Barry Bonds, whose many skills do not include tact, generated some controversy at the All-Star Game when he talked about eclipsing Babe Ruth.
The San Francisco slugger leads the majors with 30 home runs at the All-Star break and has hit 643 in his career, putting him just 17 shy of matching his godfather — Mays — for third on the all-time list.
“Willie’s number is always the one that I’ve strived for,” Bonds said before Tuesday’s All-Star Game.
“And if it does happen, the only number I care about is Babe Ruth’s. Because as a left-handed hitter, I wiped him out. That’s it. And in the baseball world, Babe Ruth’s everything, right? I got his slugging percentage and I’ll take his home runs and that’s it. Don’t talk about him no more.”
This generated the predictable outraged response from the Babe Ruth Birthplace and Museum, as well as from some sportswriters. Adrian Wojnarowski’s overly emotional but totally unconvincing response is typical.
Bonds does have his defenders, such as the Dallas Morning News‘ Kevin Blackistone, who makes a provocative case.
The greatest compliment that can be paid a baseball player is to call him “the only man,” as in: Hank Aaron is the only man to hit as many as 755 home runs in a major league career. Or as can be said of first baseman and new Hall of Famer Eddie Murray: He is the only man to have 3,000 hits and 500 home runs as a switch hitter.
In fact, the only other men to have as many hits and home runs in a career are Aaron and Willie Mays, both one-time Negro League players.
Babe Ruth was once an “only man.” He was once the only man to have hit as many as 60 home runs in a season. He lost that designation over two generations ago and now stands behind four players on that list, which is topped by Barry Bonds.
Ruth was once the only man to have knocked in as many as 2,213 runs in a career. Aaron left him behind in that category, too, almost a generation and a half ago.
In fact, Ruth was once the only man who could, without question, be called the greatest offensive weapon the game has ever seen.
He isn’t anymore. He hasn’t been for quite a spell. The biggest record he has left is career slugging percentage. It is time to take a deep breath and move on. Earth won’t careen into the sun.
The simple fact is black baseball players such as Aaron, Mays, Murray, Rickey Henderson and, yes, Bonds have erased many of the most revered offensive records in what was once America’s pastime. These marks, established by Ruth and Ty Cobb, were thought carved in stone. Home runs. RBIs. Walks. Runs scored. Stolen bases. Season slugging percentage. Black players hold them all now.
Yet, those black players aren’t afforded nearly the reverence, if any at all, of the folks whose records they obliterated.
Blackistone is, I think, more right than wrong in what he says, but he’s far too casual in his insistence that Ruth has been eclipsed. He makes a common error in argument-by-statistics, which is that he doesn’t present enough context to the stats he’s giving.
I’m not going to get into the serious stathead world of Equivalent Averages and Value Over Replacement Players, both of which are heavy-duty stats that try to even out differences in era and ballparks. I’m not qualified for that, and it wouldn’t change anyone’s mind anyway. I just want to point out that we’ve got a fruit basket of numbers here, and we need to sort through them a bit more carefully.
Since Blackistone mentions Hank Aaron and Willie Mays, the other two sluggers that Bonds is chasing, let’s take a closer look at them. There’s a key difference in the career stats of Aaron, Mays, and Babe Ruth, and it can be summed up in four numbers:
Name Games At-bats HRs ================================= Aaron 3298 12,364 755 Mays 2992 10,881 660 Ruth 2503 8,399 714
Aaron and Mays played far more games than Babe Ruth did, mostly because Ruth spent his first four seasons as a pitcher. Both had many more at-bats than the Babe did. Ruth hit a home run in 8.5% of his at-bats, while Aaron and Mays went yard 6.1% of the time.
To put it another way, how would the career numbers stack up if Mays and Ruth had had Aaron’s 12,364 at-bats, assuming that they hit home runs at the same rate over the extra time?
Name Projected HRs ====================== Ruth 1051 Aaron 755 Mays 750
The thing about Babe Ruth is not only that he hit a ridiculous number of home runs, it’s also that he hit an even more ridiculous number than his contemporaries. The Babe out-homered whole teams many times. Someone on ESPN.com (it might have been Rob Neyer, I can’t find it any more) once determined that if every season had been as homer-happy as 1998 and Ruth had hit them at the same relative rate to the rest of the league, he’d have wound up with over 2000 for his career. He really was a giant among Lilliputians in his time.
(Astute statheads may be grumbling at this point about Aaron and Mays playing in the pitcher-dominated 1960s, and how they might have done in a more offense-friendly era. I acknowledge the dissonance but cannot give you a good answer. I recommend pestering someone at the Baseball Prospectus.)
Now let’s add Barry to the mix. As it happens, his stats through 2002 are a pretty decent match for the Babe’s.
Name Games At-bats HRs ================================= Aaron 3298 12,364 755 Mays 2992 10,881 660 Ruth 2503 8,399 714 Bonds 2439 8,335 613 Name Projected HRs ====================== Ruth 1051 Bonds 909 Aaron 755 Mays 750
Bonds goes deep 7.4% of the time, meaning the advantage is still Ruth’s.
Of course, there is a player who does outdistance the Babe by this measure. Any guesses who?
Name Games At-bats HRs ================================= Aaron 3298 12,364 755 Mays 2992 10,881 660 Ruth 2503 8,399 714 Bonds 2439 8,335 613 McGwire 1874 6,187 583 Name Projected HRs ====================== McGwire 1165 Ruth 1051 Bonds 909 Aaron 755 Mays 750
Yep, Mark McGwire, who merits not a mention in Blackistone’s column (how quickly they forget) despite his record-setting 9.4 HR percentage. I will not be uncharitable and suggest that had McGwire been as healthy as Aaron (and mind you, staying healthy is a skill as much as it is luck) and shattered Aaron’s career record as many expected him to do before his sudden retirement, Kevin Blackistone would have muttered dark imprecations about steroids and asterisks. Feel free to do so yourself, however.
Someone once said that statistics are like a string bikini: What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is crucial. I believe the record shows that Barry Bonds is one of the greatest players to ever play the game, and that he doesn’t get the recognition he deserves for it. I believe that Hank Aaron and Willie Mays, as great as they were, are also often sold short. I believe that Babe Ruth is still the pinnacle to which everyone aspires and against whom everyone will be measured. And I remain confident of the Earth’s ability to maintain its orbit. I hope Kevin Blackistone does as well.
UPDATE: In the comments, Joe asks for the same comparison with plate appearances (at-bats plus walks, hit by pitches, sacrifices and sac flies) instead of just at-bats. I aim to please:
Name PA HR HR % Proj HR ========================================== Aaron 13940 755 5.4 755 Mays 12493 660 5.3 736 Ruth 10617 714 6.7 937 Bonds 10417 613 5.9 820 McGwire 7660 583 7.6 1061
How do you know that Ruth didn’t scare pitchers? You have no proof. I know Ruth scared pitchers and that is because of his walks. Ruth was the career leader in walks for 70 years before Henderson broke is all-time mark. He as often as anybody in history with the exception of Ted Williams. That shows pitchers were afraid of pitching to him. And my comment about Japanese players does have to do with Ruth vs Bonds just like the Negro League players argument so many of you make against Ruth. It show there are better players in the world so Bonds isn’t playing against the best of his time. They probably won’t make as big an impact as blacks but they will make an impact and when players from Japan, China and Europe and the rest of the world start coming over and playing in the US, there will be a big change. In 50 years, there will be another player being called the best ever because people will be saying that Bonds didn’t play against the best of his time. You yourself are playing the “what if” game saying Ruth’s numbers would not be as impressinve IF he played against Negro League players. Stop being a hipocrit.
I did some calculations comparing walks and HR to plate appearances because I think it is better than comparing them to AB.
Ruth walked in 19.4% of his PA and homered in 6.7% of his PA
Bonds walks in 19.8% of his PA and homers in 6.1% of his plate PA
Bonds has a slight edge over Ruth in walks, .004%.
Ruth has a slight edge over Bonds in HR, .006%.
Put into consideration Ruth did this in an era where power was rare and there should be no argument.
Again I remind you that bonds has at least three or four more years to play. At this point in his career he is only getting better. Ruth may not have a “slight edge” when it is all said and done. Also, I never brought up the argument that ruth didn’t play against the best of his time, you did. I am not a hypocrite and I do not play the “what if” game. Take a look back at my posts and you will see this. This last post is the first time that you brought numbers into your argument. Thats a start. But I lost respect for your opinion when you said Bonds was an “ahole”. Your views are based on emotion not knowledge. In your mind, you do not like Bonds therefore he cannot be better than Ruth.
Bonds is playing against the best of his time. In Ruths day the Negro League players were not allowed to play with whites. This is very different from the foreign leagues of today. MLB will let anybody that can play the game into the league. The foreign leagues may have their own rules when it comes to free agency but if a player wants to try out for MLB they can.
“Ruth did this in an era where power was rare…”. Good point. Power was rare, therefore pitchers could go after hitters by throwing strikes. This was the mind set that those pitchers came in with. Ruth would have been thrown to by pitchers that had confidence in their stuff on teams ran by managers that had confidence in their pitchers. Ruths walks were a result of pitchers being careful, not scared. This does not happen to Bonds. When Bonds is walked intentionally the call comes from the manager. When he is pitched around, it’s usually the pitchers choice. When a manager tells a Cy Young winner to walk Bonds, that’s saying the best pitcher in the game cannot be trusted to get him out. That’s domination that is unpresidented in baseball history. That is why Bonds is the best.
You are on the right track when you bring stats into the debate. But when you direct your negative comments towards me, it shows that your position on this issue is very weak. Do your homework and come back with something useful.
You’re right and I am sorry about the comment towards you. I have just been stressed with all of the work I have had and let a little of my frustration slip out into our arguments. I also understand that this is an argument between ability and not attitude so I will do my best to stay on topic. Sorry.
Yes I did bring up Ruth not playing against the best of his time but I am just making a point. It is a “what if” and I know you don’t play that game but, in my opinion, it is the only plausible argument you could make against Ruth.
What I am now focusing on the protection Ruth had. Yes he had Gehrig but not until 1925. By that time Ruth already had 284hr. I have not found when Gehrig began batting behind Ruth so I will keep researching. And don’t forget about his pitching years. A “what if”, i know, but it must be put into consideration just as the lack of pitches Bonds sees is.
Lou Gehrig did bat behind Ruth for most of his career.
Bonds has also had 3 more seasons as a hitter than Ruth. Bonds has had 19 seasons while Ruth only had 16. To put into perspective, in those 16 seasons as nothing but a hitter, Ruth hit 688 HR. I did not include 1914-1918 even though in 1918 Ruth hit 11 HR in 95 games but pitched in 17 games that season. I also did include his final year in 1935 in which he only hit 6 HR in 28 games. It took Bonds 3 more seasons to hit the number that Ruth did.
I also want to point out the fact the Bonds was never compared to Ruth until he hit 73 in ’01. He was an above average but by no means the greatest hitter of his time let alone ever. Since when does it take only one season to be considered the greatest of all time?
Babe Ruth is and will be for years to come the greatest baseball player in history. All the others that superficially broke his records have asterisks next to their records explaining all those extra games it took to do it.
Not to mention the better equipment, advancements in nutrition and fitness, lower mounds, watered down pitching, smaller strike zone, and protection on the arms and legs.
…..OR THE STEROIDS!!!! THAT SHOULD NOT COUNT SINCE BARRY DID NOT KNOW. SURE!!
What was said in the radio commentary when Babe Ruth hit homerun number 60 in 1927?
Gehrig did not bat behind Ruth until 1927, when he was moved ahead of Bob Meusel to 4th in the Yankee lineup where he remained for the rest of Ruth’s career. In fact 1927 was the year the Yankees introduced numbers on the back of uniforms. Your number was where you batted in the lineup. The Yankees also came up with Pinstripes in the early 30’s because ownership wanted Ruth to appear slimmer than he was.
The point is this. From 1927 to 1933 Ruth led the league every year in walks except for 1929, all this with Gehrig batting behind him. He was and will always remain the most feared hitter of all time. Think about the 60 HR in 1927 for example. Hitting them in the pre-altered parks that a decade earlier would yield only 10-12 HR to the league HR leader, Ruth outhomered every team in the AL, something he also did in 1920. In 1927 with Gehrig batting behind him and keeping pace in HR up until the last month of the season, Ruth led the league in walks. He had 24 more HR than the entire White Sox team, 31 more than the entire Washington team, 32 more than the entire Boston team, and 34 more than the entire Cleveland team. He wasn’t just outhomering teams, he hit more than twice as many as three entire teams.
there is only one thing to say . The Babe was is and always will be the greatest ever . period.
Just imagine the Babe on steriods and hitting these superballs they have today with these juiced bats in a bandbox for ballparks against pitchers that really shouldnt even be in the big leagues..case closed, dead issue..
Barry faces tougher pitching, specialized pitching. Barry’s contemporaries include foreigners, blacks, and people from the west coast. Babe didn’t face difficult pitching, and didn’t have contemporaries that were as good as Bonds. Bonds took steroids for 3 weeks in 2003, in which it was applied through a cream. He also alledgedly didn’t know it was steroids. Speaking about bandbox ballparks, how about Ruth’s short porch. Pitchers that shouldn’t be in the big leagues? The average athlete/pitcher is head and shoulders above those from Ruth’s day. They train harder. They are raised playing baseball. They are specialized at an early age to play different positions. Another thing that is different, world wide communication. You have people in Africa, South America, and Asia watching the MLB on TV and playing baseball in the streets. The vast majority of people Ruth played against came from the east coast. East of the Mississippi. No blacks either. So, let’s compare that to today. If there was parameters like that on MLB now. Who would be excluded? I’ll name some: Bonds, Sammy, Tejada, Big Unit, Pedro, Vlad, Pudge, Manny, Soriano, Pujols, Ortiz, O.Perez, Jason Schmidt, etc. The list goes on and on.
It is because of Babe Ruth that players today hit homeruns. He showed everyone that homeruns help win games and bring in the crowds. He changed baseball more than any other player changed any sport. He is the best all time because no one has ever changed a sport like he did (and because he is the most feared hitter to ever step up to the plate. who else can lead the league in walks for 6 of 8 full years with LOU GEHRIG batting behind them? Only 1…BABE RUTH)
Brenden, you claim you know that Bonds used steroids for 3 weeks? And you know this information how? Hmmm… lets see.. HGH, cream and clear. And he didn’t know what that was? Did he start to question things when suddenly had a size 8 1/2 hat size? Did he begin to question what it was when he slugged over .700 for the FIRST time in his career, in 2001, in his mid to late 30’s. The bottom line is, you’re can’t be stupid enough to believe he didn’t know what it was.
Check some parks when Ruth played, they weren’t all short porches. Even the ones with shorter right field lines, had nets or walls put up that needed to be cleared for a HR. The other dimensions of those parks were pastures, so it pretty much evens out. And besides, pitchers weren’t serving pitches up to Ruth. The strike zone was much bigger… ya know, all those balls that Barry takes, and waits for that one on a tee? Well those BALLS would be strikes in Ruth’s day.
And as far as blacks not playing. Ruth didn’t set the rules, he just dominated unlike no other. The game has become easy for EVERYBODY today, thats why its more difficult to dominate. Ruth would have hit anyone well, it wouldn’t have mattered the pigment of their friekin’ skin. Thats a lame argument. Ruth was Ruth for a reason… he just wasn’t getting “lucky” off lesser talent. He was one of a kind. Which is what the tests proved at Columbia University in the 20’s… that he was exactly that. One of a kind.
Open your eyes, and see the truth man. How can you be a Barry fan? Before steroids, he was a hall of fame player, but nowhere near in the same breath as Ruth, Mays, or any of them. And he’s STILL NOT in my opinion.
Wasn’t Bonds’ knee surgery supposed to be routine and now he has had three and may miss the entire season. I have only explanation as to why Bonds’ knee is breaking down…STEROIDS.
I feel the need to stop a few stereotypes about the times Ruth played in
1-In the 1920s, white people made up 94% of the population of the US. the talent pool that the white leagues had to choose from was far larger than the talent pool of blacks. While players like Satchell Paige, Pops Lloyd, Oscar Charleston, Chino Smith etc. would have obviously made names for themselves in the majors back then if given a chance, de-segregated leagues would’ve only had a marginal effect on the likes of Ruth and others.
2-Light skinned hispanics WERE allowed to play in baseball back then, Ruth wasn’t only going against caucasions.
3-You could make the arguement that pitching of Ruth’s era was better than pitching today. Did pitchers have speed back then? Walter Johnson in 1914 was clocked by the US Military using a pendulum divice at pitching over 100 mph. For those of you who argue “well Bonds plays daily against closers and setup men”, the reason why these guys became setup men and closers in the first place is because they weren’t good enough to be starting pitchers. Nobody starts off as a closer, they become closers because they weren’t reliable as starters.
and as for intentional walks:
4-IBB wasn’t a real stat until the late 50s i believe, but independent researchers proved that Ruth was intentionally walked ATLEAST 90 times in 1923, and Ruth had 170 total. Ruth inspired fear just as much as Barry.
5-Ruth hit 29 homers in 1919, during the dead ball era. Second place that year was 10, and I guarantee you half of those 10 were inside the park.
6-Forgetting the home runs and focusing on overall hitting ability, Ruth finished in the top 10 in batting average 12 times. Bonds only has 6 times.
Give Ruth steroids, countless night games, over-the-counter supplements, personal trainers, body armor, astro-turf, airplanes, 10 games a year at Coors field and shrunken ballparks then that would more than make up for not having to face Satchell Paige a few times a year.
I wonder if this conversation would even exist if Bonds hadn’t cheated. A shame too, since a “clean” Bonds would have easily been #3, and a lock for the hall of fame.
I’m hoping that maybe, in the next decade, A-Rod’ll overtake them all.
Any takers on what Bonds’ numbers would be, had he just said no?
thats all fine to compare ruth and bonds but the fact is ruth didnt play with blacks and latinos like bonds does. in todays game two thirds of the league is dominated by black and latin players. so basically ruth played in one third the talent pool bonds does. not to mention the invention of computer scouting reports on hitter tendencies, closers and middle relief pitchers. would u say the the nba was the same before black players. i mean was it the same league with out michael jordan. i dont think so and neither was mlb when ruth played.
How old are you? The only reason I ask is because your argument is one of the worst I’ve seen. You said there are computer scouting reports on hitter tendencies, closers and middle relief pitchers. There are so many more advantages in todays game because of technology. There are also scouting reports on pitchers tendencies and the only reason there are closers and middle relief pitchers is because they aren’t good enough to be starters. There are only a few non starters in the league who are dominating and they are closers who are only in the game for 1 inning and not even every game. If something went in Ruth’s day such as eyesight, it went. There were no eye contacts. Not to mention the pastures they had for fields. Sure there was a short right porch but center field was 460 in Yankee stadium so if you didn’t hit the ball right down the line, you had to hit it a long way for it to be a homerun. (Just so there is no argument on the length of center field in Yankee stadium, my Uncle went to a lot of Yankees games and he told me it was 460ft) Surgery wasn’t even close to what it is today so if you got an injury that needed surgery, your career was basically over, unless you wanted to play through the pain, which many of them did (Mickey Mantle). The fact is, there is only one argument that goes against Ruth and that is he did not play against blacks, but that’s the only one. There are dozens of arguments that work against Bonds. Someone earlier had said “The ball breaks the same out of a dark hand as it does a white hand”. Go back and read Randy’s post from Jan. 27 where he says from 1927 to 1933 except in 1929, Ruth lead the league in walks with Lou Gehrig behind him. That is how feared Ruth was. I now the post isn’t well organized but I have so many reasons Ruth is better than Bonds that I just put them anywhere. I have many more if anyone is willing to argue for Bonds. Go on, it will be FUN!
Steroids do not enable a person to hit a baseball. The advantage comes in the offseason. That being said, even with Bonds playing additional seasons and additional games, the Babe is still and will likely forever be the greatest player of all time for the simple fact that he pitched. That’s the end of the argument. Nice try, but it can’t go further.
Babe>Barry
I have to disagree with Patrick about his statements regarding the pitching in Bond’s era and Ruths’ era. In Ruth’s best season, 1921 (And yes, statistically, this is Ruth’s best season) the American League average ERA was 5.18 not including the yankees. IN 2001, Bond’s best season, the NL average ERA was a 4.37. Sooooooo…the pitching IS better now than back then. And…Walter Johnson is just one man. Name another fireballer from that era. I can name tons from this era, Randy Johnson, Clemens, ect.
Just curious Matt, did you include the Giants’ pitching staff ERA for the 2001 season?
Well no Mike. Sorry to not include that. The national League ERA INCLUDING the Giants was a 4.35. The major league average was a 4.41(the AL ERA was a 4.47). In Ruth’s day the major league ERA was a 4.87 (NL-4.61, AL including yankees-5.13).
As well as the At Bats and percentages of HR lets factor in the number of Walks. In Arons day the pitcher actually threw the ball towards the plate in order to srike the batter out. Bond’s has 1000 more walks than Arron. factored in, had been allowed to hit them at his standard rate he would have onother 130 home runs on his credit.
I’m not really sure what xlfungi is trying to say but I have some figures comparing Ruth, Bonds and Aaron, with what it looked like xlfungi was trying to compare.
(HR/AB)(BB/PA)
Bonds
(1/12.92)(1/5.012)
Aaron
(1/16.38)(1/9.943)
Ruth
(1/11.79)(1/5.149)
Ruth hit a HR more frequently than both Bonds and Aaron. Although Bonds walks more frequently than Ruth (just barely), you must remember that Ruth was walked that often (as often as Bonds is now) with Lou Gehrig batting behind him. That is how feared Ruth was. LONG LIVE THE BABE!!!
babe played in a whites only base ball slow and weaker players so bond is the man babe hit 80 mile ahour fast balls ….
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
proof there buddy?
Let’s dispel this this incredibly lame argument that Babe Ruth wouldn’t have been Babe Ruth if he played against black ballplayers.
Can we all agree on one thing?
ALL BLACK PLAYERS WEREN’T SATCHEL PAIGE!
ALL BLACK PLAYERS WEREN’T JOSH GIBSON!
Everyone talks about the black players like everyone was the premier pitcher and hitter around. In every era there are the greats and the not so greats. There are even the scubs. The Babe faced them, Barry faces them. It is a fact of baseball, some are great, some stink.
Why does this argument only seem to apply to Babe Ruth?
‘
Okay then, let’s apply it to another player who dominated his sport, Wayne Gretzky.
Are you saying than Wayne Gretzky wouldn’t be Wayne Gretzky if there were more black players in hockey? That’s totally absurd!
Great is great no matter what era they are in.
Put the Babe in today’s game, he would still be great.
Take Barry, pre-steroids, and put him in the past and he would still be Barry.
Okay, just a little test, quickly name all the great black players who played primarily in the Negro Leagues, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and Monte Irvin don’t count.
Now… you got Satchel Paige, Josh Gibson, Cool Papa Bell…and…and…
Okay, there are others, but we basically know only a hand full.
Like I said any of these players, Satchel, Josh and Papa Bell would’ve been great no matter what decade you put them in. But, NO ONE says, “If Josh Gibson played today he wouldn’t be Josh Gibson”. Great is great.
And to boot, the only black player that would have anything to do with affecting The Babe’s stats would be Satchel who of course is a pitcher.
Another test, let’s name all the great pictures from the Negro leagues….okay, there’s Satchel and …. now do you see how lame the argument is?
Now, once and for all let’s stop this stupid talk that the skin color of an opposing player would so greatly affect one’s performance.
The Babe is the greatest of all time why…BECAUSE HE IS!!!
No matter which way you try to fiddle with the numbers, no matter what you say to justify your opinion it comes down to the numbers, and the numbers put up by Babe Ruth over a career have not been equalled.
He is the greatest offensive machine this great game of baseball has ever known PERIOD!!! END OF STORY!!!
I am very anger about how the author failed to mention that ruth did not play against african american players! this in my opion is the major reason to his succes!
Barry is a better hitter than Ruth. Every single one of you know that if they were in a home run derby, Barry would kill him. You all know that. Babe Ruth would be no better than a Cecil Fielder in today’s game. Maybe Babe had incredible career stats, but every single one of you knows that if Babe played today, Bonds would kill him. PERIOD. Babe would be in the minor leagues. You all know that.
What I understand from you logic is that any player from past eras would be in the minor leagues. You mean players like Lou Gehrig, Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, Rogers Hornsby, Stan Musial, Joe DiMaggio, Honus Wagner, Cy Young, Jimmie Fox, Mickey Mantle, Josh Gibson, Satchel Paige, Roberto Clemente, Warren Spahn, Frank Robinson, Lefty Grove, Sandy Koufax, Tris Speaker, Nap Lajoie, Bob Gibson, George Sisler, Shoeless Joe Jackson, Hank Greenberg, Ernie Banks, Yogi Berra, Mel Ott, Jackie Robinson, Whitey Ford, Harry Heilmann, Paul Waner, Cool Papa Bell, Harmon Killebrew, Robin Roberts, Duke Snider, Goose Goslin, Ralph Kiner, Chuck Klein and Early Wynn. Tell me, when do you consider players to be able to play in today’s game. P.S.: If you do not know any of the names in the above list, you do not belong in this discussion. It is for the educated fans only.
I don’t know how but I forget a name…Ted Williams. You think players like these would only be as good as today’s minor leaguers? If you believe so then I have lost hope in humanity.
Marshall and Julian,
Did you not read my post of May 28th at 6:52 pm?
I believe I made some valid points that apparently went right over both of your
heads.
GREAT IS GREAT NO MATTER WHAT ERA THEY ARE IN!!!
Don’t you understand that?
Julian, when you talk about Barry hitting homeruns, are you talking about the guy who started in Pittsburgh and averaged 32 homeruns for the first fourteen years of his career?
Or are you talking about that Fake, Bloated, Balco Steroid Injecting Hulk of a Cheater who is becoming a broken down old man in front of our eyes who suddenly hits 73, which is 41 more than his career average?
Can both of you explain to me how a guy who never slugged .700 when he was a young man suddenly slugs .863 at 36, and follows it with over .700 averages for the next three years?
The great Willie Mays NEVER SLUGGED .700.
The great Hank Aaron NEVER SLUGGED .700
The Babe SLUGGED .700…NINE TIMES!!!
How did Barry do all of this at the age of 36 went he couldn’t do it at 26?
At 26, Barry hits 25 homers, at 36, Barry hits 73…NO WAY IN THIS WORLD DOES THAT MAKE SENSE WITHOUT JUICING UP!!!
NO ATHLETE IN SPORTS HISTORY HAS GOTTEN THIS GREAT AT THE END OF THEIR CAREER!!!
It happens to every athlete in every sport…oh except Barry, who suddenly put up these amazing numbers at a time when others are retiring.
Julian, how are you citing hypotheticals like home run derby’s?
That just makes no sense.
You’re talking about a sub .300 lifetime hitter as opposed to The Babe, a lifetime .342 hitter.
Barry slugs .690 for five years.
The Babe slugs .690 over his entire career.
The Babe also won 94 games as a pitcher, but then that only cements his status as the GREATEST BASEBALL PLAYER WHO EVER LIVED!!!
Look at the numbers, especially the “At Bats” and you will see that no one compares to the one and only Babe Ruth.
I had a lengthy response started, then went back and read a couple more posts and here’s my take. First I’m 47, no shame, no bragging, just an ordinary guy who’s played, coached and officiated, along with simply kicking back and watching other athletes go at it. Honestly the people who truly understand the roots of “Baseball”, in this case, also understand the significance of Ruth the legend. Too many people around my age and younger have totaly lost sight of the era and what it means to a sport. Todays “fans” have become so absorbed in the stats that they’ve lost complete sight of the “externalities” that impact the lives of those who play. Understanding the era from which the true greats came from allows one to better appreciate how momentous their individual acheivements were. Back then it was for the love of the game. Back then it wasn’t about cashing in that big bonus, it was about being the last man standing, the team that finished the job. They went home, lived out their daily lives till the next season. Today it’s year round, training, scouting, studying, camps, etc. Babe Ruth probably would not have wanted to play today, I think for him the love would have been lost and his beloved sport turned into nothing but another business. Crunching numbers alone, without consideration of details like riding buses and prop planes around the country and playing in some of the foulest weather conditions, and on and on, is truly selling Ruth and others very short. Back in the days when management had you by the balls and not the other way around. Oh, and let’s not forget how many players today are groomed from an early age to become baseball players. Until there is closure on Bonds issues and he’s cleared completely of accusations made, in my book it’s still Ruth, Mays, Gehrig, Mantle, etc. that are the true legends of the sport. Todays athletes are truly impressive, but till they live the life of a true legend, they will never appreciate just how great they were.
Thank you for the entertaining posts.
Thanks!
I have been following the Barry vs. the Babe for a while and many of the posters have made many reasoned and well thought out posts. To me the true measure of his greatness is not is unmatched batting numbers whether single season or lifetime but that he was one of the best pitchers in the A.L. He beat the Great Walter Johnson on more than a few match ups. Johnson, of course is the top pitcher of all time,400+ wins and 110 shutouts . Bill James wrote that no matter how he figured it out, by any measure Babe Ruth come out on top. By way of Barry Bonds it is interesting that Michael Jordan, the most dedicated, passionate and arguably greatest NBA’er of all time was unable to sustain his performance in his late 30’s.
Read this article PLEASE!!!
http://www.cqservices.com/MyCQ/News/Default.asp?V=27060
Dear Sirs;
Comparative statistics mean little when you consider the physical factors of ball-park size and how the ball of yesteryear (dead) and todays (wired like golf-balls).
It was the Dead Ball Era when Ruth played. The man hit sixty whey the closest to him hit twenty. The idea (stated) that other players wanted to hit singles is ludicrous. They couldn’t hit homers, period.
Fences have been brought in to facilitate the crowd-pleasing home-run.
And the players? The cream of the athletic world went into baseball, the only professional sport of size at the time. That means greater quality at every position, including pitching. Today, you have baseball (talent spread out in three times as many baseball teams), as well as football, and basketball to dilute the pool..
Also, the term “Greatest” must include all-around ability. Immense is the only term to describe the talents of The Babe. To pitch the way he did and hit the way he did?
As a man, he was in many ways vulnerable. As a ball-player he was a god among men.
Common sense shows what statistic can’t. .
Nick Zules
The Stats speak for themselves, No matter what era.. the Babe would have been the dominant player. In Babe’s era Bonds would not have the numbers he has now. no steroids or the training regiment players today have. he would have been much smaller and not even close to the strength he has now.. but the thing is..even with all the advantages todays players have. stat for stat. Bonds does not equal up to the babe… Babe Ruth will always be the greatest offensive weapon ever to play the game. btw I would love to see Bonds grab a 42oz bat and step to the plate