Bonds hits no. 73! (1 Viewer)

[Jack Briggs]

Okay, Joseph--put away those reference books sitting next to your computer!
Ruth was unique--started as a pitcher in Boston, got traded to New York, and then proceded to rewrite the books on offensive play. Then he retired to that other Boston club (which now resides in Atlanta)and wasted away somewhat gracefully.
Of course, he slowed down with age (and weight and food and drink). But, man, a pitcher who could hit home runs with seeming impunity? How can you beat that?
Getting back to the present, though: Don't you agree that the records are becoming meaningless in this day and age? I mean, Barry Bonds has hit 72 homers--and it just doesn't mean as much as it once would. (I must confess: I also agreed with the controversial notion of putting an asterisk by Roger Maris's 1961 total in the record books.)
------------------

 

[Joseph S]

quote: Getting back to the present, though: Don't you agree that the records are becoming meaningless in this day and age? I mean, Barry Bonds has hit 72 homers--and it just doesn't mean as much as it once would. (I must confess: I also agreed with the controversial notion of putting an asterisk by Roger Maris's 1961 total in the record books.)[/quote]
Agreed, but the asterisk belongs next to Ruth now-a-days seeing as Maris' feat is 7th best now and the 162 games is the norm for players with plus 60HR. I think 70 was important, because McGwire proved it was possible when all others felt it couldn't be done. Good luck to the guy aiming for 80!
[Edited last by Joseph S on October 06, 2001 at 03:43 PM]

 

[Mitty]

I remember Freddy McGriff winning the AL HR title back in '89 with a whopping 36 dingers.
He then became one of only a handful of players to win the HR title in both leagues when he won the NL title in '92 with another whopping tally of 35.
Bond has hit more home runs this year than McGriff hit in both of his league leading years.
Baseball just hasn't been the same since the '93 expansion, IMO. Prior to that, it was an abberation for a player to hit 40HR, 100RBI was a terrific accomplishment and a good pitching staff could have a team ERA under 4.00. Now, you've got middle infielders putting up numbers that were reserved for big sluggers a decade ago.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Yeah, I think the piss-poor pitching is the most significant factor in the increase in power hitting numbers that we are experiencing in the game of baseball now. But you have to also admit that we have some extremely talented and well-conditioned athletes playing baseball who feast on "mistakes" and can do such damage over the long haul of the 162-game season, so I also give credit to the conditioning and the exploiting of their abilities to the fullest.

 

[KeithH]

Shayne said:

Too bad that arrogant piece of shit broke the record.

Can anyone say 'anger management'? Take a deep breath. It will all be O.K.

------------------
My:
HT Pics ; Equipment List ; DVD Collection ; LD Collection
KeithH: Saving the Home Theater World Before Bedtime

 

[Vincent Matis]

He just hit n°73 a few minutes ago...(off LA's Springer)!
Vincent
------------------

AFI Top 100 Films Home Theater Forum Challenge
AFI Movies Left To Watch: 34 33 32 31 30: Sound Of Music (3.5 out of 4)

 

[James D S]

The power numbers are fantastic, but they declined over his final 8 years. If only he had continued pitching.

Isn't it funny that in a conversation about the best, someone is denying Ruth because he didn't pitch enough! That's one of the funniest things I've heard.
Not only does the man still have pitching records in Boston's books, but he was a man among men in the HR catagory. But it's not good enough that he eclipsed an entire league in HR's, but he also had to pitch more!?! LOL
Only with Ruth can we even have an argument about someone ruling the game from both sides, hitting and pitching.

 

[Ashley Seymour]

Love him or hate him, Bonds still had one of the greatest seasons for a hitter of all time.
We have to drag out the statistics for Ruth to even come close to a comparison.
When Maris hit 61 to breat the Bambinos record, he only bested him in one area.
What Bonds has done is to set several records, some probably even more impressive than the home run record.
His slugging percentage of 863 beats Ruth's of 847 and 846 in 1921 and 22.
He set the new walk record of 177, again beating Ruth's record of 170 set in 23.
He homered once per 6.52 at bats, a significant improvement of McGuire's record of 7.27.
His on base percentage of 515 was the best in the majors since 1957 and the best in the National League since 1900.
I don't believe homers are cheap. Ruth benefited from a highly juiced ball that -surprise- was juiced because he was hitting homers. Ruth's homer and hitting records really cheapened the value of the homer that were the norm for the time.
McGriff hit 39 homes in 1989. Yeah, and Barry hit 19 that year. So where is McGriff today? He is similar in age to Barry. If the ball is so rubbery, why has he not benefited and hit in the 50-60 range these last few years?
Barry had a season for the ages. Too bad, he can't have a personalty to match.
------------------

 

[Joseph S]

quote: But it's not good enough that he eclipsed an entire league in HR's, but he also had to pitch more!?! LOL[/quote]
If you want to be the absolute/eternal best at what you do, then you've got to work for it. He could have settled it once and for all, but he gave up pitching.
He wasn't a great pitcher, but if he had won 200 or so games it would forever have set him apart. I don't believe ever had any Bos Braves or Sox records for pitching. Cy Young pretty much had them all. Pedro and Roger have over taken those ones as of now. For example, Pedro struck out over 300 in '99 which is almost 2/3 of what Ruth did in his entire career. Charles Radborn won almost 2/3 of Ruth's career win total in one year.
Thorpe and Diedrickson(bad spelling) proved they could excel in a variety of areas. Michael showed he is decent in baseball and golf, but not good enough for the pros. Ruth tried to excel in both parts of his sport. He wasn't a very good fielder, he was a good pitcher for 3.5 years, and a prolific hitter. I feel guys like Mays, ARod, and perhaps a Bonds* or Griffey* are better players than Ruth. They can/could do it all and that's worth more to me than big power numbers. I consider Ruth to be a better version of Hank Aaron. That will get you in my top 5 ever, but just not the best ever.
*Will take 5 more years of great numbers to qualify, ARod lucks out as he came in so young and won't need to play til he's 45.
Edited:I can't spell Babe D-Z's last name, but I had better spell Michael correctly. So I changed that one.
[Edited last by Joseph S on October 08, 2001 at 02:04 AM]

 

[Evan Case]

Joseph,
There's no question one could successfully argue that Bonds' recent season was the equal or superior to Ruth's in 1920 & 1921.
But I can't agree with your assertion that Mays, ARod, Bonds or Griffey are better overall. Not only did Ruth exceed them powerwise (with a concession - we'll have to see how Bonds and Griffey end up), he was also a much better hitter averagewise. I don't have an almanac by me, but isn't Ruth in the top 10 for lifetime AVG? Toss in the knowledge that he didn't actually get going as a hitter for about five years and his stock rises more.
Bringing up Ruth's less-than-golden final years is kind of moot, as almost every athlete who plays past his prime experiences the same thing (Mays, anyone?).
You seem to discount Ruth's excellent pitching prowess in comparison to Mays' and the others' fielding. But how would those guys fare on the mound? They would probably be nowhere near as successful. Perhaps you disagree, but I find pitching to be more important than fielding in the overall scheme of the game. A guy who can hit and field exceptionally is well-respected. A guy who can hit and pitch exceptionally earns a chapter titled Beethoven and Cezanne in a Ken Burns documentary.
If you're going to argue pure athleticism, then I'm with you - Mays, ARod, Bonds, Griffey, and a thousand other guys are/were in better "shape" than Ruth's Yankee days (although photos from his early ball-playing days indicate a muscular-looking youth). But Ruth is still the best "baseball player."
And though it shouldn't be factored in with athleticism, Ruth overwhelming public popularity can't be discounted. He did more for his game than probably any athlete in history (maybe Jackie Robinson, MJ or Tiger) - certainly more than Mays, ARod, Bonds or Griffey.
But that's just my take.
Evan
------------------
"* * * * * * * * * * * * *" - Buster Keaton
S&S: 16 films left
Most recent: Paisan

 

[Brian Perry]

I don't believe homers are cheap. Ruth benefited from a highly juiced ball that -surprise- was juiced because he was hitting homers. Ruth's homer and hitting records really cheapened the value of the homer that were the norm for the time.

But unlike today, when many people are hitting 50+ homers, Ruth hit 52 in a year when the next highest was 19.
------------------
Home Theater Pictures

 

[James D S]

Ruth's homer and hitting records really cheapened the value of the homer that were the norm for the time.

So that must be why no one came even close to challenging Ruth (during Ruth's time) for a majority of those years. Come on! There was Ruth and then no one.
Juiced ball? Sure - But not nearly as tight as it is now.
Today, shortstops are leading teams in HRs!
Just look at the opposite field numbers... Oh nevermind.

 

[Jeff_A]

The only way to compare players across generations is to compare them against the very players of their era. Considering that proposal, Babe Ruth is the greatest player in baseball history. BAR NONE!
------------------
The Dark Tower

Fearless Vampire Killers (1967)?

 

[Joseph S]

The only way to compare players across generations is to compare them against the very players of their era. Considering that proposal, Babe Ruth is the greatest player in baseball history. BAR NONE!

So according to this theory ARod is the best ever, because he is the best of his generation or Cy Young is the best ever because he was the best of his generation.
I don't get it. All your theory does is pit the best players in one era against others of that same era. ??

Even if it changes to battle of the best of an era. What defines an era? Guys come into the leauge all the time, there are no cutoffs. Pitting Cy Young v. Shoeless Joe v. Ruth v. Mays v. Williams v. Drysdale v. Gibson v. Mantle v. Bonds v. Griffey v. Pedro v. ARod v. ...
It's impossible. In the end you get these sickos putting a horse in the list.

 

[Ashley Seymour]

Bonds had a season for the ages and it compares with the greatest of all time. Still, Ruth in 1920 and 1921 surpassed these figures. Sure Bonds had gobs more homers, a few more walks, slugging average, but Ruth hit .378, scored 177 runs, had 171 RBI's and the fat man even hit 16 triples! He was regarded as being a sure fielder, but who knows about his range.
I would still regard Ruth as the greatest player of all time and though the modern players can match or esceed his totals for a year or two, they have a long way to go to be as consistant.
Yeah, the ball may be a little "peppier" today, but the reason Ruth was hitting all those homers was because baseball livened it up around 1920. They had done so around 1910 with a resultant increase in offense. Same in 1920. By 1930 baseball was all offense. Way more scoring than even today.
My comment about Ruth cheapening the homer was to put in perspective his accomplishments. Which were awsome, but within a few years, there were comtemporaries of Ruth who matched his power numbers. Maybe not breaking his homer total, but coming close. Hack Wilson, Jimmie Fox, Hank Greenburg, and even that "middle infielder" Rogers Hornsby followed Ruth very closely. In 1922 he hit 401, had 250 hits, but also 42 homers. Those totals for a second baseman were not typical in his day or today. Let's not demean the accomplishments of Alex Rodgriguez or the other "middle infielders" who are putting up awsome numbers. These guys are great athletes for any era. A-Rod would have had Ruth-Hornsby numbers had he played in 1920-1922.
Home runs look cheap today, but why should they be any cheaper than when Ruth played? The bar has been set higher.

 

[James D S]

It's impossible. In the end you get these sickos putting a horse in the list.

True, true...
As far as that Hornsby, Wilson, etc. nonsense - Not even close. Not even close...
[said in my most polished 'sports-know-it-all-arm-chair-quarterback-beer-drinkin-funion-laden' voice. Sports arguments bring out all the pretentiousness. You know how it goes. ]

 

[James D S]

Oh yeah, and let's not forget who has the rings, baby!
One thing above all else defines greatness for me - when all is said and done - How you perform in the clutch. And to that, end of argument.
[Edited last by James D S on October 09, 2001 at 01:42 AM]

 

[Jeff_A]

Joseph,
My point was to compare how each player dominated the rest of the field from their playing era. What we might be able to measure is the gap in statistics between number one and the next closest competitor. While A-Rod is a great player, he doesn't appear to dominate the key offensive statistics like RUTH did in his time.
Just a thought...
------------------
The Dark Tower

Fearless Vampire Killers (1967)?