Current stats are inflated and pitching is diluted with expansion. I'll even accept the argument about smaller stadiums and juiced balls.

Barry Bonds has just become the 4th player to hit 650 homeruns.

Out of the thousands of players to have played the game, 4 have hit that many. I don't care if the ball's juiced, if he's juiced, if he bites the heads off of chickens in the on-deck circle, it's still an amazing accomplishment.

He had to stay healthy, connect more than 600 times and work around constant intentional walks.

I respect the history of the game and an educated fan can certainly take into account changes in the way the game is played. Anyone who loses sight of this accomplishment is either narrow-minded, or longs for the days when they didn't wear helmets.

the fact that their numbers are even close shows how amazing Ruth was, with balls being deader, and stadiums being bigger, mounds being higher. Try looking up the closet compeiter during each lifetime. You will find that Ruth was heads and shoulders above all. Bonds is Arod on a better team.
Bonds = postseason washout

I would argue with Sports, but then I realize he's a baltimore fan....:)

Last year's postseason Barry Bonds:
.356 avg. 8 hr's 16 rbi's

Yes, definitely a postseason washout.

Guys, you're forgetting one thing in the Ruth/Bonds debate.

Ruth complied all his stats against all white players.

Bonds has done it against white, black, and international stars.

I think if he truly wants to, he can do it. With today's medicine and training, I think he could easily stay in shape for a few more years to make a run at the record. Unfortunately, as stated in a previous posts, he doesn't really care too much for the Aaron record, but more for the Ruth record.

Looking way into the future, I think at the pace Pujols is at now, he can probably come close. Of course, a few seasons of greatness doesn't always equate to long term success. For whatever reason, things can go wrong ( see Ken Griffey Jr. )

...I've stated that many, many times...

Not in this thread.

Well I'll be damned...Must have been in the other thread. I stand corrected.

Comparing players from different generations is fun and is standard in any sports discussion, but there's never any final answer. They can't be compared, so it's always just a personal preference. You simply can't compare players who played SO many years apart. The game has changed far too much.

Does anyone have a problem saying that Babe Ruth was amazing? Hank Aaron was incredible? Barry Bonds is awe inspiring???? They were all great. None can be accurately and fairly compared, just because it's not a balanced comparison.

Willie Mays wasn't bad either!

Here's a website that lists the percentage of probability that some of today's top players have of breaking Aaron's record. Of course, Bonds is tops:

http://jeays.net/756watch/stats.htm

Of course it's a pretty shitty job of statistics. It has Pujols projected at only 464 career home runs.

i refuse to take part in this poll because i HATE barry bonds with a passion...hes such an asshole....did you see the way he reacted after he lost the world series.....what a bitch

Odd question, if you play less games in a season I think your batting average should be better then someone who plays more games.

It's hard as hell to keep a 325 batting average over 160 games rather then 140 don't you agree?

I was just noticing that to the stats comparison above.

The number one thing that keeps coming up is everyone is saying Barry Bonds is an asshole, while in the meantime they seem to think everyone else is perfect.

For everyone that thinks Barry Bonds is an asshole, go read Ball Four by Jim Bouton. People are far from perfect, athletes are even farther.

"Of course it's a pretty shitty job of statistics. It has Pujols projected at only 464 career home runs."

Well, whether or not it's "shitty" or not, it's based on Bill James' "favorite toy" calculation, which basically takes into account yearly totals, age, and a variety of other stats to calculate the totals. Bear in mind that the calculation is equivalent to foretelling the weather a few years from now...

Also, I think that 464 is a reasonable number to project for Pujols:

1) He may or may not be 23.
2) He's more of a line drive hitter than a pure power hitter (30-40 home runs rather than 40-50 home runs a year).
3) Players get hurt.
4) He's an excellent hitter, the second best hitter in the league, but he would have to maintain his present production for ten more years to hit 460 home runs. Definitely possible, but it's also definitely possible that he might have a few 25 home run seasons mixed in there...

I personally think that he'll end up with over 500 for his career, but that's a long way away. Just look at Griffey for a comp :)

"Odd question, if you play less games in a season I think your batting average should be better then someone who plays more games."

Well, sample size issues are always a problem; if a player hits .400 in 100 at bats, it's much more likely due to a hot streak than if he hits .400 in 400 at bats.

The inverse is also true: a player is much more likely to hit .100 in 100 at bats than .100 in 400 at bats.

But the difference between 140 games played and 160 games played is not very big at all, in terms of maintaining batting average.

well for bonds, 8 years in the majors now equals 9 75 years ago.

playing 160 games is hell, and to be consistent...wow.

GTI03, it's also possible for someone to play as many as 15-20 seasons in MLB. Take Pujols, add in a few bad seasons, add in a few great ones at the end (see Bonds) and you got a few hundred more than 464.

I think Barry Will stop at around 720 HR's.. He will maybe lose his power and just wont be able to stay as healthy as healthy as he currently is in a couple of years.

"GTI03, it's also possible for someone to play as many as 15-20 seasons in MLB. Take Pujols, add in a few bad seasons, add in a few great ones at the end (see Bonds) and you got a few hundred more than 464."

Like I said, I think that Pujols will have more than 500 when he retires.

Everything you say above is possible, but is it likely? Is it likely that Pujols will boost his production levels? That he won't get hurt? That he won't lose his bat speed? That he plays 15-20 years? That he has the same type of late-career peak as Bonds has?

Those last two are the biggies. What Bonds is doing is VERY unusual (to have a 30% hike in production in his +35 seasons), and I think that it's very unlikely that Pujols (for example) will have a similar hike.

In fact, I think that it's MORE likely that he'll have UNDER 464 home runs than it is that he'll have over 650 home runs...actually, far more likely.

But it's all weather-forecasting at this point.

I don't like Bonds and I don't think he should even be compared with the old-time greats. Basball is so much different now than it was back then and Bonds has been hitting the juice in previous years.