Of course, we have to account for era differences. Ruth put of some sick numbers, especially when he was out-homering other teams. (Not players, teams.) Bonds and McGwire were on the juice, so they don't count.
So the comparison I'm talking about, if any player in the history of baseball was facing modern-day pitchers, if Pujols better than anyone else? I say 'yes'.
Ted Williams is better than anyone else, no question, no discussion, as a pure hitter. He hit for more avg, had faster bat speed (could take the ball out of the catcher's glove for a hit!), 20-10 vision, lost 4-5 PRIME years to WAR!, same power in parks that were much BIGGER. There isn't a question as to whether or not Williams is the greatest hitter, its a pure common sense FACT!
Entirely too early to even have rumblings of this discussion. Plus, what's the statement, "Bonds and McGwire were both on the juice, so they don't count"?? Last I checked, they'd both failed the same # of drug tests as both Ruth and Pujols... not trying to get the whole debate going on that front again, but that's just a silly statement to be made, on a debate that needs another 6-7 years before it can even be discussed seriously.
I'm very partial to Williams but I'd give Big Al the edge so far. I dunno if anybody's checked his vision but his eyes seem pretty canny to me. He also exercises a lot more leadership on the team than any of those guys, for what that's worth.
Havok1517 wrote:Ted Williams is better than anyone else, no question, no discussion, as a pure hitter. He hit for more avg, had faster bat speed (could take the ball out of the catcher's glove for a hit!), 20-10 vision, lost 4-5 PRIME years to WAR!, same power in parks that were much BIGGER. There isn't a question as to whether or not Williams is the greatest hitter, its a pure common sense FACT!
I agree Ted Williams was the best hitter of his generation, but considering how much baseball has evolved and diversified, there's absolutley no way to predict how good he would be against modern competition. Also, considering there was 100 million less people in the country 60 years ago and no blacks and hispanics in the bigs, the talent pool was much, much smaller. Granted, there were fewer teams, but there also wasn't the money involved and I don't think it was anywhere as near as competitive.
You may be right, but considering it's impossible to prove, it just sounds stupid calling it a "pure common sense fact".
The two greatest players of all time are Ruth and Cobb. NO ONE even belongs in the same universe as the Babe. He was hitting homers in an era where the outfield fences were close to 500 ft away. Think of the amount of homers he would have if he had an extra 3,000 at-bats due to longer regular seasons like players do now.
The Babe may not have played in an integrated-era, but the ball park effects and facing non-watered down pitching more than makes up for it. If he had to play in some of these bandbox ballparks today and face some of the so-called pitching today, he would probably have a thousand homers.
Phat Albert is off to a great start. However, it remains to be seen if he is ever worthy of being named alongside of hitters like Ruth, Cobb, Joe D. or Teddy Ballgame.