In no particular order:

Babe Ruth
Joe DiMaggio
Mickey Mantle
Ty Cobb
Ted Williams
Rogers Horsnby
Stan Musial
Lou Gehrig
Honus Wagner
Cy Young

Not even one player from the last 35 years?

I have a few problems with making these kinds of lists....

I don't think I'm qualified to comment on how "great" players were if I never saw them play. I became a real baseball fan in the early 60's. I saw plenty of Mays, Mantle, and Aaron, for example, but how can I compare them with, let's say, Williams, Musial, and Dimaggio, whose careers I just missed, or, from an even earlier era, Ruth or Cobb?

The only way to compare them is through their statistics, which have to be looked at and evaluated in the context of the era in which they played.

Two examples:

The late 1920's and early 1930's were a great era for hitters. Many Hall of Famers compiled their amazing offensive statistics during this time.

In 1930

The National League's league batting average was .303
The league E.R.A. was 4.97
The American Leahue batting average was .288
The league E.R.A. was 4.65
Bill Terry of the NY Giants hit .401
45 major league regulars hit .300 or better

Compare that with 1968

The N.L. batting average was .243
The league E.R.A was 2.99
The A.L batting average was .230
The league E.R.A. was 2.98
Carl Yastrzemski led the A.L. in batting average, hitting .301
Out of 74 pitchers who qulaified for the E.R.A. title, 49 had an E.R.A. of 3.00 or lower
Seven had an E.R.A. of less than 2.00, led by Bob Gibson's 1.12 and Luis Tiant's 1.60

My point is, isn't Yastrzemski's .301 in 1968 nearly as impressive as Terry's .401 in 1930?
But nobody remembers Yaz's 1968 as a "great" year.

In 1930, Lefty Grove led the A.L. in E.R.A. with a 2.54. the guy who finished second was at 3.31.
In 1930, Dazzy Vance led the N.L. with 2.61. The guy who was second was at 3.76.

Aren't Grove's and Vance's performance in 1930 nearly as impressive as Gibson's in 1968? But nobody remembers them as having great years, either.

Now, we're in another big offensive era, 1994 to the present. How will today's players be evaluated? How do we evaluate the stats of Pujols Guerrero, and A Rod? Sure, they're the best hitters today, but how do we know if they were better hitters than guys who played in a time when offense was less predominant?

Like plaw said, it's hard to rank players that we never actually saw play. But I'll attempt to make a list.

1. Babe Ruth
2. Willie Mays
3. Barry Bonds (as a Dodger fan it hurts to rank him this high)
4. Hank Aaron
5. Ted Williams
6. Stan Musial
7. Mickey Mantle
8. Frank Robinson
9. Mike Schmidt
10. Lou Gehrig

It's kinda random, but it's early in the morning and I haven't had my coffee yet. I will always rank Babe Ruth at the top of my list for two reasons:

1. His home run totals were greater than the totals for entire teams at that time. Barry Bonds would have to hit hundreds of home runs per year to accomplish this feat.

2. He was one of the AL's best pitchers for the first few years of his career. This alone should keep him at the top forever.

Speaking of pitchers, I didn't rank any of them in my top 10 because I don't think you can compare them to hitters. But if I had to rank five pitchers, they'd go like this:

1. Cy Young
2. Walter Johnson
3. Lefty Grove (very underrated)
4. Christy Mathewson
5. Sandy Koufax

Pitchers are a real problem to rank. The gaudy stats that Cy Young and Christy Mathewson compiled were an an era when it was routine for pitchers to start many more games and pitch many more innings than they do today.

Also, they pitched in the "dead ball" era, when offense was no where near the level that it was in the late 1920's and 1930's, when some of the hitters you see on these lists compiled their unbelievable statistics.

BTW, nice to see you back Don C.
Look how they massacred our Lakers and Nets.

C- Ivan Rodriguez
1B - Lou Gehrig
2B - Rogers Hornsby
3B - Michael Jack Schmidt
SS - Alex Rodriguez
OF - Barry Bonds
OF - Babe Ruth
OF - Willie Mays
P - Randy Johnson

I absolutely agree that you can't compare players from such different eras, and that pitchers and hitters should not be on the same list.

I just do NOT agree with lists like that , which lists Barry Bonds as the greatest player ever. if you take a cold look at the stats, he might be the best, but how can a player who never won the WS be the greatest? I know many will disagree, but that's my opinion. I mean, I think Michael Jordan's last seconds performance against the Jazz in 1998 (4 points, steal from Malone, battling the flu) is more amazing than his 1987-1988 stats, when he averaged 38 PPG.

1. Hank Aaron
2. Babe Ruth
3. Barry Bonds
4. Willie Mays
5. Pete Rose
6. Ty Cobb
7. Rickey Henderson
8. Rafael Palmeiro
9. Eddie Murray
10. Joe DiMaggio

Pitchers:
1. Cy Young
2. Walter Johnson
3. Nolan Ryan
4. Roger Clemens
5. Randy Johnson
6. Christy Mathewson
7. Tom Seaver
8. Greg Maddux
9. Bert Blyleven
10. Lee Smith

Rafael Palmeiro & Eddie Murray over Joe DiMaggio.

Not to mention Ted Williams, Stan Musial, Mickey Mantle, and a host of others.

Bert Blyleven over Steve Carlton or Lefty Grove, to name just two?

Lee Smith

If I thought about it, I'd bet I could name at least ten players better than Palmeiro or Murray, and 10 pitchers better than Blyleven or Smith.

As has been discussed its hard to rank players who you've not actually seen play and that played an important factor in my rankings. I think that Palmeiro and Murray are two of the most underrated players ever to take the field I mean look at the stats.

Murray: .287, 504 HR, 1 917 RBI, 3 255 H, 1 627 R, 560 2B, 35 3B, 1 333 BB, 110 SB.

Palmeiro: .289, 551 HR, 1 775 RBI, 2 922 H, 1 616 R, 572 2B, 38 3B, 1 310 BB, 95 SB.

Murray is one of only three players in the 500/3000 club (Hank Aaron and Willie Mays) and barring injury Palmeiro will join him next season.

Blyleven is one of the most underrated pitchers to ever play the game and looking at his stats one wonders why he isn't in the Hall Of Fame. I threw in Lee Smith because I wanted to include at least one reliever and he is the all time save leader.

None of these lists are etched in stone and my lists reflect my opinions, its only natural for there to be wide debate and discussion.