Ruth vs. Bonds
I was recently in an online debate about who was the best player in major league history, and it quickly turned into a battle of Ruth vs. Bonds. I personally wouldn’t put Bonds even at #2, but rather I’d put Ted Williams #2.
However, needing to find a way to prove my point, I of course found a boatload of stats to back me up, the other guy did the same, but here I intend to outline my argument as simply as succinctly as possible.
Looking at size or any statistic that is based on totals and not rate are pointless, because there are huge differences between medical and fitness technology that favor Bonds, and the difference in eras makes comparing certain stats hard to do. My theory is this: The best way to make a real comparison of who is the greatest is to compare each player to the players of their era and then compare how dominant each player was compared to their era. This basically is making the assumption that the major leagues have, over the course of their history, been basically just as competitive as always and if you took Barry Bonds and threw him into the 1920s, he would perform equally better than the other talent than he did in the 1990s. Likewise, Babe Ruth would have been equally dominant now, compared to the overall competition, and his stats would be the same percentage over league average as they were then.
In my opinion, this is the only way to really make a case for a player being the best of all time.
For this argument here, I will make two assumptions:
1) We’ll leave out Ruth’s pitching. He was an above-average pitcher for 4-5 years of his career. My opinion is that including this makes him far and away the best player of all time, so for the sake of argument, we’ll just compare the players as hitters.
2) We’ll assume Barry Bonds did not do steroids, because in my mind, if you had to use performance enhancing drugs to make yourself the best player ever, then you’re NOT the best player ever. (I don’t actually believe this, but it’s the only way to make this a meaningful discussion.
Methodology of the comparison: I’ve taken each player’s best season, using OPS+ as the yardstick for which season is their best. I’ve also taken their worst season, using the same stat(I’ve left out any season where the player did not play 100 games and Bonds’ rookie year, so it’s not a fluke rookie season or a season where the guy only played 20-30 games). Lastly, I took their totals for certain stats. Then I found the league average stats for the same years and spans of years for each player. The stats used are the easiest to gather this information for and are “rate” statistics, meaning they’re averages/percentages, rather than totals. Batting average, On-base percentage, Slugging, and of course, OPS are the four stats that I looked at. I wanted to include HRs, RBIs and Runs scored, but these are harder to come up with league averages for.
So, first looking at their best seasons: This part is eerily similar between the two players. Ruth’s line is .376/.533/.849/1.382 and Bonds’ line is .370/.582/.799/1.381. Only one thousandth of a difference in OPS for their best seasons. Looking at the league averages, they’re also pretty close. During Bonds’ best season, the league line was: .259/.331/.410/.741 and during Ruth’s, the line was .283/.347/.387/.734. There’s somewhat of a difference in batting average, but in OPS, the gap closes and Ruth’s time period was a shade behind Bonds’ time for OPS. So using their best seasons, the only really conclusive thing we see is that they were both really dominant(about 650 points better than league average on OPS each), but overall, no huge difference here. So we’ll have to look at average and worst years.
Worst years there’s a fairly big discrepancy. Bonds in his worst year(his 2nd year) only matched the batting average for the league, matching it dead on at .261. His OBP was basically also matched, with Bonds being at .329 and league average being .328. He did smoke the league average slugging that year, slugging .492 compared to league average .404. So Bonds’ Slugging was 21.7% higher than the league average. The OPS difference is .821 to .732, so he’s 12.1% higher than average there in his worst season.
Now, on to Ruth: Ruth’s batting average was slightly higher than league average his worst year: .288 to .279. His OBP was CONSIDERABLY better, being .448 to .351, so he was 27.6% better at getting on base than the average player. The slugging discrepancy was .537 to .399. Ruth’s WORST OPS+ season was one where he slugged .537! This puts him 34.6% better than league average at slugging during his worst season. The OPS difference: .985 to .750. So in Ruth’s worst OPS+ season, he was 31.3% better than the average player.
OPS Difference – Worst Season
Ruth – 31.3% better than league average
Bonds – 12.1% better than league average
Now – average season time. Bonds’ career line is .298 batting and a .445/.608/1.053 OBP/Slugging/OPS line. His .298 compares to an average of .260 over the span of Bonds’ career. So Bonds is a respectable 14.6% better than the average hitter of his time period. The OBP/Slugging/OPS line for the league during his career is .328/.404/.732. So Bonds is an impressive 35.7% better than the average player during his time at getting on base, 50.5% better in the slugging line, and has an OPS 43.9% higher than league average during his career.
Ruth’s career line includes a .342 batting average and an overall line of .474/.690/1.164, so he tops Bonds in straight numbers, but how does he do compared to his competition? His batting average of .342 compares very favorably to the league average, which was .274. This means he gets hits 24.8% more often than the average player in the AL of his time period. He gets on base 38.6% more often (.474 vs. .342) slugs an absolutely astonishing 81.6% better than league average, and his OPS is 61.2% higher than league average. To line these percentages up:
Player vs. League Average – Batting – OBP – Slugging – OPS
Ruth – 24.8% - 38.6% - 81.6% - 61.2%
Bonds – 14.6% - 35.7% - 50.5% - 43.9%
So comparing their dominance vs. league average, Bonds is well above average in every category, but still doesn’t match the Babe’s success compared to their peers on ANY category. When you take this into account, even without Ruth’s pitching career and without disqualifying Bonds as a steroid user, Ruth is the better player and earns the distinction of best player ever.
However, needing to find a way to prove my point, I of course found a boatload of stats to back me up, the other guy did the same, but here I intend to outline my argument as simply as succinctly as possible.
Looking at size or any statistic that is based on totals and not rate are pointless, because there are huge differences between medical and fitness technology that favor Bonds, and the difference in eras makes comparing certain stats hard to do. My theory is this: The best way to make a real comparison of who is the greatest is to compare each player to the players of their era and then compare how dominant each player was compared to their era. This basically is making the assumption that the major leagues have, over the course of their history, been basically just as competitive as always and if you took Barry Bonds and threw him into the 1920s, he would perform equally better than the other talent than he did in the 1990s. Likewise, Babe Ruth would have been equally dominant now, compared to the overall competition, and his stats would be the same percentage over league average as they were then.
In my opinion, this is the only way to really make a case for a player being the best of all time.
For this argument here, I will make two assumptions:
1) We’ll leave out Ruth’s pitching. He was an above-average pitcher for 4-5 years of his career. My opinion is that including this makes him far and away the best player of all time, so for the sake of argument, we’ll just compare the players as hitters.
2) We’ll assume Barry Bonds did not do steroids, because in my mind, if you had to use performance enhancing drugs to make yourself the best player ever, then you’re NOT the best player ever. (I don’t actually believe this, but it’s the only way to make this a meaningful discussion.
Methodology of the comparison: I’ve taken each player’s best season, using OPS+ as the yardstick for which season is their best. I’ve also taken their worst season, using the same stat(I’ve left out any season where the player did not play 100 games and Bonds’ rookie year, so it’s not a fluke rookie season or a season where the guy only played 20-30 games). Lastly, I took their totals for certain stats. Then I found the league average stats for the same years and spans of years for each player. The stats used are the easiest to gather this information for and are “rate” statistics, meaning they’re averages/percentages, rather than totals. Batting average, On-base percentage, Slugging, and of course, OPS are the four stats that I looked at. I wanted to include HRs, RBIs and Runs scored, but these are harder to come up with league averages for.
So, first looking at their best seasons: This part is eerily similar between the two players. Ruth’s line is .376/.533/.849/1.382 and Bonds’ line is .370/.582/.799/1.381. Only one thousandth of a difference in OPS for their best seasons. Looking at the league averages, they’re also pretty close. During Bonds’ best season, the league line was: .259/.331/.410/.741 and during Ruth’s, the line was .283/.347/.387/.734. There’s somewhat of a difference in batting average, but in OPS, the gap closes and Ruth’s time period was a shade behind Bonds’ time for OPS. So using their best seasons, the only really conclusive thing we see is that they were both really dominant(about 650 points better than league average on OPS each), but overall, no huge difference here. So we’ll have to look at average and worst years.
Worst years there’s a fairly big discrepancy. Bonds in his worst year(his 2nd year) only matched the batting average for the league, matching it dead on at .261. His OBP was basically also matched, with Bonds being at .329 and league average being .328. He did smoke the league average slugging that year, slugging .492 compared to league average .404. So Bonds’ Slugging was 21.7% higher than the league average. The OPS difference is .821 to .732, so he’s 12.1% higher than average there in his worst season.
Now, on to Ruth: Ruth’s batting average was slightly higher than league average his worst year: .288 to .279. His OBP was CONSIDERABLY better, being .448 to .351, so he was 27.6% better at getting on base than the average player. The slugging discrepancy was .537 to .399. Ruth’s WORST OPS+ season was one where he slugged .537! This puts him 34.6% better than league average at slugging during his worst season. The OPS difference: .985 to .750. So in Ruth’s worst OPS+ season, he was 31.3% better than the average player.
OPS Difference – Worst Season
Ruth – 31.3% better than league average
Bonds – 12.1% better than league average
Now – average season time. Bonds’ career line is .298 batting and a .445/.608/1.053 OBP/Slugging/OPS line. His .298 compares to an average of .260 over the span of Bonds’ career. So Bonds is a respectable 14.6% better than the average hitter of his time period. The OBP/Slugging/OPS line for the league during his career is .328/.404/.732. So Bonds is an impressive 35.7% better than the average player during his time at getting on base, 50.5% better in the slugging line, and has an OPS 43.9% higher than league average during his career.
Ruth’s career line includes a .342 batting average and an overall line of .474/.690/1.164, so he tops Bonds in straight numbers, but how does he do compared to his competition? His batting average of .342 compares very favorably to the league average, which was .274. This means he gets hits 24.8% more often than the average player in the AL of his time period. He gets on base 38.6% more often (.474 vs. .342) slugs an absolutely astonishing 81.6% better than league average, and his OPS is 61.2% higher than league average. To line these percentages up:
Player vs. League Average – Batting – OBP – Slugging – OPS
Ruth – 24.8% - 38.6% - 81.6% - 61.2%
Bonds – 14.6% - 35.7% - 50.5% - 43.9%
So comparing their dominance vs. league average, Bonds is well above average in every category, but still doesn’t match the Babe’s success compared to their peers on ANY category. When you take this into account, even without Ruth’s pitching career and without disqualifying Bonds as a steroid user, Ruth is the better player and earns the distinction of best player ever.
posted by Matt at 8:23 PM
6 Comments:
Your whole point isn't valid as the level of competition between 1920 and now isn't even remotely close. Remember the talent pool that players are drawn for and I haven't hammered this home I supose but the MONEY factor.
You the ignore fielding and base running which are two key elements and both favor Bonds. If you weren't trying to prove Ruth was the better player this omission would suprise me but you are.
Bonds is NOT the best player ever because of the HR record. He's the best ever because he was a great player at all aspects of the game. Without a doubt one of the most balanced and skilled players to ever play the game and he did it in an era where the game in international, the pay is so high everyone who at an early age can play at all dreams of playing, and in an era where sports science and training must be at the elite level to compete. I'm sorry but a poor fielder CANNOT be the best player ever. Next we're going to have to hear about how Nash got another unearned MVP while his defense was beyond bad.
I feel it is close, because now Bonds hits against a whole lot of pitchers who back then, due to fewer teams, wouldn't have even made rosters.
In addition, considering I left out the fact that Ruth was one of the better pitchers of his time, I think cutting out baserunning/fielding is a pretty fair thing.
We're talking about one of the better pitchers of his generation and the BEST hitter of his generation vs. someone who arguably isn't even the best hitter in his generation. It's still not a contest.
Talent pool. There are more people to choose from so the pitching by default has to be on average better. That ignores the reserve pitching we have today which makes pitching so much better. We already in the thread went over that the talent pool has grown MUCH MUCH MUCH larger than baseball has expanded. If we had 300 teams in the MLB today you'd have a point.
Ruth was a good pitcher. You're stretching again with the whole "one of the best of his time." Also he was only a pitcher for a very short peroid of time. If he'd every now and then pitched a big game until late into his career this would be a valid point. Bonds hasn't moved to the AL to DH so he can JUST hit.
You know your argument is valid when the only thing against it that someone can bring up is hypotheticals. Very good blog!
anonymous: Thank you!
hoop: I'll do a post on Ruth's pitching career later this week, check back. Thanks for the comments though guys, I don't get too many, so seeing a few makes me happy :)
Bonds not the best hitter of his era? I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. His 182 OPS+ is the highest among active players, and is third all-time. So he's basically the third greatest hitter after ruth and williams.
My problem with putting Williams #2 all-time is his average ability at every other facet of the game sans hitting. With Bonds, you have a good who excelled at hitting, fielding, and baserunning. In Ruth's case he was actually a pretty good fielder in his prime, and a solid baserunner. Throw in the pitching, and he's far superior to Ballgame - Even with war credit. Don't get me wrong, Ballgame was a superb talent, but to say he's the second best player ever, IMO, is blasphemy.
Me personally, I'd take Ruth, Bonds, Mays, Cobb, Honus Wagner, and possibly Mickey Mantle over Ballgame. So ballgame doesn't even crack my top five.
Post a Comment
<< Home