Greatest of all time

[Cozumeleno]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Easily the best hitter since Ted Williams? Easily a better hitter than Bonds, Pujols, A-Rod, Schmidt, and Boggs? Only if singles count for more than home runs.

I put Bonds ahead of him on my all-time player list (and would list several of those guys above him as well). But they all fall short for me in terms of comparing their overall hitting to Gwynn.

Gwynn, IMO, is far more than a singles hitter. He had more (other than Bonds, significantly more) triples than anyone in that group and his doubles stack up pretty favorably against most, too - in fact, he has more than Schmidt and AROD (for now).

The only people on that list even close to him in batting average (to me, probably the top criteria) were Pujols and Boggs. Boggs had as little pop in his bat as he did and while Pujols is a career .315 hitter now, that number is dropping by the day...he hasn't hit that well since 2009 and he could play for another five years or so.

And when you consider that Gwynn never struck out more than 40 times in a season, he's an easy pick for me. If you factor in things like strikeouts and batting titles, I'd take him over anyone else.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Cozumeleno

I put Bonds ahead of him on my all-time player list (and would list several of those guys above him as well). But they all fall short for me in terms of comparing their overall hitting to Gwynn.

What you're saying is that if Gwynn had been equal to Bonds on defense and on the basepaths, without otherwise changing anything, Gwynn would easily have been the better player overall.

[brewing]

Originally Posted by Cozumeleno

And when you consider that Gwynn never struck out more than 40 times in a season, he's an easy pick for me. If you factor in things like strikeouts and batting titles, I'd take him over anyone else.

Wow! Wow!

Isn't that like saying if you factor in SB's and runs scored (runs and run prevention being the most important things), then Rickey Henderson is the greatest baseball player of All Time?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind, because the people who think Koufax was the greatest pitcher ever (or even in the top 5) didn't get there by caring about the statistics that empirically do a better job of quantifying a player's contributions to his team's chances of winning games, but hopefully they can at least understand the perspective of those they are arguing against.

Probably because the people who argue those stats choose to ignore the serious flaws and errors in their models. For example ERA+. Using a stat like that assumes a uniformity of pitching talent because it measures you against your peers. Comparing across generations can give a seriously flawed result. We just went through a period from Bert Blyleven to Greg Maddux when not a single starting pitcher who entered mlb made the hof. Comparing a pitcher who pitched during this time vs. one who pitched with a high number of hof pitchers is not a valid comparrison.

Above, it was poorly arguement that Koufax unfairly benefited from his home park when historically it has been pretty close to neutral. The fact that during that time, the Dodgers had the lowest staff era in the NL every year, while having one of the worst offenses (8th, 8th, 8th & 6th ) should leave anyone with an ounce of common sense to realize scoring would be abnormally low. It is not that people don't care about those advanced metrics. It is that they are often misused and result in erroneous arguements.

[brewing]

Originally Posted by rats60

Above, it was poorly arguement that Koufax unfairly benefited from his home park when historically it has been pretty close to neutral. The fact that during that time, the Dodgers had the lowest staff era in the NL every year, while having one of the worst offenses (8th, 8th, 8th & 6th ) should leave anyone with an ounce of common sense to realize scoring would be abnormally low. It is not that people don't care about those advanced metrics. It is that they are often misused and result in erroneous arguements.

The fact is that Dodger stadium has benefited pitchers since 1962.

It's also fact that each year Koufax pitched there he performed better at home vs the road. It's a very pronounced difference.

1962-1966 Koufax
Home
Faced 2,714 batters, gave up 34 HR
1.37 ERA

Away
Faced 2,681 batters, gave up 55 HR
2.57 ERA

Those are substantial home/road splits.

[aro13]

Above, it was poorly arguement that Koufax unfairly benefited from his home park when historically it has been pretty close to neutral. The fact that during that time, the Dodgers had the lowest staff era in the NL every year, while having one of the worst offenses (8th, 8th, 8th & 6th ) should leave anyone with an ounce of common sense to realize scoring would be abnormally low. It is not that people don't care about those advanced metrics. It is that they are often misused and result in erroneous arguements.

Dodger Stadium was an unbelievable pitcher's park. It affected all of their numbers. In 1963 they posted virtually the same record at home (50-31) as on the road (49-32). At home they scored 296 runs and allowed 248 on the road they scored 344 runs and allowed 302. That is a constant between 1962 and 1966. Dodger Stadium inflated their pitchers numbers and hurt their offensive players.

The notion that the Dodgers had a bad offense is not true. The 1962 Dodgers scored more runs then the 1961 Yankees. They had good offensive players whose numbers suffered in Dodger Stadium.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by rats60

We just went through a period from Bert Blyleven to Greg Maddux when not a single starting pitcher who entered mlb made the hof. Comparing a pitcher who pitched during this time vs. one who pitched with a high number of hof pitchers is not a valid comparrison.

Because it just so happens that all the humans who were born between 1951 and 1966 were unable to pitch well? Surely we can agree that's not the most parsimonious explanation for why offensive numbers were up in the 1980s and 1990s.

No one is arguing that Dave Stieb (who put up the best numbers in the 1980s per se) was as good as Tom Seaver (who put up the best numbers in the 1970s per se) or Bob Gibson (1960s), but to ignore park factors and the systematic changes in the game across generations as related to anything other than the pitchers' abilities in doing these comparisons is to conclude that Ed Reulbach was a better pitcher than Felix Hernandez. And that, I argue, is more egregious than putting Dave Stieb in the Hall of Fame would be.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by brewing

No it's the word I meant. Don't get me wrong, I think Koufax was great. I don't dispute he was the best pitcher on earth for 4 years either.

I don't believe he belongs in the discussion for greatest ever (living or dead) though. Not when considering the ballpark he pitched half his games in and the era he pitched.

It is true that Koufax clearly benefited from both the park he pitched in and the second most friendly era to pitchers of all time (large strike zone; high mound). That said, if you plug Lefty Grove's stats into the same era as Koufax, in Dodger Stadium, using the neutralization factors on www.baseballreference.com, what you get is a whole series of years that are pretty much identical to the best years of Koufax. Grove, however, was great for a much longer period of time, which is why his ERA+ (nearly 50% below league average) is better than Koufax's (about 31%, going by memory). And there is little objective room for dispute that Lefty Grove has to be in any rational discussion of the greatest pitchers of all time (he and Walter Johnson were each right around 50% below league ERA for their careers). Grove was handicapped in win totals because his minor league owner didn't want to sell him until the price was to his liking, and Connie Mack finally anted up.

Terrific thread and discussion!

Larry

[EvilKing00]

Ruth
Williams
Gherig
Cobb
Bonds

[CMIZ5290]

I say again...

Cobb
Mantle
Ruth....any order you see fit....

[Joshchisox08]

1. Tyler Flowers
2. Shelly Duncan
3. Ben Grieve
4. Travis Lee
5. Michael Jordan
6. Billy Beane
7. Mario Mendoza
8. Bull Durham
9. Pete Rose JR
10. Tony Gwynn JR

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

I say again...

Cobb
Mantle
Ruth....any order you see fit....

I like your thinking, Kevin, but would also add Williams--while Ted's value lay largely in his bat (he became quite adept at playing the green monster very well also), it was a VERY, VERY BIG BAT (one which for his entire career produced 250% of runs created versus league average, the best figure of all time).

Best wishes,

Larry

[Cozumeleno]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

What you're saying is that if Gwynn had been equal to Bonds on defense and on the basepaths, without otherwise changing anything, Gwynn would easily have been the better player overall.

Not at all - Bonds was leaps and bounds better than him as a power hitter and that counts for a lot if you're talking about him being a better player. Bonds is a better power hitter, was better defensively, and a better base stealer - you add it all up and he's a better player.

Bonds was the better power hitter, but Gwynn, for me, is a better hitter overall when you factor in the things I mentioned. Hit for a much better average, struck out less, won batting title after batting title, and was still hitting well over .300 into his 40s.

[Joshchisox08]

Originally Posted by Cozumeleno

Not at all - Bonds was leaps and bounds better than him as a power hitter and that counts for a lot if you're talking about him being a better player. Bonds is a better power hitter, was better defensively, and a better base stealer - you add it all up and he's a better player.

Bonds was the better power hitter, but Gwynn, for me, is a better hitter overall when you factor in the things I mentioned. Hit for a much better average, struck out less, won batting title after batting title, and was still hitting well over .300 into his 40s.

+ 1

Gwynn get's no respect. Power is overrated. Gwynn hit a HR in the WS against the Yankees. Bonds is a cheating a$$h0le. And no you don't know exactly when he started roiding up and no he WASN'T a HOF'er before the Roids because you don't know when he started, fact is it doesn't matter. He cheated. To quote Hawk "He Gone".

I guess that yeah Gwynn was a nicer and better human being than Bonds. Hitting he WAS a better hitter. He like Cobb had a science to hitting Cobb sought out his advantages in players weaknesses. Gwynn did the same while using recordings of at bats and making it all about the thought process of hitting. If people were going to give him the Gwynn hole in between SS and 3B why wouldn't he keep attacking ??? Boring sure if you're too worried about Home Runs.

Don't get me wrong who doesn't like a HR but to overall hitting, and a guy who only sniffed a .330 average once in his so called "clean years" proves that Gwynn was a smarter/better hitter. He wasn't worried about Home Runs. Nor should he, he knew what type of player/hitter he was. When it isn't broken don't fix it.

Bonds got jealous of McGwire and then that's when he supposedly started juicing. He took an unfair advantage whether or not you view it as one it is a debatable subject in it's own. But MLB sees it as an unfair advantage. Therefore IMO he shouldn't even be a contender to be considered greatest player.

He is the greatest of something but I won't say that out loud on here. Not going to get in trouble again.

P.S. Next thing I'll see is someone claiming Clemens was the greatest pitcher ever

[Peter_Spaeth]

Gwynn is nowhere close to Bonds, IMO. Steroids aside, Bonds is one of the best five players of all time, easily. Gwynn might be top 25. How on earth is power overrated in baseball?? And you could certainly make a strong argument that Clemens is the best ever.

[jbl79]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Gwynn is nowhere close to Bonds, IMO. Steroids aside, Bonds is one of the best five players of all time, easily. Gwynn might be top 25. How on earth is power overrated in baseball??

+1

Gwynn was as great a contact hitter there ever was. I would choose Bonds as the better overall hitter even before Superhuman Bonds. Pre '99...Bonds still had a career .411OBP and .556SLG with a 164OPS+. His ability to draw walks, hitting 30-40HRs while maintaining a .300 average is what separates the two. Bonds only struck out over 100 times once in his entire career...his rookie year. Both great hitters in their own ways...but I would choose Barry.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Bonds was already the best player in baseball before he started using.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Gwynn is nowhere close to Bonds, IMO. Steroids aside, Bonds is one of the best five players of all time, easily. Gwynn might be top 25. How on earth is power overrated in baseball?? And you could certainly make a strong argument that Clemens is the best ever.

Peter I think you are highly overrating Gwynn. There is no way he is top 25, maybe top 50 maybe.

Clemens IS the best pitcher ever. I am very biased though.

[ejharrington]

1. Babe Ruth (towers over all other position players)
2. Cy Young (towers over all other pitchers)
3. Barry Bonds (the most dominant player I ever saw)
4. Honus Wagner (the best player at the most important position)
5. Walter Johnson (417 wins)
6. Willie Mays (coin flip with 7)
7. Hank Aaron (coin flip with 6)
8. Ty Cobb (Legend)
9. Rickey Henderson (wreaked havoc wherever he went)
10. Lou Gehrig (sneaks in past the others below)

Honorable Mention:
Albert Pujols
Johnny Bench
Eddie Collins
Joe Morgan
Ted Williams
Pedro Martinez
Tris Speaker
Mickey Mantle
Christy Mathewson

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Peter I think you are highly overrating Gwynn. There is no way he is top 25, maybe top 50 maybe.

Clemens IS the best pitcher ever. I am very biased though.

It's hard to argue with 7 Cy Youngs and 350 plus wins in an era of pitching every fifth day.

[oldjudge]

"i'm partial to lefties like myself: ruth, bonds, teddy ballgame, cobb, mays."

Perhaps Mays wiped with his left hand, but he batted righty.

[Paul S]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's hard to argue with 7 Cy Youngs and 350 plus wins in an era of pitching every fifth day.

He beats the guy with 417 wins and 0 Cy Young awards

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Paul S

He beats the guy with 417 wins and 0 Cy Young awards

Maybe not, but it's arguable. I think Johnson, Alexander, Grove or Clemens would be a defensible choice. Young too, maybe.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Maybe not, but it's arguable. I think Johnson, Alexander, Grove or Clemens would be a defensible choice. Young too, maybe.

Alexander is #5 for me. I think I could make a decent case for any of the others, but I can't see a way to move Alexander to #1. (I have Young a very close second to Johnson.)

[Joshchisox08]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Bonds was already the best player in baseball before he started using.

And can you identify the year he started "using" ??? If that's the case then McGwire and Sosa are HOF players.......... They're both sure more likeable like most people on this forum other than you haha.

Seriously though backing Bonds is like backing G@y-Ro1d up..........

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Joshchisox08

And can you identify the year he started "using" ??? If that's the case then McGwire and Sosa are HOF players.......... They're both sure more likeable like most people on this forum other than you haha.

Seriously though backing Bonds is like backing G@y-Ro1d up..........

So far, Josh does not approve of:

1. Steroid users with good home run totals
2. Peter
3. The gays

Anyone else we should add?

[Joshchisox08]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

So far, Josh does not approve of:

1. Steroid users with good home run totals
2. Peter
3. The gays

Anyone else we should add?

1. Not necessarily true. I like McGwire and like Sosa for what they did for MLB in 1998 and baseball crapped all over them after they reaped the benefits of what they did for the sport.

2. Also not true what's wrong with some snappy comments to keep an argument going ?????? ...........

3. Where did I say that ????? It's a common nickname I've heard from him. I'm from New England so there's lots of A-Roid bashers you hear quite a bit of different nicknames from him.

Don't jump to assumptions Glenn

[the 'stache]

The more I think about it, the more I think Ken Griffey Jr is being vastly underrated. By age 30, he was a career .299 hitter with 1,063 runs, 398 home runs, 1,152 RBI, and a .948 OPS. He also had been named to ten All Star Games, and had won ten Gold Glove Awards.

I would say Bonds was the best player in the NL, and Griffey Jr was the best in the AL. But how we are overlooking Griffey Jr perplexes me. He played the game all out, and I've never heard a single whisper about him and steroids. His body broke down after age 30 because he was always flying into the wall, or diving to make catches. That baseball historians are wondering "what might have been" if Griffey hadn't seen his career derailed by injury...while he still amassed 2,781 hits, 1,662 runs, 524 doubles, 630 home runs, 1,836 RBI, and a .370/.538/.908 slash line...really attests to what a spectacular player he was.

I'll tell you one thing. I don't know if there's ever been a player I enjoyed watching more than the Kid. I never saw DiMaggio play, obviously, but from what I've read about him, and have seen in documentaries, everything he did looked effortless. That's the impression I got with Griffey Jr. He had one of the most beautiful swings I've ever seen. He would just whip that bat around, and the ball would fly into the upper deck. Then, he'd go out, and jump up over the wall in center, and rob somebody of a home run.

[CobbvLajoie1910]

Originally Posted by Joshchisox08

Seriously though backing Bonds is like backing G@y-Ro1d up..........

Josh. In a "community" (which n54 is), I would suggest treading lightly with your homophobic inferences; you never know who is reading your off-the-cuff, mindless garbage.

Go play in traffic, man.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by CobbvLajoie1910

Josh. In a "community" (which n54 is), I would suggest treading lightly with your homophobic inferences; you never know who is reading your off-the-cuff, mindless garbage.

Go play in traffic, man.

A-Rod if all the stats counts is going to be top of the list. He obliterated the SS numbers which was his primary position....who has the second most homers from a primary SS position...I can look it up of course....but most of these big homer guys are 1B or OF...very few from Middle Infield

[GehrigFan]

T-1st Lou Gehrig
T-1st Babe Ruth
3rd Ty Cobb
T-4th Willie Mays
T-4th Hank Aaron
6th Ted Williams

1st Walter Johnson
2nd Cy Young
3rd Grover Alexander
4th Nolan Ryan
5th Lefty Grove

[AddieJoss]

There seems to be a hitters biased towards the 30s-60s. And that may be justified. I would submit that for modern players Tony Gwynn should be considered. I do not think he had anything to do with steroids and has the highest career batting average of all "modern" players.
And then an old timer, who as I read stories was amazing is Ed Delhanty. He averages more career hits per year, more runs per year, and more HRs per year than Ty Cobb. He died whole still in his prime but did play 16 years.
Just a couple guys from a different era than Mays/mantle/etc. Who are not HR guys but who hit for average.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

1. Bonds

2. Ruth

3. Mays

4. A-Rod (when he hangs them up)

5. Pedro (gotta have a pitcher )


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by chipperhank44

This was an interesting question for me. As far as batters are concerned, I had a pretty definitive list in my head. That said, I am also from the school of thought that OPS is the greatest indicator of a batter's value. So I looked up the career leaders in OPS and found an interesting top 5. (and yes I realize that defense and steals are not accounted for in OPS, but defense is hard as hell to quantify and I never saw any of these guys with my own eyes so the eyeball test is out the window, I will focus on hitting)



1. Ruth

2. Williams

3. Gehrig

4. Foxx (skipped Bonds)

5. Greenberg





Now I am looking at a top 5 list and saying to myself, really, Greenberg and Foxx in my top 5? So I consider the following question, aren't hits and steals combined just as valuable as a double, if not more so? So I do the following:



Ty Cobb has 3053 total singles in his career and 897 total stolen bases. Why not subtract the total stolen bases from the number of singles and give those hits plus singles the value of a double in the slugging percentage equation. So I do this, and it works out as follows.



Ty Cobb



Total 1B - 2156 (singles minus stolen bases)

Total 2B - 1621 (doubles plus stolen bases)

Total 3B - 295

Total HR - 117

Total AB - 11434



With these numbers, Cobb's career SLG% is elevated from .512 to .590. When combined with his career OBP of .433 you get an OPS (adjusted for steals) of 1.023, which is good enough for 5th place (excluding Bonds) on the all time OPS list.



I know there all holes in this logic, like the fact that every SB is not combined with a hit, many are after walks or HBP, but this was just my attempt to make OPS fair to the base thief. The ability to turn a walk, HBP, or single into a runner in scoring position is invaluable, so I had to account for it somehow. I'm sure if I added Greenberg or Hornsby's steals to their slugging calculation, they might overtake Cobb on the OPS list, but Cobb belongs IMO and this is how I reconciled it.



1. Ruth

2. Williams

3. Gehrig

4. Foxx

5. Cobb





Not sure if this is a novel idea or if someone is going to tell me OPS adjusted for steals is already a thing, but either way, I like it quite a lot.

Quit pretending like Bonds never played, geez.

He's a part of the games history, grow up and deal with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chaddurbin]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

"i'm partial to lefties like myself: ruth, bonds, teddy ballgame, cobb, mays."

Perhaps Mays wiped with his left hand, but he batted righty.

yes guys, i realize mays is a righty. some probably don't agree with my bonds and williams choices so i just wanna preface that.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Joshchisox08

And can you identify the year he started "using" ??? If that's the case then McGwire and Sosa are HOF players.......... They're both sure more likeable like most people on this forum other than you haha.

Seriously though backing Bonds is like backing G@y-Ro1d up..........

I think consensus is 1999, he felt underappreciated after the McGwire Sosa year. If you look at his stats up to that point there is no question he was already a first ballot HOFer.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

A-Rod if all the stats counts is going to be top of the list. He obliterated the SS numbers which was his primary position....who has the second most homers from a primary SS position...I can look it up of course....but most of these big homer guys are 1B or OF...very few from Middle Infield

Banks, although half of his career was at first. Ripken had some decent HR numbers for a shortstop.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

The more I think about it, the more I think Ken Griffey Jr is being vastly underrated. By age 30, he was a career .299 hitter with 1,063 runs, 398 home runs, 1,152 RBI, and a .948 OPS. He also had been named to ten All Star Games, and had won ten Gold Glove Awards.

I would say Bonds was the best player in the NL, and Griffey Jr was the best in the AL. But how we are overlooking Griffey Jr perplexes me. He played the game all out, and I've never heard a single whisper about him and steroids. His body broke down after age 30 because he was always flying into the wall, or diving to make catches. That baseball historians are wondering "what might have been" if Griffey hadn't seen his career derailed by injury...while he still amassed 2,781 hits, 1,662 runs, 524 doubles, 630 home runs, 1,836 RBI, and a .370/.538/.908 slash line...really attests to what a spectacular player he was.

I'll tell you one thing. I don't know if there's ever been a player I enjoyed watching more than the Kid. I never saw DiMaggio play, obviously, but from what I've read about him, and have seen in documentaries, everything he did looked effortless. That's the impression I got with Griffey Jr. He had one of the most beautiful swings I've ever seen. He would just whip that bat around, and the ball would fly into the upper deck. Then, he'd go out, and jump up over the wall in center, and rob somebody of a home run.

Bill James had an interesting analysis claiming to show that even at Griffey's peak, Craig Biggio (of all people) was better. He and Strawberry had the best swings I have seen.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Bill James had an interesting analysis claiming to show that even at Griffey's peak, Craig Biggio (of all people) was better. He and Strawberry had the best swings I have seen.

I saw that analysis Peter. My opinion is very simple....Bill James can keep Biggio, and I'll take Griffey at peak value all day long!

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Banks, although half of his career was at first. Ripken had some decent HR numbers for a shortstop.

right whats decent for a SS for total home runs...and then compare to A-Rod..Doesn't A-Rod obliterate that total....when talking all time great.. I would look for obliteration..not someone who has the edge...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Yes but recall ARod only played SS through 2003. I think Ripken had more at the position, actually.

Yup, I am right.

Most
By A Shortstop
AL
Cal Ripken, Jr.

Baltimore

345

NL
Ernie Banks

Chicago

277

[25801wv]

1. Babe Ruth
2. Ty Cobb
3. Ted Williams
4. Lou Gehrig
5. Hank Aaron
6. Willie Mays
7. Mickey Mantle
8. Rogers Hornsby
9. Joe DiMaggio
10. Stan Musial

[LincolnVT]

Top 15 Hitters:

Ruth
Cobb
Wagner
Musial
Williams
Mays
Aaron
Rose
Puckett
DiMaggio
Gwynn
Griffey Jr.
Mantle
Boggs
Brett

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by LincolnVT

Top 15 Hitters:

Ruth
Cobb
Wagner
Musial
Williams
Mays
Aaron
Rose
Puckett
DiMaggio
Gwynn
Griffey Jr.
Mantle
Boggs
Brett

Puckett Gwynn Boggs Brett over Gehrig and Hornsby??

[chipperhank44]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

Quit pretending like Bonds never played, geez.

He's a part of the games history, grow up and deal with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quit being ignorant and calling Bonds the greatest of all time and I'll consider it.

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by chipperhank44

Quit being ignorant and calling Bonds the greatest of all time and I'll consider it.

Barry Bonds was better at baseball than any human being in the history of the sport.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

Barry Bonds was better at baseball than any human being in the history of the sport.

Hard to argue against that. I personally would go with Mr Ted Williams as the best ever.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Ruth, but yeah if you are willing to count his years on juice Bonds has to be part of the discussion and is certainly up there in the top five and maybe as high as second.

[irishdenny]

Originally Posted by LincolnVT

Top 15 Hitters:

Ruth
Cobb
Wagner
Musial
Williams
Mays
Aaron
Rose
Puckett
DiMaggio
Gwynn
Griffey Jr.
Mantle
Boggs
Brett

Interestin...!

Before I read your post, I was thinkin that throughout this entire thread...
The Lack of the Lack of Support that Lou Gehrig was getting.
Knowin that opposing pitchers "HAD TO PITCH TO'em"(Because Ruth was uP Next!), Only made Mr. Gehrig's job that much more difficult!
My whole life I've thought Mr. Gehrig to be a better All around player than Mr. Ruth, except in the pitching area.

It Baffles me that Lou Gehrig is Not iN Many of our members Top 5 lists.

I'd say the same for Christy Mathewson... As the Top 5 list goes!
He made the Giants a far Better Team when he was on the mound.

In All, I definitely like everyone's perspective though!

I've always liked these threads... Simply Awesome!!!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Gehrig batted after Ruth far more than in front of him.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...US&output=html

In any case having a great hitter hit behind you makes the batter's job easier not harder -- the pitchers have to come into the strike zone.