Do you WANT Barry Bonds to break the HR record? (1 Viewer)

[jafo]

He's had a good career, he'll break it if he deserves it. How old is this guy now?

 

[commisholio]

Bonds is/was twice the hitter that Hank Aaron was...I don't have a problem with it.

Is commisholio an alias of yours or are you just drinking the same cool-aid?? Seriously, I take nothing away from roid boy and his HRs he's accumulated, but the bottom line is, Aaron was twice the PLAYER Bonds could ever be. Not only was he well over 3600 hits for his career (might have been over 3700 not exactly sure), he could also field his position and he made the players around him better. Bonds, however, laced up his cement shoes and stood in the outfield.

career batting average and OBP down?This isn't close.

Hank's career totals are obviously impressive but Bonds is better in almost every facet of the game except late career defense.

I am pretty confident he was close to his prime when good ole Sid outran that arm of his. He is a one trick pony dominates at the plate (in a league that has crappy pitching as a whole compared to the time of Aaron) and completely worthless in the field. Sorry you can't see that. I'll take a career .305 hitter in Aaron (with 12364 ABs) over a .300 hitter in Bonds (with 9140 AB) any day. You can have OBP, but it's foolish to hang your hat on such a subjective stat. To each his own I suppose

I'm going to go ahead and pretty much dismiss your opinion on essentially everything you say based on your work in this thread. First you jump down my throat for being right regarding the relationship between Bonds and Mays, then you come out with this post demonstrating that you simply don't know what you're talking about. OBP is better than batting average at measuring offensive contribution, period, and is in no way "subjective." There's about 20 years of research out there that demonstrates this conclusively.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

Bonds is/was twice the hitter that Hank Aaron was...I don't have a problem with it.

Is commisholio an alias of yours or are you just drinking the same cool-aid?? Seriously, I take nothing away from roid boy and his HRs he's accumulated, but the bottom line is, Aaron was twice the PLAYER Bonds could ever be. Not only was he well over 3600 hits for his career (might have been over 3700 not exactly sure), he could also field his position and he made the players around him better. Bonds, however, laced up his cement shoes and stood in the outfield.

career batting average and OBP down?This isn't close.

Hank's career totals are obviously impressive but Bonds is better in almost every facet of the game except late career defense.

I am pretty confident he was close to his prime when good ole Sid outran that arm of his. He is a one trick pony dominates at the plate (in a league that has crappy pitching as a whole compared to the time of Aaron) and completely worthless in the field. Sorry you can't see that. I'll take a career .305 hitter in Aaron (with 12364 ABs) over a .300 hitter in Bonds (with 9140 AB) any day. You can have OBP, but it's foolish to hang your hat on such a subjective stat. To each his own I suppose

I'm going to go ahead and pretty much dismiss your opinion on essentially everything you say based on your work in this thread. First you jump down my throat for being right regarding the relationship between Bonds and Mays, then you come out with this post demonstrating that you simply don't know what you're talking about. OBP is better than batting average at measuring offensive contribution, period, and is in no way "subjective." There's about 20 years of research out there that demonstrates this conclusively.

It's totally subjective, you idiot. The blessed base on balls that Bonds draws to jack up that OBP IS subjective in historical comparison. Bonds works with a smaller strike zone, an age of umpire "warnings" and body armor. Bonds hangs over the plate, faces no retribution for it and can pretty much tee off. Rest easy knowing if sluggers of yesteryear were likewise protected, they would have similarly been pitched around. And how convient, he became this OBP machine in the roid age.

 

[commisholio]

Bonds is/was twice the hitter that Hank Aaron was...I don't have a problem with it.

Is commisholio an alias of yours or are you just drinking the same cool-aid?? Seriously, I take nothing away from roid boy and his HRs he's accumulated, but the bottom line is, Aaron was twice the PLAYER Bonds could ever be. Not only was he well over 3600 hits for his career (might have been over 3700 not exactly sure), he could also field his position and he made the players around him better. Bonds, however, laced up his cement shoes and stood in the outfield.

career batting average and OBP down?This isn't close.

Hank's career totals are obviously impressive but Bonds is better in almost every facet of the game except late career defense.

I am pretty confident he was close to his prime when good ole Sid outran that arm of his. He is a one trick pony dominates at the plate (in a league that has crappy pitching as a whole compared to the time of Aaron) and completely worthless in the field. Sorry you can't see that. I'll take a career .305 hitter in Aaron (with 12364 ABs) over a .300 hitter in Bonds (with 9140 AB) any day. You can have OBP, but it's foolish to hang your hat on such a subjective stat. To each his own I suppose

I'm going to go ahead and pretty much dismiss your opinion on essentially everything you say based on your work in this thread. First you jump down my throat for being right regarding the relationship between Bonds and Mays, then you come out with this post demonstrating that you simply don't know what you're talking about. OBP is better than batting average at measuring offensive contribution, period, and is in no way "subjective." There's about 20 years of research out there that demonstrates this conclusively.

It's totally subjective, you idiot. The blessed base on balls that Bonds draws to jack up that OBP IS subjective in historical comparison. Bonds works with a smaller strike zone, an age of umpire "warnings" and body armor. Bonds hangs over the plate, faces no retribution for it and can pretty much tee off. Rest easy knowing if sluggers of yesteryear were likewise protected, they would have similarly been pitched around. And how convient, he became this OBP machine in the roid age.

His career OBP is what it is. You can argue about why it's high, but you can't argue with the number. It is an objective standard. All the namecalling in the world won't change it. And you've been around long enough to know not to call someone an idiot on this board - I hope you enjoy your timeout.

 

[Statorama]

If you went into a coma in 1977 and just came out of it today and saw the stats, I'm sure you'd think he was a shoo-in hall of famer and one of the greatest players of all time. So it's a good thing it's not called "The Hall of Stats".

I think the fairest compromise, and the most that Bonds haters can hope for, is that he's not a first ballot HOF'er. He'll make it into the Hall. Of that, there is no doubt, record or not. If the voters keep him from being a first balloter, that would put enough of an exclamation point on it for me.

 

[the moops]

.443 > .374 (OBP)

.608 > .555 (SLG)

182 > 155 (OPS+)

Bonds >>> Aaron

 

[The Commish]

Bonds is/was twice the hitter that Hank Aaron was...I don't have a problem with it.

Is commisholio an alias of yours or are you just drinking the same cool-aid?? Seriously, I take nothing away from roid boy and his HRs he's accumulated, but the bottom line is, Aaron was twice the PLAYER Bonds could ever be. Not only was he well over 3600 hits for his career (might have been over 3700 not exactly sure), he could also field his position and he made the players around him better. Bonds, however, laced up his cement shoes and stood in the outfield.

career batting average and OBP down?This isn't close.

Hank's career totals are obviously impressive but Bonds is better in almost every facet of the game except late career defense.

I am pretty confident he was close to his prime when good ole Sid outran that arm of his. He is a one trick pony dominates at the plate (in a league that has crappy pitching as a whole compared to the time of Aaron) and completely worthless in the field. Sorry you can't see that. I'll take a career .305 hitter in Aaron (with 12364 ABs) over a .300 hitter in Bonds (with 9140 AB) any day. You can have OBP, but it's foolish to hang your hat on such a subjective stat. To each his own I suppose

I'm going to go ahead and pretty much dismiss your opinion on essentially everything you say based on your work in this thread. First you jump down my throat for being right regarding the relationship between Bonds and Mays, then you come out with this post demonstrating that you simply don't know what you're talking about. OBP is better than batting average at measuring offensive contribution, period, and is in no way "subjective." There's about 20 years of research out there that demonstrates this conclusively.

ok

 

[The Commish]

.443 > .374 (OBP).608 > .555 (SLG)182 > 155 (OPS+)Bonds >>> Aaron

I like comparisons like this, but to not also address the fact that Aaron had 3224 more official at bats than Bonds, is foolish. If you do that, you can see the numbers are a lot closer than they look on paper. Certainly close enough to negate the Bonds >>>Aaron part. Also, to just look at offense is foolish as well, but to each his own

 

[the moops]

Bonds is/was twice the hitter that Hank Aaron was...I don't have a problem with it.

Is commisholio an alias of yours or are you just drinking the same cool-aid?? Seriously, I take nothing away from roid boy and his HRs he's accumulated, but the bottom line is, Aaron was twice the PLAYER Bonds could ever be. Not only was he well over 3600 hits for his career (might have been over 3700 not exactly sure), he could also field his position and he made the players around him better. Bonds, however, laced up his cement shoes and stood in the outfield.

career batting average and OBP down?This isn't close.

Hank's career totals are obviously impressive but Bonds is better in almost every facet of the game except late career defense.

I am pretty confident he was close to his prime when good ole Sid outran that arm of his. He is a one trick pony dominates at the plate (in a league that has crappy pitching as a whole compared to the time of Aaron) and completely worthless in the field. Sorry you can't see that. I'll take a career .305 hitter in Aaron (with 12364 ABs) over a .300 hitter in Bonds (with 9140 AB) any day. You can have OBP, but it's foolish to hang your hat on such a subjective stat. To each his own I suppose

And you would lose more games than you would win. 5 points in batting average is about 3 extra hits a year. Bonds makes up for that, easily, with his 70 extra points in OBP.Aint a subjective thing about it.

 

[the moops]

.443 > .374 (OBP).608 > .555 (SLG)182 > 155 (OPS+)Bonds >>> Aaron

I like comparisons like this, but to not also address the fact that Aaron had 3224 more official at bats than Bonds, is foolish. If you do that, you can see the numbers are a lot closer than they look on paper. Certainly close enough to negate the Bonds >>>Aaron part. Also, to just look at offense is foolish as well, but to each his own

He only has about 1800 more plate appearances, which is a better stat to look at. Unless you think walks are useless.Aaron played 3 more years than Bonds. Aaron's last 2 years were pathetic. OPS+ of 94 and 102.Bonds will have comparable plate appearances when it is all said and done. And why the hell are we arguin ABs and PAs? They have little to do with how good a player is.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

Bonds is/was twice the hitter that Hank Aaron was...I don't have a problem with it.

Is commisholio an alias of yours or are you just drinking the same cool-aid?? Seriously, I take nothing away from roid boy and his HRs he's accumulated, but the bottom line is, Aaron was twice the PLAYER Bonds could ever be. Not only was he well over 3600 hits for his career (might have been over 3700 not exactly sure), he could also field his position and he made the players around him better. Bonds, however, laced up his cement shoes and stood in the outfield.

career batting average and OBP down?This isn't close.

Hank's career totals are obviously impressive but Bonds is better in almost every facet of the game except late career defense.

:X I am pretty confident he was close to his prime when good ole Sid outran that arm of his. He is a one trick pony dominates at the plate (in a league that has crappy pitching as a whole compared to the time of Aaron) and completely worthless in the field. Sorry you can't see that. I'll take a career .305 hitter in Aaron (with 12364 ABs) over a .300 hitter in Bonds (with 9140 AB) any day. You can have OBP, but it's foolish to hang your hat on such a subjective stat. To each his own I suppose

I'm going to go ahead and pretty much dismiss your opinion on essentially everything you say based on your work in this thread. First you jump down my throat for being right regarding the relationship between Bonds and Mays, then you come out with this post demonstrating that you simply don't know what you're talking about. OBP is better than batting average at measuring offensive contribution, period, and is in no way "subjective." There's about 20 years of research out there that demonstrates this conclusively.

It's totally subjective, you idiot. The blessed base on balls that Bonds draws to jack up that OBP IS subjective in historical comparison. Bonds works with a smaller strike zone, an age of umpire "warnings" and body armor. Bonds hangs over the plate, faces no retribution for it and can pretty much tee off. Rest easy knowing if sluggers of yesteryear were likewise protected, they would have similarly been pitched around. And how convient, he became this OBP machine in the roid age.

His career OBP is what it is. You can argue about why it's high, but you can't argue with the number. It is an objective standard. All the namecalling in the world won't change it. And you've been around long enough to know not to call someone an idiot on this board - I hope you enjoy your timeout.

If it gets me a timeout, it was worth it, because you are incontrovertibly frustrating. Does this mean John Paciorek is better than both of them due to his batting average and OPS? How can you let baseball view this guy in that light? Have you no shame? Have you no sense of history? Do you even grasp what the game is about outside of your calculator? That would be like saying pitchers just happened to be simultaneously great in 1968 with no consideration or question as to why. It is pure lunacy.

 

[the moops]

Bonds is/was twice the hitter that Hank Aaron was...I don't have a problem with it.

Is commisholio an alias of yours or are you just drinking the same cool-aid?? Seriously, I take nothing away from roid boy and his HRs he's accumulated, but the bottom line is, Aaron was twice the PLAYER Bonds could ever be. Not only was he well over 3600 hits for his career (might have been over 3700 not exactly sure), he could also field his position and he made the players around him better. Bonds, however, laced up his cement shoes and stood in the outfield.

career batting average and OBP down?This isn't close.

Hank's career totals are obviously impressive but Bonds is better in almost every facet of the game except late career defense.

I am pretty confident he was close to his prime when good ole Sid outran that arm of his. He is a one trick pony dominates at the plate (in a league that has crappy pitching as a whole compared to the time of Aaron) and completely worthless in the field. Sorry you can't see that. I'll take a career .305 hitter in Aaron (with 12364 ABs) over a .300 hitter in Bonds (with 9140 AB) any day. You can have OBP, but it's foolish to hang your hat on such a subjective stat. To each his own I suppose

I'm going to go ahead and pretty much dismiss your opinion on essentially everything you say based on your work in this thread. First you jump down my throat for being right regarding the relationship between Bonds and Mays, then you come out with this post demonstrating that you simply don't know what you're talking about. OBP is better than batting average at measuring offensive contribution, period, and is in no way "subjective." There's about 20 years of research out there that demonstrates this conclusively.

It's totally subjective, you idiot. The blessed base on balls that Bonds draws to jack up that OBP IS subjective in historical comparison. Bonds works with a smaller strike zone, an age of umpire "warnings" and body armor. Bonds hangs over the plate, faces no retribution for it and can pretty much tee off. Rest easy knowing if sluggers of yesteryear were likewise protected, they would have similarly been pitched around. And how convient, he became this OBP machine in the roid age.

His career OBP is what it is. You can argue about why it's high, but you can't argue with the number. It is an objective standard. All the namecalling in the world won't change it. And you've been around long enough to know not to call someone an idiot on this board - I hope you enjoy your timeout.

If it gets me a timeout, it was worth it, because you are incontrovertibly frustrating. Does this mean John Paciorek is better than both of them due to his batting average and OPS? How can you let baseball view this guy in that light? Have you no shame? Have you no sense of history? Do you even grasp what the game is about outside of your calculator? That would be like saying pitchers just happened to be simultaneously great in 1968 with no consideration or question as to why. It is pure lunacy.

This is the exact reason we need calculators. It takes emotion out of the equation. Yes, Hank Aaron was an ambassador to the game. Barry Bonds is a #### head. That clouds people's judgment.And the way to compare the two, is by comparing them indirectly. You compare Hank Aaron to his peers, during the time they played. You do the same for Bonds.

Bonds comes out far ahead. Sorry. Barry Bonds domination in the sport for the past 10+ years is historical. 2001, 2002, 2004 are the best seasons anyone has ever had at the plate. In fact, Barry Bonds has had 6 seasons that are far better than any one season Hank Aaron had.

 

[JuniorNB]

Bonds is/was twice the hitter that Hank Aaron was...I don't have a problem with it.

Is commisholio an alias of yours or are you just drinking the same cool-aid?? Seriously, I take nothing away from roid boy and his HRs he's accumulated, but the bottom line is, Aaron was twice the PLAYER Bonds could ever be. Not only was he well over 3600 hits for his career (might have been over 3700 not exactly sure), he could also field his position and he made the players around him better. Bonds, however, laced up his cement shoes and stood in the outfield.

career batting average and OBP down?This isn't close.

Hank's career totals are obviously impressive but Bonds is better in almost every facet of the game except late career defense.

I am pretty confident he was close to his prime when good ole Sid outran that arm of his. He is a one trick pony dominates at the plate (in a league that has crappy pitching as a whole compared to the time of Aaron) and completely worthless in the field. Sorry you can't see that. I'll take a career .305 hitter in Aaron (with 12364 ABs) over a .300 hitter in Bonds (with 9140 AB) any day. You can have OBP, but it's foolish to hang your hat on such a subjective stat. To each his own I suppose

And you would lose more games than you would win. 5 points in batting average is about 3 extra hits a year. Bonds makes up for that, easily, with his 70 extra points in OBP.Aint a subjective thing about it.

Aaron didn't cheat. Case closed.

 

[posty]

Bonds comes out far ahead. Sorry. Barry Bonds domination in the sport for the past 10+ years is historical. 2001, 2002, 2004 are the best seasons anyone has ever had at the plate. In fact, Barry Bonds has had 6 seasons that are far better than any one season Hank Aaron had.

Exactly!Which is why he has 7 MVP awards... Hell take out the 3 years that you mention (supposed steroid use), he still has 4 MVPs, which no player in the history of the game has had...

 

[Crankie]

i don't mind the steroids. prefer them, actually.

So did Lyle Alzado (sp?)... Enjoy!

 

[The Commish]

Bonds is/was twice the hitter that Hank Aaron was...I don't have a problem with it.

Is commisholio an alias of yours or are you just drinking the same cool-aid?? Seriously, I take nothing away from roid boy and his HRs he's accumulated, but the bottom line is, Aaron was twice the PLAYER Bonds could ever be. Not only was he well over 3600 hits for his career (might have been over 3700 not exactly sure), he could also field his position and he made the players around him better. Bonds, however, laced up his cement shoes and stood in the outfield.

career batting average and OBP down?This isn't close.

Hank's career totals are obviously impressive but Bonds is better in almost every facet of the game except late career defense.

I am pretty confident he was close to his prime when good ole Sid outran that arm of his. He is a one trick pony dominates at the plate (in a league that has crappy pitching as a whole compared to the time of Aaron) and completely worthless in the field. Sorry you can't see that. I'll take a career .305 hitter in Aaron (with 12364 ABs) over a .300 hitter in Bonds (with 9140 AB) any day. You can have OBP, but it's foolish to hang your hat on such a subjective stat. To each his own I suppose

And you would lose more games than you would win. 5 points in batting average is about 3 extra hits a year. Bonds makes up for that, easily, with his 70 extra points in OBP.Aint a subjective thing about it.

It's all subjective my friend. So he has Aaron in the OBP...great. He's still scored fewer runs and has a slight lead in RBIs even with that huge discrepency in OBP. You don't get runs for getting on base Twist all you want, arguing offensive stats for a player not a DH gives you AT BEST half the picture. Fact remains, I'd take Aaron and his all around ability over rag arm and his roids any day of the week.

 

[LHUCKS]

.443 > .374 (OBP).608 > .555 (SLG)182 > 155 (OPS+)Bonds >>> Aaron

Really this isn't close. If you want to crucify him because of the HGH or roids, go ahead....just make sure you cross out every other power hitter from Bonds' era...not to mention some of the pitchers like Clemens.

 

[Statorama]

Settle down guys. We're starting to bring facts and statistics into this, when this thread is designed for raw emotion and "oh no you di'int" type conjecture.

 

[cobalt_27]

Who?

 

[cobalt_27]

.443 > .374 (OBP).608 > .555 (SLG)182 > 155 (OPS+)Bonds >>> Aaron

Really this isn't close. If you want to crucify him because of the HGH or roids, go ahead....just make sure you cross out every other power hitter from Bonds' era...not to mention some of the pitchers like Clemens.

Link to evidence your wide sweeping brush hits every power hitter (and Clemens) in Bonds' era?When you get some evidence, I'll cross them out.

 

[cobalt_27]

Bonds is/was twice the hitter that Hank Aaron was...I don't have a problem with it.

Is commisholio an alias of yours or are you just drinking the same cool-aid?? Seriously, I take nothing away from roid boy and his HRs he's accumulated, but the bottom line is, Aaron was twice the PLAYER Bonds could ever be. Not only was he well over 3600 hits for his career (might have been over 3700 not exactly sure), he could also field his position and he made the players around him better. Bonds, however, laced up his cement shoes and stood in the outfield.

career batting average and OBP down?This isn't close.

Hank's career totals are obviously impressive but Bonds is better in almost every facet of the game except late career defense.

I am pretty confident he was close to his prime when good ole Sid outran that arm of his. He is a one trick pony dominates at the plate (in a league that has crappy pitching as a whole compared to the time of Aaron) and completely worthless in the field. Sorry you can't see that. I'll take a career .305 hitter in Aaron (with 12364 ABs) over a .300 hitter in Bonds (with 9140 AB) any day. You can have OBP, but it's foolish to hang your hat on such a subjective stat. To each his own I suppose :X

I'm going to go ahead and pretty much dismiss your opinion on essentially everything you say based on your work in this thread. First you jump down my throat for being right regarding the relationship between Bonds and Mays, then you come out with this post demonstrating that you simply don't know what you're talking about. OBP is better than batting average at measuring offensive contribution, period, and is in no way "subjective." There's about 20 years of research out there that demonstrates this conclusively.

It's totally subjective, you idiot. The blessed base on balls that Bonds draws to jack up that OBP IS subjective in historical comparison. Bonds works with a smaller strike zone, an age of umpire "warnings" and body armor. Bonds hangs over the plate, faces no retribution for it and can pretty much tee off. Rest easy knowing if sluggers of yesteryear were likewise protected, they would have similarly been pitched around. And how convient, he became this OBP machine in the roid age.

His career OBP is what it is. You can argue about why it's high, but you can't argue with the number. It is an objective standard. All the namecalling in the world won't change it. And you've been around long enough to know not to call someone an idiot on this board - I hope you enjoy your timeout.

If it gets me a timeout, it was worth it, because you are incontrovertibly frustrating. Does this mean John Paciorek is better than both of them due to his batting average and OPS? How can you let baseball view this guy in that light? Have you no shame? Have you no sense of history? Do you even grasp what the game is about outside of your calculator? That would be like saying pitchers just happened to be simultaneously great in 1968 with no consideration or question as to why. It is pure lunacy.

I love all these stat geeks who have no idea how to interpret the stats and factors related to their accumulation.

 

[cobalt_27]

Bonds is/was twice the hitter that Hank Aaron was...I don't have a problem with it.

Is commisholio an alias of yours or are you just drinking the same cool-aid?? Seriously, I take nothing away from roid boy and his HRs he's accumulated, but the bottom line is, Aaron was twice the PLAYER Bonds could ever be. Not only was he well over 3600 hits for his career (might have been over 3700 not exactly sure), he could also field his position and he made the players around him better. Bonds, however, laced up his cement shoes and stood in the outfield.

career batting average and OBP down?This isn't close.Hank's career totals are obviously impressive but Bonds is better in almost every facet of the game except late career defense.

Hank > pre-Roid/HGH BondsNo doubt about it.

 

[The Commish]

Bonds is/was twice the hitter that Hank Aaron was...I don't have a problem with it.

Is commisholio an alias of yours or are you just drinking the same cool-aid?? Seriously, I take nothing away from roid boy and his HRs he's accumulated, but the bottom line is, Aaron was twice the PLAYER Bonds could ever be. Not only was he well over 3600 hits for his career (might have been over 3700 not exactly sure), he could also field his position and he made the players around him better. Bonds, however, laced up his cement shoes and stood in the outfield.

career batting average and OBP down?This isn't close.

Hank's career totals are obviously impressive but Bonds is better in almost every facet of the game except late career defense.

I am pretty confident he was close to his prime when good ole Sid outran that arm of his. He is a one trick pony dominates at the plate (in a league that has crappy pitching as a whole compared to the time of Aaron) and completely worthless in the field. Sorry you can't see that. I'll take a career .305 hitter in Aaron (with 12364 ABs) over a .300 hitter in Bonds (with 9140 AB) any day. You can have OBP, but it's foolish to hang your hat on such a subjective stat. To each his own I suppose

I'm going to go ahead and pretty much dismiss your opinion on essentially everything you say based on your work in this thread. First you jump down my throat for being right regarding the relationship between Bonds and Mays, then you come out with this post demonstrating that you simply don't know what you're talking about. OBP is better than batting average at measuring offensive contribution, period, and is in no way "subjective." There's about 20 years of research out there that demonstrates this conclusively.

It's totally subjective, you idiot. The blessed base on balls that Bonds draws to jack up that OBP IS subjective in historical comparison. Bonds works with a smaller strike zone, an age of umpire "warnings" and body armor. Bonds hangs over the plate, faces no retribution for it and can pretty much tee off. Rest easy knowing if sluggers of yesteryear were likewise protected, they would have similarly been pitched around. And how convient, he became this OBP machine in the roid age.

His career OBP is what it is. You can argue about why it's high, but you can't argue with the number. It is an objective standard. All the namecalling in the world won't change it. And you've been around long enough to know not to call someone an idiot on this board - I hope you enjoy your timeout.

If it gets me a timeout, it was worth it, because you are incontrovertibly frustrating. Does this mean John Paciorek is better than both of them due to his batting average and OPS? How can you let baseball view this guy in that light? Have you no shame? Have you no sense of history? Do you even grasp what the game is about outside of your calculator? That would be like saying pitchers just happened to be simultaneously great in 1968 with no consideration or question as to why. It is pure lunacy.

I love all these stat geeks who have no idea how to interpret the stats and factors related to their accumulation.

:( ETA: Bottom line....what slight bit you lose in Aaron's offensive prowess, you make up for in the field. And everyone who says "it's not even close" is correct...it's not. I laugh as I type this, because we are talking about the leader in HR of all time and still consider it a "drop off" Whatever.

 

[DCThunder]

To be honest that while I am a huge baseball fan, I really don't care too much one way or the other on this issue. I'm not a stats freak, so the "integrity of the records" doesn't mean a lot to me. Too bad your poll didn't have a "I don't care" option.

 

[snitwitch]

Moral/ethical issues aside, I hope he doesn't break it just for the fact that he is one of the biggest jerk-offs ever to don a professional sports uniform.

 

[commisholio]

Bonds is/was twice the hitter that Hank Aaron was...I don't have a problem with it.

Is commisholio an alias of yours or are you just drinking the same cool-aid?? Seriously, I take nothing away from roid boy and his HRs he's accumulated, but the bottom line is, Aaron was twice the PLAYER Bonds could ever be. Not only was he well over 3600 hits for his career (might have been over 3700 not exactly sure), he could also field his position and he made the players around him better. Bonds, however, laced up his cement shoes and stood in the outfield.

career batting average and OBP down?This isn't close.

Hank's career totals are obviously impressive but Bonds is better in almost every facet of the game except late career defense.

I am pretty confident he was close to his prime when good ole Sid outran that arm of his. He is a one trick pony dominates at the plate (in a league that has crappy pitching as a whole compared to the time of Aaron) and completely worthless in the field. Sorry you can't see that. I'll take a career .305 hitter in Aaron (with 12364 ABs) over a .300 hitter in Bonds (with 9140 AB) any day. You can have OBP, but it's foolish to hang your hat on such a subjective stat. To each his own I suppose

I'm going to go ahead and pretty much dismiss your opinion on essentially everything you say based on your work in this thread. First you jump down my throat for being right regarding the relationship between Bonds and Mays, then you come out with this post demonstrating that you simply don't know what you're talking about. OBP is better than batting average at measuring offensive contribution, period, and is in no way "subjective." There's about 20 years of research out there that demonstrates this conclusively.

ok

you forgot your

 

[Gambler]

May the best man win.

 

[commisholio]

Bonds is/was twice the hitter that Hank Aaron was...I don't have a problem with it.

Is commisholio an alias of yours or are you just drinking the same cool-aid?? Seriously, I take nothing away from roid boy and his HRs he's accumulated, but the bottom line is, Aaron was twice the PLAYER Bonds could ever be. Not only was he well over 3600 hits for his career (might have been over 3700 not exactly sure), he could also field his position and he made the players around him better. Bonds, however, laced up his cement shoes and stood in the outfield.

career batting average and OBP down?This isn't close.

Hank's career totals are obviously impressive but Bonds is better in almost every facet of the game except late career defense.

I am pretty confident he was close to his prime when good ole Sid outran that arm of his. He is a one trick pony dominates at the plate (in a league that has crappy pitching as a whole compared to the time of Aaron) and completely worthless in the field. Sorry you can't see that. I'll take a career .305 hitter in Aaron (with 12364 ABs) over a .300 hitter in Bonds (with 9140 AB) any day. You can have OBP, but it's foolish to hang your hat on such a subjective stat. To each his own I suppose

I'm going to go ahead and pretty much dismiss your opinion on essentially everything you say based on your work in this thread. First you jump down my throat for being right regarding the relationship between Bonds and Mays, then you come out with this post demonstrating that you simply don't know what you're talking about. OBP is better than batting average at measuring offensive contribution, period, and is in no way "subjective." There's about 20 years of research out there that demonstrates this conclusively.

It's totally subjective, you idiot. The blessed base on balls that Bonds draws to jack up that OBP IS subjective in historical comparison. Bonds works with a smaller strike zone, an age of umpire "warnings" and body armor. Bonds hangs over the plate, faces no retribution for it and can pretty much tee off. Rest easy knowing if sluggers of yesteryear were likewise protected, they would have similarly been pitched around. And how convient, he became this OBP machine in the roid age.

His career OBP is what it is. You can argue about why it's high, but you can't argue with the number. It is an objective standard. All the namecalling in the world won't change it. And you've been around long enough to know not to call someone an idiot on this board - I hope you enjoy your timeout.

If it gets me a timeout, it was worth it, because you are incontrovertibly frustrating. Does this mean John Paciorek is better than both of them due to his batting average and OPS? How can you let baseball view this guy in that light? Have you no shame? Have you no sense of history? Do you even grasp what the game is about outside of your calculator? That would be like saying pitchers just happened to be simultaneously great in 1968 with no consideration or question as to why. It is pure lunacy.

This is the exact reason we need calculators. It takes emotion out of the equation. Yes, Hank Aaron was an ambassador to the game. Barry Bonds is a #### head. That clouds people's judgment.And the way to compare the two, is by comparing them indirectly. You compare Hank Aaron to his peers, during the time they played. You do the same for Bonds.

Bonds comes out far ahead. Sorry. Barry Bonds domination in the sport for the past 10+ years is historical. 2001, 2002, 2004 are the best seasons anyone has ever had at the plate. In fact, Barry Bonds has had 6 seasons that are far better than any one season Hank Aaron had.

Exactly right.

 

[SeveredHorseHeads]

Bonds>>>>>>>>>>>>>Aaron.

 

[GDogg]

Bonds is/was twice the hitter that Hank Aaron was...I don't have a problem with it.

Is commisholio an alias of yours or are you just drinking the same cool-aid?? Seriously, I take nothing away from roid boy and his HRs he's accumulated, but the bottom line is, Aaron was twice the PLAYER Bonds could ever be. Not only was he well over 3600 hits for his career (might have been over 3700 not exactly sure), he could also field his position and he made the players around him better. Bonds, however, laced up his cement shoes and stood in the outfield.

career batting average and OBP down?This isn't close.

Hank's career totals are obviously impressive but Bonds is better in almost every facet of the game except late career defense.

:X I am pretty confident he was close to his prime when good ole Sid outran that arm of his. He is a one trick pony dominates at the plate (in a league that has crappy pitching as a whole compared to the time of Aaron) and completely worthless in the field. Sorry you can't see that.

I'm no fan of Bonds (Dodger fan), but he did win 8 gold gloves. I'm pretty sure almost every other OF in the NL would like to be as "worthless in the field" as Bonds was in that era. He didn't have a great arm, but there is more to defense than a strong arm.

 

[SeveredHorseHeads]

Settle down guys. We're starting to bring facts and statistics into this, when this thread is designed for raw emotion and "oh no you di'int" type conjecture.

:X Yeah, how dare anyone use evidence to support claims. This is baseball. I want to talk about how gritty Bonds is.

 

[SeveredHorseHeads]

Bonds is/was twice the hitter that Hank Aaron was...I don't have a problem with it.

Is commisholio an alias of yours or are you just drinking the same cool-aid?? Seriously, I take nothing away from roid boy and his HRs he's accumulated, but the bottom line is, Aaron was twice the PLAYER Bonds could ever be. Not only was he well over 3600 hits for his career (might have been over 3700 not exactly sure), he could also field his position and he made the players around him better. Bonds, however, laced up his cement shoes and stood in the outfield.

career batting average and OBP down?This isn't close.

Hank's career totals are obviously impressive but Bonds is better in almost every facet of the game except late career defense.

I am pretty confident he was close to his prime when good ole Sid outran that arm of his. He is a one trick pony dominates at the plate (in a league that has crappy pitching as a whole compared to the time of Aaron) and completely worthless in the field. Sorry you can't see that. I'll take a career .305 hitter in Aaron (with 12364 ABs) over a .300 hitter in Bonds (with 9140 AB) any day. You can have OBP, but it's foolish to hang your hat on such a subjective stat. To each his own I suppose :X

I'm going to go ahead and pretty much dismiss your opinion on essentially everything you say based on your work in this thread. First you jump down my throat for being right regarding the relationship between Bonds and Mays, then you come out with this post demonstrating that you simply don't know what you're talking about. OBP is better than batting average at measuring offensive contribution, period, and is in no way "subjective." There's about 20 years of research out there that demonstrates this conclusively.

:X ok

you forgot your

Hey guy, don't you get it? Most Taters = Best player.

 

[the moops]

Bonds is/was twice the hitter that Hank Aaron was...I don't have a problem with it.

Is commisholio an alias of yours or are you just drinking the same cool-aid?? Seriously, I take nothing away from roid boy and his HRs he's accumulated, but the bottom line is, Aaron was twice the PLAYER Bonds could ever be. Not only was he well over 3600 hits for his career (might have been over 3700 not exactly sure), he could also field his position and he made the players around him better. Bonds, however, laced up his cement shoes and stood in the outfield.

career batting average and OBP down?This isn't close.

Hank's career totals are obviously impressive but Bonds is better in almost every facet of the game except late career defense.

I am pretty confident he was close to his prime when good ole Sid outran that arm of his. He is a one trick pony dominates at the plate (in a league that has crappy pitching as a whole compared to the time of Aaron) and completely worthless in the field. Sorry you can't see that. I'll take a career .305 hitter in Aaron (with 12364 ABs) over a .300 hitter in Bonds (with 9140 AB) any day. You can have OBP, but it's foolish to hang your hat on such a subjective stat. To each his own I suppose

I'm going to go ahead and pretty much dismiss your opinion on essentially everything you say based on your work in this thread. First you jump down my throat for being right regarding the relationship between Bonds and Mays, then you come out with this post demonstrating that you simply don't know what you're talking about. OBP is better than batting average at measuring offensive contribution, period, and is in no way "subjective." There's about 20 years of research out there that demonstrates this conclusively.

It's totally subjective, you idiot. The blessed base on balls that Bonds draws to jack up that OBP IS subjective in historical comparison. Bonds works with a smaller strike zone, an age of umpire "warnings" and body armor. Bonds hangs over the plate, faces no retribution for it and can pretty much tee off. Rest easy knowing if sluggers of yesteryear were likewise protected, they would have similarly been pitched around. And how convient, he became this OBP machine in the roid age.

His career OBP is what it is. You can argue about why it's high, but you can't argue with the number. It is an objective standard. All the namecalling in the world won't change it. And you've been around long enough to know not to call someone an idiot on this board - I hope you enjoy your timeout.

If it gets me a timeout, it was worth it, because you are incontrovertibly frustrating. Does this mean John Paciorek is better than both of them due to his batting average and OPS? How can you let baseball view this guy in that light? Have you no shame? Have you no sense of history? Do you even grasp what the game is about outside of your calculator? That would be like saying pitchers just happened to be simultaneously great in 1968 with no consideration or question as to why. It is pure lunacy.

I love all these stat geeks who have no idea how to interpret the stats and factors related to their accumulation.

Stat geeks interpret data far better than you emotional folk who want to give Aaron an edge because of history and ambassadorship.One of the simplest stats to comprehend is OPS+. Take a look at it.

Bonds dominated like nobody else not named Babe Ruth. Deal with it. He won 7 MVPs and 8 GGs.

Admitting Bonds is a fantastic ballplayer does not take anything away from Hank Aaron.

 

[commisholio]

I'm actually pretty surprised this poll is only 1-3 against Bonds. With the amount of anti-Bonds propaganda out there, I would have expected it to be about 1-5 or more against him.

 

[Yogi Berra]

One of the simplest stats to comprehend is OPS+. Take a look at it.

Ironic that OPS is the method used to deify this POS

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

I can't stand him, but want him to break the record. That way his legacy as a cheating scumbag will be immortalized in the record books.

 

[Zigg]

.443 > .374 (OBP).608 > .555 (SLG)182 > 155 (OPS+)Bonds >>> Aaron

I like comparisons like this, but to not also address the fact that Aaron had 3224 more official at bats than Bonds, is foolish. If you do that, you can see the numbers are a lot closer than they look on paper. Certainly close enough to negate the Bonds >>>Aaron part. Also, to just look at offense is foolish as well, but to each his own

Golden Gloves:Bonds 7Aaron 3SBs:Bonds 509Aaron 240There are some non-offensive numbers for you. Feel free to argue morals, but leave #s out of this if you don't want to sound stupid.

 

[Smack Tripper]

.443 > .374 (OBP).608 > .555 (SLG)182 > 155 (OPS+)Bonds >>> Aaron

I like comparisons like this, but to not also address the fact that Aaron had 3224 more official at bats than Bonds, is foolish. If you do that, you can see the numbers are a lot closer than they look on paper. Certainly close enough to negate the Bonds >>>Aaron part. Also, to just look at offense is foolish as well, but to each his own

Golden Gloves:Bonds 7Aaron 3SBs:Bonds 509Aaron 240There are some non-offensive numbers for you. Feel free to argue morals, but leave #s out of this if you don't want to sound stupid.

They didn't even award the Gold Glove at the start of Hank's career!

 

[hotdogcollars]

bumpalicious since Barroid is blastin HRs like crazy this year....

 

[Zigg]

.443 > .374 (OBP).608 > .555 (SLG)182 > 155 (OPS+)Bonds >>> Aaron

I like comparisons like this, but to not also address the fact that Aaron had 3224 more official at bats than Bonds, is foolish. If you do that, you can see the numbers are a lot closer than they look on paper. Certainly close enough to negate the Bonds >>>Aaron part. Also, to just look at offense is foolish as well, but to each his own

Golden Gloves:Bonds 7Aaron 3SBs:Bonds 509Aaron 240There are some non-offensive numbers for you. Feel free to argue morals, but leave #s out of this if you don't want to sound stupid.

They didn't even award the Gold Glove at the start of Hank's career!

Aaron would have needed to win the GG his first 4 years in order to tie Bonds. Still a pretty weak argument for those claiming Bonds does nothing but hit.

 

[PocketPasser]

Where is he "I really don't ####### care" option.

 

[Jayrod]

My answer lies in here.

 

[Henry Cabbot Henhouse]

F that mellon headed roid freak.

Oh and my answer is no.

 

[blake]

No "hell yes" option?Voted yes. Bonds is perhaps the greatest baseball player of all time. Steroid usage is irrelevant. And if Bonds holding the homerun record causes heartburn for the holier-than-thou baseball fan, well, that's just gravy.

Bond's isn't even the greatest baseball player in his family.

Oh come on. Hate on Barry all you want, but he's a demonstrably better ballplayer than his dad. Bring some argument if you want to make that assertion.

Either A, this is or B. you don't know that Willie Mays is in his family. Either way, you should really read your posts and think about them before you hit that "add reply" button.

 

[Henry Cabbot Henhouse]

No "hell yes" option?Voted yes. Bonds is perhaps the greatest baseball player of all time. Steroid usage is irrelevant. And if Bonds holding the homerun record causes heartburn for the holier-than-thou baseball fan, well, that's just gravy.

Bond's isn't even the greatest baseball player in his family.

Oh come on. Hate on Barry all you want, but he's a demonstrably better ballplayer than his dad. Bring some argument if you want to make that assertion.

Either A, this is or B. you don't know that Willie Mays is in his family. Either way, you should really read your posts and think about them before you hit that "add reply" button.

It has probably been covered but why exactly is steroid usage irrelevant? I can see that argument when comparing players of this generation but no way was Hank Aaron on roids and if anything Babe Ruth did everything he could to make sure he was less able to be an effective baseball player.Bonds is a terrible human being. His own teammates did not come to home plate to congratulate him when he hit #700. That speaks volumes about the man.

 

[the moops]

No "hell yes" option?Voted yes. Bonds is perhaps the greatest baseball player of all time. Steroid usage is irrelevant. And if Bonds holding the homerun record causes heartburn for the holier-than-thou baseball fan, well, that's just gravy.

Bond's isn't even the greatest baseball player in his family.

Oh come on. Hate on Barry all you want, but he's a demonstrably better ballplayer than his dad. Bring some argument if you want to make that assertion.

Either A, this is or B. you don't know that Willie Mays is in his family. Either way, you should really read your posts and think about them before you hit that "add reply" button.

Barry Bonds is a better ballplayer than Willie Mays too

 

[Henry Cabbot Henhouse]

No "hell yes" option?Voted yes. Bonds is perhaps the greatest baseball player of all time. Steroid usage is irrelevant. And if Bonds holding the homerun record causes heartburn for the holier-than-thou baseball fan, well, that's just gravy.

Bond's isn't even the greatest baseball player in his family.

Oh come on. Hate on Barry all you want, but he's a demonstrably better ballplayer than his dad. Bring some argument if you want to make that assertion.

Either A, this is or B. you don't know that Willie Mays is in his family. Either way, you should really read your posts and think about them before you hit that "add reply" button.

Barry Bonds is a better ballplayer than Willie Mays too

No, he isn't.He is a more enhanced player than Willie ever had the opportunity to be.

 

[blake]

He is a more enhanced player than Willie ever had the opportunity to be.

the truthful posts are hard to find in this thread...but look hard, and they're there.

 

[flapgreen]

This one isn't close.

 

[Henry Cabbot Henhouse]

He is a more enhanced player than Willie ever had the opportunity to be.

the truthful posts are hard to find in this thread...but look hard, and they're there.