Subject: Best of All Time: Barry, McGwire, or Babe
Posted by: tomegun
- [208232222] Tue, Oct 09, 18:28
I believe Barry is for the following reasons: Barry is playing in an era where the pitching is absolutely increbile(100 mph, exploding sliders, splitting fingers, etc...); The players of today are now actually athletes(they are physically the best of modern chemistry); Barry plays the outfield and steals bases; and Barry doesn't take steriods(big mac). The Babe might make a Rusty Staub in this era. What do ya think?
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
21
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399 Wed, Oct 10, 13:13
There are a number of players (IMO) that should be considered. It might be easier to list the top ten players all time and go from there. I'd say that Bonds and Ruth both make anybody's top ten list. Perhaps (in no order) Hank Greenberg, Stan Musial, Lou Gehrig, Rogers Hornsby, Tris Speaker, Jimmy Foxx, Ted WIlliams and Ty Cobb could round out the top ten? If Bonds definately beats out Greenberg, Musial, Gehrig and Foxx because of the gen. gap, what about Stargell and Schmidt? Along that line of thinking, should Tony Gwynn be there before Speaker or Cobb? Then what about Boggs? Boggs and Gwynn but not Carew? Maybe Honus Wagner should be there? George Sisler? Where's Willie Mays? Hammerin' Hank is still #1 on the dong list, remember?
22
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399 Wed, Oct 10, 13:18
Here are the baseballreference.com pages for the requested players: Ty Cobb Ted Williams
23
ChicagoTRS Sustainer
ID: 4324316 Wed, Oct 10, 13:36
top ten position players/hitters...
I would probably say: Ruth Mays Williams Bonds Aaron Gehrig Cobb Mantle Schmidt/Dimaggio/Wagner/Musial/Foxx/Hornsby/Banks/take you pick for the last two places.
I think Ruth, Mays, Williams are no brainers as they are usually the three argued about as the best of all time. I think you can add Bonds to that company.
Here is another interesting name for you - Rickey Henderson...certainly can't argue against some of his stats and records.
24
ChicagoTRS Sustainer
ID: 4324316 Wed, Oct 10, 13:41
Cobb a .262 postseason hitter. Williams a .200 postseason hitter. Mays a .239 postseason hitter. (1 homer in 89 ABs)
When people talk about how great these players were they never really mention that these guys didn't perform in the playoffs yet the first argument always mentioned against Bonds is his poor postseason statistics.
25
KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 266182910 Wed, Oct 10, 13:43
ChicagoTRS, it's because people don't like Bonds and it's the only argument they can come up with.
26
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399 Wed, Oct 10, 13:44
I totally agree about Rickey being a candidate but omitted him on account of how I was mocked last time I brought his name up in a top player discussion. I forget if it was top ten or what the conditions were, but he easily makes my top 20 all-time. Top ten is so debatable I don't know who I keep off that list.
27
beastiemiked
ID: 17414316 Wed, Oct 10, 13:51
How can Hornsby not be in your top 8? Had the best 6 year span of any baseball player ever.
To say Ted Williams sucked in the postseason is unfair IMO. He played in 1 postseason series, going 5 for 25. He had an RBI, 2 RS, 5 BB and K'd 5 times. His OBP was .333. Ted was the only player on his Pennant winning '46 Red Sox with 20 HRs. I can name many players with the same number of postseason at bats who hit .400 but I'd never call them great postseason players.
29
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399 Wed, Oct 10, 13:58
I agree BMD.
30
ChicagoTRS Sustainer
ID: 4324316 Wed, Oct 10, 14:00
I think it is difficult to make a case against Babe Ruth as noone has ever come close to dominating the game like he did between 1918-1931. The only valid argument against him is that it was a different era but no player has dominated his respective era like Ruth did.
Between 1918 and 1931 Ruth: led the league in OB% 9 times led the league in slugging 13 times led the league in OPS 13 times led the league in runs 8 times led the league in total bases 6 times led the league in homers 12 times led the league in RBIs 6 times
You can throw out the 1925 season cause Ruth missed 60 games and then he leads some of those stats every year for over a decade. No other player has come close to dominating the entire game like that.
31
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399 Wed, Oct 10, 14:01
60 games missed to severe indigestion!
32
ChicagoTRS Sustainer
ID: 4324316 Wed, Oct 10, 14:05
bmd...very true on Hornsby he certainly is probably only behind Ruth and Williams in dominating an era in the league but he did play the same time as Ruth and would be second in most of those catagories if he played in the same league as Ruth.
33
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399 Wed, Oct 10, 14:14
Hornsby is to Ruth as Musial is to Williams.
34
tomegun
ID: 208232222 Wed, Oct 10, 19:48
thanks folks for the opinions and research. This thread is only about 3 players(home run hitters).
As to the best player of all time, I'm a biased Giants fan Willie Mays. But, my alltime favorite is Hank AAron.
Yes, in my opinion Barry looks juiced.
35
rockafellerskank Donor
ID: 4911539 Wed, Oct 10, 19:59
Why is it that Hank Aaron never comes up in these discussion?
36
Skidazl Sustainer
ID: 506141811 Wed, Oct 10, 23:48
I agree RFS, or Junior Spivey for that matter...
:-)
37
patjams
ID: 4941114 Thu, Oct 11, 18:31
Ruth and McGwire aren't even in Barry's class as far as athleticism or all around ability. McGwire doesn't belong in anybody's "best of all time" discussion. He is a pure slugger with almost zero athletic ability. Ruth was the best of his era, but there's no way he competes in today's game at the level he did back then. (At least not both pitching and hitting.) Barry may very well be the best player of all time. (Of the people I've seen I believe he is.) When all is said and done Barry will be a 500-500 guy and there's nobody even close. The next guy to do that will be ARod in about 10 years and the next one after that is probably still being developed somewhere. They are all special ballplayers, but Barry cannot be classified as a pure "Homerun Hitter" due to all of the other things he brings to the game.
38
rockafellerskank Donor
ID: 4911539 Thu, Oct 11, 21:03
Hank Aaron was a career .305 hitter, 3,771 hits, 2297 RBI's, 3 GG's, 1 MVP, 8X total bases leader, 4X SLG% leader and even lead ML's in B.A. 2x (hit over .300 x12)
Hank also player in an era where there were some damn GOOD pitchers.
...just FYI.....
rfs
39
JKaye.
ID: 37483113 Fri, Oct 12, 14:47
Why Aaron does not come up in these discussions: Career .555 SLG and .376 OBP. Compare those with the some trueall-time greats, and it is not even close: Ruth .690/.472 Williams .634/.481 Gehrig .632/.445 Foxx .609/.427, etc.
A player comparable to Aaron is Albert Belle who slugged .564 and had a .369 OBP. Obviously he just didn't play as long.
Someone mentioned Ernie Banks as a possible top 10 hitter. Banks is not even close.
As for the original question: Bonds/Ruth/McGwire, I think they are all top 10 of all time, but mentioning either Bonds or McGwire in the same breath as Ruth(who would have been a HOF pitcher too) is just wrong.
40
Bob Sacamano
ID: 21634217 Sat, Oct 13, 22:18
Aaron never had such a prolific home run season as those three. he was just consistent.
perhaps that is why he was left off
41
Wondering
ID: 3291684 Sun, Oct 14x, 00:15
This about Aaron - he played a sizeable chunk of his career in the raised mound era, when hitters figures were pulled down considerably. As such to compare him to Belle is a joke. Also, worth mentioning that it's probably safe to say Aaron didn't play with a corked bat, unlike Belle who was caught at least once.
To maintain his figures for as long as Aaron did cannot be dismissed. What is better, someone who has a ten year career and hits .330, or someone who plays for 16 years and hits .315? To just compare their averages is misleading. How ordinary a player does Cal Ripken look when you say he was a .276 career hitter, and leave it at that? To have the averages Aaron did after a 24 year career, which included a period of changed conditions which greatly favoured pitchers, was a great achievment. Albert Belle played for ten years. To compare Aaron and Belle would have to be quite possibly the most idiotic assertion I've ever read on these boards, and that is saying something.
42
Khahan
ID: 567232217 Sun, Oct 14x, 03:09
One major flaw with this comparison (ok, 1 other major flaw) is that McGwire is a power hitter pure and simple. Bonds hits for average, hits for power, steals (well stole) bases. Babe hit for average and power. Is McGwire a better power hitter than Bonds? I think yes. But is he a better all around ballplayer? Not by a long shot. Was McGwire juiced up? This whole argument pisses me off. Of course he was taking a supplement. He is pretty serious about his weight lifting. Most weight lifters I know taking some kind of a supplement. Guess what, the supplement he was taking was deemed acceptable and legal (at the time) by baseball. No different than if he had been on creatine or any other number of muscle building supplements you can get in GNC.
43
F Gump
ID: 578382615 Sun, Oct 14x, 05:31
Aaron was a great player.
But to be the "greatest of all time", you have to at least first be considered the greatest (or one of a handful of "the best in baseball") in many of the years in which you played. Aaron NEVER was regarded at that level. At any time he played. In any year. Ever!
One batting title. One HR title. 4 RBI titles. One MVP award. In 20+ seasons! An All-Star, at times. But never at the level of "superstar" as we think of it today.
He was NOT the dominant player of his time, not by a long-shot. He was never the brightest star in baseball. Thus, he will never be listed as the "greatest of all time", nor included seriously in those discussions. AND RIGHTLY SO!!
By that standard, the title goes to Ruth. And it is not a close contest. Ruth was THE STAR in baseball, without equal, for better than a decade (see post 30 above). No one else has ever come close to such dominance, ever. And prior to his dominance as a hitter, he was one of the top left-handed pitchers in all of baseball, to boot!
44
Wondering
ID: 3291684 Sun, Oct 14x, 07:17
F Gump, I don't think anyone here was saying Aaron was the best ever. I think you'll find those coming to his defense are doing it to argue that he was a great player (as you yourself said), and, as I did, to point out the idiocy of comparing him with someone such as Albert Belle.
But to defend Aaron, he actually won FOUR HR titles ('57, '63, '66, & '67, and it is not convention to combine AL & NL when looking at titles as I gather you have done), and when he retired he held more records than any other player to play the game. Again, a point of consistancy - who rates higher, a player who had two great seasons winning two MVP's, and other than that was not near MVP standard, or someone who was in the top three or four players for over a decade, but never quite finished number one? It's matter of opinion, but if I was in the position of choosing one as a rookie, I know who I'd pick. :-)
45
Khahan
ID: 567232217 Sun, Oct 14x, 21:14
Well, for greatest ever, I'd actually have to Willie Mays. Not only did he hit home runs (Bonds, McGwire, Ruth), hit for average (Bonds, Ruth), do so consistently (Bonds and Ruth), have good speed/basestealing abilities (Bonds), and be a good fielder (Bonds/Ruth), but he did so in the face of more bigotry and hatred than Bonds, Ruth or McGwire ever faced. Ruth may get the nod in power and % over Bonds and Mays both, but he just doesn't have the basestealing capabilities to even try to compare. That is Ruth's only shortcoming though and his dominance in the other categories can more than make up for it. For me, its a tough call between Ruth and Mays.
46
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399 Mon, Oct 15, 09:28
It takes some serious disrespect for 1920's pitching to put Mays or Bonds in the same class as Ruth in hitting for average. Bonds' career average is .292. Mays' is .302. Ruth hit .342. In 18 seasons with 400+ ABs, Mays hit .300 ten times. Not bad, (much better than Bonds), but in those ten seasons he only hit over .320 three times (once more than Bonds). In '54, '57, and '58, respectively, Mays hit .345, .333, and .347. Check post 11 for comparable stats for Ruth.
Hmmm, power, speed and hitting ability? I suppose an argument could be made for triples counting as power statistics before 1922 or so, but that's a bit of a stretch. Ruth did steal his share of bases early in his career rare photos and pictures of him before 1925 show a man who is reasonably fit. Only problem there is that while he did steal 72 bases by the end of the 1924 season, he'd been caught 66 times! LOL, and they didn't even keep CS stats before 1920. So, taking away the 13 steals he had in 1918 and 1919, he stole 59 bases in 125 attempts!
47
Khahan
ID: 12432113 Mon, Oct 15, 14:40
No disrespect intended and I'm not putting Bonds and Mays in the same class. The stuff in parenthesis was just showing which of the 4 I was dealing with qualified for some measure of respect. No, Ruth, as far % goes is in a class above Mays and Bonds. I even indicate that when I say that Ruth's dominance in the other categories makes up for his lack of base running.
49
Guru
ID: 330592710 Sun, Feb 06, 2005, 23:47
I was told that there was an error when trying to post to this thread. I can't reproduce the error, however.
50
soxzeitgeist
ID: 59115714 Mon, Feb 07, 2005, 17:35
Don't all arguments like this begin with some attempt to disprove Babe Ruth as the greatest baseball player ever? And wouldn't that make him, by default, the "best"?
And what about the Balb? I remember an argument growing up in NY that he is "the best of all time - one could disagree, but you would be wrong."
============================================
If we never traded , I could use this feature all year long.
51
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 43021239 Mon, Feb 07, 2005, 20:17
The human brick wall.
He was the best of all time!
52
blue hen
ID: 331038201 Wed, Feb 09, 2005, 10:34
Barry.
Everyone else used steroids in his era, and he was the best of the best. Hell, he even won 3 MVPs BEFORE he started using.
53
ukula
ID: 2011998 Wed, Feb 09, 2005, 11:24
The Babe.
Bonds and McGwire are all juiced up. The Babe hit more Hrs than some teams!! Not only that, but the Babe was a phenomenal pitcher. How many wins (pitching) does Bonds have? What is Bonds lifetime ERA?
The only performance-enhancing drugs the Babe used were cheap liquor and cheap dames.
No contest.
Now if only ESPN would hire writers who actually knew what they were talking about.........
54
Razor
ID: 221033012 Wed, Feb 09, 2005, 11:43
Everyone else used steroids in his era, and he was the best of the best. Hell, he even won 3 MVPs BEFORE he started using.
Are you serious? First, not everyone in this era is using steroids. Second, this is just saying that he is the best cheater. Without Bonds' juiced years, there is no argument that Bonds is anywhere close to the best player ever, even with his three MVP's. It appears that Bonds has gotten more out of abusing steroids than anyone, but what exactly does that tell us about his talent level exactly? Not a whole lot. We know what Bonds was like before steroids, and it wasn't best-of-all-time material. He had to cheat like crazy just to get to Ruth's numbers. I think that says it all.
55
Khahan
ID: 2884979 Wed, Feb 09, 2005, 11:47
I've got one question: How does McGwire even enter into this debate? Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking him. But before McGwire, you have to consider (in no particular order) Babe Ruth Barry Bonds Willie Mays Ted Williams Hank Aaron Frank Robinson Reggie Jackson Mike Schmidt Willie McCovey Jimmie Foxx
And that's just a shortlist of the top 15 HR hitters who all have more hits, runs, rbi's, higher BA AND more SB (except for Reggie who had a .001 lower average than McGwire). That doesn't even get into other greats who did everything else but hit for power like Ty Cobb Rogers Hornsby Tris Speaker Lou Gehrig
Sorry Mark. You're a great player. I loved collecting your cards and I'll be more than happy to tell my grandkids that I got to watch Mark McGwire play baseball. But you don't get a ticket into the 'greatest ever' debate.
Even though this is an old thread, I felt it was time somebody actually pointed that out.
56
Khahan
ID: 2884979 Wed, Feb 09, 2005, 11:52
Ok, re-reading this old thread in its entirety (again), I see that my last point had been brought up. :) But its still worth bringing up again.
57
blue hen
ID: 331038201 Wed, Feb 09, 2005, 13:13
I knew Razor would have something to say about my comment. I do disagree with one thing you said.
We know what Bonds was like before steroids, and it wasn't best-of-all-time material.
I disagree wholeheartedly with that statement and I am surprised you would mention it. Bonds won 3 MVPs in 4 years and finished 2nd in the other year. If he had kept that up for even two or three more years, he'd be in the best of all time discussion.
58
KrazyKoalaBears Leader
ID: 517553018 Wed, Feb 09, 2005, 15:17
"The Babe hit more Hrs than some teams!!"
... at a time when nobody else was trying to hit home runs. Nothing against Ruth, but "more home runs than some teams" argument is extremely flawed. For instance, Rogers Hornsby played 704 games and had 2592 AB before the 1920 season. In those 704 games and 2592 AB's, he had 36 HRs. Is it just a coincidence that, starting the year after Ruth hit 54, Hornsby went on to hit 21, 42, 17, 25, 39, 11, 26, 21, and 39 from 1921-29?
How about Cy Williams? He hit 64 HR in 3079 AB through 1920. He then hit 109 in 2239 AB from 1921-24.
You can look at countless players who saw their HR numbers increase by dramatic amounts after Ruth's groundbreaking year in 1920. To base his greatness on the fact that he hit more home runs than some teams in an era when teams didn't try to hit home runs is flawed.
That said, I think Ruth still comes out as the greatestest player baseball has ever seen. You can compare stats until you're blue in the face, but there is one thing that Ruth did that nobody else has done on the same caliber. Ruth completely revolutionized the game and his revolution is still in place over 8 decades later. He introduced the home run as an offensive weapon to the game of baseball. You could show the year-by-year list of home run leaders to someone who had never heard of baseball and they can point to the year when a revolution occured. That revolution is why it will be tough for anybody to ever be greater than Babe Ruth. Big Mac and Bonds may have broken the record, but they didn't revolutionize the game... yet. Bonds is partially revolutionizing the game with his IBB's, but I think we would need to see a complete shift in the way pitchers approach ALL power hitters for it to be a true revolution and I don't think that'll happen.
59
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 2824911 Wed, Feb 09, 2005, 15:23
Not to mention that he pitched over 1200 career innings, winning 80 games with a 2.28 career ERA.
60
KrazyKoalaBears Leader
ID: 517553018 Wed, Feb 09, 2005, 15:30
We know what Bonds was like before steroids, and it wasn't best-of-all-time material.
Hard to say. Take any 5-year period in Bonds' career and he averaged no less than 23.4 HR/season and that average represents his first 5 years in the league.
Hank Aaron is often times brought up in the "best of all-time" arguments and he averaged 32.8 HR/season for a career. Bonds was averaging over 32.8 (for a 5 year period) by his 9th year in the league: 1994 with a 5-year average of 35.0. Without steroids, he still likely could have stayed at or around that mark as even the skinny Barry was hovering around 30+ HR/season. And, if he took steroids, there's no reason to believe his longevity would be any shorter than it is right now.
So, add it all up and even non-steroids Barry would likely be around Hank Aaron in the "best of all-time" arguments.
61
KrazyKoalaBears Leader
ID: 517553018 Wed, Feb 09, 2005, 15:36
Babe's ERA isn't as big a factor to me as a sub-2 ERA was fairly common in that, um, era. There is only 1 league leader with a 2+ ERA from 1904-19 (Mathewson; 2.06; 1913). After the home run became an offensive weapon, ERA's rose fairly dramatically. Babe happens to have been lucky enough to be the starter of the home run revolution, so he never had to face it as a pitcher. Still, Ruth did lead the league in ERA in 1916.
However, the biggest pitching number for Ruth that is amazing to me is his career 1.159 WHIP, which is good enough for 69th all-time.
62
Ref Donor
ID: 539581218 Wed, Feb 09, 2005, 15:54
The December issue of U.S. News has a huge article on steroids and in fact as a kid that was on steroids on the cover. It also shows a before and after of Bonds, etc. One of the charts shows how injury prone someone on steroids is esp with their knees and all of their tendons. It's a very good read on not only the scientific way in which steroids work and effect your body but show examples of real people who have used them and what it has done to them--especially teenagers and 20-somethings.
63
MNG
ID: 330251015 Wed, Feb 09, 2005, 19:20
KKB - I agree. Also, Barry and Mac have not finished their careers yet, so it remains to be seen what each of them my total at the end. the way Barry's going with his stats, it may be easier to compare he and Ruth soon.
McGwire has been retired for the last 3 seasons dude.
64
RecycledSpinalFluid Dude
ID: 204401122 Wed, Feb 09, 2005, 19:39
MNG, those posts are from that long ago (note the date). The year on the date stamps was not implemented until 2002, maybe 2003 (I think).
65
TB Leader
ID: 031811922 Wed, Feb 09, 2005, 22:06
We had year stamps in 2002. This thread probably goes back to 2000.
66
KrazyKoalaBears Leader
ID: 517553018 Thu, Feb 10, 2005, 08:58
Based on my first reply, I would say it started just after Bonds' 73-HR year in 2001 since I said, "...and only 3 years removed from Big Mac's record year. I don't think the conditions changed that much over the last 3 years.".
2001 ended up being Big Mac's final season. We didn't know that at the time, thus the part about his career not being over yet.
67
Razor
ID: 221033012 Thu, Feb 10, 2005, 11:32
I disagree wholeheartedly with that statement and I am surprised you would mention it. Bonds won 3 MVPs in 4 years and finished 2nd in the other year. If he had kept that up for even two or three more years, he'd be in the best of all time discussion.
What? We know what Bonds through the years. He was great, but not dominant like some of the other all-time greats. If you look at Bonds' body of work prior to 2001, you'll see a very, very good player whose numbers just don't stack up with Mays, Aaron, Ruth, Cobb or Williams. Bonds was clearly behind all of those guys. He wasn't even a .300 hitter until he juiced his way to two batting titles. His career OBP and SLG weren't in the same universe as Ruth's and Williams'. He still isn't even close to either of them. Willie Mays was basically the same player as Barry Bonds pre-steroids, except he played much better defense because he was a CF. Aaron's astounding productivity and longevity is matched by no one. Cobb led his league in pretty much everything except homers....for nearly two decades. No one was talking about Bonds being the best of all-time in 2000. He was a great player who was argubly the best of his era, but not top 5 material.
69
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 2824911 Thu, Feb 10, 2005, 12:43
KKB Babe's ERA isn't as big a factor to me as a sub-2 ERA was fairly common in that, um, era. There is only 1 league leader with a 2+ ERA from 1904-19 (Mathewson; 2.06; 1913).
Check every year in which Babe pitched more than 25 innings: Year Inn ERA lgERA 1915 218 2.44 2.78 1916 324 1.75 2.77 1917 326 2.01 2.58 1918 166 2.22 2.69 1919 133 2.97 3.02
I'm not making a case that he was the best pitcher of his era or anything, just that aside from being arguably the best hitter of all time, he was a well-above-average (certainly All-Star caliber) pitcher in his day as well, effectively squashing any notion that anyone else might arguably qualify as the best player of all time.
In 3 years as a full time starter and 2 more doing it part time, he was in the top 10 in the AL in: ERA 3 times (1st in 1916) Wins 3 times (BB + H)/9IP 3 times Hits Allowed/9IP 4 times Strikeouts/9IP 2 times Comp. Games 3 times (1st in 1917) Shutouts 2 times
70
KrazyKoalaBears Leader
ID: 517553018 Thu, Feb 10, 2005, 13:12
MITH, trust me when I say that you don't have to convince me that Ruth was a good pitcher. All I said was that his ERA wasn't as big a factor to me than other things, like his WHIP. Particularly, where his WHIP ranks all-time.
71
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 2824911 Thu, Feb 10, 2005, 13:15
ok gotcha.
72
blue hen
ID: 331038201 Thu, Feb 10, 2005, 14:55
Razor, a player who was the best in his era is certainly in the discussion for the best player ever, isn't he? By definition? Maybe we define it differently.
He wasn't a .300 hitter before he juiced? Barry hit .292 or better in 10 of 11 years between 1990 and 2000. He was clearly the class of baseball in the early 90's.
Ruth, by the way, was a great pitcher. Well above average and with enough seasons that it absolutely has to count for something.
Rate this thread:
If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time.
If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating.
If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here.