Was Hank Aaron better than Babe Ruth?

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by maniac_73

By comparison one could easily argue that Mays/Williams were much superior players to Aaronn.

If it's so easy, I challenge you to do it.

Career OPS +
Mays 156
Aaron 155

Career #'s per 162 games
Aaron .305 35 HR 113 RBI 337 TB
Mays .302 36 HR 103 RBI 328 TB

If you want to go by defense; career gold gloves:
Mays 12
Aaron 3

Hank Aaron's last gold glove was in 1960, and then Roberto Clemente, arguably the greatest defensive right fielder to ever play the game, started winning them all. Nobody in right field, not Aaron, or Mays if he'd moved there, was going to win that award over Clemente.

Career top 5 MVP finishes
Aaron 8
Mays 9

Batting titles:
Aaron 2
Mays 1

Home run titles:
Aaron 4
Mays 4

RBI titles:
Mays 0
Aaron 4

Base stealing? Mays did steal a little more than Aaron, but as far as success rates, they are remarkably similar:

Aaron: 240 steals in 313 tries 0.766773
Mays: 338 steals in 431 tries 0.784222

Mays was about 1.7% more successful as a base thief.

I won't make any analysis of Williams and Aaron, as they had very little overlap in their careers. By the time Aaron was reaching his prime, Williams' career was nearly over.

But please, now show me your evidence in support of the statement that Mays was a much superior player than Aaron.

[maniac_73]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

If it's so easy, I challenge you to do it.

Career OPS +
Mays 156
Aaron 155

Career #'s per 162 games
Aaron .305 35 HR 113 RBI 337 TB
Mays .302 36 HR 103 RBI 328 TB

If you want to go by defense; career gold gloves:
Mays 12
Aaron 3

Hank Aaron's last gold glove was in 1960, and then Roberto Clemente, arguably the greatest defensive right fielder to ever play the game, started winning them all. Nobody in right field, not Aaron, or Mays if he'd moved there, was going to win that award over Clemente.

Career top 5 MVP finishes
Aaron 8
Mays 9

Batting titles:
Aaron 2
Mays 1

Home run titles:
Aaron 4
Mays 4

RBI titles:
Mays 0
Aaron 4

Base stealing? Mays did steal a little more than Aaron, but as far as success rates, they are remarkably similar:

Aaron: 240 steals in 313 tries 0.766773
Mays: 338 steals in 431 tries 0.784222

Mays was about 1.7% more successful as a base thief.

I won't make any analysis of Williams and Aaron, as they had very little overlap in their careers. By the time Aaron was reaching his prime, Williams' career was nearly over.

But please, now show me your evidence in support of the statement that Mays was a much superior player than Aaron.

You prove my point that you could make arguments to both. There is not argument with the babe and other players of his time.

Thanks

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by maniac_73

You prove my point that you could make arguments to both. There is not argument with the babe and other players of his time.

Thanks

You really made three points. One, that it was folly to compare players from different eras. I agree with you there.

The second point you made was that Aaron was not the best player of his generation, and that you could easily argue that Mays or Ted Williams were clearly superior to Aaron. Again, agreeing with your assertion that comparing players from different generations was a pretty much a pointless exercise, I went to Willie Mays, who played at the same time as Aaron. And, I blew your assertion that Mays was a "much superior" player to Aaron out of the water.

Your third point was that Ruth was heads and tails above anybody else in his generation. I do not agree there, either, and if you want me to crunch some numbers to disprove your statement, I'd be happy to.

That Babe Ruth hit more home runs in one season than any other team does not mean Ruth was a more talented player. It just means he was a different type of player. Was he heads and shoulders above anybody else from his generation? Clearly, no.

The Babe hit 20 home runs for the first time in 1919. Lou Gehrig did it the first time in 1925. They were teammates from 1923 to 1934, and shared prime years from 1926 to about 1933. Clearly they are from the same generation.

Ruth's 162 game averages: .342, 46 HR, 144 RBI.
Gehrig's 162 game averages: .340, 37 HR, 149 RBI.

When you start to look at things like % of games played in which they drove in runs:

Ruth 2,503 games played, 2,220 RBI = 88.7%
Gehrig 2,164 games played, 1,992 RBI = 92.1%

Ruth was a better pure power hitter by the numbers, but remember, Ruth had a head start on Gehrig. Ruth revolutionized the sport with the home run. By the time Gehrig got going, pitchers had five years + to adjust to that type of offensive production.

I'm not going to go into great depth on this right now, but based on prior statistical analysis of Ruth and Gehrig I've done before, the case can be made that Lou Gehrig, Ruth's contemporary, was every bit the baseball player that Babe Ruth was. Now, Gehrig often got overlooked because of the Bambino's gravitas, but make no mistake. Crunching the numbers, they are very, very close, and your assertion that Ruth was heads and tails above any other player from his generation is fallacious.

[maniac_73]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

You really made three points. One, that it was folly to compare players from different eras. I agree with you there.

The second point you made was that Aaron was not the best player of his generation, and that you could easily argue that Mays or Ted Williams were clearly superior to Aaron. Again, agreeing with your assertion that comparing players from different generations was a pretty much a pointless exercise, I went to Willie Mays, who played at the same time as Aaron. And, I blew your assertion that Mays was a "much superior" player to Aaron out of the water.

Your third point was that Ruth was heads and tails above anybody else in his generation. I do not agree there, either, and if you want me to crunch some numbers to disprove your statement, I'd be happy to.

That Babe Ruth hit more home runs in one season than any other team does not mean Ruth was a more talented player. It just means he was a different type of player. Was he heads and shoulders above anybody else from his generation? Clearly, no.

The Babe hit 20 home runs for the first time in 1919. Lou Gehrig did it the first time in 1925. They were teammates from 1923 to 1934, and shared prime years from 1926 to about 1933. Clearly they are from the same generation.

Ruth's 162 game averages: .342, 46 HR, 144 RBI.
Gehrig's 162 game averages: .340, 37 HR, 149 RBI.

When you start to look at things like % of games played in which they drove in runs:

Ruth 2,503 games played, 2,220 RBI = 88.7%
Gehrig 2,164 games played, 1,992 RBI = 92.1%

Ruth was a better pure power hitter by the numbers, but remember, Ruth had a head start on Gehrig. Ruth revolutionized the sport with the home run. By the time Gehrig got going, pitchers had five years + to adjust to that type of offensive production.

I'm not going to go into great depth on this right now, but based on prior statistical analysis of Ruth and Gehrig I've done before, the case can be made that Lou Gehrig, Ruth's contemporary, was every bit the baseball player that Babe Ruth was. Now, Gehrig often got overlooked because of the Bambino's gravitas, but make no mistake. Crunching the numbers, they are very, very close, and your assertion that Ruth was heads and tails above any other player from his generation is fallacious.

U also neglect that Ruth had 5 successful years on the mound over Gehrig during which time Ruth Lost out on development time and stats.

[the 'stache]

I didn't neglect anything. He was an outstanding pitcher, yes. Does that somehow make him better than Gehrig? Absolutely not. We have no idea how Gehrig would have done as a pitcher if he was asked to do so. All we can compare are areas where they both participated, and Gehrig was Ruth's equal there.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by maniac_73

U also neglect that Ruth had 5 successful years on the mound over Gehrig during which time Ruth Lost out on development time and stats.

And how many years did Lou Gehrig lose from his career due to Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis? When did it start affecting him?

At age 34 in 1937, he hit .351 with 37 HR and 159 RBI
At age 35 in 1938, he hit .295 with 29 HR and 114 RBI
At age 36 in 1939, he was out of baseball.

By 1941 he was dead.

[Pinstriper780]

Sorry, but I'm not even putting Aaron above Mantle let alone Babe.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Maybe Babe being one of the best pitchers in his day and the best power hitter says more about the lack of overall talent in Ruth's day than it does about his abilities.

Could you see somebody doing that today? Or hell, back in 1960, would you even entertain the possibility that Whitey Ford could pick up a bat, and immediately be the best power hitter in the game?

Or maybe Babe Ruth was simply that GREAT and a "once in a lifetime" ballplayer". I think you are OVERANALYZING this scenario, and based on your sentiment towards Lou Gehrig I completely understand. NO player BEFORE, DURING or AFTER will depict the combined hitting/pitching skills sets exhibited by Ruth. It is unfathomable that a player could dominate at such a pinnacle level on the mound and in the batter's box, and there is ZERO hedging for tipping your cap to Ruth. There were thousands of pre-1930 pitchers that didn't even come close to Ruth's coupled talent base, and the FACT that no pitcher has reflected such a talent since says it ALL!!!

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

Or maybe Babe Ruth was simply that GREAT and a "once in a lifetime" ballplayer". I think you are OVERANALYZING this scenario, and based on your sentiment towards Lou Gehrig I completely understand. NO player BEFORE, DURING or AFTER will depict the combined hitting/pitching skills sets exhibited by Ruth. It is unfathomable that a player could dominate at such a pinnacle level on the mound and in the batter's box, and there is ZERO hedging for tipping your cap to Ruth. There were thousands of pre-1930 pitchers that didn't even come close to Ruth's coupled talent base, and the FACT that no pitcher has reflected such a talent since says it ALL!!!

You're not understanding me if you are convinced I'm somehow not tipping my cap to Ruth. I am not at all denying his greatness. I am, however, playing devil's advocate to those of you who are so quickly dismissive of the "was Aaron better than Ruth" question which serves as the genesis of this whole discussion. No, I don't think Aaron was better than Ruth. But, I do think that Aaron was on Ruth's level. How close is difficult to ascertain, as they played in different eras. And that is the point. The game has been played for over 80 + years since the Babe hung up his cleats, and there have been a lot of other incredible players. Babe Ruth, as great as he was, did not establish statistics that are so high that they are completely unchallengeable. Hell, a .career 260 hitter broke his 60 home run mark.

The overall level of competition in baseball is higher as African Americans and Latin Americans are no longer excluded. Some of you guys don't seem to acknowledge just how many truly incredible players were not allowed to face Ruth. He put up incredible numbers, but there were players who, if they were allowed to play, could have seriously lessened his production. Additionally, the game is more specialized now than it was in Ruth's day. Back then, a pitcher would throw thirty or forty complete games a season. By the end of the game, these pitchers would be understandably fatigued. And when you're tired, velocity drops. Curveballs break less. Mistakes are made more often by pitchers. More opportunity for batters. More home run opportunities for Ruth. In the modern game, you might see three, four or more pitchers in one game. When Aaron played, you had pitchers consistently hitting 20-30 saves a season. In Ruth's day? Leaders had 5, 6 or 7 saves. Maybe 10 to 12 in a good season. Back then, in football, you had players like Don Hutson, who would play wideout, kicker, and safety. You don't see that today, either. Games evolve. Baseball is no different.

And I'm curious as to what sentiment you think I have about Gehrig? I'm not a Yankees fan, or a Gehrig fan. The point was made that nobody even approached the great Ruth's abilities in his era, and I refuted it, quite effectively, I might add. I think what happened to him was tragic, but beyond that, I don't hold any special affinity for the man.

The numbers don't lie. Ruth was an historic player, one of the all-time greats. I'd clearly put him in the top 10, top 5 players in the history of the game. But to treat him as if he were somehow super human, doing things nobody else could come within miles of, is simply not so. I'd be willing to bet that Josh Gibson hit homeruns as often as the Babe, and just as far. But he never got to show what he could do in the Major Leagues because of the color of his skin, so he is discounted, and Ruth is deified.

And I'm sorry, to say that Ruth was so much better than Hank Aaron is just absurd.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Pinstriper780

Sorry, but I'm not even putting Aaron above Mantle let alone Babe.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But a comparison of Mantle and Aaron's numbers would suggest that Aaron was at least Mantle's equal.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Ok, I'll play devil's advocate, and make an argument for Hank Aaron. In actuality, when you analyze the different factors involved, it's not quite so cut and dry that "well, Ruth was better". No, not really. I'm not meaning to diminish Ruth's abilities as a baseball player. He was incredible. But so, too, was Hank Aaron, and the circumstances under which Aaron played differed greatly from those in Ruth's day.

When Babe Ruth was an active player, there were eight teams in the American League (including the Yankees). None of them were west of the Mississippi, however. The Babe played in St. Louis, Philadelphia, New York, Boston, Detroit, Chicago, Washington and Cleveland. No long cross-country trips for baseball games.

In Aaron's day (from 1960 going forward, the majority of his career), there were at least 10 teams in the National League, including the San Francisco Giants, and the Los Angeles Dodgers. A few years later, the Majors expanded to include the south. Aaron's Braves moved to Atlanta. There was also a team in Houston, first the Colt 45's, then the Astros. Aaron could be playing one series in Philadelphia, then flying across the country to face the Giants. Then he might be flying to Montreal to play the Expos, or down to Houston. The amount of travel that Hank Aaron did, not only to the west coast, but to Canada and the southern U.S, far exceeds anything that Babe Ruth had to undergo. Anybody that has ever flown from one end of the country to the other knows about jet lag, and the fatigue that comes with it. Plus, they didn't have today's commercial airlines. If you flew around in the 50s and 60s at all, you know how difficult it was getting any sleep while flying. I'm not even going to get into the racism that Hank Aaron did have to deal with while chasing Ruth's all-time home run record. Anybody that tries to discount that is a fool. Look at the pressure Roger Maris had to deal with in 1961 chasing Ruth's single season record. His hair fell out. he had stomach ulcers. What do you think Aaron had to deal with? How many years did he get letters day in, day out, where somebody was threatening to kill him? Did the Babe ever have to deal with that? Nope.

In Babe Ruth's day, Walter Johnson was likely the best pitcher in the game, and is considered one of, if not the greatest pitchers to ever play the game. Johnson's biggest advantage was the sheer velocity of his fastball. While they didn't have the technology that's available today, scientists were able to extrapolate from film/different tests they did that Johnson threw in the low 90's. Babe Ruth never had to face a Bob Gibson, Sandy Koufax or a Juan Marichal, who consistently threw in the high 90's, up to and over 100 mph.

As great as Ruth was, he never had to play against those black athletes restricted to the Negro Leagues, because baseball was segregated in Ruth's day. Ruth's final year as a player was in 1935, his lone season with the Boston Braves. Of course, Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in 1947. Hank Aaron was a rookie in 1954. Not only did Aaron face the best white pitchers in the game (as did Ruth), but he faced the best black athletes, and the best baseball players from Latin America. How do you think Babe Ruth would have done against Smokey Joe Williams, or Satchel Paige? There's evidence to support the level of competition from 1947 on was tougher than it was in Ruth's day. When was the last time anybody hit .400? 1941. Nobody in Aaron's day came close. Were the hitters worse, or were the pitchers just better? Rules changes were made because pitchers had such an advantage over hitters in the early 60s.

Ruth had it relatively easy in his day. He played in ideal conditions. He didn't have to travel nearly as much as Aaron. Didn't have to deal with racism. Didn't have to deal with the same caliber of pitchers because of improved athleticism, and segregation.

Ruth was an incredible baseball player, and is rightly one of the icons of the game. But to lessen Aaron's accomplishments is a disservice to another one of the all-time great players.

How great was Aaron? If you take away his 755 home runs (which I still consider the all-time record), he still had more than 3,000 hits.

You are absolutely CORRECT about Hank Aaron's greatness & along with Hornsby & Foxx, I truly believe Aaron is one of the three best right-handed hitters of all-time. I have had several detailed discussions with many respected baseball historians regarding the impact of night baseball, cross-country travel, more harder throwers/better stuff, etc. & it typically comes back to "where do you draw the line for comparing ballplayers by era"??? The best answer just may be to simply compare players versus their formidable peers from the same era, and if that is the case, Ruth stands head and shoulders above the rest due to the manner in which he dominated the league.

FYI, some of the NEGATIVE factors for pre-war players were: lack of advanced strength conditioning methodologies, baseballs that were not as tightly stitched (baseballs today are like super-balls!), more "junk-ball" pitchers for which a hitter was required to supply more power, more ballparks with Yellowstone Park like fence distances....just to name a few.

I also agree that Gehrig was an amazing hitter. For pure batting, I place Gehrig #3 on the all-time list behind Ruth and Ted Williams. One additional advantage Ruth had on Gehrig was that Gehrig batted AFTER Ruth (similar to Mantle eventually following Maris). While it helped Gehrig's R.B.I. totals for sure (Ruth had a sensational on-base percentage), Ruth MUST HAVE seen better pitches because no pitcher was pitching around Ruth to get to Gehrig. Interesting, isn't it!

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

You are absolutely CORRECT about Hank Aaron's greatness & along with Hornsby & Foxx, I truly believe Aaron is one of the three best right-handed hitters of all-time. I have had several detailed discussions with many respected baseball historians regarding the impact of night baseball, cross-country travel, more harder throwers/better stuff, etc. & it typically comes back to "where do you draw the line for comparing ballplayers by era"??? The best answer just may be to simply compare players versus their formidable peers from the same era, and if that is the case, Ruth stands head and shoulders above the rest due to the manner in which he dominated the league.

FYI, some of the NEGATIVE factors for pre-war players were: lack of advanced strength conditioning methodologies, baseballs that were not as tightly stitched (baseballs today are like super-balls!), more "junk-ball" pitchers for which a hitter was required to supply more power, more ballparks with Yellowstone Park like fence distances....just to name a few.

I also agree that Gehrig was an amazing hitter. For pure batting, I place Gehrig #3 on the all-time list behind Ruth and Ted Williams. One additional advantage Ruth had on Gehrig was that Gehrig batted AFTER Ruth (similar to Mantle eventually following Maris). While it helped Gehrig's R.B.I. totals for sure (Ruth had a sensational on-base percentage), Ruth MUST HAVE seen better pitches because no pitcher was pitching around Ruth to get to Gehrig. Interesting, isn't it!

Great post, Vintageclout.

I hope that everybody understands that I greatly respect Babe Ruth's accomplishments as a player (I'd gladly chop off a nut to have his rookie card, or a Goudey), and that I have the utmost respect for my fellow forum members, too. I love these kinds of friendly debates, because more than any other sport, the game of baseball by it's very nature encourages them. The statistical analysis of baseball, even across the different generations, still allows for some comparisons to take place. Athletes have gotten bigger, stronger, and faster, yes, but when you throw out the numbers 60, 190, 2,130, 4,191, .406, or 56, you still see a euphoric look on a baseball fan's face.

Some people will turn on a game, and see nothing happening, and get bored. I see it, and I wonder how the outfielders might be shifting in response to the count. I wonder who's warming in the bullpen. What the third base coach is doing. What the manager has called on a particular play (squeeze bunt, hit and run, double steal, etc). I see a lack of movement at a given moment, and it's beautiful to me. It's chess with athletes substituted for the rook, pawn, queen and king. It appeals to my meticulous nature (as does baseball card collecting).

[71buc]

Satche,
Personally I believe all records established prior to 1947 should have an asterisk. I agree with everything you said regarding Hank Aaron and Willie Mays. Furthermore, Mays and Aaron were far more complete players than the oafish Ruth. Mays may have been flashier than Hank. However, Aaron retired with two thirds of the career triple crown. If you subtract his career home runs from his hit totals he still has over 3000 career hits.

I have grown weary from hearing about how IF Ruth had played as many games, or had as many at bats as Aaron how much more staggering his offensive production would have been. Well he did not have those opportunities, because he was not in the athlete that Aaron was. Nor did he care to take care of himself, or comport himself as a professional. He was an obese victim of his own self-indulgence.

I agree that Ruth dominated his era more than any player past, present, or future. However, he was protected by the press, played against whites only, played only day games, didn't fly coast to coast, faced an inferior level of diluted competition, nor did he face pitching specialists.

Hank Aaron critics use the very same virtues that defied Gehrig to minimize Aaron’s place in history. Aaron came to work every day, was quiet, professional, dignified, consistent, and humble. I don’t believe that you can compare players from different eras. Nonetheless, if you must compare Hank to a pre-war player do so with a man cut from the same cloth, perhaps a gentleman like Lou Gehrig.

I have never understood fans obsession with Babe Ruth. He was the most dominant player of his generation. But that generation was almost 100 years ago. As I said in an earlier post: a Chalmers could not compete with a Ferrari, Lindbergh does not compare to Neil Armstrong, Bobby Jones would not beat Tiger Woods, the film King Kong is not comparable to Jurassic Park, Eddie Cantor is not Robert Deniro, vacuum tube radios are not superior to LCD televisions, the slide rule is not better than the PC, the abacus is not as efficient as a calculator, and Babe Ruth is not as good Hank Aaron.

[digdugdig]

Why no mention of Ned Williamson in the single season quest??
Lest we forget, how many years was Williamson "king" of that feat before Ruth??

[irishdenny]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Because ESPN is the be all, end all authority on baseball history.

As far as sports journalism goes, I put ESPN one rung above the Bleacher Report. In other words, I put next to zero credence in what those jokers say.

Bill,

You have a good point! Only, the one I was making... had to do with the kind of team mate Ruth wasn't. Unfortunately for me(I'm not a BiG of Ruth Fan, I still have to say that The Babe is the Best Ball Player ever! But what do I know... Who know's, Maybe Harper will give us all treat and the Babe a run for his Money... Doubt it though.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by irishdenny

Bill,

You have a good point! Only, the one I was making... had to do with the kind of team mate Ruth wasn't. Unfortunately for me(I'm not a BiG of Ruth Fan, I still have to say that The Babe is the Best Ball Player ever! But what do I know... Who know's, Maybe Harper will give us all treat and the Babe a run for his Money... Doubt it though.

Ok, Denny, I've got it now. Forgive me for being a little dense at times. Can I blame the vicodin and take a mulligan?

The media back then covered up all the sordid stuff Ruth was involved in. But I've always found the man behind the home runs fascinating. The thing about Ruth was...he was actually a pretty good person deep down. He definitely lived a life of excess (I'd imagine he boinked everything in a skirt he could find while the wife and his daughter were at home), he boozed, and he drank like a fish. But of all the superstar sports celebs we've had in any of the major sports, I'd be hard pressed to find somebody that was more giving of his time, and more charitable when it came to helping people out (especially kids).

If you haven't watched the excellent HBO documentary on him (it's available on HBO Go, if you have that), you should. It reinforced some of the things I knew about him, but did an outstanding job of painting a complete portrait. After seeing it, now I really want one of his baseball cards (and I mean one of the classics that was made when he was playing, not one of those cards today with bat barrel pieces, etc. Those are nice, for sure--if they're legit. But I want a card that might have been held by the Babe. Something that was in circulation while the Bambino was swinging for the fences!)

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by 71buc

Satche,
Personally I believe all records established prior to 1947 should have an asterisk. I agree with everything you said regarding Hank Aaron and Willie Mays. Furthermore, Mays and Aaron were far more complete players than the oafish Ruth. Mays may have been flashier than Hank. However, Aaron retired with two thirds of the career triple crown. If you subtract his career home runs from his hit totals he still has over 3000 career hits.

I have grown weary from hearing about how IF Ruth had played as many games, or had as many at bats as Aaron how much more staggering his offensive production would have been. Well he did not have those opportunities, because he was not in the athlete that Aaron was. Nor did he care to take care of himself, or comport himself as a professional. He was an obese victim of his own self-indulgence.

I agree that Ruth dominated his era more than any player past, present, or future. However, he was protected by the press, played against whites only, played only day games, didn't fly coast to coast, faced an inferior level of diluted competition, nor did he face pitching specialists.

Hank Aaron critics use the very same virtues that defied Gehrig to minimize Aaron’s place in history. Aaron came to work every day, was quiet, professional, dignified, consistent, and humble. I don’t believe that you can compare players from different eras. Nonetheless, if you must compare Hank to a pre-war player do so with a man cut from the same cloth, perhaps a gentleman like Lou Gehrig.

I have never understood fans obsession with Babe Ruth. He was the most dominant player of his generation. But that generation was almost 100 years ago. As I said in an earlier post: a Chalmers could not compete with a Ferrari, Lindbergh does not compare to Neil Armstrong, Bobby Jones would not beat Tiger Woods, the film King Kong is not comparable to Jurassic Park, Eddie Cantor is not Robert Deniro, vacuum tube radios are not superior to LCD televisions, the slide rule is not better than the PC, the abacus is not as efficient as a calculator, and Babe Ruth is not as good Hank Aaron.

You make several good points, Mike. I never buy into the "well, if he played longer, his numbers would have been ____" line of discussion because, well, it; pure speculation, almost hyperbole in a sense. When it came to the Babe, or Mickey Mantle, I have to say their numbers are what they are. If they had taken better care of themselves, their numbers most certainly would have been better. At least in the case of Mickey, I can understand why he lived his life the way he did. The poor man watched his father die in the hospital next to him after he ruined his knee in the '51 World Series. The "Mantle family curse" took so many of the men in his life-dad, grandfather, and even his son Billy-they all succumbed to Hodgkin's disease. So, while I am absolutely sympathetic to the dark cloud that Mick thought followed him around, the truth remains that he did party it up, and beat himself up. If Hodgkins didn't get him, cirrhosis of the liver was going to.

I do make an exception of sorts in one regard only-military service. When a player misses time from the game because of war, well, there's really not a whole hell of a lot they could do about it. If they were called, they had to fight. I look at Ted Williams' numbers (and it is my belief that Ted was indeed the greatest pure hitter to ever play the game), and think about what they would have been had he not missed four complete seasons due to WW II and the Korean War. If you go by his career averages, he most certainly would have topped 3,000 hits (well exceeded that benchmark, actually), and he'd have gotten about another 140 home runs (giving him approximately 660, equal to Willie Mays). Of course, you never know if he'd have matched his averages. He could have been injured. But it's fun to discuss.

Oh, and by the way, the Pirates are my second favorite baseball team. I am a huge Roberto Clemente fan. So you know I love your user name and avatar! I plan on adding two of my favorite Clemente cards almost immediately-the 1956 Topps (second year), and the 1958 Topps. The '58 Topps may very well be my favorite card of all-time. Something about the pure yellow background, the type face, and Roberto in his stance. It's just a perfect combination of every element-color, typography (it appeals to the artist in me), and one of my two all-time favorite players (Robin Yount being the other). That one I'll look for a nice medium-high grade on.

If you think this discussion got active, wait until you see what happens when I start a thread claiming that Roberto Clemente, not Aaron, not Ruth, not Al Kaline, was the greatest right fielder to ever play the game. I might just do it. Watch the Ruth fans foam at the mouth! LOL

[Touch'EmAll]

Ruth was the league's top left handed pitcher around 1916-1918. He was considered the ace of the Boston staff getting the nod for 3 consecutive opening day games. In 1916 Ruth defeated Walter Johnson 6 times in a row as a pitcher. The Boston gate attendance ballooned up when Ruth played - he was the talk of the nation very early in his career.

Now if Aaron, when young, pitched at a comparable high level, I might consider Aaron greater than Ruth.

[Exhibitman]

Hank Aaron is an alltime great and a personal favorite of mine but comparing him to Babe Ruth just isn't fair. Ruth is the greatest baseball player who ever lived. He was a god among insects, playing MLB like little league, pitching and hitting at the very top tier of the game. No one else has done that. I doubt anyone will ever do it again. With all due respect to Mays, Aaron, Clemente, Williams, Cobb--all ATGs--when they can pitch at HOF caliber, then they can be mentioned in the same sentence as Ruth. Until then the call isn't even close.

[freakhappy]

Originally Posted by 71buc

Satche,
Personally I believe all records established prior to 1947 should have an asterisk. I agree with everything you said regarding Hank Aaron and Willie Mays. Furthermore, Mays and Aaron were far more complete players than the oafish Ruth. Mays may have been flashier than Hank. However, Aaron retired with two thirds of the career triple crown. If you subtract his career home runs from his hit totals he still has over 3000 career hits.

I have grown weary from hearing about how IF Ruth had played as many games, or had as many at bats as Aaron how much more staggering his offensive production would have been. Well he did not have those opportunities, because he was not in the athlete that Aaron was. Nor did he care to take care of himself, or comport himself as a professional. He was an obese victim of his own self-indulgence.

I agree that Ruth dominated his era more than any player past, present, or future. However, he was protected by the press, played against whites only, played only day games, didn't fly coast to coast, faced an inferior level of diluted competition, nor did he face pitching specialists.

Hank Aaron critics use the very same virtues that defied Gehrig to minimize Aaron’s place in history. Aaron came to work every day, was quiet, professional, dignified, consistent, and humble. I don’t believe that you can compare players from different eras. Nonetheless, if you must compare Hank to a pre-war player do so with a man cut from the same cloth, perhaps a gentleman like Lou Gehrig.

I have never understood fans obsession with Babe Ruth. He was the most dominant player of his generation. But that generation was almost 100 years ago. As I said in an earlier post: a Chalmers could not compete with a Ferrari, Lindbergh does not compare to Neil Armstrong, Bobby Jones would not beat Tiger Woods, the film King Kong is not comparable to Jurassic Park, Eddie Cantor is not Robert Deniro, vacuum tube radios are not superior to LCD televisions, the slide rule is not better than the PC, the abacus is not as efficient as a calculator, and Babe Ruth is not as good Hank Aaron.

I like it! You make great points!

[freakhappy]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Hank Aaron is an alltime great and a personal favorite of mine but comparing him to Babe Ruth just isn't fair. Ruth is the greatest baseball player who ever lived. He was a god among insects, playing MLB like little league, pitching and hitting at the very top tier of the game. No one else has done that. I doubt anyone will ever do it again. With all due respect to Mays, Aaron, Clemente, Williams, Cobb--all ATGs--when they can pitch at HOF caliber, then they can be mentioned in the same sentence as Ruth. Until then the call isn't even close.

No one will ever pitch and hit at a HOF level at the same time because they won't be allowed to! I'm sure there would be some players that could accomplish this in today's game if they were given the opportunity to, but as we all know, money dominates the game and no one would be able to switch or do both. A lot of great athletes out there!

[Touch'EmAll]

I used to think todays ballplayers are better than the old timers because they are bigger, stronger, faster.

The World record running 100 meters has gradually been lowered over the decades. Same goes for the Swimming 100 meters world record times.

But I tend to agree with some here - baseball is different. The raw talent may trump the bigger, better, stronger, faster theory.

Go back and look at some threads on this subject here - some pretty good arguments can be made for the Baseball old timers holding their own against the modern players.

[howard38]

/

[KCRfan1]

Originally Posted by Pinstriper780

Sorry, but I'm not even putting Aaron above Mantle let alone Babe.

Yankee homer.......