I'd take the Babe, and have him pitch while he's at it.
Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
if you include pitching, its obvious who i'd take.
for their careers, id give a VERY SLIGHT edge to Ruth.
in there prime, like you mentioned in the original question, id take Bonds. power, plate discipline and consistency have never converged at the same time the way it did for Bonds in the past few years. and im not belittling anyone or anything but dont forget that Babe Ruth ruled white America. Barry Bonds rules the world. it'd be stupid to ignore the huge impact of black and south/central American baseball players. even Japanese and Korean and Australian dudes .
[size=10]Manny Ramirez....$20 million
Pedro Martinez....$17.5 million
Curt Schilling...$12 million (and a $2 million bonus)
Never hearing a Yankee fan chant 1918 again...priceless. [/size]
The problem in comparing pure stats is that you don't get an idea of how good older players were. Picture Barry Bonds hitting 120+ HR's nowadays. That's how good Ruth was compared to everybody else. The SB's shouldn't matter that much....... unless you're talking about fantasy. It's hard to do, yes........ so is playing in 2,632 games but should either of those feats be enough to significantly increase a player's value when rating their careers I don't think so. SB's alone aren't indicators of being "good", they help you score more runs. So if we're judging these players with runs scored in mind....... why also count SB's? Same with consecutive games........ it helps you get more AB's and more chances to produce, but if a player puts up the same stats as somebody else who played 3 more games per season, isn't the guy with an average of 3 less games better, since he required less games to do the same thing
Plus, Ruth was an awesome pitcher. No doubt, I'm sticking with Ruth
"Jack, will you call me, if you're able?"
"I've got your phone number written, in the back of my Bible."
Stolen basis definelty count !!! You can't just discount a major stat like that because it's convient .. last I checked, the object of the game is to score more runs. period ..
and while you are playing what if ... ..
What if Barry got to play in Yankee Stadium for most of his career. a park built for a left handed hitter. One named Ruth.
.. or ..
What if Barry had the same type of line-up protection that was afforded Ruth his whole career. Barry has 'NEVER' had protection. Kent for a few often injured seasons, but that it.
wrveres wrote:Stolen basis definelty count !!! You can't just discount a major stat like that because it's convient .. last I checked, the object of the game is to score more runs. period ..
and while you are playing what if ... ..
What if Barry got to play in Yankee Stadium for most of his career. a park built for a left handed hitter. One named Ruth.
.. or ..
What if Barry had the same type of line-up protection that was afforded Ruth his whole career. Barry has 'NEVER' had protection. Kent for a few often injured seasons, but that it.
I'm pretty sure The Babe hit more HR's on the road than at home....... regardless, whatever the park dimensions were, all of Ruth's opponents played in those SAME parks. And he was still miles better than ALL of them. Much moreso than Barry is, relative to his peers.
And I'm not saying SB's don't count because it's convenient. But if you count runs, then counting SB's is somewhat redundant. And if not completely redundant, then they still aren't significant enough to change my opinion on any player. Rickey has the MLB record for SB's.......... is it a coincidence that he also has the MLB record for runs scored? No. For the same reason I don't take K's into account when rating pitchers......... it's pointless.
From 1918-1931, Babe Ruth led the league in OPS in every full season he played. Bonds has led the league 6 times........... not even close to the 13 Babe had. And they've both played roughly the same amount of games.
"Jack, will you call me, if you're able?"
"I've got your phone number written, in the back of my Bible."
well I am not going to debate you on this now, cus I am playing poker, but Babe Ruth changed the game. within a couple years of Babe's arrival onto MLB, everyowner was looking for their own Babe Ruth ..
alot less talent, specialized pitching staffs ...
How many times did Babe have to face a pitcher specifically brought in just to face him?
Nope, I'll take the better Athlete ...
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Madison » Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:50 pm 
I don't think so. SB's alone aren't indicators of being "good", they help you score more runs. So if we're judging these players with runs scored in mind....... why also count SB's? Same with consecutive games........ it helps you get more AB's and more chances to produce, but if a player puts up the same stats as somebody else who played 3 more games per season, isn't the guy with an average of 3 less games better, since he required less games to do the same thing 
