I'm of the school that what actually happened under the rules of the time is what should be in the record books.
Ruth may have hit some walk-off home runs that were not counted as home runs. He may also have hit what we would now call "ground rule" or "bounce" or "automatic" doubles that
were credited as home runs (before the 1929 season in the AL, balls that bounced into the stands in fair territory were home runs). He may also have hit some very long balls that, based on current field dimensions would have been home runs, but which were not home runs at the time. And if you want to really go crazy, check out all the changes to the sacrifice fly rule
https://www.theoleballgame.com/when-...n-scoring.html
I found a quote saying "Jimmie [Foxx] should have had at least 65 homers in 1932... rain outs robbed him of two and the right field screen at Sportsman's Park in St. Louis robbed him of at least five more." But the games
were rained out and there
was a right field screen.
This can be done endlessly: Johan Santana did not pitch a no-hitter for the Mets because if we had replay review then, he would have given up a hit to Carlos Beltran. But there was no replay review at the time.
So according to the rules and field layout of the time, Foxx hit 58 home runs in 1932, Ruth had 714 home runs, and Santana pitched a no-hitter.
I don't mind when it is discovered that a clerical error was made that gave someone incorrect totals or when someone discovers a scoring error was made according to the rules of the time. When I was learning about baseball, Radbourn had 60 wins in 1884 and Wilson had 190 RBIs in 1930. Both have since changed, and I am fine with that. But I am not big on "if we apply the current rules/conditions/technology retroactively, then we should change the numbers."