[disposableheros]

Originally Posted by Long_Long_Name

You're looking at it wrong. It's very clear that today's baseball has a much, much, much higher difficulty level than that of the 1910's. It's only fair to Bonds (and the other players playing today) to take that into account, since they face a much tougher opposition than Ruth did. It's not "if, if, if" at all, on the contrary.

What we're doing is not "Well anyone who played in the 1910's cannot possibly be the best ever because the competition was easier back then". What we're saying is that Bonds and Ruth both dominated their sport during their respective eras, and put up fairly similar statistics. However, it would be unfair to Bonds not to aknowledge that his output came against a much, much, much harder competition than Ruth's did. I agree with you that automatically eliminating old timers from the debate is stupid; however, it's also stupid not to recognize the disparities observable between the two eras in terms of talent.

not to me it aint. its pretty muddy. there are great arguments for and against what you state is absolute fact.

im not discrediting the disparities. im just not punishing Ruth or giving extra credit to Bonds for something they cant control.