- Mar 11, 2015
- 89,499
- 63,498
- 3,645
It would have been nice to if they could have played together and against each other.i have to agree.....the 1930s had better players than the 20's.....i wish black players like Josh Gibson and Satchel Paige would have been able to play during that time....Roids don't matter in baseball. You have got to be able to hit the baseball and catch the baseball. Ruth was not the best ever, that's all there is to it. Dead ball my ass, Aarons numbers are better than Ruths, and I believe Barry Bonds are too. Ruth did not compete against all the best players during his time either. The owners paid the money so don't blame the players for what you think money did to the game.Roids does matter. Ruth played in a dead ball era and pitched his first several years. So different time periods means differences. The money became to much of a pull for grown men to cheat that the integrity of the game which had some ebbs and flows before, was destroyed by my estimation. An economic collapse would bring the balance back as sports salaries will drop to sensible levels. But a lot of pain will be felt by all citizens in that scenario.1. Hank Aaron. His numbers were better than Ruths.
2.Barry Bonds. If he took roids it doesn't matter because you still have to hit and catch the ball.
3.Babe Ruth. He can't be disrespected.
4. tie-Cal Ripken. Best shortstop probably ever in terms of an all around game.
Willey Mays/Griffey Jr.
5. Frank Robinson. I believe he was MVP in both leagues. That says it all.
6. Lou Gehrig. I don't think he was the best first baseman, but his numbers speak for themselves.
7. Nolan Ryan. Enough said.
8. Albert Pujols
9. Johnny Bench
10 tie-Brooks Robinson/Ozzie Smith/Frank White. Spectacular glovemen.