Home run fun?
JoeBanzai
Posts: 11,806 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Here are the numbers of home runs each of the following players would have hit if they would have gotten 12,364 at bats, the same as Aaron.
MacGuire 1165
Ruth 1051
Bonds 958-Through last year
Kiner 876
Killebrew 869
Williams 836
Mantle 818
Foxx 812
Schmidt 811
Greenberg 788
McCovey 786
Gehrig 762
Aaron 755
As a Killebrew fan I always wondered how many he would have hit with as many at bats as Aaron. While I was at it, I figured as many as I could come up with that would have also surpassed Hammerin' Hank. I may have missed someone.
I am not making any claims as to who was a better player, I was just curious. I also am not going to get into the steroids issue here.
Longevity seems to be the way to put up the numbers. Some real surprises here to me, I was especially surprised at Ted Williams' total. He was a STUD!
Comments anyone?
JoeBanzai
MacGuire 1165
Ruth 1051
Bonds 958-Through last year
Kiner 876
Killebrew 869
Williams 836
Mantle 818
Foxx 812
Schmidt 811
Greenberg 788
McCovey 786
Gehrig 762
Aaron 755
As a Killebrew fan I always wondered how many he would have hit with as many at bats as Aaron. While I was at it, I figured as many as I could come up with that would have also surpassed Hammerin' Hank. I may have missed someone.
I am not making any claims as to who was a better player, I was just curious. I also am not going to get into the steroids issue here.
Longevity seems to be the way to put up the numbers. Some real surprises here to me, I was especially surprised at Ted Williams' total. He was a STUD!
Comments anyone?
JoeBanzai
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
0
Comments
but i like the stats you pulled out
Aaron had a near perfect career, he had only one serious injury and didn't miss any time to the military. He was also a better ballplayer than Killebrew and Kiner.
I simply determined the players home runs per at bat and divided it by Aaron's 12364 at bats. Really doesn't PROOVE a thing, except maybe that great players that stay healthy and have long careers put up the biggest numbers. I just like to say "what if".
JB
As Kuhlman said, age plays a huge factor. This topic has been of interest to me...the value of being able to play and hold a job for a long period of time, and playing every day. For instance, Aaron had 235 Home Runs from age 35 on. He also played every day, maybe healthy, maybe hurt.
There is the Ken Phelps, McCovey phenomenon. They bolstered their rates/percentages by avoiding the pitchers that would have made it more difficult to hit. If in fact they would have played against every pitcher thrown at them ala, Aaron, then they simply would not sustain those rates of hitting home runs. McCovey should have about an extra 1,000 at bats in the beginning of his career against LHers...this at a time when he was absolutely abysmal agains them. The last third of his career he sat agains the tough ones as well. Sure he would have more total home runs(but not at the same rate), but his overall production would go down(because total HR isn't the best measure for overall production). It is only during McCovey's prime where he played everyday(even then he would take a handful of games off against the toughies). Ken Phelps is Ken Phelps, the ultimate platoon player.
Playing everyday because of no injuries. Luck plays a factor, sure. But some guys play with some injuries, while others choose to sit with a similar injury. But the ability to stay healthy is a bonus for your team, just like the ability to switch hit. Is it luck that one stays healthy? Partly. But it is also luck that one can throw 99 MPH, as they were the lucky recipients when they were born. Either way, a healthy player is better to have than a non healthy player(who is as good or a tad better), regardless who's fault it was.
But it is very possible that the guys who play everyday are also hurt, and their production suffers as a result. It may not suffer enough to warrant putting a bench guy in(as a Star at 80% is still better than the bench guy), but it could suffer their overall percentages.
The Ted Williams factor. He didn't lose at bats because he couldn't hit as an old man, or because he was brittle, or because he sat against the tougher pitchers. He lost them for a special reason, and it occured during the prime of his career. In this case, the exercise is quite relevant as it is pretty evident he would have done just as good as the years before and after his war years. The same can be said for strike shortened seasons, even though it is partly the players fault...and this in no way compares to WWII misssing time.
The Dick Allen/longevity factor. With the same amount of at bats as Aaron, he checks in at about 687 home runs. The problem is, where and when does he get all those extra at bats? Aaron kept going at age 35 with 235 more home runs, while Allen was washed up at 35. We know Ted Williams would have gotten his extra at bats smack dab in his prime, but Allen would have to tack on about 7 full seasons worth of at bats when he was washed up and not able to hold a job. His rate would plummet. Allen did miss some at bats during seasons due to injury too.
Of course total HR isn't the method that decides which hitter is best, even though it is a remarkable achievement. Some of the hitters on that list were better than Aaron, some not. Then of course, better in the Prime or the long haul Then how many years constitute a prime? Those are debatable ways to determine, and it is fun to do so.
I like to say "What if" as well. What if Mike Schmidt had the same sized population to compete against, and no black or latin players to compete against...as Ruth did. How many teams would he have outhomered in 1980 or 81? Just think, No Eddie Murray, No Dave Winfield, No Pedro Guerrero, No Reggie! Add to it that what if the philosophy of half the league was to slap the ball instead of trying to drive it out of the park, like in Ruth's earlier years?
I like to even things out for players too, as many get a little too much praise, and some not the right amount. Just like your list is bringing light to. There is even more to delve into, and it is interesting, and addicting.
Another of my favorite What if's...What if Mark McGwire had to play his entire career during the pre live ball/expansion era, like he did play in for the first part of his career? Would he have been any different than Darrell Evans???
I agree with much of what you are saying. When I refer to injuries, I am only talking about severe injuries. I believe Aaron broke his ankle in his first season, but I am not sure. Nagging injuries or not, Bad Henry had a minimum of 570 at bats from 1955 till 1968, his prime years. Almost all of these years he was over 600. Compare this to my guy Killebrew, who never had over 577 at bats. The difference from batting third with Ed Matthews behind you and in the four hole as Killer usually batted?
In Killebrew's case he also played three positions and lost at least two "prime" years at the start of his career. Could this have had an effect on his totals? We will never know, but it is fun to kick it around. Killebrew's injuries I was referring to were his dislocated elbow in 1965 and his ruptured hamstring in 1968, nobody plays with this type of injury.
Another surprising stat when comparing Killebrew to Aaron. Despite Aaron's .305 lifetime average vs. Killebrew's .256, Killers on base percentage is a bit higher, and while Killebrew hit homeruns at a faster pace, Aarons SLG percentage is quite a bit better.
What if McCovey was (like Killebrew) put in the lineup against the tough lefties early in his career? Would he have learned how to hit them sooner, or would he have lost his confidence? He had Mays and Cepeda in the lineup, so the decision to bench him against though lefties was an easier one to make.
The home run frequency I used does reflect their ability to hit homeruns during their entire career when they were given the opportunity. I cannot speak to population, the color barrier that existed or steroids, that's simply guessing. I am sure these things would have changed the numbers but by how much?
Ruth may not have benefited as much had he not started as a pitcher, as this was the end of the dead ball era. Killebrew, Kiner and certainly Mantle would have had many more opportunities had the medical practices been as good as they are now....but they weren't. Dick Allen was also a tremendous power hitter, but we are getting down to a shorter time span, most of the players I looked at had longer careers.
I think for most of the list, staying in the lineup would have made the biggest difference.
JB
Joe,
Killer gets disrepected because of his lifetime average, and that is not fair at all. He is much better than most people realize.
I understand what you are saying about the major injuries. I am more referring to the bad back of McGwire, those types of things. That has to be considered part of his skill set, as his skill set was partly attained due to how he built his body, and that is an offshoot of that.
Lineup getting one extra at bats: If a player is on a superior offensive team, and that fact gives him more plate appearances than somebody on a lesser team, that is an unfair advantage for sure.
Killebrew. He did get less at bats due to drawing more walks, so plate apperances, in all fairness should be the judge as opposed to at bats. He did lose some significant time during his prime years in those seasons you mentioned due to injury.
The one point about missing two years at the beginning of his career...can you elaborate more on that? He first got regular playing time at age 23, and hit over 40 home runs. He had limited at bats in parts of five seasons as a youngster, but it didn't look as though he was hitting to the same effectiveness, though with full time at age 22 and 21 he would have done better. Elaborate on those early seasons.
McCovey had poor numbers vs. lefties in that early third of his career, and those don't include how poor his numbers vs. lefties would have been had he faced the toughest ones i.e. he almost always sat against Koufax in that time period, and he never remotely came close to hitting him when he did face him. So his overrall lefties numbers would really be worse in reality. It is possible he could have learned to hit them better quicker, but coupled with the point above, it may even out those two points. He would most likely still have a .205 AVG, and .387 SLG% even if he played and learned.
Being that it is also possible that it could have sent him in a funk, giving him a .205 AVG and .387 SLG% against the toughest lefties(when he did that against the ones he most likely could handle the best), I only see a decline in those numbers vs. LHers, including the possible learning fact.
Staying healthy and being productive over a period of time is what defines a career. I suppose staying healthy is a product of luck, or the fact that some bodies are made better than others. The "what if's" make interesting conversation pieces though.
Steroids, THG, etc. aside, I'm not surprised at all to see McGwire's name at the top of that list. From the 49 home runs he hit as a rookie until the end, that guy hit home runs at an amazing pace.
I'm typing this without looking at any numbers, but one guy I'd like to know the totals for is my guy Junior. The thing with him is purely injuries. Age and longevity are not quite a factor with him because the games that he missed (2002-2005) were in the PRIME of his career. He missed most of his games at the age of 32, 33, 34, 35. A point in his career he should have been MOST productive. Like I said, I haven't looked at any numbers, he started at such a young age he might have as many at bats as most of those guys you mentioned already, but he's the guy I'll say "what if" about forever. "If" he can stay healthy, the possibilities are still endless. He's got about 560 homeruns and about to move into the top 10 all time. He could have a twilight of a career like Bonds or Aaron and still get 700. Whether he gets to 600, 650, 700, etc., I'll still always wonder what could have been had he not missed his prime years.
As far as Aaron goes, I really don't think he gets enough respect. He is the all time home run leader, and he did it by being a consistent player for a long time. THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. He's still overshadowed by Ruth (who was without a doubt the best player in history), and now by Bonds, who may pass him but undeservedly so. But the guy did more than hit home runs. Isn't he third on the all time hit list as well?? How many casual fans know that? Check out all time RBI leaders. He fairs pretty well there too.
Ever get the feeling there's a double edged sword here? People want certain people out of the hall of fame, or don't think they should be in, because they were only great for a period of 10 years. Then they want to downplay people who hang around for 18-22 years and say their stats are inflated because they played too long? How can a guy win?
P.S. How many HR's will everyone's whipping boy Arod have if he gets as many at bats as Aaron? Just curious.
shawn
First and foremost, Aaron was the absolute best hitter from 1954 until 1975 bar none. He was the most productive, consistent hitter of his time.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/a/aaronha01.shtml
That being said, my point was home runs, and how all things being equal (which they never are) the all time home run leaders would be drastically different.
If you look up MacGuire http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mcgwima01.shtml you will se some very wide swings in home run production. He hit over 40 six times in his career as opposed to Killebrews eight times, but 1996-99 he just exploded (pun intended) and then seemed to burn out.
A-rod gets 856 at the pace he has hit them so far, just about Killebrew's projected number. However, you would expect his frequency to drop as he gets to the last few years of his career.
Skinny, Killebrew was signed by the senators in 1954 as a 17 year old high school three sport star. They offered him the astronomical amount of $30,000.00 to sign as he was going to college on a football scholarship. I believe he was a high school All-American.
There was a "bonus baby" rule at the time agreed to by the owners to try to keep them from overspending (Sandy Koufax and Roberto Clemente were BOTH Dodger "Bonus Babys", Clemente was sent to the minors and claimed by Pittsburg) where the major league club had to keep the player on the major league roster for two years or risk the player being claimed by another club (the owners were no smarter then than now). Killebrew's contract at $12,000.00 per year for two years plus the $6,000.00 signing bonus exceeded the amount.
Killebrew sat on the bench for two plus years, and not only that, didn't get to play winter ball because of some more obscure rules. After his initial year with Washington, he couldn't play in Cuba because the Senators had filled their "quota" of players, and after his second season he had too much time on the major league roster to qualify! Amazing.
He finally got a chance to play every day in the minors in 1957 and 1958 and was promoted to the bigs to stay in 1959 when he promptly led the league in home runs.
From that point on he was the most dominating home run hitter for the next 12 years winning or sharing the home run crown 6 times with two seconds and a third place finish thrown in. He would have certainly won in 1965 had he not been injured as he was only 7 off of the lead.
I am certain that Harmon has no regrets. He is a Hall of Fame player and person. I followed his career growing up in Minnesota and have studied his accomplishments closely. I just always felt that he could have easily hit 650 home runs if things would have happened differently, the 869 probably wouldn't have happened, although Boston was the other team that showed interest in him early on, can you imagine what he would have done there? Can you figure that one out for me Skinpinch?
I have met him on several occasions and he is more interested in talking about you than in himself. He is a very nice down to earth person.
JB
P.S. If you don't mind, what's your real name Skinpinch? It seems kind of funny calling you that.
P.P.S. Griffey gets 842 but again that doesn't take into consideration a possible decline in hr frequency at end of career.
Looking at Killebrew's first full season results, and comparing that to ALL similar type hitters and their types of jumps in productions in their early years, a reasonalbe guess can be made as to how many HR's the Killer would have had if he had two more full time seasons, age 21 and 22. This is a little lower on the validity scale, and a pure quick estimate...but I would put a two year total of between 40 to 55 HR's, at age 21 and 22. The only thing that bothers me is why he wasn't in the lineup by age 21 for his team? Managers are often wrong, and often right...his must have seen something to feel he wasn't quite ready to do it yet. I don't know.
I think that 650 estimate isn't out of line, and that is basing it only on not playing early, and not having those injury shortened seasons. That isn't considering any park change. I would have to look into the Fenway angle.
-Brian
Skinpinch was a last name I used to give to people as a joke/alias. I did it to a professor in college one time, and my friends and I always got a kick out of it. We got an even bigger kick when the person would actually repeat the name back after I said it. It is fun seeing how people react to the out of ordinary, and that has been me for quite some time. Three friends and I once missed a test in college because of a road trip. We had to make it up in her small office. While the teacher sat at her desk oblivious, I took the entire test lying on the floor with my pants down. Those days were fun.
My Auctions
Putting together a set of 61 Fleer Basketball PSA 7 or better.
Trade references: T,Raf12,Coach Vinny,Iceman,McDee2,Lantz,JSA
<< <i>No one stopped them from getting more at bats--their skills faded--longevity is always a key factor in alltime records. >>
Uh, I think Ted Williams would have had more at-bats it he wasn't taking time off to be a war hero in WWII and Korea.
Thanks
Thome - 898 (Through last years numbers)
Pujols - 841
Griffey - 842
ARod - 856
My Auctions
Putting together a set of 61 Fleer Basketball PSA 7 or better.
Trade references: T,Raf12,Coach Vinny,Iceman,McDee2,Lantz,JSA
Give him just ten years with 35 more at bats per year and he is at 600 hrs....plus he hits 50 two or three times and 40 once more.
Brian, Killebrew was a below average fielder at first and if you read his biography, you will see that the Senators were reluctant to put him in the field. I don't know why, they had terrible teams and it slowed his development. He spent the years 17-20 with the Senators on the bench getting into games in the late innings or a rare start.
What surprises me is they not only let him sit on the bench, they didn't make sure he got to play winter ball. They invested a lot of money in him, and really didn't make sure he got playing time. He certainly excelled as soon as he had the opportunity.
I remember seeing a graph comparing the 500 home run club and MOST really ramped up their hr totals quickly. Who knows how many he would have hit if he could have gone straight into the minors and played every day?
The other guy that could have put up better numbers (other than Williams) is Mantle, he admitted in one of his books that he never really rehabbed beyond getting back in the lineup. He missed a lot of prime at bats hurt, how much better could he have been if he took better care of himself?
JB
The one thing about getting less at bats batting 4th as opposed to third...is that for each slot in the batting order it is approximately 15 at bats per season. So a lead off man would typically get 45 more at bats than the clean up man. I don't remember if 15 is the exact number, but looking at the splits real quick, that looks to be pretty close.
I also agree about Mantle. He was head and shoulders above anyone at the plate during his prime, including Aaaron and Mays. The man had a bad leg from that incident, and it cost him games during his career, and certainly cut short his career.
Those early years when he sat on the bench was because (IMO ) he was not ready for Maj leagues yet. I mean how many 17, 18 and 19 year olds start in the big leagues. i agree he was a victim of the system but i just do not agree that he lost 1500 at bats those first 3 years. If that is even what you are saying. I can say that being on the roster though had to help him acclimate to the rigors of playing pro ball nontheless. NO?
i also have met killer 2x and you can not meet a more down to earth person. great guy.
Steve
Please re read my post on Killebrew's "lost" at bats. I clearly stated that he missed them over a 10-12 year period during the prime years of his career and some at bats in 1957 and 1958, three years after he was drafted.
IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL.
It just happens to be a fact that his early career had some challenges that I feel hindered his ability to hit quite a few more home runs. I may have overestimated the possible at bats, I was taking an educated guess.
We certainly agree on the fact that he is a great guy!
JB
Great thread! I was replying to skips assertion that killer lost at bats those 1st 3 yrs. I was not sure what he meant exactly. I thought he meant mal league atbats. thus my question 'how many atbats would a 19 yr old get'?
I think, and this is just my opinion that we over estimate what a 17 -19 yr old can do at the maj league level. I also think that (and I am not sure) that the manager played who he felt was the best at the time. A vereran or a 17 year old wonderkid? More harm could have been done by playing him (loss of confidence) ala david clyde, thus that could be a reason he sat those years. In any event just sitting at the maj league level has to prepare one for the rigors of playing pro ball no?
I am not sure why MLB had the rule that forced killer to stay on the roster but I can only speculate that they at the time thought it would help?
In closing I agree of almost all the pro athletes I ever met killer was the most down to earth guy, a true gentlemen.
Steve
i agree
steve
It kind of goes full circle on the question of how playing in the Majors at 17 would have effected Killebrew, it might have destroyed his confidence, similar to my point on McCovey hitting against lefties.
I believe that one of the differences between hall-of-famers and the rest of the ballplayers is the hall-of-famers find a way to excel despite the challenges.
Funny you should mention David Clyde. In his book "The Umpire Strikes Back" Ron Luciano discusses David, and didn't feel he had the talent to be the superstar he was touted to be.
I want to thank everyone for their opinions and I am happy that we don't want each other to die!
JB
MLB didn't have the "Bonus Baby" rule per se. The owners agreed to it to try to hold down the bonuses that were being paid to young players, in effect punishing themselves for overspending.
This was before the rule against collusion. It didn't work then and like the salary cap, it doesn't work now. Owners are going to pay what they want. As I noted before, Koufax and Clemente were "Bonus Babies" with the Dodgers, Clemente got sent down and then claimed by the Pirates, and Koufax, like Killebrew was underused for the first couple of years. I think you will see a parallel between Killers and Koufax's numbers. Put Koufax in for a couple of more years before his arm was too hurt to continue and he might have put up even more dominating numbers. You never know.
My point on the lack of use in the first few years is simply because those were times these players needed to be learning by doing. I absolutely believe that hurts a players development. Playing in the Majors before they were ready would not be the way to do it either, but that was the only choice here, other than risking losing the prospect. The geniuses that ran the club should have found a way to get these players some playing time without throwing them to the wolves.
Does anyone know how we got the collusion rule? Here's a hint; Koufax was involved.
JB
1051 home runs based on 12,364 at bats.
JB
Ruth's legacy is better off that he was a pitcher anyway... heck, he was the equivalent to a Mike Mussina for his years as a full time pitcher, and would have won one Cy Young award.
The thing about Koufax early on though is that he wasn't quite as effective as Killebrew was early on.
JB
Putting together a set of 61 Fleer Basketball PSA 7 or better.
Trade references: T,Raf12,Coach Vinny,Iceman,McDee2,Lantz,JSA
<< <i>Thome - 898 (Through last years numbers)
Pujols - 841
Griffey - 842
ARod - 856 >>
Wow, I think Thome is quickly becoming one of the biggest underrated players of all time. I see these HR discussions a lot on here and Thome's name is almost never in the mix. That's a pretty impressive number amongst the all time greats with very little recognition.
What caught my attention was how incredibly quick he got the bat through the hitting zone.
I have kept track of him ever since, he is a great power hitter. Nice stretch of 5 straight years with 100 runs 100 rbi and 100 walks while averaging 43 hrs from 1999-2003!
I was hoping the Twins would try to get him, I don't like to see him in a White Sox uniform. First we had to have him hurt us with the Indians now the Sox.
He also seems to be a class act.
Joe