- Joined
- May 12, 2018
- Messages
- 15,873
- Reaction score
- 19,462
Voted b bonds
I thought I saw historians cite something was different back then like maybe shittier overworked pitchers where there wasn't 5 man rotations and maybe larger ballparks. The HR totals per player per season were really low back then.Babe Ruth is the greatest hitter of all time. He was hitting more homeruns than whole teams combined. Nobody else has ever been so far above the competition
I thought I saw historians cite something was different back then like maybe shittier overworked pitchers where there wasn't 5 man rotations and maybe larger ballparks. The HR totals per player per season were really low back then.
LOL at Trout being natty. He's got some of the best designer PEDs in the game. No shame in that either. He's currently the best baseball player on the planet.Probably Williams, Mays, or Ruth. Didn't see them play. Best pure hitter I've seen was Tony Gwynn. Best player is probably Trout the way he is going if we're talking natty.
Babe Ruth is the greatest hitter of all time. He was hitting more homeruns than whole teams combined. Nobody else has ever been so far above the competition
He was so far above the competition because the competition was a joke.
I disagree on the competition being a joke. There were a lot of great players back then who I think would've been great no matter when they played. You think guys like Joe Jackson, Walter Johnson, Tris Speaker were a joke?
Like half the league consisted of fat white guys who would drink in the dugout. They didn’t even have minorities in the league yet ffs. Those guys wouldn’t even cut it in the minors today.
You don't have any idea how they would do today, it's a poor argument. I could just as easily say Ruth would've hit 1,000 homeruns if he took steroids.
If you were to pin players from today vs the 20’s.. they’d absolutely destroy those guys. They never saw 100mph heat, sliders, shifts or even black and Latin players ffs. Imagine what today’s HOF players would do offensively if none of those existed? Now you can argue hypothetically that if Ruth were born in the 80s or 90s he’d be a good major leaguer with modern training and nutrition. But the odds of him being as dominant in today’s age are hilariously slim just based on sheer population alone. He put up great numbers when there were maybe a few thousand people even playing baseball in his era, but today there are millions of players who play baseball growing up.
You’re taking 1 guy who dominated out of a few thousand.
Compare that to someone who’s dominated out of hundreds of thousands if not millions.
I’ll take the guys who excelled in the larger talent pool.
Obviously most of the situation is hypothetical, but the facts support modern/recent era players.
- much larger talent pool/competition
- advanced scouting/metrics
- shifts
- overall better pitching