Aaron Judge Is Hitting Like Barry Bonds Against Tougher Competition

By: bitcoin ethereum news|2025/05/04 04:00:03
0
Share
copy
Aaron Judge is hitting like no one since peak Barry Bonds. (Photo by Evan Bernstein/Getty Images) At the height of his powers, Barry Bonds was an unstoppable force. Every season from 1992 through 2005, he had an OPS in excess of 1.000 (his low was 1.006, and his high was 1.422). In 2002, the year after he hit 73 home runs, he had a 268 OPS+ (meaning he was 168% better than the average player). No one will probably ever match the production or output he had over that period of time. But right now we have a player who is giving Bonds a run for his money. From 2001 through 2004, Bonds’ average slash line was .347/.547/.834. But, Bonds did all of that in a hitting-rich environment. Those four years had league-wide batting averages of .264, .261, .264, and .266, while MLB slugged roughly .425. At his peak, Barry Bonds was appointment viewing – you didn’t leave your seat when he was due to ... More bat. (Photo by Kirby Lee/Getty Images) Right now, what Aaron Judge is doing to MLB pitching, and what he is doing in and for the sport, actually may be more impressive. In a period of low offensive production (current MLB slash line: .241/.315/.391), Judge is redefining the game. He is far and away the best and most dangerous hitter playing today. Prior to this week, only four players ever had a .425 batting average and 10 home runs entering May: Tony Pérez (1970), Larry Walker (1997), Barry Bonds (2004), and Cody Bellinger (2019). All but Pérez won the MVP that season (Pérez came in third behind Johnny Bench and Billy Williams). Judge joined this exclusive club when the calendar flipped on Thursday. Over his past 162 games, Judge has a slash line of .369/.494/.774, for an OPS of 1.262. That is pretty darned close to Bonds’ 2003 season (.341/.529/.749/1.278). That year Bonds hit 45 dingers, while Judge has slammed 64 over his past 162. But, in 2003, the league as a whole was hitting .264, or 23 points better than this season. And the league was slugging .422, which is 31 points higher than the current average. And Judge is doing all of this against considerably better pitching. In 2003, the league-wide ERA was 4.39, with 4.73 runs/game. This year that ERA is down to 4.02, and only 4.34 runs are being scored per game. In 2003, the average major league fastball was less than 90 MPH; today it is more than 94 MPH. And pitchers have more pitches in their arsenal and better spin rate with each one. In short, hitting is harder than ever. It is nice to analyze Judge over his past 162 games, as he started off last year with a whimper. In his first 31 games of 2024, he hit .207 and had six home runs. He finished the season hitting .322, with 58 homers. This year, he wanted to get off to a strong start , and in his first 31 games of 2025, all he did was slash .427/.521/.761, with 10 homers. If we tighten up the window: If we extrapolate based on his start, Judge is on pace for a 16.7 fWAR season. To put that into perspective, in 1923, Babe Ruth’s best season by that metric , he accumulated only 14.7 fWAR (which is the current all-time record). And there is reason to believe that Judge may only get better as the season wears on (although the batting average is sure to come down – a .506 BAbip is not sustainable). His isolated power is currently .333, his HR% is 7.1, his BB% is 15.0, and his hard hit percentage is 57.3. All of these numbers are his lowest since 2021. And, just to add some additional measurements, through 31 games, this slugger’s groundball percentage is the highest and his flyball percentage the lowest since, you guessed it, 2021. He is hitting 61.8% of his balls to center field. Sure, someone with Judge’s power can hit the ball out to all fields, but when he is pulling less than 25% of the balls he puts in play (the last two seasons he did so nearly 32% of the time), he is not optimizing his strengths nor his chances to be productive. We are about one-fifth of the way through the season, and the weather is just starting to warm up. Aaron Judge is already hot. His start is, in a word, “Bondsian.” While he may not hit 73 home runs when all is said and done, he may hit 63 to break his own American League record. He may win a batting title like Bonds did in 2002 and 2004 (he currently has a 69 point cushion on Paul Goldschmidt, who doesn’t figure to hit .361 all season); and he might just win the Triple Crown . Aaron Judge is appointment viewing. Don’t leave your seat when he is due to bat. Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/danfreedman/2025/05/03/aaron-judge-is-hitting-like-barry-bonds-against-tougher-competition/

You may also like

Some Key News You Might Have Missed Over the Chinese New Year Holiday

On the day of commencement, should we go long or short?

Key Market Information Discrepancy on February 24th - A Must-Read! | Alpha Morning Report

1. Top News: Tariff Uncertainty Returns as Bitcoin Options Market Bets on Downside Risk 2. Token Unlock: $SOSO, $NIL, $MON

$1,500,000 Salary Job: How to Achieve with $500 AI?

The Essence of Agentification: Use algorithms to replicate your judgment framework, replacing labor costs with API costs.

Bitcoin On-Chain User Attrition at 30%, ETF Hemorrhage at $4.5 Billion: What's Next for the Next 3 Months?

The network appears to be still running, but participants are dropping off.

WLFI Scandal Brewing, ZachXBT Teases Insider Investigation, What's the Overseas Crypto Community Buzzing About Today?

What's Been Trending with Expats in the Last 24 Hours?

Debunking the AI Doomsday Myth: Why Establishment Inertia and the Software Wasteland Will Save Us

Original Title: Against Citrini7Original Author: John Loeber, ResearcherOriginal Translation: Ismay, BlockBeats


Editor's Note: Citrini7's cyberpunk-themed AI doomsday prophecy has sparked widespread discussion across the internet. However, this article presents a more pragmatic counter perspective. If Citrini envisions a digital tsunami instantly engulfing civilization, this author sees the resilient resistance of the human bureaucratic system, the profoundly flawed existing software ecosystem, and the long-overlooked cornerstone of heavy industry. This is a frontal clash between Silicon Valley fantasy and the iron law of reality, reminding us that the singularity may come, but it will never happen overnight.


The following is the original content:


Renowned market commentator Citrini7 recently published a captivating and widely circulated AI doomsday novel. While he acknowledges that the probability of some scenes occurring is extremely low, as someone who has witnessed multiple economic collapse prophecies, I want to challenge his views and present a more deterministic and optimistic future.


Never Underestimate "Institutional Inertia"


In 2007, people thought that against the backdrop of "peak oil," the United States' geopolitical status had come to an end; in 2008, they believed the dollar system was on the brink of collapse; in 2014, everyone thought AMD and NVIDIA were done for. Then ChatGPT emerged, and people thought Google was toast... Yet every time, existing institutions with deep-rooted inertia have proven to be far more resilient than onlookers imagined.


When Citrini talks about the fear of institutional turnover and rapid workforce displacement, he writes, "Even in fields we think rely on interpersonal relationships, cracks are showing. Take the real estate industry, where buyers have tolerated 5%-6% commissions for decades due to the information asymmetry between brokers and consumers..."


Seeing this, I couldn't help but chuckle. People have been proclaiming the "death of real estate agents" for 20 years now! This hardly requires any superintelligence; with Zillow, Redfin, or Opendoor, it's enough. But this example precisely proves the opposite of Citrini's view: although this workforce has long been deemed obsolete in the eyes of most, due to market inertia and regulatory capture, real estate agents' vitality is more tenacious than anyone's expectations a decade ago.


A few months ago, I just bought a house. The transaction process mandated that we hire a real estate agent, with lofty justifications. My buyer's agent made about $50,000 in this transaction, while his actual work — filling out forms and coordinating between multiple parties — amounted to no more than 10 hours, something I could have easily handled myself. The market will eventually move towards efficiency, providing fair pricing for labor, but this will be a long process.


I deeply understand the ways of inertia and change management: I once founded and sold a company whose core business was driving insurance brokerages from "manual service" to "software-driven." The iron rule I learned is: human societies in the real world are extremely complex, and things always take longer than you imagine — even when you account for this rule. This doesn't mean that the world won't undergo drastic changes, but rather that change will be more gradual, allowing us time to respond and adapt.


The Software Industry Has "Infinite Demand" for Labor


Recently, the software sector has seen a downturn as investors worry about the lack of moats in the backend systems of companies like Monday, Salesforce, Asana, making them easily replicable. Citrini and others believe that AI programming heralds the end of SaaS companies: one, products become homogenized, with zero profits, and two, jobs disappear.


But everyone overlooks one thing: the current state of these software products is simply terrible.


I'm qualified to say this because I've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Salesforce and Monday. Indeed, AI can enable competitors to replicate these products, but more importantly, AI can enable competitors to build better products. Stock price declines are not surprising: an industry relying on long-term lock-ins, lacking competitiveness, and filled with low-quality legacy incumbents is finally facing competition again.


From a broader perspective, almost all existing software is garbage, which is an undeniable fact. Every tool I've paid for is riddled with bugs; some software is so bad that I can't even pay for it (I've been unable to use Citibank's online transfer for the past three years); most web apps can't even get mobile and desktop responsiveness right; not a single product can fully deliver what you want. Silicon Valley darlings like Stripe and Linear only garner massive followings because they are not as disgustingly unusable as their competitors. If you ask a seasoned engineer, "Show me a truly perfect piece of software," all you'll get is prolonged silence and blank stares.


Here lies a profound truth: even as we approach a "software singularity," the human demand for software labor is nearly infinite. It's well known that the final few percentage points of perfection often require the most work. By this standard, almost every software product has at least a 100x improvement in complexity and features before reaching demand saturation.


I believe that most commentators who claim that the software industry is on the brink of extinction lack an intuitive understanding of software development. The software industry has been around for 50 years, and despite tremendous progress, it is always in a state of "not enough." As a programmer in 2020, my productivity matches that of hundreds of people in 1970, which is incredibly impressive leverage. However, there is still significant room for improvement. People underestimate the "Jevons Paradox": Efficiency improvements often lead to explosive growth in overall demand.


This does not mean that software engineering is an invincible job, but the industry's ability to absorb labor and its inertia far exceed imagination. The saturation process will be very slow, giving us enough time to adapt.


Redemption of "Reindustrialization"


Of course, labor reallocation is inevitable, such as in the driving sector. As Citrini pointed out, many white-collar jobs will experience disruptions. For positions like real estate brokers that have long lost tangible value and rely solely on momentum for income, AI may be the final straw.


But our lifesaver lies in the fact that the United States has almost infinite potential and demand for reindustrialization. You may have heard of "reshoring," but it goes far beyond that. We have essentially lost the ability to manufacture the core building blocks of modern life: batteries, motors, small-scale semiconductors—the entire electricity supply chain is almost entirely dependent on overseas sources. What if there is a military conflict? What's even worse, did you know that China produces 90% of the world's synthetic ammonia? Once the supply is cut off, we can't even produce fertilizer and will face famine.


As long as you look to the physical world, you will find endless job opportunities that will benefit the country, create employment, and build essential infrastructure, all of which can receive bipartisan political support.


We have seen the economic and political winds shifting in this direction—discussions on reshoring, deep tech, and "American vitality." My prediction is that when AI impacts the white-collar sector, the path of least political resistance will be to fund large-scale reindustrialization, absorbing labor through a "giant employment project." Fortunately, the physical world does not have a "singularity"; it is constrained by friction.


We will rebuild bridges and roads. People will find that seeing tangible labor results is more fulfilling than spinning in the digital abstract world. The Salesforce senior product manager who lost a $180,000 salary may find a new job at the "California Seawater Desalination Plant" to end the 25-year drought. These facilities not only need to be built but also pursued with excellence and require long-term maintenance. As long as we are willing, the "Jevons Paradox" also applies to the physical world.


Towards Abundance


The goal of large-scale industrial engineering is abundance. The United States will once again achieve self-sufficiency, enabling large-scale, low-cost production. Moving beyond material scarcity is crucial: in the long run, if we do indeed lose a significant portion of white-collar jobs to AI, we must be able to maintain a high quality of life for the public. And as AI drives profit margins to zero, consumer goods will become extremely affordable, automatically fulfilling this objective.


My view is that different sectors of the economy will "take off" at different speeds, and the transformation in almost all areas will be slower than Citrini anticipates. To be clear, I am extremely bullish on AI and foresee a day when my own labor will be obsolete. But this will take time, and time gives us the opportunity to devise sound strategies.


At this point, preventing the kind of market collapse Citrini imagines is actually not difficult. The U.S. government's performance during the pandemic has demonstrated its proactive and decisive crisis response. If necessary, massive stimulus policies will quickly intervene. Although I am somewhat displeased by its inefficiency, that is not the focus. The focus is on safeguarding material prosperity in people's lives—a universal well-being that gives legitimacy to a nation and upholds the social contract, rather than stubbornly adhering to past accounting metrics or economic dogma.


If we can maintain sharpness and responsiveness in this slow but sure technological transformation, we will eventually emerge unscathed.


Source: Original Post Link


Popular coins

Latest Crypto News

Read more