All time strike out leaders for hitters. Top 100
1970s
Posts: 3,093 ✭✭✭✭✭
No surprise to see Reggie Jackson as #1 all time. A little surprised to see how high Derek Jeter is. Not surprised to see Mike Schmidt (12) and Edie Matthews on the list. Can't find George Brett on the list though. Surprised that Ken Griffey Jr.(23) and David Ortiz(27) are so high on the list. Pops sure did strike out a lot too, coming in at #8. Arod at #5. A lot of Arod's K's were in big situations too. He could be a serious bed crapper at times.
1 Reggie Jackson * 2,597
2 Jim Thome * 2,548
3 Adam Dunn 2,379
4 Sammy Sosa 2,306
5 Alex Rodriguez 2,287
6 Andrés Galarraga 2,003
7 Jose Canseco 1,942
8 Willie Stargell * 1,936
9 Mark Reynolds (57) 1,927
10 Mike Cameron 1,901
11 Curtis Granderson (82) 1,900
12 Mike Schmidt * 1,883
13 Fred McGriff 1,882
14 Tony Pérez * 1,867
15 Ryan Howard 1,843
16 Bobby Abreu 1,840
Derek Jeter 1,840
18 Dave Kingman 1,816
19 Manny Ramírez 1,813
20 Chris Davis (109) 1,806
21 Alfonso Soriano 1,803
22 Carlos Beltrán 1,795
23 Ken Griffey Jr. * 1,779
24 Justin Upton (41) 1,762
25 Bobby Bonds 1,757
26 Craig Biggio * 1,753
27 David Ortiz 1,750
28 Andruw Jones 1,748
Dale Murphy 1,748
30 Carlos Delgado 1,745
31 Torii Hunter 1,741
32 Adrián Beltré 1,732
Miguel Cabrera (79) 1,732
34 Lou Brock * 1,730
35 Jim Edmonds 1,729
36 Mickey Mantle * 1,710
37 Harmon Killebrew * 1,699
38 Chili Davis 1,698
39 Dwight Evans 1,697
40 Rickey Henderson * 1,694
41 Dave Winfield * 1,686
42 Derrek Lee 1,622
43 Reggie Sanders 1,614
44 Gary Gaetti 1,602
45 Matt Kemp (19) 1,600
46 Mark McGwire 1,596
47 Carlos Peña 1,577
48 Jason Giambi 1,572
49 Lee May 1,570
50 Pat Burrell 1,564
51 Melvin Upton Jr. 1,561
52 Jeff Bagwell * 1,558
53 Dick Allen 1,556
54 Ray Lankford 1,550
Willie McCovey * 1,550
56 Barry Bonds 1,539
57 Dave Parker 1,537
58 Nelson Cruz (96) 1,532
Frank Robinson * 1,532
60 Jay Bruce (74) 1,527
Lance Parrish 1,527
62 Willie Mays * 1,526
Devon White 1,526
64 Jeff Kent 1,522
65 Eddie Murray * 1,516
66 Rick Monday 1,513
Greg Vaughn 1,513
68 Andre Dawson * 1,509
69 Tony Phillips 1,499
70 Greg Luzinski 1,495
71 Shin-Soo Choo (107) 1,488
72 Eddie Mathews * 1,487
73 Iván Rodríguez * 1,474
74 Alex Gordon (75) 1,473
75 Mike Napoli 1,468
76 Frank Howard 1,460
77 Jorge Posada 1,453
78 Jhonny Peralta 1,450
Jayson Werth 1,450
80 Jay Bell 1,443
81 Juan Samuel 1,442
82 Harold Baines * 1,441
Jack Clark 1,441
Mark Teixeira 1,441
85 Mo Vaughn 1,429
86 Jimmy Wynn 1,427
87 Jim Rice * 1,423
88 George Foster 1,419
89 George Scott 1,418
90 Royce Clayton 1,415
91 Ron Gant 1,411
92 Darrell Evans 1,410
Scott Rolen 1,410
94 Rob Deer 1,409
Chipper Jones * 1,409
96 Adam LaRoche 1,407
97 Jay Buhner 1,406
98 Adrián González 1,401
99 Eric Davis 1,398
100 Frank Thomas * 1,397
Comments
I think what matters about hitters on this list is...…..what they did with their other at bats!
Most of these are BIG free swingers trying to lose the ball for the pitcher.
PLUS
Nobody was more fun to watch hit homers than Reggie Jackson! After smacking the ball he would drop his bat and stand there for a few seconds admiring his work then just trots around the bases.
I am impressed that Brett is not on that list 🤫
I hope Chris Davis gets enough at bats to go to Number 1.
I was surprised Craig Biggio was so high on the list.
Guess I shouldn't be since he was pretty overrated.
Those are some great dunks on the bottom left link (square) also!
I was always impressed with guys who got more walks than strikeouts.
Now it doesn't happen too much because guys don't care if they strikeout.
Even the great Mike Trout has 778 walks compared to 1085 K's.
I'm impressed with guys that can knock the crap out of the ball without (drug) help.
Which leaves Barry Bonds completely out!
A guy i used to work with, told me that he pitched against Reggie Jackson when Jackson played for Cheltenham High School.
I asked the guy, "How'd ya do against him?"
Exact quote response, "He took me downtown."
Number 18 on the list. It hurts.
As my entry in the "post an all-time leaders list that conveys no useful information" contest, I submit the all-time leaders in outs made:
1 Pete Rose (24) 10328
2 Hank Aaron+ (23) 9136
3 Carl Yastrzemski+ (23) 9126
4 Cal Ripken+ (21) 8893
5 Eddie Murray+ (21) 8569
6 Rickey Henderson+ (25) 8510
7 Omar Vizquel (24) 8433
8 Dave Winfield+ (22) 8422
9 Robin Yount+ (20) 8415
10 Adrian Beltre (21) 8340
Brooks Robinson+ (23) 8340
12 Craig Biggio+ (20) 8272
13 Derek Jeter (20) 8269
14 Luis Aparicio+ (18) 8110
15 Willie Mays+ (22) 8056
16 Paul Molitor+ (21) 8040
17 Alex Rodriguez (22) 7915
18 Rabbit Maranville+ (23) 7906
Albert Pujols (19, 39) 7906
20 Rafael Palmeiro (20) 7858
21 Lou Brock+ (19) 7823
22 Ty Cobb+ (24) 7754
23 Stan Musial+ (22) 7744
24 George Brett+ (21) 7673
25 Reggie Jackson+ (21) 7659
26 Andre Dawson+ (21) 7621
27 Al Kaline+ (22) 7594
28 Frank Robinson+ (21) 7529
29 Ozzie Smith+ (19) 7528
30 Rusty Staub (23) 7509
31 Harold Baines+ (22) 7482
32 Tony Perez+ (23) 7462
33 Carlos Beltran (20) 7423
34 Ken Griffey+ (22) 7398
35 Eddie Collins+ (25) 7341
36 Barry Bonds (22) 7313
37 Vada Pinson (18) 7304
38 Johnny Damon (18) 7291
39 Steve Finley (19) 7285
40 Honus Wagner+ (21) 7266
41 Ernie Banks+ (19) 7261
42 Ivan Rodriguez+ (21) 7256
43 Jimmy Rollins (17) 7175
44 Joe Morgan+ (22) 7174
45 Ichiro Suzuki (19) 7152
46 Tris Speaker+ (22) 7147
47 Bill Buckner (22) 7146
48 Gary Gaetti (20) 7108
49 Max Carey+ (20) 7097
50 Graig Nettles (22) 7096
51 Nellie Fox+ (19) 7080
52 Darrell Evans (21) 7075
53 Dave Parker (19) 7055
54 Willie Davis (18) 7051
55 Bert Campaneris (19) 6999
56 Gary Sheffield (22) 6987
57 Luis Gonzalez (19) 6973
58 Billy Williams+ (18) 6969
59 Dwight Evans (20) 6965
60 Buddy Bell (18) 6955
61 Dave Concepcion (19) 6932
62 Roberto Alomar+ (17) 6914
63 Cap Anson+ (27) 6902
64 Sam Crawford+ (19) 6893
65 Roberto Clemente+ (18) 6877
66 Rod Carew+ (19) 6857
67 Torii Hunter (19) 6843
68 Sammy Sosa (18) 6809
69 Doc Cramer (20) 6787
Mel Ott+ (22) 6787
71 Jake Beckley+ (20) 6780
72 Carlton Fisk+ (24) 6767
73 Bill Dahlen (21) 6740
74 Chili Davis (19) 6737
75 Al Oliver (18) 6736
76 Tommy Corcoran (18) 6722
77 Harry Hooper+ (17) 6707
78 Steve Garvey (19) 6672
79 Tim Raines+ (23) 6670
80 Tony Gwynn+ (20) 6661
81 Chipper Jones+ (19) 6657
82 Larry Bowa (16) 6647
83 Ted Simmons (21) 6639
84 Sam Rice+ (20) 6638
85 Paul Waner+ (20) 6614
86 Julio Franco (23) 6609
87 Mickey Vernon (20) 6608
88 Fred McGriff (19) 6604
89 Lou Whitaker (19) 6599
90 Nap Lajoie+ (21) 6594
91 Lave Cross (21) 6593
92 Frankie Frisch+ (19) 6590
93 Wade Boggs+ (18) 6566
94 George Davis+ (20) 6564
95 Joe Carter (16) 6551
96 Don Baylor (19) 6510
97 David Ortiz (20) 6507
98 Bobby Wallace+ (25) 6492
99 Mike Schmidt+ (18) 6490
100 Eddie Mathews+ (17) 6478
And, hey, there's Schmidt and Mathews again at 99 and 100. And that's Brett with more than 1,000 more outs made up there at number 24. In fairness, this list is a tiny bit less useless than the OP, but I couldn't figure out how to factor in hair color to make them equally useless.
Why? Stargell was a great hitter and he's at #8. I remember when he was #1 on the list.
Of yeah, your guy is Dave Kingman. You're right it should hurt because he wasn't a very good hitter.
Don't be so modest Dallas, all your lists convey no useful information.
If you list the all time hit leaders......the same guy would be # 1 and it would be meaningful!
A lot of it is useful to people who can read. Ask one of them, they'll tell you.
Thanks for rubbing in the extra salt.
I suspect with the way the game is being played today, the all time strikeouts for hitters list is going to have a lot of new members. Guys used to look disappointed after striking out and walking back to the dugout. Maybe even fling the bat and throw their helmet at the bat rack. Today's players treat it the same as grounding out to short. Maybe you get a reaction if there's two runners aboard in a one run game, other than that it's viewed as just par for the course.
Family, Neighborhood, Community,
make the World a better place.
For as many strikeouts as Rodriquez, Stargell, and Galarraga had, all three had good career batting averages.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Of course, grounding out to the shortstop with two runners aboard will generally result in two outs, a strikeout only one. That strikeouts are worse than groundouts may be true if you've got enough decimal places to find the difference, but it is a tiny difference and not worth a moment's thought by anyone.
dallasactuary, the point was that hitters today treat strikeouts like ho hum, a ground out to short. You only see a reaction from today's players when they strikeout and there are two runners aboard. Of course it's worse to ground out to short with two runners aboard than to strikeout with less than 2 outs. It was not meant as a comparison between striking out and grounding out to short with 2 on. It's also the reason why some pitchers with runners aboard will stand there with the bat on their shoulder for the entire at bat.
Family, Neighborhood, Community,
make the World a better place.
And my point was that hitters are correct to treat a strikeout as a ho hum moment relative to grounding out. The difference between them - balancing the occasional advanced runner on a ground out vs. the occasional double play - is almost entirely in the perception of fans who think strikeouts are worse, for some reason. Outs is outs, and the winner of a baseball game is rarely decided by which kind of outs anyone made, and very rarely, if ever, decided by ground outs vs. strikeouts.
Yes, yes, that's all true........but strikeouts are BAD!
Because reasons.
Analytically, you are correct, a strikeout is an out and outs are all bad (for the hitter).
There is the mental aspect to consider (or not, if all you like are numbers) where if, as a hitter, you can't even make contact with a pitchers offerings, it could decrease your confidence and increase his and his teammates.
All subjective I realize. I would bet there are some MLB players who aren't always mentally disciplined.
If I am hitting line drives for outs, I am feeling better than if I am missing the ball completely, or standing there with my bat on my shoulder getting called out.
I would go a step farther and claim that a strikeout by a "slugger" is also much more acceptable than from a hitter with average or less power.
I'll bet a LOT of baseball fans agree.
Striking out should not be treated as ho hum because as a player you just committed a non-productive out. I think it's pretty self evident that non-productive outs don't help you win baseball games. Players today have become so enamoured with the long ball that striking out doesn't seem to bother them unless runners are on base. You talk to ball players of the 60's, 70's, and 80's and most took it as a personal slight. Hell the pitcher is the type of player that strikes out, if you were a player from a past era you were supposed to shorten up your swing and make contact. Make the defense work to get you out. Also any player that couldn't hit to all fields was viewed as incompetent in years past. What do you think Joe DiMaggio or Ted Williams would do if you put the shift on against them. Hell even Will Clark has come out saying he can't believe how players today complain about the shift and how it should be banned. He's of the opinion, well shorten up and slap it the way genius, or just take your walk. Don't pull the ball right into the heart of the defense or strike out trying to pull the ball deep.
If striking out is ho hum, then you may as well be Rob Deer as a hitter. In my opinion, boom or bust baseball is not very entertaining. And any non-productive out equates to losing baseball. And if a player becomes ho-hum about attributing to losing, well that's not a guy I want on my team. Give me a leadoff hitter that grinds and sets the table for multiple run innings. Give me a number 2 hitter that is a contact hitter and adept at hitting the ball to right field for 1 and 3rd opportunities. I don't need guys at the top of the line-up swinging to add 1 run on the board.
In my view defense can make a great deal of difference in winning baseball. If a team strikes out a lot, then they don't take advantage of the teams with poor defense. They probably will end up losing some games they should have won because they didn't put any added pressure on the opposing teams.
So in my view if striking out becomes ho hum, that player better be exceptional with his power numbers or a pitcher, otherwise he is getting shipped off.
Family, Neighborhood, Community,
make the World a better place.
Do you realize how few ground outs are "productive"? When you factor in the double non-productivity of double plays, the answer is effectively "none".
Productive outs are almost exclusively long fly outs, and if you want to change the point you've been making by substituting long fly outs where you said ground outs, I won't argue. But the thing is, the people who consistently get productive long fly outs are the very same people who strike out a lot, so the strikeouts are just a cost of doing business. If you could somehow substitute ground outs for their strikeouts, you would have accomplished nothing meaningful.
The best hitters - all of them - swing very hard at pitches they can hit solidly and don't swing at all at pitches they can't. Those hard swings mean more strikeouts, but they also mean more run production. Bill Buckner and Ichiro are the poster boys for the other group; they swing like an 80 year old woman at every pitch thrown at them and make consistently weak contact. They don't strike out much (hooray?), but they also don't walk much and they don't make many productive outs. Hitters several orders of magnitude better than Ichiro and Buckner - Reggie Jackson and Mike Schmidt, for example - strike out a ton, but they also take a lot of walks, and they make more productive outs than the guys who hardly ever strike out.
Much of the value in not striking out is in a batters' future at bats.
Mike Trout strikes out too much. If he would cut them in half and instead put the ball in play,
that would give him 65 more times putting the ball in play per season instead of whiffing, or 20 more hits
per season.
That would mean in 15 years he would have 300 more hits than he will have at his current K rate.
Think of the damage those 300 hits would have done?
Sorry, I just checked and Trout K's more than I thought. 150 times over 162 games.
So he would have 345 more hits in 15 years. A lot of wasted at bats there because of whiffing
instead of making contact.
True, but we aren't talking about replacing outs with hits but outs with outs.
Mathematically no one is going to have a chance here if you are arguing with raw numbers. Dallas wins every time.
Your only chance is to go with the emotional argument, which is unproveable.
dallasactuary, your talking about the exceptional power hitters; there are a lot more guys out there with far fewer home runs that are still striking out a lot. I'll take guys like Ichiro Suzuki and Bill Buckner on my team any day. I have a lot of options when those guys are at the plate, they are going to hit into much fewer double plays, and they're both plus defenders.
Do you realize how many infield hits there are in baseball? Then there's the balls that get booted. Then there are the balls that don't get fielded cleanly. Then there's balls that are lost on the transfer. Then there's the balls where the fielder makes an errant throw. All of these scenarios can lead to runs, last time I checked; reaching base is a fairly rare occurrence after a strike out. Even if the percentage is small, played out over 162 games putting the ball in play equates to more wins over striking out. Even if its only 2 to 5 more wins, it's a better shot at the post season.
Baseball needs more grinders and guys that make themselves tough outs on 2 strike counts. I see guys today swinging at more pitches that are not strikes and they look undisciplined at the plate. Guys today don't protect the plate as well as players of the past. *I want some guys when they get two strikes on them that can purposely fight off good pitches and slap a ball foul. It gives every other player in my dugout a good look at his go to pitches when he gets two strikes on a hitter. Now the pitcher has to think about going to his 2nd or 3rd pitch in those situations so he doesn't become too predictable. Plus if you have a lineup of guys that are all tough outs, it wears on a pitcher mentally. If a pitcher is striking guys out, he becomes full of confidence and starts throwing the ball like he's fearless. And that's when he becomes dangerous because he feels like he is full command out on the mound. I want to get in the pitcher's head, make him second guess what he's going throw, and force him to pitch from behind in the count. *Some pitchers don't pitch as well from the stretch as they do the wind-up, some worry too much about speedy runners, you also can never get a balk called with no one on base.
It was fun debating with you dallasactuary, I guess I take more of an old school approach trying to make it tough on an opposing defense and the whoever's on the mound. Don't get me wrong power is very important, and strikeouts are going to come with power hitters, but I believe line-ups need to be balanced. Teams today need a few more grinders in the line-up, because grinding baseball is winning baseball. The guys who are grinders are almost always plus defenders, they run out ground balls, they can play hit and run, their better at laying down a bunt or late game squeeze play, they simply have what strikeout players don't...and that's hustle. So if you find a player that is ho hum about striking out, he probably doesn't put forth maximum effort in all the other ways to help your team win.
Family, Neighborhood, Community,
make the World a better place.
Are you seriously looking at the greatest hitter of our lifetimes and noticing only how he made his outs? Just, stop.
This is a fruit salad argument full of apples, oranges and a few other fruits, some of them rotten. You'll take Ichiro and Buckner on your team as opposed to who? As opposed to Reggie Jackson or Mike Schmidt? Surely not. As opposed to a crappy player who happens to strike out a lot? Then your point is obvious. And your players, not specifically Ichiro because he was so fast, will ground into many more DPs than the strikeout kings, so you're just wrong about that. And defense? Nobody's talking about defense, and if you've got a Punch and Judy player better defensively than Schmidt... Never mind, you don't.
You're leaving out double plays, and once you account for them it's not 2 to 5 wins, it's not even 0.2 to 0.5 wins; it's rounding error.
You know who makes pitchers throw the most pitches over the course of a game or season? It's the players who take a lot of walks, who are generally the players who strike out a lot.
The best possible lineup would be nine Babe Ruth's; balance isn't necessary or even important. And I enjoyed it, too.
There must be a list out there with current players only on it. That would be interesting to discuss too
Lafayette Grading Set
Ask and ye shall receive.
Dallas, you're not too bright.
I'm saying if Trout wants to improve the way to do it is cut down on strikeouts.
And yes I find fault with him as a hitter, he strikes out way too much.
Yes, he's good but nobody is ever going to compare him to Ted Williams as a hitter.
Wonder why not? Because instead of striking out 150 times per season Ted put the ball in
play. If Trout struck out only 40-50 times per season think we would be hearing the Ted Williams comparisons'?
I think so!
This made me laugh.
And I understand what you're saying, it's just that what you're saying is not too bright.
You have identified a player, Ted Williams, whose skill set is unique in baseball history. I even posted something awhile back, I don't remember which thread, where I had to insert "(except Ted Williams)" several times because he was the single only player in history to have strikeouts in the proportions that he did to several other stats. He is an exception to just about every rule, and he is in a class by himself, literally, in how few times he struck out while still hitting homers and taking walks.
You are looking at the greatest hitter of your lifetime - nobody else is even close - and faulting him because he has not figured out how to be Ted Williams, when nobody else ever has.
ETA: this reminds of the old Steve Martin joke about how to become a millionaire. First, get a million dollars. Now we have Darin's suggestion for how to be a better hitter. First, hit like Ted Williams.
Thanks Dallas, I guess you're the expert.
There is no way possible for Mike Trout to cut down on his 150 K's per year and become even better.
You're welcome.
And I would never say it was impossible, but I'm pretty confident that Trout isn't brain-damaged and won't start screwing with his hitting approach.
Think of it this way. Trout is hitting at the 99.99 percentile; there is a tiny sliver of possible improvement that he could try to achieve with a different approach, but any change he makes is 99.99% more likely to make him worse than to make him better. Maybe the disconnect is that you think Williams was more than a tiny bit better than Trout, but that's all the difference there was (excluding Trout's unknown longevity from the equation). If you're seeing much more than that, you're placing way too much negative value on strikeouts, and paying too little attention to Fenway vs Angel Stadium.
You have one of the greatest hitters in the history of the game playing right before your eyes, and you're missing it.
DiMaggio and Gehrig both had incredibly few strikeouts given their power numbers also. DiMaggio actually had more home runs than strikeouts.
In discussing strikeouts, rather than comparing, say, strikeouts and groundouts, wouldn’t it be fairer to compare making contact with not making contact? Because when you don’t make contact you are always out (barring a walk). But when you make contact, there are other more favorable possibilities. It would seem to me that a batter who successfully cuts down on his strikeouts will likely see an increase in OBP, because some of those strikeouts will be replaced by reaching base in one way or another, not just other types of outs.
You say "(barring a walk)" as an aside as if it isn't absolutely vital to the discussion. Resisting the urge to make contact on pitches that can't be hit hard is one key thing, probably the most important thing, that separates good hitters from bad hitters.
Bill Buckner, for example, struck out only 29 times per 162 games, one of the best ratios ever, and his OBP was a pathetic .321 because he only walked 29 times per 162 games, one of the worst ratios ever. With few exceptions, the hitters who hardly ever strike out do so by "getting the bat on the ball" at seemingly any cost, and don't swing nearly as hard as the good hitters. Gene Tenace struck out 104 times per 162, but he walked 103 times and had an OBP of .388 and outslugged Buckner despite playing in some of the worst hitter's parks his entire career, and Buckner playing in the best hitter's parks. Buckner also ground into twice as many double plays per 162. Asking Tenace to be more like Buckner is asking him to be worse, not better. Asking him to be more like Ted Williams is just silly; I'm sure every player already tries do that to the degree that they're capable.
Williams, Ruth, Foxx and Barry juiceman are the only 4 in the top 10 with 500+ home runs.
I doubt that Barry would have anywhere near the numbers without PEDs.
You completely missed my point.
First, Williams is in a class by himself right off the bat since he has the highest OBP in history.
But what I was really getting at was the general rule that good hitters hit for power, at least to some degree, and with that comes strikeouts. The best hitters hit for more power, and with that comes more strikeouts, and also more walks, and the higher walk totals more than make up for trading Ks for weak grounders. Obviously, this applies to everyone to different degrees, but the degree to which it applies (or rather does not apply) to Williams is so exceptional, it deserves mention when discussing the general rule.
Using OPS+ as a proxy for "best hitter" (I promise the conclusion won't change if you want to use something else), these are the best 20 hitters in baseball history (excluding pre-1920 players who make an apples to oranges comparison), grouped by their BB/K ratio:
0.5 to 1.0 (struck out more than walked)
Dick Allen
Mike Trout
Manny Ramirez
Mark McGwire
Frank Robinson
Willie Mays
1.0 to 1.5
Hank Greenberg
Mickey Mantle
Hank Aaron
Jimmy Foxx
Frank Thomas
1.5 to 2.0
Rogers Hornsby
Babe Ruth
Johnny Mize
Barry Bonds
Mel Ott
Lou Gehrig
2.0 to 2.5
Joe DiMaggio
Stan Musial (2.30)
2.5+
Ted Williams (2.85)
Williams was able to cut down on his strikeouts without giving up his walks or power to a degree that nobody else ever has; he was in a class by himself.
As he stands now, Trout is in the same class as Willie Mays. If Trout starts tinkering with his stance or timing or bat speed is he more likely to get better or to get worse from there? The question really ought to answer itself.
Vlad Guerrero struck out 2.19 times more often than he hit a homer, an astounding ratio. To illustrate how great that is, if he hit 40 homers, he only struck out 88 times. Joe DiMaggio hit 361 homers and struck out only 369 times, an almost impossible ratio of nearly 1:1!
1959-1972 Killebrew was in a different universe as far as HR.
Aaron did hit 3 more HR for the period, but Killebrew missed big chunks of time with injuries in 65 and 68.
Aaron did strike out a LOT less though. Killebrew walked more.