Interesting piece on Bonds
Lord Buckeye
Out of curiosity I thought I would compare Hank Aaron's career stats
to those of Barry Bonds and the thing that jumped out at me was how
amazingly similar they were. It seems that a lot of people are
suggesting that what Bonds has done in his late 30's/early 40's when
most careers are winding down could not have been achieved without
steroids. Well Aaron also put up the best power numbers of his career
at the same age that Bonds is, in fact their careers almost mirror
each other. Apart from the 73 HR's Bonds hit in 2001 there looks to be
little reason to even suspect that Bonds cheated just by looking at
his numbers.
Here are some of my observations.
1. Both had their highest single season HR total at age 37.
2. Aaron had his highest 5 year HR total between ages 35-39, Bonds
between 36-40.
3. Both seemed to reinvent themselves as pure sluggers at age 35 when
things like base stealing ability declined
4. Both had their highest OPS at age 37, Bonds 1.378, Aaron 1.079
(Aaron had far fewer walks which was the nature of the game at that
time)
What it comes down to is if Aaron could put up those numbers without
cheating then why couldn't Bonds?
I've read Game of Shadows and you would think it was the alleged
steroid abuse which led to him hitting 73 HR's in 2001, but the book
indicates he was taking steroids much longer than just that one
season, yet his next best HR total is 49. If he was rampantly using
steroids during those years why didn't he go on a McGwire and Sosa
like tear of hitting 60+ each year. The 73 home run season looks like
an aberation compared to the rest of his career. Placed in the context
of his entire career could the 73 HR season just be an anomaly like
Seattle winning 116 games, or Atlanta winning 14 straight division
titles?
I'm not implying that he didn't take steroids as I believe he probably
did, but I also believe that a large number of players including the
pitchers he faced were using steroids, which in effect leveled the
playing field giving him no great advantage over everybody else. The
numbers to this point in his career look to me to be a tribute to his
talent and longevity much like that of Hank Aaron.
radiomd
Lord Buckeye <l_bu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Out of curiosity I thought I would compare Hank Aaron's career stats
> to those of Barry Bonds and the thing that jumped out at me was how
> amazingly similar they were.
On this subject here are some updated numbers I originally posted a
couple of years back, a chart of how frequently Aaron and Bonds hit home
runs relative the league in which they were playing, by age:
Age Aaron HR% / league Bonds HR% / league
20 1.05
21 1.48 1.67
22 1.47 1.65
23 2.63 2.29
24 1.60 1.58
25 2.27 2.76
26 2.74 2.24
27 1.99 3.75
28 2.90 3.38
29 3.15 3.39
30 1.92 2.35
31 2.36 2.85
32 2.93 2.68
33 3.25 2.32
34 2.95 2.96
35 3.60 3.01
36 2.90 4.58
37 4.55 3.84
38 3.52 3.76
39 4.35 3.75
40 3.05 4.06 (in only 14 games)
41 1.15 2.21
42 2.16 3.92 (through 5-24-07)
Normalizing their home run rates to the league is of course an attempt
to reduce the effect that external factors would have on the comparison,
such as the changes in the height of pitching mounds, the size of the
strike zone, the size of the ballparks, etc. However, this normalization
doesn't adequate reduce the effect their home ballparks may have had.
From ages 32 to 40 Aaron played his home games in Atlanta-Fulton County
Stadium, where he hit about 33% more home runs than he did on the road,
a difference that's entirely consistent with the overall effect of the
ballpark on home run rates. So I think it makes sense to adjust Aaron's
numbers for ballpark effects in those years.
On the other hand, since Pac Bell/SBC/ATT&T Park opened Bonds has hit
152 home runs there while hitting 153 home runs on the road, so even
though the park depresses home run rates for most lefties I don't think
it's appropriate to apply ballpark adjustments to his numbers for the
sake of comparison.
So, for the key years from ages 35 to 39, here are Aaron's adjusted
numbers along with Bonds' raw numbers. Aaron's late-career power surge
is still comparable to Bonds':
Age Aaron adj HR% / league Bonds HR% / league
35 3.13 3.01
36 2.52 4.58
37 3.97 3.84
38 3.06 3.76
39 3.78 3.75
Another way to put this is to say that the amazing rate at which Bonds
hit home runs relative to the league at age 36 (4.58) is nearly
identical to the rate at which Aaron his home runs relative to his
league at age 37 (4.55), neither one of them having achieved so high a
rate earlier in their careers. Conventional wisdom says that Aaron
required only the aid of a friendly home ballpark to achieve that feat,
while Bonds required the aid of the clear, the cream, the three witches
from Macbeth appearing in the forms of Anderson, Conte, and Valente, and
maybe also that guy Robert Johnson met at the crossroads.
Anyway, there are the numbers.