Between his ESPN.com blog and his Twitter feed, Buster Olney has a few hot stove notes to share this morning. Let's check them out….
- Jimmy Rollins, who turns 33 today, is seeking a five-year deal this winter, and the Phillies may have to commit that many years if they want to bring their longtime shortstop back. "I'm not sure if Rollins will get five years," said an NL evaluator. "But he's a safer bet for me than any starting pitcher on the free agent market — and some of those (or at least C.J. Wilson) will get five years…. He will get paid. The only question is whether it will be four years or five years."
- An AL evaluator believes that, "while he's not the force at the plate that he used to be," Rollins is one of the more underrated defensive shortstops in the game.
- Olney tweets that neither Prince Fielder nor Albert Pujols is an ideal long-term target for the Cubs, noting that Fielder makes the most sense for an AL club that could move him to DH for the back half of a long-term contract.
- The Red Sox have narrowed their managerial search to two finalists, Bobby Valentine and Gene Lamont. Olney says some of GM Ben Cherington's peers (with other teams) are wondering if Cherington prefers Lamont while his bosses prefer Valentine, and, if so, whether it's worth it for the GM to fight ownership for his choice.
Jimmy Rollins would have gotten millions more had he signed prior to today
Jimmy Rollins would have gotten millions more had he signed prior to today
er…why?
EDIT: oh the age, I get ya.
I wonder what the tigers will want from the red sox if they choose lamont.
From the number of responses by Tigers fans my bet is the Tigers would send a thank you card.
The question is, what do you want for taking him off of our hands?
Verlander too much?
LOL, yeah he is.
I suppose we’ll just settle for Avila then.
The only thing safe about Jimmy Rollins is the amount of confused swings which lead to pop ups. He has never tried to change his form to become a better OBP-type leadoff hitter, rather he thinks he is Ricky Henderson. Jimmy, you might have been the ‘heart and soul’ of this team, but watching you lolly gag around the bases is pathetic. Go play ball somewhere on the west coast. Just because your last contract was team friendly, doesn’t mean you have the right to cash in on this one. Over the hill.
The thought of a 37 year old Rollins isn’t that appetizing. He’s good, but he deserves about a 3/45 deal, not a really long term one. Does anyone see him being more than a 2-4 WAR player for the next couple years? The SS talent pool is very poor right now though, so that plays in his favor. Since the start of the 2010 season, only 5 SS have accumulated over 7 WAR, and a 3.5 WAR year is not that great. Tulo is the only SS that’s really valuable these days, its pretty pathetic across the board right now.
Since opening day 2009, Marco Scutaro has a higher WAR than Rollins. Think about that…
Lol, nice stat manipulation. Of you looked at ’11, Rollins wins. Look at ’10-11, Rollins wins. Look at ’08-11, Rollins wins. That’s some fine detective work there, picking the data set JUST large enough to include his worst season in recent years, AND the season he only played 88 games (still put up more WAR in 88 than Scut did in 150 that season, btw).
Unfortunately GM’s don’t get to say, “there’s no 3.5+ WAR SS’s on the market, I’ll just go without!” Rollins is going to get paid because he’s excellent in the field and passable at the plate. Scutaro would never receive a contract remotely close to Rollins because he’s maybe slightly better at the plate, but he’s barely average in the field. C,SS,2B and CF are the positions where defense is just as, if not sometimes more important when evaluating players than offense.
rollins is a victim of high expectations. despite that one season of elite hitting being an extreme outlier, that’s how people tend to remember him. they want to see an impact bat and that’s not the kind of player he is
if you just take him for what he is, though — a good defender at a premium defensive position, a good runner, and an average overall hitter who walks more than he strikes out — he’s quite a valuable guy. just not superstar
having said that, a 5-year deal is still really steep
Most here know how much against giving Fielder 5 years and really.. Have almost no doubt fielder will be a Giambi like character in 5 years, but I would give Fielder 5 years before rollins AND have more faith in him hitting as well.
Rollins will be a total liability in another 5 seasons. As good with the glove as he is, he never was an Alex Gonzalez. Take a look at what has happened to a true whiz of the position at the ripe old age of 34.. Not 37 and think long and hard before giving this guy Rollins 5 years Philly, or give Gonzalez 1 year, eal with his league average glove now and low OPS.. Save now and find someone better next year.
Save them $$$ for Hamels, who might be someone they really DO need.
Agreed, I don’t like the idea of the Phillies giving him any higher than 3 years.
How is Albert Pujols not an “ideal long-term target for the Cubs”? Who could be more ideal?!
I love when people say silly things like that:
“Yeah, you know, Albert’s the best hitter anyone’s seen in 40 years and has shown zero signs of slowing down, but he’s just not a fit for our team. I think you have us confused, see, our team isn’t interested in winning games and having Albert on board would not help us lose games like we want to.”
zero signs of slowing down? wOBA (WAR)
2009 – .449 (9.0)
2010 – .420 (7.5)
2011 – .385 (5.1)
he may have slowed down into a great player instead of a baseball god, but that’s still a serious slow down
His last two years is a clear decline and besides bonds was the better hitter
Decline? Hardly, you want to talk about a decline how about your boy Bonds going form 73* HRs in 2001 to 46 in 2002?
home runs mean everything! ask wily mo pena
bonds was a better overall hitter in 2002 (.546 wOBA) than in 2001 (.539 wOBA)
for perspective, pujols’ career high mark is .462 in 2003. he was down to .385 last year, a 60 point drop in in two seasons. his decline is inarguable
Ya. So your arguing that he isn’t declining?
No, Im arguing that his “decline” means very little. This year was his worst but Pujols worst year is still amazing. There are players out there that would kill to have Alberts worse year ever. I think that he will have a great year next year and people will stop talking about “Pujols’ decline”. He was playing for FA. You dont think his next contract or FA was on his mind during the season?
His decline means a whole lot when your paying him a lot for a long term contract, I’m not sure why I would excuse his performance becaus ehe is a fa
Not if the Cardinals lock him up for 9 years.. do the math. 11 prior years at 100MM plus 9 more years at 23-25MM per year = 20years for 316MM. Divide 316MM by 20years and it comes out to about 15.5MM per year.
by that logic, every small market team should be able to afford their stars when they hit free agency. “see boss, if you factor in how much money we saved and spent elsewhere over the past several years while he was cheap, it’s totally affordable!”
Yeah.. it makes a lot of sense considering the numbers he put up and the cost of him in the past 11 years.
Not really…
Cool, guess you can spin it that way it still doesn’t change the fact that he’s declining though. And btw most player do better in a contract yr.
The Cubs are at least 3 years away from being a serious contender. In three years Pujols will be 35, likely declining in skills, and will cost $25M+ a year.
… because MLB has an HGH testing policy now
do you want the cubs to be paying pujols $25 mil in 2020 when he is At Least 41 years old? Probably closer to 43 or 44 in people years, not Dominican years.
If anyone is signing Prince Fielder to the sort of money he wants with the expectation of playing him at DH for the end on that contract, they will only be compounding the mistake of paying him so much initially. Spending that much on the most replaceable position on the field is simply a bad idea.
This only makes sense if you disregard the fact that his poor defense already kills his replacement value.
But it doesn’t, because he hits so much better than the replacement first baseman…much better than he does vs the replacement DH.
This may sound off but the Astros should make an attempt at Price Fielder… They are in rebuilding mode and could start building around Fielder. Brett Wallace still needs a few more years and the Stros are going to be in the AL in 2013 so you could eventually stick Fielder in the DH spot. I believe they have a new owner as well so maybe the new guy will open up his wallet.
Thus making Fielder/Lee the largest 3-4 combination in the history of baseball?
Apparently you have never witnessed the Fielder family reunion pickup game. Let’s just say that, at that game, Prince is a speedy lead-off man.
For Fielders size he actually can run the bases pretty fast
“For his size” you are correct. But why does that matter? Overall, he is significantly below average speed-wise and costs his team a few runs a year on the base paths.
It doesnt matter.. I was just commenting that for a 620LB man he is pretty quick.
Brett Wallace turns 26 during the next season. He doesn’t need a few more years. He needs more ability.
He still needs more experience .. I dont care if he is 30
Better hitter than Pujols? No way in hell.
There was some serious mashers in the 60’s-70’s now, but they just did not last as long as Pujols at the elite level.
Frank Robinson, Willie Mays, even Stretch McCovey and Willie Stargell.
Take 3-4 seasons and even people like Hondo Howard and Yaz are in there.
Is this a reply to me because theres no way pujols was a better hitter than bonds.
Yes it is. Pujols is a way better hitter than Bonds. What are you basing this off of? Also, Pujol is not “was”.. he has many more years to go.
I hope you are being sarcastic.
*Bonds first 11 years:
334 HR
1595 Hits
993 RBIs
1121 Runs
871 SO
Pujols first 11 years:
445 HR
2073 Hits
1329 RBIs
1291 Runs
704 SO
why would you compare their first 11 seasons to find out who the better hitter has been? (because it’s the only way for the numbers to work out in your favor)
take their best 11 seasons, or best 5. or best any number you want. pujols has never come close to bonds’ peak and likely never will
DUDE! Bonds was on steroids! You put Albert Pujols on steroids and he would crush Bonds peak.
No he wouldn’t
Yes he would.. Anybody with a tiny bit of baseball knowledge would know that. Albert has done what no hitter has ever done in his first 10 years.. without steroids.
Please who knows how much steriods help reports say 10-15 feet per hr which isnt a big deal at all.
Bonds and McGwire were hitting tape measure shots 550 plus feet but if say it does add 10-15 more feet.. thats an extra 15-20 HRs in a year.
You just made that up
Made what up? “reports say 10-15 feet per hr”?
McGwire has hit 10 HRs over 470 ft in his career.. 2 of those were above 530..
That it’s an extra 20 hrs a yr
Ya for a guy like Pujols who rips one off the wall or at least “10-15ft” from the wall just about every game.
it’s about bat speed, it’s the difference between a hit up the middle and fouling a ball off, it’s also about being able to lay off a slider because you get a fraction of a second longer to swing because your strength gives you bat speed.
It’s why Barry Bonds turned from a very good to an absolute freak.
well he very well might have, we’ll never know unless albert used steroids.
Nobody knows who took steriods and who didn’t, just because someone was not caught doesn’t mean they didn’t take them. 90% of the players took amphetamines for the last 40 years too, which lowers your reaction time. Most players cheated to get an edge.
that’s a fine argument to make. but it’s got nothing to do with what you’ve said so far. by the numbers, pujols just does not compare to bonds
By the way, numbers and consistency are everything.. Taking someones best 5 years and comparing them to someone elses best 5 years is one of the dumbest comparisons I have ever heard of. Not only does it not prove who is the better hitter its not even a legit sample. Pujols so far in his career has better numbers than Bonds or anyone in the history of the game and when Albert retires he will make Bonds look more like the steroid injecting looser he is.
bonds was a better hitter for a longer period of time, so i don’t know what you think you’re saying there. if you think taking 5 peak years is not a “legit sample”, take 10. same result
pujols’ offensive performance has already fallen off 60 points in just two seasons at age 31. there are no numbers on your side here. the only thing you can say is “wait and see” and i guess hope that pujols starts taking steroids. otherwise, he has no chance at all
No you can do what I just did and compare where they both were after their first 11 seasons. Thats the only way you can do it and Albert is a much much much better than Bonds.. Or you could probably ask anybody who knows anything about baseball and they will tell you the same. Pujols is a better hitter and you are an ldiot.
“if you ignore all of the contradictory data and only look at the remaining numbers in one specific and arbitrary way, you’ll see i’m clearly right”
oh, good point
i.imgur.com/OEuBp.gif
Both of your arguments are pathetic.. “Take Bonds 5-10 best years and compare them to Alberts 10 years and I will see that Bonds is a better hitter than Albert Pujols”? COME ON!
in 2004, bonds had a .609 OBP. . dude, you’re a cards fan and you like pujols thats fine, but you’re inability to put your fanship aside and make an unbiased argument is clouding your judgment .. Pujols is a great player, but will never come close to the insanity that was Barry Bonds.
Bonds drew 232 walks in 2004.. He also have the most intentional walks in baseball history that year. 22 intentional walks in the first month alone!
“Bonds has been issued more intentional walks in one season, 2004, than the vast majority of men to play Major League Baseball have had in their entire careers”
Yeah, Im a Cardinals fan, great. You dont have to be a Cardinals fan to understand how great of a hitter Albert is. He is a natural. Bonds was very talented but ruined everything he worked for. If Pujols retired tomorrow he would be in the Hall of Fame.
Bonds did take steroids.. you cannot deny that. There are hundreds of ball players who could take steroids and have a career close to Bonds. There is no doubt in my mind that Albert on steroids could hit 75+ homeruns and hit over .350 in a season. Bonds is a freaking cheat! Albert Pujols is a much better and NATURAL hitter and when all said and done will Trump Bonds.
First of all, you could deny that Bonds took steroids. You’d probably be wrong, but I could deny it. Second of all, you have ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF to back up your statement that he would hit 75+ HR’s and over .350 a season. And wouldn’t the intentional walks signify something about Bonds’ caliber? How many times has Albert been IBB’d?
no one is disputing whether or not bonds took steroids or not.. based solely on numbers, bonds > pujols.
if you wanna talk about whos the better person, then yes you have an argument
So using your brilliant method frank thomas is a better hitter than bonds?
Unless pujols reverses his decline he has a lot of stuff to make, bonds played until he was 43, and his rate stats are still better.
The players today are bigger and better than players of the past for the most part.
Players have gotten bigger, pitchers overall throw harder etc…
The days of a team having say more than 1-2 pitchers that throw harder than 90mph? Sluggers who are like 5’10 and 180lbs, who hit 40hr (Yaz) 3 years out of 4…
It is a constantly evolving game.
I’m a cards fan, but even if it was genetically enhanced Barry Bonds was a better hitter statistically than Albert Pujols. Albert Pujols is probably the best right handed hitter of all time, but Ruth, Gherig, Williams, and Bonds are all better.
Anybody else seeing a Rollins/Boston match? Could trade Scutaro to a team like ATL.
waste of resources and would block prospects. scutaro on a one-year deal is perfect
Agreed. Boston would be his least likely landing spot with Scutaro, Lowrie and Iglesias a year or 2 away.
No thanks. Scutaro’s been a better hitter three years running and won’t cost us four or five years. Rollins is certainly the better overall player, but considering the commitment required and the fact that two of our top five prospects are shortstops, Rollins would be a mistake.
The dude cheated
Even after testing he put up insane numbers, we get it your a cards fan but this isn’t debatable.
he didn’t put up insane numbers after being tested, he put up ok numbers. It’s not debateable that Steroids Barry is better than non steroids Pujols, but there’s a fair argument that Barry Bonds doesn’t deserve to be in that conservation because he was the product of science rather than hard work and talent.
His 04 season wasn’t insane? It’s also worth nothing how well he was doing during the strike year and that he played in one the worst parks in baseball history. You want to take away some hrs because he roided fine, but bare in mind he was hitting against roiders and that he would of been able to continue playing for a couple more years. And its not like people on steroids weren’t declining look at canseco.
No his 04 season was one of the best in history, but drug testing came into play in 2006. His 06 and 07 season he still posted a great OPS but not exactly in Babe Ruth territory anymore.
Barry Bonds Slugging in 2001-04 in .863, .799, .749, .812, then when steroid testing came in his slugging fell to .545 and .565 in 06 and 07. Sure you can point to his age, but at the same time without steroids it’s doubtful he would have come close to those numbers age in his upper 30s.
Testing began in 04.
no it didn’t google it, I can’t post a link
I googled it your still wrong according to wik I and MLB website
I see the confusion I’m referring to when the suspensions started. That is in 2006, you’re talking about when did random testing start, they were testing before that but there was no teeth to it until 2006.
It’s hard to compare immortal players!
EVERBODY knows he took steroids! Just because he is in denial about doesnt mean we have to take his word for it… Look at his massive head. Do be so naive.
Huh i didnt say he didnt take steroids, im saying it didnt create barry bonds.
No it made Bonds last another 15 seasons.
So he would’ve retire at 29. I wonder if a 35 year old pujols can equal a 43 yr old bonds numbers.
Oh my god.. ok your offically an ldiot. Im done with you.
Your done with me how sad… I’m sorry that you cant backup your argument but rooting for a guy doesn’t make him the better player.
Ya! That makes no sense!
I write typos you write dumb comments we all have our faults.
…and yours does?
EDIT: THE BiRDS edited his comment, but it said “Ya!! That makes not sense!”
ya i caught that, it was pretty funny.
Ya its not.. Pujols is much much better than Bonds as a hitter.. I would love to see anyone else on here disagree. Yeah, Im a Cardinals fan but numbers dont lie.. If Pujols was on the Cubs Id be saying the same thing.
I thought you were done with me I got really worried and a bit depressed I’m glad you changed your mind
Bonds had a wOBA over .500 three separate times in his career, I didn’t even think that was possible. Pujols on the other hand has topped out at .462 so far in his career and i highly doubt he eclipses that mark. While there is certainly a case to be made that Albert was better in his first 11 years than Bonds (I think most would agree with that), the discussion was about who was the better hitter, not who had the better beginning to a career. Therefore, it’s perfectly logical to look at who was the more dominant hitter by comparing “peak” seasons. Looking at Bonds’ career years versus Pujols’ shows a distinct advantage to Bonds. You can argue it was steroids or whatever, but in the end, Barry Bonds at his prime offensive output blows Pujols out of the water
Steroids.. in 1999 Bonds hit 39 Home runs, then 2000 he hits 49, then 2001 HE HITS 73 HOMERUNS?!?!? Then 2002 comes around and he hits 46. Ya.. few extra shots in the clubhouse in 2001 and he peaks at 73* homeruns.. My point is Bonds “peak years” are
erroneous. Untill you allow Pujols to have a steroid year Ill keep my asterisks on Bonds “peak years”.
so you think he stopped using is 02?
“Bonds had a wOBA over .500 three separate times in his career, I didn’t even think that was possible.”
Ted Williams thinks that makes Bonds sound like a wuss. Someday, scientists will develop a way to get 1999 Pedro to face 1941 Ted Williams and my mind will officially crack.
So far at least 3 people have disagreed with you…
I disagree as well! It’s a club!
Bonds > Pujols
Pujols > Steroids
you really can’t compare the two though, it’s like comparing apples to genetically enhanced oranges.
Would the Phillies look into possibly replacing Rollins with Alex Gonzalez? Dude’s familar with the NL East and isn’t a bad SS. Besides he’ll probably command less than what Rollins wants.
As for Rollins, I’m really hoping SF makes a play for him. He’d be a great fit in the bay area(hometown btw).
Besides he’ll probably command less than what Rollins wants.
^ understatement of the year.
Rollins would look good in a Padre uni
Rollins would look good in a Padre uni
I’m gonna make one statement, THE BiRDS. Whether or not Bonds took steroids (I believe that he did), you can’t make any judgments about what he might have done without said steroids. You also can’t make judgments about what Albert would have done with steroids (I believe Albert did not take them), and expect to be treated like your OPINIONS are fact.
You can look at his track record before his head got 2 sizes larger and then track the normal decline that players who aren’t using steroids and you can get a pretty good idea. Bonds OPS during the years of what are typically a players prime 27 to 34 averaged to be about 1.050 which is right around Pujols career numbers. Then at 35 a year when players start to decline in production Bonds started to sky rocket.
So Aaron didn’t decline during those years and there are quite a few other players who hrs total went upas they aged. Why did canseco decline normally?
At the age of 35 Hank Aaron is one of the few players who did see an increase in production, whats important to note is the year that he turned 35 was 1969, the year the mound was lowered. I can’t think of any other player where that has happened that a player who got better at the age of 35, also Aaron’s increase wasn’t so drastic, to where he went from being a great hitter to one of the best ever.
As far as Canseco goes, I think the testimony on him was that he always took the steroids the whole time. Apparently Bonds had told Griffey that it was after the McGwire Sosa season that he decided he was going to start using steroids so that he could compete. By most accounts he started at 34 or 35, which is why you see the sharp uptick there. That’s the difference.
Reggie Jackson had his #2 season at age 34 &
his #3 season at age 36. He hit 30% of his HR after the age of 35.
Darrell Evans had his #2 season at age 38, his
#3 season at age 40, his #4 season at age 36, & his #5 season at age 39. He
played 21 seasons & hit almost half (198 of 414) of his career HR after the
age of 35. Proof of what?
Carlton Fisk holds the AL record for most HR
by a catcher. He hit his career high at age 37 & had his #2 season at age
35, a total he also reached on 2 other occasions.He hit more than half of his
HR (193 of 376) after the age of 35. This is a catcher we’re talking about.
Catchers are usually so beat up that they slip dramatically after age 32.
Edgar Martinez hit 309 HR for his career. That
was once considered a lot of HR. He hit his career high at age 37. His #2
season was at ages 35 & 32. His #3 season was at age 34. He hit well over
half (164 of 309) of his career HR after age 35. But he played in the
“steroid era”, right?
Like Edgar, Hank Sauer was a late bloomer who
hit 288 HR in a 15 year career. He didn’t hit his career high until age 37. Two
years ealier he led the league with his #2 season at age 35. He hit more than
half (153 of 288) of his career HR after age 35.
Dave Parker was another player with a late
career power surge. He hit his career high at age 34, had his #2 season at age
35, his #4 season at age 36. He hit almost half (157 of 339) of his career HR
after the age of 34.
Cy Williams played 21 seasons from 1912 – 30.
He never hit more than 18 HR in any season until he suddenly hit 26 at age 34
& then led the league with 41 at age 35. He led the league again with his
#3 season at age 39 & hit his #4 total of 18 again at age 38. Well over
half (143) of his career total of 251 HR came after age 35.
Harold Baines hit 384 HR in his career. His #2
total came for the 2nd time at age 40. His #3 total came at age 36. He hit more
than 30% of his career HR after age 35.
Wilie Mays hit his career high at age 34. Ted
Williams had his #2 season at age 38. Johnny Mize had his career high at age 34
& his #3 at age 35.
none of the examples you cite are anything close to Barry Bonds. Not even close.
And what exactly are you trying to imply that Barry Bonds didn’t use steroids?
That they weren’t soley responsible for his hr numbers and I pretty sure the 50 percent increase we see in some of these players is close to what bonds did after 35. I still don’t understand your reasoning of why out of all the players that used steroids only bonds was able to avoid his decline?
In the examples you cited some of them had a career year or two in their later years but it appeared to be more of a statistical anomaly, and their numbers seemed to vary greatly.
Look at bonds, he averaged about 1.050 OPS every year for about 10 years. That’s a very good number and in a lot of years that will win you the MVP. Now in 2000 it jumps to 1.127 which isn’t out of the realm of possibility that he could reach that number since it’s not outside of his career norms. Then 2001 to 2004 1.379, 1.381, 1.272, and 1.422. At a time when a player should start declining Barry Bonds put up the two highest OPS seasons in the history of the game.
Every example you cited were either players who have just always performed at a high level and continued to do so in the latter years like Ted Williams, or a few guys who had career years late in their careers. But those players with career years didn’t do it with consistency.
There is nothing like Barry Bonds to where a player just started averaging an extra .300 OPS points every year consecutively at such a late age of his career.
Barry Bonds was a great hitter, and should be in the hall of fame even if he didn’t take steroids, but if you are going to sit here and say that when a player has a jump in his OPS of more .300 points every year, and during that same time period it has been proven in a court of law that he started taking steroids, that that jump isn’t related to steroids use is beyond ignorant.
Since you took the time to address these players I felt I should respond about them.
The players you cite fall into a couple of categories,
1. They very might have taken steroids. These players offensive boom in their late years occurred in the 80s or 90s and are not free from suspicion. This group includes Darrel Evans, Edgar Martinez, Dave Parker, Harold Baines.
2. they just had a career year or two later in their career but didn’t consistently put up better numbers, you can put Dave Parker into that, same with Darrell Evans.
3. They were really good players, and consistently put up great numbers throughout their careers, this includes Ted Williams, Willy Mays, Johnny Mize, and Carlton Fisk.
4. Their peak years they were killing Germans in WWII, this would explain Hank Sauer.
When looking at your list the one player that did what Bonds did drastically and consistently improve their game in their mid 30s was Edgar Martinez, who I’ll bet money on used steroids as well.
Anyone can say that this guy or that guy is the BEST hitter of ALL time, what it comes down to is what their numbers are in the end. Alberts numbers are great but he has a long way to go. Alex’s was going to be the one to pass Bond’s, Griffey was going to pass Aaron, the last 5-8 is harder because of health. Though Bonds was a roid boy their has never been a more feared hitter in the history of the game! Respect from the pitchers say a lot, also MVP’s say alot too. Pitchers are not as fearful with Albert, Rickey was feared more than Albert. Call Bonds what you will, Greatest hitter I’ve ever seen, HGH is not being tested at this time and when it does you will see numbers drop again. Let us see what Albert can do these next 5-8 years.
“Though Bonds was a roid boy their has never been a more feared hitter in the history of the game!”
Even ignoring steroids, Babe Ruth and Ted Williams would have something to say about that:
Player: Career wOBA, Peak wOBA (Full Season)
Bonds: .439, .539
Williams: .493, .565
Ruth: .510, .600
And that’s with Williams having missed five years of his career to military service (Including three peak years).