Friday, March 09, 2007
With the upcoming home run chase I thought it would be interesting to compare and contrast the careers of Barry Bonds and Hank Aaron.

Career Numbers Comparison:

Barry Bonds (21 seasons 1986 to 2006)
.299 Avg
.443 OBP
.608 SLG
1.051 OPS
182 OPS+
(OPS+ is OPS compared to league average. An average player would have a 100 for his career, a player who is twice as good as an average player would have a 200. I think this is a good stat for comparing players in different eras.)
734 Home Runs
2152 Runs
1930 RBI
509 SB

Hank Aaron (23 seasons 1954-1976)
.305 Avg
.374 OBP
.555 SLG
.929 OPS
155 OPS+
755 Home Runs
2174 Runs
2297 RBI
240 SB

To me it looks like Bonds pretty easily wins this matchup. While Bonds certainly has played in a more explosive offensive era overall, the late 80s and early 90s were not particularly explosive years league wide and when comparing the OPS+ it's clear that Bonds has dominated his competition more so than Aaron did his. Aaron does have a slightly higher batting average and slightly higher counting stats (well until this season anyway...) and to some old timers that may give him the edge. To you old timers I say get out your calculator and get with the times.

While Bonds easily wins the match up of career numbers he even more easily wins when you are talking about peak performance. Aaron started of his career strong and perhaps his greatest strength was his consistency throughout his career. Bonds on the other hand struggled his first few seasons and those early struggles hurt his career numbers.

Bonds at his peak has been among the very best players in baseball history and I do not think Aaron ever displayed that same level of dominance. Bonds has won 7 MVP awards in his career (unmatched by anyone) while Aaron won only one MVP award. While Aaron did lead the NL in OPS 3 times, Bonds lead it 9 times. While Aaron lead the league in slugging pct 4 times, Bonds lead it 7 times.

Probably the most telling thing is this: Of the top four all time greatest OPS seasons in history, three of them are by Barry Bonds (the other by Babe Ruth.) Aaron? not a single season even in the top 100.

Aaron amassed great numbers over his career through consistency and by being an all star season in and season out. But Bonds has been something more than an all star, he has been truly great. He has been on a level that I would argue only Ted Williams and Babe Ruth have ever shared. True complete domination of his competition.

So while Bonds will be chasing down Aaron this season for one of baseball's most historic marks, he passed him long ago when ranking the games greatest all time hitters.

-Josh-

Labels: ,

AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Contributed by Josh
10 Comments:
Blogger IHateU said...
There were also two All-Star games every year when Aaron was playing. The mound was six inches higher so pitchers could go a bit more nuts. Plus there was the whole expansion and dilution of talent during most of Bonds' run... and Coors Field.
March 9, 2007 at 9:26 AM  

Blogger Josh said...
all true but OPS+ takes all of that into account... well maybe not the dilution of talent. I guess you could argue that that makes it easier to dominate your competition. But still 7 MVPs to 1? Doesn't seem too close to me.

I need to turn on anonymous comments..
March 9, 2007 at 2:07 PM  

Blogger IHateU said...
Well you got the 14 expansion teams since 1961. That's what, 70 Starters, and 100+ more reilvers. 1968 Gibson had his 1.12 ERA and Denny McLain won 31 games or something silly.
March 9, 2007 at 3:35 PM  

Blogger Ryan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
March 10, 2007 at 4:56 PM  

Blogger Ryan said...
Bob Gibson is god. Don't knock The Bob.
March 10, 2007 at 4:58 PM  

Blogger Josh said...
i enjoy bob gibson myself... but i still dont think worse pitching really goes against my argument.. ok maybe parts of my argument. but really you can only compare players stats to their competitors and bonds numbers even when "normalized" for era are frickin' outstanding - right up there with Ruth and Williams. i actually think ... you could make an argument that because there are more hitters that maybe the overall field of competition is worse so its easier to dominate it. but i dont know.. that doesnt really fly. i think when you think about all of the improvements in steroids over the years - its true that theres better competition now than ever!
March 11, 2007 at 10:34 AM  

Blogger IHateU said...
Wasn't it a point that steroids generally help the pitchers more anyways?
March 11, 2007 at 1:31 PM  

Blogger Josh said...
Yeah, well Roger Clemens numbers have been pretty insane. 221 ERA+ at age 42... In some ways just as impressive as Bonds numbers as an old man. Not that there's any proof of Clemens having used steroids, but I'm pretty damn sure he does.
March 11, 2007 at 3:30 PM  

Blogger IHateU said...
March 11, 2007 at 3:53 PM  

Blogger Josh said...
I missed that story somehow - but I can't say it's surprising... The Rocket indeed... what do you think Astros, Red Sox, or Yankees? I'm bettin' on the Yankees of course. Although I hope he goes back to the Red Sox. That would be one of those spiritual things, man.
March 11, 2007 at 6:45 PM