Posting this because this comment needs to be shared:
Julio Franco hit .300/.376/.444 in his age-42 season in 101 PAs, whiles Bonds hit .276/.480/.565 in his age-42 season in 477 PAs. That means Bonds was approximately 28% better than Franco in both OBP and SLG in almost 5x the plate appearances. For their careers, Franco was a .298/.365/.417 hitter while Bonds was a .298/.444/.607 hitter. That means Bonds was approximately 22% better in OBP and 46% better in SLG. In his age-48 season, Franco hit .222/.321/.289. That was a decline of 15% in OBP and a decline of 35% in SLG.
Assuming the same rate of decline for Bonds and given their career numbers, if we extrapolate out Franco’s rate of decline for another four years to come up with Bonds’ expected age-52 seasons, we should expect Bonds to hit .325/.490/.630 with 78 HRs because the man put up a combined line of .349/.559/.809 with an average of 52 HRs per season during his age 36-39 seasons and prediction models do not apply to him.
And as per the collusion argument that ensued in the comments, no collusion on no team signing Bonds. I mean, well, yeah, obviously collusion, but not stated collusion; just the garden variety "ehhhhhhhhh I'd rather not deal with it" type of group think *sideeyes Ray Rice*. But Bonds absolutely should've/could've played at least one more year.