Henry Aaron, All-Time Home Run King!

[Perknose]

Using a logically compelling adjustment formula that completely ignores whether steroids were taken, or any other extraneous factor, Hammerin' Hank Aaron comes out on top:

The Mag's Player-Era-to-Era Translation leaderboard.
Hank Aaron 724
Babe Ruth 663
Barry Bonds 660
Mel Ott 650
Willie Mays 628
Reggie Jackson 595
Frank Robinson 578
Ted Williams 569
Mike Schmidt 557
Harmon Killebrew 552

Basically, the formula does this:

Were steroids behind the widened gaps? Probably. But if we put every player into the context of the league average and leader, we can avoid all the hysteria surrounding performance-enhancing drugs. Let's simply suppose that when Mike Schmidt led the NL with 36 home runs in 1974, his total represented the greatest extent to which any player could have dominated the league that year, and let's say the same thing about Ruth's 60 in 1927 and Bonds' 73 in 2001. For the sake of comparisons, it's the gap between the league and the leaders that really matters, not the possible reasons why the gap changed.

For example, in 1999 Sosa hit 63 home runs in 712 plate appearances, or 8.85 dingers per 100 PAs. The NL average that year was 2.86 per 100 PAs, and the league leader (McGwire) hit 9.83. Thus, Sosa filled 85.8 percent of the gap between the league average and the league leader. For the purposes of this comparison, let's translate Sosa's performance to perfectly average conditions. Since 1920, the start of the live-ball era, league-average hitters have averaged 1.94 homers per 100 plate appearances, while league leaders have averaged 6.60. That gives us a difference of 4.66.

To calculate Sosa's adjusted total, we start with the historical average rate: 1.94 home runs per 100 PAs, which comes out to 13.8 homers in 712 PAs. To that figure, we add 85.8 percent of the difference between the league leader and the league average. In this case, 85.8 percent of 4.66 is 3.99. So, at a rate of 3.99 homers per 100 plate appearances, Sosa would hit 28.5 jacks in 712 PAs. Now add 28.5 to 13.8 and Sosa has an adjusted total of 42.3 round-trippers, an impressive but not historic number.

We don't have to argue about Sosa's training methods, or about expansion or population growth or whether pitching has improved or declined since the good old days.

Under this analysis:

When we run the leading home run hitters of all time through the PEET system, it becomes clear which sluggers' numbers were inflated or obscured by varying dominance. Translated to an average environment, Ken Griffey Jr., Sosa, Alex Rodriguez and McGwire all drop off the all-time top 10 list, while Mel Ott, Reggie Jackson, Schmidt and Ted Williams move onto it

The unadjusted all-time home run leaders.
Barry Bonds 763
Hank Aaron 755
Babe Ruth 714
Willie Mays 660
Ken Griffey Jr. 630
Sammy Sosa 609
Alex Rodriguez 609
Frank Robinson 586
Mark McGwire 583
Harmon Killebrew 573

Rafael Palmeiro really takes it in the ear under the adjusted system! Just more proof to me that the adjustment has strong validity. :awe:

These graphs here, which compare how Schmidt and Rafael Palmeiro (one of the biggest losers in our calculations) performed relative to the average and the leader in their careers, should help illustrate how PEET works. Palmeiro, who at times early in his career hit fewer home runs than the average, loses 90 home runs via PEET, and Schmidt, who was consistently close to the league leader, gains nine.

ESPN Insider Link.

Finally, for any of you sports fans who don't already know, ESPN Insider is free with a sub to the ESPN magazine. Before ebay banned the re-selling of cheap subs, you could find them there for less than $5/yr. And you can still find cheap ESPN mag subs . . . the stats are out there!

 

[techs]

I don't need no stinkin' formulas to know Hammerin Hank is the home run king.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

I guess if a bunch of mathematical masturbation makes you feel better

But it doesn't change the fact that Bonds is the HR King in the record books, like it or not.

Enough with the roid rage

 

[heyheybooboo]

I don't need no stinkin' formulas to know Hammerin Hank is the home run king.

There was no other reason to pull for the Braves

And yah have to wonder .... who were the 2.2% of HoF voters who left him off their ballots?




--

 

[Miramonti]

I respect those analytics, but it doesn't take a statistical rocket scientist to see the tragedy of bonds at the top of the hr list.

However in an odd way, Bonds on top has almost added respect for Aaron, by highlighting aaron's career, accomplishments, and challenges along the way, offering him more respect than ever.

While he became the undisputable HR record leader, there was an extremely slow acceptance of him as the 'true hr king' because many clung the the babe ruth legacy, still considereding him as the greatest hr hitter of all time.

That debate seems to have taken a back seat as a result of the watered down record book 'dethroning' of Aaron.

 

[Perknose]

I guess if a bunch of mathematical masturbation makes you feel better

But it doesn't change the fact that Bonds is the HR King in the record books, like it or not.

Enough with the roid rage

Take your own advice. I'm not raging at all, though it seems like you might be.

If your suspiciously giant head weren't coruscating with chemicals, you might have been able to understand that the authors of that article weren't even focusing on steroids, per se:

We don't have to argue about Sosa's training methods, or about expansion or population growth or whether pitching has improved or declined since the good old days.

What you, in your childish rage call "mathematical masturbation" is in fact an elegant and insightful way of better comparing home run stats across the entire live ball era, from 1920 on!

And if you weren't so suspiciously bent out of shape in quivering anger, you probably wouldn't have made the third grade reading comprehension blunder of calling "roid rage" what is at worst "anti-roid rage."

Best to cut back on the juice, Bruce. :awe:

 

[Miramonti]

There was no other reason to pull for the Braves

And yah have to wonder .... who were the 2.2% of HoF voters who left him off their ballots?

--

That's the kind of lack of respect that I was alluding to. Not voting for Aaron to be in the HOF showed as much or more disrespect for the game imo as Bonds being in the record books as the all-time hr leader. (not that I'm arguing he be omitted.)

 

[DayLaPaul]

Steroids inflated stats hurt two group of players: the old timers who presumably didn't have access to steroids and the new timers who chose not to use them.

While this formula does a good job of restoring past glory to the old timers, the new timers will never get their just due since there really is no formula to calculate who didn't cheat.

It's still an interesting article and formula for the number crunching fan, though.

 

[skyking]

Thanks Perk. Regardless of the stats that seems about right to me. Ted Williams belongs on that list no matter what the numbers may say. He was a hitting machine, probably the first cyborg.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Take your own advice. I'm not raging at all, though it seems like you might be.

If your suspiciously giant head weren't coruscating with chemicals, you might have been able to understand that the authors of that article weren't even focusing on steroids, per se:

What you, in your childish rage call "mathematical masturbation" is in fact an elegant and insightful way of better comparing home run stats across the entire live ball era, from 1920 on!

And if you weren't so suspiciously bent out of shape in quivering anger, you probably wouldn't have made the third grade reading comprehension blunder of calling "roid rage" what is at worst "anti-roid rage."

Best to cut back on the juice, Bruce. :awe:

Nice deflection, but I aint buying your bullshit.

Regardless of what the author of this analysis says, this article is 100% about discrediting those the author deemed undeserving due to use of steroids.

There is and always has been ONE measure of HR greatness, and that is the official HR total list. Just because you don't happen to like the guy on top is not a valid reason to manufacture a new way to judge who's the king. And you know when I said "roid rage" I mean't anti roid rage

I am no fan of performance enhancing drugs, but I am a fan of "innocent until proven guilty". MLB had every opportunity to catch Bonds cheating, but they didn't. Just because the court of public opinion has found Bonds guilty don't cut it for me, when MLB strips Bonds of the honor and gives it back to Hank then I'll consider Hank the HR king, not because some hater came up with a formula that says so.

In my opinion Willie Mays should top the list, Hank and Ruth were both womanizers and Ruth was a hopeless drunk

 

[SP33Demon]

Averaging how a player did relative to their peers is the best way to calculate a ranking system. However, not sure that taking an average across all eras is statistically sound:

Since 1920, the start of the live-ball era, league-average hitters have averaged 1.94 homers per 100 plate appearances, while league leaders have averaged 6.60. That gives us a difference of 4.66.

My main question would be, what separated league-average hitters from league leaders? This is where some bias could come in to manipulate the numbers.

I still think the best way to get Bond's real total is to scientifically calculate (physicists) how much further the ball would travel with his extra 30lbs of muscle. Also grab the weather report for each homerun day and have the physicists calculate the effects of humidity/windspeed-direction. Use Elias stats to track his true estimated homerun distance - ballpark wall distance (hit in years he definitely did steroids). That should give us a scientifc estimate of how many of Bond's homeruns wouldn't have cleared the wall without the help of his extra muscle weight.

In any case, I guarantee you that Bonds had 9 home runs that barely cleared the wall in his hulking, juiced form. Which is why I still consider Hank the true king who didn't have to take anything to achieve greatness.

 

[Perknose]

Regardless of what the author of this analysis says, this article is 100% about discrediting those the author deemed undeserving due to use of steroids.

Grow up.

You absolutely don't even begin to understand the methodology, it's clear.

Babe Ruth lost 57 dingers under it, Willie Mays lost 32, Frank Robinson 8, while Mel Ott gained a robust 139. All completely pre-dated the steroid era!

Get somebody smarter than you to read the entire article and explain it to you.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Nice deflection, but I aint buying your bullshit.

Regardless of what the author of this analysis says, this article is 100% about discrediting those the author deemed undeserving due to use of steroids.

There is and always has been ONE measure of HR greatness, and that is the official HR total list. Just because you don't happen to like the guy on top is not a valid reason to manufacture a new way to judge who's the king. And you know when I said "roid rage" I mean't anti roid rage

I am no fan of performance enhancing drugs, but I am a fan of "innocent until proven guilty". MLB had every opportunity to catch Bonds cheating, but they didn't. Just because the court of public opinion has found Bonds guilty don't cut it for me, when MLB strips Bonds of the honor and gives it back to Hank then I'll consider Hank the HR king, not because some hater came up with a formula that says so.

In my opinion Willie Mays should top the list, Hank and Ruth were both womanizers and Ruth was a hopeless drunk

What exactly is your problem with them using more statistical analysis? Its not like MLB is actually considering dropping records over this, its just further way of understanding the sport.

The whole point is to offer a level playing field for comparing eras, regardless of what advantages each one might have had. Its not perfect, but its just a step further in trying to fully do justice to the stats (which rule baseball, they are by far the most important thing in the sport, more than championships).

Your last statement is just almost incomprehensibly pointless that I have no idea why you'd even post it.

To clarify, I'm not saying that I agree with their findings, as others point out, there's issues to take with how they're calculating these figures.

 

[rcpratt]

Too bad that Griffey's numbers are reduced by the rampant 'roiding around him. I have no doubt that he would still be near the top of that list, no matter what era he played in.

 

[sciencewhiz]

Using this formula, Babe Ruth is does not get any advantage for the 1920 season when he hit 54 home runs, more then any other team. He's also penalized for his two seasons prior to 1920.

Babe Ruth had 7 of the top 10 seasons in HR vs the league average. http://tippingpitches.blogspot.com/2010/03/most-dominant-home-run-hitters-greatest.html

 

[Fingolfin269]

Meh pointless stats. Bonds is the HR king. I know because I just looked it up.

 

[soulcougher73]

Nice deflection, but I aint buying your bullshit.

Regardless of what the author of this analysis says, this article is 100% about discrediting those the author deemed undeserving due to use of steroids.

There is and always has been ONE measure of HR greatness, and that is the official HR total list. Just because you don't happen to like the guy on top is not a valid reason to manufacture a new way to judge who's the king. And you know when I said "roid rage" I mean't anti roid rage

I am no fan of performance enhancing drugs, but I am a fan of "innocent until proven guilty". MLB had every opportunity to catch Bonds cheating, but they didn't. Just because the court of public opinion has found Bonds guilty don't cut it for me, when MLB strips Bonds of the honor and gives it back to Hank then I'll consider Hank the HR king, not because some hater came up with a formula that says so.

In my opinion Willie Mays should top the list, Hank and Ruth were both womanizers and Ruth was a hopeless drunk

No it was about getting Mike Schmidt on the top 10 list. He is a huge fan I kid, i kid.

 

[Fingolfin269]

No it was about getting Mike Schmidt on the top 10 list. He is a huge fan I kid, i kid.

Mike Schmidt kicks ass.

 

[piasabird]

If they were doing the right thing, the last two people that broke the record would lose their records due to steroid use.

There was a quote a while back that said that black (African Americans) had a natural unfair advantage in sports, so maybe white people need a handicap.

 

[SP33Demon]

Mike Schmidt kicks ass.

"Michael Jack Schmidt!"
-Harry Kalas

 

[TallBill]

Thanks Perk. Regardless of the stats that seems about right to me. Ted Williams belongs on that list no matter what the numbers may say. He was a hitting machine, probably the first cyborg.

521 Home Runs, .482 career on base percentage, and he missed three years during his prime to be a god damn world war II hero.

 

[heyheybooboo]

521 Home Runs, .482 career on base percentage, and he missed three years during his prime to be a god damn world war II hero.

Anyone who played for the Bosox was a bum




--

 

[Perknose]

521 Home Runs, .482 career on base percentage, and he missed three years during his prime to be a god damn world war II hero.

Whoever you're partial to, I think it's safe to say there never has been a better overall hitter than Theodore Samuel Williams, the Splendid Splinter. :thumbsup:

 

[SludgeFactory]

Finally, for any of you sports fans who don't already know, ESPN Insider is free with a sub to the ESPN magazine. Before ebay banned the re-selling of cheap subs, you could find them there for less than $5/yr. And you can still find cheap ESPN mag subs . . . the stats are out there!

Yeah, you can get ESPN Mag through discountmags.com every so often for $3 or $4 a year. Just watch out, ESPN requires you to give them a credit card number to register for your "free" Insider, and then will autobill you annually after that first year, even if you have a multi-year magazine subscription. I'm about to have to call to get that mess straightened out.

 

[SludgeFactory]

Ted Williams served in Korea too, he lost nearly 5 full seasons in his career. Those WWII years that he missed were truly his prime, he was regularly finishing 1st or 2nd in the MVP voting in the years before and after WWII, and putting up 200+ OPS every year. Those are historically great seasons, only bested by Ruth or Bonds-on-steroids.

So his career stats are even crazier when you take his military service into account. All told, it probably cost him 150 HR overall.