Bonds played in a 162 game schedule. Ruth played in 154. Therefore, Bonds played in almost 500 more games than Ruth - 2,986 to 2,503
Ruth spent his first five years as a pitcher and only hit a combined 20 homeruns due to that fact. Imagine if he played every day in his prime years like Bonds?
Bonds had 2,000 more plate appearances than Ruth - 12,606 to 10,623. Even if you subtract the walk disparity that's 1,500 more plate appearances.
Bonds averaged 1 walk every 1.16 games. Ruth was virtually identical at 1 walk every 1.21 games.
I agree with you that the relief pitching was much better in Bonds time but the quality of pitching was probably worse (mathematically.) In Ruth's time there were only 16 teams. In Bond's era there were 30. That means only the cream of the crop were on the roster in Ruth's time. In Bonds time there were at least 140 pitchers in MLB that would have never made the roster in a 16 team league.
You're right that we can argue about ballplayers til the cows come home and nobody will be right. In my opinion Bonds was a good player until he started juicing. He was an other worldly player after.
= new reply since forum marked as read