Was Hank Aaron better than Babe Ruth?

[bender07]

No

[the 'stache]

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.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

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!

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Vintageclout

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!

Great post, Vintageclout.

I hope that everybody understands that I greatly respect Babe Ruth's accomplishments as a player (I'd gladly chop off a nut to have his rookie card, or a Goudey), and that I have the utmost respect for my fellow forum members, too. I love these kinds of friendly debates, because more than any other sport, the game of baseball by it's very nature encourages them. The statistical analysis of baseball, even across the different generations, still allows for some comparisons to take place. Athletes have gotten bigger, stronger, and faster, yes, but when you throw out the numbers 60, 190, 2,130, 4,191, .406, or 56, you still see a euphoric look on a baseball fan's face.

Some people will turn on a game, and see nothing happening, and get bored. I see it, and I wonder how the outfielders might be shifting in response to the count. I wonder who's warming in the bullpen. What the third base coach is doing. What the manager has called on a particular play (squeeze bunt, hit and run, double steal, etc). I see a lack of movement at a given moment, and it's beautiful to me. It's chess with athletes substituted for the rook, pawn, queen and king. It appeals to my meticulous nature (as does baseball card collecting).

[71buc]

Satche,
Personally I believe all records established prior to 1947 should have an asterisk. I agree with everything you said regarding Hank Aaron and Willie Mays. Furthermore, Mays and Aaron were far more complete players than the oafish Ruth. Mays may have been flashier than Hank. However, Aaron retired with two thirds of the career triple crown. If you subtract his career home runs from his hit totals he still has over 3000 career hits.

I have grown weary from hearing about how IF Ruth had played as many games, or had as many at bats as Aaron how much more staggering his offensive production would have been. Well he did not have those opportunities, because he was not in the athlete that Aaron was. Nor did he care to take care of himself, or comport himself as a professional. He was an obese victim of his own self-indulgence.

I agree that Ruth dominated his era more than any player past, present, or future. However, he was protected by the press, played against whites only, played only day games, didn't fly coast to coast, faced an inferior level of diluted competition, nor did he face pitching specialists.

Hank Aaron critics use the very same virtues that defied Gehrig to minimize Aaron’s place in history. Aaron came to work every day, was quiet, professional, dignified, consistent, and humble. I don’t believe that you can compare players from different eras. Nonetheless, if you must compare Hank to a pre-war player do so with a man cut from the same cloth, perhaps a gentleman like Lou Gehrig.

I have never understood fans obsession with Babe Ruth. He was the most dominant player of his generation. But that generation was almost 100 years ago. As I said in an earlier post: a Chalmers could not compete with a Ferrari, Lindbergh does not compare to Neil Armstrong, Bobby Jones would not beat Tiger Woods, the film King Kong is not comparable to Jurassic Park, Eddie Cantor is not Robert Deniro, vacuum tube radios are not superior to LCD televisions, the slide rule is not better than the PC, the abacus is not as efficient as a calculator, and Babe Ruth is not as good Hank Aaron.

[digdugdig]

Why no mention of Ned Williamson in the single season quest??
Lest we forget, how many years was Williamson "king" of that feat before Ruth??

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by 71buc

Satche,
Personally I believe all records established prior to 1947 should have an asterisk. I agree with everything you said regarding Hank Aaron and Willie Mays. Furthermore, Mays and Aaron were far more complete players than the oafish Ruth. Mays may have been flashier than Hank. However, Aaron retired with two thirds of the career triple crown. If you subtract his career home runs from his hit totals he still has over 3000 career hits.

I have grown weary from hearing about how IF Ruth had played as many games, or had as many at bats as Aaron how much more staggering his offensive production would have been. Well he did not have those opportunities, because he was not in the athlete that Aaron was. Nor did he care to take care of himself, or comport himself as a professional. He was an obese victim of his own self-indulgence.

I agree that Ruth dominated his era more than any player past, present, or future. However, he was protected by the press, played against whites only, played only day games, didn't fly coast to coast, faced an inferior level of diluted competition, nor did he face pitching specialists.

Hank Aaron critics use the very same virtues that defied Gehrig to minimize Aaron’s place in history. Aaron came to work every day, was quiet, professional, dignified, consistent, and humble. I don’t believe that you can compare players from different eras. Nonetheless, if you must compare Hank to a pre-war player do so with a man cut from the same cloth, perhaps a gentleman like Lou Gehrig.

I have never understood fans obsession with Babe Ruth. He was the most dominant player of his generation. But that generation was almost 100 years ago. As I said in an earlier post: a Chalmers could not compete with a Ferrari, Lindbergh does not compare to Neil Armstrong, Bobby Jones would not beat Tiger Woods, the film King Kong is not comparable to Jurassic Park, Eddie Cantor is not Robert Deniro, vacuum tube radios are not superior to LCD televisions, the slide rule is not better than the PC, the abacus is not as efficient as a calculator, and Babe Ruth is not as good Hank Aaron.

You make several good points, Mike. I never buy into the "well, if he played longer, his numbers would have been ____" line of discussion because, well, it; pure speculation, almost hyperbole in a sense. When it came to the Babe, or Mickey Mantle, I have to say their numbers are what they are. If they had taken better care of themselves, their numbers most certainly would have been better. At least in the case of Mickey, I can understand why he lived his life the way he did. The poor man watched his father die in the hospital next to him after he ruined his knee in the '51 World Series. The "Mantle family curse" took so many of the men in his life-dad, grandfather, and even his son Billy-they all succumbed to Hodgkin's disease. So, while I am absolutely sympathetic to the dark cloud that Mick thought followed him around, the truth remains that he did party it up, and beat himself up. If Hodgkins didn't get him, cirrhosis of the liver was going to.

I do make an exception of sorts in one regard only-military service. When a player misses time from the game because of war, well, there's really not a whole hell of a lot they could do about it. If they were called, they had to fight. I look at Ted Williams' numbers (and it is my belief that Ted was indeed the greatest pure hitter to ever play the game), and think about what they would have been had he not missed four complete seasons due to WW II and the Korean War. If you go by his career averages, he most certainly would have topped 3,000 hits (well exceeded that benchmark, actually), and he'd have gotten about another 140 home runs (giving him approximately 660, equal to Willie Mays). Of course, you never know if he'd have matched his averages. He could have been injured. But it's fun to discuss.

Oh, and by the way, the Pirates are my second favorite baseball team. I am a huge Roberto Clemente fan. So you know I love your user name and avatar! I plan on adding two of my favorite Clemente cards almost immediately-the 1956 Topps (second year), and the 1958 Topps. The '58 Topps may very well be my favorite card of all-time. Something about the pure yellow background, the type face, and Roberto in his stance. It's just a perfect combination of every element-color, typography (it appeals to the artist in me), and one of my two all-time favorite players (Robin Yount being the other). That one I'll look for a nice medium-high grade on.

If you think this discussion got active, wait until you see what happens when I start a thread claiming that Roberto Clemente, not Aaron, not Ruth, not Al Kaline, was the greatest right fielder to ever play the game. I might just do it. Watch the Ruth fans foam at the mouth! LOL

[Touch'EmAll]

Ruth was the league's top left handed pitcher around 1916-1918. He was considered the ace of the Boston staff getting the nod for 3 consecutive opening day games. In 1916 Ruth defeated Walter Johnson 6 times in a row as a pitcher. The Boston gate attendance ballooned up when Ruth played - he was the talk of the nation very early in his career.

Now if Aaron, when young, pitched at a comparable high level, I might consider Aaron greater than Ruth.

[freakhappy]

Originally Posted by 71buc

Satche,
Personally I believe all records established prior to 1947 should have an asterisk. I agree with everything you said regarding Hank Aaron and Willie Mays. Furthermore, Mays and Aaron were far more complete players than the oafish Ruth. Mays may have been flashier than Hank. However, Aaron retired with two thirds of the career triple crown. If you subtract his career home runs from his hit totals he still has over 3000 career hits.

I have grown weary from hearing about how IF Ruth had played as many games, or had as many at bats as Aaron how much more staggering his offensive production would have been. Well he did not have those opportunities, because he was not in the athlete that Aaron was. Nor did he care to take care of himself, or comport himself as a professional. He was an obese victim of his own self-indulgence.

I agree that Ruth dominated his era more than any player past, present, or future. However, he was protected by the press, played against whites only, played only day games, didn't fly coast to coast, faced an inferior level of diluted competition, nor did he face pitching specialists.

Hank Aaron critics use the very same virtues that defied Gehrig to minimize Aaron’s place in history. Aaron came to work every day, was quiet, professional, dignified, consistent, and humble. I don’t believe that you can compare players from different eras. Nonetheless, if you must compare Hank to a pre-war player do so with a man cut from the same cloth, perhaps a gentleman like Lou Gehrig.

I have never understood fans obsession with Babe Ruth. He was the most dominant player of his generation. But that generation was almost 100 years ago. As I said in an earlier post: a Chalmers could not compete with a Ferrari, Lindbergh does not compare to Neil Armstrong, Bobby Jones would not beat Tiger Woods, the film King Kong is not comparable to Jurassic Park, Eddie Cantor is not Robert Deniro, vacuum tube radios are not superior to LCD televisions, the slide rule is not better than the PC, the abacus is not as efficient as a calculator, and Babe Ruth is not as good Hank Aaron.

I like it! You make great points!

[Touch'EmAll]

I used to think todays ballplayers are better than the old timers because they are bigger, stronger, faster.

The World record running 100 meters has gradually been lowered over the decades. Same goes for the Swimming 100 meters world record times.

But I tend to agree with some here - baseball is different. The raw talent may trump the bigger, better, stronger, faster theory.

Go back and look at some threads on this subject here - some pretty good arguments can be made for the Baseball old timers holding their own against the modern players.

[howard38]

/