10 greatest players of all time...

[The Dean]

The glory years of the Negro League were AFTER Ruth retired.

 

Yes, so no players of color, who were banned from MLB could have been worth squat then. They only became great athletes later.

 

A horrible argument even for the likes of you.

 

 

Also true - but the rules were also that balls that hit the foul pole were foul and balls that left the park fair and hooked around the foul pole were foul. One book I read analyzed every at bat he took when he set the record and deduced that he'd have hit 104 home runs instead of 60 if the modern rule book and stadium dimensions were in use.

 

You read a book?

 

He also played in places like the Polo Grounds (his home park), where the Center Field fence was 500 feet from home plate. If ground rule doubles counting as homers was such a feet, there would have been more players with homer numbers similar to Ruth's. There aren't.

 

 

Excellent point. How many of Babe's HRs were hit over the fence in dead center field at the Polo Grounds? I don't know the answer, just wondering. Knowing the dimensions of the field really doesn't tell us much here, does it?

 

His slugging percentage is almost 70 points higher than the second best in history. His OPS is 50 points higher and over 100 points higher than this era's best player, Albert Pujols.

 

 

Very impressive. I never said he wasn't good. He was clearly head and shoulders better than the other generally poorly trained (comparatively) athletes of his era. I could also mention, again, that the pool of athletes who were allowed to compete was severely restricted, but I won't.

 

I'm still waiting for one.

 

Well, I gave you several. Those are all legit reasons why someone might question your conclusion. You don't agree with them, but you have failed (and miserably at that) to suggest they aren't legit reasons.

 

 

True - but he also didn't get to play against the watered down pitching that goes today (only the best teams have 2 or 3 top starters) or in an era when baseball didn't get all of the best athletes.

 

 

Oops. How did I miss this. Any great hitter will tell you it helps to face the same pitcher multiple times during the game. The hitter typically has more of an advantage on the 3rd or 4th at bat against the same pitcher.

 

Sorry the quotes got screwed up. This should really be my ending comment:

 

 

Well, I gave you several. Those are all legit reasons why someone might question your conclusion. You don't agree with them, but you have failed (and miserably at that) to suggest they aren't legit reasons.

[sharper802]

Holy hell, what a ridiculously bad list. This guy knows that football started before 1970, right? Oh, he included Butkus. My bad.

 

Hutson was better than Rice. Graham was better than Unitas (sorry Rich). While not exactly the same position, Hein was better at his position than Munoz was at his. That is just the tip of the iceburg.

 

These writers really need to stop using "All-Time" when their only frame of reference is recent history.

Age old arguement just as in baseball. If Hutson played in todays game he would be an average TE. In his era he was the best WR of his time. I am not saying you can't make an arguement for Hutson based on how good he was in comparison to his peers, but he just doesn't have the skills/athleticism of todays WR's.

You get no arguement from me on Graham being better than Unitas.

[dave mcbride]

Yes, so no players of color, who were banned from MLB could have been worth squat then. They only became great athletes later.

 

A horrible argument even for the likes of you.

 

 

 

 

You read a book?

 

 

 

 

Excellent point. How many of Babe's HRs were hit over the fence in dead center field at the Polo Grounds? I don't know the answer, just wondering. Knowing the dimensions of the field really doesn't tell us much here, does it?

 

 

 

 

Very impressive. I never said he wasn't good. He was clearly head and shoulders better than the other generally poorly trained (comparatively) athletes of his era. I could also mention, again, that the pool of athletes who were allowed to compete was severely restricted, but I won't.

 

 

 

 

 

Oops. How did I miss this. Any great hitter will tell you it helps to face the same pitcher multiple times during the game. The hitter typically has more of an advantage on the 3rd or 4th at bat against the same pitcher.

 

Sorry the quotes got screwed up. This should really be my ending comment:

 

 

Well, I gave you several. Those are all legit reasons why someone might question your conclusion. You don't agree with them, but you have failed (and miserably at that) to suggest they aren't legit reasons.

 

Dean, you know where I stand on this, but you're making a cardinal mistake: never argue that because guys are more fit today, they were better players than guys in the 20s. Presumably, those guys from the 20s-30s, if given the training of today's guys (not to mention untested HGH), would be great today. The cream generally always rises to the top.

 

Anyway, it's really sloppy arguing. You're better than this.

 

Re the Negro leagues, yes, I realize that trotting that issue out gives you the moral high ground, but if you don't think that Ruth would have dominated the Negro leagues, you don't know much about baseball or how dominant Ruth actually was. Darin is absolutely right, by the way, about the quality of play in the Negro Leagues. Certainly, it wasn't fair, but it's the truth.

 

Re the ground rule double issue, come on. The Red Sox stadium (pre-Fenway, and when Ruth played there) was 635 feet in center field. The Boston Braves' stadium dimensions were insane:

 

1915-21 Left field: 402; Left-center: 402.5 (1915), 396 (1916); Center field: 440; Right-center: 402; Right field: 402 (1915), 375 (1916)

 

Anyway, you're completely wrong on this (and don't get me started about facing multiple pitchers - that's purely a function about pitch count worries, not the view that one- or two-batter specialists are actually better than, say, Cliff Lee or Roy Halladay). Ruth's OPS stats tell the tale. As does his 94-46 record as a pitcher (which you continue to ignore).

[Big Turk]

Where's Brett Favre on this list?

 

What about Teddy Bruschi?

 

 

Bruschi was too busy rescuing a poor, helpless kitten from a 50 foot tree at the time of this article...

[Big Turk]

Jim Kelly said the same thing about Zac Thomas. What offense doesn't take note of where the MLB is?

I am not saying he wasn't great and it is difficult to compare era to era but there is no way he was as athletic or fast as Singletary or Ray Lewis and they hit just as hard and were just as feared.

 

I've heard Ray Lewis was so feared because he would whisper through the ear holes of offensive players "Next time you come across the middle, I'm gonna make sure you get a glimpse of what REALLY happened at the club that night..."

[The Dean]

Dean, you know where I stand on this, but you're making a cardinal mistake: never argue that because guys are more fit today, they were better players than guys in the 20s. Presumably, those guys from the 20s-30s, if given the training of today's guys (not to mention untested HGH), would be great today. The cream generally always rises to the top.

 

Anyway, it's really sloppy arguing. You're better than this.

 

Re the Negro leagues, yes, I realize that trotting that issue out gives you the moral high ground, but if you don't think that Ruth would have dominated the Negro leagues, you don't know much about baseball or how dominant Ruth actually was. Darin is absolutely right, by the way, about the quality of play in the Negro Leagues. Certainly, it wasn't fair, but it's the truth.

 

Re the ground rule double issue, come on. The Red Sox stadium (pre-Fenway, and when Ruth played there) was 635 feet in center field. The Boston Braves' stadium dimensions were insane:

 

1915-21 Left field: 402; Left-center: 402.5 (1915), 396 (1916); Center field: 440; Right-center: 402; Right field: 402 (1915), 375 (1916)

 

Anyway, you're completely wrong on this. Ruth's OPS stats tell the tale. As does his 94-46 record as a pitcher (which you continue to ignore).

 

 

Again, I'm not saying it's MY argument, I'm saying these are LEGIT arguments. When comparing players from different eras, it is one thing to talk about their dominance in an era and quite another to talk about how they compare, all time, against others. Human athletes have evolved. It's fairly easy to see in any timed sport, or sport that is measured objectively. Players now are faster, jump higher, etc.

 

Now you say Ruth would have benefited from modern training methods, HGH, etc. I agree, he might have. There is also a chance he wouldn't have worked that hard and took a job digging ditches. Ruth was hardly an athlete committed to training. He may have been head and shoulders better than those he played against, but he really didn't have to work at it. He certainly wouldn't get the chance to pitch and hit today.

 

You see, you use his pitching as evidence of his greatness. I can see that point. I can also see the argument that it's clear the game was so much different, and the athletes so less skilled that one guy could excel at both of those things. If he was coming up today he'd have to decide on one or the other fairly early in his career. A batter today faces three/four pitchers a game, most who throw faster than they did back then and all with far more training.

 

The point, once again, being you don't have to agree with the arguments, but not acknowledging them is simply not an option, IMO.

[VADC Bills]

People weren't making death threats to Aaron in his prime, so I don't understand how that's relevant. As for putting Bonds in the 1920s, I don't think that's possible because he wasn't actually alive. Same goes for Ruth in the 1990s-2000s. He was dead. Since counterfactual arguments run counter to actual facts, I like to stick to evaluating players in the context they played in.

 

I do think that Bonds was probably his equal as a hitter, but Ruth was near-dominant pitcher as well (94-46 lifetime). No one else can claim that. Moreover, in the stat that counts most, Ruth still sits at #1: http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/...ng_career.shtml.

You forget the early days when most black players played under death threats especially when on the road.

The other points were hypothetical but if we are dealing with the facts, what are the facts regarding Bonds because last I heard there were no eye witnesses..thats fact. Bond biggest problem is the media didn't like him so he is guilty. Maybe maybe not but no one has proven it yet.

Its always great to compare players from different era's because arguments can never be fully proven.

I agree with Ruth pitching assessment. He started out as a dominant pitcher.

But that was the time when players started corking bats..other players did question Ruth's mighty 36 oz bat.

[The Dean]

Looking at it another way:

 

Jesse Owens is considered one of the greatest athletes of the last century. I have no argument with that. But if someone asks "who is the greatest 100 meter runner of all time?" don't you think there is a legitimate argument for Usain Bolt? Owens dominated in his day, but his best times simply aren't up to the best times of the modern era.

[dave mcbride]

Again, I'm not saying it's MY argument, I'm saying these are LEGIT arguments. When comparing players from different eras, it is one thing to talk about their dominance in an era and quite another to talk about how they compare, all time, against others. Human athletes have evolved. It's fairly easy to see in any timed sport, or sport that is measured objectively. Players now are faster, jump higher, etc.

 

Now you say Ruth would have benefited from modern training methods, HGH, etc. I agree, he might have. There is also a chance he wouldn't have worked that hard and took a job digging ditches. Ruth was hardly an athlete committed to training. He may have been head and shoulders better than those he played against, but he really didn't have to work at it. He certainly wouldn't get the chance to pitch and hit today.

 

You see, you use his pitching as evidence of his greatness. I can see that point. I can also see the argument that it's clear the game was so much different, and the athletes so less skilled that one guy could excel at both of those things. If he was coming up today he'd have to decide on one or the other fairly early in his career. A batter today faces three/four pitchers a game, most who throw faster than they did back then and all with far more training.

 

The point, once again, being you don't have to agree with the arguments, but not acknowledging them is simply not an option, IMO.

Fair enough.

[KRC]

If Hutson played in todays game he would be an average TE.

 

Never watched him play, huh?