Aaron was helped by a larger park. Bonds was almost certainly helped by a livelier baseball.

(the trendlines are binomial trendlines for reference)

It was thought by many, and they were wrong- Bonds OPS+ 1990-99:
170, 161, 205, 206, 182, 168, 186, 170, 177, 162

Griffey: 135, 155, 148, 172, 170, 120, 153, 164, 149, 138.

Bonds OPS+ through 1999 was 163 (which includes the 103, 114, 147 & 125 marks he put up in the 80s)
In the 90s he was clearly superior to Griffey- but too many observers were unduly impressed by Griffey’s superior single season HR-RBI numbers

WRT to Bonds and steroids, those who argue that Bonds didn’t use steroids sound just like those who used to argue that there was no evidence that Rose bet on baseball.

His top 5 age 33 compes were Frank Robinson, Duke Snider, Ken Griffey Jr., Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle- the ONLY one with a higher OPS+ through that age than Bonds’ 163 was Mantle at 175

I’ve met quite a few people who not only deny that Bonds was on path to be an all-time great before 1999, but who will also deny that he was on HOF path at all.- I could assume ignorance, but otherwiae I’m not sure of what to make of that.

While the first one looks pretty damning, when you look at the walks graph, you can see that he had a massive average at the same time his PA/walk dropped to around 3! He was walking every third time he came to the plate! If you can combine patience with power, it’s frightening indeed, as it means he doesn’t have to swing at pitches he doesn’t like.

Secondly, his PA/Walk graph is almost identical to that of Aaron in shape, but infinitely superior in degree.

Well, yes. Usually the greatest players have a combination of a high level of skill AND longevity. Truncating a man’s career to by eight years is an easy way to move him out of the ‘great’ category.

To be charitable, perhaps upon further reflection Costas would say that had Bonds continued on his pre-99 pace he would not be considered among the greatest. But that is an entirely different question than the one he posed.

The comparison of Bonds and Aaron seems pointless. We know Hank didn’t take steroids (although he may well have taken greenies) so any improvement had to be related to other factors. With Bonds, we just don’t know. However, Bonds probably would have started hitting more home runs as he got older anyway and, other than the 73 home run season, his totals, while higher, don’t seem terribly out of line for his earlier career (except for very early when his HR totals were much lower). Personally, while I don’t like Bonds, I am one that thinks that, while he probably did take steroids, they had relatively little to do with his home run totals. At most, it probably added a marginal number (25?) depending on how many of the balls went out only because of his additional strength.

As for the reduction in other skills, remember that Hank hit .327 in 1971 (with 47 home runs)and .301 in 1973 (in an era with much lower batting averages). While his BA was fairly low in his first few years in Atlanta relative to his earlier days in Milwaukee, that might be attributable to his becoming more of a pull hitter to become more of a power threat with the decline of Eddie Mathews. (The same thing actually happened with Ken Griffey before his injuries; his BA declined as his home runs increased.) Aaron’s skills really didn’t decline substantially until he turned 40.

I don’t like defending Bonds but I think it’s a stretch to assume that steroids are the only reason for his home run total.

The interesting thing is the changes in hat and shoe sizes that the media widely report are rumors based on “anonymous sources.” This as never been confirmed, and please don’t show me a picture of the 1986 Bonds compared to today. We all looked at leaner than when we were 21. Bonds began bulking up well before he faced any steroid suspicions. Most players do.

The reason I mention this is that the guy who makes Barry Bonds’s arm brace mentioned something quite interesting to Will Carroll the other day. His precise caliper measurements he does to make Bonds’s brace haven’t changed since 1992. That’s not rumor or hearsay. That’s an on-the-record comment from the doctor who makes Barry’s brace.

Silva states that because of the custom nature of the work, he’s been asked to make casts of Bonds each year. In the first couple of years, he went through the entire process, but due to his workload, he started checking Bonds with precision calipers each subsequent year. “If I made the same brace every year for 12 or more years,” Silva said, “it was because there was no size change in Barry’s arms.”

You read that correctly–the man who not only builds Bonds’ brace, but who has taken precision measurements of his arm since 1992, has not seen any increase in the size of Bonds’ arm. Point blank, Silva said “there’s been no significant change in the size of his arms.”

Via Deadspin

Baseball Prospectus

Even if his head and feet have grown, who cares! Anyone who has bothered to look at the scientific literature knows that HGH has no performance-enhancing effects. This is the consensus opinion of the exercise physiology profession. Barry is just an idiot for taking the stuff. This isn’t a shot at you, Jason. It’s a shot at the media which has failed to report this important fact.

Even among the Bonds supporters, I have yet to see even one person explain why his various body parts have grown enormously in size as he has aged when such growth can be attributed to steroids.