Does anyone actually believe Barry Bonds is a better hitter than the Babe?

Question

I have a really hard time believing anyone who has done any research actually believes Barry is better, but I'm anxious to see how this online community will respond.

Answer 1

No rational person would conclude that Barry is a better hitter.

Ruth lost 5years worth of at bats because he was busy winning 100games as a pitcher. Even if we're conservative in our estimation and give Ruth 30HRs over those years that's 150- and barry's not going to hit 864.

Ruth played in an era where the ball was not wound as tightly and was therefore considerably harder to hit such a great distance- and he still has the longest bomb ever hit (575ft).

Ruth played in an era where pitches were considerably slower- and simple physics suggests (to anyone of above avg intelligence) that slower pitches are harder to hit out of the park (ask Barroid himself when he commented that he thought he'd "never go deep on Tim Wakefield because he throws so slow").

Ruth lost several dozen home runs to a simple rule change- before 1931 if a ball was hit over the fence fair, but then landed foul the ball was called foul. Had Ruth played the prime of his career by today's rules one baseball historian claims Ruth would have hit 114HRs in 1926.

The year Ruth hit 60HRs he hit more than every other AL TEAM hit.

Ruth may not have played against ***** league players, but the ***** league players also didn't play against him- the greatest hitter in the history of baseball.

Bonds has been leading the league in HRs by 10 in an era where 50 is not rare against diluted (because of expansion) pitching.

It's also important to consider that Ruth, unlike Barry Bonds- won a couple of rings too...

*Just for the sake of argument it's also worth noting that Aaron needed almost 4 seasons worth of at bats more to hit 41 more HRs than Ruth.

Anyone who does not accept that Ruth is the best ever should really not bother commenting on baseball related matters at all.

Babe- a god among men.
Barry- a little, insecured, spoiled boy.

Answer 2

Barry is not better. I am so sick and tired about reading about the Babe being this big fat slow slug that could only hit home runs. BULLS**T!!!
The fact of the matter is that the Babe was a superb athlete.
When I look at the Babes stats two numbers jump off the page for me ; His incredible .342 BA. Most guys will ever see that BA for a season no less a career.
And the fact that the Babe had 136 career triples which are four less than Mays had and 59 more than Bonds currently has
Cut it, slice it, dice it ,do what one will with that statistic but it won't change the simple fact that the Babe was a fast &superb athlete.
Big fat slow slugs don't get triples-they pull up at second out of breath and somewhere buried deep in that.342 BA stat are. a more than a couple of infield hits that Ruth had to be fast to run out.
I know as sure as I'm typing this that somebody is going to say " Y'know Mr. Danger the reason that the Babe got so many triples is that the outfields were so much bigger then and the Babe hit shots in the gaps and THEN ran out of breath going into third. " Really ? So does that mean that if the Babe was hitting on the same sized fields as Bonds does that nobody would care about Bond's attempt at the record because Bonds would still be 50 -70 hr's short of it ?

Answer 3

It is not very hard to determine between such huge generational gaps. As stated above, Bonds has to face better competition, but that is the only thing that Bonds has over Ruth.

Ruth wasn't able to go in the tunnel and watch his ABs and the pitcher on tape. He didn't get to study tape before the game of the pitchers he was going to face. Ruth played part of his career during the "dead" ball era, which they used a ball for quite a bit longer than they do now. Newer baseballs have better response off of a bat. The stadiums were all larger in Ruth's days. He didn't have all the protective equipment that allows Bonds to practically stand on top of the plate, let alone a batter's helmet.

Also, look at the other players in the league at the time and the stats they were putting up. Ruth led the league in HRs 12 seperate years while Bonds only did 2 times.

Not only does all of this mean Ruth was a better hitter, but he still will beat Barry in almost every category that would decide who was better. Ruth will had fewer ABs/HR than Bonds will have had, higher avg., more RBIs, higher runs/game.

Answer 4

Babe played in an era when little training was done by baseball players. Players in the Babe's era would play the season and then take time off rather than working out in the off season.
Bonds plays in an era when fitness and conditioning are critical.
Granted Ruth did pitch, but not often did he do both. He pitched w/ the Sox and hit with the Yankees, doing very little of both at the same time.
Long answer short, the reason Ruth was so dominant was because the opposition was horrible. There were a select few that were truly great ball players (Cobb, Young, Gherig, Wagner, Walter Johnson, etc.) the rest were just average players. Bonds is a better hitter, whether using steroids or not, he's better.

Answer 5

OK honestly I was going to answer your question with I believe that Barry is as good of a hitter as Ruth. However, I looked back at stats and it is very tough to come to that conclusion. By stats alone Ruth has the better Avg by far during his peak. As far as striking out they are about even. So either Ruth is the better hitter and Bonds spent too much time swinging for the fences and instead finding outfielders gloves or stats lie.

Answer 6

hmmm....

Barry Bonds:
750 HR, 1967 RBI, 2191 Runs, 2505 BB, 1517 K, .299 BA
2931 games, 9698 AB

Babe Ruth:
714 HR, 2213 RBI, 2174 Runs, 2062 BB, 1330K, .342 BA
2503 games, 8399 AB

Without a doubt, even if you ignore the steroid talk. Ruth will finish with about 50 less HR in over 1500 less at bats. Runs, RBI, Hits....they are all about the same. Ruth had a BA 40 pts higher. Ruth is by far the better hitter.

Answer 7

I've never liked comparing players of two eras against each other because so many factors have to be weighed..... but since you're not really interested in that... and just public opinion.... I'm gonna vote that the Bambino was a better hitter. Parks were bigger in the Babes day, pitchers were better (no expansion to thin out pitching rosters) in the Babes day, and the ball wasn't as juiced as it is today to please the fans.

but hey.... that's just my opinion.

Answer 8

I've read all of the previous answers.

I'd like to know why so many people want to compare Bonds to Ruth. Why don't you ever see questions asking people to compare Bonds to Aaron? Or Bonds to Mays? Or Bonds to anyone else? Why is it always a comparison between Bonds and Ruth???

As for this question, and for many of the reasons already given by other people, as well as a few more......Ruth was better than Bonds. Period!

Answer 9

Right there, you comparing different players from different era, and that my friend is something you cannot compare.

It's not fair because differen't players pitched for babe, and different players pitched for Bonds.

If you really wanted to compare, you'd have to bring Babe in the Bonds era or bring Bonds into the Babe era.

Answer 10

If they do, they need a checkup from the neck up. Ruth was the greatest of all time. Bonds is merely the game's highest profile performance-enhancing drug user and biggest punk. Ruth is still beloved by America, Barry is reviled, and both richly deserve these reputations.
BTW, if you ever talk to a Bonds fan, you will find that they are so stupid, they couldn't find their *** with both hands. . . .