[MistaD72]

I want to open with this. I think 1998 was the peak of awesomeness in baseball. Greatest season of all time. So naturally, upon joining PT, my 1st 2 pick ups were Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa. I picked them up with hopes of smashing Homeruns, plain and simple. But upon seeing the ratings of some other players in comparison to these Homerun Kings, I have to take issue and simply say these ratings are wrong.
Babe Ruth has a power rating of over 120.
Ralph Kiner is 103.
Mark McGwire is only 100.
And Sammy Sosa is a mere 88.

Now here is my problem. Lets say you run a 100m dash against toddlers and you put up a time of 12 seconds and win by a mile. Now O run against Olympians. I put up a time of 11 seconds, but lose. You aren't faster than me just because you kicked everybody's ass, and I lost my race. 11 seconds is faster than 12. 66 Homers is more than 60. It doesn't matter that everyone else back then was weaker. 66 beats 60. In fact Sosa beat Babe Ruth's highest ever total 3 times! Even if you disagree with my stance on eras, tell me how the f*** Ruth could have a rating that isn't just higher, but over 30 points higher than somebody who smashed more homeruns than he did? Worse still, Mike Trout has a power rating of 93. Now don't get me wrong, Trout is a great hitter. But to say he is a better homerun hitter than a guy who blasted 66 Homeruns is a joke. It's just straight wrong. Only 5 players have EVER touched the 60 mark. This is an elite plateau, and should be rated as such. And Sosa hit it 3 times. As many as Ruth, Maris, and Bonds Combined. So yeah, weaker than Trout... On that note, 2 times in major league history a player hit that elite historic mark and then proceeded to bash 10+ additional bombs on top of that. Unreal. Yet again, not only is McGwire lower than Ruth, he's significantly lower. And weaker than a Kiner who never even hit the 60 mark. I really hope these ratings are fixed in next year's game..