blankman wrote:Also keep in mind that the fences were MUCH farther out (see the former fences at Yankee Stadium) when Ruth played, making HR's much harder to come by.
was that short porch to right farther back? I honestly don't know. It seems to me that would be a huge Plus for the Babe. I say we give Barry a short porch instead of a 40 foot brick wall. At least the swirlling winds of Candlestick are gone..
"Mr. Sabian....Tear Down This Wall"
Anonymous wrote:Babe Ruth is the original user of the corked bat and in fact, the rule against them was created specifically due to the use of Ruth's then called "funny bats." ... others should judge Babe Ruth's past cheating in a similar manner but with one key difference, Ruth cheated for a longer period of time...However, Ruth used this form of cheating for years. I feel this should discredit Babe Ruth’s accomplishments somewhat when at this issue objectively.
From what you are saying (I don't know whether any of it is true), Babe originally used the corked bat. Then baseball made a rule against them after he used them. So, I gather that when he used them there was no rule against them. Then how is that cheating? If there was no rule prohibitting corked bats when he used them, then he cannot possibly be cheating, since there is nothing to cheat. Further, scientists have researched the differences between corked and uncorked bats and have found very little if any advantage is gained by the corking anyway.
As for Ruth vs. Bonds. Ruth is clearly the better player. Many arguements have been said for Ruth's superiority, but...Also keep in mind that the fences were MUCH farther out (see the former fences at Yankee Stadium) when Ruth played, making HR's much harder to come by. Today's game is based on the HR and literally anyone can hit one in these shrunken park, which was not the case when Ruth played.
So your saying that it isn't cheating when players use performance enhancing drugs, since they're not illegal yet. IMO, this argument is absurd. If Ruth used a corked bat (which I doubt he did), then he did use a form of cheating. He was able to gain an unfair advantage over other players. Maybe it's not even about cheating or not. It's about right and wrong, and what Ruth did (if he did it) was wrong, and he knew it.
Going to huge someday.
jeez wrveres , do you have to argue with everything I say? I'll try to refute your point(don't take this as an attack on you, its just hopefully educational for all of us )
Yes, right field down the line has always been short, but Candlestick was also beneficial to Bonds. The arguement about Bonds having to go over the 25 ft wall at Pac Bell is true, but you have to realize that Bonds has only played there for the few years that it has been in existance.
In terms of Candlestick, according to ESPN: "Lefthanded hitters, on the other hand, get the benefit of the jetstream to right." They even go as far to say "Hell, Ruth played in a much less homer-friendly park" (than Mays). Also keep in mind that Center at Yankee Stadium was as far as 500 ft when Ruth played.
I don't know how long Bonds played for Pittsburgh, but according to ESPN, at 3 Rivers Stadium "doubles, triples and home runs generally are boosted slightly, because the ball carries well into the gaps (especially during the summer months)." Right field was 335 feet out.
So, it seems clear that though both enjoyed beneficial conditions, Ruth played in less beneficial field conditions, not to mention the fact that today's players are stronger as a result of better nutrition, better exercise equipment and scientific advancements (aside from steriods) that have made getting stronger more easily. Along with the reality that today's bats are better than the one's Ruth used.
No I am not argueing.. I was curious actually... lol . Nothin' but love.
There is no doubt that Ruth was the better Bat, Barry's accpomlishments aside. To compare to todays standards is impossible. But If Ruth was playing today. I would have him play the OF until the 9th. then I would have him close.
I love Barry probably more because I get to watch him play. The fact that Barry is constantly knocked by his haters .. is soley media driven. Barry didn't like the way the media treated his father and the bitter standoff with reporters began 25 years ago. But the pen truly is mightier. Last I checked, Barry has never beaned anybody with a ball, he has never spit on another player/ump, he has never corked, and no proof of juice. I think that is important to point out though. If there were proof. Then it all goes away. I will hate and despise the man. But basically he has had an insane career who made a decision early on not to trust reporters. And it has cost him dearly. Imagine the endorsements he should be enjoying as a player of that stature. I think Barry is happy with his decision's. I really do
I have no doubt that Barry Bonds is a great player, and I don't hate him for any reason, but I think his quote about Ruth goes a little too far.
My impression is that he was saying that if he passes Ruth in HR's; he can declare himself the better player. I completely disagree with that idea and I'm sure others do too.
Barry Bonds certainly has the right to do whatever he wants and I don't blame him too much for doing what he does but I think he disrespected baseball's history with that comment, and showed arrogance by saying that he'll be better than Ruth after he passes him.
And obviously he's never beaned anyone, since he's never pitched, but I don't fault any pitcher for beaning someone because sometimes it needs to be done for the pitcher to be effective.
Oh well, I'll just hope he doesn't reach Ruth and I certainly hope he isn't on steriods because that would be a huge dissappointment to us all.
In my case, I have made my own conclusions on Bonds based purely from actual interviews I have seen on tv (not print) and from his actions.
I find him to be arrogant and antagonistic. Why is he always so defensive? It's really a shame that such an awesome talent isn't owned by someone that can be a ambassador for the game.
I am the first to agree that baseball's history is shameful for not allowing black players to play for so long. I can understand someone not recognizing league history and records before say, the 70's, or even to not have any respect for baseball history. But to constantly dwell on the past and to carry a chip on your shoulder....
Then we see people quoting him, like on this topic, with him saying things about wanting to break Babe Ruth's record, but not caring to break Hank Aaron's record. Now I can't substantiate that he actually said these things, but his behavior in the past would lead people to believe that this is a distinct possibility. He is NOT talking about left-handed, right-handed. Everyone here knows he is talking about race.
If you wonder why baseball's popularity is so down and the future bleak, take a good hard look at one of MLB's biggest representatives, Barry Bonds.
Babe Ruth reinvented baseball. He was the Magic/Bird, The Sosa/McGuire. He was the first player to hit 30, 40, 50, and 60 home runs in a season, and his slugging style forever changed the way baseball was played. Among his other hitting records are his 457 total bases in 1921 and his combined total of 375 hits and walks in 1923.
This is Ruths 162 Career Game "Average" (Just take their career games played and divide by 162 and then divide their career totals by that factor. )
136 - Runs
33 - 2B
9 - 3B
46 - Hr's
That was an "Average Year"
He re-invented the game.
I love Barry, but Barry can never say that.
Lastly, this thread has got me thinking. I doubt they have splits that go back that far, But I would love to know what Pct of Ruth's Hr's were at home vs away. Or left vs. right field. anybody? at least a link?