Curt Schilling doesn't think pitching to Babe Ruth would be too difficult compared to, say, Alex Rodriguez, as shown here. Chuck Solomon/SI

Curt Schilling has this running joke with me about Babe Ruth: .275, 15, 75. That's what he believes Ruth's numbers would be for an average season if he played today. Schilling thinks the Babe was too fat and swung too heavy a bat to hit today's pitchers. My argument is that a great player would be great in any era; he would simply make the adjustments. Ruth would be swinging a 32-ounce maple bat, not a 40-ounce log of ash. He'd have personal trainers and gulp protein drinks. And yes, he would mash. In any case, comparing eras is an exercise in imagination, not fact. Much has been made lately about where Barry Bonds figures among the all-time greats. It's a question with many answers.

Everybody and their mother is talking about how Barry Bonds is better than Willie Mays and how Mays is better than Bonds and how Ruth is better than Mays, but not better than Bonds ... etc. It's almost nerve-racking. But really, isn't comparing Bonds to Mays and even Hank Aaron like comparing apples to oranges? -- Jeff Casale, Raleigh, N.C.

It does make for some interesting conversation and column writing, but we're not talking science here. There is no definitive answer when it comes to comparing players from very different eras. Yes, it is apples and oranges. In this era, Bonds is the best and most feared hitter. He is the preeminent player of the supplement era. By that I mean, he would have been great in any era, but he has taken the advances in nutrition and training to a world class level and maximized his baseball ability. Is he better than Mays or Aaron? I believe he is, but if you want to make a case for either one of those other greats, I can't say you're wrong, either, because it's all conjecture.

What has happened to the Yankees farm system? This same organization that spawned Derek Jeter, Bernie Williams, Jorge Posada, etc., has not produced a bona fide major league player in years. I don't buy the excuse they traded away people because I haven't seen any former Yankees prospect become a star elsewhere. Do they have different people in charge of their system or what? -- Eric Bukzin, Manorville, N.Y.

The Yankees farm system has gone steadily downhill since the early-to-mid-'90s, especially when it comes to developing pitchers. They have not drafted well nor established a great footprint in Latin America. Scouting director Bill Livesay left years ago (he's now with the Mets), but many of the same people are still in place. So I can't give you a concrete reason why it's turned dry.

I was at Opening Day at the new park in Philly. Between all the restaurants, games and other attractions I thought I was at an amusement park. When I go to a game I want to watch it. Why not call the park "Six Flags South Philly?" -- Brian Solodar, Philadelphia

MAILBAG Tom Verducci will answer select questions from SI.com users in his Baseball Mailbag. Your name: Your e-mail address: Your home town: Enter your question:

Gee, you sound like a real baseball fan. Don't you know the new parks aren't made for people like you? It's all about the casual fan. Teams figure you'll go to the game regardless. But to jump from two million to three million fans, which is becoming the money-making number for many teams, they need the casual fan who wants to be entertained by more than baseball when he or she visits the ballpark. Personally, I think our lives are so bombarded with advertisements and noise and clutter that I'd prefer to think of the ballpark as a refuge for pure sporting competition. But I know that makes me a dinosaur.

How can you call the Phillies the class of the NL East? What about the World Series champs, who have started the season 9-4? Am I on the wrong planet here? Sportswriters' refusal to give the Marlins credit is ridiculous and you should be embarrassed to make such remarks. -- Marcio Fonseca, Miami

I'm going strictly by talent on paper, not on the first two weeks of a 26-week season. And no, I'm not embarrassed for picking the Marlins second in the NL East. That's hardly an insult. I think they're a strong contender.

In ranking the best double-play tandems, you did not mention the Marlins' duo of Luis Castillo-Alex Gonzalez. They have not only played together for more years than any other combination, but in Castillo you have one of the best second basemen of any league. -- Enrique, Miami

I probably should have thrown them in at least as an honorable mention. I'm just not a big Alex Gonzalez fan. He came into this year with 2,225 big league at-bats and his on-base percentage is .291. That's awful. He's been notoriously inconsistent, though I do think he made great strides last year. If he continues to mature, then yes, I think the Castillo-Gonzalez combination will be right up there. This is a big year for Gonzalez.

Under your all-defensive duo of double-play combinations, you forgot to mention Jimmy Rollins and Placido Polanco in Philadelphia. Rollins is a Gold Glove caliber shortstop and Polanco is outstanding at second base. I don't think there's a better duo in the NL, if not baseball. -- Ryan Bello, Newtown, Pa.

They certainly are a good combo, but I was looking at overall ability, not just glovework. I thought Rollins was particularly good on turf. I'm eager to see him with a natural grass field at his home park.

Why do we baby pitchers? In this day and age, with all the weight training, steroids and fitness, why did the older pitchers from the '50s and '60s pitch more than seven innings and throw more than 100 pitches? No pitcher can throw inside without showboating sluggers glaring at them, ready to fight. With the rules today, Bob Gibson and Don Drysdale wouldn't get out of the first inning! -- Guy Composto, Selden, N.Y.

Gibson and Drysdale would never be allowed to throw the innings they did. I will say this: It is much harder to work through a lineup (especially in the AL) today than it was in the '50s and '60s. One inning today is not equal to one inning then in terms of the stress pitchers endure. That said, I think if pitchers were put on more rigorous throwing schedules in the minors they could handle a larger workload in the majors. But the prevailing wisdom now is to err on the side of caution -- pitch them less so as to protect them from injury and the GM from getting second-guessed.

I have been a life-long Yankees fan and was extremely disappointed in Andy Pettitte's decision to sign with the Astros. However, considering his recent injury, do you think the Yankees suspected that this would happen? And how serious is his injury? Should the Astros be concerned? -- Charina Miranda, Brooklyn, N.Y.

The Yankees did have some concerns about Pettitte's elbow -- they have for years. There is a structural deficiency there that they've known about. He won 21 games with it last year, so it's not like it was debilitating. Here's what I think: the Yankees wanted Pettitte, but the elbow prevented them from offering him a guaranteed third year. (They did eventually make the third year guaranteed, but it was a shell game in which they reduced the average annual value.) That tells me they thought Pettitte was a blowout waiting to happen -- just not in the first or second year of the deal.

I think you are being a little tough on the memory of Sid Fernandez, or as we affectionately referred to him, "Fat Sid." Sid won more than 100 games and pitched more than 200 innings three times. He could have been better, but he's no Todd Van Poppel. -- Dave Leonard, Ormond Beach, Fla.

OK, good point about lumping Fernandez in the Van Poppel category. What I meant was that Sid, like Jose Contreras, had better stuff than he thought he did. Confidence was often a problem with Sid and it prevented him from being as good as he should have been. I ran the Fernandez-Contreras analogy past Mel Stottlemyre -- pitching coach for both of them -- and he admitted it was appropriate, given that both had the stuff to be better.

The Dodgers are off to a great start. What do you attribute to the turnaround? I know the season is young, but they look playoff-bound to me. Do you see any weaknesses in their lineup or bullpen? -- Eric Vasquez, Hollywood, Calif.

The offense has been better because of the additions of Milton Bradley and Juan Encarnacion. Dave Roberts is running on healthy legs and Paul Lo Duca has been absolutely on fire. I can't say I share your enthusiasm just yet. The season's way too early to think of them as playoff-bound. I grant you, though, that the division is looking very winnable, especially with Arizona playing awful enough to put Bob Brenly on the hot seat.

Sports Illustrated senior writer Tom Verducci covers baseball for the magazine and is a regular contributor to SI.com.