Is Bonds Better Than Ruth? Statistical Analysis

[buffalobillsrul2002]

Hmm...this one's tough. You can't really use stats to compare, because of the different eras. Bonds beats Ruth in baserunning. Defense is split. Bonds was a better fielder, but Ruth pitched. However Ruth's amazing pitching numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt since not as many runs were scored in the teens and twenties. For the same reason, Ruth's hitting numbers must be admired... I'm gonna say Bonds. Throughout his career until the past 3 or 4 years, Bonds dominated on both sides of the diamond, while it would be tough to say that Ruth dominated as a fielder, and Ruth probably wouldn't be an 11-time Cy Young Winner if he pitched....

[bigh0rt]

A lot of people are saying due to eras, we cannot compare, but Baseball Prospectus put forth the ol' college effort, with the normalized stats. Through the meat of their careers, Bonds put up the better normalized AVG, OBP, and SLG. The counting stats are a different beast, however. The EqA figures are pretty telling, as well, as they transport across the span of each other's career when compared. What do you make of these numbers?

For the BRAR figures, Bonds saw more than 1,000 more plate appearances than Ruth did, which is a large contributing factor there. But it also led the writers from BP to conclude that Barry Bonds has provided more value with his bat than any other player in baseball history, Babe Ruth included. Bonds also edges Ruth in FRAR 330 to 225, and FRAA 89 to 31. However, Ruth's PRAR for his time on the mound was 262. Totaling all of that, Ruth comes in at 2,065 Career Runs Above Replacement to Bonds' 1,966, giving Ruth nearly a 100-run lifetime advantage over Barry. That data is only as recent as 2005, so Bonds could close or even surpass that gap as early as this season, without having ever thrown a pitch. Quite impressive. The fact that Bonds has caused this debate more so than anyone else in baseball history is a feat in and of itself.

[brewcrew4you]

In terms of impact on the game, Ruth is the clear winner.

But if you consider the quality of the competition faced - no blacks, no intensive training/weightlifiting/specialization - Barry has to be the choice. Barry has been dominant against millions of dollars spent specifically to neutralize him.

[TheRawDAWG]

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.

Another good point for Ruth. Bonds doesn't have a strike zone. He has a homerrun pitch. The only pitch Barry doesn't get a called strike on is the one straight down the pipe. Did Ruth have all that body armour on? Did ruth have half and plate and half the height of the strike zone in his favour? Did Ruth have all the enhancements in science to make people bigger and stronger (no not talking about that other stuff)? Bonds has had a lot of things go his way. Lets see him do it DRUNK!!!

Also, just out of curiousity what were the numbers of the players from the age of 20-35? I'm not trying to stir the pot... I really don't know.

[TheRawDAWG]

Crazy thing that I didn't realize, Ruth only won 1 "MVP" award. When you look at his numbers you see a bunch of 1s beside them for being first in the league in that year. What did the league look for at that time? Hits maybe?

Also, HR count from start of career to the year each hit 35 (the normal downtrend of most ball players)

Ruth: 565

Bonds: 445

Also, as someone else pointed out Ruth was a pitcher to start his career and had very low numbers for the first 4 years of his career. He starts out as a hitter and Bonds is still chasing down that HR record...done in the "deadball" era while Bonds did his in the "Juiced" ball era.

[suppasonic]

Crazy thing that I didn't realize, Ruth only won 1 "MVP" award. When you look at his numbers you see a bunch of 1s beside them for being first in the league in that year. What did the league look for at that time? Hits maybe?


Also, as someone else pointed out Ruth was a pitcher to start his career and had very low numbers for the first 4 years of his career. He starts out as a hitter and Bonds is still chasing down that HR record...done in the "deadball" era while Bonds did his in the "Juiced" ball era.

Actually I believe in the first years of the MVP players could only win the award once. Bonds won it in 1923 and didn't receive another VOTE for mvp until 1931, when his career was in its later years.

[Snakes Gould]

For the BRAR figures, Bonds saw more than 1,000 more plate appearances than Ruth did, which is a large contributing factor there. But it also led the writers from BP to conclude that Barry Bonds has provided more value with his bat than any other player in baseball history, Babe Ruth included. Bonds also edges Ruth in FRAR 330 to 225, and FRAA 89 to 31. However, Ruth's PRAR for his time on the mound was 262. Totaling all of that, Ruth comes in at 2,065 Career Runs Above Replacement to Bonds' 1,966, giving Ruth nearly a 100-run lifetime advantage over Barry. That data is only as recent as 2005, so Bonds could close or even surpass that gap as early as this season, without having ever thrown a pitch. Quite impressive. The fact that Bonds has caused this debate more so than anyone else in baseball history is a feat in and of itself.

ill be quite honest and say i dont know what most of the numbers mean or how you calculate them...but i do know all of the stats that cords posted and its quite telling that ruth's numbers were better. and the fact that j35j and other think its unfair to compare those numbers, but the fact that ruth's are better even further the argument from my pov, simply because his numbers were so much better than everyone else's from that time period (for the most part).

[Carnac]

The first 8 years of the MVP award, a player could only win the award once. That has no relevance in the discussion.

[Tavish]

RE: Comparison between different eras

Projecting players into different eras is futile, that is nothing but a "what if" argument. Trying to figure out how many homeruns Ruth would have hit in 2007 doesn't really have any value any more than trying to figure out how much popcorn would sell at theatres if the Spiderman 3 movie was released in 1920.

What you can do is compare how the players performed against their competition. Then if you want to go further you can make judgements about the level of the competition. In the end that is all that really matters. How good were the player's peers and how much better than them was he.

[05worldserieschamps]

700/500 ..
Let me know when any other player comes close.

Exactly. That should be the end of this discussion. Your keep arguing about how should have HR and whatever. Guess what? Hitting- Bonds is better. More HR and this with Ray Durham(compared to Lou Gehrig) hitting behind him. Even if you want to give the SLIGHT edge to Ruth here, like it was pointed out earilier, it says ballplayer. So even if you give a slight victory to Ruth on hitting, Speed: No Comparison at all. 500 SB is an accomlishment for any player, ecpecially one with 700 HR. Defense: No COmparison at all. Bonds has won 8 Gold Gloves.(the most ever GG at OF is 12. Whoelse? Mays) Bonds is the complete package. 5 tool player. Ruth was just a big guy how hit HR. Again, no knock on Ruth, buts its not close.