Ruth's 60, Maris' 61, McGuire's 70, or Bonds' 73?

[judgesmails]

Which players season is the greatest accoplishment in light of the era and circumstances they played?

Ruth played just 154 games and hit more home runs than any other team did that year. But did not face many relievers or play night games.

Maris needed 162 games, faced some relief pitching, endured tremendous pressure - but hit behind Mantle.

McGuire and Bonds both hit many more home runs against tougher pitching, but under the cloud of steroid use accusations.

[thatpfunk]

Wait, I don't understand how someone could choose McGuire????

Bonds and McGuire are from the exact same era. Big Mac is the admitted steroid user (andro) and silent on denying anabolic use.

Oh, and the important thing- BONDS HIT MORE. Seriously, are you retarded?

[TStoneMBD]

im gonna give it to bonds because despite the steroid abuse, he was intentionally walked like a million times that season. i dont think ruth had nearly as many walks but i could be mistaken.

[judgesmails]

I did not choose McGuire, I picked Ruth. But yes, I am retarded.

[thatpfunk]

Not directed at you, but at the people voting for McGuire.

Obviously it is correct to put him on there, people are voting for him.

[Pocket Trips]

It has got to be Ruth simply for the fact that he hit more homeruns that year than most teams did. In the year he hit 59 i think the 2nd place finisher had 19 or so home runs

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
It has got to be Ruth simply for the fact that he hit more homeruns that year than most teams did. In the year he hit 59 i think the 2nd place finisher had 19 or so home runs

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea. He really needs more play in the most "dominating" thread.

[TStoneMBD]

yes but if youre going to pull out such an arbitrary fact like that then you also have to consider other things like the fact that pitchers were less skilled then they are today. a steroidless barry bonds would have almost certainly outperformed ruth during his era, imo.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
yes but if youre going to pull out such an arbitrary fact like that then you also have to consider other things like the fact that pitchers were less skilled then they are today. a steroidless barry bonds would have almost certainly outperformed ruth during his era, imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

The pitchers were same for the other hitters of his era, however. The pitching doersn't explain his total dominance relative to other hitters of his era.

[TStoneMBD]

my arguement is that players in today's age are better conditioned then they were in past generations. baseball is also a more popular sport now and players are paid much better. this leads to a nation training children to play baseball at earlier ages and as a result, there are more kids trying to make the pros in this age then there were in ruth's era.

talent is naturally going to increase under new conditions. while its definitely impressive that ruth dominated baseball unlikely any other player in history, this does not mean that he was the most talented when compared head to head against players of recent generations.

[jakethebake]

I don't disagree with any of that.

[Pocket Trips]

There was a steriod-less Bonds ... Back in his Pirate days... and to mention the Bonds in those days in the same sentence as Ruth is crime against humanity. He was a good player then, one of the best in the majors but he was not a dominant player by any stretch. Especially if you are going to compare him to the best HR hitter of all time (relevant to his peers) The only really fair way to compare players from different eras is to compare them to the league average's of the specific year they played. When Bonds is able to hit triple the amount of HR's as his nearest competitor (I'm sure science will come up with a drug which will allow him to do this soon) then he can be compared to Babe Ruth.

Ruth hit 60 HR's in an age when 20 was almost unheard of. Bond's hit 73 in an age when a 30 HR hitter is just slightly above average for a power hitter. There is no comparison

[2planka]

[ QUOTE ]
both hit many more home runs against tougher pitching

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure about this because of expansion/diluted talent. Oh, and there are these iddy biddy ballparks (though Pac Bell is a canyon).

[dabluebery]

It's not fair to include just some of the mitigating factors that decreased / increased the likelihood of each of these players achieving their home run levels. Just ask the question objectively and let us decide what the important factors are.

[BreakfastBurrito]

McGwire.

He faced tremendous pressure at least equal to and probably greater than that Maris faced. Shattering a record under those circumstances was much greater than what Bonds faced.

Ruth's dominance compared to the hitters of his era doesn't do all that much for me. Within a few years of the Babe's early home run outbursts, there were a number of contemporary players like Gehrig, Jimmy Foxx and Hack Wilson who were able to put up monster seasons that were right there with Ruth. In sports, often times an athlete comes along who raises the bar. Obviously, after it's already been raised several times, it's harder to raise it quite so dramatically as compared to earlier players. This doesn't make the accomplishments of the later generations less impressive.

[Pocket Trips]

I missed this when 1st reading the question

[ QUOTE ]
McGuire and Bonds both hit many more home runs against tougher pitching,

[/ QUOTE ]

This was meant as a joke right?

If anything the pitching in baseball is worse now than it has ever been. for every Roger Clemens there are 20 Wil Ledesma's who would've had touble siging minor league contracts without expansion.

Since 1987 when there was a big controversey over the ball being "juiced" because of a huge increase in the amount of HR's Pitching has steadily declined every year. As a kid in the late 70's and early 80's growing up a pitcher was way below average if he had an ERA over 4.00. These days that is considered about an average ERA.

You can say its because hitters are stronger theses days but using that line of reasoning pitcher's would also be stronger these days which would even out anyadvantage stronger hitters have.

I think the majority of MLB pitchers are mindless Jocks trying to blow the ball past everyone and don't think through how to get batters out. There are very few pitchers who use their wits to get hitters out more than their arm.

I can't see any way to argue that pitcher's are better today than they were is Babe ruth's era????

[TStoneMBD]

your arguement definitely has good merit. im not firm in my standpoint that bonds is better than ruth btw. another thing i overlooked is the tightened balls as you mentioned, the technology of better bats and smaller ball parks.

[CCass]

After a lot of thought I voted for Ruth, but think it is close between he and Bonds.

Ruth pros - As mentioned, he was hitting ~60 HR a season when entire teams didn't hit 60 HR in a season.

Ruth cons - Played with diluted talent (no blacks, pitchers went the entire game), had Gehrig as line-up protection

Bonds pros - Drew a gazillion intentional walks, specialty relief pitchers, averaged nearly 1 HR for every 2 games played, little line-up protection (Kent had some great years, but he ain't no Gehrig)

Bonds cons - "live" ball era, small ballparks, diluted talent, the possibility of drug enhanced performance

[FishNChips]

[ QUOTE ]
my arguement is that players in today's age are better conditioned then they were in past generations. baseball is also a more popular sport now and players are paid much better. this leads to a nation training children to play baseball at earlier ages and as a result, there are more kids trying to make the pros in this age then there were in ruth's era.

talent is naturally going to increase under new conditions. while its definitely impressive that ruth dominated baseball unlikely any other player in history, this does not mean that he was the most talented when compared head to head against players of recent generations.

[/ QUOTE ]

please reread the OP's question. Its not asking who was better, its asking about the accomplishment given the circumstances. I think your post pretty much points out that Ruth's was best.

Reading Is FUNdamental
FishNChips

[maldini]

[ QUOTE ]

the possibility of drug enhanced performance

[/ QUOTE ]

good one.

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]

I can't see any way to argue that pitcher's are better today than they were is Babe ruth's era????

[/ QUOTE ]

They might not be better when judged against the performance of their own times (if that makes sesne). But if you took jouhny the scrub 4.00ERA from today, time machined his ass back to ruths day, he would be the most dominating player inthe game. Its the same for any decent athlete of today.

[bugstud]

Ruth, because IIRC a home run had to sdtay fair the entire flight. That probably cost him a couple. That and the relative home run numbers.

[goofball]

Ruth played in a league that didn't allow blacks.

[FoxwoodsFiend]

[ QUOTE ]
It has got to be Ruth simply for the fact that he hit more homeruns that year than most teams did. In the year he hit 59 i think the 2nd place finisher had 19 or so home runs

[/ QUOTE ]

This is only because teams at the time weren't even trying to hit home runs. It's better to compare Ruth's home run seasons to those of Jimmie Foxx and other players that came a bit later. This stat is terribly misleading.

[andyfox]

You mean if a home run went around the foul pole, passing by it in fair territory, but landing beyond it in foul territory, it was a foul ball?

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
There was a steriod-less Bonds ... Back in his Pirate days... and to mention the Bonds in those days in the same sentence as Ruth is crime against humanity. He was a good player then, one of the best in the majors but he was not a dominant player by any stretch.

[/ QUOTE ]

COMPLETELY WRONG. Barry's 1992-1993 are two of the greatest seasons of all time.

EDIT: Please never post on baseball again.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Wait, I don't understand how someone could choose McGuire????

Bonds and McGuire are from the exact same era. Big Mac is the admitted steroid user (andro) and silent on denying anabolic use.

Oh, and the important thing- BONDS HIT MORE. Seriously, are you retarded?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the quality of steroids increased substantially between the McGwire 70 year and the Bonds 73 year. So, in a way, they played in different eras.

[bisonbison]

Yeah, if 3 MVPs in 4 years doesn't qualify as dominant, then...

[Chris Daddy Cool]

[ QUOTE ]
There was a steriod-less Bonds ... Back in his Pirate days... and to mention the Bonds in those days in the same sentence as Ruth is crime against humanity. He was a good player then, one of the best in the majors but he was not a dominant player by any stretch.

[/ QUOTE ]

saying bonds was merely a good player in his pirates day shows just how little you know about baseball. bonds was clearly the best player in the league for most of his stint as a pirate and should have won 3 mvps, but had to *settle* for 2 MVPs and a close second. not dominating? give me a break.

[ QUOTE ]
Ruth hit 60 HR's in an age when 20 was almost unheard of. Bond's hit 73 in an age when a 30 HR hitter is just slightly above average for a power hitter. There is no comparison

[/ QUOTE ]

while this may be true, it is also true it is far more difficult to be a dominating player in today's game than it was back then because the talent pool and sheer mass of players and teams compared to back in the day, which makes bonds' accomplishments all the more impressive (not to take anything away from ruth of course)

[dabluebery]

I've had just about enough of your Terry Pendelton bashing, young lady! ~Homer Simpson

[krazyace5]

[ QUOTE ]
Wait, I don't understand how someone could choose McGuire????

Bonds and McGuire are from the exact same era. Big Mac is the admitted steroid user (andro) and silent on denying anabolic use.

Oh, and the important thing- BONDS HIT MORE. Seriously, are you retarded?

[/ QUOTE ]

The andro Mcgwire used was a legal supplement at the time that anyone could buy at GNC.

[Skipbidder]

[ QUOTE ]
McGuire and Bonds both hit many more home runs...but under the cloud of steroid use accusations.

[/ QUOTE ]

To currently believe that neither used steroids is delusional.

The answer to your question is Ruth. I understand the answer "Bonds", if given by people who understand that he was using steroids. I personally simply refuse to accept that this was a baseball accomplishment. I understand the answer "Maris" if given in light of the fact that he was chasing a record. Ruth wasn't chasing a record. He was just hitting a bunch of homeruns. I do not understand the votes for "McGuire".

[Clarkmeister]

Show the AB/HR for each of the seasons and the answer becomes clear.

[Jack of Arcades]

You gonna tell me THG was banned by baseball in 2001?

You gonna tell me Babe Ruth never did anything illegal, like, I don't know... drinking?

I'm sure Maris was popping amphetamines like there was no tomorrow.

[bort411]

You gonna tell me that Ruth was an alcoholic BECAUSE he wanted to hit more homers? Your analogy is stupid.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
You gonna tell me that Ruth was an alcoholic BECAUSE he wanted to hit more homers? Your analogy is stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. There are two main arguments about Bonds' steroids use.

a) it's cheating
b) it's illegal.

Yet:

a) it wasn't banned by baseball at the time
b) ruth, maris, et al have done plenty of illegal things

Of course, most people have a fundamental misunderstanding about how steroids work...

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]


Ruth hit 60 HR's in an age when 20 was almost unheard of. Bond's hit 73 in an age when a 30 HR hitter is just slightly above average for a power hitter. There is no comparison

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at the home runs hit my major leaguers in the 30's. Ruth hit way more home runs than anyone else because no one else was trying to hit them. So yeah he changed the game, but by the time he was done he only held his home run record by 2 HR's.

Also remember that when the Babe started hitting his HR's, pitchers were not pitching to avoid giving up bomb's without runners on base like they do today. There's a reason 300 innings in a year was common for pitchers of the era, they really didn't put in a lot of effort into their pitches when no one was on base.

Not sure where I was going with this, but basically you can't say Ruth is obviously better because he hit triple the home runs as the next guy. That being said, here's my order of accomplishments:

Bonds, McGwire, Ruth, Maris.

For difficulty:
Maris, McGwire, Bonds, Ruth.
By difficulty I mean all things included such as media pressure for getting close to breaking a long standing record.

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wait, I don't understand how someone could choose McGuire????

Bonds and McGuire are from the exact same era. Big Mac is the admitted steroid user (andro) and silent on denying anabolic use.

Oh, and the important thing- BONDS HIT MORE. Seriously, are you retarded?

[/ QUOTE ]

The andro Mcgwire used was a legal supplement at the time that anyone could buy at GNC.

[/ QUOTE ]

ALL steriods were legal then.

[Jack of Arcades]

There's a difference between law and the rules of baseball.

FWIW, you can still buy some illegal supplements at GNC.

[judgesmails]

Not necessarily. I assume Bonds has the best HR/AB ratio, but he played in smaller parks and hit a livelier ball (debateable and impossible to prove) than Ruth or Maris.

[judgesmails]

I think pitchers are better today - or maybe a better way to say it is that it is tougher to hit today.

How many major league pitchers do not have a 90 mph fastball today? Hitters today have to face at least 2, usually more, fresh arms every game. The advent of the split-finger fastball and tight sliders makes it even tougher than hitters had it in the 60's and earlier.

[judgesmails]

I did not presume to include all mitigating factors. Just giving examples.