).

Heck, perhaps only Adolf Hitler and Mao Tse Zedung come close to Barry. (On that note, I read part of biography of Mao in which he visited his dying mother, and told her, "I can't come and visit you any more. It's too upsetting to me." Mao was all about Mao. Heck -- Mao may be worse even than Barry Bonds, hard as that is to fathom.)

Nonetheless, the pre-steroid Bonds was a locked-in first ballot HOFamer based on his talent and production, if not on the rest of his attributes.

[Dingfod]

Barry Bonds is now the home run king of American Baseball (http://giants.mlb.com/index.jsp?c_id=sf), having beaten Hank Aaron's long-held record of 755 home runs.

This guy (http://dmwmedia.com/news/2007/08/06/armor-to-blame-for-barry-bonds-hr-record-argues-blogger) thinks the protective device Bonds wears on his leading arm gives him an unfair mechanical advantage. In other words, even without steroids, he's cheating.