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

[DrungoHazewood]

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.

If you can only compare players in their own era then how can you say Ruth was the best ever?

[DrungoHazewood]

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.

Health has little to do with it. You just can't compete at a high level in two areas splitting reps in half.

[DrungoHazewood]

"Due to sporadic statistical accounting in the Negro Leagues, reports vary regarding the number of home runs Josh Gibson hit, with some estimates as high as 962."

http://www.500hrc.com/800-hrc-articles/negro-leagues-home-run-king-josh-the-basher-gibson.html

Josh Gibson had 107 documented Negro League homers. He may have had nearly 1000 total home runs, but that includes hundreds against barnstorming teams, local town teams, hastily convened exhibitions, etc. How many would Ruth or Bonds have hit playing 200+ games a year mostly against indy leaguers and local men's league teams?

[blid]

Health has little to do with it. You just can't compete at a high level in two areas splitting reps in half.

Can you expand on that? I think you could have a two-way player. Bo Jackson played two sports, there's football players who go both ways. Ruth, in that era? He could dominate...

[DrungoHazewood]

Can you expand on that? I think you could have a two-way player. Bo Jackson played two sports, there's football players who go both ways. Ruth, in that era? He could dominate...

I think it is impossible for even the best baseball players to both pitch and play a position when not pitching. In modern MLB. It used to be common but mostly died out by the 1890s. People tried and failed up to about 1950 or so. The practice is fairly common in amateur baseball, and you see it occasionally in the low minors. Based on the available evidence I think it is more-or-less impossible in the majors today. Even Ruth had to stick to one specialty and that was almost a century ago.

Football is a very different thing. Doesn't require the specialized skillset. Pure athleticism wins out. Guys like Deion and Bo were very raw baseball players.

[ExileAngelos]

If you can only compare players in their own era then how can you say Ruth was the best ever?

He is the best ever BECAUSE he was the by far and away the best of his time more than any other player in history has been in any other particular time.

[waroriole]

He is the best ever BECAUSE he was the by far and away the best of his time more than any other player in history has been in any other particular time.

That's just not true.

Ruth 1.164 OPS 163 WAR

Hornsby 1.010 OPS 127 WAR

Cobb .945 OPS 151 WAR

Gehrig 1.080 OPS 112 WAR

Foxx 1.038 OPS 96 WAR

These guys compare to Ruth in about the same way that Bonds' contemporaries compare to him.

[DrungoHazewood]

That's just not true.

Ruth 1.164 OPS 163 WAR

Hornsby 1.010 OPS 127 WAR

Cobb .945 OPS 151 WAR

Gehrig 1.080 OPS 112 WAR

Foxx 1.038 OPS 96 WAR

These guys compare to Ruth in about the same way that Bonds' contemporaries compare to him.

Not only that but Ruth's league was inferior so you'd expect him to dominate by more.

[Frobby]

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.

My favorite stat in support of this argument: In 1920, Babe Ruth hit 54 homers. No team in the league (other than the Yankees, obviously) hit more than 50. Ruth hit 15% of all the home runs hit in an 8-team league. To equal that feat by today's standards, a player would have to hit more than 200 home runs.

[Frobby]

That's just not true.

Ruth 1.164 OPS 163 WAR

Hornsby 1.010 OPS 127 WAR

Cobb .945 OPS 151 WAR

Gehrig 1.080 OPS 112 WAR

Foxx 1.038 OPS 96 WAR

These guys compare to Ruth in about the same way that Bonds' contemporaries compare to him.

Ruth led the AL in OPS 13 times in a 14-year period. The one time he didn't, he missed over 50 games. His period of utter dominance was longer than Bonds', who led the league in OPS 9 times. Perhaps more importantly, he just entirely changed the concept of what a great hitter was supposed to do.

[DrungoHazewood]

My favorite stat in support of this argument: In 1920, Babe Ruth hit 54 homers. No team in the league (other than the Yankees, obviously) hit more than 50. Ruth hit 15% of all the home runs hit in an 8-team league. To equal that feat by today's standards, a player would have to hit more than 200 home runs.

Of course Ruth was doing something no one else did and everyone was actively discouraged from doing. There really aren't any opportunities like that today. Ruth was great. But he took advantage of circumstances that no longer exist.

[Frobby]

Of course Ruth was doing something no one else did and everyone was actively discouraged from doing. There really aren't any opportunities like that today. Ruth was great. But he took advantage of circumstances that no longer exist.

Yes, that is a fair statement. It didn't take long after 1920 for HR totals to explode. I'd still say that Ruth, in comparison with his peers, was a better hitter than Bonds compared to his peers. Ruth had an OPS+ of 206 for his career, compared to Bonds' 182. Ted Williams was at 190. Ruth also takes the prize in oWAR, 155 to 142 (with Cobb in between at 151). As an overall player, Bonds gets some extra points for his fielding, but Ruth probably gets more extra points for his pitching. So, Ruth still wins in my book.

[calmunderfire]

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.

That's true. Is this why it seems most of the incredible players in league history are dated? I think about the greats I watched growing up. (I'm 21) I think of Griffey and mainly Pujols, but they didn't put up the numbers the past greats did and they don't completely take over the game the way the reports are for the old guys.

I was looking up the career WAR leaders and it's a ton of historical players. Look up Ted Williams for example on baseball reference and note that it's covered in black bold letters. Just COVERED in it.

[DrungoHazewood]

That's true. Is this why it seems most of the incredible players in league history are dated? I think about the greats I watched growing up. (I'm 21) I think of Griffey and mainly Pujols, but they didn't put up the numbers the past greats did and they don't completely take over the game the way the reports are for the old guys.

I was looking up the career WAR leaders and it's a ton of historical players. Look up Ted Williams for example on baseball reference and note that it's covered in black bold letters. Just COVERED in it.

I'm not convinced current WAR formulations adequately adjust for the increasing quality of baseball over time. Put Mike Trout and Manny in Japan today if you want a feel for what it was like to be Ruth or Cobb. Put them in the Atlantic League if you want a bit of Buck Ewing or King Kelly.