Ruth vs. Aaron and Bonds

After I compared the home runs of Henry Aaron and Barry Bonds as percentages of league totals, I thought it might be interesting to do the same for George Herman Ruth.

As more and more players exceed 500, 600 and even 700 lifetime homers, the Babe is starting to get lost in the shuffle. With very few people still alive who ever saw him play, some skeptics are dismissing his feats, using such caveats as the color line that unfortunately existed in organized baseball at the time.

Overlooked in the onslaught of modern home run marks is the enormity of Ruth's impact on the way baseball was played. Casual baseball fans might know the long ball was somewhat of a rarity before the Babe started hitting them. But even after certain aspects of the game made it easier for hitters after 1920, the balls weren't flying out of parks at anything resembling the rates of today. Throughout Ruth's career, in no season did the American League average more than 100 home runs per team, and usually the figure was well below that. Meanwhile, he was hitting them out at a pace very comparable to Aaron and Bonds.

Even in 1918, the year the Red Sox started to convert him to a full-time outfielder, the Babe was wowing 'em with his bat. His 11 home runs that year might seem like a few good weeks' worth of work nowadays, but it was an eye-popping total considering that the entire AL hit only 96 (that's a dozen per team). And considering that Ruth also posted a 13-7 record that year, with 18 complete games in 19 starts, then won two more games in the World Series.

Anyway, I tried to make Ruth's figures comparable to Aaron's and Bonds' by adjusting the number of teams to 12, even though eight existed throughout Ruth's career. (For the heck of it, I also ran straight percentages for Ruth, and they're truly astounding.)

Here is the chart for Ruth. Please click on the image for a larger view:



For Aaron and Bonds, see yesterday's post. And you'll see there is no comparison, really.

---

>
Trivia question 55: In what season did Babe Ruth post his final victory as a pitcher?

Bonds vs. Aaron: the nth comparison

My personal contention is that Henry Aaron played primarily in an era, the better part of the '60s, when pitching was as dominant as it has been since the day of the Dead Ball. Much of Barry Bonds' career has been during a period of unprecedented bounty for the long ball.

I started thinking about how Aaron fared against the rest of the National League while he played, compared with Bonds. Of course, the two played radically different types of schedules: Aaron started when the league had only eight teams, while Bonds now faces 15 other NL foes (not to mention that interleague stuff).

Anyway, to level the field for a comparison, I adjusted league home run totals for each year of both players' careers to reflect the number 12 teams would have hit. In other words, the 1,255 home runs National League hitters belted in 1955, when the NL had eight teams, is adjusted upward to 1,895; the actual NL total of 2,595 in 2002 is adjusted downward to 1,946.

Then I measured each player's home run total against the teams-per-league adjustment. And as I suspected, Aaron comes out ahead for his 21-year career in the National League, 2.22% to Bonds' 2.05%.

Both players were remarkably healthy throughout most of their careers, until Bonds missed most of the 2005 season, which is not included here. His playing time was limited in 1999, as well, but was comparable to Aaron's final NL season, when he was reduced to part-time status.

I've included Bonds' performance so far in 2007, as he has played nearly full-time. Plus, if we throw out '05, that gives him 21 seasons to equal Aaron.

Here is the comparison (click on the chart for a larger view):



Some aspects I find interesting:

• When Bonds set his single-season record in 2001, he accounted for 3.30% of the adjusted league total. But the highest figure on the chart is Aaron's 3.41% in 1971, when he hit a career-high 47. By the way, both players happened to be 37 years old at the conclusion of their top home run seasons.

• Bonds topped 2.5% in four seasons. Aaron did so in 10, and came very close to an 11th in 1957, the year he won his sole MVP award.

• Aaron's percentages increased markedly after the Braves moved to Atlanta. But his top five seasons in Milwaukee are bested by all but four of Bonds' 21 seasons.

• Aaron played in 1968, the Year of the Pitcher, when the adjusted home run total was 1,069. Bonds played during three seasons (1999-2001) that more than doubled that total, plus another two (2004 and '06) that nearly did.

Certainly, it's difficult to compare different eras. But say you had your choice of facing Warren Spahn, Sandy Koufax, Bob Gibson, Juan Marichal, Tom Seaver, Ferguson Jenkins and Steve Carlton on a regular basis. Or your choices were … well, there are so many teams nowadays, no one faces opposing pitchers on a regular basis. Some of Bonds' recent blasts have been off the likes of Will Ohman, Ted Lilly, Aaron Harang, Livan Hernandez, Scott Proctor, Tim Wakefield, Josh Towers … you get the drift.

When Bonds breaks Aaron's record, keep the quality of Hammerin' Hank's pitching nemeses in mind.

---

Trivia question 54: What Hall of Fame pitcher surrendered Henry Aaron's 600th home run? (Hint: It probably still was wet when it landed in the stands.)

Night of a bunch of stars

Today, I heard sports commentators lamenting the relative lack of long balls during last night's home run derby, particularly the fact that none reached the water of McCovey's Cove. I guess the folks at ESPN were upset because they stuck anchorman Kenny Mayne out in the cove in a kayak with a helmet-cam on his head. With no balls headed his way, he had no opportunity to get into a fracas out there.

Some of the talk the past few days has implied that the home run derby is becoming the main attraction of the All-Star break, eclipsing the interest of the game, itself. I'm assuming that's a lot of hype on the part of people with a vested interest in having viewers tune in to watch the sluggers.

Frankly, the home run derby is interesting to watch for about half an hour or so. When it drags on past my bedtime ... well, I really don't care that Vlad Guerrero hit one more over the fence than Alex Rios.

Then again, the All-Star Game isn't the thrill it once was. It used to be an opportunity to see American Leaguers face National Leaguers, something that only happened otherwise in October. Now, interleague play takes up an inordinate part of the regular-season schedule, negating the All-Star impact.

The large volume of televised games also detracts from the erstwhile Midsummer Classic. When I was growing up, you could watch Saturday afternoon broadcasts featuring Curt Gowdy and Tony Kubek. And for a while, ABC did Monday night baseball, inexplicably with noted baseball nonfan Howard Cosell calling the games. Otherwise, you could tune in the Braves after Ted Turner started putting them on his cable network, but they really stunk in the '70s.

These days, we have networks televising games nationally several days of the week, and if you don't catch the contests in their entirety, you certainly can see the highlights.

What's so special about seeing Alex Rodriguez in the All-Star game when he's constantly on television, pictured in newspapers and magazines, and talked about ad infinitum on the radio.

And why would anyone want to tune in to see anything in which Barry Bonds is involved?

Oh, yeah. It counts. Home-field advantage in the World Series goes to the winner of whichever league proves victorious in the All-Star game.

Let's see ... since that went into effect in 2003, the American League has won home field each time. Since then, an AL team has won the Series twice, and the NL entry, twice.

My wife's birthday is tonight, so I'm taking her out to dinner instead of worrying about parking myself in front of the TV set. Sure, I'll probably tune in for the later stages of the game.

Just as long as Barry Bonds already has been removed for a pinch-runner.

The chase

It's amazing that sports talk shows lately have stirred up far more of a buzz about the finale of "The Sopranos" than the imminent fall of Henry Aaron's career major-league home run record.

I'm still trying to figure out what "The Sopranos" has to do with sports, but the lack of interest in Barry Bonds is easy to explain. Outside of San Francisco, no one seems to like him. (Pittsburgh's top-rated sports-talk host, Mark Madden of ESPN radio, professes on the air to love Barry, but I suspect that has more to do with riling his audience.)

The atmosphere certainly was different at the start of the 1974 season, with Aaron just one homer behind Babe Ruth. Even in those days before pervasive sports/entertainment, Hank's chase was right up there with Watergate on the news front. True, Aaron received quite a bit of hate mail from racists, but most clear-minded American sports enthusiasts were genuinely excited about him setting the record.

As far as Bonds is concerned, a lot of the talk about him passing Aaron has to do with the reassurance that the new record probably won't last long.

Exhibit A is Alex Rodriguez, who is far more likable than Bonds but still seems to have plenty of PR problems. Maybe that will change if he gets away from New York. In the meantime, he is putting up power numbers that have no precedent. He doesn't turn 32 until next month, by which time he very well might be sitting on 500 career home runs. Aaron had 442 homers at a comparable age and Bonds, 334.

Exhibit B is Albert Pujols, who started hitting well during his very first major-league series at Coors Field at the start of 2001, and hasn't stopped. (He's supposed to be having an "off" year in '07, but is up over .300 and is on pace for 38 round-trippers.) At 27, he also is ahead of Aaron and Bonds at the same age.

---

Click here for cumulative home run totals by age for Aaron, Bonds, Rodriguez and Pujols.

---

Before we go anointing either Rodriguez or Pujols as a sure thing, let's think this through:

• Aaron was remarkably durable for two decades, never suffering a major injury and not dropping to part-time status until he was over 40. He also was remarkably consistent after finding his power stroke and continued to be among the league's top sluggers into his late 30s. While neither Rodriguez nor Pujols have lost significant time to injury yet, keep one name in mind: Ken Griffey Jr.

• Bonds was very durable, as well, until his knees derailed him for most of 2005. As far as consistency, he became a productive hitter in 1990 and remains so, comparatively, today. But as far as his power numbers go, he started to catch up with Aaron during an era that -- for whatever reason -- produced far more home runs than any other point in baseball history. The pendulum might start swinging the other way by the time the careers of Rodriguez and Pujols start to wind down.

(Aaron, by the way, played much of his career under conditions that favored pitchers. His power numbers apparently were helped, though, when the Braves moved from Milwaukee's County Stadium to Atlanta's Fulton County "Launching Pad.")

• Rodriguez is the highest-paid player in baseball history. One day, Pujols might be. With so much money in the bank, will they want to extend their careers as long as Aaron and Bonds? Again, if Rodriguez gets out of the spotlight of the New York tabloids, he might want to hang around a little while longer.

Then again, we can do some simple extrapolation to come up with future totals for Rodriguez and Pujols.

Let's say A-Rod plays until 2015, when he turns 40. And let's say he matches his career high with 57 home runs in 2007 (which, by the way, would tie him with Ted Williams at 521). If he were to average 35 home runs during his final eight seasons, he'd finish with 801.

Let's say Albert plays until 2020, when he's 40. And let's say he does finish 2007 with 38 home runs (which, by the way, would tie him with Del Ennis at 288). If he were to average 38 per year the rest of the way, he'd rack up 782 for his career.

If all goes as expected, both those totals should rank ahead of Bonds when all is said and done.

---

I'd like to add my own nomination for a potential all-time home run king.

Prince Fielder turned 23 last month and so far has 56 home runs, which doesn't even put him on the charts with the other four I've mentioned. But he is on pace to hit nearly 60 this year, and he has the pedigree: His father, Cecil, was the only American Leaguer between Maris/Mantle and the '90s homer surge to hit more than 50 dingers in a season.

Dad tended to put on quite a bit of weight around the middle, though, and Prince is already listed at 260 pounds. If he keeps that as muscle, he might be making a run for the record around 2025.

---

Trivia question 42: Society for American Baseball Research trivia gurus Bruce Brown and Scott Brandon send out a weekly list, and I thought I'd share a few. This week's theme, by the way is All-Star third basemen.

Which player hit the most HR in the decade of the 1980s? (Answer at bottom right)

(Bruce, by the way, says: "We believe that the word 'trivia' is misleading. Quality trivia is never trivial, but meaningful; symmetrical; unique, where possible; poetic; but most of all, interesting. We might not always do THAT well every time, but everybody seems to have fun."