Is Babe Ruth the Real home run King?

Question

Im curious compared to his total at bats if my figures are correct Babe had 8399 abs, where as Hank had an amazing 12000+ and bonds haz more than 9000 so technically then comparing there ab seems the only logical way to see who hit more in less time Ruth had far more than anybody Im I correct? Why do so many disregard this?

Answer 1

This is an answer of mine to a similar question:

Aaron and Bonds each had careers that lasted a similar amount of time. To truly answer the question of Home Run King, look at a more compelling set of stats:

Aaron has a career total of 755 homeruns in 12,364 at bats. That is an average of .061 homeruns per at bat.

Bonds, at the time of this writing, has 757 homeruns in 9777 at bats for an average of .077 HR/AB.

Ruth, however, had 714 homeruns in 8399 at bats. This averages to a whopping .085 HR/AB average.

So, Aaron and Bonds have more career homeruns, but it took them mor ABs to reach their marks. To put this in perspective, look at it this way:

If the Babe had as many ABs as Bonds, he would have finished with 831 homeruns; and if he had as many ABs as Aaron, he would have had 1,051 homeruns.

So I do think it is safe to say that, though Bonds and Aaron were great Home Run hitters, The Great Bambino was and is still the Home Run King.

Answer 2

Babe Ruth is the greatest home run hitter of all time but he's not the home run king, Barry Bonds is, steroids and all.

Ruth hit 29 home runs in 1919 in the dead ball era (in just 432 at-bats) which is just insane. The second most that year was 12 and only 4 other players had more than 10.

Plus Babe Ruth was a pitcher his first 5 years

During Ruth's 15 years (with at least 300 at-bats) playing in the live-ball era he averaged 44 home runs per year

Aaron averaged 34 in 22 years with at least 300 at-bats

Bonds averaged 36 in 20 years with at least 300 at-bats, not including this year

So clearly Ruth was the greatest home run hitter of all time he just didn't play as long as the other two and there were fewer teams and shorter schedules

Still, there is something to be said for Hank Aaron's remarkable consistency and longevity.

On a side note, during Bonds' first 14 years he averaged 32 home runs per year.

In the 5 years from 2000-2004 (age 36-40) he averaged 52 home runs per year

But he wasn't on steroids or anything...

Answer 3

While wdean05 makes a very valid point, the other side of the same coin is this.
Since everyone in baseball analysis loves OPS+, a measure of a players OPS against his peers, Bonds' era had 22% easier time hitting home runs than Aaron's era.
Aaron's adjusted home run total (compared to his peers) in Bonds' era is 918. Babe Ruth's adjusted home run total to Bonds' era is 1912.

When Ruth hit 60 home runs, the average player hit 6, meaning ruth hit 10x more home runs than the average player.
When Bonds hit 73, the average player hit 20. Bonds would have had to have hit 200 home runs in 2001 to match Ruth's accomplishment.

Bonds has a great batting eye and tremendous hand-eye coordination, but still he's not Ruth.

When Bonds was walked (and intentionally walked), remember, he beat Ruth's record and when they walked Ruth, it was to pitch to GEHRIG.
How scared must a pitcher be/how strategic must a manager think, to issue intentional walks to Ruth to get to Gehrig.

If Bonds had the Gehrig equivilent batting behind him, Bonds would not have been walked as much as he did. Bonds' walk total is largely due to Bonds, but a good portion is due to the Giant's poor lineup around Bonds.

Answer 4

Babe Ruth. Barry Bonds became into assisted by using steroids, Hank Aaron became into assisted by using a smaller ballpark, I appreciate Gibson lots, yet there have been no valid records, and Oh performed in Japan which of course is baseball, yet its an fullyyt distinctive interest over there. Ruth shaped united statesa.'s great interest. you are able to no longer say that approximately the different participant.

Answer 5

Well, they are all a king of something, equally famous:

Babe Ruth: The Old Era Home-Run King
Hank Aaron: The New Era Home-Run King
Barry Balco Bonds: The Cheating King

Answer 6

Partly because rates are harder to comprehend than a simple counting stat.

Slightly because doing rates against at-bats is a disservice; using plate appearances is much more informative, and doesn't penalize the batter for having an amazingly good eye and the discipline not to swing at bad pitches.

Since eyesight doesn't come in a bottle (and if it did, EVERY SINGLE PROFESSIONAL PLAYER should be lining up to buy a lifetime supply, as eye-hand coordination is THE core skill necessary for success in baseball), the haters simply disregard Bonds' mastery of this aspect of the game.

Answer 7

before the babe, the homer was weak and not so important, lets say this,,babe put people in the stands to watch him hit them out, same as barry is doing now!forget the atbats, babe didnt face as many different pitchers as did hank and barry! anyways my answer is yes the babe is the Original King! just like who do u consider the king of autos? ford? the king of hamburgers? understand my meaning, the King is Dead long live the King

Answer 8

If we go by your theory, the real Home Run King is Mark McGwire.

He hit a HR every 10.61 at bats.
Babe = 11.76
Bonds = 12.92
.

Answer 9

i consider babe the homer king. back then there was very strong pitcher and it was harder to hit. bonds was in an not so hard carrer pitching wise. babe also was originally a pitcher for boston but was a great hitter. if you look at at bats babe wins by far, but just by homers unfortuatly bonds gets it.
arron was also in a time that pitchers were great.

Answer 10

People disregard it because they look at the total HR's hit and don't care about the excess mumbo jumbo that the media try to discredit Barry Bonds with.

More in less time does not mean squat. Only the totals do.