No way is Bonds a better Baseball Player than the Babe. However the arguement can be made that Bonds will be seen as a better offensive player than the Babe. This is due to the fact that if Babe Ruth never hit a baseball he would have still been in the hall of fame as a pitcher.
i'm voting no...to me, you can only judge a player by comparing him relative to the players who played in his same era. ruth was an absolute monster...he saved the game from the black sox scandal...he was the very definition of baseball and some 75 years later, his name is still very well-known and associated with the game. i'm a big Barry fan...not as a person, but as a player...i love watching him play...i root for him and i think he's among the top 5 or so players to ever play the game. but ruth was utterly dominant.
I agree with Max and Mulder. Bonds has already played in more games than Ruth and Ruth is still ahead of him in every major offensive category (except stolen bases) . Ruth lost about 5 years of hitting as a pitcher. Bonds is a great player, but if you have to compare two players from different eras, I'd give the nod to Ruth, especially because of his ability to pitch.
babe ruth is better with out a question. he was a great pitcher, and it took him a whole lot a bats to 600 home runs. plus without people going out to see ruth, baseball could not have been what it is today
600 home runs, i believe it's it 714 and yes Babe Ruth is the better player, i think it's been summed up already by a few other posters
I took the easy way and said Maybe. As far as pure hitting it is Ruth. But Bonds is a better athlete and better defensively (although Ruth's pitching should factor in here someway). Again someone correct me on defense I have never heard anyone say anything positive about Ruth inteh field but I coudl be off there. Maybe Bonds is juicing up or whatever but either way he is killing the ball like noone I have ever saw. If he can do it for a few more seasons he may own alot of records.
i want to know who voted yes and why just look....http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/ruthba01.shtml http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bondsba01.shtml
These are apples and oranges, but they're damn good apples and oranges. Ruth dominated a sport that had yet to fully evolve, and didn't even allow minorities to play. Common-place baseball strategies like the hit-and-run, relief pitchers, platoons, etc. weren't even ideas then. That's not taking anything away from the amazing things Ruth did. He was a straight-up freak. But Bonds has accomplished what he has in a game that's so details-oriented that managers are breaking down statistics of statistics to extract the last 0.05 percent advantage they can from every situation. The game has evolved, and has built on 140 years of fine-tuning. That's not to overstate what Bonds has done, but he's playing in a MUCH more difficult game. It's a toss-up, and there's no right answer. Both of their careers (though Bonds is still adding to his) speak for themselves and should be admired on their own merits.
why is it more difficult because of this? because we're better at keeping stats and breaking down games, the game is more difficult?? i think you could make a good argument to the contrary...ruth never got to study tape of the pitcher he would be facing...ruth didn't get the kind of instruction that bonds got from years of baseball experience. there's a flip side to that coin. again...this is why i say you can only compare relative to their generation...ruth was more dominant among his peers than bonds was/is among his.
Plus, since there were far fewer teams, the pitching was much higher quality. There are probably some aces in the majors today that would have been 3rd or 4th on a team when Ruth played.
on a side note...what happened to the league from 1918 to 1920? there is an offensive explosion. look at ty cobbs stats on that link i posted and you will see what i am talking about. the league BA jumped from .258 to .296, OBP went from .329 to .361, SLG% went from .329 to .407, OPS .658 to .768. bonds and ruth were in comparable offensive eras if you look at the league numbers.
good point...you could also make the point that a ruth playing in today's era might have prolonged his career through better training. bonds' best numbers have been in these last few years, while ruth's were during the years of a player's typical prime.
Babe Ruth is a far better baseball player than Barry Bonds by ANY standard. Ruth was a starting all star caliber pitcher, and he changed the game offensively. The stats don't lie- 1931 B. Ruth New York Yankees 46 1930 H. Wilson Chicago Cubs 56 1929 B. Ruth New York Yankees 46 1928 B. Ruth New York Yankees 54 1927 B. Ruth New York Yankees 60 1926 B. Ruth New York Yankees 47 1925 R. Hornsby St. Louis Cardinals 39 1924 B. Ruth New York Yankees 46 1923 B. Ruth New York Yankees 41 1923 C. Williams Philadelphia Phillies 41 1922 R. Hornsby St. Louis Cardinals 42 1921 B. Ruth New York Yankees 59 1920 B. Ruth New York Yankees 54 1919 B. Ruth Boston Red Sox 29 1918 B. Ruth Boston Red Sox 11 1918 T. Walker Philadelphia Athletics 11 1917 G. Cravath Philadelphia Phillies 12 1917 D. Robertson New York Giants 12 1916 W. Pipp New York Yankees 12
The only reason Bonds has 5 MVP awards is because of Babe Ruth. Bonds is a ****in' **** in his ass b**** ass mother****er for saying what he said. It's the biggest piece of **** I've ever heard come from his mouth. Babe Ruth is far better than him. It's not even close. Cobb didn't really jump all that much...he had better years in the teens. The league totals jumped because of the great players that came around--not because of outside forces. Hornsby, Ruth, Gehrig (25), Foxx (25), etc. When you have a small league, 10 great players can make a huge difference.
But Bonds is also playing in the greatest hitter's era ever. Ball parks are smaller and pitchers are much worse on average. Many of the pitchers he faces probably should be in the minors.
