[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Koos--No one would argue that today's athletes are not bigger, stronger and faster than athletes of 75 years ago. If Babe Ruth could be magically transported to 2002 would he be the dominating player that we was in the 20s---almost surely not. However, players can be compared to players from their era and how they rank against these peers helps determine their place in history. Compare the average number of home runs Babe Ruth hit in a season to the average number hit by players in his day. I would bet no one has ever come close to him in this respect. Compare Babe Ruth's lifetime average to the lifetime average of players during his era. Make a series of these comparisons and then see where Ruth ranks in the history of baseball. I believe the numbers will show that he was clearly the greatest player ever. The arguement that players were not as good relative to the rest of society at their time as compared to today is also wrong, I believe, although it is not a clear cut arguement. Today several major sports compete for athletes. Do the best athletes in your local high school become baseball players. Not in mine---they become football players or basketball players or lacrosse players. In the 20s the best athletes gravitated towards baseball. The other sports were secondary. The offsetting arguement is that in the 20s only whites could play in the major leagues. The worldwide integration of professional baseball has certainly widened the talent pool.
Now getting back to the comparisons. I would contend that Mantle and Dimaggio played in the same era and that Joe D. was clearly the better player. I saw Mantle play for virtually all his career and he was great but not an all time great. Having said that I also saw Frank Robinson for all of his career and he wasn't as good as Mantle which certainly places him behind Dimaggio. I have tremendous respect for Barry Bonds. His last few years certainly are some of the best ever. However, when you look at his career--year by year--does he rank with Willie Mays. I don't think so. Part of the reason for Bonds dominance in the last few years (my opinion)is that he has no fear at the plate. With the elbow protection and the fact that pitchers are not allowed to back players off the plate anymore he can crowd the plate with impugnity. Transport Barry back to the 60s and see how long he would survive crowding the plate like that against Gibson or Drysdale.
I have to stop. These arguements are just too much fum and this is the beauty of baseball. There are no right answers but it is easy to convince yourself that you are right.