Is Bonds Better Than Ruth? Statistical Analysis

[Art Vandelay]

I was just showing Ray Durham isn't even close to the best player Bonds played with.

I don't think anyone was saying that Durham is the best player that has hit near Bonds in the lineup, just that in recent years his protection has been lacking, and that if you compare the players batting around Bonds with the players batting around Ruth, it's not even close. One season (2003 maybe?) the five hole for the Giants (which was usually manned by either Feliz or Santiago I believe) had a lower batting average than every other spot in the lineup in the NL except for like two teams nine holes...so most of the national league pitchers hit better than whoever was behind Bonds that year. Giants fans should run Sabean out of town on a rail for not being able to bring in anyone to protect Bonds in the lineup. To have the best player of his generation batting with nobody to protect him for five years is inexcusable...but that's a whole other discussion.

[tgalv]

Ruth is the best ever compared to the players he played against. if you wanna get all current times elitist and say babe ruth couldn't even play in MLB right now, then fine that's your prerogative, but what is the point of that? 100 years from now barry bonds won't be able to play in 2100 MLB and someone else will be better. the new "king" in 2100 MLB won't be able to play in 2200 MLB and someone else would be better. it's foolishness. just look at what babe ruth did.

[brewcrew4you]

Bonilla, Van Slyke, Matt Williams, Will Clark, Jeff Kent, JT Snow, Rich Aurilla, Reggie Sanders, Ray Durham, Ellis Burks, Moises Alou << Lou Gehrig

[TheRawDAWG]

Bonilla, Van Slyke, Matt Williams, Will Clark, Jeff Kent, JT Snow, Rich Aurilla, Reggie Sanders, Ray Durham, Ellis Burks, Moises Alou << Lou Gehrig

Really?

The point I was making is Bonds had some good hitters in the lineup while he played. It's only been very recent since he has had no protection. The other poster was trying to make it seem like Bonds has had Ray Durham as his only protection for his career.

How about we bring up championships and stats from the playoffs. If there needs to be a tie breaker lets look there first.

[TheRawDAWG]

BTW, Ruth didn't have Gehrig for protection until he was 30 years old. He played 10 years without him. He hit 59 and 54 homer runs in years without Gehrig. So lets get over that ok?

[WhiteHot]

Bonds is better and it's not really that close. It's hard to compare different eras, but if Bonds were playing back then, he'll probably hit .600 with hundreds of homers per year. If Ruth were playing now, he'd be playing for peanuts in the Independent League or in the studio with his reincarnated soul, John Kruk.

[bigh0rt]

And another thing, doesn't it tell you something if the HR hitter Bonds is going to pass and the commissioner of baseball probably aren't going to be at Bonds record breaking game? That right there shows we shouldn't even be having this conversation because of the lack of respect Bonds has from the players and the office of baseball.

Could it not show that Bug Selig is a giant putz? You're assuming here that Selig is some sort of benchmark for what is right or intelligent, when he's already shown several times that he couldn't be further from that. So, it doesn't really show all that much...

How about we bring up championships and stats from the playoffs. If there needs to be a tie breaker lets look there first.

Why would you look there first? Championships are team-driven, not single player. Ruth played with a who's who of Hall of Famers while Bond has spent the better part of his career playing for the craptastic Giants and Pirates. Who do you think is going to have more championships? That means diddley squat in comparing how good the players were. Edgar Renteria has more championships than Bonds does.

Ruth did put up some monster post-season and World Series stats both with his arm and bat, but again, we're dealing with such a small sample size that it's irrelevant, never mind where some form of 'tie breaker' ought to begin.

[J35J]

Ruth is the best ever compared to the players he played against. if you wanna get all current times elitist and say babe ruth couldn't even play in MLB right now, then fine that's your prerogative, but what is the point of that? 100 years from now barry bonds won't be able to play in 2100 MLB and someone else will be better. the new "king" in 2100 MLB won't be able to play in 2200 MLB and someone else would be better. it's foolishness. just look at what babe ruth did.

Babe Ruth was great in his era....Mays was great in his era.....Bonds is great in this current era. I'm fine with any arguement that Ruth was better in his era than Bonds is in this era but to tell me that Ruth is a better ball player than Bonds is silly to me. I don't know, something like saying, well little Jimmy was a better player in his t-ball league than Johnny was in his college league so that must mean little Jimmy is a better player? ....it just isn't comparable to me. just my opinion...ballplayers are better today!

[tgalv]

that isn't fair to punish people because they weren't born in your preferred time period.

[Tavish]

I don't know, something like saying, well little Jimmy was a better player in his t-ball league than Johnny was in his college league so that must mean little Jimmy is a better player? ....it just isn't comparable to me. just my opinion...ballplayers are better today!

What do you base that opinion on?