Poll Results: Who was/is the best home run hitter of all time?

There was not an overwhelming voter turnout, but there was a definite consensus on Babe Ruth being the best home run hitter of all time. Out of the six votes cast, Ruth received all but one. The lone vote went to Henry Aaron.

Ruth, of course, set the standard. He also was so far ahead of his contemporaries that arguments regarding quality of pitching and not facing African-American competition could be put to the side. In fact, the argument regarding African-American competition can go by the wayside. Ruth faced, in many exhibitions, Negro League team. Accounts of these games note Ruth's success. Even African-American newspapers and first-hand accounts by Negro League players cited Ruth's great blasts.

The vote cast for Aaron, was based on Aaron's durability and longevity. Six weeks ago I would agree with this point. However, after reading The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs, I again have to come to Ruth's defense. During Aaron's era he had better training equipment, diet and training. Nothing compared to today's standard. But what Aaron had available to him versus Ruth is night and day. Too note one example, Ruth was knocked unconscious when he collided with a teammate chasing a fly ball. The solution to reviving Ruth was to throw a glass of water in his face. This revived Ruth and he continued the game. If that happened today we would be watching a multi-millionaire being gently carried off the field with his head immobilized on a flat board.

The others I had listed as part of the poll where Jimmy Foxx, Reggie Jackson and Barry Bonds. He had positives. Bonds, who may have been able to come close to the mark with out medical enhancements, is definitely worthy or mention. Jackson may have been the best of his time even through Mike Schmidt was close (of course he seemed to kill the Cubs during is seven visits to Wrigley Field a year). Double-X is worthy of a posting of his own one-day. He is often overlooked as one of the greatest.

If you want an in-depth read on the history of the home run, I suggest paging through the Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs. Bill Jenkins has a lot of qualitative research to go along with the quantitative information from The Baseball Encyclopedia.

Bond's the Home Run King

No matter how hard I try, I'll have to accept the fact that Barry Bond will be breaking the all time career home run mark this week. Actually, I'd be a little remiss if I didn't address it in this forum. Thinking about Bonds soon-to-be record has led me down a path of the meaning of records in baseball. Of course it is the historical value of these records that has kept my interest in the game over the years. But can you simply judge a player's place in history based on holding great numbers in one of many categories? It is now common place to examine a player's performance based on the performance of his counterparts at that time (Rob Neyer uses statistical principals such as standard deviation and Pythagorean method to compare great teams in his book, Baseball Dynasties). This identifies the averages, means and outliers to statistically represent the value of say Mark McGwire's 70 home runs in 1998. Over the four season spanning from McGwire's 70 in '98 to Bonds 73 in 2001, Roger Maris's record of 61 was broken six times by three different player (Sammy Sosa being the third). So are home runs as valued in today's game as they were in Hank Aaron's or Babe Ruth's era?

Munging through the numbers it can be determined that it was more difficult to hit a home run during Ruth's era than during Aaron's day or today's game. Some talking heads discount Ruth because he was playing in a time of segregation and complete games. However, if the talking heads think it was so easy, why were there so few players achieving the same feats as Ruth? There were a few that were awfully close. Ruth's teammate Lou Gehrig lead the league in homers three times with 49. Hack Wilson batted 56 one season. However, Wilson never hit more than 40 in another season. Jimmy Fox hit 58 and 50 at different times in his career.
Even though I applaud the efforts of Bonds, McGwire, Sosa and the 10 other players in the past 5 years who have achieved or are currently going to achieve 500 home runs, I have to say the feat of hitting the ball over the fence has been diminished, much like the slam-dunk in basketball. It can be said that Ruth popularized the home run. Other players started belting them. But never to the same plateau as Ruth. That is why his numbers of 60 and 714 will always be ingrained into the baseball lexicon no matter how many others approach and break those milestones.

Home runs are now so much an expected part of the game it seems anything but a homer is a failure. However, the value of the homer hasn't changes over the years. It is still worth one run.

Single Season Home Run Leaders: http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/HR_leagues.shtml

Career Home Run Leaders:http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/HR_career.shtml

Phillies vs. Cubs on Losing

Before the All-Star break I saw that the Phillies were about to hit the 10,000 loss mark. They achieved this last night (7-15-2007). However, before they reached this statistical milestone, I traded a few emails back and forth with a friend who is a Phillies fan. When I made mention of the statistic to him, he thought that the Chicago Cubs would have achieved the mark a while ago. Therefore I dug up the following statistics between the two franchises:

First Year in the League:
Cubs 1874
Phillies 1880

World Series Titles
Cubs 2
Phillies 1 (much more recent than the Cubs)

Franchise Win-Loss Record
Cubs 10003 Wins - 9493 Losses
Phillies 8808 Wins - 10000 Losses (according to MLB.com they were already there).

Years Above 500
Cubs 69 (8 seasons under .400)
Phillies 52 (28 seasons under .400)

Avg W-L Record (the number of games played vary by season)
Cubs 74.9 - 71.1
Phillies 70.7 - 80.3

It is hard to believe that the Cubs have an over .500 franchise record. However, they were really good in the late 1800s and into the 20th century. The Cubs are interesting, their lore is wrapped in not winning a pennant since 1908. That doesn't mean that they are losing every season. During the Mike & Mike show, on ESPN radio, it was referenced that the Phillies would have to have 17 seasons with a record of 116-46 to return the franchise to the .500 mark. Why was 116-46 used? Because this is the best season record recorded by the Seattle Mariners in 2001.

Baseball History Welcome

I find myself reading about the history of major league baseball. I am not sure why I find the games of the past so interesting. However, I never seem to pass up a book about the players of the past, championship teams or important seasons that hold special remembrance in the hearts of baseball fans and Americans. Maybe that is part of it. In reading the history of the game you are reading a history of our great nation. These books describes moments in time of American in the expanding metropolis that span our country. Some of the books that I recently ave read are:

• Crazy '08 by Cait Murphy: A description of the 1908 between the Chicago Cubs, New York Giants and Pittsburgh Pirates. Great insight on the Merkle Boner.
  
• The Old Ballgame by Frank Deford. A duel biography of John McGraw and Christy Mathewson. Deford offers great descriptions of baseball in New York from the deadball era to the introduction of Babe Ruth.
• The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs by Bill Jenkins. A season by season recap of the amazing feats focusing on Ruth's amazing number of titanic homers (450+ feet). I'm still reading this one and will write by first blog recap in a week or so.
  

I hope you enjoy reading about my thoughts on such narritives and how they may relate to todays game and the American context.