If I let someone out post them. I want to know wha people think.
Printable View
If I let someone out post them. I want to know wha people think.
think of a player who dominated on the pitching front, even beat walter johnson a few times...
then went on to be a legion in hitting. When he retired he has hit somewhere between 300-400 more homeruns than the 2nd place guy.
No other player has been since, or will be that dominate.
It would be like Barry Bonds hitting 100 homeruns a yearand finishing with 1200 homeruns for his career...
some other players you did leave out.
Ken Griffey Junior (10 straight gold gloves plus his bat..)
Pete Rose (charlie hussle, 4256)
Barry Bonds (718 and counting, hgh, steriods, just look at the numbers)
Micky Mantle (best switch hitter of all time)
Joe Diamaggio (cut his career short, but was good when he ended it)
I thought about Mantle and Diamaggio but I dont think they are in the class of cobb and ruth even tho they are probably in the top 10 of 15 all time. I thought of bonds but the whole steroid thing really ruins it for most of the big slugers from the last 10 years. Tho griffey was great, and was my boyhood hero growing up, he was not the calber of the imortals. Rose was not the man cobb was and tho he did do great things in his time I think cobb aaron and ruth HAVE to be ahead of him.
If A-Rod could hit in the clutch he would have to be considered to be 1 of the best all time but he padds his stats agains the poor teams like the royals and tampa bay. It is a little different now than it was the pitcing is more watered down. Now if ruth had played in todays game he would have to be rated the best all time undisputed. He would have 70 HR a season and probably almos 1500 in his lifetime. The reason I put williams up there is he is easily overlooked as 1 of the best hitters all time. His lifetime OBP is an unfathamable .482 CAREER!!!!!! That is rediculas not to mention that he was out durring his prime fighting in the war
if griffey stayed healthy he would have been the best by a long shot. I think Jackie Robinson was the best because of all the **** the fans and other players did to him. I wouldn't have been able to do it.
This is a great poll, not because of the players listed, but because of all the players that aren't. Its such a big discussion, I chose "Other" because it is so difficult to say one guy is better than all the rest.
No love for Bob Gibson?
The 2006 Devil rays could take on the 1927 and win probably 8 out of 10 times....Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
the Competition now days is better, the players are better, better workout programs, lighter bats, the coaching is better.....so when you say that ruth didnt have to play against poor teams, verses his peers he was god like. That is only because the competition was weaker.
The problem is that now there are more pitchers whom would never have made any team in the 20's. In those days there were not as many teams and there weren't as many pitchers on a staff so their was not the need of hundreds of good pitchers. They didn't use closers ever really and if they did it was for about 3 innings. The Devilrays would be abe to score runs yes but the teams back then woud score 10 runs a game on their crappy pitching. Ruth was amazing tho. If there was a way to have ruth pitch have a day off than play the field could you imagine what his records would be like. 200 wins and about 500-600 HR.Quote:
Originally Posted by boomboom
Come on. How can this not be a unanimous vote for Babe Ruth. Name another guy on the list or ever in the history of baseball that has played at the level Ruth has as both a pitcher and a batter. If Ruth had played out his career as soley as a pitcher, he would have been up with Cy Young in numbers, and if he hadn't have pitched, Ruth would have been in the 1000's for home runs. No player has matched his capabilities ever.
its not as clear as you make it sound. there are just too many variables to make a clear cut case in either direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by boomboom
hows this for the other side...
if you were a good athlete in the early 20th century, you were a baseball player. if you are a good athlete now, you could be a football player, basketball, hockey, baseball, soccer, rugby, etc. although there are more people today and thus a bigger pool to draw from, there are also many more outlets. id venture to say that baseball players ARE NOT the best athletes in the US today, as they definitely were in the early 1900's.
what about if you took Babe Ruth and planted him in today's environment, ie. he got to take advantage of the better training, improved equipment, dilution of talent across more sports and teams. would he not be at the top of today's game?Quote:
Originally Posted by boomboom
Babe Ruth was miles and miles ahead of the second best player of his time. is Barry? Pujols? A-Rod? or are they within striking distance of each other and the second best player?
maybe its not that the competition was weaker, but that he was just that much better than them?
That reminds me... didn't ruth pitch a 13 inning game in the world series one year with the sox.
disposablehero is right tho... I might ahve to change my vote to ruth if voted again. He did change the way the game was played. OMG if he played now he would hit 75-80 every year. Its hard tho, not to say cobb or williams. Im a bigger fan or high AVG and more extra base hits than i am HR's. Dont get me wrong I love to see a home run when im at a game but it always seems more fun when there are guys on and the hits just keep comming. I personaly think that a double streached to a single is maybe the most exciting play in baseball, aside from the tripple play. it sometimes seems that a HR can take the momentem away. When the next guy comes up its like he has to start all over again. He doesn't have that preasure on him that he would if there was a guy standing on base. It is just so hard not to pick williams since he was such an amazing player. He might have had the HR record if he didnt go to war, and who knows, he might have had an even higher OBP. The little he did play in his early to mid-30's he had an OBP of over .500.
in 1941 he had an OBP of .553 and STILL had 185 hits with 147 walks. Lifetime OBP,AVG, and K/AB was better than Ruth.
But many players have easily matched his physique and athletisicm. He certainly didnt take care of himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by bmoseley07
He would probably hit .280 with maybe 30 homeruns now days...if you take babe ruth from the 1920's with him using his huge bat and overweight belly.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
Now if you put ruth in this generation, where he grew up, he would probably be a good ball player in better condition, but he would not dominate now days as he would have then.
Say you take a-rod and put him in 1920, and they wouldnt work out or lift weights, would you think he could hit 50 homeruns, probably not, a-rod would probably be a slick fielding shortstop, with a little pop...that is it. He wouldnt be as big as he is now....
All I am basically saying, it would be nearly impossible for anybody to dominate the game the way Babe Ruth did in his generation today. The competition is more fierce, the competion is better...nobody could dominate for how long Ruth did (as a hitter) today. Bonds was up there but only for 4 years....but never at the domination of Ruth, not even close. Todays standards, Bonds is just finger tips above the rest, Ruth was mountains above the rest of his competition.
Today it would be like somebody hitting 100 homeruns a year, and 1200 for a career.
We will never see that type of domination ever....well maybe in Little league....
I actually think A-Rod is overrated. He is a very good player but he is not on the level of ruth or aaron. The problem is that everyone judges a player by the amount of HR he hits. I would rather have a guy like ichiro on my team. he is always on base and causes such havoc it make the players who hit behind him better. A-Rod doesnt make the players around him better.
BTW did you guys know that joe mauer for the twins was tossed out of tball when he was 4 because he hit the ball to hard. That's nuts.
A-Rod CAN hit in the clutch. He's hitting over .300 this year with RISP, and it's even higher with RISP and two outs.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
I don't get all this criticism that he cant hit in the clutch. Just because he's choked at some clutch moments doesn't maen he's not a good player, or that he shouldnt be considered one of the best. He's an excellent player, who will one day be named as one of the greatest in baseball. He's only 30 and has over 450 home runs. And in 7 of the last 8 seasons, he's hit over 40. If he stays healthy and keeps doing th esame thing, he'll pass Aaron.
is any man worth 25 million??? For that price tag he should be able to carry any team on his back thru the playoffs. He couldnt even get the rangers anywhere close to the playoffs. When he left the mariners the next year they won 116 games and when he left the Rangers they came close to making the playoffs the first year he was gone. He is overrated and will never be the player or person that ruth was. Ruth might have been a drunk and a courter of women he still was an amazing person. Even Ty Cobb built schools and a hospital. When was the last time you saw that aside from pedro building churches in the DR???
Nobody will be what ruth is...but saying that A-rod is overated? he is the best player in the game right now....he won a gold glove at 3b and ss in his career....not only does a-rod hit for homeruns, average, walks, doubles and he has speed as well...Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
I would take a-rod over Ichiro any day of the week. And this is coming from an Ichiro Fan.
In 2000, Seattle was successful, and in 2001 they did win more games mostly due to everybody having a career year...wouldnt you love to have Brett Boone, Ichiro, having Aaron Sele having a monster year, having Mike Cameron hitting .270, or how bout Edgar...Freddy winning the ERA title....
(If) A-rod was on the 2001 team, that team could have won probably the world series....possibly more games....9-11 did mess up the team, they didnt play for a week...that could have been part of it too....
Baseball isnt basketball, one player can not change the outcome, it takes a team...those ranger teams had no pitching...did you expect A-rod to pitch also??
Clutch doesnt exist, show me some statistics saying that it does exist...please show me.
About the value of A-rod contract, is stupidly high. But I am not the person who can value a player in montary terms. That is the GM's- agents job. A-rod is a great player and will only help a team. He is possibly under-rated....
BTW: I hate a-rod with a passion....i hate him, I hate him, I hate him....he left seattle, and seattle had a decent offer on the table....I was expecting a hometown discount...at the same time, I wouldnt turn down 252million.
Unfortunately Ruth wasn't playing against the best U.S. athletes either. Many of them were in the Negro Leagues.Quote:
Originally Posted by disposablehero
I think Stephen Jay Gould made a pretty convincing argument that the competition has gotten stronger throughout the century, even with expansion and the rise of other sports. Thats why there aren't any more .400 hitters. You either have to accept that Ruth and Cobb and Young and Johnson were all mutant freaks of the likes we'll never see again. Or you have to assume that they had EQUAL genetic gifts to Bonds, Griffey, Pedro and Clemens -- but played in a less competitive environment. I think the latter makes more sense. It's why we have 'Talent' modifiers in the stats files for each year in Baseball Mogul. To tell the game to create more talent variation in 1927 than in 1997.
Clay
Hmmm, when all else fails, I look to my t-shirts...
My 'The BIG DOGS of Baseball' shirt says:
- Babe Ruth - All-Time Greatest Slugger
- Mickey Mantle - Greatest American League Player of All-Time
- Willie Mays - Greatest National League Player of All-Time
- Joe DiMaggio - Mr. Consistency
- Ted Williams - All-Time Best Hitter
I'm all confused now, my t-shirt didn't answer the question. :(
For one, I never said he was worth 25 million. I said I simply don't understand the "bad in the clutch" criticism. I don't think he's worth 25 million - but if any player currently playing is worth that much, it's either him or Pujols.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
Boomboom summed it up really nicely.
ahh, but did he face more of them on whole, than today's MLBers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Clay Dreslough
i think its so.
i too tend to lean in the direction of better competition now, but there's just no way know. thats all my point was. its not as clear cut as a statement that the sky is blue. if it was, we wouldnt be having a debate and statheads wouldnt study it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clay Dreslough
I would take pujols over him any day. I just think that pujols will be a better player than A-Rod will ever be. I should have put him in the list. I will give A-Rod credit tho... he is consistant.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I think SirKodiak might have summed it up the best. his shirt is tops in my book, altho i might put my consistancy as williams over dimaggio. That is a close 1 tho it really could go either way. You do have to give Ruth the greatest All Time Slugger but i dont think he was the greates hitter all time. That has to go to Cobb and it could actually go with Williams. Greatest pitcher I think has to go with Johnson. My consistancy with pitching absolutly without question goes to Cy tho. I mean he averaged 35 starts a game which the #1 pitcher averages 30-34 starts a game now and his yearly average was like 18 or 19 wins a year. His BA was .210 too which isnt too shabby for a pitcher not named Ruth!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by SirKodiak
BTW who voted for Johnson???
Joe Dimaggio is quite possibly the most overrated player in baseball history. He ended his career at the age of 36 and he wasn't good when he ended it. He hit just .268 with 12 homers that year and had no range in center. An opposing teams scouting report on the Yankees was published in his final year and it said about Dimaggio...."Run on him all day. No range and no arm" Dimaggio was so embarrassed he retired. Dimaggio was also the first player to hold out for more money even though he had signed contract. After he retired he insisted to always be announced last at any old timers day and insisted that he be referred to as baseball's greatest living player. On top of that he beat the **** out of Marilyn Monroe. Yankee fans love to romanticize him as this graceful and classy Yankee. Truth is he was an absolute jerk to everybody. Treated a young Mickey Mantle like **** and wasnt even close to his own brother Dom. Look at his career numbers....nothing great at least if you talk about him in the same conversation of Ruth, Cobb, Mays, Aaron etc. Dont believe the Dimaggio hype. Overrated even by Yankee standards. He makes Derek Jeter and Bernie Williams seem underrated and that is hard to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by boomboom
Dimaggio's career numbers are amazing considering he only played 13 years. 2200 hits, .325 average, 350+ home runs..
Not to mention there was not one year where he didnt amke the all star game.
Ripken made the all star game his last year and he didn't deserve it. You cant go by all star games because of that and the fact that Thome wont make it this year and DEFINATLY should be there!!!
Yeah IF Arod was on the 2001 team....but AROD left and went to the Rangers...not because of the money but because he wanted to play for a winning team. He left the Mariners who were in the playoffs his last two years with a great team coming back and went to the Rangers...not because of the money but because he wanted to play for a winner. This is why I think AROD is cursed and I think it is hilarious. He should of went to the Mets but he wanted his own office in Shea Stadium for his PR staff. He gets what he deserves. He may hit 1000 homeruns but if he finishes his career with the Yankees and remains ringless he will be viewed at as a joke. Now odds are with the Yankees payroll AROD should be able to walk into a ring by accident at some point in his career....but if he doesnt? If he continuees to fold like a cheap suit come playoff time? Wow, he could be the worst player ever to hit 900 Homeruns lolQuote:
Originally Posted by boomboom
thanks for the perfect analysis of his baseball career, FENWAYMIKE :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by fenwaymike
How do you know he wont make it?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
Look at Dimaggio's year-by-year sats http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/dimagjo01.shtml. Only 1951 was a questionable year.
What the **** is your rpoblem with thinking ARod will be the "worst player to ever hit 900 homers" if he doesnt win a ring? That's utter ****. Bonds hasn't won a ring, and say he didnt do steroids and had the same stats, nobody would say he is the bad. And besides "the worst to hit 900" is kinda...odd. He could be the only one, so yeah, he' dbe the worst and the best. He oculd be one of 2. One of 3. Whatever. "Worst to hti 900" is a lame title. If you hit 900 home runs, you cant be bad. Winning a ring is not the sole determinor of a players ability...
I picked Ruth but a close second is Williams. He missed a total of five prime seasons in two wars, and still went out and put up HOF numbers.
He might make it if enough people like me vote 25 times and wright him in. He will get in to the all Star game alright, but because a manager will take him not because he was chosen by the fans. He wasnt even on the ballot. I do however agree with the statement u made about the worst to hit 900 HR meaning Barroid Bonds. That is a pretty dumb statement to make. A-Rod will make it to 800 I personaly think. Griffey would have made it if he didn't get hurt. Even has an outside shot at 700 I think. He has to stay healthy tho... hes gettin up there in age. The only 2 guys I can see doing even 800 are A-Rod and I'd have to say Pujols but hes still so young. He could start to slide (not that that looks likely.)Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
No love for Cobb here huh??? Did you guys know his mother killed his father with a shotgun. Blew his freakin face off, thinkin he was a prowler. His mom was 12 when she got married and had Cobb at I think 15 or 16. She killed him a week before he got the call to the big leagues... Thats y he was so crazy.
There's no spot for DH, that's why, and he's only played 1 game in the field all yearQuote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
Hmmmm. God point. I forgot he was the DH with Konrko there.
Comments:
1. Babe Ruth is probably the greatest player of all time for a few reasons:
-- he was invariably associated with championships, first in Boston and then in New York
-- he was an outstanding pitcher (Who has the best record as a pitcher against the Yankees, minimum 20 decisions? Babe Ruth! But the Yankees weren't that great before he joined them.)
-- he did not just hit a lot of home runs -- he obliterated home run records. He set his first season record in 1919 when he was with the Red Sox, with only 432 at bats. The next year, in 1920, he almost doubled that record.
Barry Bonds would have hat to hit something like 120 home runs in a season to get that kind of attention.
-- he would out-homer entire TEAMS.
-- he is a "divider". All of the transcendent players are "dividers" in the sense that you can divide baseball history naturally as "before Babe Ruth" and "after Babe Ruth".
-- true, he wasn't playing against the great Negro Leaguers. But then again, he was playing in the 1920s, without the advantages of training, weight lifting, or "the juice". I've never been impressed with those types of arguments. He might have not been playing against the best possible arrangement of opponents -- but neither were the Negro Leaguers, and no one belittles Satchel Paige's ability because he wasn't pitching against white major leaguers.
2. Re: Joe Dimaggio. No, DiMag isn't the greatest player of all time. He's probably not in the Top Ten either.
But DiMaggio, like Ted Williams, lost years of his career to World War II. He departed in 1942 and didn't come back until 1946. (Ted Williams lost years of his career to TWO wars, World War II and Korea). He would have had around 450-470 lifetime homeruns with an uninterrupted career. (And God knows what kind of record Terrible Ted would have had!)
DiMaggio was a fantastic defensive outfielder. "Transcendent" is the word I would use. Looking at his last year to measure his greatness and value to the team would be like saying Babe Ruth sucked because he only hit .181 as a fat forty-year old in Braves Field. Ruth was as immobile as a post in his last year, too.
--Pet
i think Joe wasnt even the best OFer in the DiMaggio family. his defense is overrated in my opinion.
Think that Joe D's career numbers would have cut it with voters had he played for the St. Louis Browns?
Thats a hard argument to make. There are so many great players to have played the game.