See, this is what makes me laugh, when people try to compare numbers from the teens and 20's to current day..... you just can't do it.....IMO.
Exactly. It has to be Bonds, hands down. Then 500/500 Club should be enough for you right there. That kind of offensive weapon is just unheard of. Even great power/speed guys such as Mantle and Mays couldn't accomplish 500/500. Then, you throw in the Fact that Bonds' HR will soon be the Most ever. Stunning. And as said before, you just can't compare as far as stats. The competition today is so much greater, it is just a different game.
Plus, the evidence that gets me, is Intentional Walks. Bonds has had the bat stripped from his hands 665 times during his career. By looking at Bonds per at bat ratio's, here are his adjusted stats if you take away IBB:
797 HR, 2087 RBI
You get the Idea. Without IBB, Bonds would easily be the best power hitter ever. Which is all Ruth has on Bonds. Speed and Defense are no comparison.
Also, another point. Take Ray Durham/Moises Alou away behind Bonds and add in Lou Gehrig, you got a whole different ballgame. Sure, the Babe was easily the best power hitter of his time, but Gehrig was 2nd.(with possible exception of Foxx) Using baseballreference.com, the only current player on Gehrig's "similar batters" list was Frank Thomas. And Im sure you'll all remember how dominant Thomas was until the turn of the Century. Even 2000+, when he was healthy, was a lock for 35+ HR. Put him behind Bonds for all these years and Bonds would get a few more pitches to hit. I guarantee he wouldn't have 665 IBB, and would have probably easily eclipsed Aaron's record.
Again, nothing away from Ruth. He was a great player, he just didn't play in the same era. And when looking at Ruth, he hit HR. Thats what he was best at, his claim to fame. And if Barry Bonds has his beat so easily in that, there shouldn't even be a discussion here.
PS- Check out the book "Baseball: Between the Numbers" The prolouge is about 15 pages on this exact argument. And it's a great read anyway, for the hardcore baseball fan, that is.
Is pushing for President Obama to pass a law requiring all citizens to be Chicago White Sox fans and make October 1st "White Sox Day" where we all dress as our favorite player. It maybe socialist, but I don't care.
Ruth had won 18 or more games 3 times by the time he was 22. In 1916 he was 23-12 with a 1.75 era. How was Bond's curve ball? IMO that at least makes up somewhat Bonds' 500 SB.
I agree that you cant really compare players from different eras, but its fun to try. If Bonds had Durham instead of Gehrig behind him, he could also afford his own personal gym and trainer, and had the benefit of decades in advances in getting and staying in shape.
Statistically, I would have to say Bonds has the slight edge. But there are many factors that we need to throw in other than the numbers to truly say who is "Better".
If this were a discussion without limitations, I would say Ruth hands down...no contest.
However, since we are only considering statistics... its Bonds.
bigh0rt wrote:[/b]So, from a statistical standpoint, who is the best ballplayer of all-time? Ruth? Bonds? Someone else? Support your answer.
Since bigh0rt's query specified "ballplayer" over "hitter," I'm going with Ruth (as this thread asks comparison between these two individuals). The 94 career wins and 3-0 World Series pitching record (ERA 0.86) put the Babe over the top in my humble estimation. He's still in the WS record book as a pitcher for the 14-inning complete game (with 13 consecutive scoreless innings). As a hitter, Bonds stacks up very well, though he didn't spend his first four seasons as a part-time hitter in the dead ball era.
bigh0rt wrote:[/b]So, from a statistical standpoint, who is the best ballplayer of all-time? Ruth? Bonds? Someone else? Support your answer.
Since bigh0rt's query specified "ballplayer" over "hitter," I'm going with Ruth (as this thread asks comparison between these two individuals). The 94 career wins and 3-0 World Series pitching record (ERA 0.86) put the Babe over the top in my humble estimation. He's still in the WS record book as a pitcher for the 14-inning complete game (with 13 consecutive scoreless innings). As a hitter, Bonds stacks up very well, though he didn't spend his first four seasons as a part-time hitter in the dead ball era.
700/500 .. Let me know when any other player comes close.
Last edited by wrveres on Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I don't think anyone has mentioned it here but there was an article I saw once comparing Bonds to Ruth - and they gave the edge to Ruth in two key regards. First, pitchers used to mess with the ball all the time to get better pitches, and got the ball dirty to make it harder to see. Second, the strikezone was a lot bigger back then.
So how this factors in I don't know, but you definitely can't do a straight-up comparison in that regard.
Let me also point out that if you want to talk about hitting, you've got to stick with that. You can't factor in stolen bases, which is really an issue of base running, a notable talent, but then disregard Babe's ability to pitch, also a notable talent. Yeah, stolen bases is an offensive talent, whereas pitching is a 'defensive' one, but that seems a little arbitrary.
samjerky wrote:First, pitchers used to mess with the ball all the time to get better pitches, and got the ball dirty to make it harder to see.
some people might reply in a way that could bring this topic, off topic... i hope not though...
But ive always thought its wrong to compare players from different generations, i mean, Bonds is hitting 95+ mph fastballs, and back in Ruths day pitches were thrown much slower
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by cordscords » Tue Jun 05, 2007 5:14 pm 
IMO that at least makes up somewhat Bonds' 500 SB.
