Who are the greatest players ever?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I'll be sure to tell my kids about Dunn.

[Rob]

So who are the players in the game today (other than the really old guys like Bonds, Clemens & Maddux) that we'll be telling our grandkids about? This is just another way of asking who else might have a chance to crack these lists by the time the retire?

 

I'd say just two hitters have that chance right now: Pujols & ARod. And of the two, I think Pujols has the better chance to have a frightengly great career.

 

Much tougher to say with pitchers because so much depends on how well they hold up.

 

ARod has already had a frightengly great career. He's only 30, and I'd vote him into the Hall if he retired today.

[USSoccer]

I'll be sure to tell my kids about Dunn.

 

I'll tell my kid about Neifi, but it won't be in a very positive light. More like a cautionary tale :D

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I'd tell my kids about Alphonseca, but I can't say his name without turning the middle syllable into a profanity.

[Rob]

Corey Patterson will either show up as a cautionary tale or as an all time great, I can feel it already.

 

Heck, he's already halfway there. :P

[barryfoote]

I'm not going to rank them, but I'm surprised that the name Roberto Clemente hasn't come up. (unless I missed it somewhere) Obviously his career was cut short but he may have the best mix of offensive and defensive capabilities as anyone. His arm was unreal.

 

My #1 pitcher

Cy Young - 511 wins is hard to beat

 

My #1 non-pitcher

Willie Mays - just great all around

[reggiemiller rules]

So who are the players in the game today (other than the really old guys like Bonds, Clemens & Maddux) that we'll be telling our grandkids about? This is just another way of asking who else might have a chance to crack these lists by the time the retire?

 

I'd say just two hitters have that chance right now: Pujols & ARod. And of the two, I think Pujols has the better chance to have a frightengly great career.

 

Much tougher to say with pitchers because so much depends on how well they hold up.

 

Pujols, definetly. ARod, Manny Ramirez...I'll tell my kid about Sosa, too. Johan Santana.

 

I think Pujols,Arod, Manny, and i think Miguel Cabrera will eventually be talked about as all time greats.

[Abe Frohman]

Ole Miss Cub, what years did you play for the Rebels? I had a few real close friends play in the SEC, and was wondering if you knew them or played against them.

[Guest]

I wonder why Ty Cobb gets so little love on these lists.

 

he played in an era with like 5 teams. That's a negative strike in my book.

 

He played in the same era as babe ruth...

 

So shouldnt that strike go against ruth too?

 

exactly, and it was 16 teams not 5 teams. A career .366 average and over 4,000 hits, 900+ steals, and five seasons of .400+ gets you on the top 5 list. He was the best pure hitter in history, plain and simple.

He played in an era where the league leading hitters were routinely above .380 because errors were rarely scored, players had teeny little mits, there were very few strikeout pitchers since pitches like sliders hadn't really been introduced yet, etc. A .366 average during that timeframe just isn't as impressive as if he were to do that in today's game.

Actually, I'd say the reason the typical league-leader in Cobb's league hit .380 was because it was usually Cobb leading the league in that category. ;)

 

During the Peach's first 15 years in the league batting averages were actually extremely low thanks to the dead ball era. The average BA in the AL from 1905-1920 was rarely above .250, usually in the .240-.245 ballpark. That's compared to a .270-ish average for modern times. If anything, I'd say that Cobb's .366 average is even more impressive when you consider the era in which he played.

[OleMissCub]

I wonder why Ty Cobb gets so little love on these lists.

 

he played in an era with like 5 teams. That's a negative strike in my book.

 

He played in the same era as babe ruth...

 

So shouldnt that strike go against ruth too?

 

exactly, and it was 16 teams not 5 teams. A career .366 average and over 4,000 hits, 900+ steals, and five seasons of .400+ gets you on the top 5 list. He was the best pure hitter in history, plain and simple.

 

He played in an era where the league leading hitters were routinely above .380 because errors were rarely scored, players had teeny little mits, there were very few strikeout pitchers since pitches like sliders hadn't really been introduced yet, etc. A .366 average during that timeframe just isn't as impressive as if he were to do that in today's game.

 

Well, i'm gonna have to come out and say that you are wrong on that point, in my opinion.

 

Since my college thesis was on Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, and Joe Jackson and how they coped with life in industrial northern cities having come from the rural south, I had to defend these deadball players constantly. The average batting average in 1910 was about the same as it is in 2005. Guys like Cobb and Wagner and Lajoie were just freaks. Here's some examples:

 

DEADBALL ERA - AL only

 

Top 5 hitters in 1910:

Nap Lajoie: .384

Ty Cobb: .383

Tris Speaker: .340

Eddie Collins: .324

John Knight: .312

Players above .300: 7 in the AL, 9 in the NL out of 16 teams

 

Top 5 in 1915:

Ty Cobb: .369

Eddie Collins: .332

Jack Fournier: .322

Tris Speaker: .322

Stuffy McGinnis: .314

Players above .300: 7 in the AL, 5 in the NL out of 16 teams

 

LIVEBALL ERA - AL only

 

Top 5 in 1930:

Al Simmons: .381

Lou Gehrig: .379

Babe Ruth: .359

Carl Reynolds: .359

Mickey Cochrane: .358

Players above .300: over 25 in the AL, over 25 in the NL out of 16 teams

 

MODERN ERA - ML

 

Top 5 hitters in 2001:

Ichiro: .350

Larry Walker: .350

Jason Giambi: .342

Todd Helton: .336

Roberto Alomar: .336

Players above .300: 19 in the AL, over 25 in the NL out of 30 teams

 

Top 5 hitters in 2005:

Derek Lee: .335

Placido Polanco: .331

Michael Young: .331

Pujols: .330

Miggy Cabrera: .323

Players above .300: 16 in the AL, 15 in the NL

 

According to those stats, the liveball era yielded the highest average batting averages. Tim, according to your theory that Cobb's .366 and 5 .400+ seasons isn't as impressive to today's standards, then you would have to say that Ruth should be viewed less favorably than even Cobb considering that he in his league with only 16 total teams, there were more .300+ averages than in any other time in those statistics.

[soccer10k]

I wonder why Ty Cobb gets so little love on these lists.

 

he played in an era with like 5 teams. That's a negative strike in my book.

 

He played in the same era as babe ruth...

 

So shouldnt that strike go against ruth too?

 

exactly, and it was 16 teams not 5 teams. A career .366 average and over 4,000 hits, 900+ steals, and five seasons of .400+ gets you on the top 5 list. He was the best pure hitter in history, plain and simple.

 

Actually it was 3 seasons of .400+

http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/cobbty01.shtml

[Rob]

I'm not going to rank them, but I'm surprised that the name Roberto Clemente hasn't come up. (unless I missed it somewhere) Obviously his career was cut short but he may have the best mix of offensive and defensive capabilities as anyone. His arm was unreal.

 

Don't get me wrong, Clemente is one of my favorites, but he's hard pressed to even make it into the top 5 right fielders of all time.

 

Babe Ruth

Hank Aaron (longevity is a useful tool)

Frank Robinson

Mel Ott

Reggie Jackson

Tony Gwynn

 

He either falls in right before or after Tony Gwynn, but there's a fairly steep dropoff from that point.

 

And as for the issue of his untimely death, I don't know how much credit you can really give him for the rest of his career. He was going into his age 38 season, and was down to about 120 games per season. But at the same time, he was batting over .300, and maybe he would have been Julio Frano's predecessor.

 

At best, give him 5 more season of solid ball, and he slots in right behind Frank Robinson.

[Tim]

I wonder why Ty Cobb gets so little love on these lists.

 

he played in an era with like 5 teams. That's a negative strike in my book.

 

He played in the same era as babe ruth...

 

So shouldnt that strike go against ruth too?

 

exactly, and it was 16 teams not 5 teams. A career .366 average and over 4,000 hits, 900+ steals, and five seasons of .400+ gets you on the top 5 list. He was the best pure hitter in history, plain and simple.

 

He played in an era where the league leading hitters were routinely above .380 because errors were rarely scored, players had teeny little mits, there were very few strikeout pitchers since pitches like sliders hadn't really been introduced yet, etc. A .366 average during that timeframe just isn't as impressive as if he were to do that in today's game.

 

Well, i'm gonna have to come out and say that you are wrong on that point, in my opinion.

 

Since my college thesis was on Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, and Joe Jackson and how they coped with life in industrial northern cities having come from the rural south, I had to defend these deadball players constantly. The average batting average in 1910 was about the same as it is in 2005. Guys like Cobb and Wagner and Lajoie were just freaks. Here's some examples:

 

DEADBALL ERA - AL only

 

Top 5 hitters in 1910:

Nap Lajoie: .384

Ty Cobb: .383

Tris Speaker: .340

Eddie Collins: .324

John Knight: .312

Players above .300: 7 in the AL, 9 in the NL out of 16 teams

 

Top 5 in 1915:

Ty Cobb: .369

Eddie Collins: .332

Jack Fournier: .322

Tris Speaker: .322

Stuffy McGinnis: .314

Players above .300: 7 in the AL, 5 in the NL out of 16 teams

 

LIVEBALL ERA - AL only

 

Top 5 in 1930:

Al Simmons: .381

Lou Gehrig: .379

Babe Ruth: .359

Carl Reynolds: .359

Mickey Cochrane: .358

Players above .300: over 25 in the AL, over 25 in the NL out of 16 teams

 

MODERN ERA - ML

 

Top 5 hitters in 2001:

Ichiro: .350

Larry Walker: .350

Jason Giambi: .342

Todd Helton: .336

Roberto Alomar: .336

Players above .300: 19 in the AL, over 25 in the NL out of 30 teams

 

Top 5 hitters in 2005:

Derek Lee: .335

Placido Polanco: .331

Michael Young: .331

Pujols: .330

Miggy Cabrera: .323

Players above .300: 16 in the AL, 15 in the NL

 

According to those stats, the liveball era yielded the highest average batting averages. Tim, according to your theory that Cobb's .366 and 5 .400+ seasons isn't as impressive to today's standards, then you would have to say that Ruth should be viewed less favorably than even Cobb considering that he in his league with only 16 total teams, there were more .300+ averages than in any other time in those statistics.

Ole Miss, we've had this conversation before. (I enjoyed it then, too)

 

I believe the talent was much more unevenly distributed back then. Simply looking at league averages doesn't give an accurate picture of the talent in the leagues. The best pitchers from that era look phenomenal because they pitched against mostly mediocre players. The top hitters from that era look great because they stood so head and shoulders above the "average" player. I think the talent base in the game today is much, much deeper than it was back in the earlier eras of the game and that it is so much harder for a player to stand out to the same degree. Which is what I believe makes Bonds so remarkable.

 

BTW - how many .400 seasons were there back then and how many have there been recently? Feel free to exclude Cobb if you like. And I'll take a percent comparison, please.

 

Just out of curiosity, you know. ;)

[Tim]

Sorry, I didn't address your point on Ruth...

 

Yes, it is a knock against him. But Ruth stood SO far above the crowd in so many areas other than hitting singles that it pushes him to the top, IMO. But I consider Williams a better hitter than Ruth because of the improved talent in the game by the late 30's & 40's.

 

I discriminate against Cobb for much the same reason that I discriminate against Ichiro -- singles are nice, but I prefer a more rounded offensive game that includes additional on base skills & power.

[Rob]

Sorry, I didn't address your point on Ruth...

 

Yes, it is a knock against him. But Ruth stood SO far above the crowd in so many areas other than hitting singles that it pushes him to the top, IMO. But I consider Williams a better hitter than Ruth because of the improved talent in the game by the late 30's & 40's.

 

I discriminate against Cobb for much the same reason that I discriminate against Ichiro -- singles are nice, but I prefer a more rounded offensive game that includes additional on base skills & power.

 

I don't know how much stock you want to put into this, but on Cobbs DT Card at BP, his translated numbers come up with a lot of power.

 

565 career homers, and a .346/.415/.590 line.

[Tim]

Sorry, I didn't address your point on Ruth...

 

Yes, it is a knock against him. But Ruth stood SO far above the crowd in so many areas other than hitting singles that it pushes him to the top, IMO. But I consider Williams a better hitter than Ruth because of the improved talent in the game by the late 30's & 40's.

 

I discriminate against Cobb for much the same reason that I discriminate against Ichiro -- singles are nice, but I prefer a more rounded offensive game that includes additional on base skills & power.

 

I don't know how much stock you want to put into this, but on Cobbs DT Card at BP, his translated numbers come up with a lot of power.

 

565 career homers, and a .346/.415/.590 line.

Are they suggesting it was harder to hit home runs with 460' power alleys or something? :D

[Bixby]

Dusty gave me his top 5 offensive players list...

 

1. Jose Macias

2. Neifi Perez

3. Lenny Harris

4. Tom Goodwin

5. Ramon Martinez

[Rob]

Sorry, I didn't address your point on Ruth...

 

Yes, it is a knock against him. But Ruth stood SO far above the crowd in so many areas other than hitting singles that it pushes him to the top, IMO. But I consider Williams a better hitter than Ruth because of the improved talent in the game by the late 30's & 40's.

 

I discriminate against Cobb for much the same reason that I discriminate against Ichiro -- singles are nice, but I prefer a more rounded offensive game that includes additional on base skills & power.

 

I don't know how much stock you want to put into this, but on Cobbs DT Card at BP, his translated numbers come up with a lot of power.

 

565 career homers, and a .346/.415/.590 line.

Are they suggesting it was harder to hit home runs with 460' power alleys or something? :D

 

Not really, just to the tune of costing him 438 homers for his career. :P

[erik316wttn]

Sorry, I didn't address your point on Ruth...

 

Yes, it is a knock against him. But Ruth stood SO far above the crowd in so many areas other than hitting singles that it pushes him to the top, IMO. But I consider Williams a better hitter than Ruth because of the improved talent in the game by the late 30's & 40's.

 

I discriminate against Cobb for much the same reason that I discriminate against Ichiro -- singles are nice, but I prefer a more rounded offensive game that includes additional on base skills & power.

 

Cobb played in a far different era, though.

 

Cobb debuted in 1905 IIRC. For the first 15 years of his career, they essentially played with a rock. He won the triple crown one year with something like 9 homers. Nine. Ballparks were huge and the ball was rock hard. As it was in 1920 when Ruth hit 54 homers, making his feat nearly God-like.

 

Ruth revolutionized the game with the home run, and by the time baseball figured out that home runs put fans in the seats, they made the ball much more lively, which made the home run more common and power became almost a necessity.

 

You didn't need power to win back in Cobb's day. He got on base and did his job. He was a pitchers nightmare and the most feared player in the game. Even today, if you could somehow take a time machine, take Cobb in his prime and put him smack dab in today's game, he'd still hit .380. Cobb was one of the most baseball-smart players there ever were, and added to his natural athletic ability, made him the best player of all time, IMO. He barely edges out Ruth, though.

 

Cobb

Ruth

Ted Williams

Hank Aaron

Stan Musial

 

I guess if you wanted to argue about it, you could put Gehrig in there somewhere. Maybe at #5. He was definately one of the most underrated hitters of all time, and looking at his career numbers, that's saying something.

[soccer10k]

I always wonder when this topic comes up why people rank Babe Ruth ahead of Ted Williams. People always forget that Williams missed 3 years in his prime (1943-1945) because of World War II as well as most of 2 years (1952 and 1953). If you adjust his HR's by adding 37 per year during the first period and 29 and 17 during the second period (for an average of 30 per year), Williams would end up with 678 career HR's which puts him at 4th all time. Do the same thing with RBI's (120 and 90) gives him 2342 which would be 1st all time. Runs (130 and 90) gives him 2349 which would be 1st all time. I don't think these numbers are unreasonable given he numbers before and after those missing years. My list goes as follows.

 

1. Ted Williams

2. Babe Ruth

3. Lou Gehrig

4. Ty Cobb

5a. Willie Mays

5b. Hank Aaron

 

I refuse to put Barry Bonds on my list because of steroids because he wouldn't have hit 700 HR's without them. I think Bonds would have been a very good hitter without steroids but he wouldn't be in the conversation without them.

[Tim]

BTW - I just wanted to throw in a nod to Satchel and Josh Gibson. I only wish we knew how good they really were.

[treebird]

I wonder if anyone agrees with me on this, but I think if you did that time machine thing and brought Ty Cobb to the game today, he wouldn't do much at all. The players are so much bigger and stronger, I really believe that there isn't one person who played before, say, 1940, who'd be anything more than maybe a poor back-up if transported to the game today. Allow them to have a proper upbringing and weight training and such, and that's one thing, but there's no doubt in my mind that the true greatest players of all time are in the league today.

 

Also, Stephen Jay Gould used to write all about how the talent level used to be much more widely distributed and that's why it used to be so much "easier" to hit .400 than it is today. If you haven't read it, you should. It's pretty definitive as far as I'm concerned.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I wonder if anyone agrees with me on this, but I think if you did that time machine thing and brought Ty Cobb to the game today, he wouldn't do much at all. The players are so much bigger and stronger, I really believe that there isn't one person who played before, say, 1940, who'd be anything more than maybe a poor back-up if transported to the game today. Allow them to have a proper upbringing and weight training and such, and that's one thing, but there's no doubt in my mind that the true greatest players of all time are in the league today.

 

I don't think there's any doubt about that, at least in my mind.

[soccer10k]

I wonder if anyone agrees with me on this, but I think if you did that time machine thing and brought Ty Cobb to the game today, he wouldn't do much at all. The players are so much bigger and stronger, I really believe that there isn't one person who played before, say, 1940, who'd be anything more than maybe a poor back-up if transported to the game today. Allow them to have a proper upbringing and weight training and such, and that's one thing, but there's no doubt in my mind that the true greatest players of all time are in the league today.

 

I agree as well especially regarding the weight training point.

[erik316wttn]

I wonder if anyone agrees with me on this, but I think if you did that time machine thing and brought Ty Cobb to the game today, he wouldn't do much at all. The players are so much bigger and stronger, I really believe that there isn't one person who played before, say, 1940, who'd be anything more than maybe a poor back-up if transported to the game today. Allow them to have a proper upbringing and weight training and such, and that's one thing, but there's no doubt in my mind that the true greatest players of all time are in the league today.

 

Also, Stephen Jay Gould used to write all about how the talent level used to be much more widely distributed and that's why it used to be so much "easier" to hit .400 than it is today. If you haven't read it, you should. It's pretty definitive as far as I'm concerned.

 

You're saying Babe Ruth would be a 5th outfielder in today's game?

 

I think it was harder to put up good numbers back then. Yes, the weight-training and such is greater than it was back then. But there are also 30 teams. Imagine if you conducted this experement: Contract 14 teams. It doesn't matter which 14. Then have the remaining 16 teams draft from the entire MLB pool. Then put 8 teams in the AL and 8 in the NL and see what it does to statistics. Things would be a lot more evened out because the talent level would be so great. You wouldn't see too many 40 home run seasons, IMO, because a lot of those mediocre pitchers would be gone.

 

What I'm saying is that the talent level is really watered down. It was harder to succeed in Babe Ruth's day (even Williams, DiMaggio, etc) because there were fewer teams, and therefore there was far more talent.

 

Add to that that players were more well-rounded back then. You had sluggers that routinely stole 20 bases. Sluggers would lay down bunts, and could take walks. Babe Ruth never, not once, struck out more than 100 times in a season. That's nearly unheard of today for power hitters.

 

I'm not saying that all of the "greatest of all time" played 50 years ago. Maddux certainly belongs among the elite, as do many other players of today. But, to say that Ruth, Cobb, etc wouldn't succeed in today's game is wrong, IMO.