so in the prime of his career, of almost every career in baseball up to 2000 when he was 35, he hit more than 40 home runs 2 times.. he hit over .310 one time... from that point on he hit 300 HRs..
Willie Mays up to 35 hit over 40, 5 times on that same span and missed 2 yrs after is ROY to go into the service and then came back and hit 41. In the freakin Polo grounds.. after he was 35 he hit about 125 HRs. he hit .310 or close to it 10 times on that same span. Played 10 less games a yr back then so lost almost 3 seasons in his prime between Service and length of season..
Bonds was a nice player, a top 10 LF in that era. he was not an elite fielder. He was better than his dad fir sure. he stole 50 one yr when the leader had 77.. nice
he stole bases in an era when it was the thing to do and pretty solid at it for a few yrs.. top 10 a couple times.
willie mays stole 40 one yr when the next guy stole 22, he was first 3 times and top 5 six yrs in a row, then quit stealing them ,
If bonds finishes his career like most people back then and doesnt go crazy he ends up 450-500 Hrs and is border line HFr.
you put a different name on him and he doesnt win 3 MVPs by the age of 30 with the stats he was throwing up. He was dominant after 35 not before and you are hard pressed to find 3-5 other guys in almost 150 yrs of baseball who can say that.
again you have to be over 45-50 to have watched much of him before he went steroid crazy and baseball was not on nearly as much, just the primetime games back then.
400/400 is nice but its taken out of context.
Wow. I don't what to say. So much wrong in your comment.
1) Willie Mays is a top 10 player of all time. If Bonds does not measure up to him in all areas, it doesn't mean he is not a great. Plus I think you are exaggerating the variances here.
A top 10 LF in that era? Really. Bill James in 2000 had him ranked as the 3rd best Left Fielder of All time behind Ted Williams and Stan Musial. He also wrote "Along with Rickey Henderson, Barry Bonds is the most underappreciated superstar of my lifetime)
Remember that 1990-1993 was a defensive era, especially in the NL. The 50s was much more of an offensive era.
In terms of stealing bases... this was not the 70s or 80s. Stealing 39 bases a year over the decade, made him one of the 5 base stealers of the decade.
Not an elite fielder? 7 Gold Gloves mean nothing to you? I was an Expos fan that watched the Pirates play often as they were in the NL East as well. I watched him play in person about a dozen times during his high atletiic era.
A different name on him and he doesn't win the MVP? Who the hell is the MVP then in those year? Are you insinuating having the name of his father who was a very disliked person helped him win awards?
Tell me who was MVP in any of those years other than Bonds.
Just being borderline HOF'er before 2000 was nuts. He was an all time great player and jerk before the roids. But a great.
I suspect you are one of those HR, RBI,AVG guys who totally discounts the value that 130 BB's per season (his average in the 90s) It's OK you are around fifty. When I was 9 years old I was reading the Bill James Abstract and the Elias Baseball Analyst. I assume you still thought the RBI was king back at the time.
I
