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.
Bury me a Royal.