Hank
Aaron | 755
A career that started in the Negro Leagues and ended atop the
baseball world defined consistency and excellence: his path
to 755 homers was steady, steady steady.
Barry Bonds
| 715
An anti-hero for the 21st century, his skill with both glove
and bat put him in a class by himself, just where he likes to
be.
Babe Ruth
| 714
Baseball's biggest legend lived up to his larger-than-life image,
smashing records, winning World Series and redefining the game
itself.
WAITING IN THE WINGS?
Alex Rodriguez
Most baseball watchers say that if anyone today is positioned
to surpass Aaron's mark, it's A-Rod. The 30-year-old has already
smacked 435 homers and is still in his prime. Ten more years
at a similar pace and he'll rewrite history.
Albert Pujols
He's still really far away, but he's young and is the best slugger
in the game today, hands down. He's not as much of a long shot
as most of his big-hitting peers and, like A-Rod, is on the
right pace.
Ken Griffey Jr.
A few years ago he was a lock as Aaron's successor. He's already
reached the 500-HR Hall-of-Fame gold standard, but injuries
have all but ended his dreams of reaching even Willie Mays'
mark of 660.
BACKGROUNDER: BARRY BONDSBarry vs The Babe
CBC Sports Online | Last updated May 9, 2006
With
each swing of the bat, each uptick in the home run count, the comparison
draws closer: if, or when, Barry Bonds blast his 715th, does that
mean he's a better player than Babe Ruth?
It's the stuff of barroom disputes and bloggers' arguments. And,
well, online discussions too.
We dig into the debate now, with two writers who are all too familiar
with Bonds.
Dan Tavares is a senior writer with Sports Online and currently
owns Bonds in his fantasy baseball league. Andrew Lundy is Sports
Online's senior producer, who traded Bonds a few years ago in that
same fantasy league, and his team has never been the same.
From:
Dan Tavares
To: Andrew Lundy
Re: Bonds better than Ruth?
Did you see Bonds' home run against Philadelphia on Sunday?
He crushed it. He's getting hot. He'll pass Ruth any day now,
and he's playing hurt. You still don't think this milestone
makes him better than Ruth?
From:
Andrew Lundy
To: Dan Tavares
Re: Bonds better than Ruth?
Better than Ruth? If all you concentrate on is his ability to
hit home runs - which is all he seems to be concentrating on
these days - then yes. It's a numbers game. But I still say
Ruth was a more complete player and a more accomplished hitter
than Bonds.
From:
Dan Tavares
To: Andrew Lundy
Re: Bonds better than Ruth?
Complete player? Accomplished hitter? Bonds is the embodiment
of a five-tool all-star. Over the course of his career he hit
home runs, hit for average, stole bases in bunches and played
exceptional gold-glove-quality defence. And managers are still
walking this guy half the time. He's so scary that other teams
avoid him. Fear has got to be a measuring stick for greatness,
too. He changes games just by coming to the plate.
From:
Andrew Lundy
To: Dan Tavares
Re: Bonds better than Ruth?
OK, I'll give you that Bonds is a five-tool player, and Ruth
likely falls short in that respect. He's not your iconic base-stealer,
that's for sure, and he never was revered for his fielding.
But as far as pure hitting, he outslugs Bonds: RBIs, average,
total runs - Ruth is better in all those categories. I think
it's safe to say Ruth was also feared in his day when he came
to the plate. Oh, and one more thing: Ruth was a helluva pitcher
too.
From:
Dan Tavares
To: Andrew Lundy
Re: Bonds better than Ruth?
Your second point is all about the numbers, so you just re-affirmed
my original point: the numbers show Bonds is better than Ruth.
And really, a lot of these numbers are a function of the players
he played with: it was Murderers' Row with the Yankees. With
Bonds, he hasn't had that kind of supporting cast. I mean, Jeff
Kent was about as good as it got for him.
It's also unfair to bring pitching into this. In that era it
could happen, but not today. It's like comparing the strategy
of Alexander the Great to George Patton. Different times.
From:
Andrew Lundy
To: Dan Tavares
Re: Bonds better than Ruth?
I'm not letting you off that easy with the 'it was a different
era' comment. Really, there are no players in baseball history
who were as good as Ruth both on the mound and at the plate.
While he was with the Red Sox, this guy was among the best pitchers
in baseball and almost singlehandedly won them a World Series.
I mean, think of the diversity of skill you have to have to
be a pitching ace, then go out and hit for an insanely high
average and slug record homers too. That's not Bonds.
From:
Dan Tavares
To: Andrew Lundy
Re: Bonds better than Ruth?
OK. It's a fact, in this modern era, that nobody is both a pitcher
and a hitter. So, by your definition, how could anyone ever
be better than Ruth? It's a Catch-22. It makes Ruth larger than
life and ruins any chance of making a fair comparison. So what
would it take to make a player better than Ruth?
From:
Andrew Lundy
To: Dan Tavares
Re: Bonds better than Ruth?
Well, it may not happen today, but I can argue that it's still
possible. Someone like Rick Ankiel, who was a top pitching prospect
(before his meltdown) and is still in St. Louis's minor-league
system as an outfielder, could have been that if he had the
talent. But that's my point. He doesn't, and it just emphasizes
how supremely talented Ruth was.
From:
Dan Tavares
To: Andrew Lundy
Re: Bonds better than Ruth?
But baseball doesn't allow it today. How do you know Barry Bonds
couldn't pitch? Baseball wouldn't let that happen: as soon as
it was obvious he was a good hitter, he'd be taken off the mound.
There's too much money involved in player development to experiment
that way. When critics of Bonds bring in the pitching argument,
they're comparing him to, essentially, two separate players.
And on hitting alone, Ruth's numbers wouldn't be so gaudy if
he played the game today. I mean, how many bases would he steal
in 2006? Really.
From:
Andrew Lundy
To: Dan Tavares
Re: Bonds better than Ruth?
OK. Let's not get into the dilemma of comparing different eras.
There are so many variables: Ruth didn't have steroids to fuel
his record ambitions, and I can't conclusively say the same
for Bonds. Ruth played without all the training and support
modern athletes get, and he played only 154 games a season -
the infamous asterisk argument that plagued Roger Maris.
From:
Dan Tavares
To: Andrew Lundy
Re: Bonds better than Ruth?
Wait a minute: Bonds never failed a drug test. Let's put that
on the record. And Ruth has his own issues related to his era:
he never played against any black athletes, so he never faced
some of the best pitchers in history, like Satchel Paige. Who
knows what his numbers would have looked like if he'd faced
them? My guess is, he'd have struck out swinging instead of
hammering one of Satchel's double-windups or bat-dodgers.
From:
Andrew Lundy
To: Dan Tavares
Re: Bonds better than Ruth?
Well, that's a giant can of worms that opens the whole issue
of comparing one era to the other. In fact, I'd say maybe we
should be talking about Josh Gibson instead of Aaron, Ruth and
Bonds as the greatest home run hitter ever. But that's an argument
for another day.
Where I think Ruth wins out, though, is when you go beyond the
numbers, and maybe that's why we're so fixated on #714. It's
not that Ruth just hit 714 homers, it's that he changed the
game. In fact, saved the game. Ruth brought fans back after
the 1920 Black Sox scandal, he redefined hitting, and he was
the best baseball ambassador in the game's history. He lived
up to his larger-than-life image, and connected with fans like
few others ever have. And more than Bonds could ever dream of.
From:
Dan Tavares
To: Andrew Lundy
Re: Bonds better than Ruth?
Agreed, Bonds will never win a Mr. Congeniality award. But isn't
it fair to say Ruth succeeded because the conditions were created
for him to succeed? After the Black Sox scandal, baseball did
everything to promote home runs. They ended the dead-ball era,
introducing rules to favour hitters. Much like they did after
the devastating players strike in 1994. Ruth took advantage
of those changes and was applauded. Bonds did the same thing
and now he's paying the price.
From:
Andrew Lundy
To: Dan Tavares
Re: Bonds better than Ruth?
Wait a minute. As that fan's sign said last week: "The Babe
did it with hot dogs and beer. Aaron did it with class. What
did you it with, Barry?" Ruth took advantage legitimately, but
the evidence says that's not the case with Bonds. And if Game
of Shadows is to be believed, Bonds did it purely for personal
reasons, not for some greater love of the game or baseball history.
From:
Dan Tavares
To: Andrew Lundy
Re: Bonds better than Ruth?
First off, let's be clear (no pun intended) that it was not illegal
in the baseball world to take steroids prior to 2003, when Bonds
says he may have taken them. And if that's so, then he did nothing
different than what Mark McGwire did in 1998, and McGwire became
the toast of the baseball world.
As for Bonds' motives, it's interesting you'd say that. Because
I think this brings us to the crux of the debate, or why we're
even having it. Would we be debating this issue if Bonds was
a nice guy? The reason why people don't want him to pass – and be regarded as a better player – an
icon like Ruth is that he's almost universally regarded as a
jerk. Did anyone say anything bad about McGwire or Sammy Sosa
in '98? They were beloved. If this was one of them nearing Ruth's
mark, do you think we'd be discussing this?
From:
Andrew Lundy
To: Dan Tavares
Re: Bonds better than Ruth?
Interesting point. Barry never misses an opportunity to miss
an opportunity to connect himself with the fans. Remember the
other day when he refused to sign the 713th home run ball, in
front of the media and the disappointed fan? I'll say it really
doesn't help, and it does set up a great contrast between him
and Ruth, who was the consummate fan's player. And whether we
can separate that part of Bonds from the pure player, I don't
know. It all depends on how narrowly you want to define 'player,'
I guess. If I keep it broad, then Ruth wins hands-down. If not,
then maybe I concede some of your well-argued points.
