Home Runs: A Comparison of Then and Now

[bcshorts]

America’s pastime has a tradition richer and more fiercely protected than that of any other sport in the world. Its heart-stopping moments, mythical stories, and sacred statistics have been carried through the echoes of our changing world into a new century of fans and ballparks, technologies and players. And with any changing time comes along the memories of the old and the questions of comparison to our future.

In the course of discussion in our time, the great debate of home runs will inevitably arise, linked and saddled to steroids, human growth hormones, and other performance-enhancing drugs. Lively arguments will ensue, ranging from who’s clean and who’s not to what might have been if so-and-so could’ve stayed healthy to what we would see if the ghosts of the past were to step onto our beloved diamond today. There are no easy answers to any of these questions, with or without the many ‘facts’ and pieces of ‘evidence’ we might have to support our views. This, perhaps, is one of the great and cherished parts of baseball and of sport. Regardless of what stats, odds, history, or projection we have, there are a countless number of questions that will forever remain unanswered.

Watching Sunday Night Baseball one night, years ago by now, Jon Miller and Joe Morgan were having one of these typical conversations, trying to decide how the players of the last two decades would match up with the names and faces of the past. It was in this conversation that the secret to all baseball comparison tests was unleashed. Morgan, likely when talking about Bonds and Mays, said that the only real way to compare players from different baseball generations was to compare each individual player to his peers in his own playing days. Greatness is not a measure of how your statistics or records hold over time, but of how dominant you were in your own day. It is this basic idea I have used as a foundation for a little bit of light research, to give us all a new – and perhaps better – perception of baseball’s best home run hitters.

How It Works

• To qualify for this research, players must have reached 400 home runs in their career. For the purpose of this research 400 is a great cutoff point, allowing for a larger sampling of players from different eras while still maintaining the requirement of a long career of sustained power. 44 players made the cut.
• Typical rankings were thrown out the door. You will see attached a chart for the all-time home runs list and for the best AB/HR rates of the 44 players, but they are meaningless except for points of comparison with this research.
• This research was begun with the goal of putting up a player’s total home runs in a season against the total home runs hit by the average baseball team in that season. A number was obtained for each season in which a player hit at least 1/40 of his career total of home runs (1/40 was chosen as another cutoff point to prevent using extreme injury plagued seasons against a player). An average of these numbers was taken for each player’s career, showing the player’s number of home runs as a percentage of the number a team would hit throughout that player’s career. This information can be found in Table A.
• During this research, however, it became apparent that this process would not necessarily be the most accurate way to determine the best home run hitters. Nearly every player had at least one season in which they missed significant time, and many missed 150-200 at-bats in multiple years. Remembering that the purpose of this research was to find the best home run hitter, and not the best home run accumulator…
• Another step was taken in which a player’s HR/AB was taken for each season and compared with the total home runs hit by the average baseball team in that season, giving the best measure of comparison of the best home run hitters. This information can be found in Table B.

What It Means

Simply, the research shows that today’s players are, in fact, no better in comparison to the greats of the past. Although their home run rates are much higher, they stand apart from their peers no more – and in fact, less – than player’s from the past. For example, of the 44 players making the cut, only four of the top twenty home run hitters played the majority of their careers since 1990. Four played from 1970-1989. Eight from 1950-1969. Four before 1949.

This is in striking difference to the twelve players that make the top twenty list for highest home run rate. Yes, 60% of the highest home run rates have come from the last twenty years. Numbers 21 through 25 of the best home run rates? Gehrig, Aaron, Mays, Matthews, and Stargell. So unless we think Canseco, Delgado, and Piazza are better home run hitters than that five-some, I think we have a problem…

The all-time home run list is skewed as well, not quite as badly, largely because some of our most recent great home run hitters haven’t quite reached the 521 it would take to make the top twenty. Still, nine of those twenty, or 45%, are from the last twenty years.

Myth-Busters?

Myths have existed in baseball for its entire existence. Even the validity of the Babe’s called shot has been questioned. So it is no surprise that there are many myths and misconceptions in regards to home runs. Here, we will examine three of them.

If Ken Griffey, Jr. could’ve stayed healthy, he would have been the greatest home run hitter of the modern era.
There could be some truth to that, although taking guesses on hypotheticals is always a dangerous business. When considering the years 1996-2000, Griffey’s best five year stretch, the results do point toward more greatness. In that period, he hit an average of 28.3% of an average team’s home runs, best for the modern era by a hair over Mark McGwire and good for 8th all-time. However, when considering the adjusted HR/AB rate, his is only good for .484, 16th all-time and behind Mark McGwire and Barry Bonds, barely ahead of Sammy Sosa. The conclusion: Griffey would not have been the best, but could easily have been in the same breath as McGwire and arguably higher than Bonds. However, it would be difficult to truly expect similar numbers to continue for the next ten years after 2000 from Griffey.

Although Hank Aaron is great, he really just accumulated his home run statistics by staying healthy and productive over a very long career.
No doubt about this one. Although Aaron is still some peoples’ home run king, he isn’t even a top ten home run hitter of all-time. His home run percentage is 27.6 (9th best) and his adjusted rate is .506 (13th best), leaving the likes of Ruth, Foxx, Gehrig, Williams, and, yes, Barry Bonds, higher than Hammerin’ Hank.

Albert Pujols may go down as one of the top home run hitters ever.
Projections say there is no way. His adjusted rate is .400, not even close to cracking the top twenty. However, he does sport a 23.1% of home runs hit, which would tie him for 18th all-time with Ernie Banks. We have to remember, though, that Pujols is only 30 and on the verge of his best home run year of his career. So perhaps this debate may become a little more interesting as the months and years pass by.

What We Can Learn

Not everything, even in baseball, is quite as it seems on the surface. Even the hallowed record books cannot be looked upon without blemish. For as times change, so do the numbers. Some blame steroids, some blame technology. Regardless of the reasons, players hit more home runs today. No different than inflation or science, the numbers of baseball are an ever-changing puzzle. To believe players today are better than those of the past, though, is an ignorant and selfish thing to do. They are not better, and they are probably not worse. They are only living in a different time with different realities. Because, it is true, the only way to truly judge someone is by comparison with his peers and his time. Our reality and our world will always be changing.

Table A – Percentage of Home Runs by a Team:

	Player	% of Team HR
1	Babe Ruth	72.5
2	Lou Gehrig	46.7
3	Jimmie Foxx	46.1
4	Mel Ott	36.0
5	Ted Williams	29.9
6	Mike Schmidt	29.5
7	Harmon Killebrew	28.7
8	Mark McGwire	28.0
9	Hank Aaron	27.6
10	Sammy Sosa	25.5
11	Willie Mays	25.2
12	Dave Kingman	24.9
13	Alex Rodriguez	24.5
14	Eddie Matthews	24.3
15	Reggie Jackson	24.2
16	Barry Bonds	23.7
17	Willie Stargell	23.3
18	Ernie Banks	23.1
19	Mickey Mantle	22.9
20	Frank Robinson	22.7

Table B – Adjusted Rate:

	Player	Adjusted Rate
1	Babe Ruth	1.499
2	Jimmie Foxx	.847
3	Lou Gehrig	.817
4	Mel Ott	.715
5	Ted Williams	.651
6	Mark McGwire	.629
7	Mike Schmidt	.580
8	Dave Kingman	.574
9	Harmon Killebrew	.570
10	Willie Stargell	.523
11	Willie McCovey	.520
12	Barry Bonds	.517
13	Hank Aaron	.506
14	Mickey Mantle	.505
15	Reggie Jackson	.486
16	Sammy Sosa	.461
17	Jim Thome	.460
18	Willie Mays	.458
19	Eddie Matthews	.453
20	Duke Snider	.452

Table C – Home Run Rates:

	Player	HR Rate
1	Mark McGwire	10.61
2	Babe Ruth	11.76
3	Barry Bonds	12.92
4	Jim Thome	13.62
5	Harmon Killebrew	14.22
6	Alex Rodriguez	14.25
7	Manny Ramirez	14.41
8	Sammy Sosa	14.47
9	Ted Williams	14.79
10	Juan Gonzalez	15.11
11	Dave Kingman	15.11
12	Mickey Mantle	15.12
13	Jimmie Foxx	15.23
14	Mike Schmidt	15.24
15	Jose Canseco	15.28
16	Ken Griffey, Jr.	15.33
17	Carlos Delgado	15.40
18	Willie McCovey	15.73
19	Frank Thomas	15.74
20	Mike Piazza	16.19

Table D – All-Time Home Run List:

	Player	Career HR
1	Barry Bonds	762
2	Hank Aaron	755
3	Babe Ruth	714
4	Willie Mays	660
5	Ken Griffey, Jr.	621
6	Sammy Sosa	609
7	Frank Robinson	568
8	Mark McGwire	583
9	Harmon Killebrew	573
10	Alex Rodriguez	571
11	Rafael Palmeiro	563
12	Reggie Jackson	563
13	Jim Thome	557
14	Mike Schmidt	548
15	Mickey Mantle	536
15	Manny Ramirez	536
17	Jimmie Foxx	534
18	Willie McCovey	521
18	Frank Thomas	521
18	Ted Williams	521
21	Ernie Banks	512
21	Eddie Matthews	512
23	Mel Ott	511
24	Gary Sheffield	509
25	Eddie Murray	504
26	Lou Gehrig	493
26	Fred McGriff	493
28	Stan Musial	475
28	Willie Stargell	475
30	Carlos Delgado	473
31	Dave Winfield	465
32	Jose Canseco	462
33	Carl Yastrzemski	452
34	Jeff Bagwell	449
35	Dave Kingman	442
36	Andre Dawson	438
37	Juan Gonzalez	434
38	Cal Ripken, Jr.	431
39	Mike Piazza	427
40	Billy Williams	426
41	Chipper Jones	418
42	Darrell Evans	414
43	Jason Giambi	407
43	Duke Snider 407

*Total home runs accurate as of Saturday, July 18, 2009
*Stats for adjusted rates are through the year 2007

[missionhockey21]

I too typically hate arguments based on a hypothetical, but I really think at the end of the day, if healthy (comparable to the league average of injury for a player of similar age and position) that Griffey would have had the numbers to be considered the best of his era. Numbers that probably wouldn't have surpassed Bonds, but close enough that the difference was not a huge issue. Griffey was traded while still in his prime and the ballpark was built for the prolific lefthand hitter to go yard crazy. Consistent 45-55 homerun production I think until age 36 would have been quite feasible. Of course even "bad luck" aside, Griffey's body was torn to shreds practically from years of play in the Kingdome would have likely set Griffey to an earlier decline than other players (with or without injuries.) Who knows.

I do appreciate your distinction of homerun hitter vs homerun accumulator. Baseball is a game of years and while length of career and consistency over that is a factor in many other discussions, the best homerun hitter is someone who was the best at what they did during their era season by season and not by a 15 or 20 year period compared filled with seasons where they led the league and seasons where they barely cracked the top 40.

Good stuff bc. I think there is definitely room to expand upon this and to get into the numbers on an even more micro level to distinguish between hitters who were good homerun hitters, not great, but great accumulators, and great homerun hitters who were only mediocre or good accumulators.

+1