Posted By:
MatthewEven in Bonds's greatest years, when he was mashing everything, he never approached .400.
If .400 is not statistically significant, then explain how nobody has touched in in 60 years?
And Hornsby didn't just have a Brady Anderson year and hit .400 once and then disappear, he hit .424, .403, .401, .397, .384
Bonds hit .370, .362, .341, .328, .306 in his 5-year dominating stretch.
Hornsby hit 149 homers in that 5-year run while the entire league hit just 2663.
Bonds hit 258 homers in his 5-year span while the league hit 14,106.
Obviously hornsby's 149 is relatively much more impressive.
So just this alone skews the SLG statistic.
It is imperative that SLG% only be compared considering the era which the hitters played in.
And if you would argue that Bonds's OBP is so much better than Hornsby's and Ruth's, maybe a qualitative analysis would make it obvious why.
Bonds's OBP is inflated because of an incredible amount of walks. That is inarguable. How valuable to his team were those walks. The walks were a product of a horribly weak lineup and a fear of Bonds. So, I would rather have my player get a hit than walk. Keep in mind that intentional walks were not typical in the 20's since no one was hitting home runs.
From the 2 above paragraphs, I would conclude that the OPS Statistic is wonderful when comparing players of the same era, but is completely insignificant when comparing players from different eras? The HR #s skew it too greatly for it to be significant.
It must be mentioned that todays HRs and 1922 HRs are not comparable feats. If you consider them equal, then just understand that guys from the past 5 years who would have lead the NL in HRs in the 1920s would include: Mark Bellhorn, Jay Gibbons, Charles Johnson, Jose Valentin, Ellis Burks, and Jay Payton.
So I wish everyone would stop comparing HR totals from the 20s to those of today...unless you wish to insist that Mark Bellhorn's 27 homers in 2002 is a feat equal to Hornsby's 25 homers in 1924...the year he hit .424 by the way...but oh yeah...Batting average is quantitative, and therefore, insignificant.