Can Barry Bonds hit .300 lifetime?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Barry Bonds is now hitting .296 lifetime, one point up from what he ended the season at last year. He's hitting .310 at this writing.

Bonds started his career as a guy who looked like he was going to be a .260-.270 hitter whose value would be determined by power and walks. He's hit .300 or better nine times, plus this year, but no one thought this guy could hit .300 lifetime.

Yet here he is, giving it a run. Can he do it? Can he defy the "young-player skill" label of batting average and get his average up to .300 by the time he's done? Will he?

I think he'll just fall short; maybe get his average to .300, then stay one season too long and see it go under.

What do y'all think?

[TimmyB]

Already this year he his beginning to look slightly mortal. I see him finishing around .290 -- which, considering his beginnings, is nothing to sneeze at...

[sweaver]

He's played long enough that there's a lot of inertia in the record to overcome to get up to .300. But, who puts anything out of the reach of Superman?

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Barry could do whatever he puts his mind to -- I'm convinced of that.

Last season, I was pulling for him to break the all-time doubles record, but he didn't even try!

If Barry wanted to hit .350 every year until he retires he could do so, without giving up a lot of power. He's that great.

[JamesI]

With the sheer number of at bats already in his record, it will be difficult to bring himself up to .300 lifetime. But never put anything past Barry, if he wants it...

[TGwynn19]

Originally posted by Ytown Tribe fan
If Barry wanted to hit .350 every year until he retires he could do so, without giving up a lot of power. He's that great.


Then I have to ask "why in the heck doesn't he?"

[TimmyB]

Originally posted by TGwynn19
Then I have to ask "why in the heck doesn't he?"

.350 would make him very, very, very good.

73 made him a diety. 756... well... just imagine.

[rcartman28]

I think it depends on whether he wants the home run record or a .300 batting average, but my guess is that he'll come up just short of .300, unless he decides to retire before making a serious run at Aaron.

[Craig S.]

Hitting .370 last season raised his career average by 3 points, so he could do it if he keeps up the big seasons. If he hits .340 over his next 1000 at-bats, he should get there. Of course, I don't know if he'll do that, and getting 1000 ABs will take a while when you walk as often as does Barry.

[poorme]

i'd give him about a 30% chance. i figure he's got about 1500-1800 AB's left in his career. he'd have to hit about .320 over those AB's to make it.

[WiredTiger]

Based on 450 at bats per season for Barry...

if he plays three more years then he'd have to hit .329 in 1350 at bats to make it.

if he plays four more years then he'd have to hit .321 in 1800 at bats.

If he achieved the second scenario then he woould also reach 3000 hits.

If you include this year's stats so far then he'd need to hit .331 in the first scenario and .323 in the second scenario.

I would think he probably is going to fall short unless he has another season where he hits .350 or above or he plays five years.

[Fuzzy Bear]

There is a psychological barrier about hitting/not hitting .300 that is very real.

Mickey Mantle was a tremendous player, perhaps the greatest CF of all time. One reason he is not usually considered so (in 1969, the writers picked DiMaggio and not Mantle as the greatest living baseball player) is because his average slipped to .298 lifetime his last year in basebell. (I recognize there were other reasons, but it is a factor, IMO.)

I believe that Barry Bonds will be considered a greater player if he hits 700 HRs and bats .301 than if he hits 760 HRs and bats .295. Especially if he forsakes average to break the record.

Not having a .300 lifetime BA hurts Barry in the eyes of history, in that so many other greats of his level have a .300 lifetime BA.

[pathogan]

...he can leap tall buildings in a single bound...theres nothing on a baseball diamnond i'd put past him

[nyy26wc]

Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear
There is a psychological barrier about hitting/not hitting .300 that is very real.

Mickey Mantle was a tremendous player, perhaps the greatest CF of all time. One reason he is not usually considered so (in 1969, the writers picked DiMaggio and not Mantle as the greatest living baseball player) is because his average slipped to .298 lifetime his last year in basebell. (I recognize there were other reasons, but it is a factor, IMO.)

I believe that Barry Bonds will be considered a greater player if he hits 700 HRs and bats .301 than if he hits 760 HRs and bats .295. Especially if he forsakes average to break the record.

Not having a .300 lifetime BA hurts Barry in the eyes of history, in that so many other greats of his level have a .300 lifetime BA.

I disagree about there being a psychological barrier. Instead, I call it a testament to bad stat analysis by the media.

Barry Bonds and Mickey Mantle are/were two of the greatest players who ever lived in terms of getting on base.

For the media to use a bad stat like average as a proxy for getting on base, when there is another stat that actually measures getting on base--that's bad stat analysis.

[TGwynn19]

Originally posted by Fuzzy Bear
I believe that Barry Bonds will be considered a greater player if he hits 700 HRs and bats .301 than if he hits 760 HRs and bats .295. Especially if he forsakes average to break the record.
.

I disagree. Everyone knows Hank hit 755 HR's. Does the average fan know his lifetime BA? I don't think so.

[pathogan]

Originally posted by nyy26wc
I disagree about there being a psychological barrier. Instead, I call it a testament to bad stat analysis by the media.

Barry Bonds and Mickey Mantle are/were two of the greatest players who ever lived in terms of getting on base.

For the media to use a bad stat like average as a proxy for getting on base, when there is another stat that actually measures getting on base--that's bad stat analysis.

...you may be perfectly correct,but that is not the point.people believe that.300 is an important number, whether or not it ACADEMICALLY is. which is sort of the point...

[JamesI]

Originally posted by pathogan
...you may be perfectly correct,but that is not the point.people believe that.300 is an important number, whether or not it ACADEMICALLY is. which is sort of the point...

Exactly. The average fan does not want to know about On base average, nor do they care what it means or how to calculate it. .300 batting average is an important number for that reason.

[nyy26wc]

Originally posted by JamesI
Exactly. The average fan does not want to know about On base average, nor do they care what it means or how to calculate it. .300 batting average is an important number for that reason.

I don't think the average fan doesn't want to know about OBA. It's just that he hasn't been told that he wants it.

And the average fan doesn't care how a stat is calculated. When was the last time the average fan calculated an AVG, an ERA himself? He takes what he's given.

I'll bet that if a random number generator was added to the TV's computer and added or took away anywhere from .001 to .015 for each player's average when it's displayed each time, the average fan wouldn't know the difference. (So long as it did the same thing for the player each time he came up. Take away .013 from the player the first time up and you can't then add .010 the next time. They might notice a .023 net swing.)

[TGwynn19]

This conversation is getting away from the topic 'Can Barry Bonds hit .300 lifetime'.

[pathogan]

Originally posted by nyy26wc
I don't think the average fan doesn't want to know about OBA. It's just that he hasn't been told that he wants it.

And the average fan doesn't care how a stat is calculated. When was the last time the average fan calculated an AVG, an ERA himself? He takes what he's given.

I'll bet that if a random number generator was added to the TV's computer and added or took away anywhere from .001 to .015 for each player's average when it's displayed each time, the average fan wouldn't know the difference. (So long as it did the same thing for the player each time he came up. Take away .013 from the player the first time up and you can't then add .010 the next time. They might notice a .023 net swing.)


whew! Thats pretty elitist,don't you think?maybe the "average" fan just appreciates that Bonds is a great hitter because he is a great hitter.I am an'average" fan, and would deeply resent the other implications

[Fuzzy Bear]

The "average" fan relies on outsiders to tell him/her which stats are important. Statheads, and those who read stathead stuff are a minority.

A .300 average is something fans have been conditioned to believe is a mark of excellence. And, by and large, it is. If you have a player who has had a 15 season career as a regular with a .300 BA, the HOF discussion would start with the premise that the player WAS Hall-worthy, and the burden of proof would be on those who sought to prove the player was not.

A player who hits .297, well, everything goes the other way. Jim Rice told me so.

The average fan can change his perception, over time. However, MLB doesn't make a big deal over the OBP leader, but the batting leader is still hot stuff.

So, yes, I believe the .300 lifetime BA will make a difference for Bonds, if he gets there. Bonds has a case to be made as the greatest player of all time, at least in peak value, and maybe in career value. The argument that he is will be strengthened greatly if he hits .300 for two reasons:

(A) Public perception, and . . .

(B) The stats he'll have to put up, late in his career, to achieve that goal, are consistent with the very highest levels of greatness.

Bonds could break Aaron's record, but he could do that hitting .256 the rest of the way. That would hurt him as far as his standing in the top 10 of history goes. However, a player who hits 700 HRs with a .301 BA; those numbers are "GREATER THAN MAYS" (if you ignore context).

I think Bonds CAN get there, but I'm not sure he WILL.

[tfb_00]

Good stuff, I think he makes it to .300 and maybe 755 also but does he need to get to the AL and DH for a year or two and if so, does this tarnish the final numbers.

[pwdennis]

I'll dissent - I don't think Barry makes it to .300, but 755 is a distinct possibility.