Babe Ruth

[catman]

Like I said, to compare across eras is speculative at best. We'll never know how Ruth would do today, nor will we know how Aaron and Bonds woudl have done in the other eras.

[love_that_reefer]

Walter Johnson http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/johnswa01.shtml
Cy Young http://www.baseball-reference.com/y/youngcy01.shtml
Sandy Koufax http://www.baseball-reference.com/k/koufasa01.shtml
Some dude named Babe Ruth http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/ruthba01.shtml
Don Drysdale http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/drysddo01.shtml
Phil Niekro http://www.baseball-reference.com/n/niekrph01.shtml

Among countless others say "Hi we did it".

To even think that players like Babe didnt play against "as tough" of competition is completely laughable.

When Babe Played there were mid teen number of teams, you didnt see guys last long when they sucked unlike what you see today when JEFF WEAVER starts ANY playoff game let alone the deciding WS game. Teams are constantly looking for someone who "doesnt give up 5 runs in 5 or less innings" for their rotation. Despite the season being LONGER no one today comes close to the IP threshold these guys took it in excess of 300+ IP.

Hitters are better now *arguably*, and pitchers may throw harder but the very few pitchers would have made previous eras, they wouldnt last in circumstances of the previous era cause they would have been laughed right out of town cause they sucked. Pitchers are throwing harder but most arent smarter than the pitchers of yesterdays.

Pedro's type is a dying breed. As baseball continues to let jokes like Bonds suit up in body armor and say "go ahead hit me, I wont feel a thing" pitchers have gone away from what made a lot of people legends busting inside and scarring the *%$@ out hitters.

*END RANT*

*Shakes head* Huh what happened?

Just because there were less teams doesn't meant he competition was better. Some of those guys Babe faced were working another job to pay the bills. Most of those guys you mentioned like Koufax and Drysdale unfortunately never faced a Babe Ruth. And to say there were no Jeff Weaver types is simply ignorant. Just go look at some of the teams that babe faced and look at thier numbers. Guys now are bigger, stronger, and faster than guys in 1920s and there is no doubt about that.

[HollywoodLeo]

Some of those guys Babe faced were working another job to pay the bills.

That doesn't mean crap other than that baseball players weren't payed as much back in the day.

I do, in general, agree with your arguments however.

[GiantsFanatic]

At all the posters defending Ruth.

Playing against fewer teams does mean you play against less competition. And to justify that logic is pretty pathetic.

[HollywoodLeo]

At all the posters defending Ruth.

Playing against fewer teams does mean you play against less competition. And to justify that logic is pretty pathetic.

Actually, the fact that there's more teams means that there's pitchers in the major leagues that would otherwise not be in the major leagues...ie not quite as good players.

It's really not a hard concept to grasp.

(Although there are, most definitely, other factors involved in regards to the competition back then compared to the competition now. I'm simply pointing out the difference between less teams and more teams.)

[Providence A's]

At all the posters defending Ruth.

Playing against fewer teams does mean you play against less competition. And to justify that logic is pretty pathetic.

Fewer teams means greater competition to an extent. More teams means watered down competition to an extent as well...I'm not defending Ruth specifically...just that era in general really. Regardless, we'll never know what would happen.

[Al_Tigers]

You guys just don't get it. The Babe was a super gifted athlete. Whether he was born in 1895 or 1985 it wouldn't matter. He would've adapted to the current level of play. Back then there were all kinds of illegal pitches that are not allowed today. He adapted. He partied. He didn't train. He didn't need to. He is the best HR hitter that's ever been.

[Dry1313]

I've yet to see the logic in fewer teams.

Babe Ruth faced tougher pitching? OK. Babe Ruth also had a better lineup, where the hell is the guy getting Bonds pitched to?

I don't see Bonds with a Bob Meusel or Lou Gehrig in his lineup.

That knocks out diluted pool.

What arguments remain for Ruth? OK, he didn't play blacks or hispanics, so now the pool is once again diluted.

Ruth, truth be told faced flamethrowers, yes. But what's missed is the junkers he faced far surpass the junkers of today.

Ruth's second best year, he outhit the league average by 100 pts. That says a lot, because batting average is not something that changes over eras. H/AB, we can safely say neither played the perfect competition, so that should be our measuring stick. Except, we aren't comparing players, are we? We are comparing HRs.

So let's look at park factors (over 100 favors Hitters) in each of their monster years.
Ruth: 97 PF, 60 HR, 164 RBI, .486 OBP, .772 SLG, .356 AVG, 192 H/540 AB
Bonds: 91 PF, 73 HR, 137 RBI, .515 OBP, .863 SLG, .328 AVG, 156 H/476 AB

OK? Bonds had the better year, hands down. Let's keep steroids out of this, and go mano a mano.

Career AVGs, with Park Factor estimates listed:
Bonds:
3 Rivers: 99 ('86-92)
Candlestick: 95 ('93-'99)
PacBell/AT&T: 99 ('99-'07)

Ruth:
Fenway: 98 ('14-19 [only about 2.5 seasons of hitting])
Polo Grounds: 102 ('20-'22)
Yankee Stadium: 96 ('23-'34)

Bonds has a 3 point favorite.
His averages then should be adjusted.

Here are the comparative AVGS.

Bonds: 160 H/536 AB, 41 HR, 109 RBI, .298 AVG, .444 OBP, .607 SLG, Bonds destroys in MVPS

Ruth: 186 H/544 AB, 46 HR, 143 RBI, .342 AVG, .474 OBP, .690 SLG.

BOLD= Outright leader, BLUE=EQUAL (Adjusted for Park Values), RED=AHEAD (adjusted for park value)

Ruth, I still think is better. Use a stats defense to back up Barry please?