Seriously coinstartled, you had to start a thread also like it hasn't ever been done
10 or 20 times already?
DISCLAIMER FOR BASEBAL21 In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
@Darin said:
Seriously coinstartled, you had to start a thread also like it hasn't ever been done
10 or 20 times already?
Give me your cricket guy then.
(eyeroll emoji)
George Brett in cricket.
DISCLAIMER FOR BASEBAL21 In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
Great hitter, great pitcher and he brought back the game after the Black Sox scandal.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
The GOAT may be debatable but one thing isn't~Schmidt was a better 3B than Brett..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@grote15 said:
The GOAT may be debatable but one thing isn't~Schmidt was a better 3B than Brett..
Also not debatable that the Royals stomped the Mets in the 2015 world series.
Also, as it turns out, Matt Harvey wasn't batman after all.
DISCLAIMER FOR BASEBAL21 In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
I’m curious how fast some of his HR’s were from the bat to the bleachers, he has to be in the top tier with that. I remember watching him hit laser beams into or out of the stadium. I think it was Canseco that hit a ball so hard it put a dent in the stadium wall, but Bonds HR’s were no joke
I’m curious how fast some of his HR’s were from the bat to the bleachers, he has to be in the top tier with that. I remember watching him hit laser beams into or out of the stadium. I think it was Canseco that hit a ball so hard it put a dent in the stadium wall, but Bonds HR’s were no joke
Both of these guys were jokes, bad ones.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I’m curious how fast some of his HR’s were from the bat to the bleachers, he has to be in the top tier with that. I remember watching him hit laser beams into or out of the stadium. I think it was Canseco that hit a ball so hard it put a dent in the stadium wall, but Bonds HR’s were no joke
Both of these guys were jokes, bad ones.
But they were really not though, Regardless of your opinion of them.
I’m curious how fast some of his HR’s were from the bat to the bleachers, he has to be in the top tier with that. I remember watching him hit laser beams into or out of the stadium. I think it was Canseco that hit a ball so hard it put a dent in the stadium wall, but Bonds HR’s were no joke
Both of these guys were jokes, bad ones.
But they were really not though, Regardless of your opinion of them.
"Nobody's ever gone the distance with Creed, and if I can go that distance, you see, and that bell rings and I'm still standin', I'm gonna know for the first time in my life, see, that I weren't just another bum from the neighborhood."
I’m curious how fast some of his HR’s were from the bat to the bleachers, he has to be in the top tier with that. I remember watching him hit laser beams into or out of the stadium. I think it was Canseco that hit a ball so hard it put a dent in the stadium wall, but Bonds HR’s were no joke
Both of these guys were jokes, bad ones.
But they were really not though, Regardless of your opinion of them.
Agree. Dirtbags are a more appropriate handle.
Totally understand anyone thinking this. Personality has nothing to do with performance at the end of the day
Not Ruth. He is given that title of the greatest because he was so much better than his peers...but his peers weren't very good overall and he competed against people from a very limited population of human beings.
He achieved feats not possible in the modern game, not because he was THAT GOOD, but because his peers weren't that good.
In order for anyone to out homer every team in the league now, they would need to hit over 300 home runs in a season to do that. It is simply not possible. Just because a player has zero chance of replicating those Ruthian feats, does not mean they are inferior...it simply means the circumstances and the higher level of competition make it impossible.
It's Ruth. He is given that title of the greatest because he was so much better than anyone else who has played the game before or since.
Skin, I've asked before and I'll ask again. Who was the GOAT, and who are the rest of your top 10, in order? In order to bump Ruth out of the GOAT spot you are applying an era factor wildly different than anyone else, but until you flesh out your position beyond "not Ruth", you are keeping that factor secret and you aren't making an argument that can be evaluated.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@dallasactuary said:
It's Ruth. He is given that title of the greatest because he was so much better than anyone else who has played the game before or since.
Skin, I've asked before and I'll ask again. Who was the GOAT, and who are the rest of your top 10, in order? In order to bump Ruth out of the GOAT spot you are applying an era factor wildly different than anyone else, but until you flesh out your position beyond "not Ruth", you are keeping that factor secret and you aren't making an argument that can be evaluated.
Ruth being the tallest midget doesn't make him better than anyone who played since then. There are players in AAA right now that are on par with the average MLB player back then.
I would estimate that every starting pitcher in Houston's minor league organization right now throws harder than the average MLB starter back then....and with sharp breaking pitches too.
Ruth feasted off of weak pitching(and tired pitching), he played with a bunch of punch and judy hitters, and the population in the U.S. provided a much smaller amount of gene pool capable players for him to compete against.
This is not a case of putting a guy in a time machine. Its a case of explaining why Ruth was able to put up numbers like he did, and why he was able to outdistance the average player like he did. It wasn't because he was THAT GOOD, it was because the circumstances of MLB and the limited available gene pool that allowed him to appear to be that good compared to modern players who have no chance of ever replicating those feats.
So if I give a top ten filled with guys who all played in the 60's and beyond, you are just going to attempt to discredit that list using statistical measures that do not account for any of that weak and limited competition that Ruth 'competed' against.
PS I already showed what you are asking with Mantle being a batter player than Ruth in their primes. That is in another thread.
@perkdog said:
Ruth would not be that dominant today, anyone that thinks he would be the best ever nowadays is fooling themselves.
I don’t know, Paul. With that much natural ability and the ability to enhance performance like today’s players, who really knows? Stories abound about all these great players - past and present - and what they’ve done to get an edge.
Plus, people always think of ‘1935 Fat Babe’ and not the younger, leaner, faster Ruth, who, with an arm good enough to pitch quite well, was not some lumbering OF loafing after balls but actually an asset defensively most of his career, according to many written accounts.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@perkdog said:
Ruth would not be that dominant today, anyone that thinks he would be the best ever nowadays is fooling themselves.
I don’t know, Paul. With that much natural ability and the ability to enhance performance like today’s players, who really knows? Stories abound about all these great players - past and present - and what they’ve done to get an edge.
Plus, people always think of ‘1935 Fat Babe’ and not the younger, leaner, faster Ruth, who, with an arm good enough to pitch quite well, was not some lumbering OF loafing after balls but actually an asset defensively most of his career, according to many written accounts.
There's no way of telling how good he would be playing today.
He was a big guy and a great athlete with superb hand eye coordination. I'll bet he was mentally tough as well. In watching film, he seemed to have an incredibly quick swing.
Only a complete idiot thinks Ruth was a fat slob.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@perkdog said:
Totally understand anyone thinking this. Personality has nothing to do with performance at the end of the day
No, but steroids definitely do. Giving credit to a person for the performance of a pharmaceutical is ridiculous.
What’s also ridiculous is anyone thinking that steroids were the only means of cheating and all means of cheating was done during that era.
Barry Bonds outdistancing his PED laiden peers was more impressive than Babe Ruth outdistancing his whites only and limited gene pool peers.
Bonds was juicing, but so were all the other guys...so how much of an advantage was it? It was only an advantage for Bonds when comparing him to players from other eras who didn't juice.....not much different than Ruth's advantage of playing in a white only league with minimal gene pool talent. Ruth wasn't cheating, but it was still an advantage that Ruth had that the following generational stars did not.
If the sabermetric community is going to live with stats like WAR, then:
Bonds 162 WAR
RUth 162 offensive WAR
Knowing that the replacement level player in Bonds's time is vastly superior to the one in Ruth's time, that the averaage player in BOnds time is way better, and that Bonds had to hit off pitching that is way better...it is an EASY win for Bonds.
And you can include any pitching contribution from RUth and it still doesn't cover the grand canyon gap lead Bonds has due to the limited gene pool Ruth achieved his stuff in...in which stats like WAR do not include properly.
@perkdog said:
Ruth would not be that dominant today, anyone that thinks he would be the best ever nowadays is fooling themselves.
I don’t know, Paul. With that much natural ability and the ability to enhance performance like today’s players, who really knows? Stories abound about all these great players - past and present - and what they’ve done to get an edge.
Plus, people always think of ‘1935 Fat Babe’ and not the younger, leaner, faster Ruth, who, with an arm good enough to pitch quite well, was not some lumbering OF loafing after balls but actually an asset defensively most of his career, according to many written accounts.
With Today’s training sure he would be good possibly great my point is not God Like as he was in his day. That’s all I’m saying
@perkdog said:
Totally understand anyone thinking this. Personality has nothing to do with performance at the end of the day
No, but steroids definitely do. Giving credit to a person for the performance of a pharmaceutical is ridiculous.
What’s also ridiculous is anyone thinking that steroids were the only means of cheating and all means of cheating was done during that era.
Barry Bonds outdistancing his PED laiden peers was more impressive than Babe Ruth outdistancing his whites only and limited gene pool peers.
Bonds was juicing, but so were all the other guys...so how much of an advantage was it? It was only an advantage for Bonds when comparing him to players from other eras who didn't juice.....not much different than Ruth's advantage of playing in a white only league with minimal gene pool talent. Ruth wasn't cheating, but it was still an advantage that Ruth had that the following generational stars did not.
Agreed 100% I’ve always said Bonds was on a fair playing field with his peers, hitters and pitchers as well.
Also, if Bonds is being penalized for juicing in a league of juicers...then what about all the years where he did NOT juice, yet others in the league did? Wouldn't that even it out in terms of 'competitive advantage'?
@perkdog said:
Totally understand anyone thinking this. Personality has nothing to do with performance at the end of the day
No, but steroids definitely do. Giving credit to a person for the performance of a pharmaceutical is ridiculous.
What’s also ridiculous is anyone thinking that steroids were the only means of cheating and all means of cheating was done during that era.
Barry Bonds outdistancing his PED laiden peers was more impressive than Babe Ruth outdistancing his whites only and limited gene pool peers.
Bonds was juicing, but so were all the other guys...so how much of an advantage was it? It was only an advantage for Bonds when comparing him to players from other eras who didn't juice.....not much different than Ruth's advantage of playing in a white only league with minimal gene pool talent. Ruth wasn't cheating, but it was still an advantage that Ruth had that the following generational stars did not.
Agreed 100% I’ve always said Bonds was on a fair playing field with his peers, hitters and pitchers as well.
My jaw is dropping Perk. Guy with the best chemist pal becomes the GOAT? Spent a lot of time at the gym. Never touched any PEDS but most of the regulars were on steroids. A guy could go from bench pressing #200 to #400 in 6 months, Nice guys became asses.
Had one workout partner that was a bit better than average size. He went off to college and I ran into him about 6 years later at a different gym. He recognized me and it took a minute or two for me to realize who he was. Perhaps 25 or so, he was a good 300 pounds of muscle and quite a bit of fat. All his hair was gone. he told me that he had used steroids heavily and got to the point that he could not get one oversized leg in front of the other when trying to walk.
Still a nice enough fellow but his life had changed and not for the better.
These people took drugs without a dime on the line. Nearly impossible to keep filth like Barry Bonds from juicing when the payoff is $100,000,000. To grant any admiration for one with utter disregard for the sport or the fans is an insult to all of us that watched it played in an honorable fashion.
Look at the top five in offensive WAR for guys that played at least five years in the 1920's. Offensive WAR includes a positional adjustment, hence the presence of some middle infielders ahead of some superior hitters.
The number is where they rank all time, followed by their name and their offensive WAR total, and career plate appearances:
Ruth 154.........10,623
Cobb 151..........13,099
Speaker 124......12,001
Hornsby 121......9,480
Collins 120.........12,078
Gehrig 112......9,665
What a joke. NOBODY RECENT CAN COMPETE WITH THOSE STARS BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE LUXURY OF COMPETING AGAINST/WITH A SEVERELY LIMITED GENE POOL! IT IS THE WEAK COMPETITION THAT LET THE STARS HAVE ABNORMALLY HIGH PERFORMANCES BACK THEN.
Is there anyone that played at least five years in any decade from the 1980's and on that can crack that top five?
Bonds 143.....12,606. Thats it. He is the only one.
Arod 115........12,207. The only one that comes close.
Henderson 105....13,346........It took him nearly 4,000 more plate appearances than Hornsby and still not there!!
Morgan 104........11,329
Jeter 96.....12,602
Schmidt 91......10,062
Chipper 88.....10,614
Pujols 86....12,232........The highest hitter on this list with no positional adjustment helping him, yet can't even come close to touching Gehrig despite having nearly 3,000 more plate appearances than him. To me, this says it all. This should make anyone scratch their head the next time some fan automatically says Babe Ruth is the best ever.
Brett 89......11,625
Griffey 84.....11,304
Rose 83.....15,890.........Nearly 4,000 more plate appearances than Collins, yet still nowhere near him! A joke.
Yount 83.....12,249
The league was weaker in the 20's compared to later generations. The gene pool from which they drew from simply cannot compare to the gene pool that was drawn from in the more recent generations. I've showed that in several threads already and will not rehash. They had millions upon millions less people to draw from in the 1920's...and that is only counting the United States population!! Once you add the world wide talent that started emerging in the 1970's, it is a no discussion topic.
A star is a star is a star, and those will shine in any generation, but when your peers are weaker, your star will shine brighter than any other....but that doesn't make you better when being compared to players fighting amongst a sky full of stars.
Rut was the tallest midget. That doesn't mean he was better than Griffey...especially if you are discounting Bonds for the steroids...because that would mean it would make Griffey even higher. But if you say Griffey was on steroids too...then that means Bonds was on a level playing field and his numbers stand as they are.
So one way or another either one of Bonds or Griffey are better than Ruth. Looking at the population Ruth competed against...they were both better than Ruth.
Coinstartled
Posts: 10,135 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
Mantle/Mays
Ruth
Mays
Seriously coinstartled, you had to start a thread also like it hasn't ever been done
10 or 20 times already?
In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
Willie Mays
The Babe
Give me your cricket guy then.
(eyeroll emoji)
Bonds
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
George Brett in cricket.
In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
The Babe. He could hit, he could pitch, he could beat you with the worst of hangovers. 2nd place, no questions asked, Ted Williams.
Dave Kingman.
Kingman got 3 HR in one game against the Dodgers.
Reporter asked Lasorda what he thought about Kingman's performance.
If you haven't heard the tape, Google it.....
I love that Tommy Lasorda comment. Tommy jumped the phillie phanatic one time.
the game’s greater than any one player.
Ruth
Great hitter, great pitcher and he brought back the game after the Black Sox scandal.
The GOAT may be debatable but one thing isn't~Schmidt was a better 3B than Brett..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
PLEASE......don't get that guy going again!
George Herman Ruth
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Babe Ruth of course.
There is debate over this?
Of course not.
If 1970s is still reading the sports forum, he's probably making a voodoo doll of you right now.
Mays got 2 and a half votes and while I vote Ruth, it is certainly a debatable subject.
Also not debatable that the Royals stomped the Mets in the 2015 world series.
Also, as it turns out, Matt Harvey wasn't batman after all.
In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
I’m curious how fast some of his HR’s were from the bat to the bleachers, he has to be in the top tier with that. I remember watching him hit laser beams into or out of the stadium. I think it was Canseco that hit a ball so hard it put a dent in the stadium wall, but Bonds HR’s were no joke
Both of these guys were jokes, bad ones.
But they were really not though, Regardless of your opinion of them.
Agree. Dirtbags are a more appropriate handle.
Joe DiMaggio.
Totally understand anyone thinking this. Personality has nothing to do with performance at the end of the day
No, but steroids definitely do. Giving credit to a person for the performance of a pharmaceutical is ridiculous.
Not Ruth. He is given that title of the greatest because he was so much better than his peers...but his peers weren't very good overall and he competed against people from a very limited population of human beings.
He achieved feats not possible in the modern game, not because he was THAT GOOD, but because his peers weren't that good.
In order for anyone to out homer every team in the league now, they would need to hit over 300 home runs in a season to do that. It is simply not possible. Just because a player has zero chance of replicating those Ruthian feats, does not mean they are inferior...it simply means the circumstances and the higher level of competition make it impossible.
It's Ruth. He is given that title of the greatest because he was so much better than anyone else who has played the game before or since.
Skin, I've asked before and I'll ask again. Who was the GOAT, and who are the rest of your top 10, in order? In order to bump Ruth out of the GOAT spot you are applying an era factor wildly different than anyone else, but until you flesh out your position beyond "not Ruth", you are keeping that factor secret and you aren't making an argument that can be evaluated.
Edit. DA got in a few posts earlier with the correct response.
Seems that some on the forum accept a perform at any cost attitude. That is unfortunate.
Ruth being the tallest midget doesn't make him better than anyone who played since then. There are players in AAA right now that are on par with the average MLB player back then.
I would estimate that every starting pitcher in Houston's minor league organization right now throws harder than the average MLB starter back then....and with sharp breaking pitches too.
Ruth feasted off of weak pitching(and tired pitching), he played with a bunch of punch and judy hitters, and the population in the U.S. provided a much smaller amount of gene pool capable players for him to compete against.
This is not a case of putting a guy in a time machine. Its a case of explaining why Ruth was able to put up numbers like he did, and why he was able to outdistance the average player like he did. It wasn't because he was THAT GOOD, it was because the circumstances of MLB and the limited available gene pool that allowed him to appear to be that good compared to modern players who have no chance of ever replicating those feats.
So if I give a top ten filled with guys who all played in the 60's and beyond, you are just going to attempt to discredit that list using statistical measures that do not account for any of that weak and limited competition that Ruth 'competed' against.
PS I already showed what you are asking with Mantle being a batter player than Ruth in their primes. That is in another thread.
What’s also ridiculous is anyone thinking that steroids were the only means of cheating and all means of cheating was done during that era.
Ruth would not be that dominant today, anyone that thinks he would be the best ever nowadays is fooling themselves.
No one has ever said that and no one thinks that.
I don’t know, Paul. With that much natural ability and the ability to enhance performance like today’s players, who really knows? Stories abound about all these great players - past and present - and what they’ve done to get an edge.
Plus, people always think of ‘1935 Fat Babe’ and not the younger, leaner, faster Ruth, who, with an arm good enough to pitch quite well, was not some lumbering OF loafing after balls but actually an asset defensively most of his career, according to many written accounts.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
There's no way of telling how good he would be playing today.
He was a big guy and a great athlete with superb hand eye coordination. I'll bet he was mentally tough as well. In watching film, he seemed to have an incredibly quick swing.
Only a complete idiot thinks Ruth was a fat slob.
Barry Bonds outdistancing his PED laiden peers was more impressive than Babe Ruth outdistancing his whites only and limited gene pool peers.
Bonds was juicing, but so were all the other guys...so how much of an advantage was it? It was only an advantage for Bonds when comparing him to players from other eras who didn't juice.....not much different than Ruth's advantage of playing in a white only league with minimal gene pool talent. Ruth wasn't cheating, but it was still an advantage that Ruth had that the following generational stars did not.
If the sabermetric community is going to live with stats like WAR, then:
Bonds 162 WAR
RUth 162 offensive WAR
Knowing that the replacement level player in Bonds's time is vastly superior to the one in Ruth's time, that the averaage player in BOnds time is way better, and that Bonds had to hit off pitching that is way better...it is an EASY win for Bonds.
And you can include any pitching contribution from RUth and it still doesn't cover the grand canyon gap lead Bonds has due to the limited gene pool Ruth achieved his stuff in...in which stats like WAR do not include properly.
Oh ok so you speak for everyone? You can think or say that all you want it means nothing to me so whatever.
With Today’s training sure he would be good possibly great my point is not God Like as he was in his day. That’s all I’m saying
Agreed 100% I’ve always said Bonds was on a fair playing field with his peers, hitters and pitchers as well.
Also, if Bonds is being penalized for juicing in a league of juicers...then what about all the years where he did NOT juice, yet others in the league did? Wouldn't that even it out in terms of 'competitive advantage'?
My jaw is dropping Perk. Guy with the best chemist pal becomes the GOAT? Spent a lot of time at the gym. Never touched any PEDS but most of the regulars were on steroids. A guy could go from bench pressing #200 to #400 in 6 months, Nice guys became asses.
Had one workout partner that was a bit better than average size. He went off to college and I ran into him about 6 years later at a different gym. He recognized me and it took a minute or two for me to realize who he was. Perhaps 25 or so, he was a good 300 pounds of muscle and quite a bit of fat. All his hair was gone. he told me that he had used steroids heavily and got to the point that he could not get one oversized leg in front of the other when trying to walk.
Still a nice enough fellow but his life had changed and not for the better.
These people took drugs without a dime on the line. Nearly impossible to keep filth like Barry Bonds from juicing when the payoff is $100,000,000. To grant any admiration for one with utter disregard for the sport or the fans is an insult to all of us that watched it played in an honorable fashion.
Look at the top five in offensive WAR for guys that played at least five years in the 1920's. Offensive WAR includes a positional adjustment, hence the presence of some middle infielders ahead of some superior hitters.
The number is where they rank all time, followed by their name and their offensive WAR total, and career plate appearances:
Collins 120.........12,078
Gehrig 112......9,665
What a joke. NOBODY RECENT CAN COMPETE WITH THOSE STARS BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE LUXURY OF COMPETING AGAINST/WITH A SEVERELY LIMITED GENE POOL! IT IS THE WEAK COMPETITION THAT LET THE STARS HAVE ABNORMALLY HIGH PERFORMANCES BACK THEN.
Is there anyone that played at least five years in any decade from the 1980's and on that can crack that top five?
Bonds 143.....12,606. Thats it. He is the only one.
Arod 115........12,207. The only one that comes close.
Henderson 105....13,346........It took him nearly 4,000 more plate appearances than Hornsby and still not there!!
Pujols 86....12,232........The highest hitter on this list with no positional adjustment helping him, yet can't even come close to touching Gehrig despite having nearly 3,000 more plate appearances than him. To me, this says it all. This should make anyone scratch their head the next time some fan automatically says Babe Ruth is the best ever.
Brett 89......11,625
The league was weaker in the 20's compared to later generations. The gene pool from which they drew from simply cannot compare to the gene pool that was drawn from in the more recent generations. I've showed that in several threads already and will not rehash. They had millions upon millions less people to draw from in the 1920's...and that is only counting the United States population!! Once you add the world wide talent that started emerging in the 1970's, it is a no discussion topic.
A star is a star is a star, and those will shine in any generation, but when your peers are weaker, your star will shine brighter than any other....but that doesn't make you better when being compared to players fighting amongst a sky full of stars.
Rut was the tallest midget. That doesn't mean he was better than Griffey...especially if you are discounting Bonds for the steroids...because that would mean it would make Griffey even higher. But if you say Griffey was on steroids too...then that means Bonds was on a level playing field and his numbers stand as they are.
So one way or another either one of Bonds or Griffey are better than Ruth. Looking at the population Ruth competed against...they were both better than Ruth.