Barry Bonds Hospitalized

Yahoo! ^ | August 31, 2003 | Mel Reisner

[freebilly]

Interesting. BluesDuke emailed me with some observations, some of which had occured to me, too. I think his understanding of the context in which Ruth played is first rate.

I post his thoughts here for the edification of all--

I had noted to others - I was pinged to this thread - that here is something oft forgotten about the Babe with the Yankees: for his first three seasons as a Yankee, Ruth's home park was the Polo Grounds; the New York Giants let the Yankees share the place until the Stadium was built and opened in 1923. The foul lines in the Polo Grounds on BOTH sides were 256 feet. Not to mention, in 1919, Ruth's breakout season as a full-time position player, Fenway Park's right field line was a mere 315 feet from the plate. Babe Ruth spent his entire career as a position player (except his final season, when he was just about through; Braves Field in Boston was more of a pitcher's park in those years) hitting in home ballparks that were hugely favourable to pull-hitting lefthanded power hitters. Barry Bonds, by contrast, has played his entire career to date in either a neutral home park (Three Rivers in Pittsburgh was measured a pitcher's park for half his seasons there, so we must balance and consider it a neutral park) or a pitcher's park (Candlestic, Pac Bell).

There is also a reason no one dares let themselves consider when leaning on that "Ruth hit more homers than all the other TEAMS" argument: Did it ever cross their minds that it took a few more seasons, even AFTER Ruth emerged full blossom, before baseball's previous prejudice against the home run - yes, children, there was a time when baseball not only disdained the home run but even, once upon a time, had a ground rule that a ball hit over the fence was ruled foul! - finally dissipated to the point where most other teams (the St. Louis Cardinals in the National League did have Babe Ruth, sort of: Rogers Hornsby) began seeking out men who could hit them over the fences? What's the point of dominating the living bejesus out of everyone else with the long ball when they aren't even bothering to find men who could hit the long ball themselves? Think of a boxer who records 50 straight knockouts where his opponents can't or won't even put up much of a defence. That was Ruth versus the league. And here's the wild part: Even so, the league ERA against which Babe Ruth hit in his career was almost EXACTLY the same as the league ERA against which Barry Bonds has hit. In plain English, Barry Bonds has simply had more competition against which to hit than Babe Ruth had, through no fault of either man.

So the game has changed since Ruth's day. So the equipment is better made, the parks are better tended, the competition is broader (funny how no one mentioned - I didn't dare, in my FREEPmail correspondence - that Ruth also never played against even half the spread of the talent pool against which Bonds has played; Ruth never had to go against the cream of the black, Latino, Asian, or other crops of talent, again through no fault of his own, he didn't draw baseball's nefarious enough colour line), and by the way Babe Ruth never had to play night baseball, either. (Let's see how many dingers he'd have hit, how fat his slugging percentage would have been, and how high his batting average and on-base percentage might have been, if he'd played even a third of his games at night, folks. In Bonds' era, playing day baseball is almost the exception, and this guy put up a seasonal slugging average beyond the Babe and, in fact, better than his league by more than the Babe's best season's slugging average was better than his league's.)

Now, why is it that all the other sports have had changes over the years but you won't see people having conniption fits if you dare suggest, say, Joe Montana or John Elway were better than Otto Graham or Sammy Baugh, or Michael Jordan was better than Wilt Chamberlain (who, by the way, was slightly better than Bill Russell), or Wayne Gretzky was better than Gordie Howe? Yet, if you even dare to even think that - forget Barry Bonds for a moment - Mickey Mantle or Willie Mays were better than Babe Ruth, you commit blasphemy? Will it erase Babe Ruth's place in the history of the game to accept that there HAVE been players better than him to have emerged since his time? (Babe Ruth at best was a two-and-a-half tool player; Mays, Mantle, Aaron, and especially Bonds - at least until he began to slow down a bit in the field in the last year and a half - are full five-tool players. Ruth couldn't run worth a damn; in fact, he once cost his team a World Series by trying to steal a base he couldn't have stolen if he had a gun and a mask. He was at best a very average fielder with an average outfield throwing arm at best.)

Reality check: Nothing and no one can take Babe Ruth's place in baseball history. He was the 1920s; he was the greatest marquee attraction the game ever saw in the pre-World War II era; and no matter who surpasses him in any or all ways, you're still going to put him on your all-time roster. (And wouldn't it be delicious to field a team where your starting outfield could be Barry Bonds, Mickey Mantle, and Roberto Clemente, but you could wheel in Stan Musial, Willie Mays, and Babe Ruth behind them in, say, the seventh inning?) But there have been better players than the Babe to happen along since. The best of them is still wearing a San Francisco Giants uniform. And Barry Bonds never hung his manager over the end of a speeding train by his ankles, either.

Much of what Bluesduke has to say is corroborated by various websites devoted to the "deadball era" and its transition to the modern game.

[freebilly]

Ping

[bootless]

Thanks, freebilly. And thanks for posting BluesDuke's email - wonderful stuff. I always learn something!

And Barry Bonds never hung his manager over the end of a speeding train by his ankles, either.

I dare say not! (wow.)

[T. Jefferson]

Alot of tainted noise from your friend. I prefer to let the stats do the talking, they have no opinion and never lie. Whatever conditions Ruth faced in his era, so did every other player...same with bonds, mays, jordan, etc. Ruth certainly had his own disadvantages vs. today, strike zone was from armpit to knees, the modern era it's been the size of a catcher's mitt, ie, 1/4 the size. It's common knowledge he rarely had a pitch to hit his entire career. With a zone like today..just imagine. Ruth's center field was 487 feet, hardly a hitters park. Not to mention he played hungover or drunk his whole career. I gotta laugh at the comment questioning Ruth's arm. He was one of the best pitchers of his era, obviously he had a cannon.

Each man faces what he's presented, and some are simply far superior than their competion. The stats speak for themselves. Ruth's superiority vs. his peers has been unmatched to this date. Including fielding stats, when A Rod is done I think we'll have seen close to the best...no one is smoother and more consistent.

[T. Jefferson]

When Bonds throws 29 Consecutive scoreless innings in the World series, give me a call.

[T. Jefferson]

Below is the 162 game avg.(annual) stats for 2 players. While not not as dominating over his peers like Babe Ruth, the stats show the best player of the modern era is a Shortstop.

Name.....R.......H......2B......HR...RBI.....BB...AVG...OBP...SLG...TB...

ARod....129....197.....37.......43.....127......69 ... .309... .380... .579 ...369
bonds....122....164.....34.......41.....110......128....295.....428.....595....330

The players have the same Fielding Pct., but since shortstop is the hardest fielding position, ARod is a better fielder as well as hitter.

[T. Jefferson]

Below is the 162 game avg.(annual) stats for 2 players. While not not as dominating over his peers like Babe Ruth, the stats show the best player of the modern era is a Shortstop.

Name.....R.......H......2B......HR...RBI.....BB...AVG...OBP...SLG...TB...

ARod....129....197.....37.......43.....127......69 ... .309... .380... .579 ...369
bonds....122....164.....34.......41.....110......128....295.....428.....595....330

The players have the same Fielding Pct., but since shortstop is the hardest fielding position, ARod is a better fielder as well as hitter.

[Dr. Frank fan]

stop pinging me dude. I agreed w/you in the first place about Ruth, what are you trying to accomplish?

As for your comparison to ARod/Bonds, you wrote:

the stats show the best player of the modern era is a Shortstop.

Those stats don't show that. Most of the stats are statistically identical (within margin of error - i.e. 43 HR vs. 41 HR is not a significant difference), and some of them are not very good measures of anything (like RBI). The one stat that is different and significant is that Bonds gets on base a hell of a lot more of the time than ARod. Oh yeah, and Bonds plays in a pitcher's park.

But anyway, stop pinging me. I don't care about whatever point you're trying to prove. (like that Bonds is "only" the second-best player or whatever) But I would take a team of 9 Bonds's over 9 ARod's, in a heartbeat.

[freebilly]

The stats speak for themselves

Through 2002--

Steals

Bonds 493
ARod 160

Of course, your failure to include the above stat was a minor oversight....

[T. Jefferson]

Steals..Bonds 493, ARod 160. Of course, your failure to include the above stat was a minor oversight.

Get your beer goggles off mate, the stats were annualized. Bonds has played 8 more years. Annualized Bond's SB is 33, ARod is 23. A negligible stat compared to the power hitting performance of each player. The point of the post was indirect. Ruth avg. twice as many homers as everyone else, and overwhelmingly dominated his peers. Bond's hasn't dominated his peers, in fact the stats show he may not even be the best player in his era. Thus, the comparison with Ruth is a complete joke. (Not to mention Ruth has 67 wins at age 22 and would have made the Hall as a Pitcher).

[freebilly]

Bonds Awards--

• 1990: National League Most Valuable Player
• 1990: National League Gold Glove at OF
• 1991: National League Gold Glove at OF
• 1992: National League Gold Glove at OF
• 1992: National League Most Valuable Player
• 1993: National League Most Valuable Player
• 1993: National League Gold Glove at OF
• 1994: National League Gold Glove at OF
• 1994 ESPY: Outstanding Baseball Performer
• 1994 ESPY: Male Athlete of the Year
• 1996: National League Gold Glove at OF
• 1997: National League Gold Glove at OF
• 1998: National League Gold Glove at OF
• 2001: National League Most Valuable Player
• 2002 ESPY: Moment of the Year
• 2002: National League Most Valuable Player
• 2002 ESPY: Outstanding Baseball Performer

A Rod's Awards--

• 2002: American League Gold Glove at SS

This is what ESPN has to say about the "greatest ballplayer" of T. Jefferson's imagination:

Rodriguez won a batting title with a .358 mark in 1996 with Seattle. Asked to be more of a run producer with Texas, A-Rod added more lift to his swing and has produced back-to-back 50-homer seasons. The tradeoff has been an average that has dropped below .320 each season, and his strikeouts have risen accordingly. Unlike Barry Bonds, Rodriguez makes outs. He has three consecutive seasons of more than 120 strikeouts. Moving to The Ballpark in Arlington has helped inflate his numbers....

[freebilly]

The bottom line is Bonds is the best player of his generation (go back to 94 and match his stats up against A Rod). Ruth was the best player of his time.

To say that Ruth was the greatest player of all time (though he didn't play against some of the greatest ballplayers of the time who just happened to be black) is off the mark.

[T. Jefferson]

The bottom line is Bonds is the best player of his generation (go back to 94 and match his stats up against A Rod).

Avg. 162 game stats per player since 1994

Name.....R.......H......2B......HR...RBI.....BB...AVG...OBP...SLG...TB... ARod....129....197.....37.......43.....127......69 ... .309... .380... .579 ...369 bonds....122....164.....34.......41.....110......128....295.....428.....595....330

I already did that. Looks like a toss up stats wise, leaning towards ARod.

The bottom line is Ruth blew away his competition. No one came close to the stats and dominance he had over his peers. More homeruns than any other team one year. 29 Consecutive scoreless innings pitching in the world Series, etc.

When people try to compare bonds to Ruth it's an insult to Ruth.

[T. Jefferson]

This is what ESPN has to say about the "greatest ballplayer" of T. Jefferson's imagination:

Rodriguez won a batting title with a .358 mark in 1996 with Seattle. Asked to be more of a run producer with Texas, A-Rod added more lift to his swing and has produced back-to-back 50-homer seasons. The tradeoff has been an average that has dropped below .320 each season, and his strikeouts have risen accordingly. Unlike Barry Bonds, Rodriguez makes outs. He has three consecutive seasons of more than 120 strikeouts. Moving to The Ballpark in Arlington has helped inflate his numbers....

They fail at analysis here. ARod has only hit above .318 once, the .358 was a fluke, like bond's 73. His K's fluctuate 10-15%, but the Run/Rbi production increase are worth it. You've misread my whole point, the best ever is Ruth, not A Rod. And my favorite player was Ripken. He was a great college pitcher by the way.

[freebilly]

When people try to compare bonds to Ruth it's an insult to Ruth.

He's dead. It's an insult to those who think Ruth was the greatest ballplayer of all time. No one else gives a rip.

[T. Jefferson]

Ruth was the greatest ballplayer of all time

Some day we'll see someone comparable. He'll average 75-80 hrs. a year, with the occasional 100 hrs. He'll avg .360, with the occasional.400, avg.160 RBIS with the occasional 190 RBI's. Everywhere he plays will be sold out years in advance. He'll be bigger than life, and loved by all. And his homeruns will be impossibly longer and higher. There's one guy every generation. He definitely isn't Arod or bonds...who knows? Maybe its Pujols.

[freebilly]

He'll average 75-80 hrs. a year, with the occasional 100 hrs. He'll avg .360, with the occasional.400, avg.160 RBIS with the occasional 190 RBI's

I don't see it happening. Look at what happened to Bonds after hitting 73 HR's. The number of walks he gets cuts into his # of AB's. Anyone who averages .360 and 75 HR's will not be pitched to after a year of #'s like that.

[T. Jefferson]

He'll average 75-80 hrs. a year, with the occasional 100 hrs. He'll avg .360, with the occasional.400, avg.160 RBIS with the occasional 190 RBI's.

I don't see it happening. Look at what happened to Bonds after hitting 73 HR's. The number of walks he gets cuts into his # of AB's. Anyone who averages .360 and 75 HR's will not be pitched to after a year of #'s like that.

I don't see it either, but strange things can happen. It would take numbers like today to equal the dominance Ruth had over his peers. Ruth never saw a good pitch his entire career, and his zone was armpits to knees. Considering how small the zone is now, it is possible. Bonds avg. 41 home runs a year his whole career, then in one year he hits 73. No one could have predicted that either. People talk about the steriods. But underneath the surface, I bet everybody wonders what exercice Bond's has done to so dramatically change his eye to hand coordination. He's been amazing the last 3 years.