Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc
"mediocre" player? COME ON Boss! He may (probably) be an ass. He may not deserve the record. But mediocre? The juice may help, but the fact is he has hit 713 of them, that ain't in dispute. I could go to the plate with an IV of the stuff running wide open in both arms and not hit 7 in 20 years. Cal Ripken Jr. could juice all day long and not hit 713. The man can play ball.
|
That may well be so, but if you are going to compare Ruth and feel that he would have a weakness for the same excesses, might he not also have profited from better training, treatment, care, etc.?
Look at Ruth's record, as the below article does, I think that you will see that the Babe was an outstanding player in many aspects, Bonds seems to have had one singularly great season. Natural, or chemically enhanced?
Gotta love the intro paragraph.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12522172/
"Ruth better than Bonds in every way
Babe was superior hitter, won 7 World Series — and was great pitcher
Babe Ruth may be passed by Barry Bonds on the career home run chart, but Ruth was a superior player to Bonds, writes NBCSports.com's Michael Ventre.
COMMENTARY
By Michael Ventre
NBCSports.com contributor
Updated: 1:26 p.m. ET May 8, 2006
I disagree that Barry Bonds couldn’t carry Babe Ruth’s jockstrap. Because of a unique but controversial training regimen, Bonds is strong enough to carry Ruth’s jockstrap, even with the Babe still in it.
But that’s not really one of the feats of power that a baseball fan realistically would point to in determining if Barry Bonds is worthy of cracking Ruth’s 714 home-run plateau. Nor should it be.
Simply put, Bonds isn’t the baseball player that Ruth was, nor did he have the impact on the game that Ruth did.
Let’s not forget that Ruth was in the process of establishing himself as a Hall of Fame pitcher before he became a slugger. In six seasons, from 1914 to 1919, Ruth went 89-46. He posted records of 18-8, 23-12 and 24-13 in a span from 1915 to 1917. In ’17, he had an unthinkable 35 complete games in 38 starts. Aside from his 1914 rookie year, when he only had three starts, he never registered an ERA above 3.00 during his prime pitching years in Boston. Ruth’s pitching was the primary reason why the Red Sox won the World Series in 1916 and 1918. He posted 29 consecutive scoreless innings of World Series play, a record that stood for 42 years.
possible to compare and haggle over batting statistics between Ruth and Bonds for days, weeks, months or years. Some of the most pertinent are these:
Bonds became baseball’s first 400-400 player in 1998 — 400 homers and 400 stolen bases.
Ruth led the American League in home runs 12 times and in slugging percentage 13 times.
Bonds hit a record 73 home runs in 2001. But that was a career anomaly and most certainly achieved through enhancement. He had never hit more than 49 before or after that.
Ruth hit 60 home runs in 1927. But he hit 50 or more three other times, and 40 or more seven other times.
Perhaps the more important aspects of this argument come under the heading of intangibles.
Babe Ruth and Barry Bonds were the most celebrated players of their times. But Bonds is more of a negative and villainous force. He takes the field with a chip on his shoulder and a surly scowl, and while immensely popular with the fans in San Francisco, everywhere else the sentiment ranges from mild dislike to outright loathing.
The Babe certainly attracted his share of boo-birds. Every great player who threatens to wreak havoc on an opposing team surely does. But overall the affect of Ruth’s presence was largely positive. He personally resurrected the national pastime after the Black Sox scandal of 1919. He transformed the game from one in which runs were routinely scratched out into one that featured the electricity and excitement of the long ball. Yankee Stadium is still referred to as “The House That Ruth Built.”
Bonds definitely seems to thrive by sticking it to critics. But if he had played today, Ruth would have channeled the Michael Jordan level of hero-worship that is present today into even more extraordinary achievements, because his ego would accept no less.
But perhaps the biggest difference between Ruth and Bonds comes in the area of jewelry. Ruth played in 10 World Series, winning seven. Bonds played in one, winning none. Maybe it’s unfair to compare what Ruth had around him in Boston and New York with Bonds’ supporting casts in Pittsburgh and San Francisco.
But Bonds’ postseason numbers overall don’t measure up to Ruth: .245 average, 9 homers, 24 RBI in 48 games, with a slugging percentage of .503. And much of that was polished by his one breakout 2002 postseason. Ruth batted a whopping .326 in 41 World Series games, with 15 home runs, 33 RBI and a slugging percentage of .744. Even if you cut Bonds some slack for not having a Lou Gehrig in the lineup with him all those years, it still looks like he’s been slacking off in the postseason.
And last but not least, Major League Baseball announced it will not have any official celebration should Bonds tie or pass Ruth at 714. That’s just the latest reminder that the bigger-than-life qualities associated with Bonds may have gotten bigger in an unnatural way.
Even without substances, Bonds had a brilliant career, but Ruth had the more legitimate and impressive career.
Yes, Bonds could have carried the Babe’s jockstrap, but in every other significant way he doesn’t measure up."