It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Baseball: Bonds better than the Babe?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
TRD

posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 07:04 AM
link   
As he creeps closer to Babe Ruth's home run record, Barry Bonds will wish he could take his words back. Let him think about it, let it linger and San Francisco's slugger will wish he had never dismissed Ruth with a snarl and a sniff. Before long, the comparisons will be relentless. But this is the way Bonds wanted it, the debate dwindling down to the two most feared hitters in history: Barry and the Babe.

msn.espn.go.com...


Bonds doesn't have better numbers then the Babe yet, and when he does there will be an asterisk by them because it was in more ABs, infact, Bonds has already had more ABs then Babe Ruth. I don't see what is so damn special about Bonds anyway.!!!!!!!!!!! I think his ego is about as big as the amount of steroids he takes.!!




posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Bonds is great, but all you have to point at when comparing the two is how many rings Bonds has compared to Ruth....none.

And don't get me started about how his team around him wasn't that great because it has been decent enough for them to get to the world series and he wasn't playing particularly well then.



posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 06:29 PM
link   
let's not forget that the Babe has 94 wins as a pitcher also and he won 20 twice. when bonds does that he can start to think he's better than the Babe.


Ben

posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Bonds will never be better than the Babe, who can be better than him. in the game now the question is simple NOBODY, the pitching nowa nd the hitting and the steriods nobody will come close to bonds because everybody will have the thought in the back of their mind that they are steriod takers



posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cannon
And don't get me started about how his team around him wasn't that great because it has been decent enough for them to get to the world series and he wasn't playing particularly well then.


Bonds played awesome in the WS. Doesn't he hold the record for most walks and IBB for a WS? He got walked to much, resulting in just a few AB's. With these AB's though, he jacked like 5 or 6 HR's. I say he played very well. Benito Santiago though was their best in the playoffs that year.


Ben

posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 07:53 PM
link   
He might have played well but a great player would have willed his players to win that championship.


TRD

posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 02:25 PM
link   
What i mean who is better the thing is Bonds does not have the "superstar for the ages" quality that he thinks he does.

Nobody is really going to care when Bonds actually leaves the game. He has had a great career, no doubt about it, but nobody really gives a rats azz about him.Did anyone really care when he was chasing the single season HR record? No.Nobody outside of baseball fans knows who Bonds is, and nor do they care. Ruth was bigger then the game. Thats what made him special.

Question. Was Bonds ever his era's dominant hitter and pitcher?

Ruth has more shutouts than Pedro does and Ruth isn't primarily known for his pitching.

Ruth gave up pitching to focus on offense and what's amazing is that he was his era's most dominant hitter too.

For Bonds to say he's going to make people forget Ruth he better toss a few more shutouts than Pedro Martinez.



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 02:37 PM
link   
ok its really impossible to say who is really better cuz the times they played in were completely different. Flat out the players now are better than in ruth's days. ruth had 60 in a season while the second closest at the time was what like 20. I mean he hit more homers than entire teams. Obviously the caliber of players back than werent that great. The pitching was no where near as good as it is today. Bonds is putting up ridiculous numbers against other incredible players. Would ruth have had the stats he did had he played with todays players....thats hard to say and alot of people would admit prolly not. Ruth was that much better against the players of his time, but that doesnt necessarily mean he would be as good now. Screw home runs, in my opinion if bonds can finish a season with a batting average over .400 he is simply the best ever.


Ben

posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 06:38 PM
link   
who can come close to the babe then


TRD

posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ben
who can come close to the babe then


No one.....

Babe Ruth is a legend. Even us brits have heard of him...



posted on Jun, 11 2004 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Its gotta be the Babe.

Even if you ignore the pitching entirely he is better. Bonds was a pretty good hitter and he could run too, but it wasn't until he started to take the seroids that he really started to put up the huge numbers. The Babe pretty much single handedly changed the way that the game was played. He brought the league out of the dead ball era and started a new one of his own. If the Babe had only ever pitched then the league would not be the same as it is now.



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cannon
Bonds is great, but all you have to point at when comparing the two is how many rings Bonds has compared to Ruth....none.

And don't get me started about how his team around him wasn't that great because it has been decent enough for them to get to the world series and he wasn't playing particularly well then.


This is pure nonsense. BB is a team of 25. One player can't impact it like in basketball.

BEN, will a team? Come on now. Bonds has had pretty lame teams. Go look at the SF sp in Bonds time there.

Ruth is the best, but imo, not by much. Bonds is the 2nd best player ever, and his peak years (3 best), beats Ruth.

Btw, Ted Williams never got a ring, so i guess he should have willed it. Luis Sojo has 4. The rings argument is pure bull.



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 08:14 PM
link   
I don't think Ruth would have done as well in our era. IMO, They are dead-even.

Edit* (BTW, sorry for all the short posts lately... I've been forced to use the on-screen keyboard. My keyboard broke n I gotta get a new one soon so I can back-up my recent posts.)

[Edited on 9/10/2005 by GiantsFan]



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by GiantsFan
I don't think Ruth would have done as well in our era. IMO, They are dead-even.


Just wondering why you think Ruth would have more trouble?



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Since baseball was exclusively whites, he wasn't necessarily playing against the best. I know from experience how roughed up a pitcher can get even if he is just a decent pitcher. I'm not saying he would be horrible, I'd see him as a Jim Thome, Hit 45 HRs a year, but only have around Mays' HR total.



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Ruth pitched, and was great...was the greatest hitter of all-time...he hit in an age in which the previous HR record was less than 25...many years he had more homeruns than most teams in the league...his avg was amazing...his obp was great...he had a godlike slugging...he was a franchise unto himself...bonds is a good hitter (cough S-T-E-R-O-I-D-S cough)...but he couldn't hold a candle to ruth's flame...



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by GiantsFan
Since baseball was exclusively whites, he wasn't necessarily playing against the best. I know from experience how roughed up a pitcher can get even if he is just a decent pitcher. I'm not saying he would be horrible, I'd see him as a Jim Thome, Hit 45 HRs a year, but only have around Mays' HR total.


True to a extent, but how many great non white pitchers have there been? Gibson/Jenkins/Pedro. Most non whites seem to favor position players. On the other end of it, Ruth never got the luxury of teeing off on expansion pitchers. Could you imagine the Royals or Rockies staff facing Ruth? Another thing, in Ruth's era, bb drew the best athletes. Now days, bb lags way behind football and basketball in getting the best athletes. Plus Ruth played in far tougher Stadiums. Can you imagine him in Yankee Stadium today? Most of todays parks, with the exception of maybe 5, are hitting boxes (short fences). Yankee Stadium used to be about 454 to CF.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 08:04 PM
link   
True to a extent, but how many great non white pitchers have there been? Gibson/Jenkins/Pedro. Most non whites seem to favor position players. On the other end of it, Ruth never got the luxury of teeing off on expansion pitchers. Could you imagine the Royals or Rockies staff facing Ruth? Another thing, in Ruth's era, bb drew the best athletes. Now days, bb lags way behind football and basketball in getting the best athletes. Plus Ruth played in far tougher Stadiums. Can you imagine him in Yankee Stadium today? Most of todays parks, with the exception of maybe 5, are hitting boxes (short fences). Yankee Stadium used to be about 454 to CF.



First off this whole topic is impossible, You cannot compare players from different ages, it is impossible,
Secondly Baseball did get the best athletes back then, but they were nothing compared to the athletes of nowadays, Ruth was a DRUNK himself,
Barry Bonds Is Great, Bab Ruth is Great, the comparisons need to end there, because they cannot go any further!



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 08:11 PM
link   
I think part of the reason why everyone says noone will ever compare to Ruth, is due to the fact Ruth was the first 'All-Star' that America knew. Noone will be better than the babe because for 80 years, he's had the support of all Baseball fans. Even if we have a player right now that is twice as good as Ruth, people willnot acknowledge it, because "Noone is better than Ruth".



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 10:53 PM
link   

First off this whole topic is impossible, You cannot compare players from different ages, it is impossible,
Secondly Baseball did get the best athletes back then, but they were nothing compared to the athletes of nowadays, Ruth was a DRUNK himself,
Barry Bonds Is Great, Bab Ruth is Great, the comparisons need to end there, because they cannot go any further!


You can compare player's from different ages, by comparing them to their peers. OPS+ and ERA+ does this pretty well. And it's park adjusted.

What does Ruth being a drunk have to do with anything? Many stars have been drunks, coke heads, and suck down greenies. Athletes might be bigger and faster now, but are they really better? SP can't even throw 9 innings, or log 300 innings like those old (inferior) players.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join