As much as an opinion can be a fact, it has always been a “fact” that Babe Ruth is the greatest baseball player of all-time. It’s an easy case to make. Nobody led the league in more categories more often than Ruth. His entire statistical archive is seemingly bolded or italicized, denoting league-leader status. He is the all-time leader in OPS+ and slugging percentage. He is the only player in baseball history to hit more than 600 home runs and hit at least .305—and he did it with 756 home runs and a .342 average! His dominance of the 1920s and 30s essentially forced baseball out of the dead-ball era. It would take thousands of words to list out all of the things Ruth did that nobody else did.

The Sultan of Swat is deserving of every alliterative appellation allocated to him and every hyperbolic half-truth that accompanies his name. Without Ruth, baseball would not be what it is today. He is a two-syllable history lesson of America’s pastime. DJ, kindly bring that record to a screeching halt. This is the “but” you were waiting for. Pee-Wee Herman said it first and said it best, “everyone I know has a big but” and this might be the biggest “but” of them all. Babe Ruth was the greatest player of his era, but he is not the greatest player of all-time. To evoke the moody train conductor from The Polar Express, baseball eras are not transferable. While Ruth’s astronomical statistical marks make him the king of his era, they cannot be taken at face value when comparing him to players from other eras. Ruth’s dominance of an 8-team league entirely devoid of black and Asian players, and largely devoid of Latino, Canadian, and Jewish players, requires loads of context. Additionally, Ruth played in a league that was hesitant to embrace the value of the home run, which made him stand out like a skyscraper in DC. It wasn’t that players couldn’t hit home runs, it’s that they literally didn’t realize they should be trying to. This, of course, wasn’t Ruth’s fault, but it sure made it easier to lead the league in home runs and slugging %. Every subsequent era after Ruth saw a league full of home-run chasing sluggers, meaning nobody after Ruth would have it quite as easy.   

The only hitter in MLB history who rivals Ruth in dominance with respect to his era is Barry Bonds. DJ, queue the Death Star theme. Bonds won seven MVP Awards (and should have won two more in 1991 and 2000). That number is significant because, in the history of baseball, no two players have combined to win 7 MVPs. That alone suggests that Bonds is, by far, the greatest hitter since 1931, when the MVP that we recognize today was first handed out. Due to the fact that the MVP didn’t exist from 1915-1921, 1929 (AL), and 1930, and baseball rules prevented players from winning the award more than once from 1922-1928, Ruth’s official MVP count stands at a very unsatisfying, one. With a little voodoo and some retro-prognostication, it is highly probable that Ruth would’ve come close to equaling Bonds’ seven MVPs. MVP voters have historically shown a penchant for spreading the award around to prevent one player from monopolizing it. So, it is unlikely that Ruth would’ve won the MVP every year that he was statistically the best player. In fact, we have evidence of how (un)likely voters at the time were to vote for him. In 1931, Ruth was clearly the best hitter in the American League, but finished 5th in the voting. Although the number of potential MVP awards Ruth could have won likely falls somewhere between 6-11, the outcome probably would’ve ended up on the lower end of that range.

Let’s just say for argument’s sake that Ruth would have won nine MVPs. During Ruth’s career, there were eight teams in the American League accounting for roughly 200 players. Over the course of Bonds’ career, there were an average of 15 teams in the National League accounting for roughly 375 players. That means that it was close to twice as difficult for Bonds to win an MVP than it was for Ruth. That makes Bonds’ seven MVPs more impressive than the nine MVPs we’ve graciously assumed for Ruth, and that doesn’t account for the fact that Ruth only had to compete against white players.

To continue the Ruth-Bonds comparison in earnest, we need to head to the “league leaders” pages at Baseball Reference, while continuing to account for league size and composition. A similar outcome to the MVP comparison unfolds when comparing Bonds and Ruth in two of the gold-standard measures of inter-era comparisons: WAR for Position Players and OPS+. Both Bonds and Ruth led the league in WAR for Position Players 11 times. Ruth led the league in OPS+ 12 times and Bonds did it nine times. Given that it was almost twice as difficult for Bonds to lead the league in any category due to league size, it’s clear that his accomplishments in these two categories are more impressive than Ruth’s. Again, that only accounts for league size and not the significantly less competitive, very homogenized league that Ruth played in.

Both players led their respective leagues in OBP 10 times. Bonds led the league in walks 12 times, while Ruth did it 10 times. As lauded as Ruth is for his batting average, Bonds led the league in batting average twice, while Ruth did it once. Remember, Bonds simply being close to Ruth in these comparisons is a win given it was nearly twice as difficult for him to lead the league, but Bonds is actually beating Ruth in some of these comparisons. Ruth’s biggest advantage over Bonds comes in slugging percentage where he led the league 13 times compared to Bonds’ seven. Even when it appears Ruth has a significant feather in his cap, the comparison results in a virtual stalemate. It was roughly 1.88 times as difficult for Bonds to lead the league in a category than it was for Ruth, and Ruth led the league in slugging percentage 1.86 times more often than Bonds. That’s about as close to a dead-heat as we’re going to find. Again, that only accounts for the size of the player pool and not the exponential increase in talent that flooded MLB after integration. It also doesn’t account for the fact that leading the league in slugging % was much easier for Ruth given the league was largely ignorant of the value of a home run. Bonds, on the other hand, played in the most competitive home run era in MLB history.

In order for Ruth to stake a claim as the greatest baseball player of all-time, he’d need to come close to doubling-up Bonds in these comparisons, and it hasn’t even come close to playing out that way. Adjusting for league size and composition, Bonds’ achievements are more impressive than Ruth’s, and it’s hard to argue that it’s not by a significant margin. Ruth was an accomplished starting pitcher for the first five years of his career which is certainly notable, but Bonds was an outstanding defensive player and an exceptional base-stealer, while Ruth was not. Let’s call that a wash. 

There is no debating Ruth’s dominance or his impact on the sport. He ushered in an entirely new era of baseball by redefining what it meant to be a productive hitter. Bonds’ abrasiveness and PED-use (not factored in the rankings and here’s why) make it virtually impossible that he will ever be universally—or even lightly—embraced as the greatest player of all-time. Heck, he can’t even get into the Hall of Fame. Most lists place Ruth as the greatest player of all-time, and most lists will continue to place Ruth as the greatest player of all-time. People aren’t necessarily interested in changing their minds on this, especially when the beneficiary would be Barry Bonds. The goal of this list is not to rank the most likable good players (here’s looking at you, Griffey), rather it is to rank the greatest players of all-time using two overarching themes: dominance within their era and the competitiveness of their era. To go all Married… with Children, “you can’t have one without the other.”

The women’s triumvirate is significantly more difficult to unravel. Since Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal all played at the same time, we don’t have to wonder how each would have fared playing against similar competition. Their whole careers were spent playing against similar competition, and the result was a remarkable 20+ majors for each of them. They played in the most difficult era in men’s tennis history, and still managed to outperform every other player who ever lived. With the three men’s GOAT candidates coming from the same generation, it’s easier to parse the data and settle on a pecking order. We have no such luxury with the women’s triumvirate. How Martina Navratilova would have fared against the same players who Serena Williams had to contend with will remain a mystery until the end of time. Navratilova is 12 years older than Graf who is 12 years older than Williams, which means we’ll have to apply a degree-of-difficulty consideration to the comparisons. Like the men’s triumvirate, there are strong arguments to be made for all three of the women. 

Serena Williams

Serena Williams has the most majors (23) and the most finals appearances (33) of any women’s tennis player in the Open Era. Among her 23 major victories were wins over 10 different women who won at least one major and seven women who won multiple majors. She faced 18 different opponents in her 33 major appearances. Not only does S. Williams own the Open Era record for major wins and appearances, but she did it against the most diverse collection of talent the women’s game has ever seen. 

The only data points that keep S. Williams from being the unequivocal GOAT are inconsistency and inactivity. Her career spanned from 1998-2022, and over that time she missed 17 major tournaments and lost before the quarterfinals 27 times. In contrast, Graf only missed 11 major tournaments and lost before the quarterfinals just 12 times. The relative lack of activity from Williams not only impacted her quest to put distance between herself and Graf, but it also affected her year-end rankings. Graf finished in the top-3 of the year-end rankings for 11 consecutive years. S. Williams’s longest stretch was five years, and her next longest after that was just two. Navratilova, for her part, did it for a remarkable 14 consecutive years.          

Steffi Graf

At face value, Graf’s career accomplishments are every bit as strong as S. Williams’s. While Williams barely eclipsed Graf in majors (23 – 22) and major appearances (33 – 31), Graf was consistently more dominant. There was a stretch from 1987-1990 when Graf made 13 consecutive major finals. Williams never made more than four in a row. Graf is the only player since 1970 (man or woman) to win a Grand Slam (winning all four majors in the same year), and the only player since 1970 (man or woman) to win five consecutive majors. She’s also the only player in history to win the Golden Slam (winning all four majors and an Olympic gold medal in the same calendar year) and a non-calendar year Super Slam (winning all four majors, an Olympic gold medal, and the WTA Finals consecutively). She’s the only player (man or woman) since 1970 to win at least three majors in five different years, and the only player ever to win a combination of four majors and year-end championships in the same year on five different occasions. 

There is no question that Graf was the greatest player in the world for a significant stretch of her career. What is in question is the caliber of Graf’s competition. Of Graf’s 22 major victories, she defeated seven different women who won at least one major and five who won multiple majors. She faced just 11 different opponents in her 31 major final appearances. In contrast to S. Williams, Graf was seeing and defeating the same group of players. She faced Aranxta Sanchez Vicario seven times in major finals, Martina Navratilova six times, Monica Seles five times, and Gabriela Sabatini three times.  It’s important to note that Navratilova was 12 years older than Graf and well past her prime, Seles was never the same after the stabbing attack in ‘93, and Vicario and Sabatini were a combined 5-10 in major tournament finals. This is all to say that Graf’s competition was nowhere near the level that Williams faced over her career. A quick look at S. Williams and Graf’s ages compared to their opponents in major finals drives this point home. Of S. Williams’s 33 opponents in major finals, 28 of them were in their 20s, when athletes are typically in their prime. On the other hand, only 14 of Graf’s 31 major finals opponents were in their 20s. Graf was, on average, a year younger than her average opponent in major finals while S. Williams was almost four years older than her average opponent. This means that S. Williams was not only playing players in their primes, she was doing so without the advantage of youth.  

Additionally, there is an argument to be made that while she certainly had the best career of her generation, Graf may not have been the best player of her generation. After her magnificent run from 1987-1990, Graf won just two of the next 12 major tournaments, signaling a significant drop-off in performance. Graf was floundering, in large part, because Monica Seles was dominating. Of those same 12 tournaments that saw Graf win just two, Seles won eight and reached the final of a ninth. The baton had seemingly been passed to Seles, and then she was horrifically stabbed at the ‘93 Citizen Cup in Hamburg, Germany. Seles would miss the next 10 major events, and would never regain her dominant form. In Seles’s absence, Graf would go on to win 10 of her next 13 major tournament appearances, cementing her spot as a bona fide GOAT contender. Graf did what she was supposed to do, which is to defeat the competition in front of her. However, it’s hard to envision her achieving the same career major totals with a healthy Seles to contend with.   

Martina Navratilova

The argument for Navratilova as the GOAT is all about volume and an elite peak run, which are plenty of ammunition to give her the crown. She reached the finals of 250 tournaments. To put that number in perspective, S. Williams and Graf combined to reach 238 finals. Navratilova also won an astounding 177 titles. S. Williams and Graf combined to win 181. Navratilova played 701 more career matches than S. Williams, and still finished with a higher career winning percentage (86.3 – 83.2). Navratilova finished in the top-5 of the year-end rankings in 19 consecutive seasons. Nobody has come close to duplicating that feat, and nobody likely ever will. She finished as the year-end #1 player for five consecutive seasons which is the longest streak in history. Her nine Wimbledon titles and eight WTA Finals titles (world championship) are, by far, the most in the Open Era. Nobody won more, and nobody did it for longer than Martina Navratilova. 

Navratilova’s case as the GOAT doesn’t solely stand on volume. The run that she had from Wimbledon ’83 to the ’87 U.S. Open is arguably the most dominant stretch anyone has ever had in the sport of tennis. Over those five years, Navratilova entered 22 majors/world championships and reached the finals in 21 of them. Her record in majors/world championships from 1983-1987 was 133-7 (95%), which means for those five years she was essentially Rafael Nadal on clay, but on all surfaces. Graf’s 13 consecutive major finals appearances would be hailed as the greatest stretch in women’s tennis history, if not for Navratilova’s 14 consecutive major finals appearances and 18 consecutive majors/world championships finals appearances.

However, much like Graf, the competition that Navratilova faced wasn’t in the same stratosphere as S. Williams’s. Navratilova appeared in 32 major finals, and she faced off against Chris Evert in 14 of them. This speaks volumes to the competition on the tour at the time. Of her 32 major finals appearances, Navratilova saw only 11 different opponents. Of her 18 major tournament titles, she only defeated three different women who won at least one career major. Similar to the dynamic that Graf had with Seles, Navratilova was also not far and away the best player of her era. Evert’s resume isn’t far off Navratilova’s. They are less than two years apart in age so their careers coincided. They each won 18 majors and Evert appeared in more major finals (34-32). In fact, Evert has the record for most finals appearances. Evert finished in the top-3 of the year-end rankings for 17 consecutive years which is a mark that most likely will never be broken. Navratilova and Evert faced each other 80 times, with Navratilova holding a slim 43 – 37 margin. The argument here isn’t that Evert had the better career, it’s merely to show that as great as Navratilova was, there was someone in her own era who was nearly as good. Given how weak that particular era was in terms of competition, that’s a tough blemish to overcome in the GOAT conversation.  

The Verdict

There are plenty of arguments to be made for Steffi Graf or Martina Navratilova as the greatest women’s tennis player of all-time. However, each had a rival that was nearly as good in a comparatively weak era. For Graf, it was Monica Seles. For Navratilova, it was Chris Evert. There is nobody even close to Serena Williams from her generation. In the 25 tennis seasons from 1998-2022, S. Williams won as many majors as the next four most successful women combined [Venus Williams (7), Justin Henin (7), Maria Sharapova (5), and Kim Clijsters (4)]. She played in the most talent-rich era the women’s game has ever seen, and she still managed to win more major tournaments than Graf and Navratilova. S. Williams gets the nod on volume and degree of difficulty.  

The Overflow

James	Anderson	Jeff	Maggert
Willie	Anderson	John	Mahaffey
Isao	Aoki	Bob	Martin
Tommy	Armour	John	McDermott
Jim	Barnes	Graeme	McDowell
Thomas	Bjorn	Larry	Mize
Jack	Burke Jr.	Old Tom	Morris
Mark	Calcavecchia	Young Tom	Morris
Paul	Casey	Geoff	Ogilvy
Bob	Charles	Willie	Park Jr.
Henry	Cotton	Henry	Picard
Bruce	Crampton	Ted	Ray
Olin	Dutra	Bill	Rogers
Bob	Ferguson	Paul	Runyan
Doug	Ford	Scott	Simpson
Sandy	Herd	Jeff	Sluman
Harold	Hilton	Alex	Smith
Jock	Hutchison	Horton	Smith
Tony	Lema	Bob	Tway
Bobby	Locke	Mike	Weir