His rebuttals seem to completely disregard the lack of minorities. I can't believe that minorities would have NO effect on his numbers though I would agree they would have only a slight effect. But that is only a small part of it. Nobody seemed to be hitting for power backt then, which would lead me to believe that clubs weren't even looking for people that could hit for power. There weren't any players with big numbers because nobody seemed to even try to do it. Plus, nobody seemed to say anything about my posting on how until 1931, balls that bounced over the fence were home runs. I believe his argument is based almost soley on his offensive prowess and his numbers.
In all honesty, I would say that Ruth was without a doubt the greatest power hitter that ever lived and he was a pretty damned good pitcher too, but when you say "greatest baseball player" there are other aspects of baseball that he just isn't known for. Mayes could hit, could hit for power, was a great fielder and was one of the best baserunners of all time. There is not one part of his game which was considered lacking.
So, if I were starting a team, I would pick Mays first. But if I needed someone up at the plate to win a game, Ruth would be the one. But it is impossible to argue about people from different eras, especially when one person dominated his so thoroughly. It's like the argument of who is better Chamberlain or Jordan (or Bird or Johnson)