Who do you consider the all-time Home Run King?

[HoustonGM]

well he was also partly building his argument that because Bonds dominated a stronger league that makes bonds better I think. again comment please.

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.

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.

[gRYFYN1]

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.

[OldFatGuy]

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.

[HoustonGM]

But, yeah, if there were some measure of "Greatness > Contempary Players", Ruth wins hands down, IMO.

There's multiple.

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.

Except, of course, the players that weren't able to no matter what they did.

[OldFatGuy]

Except, of course, the players that weren't able to no matter what they did.

Whoops, LOL, yeah, my bad. Should've said Major League Players.

[OldFatGuy]

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.

[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.

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.

[dps]

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.

Well, actually, not literally living.

[HoustonGM]

Hank Aaron says....Bonds.

[200tang]

"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."

That's a very good quote that I agree 100% with.

[JustPats]

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.

[Jeffy25]

Interesting poll on ESPN, so I was curious on the feelings of everybody on the forums here. Who do you consider the all-time home run king? Barry Bonds or Hank Aaron? Share why, if you choose.

Attachment 22482

God people are stupid. Aaron has admitted to using amphetamine's. How is it any different? This kind of stuff annoys me.

[HoustonGM]

God people are stupid. Aaron has admitted to using amphetamine's. How is it any different? This kind of stuff annoys me.

Steroids are a terrible evil. Amphetamines are a part of the game's "colorful history", just like segregation!

[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.

[wiggum]

it still is hammerin' hank for me, and it won't change for a looooooong while (thanks, A. Rod!).