| Professional Baseball Moderated. MLB, former Buckeyes all fair game. |
|
View Poll Results: Who is the best OVERALL baseball player ever?
|
|
Babe Ruth
|
  
|
27 |
60.00% |
|
"Shoeless" Joe Jackson
|
  
|
1 |
2.22% |
|
Pete Rose
|
  
|
7 |
15.56% |
|
Ted Williams
|
  
|
1 |
2.22% |
|
Other-----Please explain your selection
|
  
|
9 |
20.00% |

04-10-2007, 04:39 PM
|
 |
Buy LittleBigPlanet!
Moderator
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,292
Points: 1,201,237.32
Bank: 0.00
Total Points: 1,201,237.32
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by willsonphilips
True, it's Ruth hands down, not even close. Unless, you take into account what Ted Williams would have done had WWII never taken place. Because of the war Williams essentially missed his prime. The year before he shipped off he won the Triple Crown, and the second year he was back ('47) he won it again. If you average his Triple crown years together and multiple them by the number of years he missed, which I think is fair he could have put up better numbers, Williams ranks 1st alltime in Runs Scored, RBI's, and walks. He ranks 4th in Homers, 5th in doubles, 9th in hits, and probably would have raised his career average to around .350ish which would put him 4th. Pretty good argument, I think.
|
And if we pretend lots of players had stats that they never actually amassed, we'd have a totally different historical record for baseball.
Even with Williams's WWII years, Ruth still holds a 94-46 record and lifetime 2.28 ERA in enough full-time seasons as a pitcher that you can count on one hand (plus his spot starts in NY), before becoming the most feared hitter of any generation. His pitching stats in his only two seasons (1916, 1917) as a "full time" pitcher compare favorably to Walter Johnson for the same seasons (they were in the same league), with Ruth writing his legend early by pitching 13 shutout innings for Boston in Game 2 of the 1916 World Series.
This is akin to a Clemens or Maddux deciding to just give up pitching in 1992, and becoming a DH that hits like Ken Griffey Jr in his prime, but even more dominant than that. Just the thought of it is absurd.
If you asked any sportswriter or baseball fan of any era to name the best player of that era, or decade, or generation, or quarter-century, or whatever ... you'll get a dozen different answers, except for the 1910s and 1920s. When Ruth played, there was never a doubt who the best player was. That says a lot.
__________________
|

04-10-2007, 04:45 PM
|
 |
Woody is my hero
Moderator
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,065
Points: 158.55
Bank: 0.00
Total Points: 158.55
|
|
|
Babe Ruth because the pro game was built by him and his reputaion, his persona.
He more than any player before while or since has done more for baseball.
While others have added to it he was the main block, the keystone of the foundation.
|

04-10-2007, 04:51 PM
|
 |
SAB
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,175
Points: 269.62
Bank: 0.00
Total Points: 269.62
|
|
The Grat Bahbino

|

04-10-2007, 07:24 PM
|
 |
Maize and Blue Wahoo
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,509
Points: 9,785.55
Bank: 0.00
Total Points: 9,785.55
|
|
|
Willie Mays. To me it comes down to this: Babe Ruth was outstanding in two things: pitching and hitting. Mays was outstanding in three: hitting, fielding, and baserunning.
I'll acknowledge that Babe Ruth had the greatest impact on the game. Hell, he probably did more to popularize his sport than any other athlete, ever. Jackie Robinson also had a profound impact on the game, but I wouldn't hesitate to name 50 better actual ballplayers than him.
__________________
Plug of No Shame: Am now blogging UVA sports. Take a peek and say hello at From Old Virginia.
|

04-10-2007, 07:34 PM
|
 |
The eyes of Texas are upon you!
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,696
Points: 1,192.43
Bank: 16.13
Total Points: 1,208.56
|
|
|
Great to read the posts....I love to see that Ruth is an overwhelming favorite....to me he is one of the greatest. But Babe Ruth copies the "game" and swing of "Shoeless" Joe...why can't he ("Shoeless" Joe) be considered the greatest? He played in a dead ball era....and with his stats????
|

04-10-2007, 07:36 PM
|
 |
I think. Therefore, I am
Administrator
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 27,622
Points: 13,557,113.37
Bank: 0.53
Total Points: 13,557,113.90
|
|
|
I guess Ruth did have a reputation of being a little lazy on the base paths. But, considering the lineup around him (1927 in particular), he could afford it a bit.
Mays isn't a bad choice, by any means. I still have to go with Ruth though. And, I've always liked Hank Aaron's name being included in the discussion, although I still have to come out on Ruth's side when push comes to shove.
__________________

"Reality is merely a framework for imagination" 9/25/05
"I am firmly convinced that Charlie Weis didn't have any idea as to how good the Buckeyes were defensively." - Brent Musburger
I'd rather be a prison whore than root for Michigan --- Long live the PCP
|

04-10-2007, 07:39 PM
|
 |
Crazy Bearded Fool
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,730
Points: 1,026.39
Bank: 0.00
Total Points: 1,026.39
| | |