Greatest Baseball Player of All Time

[infrared41]

Remember that the Babe played in an era where your "drug of choice" was actually a detractor from your performance, not an improvement. Forget HGH and steroids, the Babe managed to drink a quart of Jack Daniels, chew a bucket of tobacco and still smash balls over the fence. Hell, if they had invented Camelbacks in those days, you probably wouldda seen BR running the bases while he was swigging down some Wild Turkey.

I think that's overstating Babe's extracurricular activities just a bit.

[oddball]

I'll do it this way:

C - Johnny Bench

1B - Pete Rose

2B - Ryan Sandberg

3B - Brooks Robinson

SS - Ozzie Smith

LF - Barry Bonds

CF - Willie Mays

RF - Hank Aaron

RHP - Bob Gibson

LHP - Sandy Kofax

Closer - Goose Gossage, Dennis Eckersley, Mariano Rivera

I know the inclusion of Barry Bonds will irritate some people and make them cry to their mommies, but Barry Bonds had won 4 MVP's prior to taking any steriods and was going to break the home run record without steriods. On pure talent alone Barry Bonds was and will be one of the greatest talents to play the game. To watch Bonds play the game, was to watch one of the all time greats, unfortunately he fell into the peer pressure of having to take steriods and not relying solely on his God-given talent.

[Dexter Morgan]

Babe Ruth. No explanation needed.

[Dexter Morgan]

I'm not a big baseball guy, but I'll be the one to say it: George Herman Ruth, both the player and the legacy, are overrated. There, I said it. I think the main reason people revere the Babe as much as they do is because the man's name has been passed down through generations as if he was the only baseball player that ever existed in his time. (Yeah I went there...shoot me.)

It really makes me wish that Ken Griffey Jr. hadn't have been so injury-prone towards the later part of his career. Had the guy stayed healthy, I think he[/] would've done well enough to put himself at the top of the list. Just my own personal two pennies...from a casual baseball observer.

[knnhrvy16]

Buc's really not too far off, in my opinion. Was Babe an incredible ballplayer? Absolutely, there's no question. However...and I'm prepared to take the beating that will ensue from asking such a question...was he really the greatest ALL-AROUND player that ever played? I respectfully say no. I mean, really think about ALL-AROUND, here. Yes, the Babe could pitch and he could hit the ball a mile. But could he really do much else? I think it's safe to say he wasn't a great base stealer, and his defense isn't exactly praised. His large and lasting legend, I think, has just as much to do with his personality and off-field life as it does his on-field one.

When I personally think of the greatest player of all-time, I think of the all-around guys: Ty Cobb, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, and the like. Now I know some of you are thinking "Cobb?? All-arounder?? NO POWER LOLZ!", but allow me to explain - he accumulated 117 Home Runs in a career that was mostly spent in the deadball era, an era in which many of that time's renowned "power hitters" like Home Run Baker didn't hit more than 100 dingers in thier career. 117 for that timeframe was actually quite high. Then obviously, Cobb was arguably the greatest pure hitter who ever lived period (I personally think he changed the art of hitting more than Ruth did, with his scientific approaches and constant experimentation that influences hitting even still today) and set steals records (another area of the game he really changed in the same manner as he did for hitting) along with being a more than solid defensive outfielder. And obviously, no explaination is needed for Mays and Aaron.

I think the discussions of "Greatest Players" in any sport often turns into "Most Popular", unfortunately. Babe Ruth is undoubtedly the most popular player in baseball history. But was he the all-time, all around, do-everything greatest player? To me, he's one of the greatest, but not THE greatest. I just don't view him as a do-everything player, and to me THE greatest MUST be a do-everything player. Babe could throw, and he could hit. Aside from that, not a whole lot else (except for charming the fans and downing hot dogs at an alarming rate ).

Now, I'm ready to be roasted alive and screamed at, so do your worst, folks

[rangerfan94]

Not to change the subject but sat. night I was watching the movie "The Babe" about Ruth of course. At around 29.30 in the film, he was in his hotel room,with his roomate. Ruth had bought him a hat or something.Any way the room he was in, the door was opened an for a split second the door across the hall was room #714. Any way here are my top 5.

1 Ty Cobb

2 Pete Rose

3 Mickey Mantle

4 Babe Ruth

5 Ted Williams

1 Bob Feller

2 Bob Gibson

3 Sandy Kofax

4 Satchel Paige

5 Walter Johnson

Just my opinion.

[oddball]

As far as Babe Ruth's defense or stolen base prowess, it's hard to describe. I doubt he was a horrible outfielder as he had to cover a lot of ground in the old Yankee Stadium and no one has ever said he was poor. From what I've heard from players who played with him, and I think it was Jimmy Reese who said it, that Babe was actually faster than you think and quite nimble. We'll never know if Babe could've been a 40-40 guy because stolen bases weren't his game or really in the game. The funny thing as you look at Babe, was he was a far better batter than 75% of the players in the game today. Just look at his walk to strike out ratio, once he became a strictly fielder, he only struck out more than he walked twice and one of those seasons was his last and never struck out 100 times in a season. Yet, I can not consider him as an all time great because of the segregation of ball players.

[infrared41]

Buc's really not too far off, in my opinion. Was Babe an incredible ballplayer? Absolutely, there's no question. However...and I'm prepared to take the beating that will ensue from asking such a question...was he really the greatest ALL-AROUND player that ever played? I respectfully say no. I mean, really think about ALL-AROUND, here. Yes, the Babe could pitch and he could hit the ball a mile. But could he really do much else? I think it's safe to say he wasn't a great base stealer, and his defense isn't exactly praised. His large and lasting legend, I think, has just as much to do with his personality and off-field life as it does his on-field one.

Now, I'm ready to be roasted alive and screamed at, so do your worst, folks

You make some fair points. That said, Babe's off the field reputation has grown in legend just as much as his performance on the field has. As I stated earlier, Babe Ruth's "extracurricular activities" have been somewhat overstated. (I'd argue that they are grossly exaggerated but that debate is for another day.)

Today, we think of Ruth as this 300 pound lard ass who hit home runs. The truth is that during his peak years, The Babe weighed all of around 210-15 pounds. Babe was also 6' 2" tall so he was not by any measure overweight for a man of his size. Just to give you an example, Albert Pujols is 6' 3" and weighs 230. "Big Fat Babe" was actually smaller than Albert Pujols.

Let's talk about Babe's defense. First off, I don't know what any of these numbers mean, but here are Babe's Range Factor/Game as RF from Baseball-Reference compared to the same numbers of Roberto Clemente.

Babe Ruth: Range Factor/Game as RF (s.1954) s c a p y

1920 AL 1.97 (5th)

1924 AL 2.47 (1st)

1927 AL 2.13 (2nd)

1928 AL 2.22 (1st)

1930 AL 1.97 (4th)

1934 AL 1.96 (4th)

Career 2.05 (40th)

Roberto Clemente: Range Factor/Game as RF (s.1954) s c a p y

1955 NL 2.02 (1st)

1956 NL 2.02 (3rd)

1957 NL 2.55 (1st)

1958 NL 2.46 (1st)

1959 NL 2.27 (1st)

1961 NL 1.92 (3rd)

1962 NL 2.04 (2nd)

1964 NL 1.88 (3rd)

1965 NL 2.01 (2nd)

1966 NL 2.16 (2nd)

1967 NL 1.99 (4th)

1968 NL 2.32 (1st)

1970 NL 1.91 (4th)

1971 NL 2.24 (1st)

1972 NL 2.17 (2nd)

Career 2.04 (47th)

Again, I have no idea what any of that means, but the fact that Babe's numbers don't look a whole lot different to me than Clemente's would lead me to believe that Babe's defense couldn't have been too bad. (Or that Clemente was really overrated but I don't think that's the case. )

Then there's the hitting. Again, I think we have this idea of Babe Ruth as some .220 hitting lummox who hit a lot of home runs. Once again using some numbers that I don't completely understand, here is what Babe did for his career.

BA

.342

OBP

.474 (I'm know nothing about sabermetrics, but even I know that a .474 on-base % is really good)

SLG

.690

OPS

1.164

OPS+

206

Throw in 714 home runs and 2213 RBI. Oh, and he was also a pretty good pitcher.

So, is Babe Ruth the greatest player ever? Hard to say, but it's damned hard to prove he wasn't. Or at least in the top 5-10 anyway.

[pmoehrin]

I would regard his 1921 season as the greatest ever by a position player and his 1923 season as the second greatest ever by a position player keeping in mind the position he played and what everyone else in the league was doing.

I do think Clemente was/is a bit overated. His numbers are great, but keep in mind he played in the same era as Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Mickey Mantle, Frank Robinson, Al Kaline, Vada Pinson, Carl Yastrzemki, Billy Williams, and Curt Flood. All of whom were also putting up big time numbers when Clemente played and all of whom were outfielders.

I do ask the question how unique and special could he have really been when you have so many other guys around him putting up great stats as well that are also outfielders. Especially when four of the guys on the list Mays, Aaron, Mantle and Robinson are I'd say slam dunk better ballplayers during that era, and I would say Al Kaline was as well. (more power, less K's, not losing much if anything defensively either)

[Saintsfan]

Not to labor a point, but Ruth changed the way the game was played. And he was a street, heck an interstate highway, ahead of anyone in his era, and before. No other player in the games history acts as a punctuation point as much as Ruth. Great players, even of the caliber of Lou Gehrig, don't get as much play as they should in these conversations because of Ruth's dominance. I don't mind the 'was he really that great?' questions, and I don't mind some of the eternal questions of his legacy (lack of integrated baseball, relief pitching etc) but noone is as responsible for the mass appeal of the game, and noone's performances set bench marks that have stood the test of time, like Ruth. (Including 10th all time batting average and 3rd all time home runs).

[Dexter Morgan]

Pete Rose shouldn't even be in anyone's Top 10 list.

1. Babe Ruth

2. Ted Williams

3. Willie Mays

4. Lou Gehrig

5. Ty Cobb

7. Hank Aaron

8. Stan Musial

9. Joe DiMaggio

10. Rogers Hornsby

Just missed: Honus Wanger, Mickey Mantle, Jimmie Foxx

[Dexter Morgan]

By the way, would anyone be interested in doing an all-time MLB draft? I'd love to get 10-20 of us together. I did it years ago on another forum and it was so much fun.

[Saintsfan]

Pete Rose shouldn't even be in anyone's Top 10 list.

I'm not sure he would get in my top 10, (personally that's something I have resisted doing, just because they tend to be impossible to compare across generations etc.) but he is the all time hits leader, and was a very significant figure in giving contact hitting and basepath scrambling a higher profile again.

[infrared41]

I do think Clemente was/is a bit overated.

Maybe. I was comparing him to Ruth on defense, not as a hitter.

[Gothamite]

While Pete Rose is indeed the hit king, it's worth noting that 4,256 is a padded stat. He managed his own team the last two years, putting himself in the lineup when it's certainly doubtful any other manager would. So while I don't want to take everything away from Charlie Hustle, that one number doesn't elevate him to All Time Best.

I really don't see how this could be anybody other than Babe Ruth. The man changed the game with the way he played. As a pitcher, he was amongst the best of his era. In the field, his pitcher's arm served him well. As a slugger? Let me know when Barry Bonds can hit as many home runs as entire teams.

[pmoehrin]

I do think Clemente was/is a bit overated.

Maybe. I was comparing him to Ruth on defense, not as a hitter.

It was just a tangent. Wasn't directed at anyone in particular other then those who think Clemente was one of the game's all-time elites. I won't dispute the fact that he's a Hall of Famer, but I wouldn't regard him as being in the same breath of players as others have put him in. BR reference has him ranked 20th amongst batters. That is way too high. I wouldn't even put him top 20 amongst outfielders.

There's others I feel that way about as well but Clemente is one of them.

[infrared41]

I do think Clemente was/is a bit overated. His numbers are great, but keep in mind he played in the same era as Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Mickey Mantle, Frank Robinson, Al Kaline, Vada Pinson, Carl Yastrzemki, Billy Williams, and Curt Flood.

Can't believe I missed Vada Pinson the first time around. (Which I suppose goes to the point I'm about to make) People don't talk much about Vada Pinson these days. He was just a click below the "big names." Really good, occasionally great, but never consistently great. Still, a very good career. At the time, he was usually in the discussion when people would talk about the top outfielders in the game.

It's weird to see how he's all but forgotten today. I guess that's what happens when your contemporaries are guys like Mays, Aaron, Robinson, Mantle, Clemente, etc. Put Pinson's career in the 70's or 80's and people are probably arguing that he should be a hall of famer. He shouldn't be, but you get the point.

I will say this however, Vada Pinson has 2757 career hits to Jim Rice's 2452 or Kirby Puckett's 2304. Pinson has 256 home runs vs. 207 for Puckett.

Just an observation.

[pmoehrin]

I do think Clemente was/is a bit overated. His numbers are great, but keep in mind he played in the same era as Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Mickey Mantle, Frank Robinson, Al Kaline, Vada Pinson, Carl Yastrzemki, Billy Williams, and Curt Flood.

Can't believe I missed Vada Pinson the first time around. (Which I suppose goes to the point I'm about to make) People don't talk much about Vada Pinson these days. He was just a click below the "big names." Really good, occasionally great, but never consistently great. Still, a very good career. At the time, he was usually in the discussion when people would talk about the top outfielders in the game.

It's weird to see how he's all but forgotten today. I guess that's what happens when your contemporaries are guys like Mays, Aaron, Robinson, Mantle, Clemente, etc. Put Pinson's career in the 70's or 80's and people are probably arguing that he should be a hall of famer. He shouldn't be, but you get the point.

I will say this however, Vada Pinson has 2757 career hits to Jim Rice's 2452 or Kirby Puckett's 2304. Pinson has 256 home runs vs. 207 for Puckett.

Just an observation.

He was also a very good defense outfielder as well.

Good power, good speed, solid contact hitter. In his prime which was from '59-'67 after Mays and Aaron argubly the next best outfielder in baseball. Hit .300 during that time span in the teeth of the golden era of pitchers, was a 20/20 guy on average, and was a very good defensive centerfielder as well.

If he was a corner outfielder I probably wouldn't hold him up in such regard, but the fact that he's a centerfielder makes him more special to me.

He just gets forgotten about when you have so many other great names out there playing outfield at the time, especially in the National League.

[knnhrvy16]

I really don't see how this could be anybody other than Babe Ruth. The man changed the game with the way he played.

I promise I'm not at all trying to start a flame war with this, you and everybody are certainly entitled to thier opinions and I completely respect them. But, while Ruth undoubtedly changed the game, people often overlook just how much Ty Cobb changed the game, as well. Before Cobb, the only strategy to hitting was just to whale at the ball and see what happens (given you weren't told to bunt, that is). Cobb came and intoduced a completely different strategy to hitting, by breaking down and tailoring his swing, literally mechanic by mechanic, then using the field in manners that hadn't been done before in striding towards the direction he wanted to hit the ball. His constant experimentation is even evident in the way he split-gripped his bat - allowing for a quick shift of the hands in the event he wanted to surprise bunt, as well as the grip leveling the bat profoundly more than a regular grip. It sounds corny, but he put the "thinking" into hitting, and the stuff they teach you at hitting clinics and baseball practices may not have been taught if it weren't for Cobb.

He then took the very same work-ethic and experimental approach to baserunning, by experimenting with different types of slides at different angles, as well as being one of the first to read the baseman/catcher's eyes to tell when and at which direction the ball was coming from. Before that, you just ducked your head and ran.

Cobb was a revolutionary player in that he effectively changed baseball from a reactionary game to a thinking-man's/cerebral game, which influenced many of the game's legends that followed. And obviously, his career results speak for themselves: .366 BA, 4,189 hits, 1,938 RBIs, 897 steals.

So again, I'm not trying to start any flame war or put down any opinions at all, I'm just saying that it shouldn't be overlooked how much Ty Cobb changed the game, too. I would even argue he changed the game more than Ruth did; Ruth put the power game in vogue, yes, but Cobb laid the foundation for cerebral offense in the first place, which needed to be laid for the power game to ever emerge, in my opinion.

[infrared41]

I do think Clemente was/is a bit overated. His numbers are great, but keep in mind he played in the same era as Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Mickey Mantle, Frank Robinson, Al Kaline, Vada Pinson, Carl Yastrzemki, Billy Williams, and Curt Flood.

Can't believe I missed Vada Pinson the first time around. (Which I suppose goes to the point I'm about to make) People don't talk much about Vada Pinson these days. He was just a click below the "big names." Really good, occasionally great, but never consistently great. Still, a very good career. At the time, he was usually in the discussion when people would talk about the top outfielders in the game.

It's weird to see how he's all but forgotten today. I guess that's what happens when your contemporaries are guys like Mays, Aaron, Robinson, Mantle, Clemente, etc. Put Pinson's career in the 70's or 80's and people are probably arguing that he should be a hall of famer. He shouldn't be, but you get the point.

I will say this however, Vada Pinson has 2757 career hits to Jim Rice's 2452 or Kirby Puckett's 2304. Pinson has 256 home runs vs. 207 for Puckett.

Just an observation.

He was also a very good defense outfielder as well.

Good power, good speed, solid contact hitter. In his prime which was from '59-'67 after Mays and Aaron argubly the next best outfielder in baseball. Hit .300 during that time span in the teeth of the golden era of pitchers, was a 20/20 guy on average, and was a very good defensive centerfielder as well.

If he was a corner outfielder I probably wouldn't hold him up in such regard, but the fact that he's a centerfielder makes him more special to me.

He just gets forgotten about when you have so many other great names out there playing outfield at the time, especially in the National League.

Exactly. I'll say it again, if Vada Pinson had the exact same career in the 80's, he's probably in the hall of fame. His numbers are at least comparable to, if not better than in some cases, Rice or Puckett's. And that's just on offense.