To help put this in perspective, try and imagine a pitcher today that could throw 110 miles an hour regularly, average 8 innings on 3 days rest, have an OBA of less than .200 and an ERA of less than 1.00
Now your looking at a guy that would dominate today's game the way Ruth dominated the 20s. It isn't a point of whether he was the "best" player in the game "ever", but the fact he dominated the game of the time.
In today's world with the size of ballplayers and God knows how they condition themselves, Ruth would be "good" but probably not head and shoulder above everyone... but in the 20s, there's no doubt in my mind he was the king. Add to that the fact he could pitch (and well) and he deserves his history... overrated ?? Not a chance if you measure him in his own time.
A .350 hitter with 50+ HRs a year... hell, I'd take him today
<small>[ 04-19-2002, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: Henry ]</small>