Aaron vs. Bonds Career Statistics

To pick up the conversation, so to speak, from my previous post dated February 24,2007 and titled "Steroids? And the HR King? Say it isn't so Hank!":

Around the time that Barry Bonds passed Babe Ruth and starting making his move towards Hank Aaron, I wanted to take a look at both men's home run path throughout their careers and put it into the context of both the era in which each man performed , as well as historically. Were Bonds career numbers or career path or trajectory similar to Aaron's or were they significantly different in some way?

The method I thought would be the fairest to answer the most relevant questions was to compare the rate at which each man slugged home-runs (HR Rate or HR/AB) vs. the League Average (Total League HR's/ Total League AB's). In this way, we would see how well each man performed vs. the "average" player in his league that year. Pretty simple, right? This is basically how your IQ score is computed, your score is compared to the entire population of scores to determine a mean-adjusted score.

I took each year's statistics (from Baseball_Reference.com) and charted the results.
What I expected to see was Aaron being the better home-run hitter from age 25-32 and Bonds overtaking him in the latter stages from age 35-40.

First, I took a detour and wanted to get a look at how other "great" players and home-run hitters performed to see what the "normal" path should look like. This is similar to what some of the SABR guys are referring to as "career trajectory" and is used to find out at what age most players peak and when skills decline. Some of the work I've seen here indicates that players generally peak statistically around age 27 and their skills begin to decline around age 32-33. This is a generalization for the entire population of players. I wanted to see if the same thing applies to the smaller population of elite home-run hitters.

When we charted the data, we looked at what age did a player showed his best years (peak) and when did he show his last improvement (decline) and I also looked at when the player had the best two year periods in his career to look for when they were able to put long-term sustained excellence together. Looking at some of the SABR career trajectory graphs of the great sluggers of the past, we did see quite a few different looking career trajectories. In other words, there isn't a clearly defined "norm" for elite players, who by their very nature are not normal. They are freaks of nature, superstars. That's why we watch them.

Recall that Willie Mays power hitting skills diminished around age 34-35 and seemingly fell of a cliff thereafter, whereas Henry Aarom seemed to continue on strong even after age 35. McGwire's career seems to mimic Mays (partly due to injuries) whereas Bonds appears to look more like Aaron and Ted Williams. Small sample by definition, but you clearly have to start somewhere.

Here's a look at some of the all-time elite home-run hitters and when they peaked in their respective careers: (click to enlarge)



Not much in the way of surprises, although its interesting that both Bonds and Aaron had "peak" years in the early stages of their careers (25-28 age) and then a resurgence of sorts late career (35-38 age).

Next, we looked at the Average players and the Elite players home-run rate to see what changed from the 70's to 90's. Clearly, the rate of home-runs changed (chicks dig the long-ball) for a variety of reason that are noted. Those changes seem to have occurred across the board, indicating that they were the result of changes that would effect virtually all players somewhat equally.

Comparison of "Average" Players and "Elite" Players from the 70's vs. the 90's with factors which could contribute to the change in rate of HR's: (click to enlarge)



If you notice the comparison of players with 500 AB's, the Average players fly under the radar going from:
5 to 6 HR's for your basic banjo-hitter
10 to 13 HR's for your slap-hitting middle infielder
15-20 HR's for your decent hitters
20-26 HR's for your lower tier sluggers
and 25 to 33 HR's for your budding superstars.
Not very noticable differences and certainly not "hallowed record" threatening numbers.

But the guy from the 70's who was
hitting 30 HR's jumps to 40 HR's in the 90's,
the 40 HR guy becomes a 50 HR guy,
and the career year guy who hits 50 HR's in the 70's,
jumps right up to 66 HR's in the 90's.

So it seems as if, at least perceptually, the effect was more pronounced among the upper-tier sluggers. If a guy has a career year in the 90's (as Maris did in the 60's
and certainly Ruth did in the 20's when he socked 60 HR's) that guy is going to challenge history.

This is based on comparing the Mean League HR Rate throughout Aaron's career (2.225%)
to the Mean League HR Rate throughout Bonds' career (2.835%). An increase of approximately 27% on Average. In other words, the AVERAGE player hit home-runs at a 27% higher rate during Bonds years than during Aaron's years.

And if the AVERAGE player increased 27%, how much would you expect the superstar sluggers HR rate to increase? I'm not sure that the approximately 40% higher rate that Bonds stroked HR's throughout his career than Aaron (9.436% Bonds vs. 6.473% Aaron) is totally unexpected or unrealistic under the circumstances.

The 90's became the "chicks dig the long ball era" and attendance rose accordingly. And it had to after various labor pissing matches and a cancelled World Series. SO more than anyhting else, Home Runs saved baseball, not Sosa and McGwire exclusively, but HR's throughout baseball. Sosa and MGwire would only change attendance at Wrigley and Busch, for the most part. But attendance increased throughout baseball with some minor exceptions.

And so not only did chicks dig the long-ball, but owners did too, because when attendance rises, revenue rises. And when revenue rises, profits rise and when profits rise, owners bank accounts rise. And when owners bank accounts rise, that makes something else rise for owners faster than when they take those little-blue pills and without any of the nasty side-effects. Just a little Economics 101 for you, on the house.

If you don't believe me, go to BaseballGraphs.com and look at the graphs for Home Runs and attendance and see if you don't notice a close correlation between the two.
It's how baseball pulled itself out of the Black Sox scandal and it's how they did it again after the scandalous and ill-advised World Series cancellation.

Is this conclusive proof of owners hands in manufacturing higher home-run rates to increase attendance? NO. Is it the equivalent of a positive steroid test? NO. But does it meet the same rough equivalent, circumstantial evidence that has been used to convict many current players i the court of public opinion? YES. So, I would have to say, if you're willing to live by the sword of innuendo, you should be willing to die by the same sword.

Here is the graph comparing Aaron vs. Bonds career numbers by age: (click to enlarge)



You can see from the graph that the two players career paths move in fairly close lock-step. Some years Aaron jumps up and overtakes Bonds, other years Bonds is ahead, never by too much. In fact, if you look at the mean-adjusted HR Rate and compared each guy at 25, 26,27, etc, throughout until age 40, Aaron wins the competition 8-7. He was a better HR hitter on a relative basis for more years in his career than Bonds.

So maybe, it's time for Aaron to be the classy gentleman he is alleged to be and understand that the old saw "records were made to be broken" applies to all records, including this one.

Also, maybe it's time for any jackass who refers to this record as "hallowed", almost as if it were some sort of religious shrine or icon that's never to be disturbed, needs to either get a life at best or a better understanding of religion at worst.

These records are not a deity and neither are the person(s) who set them or break them. And neither are they the devil personified.

And maybe it's time for the owners to start stepping up and taking some of the heat, some of the tar and feathering, some of the public lynching for this so-called scandal. As I recall, our current President was at the epicenter of some of the most egregious "alleged" usage. And most, if not all of them profited from the popularity of the efforts of guys like McGwire and Sosa. Now, they want to publicly run away from them as if they didn't know what was going on. Scattering like kids caught with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar.

For these scumbags to remain silent on the sidelines, letting the players twist slowly in the wind in this public lynching is beyond repugnant, in my opinion. Where are the beer-baron Busch's, who pocketed gate receipts from fans eager to see McGwire perform? Or the corporate giants like the Wrigley's and the Tribune Company in Chicago, who benefit ted immensely by having Sosa as the marquee player for the lovable losers known as the Cubs? They sure knew how to cash the checks when the money was flowing their way.

There's always been a symbiotic relationship between owners and the press in baseball. The press (local or national) has often been used as a tool by the owners to whip up a public frenzy against individual players or the entire union when it suits ownership, either individually or en masse. That's been true throughout the history of baseball. Anyone who denies it or is either naive or lying.

I don't know why it's so hard to see the fingerprints on the smoking gun on this one.
But the issue gets clouded more and more each day by some of the willing co-conspirators in the media in my opinion.

It's high time for people to stop banging the drum against the game of baseball. Baseball hasn't been as popular as it is now in quite some time, certainly not in my lifetime. I think it's time to get off the issue or at the least give it the same relative importance that is attached to football players who cheat. Cheating is cheating. And the effect on our nation's youth is the same regardless of the sport. Can't have it both ways. You can't have the hypocrisy of crucifying one sport and letting the other one have a pass. And save the lame excuses about the strength of each sports respective drug policies being a factor, that's insulting people's intelligence.

Just look at the recent Orlando case. Gary Matthews gets whipped publicly every day and by proxy baseball does also. The Pittsburgh Steeler team doctor puts enough HGH on a personal credit card to juice an army and says it's for his nursing home patients and weekend warriors, not the football team. And the media is like Sgt. Schultz in Hogan's Heroes, "I see nothing, nothing".

As the kids say today, whatever. I guess the nations youth aren't influenced by football after all, even though we constantly hear that it, and not baseball, is the new national pastime. And that the participation numbers are higher in youth football than any other sport. And we don't see HS offensive and defensive lineman weighing 300+ pounds and running sub 5.0 40 yard dashes. Not sure I need much testing to you what's going on there.

These are Bonds career numbers: (click to enlarge)



These are Aaron's career numbers: (click to enlarge)



Many thanks for all the help in providing the stunning visual effects (charts, graphs) have to go to my wife, who by the way, is my personal favorite stunning, visual effect. Thanks, honey.