View Single Post
  #61  
Old 06-03-2013, 09:44 PM
Vintageclout Vintageclout is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the 'stache View Post
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!
Reply With Quote