Can a baseball player be great by putting up tremendous individual statistics, but never win a championship? After all, doesn't it take a complete team effort to win? Do we put more weight on the player eligible for the Hall of Fame than on the team that won? What about the baseball writers who vote for the Hall of Fame? Have they, through their votes, given the fans an indication of how they value a particular player's production for the team? How would Ty Cobb compare to Babe Ruth? Could Babe Ruth be measured against Dave Kingman and Fred Lynn and prove, statistically, that Ruth was better than both of them put together? How about today's players? Would Barry Bonds be seen as every bit as dominant as Babe Ruth? What makes a player dominant? Is it a long career with decent statistics because he was fortunate enough to be healthy? Is it leading the league in a particular category that shows the respect that is due to this player? What about the intangibles that a player gives to a baseball team that allows for a positive clubhouse environment or inspires his teammates to play better? Should he be awarded in his individual score, or in team points that show that he played for a winner? Should defensive statistics count? Through these series of questions, a formula has been developed and approximately 1000 players with more than 4000 at bats are included for you to compare your favorites, just to see how close they are to enshrinement. This formula compiles 14 different statistics that allows for fans to compare contemporary players with the greats of yesteryear. I invite you to take part in this enlightening journey...for argument's sake.