Greatest home run hitter ever??

[timconnelly]

Wanted to ask the group who they thought the greatest home run hitter ever was: Would you go with Hank Aaron? After all, he hit more home runs than anybody else and did it largely playing in a pitcher's era.

Would you go with Mark McGwire? He hit more per time at bat and may have hit the longest home runs ever.


Would you go with Barry Bonds using the argument that its what a guy did at his best that matters most and Barry hit more in a season at the fastest rate ever per time at bat?

Or would you still go with Babe Ruth? He hit more in relation to the league that he played in, leading the league 12 times, often by outrageous amounts.

Should Aaron and McGwire and Bonds get any additional consideration for having played against black players, playing under the lights, facing sliders and split finger fastballs?

Should Babe be given any additional consideration for being the first player to hit so many? (Did you know that he set the all time home run record in 1921 and that every home run from then on extended his own major league record?)

What do you think is the most important criterion for rating a home run hitter?

[SmedIndy]

I'd have to say Ruth, because in his early years he far and away bested the entire league, almost. It wasn't even funny.

After that, I think the rate is important as long as a guy gets 550 PAs a year consistently.

Aaron was a wonderful player, but his accomplishment is due mostly to his longevity. I think as a home run hitter, he's behind Ruth, Bonds, and McGwire. Aaron was a better player than McGwire though.

[Xanadu Dragon]

Ruth, in seasons, out homered entire TEAMS - - - gotta be him.

Originally posted by Xanadu Dragon
Ruth, in seasons, out homered entire TEAMS - - - gotta be him.

Didn't he outhomer another team, the Pirates I think it was, something like 60-54 when he set his record?
I'm curious, slightly , but everyone knows Babe had Gehrig protecting him. Who batted behind Aaron in the lineup? I've long heard that Ruth wouldn't have gotten all those offensive numbers had Gehrig not been there batting behind him.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by Yogi#8Fan
Didn't he outhomer another team, the Pirates I think it was, something like 60-54 when he set his record?
I'm curious, slightly , but everyone knows Babe had Gehrig protecting him. Who batted behind Aaron in the lineup? I've long heard that Ruth wouldn't have gotten all those offensive numbers had Gehrig not been there batting behind him.

This protection stuff is nonsense. When Ruth first starting hitting an obscene amount of homers, Gehrig wasn't around. Ruth's best two seasons were 1920 and 1921.

Protection is a way for sportscasters to sound smart when they don't know what they're talking about.

[Skip]

You know, I've always wondered about Ruth's breakout in the early twenties. I know the dead ball era was over, but he still blew away everyone else. It's hard for me to believe it was TOTALLY just a matter of him being THAT much better than the other hitters. Was it just an an approach (e.g. Chicks dig the long ball) when the league was entrenched in small ball? Were managers stopping other potential HR hitters from swinging for the fences? Was it just that the best players were so old that they couldnt change their approach?

I totally venerate Ruth as the greatest player of all time, but just wonder what other things may have played in that dynamic during the 20's.

I've never really seen this addressed and dont think any revelations would take away from Ruth's dominance.

(I'll now pause while the fire and brimstone is collected)

[SmedIndy]

Ruth's power surge actually started in 1919 with the Sox.

Teams were built for the deadball era. Teams and players had to change their mindset. They were always playing "scientific ball" as Ty Cobb used to save. A rally was a single, sac bunt, steal of third, groundout to first. Teams used to hit and run and sac a lot.

Runs were going up in 1920, due to the banning of the spitball and allowing for clean balls to be always in play. But you still had some parks with asinine dimensions (Washington) and then you had some real cozy ones (The Baker Bowl).

Even though Ruth, with 54 bombs, outhomered every other AL team the Yanks still finished third, and Cleveland still outscored them even though Chapman died.

Baseball has always had eras where power was dominant, or almost dormant. Ruth just helped the pendulum swing one direction.

Originally posted by SmedIndy
This protection stuff is nonsense. When Ruth first starting hitting an obscene amount of homers, Gehrig wasn't around. Ruth's best two seasons were 1920 and 1921.

Protection is a way for sportscasters to sound smart when they don't know what they're talking about.

I hadn't realized those were his best years. The only ones where he had >.800 SLG & >1.350 OPS. While he never got that unreal OPS again, I noticed that his numbers started dropping a bit afterwards and they picked up around 1927 when Gehrig started getting much better (he was a rook in 1923).

Perhaps I bought into the sportscaster's "protection" bit hook, line & sinker, since I'd heard that w/o Gehrig batting after him, Ruth might have been pitched around and not gotten all those great looks. The ? was always if you pitch around Ruth, are you going to pitch around Gehrig also? That seemed to make sense tome, as it does now but that's just myself perhaps.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by Yogi#8Fan
I hadn't realized those were his best years. The only ones where he had >.800 SLG & >1.350 OPS. While he never got that unreal OPS again, I noticed that his numbers started dropping a bit afterwards and they picked up around 1927 when Gehrig started getting much better (he was a rook in 1923).

They were dropping because that's when Ruth was starting to get fat, drunk and stupid. Well, moreso anyway.


Perhaps I bought into the sportscaster's "protection" bit hook, line & sinker, since I'd heard that w/o Gehrig batting after him, Ruth might have been pitched around and not gotten all those great looks. The ? was always if you pitch around Ruth, are you going to pitch around Gehrig also? That seemed to make sense tome, as it does now but that's just myself perhaps. [/quote]

Well, that Yankee team was stacked for the most part. It wasn't just Ruth and Gehrig. You, being a Yankee fan, should know that was a darn good team even without Ruth.

The thing that cinched it was when Dale Murphy and Bob Horner were with the Braves, and the TBS announcers (the same ones as now) used to prattle and babble on about how great it was that Horner hit behind Murphy to protect him, blah, blah blah.

Bill James did a study. Murphy hit better and hit more homers per AB when Horner wasn't in the lineup than when he was in the lineup behind Murphy.

You pitch around a guy, you put another guy on base, and that just increases the chance for a big inning. I'd only really walk a guy with first base open, less than two out, and a decent DP chance at the plate. Otherwise, you have a 60% to 65% chance of getting almost everyone out. I'd roll those dice.

[timconnelly]

Originally posted by Skip
Was it just that the best players were so old that they couldnt change their approach?

I totally venerate Ruth as the greatest player of all time, but just wonder what other things may have played in that dynamic during the 20's.

I've never really seen this addressed and dont think any revelations would take away from Ruth's dominance.

(I'll now pause while the fire and brimstone is collected)

Certainly good questions and ones worth addressing:

We always think of Fenway Park as a hitter's park but in 1918, Ruth hit all 11 of his home runs on the road. In 1919, the numbers were 20 on the road and only 9 at home. I think one of the most incredible statistics I have ever seen is that in 1919, he hit 29 of his teams' 33 home runs for the year: That's right, the rest of the team hit 4.

His first year in the Polo Grounds was amazing. In 1920, his slugging average at home was .985!! He hit 29 homers at home to 25 on the road but his slugging average was 249 point higher at home.

So there is no doubt that playing in a stadium absolutely made for him helped more than a little.

Originally posted by SmedIndy
Well, that Yankee team was stacked for the most part. It wasn't just Ruth and Gehrig. You, being a Yankee fan, should know that was a darn good team even without Ruth.

I've heard from a few Yankee fans, one or two who've even watched Joe D play, that Earle Combs and Bob Meusel were also cornerstones in the offense. I'll have to verify that so please forgive if I'm in error.

As to Ruth's weight, I don't know if that would slow down a slugger too much. A speed demon like Cobb or Speaker probably moreso, but if the object is hitting the ball into the seats, perhaps indirectly due to poor health. I'd think the OBP may be cut down due to a lesser ability to run out a ball, which inability would also affect his SLG and thus his OPS.

The thing that cinched it was when Dale Murphy and Bob Horner were with the Braves, and the TBS announcers (the same ones as now) used to prattle and babble on about how great it was that Horner hit behind Murphy to protect him, blah, blah blah.

Bill James did a study. Murphy hit better and hit more homers per AB when Horner wasn't in the lineup than when he was in the lineup behind Murphy.

I'm not sure how that would work in the regular season. What if Murphy's offense were to nosedive if Horner didn't hit behind him in the order? It's all in theory what I'm saying but I've seen pitchers load up the bases just to get to one guy who was weak (the Rey Ordonez type) just to end the inning.

Looking at the present, the Mets and Yanks are trying to stack their power hitters together to get some monster rallies going, most of which won't be come-from-behind plays. With the Mets, it's been that Piazza didn't have a true offensive weapon before or after him. He's still hit very well but the team as a whole needs more than just himself.

You pitch around a guy, you put another guy on base, and that just increases the chance for a big inning. I'd only really walk a guy with first base open, less than two out, and a decent DP chance at the plate. Otherwise, you have a 60% to 65% chance of getting almost everyone out. I'd roll those dice.

I don't know if this is related to your last paragraph or not but if I were walking a guy w/less than two outs, it would be runners on 1B & 3B. A bloop to OF means the 3B runner is a lock to score but the 1B runner may not always go beyond 3B unless very speedy and a well-placed hit.

Defensively, if 2B is empty, that allows a DP and the 3B runner can be held unless he wants a triple play. Given that 1B runner doesn't steal 2B, I'd take that.

Originally posted by timconnelly
We always think of Fenway Park as a hitter's park but in 1918, Ruth hit all 11 of his home runs on the road. In 1919, the numbers were 20 on the road and only 9 at home. I think one of the most incredible statistics I have ever seen is that in 1919, he hit 29 of his teams' 33 home runs for the year: That's right, the rest of the team hit 4.

Another interesting thing is that on the 1915 Boston team, which also featured Tris Speaker, _pitcher_ Babe Ruth hit 4 of the team's 14 HR's during the season.

His first year in the Polo Grounds was amazing. In 1920, his slugging average at home was .985!! He hit 29 homers at home to 25 on the road but his slugging average was 249 point higher at home.

So there is no doubt that playing in a stadium absolutely made for him helped more than a little.

I remember reading that Fenway, at least during Teddy's era, was a righty hitting park, meaning that righties hit better there. If that was true and especially during Ruth's era, it would've been strange, since Ruth was a lefty hitter.

In fact, someone mentioned but I haven't confirmed that the Yanks and Sox were considering trading Teddy for Joe D, since Joe batted righty, better suited to Fenway, and Teddy batted lefty, better suited to Yankee Stadium.

[Skip]

OK Yog, not to be a dumba$$, but how are you copying multiple quotes into your replys?

[Xanadu Dragon]

Originally posted by Skip
OK Yog, not to be a dumba$$, but how are you copying multiple quotes into your replys?

Simple - reply with a quote, cut/copy the whole thing and do not submit it - - - then go back to the other post you want to quote - - reply/quote on that one, and then paste the first one into it before submitting it - - it is extra work.

[SmedIndy]

Yog -

My Murphy / Horner comment WAS based on the regular season.