Sports Columnists

By Chris

May 5, 2006 10:38 PM | Link to this

Way to go, Terence. Another race-related article. Surprise, surprise.

How do we know Ruth wouldn’t have hit more home runs in an integrated league? There are 2 sides to every argument, but that one is never brought up. Just a thought.

By Chris

May 5, 2006 10:43 PM | Link to this

Also, very clever title with the “white-out” in there. How about this one: “Black-out clouds Ruth’s accomplishments” ?

By Amber

May 5, 2006 11:52 PM | Link to this

Gee, thanks for making a steroid and cheating issue a race issue - again.

By name

May 6, 2006 12:20 AM | Link to this

Yea, and if Bonds would have faced those pitchers and hit in those parks he might have had 250 career homers. Not to mention not having the juice or trainers.

By Dan

May 6, 2006 12:30 AM | Link to this

Why does Terrance Moore make everything a racial issue?

Especially when he is a racist himself.

By G. Wayne Clough

May 6, 2006 12:42 AM | Link to this

No, Terence Moore is exactly right. 714 is the most overrated number in sports. Before you criticize Moore, look at it from a non-racial perspective. It doesn’t matter if they were not allowed to compete for being too short, too tall, black, gay, Hispanic, or whatever — bottom line is Ruth hit his 714 without having to face all the possible competition. Bonds and Aaron have hit their homers against all the possible competition. Think about it this way — take away all the minorities from every roster in the league and fill those spots with the best white minor league talent. Imagine if Mark McGwire got to face triple-A white pitchers instead of the likes of Pedro Martinez, Fernando Valenzuela, Dwight Gooden, etc. How many more home runs would he have hit?

So regardless of whether you think Bonds would have hit 250 back then or whatever, the point is Ruth had less competition than Bonds or Aaron. If you ask me Ruth’s 714 is as deserving of an asterisk as any Bonds home run.

It doesn’t take a genius to realize that at least half of the elite players in today’s game are black, Hispanic, or Asian. Keeping that in mind, if Ruth had to face elite players from different races, he would almost certainly not have hit nearly as many home runs.

And I don’t think this article is necessarily pro-Bonds as much as it’s a reaction to the endless coverage of Bonds “Chasing Ruth”, which I think is a valid reaction. I have never seen so much coverage of someone trying to get second place.

By Ice

May 6, 2006 12:45 AM | Link to this

KKK why don’t you just jump in a toaster and get a tan.

By James

May 6, 2006 01:31 AM | Link to this

Why does nobody lambaste Barry Bonds for saying he wanted to break the “white man’s” record, and then retire so Hank Aaron could keep his record. To think of what Hank Aaron accomplished considering the death threats and other garbage, to watch and listen to this cry baby whine about the treatment he’s receiving. It’s funny what stuff people who aren’t white get away with saying, I mean..Hell….listen to the Two Live Stews any day of the week. Or don’t, like me.

P.S. DX is coming back!

By Eric

May 6, 2006 02:06 AM | Link to this

The typical Terence Moore argument that all black athletes are superior to all whites is irrelevant. The fact is we don’t know how well the negro-leaguers would have fared against the major-leaguers because they never played. Babe Ruth is revered worldwide as the one true icon of baseball and that’s not going to change no matter how many HR’s Barry Bonds hits (or how many anti-Ruth articles Terence Moore writes) .

By Ice

May 6, 2006 03:10 AM | Link to this

Hey James, why don’t you just get back on the tanning bed and get your brown on.

By Chris

May 6, 2006 03:40 AM | Link to this

How about the diluted pitching Bonds has faced because of overexpansion? If MLB had the correct # of teams (24), Bonds would have faced better pitching, thus keeping his home run numbers down.

And, oh yeah. Without the drugs, Bonds isn’t even approaching 600 right now.

By russ

May 6, 2006 04:09 AM | Link to this

Hey james, the reason people who aren’t white get away with saying the things they do is because white people has an incredible amount of guilt for the way they treated blacks for 400 years(we all know the story.) And Eric,it’s not true that the negro leagues never faced the major leaguers ,they played many times,in the all-star game,that’s right!! it was an annual event and as expected after about ten games the the major leaguers cancelled the event because the NEVER WON A SINGLE TIME!!!!! ask any baseball historian.

By Mark

May 6, 2006 04:15 AM | Link to this

I agree too disagree with Mr. Moore. Ruths records were set in an all-white league , not the major leagues we know today. I do believe that Josh gibson was far and away a better athlete , but we will never know and the generations that watched Ruth and his all-white league will never how much great baseball they were cheated from by a racist segregated baseball league. Be thankful for what we have today , A truly golden color blind era of the greatest Major League Baseball being played.

By Josh Knight

May 6, 2006 07:04 AM | Link to this

Mr. Moore how the hell will we ever know what the Babe could have done against the negro league pitchers? It is stupid to even bring it up. I am not discounting the fact that the negro leagues had some great athletes, but it is something that we will never know. I do know this, Babe Ruth hit all of his homeruns in a lot fewer at bats than Bonds and Aaron. Let’s not forget that.

By walter

May 6, 2006 07:05 AM | Link to this

This is America and because of our troubled past, race is going to be an issue anytime the situation is Black (Bonds) versus White (Ruth). However, I think the real issue is how Bonds treated people. If a more likeable Black player (Griffey, Frank Thomas) was closing in on the record, we would not see this type of scrutiny.

By Hunk Erdown

May 6, 2006 07:18 AM | Link to this

The comparison of a so-called asterik next to Ruth’s name along with one next to Bonds’ name is ridiculous. Ruth had no choice in the make up of the league he played in. Everything you can argue about him is a bunch of “ifs” and “maybes” as far as the racial question. Bonds, on the other hand made a calculated judgement to cheat. He used substances that were against the law to use. His reasons, while some say were at least partially racialy motivated are irrelevent. He cheated so that he would have an unfair advantage. Put one next to McGuire, Sosa, Palmeira, and whoever… but theirs don’t matter because they are not in the running for being the home run “king”. Ruth played with the cards he was dealt. Bonds brought a few extra cards up his sleeve. Racial questions are real as far as the history of the game and our Country, but they have nothing to do with Bonds and the choices he made to circumvent the law of the land and the rules of the game to become a record holder. If this whole discussion is about who was the best ball player— Ruth vs. Bonds, then call it that. But it will always be based on opinion and the whims of whatever “crutch” one side wants to put on the other. It would be great to be able to turn back the clock and see about all the “what ifs” and woulda, shoulda, couldas, but that is simply not possible. And it has no place in the comparison of a cheater and a player who is now just as much a victim of the times (because his records are questioned) as the true victims (black atheletes not given the opportunity). Both the white players and black players were robbed of the opportunity to play on an equal, level playing field. Some of you act as if the white players of that era are somehow glad they didn’t have to compete against the black players. There’s no basis for that.

There are things in our Nation’s history that had they happened differently could have changed everything. Racial equality, World Wars, the depression, etc. All kinds of arguments can be made on a basis of “what if”, but those arguments are not comparable to One athelete’s conscious choice to cheat, and to cover up the cheating. Some of you have still refused to even accept that Bonds cheated. That IS comparable to people who, way back when, refused to admit that there was a racial problem. Take off the blinders. There was a systematic act of a culture to treat Black men differently than White men, and there was a systematic act of a man named Bonds to cheat. When Bonds made the choice to cheat, so that the record books and even history of the game would be changed because of his cheating, he tore down a lot of the good work that has been done to repair the past. Ironic, isn’t it? that out of one side of his mouth Bonds spouts of all the injustice inequality has caused him personally, then he goes into a back room and injects himself with something that tips the balance of equality to give him an edge over everyone else.

By John "Q"

May 6, 2006 07:27 AM | Link to this

Too bad the diversionary article didn’t work. Bonds is still a cheat and Moore is still an unbelieveably biased, racist sports reporter. If he were white, he would be wearing his own special white hood. As it is, he is black and disgraces our race with stupid comments with the intention of covering for his “boy”, Barry.

By SWB

May 6, 2006 08:17 AM | Link to this

Mr. Moore:

You are pitiful.

By joe public

May 6, 2006 08:20 AM | Link to this

while it is true that Ruth did not get to play against the greats of the negro leagues, you must also consider the fact that in Ruths day baseball was the only game in town. it was THE only major sport.

football and basketball were minor league sports compared to baseball, ALL your great atheletes went to baseball.

now baseball is second or maybe even third fiddle.

Things are never as simple as we would like. sure, integration would have GREATLY increased the talent in major league baseball in Ruths day, but todays game has been diluted due to all the expansion and the drawing off of your best atheletes to basketball and football.
so how can you say for certain that Ruth faced less talent than Bonds?

By Dave In Tampa

May 6, 2006 08:42 AM | Link to this

Very sad article from you Mr. Moore. It’s sad that you enjoy writting to get people upset with you. Can’t believe how self centered you can be. Have you forgot that Ruth was also one of the best pitchers that ever lived. He has a pitching record that still stands to this day. No one in the game today or in the Negro league is even close to the overall baseball player Ruth was.

You say that he did not get a chance to play against people that were darker than the ball they played with. The Negro was the same calibur of ball that MLB was at that time. No worse or better. Everyone acknowledges that there were some real good players that did not get a chance, but to knock Ruth’s true accomplishments is totally assinine. SO pull your head out of you butt long enough to think about what you write before you put it in print.

By Donald

May 6, 2006 08:47 AM | Link to this

Does anyone ever actually read Terence Moore’s articles? On subject matters that typically divide people along racial lines he is quite often on the white side of the issue.

He has been critical of Bonds since the steriod guilt has been undeniable. He was against Bobby Bowden’s tolerance of criminal behavior from his football players. He was against Deon Sanders flashy persona. He was for the N.B.A. dress code.

The only thing I think he shows too much favortism to is Notre Dame.

The guy hates injustice. Is that a crime?

By Ben Sutton

May 6, 2006 09:03 AM | Link to this

It doesn’t surprise me to see T. Moore write such nonsense. I wouldn’t expect anything less. Besides that, Ruth is Mr. Baseball. If you really want to study baseball and competition, look into the days Ruth played. The fences were much longer. The baseball isn’t near what it is today. The mound was higher. The bats were different. It is like golf, in that day. Technology has changed sports. Golfers are driving it record distances because of technology. It is the same with baseball. The baseball season was far shorter than it was today. Babe was by far in a league of his own. Consider this, in those days, right before Ruth.. Ty Cobb led the league in homers with 9 . Yes, 9 home runs led the league. Baseball wasn’t played for homeruns in that day. That’s how good the Babe was. If you question any of this, watch Costas Now this week.

By Braveslifer

May 6, 2006 09:21 AM | Link to this

Moore, wake up - it’s the 21st century. Don’t you think it’s time to judge people based their character (“Hank Hero - Barry Zero”)versus a black & white world. People have learned from the past and moved on (other than the 2 - 3% of idiots like you). Ruth was a great player as were/are a lot of others (Mays; Mantle; Pujols; Gehrig, Clemente…..).

By Mark

May 6, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this

Its hard to believe that you can criticize Babe’s Ruth’s record based on speculation. First off he had no steriods or body enhancers back then. Just because their were no black players surely does not mean he would have met or exceeded his stats. Please consider this - Mainly pitching would have remained the same. We are talking about homeruns, not hits and color would not have made an noticeable impact on this - Please dont make this another race issue - consider all of the facts before you write.

By JoeRob

May 6, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this

Hey, don’t forget about all of the Latino players that never played in that era. If babe had to face Pedro night in and night out, 714 might be 414 or less.

By Chris

May 6, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this

Hey Hunk,

Excellent post. Best I’ve read in a while.

By BD

May 6, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this

I think what is most important here isn’t Babe’s playing against “diminished” competition or Bond’s juicing himself, but the truly great accomplishment of Henry Aaron. NO at bats against diluted pitching. No at bats against segregated pitching - though no Asian pitchers - hmmmm. The ability to sustain a productive career long enough to break the previous record and surpass it by a significant margin. We cannot forget the threats he received. Yet he accomplished his feat in as classy a way as possible. The scrutiny of Bonds comes not because of his race, but because of choices he has made or appears to have made. Henry Aaron’s only mistake was being black. Hardly a mistake. To me what mattered at the time was that he was an Atlanta Brave.

By Rob

May 6, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this

The fact of the matter is Ruth was disgusted that blacks weren’t allowed to compete. It’s been well documented. If you want to raise questions about the competition of the era, then fair enough. Just keep the questions deflected from Ruth. Had he had it his way, it would have been integrated

By Ty

May 6, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this

that a boy terrence.. tells those whities! Ruth wasnnt sh*#

By Tony H

May 6, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this

Bonds is going to hit more than 714 and that will be great. So U RUTH nutz can sit yalls buttucks down and wait for the next fat softball hitting overated ballplayer if he played today he could only play in the AL as a DH. Let’s keep it real. Bonds is a far better ball player and you know this. But he don’t kiss your A* and that is what this is all about. But guess what? It is ARRONS record not that FAT softball hitting beer drinking great white hope that yall keep alive I can name 50 ballplayers I would have on my team before him OVERATERD.

By Ben Sutton

May 6, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this

Tony: I am curious to know the 50 ballplayers you would take over Ruth. I’m glad you decided to post your two cents. Now you have displayed your ignorance.

By Bob

May 6, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this

Terrence is right. Ruth holds the white record and Aaron owns the black record. Barry can’t beat Ruth because he is black. He can only get the black record. I think it would be simple for everyone to understand if they just published two record books, one for whites and one for the colored folk. Otherwise it’s like comparing apples to oranges. A lot of whites only count the white records anyway. That’s why Ruth is still the king.

By chuck

May 6, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this

No one was a bigger Hank Aaron fan than me, and I am a white male who grew up in upstate NY. I’ve always said that it is hard to compare records because of segregation. Yes, Mr. Moore does play the race card way too often, but on this matter he is correct. Ruth would of been a great player but he would of needed more at bats to hit 714 home runs. Anyone who thinks that his stats would of been better WITH intergration is living in a fantasy world. It serves no purpose to debate or talk to people like that. The cream of the crop was not represented in his day. I do believe that the Major Leagues in Ruth’s day was the best league out there, but not as good as it could of been. By ignoring the black and latin ballplayers you are eliminating a large part of your talent base. Contray to what most people think, ballparks were smaller in his day. There was no relief pitching to speak of. Yes, there were great pitchers, buy any player will tell you they would rather face the same pitcher 4 or more times in a game as opposed to 2 to 3 and then face a new pitcher. Think Randy Johnson, Kyle Farnsworth, and then Mariano Rivera. As for batting averages, no one ever talks about the gloves of the era. I’d like to see the players of today use the gloves of 70 or 80 years ago and see how many more batted balls would go as base hits. There are plays today that are considered average but would not of been made years ago because of the gloves. In closing, great players would be great in any era. However, it is very hard to compare players who era’s were so far apart.

By Brian

May 6, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this

Alot of ignorant comments, but I guess that’s to be expected.

Ruth played in a different era through no fault of his own, unfortunately for all of the fantastic Negro-Leaguers of the time that’s the way things were until 1947. Talk of an asterisk next to Ruth’s career 714 is as ridiculous as putting an asterisk next to “Home Run” Baker’s league leading 12 and saying that it would have been 50 if not for the fact that the ball was “dead” before 1920. The fact of the matter is that the ball was dead in the pre-1920 era and that’s all there is to it. Similarly, it’s as ridiculous as the Commissioner’s (Frick?) decision to place an asterisk next to Maris’ 61 in ‘61 because the season was 8 games longer than when Ruth hit 60 in ‘27. If we follow Mr. Moore’s reasoning then why not an asterisk next to Gibson’s 1.12 ERA or Koufax’s 4 No-Hitters - because we all know that they pitched at the peak of the Golden-Age of pitching when the mound was 6 inches higher than today and umps would actually call a letters-high strike.

My point is that you can’t negate or place an asterisk next to the accomplishments of players just because the era in which they played is found to have flaws 20, 30, 50, or 100 years later, it just doesnt work. You try the best you can to use info. from men like Bill James to give you an idea of what numbers from one era might translate to in another and be happy.

As for the “Steroid Era”, well, it’s a shame. The Commissioner’s Office and the Player’s Union both deserve major fault for everything that has transpired. And while I certainly understand an athlete wanting to do anything he can to keep up with his peers, there is a line that has to be drawn. All of the players that used Steroids know they crossed that line whether or not the steroids were officially banned by the league or not. It’s a Travesty that rather than being in awe of Bond’s chase of 755 we are for the most part hoping his knee or elbow blow out and he falls short….A sad, sad Travesty for all fans.

By Tony H

May 6, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this

Big Ben for U to defend a player with no speed and to have never played aginst other players outside of their race and to think they are the greatest is ignorance at it’s best. He may have been the best in the 20’s aginst the whiteboyz of his era but to compare him to MAYS,ARRON,BONDS,BONDS,REBERTO,ROSE,GRIFFEY,BENCH,MANTLE,DEMARGIO,MORGAN,ROBINSON.J,ROBINSON.F,HENDERSON,KILLERBREW,R.JACKSON,SCHMIDT,FOXX,T.WILLIAMS,BANKS,OTT,MURRAY,SOSA,COBB,MUSIAL,YASTRZEMSKI,MOLITOR,RIPKEN,BRETT,YOUNT,GWYNN,WINFIELD,CAREW,That just name a few Hell just look at the Braves I’ll take Andrew and Chipper before that Fat beer drinking solfball hitting no speed so-called baseball player he was OVERATED.

By Ben Sutton

May 6, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this

Tony: once again, thank you for your ignorance. If you knew any history of baseball, you wouldn’t be making such idiotic remarks. You are showing your true colors by your racist remarks. I, on the other hand, agree with Brian totally. Each era is different. In the 20’s- there were longer fences, dead baseballs, etc. Not one of us were around when Babe was playing, so how can you judge him. I do listen to people like Mantle, Bench, Willie Mays, who say how great a ball player Babe Ruth was. I am a huge fan of A-Rod, Griffey, and hitters like that. They didn’t need to “juice” up to get the numbers they have. I think if A-Rod or Pujols continues at their pace- they will eclipse Henry’s record. I hope they do. I don’t need to make comments on race unlike you Tony. For you to do that- well, just keep showing your ignorance.

By Brian

May 6, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this

Tony H., your logic is flawed buddy. Your sad attempt at an argument is like me saying the barn-storming Negro-Leaguers of the 20’s, 30’s, and 40’s really weren’t that good because they played lots of games against the equivalent of semi-pro level talent. True, they did, it’s a fact in print but they also played against major leaguers in special exhibition games and did quite well. It’s a sad chapter in our history that has been written once already, we don’t need to re-write it because it serves no purpose and the re-write would be all what-ifs and maybes.

Fact #1 - Ruth was barrel-chested, not too well conditioned and drank way too much beer and whatever else. I’m not a big fan of his and much prefer Aaron (notice the spelling), Mays, Mantle, Musial etc.

Fact #2 - The fat drinker could FLAT OUT RAKE. Aside from 714 homers, he hit 136 triples, you don’t hit 136 triples without some speed and intelligent baserunning my friend.

Ruth was not your perfect athlete/hero/demi-god like everyone wants today but the man could hit and that’s what he did, even a non-Ruth-fan such as myself can see that the man was a Giant among lilliputians when it came to hitting. Like I stated above, his era wasn’t perfect but don’t fault him for that.

By Tony H

May 6, 2006 01:53 PM | Link to this

Big Ben U and Brian Song are a joke the TRUTH! Hurts and I hope someday it will make U free. But Ruth is not the same quality of a player as Barry and that just make U sick get over it. No matter how many different ways you try to spin it Barry is the better all around player and it is not about color like you would like to think. He played aginst better quality players of all backgrounds and creeds Ruth only one the Truth Hurts.

By Ty

May 6, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this

Maybe Tony needs to go back to grammar school before he starts posting his “intelligent” opinion.

By Ty

May 6, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this

and by the way- who is Arron and Reberto?

By OldDawg55

May 6, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this

Terry, I’m sure that somewhere in the Dominican Republic lies a Hispanic player that had he the chance, the discovery of his talents, the correct diet, ad nauseum…could have been the greatest of all ball players…but like Gibson and company..it didn’t happen and any and all speculations are moot. Let’s just let the players of today…whatever ethnic makeup..play the game out and watch the stats over the years…whatever technology..whatever environment. You’re as bad as KKK in your own way…wise up..it’s just a game and a small part of the overall scheme of life!

By Tony H

May 6, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this

Ty first of all look up the greats and you may find out who Roberto is you A* face and as for OldDawg NewDawg or whatever the hell you call yourself speaking the truth to people like you makes my day. Like I said the truth hurts and you guys have been lied to for far too long.

By John K

May 6, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this

I’m a white guy who agrees with Terence. Think about it. Let’s assume for sake of argument the MLB had 25% truly great players, 50% good players, and 25% bad players who were only there because there was nobody better to replace them. Let’s also assume for this argument that the Negro League players were roughly equal to MLB players. If they allowed only the top Negro League players into the majors, such as the top 25, that would likely displace the worst 25% white MLB players. Suddenly the MLB has 50% truly great players and 50% good players. These are just rough estimates, of course, but it illustrates a point. Each truly great Negro League player that joins the MLB displaces one of the worst white players, and each time that happens, the competition Babe Ruth faces gets harder and harder. Who knows, maybe he still hits 714. But he’d certainly have earned it more legitimately.

By tuffnutz

May 6, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this

Get ready for Terence’s next article…”Kill Whitey!!”

By tuffnutz

May 6, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this

Get ready for Terence’s next article…”Kill Whitey!!”

By Chris

May 6, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this

Saying Ruth’s numbers are inflated because he didn’t hit against Negro League pitching is a pointless argument. No one can ever know for sure. What one can know for sure, however, is that in his day, Ruth used to out-homer entire teams. That’s pretty damn good, no matter what era you’re playing in.

The argument could just as easily be made that Negro League pitchers looked better than they actually were because they didn’t have to face the white hitters like Ruth.

By Jamie

May 6, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this

Has anyone heard the exact date for Terrence and Cynthia McKinney’s wedding?

By Tony H

May 6, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

Chris you just made the point for everyone who thinks Ruth is overrated he was playing aginst nobodies to say he hit 60 homeruns and a team only hit 9 that says a lot about who he was playing. Like I said the truth hurts. Do you think if Josh.G was there and some of his friend that Ruth would have dominated like that. HELL 2 DA NA.

By Chris

May 6, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this

Tony, try speaking English every once in a while. It’s fun. Probably help you get that oh-so-elusive job with a paying wage, as well. “HELL 2 DA NA”? Nice.

And as for this quote from John: “But he’d certainly have earned it more legitimately.”

Ruth EARNED everything he got. He played within the rules and practices of the time and dominated. How he didn’t earn anything escapes me.

By Chris

May 6, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this

And Tony, how does hitting more home runs than a whole team make you overrated? More like “overproductive.”

By Tony H

May 6, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this

Chris I don’t need a job I own my Company as a Real Estate Investor so there goes your logic. What Ruth earned was your blind faith and your unwilliness to see that Barry is a far better player.

By Hunk Erdown

May 6, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this

It is just as legitimate as any of your pathetic arguments to say Ruth could have hit many more home runs because all of these hypothetically “better” pitchers would have been throwing the ball faster than Ruth was seeing 25% of the time. Using your own hypothetical assumptions, Ruth could have put the home run record out of even Aaron’s reach. The harder a pitcher throws the easier it is for a power hitter jack one to the parking lot. But I guess the argument now will be that all negro league pitchers were masters of the curve and change up, not fastballs. This just keeps getting stupider and stupider. It is absolutely impossible to predict what would have happened had things been different. Ruth could have easily been a worse hitter and he could just as easily have been a better hitter.

By Tony H

May 6, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this

The team hit 9 Chris 9 he was not playing what you would call say the 2006 Atlanta Braves I think they had 9 the first two weeks in April. Ruth was not playing aginst quality he was playing aginst guys like you. Overated!

By Jamie

May 6, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this

Tony: If you do own your own busines, (which I highly doubt) I pity the fool who does business with you!

By Ty

May 6, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

I think Tony just combined 3 sentences into one.

By Brian

May 6, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this

Tony H - You just don’t get what I’m saying and you haven’t offered up any counterpoints to my points, all you say is ” U are a Joke! the TRUTH! hurts” Wow, intelligent comments, wish I could have thought it up first. I clearly stated I am not a Ruth fan, far from it in fact. Ruth was a great hitter period. Bonds is a great hitter and better all around player* than Ruth period, I never disputed that. You just can’t admit that Ruth was the best hitter of his day and your mind is closed to any and all future discussions on the topic. Ty Cobb was a great hitter, basestealer, and a*******hole. He was racist and didn’t apologize for it, does that mean he wasn’t a great ballplayer? No, it means he was an imperfect human being and an a*******hole. Barry Bonds is self-absorbed, self-pitying, and generally an a*******hole but he is still a great hitter - even before the roids he was going to be a first ballot HOFer - it just wasn’t enough when McGwire and Sosa were making the news in ‘98 and he wasn’t.

Oh yeah Tony, Ty knows who Roberto is he was asking who Reberto was because you misspelled it - get it? Probably not….

By Ben Sutton

May 6, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this

Bottom line is: the home run record is Henry’s. Who cares if Barry passes Babe. He won’t catch Henry, and Barry will be 2nd all time. I don’t think the Babe cares to much right now. Barry will always be remember for his “juice” just like Pete will always be remembered for his gambling. Babe resurrected baseball as our national pastime in the 20’s, and he was a great, great player. Barry is also a great player in his era, no doubt. And Tony, if you want to “speak the truth (as you say)” you might want to use English in doing it.

By Tony H

May 6, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this

Ty and Jamie the truth hurts but yes I make more in a week then you do in a year and the only person I have to prove that to is my wife and my CPA. Ty and Jamie I’ll see you at the Bank oh! I’m sorry you will be at your desk waiting for you next break. I’m through for the day I’ll check in when you dead heads have more stupid things to say until then stay stupid and keep voting for Bush!

By Tony H

May 6, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this

Brian if you can read I stated that Ruth was the best in the 20’s when the best teams only hit 9 homeruns for the year. So yes he was the best of the worst generation in the history of baseball so now are you happy. Long live PRINCE BARRY and KING AARON.

By Chris

May 6, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this

Now this a**hole comes on here and says “kepp voting Bush.” He knows there is nowhere else to take his argument, so he reverts to that nonsense. If people like yourself are voting for Bush’s counterparts, I think I will stick with Bush, thank you very much. But that has no place in a “Bonds/Ruth” discussion. You have further shown your ignorance. God bless government schools.

And you’re trying to brag about your business and how much money you make (which I feel is either a fantasy or illegal). I think you could save that for the Business blog or something.

And based on what I’ve heard “out in these streets,” you have a LOT to prove to your wife. Better get on it. Other people are “proving it” to her right now.

By Tony H

May 6, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this

Chris get a life

By Brian

May 6, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this

You are officially a moron after your last statement about the 9 home runs Tony. The reason teams used to hit less than 30 home runs in a season isn’t because they were no better than you, it’s because the style of baseball was much different then than now. The stolen base and sac bunt were almighty weapons and the home-run was a once-in-a-while sideshow. Ruth, whether your feeble mind can admit it or not, is the main reason baseball evolved into the style of play that more or less mirrors what is played today - with one swing of the bat you could get three or four runs with much less effort and risk. Oh yeah, and ticket sales went through the roof because people loved the specatacle of long home runs into the stands or over the roof as opposed to 5 stolen bases and two steals of home. Your pal Terrence Moore even states that in his story. It’s a fact, read it in true baseball books by authors who can write objectively about the good and bad of baseball of yesteryear. In those same books you’ll even find some quotes from Negro-Leaguers about how great Ruth was and vice-versa - how much do you hate knowing that?

By Chris

May 6, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this

I meant “keep.” But you all should’ve known that

By Tony H

May 6, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this

I’m threw writing to you fools.

By Chris

May 6, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this

“Threw”? You’re not serious, right?

By Baseball Fan

May 6, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

Any chance there are 50 great women athletes out there, whom if they focused solely on baseball would displace some of the current major leaguers?

Someday women will be playing in the major leagues. Will that mean there will need to be asterick beside every record before that point.

Figured if the race card was going to be pulled to bash ruth, might as well use the gender card on Bonds.

Both Bonds and Ruth are great players. If he played today Ruth might also have focused on conditioning. Or he would have kept pitching and been David Wells.

Wanted to rehash the split focus of the modern athlete and potential athlete. It is not just baseball and football, but also soccer, x-games, skiing, hockey, lacrosse, bowling, golf, running, nascar and a million other past times that kids get into instead of baseball compared to the 20’s. This doesn’t include the kids who get hooked on computers, playstation, movies and music instead of playing sports. Not to mention the increased usage of drugs - think of all the kids who get hooked before they get a chance to blow it in the big leagues like Darryl Strawberry or Doc Gooden, or Steve Howe.

By Robert M

May 6, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this

Terrance perhaps makes valid points, but so what? Is anything that he said something we don’t all already know? What I’d like him to simply acknowledge is that all of the records set by Negro Leaguers like Josh Gibson are equally “flawed,” or limited. They too often played watered-down competition, and record keeping for their games was often spotty. Their league should be viewed (unfortunately) as just as incomplete a measure of their true abilities as the ML is for the white players. Sadly, it seems that few writers want to acknowledge that (Tom Verducci not withstanding).

The point remains that, no matter what the circumstances, Ruth was a transcendent player in a way Bonds never can be. Ruth changed—revolutionized—the game with the home run as a weapon. His success and legend is undoubtedly enhanced by his luck of being the perfect guy in the perfect place at the perfect time. How great he truly was and the merits of how he did it are debatable, but that he did it isn’t. Sure, he took advantage of segregation, the birth of modern media, and the “live ball.” I got it. But he did it like no one else. How many other sluggers of the time put up anywhere near the numbers Ruth did year after year? Gehrig and Foxx were in the same ballpark, but the fact remains that Ruth did it better than anyone in that era, and excepting Aaron (and soon Bonds) any other era either. Relative to his competition (the only real barometer to measure athletes from different eras), he was the best, hands-down. The man personally out-homered entire teams some seasons. How else do you frame that?

And I do think Terrance taints his article by having Moore’s unchallenged quote that Josh Gibson would have hit “10 hundred homeruns,” while Babe would have undoubtedly hit far fewer if the leagues were integrated. Please. The fact is, Moore is hardly an unbiased observer, and frankly, these days the number of people who can even claim they SAW both men play is precious few. I’ll bet if Lou Gehrig and Lefty Grove were alive they’d insist Ruth was better than Gibson—and be equally biased doing so…get my point? The fact is, both were clearly the best in their leagues, but there is no reliable way to compare their abilities to each other. Would I be too crazy to speculate that they might have been relatively EQUAL in their home run abilities? And to answer one reader’s comment about the cancelled All Star games: ask Buck O’Neill why they were cancelled, and a big reason why the Negro Leaguers won so often: to the ML it was an exhibition that threatened to get them hurt, and to NL it was a deadly important measure of their totally unappreciated abilities (re: Cuba and Japan in the WBC this year—sound familiar?). Again it’s an anecdotal, flawed measure…that no one who’s writing this crap was alive to see anyway!! It’s one thing to say the best NLers could clearly play with the very best MLers…it’s another to devolve this subject into another tall tale-ridden, race-biased myth that everything Bob Feller could do, Satch could do better, blah, blah…and on and on. Stop insulting anyone who’s watched sports for 5 minutes…(and I’ll try to forget that Kobe Bryant played a lot better than Steve Nash this season). My point there is we as fans don’t have to all be that stupid too. Do we?

A few other things: before we throw Ruth out with the bathwater, let’s remember a few points: first, he accomplished his power feats in a significantly fewer number of at bats than Hank Aaron or Barry Bonds. Just a bit of trivia that isn’t totally trivial. Secondly, Ruth himself lost most of several of HIS young years because he was a pitcher and didn’t play every day (also the substantive reason however, that he is deemed the best player ever: he not only pitched, he was great at it). Thirdly, while Ruth surely benefited from watered down competition because of segregation, remember too that in those days baseball truly was America’s game—every kid played it—a far greater percentage than do today. Athletes today are far superior, but how many don’t play baseball but another sport instead? And how many teams were there in the ML then? About 14? And don’t even get me going on whether or not the pre-70’s majors were fair because we didn’t have as many Dominicans…or today because Japanese have to wait 10 years and Cubans have to defect to play…it never ends. The snapshot in time is always imperfect… Fourthly, a little known truth that Barry Bonds might do well to remember when comparing his pampered, ML-bred existence that is somehow “harder” because he’s black to Ruth’s growing up in an orphanage during an era when the average American male lived to the age of 48: Ruth himself faced some pretty blatant discrimination when he played and it’s well documented. Firstly, he was Catholic, and in his days on the Red Sox faced overt discrimination by Protestant players on the Sox—it was pretty nasty stuff at times. And then there’s race. Long before Spike Lee came around, baseball historians knew that Ruth’s race was a topic of gossip and speculation when he played. It was commonly believed by more than a few that he was mixed race but hid it so he could play. I have read more than one non-Spike Lee account that Ruth was actually called “n****” on occasion by opposing players such as Ty Cobb. While I’m sure Ruth’s disposition and success lent greatly to him being able to ignore a lot of that stuff, don’t tell me it didn’t matter or that it didn’t bother or affect him. Or that it is was any fairer than Barry Bonds being treated the way he is (admittedly, in a convuluted way, partially because of his race).

I guess the moral of the story is, give the man his due. Give Bonds and Aaron and Josh Gibson their due too. They (or their performance) were all flawed in one way or another when compared to the others. They all have their stories, they all had obstacles to overcome; …and they all were/are great—undeniably so. None of us should be trying nearly so hard to take that away from any of them, because all four of them have walked on a path most of us never will.

By Brian

May 6, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this

Chris - I came from Government schools, thank you very much sir for your uncalled for comment. Right after you stated that talk of Bush has no place in Bonds/Ruth discussion, you blast government schools. Nice……

By Anthony

May 6, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this

Mr. Moore,

It is difficult, if not impossible to accurately determine what would have happened (to Ruth’s career) if non-whites were permitted to play baseball. To my knowledge, Ruth played within the rules of the game when he played. I wish I could say the same about Bonds, McGuire, Shetfield and others.

I disagree that Ruth’s records are flawed since he did not face non-white competition.

During Ruth’s career there were only 16 Baseball teams. (compares to 26-30 teams during Bond’s career)

Even with a larger pool of players to choose from it can be argued that there are not enough talented pitchers for each team to have 5 quality starters.

There are probably many pitchers playing today that would not be playing if there were only 16 MLB teams. Each of the 16 teams would then have deeper and stronger pitching staffs than currently exist.

Ruth may have had a harder time if quality non-white pitchers played against him, but we can not be completely sure. I would think that it is reasonable to think that Ruth would have had a harder time (if high quality non-whites were permitted to pitch against him), but one can not know with certainty. Ruth may have been a freak of nature. (I can not think of too many people with a body similar to Ruth who could do what Ruth did to the baseball.) ;)

One could also argue that Bond may have had a harder time if there were less teams and if he faced stronger quality pitchers on a day to day basis.

IIRC, pitchers in Ruth’s era pitched from a higher mound. This should have made it more difficult on hitters.

I agree with you regarding “Mark McGwire. Sammy Sosa. Jose Canseco. Rafael Palmeiro, etc.” They should give the same scrutiny(sp?) to these other players that they are devoting to Bonds.

I like your reporting about James “Red” Moore. Baseball needs to ensure that we record these players from long ago, before their voices are lost in time to us all.

I would have liked it if James “Red” Moore and other non-white players were given an opportunity to play. The nation as a whole loses through the potential loss of not seeing the best players play together at the same time.

By AR

May 6, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this

Peolpe forget Josh Gibson hit over 900 home runs in the Negro Leagues which had much better pitching than MLB in the 20’s, 30’s and 40’s!!!! Babe is cool with me but his 714 is them folks favorite number, that is why I can’t wait till Barry cruise right on by it. GO BARRY!!! I like how people use the N word losely on Blogs, to bad we can’t blog in person, we would see who would use it then….but its all good, I still love ya’ll.

By Chris

May 6, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

Hey Brian, so did I. I was just cracking on that fool because he’s an idiot.

By Darnell

May 6, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

Mr. Moore is 100% right. For any one to suggets “Put one next to McGuire, Sosa, Palmeira, and whoever… but theirs don’t matter because they are not in the running for being the home run king” is riducluous. There is no one who believes that if Mark McGuire was approaching “714” that he would under ANY REAL scrutiny!

You a player with hall of fame stats in Palmeiro who ACTUALLY FAILED a drug test. Yet that did not seem to warrant a Mitchell probe by MLB or a congressional investigation of perjury (“I never did steroids, Never!”). To suggest that the fact that his numbers weren’t approaching an already tainted record, so it doesn’t matter not only is nieve but points to why the issue of race is the primary issue.

So the message is either 1) Go ahead and cheat, but don’t you dare become good enough at it to threaten “halloed” records or 2) Cheating is only an issue when it is someone we don’t like!

Oh, and in case people forgot, the difference between Bonds & the rest (McGuire, Sosa, Palmeiro, etc) is career batting average (hard to see how steroids makes you a better hitter), 500+ stolen bases (yeah steroids really helps, there), National League Gold Glove at OF 1990-93,96-98 (wow, steriods helps you become a better defender too?)

Even if you subtracted all the HR’s from the 2000 MLB baseball season on (which is when most of the use is alleged) Bonds beagn that season already with 445 HR’s, so this notion that he wouldn’t even be approaching 600 HR’s is pure bull as is the arguement that Bonds as a player was nothing without steriods!

By Southga

May 6, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this

Who is the real home run king? Well, just look at the number of HR’s per at bat between Aaron, Ruth, and Bonds and you will have your answer.

By Hunk Erdown

May 6, 2006 05:05 PM | Link to this

You couldn’t be more wrong Darnell. I made the statement about the asteriks that you tried to quote, and i can tell you without reservation that if Mark Mcguire were in Bonds’ place as far as approaching 714 home runs, he would in fact be under the same scrutiny. He is in fact under it anyway, because he cheated. The only difference is that he is NOT approaching the 714 and has all but disappeared from the radar. If Barry Bonds had retired because of injury or whatever and kept his mouth shut about it all, he too would disappear from the radar. Sosa disappeared, Palmeira disappeared, but Bonds is still playing and still denying any wrongdoing. He’s a proven liar. He’s a proven cheater. Maybe he would have had a chance at the record without cheating, if he were, I’d pull for himevery at bat. I always thought Ken Griffey, Jr. would be the man. I even bought up a bunch of his rare baseball cards and other collectables hoping he would be the “one”. I still have them, its just too bad about the injuries. I bought and still own some of Barry Bonds stuff, but I quit buying his stuff when it became clear what an As$Ho1e he is. I remember when he was with the Pirates and causing a big rift because he refused to follow orders from his manager. He can’t get along with his team mates, he alienates himself with the media and practically everyone else but if he had done what he has done without cheating I would defend him vehemently. When the hammer fell on the steroids issue, Bonds should have quietly faded off into the sunset, the records and fame he had acquired could have been his to retire on, but he has slapped everyone in the face with his cheating and dares us all to challenge him on it. Challenging him on the cheating gives him the big chance to do what you and several others have done… make it a racial issue. It is NOT a racial issue. “The fans would dare to hold him to the standard of everyone else; to play the game fairly? It MUST be because he is black.” That, my friend is what you call “riducluos”.

By Mark

May 6, 2006 05:31 PM | Link to this

It’s a matter of opinion. Who’s to say Babe Ruth wouldn’t have hit 756 home runs if he would have faced those negro players who were not in MLB during his career.

The fact of the matter is that none of us, TM included, knows that much about the negro leagues. I for one think that alot of what you hear is just fairy-tale legend.

There’s an old story about some old negro league era pitcher who needed two catchers for each game he pitched because he threw so hard. Give me a break. What is never-ever said is that a lot of these negro league players weren’t exactly facing top-notch competition. The league definitely had to be significantly watered down because all of the major talent was in MLB during this time.

The more I think about it the more I’m convinced that babe Ruth would have probably hit more home runs if he were facing some of the negro league era pitching.

So in conclusion, the theory behind TM’s article (an article who’s title really does tell you what kind of a man TM is) is severely flawed.

Babe Riuth will always be the biggest star that baseball has ever had, no matter of whatever spin some columnist want to put on his career.

By Mark

May 6, 2006 05:31 PM | Link to this

It’s a matter of opinion. Who’s to say Babe Ruth wouldn’t have hit 756 home runs if he would have faced those negro players who were not in MLB during his career.

The fact of the matter is that none of us, TM included, knows that much about the negro leagues. I for one think that alot of what you hear is just fairy-tale legend.

There’s an old story about some old negro league era pitcher who needed two catchers for each game he pitched because he threw so hard. Give me a break. What is never-ever said is that a lot of these negro league players weren’t exactly facing top-notch competition. The league definitely had to be significantly watered down because all of the major talent was in MLB during this time.

The more I think about it the more I’m convinced that babe Ruth would have probably hit more home runs if he were facing some of the negro league era pitching.

So in conclusion, the theory behind TM’s article (an article who’s title really does tell you what kind of a man TM is) is severely flawed.

Babe Ruth will always be the biggest star that baseball has ever had, no matter of whatever spin some columnist want to put on his career.

By Ben Sutton

May 6, 2006 06:07 PM | Link to this

Excellent insight Hunk!

By Rob

May 6, 2006 06:19 PM | Link to this

So this is what “progress” looks like, eh. Sure would hate to see if this country was still divided. Look TM had some valid points. But to make this a race issue does such a dis-service to racial lines and boundaries that currently do exist. Honestly TM, you should be extremely ashamed of this article. There simply wasn’t a legit reason to write it. It’s all been said before, and the fact of the matter is people hate Bonds because he is a dik, not because he is black. The sooner that blacks understand that they don’t have to cover for “one of their own” just because of the color of their skin, and start playing the race card on EVERY issue in this country, then (and only then) will race relations in this country start to truly heal. It’s up to you guys.

By Hunk Erdown

May 6, 2006 06:33 PM | Link to this

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

…but if their character sucks, we’ll just use the color of their skin as an excuse.

By commitatus

May 6, 2006 07:27 PM | Link to this

This argument is flawed, for one due to the fact that blacks made up a smaller percentage of the population during the days of Babe Ruth, smaller than they do today at around 13%. At the same time whites made up a much larger percentage of the possible opposition; therefore, Ruth did play against almost all of the best competition, especially considering the absence of high level baseball outside the MLB and Negro League as baseball had not yet developed internationally to a high level at that point. Another point to note is the fact that during Ruth’s day there were many fewer teams than in the current era, making it more likely Ruth would face the best possible opposition of the day even if they were all white. The argument that Ruth never had to face any Pedros or Bob Gibsons etc. is complete crap, in Ruth’s day each team had 3 man rotations, and anyone who has heard of Walter Johnson or other great pitchers from the early days should know this. I would also like to mention that around 1/3rd of MLB players or something along those lines are hispanic. Did Hank Aaron play the best years of his career against them, hell no. He never had to face Pedro, maybe Juan Marichal every now and then, but he didn’t face the largest sample set of baseball players either. It is a shame both never got the chance to play in a “fully” integrated league, but I am sure both would have hit just as well if not better with modern sports medecine and conditioning, small ballparks, and not to mention not having to face the ace of a staff a potential 2 times in a 4 game series. This article seems to simply be an attack on Babe Ruth, or any ball player who was “unfortunate” enough to be white at the time of segregation. There is the automatic assumption that the Negro League was superior, even though it had a much smaller sample to draw from, and nearly as many players. If that is the case the argument is racist, claiming blacks are innately superior to whites at baseball. This is backed up by the quotes used to illustrate the feeling that Ruth would only hit 250 home runs in an integrated league and Gibson would hit over 1,000. Why not just leave it alone, they were both great players, let us address racism, but not for the sole purpose of trying to bring down others.

By MadC

May 6, 2006 07:35 PM | Link to this

Terence has done what he is paid to do. Get all you folks riled up so that you will pick up the paper to see what he’s going to say next. It Sells papers folks!!!

By JL

May 6, 2006 07:42 PM | Link to this

Didn’t Ruth play for a few years as a pitcher? So in comparing Ruth against other’s records…shouldn’t it be taken into account that for a period of time he was a pitcher…and didn’t get the chance to hit everyday (I could be wrong about Ruth being a pitcher in the majors…but I think I’ve read that several places).

By Scott

May 6, 2006 08:00 PM | Link to this

A few other asterisks to consider:

Aaron’s 755: he never faced Japanese competition, so he didn’t face ALL of the best pitchers.

The first 17 United States Presidents: they never had to run against a minority, so their wins are tainted.

Josh Gibson’s home run totals: he faced fewer of the greatest pitchers of the time period, so his totals should be asterisked as well.

When all stats are called into question, they become meaningless. As great as Josh Gibson may have been, he passed at 35 years of age… so it is difficult to declare he was the best of all time. WE SIMPLY DONT KNOW. Enjoy the game and remember all great players, regardless of race, personality, etc.

By Scott

May 6, 2006 08:01 PM | Link to this

A few other asterisks to consider:

Aaron’s 755: he never faced Japanese competition, so he didn’t face ALL of the best pitchers.

The first 17 United States Presidents: they never had to run against a minority, so their wins are tainted.

Josh Gibson’s home run totals: he faced fewer of the greatest pitchers of the time period, so his totals should be asterisked as well.

When all stats are called into question, they become meaningless. As great as Josh Gibson may have been, he passed at 35 years of age… so it is difficult to declare he was the best of all time. WE SIMPLY DONT KNOW. Enjoy the game and remember all great players, regardless of race, personality, etc.

By Steve

May 6, 2006 08:14 PM | Link to this

My fellow Americans…I propose that every election…local, state and national…that was held prior to the ratification of the 19th amendment…hereby be declared null and void, or at least have an asterisk placed next to the names of those elected…due to the fact that prior to the 19th amendment, women were not allowed to vote.

By BobR

May 6, 2006 08:20 PM | Link to this

Another factor overlooked in Ruth’s record was he played against the best other 15 teams. Today’s pitching quality is deluted by 32 teams. Thus half the number of pitchers today would only be minor league pitchers or half the teams Triple A.

By War Eagle

May 6, 2006 08:43 PM | Link to this

If Furman Bisher wrote an article saying Henry Aaron and Barry Bonds would not achieved their marks if they had played against more whites, Cynthia Tucker, a War Eagle in her day???.. would fire him as a racists. The blacks have made a major contribution to world of athletics, but to read a article as Terrance Moore writes shows the projection most Black America are geared toward >> should more be written? Hint>>ajc editorial pages shows the same favoritism as Mr Moore.

By KFC

May 6, 2006 09:20 PM | Link to this

It’s also a possibility that Babe Ruth would have hit 800+ homers if more players of Terence Moore’s persuasion, or pigmentation had been good enough to play in the “Bigs” back in those days!

By DickHead

May 6, 2006 09:28 PM | Link to this

If Barry Bonds breaks Hank Aaron’s record while behind bars for doping and lying when he is playing for the State Pen Pirates, will Bud put an asterisk beside the stat??…

By James

May 6, 2006 10:02 PM | Link to this

Who cares how many that cracker hit? Who cares how many that n**** hit? It is Henry’s record.

By Whitey

May 6, 2006 10:04 PM | Link to this

Next thing you know ol’ Uncle Tom Moore will be complaining about the baseballs being “white”!…

By Paulie

May 6, 2006 10:42 PM | Link to this

This is a completely pointless argument.

While Ruth didnt play against blacks, he also played in larger parks, against a much less diluted league (16 teams in baseball, almost half as many as today), with less potent bats, ETC ETC ETC.

(not to mention Ruth was a pitcher, not an everyday player, his first 4 years in the league)

The fact is, its impossible to compare players across eras because there are a million variables that defy comparison. There are tons of factors that help and hurt players of every era, and its near impossible to determine the effect they each have.

What you can do is compare a player to his contemporaries, and it is assign to compare any player of any era to Ruth. Bonds and Aaron and Ted Williams and Jose Canseco and Lou Gehrig never outhomered every team in the league, as Ruth did in 1920.

Ruth was by far the greatest HR hitter of all time, and it didnt matter what competition he played against or any other factor - the guy was the best ever, and any argument otherwise is totally ignorant.

By Andrew

May 6, 2006 10:52 PM | Link to this

You know, instead of just enjoying baseball, after reading T. Moore I sit back and say “man I hope some white guy beats Barry Bonds record.” I guess that’s the hatred that racism stirs up. Thanks a lot Moore.

By GIBSON WOULDA HIT 10 HUNDRED??!!!??

May 6, 2006 11:04 PM | Link to this

No question that Ruth’s numbers came against lesser talent than Aaron or Bonds.

I can’t argue that Ruth may have benefitted from not facing the best of the best with no hispanics, blacks, or asians in the majors…

So, why does TM bother quoting “Red” Moore as saying “If Josh Gibson was in the major leagues, he might have hit 10 hundred home runs.”?

You can’t have it both ways.

If Ruth’s numbers come with the “smaller talent pool” asterisk, then so should Gibson’s.

After all, Gibson wasn’t playing against everyone either.

Or are we allowing this argument to only work one way?

By GetItRight

May 6, 2006 11:45 PM | Link to this

Who cares how many homeruns the monkeys hit? They were born on steroids. The only records that matter are the white ones. Give me a break you dumb a* socialists. I should slap your mamma and your grandma to for rasing such a fool.

By Stephen

May 7, 2006 12:13 AM | Link to this

Whether or not Ruth would have hit as many homeruns with the athletes in the Negro Leagues, is relatively irrelevant. What he did do, is put up astronomically larger numbers than any other hitter put up at that time. It was unlike anything you see in sports today, short of the show Michael Jordan put on in basketball. Five Hundred Homeruns was hardly fathomable, let alone 714. Would there have been African American players who could have been stars? Absolutely. Would they have been comparable to Babe Ruth? We will never know. Anything said, even by someone who played in the Negro Leagues, is merely speculative. It is hardly sound evidence. Even less is it something to base an article. I would not say there would not have been someone as good as The Babe, as readily as I would say there would. It is just impossible to know, and thus opinion.

Beyond the mere speculative nature of this article, I have to question what Bonds has done as a player. Looking at the way Bond’s has “grown” as a player is absurd. People do not put on that kind of weight as they get older. Adding 20lbs of bulk happens through hard work (which I’m sure he did do), but adding 50lbs? That screams of performance enhancing drugs. That being said, he was a great player in his younger years. A potential first balot Hall of Famer for certain. Yet, he gambled it all. For greed and pride. Should his records be accompanied by an asteriks? Maybe, but so should Mark McGwire’s homerun total and Rafeal Palmeiro’s and perhaps the entire lot of players from the late 90s to the beginning of this century.

These days, with player’s juiced up bodies on display, I have lost any love for baseball that I once had. The entire thing has successfully killed the love for baseball that I had cultivated as a child.

I personally, I am sad.

By Veritas

May 7, 2006 12:57 AM | Link to this

Please….We all know pitching is a mental battle. The Babe would have rocked the Negro Leagues.

By Veritas

May 7, 2006 12:59 AM | Link to this

Please….We all know pitching is a mental battle. The Babe would have rocked the Negro Leagues.

By CT

May 7, 2006 02:22 AM | Link to this

Can someone please explain how hitting more home runs than any other team would have changed under desegregation? Or how Ruth still had more than twice as many home runs as #2 on the list, Lou Gehrig, at his retirement? If the cause is a lack of black pitchers, how come no one else was up there? And funny how Moore ignores that today there are fewer and fewer blacks playing baseball and that the pitching is watered down by expansion. Bonds hit 73 during a time where someone (McGwire) had just hit 70 a couple season before and someone else (Sosa) hit 60+ in 3 or 4 straight seasons (might have been 5, can’t remember that “accomplishment” right now). Ruth hit 59 when no other TEAM hit that many. And he hit them out of ball parks that dwarf today’s. 714 still means something because of when and how it was accomplished just like Bonds’ 73 in a season and whatever else he accomplishes won’t mean anything because of when and how he accomplished it.

By James

May 7, 2006 02:55 AM | Link to this

Phyllis Diller is/was HOT!!!!

P.S. DX is coming back!