Barry Bonds has finally hit his 700th home run. Unless he gets injured or thrown in jail, it seems obvious that he'll break Henry Aaron's record of 755. I cannot honestly explain how Bonds can be playing the best baseball of his career at age 40. I'll leave it to everybody else to make/share their inferences about that.

My reason for starting this, besides sharing what you think about Bonds and his accomplishments, is to get a debate/discussion going about Bonds vs. Ruth. Old-time vs. modern baseball. We can discuss Hank Aaron if you want, but he had about 4000 more at-bats than Babe Ruth. Barry Bonds has only about 700 more than the Babe, so those two are more comparable.

I've got all the stats here for me to share, but I'll wait to see if anybody cares. I will mention a perhaps not well-known fact about Ruth now. One year, he led the league in home runs AND pitched 18 complete games.

Anybody give a crud?

Babe Ruth is one of the uncomparables in sport, that stat about him pitching shows it perfectly. I think Barry Bonds is awesome, and is one of the only reasons I ever watch baseball. I think it is an apt comparison to Wilt Chamberlain and Michael Jordan. Wilt is similar to Babe Ruth, some of the things he did will never be equalled by a modern player, such as a centre leading the league in assists. Jordan is the modern great, just like Bonds, the players to come in the future will be measured against them like we measure the greats of today aginst the Wilt's and Babe's of the past.

Babe Ruth was so dominant in his sport in his era, that I don't think you can compare Bonds, or anyone else to him. I feel you can only go across sports with Ruth...like the records Chamberlain did in his prime in the NBA, and what Wayne Gretzky did in the NHL.

Babe Ruth was hitting 50+ home runs a year in an era where ENTIRE TEAMS didn't hit as many HR's as he did.

Bonds is clearly one of the all-time greats in baseball...no question about it. The respect he gets rivals anyone who has ever played the game, witness all the Walks and Intentional Walks records he will have and probably will still have many, many years from now.

I think the better comparison is to Aaron, and if Bonds has accomplished this in as few AB's as you say, then Bonds is clearly the better of the two.

As for him "definitely" breaking Aaron's Home Run record, I don't think it's a given at all. As my father told me when I was younger, once it goes (e.g., eyesight, reflexes, etc.), their game quickly collapses. I'm no longer a baseball afficionado, but you sound like you are. Mike Schmidt easily broke 500 HR's, and I thought he had a legitimate shot at 600. But his game sharply declined after he hit 500...he didn't even get 550. Pete Rose's game also declined sharply right around the time he got 4,000 hits.

In addition to reflexes, etc., Bonds is getting up there in Age, and will be more susceptible to injury now as well.

I hope Bonds breaks the record, but he's still got a long way to go...IMHO.

Bonds is a freak of nature. As an Angel fan, I hadn't "feared" a hitter since the days of George Brett, but when he came up during the World Series a couple of years ago, I was literally shaking in my boots! Incredible hitter. Amazing hand-eye coordination. Amazing slugging & straight batting average. Just a great long-ball hitter. You can't take any of that away from him.

HOWEVER: The man has clearly taken Steroids or the like. I would highly doubt that he's still doing it, though. It will be a cloud over his records forever. For some reason, I just can't believe that he hasn't done it based on the radical change in his body type at a certain point in his career. Compared to another person just as consistently accused of "juicing himself," Lance Armstrong, Bonds' protestations of innocence don't seem credible. And no, it's not due to the color of his skin. The case Armstrong has made for himself just "seems" more credible -- I can't quantify it.

ANOTHER HOWEVER -- Even if Bonds had takin 'roids for a certain length of time in his career, it doesn't take a LOT away from his accomplishments. I could talk about this for hours, but simply taking steroids doesn't make you a better hitter. It may help prevent injury, etc. or make you recover faster. It may give you 10 - 15 more feet on long balls, but that was never the man's problem. (Like Anderson from Baltimore who went from 25 or so career high homers to like 50 in a random year -- I would guess he juiced it for that extra 10 - 15 feet of length).

OK, I've talked too much already on some well-worn territory.

Bonds is scary good... Don't denegrate his accomplishments too much... Just know that drugs will always be a part of his conversation.

It's hard to come down on this one for several reasons, but mainly that I never got to SEE the Babe or any of his era's players. However, he's a pro-con list;

Barry:

Pro: plays in an era of specialization (eg lefty relief specialists), plays in an era of far more athletic players (inlcuding pitchers), plays in an era of steroids (yeah...it's a con, too, but he's got to be playing AGAINST guys who are juiced and that might be to his disadavantage), has been remarkably consistent, has had to see and adjust to a whole lot of new ballparks in his time (from new stadiums to interleague play), more intense media scrutiny (say what you will about Barry but he's done this under a TON of pressure)

CON: steroids, expanded leagues and weaker rosters, more games, better facilities and training, having a stadium designed with your swing in mind, juiced baseballs

UNDETERMINED: were ballparks in the 20's and 30's bigger or smaller than they are today? I think Yankee Stadium had shorter porches in right back then...

I think the Babe's numbers are staggering in an era when numbers weren't staggering, which plays in his favor. But I'm not convinced that the pitchers in the 20s and 30s would be able to compete with the pitchers of today, even the average ones. I know the NUMBERS match up...but the footage I've seen of many of them makes me think that today's college pitcher has better stuff than the average major leaguer in the 20's. Maybe I'm wrong there.

In the end, Bonds is dominating the league in a way not seen in baseball for quite some time, maybe since the Babe (or Joe DiMaggio or Mickey Mantle). But I'm not sure what he's done is more impressive than what Babe Ruth did...he built an empire in the Bronx and made himself a household name. Many people, for good or bad, will remember Bonds' temperament and the steroid allegations as much as his play.

For the record, I'd like to see him break the record. He might start slipping, but I doubt his skills will drop off as much as Rose or Schmidt's. The only athlete I've ever seen better conditioned than Bonds at his age is Roger Clemens.

Barry is better and here's why:

Barry plays against people from all over the world. Ruth played against white people from mostly the east coast.

Barry's home field is SBC Park, a very pitcher friendly park (especially to right). Before that he played in Candlestick, a notoriously windy park that kept balls IN. Babe Ruth played in Yankee Stadium, home of the short porch, which was designed with Ruth in mind.

Barry has no one else on the team for protection. The Giants have had one good hitter for years, his name is Barry Bonds. Unlike the Giants, the Yankees won world series after world series because of a host of good talent. Included in that bunch, none other than the Iron Horse, Lou Gehrig.

Barry faces more difficult pitching and more faces every game. Bonds faces guys from all over the world. They throw harder now because they're in better shape, they also have better offspeed pitches which have developed over the last 80 years into wicked knuckle curves and volcom changes. Barry also faces setup men and closers. A starter could pitch 6 strong innings, then the setup man comes in. He throws 2 good innings and hands it over to the closer. The gas throwing closer comes in to shut down the other team in the ninth. Add it up, 3 fresh arms, 3 different deliveries, and likely 12 different pitch types. Babe Ruth faced one guy all game, same delivery with just a couple/few pitches. Ruth likely faced a tired guy struggling through the 8th and 9th innings. An opportunity Bonds doesn't commonly have had.

Now to the steroids. Like others have said, it's not proven yet, so how could you include that into an argument. Plus, if allegations are true, it only accounts for a 3 week period in 2003. I know it doesn't sound like he didn't know what it was, but a three week peroid of using a steroid enhanced cream doesn't sound like a career altering steroid. Plus, his record setting year was 2002. Also, it wasn't even illegal. They couldn't test for it (THG) so they couldn't outlaw it. They made it illegal after the fact. The only thing we know for a fact is that we don't know.

Allegations like that are just as likely as saying that Ruth used a corked bat. Nobody knows if he did or didn't. They wouldn't have even cared.

BTW, Bonds 2004 stats:

AVG. - .362 l OBP. - .609 l SLG. - .812 l AB - 393 l R. - 129 l H - 123 l 2B - 27 l 3B - 3 l HR - 45 l RBI - 101 l BB - 232 l K - 41 l OPS. - 1.422

How about some ratios? Here you go.
HR/AB - 8.73 HR/K - 1.10 (the fact that it's over one is outstanding) AB/H - 2.76 (for most people that's 2 hits per game)

Interesting fact about Bonds '04 season: If you took away all of his singles, his on base percentage would still be OVER .500.

BTW, In Ruth's record setting 60 HR year, his HR/AB was.......9. Worse than Bonds was last year. Oh yeah, last year Bonds also set a record for SLG, OPS, and OBP. All records once held by Ruth. Let's not forget his seventh MVP.

Btw, philosopherEric,
I don't understand how you can say that a college pitcher is as good/better than a major leaguer during Ruth's time, and also say that there are weaker rosters now. If the pitchers are that much better, and batters are putting up the kind of numbers that they do, they must be almost godlike. Especially Barry. With the combination of those two statements, Barry is undoubtedly better than Ruth.

Barry will soon own the all time record for home runs in a career. He will be the new home run king. Much to the dismay of Ruth fans and Aaron fans.

Bottom line, Barry Bonds is the greatest baseball player ever. Period.

quote:

Btw, philosopherEric,
I don't understand how you can say that a college pitcher is as good/better than a major leaguer during Ruth's time, and also say that there are weaker rosters now. If the pitchers are that much better, and batters are putting up the kind of numbers that they do, they must be almost godlike. Especially Barry. With the combination of those two statements, Barry is undoubtedly better than Ruth.

But there is nothing to compare, the reason for the more home runs is mainly due to a couple factors; shorter fields, change in mound position, and steroids. So to say that our pitcher are not as good as previous ones because of the home runs seems like bad reasoning.

I think I will go through a pro-con list as well to state what is going on

Barry Bonds- Pro:
He has the best coordination that I have ever witnessed. He is incredibly strong and has a nice balanced swing. Better players now with the addition of "colored" individuals. 3rd all time in home runs.

Barry Bonds-Con:
It is easier to hit home runs now. Obviously has taken steroids with leaks in a trial. Not an excellent overall player just an excellent hitter. He is hitting better now than he did ten years ago and that is impossible without the help of supplements.

Babe Ruth-Pro:
Most dominate player of his time. It was much harder to hit home runs then. Number 1 all time in home runs. Played many position, including, I believe, pitcher. He defined a time period.

Babe Ruth-Con:
Only played white players and I have never actually seen him play. So I am unable to determine how good he actually was.

If you are just looking at stats you go with Bonds. But if you really look at it, you have to go with neither. Bonds took steroids and Ruth never had any competition, both of them should have asterisks beside their names.

I must say that it is a shame how the MLB depends on the home run so much now. It makes records cloudier, I will honestly say that I am more impressed with Ichiro's record than I am with Bonds'.

And I am doubtful that Barry will ever return after this current knee injury.

If numbers are what matters, maybe Barry is the best ever. But he's yet to win a World Series, which is certainly a standard by which I measure greatness. He's also an insufferable jerk, and that's why so many people would rather see Hank Aaron, a nice, sedate man, hold onto the home run crown. I don't presuppose (nor did I say that he did them...I only implied that Barry's records came in what the press thinks will be called the "Steroid Era" and that will affect how people judge him, right or wrong) that he DID steroids, but I think the suspicion isn't unwarranted. I certainly don't think the Babe is a better PLAYER than Bonds. But as far as iconic figures in the game, Barry's not even close. People hate him not as a player but as a person, which is unfortunate. I don't dislike Barry as a person or a player, but the recent tirade where he blamed everything on the media was immature and ridiculous. The media didn't make him take a mistress. The media didn't connect him the Balco. The media didn't blow out his knee. Take a little responsibility and maybe people will like you more.

As far as numbers go, I think that Al Pujols and Alex Rodriguez, if they both stay healthy and play for as long as Barry did, have a clear shot at putting up better career numbers than Barry overall. But that's a big if, of course.

I should also point out that I raised the college pitcher as a QUESTION, not a statement. In all of the old time footage of 20's and 30's baseball, the pitchers sure didn't look like they were throwing as hard as the average college pitcher. Looks can be, of course, deceiving. But just because more pitchers can throw 95 mph doesn't mean they're BETTER pitchers. The fact that more pitchers can throw 95 mph doesn't mean that the rosters aren't diluted...sometimes fireballers just don't mature in the bigs. But I actually think the weakening of the average roster while still maintaining an overall better average quality of big league pitching is consistent. Pitchers are better today but there are so many rosters spaces that a fair number of AA-quality pitchers are forced to play in the majors. Hell, Jesse Orosco was still pitching last year at 48!!!!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: philosopherEric,

I'm not sure what numbers are being discussed. If you're talking lifetime numbers, Ruth's ARE better.

Bonds Ruth

9098 AB 8399
2070 R 2174
2730 H 2873
563 2B 506
77 3B 136
703 HR 714
1843 RBI 2213
.300 BA .342
.443 OBP .474
.611 SA .690

Plus Ruth's pitching record was 94-46 (.671) with an ERA of 2.28.

These are facts. I guess opinions are important, but these are the facts in black and white, so let's remember the facts too.

EDIT-According to their stats, Ruth was 6'2", 215 lbs., and everybody called him fat. Bonds is 6'1", 228 lbs. Of course, it wasn't that many years ago that Bonds weighed 180.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mark f,

Shorter fields isn't exactly accurate. There are several exceptions. If you want examples of hitters parks then(Ruth's day), take his home field of Yankee Stadium. The short porch in right was designed with him in mind. You can't say that about Barry's home field. SBC his notoriously a pitchers park. A tall right field fence with death alley in right center. Barry also played in Candlestick for a while. That is an even worse park. Some say, had Willie Mays played in a different stadium he would have had 100 more HRs. The winds kept balls in and hung em up to dry. My point in what you quoted was that if the average pitcher at the college level is that good, and hitters are hitting them in increasingly better numbers, then the hitters must also be good. That's all, I wasn't knocking the current pitchers at all. If anything, i was saying they are a great deal better than the pitchers of the early 1900's. I am also curious why you said Babe Ruth is number 1 all time in HRs. And, how about, instead of both having asterisks; have neither. Every generation has their set of advantages and disadvantages. You would have to have an asterisk for everybody that played before desegregation. How about we just take the numbers as they are.

Now to philosopherEric,
It is pretty rediculous that you knock Bonds because of a lack of championships. Baseball is a team sport. There is NO WAY you can say Barry isn't as good as Ruth because he doesn't have any championships. It's ludacrous. I could see if it was Phil Mickelson or Andy Roddick, but in a sport like baseball you have to have a complete team to win. Baseball, i would say, is the most heavily dependent on the TEAM. Football has the quarterback, and basketball has star players that score 50 points in a game. Baseball is much different, teams rely on pitchers heavily, but they're only out there every 5 or 6 days. Yes, Barry is a jerk and a A-Hole. But that doesn't change that he's the better PLAYER. Off the field stuff shouldn't have anything to do with this argument (except steroids). Barry's media comment was really rediculous, and i was somewhat ashamed on that day to be a Barry Bonds fan. However, he has had pretty intense scrutiny. Not enough to cry about, and a lot of it he brought on himself by being a jerk. Anyways, I still don't understand your argument for how more pitchers can throw 95 mph but the rosters aren't diluted. You go on to say that the weakening of the average roster while still maintaining an overall better average quality of big league pitching is consistent. It doesn't make sense to me. If the average pitcher is better, and the average overall roster is weak, wouldn't this be a pitchers era? It's not however, its the era of the longball. I think you are right about the pitching of college is better than the pitching of the 1920's and 1930's. The argument that more teams means less "dense" talent is what it seems like what you are trying to get at.

Ok, here's a scenario or equation i guess. The average Pitcher in the 1920's is worse than the average college pitcher. The average college pitcher is worse than the average AA pitcher. The worst pitchers in the MLB now is probably the really good AA pitcher that is forced into the majors early. So, if the worst pitcher in the MLB is a really good AA pitcher and he is quite a bit better than the AVERAGE pitcher of the 1920's, then isn't it fair to say that the average major league pitcher is A WHOLE LOT better than the average pitcher in the 1920's.

Not only are pitching staffs today not diluted, but they're made up of people that are much better than the great pitchers of the '20s.

Also you talk about old pitchers. Look at Satchel Paige, the oldest baseball player of all time. 59 years old. When was that, not 1990 or 95, but 1965. It is completely false that rosters today are diluted. COMPLETELY FALSE. There is a huge talent pool, made up of much better athletes and pitchers. I don't see how that could be considered diluted. I would call the talent pool of the 1920's awfully shallow. WHITE AMERICANS FROM THE EAST COAST. Imagine what the MLB would be like right now if those requirements/parameters were still in effect. No matter how great numbers were, you couldn't compare them to the numbers of Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, or A-Rod. In fact, the only one of those 4 that fit the bill is A-Rod. Imagine an MLB without Bonds, Sammy, Tejada, Big Unit, Pedro, Vlad, Pudge, Manny, etc. The list goes on and on, it would not be the same. The stats would be incredibly inflated. You would have A-Rod hitting 100+ HRs. That would affect the system all the way down to A Ball.

About the stats, I never said Bonds stats were better for the record. Maybe some season best are better in Bonds corner, but career wise Ruth's numbers are better. Although invalid.

I think knocking Bonds for lack of championships isn't ridiculous, and I think Hall of Fame voters consider it. I'm not saying that it knocks him out of the Hall (it won't) but I certainly would take, as a player on MY team, someone like Derek Jeter, whose intangibles and championships put him in contention for a World Series, over a guy who is clearly a better PLAYER. If you'd rather have the better player, more power to you. But I'd rather have a playoff bound TEAM than a bunch of really good players. And it's certainly not Barry's fault that not every team he's been on was good...but I'll still take a guy who wins over a guy with great stats on my team. Again, this has nothing to do with his status as a statistical player. I think John Elway is a better overall player than Dan Marino, even though Marino has gaudier stats. Elway has two rings. I'll take those over the gaudy stats any day. If you would rather have the gaudy stats, that's certainly understandable.

Satchel Paige is certainly the oldest pitcher. But he pitched in ONE game at age 59. That's a little bit unfair on your part, and totally not the point I was making. I was speaking of the phenomenon of elderly pitcers (usually junkballing lefties) staying in the game too long as a indication of the thinning of the talent pool. I made an error...Orosco last pitched in 2003, not 2004. Of course, 45 year old John Franco is still pitching effectively, so old doesn't mean bad.

If I was starting a team and could pick one player, in his prime, would I pick Barry, knowing something about his potential BUT also knowing his personality? Ruling out injuries and such, I'd think about it, but I'm not sure I'd be willing to commit to Barry.

philosopherEric, Honestly you are the first person i have heard knock a baseball player for lack of championships. Bonds is at bat 4 -5 times a game. He's in LEFT FIELD. There's only so much he can do to get the team to the World Series. It's amazing to me that someone that seems to know as much as you do about baseball to say that a lack of championships should even be considered of how good a player is. A playoff bound team is usually a bunch of good players. Bonds hasn't had the opportunity of playing with TEAMMATES that were good enough to win. That stuff about taking a guy who wins, that may be true for pitchers, but LEFT FIELDERS, come on. You can't be serious. I agree with you about the Marino/Elway argument. They are, however, the centerpiece of the ENTIRE TEAM. Like I said before, a position player can only do so much. They can't win, it's not solely up to them. It's more on a pitcher. And MARINO NEVER HAD A SUPPORTING STAFF. Elway had McAffry, Shannon Sharp, Terrell Davis, Marino had no one. Man, football is DRASTICALLY different from baseball. You can't even put that much responsability on a pitcher. Because his pitching can only do so much when the offense doesn't score. Let alone a position player. He hits 4-5 times a game, last year got on base 3 out of 5 times. Hit 40+ Hrs, scored plenty of runs, what more can you ask for from a single position player. Barry can't control the pitchers ability, or anyone elses on the team. Do you blame Jeter for last years losses? Hell no, he's the Shortstop, he can't control whether a pitcher gives up a HR. No one puts the losses on one guys shoulder unless its a situation like Buckners. It's ludacrous to put losses on a Left Fielders shoulder, especially when he didn't have any BLUNDERS like Buckner. It is rediculous.

I know what you were trying to get at with the Orosco thing. Satchel Paige did pitch when he was 50 and 52 and 55, still older than Orosco. It wasn't the number 59, i was just saying that Orosco wasn't the first and it doesn't necessarily mean there isn't a great talent pool. Does it mean there was a bad talent pool in 1965 or 1963 when Paige pitched after he turned 50? No, it means that he was still effective enough to earn a spot on a roster. BTW, people age slower now, in case you didn't know. Also that just shows you how good the training is. How good trainers are at helping guys recover from injuries.

I would like you to explain to me why the talent pool is so bad. Please. That is an argument I would love for you to try to make.

Consider these things:
Population has close to tripled.
World Wide communication.
Scouting in foreign countries.

I was looking in ESPN the Magazine and they talked about making all star teams like the olympics do with basketball. Like how Luc Longley used to play for Australia. Have teams like Dominicans, Americans, Mexicans and so on. Here are some stars from other countries: Vlad, Tejada, Pujols, Manny, Pedro, Bartolo, Alfonso Soriano, Abreu, Magglio Ordonez, Vizquel, Beltran, Roberto Alomar, C. Delgado, Pudge Rodriguez, Bernie Williams, Johan Santana, Carlos Zambrano, Freddy Garcia, Francisco Rodriguez, Mike Lowell, Javy Lopez, Livan Hernandez, El Duque, Vinny Castilla, and Esteban Loaiza. Those are just some of them. Then theres a few black guys that wouldn't have been alowed to play in Ruths day like Gary Sheffield, Vernon Wells, and Garrett Anderson, they have those guys on the American team. Then you take away all of the Americans from the west coast too. Like Mark Prior, Bret Boone, Eric Chavez, Roy Halladay, Kerry Wood, and Barry Zito. So out of all of the guys listed there are only 6 that would qualify: Todd Helton, A-Rod, Thome, Varitek, Hudson, and Billy Wagner. That's it. Pretty amazing.

And if you wouldn't want Barry on your team, I think it would be a bad decision. You do have to baby him and stuff, but what you get is the total package. Just look at his numbers last year:

AVG. - .362
R - 129
HR - 45
RBI - 101
BB - 232
OBP. - .609
SLG. - .812
OPS. - 1.422

BTW, if you take away all of Barry's base hits away last year, his OBP. is......... .507!
That's pretty amazing.
BTW, Ruth's highest OBP is .545
Ruth's best OPS. is 1.379

If you take Ruth's best seasons, they aren't as good as Bonds'. But overall career averages and totals, Ruth's better. However inflated they may be.

First off, welcome to the site Coper589, and thanks for offering some fresh perspective on this "debate".

I'm gonna stay out of this from now on (I think), but I don't understand the argument that pitchers in the old days couldn't even make the majors nowadays. Where does this "fact"/opinion come from? Lets go back just 35-40 years. Sandy Koufax and Bob Gibson. Those guys would be the aces of their staffs and winning Cy Youngs now, no problem. If you go back incrementally you'll find great players and pitchers throughout each era. To deny that is ignorance. To say that a bunch of "white" Americans are obviously worse than all the players "of color" is an argument which certainly carries some weight, but it honestly produces no evidence whatsoever as to the actual quality of the old-time players, who rode around in buses, only played day games, had fewer days off, etc.

I'm trying to figure out how Ruth could hit all those wimp (many in the Hall of Fame) pitchers, yet also kick all the other batters' asses when he was pitching (apparently at AA level?) Opinions, arguments, I've heard some good ones, and I certainly respect them. I just think dumping on an era of baseball because it's politically-correct does not make me take the argument any more seriously. I still enjoy facts mixed in with opinions, hypotheses, theories, etc. I have not heard ANY facts explaining the quality of old-time pitchers. I have heard how pitchers today are specialists, can do their jobs well(usually...ha!), throw wicked pitches, etc. Old-time pitchers pitched longer and more often. That makes them worse and have crummier stuff? I don't get the connection. Where's the evidence suggesting all those "old, fat white" men had lousy stuff, but it didn't matter because they were playing against other "old, fat white" men? There's no evidence that I've seen here, at least not yet.

Some more "invalid" facts are that Yankee Stadium did open in 1923, and Babe Ruth did hit 59 homers that year. He hit 54 the year before at the Polo Grounds, which had an even shorter right-field porch than the "House That Ruth Built".
Barry Bonds plays in a park where right field is 307 ft., longer (barely) than the home parks that Ruth played in. I've been to both stadiums in San Fran, and I know how the wind blows in and out, sometimes changing in a matter of seconds.
But I do want to say that those old-time parks often rewarded hitters who were dead-pull, but killed everybody else. The original dimensions of Yankee Stadium in 1923 were: Left Field Line 281 ft!, Left Center 490 ft!, Center 487 ft!, Right Center 424 ft!, Right Field Line 295 ft!

Just for the record: the two teams I like the LEAST are The Yankees and the Giants. Being a lifelong Dodgers fan makes that seem easy for me to understand. In the '60s, my favorite players were Sandy Koufax and Willie Mays. I know that doesn't make any "sense", except for me to say that they were the best players who were playing when I was in Little League. Mays was incredible no matter what he was doing. I was always upset that he didn't break the homer record. Koufax was almost unhittable his last four years, and it was the saddest day of my young life when I heard that he had retired so young.

Anyhow, OK, back to everybody going back and forth. Later, Gators.

Ok, first of all thank you for the welcome. I love this topic.

"Barry Bonds plays in a park where right field is 307 ft., longer (barely) than the home parks that Ruth played in. I've been to both stadiums in San Fran, and I know how the wind blows in and out, sometimes changing in a matter of seconds."

That's true, it is 307, but it's also fairly tall. I don't know the exact height, but I too have been there and have seen it. SBC is pretty good at taming the wind, it was well designed. However, if the wind does blow, it comes from Right towards home.
http://www.athomeplate.com/bondssbc.shtml


"Some more "invalid" facts are that Yankee Stadium did open in 1923, and Babe Ruth did hit 59 homers that year. He hit 54 the year before at the Polo Grounds, which had an even shorter right-field porch than the "House That Ruth Built"."

I'm not sure how that helps your point. Ruth went from one stadium with a short portch to a stadium with a shorter one. This site says it was 257.67' to right in 1923. 50 shorter than SBC. Ruth played there for 3 years. He hit 54, 59, and 35 HRs there.
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/stadium/st_polo.shtml

"I have heard how pitchers today are specialists, can do their jobs well(usually...ha!), throw wicked pitches, etc. Old-time pitchers pitched longer and more often. That makes them worse and have crummier stuff? I don't get the connection. Where's the evidence suggesting all those "old, fat white" men had lousy stuff, but it didn't matter because they were playing against other "old, fat white" men? There's no evidence that I've seen here, at least not yet."

The reason they are specialists is because they are given a certain job. Ok, heres an example of what Bonds faces. He faces a hard throwing starting pitcher with say, 4 pitches. Then when he gets tired, they bring in the releif. Say a junkballing right handed setup guy, 5 pitches. Then in the 9th he faces the closer. An absolute flame throwing lefty like Billy Wagner, 3 pitches. Ok, that's a total of 3 pitchers. 3 arm angles. 12 pitches. All different velocities. And that's just one game. However, Ruth would face one pitcher. 4 pitches, 1 arm angle all game. Not only that, but Ruth gets a chance to face a guy struggling through the 8th. His velocity is dropping, and pitches are losing bite. Bonds NEVER gets that chance. Well rarely. You also talk about how old time pitchers pitch more often. Another advantage for Ruth. Not only does this guy have to pitch all nine, but he's coming off of 3 days rest. Every game he faces guys on 3 days rest. That does make somebody worse and have crumier stuff. I have tried to pitch on three days rest, it's tough. Your legs don't have the push you're used to. Your front arm doesn't pull down like you expect. The majority of bad pitches are high and hanging. AKA Home run mistakes. I've done it. Chances are there stuff wasn't lousy, but they did have less of it. Also, they may have had worse stuff because just 2 days before they had to throw 9 innings and got beat 7-2. Had 13 runners on base. That's likely about 160 pitches. His moral is probably not great. I mean, there is a lot to it. Not just the fact that I've heard or seen this or that. That may not be evidence, but maybe is logical enough for you.

"I just think dumping on an era of baseball because it's politically-correct does not make me take the argument any more seriously. I still enjoy facts mixed in with opinions, hypotheses, theories, etc. I have not heard ANY facts explaining the quality of old-time pitchers."

I am not dumping an era. I admire the pitchers that threw on 3 days rest 130-150 pitches a pop. I mean, I have attempted it, and it didn't work out to say the least. It was my first time giving up a grand slam, and that was the 2nd inning. Anyways, it seems more politically correct to jump on the Ruth bandwagon. Not very many people are willing to challenge the Ruth legacy. Since I've been born, I have heard the stories of the called shot and how he was a good pitcher and hitter. And how he hit 2 home runs for a sick kid. To challenge that in the baseball community is like a sin. That's why Barry is hated. Anyways, i think it's more politically correct to debate FOR Ruth than against. Many people don't even question it. But, to me it's logical that he couldn't be better than today's athletes.

"To say that a bunch of "white" Americans are obviously worse than all the players "of color" is an argument which certainly carries some weight, but it honestly produces no evidence whatsoever as to the actual quality of the old-time players, who rode around in buses, only played day games, had fewer days off, etc."

Ok, I have had people make that assumption before in debates. I will try to explain it the best I can.

I think the amount of Americans in baseball is around 70%. Ok, now take out the black people from America, that's about 50% i would guess. Now take out the west coasters. I would say that's 30%, i think that's generous. But there was about half as many teams. So we'll double that. Ok, so you have 60% of the MLB (now 16 teams) in a league. I think that's about what it comes out to. The rest of the 40% will be made up with less qualified minor leaguers. Therefore, their (original 60%) stats will be pretty greatly inflated. Let's take someone that could fit those parameters. A-Rod. He had 36 HRs last year. Ok, well now he's facing some former minor leaguers. I'm sure he'd take advantage of them. His offensive stats would skyrocket.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Coper589,

*Cough* I lied. *Cough*

I'd still like to know if you researched how pitchers actually pitched in the '20s? Did you research relievers? Because believe it or not, they existed. I wasn't trying to support my point. I have no point! I started this because I thought it was interesting. I have no axe to grind. I'm just trying to keep everybody "honest". Ha!

Here's a website to check out. Look at the chart. It's pretty clear that Barry deals with relief pitchers about 5x more than Ruth did.

http://www.baseballgraphs.com/blog/comments.php?id=81_0_1_0_C

All i did was type in "1920's Relievers" into google. It's not that difficult to "research."

According to those stats, the 1910's relievers were better than the 1980's, and they've only gotten better since 1980. I AM going to shut up, but the argument isn't that convincing, but I'm glad I have more to compare/contrast because, remember, I have no side to specifically defend!