Why aren't more people talking about Barry Bonds' OBP? (1 Viewer)

[Agee Bassett]

Quote:

You know this for a fact? Please elaborate.

 

[Ashley Seymour]

But look at what Ruth had: there is NO comparison between major league pitching now and in Ruth's day -- it is so much better now than in Ruth's day it isn't funny.
I have to agree here. At the start of Ruth's hitting career, the spitball was outlawed. Maybe there weren't a lot of pitchers who had mastered it, but it was a significant enough pitch that there appeared to be a need to have it outlawed. Within ten years, hitting reached an all time high. Look at run totals in the early 30's for teams like the Yankees and A's. Even in 162 game seasons,teams are not coming close.
Plus Ruth did not have the slider. There may have been a handful of pitchers in the 30's-40's who could even make the majors today.
Regarding the maple bats, I think the aluminum bats have taken a higher toll on the pitchers ability to maintain a balance. Not on the major league level, but in the minors, where alum bats are the norm. You simply can't pitch inside with aluminum bats and that teaches the pitchers to only work outside. Guys like Sosa have hit a ton of homers to the opposite field, because they can ignore the inside threat and get agressive on the outside pitch. I'd like to get Dibble's Ichirio tatooed butt back on the mound and see what his inside pitches would do.
Even in Ruth's day, there were other big guys who could hit homers. Foxx, Hack Wilson, Greenburn, even Rogers Hornsby, and later Kinerl, Maris and into the 80's Fat Cecil Fielder, Kingman, but none of these guys could ever be confused with Ruth.
Bonds can be compared to Ruth, and Williams, and Aaron and Mays, because he is well rounded.

 

[Mitty]

Pitching has evolved, there's no question. Many, many new types of pitches have been developed and honed over the years, but pitchers (and the hitters correspondingly) have better conditioning regiments allowing them to throw harder and increase their stamina. Plus, hitters today probably face an average of 3 different pitchers per game where in 1927, it would have been rare to face 2.

On the other side of the coin, hitters have a great advantage in that the mound has been lowered, plus, despite the new "high strike" that has been called over the past couple of seasons, I still think pitchers have it tougher, strike zone wise, than they did in Ruth's day.

 

[Phil L]

__________________________________________________ _________
telltale physical traits which he recognizes from competing bodybuilders. One, for example, is facial puffiness
__________________________________________________ _________

Meaningless. Creatine can do that. So can protein. So can too many cheeseburgers.

You are right- the steroid testing agreement is bullshit. I'd be surprised if positive testing exceeded the set 5% level next year.

__________________________________________________ _________
mugshots of Bonds
__________________________________________________ _________

C'mon- photographs, not mugshots. We aren't talking about gangsters, or terrorists, or even Allen Iverson- we're discussing baseball players.

__________________________________________________ _________
You know this for a fact? Please elaborate.
__________________________________________________ _________

You want to see the difference in the quality of pitching now and pitching in Ruth's era- it isn't hard, look at the catchers. In Ruth's era catchers wore very thin gloves, take a look at Redford's glove on the cover of The Natural for an example, and not long before that they wore no gloves at all! No helmets, no chest guards, no shin guards, no shoulder pads, no face masks.

Compare that to the modern era. Catchers wear big thick gloves and still get broken fingers from catching pitches. Catching a single Randy Johnson fastball barehanded would shatter the bones in the hand. Take the gear away from a modern catcher and he wouldn't *live* three turns through a rotation.

 

[Phil L]

Ashley,

I'm not 100% but I'm pretty sure that you can only use wood bats in the minors. You can use aluminum bats in college.

 

[Mitty]

Having been to a number of AAA games, I can say that at least at that level, they don't use aluminum bats.
I personally HATE that ting sound that aluminum bats make.

 

[Agee Bassett]

Quote:

I would be fascinated to know where you received such gross misinformation.

 

[David Von Pein]

Of course, if we're speaking of the stat of On-Base Pct. ALONE.....we most certainly can't "blame" that great Bonds' statistic on steroids or a jacked-up baseball! This includes every way of getting on base...walks (which Bonds receives in unparalleled numbers!), HBP, all safe base hits, and interference calls. This stat is pretty much "all Bonds", if you ask me.

Also: Does anyone know if a player's OBP goes UP when he reaches base as a result of a fielder's choice? Or an error? After all, he DOES reach base in these instances, even though his batting avg. drops with the 0-for-1. (For these reasons, getting on base via FC or error, I've always thought the stat of "Runs Scored" is way overrated. Because, in theory, a player could actually have a .000 batting average, but still reach base every single time up, and score a run every time. (Reaches on FC twice, reaches on errors twice, scores all 4 times, but bats .000 @ 0-for-4.) Could happen....and does, on occasion.)

 

[Jason Seaver]

There may have been a handful of pitchers in the 30's-40's who could even make the majors today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would declare that the opposite is more likely.

You're right. Of course, the reason Pedro Martinez doesn't play big league ball in the 1930s would have little to do with talent.

 

[Agee Bassett]

Indeed, sadly.

 

[nousername]

you still have to be stunned by how far ahead of his peers Bonds is. They've all got the same advantages, but they're not playing the same game.

Well said.

I remember when Wayne Gretzky was demolishing record after record at a prodigious rate. People were complaining that the goalies were not as good, the style of the game had changed, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum. What they failed to factor in was that he was sooooo far ahead of his peers for sooooo many years, that it became ridiculous to try and belittle his accomplishments with these types of arguments.

If you want to talk about obliterating records, look no further than Gretzky. Some of his records will probably never be broken in our lifetimes. Consider this: even if Gretzky never scored a goal in his entire career, he would still have more total points than any other player who ever played the game. Amazing!

I don't know so much about baseball, but if Brian is correct, this record of Bonds seems pretty impressive as well.

 

[Ashley Seymour]

Ashley, I'm not 100% but I'm pretty sure that you can only use wood bats in the minors. You can use aluminum bats in college.
Yeah, damn spell checker. I ment college, which functions like another minor league.
You're right. Of course, the reason Pedro Martinez doesn't play big league ball in the 1930s would have little to do with talent.
More to do with his tender age, but you point is well taken- nor could Sachel Paige.
You also hear the argument that expansion has weakened the pitching staffs. There were only 16 teams in the 1920's when Ruth rulled. Well, there was also about 135 million people from which baseball drew its players from the white race and between two large bodies of water. Now we have less than twice as many teams, but over twice the population - from which to draw white players. But somehow whole populations that were excluded from play in the majors in the 20's are now doing quite well in the bigs. All the blacks, latin and oriental players today add to the talent pool.
I think the 27 Yankees, the A's from the early 30's and the Yanks again from the mid 30's would find it a challenge going up against a team playing .550 ball today. The top players of their day could do well today, but the dept of talent is just not what it is today.

 

[Ashley Seymour]

Also: Does anyone know if a player's OBP goes UP when he reaches base as a result of a fielder's choice? Or an error? After all, he DOES reach base in these instances, even though his batting avg. drops with the 0-for-1.
It goes down. The player is credited with a time at bat, but no hit, run, HBP.
I've always thought the stat of "Runs Scored" is way overrated. Because, in theory, a player could actually have a .000 batting average, but still reach base every single time up, and score a run every time. (Reaches on FC twice, reaches on errors twice, scores all 4 times, but bats .000 @ 0-for-4.) Could happen....and does, on occasion.)
I think any manager would be glad to have a player that "lucky." Most baseball analysts consider runs scored and rbi to be about equal in value and importance.
OBP overlooked? I agree, this figure is on a par with his home runs, and slugging. But not as sexy. How about winning a batting title this year at his age? That has to rate right up there with his many unbelievable accomplishments.

 

[Brian Perry]

I remember when Wayne Gretzky was demolishing record after record at a prodigious rate. People were complaining that the goalies were not as good, the style of the game had changed, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum. What they failed to factor in was that he was sooooo far ahead of his peers for sooooo many years, that it became ridiculous to try and belittle his accomplishments with these types of arguments.

This is true; however, most of my amazement at Bonds' feats has to do with the stage of his career that this is occurring. Gretzky's performance, while mind-boggling, still followed the traditional pattern of modern athletes where your best numbers come during your 20's or early 30's and then taper off (or fall off dramatically). Bonds, on the other hand, had already been in the league for 14 years and had never even come close to the numbers he is now putting up.

 

[nousername]

True, very true.
But you can't really compare hockey to baseball. Hockey is a much more physically demanding sport. You're moving all the time, you get hit all the time, you wear heavy equipment, if you fall there's a hard ice surface, there's fighting, etc. You don't see very many bruised and battered baseball players after a game, which is why a baseball player can have a much longer career than the average hockey player.
I was merely making a comparison between Gretzky's accomplishments compared to his peers, and similarly, Bond's to his peers...

 

[Agee Bassett]

This oft-cited argument, while accurate in its data, is faulty in its logic. It assumes that the athletic talent pool from which players are drawn has remained at a constant level over the decades; which, due to intervention of other factors (the rivalry of other sports and professions, for example, which siphon off sizable chunks of the talent pool), has not necessarily been the case.
You will find no argument from me that minorities make up a significant portion of the overall talent pool. However, if we're going to make the argument that the talent depth is so much deeper now than in Ruth's time solely due to the prevalence of minorities in the game, consider this data: All told, hispanics (21%), blacks (11%), and asians (>1%) comprise ~32% of the players in MLB; expansion since '61 has created ~47% more vacancies to be filled, a gulf of ~15% uncompensated for--a not negligible sum.

 

[Lew Crippen]

I was merely making a comparison between Gretzky's accomplishments compared to his peers, and similarly, Bond's to his peers...

And of course there is no argument as to Gretzky and other goal scorers. I remember a quote by Gordie Howe when asked who the greatest hockey player was, said, “You mean besides Wayne?”

The only team player I can think of who is statistically on a higher plane than his peers (and counting across eras) than The Great One, is Don Bradman (cricket). His Test average of almost 100, is almost twice that of any other player—ever. To compare for baseball fans, an average of 50 is the mark of a world-class player. I don’t have an exact analogy, but it would be like a baseball player having a lifetime average of .400 and everyone else’s lifetime averages at .200, with the hall-of-famers approaching .250

 

[Agee Bassett]

Quote:

Welcome to my insanity.

 

[Grant B]

This talk about steroids etc. doesn't make sense.
Hell I would have a great OB% if I was walked 4 times a game! He broke his own record again for most walks and the way the dodgers are pitching (or should I say NOT pitching) to him, he will beat it by a large margin, he is at 182 now
He might be 1 of 9 players of all time, that has more HRs than SO in a season. 44 HRs and 42 SO
But Nothing that I mentioned has anything to do with Steriods (unless they give you better reflexes and eyesight)

Everyone says he's a jerk....and yes he can be one. But he can be pretty nice too.
I was in the the 1st row of bleachers at Candlestick with my Scottie dogs. (they allow dogs at Dogs days of summer)
Unlike the other dogs, they were watching what was going on in the field.
So here comes Barry Bonds walking out to left field - never shows an once of emotion. He sees my scotties looking at him - he breaks into a huge smile and starts waving at them.
That made him alright in my book

 

[MikeM]

The reason is exactly as some of you have said. The statistic itself isn't as dramatic as some of the others in baseball.

For example, when a pitcher pitches a no-hitter, it's the lead story on Sportscenter, and you're likely to hear about it all year. Great accomplishment! However, when a batter hits for "The Cycle", (4 hits in a game; HR, Triple, Double, Single), it's quietly noted. The funny thing is that fewer players year by year hit for The Cycle than those who pitch no-hitters. So, in the same token, I think it simply breaks down as not being a highlighted stat that makes people excited.

On top of that, you have to add to the fact that many people consider Barry Bonds to have some serious attitude problems. I'm sure Giants fans love him, but no other player is seen as being more into himself, rather than his team. Just ask Jeff Kent. Add that to the talk about him being on the Juice, and crowding the plate with armor, and you have a disinterested public.