- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 8/1/14 at 1:04 pm to dnm3305
quote:
If you would transport mid-90's Bonds back into the 20's with a time machine would he put up the same numbers as Ruth? Of course. He would prlly demolish Ruth's numbers because he is an all around superior player in every facet of the game. Now, if you take Ruth out of the 20's and put him against modern pitching, would he put up the same numbers. No fricking way.
Does Ruth get to roid up for the 90's?
Posted on 8/1/14 at 1:08 pm to dnm3305
Sabi, that was not a boom post in the slightest.
They played in completely different eras. You cannot really compare them well. They are the cream of the crop when it comes to most meaningful offensive categories. They are the two best players of all time when it comes to creating runs (the object of the offensive side of the game).
Yeah, I highly doubt Ruth would be able to hit a Mariano Rivera cutter as well as a guy like Bonds would (not that anyone can hit that pitch). On the other hand, I highly doubt Bonds could see the ball as well as he could in modern games because they changed out the ball less regularly. Plus, grandfathered spitballs were still legal after Ray Chapman's death. Hitting a baseball before 1920 was a whole different animal. Plus, Bonds has the access to modern day medicine, elite conditioning and strength training programs, and elite specialization that Ruth did not have. Don't give me the Ruth only played against whites bullshite because he was leaps and bounds than any of his contemporaries, and I highly doubt that any human at the time was as good as Babe Ruth.
Both of them dominated the game like no one else. Seriously, go look at both their numbers. Their OPS+ (which accounts for eras by adjusting scoring) and other fairly comprehensive statistics show that both of them are absurdly spectacular without providing a clear case for one over the other.
Putting Bonds in the 20's or Ruth at Y2K is a futile hypothetical because there are an absurd number of variables. They are the two greatest players of all time, but this is nothing like hockey where Gretzky is set in stone as the GOAT.
They played in completely different eras. You cannot really compare them well. They are the cream of the crop when it comes to most meaningful offensive categories. They are the two best players of all time when it comes to creating runs (the object of the offensive side of the game).
Yeah, I highly doubt Ruth would be able to hit a Mariano Rivera cutter as well as a guy like Bonds would (not that anyone can hit that pitch). On the other hand, I highly doubt Bonds could see the ball as well as he could in modern games because they changed out the ball less regularly. Plus, grandfathered spitballs were still legal after Ray Chapman's death. Hitting a baseball before 1920 was a whole different animal. Plus, Bonds has the access to modern day medicine, elite conditioning and strength training programs, and elite specialization that Ruth did not have. Don't give me the Ruth only played against whites bullshite because he was leaps and bounds than any of his contemporaries, and I highly doubt that any human at the time was as good as Babe Ruth.
Both of them dominated the game like no one else. Seriously, go look at both their numbers. Their OPS+ (which accounts for eras by adjusting scoring) and other fairly comprehensive statistics show that both of them are absurdly spectacular without providing a clear case for one over the other.
Putting Bonds in the 20's or Ruth at Y2K is a futile hypothetical because there are an absurd number of variables. They are the two greatest players of all time, but this is nothing like hockey where Gretzky is set in stone as the GOAT.
This post was edited on 8/1/14 at 1:11 pm
Posted on 8/1/14 at 1:13 pm to Vicks Kennel Club
If we want to get technical, Will Clark is the GOAT.
Posted on 8/1/14 at 1:40 pm to theunknownknight
Yeah, GOAT a-hole.
Posted on 8/1/14 at 4:26 pm to Hoyt
Willie Stargell
Posted on 8/1/14 at 4:31 pm to FightinTigersDammit
quote:considering he only hit 40 home runs 8 times in 23 seasons I don't think you can count on him hitting 40 but at least he hit .300 or better 14 times
You could pretty much count on Aaron hitting .300 with 40 homers and 100plus RBIs and runs scored
Posted on 8/1/14 at 4:32 pm to Hoyt
has to be Griffey...imagine if he never left for cincy
Posted on 8/1/14 at 4:33 pm to Paul Allen
Will Clarks not even the greatest on his own team.
He's like at best maybe the 6th greatest Giant? Maybe you can make an argument for 5th?
Go back to Kobe Bryant Goat arguments.
If your gonna go back and include early 1900s it's Ruth and it's not close because compared to Bonds ONLY as a hitter they are very close and on top of that he was 94-46 as a pitcher with a 2.28 era with 17 shutouts (the same number Pedro had btw).
You can't measure them hth cuz of the vast difference in eras but you can look at how they dominated who they played against.
When Ruth hit 54 homers in 1920, only ONE other American League TEAM had that many. When he got to 700 hrs no one else in history had even 350.
Baseball is called the American pastime solely because of him.
I won't argue the fact Bonds faced better competition. He did. But that's not Ruths fault. Bonds also never threw a pitch in his life.
Ruth isn't the greatest athlete.
But he was the greatest baseball player.
He's like at best maybe the 6th greatest Giant? Maybe you can make an argument for 5th?
Go back to Kobe Bryant Goat arguments.
If your gonna go back and include early 1900s it's Ruth and it's not close because compared to Bonds ONLY as a hitter they are very close and on top of that he was 94-46 as a pitcher with a 2.28 era with 17 shutouts (the same number Pedro had btw).
You can't measure them hth cuz of the vast difference in eras but you can look at how they dominated who they played against.
When Ruth hit 54 homers in 1920, only ONE other American League TEAM had that many. When he got to 700 hrs no one else in history had even 350.
Baseball is called the American pastime solely because of him.
I won't argue the fact Bonds faced better competition. He did. But that's not Ruths fault. Bonds also never threw a pitch in his life.
Ruth isn't the greatest athlete.
But he was the greatest baseball player.
This post was edited on 8/1/14 at 4:46 pm
Posted on 8/1/14 at 4:35 pm to dnm3305
quote:considering that is such a dumb argument... of course Bonds would dominant it was a completely different era.... Now put Bonds in a different era without the advanced metrics, training, etc would his numbers look different? Absofrickenlutely, same with Ruth.... each dominated their respective ERA and trying to compare the two is foolish because things are so different. Bonds never traveled 3-4 days by train or bus to get to a game, didn't hit in an era dominated by pitchers with raised mounds, larger parks, and less rules. Lets not forget to mention Ruth was 6'2" 215 in his prime, a large man for the 1910-1930's
If you would transport mid-90's Bonds back into the 20's with a time machine would he put up the same numbers as Ruth? Of course. He would prlly demolish Ruth's numbers because he is an all around superior player in every facet of the game. Now, if you take Ruth out of the 20's and put him against modern pitching, would he put up the same numbers. No fricking way.
Posted on 8/1/14 at 5:01 pm to tduecen
Bonds has the weakest arm of all time. FFS, Sid Bream scored from second base on Bonds. 
If Pete Rose ever gets into the HoF, then I will allow Bonds to get in. Until then, frick Barry, frick Sosa, frick "Big Mac", and frick "Mr. I will not lie".
If Pete Rose ever gets into the HoF, then I will allow Bonds to get in. Until then, frick Barry, frick Sosa, frick "Big Mac", and frick "Mr. I will not lie".
Posted on 8/1/14 at 5:08 pm to tduecen
Ruth played in some HUGE ballparks. A lot of Bonds' homers would be long outs.
Posted on 8/1/14 at 5:17 pm to FightinTigersDammit
I'd have to check, but I think at the start of Ruth's career a walk was still considered considered an AB. Therefore a walk would actually hurt a players average... I don't remember when that rule changed.
Posted on 8/1/14 at 5:29 pm to FightinTigersDammit
quote:
Ruth played in some HUGE ballparks. A lot of Bonds' homers would be long outs.
And he also played at the Polo Grounds, which boasts a 258 ft porch to RF
Posted on 8/1/14 at 5:39 pm to Hoyt
In 
Posted on 8/1/14 at 5:40 pm to goldennugget
quote:I hope you're not serious
You have to wonder though if Griffey's injury riddled stint with the Reds that pretty much neutralized him from the game in the early 2000s will affect him when it comes to the HOF
Posted on 8/1/14 at 5:40 pm to goldennugget
(no message)
This post was edited on 8/1/14 at 5:41 pm
Posted on 8/1/14 at 5:51 pm to Tiger1242
Short lines comparable with ballparks today but you will never see a park with 450 to the gaps and 475+ to center again....
Posted on 8/1/14 at 5:59 pm to tduecen
Baseball historians consider the modern era to begin in 1901. So it's Ruth when you consider hitting and pitching and there's Ty Cobb and Willie Mays.
Posted on 8/1/14 at 5:59 pm to Tiger1242
Ruth only played a year or two at Polo Grounds. I believe he had a 54 home run season there.
If The Yankees continued to share Polo Grounds instead of moving into Yankee Stadium, then I think that Ruth could have hit maybe 25 to 50 more homers. Also, being a full time hitter his whole career would have helped.
If The Yankees continued to share Polo Grounds instead of moving into Yankee Stadium, then I think that Ruth could have hit maybe 25 to 50 more homers. Also, being a full time hitter his whole career would have helped.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News