Quote:
Originally Posted by iLL Rich
Teen Prodigy, you think barry was a-rods equal? Check yoself before u reck yoself:
stats:
A-rod in his 14 seasons
hits - 2192
home runs - 501
batting avg - .305
rbi - 1457
doubles - 390
on base % - .387
slugging % - .576
ops+ - 147
stolen bases - 254
games - 1859
bonds in his 1st 14 seasons
hits - 2010
home runs - 445
batting avg - .287
rbi - 1299
doubles - 423
on base % - .407
slugging % - .516
ops+ - 162
stolen bases - 460
games - 2000
keep in mind barry's stats are for a full 14 seasons, a-rods include his fist 13 years plus so far this season, he has another 40 games left
so lets break it down
hits = A-rod, by 182
home runs = A-rod, by 56
batting avg = A-rod, by .018
rbi = A-rod, by 158
doubles = Barry, by 33
on base % = Barry, by .020
slugging % = A-rod, by .060
ops+ = Barry, by 15
stolen bases = Barry, by 206
games = Barry, by 141
so let's see barry bonds had played 141 more games then a-rod at this point in his career, basically a full season, but a-rod is still hitting more home runs, getting more hits, and knocking more runs in. the only thing barry is leading him in is doubles and stolen bases. barry has a higher ops+ and on base %, but a-rod has a higher batting avg and a higher slugging %. also, a-rod could easily close the gap of the doubles before this season is done.
a-rod is going to end up with more home runs, hits, rbi then barry. only thing barry will have on him is stolen bases and possibly doubles. his on base percentage and ops+ might be higher at the end of a-rod's career, but a-rod will have him in slugging % and batting avg.
this is baseball, the numbers speak the truth.
|
Good argument.
But if you look at what I said, my only argument was that this comparison isn't nearly as cut and dry as you all made it seem. Some of you made it seem like it was a foregone conclusion
To quote myself: "I'm not saying that A-rod isn't going to be in the same class by the end of his career, but you guys are making this sound like it shouldn't even be a debate"
Your numbers only go to prove that this comparison is pretty close. A-rod has the edge in power numbers, which is a given because I do not believe Barry had hit 50 home-runs at any point during the 80's or 90s.
My argument was that as an all- around player, Barry was A-rod's equal
"look at the numbers he put up before then and you still have a player who, when we talk about being an all around player, is A-rod's equal at the very least"
In the statistical comparison you put up, A-rod was the leader in 5 categories, and Bonds was the leader in 6 categories. The only argument that you could make ( and I think it might be a reasonable one) is that the categories in which A-rod bested Bonds are more important categories, but even that point could be easily contested, probably by someone smarter than me. The numbers suggest that Bonds and A-rod are on par with one another. In your first post, which is the main one I was addressing in my post, you gave A-rod the advantage in speed; Bonds undoubtedly was the faster of the two players, the stolen base numbers for each player are evidence of that fact. You gave A-rod the advantage in fielding, which is a reasonable claim to make, but you could also make the argument that Bonds was the better fielder in his prime, because he had speed, and an arm.. he had good range in the OF. A-rod was Bonds' equal as a SS, but not as a 3B...so I can't concede that one to you either.
Money and fan support aren't real categories in this comparison.
Good argument, but this is a lot closer than some of you made it seem, which is why I had to defend Barry.