Tim

The talent pool was so much smaller back then. There were half as many teams -- but the US population is 4-5 times as great. Back then there was a very small percentage of the population that had the liberty to play the game instead of working the farm, having a job and supporting the family, etc. There were racial barriers to limit the competition. The process of discovering and scouting players was incredibly inefficient compared to today. And that's not even including the flood of foreign players into MLB. It was by far the most stretched the talent pool has ever been. To get the same relative quality of players per team, we'd have to have over 100 baseball teams to account for the relative talent pools. Of course the great players stood out more from their peers. The peers sucked.

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

Perhaps off topic, but why so much confidence in Sheets or Wood vs. Rolen? I personally don't have a lot of confidence in either Rolen or Aramis playing 150 games this year. I want David Wright. :( Or Miggy Cabrera :( I actually like Wright better. Though I'd be happy with either one, of course. How come? I like Miggy's ability to play multiple locs and he is a better hitter and younger. Wright would probably do fine in the OF, too, so I don't count the positional advantage as much of one. Wright's first full season in the bigs compares favorably with Cabrera's. He's a more athletic guy, so I give him a higher ceiling than Cabrera. I like Wright's demeanor on the field better and think his approach to the game will serve him better over the long run. Why do you think Cabrera's such a better hitter? Their career lines are as follows: .302/.371/.524 .300/.366/.523 The only thing I'll give you as an edge for Cabera is the year younger. But they are both mere pups.

Perhaps off topic, but why so much confidence in Sheets or Wood vs. Rolen? I personally don't have a lot of confidence in either Rolen or Aramis playing 150 games this year. I want David Wright. :( Or Miggy Cabrera :( I actually like Wright better. Though I'd be happy with either one, of course.

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

Perhaps off topic, but why so much confidence in Sheets or Wood vs. Rolen? I personally don't have a lot of confidence in either Rolen or Aramis playing 150 games this year. I want David Wright. :(

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.

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. ;)

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.

Why is there so much confidence in Sheets staying healthy, but so much pessimism about Wood?

Only if you're talking about backstops

I think Ryan had the best stuff of all time, but he didn't have the ability to control it all the time, which I think of as part of pitching talent. I actually have four modern pitchers in my top 10 of all time in the following order: Clemens Unit Maddux Martinez You might be right that should say stuff. Ryan does have the best stuff of all time. He went from a 100MPH FB, 12-6 curve, great change, later added a slider and splitter. I'll nominate RJ's slider as the single most devastating pitch ever, though.

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.

Seaver's in the mix, too. I just didn't lump him in the same timeframe. As I think about it more, my top 10 may be more like top 12-13...

I think Ryan had the best stuff of all time, but he didn't have the ability to control it all the time, which I think of as part of pitching talent. I actually have four modern pitchers in my top 10 of all time in the following order: Clemens Unit Maddux Martinez

I also have a hard time when lists like these don't have anyone that played in the last 30 years (not to pick on you bbb). I think we tend to overestimate the historic figures of the game. heck, I almost put Rickey in my top 5. If you ask Rickey, he'd surely put Rickey in the top 5. Heck, Rickey can still play and help some teams. Just ask Rickey.

I have a lot of respect for him. I just like the other guys better.

ERA+ does account for league.

Does greatest players include defense, baserunning, etc? I'll assume it does. 1) Babe 2) Mays 3) Wagner 4) Bonds 5) Williams 1) Walter Johnson 2) Lefty Grove 3) Roger Clemens 4) Cy Young 5) Pete Alexander

Part of the problem of comparing pitchers across eras is the different offensive environments due to parks, expansion, etc. One way to solve this problem is to compare a pitcher to the league average and then adjust for how good of a park he plays in, etc. This is what ERA+ does. It is a measure of how good a pitcher is when compared to his peers so that you can say pitcher x was 30% better than average over his career and pitcher y was only 20% better. It is probably one of the more fair ways of comparing players from the 20's, 60's and 00's. Now take a look at this list. All the pitchers on the list are pretty tightly bunched except for one. Pedro, on a per inning basis, is very, very easily the best pitcher in baseball history. Nobody is even close. I personally believe that he hasn't been durable enough to be considered the best of all time yet. But it is very easy to make a case for him.

Yet more love for Carlos Lee. I can't even begin to understand a pick of .265/.324/.487 with horrible defense versus .306/.402/.559 with good defense and a rather remarkable 21/1 stolen base / caught stealing ratio. What am I missing? Can someone who has picked Carlos Lee please defend the choice of Lee over Bay?

Finally! Some love for the Pirates! :-) You missed Gonzalez. ;)

are you referring to his 20 games at low A, or his 50 games in AAA? his full season at AA he slugged a robust .407. (I acknowledge league may be a factor). there simply isn't enough of a track record to make a judgment about Weeks power with any certainty (nor does one mosterous homerun hit on July 18 satisfy the burden of proof). as for strikeouts, I see a trend. at AA he K'd about once every 5.25 PA, at AAA it dropped to 4.8, in the majors it's less than 4.3. The guy has over 900 minor league PA's, with an IsoP over .200. That's plenty good for a second baseman. His minor league K rate is one every 5.3 PA's. I don't know if he's the best in the NL Central right now, but he's certainly shown an ability to hit for power and not strike out a TON, that people could be optimistic about his abilities. the only reason I brought up his shortcoming is because this thread is about who is the best in the NL Central right now, so I have no idea why you are arguing with me when you agree with me. I think the timeframe is open to interpretation if you read the first post. For the opening weekend, I'd probably rather have Biggio. For the season, I'd rather have Weeks.

Weeks has had two of his minor league managers come out and say that with the bat speed he generates, he hits for more raw power than Fielder. Not only has he shown an ability to draw walks at a very nice clip, but he also has that Biggio-like ability to get hit with pitches. He's fast enough that if he keeps his strikeout rate reasonable at all, he'll maintain a good BABIP through speed and power. The only real drawback in his game at this point is defense. I don't know if he's better than Biggio right now, but I would wager he'll be the better player by the end of the season.

Yep. 1 injury plagued season following missing a month of the previous season with a leg injury. He hasn't hit anything since coming back in 04. 3-18 in the regular season after the injury. Bad playoff showing. .235 in 05, before he went down. See Shawn Green for what a shoulder injury can do to a hitter's power.