A quick breakdown of homers by age:
| Age | Ruth | Bonds | Aaron |
|---|---|---|---|
| 19-23 | 20 | 65 | 110 |
| 24-35 | 545 | 429 | 444 |
| 36 | 46 | 73 | 38 |
| 37-40 | 103 | 141 | 141 |
| 41+ | 0 | 6 | 22 |
One thing you can see is that Bonds picked up a 45-homer advantage – and Aaron, a 90-homer advantage – before age 24, when Ruth became a full-time outfielder. Of course, by then Ruth had an 80-41 record and a 2.09 ERA as a starting pitcher, was 3-0 with an 0.87 ERA in the World Series, and had won three World Championships. Even so, if you look on the age charts, Bonds doesn’t even appear in the top 10 in homers through age 35 (Ruth is second, Aaron third, Mays fourth – Sammy Sosa is first and Ken Griffey jr. is fifth).
Anyway, there really isn’t much point in baseball making any fuss over 714 or 715. Bonds still won’t be the all-time home run king, at 715 he will still be 18 homers from the National League record, and he still isn’t a better player than Babe Ruth.
Anyone see the analysis on how Bonds is really only at 616 HRs as they factor in performance enhancing drugs and their HR/year effect on his totals? It’s on ESPN.com. It is a little long but interesting in an applied stats kind of way.
Another intersting statistic from there is who is No. 3 all time in home runs at the age of 35+ after Bonds and Aaron: Rafael Palmiero.
Who and what were his totals for the number 2 all-time home run champ when Ruth retired?
How many home-runs per year did Ruth avg over the number two per season?
How many home-runs per year did Ruth avg over the last place team in home runs per year?
Did “the house that Ruth built” have a unique advantage for left-handers compared to the rest of the league and the park he played in before Yankee Stadium?