Babe Ruth vs. Barry Bonds

[Slyfox696]

You're right about andro, I was mistaken.

As you were about steroids as well.

Which bring me back to the point from the very beginning about who chooses people to be in the Hall of Fame, and how politics plays a part.

As for the walks, later in his career, around the late 20s, yes he had amazing talent around him. Earlier on in his career, nothing close to it.

The Yankees were in the World Series in 1921 and 1922. They won 98 games in 1921 in a 156 game season.

How you consider that a lack of talent, I'll never understand.

You're right about how there wasn't the incentive an no minor leagues, but this has nothing to do with not having that many teams. MLB hadn't been around long enough to have expanded that much yet. The west was a non factor.

Exactly. Which means that pitching caliber didn't come from the best, it came from merely what was around.

Compared to today, with guys having much stronger arms, relief pitchers, new pitches and medical technology helping them recover faster, there's no comparison to the quality of pitchers now and then.

Ruth's stats are simply better than Bonds. If you gave Ruth an extra 500 games, he would have approached 900 home runs.

That's called a fallacy.

Also Ruth played in an era where nutrition and conditioning weren't nearly as important as they are today.

That goes for pitchers as well as hitters bub.

Comparing the two of them on offense is a joke.

The fact you would say that shows how little you respect Bonds.

Bonds is better than Ruth, but I wouldn't say it's a joke to compare. But, Bonds is better than Ruth.

 

[klunderbunker]

I don't respect Bonds as a man. As a player Bonds on offense is definitely one of the best of all time, just not #1. You talk about how Bonds had nothing around him. When I say Ruth had nothing around him, I mean nothing close to him at the time, until Gehrig arrived. What you say about pitching is incorrect. The talent that was around back then was even better than today. Look at whatever stat you want for it, but the pitchers had more wins and pitched far more innings. There was no film for players to study from so basically every new pitcher they faced was a blind test. Ruth is on a level all by himself. He took next to no care of himself, often played either drunk or hungover, played in far fewer games and in worse condition, and is either equal too or just behind Bonds in less games. How can you say that Bonds is better?

 

[Slyfox696]

I don't respect Bonds as a man. As a player Bonds on offense is definitely one of the best of all time, just not #1. You talk about how Bonds had nothing around him. When I say Ruth had nothing around him, I mean nothing close to him at the time, until Gehrig arrived.

And that's a joke.

What you say about pitching is incorrect. The talent that was around back then was even better than today. Look at whatever stat you want for it, but the pitchers had more wins and pitched far more innings.

HAHAHA. PRECISELY!

That's what I've been saying all along. There were no relief pitchers, so when Babe comes up in the bottom of the 8th inning, he's facing a guy who has already thrown 120 pitches. Compare that to Bonds, who faces a fresh new arm in the 7th, throwing 95 mph.

You just made my point for me.

There was no film for players to study from so basically every new pitcher they faced was a blind test.

Which also means that pitchers didn't know how to pitch to batters, where their weaknesses were and such.

That's a two way street.

Ruth is on a level all by himself. He took next to no care of himself, often played either drunk or hungover, played in far fewer games and in worse condition,

What does any of that matter when talking about this comparison.

Hey, here you go. Len Bias was a better basketball player than Michael Jordan. Never mind the fact he never put up the stats because of his lifestyle, he was still better.

How can you say that Bonds is better?

You know, it's funny. I just move my fingers across the keyboard, and the words come out. Luckily, I have statistics and reality on my side.

 

[X]

...Reposted...

Actually he was a player manager at the time. It was just part time but he was a player.

What? No he wasn't. He had retired before he became a manager. Where are you getting your facts?

You're right about andro, I was mistaken. As for the walks, later in his career, around the late 20s, yes he had amazing talent around him. Earlier on in his career, nothing close to it.

You're just plain wrong. You're telling me the Yankees of the 20s weren't talented? You kidding me?

MLB hadn't been around long enough to have expanded that much yet.

What? MLB was founded in 1876...that's some 40 years they had to expand.

Ruth's stats are simply better than Bonds.

No, they simply aren't. Bonds has the better stats---how are you going to argue statistics?

If you gave Ruth an extra 500 games, he would have approached 900 home runs.

Thats a pretty big IF. And thats all it is---IF. But it didn't happen. So its an obsolete point.

Also Ruth played in an era where nutrition and conditioning weren't nearly as important as they are today. Comparing the two of them on offense is a joke.

How is it a joke? They're the two greatest offensive players of all time; unfortunately, Bonds is the better of the two. Don't be blinded by your hatred for Bonds.

 

[klunderbunker]

Give me one bit of proof that Bonds is a better hitter. Ruth hit home runs more often than Bonds, he had a higher average, a higher slugging percentage, all in far fewer games. Tell me how Bonds is a better offensive player.

 

[klunderbunker]

...Reposted...



What? No he wasn't. He had retired before he became a manager. Where are you getting your facts?



You're just plain wrong. You're telling me the Yankees of the 20s weren't talented? You kidding me?



What? MLB was founded in 1876...that's some 40 years they had to expand.



No, they simply aren't. Bonds has the better stats---how are you going to argue statistics?



Thats a pretty big IF. And thats all it is---IF. But it didn't happen. So its an obsolete point.



How is it a joke? They're the two greatest offensive players of all time; unfortunately, Bonds is the better of the two. Don't be blinded by your hatred for Bonds.

Rose said he bet on games when he was a player in his own autobiography.

I didn't say they weren't talented. I said that the players around him weren't on the same level that Ruth was. You don't get into the majors without having talent.

Yes MLB started in 1876, but look at the amount of teams. Expansion came very very slowly. The game itself was brand new and there was no way to market it to the masses.

Aside from home runs, what stat of bonds is better? Ruth has far fewer games and at bats, a much higher batting average and a higher slugging percentage. If you gave him the same amount of games Bonds had, Ruth would be miles ahead.

Bonds is not better. He's a more prolific power hitter. Not a better hitter.

 

[Alex(Killer Of Dreams & Legends)]

ruth also struck out more times than any other player of his time ... plus bonds can steal bases ruth couldnt ..... more home runs all time by bonds ... it does not matter bout the # of games in a season cause in ruths last seson it was expanded and ruth played longer than bonds in pro baseball .... i have respect for both players steriods dose not help ur timing on the ball bons still had to hit the ball on his own ... klunderbunker tell me something new .... ok also rose was banded for betting on games as a manger not player ...

 

[Slyfox696]

Give me one bit of proof that Bonds is a better hitter. Ruth hit home runs more often than Bonds, he had a higher average, a higher slugging percentage, all in far fewer games. Tell me how Bonds is a better offensive player.

Bonds scored more runs, hit more HR, had more doubles, more SB, had more total bases, and walked more times...and did it all on teams that don't compare to the lineups that Ruth got to hit in, even going by your admission, from 1925-1935, and did it in an era in which pitchers pitch less innings, had relief pitches, and more pitches at their disposal.

Bonds was the better offensive player, it's not really debateable.

 

[BooCocky]

No, they simply aren't. Bonds has the better stats---how are you going to argue statistics?

Ruth, Higher BA, SLG%, OBP.

Wasn't he a pitcher for 7 seasons?

If he played 22 seasons as a batter, using his career avgs, his numbers would be a lot higher.

Babe Ruth was a better offensive player.

Ruth as an every day player for like 15 yrs, almost equals Bonds every day performance for 22 seasons.

 

[klunderbunker]

Bonds scored more runs in an era where scoring runs happens much more often, due to the weaker pitching. Bonds has hit 48 more home runs but he did it 500 more games. Take away those games and he has how many? If you give any good player enough games they'll have higher totals too.

 

[X]

Rose said he bet on games when he was a player in his own autobiography.

Okay. He wasn't banned from the HOF for betting on games as a player, he was banned from the HOF for betting on games as a manager.

I didn't say they weren't talented.

Yeah, you kind of did.

I said that the players around him weren't on the same level that Ruth was.

And who was? So your explanation for why Ruth played on inferior teams then Bonds did (which is BS) is because there weren't players like Ruth? Is that a joke?

So I guess the Chicago Bulls of the 90s were shit too, I mean no one on the team was in Michael Jordan's league.

Yes MLB started in 1876, but look at the amount of teams. Expansion came very very slowly.

And? You said they didn't have enough time to expand. They had plenty.

The game itself was brand new and there was no way to market it to the masses.

What? Are you kidding me? Baseball was never more popular then in those days, it was referred to as the National Pastime by the 1870s. No way to market it to the masses? It marketed itself; it's a sport!

Are you just making stuff up now?

Aside from home runs, what stat of bonds is better? Ruth has far fewer games and at bats, a much higher batting average and a higher slugging percentage. If you gave him the same amount of games Bonds had, Ruth would be miles ahead.

How do you know? You don't know. You never will know. You're just guessing. Thats crap; you have no way of telling me for certain that Ruth would've gone on to play at the same level he did.

Besides, Sly has already shown you the countless stats in which Bonds is better, and your only response is "Ruth played in less games!".

Bonds is not better. He's a more prolific power hitter. Not a better hitter.

Yes, Bonds is better. Thats what stats are for. They tell us who's better.

And Ruth nor Bonds are the greatest hitter of all time---that title belongs to Ted Williams or Pete Rose.

 

[klunderbunker]

Baseball was popular in the towns where teams were. I mean for towns where games couldn't be seen. How could it market itself? There was no way to see it other than going to the games. I can know that by averages. If you take the games away from Bonds career and give him the same amount of games Ruth had, his stats don't compare. I keep saying Ruth played in less games because it is the most important factor. If you give anyone an unlimited amount of games they'll hold all the records eventually. As for Ted Williams, that is entirely true.

 

[Slyfox696]

Bonds scored more runs in an era where scoring runs happens much more often

Great point, except that it's inaccurate.

In 2001, the year Bonds hit 73 HR, the Seattle Mariners led all teams in runs scored with 927. In 1927, the Yankees 975.

You have no basis for that statement, at least not factual basis.

due to the weaker pitching

False for all reasons I have stated. You can keep saying it, but that doesn't make it true.

Bonds has hit 48 more home runs but he did it 500 more games.

Against better pitching, with less talent around him.

If you give any good player enough games they'll have higher totals too.

Again, great point, except that there is no basis for saying it.

If it's so easy to do, then how come there's been exactly ONE player to do it?


Your grasping at straws now.

 

[Alex(Killer Of Dreams & Legends)]

Baseball was popular in the towns where teams were. I mean for towns where games couldn't be seen. How could it market itself? There was no way to see it other than going to the games. I can know that by averages. If you take the games away from Bonds career and give him the same amount of games Ruth had, his stats don't compare. I keep saying Ruth played in less games because it is the most important factor. If you give anyone an unlimited amount of games they'll hold all the records eventually. As for Ted Williams, that is entirely true.

it is an important factor dumbass but ruth was a fat tubby and baseball was all every one talked bout in those days w/o tv the whole nation listin to it on the radio as a matter of fact it was pretty much the only popular professnal sport back then .... u cant name any other great players from another sport at that poin in time .... so again kluderbunker ur beat on this

 

[klunderbunker]

Yes and teams like the 2001 Mariners and 27 Yankees are anomalies. Look, I'm not saying Bonds isn't a great offensive player, because he is. He, Ruth, and Ted Williams are (arguably) the top 3 hitters ever. I'm saying that Ruth is better than Bonds.

 

[klunderbunker]

it is an important factor dumbass but ruth was a fat tubby and baseball was all every one talked bout in those days w/o tv the whole nation listin to it on the radio as a matter of fact it was pretty much the only popular professnal sport back then .... u cant name any other great players from another sport at that poin in time .... so again kluderbunker ur beat on this

Yes Ruth was fat and out of shape but he managed to have some of the greatest stats of all time regardless. As for other athletes from other sports, George Halas, Red Grange, Jim Thorpe, need I go on?

 

[Alex(Killer Of Dreams & Legends)]

Yes and teams like the 2001 Mariners and 27 Yankees are anomalies. Look, I'm not saying Bonds isn't a great offensive player, because he is. He, Ruth, and Ted Williams are (arguably) the top 3 hitters ever. I'm saying that Ruth is better than Bonds.

u have been saying that the whole time u have no respect for bonds and that he is not a good offensive player ... to take it where is hank arron on the top hitters he blew ruths unbeatable record out of the water

 

[Slyfox696]

Yes and teams like the 2001 Mariners and 27 Yankees are anomalies.

Would you like me to compare them to the 2007 Yankees who scored 968 runs? How about the 2004 Red Sox who only scored 949?

How many teams from this era would you like for me to give you to prove you are wrong?

Look, I'm not saying Bonds isn't a great offensive player, because he is. He, Ruth, and Ted Williams are (arguably) the top 3 hitters ever. I'm saying that Ruth is better than Bonds.

[/quote]And I'm saying that Bonds is the greatest ever offensively.

 

[klunderbunker]

He didn't blow it out of the water he beat it by 41. He also played 7 more seasons as a full time player to break Ruth's record. Bonds is a great player, I've never said he wasn't. I'm saying he's just not the best. Period.

 

[BooCocky]

here, I will solve this right now... Hank Aaron > All. No actually i have no idea, Hank Aaron is an all time great, and IMO he is better than both Ruth, and Bonds.

3,771 hits, 2297 RBI's, 305 BA, 555 slugging%, and a 374 career on base percentage.

I think Aaron is arguably the greatest baseball player of all time. His stats back it up, and he was basically consistent his whole entire career, like a Bonds, or a Ruth.

 

[Alex(Killer Of Dreams & Legends)]

thank u and babe ruth was great bonds just beat him in every offensive catagory with a less talented team to back him up its said and done bonds is better than ruth !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! so hopefully the one person arguing this will shut u now