It doesn't matter that Bonds isn't hitting .360 because he is going to walk 160+ times. In 1927, when Ruth hit 60 homeruns, he hit .354 with an on-base percentage of .486 and a slugging percentage of .772. This year, Bonds also has a .486 on-base percentage, despite only hitting .310, and his slugging percentage is .829. So, Barry Bonds is actually having a more productive year than Ruth. I am not in any way suggesting that Bonds is better than Ruth, I'm just saying that he is actually having a better year than Ruth's 1927 season. However, 1927 was no the Babe's best year. That distinction goes to 1920, which is the greatest offensive season by any hitter, when Ruth hit .376 with a .532 OBP and .847 SLG, he also hit 54 homers that year. Just for the record, I don't particularly care about batting average, the important percentage stats are on-base percentage and slugging percentage. Batting average doesn't quantify your ability to get on-base or your ability to hit for power, so it really isn't particularly useful.