|
|
|
|
#1
04-16-2005, 04:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
best baseball player ever?
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 
|
|
#5
04-16-2005, 04:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: best baseball player ever?
[ 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.
|
|
#6
04-16-2005, 04:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: best baseball player ever?
[ 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.
|
|
#7
04-16-2005, 04:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: best baseball player ever?
[ 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.
|
|
#8
04-16-2005, 04:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: best baseball player ever?
[ 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?
|
|
#9
04-17-2005, 01:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: best baseball player ever?
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
|
|
#10
04-16-2005, 05:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: best baseball player ever?
[ 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.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
