Bonds

[Reddy]

Against all-white pitching staffs who weren't in the shape that today's players were.

 

whoa whoa whoa this argument is edit: nasty smelling substance secreted from the rear end of a bull. (soxtalk pc )

 

all the 'best pitchers ever' come from the same era as babe ruth, walter johnson and cy young to name a couple.

 

people claim that hitters were better cuz pitching was worse, but one look at the stats of these pitchers, winning 36 games a season, throwing 30+ complete games every year. Johnson had 110 shutouts. ok so fine the pitchers are better cuz the hitters are worse right!? babe ruth, ty cobb, honus wagner, joe jackson. sorry guys but that argument doesnt work either. s***. out of luck.

Edited September 13, 2005 by Reddy

[Chisoxrd5]

Against all-white pitching staffs who weren't in the shape that today's players were.

 

The argument for Babe Ruth is that his stats were far and away better than anyone he played against. He was pounding 50+ HR's a year when the guy hitting the second most was only hitting 15-20. He lapped the field in almost every offensive category.

 

Plus, he was a premier pitcher...

 

Pretty good argument there...IMO

[southsider2k5]

The argument for Babe Ruth is that his stats were far and away better than anyone he played against. He was pounding 50+ HR's a year when the guy hitting the second most was only hitting 15-20. He lapped the field in almost every offensive category.

 

Plus, he was a premier pitcher...

 

Pretty good argument there...IMO

 

Ruth's numbers aren't that great when compared with other pitchers from the era. He was good, but his W/L was also exaggerated because he played on WS champion teams.

 

Plus the biggest difference for me is the difference in the pitching you would have faced then. Remember there was no slider, splitter, cutter etc. There was also no specialty relief such as closers and set up men. You saw one pitcher 4-5 times a game, and you also saw them a bunch more times a year, because the league was way smaller. Don't also forget the knee to armpit strike zone that exsisted in that day.

 

It would be really interesting to see the Babe step in against a guy like Rocket who has a 95+ fastball, splitter, and a nasty change, or to see a two pitch Walter Johnson try to get out a Barry Bonds who has complete strike zone presence.

 

Personally I believe with the addition of specialty pitchers, new pitches, bigger athletes etc, that any player from today's era would kill anyone from the 20's. Don't let the numbers fool you, these guys today are way, way better.

[qwerty]

Ruth's numbers aren't that great when compared with other pitchers from the era.  He was good, but his W/L was also exaggerated because he played on WS champion teams. 

 

Plus the biggest difference for me is the difference in the pitching you would have faced then.  Remember there was no slider, splitter, cutter etc.  There was also no specialty relief such as closers and set up men.  You saw one pitcher 4-5 times a game, and you also saw them a bunch more times a year, because the league was way smaller.  Don't also forget the knee to armpit strike zone that exsisted in that day. 

 

It would be really interesting to see the Babe step in against a guy like Rocket who has a 95+ fastball, splitter, and a nasty change, or to see a two pitch Walter Johnson try to get out a Barry Bonds who has complete strike zone presence.

 

Personally I believe with the addition of specialty pitchers, new pitches, bigger athletes etc, that any player from today's era would kill anyone from the 20's.  Don't let the numbers fool you, these guys today are way, way better.

 

122 career era+ for ruth.

125 career era+ for buerhle ( prior to this year).

114 career era+ for garcia ( prior to this year).

 

You also have to remember the baseballs they used then were made awfully. You would have to put everything you had into it to get it out into the outfield... one of the reasons there was no power numbers back then. Baseballs are so hard now you could bunt a fastball just right it will reach the outfield.

 

Fields were also mammoth compared to what they are nowadays. While you are correct that they did not have a slider, spitter, cutter, etc... they did have spitter's knuckles, palm balls... basically every kind of pitch that is illegal at this time.

 

Pitching was heavily favored then and hitting is heavily favored now. I wish there was a better happy medium. While today's players are better than from years past, they have much, much more to work with to make that possible.

[YASNY]

Bonds is the greatest baseball player of all time. Period.

 

Mantle, Mays, Clemente and F. Robinson were all better all around baseball players thans Bonds. That is limited to guys that I have seen play and off the top of my head. I am also limiting it to just outfielders.

[RockRaines]

Ruth's numbers aren't that great when compared with other pitchers from the era.  He was good, but his W/L was also exaggerated because he played on WS champion teams. 

 

Plus the biggest difference for me is the difference in the pitching you would have faced then.  Remember there was no slider, splitter, cutter etc.  There was also no specialty relief such as closers and set up men.  You saw one pitcher 4-5 times a game, and you also saw them a bunch more times a year, because the league was way smaller.  Don't also forget the knee to armpit strike zone that exsisted in that day. 

 

It would be really interesting to see the Babe step in against a guy like Rocket who has a 95+ fastball, splitter, and a nasty change, or to see a two pitch Walter Johnson try to get out a Barry Bonds who has complete strike zone presence.

 

Personally I believe with the addition of specialty pitchers, new pitches, bigger athletes etc, that any player from today's era would kill anyone from the 20's.  Don't let the numbers fool you, these guys today are way, way better.

SS, your argument is well thought out and presented well. But it goes the other way as well. Today's hitters have scouting reports, more training and nutrition information, better equipment, smaller strike zone etc. If the hitters of the past had the same benefits, would they be better than the hitters of today? Possibly.

 

All in all, you cant compare the two ERA's. In other sports its the same way, do you think that many of the early greats in football or basketball could hold their own against today's superstarts? Would Walt be able to defend or score against SHAQ? Would Babe Ruth take Freddy Yard? Its hard to say, because the conditions were so different. The only thing we have is the stats that the indiv man can put up in his career. And as far as I am concerned, Bonds put up some great stats. But steroid Bonds was a cheater, and his stats should not be comparable to the all time greats. Its what the man does, straight up, not what his pharmacist can make him do. On the flip side, there was proof of some of the hitters in the 20's taking a steroid derivative over the counter for pain and healing. Does that makes that cheating? WE will never know. And this arguing past great players vs current is going to lead us nowhere, and can never bewon.

[Balta1701]

I think the real key to this whole debate is that Ruth hit his 714 home runs on some mixture of beer and hot dogs.

 

I want to see what happens to today's players when we take them off of the performance-enhancing drugs and put them back on the performance-hindering drugs of yesteryear.