You Are Here > Baseball-Reference.com > Blog >

SITE NEWS: We are moving all of our site and company news into a single blog for Sports-Reference.com. We'll tag all B-R content, so you can quickly and easily find the content you want.

Also, our existing B-R blog rss feed will be redirected to the new site's feed.

Baseball-Reference.com » Sports Reference

For more from Andy and the gang, check out their new site High Heat Stats.

More walks than hits (yes, another list appearance by Adam Dunn)

Posted by Andy on September 21, 2011

Here are players in 2011 with at least as many walks as hits (minimum 50 plate appearances):

Rk Player PA BB H Age Tm G AB R 2B 3B HR RBI SO BA OBP SLG OPS Pos
1 Adam Dunn 462 67 64 31 CHW 113 389 35 14 0 11 41 163 .165 .292 .285 .578 *D3/9
2 Anthony Rizzo 139 19 15 21 SDP 45 116 8 8 1 1 8 44 .129 .273 .241 .515 *3
3 Ryan Langerhans 64 11 9 31 SEA 19 52 6 0 0 3 6 22 .173 .317 .346 .664 *8/7D9
4 Jonathon Niese 60 4 3 24 NYM 29 49 1 0 1 0 0 33 .061 .132 .102 .234 *1
5 Chris Gimenez 57 9 7 28 SEA 20 47 3 1 0 0 5 11 .149 .281 .170 .451 *2/73
6 Dane Sardinha 43 10 7 32 PHI 15 32 8 1 0 0 1 13 .219 .419 .250 .669 *2
7 Eugenio Velez 35 2 0 29 LAD 30 33 3 0 0 0 1 8 .000 .057 .000 .057 /47
8 Reggie Willits 28 4 1 30 LAA 22 22 0 1 0 0 1 7 .045 .192 .091 .283 *7/9
9 Pete Kozma 22 4 3 23 STL 16 17 2 1 0 0 1 4 .176 .333 .235 .569 *4/65
10 Anthony Recker 21 4 3 27 OAK 5 17 3 1 0 0 0 7 .176 .333 .235 .569 /*2
Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 9/20/2011.

These guys are all "batting average challenged", hence how they amassed more walks.

Here are the folks in the last 40 years (1971-2011) to have more walks than hits in a season with at least 450 plate appearances:

Rk Player Year PA BB H Age Tm G AB R 2B 3B HR RBI IBB SO BA OBP SLG OPS Pos
1 Adam Dunn 2011 462 67 64 31 CHW 113 389 35 14 0 11 41 0 163 .165 .292 .285 .578 *D3/9
2 Jack Cust 2007 507 105 101 28 OAK 124 395 61 18 1 26 82 2 164 .256 .408 .504 .912 D97
3 Barry Bonds 2007 477 132 94 42 SFG 126 340 75 14 0 28 66 43 54 .276 .480 .565 1.045 *7/D
4 Morgan Ensberg 2006 495 101 91 30 HOU 127 387 67 17 1 23 58 7 96 .235 .396 .463 .858 *5
5 Barry Bonds 2006 493 115 99 41 SFG 130 367 74 23 0 26 77 38 51 .270 .454 .545 .999 *7/D
6 Barry Bonds 2004 617 232 135 39 SFG 147 373 129 27 3 45 101 120 41 .362 .609 .812 1.422 *7/D
7 Barry Bonds 2003 550 148 133 38 SFG 130 390 111 22 1 45 90 61 58 .341 .529 .749 1.278 *7/D
8 Barry Bonds 2002 612 198 149 37 SFG 143 403 117 31 2 46 110 68 47 .370 .582 .799 1.381 *7/D
9 Barry Bonds 2001 664 177 156 36 SFG 153 476 129 32 2 73 137 35 93 .328 .515 .863 1.379 *7/D
10 Mark McGwire 1998 681 162 152 34 STL 155 509 130 21 0 70 147 28 155 .299 .470 .752 1.222 *3
11 Gary Sheffield 1997 582 121 111 28 FLA 135 444 86 22 1 21 71 11 79 .250 .424 .446 .870 *9/D
12 Rickey Henderson 1996 602 125 112 37 SDP 148 465 110 17 2 9 29 2 90 .241 .410 .344 .754 *798
13 Mickey Tettleton 1995 547 107 102 34 TEX 134 429 76 19 1 32 78 5 110 .238 .396 .510 .906 9D/327
14 Rob Deer 1991 539 89 80 30 DET 134 448 64 14 2 25 64 1 175 .179 .314 .386 .700 *9/D
15 Mickey Tettleton 1990 559 106 99 29 BAL 135 444 68 21 2 15 51 3 160 .223 .376 .381 .756 *2D/39
16 Jack Clark 1989 593 132 110 33 SDP 142 455 76 19 1 26 94 18 145 .242 .410 .459 .869 *39
17 Jack Clark 1987 558 136 120 31 STL 131 419 93 23 1 35 106 13 139 .286 .459 .597 1.055 *3/9
18 Toby Harrah 1985 521 113 107 36 TEX 126 396 65 18 1 9 44 2 60 .270 .432 .389 .820 *4/6D
19 Gene Tenace 1978 515 101 90 31 SDP 142 401 60 18 4 16 61 8 98 .224 .392 .409 .801 *3*2/5
20 Gene Tenace 1977 581 125 102 30 SDP 147 437 66 24 4 15 61 10 119 .233 .415 .410 .824 *235
21 Jim Wynn 1976 584 127 93 34 ATL 148 449 75 19 1 17 66 1 111 .207 .377 .367 .744 *78
22 Jim Wynn 1975 529 110 102 33 LAD 130 412 80 16 0 18 58 2 77 .248 .403 .417 .821 *87
23 Gene Tenace 1974 612 110 102 27 OAK 158 484 71 17 1 26 73 6 105 .211 .367 .411 .778 *3*2/4
24 Willie McCovey 1973 495 105 102 35 SFG 130 383 52 14 3 29 75 25 78 .266 .420 .546 .966 *3
Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 9/20/2011.

It's quite a polarized group--on the one hand there are guys like Dunn, Tettleton, and, yes, Deer, who have low batting averages but good walk totals. On the other hand, there are guys with high batting averages who walked a lot and simply didn't get enough at-bats to amass a lot of hits. Note that Barry Bonds' 2002 batting average is more than double Dunn's from this year, and yet both qualify.

It's interesting to see a list with HOF-caliber players--Henderson, McCovey, Bonds, McGwire, and Sheffield--with a bunch of other guys who got no consideration for the hall.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 21st, 2011 at 7:42 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

58 Responses to “More walks than hits (yes, another list appearance by Adam Dunn)”

  1. How do players like Dane Sardinha manage to even make it to the majors for more than one season? Even his minor league numbers suck!

  2. Detroit Michael Says:

    This inspired me to do a related search. Has any player, minimum of 1,000 plate appearances, ever had more walks than hits for his entire career?

    Yes, one guy: Mickey Lolich. Mickey had 105 walks and 90 hits in 1,017 plate appearances. Rather famously, he had no regular season homers but did hit one in the 1968 World Series.

  3. I found it interesting that in 1973, Willy McCovey led the league in IBB with 25. In 2004 , Bonds probably got that many in a good month.

  4. I can't believe I misspelled "Willie" . (Too much discussion of "Wily" Mo Pena:-)

  5. Sort by SO, you'll see the 50% three true outcome players, of course.

    I noticed sorting by SO's put a lot of younger guys at the top of the list. Older players tended to have less SOs on the list, but that portion is dominated by the older Barry Bonds.

    Sort by IBB, subtract the IBB, first 8 batters fall off the list.

  6. the IBB aspect of this list is amazing:

    only Adam Dunn had no!! IBB, while the 2004 "(I)ntentional (B)arry (B)onds" had nearly as much IBB as hits (120/135) despite having nearly double as many hits as Dunn.

    Dunn even can get a qualifying season if he gets another 40 PA in the seasons last 10 games.

  7. @4

    Does anyone else see the irony in a Wily Mo Pena mention in a blog about more walks than hits?!

  8. why do we care about Bonds' numbers? they don't count

    he wont get into the hall becasue of sterioids and cheating, so why should he count for baseball-reference.com? i figure both institutions have enough integrity to recognize a cheat.

  9. 8 - they count; they happened. Nothing more needs to be said about it.

  10. Liam, so what should we do? Remove his numbers from the site? And who else? McGwire? Palmeiro? Sosa? Paul Byrd? Andy Pettitte? Ty Cobb for spiking? Gaylord Perry for spitballing? The numbers here represent facts of what actually happened in games--they themselves are not a commentary on the player or his behavior.

  11. Bonds's, not Bonds'.

    And they count because they happened. Statistics aren't something you can vote on whether they happened or not. They're just a collection of recorded data, unbiased by the subjective notion of "cheating."

    The Hall of Fame, on the other hand, is an elected honor, which means human judgment comes into play. Voters can decide for themselves whether any candidate deserves or doesn't deserve a vote.

    Baseball-reference.com collects statistics. All of them.

    The Hall of Fame uses human judgment.

    That's why Bonds's numbers count.

  12. Dunn has 7 less plate appearances than the other nine guys on the first list and 14 more strikeouts! But perhaps when people mention how bad a season he's had he can bring up Velez- 0-33! He's maybe the worst baseball player I've ever watched in person but couldn't you accidentally get a hit with 35 chances?

  13. @11, Bonds' and Bonds's are correct, though I prefer the former. It's like how you could have said "The Hall of Fame uses human judgement" and still been correct.

    Anyway what in the hell happened to Big Donkey anyway? And has the White Sox hitting coach been fired?

  14. [...] than hits over a season. It consists of Barry Bonds and a lot of people with low batting averages. http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/15220 Official sponsor of my daughter Sarah, SPOILERS!, and the St. Louis Cardinals Isa turn the [...]

  15. @1 Simple answer. Sardinha is a catcher.

    They keep him on the bench as a backup catcher in the minors and they wait until they need a backup catcher in the majors. (One of the typical two a team carries gets hurt). Then he goes to the majors and sits on the bench. He started 12 of 44 team games while he was in the majors. I guess they would rather have the starting AAA catcher play regularly in AAA than sit on the bench in the majors. He's not a September call-up player (4/59 career games).

    In his short stint this year, he had no errors, threw out 27% of the SB attempts (higher than the other two catchers and the league average) and particpated in 3 of the 7 double plays by catchers. His career fielding average in the majors is 0.998.

    I'm sure every team has a designated backup catcher in the minors. There were 109 catchers this year. 41 started fewer than 20 games. 20 started 81 or more.

  16. Never in my wildest dreams did I think I'd ever see Adam Dunn have a higher OBP than SLG, like some banjo-hitting 80's infielder. The guy's turning into Bobby Meachem before our eyes.

  17. Excellent eye, there Nightfly. Here are guys in the last 3 years to have OBP > SLG, minimum 450 PAs:

    Rk Player Year OBP SLG PA Age Tm G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OPS Pos
    1 Jamey Carroll 2011 .354 .342 487 37 LAD 138 433 48 124 14 5 0 14 44 57 .286 .696 *46
    2 Adam Dunn 2011 .296 .291 470 31 CHW 115 395 35 66 16 0 11 42 69 165 .167 .587 *D3/9
    3 Juan Pierre 2011 .335 .334 682 33 CHW 150 611 79 173 17 4 2 48 42 39 .283 .669 *7/D
    4 Elvis Andrus 2010 .342 .301 674 21 TEX 148 588 88 156 15 3 0 35 64 96 .265 .643 *6
    5 Yunel Escobar 2010 .337 .318 567 27 TOT 135 497 60 127 19 0 4 35 56 57 .256 .655 *6
    6 Chone Figgins 2010 .340 .306 702 32 SEA 161 602 62 156 21 2 1 35 74 114 .259 .646 *4
    7 Brett Gardner 2010 .383 .379 569 26 NYY 150 477 97 132 20 7 5 47 79 101 .277 .762 *78/D
    8 Cesar Izturis 2010 .277 .268 513 30 BAL 150 473 42 109 13 1 1 28 25 53 .230 .545 *6
    9 Jason Kendall 2010 .318 .297 490 36 KCR 118 434 39 111 18 0 0 37 37 45 .256 .615 *2
    10 Nyjer Morgan 2010 .319 .314 577 29 WSN 136 509 60 129 17 7 0 24 40 88 .253 .633 *8
    11 Juan Pierre 2010 .341 .316 734 32 CHW 160 651 96 179 18 3 1 47 45 47 .275 .657 *7D
    12 Ryan Theriot 2010 .321 .312 640 30 TOT 150 586 72 158 15 2 2 29 41 74 .270 .633 *46
    13 Luis Castillo 2009 .387 .346 580 33 NYM 142 486 77 147 12 3 1 40 69 58 .302 .732 *4
    14 Chone Figgins 2009 .395 .393 729 31 LAA 158 615 114 183 30 7 5 54 101 114 .298 .789 *5/4D7
    15 Tony Gwynn 2009 .350 .344 451 26 SDP 119 393 59 106 11 6 2 21 48 65 .270 .693 *89
    16 Nick Johnson 2009 .426 .405 574 30 TOT 133 457 71 133 24 2 8 62 99 84 .291 .831 *3
    17 Jason Kendall 2009 .331 .305 526 35 MIL 134 452 48 109 19 2 2 43 46 58 .241 .636 *2
    18 Russell Martin 2009 .352 .329 588 26 LAD 143 505 63 126 19 0 7 53 69 80 .250 .680 *2/D5
    Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
    Generated 9/21/2011.
  18. Bonds hit one HR vs Paul Byrd. So, at the very least, he's on the list!

  19. Ack! I was about to write something on this last night but decided to get sleep and got scooped.

    @6 I was gonna write about how Adam Dunn one of two players in since 1955 (when the IBB stat was introduced) to have >400 PA with more walks than hits AND to have 0 IBB in a season. Eddie Yost was the other, and he did it in 1955.

    You can take a look at the list here: http://www.baseball-reference.com/play-index/share.cgi?id=s1TyK.

  20. Jack Clark, Jimmy Wynn, and Gene Tenace all put up more than 48 WAR - close to the HoF threshold. If you go by Adam Darowski's Hall of wWAR (peak-weighted WAR, with some positional adjustments), Tenace is actually in the HOF because of the lower threshold for catchers (he's the 11th best catcher by WAR, 10th best by wWAR).

  21. And Eddie Yost's nickname? "The Walking Man"

  22. To 11,

    The hof voting system needs an overhaul because most of the voters are using it to unleash their own personal feelings/reasoning instead of using baseball stats to decide if one is worthy of being inducted. Bonds was never a popular character with the media so they have a grudge against him. If a racist like Ty Cobb can get in and Bonds can't, then it's a shame because the hof isn't a game of personal behavior but they're playing it like it is.

  23. oneblankspace Says:

    Interesting that Bonds '01 and McGwire '98 both had more HR than singles. There may be others I haven't found yet.

  24. Lawrence Azrin Says:

    @9/ Richard "8 - they count; they happened. Nothing more needs to be said about it."

    Agreed, Richard; also as #11/Brian states, baseball statistics are nothing more than the the recording of the actual events on a baseball field as they happened. It's hard enough to evaluate the actual numbers; to pretend that performances never happened because of PED performances is absurd.

    That's not to say to that numbers cannot be placed in the context of their era,park, and conditions. If you wish to discount certain performances of Bonds in your subjective evaluation of him, fine, but to state that Bonds' numbers shouldn't be listed on the site is ridiculous.

    @16/ Nightfly - Adam Dunn/2011 is like a hitter's version of Steve Blass/1973 (WAR of -5.8!!) - discuss amongst yourselves...

  25. Lawrence Azrin Says:

    @20/ Andrew - I've seen Gene Tenace-for-the-HOF-talk before, but I don't consider him a strong candidate.

    While he was an interesting player, his career was awfully short (1555 games/ 5525 PA), he didn't have that many full seasons (six years of 140+ games), and he was seldom a full-time catcher (only two years of 100+ games caught). Also, I don't think he deserves a huge "catcher bonus", as he was universally considered below-average defensively, adequate at best.

    He did have a decent peak from 1973-79, he sure could hit HRs and take his walks, and he was on a lot of playoff teams. Maybe if the A's stuck him on first base in 1970 and left him there, he could've had a nice 2000+ game career. But based on the actual numbers, there's just too many other players better qualified for the HOF than him.

  26. Tenace really did have a weird career. He had a great and long peak of 8 seasons from 1973 to 1980 with an OPS+ of 138 while averaging 147 games, but played only a few hundred other games before and after that peak. If he had a bunch of 100-105 OPS+ seasons before and after that peak, he'd probably be in the HOF. Weird that it comes down to having some average seasons.

  27. As always, it's a great day when there's a Rob Deer sighting. Oneblankspace, the redoubtable Mr. Deer has a season in which he meets both your and Andy's criteria and throws in a new one to boot. In 1996 in 64 plate appearances he managed 9 hits with 14 walks and hit 3 doubles & 4 home runs meaning he had more walks than hits and more home run AND more doubles than singles.

    The man just keeps on giving.

  28. Jack Clark - would his HOF prospects look any different if he had won the MVP in 1987? He didn't help himself by getting hurt at the end of the season, but that was a pretty big year.

    I was wondering who is on the list pre-1971. I would have guessed the Babe would be on the list but he's not - he doesn't really come close (within 20) until 1934 when he had 105 hits and 104 walks. It was his age 39 season.

    Pre-1900 there are two players - Yank Robinson and Jack Crooks - who each did it twice.

    Then there is a gap until Max Bishop shows up - 5 times. I'm always suspicious that there is missing data when I see a gap that large, but maybe it just didn't happen in the deadball era, the teens, and the 1920s and 1930s (outside of Bishop).

    In the 1940s 5 players combined to do this 7 times - Ott, Stanky (2x), Joost (2x), Cullenbine, and Greenberg.

    The 1950s saw 4 players - Wes Westrum, Ted Williams, and Ed Yost (2x).

    The 1960s saw 2 players - Jimmy Wynn and Mickey Mantle (2x).

    It seems like a similar type of list - HOFers (Mantle, Williams, Ott, Greenberg) surrounded by some players who were probably underrated while they played.

  29. Gene Tenace had such an odd career. I have a tough time understanding guys like him who have a high OBP but a really low batting average. Obviously Tenace must have had a great eye at the plate and been very patient to get all those walks. Because he took so many walks, presumably when he did swing the bat he wasn't hacking away at bad pitches out of the strike zone. So how come he made so many outs when he actually swung the bat? I don't get it.

  30. Regarding both Tenace and Dunn, here are players with a career OBP at least 50% higher than their batting average (minimum 1000 plate appearances):

    Rk Player PA OBP BA From To Age G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB IBB SO HBP SLG OPS Pos Tm
    1 Eddie Yost 9175 .394 .254 1944 1962 17-35 2109 7346 1215 1863 337 56 139 683 1614 15 920 99 .371 .765 *5/37964 WSH-DET-LAA
    2 Eddie Joost 6783 .361 .239 1936 1955 20-39 1575 5606 874 1339 238 35 134 601 1043 2 827 33 .366 .727 *64/53 CIN-BSN-PHA-BOS
    3 Adam Dunn 6535 .374 .244 2001 2011 21-31 1563 5370 900 1312 282 10 365 922 1059 107 1797 75 .504 .879 *739/D CIN-TOT-WSN-CHW
    4 Max Bishop 5779 .423 .271 1924 1935 24-35 1340 4494 966 1216 236 35 41 379 1156 0 452 31 .366 .789 *4/36 PHA-BOS
    5 Mickey Tettleton 5745 .369 .241 1984 1997 23-36 1485 4698 711 1132 210 16 245 732 949 72 1307 30 .449 .818 *2D39/7 OAK-BAL-DET-TEX
    6 Gene Tenace 5525 .388 .241 1969 1983 22-36 1555 4390 653 1060 179 20 201 674 984 58 998 91 .429 .817 *23/59D47 OAK-SDP-STL-PIT
    7 Eddie Stanky 5435 .410 .268 1943 1953 27-37 1259 4301 811 1154 185 35 29 364 996 0 374 35 .348 .758 *4/65 CHC-TOT-BRO-BSN-NYG-STL
    8 Eddie Lake 3199 .366 .231 1939 1950 23-34 836 2595 442 599 105 9 39 193 546 0 312 8 .323 .689 *6/451 STL-BOS-DET
    9 Wes Westrum 2849 .356 .217 1947 1957 24-34 920 2322 302 503 59 8 96 315 489 9 514 19 .373 .729 *2/5 NYG
    10 Jack Cust 2581 .374 .242 2001 2011 22-32 670 2107 311 510 96 2 105 323 444 12 819 12 .439 .813 *D79 ARI-COL-BAL-SDP-OAK-SEA
    11 Ken Phelps 2287 .374 .239 1980 1990 25-35 761 1854 308 443 64 7 123 313 390 28 449 21 .480 .854 *D3/9 KCR-MON-SEA-TOT
    12 Chris Iannetta 1716 .357 .235 2006 2011 23-28 452 1417 194 333 72 9 62 231 238 15 378 39 .430 .787 *2/35D COL
    13 Red Faber 1550 .240 .134 1914 1933 25-44 670 1269 98 170 21 2 3 70 169 0 479 8 .161 .401 *1 CHW
    14 Hooks Dauss 1318 .284 .189 1912 1926 22-36 545 1124 107 212 41 14 6 107 141 0 288 8 .266 .550 *1/8 DET
    15 Lance Blankenship 1292 .350 .222 1988 1993 24-29 461 1050 176 233 48 3 9 92 200 2 218 11 .299 .649 4/7985D36 OAK
    16 Tommy Glaviano 1246 .395 .257 1949 1953 25-29 389 1008 191 259 55 6 24 108 208 0 173 21 .395 .789 *5/48679 STL-PHI
    17 Mark Bailey 1126 .337 .220 1984 1992 22-30 340 949 101 209 37 1 24 101 166 23 222 3 .337 .674 *2/3 HOU-SFG
    18 Urban Shocker 1046 .334 .209 1916 1928 25-37 412 798 89 167 23 3 1 70 139 0 211 11 .249 .584 *1 NYY-SLB
    19 Mickey Lolich 1017 .215 .110 1963 1979 22-38 592 821 63 90 5 2 0 31 105 0 362 5 .121 .335 *1 DET-NYM-SDP
    Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
    Generated 9/21/2011.
  31. I'm not saying that Tenace should be in or out - the Hall of wWAR isn't my project, although I do think that overall it does a much better job than the real Hall. Obviously any adjustment that gives a boost to players who had a strong peak is going to help out Tenace, and he also benefits from being lumped in with the catchers even if he wasn't purely a catcher. Tenace, with his .241 career batting average, received almost no consideration for the Hall when his time on the ballot rolled around, but he was a great hitter, especially for his position. If you count him as a catcher, he's probably one of the dozen or so best to ever play that position, which is HoF level.

    Tenace's career arc reminds me a lot of Thurman Munson's - though obviously for different reasons, both of their careers consisted almost entirely of a sustained peak. Tenace was more patient and a better hitter overall, but Munson was better defensively, yet it's easy to imagine that Munson (who had already begun to decline) could have played a few more average seasons and retired. As a single-team player he would have received strong HoF consideration - even given his premature death, he did far better than Tenace on the HoF ballot. Bill Freehan, who went one-and-done on the ballot several years earlier than Tenace, is another catcher who comes to mind.

  32. Lawrence Azrin Says:

    @28/ Artie Z. - I don't think Jack Clark's HOF chances would've improved much, even if he had won the 1987 MVP. Juan Gonzalez won _two_ MVPs, but barely got 5% of the vote last year. Clark might have got more than 5% of the vote his first year (he got 1.5% in 1998), but that's it.

    As for why there are no players with BB>hits in the deadball era, in general there were fewer walks then, as a premium was placed on contact for place-hitting. The poor gloves and bad field conditions meant that making hard contact and placing the ball in play was more likely to result in getting on base than in recent times, so fewer players worked the count deep often, resulting in walks.

    That's not to say that no players walked a lot the 1st two decades last century - there was Topsey Hartzel, Roy Thomas, Donnie Bush, Jimmy Sheckard, and Miller Huggins, for starters...

    I think the really great hitters like Ruth, Foxx, and Mantle who also walk a lot don't make the list of BB>hits, simply because their BA was so high in their high BB years (Bonds being the exception).

  33. To ever suggest that Bonds shouldn't be in the HOF is absurd. His numbers through age 34(before his head and body became huge) look like this compared to other legendary players at that age.

    Bonds had more runs scored than Griffey Jr, Ted Williams, Man Ram and Palmeiro
    more doubles than Mays, Ruth, Griffey and Williams
    triples than Williams, Griffey, Ramirez, Ott and Palmeiro
    HR's than Williams and palmeiro
    BB's than Mays, Foxx, Aaron, Ott, Williams, Palmeiro, Griffey
    SB than Ruth, Mays, Aaron, Ott, Williams, Palmeiro, Foxx, Griffey and F. Robinson
    Higher OBP than Mays, Aaron, Griffey and Palmeiro
    Higher OBP+ than Griffey, Aaron, Ott, Palmeiro, and Manny Ramirez

    This is all before the 2000 season. I wonder, he dominated Griffey in almost every category but HR and RBI and that was solely based on his huge lead on Griffey's walk total (1430-984). Griffey is a HOF player in everyone's eyes yet Bonds isn't?

  34. If Paul Byrd is not HOF eligible I'm going to start watching women's golf

  35. The HOF is a museum that documents the history of baseball. As all museums do, they must limit what they choose to exhibit. For any museum to exclude an exhibit as relevant as Barry Bonds is to the history of baseball is to forever call into question its legitimacy.

  36. @33 Jeff: Palmeiro was a great baseball player, but he's not exactly the guy that comes to mind when I think "legendary." I must admit that I'm curious as to why you included him on your list. did you include him on your list?

    Also, I'm pretty sure that Bonds is a Hall of Famer in most rational baseball fans' eyes. No one in this thread besides #8 Liam has suggested otherwise, so please don't lump us all together and say that 'everyone' doesn't view Bonds as a HoFer. Additionally, those people who don't think Bonds belongs in the HoF probably wouldn't base their argument on his statistics - traditional or sabermetric, pre-steroids or post-steroids - but rather on the subjective view that players who cheated do not belong in the HoF regardless of the quality of their performance.

  37. @ 35 My response to people who say Pete Rose should be in the HoF is that he is in the museum. There are probably few players with more balls, gloves, bats, etc. there. But put up a placque celebrating someone who broke one of baseballs best known and most important rules? Hell no! (Actually I do support Bonds for enshrinement, but the museum and what we mean when we generally say "Hall of Fame" can be seperated.)

    @30 Nice table, Andy. Notice how much Tettleton's career resembles Tenace. Tenace was in the league 1969-1983, Tettleton from 1984-1997. So there was a low BA, high OBP, good power, low GIDP, sort of catcher, named "T" around for almost 30 years.

  38. The Original Jimbo Says:

    I thought Matt Stairs would be on there but he ended up with 10 hits and 9 walks.

  39. The Original Jimbo Says:

    Bonds has 3 batting averages on that list that are more than double 2011 Dunn's.

    Did Eddie Yost clone himself and create Eddie Joost or vice versa? Such similar players, such similar and yet unusual names....

  40. Lawrence Azrin Says:

    @35/ BSK - To play devil's advocate, the baseball HOF in Cooperstown has exhibits that include material by banned players such as Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson, they just don't have HOF plaques for those two players. Pete Rose was a huge part of baseball for a quarter-century, but somehow the baseball HOF has survived without him inducted into the HOF.

    What the baseball HOF exhibits in the museum, and what specific players get their plaques added to the room of HOFers in the HOF, are two totally different arguments. I've often heard people argue for Roger Maris along those lines, "you can't tell the history of baseball without including him in the HOF". Well fine, give Maris an exhibit in Cooperstown, but he's still not close to _belonging_ in the HOF as an inductee.

    This isn't meant as a direct criticism BSK, just a clarification of your wording. I do think Bonds should be in the HOF, but don't expect it soon.

  41. @8: wow, but then what do you expect from a Fox News listener. I want to live in my own personal bubble where history didn't happen and my mommy tells me I'm special. lol.

  42. Lawrence Azrin Says:

    @37, @40 - I see Kds made my argument in about half the words, nice job.

  43. Cheese, I don't see a lot of comments from you on this blog, but they pretty much always put a smile on my face. I'd like to see more from you.

  44. Johnny Twisto Says:

    I always forget Eddie Lake as the 4th of the "Walking Eddies."

    I agree an MVP wouldn't have gotten Jack Clark close to the HOF. Still, he was a tremendous hitter who deserves to be remembered. I often think of him as pair with Pedro Guerrero. Guerrero didn't walk as much, but they were both defensively-challenged, injury-prone players in poor offensive environments who could hit the hell out of the ball.

    FWIW, my pick for the '87 MVP is Ozzie Smith, but Clark would have been a decent choice too, better than Dawson. As would about 8 or 10 other guys.

  45. (Sorry, I can never shake free the Red Sox fan in me...)

    Disappointing to see Anthony Rizzo get so overmatched in his first shot in the bigs. Hopefully, he matures as a hitter and succeeds in the bigs, because everyone wants to root for the cancer survivor.

    I still hold out hope for the day when, during an interleague Pads/Sox game, we get to see Jon Lester (cancer), Anthony Rizzo (cancer) and Ryan Westmoreland (brain surgery) on the field at once.

  46. #29, Besides the wear and tear of catching, Tenace was usually in the top ten in being hit by pitches. Not blessed with blazing speed to begin with, he didn't beat out many grounders. By the time he got to the Padres, and i got to see him play Atlanta a lot, he was stating to slow down.

    He was, and still is, one of my all time favorites.

  47. LA-

    Great point. There are ways of including folks without enshrining them. My specific comment was aimed at the folks who insist we should pretend Bonds didn't exist. Which is just silly.

    Personally, I would vote Bonds in and not think twice about it. I don't think Rose is quite so clear cut, because gambling and PEDs are apples and oranges to me (and I'm no gambling prude... I just think there are major issues surrounding a player or coach betting on games involving his own team). Was Rose actually playing when he bet? Or solely managing? I thought he was a player-coach for a while. That would actually be a factor for me. If I had a vote. Which I don't.

  48. Sorting by OBP, it is interesting the gap that emerges. The top 20 all put up absurd to great to good OBPs, ranging from .609 (!!!) to .367. Then you've got #21 (Deere) at .314 and #22 (Dunn) at .292.

  49. Bryan Monkhouse Says:

    Rose and Bonds , Shoeless Joe-- Of course, as many have said, their accomplishments belong in the museum as part of the history; but as inductees, I am shocked that anyone could even consider their candidacy. Sure, all three would have walked into the Hall (which didn't exist in Jackson's day) based on their skills and accomplishments as players if they had just not cheated late in their careers - @33, Bonds was a great player whose statistics easily would have qualified him, but ,like Jackson and Rose before him, he voluntarily disqualified himself .
    When a player is inducted into the Hall , he is being honored by his sport, by cheating, he dishonors the sport, and in fact makes a mockery of the competition, since fair play is the essence of sporting competition; there's plenty of cheating and scheming and double-dealing in the rest of life, Wall street fleeces investors for billions, nobody gets prosecuted and 3 years later honest folks can't get a job ah but we can escape into sports,because over on the playing field, there everyone plays by the rules and the winner has done it fair and square
    Rules for being inducted into the hall of fame
    1. Have a career of excellence
    2. Don't get caught breaking the rules
    was Cobb a racist?, yes, like the majority of his teammates
    did Ruth cork his bat? maybe, he didn't get caught.
    was Mantle a skirt-chasing drunk? yep, but baseball has no rules against it.

    We don't need the HOF to tell us who the best players are and were; The record speaks for itself ; Bonds' numbers belong right here;and show us he was one of the best that ever played. He has no business in Cooperstown

  50. He has no business in Cooperstown

    And you really have no business pontificating. Rose clearly BROKE the rules. Clearly. Bonds did not. Clearly. How narrow-minded are you to not differentiate between the two? Please take a look at "Only Baseball matters" for the details. I really enjoy this blog, but stuff like this is so inane. What you say in total is really well-reasoned and thought-out, so please leave the moral judgments to idiots like Brown and Passan at yahoo: they get paid for being the enforcers of morality for the whole of western civilization ( even though they probably can't spell "civilization" )..

    Still, you are a heck of a lot better than the dimwit that is Liam. Hey, Liam, you never cheated on your Income Tax forms? Never looked at someone else's answers in grade school? Never strayed from your GF or BF? Why don't you get off your high horse and GET A LIFE!

    I apologize to everyone else other than Liam for this rant.

  51. Well, even for his time Cobb was more a racist than his contemporaries. (Dude, was "insanely" racist)

    with PEDs regardless, I cant take them into account really (other than maybe how inflated were their stats, thanks to it) with the Hall of Fame. Like it or not, baseball ignored it and didnt set up rules dealing with it till many of those in question were retired or nearly so. (and I'd love to keep Bonds out, I loathed the guy, but if I was voting I'd still have to vote for him first ballot. It shouldnt be about like/dislike, it should be good enough or not-though good enough should be where the subjectiveness come into it)

  52. Detroit Michael Says:

    Several posters on both sides of the "should Barry Bonds be inducted into the Hall of Fame" should show more tolerance for opposing viewpoints. There are reasonable arguments going both ways on the issue. It is not "absurd," "shocking" or "inane" to hear a viewpoint that differs from your own.

  53. Bryan Monkhouse Says:

    Detroit Michael is right, we need to tone down the rhetoric. For my part, in the spirit of tolerance, I withdraw the "shocking" and replace it with
    "I am shocked" which is a report on my reaction, rather than an implied comment on opposing points of view. To respond to Chris Walters, I have made , and do make, no "moral judgments" , on racism, cheating, or any other human activity , We are talking about who "belongs" in the HOF; If Cobb was the greatest racist of all time, it would have precisely zero relevance on that question. Rather, I have tried to point out that cheating and getting caught has consequences, one of which, historically , has been ineligibility for the HOF. If Bonds didn't cheat; then of course he belongs in the hall on the basis of his record. If he did, he doesn't ; Chris and I have polar opposite views on whether he did or not, but it's not a moral question , but one that ultimately will be judged by a jury ( the voters) . I don't get a vote, but IMHO, he, and several other stars of the early part of this century with a similar history,should not be inducted.

  54. I also agree with Detroit Michael. Without rhetoric, though, #50 is right. Rose very clearly broke rules in a very black-and-white fashion with clear evidence (and admission). It is not clear that there is any proof that Bonds broke any MLB rules (remembering specifically the timeline that various rules were implemented.)

    I'm sure Rose is not the only player or manager to have bet on games in which he participated. But in the absence of proof that any of the other guys actually did it, they cannot be banned, and for Bonds it's the same way.

  55. Bryan Monkhouse Says:

    As to Timeline; Major league Baseball has banned steroids implicitly since 1971, and explicitly since Commissioner Fay Vincent's June 7, memo.
    Each team and the players' union received the memo, which begins, "This memorandum sets forth Baseball's drug policy." The memo goes on to say, "The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players or personnel is strictly prohibited.... This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs ... including steroids or prescription drugs for which the individual in possession of the drug does not have a prescription."
    So, any player who used steriods after June 7, 1991, deliberately broke the rules of major league baseball.
    Of course it is true to state that the period from 1991- 2002 was characterized by
    1) NO enforcement of the rules by MLB
    2) growing public outrage that the game was being made a mockery of

    the result, under pressure from congress, was the 2002 basic agreement, which for some , means that PED's were effectively only banned in the 2003 season. this is incorrect, as the 2007 Mitchell report clearly stated, and I quote:
    "Many have asserted that steroids and other performance enhancing substances were not banned in Major League Baseball before the 2002 Basic Agreement. This is not accurate. Beginning in 1971 and continuing today, Major League Baseball's drug policy has prohibited the use of any prescription medication without a valid prescription. By implication, this prohibition applied to steroids even before 1991, when Commissioner Fay Vincent first expressly included steroids in baseball's drug policy. Steroids have been listed as a prohibited substance under the Major League Baseball drug policy since then, although no player was disciplined for steroid use before the prohibition was added to the collective bargaining agreement in 2002.

    "It is also inaccurate to assert, as some have, that baseball's drug policy was not binding on players before it was added to the collective bargaining agreement. Many players were suspended for drug offenses before 2002, even though none of those suspensions related to the use of steroids or other performance enhancing substances. Some suspensions were reduced in grievance arbitrations brought by the Players Association, but no arbitrator ever has questioned the authority of the Commissioner to discipline players for 'just cause' based on their possession, use, or distribution of prohibited drugs."

    As to "Proof" , well, what is "proof" ? The standard that juries are told to adopt is the absence of reasonable doubt; If you have a reasonable doubt that player x used steriods after 1991,when it first became crystal-clear that they were banned, then you have no proof.

    The Rose case is instructive; the evidence against him would never have stood up in court; yet we "know" that he was guilty; MLB new that their evidence was weak , and that a competent attorney would drive a truck through it; therefore they cut a deal with him; he agreed to be banned for life, in exchange for no official finding by MLB that he had bet on games. Pete was suckered; we the fans didn't need an "official" finding , and he has been guilty ever since.

  56. #55, that's true enough regarding timeline, and clearly Bonds or anybody else who used steroids was doing something they knew they shouldn't have. However, I'll still call out the difference between Fay Vincent's decree and the rules about gambling, which are explicit in terms of definition and punishment. There are tons of rules in MLB that get broken all the time, and the punishments range from ignoring them to severe...but to my mind, Vincent's statement about PEDs is pretty much the same as the third base coaching box...nobody paid attention to the rules and there was no clear discipline. Even though it's clearly wrong, it's still not the same as Rose.

  57. Bryan Monkhouse Says:

    Andy, a reasonable point of view; as to punishment, though, Vincent stated in 1991 that violators risked "expulsion from the game" and , while there are many rules that get broken all the time, very few have a lifetime ban as their ultimate sanction. Rose broke one of those, PED users broke another. So for those few rules, whether or not they were effectively enforced , we are justified in viewing their breach as extremely serious.

  58. Was Bonds under the supervision of a doctor? If he was, he didn't break baseball's rules, as they have been explained here.