Ruth vs Bonds

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Absolutely agreed here. Like Taco said, players like Bonds do tend to age well and focus more on HRs as they age and start to walk more. If he went through a natural decline, he would have still been a very, very good player (still close to an MVP candidate), but not even nearly as good as he was. Like I said maybe 25-30 WS would be a good ballpark estimate.

I would agree that players like him tend to age well. However we simply don't know what would have happened naturally. Its one thing for them to age well, its another to put up better numbers than they did in their primes. How many guys "like him" did that, let alone did it to such an incredible degree.

When Bonds hit that breaking point...when he said to himself, "ya know what, screw this. I'm the best player in the game. Mac and Sosa are frauds. I can do that and then some, just watch." Those feelings that drove him to cross the line....who knows what would have happened had he just dealt with that jealousy and not cheated. We just don't know and never will.

[Taco De Muerte]

Absolutely agreed here. Like Taco said, players like Bonds do tend to age well and focus more on HRs as they age and start to walk more. If he went through a natural decline, he would have still been a very, very good player (still close to an MVP candidate), but not even nearly as good as he was. Like I said maybe 25-30 WS would be a good ballpark estimate.

Depends what you define as natural - Bonds could cheated in other type of ways, and saw results. Amphetamines is one, and there's other ways too.

I believe bonds situation is unique in a sense - Because in his younger days he was a rare blend of power/speed, he walked alot, was a fantastic power hitter, and recieved gobs of intentional walks - Before 99, bonds led his league in IBB'S a record seven straight seasons - And I believe was about to, if not already, shatter aaron's career IBB record - So before his ruthian years, the man was the most feared hitter of his ERA, IMO.

So, what he did as he got older was focus more on increasing his power totals, and walk totals - And with the help of the right type of supplements, insteading of aging just slightly better, he aged a lot better in power, and high walk totals, two things he was already fantastic at.

The whole " steroid scandal " is not really something I lose sleep over at night - I'm the furthest thing from a baseball purist, and bonds numbers are what they are, if people want to make adjustments, that's their right, but I have the right to take bonds stats the way i want to take them too.

I just see it as another way to get an edge over your opponents - A more modern one ( though the drug's were developed a long time ago, less athletes then used them, and didn't benefit from them as much because they didn't know that work needed to put in while on the stuff).

[Murderers Row]

I just see it as another way to get an edge over your opponents - A more modern one ( though the drug's were developed a long time ago, less athletes then used them, and didn't benefit from them as much because they didn't know that work needed to put in while on the stuff).[/QUOTE]

It is, but it's an ilegal way. So, I'm guessing you take his numbers at face value?

[538280]

It is, but it's an ilegal way. So, I'm guessing you take his numbers at face value?

There was no baseball rule against steroids when Bonds was supposed to be taking them.

I would agree that players like him tend to age well. However we simply don't know what would have happened naturally. Its one thing for them to age well, its another to put up better numbers than they did in their primes. How many guys "like him" did that, let alone did it to such an incredible degree.

So I'm looking at the most probable outcome-that he would have aged well but certainly not put up anything like the numbers he actually did. 25-30 WS.

[Blackout]

Chris, there's an AMERICAN LAW against steroids, it's been in place since 1990.

[Brewers101]

Should I take your opinion seriously if you can't spell certain?

I don't know.

[Murderers Row]

Chris, there's an AMERICAN LAW against steroids, it's been in place since 1990.

Thank you.

[Bench 5]

Players like bonds age well, steroids or not - Guy's who combine Power/Speed in their primes usually start to focus more on homerun power and increasing walk totals as they age and get slower - I believe that's what bonds was doing.

I disagree that there's any connection between the longevity and success of power/speed guys versus other types of players. As a matter of fact his father Bobby Bonds was probably a better athlete than Barry and he was out of baseball by the time he was 35. At the age of 34 he hit 5 homers and at 35 he hit 6 and the next year he was done. Other power/speed guys like Willie Mays fared a little better but he had a normal decline phase:

37 - 23
38 - 13
39 - 28
40 - 18
41 - 8
42 - 6

Andra Dawson
37 - 22
38 - 13
39 - 16
40 - 8
41 - 2

Frank Robinson
37 - 30
38 - 22
39 - 9
40 - 3

[BaseballStud22]

Ruth has the better numbers...but Bonds is facing far better pitching now.

[Ubiquitous]

I disagree that there's any connection between the longevity and success of power/speed guys versus other types of players. As a matter of fact his father Bobby Bonds was probably a better athlete than Barry and he was out of baseball by the time he was 35. At the age of 34 he hit 5 homers and at 35 he hit 6 and the next year he was done. Other power/speed guys like Willie Mays fared a little better but he had a normal decline phase:

Bobby Bonds was an alcoholic, that is probably not too good on the body. Andre Dawson had 12 knee surgeries.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

BENCH 5, now were getting away from what the debate is all about. Forget about comparing Barry aging to his father, Dawson or anyone. The point is we have some trying to convince others that the surge in Barry's late years was not that unusual, it was in orbit, no one even remotely close to his numbers after the age of 36. It wasn't just one season, it was 4 great seasons, better than Barry in his younger prime years.

Even if he had leveled off after 36 they could make a case but he did better, way better than he ever did in any other 4 year stretch in his career.

Not going to debate how he may have aged, declined without steroids, no way to tell. It was monster seasons at a late stage of his career that had some wondering.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Ruth has the better numbers...but Bonds is facing far better pitching now.

Here we go again, why stop with the pitching. Why just bring up what you believe to be in Ruth's favor. Now we have to open up that can of worms, the smaller parks, the ball, that tiny strike zone.

I've said it before, Ruth had some things going for him and Bonds has some things going for him, lets look at both sides of the story.

[BaseballStud22]

Take it easy..I wasn't trying to start any problems, but apparently you are.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Take it easy..I wasn't trying to start any problems, but apparently you are.

Sorry, maybe I used the wrong words or approach. Looking over my opening line in post # 87, I guess I did do wrong. Not my intention to start any problems. I just chose to counter what you say was a favorable condition that you believe Ruth enjoyed with some conditions favorable to todays hitters.

I should add that almost any post where I point out an advantage or favorable condition for one era I also point out that all era's had some favorable conditions. No one era had it all over another, constant chages in the game.

[Taco De Muerte]

I disagree that there's any connection between the longevity and success of power/speed guys versus other types of players. As a matter of fact his father Bobby Bonds was probably a better athlete than Barry and he was out of baseball by the time he was 35. At the age of 34 he hit 5 homers and at 35 he hit 6 and the next year he was done. Other power/speed guys like Willie Mays fared a little better but he had a normal decline phase:

37 - 23
38 - 13
39 - 28
40 - 18
41 - 8
42 - 6

Andra Dawson
37 - 22
38 - 13
39 - 16
40 - 8
41 - 2

Frank Robinson
37 - 30
38 - 22
39 - 9
40 - 3

This doesn't prove anything to me. Bobby wasn't anywhere near the hitter his son was ( pre or post 99), the same with dawson. Bonds was without question a superior power hitter to both - he walked more, hit for better power, and as he aged and got slower, he increased that, and PED'S helped him increase it to ruthian levels. Also, as someone pointed out before - Two of the men you discussed dealt with issues that hurt their careers.

[Taco De Muerte]

It is, but it's an illegal way.

So is amphetamines.

So, I'm guessing you take his numbers at face value?

I don't take anyone's numbers at " face value ". Numbers, of all players, need to be adjusted in some way.

[Mariano_Rivera]

If you just ignore the whole steroid issue then I still believe Ruth is the better player. Bonds was the better fielder with his range but the gap is lessened somewhat by the longevity of Ruth's arm. Still, Bonds is the better fielder by far. It's debatable who was the better hitter. Ruth has better rate statistics but Bonds clearly has more longevity and therefore he has better accumulative numbers (this includes baserunning). Bonds would have the edge at this point but the fantastic pitching by Ruth has to count for something.

In short I`m really just echoing everything that Baseball Between the Numbers has said.

[brett]

If you take all the bases produced and outs cost, and the time relative value of bases and outs, Cobb, Ruth and Bonds are the top three TOTAL positive producers. Ruth and Bonds are currently deadlocked in terms of performance PER OUT or plate appearance. In my Game value system, Cobb is 262, Bonds, 262 and Ruth 240. Cobb, of course had many more seasons to do this. Keep in mind that Bonds is still going up THIS YEAR even though his average rate of production is not. This is because due to his on base% he is still producing more per out than the average player.

This also includes steals. We don't know how many times Cobb was caught stealing and that could drop him a lot.

Also, no system that I am aware of includes the value benefit of creating additional plate appearances for the rest of your lineup. This would favor the highest on base percentage. Also, rating players based on production per out has a problem because a guy with a .440 on base percentage is not going to bat 10% more times than a guy at .400. His whole team would have to be 10% better for that to happen.

Also, intentional "situational" walks can be overrated because they are usually done in a situation in which there is an advantage.

How many times was Bonds put out on the front end of a double play?

The way I see it, Bond's at bats have come when it does't matter. He rarely faces a pitcher who is in a situation where they need to challenge him.

I think that ALL of his percentages go down if pitchers went after him more.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Yeah, OBP is great for value, but it doesn't speak much for a hitters true ability. Bonds' walks don't seem to help the team as much as they should. I think he'd be better off swinging at borderline strikes, given that his strike zone is much smaller than anyone else's. He making the big bucks. He's their best hitter. He needs to be swinging the bat. Not walking to first base where he's an easy force out, or where it take at least two hits to get him home anyway.

Looks like there's a lot of tweaking that needs to be done there. Do you plan on addressing any of those issues?

[-Kyle-]

I disagree that there's any connection between the longevity and success of power/speed guys versus other types of players. As a matter of fact his father Bobby Bonds was probably a better athlete than Barry and he was out of baseball by the time he was 35. At the age of 34 he hit 5 homers and at 35 he hit 6 and the next year he was done. Other power/speed guys like Willie Mays fared a little better but he had a normal decline phase:

37 - 23
38 - 13
39 - 28
40 - 18
41 - 8
42 - 6

Andra Dawson
37 - 22
38 - 13
39 - 16
40 - 8
41 - 2

Frank Robinson
37 - 30
38 - 22
39 - 9
40 - 3

I think it was that Bonds had more of a Marcus Giles type of batting, drawing a ton walks. I assume that most players like that tend to age pretty well and do not lose that ability, because it is not really a physical feature.

[538280]

Yeah, OBP is great for value, but it doesn't speak much for a hitters true ability. Bonds' walks don't seem to help the team as much as they should. I think he'd be better off swinging at borderline strikes, given that his strike zone is much smaller than anyone else's. He making the big bucks. He's their best hitter. He needs to be swinging the bat. Not walking to first base where he's an easy force out, or where it take at least two hits to get him home anyway.

Looks like there's a lot of tweaking that needs to be done there. Do you plan on addressing any of those issues?

This is probably true, but raw ability is a horrible way to evaluate a player. You can say "walking doesn't take much ability", but it is extremely valuable to the team. As far as him swinging the bat, it would NOT do more for his team. If he swung at borderline strikes, he might get 10 more hits but would also make about 40 more outs. He would not be a more valuable hitter, this is provably true.

[redban]

Ruth was better.

206 career OPS+ vs 182

179 WAR vs 158

.690 slugging % vs .607

.474 OBP vs .444

11.6 AB:HR vs 12.92

The only edge I give Bonds is he had a better offensive peak. From 2001-2004, he averaged 256 OPS+, .809 Slugging, and .559 OBP.

Pick any 4 season stretch in Ruth's career, and it doesn't come close to Bonds' 01-04 offensively.

(Although Bonds' WAR from 2001-2004 was 42.5; Ruth had a few 4-year stretches where he had a higher WAR. From 20'-23', he got 43.9 WAR)

Had Bonds used steroids from Day 1, he may have passed the Babe. But he didn't.

Verdict = Babe Ruth > Barry Bonds.

[willshad]

I think that Barry in his prime was overrated. Opponents walked him a LOT, and it seems that usually the strategy worked. Sabermetric metrics can be faulty in situations such as this..for instance, if Barry goes 1 for 2 with a harmless single and 2 walks, that is a great game sabermetrically, but the opponents are actually thinking 'we stopped him'.

I haven't looked at the numbers in depth, but I'm guessing that in terms of actual runs produced per plate appearance, Barry during 2001-2004 did not fare any better than the other stars of the era. To me this makes a BIG difference, as even in Ruth's seasons where he walked a ton, he was still driving in 150+, and scoring nearly as many times. You can say that is because of Gehrig, but even before Gehrig came along, he was still putting a million runs on the board. They were pitching around him, probably every time with runners on, and he was still producing.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I think that Barry in his prime was overrated. Opponents walked him a LOT, and it seems that usually the strategy worked. Sabermetric metrics can be faulty in situations such as this..for instance, if Barry goes 1 for 2 with a harmless single and 2 walks, that is a great game sabermetrically, but the opponents are actually thinking 'we stopped him'.

Well, it depends, Did Bonds score? Did the Giants win? During Bonds PED seasonse (post 1998) the Giants won a lot of games. And just because teams thought they stopped Bonds doesn't mean they actually did.

1999- 86 wins (2nd)
2000- 97 wins (1st-best record in all MLB)
2001- 90 wins (2nd, 2.0 GB)
2002- 95 wins (NL Champs)
2003- 100 wins (1st)
2004- 91 wins (2nd)

[willshad]

Well, it depends, Did Bonds score? Did the Giants win? During Bonds PED seasonse (post 1998) the Giants won a lot of games. And just because teams thought they stopped Bonds doesn't mean they actually did.

1999- 86 wins (2nd)
2000- 97 wins (1st-best record in all MLB)
2001- 90 wins (2nd, 2.0 GB)
2002- 95 wins (NL Champs)
2003- 100 wins (1st)
2004- 91 wins (2nd)

Oh, Im not saying that he still didn't produce like a star player. I just don't think he was much better than the other great players. For instance, in his 2004 season (which some consider the very best offensive season ever), he had 607 PA, and produced 185 runs. A .30477 average of run per plate appearance. Adrian Beltre that same year had 657 PA, and produced 177 runs. A .269 average. Sosa in 2001 averaged .340 runs per plate appearance. Manny Ramirez in 2000 produced .330 runs per. If you throw in Beltre's gold glove third base defense, i think his 2004 season was as good as Bonds'. Sosa's 2001 season was probably as good as any of Barry's seasons.

To put it in perspective, Ruth in 1921 produced 290 runs in 693 PA. A .418 average!