Hank Aaron or Bambino?

IbreakNeckZ101 · Post #1 » by **IbreakNeckZ101** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 2:22 pm

I might get flamed for posting this up but i haven't seen a thread of this topic yet. Who do you think is better hank or babe?

34Celtic · Post #2 » by **34Celtic** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:32 pm

Barry Bonds

mets87 · Post #3 » by **mets87** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:41 pm

lol. no debate. look at ruth's stats. the man hit 714 home runs AND had a career BA of .342 AND averaged over a 1.000 OPS. ridiculous.

just looked at his career EqA and saw that it's an obscene .375. god.

i'm not sure if celtic's being facetious or not but bonds is the most comparable player to ruth right now

mays vs. ruth is a better debate...if willie mays didn't play in candlestick who knows how many homers he would've had

Post #4 » by **Harry Palmer** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 10:02 pm

Re: Aaron, people really underrate him as an all around player. Not saying Ruth wasn't, but that aspect is often raised re: him, but not re: Hammering Hank. Among other things, in his early days, the guy could fly.

2004RedSox · Post #5 » by **2004RedSox** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 11:44 pm

mets87 wrote:lol. no debate. look at ruth's stats. the man hit 714 home runs AND had a career BA of .342 AND averaged over a 1.000 OPS. ridiculous.

just looked at his career EqA and saw that it's an obscene .375. god.

Agreed. Not only that, but the "Babe" had the status as well. He drew crowds better and was the player people wanted to see. It's not that Hank didn't have it, it is just that Ruth had more of it.

34Celtic · Post #6 » by **34Celtic** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:21 am

im being serious

brewguru · Post #7 » by **brewguru** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:19 pm

Babe Ruth.

1) He could pitch.
2) He was more than twice as good as the rest of the league (look at 1920 and 1921).
3) He saved baseball.

randomhero423 · Post #8 » by **randomhero423** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 2:34 am

babe ruth is really absolutely amazing. sometimes when i look at his stats, i think it's fake. and the seasons back then had less games. so just imagine if he had 162 games each year....

ruth is the best of all time. and i really can't see anybody ever being better... it's truely amazing how uncomparable he is.

randomhero423 · Post #9 » by **randomhero423** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 2:54 am

here's some stats

Hank Aaron Babe Ruth

Games:3298 Games:2503
At-bats:12364 At-bats:8398
Runs:2174 Runs:2174
Hits:3771 Hits:2873
2b:624 2b:506
3b:98 3b:136
HR:755 HR:714
RBI:2297 RBI:2217
Walks:1402 Walks:2062
SO:1383 SO:1330
Avg:.305 Avg:.342
OBP:.374 OBP:.474
SLG:.555 SLG:.690

It's really amazing with all the walks, games played, and at bat difference, and yet the HR/RBI total is so close. and the avg is so much higher, and the runs are the same exact number. and he was walked 600 times more.....

not to mention ruth was also 18-8, 23-12, 24-13 as SP.

BrewCrew12 · Post #10 » by **BrewCrew12** » Tue Aug 7, 2007 4:15 am

I take Aaron because he was a model of consistency. He has the all-time home run record without ever hitting fifty homeruns in a season, and a lot more pressure was on him during his career.

Post #11 » by **studcrackers** » Tue Aug 7, 2007 6:00 am

u take aaron b/c he has a model of consistency? what the f*ck do u think ruth did?

Post #12 » by **Bleeding Green** » Tue Aug 7, 2007 6:13 am

LOL. Ruth's OBP was a 100 points higher and his SLG was 135 points higher.

Jesus.

xstockholmsyndromex · Post #13 » by **xstockholmsyndromex** » Wed Aug 8, 2007 2:56 pm

A.J. · Post #14 » by **A.J.** » Wed Aug 8, 2007 3:40 pm

i wasnt even born to see them play. so by my good baseball knowledge imma have to say the babe.

BrewCrew12 · Post #15 » by **BrewCrew12** » Thu Aug 9, 2007 12:44 am

studcrackers wrote:u take aaron b/c he has a model of consistency? what the f*ck do u think ruth did?

Ok my post was bashed and I am a little embarrased right now so let me say a few things to try to save myself from looking like a complete idiot (by the way, i now realize my post was stupid).

1. I was trying to make the point that Aaron had a very long career playing at a high level.
2. I was also trying to make the point that he had to overcome a lot of adversity due to racism in the U.S. at the time he played.
3. I am a Brewers fan so I am biased.

HeyIt'sMe · Post #16 » by **HeyIt'sMe** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 2:08 am

Ruth was better, but Aaron is a truly underrated player, despite the fact that he has some absolutely absurd career numbers. 3,700 plus hits, 755 HRs, nearly 2,300 RBIs. I mean, really, that's ridiculous. And no, he wasn't the all around hitter Ruth was, but he still had a .305 career average and .555 slugging percentage and walked more than he struckout. Also, remember that Ruth never had to face any African American or minority players during his time, some of whom, if you listen to baseball historians, were phenomenal talents who would of dominated in the majors.

Hawaii · Post #17 » by **Hawaii** » Fri Aug 24, 2007 4:26 am

randomhero423 wrote:babe ruth is really absolutely amazing. sometimes when i look at his stats, i think it's fake.

I do the same. He was head and shoulders above other hitters in his day. The stats are mind-boggling sometimes, especially that 1921 season.

I think Ruth was the better player, especially because he had serious talent pitching as well, especially early on in his career. But I don't want to discount anything from Aaron's career. He too was amazing, and has some serious all-round talent, and he DID have to deal with some messed up things during his long and illustrious career.