Posted By:
prewarsportsBond's average is only slightly above average for an average outfielder in the 1990's. If you use that same formula and put him in an era where the average outfielder is hitting .230, and he is slightly better than average then what do you get? Around .250!
I find it interesting that someone mentions that I am "on something" in a thread about Barry Bonds. The guy is good, I am not saying he sucks, he won MVP awards before he started taking steroids and is a great player, probably the 15th best outfielder ever or so, but you can not deny the fact that he would not even be in the same paragraph as these other guys without his recent surge in the homerun category. How many people were talking about him being the best player ever in his PRIME when his lifetime average around .285, he single handedly lost a chance at the Pirates going to a World Series and he hit about 35 homers a year? Nobody.
This thread is getting old and I think everyone here knows where I stand, if you take away Bonds' arm thing, and his ability to crowd the plate, then take away his steroids, he is at best a .285, 35 home run, 115 rbi type player at this stage in his career, which would translate to about .255 12 home runs and 80 rbi's in around 1910. You can debate it all you want but his presteroid career numbers are far inferior to either Ruth or Cobb, or about 50 other hitters in the history of baseball. I am done.