@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.
Buddy I don’t care about these guys on a personal level, just like they don’t give a crap if I’m a fan or not. I know all about weight training and NOT doing PEDS. I am 49 and still have the same belt hole as I did when I started the Sheriffs Acadamy back in 1998, through the years I’ve lifted more weights than most guys trust me. I got my bench up to 340 and squat 450 at 185 pounds and never took anything more than whey protein powder while some of my buddies put in half the work and outlifted me due to the Dekka and Anerdrol or however you spell that crap and it never bothered me, I don’t care what anyone does to their bodies outside of kids using drugs. I can’t do that anymore because I’m old but can still lift respectably for my age and trust me If I had a chance at a pro contract I’d do PEDS 100% and dont care what anyone thinks. I look at these guys at a legit competitive level and can understand them doing it. I don’t include morals when it comes to Pro Sports and athletes doing what it takes to compete. They know the rules and if they get caught or their name gets dragged through the mud I don’t care. The numbers and Wins is all I really care about.
@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.
Buddy I don’t care about these guys on a personal level, just like they don’t give a crap if I’m a fan or not. I know all about weight training and NOT doing PEDS. I am 49 and still have the same belt hole as I did when I started the Sheriffs Acadamy back in 1998, through the years I’ve lifted more weights than most guys trust me. I got my bench up to 340 and squat 450 at 185 pounds and never took anything more than whey protein powder while some of my buddies put in half the work and outlifted me due to the Dekka and Anerdrol or however you spell that crap and it never bothered me, I don’t care what anyone does to their bodies outside of kids using drugs. I can’t do that anymore because I’m old but can still lift respectably for my age and trust me If I had a chance at a pro contract I’d do PEDS 100% and dont care what anyone thinks. I look at these guys at a legit competitive level and can understand them doing it. I don’t include morals when it comes to Pro Sports and athletes doing what it takes to compete. They know the rules and if they get caught or their name gets dragged through the mud I don’t care. The numbers and Wins is all I really care about.
@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.
No one has ever said that and no one thinks that.
Oh ok so you speak for everyone? You can think or say that all you want it means nothing to me so whatever.
I'll rephrase; I have never read on these threads a post that says that the only form of cheating was steroids and I assume most people are aware that there have been baseball players who have cheated in the past (and present).
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.
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.
Well said.
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.
No one has ever said that and no one thinks that.
Oh ok so you speak for everyone? You can think or say that all you want it means nothing to me so whatever.
I'll rephrase; I have never read on these threads a post that says that the only form of cheating was steroids and I assume most people are aware that there have been baseball players who have cheated in the past (and present).
@Coinstartled You mentioned in your post that admiration for guys that have utter disregard for the sport is an insult to the fans that watched it in an honerable fashion? Ok so what your saying is other forms of cheating that some here assume everyone knows goes way back is more honerable than steroid use? Cheating is cheating when it comes down to it right? I’m not trying to pick a fight with you I just don’t get your point. Unless you believe steroids is the ultimate cheat? If so that’s fine I know it impacted the game greatly but you never know how much advantage some guys had with other forms of cheating.
@Skin2 said:
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.
Again, you state, repeatedly, that it is simply impossible for the GOAT to have played when Ruth played. But, the logical conclusion of your argument is that had Mickey Mantle played in the 1920's and 1930's, that it would then be impossible for him to be the GOAT. Substitute any name on your top secret Top 10 list, and the conclusion must necessarily be the same - it is not possible for any of them to be the GOAT, or the second best, etc. In other words, your argument - to the very limited degree that you have made an argument - doesn't work. You are anticipating positions I will take or counter-arguments that I will make, and in effect arguing with yourself. All I'm asking is for you to state your numerous unstated inputs that lead to your conclusion. Since your conclusion, logically speaking, is false, or at least circular, I want to see which input is causing that.
And you did make a solid argument in another thread that Mantle was better in his prime than Ruth was in his prime. Leaving aside that I came away from that argument unconvinced that Mantle, for his career, was better than Ruth for his career, the only conclusion that could possibly follow from that argument is that Ruth may be the second best player in history. But, reading between the lines as you're forcing me to do, you seem to be implying that Ruth isn't even among the top 10, and nowhere have you made an argument that even comes close to leading to that conclusion. It would clear up all of my questions, or at least point me to how to clear them up, if you'd list a top 10 and the metrics you're using to put them in that particular order. Alternatively, since it is obviously possible for the GOAT to have played in the 1920's, tell me what his stats would have to have been in order for you to recognize him as the GOAT, and how you know that.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@perkdog said: @Coinstartled You mentioned in your post that admiration for guys that have utter disregard for the sport is an insult to the fans that watched it in an honerable fashion? Ok so what your saying is other forms of cheating that some here assume everyone knows goes way back is more honerable than steroid use? Cheating is cheating when it comes down to it right? I’m not trying to pick a fight with you I just don’t get your point. Unless you believe steroids is the ultimate cheat? If so that’s fine I know it impacted the game greatly but you never know how much advantage some guys had with other forms of cheating.
Unless you want to redact the following statement, there really is nothing more to talk about.
"" I don’t include morals when it comes to Pro Sports and athletes doing what it takes to compete.""
I suppose we could establish a hierarchy of cheating with pine tar at the bottom followed by corked bats and deflated footballs with stay awakes next and steroid usage at the pinnacle. But why bother as anything goes in your world of wins and losses and may I suggest your proximity to Gillette stadium is fortunate as the Pats have little regard for sportsmanship and ethics.
@perkdog said: @Coinstartled You mentioned in your post that admiration for guys that have utter disregard for the sport is an insult to the fans that watched it in an honerable fashion? Ok so what your saying is other forms of cheating that some here assume everyone knows goes way back is more honerable than steroid use? Cheating is cheating when it comes down to it right? I’m not trying to pick a fight with you I just don’t get your point. Unless you believe steroids is the ultimate cheat? If so that’s fine I know it impacted the game greatly but you never know how much advantage some guys had with other forms of cheating.
Unless you want to redact the following statement, there really is nothing more to talk about.
"" I don’t include morals when it comes to Pro Sports and athletes doing what it takes to compete.""
I suppose we could establish a hierarchy of cheating with pine tar at the bottom followed by corked bats and deflated footballs with stay awakes next and steroid usage at the pinnacle. But why bother as anything goes in your world of wins and losses and may I suggest your proximity to Gillette stadium is fortunate as the Pats have little regard for sportsmanship and ethics.
Yea I stand by my comments. I truly don’t care even a little bit morally about professional sports, none of them are really sports when it comes down to it, it’s a big money business. High School Sports and playing recreational sports for fun are a total different story. The only thing I play is Poker and I would never cheat.
@Skin2 said:
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'?
Good point. Bonds won three MVP's before juicing. No other player in history has won more than three.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
@Skin2 said:
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.
Again, you state, repeatedly, that it is simply impossible for the GOAT to have played when Ruth played. But, the logical conclusion of your argument is that had Mickey Mantle played in the 1920's and 1930's, that it would then be impossible for him to be the GOAT. Substitute any name on your top secret Top 10 list, and the conclusion must necessarily be the same - it is not possible for any of them to be the GOAT, or the second best, etc. In other words, your argument - to the very limited degree that you have made an argument - doesn't work. You are anticipating positions I will take or counter-arguments that I will make, and in effect arguing with yourself. All I'm asking is for you to state your numerous unstated inputs that lead to your conclusion. Since your conclusion, logically speaking, is false, or at least circular, I want to see which input is causing that.
And you did make a solid argument in another thread that Mantle was better in his prime than Ruth was in his prime. Leaving aside that I came away from that argument unconvinced that Mantle, for his career, was better than Ruth for his career, the only conclusion that could possibly follow from that argument is that Ruth may be the second best player in history. But, reading between the lines as you're forcing me to do, you seem to be implying that Ruth isn't even among the top 10, and nowhere have you made an argument that even comes close to leading to that conclusion. It would clear up all of my questions, or at least point me to how to clear them up, if you'd list a top 10 and the metrics you're using to put them in that particular order. Alternatively, since it is obviously possible for the GOAT to have played in the 1920's, tell me what his stats would have to have been in order for you to recognize him as the GOAT, and how you know that.
You only say RUth is the GOAT based on his stats he put up...and those same stats say five other guys from the 20's are better than all the players from the 1980's and on. Not just better, but those stats say WAY better and it isn't even close.
That makes those stats that says Ruth is the best, a joke. Without those stats, you would not be saying Ruth is the greatest.
The fact that someone like Pujols can't even get in the same ballpark as Gehrig is a joke. Pujols(or anyone modern elite like him) one of the monster hitters of the last 30 years and he has no shot in touching Gehrig....well at least based on THOSE stats....because in reality, Pujols is better. He did what he did against vastly superior pitchers and he distanced himself from peers who were built closer in ability to him, as opposed to Gehrig who had to distance himself from guys who would look out of place on AAA team now(out of place meaning, they wouldnt make the AA squad).
But again, Bonds is much better than RUth. If you discount Bonds, then that means Griffey goes waaay up since he doesn't have to compete against steroid guys, and then Griffey is better. If you lump Griffey with Bonds, then Bonds was on a level playing field, and he is way better than Ruth then. Based on the pitchers they had to face, and the peers they had to distance, they were both better than Ruth. For Griffey, I would be taking defense into account in that comparison. Bonds offense is more than enough to beat Ruth without even considering defense or running ability.
The punchline to the joke is that Walter Johnson and Cy Young are also untouchable too at number one and two all time....actually five of the top six pitchers are from pre war too. A joke.
@Skin2 said:
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'?
Good point. Bonds won three MVP's before juicing. No other player in history has won more than three.
I'm not real sure why people are convinced that Bonds didn't start juicing until 1999. Personally, I think he started before 1993.
Consider:
in 1993, he shattered his career high in home runs, going from 34 to 46. While playing half his games in a pitcher's park. In 1994, he then hit 37 homers in just 112 games (strike year). Then 33 in 144 in 1995 (strike year again). Then 42, 40, 37.
So, prior to 1993, his career high was 34 homers. In the 6 seasons from 1993-98, he topped 34 five times and only failed to top it in the sixth year because the season was shortened. And he had one year where he was on pace to hit 50+.
To me, the evidence says the roids started prior to 1993.
@Darin said:
Seriously coinstartled, you had to start a thread also like it hasn't ever been done
10 or 20 times already?
Seems to still be some room for discussion.
And in a year or less a relative newbie or you is going to start a thread titled MLB GOAT?
and the regulars are going to respond as if the subject has never been brought up before.
@Skin2 said:
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'?
Good point. Bonds won three MVP's before juicing. No other player in history has won more than three.
I'm not real sure why people are convinced that Bonds didn't start juicing until 1999. Personally, I think he started before 1993.
Consider:
in 1993, he shattered his career high in home runs, going from 34 to 46. While playing half his games in a pitcher's park. In 1994, he then hit 37 homers in just 112 games (strike year). Then 33 in 144 in 1995 (strike year again). Then 42, 40, 37.
So, prior to 1993, his career high was 34 homers. In the 6 seasons from 1993-98, he topped 34 five times and only failed to top it in the sixth year because the season was shortened. And he had one year where he was on pace to hit 50+.
To me, the evidence says the roids started prior to 1993.
Tabe, 1993/94 was the beginning of a significant league wide uptick in offense and home runs. A juiced ball is more likely the culprit.
Pujols better than Gehrig
Bonds better than Cobb......and Bonds could steal more bases than Cobb should he choose to.
Griffey better than Speaker
Jeter better than Wagner
Not going to make a definitive list...but thats a start. And both Bonds and Griffey are better than Ruth. They could do everything Ruth did and more, except they did it against better widespread talent. No, they cannot hit .393...well, against that pitching and crappy gloves they could...but I digress.
Randy Johnson, Clemens, Scherzer, Verlander all better than Walter Johnson and Cy Young. All bigger, all threw harder, all with insane breaking pitchers, and with insane command.....and with results to back all that up.
Strasburg, Cole, Scherzer, and Verlander pitching in this World Series all threw harder than Walter Johnson. All have breaking pitches better than Johnson, all with insane command...all physically bigger...and all with results to boot. Knowing this, I would rather have any of these four pitchers pitch for me with my child's life on the line ahead of putting Walter Johnson out there.
None of them will ever have stats like Johnson...but thats because they aren't competing against the weak sisters of the world. Walter Johnson was a rare talent back then. It was easier for him to stand out because not many people were around that had those physical gifts. Now those physical gifts are no longer unique. I know MPH isn't the only pitching element, but it is a simple way of illustrating it. 85 percent of the league now throws as hard or harder than Walter Johnson did. These guys are six foot five and have sharp breaking pitches and command too. Some of them get lit up....but thats because there are so many damn good hitters too.
Knowing this, when I see what Pujols has done and what he had to do it against, I am much more confident that he is better than Gehrig. Just the fact that Gehrig never really saw a lefty specialist is enough to turn the tide to Pujols. And I'm not talking about some scrub Gehrig might have faced out of the pen throwing 84 MPH. I'm talking a legit guy he would have to face today throwing 96 with a nasty slider and command.
Lifetime Gehrig hit .305 vs lefties with less power and .355 vs rights...so right there you know he would have a harder time vs lefties. Now just substitute left handed pitchers throwing 95 with nasty sliders instead of the 85 he faced. Gehrig simply could not put up those stats facing that type of league. Simply could not.
Here is what Babe Ruth, Cobb and Wagner had to compete with:
1890: 2.15 million boys age 12-17.....from total U.S. Population of 62 million.
1900: 2.65 million age 12-17
1910: 3.2 million age 12-17
1920: 3.7 million age 12-17
1950: 6.4 million age 12-17............159 million total pop.
1970: 12.1 million age 12-17........203 million total pop.
1980 11.5 million age 12-17
1990 10 million age 12-17
Notice, 1970 is the highest point, even in the years past it. The late 70's, 80's , and early 90's had the most competition in the gene pool.
Now ADD the foreign players that were arriving in the 1970's to further the competition!!! Now 27% of the league is foreign born. There is absolutely no comparison between Ruth's level of competition compared to that of 1980 and beyond. Not even close.
So right there, compare what George Brett and Mike Schmidt are competing with in 1980's, as to what Wagner, Cobb, Ruth were when they had little competition. Even Mantle, Mays etc...had much less competition, though not nearly as bad as the early part of 1900's.
It is such a large jump in available athletes in 1980, even compared to 1950 and 1940. Compared to the turn of the century, there isn't even a comparison.
Now, take out the U.S. minorities from Pre war years!! If lack of competition wasn't enough, they eliminated a segment of the population from playing...a talented segment too.
So if I'm going to make a list of the all time best players, and yet somehow the list is mostly dominated by players from 1910-1950....I'm really going to scratch my head when I look at those facts above.
With that many more million boys to compete against, there are simply going to be more boys in similar ability as Schmidt and Brett...thus much harder for them to separate themselves from the group.
It has nothing to do with evolution!! With that many more million teenagers, you are going to have X amount more who can throw 95 MPH, X amount more who can run like a deer, X amount more who can hit the ball 430 feet, and X amount more who are bigger and stronger.
So evolution and science are not even part of the equation in this debate, and it is very clear(or should be clear), as to why/how Ruth and Co. were able to produce numbers simply unattainable in later generations.
Then add the league playing styles and equipment...and everyone in this thread should reconsider their belief that Wagner, Ruth, Cobb, Gehrig, Horsnby, SPeaker are all better than anyone past 1980 and will forever be 'better' than anyone to come from now on.
Barry Bonds the GOAT over Babe Ruth is preposterous in my view.
Being the GOAT can encompass more than just stats, and there is no debate that Ruth had spectacular stats. And don't forget about his pitching ability.
Ruth they say saved MLB after the Black Sox scandal. And Ruth was perhaps the greatest goodwill ambassador for MLB of all time. All this has to count in GOAT consideration.
I knew an old timer, a former high school principal who has since passed, who was one of the most honest gentleman i've ever known. He told me that as a kid he used to go to the Philadelphia A's games, and Ruth used to ride in on the trolley. Before the game if Ruth had time and always after the game, he would stay there and sign every autograph for every kid, and he enjoyed doing it, always talking to the kids with a smile. The proof - I saw the old timer's autograph collection, literally dozens of Ruth autographs, museum worthy.
When's the last time the surly Barry Bonds signed an autograph for a kid? Except perhaps on special occasions when his contract called for it.
Bonds was great on the field, that's not up for debate. But we're talking GOAT here. Bonds negativity and extreme use of steroids denigrated the game, and we all know it. In my view that disqualifies him from GOAT consideration.
stevek if you read the above post it should not be preposterous at all to show that Bonds is better than Ruth. Not talking about personality. And if Bonds doesn't count due to steroids, then that means Griffey, Jeter, Pujols go even higher...so either way, you are going to have a changing of the guard of that old view.
Ruth playing vs the weak sisters isn't as impressive. Sorry. Competition wasn't good enough. It made Ruth and company look better than they really were, as compared to 1980 and beyond players. Ruth may very well have been bigger than life...but thats not the topic. He will always be the most famous in history. Can't argue against that.
@Darin said:
Seriously coinstartled, you had to start a thread also like it hasn't ever been done
10 or 20 times already?
Seems to still be some room for discussion.
And in a year or less a relative newbie or you is going to start a thread titled MLB GOAT?
and the regulars are going to respond as if the subject has never been brought up before.
And every year in public school history we started with the cave man and ran out of semester around the time of the Civil War.
@Skin2 said:
stevek if you read the above post it should not be preposterous at all to show that Bonds is better than Ruth. Not talking about personality. And if Bonds doesn't count due to steroids, then that means Griffey, Jeter, Pujols go even higher...so either way, you are going to have a changing of the guard of that old view.
Ruth playing vs the weak sisters isn't as impressive. Sorry. Competition wasn't good enough. It made Ruth and company look better than they really were, as compared to 1980 and beyond players. Ruth may very well have been bigger than life...but thats not the topic. He will always be the most famous in history. Can't argue against that.
If, and that's a big "if" Bonds was a better baseball player than Ruth...as stated the overall body of work clearly, and in my view unequivocally makes Ruth the GOAT over anyone. But over Bonds is an easy call.
BTW - I do place Barry Bonds 4th on my all time greatest hitters list, so i do acknowledge the superb batting skill of Bonds.
@Darin said:
Seriously coinstartled, you had to start a thread also like it hasn't ever been done
10 or 20 times already?
Seems to still be some room for discussion.
And in a year or less a relative newbie or you is going to start a thread titled MLB GOAT?
and the regulars are going to respond as if the subject has never been brought up before.
And every year in public school history we started with the cave man and ran out of semester around the time of the Civil War.
Until I was 14, I thought Lincoln was president.
Funny, Cy Young was born only two years after the Civil War ended....yet somehow he is still viewed as one of the best two pitchers ever because he feasted off the weak sisters in the league....and despite there being fifty guys in the last 30 years who were bigger, threw harder, had better breaking pitches, and better command....and succeeded against better hitters.
Some may say, "So you say it isn't possible that the best pitcher ever was born in 1867?"
I would say, "it may be possible that there is a Nun walking around right now with the best body in the world....but I think I like my chances better hanging in the Sports Illustrated swimsuit after party. "
@Skin2 said:
stevek if you read the above post it should not be preposterous at all to show that Bonds is better than Ruth. Not talking about personality. And if Bonds doesn't count due to steroids, then that means Griffey, Jeter, Pujols go even higher...so either way, you are going to have a changing of the guard of that old view.
Ruth playing vs the weak sisters isn't as impressive. Sorry. Competition wasn't good enough. It made Ruth and company look better than they really were, as compared to 1980 and beyond players. Ruth may very well have been bigger than life...but thats not the topic. He will always be the most famous in history. Can't argue against that.
If, and that's a big "if" Bonds was a better baseball player than Ruth...as stated the overall body of work clearly, and in my view unequivocally makes Ruth the GOAT over anyone. But over Bonds is an easy call.
BTW - I do place Barry Bonds 4th on my all time greatest hitters list, so i do acknowledge the superb batting skill of Bonds.
Not that impressive for Ruth when feasting off weak pitchers throwing 84 MPH. Not that impressive that Ruth pitched in a league where 85% of the batters would not make a MLB roster in 1990.
That has to be included in Ruth's "body of work", because without realizing that, then you get those same flawed reasults that all those players in Ruth's time were bette than every player from 1980 and beyond. The reality is, none of them were.
There were fifty pitchers better than Cy Young. 45 better than Walter Johnson...and that is only counting guys from 1980 to now. All those pitchers Ruth hit home runs off of, just the top 15% would be equal the middle 85% of pitchers Bonds hit home runs off of.
Sorry. Bonds body of work far more impressive. Maybe Jim Creighton was the greatest ever since HE was the best pitcher and hitter in his league. He didn't even make an out one season. lol.
For instance, RUth's body of work:
587 home runs off of 83 MPH fastballs. Etc, Etc, Etc.
@MLBdays said: @tabe ....In 1992 MLB hit 3038 homers....in 1993 MLB hit 4030....1k more homers... juiced ball or players or both? I've no idea ...but Bonds wasnt the only bloke crushing all of a sudden in '93. And as far as I recall...his weight wasn't 245lbs
Pretty sure both were juiced. Bonds wasn't 245 yet but he was 220.
Bit of an unfair comparison between 92 & 93. Two teams were added in 1993 and 1992 was a down year. The Red Sox hit 84 homers all year. 1993 seems more like a return to the norm than anything else.
skin, with all due respect, no matter how often you repeat these things they don't answer any of my questions, and they leave the only argument that you have made - that the GOAT can't possibly have played when competition was weak - logically indefensible. I've asked the questions that have answers that interest me on this topic, but if you aren't going to answer any of them I'll just move on.
P.S. I am not aware of any single person, including people who faced both him and Feller, who doesn't think Walter Johnson threw over 100 mph. Your argument is either that everyone but you is wrong about that, or that throwing 100 mph today is better than throwing 100 mph 90 years ago. I'm not sure where to go with either answer, but it might help to know which it is you're saying.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@dallasactuary said:
skin, with all due respect, no matter how often you repeat these things they don't answer any of my questions, and they leave the only argument that you have made - that the GOAT can't possibly have played when competition was weak - logically indefensible. I've asked the questions that have answers that interest me on this topic, but if you aren't going to answer any of them I'll just move on.
P.S. I am not aware of any single person, including people who faced both him and Feller, who doesn't think Walter Johnson threw over 100 mph. Your argument is either that everyone but you is wrong about that, or that throwing 100 mph today is better than throwing 100 mph 90 years ago. I'm not sure where to go with either answer, but it might help to know which it is you're saying.
Out of 6 million men in the gene pool that Ruth competed against, how many do you think threw 95 MPH?
Out of the 24 million men Bonds competed against, how many do you think threw 95 MPH??
Now, out of those six million men in Ruth's competition pool, eliminate the minority segment since they weren't allowed to play.
Now out of the 24 million men in Bonds competition pool, add another 25% to account for the international players added to the pool.
100 MPH is 100 MPH in 1920 as it is in 2000. The fact is, there simply weren't many around(if any) that did it back then, hence why I said the top 15% of the pitchers in ruth's time would have jobs in MLB in 2000.
Based on your stats, not only did the GOAT play in 1925, but so did five other players better than every player after 1980. How is that?? Despite looking at the limited gene pool, how on earth is that possible?
And tell me why your stats show Cy Young as better than every pitcher too? Man, that Civil War did wonders for off spring turning into the best pitchers ever! LMAO.
Also, the average pitcher height in 1920 and 1930 was two inches smaller than in 2000, and appx 25 pounds lighter...both of which have a correlation to increased velocity and increased perceived velocity.
And there are also measurements that put Walter Johnson in the low 90's.
In 1920, Ruth hit more home runs than any other team in MLB except for the Phillies. Simply remarkable. So with all those "weak sister" pitchers, why didn't other players prolifically hit home runs like that?
No sense copying and pasting Ruth's long list of records and achievements, you already know them.
I do believe it is fact that football and basketball players have evolved a lot since the time of Ruth. Those players back then for the most part wouldn't compete well in today's NFL and NBA.
But I disagree with you about baseball players. I believe that the top players of that era, would still be top players today. The average players back then, would be average players today.
Sometimes folks look at those old grainy films from that time and it seems like the players are somewhat slow and plodding. They weren't. They were top notch athletes, and that is not debatable.
Also note that it's debatable that it was actually tougher to hit home runs back then than it is now for a variety of reasons. One reason that stands out is the same baseball was used much longer in the games than now. Not only picking up dirt, scuff marks and such, but making it move more when thrown thus tougher to hit versus brand new baseballs which are used frequently in today's game. Harder for the ball back then to carry out of the ballpark for a home run. Also the ballparks were bigger back then.
Despite that, Ruth's single season HR record of 60 home runs, wasn't broken until 1961, and that's because eight more games were played.
I forget the year Maris's HR record was finally broken, but it took a steroid infested body to do it.
@stevek said:
In 1920, Ruth hit more home runs than any other team in MLB except for the Phillies. Simply remarkable. So with all those "weak sister" pitchers, why didn't other players prolifically hit home runs like that?
No sense copying and pasting Ruth's long list of records and achievements, you already know them.
I do believe it is fact that football and basketball players have evolved a lot since the time of Ruth. Those players back then for the most part wouldn't compete well in today's NFL and NBA.
But I disagree with you about baseball players. I believe that the top players of that era, would still be top players today. The average players back then, would be average players today.
Sometimes folks look at those old grainy films from that time and it seems like the players are somewhat slow and plodding. They weren't. They were top notch athletes, and that is not debatable.
Also note that it's debatable that it was actually tougher to hit home runs back then than it is now for a variety of reasons. One reason that stands out is the same baseball was used much longer in the games than now. Not only picking up dirt, scuff marks and such, but making it move more when thrown thus tougher to hit versus brand new baseballs which are used frequently in today's game. Harder for the ball back then to carry out of the ballpark for a home run. Also the ballparks were bigger back then.
Despite that, Ruth's single season HR record of 60 home runs, wasn't broken until 1961, and that's because eight more games were played.
I forget the year Maris's HR record was finally broken, but it took a steroid infested body to do it.
Because of the same reason why Walter Johnson had a lifetime 2.17 ERA....there were also weak sister hitters. The league was also filled with deadball style slap hitters who had zero chance of hitting more than three home runs. The fact that Ruth did that is the biggest testament to how weak the league was. It was a joke.
He hit them off of 83 MPH fastballs.
And you are completely wrong about the size of the average MLB player. They were smaller and lighter back then. That is a fact.
The average height of the pitcher in 2010 is three inches taller than in 1930. The average pitcher weight is 35 pounds heavier in 2010 than in 1930. The height and weight both have a direct correalation to both actual velocity and perceived velocity.
So you are wrong stevek. Sorry.
THEN:
Out of 6 million men in the gene pool that Ruth competed against, how many do you think threw 95 MPH?
Out of the 24 million men Bonds competed against, how many do you think threw 95 MPH??
Now, out of those six million men in Ruth's competition pool, eliminate the minority segment since they weren't allowed to play.
Now out of the 24 million men in Bonds competition pool, add another 25% to account for the international players added to the pool.
100 MPH is 100 MPH in 1920 as it is in 2000. The fact is, there simply weren't many around(if any) that did it back then, hence why I said the top 15% of the pitchers in ruth's time would have jobs in MLB in 2000.
So based on those genetic facts in the gene pool population....the average MLB player of 1920 would be in single A ball, or maybe not even drafted at all in 2000. They were too small, and didn't throw hard enough. 83 MPH doesn't cut it...unless you are a lefty junk baller or knuckleballer.
The top guys like Walter Johnson who topped out at 95 and averaged low 90's...would have jobs...but not be capable of pitching 350 innings with a 1.xx something like he did TEN TIMES...because hitters see that stuff every day and every at bat, and EVERY hitter in the lineup can go yard at anytime. They would simply be no mystery. 95 isn't special now at the MLB level. YOU SEE IT EVEY AT BAT! Back then, it was a spectacle.
There simply weren't enough males born back then to produce as many genetic freaks that could throw 95MPH consistently or hit 400 foot home runs consistently off of game pitching, as there were in later generations. Then back then they actually banned a segment of the population and now there have been international pitchers added to the gene pool. Huge difference.
AGAIN:
There simply weren't enough males born back then to produce as many genetic freaks that could throw 95MPH consistently or hit 400 foot home runs consistently off of game pitching, as there were in later generations. Then back then they actually banned a segment of the population and now there have been international pitchers added to the gene pool. Huge difference.
Just look at the population difference. Add the foreign players to the mix....and it is pretty easy to see why RUth did what he did back then and why guys hit .424 for a full season back then, or why pitchers pitched 350 innings routinely with a 1.49 ERA...or why the stats show the top guys from 1925 are better than anyone past 1980.
How do you look at those population figures and height/weight figures, and then convince yourself that the best player ever was playing before WWI. The best pitcher ever was born in 1867 or 1878....and then the next four best players are also from WWI or soon after, and three of the next four pitchers also from WWI??.....and nobody from 1980 to present can ever be as good. It is a fool to believe that.
@stevek said:
In 1920, Ruth hit more home runs than any other team in MLB except for the Phillies. Simply remarkable. So with all those "weak sister" pitchers, why didn't other players prolifically hit home runs like that?
No sense copying and pasting Ruth's long list of records and achievements, you already know them.
I do believe it is fact that football and basketball players have evolved a lot since the time of Ruth. Those players back then for the most part wouldn't compete well in today's NFL and NBA.
But I disagree with you about baseball players. I believe that the top players of that era, would still be top players today. The average players back then, would be average players today.
Sometimes folks look at those old grainy films from that time and it seems like the players are somewhat slow and plodding. They weren't. They were top notch athletes, and that is not debatable.
Also note that it's debatable that it was actually tougher to hit home runs back then than it is now for a variety of reasons. One reason that stands out is the same baseball was used much longer in the games than now. Not only picking up dirt, scuff marks and such, but making it move more when thrown thus tougher to hit versus brand new baseballs which are used frequently in today's game. Harder for the ball back then to carry out of the ballpark for a home run. Also the ballparks were bigger back then.
Despite that, Ruth's single season HR record of 60 home runs, wasn't broken until 1961, and that's because eight more games were played.
I forget the year Maris's HR record was finally broken, but it took a steroid infested body to do it.
Because of the same reason why Walter Johnson had a lifetime 2.17 ERA....there were also weak sister hitters. The league was also filled with deadball style slap hitters who had zero chance of hitting more than three home runs. The fact that Ruth did that is the biggest testament to how weak the league was. It was a joke.
He hit them off of 83 MPH fastballs.
And you are completely wrong about the size of the average MLB player. They were smaller and lighter back then. That is a fact.
The average height of the pitcher in 2010 is three inches taller than in 1930. The average pitcher weight is 35 pounds heavier in 2010 than in 1930. The height and weight both have a direct correalation to both actual velocity and perceived velocity.
So you are wrong stevek. Sorry.
THEN:
Out of 6 million men in the gene pool that Ruth competed against, how many do you think threw 95 MPH?
Out of the 24 million men Bonds competed against, how many do you think threw 95 MPH??
Now, out of those six million men in Ruth's competition pool, eliminate the minority segment since they weren't allowed to play.
Now out of the 24 million men in Bonds competition pool, add another 25% to account for the international players added to the pool.
100 MPH is 100 MPH in 1920 as it is in 2000. The fact is, there simply weren't many around(if any) that did it back then, hence why I said the top 15% of the pitchers in ruth's time would have jobs in MLB in 2000.
So based on those genetic facts in the gene pool population....the average MLB player of 1920 would be in single A ball, or maybe not even drafted at all in 2000. They were too small, and didn't throw hard enough. 83 MPH doesn't cut it...unless you are a lefty junk baller or knuckleballer.
The top guys like Walter Johnson who topped out at 95 and averaged low 90's...would have jobs...but not be capable of pitching 350 innings with a 1,89 like they did...because hitters see that stuff every day and every at bat, and EVERY hitter in the lineup can go yard at anytime. They would simply be no mystery. 95 isn't special now at the MLB level. YOU SEE IT EVEY AT BAT! Back then, it was a spectacle. HUGE difference.
I don't disagree that today's baseball players aren't bigger. But unlike football or basketball, a bigger baseball player doesn't necessarily equate to a better baseball player.
With today's NFL football at the 22 positions, except for extraordinary talent at corner and wide receiver, you have to be big, or at Quarterback tall. With NBA basketball, unless you are a freak of nature with shooting skills, you have to be tall.
You are probably correct about the difference in the pitching speeds. There were no speed guns back then so it's all conjecture. But I'll say that i'd rather attempt to hit a 95 mph fastball from a new baseball, than an 85 MPH fastball with dirt, scuff marks, spit, and who knows what else on it.
All of that and so much more is what made Babe Ruth clearly the GOAT of MLB.
In my opinion, the only debate should be which player is the greatest GOAT of all time? Ruth or Chamberlain, and THAT is a very tough call. Some days I lean Ruth, but most days i lean Chamberlain.
@stevek said:
In 1920, Ruth hit more home runs than any other team in MLB except for the Phillies. Simply remarkable. So with all those "weak sister" pitchers, why didn't other players prolifically hit home runs like that?
No sense copying and pasting Ruth's long list of records and achievements, you already know them.
I do believe it is fact that football and basketball players have evolved a lot since the time of Ruth. Those players back then for the most part wouldn't compete well in today's NFL and NBA.
But I disagree with you about baseball players. I believe that the top players of that era, would still be top players today. The average players back then, would be average players today.
Sometimes folks look at those old grainy films from that time and it seems like the players are somewhat slow and plodding. They weren't. They were top notch athletes, and that is not debatable.
Also note that it's debatable that it was actually tougher to hit home runs back then than it is now for a variety of reasons. One reason that stands out is the same baseball was used much longer in the games than now. Not only picking up dirt, scuff marks and such, but making it move more when thrown thus tougher to hit versus brand new baseballs which are used frequently in today's game. Harder for the ball back then to carry out of the ballpark for a home run. Also the ballparks were bigger back then.
Despite that, Ruth's single season HR record of 60 home runs, wasn't broken until 1961, and that's because eight more games were played.
I forget the year Maris's HR record was finally broken, but it took a steroid infested body to do it.
ALL valid points.
There are good points to be made on both sides of the argument.
The one I have the most trouble accepting is that the modern athlete is so much better than the "old timers".
It wasn't too many years ago (1999 I think) that the Minnesota Twins didn't have a pitcher on the entire staff that threw much above 90MPH. You still have a lot of "weak sisters" playing today.
Time and time again (some) posters say the old timers couldn't compete in today's game, No, if they were magically transported from 1920 into today's game, they would have trouble, but if they were born in the present time they would probably be better than they were back then, using the current advancements in diet and exercise.
If we decide to eliminate both the old guys and the steroid infested dirt bags, I'll nominate Ted Williams as my GOAT, he's young enough to miss the era when there were so few players and no integration, but old enough that he wasn't a juicer.
Mays was the better "all-around" player and Aaron and Musial would deserve mention in that regard as well.
If you give Ted credit for another 5 years there's no comparison. From 1941-1955 every single year he played he had the highest OPS in the AL, Ted was second to Mantle in 1956, but then won it again every year (except his one "bad" year in 1959) up until, and including, his final season.
Mantle played "head to head" with Ted for about 8 years and beat him twice in OPS. The Mick's prime, and Ted's "old man" years.
If you expand the OPS comparison to include the NL, Ted is nearly as dominant, finishing second behind Musial in 1948 (Stan's best year EVER) and third behind Kiner and Musial in 1951.
No, I don't think his play in the outfield was bad enough to overcome that kind of offensive dominance.
I do see a lot of Mr. Trout near the top of the lists.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@stevek said:
In 1920, Ruth hit more home runs than any other team in MLB except for the Phillies. Simply remarkable. So with all those "weak sister" pitchers, why didn't other players prolifically hit home runs like that?
No sense copying and pasting Ruth's long list of records and achievements, you already know them.
I do believe it is fact that football and basketball players have evolved a lot since the time of Ruth. Those players back then for the most part wouldn't compete well in today's NFL and NBA.
But I disagree with you about baseball players. I believe that the top players of that era, would still be top players today. The average players back then, would be average players today.
Sometimes folks look at those old grainy films from that time and it seems like the players are somewhat slow and plodding. They weren't. They were top notch athletes, and that is not debatable.
Also note that it's debatable that it was actually tougher to hit home runs back then than it is now for a variety of reasons. One reason that stands out is the same baseball was used much longer in the games than now. Not only picking up dirt, scuff marks and such, but making it move more when thrown thus tougher to hit versus brand new baseballs which are used frequently in today's game. Harder for the ball back then to carry out of the ballpark for a home run. Also the ballparks were bigger back then.
Despite that, Ruth's single season HR record of 60 home runs, wasn't broken until 1961, and that's because eight more games were played.
I forget the year Maris's HR record was finally broken, but it took a steroid infested body to do it.
Because of the same reason why Walter Johnson had a lifetime 2.17 ERA....there were also weak sister hitters. The league was also filled with deadball style slap hitters who had zero chance of hitting more than three home runs. The fact that Ruth did that is the biggest testament to how weak the league was. It was a joke.
He hit them off of 83 MPH fastballs.
And you are completely wrong about the size of the average MLB player. They were smaller and lighter back then. That is a fact.
The average height of the pitcher in 2010 is three inches taller than in 1930. The average pitcher weight is 35 pounds heavier in 2010 than in 1930. The height and weight both have a direct correalation to both actual velocity and perceived velocity.
So you are wrong stevek. Sorry.
THEN:
Out of 6 million men in the gene pool that Ruth competed against, how many do you think threw 95 MPH?
Out of the 24 million men Bonds competed against, how many do you think threw 95 MPH??
Now, out of those six million men in Ruth's competition pool, eliminate the minority segment since they weren't allowed to play.
Now out of the 24 million men in Bonds competition pool, add another 25% to account for the international players added to the pool.
100 MPH is 100 MPH in 1920 as it is in 2000. The fact is, there simply weren't many around(if any) that did it back then, hence why I said the top 15% of the pitchers in ruth's time would have jobs in MLB in 2000.
So based on those genetic facts in the gene pool population....the average MLB player of 1920 would be in single A ball, or maybe not even drafted at all in 2000. They were too small, and didn't throw hard enough. 83 MPH doesn't cut it...unless you are a lefty junk baller or knuckleballer.
The top guys like Walter Johnson who topped out at 95 and averaged low 90's...would have jobs...but not be capable of pitching 350 innings with a 1,89 like they did...because hitters see that stuff every day and every at bat, and EVERY hitter in the lineup can go yard at anytime. They would simply be no mystery. 95 isn't special now at the MLB level. YOU SEE IT EVEY AT BAT! Back then, it was a spectacle. HUGE difference.
I don't disagree that today's baseball players aren't bigger. But unlike football or basketball, a bigger baseball player doesn't necessarily equate to a better baseball player.
With today's NFL football at the 22 positions, except for extraordinary talent at corner and wide receiver, you have to be big, or at Quarterback tall. With NBA basketball, unless you are a freak of nature with shooting skills, you have to be tall.
You are probably correct about the difference in the pitching speeds. There were no speed guns back then so it's all conjecture. But I'll say that i'd rather attempt to hit a 95 mph fastball from a new baseball, than an 85 MPH fastball with dirt, scuff marks, spit, and who knows what else on it.
All of that and so much more is what made Babe Ruth clearly the GOAT of MLB.
In my opinion, the only debate should be which player is the greatest GOAT of all time? Ruth or Chamberlain, and THAT is a very tough call. Some days I lean Ruth, but most days i lean Chamberlain.
I would agree, but maybe lean more towards Ruth.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@stevek said:
In 1920, Ruth hit more home runs than any other team in MLB except for the Phillies. Simply remarkable. So with all those "weak sister" pitchers, why didn't other players prolifically hit home runs like that?
No sense copying and pasting Ruth's long list of records and achievements, you already know them.
I do believe it is fact that football and basketball players have evolved a lot since the time of Ruth. Those players back then for the most part wouldn't compete well in today's NFL and NBA.
But I disagree with you about baseball players. I believe that the top players of that era, would still be top players today. The average players back then, would be average players today.
Sometimes folks look at those old grainy films from that time and it seems like the players are somewhat slow and plodding. They weren't. They were top notch athletes, and that is not debatable.
Also note that it's debatable that it was actually tougher to hit home runs back then than it is now for a variety of reasons. One reason that stands out is the same baseball was used much longer in the games than now. Not only picking up dirt, scuff marks and such, but making it move more when thrown thus tougher to hit versus brand new baseballs which are used frequently in today's game. Harder for the ball back then to carry out of the ballpark for a home run. Also the ballparks were bigger back then.
Despite that, Ruth's single season HR record of 60 home runs, wasn't broken until 1961, and that's because eight more games were played.
I forget the year Maris's HR record was finally broken, but it took a steroid infested body to do it.
ALL valid points.
There are good points to be made on both sides of the argument.
The one I have the most trouble accepting is that the modern athlete is so much better than the "old timers".
It wasn't too many years ago (1999 I think) that the Minnesota Twins didn't have a pitcher on the entire staff that threw much above 90MPH. You still have a lot of "weak sisters" playing today.
Time and time again (some) posters say the old timers couldn't compete in today's game, No, if they were magically transported from 1920 into today's game, they would have trouble, but if they were born in the present time they would probably be better than they were back then, using the current advancements in diet and exercise.
If we decide to eliminate both the old guys and the steroid infested dirt bags, I'll nominate Ted Williams as my GOAT, he's young enough to miss the era when there were so few players and no integration, but old enough that he wasn't a juicer.
Mays was the better "all-around" player and Aaron and Musial would deserve mention in that regard as well.
If you give Ted credit for another 5 years there's no comparison. From 1941-1955 every single year he played he had the highest OPS in the AL, Ted was second to Mantle in 1956, but then won it again every year (except his one "bad" year in 1959) up until, and including, his final season.
Mantle played "head to head" with Ted for about 8 years and beat him twice in OPS. The Mick's prime, and Ted's "old man" years.
If you expand the OPS comparison to include the NL, Ted is nearly as dominant, finishing second behind Musial in 1948 (Stan's best year EVER) and third behind Kiner and Musial in 1951.
No, I don't think his play in the outfield was bad enough to overcome that kind of offensive dominance.
I do see a lot of Mr. Trout near the top of the lists.
I doubt if Skin or anyone in their right mind wouldn't agree that players such as Williams and Mantle and others you mentioned, would still be super stars in today's game. Ruth was only a few decades removed from those guys.
Let's not forget that although the US population was smaller back then, and yes there were no black players, that MLB baseball was by far the most popular professional team sport in America. All the great athletes of that time wanted to play baseball and worked at that particular game. Baseball players in Ruth's time absolutely were the cream of the crop as far as athletic ability.
Yes, today's game also encompasses players from around the world, but there are so many other popular sports now, especially in America with football, basketball, hockey, even soccer and others, that pay good money and so that dilutes the talent pool for baseball that back in Ruth's time virtually all of those kids growing up would have automatically gravitated towards baseball.
BTW - I do have Ted Williams second on my all time hitters list, with Mays third.
@stevek said:
In 1920, Ruth hit more home runs than any other team in MLB except for the Phillies. Simply remarkable. So with all those "weak sister" pitchers, why didn't other players prolifically hit home runs like that?
No sense copying and pasting Ruth's long list of records and achievements, you already know them.
I do believe it is fact that football and basketball players have evolved a lot since the time of Ruth. Those players back then for the most part wouldn't compete well in today's NFL and NBA.
But I disagree with you about baseball players. I believe that the top players of that era, would still be top players today. The average players back then, would be average players today.
Sometimes folks look at those old grainy films from that time and it seems like the players are somewhat slow and plodding. They weren't. They were top notch athletes, and that is not debatable.
Also note that it's debatable that it was actually tougher to hit home runs back then than it is now for a variety of reasons. One reason that stands out is the same baseball was used much longer in the games than now. Not only picking up dirt, scuff marks and such, but making it move more when thrown thus tougher to hit versus brand new baseballs which are used frequently in today's game. Harder for the ball back then to carry out of the ballpark for a home run. Also the ballparks were bigger back then.
Despite that, Ruth's single season HR record of 60 home runs, wasn't broken until 1961, and that's because eight more games were played.
I forget the year Maris's HR record was finally broken, but it took a steroid infested body to do it.
Because of the same reason why Walter Johnson had a lifetime 2.17 ERA....there were also weak sister hitters. The league was also filled with deadball style slap hitters who had zero chance of hitting more than three home runs. The fact that Ruth did that is the biggest testament to how weak the league was. It was a joke.
He hit them off of 83 MPH fastballs.
And you are completely wrong about the size of the average MLB player. They were smaller and lighter back then. That is a fact.
The average height of the pitcher in 2010 is three inches taller than in 1930. The average pitcher weight is 35 pounds heavier in 2010 than in 1930. The height and weight both have a direct correalation to both actual velocity and perceived velocity.
So you are wrong stevek. Sorry.
THEN:
Out of 6 million men in the gene pool that Ruth competed against, how many do you think threw 95 MPH?
Out of the 24 million men Bonds competed against, how many do you think threw 95 MPH??
Now, out of those six million men in Ruth's competition pool, eliminate the minority segment since they weren't allowed to play.
Now out of the 24 million men in Bonds competition pool, add another 25% to account for the international players added to the pool.
100 MPH is 100 MPH in 1920 as it is in 2000. The fact is, there simply weren't many around(if any) that did it back then, hence why I said the top 15% of the pitchers in ruth's time would have jobs in MLB in 2000.
So based on those genetic facts in the gene pool population....the average MLB player of 1920 would be in single A ball, or maybe not even drafted at all in 2000. They were too small, and didn't throw hard enough. 83 MPH doesn't cut it...unless you are a lefty junk baller or knuckleballer.
The top guys like Walter Johnson who topped out at 95 and averaged low 90's...would have jobs...but not be capable of pitching 350 innings with a 1,89 like they did...because hitters see that stuff every day and every at bat, and EVERY hitter in the lineup can go yard at anytime. They would simply be no mystery. 95 isn't special now at the MLB level. YOU SEE IT EVEY AT BAT! Back then, it was a spectacle. HUGE difference.
I don't disagree that today's baseball players aren't bigger. But unlike football or basketball, a bigger baseball player doesn't necessarily equate to a better baseball player.
With today's NFL football at the 22 positions, except for extraordinary talent at corner and wide receiver, you have to be big, or at Quarterback tall. With NBA basketball, unless you are a freak of nature with shooting skills, you have to be tall.
You are probably correct about the difference in the pitching speeds. There were no speed guns back then so it's all conjecture. But I'll say that i'd rather attempt to hit a 95 mph fastball from a new baseball, than an 85 MPH fastball with dirt, scuff marks, spit, and who knows what else on it.
All of that and so much more is what made Babe Ruth clearly the GOAT of MLB.
In my opinion, the only debate should be which player is the greatest GOAT of all time? Ruth or Chamberlain, and THAT is a very tough call. Some days I lean Ruth, but most days i lean Chamberlain.
I would agree, but maybe lean more towards Ruth.
I have no problem with Ruth at the top. Chamberlain's records were spectacularly awesome and he changed the game. But Chamberlain didn't "save" the game like Ruth did.
I guess to some, saving the game means nothing as far as GOAT, but to me it does. Sort of like the MVP award isn't automatically awarded to the player with the best stats.
Many kids did not even play sports at the turn of the century. It simply was not even an option for them. Families had to work to eat...including kids.
Great arms are born.
When you have that little to choose from, you simply don't have guys that can throw as hard or be as good.
Disease and injuries also eliminated the talent pool back then. Talent was lost due to that. There were alos other sports then too.
Not to mention the fact that a lot of that population included fresh immigrants who had no sports skill.
Size does matter in baseball. Like I said, there is a direct correlation between height and weight in velocity.
Same goes for hitters. The bigger/stronger guys have an advantage. A few small guys can be elite, but that doesn't happen often, in fact, probably about as often as a small guy in the NBA being elite like Isiah Thomas or Allen Iverson. SO Stevek, don't be a double standard guy and talk about size only mattering in the NBA...then talk about Wilt Chamberlain being the greatest. Contradiction much??
Size does matter. MPH matters immensely. That is why guys who throw 83 MPH RH can't survive in MLB now. They can't even survive in college now.
Ruth played vs the weak sisters on the hill and his competition at the plate were weak sisters.
Hitting home runs off of 83 MPH isn't that impressive.
And again, so by saying Ruth is the greatest, you are also saying Cy Young and Walter Johnson are the two greatest pitchers, and Hornsby, Gehrig, Speaker, and Collins are also all better than anyone playing past 1980 and on. LMAO.
So despite there being 1/8 the talent pool to draw from, you somehow get all the best players from back then. That is just too funny.
So Stevek, you seem stuck on Ruth out homering every team. That is his benchmark, so in order for a player to replicate that, he would have to hit 325 home runs this year. So in essence, you are saying Ruth would hit 325 home runs this year, because that is the only way a modern player could equal Ruth's "achievements" If you agree that RUth could not possibly do that, then you understand why he wasn't as great as his statistical record shows(compared to modern guys).
Same for Walter Johnson. How can someone replicate 1.50 ERA over 350 innings and do it ten years. LMAO. Johnson and his 93 MPH would get lit up like a Christmas tree. He didn't even have a great breaking pitch. That just shows how shitty those hitters were too...a guy throwing 93 with no breaking pitch and he owned them. Guys face 95 every night, and from people three inches taller(which means the ball is released closer to the plate so less reaction time), and they also have ungodly breaking pitches, and command.
Not even close. Ruth is actually inferior to David Ortiz as well. Big Papi would feast on 83 MPH fastballs, and would bat .380 with those crappy defenders and gloves in the field. If Big papi can hit 47 home runs and hit .330 off 95 MPH every night, I don't think 83 MPH from guys three inches smaller would pose much a threat....especially since he gets to face them FOUR times in the same game, and never have to worry about a Josh Hader coming out of the pen to face him.
Weak sister leagues don't count. Thats why the guys in AAA this year aren't considered the best player in baseball even though some of the 'outperform' the guys statwise in MLB. Thats why Ruth is nowhere near the best since he faced guys with even less pitching ability than AAA this year. Gavin Lux out hit every MLB this year....but he did it in AAA. Lux's stats are better....so does that make Lux better than every MLB hitter? No. Just like Ruth.
Ty France his .399/.477/.770 off of AAA pitching this year. Those pitchers were almost all more talented and physically gifted than every MLB pitcher in 1920. If Walter Johnson could dominate with a 93 MPH fastball and no breaking pitch like he did...just crazy, lmao. France faced pitchers the same level that Ruth faced. He put up better than Ruthian numbers.
Again, Walter Johnson was topping out at a low 90's MPH guy. Measured in the labs etc.. 1917 lab measured at 91 MPH.
The league was low 80's and possibly high 70's. Garbage. Weak sisters.
All I needed to do was look at the limited population to choose from to figure that out. Common sense goes a long way. Not to mention the advancements in pitching mechanics to produce higher velocities(with command).
Also, seeing how the pitchers were smaller and lighter, and knowing how that affects both velocity and perceived velocity...you get the low 80's for MLB during the 1920's.
Not that hard. Ty France of this year would have no problem feasting on that.
Not to mention seeing all the best players on the mound and at the plate coming from before 1930 based on your measurements. That should raise a red flag of anyone with an ounce of logic in their brain.
Ruth may have to settle for Ryan Howard at this point....and that may even be a gift. At least I know Howard could handle 95MPH on a consistent basis. Don't know if Ruth could or not. Would rather take my chances with the guy who has proven he could. Sorry.
Again, Walter Johnson was topping out at a low 90's MPH guy. Measured in the labs etc.. 1917 lab measured at 91 MPH.
The league was low 80's and possibly high 70's. Garbage. Weak sisters.
All I needed to do was look at the limited population to choose from to figure that out. Common sense goes a long way. Not to mention the advancements in pitching mechanics to produce higher velocities(with command).
Also, seeing how the pitchers were smaller and lighter, and knowing how that affects both velocity and perceived velocity...you get the low 80's for MLB during the 1920's.
Not that hard. Ty France of this year would have no problem feasting on that.
Not to mention seeing all the best players on the mound and at the plate coming from before 1930 based on your measurements. That should raise a red flag of anyone with an ounce of logic in their brain.
Ruth may have to settle for Ryan Howard at this point....and that may even be a gift. At least I know Howard could handle 95MPH on a consistent basis. Don't know if Ruth could or not. Would rather take my chances with the guy who has proven he could. Sorry.
<<< Ruth may have to settle for Ryan Howard at this point....and that may even be a gift. >>>
I realize you were being facetious, but to even facetiously mention that, sorry but you lose credibility.
If you say you weren't being facetious, then you've lost all credibility regarding this debate.
Again, Walter Johnson was topping out at a low 90's MPH guy. Measured in the labs etc.. 1917 lab measured at 91 MPH.
That article by Spaeder is laughable. I had a blind guy listen to an old recording of one of Johnson's fastballs, he said it sounded like 103mph. There, I have used as much evidence as Spaeder OMG.
Weren't there two different "radar" guns used for a while, and one (JUGGS?) showed the pitch at a much higher speed and that one was incorrect? Do we even have it figured out now?
Saw a good video that showed the different ways the speed of a pitched ball has been measured over the years. Back then they measured the velocity of the baseball at the catcher, now it's just after the pitcher releases the ball. it tended to show that the old timers could bring it as fast as they do now, or at least close. Seemed to me that Walter was upper 90's if they used todays method.
Not going to debate what the other guys threw back then, because no one else got measured.
I do think 83 is much too low. You might be right though, it is however, un-proveable.
Common sense is a poor way to decide how fast someone throws a ball. The guys we talk about are "freaks of nature" they don't compare to the average player. The Twins have a young pitcher who throws 100mph, he's 6'1" 180 lbs. Using common sense a guy 6'4" 220 should hit about 105 easy.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Again, Walter Johnson was topping out at a low 90's MPH guy. Measured in the labs etc.. 1917 lab measured at 91 MPH.
The league was low 80's and possibly high 70's. Garbage. Weak sisters.
All I needed to do was look at the limited population to choose from to figure that out. Common sense goes a long way. Not to mention the advancements in pitching mechanics to produce higher velocities(with command).
Also, seeing how the pitchers were smaller and lighter, and knowing how that affects both velocity and perceived velocity...you get the low 80's for MLB during the 1920's.
Not that hard. Ty France of this year would have no problem feasting on that.
Not to mention seeing all the best players on the mound and at the plate coming from before 1930 based on your measurements. That should raise a red flag of anyone with an ounce of logic in their brain.
Ruth may have to settle for Ryan Howard at this point....and that may even be a gift. At least I know Howard could handle 95MPH on a consistent basis. Don't know if Ruth could or not. Would rather take my chances with the guy who has proven he could. Sorry.
<<< Ruth may have to settle for Ryan Howard at this point....and that may even be a gift. >>>
I realize you were being facetious, but to even facetiously mention that, sorry but you lose credibility.
If you say you weren't being facetious, then you've lost all credibility regarding this debate.
He may be down to Matt Stairs soon if you mention Wilt Chamberlain again while ignoring size factors.
Again, Walter Johnson was topping out at a low 90's MPH guy. Measured in the labs etc.. 1917 lab measured at 91 MPH.
That article by Spaeder is laughable. I had a blind guy listen to an old recording of one of Johnson's fastballs, he said it sounded like 103mph. There, I have used as much evidence as Spaeder OMG.
Weren't there two different "radar" guns used for a while, and one (JUGGS?) showed the pitch at a much higher speed and that one was incorrect? Do we even have it figured out now?
Saw a good video that showed the different ways the speed of a pitched ball has been measured over the years. Back then they measured the velocity of the baseball at the catcher, now it's just after the pitcher releases the ball. it tended to show that the old timers could bring it as fast as they do now, or at least close. Seemed to me that Walter was upper 90's if they used todays method.
Not going to debate what the other guys threw back then, because no one else got measured.
I do think 83 is much too low. You might be right though, it is however, un-proveable.
Common sense is a poor way to decide how fast someone throws a ball. The guys we talk about are "freaks of nature" they don't compare to the average player. The Twins have a young pitcher who throws 100mph, he's 6'1" 180 lbs. Using common sense a guy 6'4" 220 should hit about 105 easy.
Joe, there are always exceptions to the rule. If you take a room of 100 athletic men who are six foot four and 225, and take a room of 100 athletic men who are five foot 10 and 180 pounds....you tell me which room will produce more guys who can throw 95 and more guys who can hit the ball 425 feet.
Also, look at the trend of MPH in MLB. SIze is even higher now than even in 2010. Velocity is way up. The recent velocity spike has something to do with the velocity camps too.
Or just look at the list of all the guys in MLB who throw 98 MPH and tell me how many are five foot ten, and how many are over six foot three. Common sense.
I also know that out of a pool of 30 million U.S. males(and foreign athletes), you will get far more guys who throw 95 than if you are choosing from a pool of five million U.S. males.
I think the argument for Babe Ruth being the GOAT comes from the fact that he is the biggest icon in the history of the game. He put the long ball on the map. He drew the crowds. The name Babe Ruth sends chills down your spine.
@Skin2 said:
Many kids did not even play sports at the turn of the century. It simply was not even an option for them. Families had to work to eat...including kids.
Great arms are born.
When you have that little to choose from, you simply don't have guys that can throw as hard or be as good.
Disease and injuries also eliminated the talent pool back then. Talent was lost due to that. There were alos other sports then too.
Not to mention the fact that a lot of that population included fresh immigrants who had no sports skill.
Some pro teams had to use a batting tee as no pitchers were available that could throw ball a full 60 feet.
@Skin2 said:
Many kids did not even play sports at the turn of the century. It simply was not even an option for them. Families had to work to eat...including kids.
Great arms are born.
When you have that little to choose from, you simply don't have guys that can throw as hard or be as good.
Disease and injuries also eliminated the talent pool back then. Talent was lost due to that. There were alos other sports then too.
Not to mention the fact that a lot of that population included fresh immigrants who had no sports skill.
Some pro teams had to use a batting tee as no pitchers were available that could throw ball a full 60 feet.
Things were tough back then. hoo boy they were.
Cy Young was born before the Custer Massacre. Not many people were even in the country then, let alone kids playing baseball. Yet Cy Young AND Walter Johnson are greater than every pitcher playing after 1980?? Lmao. Babe Ruth hitting home runs off of 83 MPH fastballs is the greatest? LMAO again.
@Skin2 said:
Many kids did not even play sports at the turn of the century. It simply was not even an option for them. Families had to work to eat...including kids.
Great arms are born.
When you have that little to choose from, you simply don't have guys that can throw as hard or be as good.
Disease and injuries also eliminated the talent pool back then. Talent was lost due to that. There were alos other sports then too.
Not to mention the fact that a lot of that population included fresh immigrants who had no sports skill.
Some pro teams had to use a batting tee as no pitchers were available that could throw ball a full 60 feet.
Things were tough back then. hoo boy they were.
Cy Young was born before the Custer Massacre. Not many people were even in the country then, let alone kids playing baseball. Yet Cy Young AND Walter Johnson are greater than every pitcher playing after 1980?? Lmao. Babe Ruth hitting home runs off of 83 MPH fastballs is the greatest? LMAO again.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were born in the 18th century. Does that diminish their stature as leaders and statesman as the US population was 1/100th of the overflowing mass of inhumanity that it has become today?
Think about that as you watch the Dem debate an anoint a candidate from that hapless crew.
Ruth was the greatest. A large handful of talented players can fight over the second spot.
Comments
Buddy I don’t care about these guys on a personal level, just like they don’t give a crap if I’m a fan or not. I know all about weight training and NOT doing PEDS. I am 49 and still have the same belt hole as I did when I started the Sheriffs Acadamy back in 1998, through the years I’ve lifted more weights than most guys trust me. I got my bench up to 340 and squat 450 at 185 pounds and never took anything more than whey protein powder while some of my buddies put in half the work and outlifted me due to the Dekka and Anerdrol or however you spell that crap and it never bothered me, I don’t care what anyone does to their bodies outside of kids using drugs. I can’t do that anymore because I’m old but can still lift respectably for my age and trust me If I had a chance at a pro contract I’d do PEDS 100% and dont care what anyone thinks. I look at these guys at a legit competitive level and can understand them doing it. I don’t include morals when it comes to Pro Sports and athletes doing what it takes to compete. They know the rules and if they get caught or their name gets dragged through the mud I don’t care. The numbers and Wins is all I really care about.
And for the record I never said Bonds was the GOAT, I said Willie Mays
Well, you are certainly candid.
I'll rephrase; I have never read on these threads a post that says that the only form of cheating was steroids and I assume most people are aware that there have been baseball players who have cheated in the past (and present).
Well said.
Ok fair enough
@Coinstartled You mentioned in your post that admiration for guys that have utter disregard for the sport is an insult to the fans that watched it in an honerable fashion? Ok so what your saying is other forms of cheating that some here assume everyone knows goes way back is more honerable than steroid use? Cheating is cheating when it comes down to it right? I’m not trying to pick a fight with you I just don’t get your point. Unless you believe steroids is the ultimate cheat? If so that’s fine I know it impacted the game greatly but you never know how much advantage some guys had with other forms of cheating.
Again, you state, repeatedly, that it is simply impossible for the GOAT to have played when Ruth played. But, the logical conclusion of your argument is that had Mickey Mantle played in the 1920's and 1930's, that it would then be impossible for him to be the GOAT. Substitute any name on your top secret Top 10 list, and the conclusion must necessarily be the same - it is not possible for any of them to be the GOAT, or the second best, etc. In other words, your argument - to the very limited degree that you have made an argument - doesn't work. You are anticipating positions I will take or counter-arguments that I will make, and in effect arguing with yourself. All I'm asking is for you to state your numerous unstated inputs that lead to your conclusion. Since your conclusion, logically speaking, is false, or at least circular, I want to see which input is causing that.
And you did make a solid argument in another thread that Mantle was better in his prime than Ruth was in his prime. Leaving aside that I came away from that argument unconvinced that Mantle, for his career, was better than Ruth for his career, the only conclusion that could possibly follow from that argument is that Ruth may be the second best player in history. But, reading between the lines as you're forcing me to do, you seem to be implying that Ruth isn't even among the top 10, and nowhere have you made an argument that even comes close to leading to that conclusion. It would clear up all of my questions, or at least point me to how to clear them up, if you'd list a top 10 and the metrics you're using to put them in that particular order. Alternatively, since it is obviously possible for the GOAT to have played in the 1920's, tell me what his stats would have to have been in order for you to recognize him as the GOAT, and how you know that.
Unless you want to redact the following statement, there really is nothing more to talk about.
"" I don’t include morals when it comes to Pro Sports and athletes doing what it takes to compete.""
I suppose we could establish a hierarchy of cheating with pine tar at the bottom followed by corked bats and deflated footballs with stay awakes next and steroid usage at the pinnacle. But why bother as anything goes in your world of wins and losses and may I suggest your proximity to Gillette stadium is fortunate as the Pats have little regard for sportsmanship and ethics.
Yea I stand by my comments. I truly don’t care even a little bit morally about professional sports, none of them are really sports when it comes down to it, it’s a big money business. High School Sports and playing recreational sports for fun are a total different story. The only thing I play is Poker and I would never cheat.
Good point. Bonds won three MVP's before juicing. No other player in history has won more than three.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
You only say RUth is the GOAT based on his stats he put up...and those same stats say five other guys from the 20's are better than all the players from the 1980's and on. Not just better, but those stats say WAY better and it isn't even close.
That makes those stats that says Ruth is the best, a joke. Without those stats, you would not be saying Ruth is the greatest.
The fact that someone like Pujols can't even get in the same ballpark as Gehrig is a joke. Pujols(or anyone modern elite like him) one of the monster hitters of the last 30 years and he has no shot in touching Gehrig....well at least based on THOSE stats....because in reality, Pujols is better. He did what he did against vastly superior pitchers and he distanced himself from peers who were built closer in ability to him, as opposed to Gehrig who had to distance himself from guys who would look out of place on AAA team now(out of place meaning, they wouldnt make the AA squad).
But again, Bonds is much better than RUth. If you discount Bonds, then that means Griffey goes waaay up since he doesn't have to compete against steroid guys, and then Griffey is better. If you lump Griffey with Bonds, then Bonds was on a level playing field, and he is way better than Ruth then. Based on the pitchers they had to face, and the peers they had to distance, they were both better than Ruth. For Griffey, I would be taking defense into account in that comparison. Bonds offense is more than enough to beat Ruth without even considering defense or running ability.
The punchline to the joke is that Walter Johnson and Cy Young are also untouchable too at number one and two all time....actually five of the top six pitchers are from pre war too. A joke.
Seems to still be some room for discussion.
I'm not real sure why people are convinced that Bonds didn't start juicing until 1999. Personally, I think he started before 1993.
Consider:
in 1993, he shattered his career high in home runs, going from 34 to 46. While playing half his games in a pitcher's park. In 1994, he then hit 37 homers in just 112 games (strike year). Then 33 in 144 in 1995 (strike year again). Then 42, 40, 37.
So, prior to 1993, his career high was 34 homers. In the 6 seasons from 1993-98, he topped 34 five times and only failed to top it in the sixth year because the season was shortened. And he had one year where he was on pace to hit 50+.
To me, the evidence says the roids started prior to 1993.
And in a year or less a relative newbie or you is going to start a thread titled MLB GOAT?
and the regulars are going to respond as if the subject has never been brought up before.
Tabe, 1993/94 was the beginning of a significant league wide uptick in offense and home runs. A juiced ball is more likely the culprit.
Pujols better than Gehrig
Bonds better than Cobb......and Bonds could steal more bases than Cobb should he choose to.
Griffey better than Speaker
Jeter better than Wagner
Not going to make a definitive list...but thats a start. And both Bonds and Griffey are better than Ruth. They could do everything Ruth did and more, except they did it against better widespread talent. No, they cannot hit .393...well, against that pitching and crappy gloves they could...but I digress.
Randy Johnson, Clemens, Scherzer, Verlander all better than Walter Johnson and Cy Young. All bigger, all threw harder, all with insane breaking pitchers, and with insane command.....and with results to back all that up.
Strasburg, Cole, Scherzer, and Verlander pitching in this World Series all threw harder than Walter Johnson. All have breaking pitches better than Johnson, all with insane command...all physically bigger...and all with results to boot. Knowing this, I would rather have any of these four pitchers pitch for me with my child's life on the line ahead of putting Walter Johnson out there.
None of them will ever have stats like Johnson...but thats because they aren't competing against the weak sisters of the world. Walter Johnson was a rare talent back then. It was easier for him to stand out because not many people were around that had those physical gifts. Now those physical gifts are no longer unique. I know MPH isn't the only pitching element, but it is a simple way of illustrating it. 85 percent of the league now throws as hard or harder than Walter Johnson did. These guys are six foot five and have sharp breaking pitches and command too. Some of them get lit up....but thats because there are so many damn good hitters too.
Knowing this, when I see what Pujols has done and what he had to do it against, I am much more confident that he is better than Gehrig. Just the fact that Gehrig never really saw a lefty specialist is enough to turn the tide to Pujols. And I'm not talking about some scrub Gehrig might have faced out of the pen throwing 84 MPH. I'm talking a legit guy he would have to face today throwing 96 with a nasty slider and command.
Lifetime Gehrig hit .305 vs lefties with less power and .355 vs rights...so right there you know he would have a harder time vs lefties. Now just substitute left handed pitchers throwing 95 with nasty sliders instead of the 85 he faced. Gehrig simply could not put up those stats facing that type of league. Simply could not.
Here is what Babe Ruth, Cobb and Wagner had to compete with:
1890: 2.15 million boys age 12-17.....from total U.S. Population of 62 million.
1900: 2.65 million age 12-17
1910: 3.2 million age 12-17
1920: 3.7 million age 12-17
1950: 6.4 million age 12-17............159 million total pop.
1970: 12.1 million age 12-17........203 million total pop.
1980 11.5 million age 12-17
1990 10 million age 12-17
Notice, 1970 is the highest point, even in the years past it. The late 70's, 80's , and early 90's had the most competition in the gene pool.
Now ADD the foreign players that were arriving in the 1970's to further the competition!!! Now 27% of the league is foreign born. There is absolutely no comparison between Ruth's level of competition compared to that of 1980 and beyond. Not even close.
So right there, compare what George Brett and Mike Schmidt are competing with in 1980's, as to what Wagner, Cobb, Ruth were when they had little competition. Even Mantle, Mays etc...had much less competition, though not nearly as bad as the early part of 1900's.
It is such a large jump in available athletes in 1980, even compared to 1950 and 1940. Compared to the turn of the century, there isn't even a comparison.
Now, take out the U.S. minorities from Pre war years!! If lack of competition wasn't enough, they eliminated a segment of the population from playing...a talented segment too.
So if I'm going to make a list of the all time best players, and yet somehow the list is mostly dominated by players from 1910-1950....I'm really going to scratch my head when I look at those facts above.
With that many more million boys to compete against, there are simply going to be more boys in similar ability as Schmidt and Brett...thus much harder for them to separate themselves from the group.
It has nothing to do with evolution!! With that many more million teenagers, you are going to have X amount more who can throw 95 MPH, X amount more who can run like a deer, X amount more who can hit the ball 430 feet, and X amount more who are bigger and stronger.
So evolution and science are not even part of the equation in this debate, and it is very clear(or should be clear), as to why/how Ruth and Co. were able to produce numbers simply unattainable in later generations.
Then add the league playing styles and equipment...and everyone in this thread should reconsider their belief that Wagner, Ruth, Cobb, Gehrig, Horsnby, SPeaker are all better than anyone past 1980 and will forever be 'better' than anyone to come from now on.
Barry Bonds the GOAT over Babe Ruth is preposterous in my view.
Being the GOAT can encompass more than just stats, and there is no debate that Ruth had spectacular stats. And don't forget about his pitching ability.
Ruth they say saved MLB after the Black Sox scandal. And Ruth was perhaps the greatest goodwill ambassador for MLB of all time. All this has to count in GOAT consideration.
I knew an old timer, a former high school principal who has since passed, who was one of the most honest gentleman i've ever known. He told me that as a kid he used to go to the Philadelphia A's games, and Ruth used to ride in on the trolley. Before the game if Ruth had time and always after the game, he would stay there and sign every autograph for every kid, and he enjoyed doing it, always talking to the kids with a smile. The proof - I saw the old timer's autograph collection, literally dozens of Ruth autographs, museum worthy.
When's the last time the surly Barry Bonds signed an autograph for a kid? Except perhaps on special occasions when his contract called for it.
Bonds was great on the field, that's not up for debate. But we're talking GOAT here. Bonds negativity and extreme use of steroids denigrated the game, and we all know it. In my view that disqualifies him from GOAT consideration.
stevek if you read the above post it should not be preposterous at all to show that Bonds is better than Ruth. Not talking about personality. And if Bonds doesn't count due to steroids, then that means Griffey, Jeter, Pujols go even higher...so either way, you are going to have a changing of the guard of that old view.
Ruth playing vs the weak sisters isn't as impressive. Sorry. Competition wasn't good enough. It made Ruth and company look better than they really were, as compared to 1980 and beyond players. Ruth may very well have been bigger than life...but thats not the topic. He will always be the most famous in history. Can't argue against that.
And every year in public school history we started with the cave man and ran out of semester around the time of the Civil War.
Until I was 14, I thought Lincoln was president.
If, and that's a big "if" Bonds was a better baseball player than Ruth...as stated the overall body of work clearly, and in my view unequivocally makes Ruth the GOAT over anyone. But over Bonds is an easy call.
BTW - I do place Barry Bonds 4th on my all time greatest hitters list, so i do acknowledge the superb batting skill of Bonds.
Funny, Cy Young was born only two years after the Civil War ended....yet somehow he is still viewed as one of the best two pitchers ever because he feasted off the weak sisters in the league....and despite there being fifty guys in the last 30 years who were bigger, threw harder, had better breaking pitches, and better command....and succeeded against better hitters.
Some may say, "So you say it isn't possible that the best pitcher ever was born in 1867?"
I would say, "it may be possible that there is a Nun walking around right now with the best body in the world....but I think I like my chances better hanging in the Sports Illustrated swimsuit after party. "
Not that impressive for Ruth when feasting off weak pitchers throwing 84 MPH. Not that impressive that Ruth pitched in a league where 85% of the batters would not make a MLB roster in 1990.
That has to be included in Ruth's "body of work", because without realizing that, then you get those same flawed reasults that all those players in Ruth's time were bette than every player from 1980 and beyond. The reality is, none of them were.
There were fifty pitchers better than Cy Young. 45 better than Walter Johnson...and that is only counting guys from 1980 to now. All those pitchers Ruth hit home runs off of, just the top 15% would be equal the middle 85% of pitchers Bonds hit home runs off of.
Sorry. Bonds body of work far more impressive. Maybe Jim Creighton was the greatest ever since HE was the best pitcher and hitter in his league. He didn't even make an out one season. lol.
For instance, RUth's body of work:
587 home runs off of 83 MPH fastballs. Etc, Etc, Etc.
Pretty sure both were juiced. Bonds wasn't 245 yet but he was 220.
Bit of an unfair comparison between 92 & 93. Two teams were added in 1993 and 1992 was a down year. The Red Sox hit 84 homers all year. 1993 seems more like a return to the norm than anything else.
I could be wrong about Bonds,of course.
skin, with all due respect, no matter how often you repeat these things they don't answer any of my questions, and they leave the only argument that you have made - that the GOAT can't possibly have played when competition was weak - logically indefensible. I've asked the questions that have answers that interest me on this topic, but if you aren't going to answer any of them I'll just move on.
P.S. I am not aware of any single person, including people who faced both him and Feller, who doesn't think Walter Johnson threw over 100 mph. Your argument is either that everyone but you is wrong about that, or that throwing 100 mph today is better than throwing 100 mph 90 years ago. I'm not sure where to go with either answer, but it might help to know which it is you're saying.
Out of 6 million men in the gene pool that Ruth competed against, how many do you think threw 95 MPH?
Out of the 24 million men Bonds competed against, how many do you think threw 95 MPH??
Now, out of those six million men in Ruth's competition pool, eliminate the minority segment since they weren't allowed to play.
Now out of the 24 million men in Bonds competition pool, add another 25% to account for the international players added to the pool.
100 MPH is 100 MPH in 1920 as it is in 2000. The fact is, there simply weren't many around(if any) that did it back then, hence why I said the top 15% of the pitchers in ruth's time would have jobs in MLB in 2000.
Based on your stats, not only did the GOAT play in 1925, but so did five other players better than every player after 1980. How is that?? Despite looking at the limited gene pool, how on earth is that possible?
And tell me why your stats show Cy Young as better than every pitcher too? Man, that Civil War did wonders for off spring turning into the best pitchers ever! LMAO.
Also, the average pitcher height in 1920 and 1930 was two inches smaller than in 2000, and appx 25 pounds lighter...both of which have a correlation to increased velocity and increased perceived velocity.
And there are also measurements that put Walter Johnson in the low 90's.
Ruth feasted off the weak sisters.
You are wrong.
In 1920, Ruth hit more home runs than any other team in MLB except for the Phillies. Simply remarkable. So with all those "weak sister" pitchers, why didn't other players prolifically hit home runs like that?
No sense copying and pasting Ruth's long list of records and achievements, you already know them.
I do believe it is fact that football and basketball players have evolved a lot since the time of Ruth. Those players back then for the most part wouldn't compete well in today's NFL and NBA.
But I disagree with you about baseball players. I believe that the top players of that era, would still be top players today. The average players back then, would be average players today.
Sometimes folks look at those old grainy films from that time and it seems like the players are somewhat slow and plodding. They weren't. They were top notch athletes, and that is not debatable.
Also note that it's debatable that it was actually tougher to hit home runs back then than it is now for a variety of reasons. One reason that stands out is the same baseball was used much longer in the games than now. Not only picking up dirt, scuff marks and such, but making it move more when thrown thus tougher to hit versus brand new baseballs which are used frequently in today's game. Harder for the ball back then to carry out of the ballpark for a home run. Also the ballparks were bigger back then.
Despite that, Ruth's single season HR record of 60 home runs, wasn't broken until 1961, and that's because eight more games were played.
I forget the year Maris's HR record was finally broken, but it took a steroid infested body to do it.
Above all else Skin is my GOAT poster. 👍
Because of the same reason why Walter Johnson had a lifetime 2.17 ERA....there were also weak sister hitters. The league was also filled with deadball style slap hitters who had zero chance of hitting more than three home runs. The fact that Ruth did that is the biggest testament to how weak the league was. It was a joke.
He hit them off of 83 MPH fastballs.
And you are completely wrong about the size of the average MLB player. They were smaller and lighter back then. That is a fact.
The average height of the pitcher in 2010 is three inches taller than in 1930. The average pitcher weight is 35 pounds heavier in 2010 than in 1930. The height and weight both have a direct correalation to both actual velocity and perceived velocity.
So you are wrong stevek. Sorry.
THEN:
Out of 6 million men in the gene pool that Ruth competed against, how many do you think threw 95 MPH?
Out of the 24 million men Bonds competed against, how many do you think threw 95 MPH??
Now, out of those six million men in Ruth's competition pool, eliminate the minority segment since they weren't allowed to play.
Now out of the 24 million men in Bonds competition pool, add another 25% to account for the international players added to the pool.
100 MPH is 100 MPH in 1920 as it is in 2000. The fact is, there simply weren't many around(if any) that did it back then, hence why I said the top 15% of the pitchers in ruth's time would have jobs in MLB in 2000.
So based on those genetic facts in the gene pool population....the average MLB player of 1920 would be in single A ball, or maybe not even drafted at all in 2000. They were too small, and didn't throw hard enough. 83 MPH doesn't cut it...unless you are a lefty junk baller or knuckleballer.
The top guys like Walter Johnson who topped out at 95 and averaged low 90's...would have jobs...but not be capable of pitching 350 innings with a 1.xx something like he did TEN TIMES...because hitters see that stuff every day and every at bat, and EVERY hitter in the lineup can go yard at anytime. They would simply be no mystery. 95 isn't special now at the MLB level. YOU SEE IT EVEY AT BAT! Back then, it was a spectacle.
There simply weren't enough males born back then to produce as many genetic freaks that could throw 95MPH consistently or hit 400 foot home runs consistently off of game pitching, as there were in later generations. Then back then they actually banned a segment of the population and now there have been international pitchers added to the gene pool. Huge difference.
AGAIN:
There simply weren't enough males born back then to produce as many genetic freaks that could throw 95MPH consistently or hit 400 foot home runs consistently off of game pitching, as there were in later generations. Then back then they actually banned a segment of the population and now there have been international pitchers added to the gene pool. Huge difference.
Just look at the population difference. Add the foreign players to the mix....and it is pretty easy to see why RUth did what he did back then and why guys hit .424 for a full season back then, or why pitchers pitched 350 innings routinely with a 1.49 ERA...or why the stats show the top guys from 1925 are better than anyone past 1980.
How do you look at those population figures and height/weight figures, and then convince yourself that the best player ever was playing before WWI. The best pitcher ever was born in 1867 or 1878....and then the next four best players are also from WWI or soon after, and three of the next four pitchers also from WWI??.....and nobody from 1980 to present can ever be as good. It is a fool to believe that.
I don't disagree that today's baseball players aren't bigger. But unlike football or basketball, a bigger baseball player doesn't necessarily equate to a better baseball player.
With today's NFL football at the 22 positions, except for extraordinary talent at corner and wide receiver, you have to be big, or at Quarterback tall. With NBA basketball, unless you are a freak of nature with shooting skills, you have to be tall.
You are probably correct about the difference in the pitching speeds. There were no speed guns back then so it's all conjecture. But I'll say that i'd rather attempt to hit a 95 mph fastball from a new baseball, than an 85 MPH fastball with dirt, scuff marks, spit, and who knows what else on it.
All of that and so much more is what made Babe Ruth clearly the GOAT of MLB.
In my opinion, the only debate should be which player is the greatest GOAT of all time? Ruth or Chamberlain, and THAT is a very tough call. Some days I lean Ruth, but most days i lean Chamberlain.
ALL valid points.
There are good points to be made on both sides of the argument.
The one I have the most trouble accepting is that the modern athlete is so much better than the "old timers".
It wasn't too many years ago (1999 I think) that the Minnesota Twins didn't have a pitcher on the entire staff that threw much above 90MPH. You still have a lot of "weak sisters" playing today.
Time and time again (some) posters say the old timers couldn't compete in today's game, No, if they were magically transported from 1920 into today's game, they would have trouble, but if they were born in the present time they would probably be better than they were back then, using the current advancements in diet and exercise.
If we decide to eliminate both the old guys and the steroid infested dirt bags, I'll nominate Ted Williams as my GOAT, he's young enough to miss the era when there were so few players and no integration, but old enough that he wasn't a juicer.
Mays was the better "all-around" player and Aaron and Musial would deserve mention in that regard as well.
If you give Ted credit for another 5 years there's no comparison. From 1941-1955 every single year he played he had the highest OPS in the AL, Ted was second to Mantle in 1956, but then won it again every year (except his one "bad" year in 1959) up until, and including, his final season.
Mantle played "head to head" with Ted for about 8 years and beat him twice in OPS. The Mick's prime, and Ted's "old man" years.
If you expand the OPS comparison to include the NL, Ted is nearly as dominant, finishing second behind Musial in 1948 (Stan's best year EVER) and third behind Kiner and Musial in 1951.
No, I don't think his play in the outfield was bad enough to overcome that kind of offensive dominance.
I do see a lot of Mr. Trout near the top of the lists.
I would agree, but maybe lean more towards Ruth.
Many good arguments, but Ruth retains the title.
Drugs and expanded DNA pools of competition are compelling arguments for and against the modern players.
Reincarnate Ruth and put him in the Nats lineup and they win the series. Put him in the Astros lineup and they win the series.
Simple as that.
I doubt if Skin or anyone in their right mind wouldn't agree that players such as Williams and Mantle and others you mentioned, would still be super stars in today's game. Ruth was only a few decades removed from those guys.
Let's not forget that although the US population was smaller back then, and yes there were no black players, that MLB baseball was by far the most popular professional team sport in America. All the great athletes of that time wanted to play baseball and worked at that particular game. Baseball players in Ruth's time absolutely were the cream of the crop as far as athletic ability.
Yes, today's game also encompasses players from around the world, but there are so many other popular sports now, especially in America with football, basketball, hockey, even soccer and others, that pay good money and so that dilutes the talent pool for baseball that back in Ruth's time virtually all of those kids growing up would have automatically gravitated towards baseball.
BTW - I do have Ted Williams second on my all time hitters list, with Mays third.
I have no problem with Ruth at the top. Chamberlain's records were spectacularly awesome and he changed the game. But Chamberlain didn't "save" the game like Ruth did.
I guess to some, saving the game means nothing as far as GOAT, but to me it does. Sort of like the MVP award isn't automatically awarded to the player with the best stats.
Many kids did not even play sports at the turn of the century. It simply was not even an option for them. Families had to work to eat...including kids.
Great arms are born.
When you have that little to choose from, you simply don't have guys that can throw as hard or be as good.
Disease and injuries also eliminated the talent pool back then. Talent was lost due to that. There were alos other sports then too.
Not to mention the fact that a lot of that population included fresh immigrants who had no sports skill.
Size does matter in baseball. Like I said, there is a direct correlation between height and weight in velocity.
Same goes for hitters. The bigger/stronger guys have an advantage. A few small guys can be elite, but that doesn't happen often, in fact, probably about as often as a small guy in the NBA being elite like Isiah Thomas or Allen Iverson. SO Stevek, don't be a double standard guy and talk about size only mattering in the NBA...then talk about Wilt Chamberlain being the greatest. Contradiction much??
Size does matter. MPH matters immensely. That is why guys who throw 83 MPH RH can't survive in MLB now. They can't even survive in college now.
Ruth played vs the weak sisters on the hill and his competition at the plate were weak sisters.
Hitting home runs off of 83 MPH isn't that impressive.
And again, so by saying Ruth is the greatest, you are also saying Cy Young and Walter Johnson are the two greatest pitchers, and Hornsby, Gehrig, Speaker, and Collins are also all better than anyone playing past 1980 and on. LMAO.
So despite there being 1/8 the talent pool to draw from, you somehow get all the best players from back then. That is just too funny.
So Stevek, you seem stuck on Ruth out homering every team. That is his benchmark, so in order for a player to replicate that, he would have to hit 325 home runs this year. So in essence, you are saying Ruth would hit 325 home runs this year, because that is the only way a modern player could equal Ruth's "achievements" If you agree that RUth could not possibly do that, then you understand why he wasn't as great as his statistical record shows(compared to modern guys).
Same for Walter Johnson. How can someone replicate 1.50 ERA over 350 innings and do it ten years. LMAO. Johnson and his 93 MPH would get lit up like a Christmas tree. He didn't even have a great breaking pitch. That just shows how shitty those hitters were too...a guy throwing 93 with no breaking pitch and he owned them. Guys face 95 every night, and from people three inches taller(which means the ball is released closer to the plate so less reaction time), and they also have ungodly breaking pitches, and command.
Not even close. Ruth is actually inferior to David Ortiz as well. Big Papi would feast on 83 MPH fastballs, and would bat .380 with those crappy defenders and gloves in the field. If Big papi can hit 47 home runs and hit .330 off 95 MPH every night, I don't think 83 MPH from guys three inches smaller would pose much a threat....especially since he gets to face them FOUR times in the same game, and never have to worry about a Josh Hader coming out of the pen to face him.
Weak sister leagues don't count. Thats why the guys in AAA this year aren't considered the best player in baseball even though some of the 'outperform' the guys statwise in MLB. Thats why Ruth is nowhere near the best since he faced guys with even less pitching ability than AAA this year. Gavin Lux out hit every MLB this year....but he did it in AAA. Lux's stats are better....so does that make Lux better than every MLB hitter? No. Just like Ruth.
Ty France his .399/.477/.770 off of AAA pitching this year. Those pitchers were almost all more talented and physically gifted than every MLB pitcher in 1920. If Walter Johnson could dominate with a 93 MPH fastball and no breaking pitch like he did...just crazy, lmao. France faced pitchers the same level that Ruth faced. He put up better than Ruthian numbers.
https://theaceofspaeder.com/2019/01/24/walter-johnson-probably-threw-88-mph/
Again, Walter Johnson was topping out at a low 90's MPH guy. Measured in the labs etc.. 1917 lab measured at 91 MPH.
The league was low 80's and possibly high 70's. Garbage. Weak sisters.
All I needed to do was look at the limited population to choose from to figure that out. Common sense goes a long way. Not to mention the advancements in pitching mechanics to produce higher velocities(with command).
Also, seeing how the pitchers were smaller and lighter, and knowing how that affects both velocity and perceived velocity...you get the low 80's for MLB during the 1920's.
Not that hard. Ty France of this year would have no problem feasting on that.
Not to mention seeing all the best players on the mound and at the plate coming from before 1930 based on your measurements. That should raise a red flag of anyone with an ounce of logic in their brain.
Ruth may have to settle for Ryan Howard at this point....and that may even be a gift. At least I know Howard could handle 95MPH on a consistent basis. Don't know if Ruth could or not. Would rather take my chances with the guy who has proven he could. Sorry.
<<< Ruth may have to settle for Ryan Howard at this point....and that may even be a gift. >>>
I realize you were being facetious, but to even facetiously mention that, sorry but you lose credibility.
If you say you weren't being facetious, then you've lost all credibility regarding this debate.
That article by Spaeder is laughable. I had a blind guy listen to an old recording of one of Johnson's fastballs, he said it sounded like 103mph. There, I have used as much evidence as Spaeder OMG.
Weren't there two different "radar" guns used for a while, and one (JUGGS?) showed the pitch at a much higher speed and that one was incorrect? Do we even have it figured out now?
Saw a good video that showed the different ways the speed of a pitched ball has been measured over the years. Back then they measured the velocity of the baseball at the catcher, now it's just after the pitcher releases the ball. it tended to show that the old timers could bring it as fast as they do now, or at least close. Seemed to me that Walter was upper 90's if they used todays method.
Not going to debate what the other guys threw back then, because no one else got measured.
I do think 83 is much too low. You might be right though, it is however, un-proveable.
Common sense is a poor way to decide how fast someone throws a ball. The guys we talk about are "freaks of nature" they don't compare to the average player. The Twins have a young pitcher who throws 100mph, he's 6'1" 180 lbs. Using common sense a guy 6'4" 220 should hit about 105 easy.
He may be down to Matt Stairs soon if you mention Wilt Chamberlain again while ignoring size factors.
Joe, there are always exceptions to the rule. If you take a room of 100 athletic men who are six foot four and 225, and take a room of 100 athletic men who are five foot 10 and 180 pounds....you tell me which room will produce more guys who can throw 95 and more guys who can hit the ball 425 feet.
Also, look at the trend of MPH in MLB. SIze is even higher now than even in 2010. Velocity is way up. The recent velocity spike has something to do with the velocity camps too.
Or just look at the list of all the guys in MLB who throw 98 MPH and tell me how many are five foot ten, and how many are over six foot three. Common sense.
I also know that out of a pool of 30 million U.S. males(and foreign athletes), you will get far more guys who throw 95 than if you are choosing from a pool of five million U.S. males.
I think the argument for Babe Ruth being the GOAT comes from the fact that he is the biggest icon in the history of the game. He put the long ball on the map. He drew the crowds. The name Babe Ruth sends chills down your spine.
Some pro teams had to use a batting tee as no pitchers were available that could throw ball a full 60 feet.
Things were tough back then. hoo boy they were.
Cy Young was born before the Custer Massacre. Not many people were even in the country then, let alone kids playing baseball. Yet Cy Young AND Walter Johnson are greater than every pitcher playing after 1980?? Lmao. Babe Ruth hitting home runs off of 83 MPH fastballs is the greatest? LMAO again.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were born in the 18th century. Does that diminish their stature as leaders and statesman as the US population was 1/100th of the overflowing mass of inhumanity that it has become today?
Think about that as you watch the Dem debate an anoint a candidate from that hapless crew.
Ruth was the greatest. A large handful of talented players can fight over the second spot.
This corny joke intermission is brought to you by doubledragon Inc.
Most pickles do not relish air travel.
Relish. As a person who appreciates a good pickle joke, I salute you sir.