Quote:
Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies
Very nice list, sorry you had to spend time in doing that. Start of career to age 32: 42 home run difference. After: 90. Bonds has ONE outlier year for the increase in home runs. You take that outlier year, his numbers don't look at skewed. He if he hit 50, he would have had less home runs than through age 32. Batting average went up due to walks, which you stated, as well as other stats.
We don't know how long Bonds used steroids. But saying how "he wouldn't come close" to hitting 700 home runs is ridiculous. He was pretty damn close to the Babe through age 32, and that one year makes it look like a huge difference. Not going to look cause I don't care, but I believe Hank Aaron as well hit more home runs later in his life as well.
In regards to batting average and home run production I had stated, I believe you helped my cause. More walks = higher average. Regards to home run output, his one year makes it look ridiculous, but it's not too far off from his production through age 32.
What are their defensive WAR's. Bet it's not even close. Not going to count, but your stolen base total is wrong, Bonds has over 500. We don't know how many years Bonds was on them, or what type of steroids they were. Could be one year, could be 5 years, could be 3 months, who knows.
|
OK
First off, Ruth hit only 20HR total the first 5yrs of his career due to him pitching. So if we remove those years, now we have Ruth hitting 396Hr in 9yrs(44avg) vs Bonds 374 in 12yrs(32avg). This isn't "pretty damn close to the Babe through age 32."
After 32, Ruth hit 298HR in 8yrs(37avg). Bonds hit 388 in 10. BUT he only hit 5 in the year he didn't play. So, we can adjust 383 HR in 9yrs(43vg).
So Ruth went down 7HR per year on avg(16% reduction), after age 32, and Bonds went up 11 per year(34% improvement). I guess you're right. There was no significant statistical effect of being able to perform at his maximum, or enhanced, production for those extra years.
BTW, Aaron had 75 less HR in the last 10 yrs of his career than Bonds(388-313). Interestingly enough, Aaron had 68 more HR than Bonds before age 32 while playing only 1 more year(442-374).
So Aaron went from avg 34 per year, before age 32, to 31 per yr after age 32. This represents a 9% decrease. As above, Bonds went up 34% in the same span.
Even if you remove 25Hr from Bonds outlier year he still hits 358 in 9yrs (40avg). This is still 9hr per year extra or a 25% increase in production. It seems ludicrous to believe that he "just got better" at a time in his life when every one else gets worse.
You should read more closely, in the totals chart, you can clearly see that Bonds is listed as having 514 SB. He had 417 prior to steroids and 97 after.
I didn't list defensive WAR, because I used the totals. Of course Bonds is higher than Ruth. Nobody in this thread has stated otherwise. I used the total WAR, because in takes into account all aspects of their play.
Lastly, perhaps you are unaware of the physiology of steroids. I am. You don't go from skinny to a monster in a couple of months. It takes years of use along with aggressive working out to pull off the changeover he did.
All in all, this is an interesting discussion, but after everything is said and done, BONDS STILL CHEATED!
Addendum: While we are postulating, I wonder how much further separated from the pack would Ruth be if he never pitched? If we estimate 25HR per year his first 5yrs, instead of 20 total, he would have 820HR. Plus all his other categories would be that much higher. HMM. Perhaps some investigation can be done into the performance enhancing effects of Beer, Hot Dogs, and women.