2007-07-27 18:20:27 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Baseball
Aaron, without question.
2007-07-27 18:25:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Aaron's and I will tell you why without mentioning steroids.
I took a look at the frequency of home runs during Aaron's career and Bonds career (using per 600 at bats).
The average hitter during Aaron's career was in the 14's, and in Bonds was in the high 17's.
Bonds era had 22% more home runs than Aaron.
Adjusting Aaron's total to Bonds' era, Aaron's total becomes 918. That's the realistic # of home runs Bonds has to hit to match Aaron's achievement.
Ruth's total, projected into Bonds' era is 1912.
Even with Steroids, Bonds is almost at the one dimensional #, but not at the achievement of Hank Aaron.
2007-07-28 01:36:32 · answer #2 · answered by brettj666 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I realize Bond's probably took steroids but since he has not been convicted I'll try and be objective. I think Bond's is more impressive if you break down the numbers because he's done it in less at-bats. He's been walked like 800 times and the next closest walk total is Hank Aaron who walked only 300 or so times. This shows that Barry Bonds gets a lot less at-bats and a lot less pitches to hit.
2007-07-28 01:41:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Seeing as Bonds used steriods, I'd have to say Aaron's home run total is more impressive
2007-07-28 01:23:48 · answer #4 · answered by Sam 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You have to remember Aaron didn't have it easy when he broke Ruth's record. There was a lot of racial hate back then, he recieved hate mail and death threats. Barry Bonds has it easy compared to Hank Aaron if you ask me. But to answer your question then I would have to say Aaron with out a doubt.
2007-07-28 01:51:00 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Tough question, true Aaron did it the so called "right" way, but Bonds probably faced tougher pitchers than Aaron did and he certainly saw less pitches to hit than Aaron (all the intentional walks). Do I think Bonds took steroids, absolutely. Do I think that should diminish his feat, absolutely. However, that said I think what Bonds has managed to do with all the controversy is amazing. Even with an added bonus, hitting 700 + home runs is very impressive.
2007-07-28 01:29:50 · answer #6 · answered by Dan 1 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Henry Aaron's achievement is much more impressive.
He had real pressure on him... death threats against himself, his wife, kids, etc. Yet he still went out and handled himself like a pro. Compared to Hank, Barry has it easy. That hasn't stopped BB from choking though. Batting around .150 this month. Barry has a long, proven reputation for folding under pressure. Check out his post-season numbers some time (a .245 BA for example).
If Barry had played in Hank's time, he would have been lucky to hit 600 HRs.
2007-07-28 08:35:25 · answer #7 · answered by harmonv 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Even. Bonds "might" have used steroids, but he did it in 2,000 fewer at bats and had over 1,000 more walks, aaron was consistent for a LONG time but wasnt your typical power hitter i dont think he is even in the top 20 in HR per AB.
2007-07-28 01:38:52 · answer #8 · answered by George C 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Aaron with out a doubt
2007-07-28 01:33:47 · answer #9 · answered by damron 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hank Aaron's.
We've seen the size difference for Bonds between his Pirate years and his Giants' years.
I don't see a difference with Aaron between his Milwaukee years to his Atlanta years.
2007-07-28 01:29:24 · answer #10 · answered by TDK 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Aarons without a dought i dont like barry bonds and if he never had taken those steriods then he wouldnt be close to what he has right now
2007-07-28 01:36:32 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋