View Single Post
  #21  
Old 09-04-2022, 12:56 PM
BobC BobC is offline
Bob C.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,275
Default

Always remember scouts and baseball executives talking about 5-tool players as being the best prospects, and eventually the greatest actual players, of the game. Well, sorry to say, but the truth is that Ruth was never a 5-tool player!!!

Mays, on the other hand, most definitely had all 5-tools, in spades. Also, scouts and others often talked about his amazing arm strength and throwing ability, and many surmised he would have actually been a better pitcher than outfielder. In his time coming up though, teams didn't really consider the idea of using a player as both a pitcher and as a position player on their non-pitching days. So, Mays was pushed into the outfield so he could be in the lineup every day. We'll never know for sure how great of a pitcher Willie could have been, but based on many knowledgeable people's opinions, he would have potentially been a great pitcher as well. Now I'm not out and out saying Mays is the greatest player of all time. It is a futile and somewhat pointless argument and waste of time due to all the different eras, changes in rules, equipment, and context that have occurred since baseball first was played to definitively be able to say someone is absolutely better or worse than someone else. But in terms of Ruth versus Mays, Willie was a true 5-tolol player, while Ruth was not. That is indisputable and fact. How great of a pitcher Mays could have possibly been, we'll never know as that is all speculative because Mays was never given the opportunity to pitch in the majors as Ruth was.

And the question was strictly about who was the greatest player ever in baseball , NOT who was the most influential ever. And anyone who doesn't admit and realize those are two entirely different questions is just being ignorant. And even so, for those who would argue Ruth was the most influential baseball player of all time, I'm not so sure Ruth's supposed influence didn't have a lot more to do with him being lucky and in the right place at the right time. MLB was already trying to change the conversation about the game due to the Black Sox scandal, and as a result they changed the ball from a dead to a live ball. They also saw the size and measurements of MLB stadium outfields shortening and making it easier for players to hit home runs. But Ruth himself didn't make or influence such changes, he really just happened to be the one to take the most advantage of the changes that MLB was actually implementing and supporting. So, arguing that it was actually Ruth who was the most influential may actually be more of a case of the tail wagging the dog than a lot of Ruth fans care to admit.

In the meantime, if you want to talk about a player having a possible even more direct, lasting, and influential effect on the game of baseball, I would nominate Curt Flood as potentially the most influential player of all time. He fought to bring about the demise of the reserve clause in baseball, and the onset of free agency. And he did so with absolutely no help or support from MLB as they were fighting against him. There is no denying the fact that the game of baseball dramatically and forever changed with the advent of free agency. Meanwhile, Ruth's impact and influence had a lot more to do with the rules, equipment, and other changes and such that MLB put in place and supported for baseball overall, and which he was able to take advantage of.
Reply With Quote