one thing perhaps unknown to younger members --- during the time when Jim Brown, Walter Payton, Gale Sayers and other greats from that era were playing it was actually a PENALTY TO ASSIST THE BALL CARRIER IN ADVANCING THE BALL. watch games today when a running back is stopped and an Offensive Lineman plows into the pile to move it another 2-3 yards. that used to be a penalty, so everything those backs gained was on their own.
Brown and Payton especially are WRONGLY seen as guys that bowled over would be tacklers. they could and did do that, but more often than not they used their agility to avoid being hit solidly. Jim Brown had perhaps the best hips of any player I have ever watched and he had a very, very effective spin-move that showed exactly how he was in control of his body. both backs could move a pile BY THEMSELVES. I always enjoyed watching Marshawn Lynch run, his style reminded me of those guys and he had the additional help of his lineman.
I don't know who mentioned "Size" in regard to Jim Brown, as though it should be held against him that he was bigger than his opponents, but that is pretty pathetic if that's the best argument you can come up with to prove a point. it's almost like saying that Bob Hayes was only successful because he was faster than everyone else.
I don't think such a person could be established. You would have to play both sides of the ball and even then it would just be opinion. Deion played corner and receiver for Dallas, but I wouldn't call him the best football player ever. He was the best cover corner ever. And not because he was a Cowboy....he was also a Falcon and 49'er. He could shut down the opposing teams' best receiver all day. No body could close on the receiver any better. And yes I am saying he was better than Rieves(sp) and Freeman playing for the Redskins now.
@Coinstartled said:
As a side note, even though most of the names mentioned played during the running back era, several like Sanders and Payton played for mostly crummy teams. As I recall the Lions during Sander's tenure were slightly plus or minus .500.
We don't speak of top 5 or top 10 quarterbacks that were not on winning teams. With the QB's we debate the number of Super Bowl rings, not whether their team had winning records. Knock on Marino was that he never won a championship though he strung together many exceptional seasons.
Perhaps we overestimate the value of the RB position.
Perhaps, but I'm certain that we overvalue the QB position. Sometimes, the QB is the primary reason a team wins a SB, and sometimes they're little more than spectators. More often, the best QB in the league doesn't get to the SB.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@SirLurksALot said:
Goodness, my lil' ol' thread sure has some activity.
I understand the love for RBs that played in Dallas, but some of the comments here are silly.
Smith sticking around to break the all time mark rings familiar of Rose sticking around to beat Cobb....
Wow,,,you're bashing two top players in their respective sport. Neither one "stuck around" they were productive until they retired. They hold the records and are the best of their sport!
Neither Smith or Rose were especially productive over their past several seasons. Rose's OPS+ was below 100 (league average) in each of his last 5 seasons and Smith's average yards per carry was below 4.0 in each of his last 4 seasons. They stuck around long enough to break records in their respective sports but to claim they were anything more than mediocre to average over their last few seasons is looking at them through rose-colored glasses (no pun intended).
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Should have worded it differently. Rose is the all time hit leader.
One thing on Ruth......I don't think he could even play todays game. If I were to pick the best all time Baseball player I would probably go with Willie Mays.
@DIMEMAN said:> One thing on Ruth......I don't think he could even play todays game. If I were to pick the best all time Baseball player I would probably go with Willie Mays.
You want to take Mays, fine, but to say that Ruth couldn't even play today's game is ridiculous. Today's game is swinging a bat at a baseball moving 90+ MPH, the exact same game Ruth played. For the record, when picking the best of all time, I go with Ruth. After that there's a group that includes Mantle, Mays, Wagner and Williams and I could probably be convinced any of them deserve #2. I'll never be convinced anyone but Ruth deserves #1, though.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@DIMEMAN said:> One thing on Ruth......I don't think he could even play todays game. If I were to pick the best all time Baseball player I would probably go with Willie Mays.
You want to take Mays, fine, but to say that Ruth couldn't even play today's game is ridiculous. Today's game is swinging a bat at a baseball moving 90+ MPH, the exact same game Ruth played. For the record, when picking the best of all time, I go with Ruth. After that there's a group that includes Mantle, Mays, Wagner and Williams and I could probably be convinced any of them deserve #2. I'll never be convinced anyone but Ruth deserves #1, though.
Ruth it a few more HR's than Mays, but played in a park built for him with the short porch in right field. Mays was faster, better fielder and runner and overall hitter. We are talking best player (overall). Mays is much better overall. Ruth could DH now, but couldn't do the rest with todays players and Mays could.
Don't recall Mays having much of a pitching arm.....
""""In Babe Ruth's 1916 season as a pitcher, his record was 23 Wins and 170 Strikeouts, with a 1.75 ERA, 9 Shutouts and 23 Complete Games – a very impressive mark for even the best pitchers in baseball.""""
@DIMEMAN said:
Ruth it a few more HR's than Mays, but played in a park built for him with the short porch in right field. Mays was faster, better fielder and runner and overall hitter. We are talking best player (overall). Mays is much better overall. Ruth could DH now, but couldn't do the rest with todays players and Mays could.
Mays was faster and a better fielder, but what on Earth does "better overall hitter" mean? Define that (with facts, not opinions) and I'll have some idea how to respond. And, as already mentioned, it would be helpful if you'd address Ruth's pitching, and how you're accounting for that in your comparison. I can tell you with 100% certainty that Ruth won more games pitching than Mays won with his fielding, so any convincing argument that Mays was a better player is going to come down to what "overall hitter" means.
And just so you know, with respect to the short porch "built for him", Ruth hit 20 more HR on the road in his career than he did at home. Mays hit 10 more HR at home than he did on the road. So if there's a home park HR advantage, it's Mays who had it, not Ruth. I'm assuming that you mentioned it because you thought it was important; now that you know you were wrong about that, I thought you might want to adjust your argument.
And "hit a few more HR" is a little too cute. Yes, it was "only" 50+ HR, but Ruth did it in 2,500 fewer at bats. Ruth hit a LOT more HR than Mays, which is the primary reason he was a better hitter.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
The 2500 fewer at bats will not resonate with Dimeman. And you should have learned by now that facts don't stand a chance.
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
to say that Ruth couldn't even play today's game is ridiculous
he could play, but would the current system allow him to play?? the behavior of players in the past probably wouldn't be tolerated by today's lily-white moral standard placed on the athletes. look at guys like Steve Howe and Daryl Strawberry, substance abuse took them down hard. if the stories told about the "Babe" are truth and not just legend it would be hard for him to get past all the testing protocol and snoopy reporters.
as for him hitting a 96mph heater and smoking a hanging curve ball, I think he'd do just fine, maybe he would flourish against some of the relief pitchers he'd face at crunch time.
I will admit Ruth has the better numbers in hitting. But do you really think the pitching was as good then as it is now. I don't. They throw harder now and have nastyer pitches and back then they didn't have relievers to come in and take over. And they don't even list stolen bases for Ruth. Mays had 338. Mays was much faster thus making him a much better fielder.
If I was building a team I would take Mays over Ruth because even though you lose a little in hitting and that's a difference in times.....you gain a lot everywhere else.
And I'll stick with the statement that Ruth couldn't today at the level he did then because of the difference of the shape of the players now compared to then.
Gotta love this place. It's like that game where the first person whispers something to the individual standing next to him/her ("Barry Sanders was the greatest running back of all time"), but by the time it goes full circle the final person hears the secret and says, "Babe Ruth had a big belly???"
But do you really think the pitching was as good then as it is now.
I think it was comparable in some regards, better and worse in others. Bob Feller had a pretty good objective view of things, he stayed close to the Game for his entire life and held current players with a certain disdain. he threw in the mid-90's and would have done just fine with today's hitters as many other old school hurlers would.
@Justacommeman said:
The numbers always only tell part of the story. In this case the Payton's, Sanders, Simpsons, Campbell's of the world get a boost when you add in the variables.
mark
This quote really is the difference in the argument. Those guys all have as good or better numbers than Smith AND also have every other non-number variable in their favor.
I also agree that Sanders, Payton, Simpson, and Campbell could make chicken salad out or chicken chit. That was an element that Emmitt did not have. Emmitt is more of a system back than those guys. It is possible that Emmitt was a better fit for that exact Cowboy system and team than were the other Running Backs, but that doesn't make Emmitt better than those other running backs.
As for Ruth being the best of ALL-Time, we already had a thread about Mantle Vs Ruth in their primes, and took a look at a lot of things that shed a more accurate light on Ruth's numbers, putting them into proper perspective and reality.
Three of them are: A league filled with dead ball style hitters that allowed Ruth to out homer full teams, a league wide dearth of talent because the population available to compete simply wasn't as deep as in other times, and discrimination of minority players.
Those elements made Ruth's numbers look falsely impressive compared to other era's where it simply was not possible for any elite player to remotely come close to distancing themselves against their peers to the degree Ruth did because their peers were too good to allow it to happen.
Mantle was the better player in their primes, period, especially when you consider that it was the Yankee system and league wide de-emphasis on stolen bases that held the best base stealer and fastest runner in the league from stealing a ton more bases(that baserunner was Mantle). Also, the flawed defensive measurements that didn't quite capture Mantle's defensive ability in centerfield that don't show up in WAR measurements.
When accounting for all these variables, the numbers(in their prime) show that Mantle was superior than Ruth. When you add the physical variables such as running speed, power, bat speed, glove, exit velocity, throwing arm...Mantle has that too. So he wins both.
Note, this is Mantle's prime years before his body was completely ravaged and career cut short.
As for Ruth's pitching. Him being able to pitch AND hit to those degrees is as much an indictment on the quality of the league as anything else.
@Skin2 said:
As for Ruth being the best of ALL-Time, we already had a thread about Mantle Vs Ruth in their primes, and took a look at a lot of things that shed a more accurate light on Ruth's numbers, putting them into proper perspective and reality.
Three of them are: A league filled with dead ball style hitters that allowed Ruth to out homer full teams, a league wide dearth of talent because the population available to compete simply wasn't as deep as in other times, and discrimination of minority players.
Those elements made Ruth's numbers look falsely impressive compared to other era's where it simply was not possible for any elite player to remotely come close to distancing themselves against their peers to the degree Ruth did because their peers were too good to allow it to happen.
Mantle was the better player in their primes, period, especially when you consider that it was the Yankee system and league wide de-emphasis on stolen bases that held the best base stealer and fastest runner in the league from stealing a ton more bases(that baserunner was Mantle). Also, the flawed defensive measurements that didn't quite capture Mantle's defensive ability in centerfield that don't show up in WAR measurements.
When accounting for all these variables, the numbers(in their prime) show that Mantle was superior than Ruth. When you add the physical variables such as running speed, power, bat speed, glove, exit velocity, throwing arm...Mantle has that too. So he wins both.
Note, this is Mantle's prime years before his body was completely ravaged and career cut short.
As for Ruth's pitching. Him being able to pitch AND hit to those degrees is as much an indictment on the quality of the league as anything else.
Totally agree. I would take Mantle or Mays over Ruth.
@DIMEMAN said:
And I'll stick with the statement that Ruth couldn't today at the level he did then because of the difference of the shape of the players now compared to then.
I see what you did there. You say you're going to "stick" with a statement that you're making for the first time. The statement that you made earlier, that you are now abandoning, is that Ruth couldn't even play today's game. Of course he could, and of course he'd be great at it. Would he be as much better than everyone else as he was then? Of course not; Ruth would still be Ruth while his competition would have improved. But put him in the right park and I think he might hit more HR now than he did then; he'd never hit twice as many as second place, or more than whole teams combined, but he'd hit a ton of them.
As for Mantle, I'd have probably gone softer on you if you'd used him instead of Mays in the first place. I don't think there's much of an argument that Mays was better than Ruth, but there is an argument to be made that Mantle was. It's largely subjective, and I'm not convinced by it, but it's a respectable argument. The problem, and its insurmountable, is that Ruth and Mantle/Mays played too far apart in time, and too far apart in too many other circumstances to make a distinction that precise. Mantle was the greatest player of his time, and Ruth the greatest of his time. And, whichever one you think was better, there's no way to reach the conclusion that either was very much better than the other. I think Ted Williams deserves to be in the discussion, too, with some kind of allowance for the years he missed through no fault of his own. All three great, and all three great no matter where or when they happened to play.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
""""Three of them are: A league filled with dead ball style hitters that allowed Ruth to out homer full teams, a league wide dearth of talent because the population available to compete simply wasn't as deep as in other times, and discrimination of minority players."""
So now his ability to out homer entire teams is a negative?
One can only compare an athlete within there era. Ruth smoked all comers.
Dallas - you put a spin on everything. Of course could play today...heck I could play. I meant and you know I meant that he would not have the numbers now that he had then. I don't think anybody could afford to play him in the field...he is too slow. He would have to DH.
@DIMEMAN said:
Dallas - you put a spin on everything. Of course could play today...heck I could play. I meant and you know I meant that he would not have the numbers now that he had then. I don't think anybody could afford to play him in the field...he is too slow. He would have to DH.
But you didn't say he wouldn't have the same numbers, you said he couldn't play today's game. You're trying to spin it now like "couldn't play today's game" means "would be awesomely great but not quite as good as Babe Ruth in the 1920's" and I'm not buying it. What you said was nonsense; Ruth could play today's game and would be awesomely great at it. With a trainer, a bat 18 ounces lighter and the motivation to be paid 30 million+ a year I think it takes more baseless assumptions to think he'd be meaningfully worse now than to assume he'd be just as good. All that would change is that the margins by which he led the league in everything would go down.
Ruth was a perfectly fine fielder, by the way, and was not at all slow. His range factor as a right fielder was better than league average for his career and significantly above league average in the 20's. He averaged 11 triples a year for a seven year stretch. Everyone thinks the old, beer-gutted guy they see in film loops from the mid 30's was the same Babe Ruth who was a better pitcher than Walter Johnson in 1916 and a better hitter than anyone, ever, five years later.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
The myth that Ruth was not fast or a good fielder is perpetuated by the persona we've created for him~a beer guzzling, hot dog-eating womanizer who we watched in films at way faster speeds than normal which made him appear as a caricature of himself. In reality, as Dallas noted, he was an exceptional athlete and player in any facet of the game to which he applied himself for the vast majority of his career. The stats tell the real story better than common misconceptions.
Dimeman, time to stop spinning and backtracking the assertion on which you've already been proven wrong.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I loves me some Babe Ruth but if I'm picking a guy to be best all-time, it's Mickey Mantle. Career OPS+ of 172 playing in an integrated league with possibly the best average-level of talent of all-time while being a good CF with blazing speed. Works for me. But I have no problem with anybody picking Willie or Ruth either
@grote15 said:
The myth that Ruth was not fast or a good fielder is perpetuated by the persona we've created for him~a beer guzzling, hot dog-eating womanizer who we watched in films at way faster speeds than normal which made him appear as a caricature of himself. In reality, as Dallas noted, he was an exceptional athlete and player in any facet of the game to which he applied himself for the vast majority of his career. The stats tell the real story better than common misconceptions.
Dimeman, time to stop spinning and backtracking the assertion on which you've already been proven wrong.
You haven't proven anything. Mays and Mantle would run circles around Ruth. And I don't think he could handle today's pitching like he did back in his day. I guess there is no way to prove that either way. You just have to look at him and his lifestyle and go by that.
Dimeman, you're as entitled to your opinions as anyone else, but not your own facts. At the heart of your argument appears to be your belief that Ruth was "too slow" to play today's game. But Ruth wasn't slow, not by MLB standards when he played, and not by MLB standards now. Take that part out of your argument and see what's left. Skin has done a great deal of analysis on Ruth & Mantle and reached the conclusion that Mantle was better; but nowhere in his analysis, because it would be silly, does he claim that Ruth wasn't awesomely great or that he "couldn't play today's game" because he was "too slow". Ruth wasn't as fast as Mantle or Mays; just say that and give Mays and Mantle whatever positive credit they deserve for that. You're overstating your case so extremely that it's hard to take any of it seriously.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I grew up watching Walter Payton run over and through the porous Packer defenses of the 70's and 80's. During that same time I had the privilege to attend three or four games at Lambeau every year. Me and my brothers would pick who we wanted to see. I always picked the Bears first to see Payton play. Payton is my #1 back of all time. He could do it all, run, catch block. Heck he was even Super Back a few plays when the Wildcat did not exist. As for the next four runners for the top five. Jim Brown, Barry Sanders, Earl Campbell and Steve Van Buren.
Plus if Ruth being a drunk hurts his legacy why don't we rule out Mickey Mantle also then? He was by most accounts ridiculous in that respect
Points to Babe Ruth for not stealing a liver transplant from some more deserving patient just because he was famous.
I'm aware Mays, Williams and others had their careers dampened by factors out of their hands: wartime service.
If Mantle had been more in control of his vices (alcohol), I think he would have had a career that would have easily put him in the #1 slot. I say this, giving the aforementioned wartime men the same considerations. Nothing against Mays or Williams either, I feel that Mantle was just thiiiisss much more of a talent.
@FavreFan1971 said:
The 60's Packers need to be that conversation. Played in five championship games and won four of them. Three in a row from '65 to '67.
You are short changing them, FavreFan! Played in 6, won 5 (61,62,65,66,67).
And don't forget the Browns from 1946-1955. 10 years, 10 championship games, 7 championships.
In my opinion there is Tom Brady as the best QB ever, Wayne Gretzky the best hockey player ever, Michael Jordan the best Basketball player ever. The best baseball player is way too debatable, same with best Running back. Great debate though.
it is easy to choose a "best of" from a specific era, but with all the rule changes it gets hard to pick an all-time greatest. I am least familiar with Hockey, but for Football and Basketball the way the games are played now is vastly different than 50 years ago. to look only at Basketball, how different would games be if players weren't allowed to hang from the rim??
@perkdog said:
In my opinion there is Tom Brady as the best QB ever, Wayne Gretzky the best hockey player ever, Michael Jordan the best Basketball player ever. The best baseball player is way too debatable, same with best Running back. Great debate though.
@FavreFan1971 said:
The 60's Packers need to be that conversation. Played in five championship games and won four of them. Three in a row from '65 to '67.
You are short changing them, FavreFan! Played in 6, won 5 (61,62,65,66,67).
And don't forget the Browns from 1946-1955. 10 years, 10 championship games, 7 championships.
The Browns were insane. Otto is reg forgotten in the top QB discussion when it comes to the top five. He is in the top 5 of all time with Brady, Peyton, Unitas and Montana
@FavreFan1971 said:
The 60's Packers need to be that conversation. Played in five championship games and won four of them. Three in a row from '65 to '67.
You are short changing them, FavreFan! Played in 6, won 5 (61,62,65,66,67).
And don't forget the Browns from 1946-1955. 10 years, 10 championship games, 7 championships.
The Browns were insane. Otto is reg forgotten in the top QB discussion when it comes to the top five. He is in the top 5 of all time with Brady, Peyton, Unitas and Montana
and Otto could run while playing without a facemask!! I wish I could have been around in the 50's to watch the games between the Detroit Lions and Cleveland Browns, they dominated the NFL during that decade. the battles between Bobby Layne and Otto Graham leading their Teams must have been epic.
@FavreFan1971 said:
The 60's Packers need to be that conversation. Played in five championship games and won four of them. Three in a row from '65 to '67.
You are short changing them, FavreFan! Played in 6, won 5 (61,62,65,66,67).
And don't forget the Browns from 1946-1955. 10 years, 10 championship games, 7 championships.
The Browns were insane. Otto is reg forgotten in the top QB discussion when it comes to the top five. He is in the top 5 of all time with Brady, Peyton, Unitas and Montana
LOL, it is amusing that you are comparing stats between a QB that played in Graham's era with Aikman.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@keets said:
and Otto could run while playing without a facemask!! I wish I could have been around in the 50's to watch the games between the Detroit Lions and Cleveland Browns, they dominated the NFL during that decade. the battles between Bobby Layne and Otto Graham leading their Teams must have been epic.
Its all my Dad talks about. That and Sam Huff
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Comments
one thing perhaps unknown to younger members --- during the time when Jim Brown, Walter Payton, Gale Sayers and other greats from that era were playing it was actually a PENALTY TO ASSIST THE BALL CARRIER IN ADVANCING THE BALL. watch games today when a running back is stopped and an Offensive Lineman plows into the pile to move it another 2-3 yards. that used to be a penalty, so everything those backs gained was on their own.
Brown and Payton especially are WRONGLY seen as guys that bowled over would be tacklers. they could and did do that, but more often than not they used their agility to avoid being hit solidly. Jim Brown had perhaps the best hips of any player I have ever watched and he had a very, very effective spin-move that showed exactly how he was in control of his body. both backs could move a pile BY THEMSELVES. I always enjoyed watching Marshawn Lynch run, his style reminded me of those guys and he had the additional help of his lineman.
I don't know who mentioned "Size" in regard to Jim Brown, as though it should be held against him that he was bigger than his opponents, but that is pretty pathetic if that's the best argument you can come up with to prove a point. it's almost like saying that Bob Hayes was only successful because he was faster than everyone else.
I don't think such a person could be established. You would have to play both sides of the ball and even then it would just be opinion. Deion played corner and receiver for Dallas, but I wouldn't call him the best football player ever. He was the best cover corner ever. And not because he was a Cowboy....he was also a Falcon and 49'er. He could shut down the opposing teams' best receiver all day. No body could close on the receiver any better. And yes I am saying he was better than Rieves(sp) and Freeman playing for the Redskins now.
Perhaps, but I'm certain that we overvalue the QB position. Sometimes, the QB is the primary reason a team wins a SB, and sometimes they're little more than spectators. More often, the best QB in the league doesn't get to the SB.
Goodness, my lil' ol' thread sure has some activity.
I understand the love for RBs that played in Dallas, but some of the comments here are silly.
Smith sticking around to break the all time mark rings familiar of Rose sticking around to beat Cobb....
Wow,,,you're bashing two top players in their respective sport. Neither one "stuck around" they were productive until they retired. They hold the records and are the best of their sport!
Rose was better than Ruth?
Neither Smith or Rose were especially productive over their past several seasons. Rose's OPS+ was below 100 (league average) in each of his last 5 seasons and Smith's average yards per carry was below 4.0 in each of his last 4 seasons. They stuck around long enough to break records in their respective sports but to claim they were anything more than mediocre to average over their last few seasons is looking at them through rose-colored glasses (no pun intended).
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Should have worded it differently. Rose is the all time hit leader.
One thing on Ruth......I don't think he could even play todays game. If I were to pick the best all time Baseball player I would probably go with Willie Mays.
You want to take Mays, fine, but to say that Ruth couldn't even play today's game is ridiculous. Today's game is swinging a bat at a baseball moving 90+ MPH, the exact same game Ruth played. For the record, when picking the best of all time, I go with Ruth. After that there's a group that includes Mantle, Mays, Wagner and Williams and I could probably be convinced any of them deserve #2. I'll never be convinced anyone but Ruth deserves #1, though.
Ruth it a few more HR's than Mays, but played in a park built for him with the short porch in right field. Mays was faster, better fielder and runner and overall hitter. We are talking best player (overall). Mays is much better overall. Ruth could DH now, but couldn't do the rest with todays players and Mays could.
Don't recall Mays having much of a pitching arm.....
""""In Babe Ruth's 1916 season as a pitcher, his record was 23 Wins and 170 Strikeouts, with a 1.75 ERA, 9 Shutouts and 23 Complete Games – a very impressive mark for even the best pitchers in baseball.""""
Mays was faster and a better fielder, but what on Earth does "better overall hitter" mean? Define that (with facts, not opinions) and I'll have some idea how to respond. And, as already mentioned, it would be helpful if you'd address Ruth's pitching, and how you're accounting for that in your comparison. I can tell you with 100% certainty that Ruth won more games pitching than Mays won with his fielding, so any convincing argument that Mays was a better player is going to come down to what "overall hitter" means.
And just so you know, with respect to the short porch "built for him", Ruth hit 20 more HR on the road in his career than he did at home. Mays hit 10 more HR at home than he did on the road. So if there's a home park HR advantage, it's Mays who had it, not Ruth. I'm assuming that you mentioned it because you thought it was important; now that you know you were wrong about that, I thought you might want to adjust your argument.
And "hit a few more HR" is a little too cute. Yes, it was "only" 50+ HR, but Ruth did it in 2,500 fewer at bats. Ruth hit a LOT more HR than Mays, which is the primary reason he was a better hitter.
The 2500 fewer at bats will not resonate with Dimeman. And you should have learned by now that facts don't stand a chance.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
to say that Ruth couldn't even play today's game is ridiculous
he could play, but would the current system allow him to play?? the behavior of players in the past probably wouldn't be tolerated by today's lily-white moral standard placed on the athletes. look at guys like Steve Howe and Daryl Strawberry, substance abuse took them down hard. if the stories told about the "Babe" are truth and not just legend it would be hard for him to get past all the testing protocol and snoopy reporters.
as for him hitting a 96mph heater and smoking a hanging curve ball, I think he'd do just fine, maybe he would flourish against some of the relief pitchers he'd face at crunch time.
I will admit Ruth has the better numbers in hitting. But do you really think the pitching was as good then as it is now. I don't. They throw harder now and have nastyer pitches and back then they didn't have relievers to come in and take over. And they don't even list stolen bases for Ruth. Mays had 338. Mays was much faster thus making him a much better fielder.
If I was building a team I would take Mays over Ruth because even though you lose a little in hitting and that's a difference in times.....you gain a lot everywhere else.
And I'll stick with the statement that Ruth couldn't today at the level he did then because of the difference of the shape of the players now compared to then.
Gotta love this place. It's like that game where the first person whispers something to the individual standing next to him/her ("Barry Sanders was the greatest running back of all time"), but by the time it goes full circle the final person hears the secret and says, "Babe Ruth had a big belly???"
But do you really think the pitching was as good then as it is now.
I think it was comparable in some regards, better and worse in others. Bob Feller had a pretty good objective view of things, he stayed close to the Game for his entire life and held current players with a certain disdain. he threw in the mid-90's and would have done just fine with today's hitters as many other old school hurlers would.
This.
Although Mean Joe was right up there
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
This quote really is the difference in the argument. Those guys all have as good or better numbers than Smith AND also have every other non-number variable in their favor.
I also agree that Sanders, Payton, Simpson, and Campbell could make chicken salad out or chicken chit. That was an element that Emmitt did not have. Emmitt is more of a system back than those guys. It is possible that Emmitt was a better fit for that exact Cowboy system and team than were the other Running Backs, but that doesn't make Emmitt better than those other running backs.
As for Ruth being the best of ALL-Time, we already had a thread about Mantle Vs Ruth in their primes, and took a look at a lot of things that shed a more accurate light on Ruth's numbers, putting them into proper perspective and reality.
Three of them are: A league filled with dead ball style hitters that allowed Ruth to out homer full teams, a league wide dearth of talent because the population available to compete simply wasn't as deep as in other times, and discrimination of minority players.
Those elements made Ruth's numbers look falsely impressive compared to other era's where it simply was not possible for any elite player to remotely come close to distancing themselves against their peers to the degree Ruth did because their peers were too good to allow it to happen.
Mantle was the better player in their primes, period, especially when you consider that it was the Yankee system and league wide de-emphasis on stolen bases that held the best base stealer and fastest runner in the league from stealing a ton more bases(that baserunner was Mantle). Also, the flawed defensive measurements that didn't quite capture Mantle's defensive ability in centerfield that don't show up in WAR measurements.
When accounting for all these variables, the numbers(in their prime) show that Mantle was superior than Ruth. When you add the physical variables such as running speed, power, bat speed, glove, exit velocity, throwing arm...Mantle has that too. So he wins both.
Note, this is Mantle's prime years before his body was completely ravaged and career cut short.
As for Ruth's pitching. Him being able to pitch AND hit to those degrees is as much an indictment on the quality of the league as anything else.
Totally agree. I would take Mantle or Mays over Ruth.
I see what you did there. You say you're going to "stick" with a statement that you're making for the first time. The statement that you made earlier, that you are now abandoning, is that Ruth couldn't even play today's game. Of course he could, and of course he'd be great at it. Would he be as much better than everyone else as he was then? Of course not; Ruth would still be Ruth while his competition would have improved. But put him in the right park and I think he might hit more HR now than he did then; he'd never hit twice as many as second place, or more than whole teams combined, but he'd hit a ton of them.
As for Mantle, I'd have probably gone softer on you if you'd used him instead of Mays in the first place. I don't think there's much of an argument that Mays was better than Ruth, but there is an argument to be made that Mantle was. It's largely subjective, and I'm not convinced by it, but it's a respectable argument. The problem, and its insurmountable, is that Ruth and Mantle/Mays played too far apart in time, and too far apart in too many other circumstances to make a distinction that precise. Mantle was the greatest player of his time, and Ruth the greatest of his time. And, whichever one you think was better, there's no way to reach the conclusion that either was very much better than the other. I think Ted Williams deserves to be in the discussion, too, with some kind of allowance for the years he missed through no fault of his own. All three great, and all three great no matter where or when they happened to play.
""""Three of them are: A league filled with dead ball style hitters that allowed Ruth to out homer full teams, a league wide dearth of talent because the population available to compete simply wasn't as deep as in other times, and discrimination of minority players."""
So now his ability to out homer entire teams is a negative?
One can only compare an athlete within there era. Ruth smoked all comers.
Dallas - you put a spin on everything. Of course could play today...heck I could play. I meant and you know I meant that he would not have the numbers now that he had then. I don't think anybody could afford to play him in the field...he is too slow. He would have to DH.
But you didn't say he wouldn't have the same numbers, you said he couldn't play today's game. You're trying to spin it now like "couldn't play today's game" means "would be awesomely great but not quite as good as Babe Ruth in the 1920's" and I'm not buying it. What you said was nonsense; Ruth could play today's game and would be awesomely great at it. With a trainer, a bat 18 ounces lighter and the motivation to be paid 30 million+ a year I think it takes more baseless assumptions to think he'd be meaningfully worse now than to assume he'd be just as good. All that would change is that the margins by which he led the league in everything would go down.
Ruth was a perfectly fine fielder, by the way, and was not at all slow. His range factor as a right fielder was better than league average for his career and significantly above league average in the 20's. He averaged 11 triples a year for a seven year stretch. Everyone thinks the old, beer-gutted guy they see in film loops from the mid 30's was the same Babe Ruth who was a better pitcher than Walter Johnson in 1916 and a better hitter than anyone, ever, five years later.
The myth that Ruth was not fast or a good fielder is perpetuated by the persona we've created for him~a beer guzzling, hot dog-eating womanizer who we watched in films at way faster speeds than normal which made him appear as a caricature of himself. In reality, as Dallas noted, he was an exceptional athlete and player in any facet of the game to which he applied himself for the vast majority of his career. The stats tell the real story better than common misconceptions.
Dimeman, time to stop spinning and backtracking the assertion on which you've already been proven wrong.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I loves me some Babe Ruth but if I'm picking a guy to be best all-time, it's Mickey Mantle. Career OPS+ of 172 playing in an integrated league with possibly the best average-level of talent of all-time while being a good CF with blazing speed. Works for me. But I have no problem with anybody picking Willie or Ruth either
You haven't proven anything. Mays and Mantle would run circles around Ruth. And I don't think he could handle today's pitching like he did back in his day. I guess there is no way to prove that either way. You just have to look at him and his lifestyle and go by that.
Dimeman, you're as entitled to your opinions as anyone else, but not your own facts. At the heart of your argument appears to be your belief that Ruth was "too slow" to play today's game. But Ruth wasn't slow, not by MLB standards when he played, and not by MLB standards now. Take that part out of your argument and see what's left. Skin has done a great deal of analysis on Ruth & Mantle and reached the conclusion that Mantle was better; but nowhere in his analysis, because it would be silly, does he claim that Ruth wasn't awesomely great or that he "couldn't play today's game" because he was "too slow". Ruth wasn't as fast as Mantle or Mays; just say that and give Mays and Mantle whatever positive credit they deserve for that. You're overstating your case so extremely that it's hard to take any of it seriously.
I grew up watching Walter Payton run over and through the porous Packer defenses of the 70's and 80's. During that same time I had the privilege to attend three or four games at Lambeau every year. Me and my brothers would pick who we wanted to see. I always picked the Bears first to see Payton play. Payton is my #1 back of all time. He could do it all, run, catch block. Heck he was even Super Back a few plays when the Wildcat did not exist. As for the next four runners for the top five. Jim Brown, Barry Sanders, Earl Campbell and Steve Van Buren.
Plus if Ruth being a drunk hurts his legacy why don't we rule out Mickey Mantle also then? He was by most accounts ridiculous in that respect
Points to Babe Ruth for not stealing a liver transplant from some more deserving patient just because he was famous.
I'm aware Mays, Williams and others had their careers dampened by factors out of their hands: wartime service.
If Mantle had been more in control of his vices (alcohol), I think he would have had a career that would have easily put him in the #1 slot. I say this, giving the aforementioned wartime men the same considerations. Nothing against Mays or Williams either, I feel that Mantle was just thiiiisss much more of a talent.
C E B A D F
Best place to buy !
Bronze Associate member
Terry Bradshaw and Steel curtain greatest team ever. Troy Polamalu best change maker
Best place to buy !
Bronze Associate member
B A R F
Where does one start in responding to all of this?
In evaluating the greatest RB of all time, one should at least consider the strength of the offensive lines on the team of that RB.
It really seems unreasonable to compare Ruth and Mays or even suggest that there is a single greatest player in MLB...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I still say Babe Ruth was a better QB than troy Aikman
Sorry I meant Willie Mays was better RB than Fran Tarkenton
That was a great team, but I put the 92-95 Cowboys ahead of them.
How many hall of famers did those teams have compared to the 70's steelers?
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
The 60's Packers need to be that conversation. Played in five championship games and won four of them. Three in a row from '65 to '67.
You are short changing them, FavreFan! Played in 6, won 5 (61,62,65,66,67).
And don't forget the Browns from 1946-1955. 10 years, 10 championship games, 7 championships.
In my opinion there is Tom Brady as the best QB ever, Wayne Gretzky the best hockey player ever, Michael Jordan the best Basketball player ever. The best baseball player is way too debatable, same with best Running back. Great debate though.
perk, even your first three are debatable.
it is easy to choose a "best of" from a specific era, but with all the rule changes it gets hard to pick an all-time greatest. I am least familiar with Hockey, but for Football and Basketball the way the games are played now is vastly different than 50 years ago. to look only at Basketball, how different would games be if players weren't allowed to hang from the rim??
Unitas, Howe, Wilt.
The Browns were insane. Otto is reg forgotten in the top QB discussion when it comes to the top five. He is in the top 5 of all time with Brady, Peyton, Unitas and Montana
Graham:
Career NFL statistics
Pass cmp/att: 1,464 / 2,626
Percentage: 55.8
TD–int: 174–135 ......................................Better
Passing yards: 23,584
Passer rating: 86.6 ............................. Better
Aikman:
Pass attempts: 4,715
Pass completions: 2,898
Percentage: 61.5 ....................................... Better
TD–INT: 165–141
Passing yards: 32,942.............................Better
Passer rating: 81.6
Pretty close actually. each has 2 betters.
and Otto could run while playing without a facemask!! I wish I could have been around in the 50's to watch the games between the Detroit Lions and Cleveland Browns, they dominated the NFL during that decade. the battles between Bobby Layne and Otto Graham leading their Teams must have been epic.
LOL, it is amusing that you are comparing stats between a QB that played in Graham's era with Aikman.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Its all my Dad talks about. That and Sam Huff
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......