The best ever (umpire, game, league, players)

[Lancet71]

Originally Posted by Fred314X

In the endless Hank Aaron vs. Babe Ruth debate, the facts are these:

Aaron, 23 seasons/Ruth 22 (Ruth, of course, didn't become a fulltime position player until his fifth season, so the numbers he put up actually encompass 17 seasons).

Aaron, 755 HRs in 12,364 at-bats (6.1 HR %)/Ruth, 714 HRs in 8,399 at-bats (8.5 HR%).

Aaron, .555 slugging average/Ruth .690

And when you get to the "fear factor," Aaron was walked 1,402 times in 3,298 games. But opposing pitchers put Ruth on via base on balls 2,056 times in 2,503 games (and in 1918, the last season when Ruth pitched full-time, he was walked 57 times in just 95 games!)

The only hitting stat where Aaron bested Ruth was in doubles (624, to Ruth's 506).

I always respected Hank Aaron. But when you get right down to it, he wasn't half the hitter Babe Ruth was.

Fred,
What is your opinion on baseball as a whole at both players times? I think the league was much weaker when Ruth played.There were standout players but as a whole alot of weak links.When Aaron was playing I think the competition was better.

[Fred314X]

I always thought it was exactly the opposite; expansion had watered down the talent pool by Aaron's time. (Yes, there was a brief reversal of this trend when the color line being broken added many new and legitimately talented players to baseball. But that wasn't a factor any more by the 60s). Ruth played in a ten-team American League, where there was no such thing as playoffs leading to the World Series. You came in first place, you went to the Series. And I think there have been weak links in every generation...not necessarily more in the 1920s and 30s than in the 1960s and 70s.

[Lancet71]

Originally Posted by Fred314X

I always thought it was exactly the opposite; expansion had watered down the talent pool by Aaron's time. (Yes, there was a brief reversal of this trend when the color line being broken added many new and legitimately talented players to baseball. But that wasn't a factor any more by the 60s). Ruth played in a ten-team American League, where there was no such thing as playoffs leading to the World Series. You came in first place, you went to the Series. And I think there have been weak links in every generation...not necessarily more in the 1920s and 30s than in the 1960s and 70s.

I do think more divisions like today do slightly water it down and make for specific weak divisions.I personally wish they threw the teams names in the hat every 2-3 years and picked out one by one who would be in each divison.So you might get a Cubs,Yanks,Dodgers,A's,White Sox division for example.It would create new rivalries,would give other markets access to teams they don't normally see,and keeps players on their toes because they might be seeing hitters or pitchers they don't normally compete against.The reason nowadays with the extra divisions and a wild card team is because playoffs=money.The money generated by each team making it to the postseason is great for their market.

[Fred314X]

Originally Posted by Lancet71

I do think more divisions like today do slightly water it down and make for specific weak divisions.I personally wish they threw the teams names in the hat every 2-3 years and picked out one by one who would be in each divison.So you might get a Cubs,Yanks,Dodgers,A's,White Sox division for example.It would create new rivalries,would give other markets access to teams they don't normally see,and keeps players on their toes because they might be seeing hitters or pitchers they don't normally compete against.The reason nowadays with the extra divisions and a wild card team is because playoffs=money.The money generated by each team making it to the postseason is great for their market.

The only reason I'm against switching the divisions around is because something like that was tried when the NHL expanded. Each of the original teams was "given" a division. Hasn't exactly worked like a charm down through the years. Personally, I think baseball should either stick with what it has, or drop the weakest two or three teams in each league altogether...which I recognize as the sort of comment that starts people screaming and yelling. But I say it anyway.

[Lancet71]

Originally Posted by Fred314X

The only reason I'm against switching the divisions around is because something like that was tried when the NHL expanded. Each of the original teams was "given" a division. Hasn't exactly worked like a charm down through the years. Personally, I think baseball should either stick with what it has, or drop the weakest two or three teams in each league altogether...which I recognize as the sort of comment that starts people screaming and yelling. But I say it anyway.

Think about this as crazy as it sounds: The Yanks and Red Sox with KC and Pitt,and SF in one division.If you're KC or Pitt your ticket sales are going to go up significantly when the Yanks and Sox come to visit and for fans of a team like SF or Pitt you never get to see those teams unless you meet them in interleague play.It's an easy solution to one team dominating a division.Think about the AL West.Can anyone give the Angels a run for their money?I don't see Seattle or the A's unless every player on both teams has career years.They're also not big free agent players so unless the C.B.agreement is messed with and new cap rules put into effect ;they better start developing one hell of a minor league system.

[Halcyon Daze]

Mays didn't walk enough. I wouldn't pick him over Mickey Mantle for that reason. Not saying he wasn't great, but he was no Babe Ruth. No man ever was, unless it was a Negro league player who was never given a MLB shot, and what statistics there are, don't give us an accurate picture. But from that group Martin Dihigo, Willie Wells, Oscar Charleston, John Beckwith, Satchel Paige, Buck Leonard and Chino Smith certainly bear mention. My second player chosen would be Honus Wagner. He could play every postion save catcher and pitcher and at a very high caliber. He was a powerful hitter for the deadball era.

Pitcher is easy. Sandy Koufax. I had to have one guy to start one game, I like his chances against any pitcher ever.

[Fred314X]

Originally Posted by Halcyon Daze

Mays didn't walk enough. I wouldn't pick him over Mickey Mantle for that reason. Not saying he wasn't great, but he was no Babe Ruth. No man ever was, unless it was a Negro league player who was never given a MLB shot, and what statistics there are, don't give us an accurate picture. But from that group Martin Dihigo, Willie Wells, Oscar Charleston, John Beckwith, Satchel Paige, Buck Leonard and Chino Smith certainly bear mention.

You left out Josh Gibson--who may have been one of the greatest baseball players ever to take the field. (Paige was a curiosity--he was definitely in his prime in the 1930s and early 40s, but he lasted long enough not only to make the major leagues--1948-53--but made a brief "comeback" with Kansas City-AL in 1965, pitching three innings in a game. His official age at the time was 59, although he may actually have been older!)

[nicname]

Originally Posted by Lancet71

Unfortunately I classify Griffey Jr. with Bonds.I played ball in HS and college and knew alot of guys juicing and KGJ has shown the signs over the years.I even told my buddies that eventually the injuries would catch up to him because of it and the last few years are just that.I do give him the edge over Bonds though based on defense, otherwise I thought they were comparable players.

I completely disagree. The KGJ injuries were not your typical steroid injuries. This was a guy who was belting his homerun from a slender athletic frame. His injuries were the result of crashing into out field walls etc.

[JHG722]

Steve Carlton
Ted Williams

[Lancet71]

Originally Posted by nicname

I completely disagree. The KGJ injuries were not your typical steroid injuries. This was a guy who was belting his homerun from a slender athletic frame. His injuries were the result of crashing into out field walls etc.

I'll bet you if the other 103 names are released KGJ name is one of them.