Who is the Greatest Player of All Time

[Bobbob1313]

Here's the ratio stats of the guys I consider the 3 best hitters, with the league averages for each included.

It's practically impossible to say any one of them was clearly more dominant, once you take the ERA they played in into account.

Too bad there's not really any comparison for the period between Williams and Bonds. Mickey Mantle probably fits in somewhere, but he was more a contemporary of Williams than anything.
--------------------

He had 488 strikeouts and 441 walks as a pitcher in his career. If a pitcher does that now, he does not survive.

Yeah, but it was a totally different era. Nobody ever struck out back then.

In his best season, '16, he had 4.7 K/9 and 3.3 BB/9. League average for the AL was 3.7 K/9 and 3.2 BB/9.

As a hitter, he lead the league in strikeouts five times, with his highest coming at 93 in a full season. His worst seaosn ever, in which he lead his league, would have placed him in an 8 way tie for 97th in baseball last season. Nobody struck out back then.

[Namaste]

So who's the greatest? Williams or Bonds?

It's not Ruth. No fucking way.

[MiamiHomer]

CC is still in NY so I don't think he'll get to his Williams explanation in the next day or two but he'll for sure bring up Ted Williams on base streak which he always loves to point out to be when we talk about DiMaggio's hitting streak and what Williams did was more impressive and doesn't get the same level of recognition.

[Bobbob1313]

It's not Ruth. No fucking way.

Why not?

[Namaste]

Why not?

Because Williams and Bonds were the greatest hitters ever and the only case that can be made that Bonds is better pound for pound than Williams is Bonds' glove and speed.

From what I know, Ruth didn't have the glove/base running to make that case.

[Anonymous]

I agree with Barry Bonds as the best player ever.

[HUGG]

I think the media is trying to tell me its Josh Hamilton.

[Bobbob1313]

Because Williams and Bonds were the greatest hitters ever and the only case that can be made that Bonds is better pound for pound than Williams is Bonds' glove and speed.

From what I know, Ruth didn't have the glove/base running to make that case.

An argument can certainly be made for Ruth being a greater hitter than Williams or Bonds.

Williams was likely the better all-around hitter than either, but Ruth had his very solid pitching career and Bonds had his baserunning and defense. That is why it is such a fascinating argument. You could easily make an argument for each one, and I think they'd each be convincing.

[Namaste]

An argument can certainly be made for Ruth being a greater hitter than Williams or Bonds..

Except that pesky little era issue getting in the way.

But seriously, the talent pool.

And that whole "of the 9 HOF'ers who pitched in the Ruth era, 4 of them were on NYY" thing.

bobbob, call me.

[emkayseven]

The talent pool argument, to me, holds very little water. No one in Ruth's era played against black players. Everyone played against the same talent. And yet Ruth was that much better than them. If no blacks (or Hispanics) really watered the talent pool down that much, then everyone would have been hitting 60 home runs.

So Babe Ruth didn't play against black players. Bonds had steroids. In the 50s everyone used amphetamines. There's a stain on every era, but the commonality is that since it's an era-wide thing, you can compare those players to their peers. In my opinion Ruth was so far above and beyond what anyone else was doing it makes him an easy choice for me. I definitely understand the arguments for Bonds, Williams, Aaron, Mays, etc., but I do not understand the arguments if they are based solely on "that pesky little era issue."