On Saturday, Barry Bonds tied George Herman "Babe" Ruth for second all-time in career home runs. A few fans consider the Giants' left fielder one of the greatest players in the history of baseball. After all, Bonds has hit 73 homers in one season, 714 in his career, and put together many other eye-popping records. Without taking race into consideration -- which, according to Bonds, every single person in America does -- I'm going to compare these two players and give you irrefutable proof that Ruth is a better baseball player than Bonds could ever dream of being.
Battle #1 - Home Runs
Both players have 714 home runs currently, so in terms of pure quantity, there's no way to rank Bonds over Ruth or Ruth over Bonds. Therefore, we'll have to take care of things in terms of quality.
In this day and age, the home run has become such an easy way to score runs. The entire game revolves around it. Advances in physics have allowed for the construction of bats that are conducive to hitting a baseball very, very far. Physiologically, we understand players' bodies much more, making it routine for trainers to prescribe weight lifting regimens to help players gain the requisite muscle to hit more home runs. Even baseball stadiums have changed to allow more home runs. Yankee Stadium, which is where Ruth played, is now a neutral ball park by today's standards. Most of today's stadiums are homer happy places.
When Ruth hit 29 homers in 1919, it was the record for a season. Today, middling corner outfielders consider that an off season. In 1920, the very next year, the Bambino hit 54 bombs and 59 the year after that. It was routine for him to take more balls out of the park than some entire teams! I know Ruth didn't hit against Latinos or African Americans, but at least he never played in a day an age of water downed pitching staffs like we see today or with the help of flaxseed oil, the cream, and the clear. Unless Bonds goes out and hits forty or fifty more, we have to give the advantage to Ruth.
Battle #2 - Batting Average
This is a horrible measurement for seeing just who is better than whom. A lot of players can rack up a high batting average, but not be useful to their team's offense. Can anyone say Juan Pierre's .330 season with the Marlins? However, since neither player can be accused of having an "empty batting average" -- getting hits but not being very productive otherwise -- we can compare their hits to at bat ratio. A simple search on baseballreference.com tells us that Bonds' career average is .299, while Ruth stands at the .342 mark for his career, which ties him for 6th all time.
In other words, Ruth played his entire career at a level Bonds has only reached twice (2002, .370 and 2004, .362). If you want some more amazing numbers, Chipper Jones has never reached that figure and Albert Pujols only once. In fact, Ruth hit over .350 eight times in his career, which is more than some guys named Joe DiMaggio, Lou Gehrig, Al Kaline, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, and Honus Wagner ever did. This category is one that Ruth doesn't get a lot of attention, but he was pretty darned good here.
Battle #3 - On Base Percentage
All right, the almighty on-base percentage. Bonds will surely beat Ruth handily in this category. Well, the numbers don't really back up that assertion. The Sultan of Swat led the Majors in OBP ten times in his career, while Bonds has only in seven seasons. Ruth's worse finish in that category throughout his career was 4th, while Bonds has finished 7th before. On the all-time list, Ruth ranks second (behind only Ted Williams), while Bonds is a respectable 6th. Advantage: Ruth.
(Just imagine how many less times Bonds would have been intentionally walked if he had that Gehrig guy hitting behind him, rather than the awe-inspiring Benito Santiago, AJ Pierzynski, or Moises Alou. Ruth has to be considered the better guy at getting on base because he never really achieved the four finger status because of the other guys in the lineup. Lou Gehrig was one of those guys that can beat you. With less intentional walks, Bonds' OBP drops precipitously.)
Battle #4 - Slugging Percentage
This is another very important category. Slugging percentage measures just how far a player could be expected to go every time he goes to the plate. If you go 1-1 with a single, your SLG is 1.000; 1-1 with a double is 2.00; and so on. The best hitters -- like your A-Rods and Vlad Guerreros -- in today's game usually rank in the low to mid .500's. For his career, Ruth has a .690 slugging percentage. That's the all time record. By a lot. Over Ted Williams. For his career, Bonds has a very respectable .611 mark, which places him 6th on the all time list, and behind Albert Pujols. Bonds isn't even the best player in this day and age in this category.
Battle #5 - OPS+
What's that funny little plus sign doing next to the acronym OPS, the new, chic way to measure players' talents? Well, that's called adjusted OPS, which takes into account park and league factors. The Bambino ranks first in this category for his career, standing at 207. An average player's ranking would be 100. For those of you who don't like mathematics that means Ruth is 107% better than the average player in this category, 17% better than Ted Williams (commonly thought of as the best hitter in Major League baseball), and 23% better than Bonds. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it: Ruth clearly outclasses Bonds in this category. There's no doubt, just like a home run hit by Adam Dunn.
Battle #6 - Runs Created
Runs Created is another valuable category used to measure the effectiveness of a hitter. The formula used to calculate is complicated, but I won't bore you with it. You must just trust me that it's an effective way to measure a player's worth to his team's offensive production. Ruth has led the league nine times in his career and currently ranks first all time with 2,757 runs created. What about the other guy? Barry is fifth all time with 2,501. Using some simple math, Ruth was 10% more valuable to his team than Bonds is. And another comparison goes to the Bambino.
Battle #7 - Pitching vs. Stealing Unknown to most people, Babe Ruth actually began his career on the mound. And he was pretty darned good. In 1919, he threw 9 shutouts in one year, the most ever by a left-handed pitcher to this day. Making use of another adjusted stat, Ruth's ERA+ was 122, meaning he was 22% better than everyone else in his day. That's not super-spectacular, because that only means he was as good as, say, Bob Feller or Don Drysdale or Tom Glavine. Whoever those guys are.
The only area that Bonds contributed more than Ruth is stolen bases. While many question the necessity of a swiped bag, I'll consider it a valuable statistic. Bonds has stolen 506 bases in his career vs. 146 times caught stolen for a 78% effectiveness ratio. That's pretty good. However, I find it hard to make a comparison between Ruth's arm and Bonds' legs, so let's just say they were both good in these categories and leave it at that.
Hopefully this comparison has shown you that Ruth was leaps and bounds over his contemporary competition, as well as, when adjusting for time, league, and park factors, better than Bonds. The Giants' left fielder may have tied Ruth for second all-time, but he has a lot to do to pass the Bambino.
Daniel is an AtHomePlate blogger; to see his article archive, click here.
Bjoern Hartig is the AtHomePlate Angels blogger.
Bob Gallagher and James Murdock share the Palatial Baseball Blog at http://palatialbaseballblog.blogspot.com/
Bryan Roth is the Prospect Pulse blogger
