An exercise on the career path of Bonds......
Skinpinch
Posts: 1,531
in Sports Talk
Let's cut through all the hype and dig in on the case of Barry Bonds....
A couple of things to clear up here......Bonds was the best player in baseball before he did any juice(or had this incredible work ethic as some call it). He led the league in SLG% three times from 1990 to 1994, and won three MVP's those years. It should have been four, but the writers idiotically gave one to Pendleton! Looking at him then, and watching him play then, it was quite obvious he was NOT on the juice at that time. It was also quite obvious that he was the best player in baseball those years. Griffey got the hype, but he was not close to Bonds.
If you look at Bond's total from those early MVP years, his OPS is much lower than it has been for his latest four year incredible run. Part of the reason why it is lower because during Bond's first MVP run ALL of baseball's offense was lower, and it was a harder time for a hitter, no doubt about it. So Let's look at Bond's OPS+(this measures OPS against league average) for his career, starting with his breakout year of 1990.
These are Bond's prime years during baseball's normal offensive output. Pre Live ball era. Definately no juice for Bonds. Bonds was 27 years old in 1992, a typical time for a baseball player to be at his peak. He lead the league in OPS three of those years. He was clearly the best hitter in baseball those years.
90 170
91 161
92 205
93 206
The following numbers are from the start of the Live ball era. Bonds did not look to be on juice here looking back at those days. In this time period when baseball started erupting Bonds did not finish first in OPS at all. His contemporaries were passing him up. He was more of a top five or four finisher those years, which is still outstanding, but not as dominant as he was in his previous MVP run. Bonds was 29 years old in 1994, which is still a peak year for a hitter. From age 30 to 35 (1995 to 199), he started to slip a little, as expected for players that age. They sometimes throw in a big year here or there, but generally start to slip a little(from his career highs of 205 and 206 in '92 and '93). As you can see, Bonds was off the 200+ pace he established in his peak.
'94 182
'95 168
'96 186
'97 170
'98 177
'99 162
The next set of numbers are the interesting part. Bonds was coming off of a stretch where he was clearly not as good as a hitter compared to when he was 27-29, which is the typical peak for a players career. So as of now, Bonds's career was following the normal curve of the hitter. He peaked at age 27-29, then started to slowly decline(sprinking a peak type year maybe once or twice, but generally declining). And this decline was happening during the live ball era of baseball. Those were some of the easiest times to be a hitter. In 2000 at age 35 you should expect bonds to decline and finish up a Hall of Fame career in the mold of a Schmidt, Brett, McCovey, Murray, Reggie etc..... Here is what happened...
'00 191
'01 262
'02 275
'03 231
'04 260
WOW! Bonds reversed his decline during the live ball era, and proceeded to dominate better than he ever has. Age 36 to 39 saw Bonds blow away his best years. Of course, his other best years were done in a different era of baseball(non live ball), so that murks things a little. However, he did have six other years during the live ball era to compare to(which we have already seen a decline in ability). This is also the time where Bond's physique was noticeably bigger. Usually when it looks like a duck, it is a duck...
What does this mean? It looks like Bonds was on the Schmidt/Brett Hall of Fame path, then all of a sudden at age 36-39 he got on the Ruth/CObb/Ted Williams hall of fame track. He reversed his decline in the live ball era, and transformed himself into an immortal.
How did he do it? The first obvious thing is the physique. His swing wasn't any different from what it was in 1995. He is now soo fast and strong, that he can stand right on top of the plate and STILL pull and whip an inside pitch for a home run. Steroids not only increase muscles, but also increase eyesight and reaction time. Having big muscles is NOT a hinderance to hitters as long as you don't become inflexible. It will certainly increase your bat speed, which increases not only distance of ball hit, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY increase the time a hitter can wait before he decides to swing. Couple that with an increased reaction time given by enhancements.....then add in a hall of fame type ability already, then you get the new Barry Bonds! Bonds was a hall of famer before any of these questionable things, nobody should deny that. I would deny his ranks as a Ruthian hall of famer though.
Sure, history has seen 39 or 40 year olds dominate. That domiance is usually for a year or two, and it usually is not near the dominace they had when they were younger. Yeah, Clemens won the Cy Young this year, but it was probably his sixth or seventh best year. He didn't blow away his prime years at age 41.
Funny, if you look at McGwire career, he too benefited from something as he had his best years past thirty(while turning around a career that looked headed towards Dave kingman). Looking at McGwire he too looked like a greek God all of a sudden during this turn around. His was not as extreme as Bonds's though.
A couple of things to clear up here......Bonds was the best player in baseball before he did any juice(or had this incredible work ethic as some call it). He led the league in SLG% three times from 1990 to 1994, and won three MVP's those years. It should have been four, but the writers idiotically gave one to Pendleton! Looking at him then, and watching him play then, it was quite obvious he was NOT on the juice at that time. It was also quite obvious that he was the best player in baseball those years. Griffey got the hype, but he was not close to Bonds.
If you look at Bond's total from those early MVP years, his OPS is much lower than it has been for his latest four year incredible run. Part of the reason why it is lower because during Bond's first MVP run ALL of baseball's offense was lower, and it was a harder time for a hitter, no doubt about it. So Let's look at Bond's OPS+(this measures OPS against league average) for his career, starting with his breakout year of 1990.
These are Bond's prime years during baseball's normal offensive output. Pre Live ball era. Definately no juice for Bonds. Bonds was 27 years old in 1992, a typical time for a baseball player to be at his peak. He lead the league in OPS three of those years. He was clearly the best hitter in baseball those years.
90 170
91 161
92 205
93 206
The following numbers are from the start of the Live ball era. Bonds did not look to be on juice here looking back at those days. In this time period when baseball started erupting Bonds did not finish first in OPS at all. His contemporaries were passing him up. He was more of a top five or four finisher those years, which is still outstanding, but not as dominant as he was in his previous MVP run. Bonds was 29 years old in 1994, which is still a peak year for a hitter. From age 30 to 35 (1995 to 199), he started to slip a little, as expected for players that age. They sometimes throw in a big year here or there, but generally start to slip a little(from his career highs of 205 and 206 in '92 and '93). As you can see, Bonds was off the 200+ pace he established in his peak.
'94 182
'95 168
'96 186
'97 170
'98 177
'99 162
The next set of numbers are the interesting part. Bonds was coming off of a stretch where he was clearly not as good as a hitter compared to when he was 27-29, which is the typical peak for a players career. So as of now, Bonds's career was following the normal curve of the hitter. He peaked at age 27-29, then started to slowly decline(sprinking a peak type year maybe once or twice, but generally declining). And this decline was happening during the live ball era of baseball. Those were some of the easiest times to be a hitter. In 2000 at age 35 you should expect bonds to decline and finish up a Hall of Fame career in the mold of a Schmidt, Brett, McCovey, Murray, Reggie etc..... Here is what happened...
'00 191
'01 262
'02 275
'03 231
'04 260
WOW! Bonds reversed his decline during the live ball era, and proceeded to dominate better than he ever has. Age 36 to 39 saw Bonds blow away his best years. Of course, his other best years were done in a different era of baseball(non live ball), so that murks things a little. However, he did have six other years during the live ball era to compare to(which we have already seen a decline in ability). This is also the time where Bond's physique was noticeably bigger. Usually when it looks like a duck, it is a duck...
What does this mean? It looks like Bonds was on the Schmidt/Brett Hall of Fame path, then all of a sudden at age 36-39 he got on the Ruth/CObb/Ted Williams hall of fame track. He reversed his decline in the live ball era, and transformed himself into an immortal.
How did he do it? The first obvious thing is the physique. His swing wasn't any different from what it was in 1995. He is now soo fast and strong, that he can stand right on top of the plate and STILL pull and whip an inside pitch for a home run. Steroids not only increase muscles, but also increase eyesight and reaction time. Having big muscles is NOT a hinderance to hitters as long as you don't become inflexible. It will certainly increase your bat speed, which increases not only distance of ball hit, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY increase the time a hitter can wait before he decides to swing. Couple that with an increased reaction time given by enhancements.....then add in a hall of fame type ability already, then you get the new Barry Bonds! Bonds was a hall of famer before any of these questionable things, nobody should deny that. I would deny his ranks as a Ruthian hall of famer though.
Sure, history has seen 39 or 40 year olds dominate. That domiance is usually for a year or two, and it usually is not near the dominace they had when they were younger. Yeah, Clemens won the Cy Young this year, but it was probably his sixth or seventh best year. He didn't blow away his prime years at age 41.
Funny, if you look at McGwire career, he too benefited from something as he had his best years past thirty(while turning around a career that looked headed towards Dave kingman). Looking at McGwire he too looked like a greek God all of a sudden during this turn around. His was not as extreme as Bonds's though.
0
Comments
Very interesting read.