http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/ruthba01.shtml
Babe Ruth
http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bondsba01.shtml
Barry Bonds
How are Bonds' numbers better exactly? Because he steals bases? So the Babe didn't steal bases. He could still run. Triples are a pretty good indication of being able to hit the ball hard and run the bases pretty quickly, agreed? Notice that Ruth had 136 triples in his career. Coming into this season, Bonds has 73. Oh wait... he's got one this season. So 74 total. And that's in MORE career AB's in 17 seasons than Babe had in 22. Let's go deeper. Bonds' single best triples season was 9, waaaay back in 1987. Ruth tied or beat that SIX times. Not bad for a big fat guy, right? And yet Bonds is a perfect physical specimen.
But you still think Bonds has better numbers. It's possible that you really just don't know what Ruth's numbers look like. Let's look at their 162 game average season. Remember that Ruth only played 154 game seasons, by the way.
Ruth Bonds (coming into this season)
544 AB
554 <-- In an average season, Bonds gets more AB's than Ruth did. Keep that in mind.
141 Runs 122
186 Hits 164
33 2B's
34 <-- Just barely...
9 3B's 5
46 HR 41
143 RBI 110
8 SB's
33 <-- A category Bonds dominated Ruth in! Steals!
133 BB 128
86 SO 88 <-- More walks, less K's. Who had the better eye?
.342 AVG .295 <-- All that and a .342 CAREER batting average. Bonds has hit better than .342 in a season ONCE.
.474 OB% .428
.690 SLG .595
375 TB 330
3 HBP
5 <-- The pitchers throw at Barry. Boo hoo. Or maybe it's because he stands in the strike zone with a piece of body armor on his elbow. I don't know, I wasn't there. We'd have to check with Cooperstown. But I'm pretty sure Ruth never wore a piece of armor on his elbow, and I'd have loved to hear what he'd have said to someone who suggested that he should.
So once again, I repeat my question. How are Bonds' numbers better exactly? Oh maybe you mean career highs. Let's check.
Ruth Bonds (coming into this season)
540 AB
580
177 Runs 129
205 Hits 181
44 2B's
45 <-- Just barely, again...
16 3B's 9
60 HR
73 <-- Will wind up being his true claim to fame. He won't do it again.
171 RBI 137
17 SB's
52 <-- Wow, Bonds is fast. Then why can't he hit triples?
170 BB
198 <-- Last year. 68 were intentional. The stat was not tracked in Babe's day, because nobody ever did it. There were no such thing as power hitters, so why intentionally put a runner on base?
93 SO 102
.393 AVG .370
.545 OB%
.582 <-- Of course, if you walk 198 times.
.847 SLG
.863 <-- A by-product of the 73 Homers. Barry's next highest is .799. Ruth's is .846.
457 TB 411
6 HBP
9
Quote:
Bonds has better numbers, is a more complete player, so he's the better player. Ruth may have done more for the game, but Bonds still has more ability.
|
We've seen that Bonds can out steal Babe every day of the week. He can also hit one more double, if he gets a few more at bats. But in EVERY OTHER MAJOR OFFENSIVE CATEGORY, Babe comes out on top. Bonds' 73 HR season was an abberation. His next highest year is a very human 49. Babe tied or beat that 4 times. But you're probably getting tired of me saying things like that. Even with the inflated year, Ruth's career average season is much better than Bonds'.
Maybe I should show this to Barry...
-Mikey