Tavish wrote:you don't become an all-time great without being good at all aspects of the game.
Ruth wasn't "great" in the feild neither was Williams, or Hornsby or Piazza. if you can hit good enough you will be called an alltime great. But if you can run and play defense that will make up some if you're Teddy Ballgame.
You've taken my comment somewhat out of context by I will go with it. For one thing I didn't claim you had to be "great" defensively to be consider the all-time great, only good (as in not be a burden). This is less of a factor at some positions like 1B where defense really isn't much of a concern. It is a big factor IMO when you talk about positions such as centerfield.
That aside, other than Ruth I don't consider those players (Williams, Horsnby, Piazza) as the greatest at their position. Until the end of his career Ruth was a good fielder ( average to below average in range, but, amazingly enough, had a tremendous arm). Would he still be the greatest right fielder in my mind if he couldn't catch a cold? Probably, but maybe not.
But you are most definitely right that a big bat can makeup for having a poor glove. To be the best though I think a player has to be good at every aspect and great at in quite a few.