Best Baseball Player --- Ever

sturg33 said:
I think Bonds is the best player of all time.

I don't think Ruth would have been as successful facing the LOOGYs of today. Still a monster - but I think his number would have taken a hit.

Also, Bonds on roids is the best hitter ever. Bonds pre-roids was a top 3 player of all time (hitting, defense, base running). His OBP abilities were unbelievable. And half the pitchers he faced were roided up. And half the league was roided up. And he was in a league of his own.

Best pitcher of all time? Greg Maddux. Dude dominated the steroid era like it was nothing, and was very likely clean (unlike Clemens). Most dominant pitcher ever? Pedro Martinez - just couldn't stay healthy like Maddux though.
Click to expand...

Pedro may be the most dominant pitcher ever but there are others certainly in the mix, Rube Waddell, Walter Johnson (dominant and longevity), Randy Johnson (just imagine if he found his control at a younger age), Kristy Mathewson, Sandy Koufax, etc.

And for me I have little doubt that Walter Johnson is the best pitcher of all time. Love Maddux, but Johnson did stuff that Maddux couldn't do.
 
zitothebrave said:
Pedro may be the most dominant pitcher ever but there are others certainly in the mix, Rube Waddell, Walter Johnson (dominant and longevity), Randy Johnson (just imagine if he found his control at a younger age), Kristy Mathewson, Sandy Koufax, etc.

And for me I have little doubt that Walter Johnson is the best pitcher of all time. Love Maddux, but Johnson did stuff that Maddux couldn't do.
Click to expand...

I'm looking at it from the hitters they had to face.

Maddux had to pitch against Bonds, McGuire, Sosa, AROD, Pujols, Griffey, Walker, Helton, Thomas, Thome etc. And half the league was roided up.
 
sturg33 said:
I'm looking at it from the hitters they had to face.

Maddux had to pitch against Bonds, McGuire, Sosa, AROD, Pujols, Griffey, Walker, Helton, Thomas, Thome etc. And half the league was roided up.
Click to expand...

Walter Johnson had to face Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker Eddie Collins, Babe Ruth Shoeless Joe, etc. And didn't have as many weak players to face as the current pitcher, or night games, or many advantages current pitchers do have. Koufax had to face Willie Mays, Hammerin Hank, Frank Robinson, Eddie Mathews, Ernie Banks, Roberto Clemente, etc.

Every great pitcher has to face great hitters. Sure Pedro faced some roided up freaks, but he also had things going for him. For example, Pedro has the lowest FIP- of any starting pitcher ever, but FIP- is based on the league average. So you can make a case one way or another, was Pedro really great or was the talent around him ****ty. Was Johnson really great or were the players he was facing ****ty.

In the end it's up to debate, and Pedro really was great, especially for the Red Sox, but I'll still take Walter Johnson, he's the Babe Ruth of pitching for me.
 
jpx7 said:
Is Babe Ruth not the Babe Ruth of pitching?
Click to expand...

I was more going for someone who transcends the game. Johnson was a god among men when he played. Guys like Ty Cobb admitted he was the best pitcher he ever faced, and so on so forth.
 
I love how many people are saying Babe Ruth even though they never saw him play. Sorry I just don't believe in claiming someone to be the best of something when I never saw it with my own eyes.
 
AUTiger7222 said:
I love how many people are saying Babe Ruth even though they never saw him play. Sorry I just don't believe in claiming someone to be the best of something when I never saw it with my own eyes.
Click to expand...

I wasn't in The Globe circa 1601, but I nonetheless feel confident in claiming Hamlet is the best play of all time.
 
Ruth. I don't have the excat numbers in front of me but it took Aaron 4000 more at bats than Ruth to only hit 40 more homers than Ruth.

Ruth could had been a HOF pitcher
 
I think solid arguments could be made for guys like Williams, Mays and Mantle easily. But a big point is those guys all played at the same time for a significant amount of their careers. Ruth, compared to his contemporaries, transcended the game. Whenever someone mentions baseball history, I immediately think Babe Ruth.
 
Johnson also played in larger parks in times where they reused baseballs. And the baseballs themselves were much insferior to todays.

It wss much easier to be a good pitcher back then than it was to to be a good hitter. Johnson was great. Don't know that I'd say best all time, especially not for the reasons you gave.
 
Carp said:
Being a better athlete doesn't make you a better hitter (see Francoeur, Jeffrey and Fielder, Prince)

The Babe had great eyes, one of the main reasons he was such a great hitter. There are stories that someone could write something on a ball, pitch it to him, and after he hit it, he'd tell you what you wrote on the ball.

And notion that they played "slow pitch softball" is silly as well. Pitchers also threw spitballs and scuffed balls with their finger nails, etc. They played with inferior equipment, in parks that were WAY bigger, and not very well lit in evening games.
Click to expand...

Bonds had an IsoOBP 0f 142 for his career, Ruth had one of 132.....so, if you go by the numbers, Bonds had the better eye.

As far as the pitching goes, it's not even close Bonds had to go up against Randy, Clemens, Pedro, Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz, Schilling, etc and not to mention LOOGYs and closers, setup man....it's not close.
 
Rule, couldn't u argue that Ruth went up against the best pitchers of his era?

You think the best running backs of the 60's and 70's would be as good today going up against much bigger, much faster and more athletic defensive players

I don't think u can compare players from different eras.
 
Krgrecw said:
Rule, couldn't u argue that Ruth went up against the best pitchers of his era?

You think the best running backs of the 60's and 70's would be as good today going up against much bigger, much faster and more athletic defensive players

I don't think u can compare players from different eras.
Click to expand...

Of course he did and arguing different eras is usually a fruitless endeavor BUT if someone is going to say Ruth is the best ever...you HAVE to point out that the pitching and talent pool now and in Bonds era is much greater than it was then. It's not really meant to knock Ruth, just like if you say Lana Turner was attractive in her era but I'd much rather bone Kate Upton. You aren't calling Turner ugly, just pointing out the difference in the 2 eras.
 
BRule said:
just like if you say Lana Turner was attractive in her era but I'd much rather bone Kate Upton.
Click to expand...

I'd take Elizabeth Taylor circa Giant a million times over either, personally.
 
Bonds is the best player I have ever seen regardless of what he did or when he did it.

Griffey is probably 2nd overall player.

Big Hurt, Pujols and Cabrera are all up there as far as just pure great hitters as well.

I can't judge the ones I never saw play.
 
Krgrecw said:
Rule, couldn't u argue that Ruth went up against the best pitchers of his era?

You think the best running backs of the 60's and 70's would be as good today going up against much bigger, much faster and more athletic defensive players

I don't think u can compare players from different eras.
Click to expand...

You can't really compare players from different eras. But the fact is when Ruth played the pitching was on another level and not in a good way. There were only 8 teams. Meaning you hitters would see each starter about 6 times a year and it would be for the entire game most of the time. There were no specialists like loogys either. It's no secret the more time you see a pitcher the better you will hit against them. Now that's not to take anything away from Ruth. He had these 'disadvantages' when comparing him to todays players just like everyone else from his era and he stood alone as the best. When comparing players to their era he is the best ever and there's no discussion. However I don't think he would be as close to as being that good relative to the league ifhe played in todays game. If you were to put a Barry Bonds or Frank Thomas in that era I believe they would be heads and shoulders above everyone else like Ruth was.

So really it's hard. But the best player I've ever seen is Bonds and that preroids. His combination of hitting ability, defense, and base running is something I don't think we'll ever seen again.
 
thewupk said:
You can't really compare players from different eras. But the fact is when Ruth played the pitching was on another level and not in a good way. There were only 8 teams. Meaning you hitters would see each starter about 6 times a year and it would be for the entire game most of the time. There were no specialists like loogys either. It's no secret the more time you see a pitcher the better you will hit against them. Now that's not to take anything away from Ruth. He had these 'disadvantages' when comparing him to todays players just like everyone else from his era and he stood alone as the best. When comparing players to their era he is the best ever and there's no discussion. However I don't think he would be as close to as being that good relative to the league ifhe played in todays game. If you were to put a Barry Bonds or Frank Thomas in that era I believe they would be heads and shoulders above everyone else like Ruth was.

So really it's hard. But the best player I've ever seen is Bonds and that preroids. His combination of hitting ability, defense, and base running is something I don't think we'll ever seen again.
Click to expand...

Maybe Trout one day?
 
The thread said "baseball player". That would be Ty Cobb, love him or hate him.
 
thewupk said:
You can't really compare players from different eras. But the fact is when Ruth played the pitching was on another level and not in a good way. There were only 8 teams. Meaning you hitters would see each starter about 6 times a year and it would be for the entire game most of the time. There were no specialists like loogys either. It's no secret the more time you see a pitcher the better you will hit against them. Now that's not to take anything away from Ruth. He had these 'disadvantages' when comparing him to todays players just like everyone else from his era and he stood alone as the best. When comparing players to their era he is the best ever and there's no discussion. However I don't think he would be as close to as being that good relative to the league ifhe played in todays game. If you were to put a Barry Bonds or Frank Thomas in that era I believe they would be heads and shoulders above everyone else like Ruth was.

So really it's hard. But the best player I've ever seen is Bonds and that preroids. His combination of hitting ability, defense, and base running is something I don't think we'll ever seen again.
Click to expand...

See that's not a fair argument, saying the pitching was horrible in Ruth's era. While it may be true, the whole league of hitters in that time was facing the same crappy pitching. Ruth's stats completely obliterated everyone else in the league, and nobody was even close. He doubled the next highest HR hitter's total in many years. His OPS was way ahead of the 2nd in line most years. I mean, obviously none of us have seen him play, but looking purely at stats, nobody has dominated the game like he has in his time.
 
Carp said:
And notion that they played "slow pitch softball" is silly as well. Pitchers also threw spitballs and scuffed balls with their finger nails, etc. They played with inferior equipment, in parks that were WAY bigger, and not very well lit in evening games.
Click to expand...

My reference to slow pitch softball was in regards to how easy it is to hit a HR in slow pitch softball.

Barry Bonds in the days of Ruth would resemble that....IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top