2007-08-05 05:00:05 · 21 answers · asked by The Man With Superior Knowledge 4 in Sports ➔ Baseball
The Babe
2007-08-05 05:00:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Gotta be Babe Ruth. Think about how deep outfields were when he was playing. When they coined the phase "hit the long ball" back then they were literally hitting the ball a lot farther to get it over the fence then in most parks today. They've shortened the outfield today just so fans can see homeruns. Also, The Babe hit his 754 homeruns in a lot fewer games than Hank Aaron's 755.
I do think that Hank Aaron was an outstanding baseball player. He was probably a whole lot easier for his manager to deal with also. However, if I have to pick one I choose Ruth.
I don't think Bonds needs commenting on.
2007-08-05 12:36:32 · answer #2 · answered by whosaysdiscoisdead 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Babe is the best. He changed the game forever, people hardly even thought about home runs before he came along. He also had a better batting average than Aaron and Bonds. He was also one of the top pitchers in the league when he was with the red sox early in his career.
He is still the greatest home run hitter of all time, Aaron and Bonds just lasted longer.
2007-08-05 12:42:42 · answer #3 · answered by aspiring_paranormal_journalist 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ruth's career was 21 years...not much shorter than Bonds or Aaron's. Aaron was a more complete player, he could hit for power and average and was good on the basepaths. The pre-roid Bonds could be a five-tool player and was the most complete at the time. However, overall I'd have to give the nod to Aaron, he was consistent throughout his career.
2007-08-05 12:50:30 · answer #4 · answered by bruiserkc2 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Babe Ruth. Bonds cheats, and Aaron had a longer career than Ruth. So, I will have to go with The Babe.
2007-08-05 12:06:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Ruth. Anyone who can never work out and eat 6 hot dogs with 6 beers before a game and play like he did has to be the best.
2007-08-08 20:50:57 · answer #6 · answered by Baseball C 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ruth could pitch.
Remember that next time someone spouts off about how someone (other than Ruth) was the "greatest all-around player" ever -- this usually gets assigned to Mays. And it's hogwash. Not that Mays wasn't great -- he was, and that plaque in Cooperstown deserves to be there -- but it really means "best all-around player at the things I think of as defining 'all-around'".
Ruth could hit (man, could he hit).
Ruth could field (pretty good when he was younger; most film footage shows his older, thicker physique).
Ruth could throw well enough.
Younger Ruth could run -- had 123 stolen bases.
And Ruth could PITCH.
No one in major league history matches that complete package.
2007-08-05 12:57:19 · answer #7 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
bonds by far hasn't been proven giulty for steriods and he is about to break the greatest record in baseball plus babe ruth was an alcoholic and hank aaron hes gd but barry bonds is more now.
2007-08-05 13:03:03 · answer #8 · answered by mat 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Definately not Barry Bonds.
Probably Babe Ruth.
2007-08-05 12:06:42 · answer #9 · answered by roptor 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Ruth was the greatest. Willie Mays would be my second pick.
2007-08-05 12:05:47 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
How can you compare? Different fields, different eras, with different hittin techniques, and different pitching styles. If I were to pick I would have to go with the Babe. Played for a better team, with more championships, and still stood out amongst all the greats. It's not how many homeruns you hit, but how those homeruns help your team
2007-08-05 12:20:12 · answer #11 · answered by Joe S 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋