Who Was Better: Babe Ruth Or Barry Bonds?

A few years ago, Baseball Prospectus wrote a book in which the first chapter asked the question of who was better in their career: Babe Ruth or Barry Bonds. The book was written while Bonds was still playing and concluded that it was a close call that would depend on what Bonds did in the final years of his career.

Fast forward to today. Fangraphs has added historical WAR (Wins Above Replacement) data to their database and with both players retired, the verdict is in. According to Fangraphs' WAR data, Ruth (177.6 career WAR) beat out Bonds (1702 career WAR) by ~7 WAR for his career, or about ~3.2 runs per season.

To put their greatness in perspective, consider the following:
  • Bonds and Ruth are the only major league players to even accumulate 165 WAR.
  • Only five major league players (Ruth, Bonds, Mays, Cobb, Aaron) eclipsed 150 WAR in their career, while only six (the sixth being Honus Wagner) reached the 150 WAR plateau.
  • Ted Williams "only" accumulated 139.7 WAR (blame the war).
  • Alex Rodriguez has amassed 105.2 WAR in his career. Will he last (and be effective) long enough to challenge Bonds and Ruth?

2 comments:

The 'Bright' One said...

I truly, honestly believe ted williams was the best HITTER of all time, and would be considered that if he didnt have 3 prime years taken away. By all accounts he was very slow and horrid defensively, but at the plate there was no one better

David "MVP" Eckstein said...

Good point, TBO.

If we look at Ted Williams career PA/WAR rate, it is 70.086 (in other words, Williams amassed +1 WAR per ~70 PA in his career).

In comparison, Barry Bonds had a career PA/WAR rate of 74.065, while Ruth's was a disgusting 59.77.

Oh, and I forgot about Ruth's pitching. That data is not available on Fangraphs yet, but it is in the BP book. I'll update the post this weekend when I go back to DeKalb