Barry Bonds so far this season has swung the bat at:missed the pitch: 7 timeshit a home run: 9 times

Yes, I also find that rather impressive. Too bad he didn't get the 8 home run streak going. However, I tend to like Brett Boone's quote about Barry Bonds where it went something along the lines of "It seems like he is playing little league... I mean take a check swing once in awhile would you."Baseball tonight (yesterday) had an interesting point regarding Barry's swing. He is able to wait a few seconds (do not remember the exact time they mentioned) later than most batters before attempting a swing because of the velocity of his swing through the strike zone. This advantage is more clear when pitchers attemp curve balls and sliders working the corners. With a few seconds to spare, he is able to adjust to the ball breaking out of the "original projectory" from the eyes of the batter which results in a better perception of the ball being called a strike or a ball being unhittable.

As arrogant as the guy is, he is almost surely the greatest hitter ever. Too bad about the steroid controversy; it puts a question mark next to accomplishments that are due mostly to his pitch judgement, and only secondarily to strength.Aside: Moneyball (Michael Lewis) is highly, highly recommended to any baseball fan who reads this forum, though I assume most of you have already read it.

QuoteOriginally posted by: cvzAside: Moneyball (Michael Lewis) is highly, highly recommended to any baseball fan who reads this forum, though I assume most of you have already read it.Being the Oakland As fan that I am, I grabbed a copy the first day I saw B&N had it shipped in. And yes, I would agree that it is very good as well.

There are three hitters in baseball history that are head and shoulders above the rest in terms of offensive production. All three approach the walk point. The average walk is worth 0.40 runs; only three hitters have had extended periods where letting them hit did almost the same amount of damage.The three are Babe Ruth, Mark Mcguire and Barry Bonds. Ruth has the most seasons of top production, and will probably retain that unless Bonds plays at top form until he's 47. Mcguire and Bonds have the best individual seasons, two each that were far better than Ruth's best.I also loved Moneyball, but more for the statistics than the baseball.

Aaron, what do you think is the best way to compare baseball players from different eras? Clearly a HR now is worth less than a HR in the 1910s.Many people like to compare a stat to the league average. For example, when Ruth hit 54 HRs, I think he outhomered all but one other TEAM (excluding his team obviously). That to me is a bigger deal than hitting 70 when someone else hits 66.A better refinement would include standard deviations. For example, over the 10 seasons from 1993-2002 Randy Johnson's ERA was roughly 40% less than the league average. This is similar to Koufax's rate over his best 5 year period. But, if you computed the standard deviation of ERAs (with guidelines for IP to exclude folks with low innings totals), it would be interesting to know how many standard deviations each of them were under the league average.But, would that mean much? If RJ was 2.5 sd below and Koufax 2.1 (an example, I've not done the math) would that be a meaningful thing? I don't mean would it be statistically significant, I mean would it tell us that RJ was comparatively better than Koufax?If not, what approach would you use to determine who was better when comparing players from different eras?As far as interesting trivia, I remember a few years back RJ went an ENTIRE SEASON without giving up a hit to a batter once he had him 0-2.

QuoteOriginally posted by: cvzAs arrogant as the guy is, he is almost surely the greatest hitter ever. Too bad about the steroid controversy; it puts a question mark next to accomplishments that are due mostly to his pitch judgement, and only secondarily to strength.I wouldn't go so far as to say Bonds is arrogant anymore. Historically he has hated the media. He just doesn't want to be bothered with stupid questions. Honestly, those guys put up with a lot of stupid shit. Can you imagine if everywhere you went people were either asking for you to sign your name on a piece of toilet paper, or asking you meaningless questions like, "so what was it like to sit out of the game and watch your team lose?" There is no way I would be able to deal with it any better than Bonds. I'd definitely swing at Jim Grey one day. That's for damn sure.One of my classmates from San Fran told me that at the All Star game last summer a fan asked Bonds for an autograph and he told him to "get a life." Come on - that's priceless. It may be construed as arrogant (if it's even true), but who can blame him?

I think your opinion of Bonds as a person depends largely on your view of baseball. If it's just a game, then he's perfectly entitled to play it and be rude to anyone who accosts him: fan, reporter or random stranger. If it's a business, then he's not doing his share to maximize product revenue. Part of the business is giving good copy to reporters, treating fans with respect and acting grateful for the chance to play. However, in that view, he's a selfish employee, which isn't exactly one of the seven deadly sins.If you think there is some greater meaning in the game, if you love the game, then Bonds is not living up to his role. There are plenty of really terrible people who played well (Ty Cobb leads the pack) and really great people who played badly (Moe Berg, for example). But Bonds' combination of surliness and arrogance is unfortunate.I don't like the use of standard deviation as a comparative historical statistic, whether you're talking about accounting ratios or baseball players. I agree that you have to make adjustment for era, but I wouldn't just compare to the league average at the time.For one thing, you have to consider that the competition has changed. In 1910 almost all major league players had been born in a few US states (NY, NJ and PA). Germans and Irish had started joining players of mostly English extraction, but Slavs and Italians were not yet welcome (Africans, of course, had been kicked out). So the players were among the best of a few million candidate players. Today the pool is perhaps 100 times as big, although you also have to factor in social forces that lead people to one career over another.I prefer to look at the mathematics of the game itself. It's true that the value of a home run has changed over the years, depending on the average score in game, the average number of baserunners and other factors. But you can make adjustments for that and come up with a total offensive contribution. I think these are comparable across eras. Plus it's illuminating to see the differences as well.

To update this impressive baseball statistic, Barry Bonds has a Batting Avg of .367, 35 HRs, 79 RBIs, with an OBP of .612, struck out 25 times, and walked 181 times with 289 ABs. That man is a monster...

It's less than a few seconds, but he definitely can wait far longer than other players before he has to commit himself.Combine that with his statement that he can recognize what kind of pitch it is going to be as soon as it leaves the pitcher's hand and you have history in the making.I remember the first time I saw him at the plate with the Giants, one of his first games with the team many years ago..He strolled and lumbered up to the plate and looked half asleep and lazy. I thought to myself, oh no, not another overpaid millionaire athlete.He continued to act totally laid back and indifferent.Then he turned on the first pitch and pounced on it like a jaguar. I had never seen anything like it. Unbelievable bat speed.The ball went screaming into right field and smacked off the wall for a double.It was all an act as it turns out, like O. J. Simpson used to feign injuries each time walking back to the huddle.MatthewQuoteOriginally posted by: tabrisYes, I also find that rather impressive. Too bad he didn't get the 8 home run streak going. However, I tend to like Brett Boone's quote about Barry Bonds where it went something along the lines of "It seems like he is playing little league... I mean take a check swing once in awhile would you."Baseball tonight (yesterday) had an interesting point regarding Barry's swing. He is able to wait a few seconds (do not remember the exact time they mentioned) later than most batters before attempting a swing because of the velocity of his swing through the strike zone. This advantage is more clear when pitchers attemp curve balls and sliders working the corners. With a few seconds to spare, he is able to adjust to the ball breaking out of the "original projectory" from the eyes of the batter which results in a better perception of the ball being called a strike or a ball being unhittable.

As awestruck as I am by Barry's dominance of the game, I feel very comfortable in saying that Babe Ruth was a better player.Ruth of course hit .342 and 714 home runs and reasonable people may debate whether Bonds or Ruth is a better hitter. I would choose Bonds and I think that the evidence is pretty strong in that regard. But Bonds can't pitch worth a damn.Ruth had 3 or 4 seasons where he won 20 games or more as I recall and at least one World Series where he won two games.He was one of the best pitchers of his era.So in terms of being a complete ballplayer, I would have to give the nod to Ruth.Because although both are legendary hitters, Barry just can't pitch.MatthewQuoteOriginally posted by: AaronI think your opinion of Bonds as a person depends largely on your view of baseball. If it's just a game, then he's perfectly entitled to play it and be rude to anyone who accosts him: fan, reporter or random stranger. If it's a business, then he's not doing his share to maximize product revenue. Part of the business is giving good copy to reporters, treating fans with respect and acting grateful for the chance to play. However, in that view, he's a selfish employee, which isn't exactly one of the seven deadly sins.If you think there is some greater meaning in the game, if you love the game, then Bonds is not living up to his role. There are plenty of really terrible people who played well (Ty Cobb leads the pack) and really great people who played badly (Moe Berg, for example). But Bonds' combination of surliness and arrogance is unfortunate.I don't like the use of standard deviation as a comparative historical statistic, whether you're talking about accounting ratios or baseball players. I agree that you have to make adjustment for era, but I wouldn't just compare to the league average at the time.For one thing, you have to consider that the competition has changed. In 1910 almost all major league players had been born in a few US states (NY, NJ and PA). Germans and Irish had started joining players of mostly English extraction, but Slavs and Italians were not yet welcome (Africans, of course, had been kicked out). So the players were among the best of a few million candidate players. Today the pool is perhaps 100 times as big, although you also have to factor in social forces that lead people to one career over another.I prefer to look at the mathematics of the game itself. It's true that the value of a home run has changed over the years, depending on the average score in game, the average number of baserunners and other factors. But you can make adjustments for that and come up with a total offensive contribution. I think these are comparable across eras. Plus it's illuminating to see the differences as well.

Originally posted by: mdubuqueAs awestruck as I am by Barry's dominance of the game, I feel very comfortable in saying that Babe Ruth was a better player.Ruth of course hit .342 and 714 home runs and reasonable people may debate whether Bonds or Ruth is a better hitter. I would choose Bonds and I think that the evidence is pretty strong in that regard. But Bonds can't pitch worth a damn.Ruth had 3 or 4 seasons where he won 20 games or more as I recall and at least one World Series where he won two games.He was one of the best pitchers of his era.So in terms of being a complete ballplayer, I would have to give the nod to Ruth.Because although both are legendary hitters, Barry just can't pitch.MatthewWell, that depends on your definition of a "complete" ballplayer. Remember, Barry did win gold gloves (I believe 3) which signifies that he was pretty darn good, at least during his early age, as an outfielder. Not to mention that he also steal bases, and play great baseball. There really need not to have a comparison between any historic players because they are all amazing.

Reasonable people can disagree on this.And I just love watching Bonds. Absolutely incredible.But being a dominant pitcher in the majors involves a completely different skill set than anything Barry has.Ruth was a good enough fielder to play in the majors.But Barry couldn't pitch in single A ball.But again, reasonable people can disagree and I'm thankful we are watching history!MatthewQuoteOriginally posted by: tabrisOriginally posted by: mdubuqueAs awestruck as I am by Barry's dominance of the game, I feel very comfortable in saying that Babe Ruth was a better player.Ruth of course hit .342 and 714 home runs and reasonable people may debate whether Bonds or Ruth is a better hitter. I would choose Bonds and I think that the evidence is pretty strong in that regard. But Bonds can't pitch worth a damn.Ruth had 3 or 4 seasons where he won 20 games or more as I recall and at least one World Series where he won two games.He was one of the best pitchers of his era.So in terms of being a complete ballplayer, I would have to give the nod to Ruth.Because although both are legendary hitters, Barry just can't pitch.MatthewWell, that depends on your definition of a "complete" ballplayer. Remember, Barry did win gold gloves (I believe 3) which signifies that he was pretty darn good, at least during his early age, as an outfielder. Not to mention that he also steal bases, and play great baseball. There really need not to have a comparison between any historic players because they are all amazing.

Anyone have bets on the correlation between Bonds hitting number 715 by the end of the year and the Giants making the playoffs?

QuoteOriginally posted by: RowdyRoddyPiperAnyone have bets on the correlation between Bonds hitting number 715 by the end of the year and the Giants making the playoffs?Making the wild card is sufficient?