Jump to content

Mark Reynolds, Luke Scott, Dave Trembler: "Bonds better than Ruth"


blid

Recommended Posts

Thought these were some interesting comments from some former O's:

Mark Reynolds, Cleveland Indians infielder: "I don't know much about Babe Ruth, but minus whatever people say about Barry - you know what I mean by that - you still need to have the ability. To be able to do what he did; it's just remarkable. I play the same sport he does and know how hard it is. He made it look like tee-ball; kind of like Miguel Cabrera is doing right now. As far as Babe Ruth goes, I'm no expert, but I'll venture out on a limb and say that - back in those days - they didn't have specialized guys out of the bullpen throwing 100. Starters stayed in 9, 10 innings. It was a different game."

Luke Scott, Tampa Bay Rays outfielder: "In one respect that's an easy question. Barry Bonds was a superior player because of the era he played in. The level of baseball is much better now, just as basketball and the NFL are better. That said, I don't think Barry Bonds had as much impact on the game as Babe Ruth. No one has ever impacted the game the way Ruth did. He was 'The Sultan of Swat,' 'The King of Swing.' He did more for the game than anybody. But again, if you put the two of them together on a baseball field, who would outperform the other and put up better numbers? It would be Barry Bonds."

Dave Trembley, Houston Astros third base coach: "Ruth was a very good pitcher, and that has to be considered. He also played in the dead ball era, and changed baseball. But I would say Bonds was a better all-around player, because he had both speed and power. He had to hit in the age of specialization, with relievers, match-ups, shifts - there are a lot variables. Travel, night games. Back in Ruth?s era, starting pitchers went longer and you saw them more often. It would be interesting to see how they'd have done in each other?s era. I think Bonds would do better in Ruth's era than Ruth would do in Bonds'. Of course, they wouldn't have let Bonds play in Ruth's era."

Some other MLB personnel was asked as well. Full article here:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/players-view-who-was-better-bonds-or-ruth/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The interviewer didn't define the word "better" so everyone has their own definitions and reasoning. For me, I think I like to compare guys by looking at the numbers they accumulated, and also comparing them to their peers rather than saying "let's take this ballplayer from the 1920s and see how he does today" because of things like you mention waroriole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The interviewer didn't define the word "better" so everyone has their own definitions and reasoning. For me, I think I like to compare guys by looking at the numbers they accumulated and comparing them to their peers rather than saying "let's take this ballplayer from the 1920s and see how he does today" because of things like you mention waroriole.

You just need to keep in mind that the game gets tougher every year, so you just can't say 20% better than average in 1920 is equivalent to 20% better than average today. It was much easier for a great player to dominate a lesser league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's possible Josh Gibson or Oscar Charleston were the best of all time. But the numbers we have available don't suggest that, so it's kind of plausible but unknowable.
I saw an interview with Buck O'Neil in which he stated that he had only seen three players that hit the ball like Ruth and they were Ruth, Gibson and Bo Jackson. I wish that Bo had a chance to really develop into the player people were projecting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You just need to keep in mind that the game gets tougher every year, so you just can't say 20% better than average in 1920 is equivalent to 20% better than average today. It was much easier for a great player to dominate a lesser league.

Dunno. Ruth was so far ahead of the competition then. Bonds was definitely ahead of the competition when he played but not THAT far ahead, would you agree?

Ruth singlehandedly changed the game. Changed the way the game was played, what was valued, what was possible. Bonds can't really say that, except for what he injected into himself.

I understand the argument for Bonds but I don't know if I can 100% agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dunno. Ruth was so far ahead of the competition then. Bonds was definitely ahead of the competition when he played but not THAT far ahead, would you agree?

Ruth singlehandedly changed the game. Changed the way the game was played, what was valued, what was possible. Bonds can't really say that, except for what he injected into himself.

I understand the argument for Bonds but I don't know if I can 100% agree.

I would, and it's main reason why I still consider Ruth to be the best player ever. Even taking away the whole steroid issue, Ruth was head and shoulders better than everyone for a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bonds was a special player in his prime even if you ignore roids but I'll take Ruth for

what many have already said about how far ahead he was of the competition.

Something that struck me reading that article on 99 facts about Ruth also here on the MLB page and that's that he broke Roger Connor's career home run record at the age of 26. Think about that. That was before Yankee Stadium even opened and it was

well before Gehrig entered the league. I'm also of the thought that Ruth could have

been one of the top 5 lefties ever if he had kept on pitching. To the casual baseball

fan, Ruth was lke the John Goodman portrayal, an obese guy who hit a lot of homers and called his shot. He was much more than that. So yeah I'd take Ruth over Bonds. Bonds was great but I'll take the Babe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dunno. Ruth was so far ahead of the competition then. Bonds was definitely ahead of the competition when he played but not THAT far ahead, would you agree?

Ruth singlehandedly changed the game. Changed the way the game was played, what was valued, what was possible. Bonds can't really say that, except for what he injected into himself.

I understand the argument for Bonds but I don't know if I can 100% agree.

That's because the level of competition was so low. When the talent level of the average major leaguer increases, the difference between the best player and an average player is going to be smaller. The overall ceiling can only go so high to make up for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that Ruth didn't want to pitch anymore, but I always thought it would have been super cool if he pitched in the rotation and then played the field when he wasn't pitching. That's something you'd never see these days because teams wouldn't want to risk Ruth's health, but it seems like something that could've happened back then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because the level of competition was so low. When the talent level of the average major leaguer increases, the difference between the best player and an average player is going to be smaller. The overall ceiling can only go so high to make up for it.

You can only compare the players to the ERA they played in. Ruth was not only a good pitcher he was the best left hander in the American League. Ruth is the best of all time and it is not even close. Go back and look at his numbers. Watch his swing. Read about how far he hit the ball. He was a real life Natural.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would, and it's main reason why I still consider Ruth to be the best player ever. Even taking away the whole steroid issue, Ruth was head and shoulders better than everyone for a long time.

Ruth did things no one had ever gotten close to, but players like Gehrig, Hornsby, Hack Wilson, Foxx, and others had Ruth-like season just a few years after Ruth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...