Comparing the Bonds challengers
Posted by Andy on August 9, 2007
In Chris' excellent post about Bonds yesterday, he pointed out that Bonds' longest homer-less streaks were 27 games in the "classic Barry" era and 14 games in the "Big Head" era.
I'm interested in comparing Bonds' performance in that area to the top current contenders for breaking Bonds' eventual record final career HR record.
According to Rob Neyer, whose stuff I used to love to read before ESPN made his columns Insider-Only, the top contenders, in likelihood of getting to 801 career HR, are A-rod, Albert Pujols, Adam Dunn, Ryan Howard, Andruw Jones, and Ken Griffey Jr. I do recommend you check out that Neyer piece, particularly because that one is free.
Anyway, on to the analysis: Here are the top homer-less streaks in Bonds' career:
StreakStart Streak End Games AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SO BB SB CS BA OBP SLG OPS Teams +-----------+-----------+-----+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 1996-05-12 1996-06-11 27 97 16 25 9 0 0 9 12 19 4 0 .258 .385 .351 .736 SFG 1989-08-27 1989-09-24 27 89 11 20 7 2 0 4 16 11 9 1 .225 .310 .348 .658 PIT 1989-06-09 1989-07-04 23 83 13 16 5 1 0 4 14 16 3 1 .193 .320 .277 .597 PIT 1986-09-24 1987-04-20 21 76 13 16 5 1 0 4 11 12 6 1 .211 .322 .303 .625 PIT 1987-08-22 1987-09-19 20 65 9 12 2 0 0 1 12 6 3 2 .185 .264 .215 .479 PIT 1993-09-03 1993-09-23 19 63 11 20 9 0 0 5 5 14 6 1 .317 .442 .460 .902 SFG 1992-08-01 1992-08-21 18 56 9 12 4 0 0 5 9 21 5 1 .214 .425 .286 .711 PIT 1991-04-26 1991-05-17 18 64 9 12 1 0 0 9 10 10 7 0 .188 .297 .203 .500 PIT 1989-07-25 1989-08-13 18 65 10 15 1 0 0 5 11 11 2 1 .231 .338 .246 .584 PIT 1988-04-19 1988-05-08 18 69 11 11 3 0 0 3 18 5 2 1 .159 .213 .203 .416 PIT 1987-05-22 1987-06-09 18 75 10 22 6 2 0 8 10 3 5 0 .293 .316 .427 .743 PIT
Again, as Chris pointed out, they are all in the period before Bonds' HR rate dramatically increased along with some of his physical features, most notably his head.
So let's take a look at the same stat for A-rod:
StreakStart Streak End Games AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SO BB SB CS BA OBP SLG OPS Teams +-----------+-----------+-----+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 1994-07-08 1995-06-11 32 101 8 23 3 0 0 9 33 3 5 1 .228 .248 .257 .505 SEA 1997-09-11 1998-04-05 18 74 9 20 4 1 0 9 17 7 0 3 .270 .329 .351 .680 SEA 2002-06-06 2002-06-22 15 57 9 12 0 0 0 2 18 7 3 1 .211 .318 .211 .529 TEX 1998-06-28 1998-07-16 15 60 9 12 2 1 0 10 11 5 4 1 .200 .265 .267 .532 SEA 1996-09-03 1996-09-20 15 60 11 17 3 0 0 3 9 10 3 1 .283 .380 .333 .713 SEA 1995-08-05 1996-04-07 15 44 4 5 1 1 0 5 15 6 0 0 .114 .220 .182 .402 SEA 2006-05-28 2006-06-14 14 52 7 12 1 1 0 7 15 10 2 0 .231 .365 .288 .653 NYY 2004-09-03 2004-09-17 14 52 9 17 7 0 0 13 9 12 2 0 .327 .453 .462 .915 NYY 2006-04-21 2006-05-05 13 47 9 10 2 0 0 9 13 11 1 2 .213 .367 .255 .622 NYY 2003-06-03 2003-06-17 13 50 7 14 3 0 0 0 7 4 1 0 .280 .333 .340 .673 TEX 2000-05-21 2000-06-04 13 52 9 12 2 1 0 4 9 5 1 2 .231 .298 .308 .606 SEA 1998-08-14 1998-08-26 13 56 6 19 5 1 0 9 7 1 3 2 .339 .351 .464 .815 SEA
That top streak of 32 games comprised the first 32 games of A-rod's career. Just a quick glance will tell you that overall, A-rod's streaks without homers have been shorter than Bonds'. What does it mean? Well A-rod may be a more consistent home run hitter, but we need to remember two things: Bonds was not so much of a power-hitter early in his career, plus A-rod's start came 8 years later when league-wide HR rates were higher.
For a very quick analysis, though, this is what I did. I took each player's top 10 streaks and added up the total number of games. For Bonds, it's 209 (That's 27 + 27 + 23......+ 18 + 18 +18.) For A-rod, it's 164. In theory, smaller numbers are better because it means shorter average streaks without homers.
I completed this analysis for each of the players mentioned above. Click on a player's name if you want to see the streak detail.
Player Top 10 streak total ------------------------------- Howard 101 Pujols 149 Dunn 160 Rodriguez 164 Griffey 199 Bonds 209 Jones 220
As you can see, Howard blows everybody else away. But for the most part, that's a statistical anomaly caused by the fact that he hasn't been playing for very long. Seriously, folks, he has only one full season already under his belt, and he hit 58 HR in that season. So how long would you expect? He's got 1526 PAs so far in his career. If we look at the same streak statistical for just the first 3 years of Pujols' career (2036 PAs), his number would be 124, also quite small. Once Howard has a few 40-HR seasons (as opposed to 50+), he'll fall more in line with these other players.
Pujols would have had a much lower score were it not for the huge homer-less drought he had earlier this season. That was 22 games, and his next longest streak was just 18 games.
Jones is incredibly streaky, with 5 different streaks of at least 20 games, most coming earlier in his career.
It's interesting to note that with the exception of Howard, generally these players seem to have longer homer-less streaks early in their career, although this a gross generalization.
Also for the heck of it I looked up Hank Aaron's number. Remember that it excludes his first 3 seasons (as they were pre-1957, and he had low HR totals for him of just 13, 27, and 26 in those year), but for what it's worth, his number is 190. In his case, all of his longest streaks were very late in his career after he had already passed Babe Ruth on the all-time homer list.
August 10th, 2007 at 7:54 am
I'm not sure if this matters much, but I notcied that Ryan Howard has never hit a HR against the Pirates.
I wonder if he does hit 800 HR will any of thembe against the Pirates???
August 11th, 2007 at 8:07 am
You - and Neyer missed a great candidate to go deep into the 700s on homers - Miguel Cabrera...
If you look at where they stood at 24 - Cabrera's current age.
1. Griffey Jr. - 172 HR
2. Pujols - 160 HR
3. A-Rod - 159 HR
4. Jones - 150 HR
5. Cabrera - 132 [and counting - should be past 140 by year end]
...
XX Howard - 2 HR
BTW - Ruth - even though he was still pitching at 24 had 49 and Aaron had 140 - about the same as Cabrera - but Migy will have about 150 fewer plate appearances. Bonds was at only 84 at 24. Mel Ott was the leader at this age with 176...
August 11th, 2007 at 10:20 am
You make a good case, bdhumbert. I have my doubts that Neyer would have missed Cabrera, but then again I also have my doubts that Cabrera's likelihood of reaching 801 HR is less than 1%. I'll drop Rob a line and see what he says.
August 11th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Andy,
Have been a big fan of Cabrera since he broke through in the 2003 post season [good lcs - not so hot Series] - always find it amazing how he gets little mention when the best players in the game are talked about - will be interesting to see if he gets a power "bump" in his late 20's like many hitters seem to do...
One of the things that I have been surprised that no one seems to talk about with Bonds is how many walks he has been given - over 2500 and counting - one out of five plate appearances. Take 1000 of those and convert them into hits and homers he is well past 3000 hits and probably has another 50-75 home runs.
I have argued that this has been his "steroid" penalty - had he not gotten so intimidating he would have been pitched to more.
Your thoughts?
August 12th, 2007 at 6:12 am
bdhumbert, you raise a lot of good points. Let me comment on them one-by-one:
- To me, there are two things working against Howard's favor in terms of him breaking the HR record. One is that he hasn't been hitting for very long. It's quite possible that by his 4th or 5th season, he'll be way behind the pace already. The other, as you point out, is that he's quite a bit older than A-rod, Pujols, or Aaron were when they got started with big HR totals.
- I think there are several things that work against Cabrera, in terms of his not getting as much national attention. The first is that the Marlins haven't made the post-season since 2003. To many (fair or not), Cabrera is another guy putting up good numbers on a non-contending team. He was equivalent perhaps to Mark Teixeira, a great hitter on a team that went nowhere every year. The second thing going against Cabrera is that he has been accused by some as having an attitude problem. Allegedly, he can be surly and standoffish with some members of the media, and like Bonds or Eddie Murray before him, that can cause the perception that he's a bad guy (which most would argue was true for Bonds, and absolutely false for Murray) and cause the media to pay less attention to him. The third reason is the widely-acknowledged fact that Cabrera is not keeping his body in shape. There was a recent article in ESPN The Magazine that discussed this. (It's available at ESPN....look up Cabrera's page, click on news, and read the article by Jorge Arangure Jr.) While his hitting performance hasn't declined yet, it's been well-established that for any player to break long-term records, they need to stay in shape. With Cabrera already well overweight before age 25, it's tough to imagine him being productive at 38 or 40.
- A number of people have pointed out Bonds' crazy walk totals. He's #1 all time, already way pay former leader Rickey Henderson. I think it's very tough, though, to say what he would have done if he had walked less. Bonds couldn't have forced anybody to pitch to him. In many ways, aside from a hitter own natural propensity for taking a base on balls, I think walking is a sort of "market value" phenomenon. What I mean by that is that for Bonds, and indeed for most power hitters in history, the higher their power production, the higher their walk rate. As Bonds' HR/PA appearance numbers grew, the less and less disadvantage it was to walk him, ensuring that any given PA would not end in a long ball. There seems to have been a positive feedback effect, though, that Bonds became more and more focused on the few hittable pitches he would see a night, becoming incredibly efficient at putting good swings on the ball. Right now, a lot of people are quick to call him a cheater and talk about steroids. Those discussions may certainly have merit, but it's also impossible to ignore that the man had massive talent. Even what he has done in the "Big Head era" has been amazing. Steroids or not, taking something like 1 out of every 4 pitches in the strike zone and putting it over the fence is absolutely incredible.
- Therefore, I tend to agree with your comment about the "steroid penalty"...not that because of suspected steroid use was he being "punished" but simply because his power rate was so high that he walked a lot. But the fact of the matter is that if he had walked more, it would have been because his power rate was lower, but he would have had more at-bats and more hittable pitches, and thusly perhaps hit close to the same number of homers. This is what I really mean by "market value."
- One other thing to keep in mind about Bonds' walk totals is that he hasn't been paired with many power-hitting teammates over the years. Even before his HR rate went so high, he was by far the most dangerous hitter on him teams, and walking him made a lot of sense. The only teammates he's ever had with 30 HR were Bobby Bonilla (once) Matt Williams (twice) Jeff Kent (three times) Ellis Burks (once) Rich Aurilia (once.) In this day and age, that's not a lot of support around him in the lineup. For the sake of argument, Aaron's 30+HR teammates were Eddie Mathews (10 times), Joe Adcock (two times), Mack Jones (once), Joe Torre (once), Felipe Alou (once), Orlando Cepeda (once), Earl Williams (once), Darrell Evans (once), Davey Johnson (once), and George Scott (once). That's 8 for Bonds and a whopping 20 for Aaron. That alone is probably the biggest reason why Bonds walked so much more...Aaron had so many more teammates who put up big power numbers.
August 12th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Andy,
Points well made on Cabrera's attitude and weight issues - I grew up in Pittsburgh in the Clemente era and witnessed him get regularly hammered by the local papers for a "bad attitude" which was really more of a language/communication/shyness problem - not sure if the same consideration does - or should apply to Cabrera - I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt.
The weight/in-shape concerns are more troubling - but he is an awesome hitter - and too your later point on Bonds not having a protector - Cabrera has the same problem - why on earth would you pitch to him with first base open and men on late in the game with men on base...
And yes - Bonds probably suffered a lot due to the lack of his
Eddie Mathews - a great arguement can be had around why it is hard to call Aaron the best home run hitter of all time - for about ten years he he may not have been the best home run hitter on his own team - neck and neck with Eddie Matthews for that honor until the early 60's
August 13th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
bdhumbert,
I don't think too many people have ever called Aaron the greatest HR hitter of all time. He was beloved as having the most career HR, but most folks recognized that compared to his era, Babe Ruth was far and away the greatest hitter of all time. When you add in how much larger ballparks were in Ruth's day and the fact that he didn't become a full-time hitter until age 24, he was clearly more dominant that Aaron.
August 13th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Pursuant to my previous comment, of course I meant to say that Babe Ruth was far and away the greatest POWER hitter of all time...
August 16th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Andy,
Been away for a bit - but very glad you and I agree on Ruth...
But I have been involved in a number of discussions on Aaron vs Ruth - many
of my friends contend that the lack of minorities in the majors taints the
Babe's record ["he never had to face a Satchel Paige"] as much as the
steroids era taints Bonds. Peter Gammons seems to have the sanest approach.
Ruth was the greatest for the first 50 years of the 20th Centure
Aaron was the greatest for the last 45 or so years
Bonds was/is the best of the performance enhancing era
would be nice if we could leave it at that - but we all
know the debate will continue...
Best
August 16th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Bruce,
I certainly agree that it's tough to make absolute statements about the performance of players in Ruth's era given the complete lack of integration with black players. Aside from the fact that Ruth would have had to face a better pool of pitchers (had there been integration), there were also many excellent power hitters playing in the Negro Leagues who would undoubtedly have excelled in the Major Leagues as they did in the Negro Leagues.
My point is just that given the statistics that do exist, accepting lack of integration and use of performing-enhancing drugs as historical fact, Ruth's numbers are way better than anybody else's numbers from any era or league. This is just the comparison of how far above his contemporaries he was. Sure Bonds has hit a lot of home runs, but during the same era so too have Sosa, A-rod, Pujols, Cabrera, and others. (See how I threw Cabrera in there just to make you happy? heh.) If a modern player out-homered every other team in the league as Ruth did, it would be almost hard to believe it after the fact.
By the way, generally speaking, I don't really enjoy discussions about "who was the best XXX", such as who was the best left fielder of all time. The fact of the matter is that any sensible baseball fan, from ONLY the perspective of on-field production, would have been happy to have Bonds, Ted Williams, Rickey Henderson, Stan Musial, or Carl Yastrzemski on his or her favorite team. I just don't see a lot of value in discriminating among, say, the top 10 or the top 100.
But in the case of Babe Ruth, it's worth remarking how far ahead of everybody else he is. Eyewitness accounts suggest that he hit a lot of homers in excess of 500 ft. If he played today, it's possible he would have hit 800 or 850 HR, even with that big belly and spindly legs.
August 19th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Andy,
Have enjoyed the discussion - and I do share your view on Ruth overall - the greatest player - ever...
For me the deciding factor is that he was on track to be the greatest left handed pitcher ever - before
becoming a "full-time" hitter at around age 24.
He was a truly unique athlete...
It is fun to speculate how many more homers he would have in a day of better nutritional knowledge [he
may not have heeded it] and a press that would have tried to reign in his lifestyle a bit...
He was such an amazing athlete - one of my favorite "bar bet" questions is who had more career triples - the Babe or Pete Rose - the Babe wins by 1...
Another little stat that I always thought was interesting - and probably had a story behind it was that he started two games late in his career - one at age 35, the other at age 38 - he won them both and pitched complete games in both...
bruce
O