Skip to comments.Bonds Hits No. 713, Moves Within One Of Ruth
Posted on 05/07/2006 10:00:12 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
click here to read article
Yep, Joe Morgan was lying as easily as he was breathing last night -- his specialty, along with interjecting race into nearly every conversation. Did he really think that no one watching the game would know those stats?
As far as RBI per 162 games Aaron doesn't even make the top 25 -- Gehrig leads at 149, followed by Hank Greenberg at 148, Ruth and Dimaggio 143, Manny Ramirez 136, Juan Gonzalez 135, Jimmy Foxx and Al Simmons 134, Ted Williams and Albert Belle 130, Hack Wilson 128, etc.
Aaron's down the list a bit at 114 RBIs/162 games, and as I mentioned earlier Bonds is at 110.
I think in the 20s sometime. According to wikipedia, it says it would only have added 1 to Ruth's total if the rule had not been in place. But that's wikipedia and ergo suspect. It doesn't specify exactly when the rule was changed either.
Wow, you really are silly. You think "innocent until proven guilty" means people can't formulate an opinion until and unless blessed by a court of law?
Sorry, but I'll trust "my own lyin' eyes" rather than run around pretending that OJ Simpson, Ted Kennedy, Michael Jackson, and in the sports context Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, etc. are "innocent" just because they managed to "beat the system" one way or another.
Well, Mike Schmidt admitted in his recent book that he took amphetamines early in his career, and said that they did help reduce fatigue, especially late in the season. Former pitcher Jeff Brantley said that when he played (1988-2001) he estimated about 75% of players used "greenies". In 1985, Dale Berra and Dave Parker testified in court that they got amphetamines from Willie Stargell, and John Milner testified that Willie Mays used amphetamines. The bottom line is that athletes have always looked for an edge, and always will.
Silly, maybe. I just believe in keeping an open mind. Different strokes for different folks...........
Yeah, but on the flip side, Ruth never had to face fresh specialist relievers who started coming into the game in the 6th or 7th innings, like today. That probably would have reduced his HR total some.
I think the point you are trying to make is that Ruth faced a diluted talent pool. Fair enough. However, the same could be said of Bonds today. Not because of the exclusion of certain races from the game, but because of the fierce competition Major League Baseball faces for athletes with the NBA and NFL. That competition didn't exist in Ruth's day. Baseball was pretty much the top dog in that era, and attracted the best athletes.
As far as I am concerned his and all hte others who are proven to take steroids should have their record removed from the books.
As you are certainly entitled.
We obviously diasgree on Bonds. Although we both agree that he has clear Hall of Fame talent ignoring the possible effects of the substances he's been alleged to have used.
The Babe played 6 years (1914-1919) in the Dead Ball era, and was primarily a pitcher in the first 5.
And we also can agree that if the allegations are correct, it sure was stupid to take the health risks!
Yep, in agreement there as well.
That's why I'm so negative about those who do use performance-enhancing drugs like this. It forces others who normally wouldn't do them, to take these health risks merely in an attempt to "keep up".
Coherent post...and nailed my point I was making above.
You really are out of practice, aren't you?
Where can I buy a Barry Bonds bar?
There you go with your racist facts again. Why can't we all just get along?!?
Off the what...
Nice Barley Bones baseball card. Who is that large guy next to him?
Bwahahaha. That is so perfect!
Aw, just being a smart a** :-)
I'm usually the one pulling the leg. Got me.
Bonds' ERA = - He would have to pitch at least for one out to get to 0.00. 0/0 means nothing.
Yeah, he was. In those five years he had 678 at bats. He had 8398 in his career. Ruth hit 20 home runs in those 678 at bats. 8% of his at bats were in the years of 1914-1918.
7720/694 = 1 HR per 11.1 at bats.
678/20 = 1 HR per 33.9 at bats.
If you count 1919, then 1110 of his at bats were in the dead ball era. Over 13% of his at bats. 29 HR's in 1919.
7288/665 = 1 HR per 11 at bats.
1110/49 = 1 HR per 22.7 at bats.
Career: 8398/714 = 1 HR per 11.8 at bats.
Any way you look at it, the dead ball era hurt his HR total. If he would have hit 766 if it were not for the dead ball era, all things being equal. Of course, I am open to the argument that Ruth did not hit as well when he was a pitcher.
This means more as far as ranking power hitters for pure power.
At Bats per HR
1. Mark McGwire 10.61 R
2. Babe Ruth 11.76 L
3. Barry Bonds 12.91 L
4. Jim Thome 13.77 L
5. Manny Ramirez 14.08 R
34. Hank Aaron 16.38 R
Interestingly, No. 33 is Jim Gentile. He is not even in the Hall of Fame. Hank Aaron was a great player and hitter with a really long, 23 season career. McGwire* and Bonds* don't count. Ruth in the greatest power hitter.
Absolutely untrue. There are some good relief pitchers, and there are some garbage ones, but there aren't many of them who are better than the starters they are replacing. "Fresh" does not necessarily mean 'better'. Relief pitchers are essentially there today to prolong the careers of the modern-day pampered starters, and not much else. The advent of the relief specialist is a relatively recent one in baseball history. Guys like Pedro Martinez, for example, would have had a short career if he played in the earlier days of baseball, because he's generally only good for about 6 & 2/3 innings and then he weakens and gets hit hard.
Bear in mind, if you didn't have the stamina to go the nine innings back then, you weren't going to be a major league pitcher. Also bear in mind, these pitchers who used to go nine innings were just as sharp at the end as they were in the beginning. The ability to go nine strong innings is not exactly unique to old-time baseball. Think Nolan Ryan, who threw 222 complete games. You had to be the durable, Nolan Ryan type in Ruth's day to make it as a pitcher.
Many of the 'nine inning pitchers' of years past paid the price with shortened careers, but they were great while they lasted. Sandy Koufax comes to mind. He was the most dominating pitcher in baseball in the early-mid sixties, and he pitched 27 complete games in each of his last two years. But by age 30 he was finished, because the relief specialists hadn't entered the game yet hence he burned out early. So when you mention modern-day "relief specialists", I am not impressed. With the exception of a few dominant 'closers', most of them are average, many of them are crap.
I apologize for only having data going back to 2002, but that's all that was immediately available. Data is from ESPN.com. These stats are aggregate for the entire major leagues. The 2006 numbers are totals to-date:
2002 Starter ERA: 4.41
2002 Bullpen ERA: 4.00
2003 Starter ERA: 4.52
2003 Bullpen ERA: 4.14
2004 Starter ERA: 4.62
2004 Bullpen ERA: 4.14
2005 Starter ERA: 4.36
2005 Bullpen ERA: 4.11
2006 Starter ERA: 4.66
2006 Bullpen ERA: 4.19
So, you can see a pretty clear pattern. In aggregate total, relievers reduce scoring efficiency by about 9% compared to starting pitchers.
If Ruth had laid off the booze, women, and fatting foods, he might have hit 814.
Everyone gains a little girth as they age, but exercise doesn't triple the size of a person's head.