C.Rector Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 From: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/stor..._rob&id=1738015 Nobody better than the Babe By Rob Neyer ESPN.com When I'm asked about the greatest baseball players in major league history, there are nine names that always work their way into the conversation. In chronological order, they are: Honus Wagner Ty Cobb Babe Ruth Ted Williams Stan Musial Mickey Mantle Willie Mays Henry Aaron Barry Bonds Four of these players can be "matched," because they have contemporaries who played the same position: Williams with Musial, Mantle with Mays. If we're trying to eliminate competitors for the top spot, this is a good place to start. As I've written many times before, Stan Musial is one of my favorites. I never saw him play, of course, but I've been reading and hearing stories about him for as long as I can remember, and the baseball that Stan signed for my grandfather is probably the only piece of memorabilia that I truly care about. That said, I just don't see any way to rate Musial even with Ted Williams. Even if one assumes that the National League was superior to the American League in the 1950s -- true, I think -- it's hard to imagine the difference was great enough to push Musial past Williams. Stan was a better baserunner than Ted, a better fielder, and easier to manage. But in the 1940s, Williams was the best hitter in the world ... and you know, he wasn't too shabby in the 1950s, either. Mantle vs. Mays isn't as clear-cut. As Bill James wrote in his most recent book, "I have Mantle rated higher than anyone else does, but just a little bit higher ... my argument would be that there has been too much talk about Mantle's drinking and too little about the impact of his career on base percentage, .421." Agreed. And if you could have one of them for only one season, you probably would want Mantle. But Mays was a better center fielder, he was faster on the bases, and he was a lot better at staying out of the doctor's office. Make no mistake, Mantle was incredibly talented. But Mays was very nearly as talented ... and he played nearly 600 more games than Mantle. Removing Mantle and Musial leaves seven players vying for the top spot. Here they are again, along with Bill James' Win Shares, career and per 154 games: WinShares WS/154 Wagner 655 36 Cobb 722 37 Ruth 756 47 Williams 555 37 Mays 642 33 Aaron 643 30 Bonds 611 37 I've listed them (for now) in chronological order, because the time in which a player played does impact our evaluation. In a nutshell, it's likely that the quality of play in the major leagues has steadily improved since the National League was formed in 1876, and it follows that it's become steadily more difficult to dominate the competition. I'm not suggesting the trend line is absolutely straight, but it's fairly obvious that it was easier to pile up big numbers, relative to the competition, in Ty Cobb's era than in Henry Aaron's. Now, looking at those numbers in the chart, a couple of things might pop out ... # Babe Ruth was awesome (yes, he was), and # Ted Williams is getting screwed (yes, he is). Williams' Win Shares per 154 games are right up there with anybody except Ruth, but he's way behind in career Win Shares. Why? Because he served his country in not one, but two wars. And I don't think it's fair to hold that against him. Year 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Actual 42 46 0 0 0 49 44 39 40 19 34 1 9 29 42 46 40 40 40 49 44 39 40 19 34 25 25 29 That bottom line includes my Win Shares adjustments for the five years in which Williams spent most or all of his time flying airplanes for his country. I was somewhat conservative, because 1) we should try to account for the possibility of injury, and 2) I think we should always be conservative when we do things like this. Still, adding 160 Win Shares to Williams' career total does wonders. A similar adjustment helps Willie Mays, though not nearly as much. He spent most of the 1952 season, and all of 1953, in the army, and so I assigned him 60 Win Shares for those seasons (he earned 19 as a rookie in 1951 and 40 in 1954). Now I'm going to run the same chart from above, but with the "adjustments" for Williams and Mays, and listing everybody in descending order of career Win Shares ... WinShares WS/154 Ruth 756 47 Cobb 722 37 Williams 715 37 Mays 702 33 Wagner 655 36 Aaron 643 30 Bonds 611 37 That changes things a bit, doesn't it? Williams moves into a dead heat with Cobb, and Mays separates himself from Wagner and Aaron. Nobody can catch Ruth, though. He still has more career Win Shares than anybody else, and he kills the competition in Win Shares per season. I should mention that Ruth's WS/154 are artificially high because he spent the first part of his career as a pitcher, and a pitcher will pick up more Win Shares per game (for the obvious reason that a pitcher has a huge impact on any game he starts). If we account for that, Ruth would still have something like 45 Win Shares per season. You know that Ruth was a great hitter. How good a pitcher was he? From 1915 through 1919, Ruth went 68-40 with ERAs nearly as good as his winning percentages. Absent injury, he'd have been a Hall of Fame pitcher. Absent pitching, his home-run record probably never would have been broken by Hank Aaron. You can talk about the timeline adjustment and you can say Ruth was fat. But you can't say he wasn't the greatest player who ever lived. Here, then, is how I rank the nine greatest players ever: 1. Ruth 2. Mays 3. Williams 4. Wagner 5. Cobb 6. Bonds 7. Aaron 8. Musial 9. Mantle There is a big problem with this list: There are nine players, and eight of them are outfielders (Wagner being the only exception). This is consistent with Conventional Wisdom, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's right. Why do outfielders fare so well? Two obvious reasons: Outfielders tend to last longer, and they tend to hit better. If you want more infielders, though, I heartily endorse Joe Morgan, Eddie Collins and Mike Schmidt (and don't be shy about moving Wagner, a shortstop for most of his career, up a slot or two). There also aren't any pitchers (Ruth notwithstanding); if you want a pitcher on that list, feel free to drop Walter Johnson somewhere between Bonds and Mantle. And speaking of Bonds, he deserves a couple of bullet points ... # Obviously, he can still move up on the list. Assuming he plays three more seasons and is moderately healthy, Bonds is going to finish with more (actual) Win Shares than every player but Ruth and Cobb. Combine his career numbers with his per/154 numbers, and it's not hard to argue that he'll deserve to be ranked among the top three or four players ever. And that's before we make any sort of timeline adjustment. # The mere mention of Barry Bonds in this article will, I know, elicit a great deal of e-mail from readers who think that instead of moving Bonds up the list because he's not through yet, he should be moved down the list because of his (alleged) "creative use of modern pharmaceuticals." I don't know what to do with that, though. You can't really accuse Bonds of cheating, because A) we don't know what, if anything, he's been doing, and B) the "rules" are not clear. You can't really accuse Bonds of doing things that other players aren't doing, because we know other players are doing things. Which isn't to say it shouldn't be a part of the discussion; I just don't know which part, exactly. It's very difficult to rate an active player, and for now I'm comfortable saying only that Bonds is one of the game's 10 greatest players ever. As for where exactly he belongs in that group, we'll have to sort that out later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxAce Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 I read this yesterday and I totally agree. The Babe put the record book all over baseball. This man was one of the greatest sluggers of all time, and was an outstanding pitcher?!?! Nobody is better in baseball than the Babe. Sure certain players have broken his records, but that doesn't mean they are better than him. He did it all and had success. (plus was a pimp with da ladies!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxAce Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 I never even heard of Honus Wagner. I looked at his stats, and they were sick!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilJester99 Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 I ask this about The Babe as well. Imagine how many homers he would have hit if he wasn't a pitcher for his first 5 years?? He only hit every 4th day or 5th day. Just think about if he hit everyday. He probably would have hit over 1000 hrs. Noone would touch him. IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan420 Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 I ask this about The Babe as well. Imagine how many homers he would have hit if he wasn't a pitcher for his first 5 years?? He only hit every 4th day or 5th day. Just think about if he hit everyday. He probably would have hit over 1000 hrs. Noone would touch him. IMO i think he played in the field when he wasnt pitching, but im not sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilJester99 Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 You may be right on that, but I am not sure as well. I forgot back in those days pitchers could actually play even when they didn't have to pitch. Either way I think Babe is the greatest of all time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 in his first 5 years with boston babe ruth only had 618 at bats.. a little over 100 a season... he is the only guy that could go into the hall as an every day player and a pitcher too!! at age 38 he started one game for the yankees on the mound it was a complete game victory!!! 1923 was probably his best year..41 homers , 393 BA the guy carried a 545 OBp and a 764 slg pct.. there is no doubt imo he was the best ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 If you want more infielders, though, I heartily endorse Joe Morgan, Eddie Collins and Mike Schmidt (and don't be shy about moving Wagner, a shortstop for most of his career, up a slot or two). How about A-Rod? He will make this list look like a joke in about 10 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Showtime Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 Interesting take. I agree though. On the other hand you gotta always ask yourself, how much better would the game have been, had the negro league players been allowed in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxAce Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 Interesting take. I agree though. On the other hand you gotta always ask yourself, how much better would the game have been, had the negro league players been allowed in. Without question. I'm sure there were a ton of African Americans who were even better than some of those baseball players back then. I remember reading a man who hit like 80 hrs on alittle more games for the negro league. If he was in major league baseball, that record would still be standing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 Here is an email Neyer received after the article and his response. I think there is definite merit it to it, as today's players are better than ever. Neyer's response does surprise me a bit, especially the first line. Question Rob, I just wanted to give you my two cents on the best players of all time. I know this takes a lot of the fun out of it but ... The best players are all the guys playing today. If you had your choice of being operated on for an unspecified malady by the best doctor from 50 years ago or the best doctor today, which is it gonna be? Look, you have Classic Sports, right? Do you ever watch those old tapes of the Bill Russell/Bob Cousy Celtics? The idea that Cousy could guard Allen Iverson, or that Russell could hang with Shaquille O'Neal is laughable. Have you ever seen Wiillie Mays? The guy is 5-foot-10 and 190 pounds -- he just can't be the best player ever. It's the way the world is: bigger, better, stronger, faster. Indeed, technology is part of the reason today's players are better. However, by my way of thinking, the question should be, "How would the Babe do against the Unit swinging his 69oz bat?" Not well, would be my best guess. Anyway, just my thoughts ... Jon Answer You're right, Jon. I believe that if the '03 Devil Rays played the '27 Yankees in a best-of-seven Time Machine Series, the Rays would sweep the Bombers, and the scores would be lopsided. If Babe Ruth had to face, say, Victor Zambrano, he would swing at three of Zambrano's low-90s sinkers and trudge back the bench, muttering to himself about pitches he couldn't even see, let alone hit. You're right about something else: this does take a lot of the fun out of it. Because it's fun, we do pretend that comparing players from different eras has something more than theoretical relevance, and it's not just baseball. Aren't there people who still argue that Johnny Unitas was the greatest quarterback, and that Bill Russell was the greatest center? So when we talk about "greatest," I think it's appropriate to compare a player to his peers, while recognizing that it's easier in some eras than others to stand out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 That is a great answer, because that is exactly right. how many pitches today didn't exsist in the Babe's age? How many guys could bring it in the upper 90's? How many different pitchers does an ARod see in a game, when Babe used to see one, two on rare occasion. You can talk about things like strength training, conditioning, offseason play, etc. And we won't even get into steroids and stuff like that..., Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan420 Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 How about A-Rod? He will make this list look like a joke in about 10 years. i will belive it when i see it, i remeber ken griffey junior suppose to be a god in this game now look what he has done. this game is unpredictable and you cant say who is gonna do what or when. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxAce Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 How about A-Rod? He will make this list look like a joke in about 10 years. Just in Homers. I dont think he would make that list any joke but in homers. The other players have done amazing things other than hit homers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninetyfour Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 I never even heard of Honus Wagner. I looked at his stats, and they were sick!! Gotta know your history, young buck. Honus Wagner is just the tip of the iceberg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxAce Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 Gotta know your history, young buck. Honus Wagner is just the tip of the iceberg. I know my history man. Just not past 1900 But I'm still learning though. I'm sure there's still some players back then I haven't heard before that were amazing..But very few of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan420 Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 Gotta know your history, young buck. Honus Wagner is just the tip of the iceberg. followed by MC Hammer he is some serious history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldmember Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 babe? babe who? bonds is the greatest! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pastime Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 Babe Ruth's home run totals used to be more than the home run totals of entire teams. Thanks. If only the Babe had used 'roids, imagine the possibilities .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pastime Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 Also, keep this in mind: Babe Ruth didn't have the luxury of "supplements." He didn't have the luxury of modern exercise equipment and facilities. He didn't play in a watered-down league where 40% of the players playing now would have been lucky to even SNIFF the major leagues. The ballparks were bigger back then. The pitching was better back then. The strike zone was bigger back then. They didn't have big contracts as an incentive back then. He had superior reflexes and eyesight - better than any human ever tested - as scientifically proven at a laboratory in 1929. He came, he batted, he hit. And he was a great pitcher for several years before becoming the most prolific hitter in baseball history. He's the best ever. Period. New paragraph. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Critic Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 My take on it is that Ruth dominated in his era more than anyone has dominated in theirs. That, added to his pitching prowess, still makes him the best in my book. If it was so easy for hitters back then, why was he the only one putting up those numbers? It's easy to say ( and more than likely, very correct to say ) that the Babe Ruth we see in those old films wouldn't stand a chance in today's game - but would he have looked like that if he had access to the same dietary/training/coaching advancements that today's players have access to? Probably not. Fact is, this and any other list/argument of who was/is the greatest is merely grist for the mill, something to discuss and argue about, which is one of the best things about sports anyway, I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 Past, you are drunk if you think the talent is watered down now compared to the 1920's? And the pitching better? Puhlease... Get out of the fantasy world of days gone by and realize today's athlete's are far superior. You think Ruth could step in against today's pitchers with that 60-something ounce bat and face sliders and split-fingers? Not a chance. The players are bigger, stronger, faster than ever. It is nice to be romanced by eras past, but let's not lose our grip on reality here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 Also, keep this in mind: Babe Ruth didn't have the luxury of "supplements." He didn't have the luxury of modern exercise equipment and facilities. He didn't play in a watered-down league where 40% of the players playing now would have been lucky to even SNIFF the major leagues. The ballparks were bigger back then. The pitching was better back then. The strike zone was bigger back then. They didn't have big contracts as an incentive back then. He had superior reflexes and eyesight - better than any human ever tested - as scientifically proven at a laboratory in 1929. Don't forget the juiced BALL. SS2K4 mentioned "new" pitches today. How about mentioning what the cheating pitchers used to DO to a BASEBALL back when Ruth played? Imagine every other starter having a Zito curveball or Pedro's change-up that looks more like Wakefield's knuckle. Besides, how many pitchers throw high-90's today? Very few. Lefty Grove and Walter Johnson threw some heat as well, mid-90's easily. Nobody today could touch Nolan Ryan in his prime in velocity, and I am not even gonna mention Dalcowski or Sam McDowell who were said to top out at 105mph. Baseball is unique. Shaq could power/size his way through Bill Russel. Barry Bonds wouldn't be able to intimidate Bob Gibson or Sandy Koufax no matter how much he puffed and panted. Babe Ruth's dominance cannot be touched. When Bonds has an OPS+ of 200 (with league average being a 100) or wins 100 games as a pitcher, then we'll talk. Oh and the fact that a boozed up Mickey Mantle and Mays were only 5'10'' and yet could hit an unjuiced ball 540 feet only adds to their greatness, not detracts from it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 It's discussions like this that makes baseball the greatest game on earth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Hudler Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 It's discussions like this that makes baseball the greatest game on earth. I concur........... I used to play a little game with some of my regulars many years ago when I used to tend bar. I would have them pick an all-time team, one player at each position, three outfielders and one RH and one LH pitcher. I would usually have them pick an all-time team and a "B" team. It is amazing how many great players get left of such lists and how fun the discussions were...... If anyone is motivated to do so by this post, I would sugget starting another thread, but that is just my thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.