PDA

View Full Version : Barry Bonds: 2001 vs 2004



Fly
11-24-2012, 05:26 PM
Which season of his was better?

todu82
11-24-2012, 06:50 PM
His 2001 season.

JordansBulls
11-24-2012, 10:15 PM
2001 by the fact he hit 73 HR that season.

MetsFanatic19
11-25-2012, 12:48 PM
Both were absolutely insane. I mean, a .609 OBP in 2004? But I'd take 2001. Close, though.

Rad_Racing
11-25-2012, 02:51 PM
That '01 season is great because of the HRs, one could even argue his '02 season was his best.

SenorGato
11-25-2012, 05:57 PM
'01.

It's ridiculous how good he was...The man put up a .1000 OPS at 41 and 42. Collusion forced retirement on him - BOOOOOOOOO.

LASportsFan1996
11-25-2012, 10:36 PM
2001, only because of the home runs...

2004 was crazy too though, .600+ OBP? :speechless:

Fly
11-25-2012, 11:04 PM
2001 vs. 2004
AVG: .328 vs. .362
OBP: .515 vs. .609
SLG: .863 vs. .812
ISO: .536 vs. .450
BB%: 26.7 vs. 37.6
K%: 14.0 vs. 6.6
wOBA: .537 vs. .537
wRC+: 234 vs. 233


Very, very close.

Demon11
11-25-2012, 11:40 PM
probably 2004 tbh

T 980
11-27-2012, 03:31 AM
For every stat I like during one year, he seems to counter with another awesome stat for that other year. At least to me, both seemed equally productive for the team in their own ways.

I'll side with 2001, just because home run records are exciting in general and would keep the ballparks full all around the league (where he would be playing). Not only did he produce for the team, but teams for the national league in general.

jbeezy
11-27-2012, 04:52 PM
I miss Barry :cry:

Greedy22
11-28-2012, 03:54 PM
Oh man this is tough! I'd probably take the 01 season just because of all those HRs

xnick5757
12-07-2012, 03:11 PM
2001 is awesome, 73 hrs is crazy

but in 2004 he got on base 61% of the time, which is even more insane

i pick both :D