Who is the greatest baseball player of all time?

[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.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by BobC

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.

I hear you. There’s no truly wrong answer. The reason I go with Ruth is comparing him to his contemporaries. He was so far above anyone else it’s basically absurd. Mays was so far above his contemporaries it’s almost as absurd but not quite as much. That’s why I go Ruth.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I hear you. There’s no truly wrong answer. The reason I go with Ruth is comparing him to his contemporaries. He was so far above anyone else it’s basically absurd. Mays was so far above his contemporaries it’s almost as absurd but not quite as much. That’s why I go Ruth.

Exactly why I think if you're going to really talk about the "greatest", you almost have to restrict it to the different periods/eras to more properly be able to compare all the different changes in rules, equipment, context, and so on, that have occurred since baseball began. So maybe just look at the 19th century (1869-1899) as say one era. Then look at the modern dead ball era (1900-1919) as another, followed by say the early live ball/pre-war era (1920-1941), then maybe the vintage post-war/pre-expansion era (1942-1960), and so on. In that case it seems to me it is much easier to get wider agreement among people about who was maybe the greatest player during each of the particular eras/generations. So, if you said something like Cobb was the best player in his era/generation, Ruth in his, then Wiliams in his, followed by Mays in his, and so on, I think you'll get a lot more agreement among baseball fans.

It is when you start trying to compare these great players across generations and eras that you run into issues caused by differences in rules, equipment, context, and all the other variables in how the game has changed and morphed over time. And don't forget the various biases that may exist, like how people often feel the players they actually saw and grew up with are the best because of their memories and a familiarity bias, or how people into numbers and statistics are possibly biased by looking at just all these modern statistics nowadays, and making their judgements based solely on those factors and numbers. Truth is, different people are going to have all different players they may have looked up to and thought of as the best or greatest, for any number of different and varying reasons. Not everyone has the exact same definition of what makes a player the "greatest" in their eyes. And none of them are wrong.

What is wrong is all the close-minded people that belittle and put others down and make sarcastic comments about or directed at them for having different thinking and opinions than they do. All I was trying to do earlier was point out that there may be different ways of interpreting and looking at things when it comes to certain players. Like how Ruth is maybe not actually as complete a player as some others in this "greatest' conversation are because he didn't necessarily have great speed, which is one of the definitively agreed upon 5-tools that great players are often expected to have.

[BobC]

Double post.

[BobC]

Sorry, having internet issues and every time I post it double posts for some reason.

[BobC]

Sorry, double post.