Sign in to follow this  
Kansas State 2000

*** Greatest Player Ever ***

Recommended Posts

Griffey has played in 2338 games (out of a possible 3020) and averaged 3.96 games between home runs for a total of 589. If he was not hurt so much and continued his average he'd have 761 home runs currently.

 

Bonds is 43 and Griffey is 37 years old … imagine where the record would be if Ken stayed healthy and still had six more years to add to the total.

 

Imagine not more … Griffey would have 1006 home runs at age 43.

 

Of course he would not maintain the 3.96 career pace he's on but 900+ is a solid bet for his totals.

 

:D Griffey is the best overall player in the history of the game!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Griffey has played in 2338 games (out of a possible 3020) and averaged 3.96 games between home runs for a total of 589. If he was not hurt so much and continued his average he'd have 761 home runs currently.

 

Bonds is 43 and Griffey is 37 years old … imagine where the record would be if Ken stayed healthy and still had six more years to add to the total.

 

Imagine not more … Griffey would have 1006 home runs at age 43.

 

Of course he would not maintain the 3.96 career pace he's on but 900+ is a solid bet for his totals.

 

:D Griffey is the best overall player in the history of the game!

 

People forget that he was named to the All-CENTURY team when he was 29. And he deserved it. The outfielders on that team were:

 

Babe Ruth

Hank Aaron

Ted Williams

Willie Mays

Joe DiMaggio

Mickey Mantle

Ty Cobb

Ken Griffey, Jr.

Pete Rose

Stan Musial

 

Some list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Griffey has played in 2338 games (out of a possible 3020) and averaged 3.96 games between home runs for a total of 589. If he was not hurt so much and continued his average he'd have 761 home runs currently.

 

Bonds is 43 and Griffey is 37 years old … imagine where the record would be if Ken stayed healthy and still had six more years to add to the total.

 

Imagine not more … Griffey would have 1006 home runs at age 43.

 

Of course he would not maintain the 3.96 career pace he's on but 900+ is a solid bet for his totals.

 

:D Griffey is the best overall player in the history of the game!

Or you can just figure out how many home runs Babe Ruth would have hit if he didn't start his first 5 and a half years of his career building a solid and possible HOF career as a pitcher and put it out of sight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or you can just figure out how many home runs Babe Ruth would have hit if he didn't start his first 5 and a half years of his career building a solid and possible HOF career as a pitcher and put it out of sight.

 

There should be absolutely no doubt that Ruth was the greatest baseball player of all time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There should be absolutely no doubt that Ruth was the greatest baseball player of all time.

 

Amen!!!!!

 

Hall of Fame pitcher+Hall of Fame batter=GREATEST PLAYER EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhhh... ARod is averaging 1hr for every 3.716 games ... he's just turned 32 years old two weeks ago ... at that same pace (with the 153 games / year average he's held for the last 11 seasons ,not including this one), he'll end up with 952 homers by the time he's 43.

 

Also, the first five years Ruth was a pitcher were firmly in the "dead ball era" ... so, even if Ruth would have been a full-time fielder (and not a pitcher), it's doubtful he would have even sniffed 800 career home runs.

 

Also, the single most unreal stat line for a season for a hitter ever was Ruth's 1921 season ... 152 games, 540 ABs, 177 runs scored, 204 hits, 46 doubles, 16 triples, 59 HRs, 171 RBIs, 145 walks, 81 SOs, 17 SBs, .378 batting average and .846 slugging percentage.

 

The next closest season I found was Jimmy Foxx's 1932 season (58 / 169 / .364) and Hack Wilson's 1930 season (56 / 191 / .356) ... and these two guys didn't have the overall power or average numbers of Ruth's 1921 season. Everyone else who had a great season simply didn't compare to Ruth's 1921 season in terms of average, overall power (doubles, triples and HRs, not just HRs), RBIs ... plus stuff like walks to strikeouts, stolen bases, runs scored, etc.

 

PS - For his career, Ruth's pitching stats were 94-46 with a .228 ERA. He really only pitched in three seasons wtih two other "partial seasons" (probably getting you four total seasons worth of work) ... projected out over a 20 year career, that would be around 470 wins. His best pitching season was 1916, when he was 23-12 with a 1.75 ERA (the next year, he slipped a notch and was 24-13 with a 2.01 ERA).

Edited by muck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uhhh... ARod is averaging 1hr for every 3.716 games ... he's just turned 32 years old two weeks ago ... at that same pace (with the 153 games / year average he's held for the last 11 seasons ,not including this one), he'll end up with 952 homers by the time he's 43.

 

Don't forget, Jimmie Foxx was the youngest to reach 500 and he cratered soon thereafter. Griffey is another shining example of what can happen to a player "on pace" to obliterate a record. I also wouldn't assume ARod will keep up the same average for HRs that he did the first 11 years of his career. He'll face the same decline in bat speed, abilities, etc. that all of the greats have. Of course, he could end up like Bonds and have an increase, which is unlikely without "help".

 

Also, the first five years Ruth was a pitcher were firmly in the "dead ball era" ... so, even if Ruth would have been a full-time fielder (and not a pitcher), it's doubtful he would have even sniffed 800 career home runs.

 

Methinks over the course of 5 seasons as a full time fielder, the great Ruth would have been able to hit 20 hrs per season, even in the deadball era, to sniff 800 HRs. Remember, Ruth averaged a HR every 11.7 at bats for his career...ARod comes in firmly at a HR every 14.3. When Ruth pitched, he averaged a HR every 18 at bats...and think, that was during the deadball era, and batting every fourth day or so. Not a good combination for getting in to a rhythm or letting your batting prowess really take hold.

 

Also, the single most unreal stat line for a season for a hitter ever was Ruth's 1921 season ... 152 games, 540 ABs, 177 runs scored, 204 hits, 46 doubles, 16 triples, 59 HRs, 171 RBIs, 145 walks, 81 SOs, 17 SBs, .378 batting average and .846 slugging percentage.

 

The next closest season I found was Jimmy Foxx's 1932 season (58 / 169 / .364) and Hack Wilson's 1930 season (56 / 191 / .356) ... and these two guys didn't have the overall power or average numbers of Ruth's 1921 season. Everyone else who had a great season simply didn't compare to Ruth's 1921 season in terms of average, overall power (doubles, triples and HRs, not just HRs), RBIs ... plus stuff like walks to strikeouts, stolen bases, runs scored, etc.

 

PS - For his career, Ruth's pitching stats were 94-46 with a .228 ERA. He really only pitched in three seasons wtih two other "partial seasons" (probably getting you four total seasons worth of work) ... projected out over a 20 year career, that would be around 470 wins. His best pitching season was 1916, when he was 23-12 with a 1.75 ERA (the next year, he slipped a notch and was 24-13 with a 2.01 ERA).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this. Babe Ruth is the greatest DEAD baseball player ever? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about this. Babe Ruth is the greatest DEAD baseball player ever? :D

:D

 

Without a doubt!

 

You know, I always thought it was lame that Joe Dimaggio wouldn't attend an event unless he was introduced as the greatest living baseball player and Ted Williams was still living. Teddy Ballgame definitely outshined Dimaggio as a baseball player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There should be absolutely no doubt that Ruth was the greatest baseball player of all time.

 

Beyond any possible question. And, further, always will be because no-one is ever going to be able to pitch and bat like that again.

Edited by Ursa Majoris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beyond any possible question. And, further, always will be because no-one is ever going to be able to pitch and bat like that again.

 

Absolutely. Ruth was an absolute freak of nature and we may never see a player like him again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it that Bonds is not in the argument? Come on, career HR record....(with whatever you guys think about it, he STILL has it). Only player with 500HR and 500SB, for that matter only player with 400HR and 400SB....all that before ANY questions about him, seven MVPs. Not to mention his 8 gold gloves (I believe more than any other player), 7 MVPs (again I believe more than any other player), and he is in the top ten in almost all other statistical categories for batters. He gets less ABs than anyone because of the number of balls he sees. You guys and many other may think of everything he has done as unworthy because you "think" he took steroids, but look at the numbers and tell me who is better than he is. I will take him over anyone you have mentioned here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How is it that Bonds is not in the argument? Come on, career HR record....(with whatever you guys think about it, he STILL has it). Only player with 500HR and 500SB, for that matter only player with 400HR and 400SB....all that before ANY questions about him, seven MVPs. Not to mention his 8 gold gloves (I believe more than any other player), 7 MVPs (again I believe more than any other player), and he is in the top ten in almost all other statistical categories for batters. He gets less ABs than anyone because of the number of balls he sees. You guys and many other may think of everything he has done as unworthy because you "think" he took steroids, but look at the numbers and tell me who is better than he is. I will take him over anyone you have mentioned here.

 

You'll take Bonds over Ruth (an All Star-caliber pitcher who turned into arguably the greatest HR hitter ever)? I'd say that Ruth (who out-homered entire TEAMS back in the '20s) was the more dominant player - and the only player I know of to dominate both as a hitter AND a pitcher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You'll take Bonds over Ruth (an All Star-caliber pitcher who turned into arguably the greatest HR hitter ever)? I'd say that Ruth (who out-homered entire TEAMS back in the '20s) was the more dominant player - and the only player I know of to dominate both as a hitter AND a pitcher.

 

Yeah, I would take him over Ruth....thats my opinion. I will take what Barry does and has done for his career and take that over anyone. Even though Ruth was a great pitcher, he didnt contribute at the plate when he did, so it doesnt really matter what he did at two different postions, he only played one at a time. So, yeah I will take Bonds and leave Ruth out, dont get me wrong I am not saying he was a slouch, just saying I prefer Bonds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, I would take him over Ruth....thats my opinion. I will take what Barry does and has done for his career and take that over anyone. Even though Ruth was a great pitcher, he didnt contribute at the plate when he did, so it doesnt really matter what he did at two different postions, he only played one at a time. So, yeah I will take Bonds and leave Ruth out, dont get me wrong I am not saying he was a slouch, just saying I prefer Bonds.

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, the first five years Ruth was a pitcher were firmly in the "dead ball era" ... so, even if Ruth would have been a full-time fielder (and not a pitcher), it's doubtful he would have even sniffed 800 career home runs.

 

So 714 with 5 less active HR seasons isn't sniffing? :rofl :D:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, I would take him over Ruth....thats my opinion. I will take what Barry does and has done for his career and take that over anyone. Even though Ruth was a great pitcher, he didnt contribute at the plate when he did, so it doesnt really matter what he did at two different postions, he only played one at a time. So, yeah I will take Bonds and leave Ruth out, dont get me wrong I am not saying he was a slouch, just saying I prefer Bonds.

I don't think I've ever heard this POV before. How interesting to find something so novel. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, I would take him over Ruth....thats my opinion. I will take what Barry does and has done for his career and take that over anyone. Even though Ruth was a great pitcher, he didnt contribute at the plate when he did, so it doesnt really matter what he did at two different postions, he only played one at a time. So, yeah I will take Bonds and leave Ruth out, dont get me wrong I am not saying he was a slouch, just saying I prefer Bonds.

 

Your ignorance is showing Navy. Ruth had a home run every 18 at bats while a pitcher...in the deadball era. Sounds like some solid production at the plate to me considering Bonds hits a home run every 13 at bats...which has gone up considerably, at the tailend of his career. For Ruth's career, he hit a home run every 11.75 at bats...just for reference.

 

So 714 with 5 less active HR seasons isn't sniffing? :rofl :D:D

Yeah, kind of why I mentioned it earlier...people like to forget Ruth started as a pitcher. It makes it a little easier to argue...but not much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ruth ..one and only ..icon who helped literally make BASEBALL

 

did at a time when pitching was great and deeper , no supplements , no trianing rooms , no fancy custom made bats , etc ..and he could pitch a bit as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, the first five years Ruth was a pitcher were firmly in the "dead ball era" ... so, even if Ruth would have been a full-time fielder (and not a pitcher), it's doubtful he would have even sniffed 800 career home runs.

 

So 714 with 5 less active HR seasons isn't sniffing? :rofl :D :D

 

IMO, Ruth is the greatest all-round baseball player to have ever lived.

 

I probalby overstated when I said he wouldn't have sniffed 800 HRs if he never would have pitched. He was 86 HRs short of 800 ... divide by five seasons spent pitching (where, he did hit in the games he pitched, fwiw) ... he would have needed an additional 17 HRs in each of those five seasons to end up with 799 ... and at getting 1 HR every 18 at bats in the deadball era, he would have needed an additional 306 at bats ... at an average of about 4 at bats / game, that would have required him to play in an additional 77 games / year. So, sure, he probably would have sniffed 800 career HRs had he only been a position player during his first five years in the league.

 

However, extrapolating can be a dangerous game ... extrapolate out where Ted Williams would have ended up had he not fought in both WWII and Korea. His numbers would have been absolutely stunning ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, extrapolating can be a dangerous game ... extrapolate out where Ted Williams would have ended up had he not fought in both WWII and Korea. His numbers would have been absolutely stunning ...

No kidding. He woulda been top three in most offensive categories...or close to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.