Whether or not it's valid, I've heard a lot of criticism that Frank Thomas
walks too much. I don't recall ever hearing the same criticism about Barry
Bonds.
Other than in the Big Hurt's Williamsesque 1990 season, Bonds has had a much
greater tendency to take a walk than Thomas. Defining walk percentage as
BB/(BB + AB), look at the numbers:
1991: Thomas: 138/697 = .198
Bonds: 107/617 = .173
1992: Thomas: 122/695 = .176
Bonds: 127/600 = .212
1993: Thomas: 80/467 = .171
Bonds: 88/463 = .190
Why aren't the same criticisms made about Bonds? A better question is why do
sportswriters *look* for negative things to say about Frank Thomas?
BTW, Thomas' slight decrease in tendency to walk is made up for by his *big*
decrease in tendency to strike out, IMO. He's on a pace to strike out only
60-70 times this season.
Dave