English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Hundreds less than Bonds too.

2007-04-18 18:30:20 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports Baseball

Check it out:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/ruthba01.shtml

Ruth 8,398 at bats, Aaron 12,368, Bonds 9,540 and counting.

Ain't hype wonderful.

2007-04-18 20:00:50 · update #1

9 answers

A few other stats many people overlook about Ruth is his first 6 years with Boston he was a pretty good pitcher on the mound, with an 89 - 46 record. Also because he was a pitcher those years and not an everyday player he only averaged 185 at-bats per season. The last and single greatest thing in my eyes about Ruth and his power numbers and homeruns is his how he was able to do it and keep a career batting average of .342, the 9th highest in league history.

2007-04-18 22:31:58 · answer #1 · answered by sww_35 2 · 0 0

You speak the truth. Ruth is the greatest hitter, or player, the game of baseball has ever seen. To be that good a hitter, and an unbelievable pitcher to boot, clearly separates him from everyone else. He also revolutionized the game by bringing the Home Run to the fore. Prior to his emergence as a power hitter, coupled with the banning of the spitball/shineball, made teams look for power hitters and made the fans look forward to a Ruthian clout than anything else. Ruth was indeed the Sultan of Swat.

2007-04-19 04:02:38 · answer #2 · answered by Bob Mc 6 · 0 0

The Sultan of Swat was a nickname given to Ruth while he was playing, decades before Aaron or Bonds.

It's a play on the term swat, which is another way of saying hit, as in a Ruth swatted another home run.

2007-04-18 18:50:49 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The Sultan of Swat was a nickname given to Ruth while he was playing, decades before Aaron or Bonds.

It's a play on the term swat, which is another way of saying hit, as in a Ruth swatted another home run

2007-04-19 00:36:20 · answer #4 · answered by dwade3 3 · 0 1

If you are using AB as the reason. Mark McGwire has the lowest AB per HR. McGwire is not the greatest.

AB per HR

1. McGwire 10.61
2. Ruth 11.76
3. Bonds 12.93
4. Thome 13.52
5. Pujols 13.95
37. Aaron 16.38

I agree with you on Ruth over Aaron, but not by your reasoning. Although had he played as many years one can only wonder what kind of numbers he would have ptu up.

2007-04-19 08:49:42 · answer #5 · answered by Greg O 1 · 0 0

Ruth and Aaron will and have gotten their rewards and recognition. I don't think Bonds ever will.

2007-04-18 20:53:06 · answer #6 · answered by gman 6 · 0 1

Heck, if you take that logic to its extreme, then Esteban Yan is the greatest hitter in baseball history - sure, he hit 713 fewer homers than the Babe, but he also had 8395 fewer at bats!

2007-04-18 21:04:34 · answer #7 · answered by JerH1 7 · 0 3

babe was also way better
aaron was just homeruns not hitting for average and taking walks like babe

2007-04-19 00:43:05 · answer #8 · answered by What? 3 · 0 0

I don't think it was that many at bats (4000)

2007-04-18 18:40:54 · answer #9 · answered by Lefty 7 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers