Babe Ruth. Thank you for playing.

End of thread.

Barry Bonds.

Ruth isn't going to pitch in the game because there will be plenty of pitchers available who were much better. Based on hitting, fielding and baserunning I think Bonds rates the edge over Ruth; Mantle isn't far behind if we are considering prime years.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?041122fa_fact1
Roger Agnell's season summary is up at the New Yorker (COMN)

I'll take the Babe. He sounds like more fun in the post game festivities.

The problem with Bonds will always be the controversy surrounding whether or not he used steroids. With people close to him have been implicated in the problem, it is hard to believe that he has not used them. Especially if you look back at his rookie cards and see that he has literally doubled in size. Maybe he's just naturally blessed but the odds do not seem to be on his side.

If he is clean though, he is definitely one of the top five players of all time.

Over at Dodger Thoughts, Jon Weisman has written an excellent piece about the state of baseball blogging.

His point of departure was the decision by Brian Gunn to break the wand and retire from blogging. Gunn ran the excellent Saint Louis Cardinals blog Redbird Nation and contributed to The Hardball Times. Hopefully, he'll pop up at THT from time to time.

I want to win the series, so unless Bonds fails a drug test and is booted out, he's the guy I want.

Slight edge to the Babe. The fact that he can pitch in a pinch is gravy. The fact that he played pre-integration isn't.

I'm going with Ruth because Bonds derives a bit more of his OPS value from scaredy-cat walks in situations where it makes sense for the opposition to walk him -- as opposed to, say, hard-earned walks when his team really needed a baserunner. Ruth drew scaredy-cat walks too, but his hitting was more dominant relative to era (although Barry is suprisingly dominant relative to today's era).

Robert's concern is a legitimate one, but if I had to choose one Babe and one Barry, I'd take the Babe in his mid 20s and Barry in his late 30s. By the time Barry truly refined his hitting, his speed and defence were no longer superior. And Babe's athleticism wasn't that bad as a young man.

That said, I'd love to see how 2001-04 Barry would hit with some all-time-great protection in the order.

Barry Bonds. Ruth was a slightly better hitter over his career relative to league than Bonds, as measured by GPA+. However:

a. in my view, the league Bonds plays in is tougher, and
b. Bonds over his career was much better in the field and on the basepaths than Ruth.

If we're speaking of prime, I'm with Robert. Bonds, Ruth and Mantle in that order, and they're close.

http://www.torontobaseballguys.com
Just to be contrary, how about the likes of Honus Wagner? He's a great defensive shortstop, and baserunner, and while not Bonds or Ruth with the stick, he's still an offensive force. Plus there's the positional scarcity. Wagner towers above every other shortstop to play the game - you can make an argument for pre-3B ARod.

To put it another way, for the drafting portion of the question - you grab Wagner with your first pick and you have the edge at short. Even after your opponent picks, one of Ruth or Bonds will still be available.

Here's a dare ... somebody make a case for The Third Guy. Is it really so clearly obvious that it's either Bonds or Ruth?

Okay, not going to nominate Toby Harrah or Ralph Garr here, but surely the defensive acumen of a middle infielder might get someon in the RF/LF area code? Maybe Hans Wagner?

Hmm, I may get raked for this but if the goal was to win the series I might take a catcher say 1970 Johnny Bench. Why? Well he hit 45 homers, played gold glove defence and presumably was pretty good with the pitchers. He therefore could impact all aspects of the game.

Bonds is a fearsome hitter but is that much better than say a Mark McGuire in his prime? Plus he is a bit of a cancer and plays an indifferent Left field.

I guess I have a problem with the QOTD in that who the all time best player is differs than who would be best to play a short series. With a short series you can take anyone's best year, that really reduces the difference between Bonds and some of the other players

Based solely on players I've watched over the years, I'd build my team around Willie Mays, but Bonds, Aaron and Mantle would be very close.

I guess I have a problem with the QOTD in that who the all time best player is differs than who would be best to play a short series.

That's fair. By way of explanation, I thought the "greatest player" question was too general and could be defined so many ways that I wanted to offer a specific definition for purpsoes of discussion. And that's the one I chose. Feel free to redefine in your answers, as some have already done.

Nice writing, as usual, from Angell. The baseball gods decided to "try a little tenderness" this year. Now that put me in a good mood.

Here's a dare ... somebody make a case for The Third Guy.

Not really a case, but I'll take A-Rod.

I can't pick anyone before 1950 or so, leaving Ruth out. Given advances in modern training techniques and nutrition I can't see anyone from pre-1950 being even a Top-10 player today.

Besides, Cool Papa Belll was way better than Ruth. ;)

Rogers Hornsby, imo, is a little under appreciated when it comes to discussing the all time best... he put up monster numbers playing a premium defensive position (primarily 2b).

It may be helpful to have more defined drafting rules to actually field the team. My choice is BB first, I am amazed beyond measure to see him hitting as he does having half of his opportunities taken away. Every other player I can think of would be in a semi permanent slump because of this. The steroid controversy: he is innocent until proven guilty, and even then, i would like to hear from experts how exactly those substances enhanced his game, if at all.
Then the Babe and my third OF would be Willie Mays, for defence, speed etc.

http://me.woot.net
If you picked a player up from the 30s and plopped him down these days, sure he wouldn't be a top 10. I don't know if you can make the same statement if, instead of just plopping him down, you take his ability and augment it with today's training.

I mean, come on. In 1920 the Babe slugged .847 while posting an OBP of .532. Those numbers are otherworldly. I fail to believe that he wouldn't have been that dominant given today's training regimes.

I mean, come on. In 1920 the Babe slugged .847 while posting an OBP of .532. Those numbers are otherworldly.

I put up better numbers than that in beer league slowpitch. :P

The Babe had the luxury of not having to face a lot of the best pitching of the day. The crop of decent white pitchers was pretty small, as they didn't have Tommy John surgery back then. If you injured your elbow or shoulder, you were finished. Plus many very good/great pitchers were trapped in "minor" leagues as it was the time before farm systems.

Think of it this way. Take the current crop of pitching today. Take out every black and dark skinned latin pitcher. Take out any pitcher who ever had Tommy John surgery. Replace those guys with guys from AAA/AA/A who aren't dark skinned or had their elbow fixed. Once you did that I'm sure there would be a boatload of guys hitting 532/847.

I'm sure you'll point out that only Ruth put up numbers like that. That's only because guys like Biz Mackey, Judy Johnson, Oscar Charleston, John Henry Lloyd, Bullet Joe Rogan, Mule Suttles, etc. weren't allowed to play in the league. If they were, Ruth might not have been one of the Top 3 players. Imagine what would happen to baseball if we took all the best black hitters out of the game today.

off the topic
just got the new baseball america hear is the bluejays top 10 prospects according to baseball america
1.Brandon League
2.Aaron hill
3.Guillermo Quiroz
4. Franciso Rosiaro
5.David Purcuy
6.Russ adams
7.Dustin Mcgowan
8.Zack Jackson
9.Josh Banks
10. Gustavo Chacin

ok..another one off topic but this story about Jayson Werth is kinda wierd!

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-dodger16.html

I mean, come on. In 1920 the Babe slugged .847 while posting an OBP of .532. Those numbers are otherworldly. I fail to believe that he wouldn't have been that dominant given today's training regimes.

Always a contentious point.. the best player? or the best in his prime? or of his time??

Ruth hit 50 Hr's in an era when entire teams hit 10-20... that's like a 150 HR year in todays standards... well, by comparison to his domination anyway...

Whups meant to finish that...

But as to if his talent could translate to today, I don't know that he had the self-discipline... not like Ted Williams for instance, my belief is that he COULD have competed and dominated in today's game.

I think it's got to be Wagner, too. He was a great, great defensive player. And he was the kind of player who would be the best around no matter when or where you played him.

I'm still inclined to think Ruth was the greatest player who ever lived, but if I was starting a team from scratch... I want the Dutchman. And as great as Barry (and Williams and Rickey and Musial) are, the first guy I take is not going to play left field.

And then I want Yogi and the Mick. Because of ten pennants in twelve years.... because at his absolute peak level of performance, Mantle was the greatest center fielder ever. (Acknowledging that Mays' peak was very close, and that Mays stayed much closer to that level for a much longer period.)

Brian that is a crazy story

Given advances in modern training techniques and nutrition I can't see anyone from pre-1950 being even a Top-10 player today.

Well, I sort of think we're being whisked away into some kind of mystical time continuum where everyone's circumstances are equal. If Honus Wagner played today he would have taken full advantage of what we know today about training and nutrition. He did what he could with what he knew at the time.

I'm going to miss Redbird Nation. Thank you Brian for all the good work.

http://www.torontobaseballguys.com
And then I want Yogi and the Mick

Yogi I understand. But Mick? He's a thoughtful and intelligent poster, sure, but can he hit?

We could extend this thread and actually hold a mock draft. In that scenario, I think you do do take Wagner just based on his multi-faceted talents and scarcity at short.

FWIW, in the latest version of DMB, for instance, in a computer draft using 2003 stats, ARod goes first, Bonds 2nd, Pujols 3rd, then Halladay.

Just out of curiosity, why isn't there more talk about the late-career peaks for guys like Roger Clemens and Randy Johnson? Unless I'm mistaken, steroids and other such substances can help pitchers greatly as well. I'm not suggesting that those guys are juiced, but they show a similarly atypical career path.

RJ isn't on the juice. He probably weighs what Barry weighed in the '80s.

Sorry, that last post was me; forgot that I changed my handle.

I don't see how Ruth's pitching really influences the discussion. If you're talking about total career value, sure, but it's not like he was jogging in from RF in 1927 to close out games in the 9th. The Babe who piled up all those astonishing hitting numbers didn't pitch.

Anyway, this is obviously a debate that could go on forever, but even though I think Barry is the best player of all time, in the short series I'd take the Babe. The late-career Barry is a better hitter, and the early-career Barry had better D and a better all-around game, but the Babe was on top of his game in all facets at once, so that wins out.

And, Ducey, to answer your question from above: Yes, Barry is that much better than Mark McGuire in his prime. If you actually looked at the numbers you'd see that it's not even close.

A while back Mike Schmidt said in an interview that infielders today make plays that players of his generation never dreamed of, which says alot about Schmidt considering most athletes always drone on about how their generation was the best.

I love baseball history as much as anyone but the idea that a player from the 1920's could be the best player ever is absurd.

Romance is one thing, evolution is another.

Sorry, Grandpa.

It is fair to say that the game was so different ( balls, conditioning, travel, competition )as to prevent comparisions.

I love baseball history as much as anyone but the idea that a player from the 1920's could be the best player ever is absurd.

Romance is one thing, evolution is another.

Evolution is an historical process that works itself out over millions of years. We're just talking decades. The human animal is in better shape today, but its still the same animal.

Shakespeare is still the greatest playwright, too!

Obviously training methods and nutrition have raised the level of raw athletic performance. If you compare the Honus Wagner of 1901 to the Alex Rodriguez of 2001, Rodriguez is surely going to be a better athlete.

But I assume that we remove Wagner from his historical moment, and have him born in 1975, with the same access to modern methods that Rodriguez has had. And Wagner, being the type of man and athlete he was, would have taken full advantage of them.

Babe Ruth... not so much. If Babe Ruth had been born in 1965, he probably would have become... David Wells. Assuming they'd left him in the rotation, and didn't let him become John Kruk or something.

We could extend this thread and actually hold a mock draft. In that scenario, I think you do do take Wagner just based on his multi-faceted talents and scarcity at short.

Great idea! First two people to e-mail me (COMN) for the All-Time Draft get to lead tomorrow's QOTD thread. One qualification: you must be available all day tomorrow so as to not bog the draft with a 45-minute wait between picks. You can designate another regular poster to pick for you if you have a two-hour meeting or a three-martini lunch scheduled.

I will post the rules tomorrow as the QOTD. And the rest of us can participate by questioning and mocking each pick as it is made. IF things go well, we will try to run another "Ultimate Series" between the two teams, so have a single *year* in mind as you make your picks.

A while back Mike Schmidt said in an interview that infielders today make plays that players of his generation never dreamed of, which says alot about Schmidt considering most athletes always drone on about how their generation was the best.

When Jim Fregosi was managing the Jays, he used to rave about Alex Gonzalez, saying that Gonzo was a far better shortstop than he ever was.

P.S. I will post here when we have the GMs for the mock (in both senss of the word) draft, so until you see that, you can assume at least one of the positions is open.

Further point: we won't necessarily limit it to two drafters. That was based on the premise in the original QOTD -- separate drafts for pitchers and position players. If we only get two volunteer "GMs" we'll go that route. If we get more, we'll let everyone play and set the rules accordingly.

http://www.mathesond.mindsay.com
I dibs Josh Gibson

Quick hijack: The Washington Nationals have signed Vinny Castilla and Cristian Guzman.

Uhh, Washington is at sea level right? And Jim Bowden knows this?

I don't know if he knows what level Washington is at but he's commited $23 million of his new team's money to these players. Apparently trying to make a splash in the new city by overspending for very mediocore players.

Vinny Castilla will get $6.2 million for two years which questionable by itself.

Guzman though will earn $16.8 million over FOUR years. Omar Vizquel is old but at least he occasionally hits a little bit. If that's what Guzman is worth then what the heck is Garciaparra worth? Guzman is untradeable with that contract.

If you're Bowden wouldn't you rather take the $7.3 million you're spending between these two below average players and go for one marquee name?

Another minor signing but it was the Phillies re-signing Cory Lidle for $6.3 million over two years. Reasonable money for a 3rd to 4th starter type.

Surprisingly, 21 of his 34 homers came away from Coors last year. Mind you, all of his other offensive stats were way, way worse on the road. But he can still go deep, and a 2x3 contract isn't gonna sink anybody.

Guzman's 4x4...is probably market rate for his glove, considering the Vizquel deal. And they need a shortstop in the worst way. I'm not wild about these deals, but I've seen worse.

That is of course without considering that Expos will give up their second and third round picks for these two players.

Now teams have given away draft picks to sign Vizquel, Castilla, and Guzman. If the Jays don't get a draft pick for Delgado I'll be somewhat beside myself.

Surprisingly, 21 of his 34 homers came away from Coors last year. Mind you, all of his other offensive stats were way, way worse on the road. But he can still go deep, and a 2x3 contract isn't gonna sink anybody.

No it's not going to sink them. But ironically they refused to give Tony Batista a raise on his $1.8 million and they will pay a lot more for a player who is much older and will probably produce about the same. It's not crippling but it's a negative move for their team.

Guzman's 4x4...is probably market rate for his glove, considering the Vizquel deal. And they need a shortstop in the worst way. I'm not wild about these deals, but I've seen worse.

Sure like Alex Gonzalez or Rey Ordonez. But that doesn't make this deal itself any better. The Jays needed a shortstop in the worst way possible the last couple of years but they bridged the gap to Adams with Bordick and Woodward. They didn't give up a high draft pick and commit themselves to four years to an offensive sinkhole.

Now if Washington was the Boston Red Sox and they badly needed that shortstop defence to compete this year, I could somewhat understand it. Though you wouldn't catch Theo Epstein dead committing to that many years and that much money for a guy like Guzman.

The only good thing is if they're spending money like this it might become more likely that they want to move arbitration cases like Nick Johnson.

A fun question. Would you rather have Castilla for the next two years at 6.2, or Hinske for the next 3 at 13? The answer is obvious to me.

Castilla's career away from Coors Field: .256/.295/.433.

Guzman's career away from the Metrodome: .250/.290/.362.

The only good thing is if they're spending money like this it might become more likely that they want to move arbitration cases like Nick Johnson.

Nick Johnson on the turf in TO for a season? If I was him, I'd just break my leg in spring training to save the hassle of coming through customs to get seriously injured.

Believe me, these aren't great deals. But it was Vizquel's bizarre deal that likely made Guzman richer than he would have otherwise been.

Tomorrow's news today: "A twice-rejected and increasingly distraught Kenny Williams signed Kevin Elster to a two-year, $6 million contract."

I suppose Expos fans at least get the peace of mind that comes from knowing you aren't missing anything. This ain't gonna be the Nordiques heading to Colorado.

After seeing these signings I think smarter teams are going to wait back and see what the market for a guy like Jose Valentin is. If the Red Sox decide to go cheap at short I wouldn't be surprised to see them do it for a year or two with Valentin. Despite the errors he's a competent shortstop and certainly hits well enough for the position. And you might not have to commit as much to him as you did to even Vizquel.

I don't really understand these GMs who are jumping the gun to sign mediocore players and give up draft picks for the honour. It's so early yet. I could understand it for bigger cornerstone type players but not these guys.

Nick Johnson on the turf in TO for a season? If I was him, I'd just break my leg in spring training to save the hassle of coming through customs to get seriously injured.

Hey it's like Paul Molitor's early career. One of these years he has to be healthy doesn't he?

If the Jays are going to take some risks on cheaper players with upside who are actually available, Johnson is ideal.

That's a fair point R Billie. He'd be an ok replacement for Delgado in my mind. I just worry about signing the guy who seems to always be hurt, for a team that's going to be dangerously low on options at 1B as it is.

It's no big deal, if they trade for Johnson, all they have to do is resign Berg, and bingo, instant backup 1B. Although they may already have that in Gomez (if he comes back), and Tom Wilson should be avaliable. See, there's already three options, without even dipping into the minors.

You know, for a routine double-play ball, 6-4-3, you can be pretty snarky.

Now I'm going to have Berg nightmares. See what you've done?!?

So I was thinking about Castilla and the Hall of Fame and got to wondering...if he had stayed on Colorado his whole career, would he have had a chance at the HOF?

Now, I don't he should at all, but voters like guady numbers, and they'll accept lesser #'s for a third baseman than a 1B or OF...

I did some really quick, rudimentary figuring and came up these figures had he stayed in COL.: 378HR 1250 RBI

and would have had a line of maybe- .293 BA .340 OBP .530 SLP

Now, if in the next two years he could boost that to 425 HR and 1450-1500 RBI, would voters even consider him?

I love hypothetical situations...

I think you sign/trade for Johnson as your "cheaper" bat at 1B/DH while still going after a more reliable guy to be your "bigger" bat at 1B/LF/DH. I agree you can't sign Johnson and then wash your hands thinking you've replaced Delgado.

The Jays are going to try to sign two or three hitters and given the amount of money they have to spread over 7 or 8 positions, at least one or two of the bats are going to have be on the low side salary wise while still carrying upside.

Then you can afford one bigger bat and one prominent starter or reliever depending on who remains available after the expensive names have gone.

It is so clear that Barry Bonds is the man you pick.

Try a different set of questions:

You have to pick some person to run the 100m dash, from which year do you pick?

You have to pick some person to swin the 100m free, from which year do you pick?

You have to pick some person to do the high jump, from which year do you pick?

You have to pick some person to do the long jump, from which year do you pick?

You have to pick some person to do the marathon, from which year do you pick?

Now to end it, how many of the above answers are people who competed pre-WWII?

Tomorrow's matchup will be Denyszyn's Denizens against Jobu's Jays. The draft will commence at 12:30 sharp due to a prior Jobu commitment. Mike is looking for a co-GM if there are volunteers.

The rules and starter thread will be posted tonight or tomorrow morning.

Mick, I will see what I can do to be co-GM. E-mail me--perhaps we can do some IM consultation as we go.

I am in the group not thrilled with Washington signing Guzman and Castilla. Doesnt Washington already have two solid players/prospects that performed very well in AAA this year? I wouldnt mind seeing one of Brendan Harris (2b/3b) or M.Itzuris (SS) in a Jays uniform...

C.

I would pick Bonds over Ruth.

I would have a significant nod to Josh Gibson, a good defensive catcher who routinely hit .400 with 50+ homers in short seasons against good competition, but I think Bonds at this point represents the state of the art.

Still, Gibson hit 823 home runs as a professional, playing the vast majority of his home games in the two worst home run parks in the history of baseball (Griffith Stadium and Forbes Field). And he was a catcher.

I think if I had to pick anyone, I'd be very tempted to take Gibson, even though Bonds is the "best" player overall. The gap between Gibson and Bench, or Berra, is massive. The difference is like the difference in right field between Ruth and someone like Roberto Clemente.

Bonds as the hitter. Matthewson as the pitcher. Ruth as the ballplayer everyone wants on their team no matter if it's sandlot, pro-ball, or beer league softball.

No mention of Ty Cobb? He was pretty damn good in his own right.

I would take Neo even though that freakin movie sucked.

Bonds is just silly. Hes like a player in an old Nintendo or Sega baseball game who's just like so good compared to everyone else its like there's something wrong with the game. He doesnt make outs. If he does, its by accident.