eftda wrote:you just picked that stats that Ruth edges bonds with.
I picked the stats that Ruth edges him in? What other stats would you like me to use? If you tell me, I will research them. What would you like? Most balls hit between center and right-center? I gave you the stolen bases. I also conceded the pitching to Ruth. To me, that's a wash. You saying that you can't compare pitchers to hitters is fair but I didn't do that. I only added a stat to Ruth's side and added SB's to Bonds.
eftda wrote:AND WE DONT KNOW IF RUTH WAS ON DRUGS!
You're right although it would have been hard to fit it in with all of that beer drinking. We also don't know that about Bonds, either.
eftda wrote:And walk, you have to be jokeing. Look, he had 198 walks last year. that a single season record. Also, bonds hit 73 hr in a year.
Yes. Bonds broke the record for walks. That is impressive. He also broke the HR record. That is also impressive although I say this. Ruth set his mark in a dead ball era with much larger parks. McGwire and Sosa both broke Maris' record in the same year and then Bonds broke that a few years later. There is a reason that Bonds ball didn't fetch as much. The fact that 2 guys broke the record in the same year and then it was broken shortly thereafter diminished it's value. 73 homers is very impressive but the fact that the record had just been broken decreases it's value IMHO. Bonds' feat is impressive as hell but let me see him outhomer ENTIRE TEAMS like Ruth did.
eftda wrote:Yes Bonds will 'never' we as good as ruth because all of you who say that he had less atbats, but look, bonds gets walked like crazy, and he still hits 40+ homeruns.
Bonds is impressive. There is no other way around it. To say that all of "us" who say that Ruth had less at bats is crazy. He did and he still had the better numbers. Bonds gets walked like crazy? Apparently Ruth did as well because he has slightly more in less games and at bats.
tal1286 wrote:geez...touchy touchy
I am? I guess that you are entitled to your opinion as we all are but I was asked to look at the stats and I did.
tal1286 wrote:bonds>>>players of his time
I agree 100% but as of a few years ago, people were saying that about Griffey. There was never a question during Ruth's era and NOW there is no question about Bonds.
tal1286 wrote:however i think that wrveres put it perfectly. Bonds IS great, undeniably. Take that for what it's worth and stop knocking bonds for his personal problems.
I never said that Bonds wasn't great. All that I said was that if you want to put Bonds way up there with the greatest players ever, IMHO, you have to put Ruth above him. I NEVER knocked him for anything other than making stupid comments. He has made them.