Is Barry Bonds Having the Greatest Offensive Season Ever?

Here’s an article that makes this argument. Here’s an excerpt:

The article goes into much greater depth. Bonds’s numbers as of today:

[ul]
[li].319 BA[/li][li].502 OBP[/li][li].837 SLG (third best all-time)[/li][li]1.339 OPS (OBP+SLG) (third best all-time)[/li][li]67 HR (on pace for 71, best all-time)[/li][li]162 BB (on pace for 172, best all-time)[/li][li]100 extra-base hits (on pace for 106, fourth best all-time)[/li][li].365/.569/.885 with runners on base[/li][li].360/.627/.930 with runners in scoring position[/li][/ul]

Thoughts?

I would say he is not. I offer a few seasons I think are better:

  1. Babe Ruth 1921. Ruth had slightly more power and got one base a little bit more than Bonds while playing in a league that was more or less offensively equal to the 2001 NL; on base percentages were higher, but slugging was lower. Ruth also missed only two games all year, while Bonds will miss a dozen or more. Ruth scored 177 runs that year. Wow.

Perhaps most significantly, Ruth’s 1.359 OPS that year was not only unbelievably high, it was 308 points higher than anyone else’s. Bonds will not lead by such a wide margin.

  1. Babe Ruth 1920. Percentage wise, even BETTER than 1921, but he missed a few more games. I’d say it’s as good or better than Bonds’s 2001.

Ruth’s astounding 1923 is right up there, too.

  1. Rogers Hornsby 1922. Not quite as good percentage wise as Bonds, but hey, the guy was a second baseman! So in terms of value his bat may have been as good that year as anyone’s ever has.

  2. Nap Lajoie 1901. See “Rogers Hornsby.” However, the American League in 1901 was a major league of questionable quality.

Surprisingly, none of Ted Williams’s seasons ever quite matched the heights Ruth and Bonds have reached, and obviously you can’t give Williams positional credit.

I would say that Bonds is having the third greatest season with the lumber ever. I would say Ruth’s 1921 is the best.

Gaderene,

I have to agree. Without doubt Barry Bonds is having one of the all-time greatest seasons ever in baseball. It would be sad if sportswriters decided that he isn’t deserving of the National League MVP and voted for someone else.

Glad to see that some else follows the articles in the Baseball Prospectus…

Nice analysis, RickJay. Isn’t there a season or two for Honus Wagner that could make their way up there, as well? Gotta pull out my copy of The Diamond Appraised…

eponymous, I have to confess that I started this thread mostly as a pretext to link to the Baseball Prospectus article. :slight_smile: The more people that know about that site, the better.

I knew I was forgetting an infielder.

Wagner’s numbers are harder to compare. Obviously he does not have to kind of incredible percentages Bonds and Ruth have, since A) nobody does and B) they didn’t hit home runs when Wagner was good.

It’s not easy to compare eras. For instance, in 1905, Wagner had a .932 OPS. That doesn’t sound like much compared to Bonds and Ruth, but this was in a league where the average OPS was .662. In 1908 he put up a .957 when nobody else was higher than .816 and the league average was .599 (!). Obviously, with so few runs being scored - and a much higher percentage of runs were caused by errors instead of hits, so Wagner’s extra OPS may have been worth even MORE - creating extra runs is worth more. So did Wagner’s extra offense help his team win as many games as Bonds’s or Ruth’s? Maybe. But I don’t think he had any one season that was as good as Ruth did in 1921 or Bonds is having now.

On the other hand, bearing in mind that Wagner was a SHORTSTOP, I would say he was every bit as good a player overall as Bonds or Ruth as a position player, and was probably the second greatest player of all time behind Ruth (who gets credit for pitching, of course.) And keeping his being a shortstop in mind, you have to think Wagner’s 1908 was as good a season as anyone has ever had. Wagner was as far beyond the 1908 National League as Bonds is beyond the 2001 NL.

Wagner 1908: .354/.415/.542
NL average 1908: .239/.293/.306

A suggestion: Given the title of the OP, I think we should exclude position as a consideration. Because once we start to give extra credit to Wagner and Hornsby because of position, then we have to ask “*how good *a (SS/2B/LF/etc.) were they?” Bonds is regarded as among the best LF gloves of all time – should that count when comparing his hitting to Ted Williams? Real quick we’re going to be heading into a discussion of how many errors Honus Wagner made in '08, the relative importance and reliability of defensive stats, and whether we should take into consideration the poor quality of early infields …

I think we have lots to cover just with hitting numbers (plus it gives us more hope for a definitive answer).

We’ve only started to discuss league-norm issues. Next we probably should look into home park factors.

I’d do it but I gotta leave for work…

How does Sosa’s 1998 season add up? Wasn’t he making a push for the RBI record as well as the HR record? (In my estimation, that RBI record is the most unattainable record this side of Cal’s). He also had a great average. .315 or so, right? Not bad when factoring in the 66 HRs. I don’t know if his record strike out count works against him, but I’d like to see you guys who know more about baseball history then I do size up his place in single season history.

bonds is a joke. as soon as the playoffs start barry will be on vacation as will the giants. baseball is a team sport and bonds is all about barry. if i’m in a crucial point in the playoffs give me someone like paul o’neil and tell barry to lay off the 'roids an dlose that wack dangly earring.

Watsonwil:
As good as Sosa’s season was, it wasn’t even as good as McGwire’s that year. Sosa had a relatively low walk total that year, which greatly decreases his OBP, and consequently his value. Sadly, like McGwire in 1998, there is a chance that a man having one of the top half dozen seasons in history will lose the MVP award because some other player racked up a bunch of RBI, or his team made it to the playoffs, or he is nicer to the media.

Since the media is never going to get a clue, perhaps we should split the MVP award into two separate awards: the Player with the Best Stats award, and the Best Contributor Award. The latter could include such things as how well his team played that season, how much chemistry he brings to the team, etc. The former would be based on numbers alone, and would require passing a basic statistics exam before one could vote on it.

(Yes, I am aware that there is the Hank Aaron award, but no one’s ever heard of that, and I think it’s done just using some formula.)

I can’t tell if your trying to be funny or you truly are serious.

If you are serious:

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Bonds is one of the only reasons the Giants even have a shot at the playoffs. Bonds isn’t a team player? Huh? If I had to pick the most anti-social Giant I would pick Jeff Kent. Can’t see how Bonds isn’t a team player in your view, it is a team sport. Not exactly like Basketball where he could “hog” the ball throughout the game. Barry on steriods? :rolleyes:. I’ll leave the earring comment alone.

Of course, if you are not serious, apologizes.

Well, as I write this, Barry Bonds has just completed his 5th at-bat in tonight’s Giants-Padres game. He’s been walked twice, hit a solo homer once (his 68th of the year), struck out once, and just now hit a double. Were his averages computed from this one game alone, he would have a Batting Average of .667 and and On-Base Percentage of .800.

I’d say he’s doing rather well. :wink:

bonds IS a joke and here’s the punchline: postseason batting average: 0.200 hr: uno. i don’t care if bonds hits 99 homeruns he will never have a ring unless you count that sh*t dangling from his steroid-engorged ear.

As I understand it the OP is refering to Bonds current season. The fact that you keep bringing up the postseason of years past is helpful in seeing what he might do, but it doesn’t have much of a bearing on the GD. But what is this stuff about steriods? Could you provide a cite?

A quick Google Search provided this and others to refute your steroid claims:
Article 1

Is it hard to believe he might just be that good?

Check out Rick Reilly’s SI Back page column.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/magazine/life_of_reilly/news/2001/08/21/life_of_reilly/

Reilly, normally a softie, really blasts the guy.

Link isn’t working for me for some reason.

Yes, and it’s also been said by many (check espn.com for some) that SI has had a hard-on for BB for years. I’ll look for the cite.

More to the point, so what? Babe Ruth was an alcoholic womanizer. Ty Cobb was a hate-filled psychopath. Barry Bonds is an asshole. But he’s never punched an umpire in the face (as Ruth did), nor has he charged into the stands to beat up a quadriplegic (as Cobb did). Get over it.

Reilly’s contribution to this conversation is:

We’ve been through Reilly’s column before; many of his statements have an absurdly negative spin and are wildly out of context, and at least one is an outright lie (the one about his teammates not being excited over his 500th home run.)

Sports Illustrated’s grudge against Bonds for missing an interview a few years ago has nothing to do with how great a season he’s having, and frankly doesn’t have anything to do with baseball.

Barry Bonds just hit his 69th home run of the year.

If he doesn’t hit another home run all season, he will be hounded for the rest of his life by the twin demons of:[ul][li]Almost, but not quite, tying the single-season home run record; and[/li]Having everybody make “69” jokes about him.[/ul]

I love baseball. I love the stats… I love seeing bodies perform amazing athletic feats. I love the idea that only two people have ever done this in recent memory. I could care less about comparing ancient baseball to the present. We are in an era of everyone using sports and science to the absolute physical edge, and still, only a few people are amazing examples of excellence. Barry Bonds is GREAT.
There are many others who are improving their skills, many others who are Playing, and Managing, their best. But they aren’t all going to hit that well, and they aren’t all going to win, and they aren’t all going to be someone else’s idea of a friend. The measure of any man is if he is loving toward his own family and friends.
Seems to me Barry knows what this means to him, and that’s all that matters.
This has been a great year for baseball. Barry is the best of the best…yeah, I know I sound superfluous.
And while I’m up here …GO METS!!! GO INDIANS!!!