As with all the others, the candidates are culled from the rankings done by The Baseball Page.

Two changes -- #5 Ed Delahanty is out on the ongoing elimination of 19th century players, giving way to #10-ranked Tim Raines and #9 Minno Minoso is also out, in favor of your All-Time Hits Leader, #11 Pete Rose.

Sure, you could plug Rose in at four or five other positions, too, but his best years were in LF for the Reds, so we'll plug him in here.

All due respect and serious props to Teddy Ballgame and Stan the Man, but I've gotta go with Rickey.  If Ted doesn''t lose 1200 hits and 200 homers to the Wars, maybe he gets the nod here, but Rickey was the greatest leadoff man ever to play and tI think he is the clear choice, honestly.

I honestly disagree because no-one could hit like Ted Williams.

I'm pretty much sold on the idea that Ted Williams was the greatest hitter who ever lived. And there's no doubt whatsoever that Rickey Henderson is the greatest leadoff hitter of all time. As for Barry, seven MVPs ( and seven Gold Gloves I think) speaks, quite loudly, for itself.

But with all three of these guys, all too often the game was about them, and whatever personal mission they were on. Stan Musial just showed up and played. He's the guy I'd actually want on my team.

And he played pretty well, too.

I just do not see how anyone could vote for anyone but the greatest hitter who ever lived. Barry is a great player no doubt, but Ted would have broke the Babe's homerun record and could have made a play at 4000 hits, but he instead fought in two wars. That in itself bumps him to the top.

I'm a little curious who your "greatest player" center fielder is...I suspect you mean Mays, but offensively I'd say Teddy and Barry are both far superior in terms of how dominant they were over their peers.

Ted would have broke the Babe's homerun record and could have made a play at 4000 hits,

Well, this is just silly.

As I said, Williams was probably the greatest hitter who ever lived (even if he was pretty much the Albert Belle of his time) and obviously his career totals would have been even more impressive had it not been for the wars. But this is way, way over the top. Williams missed most of five seasons - over the rest of his career he hit 507 homers. Which means he would have needed to average almost 42 homers a year to catch Ruth. He hit that many homers in a season exactly once (43 in 1949) - his next best homer total is 38. He was far more likely to end up with about 650 to 675.

As for 4000 hits, not a chance. He stands 1346 hits short (counting the 41 hits he had in 1052-53.) So he would have had to average 269 hits a season. Which is ridiculous by any standard, but especially so when we remember that Williams never had 200 hits in a season.

I'm a little curious who your "greatest player" center fielder is...I suspect you mean Mays

That's my suspicion, too! But I anticipate plenty of argument. I expect the whole Peak Value vs Career Value issue to come up. I expect voices to be raised on behalf of a couple of other guys who played in New York (one of them will be mine!.) Not to mention the greatest Tiger of them all.

And I'm trusting Craig will put in a word for the pride of Indianapolis, who for all I know may have been better than Mays or Mantle or Cobb or DiMaggio...

I'd take the 92-93 Barry Bonds.  He reached base as often as Ted Williams (relative to park and league), had about as much power, more speed and more defensive value.  With Morgan and Bonds at the top of my order, I figure that we've got a good handle on the 'A' side of offence (getting on base and motoring around them) without sacrificing defence.  With Josh Gibson, Ruth, Gehrig, Schmidt and a power hitting centerfielder (Mantle or Mays), the B side is there.  Our pitcher (probably Walter Johnson 1912-13 variety) is going to hit eighth and Honus will hit ninth to start the revolving circus again. 

Poor Al Simmons ... .334/307/1837 and not a single vote!

And who voted for Yaz? Great player, but not even the best Red Sox LF on this list!

Stan Musial is my favourite player, so of course he gets my vote, and he's my boy for much the same reason Magpie gave - Stan Musial wasn't anything but a ballplayer.  Stan was the Steve Yzerman of his day, overshadowed perhaps by a few greater, more visible talents, but a great clubhouse presence who led by example, and one of the best team players the sporting world has ever seen.  If there was a fantasy draft of all players, living or dead, and I had the first pick, Stan would be the guy.

I'd rather have Barry Bonds leading off than Rickey Henderson, I'd rather have him hitting cleanup than Teddy Ballgame, and I'd rather have him out in left field than either.  So I think it's Bonds.  But it is quite close among the three.

And I'm trusting Craig will put in a word for the pride of Indianapolis, who for all I know may have been better than Mays or Mantle or Cobb or DiMaggio...

Oddly enough, I am not as enamoured of Oscar Charleston as others (like Bill James) are.  Unlike someone like Josh Gibson, we have no particular reason to assume that OC was better than those four you mentioned (although we have no particular reason to assume he was worse, either).  He's in the mix.  Put it this way... I'd take Mays if I was going to a track meet, DiMaggio if I was going to the Ritz, Mantle if I was going to pick up chicks, and Charleston if I was going to a streetfight.  Well, OK... I'd take Cobb if I was going to a streetfight, but I'd take Charleston if I was going to a fair fight.

If I was going to a baseball game that I absolutely had to win, I'd take Cobb.  But we're getting ahead of ourselves here... this is about left fielders.

who voted for Yaz?

Probably someone who was in Boston in September of 1967. In which case, I completely understand.

A lot of players who I loved to watch play and who I loved to read about too.  From guys I saw play like Rickey, Bonds, and Raines to all-timers Williams and Rose (Stan the Man never really interested me too much).

To me it came down to Bonds vs Williams and that is a tough call.  However, Williams had his most famous season and a few other great ones in the days before black players were allowed on the field which discounts him a bit imo.  Given Bonds peak years came under a cloud that hurts him too. 

Ways to compare - 200+ OPS seasons - Bonds has 6 (2 pre-steroids), Williams 7 (4 from 47 on including 47).  Lifetime Williams is a 190 OPS+ vs Bonds 182.  Bonds has 8 gold gloves, Williams was viewed as a DH who could play the Green Monster. 

Pre-2001 (the 73 HR year) Bonds stats are 289/412/567 165 OPS+
Post-1946 (Jackie Robinson arrived in '47) Williams stats are 340/480/627 188 OPS+

So, how to judge them?  Williams, despite being a war hero, was viewed much like Bonds is today - i.e. as a jerk who no one wanted to be around or to honour.  Bonds had speed and defense, but Williams was better with the bat.  Bonds played 100 or more games in all but one season (2005) and 130 or more in all but 4 (rookie year, 1994 which was due to the strike, 1999).  Williams played in under 100 games twice when not at war and under 130 6 times (again, no war years factored in).  After the age of 32 Williams never played in more than 136 games, Bonds cracked 140 5 out of 9 years. 

So, for pure hitting Williams wins no matter how we cut it.  For defense, baserunning, durability Bonds wins easily.  Combined?  Hrm.  I'm going with Bonds in a coin toss, but that is in part due to my not being a big one of the morality (or lack thereof) of steroids.

FYI: age 38 season for Bonds - 341/529/749 OPS+231, Williams was 388/526/731 OPS+ of 233.  Both had great age 39 and 41 seasons but bad age 40 seasons with injury issues.  Weird eh?