Greatest RHH of all time?

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
I'd like to know the greatest single season numbers by someone not in the discussion.
Well, the best single season OPS+ by a RHH not yet mentioned in this thread was -- wait for it -- Tip O'Neill in 1887 with a 213.

Best in the AL era? Honus Wagner, 1908, 205.

BTW, when you search on best single-season OPS+ by batting-title-qualifying RHH, Rogers Hornsby has 4 of the top 11 seasons. That seems about as definitive as anything.
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
BTW, when you search on best single-season OPS+ by batting-title-qualifying RHH, Rogers Hornsby has 4 of the top 11 seasons. That seems about as definitive as anything.
I think you forgot to allow for changes in what qualified for batting-title-qualification as he led the NL in OPS+ in 12 seasons according to bb-ref, including leading that league in AVG, OBP, SLG, OPS, OPS+ in each season from 1920 through 1925 with two triple crowns and a combined batting average of .402 for the seasons of 19921-25. And he probably would not have played Fortnite in the clubhouse (he never attended movies as he thought it might damage his eyesight).
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
I think you forgot to allow for changes in what qualified for batting-title-qualification as he led the NL in OPS+ in 12 seasons according to bb-ref, including leading that league in AVG, OBP, SLG, OPS, OPS+ in each season from 1920 through 1925 with two triple crowns and a combined batting average of .402 for the seasons of 19921-25. And he probably would not have played Fortnite in the clubhouse (he never attended movies as he thought it might damage his eyesight).
I'm not quite sure I understand your first sentence, but you may have misunderstood my point. I wasn't saying Hornsby led RHH in his league in OPS+ four times, I'm saying that if you rank all the qualifying seasons by RHH since 1901 (a list of more than 8,000 seasons), Hornsby appears four times in the top 11. No other hitter appears more than once (though if you extend the list to 12, Jimmie Foxx makes a second appearance).
 

The Needler

New Member
Dec 7, 2016
1,803
I'm not quite sure I understand your first sentence, but you may have misunderstood my point. I wasn't saying Hornsby led RHH in his league in OPS+ four times, I'm saying that if you rank all the qualifying seasons by RHH since 1901 (a list of more than 8,000 seasons), Hornsby appears four times in the top 11. No other hitter appears more than once (though if you extend the list to 12, Jimmie Foxx makes a second appearance).
I find reliance on OPS+ and its adjustments to be a somewhat dicey proposition, especially going back to when there were so few teams in the league. As another reason, Hornsby’s 222 OPS+ season was 1924. According to B-ref, league average OPS+ that season was 94. Isn’t it supposed to be standardized to 100? Also, when considering “greatest hitter,” I don’t think we can ignore advantages that certain types of hitters enjoyed relative to their singles-hitting peers. How many triples do you suppose Trout would have today if he played in parks with the dimensions of those Hornsby did, and imagine what that would do to his OPS.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
58,870
San Andreas Fault
I find reliance on OPS+ and its adjustments to be a somewhat dicey proposition, especially going back to when there were so few teams in the league. As another reason, Hornsby’s 222 OPS+ season was 1924. According to B-ref, league average OPS+ that season was 94. Isn’t it supposed to be standardized to 100? Also, when considering “greatest hitter,” I don’t think we can ignore advantages that certain types of hitters enjoyed relative to their singles-hitting peers. How many triples do you suppose Trout would have today if he played in parks with the dimensions of those Hornsby did, and imagine what that would do to his OPS.
Trout will take the extra home runs due to today’s shallower walls and not sweat the lost triples.

Will there be a best LHH thread, or will it be like Larry Bird’s famous “which of y’all is gonna come in second” at the 3 point contest in 1987, except it’s Ted Williams.
 

The Needler

New Member
Dec 7, 2016
1,803
Trout will take the extra home runs due to today’s shallower walls and not sweat the lost triples.
I would guess that’s almost certainly not true. Trout’s average HR is over 400 feet, and he has excellent speed. Simply ignoring the difference in triples and assuming they get made up for by home runs is lazy. Power hitters will always hit home runs, but triples have become nearly impossible to come by. Hornsby and Rickey Henderson basically have the same number of HR and doubles, but Hornsby has about 2.5 times as many triples. That says a lot to me.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,754
Pittsburgh, PA
Will there be a best LHH thread, or will it be like Larry Bird’s famous “which of y’all is gonna come in second” at the 3 point contest in 1987, except it’s Ted Williams.
Ted Williams really really wanted to be known as "the greatest hitter who ever lived", so that became his mythos, and not without reason. But the careers of Ruth and Bonds also happened, so I'm pretty sure the conversation is really over who's 3rd...

Offensive WAR:
1. Ruth 154.3
2. Cobb 151.2
3. Bonds 143.7
4. Mays (R) 136.8
5. Aaron (R) 132.4
6. Williams 126.4

Career OPS+:
1. Ruth 206
2. Williams 190
3. Bonds 182
4. Gehrig 179
5T. Hornsby (R) 175
5T. Trout (R) 175

Batting Runs:
1. Ruth 1383
2. Bonds 1302
3. Williams 1136
4. Cobb 1037
5. Gehrig 979
6. Musial 958
7. Aaron (R) 923

Career WPA/LI:
1. Bonds 131.4
2. Williams 101.8
3. Aaron (R) 99.5
4. Mays (R) 98.8
5. Mantle (S) 94.9
6. Musial 84.3
(23. Ruth 62.3)

Runs Created:
1. Bonds 2892
2. Ruth 2718
3. Musial 2552
4. Aaron (R) 2549
5. Cobb 2515
6. Williams 2393

Black Ink - Hitting:
1. Ruth 157
2. Cobb 154
3. Hornsby (R) 125
4. Williams 122
5. Musial (R) 116
6. Wagner (R) 105
(12. Bonds 69)
 

SirPsychoSquints

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
5,013
Pittsburgh, PA
Ted Williams really really wanted to be known as "the greatest hitter who ever lived", so that became his mythos, and not without reason. But the careers of Ruth and Bonds also happened, so I'm pretty sure the conversation is really over who's 3rd...

Offensive WAR:
1. Ruth 154.3
2. Cobb 151.2
3. Bonds 143.7
4. Mays (R) 136.8
5. Aaron (R) 132.4
6. Williams 126.4

Career OPS+:
1. Ruth 206
2. Williams 190
3. Bonds 182
4. Gehrig 179
5T. Hornsby (R) 175
5T. Trout (R) 175

Batting Runs:
1. Ruth 1383
2. Bonds 1302
3. Williams 1136
4. Cobb 1037
5. Gehrig 979
6. Musial 958
7. Aaron (R) 923

Career WPA/LI:
1. Bonds 131.4
2. Williams 101.8
3. Aaron (R) 99.5
4. Mays (R) 98.8
5. Mantle (S) 94.9
6. Musial 84.3
(23. Ruth 62.3)

Runs Created:
1. Bonds 2892
2. Ruth 2718
3. Musial 2552
4. Aaron (R) 2549
5. Cobb 2515
6. Williams 2393

Black Ink - Hitting:
1. Ruth 157
2. Cobb 154
3. Hornsby (R) 125
4. Williams 122
5. Musial (R) 116
6. Wagner (R) 105
(12. Bonds 69)
You always have to consider the lost years during wars for Williams. Dumb estimate - I'll average the years before and after the wars (subtracting out the value he got from partial seasons of 52/53).
  • Add 42.8 oWAR, puts him at 169.2, first place.
  • Missed 3 full seasons of 216 OPS+ and most of 2 seasons around 183 - back of the envelope pushes him up to around 193 OPS+.
  • Add 355 batting runs, puts him at 1,491, first place
  • Add 37 WPA/LI, puts him at 139.1, first place
  • Add 750 runs created, puts him at 3,174, first place
  • Obviously, adding these things would also add black ink. No idea how to estimate how much.
Remember, we're talking about ages 24-26 and 33-34. He had his best seasons by oWAR at ages 22, 27, 23.
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
Ted Williams really really wanted to be known as "the greatest hitter who ever lived", so that became his mythos, and not without reason. But the careers of Ruth and Bonds also happened, so I'm pretty sure the conversation is really over who's 3rd...
I remember back in the mid-'50s, when I was still in grade school, trying to prove that Williams was a better player than Ruth. Offensive War, Career OPS+, and all those things did not exist. There wasn't even OBP, so I made up Walk Percentage, BB/(BB+AB), and eventually created an early form of OBP from that (I later learned I was not the only one to do so). I recall trying to fill in the missing years and writing to an uncle who was an electrical engineer then installing radar at U.S. bases in Morocco for help and getting textbooks back (up to Calculus Made Easy). In the end, I realized that Ruth, if he had simply remained a pitcher, stood a chance of making the Hall of Fame. I still thought Williams the better hitter.
 

mwonow

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2005
7,095
And if you really want to include Bonds - which I wouldn't - shouldn't you give Ruth and Williams the shitton of PEDs that transformed Bonds1 - a fast guy who was elite in the field and a good hitter - to Bonds2, who wasn't fast at all, needed a cap 2-3 sizes larger, but was a very scary hitter?

If you look at Bonds' B-Ref page and take 1999 (MVP season) as a dividing line...
  • 2 seasons under 28 steals before 99; no season with more than 15 (and 6 in a row with less than 10) afterwards
  • 1 season with 45/more HRs before 99, 5 in a row (with a high of 73) afterwards
  • No season above .458 OBP before 99, 4 in a row over 500 (one over 600) afterwards
  • High of 43 IBB before 99, 4 seasons of 43/above (including one season at 120) after
  • 8 gold gloves before 99, none after
Bonds1 hit 411 homers in 13 seasons , averaging 32/year; his batting average was .290, average OBP was .443, OPS 1.046, and OPS+, 177. These are excellent numbers - they would probably qualify Bonds1 for the HoF, and compare favorably to Ken Griffey Jr. over the first 13 years of his career. But Griffey isn't part of the GOAT discussion.

Bonds2 - the "better living through chemistry" upgrade from Bonds1 - hit 351 homers in 8+ season (all but 14 games of a ninth, 2005, was pretty well lost to injuries). Excluding 2005, Bonds2 had a batting average of .316; over the eight year period, his average OBP was .500, OPS, 1.205, and OPS+, 211.

FrankenBonds adds up to an incredibly well-rounded player, but Bonds1 isn't really a candidate for any kind of GOAT discussion, and Bonds2 had eight peak (chemically-enhanced) seasons that were excellent, but which don't by themselves produce a body of work that puts him in a league with Ruth, Williams, or any of the top RHH guys like Fox or Hornsby.
 
Last edited:

The Needler

New Member
Dec 7, 2016
1,803
Bonds1 hit 411 homers in 13 seasons , averaging 32/year; his batting average was .290, average OBP was .443, OPS 1.046, and OPS+, 177. These are excellent numbers - they would probably qualify Bonds1 for the HoF, and compare favorably to Ken Griffey Jr. over the first 13 years of his career. But Griffey isn't part of the GOAT discussion.
I’m not sure where you’re getting these numbers, but they’re not accurate. Though a 177 OPS+ through his age 33 season surely would have put him at least in the GOAT conversation (would put him behind only Ruth, Williams and Gehrig).

And Griffey is a complete non-sequiter. To say his career “compared favorably” is a wild understatement. Bonds was unquestionably the best player in baseball, who from 1990-96 won three MVPs and compiled a 183 OPS+. Griffey’s best *single season* was 171. Keep in mind also that Bonds’s OBP had been on the rise, and during that stretch was .436, which is undervalued in both OPS and OPS+, and also puts him on the road to GOAT territory, IMO.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,479
Rogers Park
And if you really want to include Bonds - which I wouldn't - shouldn't you give Ruth and Williams the shitton of PEDs that transformed Bonds1 - a fast guy who was elite in the field and a good hitter - to Bonds2, who wasn't fast at all, needed a cap 2-3 sizes larger, but was a very scary hitter?

If you look at Bonds' B-Ref page and take 1999 (MVP season) as a dividing line...
  • 2 seasons under 28 steals before 99; no season with more than 15 (and 6 in a row with less than 10) afterwards
  • 1 season with 45/more HRs before 99, 5 in a row (with a high of 73) afterwards
  • No season above .458 OBP before 99, 4 in a row over 500 (one over 600) afterwards
  • High of 43 IBB before 99, 4 seasons of 43/above (including one season at 120) after
  • 8 gold gloves before 99, none after
Bonds1 hit 411 homers in 13 seasons , averaging 32/year; his batting average was .290, average OBP was .443, OPS 1.046, and OPS+, 177. These are excellent numbers - they would probably qualify Bonds1 for the HoF, and compare favorably to Ken Griffey Jr. over the first 13 years of his career. But Griffey isn't part of the GOAT discussion.

Bonds2 - the "better living through chemistry" upgrade from Bonds1 - hit 351 homers in 8+ season (all but 14 games of a ninth, 2005, was pretty well lost to injuries). Excluding 2005, Bonds2 had a batting average of .316; over the eight year period, his average OBP was .500, OPS, 1.205, and OPS+, 211.

FrankenBonds adds up to an incredibly well-rounded player, but Bonds1 isn't really a candidate for any kind of GOAT discussion, and Bonds2 had eight peak (chemically-enhanced) seasons that were excellent, but which don't by themselves produce a body of work that puts him in a league with Ruth, Williams, or any of the top RHH guys like Fox or Hornsby.
This is all fair, and I think it's right to point out that part of what's so fascinating/infuriating about Bonds is how legible his turn to steroids is in his baseball-reference page. But that clear transformation into a different player raises another question, as well, and I think you have to think this all the way through.

Bonds' offseason workout partner was Gary Sheffield. He also used the infamous clear and the cream from BALCO. He was also a great hitter (81 oWAR, .907 OPS, 140 OPS+, 509 HR!) who played at a high level through his 30s.

Sheffield, oWAR through age 35 season: 71
Bonds, oWAR through age 35 season: 91
Sheffield, after: 10
Bonds, after: 53

Why didn't the chemistry allow Sheffield to keep pace with Bonds? Or to put it more pointedly, if the chemistry is enough to improve any hitter into a Ruthian God, why is Bonds the only player of that stature from an era of the game we literally call "the steroid era?"

Why couldn't Griffey or Sheffield or Sosa or Thome or Manny or Big Mac or Fred McGriff or Jeff Kent or Darryl Strawberry or Cecil Fielder or Juan Gone or Big Hurt or, you know, Jose Canseco? Not all of those guys were using PEDs, but at least several of them were. If the recipe is as simple as Great Player + Steroids = Bonds-type hitter, why do we only have one?
 

SirPsychoSquints

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
5,013
Pittsburgh, PA
This is all fair, and I think it's right to point out that part of what's so fascinating/infuriating about Bonds is how legible his turn to steroids is in his baseball-reference page. But that clear transformation into a different player raises another question, as well, and I think you have to think this all the way through.

Bonds' offseason workout partner was Gary Sheffield. He also used the infamous clear and the cream from BALCO. He was also a great hitter (81 oWAR, .907 OPS, 140 OPS+, 509 HR!) who played at a high level through his 30s.

Sheffield, oWAR through age 35 season: 71
Bonds, oWAR through age 35 season: 91
Sheffield, after: 10
Bonds, after: 53

Why didn't the chemistry allow Sheffield to keep pace with Bonds? Or to put it more pointedly, if the chemistry is enough to improve any hitter into a Ruthian God, why is Bonds the only player of that stature from an era of the game we literally call "the steroid era?"

Why couldn't Griffey or Sheffield or Sosa or Thome or Manny or Big Mac or Fred McGriff or Jeff Kent or Darryl Strawberry or Cecil Fielder or Juan Gone or Big Hurt or, you know, Jose Canseco? Not all of those guys were using PEDs, but at least several of them were. If the recipe is as simple as Great Player + Steroids = Bonds-type hitter, why do we only have one?
I'll again point out that oWAR isn't the best measure for something like this, as Sheffield gets dinged for playing a lot of DH in those years. Of course, Sheffield's 35+ will pale in comparison to Bonds's no matter what. Here's batting runs:
Bonds: 541
Sheffield: 91

Bonds also had 4,072 PA in those years, compared to Sheff's 2,912.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,055
Hingham, MA
I'll again point out that oWAR isn't the best measure for something like this, as Sheffield gets dinged for playing a lot of DH in those years. Of course, Sheffield's 35+ will pale in comparison to Bonds's no matter what. Here's batting runs:
Bonds: 541
Sheffield: 91

Bonds also had 4,072 PA in those years, compared to Sheff's 2,912.
40% more PAs. 500% more Batting Runs.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,668
I understand why some people want to disqualify the steroid era, but Barry Bonds is the fucking man. Anyone that averages an OPS of 1.366 over a four year span is in the conversation. That mark is higher than any of Ted's seasons and all but one of Ruth's.
 

SirPsychoSquints

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
5,013
Pittsburgh, PA
I understand why some people want to disqualify the steroid era, but Barry Bonds is the fucking man. Anyone that averages an OPS of 1.366 over a four year span is in the conversation. That mark is higher than any of Ted's seasons and all but one of Ruth's.
OPS is folly, as this was one of the peak offensive eras in history.

OPS+ shows the same story, with Bonds's weighted average of approximately 256 over those four years being higher than any of Ted's season and also any of Ruth's seasons :).
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,055
Hingham, MA
OPS is folly, as this was one of the peak offensive eras in history.

OPS+ shows the same story, with Bonds's weighted average of approximately 256 over those four years being higher than any of Ted's season and also any of Ruth's seasons :).
OPS may be folly, but OBP isn't. And Bonds had a 4 year OBP of .559. That is higher than any single season of Ted's career.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,668
OPS is folly, as this was one of the peak offensive eras in history.

OPS+ shows the same story, with Bonds's weighted average of approximately 256 over those four years being higher than any of Ted's season and also any of Ruth's seasons :).
I'm aware of the value of + metrics. I actually think it is a better argument for Bonds over the other players since a majority of the Top 10 career leaders in OPS played in the Ruth/Williams era (Gehrig, Greenberg, Foxx, Ott, Hornsby, etc.) as opposed to the modern, Bonds era. I think most baseball fans understand that the steroid era was a big hitting era, but the slugging 30s were just as volatile.
 

SirPsychoSquints

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
5,013
Pittsburgh, PA
OPS may be folly, but OBP isn't. And Bonds had a 4 year OBP of .559. That is higher than any single season of Ted's career.
I'm aware of the value of + metrics. I actually think it is a better argument for Bonds over the other players since a majority of the Top 10 career leaders in OPS played in the Ruth/Williams era (Gehrig, Greenberg, Foxx, Ott, Hornsby, etc.) as opposed to the modern, Bonds era. I think most baseball fans understand that the steroid era was a big hitting era, but the slugging 30s were just as volatile.
Yeah - I don't know if you can tell, but I was agreeing with you.
 

mwonow

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2005
7,095
I understand why some people want to disqualify the steroid era, but Barry Bonds is the fucking man. Anyone that averages an OPS of 1.366 over a four year span is in the conversation. That mark is higher than any of Ted's seasons and all but one of Ruth's.
You're entitled to believe what you choose about FrankenBonds (as am I), but the point of my earlier post was that Bonds the player isn't "a man," fucking or otherwise. He's two different men sharing one name, two careers, one uni (well, two) and two hat sizes.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,479
Rogers Park
Guys, we might be missing the forest for the trees a touch here: the argument against Bonds is that we're pretty damned sure he cheated using steroids to both extend his career and enhance his offensive production. What if, goes the reasoning, we applied 1990s biochemistry to, say, Willie Mays?

And my point is that we *did* apply 1990s biochemistry to a ton of great ballplayers — the trouble is we're not quite sure which ones — but in any case, we only ended up with one Barry Bonds-level talent.

So whether I'm using the best stats to compare Bonds and Sheffield, the point is the same. Both guys were great young players. Both guys took steroids — if courtroom testimony is to believed, the same ones, although I imagine they both also took other things we don't know about. Bonds had Bonds' career; Sheffield didn't. No one did.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
10,229
Why didn't the chemistry allow Sheffield to keep pace with Bonds? Or to put it more pointedly, if the chemistry is enough to improve any hitter into a Ruthian God, why is Bonds the only player of that stature from an era of the game we literally call "the steroid era?"

Why couldn't Griffey or Sheffield or Sosa or Thome or Manny or Big Mac or Fred McGriff or Jeff Kent or Darryl Strawberry or Cecil Fielder or Juan Gone or Big Hurt or, you know, Jose Canseco? Not all of those guys were using PEDs, but at least several of them were. If the recipe is as simple as Great Player + Steroids = Bonds-type hitter, why do we only have one?
Because different people's body chemistry respond to chemicals differently? Cancer drugs work for some patients but not others - would PEDs show a similar pattern, and Bonds happened to be the guy they worked particularly well for? Plus add in whatever other factors favor one player over another as time goes by - injuries, motivation, personal training regimens, the players around them in the lineup, etc...

I always thought it was odd that steroids got the credit for Bonds or Clemens having freakishly long careers, but when somebody like Nomar broke down early, that was also blamed on PEDs.
 
Last edited:

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,465
Somewhere
The pedant in me wants people to use “pharmacology” instead of “biochemistry” in this discussion, but the question about why Bonds (?) is a good one. The answer is unknowable unless we knew exactly when players started using, and to what extent they were using. For example, McGwire might have been using all along but he definitely stepped it up with the Cardinals.

Bonds was already a ridiculously elite player before his transformation and that might have played a role in his Ruthian ascent.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
I remember back in the mid-'50s, when I was still in grade school, trying to prove that Williams was a better player than Ruth. Offensive War, Career OPS+, and all those things did not exist. There wasn't even OBP, so I made up Walk Percentage, BB/(BB+AB), and eventually created an early form of OBP from that (I later learned I was not the only one to do so). I recall trying to fill in the missing years and writing to an uncle who was an electrical engineer then installing radar at U.S. bases in Morocco for help and getting textbooks back (up to Calculus Made Easy). In the end, I realized that Ruth, if he had simply remained a pitcher, stood a chance of making the Hall of Fame. I still thought Williams the better hitter.
Even if you give Williams 1943-45 at 650 PA per year using the average of his wRC+ (the best measure of pure hitting ability I'm aware of) for the two preceding and two following years--the best full seasons of his career aside from his 1957 renaissance--that makes up less than half of the gap between him and Ruth (it brings his career wRC+ up from 188 to 192; Ruth's is 197). And if you're going to give Williams the war years, it would be only fair to make some kind of adjustment for Ruth's first 4-5 years, when the demands and distractions of being a pitcher very likely slowed his development as a hitter.

When it comes to hitting, there's Babe Ruth, and there's everybody else. Still, after 100 years.
 

BostonWolverine

New Member
Dec 6, 2017
109
Ann Arbor, MI
Barry Bonds had hall talent before the addition of any chemistry which is why when you add chemistry to his numbers they dwarf Sheffield's.

To the main point, the game has gone through significant changes over its' 100+ year life and it's difficult to adjust anyone's numbers to compare across eras. What you can do is compare a player to his contemporaries, who were all exposed to the same conditions, and hope the sample size is large enough to give us a good estimate of the average player. While the early 2000's will always be a bit tainted, it's a testament to Bond's that despite the elevated offensive environment he was still heads and shoulders above everyone.
 

Adrian's Dome

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2010
4,424
Juice can't make someone make contact.

But if they can put the bat on the ball, it makes everything else better. When your flyballs turn into bombs, then you get less strikes thrown at you. Less strikes with a polished eye = more favorable counts. More favorable counts = more walks, and even more bombs. Not to mention things like increased bat speed making it easier to time and react to pitches. It's a spiraling effect...the only thing Bonds lacked was that absolute top-tier power, and once he had it, that's when he went from great to an absolute terror at the plate.

The juice wouldn't have quite the same effect on (for an example) an Adam Dunn. Dude was already big and strong enough naturally to hit moonshots and could take a walk, his issue was that he struck out far too often and had more issues putting the bat on the ball. Increased bat speed and power wouldn't have made nearly that kind of dramatic effect on his game compared to the likes of Bonds, who was a better player in every conceivable way, but lacked the natural strength.

You may be able to look at older players and figure out which ones would've benefitted from a little biochemistry more than others, but that's muddying up the waters a lot. Really the only thing you can do is acknowledge what kind of offensive era it was and compare them to their contemporaries.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
Juice can't make someone make contact.

But if they can put the bat on the ball, it makes everything else better. When your flyballs turn into bombs, then you get less strikes thrown at you. Less strikes with a polished eye = more favorable counts. More favorable counts = more walks, and even more bombs. Not to mention things like increased bat speed making it easier to time and react to pitches. It's a spiraling effect...the only thing Bonds lacked was that absolute top-tier power, and once he had it, that's when he went from great to an absolute terror at the plate.

The juice wouldn't have quite the same effect on (for an example) an Adam Dunn. Dude was already big and strong enough naturally to hit moonshots and could take a walk, his issue was that he struck out far too often and had more issues putting the bat on the ball. Increased bat speed and power wouldn't have made nearly that kind of dramatic effect on his game compared to the likes of Bonds, who was a better player in every conceivable way, but lacked the natural strength.

You may be able to look at older players and figure out which ones would've benefitted from a little biochemistry more than others, but that's muddying up the waters a lot. Really the only thing you can do is acknowledge what kind of offensive era it was and compare them to their contemporaries.
To your point....

In 2004, when the Sox won their first WS in 86 years, at age 39, Barry Bonds was intentionally walked *120* times.

The most IBB of anyone, single season:

1. Bonds, 120 (2004)
2. Bonds, 68 (2002)
3. Bonds, 61 (2003)

Bonds also checks in at #6, #7, #9, #13, #16, #20, #26, #27, and #61.

Ted Williams' most IBBs ever was 33, in 1957. Trout has never been intentionally walked more than 26 times in a single season (2018).

To be fair, they didn't track IBB in Ruth's day, so who knows how many of his walks were intentional. But still...in 2004 pitchers basically said, nope, we're just not gonna pitch to Bonds. And when they did, he basically homered.

Bonds' ops and ops+ numbers from 2001-2004:

2001: 1.379, 259
2002: 1.381, 268
2003: 1.278, 231
2004: 1.422, 263
TOT: 1.368, 256

I mean....what the hell?
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
And by the way, all this goes to show not only how insanely great Bonds was, but how insanely great PEDRO was. To put up the numbers he put up in an era when juicing was producing homers and runs at staggering rates, was just....superhuman.
 

Hyde Park Factor

token lebanese
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2008
2,790
Manchvegas
Having Gehrig behind you must help on that front. I've read that he was getting high amounts when he was still on the Sox.
I'd have to agree, seeing as Gehrig was the career leader in grand slams until ARod passed him. That's not much of a choice: pitch to Ruth with two runners on, or pitch to Gehrig with the bases loaded.
 

Bergs

funky and cold
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
21,613
Is there anything more SoSHy than arguing over who the greatest LHH of all time is in a thread literally titled "Greatest RHH of All Time"? It's like performance art.
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
And if you're going to give Williams the war years, it would be only fair to make some kind of adjustment for Ruth's first 4-5 years, when the demands and distractions of being a pitcher very likely slowed his development as a hitter.
True but what would Williams's record look like if he didn't have the shift to hit into from '48 on? It's hard to do comparisons of players from different eras.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
Is it a given that Bonds started juicing when he said he did, or maybe he just started doing more and better stuff.

I’ll also point out that steroids “hit” different people differently. Even accounting for variations in sources and batches. Being good at using steroids, oddly, is a talent like any other.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
58,870
San Andreas Fault
True but what would Williams's record look like if he didn't have the shift to hit into from '48 on? It's hard to do comparisons of players from different eras.
Another data point is that Bill Terry was the last guy to hit .400 before Ted, in 1930, and no one has hit .400 since Ted. I mean, in Ruth’s era, I count 7 .400 seasons. This is a big factor in Babe vs. Ted, IMO. The slider and night baseball were two more differences, maybe also relief specialists. Ted could play in any era, although he eschewed fielding. Babe was a fat, boozing, out of shape carouser, albeit lovable. Could he play in today’s game, for example?
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
Another data point is that Bill Terry was the last guy to hit .400 before Ted, in 1930
That was the year the New York Giants hit .319 as a team and finished third by a game, or, the Braves and the Reds hit .281, twenty-two points below the National League average.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Another data point is that Bill Terry was the last guy to hit .400 before Ted, in 1930, and no one has hit .400 since Ted. I mean, in Ruth’s era, I count 7 .400 seasons. This is a big factor in Babe vs. Ted, IMO. The slider and night baseball were two more differences, maybe also relief specialists. Ted could play in any era, although he eschewed fielding. Babe was a fat, boozing, out of shape carouser, albeit lovable. Could he play in today’s game, for example?
Babe was only fat and out of shape late in his career. He was never willowy, but as a young player (and by that I mean through about 1925) pictures show him as reasonably fit. He was not only first in MLB in HR during his prime (1919-1925), but also #5 in doubles and in the top 10% in triples. Most of the images we have of him were when he was past 30 and definitely showing the effects of his lifestyle.

Could he play in today's game? I think it depends on what you mean. I would question whether the core skills and talents that make a great hitter have really changed all that much. Sure, sliders and night baseball and all that, but hitters today can deal with those things because that's the game they grew up into. If you take Babe Ruth's basic mental and physical skill set--his genome, if you will--replicate it in the form of a person born in, say, 1990 and trained to the game as it is today, I think he'd still be a superstar. If it's a question of putting the real Babe Ruth in a time machine some afternoon in 1923, transporting him to 2019, and asking him to hit in tonight's game, yeah, he'd struggle, of course, but I'm not sure what that's relevant to. Ted would struggle too, just not as much, because it hasn't been quite as long and the game hasn't changed quite as much. IOW, time exists.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,668
Babe was only fat and out of shape late in his career. He was never willowy, but as a young player (and by that I mean through about 1925) pictures show him as reasonably fit. He was not only first in MLB in HR during his prime (1919-1925), but also #5 in doubles and in the top 10% in triples. Most of the images we have of him were when he was past 30 and definitely showing the effects of his lifestyle.

Could he play in today's game? I think it depends on what you mean. I would question whether the core skills and talents that make a great hitter have really changed all that much. Sure, sliders and night baseball and all that, but hitters today can deal with those things because that's the game they grew up into. If you take Babe Ruth's basic mental and physical skill set--his genome, if you will--replicate it in the form of a person born in, say, 1990 and trained to the game as it is today, I think he'd still be a superstar. If it's a question of putting the real Babe Ruth in a time machine some afternoon in 1923, transporting him to 2019, and asking him to hit in tonight's game, yeah, he'd struggle, of course, but I'm not sure what that's relevant to. Ted would struggle too, just not as much, because it hasn't been quite as long and the game hasn't changed quite as much. IOW, time exists.
It's interesting you said through 1925, because during spring training in 1925 an out-of-shape Ruth, fresh off an off-season of eating like a cow and drinking like a fish, got the infamous "Belly Ache Heard 'Round the World" and had his season cut-short, putting up low numbers by his standards, .290 and 25 home runs in 98 games. It wasn't until after that season when he began working with Artie McGovern, who was an early personal trainer who had watershed ideas like "Don't eat 12 hot dogs before playing a double-header" and got Ruth into the best shape of his life, which led to his monster 1926 season. There was a real fear after 1925 that Ruth was over-the-hill and wouldn't be in shape enough to continue playing at such a high level.
 

SirPsychoSquints

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
5,013
Pittsburgh, PA
Babe was only fat and out of shape late in his career. He was never willowy, but as a young player (and by that I mean through about 1925) pictures show him as reasonably fit. He was not only first in MLB in HR during his prime (1919-1925), but also #5 in doubles and in the top 10% in triples. Most of the images we have of him were when he was past 30 and definitely showing the effects of his lifestyle.

Could he play in today's game? I think it depends on what you mean. I would question whether the core skills and talents that make a great hitter have really changed all that much. Sure, sliders and night baseball and all that, but hitters today can deal with those things because that's the game they grew up into. If you take Babe Ruth's basic mental and physical skill set--his genome, if you will--replicate it in the form of a person born in, say, 1990 and trained to the game as it is today, I think he'd still be a superstar. If it's a question of putting the real Babe Ruth in a time machine some afternoon in 1923, transporting him to 2019, and asking him to hit in tonight's game, yeah, he'd struggle, of course, but I'm not sure what that's relevant to. Ted would struggle too, just not as much, because it hasn't been quite as long and the game hasn't changed quite as much. IOW, time exists.
Due to long fences, triples were power, not speed, statistics at this point in baseball history.
 

The Needler

New Member
Dec 7, 2016
1,803
Due to long fences, triples were power, not speed, statistics at this point in baseball history.
That’s not really true. Of course, every triple necessarily combines power (they would always be at least doubles) and speed. But the best data we have to test your claim are SB and HR totals. And you’ll find a greater correlation between SB and triples than HR and triples.
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
Due to long fences, triples were power, not speed, statistics at this point in baseball history.
I'm not sure I'd look at it that way. It wasn't until the 1929 season that MLB clubs hit more home runs than triples. In the dead-ball era and the time leading into the home-run era, outfielders tended to play shallower, which gives less time to respond to ball hit in the gap. Balls can roll pretty quickly and in large parks didn't need to get to the fence for a fast runner to make third or home. Once they got over the idea of trying to use one baseball for the entire game and then started building new, smaller parks, you started seeing triples and inside-the-park home runs as "fluke" doubles.
 

SirPsychoSquints

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
5,013
Pittsburgh, PA
That’s not really true. Of course, every triple necessarily combines power (they would always be at least doubles) and speed. But the best data we have to test your claim are SB and HR totals. And you’ll find a greater correlation between SB and triples than HR and triples.
To look (in a less-than-perfect manner), I pulled up the top 10's for 3B, HR & SB for 1920-1923.

I found 10 overlaps between 3B & HR, and 13 overlaps between 3B & SB. This is accounted for by 8 individuals and 12 individuals, respectively. George Sisler is the only one who ever appeared on all three lists.

I think this leans towards your statement, but not strongly. Do you see anything more conclusive out there?
 

SirPsychoSquints

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
5,013
Pittsburgh, PA
I'm not sure I'd look at it that way. It wasn't until the 1929 season that MLB clubs hit more home runs than triples. In the dead-ball era and the time leading into the home-run era, outfielders tended to play shallower, which gives less time to respond to ball hit in the gap. Balls can roll pretty quickly and in large parks didn't need to get to the fence for a fast runner to make third or home. Once they got over the idea of trying to use one baseball for the entire game and then started building new, smaller parks, you started seeing triples and inside-the-park home runs as "fluke" doubles.
Isn't that consistent with what I said?
 

The Needler

New Member
Dec 7, 2016
1,803
To look (in a less-than-perfect manner), I pulled up the top 10's for 3B, HR & SB for 1920-1923.

I found 10 overlaps between 3B & HR, and 13 overlaps between 3B & SB. This is accounted for by 8 individuals and 12 individuals, respectively. George Sisler is the only one who ever appeared on all three lists.

I think this leans towards your statement, but not strongly. Do you see anything more conclusive out there?
No, but I have performed similar exercises that have always come out that way. And that’s not even considering the fact that some significant number of the HR by the “speedsters” were of the inside the park variety.
 

SirPsychoSquints

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
5,013
Pittsburgh, PA
No, but I have performed similar exercises that have always come out that way. And that’s not even considering the fact that some significant number of the HR by the “speedsters” were of the inside the park variety.
That doesn't appear to be a factor for any of my crossover guys, who all appear to be true power hitters/sluggers/"RBI men" - the Meusel brothers, Hornsby, Ruth, Shoeless Joe, Sisler, Bobby Veach and Happy Felsch
 

The Needler

New Member
Dec 7, 2016
1,803
That doesn't appear to be a factor for any of my crossover guys, who all appear to be true power hitters/sluggers/"RBI men" - the Meusel brothers, Hornsby, Ruth, Shoeless Joe, Sisler, Bobby Veach and Happy Felsch
Something like 14 of Hornsby’s first 18 home runs were inside the park. He hit a bunch of them in Boston against the Braves.

And the records are not complete or clear wrt ITPHR for most of those players.