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
Yeah, but did they do it with a raging hangover? Babe Ruth did.
Ruth against Mays or Aaron or Bonds or McGwire is an impossible comparison. The easiest way to compare players from different eras is to look at their numbers compared to the league average. The problem with that when using Ruth’s numbers is that he caused a paradigm shift. All apologies to Bill James, but prior to Ruth, it was thought that trying to hit home runs was an inefficient strategy. Ruth showed that it wasn’t–and in fact, for the best hitters, a “take and rake” strategy was the most effective to take. Thus, comparing Ruth, who really WAS playing a different game, to the league average during his career is a pointless exercise. It simply tells you that he was playing a different game than everybody else.
Which might well make him the greatest player ever to play the game (I think he was), but then, that’s not really an empirical question, is it?
One stathead qualm. Using AB/HR is a fundamentally flawed measure. It disregards the fact that Ruth and Bonds walk a TON, and Mays and Aaron don’t. Use PA/HR.
I agree with you Joe, which is why I always refer to so-and-so as “one of the greatest”. At gunpoint, I might pick Mays as #1 based on extra value for speed and defense, but that would be a coerced opinion.
Don’t forget Mickey Mantle in the all-hung-over team, Hamletta. 🙂
The funny thing about comparing Bonds to Ruth is that Ruth won 18, 23, and 24 games as a pitcher for Boston while hitting over .300 in two of those three seasons (1915-17). I’d like to see Barry go out and win that many games as a pitcher and then see if he wants to compare himself to the Babe. by the way, Ruth also pitched a complete game win in 1933, and several other appearances as a pitcher for the Yankees.
I also would like to see Bonds play in the “dead-ball” era as Ruth did in the first five seasons of his career when he hit only 20 (leading the AL in 1918 with 11). In the end, Ruth could have either been a home run king or a 300 game winner if he wanted to. I don’t know of anybody else that could make that claim.
I do, however, that Willie Mays was the best all around baseball player of all time, however, most “old-timers” I have spoken to (I used to volunteer in a nursing home, so when I say “old-timers”, I mean it”.), think that if Mantle had not stepped on the sprinkler in 1951 and taken better care of himself, 73 home runs in a season would simply be a good year.
As for today’s ballplayer’s I think Valdimir Guerrero is the best all-around man today. A solid defensive outfielder with some speed who can hit for both average and power (anyone who saw that blast Monday knows how much power he has). Put him in San Francisco and 73 home runs won’t be the record for long.
I’ll refrain from any comparisons, but as a longtime and long-suffering Dodgers fan I have to express horror at the idea of Guerrero in a Giants uniform.
William – Ruth’s pitching is often ignored. He probably would have been a Hall of Famer as a hurler if he’d stayed that course.
As for today’s players, I think the list begins with A-Rod. Vlad is a monster (though he needs to work on his plate discipline) and someone is going to make him very, very rich this offseason.
Linkmeister, if the Dodgers are smart, they’ll be among those sending Brinks trucks to Vlad’s house. Lord knows they could use his bat.
Vladimir may yet live Mickey Mantle’s dream. At his contract signing, he may say to the owner: Hi, partner! (or Hola, compadre!) 😉
I’ve always maintained that Ruth was the greatest ever, precisely because of his pitching adding to his hitting. I’m glad to see that other people agree.
Say, d’ya think the Mets are dumping salary now in order to free up Fred Wilpon’s checkbook to put out for Vlad? Oh, that thought’ll cheer me up for a while.
I’ll probably run these numbers further on my blog . . .
1. Batting Average:
Babe Ruth – .342 Career average.
Barry Bonds – .295 career average, 16 consecutive seasons batting below .342, 1 season batting above .342.
2. Slugging Average:
Babe Ruth – .690
Barry Bonds – .595 career average, 15 consecutive seasons slugging below .690, 2 seasons slugging above .690.
3. On Base Percentage:
Babe Ruth – .474
Barry Bonds – .428 career average, 15 consecutive seasons w/OBP below .474, 2 seasons w/OBP above .474.
With the Mets’ luck, they would sign Vlad and turn him from a Triple Crown Threat to a guy hitting below .200 with 0 homers. 😉
Shea Stadium is not a hitters park, so I can’t see Vlad going to the Mets. On the other hand, they are willing to spend money so anything is possible.
Ruth beats them all in one category: Pitching. I know, I know it’s a broad category. Look, IP: 1221.1, W-L record 94-46, and ERA 2.28 .
I totally agree with you Joe. Bonds might get the homerun record of 756 but the name Babe Ruth will be linked with baseball (side by side) forever. Not only will Bonds not be the best home run hitter of all time, he isn’t the best home run hitter of this generation (McGwire).
I totally agree with you Joe. Bonds might get the homerun record of 756 but the name Babe Ruth will be linked with baseball (side by side) forever. Not only will Bonds not be the best home run hitter of all time, he isn’t the best home run hitter of this generation (McGwire).
I’m kind of partial to Austin Kearns
I agree, Vlad IS the man, but if he had more plate discipline his numbers wouldn’t necessarily go up. Thats what makes him Vlad, his aggressiveness and his ability to hit not only mistake pitches, but show-me pitches as well…plus against todays watered down pitching, can you blame him for hackin’ 🙂
Its great for baseball fans to discuss players and stats, baseball being the one game where stats are supposed to mean something. When it comes to Bonds and Ruth however, there are Ruth’s numbers and everyone else’s. Before his skull grew 2 hat sizes, and he put on 40 pounds of muscle “naturally”, Bonds was (and still is) a below .300 career hitter who had the advantage of artificial turf most of his career, and was an average power hitter. Strapping on body armor, and swinging a triple dipped in lacker 29 ounce bat at a rock hard ball thrown by watered down pitching in tiny ballparks does not a great hitter make.
Ruth’s true greatness, setting the pitching aside, was his ability to transform the game into something it was not, and did not want to become until the financial ramifications were realized. Parks such as Cleveland Municipal, Sportsman Park, Shibe Park, Tiger Stadium, Comiskey Park, Fenway, Capital Field, Yankee Stadium and Griffith Stadium were pastures compared to todays cozy hitter friendly money makers that allow a middle infielder to get fooled on a 2-1 changeup and front foot a homer the opposite way. As far as I’m concerned there should be seperate categories for eras in the record books and either way the asterisk should still remain next to Maris’ 61 in a 162 game season.
Babe was more than just a ballplayer he was an icon who truly understood and appreciated his role as hero to America. Its a shame that more Americans today are subjected to Bonds and what he stands for as opposed to players who played when it truly was a game.
RUTH
* 2 legs of the triple crown 7 times (Bonds – 1)
* more RBI than games played 6 times (Bonds – 0)
* 350+ TB in a season 9 times (Bonds – 2)
* 175+ Hits in a season 7 times (Bonds – 1)
* .450+ OBP in a season 11 times (Bonds – 6)
* 130+ Runs in a season 9 times (Bonds – 0)
162 game averages
B.A.
Ruth .342 — Bonds – .297
HR
Ruth 46 — Bonds – 41
RBI
Ruth 143 — Bonds – 110
HITS
Ruth 186 — Bonds – 131
SO
Ruth 86 — Bonds – 87
BB
Ruth 133 — Bonds – 131
I’d take Ruth, Mays, Cobb, Wagner, Williams, Gehrig, Henderson, Speaker, Aaron, and Foxx ahead of Bonds on a top 10 position player list no matter how many pop flies he hit over the fences.
TOP 10 SEASON COMPARISON
BATTING AVERAGE
Ruth .393 .378 .378 .376 .373 .372 .359 .356 .345 .341
Bonds .370 .341 .336 .328 .312 .311 .308 .306 .303 .301
HOME RUNS
Ruth 60 59 54 54 49 47 46 46 46 41
Bonds 73 49 46 46 45 42 40 37 37 34
RBI
Ruth 171 164 163 154 153 146 142 137 137 131
Bonds 137 129 123 122 116 114 110 106 104 103
HITS
Ruth 205 204 200 199 186 184 173 172 172 156
Bonds 181 167 159 156 156 155 152 149 149 149
RUNS
Ruth 177 163 158 158 151 150 149 143 139 121
Bonds 129 129 129 123 122 120 117 111 109 109
TOTAL BASES
Ruth 457 417 399 391 388 380 379 374 365 348
Bonds 411 365 336 330 322 318 311 295 293 292
SLUGGING %
Ruth .847 .846 .772 .764 .739 .737 .732 .709 .700 .697
Bonds .863 .799 .749 .688 .677 .647 .624 .617 .615 .609
ON BASE %
Ruth .545 .532 .516 .513 .512 .495 .493 .489 .486 .463
Bonds .582 .529 .515 .461 .458 .456 .446 .440 .438 .431
WALKS
Ruth 170 150 145 144 142 137 137 136 130 128
Bonds 198 177 151 148 145 130 127 126 120 117
STRIKEOUTS
Ruth 93 90 89 87 81 81 80 80 76 68
Bonds 102 93 93 92 88 87 83 83 82 79
Out of 100 possible stats, Bonds leads Ruth in Eight. Five of which are for Walks in a year.
Hey Charles, above Joe requested a comparison of actual plate appearances. They didn’t count sacrifice flies until 1954. So there’s no telling what Babe’s HR/AB ratio would be if those plate appearances never counted, and I’m not sure if they gave players the RBI for making an out back then. Just something to keep in mind.
I was trying to compare: Barry Bonds, Mark Mcqwire
& Sammy Sosa to Babe Ruth for the 60 homers in 154 games in 1927. Barry Bonds had 67 in 2001, Sammy Sosa I believe 58 in 1998; But I can’t find Mark Mcqwire’s homers in 154 games for his 1998 season.
babe is the best to ever play the game-no doubt about it
Get over yourselves. I can’t beleive some of what I’m seeing here “Put Vlad in San Francisco and..” He’s in the stingyest ballpark in the country. SBC park with it’s impossibly high walls, deep alleys and wind make it the hardest place for a lefty to hit a HR in history. Go check your stats on that. Quite unlike Yankee stadium. I like how all of these stat lists conveniently leave out stats like steals, and Barry’s numbers for 2003 and 2004. No mention of 30-30, 40-40, or 500-500. I can just see Ruth’s fat butt plugging around the basepaths like Charlie Chaplin. Real fearsome. Talk about ‘roids all you want, but Barry was leading the NL in HRs even in his “smaller” days in 1993, and was always in the hunt. Oh, and all of these stats about his sub-300 average. Look out folks, it’s up to .299. What are you going to say when it’s over 300 at the end of next year? The bottom-line is, no one has ever done what Barry has done, given the 1 or 2 pitches per game he actually gets to seing at. Not even Ruth.
TOP FIVE SLUGGING % SEASONS, LEAGUE AVERAGE, AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
BONDS
.863 (2001) — league average .445 — .418
.799 (2002) — league average .423 — .376
.749 (2003) — league average .436 — .313
.688 (2000) — league average .450 — .238
.677 (1993) — league average .412 — .265
RUTH
.847 (1920) — .387 — .460
.846 (1921) — .408 — .438
.772 (1927) — .399 — .373
.764 (1923) — .388 — .376
.739 (1924) — .396 — .343
Its better to look at 162 game averages for stats, it gives a better measure of a players greatness, but seriously how can you argue with these career numbers?
.690 SLG
.474 OBP
.342 B.A.
506 doubles
136 triples
714 HR
Even if you take Ruth’s 162 game averages, and compare them to great players, it’s still amazing at the dominance.
For example:
Ruth’s 162 game average for total bases was 375 hitting that many or more 8 times during his career.
Mays had 375 or more total bases in a season TWICE during his entire career. Here are some others.
Williams – 0
Bonds – 1
Mcgwire – 1
Sosa – 4
Mantle – 1
Aaron – 1
Foxx – 3
Gehrig – 5
Hornsby – 4
Wagner – 0
R. Jackson – 0
Mel Ott – 0
Mike Schmidt – 0
Granted total bases aren’t the most important or impressive stat, but any of Ruth’s 162 game average stats and its boggling how dominant even those are over other greats throughout their entire careers….
Even if you leave out the bats which are harder and lighter, the hitters backdrop, the watered down pitching, the helmets and body armor, and the rock hard baseball….. JUST consider how long the fences were back in Ruth’s time and theres no telling how many more HR Ruth would have had they not been pastures.
Of his 506 doubles, at least 100 would have been HR, and of his 136 triples, at least 50-60 would have been HR. Then theres the numerous fly balls that the fielder had time to run back on and camp under considering how high of a fly ball Ruth’s swing produced. Theres at least another 50 over the course of his entire career. We’re lookin’ at around 900 HR in 8399 AB or one HR every 9 AB.
Had the awards existed, and had the competition for batting titles not been so stiff, Ruth would have won the following awards during his career…..
Cy Young Award – 1916
Cy Young Award – 1917 (Eddie Ciccotte might have won as well)
Rookie of the year – 1915 as pitcher (18-8, 16 CG, 2.44 ERA) and hitter, (.315, 4 HR, 10 2b, in 92 AB)
Batting titles
1924 – .378 (did win)
1920 – .376
1921 – .378
1923 – .393
1926 – .372
1931 – .373
At least one gold glove
All star game MVP
World Series MVP
12 HR CROWNS
6 RBI TITLES (4 second place finishes)
LEAGUE MVP AT LEAST 8 TIMES
RUTH AND BONDS’ TOP TEN SEASONS
_________RUNS PRODUCED_______
RUTH______(RBI + R) – HR________BONDS
1921 – 289______________1996 – 209
1931 – 266______________1993 – 206
1927 – 262______________1998 – 205
1930 – 254______________2001 – 193
1928 – 251______________2000 – 186
1923 – 241______________1991 – 186
1920 – 241______________1990 – 185
1926 – 238______________1997 – 184
1929 – 229______________2002 – 181
1924 – 218______________1995 – 180
________XTRA BASE HITS_________
RUTH_______________________BONDS
119__________________________107
99____________________________88
99____________________________88
97____________________________81
92____________________________79
91____________________________75
86____________________________71
82____________________________70
80____________________________68
78____________________________68
ADJUSTED OPS
SEASONS OVER 200
RUTH – 11
BONDS – 5
SLUGGING %
SEASONS OVER .650
RUTH – 13
BONDS – 5
ON BASE %
SEASONS OVER .450
RUTH – 11
BONDS – 6
RBI
SEASONS OVER 120
RUTH – 11
BONDS – 4
HITS
SEASONS OVER 170
RUTH – 10
BONDS – 1
STRIKEOUTS
SEASONS OVER 80
RUTH – 6
BONDS – 9
WALKS
SEASONS OVER 100
RUTH – 13
BONDS – 11
HOME RUNS
SEASONS OVER 40
RUTH – 11
BONDS – 7
TRIPLES
SEASONS OF 8 OR MORE
RUTH – 9
BONDS – 1
A few comments that need to be made. As it has been said before, SBC park is a pitchers park, as was candlestick park, also a notorious “graveyard” for the long ball with strong winds from the bay, both of which would automatically deflate bonds’ statistics a decent bit. If you look at Yankees stadium, back BEFORE the renovation, take a glance at the home run alleys: right field was 304 feet and left field was 298. Also, look at the line-up that ruth played with….they had LOU GEHRIG, a hall-of-famer and one of the all-time greats, in most of the relevant top ten career totals, thus giving Ruth more protection as well as helping to boost ruth’s statistics. Now Ruth could also pitch. Fine, but think about it this way…was Ruth more important to his team as a pitcher or a hitter…as a pitcher he was much closer to earth, and his were helped a bit by the fact that the era was the “dead-ball era”…so the real argument should be between Ruth the outfielder and Bonds the outfielder. Ruth, whose arm was probably decent considering he was a pitcher, was an average outfielder, while Bonds has been called the greatest defensive leftfielder ever, winning 8 consecutive gold gloves during the 90’s. Also, Bonds’s speed, as displayed by basestealing, is far better than Ruth’s. The Babe’s base-stealing percentage is barely above 50% of 240 attempts. Bonds’ is nearly 80% out of 644 attempts (he has 504 stolen bases, currently) which makes him one of the great base-stealers off all time, let alone of this era where base-stealing has become quite rare.
And the most important difference in the era’s has to do with race – Ruth played when only white people were allowed to participate while Bonds plays with the best athletes around, REGARDLESS of race. Thus the Babe will have to do with being the greatest player of the “Segregated Era”…..now, after all of this “evidence”, does it prove Bonds is better than Ruth? No, more or less all of this is speculation. In fact, in my opinion I think Willie Mays and Ted Williams were bigger individual contributors than Ruth or Bonds, although not by much. Retort!
bonds is the best in history no doubt about it
Barry Bonds is the greatest slugger of all time. I don’t think he is the best hitter. I’d have to give that to Ted Williams. I don’t think he is the best overall. I’d have to give that to his godfather, Willie Mays. But power hitter, definitely Bonds. You can make arguments about the mound, or the strike zone, or the watered down pitching, but I’d have to disagree. The addition of African-Americans and Latinos to baseball has changed the game forever. I think, to compare Ruth to the others of his time, and that be the main basis of why he’s the best is ridiculous. The hitters weren’t as strong, period. He seemed to be SO great because he was a strong man. He could hit it out.
The pitching now a days is better. There are relievers, and closers. Specialized pitchers who throw one-two innings. A player faces three pitchers a night (avg.). Ruth didn’t have to worry about a new pitcher coming in at the seventh and then again in the ninth. No, he got to hit off of a pitcher weather he was struggling through the 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th. No matter what in most cases. So, personally, i don’t think the pitching was as good as it is now. Pitchers now are stronger, throw harder. They spend hours perfecting technique. They constantly condition. They train. How many pitchers back then knew what we know now? All of the wasted effort those pitchers put into flailing arms and rocking way back. I think if those pitchers lived now, and had the training we have now, they could be as good as the Pedros and Randys. But I don’t think their natural ability was superior to the conditioned trained arms of today. It’s impractical, illogical.
I’m not saying they weren’t good compared to who they played against, but not compared to today’s pitchers. And same goes for Babe. Compared to who he played against, he was a god. Leaps and bounds above the rest. But if you put him up against pitching of today, I think he’d be above average at best. He’d see things he never saw before. Sharper curveballs. Faster fastballs. Circle-changes. He’d be lost. I love the legend of the Babe, and what he did for baseball. But i don’t think he can compare to Barry Bonds, or even Mark McGwire. I’d guess that he would have Todd Helton numbers. Very good, but not the best. And that’s just hitting, he would be low on defense and REALLY low on baserunning.
Babe is better than Bonds.
I have heard many arguments about this debate and many of the people say you cant compare stats. Then how the hell are you supposed to compare, to their contemporaries. We all now how badly Ruth outhomered the rest of the league. Either way you look at it, Babe is far ahead.
Another argument is about pitching. People say Bonds is a better hitter because pitching is tougher than in Ruth’s day. Those same people say you can’t use Ruth’s pitching stats to rate him better than Bonds because pitching was weak in Ruth’s day. If the pitching was so weak, wouldn’t it makes Ruth’s pitching stats all the more incredible?
In Ruth’s day, the same ball was used until it was hit out of play. Many times a ball was scuffed and when a ball is scuffed, it has extra movement, making it tougher to hit. Spitballs and other similar pitches that are outlawed today were legal as well. If you try to use this against Ruth in any way, it will backfire. Try using it against his pitching stats and say it would better his stats. Then you must realize that he faced the same conditions as a hitter, making it tougher for him to hit making his batting stats more incredible (if that’s possible) than they already are. See, I told you it would backfire on you.
It was already said that Ruth played in an era where the long ball was thought to be counter productive. Pitchers would pitch for the strike out or for a defensive play. What would Bonds’ numbers be if he got challenged? I know the stats above put Ruth above Bonds in this scenario and ruth leads him in every category, but Bonds has admited that early in his career he was more interested in stolen bases. Now that his age prevents him from stealing bases as often, he is more focused on home runs. This makes the percentage compairison moot. This also accounts for his phisical size. I don’t know if steroids were involved but, all the seroid users I have seen get their size quickly. Bonds has an insane workout regiment that has shown him bulking up over the past 5+ years. Lets see where he is at the end of his career. I think Bonds will be the guy kids talk about on the little league field as I did about Ruth. This will be the true measure of Ruths legacy. Aaron was in the wrong place at the wrong time for the history books and that is a shame.
if ruth had the advances in physical fitness and the knowledge of nutrition along with personal trainers as every major sports player has, ruth would be in just as good of shape if not better allowing him to play longer.
If Barry had an eye like the terminator he would not miss anything.
You can’t compair “what if’s”. If Ruth was wearing Nike’s he would have stolen more bases. If Ruth had better bats he would have done better. If the ballparks were smaller he would have had more homeruns. The man could hit the ball, preiod. Bonds can hit the ball, period. At the end of Barrys career we can then compair them. Records are made to be broken. When their broken, is up to fate.
What I’m sayin is that Ruth’s numbers with, all of the disadvantages he had compared to todays game, are more remarkable than what Bond’s is doing now. You could say that Ruth had protection in the lineup with Gehrig but its Bonds’ own fault he doesn’t. He drove Kent out of town who was an above average hitter. I know he is no Gehrig but it is better protection than what he has got now. Another reason is that the Giants don’t have the money to go and get better players because Bonds in making 20 mil/year. It’s his own fault he has no protection.
NO COMPARISON – BABE RUTH IS THE GREATEST OF ALL TIME!!!
Sorry about the yelling but please look at the numbers posted by Randy. The Babe leads in so many more categories.
I think it’s important to state that when we talk about Barry we are really only thinking about the player we’ve seen in the last five years,
Barry was an excellent player the first fourteen years of his career, but now… WHO IS THIS GUY???
He averages about 32 homers the first fourteen years of his career then suddenly hits 73.
That’s 41 more than his average total.
Doesn’t that sound odd?
Also, while 73 is impressive, what does it mean when the next guy hits 64?
The major difference between Ruths era and Barrys, The pitchers had pride and threw to Ruth. If Bonds sees more pitches this argument dosent exist. When the next guy hits 64 homeruns it means the pitchers need to throw better. Look over the last 30 years and you will see a pattern of strong pitching with weak hitting. Then as the hitters get better the pitching suffers. This point in history has a few standout pitchers with a bunch of throwers. Take a look at how Clemens, Johnson and Wells throw to Barry. They go after him. Just about EVERYONE ELSE thows around or intentionally walks him. And as far as kent goes, it was his fat head that sent him to the Astros. He wanted to be the star of the team and couldent with Barry around. Barry had nothing to do with getting him traded. Most of what I read here is just echoing the east coast media bias against, not just Barry, but all west coast baseball. Ricky Ledee was quoted as saying, before he got to San Francisco he thought Barry was a jerk. Since he has joined the team, Barry has been the best friend he has. Barry may not like the media but he has his reasons. He just wants to do his job. If the pitchers could take a little more pride in their game Ruth would be a fond memory.
Then how do you explain Ruth being 3rd all time in walks just 200 behind Bonds. Ruth was walked just as often then as Bonds is now.
Ted Williams was walked more than either of them. The only reason Ruth is considered better than Williams is because Williams lost 5 of his prime years to war so his stats are lower. Williams could have easily hit 700 HR. You could make a much better case for Ted Williams than you ever could for Bonds.
I should say that Williams was walked more often, not more.
Bonds still has two years on his contract. He has said he wishes to continue after that. Bonds could easily have 1000 more walks than Ruth by the end of his career. He will probably retire somewhere around 2007 or 2008. With 200+ walks per year where does that put Ruth. And again with Willams, saying he would have over 700 home runs, is playing the “what if” game. You can’t compair what if’s. Bonds has 2070 walks in 18 seasons (through 2003) compaired to Wiliams’ 2021. Ruth has 2062. Williams was walked less than either of them. I am also sure that Williams or Ruth was not walked intentionally simply because of who they were. They were great hitters so pitchers were careful. Pitchers are flat scared to pitch to Bonds.
Let’s put Barry’s walks in perspective.
Barry has had such giants of the game as; Bobby Bonilla, Marquis Grissom, J.T. Snow and other forgettable players batting after him.
Years ago they would walk Babe Ruth to get to this guy you may have heard about… LOU GEHRIG!!!
Think about it, you walk Babe Ruth to get to the greatest RBI machine in baseball history.
A guy who has had over 170 RBI’s THREE TIMES, including an American League record of 184. His RBI’s per year is staggering and you walk The Babe to pitch to him.
There is no fearsome player who bats after Barry that’s why it’s so easy to let him walk to first.
It doesn’t sound as impressive when you say pitchers fear Bonds so much they intentionally walk him to get to J. T. Snow.
Now..say…Pitchers fear Ruth so much they intentionally walk him to get to Lou Gehrig.
It puts things in perspective, doesn’t it?
LONG LIVE THE BABE…The GREATEST PLAYER OF ALL TIME!!!
How many intentional walks did Ruth have? Everybody talks about the number of Bonds’ intentional passes with awe and amazement. Why would Former players and veteran analists be so amazed at this if Ruth was treated the same? Please let me know where you are getting the reports that Ruth was intentionally walked as much as Bonds. Also, having LOU GHERIG behind Ruth would have given him MORE pitches to hit. That means more strikes not balls. Chaplin just proved my point that pitchers were CAREFUL when they pitched to Ruth which accounted for his walks. Having average players behind Bonds means you can ignore the BEST ant try for a double play with the average.
I didn’t sat Ruth was intentionally walked as much as Bonds. What I said was Ruth was walked as often as Bonds. We will never know how many IBB Ruth had because IBB were not kept very well and there is hardly any video.
If you look at at-bats and games, Williams has far less than either player and is only about 300 behind Bonds. I was not comparing totals but rather how many walks per at-bat and games. I didn’t do calculations but just by looking at the numbers, you can see how frequently he was walked. Same goes for Ruth. He has less at-bats and games played and is 200 walks behind Bonds. Once agian, I am stressing frequency, not totals. They were all walked with about the same frequency.
You don’t think the Giants org is trying to get Bonds protection. They don’t have the money because Bonds is eating too much payroll. It is his own fault. He won’t take a paycut to help himself or his team.
Kent doesn’t seem to have a problem not being a star in Houston so I can’t stomach Kevin’s argumnent about it being Kent’s fault for his release unless I see some articles about the subject. There is Clemens, Bagwell, Biggio, Beltran and Pettite and Kent seems very happy where he is. I may be wrong and it could have been Kent’s fault but with his demeanor where he is it is kind of hard to believe. Just show me some evidence it is his fault for being released by the Giants
Clemens and Pettite are not the defensive or offensive superstars that Kent wants to be. Bagwell, Biggio and Beltran are not even half the superstar that Bonds is. Kent wanted credit for his accomplishments which were overshadowed in San Francisco. The year he won his MVP all the discussion in the media was that Bonds should have won (and a good arguement can be made that he should have). Kent was upset that he did not stand out. His own ego caused his distain for Bonds not Bonds’ attitude. Anyone that follows the Giants will tell you the same. As far as the payroll goes, sure Bonds is getting the most on the team but the Giants are also paying for SBC Park out of their own pockets. If MLB had helped out at all, the Giants would have gotten Guerrero or Sheffield easily. I don’t blame Bonds for getting as much money as he can. Thats the american way. The Giants have been a consistant team since Bonds arrival. They have been in contention almost every year since 1993. So not having a superstar bat behind Bonds hasn’t hurt them at all. Name one other team, beside the Yankees who have unlimited funds and the Braves that play in a weak small market division, That can say that.
“On the field, we’re fine, but off the field, I don’t care about Barry and Barry doesn’t care about me. Or anybody else,” Kent told Reilly. “He doesn’t answer questions. He palms everybody off on us, so we have to do his talking for him. But you get used to it. Barry does a lot of questionable things … I was raised to be a team guy, and I am, but Barry’s Barry. It took me two years to learn to live with it, but I learned.” – Jeff Kent, Sports Illustrated.
Does a content “team guy” criticize a “teammate” in a national publication, or does this sound like a guy that is upset that Bonds gets more attention. Bonds didn’t ask Kent or anyone else to answer to the media for him. Kent was upset at the media for asking him to talk about about Bonds and not himself.
Kent didn’t criticize the team, he criticized Bonds. Those comments don’t show that Kent was upset about not being noticed because he won the MVP over Bonds. That shows his acheivements being recognized. What his comments show is that Bonds is an ahole who doesn’t care about his teamates. Did you see the faces of his teamates when he hit his 700th HR. I saw 1 smiling face and it was Schmidt who Bonds has praised all year. Schmidt hugged him while the rest of the team high fived him and sat back down. It seems to me that Schmidt is Bonds’ only friend on the team. Kent is the only teamate of Bonds who has had the courage to speak against him. What Kevin said about Ledee thinking he was a jerk before being traded and now the two of them being friends I have a hard time believing because I saw Ledee’s face when Bonds hit 700 and he was not smiling. The reason Ledee won’t badmouth Barry now is because he doesn’t want to create tension in the clubhouse. I watched Ledee play in Philly and he was always the quiet guy on the team who tried to avoid confrontations.
By commenting on Bonds’ attitude toward his teammates and the management is way off the subject of this forum. I assume that there are no further points that can be made for Ruth. This forum was a fun diversion for my down time at work.
Thank You
There are plenty of more arguments for Ruth. What makes him the best is that no other player has dominated his era like Ruth. You could say that he played before integration and not against the best of the time. But, now the Japanese players are coming over, the best from their league and only Ichiro and Sasaki (Mariner’s former closer) succeded to a degree that is admirable. Godzilla has had success with hitting homeruns but his average is around 250. That doesn’t sound like success. My point is that even if the league was integrated, most of the higher performing negro league players may not have been able to compare the best of that time. There would have been some that would have made a difference and I am not refuting that.
Japanese players have nothing to do with Bonds Vs. Ruth. And to say that Bonds is not dominating this era is absurd. This current series with the Astros proves that. They had a rookie on the mound on tuesday night, He pitched to Bonds every at bat. All the relievers thet came in, pitched to Bonds. It worked, they got him out. Last night Roy Oswalt, a veteran 18 game winner, threw one pitch to Bonds which turned out to be a tripple. Bonds didn’t see another pitch the rest of the night. That never happened to Ruth. Why did a tripple scare a veteran like Oswalt? If thats not dominance in this era I don’t know what is.
And to comment on Ruth not playing against the all the best players of his era. Bonds Is.