B. Bonds homered to deep center

[Butt Rubber]

once again, Bank Robber has to set you all straight

Ruth or Bonds?

look at it this way:

Ruth's advantages: segregated, had Lou Gehrig hitting behind him so pitchers were scared to IBB him as much (although they still did), no video tapes for pitchers to study/break down his technique (although teams played eachother so much players became familiar with eachother anyway), defense wasn't as strong due to the bad gloves

Bonds advantages: watered down pitching, MUCH smaller stadiums, night games, better doctors, better traveling conditions, body armor, he had better gloves to use as an out fielder

Also, Bonds didnt have to start off his career in the dead ball era (which Ruth did in Boston).


Both had advantages over the other, and thats not even counting steroids.

 

[Kid_Viciouz]

you gotta a point man i can deal with that but you know this is always gonna be an arguement.

once again, Bank Robber has to set you all straight

Ruth or Bonds?

look at it this way:

Ruth's advantages: segregated, had Lou Gehrig hitting behind him so pitchers were scared to IBB him as much (although they still did), no video tapes for pitchers to study/break down his technique (although teams played eachother so much players became familiar with eachother anyway), defense wasn't as strong due to the bad gloves

Bonds advantages: watered down pitching, MUCH smaller stadiums, night games, better doctors, better traveling conditions, body armor, he had better gloves to use as an out fielder

Also, Bonds didnt have to start off his career in the dead ball era (which Ruth did in Boston).


Both had advantages over the other, and thats not even counting steroids.

 

[FreshToDeath]

Wow there are so many bonds haters in here lets just say if he was on steriods he cant be now they are doing massive testing

Because he and most of these other cheating bastards are using expensive derivatives of human growth hormone, which baseball doesn't test for. There is no urine test for HGH and the players union won't allow blood to be taken. Fuck baseball for continuing to deceive people. Saying oh yeah we test, but not for the substances that 95% of these cheaters are using. Shameless.

 

[ARon]

once again, Bank Robber has to set you all straight

Ruth or Bonds?

look at it this way:

Ruth's advantages: segregated, had Lou Gehrig hitting behind him so pitchers were scared to IBB him as much (although they still did), no video tapes for pitchers to study/break down his technique (although teams played eachother so much players became familiar with eachother anyway), defense wasn't as strong due to the bad gloves

Bonds advantages: watered down pitching, MUCH smaller stadiums, night games, better doctors, better traveling conditions, body armor, he had better gloves to use as an out fielder

Also, Bonds didnt have to start off his career in the dead ball era (which Ruth did in Boston).


Both had advantages over the other, and thats not even counting steroids.

Good post. You'll know more about this than me. I mean i know pitching stats have gone too shit but I don't know if I want to agree with watered down pitching. Is pitching that bad compared to how it was back when Ruth was on the plate. Has it not evolved that much? Maybe hitters have just gotten better and pitching hasn't gone down, just hasn't kept up. With around a century of time to improve I just don't see how it is possible that a pitcher from back then could be better than one today.

Edit: I know you have a "hate" for Bonds, but from that post it seems you have some sort of a respect for what he has/is doing? You didn't completely discredit him like you usaully do. Thats why I'm asking.

 

[Butt Rubber]

Good post. You'll know more about this than me. I mean i know pitching stats have gone too shit but I don't know if I want to agree with watered down pitching. Is pitching that bad compared to how it was back when Ruth was on the plate. Has it not evolved that much? Maybe hitters have just gotten better and pitching hasn't gone down, just hasn't kept up. With around a century of time to improve I just don't see how it is possible that a pitcher from back then could be better than one today.

Edit: I know you have a "hate" for Bonds, but from that post it seems you have some sort of a respect for what he has/is doing? You didn't completely discredit him like you usaully do. Thats why I'm asking.

I'm just saying that for every advantage one has, the other had another

as for watered down pitching, Bonds gets to face these garbage bull pen pitchers who weren't good enough to make it as starters in the first place. Relievers were used back in Ruths era, but not nearly as much as today.

Also pitchers today get to rely on such a large strike zone, Ruth's era was pretty conservative with strike zones

 

[yak pac fatal]

once again, Bank Robber has to set you all straight

Ruth or Bonds?

look at it this way:

Ruth's advantages: segregated, had Lou Gehrig hitting behind him so pitchers were scared to IBB him as much (although they still did), no video tapes for pitchers to study/break down his technique (although teams played eachother so much players became familiar with eachother anyway), defense wasn't as strong due to the bad gloves

Bonds advantages: watered down pitching, MUCH smaller stadiums, night games, better doctors, better traveling conditions, body armor, he had better gloves to use as an out fielder

Also, Bonds didnt have to start off his career in the dead ball era (which Ruth did in Boston).


Both had advantages over the other, and thats not even counting steroids.

whats dead ball era?

 

[Butt Rubber]

whats dead ball era?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead-ball_era

The reasons for the dead-ball era
[edit]
The foul strike rule
This was the major rule change that, in just a few years, sent baseball from a high scoring game to one where scoring any runs became a struggle. In 1901, the National League adopted the foul strike rule, and the American League followed suit in 1903. Prior to this rule change, foul balls were not counted as strikes, thus a batter could foul off a countless number of pitches with no strikes counted against him, an enormous advantage for the batter.

[edit]
The ball itself
Before Ray Chapman died in 1920 after being hit by a pitch, it was very common for a baseball to be in play for over 100 pitches. A ball would be used in a game until it was starting to unravel. The early baseball leagues were very cost-conscious, so fans would have to throw balls back that had been hit in the stands; even if a ball was discolored, often due to tobacco juice applied by players, it was kept in the game. Because of this, and because the baseball parks had no lights until the late 1930s, it was very difficult to see the ball. And since the ball was hard to hit anyway, it was very difficult to hit it very far. As the ball was being used, it would get softer, and hitting a softer object for distance is much more difficult. There is also the argument that the ball itself was made softer to begin with, so it was harder to hit.

[edit]
The spit ball
Another reason that the ball was hard to hit far was because pitchers could basically do whatever they wanted to when it came to the ball. The spitball pitch was permitted in baseball until 1920, but was phased out after Chapman's death even though the pitch that killed him was not a spitball. Pitchers often marked the ball or scuffed it or spit on it or anything else they wanted. This made the ball "dance" and curve probably much more than it does now. And such practices added to the discoloration, so it was literally harder to see the ball, particularly as evening approached.

 

[AmerikazMost]

ps. Babe Ruth was good but lets face it Hank Aaron was better

lmao no

cumulative yes, because he played longer..that doesn't mean he was better..thats like saying nolan ryan is better than roger clemens or sandy koufax or walter johnson or whoever

 

[ARon]

I'm just saying that for every advantage one has, the other had another

as for watered down pitching, Bonds gets to face these garbage bull pen pitchers who weren't good enough to make it as starters in the first place. Relievers were used back in Ruths era, but not nearly as much as today.

Also pitchers today get to rely on such a large strike zone, Ruth's era was pretty conservative with strike zones

Right, but what i was asking is can we even compare pitchers of the early century to now? Hasn't velocity, types of pitches, mechanics, I mean evrything changed for the better? Like I was saying after 100 years don't you think pitchers today would be light years ahead of pitchers back then in terms of skill and the mentioned above? If not that really baffles me.

 

[Butt Rubber]

Right, but what i was asking is can we even compare pitchers of the early century to now? Hasn't velocity, types of pitches, mechanics, I mean evrything changed for the better? Like I was saying after 100 years don't you think pitchers today would be light years ahead of pitchers back then in terms of skill and the mentioned above? If not that really baffles me.

walter johnson was clocked in at throwing over 100 mph in 1914 by some Navy device

pitching back then was way overlooked by people now, walter johnson or christy mathewson would be just as effective now as back then

 

[tejada4mvp]

Here is an other one 2night in Washington no 3 already

 

[ARon]

walter johnson was clocked in at throwing over 100 mph in 1914 by some Navy device

Stupid me, the funny thing is I knew about that. Ok besides a few players could we even compare. I mean look at Ruth, he was a giant among men, of course he is gonna perform beyond anyone, same with a couple of other players. But I don't think we can compare the game of today to the game back then, everything, from the equipment, coaching, athletic ability is beyond anything I'm sure they back then even imagined. It's like comparing the NBA today to the NBA without the shot clock or 3-point line.

 

[Butt Rubber]

Stupid me, the funny thing is I knew about that. Ok besides a few players could we even compare. I mean look at Ruth, he was a giant among men, of course he is gonna perform beyond anyone, same with a couple of other players. But I don't think we can compare the game of today to the game back then, everything, from the equipment, coaching, athletic ability is beyond anything I'm sure they back then even imagined. It's like comparing the NBA today to the NBA without the shot clock or 3-point line.

yeah, but I think a great ballplayer would be a great ballplayer nomatter where/when he plays. Good athletes find a way to stand out over mediocre athletes.

imagine if Pedro Martinez had to play back in the 20s, his career would be over in 5 years due to injuries

back then pitchers had more stuff to throw at hitters, I'm sure if Barry Bonds had to face Christy Mathewson's reverse curveball it would confuse the shit out of him

pitchers these days rely on the same 2-3 types of pitches to get batters out, almost everyone tries to use the fastball instead. pitchers are just either too lazy to learn new things or just dont have the talent to do so