How good is Barry Bonds, exactly?

[UK1679666180]

How can a man who has a career batting average of .300 and in his 19th season not have 3000 hits be considered the greatest hitter of all time???

 

Taking into account his steals, homers, doubles, etc, he's certainly among the elite players of all time. But best hitter??

 

Hell, Clemente had 3000 hits in only 17 seasons, this is Bonds' 19th year to play in the bigs and he is still 300 short of 3000. Ty Cobb and Hank Aaron got 3000 after only 15 years.

 

I mean, Barry Bonds has amazing numbers when compared with the rest of players throughout history. But what makes him any better than Mays, Ruth, Aaron, Cobb, Williams, Musial? I guess the past several years of hitting homers with ease puts him into the category of being the greatest of all time. Power numbers aside, he's hardly in my top 10 best hitters of all time.

 

C'mon people, stop thinking so short-sighted. His batting average for his career is .300 and would be below 300 if his past couple of years weren't so incredible.

 

Barry has a tendency to draw some BBs at an extremely high rate which takes away his chances to get hits despite the higher avg.

[OleMissCub]

 

Barry has a tendency to draw some BBs at an extremely high rate which takes away his chances to get hits despite the higher avg.

 

Yes, you and Tim raise good points about Barry's high walks the past several years. But to suggest that he would have gotten hits in those AB's is speculative. All we have to go on in baseball is statistics, and he doesn't have the stats to be considered the greatest hitter ever in my opinion.

[YearofDaCubs]

There's been a lot of mention that Bonds is the greatest hitter of the modern era or of our time regardless if he used steroids between 2000 and 2004. But, does anyone wonder what kind of stats A Rod or Ken Griffey Junior would have put up on steroids over the same period? Imagine a healthy Ken Griffey Jr. without all the injuries because of steroid injections keeping him healthy. Imagine A Rod with 30 pounds of extra muscle that doesn't take away from his bat speed. :shock:

Neither of them has been as good as Barry was pre-1999.

 

Junior was at least equal or better than Barry pre-1999, check the stats. Griffey's plate discipline was not as good as Bonds, but his eye was far better than Bonds at a similar age. A Rod was just getting started, but was far better than Bonds his first few years in the league.

 

Stats 1996 through 1998

Bonds: 42, 40, & 37 HRs; 129, 101, & 102 RBIs; .308, .291, .303 AVG

 

Griffey : 49, 56, & 56 HRs; 140, 147, & 146 RBIs; .303, .304, & .284 AVG

I really don't care about RBI - that's a team measure based upon who is on base in front of that player and how often they are given the opportunities to drive in the runs.

 

What I do care about is a player's overall performance, of which walks are a big part. Limiting the discussion to the years you picked to make things look as equal for Griffey as possible, here are the numbers they put up:

 

               Avg   OBP   SLG
Barry   1996  .308  .461  .615
       1997  .291  .446  .585 
       1998  .303  .438  .609

Junior  1996  .303  .392  .628
       1997  .304  .382  .646
       1998  .284  .365  .611

Junior has an edge in SLG, but Barry just dominates in making fewer outs than KGJ. To put that in perspective, let's look at more advanced metrics for those seasons:

 

               EqA  BRAA  VORP
Barry   1996  .362   82   98.1
       1997  .349   73   95.8
       1998  .348   74   92.7

Junior  1996  .318   72   87.8
       1997  .324   65   99.8
       1998  .310   53   85.8

I have to admit that it is closer than I would have thought. Junior actually beats Barry in one stat in one year. However, this is the sampling of years that makes Juniors case most strongly. Looking at VORP, for example, Griffey only tops Barry twice in the 90's. I think Barry is in the top 10 in every single season during that time frame. Not only was his peak higher than anyone else's, he was also astonishingly consistent from season to season.

So, in your opinion is Griffey Jr. a HOFer?

 

Speaking of Barry, nobody can doubt his skill, but as a person I dislike him. Period.

[Tim]

Griffey needs to have another season or two like this one and he'll be a lock. I'd probably vote for him, as is. Barry was the best player of the '90's. Griffey was the face of the game for that decade.

[OleMissCub]

So, in your opinion is Griffey Jr. a HOFer?

 

Speaking of Barry, nobody can doubt his skill, but as a person I dislike him. Period.

 

I would say that Griffey is a HOF'er if he retired today. I mean, Mickey Mantle is in the hall even though his numbers wouldn't jump out at the lay person because of his numerous injuries. I'd think that Griffey is in a similar boat with Mantle. If not for injuries, one could generally assume based on the pattern of his year to year statistics that Griffey would have HOF numbers by now.

[Tim]

 

Barry has a tendency to draw some BBs at an extremely high rate which takes away his chances to get hits despite the higher avg.

 

Yes, you and Tim raise good points about Barry's high walks the past several years. But to suggest that he would have gotten hits in those AB's is speculative. All we have to go on in baseball is statistics, and he doesn't have the stats to be considered the greatest hitter ever in my opinion.

Well, if all you consider is batting average and hit totals when ranking hitters, then your opinion is right on. But not considering the total package of what a hitter brings to the plate is what I would deem "short-sighted".

[OleMissCub]

 

Barry has a tendency to draw some BBs at an extremely high rate which takes away his chances to get hits despite the higher avg.

 

Yes, you and Tim raise good points about Barry's high walks the past several years. But to suggest that he would have gotten hits in those AB's is speculative. All we have to go on in baseball is statistics, and he doesn't have the stats to be considered the greatest hitter ever in my opinion.

Well, if all you consider is batting average and hit totals when ranking hitters, then your opinion is right on. But not considering the total package of what a hitter brings to the plate is what I would deem "short-sighted".

 

Well then this begs the question, are we talking about greatest offensive threat of all time or best hitter of all time. If we are discussing greatest all around offensive weapon then Barry would certainly be in my top few. But if all I needed was a basehit I certainly wouldn't pick Barry, i'd go with Cobb or Williams probably.

Edited September 22, 2005 by OleMissCub

[Tim]

 

Barry has a tendency to draw some BBs at an extremely high rate which takes away his chances to get hits despite the higher avg.

 

Yes, you and Tim raise good points about Barry's high walks the past several years. But to suggest that he would have gotten hits in those AB's is speculative. All we have to go on in baseball is statistics, and he doesn't have the stats to be considered the greatest hitter ever in my opinion.

Well, if all you consider is batting average and hit totals when ranking hitters, then your opinion is right on. But not considering the total package of what a hitter brings to the plate is what I would deem "short-sighted".

 

Well then this begs the question, are we talking about greatest offensive threat of all time or best hitter of all time. If we are discussing greatest all around offensive weapon then Barry would certainly be in my top few.

I think when most people say "best hitter of all time", they mean the all-around contributions at the plate. If you simply want the guys who had the best batting average, it's not open for much debate. Just pull up the list on baseball-reference.

[UBlink]

No one asked for my input, but frankly I'm much more concerned about the compromise of the criminal justice system associated with the leak of sealed grand jury testimony than about anything related to the game of baseball. If witnesses in grand jury proceedings cannot be confident in the ability of the system to maintain the secrecy of sealed documents our security is at risk.

 

There are good reasons why grand jury testimony is not public, and we are all worse off for the leaks.

[abuck1220]

i say griffey's in. one more year like this year and he's a lock.

 

in my mind, ruth is by far the best hitter of all time. look at what he did compared to the guys he was playing with. if you think bonds' #'s dwarf his peers...

 

ruth's career obp: .474

league average obp: .353

 

ruth's career slg: .690

league average slg: .400

 

bonds' career obp: .443

league average obp: .331

 

bonds' career slg: .611

league average slg: .407

 

 

and bonds cheated for ?? years.

[OleMissCub]

i say griffey's in. one more year like this year and he's a lock.

 

in my mind, ruth is by far the best hitter of all time. look at what he did compared to the guys he was playing with. if you think bonds' #'s dwarf his peers...

 

ruth's career obp: .474

league average obp: .353

 

ruth's career slg: .690

league average slg: .400

 

bonds' career obp: .443

league average obp: .331

 

bonds' career slg: .611

league average slg: .407

 

 

and bonds cheated for ?? years.

 

VERY good point about Ruth's competition. And of course i'm sure some dude is going to come on here and say that "well, pitchers weren't as good back then" That's BS. The average BA among hitters back in 1910 is about the same as it is now.

[Tim]

i say griffey's in. one more year like this year and he's a lock.

 

in my mind, ruth is by far the best hitter of all time. look at what he did compared to the guys he was playing with. if you think bonds' #'s dwarf his peers...

 

ruth's career obp: .474

league average obp: .353

 

ruth's career slg: .690

league average slg: .400

 

bonds' career obp: .443

league average obp: .331

 

bonds' career slg: .611

league average slg: .407

 

 

and bonds cheated for ?? years.

 

VERY good point about Ruth's competition. And of course i'm sure some dude is going to come on here and say that "well, pitchers weren't as good back then" That's BS. The average BA among hitters back in 1910 is about the same as it is now.

That proves nothing. The averages in A, AA, AAA and MLB are very similar, but I don't think you'd say that the talent level is equivalent.

 

I think that's because the overall talent pyramid remains balanced between hitting and pitching in those leagues and those eras. However, I believe there was a far greater differential between the elite players and the run of the mill players in the early days of the game. It would be as if you expanded baseball to about 60 teams these days. The elite players' stats would go through the roof because they'd feast on the lesser players. But the overall league average would probably stay the same because you'd also have lousy pitchers facing lousy hitters.

[OleMissCub]

 

I think that's because the overall talent pyramid remains balanced between hitting and pitching in those leagues and those eras. However, I believe there was a far greater differential between the elite players and the run of the mill players in the early days of the game. It would be as if you expanded baseball to about 60 teams these days. The elite players' stats would go through the roof because they'd feast on the lesser players. But the overall league average would probably stay the same because you'd also have lousy pitchers facing lousy hitters.

 

That's definitely one way and a good way of looking at it. But I refuse to take anything away from the elite pitchers or the elite hitters of the deadball era.

[katway]

There's been a lot of mention that Bonds is the greatest hitter of the modern era or of our time regardless if he used steroids between 2000 and 2004. But, does anyone wonder what kind of stats A Rod or Ken Griffey Junior would have put up on steroids over the same period? Imagine a healthy Ken Griffey Jr. without all the injuries because of steroid injections keeping him healthy. Imagine A Rod with 30 pounds of extra muscle that doesn't take away from his bat speed. :shock:

Neither of them has been as good as Barry was pre-1999.

 

Junior was at least equal or better than Barry pre-1999, check the stats. Griffey's plate discipline was not as good as Bonds, but his eye was far better than Bonds at a similar age. A Rod was just getting started, but was far better than Bonds his first few years in the league.

 

Stats 1996 through 1998

Bonds: 42, 40, & 37 HRs; 129, 101, & 102 RBIs; .308, .291, .303 AVG

 

Griffey : 49, 56, & 56 HRs; 140, 147, & 146 RBIs; .303, .304, & .284 AVG

I really don't care about RBI - that's a team measure based upon who is on base in front of that player and how often they are given the opportunities to drive in the runs.

 

What I do care about is a player's overall performance, of which walks are a big part. Limiting the discussion to the years you picked to make things look as equal for Griffey as possible, here are the numbers they put up:

 

               Avg   OBP   SLG
Barry   1996  .308  .461  .615
       1997  .291  .446  .585 
       1998  .303  .438  .609

Junior  1996  .303  .392  .628
       1997  .304  .382  .646
       1998  .284  .365  .611

Junior has an edge in SLG, but Barry just dominates in making fewer outs than KGJ. To put that in perspective, let's look at more advanced metrics for those seasons:

 

               EqA  BRAA  VORP
Barry   1996  .362   82   98.1
       1997  .349   73   95.8
       1998  .348   74   92.7

Junior  1996  .318   72   87.8
       1997  .324   65   99.8
       1998  .310   53   85.8

I have to admit that it is closer than I would have thought. Junior actually beats Barry in one stat in one year. However, this is the sampling of years that makes Juniors case most strongly. Looking at VORP, for example, Griffey only tops Barry twice in the 90's. I think Barry is in the top 10 in every single season during that time frame. Not only was his peak higher than anyone else's, he was also astonishingly consistent from season to season.

 

Let's not forget Junior is 7 years younger as was putting up much better numbers than Barry did at a similar age. But, just imagine what Griffey could have done if he used steroids to remain healthy, heal quicker, add 30 lbs of muscle without a reduction in bat speed or maybe even an improvement of bat speed. Further imagine what numbers Williams would have put up if he could have used steroids for 4 to 5 years of his playing career...

[JC]

Rather worthless commentary on my part, but this is a fun debate to watch.

[OleMissCub]

 

Further imagine what numbers Williams would have put up if he could have used steroids for 4 to 5 years of his playing career...

 

Hell, forget steroids, how good would his numbers have been if he hadn't spent 6 years of the prime of his career bravely serving his country flying combat missions?

[Tim]

Okay, I'm sorry. What age is it that Junior was putting up better numbers than Bonds? Should we compare their overall performance for the first 10 years of their careers? Or are you so against Bonds that you just can't see his pre-steroids greatness?

 

He was a three time MVP by 1993 (and deservedly so). He was jobbed of a couple more MVP awards before he is accused of going on 'roids. He was simply a better player than anyone else out there, with or without steroids.

[Tim]

 

Further imagine what numbers Williams would have put up if he could have used steroids for 4 to 5 years of his playing career...

 

Hell, forget steroids, how good would his numbers have been if he hadn't spent 6 years of the prime of his career bravely serving his country flying combat missions?

That's the biggest reason I can't decide whether Williams was actually better than Ruth. :(

[Mark_R]

Nevermind.

[katway]

Okay, I'm sorry. What age is it that Junior was putting up better numbers than Bonds? Should we compare their overall performance for the first 10 years of their careers? Or are you so against Bonds that you just can't see his pre-steroids greatness?

 

He was a three time MVP by 1993 (and deservedly so). He was jobbed of a couple more MVP awards before he is accused of going on 'roids. He was simply a better player than anyone else out there, with or without steroids.

 

The point is that pre-1999, there were other players at or near Bonds performance level, but Bonds somehow raised his game to an unimaginable level between 2000 and 2004 in spite of his age. Combine that fact with the fact that he did use steroids and it creates a doubt not only regarding his numbers the last 4 to 5 years, but also whether other players, who didn't use steroids, would have put up similar numbers if they had used them the last 4 to 5 years. Two that immediately came to mind for me where A Rod and Ken Griffey Jr. Is there any doubting that A Rod and Ken Griffey would have put up Bonds like numbers the last 4 to 5 years if they were using steroids? I just don't understand how people can say that even if Bonds was a regular user of steroids, that they didn't help him improve power, bat speed, recovery from injuries, etc. I doubt Bonds would have put the kind of distance between himdelf and A Rod or Jr. the last 4 to 5 years if those players had used steroids. In fact, I tend to believe if they had used steroids, they might be mentioned as the greatest hitters of our era rather than Bonds.

 

If you want to limit the comparison to players with similar AVG OBP SLG OPS to Bonds during the same years in the early to mid 1990s, then imagine Frank Thomas on steroids.

 

Why did all these other great players fail to achieve what Bonds achieved between 2000 and 2004? Isn't it obvious that it wasn't all just Bond's unique baseball skills when he also admits to using steroids?

[illiniguy]

Okay, I'm sorry. What age is it that Junior was putting up better numbers than Bonds? Should we compare their overall performance for the first 10 years of their careers? Or are you so against Bonds that you just can't see his pre-steroids greatness?

 

He was a three time MVP by 1993 (and deservedly so). He was jobbed of a couple more MVP awards before he is accused of going on 'roids. He was simply a better player than anyone else out there, with or without steroids.

 

The point is that pre-1999, there were other players at or near Bonds performance level, but Bonds somehow raised his game to an unimaginable level between 2000 and 2004 in spite of his age. Combine that fact with the fact that he did use steroids and it creates a doubt not only regarding his numbers the last 4 to 5 years, but also whether other players, who didn't use steroids, would have put up similar numbers if they had used them the last 4 to 5 years. Two that immediately came to mind for me where A Rod and Ken Griffey Jr. Is there any doubting that A Rod and Ken Griffey would have put up Bonds like numbers the last 4 to 5 years if they were using steroids? I just don't understand how people can say that even if Bonds was a regular user of steroids, that they didn't help him improve power, bat speed, recovery from injuries, etc. I doubt Bonds would have put the kind of distance between himdelf and A Rod or Jr. the last 4 to 5 years if those players had used steroids. In fact, I tend to believe if they had used steroids, they might be mentioned as the greatest hitters of our era rather than Bonds.

 

If you want to limit the comparison to players with similar AVG OBP SLG OPS to Bonds during the same years in the early to mid 1990s, then imagine Frank Thomas on steroids.

 

Why did all these other great players fail to achieve what Bonds achieved between 2000 and 2004? Isn't it obvious that it wasn't all just Bond's unique baseball skills when he also admits to using steroids?

My big indicator is my own eyes. Prior to his resurggence he was coming out of his shoes, hitting the ball, staring at it, and then it would get caught at the warning track. I remember thinking at the time he was almost done. Then low and behold within two years he hits 73 freaking homeruns in one of the biggest ballparks. The whole thing sucks because the guy was the best player of his generation before he did this crap to himself and tainted everything he has ever done. This isn't like Mac or Sosa who really were products of the juice. This is a guy who was great, saw it leaving and thus gambled everything on a few more good years. Tim you are right the guy was great, hall of fame good without them.

[Tim]

Okay, I'm sorry. What age is it that Junior was putting up better numbers than Bonds? Should we compare their overall performance for the first 10 years of their careers? Or are you so against Bonds that you just can't see his pre-steroids greatness?

 

He was a three time MVP by 1993 (and deservedly so). He was jobbed of a couple more MVP awards before he is accused of going on 'roids. He was simply a better player than anyone else out there, with or without steroids.

 

The point is that pre-1999, there were other players at or near Bonds performance level, but Bonds somehow raised his game to an unimaginable level between 2000 and 2004 in spite of his age. Combine that fact with the fact that he did use steroids and it creates a doubt not only regarding his numbers the last 4 to 5 years, but also whether other players, who didn't use steroids, would have put up similar numbers if they had used them the last 4 to 5 years. Two that immediately came to mind for me where A Rod and Ken Griffey Jr. Is there any doubting that A Rod and Ken Griffey would have put up Bonds like numbers the last 4 to 5 years if they were using steroids? I just don't understand how people can say that even if Bonds was a regular user of steroids, that they didn't help him improve power, bat speed, recovery from injuries, etc. I doubt Bonds would have put the kind of distance between himdelf and A Rod or Jr. the last 4 to 5 years if those players had used steroids. In fact, I tend to believe if they had used steroids, they might be mentioned as the greatest hitters of our era rather than Bonds.

 

If you want to limit the comparison to players with similar AVG OBP SLG OPS to Bonds during the same years in the early to mid 1990s, then imagine Frank Thomas on steroids.

 

Why did all these other great players fail to achieve what Bonds achieved between 2000 and 2004? Isn't it obvious that it wasn't all just Bond's unique baseball skills when he also admits to using steroids?

Perhaps we're simply not debating the same thing. In my eyes, even before 2000, there was no player in the past 20 years who has been all that close to Bonds' level of performance over an extended period of 10 years. He was flat out the best player in the game. I don't believe that ARod or Griffey would have put up Bondsian numbers because they do not have the eye at the plate that Bonds has. Do you actually believe that either of them would have had a .600 OBP?

 

I also think you have to credit more than just the steroids for Bonds increase in performance from 2000 and on. There is no evidence of anyone else who took steroids getting that much of a performance boost from them. Now that he's fully recovered from his life-threatening illness, look at Giambi's second half numbers, as an example. Not quite what he did in his MVP-worthy years, but the difference isn't that great. I think Barry has to be credited for much of the lift in performance from 2000 and on. The steroids (assuming he did them for that full time) certainly helped. But I think he would have seen much of that increase without them.

 

Obviously, that is jmo.

[Careless]

 

If you want to limit the comparison to players with similar AVG OBP SLG OPS to Bonds during the same years in the early to mid 1990s, then imagine Frank Thomas on steroids.

Imagine?\

[illiniguy]

 

If you want to limit the comparison to players with similar AVG OBP SLG OPS to Bonds during the same years in the early to mid 1990s, then imagine Frank Thomas on steroids.

Imagine?\

I don't think there is any doubt that Frank isn't on the juice. He is a lot of things, but I don't think juicehead is one of them.

[OleMissCub]

 

If you want to limit the comparison to players with similar AVG OBP SLG OPS to Bonds during the same years in the early to mid 1990s, then imagine Frank Thomas on steroids.

Imagine?\

I don't think there is any doubt that Frank isn't on the juice. He is a lot of things, but I don't think juicehead is one of them.

 

He was a gigantic monster out of high school when Auburn picked him up. Definitely not a juicer IMO