Mike Piazza becomes 41st player to hit 400 homers, Rank them!

[Sockeye]

Mike Piazza became the 41st player to hit 400 career home runs. That got me to thinking. Rank the 41 players with 400 career home runs in order from best to worst.

[538280]

Here are the players:


. Hank Aaron+ 755 R
2. Babe Ruth+* 714 L
3. Barry Bonds* (40) 708 L
4. Willie Mays+ 660 R
5. Sammy Sosa (36) 588 R
6. Frank Robinson+ 586 R
7. Mark McGwire 583 R
8. Harmon Killebrew+ 573 R
9. Rafael Palmeiro* (40) 569 L
10. Reggie Jackson+* 563 L
11. Mike Schmidt+ 548 R
12. Ken Griffey* (35) 536 L
Mickey Mantle+# 536 B
14. Jimmie Foxx+ 534 R
15. Willie McCovey+* 521 L
Ted Williams+* 521 L
17. Ernie Banks+ 512 R
Eddie Mathews+* 512 L
19. Mel Ott+* 511 L
20. Eddie Murray+# 504 B
Rank Player (age) Home Runs Bats
21. Lou Gehrig+* 493 L
Fred McGriff* 493 L
23. Stan Musial+* 475 L
Willie Stargell+* 475 L
25. Dave Winfield+ 465 R
26. Jose Canseco 462 R
27. Carl Yastrzemski+* 452 L
28. Jeff Bagwell (37) 449 R
Gary Sheffield (36) 449 R
30. Frank Thomas (37) 448 R
31. Dave Kingman 442 R
32. Andre Dawson 438 R
33. Manny Ramirez (33) 435 R
34. Juan Gonzalez (35) 434 R
35. Cal Ripken 431 R
36. Jim Thome* (34) 430 L
37. Alex Rodriguez (29) 429 R
38. Billy Williams+* 426 L
39. Darrell Evans* 414 L
40. Duke Snider+* 407 L
41. Mike Piazza 400 R

I'd rank them like this:

1.Mays
2.Ruth
3.Bonds
4.Aaron
5.Schmidt
6.Mantle
7.T.Williams
8.Musial
9.Gehrig
10.F.Robinson
11.Mathews
12.R.Jackson
13.Rodriguez
14.Foxx
15.F.Thomas
16.Bagwell
17.Ott
18.McCovey
19.Sheffield
20.Piazza
21.Ripken
22.Yastrzemski
23.Stargell
24.Murray
25.Killebrew
26.B.Williams
27.Griffey
28.Winfield
29.Snider
30.Evans
31.Banks
32.McGwire
33.McGriff
34.Ramirez
35.Thome
36.Dawson
37.Palmeiro
38.Sosa
39.Canseco
40.Gonzalez
41.Kingman

[redbuck]

Here are the players:


. Hank Aaron+ 755 R
2. Babe Ruth+* 714 L
3. Barry Bonds* (40) 708 L
4. Willie Mays+ 660 R
5. Sammy Sosa (36) 588 R
6. Frank Robinson+ 586 R
7. Mark McGwire 583 R
8. Harmon Killebrew+ 573 R
9. Rafael Palmeiro* (40) 569 L
10. Reggie Jackson+* 563 L
11. Mike Schmidt+ 548 R
12. Ken Griffey* (35) 536 L
Mickey Mantle+# 536 B
14. Jimmie Foxx+ 534 R
15. Willie McCovey+* 521 L
Ted Williams+* 521 L
17. Ernie Banks+ 512 R
Eddie Mathews+* 512 L
19. Mel Ott+* 511 L
20. Eddie Murray+# 504 B
Rank Player (age) Home Runs Bats
21. Lou Gehrig+* 493 L
Fred McGriff* 493 L
23. Stan Musial+* 475 L
Willie Stargell+* 475 L
25. Dave Winfield+ 465 R
26. Jose Canseco 462 R
27. Carl Yastrzemski+* 452 L
28. Jeff Bagwell (37) 449 R
Gary Sheffield (36) 449 R
30. Frank Thomas (37) 448 R
31. Dave Kingman 442 R
32. Andre Dawson 438 R
33. Manny Ramirez (33) 435 R
34. Juan Gonzalez (35) 434 R
35. Cal Ripken 431 R
36. Jim Thome* (34) 430 L
37. Alex Rodriguez (29) 429 R
38. Billy Williams+* 426 L
39. Darrell Evans* 414 L
40. Duke Snider+* 407 L
41. Mike Piazza 400 R

I'd rank them like this:

1.Mays
2.Ruth
3.Bonds
4.Aaron
5.Schmidt
6.Mantle
7.T.Williams
8.Musial
9.Gehrig
10.F.Robinson
11.Mathews
12.R.Jackson
13.Rodriguez
14.Foxx
15.F.Thomas
16.Bagwell
17.Ott
18.McCovey
19.Sheffield
20.Piazza
21.Ripken
22.Yastrzemski
23.Stargell
24.Murray
25.Killebrew
26.B.Williams
27.Griffey
28.Winfield
29.Snider
30.Evans
31.Banks
32.McGwire
33.McGriff
34.Ramirez
35.Thome
36.Dawson
37.Palmeiro
38.Sosa
39.Canseco
40.Gonzalez
41.Kingman

I'd rank Ruth ahead of Mays. As much as I like Mays, Ruth's stats are superior in nearly every way. While Ruth did not play with relief pitchers, didn't' play night games and played in a power packed lineup, Mays had the advantage of playing in a hitter's park for the beginning of his career. Ruth dominated his competition.

Surprisingly, my studies have actually occasionally put Aaron above Mays although I don't personally agree with that.

Ted Williams should be around #2 and I would definitely have both Mantle and Gehrig above Mike Schmidt. Frank Thomas should also be higher.

Just some thoughts. Good list though.

[yankillaz]

1.Ruth
2.Williams
3.Gehrig
4.Foxx
5.Aaron
6.Mays
7.Musial
8.Mantle
9.Schmidt
10.Robinson
11.Rodriguez
12.Jackson
13.Ramirez
14.Griffey Jr
15.Ott
16.Mathews
17.McCovey
18.Killebrew
19.Piazza
20.Yastrezmski
21.Murray
22.Banks
23.Ripken
24.Stargell
25.Winfield
26.Snider
27.Williams
28.Thome
29.Kingman
30.Evans
31.Mcgriff
32.Dawson
33.Thomas
34.Bagwell
35.Gonzalez
36.Sheffield
37.McGwire
38.Bonds
39.Sosa
40.Palmeiro
41.Canseco


I placed the roid guys in last, just because. I don't get how u guys can place Bonds so high, and others like Sammy and Palmeiro so low. Just don't understand.

[538280]

1.Ruth
2.Williams
3.Gehrig
4.Foxx
5.Aaron
6.Mays


Foxx ahead of Aaron and Mays??!!?? (and not to mention Mantle, Musial, and Schmidt?) :confused:

BTW, thanks for switching to the regular font. :)

[538280]

I'd rank Ruth ahead of Mays. As much as I like Mays, Ruth's stats are superior in nearly every way. While Ruth did not play with relief pitchers, didn't' play night games and played in a power packed lineup, Mays had the advantage of playing in a hitter's park for the beginning of his career. Ruth dominated his competition.

Surprisingly, my studies have actually occasionally put Aaron above Mays although I don't personally agree with that.

I used to have Ruth above Mays, but since I've switched and I now have Willie as my #1 guy of all time (Ruth #2). There were two reasons for that:

1.I came up with a rating system, which I think fairly represents my thoughts on players (it is explaned here (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=437569&postcount=1)), and it came out with Mays ahead of Ruth by a pretty good margin (about 10 points). I don't use that rating system as the be all end all, far from it, but I do listen to what it tells me and it is a big part of why players rate where they rate to me.

2.I read some of Mark's arguments for Mays, and I think they're very convincing really. I agree with Mark on most things, and he spelled it out perfectly as to why Mays is better than Ruth. I agreed with his thinking process, and my rating system probably was picking up on what he said. So, now I have Willie #1 all time, and I have for quite some time now

[DoubleX]

Anyone feel for the 390+ guys who were just a season or a little better health away?

399 - Al Kaline, Andres Galarraga
398 - Dale Murphy
396 - Joe Carter
390 - Graig Nettles

389 - Johnny Bench
385 - Dwight Evans
384 - Harold Baines
383 - Larry Walker
382 - Frank Howard, Jim Rice
381 - Albert Belle

Carlos Delgado appears to be the next to join the 400 club. He needs just 22 more.

[Taco De Muerte]

Mays had the advantage of playing in a hitter's park for the beginning of his career. Ruth dominated his competition.


Doesn't matter - He didn't benefit from it. His career splits are almost indentical.

Willie Mays
Home: .302/335/932
Road: .301/325/971

[538280]

Doesn't matter - He didn't benefit from it. His career splits are almost indentical.

Willie Mays
Home: .302/335/932
Road: .301/325/971

That's over his whole career, redbuck's comment was just about Mays' early years in the Polo Grounds, when Mays may or may not have benifited, I'm not sure. I don't think Mays got much benefit from his home park, because A)He played most of his career in a tough hitting park, Candlestick, and B)Mays doesn't strike me as the type of hitter the Polo Grouds would really help all that much. He was a complete hitter, not a Mel Ott-ish type that just tries to pull pitches down the line for "Chinese" home runs.

[leecemark]

1) Mays
2) Ruth
3) Aaron
4) T. Williams
5) Schmidt
6) Mantle
7) Musial
8) Bonds
9) Gehrig
10) Robinson
11) Rodriguez
12) Foxx
13) Mathews
14) Yaz
15) Piazza
16) Jackson
17) Ott
18) Ripken
19) Griffey
20) Snider
21) Killebrew
22) McCovey
23) Murray
24) Bagwell
25) Thomas
26) Banks
27) Stargell
28) Winfield
29) Ramirez
30) Sosa
31) McGwire
32) B.Williams
33) Sheffield
34) Dawson
35) McGriff
36) Palmeiro
37) Evans
38) Thome
39) Gonzalez
40) Canseco
41) Kingman
--I'd endorse thru number 36 for the Hall of Fame.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

How does anyone rank higher than Ruth in home runs, as a home run hitter, not the most but the most proficient at hitting them out.
He has the second best AB/HR ratio.
He is one of only 3 hitters with 700.
He hit 40 or more 11 times, more than anyone else.
He has the most home runs per 100 outs.
He has the most home runs per 100 plate appearances.
He had 72 multiple home run games, more than any hitter.

I suppose now we hear how he played in an era where the quality all around was not that good. First of all, that debate goes on for all time. Ruth had some things going for him and so did hitters from all era's.


If you think that he had it all going for him consider this.... look where he ranks in those home run stats above and then consider after 6 seasons he had only 49 career home runs. Take a look, see what Aaron, Mays, McGwire, Bonds had after their first 6 seasons, who gets the spot here. Ruth's 49 career home runs was way, way behind those hitters and look where he finished.

What is Harmon killebrew doing so far down on some lists. This guy was shuttled back and forth between MLB and the minors his first 5 seasons and had only 11 home runs 5 years after he signed his MLB contract. He has one the better AB/HR ratios and was high on the list in career home runs until the 1990s home run derby exploded. He is also high on the career list, AB/HR, HR/100 outs, HR/100 PA and he is third in home run percentage, behind only Ruth and Bonds.

[redbuck]

Mays certainly played in a tough park in Candlestick. Ruth played in Yankee stadium...with 1920s equipment.

According to my "five tool" formula that I often discuss here, Ruth has a z of 1.73 while Mays is not quite 1.0. Mays would certainly benefit from better measures of fielding that I have not yet invested time to accumulate. I have adjusted fielding factors by average number for position based on win shares and have used a couple other stats like fielding % but haven't invested in a full analysis. I doubt that would have made up for the whole difference though.

Mays' OBP z is 1.66. Ruth's is 3.9.
Mays' SLG z is 2.41. Ruth's is 4.8
May's RC z is 1.7. Ruth's is 3.75.

These are the areas where Ruth gets his biggest advantage. All are ballpark adjusted and further adjustment is done for differences between eras (e.g. night game difference, racial inclusion, etc.)

Mays is a slightly better offensive runner but not by the margin I would have expected. His speed benefitted him on defense, though.

Of course, he couldn't pitch.

Just a side story, don't know why it came to mind:

1927, Ruth pitched one game, gave up seven runs to blow a 7-0 lead in the top of the 9th. In the bottom of the inning he hit a home run and got the win over the Tigers 8-7. Waite Hoyt, the starter who went 8 innings and didn't allow a run, was furious.

[Sockeye]

1. Ruth
2. Bonds
3. Aaron
4. Mays
5. Gehrig
6. Musial
7. Foxx
8. T.Williams
9. Robinson
10. Ott
11. Yastrzemski
12. Mantle
13. Palmeiro
14. Winfield
15. Murray
16. Bagwell
17. Griffey Jr
18. Jackson
19. Schmidt
20. Dawson
21. Sosa
22. Sheffield
23. Thomas
24. Ripken Jr
25. B.Williams
26. McGriff
27. Rodriguez
28. Mathews
29. Banks
30. Ramirez
31. Snider
32. Stargell
33. McCovey
34. Killebrew
35. McGwire
36. Gonzalez
37. Thome
38. Piazza
39. Canseco
40. Evans
41. Kingman

[Taco De Muerte]

That's over his whole career, redbuck's comment was just about Mays' early years in the Polo Grounds, when Mays may or may not have benifited, I'm not sure. I don't think Mays got much benefit from his home park

I see - I'll try to find his splits for those seasons, it may take a little time though.


because A)He played most of his career in a tough hitting park, Candlestick

How tough was it though ?

Tough enough to hurt his HR totals like many of his supporters tend to believe ?

I don't know if you believe that - but just in case, I'll post this neyer article.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1374309.html

[Sultan_1895-1948]

for differences between eras (e.g. night game difference, racial inclusion, etc.)



The racial thing is another topic altogether, I think the best of the best wouldn't be affected at all, but Buck, what exactly is difficult about playing night games? Most hitters see the ball better at night, and with the perfect hitters backdrops, it's ideal for hitters. Back in Ruth's day, opposing fans would purposely wear white shirts in the outfield seats to distract the hitter. Also, you could start by making an adjustment for the cramped, bumpy train trips, the inferior injury prevention/rehab technology, rocky infields, paper thin cleats, no batting gloves, no helmets, no triple dipped rock hard bats, bigger strike zone, absence of various luxuries, etc, etc,....

[KingJ]

383 - Larry Walker


Walker probably could've gotten a job to hit 17 more HRs if he wanted to. His fielding wasn't half-bad last year in RF, he can also play 1B, and I'm sure there were a few teams that would've taken him for a decent 1yr contract (STL, COL, CIN, OAK, FLA, LAA, maybe NYY)

[leecemark]

--Shoeless Joe, I don't think we are ranking these guys just as HR hitters (at least I wasn't), but as players.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

The racial thing is another topic altogether, I think the best of the best wouldn't be affected at all, but Buck, what exactly is difficult about playing night games? Most hitters see the ball better at night, and with the perfect hitters backdrops, it's ideal for hitters. Back in Ruth's day, opposing fans would purposely wear white shirts in the outfield seats to distract the hitter. Also, you could start by making an adjustment for the cramped, bumpy train trips, the inferior injury prevention/rehab technology, rocky infields, paper thin cleats, no batting gloves, no helmets, no triple dipped rock hard bats, bigger strike zone, absence of various luxuries, etc, etc,....

The problem here is, many handed down storys. This one has been around for years and has gotten legs, too many just accept it. How about looking into it. Were not talking about playing night games in the dark. I did look into it, it's not like night and day guys, there is not much difference overall.

The only fact that may skew the numbers a bit is that there is a far greater number of night games, many more at bats at night. If anything the numbers will be skewed so as to make the day averages higher since there are fewer at bats during the day.

Just a small sample from the season of 2005.
Yanks--------- Ba. day--.274----night .274
Giants---------Ba. day--.262---night .261
Bosox---------Ba. day---.293---night .275
Pitts-----------Ba. day---.244---night .266
Philly----------Ba. day---.270---night .269
St. Louis------Ba. day---.267---night .272
Cinci----------Ba. day---.267---night .258
White Sox----Ba. day---.247---night .270
Dodgers------Ba. day---.246---night .256

I picked these teams and that season at random. I would suspect if all teams were displayed you would get the same results. Can we put this old story to sleep, it's not true. As far as the hitters "picking up, seeing the ball", the night time does not seem to put them at any disadvantage.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

--Shoeless Joe, I don't think we are ranking these guys just as HR hitters (at least I wasn't), but as players.

Sorry, maybe I missed something important, like the subject matter. Well in that case just dismiss that post. I think my other post day/night fits in.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

The problem here is, many handed down storys. This one has been around for years and has gotten legs, too many just accept it. How about looking into it. Were not talking about playing night games in the dark. I did look into it, it's not like night and day guys, there is not much difference overall.

The only fact that may skew the numbers a bit is that there is a far greater number of night games, many more at bats at night. If anything the numbers will be skewed so as to make the day averages higher since there are fewer at bats during the day.

Just a small sample from the season of 2005.
Yanks--------- Ba. day--.274----night .274
Giants---------Ba. day--.262---night .261
Bosox---------Ba. day---.293---night .275
Pitts-----------Ba. day---.244---night .266
Philly----------Ba. day---.270---night .269
St. Louis------Ba. day---.267---night .272
Cinci----------Ba. day---.267---night .258
White Sox----Ba. day---.247---night .270
Dodgers------Ba. day---.246---night .256

I picked these teams and that season at random. I would suspect if all teams were displayed you would get the same results. Can we put this old story to sleep, it's not true. As far as the hitters "picking up, seeing the ball", the night time does not seem to put them at any disadvantage.

Thanks for doing that legwork Joe, but that's clearly a "no brainer." Didn't need numbers to back up that it's irrelevant. Everyone on my team, and most every player I've ever come in contact with loves playing under the light, and we don't even have the specialized hitters backdrops. Not to sound corny, but playing under the lights is a unique feeling. Gives you more energy, gets you more pumped for the game; there's nothing like it. The only thing I could see having to do with night games, are day games directly after a night game. But even that; players have all the best of every luxury now, and any disadvantage that brings is offset and then some by older eras having to play multiple double headers and exhibition games on their off days imo. Again, thanks for looking up the numbers.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Thanks for doing that legwork Joe, but that's clearly a "no brainer." Didn't need numbers to back up that it's irrelevant. Everyone on my team, and most every player I've ever come in contact with loves playing under the light, and we don't even have the specialized hitters backdrops. Not to sound corny, but playing under the lights is a unique feeling. Gives you more energy, gets you more pumped for the game; there's nothing like it. The only thing I could see having to do with night games, are day games directly after a night game. But even that; players have all the best of every luxury now, and any disadvantage that brings is offset and then some by older eras having to play multiple double headers and exhibition games on their off days imo. Again, thanks for looking up the numbers.

I posted the same a few year ago on another board, I believe from the year 2002 and the result was the same as my latest from 2005. No indication that there was much difference in hitters seeing the ball and as we can see some teams hit for a higher average at night.

BTW, a poll back in the 1970s showed that a higher percentage of players also preferred playing at night, cooler not as draining as playing in the heat of day under a hot Sun.

[yankillaz]

I agree with Shoelessjoe3 with the fact that Harmon Killebrew was high on everyone's list, but the fact is that i think that all the other players ahead of him will finish above him in homerun totals, or could've, if given the same amount of seasons played. The only three players i can reconsider placing behind were Stan the Man, Ott and McCovey.

I have to apologize for placing Stan Musial so high on the list, because my list is not intended to organize the players considering their all-around quality, no, but the humane ability to go over the fence consistently, depending on their time frames, the position, and their "natural" habilities.

Since these are mi reasons, i place Foxx above Mays and Aaron, because i consider him a superior slugger than the latter. Now, with my modified list:

1.Ruth
2.Williams
3.Gehrig
4.Foxx
5.Aaron
6.Mays
7.Mantle
8.Schmidt
9.Robinson
10.Rodriguez
11.Jackson
12.Ramirez
13.Griffey Jr
14.Killebrew
15.Ott
16.Mathews
17.McCovey
18.Banks
19.Piazza
20.Musial
21.Yastrezmski
22.Murray
23.Ripken
24.Stargell
25.Winfield
26.Snider
27.Williams
28.Thome
29.Kingman
30.Evans
31.Mcgriff
32.Dawson
33.Thomas
34.Bagwell
35.Gonzalez
36.Sheffield
37.McGwire
38.Bonds
39.Sosa
40.Palmeiro
41.Canseco

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I agree with Shoelessjoe3 with the fact that Harmon Killebrew was high on everyone's list, but the fact is that i think that all the other players ahead of him will finish above him in homerun totals, or could've, if given the same amount of seasons played. The only three players i can reconsider placing behind were Stan the Man, Ott and McCovey.


It was ponted out to me by another poster that the lists posted was not based on the following, home runs alone and other stats, such as AB/HR--Home run %--home runs per 100 outs and home runs per 100 plate appearances. In other words, home run proficiency and consistency, but rather all around hitting. If it were for home run proficency alone for sure Harmon would have to place higher on the list.

Pehaps whan I saw the heading "400 home runs, rank them" I thought the list was based on home run proficiency, I guess I misunderstood the theme of the thread.

[Metal Ed]

The racial thing is another topic altogether, I think the best of the best wouldn't be affected at all, but Buck, what exactly is difficult about playing night games? Most hitters see the ball better at night, and with the perfect hitters backdrops, it's ideal for hitters. Back in Ruth's day, opposing fans would purposely wear white shirts in the outfield seats to distract the hitter. Also, you could start by making an adjustment for the cramped, bumpy train trips, the inferior injury prevention/rehab technology, rocky infields, paper thin cleats, no batting gloves, no helmets, no triple dipped rock hard bats, bigger strike zone, absence of various luxuries, etc, etc,....


I think you're getting your eras mixed up. Mays played in the 50's and 60's, not the 90's. Are you actually suggesting that Mays' era had triple dipped rock hard bats and a smaller strike zone than Ruth's? That's not true; the sixties had the larger strike zone, until 1968. And batting gloves? Not sure how those really help, particularly in the case of Mays, who I've never seen wearing gloves, in any photo or movie. I am also wondering how the buses of May's 50's were a significant improvement over the trains of Ruth's day. If they were, I fail to see the relevance since the well-rested pitchers that threw to Mays also rode in these luxurious buses, and the road-weary pitchers that Ruth faced were riding around in bumpy, cramped trains.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

[QUOTE I am also wondering how the buses of May's 50's were a significant improvement over the trains of Ruth's day.

If they were, I fail to see the relevance since the well-rested pitchers that threw to Mays also rode in these luxurious buses, and the road-weary pitchers that Ruth faced were riding around in bumpy, cramped trains.[/QUOTE]


I would think busses from the 1950's were a better way to travel than by train, not by much. Trains with no air conditioning and unlike busses trains would make number of stops at small stations. Mays did not travel by bus his whole career. Lets just toss this one aside, maybe one way to travel had it over the other but not by much.

Your second paragraph I can go with, we have to consider that the pitchers were also traveling under the same conditions as the hitters, in all era's. One exception could be when a pitcher does not pitch the game on the same day they arrive in an away park. He can have a day or two to rest from the trip, the hitters do not since they play every day.

I imagine it took the biggest toll in Ruth's day when you had to be the starting pitcher in the first game upon arriving in town.

[538280]

How tough was it though ?

Tough enough to hurt his HR totals like many of his supporters tend to believe ?

I don't know if you believe that - but just in case, I'll post this neyer article.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/neyer_rob/1374309.html

I don't think Candlestick was a horrible HR park, but I do think it wasn't a very good one, and considering Mays played much, much more time there I'd say his total HR advantage evens out.

I don't like relying much on home/road splits, though, unless it's a special case where the player in question would certainly benefit more than the average player. Generally, I like to use park factors for offensive events, and also taking into account handedness. There is a Kevin Johnson database I have that has park factors for singles, doubles, triples, and home runs for RH and LH batters. That's my favorite way to do park adjustments, because it is the most accurate. Home/Road splits can be misleading because A)Smart hitters try to adjust their approach to the park they play in, and B)Some players just always do much better at home, becuase of the familiarity factor (being at home, getting a better sleep, preparation, etc.) and perhaps even the crowd has something to do with it.

Let's not forget too, Ruth's best seasons were in the Polo Grounds.

[Metal Ed]

I would think busses from the 1950's were a better way to travel than by train, not by much. Trains with no air conditioning and unlike busses trains would make number of stops at small stations. Mays did not travel by bus his whole career. Lets just toss this one aside, maybe one way to travel had it over the other but not by much.

Your second paragraph I can go with, we have to consider that the pitchers were also traveling under the same conditions as the hitters, in all era's. One exception could be when a pitcher does not pitch the game on the same day they arrive in an away park. He can have a day or two to rest from the trip, the hitters do not since they play every day.

I imagine it took the biggest toll in Ruth's day when you had to be the starting pitcher in the first game upon arriving in town.


It would all even out though. When the Yankees hosted teams in NY, Ruth faced road-weary pitchers, especially in the first game of the series as you said. When the Yankees went on the road, Ruth was road-weary, facing well-rested pitchers. In the end, it would all even out. And since we generally favor relative stats (their status relative to their peers) to absolute stats, I think this whole line of reasoning is a red herring.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I think you're getting your eras mixed up.

No I'm not. My original response was about night games, and how wrong I think it is to make an adjustment because of them. Then I typed that IF you were going to make adjustments, you shouldn't forget to adjust for all the negatives way back when. It wasn't about the 50's and 60's, it was more speaking in comparison with this era. Honestly, I didn't know Mays was even the topic. btw: take BP over and over with a woody w/ no batting gloves, and with, trust me, you'd be begging to grab a pair of gloves.

[Metal Ed]

No I'm not. My original response was about night games, and how wrong I think it is to make an adjustment because of them. Then I typed that IF you were going to make adjustments, you shouldn't forget to adjust for all the negatives way back when. It wasn't about the 50's and 60's, it was more speaking in comparison with this era. Honestly, I didn't know Mays was even the topic. btw: take BP over and over with a woody w/ no batting gloves, and with, trust me, you'd be begging to grab a pair of gloves.


I just re-read Redbuck's post #12 in this thread, and it was clearly about Mays vs. Ruth, and clearly about nothing other than Mays vs. Ruth. Your response to Redbuck is in post #15. How did you manage to work your way into the modern era with your response in post #15?

Wasn't it Ted Williams who said he relished developing calluses on his hands from swinging a bat?

[csh19792001]

I would think busses from the 1950's were a better way to travel than by train, not by much. Trains with no air conditioning and unlike busses trains would make number of stops at small stations. Mays did not travel by bus his whole career. Lets just toss this one aside, maybe one way to travel had it over the other but not by much.


Speaking of luxury of transportation...I read that the last train trip the Cardinals ever took was in 1958. Most teams started flying in the late 50's/early 1960's.

Incidentally, Jimmy Piersall's had what was (in his mind) an insurmountable fear of flying (along with other neurosis/self confidence issues) that conspired to end his career. In fact, Piersall corresponded for quite some time by mail with none other than Ty Cobb, who tried for a long time to do everything he could to encourage Piersall to continue playing ball. I've actually seen a few of their letters of correspondence- very interesting- especially coming from someone with no reason to have a special interest in a player of a generation later and a foreign franchise..... and for a guy who was supposedly so despicable that he never did anything to help anyone else. :)

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I just re-read Redbuck's post #12 in this thread, and it was clearly about Mays vs. Ruth, and clearly about nothing other than Mays vs. Ruth. Your response to Redbuck is in post #15. How did you manage to work your way into the modern era with your response in post #15?

Wasn't it Ted Williams who said he relished developing calluses on his hands from swinging a bat?

You're right. It was about Mays and Ruth, and night baseball was used as some factor of hindrance, which is false imo. There are several legit adjustments that could be made the other way, that's all I was saying.

I heard that about Ted too. He'd hit until his hands bled, so they'd calluce over and become tougher. Think he'd rather have done that than wear batting gloves?

[leecemark]

--I'm pretty sure gloves were invented before baseball and there was never a rule against wearing them. Not sure why its an issue though. If nobody or everybody was wearing them then nobody has an advantage or disadvantage.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--I'm pretty sure gloves were invented before baseball and there was never a rule against wearing them. Not sure why its an issue though. If nobody or everybody was wearing them then nobody has an advantage or disadvantage.

That's the position I usually take. The "everyone faces the same circumstances" point. The snag is when you're comparing players from different eras.

Batting gloves were invented when Mark? What's the earliest picture we can find with a player wearing them?

[leecemark]

--Batting gloves aren't some super advanced technology. Any tight pair of gloves would have sufficed to protect a players hands for batting practice. Although, if you had played your whole life hitting barehanded I'd assume your hands would be up to the task by the time you got to the majors. I used to play 6-8 hours a day every day during the summer when I was a kid and never wore gloves.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--Batting gloves aren't some super advanced technology. Any tight pair of gloves would have sufficed to protect a players hands for batting practice. Although, if you had played your whole life hitting barehanded I'd assume your hands would be up to the task by the time you got to the majors. I used to play 6-8 hours a day every day during the summer when I was a kid and never wore gloves.

Well, the gloves today are a bit more advanced than just some piece of fabric. The padding adds comfort and shock resistance, which might make you less timid on the inside pitch. Then again, Vlad doesn't seem to have a problem so who knows. Not sure on whether he wears them in BP or not, but that would be the big thing. Saving your hands during many hours of BP. Were you using a wood bat with no grip on the handle during those summers? Or aluminum bats with padded grip?

[leecemark]

--Aluminium hadn't corrupted the game yet when I was a kid. It was strictly wood for the all day sandlot games I was refering too.

[Metal Ed]

You're right. It was about Mays and Ruth, and night baseball was used as some factor of hindrance, which is false imo. There are several legit adjustments that could be made the other way, that's all I was saying.

There are? What adjustments would they be? I think it's been shown in this thread that day/night BA splits are fairly even; the small differences may not even be significant enough to draw any conclusion. Haven't seen any day/night HR splits, but we've no reason to think they'd be different than the BA splits we've seen. I don't get the "the players are more pumped up under the lights/ it's cooler at night" argument; presumably, the pitchers would be more "pumped up" and cooler as well, so I don't see the advantage to the hitter. If anything, cool weather might help the pitcher, as balls travel a bit further when it's hot.



I heard that about Ted too. He'd hit until his hands bled, so they'd calluce over and become tougher. Think he'd rather have done that than wear batting gloves?

Yeah, he seemed to take pride in those calluses.

I can understand that. I have some nasty calluses on my hands from barbells. Watching me as I examined my busted-up hands, a girl asked me why don't I just wear weightlifting gloves. My answer about tough hands etc. made her eyes roll, but I imagine Ted Williams would have understood. :)

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--Aluminium hadn't corrupted the game yet when I was a kid. It was strictly wood for the all day sandlot games I was refering too.

You're an ANIMAL ! :D



There are? What adjustments would they be?


Regarding this era and Ruth's era. A ton. Too lengthy to get into.

[Eastvanmungo]

1.Ruth
2.Williams
3.Gehrig
4.Aaron
5.Mays
6.Musial
7.Mantle
8.Foxx
9.Bonds
10.Robinson
11.Rodriguez
12.Schmidt
10.Bagwell
14.Griffey Jr
15.Ramirez
16.Ott
17.Piazza
18.Yastrezmski
19.Murray
20.Winfield
21.Williams
22.Mathews
23.McCovey
24.Jackson
25.Killebrew
26.Banks
27.Ripken
28.Stargell
29.Dawson
30.Snider
31.Thome
32.Mcgriff
33.Gonzalez
34.Sheffield
35.Evans
36.McGwire
37.Sosa
38.Thomas
39.Palmeiro
40.Canseco
41.Kingman

[Metal Ed]

You're an ANIMAL ! :D

Regarding this era and Ruth's era. A ton. Too lengthy to get into.

Wasn't regarding this era and Ruth's. Was regarding Willie's and Ruth's.

And I'm an animal too. Told you about my calluses.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I don't get the "the players are more pumped up under the lights/ it's cooler at night" argument; presumably, the pitchers would be more "pumped up" and cooler as well, so I don't see the advantage to the hitter. If anything, cool weather might help the pitcher, as balls travel a bit further when it's hot.


Don't know anything about hitters or pitchers being pumped up but my earlier post did not discuss reasons why, it was only to shed some light on the subject day games/night games and if one was a better condition to hit under. For years it was always said players way back played all day games and they had that advantage over todays hitters, the subject was hitting.

I listed some stats that show there is little difference and in fact some teams hit better at night than in day games, for batting average, that was the 2005 season.

You've probably already seen it but if not it was post #18.

[538280]

15.Ramirez
26.Banks
29.Dawson
31.Thome
32.Mcgriff
33.Gonzalez
35.Evans
36.McGwire
37.Sosa
38.Thomas


You have Frank Thomas WAY too low. I don't see any case for him behind any of the guys in my quote. Take another look at exactly the kind of hitter Thomas was early in his career (he could have very well had the best hitting peak ever, certainly top 3 with Ruth/Williams IMO).

[SHOELESSJOE3]

You have Frank Thomas WAY too low.
Without taking either side with Frank Thomas, some thing about him, more than any other player, strange the way he is viewed and ranked. Many think he's ranked not high enough, others he's ranked too high.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

1.Ruth
2.Williams
3.Gehrig
4.Aaron
5.Mays
6.Musial
7.Mantle
8.Foxx
9.Bonds
10.Robinson
11.Rodriguez
12.Schmidt
10.Bagwell
14.Griffey Jr
15.Ramirez
16.Ott
17.Piazza
18.Yastrezmski
19.Murray
20.Winfield
21.Williams
22.Mathews
23.McCovey
24.Jackson
25.Killebrew
26.Banks
27.Ripken
28.Stargell
29.Dawson
30.Snider
31.Thome
32.Mcgriff
33.Gonzalez
34.Sheffield
35.Evans
36.McGwire
37.Sosa
38.Thomas
39.Palmeiro
40.Canseco
41.Kingman

Are these lists about overall players, or just as home run hitters? If the latter, then Ripken has no business up that high imo. Something like 28 AB/HR, highest HR season at 34.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

And I'm an animal too. Told you about my calluses.

lol, you're an ANIMAL too!! :D feel better? :dance

[SHOELESSJOE3]

It would all even out though. When the Yankees hosted teams in NY, Ruth faced road-weary pitchers, especially in the first game of the series as you said. When the Yankees went on the road, Ruth was road-weary, facing well-rested pitchers. In the end, it would all even out. And since we generally favor relative stats (their status relative to their peers) to absolute stats, I think this whole line of reasoning is a red herring.

I'll settle for that it all evened out. I still give a slight edge to some of the pitchers who had a day or two to rest when arriving out of town, position players played every day. My point, too often we hear that todays players have a tougher grind in traveling conditions. Well travel prior and into the 1920s was no picnic. You also traveled on a noisy train with many stops, no air conditioning and went to a hotel which also had no air conditioning. Agreed it was as tough on the pitchers as it was on the hitters, only saying travel back then was not pleasent. Cobb and some other spoke of at times taking a cot to sleep on the roofs of some hotels to escape the heat in the rooms.

Might I say I'm not here to say todays players have it all over the 1920s in travel conditions, coast to coast and jet lag. I'm here to say neither had it over the other by much, take your pick both had negatives.

[538280]

Are these lists about overall players, or just as home run hitters? If the latter, then Ripken has no business up that high imo. Something like 28 AB/HR, highest HR season at 34.

It is about them as overall players, in which case IMO Ripken deserved to be much higher than Eastvanmungo has him. I would agree Ripken might be last on the list if this was just about HR hitting.

[Metal Ed]

lol, you're an ANIMAL too!! :D feel better? :dance

Much. Thank you. :)

[Eastvanmungo]

My list was as overall players.

The Frank Thomas ranking was a mistake on my part... for some stupid reason, I was thinking of Gorman rather than Frank. Duh. Frank I'd bump up about 10 spots.
Also, upon reflection, maybe I do have Ripken a bit low. He should be somewhere closer to Eddie Murray.

[yankillaz]

The "could've beens". Seems like an opera name, but it isn't. Is the whole concept of placing Frank Thomas among the game's best.

He "could've" had the higher peak, but he didn't. He could've had similar stats than those of Ruth and Williams, but he didn't. Let's get this straight. We can take Chuck Klein as an example. After his star seasons in the early 30's (1929-1933), many people "could've" argued that he was bound to be one of the game's top players. In fact, he hang there with Gehrig Ruth and Foxx in those years. But what happened to the “could’ve been” star? His career was injured plague, and he finished well below what everyone expected of him.

Thomas is one of the best players of my lifetime, but I do not rank him above the following (do not count Bonds, Sosa , Big Mac, et all):A-Rod, Griffey, Manny.