Sad stuff. Talk about a guy living in shadows. Not only did he play with one of the five best ever, he fathered one of the five best ever.
Still, he had a great career.
I know this will deeply affect Barry (as the passing of a parent affects anyone), but I wonder how this will affect his performance on the field.
Wow that is sad! I don’t think it will affect Barry on the field, but it’s got to be a huge blow emotionally.
When I was a kid, Bobby Bonds was my favorite player, because he kept getting traded. I remember reading an article in Sport about him cursing being traded to the White Sox because they wore “Hot Pants” This was right around when they tried to wear shorts for a short time. After reading all those lousy sports biographies, I thought this was a pretty cool guy.
He was wildly underappreciated. His son is so good, he’s still underappreciated.
Talk about living every father’s dream, to see you son become more sucessful than you are.
I feel so sad for Barry. You know that he and his father had to have been close; I think Bobby was the one who would straighten Barry out on the rare occasions that he went into a slump. Expected, of course, but it’s always a terrible shock.
They mentioned the other night, while the Giants were playing the Braves, that Barry is Gary Sheffield’s son’s godfather. Wouldn’t it be interesting if, in 30 years or so, the junior Sheffield is chasing Barry’s records, the way Barry’s chasing his godfather’s.
RIP Bobby.
Sad that a lot of poeple just know him as “Barry’s Dad”. He was one of the greats.
When my brother gets home, I’ll have to ask if he’s heard of this. (he likes sports in general, and baseball [and hockey] in particular)
Sad news… RIP.
F_X
Underappreciated? Hardly. In fact, every team that obtained Bobby Bonds’ services was excited, THRILLED to have him! I remember very well how happy every Yankee fans was to see him in pinstripes in 1975! But before long, Yankee fans couldn’t wait to be rid of him. Before long, nearly EVERY team that he played for wanted to dump him.
For that reason, he gained a reputation (undeserved) for being a bad character. People around baseball just ASSUMED that, if a guy with so much talent kept getting traded around, he must be trouble. But he wasn’t. By all accounts, he was a pretty nice guy (unlike his son).
Bobby Bonds’ problem was simple: he was very fast, and he had great power, BUT (and this is a HUGE but) he struck out waaaay too much. He was so fast, people assumed he’d make a great leadoff man, and he was so powerful, teams assumed he be a great cleanup hitter. But in reality, he was terrible in both spots.
Yes, he was fast enough to be a great leadoff man, but he struck out so often that his on-base percentage wasn’t good enough to justify putting him there. Yes, he was powerful enough to be a great cleanup hitter, but… you guessed it, he struck out so often with men on base that teams would get frustrated with him.
A supremely talented player, a type teams HOPED they could build a lineup around. But when teams actually DID try to build a lineup around him, they found he couldn’t really DO what they expected him to do.
Thanks for some sweet moments of pure baseball pleasure in the early 70s. I started going to games at Candlestick right around 1970, and Bobby was always one of my favorites.
I shed a few tears tonight. But I know he was suffering with many terminal conditions, and now the suffering is over. Rest well.
Well, obviously, that’s just not true. As a matter of fact, it’s totally preposterous. “Terrible”? Not even close. His career OBP was .353, which at that time was quite good. Strikeouts or no, he got on base a lot, and made a fine leadoff man. He got on base more than Lou Brock did, and you never heard anyone complain about Lou Brock being a bad leadoff man. The year that Bonds struck out 189 times, he had a .375 OBP and scored 134 runs. On two other occasions he led the league in runs scored.
I think it rather obvious that striking out a lot does not necessarily mean you can’t get on base, since many players who strike out a lot get on base a lot. Mike Schmidt struck out a lot, but he got on base more than George Brett, a career .305 hitter who never struck out. Maybe people THOUGHT Bobby Bonds was a bad leadoff hitter, but they were wrong. He was a very good leadoff hitter.
I cried when I saw this on ESPNews.
He will be missed, and not just by his family and friends.
Here’s hoping that Major League Baseball will eventually retire the number 25 for the Bonds boys, and number 14 for Larry Doby.
Suit yourself, RickJay- I must have IMAGINED all the times Bobby Bonds struck out with men in scoring position. And all the times I saw him whiff to open a game? I must have confused him with someone else.
All I know is, the Yanks were fortunate enough to trade him for a REAL leadoff man (Mickey Rivers) and got a good pitcher (Ed Figueroa) to boot. Ask Angel fans if they’d like to take THAT trade back!
No, you didn’t imagine him striking out a lot. He DID strike out a lot. But he was not a “terrible” leadoff man, unless you want to explain how a guy who gets on base a lot and scores a huge number of runs is a “terrible” leadoff man. I mean, I’m just telling you facts. He got on base a lot and he scored a lot of runs. That’s the absolute truth.
He was certainly a better player than Mickey Rivers; Rivers got on base LESS than Bonds did, and scored far, far fewer runs… Rivers never scored 100 runs a season, which Bonds did regularly. Rivers was a good player, but Bonds was a heck of a lot better.
That was a good tade for New York though, since they got Figueroa in the deal and he pretty much blows the whole deal open. To be quite honest I don’t understand why California traded Figueroa away for anything - he was a 26-year-old pitcher coming off a 16-win season. Maybe someone knows some backstory I don’t, but I would not have traded you Ed Figueroa for Bonds and Rivers together.
I am going only my (admittedly) shaky memory here, but as I recall a lot of Bobby Bonds’ difficulties with his many teams came from his agents. I am a Cleveland fan, and when the Indians traded for him in the mid-1970s I was thrilled, and so was Bobby for the first half of his first season in Cleveland. Then his agent came in with great bluster and wanted Bonds’ contract re-negotiated and the Indians immediately saw fit to trade him. Now, the Indians’ management at that time could charitably called terrible, but when every team, and not just the inept Indians, wanted to trade Bonds shortly after obtaining him, it makes one think he (or his agent) valued himself a lot higher than anyone else did.