OOTP Developments Forums - View Single Post - Interesting Test (concerning Barry Bonds and the Giants)

Wheele8 · 03-24-2005, 10:22 AM

This has been a most fascinating read.
People are so passionate about their specific stances. I love seeing that no matter what the topic is, or how much I might disagree with the individual.
I just wanted to make the point that I think everyone is comparing apples with oranges. The game of baseball is so much different now then it was in Ruth's era, and is also much more different than it was in the 60s and 70s. I respect people that love a specific era, but don't insult someone else's preference - that is all it is, a personal preference.
Arguements over the meaningfullness of records is what brings about this anamosity - but records should be judged against the era they are accomplished. Ruth dominated his era regardless of whether it was integrated or they used bullpens differently-everyone else played in that same era. Bonds has also dominated his era regardless of whether he's taking performance enhancing drugs-clearly Bonds isn't the only one juicing.
If things were different, all we would know is that things would be different. It's not worth trying to figure out how Ruth would do today, or how Bonds would do in the 20s, they both were great in the era they played in, and that's the only way you can fairly judge them.

03-24-2005, 10:22 AM	#84
Wheele8 Minors (Double A) Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 149	This has been a most fascinating read. People are so passionate about their specific stances. I love seeing that no matter what the topic is, or how much I might disagree with the individual. I just wanted to make the point that I think everyone is comparing apples with oranges. The game of baseball is so much different now then it was in Ruth's era, and is also much more different than it was in the 60s and 70s. I respect people that love a specific era, but don't insult someone else's preference - that is all it is, a personal preference. Arguements over the meaningfullness of records is what brings about this anamosity - but records should be judged against the era they are accomplished. Ruth dominated his era regardless of whether it was integrated or they used bullpens differently-everyone else played in that same era. Bonds has also dominated his era regardless of whether he's taking performance enhancing drugs-clearly Bonds isn't the only one juicing. If things were different, all we would know is that things would be different. It's not worth trying to figure out how Ruth would do today, or how Bonds would do in the 20s, they both were great in the era they played in, and that's the only way you can fairly judge them.