Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.-Crash Davis
To put it in perspective, Ruth in 1921 produced 290 runs in 693 PA. A .418 average!
in a non integrated league where pitchers pitched many innings until they were worn out each game and there were no relief specialists
1. The more I learn, the more convinced I am that many players are over-rated due to inflated stats from offensive home parks (and eras)
2. Strat-O-Matic Baseball Player, Collector and Hobbyist since 1969, visit my strat site: http://somgamersparadiseforum.smfforfree4.com/index.php
The 2004 Giants scored the second most amount of runs in the NL that year. They were only 5 runs behind the leader.
Barry Bonds touched home plate 129 times that year. No player besides Bonds had 100 or more RBI and only one other player had more than 80 runs.
63 times a Bonds' walk advanced one or more baserunners already existing. Including twice with the bases loaded.
Bonds' Win Probability Added for just his walks that year was 6.3 wins. Given the base/out situation he add 66 runs to the Giants' bottom line because of his walks.
Your information is useless because it lacks context. Of course runners advance on a walk, they do so for Bonds, and every other player. Guess what? Runners advanced on Ruth's walks too. They also advanced plenty on his 457 total bases...even more so than on Bonds' walks. Plenty of them scored as well.... 70 more of them in fact. I'm guessing that Ruth's 457 total bases advanced a lot more runners than Bonds' 303 total bases PLUS his walks. This is not even counting Ruth's 145 walks of his own.
The difference between Ruth and Bonds is that Ruth could be pitched around, be the only real good offensive player in the lineup, and STILL drive in 170.
Last edited by willshad; 06-30-2012 at 03:45 AM.
If my info is useless then stating that Ruth could drive in 170 is even more useless.
In 1921 Ruth hit 37 homers with men on base for a total of 85 RBI. In 2004 Bonds hit 24 homers with men on base for a total of 46 RBI. Ruth had on average 1.3 baserunners when he hit a home run with men on. Bonds had on average 1.9 baserunners when he hit a home run with men on.
We don't have PBP data available for 1921 but in 1927 Babe Ruth had an at bat 295 times with men on as compared to 245 AB with the bases empty. He had 30 RBI with the bases empty and 135 RBI with men on. Ruth had .46 RBI per AB with men on or 45.8 RBI per 100 AB.
Bonds in 2004 had 155 AB with men on and 218 AB with the bases empty. He had 76 RBI with men on and 25 with the bases empty. He had .49 RBI per AB with men on or 49 RBI per 100 AB.
Barry Bonds played 147 games in 2004 and only was given 155 AB with men on. He averaged a little over 1 AB with men on per game played that season. Meanwhile Babe Ruth was averaging close to 2 AB with men on per game.
Nothing to do with what? More AB with men on? No I don't think it did have anything to do with that.
Babe Ruth is the greatest player of all-time in any sport.
Last edited by NYYankeesFan92; 07-13-2012 at 06:36 PM.
Bonds from 2001-2004>any stretch in baseball history. The number bear this out.
Last edited by BondsOverBabe; 07-19-2012 at 06:12 AM.
When most players either decline or even level off,Barry hits like he never did before.
The Barry Bonds age 36-37-38 puts up a peak that even Babe Ruth and Ted Williams, Mays, Aaron and some other greats can't match when they were way younger than that Barry, in their prime years they could not match Barry, amazing.
You know what the rest of us know, you know what the world of baseball knows, what took place in those years with Barry.
And it's never going to go away, the dark cloud stays with Barry even after he left the game.
Oh, and then there was Barry testing positive for amphetamines in 2006...................open yor eyes, better yet open your mind.
Last edited by SHOELESSJOE3; 07-19-2012 at 07:08 AM.
Clean Bonds is #4 in my book. Bonds on steroids(2000-2004 peak)years squeaks out a victory over Ruth. Bonds on steroids was a better hitter. But I believe Ruth was a slightly better fielder(mainly due to his rifle arm) and more well rounded than the juiced and less fleet-footed Bonds. But Bonds crazy OPS+ numbers while on steroids gives him a slight edge. But to me, it's crazy that it took the 4th best all-time player on the best steroids possible to take down Ruth during his prime. FYI: had Ruth taken care of himself like Gehrig, then I think he would have hit like Bonds on steroids. Ruth, even in his 30s when he finally started working out like he should have, was still 25 lbs overweight.
Bonds 2000-2004, .339/.535/.781/1.316 241 OPS+, 50.0 WAR
Ruth 1920-1923, .370/.511/.777/1.288, 229 OPS+, 55.3 WAR
Both of those 5 year peaks include 1 big down year for each player(Bonds in 2000, Ruth in 1922).
Clean Bonds had one of the best 9 year runs ever. Bonds 1990-1998, .305/.438/.600/1.038 181 OPS while playing Gold Glove defense and swiping an average of 36 base per year. That's 36 HRs and 36 SB per year, which is insane.
I still can't move clean Bonds ahead of Ruth or Mays for sure. I think that he might make a case for having a better peak than Ty Cobb. But I have Cobb's longevity squeaking out the 3rd slot.
With all of that being said, I cannot stand Barry Bonds. I despise what he's done to baseball. It's a shame that one of the most talented players ever even resorted to steroids. I really liked watching him play in the 1990s. But what a disappointment to later find out what he turned into.
I had Bonds 2000 season offset by Ruth's terrible suspended season of 1922. Bonds off season of 2000 gains 1.0 WAR while breaking even on OPS+ vs Ruth's 1922 year. Bonds juiced years were a really good glimpse of what people got to witness 80 years prior with Ruth. A freak of nature then gets walked a ton of times.
But Bonds clean 9 year run is very competitive in history. I left Ruth and Williams out. Ruth's 206 OPS+ despite being watered down by his great pitching year speaks for itself. And Williams was insane too. Here's some other all-time greats that I thought would challenge Bonds.
Top 9 year OPS+ run
Ty Cobb 1909-1917 195 OPS+
L Gehrig 1927-1935 191 OPS+
Hornsby 1920-1928 190 OPS+
M Mantle 1955-1964 188 OPS+
B Bonds 1990-1998 181 OPS+
A Pujols 2001-2009 172 OPS+
F Thomas 1991-1999 169 OPS+
Willie Mays 1957-1965 168 OPS+
And Bonds did this in the most competitive era while being an incredible 5 tool player. He's dusting players in his own generation in OPS+ while averaging 36 steals per year and adding 8 Gold Gloves. This is a sick run. Nobody's been close recently. Nobody since Mantle bests Bonds 9 year OPS+ run. I do have Mays' stellar glove and awesome baserunning taking down Bonds. Mays was just too versatile and durable.
I still have the following for all-time rankings.
Mantle just took over the 5th spot. That's a recent change.
I projected clean Bonds to hit about 610 HRs, 550 SBs, and 11 gold gloves while still posting a 160 OPS+ in the most competitive era ever. That's by far the best player of my generation. But he threw it all away. The guy gets jealous of Sosa and Mcgwire, so he sees what he can do. That is just too stupid for me. What a shame. I guess falling from #1 and the spotlight hurts some more than others.
You want to pile "greenies" up on Bonds, then booze, beer, broads and carousing are fair game for Ruth. Then too, how did "Babe" recover so quickly?:Amphetamine use has historically been especially common among Major League Baseball players and is usually known by the slang term "greenies". In 2006, the MLB banned the use of amphetamine. The ban is enforced through periodic drug-testing. However, the MLB has received some criticism because the consequences for amphetamine use are dramatically less severe than for anabolic steroid use, with the first offense bringing only a warning and further testing.
Your comparing some Babe habits to Barry testing positive by a substance banned in MLB.
Was Babe doing wrong drinking during prohibition years, yes, just like my grand parents and millions of other Americans.
Also if you had to make a choice as a player to pep yourself up, quick boost of energy would it he an amphetamine or a couple of beers.
Bonds' 2001-2004 numbers do not impress me. Look at what Big Mac did on roids..he went from being a decent power guy to hitting a home run every 7 at bats. Giambi went from a marginal major leaguer to a 200 OPS+. Sosa went from 20 homers to 65. I think if any number of that era's stars were juicing, they would have put up the same kind of numbers that Barroid did. Thomas, Bagwell, Thome, Piazza, etc all would have done the same, if not better....it's just that all of the really great hitters figured they didn't need steroids. To me, you have to throw those seasons out the window entirely.
Last edited by willshad; 08-11-2012 at 07:59 PM.