Who's your home run king?
|
|
|
|
|
Hank Aaron
Barry Bonds
Who's your home run king?
won't matter in a few years anyway, a-rod's gonna kill both records if he stays healthy
today it is a tie. Soon it will be Bonds. Numbers are numbers. Is this poll supposed to be Which of the two men do you like the best based on what you have read or heard about them? If anyone on our board knows either man personally, then I would love to hear a story of that person.
One used performance enhancers and one didn't Aub. That tells me enough.
Bonds, Aaron, AROD may be the record holders.
Babe Ruth is the homerun KING.
Originally Posted by Cool Hand Clyde
Babe couldn't carry those other guys' jock strap.
What is this guys obsession with jock straps.
Anyone notice how the only time Pedro Gomez is ever on Sportscenter is to talk about Barry Bonds? Guy needs to find a hobby.
How was Ruth so far ahead of anybody in his time?
Before Babe Ruth, the career home run record was less than 200.
The parks were alot bigger in Ruth's day too!!! When he hit his first one out in Pittsburg he was the only person to have gotten one over the fence.
Pitching was different in his day also. While I think the heat being brought today is better, there are some pitches Ruth saw that can't be legally thrown anymore so it evens out somewhat.
I don't know about that. Walter Johnson had a game he pitched called "on acount of darkness" because the umpire had been hit by a couple pitches and couldn't take it anymore. This was after the team went through two catchers with broken hands.
Ruth played against watered down competition. Some of the best players around were forced to play in the Negro Leagues because of the color of their skin. To me, that puts both Bonds and Aaron ahead of him because at least they played against the best of the best.
And still the homerun record was less than 200.
Hank Aaron played with a lower pitchers mound.
Barry Bonds was juiced with a juiced ball.
The man who made home runs a crowd pleaser was Babe Ruth. He is the king, like Elvis, Jerry Lawler, etc.
Ruth:
Why he's the best- 714, played in dead-ball era, huge ballparks, fewer games, 8 team leagues (fewer players = better talent per team), "trick" pitches were legal, no modern weight or nutrition programs, never struck out 100 times in a season
Why not- no black or latino players, didn't have to travel to west coast
Aaron:
Why he's the best- 755, played against all races, had to travel across the country, still no real nutrition or weight programs (hell, Hank SMOKED!), negative pressure during chase, never struck out 100 times in a season
Why not- expansion era (watered down talent), 162 game season for most of career, "launching pad" ballpark in Atlanta
Bonds:
Why he's the best- 755, world-wide talent pool, most feared hitter in hitter's era, travel all across country, relentless media attention, negative pressure during chase, specialized pitching match ups, struck out 100 times in a season 1 time
Why not- steroid use, even more expansion, 162 game season, tiny ballparks
Personally I think the argument for Ruth not playing against other races is negated by the fact he played in an 8 team league, so you could argue the talent level is about the same. Ruth played in an era that had 400 players (25 per team, 8 teams in each league) in MLB. Aaron played with 600, and Bonds plays with about 750 players in MLB. How would Bonds fare against only the top half of the current pitchers in MLB? If there were only 400 spots for players today, pitchers like Adam Eaton, Joel Zumaya, Freddy Garcia, Jason Schmidt, and Kenny Rogers would be the worst pitchers in baseball, or not on current rosters.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
