When I look at the poll results, I see Ruth with 15 votes and Mays with 7.
Right…
I honestly am not sure he belongs on the top 10 list, let alone #1. Babe, Willie, Barry, Teddy, Rickey, Michael Jack, Frank all CLEARLY ahead of him, before he even begins to be considered.
Okay, now I am tracking.
IMHO, the top 3 in this poll should be clear (in whatever order). #4 is where it starts getting fun for me.
How many homeruns did he hit in the late innings off of tired starting pitchers who would have given way to a relief pitcher in today's game? And how many did he hit off of right handed pitchers when he would have faced a lefty bullpen specialist throwing 100 mph in the last four innings of the game? See, this is why you can't really compare eras.
You're from the bay. Your opinion is slanted. I don't have a dog in that race.
I trust you would find your opinion in this case is not widely held.
That's interesting but I think your thing is so different from this poll that you could start your own thread. There's prolly enough baseball nerds here that they could respond to both.
I would like to hear your reasons for why Musial is better than Mays.
Go to baseball refrnce and compare Mays' stats to Musials stats for the era in question (1945-1960). It's really no contest.
Post #115
Yeah but Willie was 14 years old in 1945. Oh, I get it now....I guess. Willie was born at the wrong time. Cause I'd have him easily ahead of Clemente and Killebrew.
Pretty much. Not saying Willie wasn't better than Clemente and Killebrew. He was. Obviously. But when you break it down by eras, some players are going to get screwed. Ted Williams really got screwed.
Interesting metrics used to determine who is better. Why doubles but not home runs? Do you feel that they are better for determining a good hitter? How much does defense and speed on the basepaths factor into your decision when hitting is slow close. Also, you may want to look again at MVP finishes. Both had more top 10 finishes than you list.
Such a disingenuous argument.
