Forum: base
Page 11568
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?
 
1KrazyKoalaBears
      ID: 266182910
      Tue, Oct 09, 19:46 		You're only talking about an elite few pitchers. The rest of them belong in AAA, AA, and A ball, and would be in Ruth's era. Expansion has diluted the pitching talent and the strong batters have benefited. Further, there's the argument of a more "live" ball, including the fact that Barry was getting special balls used for his chase of the HR record. Did Babe get that? Or did he have to hit the dirty, scuffed ball that had been used all game? Also, let's not forget the cozy confines of some of today's parks. Did Babe ever hit in Coors Field?

The problem with cross-era comparisions is that they'll never be fully validated. The best comparison of the players you listed is Big Mac vs. Barry and I think Barry wins hands down. Hit hit more homers, had more walks, had a much higher SLG percentage, a higher batting AVG, a higher OBP, more road HR's, and countless other "more's" 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.

But a comparison to Ruth will never work. There are way too many factors to take into account. Comparing just the numbers won't even begin to get close to a resolution.

 
2Kings Fan
      ID: 16922921
      Tue, Oct 09, 21:36 		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.
 
3Fatal Image
      ID: 35601219
      Tue, Oct 09, 21:47 		what is this steroid stuff you're throwing around? Bonds has probably bulked up even more than McGwire, he used to be a pretty thin guy, now he is massive
 
4rockafellerskank
      Donor
      ID: 4911539
      Tue, Oct 09, 21:49 		"and Barry doesn't take steriods(big mac)"

Do you KNOW something or is this just a baseless allegation?

rfs
 
5tomegun
      ID: 208232222
      Tue, Oct 09, 22:44 		kkb-most college pitchers are better now than in Ruth's era. There is just alot teams now than back then. Also, there was hundreds of minor league teams and not many college clubs. Today, things are reverse.

I argee Barry has put some time in the weightroom(lol), and possibly other things.

Mark-just pisses me off. It seems he always takes the easy way out. The injuries and excuses over the years really bother me(I use to live in the bay area).

Ruth-was a drunkin' slob. He wasted his talent. Really great athletes have a sense of what they are doing(not just at the moment but in history), Ruth was the clown prince off the field and it effected performance on. Put Barry and I hate to say McGwire in the twentys/thirtys, the results would be way better than Ruths.
 
6KrazyKoalaBears
      ID: 266182910
      Tue, Oct 09, 23:23 		tomegun, again, based on what? You can't say that college pitchers are better than pitchers of the 20's because there's nothing to compare. Sure, you can say it, but you can't back it up with anything. What, exactly, can you back it up with? This is the fundamental flaw when comparing players across different era's. They're different era's for a reason: because things were different, thus, uncomparable. Did you actually know any of the pitchers of the 20's? Doubtful. So the only reason you think college pitchers now are better than pitchers of the 20's is because you know them. You've seen them throw. This is a common psychological mistake that people often fall into: Because they've seen one thing and not another, they think the thing they've seen is better than what they haven't. Think of it like you have your favorite beer and you absolutely love the taste of that beer. You think it's the best beer in the world. But how can you really be sure that it's the best until you try every last beer in the world? You might find one from some far off country that you like better that you've never seen, nor heard of.

Besides, chew on this: Ruth set the HR record at 29 in 1919. What did he do the next year? Oh, he just bumped it up to 54!!! Then up to 59! Then, 6 years later, up 1 more to 60. And let's not forget that Ruth was also 94-46 with a 2.28 ERA in 163 games (107 CG's!!!!!) and a 1.16 WHIP. So what are Barry and Big Mac's pitching records up to now? If you want the best player, all-around, of all time, it has to be Ruth. He was the ultimate hitter and a damn fine pitcher. So where's your argument? If he was a good pitcher, did batting suck? If so, then how was he a good hitter? And if he was a good hitter because pitching sucked, then why was he a good pitcher? Could it be that he was just plain good? No, he was awesome! 107 CG's out of 163 games?!?! 1221 IP in 163 games?!?! That's 7.49 IP/Gm. Move over Unit and Schilling, here comes the Babe! Oh yeah, and there was that little thing with winning 4 World Series rings to boot. Barry? Big Mac? Oh, you guys have 1? Combined? And if him being "a drunkin' slob" effected his play on the field, then there are a lot of hitters I know around the leagues that need to do a hell of a lot of drinking before game time!

 
7Razor
      Donor
      ID: 305102622
      Wed, Oct 10, 00:33 		I agree, calling the best player of all-time a "waste of talent" is beyond ludicrous. How much more can one guy dominate the league? The guy hits 714 HRs and that's a "waste." Come on. And think what you will about his off the field activities affecting his performance, the guy was a human being just like you and I. Saying athletes should do this or not do that because they are role models for kids is one thing, but beyond that I don't care what they do and I don't see why anybody else does. Celebrities are just people, too. Anyway, that is all moot as the Babe is the definition of domination so it doesn't even matter if he was playing at 60% of his capabilities because his 60% was twice as good as everybody else's 100%.
 
8Rogue's Strikers
      ID: 5895271
      Wed, Oct 10, 02:06 		Besides, you'll never know how good Ruth would have been against today's pitching. Maybe he would have adapted and hit just as many HR. If Ruth had it 120 HR, would that be enough to make him better than Barry, because of the quality of pitching? How good would Ruth have to be to make up for that?

Also, consider that Ruth didn't have alot of the perks that Barry has today. If Barry pulls a hammy, he sees about 80 doctors and is taken VERY well care of. If Ruth pulled a hammy it was: "How you feeling Babe?" "I'm so-so." "Ok, well get out there then." Who knows how many injuries the guy played with that would be considered absurd to play with today?

The only thing that can be said about Babe and Barry is this: Babe dominated the pitching he faced. Barry dominated the pitching he faced. Thats it.

If we ever invent the time machine, or invent a holodeck, maybe we can try pitting Babe up against today's pitchers (with some time to adapt of course) and see how he does. Until then, we'll just have to live with the statement "Babe and Barry rule."
 
9F Gump
      ID: 578382615
      Wed, Oct 10, 02:30 		One factor that is not mentioned, but that is incredibly relevant:

Ruth and McGwire were able to break past huge long-standing "barriers", and withstand the pressure of being the first, or facing the ultimate test.

Ruth did things no one did before in the game. Then, McGwire did the same in the 90s with his dizzying ascent in HRs/ABs, and his shattering of the longstanding "impossible" record.

They led the way and showed what was possible. Bonds merely followed McGwire through the hole that McGwire alone busted in the Maris/Ruth barrier where "61/60 is the limit".

I find it enlightening that Sosa only hit over 60 HRs in years when others led the way by hitting more. Breaking the barriers and limits of a game is a much bigger feat than is noticed. Bonds and Sosa just followed the new possibility in HRs that McGwire showed. Bonds, for all his talent, never hit more than 49 prior to this year.

So, for that reason, my vote for "greatest player/hitter of all-time" is still Ruth, and greatest HR hitter of all time as McGwire - the 60/61 barrier broken (smashed, actually) and the MONSTER shots he hit over 500 feet that year, over and over, get my vote.
 
10Pistol Pete
      ID: 43638267
      Wed, Oct 10, 07:33 		Best of All Time: Sosa
 
11Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 1832399
      Wed, Oct 10, 08:07 		The best pitching of today clearly blows away the best that the 1920's had to offer, but whether it balances out with expansion is a matter of debate that I doubt anyone could prove. One thing to consider though, is that if Ruth did, in fact have easier opposition to play against, how should that translate into batting statistics?
Assuming that 1920's players had an advantage, how many BA points should be given to the modern player to compare stats evenly? How many ab/hr should be taken away? Bonds has a .292 career BA (up 3 points after this season. He has hit over .320 twice in his 16 year career. He has had over 120 rbi 4 times, once over 130. Bonds has amassed an ab/hr ratio of 13.99.
Ruth's career avg is .342, a full .050 higher. In the 16 years he had over 400 at bats he hit .320 or higher 12 times. Among those 12 seasons he hit over .340 ten times, with BAs of: .376, .378, .393, .378, .372, .356, .345, .359, .373 and .341. Ruth had over 120 RBI 11 times and his ab/hr ratio is 11.76.
Draw your own conclusions from the stats.
 
12Whitey
      Sustainer
      ID: 2543539
      Wed, Oct 10, 08:31 		tomegun - it's interesting that you mentioned that Bonds does not take steroids in your opening post....I actually play ball with an agent for MLB players (Glaus, Cameron, Reese among his clients) and he has said that the word among baseball insiders is that Barry is without a doubt juiced up this year on anabolic steroids
 
13KrazyKoalaBears
      ID: 266182910
      Wed, Oct 10, 08:55 		Everyone's "juiced up" when they're having a good year. At least if you ask their opposition. ;)
 
14blue hen, almighty
      Leader
      ID: 34937217
      Wed, Oct 10, 09:54 		Is McGwire the best first baseman on his team? I'm not quite sure what this thread is all about, but I'm not sure McGwire belongs in it.
 
15Whitey
      Sustainer
      ID: 2543539
      Wed, Oct 10, 10:03 		good question blue hen - are we talking about best baseball player ever?? Than for sure McGwire should not be considered....if we are talking about best home run hitter ever than McGwire is right up there..

Bonds, by the way, should be considered for both
 
16ChicagoTRS
      Sustainer
      ID: 4324316
      Wed, Oct 10, 10:06 		Considering Mac and Bonds are from the same era you can pretty much eliminate Mac. This season from Bonds far surpasses anything Mac has ever came close to doing.
 
17rfs @ work
      ID: 119141010
      Wed, Oct 10, 10:15 		Why is it that Hank Aaron never comes up in these discussion?

 
18Voodoo Child
      ID: 15832610
      Wed, Oct 10, 10:23 		Another thing to remember is that Barry has what I like to call "Armando Benitez Syndrome" - Come every playoffs, he turns to mush. I think Barry should have been the Mets MVP in the NLDS last year. Look at his performance with the Pirates vs the Braves. There is no way that "the greatest of all time" is a player who consistently chokes every postseason.
 
19ChicagoTRS
      Sustainer
      ID: 4324316
      Wed, Oct 10, 10:56 		VooDoo would you include Willie Mays in your greatest of all time debate? or Ted Williams? or Ty Cobb? (BTW...all sucked in the postseason)
 
20Voodoo Child
      ID: 15832610
      Wed, Oct 10, 11:51 		ChicagoTRS, can you give me some numbers to back that up? I don't have access to any.

BTW, since when were they included in this debate?? Last time, I checked, my choice was between Bonds, McGwire, and Ruth. Given the choice between a good player who chokes (Bonds) in the postseason and one who does not (Ruth), I would take the one that does not (as would most people I think). If we are going to expand from three to an infinite number of choices, than we might as well quit now because that discussion will never end!
 
21Mattinglyinthehall
      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?
 
22Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 1832399
      Wed, Oct 10, 13:18 		Here are the baseballreference.com pages for the requested players:
Ty Cobb
Ted Williams
 
23ChicagoTRS
      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.
 
24ChicagoTRS
      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.
 
25KrazyKoalaBears
      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.
 
26Mattinglyinthehall
      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.
 
27beastiemiked
      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.


Batting Average(league rank)
1920-.370-1
1921-.397-1
1922-.401-1
1923-.384-1
1924-.423-1
1925-.403-1

OBP(LR)
1920-.431-1
1921-.458-1
1922-.459-1
1923-.459-1
1924-.507-1
1925-.489-1

Slg%(lr)
1920-.559-1
1921-.638-1
1922-.722-1
1923-.627-1
1924-.696-1
1925-.756-1

Ops(lr)
1920-.990-1
1921-1.097-1
1922-1.181-1
1923-1.086-1
1924-1.203-1
1925-1.245-1

Home Runs(lr)
1920-9-6
1921-21-2
1922-42-1
1923-17-5
1924-25-2
1925-39-1

RBI(lr)
1920-94-1
1921-126-1
1922-152-1
1924-94-7
1925-143-1


 
28Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 1832399
      Wed, Oct 10, 13:55 		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.
 
29Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 1832399
      Wed, Oct 10, 13:58 		I agree BMD.
 
30ChicagoTRS
      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.
 
31Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 1832399
      Wed, Oct 10, 14:01 		60 games missed to severe indigestion!
 
32ChicagoTRS
      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.
 
33Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 1832399
      Wed, Oct 10, 14:14 		Hornsby is to Ruth as Musial is to Williams.
 
34tomegun
      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.
 
35rockafellerskank
      Donor
      ID: 4911539
      Wed, Oct 10, 19:59 		Why is it that Hank Aaron never comes up in these discussion?

 
36Skidazl
      Sustainer
      ID: 506141811
      Wed, Oct 10, 23:48 		I agree RFS, or Junior Spivey for that matter...


:-)
 
37patjams
      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.
 
38rockafellerskank
      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
 
39JKaye.
      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.
 
40Bob 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
 
41Wondering
      ID: 3291684
      Sun, Oct 14, 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.
 
42Khahan
      ID: 567232217
      Sun, Oct 14, 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.
 
43F Gump
      ID: 578382615
      Sun, Oct 14, 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!
 
44Wondering
      ID: 3291684
      Sun, Oct 14, 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. :-)
 
45Khahan
      ID: 567232217
      Sun, Oct 14, 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.
 
46Mattinglyinthehall
      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!
 
47Khahan
      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.
 
49Guru
      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.
 
50soxzeitgeist
      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.
 
51Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 43021239
      Mon, Feb 07, 2005, 20:17 		The human brick wall.

He was the best of all time!
 
52blue 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.
 
53ukula
      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.........
 
54Razor
      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.
 
55Khahan
      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.
 
56Khahan
      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.
 
57blue 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.
 
58KrazyKoalaBears
      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.

 
59Mattinglyinthehall
      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.
 
60KrazyKoalaBears
      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.

 
61KrazyKoalaBears
      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.

 
62Ref
      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.
 
63MNG
      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.
 
64RecycledSpinalFluid
      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).
 
65TB
      Leader
      ID: 031811922
      Wed, Feb 09, 2005, 22:06 		We had year stamps in 2002. This thread probably goes back to 2000.
 
66KrazyKoalaBears
      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.

 
67Razor
      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.
 
69Mattinglyinthehall
      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
 
70KrazyKoalaBears
      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.
 
71Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 2824911
      Thu, Feb 10, 2005, 13:15 		ok gotcha.
 
72blue 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.