Bonds Vs. Ruth

KG2422

Mentor
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
986
Location
Texas
Very interesting article from the Washington Times. It confronts people who claim Ruth's records are somehow tarnished because he didn't face Blacks in Major League play. It tells of a few exhibitions where he did.

http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20060414-115838-4214r.htm

Bonds vs. Ruth
By Thom Loverro
April 15, 2006


So far this season, Barry Bonds isn't exactly sprinting to pass Babe Ruth's 714 career home runs. But it has been the focus by those who consider Ruth's 714 number second to Hank Aaron's 755 career home runs some sort of symbolic statement.
Which is fine with those guardians of Ruth's legacy, since the attention on Bonds only has served to raise interest in the Babe.
"We've gotten more calls about the Babe now than ever," said Mike Gibbons, executive director of the Babe Ruth Birthplace and Museum in Baltimore.
But part of that attention by Bonds' supporters has been because they regard Ruth's home run totals as counterfeit, because he played at a time when the game was segregated.
So what does that premise really mean? Are we to believe that major league baseball would have been populated with black ballplayers when Ruth played? Figures show that in 1975, the height of black ballplayer participation in the major leagues, 27 percent of all ballplayers were black. So at the very most, one out of every four players could have been black if there had been no color barrier, though it is a stretch to think it would have been in the time that Ruth played.
Of those, how many would have been pitchers? How many really would have had an impact on Babe Ruth's home run total? Or are Bonds' supporters claiming that black players were so much better than white players, that the Negro Leaguers would have simply reduced Ruth to a quivering mass of jelly at the plate?
Are they claiming that black players were just naturally superior to the white players, and even the most mediocre black pitcher would have dominated white hitters? I hope they are not claiming that we are talking about some sort of super class of ballplayers, here.
If not, then we are just talking about ballplayers -- some very good, like Dick Redding and Willie Foster, and some not so good. And when Ruth did face Negro Leaguers in barnstorming tours, that is how he did -- sometimes well, sometimes not so well.
According to research by Negro League historians, Ruth faced Redding once in a 1922 game and struck out three times. Another time against Redding, Ruth had two home runs. How much, really, would the presence of black ballplayers have affected Ruth's numbers? I guess as much as those who hate what Ruth represents to them want them to.
These matchups also illustrate a distinct difference between the perceived benefit of Ruth playing against a segregated field and Bonds using steroids. Ruth had no choice in the matter. The color line was not drawn by him, but by the owners. Bonds and any other player who used performance-enhancing drugs made a conscious decision to use them. And now Bonds may face the legal consequences of that decision with a grand jury now examining whether he committed perjury when he testified in 2003 that he never used steroids.
In fact, research has shown that if it were up to Ruth, he would have welcomed the presence of black players in the major leagues. He often played against Negro Leaguers in barnstorming games.
"From the research I have done in this area, all signs point to Ruth having befriended the black ballplayers and enjoyed playing against them," Gibbons said. "I think if it had been left to Babe, the racial barriers would have been broken down many years before 1947 [the year Jackie Robinson broke the color line]."
Since that color line was broken, the number of black players in the major leagues rose to the high of 27 percent in 1975 and been falling steadily since to a low of about 9 percent now.
If Babe Ruth deserves a race asterisk because he didn't face black players, then does Barry Bonds deserve at least a half-race asterisk (in addition to the steroid asterisk) because the number of black players has declined during his time? Since Aaron faced more black pitchers than Bonds, should he have an asterisk that shows his 755 home runs meant even more?
No.
Nobody needs any asterisks. Whatever Barry Bonds does, it will never diminish what either Hank Aaron or Babe Ruth did, and people always will recognize that. And no matter what Barry Bonds does, all the reality programming in the world isn't going to change what he did, and people always will recognize that as well.
 
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
388
Location
North Carolina
Good article.

Bonds v. Ruth is a ridiculous discussion.

What made Ruth so towering is the rate at which he hit homers, as compared to his contemporaries. Ruth had seasons where he hit as many home runs as entire TEAMS. That type of power - in relative terms - is unmatched in history. Bonds plays in an era where shortstops routinely hit 20 home runs. Case closed. There is no comparison worth making here.
 
Joined
May 1, 2006
Messages
461
In addition to not having steroids available Ruth faced a few other disadvantages.

1. He played part of his career in the dead ball era.
2. The 'rule book strike zone was any where over the plate and between the top of the knee and the bottom of the shoulder so the strike zone Ruth contended with was twice the size of the one Bond faced for most of his carrer ( it is now in its second seadon of knee to slightly over the waist ).
3. Umpires would call a pitch on the inside corner a strike. Most will not do this today. In the old days if a pitch in the strike zone hit a batter he got a called strike and bruise not a free trip to first.
4. Not only was doctoring the ball an accepted practice in Ruth's day for part of his career it was not a rule violation.
5. All bats were made from white ash which is softer thatn the hard rock maple and occasional mahgony bats some players use today.
 

pt.guard2

Guru
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
147
Also, as pointed out on another thread, Ruth was an outstanding pitcher as well, so any comparison between Bonds and Ruth as an all around baseball player is ludicrous, since no one else but Ruth had that combination of skills.
 

white is right

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 16, 2006
Messages
10,022
There is no comparison to Ruth when you count the steroids and the pitching. If Bonds were clean then you could argue he had more power, but he wasn't. Also Ruth was on his way to being a hall of fame pitcher........
 

genius

Newbie
Joined
Mar 18, 2006
Messages
5
Location
Massachusetts
How many people here know that out of all the home runs that barry bonds hit ... only 35 of them went over 450 feet ... ruth had 245 home runs over 450 feet ... and when u consider that bonds has about 800 more at bats then ruth its obvious who is the greater power hitter ... ruth is the greatest !!!
 
G

Guest

Guest
quit trying to break it down and make excuses. bonds is about to beat ruths record. some of the white hitters don't have many home runs over 245 feet. but lets not forget hank aaron is better than both of them.
 

KG2422

Mentor
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
986
Location
Texas
reggien said:
quit trying to break it down and make excuses. bonds is about to beat ruths record. some of the white hitters don't have many home runs over 245 feet. but lets not forget hank aaron is better than both of them.

It took Aaron many more at bats than it did Ruth. Same goes for Bonds. Heck, Ruth didn't work out much less take designer steroids.
 

Gary

Mentor
Joined
Dec 28, 2004
Messages
1,050
Hey Reggien learn to spell dummy.Bonds is a racist,doper and liar.Homer for Homer Ralp Kiner was better.Kiner led the NL in HR's more then Bonds,Mays or Aaron.Ckeck the record books!!
 
G

Guest

Guest
its called a typo prick. he may be a doper, racist and a liar. but he's about to hit 715 home runs.
smiley32.gif
doesn't matter about kiner because he doesn't have more than bonds, ruth, or aaron.
 

Gary

Mentor
Joined
Dec 28, 2004
Messages
1,050
Your whole life is a typo dummy-didn't you go to school at all!!Bonds can hit 1,000 HR's it won't matter-the boy had to cheat to do it.Without his dope he was just another boy!!
 

Gary

Mentor
Joined
Dec 28, 2004
Messages
1,050
Hey dummy-here are some facts for you!Mark McGwire has the best HR ratio ever-one every 10.6 times at bat!Ruth is second with one every 11 times at bat.Bonds did not hit over 30 HR's until his 5th year[when he found steriods could help him complete with White men].Aaron never hit more then 47 in one year!!Give it up Zack-Godking whoever you are this week!!
 

KG2422

Mentor
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
986
Location
Texas
These guys always talk about typos. If this guy had a brain he'd take it out and play with it.
 

Poacher

Mentor
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
943
One thing that has gauled me tremendously during this whole Bonds sideshow is the pass the media has given him regarding his lack of a championship. Remember how they treated Dan Marino? Like Bonds, Marino had terrific numbers (without steroids and playing against blacks) but no championship ring. The media hounded (and continues to hound him to this day) about whether or not he is fulfilled or if he regrets not having won a superbowl or if he thinks his numbers are somehow tainted because he didn't win "the big one." Where are these criticisms of Bonds? He hasn't won %$#@ and not one of these spineless reporters says a word about it. PFFFT. Joke.
 

Don Wassall

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
30,319
Location
Pennsylvania
Good point, Poacher. Bonds is one of the biggest post-season choke artists in baseball history. Bondswas in postseason play in '90, '91, '92, '97, '00, '02 and '03. 2002 was the only time he hit over .261. In five of those seven seasons he went homerless. Take away his strong '02 postseason and he has 1 HR in 31 postseason games!


The Pirates' heartbreaking loss to the Braves in the 9th inning of Game 7 in '92 occurred because Bonds made a pathetic ten-hop throw to home plate that allowed Sid Bream -- one of the slowest runners ever -- to score from second base on Francisco Cabrera's single to left.


George Steinbrenner dubbed Dave Winfield "Mr. May" because of how small he came up in the 1981 World Series, but the nickname could easily apply to Bonds.
 

Poacher

Mentor
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
943
"The Pirates' heartbreaking loss to the Braves in the 9th inning of Game 7 in '92 occurred because Bonds made a pathetic ten-hop throw to home plate that allowed Sid Bream -- one of the slowest runners ever -- to score from second base on Francisco Cabrera's single to left."

Great memory sir. Didn't he hit like .150 or something in that series? His performance was abysmal. My only memory of Bonds will be in the WS against the Angels when a deep fly ball was hit to Bonds (RF?) and Bonds was so big and bulky he couldn't pick it up! He grabbed for it like three times before he finally got it and threw it in but by that time it was too late. Rick Reilly said Bonds looked like "a man trying to pick up soap in the shower."

And by the way, Reilly has been one of the most consistent critics of Bonds over the past few years.
 

Weltner

Guru
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
224
Location
United States
Poacher said:
"The Pirates' heartbreaking loss to the Braves in the 9th inning of Game 7 in '92 occurred because Bonds made a pathetic ten-hop throw to home plate that allowed Sid Bream -- one of the slowest runners ever -- to score from second base on Francisco Cabrera's single to left."

Great memory sir. Didn't he hit like .150 or something in that series? His performance was abysmal. My only memory of Bonds will be in the WS against the Angels when a deep fly ball was hit to Bonds (RF?) and Bonds was so big and bulky he couldn't pick it up! He grabbed for it like three times before he finally got it and threw it in but by that time it was too late. Rick Reilly said Bonds looked like "a man trying to pick up soap in the shower."



Yes,it was a blooper,dropping in front of him.It was during the Angels big rally in Game 6,7th or 8th inning.It was pathetic,just like the "man" himself.
 

Weltner

Guru
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
224
Location
United States
It took Aaron many more at bats than it did Ruth. Same goes for Bonds. Heck, Ruth didn't work out much less take designer steroids.[/QUOTE]


# of at-bats to reach 714 HR's:

Ruth = 8,398
Aaron = 11,289
Bonds (Don't know what the # is,but it was at least 9,140 - the # of at-bats he had at the end of the 2005 season.)

No....friggin'....comparison.
 

Don Wassall

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
30,319
Location
Pennsylvania
Bonds pre-steroids hit a homerun every 16.5 at bats. Since the age of 35 he has hit one every 8.3 at bats. He weighed 185 pounds as a rookie in 1986. What's he weigh now, 250+?
 

jcolec02

Mentor
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
886
Location
Tennessee
i hate that bitch ..... he said mays was better than ruth.....HA he wasnt even better than mantle
 

Weltner

Guru
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
224
Location
United States
jcolec02 said:
i hate that bitch ..... he said mays was better than ruth.....HA he wasnt even better than mantle


EVER!!!!Whether,in the clutch,in most pennant races,and ,especially,the four World Series he appeared in - just check his lame stats.No friggin' comparison.

baseballreference.com
 

Freedom

Mentor
Joined
Dec 15, 2005
Messages
812
Location
Tennessee
Dude, it was his godfather. People defend those close to them often. Bonds' response is going to be bias about Mays because of this.

Besides, you want a great player, Ty Cobb. Better than Ruth. Same with Gehrig, well Gehrig was a much better role model at least. Cobb one day, told reporters he could hit homeruns easily if he just shortened his grip. In the first game of the ensuing doubleheader, he hit 3 homeruns, in the second game, he hit 2. He believed homeruns were to ostentatious.

Oh yeah, he was a good friend of the DiMaggio family before Joe, Dom, and Vince started playing ball. Hmmm...
 
Top