Who is the Greatest Player of All Time

[Namaste]

Oh man I wasn't expecting so many Bonds votes (and not because I'm a Bonds hater but because, like Beef said, I was expecting people to be scared of saying Bonds).

I'll post my Mays defense tommorow. Good thread so far.

[Bobbob1313]

Man, Babe Ruth lead the league in OPS 13 times and ERA once. That is awesome.

[MiamiHomer]

I think a discussion that could stem of this is who you consider is the best player at each position.

[dim]

Babe Ruth. He played during an era when the outfields were sometimes 450+ feet away from home. He could've possibly been the greatest pitcher of all time if he spent his whole career doing it. The home run record before Babe Ruth came along was 138. Ruth had 714. His numbers are insane even for the time in which he played in. Defensive stats weren't kept back then so it's hard to say how he was defensively, but given his physique it's easy to say he wasn't all that great. When you factor in how much performing in the playoffs matters, and Babe Ruth was one of the greatest playoff and World Series hitters we've ever witnessed, and you add in the arrogance and panache he played with, he's not only the greatest player to ever play the game, but he's the greatest personality to ever play the game.

I didn't even bring up the fact that baseball was by far the most popular sport in America during Ruth's career (going to a baseball game was as popular a choice as going to a movie is for today's youth). Ruth during his time was the MJ craze in the late 80s-early 00s times a thousand.

The Bonds votes are despicable. Not saying Bonds wasn't a great player, but he wasn't consistently the greatest player to ever play the game throughout his career. Roided up years in what should be the down years of his career shouldn't be added to his credit.

[Bobbob1313]

He could've possibly been the greatest pitcher of all time if he spent his whole career doing it.

No. The rest is fine, but holy god no.

[dim]

No. The rest is fine, but holy god no.

Maybe that statement was hyperbole, but in the prime of his pitching career he was pitching 300+ innings with ERA's of 1.75 and 2.01. If he stuck with it his entire career, he's a top 20 at the very least, very likely top 10 pitcher in the last 100 years.

[Madman81]

I think we just smashed face-first into the problem of era incompatibility

[Bobbob1313]

The Bonds votes are despicable. Not saying Bonds wasn't a great player, but he wasn't consistently the greatest player to ever play the game throughout his career. Roided up years in what should be the down years of his career shouldn't be added to his credit.

Actually, the rest wasn't fine, I should have kept reading.

Even if you take away Bonds' steroid years (00 and on), he posted the 10th best OPS+ of all time.

He posted 455 home runs, 460 stolen bases, a .968 OPS and was a nine-time Gold Glover. He won 3 MVPs and should have won at least two more, most likely.

He was the most dominant player of the 90's, then he started taking steroids and dominated the steroid era.

Like I said earlier, if you're going to call Bonds supporters "despicable" for citing him, you have to acknowledge that Babe Ruth played only against white people. He also did not have to face 95 MPH fastballs thrown by elite relief pitchers coming in in the late innings. Every pitcher threw complete games back then, which meant he was facing guys after 150+ pitches late in games.

You can't kill one guy for the quirk of his era and not take the other's era into account.

[dim]

I respect that opinion. I think it's also fair to bring into account how much of a liability Bonds was defensively during the steroid era. I watched him play games and the steroids made him the slowest person to ever grace left field. He was painful to watch.

[Bobbob1313]

Maybe that statement was hyperbole, but in the prime of his pitching career he was pitching 300+ innings with ERA's of 1.75 and 2.01. If he stuck with it his entire career, he's a top 20 at the very least, very likely top 10 pitcher in the last 100 years.

No.

First off, don't cite ERA when talking about the dead-ball era. Use an era adjusted number like ERA+.

His best season ever was a 158 ERA+. That is the 325th best season of all time.

He was a very good pitcher, and that is a big point in his favor.

But no.
--------------------

I respect that opinion. I think it's also fair to bring into account how much of a liability Bonds was defensively for the last eight or so years of his career.

He was a gold glover for a lot longer than he was a liability.

And, there's almost no question that he was less of a liability in the field than Ruth was.
--------------------

I watched him play games and the steroids made him the slowest person to ever grace left field. He was painful to watch.

Jeez man, come on. You can express an opinion without needing to make that opinion go crazy.

He still stole 46 bases from 00-04, while only being caught nine times. He wasn't that slow.

[dim]

I'm not getting into an argument with ERA+, since I honestly can't say how they adjust those numbers or what the stat really means.

And I account the fact that minorities were discriminated and not allowed to play during the time Ruth played. I also accounted that many weird rules existed during Ruth's time that negated a lot of would be home runs. Also add in how remarkably far away the outfield walls were (PETCO Park on steroids) and his hitting feat will always be far more remarkable than what Bonds did.

[Bobbob1313]

I'm not getting into an argument with ERA+, since I honestly can't say how they adjust those numbers or what the stat really means.

It compares your ERA to the league's ERA for that season, with some park factors being taken into account, and then sets it on a scale so 100 is average. Every point above 100 is 1 percent better than the average.

It's not perfect, but it's better than "Babe Ruth had a 1.75 ERA once" without context.

[dim]

I understand it's probably a better stat for early 1900s guys than ERA, but I just feel uncomfortable using a stat where there are certain aspects within the statistic that are hard for a person like me to discern how they got about that number.

[Bobbob1313]

I understand it's probably a better stat for early 1900s guys than ERA, but I just feel uncomfortable using a stat where there are certain aspects within the statistic that are hard for a person like me to discern how they got about that number.

I don't really understand what your problem with it is. If you could do a better job articulation what you don't understand, I could maybe help you understand it.

But it's really not complicated. It is, essentially, diving the pitcher's ERA by the league ERA and then setting it so that average equals out to 100 every season.

[DColts]

I say Ruth.