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.
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.
Comment