Bonds vs. History

So, after all the hype and annoyance, Barry Bonds has hit his 660th and 661st home run, officially passing Willie Mays. Hats off to him. Despite my overall dislike of him, due to his topping of Mark McGuire, I have no choice but to respect his performance over the past 15 years. Whether it turns out he's been juiced for the past three or four years, remains to be seen. Innocent until proven guilty, but Barry, just go pee in the cup.

Anyway, I was watching Sportcenter and they were arguing for and against Barry Bonds being the greatest player of all time. I will be the first one to stand up and say that Bonds deserves to be considered in the top 10 (even though I might not put him there) but it seems unfair to say that he's the greatest ever. Let's take a comparison of what he has that other players did not:

-Bonds is able to hover over the plate and not worry about getting brushed back because he wears body armor over his entire arm. This still may not get him plugged in the back, but he drapes his body over the plate, effectively taking away the inside pitch. If you're not afraid of getting hit because it won't hurt, that doesn't say much compared to anyone else who has been up to the plate prior to the last 5-7 years.

-Pitching has degraded in baseball. The strike zone is smaller and pitchers are getting spread throughout a larger league. In the 50's and 60's, you would face about 7-10 clubs who had three or four strong starters lasting through 8-9 innings. Now, no one is leaving their pitchers out longer than 6 or 7 innings. They last longer over the course of time, but you need more pitchers and that drains the pool, along with expansion. 50 years ago, a lineup like the Cubs have would have been the rule and not the exception. Its easier to hit and walk more if you have more pitchers who either can't find the strike zone or hang it over the plate.

-Ballparks are smaller now. I know that Bonds plays in one of the largest and windiest parks in the NL, but they play 81 games in other parks which are smaller and cozier. Also, even if San Francisco is the hardest park in the NL, what does that say if you're only comparing it to easy home run parks. If you say that its as hard to hit a home run in SF as it was in Three Rivers, then you have a legitimate argument.

These are three points that I have thought of against Bonds or many other modern players. This doesn't even count taking pitchers into the mix. How can you readily relate and say that Barry Bonds is as good or better then Sandy Koufax, Nolan Ryan, or Christy Matthewson? Its a very apples and oranges argument and someone who could stand astride both worlds, like Babe Ruth, would have to be considered a great player indeed.

So, Barry is a great player, but I believe that if you took players from the past and gave them Bond's advantages, they would be as good or better. Willie Stargil hit 500 home runs playing in Three Rivers stadium and no one hit home runs there. Imagine if he had played in a ballpark where it was only 400 ft to center and 370 ft on the lines. Or the hits Stan Musial would have gotten if he had been allowed to hang over the plate the way Bonds does. Its just different times and a different measurement stick.