Bonds vs. Ruth? We'll Take Henry Aaron

[westofyou]

Babe Ruth would suck if he played today. He'd be a bench warmer at best.

Hyperbole at best. Compared to many of the players then Ruth was a monster of a man, Cobb too.

As Bill James said take any player from today and put them in in the enviroment of the past and they would adapt to that enviroment and play that way regardless of the era they came from. That can be reversed as well.

Saying Ruth would be a bench warmer does a great disservice to the past as well as downgrades ALL the performances from the past. You don't know what would happen andthe assumption is that just because we are alive at this moment that NOTHING has ever been better is nothing more than an assumption.

[RollyInRaleigh]

Hyperbole at best. Compared to many of the players then Ruth was a monster of a man, Cobb too.

As Bill James said take any player from today and put them in in the enviroment of the past and they would adapt to that enviroment and play that way regardless of the era they came from. That can be reversed as well.

Saying Ruth would be a bench warmer does a great disservice to the past as well as downgrades ALL the performances from the past. You don't know what would happen andthe assumption is that just because we are alive at this moment that NOTHING has ever been better is nothing more than an assumption.

[Falls City Beer]

For the most part I agree with Redsfaithful.

I really think people love to preserve mythological narratives. It's not anyone's fault; otherwise, all that rich history becomes mildly meaningless.

As to the part about assumptions--well that goes both ways. To say that Ruth would have been great had he played today is an assumption based on far shakier premises than the reverse.

And Bill James' theory? Codswallop. How would a black man adjust to playing in all white league via the time machine? He wouldn't; he'd be kicked off the ballfield. That's the point. Pre-integration baseball is meaningless to me. That's not a popular opinion I know, but it's based on the sound premise that you weren't witnessing enough of the finest players on earth to make any kind of judgment about greatness.

Ruth was an excellent player compared to his peers. That's really all you can say about it. He's a historical, mythological figure that transcends the rational arguments you can bring to bear on comparing people of different eras. Humans need a mythos. It's that simple.

To the best of my reckoning, Aaron is the greatest player to play the game. It's not all that close, IMO.

[westofyou]

And Bill James' theory? Codswallop. How would a black man adjust to playing in all white league via the time machine? He wouldn't; he'd be kicked off the ballfield

The theory is about the field of play not the social times.

Also, if Ruth gets the schmack for having played in a all white era then lets' drag to the bench, Cobb, Speaker, Foxx, Greenberg, DiMaggio and most Ted Williams career.

[Falls City Beer]

Also, if Ruth gets the schmack for having played in a all white era then lets' drag to the bench, Cobb, Speaker, Foxx, Greenberg, DiMaggio and most Ted Williams career.

Let's. I agree. Again, I know it's unpopular. But I pretty much compartmentalize eras in baseball when I judge players.

[Falls City Beer]

The theory is about the field of play not the social times.

.

Unfortunately, there's just no separating the two.

[dougdirt]

Ruth hit 347 HRs in his career at home, including all those games in Yankee Stadium. He hit 367 HRs on the road.
In Ruth's 60 HR season in 1927, he hit 28 HRs at home, 32 on the road.

Which is fine, but how many of those pull shots at home would have stayed in the park had the fence been 40 feet further back like it is today? He might have only hit 20 at home. 52 is nothing to laugh at for sure, but do that for every year he played in Yankee stadium and the overall numbers drop off considerably. Of course, Im just throwing numbers around now, but I think I covered how I feel about it all in my frist post.

[westofyou]

Which is fine, but how many of those pull shots at home would have stayed in the park had the fence been 40 feet further back like it is today? He might have only hit 20 at home. 52 is nothing to laugh at for sure, but do that for every year he played in Yankee stadium and the overall numbers drop off considerably. Of course, Im just throwing numbers around now, but I think I covered how I feel about it all in my frist post.

The fence was 280... down the line

Here's the image



It changed in 1928.



What we're failing to note is that aside from Yankee Stadium the rest of the parks in the AL were not all short RF fence parks.

FWIW here are the Park Effects in the AL from 1920-1927, when Ruth had the short porch in the Polo Grounds as well as the House that Ruth Built.

Fenway		98

Comiskey	94

Detroit		100

St. Louis	114

Cleveland	100

Washington	91

Philadelphia	106

Yankees		97

HR by team from 1920-1927

AMERICAN LEAGUE
CAREER
1920-1927

HOMERUNS                        HR     
1    Yankees                     936   
2    Browns                      601   
3    A's                         546   
     Babe                        367
4    Tigers                      355   
5    Indians                     314   
6    White Sox                   306   
7    Senators                    299   
8    Red Sox                     249

[dougdirt]

Yeah WOY, I knew it was 280. Its at least 320 in almost every park now, which is why I went with 40 feet for the pull shots down the line.

[Cyclone792]

Yeah WOY, I knew it was 280. Its at least 320 in almost every park now, which is why I went with 40 feet for the pull shots down the line.

Actually, all the research I've seen suggests that Ruth really wasn't a dead pull-hitter, at least not to the extent that he'd be able to take advantage of the short right field porch enough to offset the dimensions of Yankee Stadium in right center or center field.

I remember reading some research a while back on Ruth's 1927 season, and reading that maybe only a dozen of his 60 home runs were actually pulled into the right field bleachers in Yankee Stadium, with most of those shots being described in The New York Times as "deep" into the right field bleachers, shots that probably would have been home runs in just about any stadium in the American League. I've seen other research stating that Ruth averaged only about three "cheap" home runs per season into that short porch, which would support the claim that most of his shots into right field were deep into right field. That same earlier research also stated that at least 20 or so of his 60 home runs were hit to dead center field that season, with several parks in the American League having fences 450+ feet in dead center field.

When Ruth played in the Polo Grounds from 1920-1922, he hit 75 home runs at home and 73 home runs away, and the Polo Grounds was a very friendly home run park down the lines, but very pitcher friendly in the gaps and center field. Someone researched Ruth's 1921 season in which he hit 59 home runs (32 at home, 27 on the road), and found that Ruth only hit six home runs into the lower right field stands with all other 26 home runs being shots that would have gotten out of almost any park. His splits suggest that's probably accurate since he also hit 27 home runs on the road.

Now Mel Ott, on the other hand, was a very well-known dead pull-hitter, and hit 323 home runs at home while only 188 on the road with his home park being the Polo Grounds. Of course, not to take anything away from Ott, but the Polo Grounds was actually a neutral run scoring park. The overall park factor for Ott's career was 99, and during most of his peak seasons it was in the 96-98 range. While the park greatly favored hitters down the lines, right center all the way around to left center was treacherous for hitters.



Not surprisingly, while Ott hit a large percentage of his home runs at home, he did some other things better on the road, such as a higher batting average, more doubles and more triples.

Ott       BA   OBP   SLG   HR    2B   3B

Home    .297  .421  .558  323   182   21
Road    .311  .407  .510  188   306   51

When I look at Ott, I see a hitter who developed his hitting style to take advantage of the single favorable aspect of his home park, and that was to pull the ball down the lines. The park overall was neutral on run scoring, and IMO, if you can adapt your hitting style to take advantage of the hitter friendly aspects like Ott did, you shouldn't be penalized.

[RedsBaron]

To the best of my reckoning, Aaron is the greatest player to play the game. It's not all that close, IMO.

Aaron possibly was not even the greatest player of his era, let alone the greatest to ever play the game. Both Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle were greater players in their peak seasons than Aaron was in his. Aaron did have a more productive career than Mantle, but the choice between Mays and Aaron in career value is a toss-up. Win Shares has Aaron with a 643-642 lead, which is a dead heat, especially when one considers that Mays lost nearly two seasons early in his major league career to military service, while Aaron suffered no such career interruption.

[Cyclone792]

Aaron possibly was not even the greatest player of his era, let alone the greatest to ever play the game. Both Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle were greater players in their peak seasons than Aaron was in his. Aaron did have a more productive career than Mantle, but the choice between Mays and Aaron in career value is a toss-up. Win Shares has Aaron with a 643-642 lead, which is a dead heat, especially when one considers that Mays lost nearly two seasons early in his major league career to military service, while Aaron suffered no such career interruption.

Yep, Mantle blows Aaron away in peak value, and Mays has a pretty solid edge as well. When Hank came up in the 1950s, both Ted Williams and Stan Musial were still playing as contemporaries, and I'd also take both Williams and Musial over Aaron. Aaron is a true legend, but not even the 755 number puts him ahead of Williams, Mays, Mantle or Musial for me. They were just simply more productive players, IMO.

Win Shares Top 5 Season Peaks

Mickey Mantle: 228 (51, 49, 48, 41, 39)
Ted Williams: 223 (49, 46, 44, 42, 42)
Stan Musial: 208 (46, 44, 40, 39, 39)
Willie Mays: 204 (43, 41, 40, 40, 40)
Hank Aaron: 187 (41, 38, 38, 35, 35)

FWIW, all things considered for position players ... I have Williams ranked 4th all-time, Mays 6th, Mantle 7th, Musial 9th and Aaron 10th.

[RedsBaron]

Babe Ruth would suck if he played today. He'd be a bench warmer at best. I'm just saying that it's stupid to pretend that Babe Ruth is the best that ever lived. He's not even close.

Saying that Ruth would "suck" and would be a "bench warmer" at best if he played today is, well......oh, I'll be kind....is an assertion for which I would like to see some evidence.
I do believe that the quality of play has improved over the decades, and I certainly can accept the idea that perhaps the "numbers" compiled 80 years ago need not be taken at absolute face value. However, if the increase in the quality of play has been so steep and rapid so as to cause Ruth to go from being a player who utterly dominated the game, hitting more home runs a season than most teams, to a guy who "sucked" and couldn't even start, then we should should see evidence of that in the statistics. I would expect to see one generation of baseball players be totally outclassed by the next generation. Instead, if you look at the stats, we see players, from Ruth's day to Pujols's day, generally follow the same career path. Until the decline of age hits them, guys who could hit major league pitching in 1947 can still do so in 1958, and guys who could hit in 1965 are still doing so in 1979.
For example, between 1918 and 1931, Ruth lead the AL in HRs 12 times. He peaked in his early to mid 20s, as we would expect him to, as between ages 24 and 29 he racked up Win Share totals of 43, 51, 53, 29, 55 and 45. However, the next generation of pitchers really fared little better against Ruth, until he finally did truly decline at age 39; from age 31 through age 38 Ruth's Win Share totals were 45, 45, 45, 32, 38, 38, 36 and 29. Age, not a generation of greater athletes who outclassed him, caught Ruth.
Ted Williams played from 1939 through 1960. He pretty much hit the pitchers of one generation just the same as he did of the next generation (indeed, he homered off of a father and son during his major league career). Ted was great as a 22 year old in 1941, with 42 Win Shares (he hit .406), but he was also great as a 38 year old in 1957, hitting .388 with 38 Win Shares.
Hank Aaron was able to figure out the generation of pitchers in the late 1960s pretty much as he did those of the mid-1950s. From 1956 through 1969 his Win Share totals are remarkably consistent: 30, 35, 32, 38, 35, 35, 34, 41, 33, 31, 27, 34, 32, 38.
In his "The Politics of Glory," at page 242, Bill James discussed an article written in 1992 wherein someone had argued that the 1991 Indians were superior to the 1954 Indians, by saying:
"That's nonsense; that's the ramblings of a young man intoxicated by new-found voice, and essentially ignorant of history. One can demonstrate that it is nonsense, because if history's incline was that steep, then the best players in the game in 1954 would have been pushed to near mediocrity by the mid-sixties. This did not happen."

[Falls City Beer]

Aaron possibly was not even the greatest player of his era, let alone the greatest to ever play the game. Both Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle were greater players in their peak seasons than Aaron was in his. Aaron did have a more productive career than Mantle, but the choice between Mays and Aaron in career value is a toss-up. Win Shares has Aaron with a 643-642 lead, which is a dead heat, especially when one considers that Mays lost nearly two seasons early in his major league career to military service, while Aaron suffered no such career interruption.

Yeah, peak seasons is a fun little argument, but so what? Endure. Persist. Don't drink yourself into impotency. Mantle schmantle. Mays is close--very close, so I amend what I said earlier-- but comes up a tad short--you're right; had Mays not lost those two years, I'm sure he would have surpassed Aaron in enough metrics to put him in the lead. It's a shame that happened to Mays, but it did.

Williams and Musial played huge portions of their careers in segregated ball.

Admittedly, when it comes to reckoning entire careers, I value count stats considerably more than rate stats.

[Cyclone792]

Yeah, peak seasons is a fun little argument, but so what? Endure. Persist. Don't drink yourself into impotency. Mantle schmantle. Mays is close--very close, so I amend what I said earlier-- but comes up a tad short--you're right; had Mays not lost those two years, I'm sure he would have surpassed Aaron in enough metrics to put him in the lead. It's a shame that happened to Mays, but it did.

Williams and Musial played huge portions of their careers in segregated ball.

Admittedly, when it comes to reckoning entire careers, I value count stats considerably more than rate stats.

While I weigh career value more than peak value (probably a 60/40 split in favor of career), it's a must to place a value on a player's peak. Analyzing peak seasons is vital, because peak seasons signify how great a player was when he was at this best. Failing to account for peak seasons leaves a gaping hole in the study of a player. Peak seasons are why guys such as Sandy Koufax belong in the Hall of Fame.

Hank Aaron was a phenomenal player, and had an extraordinary career that lasted over 20 years. But as great as Hank Aaron was, he was never as great as Mickey Mantle was in 1956, 1957 and 1961. Not even remotely close. Each of those three Mantle seasons are probably among the greatest 15 single seasons by a position player in the history of the game.

Hank was a legend, but Mantle was in another league during those three seasons.

FWIW, if you value counting stats more than rate stats, then consider that Mickey Mantle has 1,009 lifetime runs created above position compared to Hank's total of 822 lifetime runs created above position.