So Barry Bonds gets cocky about Babe Ruth; I guess nobody warned him what happened to Pedro when he did the same thing (hint: there was a D involved. And an L.) And some people want to argue that Bonds really is better than Ruth was.

Well, Bonds is putting together a nice resume. But, even if you put aside more sophisticated measurements like Win Shares (entering last season, Ruth led 756 to 523, leaving Bonds quite a ways to go even counting some 60-70 Win Shares since then), let's keep a little perspective here:

1. Batting Average:

Babe Ruth - .342 Career average.

Barry Bonds - .295 career average, 16 consecutive seasons batting below .342, 1 season batting above .342.

2. Slugging Average:

Babe Ruth - .690

Barry Bonds - .595 career average, 15 consecutive seasons slugging below .690, 2 seasons slugging above .690.

3. On Base Percentage:

Babe Ruth - .474

Barry Bonds - .428 career average, 15 consecutive seasons w/OBP below .474, 2 seasons w/OBP above .474.

(Yes, I know about the differences in offensive context, but believe me; it doesn't bridge that gap. And talk to me when Bonds has had a season like 1916, when Ruth won an ERA title, won 23 games, threw 9 shutouts, pitched a 14-inning 2-1 victory in the World Series and, for good measure, cracked 3 home runs in a season when he threw 323.2 innings without allowing a batter to go deep on him even once).

Charles Kuffner has more.