Real Comparison

Babe Ruth, in 1927, in 151 games, hit 60 home runs. 714 lifetime.
Barry Bonds, in 2001, in 153 games, hit 73 home runs. 762 lifetime. Beating The Bambino's long held records.
Or did he?
How can we compare like achievements without like comparison?

Let's look at the Babe for a moment. He lived a 'reckless' lifestyle, no monk-like training here. He drank often and too much. Smoked cigars. Ate way too much. Had sex with multiple women, stayed out late in spite of team curfews. Drove his car way too fast and crashed many times. Not exactly a dedicated training regimen. In spite of this, he is often celebrated as the greatest baseball player who ever lived. He also often visited sick children in hospitals and even dedicated a home run to one, before that famous game!

One would think with modern training methods and equipment, seventy years later, someone would break the Sultan of Swat's record anyway. Yet players like Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and Barry Bonds et al, had to use strength enhancing drugs to attain their exalted status.
What if we changed each players life style to mimic the other? Thereby sort of equalizing them.

Without even a push, we see Ruth as a robust man. Able to smack a baseball over center field any day any game with an old heavy, solid ash Louisville Slugger. So without a smoking, drinking carousing lifestyle, and a little attention to his health through better nutrition and paying attention to his game, and with modern equipment, what could we prorate his home run hitting to? Can we add at least 10 more homers while being realistic? Yes.
So the score is Ruth 70 - Bonds 73.

And now can we take away something from Barry Bonds? Perhaps that needle in his rear every so often and think what that might mean. He hit 16 homers his first year, and looking at his rookie photo, you can see he is a lithe and strong athlete. Can we expect he would average 25 homers a season for his career? Yet if we gave him cigarettes and booze and an unhealthy lifestyle? Maybe even made him eat those ballpark hotdogs? Would it change that greatest year for Bonds to being only a 50 hitter? I have doubled Bonds allowance, while just adding ten to Ruth's. (Hank Aaron topped at 44 in three different seasons, and he never had a suspicion of cheating)

So the score is now Ruth 70 - Bonds 50.

Yes okay, the record is in the books, Bonds blew away Ruth by 13 runs in that one season.
But would Ruth have been the Gretsky of baseball if we transported him into year 2001? And gave him dedication, good health and made him squeaky clean? Might he have put that season record out of reach like Gretsky did? Not 50 goals in 50 games, but 50 goals in 39 games and a total 92 for a season. Might the Bambino have got a hundred homers? His record works out to a home run every two and a half games in 1927. Could we realistically expect a blast over the fence every ONE and a half games in a 151 game season in 2001? Yes.
That's the 100 folks.

So now my score is The Babe 100 - Barry Bonds 50.

By the way, at 25 a season average with one 50, that's still only 600 homers lifetime for Bonds.

Jack Clark, a former St, Louis Cardinals slugger and four-time All-Star said recently, "A lot of them should be banned from baseball, including Mark McGwire." Clark was referencing McGwire's return to baseball for the 2010 season. "All those guys are cheaters — A-Rod (Alex Rodriguez). Fake, phony. Rafael Palmeiro. Fake, a phony. (Roger) Clemens, (Barry) Bonds. (Sammy) Sosa. Fakes. Phonies. They don't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. They should all be in the Hall of Shame." Some call it creepy baseball.

Bonds - 18 million dollars a season.
Ruth made 80 thousand in 1930 - lifetime 785 thousand. Ruth died at 53 with his own self respect and the integrity of being what he was. Nothing hidden.
And it's is all about respect and integrity, isn't it.

Was it a real comparison?
The age of respect is gone from baseball, but we can still hang on to those days that were.
Can't we?