Volume CXXXII, Number 6 October 25, 2002 f

Barry Bonds is no Babe Ruth
J.P. BOX
COLUMNIST

In 1927, Babe hit 14 percent of all A.L. homeruns. (Courtesy of baberuth.com)

Barry Bonds is the modern edition of George Herman Ruth, or at least that's what every self-pontificating promoter of the 2002 World Series would like you to believe. Although this comparison may increase television ratings, the declaration that Barry is Babe misguides baseball fans and misrepresents the accomplishments of these two great sluggers.

Nonetheless, the Barry-Babe-fever is abundant, with respected analysts like ESPN's David Schoenfield searching for parallels.

In an article entitled "How did they pitch to Ruth?" he proclaims that, "the anticipation of seeing Bonds in the World Series is similar to the anticipation of seeing Babe Ruth in 1923." After micro-analyzing postseason walk ratios, he then declares that Barry Bonds is "more feared than Ruth. Amazing."

Not to let anyone down, Barry Bonds, the media proclaimed reincarnation of the "Sultan of Swat," homered in his very first at-bat, giving further credence to those who back his legacy on par with that of the Babe.

In addition to his current postseason success, Bonds hit a league-record 73 homeruns in 2001, breaking Ruth's career-best by 13. That same year, Bonds also topped Babe Ruth's .847 slugging percentage - a record that stood for the better part of eight decades.

Although it is only natural to compare a player when he approaches and supercedes a mark of historic greatness, such comparisons carry inherent risks that can skew the statistical reality.

Simply put, Bonds' 73 homeruns in 2001 pale in comparison to Ruth's 60 in 1927. For example, if economists discuss real wages in the United States, they adjust for inflation. It's obvious that a dollar today buys a lot less than a dollar 80 years ago. Likewise, a homer today is less significant than a homer 80 years ago.

However, when discussing the statistical accomplishments of athletes, analysts and casual fans do not concede such inflationary differences. As a result, the gross totals fail to offer any meaningful analysis or comparison.

In 1927, Babe Ruth's magical 60 represented 14 percent of all homeruns in the American League. Thus, in the entire league, approximately 430 balls were knocked into the bleachers.

On the other hand, in the modern era, eight to ten players (numerically comparable to a third of a single team's roster) can account for 430 homeruns. Barry Bonds would need an astronomical 300-plus round-trippers to approach Ruthian dominance.

While you try to fathom how a single player could account for 14% of all homeruns within his league, take into account how Babe Ruth revolutionized the game of baseball. Before Babe, bats didn't have knobs at the end of the handle, players rarely swung for the fences, and singles were a valued commodity.

The Babe changed all that by playing with a reckless, all-or-nothing style that refuted conventional baseball wisdom. His simple mantra of "Never let the fear of striking out get in your way" paved the way for his 714 career homeruns and 1330 strikeouts.

Barry Bonds, conversely, was reared in the homerun-happy baseball cultures of the 90s. He strategically added bulk to his once lanky frame and since has become the game's most dominant power hitter of his generation.

And that's exactly where he belongs. The 2002 World Series showcases the most feared hitter of the new millennium, but the comparison to the Babe is seriously flawed in that it compares two of the game's greatest hitters without controlling for the time element.

But, come on, wouldn't it be fun to imagine how Barry Bonds would have done in 1927? After all, he might have hit 73-or maybe even 80. He might have been better than the Babe!

Unfortunately, Bonds never would have played a single game of Major League Baseball in the 1920s. If he were a ball player, he would have played in a segregated all-black league and eventually end up in the Negro League Baseball Hall of Fame in Kansas City.

But he didn't play baseball in the 1920s. Instead, he was born in 1964, made it to the big leagues in 1986, set the all-time single season homerun record in 2001, and led his team into the 2002 World Series. As such, he should be judged in accordance to his peers. udged in accordance to his peers.