Barry Bonds was a HOFer before Roids, now is Ruthian....
Skinpinch
Posts: 1,531
in Sports Talk
I keep reading all the stuff about Bonds etc....Anyway, I wrote this comparison on how Bonds' career had progressed, and I suggest the Bonds lovers AND haters read it. It seems the Bonds lovers give him to much credit, and the Haters don't give him any credit. I also have a more detailed comparison with Bonds and Ruth(this will be posted when I have time to complete it).
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.
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.
0
Comments
as Blacks were banned back then.
How did you factor that into your thesis?
Did you only factor in Bonds numbers against
white players too, to get an accurate picture?
Skinpinch - great stuff !
Refreshing to see a clear, unbiased analysis of the numbers Bonds has put up.
BKAH - Are Bob Gibson's numbers tarnished because he didn't have to pitch against roided up monsters ?
"How about a little fire Scarecrow ?"
To bad the Bonds' nah-sayers can't put up the facts/stats like you did. Where's JoeStalin? Come on Joe - don't you have something to say!!!!!
All we ever hear of the nah-sayers is roid this and roid that - it gets sickening
BOTR
again. Plus Wolfbear gives it a plug. Good job on this long post...whatever you wrote!
aconte
1. Steroids - everybody knew that Bonds is on steroids of some type. But unfortunately that is today's world of sports. Steroids or "enhancers" of some type are prevalent today even on the high school level.
2. Steroids or "enhancers" like any other chemical affects everyone in a slightly different way. Did steroids help Barry Bonds with the statistics? - Of course.
3. Is he right up there in baseball history with Ruth, Cobb, Williams? - Yes. I don't know if Skinpinch meant this to be the order of greatness as he posted it, but I happen to agree with it. In my view Ruth is clearly big number 1. Cobb is clearly number 2. Then it gets tougher but Williams is at 3, Mays at 4, and Bonds at 5. Pitchers have to be placed on a different "greatness" list - hitters and pitchers shouldn't be compared as far as baseball greatness.
words "batting average"??? Bonds was a lifetime .280 hitter before the 99 season and never hit more than
50 homers any year! Bonds is barely over the .300 even today!
He was a very good player before the juiced years but needed to cheat to get to "Ruthian" levels if you
can even call it that. Ruth also pitched, and all Bonds did was boot balls in the outfield.
Everyone comes on here and loves to factor in somehow Bonds walks...suddenly OB% means everything. Now
that pitchers have taken the bat out of Bonds' hands, suddenly he is a freaking god everytime someone
walks him.
Bonds wasn't even in the top 5 list of active players back in 98, how can you say he has been great all along?
Are MVP's the only evidence you have?? Ive already shown that the numbers Pujols put up his rookie year
would of won him the MVP 3 out of the 4 years Bonds won it back in the 80's/90's. Can we say those MVP's
were tainted? Getting beat by Terry Pendelton just shows up how "competitive" it was back than!
And what about that 2001 season? He had 476 at bats and was walked 177 times...his "work ethic" got him
73 homers that year! In 2003 was walked only 148 times but could still only get 45 homers....where did
the work ethic go? He hasn't even sniffed 50...thats 3 years in the midst of the juiced ball era that the
guy coudn't even hit 50! Heck even Jim Rice in the late 70's hit 46 homers AND hit .315...was Rice "Ruthian"
that year?
Bonds is a hall of famer no doubt, and no doubt is top 5 hitters of all time, but he is NOT Ruthian and not
even better than Williams. Sorry
JS
The ONLY factor in determining how great
a home run hitter was is to look at the statistics
of other people around him IN THAT ERA.
Babe Ruth was putting up HUGE home run numbers
when other star players were hitting anywhere from
10-20 home runs a season at the most.
Bonds is putting up big numbers (after roids by the way),
but so did McGwire, Sosa, Griffey....Brady Anderson ???
I wonder what Ruth's home run total would be if....
1- He hit more during his pitching days with the Red Sox
2- He had a lively ball
3- Had Balco in his back pocket
<< <i>Bonds is barely over the .300 even today! >>
Lets see . . .
2001 - .328 (and only 73 hrs)
2002 - .370 (NL batting champ)
2003 - .341
2004 - .362 (NL batting champ)
I guess Ted Williams barely broke .300 in 1941 as well.
BKAH, that Bonds study is mainly a study on HIS career path, and the things that make you go hmmmm. I just finished writing a kind of lengthy comparison of Bonds and RUth though. I wrote it for a friend of mine who owns a bar, and he wanted some evidence to show people that say goofy things.
Basically, Ruth is ahead of Bonds based on hitting, and fielding prowess. I do post some concrete numbers, and I also walk through some of the variables. Any way you slice it, Ruth is ahead, and that isn't even counting RUth's pitching prowess.
To sum up Ruth's value as a pitcher, Barry Bonds would have had to become a Major league pitcher in 1984, proceed to pitch as good as a Mike Mussina during his prime for four years, and win a Cy Young award. Ruth would probably have won one CY Young award if it existed back then, edging out the immortal Walter Johnson that season. That would be equivalent to Barry Bonds edging out Roger Clemens for the 1986 Cy Young award!
PLEASE NOTE, JUST THE FACT THAT BARRY BONDS HAS PUT HIMSELF INTO THESE COMPARISONS IS AMAZING. WHO WOULD HAVE EVER THOUGHT WE WOULD SEE ANYBODY PUT THEM INTO A RUTHIAN ARGUMENT.
P.S. Joe, about Pujols, he wouldn't be putting these types of numbers up in 1989-1992. I can let you figure out why, as I am not about to explain that whole thing.
No comparison at all. Ruth was one of the greatest hitters of all-time as well as greatest player of all-time.
And that is all without bringing up his amazing pitching record and WS pitching records with the Red Sox.
Plus Ruth made players around him better. Bonds is great indeed individually, but who out there really thinks he makes players around him better? Most people (including some of his teammates) would say he makes players around him worse. Half of his team do not like him and want nothing to do with him.
Plus the whole roids BALCO connection, with all of these other professional athletes coming out and saying Bonds took roids for several years beginning in 2000-2001, the same time he broke the homerun record and his head size doubled.
<< <i>
<< <i>Bonds is barely over the .300 even today! >>
Lets see . . .
2001 - .328 (and only 73 hrs)
2002 - .370 (NL batting champ)
2003 - .341
2004 - .362 (NL batting champ)
I guess Ted Williams barely broke .300 in 1941 as well.
I notice you did not post his first 14 season's batting averages. Those are what way down his career batting average. All his pre-BALCO era numbers are a stark difference than his juiced up numbers of the last 4 years.
I want to provide some feedback to you in response to something you said in the first paragraph.
You mention Bonds-Lovers and Bonds-Haters. I am not a Bonds-Lover so I guess that means I am a Bonds-Hater based on your comment.
For me this is not accurate at all. I don't hate the guy as a person or a player. I do think he is one of the greatest players of all-time. In the top 10 for sure in my book.
What I can't stand and what most "Bonds-Haters" can't stand is that, every season, or every few months really, the media and some people around here like to make everyone believe that Bonds is the "Greatest Player of All-Time." Every homerun he hits or every new MVP he picks up, we have to hear "Is he the greatest of all-time?"
Everyone seems to have a vested interest in making all people on earth believe, truly believe, that Bonds is the greatest. We hear it all the time, it is crammed down our throats.
The problem is, we know better. All one has to do is some research and some reading.
Every scenario, every stat, every everything, does not support Bonds as the greatest player of all-time. They all point to Babe Ruth. Every book someone has written with various different formulas to rank the players, have always ended with Babe Ruth as #1.
I know that does not sit well with today's ESPN generation. We get a sports clip every minute of Bonds smashing a homerun into the bay, and yet we see nothing of a Ruth accomplishment, because he hasn't played in over 70 years.
Seeing is believing and we see the truth in the numbers. They don't lie.
When you look at what Ruth did as a pitcher, the WS titles and accomlishments, and then what he did as a hitter, the WS titles and accomplishments, and how far apart he was from all his peers in baseball, there is no question who the best ever was.
So people around here get labeled "Bonds-Hater" because we don't jump on the Bonds-bandwagon and yell out "Bonds is the greatest of all-time!!"
We can leave that to the Bonds-Lovers, who love to do that.
I just want people to TRY and be objective when comparing players. If they were they would see that not only is Bonds not the greatest of all-time, but it is very difficult to even get him into the top 5. That is reality.
<< <i>Joe, your arguments are strange, and I could take the time and explain every one of your questions, but some of them would require looong posts to really explain they whys. I'm not sure what you are arguing about. You go and bash Bonds and say this and that, then you go on to say he is probably in the top five. What is your point? >>
Skin,
Don't even attempt to figure this guy out. It's not worth the time or effort.
<< <i>Plus the whole roids BALCO connection, with all of these other professional athletes coming out and saying Bonds took roids for several years beginning in 2000-2001, the same time he broke the homerun record and his head size doubled. >>
Another GEM 10 response. Yes, you are correct that his supposed usage vastly improved his eyesight, reading of the pitch, pitch selection hunches, and location. This would make sense since his head size doubled - bigger head means all the above. I heard next year that midgets will be in full force in MBL, as the head-size to body-size ratio is so favorable that it's being predicted that 103 homeruns will be hit by at least one of them. I can't figure out why baseball owners failed to notice the obvious.
Get a clue ML and stick to coins.
BOTR
<< <i>I did not read the whole thing. But this must be a good article if BKAH is upset and using the race card
again. >>
aconte,
facts are facts.
you can not dispute them
Period.
Ruth is the best to ever play the game IN A WHITES ONLY LEAGUE.
and I am sure that is a good record to have.
All of the current sluggers, and not just Bonds get too much credit for what they have done. Pujols, Giambi, Arod, Sosa you name it. It really bothers me when ignorant baseball fans make outrageous statements, and pour praise all over these guys(compared to their predecessors). In order to truly recognize the value of what they have done, you have to put it into context. People do not understand that you can't just take those numbers at face value. I write things to try and enlighten people on some proper analysis. Some people develop a deeper understanding as a result, and some simply scoff at it because of bias attitudes. I have learned a lot on these matters over the years, and soo many people have put lots of time trying to understand all of this. I think people need to keep an open unbiased mind when looking at stuff like this. It is good to see some objective thinking and writing from people like you have written.
No matter how you slice it Ruth is number one as most people recognize. Also, no matter how you slice it now, Bonds is making a strong case for the top five. I am sure Barry Bonds is quite happy to be somewhere in the top ten all time, as should his fans. The number one talk needs to stop though. Again, I still find it fascinating that there is a current player that has put himself into the Ruth debate.
BKAH, you are right about the whites only league, and in my study that is taken into consideration. However, there were only 16 teams then too, so that almost cancels out the white only. Another thing to take into account is that current baseball has lost many athletes to football, basketball, soccer, and other sports(including extreme sports), that 1920's baseball didn't have to compete with. Also, kids the last 20 years just don't play as much baseball as kids from yesteryear. Yeah, they play their organized games, but they do not play EVERYDAY like kids used to. That is when you develop, when you are taking 100 swings a day at various flying objects. Kids have many other competing interests other than the type of play that really develops the batting eye and THROWING ARM. My life is dealing with kids, and I see that all first hand.
Thanks for the nice comments.
I try and be as objective as possible when looking over the numbers and accomplishments and deciding who the best at anything is.
Around here it doesn't count much because if you go against someone else's view, they just tune you out. The chances of changing someone else's mind about this sort of thing are against all odds.
I don't even worry about it. But I will post about it when I see it as a discussion, because you never know who out there might need objective messages and encouragement to go do some good research on baseball, past and present.
There is more to the history of baseball then what we see each day on ESPN.
BigKidAtHeart - As for the race issue with no black or latin players in MLB back then, that usually gets brought into most formulas that sportswriters and authors use to determine the best, and it never weighs down Ruth's overall ratings much. How much less can we realistically assume Ruth's numbers would have gone down because once every 4 or 5 games he faced a black or latin pitcher?
This sounds like more of a reason for a black person to not give credit to Ruth BECAUSE he was white, and to give credit to Bonds BECAUSE he is black. Suddenly the accomplishments and the numbers mean nothing. It gets stripped down to an issue of what color do you like best?
I do find it very interesting that every black co-worker, firend and family member I have, all pick a black player as "The All-time greatest."
Usually Mays or Aaron...or even Josh Gibson.
If you ask a Japanese American who their favorite player is it will probably be Ichiro or Matsui, and the greatest ever will be Oh who hit 860 homeruns in Japan.
What is the point? People are bias for many reasons. Team, city, race of player, position of player, when player lived (like everyone now who loves Barry Bonds and claims he is the greatest because they feel a connection to a superstar they get to see on TV every day), etc.
But yet I still find it very interesting that when baseball historians select the "greatest of all-time" every 10 years or so, they are usually unanimous with selecting Babe Ruth.
And when it is not unanimous, the vote usually goes to Ted Williams or Ty Cobb.
These historians, researchers, and sportswriters are white, black and latin.
And even women. And they still are not allowed to play in MLB.
They all have one thing in common other than their love of baseball. They are all objective.
actually he batted .400 AND won a triple crown....how many times did Bonds bat .400?? and which years did
he win the triple crown?
oh by the way Williams hit .408 and DIDN"T win the MVP so you can forget using that as a factor.
I think this title tells it all...Bonds was just an HOF'er before the roids, and needed that edge among many others
to get into the top 3 talk.
You all have to remember, Williams out hit Bonds in EVERY catagory without drugs AND he hit against the
black pitcher (for those of you who thinks that means anything!)
Its not even a conversation.
Thanks
JS
<< <i>Williams out hit Bonds in EVERY catagory >>
but he never won a WS
so he cant be any good
according to your standards....
Nice way to lay down on this topic..Im glad you agree with me! These threads always end the same
way!
Thanks
Kevin
since Williams did not ever win a WS
he can not be that great.
Bonds HOF plaque?
JS