In response to:

All-Time All-Stars

Ted in California Wrote: Jul 09, 2012 11:14 AM
The discussion is on hitters, not great ball players. Pete doesn't come close to any of these guys in terms of career BA or SLG. Gehrig makes it for his RBI totals. Sabermatricians would argue this list differently, most would probably say that it could not be argued to show how "smart" they are then go forth and argue it anyway. Abiding by the terms of the discussion I would rank them this way; Williams, Ruth, Hornsby, Cobb, Gehrig. Williams missed several years in his prime, otherwise he would be the clear favorite. Ruth swung a 60 oz bat. MLB hitters today swing a 33 oz bat. Not relevant really, but impressive. Hornsby and Cobb are on their own tier, you could argue them at #3 but I wouldn't put them above Ruth.
Nothing is likely to get an argument started among sports fans faster than attempts to name the all-time greatest in any sport, or even the all-time greatest in a particular aspect of a sport. However, in baseball, we can at least narrow down the list of possibilities -- considerably, in fact -- when it comes to hitting.

Who was the all-time greatest hitter?

A lot depends on how much weight you give to batting average versus power hitting. But it would be hard to consider someone for the title of the all-time greatest hitter if someone else had both a higher lifetime batting...