Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

When was Bonds at his best?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • When was Bonds at his best?

    For the sake of this argument, don't get in to the steroid issue.

    I was looking over this today, and it seems to me you can make the argument that what ground Bonds lost in his first peak to his controversial second peak in batting he might be able to make up in the field and on the basepaths, especially relative to the league offensive environment. Just by taking a quick glance at something like WARP3, the total production is separated by an average of something like half a game. And, notably, WARP3 doesn't measure the fact that 90s Bonds was certainly more capable of creating offense by picking up extra bases on things like errors and teammate's hits than his bigger version was.

    It is my belief that, if two players are similar in production, I'll take the guy with more "tools," and I'm actually leaning towards the questionable idea that, even ignoring steroids, Bonds in the early 90s may have been better than his batting onslaught of the early millenium.


    So I thought I'd open this idea up to the forum.
    24
    1990-04
    41.67%
    10
    2000-04
    58.33%
    14
    Hey, this is my public apology for suddenly disappearing and missing out on any projects I may have neglected.

  • #2
    I think it is pretty equal. He was one level above his peers in both "eras".

    Comment


    • #3
      He was one of the top hitters of the ninties the 90's, but his 2001-2004 seasons (ignoring the fact he was most likely on steroids as you requested) would probably put him in the top 2 or 3 peaks of all time. the top 3 OPS+ seasons are all Bonds, and all in that 4 year peak. The other season is "only" equal 10th best of all time. He drew so many walks that his OBP over 4 years was .558, which is higher than anybody other than bonds has managed in a single season and Bonds averages that over 4. He was intentionally walked a rediculous 284 times in those 4 years, only 9 less than Aaron (previous record holder) managed in his whole 23 year career.

      So yes, in pretty much every way you look at the stats, Bonds 01-04 seasons were better than anything he'd done before, and arguable better than anything anybody has ever done over the same period. No amount of good baserunning, fielding or anything which he might ahve done better back in the ninties can overcome the offensive power he injected himself with.
      It really is a stunning advert for steroids. "Take these and you too can break dozens of season records with ease!"

      Comment


      • #4
        The problem is that Bonds did take PEDs that made his 2000-04 performance possible. I have no idea how to discount these seasons. So, I'll ignore those seasons for now and pick Bond's 1993 season. In 1993 Bonds was simply magnificent with his tremendous all around play plus he led the Giants to a 103 win season.
        Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

        Comment


        • #5
          Have to go with 90-04 for his all around talent.

          Comment


          • #6
            In '92 and '93 Bonds was momentarily the best player since Mantle '56/'57. Then the players around him started getting bigger (hmmm). Then from '94 to '98 the league grew and or 'roided up to his level. I have gradually grown to discount much of what he did from '00-'07, but am still somewhat sympathetic because he was cheated by the powers in baseball who ignored the problem.

            If he had stayed clean, then he might still be talked about as possibly the greatest, in light of the abuse going on around him.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
              The problem is that Bonds did take PEDs that made his 2000-04 performance possible. I have no idea how to discount these seasons. So, I'll ignore those seasons for now and pick Bond's 1993 season. In 1993 Bonds was simply magnificent with his tremendous all around play plus he led the Giants to a 103 win season.
              I'm not sure what makes ignoring them difficult. It's not the point of this discussion.

              If it helps, think of it as "was Bonds better in his 20s without steroids or in his 30s with steroids."
              Hey, this is my public apology for suddenly disappearing and missing out on any projects I may have neglected.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by philkid3 View Post
                I'm not sure what makes ignoring them difficult. It's not the point of this discussion.

                If it helps, think of it as "was Bonds better in his 20s without steroids or in his 30s with steroids."
                Obviously, by a strict sabermetric analysis Bonds on PEDs is superior. However the 1990-1996 Bonds was by far much more asthetically pleasing to watch. He could do it all during this phase of his career; hit, hit for power, run, and please great defense. The PED Bonds was, to be honest, kind of boring to watch. Sure his HRs were fun to watch but too often he either hit a HR or was walked. Watching Bonds walk 232 times is not really watching baseball. Watching him play leftfield at 240+ pounds was not fun to watch either. He put on weight, lost his speed, stopped stealing bases, and lost his range in the outfield.
                Last edited by Honus Wagner Rules; 02-16-2008, 03:37 PM.
                Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
                  Obviously, by a strict sabermetric analysis Bonds on PEDs is superior.
                  Is it really obvious if you take a sabermetric approach? I believe his average WARP3 from 1990-94 is 14.1, and I believe it's 14.4 from 2000-04.

                  Now you can get in to debates about what to look at, but I would think that at least shows it's not so obvious.
                  Hey, this is my public apology for suddenly disappearing and missing out on any projects I may have neglected.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by philkid3 View Post
                    Is it really obvious if you take a sabermetric approach? I believe his average WARP3 from 1990-94 is 14.1, and I believe it's 14.4 from 2000-04.

                    Now you can get in to debates about what to look at, but I would think that at least shows it's not so obvious.
                    Well, Bonds did rack up a few 50+ Win share seasons in his 2000-04 peak. I don't think he did that in his 1990-96 "clean" peak.
                    Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
                      Obviously, by a strict sabermetric analysis Bonds on PEDs is superior. However the 1990-1996 Bonds was by far much more asthetically pleasing to watch. He could do it all during this phase of his career; hit, hit for power, run, and please great defense.
                      Zing. Yes Bonds was far more pleasing to watch in the 90's. No one could do it better.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Honus Wagner Rules View Post
                        Well, Bonds did rack up a few 50+ Win share seasons in his 2000-04 peak. I don't think he did that in his 1990-96 "clean" peak.
                        But what I'm saying is that I don't think it's so obvious.
                        Hey, this is my public apology for suddenly disappearing and missing out on any projects I may have neglected.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          This question is ridiculous. Bonds from 1991-1995 was Willie Mays and Bonds from 2001-2004 was Babe Ruth. Are you going to argue that Mays' peak was as good as Ruth's?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by philkid3 View Post
                            But what I'm saying is that I don't think it's so obvious.
                            I agree. Bonds was a much better "unaccounted for" baserunner in the early 90s, one of the best fielding left fielders ever, and played more regularly. His games played from '00 to '04 weren't that low but included several pinch hit only, and DH appearances.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              so whos peak was better....pre steroid Bonds, or Wille Mays?

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X