RedRaiders
Mr. +EV
wilked said:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Bonds: ARod not as good as me (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Apollo
- Start date
daddo39
Footballguy
[And I think it's that last bullet that matters most. I think steroids go a long way into explaining that sustained success after age 35, and I think that if we take those gaudy 4-5 years away from him and replace it with those of any of the other greats I listed, Barry Bonds is a HOFer, but nowhere near the greatest hitter of all time, as the now tainted stats half-make the case for.
GREAT post. Most compelling argument on this topic I've read or heard.( I refer to the entire post. I thought it was needless to quote the entire thing)
GREAT post. Most compelling argument on this topic I've read or heard.( I refer to the entire post. I thought it was needless to quote the entire thing)
Last edited by a moderator:
daddo39
Footballguy
Aaron isn't half the complete ball player Bonds is anyhow, with roids, without roids. Bonds would be a top 3 baseball player of all time without the 73 homerun record, if he had only 400 homers in his career. Bonds is just that good, Aaron was an above average baseball player, nothing special.
This is laughable. Did you ever see Aaron play? I guess his other records and place in the top 5 in others mean nothing? By saying that Aaron wasn't anything special shows you don't know what you're talking about
This is laughable. Did you ever see Aaron play? I guess his other records and place in the top 5 in others mean nothing? By saying that Aaron wasn't anything special shows you don't know what you're talking about
The Man from Laramie
Footballguy
While the RBI thing is nice, in the end it's a terrible statistic for showing how good someone is. It's almost completely a factor of the situation your team puts you in when you come to the plate. If a guy's on second and you get a base hit you get an RBI, if a guy is on first or no one is on base, you don't. Let's put it this way, if instead of RBI, we looked at RBI net of LOB, we would see the leaders in that category likely mirror the OPS leaders.Not to take too much away from Aaron, but that's not the best stat to hang your hat on.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Man from Laramie
Footballguy
Simply "above average" ballplayers that played during Aaron's time didn't even hit 400 HRs. Probably the only batter from Aaron's era that was better was Willie Mays. Even guys like Willie McCovey don't come close.
His all-time adjusted equivalent average has him above .300 for 18 consecutive seasons.
I'll throw this out there, too: Aaron was a better fielder than Bonds. Bonds puts up similar fielding runs above replacement at RF, which is generally recognized as a harder position than left.
His all-time adjusted equivalent average has him above .300 for 18 consecutive seasons.
I'll throw this out there, too: Aaron was a better fielder than Bonds. Bonds puts up similar fielding runs above replacement at RF, which is generally recognized as a harder position than left.
Last edited by a moderator:
Keith Lewis
Footballguy
Athletes are bigger, stronger, faster in the modern day. Aaron probaly wouldn't even make a roster in todays baseball.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
So Aaron would not have benefitted from the better nutrition and likely better youth training if he would have been born later?
The Man from Laramie
Footballguy
In an interview in the Wall Street Journal last month, Bill James said he can't believe people don't talk more about the differences in bats today from Aaron's day. He pointed out that Bonds still uses a bat that no one else uses.Too many factors to make simple statements about how one player in any sport would fare in another area.
SeveredHorseHeads
Footballguy
Bonds is right.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
The Man from Laramie
Footballguy
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Do steroids really extend these guys careers that long?
seems to me tons of old timers played many many years.
How many years did aaron play? 23?
seems to me tons of old timers played many many years.
How many years did aaron play? 23?
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
dude played 23 years on this poor nutrition and poor training schedule.Are you saying that the game was easier then?
littletank
Footballguy
Old timers played alot of games and years with the help of alcohol
The Man from Laramie
Footballguy
The point is, Bonds was simply a better player at 38 than when he was 28.That's never really happened before.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
You are missing the point.
The Man from Laramie
Footballguy
And Mark Spitz and Jesse Owens wouldn't have medaled.Is that to say they weren't great athletes?
JohnnyU
Footballguy
It's obvious that Lewis is just
Thank God he dropped me trying to take the hook out of my mouth, so I was able to swim away. He has small hands
Last edited by a moderator:
Koya
Footballguy
If you include the obvious cheating roid years, then yes. If you want to level the playing field, go real mano-a-mano, then you have a relatively even and fair sample size with pre roid bonds.And what had been mentioned before about NO ONE getting THAT much better SO late in life is a very important arguement and not one to be ignored. There is simply way too much out there not to discount Bonds' Roids numbers. He did this to himself.About Aaron vs. Bonds pre Roids, that would be an interesting comparision. Aaron is one of the most underated players ever. He holds the all time HR record (for another day or so) and yet is terribly underated. It is amazing.But there are some who put him RIGHT WITH Mays. People who played with the both of them. There were things Aaron did better than Mays (don't worry, im not going there. He wasnt Mays). But his teams, parks, reserved demeanor and his era result in Aaron not getting the respect he deserves.
Koya
Footballguy
A different look:
Similar Batters by Age says a lot about this. First, lets look at Bonds:
22. Tom Brunansky (977) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
23. Jack Clark (957) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
24. Tom Brunansky (944) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
25. Jack Clark (951) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
26. Jack Clark (954) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
27. Bobby Bonds (943) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
28. Greg Luzinski (900) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
29. Shawn Green (917) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
30. Duke Snider (901) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
31. Duke Snider (910) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
32. Duke Snider (892) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
33. Frank Robinson (867) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
34. Ken Griffey (870) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
35. Mickey Mantle (898) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
36. Mickey Mantle (893) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
37. Willie Mays (849) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
38. Willie Mays (817) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
39. Willie Mays (791) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
40. Willie Mays (803) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
41. Willie Mays (786) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
Now A-Rod:
20. Jimmie Foxx (916) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
21. Frank Robinson (880) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
22. Johnny Bench (890) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
23. Ken Griffey (872) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
24. Mickey Mantle (877) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
25. Mickey Mantle (851) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
26. Mickey Mantle (833) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
27. Ken Griffey (830) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
28. Ken Griffey (856) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
29. Ken Griffey (849) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
30. Ken Griffey (847) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
Time for the time honored tradition of Jewish night at the Chinese restaurant. So I will make my comments later. But I think the above comparison speaks volumes on two levels.
Similar Batters by Age says a lot about this. First, lets look at Bonds:
22. Tom Brunansky (977) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
23. Jack Clark (957) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
24. Tom Brunansky (944) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
25. Jack Clark (951) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
26. Jack Clark (954) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
27. Bobby Bonds (943) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
28. Greg Luzinski (900) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
29. Shawn Green (917) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
30. Duke Snider (901) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
31. Duke Snider (910) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
32. Duke Snider (892) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
33. Frank Robinson (867) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
34. Ken Griffey (870) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
35. Mickey Mantle (898) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
36. Mickey Mantle (893) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
37. Willie Mays (849) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
38. Willie Mays (817) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
39. Willie Mays (791) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
40. Willie Mays (803) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
41. Willie Mays (786) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
Now A-Rod:
20. Jimmie Foxx (916) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
21. Frank Robinson (880) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
22. Johnny Bench (890) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
23. Ken Griffey (872) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
24. Mickey Mantle (877) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
25. Mickey Mantle (851) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
26. Mickey Mantle (833) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
27. Ken Griffey (830) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
28. Ken Griffey (856) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
29. Ken Griffey (849) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
30. Ken Griffey (847) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
Time for the time honored tradition of Jewish night at the Chinese restaurant. So I will make my comments later. But I think the above comparison speaks volumes on two levels.
oso diablo
Footballguy
hi koya, i've never found similarity scores to be all that good of a tool for comparing elite players. By their very nature of elite-ness, such players are posting rather unique statistical profiles. Let's look at the 10 guys on Bonds' list at age 31. Besides Duke Snider, you have: Ralph Kiner, Shawn Green, Jim Thome, Dale Murphy, Rocky Colavito, Reggie Jackson, Willie Mays, Sammy Sosa, and Chipper Jones. All very good players and some hall of famers. But are they truly comparable to Bonds? At age 31, Bonds was sitting on a career 161 OPS+. Of these 10 comps, only Mays is close to Bonds, at 159. Shawn Green, which the tool has as the #3 comp, was only at 124 OPS+ at the same age. There's a world of difference between an OPS+ of 124 and 161, as i'm sure you would readily agree. The AVERAGE of the 10 comps is only 139.Some other key variances between Bonds and his top 10 comps. Bonds had 380 SB, vs. 120 for the 10. The best of the 10 is Mays with 240. Bonds had 1082 walks, vs. 762 for the 10, and 946 for 2nd best (Kiner). That all said, i believe A-Rod will end up being the best player of our generation, if he's not considered that already. But i also think that most baseball observers/fans are evaluating Bonds with emotion, not rationality. P.S. Some interesting things about A-Rod's comps... (1) there really isn't anyone all that comparable to him, at his age, and (2) his comps are mostly corner outfielders, not shortstops. Ripken is the only SS in his top 10 comps, and Mathews is the only 3B.
oso diablo
Footballguy
it's stark because, besides the points i made above, Bonds played college ball, and then struggled a bit (by his standards) his first two seasons, while ARod busted out at age 20.But Bonds posted two seasons (92-93, when he was 27-28) with an OPS+ of over 200. By contrast, ARod's best season is this one, at 180. From 1990-98, Bonds finished 1st in the NL in OPS+ 4 times, and was in the top 3 every one of those seasons. One should also note that Bonds is once again leading the NL in OPS+ THIS season, with a 178. Or are we all still dismissing his work in toto?Koya said:
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
guys on my local show were talking this morning about how ripped Arod is.
thank god we can say with 100% certainty he didnt juice.
thank god we can say with 100% certainty he didnt juice.
Koya
Footballguy
I dismiss anything from '99 on with Bonds, after he came back from injury. I believe that today he is still using undetectable helpers and there isn't much that he has done (namely nothing at all) to change my very strong opinion on the matter.Bonds definately had an edge in walks over A-Rod, but A-Rod had a higher batting avg (not hugely different, but significant enough) and considerably more power especially for the HR ball. But the comparison between the two is a lot closer for the pre 'roid years than I originally thought... and those two 200+ OPS+ seasons definately count for a lot.
But, once again, Bonds played OF, ARod SS then 3B. That, in my book, is very, very signiciant.
Last edited by a moderator:
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
if position is going to play such a huge role in this discussion should we not put salary in there too?
Seems only fair to me really.
Seems like that might go a long way in explaining why texas never won a lot of games when Arod was there.
Seems only fair to me really.
Seems like that might go a long way in explaining why texas never won a lot of games when Arod was there.
The Man from Laramie
Footballguy
It's an interesting question when you factor in salary, but it is not the same question. For instance, the most valuable players would all almost certainly be from before free-agency.Salary happens off the field and has repercussions on your team, but the position you play is an on-field matter. So when discussing the best player ever, it is implictly assumed that you're restricting things to on-the-field performance.
Koya
Footballguy
The two are not at all comparable. We arent talking about who is the better player for the dollar... and as far as dollars go, that is a two way street - it is not as if someone "is" a 10, or 20 million dollar player. A team pays them that, and it becomes do.A player does decide (based to some degree on skill set you would assume) on their position - and the fact is a SS hitting at a 150 OPS+ with above average to well above average defense is a lot more valuable imo than a LF with say a 155 or 160 OPS+ and above average defense.
