This doesn't mean anything.....but just found it interesting how the stats between these two lined up through age 29.

This doesn't mean anything.....but just found it interesting how the stats between these two lined up through age 29.

So you're saying that Barry Wright is gonna be one hell of a ballplayer.

Lol, somehow I read "Bobby Bonilla" the first time.

I <B MLB. A 38 year old pitcher with a bad elbow becomes a superstar out of no where by throwing a trick pitch better than anyone else ever. You say TINSTAAPP, and I say Jamie Moyer.

So you're saying that Barry Wright is gonna be one hell of a ballplayer.

Either that or a terrific balladeer of love songs for the soon to get funky.

Seriously, I don't think anyone would mistake these two for "similar players", but if I toold the names out and just put up the stat line, most people would say "B" is faster, but other than that, pretty close.

150 fewer strikeouts in 227 more PA is fairly significant, as is 200 more hits and the corresponding 30 more points of AVG/OBP in 5500PA.

So I don't really agree. I'm sure you can find a much closer match.

Not really all that much closer. If the K's or hits are closer, things like ISO, OPS+, walks, and SB are off by a lot more.

Edit: HERE IS A REPORT

Maybe you'll like Greg Luzinski as a better comp. Or maybe my parameters suck. Dunno

I rather like BB-REf's Scott Rolen pick, actually. He just missed your ISO cut off. But you're right. I retract.

Agree, Rolen is a very good comp too. A little less BA and OBP, a bit more HR power. And of course closer in era, and position played is the same.

My initial post was really just noting the irony that although the stats sometimes make two players that are not similar at all look fairly similar, (depending on which ones you use of course)

It's actually a bit surprising the OPS+s come out so similar. It is generally impossible to find perfect comps (you can match pretty well on 2-3 components then you've got to start having pretty wide bounds). The Alex Gonzalezes are an exception of course.

But the surprising bit is because, in era context, they really are quite different. Bonds' K-rate, for the time, was pretty sky high. In fact he held the MLB single-season record for 35 years! (He did cut back significantly after those 2 years but he still led the league one more time.) Nowadays his K-rate is below-average but nothing special while Wright's is actually good. On the other hand, for his time, his ISO was one of the highest in the league only seriously trailing Reggie, Stargell and maybe Cepeda for his age ranges. And his combo of power and speed was pretty much unprecedented in MLB history (although Cedeno and others would join him soon enough). In a sense, Bobby Bonds was really the first "modern" baseball player.

Anyway, if Bonds played today, he'd be more Sammy Sosa than David Wright -- say 270/360/520 with 250 HR and 1400 Ks. Using Wright's context, that's a 132 OPS+.

Here, to me, is an interesting comp I stumbled across which gives you (well me at least) a sense of how under-rated Bonds was in his time. Around that time, Frank Howard was about the biggest, scariest, most "powerful" hitter in baseball. Through age 29:

FH: 274/335/484, 128 OPS+
BB: 273/358/482, 133 OPS+

If the media had portrayed Bonds as "Frank Howard with 40-steal speed and good defense" he'd have been a superstar. Instead he was "not Willie Mays" and "he sure strikes out a lot".

In fairness, Howard took a BIG step up in his early 30s while Bonds did not and just floated around.

Sheffield looks like the clearest close comparison on that list to me.

In a sense, Bobby Bonds was really the first "modern" baseball player.

I don't disagree, but just for discussion I'll throw out the name of Jim Wynn, who was a few years ahead. Bonds amped up the stolen base component, of course, but Wynn could run, too. And he was even more underrated.