Was Hank Aaron better than Babe Ruth?
 

Was Hank Aaron better than Babe Ruth?

Post # 3

So Adrian comes out shooting today with his alotted 2 threads as polls. Nice job Adrian!! These should keep you engaged through your other 15 posts.

Who knows on the question but I think Ruth was/is the biggest name in baseball of all time. I chose him but that doesn't diminish what Aaron did either (on the field).

Leon I was sick the last few days hence my low posting count.

I believe Aaron was a better baseball player....more home runs and more hits than the Babe just not lucky to be a African American in a time like his. If he had be a Caucasian he would be in my opinion bigger than Ruth for baseball.

Post # 5

Not to diminish what Aaron did, but he hit only 41 more home runs than Babe with about 4,000 more at bats than Babe.

Plus Ruth was one of the best pitchers of his time before he converted to outfield so that he could put his bat to use every day instead of every 4 days or so.

Ruth would also hit more home runs in a season than some teams combined.

You need to consider that Babe Ruth broke the HR record when he was 26 years old. When you factor in he was a pitcher his first 5+ years of his career, he is by far the best baseball player of all time IMO. If he would have started out a position player from day one, you could probably figure another 150-200 HR to his HR total. Nothing against Hank, but he should be compared to Mays and Mantle. Not the Babe.

And probably hit a lot of those homers with one hell of a hangover:D
Ruth all the way!

Two totally different eras.I picked Ruth,but Aaron was a hell of a player.

All serious rankings of baseball players list Ruth first.

Got to go with Ruth he completely changed the game.

Better than Mantle, not better than Williams or Mays, and certainly not better than Ruth.

He was no Mays.

Really???

Ruth was a lifetime .342 hitter, his OBP was .474 (that's almost half his AB he was on base)

As for HR...Aaron highest HR total was 47 HR, which he did once, Babe hit 47 or more 6 times and he hit 46 twice.

Then we get to pitching - in just over 1200 IP, just had a 2.28 era and a 1.15 whip, he also never had a loosing record in any season and has a 94-46 record.

Its not even close IMO.

There are plenty of tough debates comparing players... This is not one of them. Of course just my opinion, but in baseball and even cards, to me, all roads lead to Ruth.

Under most circumstances I'm not a believer in comparing eras. I dearly love Aaron and IMO he is entitled to a career HR crown as well as his yearly and career leader stats. Plus he batted over .300 career while doing so. But, you look at Babe's years as compared to his peers, My God, he literally and totally savaged the league and shook the Earth. .342 avg while doing it is no small accomplishment either.

Aaron might not even be the best player in his generation. Ruth by a landslide.

Aaron was a great player and deserving of a first year ballot HOF plaque. But Aaron had about 7 more full seasons of batting and barely eclipses the Babe in homeruns and rbi's. And Aaron's skin color has little to do with his stats in the eyes of true baseball fans. A bigger positive factor would have been if Hammerin Hank played his career for the pinstripes. Not even a close comparison!

The Babe!!!
 

Gotta love Hammerin' Hank but the Babe was the best. The Babe had fewer ABs and could perform after a good bender the night before, plus he smoked and tended to avoid exercise like the plague. Oh and there was that strange rule that existed back in Ruth's era where a ball hit out of the park fair but curved foul afterwards was not counted as a home run. Silly rule. Glad they had the wisdom to remove it. I wonder how many home runs that robbed the Babe of? I heard that he would have actually hit 80+ HRs the year he hit 60 if it weren't for that rule. That's 80 HRs with a non-juiced ball and a non-juiced batter!

Beat that, Barry!!!

+1

im shocked that there are 10 votes for aaron....

No

+1

Also, Babe Ruth used up to a 48-oz bat because he mistakenly thought a heavier bat meant more power. If he went to a lighter bat he could have had 50 + more homers.

From ESPN's Website:

Babe Ruth at No. 1: There is no doubt that the Babe was the greatest player who ever lived. That doesn't mean he was the greatest person. Years ago, I was sitting at a picnic table in the Yankees' clubhouse, waiting to talk to a player, when Pete Sheehy, the ancient clubhouse man, plopped down opposite me. We made small talk until I asked him, "Pete, you knew Ruth -- what was he like?" Pete thought for a moment, and said, "He never flushed the toilet."

enuf sed...

Adrian is set to pass my 2 1/2 year post count in the next week. ;);)

Aaron was great, Ruth was beyond that. I still rate Ruth and Cobb among the five best ever....

What about this guy Hoshi Gangu he had 868 home runs during his career in Japan?

Post # 9

Some say that Berk Ross was also quite the hitter.

And that Dan Dee sure could play!

Sadaharu Oh hit 868 home runs in Japan. Hoshi Gangu was the name of a card maker.

We can move that to the Best All-Time Net54 Lines thread. ;)

Hahahaha lollll my mistake never really heard of the guy till today.

Post # 10

:confused::eek::rolleyes::(:D

All of the above. What a clown.

Orioles1954

No need for bad words just made a error it happens!!!

Post # 11

IMO Ruth was by far the best.
If you made a list of the ten best all-time, whomever you put second (Cobb, Wagner, Mays, etc.), that #2 player would be closer in talent to the #10 player than he would be to Ruth. No one is close to the Babe.

/

howard38

Thanks that clears that up!!:)

Post # 12

Awe-some

I can't believe Hank is pulling 15 percent of the vote. Seems like a pretty good showing for him IMO, given the question presented.

2ed best player ever would be an interesting conversation.

Leaving PED's off the table and looking at numbers - I would say Bonds would be 2ed, but if we are excluding PED's, im thinking Ted Williams

Aaron vs. Ruth
 

Let's end this argument right now in favor of Babe Ruth: Babe Ruth COULD strike out Hank Aaron & the Babe would have been a Hall of Fame PITCHER had he not been converted to a fulltime outfielder! Any ballplayer that could virtually "out-homer" an entire league for several seasons, hit over 700 HR's and over a 5 year-period be one of the game's foremost pitchers IS the greatest player EVER....PERIOD!

Joe T.

[

I think some people like to be contrarian and vote for underdogs. There's no logical reason one could vote Aaron here. I find the poll to be embarrassing actually. But, to each their own.

That's not a knock on Aaron either, by the way...He was great.

He was good but topps topped em all!

Joe, it's a POLL.....no right and wrong answer. We're just making a selection ( of our own opinion ) from what was provided to us.

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.

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?

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

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.

This is a ridiculous question.
Ruth was one of the best pitchers in baseball,
and one of the best hitters (contact) batted .342,
and one of the best big hitters (hr and slugging).
Ruth lacked only two things. Base running because of his skinny ankles, and perhaps two more seasons of play because of a few bad health choices.

Ruth didnt even bat really until just before the Yankees, that and the dead ball, only had 16 seasons, really 14 seasons, and he accumulated all those hits (because he batted .342!) And accumulated home runs 714! At such rapid pace.

And the pitchers could arguably do whatever they wanted with a darkened ball at least for a portion of Ruth's career.

I take it you just breezed past all the points I made arguing on Aaron's behalf.

Bill, some of these people still have the * by Maris in '61......

Hank Aaron wasnt even the best player in his era. First off I think comparing players from different eras is silly because its a different game. The only way to somewhat accurately do it is not by stats but how the players compare to the other players of that time. Babe was so far ahead of any other player of his time it was insane. one year he hit more home run by himself then any other team!
By comparison one could easily argue that Mays/Williams were much superior players to Aaronn.