http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/stark_jayson/1596760.html
I think my biggest beef with Jayson Stark is not that he doesn't know much about baseball -- he does in fact uses facts and statistics well. It's just that he is so blinded with trying to prove his points that he only uses facts and stats that support his cause, not undermine it.

I'm pretty indifferent to Barry in that I really don't care that much about him one way or another, which I suppose would be the very definition of indifferent. But despite his lack of charm and charisma with the media and public, I think he deserves recognition for what he has done as arguably one of the best left fielders of all time.

I think Barry's chances of reaching Aaron are better than 50/50. Stark takes the stance that Bonds doesn't have much of a chance because no player has had a lot of success hitting a lot of HRs past age 40. He compares Barry to Aaron, in that Aaron hit 40 HRs at 39 then dropped off to 20, 12 and 10. He also compares Barry to every other 40-year-old player in history from Fisk and Evans to Willie Freakin' McGee.

To me, the comparisons are ludicrous because Barry is incomparable to almost every other player. Aaron was the definition of consistency, but in their best season Barry hit 29 more home runs than Aaron. Barry will probably hit 10 or more home runs this season than Aaron every hit in a season.

The only players you can really compare Barry to are Ruth and McGwire. McGwire didn't make it to due to foot and back injuries. Ruth barely made it to 40, but then again he was far from the picture of health. Barry is in better shape at 39 than Ruth and McGwire ever were. From an athletic standpoint, I don't believe there is anything preventing Barry from hitting 40-plus HRs for another 2-3 years.

Further evidence of Stark's effort to bash Barry was his remark that if Barry switched to the AL to become a DH, if might "cheapen" the accomplishment. Does that mean that Barry should get full credit for becoming the all-time home run champ if he gets to 734 in the NL, considering Aaron hit his last 22 HRs as a DH?

I wouldn't go out of my way to defend Barry, and I don't really mean this as a Barry defense. I just can't figure out why there are so many Jayson Stark fans out there when the guy is so horrible. There are a dozen guys at FOFC that are better writers and researchers than this guy. I suppose it's a testament to how far you can get in this world if you kiss enough ass.

I'm not exactly sure why you think Stark is an idiot for saying that players really don't hit many homers after 40. They don't. Stark is saying that Bonds probably won't make the mark because he is about to hit that age and thus his skills will decline.

I don't see why that's so abhorrant to say.

Let me preface this by saying I'm not a Bonds supporter.

But he'll continue to rack up numbers after 40. For Gods sake, look at the dingers he hits!! He hits them 450+ feet! So what, maybe he'll only hit them 425 or 420 feet now? Doesnt really seem to matter to me. I just don't see anyway how his skills will decline that sharply.

Hank Aaron from age 38 to retirement


Year Ag Tm Lg G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG TB SH SF IBB HBP GDP
1972 38 ATL NL 129 449 75 119 10 0 34 77 4 0 92 55 .265 .390 .514 231 0 2 15 1 17
1973 39 ATL NL 120 392 84 118 12 1 40 96 1 1 68 51 .301 .402 .643 252 0 4 13 1 7
1974 40 ATL NL 112 340 47 91 16 0 20 69 1 0 39 29 .268 .341 .491 167 1 2 6 0 6
1975 41 MIL AL 137 465 45 109 16 2 12 60 0 1 70 51 .234 .332 .355 165 1 6 3 1 15
1976 42 MIL AL 85 271 22 62 8 0 10 35 0 1 35 38 .229 .315 .369 100 0 2 1 0 8


And here are Bonds numbers from last year:


2002 37 SFG NL 143 403 117 149 31 2 46 110 9 2 198 47 .370 .582 .799 322 0 2 68 9 4

And to date this year Bonds has these states


YEAR G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS BA OBP SLG OPS
2003 102 317 88 108 17 1 37 77 111 49 7 0 .341 .519 .751 1.270

This season Bonds is projected for these numbers


G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS BA OBP SLG OPS
137 424 118 145 23 1 50 103 149 66 9 0 .341 .519 .751 1.270

Bonds potentially ends the season with 663 HRs, third on the all-time list, ahead of Willie Mays. He would need 93 HRs to surpass Aaron.

Last year, Bonds had 46 HRs and seems on pace to surpass that this season. That isn't a decline.

In 2001, he had the remarkable 73. But before that he had 49. He hasn't hit less than 30 HRs since 1991 and has 3 seasons with less than 30. Hasn't hit less than 20 since 1989 and only has two seasons with less than 20.

Even in 1994 and 1999, when he had less than 400 ABs, he managed 30+ homers.

Aaron played 23 seasons. This is Bonds 18th season. You also need to look at when Aaron broke the record.

Bonds has a remarkable chance to break this record. If he can hold up and remain consistant, he'd only need to muster about 31 HRs for the next three seasons. He's averaged more than that since 1992.

The other thing that is significant is that if Barry Bonds is close, I see him doing what it takes to break the record, even if it means going over to the AL and DHing.

My guess is he breaks it as an OFer in SF or as a DH in Oakland.

Bonds will pass Mays this year.
Bonds will come to close to reaching 700 next year or otherwise pass it.
Bonds will pass Ruth in 2005. And Aaron in 2006.

Though if he goes out and hits 73 again , than that throws everything for a loop.

I think Bonds has a chance to pass Aaron, but it's no slam dunk. His skills will decline over the next few years; the real question is when exactly the decline will start, and how fast the decline will be. But let's just say that he ends this year with 663, which he is on pace to do, and equals the records for each age through 2006 (when his current contract ends)

He would have:

2004 - 703
2005 - 737
2006 - 766

I think that's possible, and it gives him room to fall short a little in one or more of the seasons, but not a lot of room. I bet he doesn't play after 2006, whether he breaks the record or not.

I don't think he'll finish his career in Oakland, because the A's won't be able to afford his contract.

If he's got 713 and mysteriously gets felled by a sniper... ;)

I don't even want him touching Babe's record. Not that he was a saint, but he is now been sainted in baseball lore. Aaron, from everything I've seen, is a good guy who is somewhat bitter from the ordeal he had been through and I definately don't want Bonds getting that record.

SI

Originally posted by sterlingice
If he's got 713 and mysteriously gets felled by a sniper... ;)

I don't even want him touching Babe's record. Not that he was a saint, but he is now been sainted in baseball lore. Aaron, from everything I've seen, is a good guy who is somewhat bitter from the ordeal he had been through and I definately don't want Bonds getting that record.

SI

i feel the same way myself. Babe is a legend, and Aaron was a great guy. Bonds has always been a complete jerk. But of course i'm totally biased. Ted Williams was by all accounts pretty much a jerk in his day (not sure how much was media induced or not...) but i (along with all of new england ) love him and embrace him as a hero and a legend

You're all forgetting one thing, it won't be turning 40 that is going to make his skills decline, it's when each of his biceps finally explodes that you'll notice a large downhill turn in his numbers.

Aaron and Ruth also didn't have steroids. Than again Bonds doesn't use steroids now does he? :D

I hope Bonds breaks the record and etch his name as truly the greatest baseball player of all-time. He's no doubt the best of this generation, but breaking the record would make him the best ever.

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
I'm not exactly sure why you think Stark is an idiot for saying that players really don't hit many homers after 40. They don't. Stark is saying that Bonds probably won't make the mark because he is about to hit that age and thus his skills will decline.

I don't see why that's so abhorrant to say.
I'm granting that the overwhelming majority of players have not hit many homers after 40. However, an overwhelming majority of players did not hit 73 home runs at 37. Given the current rate of home runs compared to historical numbers, given the state of today's pitching and given the state of Barry's health, I think Barry has an excellent shot at Aaron.

But Stark is saying Bonds won't because he is comparing him to players who have come before him. What I am saying is that based on stats, there is little if any comparison that can be made from Bonds to anyone else except really McGwire. Even Ruth hit his 60 at 32.

In regards to Stark in general, I just fine that he typically seems to take a stance on an issue and then uses facts and stats to support only that argument while ignoring facts and stats that are contrary to the arugment. That's fine for a debater, I just think it makes him a poor journalist.

But Stark is saying Bonds won't because he is comparing him to players who have come before him.

Why is that so obnoxious? I mean, it is done by EVERYONE! Do you also have ire for those that say that Pujols will be absolutely God-like because he hasn't hit his peak years of 27-29 yet? Because after all, whenever people do talk about it they are comparing today's players to those that have come before.

Bonds isn't superhuman, and Stark is simply saying that after 40, most stars in the past have rapidly destructed. He isn't saying it WILL happen, he is saying there is a great probability that it will. Even though I'm a big Bonds fan, I, in the end, have to agree. Barry will get 700, but that's it. He's too old to continue this until he's 41 or 42, IMO. That's just going on past players and what they've done.

I didn't read the article, but if it is bashing Barry Bonds, than fantastic. I don't like him and I don't want him to get any records. Heck, I'd intentially walk him every at bat just so he couldn't get it. Better yet, I'd bean him, lol.

Originally posted by SteelerFan448
I didn't read the article, but if it is bashing Barry Bonds, than fantastic. I don't like him and I don't want him to get any records. Heck, I'd intentially walk him every at bat just so he couldn't get it. Better yet, I'd bean him, lol.

You're just bitter because he left Pittsburgh.

I could care less, I was too young to care about baseball too much when he left. I just don't like his arrogance and such.

Barry has a worse reputation than he really deserves.

SteelerFan, who really cares about how good a person Barry is? Why does everyone think that every athlete has to be like Micheal Jordan and be a nice guy? I'm a Giants fan and I don't give a shit if Barry acts like a jerk, I don't go to games to watch him be a nice person, I go to games to watch him play.

Originally posted by Sharpieman
SteelerFan, who really cares about how good a person Barry is? Why does everyone think that every athlete has to be like Micheal Jordan and be a nice guy? I'm a Giants fan and I don't give a shit if Barry acts like a jerk, I don't go to games to watch him be a nice person, I go to games to watch him play.

Amen!!!

If I worried about how nice or not nice an athlete was, I wouldn't be able to enjoy sports.

Of course, I think Barry gets shit on more than he deserves. The paparazzi make too big a deal of celebrities and I think one reason Barry doesn't like the press is because of that. He's only human and wants to be treated like that.

That said, Barry Bonds is my favorite player (even though the A's are my favorite team) so I am biased.

One reason I go to Giants games is to see him play. I get really bummed when I go and he's out of the lineup. I don't think any other player is as exciting to watch as Bonds.

Not even many great A's players, with the exception perhaps of Rickey Henderson, is as exciting to watch as Bonds.

Originally posted by Sharpieman
Why does everyone think that every athlete has to be like Micheal Jordan and be a nice guy?

I think there's some irony in this statement...

Originally posted by Sharpieman
SteelerFan, who really cares about how good a person Barry is? Why does everyone think that every athlete has to be like Micheal Jordan and be a nice guy? I'm a Giants fan and I don't give a shit if Barry acts like a jerk, I don't go to games to watch him be a nice person, I go to games to watch him play.

I do. I respect players who can play at a high level and make millions and still be CLASS ACTS. I never said he sucked, I just don't like him, plane and simple. I'm obviously a Steeler fan and met Yancy Thigpen in person when he was still with the team. He wasn't exactly the most friendly player I've ever met. In fact he was quite rude, I lost respect for him and no longer liked him as a player, so I think that can show that I'm not a homer. Bottom line, you can be great player while being classy.

Originally posted by SteelerFan448
I do. I respect players who can play at a high level and make millions and still be CLASS ACTS. I never said he sucked, I just don't like him, plane and simple. I'm obviously a Steeler fan and met Yancy Thigpen in person when he was still with the team. He wasn't exactly the most friendly player I've ever met. In fact he was quite rude, I lost respect for him and no longer liked him as a player, so I think that can show that I'm not a homer. Bottom line, you can be great player while being classy.


Ummmm, Jordan is a class act, but not Bonds?

Jordan was a compulsive gambler and commited adultery.

Bonds has done neither, his biggest sin being abrasive to the media.

Yeah, I would say Jordan is classier:rolleyes: , or maybe I'd say he cares more about his image. In my mind, I'd rather have someone who busts his ass and doesn't give a fuck if people like him.

his biggest sin being abrasive to the media.

And I can't say I blame him. The one thing I hate about being a journalist is talking to people who simply don't want to talk. When you force the issue, it makes the person hate you all that much more.

I can see where Bonds is coming from. He's hounded all the time and I think he'd rather not have any of it.

Originally posted by mrskippy
I can see where Bonds is coming from. He's hounded all the time and I think he'd rather not have any of it.

and we all know how the media hounds after poor skippy :D

Originally posted by McSweeny
and we all know how the media hounds after poor skippy :D

I'm being serious. I've had to hound people who simply didn't want to be bothered. It's not just celebrities. There are normal everyday people who don't want to answer the press and aren't afraid to say that. And it's editors who like to make those people sound like assholes, because dammit we're the media they have to talk. Thing is, they don't.

Class act? I don't care who's a class act or not. I don't care if Bonds is classy or whatever, I'll only start not liking him if he doesn't do good on the field. I don't know why people care so much about how players act. To me, they are just athletes, they play games that we watch. Nothing else.

I've said it on this board before, and I'll say it again.

Class is overrated.

Originally posted by Sharpieman
SteelerFan, who really cares about how good a person Barry is? Why does everyone think that every athlete has to be like Micheal Jordan and be a nice guy? I'm a Giants fan and I don't give a shit if Barry acts like a jerk, I don't go to games to watch him be a nice person, I go to games to watch him play.

I'm not saying every player on every team I cheer for should be nominated for sainthood but it's a lot easier to cheer for them if they are nicer. For instance, I'm not a Padres fan but I liked to see Tony Gwynn do well (as long as he wasn't facing my teams) because he seemed like a good guy. Where's the harm in that?

I definately agree that journalists put athletes in a lose-lose situation. Either they are chided for only answering "easy" questions or they give an honest response to a crappy question and are crucified for it.

If John Rocker doesn't talk to Sports Illustrated (I think that was the publication), he's probably still pitching for Atlanta. But I don't see anyone here rushing to his defense. I have every right to call a player a jerk and root against them just as much as you have to cheer for them.

SI

Originally posted by mrskippy

Not even many great A's players, with the exception perhaps of Rickey Henderson, is as exciting to watch as Bonds.

I think you miss those darn editors more than you realize.

Originally posted by Sharpieman
SteelerFan, who really cares about how good a person Barry is? Why does everyone think that every athlete has to be like Micheal Jordan and be a nice guy? I'm a Giants fan and I don't give a shit if Barry acts like a jerk, I don't go to games to watch him be a nice person, I go to games to watch him play.

Exactly!

I am amazed at how completely closed minded the baseball fans on this board seem to be...

You don't want him touching babe's record? babe isn't even teh record HOLDER, the fat slob was one of the worst images of the game.

Bonds should and probably will break aaron's record. You want something to bring attention back to baseball, the sport NEEDS something so huge that people have to pay attention.

You may not like barry bonds, he certainly doesn't give a rats ass about you or me either, but HE is the one thing in the next few years that can keep this pathetic game afloat and perhaps breathe some real life back into it.

Go ahead and bash him, he doesn't play the reporters games and doesn't say the things the fans want to hear... tough shit.

He's also the best thing baseball has, and as fans in general, people ought to hope he does break the record. It will keep your favorite game alive.

Damn, y'all managed to get my dander up over BASEBALL....

DAMN you all, DAMN you.

I'll second that, tucker.

I don't know why anybody buys that line about Barry being an asshole. We don't know him. It's possible he's a jerk. It's lso possible that he's a greaat guy that the sports media happens to have a problem with.

It's possible that most of the guys that we are told are great really aren't. We don't know any of them personally. Maybe they are just media conscious and media savvy.

Actually, if you lived in Japan you would think that Barry was the greatest guy in the world. He was very visible in welcoming Shinjo when he came to the Giants. He also had no trouble talking to the Japanese press about Ichiro.

But, most importantly, he was the best guy to the media during the tour of Japan. He had no reason to even come. But he wanted to have fun and had no problem promoting Major League Baseball while he was here. He was gracious to both the fans nd the media. He also got along well with the Japanese players.

Originally posted by Easy Mac
Ummmm, Jordan is a class act, but not Bonds?

Jordan was a compulsive gambler and commited adultery.

Bonds has done neither, his biggest sin being abrasive to the media.

Yeah, I would say Jordan is classier:rolleyes: , or maybe I'd say he cares more about his image. In my mind, I'd rather have someone who busts his ass and doesn't give a fuck if people like him.

Yeah, I saw where I mentioned Jordan's name in my rant...:rolleyes: BTW, he was a great player, but I never really liked Jordan either.

Originally posted by RendeR
You don't want him touching babe's record? babe isn't even teh record HOLDER, the fat slob was one of the worst images of the game.

This has a lot to do with the comments Bonds made about Ruth and how if he passes Ruth everyone should forget about him because Bonds would then clearly be a better.

"And if it does happen, the only number I care about is Babe Ruth's. Because as a left-handed hitter, I wiped him out. That's it. And in the baseball world, Babe Ruth's everything, right? I got his slugging percentage and I'll take his home runs and that's it. Don't talk about him no more."

ANd honestly? he's right Mckerney. Baseball fans seem to forget every other player who's records are broken. Why do they cling so fiercely to a record, thats not a record? by a player, who for all the historical facts was a terrible example of sportsmanship, a drunk, and a womanizer? (please note i do NOT think these things are entirely bad =) )

So Bonds thinks he is better than the babe, I agree, he has more raw talent, more skill, and will be around longer than Ruth ever could have been. Let alone the work ethic, good god, Ruth's idea of a workout was 24 12oz curls at the local strip club...

Its just really frustrating to listen to Bonds Bashers, who really can't see the forest for the trees.

The man will keep interest in baseball rising for the next few years. You want to worry about something, forget the homeruns, worry about Barry retiring. because there isn't anyone else in the league who will keep anyone's interest like he does.

because there isn't anyone else in the league who will keep anyone's interest like he does.

*Looks over at the 23 year old in St. Louis*

Anyway, Bonds WAS totally wrong in that statement. He can beat Ruth's HR record, but no one is going to listen to him saying "don't talk about him no more". People will probably still consider Ruth the greatest player of all time, no matter if Bonds breaks his or Aaron's record. So he's silly to say that (and indicates he doesn't care too much about the history of the game). Hell, I do think Bonds is a jerk, but he's payed to play baseball and he does that well enough.

That comment about Ruth was way overplayed. Bonds is under a lot of stress this year; his father is possibly dying, and he really wanted to be with him instead of at the All-Star Game. The surprise is that he hasn't been caught in a bad mood more often this season. And I think that's all it was, not really an intended swipe at Ruth's legacy. Bonds idolizes Willie Mays, and he has talked repeatedly about wanted to catch Mays, not because of disrespect, but because he respects Mays so much.

I am at a loss as to how Bonds breaking Babe Ruth's HR record clearly makes him better.

Name G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS
Ruth 2503 8399 2174 2873 506 136 714 2213 123 117 2062 1330 .342 .474 .690 1.164
Bonds 2541 8652 1918 2570 531 74 650 1729 500 140 2033 1378 .297 .432 .601 1.033

Looking at those numbers Bonds has played more games and has had more at bats yet has less Runs, Hits, 3B, HR's, RBI's, BB's, .AVG, OBP, SLG, and OPS. Sure Bonds will likely pass him, but it's going to take him many more AB's to do so. The SB's aren't very close, but that means nothing to me. The point of offense in baseball is to produce runs and Ruth both scored and drove in more runs than Bonds in less AB's. Those SB's didn't help Barry produce more runs than Ruth.

The other common argument is Barry's defense was much better than Ruth's. However Ruth won 90 games as a pitcher so that argument seems silly to me. You can't honestly say Barry's D equals Ruth's pitching talent.

So I can see the argument that Bonds should be considered one of the best players ever, but I don't see at all how just Bonds passing him on the HR list settles the argument as to who was the better player.

I think Stark made some good points. He used history as his guide, but he could have prefaced it all by saying Barry Bonds has never been one to follow historical trends.

Still, it's not unreasonable to think Barry could suffer a progressively sharp decline. Just a year ago you would have been hard pressed to find anyone saying Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine would be struggling like they are now. Same goes for Mark McGwire near the end. He had his big year just a couple years before calling it quits. It really looked like there was no way he wouldn't get to 700 and all of the sudden he just lost it. It frequently happens that way and Stark was just pointing this out. There's no guarantee one way or the other what Bonds will do, but if anyone could buck the trends it's him.

Originally posted by Leonidas
Still, it's not unreasonable to think Barry could suffer a progressively sharp decline. Just a year ago you would have been hard pressed to find anyone saying Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine would be struggling like they are now. Same goes for Mark McGwire near the end. He had his big year just a couple years before calling it quits. It really looked like there was no way he wouldn't get to 700 and all of the sudden he just lost it. It frequently happens that way and Stark was just pointing this out. There's no guarantee one way or the other what Bonds will do, but if anyone could buck the trends it's him.

McGwire didn't just lose it. And he didn't lose it because of age. McGwire was rolling along just fine in 2000 when he developed a knee probem. He wasn't able to push off on that knee for the rest of his career and the fact that the umps started calling the high strike in 2001 and it just doomed him. But it was an injury and a changed strike zone that caused his decline not a falloff due to age.

Originally posted by primelord
McGwire didn't just lose it. And he didn't lose it because of age. McGwire was rolling along just fine in 2000 when he developed a knee probem. He wasn't able to push off on that knee for the rest of his career and the fact that the umps started calling the high strike in 2001 and it just doomed him. But it was an injury and a changed strike zone that caused his decline not a falloff due to age.

Or could age have contributed to the injury? That's one thing no one has really mentioned here. There has been discussion about a decline in skills resulting in less offensive output from bonds, but nothing mentioned about his health. Throughout his career Bonds has been pretty healthy. I don't anticipate any drastic changes. However, I do anticipate him to miss more games because of little nagging injuries. I haven't looked at any stats, and I haven't really followed him that closely the past few years, but hasn't he missed some games over the past few seasons? Perhaps someone can do a little digging and either support my statements or blow them out of the water.

Personally, being from Atlanta, I don't want to see anyone break Aaron's record for a long time. But I think Bonds has a shot. I believe his health will be the biggest factor. Not a decline in skills. If he his healthy, there's no reason to believe that he can't average 30 HR's over the next two years. If he is that close to the record, I can certainly see him moving to the AL as a DH for a couple of years in an effort to pick up the HR's needed to break the record. I think Babe's mark is in serious jeopardy.

I think he could break Babe's HR record, but we'll still talk about the Bambino afterwards ;).

Yeah, I also agree that the quote could have been because Barry was in a bad mood and didn't mean it, but Hey, he said it and he hasn't said that wasn't what he meant, so who knows?

I will echo what others have said in that Stark using past history to predict Bonds' future performance is like comparing apples and oranges. Bonds has performed unlike any other player I can think of at his age. The only 2 things I can see that would prevent him from passing Aaron is injuries and lack of desire.

I have a hard time seeing Bonds' performance dropping off dramatically in the next 2-3 years based on how incredible he's been the last 3 years. Injuries though are a definite concern, and could sideline him enough to prevent him from getting enough AB's to pass Aaron, or could affect his performance.

It's also open to debate whether passing Aaron is important to Bonds. He may decide he's simply had enough and walk away from the game to have more time for his family, or injuries may convince him to retire as they did with McGwire.

However, if he stays reasonably healthy and has enough interest to keep playing another 3 seasons I think he'll beat Aaron.

As for comparing Bonds to Glavine and Maddux, yeah I could easily have predicted their declines based on the fact both have been declining already over the last 4-5 seasons.

Originally posted by mrskippy
Aaron and Ruth also didn't have steroids. Than again Bonds doesn't use steroids now does he? :D



Just food for thought. Last year when baseball was in the midst of all the roid talk there was a site out there that listed the change in players hat sizes. Wierd as it may sound, your head gets bigger with use of HGH and some steriods. I remember Bonds was not on the list but who knows how factual it was. I wish I knew the link to the site. Even if I could find it again I'm sure MLB has shut it down because there are no steriods in baseball. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by RendeR
[B]...babe isn't even teh record HOLDER, the fat slob was one of the worst images of the game.

Most of the widely circulated photos of Ruth are from the latter stages of his career when he'd let his physique go, but in his younger years he was in great shape. Check the photo of him as a young Red Sox pitcher - he was in great shape. From the accounts I've read, he was still in good shape when he was breaking HR records in the '20's.

Even considering his later years, you think he looked worse than David Wells?

Originally posted by Buzzbee
I haven't looked at any stats, and I haven't really followed him that closely the past few years, but hasn't he missed some games over the past few seasons? Perhaps someone can do a little digging and either support my statements or blow them out of the water.



He has been healthy all year this year. Alou has been giving him about a day off a week. Last year, he was out for about a week with a hamstring pull, and a few other times for a day or two, and Baker was giving days off here and there, too.

Originally posted by primelord
I am at a loss as to how Bonds breaking Babe Ruth's HR record clearly makes him better.

Name G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS
Ruth 2503 8399 2174 2873 506 136 714 2213 123 117 2062 1330 .342 .474 .690 1.164
Bonds 2541 8652 1918 2570 531 74 650 1729 500 140 2033 1378 .297 .432 .601 1.033

Looking at those numbers Bonds has played more games and has had more at bats yet has less Runs, Hits, 3B, HR's, RBI's, BB's, .AVG, OBP, SLG, and OPS. Sure Bonds will likely pass him, but it's going to take him many more AB's to do so. The SB's aren't very close, but that means nothing to me. The point of offense in baseball is to produce runs and Ruth both scored and drove in more runs than Bonds in less AB's. Those SB's didn't help Barry produce more runs than Ruth.

The other common argument is Barry's defense was much better than Ruth's. However Ruth won 90 games as a pitcher so that argument seems silly to me. You can't honestly say Barry's D equals Ruth's pitching talent.

So I can see the argument that Bonds should be considered one of the best players ever, but I don't see at all how just Bonds passing him on the HR list settles the argument as to who was the better player.

Well, ISiddiqui and I got into a big long agument thread about this a few months ago. But the level of competition was much lower in Ruth's day. It was mcuh easier for the great players to totally dominate the league.

If you look at the standard deviation of performance around the league, you'll find that it was much greater than today. In Ruth's day, the average in the league for the best everyday players could reasonably be expected to be above .370 while the lowest could reasonably be .220. We don't get that kind of distribution today. I use batting average because it was considered the most important stat of the day.

But the former is just one of the examples of it. Bill James did a study that showed that in the past it was much more common for teenagers to perform well in the majors.

There's a whole minefield about excluded great players.

But the point is that it's arguable that Barry's domination of the developed mature majors is much more impressive than the comparable domination that Ruth had over his respective league.

Originally posted by oykib
Well, ISiddiqui and I got into a big long agument thread about this a few months ago. But the level of competition was much lower in Ruth's day. It was mcuh easier for the great players to totally dominate the league.


So the watered down talent and short fences in ballparks today doesn't pad stats either? Of course there are differences, but as far as I know, Ruth was more dominant in his time period than Bonds has been in this one.

Originally posted by SteelerFan448
So the watered down talent and short fences in ballparks today doesn't pad stats either? Of course there are differences, but as far as I know, Ruth was more dominant in his time period than Bonds has been in this one.

There's no eveidence of watered down talent in baseball. If there is, then you can be the first person to show it to me.

As for the shorter fences, that just adds to my point about the average guy being closer to the best players these days than in the past. maybe ten percent of Barry's or Sammy's homeruns come from a short fence. When they get a hold of one, it goes over 400 feet. Half of a lesser sluggers homers could come from playing in a bandbox (like half the pretenders on the Texas Rangers over the years).

Well with constant expansion, watered down talent is a given. That doesn't just happen in baseball, but all sports.

Originally posted by SteelerFan448
So the watered down talent and short fences in ballparks today doesn't pad stats either? Of course there are differences, but as far as I know, Ruth was more dominant in his time period than Bonds has been in this one.

Anyone who thinks that today's ballparks are small should go look at the dimensions of the parks in Ruth's era. There were a number of parks (including Yankee Stadium) that were less than 300' down the lines.

As far as watered down talent - that is not even a rational argument. The population has more than doubled since Ruth's time, and blacks and Latins are now a big part of the game. To get the talent watered down to Ruth-era levels, you have to add a bunch more expansion teams.

ESPN actually just had a thing on with the decline of black players in the game. And despite the population size, the talent IS watered down in the game. Which could bring me to the competitive balance in baseball, but that is another issue.

I honestly can't imagine how anyone can argue that Babe Ruth wasn't the greatest player ever. It was simply that he put up numbers -- he put up numbers that were astronomical compared to his contemporaries. The numbers Ruth put up would be comparable to Bonds hitting 250 HRs in a season today. And on top of that, he was a well-above average pitcher. I often wonder what kind of numbers he could have put up playing RF AND pitching 40 games a year. I think he could have still hit 700 homers AND won 300 games.

The only reasonable (and I use that term loosely) argument someone can make is saying that players today are simply better, and if Barry Bonds with his modern day talent had played in Ruth's day and Ruth with his 1920s talent had played today, Bonds would be better. By this argument, the majority of guys in the majors today would be better than Ruth.

I don't like the comparison. I prefer comparing players to their contemporaries and seeing how much better they were than the other great players and the league average. In those terms, I think Ruth is the greatest of all time hands down.

That doesn't diminish what Barry has done. I think it's a coin-flip between him and Ted Williams for greatest left fielder ever. If Ted hadn't been in the war, I think he would have the edge.

I hate to rehash this debate, but kcchief, the point oykib has made is that when Babe played blacks and latinos weren't playing in the leagues, therefore the level of competition is greater today than back then.

I disagree, myself. I think that the proliferation of football, basketball, and other sports, as well as expansion, have left the talent pool at the same level as it was in the Babe's era. Back then baseball was THE game. You didn't have people playing pee-wee football or all the kids playing soccer. They just played baseball.

The point of contention is whether the talent pool is bigger these days than back then.

Ruth meant more to the growth of the game. He certainly dominated his era. Probaly would have gone down as one of the 10 greatest pitchers in the game had he pitched his whole career.

Say what you will about today's ballparks, Pac Bell isn't a pinball machine. Barry has put up steady numbers for a long period of time. Whenever he finishes, he is a top 5 player all time.

Was Stark right? I believe he is. He needs to remain healthy and productive for four more seasons. Ask Ken Griffey Junior.

There are some of you that keep saying that the talent is watered down. I've been waiting for evidence of this since I first heard the argument ten or so years ago.

Interestingly, Bill James has a section in his New Historical Baaseball Abstract called "Old Ballplayers Never Die". In it he just takes quotes of yesterdays' heroes from throughout baseball history and puts their quotes about how baseball players were not as good or as dedicated as back when they played. The part that's really interesting is tht he can go back aas far as the lte 1900s and find these guys.

Just because something is said often by everybody does not make it true. We have to hold these ideas up to rigorous analysis to find the truth.

Ruth is the greatest ever becuse he was alos the best left-handed pitcher in the league before he became a fulltime outfielder

Ruth's career is actually less valuable because his talents were wasted for years when he was a pitcher (actually that's not entirely true, there is a solid school of thought that the years as a pitcher were what allowed Ruth to refine his swing and hitting philosophy without interference).

Top position players are more valuable than top pitchers. In 2001, would you have rather had Barry Bonds or Randy Johnson on your team?

Ruth is better because if you look at their career numbers, he batted .342 and Bonds has only batted .297 (which also accounts the majority of the difference between their career SLG and OBP, as well as OPS).

In Ruth's day it waas easier to rack up high batting averages. Pitcher's tended to coast through most of their games (which accounts for the difference in CG and innings pitched) and would only bring out their best stuff for crucial game situations. There were hardly any relief specialists and advance scouting was so crude that we would barely call it that today.

I'm not saying that Ruth isn't great. I still think that we have to consider him the greatest. But some of the arguments that are used to support that don't hold water.

The main argument for his greatness is that his raw numbers are amazing. Leaading the league in so many categories, by such a large margin, so many different times can't be argued with. Even if his league was inferior to today's leagues, we couldn't have asked him to do more than dominate them the way that he did.

Thing's aren't equal, however. What Bonds has done over the last two and a half seasons has been the greatest two-and-a-half season stretch ever put together. His numbers in the last two seasons are better than any of Ruth's two seasons. They are better (though it's arguable) than any of Honus Wagner's best seasons. And he did it in what reasonably must be called a significantly superior league to what either of them played in.

Those two seasons alone aren't enough to make him the best ever. But he is reasonable in his assertion that if he catches and surpasses Ruth (while maintaining a level of play to keep him at or near his current pace) he can make that claim.

I think the proliferation of other sports has had less impact on baseball than many people assume. There are certainly a few players who can (and have) been successful at more than one sport, but basketball and football are filled with players who have physical dimensions that pretty much preclude them from being good baseball players (and the reverse is true of many baseball players).

Originally posted by oykib
There are some of you that keep saying that the talent is watered down. I've been waiting for evidence of this since I first heard the argument ten or so years ago.


Ok, if you have 30 teams rather than lets say 24 teams, the talent will be a bit watered down. That is what I mean when I say it.

Originally posted by SteelerFan448
Ok, if you have 30 teams rather than lets say 24 teams, the talent will be a bit watered down. That is what I mean when I say it.

I think whether it's watered down depends on when you're comparing it to. I think it's still watered down compared to 1992, but not compared to 1932.