The Greatest Baseball Player | Syracusefan.com

The Greatest Baseball Player

UnknownOrange

2023 Cali Award Winner Points Scored
Joined
Apr 15, 2014
Messages
4,915
Like
13,383
To ever live.

I want to hear a name and a reason (or many reasons) why you're attaching their name to yours.

For the fun of it let's leave out anything that ties them to cheating, addictions, off the field incidents, all of that. Who they were on the diamond and only who they were on the diamond.

Why do I use that as a qualification? Because of my pick.


It's Barry Bonds.



I would LOVE to know why you pick someone other than him. Yes I know who he was as a person and the allegations tied to him but he is the reason I fell in love with baseball statistics. I was a huge fan of baseball and then Barry sent me over the top.

My favorite statistic for Barry?

From 2001-2004, Barry Bonds played in 573 games and reached base in 539 of them. 94% of his games


WHO YA GOT?!
 
Babe Ruth: WAR = 168.4
Barry Bonds: WAR = 164.4

I respect that stat. I truly believe baseball wouldn't have gotten to where it eventually went to without the Babe. I do factor in some with the era in which they played. Babe and Barry is picking A and A1.

Both incredible players
 
Im not saying he was the greatest ever, but the greatest stat ever in MLB history is Joe Sewells's strike out record...and by record, I mean lack of striking out. Its insane.

" Sewell struck out a mere 114 times in 7,132 career at-bats for an average of one strikeout every 62.5 at-bats, second only to Willie Keeler (63.1). He also holds the single-season record for fewest strikeouts over a full season, with 3, set in 1932. Sewell also had 3 strikeouts in 1930, albeit in just 353 at-bats (as opposed to 503 in his record-setting year), as well as three other full seasons (1925, 1929, 1933) with 4 strikeouts. He struck out ten or more times in only four seasons, and his highest strikeout total was twenty, during the 1922 season. For his 1925–1933 seasons, Sewell struck out 4, 6, 7, 9, 4, 3, 8, 3, and 4 times. He also holds the record for consecutive games without recording a strikeout, at 115."
 
Willie Mays. The most complete "five weapon" player in the history of the game. And nothing against you, but if I saw Barry Bonds walking up the street, I'd cross the street to avoid him. You cannot separate his off-field misbehavior with his on-field numbers, for without the former, the latter would be greatly diminished.
 
Last edited:
Willie Mays. The most complete 5-skilled player in the history of the game. And nothing against you, but if I saw Barry Bonds walking up the street, I'd cross the street to avoid him. You cannot separate his off-field misbehavior with his on-field numbers, for without the former, the latter would be greatly diminished.

I agree with this. Willie played before my time (I'm only 38) but I love baseball history and from everything I read and watched, I think Willie was the best all around.
 
"The Say Hey Kid" could hit (with power), field, throw, run. Played with flair. Great all around BB player. I vote for Mays.

Ted Williams...best hitter.
 
Last edited:
Say Hey. A less injured and less partying Mantle would have given Willie a run for his money.

Edit: In saying Mays - I meant best player not named Ruth.
 
Last edited:
Willie Mays. The most complete "five weapon" player in the history of the game. And nothing against you, but if I saw Barry Bonds walking up the street, I'd cross the street to avoid him. You cannot separate his off-field misbehavior with his on-field numbers, for without the former, the latter would be greatly diminished.
What about the amphetamines they take. All the guys were taking some sort of performance enhancing stuff.

Also, as for Bonds, the difference in his performance vs all the other guys taking roids shows you how great he was. He was also battling pitchers who were on the juice. To me, it is not a big deal, especially in baseball, where Gaylord Perry is an icon.
 
Say Hey. A less injured and less partying Mantle would have given Willie a run for his money.
I agree; one reason I would not go with Mays is because he had a peer with almost exactly the same skill set. Of course, Mantle's injuries prevented him from matching Mays career productivity.

I go with Ruth because there was nobody else in the league (until Gehrig came around) that was anywhere close to him. He basically changed the game. I was not alive at the time, but I get the sense that home runs were barely a part of baseball before he came around. Mays played at the same time as Mantle. Bonds played at the same time as Griffey, McGwire, Sosa, and Rodriguez. Bonds and Mays were the best at their times, but the difference between them and their peers was not as great as Ruth's.

I do recognize that Ruth only played against white guys. Comparing eras is fun, but silly.
 
Mays played against pitchers using a higher mound than post 1968 hitters.
The top of the rubber is to be no higher than ten inches (25.4 cm) above home plate. From 1903 through 1968, this height limit was set at 15 inches, but was often slightly higher, sometimes as high as 20 inches (50.8 cm), especially for teams that emphasized pitching, such as the Los Angeles Dodgers, who were reputed to have the highest mound in the majors.
 
It's Ruth by a mile for me. When he became a full-time outfielder, his offensive numbers relative to his contemporaries dwarfed anything that had been seen before (or since). Add in the fact that he likely was on Hall of Fame career path as a pitcher, and he clearly remains the greatest ballplayer we have seen, IMO.
 
I agree; one reason I would not go with Mays is because he had a peer with almost exactly the same skill set. Of course, Mantle's injuries prevented him from matching Mays career productivity.

I go with Ruth because there was nobody else in the league (until Gehrig came around) that was anywhere close to him. He basically changed the game. I was not alive at the time, but I get the sense that home runs were barely a part of baseball before he came around. Mays played at the same time as Mantle. Bonds played at the same time as Griffey, McGwire, Sosa, and Rodriguez. Bonds and Mays were the best at their times, but the difference between them and their peers was not as great as Ruth's.

I do recognize that Ruth only played against white guys. Comparing eras is fun, but silly.

There's a lot more going on in baseball (ie, Mays being a "5 weapon" type) than just home runs. Ruth's success as a pitcher early in his career certainly speaks to not only that, but his multiple skills. But your point about comparing eras is correct. At one point in the past, when a batted ball hopped over the fence it was a home run, while today it's a ground rule double. I don't know when the rule on that changed.
 
Best Hitter Ever: Tony Gwynn
Best Pitcher Ever: Walter Johnson
Best Fielder Ever: Brooks Robinson
Best Player Ever: Barry Bonds

Bonds and Ruth could fight over three of top categories above. Ruth for hitting, pitching and player. Bonds for hitting, fielding and player.
 
If you assume the level of play is basically the same now as it was 100 years ago, I think you have to go with Ruth. My guess is players now are a lot better than they were when Ruth played, but I guess it also depends on what you mean by best player; best at his time, or like if you took the Babe Ruth from 1925 to today, how would he do, etc.

I think there are basically 3 guys in the convo; Ruth/Mays/Bonds. Though when Mike Trout is retired...
 
Willie Mays. The most complete "five weapon" player in the history of the game. And nothing against you, but if I saw Barry Bonds walking up the street, I'd cross the street to avoid him. You cannot separate his off-field misbehavior with his on-field numbers, for without the former, the latter would be greatly diminished.

I can respect that. Ty Cobb - terrible guy, hell of a baseball player. But I understand what you mean
 
I agree; one reason I would not go with Mays is because he had a peer with almost exactly the same skill set. Of course, Mantle's injuries prevented him from matching Mays career productivity.

I go with Ruth because there was nobody else in the league (until Gehrig came around) that was anywhere close to him. He basically changed the game. I was not alive at the time, but I get the sense that home runs were barely a part of baseball before he came around. Mays played at the same time as Mantle. Bonds played at the same time as Griffey, McGwire, Sosa, and Rodriguez. Bonds and Mays were the best at their times, but the difference between them and their peers was not as great as Ruth's.

I do recognize that Ruth only played against white guys. Comparing eras is fun, but silly.

I get what you're saying. But as a stat nerd it pains me when Mark McGwire is mentioned in the same sentence as Barry. I get it - big homers they're tied together forever but one look at Marks numbers and I laugh ... 1626 career hits... lifetime 260 hitter. No thanks

I do agree though -- a lot of great names and careers around Barry's. Babe was all alone
 
Gehrig?? He wasn't a WWll vet.

Williams lost a lot of prime years...WWll and Korea.

Tony Gwynn was a fine hitter, but Ted Williams was the best.
 
Tony Gwynn - great hitter. Worst stretch in his career was 0 for 12. Unbelievable.


Babe Ruth to me is the greatest baseball player in terms of what he did and he has the myth to him. Like how Joe Namath is considered as a great QB even though his numbers STINK.

Barry is the greatest baseball player (I'll accept Willie though. Have his throwback jersey) in terms of statistics and what he did against who he did it against.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
167,146
Messages
4,683,065
Members
5,901
Latest member
CarlsbergMD

Online statistics

Members online
268
Guests online
1,480
Total visitors
1,748


Top Bottom