Re: Barry Bonds opens big mouth again
 

"P.S. I don't think any hitter can be considered the greatest player ever unless he can pitch like Babe Ruth"

But I'm not arguing greatest. I'm arguing best. Head to head, who would you want on your team for a game tomorrow. Ruth in his best year or Bonds in his?

Good question
 

Head to head, who would you want on your team for a game tomorrow. Ruth in his best year or Bonds in his?

It depends on a number of factors... I agree that Bonds' best season is better than Ruth's best season, I just think it should be discounted because of the likelihood of steroid use. If you want to ignore steroids and just look at the raw numbers, then, all other things being equal, I would probably take Bonds. But if you want to discount steroids, and take a typical Bonds "prime" year against a typical Ruth prime year, I would go with the Bambino.

I am sure of one thing--if I need a pitcher to pitch one game, I'm starting Pedro circa 1999-2000.

Re: Barry Bonds opens big mouth again
 

I don't understand the argument for Barry doing it against immensely better competition and never have. Most of the basis of this seems to come because not everyone was allowed to play. And while that is tragic, its not really a fair argument. First off, Barry's last couple of years have been completely off the charts. Ridiculous. Last year was probably the greatest offensive year of anyone to ever play the game. But the game is so different now than it was then. First off while the argument that Ruth hit more HRs then entire teams is certainly not the end-all of anything. it is certainly worth noting. Also, the year bonds hit 73 HRs, someone else hit 60+ and 2 others hit 50+. Before the 90s the number of people to ever hit 50 HRs was around 10. Also, the parks now with the exception of a few (Comerica for example) are soooo much smaller then they were then. Bonds plays in a park that favors pitchers but not extremely and this is certainly not the norm for today's stadium. Old time stadiums were cavernous. Third, the 5 man rotation with 30 teams makes about 40% of the pitchers in the league barely passable. Its amazing some of the horrendous pitching that is accepted now. ERAs over 6 are just accepted and usually a pitcher is allowed to go an entire season with and ERA over 5.50 without losing a spot in the rotation.

Personally, I think Bonds is great, and probably the 2nd or 3rd best player to ever play the game, but to say the competition now is so much better than it was then is crazy. Guys now can hit 500 HRs and people will argue that they shouldn't be in the hall of fame. I think these points alone make Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez so unbelieveable. Pedro pitches in a great hitters park, yet when healthy, has ERAs around or under 2 and its nearly unhittable.

Re: Good question
 

Can't argue with you on Pedro. He's the best and the greatest.

I'd take the Unit as my 2nd choice for one game if I could pick from a single season.

Re: Barry Bonds opens big mouth again
 

That picture of Ruth, happy as can be among all those kids, is one of the great photgraphs of all-time.

Re: Barry Bonds opens big mouth again
 

What was the population of the United States when Ruth played as compared to what it is now? Half? Maybe less. African-Americans couldn't play. I went to the Dodger game the last two nights. Two Japanese pitchers started for them. The athletes are better now and there's more of a base from which to select them.

The quality of pitching is much, much better now than when Ruth played. Earned Run Averages are a result of the era. In 1930, when Bill Terry hit .401, the entire national League, including pitchers, average .304. Philadelphia's team ERA was 6.72. In 1968, the New York Yankees hit .214 as a team and finished over .500.