text: It depends on how you define "greatest".  Would Babe Ruth be a great ballplayer in 2006?  He'd probably be nothing special.  \n\nToday's players benefit from nutritional guidance, weight lifting and fitness programs, better travel conditions, and countless other things that players from Ruth's era could never have dreamed of.  (Not to mention illegal pharmaceutical additives, in some cases.)\n\nRuth also played in an 8 team league (I believe it was 8), so instead of the 600 best baseball players, he only played against 200.  Higher quality players.\n\nOn the other hand, players of Ruth's era only played against white ballplayers; there were no blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or other ethnic groups or foreigners playing in baseball.  One could argue that that diminished the quality of the game.  \n\nPerhaps the quantity of players and the lack of mixed ethnicity cancel each other out.  We'll never know.\n\nTo me, Ruth is the greatest, though Mays and DiMaggio and several others are certainly in contention.  Ruth is the greatest because of what he did in comparison to the other players of his day.  He didn't just break records by a 5 or 6%, he broke them by doubling the old record.  He'd hit as many home runs in a season as entire other teams.\n\nAnd by that definition he was head, shoulders, chest, and waist above the other players of his era.  To me that makes him the best.\n\nIn addition, he was larger than life.  He brought a lot of good attention to the game, and is probably to a degree responsible for the success of the game over the last 100 years.  I am not sure you can say that about any particular players who followed him.\n\nBut there are valid arguments for Willie Mays, Yogi Berra, Joe DiMaggio, Ted Williams, and others.  That's what's great about baseball; there is no right answer.\n\n--Cloyd