 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Off Topic » Who is the best player of all time?
geoffrey13
There's got to be different categories for a best player ever deal...best peak value, best career value,etc. Best pitcher should really be a seperate category...and IMHO, anything prior to 1947 is really quite meaningless anyways, even 1950 or so is more realistic as baseball wasn't fully integrated until well into the 50's. Not to deny the accomplishments of the great players from the "white" era, but they certainly weren't playing with or against the best competition available.
Henry Aaron?
August 17, 2003 at 10:34PM View BBCode
Any of you guys ever heard of him? Pretty good hitter, decent power, alright fielder....played for a couple of years or so.There's got to be different categories for a best player ever deal...best peak value, best career value,etc. Best pitcher should really be a seperate category...and IMHO, anything prior to 1947 is really quite meaningless anyways, even 1950 or so is more realistic as baseball wasn't fully integrated until well into the 50's. Not to deny the accomplishments of the great players from the "white" era, but they certainly weren't playing with or against the best competition available.
ME
August 17, 2003 at 11:16PM View BBCode
in the early years, there was no integration in baseball but it was the only major sport, so most good athletes that today would have to decide between baseball, football, or basketball played only baseball then, so there were still many good players to play against even without black players. there would have been more if black players had been allowed to play but in teh late 1940s and 1950s when there was integration was when football and basketball started to gain popularity, and drew good athletes (white and black) away from baseball.
FuriousGiorge
August 17, 2003 at 11:36PM View BBCode
It seems to me that if you're going to discount players' accomplishments prior to 1947, you should also discount players' accomplishments before about 1970 (few Hispanics) and 1995 (almost no Asian players). The only thing you can do is judge a player versus the competition he played: that's why Josh Gibson, Satchel Paige and the like are in the Hall of Fame, because they were great regardless of the fact that they weren't playing against whites. The population base of the game's players is constantly expanding, so why should only black players cause there to be an asterisk by those names that played before them?
skierdude44
August 18, 2003 at 01:33AM View BBCode
giorge is rite. for example there r hardly any (if any) arabs playing in the majors today so if u follow that way of thinking than todays players should get an asterisk bcuz its not the best available competiton. racism is an unfortunate thing and unfortunately it has affect all sports particularly baseball throughout history. its not nearly as bad 2day than in the past but unfortunately racism is still around.
Duff77
Here's another factor: It's true that if today's Barry Bonds played in Babe Ruth's league, he'd be the ultimate stud. He probably would've hit 2000 HRs. But if Bonds had played then, he only would've been half the size he is now. Performance enhancing drugs or not, guys just didn't work out like they do now. The culture was different. Go watch a few games on ESPN Classic and you'll see that even fifteen or twenty years ago, there just weren't guys around who looked like Bonds or Giambi--or at least not as many.
By the same token, what if Ruth had played today? He'd spend as much time in the weight room as anybody else. His physical condition would be a hundred times better than it was in 1927. Maybe he'd hit a thousand homers. There's no way to tell.
Which is why I said that when you're trying to determine who the "best player" is, you've got to look at guys who had an overall impact on the game, because you can't get anywhere looking at the stats. That why I picked Ruth. Ruth IS baseball. Ruth DEFINES baseball. He's a symbol of the game. He's larger than the game itself, and far larger than his own stats.
Which, again, is why Cal Ripken was on my list. I know I got blasted on that--especially about my claim (which I still make) that in his prime, Rip was the best defensive shortstop of this era, but like it or not, the man is an icon. I'm not saying that's right or wrong. Aside from a couple of monster seasons, Rip was never a true impact player. The 3,000 hits would barely have been enough to get him in the hall without the streak. But like it or not, the guy was (and still is) iconic, and that's the only thing you can compare between eras.
August 18, 2003 at 05:21AM View BBCode
I agree with those who say it's impossible to judge guys against players of other eras. The variables just change too much. The league Ruth played in looks nothing like the one Barry Bonds plays in.Here's another factor: It's true that if today's Barry Bonds played in Babe Ruth's league, he'd be the ultimate stud. He probably would've hit 2000 HRs. But if Bonds had played then, he only would've been half the size he is now. Performance enhancing drugs or not, guys just didn't work out like they do now. The culture was different. Go watch a few games on ESPN Classic and you'll see that even fifteen or twenty years ago, there just weren't guys around who looked like Bonds or Giambi--or at least not as many.
By the same token, what if Ruth had played today? He'd spend as much time in the weight room as anybody else. His physical condition would be a hundred times better than it was in 1927. Maybe he'd hit a thousand homers. There's no way to tell.
Which is why I said that when you're trying to determine who the "best player" is, you've got to look at guys who had an overall impact on the game, because you can't get anywhere looking at the stats. That why I picked Ruth. Ruth IS baseball. Ruth DEFINES baseball. He's a symbol of the game. He's larger than the game itself, and far larger than his own stats.
Which, again, is why Cal Ripken was on my list. I know I got blasted on that--especially about my claim (which I still make) that in his prime, Rip was the best defensive shortstop of this era, but like it or not, the man is an icon. I'm not saying that's right or wrong. Aside from a couple of monster seasons, Rip was never a true impact player. The 3,000 hits would barely have been enough to get him in the hall without the streak. But like it or not, the guy was (and still is) iconic, and that's the only thing you can compare between eras.
sOriAnO12
August 18, 2003 at 03:52PM View BBCode
3,000 hits by itself is enough to get you into the hall. So is 500 homeruns. I agree Ruth defined baseball. He laid down the ground work for what the game is today.
Jack3
Best All Around player of All Time Still Living!!!
August 18, 2003 at 04:10PM View BBCode
Stan "The Man" Musial:P:cool:
Smocko
ruth:
9th alltime in batting average
15th alltime in era
2nd alltime in hrs, rbis, walks
pretty good
other should-have-been-betters
August 19, 2003 at 03:27AM View BBCode
shoeless joe jackson and smokey joe woodruth:
9th alltime in batting average
15th alltime in era
2nd alltime in hrs, rbis, walks
pretty good
skierdude44
August 19, 2003 at 03:29AM View BBCode
the fact that he is in the top20 in both hitting and pitching is amazing enuff.
skierdude44
August 07, 2004 at 04:25AM View BBCode
Mays is probably the best all around player in baseball history but Ruth dominated his era both pitching and hitting and put up astronomical numbers, and some of those numbers still stand today.
skierdude44
August 07, 2004 at 04:34AM View BBCode
Overall 10 years but he only pitched a good amount of innings in 5 of those years. His career pitching stats are impressive though: 94-46 with a 2.28 era.
youppi!
5 with significant innings, 2 with 300+ innings.
Ruth led the majors in OPS every year from 1918-1931, except 1925 when he was hurt and didn't have enough PA.
August 07, 2004 at 04:38AM View BBCode
[url]http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/ruthba01.shtml[/url]5 with significant innings, 2 with 300+ innings.
Ruth led the majors in OPS every year from 1918-1931, except 1925 when he was hurt and didn't have enough PA.
FuriousGiorge
Got hurt, contracted venereal disease, something like that.
Honestly, Babe was the best player who ever played the game, although there are a few other guys you can make a case for:
Willie Mays
Honus Wagner
Ted Williams
Barry Bonds
Yeah, that's pretty much it. One of those five guys. Babe, of course, is still my vote.
August 07, 2004 at 05:08AM View BBCode
Originally posted by youppi!
[url]http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/ruthba01.shtml[/url]
Ruth led the majors in OPS every year from 1918-1931, except 1925 when he was hurt and didn't have enough PA.
Got hurt, contracted venereal disease, something like that.
Honestly, Babe was the best player who ever played the game, although there are a few other guys you can make a case for:
Willie Mays
Honus Wagner
Ted Williams
Barry Bonds
Yeah, that's pretty much it. One of those five guys. Babe, of course, is still my vote.
whiskybear
My top ten players (pitchers excluded) in no particular order behind Ruth:
1. Bambino
Hank Aaron
Willie Mays (5-tool)
Barry Bonds (Hate the guy, really and truly, but the numbers bear it out)
Honus Wagner (baseball's best pre-Ruth player)
Ted Williams (pure hitter)
Ty Cobb (doesn't win a humanitarian award, however)
Joe DiMaggio (top 3 if he didn't miss several years to WW2 and Korea)
Stan Musial (so underrated he's becoming overrated)
Pat Borders (just kidding...but let's face it, he belongs in the discussion)
Jackie Robinson (for on and off the field accomplishments)
Honorable mention: Josh Gibson...belongs in the list, but too difficult to place...might sub in for Musial or Bonds.
Pitchers in no particular order:
Walter Johnson (best of the deadball era)
Lefty Grove (The Hank Aaron of pitching, in that he dominated a hitting era)
Greg Maddux (See note on Grove, Lefty)
Sandy Koufax (No one better in the early 1960s...imagine a healthy Koufax in 1968!)
Bob Gibson (the intimidator)
Nolan Ryan (7 no-hitters, 12 billion K...)
Warren Spahn (longevity and wins)
Satchel Paige (pitched well in the majors, at 50)
Cy Young (OLD old school award)
Tom Seaver (I'm shaky on this one...3 Cy Youngs)
Honorable mention: Pedro (this is a really tough one, but he's also dominated a hitter's era, and also leads active pitchers in career ERA...He's also only 32. Consider him on the bubble w/ Clemens and Steve Carlton)
I deliberately chose not to put these guys in order because when you're talking about the top ten greatest players of all time, they're all at one level--really, really great.
August 07, 2004 at 06:32AM View BBCode
Ruth is the best, but as Geoffrey pointed out, not too many folks have the love for Hank Aaron. Something to consider--Aaron hit 375 home runs in the 1960s, absolutely dominating an era that was dominated by pitching. Something that doesn't bear consideration, but is an interesting factoid--he hit crosshanded.My top ten players (pitchers excluded) in no particular order behind Ruth:
1. Bambino
Hank Aaron
Willie Mays (5-tool)
Barry Bonds (Hate the guy, really and truly, but the numbers bear it out)
Honus Wagner (baseball's best pre-Ruth player)
Ted Williams (pure hitter)
Ty Cobb (doesn't win a humanitarian award, however)
Joe DiMaggio (top 3 if he didn't miss several years to WW2 and Korea)
Stan Musial (so underrated he's becoming overrated)
Pat Borders (just kidding...but let's face it, he belongs in the discussion)
Jackie Robinson (for on and off the field accomplishments)
Honorable mention: Josh Gibson...belongs in the list, but too difficult to place...might sub in for Musial or Bonds.
Pitchers in no particular order:
Walter Johnson (best of the deadball era)
Lefty Grove (The Hank Aaron of pitching, in that he dominated a hitting era)
Greg Maddux (See note on Grove, Lefty)
Sandy Koufax (No one better in the early 1960s...imagine a healthy Koufax in 1968!)
Bob Gibson (the intimidator)
Nolan Ryan (7 no-hitters, 12 billion K...)
Warren Spahn (longevity and wins)
Satchel Paige (pitched well in the majors, at 50)
Cy Young (OLD old school award)
Tom Seaver (I'm shaky on this one...3 Cy Youngs)
Honorable mention: Pedro (this is a really tough one, but he's also dominated a hitter's era, and also leads active pitchers in career ERA...He's also only 32. Consider him on the bubble w/ Clemens and Steve Carlton)
I deliberately chose not to put these guys in order because when you're talking about the top ten greatest players of all time, they're all at one level--really, really great.
el_Tigre
All joking aside, IMHO, you start on the path to finding the best player by subtracting those that have glaring weaknesses. I think you have to discount all players like Ted Williams because the best player HAS to be able to do more than hit and that is all Williams could do. He couldn't run, throw or field. Musial was a bit better on defense but still couldn't run much and his arm was a rag (hence the move to first). And so on. Subtracting players that way eliminates most of the field. I also agree with those above who take pitchers out of the equation immediately - they need their own category. They don't play everyday and when they do play they contribute in one way only exceot for the occasional bunt (Ruth aside).
By working your way to those who don't have a glaring weakness, had all five tools and coupled that with dominance in many categories, you're left with very few candidates: Aaron, Mays, Ruth (who was a well-above average fielder and runner until the booze, tobacco and VD settled into his lower body), Mantle, DiMaggio and Bonds.
Aaron was simply around forever and I hate the notion that simply being healthy makes you best. Aaron did everything well above average but how can you be the best ever when you weren't even the best of your era? Aaron was a notch below Mays and Mantle in all facets of the game. If class were a category, the Yankee Clipper wins. But it's not so just based on the numbers, DiMaggio is below the others. Going through other similar things my own list is whittled down to two guys - Bonds and Ruth.
The notion that an overweight alcoholic racked with venereal diseases like Ruth could blast 800-900 HRs in today's game is ridiculous. C'mon, guys, be realistic. Today's athletes are so far and above the athletes of yesteryear that it isn't even close. And regardless of what Bob Feller tries to convince me of, they did NOT throw 100 MPH back in the day. There also were no sliders, no split-fingered fastballs (forkballs are not the same), no cut fastballs, no setup specialists or closers, no Japanese, no blacks, etc. I've heard the arguments that yesterday's batters had to contend with dirty, mushy balls, poor umpiring, etc. which is all true but no one will ever convince me that today's game is not more specialized, fast-paced and all-around more athletic than yesterday's game. Ever.
All that being said, you can't compare eras. If you transported Bonds back into the '30s he'd probably hit 80-90 HRs per season (maybe not though since he also wouldn't have Balco to juice him up but that's another story altogether). I think you have to compare how much better the best were in their own era. Ruth slaughters all by that means. No one, ever, has demolished the competition afforded him like Ruth. Bonds has been the best during baseball's most talented era and is probably the most talented all-around player ever. But when compared to his competition, he has to take a backseat to Ruth. And on top of all that, I really, really dislike Bonds. What that has to do with him being the best is nil - but I felt it needed stated. The guy is a tool.
Of course this is all my own opinion (which is what this is supposed to be about, right?) and I typed too much but work was REALLY boring tonight. I'd take Ruth on my team. And I'd make him take me partying with him.
August 07, 2004 at 07:52AM View BBCode
The greatest ballplayer of alltime was Turtle Lobos. How can anyone argue??All joking aside, IMHO, you start on the path to finding the best player by subtracting those that have glaring weaknesses. I think you have to discount all players like Ted Williams because the best player HAS to be able to do more than hit and that is all Williams could do. He couldn't run, throw or field. Musial was a bit better on defense but still couldn't run much and his arm was a rag (hence the move to first). And so on. Subtracting players that way eliminates most of the field. I also agree with those above who take pitchers out of the equation immediately - they need their own category. They don't play everyday and when they do play they contribute in one way only exceot for the occasional bunt (Ruth aside).
By working your way to those who don't have a glaring weakness, had all five tools and coupled that with dominance in many categories, you're left with very few candidates: Aaron, Mays, Ruth (who was a well-above average fielder and runner until the booze, tobacco and VD settled into his lower body), Mantle, DiMaggio and Bonds.
Aaron was simply around forever and I hate the notion that simply being healthy makes you best. Aaron did everything well above average but how can you be the best ever when you weren't even the best of your era? Aaron was a notch below Mays and Mantle in all facets of the game. If class were a category, the Yankee Clipper wins. But it's not so just based on the numbers, DiMaggio is below the others. Going through other similar things my own list is whittled down to two guys - Bonds and Ruth.
The notion that an overweight alcoholic racked with venereal diseases like Ruth could blast 800-900 HRs in today's game is ridiculous. C'mon, guys, be realistic. Today's athletes are so far and above the athletes of yesteryear that it isn't even close. And regardless of what Bob Feller tries to convince me of, they did NOT throw 100 MPH back in the day. There also were no sliders, no split-fingered fastballs (forkballs are not the same), no cut fastballs, no setup specialists or closers, no Japanese, no blacks, etc. I've heard the arguments that yesterday's batters had to contend with dirty, mushy balls, poor umpiring, etc. which is all true but no one will ever convince me that today's game is not more specialized, fast-paced and all-around more athletic than yesterday's game. Ever.
All that being said, you can't compare eras. If you transported Bonds back into the '30s he'd probably hit 80-90 HRs per season (maybe not though since he also wouldn't have Balco to juice him up but that's another story altogether). I think you have to compare how much better the best were in their own era. Ruth slaughters all by that means. No one, ever, has demolished the competition afforded him like Ruth. Bonds has been the best during baseball's most talented era and is probably the most talented all-around player ever. But when compared to his competition, he has to take a backseat to Ruth. And on top of all that, I really, really dislike Bonds. What that has to do with him being the best is nil - but I felt it needed stated. The guy is a tool.
Of course this is all my own opinion (which is what this is supposed to be about, right?) and I typed too much but work was REALLY boring tonight. I'd take Ruth on my team. And I'd make him take me partying with him.
happy
You could also make an argument for some pitchers, like Walter Johnson.
anyway, this topic made me think that Schef had come back.
August 07, 2004 at 10:24AM View BBCode
Originally posted by FuriousGiorge
Originally posted by youppi!
[url]http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/ruthba01.shtml[/url]
Ruth led the majors in OPS every year from 1918-1931, except 1925 when he was hurt and didn't have enough PA.
Got hurt, contracted venereal disease, something like that.
Honestly, Babe was the best player who ever played the game, although there are a few other guys you can make a case for:
Willie Mays
Honus Wagner
Ted Williams
Barry Bonds
Yeah, that's pretty much it. One of those five guys. Babe, of course, is still my vote.
You could also make an argument for some pitchers, like Walter Johnson.
anyway, this topic made me think that Schef had come back.
ABDREW
August 07, 2004 at 12:44PM View BBCode
I hate to say it but you have to give Barry Bonds some consideration in this
whiskybear
For being a rare five-tool player for slightly less than a decade, he deserves recognition. However, in the most recent phase of his career, he sacrificed the speed and the defense to become a supreme hitting freak--in his most dominating era, he does only one thing well. And let's face it, he would only faintly enter this debate had he performed in the past five years like he did earlier in his career, averaging 30-35 home runs with 25 steals.
I guess I won't immediately condemn him for steroid use, since the evidence against him is circumstantial, but let's face it: Bonds chose to make a drastic change to his game in order to become the most dominating hitter of his era. That change completely obliterated the five-tool player that we once knew. If we want our best to excel in all facets of the game, Barry Bonds certainly does not qualify.
August 07, 2004 at 04:07PM View BBCode
My problem with putting Bonds in the top two (note that he IS in my top ten, however): in his early career, Bonds did everything pretty well--good power, good speed, good defense--but did not stand out in any one category among his contemporaries. He was a less heralded five-tool player than Griffey because of Bonds' attitude.For being a rare five-tool player for slightly less than a decade, he deserves recognition. However, in the most recent phase of his career, he sacrificed the speed and the defense to become a supreme hitting freak--in his most dominating era, he does only one thing well. And let's face it, he would only faintly enter this debate had he performed in the past five years like he did earlier in his career, averaging 30-35 home runs with 25 steals.
I guess I won't immediately condemn him for steroid use, since the evidence against him is circumstantial, but let's face it: Bonds chose to make a drastic change to his game in order to become the most dominating hitter of his era. That change completely obliterated the five-tool player that we once knew. If we want our best to excel in all facets of the game, Barry Bonds certainly does not qualify.
ME
You don't have to do everything well in order to be the best. Some things are worth more than others. Hitting is much more important than defense or baserunning ability. Would you rather have Ted Williams or Roberto Clemente?
August 07, 2004 at 04:25PM View BBCode
Bonds led the majors in OPS from 1990-1993 and 1995, and won the NL MVP in 1990, 1992, and 1993. He certainly did stand out.You don't have to do everything well in order to be the best. Some things are worth more than others. Hitting is much more important than defense or baserunning ability. Would you rather have Ted Williams or Roberto Clemente?