thetongueofire wrote:in other words, Bonds at his best is better than Ruth (or anyone else) at his best.
The only thing that I can say about Bonds that is better than Ruth is that he has gotten remarkably better at an advanced age. After that, I think that Ruth is definitely better. I also question whether Bonds at his best is better than Ruth at his best. First off, there is the fact that Ruth outhomered entire teams. That, in itself, is impressive. Forgetting about that, let's look at career Win Shares. Before this season started, Ruth had 8399 AB and 756 WS. Bonds had 8725 AB and 611 WS. So, in 326 less AB, Ruth had 19% more WS. Now, looking at their top 3 seasons, Ruth is better there as well:
Ruth's top 3 were 55, 53, and 51. Bonds' top 3 were 54, 49*, and 47.
I would have rather not turned this into a Bonds vs. Ruth thread again but you brought it up. Ruth is without question the best slugger of his time. Up until a few years ago, Bonds wasn't even the best of his time. That went to Griffey and then A-Rod. While I admit that Bonds has has all-time seasons lately, I don't see how a 4-5 year span can vault someone from not being the best of their era to now being considered the best ever. That makes absolutely no sense to me.