Folks, it is Ruth, and it is not close. Statistically... Ruth was incomparable.. http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/ruthba01.shtml. The man had a career OPS of 1.164, with a .690 slg and .474 obp. Not in his best year. read more
Bonds, of course, has to be questioned because of steroid usage. So, lets compare these two legends and see who was better. We will start off looking at why they were great and then delve into the drawbacks for both players. Babe Ruth. Ruth was on a level all on his own when he played; Baseballs were not supposed to be hit like Ruth hit them. read more
This is a fun exercise from David Laurila of FanGraphs. He asked ten major leaguers -- some players and some coaches -- who they thought was "better," Babe Ruth or Barry Bonds. David didn't define the terms. He left it up to the respondents to decide what "better" meant and to explain their choices. read more
On the other hand, Ruth's rate statistics- batting average, on-base average, slugging percentage, OPS- are quite a bit better than Bonds'.I think therefore it would be accurate to judge Ruth as the more dominant player while Bonds is the more complete player. read more
Babe Ruth. Barry Bonds was a giant fraud who didn't even care that he was tainting the game that America fell in love with! Ruth hit 714 home runs in his career and did not use performance-enhancing drugs to do it. Bonds should have only had 1 home run in his career. read more
Both of these player’s records and careers can be questioned; Ruth played at a time, one hundred years ago, when players were bricklayers and roofers during the off-season. read more
This is a fun exercise from David Laurila of FanGraphs. He asked ten major leaguers -- some players and some coaches -- who they thought was "better," Babe Ruth or Barry Bonds. read more