Barry Bonds vs Hank Aaron

[csh19792001]

Aaron, the real HR leader. Consistent, relentless, intelligent, team player.

Absolutely! :applaud:

[csh19792001]

I don't agree with the Ichiro part. Even with his style I think in today's parks he hits at least 300 home runs given 3000 games to do it. He also drew an average amount of walks for his time, but in that time the best hitters did NOT get walked more than the average hitter so there is really no indication of his walk tendancies. He walked more than Lajoie. I actually think Lajoie, Speaker, Cobb and Wagner all would have hit at LEAST 300 home runs in today's setting, and maybe more like 450 for Wagner.

Cobb's walk rate was actually significantly above the league average during his time in the AL. About the 65th percentile. Ichrio's is 28% below the league average for his career, so around the 22nd percentile.

When I think of Cobb against the guys I've seen and studied, I think only small part Ichiro (because of the blazing speed, ability to chop the ball, and hitting to all fields). But I also think of Tony Gwynn, the consummate "place hitter" and artist, who was impossible to strike out and studied pitchers and the opposition with relentless rigor and zeal. Ichiro is the worst "hacker" I've ever seen play over many years, Gwynn was his antithesis.

I also think of George Brett, the aggresive firebrand..a line drive/gap hitter with some pop, but not an uppercutter who tried to yank everything to right for a homers. Like Cobb, Brett hit for an outstanding average, left everything out on the field and was reknowned for his intensity, and was durable as hell.

When I hear about the more extreme incidences of where competitiveness becomes overt violence, I think of former hockey player Nyjer Morgan, who is a runt but topples guys twice his size and would fight any opposing player, and probably get the better of almost all of them. Fearless rage.

Wild stuff here!
Nyjer Morgan brawls

[leecemark]

--I think a Brett type players is a good comp for Cobb also. Cobb was more consistently near the top of his game though so I'd expect you'd see a few more seasons like Brett at his best and fewer off seasons. So another batting title or three, maybe more than the one 30 HR season, a few hundred more hits and an OPS+ maybe halfway between Brett's and what Cobb did in his own time.

[pheasant]

You do bring up a great point here about being polluted over the past 15 years or so. I did run a high estimate on homeruns for Cobb since I have him playing a ridiculous amount of games with the newer 162 game schedule. After all, he played over 3000 games during his 24 years in the bigs. Thus, I have him playing about 150 extra games nowadays with about 12000 total at-bats, which breaks down to a home run every 21.8 at-bats. That might be giving him too much credit. I see your point there. But 550 HRs doesn't look so great now when 12000 at-bats are needed to achieve it.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I don't agree with the every player. And even though I have Ruth at the top I've said dozens of time he would not dominate today as he did then and he might not put up the numbers he did back then if playing today. But I would have to think he would probably more than hold his own. Obviously he had waht most good and great hitter have in any era, good eye, quick reflexes and a big strong guy.

Ruth had good eye, quick reflexes and a big strong guy for his era. That is all we can know. We don't know if those attirbutes are good enough to play in today's game and do well.

On the other side, when I see Babe being a modern day Steve Balboni, thats a joke. Rowand I doubt very much no I wouldn't consider that. Difficult to believe that the batter with the 5th highest career batting average would struggle today. So you can see, I don't see the Ruth of those days dominating now as he did then but the Balboni, Rowands and some even saying Ruth might be even sitting the bench today, taking it too far.

It's not so difficult to believe. How do we do we know Ruth was a great player? Because he utterly dominated his era. He played against a specific group of players, in specific stadduim, using a specific equipment.

Lets put it this way, if Wagner, Cobb and Ruth would struggle today, kind of like saying no player from back then could cut it in todays game.

That is certainly possible. Like I asked before. Could Red Grange, Wilt Chamberlain, or Paavo Nurmi hold their own against modern athletes in their sport?

We will never know but I did see a comment some years ago that I think could be fairly accurate dealing with players being moved into other era's in the game. The article stated that most likely if we took the top 5 percent of the best hitters in any era, they would probably hit in any era .Maybe not the same numbers put up in their time but hitting with some success.

I'm not familiar with this article. I'd like to read it.


I would think Wagner and Cobb in todays game would hit, Carew, Brett, Bonds, put them into any era and they hit.

One thing has to be considered, moving a past great into todays game should not come in todays game as is. Born in a later time they would benefit from some of the advancements in nutrition, training and equipment changes.[/QUOTE]
The only way is to bring them as-is. The question is whether the Babe Ruth of the 1920's could dominate today. If you don't bring Ruth to the present as-si then you don't really have Babe Ruth anymore. You have someone else.

Though we can't being players pf the past to the present there is a real life analogy that I believe gives great insight into how players of the past may fair. This analogy is the the move of Japanese players to the majors. Every single player that comes to the majors from Japan has a drop in performance with respect to their Japanese stats. This makes sense since the Japanese player is coming to a league where the pitchers generally throw harder, the players tend to be larger and stronger, the stadiums are generally bigger, and the season is longer. At least to me this gives great insight as to how players of the past would fair today. Hideki Matsui was a great power hitter in Japan. I saw him play while I was in Japan back in 2002. Yet his HR power dropped significantly when he came to the majors.

[B]Age HR  PA   PA/HR[/B]
19  11  203  18.45
20  20  569  28.45
21  22  569  25.86 
22  38  569  14.97
23  37  596  16.10
24  34  603  17.74
25  42  572  13.62
26  42  589  14.02
27  36  611  16.97
28  50  620  12.40

29  16  695  43.44
30  31  680  21.94
31  23  704  30.61
32   8  201  25.13
33  25  634  25.36
34   9  378  42.00
35  28  528  18.86
36  21  558  26.57
37  12  585  48.75

[willshad]

I may be mistaken, but isn't Ichiro just as good in the majors as he was in Japan?

[bluesky5]

Though we can't being players pf the past to the present there is a real life analogy that I believe gives great insight into how players of the past may fair. This analogy is the the move of Japanese players to the majors. Every single player that comes to the majors from Japan has a drop in performance with respect to their Japanese stats. This makes sense since the Japanese player is coming to a league where the pitchers generally throw harder, the players tend to be larger and stronger, the stadiums are generally bigger, and the season is longer. At least to me this gives great insight as to how players of the past would fair today. Hideki Matsui was a great power hitter in Japan. I saw him play while I was in Japan back in 2002. Yet his HR power dropped significantly when he came to the majors.

That's a pretty big false equivalency, HWR. The technological, nutritional and medical knowledge limitations of Ruth's day v. the limitations of the quality of players in the Japan League due to the genetic constraints of Asian males.

[willshad]

Nevermind, I just looked it up, and Ichiro was MUCH better in Japan. He had over a .900 OPS every year, some years over 1.000, and apparently he was never caught stealing, even once.

[willshad]

In baseball, being bigger isn't necessarily an advantage. If that were the case, then baseball players would all be the size of NFL or NBA players.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

That's a pretty big false equivalency, HWR. The technological, nutritional and medical knowledge limitations of Ruth's day v. the limitations of the quality of players in the Japan League due to the genetic constraints of Asian males.

Sorry, I disagree 100%. It is a very valid analogy and I consider it strong evidence that the players of the past would struggle today. Genetic constraints on Asian males? Seriously? I won't touch that one...

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Ruth had good eye, quick reflexes and a big strong guy for his era. That is all we can know. We don't know if those attirbutes are good enough to play in today's game and do well.



It's not so difficult to believe. How do we do we know Ruth was a great player? Because he utterly dominated his era. He played against a specific group of players, in specific stadduim, using a specific equipment.


That is certainly possible. Like I asked before. Could Red Grange, Wilt Chamberlain, or Paavo Nurmi hold their own against modern athletes in their sport?


I'm not familiar with this article. I'd like to read it.


I would think Wagner and Cobb in todays game would hit, Carew, Brett, Bonds, put them into any era and they hit.

One thing has to be considered, moving a past great into todays game should not come in todays game as is. Born in a later time they would benefit from some of the advancements in nutrition, training and equipment changes.

The only way is to bring them as-is. The question is whether the Babe Ruth of the 1920's could dominate today. If you don't bring Ruth to the present as-si then you don't really have Babe Ruth anymore. You have someone else.

Though we can't being players pf the past to the present there is a real life analogy that I believe gives great insight into how players of the past may fair. This analogy is the the move of Japanese players to the majors. Every single player that comes to the majors from Japan has a drop in performance with respect to their Japanese stats. This makes sense since the Japanese player is coming to a league where the pitchers generally throw harder, the players tend to be larger and stronger, the stadiums are generally bigger, and the season is longer. At least to me this gives great insight as to how players of the past would fair today. Hideki Matsui was a great power hitter in Japan. I saw him play while I was in Japan back in 2002. Yet his HR power dropped significantly when he came to the majors.

[B]Age HR  PA   PA/HR[/B]
19  11  203  18.45
20  20  569  28.45
21  22  569  25.86 
22  38  569  14.97
23  37  596  16.10
24  34  603  17.74
25  42  572  13.62
26  42  589  14.02
27  36  611  16.97
28  50  620  12.40

29  16  695  43.44
30  31  680  21.94
31  23  704  30.61
32   8  201  25.13
33  25  634  25.36
34   9  378  42.00
35  28  528  18.86
36  21  558  26.57
37  12  585  48.75

[/QUOTE]

Why should it be as is. How is that fair, this could start a whole new debate. Would todays player on average be as big and strong if they were born around 1900, probably not, it's a whole different world right from birth and then add in all the advancements.

For that matter, there probably are some who could come as is and could play today.
The Steve Balboni is a laugher. If Ruth could be a modern day Stave Balboni then who could play in todays game and compete with todays players. Thats about the same as saying there were no great players back then at all.

As for that quotes about the 5 percent in any era being able successful in any era, I don't recall where I saw it, that was years ago and I did say their numbers might not be the same. Why can't it be considered, makes sense to me, 5 percent is not asking much. There just had to be a handful of very good hitters in any era, why would the be none. Or do you think the 5 percent should be lower.

As is is out, if they lived and played today ever thing is different. You don't have some one else. You either have a good eye or you don't and you can't change the reflexes speed your born with, thats a part of the good and great hitters package, just a part..

[CandlestickBum]

As for that quotes about the 5 percent in any era being able successful in any era, I don't recall where I saw it, that was years ago and I did say their numbers might not be the same. Why can't it be considered, makes sense to me, 5 percent is not asking much. There just had to be a handful of very good hitters in any era, why would the be none. Or do you think the 5 percent should be lower.

US Population 1920: 106M
US Population 2010: 310M

And baseball recruits worldwide. So the top 500 players are drawn from a much larger pool. If a player had to be in the top 5% in 1920, they would have to be in the top 2% (something smaller anyway) today.

[brett]

--I think a Brett type players is a good comp for Cobb also. Cobb was more consistently near the top of his game though so I'd expect you'd see a few more seasons like Brett at his best and fewer off seasons. So another batting title or three, maybe more than the one 30 HR season, a few hundred more hits and an OPS+ maybe halfway between Brett's and what Cobb did in his own time.

That's what I was thinking. If we look at the 5 "healthy" Brett seasons: '76, '79, '85, '88 and '90 and then kind of fill in the gaps in the 10 years when he was on the DL it might be a good gauge. He had OPS+'s of 145, 148, 184, 149 and 153 in those 5 healthy years which would be a 156 average in 5 years spread out over a 15 year period, and we don't even count the injured years in 1977, 1980 or 1983 where he had good rates when he did play. I someone put up those 5 year rates for 15 years of "prime" that would be about .325 average 3000 hits, 600 doubles, 150 triples, 300 home runs, 1400 RBI and I think the walks would have been similar too. Then give him another 5-7 decent years on the bookends.

I think he might have been a LITTLE more like a cross between a healthy Brett and Gwynn's run in the mid 90's though-placing more hits, but driving the ball from time to time. Maybe Brett's power and Gwynn's averages with Ichiro's baserunning.

[fenrir]

Why should it be as is. How is that fair, this could start a whole new debate. Would todays player on average be as big and strong if they were born around 1900, probably not, it's a whole different world right from birth and then add in all the advancements.

For that matter, there probably are some who could come as is and could play today.
The Steve Balboni is a laugher. If Ruth could be a modern day Stave Balboni then who could play in todays game and compete with todays players. Thats about the same as saying there were no great players back then at all.

As for that quotes about the 5 percent in any era being able successful in any era, I don't recall where I saw it, that was years ago and I did say their numbers might not be the same. Why can't it be considered, makes sense to me, 5 percent is not asking much. There just had to be a handful of very good hitters in any era, why would the be none. Or do you think the 5 percent should be lower.

As is is out, if they lived and played today ever thing is different. You don't have some one else. You either have a good eye or you don't and you can't change the reflexes speed your born with, thats a part of the good and great hitters package, just a part..

I think Ruth probably would be an excellent hitter in today's game, but I'm not sure if he would be the best, meaning better than Pujols.

I remember when Berkman made that comment about Pujols being better than Ruth, and nearly everyone thought it was ridiculous, and I'm not sure why. Pujols could very well be better than Ruth ever was. We'll sadly never know though.

[pheasant]

Granted, the pitchers were probably only throwing 85-95(100 mph was highly unlikely, except for possibly Sir Walter)during Babe's day with less stuff, but better control. I don't buy the fact that Ruth faced 75 mph fastballs(competitive for Junior Varsity high school), like some people have said he may have faced. That is ridiculous. Beanpoles on my high school team were clocked at 78 mph, and they weren't very good at all. I was clocked in the low 70s and I played 1st base! The fact that the Babe could swing a whopping 42 ounce bat and clock those pitches 500+ feet is unbelievable. He truly made a mockery of the pitching back then, albeit unintentionally. I can't see how that's even possible. However, he wouldn't be afforded the luxury of being able to completely tee off against the 100 mph pitchers of today with their assortment of new junk. And bringing the Babe to this era with his ridiculous 42 ounce bat would hurt him immensely. And since he wouldn't be able to take advantage of all of the bennies today like medicine, better diet, weight training, A LIGHTER BAT, etc, then comparing him to Bye Bye Balboni or Dave Kingman looks about right. I used a very light 28 ounce bat and that felt heavy enough. I believe that swinging a 32 ounce bat takes a lot of strength to swing it fast enough to even clock high school pitching. OK, I'll admit that I wasn't very good in HS. Actually, I kind of sucked. And to set the record straight: Lasek does not give you Ted Williams eyes. It is simply a corrective surgery. I.e, it brings you back to the 20/20 or 20/15 vision that you originally had, but nothing better. I found this out when I went to TLC, the same company that Tiger Woods and Bill used. Although Lasek is very convenient and worth every penny of the 4250.00 that I spent, it won't give you the ability to pick up the spin on a curve like Ted Williams could, recognize which part of the plate the ball will pass over in under 1/10th of a second, nor increase your depth perception(this killed me personally on fly balls). I'm personally waiting for a lens that I can wear that'll increase my depth perception and give me more of a 3D vision. I clearly lacked it. But it'd be very valuable for fielding high fly balls and hitting a ball.