How exactly is the HOME RUN KING determined
gil
Posts: 988
It would seem to me that to break any record you have to BEAT all the data associated with that record. If the number of home runs is all that matters that's fine. If a true record is to be broken it should BEAT the data of the previous record holder. The others have not beat the number of at bats to drive in the runs that beat Ruths record. If Ruth had 12k plus at bats as Aaron did. I'm sure he would have hit way above 714.
To BEAT ruths record they should have had less ganes played and less AB and More HR. It's like me bowling a 300 game in 25 frames vs. the 10 it took the guy to get a legit 300 game. (more chances to achieve the same goal) loose analogy but you get the idea.
PLAYER NAME GAMES AB HR
Babe Ruth 2503 8398 714
Hank Aaron 3298 12364 755
Barry Bonds 2941 9726 751
data from www.baseball-reference.com
To BEAT ruths record they should have had less ganes played and less AB and More HR. It's like me bowling a 300 game in 25 frames vs. the 10 it took the guy to get a legit 300 game. (more chances to achieve the same goal) loose analogy but you get the idea.
PLAYER NAME GAMES AB HR
Babe Ruth 2503 8398 714
Hank Aaron 3298 12364 755
Barry Bonds 2941 9726 751
data from www.baseball-reference.com
0
Comments
Steve
you take the HRs hit by a player any given year and divide that by the # of HR's hit in the League that year....this takes into account juiced balls, smaller parks, expansion and anything else that makes it hard to compare HR hitters from a different decade...if it was easier for one player to hit HR's in a given year (1997-2000), it is just as easy for another player the same...just cause a player hit more HRs one year, their HR % may be lower that year if the rest of the league had a HR spike....
you would then have a percentage number that could be added to obtain a players lifetime % HR vs peers....
for instance, if baroid hit 73 HR's and the league hit 7300, his percentage that year was 1%
when Ruth hit 60, the league hit 600, so his percentage would be 10% for that year....add up all Ruth's years and he may be at 88%, bonds would be at 10%......
by doing this , you can determine the true HR KING, and not the person who played for the longest time......
final#s achieved, every gereration has had diff champs, and every generation has had the game changes with more games,more teams,bigger stadiums,diff rules/ect...the differences btween the gen's is alot,when ruth broke the hr record in 1921 it was only 128 i believe it was lol,and he kinda smushed it by a long shot!!
randy
/s/ JackWESQ
If you want to factor at-bats into the equation, then you've got the "fewest at-bats per home run" stat, of which Mark McGwire is the all time leader.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
Unless every hitter in question played in exactly the same circumstances in every possible way (cosmic issues like time and space included), how can you truly compare anything about them? What are you comparing? You're comparing one set of uniquely created numbers against another. That comparison means as much or as little as you want it to. Therefore, it means nothing. The "Homerun King" can be whoever you want it to be, depending on how you define it in your own head. If there was a universal definition, then we can all get to work quantifying it mathematically/numerically, devoid of emotion and opinion. But if we did that, there would be less discussion about it in the sports media.....and no one wants the discussion to end.
the rube
Well, I guess it is just a shame that Hank Aaron will be completely forgotten after Bonds breaks his HR record.
Collector of Pittsburgh Pirates cards for a slightly less stupid reason.
My Pirates Collection
<< <i>on a similar note, i proposed a new HR measure, one that would rate the dominance of a player relative to their own era....and you can see by this measure that Ruth was BY FAR the most dominant HR hitter.....
you take the HRs hit by a player any given year and divide that by the # of HR's hit in the League that year....this takes into account juiced balls, smaller parks, expansion and anything else that makes it hard to compare HR hitters from a different decade...if it was easier for one player to hit HR's in a given year (1997-2000), it is just as easy for another player the same...just cause a player hit more HRs one year, their HR % may be lower that year if the rest of the league had a HR spike....
you would then have a percentage number that could be added to obtain a players lifetime % HR vs peers....
for instance, if baroid hit 73 HR's and the league hit 7300, his percentage that year was 1%
when Ruth hit 60, the league hit 600, so his percentage would be 10% for that year....add up all Ruth's years and he may be at 88%, bonds would be at 10%......
by doing this , you can determine the true HR KING, and not the person who played for the longest time...... >>
There were less teams when Ruth played, so less players, so less HRs, so Ruth's % would be artificially inflated and incomparable to Bonds's.
Looking for Jonny Gomes cards, especially Triple Threads and printing plates. Will consider all cards, though. Got something? Contact me at c_u_l_1@yahoo.com
What matters now is, what is and not what should or could be .
Although I completely understand with what yer sayin Mr. Gil and I agree too, Give Ruth the same # of at bats and Ruth still holds the record to this day .
Man , How huge would that be ??
I'm hoping A-Rod don't hit his 500th until Wednesday when I am at the game , I hope he don't hit it Tuesday .
I'll tell ya what , I was thinking I was going to wittness history yesterday , A-Rod got to the plate twice with the bases loaded , Nobody has ever hit their 500th homer with a grand slam .
I'm rooting for A-rod to break the HR record BTW
Break it wide open .
Matter of fact, did anyone hear when a reporter asked Barry Bonds if he thought A-Rod was a better hitter than him , Barry said "Absolutely not "
Oh ho ho ho ho ho ho . . . . Classic Barry Bonds
randy
You sound a bit moronic, or someone not very deep into the sport. You can't fault someone for having longevity and playing in the game a long time. That evidence stamina and durability, something that the vast majority of major leaguers lack.