Quote:
Originally Posted by Rookiemonster
Ruth did not face any good pitchers he face the same guys over and over . The only pitcher he faced was lefty grove . The pitchers he face were worn down over worked and were not the best of the best . Because it was only whites in baseball .
Mays faced the best pitchers of all time Koufax , Gibson , Spahn , drysdale Etc
He played in the polo grounds . , seal stadium , candlestick the biggest and windiest park in the majors you can't say Ruth would have any better success . He faced racism . He have prime years to the Koreanwar efforts . Ruth could not field even a quarter the mays could . Run or steal bases I don't think there is any argument there that mays was the man . Bottom line mays was the best there was . Or at very least nothing to laugh at .
|
It's pointless to compare player eras. The best argument you have with that is Mays would have been as good a hitter as Ruth in the 1920's or Ruth would have lost 50 batting average points and 100 home runs playing in the 50's. Doubtful on both counts. (and by the way, you conveniently left out the fact that Ruth faced Johnson, the BEST pitcher in MLB history).
Was Mays faster than Ruth? I'm sure he was. How much did that really matter though. Not much. Mays had 338 stolen bases, 120th place on the career list, right ahead of Joe Tinker. Mays wasn't exactly a superstar threat on the base paths.
However, you're forgetting my main point about Ruth. Like I said, when Mays coughs up 100 wins as an MLB pitcher, we can discuss how he's a better overall player than Ruth.
I'm not saying Mays wasn't a great player, even a top tier HOFer. I'm just saying that Mays, or anyone else, can't come close to Ruth as the best overall player in MLB history. Ruth was good at everything, not just chasing down fly balls in the outfield.