August 15, 2003 at 06:27PM View BBCode
Just looking at the Albert Pujos topic I was wondering what you think.August 15, 2003 at 06:31PM View BBCode
Well you really cant say one player is the best but If I had to chose Id say Babe Ruth was one of themAugust 15, 2003 at 07:31PM View BBCode
top five r:August 15, 2003 at 08:12PM View BBCode
for on and off field stuff its still ruth for making baseball popular and being so good.August 15, 2003 at 08:17PM View BBCode
Jim Brown. ;) Unless your going to narrow it down to just baseball, then I might go with Bonds.August 15, 2003 at 08:52PM View BBCode
"Best Player" is so hard to define. Comparing guys from different generations is impossible. If you took a time machine and picked up Ruth and brought him into today's game, would he still stand out? Well, he'd see some pitches that he hadn't seen before. He'd see some color in the game that he hadn't seen before. Guys are alot bigger and alot stronger than before. Parks are smaller. It's not the same game. This is true for every sport. I happen to think that the superstars of any era could probably play in any era.August 15, 2003 at 09:29PM View BBCode
wow, Meathead agreed with me on Jim Brown. (kinda) To see him play is a real treat. The man would use his forearms as weapons. Not only is he the best RB in my opinion, he's one of the best runners, and not to narrow it down there, but maybe the best athlete of all time. He only played football for 9 years, if he had played 15 or so like Emmitt, he might've had 18000 yards. Not to mention his 5.2 yards per carry in his career. He won the NFL rushing title 8 of the 9 seasons he played, played in 9 straight Pro Bowl games during his career, was the first player to win rookie of the year and league MVP in the same season, won the league MVP award twice, in addition to winning the Hickok Award as the top pro athlete. And he never missed a game! What made him so great was the passing game was nothing compared to what it is today; it wasnt developed. 9 guys would key on Brown (some would run, as Meathead said) and he would still dominate.August 15, 2003 at 09:50PM View BBCode
Last add on Jim Brown:August 15, 2003 at 10:14PM View BBCode
Place this one in the 'would have been the best if not for..." category.August 15, 2003 at 10:34PM View BBCode
"When asked to compare himself to Bo Jackson, Brown was insulted. He said not to ask him to compare himself with a half a season guy who didnâ??t have to play in snow and with blood in his nose or every third and one situation. Bo Jackson is a very fortunate person to play for a coach who allows him to be a designated hitter and to have Marcus Allen, whoâ??s very accommodating. "August 15, 2003 at 11:44PM View BBCode
Different times, my friend. But I dare say if Bo had to, he'd have played in such conditions in a second.August 15, 2003 at 11:52PM View BBCode
Bo should not even be considered in this topic! The only thing he was best at was...the best player to ever come out of Auburn! Oh by the way, best ever player...the Splendid Splinter, Ted Williams!!:cool:August 16, 2003 at 12:25AM View BBCode
If you add "would have been the best if not for" category , I would have to mention Mickey Mantle. If not for terrible leg problems and a love of the grape, how many home runs would he have hit? How many bases could he have stolen? how high would his lifetime BA have been? I think a healthy, sober Mantle could have finished his career with a .320 BA, made a run at the all-time HR record, and stolen as many bases as his manager would allow. Even in an era when SB were in a down cycle, I think he could have finished with 400 or more. --- Still, my vote goes to Ruth. Big reason is his dominance as a hitter coupled with his record as a pitcher. Talk about an "all-round" player. ;)August 16, 2003 at 12:36AM View BBCode
the amazing thing about ruth is is that he did all that in the twenties and thirties in huge ballparks off dominant pitchers with worse equipment and shorter seasons. i think that if u transport ruth to this era with the smaller stadiums the better equipment and medicine and every thing else he would of hit atleast 800 homers prollly closer to 900. and he wuz a great pitcher too.August 16, 2003 at 01:00AM View BBCode
Joe DiMaggio. A great defensive player and a right handed hitter who was able to hit homeruns in a much-larger-than-now Yankee Stadium. Shipping him home from the war for him to play in his prime years would have left no dispute, imo...August 16, 2003 at 01:38AM View BBCode
Thats a loaded questiom.Iam 65 and have been going to major league games since 1954. I've seen some great ones but it would'nt be fair to rate them against each other because of different circumstances:August 16, 2003 at 04:27AM View BBCode
babe ruth was so dominant, one year he hit 44 home runs and the second place guy hit 21.August 16, 2003 at 05:07AM View BBCode
I think you got your story a bit confused: in 1920, Babe Ruth hit 54 home runs, and no other TEAM hit more than 50 combinedAugust 16, 2003 at 05:31AM View BBCode
i didnt know he did that in 1920, that just adds on to accomplishments, but what i mixed up the numbers a little since he actually hit 47 not 46 in the year i was referring to (1926) but i went back and checked HR leaders from 1920-1927 and found this, so he actually did what i said 3 times, and did what you said that is amazing and is why he is no doubt the best ever.August 16, 2003 at 05:41AM View BBCode
i meant .360-50-160August 16, 2003 at 12:18PM View formatted
August 16, 2003 at 05:32PM View BBCode
Hey, does anyone remember pitching here? no one named a pitcher in their top 5