Bonds vs. Ruth rehashed

[sixfour210]

Yet another indication that talent was thin back in Ruth's era was that the sport wasn't as popular. Not as many people watched and even fewer thought about playing. All you have to do is look at attendance to figure that out.

New York Yankees 1927: 1,164,015 (highest in the league)
St. Louis Browns 1927: 247,879 (lowest)

Even the Expos drew 1,025,639 fans last season. Simply put, more people are interested in playing and watching the game today. There's no getting around that fact. And, oh yeah, let's not forget the whole discrimination thing.

Sorry to bring this back again but I saw some attendance figures from 1927 and was pretty shocked. Tickets were cheap back then and whoever wanted to see the game could, unlike today.

[kingfc22]

I think that would be attributed to the size of the population at the time. The US hasn't always been this big.

[Rizon]

No, WHY!?

[holyroller]

Originally posted by sixfour210
Yet another indication that talent was thin back in Ruth's era was that the sport wasn't as popular. Not as many people watched and even fewer thought about playing. All you have to do is look at attendance to figure that out.

Eh. On the contrary, baseball was more popular in Ruth's time, at least relative to the population. Those attendance figures are completely out of context. Compare them to the overall population in the United States at the time and they would blow today's attendance figures out of the water.

[Crapshoot]

Six4, d00d, you're turning more people away from an arguement that I agree with when you throw out pointless evidence like this, without placing it in any context. For example, you might point out that there is a larger potential talent pool today, which is the fundemental basis of this arguement...

[Karros270]

I also think they count season tickets even if no one uses them. In the old days they only counted those people that actually showed up.

[JWay]

^^^ Bingo

[elibangkok]

In Bill James NHBA's decades in a box sections, he gave the period of time an average person would go to a baseball game. I don't have the book in front of me, but I remember that attendance as a percentage of population is much higher now than it was then.

[holyroller]

Originally posted by elibangkok
In Bill James NHBA's decades in a box sections, he gave the period of time an average person would go to a baseball game. I don't have the book in front of me, but I remember that attendance as a percentage of population is much higher now than it was then.

Really!?!?!?

Now you have my interest. I have to look it up

[holyroller]

Well I'll be damned. In the 1930's the average American attended a game once every sixteen years. In the 1990's it was once every four and a half years. I would still maintain that baseball's position in the lives of Americans is greater then than it is now, but I do have to concede on this point.

[elibangkok]

Originally posted by holyroller
Well I'll be damned. In the 1930's the average American attended a game once every sixteen years. In the 1990's it was once every four and a half years. I would still maintain that baseball's position in the lives of Americans is greater then than it is now, but I do have to concede on this point.

That's a really interesting question. Is baseball more important to Americans now than it was 50-80 years ago?

Obviously we have to think in percentage terms, as there is more of everything now than then.

I think there are more fans who follow the game very closely. Watch as many games on TV as possible. Check baseball related websites. Post on message boards, etc.

Are there more casual fans now than there were then?

[holyroller]

Originally posted by elibangkok
That's a really interesting question. Is baseball more important to Americans now than it was 50-80 years ago?

Obviously we have to think in percentage terms, as there is more of everything now than then.

I think there are more fans who follow the game very closely. Watch as many games on TV as possible. Check baseball related websites. Post on message boards, etc.

Are there more casual fans now than there were then?

There are other factors that play in to it as well. For one thing, it is simply easier for most people to attend baseball games now than ever before. Mass-transit, the automobile, air travel, and etc are one factor. Possibly larger is that people now have far more disposable income than they did in, for instance, the 1930's. Also consider that while the majority of the population was centered in the east, ALL of the baseball was and didn't start to move west until the 1950's, long after the population growth trend had shifted.

That just covers attendence however. I do agree that there are more fans who follow the game closely through things like the internet and television but those things didn't exist back then. The evidence is purely anecdotal, but I have read countless accounts of people reading the newspaper every day to see how the ball club did the day before and it is pretty much inarguable that for a kid growing up in, say, the 1940's baseball was pretty much the only game in town.

I guess it's really impossible to answer definitively and maybe someone with more historical knowledge *cough* Professor* could shed more light than I.

[elibangkok]

It's definitely easier to follow the game now than it was back then. Is this advantage negated by the increased entertainment options available and the decreased attention spans of today's population?

I also have no idea how we would go about measuring this, maybe others have some ideas?

[BaseballMan]

Sorry but more doesnt always mean better. Bonds is a great player but he isnt miles above the competition as Ruth was.
Even with Bond's hr record year you gotta remember that McGwire just set it oh what way back in 98. Ruth first broke the rcord that had been held for 35 years and then there was nobody in his league as far as hr hitting goes till Gehrig came along. Now lets look at batting avg, Bonds has a great year winning the batting title but ruth was batting at least .340 most of his career. i beleive he had a .342 average. Doesnt matter what era you are in you still have to hit the ball and when the likes of Walter johnson are throwing at you thats no easy task. I would agree Bonds may be a better fielder but then again Ruth was hell of a pitcher. And dont forget the league's pitching as been watered down with 4 expanison teams during the Bonds era. Keep in mind that Ruths 60 homer season was not even his best. His best season was 1921. If you wanna compare a player to Ruth i would go with Willie Mays or Ted Willimas before Barry Bonds.

[holyroller]

Top 3 OPS+ seasons (note that OPS+ is OPS relative to the league)

Ruth: 255, 239, 239
Bonds: 275, 262, 231

The last three seasons Bonds has been futher ahead of his competition than Ruth was.

[BaseballMan]

For 3 seasons yes but that doesnt define how he was career wise as far as the competition. I would have to beleive Alex Rodriguez & when he was healthy Ken Griffey Jr came closer to matching Bonds as a player than anybody did with Ruth.

[holyroller]

Actually, Gehrig, Cobb, Hornsby and the like were as close to Ruth as contempararies are to Bonds. If you look solely at home runs, then no one could touch Ruth at the beginning of his career. However, other players of the time had value in other ways that came close to Ruth's value. Later in Ruth's career, others began to close the home run gap. I'm actually on the side of Ruth being the best ever, but the argument that no one came even remotely close to him is largely a myth.

[BaseballMan]

Well no i dont think it is because its not just homers. if you take away the homers Ruth could still almost equal Gehrig, Cobb, & Hornsby. Of course i said almost. The fact is Bonds had one good year of batting
.370. Ruth batted over .370 6 different times and batted .359, .356, .345, .341.
And this is in a time when Hornsby set the modern day record for batting avg in a season. I dont think Bonds comes anywhere close to that. Ok so now if you add in the walks and Rbis, but Bonds has the edge in steals. Now add the homers and remember Ruth wasnt really an everday player till like 1918 and if you compare just the 2 of them Ruth still has more home runs, rbis, better batting avg. In fact it doesnt matter if Bonds breaks any more of Ruths record cause he has already played more games than Ruth. I mean it doesnt diminsh the fact that he broke a record of Ruth's but to be better he would have had to have done it in less games. Now i dont think they should change the records with a notation if he breaks the home run record but i think its something to keep in mind when we compare the two. I think Bonds is the best of his era but i would still put Williams & Mays ahead of him and if Mantle had been healthy during his career maybe him too but i cant go by ifs. I guess overall its not just that Ruth could hit home runs but he could hit for avg and pitch too. The only thing it seem like he couldnt do was steal and stay way from the beer and hotdogs.

[dougaiton]

Originally posted by holyroller
Mass-transit, the automobile, air travel, and etc are one factor. Possibly larger is that people now have far more disposable income than they did in, for instance, the 1930's.

The Mass Transit is the important one here, if you consider the population dynamics then the percentage of ability of people to actually attend a game shrinks dramatically. The idea of 'market' teams didn't exist then, there's no way someone from anywhere other than the metripolitan area of St. Louis could attend. Do you think guys from Conneticut went down to Fenway often?

I;ve already danced the Ruth-Bonds dance too often.

[Crapshoot]

Baseball, your choices (RBI, BA etc) are basically pointless- HR's point stands, in that OPS+ takes all that into account and them some. POinting out inane BA records do nothing for your arguement- Bonds has more IW than many a team in baseball, something that Ruth etc never did to our knowledge.. The less games point is trivial as well- Bonds has played at a higher level and maintained that higher OPS+ over 162 games, which is harder than doing over 144- another point in his favor. Bonds played defense at a level Ruth never approached, hit as well during the peak, and had a dual threat nature at the plate. The BA arguement is inane.