Position players have more impact on success than pitcher's do. And defense rests mainly on the pitcher, most position players rarely contribute to defense.
But without solid pitching, you can not win consistently. That's my point. My h/s team had the best three pitchers in the state, mistake-free (we set a school record for the least errors in a season) defense and yet our offense was average at best. But in games decided by one run, we were undefeated and we went on to win a state title. Thus endeth the sermon.
i'll cheat: early-mid 90's Ken Griffey Jr. you want to talk sick? just check out his stats during this period. as for the ones picking pitchers....why would you pick a pitcher? yes, the mentioned pitchers are dominant but they can't dominate (or at least effect) the game on a game-to-game basis like Bonds is right now.
Bagwell in his prime, there wasn't a thing he couldn't do as a position every day player. I'm a big time homer if it isn't painly obvious.
oh if i were to pick a pitcher though....Randy Johnson or Sandy Koufax. gotta show some love for the southpaws
my father swears by willie for that exact reason. he says that, at his best, no one was better than willie mays.
certainly not the greatest player of all time. but watching him in 94 was ridiculous. just incredible.
To be honest I never saw Willie play and I'm only going by reputation. But if his defensive prowess is even 1/2 correct, the 660 homers would still lord over everyone else.
For my money I want the Babe, then Ted Williams. There is another group I can't differentiate that includes Mays, Aaron, Bonds, and A Rod. I can see Schmidt but not above any of the ones above. Also I think a case could be made for Johnny Bench or possibly even Pudge.
There's no question if I had to pick any position player I would pick Bonds. Granted, Ruth and Mays might be close but no one else can touch what he's done in the last 3-4 years. Just obscene. We're talking an obp% this year that's well over .600 and healthy homerun numbers. The guy is just dominant and is singlehandedly carrying the Giants offense to the playoffs just with his presence alone.
ruth was the exact same way, and then some. particularly relative to the talent he was playing with at the time.
The Pitcher is more dominant. Take the playoffs. A great Pitcher will win 90% of the games he pitches. That means he can win you 8 or 9 of the 12 games you must win. A great batter is successful 1 out of 3 At Bats. It just doesn't compare in my opinion.
Ted Williams. Had he not sacrificed five of his most productive seasons serving his country, he'd be considered the best ever. But it's also tempting to go with an historically weak-hitting position to give my theoretical team an edge. Then, I'd go with 3B Mike Schmidt or C Johnny Bench. Other considerations: Honus Wagner, Rogers Hornsby and Joe Morgan.
Oh, I thought it was just for hitters, not all-around player. Ted Williams was an amazing batter, but he was just average in the field. All-around player to build around: Willie Mays. He was a fantastic centerfielder, a brilliant hitter and an intelligent (if under-utilized) baserunner. His peak was high, and his career was long and productive.
i'm not doubting this (because i agree with it), i'm just wondering where this comes from. i assume someone ran the numbers but i wouldn't know where to find them. also, homeplate used to be closer than 60'6 in the early part of Cy's days? woah, lets not get carried away there. a pitcher can almost singlehandedly win a game and the great ones can do it more often, but considering they also go against other great ones in the playoffs, 90% just isn't gonna happen. no one does 90% (or even 80% most of the time) in the regular season. go check some of the all time greats post-season records. not a lot of 9-1's and 18-2's in there i would surmise. as for my pick, it comes down to 4 position players for me. ruth, williams, mays, bonds. ruth and williams, the 340+ hitters who drew walks like crazy and cranked out the homers. give williams his military days back and his career numbers are ruthian. not too sure how either rates defensively. mays, possibly the best defensive center fielder ever with 600 homers and 300+ steals? and he played in the 60's? having said that, for some reason i just can't quite seem to put him up there with ruth and williams. bonds, has 8 gold gloves to his name and has done some other things as well. about to become part of the 700/500 club. actually, he's about to create the 700/500 club, because he'll be the first. no one is even in the 400/400 club. he'll break the all time homer record barring something crazy happening. he's either got or about to have the all time walk record. he's got 6 MVP awards and didn't even win one the year he went 40/40. he's about to have 7 if the voters have any sense. his last 4 years have been the best 4 year stretch in baseball history (while possibly being the 4 best individual seasons ever also). he hasn't been out of the top 3 in OPS since like '90. take the gold gloves, the MVP's, the steals and homers and to me he's ahead of mays and there with ruth and williams. i really don't know how to pick between my top 3 (especially when you consider 2 played before i was born) but if i had to, maybe i'd just go with the myth and legend and history and go with Ruth. i mean, you can't really go wrong with Babe Ruth. people vying to get up there with the big 3 one day: A-Rod (57 homers from an SS?) and Pujols (losing out on MVPs because he's in the same league as Bonds).
i agree...for me, the conversation begins and ends with these 4 guys. what's great is that we've had the opportunity to live and see bonds do what he's done.
I'm also a ridiculous homer, and will second this. And since no one's said it yet, I will. JR Richard. Ah, what could have been...
