Perhaps overrated is too harsh, but the other day I was listening to a talkradio show, and one of the hosts noted that, "we have never seen an athlete with an indian summer like Barry Bonds." Which got me thinking about my favorite all-time player, Hank Aaron. Look at Aaron's numbers from age 35-39: 44 97 .300 38 118 .298 47 118 .327 34 77 .265 40 96 .301 (41 101 .298) Now Bonds from 35-38 49 106 .306 73 127 .328 46 100 .370 45 90 .341 (53 105 .336) Bonds' numbers are tremendous, and the record year w/73 is off the charts. But if we take into account the difference in eras is the seperation really that great, that it justifies the current view of Bonds? Here's one aspect about eras that puts Aaron's numbers in perspective: in HRs during this period, he ranked in the NL, 2nd, 5th, 2nd, 4th and 4th. Twice he was one HR off the pace; 4, 6, and 7 HRs behind the leader in the three other seasons. Bonds' ability to raise his performance at his age, is amazing (we'll assume he is "clean" for the sake of argument). But I think if you make the adjustment for the eras, Aaron's indian summer is right there and does not get enough credit.