Are there any player's autographs that you refuse to collect?

[Lordstan]

It's interesting that the person who made such demonstrative statements as the following is getting bored with the topic.

Your quote was
"Bonds is the best ever, plain and simple, who cares about steroids. Was going to be best ever even before he started juicing. He was a player who did it all. Stole, hit for power, hit for average, strong arm, amazing fielder. There is no one better IMO."

You then followed with
"Bonds IS the most feared hitter of ALL TIME, plain and simple,"

And then you went on to Ruth
"And Ruth being mentioned everywhere as the best baseball player ever, IMO is a JOKE. He was a one dimenshional player, that's it. He ONLY could hit. A god awful fielder, base runner. I don't consider him top 5. When I look at best players ever, I look at players who can do it all, the five tools, Ruth was waaaaaay off from that"

You keep coming back to the difference in defensive WAR as the crux of your argument for Bonds.
Here are a couple of interesting "defensive metrics" for you
1) Ruth has more outfield assists than Bonds(215-173), in approx 500 less games. I guess that kind of kills the Bonds is better because Ruth can't throw theory. Now that I think about it, that theory is kind of silly even without this, considering Ruth was a pitcher many think would've been HOF worthy. Edge to Ruth.

2) Non pitcher fielding percentage - Ruth's was .968 vs the league average of .965. Bonds was .984 when the league avg was .981. So they both fielded .003 above the league avg. You could interpret the data above that Bonds had a much higher percent, but he also had the advantage of the improved glove technology. I think the only way to really compare fairly is to compare them both to the league at the time. Even

3) Range Factor per game. Ruth - 2.07 vs league avg 2.35. Bonds - 2.02 vs League avg 2.22. Bonds slightly better.

4) OF Putouts/g. Ruth 1.98. Bonds 1.96 Ruth slightly better. You could use total putouts as well. Bonds has about 1200 more than in approx 600 more games played. Bonds is 7th all time. Ruth is 44th. Fun fact: All time PO leader Willie Mays has 1300 more than Bonds in 40 less games.

5) Errors. Ruth 164 or 0.07/g. Bonds 97 or 0.03/g. Edge to Bonds.

6) OF double plays Ruth 45. Bonds 25. Edge to Ruth.

7) Defensive WAR(Your favorite stat) Ruth 7.4. Bonds 20.4. Edge Bonds. So in a 22yr career Bonds defense was responsible for 13 more games won than Ruth. WOW. 3/5ths of a game more per year.

There are a hundred more examples of fielding stats I could give you that would go back and forth between Ruth and Bonds.
It seems when you dig deeper into the statistics it appears Ruth and Bonds are pretty close from a fielding standpoint.
There are a hundred other things to consider interpreting this info. Bonds had so many advantages in physical training compared to what players in Ruth's day had. Bonds was a better athlete. Ruth was a better baseball player.

5 tools
Run -Bonds SB 514 to 143
Throw -Ruth (More Assists and Dp from outfield, plus was a pitcher) Bonds had avg arm
Hit for avg - Ruth .342 vs .298 (would've been abigger difference if no juice. Bonds avg prior to age 32 .278. After .314. Hmm)
Hit for Power - Ruth (Only after steroids did Barry approach Ruth in the Power categories)
Fielder -Bonds

So your original assertation about Ruth being one dimensional is obviously incorrect. Additionally, I think the numbers show pretty conclusively that Bonds wasn't going to come close to Ruth's power or average numbers before he was juicing.

I also have grown a bit tired of this debate. I have attempted to show you clear evidence in the statistics of why a group of us responded to your statements with shock.

If stats aren't enough, them perhaps the last evidence of their place in history is their legacy. Babe Ruth went down as the man who both saved the game after the Black Sox scandal and revolutionized the way the game was played in regards to what could be done with power. Barry Bonds will go down in history as a great player who was feared to pitch to because he cheated by taking steroids and everything ball he did hit after that went for miles.

I think the most unfortunate part of this thread is that Barry robbed all of us baseball enthusiats of having a real conversation and comparison as to whether he was the greatest. Once he took them, all comparison is theoretical, because there is no way to tell what he would've done.

[Mr. Zipper]

Thanks for the very informative posts, LordStan. Fascinating.

[Lordstan]

No problem Steve. Glad you liked them
All the stats are pulled directly from Baseball Reference website.

[David Atkatz]

Terrific work, Mike. If he could, I'm sure the Babe would hoist a cold one for ya!

[Lordstan]

David,
I think you meant me?! If so, Thanks.
What I wouldn't give to hoist a cold one with the Babe.
That would be an unforgettable experience.

Mark

[Scott Garner]

Boy Mike and Mark,
Those were two huge posts! Excellent points that were defended beautifully.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Yes, it's getting boring because it's the same repetitive information over and over and over again. Again, you can quote this and alllllll the other times I have said so, this is my opinion. When did my opinion affect you so much? Am I hurting your feelings by saying Babe's not the best? Who do YOU think is? Hell, Pete Rose can be a solid answer, if you want to go by stats, most hits over, how isn't he.

Your whole basis towards your point is stats. Number, number and more numbers. While that makes sense, you're missing a huge key importance. ERA. When Ruth played, there were no scouting reports, there were not nearly as many team meetings for situational aspects, hell they didn't really have too many scouts. Pitchers didn't throw as hard, runners didn't run as fast, fielders didn't have as strong of an arm or range, mechanics weren't a focus as they were today.

In saying that, Bonds played in a tougher generation of players. He played with and against...better players. Were there extreme shifts to take advantage of this advanced scouting. Mound height was a difference. What does it tell you that Ruth has more inside the park home runs, simple, players weren't as good as they are now. In 8 season, Ruth had more triples than stolen bases, Ruth's highest single season total of triples is 16, which is ridiculous. Jose Reyes had 16 last year. Ruth has more triples than stolen bases, what does that tell you about the era? Ruth had twice as many triples in his career as Bonds.

Now, when you have advanced scouting reports, specific situations, extreme shifts, strike zone analysis, relief match-ups etc., you honestly cannot say now who had the more difficult time playing. Bonds played against better players, and it's not close. Half, if not more of players in that era wouldn't make it to AA ball. If Ruth were to play in modern times, he would not hit 500 home runs. No way, no how. The pitchers today would EMBARRASS him. Ruth would not hold his own, no chance. All of his hitting would be exploited, holes in his swing, where to pitch him, what to pitch him, what he chases. Bonds in Ruth's era, Bonds would obliterate and dwarf all his numbers. Player against a weaker competition, screw steroids, he wouldn't need them then, he didn't need them now. Bonds in his era, if you want to do adjusted numbers, I'm sure the numbers are there for ya, since that's what you go all about.

Have a good night, this is boring, waste of my time, because it's my opinion. All you had to say was, "well, I respect your opinion, but I feel you're wrong..." I totally respect yours, and other members' because I know what I said, people will not agree with it. I am not going to insult you or any other members on it, because they are your opinions, and you guys can say whatever you would like, that's your freedom. We both got our pieces in, and I respect all the time you spent on this, but my opinion stands, I may be wrong, and I don't care. But it has been fun, insightful, and educational looking deeper into everything...

See you on other posts.

[Scott Garner]

HOF,

You also have made some good points and I appreciate the fact that you have your own opinion (See, we can play nice) .

I mean no disrespect, but...

I'd like to make a few small points to make before you grab your ball and go home:

I forget who brought up the point, but I don't think that we can diminish the massive changes in the equipment of The Big Bam's era vs. now.

Babe's era = small, primitive gloves that really lent themselves to players making more errors than now. There can't be any debate that the substantial improvements made in modern glove design have given position players advantages over players from Babe's era. Babe played during part of the deadball era. It's no secret that the crappy balls of his era weren't designed to fly out of the park like the tightly wound rabbit balls of today.

Barry's era = Modern gloves, rabbit balls, lowering the mound height for opposing pitchers all helped Barry and the modern players. Perhaps a lesser point, but what about the alleged advantages of Barry's maple bats vs. the ash bats of Babe's era?

Just wondering if this is really a fair comparison at all... Both were excellent players of their own eras, no doubt.

Barry the superior player?? I'm not so sure about that...

Just my opinion...

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

David,
I think you meant me?! If so, Thanks.
What I wouldn't give to hoist a cold one with the Babe.
That would be an unforgettable experience.

Mark

I certainly did mean you, Mark. Bit of a senior moment, there.

[slidekellyslide]

The Steroided Bonds was a lazy outfielder...I once saw him in a game watch a fly ball go over his head and hit off the fence and he didn't move because he thought it was a home run.

And speaking of overrated outfielders I thought Paul O'Neill and all those Gold Gloves was ridiculous...anyone can play errorless ball in the outfield if they never take chances. I can't say I watched every game he ever played, but it sure seemed that every time I did watch him play he let a lot of balls hit the ground that a good outfielder would have gotten to or tried to get to.