Bonds voted to All Star team

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I don't know that I'd agree that there would be no doubt that Ruth is the superior player. The superior hitter, maybe. But he couldn't run the bases or play the field nearly on Bonds' level. Also, I would say that a better way to put it is that there is no question who the most dominant player of their era was. I doubt that there's ever been a player in any sport that's been more dominant over his peers than Ruth was over his.

Let me give you some reasons why Ruth is unquestionably the greatest player of all time. Not only did he have the single greatest hitting season(1921) he also had the greatest all around season(1919)
In 1919 Ruth hit .322 with 29 HR's 114 Rbi's had an OBP of .456 and a slg% of .657 He led the league in HR's, Total bases, runs, slg % and OBP%. Good numbers right but not astronomical. Well considering that he only played in the field for 116 games leading the league in the HR, runs, and RBI catagories is amazing. And also considering that same year he won 13 games as a pitcher with an era of 2.22 makes this the greatest all around year in baseball history.

Ruth's record as a Pitcher is 94-46 with a lifetime ERA of 2.28 in only 4 years as a pitcher. His era for his short stint as a pitcher was more than a half a run a game better than the league average, which is a greater feat than it would be today because pitchers regularly went 9 or more innings as opposed to todays pitchers who only need to go 6 to considered effective.

Bonds may be a marginally better fielder ( he has been brutal the last 4 or 5 years and by all accounts Ruth was pretty good in the field until his 30's) and is unquestionably better in the running game. But Ruth was hall of fame quality as a pitcher as well as a position player. Bonds may have Ruth as a standard and he matches up reasonably well, but for Ruth there was and still is no standard which he can be measured by except himself.

[dr. fager]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

He is the best player of my lifetime, you can argue the best ever...gold gloves, stolen bases AND power.

Definitely...especially in the post season


POSTSEASON BATTING STATS
Year Team G AB R H HR RBI BB SO SB CS OBP SLG AVG
1990 PIT 6 18 4 3 0 1 6 5 2 0 .375 .167 .167
1991 PIT 7 27 1 4 0 0 2 4 3 0 .207 .185 .148
1992 PIT 7 23 5 6 1 2 6 4 1 0 .433 .435 .261
1997 SF 3 12 0 3 0 2 0 3 1 0 .231 .417 .250
2000 SF 4 17 2 3 0 1 3 4 1 0 .300 .353 .176
2002 SF 17 45 18 16 8 16 27 6 0 1 .581 .978 .356
2003 SF 4 9 3 2 0 2 8 0 1 0 .556 .333 .222
TOTALS: 48 151 33 37 9 24 52 26 9 1 .433 .503 .245

[Ferdinand]

[quote=King Glorious]I don't know that I'd agree that there would be no doubt that Ruth is the superior player. The superior hitter, maybe. But he couldn't run the bases or play the field nearly on Bonds' level. Also, I would say that a better way to put it is that there is no question who the most dominant player of their era was. I doubt that there's ever been a player in any sport that's been more dominant over his peers than Ruth was over his.[/QUOTE]

Ty Cobb.

[Ferdinand]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Let me give you some reasons why Ruth is unquestionably the greatest player of all time. Not only did he have the single greatest hitting season(1921) he also had the greatest all around season(1919)

If you combine his pitching and hitting, then I think you are right but as a hitter alone, Ty Cobb was the greatest. 12 batting titles. Highest batting average ever. Not to mention stealing home plate as a 41 YO.

Pshhhhhhhhh.... Homeruns are SO overrated.

[SentToStud]

It's useless to try to compare Ruth and Bonds or any two who played 80 years apart. Ruth didn't face black or latin pitchers. Then again, Bonds has had the advantage of a 30-team MLB compared to 16 for Ruth. But then again, nobody's going to mistake Rich Aurellia or RayRay Durham for Lou Gehrig. And just because Ruth pitched and pitched well doesn't mean much. If Bonds pitched, he probably would have been good.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Ferdinand

If you combine his pitching and hitting, then I think you are right but as a hitter alone, Ty Cobb was the greatest. 12 batting titles. Highest batting average ever. Not to mention stealing home plate as a 41 YO.

Pshhhhhhhhh.... Homeruns are SO overrated.

Actually batting average may be the single most overrated stat.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

Ruth didn't face black or latin pitchers. .

With the exception of Pedro Martinez what other great Black or Latin Pitchers has Bonds faced on a regular basis? Dontrelle Willis? Please.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

But then again, nobody's going to mistake Rich Aurellia or RayRay Durham for Lou Gehrig.

Ruth has 6 outstanding seasons before Gehrig playing like Gehrig covered him in the lineup.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

And just because Ruth pitched and pitched well doesn't mean much. If Bonds pitched, he probably would have been good.

Are you kidding me?

Does not mean much? He was the best PITCHER AND HITTER in the league. Outside of little league where does that happen in sports? The guy won 20 games a year as a pitcher and destroyed the record book as a hitter and you are not impressed? And if Bonds had been a pitcher he probably would have been good? That is a classic.

[horseofcourse]

Basically, what Babe Ruth did compared to today, is say Roger Clemens quit pitching at 27 after he'd won a couple Cy's and then went on to hit say 600 homers the rest of his career. We simply cannot comprehend Babe Ruth in today's standards. He was the best or close to the best pitcher in the game, yet was so good hitting, he stopped pitching.

He wasn't a good pitcher in his day...he was on his way to becoming an all-time great pitcher when he stopped.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

Basically, what Babe Ruth did compared to today, is say Roger Clemens quit pitching at 27 after he'd won a couple Cy's and then went on to hit say 600 homers the rest of his career. We simply cannot comprehend Babe Ruth in today's standards. He was the best or close to the best pitcher in the game, yet was so good hitting, he stopped pitching.

He wasn't a good pitcher in his day...he was on his way to becoming an all-time great pitcher when he stopped.

Very well put

[Ferdinand]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Actually batting average may be the single most overrated stat.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean but Cobb only missed hitting .300 his rookie year and he played in the dead ball era with misshappen baseball covered with spit and substances. He also sounds like the single most exciting player to watch ever in baseball.

The fact he was the very first into the basball hall of fame, even with more votes then Ruth, should say something.

[Crown@club]

Originally Posted by Ferdinand

I'm not exactly sure what you mean but Cobb only missed hitting .300 his rookie year and he played in the dead ball era with misshappen baseball covered with spit and substances. He also sounds like the single most exciting player to watch ever in baseball.

The fact he was the very first into the basball hall of fame, even with more votes then Ruth, should say something.

What was it he said, "If you can't bat over .300 in this league, you should retire." Or was it .320?

One of my favorites: (celebrating Ty Cobb's 60th b-day)
Host: "With todays pitching, what would you be hitting right now."
Cobb: "About .270."
Host: "Wow, you think the pitching is that good today?"
Cobb: "No Genius. I'm 60 f-ing years old."

[Antitrust32]

I wonder how good Ruth could have been if he took as many steriods, worked out as much, and played til he's in his 40's like the poser Bonds.

[Mortimer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

If this makes you a bad guy then half the people on DT are scum

I....













...oh never mind.

[Ferdinand]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I wonder how good Ruth could have been if he took as many steriods, worked out as much, and played til he's in his 40's like the poser Bonds.

I wonder how good he would have been had he not ended up a fat slob, who would stop the team bus to buy 14 hotdogs and 5 beers at a time and debauched his way across the country.

You see a picture of the Babe pitching for the Sox and it's shocking.

Ty Cobb wasn't the most naturally talented but willed himself to be the best.

The Babe would cause trainers of today to commit suicide but nothing could stop the talents from shining through.

The Babe lost about 3-6 homeruns BECAUSE HE COULDN'T MAKE IT AROUND THE BASES!!! That's something else.

[Ferdinand]

Originally Posted by Crown@club

What was it he said, "If you can't bat over .300 in this league, you should retire." Or was it .320?

One of my favorites: (celebrating Ty Cobb's 60th b-day)
Host: "With todays pitching, what would you be hitting right now."
Cobb: "About .270."
Host: "Wow, you think the pitching is that good today?"
Cobb: "No Genius. I'm 60 f-ing years old."

I believe so!

Ha! That was a great quote but I remember seeing it stolen in some baseball movie and used with another player but can't remember which.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Ferdinand

I'm not exactly sure what you mean but Cobb only missed hitting .300 his rookie year and he played in the dead ball era with misshappen baseball covered with spit and substances. He also sounds like the single most exciting player to watch ever in baseball.

The fact he was the very first into the basball hall of fame, even with more votes then Ruth, should say something.

Cobb while was great player (probably in the top 5 all time)he was nowhere near as dominant as Babe. As a matter of fact Tris Speaker's numbers while not quite as good as Cobbs were in the same ballpark with him

Cobb's averages over 24 seasons
120 runs 224 hits 39 2bs 16 3bs 6 hrs 103 rbis 48 sbs .366avg .433 obp .512 slg

Tris Speakers averages over 22 seasons in the same era
109 runs 204 hits 46 2bs 13 3bs 7hrs 90 rbis 25 sbs .345avg .428 obp .500 slg


While Cobb has the better numbers he isn't that far superior to Speaker who was also known as the best fielding outfielder of the turn of the century players.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Ferdinand

Ty Cobb wasn't the most naturally talented but willed himself to be the best.


The Babe lost about 3-6 homeruns BECAUSE HE COULDN'T MAKE IT AROUND THE BASES!!! That's something else.

These are both myths

[Ferdinand]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Cobb while was great player (probably in the top 5 all time)he was nowhere near as dominant as Babe. As a matter of fact Tris Speaker's numbers while not quite as good as Cobbs were in the same ballpark with him

Cobb's averages over 24 seasons
120 runs 224 hits 39 2bs 16 3bs 6 hrs 103 rbis 48 sbs .366avg .433 obp .512 slg

Tris Speakers averages over 22 seasons in the same era
109 runs 204 hits 46 2bs 13 3bs 7hrs 90 rbis 25 sbs .345avg .428 obp .500 slg


While Cobb has the better numbers he isn't that far superior to Speaker who was also known as the best fielding outfielder of the turn of the century players.

While I have no problem admitting Speaker as being one of the very best at the time, I really think what Cobb did went beyond numbers. How could Tris bunt compared to Cobb? Cobb ruled the bases and forced countless errors on his opponents part.

I just don't see where the Babe was so much more dominant beside the case of smashing homeruns and that was mostly just coming out of the dead-ball era. Rogers Hornsby or Lou Gehrig or George Sisler or were no slouches themselves.

Do you know the amount of stat records they both held at their retirements?