Posted on 05/08/2006 1:59:10 PM PDT by PerConPat
Bonds likes his numbers better than Babe Ruth May 08 10:53 AM US/Eastern.
A boastful Barry Bonds said if he passes Babe Ruth that his place in history would be secure.
Asked if he would consider himself better than Ruth if he vaults ahead of the New York Yankees legend for second place on the all-time home run list, Bonds said: "I don't know yet, but the numbers speak for themselves."
The embattled Bonds moved within one home run of Ruth for the No 2 spot, but it was in a losing cause as San Francisco lost 9-5 to Philadelphia on Sunday.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
24.
Ruth's most remarkable single-season performance was not his 60 home runs. When he hit 60 in 1927, he broke the record of 59 that he had set six years earlier. His 59 in 1921 broke his previous record of 54 from the previous season. The 54 home runs in 1920 was probably the most astonishing of them all, since they shattered his 29-HR mark from 1919 by such a wide margin.
It's also worth noting that Ruth became baseball's all-time career home run king when he hit just his 139th career home run during the 1921 season. When you look at his 714 in that context, it is truly amazing.
This is an often debated issue and there really is no way on knowing for sure what would have happened if black players took the field with whites during Ruth's era. My gut feeling is that we would have seen the greatest impact on batting averages and RBI's, not because of black pitchers, but because of black fielders. I also wonder what Ruth would have done in the current era, where even star pitchers rarely pitch past the sixth or seventh inning or on less than four days rest.
My problem with Bonds is that he's a racist jerk who won't sign an autograph for a white person. Granted, he's not the only racist jerk to be a good ball player, but I still don't like it.
I guess The Donna can't take the heat. Can't believe I saw all those SF liberal talking points spewed in one FR post.
This is absolutely true, which to me shows just how futile the whole comparison between different eras can be.
On a related note, I read an article a couple of years ago about the growing number of Latin American ballplayers, and was astonished to see how few black Americans actually play in the major leagues these days. Barry Bonds is apparently part of a diminishing racial cohort in this regard, as even some players who I had assumed were "regular" (for want of a better description) black Americans are actually of Latin American descent (NY Yankees outfielder Bernie Williams, for example).
hmmm...
Let's see here...
Ruth was equal to him as a hitter....
Bonds was the better base stealer, although Ruth wasn't a bad baserunner himself....
Ruth was the better fielder (he would have thrown out a cripple like Sid Bream in 1992)...
Ruth would have been a Hall of Fame pitcher had he not been such a great hitter.
Ruth is the better of the two players. It isn't close.
Now Ruth isn't the best player ever either. He's #2.
Willie Mays was the best ever.
Bonds isn't even in the top 10.
By the same argument, Josh Gibson's records aren't really valid either, since Josh didn't face the best competition in his segregated league.
TS
(Ruth actually pitched a perfect game as a reliever. The first pitcher stuck the batter before leaving the game. Ruth then stepped in, picked the runner off at first and didn't allow another batter to make it to first base for the rest of the game. And now you know the Rest of the Story.)
You have that backwards. Ruth was the pitcher who walked the first batter, and he promptly got thrown out of the game for arguing with the umpire. Ernie Shore came in and retired the next 26 batters (the runner on first was caught stealing) to get credit for an "unofficial" perfect game.
It is true that the best of the Negro leagues would have succeeded in the Majors during this era. But you are making several erroneous assumptions, such as: A Negro league players success in the Negro leagues would have been essentially the same in the majors. This is not the case for some obvious reasons:
a) Ball Parks -- Negro league fields were in many cases minor league ball parks, which tends to favor the hitter and the home run.
b) Pitching -- Good pitching beats good hitting. As much as you will deny it, the quality of pitchers in the Negro leagues was not what it was in the Major Leagues. Best evidence of this is to take a look at after the color barrier was broken, how long did it take for black pitchers (yes there are exceptions) to really become dominant in the big leagues? And how many of these are there compared to other pitchers in the bigs?
c) Quality players -- Blacks represented about 8-10% of the population, Whites being the vast majority of the rest. Thus the Major leagues had a larger pool of talent to draw from. This cannot be proven, only surmised, but I would guess that depth of talent in the Major leagues was far deeper then that of the Negro leagues. Thus a major leaguer was playing against better talent, when taken across the board.
Sorry, but crying racism does not dilute the success of the white players, rather it over inflates the statistics of the black players.
FYI
About 9 percent of ballplayers in the majors are black Americans, according to a study released in April 2005. That figure is down from 19 percent in 1995 and 27 percent in 1975. Meanwhile, African-Americans make up 13.3 percent of the national population. Latin Americans make up about 27% of the Major Leaguers, but almost half of the minor leaguers.
I think you forgot the neener, neener, neener in your post.
As for liberal talking points, what does having a discussion of baseball have to do with being liberal? I am far from liberal politically, but am used to such attacks because I live in San Francisco. Don't let me interrupt your rant.
I'm leaving now, but not "quitting." Getting ready to go to work at AT&T Park. Barry won't be playing, so no red meat for tonight.
Another curious aspect of ballpark sizes is that the shrinking ballparks have made triples somewhat more rare than they used to be. A guy named Chief Wilson holds the big-league record with 36 triples in a season (1912, when he played in cavernous Forbes Field in Pittsburgh). Nowadays, you usually find players leading the league with 10-15 triples in any given season.
Again?
How many games has he missed so far this year? six, eight, ten?
They usually rest him when there's a game the night after a road trip.
He's probably available as a pinch hitter.
"Ruth didn't juice, but he did play during the segregation era."
That is a good point. I bet we were denyed some legends because of it.
Still it's been desgregated quite a while...
Was I wrong? Did I miss something? I can go back and pull up your post and rip it piece by piece, but that's already been done on this very thread. I don't want to make you cry again....
I'm leaving now, but not "quitting." Getting ready to go to work at AT&T Park.
So, you work at the ball park, for Barry Bonds, huh?
That explains your entire attitude. You are a paid shill.
You're busted!
I think it's pretty remarkable how American kids are losing a lot of interest in baseball as a sport.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.