A-Rod is Better Than Bonds Is or Was

[LouGehrig]

A-Rod's first thirteen seasons were better than Barry's.

http://major-league-baseball.suite101.com/article.cfm/arod_versus_barry

[DoubleX]

I posted this in the Yankees forum about the A-Rod/Bonds comparison:

I don't know if in general, people really appreciate just how good of a hitter Bonds was during the first 15 years of his career. From 1986-2000, his average OPS+ was 165, including two years over 200 and five over 180. Bonds was a bonafide offensive monster before he became a super-mega monster. I've read things to the effect that one reason Bonds may have started using stuff (assuming he did) is that people were paying all this attention to McGwire and Sosa and Griffey and not really recognizing how great Bonds was. Thinking back to the 90s, I think people realized that Bonds was a great player, but I don't think people really realized just how special and uniquely talented a player he was, especially when you throw in the defense and baserunning. Bonds is a top 10, maybe even top 5 talent, without the steroids. It's a shame that in the pursuit of trying to leave his mark, he's only further clouded what a tremendous and rare talent he was all along.

Now back to the A-Rod comparison.... As mentioned, Bonds after 15 seasons had a career OPS+ of 165, good for 10th all time at that point (Albert Pujols would now slot slightly ahead). Throw in his great baserunning and defense (even if is just LF) as well as league quality adjustments, and I think you'd be hard pressed to keep Bonds out of the top 5-10 players all time with a normal decline.

As for A-Rod, his career OPS+ through 12 full seasons is 147, so there is a pretty big gap between him and where Bonds was after 15. A-Rod is a very good baserunner, Bonds was better though. However, as I mentioned earlier, A-Rod makes up a lot of the offensive gap with defensive adjustments, to the point where I'd say they have near equal value. Ultimately, I think the comparison would be extremely close, but given what we can strongly suspect of Bonds, we have no real way of properly assessing his entire career. So what am I getting at? I guess that A-Rod after 12 seasons is very close to Bonds after 15 (with Bonds probably slightly ahead), but when we look at entire careers, it could be a very different story when all is said and done.

To sum it up, I don't think in general that people realize just how great a hitter Bonds was even before his post-2000 explosion. His 165 OPS+ after his first 15 years is just two points below what A-Rod's career high has been. That's incredible and a distinct advantage to Bonds. Bonds also was better on the bases than A-Rod (who is very good in his own right). Where A-Rod makes up a lot of ground is that he produced while playing Gold Glove SS and now solid 3B, while Bonds was an excellent LFer that pales in comparison to the defensive adjustment A-Rod gets. So I'd say it's very close after the defensive adjustment, but that Bonds' has such a gap in hitting (165 OPS+ after 15 years compared to 147 after 12 for A-Rod), that Bonds comes out ahead pre-steroids.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Well, that's not a fair comparison given the Bonds stared his career in 1986 While A-Rod first full season was in 1996. The difference in the offensive environments was HUGE. In 1986 just four NL teams scored over 700 runs. In 1996 five AL teams scored over 900 runs and two other were over 890 runs. In 1986 the Cubs lead the NL with 155 HRs. In 1996 seven AL teams hit over 200 HRs and two others were over 190 HRs. In 1986 the NL had a .380 slugging percentage. In 1996 the AL had a .445 slugging percentage. In 1986 the NL ERA was 3.72. In 1996 the AL ERA was 5.00.

[LouGehrig]

Well, that's not a fair comparison given the Bonds stared his career in 1986 While A-Rod first full season was in 1996. The difference in the offensive environments was HUGE. In 1986 just four NL teams scored over 700 runs. In 1996 five AL teams scored over 900 runs and two other were over 890 runs. In 1986 the Cubs lead the NL with 155 HRs. In 1996 seven AL teams hit over 200 HRs and two others were over 190 HRs. In 1986 the NL had a .380 slugging percentage. In 1996 the AL had a .445 slugging percentage. In 1986 the NL ERA was 3.72. In 1996 the AL ERA was 5.00.

Absolutely, which is why comparisons, even one such as this, where careers are separated by only about ten years, are so full of variables that cannot be controlled, that they can only be an indication of how two players would have compared under the same conditions.

[Skin & Bones]

I posted this in the Yankees forum about the A-Rod/Bonds comparison:



To sum it up, I don't think in general that people realize just how great a hitter Bonds was even before his post-2000 explosion. His 165 OPS+ after his first 15 years is just two points below what A-Rod's career high has been. That's incredible and a distinct advantage to Bonds. Bonds also was better on the bases than A-Rod (who is very good in his own right). Where A-Rod makes up a lot of ground is that he produced while playing Gold Glove SS and now solid 3B, while Bonds was an excellent LFer that pales in comparison to the defensive adjustment A-Rod gets. So I'd say it's very close after the defensive adjustment, but that Bonds' has such a gap in hitting (165 OPS+ after 15 years compared to 147 after 12 for A-Rod), that Bonds comes out ahead pre-steroids.


What if Arod really hasn't been a " solid 3B "?

[Rapmaster]

I like how a players' worth is a combination of 5 simple statistics....

Different eras, different positions, different styles of play, blah blah blah. This is a very poorly constructed article with very little statistical backing.

[Erik Bedard]

Rapmaster's back! :clapping :clapping :clapping

Honestly, I don't think that article makes any sense. No era adjustment, no positional adjustment, no nothing. Just BA, SLG, 2B, 3B, and HR. A-Rod is the best offensive shortstop since Wagner (and he may yet pass him). But saying that he'll be better than Bonds (without a steroid knock) is preposterous. I'd love to see A-Rod put up the numbers that Bonds put up in the second half of his career. So what if his first thirteen years were better? It's 2001-4 that make Bonds (if clean, which is highly unlikely) the greatest player of all time.

[YankeeDJW]

What if Arod really hasn't been a " solid 3B "?

That's irrelevent because he has been. And Bond's is atrocious in LF now, so you would have to wait 10 years to see if A-rod fares as badly in the field.

[Skin & Bones]

That's irrelevent because he has been. And Bond's is atrocious in LF now, so you would have to wait 10 years to see if A-rod fares as badly in the field.

Fielding Metrics actually disagree with both of your assertions. Isn't it amazing how the eyes can decieve us?

[Skin & Bones]

Rapmaster's back! :clapping :clapping :clapping

Honestly, I don't think that article makes any sense. No era adjustment, no positional adjustment, no nothing. Just BA, SLG, 2B, 3B, and HR. A-Rod is the best offensive shortstop since Wagner (and he may yet pass him). But saying that he'll be better than Bonds (without a steroid knock) is preposterous. I'd love to see A-Rod put up the numbers that Bonds put up in the second half of his career. So what if his first thirteen years were better? It's 2001-4 that make Bonds (if clean, which is highly unlikely) the greatest player of all time.

I personally would take Bonds pre-1999 over Arod, even after a positional adjustment.

[MudvilleMike]

I posted this in the Yankees forum about the A-Rod/Bonds comparison:



To sum it up, I don't think in general that people realize just how great a hitter Bonds was even before his post-2000 explosion. His 165 OPS+ after his first 15 years is just two points below what A-Rod's career high has been. That's incredible and a distinct advantage to Bonds. Bonds also was better on the bases than A-Rod (who is very good in his own right). Where A-Rod makes up a lot of ground is that he produced while playing Gold Glove SS and now solid 3B, while Bonds was an excellent LFer that pales in comparison to the defensive adjustment A-Rod gets. So I'd say it's very close after the defensive adjustment, but that Bonds' has such a gap in hitting (165 OPS+ after 15 years compared to 147 after 12 for A-Rod), that Bonds comes out ahead pre-steroids.


Great post. As much as I find Bonds irritating, we must make sure history is not rewritten. Bonds was incredibly great even before becoming SuperEnhancedBonds. Heck, I'd put in the HOF if he retired at 30. People can question whether he deserves to be the HR champ, but not whether he deserves to be considered one of the greatest players in history.

[LouGehrig]

I like how a players' worth is a combination of 5 simple statistics....

Different eras, different positions, different styles of play, blah blah blah. This is a very poorly constructed article with very little statistical backing.

What are all those numbers?

[LouGehrig]

Rapmaster's back! :clapping :clapping :clapping

Honestly, I don't think that article makes any sense. No era adjustment, no positional adjustment, no nothing. Just BA, SLG, 2B, 3B, and HR. A-Rod is the best offensive shortstop since Wagner (and he may yet pass him). But saying that he'll be better than Bonds (without a steroid knock) is preposterous. I'd love to see A-Rod put up the numbers that Bonds put up in the second half of his career. So what if his first thirteen years were better? It's 2001-4 that make Bonds (if clean, which is highly unlikely) the greatest player of all time.

The reason "era adjusted numbers" were not used is that they are based upon premises that may not be valid. We know what a batting average was in a specific year. We can compare to an equal batting average in a different year.

Is .301 in 1968 the same as .301 in 1930? But HOW different are they? That is where statistical probability enters, and once that enters, variables that cannot be controlled -- they can only be statistically adjusted and not always adjusted on controlled, verifiable assumptions -- enter.

The article is a basic, clearly presented comparison of the first parts of two careers.

[LouGehrig]

Isn't it amazing how the eyes can decieve us?

So do statistics.

[Erik Bedard]

The reason "era adjusted numbers" were not used is that they are based upon premises that may not be valid. We know what a batting average was in a specific year. We can compare to an equal batting average in a different year.

Is .301 in 1968 the same as .301 in 1930? But HOW different are they? That is where statistical probability enters, and once that enters, variables that cannot be controlled -- they can only be statistically adjusted and not always adjusted on controlled, verifiable assumptions -- enter.

The article is a basic, clearly presented comparison of the first parts of two careers.

But saying someone is better based solely on raw stats -- and not even taking the second half of one's career into account? That seems a little too basic for me.

[YankeeDJW]

Fielding Metrics actually disagree with both of your assertions. Isn't it amazing how the eyes can decieve us?

So A-rod is a below average 3rd baseman and Bonds is at least average in LF right now? I'm not saying you're wrong - I haven't looked at much of either's advanced fielding stats - but from the few games I've seen Bonds play the field this year (like 5 games) and the many games I''ve seen A-rod play the field (almost every game), my assetions that A-rod is above average and Bond's is below appear true.

[Skin & Bones]

So A-rod is a below average 3rd baseman and Bonds is at least average in LF right now? I'm not saying you're wrong - I haven't looked at much of either's advanced fielding stats - but from the few games I've seen Bonds play the field this year (like 5 games) and the many games I''ve seen A-rod play the field (almost every game), my assetions that A-rod is above average and Bond's is below appear true.

Actually, I agree that Arod is above average this year. Prior to this year though, at 3B, he was below average. Bonds certainly isn't anywhere near the defensive "whiz" he was in the 90's, but he isn't as bad as he's made out to be.

[538280]

Taking into consideration the environment he played in, before the juiced up balls, Bonds was a better hitter than A-Rod by a lot. Bonds' regular hitting season in the 90s was better than A-Rod's career high hitting season at this point. A-Rod's career high OPS+ in a full year in 167, that would be not even a good year for the 1990s Bonds. A-Rod because he played SS is better defensively, but Bonds was a tremendous LF and stole a few more bases too, even though A-Rod is very good there. I'd take Bonds even based on his pre-probable steroid years. Just comparing raw numbers doesn't really show anything.

[Lin_Kuei_Fighter]

Bonds just looks better against his league average because of steroids.

So, because there is no steroid cloud on A-Rod, he is better than Bonds.

[Skin & Bones]

So, because there is no steroid cloud on A-Rod, he is better than Bonds.


That might change when Canseco's new book comes out.

[ESPNFan]

That might change when Canseco's new book comes out.

If Canseco had anything on A-Rod it would have been in his last book. Guaranteed. This book coming up just REEKS of Jose trying to go to the well one time too many to cash in.

[Robin Yount]

Arod is better than Aaron, this is for certain

[Captain Cold Nose]

Arod is better than Aaron, this is for certain

Aaron Harang? No question. Hank Aaron? No, he's not.

[Solrac]

Arod is better than Aaron, this is for certain

Aaron Harang? No question. Hank Aaron? No, he's not.

:bowdown::bowdown:

So A-rod is a below average 3rd baseman and Bonds is at least average in LF right now? I'm not saying you're wrong - I haven't looked at much of either's advanced fielding stats - but from the few games I've seen Bonds play the field this year (like 5 games) and the many games I''ve seen A-rod play the field (almost every game), my assetions that A-rod is above average and Bond's is below appear true.

Who told you ARod has been solid at 3B?? ESPN?? YES??
He looks good yeah because maybe he doesn't really get to any balls.

[philkid3]

Who told you ARod has been solid at 3B?? ESPN?? YES??
He looks good yeah because maybe he doesn't really get to any balls.

I can't agree or disagree until I know our operating defintion for "solid."

[Solrac]

I can't agree or disagree until I know our operating defintion for "solid."

I define solid as above average GG-type defense.

[philkid3]

I define solid as above average GG-type defense.

Well, I think there's a gap between above-average and GG worthy. Most evidence I look at would call A-Rod about average these days, though, so no, by that definition I wouldn't really necessarily call him solid.

I wouldn't call it crazy, either.

[Mattingly]

Arod is better than Aaron, this is for certain
Show me the HR, XBH & RBI numbers. Those are numbers that Aaron has down pat.

[Solrac]

Show me the HR, XBH & RBI numbers. Those are numbers that Aaron has down pat.

Yikes :eek:

You do know it's like 6 AM ET :nosleep:

And besides RBIs are overrated :dance

[TheMadDog31]

I define solid as above average GG-type defense.

Okay, this entire discussion is not only irrelevant, but stupid.

Alex Rodriguez is shortstop. No matter what he plays now, he's a shortstop. Jeter, as much as I like him, is lucky that Rodriguez moved over a couple of steps to the left.

That being said, can you imagine how hard it is for a Gold Glove shortstop to move to another position? You can ask Cal Ripken, Jr. His fielding percentage was horrible for a few years at third base, and his errors went way up.

And apparently, your definition of "solid" differs from mine. My definition of "solid" is average. I have a scale for defensive players. Decent (below average), solid (average), great (above average), and Omar Vizquel.

Oh yeah, and if I'm not mistaken, Bonds actually played a completely different position than Rodriguez, so why are we talking about defense when it would be impossible to compare the two?

[sturg1dj]

Okay, this entire discussion is not only irrelevant, but stupid.

Alex Rodriguez is shortstop. No matter what he plays now, he's a shortstop. Jeter, as much as I like him, is lucky that Rodriguez moved over a couple of steps to the left.

That being said, can you imagine how hard it is for a Gold Glove shortstop to move to another position? You can ask Cal Ripken, Jr. His fielding percentage was horrible for a few years at third base, and his errors went way up.

And apparently, your definition of "solid" differs from mine. My definition of "solid" is average. I have a scale for defensive players. Decent (below average), solid (average), great (above average), and Omar Vizquel.

Oh yeah, and if I'm not mistaken, Bonds actually played a completely different position than Rodriguez, so why are we talking about defense when it would be impossible to compare the two?


and the assumption is that Barry Bonds, having played LF did not have the skill set to play the infield. But if yo think about it, being left handed he never had the chance to play the infield except for 1st base. On the other hand this whole position debate would not be as big a deal if Bonds had played center...but he apparently wasn't good enough (as some people say or you could just assume that he played left so Van Slyke could play center and by the time they were no longer teammates Bonds was used to playing LF. It could be like when Al Kaline was young and was put in RF because they had a good fielding CF. Once the CF was gone and their was an opening the manager of the Tigers was asked if Kaline would move there and he said that Kaline made his name in RF and he is going to stay in RF. Wow I just compared Barry Bonds and Al Kaline).

[philkid3]

Oh yeah, and if I'm not mistaken, Bonds actually played a completely different position than Rodriguez, so why are we talking about defense when it would be impossible to compare the two?

Because it's not impossible to compare the two and defense matters.

Unless you think you just can't compare any players who play different positions, thus making things like greatest player and MVP discussions worthless.

[TheMadDog31]

Because it's not impossible to compare the two and defense matters.

Unless you think you just can't compare any players who play different positions, thus making things like greatest player and MVP discussions worthless.

No, I'm saying that it's nearly impossible to compare Rodriguez and Bonds defensively because Rodriguez was one of the best at the most demanding position in baseball and had to move to another. Especially when people say that Rodriguez is a bad third baseman defensively. Imagine putting Bonds, who was a great fielder defensively, into a completely different position.

To respond further to your comments, I define the best players by position, especially defensively. Last time I checked, nobody has won an MVP award for being a great defender (just ask Omar Vizquel or Ozzie Smith) because MVP awards are, more or less, based purely on offensive achievements. Same thing for the "greatest players" lists that I see all the time. They are generally seperated into two categories. The greatest hitters and the greatest defenders. Like I said before, how often do you see someone like Omar Vizquel on the greatest players list? Never. They are all based almost purely on offensive statistics.

[philkid3]

No, I'm saying that it's nearly impossible to compare Rodriguez and Bonds defensively because Rodriguez was one of the best at the most demanding position in baseball and had to move to another. Especially when people say that Rodriguez is a bad third baseman defensively. Imagine putting Bonds, who was a great fielder defensively, into a completely different position.
But it is possible and if you're not going to try, the discussion is moot. As would be any other comparisson between any players who play different positions.

If that's not something you're interested in, fine. Just avoid those topics.



Last time I checked, nobody has won an MVP award for being a great defender (just ask Omar Vizquel or Ozzie Smith) because MVP awards are, more or less, based purely on offensive achievements.
You're write, the writers don't bother to try and look at the value of defense. That's a bad thing, not a good thing.


The greatest hitters and the greatest defenders.
I don't see that often. Especially on this site.


Like I said before, how often do you see someone like Omar Vizquel on the greatest players list? Never. They are all based almost purely on offensive statistics.
That's not why Vizquel isn't on those lists. It's because his defense wasn't enough when combined with his offense to make him one of the 100 or so best players ever. Or even close.

You don't give the posters here enough credit if you think we're just ignoring defense.

[STLCards2]

You don't give the posters here enough credit if you think we're just ignoring defense.

Thank you!


Note: sabermetric sites (or at least ones with like this with a strong saber presence) speak of and use defense in analysis much more than most people. I mean- how defense interacts with pitching (DIPS) is the main focus of most saberheads. The farther you go away for stat-based analysis, the less foucus is put on defense, partialy because everybody "looks" a lot closer when on the field. Range is a tough thing to measure with the naked eye. Tools such as +/- show how muh difference there is between Scott Rolen and Chipper Jones, andthat is a good thing.