Who is the greatest baseball player of all time?

[jingram058]

What person can definitively answer that question?

Everyone has an opinion. Who do YOU think is the greatest?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by jingram058

What person can definitively answer that question?

I can. Ruth.

[BobC]

Always remember scouts and baseball executives talking about 5-tool players as being the best prospects, and eventually the greatest actual players, of the game. Well, sorry to say, but the truth is that Ruth was never a 5-tool player!!!

Mays, on the other hand, most definitely had all 5-tools, in spades. Also, scouts and others often talked about his amazing arm strength and throwing ability, and many surmised he would have actually been a better pitcher than outfielder. In his time coming up though, teams didn't really consider the idea of using a player as both a pitcher and as a position player on their non-pitching days. So, Mays was pushed into the outfield so he could be in the lineup every day. We'll never know for sure how great of a pitcher Willie could have been, but based on many knowledgeable people's opinions, he would have potentially been a great pitcher as well. Now I'm not out and out saying Mays is the greatest player of all time. It is a futile and somewhat pointless argument and waste of time due to all the different eras, changes in rules, equipment, and context that have occurred since baseball first was played to definitively be able to say someone is absolutely better or worse than someone else. But in terms of Ruth versus Mays, Willie was a true 5-tolol player, while Ruth was not. That is indisputable and fact. How great of a pitcher Mays could have possibly been, we'll never know as that is all speculative because Mays was never given the opportunity to pitch in the majors as Ruth was.

And the question was strictly about who was the greatest player ever in baseball , NOT who was the most influential ever. And anyone who doesn't admit and realize those are two entirely different questions is just being ignorant. And even so, for those who would argue Ruth was the most influential baseball player of all time, I'm not so sure Ruth's supposed influence didn't have a lot more to do with him being lucky and in the right place at the right time. MLB was already trying to change the conversation about the game due to the Black Sox scandal, and as a result they changed the ball from a dead to a live ball. They also saw the size and measurements of MLB stadium outfields shortening and making it easier for players to hit home runs. But Ruth himself didn't make or influence such changes, he really just happened to be the one to take the most advantage of the changes that MLB was actually implementing and supporting. So, arguing that it was actually Ruth who was the most influential may actually be more of a case of the tail wagging the dog than a lot of Ruth fans care to admit.

In the meantime, if you want to talk about a player having a possible even more direct, lasting, and influential effect on the game of baseball, I would nominate Curt Flood as potentially the most influential player of all time. He fought to bring about the demise of the reserve clause in baseball, and the onset of free agency. And he did so with absolutely no help or support from MLB as they were fighting against him. There is no denying the fact that the game of baseball dramatically and forever changed with the advent of free agency. Meanwhile, Ruth's impact and influence had a lot more to do with the rules, equipment, and other changes and such that MLB put in place and supported for baseball overall, and which he was able to take advantage of.

[rhettyeakley]

Bob that was a lot of words to not answer the question. But you call the idea of the thread “a futile and a somewhat pointless argument and a waste of time” so thanks for chiming in.
I will take Babe Ruth’s actual pitching over Willie Mays’ theoretical pitching ability. Mays is great and certainly in the discussion but total body of work tips the scales towards Ruth… even despite the lack of 5-Tools!?!

[BobC]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

Bob that was a lot of words to not answer the question. But you call the idea of the thread “a futile and a somewhat pointless argument and a waste of time” so thanks for chiming in.
I will take Babe Ruth’s actual pitching over Willie Mays’ theoretical pitching ability. Mays is great and certainly in the discussion but total body of work tips the scales towards Ruth… even despite the lack of 5-Tools!?!

Hmmmm! Thanks Rhett, love the comment about my supposedly chiming in with nothing. Just because I refuse to play the game of arguing over something that can never actually be proven, it doesn't mean I still can't provide factual information and statements in regard to such questions/debates. Or are you now suddenly the "thought police" of the forum in charge of what can and can't be honestly talked about?

I wanted to merely point out that in the Mays/Ruth debate for the supposedly greatest player ever, which it looked like this thread was starting to focus on, the term "greatest player" I assume is in regard to a player's overall total baseball related abilities. The question was not who was the greatest offensive baseball player, who had the highest career WAR, or who was the greatest home run hitter, etc. And the last time I looked, they considered the greatest players to be ones that could do ALL the things required of a ballplayer, which included having speed, hitting for power, hitting for average, fielding, and arm strength. I believe that is what most all scouts look for in potential players, and how they end up judging who are going to potentially be the greatest players. So, if those are the main factors they look for in determining MLB prospects, please explain to me why those same factors wouldn't also be applicable to determining who then are considered the greatest MLB players as well?

Both Mays and Ruth hit for power and average, but obviously Ruth was on top of Mays in those categories. But when it comes to fielding and speed, I believe those categories would go to Mays. That leaves arm strength as the final category, which is probably more of a toss-up between the two, with no real way to properly determine/measure them. Ruth was a great pitcher, but Mays was known for his tremendous arm strength and throwing as well. If YOU want to go ahead and attribute more weight to Ruth's offensive numbers, or the fact that he did get to pitch while Mays did not get the opportunity, so be it, you can do what you want. But quit belittling someone else for simply pointing out FACTS that you may not want to hear or agree with.

And for the record, I never said Mays was better than Ruth. I was just putting out factual information to be considered in the conversation. I assume that is still allowed?

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by BobC

Hmmmm! Thanks Rhett, love the comment about my supposedly chiming in with nothing. Just because I refuse to play the game of arguing over something that can never actually be proven, it doesn't mean I still can't provide factual information and statements in regard to such questions/debates. Or are you now suddenly the "thought police" of the forum in charge of what can and can't be honestly talked about?

I wanted to merely point out that in the Mays/Ruth debate for the supposedly greatest player ever, which it looked like this thread was starting to focus on, the term "greatest player" I assume is in regard to a player's overall total baseball related abilities. The question was not who was the greatest offensive baseball player, who had the highest career WAR, or who was the greatest home run hitter, etc. And the last time I looked, they considered the greatest players to be ones that could do ALL the things required of a ballplayer, which included having speed, hitting for power, hitting for average, fielding, and arm strength. I believe that is what most all scouts look for in potential players, and how they end up judging who are going to potentially be the greatest players. So, if those are the main factors they look for in determining MLB prospects, please explain to me why those same factors wouldn't also be applicable to determining who then are considered the greatest MLB players as well?

Both Mays and Ruth hit for power and average, but obviously Ruth was on top of Mays in those categories. But when it comes to fielding and speed, I believe those categories would go to Mays. That leaves arm strength as the final category, which is probably more of a toss-up between the two, with no real way to properly determine/measure them. Ruth was a great pitcher, but Mays was known for his tremendous arm strength and throwing as well. If YOU want to go ahead and attribute more weight to Ruth's offensive numbers, or the fact that he did get to pitch while Mays did not get the opportunity, so be it, you can do what you want. But quit belittling someone else for simply pointing out FACTS that you may not want to hear or agree with.

And for the record, I never said Mays was better than Ruth. I was just putting out factual information to be considered in the conversation. I assume that is still allowed?

So do you rank Mays ahead of Ruth?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Carter08

So do you rank Mays ahead of Ruth?

I don't know. They played in different eras, under different rules, with different equipment, context, and so on. Who is to say that if you could have somehow flipped Willie Mays to have started playing when Ruth did, and vice versa for Ruth, that Mays wouldn't now be considered the legend that Ruth is. Being in the right time and place, and first to make some huge achievement, goes a long way to creating a legend that is virtually impossible to ever argue against.

[BobC]

Sorry, double post.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by BobC

And even so, for those who would argue Ruth was the most influential baseball player of all time, I'm not so sure Ruth's supposed influence didn't have a lot more to do with him being lucky and in the right place at the right time. MLB was already trying to change the conversation about the game due to the Black Sox scandal, and as a result they changed the ball from a dead to a live ball. They also saw the size and measurements of MLB stadium outfields shortening and making it easier for players to hit home runs. But Ruth himself didn't make or influence such changes, he really just happened to be the one to take the most advantage of the changes that MLB was actually implementing and supporting. So, arguing that it was actually Ruth who was the most influential may actually be more of a case of the tail wagging the dog than a lot of Ruth fans care to admit.

The first year Ruth became a regular outfielder, 1919 (before the Black Sox scandal) he hit more than twice as many home runs as the next highest player (29 to 12.) The next year (before the Black Sox scandal broke) he hit almost three times as many (54 to 19.) The following year, 1921, his third as an outfielder, he hit almost 2.5 times as many home runs as the next guy (59 to 24.)

But your theory is that MLB decided to liven up the ball first, hoping somebody would transform the game to such an extent that a ballclub would need to build a huge new stadium to accommodate the tens of thousands of fans who would come to see someone hit the ball a mile with some regularity... and Ruth just happened to take advantage of the situation.

I think you have the proverbial cart and horse backwards.

[G1911]

Anson was probably the best non-pitcher of the 19th century and possibly the best counting pitchers. To decide who one thinks is the best of all time would necessitate, I would think, looking at the best of every era. Anson makes perfect sense as a legitimate candidate. Anson, Cobb, Mays, there’s several candidates but I think Ruth’s level of sheer dominance of his time makes him the clear #1.

[Rad_Hazard]

Originally Posted by G1911

Anson was probably the best non-pitcher of the 19th century and possibly the best counting pitchers. To decide who one thinks is the best of all time would necessitate, I would think, looking at the best of every era. Anson makes perfect sense as a legitimate candidate. Anson, Cobb, Mays, there’s several candidates but I think Ruth’s level of sheer dominance of his time makes him the clear #1.

I would argue that Brouthers ranks above Anson for 19th century hitters. Anson has the counting numbers, but that's about it, as Brouthers even has the edge in batting titles with 5 to Anson's 4. I don't even think it's particularly close, Brouthers takes the best 19th century hitter title. If you dig even further into sabermetrics, Brouthers lead only grows. I added Delahanty to the stats comparison as he ranks ahead of Anson as well, although still behind Brouthers.

As for Ruth and Mays... An argument can be made for both and while I would say Ruth on most days, there are days when I think it is Mays.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Rad_Hazard

I would argue that Brouthers ranks above Anson for 19th century hitters. Anson has the counting numbers, but that's about it, as Brouthers even has the edge in batting titles with 5 to Anson's 4. I don't even think it's particularly close, Brouthers takes the best 19th century hitter title. If you dig even further into sabermetrics, Brouthers lead only grows.

As for Ruth and Mays... An argument can be made for both and while I would say Ruth on most days, there are days when I think it is Mays.

I agree that Brouthers is better if one does not factor in longevity and looks only at peak 3, or peak 5. I think there is a lot of value in the massive chasm between their playing time. Sabrmetrics that reward longevity agree, like WAR.

My personal bias is towards Mays of all the greats, but he did not really dominate the game. He ended up the best of his time when all was said and done and is the model of a complete position player, but I can’t see a way to pick him over Ruth who truly dominated the game on a level no one else has (except arguably Bonds, when he was on drugs).


EDIT: After seeing your edit, it appears you are ranking by OSP+. It’s a great stat I like, but if we are using it to rank and overcome even huge career disparities, it would suggest that Ruth is far and away the greatest of all time, and Mays is nowhere even close, in a distant 25th place 51 points below the Babe.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mark17

The first year Ruth became a regular outfielder, 1919 (before the Black Sox scandal) he hit more than twice as many home runs as the next highest player (29 to 12.) The next year (before the Black Sox scandal broke) he hit almost three times as many (54 to 19.) The following year, 1921, his third as an outfielder, he hit almost 2.5 times as many home runs as the next guy (59 to 24.)

But your theory is that MLB decided to liven up the ball first, hoping somebody would transform the game to such an extent that a ballclub would need to build a huge new stadium to accommodate the tens of thousands of fans who would come to see someone hit the ball a mile with some regularity... and Ruth just happened to take advantage of the situation.

I think you have the proverbial cart and horse backwards.

If I am wrong, I apologize and am happy to admit my error. I totally agree that Ruth was hitting more homers than anyone else. However, do you really think that MLB didn't know, and more importantly didn't think, to proactively start making changes in anticipation of the fallout from the 1919 World Series and the gambling allegations surrounding it, right after it ended? I've always heard/read from different sources that the dead ball era ended in 1919, and the live ball era was to have started in 1920. Your comment is that Ruth was already hitting 54 homers in 1920, BEFORE the Black Sox scandal supposedly broke and became known. I think you may be the one who is a bit off if you truly believe MLB didn't realize and know about all the gambling allegations and rumors while the series was still going on. I even seem to remember seeing/hearing that commentators covering the series, such as Christy Mathewson, were known to have been reporting on the suspicious play of some of the Black Sox players. Something tells me MLB was not that stupid and anticipated negative issues and feedback from the tainted series, and may have gone ahead to liven up the ball in anticipation of the fallout.

The fact that Ruth hit 29 home runs in 1919, his first full season as a position player, and then followed it with 54 homers in 1920, kind of goes along with there possibly being some changes to the balls being used starting in 1920. MLB teams hit a total of only 447 home runs in 1919, and then followed it up with 721 hit in 1920. That increase was not all due to just Ruth, and I didn't go through every prior year, but I don't think was a single prior season where all of MLB hit even 500 total home runs. And if I'm correct, how do you suddenly explain such a huge jump in total home runs across the entire league in that one single season of 1920? Then going forward, MLB teams hit 1130, 1299, 1356, 1236, and 1736 home runs over the next five seasons, from 1921 to 1925, respectively. That evidence seems pretty convincing to me that something changed in 1920, BEFORE your alleged breaking of the Black Sox scandal. Now if you, or anyone else, has more specific factual information and evidence as to exactly when MLB may have livened up the baseballs back then, I would love to see/hear it, proving my theory wrong.

And no one ever said MLB potentially made such changes to be able to have one single person transform the game and capture the attention of the fans, like Ruth did. They were more likely looking to simply create more offense and potential excitement among fans, maybe offsetting at least some of the negativity from the expected gambling scandal fallout. That Ruth was there at the exact right place (New York), and time (right after the scandal), was probably unforeseen by anyone in MLB, and was likely beyond their wildest dreams and expectations that he became the adored player and ambassador of the game that he was. And that was why I surmised that Ruth may have to at least partially thank MLB for some of the changes and such that helped to benefit him and the influence he is credited with having on the game. But think about this, what if back then MLB kept the dead ball throughout the rest if Ruth's career, and he continued hitting his 20-30 HRs every year, still beating out everyone else by a mile. But then, MLB livened the ball up around the time Wilie Mays came into the league (shortly followed by Hank Aaron), and Mays took off with all the home runs he started hitting and he became the phenomenon, legend, and influencer of baseball that otherwise in reality has been credited to Ruth.

Meanwhile, Curt Flood, (with the obvious help and support of Marvin Miller and his attorneys), went up against MLB and broke them of the reserve clause and ushered in free agency, totally changing the game going forward. He got absolutely no help or assistance in changing the game from MLB or in any of its rules, equipment, or anything else. MLB actually fought him to not make any changes to the way things were, and yet he prevailed in court and ended up changing the game of baseball forever. Even in Jackie Robinson's case, it was Branch Rickey who picked and approached him to be the first player to integrate MLB. So Jackie was not solely responsible for being the first player to integrate the majors, certainly not without the unbelievable help and support of Rickey and the Dodgers organization.

[BobC]

Double post/

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I can. Ruth.

I agree, but it's just my opinion. And yours.

And that is all it is. Crunch numbers, data, stats, yada yada yada. That's all these highly subjective questions can generate...opinion.

No human being can divine himself and declare with finality who the best of all-time is. And that isn't opinion, that's hard, cold, stiff, decomposing, putrefying, tag on the big toe fact.

[Lorewalker]

The game has been played over so many decades with different levels of athleticism, conditioning, rules, methods of management to name a few factors that make comparing certain players to one another almost seem unfair.

A large element to sheer offense production is determined not just by the player's talent but the line up he is part of and overall talent (or lack of) of the opposing teams he faced during his career. And when you think of greatest, you have to consider what they did for the game not just how great they were at the plate and at their position.

Ruth is the obvious answer but not sure it is the one that I am able to justify given the era in which he played and the line up he was in. Need to give this more thought.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

The game has been played over so many decades with different levels of athleticism, conditioning, rules, methods of management to name a few factors that make comparing certain players to one another almost seem unfair.

A large element to sheer offense production is determined not just by the player's talent but the line up he is part of and overall talent (or lack of) of the opposing teams he faced during his career. And when you think of greatest, you have to consider what they did for the game not just how great they were at the plate and at their position.

Ruth is the obvious answer but not sure it is the one that I am able to justify given the era in which he played and the line up he was in. Need to give this more thought.

That is the beauty of all sports that have long histories is exploring the history, comparing players, agreeing and Disagreeing who is the GOAT who is the best by position etc

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

That is the beauty of all sports that have long histories is exploring the history, comparing players, agreeing and Disagreeing who is the GOAT who is the best by position etc

No doubt. When I cannot even come up with an answer that sits well with me then I know it is a great topic for discussion.

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by jingram058

I agree, but it's just my opinion. And yours.

And that is all it is. Crunch numbers, data, stats, yada yada yada. That's all these highly subjective questions can generate...opinion.

No human being can divine himself and declare with finality who the best of all-time is. And that isn't opinion, that's hard, cold, stiff, decomposing, putrefying, tag on the big toe fact.

I’m pretty sure nobody is looking for a definitive answer for any of these types of questions. It’s all opinion. That should be common sense. The discussions that result are what makes it fun. Chill out a bit.