Bonds voted to All Star team

[PeteMugg]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

He is a tremendous player that is a prick. He doesn't even try to act like a nice guy. But his achievements are monumental even if you want to downgrade them because of the era he did them in. Though anyone who thinks he is a better hitter than Babe Ruth needs to look at the numbers again

Too many intangibles to try to compare and numbers can be thrown out to favor them all. But Ruth was so far ahead when he was playing, I think that speaks volumes.

[Danzig]

can't help wondering if the training regimens, sports medicine know-how, etc, was available to ruth, what could he have accomplished?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

can't help wondering if the training regimens, sports medicine know-how, etc, was available to ruth, what could he have accomplished?

Of course his opponents would have had the same advantages.

[PeteMugg]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Of course his opponents would have had the same advantages.

But throw in the training advantages and the DH, Ruth might have had that highly coveted consecutive start streak.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Of course his opponents would have had the same advantages.

yeah, that's true.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, that's true.

And I have a feeling that Babe may not have cared for healthy eating and working out.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

And I have a feeling that Babe may not have cared for healthy eating and working out.

lol

yeah, you have a point there as well! but isn't beer healthy? made from grain!

[Nascar1966]

Its amazing after they started testing for steroids that Bonds' numbers have gone down. I forgot he will use injuries and age for an excuse.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by PeteMugg

Too many intangibles to try to compare and numbers can be thrown out to favor them all. But Ruth was so far ahead when he was playing, I think that speaks volumes.

Exactly...Ruth never faced a slider or split finger fastball, never faced dominant closers etc.
Ruth...2503 games, 8933 ab, 2873 hits, 506 doubles, 136 triples, 714 hr, 2213 rbi, 2174 runs, 2062 bb, 1330 so, unknown sb (couldn't find), .342 ave
Bonds...2934 games, 9704 ab, 2901 hits, 597 doubles, 77 triples, 751 hr, 1972 rbi, 2196 runs, 2512 bb, 1517 so, 514 sb, .299 ave.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Exactly...Ruth never faced a slider or split finger fastball, never faced dominant closers etc.
Ruth...2503 games, 8933 ab, 2873 hits, 506 doubles, 136 triples, 714 hr, 2213 rbi, 2174 runs, 2062 bb, 1330 so, unknown sb (couldn't find), .342 ave
Bonds...2934 games, 9704 ab, 2901 hits, 597 doubles, 77 triples, 751 hr, 1972 rbi, 2196 runs, 2512 bb, 1517 so, 514 sb, .299 ave.

He also played in a league with 8 teams not against AAA pitchers like today. And dont forget that the spitball was still legal for some pitchers to throw. If you compare them to the players of thier eras there is no doubt who the superior player is.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

He also played in a league with 8 teams not against AAA pitchers like today. And dont forget that the spitball was still legal for some pitchers to throw. If you compare them to the players of thier eras there is no doubt who the superior player is.

Oh I agree...really impossible to compare players from different eras...now Bonds and Aaron makes a bit more sense!

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Oh I agree...really impossible to compare players from different eras...now Bonds and Aaron makes a bit more sense!

For some reason Aaron never seems to get his due when people talk about great players. When talikng about the greatest player you hear Ruth, Mantle, Mays, Williams, DiMaggio, Bonds, but rarely hear people making a case for Aaron. I guess the fact that most of the other guys played in NY and Aaron played in the midwest and South may have something to do with it. Buth he was crushing the ball during the 60's when Pitching was king. You would have to think that all things being equal, if he played in the same time period that Bonds did that he could have had much better numbers, maybe 800 HR's.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

For some reason Aaron never seems to get his due when people talk about great players. When talikng about the greatest player you hear Ruth, Mantle, Mays, Williams, DiMaggio, Bonds, but rarely hear people making a case for Aaron. I guess the fact that most of the other guys played in NY and Aaron played in the midwest and South may have something to do with it. Buth he was crushing the ball during the 60's when Pitching was king. You would have to think that all things being equal, if he played in the same time period that Bonds did that he could have had much better numbers, maybe 800 HR's.

Chuck, good point. I think you touched upon a very common and blurred aspect. It's an exercise in futility to compare Ruth to Bonds or Ruth to any player of the "modern era" so to speak. It's simply a comparison of data and opinion, with no real substantial base. On the other hand, comparing an Bonds to, let's say, Willie Mays is much more palatable. There will still be variables that are at play, but it's more feasible. I have always been a fan of Aaron, and I came to know him in recent years through some mutual friends.

IMO, there is an element of shame that a record like Aaron's will be broken by "a" Barry Bonds. Aaron was the model of consistency. I could be wrong on some of my stats as I am going on memory here -- however, I think Aaron only led the league in HR's 4 or 5 times. He hit 30 plus about 15 or so times and never hit 50 in a season (I don't think). But he hit 40 about a half dozen times and just kept hitting 30 plus time and time again over a career that didn't reach 25 years.

Hank Aaron was, and still is a class act and a real gentleman.

On another note, I recently saw an interview with Willie Mays, where they asked him about Bonds (his godson). Mays refused to comment on the steroid issue. But when they asked him about Bonds possibly being considered one of the all-time greats, his standing when stacked up against some of the all-time greats, etc. -- including Mays -- Mays was very quick to answer and was very definitive.

Mays talked about fielding, hitting, throwing, running, and the categories that people would tend to look at when rating or ranking the all-time greats. The interviewer asked how Bonds would stack up against Mays himself. Mays said Bonds couldn't throw with or run with him, when both were in their prime. I forget what he said about fielding, but I seem to vaguely remember that Mays gave himself the edge there as well. I would think that Mays would get the call there. Mays spoke about his problems with his knees later on in his career (Mays played for several years after he should have, wanted to, etc.). Mays said Bonds was a 'stronger' hitter and that he (Mays) didn't have the body, or the ability to 'muscle' or "power" the ball like Bonds. Mays didn't take anything away from Bonds, but he certainly didn't let anyone think Bonds is or should be considered a better player.

It was a very good interview.

Eric

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

He also played in a league with 8 teams not against AAA pitchers like today. And dont forget that the spitball was still legal for some pitchers to throw. If you compare them to the players of thier eras there is no doubt who the superior player is.

I don't know that I'd agree that there would be no doubt that Ruth is the superior player. The superior hitter, maybe. But he couldn't run the bases or play the field nearly on Bonds' level. Also, I would say that a better way to put it is that there is no question who the most dominant player of their era was. I doubt that there's ever been a player in any sport that's been more dominant over his peers than Ruth was over his.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I don't know that I'd agree that there would be no doubt that Ruth is the superior player. The superior hitter, maybe. But he couldn't run the bases or play the field nearly on Bonds' level. Also, I would say that a better way to put it is that there is no question who the most dominant player of their era was. I doubt that there's ever been a player in any sport that's been more dominant over his peers than Ruth was over his.

Let me give you some reasons why Ruth is unquestionably the greatest player of all time. Not only did he have the single greatest hitting season(1921) he also had the greatest all around season(1919)
In 1919 Ruth hit .322 with 29 HR's 114 Rbi's had an OBP of .456 and a slg% of .657 He led the league in HR's, Total bases, runs, slg % and OBP%. Good numbers right but not astronomical. Well considering that he only played in the field for 116 games leading the league in the HR, runs, and RBI catagories is amazing. And also considering that same year he won 13 games as a pitcher with an era of 2.22 makes this the greatest all around year in baseball history.

Ruth's record as a Pitcher is 94-46 with a lifetime ERA of 2.28 in only 4 years as a pitcher. His era for his short stint as a pitcher was more than a half a run a game better than the league average, which is a greater feat than it would be today because pitchers regularly went 9 or more innings as opposed to todays pitchers who only need to go 6 to considered effective.

Bonds may be a marginally better fielder ( he has been brutal the last 4 or 5 years and by all accounts Ruth was pretty good in the field until his 30's) and is unquestionably better in the running game. But Ruth was hall of fame quality as a pitcher as well as a position player. Bonds may have Ruth as a standard and he matches up reasonably well, but for Ruth there was and still is no standard which he can be measured by except himself.

[Ferdinand]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Let me give you some reasons why Ruth is unquestionably the greatest player of all time. Not only did he have the single greatest hitting season(1921) he also had the greatest all around season(1919)

If you combine his pitching and hitting, then I think you are right but as a hitter alone, Ty Cobb was the greatest. 12 batting titles. Highest batting average ever. Not to mention stealing home plate as a 41 YO.

Pshhhhhhhhh.... Homeruns are SO overrated.

[SentToStud]

It's useless to try to compare Ruth and Bonds or any two who played 80 years apart. Ruth didn't face black or latin pitchers. Then again, Bonds has had the advantage of a 30-team MLB compared to 16 for Ruth. But then again, nobody's going to mistake Rich Aurellia or RayRay Durham for Lou Gehrig. And just because Ruth pitched and pitched well doesn't mean much. If Bonds pitched, he probably would have been good.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Ferdinand

If you combine his pitching and hitting, then I think you are right but as a hitter alone, Ty Cobb was the greatest. 12 batting titles. Highest batting average ever. Not to mention stealing home plate as a 41 YO.

Pshhhhhhhhh.... Homeruns are SO overrated.

Actually batting average may be the single most overrated stat.

[Ferdinand]

[quote=King Glorious]I don't know that I'd agree that there would be no doubt that Ruth is the superior player. The superior hitter, maybe. But he couldn't run the bases or play the field nearly on Bonds' level. Also, I would say that a better way to put it is that there is no question who the most dominant player of their era was. I doubt that there's ever been a player in any sport that's been more dominant over his peers than Ruth was over his.[/QUOTE]

Ty Cobb.