Ruth vs Bonds

[Honus Wagner Rules]

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. 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!

I do agree that Bonds walks 200+ time is overrated. Teams walked him so much that they basically took him out of a lot of games. I never understood why teams walked Bonds so much. It makes sense with the game on the line in the late innings. But I saw teams intentionally walk Bonds in the first inning. When Bonds was walked intentionally 120 times I thought that was ridiculous. By walking Bonds, this ensured that Bonds will never make an out. If teams had pitched to Bonds in those 120 AB's he would have made at least some outs.

[9RoyHobbsRF]

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

[willshad]

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

Well all of that applied to every other batter as well, and nobody else came close to Babe.

[Ubiquitous]

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.

[willshad]

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.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[willshad]

[QUOTE=willshad;2030688]
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.

[Ubiquitous]

If my info is useless then stating that Ruth could drive in 170 is even more useless.

[willshad]

If my info is useless then stating that Ruth could drive in 170 is even more useless.

OK, Ruth had 171, and the second best guy had 139. he topped the second guy by 32, and that was Harry Heilmannn, a pretty decent hitter himself. Oh but wait, I forgot, everyone sucked back then, so since Ruth is about as good as Pujols, that must mean that Heilmann was only as good as Jaun Pierre.

[Ubiquitous]

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.

[willshad]

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.

Of course his 154 extra total bases had nothing to do with it :-)

[Ubiquitous]

Nothing to do with what? More AB with men on? No I don't think it did have anything to do with that.

[NYYankeesFan92]

Babe Ruth is the greatest player of all-time in any sport.

[BondsOverBabe]

Bonds from 2001-2004>any stretch in baseball history. The number bear this out.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Bonds from 2001-2004>any stretch in baseball history. The number bear this out.

Gee, wonder how that happened.

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.

[pheasant]

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.

[BondsOverBabe]

Gee, wonder how that happened.

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.

He did what everybody else did.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

He did what everybody else did.

Didn't know that.............everybody used?

[BondsOverBabe]

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.

Why are you using 2000, Bonds peak was 01-04 .349 BA/.559 OBP /.809 SLG / 1.368 OPS /256 OPS+

[pheasant]

Why are you using 2000, Bonds peak was 01-04 .349 BA/.559 OBP /.809 SLG / 1.368 OPS /256 OPS+

I was looking for a 5 year peak. Granted, Bonds spreads the margin with his best 4 year peak over Ruth.



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.

Ruth
Mays
Cobb
clean Bonds
Mantle

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.

[leewileyfan]

Oh, and then there was Barry testing positive for amphetamines in 2006...................open yor eyes, better yet open your mind.

I just now came across this; and, not to pick nits ... I went to Wikipedia:

:Amphetamine use has historically been especially common among Major League Baseball players and is usually known by the slang term "greenies".[68] 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.[69][70][71]

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?

[brett]

His pitching proves one thing and one thing only. He was the best left-hander in the game at the time, and one of the top pitchers, period.

Also, when Ruth was not pitching full time he had about a 220 composite OPS+ in 1915, 1917 and 1918.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I just now came across this; and, not to pick nits ... I went to Wikipedia:



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?

What the recovering so quickly from. Like many other Babe stories, lots of exaggeration. Yes he was a party guy in particular his early years. Some teammates from the 1920s said the drinking habit was overblown, seldom if ever saw him show up at game time looking drunk or hung over.

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.

[leewileyfan]

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.

A. Tell it to Henry Aaron.

B. So, for the "Babe," it was OK.

[willshad]

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.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

A. Tell it to Henry Aaron.

B. So, for the "Babe," it was OK.

Are you speaking about Aaron and greenies.
As for Ruth. I pointed out Barry testing positive for a banned substance in MLB and you bring up Babe, boozing and broads.