Barry Bonds

[TheKidd]

<< I could say the same thing like you: Barry Bonds...Bah! Put Ruth in today's era and he'll smack 100 homeruns! And he'll pitch a complete game shutout every once in a while. >>



Care to back that up with evidence? Most people will acknowledge that Bonds is better than Ruth, but the season that he is having is Ruthian.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I think some people don't know how much Ruth dominated the game. When he hits 60 homeruns, he hit 14% of all HR's in his league for that year! Also, in 1915-1917, he had more wins than any other lefthanded pitcher.

Oh, and Ruth wasn't a choker in the playoffs.



<< Hehehe...Yeah, let Ruth play now. He'd be good alright, he'd probably be a star for some double or triple A team somewhere in the midwest. >>

 

[RabidMongoose]

I'm sure that most people would say Ruth is better than Bonds. No question about that.



<<
Care to back that up with evidence? Most people will acknowledge that Bonds is better than Ruth, but the season that he is having is Ruthian. >>

 

[YBS1]

Need I remind you that back in that day baseball was..ahem, how should I say this...a very &quot;pale&quot; sport. The bulk of the players that make up today's professionals wouldn't have been allowed to compete with Ruth. The talent pool then was no where near as rich as it is today as a result of minorities, non-natives, and just general population increase. Also, I would have to assume sports are far more focused on in school, as a result I doubt a &quot;great&quot; talent would have as much chance to &quot;slip through the cracks&quot; as a similar talent would have in years gone by. Chances are good the best talent of Ruth's time was a farmer in Kansas who had never touched a baseball in organized play.

 

[XMan]

It's just that the guy puts homerun swings everytime. He strikes out more often, but if he gets a hit, it's a home run. What I'd like to see is somebody to beat the record, while batting .360+, just like babe ruth.

Gonzo has something like 45 homers, and he's hitting just shy of .350. He should end up with around 60 homers . . . and I think the D-backs will go a bit further than the Giants.

 

[RabidMongoose]

But haven't the # of teams expanded from Ruth's time?
Bonds was the best player of the 90's, but he's not the best to ever play the game. Ruth had more of an impact to the game than Bonds or any other player will ever have. There's no question about that.

 

[YBS1]

I'll grant you your last point. He will go down as the player who had the greatest impact. I'll also agree with a point from jjsole, you can't really compare eras the way we are doing. What I'm doing is saying we pull him from his prime straight into 2001, I don't think he could even start for any major league team. However, like jjsole said, the training is different. If you took him as a youth and brought him up in this era, he may very well be the greatest player right now, although I have strong reservations about that because of the points in my previous post about a richer talent pool.

Also, I do think he's the greatest of all time (Barry). I also think 20 years from now the greatest player of that time will be for those very reasons. Technology marches on, so does training methods, and so do the players. The best we can hope to argue was who is the greatest player for their time...My father says Mays, he's seen a lot more players than I have so I'll have to go with his answer since we usually see eye to eye and I've not seen Mays. Hehe

 

<< I could say the same thing like you: Barry Bonds...Bah! Put Ruth in today's era and he'll smack 100 homeruns! And he'll pitch a complete game shutout every once in a while. >>



Ruth with his nasty habits and his weak health would be hard up to contend with todays atheletes.

 

[RabidMongoose]

True, you can't compare eras. But I'll think you'll find it tough to find a respectable sports writer that ranks Bonds over Ruth.

But true, you can't compare the eras. The game has simply changed too much for offense.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I guess, but if you put him in today's time then he probably wouldn't have had &quot;nasty&quot; habits. It's not like he was fat his whole life anyways. Have you seen pictures of him when he was a young player? Very lean.



<<
Ruth with his nasty habits and his weak health would be hard up to contend with todays atheletes. >>

 

[shopbruin]

while barry may be ahead of mcgwire's pace, its gonna be difficult for him to break the record.

in september, the giants will still be playing for the post season. the NL west is VERY tight, with the dbacks, dodgers and giants all fighting for the playoffs. with quite a few series against LA and arizona, there is almost no way they're gonna pitch to barry.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Well, some argue that you can say who is the greatest of all time by looking at how a player dominated his era. Of course, some people disagree. Barry hasn't dominated nearly as much as Ruth did. In fact, no player has.




<< Also, I do think he's the greatest of all time (Barry). I also think 20 years from now the greatest player of that time will be for those very reasons. Technology marches on, so does training methods, and so do the players. The best we can hope to argue was who is the greatest player for their time...My father says Mays, he's seen a lot more players than I have so I'll have to go with his answer since we usually see eye to eye and I've not seen Mays. Hehe >>

 

[Miramonti]

Ruth with his nasty habits and his weak health would be hard up to contend with todays atheletes.

Todays athletes wouldn't have had much better lifestyles back then either and their performance and numbers would also reflect it.

I think all of the homerun records are going to be rewritten soon. In todays game 70 hr's isn't out of reach as shown this year, not to mention Slammin Sammy getting 66 the same year. Maybe it will soon peak at 75 for a while. And with more homers hit per year on average the leaders who have durable careers will have an excellent chance to break 755. McGwire and Bonds had many average years with numbers in the 30's (first 1/2 of careers), but now an average year for top hr hitters seems to be in the low 40's.

 

[Rarr]

Bonds is a very talented player. I hope he beats the record so the media will finally stop interviewing McGwire so much. Please, like he is really well-rounded enough to have at least five interviews a week? Though Bonds is not really a team-player, I feel that he deserves the record after all these years..........at least he will get a new supplement to his Ego.