Quote:
Originally Posted by Rad_Hazard
I would argue that Brouthers ranks above Anson for 19th century hitters. Anson has the counting numbers, but that's about it, as Brouthers even has the edge in batting titles with 5 to Anson's 4. I don't even think it's particularly close, Brouthers takes the best 19th century hitter title. If you dig even further into sabermetrics, Brouthers lead only grows.
As for Ruth and Mays... An argument can be made for both and while I would say Ruth on most days, there are days when I think it is Mays.
|
I agree that Brouthers is better if one does not factor in longevity and looks only at peak 3, or peak 5. I think there is a lot of value in the massive chasm between their playing time. Sabrmetrics that reward longevity agree, like WAR.
My personal bias is towards Mays of all the greats, but he did not really dominate the game. He ended up the best of his time when all was said and done and is the model of a complete position player, but I can’t see a way to pick him over Ruth who truly dominated the game on a level no one else has (except arguably Bonds, when he was on drugs).
EDIT: After seeing your edit, it appears you are ranking by OSP+. It’s a great stat I like, but if we are using it to rank and overcome even huge career disparities, it would suggest that Ruth is far and away the greatest of all time, and Mays is nowhere even close, in a distant 25th place 51 points below the Babe.