660 HRS, Over 10 gold gloves, and he did this at probably the hardest park to play in. I'm a Dodger fan but I wonder why whenever people say best of all time Babe Ruth always pops into your head. I think its by far and away Willie Mays and could have been Ken Griffey Jr. What do you think?
2007-08-23 12:12:17 · 21 answers · asked by James 2 in Sports ➔ Baseball
He's #1 in my mind. He could hit for power and average (660 HR and a career .302 hitter is about unheard of), he had blinding speed on the bases and in CF, he was great with the leather (see the 10 gold gloves). What else is needs to be said. Greatest player, ever, period.
2007-08-23 12:17:37 · answer #1 · answered by DoReidos 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Dear James,
i think in terms of the best all-around (or what you would call a 5 tool) player- you would have to put Wilie Mays in the mix along with Griffey Jr. (man imagine if he had been healthy his entire career), and Bonds (steroids aside).
But if you were going to have an all-time draft- i don't think Willie would be the #1 pick. Babe Ruth was amazing. Even though he's third on the all-time HR list he had far fewer at bats than Aaron and Bonds and still holds the record for most 40 hr seasons. And Ruth wasn't what you'd call in shape.
i'd probably agree with you that Willie Mays is the best all around player- with Griffey as a (what if?) but i would not say he's the greatest player of all-time.
Kindly,
Nickster
2007-08-23 22:39:46 · answer #2 · answered by Nickster 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Babe Ruth is the answer, not because Willie was any less of a ballplayer or athlete, but because Ruth was revolutionary. First off, Ruth was peerless when he first broke into the leagues, as a pitcher! He posted one of the best career winning percentages as well as leading the Red Sox to the World Series, being named World Series MVP. But, his real importance is in changing the way the game is played. There's a difference in the game between pre-Ruth and post-Ruth that's a chasm compared to Mays's days.
2007-08-23 12:18:30 · answer #3 · answered by raffe13 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
True, Babe Ruth could not run as well as Mays. But he was a pretty good pitcher! And that's a talent that Mays did not have, as far as I know. Therefore, I think Ruth's skill set all around was the best all-time.
2016-05-21 02:31:23 · answer #4 · answered by elly 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
James...I agree with you to a degree, in that I don't think there was ever a better all round (offense/defense) position player in history...and I think if he hadn't played in those two difficult stadiums (Candletick, always cold with the wind blowing in, and the Polo Grounds with that damn near 500 ft center field), that he would have had around 800 career homers...but I have to go with the Babe because not only was he an offensive beast, he was also one of the game's very best pitchers before he moved to the outfield...His record was (I am pretty sure) 99 - 26, the highest winning percentage of any pitcher in history with over 100 decisions...I respect your choice for the very good reasons you have given, and I hope you can respect my choice for my reasons
...You know your baseball
2007-08-23 12:25:24 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Ummm..actually, most people who know their history rank Mays as among the greatest OVERALL players. That means being able to do it all.
But most of those rankers also still put Ruth at #1. He couldn't do everything as well as Mays, but his advantage at the plate (not to mention a great short career as a pitcher) put too much distance between him and everyone else.
2007-08-23 14:00:01 · answer #6 · answered by Bucky 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Many people, including me, do consider him the best overall player of all time. Of course, opinions are like a**holes, everybodies got one. Many might consider Ruth, Williams, DiMaggio, Mantle or even Bonds as the best ever. Just a matter of your perspective.
2007-08-23 21:18:10 · answer #7 · answered by spalffy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Willie Mays is the best player I have ever seen, period. He could run, throw, field, hit and hit with power. A five-tool player, don't insult yourself and the rest of the baseball world by thinking any different.
2007-08-23 15:37:18 · answer #8 · answered by gfcbarracker 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ruth could pitch in addition to his many other dominant skills (and yes, he was a good fielder in his youth -- pity most of the film of him shows only his older, portly self). It doesn't get more "all around" than that.
Mays just has to suffer along rated somewhere around #6 best all-time. Awwwww....
2007-08-23 15:45:22 · answer #9 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because,
He is 119th for all time batting average,
He is 10th in R.B.I.'s all time,
4th in homers all time,
101 in SB's.
Dont get me wrong Mays was a helluva ball player, probably one of the Top 10 ballplayers ever, but he is fat from the best.
P.S. Ruth has more world series wins, homers, R.B.I.'s, and hit for higher average then Mays.
2007-08-23 12:44:40 · answer #10 · answered by #1 New York Yankees Fan 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋