Barry Bonds and the 2002 World Series

Ten years ago tomorrow, Barry Bonds went 1-for-3 with a walk in Game Seven of the 2002 World Series against the Anaheim Angels. It was the first time since Game One that Bonds failed to reach base at least three times. The Giants lost 4-1.

Bonds’s ravaging run through the 2002 postseason was mesmerizing. Through 10 games in the first two playoff rounds, Bonds homered four times and walked 14 more; he carried a .286/.500/.786 playoff line into the World Series.

I think we forget sometimes just what it was like to watch Barry Bonds hit. We can look at the stats pages and see the .370/.582/.799 line from the regular season — he was unclutch in the first two rounds! — and we can contextualize it. We know how great it was as we view it through the triple-slash or the 244 wRC+ or the 12.5 WAR or whatever your metric of choice happens to be.

Those numbers are useful because they can actually compare players of times past to somebody we see play on a daily basis. Reggie Jackson, for example, hit .293/.383/.531 with a 159 wRC+ to win the MVP award in 1973; Andrew McCutchen’s .327/.400/.553 triple-slash this season (158 wRC+) is a close approximation. This isn’t to say if you’ve seen Andrew McCutchen you know Reggie Jackson, but the comparison at least gives some idea of what Jackson did at the plate for those who didn’t get a chance to see it first-hand.

There hasn’t been a single player since Bonds retired in 2007 (or since his last full-strength season in 2004, more specifically) to even approach his level of play. The best hitting season since was Albert Pujols’s 2008 season — .357/.462/.653, 184 wRC+. It was a season without flaw — nearly twice as many walks as strikeouts, 37 home runs, even a .340 BABIP. And it pales next to Bonds’s 2002 (or 2001, 2003 or 2004).

The 2002 World Series was just another forum to cement his dominance. Bonds mashed three home runs in the first three games, and yet somehow his team was down 2-1. But then three intentional walks in a victorious Game Four and three hits including two doubles in Game Five saw him and his Giants just a win away from a championship.

By the time Game Six rolled around, Bonds had racked up a 2.144 OPS in 22 plate appearances, a mark surpassed only by Lou Gehrig’s 1928 series, a 2.433 OPS headlined by four home runs in four games (17 PA).

As part of their World Series programming, ESPN Classic showed Games Six and Seven of the 2002 contest between the Giants and Angels last night. As soon as Bonds stepped up to the plate and took a pitch his second plate appearance (he was intentionally walked the first time, his record 13th of the postseason) the memories of Bonds’s mastery of hitting came rushing back.

Hitting is the offense of baseball, but it often has a defensive feel to it. The pitcher has every advantage — different pitches, different locations and the inherent difficulty of simply hitting a ball with a bat all favor the pitcher; the batter is the one forced to defend the strikezone. For all the talk about how the game’s best hitters succeed only 40 percent of the time, consider therefore the game’s worst pitchers still succeed around 60 percent of the time.

That defensive feeling was never there with Bonds. His plate discipline was so tight, his power so fearsome and his decisions so quick that he controlled at-bats unlike no other player alive or dead. Kevin Appier wanted no part of it in Bonds’s second at-bat, walking him on five pitchers (including a questionable strike call off the outside corner of the plate to open the at-bat).

Francisco Rodriguez, on the other hand, gave Bonds the pitch he wanted, the inside fastball that so often ended up in McCovey Cove. Bonds hit this one a reported 485 feet — ESPN Hit Tracker says it was “just” 449 feet.

Bonds is the one batter we could actually expect to succeed more often fail. An inning later, Bonds faced Rodriguez again, and Rodriguez pitched to him again. Bonds struck out on a curveball in the dirt. He missed it by three feet, but all I could think was if he had guessed right and Rodriguez had thrown the fastball instead, Bonds would have hit it even farther than the first one.

Bonds ended the World Series quietly by his standards — 1-for-3, a walk and the loss in Game Seven by a 4-1 score. Still, Bonds finished with a 1.994 OPS in the series, the fifth-best mark ever and the best ever with at least 20 plate appearances (second being Reggie Jackson’s 1977 series, including his three-homer Game Six).

But Troy Glaus had a 1.313 OPS of his own and was backed up by a 1.067 mark from Tim Salmon. Scott Spiezio did his crazy clutch thing and went 6-for-23 with three extra-base hits in the series. Francisco Rodriguez was stellar outside of his hiccup against Bonds in Game Six, throwing 8.2 innings with 13 strikeouts and just two runs allowed, and that was enough to bring down the mighty Bonds and his Giants.

People do and will continue to have varying thoughts on Bonds for the rest of eternity given the obvious reasons that define not only his career but his entire era. For some people, perhaps, it is correct to think not of Barry Bonds the baseball player first but instead Barry Bonds the walking steroid scandal.

And that’s fine. But for me, nearly 10 full years removed from Barry Bonds’s last appearance in the World Series, all I can think of is how we haven’t come close to seeing anything in baseball like a Barry Bonds at-bat since he’s left.





Jack Moore's work can be seen at VICE Sports and anywhere else you're willing to pay him to write. Buy his e-book.

133 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
rustydudemember
11 years ago

The dude had a .609 OBP in 2004. The Babe never touched that. Ted Williams never touched it.

Cory
11 years ago
Reply to  rustydude

Steroids, Babe never touched that. Ted Williams never touched that.

Connor
11 years ago
Reply to  Cory

Steroids help your plate discipline now?

Marty
11 years ago
Reply to  Cory

Connor.

When you get intentionally walked that many times because of your ability to mash 70 home runs, it’s going to improve your OBP.

LK
11 years ago
Reply to  Cory

I was unaware that Ruth and Williams had to face pitchers on steriods. Fascinating.

bflaff
11 years ago
Reply to  Cory

@ Connor. Why wouldn’t they help? When no one throws you strikes, because roids made the entire strike zone a happy zone, then you can take advantage of it to rack up a big OBP. No one gets to those OBP levels if they’re not breaking HR records.

Rather than celebrating how hilarious his statistical dominance was, we should be lamenting how badly he unbalanced the game.

AK7007
11 years ago
Reply to  Cory

No, Babe injected himself with sheep testicle extract to get more power at the plate (It didn’t work, he was puking instead), and Ted Williams popped greenies. Stop being so narrow minded and realize that guys have always been trying to cheat, and always will. It seems that this last generation might have found a more effective way to cheat (and there is debate on how much steroids even help) – but don’t get all high and mighty that some other idol is pure.

Ken
11 years ago
Reply to  Cory

Yeah, it’s amazing how many .600OB/.800SLG seasons there were in the steroid era…

El Vigilante
11 years ago
Reply to  Cory

Minorities. Babe never faced ’em

Jason B
11 years ago
Reply to  Cory

AK7007 – amen, and amen. Well said.

Phrozen
11 years ago
Reply to  Cory

Football, basketball, hockey. Babe’s contemporaries weren’t interested.
Modern fitness training. Babe didn’t have it.
Hot dogs and booze. Babe had lots of that.

RationalSportsFan
11 years ago
Reply to  Cory

US Population in 1920: about 100 million
US Population in 2000: about 300 million

Not to mention the fact that baseball is now played across much of the world, with the MLB getting the best players available.

Furthermore,

“Football, basketball, hockey. Babe’s contemporaries weren’t interested.”

Many people were not interested in professional sports in general because they did not pay well to most players.

“Modern fitness training. Babe didn’t have it.”

Neither did his opponents.

“Hot dogs and booze. Babe had lots of that.”

As did his opponents.

philosofool
11 years ago
Reply to  Cory

AK7007–

Baseball’s first statement on illegal drug use occurred in 1971. In 1991, Fay Vincent added anabolic steroids to the extant drug policy, which was developed in the 1980’s in response to the use of recreational drugs.

So, unlike Ruth (whose use of sheep testosterone is based on dubious evidence), Mays, and Williams, the steroid users of the 90s and later were in direct violation of rules, and violated those rules for a performance advantage. That’s the definition of cheating and it makes a difference. I’m not a big hawk on steroids. I think Bonds deserves to go to The Hall. But I don’t like it when people are getting the facts wrong, and you are.

Historian
11 years ago
Reply to  Cory

Black players. Babe never had to play against them, Ted Williams didn’t until halfway through his career….

There is no untainted baseball era.

Brian
11 years ago
Reply to  Cory

@Philosofool

Wouldn’t the players union have to agree to that in order to make it official?

Regardless, If I remember correctly, what Bonds used (THG) was neither illegal or considered a steroid by the United States Justice Department. A lot of the confusion in the Bonds case was attributed towards this because it was hard to determine whether he actually lied when asked if he ever knowingly took steroids.

philosofool
11 years ago
Reply to  Cory

@SF 55

Playing the game is agreeing to the rules. I can’t think of a better example of implicit consent, except maybe accepting money as salary being implicit consent to terms of employment from the employer. In any event, the MLBPA never argued against the drug policy, but only against mandatory testing (which is completely understandable.)

Bonds knew he was cheating, let’s not play an irrational game of pretending like he or anyone else though otherwise because some garbage technicality could make like he wasn’t.

Steve Staude
11 years ago
Reply to  Cory

We’re still in the steroid era — all players have to do is take testosterone and epitestosterone in the proper balance, and they’ll appear clean to the standard test for anabolic steroids. As long as they maintain the balance of those two hormones within the proper range, they can pump themselves full of as much testosterone (which is what all anabolic steroids mimic) as they want, because they won’t get flagged for the more sophisticated isotope test that could bust them.

If sports were really serious about catching users, they’d put up the money to do the isotope test on everybody.

Chris
11 years ago
Reply to  rustydude

They never touched the body armor he wore to control the inner half of the plate either.

I sometimes dream of reading a legitimate argument regarding the use of 14-1/2 sq ft of kevlar to stand over the inside of the plate so that the strike zone effectively shrinks to two square inches. Bonds had awesome plate discipline, and awesome technology, and awesome medical… nevermind.

Tyler
11 years ago
Reply to  rustydude

Something that has not been mentioned is that in 2002 Bonds was 38 I believe (or 37). Say what you will about steroids and plate discipline, pitchers on steroids or whatever, but that main thing with steroid use is not so much enhanced ability but rather the enhanced length of a playing career. No one has even come close to the production Bonds put up at such advanced ages, especially in 2002-2004, and steroids are a huge reason why. In their primes Arod and Bonds were similar players, and look what Arod just produced as a 37 year old while presumably not on steroids. obviously that is just one example but the point remains. Players just do not do what Bonds did at that age, and older, without “help.” To marvel at his late-career production and to blow off any talk of steroids is irresponsible. At 38, he should have barely been able to play let alone put up some of the greatest seasons the game has even seen.

RationalSportsFan
11 years ago
Reply to  Tyler

“No one has even come close to the production Bonds put up at such advanced ages”

This is correct. No one, including the hundreds of players who used steroids during the steroid era, could even come close to doing what Bonds did.

I get that he used steroids and many view that as wrong. But those who use the steroid issue to ignore all of his accomplishments and make it seem as if steroids made him who he was, are just being intentionally obtuse.

And then when those people ignore things that count against the other all-time greats (segregation, use of other drugs, lack of specialty relievers throwing 95+, etc), I just assume that they simply dislike Bonds and are not really making rational criticisms.

El Vigilante
11 years ago
Reply to  Tyler

Players do not do what Hank Aaron did at such advanced playing ages without help. When he was 39, “he should have barely been able to play”, but he hit .301/.402/.643, good for a wRC+ of 177. “Obviously that is just one example, but the point remains … To marvel at his late-career production and to blow off any talk of steroids is irresponsible.”

BarryB.
11 years ago
Reply to  Tyler

Check again. As good as arod was he was never the hitter bonds was. Not even close.

B N
11 years ago
Reply to  Tyler

@Rational: That’s kind of a red herring argument. It’s basically indisputable that Bonds was the best player of his era. The problem is that he was in a era where offense was WILDLY inflated by steroid and HGH use. An era where offensive records that stood for decades all of a sudden started toppling like dominoes.

By most reports, Bonds started using somewhere shortly after the Sosa/McGwire home run chase. So probably starting in 1999 or 2000. Now, let’s compare his slugging percentage from his five prior BEST year before 1999 versus 1999-2004.

Best prior year: 0.677
1999-2004: 0.617, 0.688, 0.863, 0.799, 0.749, 0.812

Other than 1999, which was an injury-plagued season, every single season was better than his best previous season. His ISO is even more glaring, showing that in 1999 he still actually had more isolated power than in his best previous year, despite an elbow injury.

Was Bonds an amazing player? No doubt. If he had continued his overall career arc with slugging in the 0.600’s like his prior career, he would STILL be a Hall of Famer and probably be the best overall player of his era. Before juicing, he led the league in slugging 3 times and in walks 5 times. But the facts are, Bonds never cracked a 0.700 slugging percentage nor a 25% walk rate until he was juicing. The tragedy is, even without steroids, he could have likely put up one season with 0.700+ slugging and/or 25% walk rate (which would still be amazing).

Can you say that about Hank Aaron? Ruth? Is it possible to point at a time in their career where they started cheating and their stats demonstrably increased by a wild margin? It’s one thing to say that Ruth was no better a person than Bonds. I think that’s a fair assessment. Ruth was a boozer, a womanizer, and an occasional glutton. Would Ruth have used steroids if he lived in our time? I’d bet on it. Would his stats have been worse in an integrated league? Probably? The pitchers and defense would be better, but his supporting lineup would have been better too.

Additionally, African Americans only constitute less than 14% of the US population and never constituted more than 20% of the league, so I’m not sure what kind of effect size you’re expecting out of integration (20% of the league is 20% better?). The globalization of baseball and overall increases in world population is a better argument, but we have no way to test that. Obviously, neither of these caveats applies to Hank Aaron either, the untarnished career HR leader. He was obviously not segregated, nor did he take PED’s to my knowledge. While Bonds was clearly a better player than Aaron, I highly doubt he’d have broken the record without some… help (he was certainly not on pace to).

So it’s quite another thing to say that Ruth’s or Aaron’s stats are lopsided like those of Barry Bonds. The guy had a clear jump in power performance, with a clear explanation. He’s certainly not the only one in his era (Big Mac and Slammin Sammy were clearly not touching the single-season record until juicing). He was also the best player of his era, already recognized as such by Bill James in 1999 BEFORE juicing. But he was never a natural 200 wRC+. It is what it is.

Richiemember
11 years ago
Reply to  Tyler

Regarding Ruth’s era, all the best American athletes took up baseball. Bill James has written that, if born 40 years later, Gehrig would’ve become a linebacker rather than a 1st baseman. You properly need to factor that in before fairly denigrating the competition level of Ruth’s era.

B N
11 years ago
Reply to  Tyler

@Richie: That wouldn’t impact the effects of segregation particularly, but might somewhat counteract the effects of population increase. However, we have to think that the US population in 1920 was about 100m and the world population was about 2b. So, close to 1/3 what was around in Bonds’ era.

And that discounts the impact of international signings, which account for about 25% of the MLB over recent years (and maybe 50% of the total talent pool). All told, I’d think we’re drawing from a talent pool of closer to 600-800m (as compared to probably more like 100m in 1920).

The rise of other sports has probably counteracted that somewhat, but it’s just really unclear as to which direction one could objectively decide on. Modern medicine and nutrition makes life even more complicated. I generally just assume that players who were good in the past would also be stars now, and vice versa. That’s why I can never figure out if Ruth (top flight pitcher and hitter) or Bonds (probably the best all-around position player) would be a #1 on my list. And unfortunately, Bonds messed up his stats something fierce with the cream and the clear.

Richiemember
11 years ago
Reply to  Tyler

B N, I’d suggest just extrapolating Barry’ stats through 1999 onward. Perhaps give him a bit of a boost for so dramatically outplaying the other roidsters after that. As of 1999, Barry was certainly on his way to being a 1st-ballot Hall of Famer. But I don’t think anyone was comparing him to Ruth.

enhanced performance
11 years ago
Reply to  rustydude

Barry Bonds was the Babe Ruth of cheating. Greenies are like using a screw driver and what Bonds did was like using an impact wrench. If someone snuck a pogo stick into a high jumping competition would we marvel over his performance? How about the great time that Rosie Ruiz ran in the Boston Marathon? She was amazing!

shthar
11 years ago

It’s a poor worker who blames his tools.