Printable View
If the question is (as you and most others would take it) "who hit the most home runs in major league history" then obviously, the answer is Barry Bonds. But given the wording of the question in the OP, other interpretations are possible, and my answer is Babe Ruth.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
lol... whatQuote:
Originally Posted by dps
hitlock had this to say about it:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Steroids are the forbidden fruit in baseball and a healthy green vegetable in football. Why?
Well, throughout our American history there have been four sports that define male machismo — boxing, baseball, football and basketball. As you know, men take machismo very seriously. It is the lone, scientifically proven substitute for having a big Johnson, which explains Napoleon's disease.
Thanks in part to segregation laws, three white men and a mixed-race native American — James J. Jeffries, Babe Ruth, Jim Thorpe and George Mikan — got first crack as symbols of the macho games that matter most in America.
Jeffries was the first to fall. In an effort to prove the superiority of white men over the American Negro, Jeffries came out of retirement early in the 20th century, lost 100 pounds and took on Jack Johnson in "the fight of the century." Jeffries lost badly and later admitted that even in his prime he would've been no match for Johnson.
Jim Brown unseated Thorpe, a native American, as the unquestioned king of football. Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain leaped past Mikan on the hardwood.
Willie Mays and Hank Aaron took good, hard runs at Babe Ruth, but The Great Bambino is still standing. Today he shares the stage with Brown, Muhammad Ali and Michael Jordan as the greatest of all-time in the American sports that define who we believe we are.
Babe Ruth is not going anywhere without a massive, nuclear fight. His supporters do not care that he dominated a segregated, inferior brand of Major League Baseball.
Babe Ruth is an important symbol, and challengers to his throne will be greeted with immense resistance.
That's why steroids matter so much in baseball. They distort our appreciation of Ruth's numbers, particularly his home-run stats, the penis-measuring digits of baseball. Chicks dig the long ball.
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/9...all-about-Babe
In other words, people are unable to think rationally and don't understand that just because Barry Bonds hit more home runs than Babe Ruth doesn't mean that Bonds was a better player. Baseball has undue importance placed on its records.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wassit3
he also makes the assertion that Ruth played in an inferior league compared to Bonds, what do you think of that notion?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
It's obviously true. Segregation did infinitely more to harm the competitive integrity of the game than steroids ever have or ever will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wassit3
Bonds hit more then Aaron, 8 more to be exact so Barry Bonds is the home run king
7, actually.
lol OWNED
well he was also partly building his argument that because Bonds dominated a stronger league that makes bonds better I think. again comment please.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I don't think you can really compare players of vastly different eras and come up with any accurate conclusion of who would be "better" if they were placed in a time machine and played against each other (obviously, it depends on the players in question. Barry Bonds (and everybody else ever) was better than Bill Bergen). I don't believe in "timelining" like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wassit3
Now, who provided more value, or was better in relation to their peers, is a different story, and I'm pretty sure the answer is Babe Ruth to both those questions.
Espically if you are considering homeruns, over a 16 year period he places 1st 12 times, 2nd 3, and 3rd 1. 4 times he hit 30 more homeruns than the 2nd place guy in the AL. In an ERA where players struggles to hit 20 Ruth was hitting 40 and 50. Even Bonds was never that dominate in the Long Ball department Even in his best year he was just 9 HR above the 2nd place NL hitter and 5 guys in within 30.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Yeah, agreed. While IMO Barry Bonds was the greatest player I've seen play, and he was above all others at the time, the fact is Ruth TOWERED above all others he played against, and for a very long time. Of course, that's why he was literally a living legend.
But, yeah, if there were some measure of "Greatness > Contempary Players", Ruth wins hands down, IMO. While you can make the argument that Wassit was quoting above, about Ruth played against inferior talent due to segregation, the fact is ALL THE OTHER PLAYERS OF HIS DAY played against that level too, and Ruth was literally a man among boys. The guy was just awesome.
But so was Bonds IMO.
And so is A-Rod, though to a much lesser degree, even if he does beat Bonds' HR record. I dunno why, but he's just never impressed me the way Bonds did, or Willie Mays, Frank Robinson, and Hank Aaron did back in the day. I know some numbers folks are gonna prove me wrong, it's just my perception is all.
There's multiple. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
Except, of course, the players that weren't able to no matter what they did.Quote:
While you can make the argument that Wassit was quoting above, about Ruth played against inferior talent due to segregation, the fact is ALL THE OTHER PLAYERS OF HIS DAY played against that level too, and Ruth was literally a man among boys. The guy was just awesome.
Whoops, LOL, yeah, my bad. Should've said Major League Players.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
BTW,
Does anyone else find it incredible that the voting on here is almost diametrically opposite of the voting on ESPN???
I wish it had been anonymous, maybe some folks would've voted different. I find it hard to believe the folks that post here are that much different the general population, or at least the ESPN web surfing population. :p
I don't find that hard to believe at all. Front office simulation games obviously attract the more "hardcore" fans of the game, and probably also attract the smarter ones. ESPN.com viewers are a cross-section of the entire spectrum of fandom, from the diehard baseball fans to those that just follow one team to the extremely casual.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
Well, actually, not literally living.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
Hank Aaron says....Bonds.
That's a very good quote that I agree 100% with.Quote:
"He could have had an excellent career, regardless of what he did. So it would be something that I don't think the commissioner would like to get involved in, really. There are things out there besides worrying about a home run record that somebody now holds. Barry has the record, and I don't think anybody can change that."
I said 'Barry Bonds' but it's pretty immature to call someone stupid just because they voted for Hammerin' Hank. The question doesn't say "who holds the career home run title?". It says "who is the Home Run King?". That could mean something different to some people.
As for who the all-time leader is, there's no doubt that it's Barry and I blame primarily Bud Selig but also the player's union for letting it get to the point that these records are tainted.
God people are stupid. Aaron has admitted to using amphetamine's. How is it any different? This kind of stuff annoys me.Quote:
Originally Posted by BINGLEBOP
Steroids are a terrible evil. Amphetamines are a part of the game's "colorful history", just like segregation!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Sorry if my comment will be taken harshly. Just how I feel.It wasn't directed at anyone for voting the way they did.
it still is hammerin' hank for me, and it won't change for a looooooong while (thanks, A. Rod!).