Bennett4prez wrote:Barry Bonds is projected to pass Babe Ruth on the All-Time Home Run list next April. So, I wanted to impose this question. If both players were free agents in their prime next season, who would you prefer? Bonds or Ruth?
This is Bennett4prez, moderator of the Great Debates forum on the Football side. If you have any questions, or are interested in starting up your Fantasy Football season, check us out!
that is a trick question If i can have Barry on Roids I take him. If I can have Barry clean I take Babe. We all know Barry is a 20/20 guy when clean that dosent compare to the babe.
Tavish wrote:Offensively I would put them about dead even.
Are you serious? Do you mean for their whole career, or Babe's whole career and just the last 5 years of Barry's career? Babe's OPS+ is 23 points higher than Barry's.
In terms of OPS+, Babe is to Barry, as Barry is to Frank Thomas.
"Jack, will you call me, if you're able?"
"I've got your phone number written, in the back of my Bible."
Tavish wrote:Offensively I would put them about dead even.
Are you serious? Do you mean for their whole career, or Babe's whole career and just the last 5 years of Barry's career? Babe's OPS+ is 23 points higher than Barry's.
In terms of OPS+, Babe is to Barry, as Barry is to Frank Thomas.
I already went over that in my previous post. There is a reason that Ruth's dominance over his league is vastly different than Bond's domination over his. Ruth would offensively dominate a league of Juan Pierres and Ichiros much like Bonds would offensively dominate a league of Sislers and Speakers.
That is why Ruth was so great, he changed the game. Prior to Ruth the game was a Juan Pierre type game, however that doesn't mean all the players were short, skinny and fast. You had big players playing the Punch n Judy game.
Ruth came in and revolutionized the game. He changed it forever. He was far and a way better than anyone else who was playing. On top of his offensive abilities he was a great pitcher! Has anyone ever done that before? Usually you see a guy who has failed at pitching converting to position player, Bobby Darwin most recently, Lefty O'Doul from the 1920's was a great hitter but wasn't a successful pitcher. Ruth was great at both.
Wilt Chamberlain changed basketball. He transcended to sport, they had to change the lanes because of him.
To me a player who revolutionizes a sport or changes it forever are the greatest. Certainly Ruths numbers have been passed, but his impact on the game will never again be equalled.
That is why Ruth was so great, he changed the game. Prior to Ruth the game was a Juan Pierre type game, however that doesn't mean all the players were short, skinny and fast. You had big players playing the Punch n Judy game.
That is absolutely what makes Ruth great, he played the game completely different than everyone else. The problem I have is that he hit more homeruns than other teams in no ways means that he would come into today's game and hit 100 HRs. His numbers are gaudy simple because of the style of play his competition used.
The simplest comparision I can think of is Maury Wills. In 1962 he had 104 stolen bases. No other team had 100. Would anyone argue that Wills would come into today's game and steal 300 bases based on the fact he dominated a league that didn't attempt to steal bases?
That is why Ruth was so great, he changed the game. Prior to Ruth the game was a Juan Pierre type game, however that doesn't mean all the players were short, skinny and fast. You had big players playing the Punch n Judy game.
That is absolutely what makes Ruth great, he played the game completely different than everyone else. The problem I have is that he hit more homeruns than other teams in no ways means that he would come into today's game and hit 100 HRs. His numbers are gaudy simple because of the style of play his competition used.
The simplest comparision I can think of is Maury Wills. In 1962 he had 104 stolen bases. No other team had 100. Would anyone argue that Wills would come into today's game and steal 300 bases based on the fact he dominated a league that didn't attempt to steal bases?
Right, Babe revolutionized the game. But what he did, at the time he did it (60 HR in 1927), wasn't done again for another 34 years. He averaged 49 HR's and a 1.244 OPS per 154 game season over a 10 year span. How long did it take before the next hitter to do that? 70 years? Yes, I think babe was a better hitter than Barry. Barry's only had an OPS higher than the 1.244 Babe averaged over a 10 year span, 4 times total (the past 4 years). His best 10 year span is 1.175 and I think it's obvious that getting an OPS like that is easier nowadays than it was back then.
For the past 5 years - Barry is better. Overall - Babe is way better.
"Jack, will you call me, if you're able?"
"I've got your phone number written, in the back of my Bible."
LBJackal wrote:Right, Babe revolutionized the game. But what he did, at the time he did it (60 HR in 1927), wasn't done again for another 34 years.
Sure but it wasn't like it was an unapproachable number. Three players hit over 55 in the early 1930s. When other players came into the league playing the homerun game Ruth was the best power hitter, but not so far and above that he looked like a god among children. Again that is my main contention, people using the years that Ruth outhomered entire teams is poor reasoning to contend Ruth was 10X better than his competition and Bonds is about 2X better. The differences between the two are very small.
His best 10 year span is 1.175 and I think it's obvious that getting an OPS like that is easier nowadays than it was back then.
Its not obvious at all. League average ops in Ruth's era was .753 and in Bonds it is .738. The were a greater number of players breaking the 1.000 ops in Ruth's era as well when you consider there are twice as many teams now.
For the past 5 years - Barry is better. Overall - Babe is way better.
Thats why baseball history is so interesting, everyone has an opinion. If I had to absolutely choose one that I thought was better for their career I would probably go with Ruth as well since Bonds' career isn't over and it seems impossible for him to continue to do what he is doing. But its hard to say Babe was way better than Bonds.
When Barry can do this as well as hit, I will vote for him.
What would be interesting...
How many Homeruns would Babe hit in small parks?
How much would his average fall in small parks?
How much would diluted pitching inflate his homeruns?
How would the lowered mound affect his Homeruns?
Would he physically train in this day and age?
How much would that affect his numbers if he had?
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by kentx12 » Thu Oct 28, 2004 9:46 pm 
If i can have Barry on Roids I take him. If I can have Barry clean I take Babe. We all know Barry is a 20/20 guy when clean that dosent compare to the babe. 
