OT- RIP Hank Aaron

you can measure it your way I guess. The purpose of the game isn’t home runs in isolation. Ruth was amazing and clearly No. 2 all time. He didn’t play against the athletes bonds did. Not integrated, etc. And that aside, on the pure statistics, bonds had the best seasin ever and prolly 2 of the top 3.
He did, but not by comparison with others in the league. Ruth's dominance won't be seen again. He's the Wilt to Bond's Jordan

Bonds was a five tool player that Ruth was not, but Ruth also gets credit for his pitching.
 
Advertisement
He did, but not by comparison with others in the league. Ruth's dominance won't be seen again. He's the Wilt to Bond's Jordan

Bonds was a five tool player that Ruth was not, but Ruth also gets credit for his pitching.
it’s a statistical fact that bonds ‘04 season was the best offensive season in the history of baseball. Highest OBP % in history by far, 4th highest slugging % season ever. Highest OPS season ever, highest bases per out ever.

Bonds also has the highest slugging % season ever (‘01), and 3 of the top 4 highest ever OPS seasons. Those are objective metrics. Against better competition, bonds produced more effective offensive production.
 
it’s a statistical fact that bonds ‘04 season was the best offensive season in the history of baseball. Highest OBP % in history by far, 4th highest slugging % season ever. Highest OPS season ever, highest bases per out ever.

Bonds also has the highest slugging % season ever (‘01), and 3 of the top 4 highest ever OPS seasons. Those are objective metrics. Against better competition, bonds produced more effective offensive production.
His one year, 2001, was the best offensive year. 7 of the top 16 oWAR years ever were Ruth's and Ruth has the top 3 total WAR years ever. Bonds has 2 of the top 10 all-time. Ruth has 6 of the top 11.

He was the more dominant player. Bonds was great and deserves to be a HOFer. But the steroids will haunt his legacy, as they should. He wasn't even in Williams, Mays or Mantle's league until those kicked in. God knows what those guys or Ruth would have done with that advantage.
 
His one year, 2001, was the best offensive year. 7 of the top 16 oWAR years ever were Ruth's and Ruth has the top 3 total WAR years ever. Bonds has 2 of the top 10 all-time. Ruth has 6 of the top 11.

He was the more dominant player. Bonds was great and deserves to be a HOFer. But the steroids will haunt his legacy, as they should. He wasn't even in Williams, Mays or Mantle's league until those kicked in. God knows what those guys or Ruth would have done with that advantage.
With all due respect to Bill James, the single optimal measure of offensive production is bases per out. It’s really obvious when you think about it. Optimize that metric and you’ll win any simulation you can run, and should win any real world outcome as well (save exceptional bad luck). Incidetally, Bonds has 3 of the top 4 BPO seasons ever (it is similar to OPS as calculated but superior analytically).

The effort to characterize performance through WAR is intredasting but secondary. Bases and outs are what determine games, relative comparisons (WAR, e.g.) are interesting for commentators but secondary.

Edit - Bond’s ‘04 was his best year, in any case. Better than his ‘01.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
The best player I ever saw in person and TV was no doubt Mickey Mantle bar NONE. He was lightning fast, a great arm. excellent center fielder, good hitter for average, and a big time power hitter from both sides. As we all know alcohol killed his career and eventuallly him. He was my hero growing up>
 
Absolute statistical fact that Willie Mays was the only player my big brother ever named ANY of our childhood pets after.
We were Mets fans. Willie was cool non-discript Mutt. Lived long life before being taken by alligator After move to Miami.
I digress.
 
Absolute statistical fact that Willie Mays was the only player my big brother ever named ANY of our childhood pets after.
We were Mets fans. Willie was cool non-discript Mutt. Lived long life before being taken by alligator After move to Miami.
I digress.

I was half *** reading your post and saying to myself, “Willie Mays is still alive, no fūcking way an alligator got him”, then I realized you were talking about a pet. Still, really bad luck, though. That’s not cool.
 
Advertisement
Went back and looked at Barry Bonds' '01-'04 years and Ruth's '20-'21. It's a good comparison set to see the merits and flaws of common baseball statistics.

In '04, at the age of 39, Bonds posted a .610 OBP and .812 SLG for an OPS of 1.422. That .610 OBP is the highest ever, and the OPS of 1.422 is the highest ever. In '01, at the age of 36, Bonds posted a .531 OBP and .863 SLG for an OPS of 1.395. That .863 SLG is the highest ever recorded. So, according to baseball metric types, Bonds' '04 > '01 by a bit, because OPS.

Except if you look at bases per out, Bonds in '01 posted a 1.40 BPO vs. 1.31 in '04. Basically, he made 61 more outs but posted >100 more bases. (There are some calculation differences depending on how you handle HBP and SF, but they don't change the relative math.) The 1.4 BPO in '01 is the highest ever.

Contrast Ruth's two best statistical seasons of '20 and '21.

In '20, Ruth posted a .527 OBP, .847 SLG and 1.37 OPS. That SLG is the second highest ever recorded next to Bonds' '01, IIRC. In '21, Ruth posted a .510 OBP and .846 SLG, for an OPS of 1.356. In '21, Ruth posted 457 total bases, incidentally, which is the highest total bases season in baseball history.

According to the baseball 'stat' types, OPS is the metric and Ruth's '20 season was better than his '21, and below both Bonds' '01 and '04 seasons. But if you look at bases per out, Ruth posted 1.36 in '20 and 1.37 in '21. By that metric, Ruth's '21 was better than his '20, and his '20 and '21 were better than Bonds' '04 but not quite as good as Bonds' '01. (Same adjustment methods for both guys, each season.)

I'm pretty sure basic math will tell you that if you run the metrics through a simulator, BPO optimization wins over time, every time. I believe in any case, those are the top 4 offensive seasons ever in baseball, measured by OPS or BPO.
 
Went back and looked at Barry Bonds' '01-'04 years and Ruth's '20-'21. It's a good comparison set to see the merits and flaws of common baseball statistics.

In '04, at the age of 39, Bonds posted a .610 OBP and .812 SLG for an OPS of 1.422. That .610 OBP is the highest ever, and the OPS of 1.422 is the highest ever. In '01, at the age of 36, Bonds posted a .531 OBP and .863 SLG for an OPS of 1.395. That .863 SLG is the highest ever recorded. So, according to baseball metric types, Bonds' '04 > '01 by a bit, because OPS.

Except if you look at bases per out, Bonds in '01 posted a 1.40 BPO vs. 1.31 in '04. Basically, he made 61 more outs but posted >100 more bases. (There are some calculation differences depending on how you handle HBP and SF, but they don't change the relative math.) The 1.4 BPO in '01 is the highest ever.

Contrast Ruth's two best statistical seasons of '20 and '21.

In '20, Ruth posted a .527 OBP, .847 SLG and 1.37 OPS. That SLG is the second highest ever recorded next to Bonds' '01, IIRC. In '21, Ruth posted a .510 OBP and .846 SLG, for an OPS of 1.356. In '21, Ruth posted 457 total bases, incidentally, which is the highest total bases season in baseball history.

According to the baseball 'stat' types, OPS is the metric and Ruth's '20 season was better than his '21, and below both Bonds' '01 and '04 seasons. But if you look at bases per out, Ruth posted 1.36 in '20 and 1.37 in '21. By that metric, Ruth's '21 was better than his '20, and his '20 and '21 were better than Bonds' '04 but not quite as good as Bonds' '01. (Same adjustment methods for both guys, each season.)

I'm pretty sure basic math will tell you that if you run the metrics through a simulator, BPO optimization wins over time, every time. I believe in any case, those are the top 4 offensive seasons ever in baseball, measured by OPS or BPO.
One of the problems with BPO is that it over-values walks. Singles and walks get counted the same, when it's clear that the hit is more valuable - since it's much more likely to plate a run. This was the biggest complaint of Williams, that he too often settled for the walk.

Since it's also a %, it doesn't take into account opportunities (which counting stats do). Bonds had 50 more plate appearances in 2001, and 36 more RBI.
 
Advertisement
One of the problems with BPO is that it over-values walks. Singles and walks get counted the same, when it's clear that the hit is more valuable - since it's much more likely to plate a run. This was the biggest complaint of Williams, that he too often settled for the walk.

Since it's also a %, it doesn't take into account opportunities (which counting stats do). Bonds had 50 more plate appearances in 2001, and 36 more RBI.
I somewhat disagree on both points.

BPO doesn't overvalue walks. It just doesn't count advancing other runners. It's not about singles/walks - it's also true for doubles, triples and homers. There's nothing wrong with a stat that adjusts BPO to count bases you advance, and probably deduct for extra outs you create (double plays and caught stealing, e.g.). It's a different stat, but there's logic to it. And it's certainly doable to produce. It's just complicated because you start to conflate a guy's offensive performance with that of his teammates and coaching staff. Stealing isn't always your choice, and adding bases for guys in front of you depends on the performance of guys in front of you. So personally, I prefer a more even baseline as the starting point. And in any case, a walk is almost as good as a single, for sure - it's the same when no one is on base, and the same some of the time when someone is on base.

Your second point is a related one, IMO, and not in my view a critique of BPO - you're pointing out that as a metric it doesn't pick up effectiveness at conversion of opportunities, and that is true. Neither does runs or RBIs in any meaningful sense. I have no problem with a stat that looks at efficiency at advancing runners. None of the basic stats do this. But as a predictive matter for the future, the optimal stat is still going to be bases per out.
 
Hank Aaron to be buried today. Possible reason why he peaked at 47 HR in a year.

…Aaron the player looked so unlike that; it’s another thing worth remembering here. Bonds, when he broke Aaron’s record of 755 homers in 2007, weighed 240 pounds. Aaron, when he broke Babe Ruth’s record of 714 in 1974, weighed no more than 190.​
The enduring image many, if not most, young baseball fans have of Aaron is of a big-looking, slow-looking, not-so-athletic-looking old player rounding the bases after swatting No. 715 in Atlanta. But those young fans should’ve seen Aaron in his prime, which lasted darn near forever. He stood 6 feet and weighed a mere 175.
“At my best, I weighed 175,” he said. “No more than 180. If I got to 185, I got too big across the chest and shoulders. When I was 175 pounds, I could do all the things I wanted to do: go out and play a doubleheader, play 10 straight days without getting tired. That’s when I was at my best.”​
Let’s use the White Sox’ roster for some perspective on that. Slugger Eloy Jimenez is 235. Sculpted center fielder Luis Robert is 210. You know who’s about the same height Aaron was and weighs — at 185 — more than Aaron’s ideal amount? Skinny Tim Anderson, that’s who. You know who tips the scales at Aaron’s ideal 175? Tiny Nick Madrigal, that’s who.​
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
Back
Top