Babe Ruth > Any person ever to put on a major league baseball uniform ever

 

Period. End of discussion.

The best players are all the guys playing today. If you had your choice of being operated on for an unspecified malady by the best doctor from 50 years ago or the best doctor today, which is it gonna be?

 

 

Look, you have Classic Sports, right? Do you ever watch those old tapes of the Bill Russell/Bob Cousy Celtics? The idea that Cousy could guard Allen Iverson, or that Russell could hang with Shaquille O'Neal is laughable. Have you ever seen Wiillie Mays? The guy is 5-foot-10 and 190 pounds -- he just can't be the best player ever. It's the way the world is: bigger, better, stronger, faster.

 

 

Indeed, technology is part of the reason today's players are better. However, by my way of thinking, the question should be, "How would the Babe do against the Unit swinging his 69oz bat?" Not well, would be my best guess.

 

 

 

I believe that if the '03 Devil Rays played the '27 Yankees in a best-of-seven Time Machine Series, the Rays would sweep the Bombers, and the scores would be lopsided. If Babe Ruth had to face, say, Victor Zambrano, he would swing at three of Zambrano's low-90s sinkers and trudge back the bench, muttering to himself about pitches he couldn't even see, let alone hit.

 

 

You're right about something else: this does take a lot of the fun out of it. Because it's fun, we do pretend that comparing players from different eras has something more than theoretical relevance, and it's not just baseball. Aren't there people who still argue that Johnny Unitas was the greatest quarterback, and that Bill Russell was the greatest center? So when we talk about "greatest," I think it's appropriate to compare a player to his peers, while recognizing that it's easier in some eras than others to stand out.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/stor..._rob&id=1740081

 

Honestly, what Bonds is doing today, against the level of competition is mind-boggling. Also, if you presented any of the "old-timers" with some of the ammenities of today (roids, personal trainers, etc.) you're fooling yourself if you think that they'd turn them down. Today, athletes are more of a "finely tuned machine" than they were 50 years ago, but the fact of the matter is that average backup players today could dominate in the 20's and 30's. They're better conditioned, stronger and faster, end of story.

I believe that if the '03 Devil Rays played the '27 Yankees in a best-of-seven Time Machine Series, the Rays would sweep the Bombers, and the scores would be lopsided.

You've lost your mind.

Babe Ruth > Any person ever to put on a major league baseball uniform ever

 

Period. End of discussion.

thank you.

He was the greatest baseball player ever.

I don't care what he did on his own time I am just talking about baseball.

He was the man.

He is the GOD of baseball.

There probably will never be another one like him.

The great bambino!

I believe that if the '03 Devil Rays played the '27 Yankees in a best-of-seven Time Machine Series, the Rays would sweep the Bombers, and the scores would be lopsided.

You've lost your mind. I agree with him. Conditioning is better now. So is technique and coaching. Any team now would kill an old team. However, a player's greatness is gauged by how much they dominated their peers. Ruth hit more homers than entire teams...no one has ever dominate more. Give him the great coaching, training, HGH and steroids and he would STILL probably be the best ever. He might not, but all stats show him as clearly the most DOMINANT player ever.

 

However any modern team would mop the floor with an old one.

 

Fun fact: Walter's Johnson's fastball was measured using a crude photoelectric cell measurement method. Nonethless, he threw 91 MPH...enough said.

The best players are all the guys playing today. If you had your choice of being operated on for an unspecified malady by the best doctor from 50 years ago or the best doctor today, which is it gonna be?

 

 

Look, you have Classic Sports, right? Do you ever watch those old tapes of the Bill Russell/Bob Cousy Celtics? The idea that Cousy could guard Allen Iverson, or that Russell could hang with Shaquille O'Neal is laughable. Have you ever seen Wiillie Mays? The guy is 5-foot-10 and 190 pounds -- he just can't be the best player ever. It's the way the world is: bigger, better, stronger, faster.

 

 

Indeed, technology is part of the reason today's players are better. However, by my way of thinking, the question should be, "How would the Babe do against the Unit swinging his 69oz bat?" Not well, would be my best guess.

 

 

 

I believe that if the '03 Devil Rays played the '27 Yankees in a best-of-seven Time Machine Series, the Rays would sweep the Bombers, and the scores would be lopsided. If Babe Ruth had to face, say, Victor Zambrano, he would swing at three of Zambrano's low-90s sinkers and trudge back the bench, muttering to himself about pitches he couldn't even see, let alone hit.

 

 

You're right about something else: this does take a lot of the fun out of it. Because it's fun, we do pretend that comparing players from different eras has something more than theoretical relevance, and it's not just baseball. Aren't there people who still argue that Johnny Unitas was the greatest quarterback, and that Bill Russell was the greatest center? So when we talk about "greatest," I think it's appropriate to compare a player to his peers, while recognizing that it's easier in some eras than others to stand out.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/stor..._rob&id=1740081

 

Honestly, what Bonds is doing today, against the level of competition is mind-boggling. Also, if you presented any of the "old-timers" with some of the ammenities of today (roids, personal trainers, etc.) you're fooling yourself if you think that they'd turn them down. Today, athletes are more of a "finely tuned machine" than they were 50 years ago, but the fact of the matter is that average backup players today could dominate in the 20's and 30's. They're better conditioned, stronger and faster, end of story.

your comparing apples to oranges meng

I believe that if the '03 Devil Rays played the '27 Yankees in a best-of-seven Time Machine Series, the Rays would sweep the Bombers, and the scores would be lopsided.

You've lost your mind. I agree with him. Conditioning is better now. So is technique and coaching. Any team now would kill an old team. However, a player's greatness is gauged by how much they dominated their peers. Ruth hit more homers than entire teams...no one has ever dominate more. Give him the great coaching, training, HGH and steroids and he would STILL probably be the best ever. He might not, but all stats show him as clearly the most DOMINANT player ever.

 

However any modern team would mop the floor with an old one.

 

Fun fact: Walter's Johnson's fastball was measured using a crude photoelectric cell measurement method. Nonethless, he threw 91 MPH...enough said. yeah, it's simply not possible to compare players today to any other era, so you can't say that Ruth is better than Bonds, because like it or not any slugger today is better than Ruth; however, you can argue that Ruth dominated his era more than anyone else, and that's the only argument you'd be able to have, and still have a leg to stand on.

Also here's another way to look at how they'll both be remembered, this is the first thing that comes to just about everybody's mind when they think of these two:

 

Ruth - greatest baseball player ever.

Bonds - everyone thought he used steroids.

 

:mischief2

Also here's another way to look at how they'll both be remembered, this is the first thing that comes to just about everybody's mind when they think of these two:

 

Ruth - greatest baseball player ever.

Bonds - everyone thought he used steroids.

 

:mischief2

In fairness, no one in modern memory has changed the way managers approach an entire lineup like Barry. Sure, there are allegations, but you are innocent until proven guilty, so how about remembering him as the most feared hitter, maybe ever. He's the reason that there was an outcry to change the intentional walk rule: think about that...

TS25 - What outcry??????

In fairness, no one in modern memory has changed the way managers approach an entire lineup like Barry. Sure, there are allegations, but you are innocent until proven guilty, so how about remembering him as the most feared hitter, maybe ever. He's the reason that there was an outcry to change the intentional walk rule: think about that...

Still though, 90% of the world will be thinking like I am...Bonds isn't doing so well in the public's eyes right now and he's always going to have an asterisk too. Whether it be in the Hall of Fame or just in everybody's minds...he will always have a tarnished image unless he comes clean and submits to a test! :thumbup

In fairness, no one in modern memory has changed the way managers approach an entire lineup like Barry. Sure, there are allegations, but you are innocent until proven guilty, so how about remembering him as the most feared hitter, maybe ever. He's the reason that there was an outcry to change the intentional walk rule: think about that...

Still though, 90% of the world will be thinking like I am...Bonds isn't doing so well in the public's eyes right now and he's always going to have an asterisk too. Whether it be in the Hall of Fame or just in everybody's minds...he will always have a tarnished image unless he comes clean and submits to a test! :thumbup I'll agree that he's losing the "public image war," but I find it unfounded and unnecessary. Look at a lot of football players, you think they got that big naturally? Or look at Giambi (who I think is more guilty of blatantly juicing than Bonds), yet for some reason, people instantly single Bonds out. Even if he is on 'roids (which I doubt because unlike Giambi, he didn't drop 20 lbs. in the offseason), it doesn't change the fact that he may be the greatest combination of average and power ever. You could take a roid raging freak out of the gym, give him a bat, and he couldn't hit a fastball out of the infield, let alone over the fence. Steroids don't help a guy who was putting them out by 20 ft. Guys who raised my eyebrows were people like Hollandsworth, Gonzalez, Guillen, you know, people that suddenly had massive power numbers and then trailed off late in the season. Bonds couldn't have stayed on steroids for the whole season that he hit 73, it would have killed him, and if steroids were the only reason that he hit those home-runs, there would have been a drop-off at some point.

Gonzalez the one in the marlins? Dont make me laugh just because he had six homers in april dosent mean anything, he had a good month thats all.

Gonzalez the one in the marlins? Dont make me laugh just because he had six homers in april dosent mean anything, he had a good month thats all.

Luis Gonzalez, exploding one year, then going into obscurity again. A 30 homerun jump from one year, and then a 26 HR dropoff is a pretty big margin...

You can argue (ignore the fact that he is a roider for a moment) that what Bonds is doing in this era is amazing. You can argue that Mike Redmond would be a Hall of Famer if he showed up to the 20's right now. However, put Babe Ruth in a park now. Start Ruth from playing High School Baseball to the minors to the pros. Have him lifting weights and watching his diet. Have him not showing up to games drunk off his ass or completely hung over. He could, quite frankly, hit 80-90 homeruns in a season now a days with all we have now. He could, quite frankly, throw 95-97 MPH as well, with a mean curve and a nice change.

 

The fact remains no one, EVER, dominated like he did. No one hit more homeruns than almost every team, no one jacked balls out of the park like he did while pitching 14 scoreless innings in a World Series game. No one. Adjusted for the eras, the Babe would do better today. Plain and simple. I think if you put Bonds growing up in that era no one would remember him because he wouldn't have been nearly as good. He would have just stayed a contact hitter who was pretty good defender and who ran fast.

so like said before, george herman ruth was HANDS DOWN :notworthy the greatest player ever :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Guys, the babe wasn't as feared as Bonds? He walked 170 times in 1922 in a time where the game focused more on NOT pitching around people (or out of the strike zone) and the game was built around contact. Quite simply, what ruth did was absurd.

Guys, the babe wasn't as feared as Bonds? He walked 170 times in 1922 in a time where the game focused more on NOT pitching around people (or out of the strike zone) and the game was built around contact. Quite simply, what ruth did was absurd.

Bonds walked 177 times and 198 times in 2001 and 2002, respectively, and with those 198 walks, he still managed to hit 46 HR's (403 AB's). When Ruth walked 170 times in 1923, he still had 522 AB's and hit 41 HR's, in Yankee Stadium.

 

Give me Bonds any day...

Chiming in a little late, but Stratton was a six year free agent and thus was free to sign on anywhere. Also I would hate to say Bonds deserves an injury like this because of his steroid use. So I'll say you reap what you sow.

Guys, the babe wasn't as feared as Bonds? He walked 170 times in 1922 in a time where the game focused more on NOT pitching around people (or out of the strike zone) and the game was built around contact. Quite simply, what ruth did was absurd.

Bonds walked 177 times and 198 times in 2001 and 2002, respectively, and with those 198 walks, he still managed to hit 46 HR's (403 AB's). When Ruth walked 170 times in 1923, he still had 522 AB's and hit 41 HR's, in Yankee Stadium.

 

Give me Bonds any day... Give me a man of Ruth's career any day.

but you are innocent until proven guilty

Only in a court of law, and not in public opinion.

 

No matter what Bonds do (he can hit 1000HR), I won't consider him one of the greatest until he comes clean. He needs to clean his name, I give him .0000001% the benefit of the doubt at this time.

 

MLB is at fault here. For comparisons sake. eliminate all police officers from the highways, who is going to drive above the speed limit? MLB is doing a terrible job keeping the integrity of the game.

it is a physical impossibility that bonds HAS NOT abused HGH, I have proven his skull has actually increased in size. He says he's never used HGH. Bonds is therefore lying.

it is a physical impossibility that bonds HAS NOT abused HGH, I have proven his skull has actually increased in size. He says he's never used HGH. Bonds is therefore lying.

you actually measured it, wow, I'm amazed you got that close to him.

 

Lay off the dude, go measure Giambi's head, now there's a guy that juices...

it is a physical impossibility that bonds HAS NOT abused HGH, I have proven his skull has actually increased in size. He says he's never used HGH. Bonds is therefore lying.

you actually measured it, wow, I'm amazed you got that close to him.

 

Lay off the dude, go measure Giambi's head, now there's a guy that juices... He measured Giambi's head, and freely admits he does steroids and should be punished for doing so.

Giambi's head is a little bigger, but that's up to debate. Bonds head is MOST DEFINITELY bigger.

 

This is most definitely proof: