Couple of things on Bonds.
1) The guy drew a ton of walks; in roughly the same # of PA as Mays, he drew 1,000 more walks. So it's harder to add to some of the hit totals with all of the walks he was drawing.
2) On the triples; the parks in Ruth's area were much larger, so he may have lost a few HR (though he probably got a ton back in RF at Yankee Stadium), but most of his triples were just because he hit the ball too far. I don't think there's any doubt Bonds had more speed than Ruth.
3) The Ba thing; Bonds hit 298 for his career, Mays hit 302. We really care about that difference? This is probably a good time to revisit point 1, and also point out Bonds had an OBP 60 points higher than Mays.
I think if you take what Bonds did over the course of his career at face value, you almost have to make him the best player of all time. The 2001-2004 numbers are pretty much out of this world.
Mays was probably the most well rounded great player of all time? I would say a young Barry Bonds was up there, but he was a very good LF and Mays was an all time glove in CF, so that's not really the same.
But just some perspective on the hitting, using OPS+, Mays had a career 156 OPS+. Bonds beat or matched that total the last 18 years of his career. Mays single season high was 185, Bonds career total was 182. As hitters, as great as Mays was, he's not really in the discussion with Bonds.
I hear what you're saying but BB having all the walks, let alone the IBB's you take away all of those possible plate appearances. If they in their primes were in the same lineup you're walking Barry to pitch to Willie
A few points:
1) Some stats are more important than others, batting average is probably the most important and surely the fairest of them all. Mays hit .3017 and is 187th on the BA list, it's by far his weakest category. Bonds hit .2981 and is 231st on the list (tied with Mantle), it's his third weakest category. Not much of a difference percentage-wise but being a career .300 hitter is a big deal, only 200 players have done it (note: the 201st player is credited with batting .300 but actually batted .29996).
2) Bonds by far received the most walks which took away from his at bats and therefore his hit total, no question. He still had 1448 more at bats than Ruth. If Ruth would've had the same number of ABs and would've continued the same home run pace then Ruth would've finished with 837 home runs.
3) I think triples is one of the most important stats, no matter what type of hitter you are you have to hustle to get one - there's no such thing as a "Triple Trot". Larger parks would certainly inflate Ruth's total not to mention the rest of the real oldtimers. Bonds' total of 77 however - 303rd on the triples list! - is terrible. How can a guy with his speed, power, and ability have so few.
4) I use top 200 as a litmus test, I think it's a good cutoff point. As I mentioned above, only 200 batters are career .300 hitters.
Checking out baseball stats the past 2 days has given me a newfound respect for what Ruth did, he basically only came up short at stealing bases which is understandable.
Mays has always been one of my favorite players, although his name doesn't appear at the top of any stat list it's pretty high up for most stats and it's never way down the page like Bonds or even Ruth.
Bonds has impressive stats, no doubt about it. All the walks he received hurt his totals too. If he was pitched to he wouldn't be 207th on the singles list, he might even be in the top 100 (shows how good Ruth is at 198th on the list while having 1448 fewer ABs than Bonds). Less walks would've meant more triples too but I'm quite sure he still wouldn't be top 200 in that category.
I just can't declare a less than .300 hitter who is outside the top 300 in one stat and outside the top 200 in 2 others "the greatest". And if he didn't take performance enhancing drugs his stats would've been worse.
