I agree with you - and I think Babe Ruth was the best player who ever played the game.
2007-05-14 07:44:14
·
answer #1
·
answered by TheEconomist 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I will defend Ruth on most of the points the others did not mention, and that is this.
A. He was a pitcher, before you blow Barry and Hank's horns, how many pitchers do you see hitting those kinds of numbers? Don't be knocking Ruth because he didn't have the advantage of more games like they do now and the benefit of a strike zone, GO READ YOUR RULE BOOK, that was enforced back in the day that they do not enforce now for the purposes of inducing more scoring, much the same as professional basketball does now.
B. Babe Ruth played in an era where there wasn't medical advancements that could repair a knee or even know what Tommy John surgery was, let alone look at dieting and have scouting tapes to watch. All these add up to advantages that the players in the past never had any kind of access to let alone thought about it. They simply played for the love of the game, something sorely lacking in players of today's "show me the money" attitude players and it makes me SICK.
I am a Boston fan if you all want to know, but I give credit where it is due. Noone can compare the past to today. It's just speculation and unfair to try to compare players of different era's and speculate on who would have done what. My opinion, as I really can't say something bad about Hank, I think he was a classy player, but in so far as Bonds, he probably would not have lasted as many seasons Ruth did, because he would not get paid what he does now, and he wouldn't have all these doctors all over him. I think the majority of players today are babies, cry about money and worry about it too much instead of just shutting the you know what up and PLAY.
2007-05-14 08:19:58
·
answer #2
·
answered by I am Legend 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Ruth may be the homerun king in terms of AB's to HR ratio and overall power during his era but Bonds is the best player ever in terms of offense as a whole. Putting aside the steroid situation Bonds is still a freak when it comes to the stats he has put up considering he is the only player ever to have 500 HR's and 500 steals and no other player even has 400 HR's and 400 steals. Ruth on the otherhand was a HR machine IN HIS ERA, he played agaisnt pitchers which are not half as skilled as those today or even when Hank played and the parks were much smaller. Putting the negatives aside I do agree that in terms of HR's Ruth is the man because that was his trademark Bonds may break the record but his baseball prowess is not limited to hitting the long ball or he wouldn't have won the most MVP awards ever.
2007-05-14 07:48:51
·
answer #3
·
answered by niccas9 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Back in Babe Ruth's day he saw alot more pitches then Bonds.Back then the pitchers wanted to challenge the guys like Ruth and the managers gave them the green light cause thats what the fans came to see was the big hitting and pitching showdowns.With baseball now a multimillion dollar industry theres no more caring what the fans want to see you gotta do the smart thing and pitch around guys like Bonds cause its more business like then it was back then and winning is the only thing that matters no matter how you get it.If Bonds saw as many fastballs as Ruth did he could have matched that output.Instead of being intentionally walked for most of the second half of his career.
2007-05-14 10:34:17
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Good question. I think that you have to consider pitching as well. How may 97 mh fastballs do you think Ruth saw.
Or a twelve to sixer with a 3 foot hook. Its hard to say. But as being the best ball player who ever lived you'd be way wrong in my opinion. I really dont think it was that hard to make the majors in the days of Ruth, but that's just me.
2007-05-14 07:54:36
·
answer #5
·
answered by live it up 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
The real homerun king is Hank Aaron, it may have taken him longer but he had the longevity to do it so he is the home run king. He will remain the home run king until someone truly beats him. I will not recognize Bonds if he does it because he is a cheater but whoever beats it after that I will recognize.
2007-05-14 08:10:27
·
answer #6
·
answered by Chris 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
how many walks did Babe Ruth have compared to Barry Bonds??
How many hits did Babe Ruth have compared to Hank Aaron?
2007-05-14 07:45:49
·
answer #7
·
answered by Thomas 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Ruth played in an era where he was literally served meat balls to bring fans to stadiums. Aaron just played a long time. I think if you look at the power numbers to date, McGwire is still the king. He hit 49 homers as a rookie. Sure he pumped a bit in his veins but he was still a homerun guy when he did it unlike Bonds... biggest joke ever.
2007-05-14 08:01:06
·
answer #8
·
answered by bs b 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
As far as we know, the real HR king is Sadaharu Oh, with 868.
Then again, we don't have records at all from Cuban baseball in the last 40+ years, and we have far from complete recoreds of the ***** Leagues. So, it's entirely possible that even Oh's 868 HR's isn't the all-time record. It may well belong to Josh Gibson, who died just months before the he could see the end of the intitutionalized stupidity that kept him out of MLB.
2007-05-14 09:26:56
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Aaron
2007-05-14 08:38:25
·
answer #10
·
answered by MAtt 3
·
0⤊
0⤋