Bonds voted to All Star team

[PeteMugg]

Chuck, you beat me to it, but I was going to mention that Bonds has probably faced a lot of pitchers that are on the juice.

Juice, equipment, stadiums ... it's very difficult to compare one era to another. Aaron had a number to shoot at and so does Barry. I'm not a fan of the guy, but I give Bonds credit he can flat hit the ball.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by PeteMugg

Chuck, you beat me to it, but I was going to mention that Bonds has probably faced a lot of pitchers that are on the juice.

Juice, equipment, stadiums ... it's very difficult to compare one era to another. Aaron had a number to shoot at and so does Barry. I'm not a fan of the guy, but I give Bonds credit he can flat hit the ball.

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

[Danzig]

how many games did it take ruth and aaron to get their records? how many seasons? and how many games a year did they play? certainly not 160-odd like now.
not that it matters. najran shares the mile record with dr fager, who carried a lot more weight...

bonds is definitely not concered with PR. no doubt he dries his tears with hundred dollar bills! i'd rather there not be a cloud of suspicion about it, but his own words and actions have contributed somewhat to that.

how much grief did aaron get on the way to breaking ruths' record? i do remember when ripken broke gehrigs string of starts, people started complaining when he kept starting and adding to his record-i found that bizarre. and that was for a much more popular player. there's no pleasing some.

[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.

[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.

[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]

[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.