FanNation - The Republic of Sport

Steelercooz said 07/29, 07:03 AM
Judging objectively by the numbers (and NOT scandal), Barry Bonds is the better home run hitter of three great candidates. If you just want to go by HRs instead of comparing these two fine players by general power numbers, then ok. A-Rod has Bonds through the same part of their career 499-494. Your Throwdown topic kind of ends there. What it doesn't consider is how Bonds has a far higher OPS (on-base percentage plus slugging percentage), which is a far more accurate of a hitter's value.

It also ignores that over Bonds' first eight seasons, he led the league in slugging percentage three times. It took A-Rod until 2003 to lead the league in this stat, and he didn't do it until he had the powerful Yankees lineup protecting him.

I read a comment on FN that put it perfectly: The best hitter Bonds had in his entire career protecting him was probably Jeff Kent. A-Rod has had all kinds of protection, including Griffey for some time when he was in Seattle. Bonds' career leading walks total shows A-Rod has received far more pitches to hit than Bonds.

I don't know about you, but I'll trade five home runs over 14 years for over 700 more walks.

Steelercooz said 07/29, 09:04 AM
Walks-to-home-runs isn't exactly a worthy stat, though. It doesn't directly link the value of a guy's power. Bonds was pitched to far less than A-Rod was. This is partially because Bonds never had anyone better than Bobby Bonilla batting behind him, and partially because pitchers would rather put him on first than give him anything to hit.

Let's say Bonds walked the exact amount of times A-Rod did over his first 14 seasons - 880. From Bonds' 1430, that???s 550 more at-bats, or 42 more home runs if you go by his average. That would greatly increase his slugging percentage and OPS.

Along with a better slugging percentage, I'll still gladly take Bonds. If A-Rod hit 54 more home runs over 14 seasons than Bonds, and Bonds walked over 700 times more often, you're trading about four home runs a season for at least 50 times on base.

Again, there's no argument that A-Rod hit more home runs than Bonds over the same stretch of their career, but you cannot accurately gauge the value of a player???s power simply by home runs. When you factor in Bonds production on an even scale with A-Rod, he's far more a valuable power hitter.

Steelercooz said 07/29, 11:14 AM
If you're going to remove the first two years of A-Rod's career, then we can't look at this from an aggregate perspective. Bonds accomplished so much more with less. This largely goes down to protection in the lineup. A-Rod has never played on a team who could not provide him with a solid 4 or 5 hitter. He played with Griffey at his best, and in his MVP year of 1997. He played with Pudge in Texas just two years after he won the MVP.

The best player Bonds had protecting him in his first 14 seasons in the majors is Bobby Bonilla in Pittsburgh in 1990. And guess what happened? Bonds walked twice as much as Bonilla did, and they finished 1 and 2 in the MVP voting. Or, in other words, they pitched to Bonilla, they didn't pitch to Bonds, and Bonds STILL won the MVP.

They both left Pittsburgh, and Bonilla was known for little more than threatening to beat up a reporter with the Mets. Bonds went on to win the MVP five more times. A-Rod, from the start of his career, was surrounded by Hall of Fame talent.

Bonds had to do it alone in the lineup during most of his first 14 seasons, and was given far less to hit.