People who insist Barry Bonds is better than Babe Ruth

[maddash]

Statistically though, there's still a good gap between Bonds and Ruth (in Ruth's favor) in terms of just hitting percentages.

Babe:
AVG .342
OBP .474
SLG .690
EQA .375
OPS+ 207

Barry:
AVG .298
OBP .444
SLG .607
EQA .356
OPS+ 182

And in terms of counting stats, it should always be noted that Barry has over 1300 more ABs than Ruth.

Does taking into account the differences in talent between the eras really makeup for that gap? I'm not saying it's impossible for Barry to be called the greatest hitter ever, but to do so you'll have to make a very strong case (IMO) to get around the glaring difference in numbers. I'd be happy with calling Barry one of the greatest players ever and leave it at that.

[haltz]

Does taking into account the differences in talent between the eras really makeup for that gap?

According to WARP3 it even makes up for the pitching. Well that and about five wins of everyone's favorite defensive metric, FRAA. Although Bonds has him in EqR as well.

[Radbird]

First of all, this is an impossible comparison. What would Ruth had been like today as a player? Would he have taken advantage of today's training/medical/supplement enhancements? How many trips to re-hab would've interrupted his career? Would he even be a baseball player, or perhaps have pursued an NFL career? Who knows? You can only go by the numbers, and I believe the Babe wins by that measure.

Not to take this completely off track, but Ruth may not have even been the best player of his era. Had things been different back then, Barry may still be chasing Josh Gibson's all-time home run record.

[maddash]

Does taking into account the differences in talent between the eras really makeup for that gap?

According to WARP3 it even makes up for the pitching. Well that and about five wins of everyone's favorite defensive metric, FRAA. Although Bonds has him in EqR as well.

WARP3 is a counting stat, and as noted, Barry has about 500 games and 1000+ AB on Ruth. Obviously longevity should count in Barry's favor, but all that extra playing time just to be a few WARP3 points over Ruth? Is that something people should count in favor of Barry or against him?

[haltz]

WARP3 is a counting stat, and as noted, Barry has about 500 games and 1000+ AB on Ruth. Obviously longevity should count in Barry's favor, but all that extra playing time just to be a few WARP3 points over Ruth? Is that something people should count in favor of Barry or against him?

Sorry, I must have glazed over that part of your post. I will say that the Babe accumulated some of that WARP while pitching, which was cutting into his at-bats some - and games too I guess. Quick aside: Babe had a 189 OPS+ in 93 at-bats as a 20-year-old pitcher. Awesome.

I don't know the BABIP numbers offhand, but a quick look at their BRef pages will show that the league hit 22 pts higher over Ruth's career. This is one of Bill James 16 indicators (or something like that) of league improvement and it inflates Ruth's OPS. An article called "Why there will never be another .400 hitter." (or a similar title), comes to mind here and I think was linked on the forum.

Then there's talent pool, tech and medical advancements, game evolution, etc, etc.

[Socnorb11]

I also think we should clarify the question. Are we asking "who had the better career", or "who was the best player, at their very best". Bonds was clearly better than Ruth, when they were both at their best. Better career is a bit more iffy, but I'd still give it to Bonds simply because of the competition that he faces. If you look at the ERA leaders today, you realize that most of them wouldn't have even gotten an opportunity to pitch in Ruth's day, because they're not white Americans from East of the Mississippi.

[Richie Allen]

...most of them wouldn't have even gotten an opportunity to pitch in Ruth's day, because they're not white Americans from East of the Mississippi.

The majority of Americans in 1920 were white and lived east of the Mississippi. Without trying to come across as racist, how many great black starting pitchers are there in the game today?

And we can say what we want about how fantastic our conditioning is today versus 80 years ago but I'd be willing to bet, on average, the typical teenager in the 1920 was in a hell of a lot better shape than the typical teenager today. Besides, freaks like Babe Ruth are born, not developed in the weight room.

[Ace]

How did they use to judge MVP voting?

Looking at the stats I can't believe Ruth only won one MVP.

[Richie Allen]

How did they use to judge MVP voting?

Looking at the stats I can't believe Ruth only won one MVP.

You could only win it once.

[Socnorb11]

...most of them wouldn't have even gotten an opportunity to pitch in Ruth's day, because they're not white Americans from East of the Mississippi.

The majority of Americans in 1920 were white and lived east of the Mississippi. Without trying to come across as racist, how many great black starting pitchers are there in the game today?

And we can say what we want about how fantastic our conditioning is today versus 80 years ago but I'd be willing to bet, on average, the typical teenager in the 1920 was in a hell of a lot better shape than the typical teenager today. Besides, freaks like Babe Ruth are born, not developed in the weight room.

I realize that most Americans were white, and east of the Mississippi. That's kinda my point. There weren't nearly as many Americans........period. And although there aren't many black players today, there are plenty of Domincans, Venequelan, some Asian, etc. Imagine a league with no Zambrano, no Johan Santana, no Kelvim Escobar, no Matzusaka, no Felix Hernandez, no Mariano Rivera, no Francisco Cordero or Takashi Saito.

Heck, if you eliminate all non-white Americans, then Paul Konerko would be leading the AL, with a whopping 23 home runs.

There simply wasn't as much competition for Ruth.