best baseball player ever?

[JaBlue]

a lot of you guys love baseball, so I'll pose the question. I live in SF and a lot of people I know think that it MUST be either Mays or Bonds. Discuss who the best ballplayer was taking into account his whole carreer and how you would anticipate he would perform in today's standards (i.e. Babe Ruth is not really a candidate)

Also give the important statistics that back up your decision. Lets try to keep this objective

[tdarko]

ummm mays isn't even in the discussion.

your choices are: ruth, bonds, williams and maybe cobb

oh and spike owen wasn't too bad back in the day.

[tbach24]

How is Ruth not a candidate? I would imagine that he was easily the best player ever due to the fact that at the time he was playing he was miles ahead of other players. FWIW, Bonds is my pick. The OPS is off the charts.

[JaBlue]

mays is much more in the discussion than ruth (ironically i'm a yankees fan, so this has nothing to do with loyalty to either team)

[sublime]

a-rod

followed by mussina

[tdarko]

[ QUOTE ]
mays is much more in the discussion than ruth

[/ QUOTE ]
this is so wrong and on so many levels too.

[Tyler Durden]

It's probably one of the Ripken brothers.

[JaBlue]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
mays is much more in the discussion than ruth

[/ QUOTE ]
this is so wrong and on so many levels too.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you would have actually read my original post, the criterion is performance in today's game. If you think Ruth would perform better than Mays today, you are dead wrong.

[tdarko]

you are correct sir.

[Richie Rich]

If there was any way that we could prove Bonds did not use steroids to help him gain such incredible career stats, particularly over the last 5 years, then he would be baseball's all-time MVP hands down.

After that, some other notable names would include: Ty Cobb, Ted Williams, Lou Gerhig, Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, A-Rod, and Pujols.

[Phoenix1010]

Michael Jordan.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
a-rod

followed by mussina

[/ QUOTE ]

stfu. FYI I think Dave McCarty is the best. I mean he's probably one of the best minor leaguers ever. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif He probably belongs back down there.

[sublime]

stfu. FYI I think Dave McCarty is the best. I mean he's probably one of the best minor leaguers ever. He probably belongs back down there.

why did you feel the need to bash my choices?

[tbach24]

As for who would be the best player if every player in the history of baseball played right now, it's Bonds. It's no where near close either.

[sublime]

As for who would be the best player if every player in the history of baseball played right now, it's Bonds. It's no where near close either.

why?

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
If you would have actually read my original post, the criterion is performance in today's game. If you think Ruth would perform better than Mays today, you are dead wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

why would you think that? given the same modern advantages as the other players, ruth would no doubt be more that competitive with bonds, mays, cobb, etc....

for starters when he was hitting all those home runs, he was using a 54 ounce bat, and had no access to modern training, medicine, etc.

[beta1607]

Josh Gibson certainly deserves honorable mention although poor record keeping would probably keep him from getting the award. Reportedly had over 900 career HRs in the Negro Leagues and batted over 400 in two seasons. He also batted .426 against MLB pitchers.

[BretWeir]

It's Ruth and it's not even close. Not only was he the most dominant offensive player of his era (and, putting aside Bonds on the juice, possibly ever), he was also one of the top pitchers in baseball for his first five seasons. I have no doubt that he would dominate the game if he were playing today.

How many players have led the AL in both ERA and batting average? How many players have hit 700 homers and had a 20-win season?

[mostsmooth]

[ QUOTE ]
How is Ruth not a candidate? I would imagine that he was easily the best player ever due to the fact that at the time he was playing he was miles ahead of other players. FWIW, Bonds is my pick. The OPS is off the charts.

[/ QUOTE ]
bonds cheated

[touchfaith]

Setting the era's they played in aside...

In 1917, The Babe was 24-13 with a 2.01 ERA and 35 complete games....

Ten years later he hit .356 with 60 'oh-by-the-way' home runs...

I'm a big Giants fan, but...

[Chairman Wood]

I still have to go with Ruth. What Bonds is doing is uncanny. What the Babe did was more than uncanny. Bonds is hitting 40-70 HR in an era where there may be 10-15 other players within 5 HR's of him each season. Ruth hit 50+ HR in a season in an era where a person that hit more than 5 or 6 in a season was considered a slugger. Besides all the well known stats, how much does the fact that Ruth was a pretty good pitcher factor into this discussion too? He was just a damn fine overall ballplayer. I don't know how he would do today. I can't see why he wouldn't make a great DH.

[JaBlue]

no, I agree that Ruth is the best player ever if we don't take into account the era. I am just curious who would be the best in today's game.

[tdarko]

[ QUOTE ]
If you would have actually read my original post, the criterion is performance in today's game. If you think Ruth would perform better than Mays today, you are dead wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
today's standards? what the hell does that mean? the game evolves man thats why you can't actually say who is better babe ruth or barry bonds b/c if ruth had been able to evolve as a baseball player in THIS era then he would be doing what bonds is doing and vice versa if bonds were in ruth's era he would be doing what ruth is doing and no more.

to say ruth wouldn't do what he did then now simply b/c you say the pitchers threw slower blah blah blah is ridiculous. you don't see me saying about how the balls were softer then (making them not travel as far) or that the parks were waaay bigger. you are right i don't b/c it has nothing to do with the arguement at hand.

babe ruth changed the way the game is played like barry has done now. time frame has nothing to do with greatness. there are too many factors that go into it, supplements, more knowledge on keeping your body healthy, more knowledge with the game itself--mechanics so on so forth. babe ruth with this knowledge available to him COULD be scary but we don't know so you can't leave him out of the arguement.

[tbach24]

[ QUOTE ]
As for who would be the best player if every player in the history of baseball played right now, it's Bonds. It's no where near close either.

why?

[/ QUOTE ]

His OBP was .609 last season. He gets on base more than 60% of the time. DISGUSTING. And his slugging is off the hook as well.

[tdarko]

because the gifts that God gave him far outweight anyone else. just a guess though /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[tbach24]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How is Ruth not a candidate? I would imagine that he was easily the best player ever due to the fact that at the time he was playing he was miles ahead of other players. FWIW, Bonds is my pick. The OPS is off the charts.

[/ QUOTE ]
bonds cheated

[/ QUOTE ]

Does him taking steroids really affect him that much? No. He was the best player of the 1990's before he got gigantic. To say that he wouldn't be this good if he didn't take steroids would be untrue, however, I still feel that if no one cheated in the MLB today, he'd easily be the best player ever.

[Phoenix1010]

[ QUOTE ]
why would you think that? given the same modern advantages as the other players, ruth would no doubt be more that competitive with bonds, mays, cobb, etc....

for starters when he was hitting all those home runs, he was using a 54 ounce bat, and had no access to modern training, medicine, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the most important statement thus far... Especially since, if you put the Babe on the cream and the clear or whatever the hell it was, he annihilates Bonds and anyone else who challenges him.

[tdarko]

so did ruth--he had his on deck hitter (mostly gherig) saying first name (inside pitch) last name (outside pitch).

everyone cheats its just to what degree. at that level its whatever edge you can get to the best b/c the level is so close.

[tdarko]

best in today's game would still be all the greats like everyone is saying.

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
the criterion is performance in today's game. If you think Ruth would perform better than Mays today, you are dead wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you say this? The game hasn't changed fundementally since 1920. There are plenty of sluggers in today's game that don't run that well (but Ruth was very vain about his speed). Also who do you think would pitch better in today's game Ruth or Mays?

[jesusarenque]

It is Derek Jeter. You want the stats? He is the alltime leader in heart and clutchness. His game is more than stats though. He is the greatest leader ever, and he makes every other player on his team great. Even the worst player ever would become a good player if he were on Jeter's team. Jeter could play SS and 3B at the same time and be an AllStar at both positions. The Yankees just put ARod at 3B to keep him happy because they pay him so much.

[tbach24]

[ QUOTE ]
It is Derek Jeter. You want the stats? He is the alltime leader in heart and clutchness. His game is more than stats though. He is the greatest leader ever, and he makes every other player on his team great. Even the worst player ever would become a good player if he were on Jeter's team. Jeter could play SS and 3B at the same time and be an AllStar at both positions. The Yankees just put ARod at 3B to keep him happy because they pay him so much.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. You had me going for a minute /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[tdarko]

haha, you are from NY huh?

i am a yankee fan and like jeter but this post is laughable. i love it how yorkers think that the only players with heart and that are clutch are present or former yankees.

[mostsmooth]

[ QUOTE ]
As for who would be the best player if every player in the history of baseball played right now, it's Bonds. It's no where near close either.

[/ QUOTE ]
can we get them all juiced up for the competition?

[HDPM]

[ QUOTE ]
mays is much more in the discussion than ruth (ironically i'm a yankees fan, so this has nothing to do with loyalty to either team)

[/ QUOTE ]


Huh what?????


Home runs? Average? Championships? Pitching record? Or is it because if Ruth played today he would have to hit maybe 200 home runs per year to match what he did then?

You can't exclude Ruth from the discussion unless you concede he is the best all time and then ask who is next.

Ruth was hitting more home runs than most teams then. He pitched. Come on.

[BretWeir]

[ QUOTE ]
so did ruth--he had his on deck hitter (mostly gherig) saying first name (inside pitch) last name (outside pitch).

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this in English? If you're accusing Gehrig of cheating, I'd love to hear your backup.

[Phoenix1010]

[ QUOTE ]
It is Derek Jeter. You want the stats? He is the alltime leader in heart and clutchness. His game is more than stats though. He is the greatest leader ever, and he makes every other player on his team great. Even the worst player ever would become a good player if he were on Jeter's team. Jeter could play SS and 3B at the same time and be an AllStar at both positions. The Yankees just put ARod at 3B to keep him happy because they pay him so much.

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot to say that playing on his team endows you with the ability to save little boys from oncoming trucks.

[tdarko]

in 1927 there was not one TEAM in the entire MLB that had more homeruns than he had himself. nobody has done it since and nobody will ever do it again.

[sublime]

His OBP was .609 last season. He gets on base more than 60% of the time. DISGUSTING. And his slugging is off the hook as well

yes but your post said, if they all played in this era bonds would be the best by far. i dunno man, the advances in weight training alone (not to mention his posh lifestyle) give him a huge edge over those other guys. not to mention the chemical issues.....

[mostsmooth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How is Ruth not a candidate? I would imagine that he was easily the best player ever due to the fact that at the time he was playing he was miles ahead of other players. FWIW, Bonds is my pick. The OPS is off the charts.

[/ QUOTE ]
bonds cheated

[/ QUOTE ]

Does him taking steroids really affect him that much?

[/ QUOTE ] yes[ QUOTE ]
He was the best player of the 1990's before he got gigantic.To say that he wouldn't be this good if he didn't take steroids would be untrue, however, I still feel that if no one cheated in the MLB today, he'd easily be the best player ever.

[/ QUOTE ]
so youre saying he got gigantic, but it didnt help him much?
if the juice doesnt help much, why did he take it?

[tdarko]

its not cheating, it happens all the time (minor leagues now). that was just an old school way of playing.

in spring training this year a man that played against him later in his career was telling us old stories about these guys. he is like 90 years old but man he looked better than most of our coaches.

anyway getting an edge isn't cheating. a runner on second that picks up the catchers signals and relay's them to the hitter isn't cheating either and its done all the time. a third or first base coach that catches a catcher not closing his legs far enough when giving the signals and sees them and relays them to the hitter isn't cheating either but its done.

i just said that the degree of getting your edge is what matters, obviously bonds took it too far but so has tons of others in the league.

[HDPM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for who would be the best player if every player in the history of baseball played right now, it's Bonds. It's no where near close either.

[/ QUOTE ]
can we get them all juiced up for the competition?

[/ QUOTE ]


Well, I think we should adjust the eras. OK< Ruth didn't have to face African American pitching because of the racism. One thing Bonds has tougher. But should we bring Bonds back to hit the dead ball. Pitchers pitching off a higher mound. A huge strike zone. No ridiculous armor, no batting helmet. We will pretend Bonds wouldn't stare at a home run then be killed by a pitch his next at bat, we'll just know he wouldn't crowd the plate and wouldn't draw so many walks.


Or should we move Ruth to this era. Mix some weights and roids into his hot dog and beer diet. Let him wear all the armor. With roids Ruth might have more bat speed than bonds and still use his 52 or 54 ounce bat or whatever. And I bet Ruth could pitch middle relief at least.

The time warp is impossible. but I think Ruth wins. Particularly if you assume Bonds has done steroids, which to me invalidates all his records if you think he has domne them

[MarkL444]

matt anderson

[tbach24]

[ QUOTE ]
His OBP was .609 last season. He gets on base more than 60% of the time. DISGUSTING. And his slugging is off the hook as well

yes but your post said, if they all played in this era bonds would be the best by far. i dunno man, the advances in weight training alone (not to mention his posh lifestyle) give him a huge edge over those other guys. not to mention the chemical issues.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. However, my assumption was that it would be in the physical state that they played in. So Ruth would still be a fat drunk who could smack the [censored] out of the ball.

[bholdr]

even without it- he was swinging a 54 ounce bat for chrissakes!


lets also not forget that he would have been one of the top ten or so PITCHERS all time if he had kept that up....


all around best player ever, no doubt in my mind, and the pitching's the clincher.

[BretWeir]

If you're just talking about spotting a pitch and calling it to your teammate, I agree 100%.

Also agree 100% that Barry's juicing is way beyond this, and way out of bounds.

[jesusarenque]

[ QUOTE ]

The time warp is impossible. but I think Ruth wins. Particularly if you assume Bonds has done steroids, which to me invalidates all his records if you think he has domne them

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't. There is no proof that steroids make you better. Besides, if pitchers are using steroids too, then that at least partially negates any advantages hitters might have.

[Jack of Arcades]

Mays was amazing and deserves to be in any dicussion of the best player ever.

I think this discussion comes down to:

1] How much, if at all, do you penalize Babe Ruth (or Wagner, or Cobb, or Hornsby) for playing in a diluted league, talent wise? Conversely, how much do you credit Mays?
2] How much, if it all, do you credit Williams for time missed in the two wars?
3] How much, if at all, do you penalize Bonds for possible steroid use?
4] How important do you consider defense? Mays is likely the best defensive player of any candidate (Wagner is up there too). Williams and Ruth are probably the worst.

FWIW, I tend to throw together about 20 position players roughly of equal value in one group, and around 10 pitchers roughly of equal value on the other and much of the effort to rank them is futile.

I also think trying to transplant Babe Ruth into the modern era is a fruitless question, such as putting Barry Bonds into the 1920s (and white). The only distinction you should make between the two eras are talent levels.

[HDPM]

I think steroids completely invalidate all records. If a pitcher is caught with them, all those records should be negated too. It is like being bionic or something. And it is an obvious advantage.

What is funny is that Bonds and mcgwire only hit 70 and 73 in a 162 game season in an era with miniiscule strike zones and lively balls. Shows how great Ruth was.

[mostsmooth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The time warp is impossible. but I think Ruth wins. Particularly if you assume Bonds has done steroids, which to me invalidates all his records if you think he has domne them

[/ QUOTE ]
There is no proof that steroids make you better.

[/ QUOTE ]
bonds' numbers are proof enough (and mcgwire and sosa as well)
more proof is why take it and risk serious health issues if it didnt help?

[tdarko]

i agree its on another level and it really is bullshit, but there is a point where discredit becomes too much since maybe half his homeruns were a level playing field (steriod-using pitchers) and maybe the other half against a non-level playing field (non-steroid using pitchers).

my case for bonds is that he still did it and did for years against everyone.

but yeah i was just talking about calling pitches.

[Jack of Arcades]

1] The ball in the 1920s was far from dead.
2] Ruth played against far inferior competition.

[tdarko]

[ QUOTE ]
I also think trying to transplant Babe Ruth into the modern era is a fruitless question, such as putting Barry Bonds into the 1920s (and white). The only distinction you should make between the two eras are talent levels.

[/ QUOTE ]
exactly.

[jesusarenque]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The time warp is impossible. but I think Ruth wins. Particularly if you assume Bonds has done steroids, which to me invalidates all his records if you think he has domne them

[/ QUOTE ]
There is no proof that steroids make you better.

[/ QUOTE ]
bonds' numbers are proof enough (and mcgwire and sosa as well)
more proof is why take it and risk serious health issues if it didnt help?

[/ QUOTE ]

How are those numbers proof that steroids make you better?

[Jack of Arcades]

Sosa's improvement in 1998 had mostly to do with a change in his batting approach. He became more patient, started walking more, and his home run rate increased. This is not a chicken or egg argument, his change in approach is well documented, and he had very respectable power numbers prior to 1998.

It happened with Bonds, too. His already great walk total increased in 2001 before his home run total did.

I would imagine Bonds's steroids have likely helped him avoid and/or rehabilitate injuries more than anything else.

[sam h]

You can have this discussion in only two ways: Either you evaluate every player in relation to their era, or you try to predict how each player would do today given the assumption that they would have all the training benefits of players today. You can't ask how older players would do against today's competition without the training benefits that competition enjoys. It's just silly.

Either way, Ruth wins.

[mostsmooth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The time warp is impossible. but I think Ruth wins. Particularly if you assume Bonds has done steroids, which to me invalidates all his records if you think he has domne them

[/ QUOTE ]
There is no proof that steroids make you better.

[/ QUOTE ]
bonds' numbers are proof enough (and mcgwire and sosa as well)
more proof is why take it and risk serious health issues if it didnt help?

[/ QUOTE ]

How are those numbers proof that steroids make you better?

[/ QUOTE ]
what type of proof are you looking for then?

[tdarko]

i know of many players right now that take steroids (many on that "38 minor leaguers caught with steriods" scandal) and i am gonna guess that you have no idea who they are. frank mannachino (sp?) used steroids and many others that didn't do dick in this league so why didn't it just all the sudden make them hit 80 hr's???

you simply cannot deny talent, you can have no respect for a person b/c they use drugs but you cannot deny talent. period.

bonds has been a freak for a very long time.

[BretWeir]

True, Ruth wasn't playing against some good black pitchers. (Though Johnson, Grove, et al. were definitely no slouches.) But he also wasn't playing in an expanded league with diluted pitching and lots of B-level talent starting. All in all, I'd say it's a wash.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
stfu. FYI I think Dave McCarty is the best. I mean he's probably one of the best minor leaguers ever. He probably belongs back down there.

why did you feel the need to bash my choices?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it is obvious that you are just needling me.

[mostsmooth]

[ QUOTE ]
i know of many players right now that take steroids (many on that "38 minor leaguers caught with steriods" scandal) and i am gonna guess that you have no idea who they are. frank mannachino (sp?) used steroids and many others that didn't do dick in this league so why didn't it just all the sudden make them hit 80 hr's???

you simply cannot deny talent, you can have no respect for a person b/c they use drugs but you cannot deny talent. period.

bonds has been a freak for a very long time.

[/ QUOTE ]
bonds was a great player before, but it was an all around great player. now hes just a hitting machine
if you think bonds hits 70+ hrs without the juice, you are incredibly naive. incredibly.

[jesusarenque]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The time warp is impossible. but I think Ruth wins. Particularly if you assume Bonds has done steroids, which to me invalidates all his records if you think he has domne them

[/ QUOTE ]
There is no proof that steroids make you better.

[/ QUOTE ]
bonds' numbers are proof enough (and mcgwire and sosa as well)
more proof is why take it and risk serious health issues if it didnt help?

[/ QUOTE ]

How are those numbers proof that steroids make you better?

[/ QUOTE ]
what type of proof are you looking for then?

[/ QUOTE ]

Scientific studies that show that steroids improve baseball players' performances.

[HDPM]

Whether you deny their talent or not, their records should be stricken.

[tdarko]

[ QUOTE ]
Sosa's improvement in 1998 had mostly to do with a change in his batting approach. He became more patient, started walking more, and his home run rate increased

[/ QUOTE ]
good comment, this is the year he started working with at the time the new cubs big league hitting coach Gary Pentland who is now the new royals big league hitting coach.
he is one of the most respected hitting instructors in the game and guess who Barry Bonds' hitting coach was at Arizona State?? yup Gary Pentland. plus bonds had his father and godfather (mays) helping too so i guess he had no choice but to be great.

[jesusarenque]

[ QUOTE ]
Whether you deny their talent or not, their records should be stricken.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Should Ruth's records be stricken because he didn't play against black players? Should every record broken after MLB went to the 162-game schedule be stricken because players had more games to accumulate stats?

[Jack of Arcades]

Since the 1920s, roster spots available have roughly doubled.

Meanwhile:

1] Population has boomed
2] Medicine has increased in huge bounds, allowing players to play that once weren't able to. Tommy John, John Smoltz, and Kerry Wood are just 3 examples of great pitchers that have been allowed to play that would not have been able to in the 1920s.
3] Integration of hispanics, blacks, and asians have given the talent pool a significant boost.
4] Baseball schools, a huge minor league system, et al, have upped the training level signficiantly.

If you don't think this has more than doubled the talent pool MLB draws from, you're sadly mistaken.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
bonds was a great player before, but it was an all around great player. now hes just a hitting machine
if you think bonds hits 70+ hrs without the juice, you are incredibly naive. incredibly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bonds was never a great home run hitter, he just did it consistently ever year, much like his idol Aaron.

His home-run rate in 2001 was largely a fluke. Luck. There's a lot of variance involved in baseball, and there's plenty of documented cases of this.

Was Maris juicing in 61?

[Jack of Arcades]

Not necessarily. See my first post in this thread, you have to make some adjustment to Ruth''s numbers because he did them in one of the weakest leagus in history.

[tbach24]

Nikolai Bonds's OBP was <.5 on my softball team last year. He was a sick outfielder though. I don't think he did 'roids.

[HDPM]

Clearly baseball should have stayed with the 154 game schedule. Expanding the schedule did taint some records. But whatever you think of schedule length, steroids are a different deal. In another post I said it was sort of like being bionic. In my mind, altering the body with steroids is different.

And yes, I think Ruth's numbers should have an asterisk to remind people of the racism practiced by baseball. But he put the numbers up. Bonds, assuming he took steroids, did not put his numbers up. It was an altered Bonds that did it.

Also, I think baseball should be held to a higher standard by fans. Baseball has marketed itself by using its records and comparison of eras; it is what makes baseball unique in the minds of hardcore fans. Hardcore fans should insist that the records of roid heads be stricken.

[tdarko]

jack you are on point with this.

there have been many cases where hitters/pitchers (yes, non-steriod players) have just plain been in the zone longer than the years before. everything starts to click and everything goes your way. a lot of older athletes talk about how they "figure it all out" b/c they have been working at it for so long and finally it all clicked. i wish people would realize that he only has had really one year in which his homerun totals were drastically different.

[jesusarenque]

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly baseball should have stayed with the 154 game schedule. Expanding the schedule did taint some records. But whatever you think of schedule length, steroids are a different deal. In another post I said it was sort of like being bionic. In my mind, altering the body with steroids is different.

And yes, I think Ruth's numbers should have an asterisk to remind people of the racism practiced by baseball. But he put the numbers up. Bonds, assuming he took steroids, did not put his numbers up. It was an altered Bonds that did it.

Also, I think baseball should be held to a higher standard by fans. Baseball has marketed itself by using its records and comparison of eras; it is what makes baseball unique in the minds of hardcore fans. Hardcore fans should insist that the records of roid heads be stricken.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't all players today alter their bodies by lifting weights?

[jesusarenque]

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly baseball should have stayed with the 154 game schedule. Expanding the schedule did taint some records. But whatever you think of schedule length, steroids are a different deal. In another post I said it was sort of like being bionic. In my mind, altering the body with steroids is different.

And yes, I think Ruth's numbers should have an asterisk to remind people of the racism practiced by baseball. But he put the numbers up. Bonds, assuming he took steroids, did not put his numbers up. It was an altered Bonds that did it.

Also, I think baseball should be held to a higher standard by fans. Baseball has marketed itself by using its records and comparison of eras; it is what makes baseball unique in the minds of hardcore fans. Hardcore fans should insist that the records of roid heads be stricken.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a "hardcore" fan and I don't give a [censored] about steroids or who is taking them. It is a non-issue.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
1] Population has boomed
2] Medicine has increased in huge bounds, allowing players to play that once weren't able to. Tommy John, John Smoltz, and Kerry Wood are just 3 examples of great pitchers that have been allowed to play that would not have been able to in the 1920s.
3] Integration of hispanics, blacks, and asians have given the talent pool a significant boost.
4] Baseball schools, a huge minor league system, et al, have upped the training level signficiantly.

If you don't think this has more than doubled the talent pool MLB draws from, you're sadly mistaken.

[/ QUOTE ]

good points, but there are some mitigating factors that you've overlooked:

1: though the population has boomed, the % of people that play baseball has gone way down. specificly, basketball and football now get most of the best athletes in the states. I'd have to say that, even with the influx of latin american, japanese, etc players, the overall ratio of the size of the pool of talent vs the number of MLB players is about the same as it was in the 20s.


if ruth were playing today, he would also have access to the benifits yuo mention in points 2 and 4.

[mostsmooth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The time warp is impossible. but I think Ruth wins. Particularly if you assume Bonds has done steroids, which to me invalidates all his records if you think he has domne them

[/ QUOTE ]
There is no proof that steroids make you better.

[/ QUOTE ]
bonds' numbers are proof enough (and mcgwire and sosa as well)
more proof is why take it and risk serious health issues if it didnt help?

[/ QUOTE ]

How are those numbers proof that steroids make you better?

[/ QUOTE ]
what type of proof are you looking for then?

[/ QUOTE ]

Scientific studies that show that steroids improve baseball players' performances.

[/ QUOTE ]
i hope scientists are working on more important things than whether steroids help baseball players.
well, theres no point arguing. i saw the other posts and it appears the guys that are allegedly juicing only needed to change their stance, be more patient, and get lucky. they just took the juice for fun.

[Jack of Arcades]

Well, I think it's very likely the following occured:

In rehabilitating his injury after 1999, Bonds started training with steroids and liked the results.

The key is not that steroids make you stronger, but help you train. Bonds devoted himself, likely with steroids, to working out and he had amazing results. His body's catching up to him, steroids or no.

[HDPM]

Weight existed in Ruth's era. Athletes could have lifted. The fact humans progressed in knowledge about how to use the weight is one thing. IMO steroids are another. And if someday players get robotic implants I will say their records don't count. Steroids cross the line IMO.

[jesusarenque]

[ QUOTE ]
Weight existed in Ruth's era. Athletes could have lifted. The fact humans progressed in knowledge about how to use the weight is one thing. IMO steroids are another. And if someday players get robotic implants I will say their records don't count. Steroids cross the line IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

But why? Why is changing your body via lifting ok, but changing your body via steroids not? I just don't get it. For that matter, why does nobody bitch when some girl with a boob job and other plastic surgery get a modeling contract? Doesn't she have an advantage over women who are natural? How is this different?

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
1: though the population has boomed, the % of people that play baseball has gone way down. specificly, basketball and football now get most of the best athletes in the states. I'd have to say that, even with the influx of latin american, japanese, etc players, the overall ratio of the size of the pool of talent vs the number of MLB players is about the same as it was in the 20s.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you can believe that if you want to, there's really no way to tell you otherwise without specifically diving into numbers right now, which I don't have the time for.

[ QUOTE ]
if ruth were playing today, he would also have access to the benifits yuo mention in points 2 and 4.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying the overall talent level was lower. Ruth didn't need the schools, et al - law of diminishing returns. The ones that did were the pitchers he terrorized., it would've closed the talent gap.

[HDPM]

Ah, the difference between sport and art brought out. Bodybuilding is not a sport, but powerlifting is. Bull fighting is not a sport, but bull riding is. Modeling is not a sport. Baseball, however, is. And the point of sport is to challenge human abilities with a defined game. Improving skills through effort is fine and what sport calls for. Where is the line? I am not sure, but as I said IMO steroids are over the line. As are bionics. Glasses are OK, but bionic eyes aren't. Something like that.

[tdarko]

[ QUOTE ]
For that matter, why does nobody bitch when some girl with a boob job and other plastic surgery get a modeling contract? Doesn't she have an advantage over women who are natural? How is this different?




[/ QUOTE ]
wow, never thought of it this way. i like this analogy.

[jesusarenque]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, the difference between sport and art brought out. Bodybuilding is not a sport, but powerlifting is. Bull fighting is not a sport, but bull riding is. Modeling is not a sport. Baseball, however, is. And the point of sport is to challenge human abilities with a defined game. Improving skills through effort is fine and what sport calls for. Where is the line? I am not sure, but as I said IMO steroids are over the line. As are bionics. Glasses are OK, but bionic eyes aren't. Something like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because something isn't a sport doesn't mean that there isn't competition involved. There is competition to get modeling/acting jobs. An unfair advantage is an unfair advantage.

Steroids will eventually be safe, legal, and widely accepted.

[jdl22]

Barry Bonds

[[censored]]

Bob Horner not yet been mentioned in this conversation. The dude hit 4 homeruns in one game.

[tdarko]

or fernando tatis--he hit 2 grand slams in one inning!

[tbach24]

So did Shawn Green....

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
So did Shawn Green....

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude I know you are not comparing shawn green to Bob [censored] Horner. Horner would snap him like a twig. Shawn Green is a sick joke compared to Bob Horner

[andyfox]

Why shouldn't Babe Ruth qualify? We could certainly adjust his performace to account for the change conditions from the time he played.

Bill James's Win Shares system has Ruth as the top player in career win shares, followed, in order, by Ty Cobb, Barry Bonds, Honus Wagner, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Cy Young, Tris Speaker, Stan Musial, Eddie Collins, Mickey Mantle, Walter Johnson and Ted Williams.

For some commentary see:
http://baseballguru.com/egartman/analysisericgartman01.html

http://us.share.geocities.com/cyrilmorong@sbcglobal.net/WSperPA.htm

http://www.baseballtruth.com/leadingoff/leadingoff_112304.htm

My own opinion is that the top five players, in order, are Ruth, Bonds, Cobb, Mays and Walter Johnson. Honus Wagner could certainly be in the top five, but if I had to guess on numbers 6-12, I'd probably say Wagner, Mantle, Musial, Williams, Tris Speaker, Lou Gehrig, Hank Aaron.

[Isura]

Willie Mays. He's one of the few old timers that had the physical gifts to compete in today's game.

[James282]

I can't see how the answer is anything except Jose Reyes.
-James

[Voltron87]

Derek Jeter.

<font color="white"> Yes I'm kidding. </font>

[jesusarenque]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't see how the answer is anything except Jose Reyes.
-James

[/ QUOTE ]

You misspelled Derek Jeter.

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
So did Shawn Green....

[/ QUOTE ]

So did hard-hittin' Mark Whiten!
-James

[M2d]

You are high. Mays defines "5 tool player". faster than any of your noted contenders. better defense. just as much power, same ballpark for average. better gun...can I get a hit of what you're smoking?

[Jack of Arcades]

He was not as good as a hitter as Barry Bonds. Furthermore, Bonds was pretty good defensively himself - he never got to man center because of a guy called Andy Van Slyke.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Mays not in the discussion??? WTF planet are you from?

In today's game Mays would steal 40-50 bases per year plus be among the HR and average leaders.

ruth, bonds, williams and maybe cobb

Include Williams and not DiMaggio? No mention of Musial or Josh Gibson? I don't think Gibson belongs simply because I think the greatest of all time should be a 5-tool player like Mays or DiMaggio. Gibson, while perhaps the greatest power hitter of the depression era, was reputedly an average catcher.

[jesusarenque]

[ QUOTE ]



Include Williams and not DiMaggio?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ted Williams was better than Joe DiMaggio.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



Include Williams and not DiMaggio?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ted Williams was better than Joe DiMaggio.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mickey mantle was much better than Joe DiMaggio

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



Include Williams and not DiMaggio?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ted Williams was better than Joe DiMaggio.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mickey mantle was much better than Joe DiMaggio

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he was not MUCH better. He was better, I'll give you that, but not overwhelmingly better. He had more home runs. He played 5 more seasons than DiMaggio and only had 200 more hits.

DiMaggio had a lifetime batting average of .325. Mantle's was .298

Mantle did have a slightly higher OPS+, but to say that Mantle was MUCH better than DiMaggio is ridiculous, imo.

And I love them both.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Williams was a slightly better hitter than DiMaggio. Check out the stats. Joe D was a much better fielder and better baserunner than Teddy Ballgame. And I'm a Red Sox fan.

[purnell]

Johnny Bench

[Dead]

A-Rod will eventually be thought of as better than Williams, DiMaggio, and Mantle. I already think that he's better.

[mostsmooth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For that matter, why does nobody bitch when some girl with a boob job and other plastic surgery get a modeling contract? Doesn't she have an advantage over women who are natural? How is this different?




[/ QUOTE ]
wow, never thought of it this way. i like this analogy.

[/ QUOTE ]
if they were in a league of models that were competing agaisnt each other, boob jobs might very well be illegal

[jesusarenque]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For that matter, why does nobody bitch when some girl with a boob job and other plastic surgery get a modeling contract? Doesn't she have an advantage over women who are natural? How is this different?




[/ QUOTE ]
wow, never thought of it this way. i like this analogy.

[/ QUOTE ]
if they were in a league of models that were competing agaisnt each other, boob jobs might very well be illegal

[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't they already competing against each other for jobs?

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
DiMaggio had a lifetime batting average of .325. Mantle's was .298

[/ QUOTE ]

DiMaggio played in a higher offensive era than Mickey Mantle. When you adjust for this, it's much closer.

During Joltin' Joe's career, the league-average batting average, adjusted for Yankee Stadium was .276. .325 is 18% higher than .276.

During Mantle's carrer, the same numbers are .256 and 16%. So Joe's large advantage in BA is diminished greatly.

[ QUOTE ]
Mantle did have a slightly higher OPS+, but to say that Mantle was MUCH better than DiMaggio is ridiculous, imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Mantle had a much higher OPS+, 172 to 155. This is a large difference. If you drop another 15 points of OPS+, you're looking at Bobby Abreu, Larry Walker, and Carlos Delgado.

Furthermore, Mantle's OPS was more OBP heavy, which OPS+ doesn't take into account. OBP is more important than SLG, so his advantage is actually larger.

Plus, Mantle amassed over 2000 more PAs than Joe DiMaggio. These 2000 PA are very very valuable, especially when you take into account the increased offensive production Mantle provided.

And just for a little extra, Mantle stole 144 more bases than Joe, and he did it at a very impressive 80% clip. This was pretty valuable given the very low offensive era Mantle played in.

[mostsmooth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For that matter, why does nobody bitch when some girl with a boob job and other plastic surgery get a modeling contract? Doesn't she have an advantage over women who are natural? How is this different?




[/ QUOTE ]
wow, never thought of it this way. i like this analogy.

[/ QUOTE ]
if they were in a league of models that were competing agaisnt each other, boob jobs might very well be illegal

[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't they already competing against each other for jobs?

[/ QUOTE ]
not in a league
plus, boob jobs are far less dangerous than steroids are.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
A-Rod will eventually be thought of as better than Williams, DiMaggio, and Mantle. I already think that he's better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe eventually, but A-Rod still has about 5 seasons to go before we can accurately judge it.

[jesusarenque]

[quote
plus, boob jobs are far less dangerous than steroids are.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure this is true.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
Williams was a slightly better hitter than DiMaggio. Check out the stats.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am checking out the stats. The only state in which DiMaggio even comes remotely close to Teddy Ballgame is batting average.

Don't get me wrong, Batting Average is an important statistic, but only because it is a component of On Base Percentage and Slugging Percentage, which are the most important hitting statistics in baseball.

When you intoduce OBP and SLG into it, the hitting isn't even close - Williams absolutely demolishes Joe D. That's okay, he pretty much demolishes everyone else. The only people close are Ruth (better) and Bonds (worse). Gehrig, Hornsby and Mantle are in the general area.

Let's put it this way: Williams and DiMaggio played mostly at the same time, and in similar hitting environments, so I won't have to adjust, and we can compare their stats directly.

In his career, Ted Williams got on base 48.2% of the time. Think about that - when Ted Williams came up, there was a 48% chance he would reach base.

For Dimaggio, it was 39.8%. Now that is a very, very good on-base percentage. It's nowhere near Ted's.

Then when you take into account slugging percentage, it gets worse. Ted Williams's SLG was .634, while Joe's was .577. That is, Ted average .634 bases per at-bat, while Joe average .577. Once again, these are both very high numbers, but Joe's is nowhere near Ted's.

And to put the cap on it all, Ted Williams, like Mantle, had 2000 more PA than Joe. If you want to give Ted Williams credit for fighting in TWO wars it's an even larger gap.

Yes, I'll concede that DiMaggio was a far better fielder and base-runner. But Ted Williams is the second (or third) best hitter of all time and was such a better hitter than Joe Dimaggio it doesn't much matter.

The difference between Ted Williams and Joe DiMaggio is the difference between Jim Edmonds and a league average hitter! Williams produced nearly twice as much at the plate that DiMaggio did.

[ibankonu]

[ QUOTE ]
matt anderson

[/ QUOTE ]

Detroit what

[Dead]

Here's how I think it should go, in order of best hitter:

Ruth &gt; Hornsby &gt; Williams &gt; Mantle &gt; DiMaggio

Thoughts?

[jesusarenque]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's how I think it should go, in order of best hitter:

Ruth &gt; Hornsby &gt; Williams &gt; Mantle &gt; DiMaggio

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

You overrate Hornsby

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's how I think it should go, in order of best hitter:

Ruth &gt; Hornsby &gt; Williams &gt; Mantle &gt; DiMaggio

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

You overrate Hornsby

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that I do, if we are talking about just hitting.

I'd put Hornsby in between Ruth and Williams.

[tdarko]

neither am i.

oh and what does it matter if competition is in a league, division etc. tennis players aren't in a league and neither are golfers but they compete for their job everytime they step foot on the court or course.

[Jack of Arcades]

1a. Ruth
1b. Bonds
1c. Williams

Seriously, any attempt to rank them, I think, is madness. You can go by total PA, in which case it's Bonds &gt; Ruth &gt; Williams, but Ruth lost PA to pitching, Williams to war.

2a. Mantle
2b. Mays

I'm hard-pressed to chose between the two, here.


1a. Ruth
1b. Bonds
1c. Williams

Seriously, any attempt to rank them, I think, is madness. You can go by total PA, in which case it's Bonds &gt; Ruth &gt; Williams, but Ruth lost PA to pitching, Williams to war.

2a. Mantle
2b. Mays
2c. Ty Cobb

Another 3-way tie among positions. I'm hard-pressed to chose between the three, here. While it's true that Mantle had much better rate stats, Mays played in a tougher league (the NL of that time had much stiffer competition, as it was very integrated) and had 2500 more PAs. Ty Cobb played in the easiest league of them all, but accumulate so many PAs. Plus, stolen base totals are absolutely gorgeous. One of the best base-stealers of all time.

3. Rogers Hornsby - the best 2B of all time. Caveat: played pre-integreation.

4a. Lou Gehrig
4b. Honus Wagner

Flip a coin.

5. Stan Musial
Given the nod over guys like Foxx and Speaker, Musial played in the same tough league as Mays and many others. Longevity nearly unmatched, he amassed over 13K PA and at a very high rate. Barely squeaks in.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]

3. Rogers Hornsby - the best 2B of all time.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/shocked.gif What about Joe Morgan? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Glad to see that we agree on that. Good post.

[Jack of Arcades]

I'll give him #2 ahead of Eddie Collins.

[Dead]

Ditto.

What do you think the toughest positions are to field in the majors, btw?

How would you rank them?

Would you put CF as the hardest? Or would you rank SS or 2B as the hardest?

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
See my first post in this thread, you have to make some adjustment to Ruth''s numbers because he did them in one of the weakest leagus in history.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are you measuring league strength?

[Jack of Arcades]

The traditional spectrum is this, I believe:

LF 1B RF 3B 2B CF SS C

That, I believe, fits in with last year's average offensive numbers. I think historically 2B and 3B are closer than most people realize.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
See my first post in this thread, you have to make some adjustment to Ruth''s numbers because he did them in one of the weakest leagus in history.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are you measuring league strength?

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't something I've done statistically, although I imagine the way to do it would be to measure the gap between the top x% hitters and bottom x% hitters, same with pitchers. A large gap would indicate a weak league. I haven't looked into it.

[Dead]

Well, we all know that the reason for LF, 1B, and RF being the home base for great hitters is because you don't have to be fantastic defensively to field those positions, like you have to be to play 2B, SS, C, etc.

But I think this is changing somewhat. Soriano had a decent year last year, and so did Bret Boone.

[Voltron87]

Dead, I'm really not sure the juxtaposition of OJ and "Go Yankees!!?!" is working.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
Dead, I'm really not sure the juxtaposition of OJ and "Go Yankees!!?!" is working.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I like OJ, and I am a Bills fan. But it is not football season, and I am a Yankees fan, so.. meh.

[Jack of Arcades]

Last year offensive rankings, best to worst:

LF
1B
RF
CF
3B
2B
SS
C

[Dead]

I'll repeat what I said above:

"we all know that the reason for LF, 1B, and RF being the home base for great hitters is because you don't have to be fantastic defensively to field those positions, like you have to be to play 2B, SS, C, etc."

Do you agree with that statement?

I wasn't saying that second baseman were going to explode offensively in the next few years, and pass 1B's. I was just saying that the average second baseman is more productive offensively than the second baseman of, say, 10-15 years ago. At least that's what I think.

[Jack of Arcades]

You chose the wrong second basemen, anyway. Loretta and Kent were 1 and 2.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you agree with that statement?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. For every Mark Loretta, there's a Bill Hall.

[Dead]

That's not the statement I am talking about. I am talking about THIS one:

"we all know that the reason for LF, 1B, and RF being the home base for great hitters is because you don't have to be fantastic defensively to field those positions, like you have to be to play 2B, SS, C, etc."

You're saying that you don't agree with this?

[Jack of Arcades]

Oh, sure, I agree with that one. Also, many of the best hitters are very large which hinders speed, etc.

[Dead]

Which is why A-Rod will eventually be considered one of the greatest players, if not the greatest, ever.

He is the only true 40-40 guy in the game. He combines awesome power with blinding speed, and a fantastic glove to boot.

[Jack of Arcades]

HEAD. HURTING.

He's 29, declining, and playing 3B. Give him 5 more seasons and we'll see, but it's not likely.

[Dead]

He's playing 3B because Jeter is not as versatile defensively as A-Rod, and because Steinbrenner wasn't about to move a Yankee legend for the new guy in town.

Playing 3B doesn't make his defensive ability any less impressive. Didn't you see some of the plays he made at 3B last season?

[Jack of Arcades]

Yes, I did. That doesn't matter. His defensive value is less than it would be at shortstop, just as his offensive value is less.

[bugstud]

[ QUOTE ]
Which is why A-Rod will eventually be considered one of the greatest players, if not the greatest, ever.

He is the only true 40-40 guy in the game. He combines awesome power with blinding speed, and a fantastic glove to boot.

[/ QUOTE ]

hello beltran, and maybe abreu

EDIT: soriano wasn't too bad a couple years ago either

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't something I've done statistically, although I imagine the way to do it would be to measure the gap between the top x% hitters and bottom x% hitters, same with pitchers. A large gap would indicate a weak league. I haven't looked into it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that a large gap could indicate either a weak league or an especially dominant player. In general, what is important is the average strength of players not the variance between them.

So I'm open to the idea that the league was weaker but have yet to hear convincing evidence for that being the case.

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
Which is why A-Rod will eventually be considered one of the greatest players, if not the greatest, ever.

He is the only true 40-40 guy in the game. He combines awesome power with blinding speed, and a fantastic glove to boot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Barry Bonds did 40/40, and came very close another year(before all the steroid speculation). But if A-rod gets back on track and plays til he's 40 he could very well surpass the best players in history. But, as Jack pointed out, he is showing steady decline and his other weaknesses(like mental makeup) are coming to the forefront now that he is in a major market. I think the A-rod stock is falling.


Btw, great posts Jack. Really intriguing stuff.
-James

[Dead]

Barry Bonds did it with the help of roids. Same as Canseco.

Like Schilling said, A-Rod is the only true 40-40 guy in the history of baseball.

[Jack of Arcades]

I've already gone into great detail. Small population, only whites, bad training, bad medicine, etc.

[ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that a large gap could indicate either a weak league or an especially dominant player.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why I proposed something like the top 10% vs the bottom 10%. If the league is weaker, it'll be reflected in the worst players, not the best ones.

[ QUOTE ]
In general, what is important is the average strength of players not the variance between them.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's just no way to do this using averages.

[Jack of Arcades]

You think Bonds was juicing in 1996?

[morello]

Not a single mention of a pitcher yet. I don't follow baseball, are they really that much less important than position players?

[HC5831]

[ QUOTE ]
(i.e. Babe Ruth is not really a candidate)


[/ QUOTE ]

lmao. Give me a break. If the babe played in todays game, he would have the same dedication as players do today. Same if Bonds went back to the 1930's; his game would be less. People play to their peers until the bar is raised.

Ruth was the best ever. No question. And he didn't have to use steroids like Bonds did.

HC

[andyfox]

Pretty hard for a guy who plays in 40 games a year to be as valuable as a guy who plays in 160. That's why they made Babe Ruth into an outfielder from a pitcher.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
Not a single mention of a pitcher yet. I don't follow baseball, are they really that much less important than position players?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's just a lot harder to compare pitchers across eras, and pitchers to position players, so these discussions turn into the top position players.

[M2d]

bonds was a good outfielder with a weak arm for the first half of his career. the second half, he was a lazy, poor fielder with a weak arm who sometimes shows flashes of brilliance, but usually prefers to dog it.
mays was an awesome defender from the git go to the very end.

I'd be very interested to see how mays and bonds stack up against their contemporaries. the NL was very much a pitcher's league when mays was in his prime, so his absolute statistics may look lower than they should be. also, his power numbers may not look as impressive as they are (and they're damned impressive.

[M2d]

[ QUOTE ]
Ted Williams was better than Joe DiMaggio.

[/ QUOTE ]
all around?

[Jack of Arcades]

Not in every aspect of the game, but in overall value.

I mean, Neifi Perez is a better defender than Adam Dunn. Who's better?

[jesusarenque]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ted Williams was better than Joe DiMaggio.

[/ QUOTE ]
all around?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[Alobar]

if the criterea is todays game, then any player who hasnt played in the last 10 years is automatically exempt, I dont care who it is. The human athlete is evolving so fast, the if you were to take mays or ruth or anyone else from back in the day and stick them into todays game, they wouldnt be superstars. This is more true for other sports than baseball (Which is the least atheltic of all the sports), but still true none theless

[istewart]

I think SI said it pretty well that in a few decades everyone will be on steroids and nobody will care.