Why don't we ever see Hank Aaron listed #1 ?

[filihok]

How the heck does a guy who hit .342 for his career, equate to Adam Dunn, who is batting .100 points lower and dropping?

There's a better way to look at this

Look at Ruth's career BA, OBP, SLG, BB%, K% etc compared to league averages during his career.

compare them to the league averages now.

If Ruth's BA was ?30%? (pulled from an orifice) better than the league average for his career and the league average batting average in 2012 was .255 then a 30% better batting average would be .331

[yankillaz]

Ruth may not have been another Rickey Henderson, but would his lack of great speed really keep him out of the majors, when he is probably the greatest hitter ever?

What do you mean by 'not the physical conditions to be that type of slugger'? You mean to say that guys have to be in great shape to be great sluggers? Or that the conditions of modern times mean that type of slugger cannot exist? Either statement would be totally untrue.

How the heck does a guy who hit .342 for his career, equate to Adam Dunn, who is batting .100 points lower and dropping?

What was the normal contexture of a baseball player in the 1920s compared to what we see today? Faust was right on when he said that we'll diminish today's game when players come from another galaxy, or are cyborgs. But right now we have a more developed game than the one that both Ruth and Cobb played in. And that difference has to be weighed in some manner. Whether is to enhance their position as Greatest Ever, or to diminish it, is to be fully understand someday, not now apparently.

Because we keep arguing that Aaron wasn't the greatest ever when every LQ we could make tells us that at least he should be in the conversation.

Who can you compare Ruth if he played today, BTW?

[brett]

I like this. Very funny. And although I kinda agree with you, it should be noted that the game of baseball at the time Ruth played isn't the same brand of baseball of our times. For comparing players between eras, we should compare them against their competition. When comparing eras, though, we should compare how the players could translate across eras. You bring Aaron, Mays and Robinson to today's game. And they still would be elite. Their games translate to our times, because they played a modern brand of baseball. This is not a knock on Ruth or Cobb, my favorite of the two. But their game skills would've been different if they played in our time. Let's do a a what if:

Ruth wouldn't pass the speed between home plate and first. That first drill could even keep him out of the big leagues. But, since he has a good eye, I can see him being a modern day Adam Dunn. Enormous power, but not the physical conditions to be that type of slugger. Cobb, now that's a different story. I could see him a as a better version of Ichiro. Because of the walks, of course. But that's best case scenario for both, and it's not comparable to their performance in the early 1900s and 1920s.

I think Ruth would have similar hitting rates to Pujols, with more walks and win multiple gold gloves in right, left first base. Maybe more like Thome as a batter and Larry Walker in the outfield.

I think Cobb would match Gwynn's batting averages and hit at least 350 home runs, possible be a 400/400 guy and play good centerfield for 11-12 years and good left field for another 8-9. Tony Gwynn average, George Brett/Al Kaline type power and Ichiro on the bases.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

This is my all time favorite picture of Babe Ruth. Does he look fat? Put Ruth in a modern uniform and he looks like a young Jim Thome physically. Ruth would fit right in with today's ballplayers.

Babe Ruth Red Sox 1.jpeg Jim Thome 1.jpg

[brett]

There's a better way to look at this

Look at Ruth's career BA, OBP, SLG, BB%, K% etc compared to league averages during his career.

compare them to the league averages now.

If Ruth's BA was ?30%? (pulled from an orifice) better than the league average for his career and the league average batting average in 2012 was .255 then a 30% better batting average would be .331

Ruth's league was about .285. If he posted his career batting average today he would bat about .310 but he'd still slug just about .690 and he'd need to hit close to 900 home runs to do that.

[bluesky5]

What was the normal contexture of a baseball player in the 1920s compared to what we see today? Faust was right on when he said that we'll diminish today's game when players come from another galaxy, or are cyborgs. But right now we have a more developed game than the one that both Ruth and Cobb played in. And that difference has to be weighed in some manner. Whether is to enhance their position as Greatest Ever, or to diminish it, is to be fully understand someday, not now apparently.

Because we keep arguing that Aaron wasn't the greatest ever when every LQ we could make tells us that at least he should be in the conversation.

Who can you compare Ruth if he played today, BTW?

You don't think they could figure it out? Baseball isn't exactly rocket science. They understood the concept of choking up and hitting for placement and holding the bat at the end of the handle i.e. Joe Jackson and hitting the ball hard [for power]. They recognized pitches as the ball was on its way in. They didn't come to the plate in a loin cloth and say "me hit ball with stick." They bunted, hit and ran, hit for power, hit for average, turned double plays, hit cutoff men when necessary, etc. What can't they do that players today are doing? I'm sure they could look at a TV screen to study pitchers and figure out how to lift weights. Better equipment doesn't make the talent level of the player rise. It makes the production of the player rise though.

If you think that older players would see the game today and be unable to decipher its complexity as opposed to 100 years ago I laugh at you, hard.

[willshad]

There is absolutely no reason to think that anybody playing today is the physical superior to Babe Ruth. He was the same size as many of today's sluggers, had a perfect swing, patience at the plate, almost superhuman eyesight and reflexes. He would not quite be Barry Bonds circa 2001-2004 if he played today, but he would not be far off the mark. Maybe like Albert Pujols with 50 more walks per season added.

I'm thinking that Giambi circa 2000-2001 type of seasons would be similar to his off peak seasons. His few best years would be a bit better.

it is so difficult to do, because almost any rational way of looking at it would lead to the conclusion that Ruth would hit over 60 home runs a season annually in today's game. But, common sense tells us that is not possible.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I like this. Very funny. And although I kinda agree with you, it should be noted that the game of baseball at the time Ruth played isn't the same brand of baseball of our times. For comparing players between eras, we should compare them against their competition. When comparing eras, though, we should compare how the players could translate across eras. You bring Aaron, Mays and Robinson to today's game. And they still would be elite. Their games translate to our times, because they played a modern brand of baseball. This is not a knock on Ruth or Cobb, my favorite of the two. But their game skills would've been different if they played in our time. Let's do a a what if:

Ruth wouldn't pass the speed between home plate and first. That first drill could even keep him out of the big leagues. But, since he has a good eye, I can see him being a modern day Adam Dunn. Enormous power, but not the physical conditions to be that type of slugger. Cobb, now that's a different story. I could see him a as a better version of Ichiro. Because of the walks, of course. But that's best case scenario for both, and it's not comparable to their performance in the early 1900s and 1920s.

Again we overlook the all around hitting by Ruth, not just slugging and home runs.
Lets turn it around. If Dunn played in Ruth's time do you think he would have th 5th highest career batting average as Ruth did, how about Thome, who I have way more respect for, over Dunn, Thome,342 back then?
Only 4 hitters in modern times hit for a better average than Ruth and he was a legit slugger.
Understanding Ruth would not carry that .342 today, but thats not the question. Can you see Dunn hitting .342 in those years.

It's not all about home runs, some of the greatest are not high on the career home run list..................only one made both lists, near the top all time.

[willshad]

What was the normal contexture of a baseball player in the 1920s compared to what we see today? Faust was right on when he said that we'll diminish today's game when players come from another galaxy, or are cyborgs. But right now we have a more developed game than the one that both Ruth and Cobb played in. And that difference has to be weighed in some manner. Whether is to enhance their position as Greatest Ever, or to diminish it, is to be fully understand someday, not now apparently.

Because we keep arguing that Aaron wasn't the greatest ever when every LQ we could make tells us that at least he should be in the conversation.

Who can you compare Ruth if he played today, BTW?

How is the game more 'developed'? Sure there are minor changes, but the same basic rules and dimensions apply. it's not like Ruth was hitting in little league sized stadiums...those outfield fence dimensions dwarfed the ones of today. I can think of several reasons why Ruth's numbers may be even BETTER if he played today, but not many reasons to think that they may be worse.

[willshad]

Again we overlook the all around hitting by Ruth, not just slugging and home runs.
Lets turn it around. If Dunn played in Ruth's time do you think he would have th 5th highest career batting average as Ruth did, how about Thome, who I have way more respect for, over Dunn, Thome,342 back then?
Only 4 hitters in modern times hit for a better average than Ruth and he was a legit slugger.
Understanding Ruth would not carry that .342 today, but thats not the question. Can you see Dunn hitting .342 in those years.

It's not all about home runs, some of the greatest are not high on the career home run list..................only one made both lists, near the top all time.

Exactly..if Ruth would be Dunn if he played today, then that would mean nobody else from that time would even be able to make the majors now, because the average guy would only be able to hit .180 or so.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

First, yes Babe ruth would probably not caarry that .342 today.
One thing should be considered when we discuss Babe's .342 and the fact that the league hit higher back then.
But, he was playing most of his career in the contact era, so it's only natural the league would be hitting for a high average, but he was playing long ball, they were playing contact, yet he's right with them in batting average and far ahead of most.

He did have the advantage of opening up the gap between him and the league in slugging, he was playing is own game, the window breaker.
But again that only shows his greatness, swinging from the heels and at the same time beating 90+ percent of the game, at their own game, batting average.

His .340 BABIP and total career home runs set him miles apart from any that played the game.
Anyone higher than .340 BABIP, has no where near the home runs as he did, the all around best. Spare me the BS about all the luck with BABIP, not with 8399 at bats.

Was it the bigger parks, fielder's playing deep, balls dropping in, how many did he hit a mile for long outs.
He has maybe one rival, hitting for average/Slugging, consistently over a career, Ted Williams. Gehrig close.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Exactly..if Ruth would be Dunn if he played today, then that would mean nobody else from that time would even be able to make the majors now, because the average guy would only be able to hit .180 or so.

I tried that one many times on this board when there is the suggestion he might just be, just another average player, so so hitter.
That would have to mean that no one from that time is a match for today's best, who would buy that one.

[willshad]

First, yes Babe ruth would probably not caarry that .342 today.
One thing should be considered when we discuss Babe's .342 and the fact that the league hit higher back then.
But, he was playing most of his career in the contact era, so it's only natural the league would be hitting for a high average, but he was playing long ball, they were playing contact, yet he' right with themin batting average.

He did have the advantage of opening up the gap between him and the league in slugging, he was playing is own game, the window breaker.
But again that only shows his greatness, swinging from the heels and at the same time beating 90+ percent of the game, at their own gamebatting average.

His .340 BABIP and total career home runs set him miles apart from any that played the game.
Anyone higher than .340 BABIP, has no where near the home runs as he did, the all around best. Spare me the BS about all the luck with BABIP, not with 8399 at bats.

Was it the bigger parks, fielder's playing deep, balls dropping in, how many did he hit a mile for long outs.
He has maybe one rival, hitting for average/Slugging, consistenty over a career, Ted Williams. Gehrig close.

Everyone knows his BABIP was so high because the guys playing the field back then had to use their bare hands to catch the ball, and the fastest of them could only run as fast as Adam Dunn. Or maybe they were running on their hands like cavemen, and caught it with their mouth? I forget.

[pheasant]

Exactly..if Ruth would be Dunn if he played today, then that would mean nobody else from that time would even be able to make the majors now, because the average guy would only be able to hit .180 or so.

I like Thome as a comp for Ruth with two wrinkles. The first is that Ruth in his prime would run circles around a young Thome. Secondly, Ruth was a much better fielder than Thome(more agility and a rocket arm that was very accurate).Thome is one of my all time favorites. Be he's one of the slowest runners I've seen(Cecil Fielder was only slightly slower). Ruth was rather fleet-footed in his younger years. Although Thome is about 20th on my all-time hitters' list after steep league quality adjustments, I believe Thome is 9/10 the hitter Ruth was. I.e, the are similar, but I see Ruth hitting even more HRs and drawing even more walks than Thome.

I.e, Thome during his 9 year peak averaged 41 HRs, 114 BB, .285/.416/.588 per season(not per 162 games). I see Ruth hitting 46 HRs, drawing 127 walks while averaging .317/.462/.653 with a rocket arm in right field during his peak years. And his peak would last much longer than 9 years with modern training and medicine. Assuming a normal decline, I see Ruth topping 800 HRs, but with only a .305 career avg.

[willshad]

Sounds like you have him more on par with Frank Thomas as a hitter than with Thome.

[TomBodet]

Calling Ruth Dunn is a Dunn thing to do. I like to think Mr Manush would do pretty well to, leaving out Ruth, Hornsby, etc. The idea that RUTH or Greenberg couldn't rake today is goofy. How about Yaz or Kaline who came up 50-60 yrs ago? Can't wait to hear the ingenius answers on This one....'Kaline would be Elvis Andrus'

[BigRon]

But again that only shows his greatness, swinging from the heels and at the same time beating 90+ percent of the game, at their own game, batting average.

More than 90%. Here's where Ruth and Aaron ranked in league BA:
Ruth:
First- 1 time
Second- 3 times
Third- 2 times
Fourth- 1 time
Fifth- 1 time
Seventh- 1 time
Eighth- 3 times

Aaron:
First- 2 times
Second- 1 time
Third- 2 times
Fourth- 2 times
Fifth- 4 times
Eighth- 1 time

Awfully similar. Of course, Aaron played nearly 2/3 rds of his career in 10 or 12 team leagues, so he had more competitors for the tops spots, at least theoretically.

[brett]

How is the game more 'developed'?

For me I would say primarily because the league as a whole was not filled with players capable, or ready to take maximum advantage of the live ball, or pitchers to optimally nullify the live ball. A league FULL of deadballers and a country full of kids who knew how to play the deadball game circa 1917 was not suddenly going to be filled with hitters and pitchers who would do the best with that implement.

[brett]

Sounds like you have him more on par with Frank Thomas as a hitter than with Thome.

Personally I would have said Frank Thomas as a hitter, except that Thomas basically hit line drives that had enough on them to get out of a modern ballpark, and Thomas pretty much tried to hit everything to straight up the middle. Ruth I get the feel hit a lot more towering shots, and pulled the ball more. I honestly think Ruth, born on the same day as Thomas would have hit more home runs, but otherwise similar career percentages, but Ruth would have also been similar to Dwight Evans or Larry Walker in right field (or Pujols at first) and would have run a lot better than Thomas. And I'm not sure Ruth's averages would have peaked as high as Thomas' (I think he was .330 through 7 years) because Thomas faced the best strikeout pitchers of all time and still K'd less than 100 times per 162 games, but I think Ruth was less physically degraded by his 30s so he probably would have still been hitting .290-.325 in the second half of his career.

[brett]

Assuming a normal decline, I see Ruth topping 800 HRs, but with only a .305 career avg.

I am right on with this. BEST estimate, born and raised as a contemporary of Thome, or Thomas, Ruth hits 800 home runs, and I say that only because 900 would take too many things to not go wrong. Probably more fluctuation in batting average (and averages are 20 points lower today and gloves and specialized relievers are going to cut into that average, it is just a physical fact.).

[JR Hart]

Pretty sure that no one's saying that JR.

However, Aaron, for his career, managed .555 total bases per at bat [((1B+(2*2B)+(3*3B)+(4*HR))/AB]

For each walk, Aaron averaged 1 total base.


A walk is, generally, a better outcome than swinging the bat.

I'm not sure how to to respond? This is mathmatics taken beyond the point of absurdity. A walk is but one outcome of a plate appearance. And striking out is worse than swinging the bat.

Aaron is the all-time RBI and TB leader, would you rather have Eddie Stanky? He got on base more?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

For me I would say primarily because the league as a whole was not filled with players capable, or ready to take maximum advantage of the live ball, or pitchers to optimally nullify the live ball. A league FULL of deadballers and a country full of kids who knew how to play the deadball game circa 1917 was not suddenly going to be filled with hitters and pitchers who would do the best with that implement.

I see what you're saying Brett. There were however, articles written early on about how the homerun was "ruining" the game. I have read quotes from players, Ruth's teammates included, who tried to take his approach and their numbers suffered. So they quickly abandoned that notion and went back to what they knew, and what the league valued...batting average and low strikeout totals. There were many who did take a somewhat "Ruthian" approach, changing bat types, and swinging more aggressive, but mainly with less than two strikes. As you can see by the K numbers below, they stayed steady, despite other numbers changing.

The live ball and the rules changes that resulted from the Chapman incident, helped all hitters. Stubborn ones like Cobb and ones who picked their spots. The fact that nobody else possessed the ability of Ruth, namely, to contend for batting average crowns while out-homering entire teams, is not a knock on Ruth. Just the opposite in fact. I do not think Aaron had the ability to not sacrifice BA for power. He just wasn't that type of talent. I see him contending for BA crowns, striking out about 40-50 times a year, and putting up significant double and triple totals.

Just for kicks I looked up some league numbers for different six year spans. A transition phase in the AL from 1917-1922 and the NL (to eliminate the DH factor) from 1998-2003. Really no surprises, just some info to look at, to view how the league approach was at the time. The approach of the hitters is dependent on the setup of the game. It has been much easier to hit home runs in this era, and that is the approach by nearly everyone, middle infielders and number 8 hitters. That is what makes it harder to stand out in power categories, not because the league is "tough" by any means.

-------AB/HR----AB/3b--PA/K

1917 - 305.7 - 76.3 -  11.13
1918 - 349.3 - 81.7 -  12.7
1919 - 155.7 - 70.4 -  11.9
1920 - 113.7 - 67.6 -  13.2
1921 -  89.7 - 61.6 -  13.6
1922 -  80.5 - 72.1 -  13.4

1998 -  34.5 - 180.6 - 5.7
1999 -  30.7 - 173.8 - 5.9
2000 -  29.5 - 166.8 - 5.8
2001 -  29.8 - 180.5 - 5.5
2002 -  33.8 - 179.9 - 5.7
2003 -  32.6 - 180.0 - 5.8

[Jackaroo Dave]

I'm not sure how to to respond? This is mathmatics taken beyond the point of absurdity. A walk is but one outcome of a plate appearance. And striking out is worse than swinging the bat.

Aaron is the all-time RBI and TB leader, would you rather have Eddie Stanky? He got on base more?

Well, if you think swinging the bat averages a better outcome, just give everyone an intentional BB to prevent it.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

More than 90%. Here's where Ruth and Aaron ranked in league BA:
Ruth:
First- 1 time
Second- 3 times
Third- 2 times
Fourth- 1 time
Fifth- 1 time
Seventh- 1 time
Eighth- 3 times

Aaron:
First- 2 times
Second- 1 time
Third- 2 times
Fourth- 2 times
Fifth- 4 times
Eighth- 1 time

Awfully similar. Of course, Aaron played nearly 2/3 rds of his career in 10 or 12 team leagues, so he had more competitors for the tops spots, at least theoretically.

Looking at league leads? One of Ruth's second place finishes is a .393, and that seventh place finish of .356 is one point higher than Hank's career high. Yeah I know, different era, but I think you missed Shoeless' point. Ruth was crushing everyone in slugging while also contending for batting titles year in and year out. Babe hitting .370+ six times in his era would not be very impressive, if he wasn't swinging from his heels and dominating in slugging.

[JR Hart]

Well, if you think swinging the bat averages a better outcome, just give everyone an intentional BB to prevent it.

and absurd builds on absurd So Stanky was better than Aaron?

after all Stanky had better outcomes, right? That is what you are saying


And the funny part is that many of you BELIEVE it!!! LOL