Comments on: The Myths of 755: Hank Aaron Bonds with Barry

By: Richard

Richard — Sat, 09 May 2009 04:15:20 +0000

For Bonds, I believe that it is even more accurate to do a HR / Plate Appearance ratio. Compare 1st season w/SF (3rd MVP, 46 HRs) and the similar yrs later like ’03, 04, and there is little change. One aspect of Bonds’ game late in career is how he took more and more walks. Not just IWs or semi-IWs. There were times that it seemed he cd call his own balls and strikes. The change for Bonds was NOT in HRs (outside of the one yr of 73), but his ABs and that was due to walks and that affects avg and slugging %.
I appreciate the Age 35 and over comparisons. G of S writers used those numbers as proof against Bonds but never comnpared to Hank. (Or the single seasoin increase compared to Maris, who never hit 40 before or after). Bonds and Aaron played same amount of years, had career HR best at like age 37 and just 1 50+ HR season between. Of course their post age 35 numbers cannot be too far off.
Lastly, there IS a level of moral and intellectual dishonesty as the powers that be try to protect the integrity of a previous era that used whatever drugs they cd get. (Speed-laced club house coffee pots?) Where were stars like Hank, Yaz, Mays, Kofax, et al, and many now HOF writers who sat back and watched while drugs became entrenched in the lockerrooms? Did they speak up? Steroids were probably around much early than believed but the fact that the game was already being played under the influence made it much easier to take hold. Did the earlier generation of players and media think players would all of a sudden just say no as the drugs improved? Maybe there is a reason that Hank never came out and blasted Bonds as many hoped. Maybe he knows that he and his peers are niot so clear either. And also, despite being the stars, did nothing to stop the spread of drugs in their own locker rooms either. I am not trying to put all blame on them. That would be ridicuouls. But please, lets not act as though they somehow had more integrity and need their numbers protected. Thank you for place to comment.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 13:12:57 +0000

There is one point that is missing from the Aaron scenario. From age 35-39 he averaged 40 HR’s a year. In 1974 he very quickly passed Ruth and got 715. Then somehow he all of sudden could no longer hit homeruns. He only hit another 18 that year and then went further downhill in Milwaukee. After averging 40 HR’s for 5 years, as soon as he passed Ruth he only hit another 40 over 3 years. What happened? All of sudden he was too old to play? Remember Davey Johnson was a Brave & hit 43 HR’s in 1973 his next highest total was 18. Darrell Evans hit 41 HR’s in 1973 and it took him 10 years to reach 30 again. What was going on in Atlanta in 1973? In 1973 a very important year for Aaron to get in position to catch Ruth the Braves hit 206 HR’s. In 1974 with the same team they hit 120 HR’r. How does that get explained? Same team same ball parks, only the Ruth chase was over so now Aaron could be allowed to fade away.

By: MODI

MODI — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 05:10:44 +0000

Jake, thanks for the response. There was no intent to “bash” Hank Aaron — but simply make him human.

By his own accounts, Aaron took amphetamines only once, but he had a bad reaction to them. The point here was a MORAL one in that Bonds and other steroid users have been vilified as lesser moral beings. This is a separate argument from the statistical one.

I agree that anyone could have one year aberrations, but five year stretches usually tell a more balanced story. The main issue that I have with your Mays stats is that they are misleading because Mays declined rapidly after 36 and was a shell of himself. The main point is that Hank passed ruth for one reason only — because of his post-35 production…

By: Jake

Jake — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:25:39 +0000

Those are some pretty week arguments with which to bash Hank. The ups and downs look like aberrations when graphed. You might ask of Mays after hitting 51 homers why such a big and prolonged drop then after a five year drought a sudden, extreme rise for five more years to heights Aaron never approached?

One year aberrations more then likely would simply be the result of injuries. They do happen, though apparently recuperative time is less if your on steroids. Stack up yearly totals be range and it’s easy to see where the “consistency” comments originate:

50 & over Aaron 0 Mays 2
40-49 Aaron 7 Mays 4
30-39 Aaron 7 Mays 5
20-29 Aaron 5 Mays 6
0-19 Aaron 3 Mays 7

To me it just looks like Mays went to extremes as evidence by the 50+ and 19 and under totals of NINE seasons whereas Hank only totaled 3 such seasons in is whole career!

Lastly I would just ask if you seriously believe amphetamines, even if he took them regularly, could impact production as greatly as prolonged steroid use? Personally I saw both at the end of their careers and Willie looked far older than Henry at the same age, kind of like a habitual amphetamine user might age.

By: Temple3

Temple3 — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:16:43 +0000

lineups, lineups, lineups.

The next phase of the work is to compare the average hitting production of the batters around Bonds with those of other great players. There is no question that his being surrounded by marginal players in his early SF years had an impact on his production (pitch quality, etc.)

Also, are you two agreed that The Launching Pad was only a neutral/hitters park vs. a hitters park? If so, what does Bill James have to say? I imagine he informed your assessment. Just curious. Thanks.

By: Temple3

Temple3 — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:12:26 +0000

Were pitching mounds lowered after the 1968 season or after the 1969 season??

By: Temple3

Temple3 — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:02:37 +0000

Allem is Oscar Madisox.

By: MODI

MODI — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 19:19:24 +0000

cephyn

I probably didn’t make myself clear enough. I an comparing HR/AB ratio percentage INCREASES of the SAME player. This should minimize “era bias”. If we agree that half of Aaron’s late career production is due to post-1968 environmental factors ten Aaron has a steady HR growth of 14% across three parts of his career as measured against HIMSELF. Bonds growth rate is 33%. You are right, we agree that Bonds growth is unprecedented. The comparison with Aaron applies to the CONSISTENCY of growth. That was the main point. So I think that we agree here more than disagree.

By: cephyn

cephyn — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 17:11:19 +0000

You can’t compare HR/AB ratio across eras – that’s still a stat based on counting. The run environment of the modern era has increased. The ABs have stayed relatively similar, but the HRs have gone up. You need to compare HRs above era baseline, if anything.

While I agree it’s a curve of natural power progression, it’s a curve that no has ever had before (as you admit) – that is the cause for suspicion. Aaron’s numbers don’t take that away – his late career numbers can be (at least half) explained away, as you admit.

No matter how you try and explain it, Bonds and Aaron’s late careers are significantly different – and Bonds’ late career is unprecedented by any statistical measure. Is it because he’s the greatest power hitter to ever play? Is it because he’s the biggest juicer ever? I don’t know. But I do know that comparing his late career to Aaron isn’t going to fly.

By: MODI

MODI — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 16:49:59 +0000

Cephyn, two things to consider about Bonds. One, his away career home runs stats are almost identical to his home HR stats. That fact tells me that it didn’t matter a whole lot which park Bonds was batting in. His home runs weren’t really landing in the first row.

Secondly, the purpose of Aaron in the discussion is to show that late career growth is not unprecedented. The only difference is that Bonds growth curve is larger than anyone who came before him. Bonds increase his HR production by 33% from the first to second third of his career and by another 33% between the 2nd and third parts. (again: see Myths of 756 for explanation). That suggests more of a natural power progression than a late career spike.

PS: I don’t use home run totals for comparison, I use the much more accurate measure of increases in HR-to-at-bat-ratio. This makes it much easier to compare across eras.