Better Than the Babe

[abacab]

Hey, so I got a cool idea for a thread, and hopefully can get a lot of people to participate. This is as much a persuasive writing exercise as it is baseball.

The assignment is to choose a position player, and make an argument for him being better than Babe Ruth. 99% of posters here consider Ruth the greatest ever, including myself. But I can see an argument potentially being made for Mays, Cobb, Wagner, Williams, or Bonds.

So pick a guy and go for it. You don't necessarily have to believe what you're saying; just make it as persuasive as you can. You don't have to pick one of the guys I listed above, either. I'd love to see an argument for a more off-the-wall pick. (Mantle? Hornsby? Bob Caruthers?)

[RuthMayBond]

I'd love to see an argument for a more off-the-wall pick. (Mantle? Hornsby? Bob Caruthers?)Sammy Byrd, Hub Pruett :laugh

[leecemark]

--Abacab, be prepared for a deluge of Cobb arguements. Ty has plenty of supporters so I'll leave that one alone. I think a reasonable arguement can be made for Cobb, Mays or Wagner and maybe Williams. I would have included Bonds until recently. Need some time to get a new perspective on him now.
--I doubt I can convince even myself, but I'll try to find time to argue for at least one of these guys. Perhaps Mantle if somebody beats me with a good arguement on the other guys. If I really feel like taking a beating I might even post a Schmidt argument.

[leecemark]

--Just a quick one to get the discussion started before it turns into another Ruth-Cobb thread.
--I'll concede from the outset that Babe Ruth was a better hitter than Willie Mays. The only guy you could make a hitters arguement for against the Babe would be Ted Williams. The gap between them isn't as wide as it may appear at first glance though. Everyone knows that Babe Ruth once hit more HR than any other team in baseball. That is true and impressive. It is also true that Ruth did so in the only narrow window in time when such a thing was possible.
--In the first years of the live ball Ruth was the only front line star who was swinging for the fences. He didn't need to adjust to the new conditons because he was already a big swinger even in the deadball era. Within a few years several other players were posting HR totals which, while short of Ruth's mark, would have beaten whole teams just a few years before.
--Of course, Ruth posted some relative numbers AFTER the other players had made adjustments which also are better than Mays best. However, we need to remember that it was much more difficult to separate from the pack when Mays was playing. The NL of the 50s and 60s was quite possibly the highest level of competiton ever achieved in MLB. It was clearly better than the AL of the 20s and 30s. Ruth was a better hitter, but the gap is not so immense that it can't be made up elsewhere.
--Willie Mays was arguably the best defensive CF of all time. He was fat the very least amoung the all time elite. Babe Ruth was a best a fairly good corner OFer. He appears to have been above average in his younger days, but even then was switched back and forth between LF and RF to keep in in whichever field had less ground to cover. Later as his weight balloned he became a liability in the field. His last few years he was most likely the worst defensive player in the league. He was frequently taken out for defensive replacements. I'm not sure how much of the offense gap between Ruth this narrows, but it is a significant advantage for Mays.
--Mays was also the best baserunner of his time. Basestealing was not a big part of the game in his younger days so it is difficult to rank him amoung the best all time, but he was exceptional. Ruth had decent speed as a young player. He was, however, very reckless and was probably a liability on the basepaths even then. Again as he weight increased he became a severe liability on the bases. Later in his career, backup OFer Sammy Byrd pinch ran for Ruth so often he got the nickname "Babe Ruth's legs". Another huge advantage for Mays.
--Mays was also regarded as an exceptionally smart player and a team leader. Ruth was not noted for his intellect or his dedication to the team. He was frequently suspended for failure to follow team rules. He was also famous for his inability to remember even the names of many of his teammates.
--Babe Ruth was the greatest hitter of all time. He put more runs on the scoreboard than anybody else and I've always ranked him number one for that. However, If you look at the total package and put it in context there is a very good argument that Mays was more valuable to his teams.

[charlesTG126]

well that was quick :laugh
Deepest regrets, I forgot to voice my opinon, and that is: I WHOLLY AGREE WITH LEECE (as usual).

[julusnc]

Yankee Stadium was nicknamed the "House that Ruth built" for a reason.

Babe Ruth alone was the single largest draw in sports during his career.

Babe Ruth is the single most merchandised athlete ever with over 3000 items.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Yankee Stadium was nicknamed the "House that Ruth built" for a reason.

Babe Ruth alone was the single largest draw in sports during his career.

Babe Ruth is the single most merchandised athlete ever with over 3000 items.

Alfalfa: "Why, some people pay as much as ten cents to see Romeo and Juliet,"

Joe: "That don't prove nothing."

I'm not arguing against Ruth so much as arguing against this argument. None of these points is a testament to Ruth's greatness as a player in comparison to other players.

Pat Boone is still in the top ten for records sold during the "rock era" and was hugely marketed and well known. No one in their right mind will say Boone was one of rock and roll's all time greats. Superficial evidence is not enough.

[LongBall50]

Mays is a good choice, almost too easy, when considering other facets of the game besides hitting. Although I'm also having second thoughts about Bonds, with the last four years erased, his offense production challenges if not exceeds Mays, his base running was as aggressive and productive, and he has enough GGs to be credible as a fielder.

But I think there is a fundamental flaw in the premise of the thread. Best position player of all time is like asking what's the best tool manufacturer of all time. Wrenches? Stationary equipment? Power drills? There are some aspects of baseball that a reasonable comparison cannot cross, anymore than you can compare the value of a delta table saw to a porter cable router, or a sears craftsmen socket wrench with a lifetime guarantee.

How can a direct comparison be made between the value of a catcher or shortstop and an outfielder? How about breaking this thread up into a couple of subgroups first, and put the top candidates from each subgroup in a runoff. For example:
Infielders / Defense / Offense / Intangibles
Outfielders / Defense / Offense / Intangibles
Catchers / Defense / Offense / Intangibles

There would also be merit in looking at discreet periods based on the prevailing conditions to account for the differences in equipment and other factors like the deadball, the juiced ball (30's and present?), pre/post WWII, etc. The All Century Ballot was a good start, despite some of the strange choices for candidates by position. But for a quick peek, scan the charts for the six categories of the All Century Ballot (http://www.capital.net/~padel/All_Century.htm).

These categories should be weighted by by consensus before throwing the top candidates in each group into the runoff pool. How much value does a catcher deserve for exceptional defense, pickoffs, pitcher management, and leadership, as opposed to strictly looking at offense production? The pitcher and catcher handle the ball on every pitch. An outfielder gets a couple plays per game.

Stirkeouts and walks account for around 20% of all plate appearances, a position player other than the catcher has about a one in seven chance of handling a hit ball, and assuming (WAG) somewhere between 3 and 4 pitches per plate appearance, my rough calculation would have a catcher handling the ball 35 times for each time another position player handles a ball. This applies to first basemen who generally handle most infield hits, and the other infielders who touch the ball on double plays.

Taking offense, baserunning and the ability to catch a fly ball as the prime criteria neglects a huge part of the game (keeping batters off the bases, and making outs with infield plays once runners are on base).

How about it? Give Bench a chance! Give Schmidt a chance! Jackie Robinson, Wagner, Hornsby! Hell, give Ozzie a chance! Can't we all just get along? End preferential treatment for Outfielders, people! Let's put an END to this Discrimination!

[csh19792001]

Hey, so I got a cool idea for a thread, and hopefully can get a lot of people to participate. This is as much a persuasive writing exercise as it is baseball.

The assignment is to choose a position player, and make an argument for him being better than Babe Ruth. 99% of posters here consider Ruth the greatest ever, including myself. But I can see an argument potentially being made for Mays, Cobb, Wagner, Williams, or Bonds.

So pick a guy and go for it. You don't necessarily have to believe what you're saying; just make it as persuasive as you can. You don't have to pick one of the guys I listed above, either. I'd love to see an argument for a more off-the-wall pick. (Mantle? Hornsby? Bob Caruthers?)

It's not 99%, although it might have been over a year ago, when I started here.

When I finish everything (finals) this week Ill get to this, but here are a few people that have voted for Cobb as greatest ever when asked awhile ago (below). Most, however, are not that vocal here.

There are also a number of Mays supporters (not so many for Bonds anymore, although there were), I even met 2 Josh Gibson supporters over the last year. An argument could be made for Oscar Charleston, since he was generally consider the greatest black player of them all.

Cobb, #1 Ruth,#1
bill burgess
csh19792001
2Chance
fryj
kelo80
Eddie Collins
Sandman
Tearforamariner
Zito75
mpacy
blighty baseball bloke
TXRangerfan
George Steinbrenner
Luke Appling
Chad
Brad Harris
Chancellor
Murph8283
Dizzy
LouGehrig
Prof93
Tibber
Imapotato
Dudecar00
DoubleX
Splendid Splinter
Windy City Fan

[csh19792001]

--Babe Ruth was the greatest hitter of all time. He put more runs on the scoreboard than anybody else and I've always ranked him number one for that. However, If you look at the total package and put it in context there is a very good argument that Mays was more valuable to his teams.

Mark-
My heart stopped....are you actually going to change your mind on something and move Ruth out of the alltime spot!?!? Santo Dios!!! :hp

[leecemark]

--Chris, I change my mind frequently. It is just usually in directions you don't approve of, such as moving Cobb down from 2 to 4. or adding Negro Leaguers to my rankings This particular thread, however, asked for people to make an argument against the Babe even if they didn't really believe it.
--When I made that post I was just trying to go along with abacab's idea as an intellectual challenge to see if I could craft a reasonable arguement for someone over the Babe. I succeeded beyond my own expectations as everything I said in favor of Mays over Ruth is almost indisputably true. Whether Mays huge edge in everything except hitting is truely enough to make him more valauble than Ruth is open to question.
--I convinced myself to consider the question, but haven't quite made the leap to move down the player I've ranked #1 since before I even really thought about ranking players. I'll have to think on it some more.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

-- Whether Mays huge edge in everything except hitting is truely enough to make him more valauble than Ruth is open to question.

That is "the question." Although points can be made for Mays based on all around ability does it over come Ruth's hugh lead in the hitting department. One has to remember not only did Ruth hit 714 home runs but he is 5th in career batting average for all hitters who played most of their career post 1900. Thats saying something, a guy swinging from the heels and only 4 hitters in modern times had a higher career batting average. Plus lots of walks and he second to Ted Williams in OBA by only .008 points

[leecemark]

--Of course Ruth also played in the era where the league had BY FAR its highest BA in post 1900 history as well. The gap between Ruth and Mays BA relative to league is much less than their raw BA and that is what we should really be looking at.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

--Of course Ruth also played in the era where the league had BY FAR its highest BA in post 1900 history as well. The gap between Ruth and Mays BA relative to league is much less than their raw BA and that is what we should really be looking at.

Thats a good point and I should have covered that in my pevious post because when ever Ruth's average is part of the issue the high league batting average at that time usually crops up, and it should.

What makes Ruth's .342 unique at that time is the fact that he was a long baller and most of baseball was playing contact ball. During the 1920's decade Ruth held a .355 average, 5th highest in that decade. Considering he was competing with a league, both leagues a game full of contact hitters that.355 in the twenties and .342 career look pretty good. During the 1920's strikeouts were looked down on, most hitters attached a shame to it, just meet the ball, thats what the majority were doing.

You can also compare Ruth and Mays and how high they hit over the league in the time they played. Looking at it that way eliminates any advantage or skewed numbers. No one has the edge when they are compared to the hitters who played in their time, same ball, same rules and same conditions.

Ruth in his time hit 62 points higher than the league.
Mays in his time hit 49 points higher than the league.

Not to beat this one to death (I hope not) but Ruth played almost all his career competing with contact hitters and as a slugger still hit way over the league..
Mays played in a time when most played the game the same way, a good number swinging away, the long ball was in, strikeouts were on the rise.

Actually, I was surprised that Willie hit that much higher (49 points) than the league. For sure, Willie, with everything else he did so well has to be in the mix if the issue is the top 5 or 10 players all time.

[csh19792001]

Thats a good point and I should have covered that in my pevious post because when ever Ruth's average is part of the issue the high league batting average at that time usually crops up, and it should.

What makes Ruth's .342 unique at that time is the fact that he was a long baller and most of baseball was playing contact ball. During the 1920's decade Ruth held a .355 average, 5th highest in that decade. Considering he was competing with a league, both leagues a game full of contact hitters that.355 in the twenties and .342 career look pretty good. During the 1920's strikeouts were looked down on, most hitters attached a shame to it, just meet the ball, thats what the majority were doing.

You can also compare Ruth and Mays and how high they hit over the league in the time they played. Looking at it that way eliminates any advantage or skewed numbers. No one has the edge when they are compared to the hitters who played in their time, same ball, same rules and same conditions.

Ruth in his time hit 62 points higher than the league.
Mays in his time hit 49 points higher than the league.

Not to beat this one to death (I hope not) but Ruth played almost all his career competing with contact hitters and as a slugger still hit way over the league..
Mays played in a time when most played the game the same way, a good number swinging away, the long ball was in, strikeouts were on the rise.

Actually, I was surprised that Willie hit that much higher (49 points) than the league. For sure, Willie, with everything else he did so well has to be in the mix if the issue is the top 5 or 10 players all time.

These are all good points- got to give Ruth the props for his awesome average AND power. But BA is Willie weakest suit, you have to remember. His fielding was vastly better at a much more difficult and important position, his baserunning was several classes above Ruth, who was agressive but known to be reckless. And, of course, both played in low basestealing eras, but Mays was still outstanding, stealing 338 bases at a very good percentage rate. Ruth stole relatively few bases by comparison, and did so at a godawful rate- had they kept CS his first 6 years in the league, he might be under 50% for his career.

Mark was right on the money- does Babe's huge advantage at the plate make up for the rest?

Or, perhaps, even more to the point- if Babe Ruth played from 1951-73 instead of 1914-35, could he possibly have put up the numbers he did? (especially the relative numbers, which is what people look at the most these days). Could he possibly have slugged .690 and hit .342 with 714 home runs playing in more modern times?

[csh19792001]

You can also compare Ruth and Mays and how high they hit over the league in the time they played. Looking at it that way eliminates any advantage or skewed numbers. No one has the edge when they are compared to the hitters who played in their time, same ball, same rules and same conditions.

Joe, as to the last sentence, the obvious Devil Advocacy is that yes, even adjusting stats, the person has the edge who played against the weaker overall league.

And looking at relative slugging doesn't tell us much, because as Mark correctly noted (Ill extrapolate here a bit), for over 10 years (~1918-28), the league HR/G was never higher than .43/Game. During the Babe's best years (20', 21' and 1923), the entire American League hit (369 (.30/g), 477 (.39/g), and 442 (.36) home runs).

During Willie's best years, (say, 54', 58', and 65'), the HR/G was .66/g, .85/g, and .85/g. So stats like relative slugging and OPS+ are skewed in favor of Ruth, who was playing his own game for a better part of 10 years. Of course, he continued to dominate even when the league became more slugging/HR oriented.

[LongBall50]

You can also compare Ruth and Mays and how high they hit over the league in the time they played. Looking at it that way eliminates any advantage or skewed numbers. No one has the edge when they are compared to the hitters who played in their time, same ball, same rules and same conditions.

Ruth in his time hit 62 points higher than the league.
Mays in his time hit 49 points higher than the league.


Once you start talking about hitting over league average, you will unavoidably get back to Bonds. Especially if you include the last four years in his averages.

The comparison shouldn't be made on batting average alone. Here's Bonds compared to other active players: Active Player Career 2004 (http://www.capital.net/~padel/PDF Charts/Active Player Career 2004.pdf).

[csh19792001]

Once you start talking about hitting over league average, you will unavoidably get back to Bonds. Especially if you include the last four years in his averages.

The comparison shouldn't be made on batting average alone. Here's Bonds compared to other active players: Active Player Career 2004 (http://www.capital.net/~padel/PDF Charts/Active Player Career 2004.pdf).

Paul,
Bonds admitted to using steroids, and his numbers the past 4 years, as a result, are as valid as the gold medals/world records thrown out by the Olympic Committee. Those records, too, were also garnered through illegal and/or artificial means.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Joe, as to the last sentence, the obvious Devil Advocacy is that yes, even adjusting stats, the person has the edge who played against the weaker overall league.

And looking at relative slugging doesn't tell us much, because as Mark correctly noted (Ill extrapolate here a bit), for over 10 years (~1918-28), the league HR/G was never higher than .43/Game. During the Babe's best years (20', 21' and 1923), the entire American League hit (369 (.30/g), 477 (.39/g), and 442 (.36) home runs).

Again I partially delete a portion of your post to deal with that which remains.I don't see the league during Ruth's time as weaker, not when I am dealing with batting averages. We already know that some of the highest batting averages were posted in that period in particular 1920-1935 when Ruth took to the outfield. Whether one assumes the reason for those high batting averages was the quality of pitching or the fact that most hitters goal was to just make contact, or both it was the time of high averages.

Even if on average, hitters were not as big or stong as today, that would not hamper their batting averages. There had to be hitters back then, although not a match for todays hitters in hitting the long ball that could hit for high averages and they did. My point still is that Ruth the slugger stayed with and was near the top in keeping pace with the great number of contact hitters. I think most would agree with going for the long ball, the average will come down. Some of the highest career batting averages in recent times are hitters who were contact hitters, Gwynn, Boggs, Carew.

This is the reason I made the issue in my previous post on Ruth and his batting average and where he stood in his time. I never compare Ruth to his competition in his time in the area of home runs simply because the hitters but for a small number were not fence busters and it would not be a fair comparison.

It appears that we both view Ruth's competition in his time differently. I don't think hitters back then were any less able than todays hitters, not in maintaining a high average. In fact as we can see by the numbers they held high averages. Now some of this can be related to relief pitchers. The big reason, I believe is because today the long ball is in, less contact more strikeouts lower averages.

I would say if you keep your view that Ruth's competition was at a lower level you argument could be made. My opinion, dealing only on the subject of contact and high averages his competition was at a high level.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

[QUOTE=LongBall50]Once you start talking about hitting over league average, you will unavoidably get back to Bonds. Especially if you include the last four years in his averages.

The comparison shouldn't be made on batting average alone. Here's Bonds compared to other active players: Active Player Career 2004 (http://www.capital.net/~padel/PDF Charts/Active Player Career 2004.pdf).[/QUOTE

I agree it should not be batting averages alone, but in this case I had my reasons. It was to show that Ruth was more than a power hitter. Also that even as a long baller he could stay with and even far ahead of the contact hitters in maintainig a high average.

If we take other stats it would be a wipe out since Ruth was one of the few hitters going for the long ball back then. As far as Barry is concerned he lags far behind Ruth if you look at WHOLE careers.

If you think it's not fair to compare Ruth to others in his time, take him out of his time. Compare him to any era, slugging, AB/HR, OPS, adjusted OPS, OBA, he looks good in any era.

[ElHalo]

Back to the question behind this thread...

I'll give you an easy one. Rogers Hornsby.

Babe is generally considered the greatest LH hitter of all time; Rogers is generally considered the greatest RH hitter of all time.

They were at least roughly comparable as hitters. Babe was a better HR hitter; Rogers was a better contact hitter... but they were both astounding in each area. Babe was in the top 10 in HR 18 times, winning 12 HR titles; Rogers was in the top 10 in HR 14 times, winning twice. Rogers was in the top 10 in BA 13 times, winning 7 BA titles; Babe was in the top 10 in BA 12 times, winning 1 title.

Babe led his league in OPS 13 times; Rogers led his league 11 times.

Ruth was better at drawing the walk, but Rogers was no slouch, finishing in the top 10 in BB 11 times, winning 3 times. Rogers only has 12 more career SB's than Babe, but he was pretty clearly the better baserunner, finishing in the top 10 in triples 7 times, leading twice, to Ruth's 4 and 0.

So basically, Babe was a better hitter than Hornsby, but it wasn't by a whole lot. At worst, Rogers was 80% the hitter Babe was.

But Babe was a corner outfielder. Rogers was a middle infielder. The positional adjustment you have to give Rogers is HUGE... and it's more than enough to overcome the edge that Babe has in hitting. Plus, Rogers was a player/manager for a good chunk of his prime, something that's well known to sap a players' stats.

All in all, Rogers Hornsby has to be the best player of all time.

(Of course, all of this goes without considering Babe's pitching, which of course has to be factored into his overall value... once you do that, there's no way that anybody can come even remotely close to him as the greatest baseball player of all time.)

[csh19792001]

If you think it's not fair to compare Ruth to others in his time, take him out of his time. Compare him to any era, slugging, AB/HR, OPS, adjusted OPS, OBA, he looks good in any era.

"take him out of his time"

Be my guest! :waving

http://www.exploratorium.edu/baseball/1905_BR.html
This is Ruth playing in Ty's day. Of course, this assumes that he would have been able to swing as freely as he did in the 20's will the benefit of the live ball and banning of all trick pitches, which, of course, he would not have starting in 1905.
It goes strictly by how much he outperformed the league.

Here's Ty playing in an era similar to Babe's.
http://www.exploratorium.edu/baseball/1921_TC.html

[csh19792001]

I would say if you keep your view that Ruth's competition was at a lower level you argument could be made. My opinion, dealing only on the subject of contact and high averages his competition was at a high level.

Hi Joe-
I agree with basically everything you said and understand where you're coming from.

I guess I'll pose my earlier question again that I did when I posted on Mays. I may start a thread dedicated to this, in fact. Could Babe Ruth have done as well playing in an integrated league drawing from a much larger and diverse international talent pool, starting in, say, 1951? Could he have hit .342 with a .690 slugging % and 714 homeruns? Does it seem unlikely? I'd like to hear some of the modernists who are always harping on this comment here.

We already know that some of the highest batting averages were posted in that period in particular 1920-1935 when Ruth took to the outfield. Whether one assumes the reason for those high batting averages was the quality of pitching or the fact that most hitters goal was to just make contact, or both it was the time of high averages.

I assume it was the quality of pitching and the ball/conditions. It had to be.
Why? Because guys were hitting for average for the first 20 years of the 20th century, too (even more so, in fact, if you look at slg%), and the leagues, overall, during that period couldn't manage much better than .250 with basically no power. Suddenly, though, the leagues began hitting around .290 with much greater production numbers.

Guys like Zack Wheat had a .299 average through 1919, ended up hitting .318 for his career. Most players- almost every player- hit much better under the new conditions. If you look at the 20-40 era, there just aren't that many alltime pitchers, in comparison to almost any other era. We currently have only ONE pitcher in our top 20 elected from that era, in comparison to 6 deadball pitchers, 4 current guys, and 4 from the 60's.

A paucity of great pitching, and pitchers divested of all their defenses. A free-for-all for about 20 years, peaking right in the middle (1930).

[ElHalo]

Guys like Zack Wheat had a .299 average through 1919, ended up hitting .318 for his career. Most players- almost every player- hit much better under the new conditions. If you look at the 20-40 era, there just aren't that many alltime pitchers, in comparison to almost any other era. We currently have only ONE pitcher in our top 20 elected from that era, in comparison to 6 deadball pitchers, 4 current guys, and 4 from the 60's.

Ok. So if it was easy for everybody to hit a lot those days... doesn't that make his career 207 OPS+ even more impressive?

[csh19792001]

Ok. So if it was easy for everybody to hit a lot those days... doesn't that make his career 207 OPS+ even more impressive?

No- era is already factored in, Jim. That's why it's OPS+.

What isn't factored in is the fact that he outhomered entire teams, and was one of a few guys to be swinging for homeruns between 1918-27 (and in the late teens-early 20's, during his best years, really the ONLY player to be playing that game). That, plus the fact that OPS+ treats all stadiums as equal for all players (even though the old Stadium was brutal for righties and very good for lefties) puts him 17 points ahead of Ted Williams, who played when there were many, many guys hitting lots of homeruns.

[leecemark]

--My guess - and its nothing more than that - is that Ruth would have hit as many, if not more, HR in the modern era. He would have been facing better pitching, including multiple pitchers per game - probably on average a lefty per game brought in especially to face him. That plus night games, jet lag , etc would have hurt his average. Probably not his HR though becuse he would also be hitting in smaller parks. Parks on average have much shorter fences than they did in Ruth's day.
--I see him as a guy who would have hit in the low .300s in better years, although he might have peaked higher in his best years. He did win a batting title in his own time and might have been able to duplicate it later. His walks might have gone up some. I'm not really sure that pitchers worked around him then as much pitchers do the big sluggers today. He would almost certainly would have spent the back half of his career DHing for an AL team. He would not have been allowed to run anywhere near as much as he did then.
--The big question on his ability to succeed in a more modern era I think invloves his personal life. Would he have taken advantage of better training methods and nutrition? Seems unlikely. The press has changed from one which hero worshiped and covered up a players transgressions to one which jumps on every slipup. Would Ruth be vilified for his degenerate lifestyle instead of made out to be a hero? How would that have affected him? Would he have succumbed to drug addiction had he played in the 70s or 80s. Seems very possible to me.
--If you assume Ruth would have taken advantage of modern training advantages then I think he might well still be the best player if he were active today. He wouldn't dominate to quite the extent he did then, but he might have posted late-Bondsian numbers without the chemical help (or try and imagine him with it!) If you at least assume he couldhave avoided the worst pitfalls of the lifestyle of the modern athlete then maybe he could be the best even with marginal training habits (although I doubt it). Both of those assumptions are probably optimistic.

[csh19792001]

--My guess - and its nothing more than that - is that Ruth would have hit as many, if not more, HR in the modern era. He would have been facing better pitching, including multiple pitchers per game - probably on average a lefty per game brought in especially to face him. That plus night games, jet lag , etc would have hurt his average. Probably not his HR though becuse he would also be hitting in smaller parks. Parks on average have much shorter fences than they did in Ruth's day.
--I see him as a guy who would have hit in the low .300s in better years, although he might have peaked higher in his best years. He did win a batting title in his own time and might have been able to duplicate it later. His walks might have gone up some. I'm not really sure that pitchers worked around him then as much pitchers do the big sluggers today. He would almost certainly would have spent the back half of his career DHing for an AL team. He would not have been allowed to run anywhere near as much as he did then.


You think he'd have numbers like Jim Thome, maybe, but with way more homeruns? Or more like Barry Bonds?

Let's assume he didn't train hard (which he wouldn't, knowing Ruth). Let's say he just played on natural ability, because of we change his personality to someone remotely industrious, then we aren't even talking about Babe Ruth anymore.

Someday, somebody will figure out how much night ball effects production, and how much relief pitching cuts into it as well. I know Bonds has hit much better at night, as have many players- I don't believe night ball hurts nearly as much as twilight baseball. Also, riding trains around the country (from Boston or NY to St. Louis) was no bargain either. Jet lag, or ten times as long of a trip couped up in a smokey train car?

At least those two things could be figured out, at least (impact of night ball and relief pitching). I don't know that either does, for a fact. The integration, overall increase in athleticism of players, number of teams, talent pool size, and the contingency of that talent pool- impossible to know how much they impact things.

I'd like to hear someone say they believe that Ruth or Cobb would very likely do BETTER today, and back that argument up. We'll do a thread on this some other time.

But I'd tend to agree about homeruns. There are now over 100 players with 300 homeruns- and 21 active players between 300-703 homeruns. Given his natural athletic talent, I doubt he wouldn't be able to hit a ton of homers in this era. Hell, if Ellis Burks can hit 350-400 home runs, I don't see why Ruth wouldn't be able to hit twice as many.

How much have human beings (and the level of our game) changed in 80 years?

[leecemark]

--Cobb and Wagner were two of the hardest working, best condtioned players of their time. Wagner was perhaps the other ML player of his generation who did weight training (even 50-60 years later conventional wisdom was that lifting weights was bad for a player). They would be far more likely to take advantage of modern training and nutrition than Ruth.
--What makes it difficult to project them is both the question of how they would have adjusted to better competition and what kind of player they would be in the modern game.
--When Cobb and Wagner played batting average was the most valued offensive number and was, in fact, a more accuarte way to rate a player then than now. They were the best of their time in what was valued most. Both were also big, strong men who would almost certainly have been swinging for the fences today. The results of that change in style are virtually impossible to predict. Wagner probably wouldn't even be a SS. He didn't settle in at that positon until his 7th season and nobody switches to SS mid-way through their career today. On the other hand, his team might have realized hwo good he could be there early and he might have come up as a SS.
--I can't see anyway these guys - or Ruth - would have been as good relative to their leagues now as they were then. All would probably be major stars, but at least a little closer to the pack.

[Imapotato]

Mays played in a hitter's ballpark perfect for his bat
Ruth played in that same ballpark and outhomered teams

Yankee Stadiums ballpark factor for LH HR's? Only 101...yet he still smashed HR records.

Ruth>Mays

Wagner played in a diluted NL, when in 1901 75% of NL players jumped to the AL for more money...except for the Pirates, because Dreyfuss opened up his wallet. In 1902 the rest of the great talent jumped to the AL, including ALL of the Cardinals staff and OF, and ALL of the Phillies

The NL was filled with AAAA talent until a peace accord with Highlander CF and future lawyer (drawing a blank on his name) and head of the Player's reps accepted a deal with the AL and NL that there would be no more jumping between leagues.

Ruth>Wagner

Cobb, played in a league now normalized by 1906 and played most of his career in a ballpark that hindered his game, it was a decent HR park, but Cobb was a spray hitter, so how many hits would he have in cavernous Forbes Field? How many triples? He was also an above average CF and the most feared baserunner that ever lived. His records were beaten, but in much greater PA's and his career BA was only neared by Hornsby and Jackson who kept his % up by playing sparingly for 7 years and the latter not having any decline

Cobb is the greatest ballplayer that ever lived

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Hi Joe-
I agree with basically everything you said and understand where you're coming from.

I guess I'll pose my earlier question again that I did when I posted on Mays. I may start a thread dedicated to this, in fact. Could Babe Ruth have done as well playing in an integrated league drawing from a much larger and diverse international talent pool, starting in, say, 1951? Could he have hit .342 with a .690 slugging % and 714 homeruns? Does it seem unlikely? I'd like to hear some of the modernists who are always harping on this comment here.

SHOELESS> I would think his batting average would be lower, slugging not sure, home runs I could still hitting in the neighborhood of 700. The larger and more diverse talent pool would mean he might not be as dominant but not sure how it would efffect his numbers. For sure less triples with the smaller parks >SHOELESS QUOTE

I assume it was the quality of pitching and the ball/conditions. It had to be.
Why? Because guys were hitting for average for the first 20 years of the 20th century, too (even more so, in fact, if you look at slg%), and the leagues, overall, during that period couldn't manage much better than .250 with basically no power. Suddenly, though, the leagues began hitting around .290 with much greater production numbers.


SHOELESS. Well as we know banishment of the trick deliveries, a supposedly livlier ball and the introduction of the practice of tossing out scuffed up balls in 1920 all played a part in the offenseve explosion enjoyed by all era's of the game right up until today QUOTE>SHOELESS


A free-for-all for about 20 years, peaking right in the middle (1930).

That explosion in 1930 is a bit misleading. It did happen but it was the NL that really took off, not so much in the AL.


AL
1929---ba. 284----home runs 595
1930------.288--------------673
1931------.279--------------576

NL
1929--ba..294----home runs 754
1930-----.303---------------892
1931-----.277---------------493

While the AL has a modest drop in batting average 9 point in 1931 the NL dropped 26 points in 1931.

The AL dropped 97 home runs in 1931, the NL dropped 493 home runs in 1931
about 40% less, a hugh reduction.


Simple answer. At the winter meeting in 1929 the NL owners decided to use a thinner cover, lower seam ball in 1930 and you can see what took place in the NL in 1930. the AL made no change in the ball that season. After the 1930 season they decided to go back to the original ball, thicker cover and raised seam and you can see that the NL came back to the real world in 1931. It was suspected by some NL pitchers that the thinner cover, lower seam ball actually came into the game at mid season 1929.

I do have the article from the N.Y.Times archive, one of the only times I know of where the owners admitted to making the ball more lively, 1930.

[Bill Burgess]

A Word on Wagner:

Honus Wagner, 1897-1916, was the greatest fielder in the MLs, the greatest hitter in the league, the greatest basestealer and baserunner in the league for around over 10 years.

John McGraw said that they could never determine his highest point of superiority, his hitting, running or fielding. He said that if he had a hitting weakness, they never discovered it.

Wagner was called the greatest player ever by:
McGraw, Bill Klem, Sam Crawford, Ed Barrow, John Gruber, George Moreland, Branch Rickey, Lou Gehrig, Johny Evers, Bill McKechnie, Max Carey, Fred Clarke, Jimmy Burke, Jimmy Sheckard, Tommy Leach, Babe Adams, Ed Rouch, Paul Waner, Ralph Davis, Barney Dreyfuss, Jim Long. I haven't found quotes from Mathewson, Mordicai Brown, Frank Chance, Ginger Beaumont, Johnny Kling, Grover Alexander, Joe McGinnity, Joe Tinker, and others of his peers.

Honus won 8 BA. titles, 6 SLG. titles, 5 SB titles, 5 RBI titles, 7 Total Bases titles, and 4 OBA titles.

Many such as Joe McCarthy and Cobb called him a perfect player, along with such others as Ewing, Sisler, Charleston, Dihigo, Speaker, Mays, Eddie Collins, Jackie Robinson. This meaning that there were no skills on a ballfield that they lacked. And to an extreme degree. And tempermentally, Wagner was as sweet-natured as they come. And on top of it all, he was a Short-Stop, without any weaknesses. He could go into the hole behind 3rd or 2nd, go aloft, and had a rifle for an arm (he pitched 2 games), and was death on grounders, bunts or liners anywhere near him.

But it doth my heart glad to hear an enlightened few give up the props and render forth to Honus that which belongs to Wagner.

For Gehrig or Hornsby or A-Rod to match the Matchless One, they would have to be the best hitter, fielder & baserunner in the MLs for around 10 years, and I think time ran out on them 80 yrs. ago, and A-Rod can't be the best runner in the league and Bonds is the best hitter, so he's out too.

The 3 places where Hans has received his due are:

1. Bill James' Historical Abstract. 1988, pp. 384-385.

2. Baseball's All Time Dream Team, by John P. McCarthy, Jr., 1994, pp. 64.

3. The Diamond Appraised, by Craig R. Wright and Tom House, 1989, pp. 367-409. The Wagner segment is taken by Craig R. Wright.

In the 3rd book, it's alleged that Honus was once timed in 3.4 seconds, going from home to 1st, from the right-handed batters box.

Hans has many, many BB virtues which Babe must only dream about.

1. Babe outslugged Hans, with an era factor that was impossible to overcome. But considering his era, Hans slugged great. 6 SLG. titles.

2. Hans was arguably the finest all-around fielder who ever lived. He wasn't the finest defensive SS, but he was very close to the finest. Ozzie Smith, Herman Long, Bobby Wallace and Glenn Wright may have shaded him for that honor, but by the barest of margins. But they couldn't be played at 1B, 3B, OF as easy as Hans, and shined. Hans made impossible miracles happen with his glove. Up the middle, behind 3B, short LF. His arm was a campfire legend all its own. They still refer to it in Pittsburg.

3. Hans was one of the great runners of history. 5 SB titles.

4. Hans was one of the great hitters of history. 8 BA. titles, 6 SLG. titles, 5 RBI titles, 7 Total Bases titles, and 4 OBA titles.

5. Hans without a doubt was the greatest Offensive/Defensive combo Player of All Time, with the great Willie Mays following. Hans ranks higher due to positional importance.

6. Although many believe that Babe Ruth's bat makes up for all these miracles, Babe could only outslug the Flying Dutchman. But how can anyone know or prove how well Wagner would have adusted to the lifely ball? He was a powerhouse unto himself. Could he have more value to his team? Depends who you'd ask.

From '00-10, Honus was thought the greatest ever, until Cobb nudged him aside. But even then, he held onto his 2nd ranking from 1910-50.

On Feb. 4, 1950, in NYC, the Associated Press, announced the results of its poll of its members, with respect to baseball. Ruth 253, Cobb 116, Gehrig 8, W. Johnson 7, DiMaggio 5, Wagner 2, Mathewson 2.

By contrast, in its April 2, 1942 edition, Sporting News conducted its own survey, of those who HAD seen them all, and Ty got 61 votes, Honus 17 and Babe 11, Hornsby 2, 10 players received 1 vote each: Delahanty, Gehrig, Speaker, DiMaggio, Ott, Sisler, E. Collins, Johnson, Mathewson, Jerry Denny.

This survey supported the 1936 Hall of Fame vote:
Original Hall of Fame vote, Feb. 2, 1936, votes counted at the Commissioner's office in Chicago, IL. 226 Total Voters; Cobb 222, Wagner 215, Ruth 215, Mathewson 205, Johnson 189, Lajoie 146, Speaker 133, Young 111, Hornsby 105, Cochrane 80, Sisler 77, E. Collins 60, J. Collins 58, Alesxander 55, Gehrig 51.

Of course, most folks have been told, and believe, that The Babe is the greatest player ever, and by a gigantic degree, but that is only because the game has evolved in a Ruthian direction, and away from a Wagnerian/Cobbian one.

But you will have to make that determination for yourself.

Bill Burgess

PS. I judge folks BB chops/smarts by how they rank Wagner primarily, and Cobb secondarily.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

A Word on Wagner:


Honus Wagner, 1897-1916, was the greatest fielder in the MLs, the greatest hitter in the league, the greatest basestealer and baserunner in the league for around over 10 years.




6. Although many belief that Babe Ruth's bat makes up for all these miracles, Babe could only outslug the Flying Dutchman. But how can anyone know or prove how well Wagner would have adusted to the lifely ball? He was a powerhouse unto himself. Could he have more value to his team. I vote yes.

But you will have to make that determination for yourself.

I think to vote for anyone else is just crazy talk. Seriously.

Bill Burgess

Bill that was some run down you put forth on Honus. On your point number 6, I have often wondered what this guy could hit like had he been around post 1919, the livelier ball, a clean whte ball and no more trick deliveries. honus could do it all great.Same with Cobb, live ball era in his prime years. Actually both carried high slugging percentages in that dead ball era.

I always put Wagner, Cobb and Ruth in a separate catagory when ranking the greats. By that I mean, I and I would assume most on this board never saw these 3 play the game. I saw Hank, Willie, Barry and some of the other greats so I can judge them by what I saw of them.

I'm sure you know from previous posts that I lean towards Ruth. Even though he could not do all of the things that some other greats did. His AB/HR ratio, slugging percentage, consistent home run hitting and OBA I think have to be factored in.

Honus, great all around, thats putting it mildly. Your post, tells it all.

Cobb, how does anyone leave him out of the running. His base running, extra base hits and that .367. I look at that .367 and still find it hard to believe that a hitter could hold that average over all those seasons, miles ahead of all, Hornsby the closest at .358, damn good for a RH hitter.

When I look at those three Wagner, Cobb and Ruth I do make it a point to remember that Ruth was the only one to play most of his career, his prime in the live ball era. For that matter when I rank any of the greats from way back when I break them down dead/live ball era. Two completely different era's.

[Bill Burgess]

Joe,

Thank you so much for your kindly words. I feel the 3 jewels that the modern world has missed, were:

1. Ty running.
2. Honus' fielding
3. Babe's moonshots.

The recent problems with Barry Bonds show that Babe is still in a class of his own, when it comes to slugging. He did it on talent alone.

(I really should have included the pitching of Big Train/Big Six. And the marvels of the NLers, Charleston, Lloyd, Mackay, Gibson, Paige will have to remain speculative glints in our eyes, until further certification comes along.)

Bill Burgess

[four tool]

Better than Ruth is the question. I'll take Mantle over Mays. Same position, so no defensive advantage, and Mantle in his prime outdid Mays in his prime. Look at the 10, 12 or even 15 best years, and Mantle comes out ahead, even in SB %.Therefore, even if Willie is better than Babe, Mickey is better than Willie.

[santotohof]

is it really a question? The best left handed pitcher of his time became the greatest hitter of all time .

[RuthMayBond]

Better than Ruth is the question. I'll take Mantle over Mays. Same position, so no defensive advantage, and Mantle in his prime outdid Mays in his prime. Look at the 10, 12 or even 15 best years, and Mantle comes out ahead, even in SB %.I might take Mays from '59-'68, and maybe it's more about SB runs than SB%

[Imapotato]

Let's assume he didn't train hard (which he wouldn't, knowing Ruth). Let's say he just played on natural ability, because of we change his personality to someone remotely industrious, then we aren't even talking about Babe Ruth anymore.


Ken
Griffey
Jr.

[Appling]

If we have learned anything in this age of PED's, it is that character and dependability really matter! On those measures, Stan the Man ranks ahead of even the great Babe Ruth.

Because he didn't take care of his body, Ruth lost a big chunk of the 1922 and 1925 seasons -- which should have been prime years. Musial never let his team down; he never took a year off. (Unless you count 1945, when he was in Military Service.) From his rookie year at age 21 through age 37 in 1958, Stan had more than 450 AB in every season. In fact, from 1943 (age 22) thru 1956 (age 35) Stan never had fewer than 555 at-bats.

Ruth was a great hitter but a poor example to teammates, and was an especially bad example to rookie ballplayers and to the youth of America who worshipped at his altar. But Musial was always a gentleman, always a great example to teammates and to the youth of America.

And he could hit! His 3630 career hits place him #4 all-time. Stan won seven NL batting titles and has a career BA of .330 (despite playing in an era of relatively good pitching and low batting averages). His 6134 career total bases are second-best of all time. He hit for average and for power.

And his 1948 season was one of the greatest hitting years of all time, matching anything even the Babe ever achieved, for in that year Stan led the league in 12 of the 13 key hitting departments: Batting Average (.376); OBP (.450); Slugging % (.702); OPS (1.152); Hits (230); Runs (135); RBI (131); Total Bases (429); Doubles (46); Triples (18); Extra-base Hits (103); and Times on Base (312).
Stan never led in Homeruns, but in that 1948 season his 39 round-trippers put him just one behind league-leaders Kiner and Mize (who were tied at 40).

Ruth led the AL in nine of these 13 hitting departments in 1921, which I consider to be the Babe's best season. (I confess that Ruth did have some mighty big numbers in those hitting departments where he did lead the AL in 1921.)

Stan ended his career with 475 homeruns, and his 1377 extra-base hits rank #2 of all time.

[leecemark]

--I made an arguement earlier just an intellectual challenge in response to abacab;s question. The more I think about it though the more I think Willie Mays may have been a better baseball player than Babe Ruth. I raised the question again in the "Better Hitter Ruth or Williams" thread and thought I'd bring this thread back to life to see if any new views have emerged.

[torez77]

Mays beats Ruth soundly in fielding and running. I'm not sure we can say Mays is the greatest in any one stat, though. Ruth was the greatest in hitting IMO, plus he would've made the HOF as a pitcher had he not converted. This amazing transition puts him ahead of Mays in my view. Take away the pitching, however, and that moves Mays, as well as others, closer to the Babe. Also, the possibility that Mays played in a tougher era works in his favor. Interesting argument.

[Bill Burgess]

I guess I may as well give it a shot. I've never done Ruth/Mays before.

Ruth/Mays

1. Hitting:

Babe had it all his way in the 20's. Willie had to struggle against an historicly strong field, both in terms of integration/hitting. In the 20's, everyone continued to play small ball, while in the 50's, BB maxed out in terms of the fewest numbers of ballplayers representing a large population sample, pre-expansion. Dominating a league was excrusiatingly difficult in the 50's.

2. Defense:

Willie has it all his way, while Babe hustled hard. Let's draw the curtain of mercy on this.

3. Running:

Again, Willie has it all his way, while Babe did his best. Once again, the curtain of mercy needs to be lowered on this comparison.

Other factors involved with hitting.

The 1950's -60's pitching is much further advanced than 1920's levels. Pitching in the 50's is very tight, and would go off the charts from '62-69.
The high mound, the expanding of the strike zone from the chest letters to the tops of the shoulders, allowed the power pitchers to fire downwards and their high strikes would now be called strikes, whereas before they were ball high.

The simultaneous event of opening up to black/hispanic players, and TV making it's appearance in 1950, with ML BB it's featured showcase event, brought out tons of black players, AND white players. Baseball, for the first time in its history, was able to draw on its entire talent pool.

The lack of credible competition from the other sports only strengthened BB's ability to attract all the good athletes. These and other factors limited Mays ability to dominate his league, although he was able to star in it, and lead sporatically. Mays wasn't a pure power guy anyway. He was a Hornsby-type spray hitter to all fields, as was Aaron/Clemente. His natural power allowed him to lead in several power categories anyhow.

Babe Ruth would have led the 50's/60's in his accsustomed power categories, because he was a uniquely-gifted slugger. That was his gift, his specialty. His other gifts, such as BA, were a residual spin-off.

I feel that if Ruth had played, 1950-71, he would have had his BA come way down, both due to the less lively ball used, than the way used from 1919-38. And the 60's would have seen a further dimunition of his BA, due to the pitcher's dominatied decade. But no one was going to wrest the HR title, or Slg. ave. title from him. Those were his by right of his GIFT. Babe was destined to lead a league in SLG. Ave. but not achieve an historic SLG. Ave. separation, as was gifted him in the 20's. So Babe is leading his league, but the differential between him and the league has drasticly flattened out. Leading, but not extremely or obscenely so.

To showcase just how competitive & difficult to dominate the 1950-60's were, here is Willie's record for leading his league.

BA -----OnBase--------SLG. Ave---------Adj. OPS-------Total Bases----
1---------2---------------5-----------------6----------------3

HR----------RBI--------Walks---------Extra Base Hits-------------------
4------------0-----------1-----------------2

Summary: I'd say that I must give Willie the tiltle of better all-around player than the Babe, but give the Babe the title of better hitter than Willie.

Bill Burgess

[ElHalo]

What kind of numbers would Babe have put up in 50-70? My guess?

Well, he did .342/.474/.690 in the time he played. In 50-70, I'd guess that he'd have gone .320/.450/.710.

An interesting thing about .710? That's 43 points higher than Willie Mays ever saw in his life.

I put Willie Mays 3rd all time because that's what everyone says. The more I really analyze him, the more I see that he just wasn't enough of a hitter to really deserve that spot from me. If I move him down, that moves Rogers Hornsby to number 3 all time. Hm. Not sure on this. Just seems to me that the third best guy ever should at least be in the top 10 in hitting, especially if he's an outfielder / first baseman. I don't know.

[Bill Burgess]

Jim,

Please don't do that. All the arguments I made concerning Babe in the last several posts, also apply to Rogers.

I back off to no man in my admiration of Rajah, but let's be reasonable about it also.

He faces lesser pitching, and hitting than did Willie. He can't compete defensively or in running with Willie Mays, even if he's pretty good at both.

In Willie's days, post 1955, the gloves had gotten SO much better, that stopping hard hit balls became much easier, taking a lot of hits out of the league.

Why can't we just leave it as we always have? Hornby's the better hitter, Willie's the better all-around player? Sounds sensible to me.

Bill Burgess

[BoSox Rule]

Using the Baseball Time Machine (http://www.exploratorium.edu/baseball/timemachine.html), here are Ruth's numbers by time peroid. Of course, with the stats they gave, I have to calculate his OBP without SF or HBP

1876-1899: .317 BA, 1955 G, 6643 AB, 1919 R, 2107 H, 4090 TB, 385 2B, 139 3B, 440 HR, 1682 RBI, 187 SB, 1293 BB, .428 OBP, .616 SLG

1893-1916: .320 BA, 2445 G, 8224 AB, 1958 R, 2632 H, 4941 TB, 520 2B, 193 3B, 468 HR, 1849 RBI, 279 SB, 1754 BB, .440 OBP, .601 SLG

1905-1928: .324 BA, 8366 AB, 1942 R, 2709 H, 5177 TB, 569 2B, 199 3B, 501 HR, 1871 RBI, 239 SB, 1974 BB, .453 OBP, .619 SLG

1921-1944: .340 BA, 2537 G, 8513 AB, 2086 R, 2894 H, 5903 TB, 418 2B, 99 3B, 798 HR, 2187 RBI, 86 SB, 1826 BB, .457 OBP, .693 SLG

1946-1969: .312 BA, 2581 G, 8664 AB, 2019 R, 2700 H, 5858 TB , 249 2B, 47 4B, 939 HR, 2158 RBI, 67 SB, 2324 BB, .457 OBP, .676 SLG

1963-1986: .306 BA, 2615 G, 8771 AB, 1916 R, 2680 H, 5726 TB, 250 2B, 37 3B, 907 HR, 2031 RBI, 124 SB, 2110 BB, .440 OBP, .653 SLG

1980-1997: .313 BA, 2578 G, 8649 AB, 1932 R, 2705 H, 5796 TB, 289 2B, 43 3B, 906 HR, 2042 RBI, 193 SB, 2068 BB, .445 OBP, .670 SLG

[ElHalo]

Jim,

Please don't do that. All the arguments I made concerning Babe in the last several posts, also apply to Rogers.

I back off to no man in my admiration of Rajah, but let's be reasonable about it also.

He faces lesser pitching, and hitting than did Willie. He can't compete defensively or in running.

In Willie's days, post 1955, the gloves had gotten SO much better, that stopping hard hit balls became much easier, taking a lot of hits out of the league.

Why can't we just leave it as we always have? Hornby's the better hitter, Willie's the better all-around player? Sounds sensible to me.

Bill Burgess

All around player, sure. But "better all around player" and "better player" aren't at all the same thing.

All around implies somebody who's good at everything. Better player just means who's more valuable.

And in my view... Willie just wasn't as good a hitter as anybody else I have in my top 10. The only one who's even close is Tris Speaker, who's almost a carbon copy of Willie, and who I generally rank 7th, and Honus Wagner, a shortstop, who I generally rank 6th. So why does Willie get special treatment?

Which is more valuable, though, think about it: A guy who can hit with a 170 OPS+ and play an all time great CF, or a guy who can hit with a 170 OPS+ and play an average second base? I'd tend to go with the latter, and the thing is, Willie wasn't even close to being as good a hitter as Rogers. Or Teddy Ballgame, or Gehrig, or even Foxx and Musial.

Generally speaking, I consider Willie to be not as good as Mickey, but with better longevity that puts him ahead of Mickey. And I stick by that. But I rank Mickey, normally, 12th... I can't really understand why I give Mays an extra 9 slots just on longevity. Doesn't make much sense.

Really gotta rethink my rankings at the top there...

[ElHalo]

Using the Baseball Time Machine (http://www.exploratorium.edu/baseball/timemachine.html), here are Ruth's numbers by time peroid. Of course, with the stats they gave, I have to calculate his OBP without SF or HBP



Judging from the 1921-44 period, you're understating his OBP's by about 15 points. But nice work, though.

[ElHalo]

In Willie's days, post 1955, the gloves had gotten SO much better, that stopping hard hit balls became much easier, taking a lot of hits out of the league.

Doesn't this make Willie's defense less impressive?

[Bill Burgess]

No, not as much as if he were an infielder. Yes, it made his life much easier, but anyone could tell Willie was a very special type OF, and player. I saw him play often, and perhaps one needed to have seen him play.

Bill Burgess

[Yankees7]

I saw Mays' whole career, at no time did I actually feel he was the best player in the Majors. I fail to see why many do. Most agree his peak was less than Mantles' , seeing all of the 1950's and 1960's I would say there were several players better than Mays at their best.

[Bill Burgess]

Yankees7,

Really? Is that so? And who might those other players be? I'm curious.


Bill Burgess

[Yankees7]

No problem Bill, I am talking about performance

Mantlewhile at their respected bests, Mays takes a backseat to Mickey)
Musialperhaps the most underrated star I ever saw)
Aaron (here is your argument for longevity, he did it in arguably the 2 toughest decades of play)
Williams (while not playing in has many games has Mays, his performance at the plate is staggering)

[torez77]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned that Mays' move from New York to San Francisco hurt his HR totals. Could he have been the all-time HR king?

[torez77]

On the other hand, even if Mays would have surpassed Ruth in all-time HRs had he stayed in New York, he doesn't come close to Ruth in what matters more - HR per AB. Case in point - is Hank Aaron a better HR hitter than Ruth? Nay.

[Bill Burgess]

If Mays had exceeded Ruth's HR total, it wouldn't have mattered any more than Aaron's record mattered. Gave a spike in PR, and awareness, but not much love.

Maris got little love, McGuire got little love, Bonds got little love.

The public loves who it wants to, and that has little to do with stats. Who can tell why the public embraced Ruth, who was not much more lovable than anyone else? Babe's personal traits are normally criticized more than embraced.

But embrace him it did, and it gave him more unconditional love than most any athlete before or since. Why? God only knows.

Bill Burgess

[ElHalo]

The public loves who it wants to, and that has little to do with stats. Who can tell why the public embraced Ruth, who was not much more lovable than anyone else? Babe's personal traits are normally criticized more than embraced.

Womanizing, smoking, drinking, staying up all hours of the night, fighting... and still performing his job at a level higher than anyone ever had before?

Babe Ruth is the American Dream. Babe Ruth is what we all wish we could be, but aren't skilled enough for. Everybody wants to have fun, fun, fun, all the time, and then go out and beat the world when work time comes. THAT's why Babe was adored, in combination with his quick smile and love of children. It's because everybody wished they could be Babe Ruth. He was big during prohibition, remember, when the entire society was rebelling against authority. He was the ultimate rebel.

[Bill Burgess]

Yankees7,


While I can see there being a case for Mantle, Aaron, Musial, and Williams being better than Willie Mays, theirs are cases I just cannot support. But they have cases being greater than Willie as a hitter, that I think are more supportable, except for Aaron.

But isn't that the great thing about BB. We can disagree and still be cool.
Thanks for the good chat!

Bill Burgess

[leecemark]

--Nobody ever mentions the 2 years Mays lost to military service during the Korean War either. There is a very good chance he would have broken Ruth's HR record before Aaron had he not missed those years (and a virtually certainty he would have cracked the 700 mark). Of course, Aaron would have passed him shortly thereafter.

[therealnod]

"take him out of his time"

Be my guest! :waving

http://www.exploratorium.edu/baseball/1905_BR.html
This is Ruth playing in Ty's day. Of course, this assumes that he would have been able to swing as freely as he did in the 20's will the benefit of the live ball and banning of all trick pitches, which, of course, he would not have starting in 1905.
It goes strictly by how much he outperformed the league.

Here's Ty playing in an era similar to Babe's.
http://www.exploratorium.edu/baseball/1921_TC.html
That's so much BS. I've seen that before and it's a bubble gum, kiddies game of "let's be as simple about this as possible because we can." It's geared to the simple-minded and isn't anything like a meaningful statistical study. In short, it's crap. I actually almost believe it's dangerous. They might have WMDs.

[Bill Burgess]

RealNod,

Be not a sissy? Try taking a walk on the wild side. I mean, really, Mark is talking about Willie Mays might be his new guy. So . . . the stars are realigning, a new day is dawning, and who knows where things will land.

We be WILD here at Fever time, yes we be. Whooooaaa! Lord have mercy.

Bill Burgess

[Honus Wagner Rules]

A Word on Wagner:

Honus Wagner, 1897-1916, was the greatest fielder in the MLs, the greatest hitter in the league, the greatest basestealer and baserunner in the league for around over 10 years.

John McGraw said that they could never determine his highest point of superiority, his hitting, running or fielding. He said that if he had a hitting weakness, they never discovered it.

Wagner was called the greatest player ever by:
McGraw, Bill Klem, Sam Crawford, Ed Barrow, John Gruber, George Moreland, Branch Rickey, Lou Gehrig, Johny Evers, Bill McKechnie, Max Carey, Fred Clarke, Jimmy Burke, Jimmy Sheckard, Tommy Leach, Babe Adams, Ed Rouch, Paul Waner, Ralph Davis, Barney Dreyfuss, Jim Long. I haven't found quotes from Mathewson, Mordicai Brown, Frank Chance, Ginger Beaumont, Johnny Kling, Grover Alexander, Joe McGinnity, Joe Tinker, and others of his peers.

Honus won 8 BA. titles, 6 SLG. titles, 5 SB titles, 5 RBI titles, 7 Total Bases titles, and 4 OBA titles.

Many such as Joe McCarthy and Cobb called him a perfect player, along with such others as Ewing, Sisler, Charleston, Dihigo, Speaker, Mays, Eddie Collins, Jackie Robinson. This meaning that there were no skills on a ballfield that they lacked. And to an extreme degree. And tempermentally, Wagner was as sweet-natured as they come. And on top of it all, he was a Short-Stop, without any weaknesses. He could go into the hole behind 3rd or 2nd, go aloft, and had a rifle for an arm (he pitched 2 games), and was death on grounders, bunts or liners anywhere near him.

But it doth my heart glad to hear an enlightened few give up the props and render forth to Honus that which belongs to Wagner.

For Gehrig or Hornsby or A-Rod to match the Matchless One, they would have to be the best hitter, fielder & baserunner in the MLs for around 10 years, and I think time ran out on them 80 yrs. ago, and A-Rod can't be the best runner in the league and Bonds is the best hitter, so he's out too.

The 3 places where Hans has received his due are:

1. Bill James' Historical Abstract. 1988, pp. 384-385.

2. Baseball's All Time Dream Team, by John P. McCarthy, Jr., 1994, pp. 64.

3. The Diamond Appraised, by Craig R. Wright and Tom House, 1989, pp. 367-409. The Wagner segment is taken by Craig R. Wright.

In the 3rd book, it's alleged that Honus was once timed in 3.4 seconds, going from home to 1st, from the right-handed batters box.

Hans has many, many BB virtues which Babe must only dream about.

1. Babe outslugged Hans, with an era factor that was impossible to overcome. But considering his era, Hans slugged great. 6 SLG. titles.

2. Hans was arguably the finest all-around fielder who ever lived. He wasn't the finest defensive SS, but he was very close to the finest. Ozzie Smith, Herman Long, Bobby Wallace and Glenn Wright may have shaded him for that honor, but by the barest of margins. But they couldn't be played at 1B, 3B, OF as easy as Hans, and shined. Hans made impossible miracles happen with his glove. Up the middle, behind 3B, short LF. His arm was a campfire legend all its own. They still refer to it in Pittsburg.

3. Hans was one of the great runners of history. 5 SB titles.

4. Hans was one of the great hitters of history. 8 BA. titles, 6 SLG. titles, 5 RBI titles, 7 Total Bases titles, and 4 OBA titles.

5. Hans without a doubt was the greatest Offensive/Defensive combo Player of All Time, with the great Willie Mays following. Hans ranks higher due to positional importance.

6. Although many believe that Babe Ruth's bat makes up for all these miracles, Babe could only outslug the Flying Dutchman. But how can anyone know or prove how well Wagner would have adusted to the lifely ball? He was a powerhouse unto himself. Could he have more value to his team? Depends who you'd ask.

From '00-10, Honus was thought the greatest ever, until Cobb nudged him aside. But even then, he held onto his 2nd ranking from 1910-50.

On Feb. 4, 1950, in NYC, the Associated Press, announced the results of its poll of its members, with respect to baseball. Ruth 253, Cobb 116, Gehrig 8, W. Johnson 7, DiMaggio 5, Wagner 2, Mathewson 2.

By contrast, in its April 2, 1942 edition, Sporting News conducted its own survey, of those who HAD seen them all, and Ty got 61 votes, Honus 17 and Babe 11, Hornsby 2, 10 players received 1 vote each: Delahanty, Gehrig, Speaker, DiMaggio, Ott, Sisler, E. Collins, Johnson, Mathewson, Jerry Denny.

This survey supported the 1936 Hall of Fame vote:
Original Hall of Fame vote, Feb. 2, 1936, votes counted at the Commissioner's office in Chicago, IL. 226 Total Voters; Cobb 222, Wagner 215, Ruth 215, Mathewson 205, Johnson 189, Lajoie 146, Speaker 133, Young 111, Hornsby 105, Cochrane 80, Sisler 77, E. Collins 60, J. Collins 58, Alesxander 55, Gehrig 51.

Of course, most folks have been told, and believe, that The Babe is the greatest player ever, and by a gigantic degree, but that is only because the game has evolved in a Ruthian direction, and away from a Wagnerian/Cobbian one.

But you will have to make that determination for yourself.

Bill Burgess

PS. I judge folks BB chops/smarts by how they rank Wagner primarily, and Cobb secondarily.
Bill,

It's great to meet a fellow Wagnerian! Honus was born 20 years too early. As I've stated before I strongly believe that had Honus been born 20 years later he would have been a 500-700 HR man. In his recent biography there is an account of him hitting a 450 ft HR around 1908-1910 (I'll find the account). Ed Barrow who saw both Wagner and Ruth up close stated most emphatically that had Wagner played in the 1920s he would have hit 50 HRs every year. Both Wagner and Cobb were great athletes. Cobb was 6'2"" 190 pounds and Honus was 5'11" 200 pounds, large men for their time. I think that was one key to their dominance.

People tend to group Wagner and Cobb together but they are not really true contemporaries. Wagner was almost 14 years older than Cobb. When Wagner came up the print media was far more primitive then when Cobb came along 10 year later. When they met in th 1909 WS Cobb was only 22 years old while Honus was already 35 years old.

So as time went forward and the memory of the Flying Dutchman faded Cobb "passed" Wanger in people's minds. Remember Cobb played into the late 1920s and was able to keep his super high BA becasue of the offensive era and that was probably one reason he "passed" Wagner. But the people who actually say them play all said the same thing, Cobb was tremendous, but Wagner was better...

[Honus Wagner Rules]

OK, I found the account of Wagner's 450 ft HR. It was actually in 1903


At Brooklyn on June 30th, Wagner had a second consecutive four hit game. He tripled, drove in four runs, scored three times, and his 450-foot home run over the centerfield fence was heralded as one of the longest ever hit at Washington Park.

Honus Wagner: A Biography

[Bill Burgess]

Honus Wagner Rules,

It is my great pleasure to meet someone with such great judgement to appreciate Hans. Even though he is my #2 greatest ever, I can never get mad at anyone who ranks Hans over Ty, because I love Hans so much. My love of him knows no bounds, and I judge others by how much they love Hans. He is my measuring yardstick.

Bill Burgess

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Honus Wagner Rules,

It is my great pleasure to meet someone with such great judgement to appreciate Hans. Even though he is my #2 greatest ever, I can never get mad at anyone who ranks Hans over Ty, because I love Hans so much. My love of him knows no bounds, and I judge others by how much they love Hans. He is my measuring yardstick.

Bill Burgess
So I guess passed your baseball IQ test? :D

[Bill Burgess]

Oh yeah, big time! You're A OK with me! Long live the Great Dutchman!

Bill

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Womanizing, smoking, drinking, staying up all hours of the night, fighting... and still performing his job at a level higher than anyone ever had before?

Babe Ruth is the American Dream. Babe Ruth is what we all wish we could be, but aren't skilled enough for. Everybody wants to have fun, fun, fun, all the time, and then go out and beat the world when work time comes. THAT's why Babe was adored, in combination with his quick smile and love of children. It's because everybody wished they could be Babe Ruth. He was big during prohibition, remember, when the entire society was rebelling against authority. He was the ultimate rebel.

Thats often been my take on why Ruth was held so high back then and even today.

As you state it was prohibition and also the working man was at the mercy of his employer, his boss, unions were few if any at all. Here was a guy telling the boss to shove it and getting away with it. Here was a guy often on the town most of the night and still doing a great job at knocking the cover off of the ball.

So he made the rounds of many a whore house but also found a great deal of time for kids at institutions and even some to private homes. He even took time to answer a letter from a young boy in Germany. When a shoe company promised Ruth a pair of shoes for every home run he hit he took the deal. His only stipulation was that they be childrens shoes. I don't recall if that was the season he hit 54 or 59 but he then delivered the shoes to a childrens orphanage in person. So he was not perfect, who is. I have to laugh at those who wonder why Bonds is so disliked by many and Ruth with all his flaw is held so high. They don't get it or don't want to get it, two different cases. One was a flawed man, his personal habits, the other keeps sticking his foot in his mouth over the years, often making comments the fans don't care to hear.

[leecemark]

--The media was different then too. They either didn't mention a players "colorfull" persoanal life or told some highly edited versions. If the Babe conducted himself in the same manner today, I'm pretty sure his image would be very different - and not in a good way. Not saying today's model is better, but it is different and Ruth would be regarded differently.

[torez77]

Ruth was lovable because he was seen as a gentle giant. He may have been a wild party animal but he also showed his lovable side and character. Bonds has never been lovable. He's demonstrated his character even before the possible steroid case when he publicly dissed the fans during the strike. You don't understand, Mr. Bonds, those fans are paying your salary!

[Bill Burgess]

I do understand that Babe Ruth fulfilled the public's need for rebellious anti-heroes, who flaunt authority, and get their way in the end. Do we not all secretly envy men who can demand that a room full of women get naked and they complied? He'd typically announce, "Anyone who doesn't intend to put out, you better leave now!"

So I can grasp why folks would envy him, admire his on-field clutch performances. But others have been similar! Why did the public not turn Rube Waddell into a god? He was as spontaneous, more so, drank even more, was even more colorful, chased women as eagerly. Rube was as gregarious, extroverted, un-intellectual (to say the least), and performed on-field like a champ. And while the public did embrace Waddell, and made him a box office drawing card, it was never on the scale of Ruth's drawing power.

So what gives? Why Babe and not Rube?


Bill Burgess

[ElHalo]

I do understand that Babe Ruth fulfilled the public's need for rebellious anti-heroes, who flaunt authority, and get their way in the end. Do we not all secretly envy men who can demand that a room full of women get naked and they complied? He'd typically announce, "Anyone who doesn't intend to put out, you better leave now!"

What's this "secretly" nonsense?


So I can grasp why folks would envy him, admire his on-field clutch performances. But others have been similar! Why did the public not turn Rube Waddell into a god? He was as spontaneous, more so, drank even more, was even more colorful, chased women as eagerly. Rube was as gregarious, extroverted, un-intellectual (to say the least), and performed on-fieldd like a champ. And while the public did embrace Waddell, and made him a box office drawing card, it was never on the scale of Ruth's drawing power.

So what gives? Why Babe and not Rube?


Bill Burgess

Because Waddell didn't completely blow away everyone else who'd ever played before. Waddell was excellent, and struck people out like a madman. But he never struck out more than any other team combined.

[Bill Burgess]

What's this "secretly" nonsense?


Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. Yeah, man. I agree. Wouldn't mind being that compelling. The truth is that I'm a million times better looking than the Babe, am better read, more well-spoken, and have never been a "babe magnet."

Ruth was the least likely babe magnet in history. They say fame, money, talent are powerful attractions, but still . . . Ruth was homely, fat, artless, crude, vulgar and yet, made Hugh Hefner look like a babe repellent.
I will never get it. Too schooled in good manners. Animal magnetism always mystifies me.


Bill Burgess

[therealnod]

RealNod,

Be not a sissy? Try taking a walk on the wild side. I mean, really, Mark is talking about Willie Mays might be his new guy. So . . . the stars are realigning, a new day is dawning, and who knows where things will land.

We be WILD here at Fever time, yes we be. Whooooaaa! Lord have mercy.

Bill Burgess

Trust me, I can be more than a little wild. :crazy

Then I took the player in question and figured out how he related to the league average for the years he played. When I moved him to a different era, I maintained that relationship. For example, if he was 10% above the league average in 1920 -- say the average was .290 and he hit .320 --then, if I moved him to 1963 and the league average was .240, his average would be 10% higher, which would be .264. It's really just as simple as that.

:ughh

[SHOELESSJOE3]

What's this "secretly" nonsense?


Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. Yeah, man. I agree. Wouldn't mind being that compelling. The truth is that I'm a million times better looking than the Babe, am better read, more well-spoken, and have never been a "babe magnet."

Ruth was the least likely babe magnet in history. They say fame, money, talent are powerful attractions, but still . . . Ruth was homely, fat, artless, crude, vulgar and yet, made Hugh Hefner look like a babe repellent.
I will never get it. Too schooled in good manners. Animal magnetism always mystifies me.

Bill Burgess

No answer to that one Bill. I't's like that in Hollywood, it's even like that in our personal life. There are stars that appear to be equal on most accounts yet some just seem to knock out the public, win them over. There are folks in our personal life that for no apparent reason, nothing we can put our finger on but we just like or love their company. What ever it is, be it persons of note or just friends they have something that just can't be detected, it's just there, makes them likable..

[SHOELESSJOE3]

On Honus Wagner, no matter who one would pick as the greatest, this guy has to be in the mix. Would loved to have seen him in the live ball era.

[csh19792001]

What kind of numbers would Babe have put up in 50-70? My guess?

Well, he did .342/.474/.690 in the time he played. In 50-70, I'd guess that he'd have gone .320/.450/.710.

An interesting thing about .710? That's 43 points higher than Willie Mays ever saw in his life.

I put Willie Mays 3rd all time because that's what everyone says. The more I really analyze him, the more I see that he just wasn't enough of a hitter to really deserve that spot from me. If I move him down, that moves Rogers Hornsby to number 3 all time. Hm. Not sure on this. Just seems to me that the third best guy ever should at least be in the top 10 in hitting, especially if he's an outfielder / first baseman. I don't know.

Mays was a lot like Derek Jeter, Jim. Most people that grew up in the 50's-60's said they never saw anybody nearly as good- we just weren't lucky enough to see him play in his prime. His greatness extends far beyond his numbers- as great as they were.

When the average player is much better, it's that much harder to seperate yourself from the pack in a MAJOR way- like Ruth, Cobb, and Wagner did. The logical conclusion is that the playing field is much better (not that the best players aren't as good). If you put Willie Mays from 1920-34, his numbers would have been pretty awesome, too- he played when baseball was probably as strong as it ever was (and possibly much stronger than it was 30-40 years earlier).

[Metal Ed]

I know I'm not going to convince anybody about anything with this, but here goes.....

Any debate over whether Ruth was the greatest ever is eventually going to boil down to how much more competitive one thinks the game is today as compared to Ruth's day. I know many of you already have strong opinions about this and couldn't give a **** what I think, but here it is anyway. For me, I find it impossible to believe that Ruth's game was as competitive as today's game. I have always believed that Ruth, Gehrig, Walter Johnson, Wagner, Cobb, etc., were very talented individuals who were able to exploit the relative lack of talent in their leagues to put up numbers that, when adjusted for era, have them standing further away from their peers than any modern player could ever hope to achieve. Simply put: the easiest way to appear great is to play against crappy competition.

I base this belief on several things. First, racial and geographic factors once limited the population pool from which players could be selected. You'll find more major league talents in a population of 4 million than you will in a population of 500,000. No black, Latino, or even white players from the West Coast would have limited the talent pool in Ruth's day, enough to offset any diluting factors that modern league expansion has wrought.

Second, scouting then was less sophisticated than it is today, and so it would have been more difficult to identify the best players from the population pool, further limiting the level of competition. (When Ruth was a rookie, the American League was only 10 years removed from the time where, if a team ran out of players, they'd go into the stands, ask if there were any ball players in the stadium, and slap a uniform on a semi-pro player who happened to be in the crowd. That 's major league baseball?)

Third, the lack of a breeding-ground minor league farm system (the minors then were independent and not yet slaves to the major leagues) would have made it impossible to "funnel" and consolidate all the best talents into the majors, as is the situation now.

Fourth, medical science can now save the careers of top talents that would otherwise have been lost forever. Players back then got hurt too, just like players today. You never heard of them, because they got hurt and never played again and went back to the farm or the coal mines and died in obscurity. How many talents were lost that could have been saved with today's medicine? Take just Tommy John surgery alone, for example. Something like 1 in 9 pitchers in the big leagues today have had Tommy John surgery for torn ligaments - an injury that, prior to 1972, would have flat ended anybody's career. How many mysterious "dead arms" of the past could have been saved? Pitchers can now come back as good as new - in fact, often even BETTER than they were before - about 80% of the time with TJ surgery.

Fifth, look at team winning percentages then and now. The standard deviation of winning percentages has been decreasing over time, and is smaller, now, than it has ever been. There is less of a gap in winning percentage between the best teams and the worst teams, now, then there has ever been in times past. It's true; get out a copy of the Baseball Encyclopedia, look up team winning percentages year by year since 1872, plug those mothers into Excel, and graph it out.

So I really don't think that it is just idle speculation that the league is more competitive than it used to be - it seems to be a statistical reality. All this in an era when the financial gap between the richest and poorest teams is bigger than it has ever been. And in an era of free agency - non-existent in Ruth's time! So now, we have a situation where the richest teams are richer than the poorest teams by the greatest margin in history - AND we have a situation where the richest teams are free to gobble up the best players like no other time in history. By all rights, there should be the biggest gap ever in team winning percentages - we should be living in the LEAST competitive baseball era ever - yet the exact opposite is true.

If that doesn't convince you that today's players are more tightly clustered than ever in terms of talent and ability, then I gots nothin' left.

Anyway, I don't know for certain how MUCH worse the league was then than it is now. Who does? I will say this - the gap between Ruth and his comtemporaries is bigger than for any other player ever. Well, Barry Bonds...... but Bonds has only opened the gap between himself and his peers in the last 4 years, whereas Ruth's CAREER value was always leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of the league.

How much of that was due to the lack of competition, I don't know. Maybe I overestimated how much more competitive things are today. Maybe, even after adjusting for the relatively less stiff competition, Ruth was STILL so much better than his peers that he is still the greatest ever. I don't know for sure. Who does? Nobody.

I will say this. I balk at choosing any player pre-1950 as the greatest ever. I don't look at a minor league player who batted .380 and wonder, "Is he better than Tony Gwynn, who batted .338 in the majors? Well, let's see. Gwynn had a higher level of competition to succeed against. But HOW much higher? Is it possible that a .380 average, after adjusting for the weaker league, is actually a more impressive accomplishment?"

I don't ask these types of questions because it seems to me that a minor leaguer shouldn't even be compared to a major leaguer. You compare a major leaguer to a major leaguer. Let Joe .380 succeed at the highest level of competition, THEN we'll evaluate him. If you want to be the best, you have to beat the best. Obliterating second-rate foes is great, but I don't want to start trying to figure out how much weaker the second rate foes are than the first rate foes, and then start trying to figure out what the performance WOULD have been against top-shelf competition, if only it had been available.

So for me, I'd start with post-1950 players, because that's when the league became fully integrated, and the modern farm system was in full effect. I'd pick guys like Mantle, because he was the best player of the 50's; Willie Mays and Hank Aaron, because they were the best players of the 60's; Mike Schmidt, because he was the best player of the 70's and 80's (yeah that's right, Mike Schmidt!); and Bonds, who was the best player of the 90's - even before his steroid-fueled transformation.

One last thing I want to say. You can who toss out my argument about level of league competition and pick Ruth as the best ever, but then you need to explain why Josh Gibson WASN'T the best ever. He had better numbers than Ruth did, in the Negro Leagues. How about 800 home runs and a .350 average in 17 seasons? Or 80 home runs and a .400+ average in 1936?

Hey, no fair arguing that the Negro Leagues wasn't as competitive as the major leagues! Arguing level of competition supports MY argument. Toss out league competitiveness and you're pigeon holed into accepting that Gibson was better than Ruth. Anyhow, lots of white players saw Gibson and said he was Ruth's equal as a hitter - and these were the 1930's, so there was no political correctness at work when they made these statements. They simply gave their honest evaluation.

Ruth's trump card is that he was also a very good pitcher - for 4 years. But did I mention that Gibson was a CATCHER? Wrap your head around that one. He played the most important defensive position on the diamond, and the most physically exhausting one, for 17 years. Does that trump Ruth's 4 years as a pitcher? Hard to say, but a very good argument could be made. You might wonder how much better Ruth might have been had he lived a more disciplined lifestyle. No dice. Gibson was an alcoholic, and a heroin addict later on, who died at age 35.

(Off topic: according to the book "Babe Ruth's Own Book of Baseball" (a very interesting read!) Ruth (or his ghost writer) says that after the 1925 season - his worst ever, at the age of 30 - Ruth put an end to his excesses of partying and drinking. Ruth (or his ghost) says that he had been able to get away with all that debauchary without his play suffering on account of his youth; but by age 30, it finally caught up with him, and he had his worst season ever. Amidst rumors that he was washed up, Ruth spent the entire winter in the gym boxing and doing aerobics and calisthenics, and bounced back to top form in 1926. 1927 you all know about. Ruth says after that, he stopped overeating and partying and has always spent the offseason exercising. So, maybe he wasn't as undisciplined as we think. He was productive all the way to age 37, you know.)

Back on topic. I don't know for sure if Ruth was or wasn't the greatest baseball talent ever. But I don't think the answer is very cut and dry.

[Yankees7]

Metal ED, that is a well written argument. I personal feel that after watching baseball for over 50 yrs that the great ones could have played in anytime. You can't hold it against Wagner & Cobb for when they were born. Baseball in their time was different, but they were the stars that blazed across the sky, likewise Ruth came into baseball and helped usher in a new era, but he hardly did it by himself. Take a look at the League numbers for HRs and SLG% in the time Ruth played. I would venture to guess that they both were rising along with Ruth, after all Ruth has little to do with any increase in the NL Numbers.

[Bill Burgess]

Metal Ed,

Nice post. Of course, we all give a snot what you think. Just may not agree with you automaticly. Let's say all your points are fine. But that still leaves a big unanswered question in my mind.

Let's say God chose to put 5 of the best overall ballplayers in to play before 1950. And they, predictably, killed their competition. Which we grant you, was softer, easier to dominate. Do we then eliminate them from our consideration as the best players, simply because their competition wasn't up to standards?

Why do Wagner, Cobb, Ruth, W. Johnson need be skipped over because their peers were crap, by comparison to later eras? Just doesn't feel just or honest to me. Just because you're crushing crappy competition doesn't automaticly rule you out, does it? You're penalizing great players due to their time of birth, which was beyond their control. Same as with the Negro Leagues.

Just because we all agree that they couldn't field a league as strong as the MLs, due to under financing, doesn't mean a few of their stars were not as good as the ML stars. They just were not allowed to prove their level of competence, due to circumstances beyond their control. Charleston, Mackay, Santop, Gibson, Lloyd, Joe Williams and Paige were generally recognized as MAJOR talents in the BB firmament, cursed to languish in BB hell, due to skin tone, beyond their control.

I think your argument, while valid, lacks fairness/context.


Bill Burgess

[torez77]

Nice post, Metal Ed. And I must admit you're quite knowledgeable. Your ideas are some that I toy around with sometimes. However, I have to agree with most of the others on this board that it's not fair to diminish the records of the greats pre-1950! Baseball has existed since 1876, and ALL of the greats from EVERY era should be honored! If I want to compare players from different eras, I won't rack my brain trying to figure out what would have happened IF? When comparing offense, the stat that settles it for me is Adjusted Production, or OPS+ as most people call it, which adjusts for era among other things. It may not be totally accurate, and there's no way of knowing for sure, but I look at Babe Ruth and he has the best player today, Barry Bonds, beat by 23 points, 207-184. Realistically, there is no one stat that can tell you 100% how players would do in different eras, but that is all we have available to us.
I admit you bring up great points to consider. I admit Josh Gibson may have been equal to, or better than Ruth had he been given a chance. Damn, if people weren't so friggin' racist back then we could have found out. I know little about the Negro Leagues. I also know that those stats vary enormously depending on your source. Are the 800 HRs and .350 BA a myth? Even if they are real, consider the level of competition, which I don't believe was too far below the Major Leagues. If those numbers are real, hey Josh gives the Babe a run for his money, no doubt about that. But since we don't know his stats for sure, to rank him with the Major League greats is jumping to conclusions. We can only speculate.

[therealnod]

Picking two seasons more or less out of the air from very different eras, I've done a little analysis of BA. The two seasons are 1916 and 2001. I wasn't especially careful, so there's room for doubt, but I will be going over it in greater detail and for many other seasons. It's simply a matter of time.

In the standard normal distribution (the bell-shaped curve), virtually all data lies within three standard deviations of the mean (99.74%) and quite a lot of the data within two standard deviations (95.44%). A standard deviation moves from the mean in either direction, so by saying that 95.44% of the data is within two standard deviations, that is saying within either two standard deviations above or below the mean.

Stephen Jay Gould studied BA throughout history and found that the stdDev of BA's has been steadily declining over time, and provides a chart showing scatter plots. The scatter has been getting more and more narrow, with fewer large jumps in stdDev one way or the other. Gould uses this to argue that the quality of play has been increasing.

Aggregate MLB BA's have been consistently around .260, with a few years here and there well below (.230s) and well above (.290s-.300s). But in general, the league average is typically somewhere between .250 and .270. MLB's overall BA since 1901, taken by every single hit and every single AB, is .262.

Anyway, back to the two seasons in question. In 1916 roughly 60% of players hit worse than the league average. A BA of .386 is two stdDev above the mean.

In 2001, roughly 50% of players hit worse than league average, and .332 is two stdDev above.

I hope I haven't fudged the numbers here, and I welcome anyone to check them and report any inconsistencies to me. As I go along I'll be refining my methods.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

[QUOTE=Metal Ed]I know I'm not going to convince anybody about anything with this, but here goes.....

Any debate over whether Ruth was the greatest ever is eventually going to boil down to how much more competitive one thinks the game is today as compared to Ruth's day. I know many of you already have strong opinions about this and couldn't give a **** what I think, but here it is anyway. For me, I find it impossible to believe that Ruth's game was as competitive as today's game. I have always believed that Ruth, Gehrig, Walter Johnson, Wagner, Cobb, etc., were very talented individuals who were able to exploit the relative lack of talent in their leagues to put up numbers that, when adjusted for era, have them standing further away from their peers than any modern player could ever hope to achieve. Simply put: the easiest way to appear great is to play against crappy competition.



(.[/QUOTE

Ed, i cant speak for others but I believe that most who rank Ruth so high have already factored in the fact that the level of competition overall back then was lower than today. I base my opinion on Ruth on the fact that his numbers still compare to the best ever, even players in the game right now. The fact that his competion was lower does not mean he could not put up those numbers, only means the gap would be smaller if the level was higher.

Most of Ruth's career numbers that have been surpassed are cumulative stats, stats based on a total number and surpassed by hitters who had hundreds and even thousands of more at bats than Ruth. When we look at stats based on a percentage Ruth is still at or near the top, more often than most others.

Another point even if the level is higher today would Mac, Sosa or Bonds put up these numbers if not for the livlier ball, the lower strike zone, smaller parks and expansion that placed pitchers on teams in MLB, pitchers who would still be in the minors if not for all those teams, all those rosters that have to be filled. My point, todays hitters have some things going for them, it's not all in favor of Ruth, Gehrig, Cobb or other past greats. Both era's had some favvorable conditions.

[Metal Ed]

Nice post, Metal Ed. And I must admit you're quite knowledgeable. Your ideas are some that I toy around with sometimes. However, I have to agree with most of the others on this board that it's not fair to diminish the records of the greats pre-1950! Baseball has existed since 1876, and ALL of the greats from EVERY era should be honored! If I want to compare players from different eras, I won't rack my brain trying to figure out what would have happened IF? When comparing offense, the stat that settles it for me is Adjusted Production, or OPS+ as most people call it, which adjusts for era among other things. It may not be totally accurate, and there's no way of knowing for sure, but I look at Babe Ruth and he has the best player today, Barry Bonds, beat by 23 points, 207-184.



Okay, but that stat is only MEAN adjusted. It compares their numbers to the league MEAN. (In this case, the league mean is set at 100 - just like with IQ.)

If you follow my argument, that is not a 100% valid comparison. Because, according to my argument, it should have been easier for Ruth to distance himself from the mean. Right? That stat doesn't tell us how easy or difficult it was to be 2.07x as good as the "average" player.

It depends on how much better one thinks the "average" player is. If one thinks "only a little", then I lose. If one thinks "quite a bit", then I might be right.

Let's use IQ as an example. An average IQ is 100. If one has an IQ of, say, 165, and is standing in a room full of average individuals, chances are, that person's mean adjusted IQ is 165/100 = 165. But if you put him at a Mensa meeting, his mean adjusted IQ is 165/150 = 110.

This individual is just as smart no matter which room he stands in, right? But in the one case he has an IQ+ (hey, I just made up a stat!) of 165 and the other, 110.

So, mean adjusted stats might be unfair - to modern players.

I was accused of being unfair to the old timers- and, you know, I kind of was. I was unfairly penalizing them due to when they were born, the era they played in - things they had no control over. Yet, the use of mean adjusted stats might be doing the same thing to modern players - penalizing them for the era that they play in.

Bill James says that "no one knows how steep the incline of history is." I don't know; no one does.

At some point we're going to have to be unfair to SOMEBODY. We can use rate adjusted stats that are unfair to modern guys; or you can be a dick like me and just be unfair to the old timers on sheer principle.

Maybe Ruth really WAS better than Aaron and my assumptions are wrong. But in an all-time draft, I, personally, would rather take my chances with a modern player. I could be guessing wrong and I could be guessing right; that's the nature of a draft.

I'm rambling. Somebody write back and tell me what you think.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Metal Ed,

Nice post. Of course, we all give a **** what you think. Just may not agree with you automaticly. Let's say all your points are fine. But that still leaves a big unanswered question in my mind.

Let's say God chose to put 5 of the best overall ballplayers in to play before 1950. And they, predictably, killed their competition. Which we grant you, was softer, easier to dominate. Do we then eliminate them from our consideration as the best players, simply because their competition wasn't up to standards?

Why do Wagner, Cobb, Ruth, W. Johnson need be skipped over because their peers were ****, by comparison to later eras? Just doesn't feel just or honest to me. Just because you're crushing ****** competition doesn't automaticly rule you out, does it? You're penalizing great players due to their time of birth, which was beyond their control. Same as with the Negro Leagues.

Just because we all agree that they couldn't field a league as strong as the MLs, due to under financing, doesn't mean a few of their stars were not as good as the ML stars. Charleston, Mackay, Santop, Gibson, Lloyd, Joe Williams and Paige were generally recognized as MAJOR talents in the BB firmament, cursed to languish in BB hell, due to skin tone, beyond their control.

I think your argument, while valid, lacks fairness.


Bill Burgess
Bill,

You raise an interesting point. Does you argument apply to Sadaharu Oh as well? Oh played in much stronger and more organized leagues than Gibdon, Paige, Lloyd, etc. I get the feeling that the Japanese Leagues do not garner as much respect as the Negro Leagues among the good poeple here at Baseball Fever, although the Japanese Leagues were/are much stronger than the Negro Leagues. I am of the strong opinion that had Oh played in the majors he would have been a very good player perhaps even HoF caliber, which is a subject of great debate. I feel more confident in saying that Oh would have a "very good player". Anything stronger than that is a matter of speculation. However, If I were making my own rankings of the All-Time first baseman I would certainly put Oh in the top-10.

[Metal Ed]

[QUOTE=Yankees7]Metal ED, that is a well written argument. I personal feel that after watching baseball for over 50 yrs that the great ones could have played in anytime. QUOTE]


Yankees7, I agree. I think that Ruth, Wagner, Cobb, etc., would have been great no matter when they played. But I don't think that they would have been the Ruth, Wagner, and Cobb of the record books. I think their numbers would have been somewhat closer to the league mean of the era if they had played, say, in 1970. Not to say that they wouldn't have been better than the league mean - I'm sure they would have - but I don't think to quite the same extent that they were in their respective era.

I see you're a fan of the Mick. Great choice. Here's what the Mick had to say in his autobiography, in 1985. He uses no technical terms, but explains it so well:

"I'm not one of those oldtimers who thinks baseball isn't as good as it used to be. I think it's probably as good or better than ever. These kids are so evenly matched no one stands out that far above the others. They are all six-foot-four or thereabouts and can run a hundred yards in ten seconds and throw the ball 100 miles an hour."

Of course, that's an exaggeration of the size, strength and speed of today's players, but I think that what Mick was trying to say was that were more 100 mph throwers, more 6 foot + guys, more ten second 100 yard dash guys, etc., in the league in 1985 than when Mick himself was playing. I.e., that the talent level has risen with time - the league is more densely loaded with time. It's harder to be a superstar in a league full of superstars.

[ElHalo]

Metal Ed,

Your points are certainly valid... except one.

Your fourth point in the previous post, that about medical science. Medicine, nutrition, and training are no doubt much, much better now today than they were 100 years ago. However, that's an endemic condition to today's overall baseball game, which changes the way the game is played independantly of any changes to the population itself. In other words... yes, players today are bigger and stronger than players 100 years ago. Yes, pitchers 100 years ago were at a decided advantage because of the legal spitball and the dark, dead balls that were used. Should we give credit to either group just because of that?

Saying that today's players are bigger and stronger than yesterday's players is true, but doesn't really say anything. Giving today's guys credit for that is like saying that a 1.30 ERA put up in 1905 is just as good as a 1.30 ERA put up in 2005... the player has extranious conditions that allow them to excell in a particular way, that aren't related to their individual talent or the talent pool as a whole. They can't be given credit for that.

[Metal Ed]

Picking two seasons more or less out of the air from very different eras, I've done a little analysis of BA. The two seasons are 1916 and 2001. I wasn't especially careful, so there's room for doubt, but I will be going over it in greater detail and for many other seasons. It's simply a matter of time.

In the standard normal distribution (the bell-shaped curve), virtually all data lies within three standard deviations of the mean (99.74%) and quite a lot of the data within two standard deviations (95.44%). A standard deviation moves from the mean in either direction, so by saying that 95.44% of the data is within two standard deviations, that is saying within either two standard deviations above or below the mean.

Stephen Jay Gould studied BA throughout history and found that the stdDev of BA's has been steadily declining over time, and provides a chart showing scatter plots. The scatter has been getting more and more narrow, with fewer large jumps in stdDev one way or the other. Gould uses this to argue that the quality of play has been increasing.

Aggregate MLB BA's have been consistently around .260, with a few years here and there well below (.230s) and well above (.290s-.300s). But in general, the league average is typically somewhere between .250 and .270. MLB's overall BA since 1901, taken by every single hit and every single AB, is .262.

Anyway, back to the two seasons in question. In 1916 roughly 60% of players hit worse than the league average. A BA of .386 is two stdDev above the mean.

In 2001, roughly 50% of players hit worse than league average, and .332 is two stdDev above.

I hope I haven't fudged the numbers here, and I welcome anyone to check them and report any inconsistencies to me. As I go along I'll be refining my methods.



What strikes me is that while the decrease in STD of batting averages finally levelled off around 1940 for the AL (around 1920 for the NL), team winning percentage STD's STILL haven't levelled off. Despite free agency, revenue gaps, etc. Something's going on, if you ask me.

[torez77]

Okay, but that stat is only MEAN adjusted. It compares their numbers to the league MEAN. (In this case, the league mean is set at 100 - just like with IQ.)

If you follow my argument, that is not a 100% valid comparison. Because, according to my argument, it should have been easier for Ruth to distance himself from the mean. Right? That stat doesn't tell us how easy or difficult it was to be 2.07x as good as the "average" player.

It depends on how much better one thinks the "average" player is. If one thinks "only a little", then I lose. If one thinks "quite a bit", then I might be right.

Let's use IQ as an example. An average IQ is 100. If one has an IQ of, say, 165, and is standing in a room full of average individuals, chances are, that person's mean adjusted IQ is 165/100 = 165. But if you put him at a Mensa meeting, his mean adjusted IQ is 165/150 = 110.

This individual is just as smart no matter which room he stands in, right? But in the one case he has an IQ+ (hey, I just made up a stat!) of 165 and the other, 110.

So, mean adjusted stats might be unfair - to modern players.

I was accused of being unfair to the old timers- and, you know, I kind of was. I was unfairly penalizing them due to when they were born, the era they played in - things they had no control over. Yet, the use of mean adjusted stats might be doing the same thing to modern players - penalizing them for the era that they play in.

Bill James says that "no one knows how steep the incline of history is." I don't know; no one does.

At some point we're going to have to be unfair to SOMEBODY. We can use rate adjusted stats that are unfair to modern guys; or you can be a dick like me and just be unfair to the old timers on sheer principle.

Maybe Ruth really WAS better than Aaron and my assumptions are wrong. But in an all-time draft, I, personally, would rather take my chances with a modern player. I could be guessing wrong and I could be guessing right; that's the nature of a draft.

I'm rambling. Somebody write back and tell me what you think.

Yeah, you may be right. Those adjusted stats may be unfair to the modern players. But you know what? ShoelessJoe3 brought up a great point. If Ruth had been born at the same time today's major leaguers were, if he had access to modern medicine, smaller strike zone, smaller parks, and even "the juice", would he have outperformed today's players? Perhaps. I'd wager it wouldn't be by the same distance he outperformed his actual decade, the 20's, because no one in baseball history has come close to dominating that way. It is much more balanced now, so realistically you can't say anybody, including Ruth had he played today, would've dominated their competition that way.
The same goes for Bonds. If he was born in the late 1890's like Ruth was and played in the 20's, would he have access to all the features of today's game? Certainly not! How would he have done? We can't definitely say he would have dominated the competition like Ruth did! Ruth is the ONLY player in history to have dominated that way, and that is what actually happened! I agree with ShoelessJoe3 when he says that we can't compare early to modern players by just putting them in a time machine and automatically transporting them to past and future eras! The best way is to assume they would have been born in the opposite players' era.

[Metal Ed]

>>>Your fourth point in the previous post, that about medical science. Medicine, nutrition, and training are no doubt much, much better now today than they were 100 years ago. However, that's an endemic condition to today's overall baseball game, which changes the way the game is played independantly of any changes to the population itself. In other words... yes, players today are bigger and stronger than players 100 years ago. Yes, pitchers 100 years ago were at a decided advantage because of the legal spitball and the dark, dead balls that were used. Should we give credit to either group just because of that?


I fear you may be misrepresenting my argument. I raised the point about medical science in regard to saving the careers of top talents that would have otherwise been lost forever to injury. My point was that, in saving these careers, medical science probably helps to keep the talent pool stronger, and that, in combination with the racial, geographic, and selection factors that I mentioned, this makes the league more dense with talent than before.

I was NOT using improved medical science to point to the bigger, stronger players it breeds, which you seem to be implying that I did. After all, isn't this a factor that benefits ALL the players of the modern era, across the board? Wouldn't Ruth and Wagner be bigger and stronger, if they played today? Or Walter Johnson and Lefty Grove, for that matter? I'm sure they would be.

All the weight training in the world won't teach you how to throw 95 mph. It's a "god"-given talent; it's something you're born with. And it is a rare trait. Not too many people have it. Trying to find, say, 50 or 70 guys who can do that - in order to populate your baseball league with hard throwers - will be much easier done when we have a very large population to search through, rather than a small one; when we have an extensive scouting system to identify them and a farm system to consolidate them, rather than seat-of-the-pants management; and when a talented thrower can be given a brand new arm if his ligaments blow up, rather than sebnding him back to the mines when it does.

[WillieMaysHayes]

Yeah, you may be right. Those adjusted stats may be unfair to the modern players. But you know what? ShoelessJoe3 brought up a great point. If Ruth had been born at the same time today's major leaguers were, if he had access to modern medicine, smaller strike zone, smaller parks, and even "the juice", would he have outperformed today's players? Perhaps. I'd wager it wouldn't be by the same distance he outperformed his actual decade, the 20's, because no one in baseball history has come close to dominating that way. It is much more balanced now, so realistically you can't say anybody, including Ruth had he played today, would've dominated their competition that way.
The same goes for Bonds. If he was born in the late 1890's like Ruth was and played in the 20's, would he have access to all the features of today's game? Certainly not! How would he have done? We can't definitely say he would have dominated the competition like Ruth did! Ruth is the ONLY player in history to have dominated that way, and that is what actually happened! I agree with ShoelessJoe3 when he says that we can't compare early to modern players by just putting them in a time machine and automatically transporting them to past and future eras! The best way is to assume they would have been born in the opposite players' era.

Ruth did indeed dominate like no one before. I think you could make a strong argument that Bonds is now dominating as much, if not more than Ruth ever did. He certainly is with his rate stats.
I mean it really comes down to them two when you get down to it.
I'm not sure anyone has really digested what Bonds has done in the last 4 years, and how unlikley it was to even consider someone doing what he did since 2001.
I just don't think any of us stat heads ever thought we'd see anybody distance themselves from the league as Bonds has done since '01.
Who here thought that the record for OBP, SLG, OPS, OPS+, would not only be broken, but in some cases oblitrated in our lifetime (raise your hand)
I was reading somewhere that if Bonds had 0 hits in 2004 he would still have an OBP of close to .400.
Steroids or no steriods, he's doing what nobody else is doing.
Canseco, or was it Caminiti who said that 80% of MLB ae or have taken steroids. If thats so, than I'd say Bonds is playing on a level playing field(well almost)
I'm not sure who said it(i think metalhead), but Bonds was indeed the best player in baseball prior to 2001(his alleged foray into roids). I'd say he was the best from 1990- (sorry Jr.)

[plask_stirlac]

Dethroning the Sultan of Swat

Babe Ruth is the most revered player in the history of baseball. Ruth dominated as a hitter and once had more home runs than any other team in baseball. His career was monstrous and he stands second All-Time in home runs, tenth in batting average, second in on-base percentage, first in slugging, second in runs batted in, and third in runs. In addition he was an outstanding pitcher at the beginning of his career. He is the greatest player ever to have played, but not the greatest hitter. The greatest hitter ever to have worn a major league uniform is Ted Williams.

Numbers are an integral part of baseball. They can be used to argue for or against a player. In this case numbers can help to make a case for Williams as the superior hitter to Ruth. But numbers also can be debated depending on the era, league, and other factors. Ted Williams is the greatest hitter ever because of incredible statistics, revolutionary patience and discipline, and lost seasons due to service in the military.

Williams has some of the best statistics ever in the primary hitting categories of batting average, home runs, and runs batted in. He is Top 15 in all three and a two-time Triple Crown winner. His .327 average, 31home runs, and 130 runs batted in in his rookie season started his career off with a bang and Rookie of the Year honors. In his third year Williams hit .406. No player has hit .400 in the 63 years since, the longest drought in Major League Baseball history. Equally remarkable was his on-base percentage record of .553 and a slugging percentage of .735, meaning he reached base more than 55 percent of the time he stepped up to the plate and collected .735 bases in each at-bat.

After many more ferocious seasons at the plate, outside of extensive military service in World War II and the Korean War that led to shortened play or none at all, Williams had an unforgettable season in 1957. At the age of 38 he batted .388, had an on-base percentage of .526, and had outstanding power as he hit 38 home runs and slugged .731. Second in batting average was Mickey Mantle, age 25. Both the .500 on-base percentage and the .700 slugging plateau are extremely rare accomplishments. He continued to astound until his retirement at age 41 following a highly productive season.

He finished his career with 521 home runs, a .634 slugging percentage, and 1,839 runs batted in, and 2,021 walks. His stats that best Ruth are his .344 batting average to Ruth?s .342 average, major league record .482 on-base percentage to Ruth?s .474, and his 709 strikeouts to Ruth?s 1,330.

Williams set a new standard for plate discipline, precision, and excellence. He had incredible vision and was able to tell if the plate was a few inches out of place. Though he was a lanky man as his nickname ?The Splendid Splinter? confirms, his patience to judges pitched, hit the ones he could, and take the ones he couldn?t made him a standout power hitter and a legendary accumulator of bases on balls. Since his era there has been an increased attention paid to patience and drawing walks, though few can match or even approach him in that regard and have his power.

Both Ruth and Williams played in interesting times. Ruth revolutionized the game in the 1920s with unprecedented home run totals. Both played before integration, but Williams stayed consistently excellent after baseball?s color barrier was finally broken. But perhaps most significant were Williams? seasons of 1943-45 and 1952-53 in which he served in the US Military. He registered only 101 at-bats in these 5 prime seasons. If he had played he would have added much to his already fantastic career totals and would have approached Ruth?s career home run mark of 714. Ruth also had seasons with few at-bats while he was pitching, but since his excellence there makes him the nearly-unanimous top player ever, he didn?t lose that much.

These comparisons and similarities ironically are between the slender, gruff Williams and Ruth, beloved in his time like few other Americans and a portly man toward his later playing days. Debate and arguing over baseball?s greatest players will continue for as long as they are remembered, and few would have it any other way. Players such as Ty Cobb, Lou Gehrig, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, the controversial Barry Bonds, and more are viable choices as the best or second-best players ever due to an overwhelming regard for Ruth and Williams? strong case.

[torez77]

Ruth did indeed dominate like no one before. I think you could make a strong argument that Bonds is now dominating as much, if not more than Ruth ever did. He certainly is with his rate stats.
I mean it really comes down to them two when you get down to it.
I'm not sure anyone has really digested what Bonds has done in the last 4 years, and how unlikley it was to even consider someone doing what he did since 2001.
I just don't think any of us stat heads ever thought we'd see anybody distance themselves from the league as Bonds has done since '01.
Who here thought that the record for OBP, SLG, OPS, OPS+, would not only be broken, but in some cases oblitrated in our lifetime (raise your hand)
I was reading somewhere that if Bonds had 0 hits in 2004 he would still have an OBP of close to .400.
Steroids or no steriods, he's doing what nobody else is doing.
Canseco, or was it Caminiti who said that 80% of MLB ae or have taken steroids. If thats so, than I'd say Bonds is playing on a level playing field(well almost)
I'm not sure who said it(i think metalhead), but Bonds was indeed the best player in baseball prior to 2001(his alleged foray into roids). I'd say he was the best from 1990- (sorry Jr.)

OK, we'll do Ruth vs. Bonds:

Career BA - Ruth .342, Bonds .300
AB/HR - Ruth 11.76, Bonds 12.94
SLG% - Ruth .690, Bonds .611
Career HRs - Ruth 714, Bonds 703 - despite Ruth having 700 less ABs
Career RBIs - Ruth 2213, Bonds 1843 - Bonds has 700 more ABs and more to come!
Career Hits - Ruth 2873, Bonds 2730 - Ditto
Career Runs - Ruth 2174, Bonds 2070 - Ditto
Career OPS+ - Ruth 207, Bonds 184 - this sums it all up - career wise, not just Bonds' last 4 years

Granted, since 2001 Bonds has the most incredible 4-year OPS+ ever, better than Ruth ever had. Much of this is due to his overload in BBs, thanks to his ridiculous number of IBBs. 2001 is Bonds' only season over 50 HRs. It's clear Ruth is better with the bat. Ruth still leads Bonds in Hits, HRs, RBIs, 3Bs, and Runs despite 213 less games and 700 less ABs.

Now, let's compare how each dominated their respective league:

Times led league in HRs: Ruth 11, Bonds 1
Times led league in RBIs: Ruth 6, Bonds 0
Times led league in BBs: Ruth 11, Bonds 7
Times led league in OBP: Ruth 10, Bonds 5
Times led league in SLG: Ruth 12, Bonds 6
Times led league in Rs: Ruth 8, Bonds 0
Times led league in OPS+: Ruth 11, Bonds 7

Sorry, Bonds didn't dominate his league the way Ruth dominated his. Most of Bonds' leading the league comes from his last 4 years, and no, you can't disregard the steroid factor. All signs point to him using them. Funny how he wasn't close to the level he's at now when he was much younger and probably pre-steroids.

Bottom line, Ruth has Bonds beat career-wise and still will when Bonds' career is over.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

OK, we'll do Ruth vs. Bonds:

Career BA - Ruth .342, Bonds .300
AB/HR - Ruth 11.76, Bonds 12.94
SLG% - Ruth .690, Bonds .611
Career HRs - Ruth 714, Bonds 703 - despite Ruth having 700 less ABs
Career RBIs - Ruth 2213, Bonds 1843 - Bonds has 700 more ABs and more to come!
Career Hits - Ruth 2873, Bonds 2730 - Ditto
Career Runs - Ruth 2174, Bonds 2070 - Ditto
Career OPS+ - Ruth 207, Bonds 184 - this sums it all up - career wise, not just Bonds' last 4 years

Granted, since 2001 Bonds has the most incredible 4-year OPS+ ever, better than Ruth ever had. Much of this is due to his overload in BBs, thanks to his ridiculous number of IBBs. 2001 is Bonds' only season over 50 HRs. It's clear Ruth is better with the bat. Ruth still leads Bonds in Hits, HRs, RBIs, 3Bs, and Runs despite 213 less games and 700 less ABs.

Now, let's compare how each dominated their respective league:

Times led league in HRs: Ruth 11, Bonds 1
Times led league in RBIs: Ruth 6, Bonds 0
Times led league in BBs: Ruth 11, Bonds 7
Times led league in OBP: Ruth 10, Bonds 5
Times led league in SLG: Ruth 12, Bonds 6
Times led league in Rs: Ruth 8, Bonds 0
Times led league in OPS+: Ruth 11, Bonds 7

Sorry, Bonds didn't dominate his league the way Ruth dominated his. Most of Bonds' leading the league comes from his last 4 years, and no, you can't disregard the steroid factor. All signs point to him using them. Funny how he wasn't close to the level he's at now when he was much younger and probably pre-steroids.

Bottom line, Ruth has Bonds beat career-wise and still will when Bonds' career is over.
Of course Bonds couldn't dominate like Ruth did. Bonds had to go up against more sluggers and more teams. Actually Bonds has led in HRs twice, 1993 and 2001. Also Bonds has finished 2nd or 3rd six other times which is more impressive since Ruth only had to out-homer players on eight teams while Bonds has had to outhomer players on 12-16 teams during his career. It's a lot easier to lead an 8-team league in HRs than it is to lead a 16-team league in HRs I would think. I'm not necessarily saying that Bonds is equal or better than Ruth but just using a Black Ink test doesn't take into account the number of teams and the level of play between eras. Also, why do we only compare them as hitters and not as players, defense and base running included? Given all that though, Ruth is ahead of Bonds because Ruth was a pretty good pitcher. But as players Bonds is ahead of Williams for sure (before BALCO at least).

[Bill Burgess]

At regular intervals, we chat about the improvements in general play with each suceeding decades. And while most of us can subscribe to this theory, I like to insert my own personal wrinkle.

My wrinkle is, that the top end of elite players, does NOT improve, but remains relatively constant and stable. Why doesn't the changes in bigger, faster, stronger bodies apply to the most elite players, you might ask? Good question. And one which needs an answer.

The answer is that the very best players are almost never the biggest, fastest, strongest. The best there ever was, (Cobb, Wagner, Ruth, Jackson, Johnson), from the early days, were a very long way from the biggest, fastest, strongest.

Cobb could be beaten in a 100 yd. dash by probably 2 guys on every team. Cobb could trot 10. flat, but so could lots of other guys. Ruth could slam a ball farther than anyone else, but I'd wager a cream soda that he couldn't bench press more than a third of the guys in the league. So like Tiger Woods, he wasn't doing it on pure strength, but technique, coordination, hand-eye sync, reflexes, etc. In other words, baseball talent. Skill.

Ty, Honus were fast and all 3 were strong. But there was real strong, fast, and big guys who got turned away at spring training camps every spring.

Baseball talent needs good physical guys, but that is only the starting point. Most guys just come in and punch a time clock. Never wear themselves out in practice. They strive to cover their flaws when they should be focused on correcting and elimination them. Stand a Canseco next to a Spahn, Ford, Koufax, and Canseco looks like god. If we could have put a Cobb brain into his skull, we'd have a Behemoth who'd stride and conquer.

If bigger, stronger, faster were all that was required, then the best would have been Canseco, McCovey, Stargell, Richie Allen, Albert Belle. Mantle had one of the best bodies, like Canseco, and look how much was made of glass. But it did let him star for as long as it lasted. But Mantle was more than body. He was talent and skill. Helps to have both. But Mick still couldn't hit as far as Ruth! Why? Technique. Ruth had a gift. Rarest of rare gifts. Shame he didn't protect it.

So this is why the best never improve from 1910-2005. The worst to averege do improve. Journeymen have gotten lots better. But it takes more than better genes to play ball. The top 100 probably has less than 10 guys over 6'3. And there is a very good reason for that.

Bill Burgess

[Bill Burgess]

It's a lot easier to lead an 8-team league in HRs than it is to lead a 16-team league in HRs I would think.


That's not it, Honus. Ruth was out-homering teams which weren't going for homers. Bonds can't out-homer teams, because teams now go for homers.

Ruth couldn't do that today, for the same reasons no one can. Ruth couldn't have done it then either, if the teams hadn't passively let him. Like reverse collusion.

Bill Burgess

[torez77]

It's a lot easier to lead an 8-team league in HRs than it is to lead a 16-team league in HRs I would think.


That's not it, Honus. Ruth was out-homering teams which weren't going for homers. Bonds can't out-homer teams, because teams now go for homers.

Ruth couldn't do that today, for the same reasons no one can. Ruth couldn't have done it then either, if the teams hadn't passively let him. Like reverse collusion.

Bill Burgess

I don't think teams passively let him, Bill. Ruth was a notorious bad-ball hitter, which means the pitchers threw him a lot of junk because they feared him, and still Ruth hit all those HRs. Gotta give Ruth credit for that. Plus, it's not reasonable to say the pitchers just let him hit HRs. They tried futilely to stop him, they didn't just give up. Also, Ruth's monster BB totals show they didn't let him hit anything he wanted.

[csh19792001]

I don't think teams passively let him, Bill. Ruth was a notorious bad-ball hitter, which means the pitchers threw him a lot of junk because they feared him, and still Ruth hit all those HRs. Gotta give Ruth credit for that. Plus, it's not reasonable to say the pitchers just let him hit HRs. They tried futilely to stop him, they didn't just give up. Also, Ruth's monster BB totals show they didn't let him hit anything he wanted.

The premise that Ruth was a notorious bad ball hitter does not follow in any way from the fact that he did indeed have "monster walk totals". I'm not sure what you mean, torrez.

[torez77]

Makes perfect sense. I'm going by what I've read and the info I've obtained on this board. Ruth once said he swung at mostly bad balls because the pitchers didn't give him nothin' good to hit. Didn't mean he always swung at bad balls, as his BB totals and K/BB ratio prove he knew when to take a BB.

[WillieMaysHayes]

The premise that Ruth was a notorious bad ball hitter does not follow in any way from the fact that he did indeed have "monster walk totals". I'm not sure what you mean, torrez.

Please enlighten Torrez, as you do seem to be contradicting yourself.
If he was, as you say "a bad ball hitter" than how did he walk way more than anyone else?
My guess is that he was being pitched around much the same way Bonds is being pitched around today, which in your view would help his OPS+.
The problem with that argument is that Bonds still beats him there.
On the other hand, how could Ruth be expected to hit 73HR's if nobody pitches to him...and so on.
Which side do you want to argue?

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I think we all agree Ruth or no one else could hit more home runs than entire teams as Ruth did back then, it's a different game today. Still the fact is he did it, is it his fault that other hitters took years to get on board. Should Ruth have "waited" so as not to be the only fence buster in the game.

It's almost like we penalize this guy for being ahead of the game. Even in the high offensive 1930s the combined total of 3 of the best sluggers in the game Hack Wilson, Hank Greenberg and Jimmie Foxx combined could not top Ruth in the number of 40 home run seasons and clould only tie him in number of 50 home run seasons. This isn't the 1920s it's the 1930s and Ruth still can't be matched, not even by the combined total of 3 big sluggers.

Hank Aaron and Barry Bonds combined had 34 seasons of at least 130 games and they hit 40 or more 16 times between them.

Babe Ruth had 13 seasons of at least 130 games and hit 40 or more 11 times.

Do we need any more convincing on who was the greatest home run hitter ever, the most does not mean the greatest. Two members of the 700 club with 34 seasons between them had 5 more 40+ seasons than the third member and he did it in 13 seasons, not even a contest.

Mac with the lowest AB/HR ratio had many less at bats than Ruth and his AB/HR ratio vastly improved after 1995 when the ball changed and the strike zone went South.

[torez77]

Please enlighten Torrez, as you do seem to be contradicting yourself.
If he was, as you say "a bad ball hitter" than how did he walk way more than anyone else?
My guess is that he was being pitched around much the same way Bonds is being pitched around today, which in your view would help his OPS+.
The problem with that argument is that Bonds still beats him there.
On the other hand, how could Ruth be expected to hit 73HR's if nobody pitches to him...and so on.
Which side do you want to argue?

If he was, as you say "a bad ball hitter" than how did he walk way more than anyone else? ---

I asked this very same question to Mr. Burgess (hope you don't mind me bringing you into this Bill, but I'm trying to make a point here). And through his research he told me that Ruth was a bad-ball hitter. I took his word for it. Seemed contradictory to me, too. I argued back the same thing - that his BB totals show he didn't always swing at bad balls. If it's true that he got nothing but junk to hit, then he did a little of both - either took a walk or swung at them. Phenomenal to hit that many HRs and maintain such a high BA hitting nothing but junk! Do you buy this? Or do you buy that pitchers did a little of both - sometimes they threw him junk and sometimes they tried to stop him! I think that sounds more logical. Either way, Ruth's numbers were phenomenal.
BBs certainly helped Ruth's OPS+, as they do Bonds'. How much % of Bonds' walks are intentional? Intentional BBs records weren't kept in Ruth's time, but I'd bet my savings account that Ruth's IBBs weren't nearly as much as Bonds'. Pitchers didn't intentionally walk nearly as much in Ruth's day. Plus it's not as beneficial to intentionally walk Ruth to get to Gehrig as it is to walk Bonds and get to Jeff Kent. More of the % of Bonds' OPS+ comes from BBs than does Ruth's, plus Ruth does more with his bat.

[torez77]

The problem with that argument is that Bonds still beats him there.


Beats him where??? Ruth leads Bonds in OPS+ by 23 pts, 207-184!

[Bill Burgess]

Where does confusion come from? Once in an interview, Babe was asked what kind of pitches he mostly hit for homers. And he said, "Mostly bad balls. That's all I usually get."

So, where is the hard part? They so feared him that they pitched him too fine. And that's how he ended up with so many walks, and strike-outs. His strike-outs were the natural result of him trying his best to not be walked. To stay in the game and be effective. But since he was so gifted, he managed to pick out enough to hit those homers.

Bonds also gets precious little good to swing at. So he also takes a lot of walks. But when he does get a good pitch, he can convert those 3 good pitches in a series of games to HRs. His gift is uncanny too. And while walking is very valuable, it is also a totally effective remedy to greatly nullify such great sluggers. If not for walking, both Ruth/Bonds would have been tremendously more devastating and effective hitters. Which every pitcher always knew, hence used to dispose of such terrible plate threats, Gehrig or no Gehrig.

Bill Burgess

[torez77]

Thanks, Bill. That makes good enough sense to me.

My confusion lied in our debate months ago when, if I recall correctly, you said Ruth didn't know how to take a BB. This I couldn't understand, as his K/BB ratio suggested totally the opposite. Your post tonight makes more sense to me.

[Bill Burgess]

Torez77,

No problems. It's my pleasure. Sounded to me as if you were the only one who wasn't confused. You made perfect sense to me. It sounded to me like WillieMaysHayes got a little confused. Hope this helps out a little.

Bill Burgess

[Metal Ed]

Torez: I hope you don't mind if I cut it down to the most important offensive stats?


Now, let's compare how each dominated their respective league:


Times led league in OBP: Ruth 10, Bonds 5
Times led league in SLG: Ruth 12, Bonds 6
Times led league in OPS+: Ruth 11, Bonds 7

Sorry, Bonds didn't dominate his league the way Ruth dominated his. Most of Bonds' leading the league comes from his last 4 years, and no, you can't disregard the steroid factor. All signs point to him using them. Funny how he wasn't close to the level he's at now when he was much younger and probably pre-steroids.

.


Ruth has about twice as many league leading years as Bonds. OTOH, Ruth only had half as many people to beat out for those titles. Right? Bonds has twice as many hitters in the league to contend with for those titles. Something to think about.

As far as steroids go, my main concern is just how rampant they are/have been. I don't know. If it's the same way it was in the sixties with amphetamines, then I wouldn't be so quick to toss out Bonds' numbers. I regard Willie Mays as the best players of the 60's, even though he kept a bottle of the stuff in his locker. All - or almost all - of his competitors did the same ****, and nobody out there was as good as he was.

So it depends on how rampant steroids are, which I don't know for sure. I don't know how credible Canseco is with his 80% figure. That seems a bit a high - heck, 80% of these guys don't even LOOK like juicers. OTOH, they say that a lot of guys use steroids not to bulk up, but rather to maintain strength and stamina over the course of the season. Supposedly even the pitchers take something. I don't know; I need more information. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone who isn't "on the inside" will ever know for sure; and the guys like Canseco, who were "on the inside", are basically just putting their words against the words of others.

[Metal Ed]

So this is why the best never improve from 1910-2005. The worst to averege do improve. Journeymen have gotten lots better. But it takes more than better genes to play ball. The top 100 probably has less than 10 guys over 6'3. And there is a very good reason for that.

Bill Burgess


Hey Bill:

You are basically arguing my point here..... sort of. Well...not really. But hear me out.

"The best never improve from 1910-2005."

Okay, so now answer me this: do the best GET WORSE?

Look at the best from the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's: Mays, Aaron, Schmidt, Bonds (use pre-steroids if you like). Use their mean-adjusted numbers, their numbers relative to their respective eras. Their OPS+ numbers aren't as great as Ruth's, Gehrig's, or Williams'. These 3 are the best (steroid-free) hitters of all time, OPS+ wise.

And take a look at the best pitchers, ERA+ wise. Lefty Grove and Walter Johnson.

Does that make sense to you? That the 5 greatest baseball talents who ever lived all got their careers started between 1907 and 1939? Those 32 years produced the best 5 talents ever?

And that the 60+ years since then couldn't produce one single guy who was their equal? Despite the fact that major league baseball has had a much larger population pool from which to cultivate talent, and a better scouting and farm system to identify that talent? And despite the boom in popularity - new, unprecedented heights in popularity - that baseball has enjoyed in that time, both here and abroad?

What do you think, guys? Am I the only one who this strikes as odd?

My head says it's wrong. And so does my heart. No, really - I like baseball a lot, and I don't see why I should be compelled to believe that the stuff I get to see with my own eyes is second-rate at best, and that the only truly great players I'll ever see are in black and white photographs. That the real baseball games are all said and done, stuff that I can only imagine from some long ago age when men were made of sterner stuff.

[Bill Burgess]

Metal Ed,

While what you suggest, that the best played long ago, is only a possibliity, the answer is, "How would I know?" I am suggesting that perhaps, when the "best" played might be more random, than suggesting that the best always get better.

I would say that Bonds was among the best ever, but then he confessed to cheating. I had Bonds ranked 4th, after Cobb, Wagner, and Mays.

Is the randomity theory so wacky? I agree that the more evenly-distributed competition at the top today, makes domination harder to do. But I really do beleive that if Cobb, Wagner, Ruth and Johnson had been dropped into today's game, that is born in our era, that their gifts would have allowed them to find a way to star. Not to crush their better competition, but to lead their leagues.

But not to be the Cobbs/Ruths of old. So at least we agree on that much.

Cobb on steroids? How much more intense could a man be? We'd probably have to make his cleats of rubber, instead of metal.


Bill Burgess

[Metal Ed]

Metal Ed,

While what you suggest, that the best played long ago, is only a possibliity, the answer is, "How would I know?" I am suggesting that perhaps, when the "best" played might be more random, than suggesting that the best always get better.

I would say that Bonds was among the best ever, but then he confessed to cheating. I had Bonds ranked 4th, after Cobb, Wagner, and Mays.

Is the randomity theory so wacky? I agree that the more evenly-distributed competition at the top today, makes domination harder to do. But I really do beleive that if Cobb, Wagner, Ruth and Johnson had been dropped into today's game, that is born in our era, that their gifts would have allowed them to find a way to star. Not to crush their better competition, but to lead their leagues.

But not to be the Cobbs/Ruths of old. So at least we agree on that much.

Cobb on steroids? How much more intense could a man be? We'd probably have to make his cleats of rubber, instead of metal.


Bill Burgess



Thanks, Bill.

I agree with you that guys like Cobb, Ruth, and Wagner would be standouts today. I just don't think that they'd stand out to the same extent as they did in the past. Lead their leagues, yes - but not by nearly as much as they did.

And not lead the league as frequently, either, I don't think. Less home run and batting titles, I think.

I really don't know if I am suggesting that the "best always get better" as you say, but it does sound easier to believe than the idea that the best are just getting worse, or that the white U.S. population was unusually genetically gifted from 1887 to whenever Ted Williams was born. So yeah, in answer to your question, the "randomity" theory IS really wacky.

Another question: Where are Josh Gibson, Satchel Paige, and Oscar Charleston on your list of all time greats? And yes, I am trying to back you into a corner.

Ha, ha, ha.

[santotohof]

is it really a question? He was the best pitcher of his time who went on to be the greatest hitter ever .Case closed

[Windy City Fan]

I pretty much agree with Bill. The top remains pretty constant. Medical science, modern nutrition and training methods, and "other" methods allow them to achieve greater raw records (think track and field), but the talent level is consistent.

The problem for Mays, Bonds, A-Rod, Maddux, Clemens, and Randy Johnson (to name a few post war players who could easily rank at or near the top of many all time lists) is the worst players in the league keep getting better due to improved scouting that covers a larger and larger population (and geographic area).

I agree that Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, ect. would see a drop in their overall relative stats to the league, but they would still be majestic greats. Cobb and Wagner in particular would thrive with today's cracker jack ball parks, improved training methods, the tiny strike zone, and crummy middle relievers. Ruth isn't as likely to take advantage of the modern training and his off field exploits might lead to a much different perception of him.

I agree that it would be a statistical fluke for all the best players to have played before 1960. But its just as big a fluke to say they all played after 1960. Top talent isn't necessarily spread out evenly across the generations, so it is possible for it to be bunched in one or two eras.

I try to make a slight timeline adjustment when ranking players. I consider Ted Williams to be a better pure hitter than Ruth, due to timeline and the unique conditions that let Ruth pile up such lofty relative stats. Ruth still gets the nod as a player, because he ran better, fielded better, and oh yeah - he could pitch pretty darn good too.

The other thing that does favor the older stars is the general feeling that you have to beat the best to become the best - a draw means the champ retains his title.

As to your question on Negro Leaguers, I do have Paige at about tenth on my all time pitcher's list. He actually played and thrived in MLB at an advanced age, I'm sure in his prime he was a marvel to watch. Men like Gibson and Charleston, I'm just too uncertain of them to rank them. The competition they played against was low... very low. The negro leagues would be the equivilent of a A or maybe AA minor league team. Too big a gap for their numbers to mean enough to rank them on all time lists for me. That said, I'm all for honoring the Gibson's and Charleston's. They were denied the chance to prove themselves as ballplayers due to the ignorance of the past, and I have no problem giving them their due in terms of the HoF or other honors. I just refuse to call a man who never batted in MLB the greatest catcher ever.

[torez77]

Torez: I hope you don't mind if I cut it down to the most important offensive stats?




Ruth has about twice as many league leading years as Bonds. OTOH, Ruth only had half as many people to beat out for those titles. Right? Bonds has twice as many hitters in the league to contend with for those titles. Something to think about.

As far as steroids go, my main concern is just how rampant they are/have been. I don't know. If it's the same way it was in the sixties with amphetamines, then I wouldn't be so quick to toss out Bonds' numbers. I regard Willie Mays as the best players of the 60's, even though he kept a bottle of the stuff in his locker. All - or almost all - of his competitors did the same ****, and nobody out there was as good as he was.

So it depends on how rampant steroids are, which I don't know for sure. I don't know how credible Canseco is with his 80% figure. That seems a bit a high - heck, 80% of these guys don't even LOOK like juicers. OTOH, they say that a lot of guys use steroids not to bulk up, but rather to maintain strength and stamina over the course of the season. Supposedly even the pitchers take something. I don't know; I need more information. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone who isn't "on the inside" will ever know for sure; and the guys like Canseco, who were "on the inside", are basically just putting their words against the words of others.


Metal Ed said --- "Ruth has about twice as many league leading years as Bonds. OTOH, Ruth only had half as many people to beat out for those titles. Right? Bonds has twice as many hitters in the league to contend with for those titles. Something to think about." ---

I have thought about it. I've considered there weren't as many teams and hitters in Ruth's time. That's the case with any sport in older eras, and that seems to be a good argument in favor of the modern eras. On the other hand, the argument in favor of the older eras is that since there were less teams, the talent was more densely packed, which makes for better teams. Plus, only the very best got to play in the majors, while many others who could have gotten into the league under today's system were turned down. All in all, Ruth played against the best of his time, and Bonds against the best of his time. And Ruth outperformed Bonds.

As far as the steroid issue goes, no, I personally don't know if Bonds is taking them. His physical appearance and his performance level now compared to the 90's is dramatically different, which makes it obvious on the outside. They haven't proven it yet, so I'll go on record and say that a man is innocent until proven guilty, as with any case. Even if he hasn't taken them and has achieved the last 4 years on sheer ability, Ruth still has him beat career-wise.

[Yankeebiscuitfan]

:D Ramiro Mendoza :D

[Metal Ed]

>>>>On the other hand, the argument in favor of the older eras is that since there were less teams, the talent was more densely packed, which makes for better teams.




Not so fast, my man! You're assuming that the talent pool from which to construct teams was the same size, which it wasn't.

Sure, if we only have 100 qualified players, and we try to stretch them into 30 teams instead of 16, and fill out the rosters with underqualified second-stringers, then you're right, the smaller league is more densely packed with talent.

So sure, 1998 was diluted in talent compared to, say, 1992, since there were expansions during that time, and the population pool from which they got players didn't expand all that much in that time - certainly not enough to keep pace with the growth of the league.

But that's 1998 vs. 1992. Not the same as 2004 vs. 1920. To think that talent was more densely loaded in 1920 than in 2004 is crazy, and I'm not Brian Fellows. Please go back to my first post in this thread, post #75. Look at the expansion of the population from which players are drawn. The U.S. population was about 1/4 the size back then, so the doubling of the league size is already taken care of right there and then some. And it wasn't the entire U.S. population that was available to play back then, but mostly only those from the Northeast. And only the white guys at that. And we haven't even started on the populations of other countries yet (Cuba, Puerto Rico, Dominican.)

And, the process of identifying the best players in the available population was nowhere near what it is now. There was no organized farm system to funnell all the best players into one lague, like there is now. Lots of qualified major league prospects never made it past the minors because the minors were independent, not slaves providing players to another league.


>>>Plus, only the very best got to play in the majors, while many others who could have gotten into the league under today's system were turned down.



No way. I sincerely doubt that the bottom feeders in the majors in 1920 would even be playing professional ball at ANY level nowadays.

Go back to 1920, take only the best white guys from Ruth's major leagues, and toss out the bottom feeders in the league. Then go to the Negro Leagues and take only the best players from there, and toss out the bottom feeders.

Then do the same thing with the Mexican League, and the Dominican League, and anywhere else that they get ballplayers from these days.

And, go out west, and get all the best white players from the Pacific Coast League, too, and toss out the weaker players.

Now put all those good players into one single league and let 'em fight it out for batting titles and home run crowns and Cy Young awards. THAT's what Bonds (who would have been in the Negro Leagues and never would have had the chance to play in the majors), Pedro Martinez (who is from the Dominican Republic and never would have had the chance to play in the majors), and Randy Johnson (who is from California and would have been stuck in the Pacific Coast League and never would have had the chance to play in the majors, even though he is white) have to deal with today. Ruth dealt with a MUCH less competitive environment. You can see it in the way that team winning percentages are being driven ever closer to .500, despite revenue gaps and free agency. What ABOUT those team winning percentages, anyway? Why has no one reacted to those after I brought them up? Why is the league becoming MORE competitive despite free agency and the money gap between big and small market teams? What other explanation can there be other than the simple explanation that the league is simply more competitive now? If theres some other explanation, I need to hear it.





>>>>As far as the steroid issue goes, no, I personally don't know if Bonds is taking them. His physical appearance and his performance level now compared to the 90's is dramatically different, which makes it obvious on the outside. They haven't proven it yet, so I'll go on record and say that a man is innocent until proven guilty, as with any case.


Good on you. More people should think like that, and I do agree with you that people are innocent until proven guilty. Though it does seem that Bonds' innocence is hanging by a very thin thread now.

[Metal Ed]

I pretty much agree with Bill. The top remains pretty constant. Medical science, modern nutrition and training methods, and "other" methods allow them to achieve greater raw records (think track and field), but the talent level is consistent.

The problem for Mays, Bonds, A-Rod, Maddux, Clemens, and Randy Johnson (to name a few post war players who could easily rank at or near the top of many all time lists) is the worst players in the league keep getting better due to improved scouting that covers a larger and larger population (and geographic area).

I agree that Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, ect. would see a drop in their overall relative stats to the league, but they would still be majestic greats. Cobb and Wagner in particular would thrive with today's cracker jack ball parks, improved training methods, the tiny strike zone, and crummy middle relievers. Ruth isn't as likely to take advantage of the modern training and his off field exploits might lead to a much different perception of him.

I agree that it would be a statistical fluke for all the best players to have played before 1960. But its just as big a fluke to say they all played after 1960. Top talent isn't necessarily spread out evenly across the generations, so it is possible for it to be bunched in one or two eras.

I try to make a slight timeline adjustment when ranking players. I consider Ted Williams to be a better pure hitter than Ruth, due to timeline and the unique conditions that let Ruth pile up such lofty relative stats. Ruth still gets the nod as a player, because he ran better, fielded better, and oh yeah - he could pitch pretty darn good too.

The other thing that does favor the older stars is the general feeling that you have to beat the best to become the best - a draw means the champ retains his title.

As to your question on Negro Leaguers, I do have Paige at about tenth on my all time pitcher's list. He actually played and thrived in MLB at an advanced age, I'm sure in his prime he was a marvel to watch. Men like Gibson and Charleston, I'm just too uncertain of them to rank them. The competition they played against was low... very low. The negro leagues would be the equivilent of a A or maybe AA minor league team. Too big a gap for their numbers to mean enough to rank them on all time lists for me. That said, I'm all for honoring the Gibson's and Charleston's. They were denied the chance to prove themselves as ballplayers due to the ignorance of the past, and I have no problem giving them their due in terms of the HoF or other honors. I just refuse to call a man who never batted in MLB the greatest catcher ever.



Probably the most balanced post so far in this discussion. Nicely done. But I have one gripe with you. But I'll talk to you later about it.

[torez77]

>>>>On the other hand, the argument in favor of the older eras is that since there were less teams, the talent was more densely packed, which makes for better teams.




Not so fast, my man! You're assuming that the talent pool from which to construct teams was the same size, which it wasn't.

Sure, if we only have 100 qualified players, and we try to stretch them into 30 teams instead of 16, and fill out the rosters with underqualified second-stringers, then you're right, the smaller league is more densely packed with talent.

So sure, 1998 was diluted in talent compared to, say, 1992, since there were expansions during that time, and the population pool from which they got players didn't expand all that much in that time - certainly not enough to keep pace with the growth of the league.

But that's 1998 vs. 1992. Not the same as 2004 vs. 1920. To think that talent was more densely loaded in 1920 than in 2004 is crazy, and I'm not Brian Fellows. Please go back to my first post in this thread, post #75. Look at the expansion of the population from which players are drawn. The U.S. population was about 1/4 the size back then, so the doubling of the league size is already taken care of right there and then some. And it wasn't the entire U.S. population that was available to play back then, but mostly only those from the Northeast. And only the white guys at that. And we haven't even started on the populations of other countries yet (Cuba, Puerto Rico, Dominican.)

And, the process of identifying the best players in the available population was nowhere near what it is now. There was no organized farm system to funnell all the best players into one lague, like there is now. Lots of qualified major league prospects never made it past the minors because the minors were independent, not slaves providing players to another league.


>>>Plus, only the very best got to play in the majors, while many others who could have gotten into the league under today's system were turned down.



No way. I sincerely doubt that the bottom feeders in the majors in 1920 would even be playing professional ball at ANY level nowadays.

Go back to 1920, take only the best white guys from Ruth's major leagues, and toss out the bottom feeders in the league. Then go to the Negro Leagues and take only the best players from there, and toss out the bottom feeders.

Then do the same thing with the Mexican League, and the Dominican League, and anywhere else that they get ballplayers from these days.

And, go out west, and get all the best white players from the Pacific Coast League, too, and toss out the weaker players.

Now put all those good players into one single league and let 'em fight it out for batting titles and home run crowns and Cy Young awards. THAT's what Bonds, Pedro, and Randy have to deal with today. Ruth dealt with a MUCH less competitive environment. You can see it in the way that team winning percentages are being driven ever closer to .500, despite revenue gaps and free agency. What ABOUT those team winning percentages, anyway? Why has no one reacted to those after I brought them up? Why is the league becoming MORE competitive despite free agency and the money gap between big and small market teams? What other explanation can there be other than the simple explanation that the league is simply more competitive now? If theres some other explanation, I need to hear it.





>>>>As far as the steroid issue goes, no, I personally don't know if Bonds is taking them. His physical appearance and his performance level now compared to the 90's is dramatically different, which makes it obvious on the outside. They haven't proven it yet, so I'll go on record and say that a man is innocent until proven guilty, as with any case.


Good on you. More people should think like that, and I do agree with you that people are innocent until proven guilty. Though it does seem that Bonds' innocence is hanging by a very thin thread now.

Metal Ed said --- "But that's 1998 vs. 1992. Not the same as 2004 vs. 1920. To think that talent was more densely loaded in 1920 than in 2004 is crazy, and I'm not Brian Fellows. Please go back to my first post in this thread, post #75. Look at the expansion of the population from which players are drawn. The U.S. population was about 1/4 the size back then, so the doubling of the league size is already taken care of right there and then some. And it wasn't the entire U.S. population that was available to play back then, but mostly only those from the Northeast. And only the white guys at that. And we haven't even started on the populations of other countries yet (Cuba, Puerto Rico, Dominican.)"

Gotta say I agree with you, sir. That's why we'll never know how the Negro Leaguers would have faired in the Majors, though by popular opinion some like Gibson, Paige, Lloyd, Williams, and Rogan would have excelled, though their numbers would have declined from the Negro Leagues. That is a knock on the older eras, because they were racist.
However, besides Gibson, name me another player from that time from any country who could have rivaled Ruth's numbers. Also, keep in mind that Gibson's numbers have never been confirmed as fact. I'd like to hear names of players from the 20's from any country and any league - Dominican, Japan, Canada, Australia, who could have surpassed Ruth. On record, there is nobody. And those leagues overall weren't nearly as strong as the Majors. American baseball was and still is the strongest baseball in the world, and Ruth dominated it like no other. Would the league have been even stronger had more people from other countries joined in? Not necessarily. The gap between America's baseball and other countries was much wider than it is today, so there's no way you can say those countries' best players could have just come over to the Majors, surpassed Gehrig, Hornsby, Cobb etc and given Ruth a run for his money.

Metal Ed said --- "No way. I sincerely doubt that the bottom feeders in the majors in 1920 would even be playing professional ball at ANY level nowadays."


Not going to argue that. That's the time-machine argument, which I said I would avoid.


Metal Ed said ---"Go back to 1920, take only the best white guys from Ruth's major leagues, and toss out the bottom feeders in the league. Then go to the Negro Leagues and take only the best players from there, and toss out the bottom feeders.
Then do the same thing with the Mexican League, and the Dominican League, and anywhere else that they get ballplayers from these days.
And, go out west, and get all the best white players from the Pacific Coast League, too, and toss out the weaker players.
Now put all those good players into one single league and let 'em fight it out for batting titles and home run crowns and Cy Young awards. THAT's what Bonds, Pedro, and Randy have to deal with today. Ruth dealt with a MUCH less competitive environment."


This goes back to my previous statement. Yes, the Major Leagues in the 20's may have been even stronger overall had you tossed out the worst whites and taken the best from the other countries and put them in. The fact still remains that Ruth accomplished his career against the best baseball in the world, American. And he outperformed the 2nd best in the Majors - Hornsby and Gehrig - by a good margin. Why assume anybody else from any other country, playing in much weaker leagues, would have come in and given him a run for his money? Highly unlikely in my view.


Metal Ed said ---"You can see it in the way that team winning percentages are being driven ever closer to .500, despite revenue gaps and free agency. What ABOUT those team winning percentages, anyway? Why has no one reacted to those after I brought them up? Why is the league becoming MORE competitive despite free agency and the money gap between big and small market teams? What other explanation can there be other than the simple explanation that the league is simply more competitive now? If theres some other explanation, I need to hear it."

More teams, along with free agency, does make for a more competitive environment, but in a different way - because of diversity, not because of talent level. Thus, there are more teams and more divisions. In the 20's, the best teams had to play against eachother more often since the league was smaller. Looking through the 20's teams, the Yankees were usually on top, but certainly not without their contenders. St. Louis, Philadelphia, New York Giants, Detroit, Cleveland, etc. all had good teams. In fact, the Yanks only won 3 titles in the 20's when they should've won more, proving there was more than enough overall talent to knock them off any year. All in all, every era in history is competitive in its own way, and that's why I say they're all relative.

Why should we always assume that today's athletes, or today's world for that matter, has it tougher than yesterday's - with all our access to better technology, medicine, less war and famine, more comfort, etc, etc. Sure, we have our problems, but so have other eras, and it's all relative.

Getting back to baseball, you bring up good food for thought to munch on, Metal Ed. But to me it boils down to this -- Ruth beat the best in his day, Bonds beat the best in his day.

[Metal Ed]

Hey Torrez- I'm out for the day. I'll give you a buzz tomorrow on this thread. Cool chatting with you.

[Bill Burgess]

Metal Ed,

Another question: Where are Josh Gibson, Satchel Paige, and Oscar Charleston on your list of all time greats? And yes, I am trying to back you into a corner.



Cornered? ohmygod!!! Whada I dooooo?! Nowhere to hide! Hmm. Let's see. Where did I rank them in my top 100. Gotta go and do a copy/paste job.

-----Negro Leagues-------------------Pre-1900 -----------------------------

5. Oscar Charleston, OF---------------9. Buck Ewing, C--------------------
10. John "Pop" Lloyd, SS--------------29. Cap Anson, 1B------------------
19. Biz Mackay, C--------------------42. Bill Lange, CF--------------------
33. Louis "Santop" Loftin, C-----------43. Michael "King" Kelly, C,RF--------
35. Josh Gibson, C------------------- 51. Ed Delahanty, OF-----------------
37. "Cool Papa" Bell, CF---------------56. Dan Brouthers, 1B----------------
57. Martin Dihigo, OF, P---------------75. Willie Keeler, RF-----------------
58. Christobal Torriente, OF-----------96. Hughie Jennings, SS-------------
59. John Beckwith, 1B---------------- 98. Herman Long, SS---------------
69. Bruce Petway, C-----------------------------------------------------


Top 50 Pitchers

Negro L.-------------------------------Pre- 1900----------------------

7. Satchel Paige------------------------19. Amos Rusie----------------
8. "Smokey Joe" Williams---------------- 25. Kid Nichols-----------------
24. Wilbur "Bullet Joe" Rogan-------------29. Charlie "Hoss" Radbourne-----
----------------------------------------32. John Clarkson----------------
----------------------------------------34. Tim Keefe--------------------
----------------------------------------35. Monte Ward-----------------
----------------------------------------50. Clark Griffith-----------------


Bill Burgess

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I would yield on the assumption that Ruth led the league in most slugging stats and home runs because he was the forerunner of the fence busters, thats true. Before I go any deeper on that first sentence let me remind others that some of Ruth's monster seasons still stand with the best even to the year 2004. Still some of the best slugging, OBA and OPS seasons you will see are in his name, more than a few times in the top ten single seasons in regards to those stats. So lets not keep the focus on how he did in his time, he is still near the top even with those that followed him.

It's been over 80 seasons and no one has yet to reach base more often 379, equal him in total bases 457, extra base hits 119 and 177 runs scored. That 177 runs scored came in 1921 before Gehrig. Though runs scored unlike the other 3 stats is team aided, consider that Ruth had a great deal to do with all those runs scored. Scored himself 59 times, 59 home runs but also put himself in scoring position with 44 doubles and 16 triples.

Ruth or Bonds have no advantage when it comes to batting average compared to the league in their time,same ball, same strike zone, same rules and same conditions. Both have it no more difficult or any easier than those that play in the league during the same period they do and Ruth did much better. Ruth hit 63 points higher than the league and Bonds hit 37 points over the league average. In 1923 Babe Ruth missed batting .400 by 4 base hits.
If one were to go through news archives and look at the, daily or weekly seasonal stats you will see only two hitters that over their WHOLE career are at or near the top in home runs and batting average, almost always among the best in the league, Babe Ruth and Ted Williams. I have seen others in those weekly stats that were often near the top in batting average, others in home runs, none like Ruth and Williams at the top in both. Some in some seasons, but none as consistent as Ruth and Williams over many seasons.

From the start of the live ball era there have never been any better hitter/slugger over a whole career than these two hitters.

[therealnod]

All this doesn't account for pitching improving along with hitting. That could account for Ruth's counting totals keeping pace with modern players. I'm in the process of running a study based on standard deviation, variance, and the probability of a historic season occuring, ie 73 HRs vs 60 HRs. I'm excited to discover the results.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

All this doesn't account for pitching improving along with hitting. That could account for Ruth's counting totals keeping pace with modern players. I'm in the process of running a study based on standard deviation, variance, and the probability of a historic season occuring, ie 73 HRs vs 60 HRs. I'm excited to discover the results.

Thats a tough one to clarify, many variables. even if we could determine pitching improvement over the years we then have to look at the park sizes, the strike zone and the ball in todays game. My point, if Ruth did have some favorable conditions with the level of pitching that could be negated to a degree, would the 1990s hitters hit all those home runs with the higher strike zone, bigger parks and the less lively ball. I could see some conditions favoring both time periods.

I certainly can't give any numbers but it would seem like with 40-50 and even 60 home runs hit so often in the last ten seasons that a big strong guy with great wrists, reflexes and eyes would have to be right near the top.


Good luck on the search.

[Metal Ed]

Okay, I'm back. Hello again to all.

Torrez:

>>>The gap between America's baseball and other countries was much wider than it is today, so there's no way you can say those countries' best players could have just come over to the Majors, surpassed Gehrig, Hornsby, Cobb etc and given Ruth a run for his money.

>>>>This goes back to my previous statement. The fact still remains that Ruth accomplished his career against the best baseball in the world, American. And he outperformed the 2nd best in the Majors - Hornsby and Gehrig - by a good margin. Why assume anybody else from any other country, playing in much weaker leagues, would have come in and given him a run for his money? Highly unlikely in my view.



Torrez, I'm not arguing the point that Ruth WASN'T the best player of his era, or that somebody from one of those other leagues was better, or that those other leagues, on average, was better than the Majors. That's moving away from my intended point. My point was that expanding the population pool and diversifying the league makes the average player better - and thus puts less distance between the best in the league and the league average, making stand-out performances more difficult.

Okay, please bear with me as I go off on a long tangent to illustrate. I think we can both agree that the Ruths and the Bonds of any particular era are going to hit the worst pitchers in their respective leagues better than the best ones. Okay, occasionally there's a guy with a 5.83 era who, for whatever reason, seems to have Bonds' number - exceptions like that do occur. But they are the exceptions. Same thing with the best pitchers vs. the worst hitters. Occasionally we find that a schlub with a career .207 average is in the lineup against the Big Unit simply because he's gone 9-for-16 against Randy Johnson. These things happen, but they are the exception that proves the rule. In general, the worst pitchers are the easiest to hit off of - that's why they are the worst pitchers (obviously); and the best hitters are the hardest to pitch to - that's why they are the best hitters.

I'm not going to pull up the numbers on this one, but I'm sure that we can both agree that if we divided the league into quintiles of ability - say, top 20%, bottom 20%, etc. - we would no doubt find that the Ruths and the Bonds have their highest slugging percentages against the bottom 20% of the pitchers in their leagues, not against the top 20%. If you had to play the All-Star team everyday, your numbers wouldn't be very good, and it would not be because you're not good.

Vice versa, if we divided the hitters into quintiles, I'll bet that the lowest opposing hitters' BA against Randy Johnson comes from the bottom 20% of the hitters in the league - not the top 20%.

You said that: "Yes, the Major Leagues in the 20's may have been even stronger overall had you tossed out the worst whites and taken the best from the other countries and put them in." MAY have been? Pardon my french, but that's horse poopie, my friend. OF COURSE they would have been.

Okay, I'm definitely NOT trying to say that Ruth would have been out of a job if the league had been integrated. Or Lou Gehrig, or Walter Johnson. OF COURSE those guys still make the team, integrated or not, and of course they'd perform at the top of the league. But that "top" spot would not be as high as it once was. It would not be as far above the average as it used to be. Because the bottom feeders in the league are gone. The bottom percentile is gone, replaced by another league's best.

Come on. Do you honestly believe that the WORST player in the white big leagues in 1920 was still better than the BEST player in the Negro Leagues?

OK, let's toss race out the window. I don't want to play the race card anyway. Hey, I'm not even balck. Take another white league. Do you honestly believe that the BEST player in the white Pacific Coast League was not as good as the worst player in the white Major Legaues? That not a single low level player could have been replaced by someone more qualified? What's the East got that's so special? Remember, the guys in the PCL weren't in the majors, not because they weren't good enough to play in the majors but because transportation wasn't sufficiently developed to bring them in and even give them a chance to contend. It wasn't unitl the late 30's and early 40's that these guys came in.

Joe DiMaggio and Ted Williams got started in the PCL. Had they been born 20 years earlier, we might have never heard their names, because they never would have made the majors. Don't tell me that there weren't ANY players in the PCL who couldn't have been better than the WORST players in the Majors in the 1920's.

In the last 7 years of its existence, the Negro Leagues gave up HOFer's Jackie Robinson, Roy Campanella, Billy Williams, Ernie Banks, Lary Doby, and - pause for emphasis - Willie Mays and Hank Aaron. What would the previous 40 years of the Negor Leagues have yeilded? Not a SINGLE player who might have been better than the WORST player in the majors at the time?

OF COURSE the best players in the PCL and Negro Leagues were better than the worst players in the Majors, and OF COURSE diversifying the league would have made it stronger. No "maybes" about it. How many of the majors bottom feeders would have been tossed out, replaced by someone better ? I don't know. The bottom 10%, the bottom 20%, the bottom 40%? I don't know, how many guys in the Majors today AREN'T from the white Northeast U.S.? Probably a lot.

OF COURSE Ruth and Gehrig would still have been in an integrated league, and OF COURSE they'd still be in the elite. But now, the bottom 20% or 30% or whatever of the competition - the ones that they've been slapping silly - have gotten better. They're not going to slug 1.000, or whatever, against those guys anymore. The same thing goes for the top pitchers - with the bottom feeding hitters in the league having gotten better, the top pitchers stand out from the pack less so than before. When the bottom gets better, and the average gets better, the distance between the best players and the worst players will shrink. The best will still be the best, but by a smaller margin.

Adjusting for the league mean - using OPS+ and ERA+ - only adjusts for the balance between offense and pitching in the league at the time. When we talk of OPS+ and ERA+, we are looking no longer at the balance between hitting and pitching, but at the balance between the top performances and the rest of the league. And that balance will almost always favor old players over modern ones. As the popuation from which players are drawn expands, and as talent pool thickens and the talent in the leagues becomes denser, the performance of the best players in the league, relative to their peers, is going to be dragged down by the fact that the average is now better. Going back to my IQ example, a man with an IQ of 165 in a room full of men with an average IQ of 100 has an IQ+ of 165, but at a Mensa meeting, his IQ+ is 165/150 = 110. It's not that he's gotten dumber; the competition has gotten stiffer.

This affects both pitchers and hitters, because mean-adjusted stats compare players to their peers. That's why the best OPS+ guys are Ruth, Williams, Gehrig; that's why the best ERA+ guys are Grove and Walter Johnson (ok, Pedro Martinez, but that's because he's still young; as hs career moves forward, his numbers will drop).

Actually, OPS and ERA are kind of limited. It's better to look at a broader stat, like Win Shares - something like 75 or 80 of the top 100, I can't remember, Win Shares totals are from before 1950. That's doesn't make any sense unless one realizes that the most talented players from that time were playing in a relatively talent-poor environment, allowing them to dominate their game that much more.

In my first post in this thread, I said that any argument over whether Ruth was the greatest ever is going to boil down to how much one thinks the league has improved. I should rephrase that and say that it will degenerate into an argument over how much the average and below average players in the league have improved.






>>>>>>More teams, along with free agency, does make for a more competitive environment, but in a different way - because of diversity, not because of talent level. Thus, there are more teams and more divisions. In the 20's, the best teams had to play against eachother more often since the league was smaller.


But wouldn't have the opposite effect- wouldn't that drag down the winning percentages of the best teams, rather than raise them? I don't see how this is a refuation of what I was saying. Actually, it seem to strengthen my argument. If currently, the best teams play the worst teams more often, we should be seeing even bigger gaps in winning percentages.




>>>Why should we always assume that today's athletes, or today's world for that matter, has it tougher than yesterday's - with all our access to better technology, medicine,



Because those things are irrelevant when comparing players to their peers. ALL of today's athletes have these advantages, AND THEY ARE COMPETING AGAINST EACH OTHER. (god, someone please tell me how to italicize these things, I don't mean to shout.)

It's not like Ruth was the only drunk, hot-dog-eating guy in a league full of athletes with access to modern medicine and training, and it's not like Randy Johnson and Barry Bonds are the only guys with access to modern medicine in a league full of drunken hot dog eaters. These things don't convey an advantage when we are talking about mean adjusted stats, BECAUSE MEAN ADJUSTED STATS COMPARE YOU TO YOUR PEERS AND ALL YOUR PEERS HAVE THESE "ADVANTAGES" TOO. (please help me italicize, I'm retarded.) It would be like saying track athletes have an advantage because they wear cleats now, and cleats help you run faster. Well, that's the playing field now.


>>>>>Getting back to baseball, you bring up good food for thought to munch on, Metal Ed. But to me it boils down to this -- Ruth beat the best in his day, Bonds beat the best in his day.[/QUOTE]



Yup, they are the best of their times. What this argument boils down to is: Ruth was way above the rest of the league in his day, more so than Bonds is above the league in his HIS (Bonds') day. The question is, how much higher is the playing field, and is it enough to send Bonds, or Schmidt, or Mays, or whomever you like, above Ruth? As I said when I jumped onto the thread, it comes down to how much higher you think the playing field has become - how much harder is it now to BE that much higher than the average player? How much better IS the average player?

I don't know the answer. I'm not REALLY looking to convince everybody that Mike Schmidt and Barry Bonds are the greatest players who ever lived - because I'm not even sure if I totally believe it myself. I'm also far from convinced that Babe Ruth was the best, or that Josh Gibson was the best.

I'm just trying to steer you away from the attitude that says "Look at their OPS+, look at how they dominated their leagues, badda-bing badda-boom, Babe's the best." It's not that simple. Mean-adjusted stats are helpful in adjusting for the balance between pitching and hitting for that era - not for the balance between the greats and the rest of the league.

[Metal Ed]

Realnod: Have you ever heard of a guy named Michaell Schell? He has two books that I think you need to check out. Do a search for them, you may find them interesting. Also, what does your screen name mean?


Bill Burgess: Nevermind, man, You're unassailable. :)

[leecemark]

--ME, great post. You've summarized my own views on the topic better than I could have. BTW, if you highlight what you want in intalics and then click the slanted I at the top of the reply to post box you can avoid the shouting.

[Metal Ed]

Thats a tough one to clarify, many variables. even if we could determine pitching improvement over the years we then have to look at the park sizes, the strike zone and the ball in todays game. My point, if Ruth did have some favorable conditions with the level of pitching that could be negated to a degree, would the 1990s hitters hit all those home runs with the higher strike zone, bigger parks and the less lively ball. I could see some conditions favoring both time periods.

I certainly can't give any numbers but it would seem like with 40-50 and even 60 home runs hit so often in the last ten seasons that a big strong guy with great wrists, reflexes and eyes would have to be right near the top.


Good luck on the search.



OK, what's the deal with the "livelier ball" stuff? Hasn't this been laid to rest already? Compression tests on the balls have not found a significant difference.

If it's anything, it's probably the extra coating of lacquer that they put on the bats these days to make them extra-hard that gives the ball extra jump. Anyway, all this stuff falls under the balance between pitching and hitting. Using mean-adjusted stats cancels that out.

[Metal Ed]

--ME, great post. You've summarized my own views on the topic better than I could have. BTW, if you highlight what you want in intalics and then click the slanted I at the top of the reply to post box you can avoid the shouting.


Thanks. Now I feel stupid.

[santotohof]

Did Mays or hammerin Hank or Rajah or Bonds or any other great hitter also own a scoreless inning World Series pitching record for 45 years?

[torez77]

Okay, I'm back. Hello again to all.

Torrez:

>>>The gap between America's baseball and other countries was much wider than it is today, so there's no way you can say those countries' best players could have just come over to the Majors, surpassed Gehrig, Hornsby, Cobb etc and given Ruth a run for his money.

>>>>This goes back to my previous statement. The fact still remains that Ruth accomplished his career against the best baseball in the world, American. And he outperformed the 2nd best in the Majors - Hornsby and Gehrig - by a good margin. Why assume anybody else from any other country, playing in much weaker leagues, would have come in and given him a run for his money? Highly unlikely in my view.



Torrez, I'm not arguing the point that Ruth WASN'T the best player of his era, or that somebody from one of those other leagues was better, or that those other leagues, on average, was better than the Majors. That's moving away from my intended point. My point was that expanding the population pool and diversifying the league makes the average player better - and thus puts less distance between the best in the league and the league average, making stand-out performances more difficult.

Okay, please bear with me as I go off on a long tangent to illustrate. I think we can both agree that the Ruths and the Bonds of any particular era are going to hit the worst pitchers in their respective leagues better than the best ones. Okay, occasionally there's a guy with a 5.83 era who, for whatever reason, seems to have Bonds' number - exceptions like that do occur. But they are the exceptions. Same thing with the best pitchers vs. the worst hitters. Occasionally we find that a schlub with a career .207 average is in the lineup against the Big Unit simply because he's gone 9-for-16 against Randy Johnson. These things happen, but they are the exception that proves the rule. In general, the worst pitchers are the easiest to hit off of - that's why they are the worst pitchers (obviously); and the best hitters are the hardest to pitch to - that's why they are the best hitters.

I'm not going to pull up the numbers on this one, but I'm sure that we can both agree that if we divided the league into quintiles of ability - say, top 20%, bottom 20%, etc. - we would no doubt find that the Ruths and the Bonds have their highest slugging percentages against the bottom 20% of the pitchers in their leagues, not against the top 20%. If you had to play the All-Star team everyday, your numbers wouldn't be very good, and it would not be because you're not good.

Vice versa, if we divided the hitters into quintiles, I'll bet that the lowest opposing hitters' BA against Randy Johnson comes from the bottom 20% of the hitters in the league - not the top 20%.

You said that: "Yes, the Major Leagues in the 20's may have been even stronger overall had you tossed out the worst whites and taken the best from the other countries and put them in." MAY have been? Pardon my french, but that's horse poopie, my friend. OF COURSE they would have been.

Okay, I'm definitely NOT trying to say that Ruth would have been out of a job if the league had been integrated. Or Lou Gehrig, or Walter Johnson. OF COURSE those guys still make the team, integrated or not, and of course they'd perform at the top of the league. But that "top" spot would not be as high as it once was. It would not be as far above the average as it used to be. Because the bottom feeders in the league are gone. The bottom percentile is gone, replaced by another league's best.

Come on. Do you honestly believe that the WORST player in the white big leagues in 1920 was still better than the BEST player in the Negro Leagues?

OK, let's toss race out the window. I don't want to play the race card anyway. Hey, I'm not even balck. Take another white league. Do you honestly believe that the BEST player in the white Pacific Coast League was not as good as the worst player in the white Major Legaues? That not a single low level player could have been replaced by someone more qualified? What's the East got that's so special? Remember, the guys in the PCL weren't in the majors, not because they weren't good enough to play in the majors but because transportation wasn't sufficiently developed to bring them in and even give them a chance to contend. It wasn't unitl the late 30's and early 40's that these guys came in.

Joe DiMaggio and Ted Williams got started in the PCL. Had they been born 20 years earlier, we might have never heard their names, because they never would have made the majors. Don't tell me that there weren't ANY players in the PCL who couldn't have been better than the WORST players in the Majors in the 1920's.

In the last 7 years of its existence, the Negro Leagues gave up HOFer's Jackie Robinson, Roy Campanella, Billy Williams, Ernie Banks, Lary Doby, and - pause for emphasis - Willie Mays and Hank Aaron. What would the previous 40 years of the Negor Leagues have yeilded? Not a SINGLE player who might have been better than the WORST player in the majors at the time?

OF COURSE the best players in the PCL and Negro Leagues were better than the worst players in the Majors, and OF COURSE diversifying the league would have made it stronger. No "maybes" about it. How many of the majors bottom feeders would have been tossed out, replaced by someone better ? I don't know. The bottom 10%, the bottom 20%, the bottom 40%? I don't know, how many guys in the Majors today AREN'T from the white Northeast U.S.? Probably a lot.

OF COURSE Ruth and Gehrig would still have been in an integrated league, and OF COURSE they'd still be in the elite. But now, the bottom 20% or 30% or whatever of the competition - the ones that they've been slapping silly - have gotten better. They're not going to slug 1.000, or whatever, against those guys anymore. The same thing goes for the top pitchers - with the bottom feeding hitters in the league having gotten better, the top pitchers stand out from the pack less so than before. When the bottom gets better, and the average gets better, the distance between the best players and the worst players will shrink. The best will still be the best, but by a smaller margin.

Adjusting for the league mean - using OPS+ and ERA+ - only adjusts for the balance between offense and pitching in the league at the time. When we talk of OPS+ and ERA+, we are looking no longer at the balance between hitting and pitching, but at the balance between the top performances and the rest of the league. And that balance will almost always favor old players over modern ones. As the popuation from which players are drawn expands, and as talent pool thickens and the talent in the leagues becomes denser, the performance of the best players in the league, relative to their peers, is going to be dragged down by the fact that the average is now better. Going back to my IQ example, a man with an IQ of 165 in a room full of men with an average IQ of 100 has an IQ+ of 165, but at a Mensa meeting, his IQ+ is 165/150 = 110. It's not that he's gotten dumber; the competition has gotten stiffer.

This affects both pitchers and hitters, because mean-adjusted stats compare players to their peers. That's why the best OPS+ guys are Ruth, Williams, Gehrig; that's why the best ERA+ guys are Grove and Walter Johnson (ok, Pedro Martinez, but that's because he's still young; as hs career moves forward, his numbers will drop).

Actually, OPS and ERA are kind of limited. It's better to look at a broader stat, like Win Shares - something like 75 or 80 of the top 100, I can't remember, Win Shares totals are from before 1950. That's doesn't make any sense unless one realizes that the most talented players from that time were playing in a relatively talent-poor environment, allowing them to dominate their game that much more.

In my first post in this thread, I said that any argument over whether Ruth was the greatest ever is going to boil down to how much one thinks the league has improved. I should rephrase that and say that it will degenerate into an argument over how much the average and below average players in the league have improved.






>>>>>>More teams, along with free agency, does make for a more competitive environment, but in a different way - because of diversity, not because of talent level. Thus, there are more teams and more divisions. In the 20's, the best teams had to play against eachother more often since the league was smaller.


But wouldn't have the opposite effect- wouldn't that drag down the winning percentages of the best teams, rather than raise them? I don't see how this is a refuation of what I was saying. Actually, it seem to strengthen my argument. If currently, the best teams play the worst teams more often, we should be seeing even bigger gaps in winning percentages.




>>>Why should we always assume that today's athletes, or today's world for that matter, has it tougher than yesterday's - with all our access to better technology, medicine,



Because those things are irrelevant when comparing players to their peers. ALL of today's athletes have these advantages, AND THEY ARE COMPETING AGAINST EACH OTHER. (god, someone please tell me how to italicize these things, I don't mean to shout.)

It's not like Ruth was the only drunk, hot-dog-eating guy in a league full of athletes with access to modern medicine and training, and it's not like Randy Johnson and Barry Bonds are the only guys with access to modern medicine in a league full of drunken hot dog eaters. These things don't convey an advantage when we are talking about mean adjusted stats, BECAUSE MEAN ADJUSTED STATS COMPARE YOU TO YOUR PEERS AND ALL YOUR PEERS HAVE THESE "ADVANTAGES" TOO. (please help me italicize, I'm retarded.) It would be like saying track athletes have an advantage because they wear cleats now, and cleats help you run faster. Well, that's the playing field now.


>>>>>Getting back to baseball, you bring up good food for thought to munch on, Metal Ed. But to me it boils down to this -- Ruth beat the best in his day, Bonds beat the best in his day.




Metal Ed said --- "You said that: "Yes, the Major Leagues in the 20's may have been even stronger overall had you tossed out the worst whites and taken the best from the other countries and put them in." MAY have been? Pardon my french, but that's horse poopie, my friend. OF COURSE they would have been."

The reason I say they MAY have been is because of the gap between the majors and the other leagues at that time. How much would the best from other countries dominate the worst in the majors? Would they make up the bottom 20%, or as you suggest, possibly the bottom 40%? That's quite a big number of players to throw out. Perhaps they would've, perhaps not. Why assume they would have just blown them all away? My point was that Ruth accomplished his stats against the best overall league in the world.

Metal Ed said--- "Don't tell me that there weren't ANY players in the PCL who couldn't have been better than the WORST players in the Majors in the 1920's."

I never said there weren't ANY. I only said the best of the other leagues' players wasn't as good as the best of the Majors.

Metal Ed said --- "Not a SINGLE player who might have been better than the WORST player in the majors at the time?"

Ditto. I never implied such a thing.

Metal Ed said --- "Adjusting for the league mean - using OPS+ and ERA+ - only adjusts for the balance between offense and pitching in the league at the time. When we talk of OPS+ and ERA+, we are looking no longer at the balance between hitting and pitching, but at the balance between the top performances and the rest of the league. And that balance will almost always favor old players over modern ones. As the popuation from which players are drawn expands, and as talent pool thickens and the talent in the leagues becomes denser, the performance of the best players in the league, relative to their peers, is going to be dragged down by the fact that the average is now better. Going back to my IQ example, a man with an IQ of 165 in a room full of men with an average IQ of 100 has an IQ+ of 165, but at a Mensa meeting, his IQ+ is 165/150 = 110. It's not that he's gotten dumber; the competition has gotten stiffer."

Yep, great point. I read you before. Don't think I ignored it. This makes the older players' stats look better. Which proves how much the game has changed.
All in all, it boils down to however you want to compare older vs. modern players - do we want to grab them from their respective eras, put them in a time machine and drop them off in an older or newer era, OR do we want to have them born at an older or newer time and have them start and finish their careers in those eras? I personally prefer the latter. Let's take Ruth vs. Bonds - if Ruth had been born when Bonds was born, how would he have done? And if Bonds had been born when Ruth was born, how would he have done? If Ruth had been born in the late 60's and started baseball in the late 80's, would he dominate the league by the same distance he did in the 20's? I would say no, and by your arguments, you say no. Some say he would because of the smaller strike zone, smaller parks, lower mounds, etc. But no, in my view, he wouldn't outdistance himself the way he did, because nobody else is now or has since the 20's.
Now let's do Bonds - if he had been born in the 1890's and started his career in the 20's would he dominate even more in the 20's than he has today (the last 4 years, mind you), minus all the offensive advantages today's game has? Ridiculous to automatically say yes, because he hasn't done it his whole career, and you have to count his whole career, not just the last 4 years.

Metal Ed said ---"Because those things are irrelevant when comparing players to their peers. ALL of today's athletes have these advantages, AND THEY ARE COMPETING AGAINST EACH OTHER. (god, someone please tell me how to italicize these things, I don't mean to shout.)
It's not like Ruth was the only drunk, hot-dog-eating guy in a league full of athletes with access to modern medicine and training, and it's not like Randy Johnson and Barry Bonds are the only guys with access to modern medicine in a league full of drunken hot dog eaters. These things don't convey an advantage when we are talking about mean adjusted stats, BECAUSE MEAN ADJUSTED STATS COMPARE YOU TO YOUR PEERS AND ALL YOUR PEERS HAVE THESE "ADVANTAGES" TOO. (please help me italicize, I'm retarded.) It would be like saying track athletes have an advantage because they wear cleats now, and cleats help you run faster. Well, that's the playing field now."

Exactly my point. The advantages or disadvantages a player has in his era, all of his peers have those too. Ruth played in his time, Bonds played in his. Is it just tougher to succeed nowadays then back then? All conditions are relative.

Metal Ed said ---"But wouldn't have the opposite effect- wouldn't that drag down the winning percentages of the best teams, rather than raise them? I don't see how this is a refuation of what I was saying. Actually, it seem to strengthen my argument. If currently, the best teams play the worst teams more often, we should be seeing even bigger gaps in winning percentages."

Maybe I phrased it wrong. At any rate, looking at the teams in the 20's and what happened, you can see there was more than enough competition. This goes back to the peers vs. peers argument. Also, what about the Yankees 114-48 record in '98? Every year, there are modern-day teams that win over 100 games. All in all, more teams are above .500, but there are more than enough sub-.500 teams and bottom feeders that the best teams can feast on. I really don't see the big difference in competition. Again, this goes back to the peers vs. peers argument. It's all relative.

Metal Ed said ---"Yup, they are the best of their times. What this argument boils down to is: Ruth was way above the rest of the league in his day, more so than Bonds is above the league in his HIS (Bonds') day. The question is, how much higher is the playing field, and is it enough to send Bonds, or Schmidt, or Mays, or whomever you like, above Ruth? As I said when I jumped onto the thread, it comes down to how much higher you think the playing field has become - how much harder is it now to BE that much higher than the average player? How much better IS the average player?

I don't know the answer. I'm not REALLY looking to convince everybody that Mike Schmidt and Barry Bonds are the greatest players who ever lived - because I'm not even sure if I totally believe it myself. I'm also far from convinced that Babe Ruth was the best, or that Josh Gibson was the best.

I'm just trying to steer you away from the attitude that says "Look at their OPS+, look at how they dominated their leagues, badda-bing badda-boom, Babe's the best." It's not that simple. Mean-adjusted stats are helpful in adjusting for the balance between pitching and hitting for that era - not for the balance between the greats and the rest of the league."

Nice post, Metal Ed. I understand your point of view, and you're right that the league has become more diversified. No doubt about it. It's a different game now. Again, my main point is - it's all relative. What the old players accomplished happened in their day under their conditions, what the new players are accomplishing now is happening under their conditions. Above, I told you how I compare older vs. modern players.
When debating what might have been, I guess I don't like to assume when trying to prove an argument, but go by what actually happened. Of course, no one person here at Baseball Fever is 100% right, but that's what this forum is for - to have fun with theories and assume, when comparing eras, and it is fun to do so. When all is said and done, I like to revert back to what actually happened, especially when I'm debating a point, so then I have leverage with the facts.
OK, once when I'm done speculating and playing alternate history, what do I do? I go back to what actually happened. When comparing Ruth vs. Bonds, go back to my post of Ruth's stats vs. Bonds' stats. This is what it boils down to - for me anyway.

[Metal Ed]

Did Mays or hammerin Hank or Rajah or Bonds or any other great hitter also own a scoreless inning World Series pitching record for 45 years?



You know, everyone in this thread was contributing politely and pleasantly, respecting each other's input, not trying to embarass anyone, and keeping the atmosphere light and friendly. Now you come along and start asking sarcastic questions which you already know the answer to, deliberately trying to make others look stupid. That's not constructive. I could respond by sarcastically asking if Ruth ever made the 30-30 club or the 40-40 club or stole 500 bases in his career, or if he was regarded as a first-rate baserunner like Mays or Bonds, or if he played Gold Glove defense at critical positions like Mike Schmidt or Willie Mays. But I already know that Ruth was caught stealing half the time that he tried to steal (career record, 123 steals vs. 117 CS, which is more than "not good", it's frickin' terrible), and that his range factor in the field was considerably worse than the league average, and that he was a big fat guy with chicken legs.

[Metal Ed]

Cool, Torrez. I think we're winding down this debate here; I think we've both made our points. This is my last little bit here, unless someone else wants to jump in and rumble with me:


>>>>Above, I told you how I compare older vs. modern players.
When debating what might have been, I guess I don't like to assume when trying to prove an argument, but go by what actually happened. Of course, no one person here at Baseball Fever is 100% right, but that's what this forum is for - to have fun with theories and assume, when comparing eras, and it is fun to do so. When all is said and done, I like to revert back to what actually happened, especially when I'm debating a point, so then I have leverage with the facts.
OK, once when I'm done speculating and playing alternate history, what do I do? I go back to what actually happened. When comparing Ruth vs. Bonds, go back to my post of Ruth's stats vs. Bonds' stats. This is what it boils down to - for me anyway.



That's fine; but since you mentioned assumptions, I just wanted to make you aware of the assumption (that I perceive is) inherit in this approach that you use: the assumption that being 207% of the league average in 1920 was the same thing as being 207% of the league average in 2004. The assumption that the league averages are necessarily at the same level; the assumption that being twice as good as the average player then was the same thing as being twice as good as the average player now. I don't think that's valid because I think the average player is better now, so it is harder to be twice as good as average. But, I do agree with you that, relative to the rest of the league, no one ever dominated like Babe Ruth did. And no one ever will. Well, Barry Bonds from 2001-2004......but not career wise. Which brings up another point: How do we determine the balance career value and peak value in judging players? There's an idea for a new thread.

I will try to find a web site that shows the change in winning percentages over time. The 1998 Yankees played .700 ball and were a big anomaly for modern baseball. If I can find a plot on the web of winning percentages I'll send it your way.

[torez77]

Cool, Torrez. I think we're winding down this debate here; I think we've both made our points. This is my last little bit here, unless someone else wants to jump in and rumble with me:


>>>>Above, I told you how I compare older vs. modern players.
When debating what might have been, I guess I don't like to assume when trying to prove an argument, but go by what actually happened. Of course, no one person here at Baseball Fever is 100% right, but that's what this forum is for - to have fun with theories and assume, when comparing eras, and it is fun to do so. When all is said and done, I like to revert back to what actually happened, especially when I'm debating a point, so then I have leverage with the facts.
OK, once when I'm done speculating and playing alternate history, what do I do? I go back to what actually happened. When comparing Ruth vs. Bonds, go back to my post of Ruth's stats vs. Bonds' stats. This is what it boils down to - for me anyway.



That's fine; but since you mentioned assumptions, I just wanted to make you aware of the assumption (that I perceive is) inherit in this approach that you use: the assumption that being 207% of the league average in 1920 was the same thing as being 207% of the league average in 2004. The assumption that the league averages are necessarily at the same level; the assumption that being twice as good as the average player then was the same thing as being twice as good as the average player now. I don't think that's valid because I think the average player is better now, so it is harder to be twice as good as average. But, I do agree with you that, relative to the rest of the league, no one ever dominated like Babe Ruth did. And no one ever will. Well, Barry Bonds from 2001-2004......but not career wise. Which brings up another point: How do we determine the balance career value and peak value in judging players? There's an idea for a new thread.

I will try to find a web site that shows the change in winning percentages over time. The 1998 Yankees played .700 ball and were a big anomaly for modern baseball. If I can find a plot on the web of winning percentages I'll send it your way.

I just thought of something, Metal Ed. I had this in the back of my head before, but it hasn't come out until now. Sometimes I'm kinda slow. :crazy It kind of goes along with what I've been saying all along.
Let's just imagine that in the 20's the league had become more diversified and the best players from all leagues came into the Majors, and thus it would have become more balanced, just as it is more balanced today. The pitching would be better. Thus, we can assume Ruth's numbers would have declined, as would have everybody else's. Get my drift, here? Ruth outdid the 2nd best in the Majors by a wide margin. So why would that margin get smaller if everybody else along with Ruth is getting worse?
Again, it's all relative.

[Windy City Fan]

All of the current major leaguers in the 20's would've experienced a numbers drop, but the bottom end players wouldn't be playing as better talent would've replaced them. So the talent becomes higher and more compact.

To use a scale let's say there are a 100 players. The average player is rated a 50 and Ruth is a 100. That means Ruth is 200% of the average player (about his career OPS+). Now let's say the bottom 20 players average a rating of 20. Get rid of them, and replace them with the best players from the Pacific Coast League, the Negro League, the Mexican and Cuban Leagues. These replacements average a 60 rating. Now the average player in the league is rated a 58. Ruth is still a 100, but the distance between him and league is less. I hope this numerical analogy makes sense.

[torez77]

All of the current major leaguers in the 20's would've experienced a numbers drop, but the bottom end players wouldn't be playing as better talent would've replaced them. So the talent becomes higher and more compact.

To use a scale let's say there are a 100 players. The average player is rated a 50 and Ruth is a 100. That means Ruth is 200% of the average player (about his career OPS+). Now let's say the bottom 20 players average a rating of 20. Get rid of them, and replace them with the best players from the Pacific Coast League, the Negro League, the Mexican and Cuban Leagues. These replacements average a 60 rating. Now the average player in the league is rated a 58. Ruth is still a 100, but the distance between him and league is less. I hope this numerical analogy makes sense.

Yeah, but that's exactly what it is - a numerical analogy. When using numerical fact, Ruth is ahead of the next best of his day, Gehrig, 207-182.
Also, why would more and better hitters affect Ruth's batting? Ruth's batting numbers would go up or down due to the quality of pitching he faces, and let's just assume it would get that much better due to expansion. As it is, Ruth beat the best pitching the majors had to offer anyway.

I just don't see it. Maybe it's just me.

[therealnod]

I just thought of something, Metal Ed. I had this in the back of my head before, but it hasn't come out until now. Sometimes I'm kinda slow. :crazy It kind of goes along with what I've been saying all along.
Let's just imagine that in the 20's the league had become more diversified and the best players from all leagues came into the Majors, and thus it would have become more balanced, just as it is more balanced today. The pitching would be better. Thus, we can assume Ruth's numbers would have declined, as would have everybody else's. Get my drift, here? Ruth outdid the 2nd best in the Majors by a wide margin. So why would that margin get smaller if everybody else along with Ruth is getting worse?
Again, it's all relative.

That assumes an even rate of addition of pitchers and hitters. If there had been a great hitter or two added to the league, that's quite a bit different than adding two great pitchers and wholely different from adding two great hitters and two great pitchers. Then there's the quality of pitching faced to consider.

[Windy City Fan]

Yeah, but that's exactly what it is - a numerical analogy. When using numerical fact, Ruth is ahead of the next best of his day, Gehrig, 207-182.
Also, why would more and better hitters affect Ruth's batting? Ruth's batting numbers would go up or down due to the quality of pitching he faces, and let's just assume it would get that much better due to expansion. As it is, Ruth beat the best pitching the majors had to offer anyway.

I just don't see it. Maybe it's just me.

Better pitchers will make everyone's raw stats decline, probably roughly equally. Better hitters will make Ruth's relative stats decline.

To use another analogy. A guy on our softball team led the league in average and homeruns. He was about the fastest guy in the league and could play any position, including pitcher. Now get rid of the overweight 40 year olds in the league and bring in minor league or semi pro players to replae them. Let's just pretend my teammate would still be the best player in the league, but the rest of the league is a lot closer and he doesn't stand out as much.

No one is saying Ruth wasn't the best of his day. We're just saying that his competition wasn't all that sharp, and if it was better (ala what Mays played against) Ruth's relative numbers would decline.

[Metal Ed]

I just thought of something, Metal Ed. I had this in the back of my head before, but it hasn't come out until now. Sometimes I'm kinda slow. :crazy It kind of goes along with what I've been saying all along.
Let's just imagine that in the 20's the league had become more diversified and the best players from all leagues came into the Majors, and thus it would have become more balanced, just as it is more balanced today. The pitching would be better. Thus, we can assume Ruth's numbers would have declined, as would have everybody else's. Get my drift, here? Ruth outdid the 2nd best in the Majors by a wide margin. So why would that margin get smaller if everybody else along with Ruth is getting worse?
Again, it's all relative.



I pulled these numbers from Baseball Reference.com, to get an idea of the difference between Bonds and his no.2 guy, and Ruth and his no.2 guy. Here the spreads for OPS:


Babe Ruth 207
Lou Gehrig 179
Rogers Hornsby 175
Ty Cobb 167
Jimmie Foxx 163

And for Bonds:

Barry Bonds 184
Frank Thomas 164
Manny Ramirez 156
Jim Thome 151
Jeff Bagwell 150
Mike Piazza 150


Ruth is up by 28 points on Gehrig, Bonds is up by 20 points on Thomas. So the gap is indeed bigger for Ruth as you say, but not by as much as one might think.

Something I wonder about. What would the gaps be without Ruth's 1920-1921 seasons and without Bonds 2001-2004 seasons? I will have to calculate that. I suspect that a good portion of the gap can be traced to those seasons.

So far we have been discussing only hitting. Except for Cobb and Bagwell, Bonds is the only one on the list with any baserunning and fielding skills. Frank Thomas, Bonds' No.2 guy, is flat-out horrible both as a fielder and a base runner. Holy cow is he bad. Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig, no.1 and no.2 respectively for their era in hitting, both have stealing-caught stealing ratios of about 50-50 (123-117 for Ruth; 102-101 for Gehrig- and the caught stealing numbers may be incomplete for this era! Just really bad base running) and both were below average in fielding range factor for the league average at the time. Hornsby couldn't turn a double play to save his life, which is a really bad trait for a second baseman, and Manny Ramirez can be comedy in action in left field. Piazza is not a good defensive catcher either. OTOH, in terms of all-around ability, the Babe has a career ERA+ of 122. It is a mid-career value due to the briefness of Ruth's pitching career, but it may ultimately be the difference maker for Ruth, depending on how one values pitching, baserunning, and fielding.

Consider also that there may just have been a guy out there somewhere in 1920, that, if given the chance, could have gone 180-200 in the Majors at the time. All it would take is one guy. From the West or from the Caribbean or from the black population - one Ted Williams (Pacific Coast League) or one Josh Gibson (Negro Leagues).

[therealnod]

Realnod: Have you ever heard of a guy named Michaell Schell? He has two books that I think you need to check out. Do a search for them, you may find them interesting. Also, what does your screen name mean?

Don't recall hearing the name before. Is he one of the men that rank Joe DiMaggio's hitting streak as the most improbable feat in sports ever? If he is, then I've seen references to his work, just not him.

My screename has a small story to it:
The first forum I ever signed on for was Fark, and I used a nickname I gave to myself back when I watched the WWF. The Nod. I have used Nod as my name for video game high scores lists all my life. It is my last name with the K ommitted, so it fit on the old time high scores lists. Well, when I registered for ESPN's MLB General board, it told me that thenod was already taken! So, meet therealnod.

[Windy City Fan]

1947 League Average - .265 Jackie Robinson leads the intergration of MLB
1950 League Average - .261 Intergration continues to grow
1954 League Average - .265 Mays, Aaron, and Banks break in as rookies
1958 League Average - .262 Above players are now among the best in the league

Now, despite the huge infusion of talent due to intergration, the league average remained relatively constant. Clearly the pitching and hitting talent balanced each other out. But what else happened? There are more players competing for less spots. So the bottom rungs are now occupied by better players. The difference between the greats (Aaron, Banks, Mays) and the lower tier is not as great. Hence their relative stats will not jump out like Ruth or Cobb.

[Metal Ed]

So who do you pick as the greatest of all time, Windy City Fan?

[Bill Burgess]

Metal Ed,

Good posts. You fit right in with what I, leecemark, Imapotato, ElHalo, DoubltX, RuthMayBonds, Windy, and a lot of others have been saying for a long time now.

If the MLs of the earyly days had been integrated, or much more broad-based in its talent pool, then of course, the stars who led the leagues back then would have had their dominance and difference between them and the leagues flattened out. And we all wish that that had happened. So we wouldn't have to be jawing about it now to forever.

You use Ruth as a barometer a lot. Please allow me to remind you of something that may or may not be obvious here at Fever. NOt all of us are in concensus that Babe Ruth was the greatest player ever. Yes, he has won all of our polls. But I'd estimate that he only enjoys around 80% support here.

I and a small minority of about 20 posters hold out for Cobb. Some for Wagner, others for Mays and Williams. We have a motley bunch here.

My personal order is - Cobb, Wagner, Mays, Bonds (since lowered), Ruth, Chareston.

So I do put Mays and Bonds up there. Charleston too. You will find quite a nice blend of varying opinions here on any given topic, such as Joe Jackson's innocence, Bonds culpability, Rose's eligibility, strengh of Negro Leagues, weakness of the pre-1900 leagues, or even the weakness of the National L. up to 1907.

We're a terribly non-homongenized, non-monolithic bunch of punks. And sometimes we fight, real hard and throw rocks at each other. But . . . we think that's the fun part - the good stuff. Just kidding. (Wink) :crazy

Welcome to a great home. Better buckle your safely belt. It can be a bumpy ride.

Bill Burgess

[Windy City Fan]

I pick Cobb. I give him and all the other old timers a timeline adjustment, but Cobb still stands out as the best of the best to me. He was a great hitter for average, one of the best ever regardless of era or timeline. He was a feared baserunner. How many baserunners today are actually feared? And he could hit for power. He led his league in HR once and had three second place finishes. He also led the league in SLG 8 times. He was a good to very good fielder in center with a strong arm.

Moreso than that, Cobb was perhaps the smartest player to ever play. Burgess can tell you of all the teammates he helped improve, all the head games he played with his opponents. Those types of things are timeless.

If Cobb played today, with all the modern benefits in training and medicine, with the tiny strike zones and even tinier parks, I think he'd be a guy whose average season would look like this:

.320 30 HR 25 St 100 BB 50 K He'd also hit a ton of doubles and triples, and be a top finisher in SLG and OBP. Average that out over a twenty year career and you get a guy with a strong case for greatest ever. He'd win his share of Gold Gloves and have a stack of MVPs.

I could be underrating his steal potential, but most modern sluggers don't run a lot anymore. His best seasons would see him hit .350+, 40 to 45 homers tops, 50 steals would easily be possible.

These figures are gut figures, no science or number crunching behind them. Among my other top candidates, Ruth, Wagner, Mays, Bonds. I give modern players their due. Morgan has a strong case for the best 2B ever, though I could see him anywhere between 1 and 4, and personally have him at 4th right now. Bench has a strong case for top catcher, but I put Cochrane at the top (Bench in second). Griffey was on his way to being a candidate for that elite upper circle, but injuries sidetracked him. A-Rod has a strong chance to crack into that top group, but he needs to keep producing for a while. Rodriguez is a catcher that just keeps gaining position in my book. He's currently at 6th, but could move up to at least 4th when he's all done - maybe more depending on what the future has in store. Piazza's defense is enough for me to rank him outside the top 5 forever. Pitching wise, Maddux is ranked 4th all time by me, and I could argue him up to third or maybe second if I changed how I value certain things. Clemens and Johnson rank in my top ten, and Johnson could end up the best of the three. Rivera is the second greatest closer ever in my book, but I just can't see him passing up Wilhelm.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Lots of great posting here, for Ruth being the best and for some others being ahead of him on the all time list. Looks like some posters really spent some time researching and comparing stats, lots of great posting on this subject. It appears that the main focus is on the hitting. It may be a bit repetitive but I go back to my main point. I agree that Ruth would not be as dominent if the level of the game was higher in his time period. Here comes the repetitive portion, let me say it again, compare him to any hitters in any period and he still comes to the top as a hitter/slugger, his only competition Ted Williams. There are great hitters and great sluggers but only two come to mind that combined both.

I should also add I do not compare them to the greats who played in the dead ball era, Cobb and Wagner to name two. It would be unfair to compare any post 1920 hitter to any pre 1920 hitter. Cobb and Wagner I am sure would have been higher up on the list particularly in the slugging department if they played after 1920, Cobb played some but mostly in the dead ball era.

So to keep focusing on Ruth and the gap between him and those in his time to me is not the issue here and gets off the subject, put him next to any hitter, in any era. This guy did hit 714 home runs and yet there are only 4 hitters ahead of him in career batting average, modern times post 1900. Think of it, lots of great contact hitters in the high powered 1920-1930s and only 4 hitters with a higher batting average than a man with 700+ home runs, swinging from the heels, most of the time.

We're speaking of a hitter with 700+ home runs, eleven seasons with 40+ home runs and he had only 49 career home runs as he entered his 7th season and never hit 40 until that 7th season.

I would not expect most modern hitters to out distance the league in todays game as Ruth did, so lets get that out of the way, thats not the issue, it's comparing hitters from all time periods, not just their time. I don't give Ruth any more points for his domination in his time slot, he does not need them to come to the top.

[Bill Burgess]

I am possibly the only poster here who doesn't rely mainly on stats. I hold that Cobb is the #1 for the simple reason that he was the best player. He played the best. He was the most skilled, most varied in his gifts.

His arsenal of skills was the most broad-based. He neglected little in his drive to be perfect. Studying pitchers, infielders, catchers; 5 different slides, many bunts, place hitting to pull OFers out of position. He managed, taught hitting and fielding, helped opponents who approached him for assistance.

He had a fine OFer's arm, but when he hurt it around 1918, the runners started to run on him. But by learning to get rid of the ball instantly, with momentum behind him, his assists went up, and they stopped running on him.

He was one of the only players who never lost his fire after he got rich. Kept trying to improve.

Ruth? His differential with the league? So what? The game had been so re-invented to let a player without the full range of skills to dominate! So what?

That didn't mean he could play the game at the level of a master like Cobb! Or Wagner! It just showed how a game could be contrived to allow a specialist to control a sport. When a sport allows a player who can't excell at 2/3 of his sport's skills, to be called the "best", it just goes to show you that values can be turned upside down. That and a small but determined cabal of stat revisionists, with a big assist from a shallow media, can hood-wink many generations of fans. Kennedy assasination conspiracy? I spit on it. Try the Babe Ruth conspiracy!!

Ty Cobb was the greatest player of the game because he played it the best in more ways than anyone else who ever lived. Cobb could beat you with his bat, running or glove. In more ways than Babe could ever dream of. The best by far, and he never had a close second. And all history until 1960 concurred. In the tightest concensus the sport of baseball ever knew.


Bill Burgess

[RuthMayBond]

I am possibly the only poster here who doesn't rely mainly on stats. I hold that Cobb is the #1 for the simple reason that he was the best player. He played the best.And we can give you consideration because the stats agree, not because you want to, eg., champion Lange's cause

He had a fine OFer's arm, but when he hurt it around 1918, the runners started to run on him. But by learning to get rid of the ball instantly, with momentum byhind him, his assists went up, and they stopped running on him.

His assists did go up in '19, then down in '20, then up in '21, then down in '22. What was your point?

The best by far, and he never had a close second. And all history until 1960 concurred.

I'm glad you were able to interview the entire world

[Metal Ed]

Some random thoughts spurred on by Bill's last post.....


1) Intuitive approach vs. Statistics. Hmm. Well, we can never watch all the games, so we need the stats to tell us what happened when we weren't watching. If we can't trust the stats, who can we trust?

But OTOH..... most of my posts thus far have underscored the difficulty in sorting out the stats, what they mean, adjusting for context, etc.....

2) Many would agree that that Cobb's game was more well rounded than Ruth's, but some would also say that Ruth's hitting so rearranged the game that heavy slugging outweighed the advantage offered by savvy base running and fielding. I think that what the "determined cabal of stat revisionists" (not a Bill James fan are you?) are aiming for is a quantitative measure of just how much each component - hitting for average, hitting for power, fielding, baserunning, pitching - contributes relative to the other; and concluded, to their own satisfaction, that the advantage offered by Ruth's slugging more than outweighed the disadvantage of his clumsy baserunning and fielding.

And who know, maybe they're right? The rest of the league in the 1920's seemed to think so. Look at how fast the rest of the league picked up Ruth (and Gehrig's) approach.

3) Then again, maybe they're wrong. Maybe we should just go by what the ballplayers themselves said; maybe their perspective on the inside allows them to see things that those of us on the outside of the game can't.

4) Going by the intuitive approach is risky when talking about players we've never seen play, only seen old photographs of. In that case, we are going by what was said by those who saw them play, which is often a tricky matter.

5) Some random ballplayer comments:

a) In Ruth's own book, he called Cobb the greatest hitter he'd ever seen.

b) Many people at the time considered Cobb greater than Ruth

c) On the other hand, just as many claimed that Wagner was greater than Cobb

d) John McGraw alternately called Honus Wagner and Oscar Charleston the greatest players he ever saw, greater than Ruth or Cobb

e) The "determined cabal of stat revisionists" would say that Ted Williams was greater than Joe Dimaggio, weighing his hitting advantage over Joe's all-around abilities, though Ted himself said that Joe was the better player and never resented losing all those MVP's to him. Which the Win Share system says that Ted rightfully won.

f) Most players of the era saw Mays as better than Mantle, but those damn stat revisionists would say that Mantle was better, weighing his slugging over Mays' fielding. God-know-how-many players and managers and coaches of the era called Mays "the greatest baseball player I have ever seen", even though the Win Share system says that Mantle had a higher rate of Win Shares/per game.

g) But wait, Buck O'Neil said that Willie Mays was the greatest Major League player he ever saw - but Oscar Charleston was the best player he ever saw.

6) McGraw saw Wagner BEFORE he saw Ruth; Buck O'Neil saw Oscar Charleston BEFORE he saw Willie Mays; and that's probably why they were declared as greater. Just like the old fastballers get faster as the years go by, the old timers get better the longer back one has to think to remember them. "They don't make 'em like they used to" and "kids today" that other nostalgic nonsense; no player can ever be as great as the one you saw when you were just a wide-eyed youth. I don't really think that walter Johnson was significantly faster than Lefty Grove, but I bet that anyone who saw Johnson in 1907 and then, Grove, in 1925, thought that way.

7) I give more credence to "he was better than him" type comments when the speaker is talking about two players who played during the same era, and the speaker saw them both at the same time, rather than when the speaker is relying on 30-year old memories of a player vs. what he is seeing presently from a modern player. In those 30-year old memories, the home runs have grown from 500 feet to 600 feet, the fastballs from 95 mph to 105 mph, the truly great has become simply inhuman. When I was ten years old, Bo Jackson was God, and no one will ever be as strong or as fast as him, ever, I don't care what they say!

8) Honus Wagner and Ty Cobb were contemporaries (but Wagner was a few years ahead of Cobb...), so were Mays and Mantle(same rookie year, same year of birth....what are the odds?), and Ruth and Charleston were contemporaries in the 1920's. When they are compared subjectively, I listen. When Bob Costas starts creaming in his pants, talking about how kids today can't imagine how good Mickey Mantle was in 1956 because none of today's heroes are as good as his childhood hero, I stop paying attention.

9) Josh Gibson actually got his career underway just as Babe's was winding down, but observers still compared him to Ruth. That means something to me.

10) Going back to the topic of things stats can't measure, and things beyond a player's actual stat line, has anyone mentioned Yogi Berra yet? Has anyone looked at how much the pitchers on the Yankees in the 50's improved when he was catching them? How much they sucked before they came to the Yankees? And how much they sucked after they left the Yankees? Ever wonder about the sheer impact Berra had on all those championship teams of the 50's, and how little it is reflected by his actual numbers?

11) The great ones will take advantage of almost anything. Barry Bonds' drug-assisted numbers no more deserve an asterisk saying

*steroid assisted. Stats inflated.

....any more than Ty Cobb's run scored and stolen base numbers should have an asterisk saying

*opposing players afraid to tag Cobb out for fear of getting flesh shredded by spikes. Stats inflated.

Or McGwire....

*using andro, then legal, now banned. Stats illegitimate

....versus Ed Walsh's career record 1.86 ERA:

*using spitball, then legal, now banned. Stats illegitimate

****, we haven't even gotten around to asterisking spitballers who worked after the spitball became illegal. Or the scuffballers. Which the aforementioned great Yogi Berra was a known accomplice to, with Whitey Ford. The cheaters of the past are just lovable old rascals, eh? No reason to block them from the Hall of Fame, or take away their World Series rings. If this were the Olympics, they'd have had their Gold Medals stripped.

Some guys are so driven and possessed, they'll learn to make whatever system is in place, work for them. That's what Babe Ruth did. That's what Ty Cobb did, that's what Barry Bonds does.

There was this computer game I used to play called Oregon Trail, where you played the role of a pioneer heading west in a wagon. Along the way you could stop and buy and trade ammo, food, supplies. You could also stop at any point on the trail and hunt. What I found was that bullets were expensive, but that I could trade food for large amounts of money from the traders. And I found a loophole in the game that I could exploit. Hunting was so easy, I could accumulate 2000 pounds of food with only 5 or 6 bullets. And I could trade all that excess food that my party didn't need for large amounts of money. I hunted far more than I needed to, exploited the system, and traded away almost all my food for money, but my party never starved because I had so much food. At the end of the game, I had huge amounts of money. We had about 7 or 8 guys playing this game on that computer at the time, and my score at the end - which was in part assessed by my money total - absolutely crushed everyone else, by huge margins. I exploited the system to put up Oregon Trail OPS+ numbers that were untouchable. I was the Babe Ruth and the Barry Bonds of the Oregon Trail. I was ahead of the curve for this game.

After the other players figured out what I did, and they all started doing it, then no one single player could dominate the others like I did. My Oregon Trail OPS+ will never be approached.

Babe Ruth was ahead of the curve in 1920. He exploited the system and rearranged the game and put distance between himself and his peers that wasn't approached until 2001-2004, when Barry Bonds found himself in a similar situation.

Baseball purists (whatever the hell THAT pretentious term means) will find this comparison grotesque, but Bonds, with these youth drugs, is exploiting a narrow window of opportunity just as Ruth did. Growth hormone, which is essentially a youth serum, has kept Bonds' bat speed and physical abilities as potent as they were at age 25. At 40, his experience and knowledge of hitting is greater than that of any younger player that may be taking the same drugs (and I am sure that there are many who are). Obviously, a 40 year old with 20 years of big league experience will stand to gain more from a youth serum than any younger player with less experience.

If these drugs eventually become as rampant as amphetamines were in the 60's, then no one single player will be able to put up league-adjusted OPS numbers like Bonds has from 2001-2004. Once everyone is using the new technology from the beginnings of their careers, then no one player will have an advantage relative to the league. The advantage will disappear once it becomes universal. On the other hand, the drugs may be driven out of the game entirely (which I doubt they will, but suppose they are), so again, no one will be able to exploit this advantage.

Bonds, being the oldest, greatest, and most experienced player in an age where the use of a youth serum is just beginning to take hold, is ahead of the curve. He is taking advantage of a narrow window of opportunity to put a distance between himself and the rest of league, a distance that could not be accomplished under a different set of circumstances and conditions. Just like Babe Ruth did.

I don't believe in asterisks and revisionist history. What happened, happened. It's up to us, the fans and observers, to place what happened in the proper context, in order to ascertain the greatness and true meaning of what happened. Every statistic in the record book carries an invisible asterisk to me.

12) This place is pretty cool. I think I'll stick around for a while.

[RuthMayBond]

5) Some random ballplayer comments:

f) Most players of the era saw Mays as better than Mantle, but those damn stat revisionists would say that Mantle was better, weighing his slugging over Mays' fielding. God-know-how-many players and managers and coaches of the era called Mays "the greatest baseball player I have ever seen", even though the Win Share system says that Mantle had a higher rate of Win Shares/per game.

When Bob Costas starts creaming in his pants, talking about how kids today can't imagine how good Mickey Mantle was in 1956 because none of today's heroes are as good as his childhood hero, I stop paying attention.

10) Going back to the topic of things stats can't measure, and things beyond a player's actual stat line, has anyone mentioned Yogi Berra yet? Has anyone looked at how much the pitchers on the Yankees in the 50's improved when he was catching them? How much they sucked before they came to the Yankees? And how much they sucked after they left the Yankees? Ever wonder about the sheer impact Berra had on all those championship teams of the 50's, and how little it is reflected by his actual numbers?

f) Mantle probably was better . . . at his peak. But Mays lasted longer and was better defensively. Mantle was pretty darn good in '56, only leading his league in R, HR, TB, RBI, Runs Produced, BA, SLG, OPS, OPS+, Batter Runs+, Runs Created, and Total Average.

10) The Yanks were around 3rd/4th in ERA+ right before Berra came and until 1952 (Berra was catching them before the 50s). They also added under Berra's time, AReynolds, Lopat, Raschi, Ford ... Their pitching wasn't bad in '63 & '64 after Berra stopped catching, but after that management let the team go to pot.

[abacab]

Hey Metal Ed, nice post. Glad to have you aboard.

Anyway this thread has almost completely diverged from my original purpose. But I don't mind because it's produced an excellent discussion.

It seems to me that this Cobb/Ruth debate seems to hinge on different definitions of "greatness" - value or ability. Almost everyone who's studied the issue comes to the conclusion that Babe Ruth was the most valuable player in the history of baseball. That does not mean that he was more skilled, or even more talented, than Cobb (or Wagner, or a number of other players). As Metal Ed said, Ruth had a huge advantage because he had a different strategy (the ol' "hit the ball as hard as you can" strategy) and it worked. That allowed him to dominate his league as no one before or since.

Bill Burgess made an eloquent post expressing his admiration for Cobb. It's clear that Cobb is Bill's kind of player - a cerebral player, a thinking man's player, a fiery and competitive player. Ruth was an idiot savant; everything he did came naturally. Cobb was an obsessive workaholic, who never stopped thinking and coming up with creative ways to win. It's easy to see why someone would prefer Cobb's style to Ruth's. Does that make Cobb "greater" than Ruth? Yes and no. It all depends on your definition.

[Metal Ed]

Hey Metal Ed, nice post. Glad to have you aboard.

Anyway this thread has almost completely diverged from my original purpose. But I don't mind because it's produced an excellent discussion.

It seems to me that this Cobb/Ruth debate seems to hinge on different definitions of "greatness" - value or ability. Almost everyone who's studied the issue comes to the conclusion that Babe Ruth was the most valuable player in the history of baseball. That does not mean that he was more skilled, or even more talented, than Cobb (or Wagner, or a number of other players). As Metal Ed said, Ruth had a huge advantage because he had a different strategy (the ol' "hit the ball as hard as you can" strategy) and it worked. That allowed him to dominate his league as no one before or since.

Bill Burgess made an eloquent post expressing his admiration for Cobb. It's clear that Cobb is Bill's kind of player - a cerebral player, a thinking man's player, a fiery and competitive player. Ruth was an idiot savant; everything he did came naturally. Cobb was an obsessive workaholic, who never stopped thinking and coming up with creative ways to win. It's easy to see why someone would prefer Cobb's style to Ruth's. Does that make Cobb "greater" than Ruth? Yes and no. It all depends on your definition.


"Idiot savant". Haha, I never thought of it that way, but you're probably right.

Although Ruth confessed that when he first came up, he couldn't hit a change up to save his life. He said he had the Yankees staff throw him change ups in batting practice and he swung "until I was arm sore" until he finally learned to hit change ups. Ruth was obviously a natural on the ball field, but I think some people underrate his work ethic. He played hard but he also worked hard. But I agree with you, Cobb must have been the smarter, more disciplined of the two.

[torez77]

Awesome, Metal Ed! Possibly the most insightful post on baseball I've ever read! Wow!
I'm probably Babe's biggest supporter on this board. I love to discuss which player is better than who, but it is and always has been my opinion that Babe is the greatest when you add everything up. You made a great point in your post, that when determining the greatest we should not listen to all the varying opinions of yesteryear and choose which one we like best, especially when he didn't see them play, but go by the best input that we baseball nuts are blessed to have available to us - the statistics! Sure, we can read tirelessly about baseball history, and many of those facts must be taken into account. Some may be facts, some may be myth, we weren't there. As I said before, all playing conditions are relative to the era that they were in. Ruth had his advantages and disadvantages, Cobb had his advantages and disadvantages, Bonds had his, and so on and so forth. I haven't read or heard anything that suggests it was tougher for any one of these gentlemen to succeed.

When discussing Babe, of course, much of his greatness comes from his extraordinary hitting. Was he as good a runner or fielder as most of the others brought up in the greatest-ever conversation - Cobb, Bonds, Mays, Mantle, etc. Hell, no! But I've always said he was pretty darn good for his size and health! I'm not handicapping him - it's the truth. Look at his stolen base and triple numbers - are they indicative of a fat, gluttonous drunk? How much better would he have been if he was in shape? I don't pretend to know, but it makes you think that Ruth was more well-rounded of an athlete than he appeared to be. In the field, Ruth was a liability but certainly not a detriment to his team, and his arm was above average because of his pitching. Ah, pitching!
No one in baseball history has ever come close to making the transition from HOF pitcher to HOF hitter. True Roy Hobbs fashion! I don't see anyone on the horizon who will anytime soon either! This ranks Ruth as an all-around baseball player with anyone, and establishes him as truly one-of-a-kind!

Anyway, those are my thoughts in a nutshell. Excellent post, Ed, and I look forward to reading more!

[leecemark]

--Ruth's success as a pitcher before switching to the OF is unique, but I'm not sure it should really elevate him to a different level than the other contenders for best player ever. Just like his being the only player actively trying to hit HR at the exact time when it became a good strategy, Ruth's timing was just right for being a pitcher/batter star.
--When he first came up the game was dominated by pitching and pitchers were inherently more valuable than hitters. It became clear after a few years that Ruth was an exception to that, but anytime after the live ball he would never have been tried at pitcher in the first place. It may well be that Willie Mays or Mickey Mantle or Mike Schmidt could have been great pitchers had they be asked to perform there. We can't assume they would, of course, but much like Ruth outhomering entire teams it needs to be kept in mind that his pitching came in a unique window of opportunity.

[BillyF29]

OK, Mr. Burgess, you know how much I like to play the numbers game. Well, I've been working on a new project for a little while now and I have come up with a top 20 position players list that has adjustment for era in the formula. I'm not gonna give out the formula, just looking for feedback. BTW: This does not include negro leaguers due to lack of legit stats out there.

1. Babe Ruth
2. Barry Bonds (if he's not juiced, if so, move him down to #15)
3. Willie Mays
4. Ted Williams
5. Ty Cobb
6. Honus Wagner
7. Mickey Mantle
8. Rogers Hornsby
9. Lou Gehrig
10. Stan Musial
11. Tris Speaker
12. Eddie Collins
13. Hank Aaron
14. Joe Morgan
15. Mel Ott
16. Mike Schmidt
17. Nap Lajoie
18. Joe DiMaggio
19. Jimmie Foxx
20. Eddie Mathews

Overall, I like this new method, but I think it underrates catchers (notice none in the top 20). I'll give out the formula later, it's pretty simplistic.

Just thought it would fit well into this discussion.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

--Ruth's success as a pitcher before switching to the OF is unique, but I'm not sure it should really elevate him to a different level than the other contenders for best player ever. Just like his being the only player actively trying to hit HR at the exact time when it became a good strategy, Ruth's timing was just right for being a pitcher/batter star.
--.
Look at another way. What if Ruth came up in the live ball era and was hitting the live ball all his career just as others who came after 1920. If that were the case this discussion might not even be taking place. By the time the live ball era came in, by the time trick deliveries were banned and clean white balls were used almost one quarter of Ruth's career was over and he had only 49 career home runs.

We can't keep diminishing Ruth for the time he came into the league, as a pitcher or a hitter.

May I say it again, take him out of his era, put him ine any era and he is still at or near the top as the premier hitter slugger over a whole career. Cases can be made for others being better all around even though many think Ruth's superior hitting can even things out, but as an all around hitter, there is no equal hitter/slugger.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Realnod: Have you ever heard of a guy named Michaell Schell? He has two books that I think you need to check out. Do a search for them, you may find them interesting. Also, what does your screen name mean?


This guy know his stuff and uses a different approach in evaluating hitters. I've been in touch with Mike via email over the last couple of years. He is a professor of biostatistics at the University of North Carolina . I had sent him some stats on Babe Ruth last year that I would hope he incorporates in his new book. I recieved an email from him a month ago and learned that his new book will be available in March of this year, may even be in some book stores now.

The title is " Baseballs All- Time Best Sluggers." This book will use adjusted totals for EXBs including home runs. In his email he said he fully expects Babe Ruth to be #1 and Ted Williams #2 and he does not speculate any further. I should add that he made that speculation before the 2004 season, so who can say, possibly Barry's great 2004 season may make changes in the ranking.

I would say that any who purchase this book will find that Mike has a unique way at looking at the game and evaluating the hitters.

[Metal Ed]

This guy know his stuff and uses a different approach in evaluating hitters. I've been in touch with Mike via email over the last couple of years. He is a professor of biostatistics at the University of North Carolina . I had sent him some stats on Babe Ruth that I would hope he incorporates in his new book. I recieved an email from him a month ago and learned that his new book will be available in March of this year, may even be in some book stores now.

The tile is Baseballs All- Time Best Sluggers. This book will use adjusted totals for EXBs including home runs. In his email he said he fully expects Babe Ruth to be #1 and Ted Williams #2 and he does not speculate any further. I should add that he made that speculation before the 2004 season, so who can say, possibly Barry's great 2004 season may make changes in the ranking.

I would say that any who purchase this book will find that Mike has a unique way at looking at the game and evaluating the hitters.


I already have the book. I pre-ordered it in early February and I got it a few weeks ago. I didn't realize that it hadn't come out in bookstores yet.

All I will say is, fans of the Babe will not be disappointed.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I already have the book. I pre-ordered it in early February and I got it a few weeks ago. I didn't realize that it hadn't come out in bookstores yet.

All I will say is, fans of the Babe will not be disappointed.

Thanks Ed, Mike sent me an email a while ago and told me it would be out in February. I called Borders and Barnes and Noble a week ago and they told me it would not be available until March.

[leecemark]

--I think I'm ready to officially move Willie Mays over Babe Ruth on my personal rankings. I could see the argument for Wagner, Cobb and Williams as well (and Bonds if not for the cloud over his last 4 seasons).
1) Mays
2) Ruth
3) Wagner
4) Cobb
5) Williams
6) Aaron
7) Schmidt
8) Mantle
9) Musial
10) Gehrig
11) Bonds*
12) Speaker
13) Bench
14) Morgan
15) Collins
16) Hornsby
17) Dimaggio
---Charleston?
18) Berra
19) F.Robinson
20) Lajoie

[csh19792001]

--I think I'm ready to officially move Willie Mays over Babe Ruth on my personal rankings. I could see the argument for Wagner, Cobb and Williams as well (and Bonds if not for the cloud over his last 4 seasons).
1) Mays
2) Ruth
3) Wagner
4) Cobb
5) Williams
6) Aaron
7) Schmidt
8) Mantle
9) Musial
10) Gehrig
11) Bonds*
12) Speaker
13) Bench
14) Morgan
15) Collins
16) Hornsby
17) Dimaggio
---Charleston?
18) Berra
19) F.Robinson
20) Lajoie

Commendable, Mark. You're a man of your word. :waving I may move Mays up, as well. Certainly ahead of Wagner..... :noidea

Are you ranking Bonds on what he did pre 2001? Seems pretty logical.

[Metal Ed]

Trying to judge the greatest player who ever lived is like trying to tell who's faster, Maurice Green or Timothy Montgomery - but without a stopwatch.

Green runs the 100 meter dash in what.... 9.81 seconds? Montgomery in what.... 9.78? The difference is so fine..... as it should be when we reach that extreme a level of human performance. These guys are at the outer limits of what human physiology can do, there should really only be a less than 1% difference between them.

I expect that a similar situation exists with the best ball players of all time. The problem is that we don't have an objective stopwatch to make measurements. We have a variety of statistics to sort through. We have a myriad of mitigating factors for literally everyone's stats that need to be dealt with and accomodated for and factored in. If we saw Timothy Montgomery running through a swamp without a stopwatch and saw a shoeless Maurice Green running up a 45 degree hill without a stopwatch, how would we know who's faster? We have no measurement, and on top of that, even if we did, we have to try to figure out if running under uphill conditions with no shoes is harder than running through a swamp.

That's the situation that exists when sorting through mitigating factors like quality of competition in the league, the "timing" factors that result in varying windows of opportunity, steroids, and a thousand other factors that we could discuss. One thing that I believe is that after a proper adjustment for every factor, the best should all be very tightly matched with each other. I also believe that out of the top, say, 25 best, proportionately more should be found after 1950, due to the larger pool from which to cultivate talent and the improved methods for identifying that talent. That doesn't mean that Cobb and Ruth don't crack my top ten, just that I think that more top ten-ers should be from more modern eras. So when I list my top ten, I say "in no particular order...." and let 'em go.

I guess I was too harsh with flat out cutting off anybody who played before 1950. I guess I'm always going to be biased towards those who played in modern eras. We all have our personal biases, I guess.

[leecemark]

--I'm not sure exactly what to do with Bonds. If I pretend he didn't play after 2000 then he probably wouldn't make my top 20. If I credit him with a normal decline he would, but either right in front of or right behind Frank Robinson. If I credit him as being one of the better old player, but not with his full numbers, he ends up about where I have him on thsi list. If I take his post 2000 numbers at face value he is in the top 5 and it wouldn't be unreasonable to argue for him at #1 (I wouldn't, but it could be done).

[Yankees7]

--I think I'm ready to officially move Willie Mays over Babe Ruth on my personal rankings. I could see the argument for Wagner, Cobb and Williams as well (and Bonds if not for the cloud over his last 4 seasons).
1) Mays
2) Ruth
3) Wagner
4) Cobb
5) Williams
6) Aaron
7) Schmidt
8) Mantle
9) Musial
10) Gehrig
11) Bonds*
12) Speaker
13) Bench
14) Morgan
15) Collins
16) Hornsby
17) Dimaggio
---Charleston?
18) Berra
19) F.Robinson
20) Lajoie

Might be the most interesting Top 20 list I have ever seen. Musial,Mantle,and Gehrig behind Schmidt. Wow, that has this old timer stunned to say the least. But the poster probably didn't have the luxury of seeing most of his own list play.

[LF Riedman]

For all the so-called rivals to Babe (Cobb, Bonds, etc.,etc.) -- HOW WELL COULD THEY PITCH? A team of 9 Babes hammers a team of any other 9 position players because no one on the other team could remotely equal Babe's pitching. Babe's outstanding pitching as well as hitting raises him above ANYONE else.

[csh19792001]

Some random thoughts spurred on by Bill's last post.....


1) Intuitive approach vs. Statistics. Hmm. Well, we can never watch all the games, so we need the stats to tell us what happened when we weren't watching. If we can't trust the stats, who can we trust?


12) This place is pretty cool. I think I'll stick around for a while.

Truly outstanding work, Ed- all of your posts are seminal here. Are you an author?

Bill Burgess- send him your files- he hasn't heard the whole story yet. :)

[Bill Burgess]

Mark,

******************The Wild Side :cool: ******************************


May I extend to you an official welcome to the Underworld of Outcasts and Shadows in exile. How does it feel to be an official Heretic. May the lost safety of Mainstream leave you soon and you feel settled in to the Official Minority Colony of Lepers and Minority Dissenters. Welcome Home, partner.

King of the Lepers

[therealnod]

For all the so-called rivals to Babe (Cobb, Bonds, etc.,etc.) -- HOW WELL COULD THEY PITCH? A team of 9 Babes hammers a team of any other 9 position players because no one on the other team could remotely equal Babe's pitching. Babe's outstanding pitching as well as hitting raises him above ANYONE else.

And so Brooks Kieschnick weighs in on the debate.

Rick Ankiel is the greatest Cardinal ever! No pitcher can outhit him and no hitter can outpitch him!

[RuthMayBond]

And so Brooks Kieschnick weighs in on the debate.

Rick Ankiel is the greatest Cardinal ever! No pitcher can outhit him and no hitter can outpitch him!Joe Wood & John Monte Ward might have something to say. But there's a LOT of guys who can outpitch Ankiel

[Astro]

Please... pitching back then is A LOT different than it is now... They'd probably tee off on Ruth, and Ruth probably wouldnt do aswell as he did back then against pitchers now... You cant compare them really because the game has evolved so much

[therealnod]

But there's a LOT of guys who can outpitch Ankiel

You trying to start trouble, RMB? ;)

Ankiel is simmering with potential. Hopefully he can put it together as soon as this year.

[leecemark]

--Yankee7, I was able to see 4 of my top 10 and 8 of my top 20 play. Admittedly, Mantle was literally on his last legs and Mays was no longer one of the best by the time I saw them. However, I doubt there are many at BBF who actually saw Gehrig, even less Ruth and Cobb, probably none Wagner or Cobb when he was still dominanting the game. Its a pretty distinct minorty who even saw Williams or Musial, at least when they were still at the top of their games. Quite a few of our members never even saw Schmidt or only caught the end of his run.
--All we can do is look at the records, read the accounts and make our best judgement (Metal Ed is correct when he says it is impossible to rank with any precision). I could easily be wrong, but it will be more fun arguing for Mays than staying on the Babe Ruth bandwagon. As for Schmidt, he was easily the best player I've seen (Aaron was still amoung the best, but not as good as Schmidt when I saw him). The only player I've seen play much who I might rate ahead of him is Bonds, if his best years weren't tarnished, or A-Rod. Rodriguez hasn't been doing it quite long enough to crack my top 20 (although he is in the top 25). If I slightly overrate a hero from my youth, I hope it won't be held against me too much.

[Metal Ed]

Thanks for all the kind words, guys. It's good posting here.

Leece - the only real writing experience I have is from writing my thesis. Not baseball related.

I don't know about "seminal". Whenever I get the feeling that I've thought of something new, I read where somebody else already thought of it.

Bill......what about these files?

[Windy City Fan]

Mark,

******************The Wild Side :cool: ******************************


May I extend to you an official welcome to the Underworld of Outcasts and Shadows in exile. How does it feel to be an official Heretic. May the lost safety of Mainstream leave you soon and you feel settled in to the Official Minority Colony of Lepers and Minority Dissenters. Welcome Home, partner.

King of the Lepers

Bill you make it sound so negative. :) I enjoy the ridicule I get for defending Cobb, Cochrane, Collins, and Sisler.

EDIT: And of course Maddux against the Clemens philistines.

[Yankees7]

--Yankee7, I was able to see 4 of my top 10 and 8 of my top 20 play. Admittedly, Mantle was literally on his last legs and Mays was no longer one of the best by the time I saw them. However, I doubt there are many at BBF who actually saw Gehrig, even less Ruth and Cobb, probably none Wagner or Cobb when he was still dominanting the game. Its a pretty distinct minorty who even saw Williams or Musial, at least when they were still at the top of their games. Quite a few of our members never even saw Schmidt or only caught the end of his run.
--All we can do is look at the records, read the accounts and make our best judgement (Metal Ed is correct when he says it is impossible to rank with any precision). I could easily be wrong, but it will be more fun arguing for Mays than staying on the Babe Ruth bandwagon. As for Schmidt, he was easily the best player I've seen (Aaron was still amoung the best, but not as good as Schmidt when I saw him). The only player I've seen play much who I might rate ahead of him is Bonds, if his best years weren't tarnished, or A-Rod. Rodriguez hasn't been doing it quite long enough to crack my top 20 (although he is in the top 25). If I slightly overrate a hero from my youth, I hope it won't be held against me too much.

I certainly meant no disrespect sir, I admit I have had the pleasure to see many on your lists, being born in 1941 affords one that luxury. Schmidt while a very good player doesn't have anything on Mathews in my mind at 3rd base. To rank him ahead of Mantle & Musial just shocked me that was all. Your right there isno way to rank players in a manner that could be called completely fair by everyone. I saw many of the greats play in my lifetime, and I can tell you with complete certainty that Mantle was the most complete player I ever saw.

[leecemark]

--I can certainly see the arguement for Mantle ahead of Schmidt (or almost anyone else). He was a great player and might have been the best ever had he taken better care of himself. Of course, you would have been about the same age when he came up as I was when Schmidt came up. The heros of our adolescence have a extra halo about them when we are comparing them to later players.
--As for Schmidt-Mathews they are pretty close as hitters, but Schmidt was the much better defender and baserunner. And Mathews is a greta player in his own right. Had my list gone to 25 he would have been on it.

[Bill Burgess]

I'd say Abacab hit the bulls-eye. It depends on your definition. So now we're dealing with "dueling definitions".

Without exceptions, everyone says, "Cobb was more skilled as a player, but, . . "
Why add the but. . . ? If one guy is more skilled, he's better, by definitin. No buts about it.

But my simple, old-fashioned, traditional definition is now considered too child-like & simplistic for today's mental types. Today's folks seem to require a formula to play with. The mind so loves a toy to play with.

Now consider the new definition, promoted by the stat-commmunity. If the "purpose of the game is to score runs, and suppress your opponents scoring of runs, and Babe Ruth contributed more runs to his team than anyone else ever did to their teams, than he is the best player ever!"

What a convoluted assumption! They are assuming that scoring the most runs for your team defines you as the best player. Apparently, in all these years, it has never occurred to these types, that a game can be so manipulated by a lively ball, that a very poor player of limited general skills, can possess 1 supreme skill, which can help his team score more runs than anyone else. That's right. You heard me right. A poor player of very limited skills, compared to the true best players.

And if such a poor general player as Babe Ruth, by having 1 supreme skill, can be called the "greatest" player, we then make a mockery of definitions. We turn simple English upside down, and call a poor player the "greatest" player. Such double talk has never fooled the older, cooler, wiser heads.

Moveover, it has like-wise never occurred to such intellectual acrobats, that the only reason that a limited specialist such as Babe Ruth, could dominate a game with one skill, is because the game was rigged that way, by design. If we were to deliven the ball back to pre-1919 levels, the sluggers of today would quickly revert back to the same state they were in then. Crawford, Wagner, Lajoie, Delahanty, Brouthers, Cobb, Jackson, Speaker, Cravath, etc.

Good men, of real value, but not the elite level, unless like Wagner/Cobb, they had the full range of baseball gifts. But sluggers back then were not without their respective values.

Some of the posters have asked, Come back when your candidate was a good pitcher. How quaint. Your limited Mr. Ruth could pitch. Now, I will grant you the full scope of your heinous argument. Yes, he could pitch. Does that make Babe Ruth a world-class all-purpose, general, overall-best player for you, in your mind? Does his two gifts, throwing and hitting stamp your candidate as the best over-all, most skilled performer? Well, in your baseball universe, I guess it does. But not mine. Not by about 20 other skills, which he could do, but no better than anyone else in the league.

Your candidate has 2 skills, mine about a dozen. By my definition, they makes my man the best player of the game. And your candidate a poor, limited player of the game, with 1 supreme gift, which is only the decisive factor if we play Ruthian baseball. If we play Cobbian baseball, your man is good, but no world-beater. Unless you believe he will pitch and play OF at the same time. Which he did try to do and rebelled against.

For me to consider your man Ruth, the best, most skilled performer, he will need to step his game up a whole lot. But this he cannot do. Why? Because he is Babe Ruth and cannot run faster. And since foot speed is such a big part of hitting, running and fielding, your guy cannot up the ante, and become a better over-all, general-purpose player. Likewise, because he is Babe Ruth, he cannot discipline himself to practice to learn how to slide better, field better, bunt better, run bases better, or think more intelligently.

Yes, your man lacks the intellegence. He does have baseball instinct. He throws to the right base. Yawn. Since when is not screwing up a boost towards the best ever title. Cobb suckered base runners to think he couldn't make a play, then made it and doubled runners off base. That's great baseball. How often do you think Cobb threw to the wrong base? Or Speaker? Sounds like someone is looking to divert attention away from the possibility that perhaps your candidate wasn't running down as many OF shots coming your way as you should.

It has often been said, but not around here lately, that in any given baseball skill, Ty Cobb rated in the top 5. Bunting, getting down to 1st, taking a lead, taking extra bases, winning slugging titles, stolen base titles, BA titles, place hitting, sliding, extra base hitting, psyching out opponents, out-thinking opponents, teaching hitting, starting a rally, etc.

As an all-around hitter, Babe couldn't match Ty. Babe had his specialty, and walked, due to his not being a threat on base. Cobb had an arsenal that could only make Ruth salivate. Bunt, chop-hit, long placed liners, HRs, place hit, poke over the infielders heads, slow rollers, etc. Babe hit 714 HRs, and Ty hit 4,191 hits, so Babe contributed his specialty to winning in 714 games, while Ty figured in almost all of his. Who affected the outcomes of more games? And since Babe sometimes hit more than 2 HRs in a game, the number goes down. And Ty also contributed in so many running events.

Now, a few shallow folks will comment dryly, "Well, Bill, if Ty contibuted so much more than Ruth, how did Ruth end up on 7 pennant winners and Cobb only 3. The answer to that question, can be found in the owners.

Jake Ruppert had far deeper pockets, and was a millionaire many times over, and a deeper desire to field great teams. Frank Navin was a world-class jackass who should never have been allowed to own a dog-pound. Refused to invest in the team, even when it was within his reach.

This post is getting too long. Hope it did somebody some good.

Dueling defintions. I don't ever expect others to understand that the one who played the game, across the board, at the highest levels, IS THE BEST.


Bill Burgess

[Bill Burgess]

Eddie baby,

I do indeed have Historical Files. I have taken most of the stuff from Cobb's life and tried as honestly as I know how to give an objective, comprehensive treatment to them.

One, "Assessing Ty", I have collected the opinions of 250 respected baseball figures, to compare Cobb with his peers, including the more-glorified Babe.

I have offered them to anyone who provides me with an email address. These are Excell spreadsheets. I hope you can open them. Some here have mocked and riducules them, but those are just the defeated jerks, who had not response to them.

Let me know. All I need is an email address, and I'll share them with anyone. Thou art forewarned. Some of my non-Ty stuff might surprise you.

Bill Burgess

[csh19792001]

Thanks for all the kind words, guys. It's good posting here.

Leece - the only real writing experience I have is from writing my thesis. Not baseball related.

I don't know about "seminal". Whenever I get the feeling that I've thought of something new, I read where somebody else already thought of it.

Bill......what about these files?

Ed-
I was asking if you were a writer, not Leecemark (Mark).

As to knowledge being seminal; you're correct- anytime one thinks they have something truly novel, they remembers that the idea has almost certainly been propogated already. As to ideas posted on this message board, however, I think it's safe to say that (at least since I've been here) nobody has been so concise or displayed such acumen as you have on this particular topic. :waving

[Brian2944]

My great-grandfather was born in 1900 and died in 88'. He played baseball for the yankees farm system, but quickly was released and became a scout for the next 35 years. I look back now and wish I would have asked him some more complicated questions, but I was young and only wanted to know one thing...who was the greatest he ever saw?

He said Ruth was amazing! He never met or witnessed anybody else who had more natural ability. He said his brain only held baseball. But he said Cobb was the greatest he ever saw. He said he could never decide who was more fun to watch, but there was no comparison to who was the better ball player. Cobb was baseball. Then he would go on to say how he wished they could fuse Cobb and Ruth into the same man.

He said how excited everybody was about signing a potential "Cobb/Ruth mix". How he would be the best player who ever lived and would surpass Ruth and Cobb. It was Mantle.

[Brian2944]

I know this is not any kind of proof of anything. Just thought I'd share it.

[Bill Burgess]

Jeffrey,

And we can give you consideration because the stats agree, not because you want to, eg., champion Lange's cause

(Bill - We're discussing Ty/Babe once more. Not Lange.)

He had a fine OFer's arm, but when he hurt it around 1918, the runners started to run on him. But by learning to get rid of the ball instantly, with momentum byhind him, his assists went up, and they stopped running on him.



His assists did go up in '19, then down in '20, then up in '21, then down in '22. What was your point?

(Bill - In 1920, Ty incurred one of his few serious injuries. During a game on June 6, while chasing a fly ball in right center, Ty collided with his RFer Ira Flagstead and sprained his left knee so badly, he was out action till July 31, save a couple of games. They went down again in '22, because the boys learned that they could not get away with running on him and stopped running. He tied his second highest amount in '21. Point: Brains, my lad, brains. Compensated for a serious setback with his brains. Big point towards being the best ever. Any more questions?)


The best by far, and he never had a close second. And all history until 1960 concurred.

I'm glad you were able to interview the entire world.

(Bill - Not quite the ENTIRE world, simply all those who expressed an opinion in Sporting News, between 1920-1990, and many dozens of BB reference books, magazine, baseball guides, Baseball Magazine, 1908-1954, Baseball Digest, and lots of other sources. So, my cards are face up on the table. You holding any cards in your hand? And the results of your surveys are . . .?)

Bill Burgess

[Bill Burgess]

Brian,

You Dad told you the same thing my Dad told me. Cool.

Bill Burgess

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Please... pitching back then is A LOT different than it is now... They'd probably tee off on Ruth, and Ruth probably wouldnt do aswell as he did back then against pitchers now... You cant compare them really because the game has evolved so much

Here we go again, we will now diminish Babe Ruth the pitcher because of the period he pitched in. How can one say they would tee off on Ruth, how could we know what might happen.

I agree, Ruth's ERA would have been higher had he pitched in the live ball era, the leagues ERA went up in the live ball era, that in no way means dead ball era pitchers could not do well in the live ball era.

Let me first say, I can't say how well Ruth would have done in the live ball era, but "tee off " is a bit strong.

Here is where Ruth ranked in both leagues in the years he was a pitcher only 1915-16-17. I had to go with a minimum of 865 innings pitched since Ruth pitched 867 innings in that time period.

Both leagues 1915-16-17 and where Ruth was ranked in stats for those 3 seasons..

Base runners/9Ip-----------5th
Complete games------------5th
ERA------------------------3rd. Alexander 1.54, Johnson 1.88, Ruth 2.02
Hit/9 Innings pitched--------1rst
Shutouts-------------------3rd
Strikeouts------------------5th
SO/BB per 9 Inn. Pitched----4th
Winning percentage---------2nd
Wins-----------------------3rd

Ruth and his defense while on the mound 1915-16-17

Range----------------4th
Assists---------------5th
Double plays ---------1rst
Fielding Percentage---1rst

Ruth and Walter Johnson faced off 9 times.
Ruth won 6 times, Johnson won 3 times.
Three of Ruth's wins were by scores of 1-0.
One of Johnsons wins over Ruth was in relief.
May 5, 1918. Johnson beat Ruth, 4-3 in 10 innings. In that game Ruth was 5 for 5, one single, 3 doubles and a triple.

I think it's clear that Babe Ruth was a very talented ballplayer, on the mound or in the batter's box.

Yes that pitching was in the dead ball era, but everthing was equal, same ball, same rules, same conditions as Alexander, Johnson and all the rest pitched under. And remember, Ruth was a LH pitcher facing a great number of RH hitters. If all those stats were for LH pitchers only Ruth would be on top in almost all of them.

[csh19792001]

Ruth and Walter Johnson faced off 9 times.
Ruth won 6 times, Johnson won 3 times.
Three of Ruth's wins were by scores of 1-0.
One of Johnsons wins over Ruth was in relief.
May 5, 1918. Johnson beat Ruth, 4-3 in 10 innings. In that game Ruth was 5 for 5, one single, 3 doubles and a triple.

I think it's clear that Babe Ruth was a very talented ballplayer, on the mound or in the batter's box.


The Babe was an outstanding pitcher and an incredible raw talent- and I won't diminish his accomplishments on the mound. He was incredibly raw, period. Cobb said after his passing in 1948, that Babe was: "The most unaffected man I ever knew"

You outline the litany of impressive statistics he put up- but there is one caveat here- talking about Big Train vs. Ruth is unfair. The three 1-0 games is a microcosm of the run support Johnson got for his teams over his career- generally awful.

Any comparison of Ruth vs. Johnson is going to be unfair, because Ruth's teams won 3 World Series titles during those years and had a .612 WPCT. Johnson's teams won no pennants and had a .522 WPCT.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

You outline the litany of impressive statistics he put up- but there is one caveat here- talking about Big Train vs. Ruth is unfair. The three 1-0 games is a microcosm of the run support Johnson got for his teams over his career- generally awful.

Any comparison of Ruth vs. Johnson is going to be unfair, because Ruth's teams won 3 World Series titles during those years and had a .612 WPCT. Johnson's teams won no pennants and had a .522 WPCT.

It was for that very reason that I stated that 3 of the games were by scores of 1-0, to illustrate that it was not a case of the more potent Red Sox bats that were responsible for at least 3 of those 6 victories. Both pitchers pitched outstanding games in those 3 match ups.

Glad to see you point out what is also my belief, no way do I compare Babe Ruth the pitcher to Walter Johnson the pitcher. I usually close with that thought when I post the Ruth/Johnson games, I did forget to do so in my previous post.

Ruth did not pitch long enough to be compared to Johnson so I do agree with your post. No way to tell what Ruth might have accomplished had he stuck to pitching but he was very good in those 3 seasons. Johnson proved that he was one of the best over a whole career and did it with not much support.

[Metal Ed]

Bill, with your speech on smarts, you've convinced me that I need to rank Johnny Bench higher than I currently do.

Brian, interesting comments about Mantle. I've long thought that Mantle had as much raw talent as anybody who ever lived. He could've been the greatest player who ever lived, "if only...."

"If only." If only what? If only he wasn't injured all the time? That was part of it, but Mantle was also his own worst enemy. His fatalistic attitude probably hurt him as much as his injuries.

And he wasn't smart. He once confessed to "trying to hit a home run every single time I came to the plate." Imagine what Ty Cobb's brains could've done in Mantle's body.

[Brian2944]

Bill, with your speech on smarts, you've convinced me that I need to rank Johnny Bench higher than I currently do.

Brian, interesting comments about Mantle. I've long thought that Mantle had as much raw talent as anybody who ever lived. He could've been the greatest player who ever lived, "if only...."

"If only." If only what? If only he wasn't injured all the time? That was part of it, but Mantle was also his own worst enemy. His fatalistic attitude probably hurt him as much as his injuries.

And he wasn't smart. He once confessed to "trying to hit a home run every single time I came to the plate." Imagine what Ty Cobb's brains could've done in Mantle's body.


I thought he did'nt have the attitude change until his father died. I'm not sure about how smart Mantle was. Like I said, I wish I would have asked my g-grandfather more detailed questions about certain players. Besides what I know from him, all these players are just pictures and stats.

But, I would'nt call the guy "not smart" from one statement. I watched a tape of the interview when he said that. In my opinion, he said it in a joking manner. But Stengel said a lot worse, and a whole lot funnier comments, but I doubt there is a man on earth that would call him not smart.

But your right about Cobb. He was the -Einstein/michelangelo/Isaac Newton- of baseball. There will never be another.

[Bill Burgess]

Brian,

I collect many things. Fever members all time teams, and certain opinions. Would it be incorrect to say that Cobb is your greatest, best player? If so, I'll add you to the Cobb list. I also document the Babe list.

So far, here what the lists look like.

Ty list: 25 members

Bill Burgess--BR-4
Chris--BR-3
2Chance
fryj?
kelo80
Eddie Collins--TC-1, BR-2
Sandman
Tearforamariner
Zito75
mpacy
blighty baseball bloke
TXRangerfan
George Steinbrenner
Luke Appling
Chad
Brad Harris--BR-2
Murph8283
Dizzy (HS in '04)
LouGehrig--BR2
Prof93--BR-2
Tibber; TC over BR
Impotato---
Dudecar00--Mays, Cobb, Ruth
Windy City Fan
William Lee


Babe list: 26 members

ElHalo--------TC-2, Mays-3, Wag-4
four tool player--TC2
Zeth------TC-2
Julusnc--TC-2
Catfish--TC-2
Edgartohof--TC-2
TheOnlyRyan -TC-2
ShoelessJoe3
wrgptfan------Ruth, Williams, TC-3
BoSoxRule----TW-1, BR-2, TC--3
abacab---TC-3
MikeCameron--TC-4
Baseball Guru---TC-5
BillyF29------TC-5
Metsfan11--TC-6
Mac195---TC-7
depstein
westsidegrounds
Chisox73
Dayton Dog
froshman2002
BABBMALLEY29--My.7,1939
bluezebra
Roy Hobbs
Santotohof
WLH99raiders--
RuthMayBonds

The Babe list just lost a member, with Mark Leece's defection to the Mays camp. So, if you join the Cobb camp, you will even up the score again. Actually, I've fudged the count by 2. Tibber and Dudecar rate over over Ruth, but someone else over both.

Actually, I have no illusions that this list is truly accurate. I assume that the great majority of Fever's unaccounted for members are solidly in Babe's camp. But it's delightful to pretend.



Bill Burgess

[RuthMayBond]

Babe list: 26 members

RuthMayBondsWhen did I say this? Comparing Babe & Ty is somewhat like comparing apples & oranges.

[Bill Burgess]

Jeffrey,

You have often asserted your opinion that Ruth was the greatest. I can find it if you deny it. Do you deny asserting that you have said that you felt that Babe Ruth was the greatest player? Yes or no.

If you have changed your mind, I will remove you from the Babe's list of supporters. I would also like to see your top 10 players. If you have one yet.


Bill Burgess

[RuthMayBond]

Jeffrey,

You have often asserted your opinion that Ruth was the greatest. I can find it if you deny it. Do you deny asserting that you have said that you felt that Babe Ruth was the greatest player? Yes or no.

If you have changed your mind, I will remove you from the Babe's list of supporters. I would also like to see your top 10 players. If you have one yet.


Bill Burgess'd like you to find it. As I *have* said before, I'm comfortable ranking within position, but haven't even begun any kind of a list including all positions (and especially not mixing in pitchers with it)

[Bill Burgess]

I searched by putting in your name and Babe Ruth and nothing came up. But I remember you saying it. OK, your name is off the list of those believing Ruth was the Greatest Player Ever.

Congrats. First Mark, now you. Things are really opening up here. This is good news.

Bill Burgess

[santotohof]

Please... pitching back then is A LOT different than it is now... They'd probably tee off on Ruth, and Ruth probably wouldnt do aswell as he did back then against pitchers now... You cant compare them really because the game has evolved so muchWhat? I guess Ruth and Mathewsen and Johnson would get hammered today. I don't buy that. Good pitching is good pitching and Ruth held the World Series scoreless inning record for 45 that's 45 years

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Everyone knows that Babe Ruth once hit more HR than any other team in baseball. That is true and impressive. It is also true that Ruth did so in the only narrow window in time when such a thing was possible.


I promise not to respond to every little thing I see. Mostly I just wanted to bring this to the front cause I want to read through it all (I found it on page 100 and something).

Mark, it's understood that you were just trying your best to make a case for Willie over Babe and I pretty much get what you meant with you wrote that, but just for craps and giggles.....

From 1918 - 1933, he outhomered 90 Major League teams, and tied a team 4 other times.

1918 - 5
1919 - 10
1920 - 14
1921 - 8 (1 tie)
1922 - 2
1923 - 3 (1 tie)
1924 - 8
1925 - 0
1926 - 9
1927 - 12
1928 - 7
1929 - 4 (1 tie)
1930 - 1
1931 - 6
1932 - 1
1933 - 1 tie

[Sultan_1895-1948]

If Mays had exceeded Ruth's HR total, it wouldn't have mattered any more than Aaron's record mattered. Gave a spike in PR, and awareness, but not much love.

Maris got little love, McGuire got little love, Bonds got little love.

The public loves who it wants to, and that has little to do with stats. Who can tell why the public embraced Ruth, who was not much more lovable than anyone else? Babe's personal traits are normally criticized more than embraced.

But embrace him it did, and it gave him more unconditional love than most any athlete before or since. Why? God only knows.

Bill Burgess

Ok, I tried really hard...

William, this was quite a while ago, but do you still feel this way?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Ed Barrow who saw both Wagner and Ruth up close stated most emphatically that had Wagner played in the 1920s he would have hit 50 HRs every year.

Of course, Barrow discovered Wagner and would never let anyone forget it. Having said that, he's not far off imo, 35-40 in his sleep.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Do we not all secretly envy men who can demand that a room full of women get naked and they complied? He'd typically announce, "Anyone who doesn't intend to put out, you better leave now!"


This happened one time at a party. He stood atop a piano or chair, can't remember which, and did indeed state, "any woman who doesn't want to F, can leave now;" and only a couple women left.

Last reply I promise :o

[Bill Burgess]

Ok, I tried really hard...

William, this was quite a while ago, but do you still feel this way?

Yes, I do. I was merely stating that The Public chose to love Babe more than anyone else. I suspect it had lots to do with him personally. I would need to be in the room with him to really know what I think.

But The Public chose NOT to embrace Maris, McGwire, Aaron, etc. And it certainly will not embrace Barry Bonds.

I do not know why the public loves who it does. But I accept the attendance records.

Bill

[Bill Burgess]

This happened one time at a party. He stood atop a piano or chair, can't remember which, and did indeed state, "any woman who doesn't want to F, can leave now;" and only a couple women left.

Last reply I promise :o
If they ever discover what Babe had, and bottle it, someone's gonna be a dynasty. I'll be first in line at the pharmacy. Make mine 2 bottles!

Bill

[leecemark]

--Sultan, this thread was actually started as a forum for theoritical arguments against the Babe. At that time I did have Ruth ranked number one but, in the spirit of the premise, decided to pick a candidate and build the best argument I could.
--Ruth WAS the best hitter ever so I had to pick someone with significant advantages in defense and baserunning. Amoung the reasonable contenders that narrowed it down to Wagner, Cobb and Mays (lots of guys were better at those things, but you have to be ALOT better and also a great hitter in your own right to make a reasonable case). Mays seemed like the best choice because you could factor in a quality of competition argument to somewhat offset the incredible degree of dominance.
--Anyway, Mays was not "my guy" when I made thsi arguement. Its was a Devil's Advocate type of thing which, much to my surprise, went a long way towards convincing me that Mays actually might have been a better ballplayer. I didn't immediately jump Willie up to number one, but began reading others input on why they though Mays was the best ever and gradually came to accept that conculsion for myself.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Yes, I do. I was merely stating that The Public chose to love Babe more than anyone else. I suspect it had lots to do with him personally. I would need to be in the room with him to really know what I think.

But The Public chose NOT to embrace Maris, McGwire, Aaron, etc. And it certainly will not embrace Barry Bonds.

I do not know why the public loves who it does. But I accept the attendance records.

Bill

Who can say what it is Bill. We see the same with celebrities, politicians, athletes and others, some ar just more likable and in some cases we really don't know why.

Example Babe Ruth, lots of charactar flaws but he always embraced the public and they did him in return. I think those little waves doffing his cap running out a home run was one thing that made them go for him. Also when in the outfield he would carry on a conversation with the bleacher folks at home or away. He always seemed to connect with the public. To him there seemed to be no difference in class, the president and royalty would be greeted the same as the working man.

I don't recall who it was, possibly some royalty from Sweden or one of those countries who wished to meet Ruth while visiting the USA. A time and a date was set up for them to meet with him. He showed up at least an hour late. His shoes were muddied and his pants were grass stained. On his way to this meeting he made a stop to play some ball with some kids, his reason for being late.

Not to defend his lack of respect for authority with managers and front offices but I don't think the public really cared. Right or wrong I think the public saw him doing something they would like to do. Tell the boss to shove it and often getting away with it or getting off easy because they would never give up on him, his job was safe.

[538280]

Bill, do you have me down for Mays as the greatest player ever yet? I remember a few days ago you showed your chart and you still had Charleston with 3 supporters (there were two I remember you saying before me), and I think it have recollections of like a month ago you not listing me with Mays supporters.

Just making sure you remain accurate.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--Sultan, this thread was actually started as a forum for theoritical arguments against the Babe. At that time I did have Ruth ranked number one but, in the spirit of the premise, decided to pick a candidate and build the best argument I could.
--Ruth WAS the best hitter ever so I had to pick someone with significant advantages in defense and baserunning. Amoung the reasonable contenders that narrowed it down to Wagner, Cobb and Mays (lots of guys were better at those things, but you have to be ALOT better and also a great hitter in your own right to make a reasonable case). Mays seemed like the best choice because you could factor in a quality of competition argument to somewhat offset the incredible degree of dominance.
--Anyway, Mays was not "my guy" when I made thsi arguement. Its was a Devil's Advocate type of thing which, much to my surprise, went a long way towards convincing me that Mays actually might have been a better ballplayer. I didn't immediately jump Willie up to number one, but began reading others input on why they though Mays was the best ever and gradually came to accept that conculsion for myself.

Yeah, you were just trying to make a case cause that was the thread's premise. I get that Mark. Just thought I'd throw out that tidbit in response to you saying he only had a small window to outhomer an entire team. He did it to the tune of 90 times throughout his entire career.

In moving Mays ahead of Babe, I think you gave way too big of an edge to Mays in fielding and baserunning, but hey, to each his own, I respect that. This thread was very interesting to read, so props to all of you for that.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Yes, I do. I was merely stating that The Public chose to love Babe more than anyone else. I suspect it had lots to do with him personally. I would need to be in the room with him to really know what I think.

But The Public chose NOT to embrace Maris, McGwire, Aaron, etc. And it certainly will not embrace Barry Bonds.

I do not know why the public loves who it does. But I accept the attendance records.

Bill

Ok Bill. I wasn't sure if you'd learned more about Babe since you made that post, that would help you understand why he was so loved.

[Bill Burgess]

Bill, do you have me down for Mays as the greatest player ever yet? I remember a few days ago you showed your chart and you still had Charleston with 3 supporters (there were two I remember you saying before me), and I think it have recollections of like a month ago you not listing me with Mays supporters.

Just making sure you remain accurate.
Moi? Inaccurate? Ha ha ha ha ha. That's a good one. Here is what I have for those who support anyone other than Ty/Babe.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Mays - 11
leecemark, BR, HW6,TC8,
538280-BR,OC,BB,HW7,TC9,JGibson
Metal Ed -TC,BR
DoubleX-BR,TC3,HW6
Zeth -TC2
Bump11 -
Metsfan -
Say Hey -
BC227
It's Over The Wall!
Ex Expo fan

Charleston - 3
MikeCameronfan
Etheridge2
christian gentleman-TC,BR,HW,WM

Williams - 2
Mr. Russ
cubbieinexile

Bonds - 1
NickG

Wagner - 2
KHenry14- TC-2
AG2004-BR,OC,WM,TC,JGibson,
--------------------------------------------------------------

[Bill Burgess]

Ok Bill. I wasn't sure if you'd learned more about Babe since you made that post, that would help you understand why he was so loved.
I don't know why others loved Babe, but I certainly do know why I love him. He was lovable, honest, natural, unpretenious, ethical (if we don't count sleeping with married woman), warm, positive, happy, enthused about life, in love with baseball, loved to eat/drink/party, woo women.

And I felt this way since the 1950's. I only got into this problem because the post 1970's BB community raised him over Ty. And so when I posted I sounded distorted from my original sentiments.

But now, I'm learning how to defend my hero, without having the defense being at the expense of innocent bystanders, like Babe. Babe didn't put himself over Ty, his supporters do. So why should I not like Babe?

Bill

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--Mays was also regarded as an exceptionally smart player and a team leader. Ruth was not noted for his intellect or his dedication to the team. He was frequently suspended for failure to follow team rules. He was also famous for his inability to remember even the names of many of his teammates.


Hopefully his inability to remember names didn't play into your moving Mays ahead of him. Wouldn't that be a shame.

Babe was actually noted for his baseball smarts. On the bases he was smart, in the field he was smart, and at the plate he was even smarter. Sometimes too smart, such as when he ignored Huggins' signs twice because the situation called for something else. It takes a smart hitter to be selective when every team is pitching around you. To have the patience to take a walk, but also be ready to hit the ball if it's within your hot zone. To bunt when the situation calls for it, or to know how the defense is playing you and take what they give you. He was very much a smart hitter and understood what he was doing every step of the way. He was the focul point for the other team. He was THE guy that they wanted to stop; he always got their best, and in order to still thrive as THE guy, you have to be a smart hitter.

Not following team rules; not sure how you can hold this against him and use this as a reason to bump Mays ahead of him. He was a team leader. He helped mold Gehrig into the hitter he became, and just having him there instilled a confidence in the entire team.

[538280]

I read through much of this thread (skimmed through parts that didn't interest me that much), and I must say it's one of the most interesting threads I've seen here on BBF. I wish I could have been a member for it. Of course, I wasn't so I didn't participate at the beginning.

But, I would like to try this for someone. Looking at my list, I have Mays #1, and he's already been done (and extremely well done!) by Mark. I have Ruth #2. Then comes Charleston, who I'd love to do but lack of statistical evidence would make it tough. Then I have Bonds, but the reasoning for that has more to do with my belief many are being way to harsh on the 'roids, and little to do with actually comparing him to Ruth. I'm going to go with my #5 guy, Mike Schmidt.

Ruth was a better hitter than Schmidt. In fact, he was a better hitter than anyone who ever lived. I'm not disputing that. What I am saying is that other than that, Schmidt has every advantage. And Ruth's hitting value isn't as far ahead of Schmidt as you might think.

Ruth played right field his whole career, which is of course an offensive position, even more so in that era. Schmidt played third base which for his time was pretty much neutral.

Ruth's relative line in his prime years (1920-1929) versus the other RFers in the leauge was 111/128/158. Schmidt's line compared to other 3Bmen was 101/116/144. Ruth's still ahead, but the difference isn't humungous anymore, and Ruth does benefit from playing in an easier league to dominate, especially for him, since Ruth was one of the only guys going for HRs. For example, Ruth hit 467 home runs in that time period. The average RFer would have hit 87 given the same playing time. That's entirely due to the differences in Ruth's game versus the other players. If Ruth played in Schmidt's era, his rel. SLG compared to position would probably be lower, and his OBP may be as well because the pitchers wouldn't be so terrified of pitching to him.

Fielding-Mike Schmidt is one of the greatest fielding 3B of all time, perhaps the best. His reputation while he was active was tremendous (10 Gold Gloves). Most seem to think he's not as good as Brooks Robinson, but I've seen opinions to the contrary. Defensive Win Shares shows Schmidt at 4.40 per 1000 innings, Robinson at 4.24. Fielding Runs shows Schmidt as the best 3Bman of all time with the glove. There's no disputing he was a tremendous fielder.

Schmidt excelled at more than third base too. He moved to first base in 1985 to make room for Rick Schu and was called the greatest defensive first baseman the Phillies ever had

Ruth was a good fielder while younger, but got pretty bad as he aged. Any way you look at it, I think even Sultan would have to say a huge edge for Schmidt.


Baserunning-Schmidt was a good runner when younger, stealing 29 bases in 1975 and finishing second in the league in triples in 1977. Baseball Library calls Schmidt "an intelligent baserunner".

Ruth had decent speed in his younger days and did get into double figure stolen bases a number of times, but he was a reckless baserunner. His stolen base percentages are consistenly awful and he was famously caught stealing to end the 1926 World Series. Ruth also became fat and slow in his old age, and was almost certainly a baseclogger in his later years. Overall, it's hard to see how Ruth's baserunning did anything positive for his teams. It really isn't worth anything to be stealing bases at a 51% clip.

So, Ruth is a better hitter but not as much better as a quick look at the stats would suggest, and Schmidt is a much better fielder and baserunner. Hitting is the most important part of a player's value, so Ruth is still ahead at this point in the analysis. But, there's one more thing-league quality.

Schmidt played in a fully integrated, fully advanced league, where scouting was high and players were physically much better. Despite the high level of competition, he was able to dominate his league like Ruth, Wagner and Cobb before him. Not a joke. Using Win Shares, Schmidt was the best player in his league seven times. In modern baseball since 1970, no one has come close to that type of dominance except Barry Bonds, who probably would rank ahead of Schmidt if not for steroid issues. After Schmidt, the player who has the most WS MVPs is Rickey Henderson, with three. When talking league dominance since 1970, Schmidt and Bonds are on one level, everyone else is a huge notch below.

Ruth did dominate his league just as much as Schmidt. He is called the best position player in the league by WS 7 times as well Here's a question-is seven times in that era as good as seven times in Schmidt's era? The answer is no. In that era, it seemed every period had one of two players who just dominated the league. Wagner and Cobb before him, Gehrig after him, Speaker and Foxx had a real lot of WS titles too. However, in the modern era, when there are more good players and the average player is better, it has become much harder to rise above the pack like that. Schmidt was able to do it anyway. Him and Bonds are light years ahead of everyone else in the modern era in terms of league domination (and Bonds needed steroids to do it). I have to give this contest to Schmidt overall.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, that was spoken as the devil's advocate, as someone who has Schmidt #1 all time, not necessary as myself. All the basic premises are (positional adjustments, league quality) are my own beliefs.

[west coast orange and black]

does this sound like anyone currently in the game? :D

____ was actually noted for his baseball smarts. On the bases he was smart, in the field he was smart, and at the plate he was even smarter. It takes a smart hitter to be selective when every team is pitching around you. To have the patience to take a walk, but also be ready to hit the ball if it's within your hot zone. To bunt when the situation calls for it, or to know how the defense is playing you and take what they give you. He was very much a smart hitter and understood what he was doing every step of the way. He was the focal point for the other team. He was THE guy that they wanted to stop; he always got their best, and in order to still thrive as THE guy, you have to be a smart hitter.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

does this sound like anyone currently in the game? :D

____ was actually noted for his baseball smarts. On the bases he was smart, in the field he was smart, and at the plate he was even smarter. It takes a smart hitter to be selective when every team is pitching around you. To have the patience to take a walk, but also be ready to hit the ball if it's within your hot zone. To bunt when the situation calls for it, or to know how the defense is playing you and take what they give you. He was very much a smart hitter and understood what he was doing every step of the way. He was the focal point for the other team. He was THE guy that they wanted to stop; he always got their best, and in order to still thrive as THE guy, you have to be a smart hitter.

lol, good point WC. Everything except the bunting and hitting it the other way to avoid them staying with the shift.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Baserunning-Schmidt was a good runner when younger, stealing 29 bases in 1975 and finishing second in the league in triples in 1977. Baseball Library calls Schmidt "an intelligent baserunner".

Ruth had decent speed in his younger days and did get into double figure stolen bases a number of times, but he was a reckless baserunner. His stolen base percentages are consistenly awful and he was famously caught stealing to end the 1926 World Series. Ruth also became fat and slow in his old age, and was almost certainly a baseclogger in his later years. Overall, it's hard to see how Ruth's baserunning did anything positive for his teams. It really isn't worth anything to be stealing bases at a 51% clip.


Chris,

Valiant effort. That's an uphill struggle, but you seemed to tweak stats and make certain questionable adjustments that would at least bring Schmidt within sniffing distance.

Baserunning isn't even a question. It goes to Ruth hands down. Speed and baserunning are two separate tools. Neither had speed although in his younger days I'd give Ruth the edge. While they were both smart baserunners, Babe's aggressiveness give him the edge there. You bring up being caught to end the '26 World Series without full understanding of why it was a good gamble. Two years later he made a long running grab to end the Series, so should I use that as why his fielding is superior to Schmidts? See my point? His SB% is meaningless as you full well know. It was something negative to highlight, so props on using it, but it has very little meaning.

I really don't think the fielding edge is as large you make it out to be. Third base really isn't that difficult a position when it comes right down to it. It's a reaction based position that doesn't require great arm strength or footspeed. Much like at second base, you can afford to bobble the ball or not field it cleanly and still get the runner at first.

Overall, good effort Chris.

[west coast orange and black]

yer a good sport, man.

[leecemark]

--Sultan, I think you greatly overrate Ruth's baserunning (and am certain you overrate his fielding). The Babe did have pretty good speed as a young player, but speed alone does not make a good baserunner. Ruth was aggressive to the point of recklessness. We know his SB percentage was awfull (and he really shouldn't have even been trying with the guys batting behind him most of the time), but I also wonder how mnay additional outs he made on the baspaths.
--He did hit some inside-the-park HR, but how many triples did he turn into outs trying for them? How many doubles turned into outs at third? That combined with his extreme baseclogging as an older player makes me think his career value on the basepaths was negative.
--As a fielder he was two indignities that are unique to him to the best of my knowledge. Being switched to the short field for basically his whole career (Chris was too generous in calling him just a RFer, he played almost as much LF) is a situation I've never heard of with another player (and saying he was avoiding the sun as you do doesn't make it any more flattering). He is also the only player I'm aware of who allowed another to earn a nickname based n his persistent defensive substition (and pinchrunning) for him.
--Chris' Schmidt arguement is not unreasonable, although it would take accepting a really extreme league quality adjustment to buy into it. Schmidt had some weak years getting started and didn't last as long as the Babe, so even if you considered his peak as good (for the record I don't), he would lose out on career value.

[csh19792001]

Williams - 2
Mr. Russ
cubbieinexile


Ubiquitous (cubbieinexile) named Ted Williams as the greatest player ever? I find that odd, considering (I don't think) he ever votes in the polls or rank orders guys.

Is that or is that not the person who now posts as "Ubiquitous", and why did he change accounts? This is puzzling.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--Sultan, I think you greatly overrate Ruth's baserunning (and am certain you overrate his fielding). The Babe did have pretty good speed as a young player, but speed alone does not make a good baserunner. Ruth was aggressive to the point of recklessness. We know his SB percentage was awfull (and he really shouldn't have even been trying with the guys batting behind him most of the time), but I also wonder how mnay additional outs he made on the baspaths.
--He did hit some inside-the-park HR, but how many triples did he turn into outs trying for them? How many doubles turned into outs at third? That combined with his extreme baseclogging as an older player makes me think his career value on the basepaths was negative.
--As a fielder he was two indignities that are unique to him to the best of my knowledge. Being switched to the short field for basically his whole career (Chris was too generous in calling him just a RFer, he played almost as much LF) is a situation I've never heard of with another player (and saying he was avoiding the sun as you do doesn't make it any more flattering). He is also the only player I'm aware of who allowed another to earn a nickname based n his persistent defensive substition (and pinchrunning) for him.
--Chris' Schmidt arguement is not unreasonable, although it would take accepting a really extreme league quality adjustment to buy into it. Schmidt had some weak years getting started and didn't last as long as the Babe, so even if you considered his peak as good (for the record I don't), he would lose out on career value.

Nah, you're just not understanding his game. You have the impression that he recklessly tried for inside the park homers and got thrown out on them? Where does that come from. That's an extreme reach and unrealistic. He managed 136 triples, and many of those would have been homers in any other era. You have the impression that he would just randomly try to turn doubles into triples and singles into doubles and get thrown out? That is absolutely insane, and makes no sense whatsoever. You honestly have no idea the type of player he was Mark.

You take his horrible SB% and use it as some type of concrete evidence he wasn't a good baserunner. He was a great baserunner even though he didn't have the speed of a Cobb. That should tell you something.

The the 30's his legs weren't what they once were. So you hold it against him that they brought in a really fast guy to run for him? Doesn't make much sense. Him being switched around in the outfield later on doesn't mean much either. It shows he was versatile and that he slowed down a bit. Being a solid outfielder takes more than speed, and being a solid baserunner does as well. So all these little side issue you use to knock him down mean nothing. Wasn't a good teammate, couldn't remember people's names, etc. Makes no sense and you have proven you have no knowledge on which to judge him.

Right and left field aren't as valuable as centerfield. Babe played over 60 games in center, 64 I think, but those came in his younger days. I just think you're seriously under-rating him up through '26 and seriously under-rating him after he had begun to decline. You seem to be taking his post '30 years and judging him based on that. He was fat, old, and slow at that point. His only true value coming at the plate, and although he was still a smart fielder and baserunner, he had lost so much physical ability that it mattered very little.

[Bill Burgess]

Him being switched around in the outfield later on doesn't mean much either. It shows he was versatile and that he slowed down a bit.

1914 19 BOS AL P
1915 20 BOS AL P
1916 21 BOS AL P
1917 22 BOS AL P ---------------------------LF---CF---RF
1918 23 BOS AL OF 47 12 0
1919 24 BOS AL OF 111 0 0
1920 25 NYY AL OF 36 20 85
1921 26 NYY AL OF 134 18 0
---------------------------------------------------------
1922 27 NYY AL OF 71 0 40
1923 28 NYY AL OF 68 7 73
1924 29 NYY AL OF 50 7 99
1925 30 NYY AL OF 33 0 66
1926 31 NYY AL OF 82 0 68
1927 32 NYY AL OF 56 0 95
1928 33 NYY AL OF 55 0 99
1929 34 NYY AL OF 55 0 78
1930 35 NYY AL OF 53 0 91
1931 36 NYY AL OF 51 0 91
1932 37 NYY AL OF 44 0 87
1933 38 NYY AL OF 55 0 78
1934 39 NYY AL OF 34 0 77
1935 40 BSN NL OF 22 0 4
-------------------------------------------- 1057 64 1131

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Bill, you've seen pictures of him from '23-'24. He was very fit and trim, and was fast. His being moved strictly for a smaller field is nothing more than a myth. So let me get this straight. He's gonna play 7 games in center each of those years in HUGE ballparks, but yet, he was being moved around because of his speed? Yeah, that makes a ton of sense.

Do you have actual quotes from Huggins saying he was moved because he wasn't fast? He was one of the fastest Yankees on the team, so I find that hard to believe. There's gotta be more to the story than that. How do you know that Babe just didn't prefer to play left field at home? Maybe the manager was accomodating him, we don't know. As it stands, even if you buy into that as the reason, it's not a reason to move somebody down in your rankings due to fielding. Not when they were a great fielding pitcher, had an alltime arm, put up the assists he did, and had a fielding % 2 points above league average.

Seriously Bill. Meusel was notorious for being lazy in the field and he wasn't as fast as Babe. He had a cannon for an arm, but as smart as Huggins was, do you really think he would purposely put Meusel in a larger field with more ground to cover? It all just doesn't add up. I've read about the sun playing a part, but the speed thing is like 2+2= 7.

[Bill Burgess]

Randy,

I don't have quotes to pull out of a hat on cue, but I remember reading about this a good deal. Huggins/Barrow weren't obtuse. They were very shrewd and cunning people. Barrow had not only managed Boston, but he had also managed Detroit in 1903-04 too. So they were pretty sharp guys. They were out to win games, and whatever helped them to do that, they'd do.

And just because Babe played CF a few times could be attributed to not having faster guys at the moment.

It was also known that fleet Earle Combs would assist both Bob/Babe if he could reach a ball before them.

If you think it's silly to move Babe to the smaller field, imagine how much more shallow it would be to use the sun field as a reason. Have you ever heard of moving Mantle, DiMag, Mays, Cobb, or Speaker to save their eyes? Their eyes were no less valuable, but they played the large CFs because they could cover the territory.

Few know it, but I am really into sports writers. I remember reading sports writers talking about it. Those who liked him and were his friends, and wouldn't have stabbed him in the back by trashing him.

If I can find anything on it, I'll get back to you.

Bill

[abacab]

Chris, nice writeup. You (as well as Leecemark and ElHalo) contributed some really thoughtful and interesting stuff. I bet you wish you could write about baseball in English class :D , because you'd get nothing but A's.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Randy,

I don't have quotes to pull out of a hat on cue, but I remember reading about this a good deal. Huggins/Barrow were obtuse. They were very shrewd and cunning people. Barrow had not only managed Boston, but he had also managed Detroit in 1903-04 too. So they were pretty sharp guys. They were out to win games, and whatever helped them to do that, they'd do.

And just because Babe played CF a few times could be attributed to not having faster guys at the moment.

It was also known that fleet Earle Combs would assist both Bob/Babe in he could reach a ball before them.

If you think it's silly to move Babe to the smaller field, imagine how much more shallow it would be to use the sun field as a reason. Have you ever heard of moving Mantle, DiMag, Mays, Cobb, or Speaker to save their eyes? Their eyes were no less valuable, but they played the large CFs because they could cover the territory.

Few know it, but I am really into sports writers. I remember reading sports writers talking about it. Those who liked him and were his friends, and wouldn't have stabbed him in the back by trashing him.

If I can find anything on it, I'll get back to you.

Bill

Ok Bill. Sounds good.

I just find it amusing the lengths the people will go to knock on Babe. To chisel away at the statue, no matter how pointless the issue. If he indeed got moved, it says more about the coaching than him. He was more than capable of playing in a larger field. He was nowhere near the slug that he is being portrayed as. Pretty frustrating, but oh well, believe what you must.

If in the process of this exercise, Mark had come to realize that Mays was better than Ruth, then that's gravy. Some of the reasons he gave though, make absolutely no sense and show a true lack of knowledge concerning Babe.

The only player I could see a case for over Babe, is Cobb. Much of what made Cobb so great wasn't based on anything pure. He made himself into what he became. Without his internal fire, he would have been nothing more than an average player based on raw talent alone. He wasn't satisfied with that though, and his career reflects that.

People like to say that others weren't trying for the longball when Babe was playing in the early years. This is true, but does it matter? Even if they were trying, what kind of numbers would they have put up, and how much would their BA have suffered because of it. Nobody brings up that Cobb was the only one doing what he was doing. Much of his greatness comes from him being unique to the times, much like Babe was. Do we discount Cobb's greatness because nobody else was taking that approach? Why should we? He did it, and to assume that others would have done it at the same height it ridiculous imo.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Ruth was a better hitter than Schmidt. In fact, he was a better hitter than anyone who ever lived. I'm not disputing that. What I am saying is that other than that, Schmidt has every advantage. And Ruth's hitting value isn't as far ahead of Schmidt as you might think.

Ruth played right field his whole career, which is of course an offensive position, even more so in that era. Schmidt played third base which for his time was pretty much neutral.

Ruth's relative line in his prime years (1920-1929) versus the other RFers in the leauge was 111/128/158. Schmidt's line compared to other 3Bmen was 101/116/144. Ruth's still ahead, but the difference isn't humungous anymore, and Ruth does benefit from playing in an easier league to dominate, especially for him, since Ruth was one of the only guys going for HRs.

[Still a big gap between Ruth and the league and Schmidt and the league, Ruth still far ahead. We keep hearing about the home runs and Ruth being so far ahead of the league because he was the forerunner of the long ballers. OK I'll give you that one but look at Ruth's and Schmidts batting average versus the league average.

Ruth-------.342
League----.288 Ruth + 54 over the league
Position---.299 Ruth + 43 over position

Schmidt----.267
League---.264 Schmidt + 3 over the league
Position--.264 Schmidt + 3 over the league

Not even close. Especially when you consider Ruth swinging from the heels and most of his competition was made up of contact hitters, going the plate with one thought in mind make contact, shorten up with two strikes, don't strike out. Even with Ruth's long balling and the leagues making contact he] separates himself from the rest of the league in batting average by such a wide margin, Schmidt barely over the league average] SHOELESSJOE3[/B]

Schmidt played in a fully integrated, fully advanced league, where scouting was high and players were physically much better. Despite the high level of competition, he was able to dominate his league as Ruth did. Mike was one heck of a home run hitter but theres more to being a great hitter than hitting home runs.



Where do you see Schmidt dominating his league as Ruth did, am I missing something.

[Pghfan987]

I am going to go back to the original purpose of this thread: construct a persuasive argument for someone who could be considered to be better than Babe Ruth. Willie Mays, Ty Cobb, and Honus Wagner seem like obvious choices. I could also see making a very strong case for Bonds, but the steroids issue would convolute the argument. So, I am going to make an argument for: Josh Gibson!

Now, of course, we don't have the concrete statistics for Gibson like we have for his Major League contemporaries, but it is our duty as baseball scholars to not ignore him in spite of these extremely regrettable circumstances.

Gibson was known as the "Black Babe Ruth", but, from what I have read and heard, it seems perfectly plausible that Ruth should be called the "White Josh Gibson". For fifteen years, Gibson was arguably the the best power hitter AND contact hitter in the Negro Leagues. His career average is reported anywhere between .350 and .384. He earned four batting titles and nine home run titles during his career. He (again, reportedly) hit .400 twice.

Not only did he hit home runs, he hit MASSIVE home runs. He reportedly hit 84 one season, and 500 foot blasts were not uncommon for the slugger. He supposedly hit nearly 800 homers during his legendary career. Gibson was half of what I consider to be undoubtedly the most talented battery in baseball history, with, of course, Satchel Paige being the pitcher.

Both Babe Ruth and Josh Gibson were so-so in the field, but I would probably give the edge to Gibson defensively. First of all, he played a more difficult position, catcher, while Ruth was "hidden" in right field. Gibson was also known to have one of the greatest arms of all the catchers to ever play the game.

The biggest knock against Gibson (besides perhaps the lack of statistical data) is the fact that he didn't measure his abilities against white players. I consider this to be a double-edged sword, however, as you can make a similar complaint against Ruth- he never had to hit a fastball off of Satchel Paige.

In summary, while it is difficult, perhaps impossible to prove, Josh Gibson dominated offensively in a very similar fashion that Babe Ruth did. Given his slight edge defensively, Gibson deserves consideration for the top slot.

Mark

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I hit 16 homers last season in 40 semi-pro games. Does that mean I have a case? :D Just playin'. Seriously though, from what you had to go on, pghfan, well put together post. Nice job. Long live the "White Josh Gibson !" :D

[Sultan_1895-1948]

ALBERT PUJOLS

Just look at their numbers in their first 5 seasons. No comparison!!

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Ruth played right field his whole career, which is of course an offensive position, even more so in that era. Schmidt played third base which for his time was pretty much neutral.
.

Whats the difference if you play the outfield, third base or first base and your close or over 200 pounds, big enough to be a home run threat. Your putting too much into the neutral position. I don't dismiss that thought but don't give it too much weight. Some of the best home run hitters in the modern history played these three positions. There have been some big third and first basemen, it was the middle infielders that were smaller on average and even that has changed in recent years.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

It makes no difference. It means something in positional adjustments if you're talking about a players value, but not their actual greatness. As if somehow, when Schmidt stepped to the plate, he reminded himself "ok, I'm a third baseman that plays a neutral position, don't try to hit a HR."

[Pghfan987]

I hit 16 homers last season in 40 semi-pro games. Does that mean I have a case? :D Just playin'. Seriously though, from what you had to go on, pghfan, well put together post. Nice job. Long live the "White Josh Gibson !" :D


I have no problem with kidding around, but sometimes I really feel like Josh Gibson's career gets the short end of the stick, so to speak. People see these outrageous numbers and just brush them aside as myth. I find it hard to believe that these stats are just completely fabricated. Exagerrated- perhaps. But I have little doubt that Gibson hit above .350 and that he could hit the ball as long as anyone, ever. We have to look at the facts, and those, admittedly, are quite blurry. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to display Gibson as what he is: the greatest catcher of all-time, and, depending on how much you believe the stats, anywhere from the greatest hitter of all time to at least a top ten talent.

In my mind, it may be hard to say he is the greatest player of all time, but I think that he is easily the greatest catcher of all time because he is far and away the best offensive catcher, if these stats are even somewhat accurate.

It has been well documented that, since the integration of baseball, black players have more than held there own. Sosa/McGwire, Mays/Mantle, etc, etc. I just don't see why it isn't at least POSSIBLE that Gibson was Ruth's offensive equal.

The fact that we have no concrete stats for Gibson does NOTHING as to whether he was a better baseball player than Ruth- it only makes it more difficult to compare the two players.

Mark

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I am going to go back to the original purpose of this thread: construct a persuasive argument for someone who could be considered to be better than Babe Ruth. Willie Mays, Ty Cobb, and Honus Wagner seem like obvious choices. I could also see making a very strong case for Bonds, but the steroids issue would convolute the argument. So, I am going to make an argument for: Josh Gibson!

Now, of course, we don't have the concrete statistics for Gibson like we have for his Major League contemporaries, but it is our duty as baseball scholars to not ignore him in spite of these extremely regrettable circumstances.

Gibson was known as the "Black Babe Ruth", but, from what I have read and heard, it seems perfectly plausible that Ruth should be called the "White Josh Gibson". For fifteen years, Gibson was arguably the the best power hitter AND contact hitter in the Negro Leagues. His career average is reported anywhere between .350 and .384. He earned four batting titles and nine home run titles during his career. He (again, reportedly) hit .400 twice.

Not only did he hit home runs, he hit MASSIVE home runs. He reportedly hit 84 one season, and 500 foot blasts were not uncommon for the slugger. He supposedly hit nearly 800 homers during his legendary career. Gibson was half of what I consider to be undoubtedly the most talented battery in baseball history, with, of course, Satchel Paige being the pitcher.

Both Babe Ruth and Josh Gibson were so-so in the field, but I would probably give the edge to Gibson defensively. First of all, he played a more difficult position, catcher, while Ruth was "hidden" in right field. Gibson was also known to have one of the greatest arms of all the catchers to ever play the game.

The biggest knock against Gibson (besides perhaps the lack of statistical data) is the fact that he didn't measure his abilities against white players. I consider this to be a double-edged sword, however, as you can make a similar complaint against Ruth- he never had to hit a fastball off of Satchel Paige.

In summary, while it is difficult, perhaps impossible to prove, Josh Gibson dominated offensively in a very similar fashion that Babe Ruth did. Given his slight edge defensively, Gibson deserves consideration for the top slot.

Mark

This one has been beat to death, but it keeps coming back. With all due respect to Josh Gibson we do not have enough accurate stats to go on. It was a shame that skin color alone robbed him of his chance to play MLB, the history of MLB would have been greatly enriched, I'm sure he would have made his mark on the game.

I choose to go with facts rather empathy and emotions, he never played MLB and we have no way of knowing what numbers he would have put up. The fact that it was not his own fault that he never played MLB is a sad one but still a fact.

What does it tell you about the level of pitching overall when we hear that Gibson hit as many as one hundred possibly two hundred more home runs than Ruth, Aaron and Bonds and died before he was 37 years old. Is it because he at times played close to 180 games in some season. Or that some of his numbers came from exhibition games, if true how much value do they have.

Do you know that lean pitching staffs in black baseball made it neccessary at times to use infielders or outfielders as starting pitchers. Do you know that black teams at times would use the same pitcher to pitch two games in one day.

Not to diminish Josh or any black player, some as good as white MLB and better than others, just not enough facts or enough info on the level of pitching day to day in black baseball.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I have no problem with kidding around, but sometimes I really feel like Josh Gibson's career gets the short end of the stick, so to speak. People see these outrageous numbers and just brush them aside as myth. I find it hard to believe that these stats are just completely fabricated. Exagerrated- perhaps. But I have little doubt that Gibson hit above .350 and that he could hit the ball as long as anyone, ever. We have to look at the facts, and those, admittedly, are quite blurry. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to display Gibson as what he is: the greatest catcher of all-time, and, depending on how much you believe the stats, anywhere from the greatest hitter of all time to at least a top ten talent.

In my mind, it may be hard to say he is the greatest player of all time, but I think that he is easily the greatest catcher of all time because he is far and away the best offensive catcher, if these stats are even somewhat accurate.

It has been well documented that, since the integration of baseball, black players have more than held there own. Sosa/McGwire, Mays/Mantle, etc, etc. I just don't see why it isn't at least POSSIBLE that Gibson was Ruth's offensive equal.

The fact that we have no concrete stats for Gibson does NOTHING as to whether he was a better baseball player than Ruth- it only makes it more difficult to compare the two players.

Mark


Yeah. Too bad this is even an issue.

Let's say that in 1925, all of the best NL talent replaced the worse ML talent. Now we have a league full of great players. I think everything would get advanced. Scouting, preparation, technique. They would all become even better players then they were, having to compete against the very best. They would have been pushing themselves to the brink at all times. Pitchers could no longer pick and choose what spots to "coast," in, and hitters would need to take more notes and study pitchers tendencies a bit more. I really don't think that the elite hitters would be affected all that much, just like I don't think the elite former NL hitters would become worse by facing better white ML pitching.

It sucks we don't have legit numbers for Gibson. Often, pitchers would lay the ball in for him just to see how far he could hit it. And by all accounts he did not let them down. The number of games, the competition, the field sizes, it's all just too sketchy to give him a solid ranking imo. We can say that it's reasonable he would be among the great hitters, but to make a case for him over Ruth is a bit of a reach when no player before or since has been his equal.

[ElHalo]

It has been well documented that, since the integration of baseball, black players have more than held there own. Sosa/McGwire, Mays/Mantle, etc, etc. I just don't see why it isn't at least POSSIBLE that Gibson was Ruth's offensive equal.

I think Ruth might be stretching things. I often think of Gibson as about equal offensively to Foxx or Mantle. Which still makes him one of the greatest players of all time, and easily the greatest catcher. It puzzles me how people call Charleston better... if you take Mickey Mantle's bat and attach it to an even halfway decent defensive C... well, how do you really do better than that?

[Pghfan987]

I suppose it all depends on how much of the stats you believe. I tend to believe that Gibson was a legitimate Top 5 slugger of all-time. I am basing this as much on the testimony of baseball players as I am by his "stats".

Again, though, I don't think it is equitable to say "we don't have the stats, therefore we can not make a case." Does that mean that Gibson's all-time rank should be "N/A"? He seems to be somewhere around 15-20 on a lot of lists. On mine, he just happens to be closer to #5.

We are used to have stats be the somewhat objective medium with which both sides can argue a point. We do not have that luxury in this case, so, sadly, it does come down to more subjective measurements.

I don't think that I am just a gullible kid listening to fairy tales- I believe that Gibson was a legitimate superstar who could have tore up the Major Leagues had he had the chance. We'll never know.

Again, I would like to reiterate this point which may have been missed. The fact that we do not have stats for Gibson has NO BEARING on whether he was better than Ruth or not, it only makes it more difficult for US to determine who was greater.

I can see how one would be skeptical. But, at the same time, I don't see how someone can ignore the POSSIBILITY that Gibson was Ruth's offensive equal. Because "no one else was as good as Ruth" does not make sense logically, as that would have no bearing one way or another on my case because if I was saying that Gibson was as good as Ruth, then I was saying that Josh was better than all of the other hitters, too.

I know that many people here are broken because we can't type up a seven page numerical spreadsheet to come up with the "right" answer. All we can do is imagine, and I imagine that Gibson was the real deal. Black players have proven to be equal to their white contemporaries since integration- I think it is safe to assume that some black players were equal to their white contemporaries before integration, too.

Mark

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I
Ruth was a better hitter than Schmidt. In fact, he was a better hitter than anyone who ever lived. I'm not disputing that. What I am saying is that other than that, Schmidt has every advantage. And Ruth's hitting value isn't as far ahead of Schmidt as you might think.

Ruth played right field his whole career, which is of course an offensive position, even more so in that era. Schmidt played third base which for his time was pretty much neutral.

If Ruth played in Schmidt's era, his rel. SLG compared to position would probably be lower, and his OBP may be as well because the pitchers wouldn't be so terrified of pitching to him.



Ruth is miles ahead of Scmidt as a hitter, all around hitter. Think of all the hitters in the game since modern times and only four hitters carried a higher lifetime average than Ruth did, Cobb, Hornsby, Speaker and Williams. OK now we hear how most of the high averages were put up in the 1920s and 1930s. Did Ruth have an advantage over hitters back then. what advantage did he have over all hitters modern times say 1900 to 1940. He had none, in fact he was going for the long ball and for most of his career he was in competition with contact hitters, they had the advantage if your talking batting average.

One of three hitters with 700 home runs and in the top 5 in career batting average modern times, Ruth is on another planet. Not enough competition back then, take Ruth and his numbers into any era and they stand up. What would more competition do to Ruth's career numbers, it would mean nothing. It would only mean he would not have been as dominant

Schmidt was one of the great home run hitters in recent years, as an all around hitter he's not on the same page as Ruth

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Again, though, I don't think it is equitable to say "we don't have the stats, therefore we can not make a case." Does that mean that Gibson's all-time rank should be "N/A"? He seems to be somewhere around 15-20 on a lot of lists. On mine, he just happens to be closer to #5.



I know that many people here are broken because we can't type up a seven page numerical spreadsheet to come up with the "right" answer. All we can do is imagine, and I imagine that Gibson was the real deal. Black players have proven to be equal to their white contemporaries since integration- I think it is safe to assume that some black players were equal to their white contemporaries before integration, too.

Mark

No debate on that, I'm sure there were black ball players back then the equal and better than some white MLB players. I also agree that a case can be made for Josh, Satchel and other great ballplayers. I can see them put on the list of all time greats but the lack of stats and not knowing enough about the day to day level of competition makes it difficult to give them a specific number in the ranking.

Do they make the list yes, what is their rank on the list, I can't say for sure.

[Pghfan987]

I think Ruth might be stretching things. I often think of Gibson as about equal offensively to Foxx or Mantle. Which still makes him one of the greatest players of all time, and easily the greatest catcher. It puzzles me how people call Charleston better... if you take Mickey Mantle's bat and attach it to an even halfway decent defensive C... well, how do you really do better than that?
Just for the record, my top position players would probably go something like this:

1) Ruth
2) Cobb
3) Mays
4) Wagner
5) Bonds
6) Williams
7) Gibson
8) Mantle
9) Aaron
10) Hornsby

Just a rough list. As far as hitting goes, I would have Gibson ranked only below Ruth and Williams, with Cobb fourth. Keep in mind that the purpose of this exercise was to try to construct an argument against Ruth even if we didn't fully believe it.

At the same time, I am keeping an open mind. I find it entirely possibly that Gibson was the best hitter of all time. I think that a lot of people here though are so convinced that Ruth should be the standard for hitting, their entire view of the history of baseball would be destroyed by the mere thought that Gibson was the greatest hitter of all time. At the very least, I would like Gibson to be known as the greatest catcher of all time- I think that the one position with the greatest gap between the best of all time and the second best of all time (along with perhaps Honus Wagner at shortstop.)

Mark

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I suppose it all depends on how much of the stats you believe. I tend to believe that Gibson was a legitimate Top 5 slugger of all-time. I am basing this as much on the testimony of baseball players as I am by his "stats".


None of them, and even if they were to be believed, the level of competition and other factors would lower their value significantly.


Again, though, I don't think it is equitable to say "we don't have the stats, therefore we can not make a case." Does that mean that Gibson's all-time rank should be "N/A"? He seems to be somewhere around 15-20 on a lot of lists. On mine, he just happens to be closer to #5.


I can't logically rank any of the NLers. I can say, they probably would have done this, or done that. You could say the same about a great minor league player who just never got a shot at the bigs for whatever reason. We just don't know. It's one of those, it my aunt had balls, she's be my uncle" type of thing.


I don't think that I am just a gullible kid listening to fairy tales- I believe that Gibson was a legitimate superstar who could have tore up the Major Leagues had he had the chance. We'll never know.


I respect that you have your opinion, and also respect that you're willing to go out on a limb and make some of these claims. Would he have "tore up" the majors, we'll sadly never know, like you said.

Again, I would like to reiterate this point which may have been missed. The fact that we do not have stats for Gibson has NO BEARING on whether he was better than Ruth or not, it only makes it more difficult for US to determine who was greater.

I caught that, and I agree. It makes it more difficult to prove he was much further below Ruth as well.


I can see how one would be skeptical. But, at the same time, I don't see how someone can ignore the POSSIBILITY that Gibson was Ruth's offensive equal. Because "no one else was as good as Ruth" does not make sense logically, as that would have no bearing one way or another on my case because if I was saying that Gibson was as good as Ruth, then I was saying that Josh was better than all of the other hitters, too.


I get your point. The fact that nobody before or since has equalled Ruth, doesn't matter when talking about Gibson, because he could have been "the one." Again, we'll sadly never know, but the odds of that..well; you should go buy a lottery ticket my friend.

[/QUOTE]

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I, for one, have raised Babe to my #3. I have recently given Babe new credit for you fielding, despite the speed issue. So, I don't think anyone is really trying to chisel the shrine. But I think we are all trying to fine-tune our understandings.

Below is a piece I did a long time ago, but still articulates some of my feelings.


That was quite a piece Bill. Too long to go through and respond to each thing I disagree with, but very well written. Certainly skewed on certain issues but well written nonetheless.

You didn't really respond to my original point about Cobb though. You're fond of saying that others in Babe's time didn't try for the "grooved power swing," and use that as a way to diminish what Babe did. They most certainly experimented and tried, whether in BP or exhibition games, or even temporarily in actual games...but what they did realize is that they could not execute with the consistency and length that Babe did. It was a true gift to be able to do that and keep his BA up while being constantly pitched around and always getting the pitchers best effort.

Anyway, back to the point. You like to say that, but you don't mention that others were not willing to go to the levels Cobb did in his all around game. We do not hold that against Cobb, so why hold it against Ruth. Even had they tried, others would never have reached the level of those two at their respective styles.

[Bill Burgess]

That was quite a piece Bill. Too long to go through and respond to each thing I disagree with, but very well written. Certainly skewed on certain issues but well written nonetheless.

You didn't really respond to my original point about Cobb though. You're fond of saying that others in Babe's time didn't try for the "grooved power swing," and use that as a way to diminish what Babe did. They most certainly experimented and tried, whether in BP or exhibition games, or even temporarily in actual games...but what they did realize is that they could not execute with the consistency and length that Babe did. It was a true gift to be able to do that and keep his BA up while being constantly pitched around and always getting the pitchers best effort.

Anyway, back to the point. You like to say that, but you don't mention that others were not willing to go to the levels Cobb did in his all around game. We do not hold that against Cobb, so why hold it against Ruth. Even had they tried, others would never have reached the level of those two at their respective styles.

I point out that Babe numbers are skewed, but I don't think that is using it against Babe at all. Because if his Rel. SLG. AVe. goes down, his Rel. BA Goes UP. Like a see-saw.

Regardless of what the others of his time did, it did not make Babe better or worse. It's a conceptual thing. It's all perception, Randy. It's all relative. One only has position in relation to what's around them. Move Babe's peers around, but Babe doesn't change. He appears different in 2 of his relative stats, but they cancel each other out.

And knowing what I know, I'm still moving Babe up! I don't see how I'm on the chisel committee. If you read my ending, I think that might have come out.

Bill

[Sultan_1895-1948]

This whole thread is pretty humorous. Really, you could "make a case" for any all-time great ahead of Ruth if you make certain illogical era adjustments, and hold a tainted view of the type of athlete Babe really was. Oh, he got fat in the '30's, so he was worthless in the field and on the bases....and Musial's hitting isn't that far behind because of the era...and therefore Babe sucks!! Uh huh. Babe forgot names, Musial didn't. Babe stayed out late, Gehrig didn't. Babe didn't play center, Mantle did. Babe never fought in the war, Williams did. :D

William: "I don't see how I'm on the chisel committee." lol, nah it's all good. I was referring to Marcus Maximus who somehow convinced himself to move Mays up based on Ruth's memory and off-field behavior. No worries. Cobb is the best, we all really know the truth :D

[Bill Burgess]

William: "I don't see how I'm on the chisel committee." lol, nah it's all good. I was referring to Marcus Maximus who somehow convinced himself to move Mays up based on Ruth's memory and off-field behavior. No worries. Cobb is the best, we all really know the truth :D
If it's any consolation, Babe is just crushing everyone on Fever as the Greatest Ever. Ty is a very distant 2nd. Despite my rhetorical brilliance!

Bill

[leecemark]

--Sultan, I know its pointless to discuss Ruth with you since you seem to believe he was a god walking the earth, but I don't mind beating my head against the wall.
--Ruth's forgetting his teammates names is, in and of itself, unimportant. However, the fact that he couldn't even be troubled to learn the names of men he had played beside for year after year suggests he wasn't particularly concerned about being a good teammate. He complete disregard for team rules and managerial instructions emphasises that.
--That Muesel, a notoriusly lagard fielder was chosen to play the bigger field even in Ruth's youth suggests the Babe was not regarded very highly in the field by his managers. That the Babe tried to steal frequently and unsuccesfully in spite of always having terrific hitters behind him makes the idea that he was a poor decision maker in other baserunning situations seem pretty plausable. What evidence do you have that Ruth WAS a good baserunner? Much of your arguement seems to be "if you criticise
any part of Ruth's game you just don't knwo anything about Babe Ruth".
--Ruth was far from a perfect player. What he has going for him is that he was such a great hitter that you can make a good case for him as the best ever in spite of his deficientcies in every other phase of the game.

[ElHalo]

I can't logically rank any of the NLers. I can say, they probably would have done this, or done that. You could say the same about a great minor league player who just never got a shot at the bigs for whatever reason. We just don't know. It's one of those, it my aunt had balls, she's be my uncle" type of thing.

I think you're looking at it wrong. Don't think of it in terms of: "What would such and such player have done if he played in the Majors?" Imagine it this way:

Instead of thinking of what players might have done had they played in the Majors, just look at it as: What did they do while they were in this third leage?

For basically the entire period from about 1905 to 1925, the American League was significantly (although not uniformly) stronger than the National League. Stats from the National League aren't directly comparable to those from the American, just because the calibre of competition was lower. Does that mean that we can't rank guys like Zack Wheat, because we "just don't know" how they would have done if they'd gotten the opportunity to play in the AL?

Just think of the Negro Leagues as a third, albeit weaker, major league. Adjust for the level of talent accordingly (just as you have to adjust guys like Sherry Magee against guys like Joe Jackson, because Jackson did what he did in a much stronger league), and base them on what they actually accomplished instead of on what they would have accomplished.

[ElHalo]

--Ruth's forgetting his teammates names is, in and of itself, unimportant. However, the fact that he couldn't even be troubled to learn the names of men he had played beside for year after year suggests he wasn't particularly concerned about being a good teammate. He complete disregard for team rules and managerial instructions emphasises that.

I think there's something to be said for being an a**hole in a stylish manner. Truman Capote typifies this for me... the guy was just a prick, but did so in a way where he always came off as seeming right in his belief that he was too good for everyone around him... he would put just enough effort into ignoring people so that everyone was certain that he was doing it intentionally, and meant for everyone to know it.

If I'm Babe Ruth, and I'm by far the biggest thing ever and everybody knows it, it's entirely possible that I'd intentionally try, not only to not learn my teammates names, but to intentionally forget them whenever presented to me... if I do this on purpose, and everyone sees me doing it on purpose and knows that the only reason I'm doing it is because I feel like I'm too good for the room and everyone knows I'm right... as long as I can back up my maniacal, ludicrous ego with performance that makes it seem pretty close to justified, I think that's the kind of jackass attitude problem that can be almost endearing.

If you're a boxer, and every time you're preparing for a fight you go out and talk trash about how worthless your opponent is, and how he doesn't deserve to be in the same ring as you, and how you feel demeaned by even having to bother going through the motions... well, you're being a self righteous jerkoff who needs to be taken down a peg or twelve. But if you do that, and then go out and win every single one of your bouts in a first round knockout... well, then you're not being cocky; just truthful. And outrageous bravado supported by outrageous performance can be truly likable rather than despicable.

But maybe that's just me.

[leecemark]

--Except I don't think it was an affectation with Ruth. I think he was developmentally challenged. An idiot savant of baseball .

[ElHalo]

--Except I don't think it was an affectation with Ruth. I think he was developmentally challenged. An idiot savant of baseball .

I completely agree with you, and I don't know what that should do to my opinion of him.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--Sultan, I know its pointless to discuss Ruth with you since you seem to believe he was a god walking the earth, but I don't mind beating my head against the wall.
--Ruth's forgetting his teammates names is, in and of itself, unimportant. However, the fact that he couldn't even be troubled to learn the names of men he had played beside for year after year suggests he wasn't particularly concerned about being a good teammate. He complete disregard for team rules and managerial instructions emphasises that.
--That Muesel, a notoriusly lagard fielder was chosen to play the bigger field even in Ruth's youth suggests the Babe was not regarded very highly in the field by his managers. That the Babe tried to steal frequently and unsuccesfully in spite of always having terrific hitters behind him makes the idea that he was a poor decision maker in other baserunning situations seem pretty plausable. What evidence do you have that Ruth WAS a good baserunner? Much of your arguement seems to be "if you criticise
any part of Ruth's game you just don't knwo anything about Babe Ruth".
--Ruth was far from a perfect player. What he has going for him is that he was such a great hitter that you can make a good case for him as the best ever in spite of his deficientcies in every other phase of the game.

Mark, this is all about fun, speculation, and opinions. Sorry to come off like you can't discuss Babe, cause that's not my intent. The more discussion about him and others, the better.

What initially irked me was that you had Babe ranked #1, and then in doing this exercise, you moved Mays ahead of him based on things that matter very little.

We cannot take the time and do not have the resources to truly understand what life was like for Babe Ruth back then. Even with all the research I've done, I can't get within sniffing distance of what it must have been like for the man within the tornado. It's not that he couldn't remember names, its that he had so much on his plate at all times, and for him, details like that became unimportant. If it makes you feel any better, he had his own nicknames for teammates and remembered them by those. Whether it was ducknose, flop ears, horseface, or whatever the playful moniker may have been.

You bring up his SB% and that really means very little. Does it matter that he stole 50 bases in his first four years with the Yanks? Doesn't matter to me. It wasn't his job, and it wasn't a craft that he worked on. SB is separate from baserunning, plain and simple.

He wasn't a perfect baserunner. He wasn't as heady as Cobb, not as fast as Speaker, and at times his aggressiveness was his worst enemy. At other times, his aggressiveness is what made him such a great baserunner. He turned many doubles into triples by understanding outfielders arms, positioning, and angles. He could go first to third as well as anyone, not from sheer speed, but by knowing the situation and never hesitating, just reacting instantly. In fielding he was the same way. Although he didn't possess great speed, he had a wonderful arm, a great glove, always took good angles, played guys perfectly, and understood the situation at all times.

I can't make an argument for him being greater than Mays in the field or on the bases. Christ, I have Mays ranked in my top 5 for a reason. I will only say, that many of the "reasons" you gave for knocking Babe lower on your list, aren't legit reasons at all and the gap in those areas isn't as large as you made it out to be. That's my opinion on that.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--Except I don't think it was an affectation with Ruth. I think he was developmentally challenged. An idiot savant of baseball .

Mark, what causes you to make such a statement? You really should research a man if you're going to comment like that on him. Was he brilliant; no. He rarely had a serious thought in his head. But developmentally challenged? You're basically calling him a retard, and that's not only wrong, it's cruel.

[leecemark]

--I haven't called anybody a retard since grade school. I have done plenty of reading on the Babe and my conclusion is that he had some serious developmental issues. The man had virtually no regard for social conventions or impulse control. That is not a normally functioning adult. Besides on the rare occasions when El Halo and I agree on something it pretty much has to be true;) .

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--I haven't called anybody a retard since grade school. I have done plenty of reading on the Babe and my conclusion is that he had some serious developmental issues. The man had virtually no regard for social conventions or impulse control. That is not a normally functioning adult. Besides on the rare occasions when El Halo and I agree on something it pretty much has to be true;) .

lol, hardly.

He wasn't socially proper at all times, and he said things that might be crude to certain people. His "developmental" issues stem back to his "being locked inside a cage," and being let out mentality. Think about how long he was told what he could do, when he could do it, how much he could have, what he could say, where he could go....and then BOOM, he's out. He's making more money than he can spend, he's seeing parts of the country he'd never seen before. Hell, the first time he was on a train was on his way to the Baltimore team. Everything fascinated him, elevators, cars, women, it was all new and he looked at the world as one big playground. Who among us doesn't want to live that uninhibited lifestyle. Nah, he was far from a retard, in fact he was much smarter than people, apparently including yourself, give him credit for.

[leecemark]

--He said things that every civilized person would find crude and he never outgrew enjoying his freedom from StMarys, which most people would have after a few years. The Babe was just an overgrown child right up to the end of his days. A rough childhood doesn't get you a lifetime pass to act like one.
--Don't get me wrong, he was a likeable child, but he was never fully functional . You said yourself, only minutes ago, that he rarely had a serious thought in his head. On that we can agree.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--He said things that every civilized person would find crude and he never outgrew enjoying his freedom from StMarys, which most people would have after a few years. The Babe was just an overgrown child right up to the end of his days. A rough childhood doesn't get you a lifetime pass to act like one.
--Don't get me wrong, he was a likeable child, but he was never fully functional . You said yourself, only minutes ago, that he rarely had a serious thought in his head. On that we can agree.

I fail to see how being extremely uninhibited and enjoying life to the fullest, constitutes a retard label. I could type out a story about him having a couple over to his apartment. He showed them around and pointed out a trophy he won in a farting contest, and told stories that were a bit "colorful." The lady wasn't offended at all, she found Babe to be very interesting. You'd be surprised how much people appreciate a genuine person who is honest. Enough about that though, it's just one of many "reasons" you gave for moving Babe down, which is fine. Another bunk in the Babe camp just opened up. No worries.


How bout a case for DiMaggio?

What if we give him back '43, '44, and '45 and insert his career averages and give him a slight boost; maybe 5% or whatever because it was in his prime. We could also give '46 a slight increase from what it was, because he was a bit rusty when he came back.

We could also add on another 3 years of decline to end of his career, and give his entire career a slight era adjustment.

So if we do all that, and consider that he was a righty hitting against mostly righties, and put him in a better HR park, his numbers would be pretty dang impressive. He gets the nod defensively because of ability and because of a more valuable position. His arm wasn't as good as Babe's, but that doesn't count so much as a negative when you're in centerfield. His arm was strong enough to pass. Baserunning is a wash, and they both have championships.

DiMaggio's incredible strikeout/HR total has got to say something.

Any thoughts?

[four tool]

The gibson numbers have been posted on the Gibson/OH thread-Gibbie has fewer thqan 3,000 NL ABs to work with--in those his HRs come out to 43/550, or 37 per 162--really good but not near Babe on many fewer ABS. At peak, Foxx etc, had similar numbers to 43/550

Gibson/Oh Thread: http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=38028

[SHOELESSJOE3]

--Don't get me wrong, he was a likeable child, but he was never fully functional . You said yourself, only minutes ago, that he rarely had a serious thought in his head. On that we can agree.

Is that a sign of some sort of mental deficiency, because you just don't give a damn about world events. Maybe a bit in the minority but hardly cause to question anyone's mental capability or intelligence level.

[four tool]

How bout a case for DiMaggio?

What if we give him back '43, '44, and '45 and insert his career averages and give him a slight boost; maybe 5% or whatever because it was in his prime. We could also give '46 a slight increase from what it was, because he was a bit rusty when he came back.

We could also add on another 3 years of decline to end of his career, and give his entire career a slight era adjustment.

So if we do all that, and consider that he was a righty hitting against mostly righties, and put him in a better HR park, his numbers would be pretty dang impressive. He gets the nod defensively because of ability and because of a more valuable position. His arm wasn't as good as Babe's, but that doesn't count so much as a negative when you're in centerfield. His arm was strong enough to pass. Baserunning is a wash, and they both have championships.

DiMaggio's incredible strikeout/HR total has got to say something.

Any thoughts?[/QUOTE]

If we're doing that, we'd have to make a case for Ruth playing OF full time before 1919--we can't only what if one half of the equation.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

--He said things that every civilized person would find crude and he never outgrew enjoying his freedom from StMarys, which most people would have after a few years. The Babe was just an overgrown child right up to the end of his days. A rough childhood doesn't get you a lifetime pass to act like one.
--Don't get me wrong, he was a likeable child, but he was never fully functional . You said yourself, only minutes ago, that he rarely had a serious thought in his head. On that we can agree.

That didn't seem to bother those that new him well, were in his company, teammates and players from other teams. Maybe if one were to know him in those times instead of looking back on him as you are you might place a higher value on him. Rare that any who speak of him, who had contact or knew him came away not liking him.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

for year after year [/B]suggests he wasn't particularly concerned about being a good teammate. .

Now we're getting a little silly. Because he couldn't be troubled to learn the names of men he played beside ( your words) suggests he wasn't concerned about being a good teammate. How did you determine that. How do you know that he was not concerned about his teammates. They didn't view him that way, they often spoke of how much they cared about him and what it meant to take the field knowing he was one of them.

Please lets not play Dr. Phil ( what a phony he is) and explore the inner workings of the mind of another and expect any to believe that can be done.