Barry Bonds HRS

[Carlton]

Just an interesting note
10 years to get to 300
3 years to get from 350 to 450

and well you know the rest

1 -- June 4, 1986, off Craig McMurtry, Pittsburgh at Atlanta

100 -- July 12, 1990, off Andy Benes, Pittsburgh vs. San Diego

200 -- July 8, 1993, off Jose DeLeon, San Francisco at Philadelphia

250 -- July 18, 1994, off Shawn Boskie, San Francisco at Philadelphia

300 -- April 30, 1996, off John Burkett, San Francisco vs. Florida

350 -- June 22, 1997, off Chan Ho Park, San Francisco vs. Los Angeles

400 -- August 23, 1998, off Kirt Ojala, San Francisco at Florida

450 -- April 15, 2000, off Todd Stottlemyre, San Francisco vs. Arizona

500 -- April 18, 2001, off Terry Adams, San Francisco vs. Los Angeles

550 -- August 27, 2001, off Kevin Appier, San Francisco at New York Mets

564 -- October 4, 2001, off Wilfredo Rodriguez, San Francisco at Houston, ties Mark McGwire for major-league season mark with 70 homers

567 -- October 7, 2001, off Dennis Springer, San Francisco vs. Los Angeles, sets major-league season mark with 73 homers

600 -- August 9, 2002, off Kip Wells, San Francisco vs. Pittsburgh

660 -- April 12, 2004, off Matt Kinney, San Francisco vs. Milwaukee, ties Willie Mays for third on baseball's career list


As for him passing Aaron, seems like a no brainer, but I for one will look at Aaron, Ruth and Mays in a different light.

I will see Barry as I see Billy Hamilton, the old leader of walks and runs. Looking at Hamilton he too, was an amazing player, but he really wasn't. He took advantage and was the best at a COMMON thing during the 1880-1890 era. Scoring runs and stealing bases

Barry Bonds is the best HR hitter in the greatest HR era...not exactly a stamp of approval for greatest player ever.

Can I change history...I wish I could.

I wish the 1994 strike never took place, the baseball people in charge were NOT in charge and we didn't have some "genius" say "Hey what we need is a tighter ball, lower the mound a little...and boom HR records breaking will bring the fans in...cause chicks dig the longball."

I would have liked to see Barry hit those 35 HRs a year maybe pop some 45 or even a 50 hit .310...maybe even beat the HR record or come close to it with 61-65...70 ugh...73 double ugh.

It's really not Barry's fault that when he beats Aaron's record it won't mean anything. It really won't. Not to any knowledgable baseball fan.

And for that MLB heads and officials should be shot, but Selig is still on top playing his violin, whil ethe Huns come and baseball burns...I hope baseball like 100 times before overcomes this adversity...

[Steve Kuffrey]

hhhhmmmmm...............

[Eckstein 4 Prez]

I agree 1000% with the Bonds/Billy Hamilton point, with this caveat: home runs aside, Bonds is certainly one of the top ten hitters in baseball history, even era-adjusted. I don't think the same can be said for Hamilton.

[dougaiton]

Originally posted by Carlton

I will see Barry as I see Billy Hamilton, the old leader of walks and runs. Looking at Hamilton he too, was an amazing player, but he really wasn't. He took advantage and was the best at a COMMON thing during the 1880-1890 era. Scoring runs and stealing bases


Barry Bonds is the best HR hitter in the greatest HR era...not exactly a stamp of approval for greatest player ever.



Or indeed, Ty Cobb. The best at hitting for a high average in an era when players hit for a high average more commonly . Can we not play this game with anyone?
Consider that Bonds is the best hitter for average and power, and takes the most walks of hitters in his era. He's not exactly Cecil Fielder, is he?


Can I change history...I wish I could.

I wish the 1994 strike never took place, the baseball people in charge were NOT in charge and we didn't have some "genius" say "Hey what we need is a tighter ball, lower the mound a little...and boom HR records breaking will bring the fans in...cause chicks dig the longball."

I would have liked to see Barry hit those 35 HRs a year maybe pop some 45 or even a 50 hit .310...maybe even beat the HR record or come close to it with 61-65...70 ugh...73 double ugh.


Like with the great 'Live Ball' experiments? Or with the lowering of the mound after Gibson? Which era of baseball history is the 'true' one, that all others should be judged by?


It's really not Barry's fault that when he beats Aaron's record it won't mean anything. It really won't. Not to any knowledgable baseball fan.

I don't know what this means. How are any pitchers or hitters relevant since the start of the Live Ball era? Nay, since the start of four balls for a walk? Just because the conditions of certain stats have been changed doesn't mean we should trhow babies out with the bath-water.
This is just ranting, Carlton, and not really representative of the kind of knowledgeable baseball fan you are.

[dougaiton]

Originally posted by Eckstein 4 Prez
I agree 1000% with the Bonds/Billy Hamilton point, with this caveat: home runs aside, Bonds is certainly one of the top ten hitters in baseball history, even era-adjusted. I don't think the same can be said for Hamilton.

Also if HR were equivalent with steals. They are not.

It's a bit like saying, 'Having the best ERA in 1968 is a bit like hitting the least batters in 1998'.

EDIT: Bonds, like Cobb and the late years of Ruth, is the best hitter in an era of great hitters. That is pretty much a seal of approval in my book.

[Hammer755]

Bonds career SLG% = 0.602
LG SLG% during Bonds' career = 0.406
% Greater than LG AVG = 1.48

Cobb's career BA = 0.366
LG BA during Cobb's career = 0.273
% Greater than LG AVG = 1.34

Say all you want about how much of an offensive era that Bonds has played in, but his numbers dwarf his era much more than Cobb's, who is supposedly the greatest hitter of all-time.

[Crapshoot]

Originally posted by Carlton

As for him passing Aaron, seems like a no brainer, but I for one will look at Aaron, Ruth and Mays in a different light.

I will see Barry as I see Billy Hamilton, the old leader of walks and runs. Looking at Hamilton he too, was an amazing player, but he really wasn't. He took advantage and was the best at a COMMON thing during the 1880-1890 era. Scoring runs and stealing bases

Barry Bonds is the best HR hitter in the greatest HR era...not exactly a stamp of approval for greatest player ever.

Can I change history...I wish I could.

I wish the 1994 strike never took place, the baseball people in charge were NOT in charge and we didn't have some "genius" say "Hey what we need is a tighter ball, lower the mound a little...and boom HR records breaking will bring the fans in...cause chicks dig the longball."

I would have liked to see Barry hit those 35 HRs a year maybe pop some 45 or even a 50 hit .310...maybe even beat the HR record or come close to it with 61-65...70 ugh...73 double ugh.

It's really not Barry's fault that when he beats Aaron's record it won't mean anything. It really won't. Not to any knowledgable baseball fan.

And for that MLB heads and officials should be shot, but Selig is still on top playing his violin, whil ethe Huns come and baseball burns...I hope baseball like 100 times before overcomes this adversity...

You're right- those of us who acknowledge Barry's feat for what it is must not be "knowledgeable " baseball funs. I feel confident that appreciating the greatest player I've ever seen does not in any way detract from my knowledge of the game- in fact, I could say that curmedgeons who live in the past probably lack the proper context to claim knowledge.

Just for fun btw:
Billy Hamilton: OPS+ of 141
Ty Cobb: OPS+ of 167
Barry Bonds: OPS+ of 179

I think Cobb is a lot closer to Hamilton than Bonds ever was....

[Carlton]

Originally posted by dougaiton
I don't know what this means. How are any pitchers or hitters relevant since the start of the Live Ball era? Nay, since the start of four balls for a walk? Just because the conditions of certain stats have been changed doesn't mean we should trhow babies out with the bath-water.
This is just ranting, Carlton, and not really representative of the kind of knowledgeable baseball fan you are.

???????

1st Ty Cobb hit in an era where the league average was .248!!!
Lead the league in SLG% when it was in the .450 range.

From 1920-1993 (that's a big slice to say what league average is correct?) HRs have been constant...yes constant so you could say with pretty safe assumption that every player during those years who hit 400 HRS were good HR hitters

As for pitchers during the deadball era...they are highly overrated, you know it and I know it...no one will say Ed Walsh Sr. or Nap Rucker are the best pitchers of all time

Anyway I think you are missing my point doug.

It's the point that when something is so much more common and done at such a regular pace...it loses its mystique. There is no HR mystique anymore...and unfairly or a bite on the ass from Karma...Barry Bonds achievements won't mean as much as Hank Aaron's much like McGwire and Sosa palled in comparision to Maris

[Crapshoot]

Originally posted by Steve Kuffrey
hhhhmmmmm...............

Steve, by all means- make an arguement. Saying hmm and posting smilies is great, but Im fairly interested in a debate if you can back up your "feelings" with facts.

[Crapshoot]

Originally posted by Carlton
???????

1st TyFrom 1920-1993 (that's a big slice to say what league average is correct?) HRs have been constant...yes constant so you could say with pretty safe assumption that every player during those years who hit 400 HRS were good HR hitters

http://home.istar.ca/~mbein/baseball.html

I must have posted the cute little graphical history 3-4 times for you Carlton- despite your fondest hopes and dreams, HR were not constant from 20-93. IF yoy repeatedly ignore this in favor of your own dreams- you have a problem.

The most offensive era in baseball was in the 30's- not the 90's, despite whan many a person would like to believe.

[jaxmagicman]

Originally posted by Aadik
http://home.istar.ca/~mbein/baseball.html

I must have posted the cute little graphical history 3-4 times for you Carlton- despite your fondest hopes and dreams, HR were not constant from 20-93. IF yoy repeatedly ignore this in favor of your own dreams- you have a problem.

The most offensive era in baseball was in the 30's- not the 90's, despite whan many a person would like to believe.

I think Carlton is talking about Homeruns in General not all offense. Because Homeruns have gone up throughout the years.

But I disagree with his argument. The homerun record is always going to be a special mark. It brought many fans back to baseball when Sosa and McGwire were chasing it, and when Bonds is getting close to Ruth and then Aaron, the world will be glued to the TV watching.

[Crapshoot]

Originally posted by jaxmagicman
I think Carlton is talking about Homeruns in General not all offense. Because Homeruns have gone up throughout the years.

yes, and what part of the graph shows it being "constant" from 1920-1993 ?

[Hammer755]

Originally posted by jaxmagicman
I think Carlton is talking about Homeruns in General not all offense. Because Homeruns have gone up throughout the years.

Which is the opposite of what Carlton said.

Originally posted by Carlton
From 1920-1993 (that's a big slice to say what league average is correct?) HRs have been constant...yes constant so you could say with pretty safe assumption that every player during those years who hit 400 HRS were good HR hitters

[jaxmagicman]

Originally posted by Aadik
yes, and what part of the graph shows it being "constant" from 1920-1993 ?

Again, I am trying to decifir what he is saying. I don't think he is saying constant as a straight line constant, but constant as going from .2 in 1902 to 1.2 in 2004.

Edit: After reading Hammer's post I now understand what Carlton was trying to say, and I agree with you Aadik, they have been constantly increasing. Not what Carlton said as staying constant.

[Carlton]

Yes don't count expansion...funny how every one likes to talk about HR/AB until it disproves whatever point they are trying to make

I love how on THIS board, and this board only...I post a query on how Bonds achievements will be perceived since HR/AB (implied I didn't hand it to you on a plate...sorry) are higher than Ruth, Mays and Aaron's time...just goes into Beehive mode.

[Hammer755]

Originally posted by Carlton

Quality argument.

[jaxmagicman]

Carlton,

I am as much pro tradition as the next guy, but some things cannot be argued. If from Ty Cobb till Don Mattingly the homeruns per game were .2 and then starting when Bonds entered the league it jumped to 1.2, then I could agree with you, but as you can see it has gone up through out the years. It is the way Baseball has evolved. But until the Walt Weiss' of the world routinely hit 700 homeruns, the Homerun record will always be a magical number.

[Crapshoot]

Originally posted by Carlton


Yes don't count expansion...funny how every one likes to talk about HR/AB until it disproves whatever point they are trying to make

I love how on THIS board, and this board only...I post a query on how Bonds achievements will be perceived since HR/AB (implied I didn't hand it to you on a plate...sorry) are higher than Ruth, Mays and Aaron's time...just goes into Beehive mode.

As always Carlton- avoiding the fact, going with the innuendo. HR's have increased steadily- that HR per game. Your earlier statement is ridiculously wrong, and yet you fail to acknowledge your mistake. for what its worth, AB/game are not at their high point either- but then your knowledge of baseball outside the deadball era leaves a lot to be desired.

[matskralc]

Originally posted by Carlton
As for pitchers during the deadball era...they are highly overrated, you know it and I know it...no one will say Ed Walsh Sr. or Nap Rucker are the best pitchers of all time

What about Walter Johnson or Christy Mathewson? Either perhaps the greatest pitcher in a pitcher's era ever? I mean, if one the greatest hitter of a hitter's era ever isn't allowed to be considered the greatest hitter of all-time, surely that means one of the greatest pitchers of a pitcher's era isn't allowed to be considered one of the greatest pitchers of all time?

Edit: Barry Bonds ain't the Ed Walsh or Nap Rucker of his era.

[IatricSB]

Originally posted by Carlton
1st Ty Cobb hit in an era where the league average was .248!!!
Lead the league in SLG% when it was in the .450 range.

Not sure where you got your numbers from, but the league average during Ty Cobb's career was .264, not .248