Greatest of All-Time? Hank Aaron or Babe Ruth?

[Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra]

When I think of the greatest baseball player of all time I usually think Babe Ruth and that's the end of that story, but the other day Papa Grande brought up Hank Aaron and said he was the better of the two players. I didn't get into that discussion with him for one reason or another, but I was thinking more about it today and decided I wanted to ask you who was the greatest of all time. Is it Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, or someone else?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/a/aaronha01.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/ruthba01.shtml

 

[klunderbunker]

Babe Ruth by far. Aaron had more home runs and more hits, but let's take a look at a few things.

1. Aaron played in nearly 800 more games, or over 5 full seasons at the time. Are you telling me that with five more seasons Ruth wouldn't have hit another 42 home runs and had almost a thousand more hits? Like Brett Favre with all the passing records, if you play far more games than anyone else, you're likely to rack up more records.

2. Ruth pitched for 5 years and did quite well. He had 94 wins including 2 20+ win seasons. Considering how many at bats he lost in his prime due to that as well as how effective that makes him when he's not at the plate and it more than pushes him past anything Aaron ever did on defense.

3. Ruth hit in a very different era where home runs weren't hit as often due to multiple reasons, but one being the ball itself. The ball wouldn't be replaced quickly and became softer and therefore harder to hit. Coupling that with onger distances to outfield fences and a different approach to the game.

Ruth is flat out better than Aaron, although not as prolific. Finally, something often overlooked is Ruth's batting average: .342, which is over 35 points higher than Aaron's and only two behind Ted Williams. Ruth was a better all around ball player and if they had played the same number of games, his stats would dwarf Aaron's.

 

[Megatron]

I'd just like to clarify what I was saying to you in the other thread, Blue. I said, based on your arguments of stats, Aaron was a better player then Ruth because of his stats. However, that's not completely how I'm judging the best ever.

1. Aaron played in nearly 800 more games, or over 5 full seasons at the time. Are you telling me that with five more seasons Ruth wouldn't have hit another 42 home runs and had almost a thousand more hits? Like Brett Favre with all the passing records, if you play far more games than anyone else, you're likely to rack up more records.

You can't put it against Aaron for having longevity, though. That's part of the game to be durable and able to withstand a complete baseball season.

Ruth is flat out better than Aaron, although not as prolific. Finally, something often overlooked is Ruth's batting average: .342, which is over 35 points higher than Aaron's and only two behind Ted Williams. Ruth was a better all around ball player and if they had played the same number of games, his stats would dwarf Aaron's.

But he didn't, so it's a moot point.

And I know I said in your other thread, Blue, that I thought Ted Williams was the best player ever, but I take that back. I'm gonna go back even a few years before Ruth played and pick a guy who, played for my Tigers the majority of his career...

'The Georgia Peach' Ty Cobb

Cobb's hit record stood for over 40 years before Rose broke it. He's one of 2 to have only 4000 hits, along with, obviously, Rose. Cobb has the HIGHEST career average in the 120 year HISTORY of baseball. He hit .400 3 times, including .420 in 1911, which was his MVP season. He's 7th all time in RBI's during a time where pitching was king. He also has the 2nd most outfield assists ever and had almost 900 SB's. Cobb was also able to do it in his later years and he didn't fall out like most guys do when they get old. In his last 5 years, from age 37 to 41, he accumulated 211, 157, 79 (only played 79 games), 175, and 114 hits, while hitting above .320 each of those years.

Also, among his peers, he wasn't the most well liked guy. In fact, many guys hated him. However, that didn't change the fact that they gave him 222 out of 226 possible votes to make it into the hall of fame with an ASTOUNDING 98.2%. Babe Ruth had 11 less votes with the same number of people. His peers gave him the utmost respect and placed him ahead of the perceived 'greatest of all time' in total votes. It was a tiny margin, but Cobb still had more no matter how you spin it.

Yeah, I'm gonna look like the Homer, but Cobb has a deserving case that deserves to be mentioned, even if he only hit 117 career home runs.

 

[klunderbunker]

First off, the longevity argument doesn't work. Aaron played one more season than Ruth. Ruth's fewer games were because he pitched and played in far fewer games because of it.

See, the thing is you're looking just at stats. If I played for 100 years I likely would have good stats too. That doesn't mean I'm a good ball player. It means I've played a long time. If you want to go on nothing but stats, Pete Rose and Barry Bonds are the best ever, which is a joke for the most part. You have to look at what they did in their times against the talent they faced and consider how long they played, which for Ruth is far shorter. Simply playing longer by no means makes you a better player. Jamie Moyer has played for a very long time and has good stats because of it. Does that mean he's one of the best ever? Certainly not. It means that he has played for a very long time.

 

[Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra]

I like where you went with Cobb, he is a one of a kind guy. Definatly deserves consideration if not the crown.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/cobbty01.shtml

That being said I would still go with Ruth over Cobb. When you look at the stats Ruth isn't far behind in average and still has around 600 more homeruns than Cobb. The we go to look at the championships and it's not as close. Cobb has no rings and Ruth has 7.

 

[Megatron]

See, the thing is you're looking just at stats. If I played for 100 years I likely would have good stats too. That doesn't mean I'm a good ball player. It means I've played a long time. If you want to go on nothing but stats, Pete Rose and Barry Bonds are the best ever, which is a joke for the most part. You have to look at what they did in their times against the talent they faced and consider how long they played, which for Ruth is far shorter. Simply playing longer by no means makes you a better player. Jamie Moyer has played for a very long time and has good stats because of it. Does that mean he's one of the best ever? Certainly not. It means that he has played for a very long time.

If you can play 20 or so complete seasons, in any sport, then you must be pretty good at it. That's why many people think Brett Favre and Cal Ripken Jr are some of the best ever to grace the game: they always played and for a long period of time. Sure it's gonna inflate your stats, but if you can play well for a long period of time, then your coach/manager isn't gonna take you out. And I wasn't going fully on stats, did you miss my last part?:

Also, among his peers, he wasn't the most well liked guy. In fact, many guys hated him. However, that didn't change the fact that they gave him 222 out of 226 possible votes to make it into the hall of fame with an ASTOUNDING 98.2%. Babe Ruth had 11 less votes with the same number of people. His peers gave him the utmost respect and placed him ahead of the perceived 'greatest of all time' in total votes. It was a tiny margin, but Cobb still had more no matter how you spin it.

Unless you count having a higher HOF % a stat, which I don't. Cobb got more respect as the best ever from his peers then Ruth did, and they played for pretty much the same amount of years. Even as hated as he was, they respected him and placed him higher then Ruth.

I like where you went with Cobb, he is a one of a kind guy. Definatly deserves consideration if not the crown.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/cobbty01.shtml

That being said I would still go with Ruth over Cobb. When you look at the stats Ruth isn't far behind in average and still has around 600 more homeruns than Cobb. The we go to look at the championships and it's not as close. Cobb has no rings and Ruth has 7.

I don't really understand why HR is the be all end all for stats. Ruth didn't even get 3000 hits. Cobb had over 1300 more, whether Ruth missed a chunk pitching or not. I can throw out a lot of stats that Cobb has better then Ruth. Try almost 900 SB to Ruth's 123. And, I know BR doesn't have his first 8 years, but Cobb only had 357 K's to Ruth's 1300+. And, Cobb hit .400 3 times. And has a triple crown.

And Ruth played on the Murderer's Row Lineup Yankees. One of the best dynasties ever. Of course he's gonna have a shit-ton of rings.

 

[klunderbunker]

Not to mention Cobb was considered nothing on defense. He once was seen eating a box of popcorn while in the outfield during a game. It's a huge part of the game and since he was average at best at it, it takes him out of the running for me. Ruth pitching is just such a rare thing where he literally could win games all by himself often times. No one else has ever done that and it sets him apart. There was nothing he couldn't do on a field.

 

[klunderbunker]

If you can play 20 or so complete seasons, in any sport, then you must be pretty good at it. That's why many people think Brett Favre and Cal Ripken Jr are some of the best ever to grace the game: they always played and for a long period of time. Sure it's gonna inflate your stats, but if you can play well for a long period of time, then your coach/manager isn't gonna take you out. And I wasn't going fully on stats, did you miss my last part?:

Unless you count having a higher HOF % a stat, which I don't. Cobb got more respect as the best ever from his peers then Ruth did, and they played for pretty much the same amount of years. Even as hated as he was, they respected him and placed him higher then Ruth.

As for the longevity meaning greatness.....not really. It means you played a long time. It doesn't mean you played at the highest possible level. It means you were simply better than whoever was the other option. There are guys on the Royals at the moment that have been there for years and are average at best. They're the best choices the Royals have though. It doesn't mean they're good.

Omar Vizquel is very well respected in baseball and he's not a lock for the HOF. So what if he had a high percentage? It's based on writers, not players. Mickey Mantle I believe is the closest to a 100% ballot and he's certainly not in the argument for best ever.

 

[Megatron]

Not to mention Cobb was considered nothing on defense. He once was seen eating a box of popcorn while in the outfield during a game. It's a huge part of the game and since he was average at best at it, it takes him out of the running for me. Ruth pitching is just such a rare thing where he literally could win games all by himself often times. No one else has ever done that and it sets him apart. There was nothing he couldn't do on a field.

While he wasn't a great OF by any means, he does have the 2nd most OF assists ever.

As for the longevity meaning greatness.....not really. It means you played a long time. It doesn't mean you played at the highest possible level. It means you were simply better than whoever was the other option. There are guys on the Royals at the moment that have been there for years and are average at best. They're the best choices the Royals have though. It doesn't mean they're good.

Obviously, but if you can't perform well teams aren't going to be afraid to cut your ass. And longevity does mean something. Ask anyone what they think of when they hear Cal Ripken, and the most games ever played consecutively will be your first choice. Favre will be the same. In sports managers aren't afraid to get rid of a guy if they aren't performing well, but Cobb was so great late in his career that the Tigers just couldn't cut him.

Omar Vizquel is very well respected in baseball and he's not a lock for the HOF. So what if he had a high percentage? It's based on writers, not players. Mickey Mantle I believe is the closest to a 100% ballot and he's certainly not in the argument for best ever.

Whoops, my bad, I knew BBWA did it now, didn't think they did it back then. Either way, experts of the game still voted Cobb more then Ruth and thought that he was the greatest ever.

Also, he has the 4th highest % now. Tom Seaver, Ripken, and Nolan Ryan have higher.

 

[gd]

Babe Ruth, for sure. Not only did he hit a lot of home runs, but he did it in an era where no one hit homeruns. He was hitting more homeruns by himself than entire teams were. Let that sink in for a minute. He completely different than anyone that played during that time period.

Not to mention the fact that he was one of the best pitchers in the league as well. The MVP wasn't around during Ruth's day, but if it was, he would've won 9 or 10, at least. He also was a 7 time World Champion. Not sure how there's any argument against him being the best ever.

 

[The Brain]

This is always such a tough argument, but I’m going to have to go with the Babe here. The thing about Babe is while he may not lead all categories, he excels at all. For example, he doesn’t lead in home runs, but is third. He doesn’t have the highest career average, but he’s in the top ten. Cobb leads in hits and batting average, but doesn’t come close to comparing in home runs. Even though Aaron has more home runs and RBI Ruth is directly behind him in both categories with a much higher batting average. Ruth is also at the top of the sometimes overlooked categories. He’s second in on base percentage, first in slugging, and first in on base plus slugging. The time Ruth spent as a pitcher should be considered. It’s reasonable to think he would be even much higher than he is in all those offensive categories, but there is of course no proof of that. However, he did well as a pitcher. When you have an offensive argument that is so close it’s fair to point out neither Cobb nor Aaron excelled at both parts of the game whereas Ruth did. We can even use a wrestling reference (actually wrestling uses a baseball reference). Hulk Hogan isn’t the Ty Cobb or Hank Aaron of wrestling. He’s the Babe Ruth of wrestling. Like Hogan, nobody made his sport more popular than Ruth. All should be recognized for their true greatness, but the thread asks to pick one so I pick Babe.

While I would stand by Babe I feel Ted Williams and Stan Musial should at least be mentioned in this thread.

 

[Big Sexy]

No offense to Hank Aaron but he wouldn't even make my top 3. You can't go wrong with Babe Ruth or Ty Cobb but like Brain said you almost have to go with Ruth. If he was never a pitcher and had the same hitting stats I'd go with Ty Cobb any day of the week, but with Ruth's time as a pitcher included he is number one and Cobb is right behind him.

I'd also put Willie Mays ahead of Hank Aaron and right with Ruth and Cobb in the top three. Mays is easily the best fielder out of all the names mentioned with his 12 gold gloves and he was nearly on par with everyone in terms of the hitting categories. In fact his slugging and on base percentages are both higher then that of Hank Aaron's. The top three is a dead heat between Ruth, Cobb, and Mays but again if I had to pick the nod goes to Ruth.

Honorable Mention to some pitchers that I haven't seen mentioned at all: Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, Cy Young