Mr. Rogers on Barry Bonds

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Mon Oct 04, 2004 1:09 pm

Phil Rogers has this to say in his Chicago Tribune column (my italics):In the National League, there's no way to pick anyone other than Barry Bonds [for MVP], whether the Giants win a playoff spot or head home. As has been mentioned a few times, given that he entered the last weekend with 225 walks and a .608 on-base percentage, no hitter ever has had a better season than Bonds' 2004.That includes Bonds' 73-homer season in 2001, which is saying something. His OPS (on-base plus slugging) that year was 1.378. It was 1.427 with three games left in this season.

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:29 pm

It's true. Exactly what Bonds' OBP and OPS would have been if he'd gotten more pitches to hit, we cannot say, so a great deal of his success comes from his sheer intimidation factor and all the walks that gets him. We have to count that intimidation favor in his favor, though, not against him, since he earned it. Therefore, I agree with Rogers.

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:55 pm

I agree that Bonds had a monster year, and I am intrigued by the suggestion that he had the best offensive year of anyone ever, but that's a large claim, and I would like to see more of an argument made for it. Even if his OPS is the highest ever, the case has to be made that this stat clinches the argument.

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Mon Oct 04, 2004 4:51 pm

I'm a fan of the new-wave sabermetricians, so I tend to agree with the sentiment that OPS is the single most meaningful offensive stat. It comprises both power and ability to get on base in a way that no other stat does. When a slap hitter like Ichiro wins the batting title, is anyone seriously going to suggest that batting average is not a highly overrated measure of offensive value? I don't know how many of Ichiro's singles were RBIs, but I feel pretty confident in saying that a player who got fewer hits but a lot more walks and more powerful hits is of much greater value to his team than Ichiro. Only tradition leads us to give batting average such weight.A column I read recently said that a lineup of nine 2004-vintage Barry Bonds would score an average of twice as many runs per game as a lineup of nine of any other season of any player in history. That too is pretty breathtaking.I do not think that Barry is the best player of all time or the best hitter of all time. But if he had performed at the level of his last few seasons his entire career, it would be hard to argue he wasn't the best ever.[ October 04, 2004: Message edited by: Matthew Grieco ]

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Mon Oct 04, 2004 5:13 pm

The SABR crowd also stresses the importance of judging a player relative to other players in his era. Takes Bonds's 73 home runs. He hit them in a homer-happy time, just a few years after McGwire broke the 70 barrier. When Ruth hit 54 in 1920 or '21, most "sluggers" hit 15 or so homers a year. Ruth's feat was more awesome in the eyes of his contemporaries than Bond's feat was in our eyes. So it would be interesting to make the same kind of comparison with OPS.

Testy Copy Editors

Mr. Rogers on Barry Bonds

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links