THE LIST
Five Reasons Why Babe Ruth is Better Than Barry Bonds
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
Two careers that took place roughly three-quarters of a century apart have been displayed side by side for much of this season, as Barry Bonds has pursued Babe Ruth's mark of 714 home runs, second-most in history behind Hank Aaron's 755.
Who's better, Bonds or Ruth? Best we can tell, there is only one legitimate argument for Bonds -- the fact that Ruth played in a segregated era, his career ending 12 years before Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in 1947.
Still, since we can't put them side by side on a baseball field, the only fair comparison is how each player performed against his own era -- and it is no comparison. Bonds was clearly the best hitter of his generation, but Ruth did nothing less than redefine the offensive part of the game.
Sorry, Barry. Here's why the Babe is better:
1. He was a wonderful pitcher. Really, this should end any debate. Not only was Ruth a top pitcher, but to this day he owns the 12th-highest winning percentage (.671) and the 15th-lowest ERA (2.28) among pitchers with at least 100 career decisions.
2. He regularly out-homered entire teams. In 1920, when Ruth hit 54 homers (a record at the time), he out-homered 14 of the other 15 teams in baseball. As late as 1927, when he broke his own record with 60, he out-homered every other AL team.
3. He has the highest OPS (on-base percentage plus slugging percentage) in history. These days, OPS is viewed as the ultimate measure of an offensive player, and no one tops Ruth's career mark of 1.164. Bonds? He's fourth at 1.052.
4. He did it in fewer at-bats. Ruth hit his 714 homers in 8,398 at-bats, for a rate of one homer every 11.76 at-bats. Bonds has needed 9,246 at-bats (through Thursday) to collect his 714, a rate of one every 12.95 at-bats.
5. He was never accused of using steroids.
