Was Hank Aaron better than Babe Ruth?

[maniac_73]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

You really made three points. One, that it was folly to compare players from different eras. I agree with you there.

The second point you made was that Aaron was not the best player of his generation, and that you could easily argue that Mays or Ted Williams were clearly superior to Aaron. Again, agreeing with your assertion that comparing players from different generations was a pretty much a pointless exercise, I went to Willie Mays, who played at the same time as Aaron. And, I blew your assertion that Mays was a "much superior" player to Aaron out of the water.

Your third point was that Ruth was heads and tails above anybody else in his generation. I do not agree there, either, and if you want me to crunch some numbers to disprove your statement, I'd be happy to.

That Babe Ruth hit more home runs in one season than any other team does not mean Ruth was a more talented player. It just means he was a different type of player. Was he heads and shoulders above anybody else from his generation? Clearly, no.

The Babe hit 20 home runs for the first time in 1919. Lou Gehrig did it the first time in 1925. They were teammates from 1923 to 1934, and shared prime years from 1926 to about 1933. Clearly they are from the same generation.

Ruth's 162 game averages: .342, 46 HR, 144 RBI.
Gehrig's 162 game averages: .340, 37 HR, 149 RBI.

When you start to look at things like % of games played in which they drove in runs:

Ruth 2,503 games played, 2,220 RBI = 88.7%
Gehrig 2,164 games played, 1,992 RBI = 92.1%

Ruth was a better pure power hitter by the numbers, but remember, Ruth had a head start on Gehrig. Ruth revolutionized the sport with the home run. By the time Gehrig got going, pitchers had five years + to adjust to that type of offensive production.

I'm not going to go into great depth on this right now, but based on prior statistical analysis of Ruth and Gehrig I've done before, the case can be made that Lou Gehrig, Ruth's contemporary, was every bit the baseball player that Babe Ruth was. Now, Gehrig often got overlooked because of the Bambino's gravitas, but make no mistake. Crunching the numbers, they are very, very close, and your assertion that Ruth was heads and tails above any other player from his generation is fallacious.

U also neglect that Ruth had 5 successful years on the mound over Gehrig during which time Ruth Lost out on development time and stats.

[the 'stache]

I didn't neglect anything. He was an outstanding pitcher, yes. Does that somehow make him better than Gehrig? Absolutely not. We have no idea how Gehrig would have done as a pitcher if he was asked to do so. All we can compare are areas where they both participated, and Gehrig was Ruth's equal there.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by maniac_73

U also neglect that Ruth had 5 successful years on the mound over Gehrig during which time Ruth Lost out on development time and stats.

And how many years did Lou Gehrig lose from his career due to Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis? When did it start affecting him?

At age 34 in 1937, he hit .351 with 37 HR and 159 RBI
At age 35 in 1938, he hit .295 with 29 HR and 114 RBI
At age 36 in 1939, he was out of baseball.

By 1941 he was dead.