Greatest Historical Hitters Ever. [Archive]

mordeci

07-14-2005, 07:57 AM

Same game as yesterday, but this time with hits. How many more hits did a player get than the average player that year would have gotten in the same number of at-bats.

LeagueAverage=hits/ab (of course) for all players in a given year.
AverageHits=indiviual player's AB * LeagueAverage
HitsDiff=individual player's actual hits-AverageHits

Single Season:
Best
1911 Ty Cobb 90.6 (248-157.4)
1887 Tip O'Neill 85 (225-140)
1901 Nap Lajoie 84.1 (232-147.9)
1920 George Sisler 82.5 (257-174.5)
1911 Joe Jackson 80.9 (233-152.1)
1910 Nap Lajoie 79.6 (227-147.4)
1917 Ty Cobb 78.9 (225-146.1)
1912 Ty Cobb 77.4 (226-148.6)
1922 George Sisler 77 (246-169)
1909 Ty Cobb 76.3 (216-139.7)
1977 Rod Carew 76.3 (239-162.7)
1916 Tris Speaker 75.8 (211-135.2)
1884 Fred Dunlap 75.8 (185-109.2)
1905 Cy Seymour 74.9 (219-144.1)
2004 Ichiro Suzuki 74.7 (262-187.3)

worst
1901 Bill Halman -40.1
1940 Frankie Crosetti -40
1933 Jim Levey -39.6
1897 Germany Smith -38.9
1902 John Gochnauer -37.5
1909 Bill Bergen -36.4
1901 Monte Cross -36.3
1890 Ben Conroy -36.1
1900 Monte Cross -36.1
1895 Tom Brown -35.4
1885 Joe Gerhardt -35.4
1879 Will White -35.1
1937 Leo Durocher -34.9
1991 Rob Deer -34.6

Career
best
1. Ty Cobb 1168
2. Stan Musial 794
3. Tris Speaker 790
4. Nap Lajoie 754
5. Honus Wagner 719
6. Tony Gwynn 712
7. Cap Anson 707
8. Pete Rose 688
9. Rod Carew 673
10. Eddie Collins 672
11. Rogers Hornsby 666
12. Hank Aaron 650
13. Ted Williams 639
14. Roberto Clemente 622
15. Wade Boggs 615
16. Willie Keeler 613
17. Jesse Burkett 553
18. Dan Brouthers 552
19. Ed Delahanty 537
20. Paul Waner 531

worst
1. Monte Cross -210
2. George McBride -192
3. Leo Durocher -170
4. Frankie Crosetti -163
5. Germany Smith -159
6. Ed Brinkman - -155
7. Rabbit Maranville -154
8. Mark Belanger -154
9. Dave Kingman -148
10. Greg Vaughn -142

Career by pct. actual hits/average hits (don't look for Pete Rose)
1. Cobb 1.39
2. Dan Brouthers 1.32
3. Ted Williams 1.32
4. Nap Lajoie 1.30
5. Rogers Hornsby 1.29
6. Tris Spearker 1.29
7. Tony Gwynn 1.29
8. Stan Musial 1.28
9. Rod Carew 1.28
10. Honus Wagner 1.27
11. Ed Delahanty 1.26
12. Cap Anson 1.26
13. Wade Boggs 1.26
14. Willie Keeler 1.26
15. Roberto Clemente 1.26
16. Eddie Collins 1.25
17. Billy Hamilton 1.25
18. Matty Alou 1.24
19. Jesse Burckett 1.24
20. Sam Thompson 1.24
the next 10 without stats: Kirby Puckett, Harry Heilmann, George Sisler, Tony Oliva, Babe Ruth, King Kelly, Joe DiMaggio, Sam Crawford, Roger Connor, Bill Terry.

worst
1. George McBride .86
2. Monte Cross .87
3. Leo Durocher .89
4. Mark Belanger .90
5. Ed Brinkman .90
6. Frankie Crosetti .90
7. Dave Kingman .91
8. Greg Vaughn .91
9. Germany Smith .91
10. Eddie Miller .91
11. Mickey Doolan .91
12. Ski Melillo .92
13. Ely Bones .92
14. Eddie Joost .92
15. Luke Sewell .92
16. Wally Gerber .92
17. Everett Scott .92
18. Aurelio Rodriguez .93
19. Ray Schalk .94
20. Rabbit Maranville .94

One more interesting point. The average hits ((LeagueBA * player's AB) each year) for these five players was 3000+. In other words, the "average players" would have reached 3000 hits if they'd just gotten as many ABs as these players (of course 2 of them broke 4000):

average hits vs. actual (pct.)
1. Pete Rose 3568 - 4256 (1.19)
2. Hank Aaron 3121 - 3771 (1.21)
3. Carl Yastrzemski 3039 - 3419 (1.12)
4. Cal Ripken 3025 - 3184 (1.05)
5. Ty Cobb 3021 - 4189 (1.39)

flash143817

07-14-2005, 05:21 PM

Rabbit Maranville as one of the 10 worst hitters ever. And he is in the Hall of Fame. Amazing. Says something about his defense. Or his hype.

therealnod

07-14-2005, 05:49 PM

I am so glad to see the "best" list complimented with the "worst" list, but I have a question: WTH is Hal Morris on the "worst" list? I have him as the front runner for the worst hitter ever.

El Nino Linares

11-23-2005, 12:08 PM

In my opinion the best hitter of all time has to be Ted Williams...

Honus Wagner Rules

11-23-2005, 12:26 PM

The competition for the title of "best hitter of all time" comes down to:

Ruth
Williams
Cobb

El Nino Linares

11-23-2005, 12:41 PM

When you choose its one and on top of them all is the only man to win the triple crown twice.... and bat for an average of 400 twice.... and he lost his two best seasons in the war with Korea....

Honus Wagner Rules

11-23-2005, 01:06 PM

Bob Hannah

11-23-2005, 01:09 PM

Williams also lost 3 years to WWII.

538280

11-23-2005, 01:12 PM

Why did you start another thread like this? We have another one with the exact same subject going right now.

El Nino Linares

11-23-2005, 03:19 PM

Ummm...Williams batted over .400 only once, in 1941.
No he batted .400 twice check your stats buddy......It was on 1952 .400 and 1953 .407....

DoubleX

11-23-2005, 06:09 PM

No he batted .400 twice check your stats buddy......It was on 1952 .400 and 1953 .407....

Well you're right and you're wrong....

Williams did bat .400 in 1952 and 1953, but he only had 10 ABs in 1952 and 91 ABs in 1953. That's hardly anything. He was fighting in the Korean War during those years and that's why he barely made an appearance.

His only real .400 season was in 1941 when he batted .407. In that season he had 456 ABs (he also walked 147 times).

Sultan_1895-1948

11-23-2005, 07:34 PM

When you choose its one and on top of them all is the only man to win the triple crown twice.... and bat for an average of 400 twice.... and he lost his two best seasons in the war with Korea....

How do you rank Williams above Ruth as a hitter? How much weaker do you think Ruth's league was than Williams'?

Babe's slugging is 56 points higher, batting average only 2 points lower. Ruth hit higher than .370 six times, Williams only twice. Ruth hit 40 or more homers 11 times, Williams only once.

The triple crown is a great accomplishment, but its a matter of luck and circumstance more than anything. For example, Ruth had two legs of the triple crown seven times but never won it. Should we take something away from him because he finished second B.A. three times, second in RBI four times, and second in HR three times?

538280

11-23-2005, 09:00 PM

In my opinion the best hitter of all time has to be Ted Williams...

Ted Williams loved to say he was the greatest hitter who ever lived. He certainly worked hard. Worked so hard there and ignored all other aspects of the game. As hard as he worked, he never surpassed Babe Ruth.

The only place Ted may have topped Ruth was walking. They both walked tons, obviously, but Ted had probably the greatest plate discipline ever. He rarely struck out, too, where as Babe did strikeout quite a bit for his time (not that I really hold that against him too much).

But, Ted just doesn't compare to the Babe when it comes to slugging. Look at the relative slugging percentages:

Ruth-173
Williams-155

Now, there certainly are legitimate reasons to believe they are closer as sluggers than that would suggest. Williams missed some of his best years to WWII. That would probably increase that a bit, but anything beyond 5 points is giving way too much credit. Ted also played in a stronger league, but I don't think it was that much stronger. In Ruth's time, the AL was the dominant league over the NL. Ted came up when they were roughly equal, but by the end of his career the AL was behind. Just because of natural timeline progression Ted's leagues were better, but again, anything more than 5 points is stretching it.

So, overall, Williams just wasn't anywhere near the slugger Ruth was. He was just as good at contact and getting on base, but he is way behind in slugging the ball.

Ted may have worked harder at hitting than anyone, but that doesn't mean he was the best hitter ever. That title goes to Babe Ruth, undisputedly.

leecemark

11-23-2005, 09:20 PM

westsidegrounds

11-23-2005, 09:33 PM

Ted Williams loved to say he was the greatest hitter who ever lived. <...>.

The famous quote is "All I ever wanted out of life was that when I walked down the street, people would say "There goes Ted Williams, the greatest Hitter who ever lived."

i.e., "I want to be the greatest", not "I am the greatest".

Here's a nice picture:

Sultan_1895-1948

11-24-2005, 02:36 AM

--The Babe's relative slugging percentage advantage may not be as big as it appears for reasons unrelated to league quality. There is also the issue of the styles of play in their leagues. In much of Ruth's career only a few players had adopted a true slugging style of hitting. By the time Williams came along that was the predominant style. Obviously it is easier to separate from the league slugging average when many players are just trying for contact rather than power than it is when a much higher percentage of hitters are sluggers. I agree that Babe was a better slugger, but I'm not sure how big the margin is

Ruth didn't try to hit home runs so much as he simply tried to hit the ball hard to all fields. No matter where it was pitched, and no matter who pitched it, that was his goal. He once talked about hitting like a boxer who punches someone. And how when you punch someone your fist stops. But if you punch hard enough, your punch doesn't stop, it keeps going. He looked at hitting a baseball the same way. Probably why he used such a heavy bat.

His "style" was picked up on as early as '21, but others didn't follow through with it, in the sense that they cut down their swings with 2 strikes for the most part. The rule changes helped everyone in the SA and B.A. departments, but Ruth was simply able to hit the ball further than anyone else.

and whether it can be offset by Williams advantages in other hitting areas.

What other hitting areas do you speak of?

runningshoes

11-24-2005, 03:27 AM

In my opinion the best hitter of all time has to be Ted Williams...

You know something. I love Ted Williams. He's my favourite player all-time, but Ruth gets the nod as the greatest ever.

No he batted .400 twice check your stats buddy......It was on 1952 .400 and 1953 .407....

And before you start getting cocky with people you had better check the stats and line them up with the facts.

DoubleX

11-24-2005, 08:27 AM

How do you rank Williams above Ruth as a hitter? How much weaker do you think Ruth's league was than Williams'?

Babe's slugging is 56 points higher, batting average only 2 points lower. Ruth hit higher than .370 six times, Williams only twice. Ruth hit 40 or more homers 11 times, Williams only once.

The triple crown is a great accomplishment, but its a matter of luck and circumstance more than anything. For example, Ruth had two legs of the triple crown seven times but never won it. Should we take something away from him because he finished second B.A. three times, second in RBI four times, and second in HR three times?

I recently re-evaluated my rankings and moved Williams into first ahead or Ruth on my all-time hitters list. My reasoning is basically two-fold:
1) League-quality. It does matter here because Babe's prime overlapped with the golden-era of offense.
2) If Williams didn't lose almost 5 prime years to military service, he would rank at or very near the top in virtually every offensive category (and in some categories, he would likely still have a healthy margin over the no. 2 guy) and his career BA might even be a few points higher.

SHOELESSJOE3

11-24-2005, 09:32 AM

I recently re-evaluated my rankings and moved Williams into first ahead or Ruth on my all-time hitters list. My reasoning is basically two-fold:
1) League-quality. It does matter here because Babe's prime overlapped with the golden-era of offense.
2) If Williams didn't lose almost 5 prime years to military service, he would rank at or very near the top in virtually every offensive category (and in some categories, he would likely still have a healthy margin over the no. 2 guy) and his career BA might even be a few points higher.

First place, no debate, those years lost in the military cost Ted some numbers, mostly in cumulative stats, those based on totals. Simple logic with, more at bats his stats based on totals, HR's EBH's, RBI's, walks, total bases would have to be higher had he not lost those years.

Stats based on percentages, no way to tell if they would be higher, lower only speculation. Being the great hitter he was I doubt he would have lost much. Still, unlike stats based on totals, percentage based projections, no way to know.

Comparing Ruth and Williams, the lost years in the military keep coming up, valid point. Does anyone know even with the lost years Ted had only 693 less at bats than Ruth. A good number but when we are dealing with at bats in the neighborhood of 8000 it means less. Just in home runs Ruth at 714 and Ted at 521 no way those 693 less at bats mean much.

I tried to find a fair way to compare the two, stats based on the hitter alone, not team aided, runs or RBI's.

I took Ruth's years from 1919 to 1935, years when he was in the line up daily, not every 4th or 5th day as a pitcher.

------------------Ruth-----------Williams.
PA---------------9831-----------9789
At bats----------7721-----------7706
Ba.--------------.346------------.342
OBA-------------.481------------.482
Slg.-------------.705------------.634
BB---------------1973-----------2021
EBH's------------1270-----------1117
Total bases------5446-----------4884
Home runs--------694-----------521

Not a fair comparison to some, we can always find flaws with any set of numbers. I think the above is fair, we can debate era's for all time, I'm just giving a set of numbers where the two hitters at bats are very close.

So, I think it's fair to bring up Ted's lost years when comparing him to the whole of baseball, all hitters. But as one could see in Ruth's whole career 1914-1935 there was only a difference or 693 more at bats for Ruth and the above is even closer in career at bats.

Buzzaldrin

11-25-2005, 04:39 PM

When you choose its one and on top of them all is the only man to win the triple crown twice.... and bat for an average of 400 twice.... and he lost his two best seasons in the war with Korea....

Did anyone else notice the glaring errors in this statement that haven't been mentioned yet? Um...Williams is the only man to win the triple crown twice? I think Mama Hornsby might have a word or two to say about her boy regarding that. And his two best seasons lost in Korea? Well, if Williams lost great seasons to wartime, the ones to worry about are definitely NOT the ones in Korea.

Oh, just a little PS- Williams, even if he had hit .400 twice (which he didn't), would not have been the only man to accomplish that either.

Having said that, he DID have the best camera eye (for walks) and one of the two best (with Shoeless Joe) swings ever. But best hitter ever? Gotta tell ya, Mama Cobb with her .366 hitting son, and Mama Ruth with her .690 slugging son, and even Mama Barnes, with her little boy creating the classic model of the great hitter till he got hurt (and please don't give me that crap about the fair-foul rule- guys who only bunt don't consistently lead their league in slugging and extra base hits) might give you a run for your money.

Don't get me wrong- I'm not saying that you're wrong about best hitter ever, I'm just saying that if you're going to back that up, you may want to do it with facts instead of whatever you want to call what you provided.

El Nino Linares

11-26-2005, 07:53 AM

runningshoes

11-26-2005, 07:59 AM

You want to start talking about the advantage Williams had hitting his entire carrer at Fenway Park?

Besides, you're forgetting a fellow from Georgia who is second.

El Nino Linares

11-26-2005, 08:10 AM

You mean that Williams had a disadvantage playing for fenway.....The fences were a lot deeper... And the reason why he hit almost 600 doubles in his career is that the green monster was all the way around the outfield.... Not like now that middle to right field is half.....

Guerrero Mad Man 2715

11-26-2005, 08:20 AM

History Of Baseball Fan

11-26-2005, 10:01 AM

Cobb
Ruth
Williams
Hornsby

Ubiquitous

11-26-2005, 10:04 AM

The greatest hitter of all time is Ed Irvin. He had great power, hit for a high average, and could scamper around the bases. Nobody could match his career in the batters box. Though I will say Suede Wade Lefler gives him a run for his money and was a better run producer.

Buzzaldrin

11-26-2005, 10:12 AM

Listen the best homerun hitter of all time is Babe Ruth without a doubt... BC Hank Aaron played in years that the seasons were a lot longer.... There was more games in the seasons... The best "hitter" of all time was and always will be Ted Williams, there is no comparison if you want to compare lets.... How many doubles did Williams have in his career????? close to 600 and he played for Boston in those times Boston had the green monster all the way around.... If the majority of those doubles wouldnt of hit the wall... No one would have ever caught him in the homerun dept.... And on top of that 2 yrs in a war the best two years of his career.... If you still have something to say after this there is nothing..... Taking nothing away from Ruth....But Ruth was a slugger.... Ted Williams is what defines the word "hitter."

Ruth is not a better homerun hitter than Aaron because Aaron played in longer seasons- which Aaron only did the last 2/3 of his career anyhow- Ruth was a better home run hitter because he just plain was.

Forgetting all of that- your Williams argument is (and I hate to say it because I agree with you about his talent) terrible. You really gotta learn to argue because you're making me reconsider him as the best ever. Close to 600 doubles? Actually, 525, and while we're at it Ruth hit 506. Ruth DID have 700 more AB than Williams, but what the heck, Ruth out tripled Williams 136 to 71 -and lets not even mention the huge homer difference (ok, nearly 200). If we allow Williams leeway for missing seasons when he was 24-26 years old, does Ruth get leeway for the four seasons he was a full time pitcher?

But this doubles thing- even in his own era, Williams was massively, MASSIVELY, out doubled and out tripled by Stan Musial. Musial, granted, only missed one season because of war, but won his own seven batting titles, blah blah blah etc.

Now, I believe Williams was a better pure hitter than anyone. I do. But not because of any of the dubious numbers you've offered up for digestion. Williams had the best eye and the best swing- he used them to his best advantage by practicing day in and day out. He had fabulous plate discipline and, to my opinion anyhow, only Ruth, Cobb, and Barnes could even claim to being his equal at the plate, but that is because of results- not talent, and I doubt anyone can prove the argument one way or the other.

El Nino Linares

11-26-2005, 10:40 AM

I'm going to say it. I think Eddie Murray is the best hitter of all time. He played in the modern era where as if you throw all sliders to the batters back then, they'd be sure to strike out. Eddie Murray was consistent and one of three people to accumulate 3000 hits with 500 HR's as a switch hitter. You got to love switch hitters.
Listen i think you are mistaken you cant put eddie murray in the same paragraph as Ted Williams, Ted Williams was the man with the best baseball eye sight ever..... Ted would get home after practice and have his wife read him the newspaper, while he would but a band over his eyes.... He wouldnt use his eyesight for anything that didnt involve his business.... When Williams was retired Bob Gibson tried to paint the ball three different colors blue, red, and yellow.... Ted Williams said that not only am i gonna hit the ball off of you but i am gonna tell you in what color side i hit it.... The bat would reflect the color that was hit.... So there was no lying.....He hit a homerun off of bob gibson and said i hit it on the red side and they checked the bat and he hit it on the red side..... Bob Gibson even wanted to retire and tell Williams told him dont forget that my name is Ted Williams...... There is no doubt that he is the best hitter of all time....

runningshoes

11-26-2005, 10:48 AM

Eddie Murray..the greatest hitter of all time?

This thread is starting to get wierd.

El Nino Linares

11-26-2005, 10:49 AM

Ruth is not a better homerun hitter than Aaron because Aaron played in longer seasons- which Aaron only did the last 2/3 of his career anyhow- Ruth was a better home run hitter because he just plain was.
That is fine but Ruth played in times that the regular season was shorter... All round hitter Ruth cant compare ever to Williams.... Listen its not about arguing a topic who the hell are you research your facts bc you obviously have never looked up and research the best hitter of all time is Williams buddy you are not an analyst and all analyst have Williams labeled as the best hitter of all time.... and so what he had 525 doubles i didnt go and actually sit there and try to go stat for stat.... you even said it that ruth has 700 more at bats then Williams.... As a slugger Ruth has it locked.... And Aaron was not a better slugger than Ruth, Ruth played in an era that they didnt play 162 games, when Aaron played they played 162 games and to top it off the 4 years that he pitched... And Aaron did it after like 20seasons.....

charlesblalack@yahoo.com

11-26-2005, 11:04 AM

So as I read this thread I see that most rank Williams as the first or second greatest hitter ever. But when being ranked amongst all position players on BBF he often falls behind Cobb, Mays, and Wagner. Why's that so? I rank him #2 MLB position player of all-time behind Ruth because:

1) His fielding isn't as crappy as many say. Win Shares actually has him at a C. So I wouldn't punish him for being an average fielder. Especially at Left Field, where not having a stellar fielder there won't hurt the team that much.

2) I also say he's the greatest hitter of all-time ahead of Ruth because of leauge quality and missed years due to War Services and stats like Eqa, Win Shares, RC, and OPS show his value. Actually, the main reason I have Ruth a better player than Williams is because of the Babe's pitching.They were both average outfielders and not very swift on the bases. Although Ruth was known for hubris- he thought he was faster than he was.

So I really don't know why he isn't ranked in the Top 3 position players of all-time around here. Maybe I'm blind to something, but I really don't see any reasons.

538280

11-26-2005, 11:08 AM

all analyst have Williams labeled as the best hitter of all time.

With this statement, you have obviously not done your research. Almost all analysts have Ruth the #1 hitter, it is rare to find one with Williams.

El Nino Linares

11-26-2005, 11:09 AM

When you speak about the greatest hitter of all-time you are only speaking about hitting.... Fielding, and running have nothing to do with it.... As a position player you are absolutely correct he was not all that.... But as a pure hitter no one can top Ted... Sorry not even the man that has the most hits in baseball history Pete Rose.... He will never land in the same category.... Ted Willliams was unreal....

ElHalo

11-26-2005, 11:10 AM

That is fine but Ruth played in times that the regular season was shorter... All round hitter Ruth cant compare ever to Williams.... Listen its not about arguing a topic who the hell are you research your facts bc you obviously have never looked up and research the best hitter of all time is Williams buddy you are not an analyst and all analyst have Williams labeled as the best hitter of all time.... and so what he had 525 doubles i didnt go and actually sit there and try to go stat for stat.... you even said it that ruth has 700 more at bats then Williams.... As a slugger Ruth has it locked.... And Aaron was not a better slugger than Ruth, Ruth played in an era that they didnt play 162 games, when Aaron played they played 162 games and to top it off the 4 years that he pitched... And Aaron did it after like 20seasons.....

On a completely unrelated subject, not apropos to this post in any way whatsoever, I'd like to point out the Sons of Sam Horn site only allows people to join the forum if they get recommended by another member who already posts there, or if they go through a lengthy screening process. Just tossing that one out there.

runningshoes

11-26-2005, 11:11 AM

and all analyst have Williams labeled as the best hitter of all time

I have news for you. Most "analysts" have Ruth at the top, including most of the competent ones on BBF.

You're just shooting from the hip now.

ElHalo

11-26-2005, 11:11 AM

runningshoes

11-26-2005, 11:13 AM

Ted Willliams was unreal....

No one is arguing that, but if Williams was unreal, then Ruth was super natural.

El Nino Linares

11-26-2005, 11:13 AM

With this statement, you have obviously not done your research. Almost all analysts have Ruth the #1 hitter, it is rare to find one with Williams.
Yo myn friend they have Ruth labeled as the best player of all time.... I dont argue that we are talking about hitting...... HITTING ONLY HITTING ONLY.....
AND NEVER IF YOU GO TO TED WILLIAMS WEB-SITE YOU WILL SEE THAT IT SAYS THE GREATEST HITTER TO EVER LIVE..... YOU HAVENT DONE YOUR HOMEWORK, LOOK RUTH THE GREATEST PLAYER OF ALL TIME, TED WILLIAMS THE GREATEST HITTER OF ALL TIME... ITS NOT THE SAME....

runningshoes

11-26-2005, 11:15 AM

IF YOU GO TO TED WILLIAMS WEB-SITE YOU WILL SEE THAT IT SAYS THE GREATEST HITTER TO EVER LIVE

You're basing your arguement on what a PR guy wrote on his website?

El Nino Linares

11-26-2005, 11:16 AM

No one is arguing that, but if Williams was unreal, then Ruth was super natural.
I TOTALLY AGREE BUT WE ARE ARGUING TWO DIFFERENT TOPICS... THE BEST HITTER ALL-TIME VS THE BEST PLAYER ALL-TIME...... MICHAEL JORDAN IS THE BASKETBALL PLAYER OF ALL TIME BUT VINCE CARTER IS THE HARDEST DUNKER OF ALL TIME....

runningshoes

11-26-2005, 11:18 AM

I TOTALLY AGREE BUT WE ARE ARGUING TWO DIFFERENT TOPICS... THE BEST HITTER ALL-TIME VS THE BEST PLAYER ALL-TIME......

I'm not arguing the best player..I'm arguing the best hitter..Ruth just happens to be both.

charlesblalack@yahoo.com

11-26-2005, 11:39 AM

VINCE CARTER IS THE HARDEST DUNKER OF ALL TIME....
MJ
Dominique
DR J

leecemark

11-26-2005, 11:40 AM

--I agree that Williams being an average LFer didn't hurt his teams. He didn't help them much with that aspect of the game either. Thats where a number of other players gain ground on him as overall player. He was clearly a better hitter than Willie Mays, but Mays was a GREAT CFer and baserunner. Aaron was very good at both. Wagner was a very good SS and great baserunner. Hitting may be the most important skill, but the other parts of the game have value too and Williams gives up alot to many of the more complete all tiem greats.

runningshoes

11-26-2005, 11:45 AM

1)Ted Williams
2)Babe Ruth
3)Lou Gehrig
4)Mickey Mantle
5)Joe DiMaggio
6)Ty Cobb
7)Pete Rose
8)Hank Aaron
9)Willie Mays
10)Barry Bonds

You Have Pete Rose and Joe DiMaggio in your top ten?

Mantle at number four?

Maybe..and I mean maybe you can make an argument for Mantle being seventh or eighth.

Where's Rogers Hornsby?

How did you arrive at these rankings?

charlesblalack@yahoo.com

11-26-2005, 11:58 AM

1)Ted Williams
2)Babe Ruth
3)Lou Gehrig
4)Mickey Mantle
5)Joe DiMaggio
6)Ty Cobb
7)Pete Rose
8)Hank Aaron
9)Willie Mays
10)Barry Bonds
Since it's not my own list I can't nitpick, but Pete Rose... Por que?

El Nino Linares

11-26-2005, 12:03 PM

You Have Pete Rose and Joe DiMaggio in your top ten?

Mantle at number four?

Maybe..and I mean maybe you can make an argument for Mantle being seventh or eighth.

Where's Rogers Hornsby?

How did you arrive at these rankings?
hornsby is not even in my top 20

El Nino Linares

11-26-2005, 12:04 PM

Since it's not my own list I can't nitpick, but Pete Rose... Por que?
bc pete rose was the man with the most hits in mlb history

runningshoes

11-26-2005, 12:10 PM

hornsby is not even in my top 20

You just blew any and all credibility.

runningshoes

11-26-2005, 12:10 PM

bc pete rose was the man with the most hits in mlb history

I'm starting to wonder if you even know what you're doing.

El Nino Linares

11-26-2005, 12:15 PM

I'm starting to wonder if you even know what you're doing.
MY FRIEND THAT IS MY OPINION WHEN YOU SPEAK ABOUT GREAT PLAYERS IM NOT SAYING THAT HE ISN T ONE OF THE BEST BUT IN MY OPINION HE IS NOT EVEN IN MY TOP20.....I BELIEVE THAT THERE WERE BETTER PLAYERS THAN HIM....

El Nino Linares

11-26-2005, 12:17 PM

MJ
Dominique
DR J
AND FOR YOUR INFORMATION THE MOST EXPLOSIVE DUNKER OF ALL TIME.... NOT SAID BY AN ESPN ANALYST THAT HE IS THE MAN WITH THE HIGHEST VERTICAL EVER AND HE IS THE MOST EXPLOSIVE DUNKER....

El Nino Linares

11-26-2005, 12:40 PM

I'm starting to wonder if you even know what you're doing.
I THINK YOU DON T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT PETE ROSE HAS 4256 HITS AND IN SECOND PLACE IS TY COBB 4189..... BRO YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT HORNSBY AND HE DOESNT EVEN HAVE 3000 HITS THESE ARE ALL FACTS FROM THE BASEBALL ALMANAC.... SO WHO DOESNT KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKIN ABOUT....

runningshoes

11-26-2005, 12:43 PM

I THINK YOU DON T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT PETE ROSE HAS 4256 HITS AND IN SECOND PLACE IS TY COBB 4189..... BRO YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT HORNSBY AND HE DOESNT EVEN HAVE 3000 HITS THESE ARE ALL FACTS FROM THE BASEBALL ALMANAC.... SO WHO DOESNT KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKIN ABOUT....

Sorry, man..I'm out of this one.. I have to go clean my sock drawer...best of luck to you. :waving

El Nino Linares

11-26-2005, 12:48 PM

Eddie Murray..the greatest hitter of all time?

This thread is starting to get wierd.
DUDE YOU HAVE SOME NERVE TELLING ME THAT I DONT KNOW WHAT I AM TALKIN ABOUT WHEN YOU SAID YOU THINK THE GREATEST HITTER OF ALL-TIME IS EDDIE MURRAY.....

runningshoes

11-26-2005, 12:52 PM

DUDE YOU HAVE SOME NERVE TELLING ME THAT I DONT KNOW WHAT I AM TALKIN ABOUT WHEN YOU SAID YOU THINK THE GREATEST HITTER OF ALL-TIME IS EDDIE MURRAY.....

Go back and read....then think before you speak.

I never said Murray is the greatest. I said Ruth is the greatest. Vlad said Murray was the greatest.

I think you had better quit while you're behind.

El Nino Linares

11-26-2005, 01:19 PM

Go back and read....then think before you speak.

I never said Murray is the greatest. I said Ruth is the greatest. Vlad said Murray was the greatest.

I think you had better quit while you're behind.
YO LISTEN YOU EVEN MENTIONED YOUR FRIEND HORNSBY... DONT TELL ME THAT I DONT KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT AND THE GREATEST HITTER OF ALL-TIME IS TED WILLIAMS GUY I DONT KNOW WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT BASEBALL.... THE TRUTH IS THAT ANYONE THAT ADDS ROGERS HORNSBY IN THE SAME BOOK WITH TY COBB, TED WILLIAMS, AND BABE RUTH IS A CRAZY.....

runningshoes

11-26-2005, 01:21 PM

YO LISTEN SMART ASS YOU EVEN MENTIONED YOUR FRIEND HORNSBY... DONT TELL ME THAT I DONT KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT AND THE GREATEST HITTER OF ALL-TIME IS TED WILLIAMS GUY I DONT KNOW WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT BASEBALL.... THE TRUTH IS THAT ANYONE THAT ADDS ROGERS HORNSBY IN THE SAME BOOK WITH TY COBB, TED WILLIAMS, AND BABE RUTH IS A MORON.....

Don't go away mad..just go away. ;)

charlesblalack@yahoo.com

11-26-2005, 01:28 PM

Yo El Nino,
I like your excitement and all, but uh Rogers Hornsby could out-hit Rose with with his eyes pierced with a pitch fork.

El Nino Linares

11-26-2005, 01:51 PM

Yo El Nino,
I like your excitement and all, but uh Rogers Hornsby could out-hit Rose with with his eyes pierced with a pitch fork.
OK YOU SWEAR THAT IS WHY THE DIFFERENCE IN HITS IS 1326 AND HORNSBY CAN OUT HIT PETE ROSE... YOU ARE DERAINGED WERE DO YOU GUYS GET YOUR INFORMATION..... PETE ROSE IS THE ALL TIME HIT LEADER.... AND HORNSBY IS 32 ALL TIME.... OK EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN....
PLEASE THE FACTS ARE THERE SO EXPLAIN....

El Nino Linares

11-26-2005, 01:52 PM

Don't go away mad..just go away. ;)
LISTEN WHEN I SPEAK I HAVE FACTS TO BACK IT UP.... THE TRUTH IS I DONT SPEAK ON BEING A FANATIC... AND IM NOT MAD I SPEAK ABOUT WHAT I KNOW OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE WRONG THE STATS DONT EVER LIE.....

El Nino Linares

11-26-2005, 01:57 PM

With A Name Like Runningshoes The Last Thing You Should Be Talking About Is Baseball.... Maybe You Should Join A Track And Field Forum... Bc With Baseball You Dont Know Anything.... Rogers Hornsby Cant Clean Pete Rose's Spikes.. Are You Kidding That Is Not Even Fair To Certain Hall Of Famers...... He Was Good Dont Get Me Wrong But Nothing Like Cobb, Williams, And Ruth... Are You Crazy Or Daranged...

Buzzaldrin

11-26-2005, 02:11 PM

I hate to say this, but you have written without question the dumbest posts I've ever read on any thread on any site, and I mean completely disregarding all the glaring factual errors in them or your opinions (which you are, of course, entitled to). You may well be a very intelligent person, but if you stopped smoking tennis shoes for a while and calmed down, people might actually want to have a discussion with you.

Yoiur first post made a big point of Williams' 2 triple crowns as a point for him being best ever. Why, please enlighten me, do Hornsby's two triple crowns not even deserve to put him in your top 20? And since it's come up several times- Ruth and Williams played in league that had exactly the same number of games each and every season. Now, I fail to understand how season length has anything to do with talent, but it seems to be a big issue with you. Although, strangely enough, NOT when you put (and I nearly swallowed my tongue when I read this) Pete farking Rose up as one of the greatest hitters ever. Give Rose credit for most determination ever, give him credit for longevity, but for God's sake, NOT for being one of the all time greats.

Make no mistake, Rose was a great hitter- along with Carew, Clemente, Madlock, and Oliva, the best hitter for AVERAGE of his era, but get a grip.

And please, please, for the sake of all of us- if you're going to quote baseball almanacs, etc., don't just selectively use facts that make you feel good (ignoring, for example, Hornsby's .358 lifetime average- and since you make a point of his not reaching 3000 hits- he never played a full season after he was 33 because he fell in love with managing. Rose let his career linger till he was hitting .245)

And are you seriously telling us that because TED WILLIAM'S WEB SITE says he's the best ever, then it's true?

charlesblalack@yahoo.com

11-26-2005, 02:15 PM

Well put, Buzzaldrin

El Nino Linares

11-26-2005, 02:46 PM

El Nino Linares

11-26-2005, 03:05 PM

I hate to say this, but you have written without question the dumbest posts I've ever read on any thread on any site, and I mean completely disregarding all the glaring factual errors in them or your opinions (which you are, of course, entitled to). You may well be a very intelligent person, but if you stopped smoking tennis shoes for a while and calmed down, people might actually want to have a discussion with you.

LISTEN FIRST OFF THE CRACK I DONT SMOKE ANY.... TED WILLIAMS IS THE BEST HITTER OF ALL TIME THERE IS NO QUESTION OF THAT AND THIS GUY HORNSBY IS NOT EVEN THAT GOOD.... HE IS AIGHT IN THE HALL OF FAME AND IF YOU WANT TO BE IGNORANT TO THE FACT THAT THE LENGTH OF PLAY GAMES IS NOT AN ISSUE THEN DO AS YOU WISH BUT IT DEFINITELY MATTERS.... AS FAR AS THE GRAMATICAL ASPECTS OF ME WRITING, I AM AT WORK AND I JUST DWELL IN THIS WEB SITE AND I TRY TO GET MY POINT ACROSS AND THAT IS IT WHETHER YOU AGREE OR NOT.... IF YOU WANT GOOGLE WHO IS THE GREATEST HITTER OF ALL TIME AND IN ONE OF THE WEB SITES YOU CAN SEE THAT THE 1ST NAME THAT COMES UP IS TED WILLIAMS.... THEY EVEN WANT TO CLONE HIM.... WHEN THE HELL DID THEY EVER SAY THEY WERE GONNA CLONE HORNSBY.... NEVER.... TRUTH IS IM NOT TAKING ANYTHING AWAY FROM HORNSBY AND YOU CAN NEVER COMPARE HORNSBY WITH WILLIAMS ... YOU CAN T EVEN BEGIN TO START...
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT THAT HORNSBY HAD A BETTER CAREER THAN ROSE I JUST COMPARED ALL THE #S THAT MATTER... NOW WILLIAMS SMOKES HIM (HORNSBY) IN ALMOST EVERY CATEGORY... YOU SEE I ADMITT WHEN I AM WRONG....

Bill Burgess

11-26-2005, 03:33 PM

My 10 Top All-Around Hitters:

Relative SLG. Ave. is the 1st number, and serves as presumption unless I note mitigating factors.

1. Ty Cobb - 141.4 - 8 SLG. titles - 12,777 PA- Ranks above others with higher SLG. AVE., due to more titles, over a much longer career, higher PA, extended decline phase. Differences in PA with Hornsby equals 7 full seasons of decline.

2. Rogers Hornsby - 147.3. - 9 titles - 9259 PA - High SLG. Ave./titles earn high ranking.

3. Babe Ruth - 172.5 - 13 SLG. titles - 10,504 PA - Baseball's mightiest slugger, but sacrificed some ave. for power.

4. Ted Williams - 154.9 - 9 SLG. titles - 9786 PA - Missing war yrs.? Offset by Babe's "missing pitching yrs."

5. Lou Gehrig - 154.0 - 2 SLG. titles - 9954 PA - Ave. held up well, of course due to lack of decline phase, hence low PA. Only won 2 tiltes.

6. Barry Bonds - 148.4 - 7 SLG. titles - 10,963 PA - I had him ranked 2nd, but his admitted steroid usage drops him IMHO. Had too great an advantage over his peers.

7. Mickey Mantle - 143.8 - 4 SLG. titles - 9895 PA - Too few titles over relatively weak sluggers.

8. Hank Aaron - 140.6 - 4 SLG. titles - 13,919 PA - Too few titles over long career.

9. Willie Mays - 139.2 - 5 SLG. titles - 12,480 PA -

10. Jimmie Foxx - 143.7 - 5 SLG. titles - 9,599 PA - Too few PA relative to Aaron/Mays

11. Joe Jackson - 1.45.2 - 1 SLG. title - 5690 PA - Too few PA to rank higher - Placed in top 5 SLG. all his 9 yrs.; 2nd 3 times, once 3rd, 2 4ths, 2 5ths,

Honorable Mention: Honus Wagner

Sluggers such as Greenberg, McGwire, DiMaggio, Mize and Brouthers all had PA fewer than 7,700. Which is not the same thing.

Bill Burgess

westsidegrounds

11-26-2005, 03:44 PM

<...>
.
Hornsby's .358 lifetime average- and since you make a point of his not reaching 3000 hits- he never played a full season after he was 33 because he fell in love with managing.
<...>.

Actually it was heel spurs ended Rajah's real career*, same problem Joe D had.

Totally agree otherwise.

*As one of the greatest hitters ever, that is.

ElHalo

11-26-2005, 05:44 PM

Stop feeding the guy, people; it's obvious he doesn't know what he's talking about and never will. It's one thing to have honest, intlellectual differences of opinion. People may disagree with me when I say Sisler is one of the top 20 players of all time, but at least I have a basis for saying so. I may disagree with people who call Schmidt one of the top 20 players of all time, but at least they have a basis for saying so. Putting Pete Rose in your top 10 hitters all time and leaving Hornsby out of your top 20 just says that you really don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Anyway, my top 10 hitters:

1. Ruth
2. Williams
3. Gehrig
4. Hornsby
5. Cobb
6. J. Jackson
7. Foxx
8. Mantle
9. F. Thomas
10. Albert Pujols?

Buzzaldrin

11-26-2005, 05:46 PM

OK I LEARNED SOMETHING I DIDNT KNOW THAT HORNSBY HAD WON 2 TRIPLE CROWNS.... AND ANOTHER THING YOU CAN NEVER COMPARE THE NATIONAL LEAGUE TO THE AMERICAN... THE PITCHERS OF THE AMERICAN LEAGUE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN STRONGER THAN THE NATIONAL... WELL AS LONG AS IVE BEEN ALIVE....

This is my last post in this discussion (and thank you, Mr. Burgess, for an excellent post).

I don't know how old you are, sir, but after the all-star game went to a single game again in 1963, the NL beat the AL 21 times in the next 23 games. Although the AL's had the advantage since thgen, it ain't been that serious. And as to the series- the AL's won a few more over the past 30 years, but only a few. The AL hasn't truly been stronger than the NL since the 30's.

How long have you been alive anyway?

No wait, don't answer that; I quit.

538280

11-26-2005, 06:33 PM

Yo myn friend they have Ruth labeled as the best player of all time.... I dont argue that we are talking about hitting...... HITTING ONLY HITTING ONLY.....
AND NEVER IF YOU GO TO TED WILLIAMS WEB-SITE YOU WILL SEE THAT IT SAYS THE GREATEST HITTER TO EVER LIVE..... YOU HAVENT DONE YOUR HOMEWORK, LOOK RUTH THE GREATEST PLAYER OF ALL TIME, TED WILLIAMS THE GREATEST HITTER OF ALL TIME... ITS NOT THE SAME....

You are criticizing me of not doing my homework? You should do your homework, buddy. You have Pete Rose as one of the top 10 hitters of all time. I don't have a list of top 50 hitters, but if I sat down to make one he may just barely crack it.

Also, why should I be convinced that Ted Williams is the greatest hitter of all time just because it says it on his own website?

After reading this and some of your other posts (Nolan Ryan as the greatest pitcher of all time) I reccommend doing some historical research or else you'll just get laughed off this site. This is a site for the most informed baseball fans in the world.

Eastvanmungo

11-26-2005, 07:05 PM

I'd probably go with Ruth, but at this level of competition the question is pretty much moot. Ruth, Cobb and Williams are all A+++ hitters, and there is little real difference between them.

Just for the sake of adding to the arguement, although I don't think he's up with those 3... for sheer hitting; no fielding and no running involved, I believe that Ernie Lombardi deserves at least a mention. Bill James (I think) once said that if Lombardi had any speed at all, he would probably batted .400 or close to it several times.

So, for sheer one dimensional hitting, I'd be tempted to put him in my top 10.

Honus Wagner Rules

11-26-2005, 07:06 PM

Honus Wagner Rules

11-26-2005, 07:08 PM

Honus Wagner Rules

11-26-2005, 07:16 PM

My personal list off the top of my head...

1. Ruth
2. Williams
3. Cobb
4. Hornsby (Yes, I said it!)
5. Gehrig
6. Wagner
7. Foxx
8. Jackson
9. Mantle
10. Musial

I put a lot of emphasis on career value. I hated leaving Thomas off the list but he simply didn't age well..

538280

11-26-2005, 07:23 PM

My top 10 hitters:

1.Ruth
2.T. Williams
3.F. Thomas
4.Gehrig
5.Mantle
6.Bonds
7.Cobb
8.Foxx
9.Mays
10.D. Allen

Apologies to Rogers Hornsby, who is #11, and Hank Aaron, who's #12.

Honus Wagner Rules

11-26-2005, 07:25 PM

My top 10 hitters:

1.Ruth
2.T. Williams
3.F. Thomas
4.Gehrig
5.Mantle
6.Bonds
7.Cobb
8.Foxx
9.Mays
10.D. Allen

Apologies to Rogers Hornsby, who is #11.
538280,

The Big Hurt's poor performace in his 30s doesn't bother you? I know that you said that you put more stock in peak value. I really thought about it long and hard, and I just couldn't let go of the fact that Thomas was really up and down the past 6-7 years.

History Of Baseball Fan

11-26-2005, 07:39 PM

not in my # 1 - 10 order, but i think you'd have to include for starters:

Ty Cobb
Honus Wagner
Joe Jackson
Rogers Hornsby
Babe Ruth
Lou Gehrig
Ted Williams
Joe DiMaggio
Willie Mays
Hank Aaron

538280

11-26-2005, 07:43 PM

538280,

The Big Hurt's poor performace in his 30s doesn't bother you? I know that you said that you put more stock in peak value. I really thought about it long and hard, and I just couldn't let go of the fact that Thomas was really up and down the past 6-7 years.

The first half of his career, he was every bit as good as Ruth and Williams. The second half, he was every bit as good as Rogers Hornsby. That's enough to put him third, albeit far behind the #2 guy.

Honus Wagner Rules

11-26-2005, 07:54 PM

The first half of his career, he was every bit as good as Ruth and Williams. The second half, he was every bit as good as Rogers Hornsby. That's enough to put him third, albeit far behind the #2 guy.
I assume you mean the Roger Hornsby over Hornsby's second half of his career. :laugh

westsidegrounds

11-26-2005, 08:02 PM

<...> The second half [of Frank Thomas' career] , he was every bit as good as Rogers Hornsby. <...>

????????????????????????????????????????????????

That's beyond bizarre.

Big Hurt's rookie MLB year was 1990. 1990 to 2005 is 16 seasons. Half of 16 is 8. The second half of Frank's career is 1998 through 2005.

There is absolutely no way in the world that half - in which FT never lead the league in any category - matches up with or even approaches Hornsby.

westsidegrounds

11-26-2005, 08:16 PM

I assume you mean the Roger Hornsby over Hornsby's second half of his career. :laugh

Even by that standard it's a weird thing to say. Second half of Rajah's career started in 1927 - from then to the end of his career Hornsby was number one in the various offensive categories tracked on baseball-reference.com's leaderboards twenty-three times.

Versus zero #1 appearances in such categories for the Hurt during the second half of his (still HOF-quality) career.

Kaliber

11-26-2005, 08:32 PM

Ty Cobb, end of story.

plask_stirlac

11-26-2005, 09:24 PM

Bill, how is getting on base accounted for other than having those great at the top anyway?

Listen i think you are mistaken you cant put eddie murray in the same paragraph as Ted Williams, Ted Williams was the man with the best baseball eye sight ever..... He hit a homerun off of bob gibson and said i hit it on the red side and they checked the bat and he hit it on the red side..... Bob Gibson even wanted to retire and tell Williams told him dont forget that my name is Ted Williams...... There is no doubt that he is the best hitter of all time....

Is this just Latin pride? ;) And I'm pretty sure Shoeless Joe and Hornsby spent a lto of time on their eyes or lack of using them as well.

My favorite story is actually when the umpire had to adjust the plate at his noticing. But that doesn't mean he's the best.

He has a case. Let Ruth have his pitching years when he was used to pitching and it makes him the greatest player in a lock, but Williams would have been ready to hit in those war years.

Williams would have at least 140 more HRs, so to 661, and well into the 2000s in R and RBI. Then add up to 700 more walks for about 2700... well, he would have qutie a bit more PA than Ruth then but he would have an arsenal of career totals, and be the OBP career leader, have the BA high-water mark for 64+ years, and the OBP mark for 61, and 7 full seasons with an OBP of .497 or higher though 1954 was short (500 PA, though).

Slugging .730 twice isn't bad, and he was above .600 all but 4 seasons. ManRam is 9th all-time at .599, so better than 9th all time each of those years. I also like his 5 BA, OBP, SLG Triple Crowns. So that would be a strong attack of great seasons and career brilliance.

But Ruth is a house. His contemporaries weren't ready for him, and even when some players can put up colossal years since the 90's, Ruth did that routinely. His second lowest RC27 year from 1919 to 1932, is 1929.

Ruth 587 PA, .345-.430-.697, 46-154, 121 R, 11.73 RC27, *lgOPS .757
Ortiz 2005 714 PA, .300-.397-.604, 47-148, 119 R, 8.9 RC27, *lgOPS .759
Rodriguez 715 PA, .321-.421-.610, 48-130, 124 R, 9.53 RC27, *lgOPS .766

Ruth could swing for 50-150 in under 500 or 550 AB!

And you'd think Fenway would put *lgOPS over a player from Yankee Stadium, but maybe it's just assumed too readily.

History Of Baseball Fan

11-26-2005, 09:48 PM

The first half of his career, he was every bit as good as Ruth and Williams. The second half, he was every bit as good as Rogers Hornsby. That's enough to put him third, albeit far behind the #2 guy.

theres no way that you can compare Hornsby to Thomas. thomas was a good hitter, but not in the same class as Hornsby.

charlesblalack@yahoo.com

11-27-2005, 12:15 AM

The greatest hitter of all time is Ed Irvin. He had great power, hit for a high average, and could scamper around the bases. Nobody could match his career in the batters box. .
Yea the 108.00 RC/27 is hard to ignore.

ElHalo

11-27-2005, 01:51 AM

I think it's a little to early for Pujols. How about Manny?

Manny's the guy I was going to stick in the ten slot, but I've really just been overwhelmed by Pujols as of late.

Buzzaldrin

11-27-2005, 07:42 AM

Yea the 108.00 RC/27 is hard to ignore.

And a career batting average three hundred points higher than Cobb!

Tigerfan1974

02-17-2006, 07:18 AM

Who is the greatest hitter ever?
Ted Williams wanted to be remembered as such.

I think it might well be Henry Aaron.

Sure Cobb and Ruth are remembered for doing so many dominant things. Part of that is because it was so long ago and there was not much that had come before.

Sure Ruth had all those Home runs, as did Aaron.
And I know Ruth had a higher BA. But if you subtract Aaron’s 755 HR from his 3771 hits, he still had over 3000 hits.
If you subtract Ruth’s HR from his hits, he barely has 2100 hits.

Of course, Cobb, and now Rose, have the most hits and Cobb has the highest lifetime BA. And Hornsby could also mount a case. But as the greatest hitter ever?

Aaron had power, average (he is a .305 lifetime hitter), and quantity (3000 non-home run hits) to match quality.

Williams and Mays everyone says were cheated out of time because of military service.
“Who knows what Williams would have done had he not lost some of his best years to the Service.” That’s right, who knows? No one knows because he couldn’t make it up.

Williams career is what it is. He was a hitter, but the greatest ever? He is like Ruth, if you take away his home runs, he has about 2100 hits. He does have a higher BA as well, but he is also known primarily for power. What clips of Williams are always shown? The All-Star game home run and the homer in his last at-bat.
He is the last player to hit over 400, but that was a one shot deal. Hornsby hit over .400 four times in his career.

Mays has 660 HR and 3000+ hits, but he was a great all around player anyway. Possibly the greatest position player ever (?).

I think Aaron is dramatically under-rated, and therefore over looked as possibly the greatest hitter ever. It is just my point of view.

What say you BF???

Honus Wagner Rules

02-17-2006, 07:38 AM

I say no. At his best (peak seasons) Aaron was no where near the level of Ruth, Williams, Bonds, Hornsby, Mantle, or Cobb.

Single season bests
BA- not in the top 100
OBP-not in the top 100
SLG-#62 all-time
OPS+ #71 all-time

Career
BA-not in the top 100
OBP-not in the top 100
SLG-#28 all-time
OPS+ #23 all-time

That DOESN'T look like the greatest hitter of all time to me.

KCGHOST

02-17-2006, 08:25 AM

I think Aaron is dramatically under-rated, and therefore over looked as possibly the greatest hitter ever. It is just my point of view.

What say you BF???

Hank Aaron is not underrated. He has been given more than his just due. He may lack the "hype" other players get, but that's just a shortage of press clippings not respect.

I guess if you definition of "the greatest hitter" ever is some one plays at a very high level for an extraordinary length of time you might have a case. You might want to factor in Aaron as the #2 all-time player in "outs" made.

Brian McKenna

02-17-2006, 09:10 AM

i think aaron is a little (not dramatically) underrated in the same fashion of cy young but ruth and cobb were just dominating year in and year out - i wouldn't describe aaron that way

aaron also has 4000 more at bats than ruth

west coast orange and black

02-17-2006, 09:12 AM

i agree with ghost that aaron is not underrated.

i would say, though, that he is widely underappreciated.

GiambiJuice

02-17-2006, 11:37 AM

If you subtract Ruth’s HR from his hits, he barely has 2100 hits.

And if you subtract Ty Cobb's singles, he only had 1136 hits. What's your point :noidea

Sultan_1895-1948

02-17-2006, 11:55 AM

And I know Ruth had a higher BA. But if you subtract Aaron’s 755 HR from his 3771 hits, he still had over 3000 hits.
If you subtract Ruth’s HR from his hits, he barely has 2100 hits.

:confused:

Let's try a math problem.

Aaron - 12,364 AB / 755 HR = 16.3 AB/HR

Ruth - 8,398 AB / 714 HR = 11.7 AB/HR

12,364 - 8398 = 3,996 AB

3,996/11.7 = 339 HR

714+339 HR = 1053 HR

There.... how fun was that ! :D

Victory Faust

02-17-2006, 11:56 AM

I don't think Hank was the best hitter ever, but you could put him up against nearly any player in history and not be embarrassed. Every time I open up the Baseball Encyclopedia and look at Aaron's record, I'm amazed at how consistent he was.

Maybe that's the answer: Aaron may not have been the best hitter who ever lived, but a good argument could be made that he was the most consistent hitter in history.

dl4060

02-17-2006, 12:57 PM

"And I know Ruth had a higher BA. But if you subtract Aaron’s 755 HR from his 3771 hits, he still had over 3000 hits."

How is this a sign a greatness. I am really struggling to see what this has to do with being a great hitter. Ideally, one would want a HIGHER percentage of one's hits to be homeruns, not lower. If you want to cite his .305 BA as evidence that he did things other than hit homeruns, that is certainley reasonable. But I really do not think you will find alot of support for the notion that Aaron was the best hitter ever. And I do not think that type of logic helps your case.

dl4060

02-17-2006, 01:02 PM

Take two players with 600 atbats, both with 200 hits. Are you saying that if one hits 40 homeruns and the other hits 10 that the guy with 10 is better because he had more "non-homerun" hits? All other things being equal the guy with 40 is better, and it is not even close.

Barnstormer

02-17-2006, 01:10 PM

Maybe that's the answer: Aaron may not have been the best hitter who ever lived, but a good argument could be made that he was the most consistent hitter in history.

Yes, it's something like this, the most consistently productive hitter for the longest period of time. There's certainly something unique about his record that's hard to express exactly - basically he had a 19-year peak, no (and I mean no) bad seasons - heck, no even average seasons - from 1955 to 1973.

DoubleX

02-17-2006, 01:26 PM

I like Aaron a lot, and as WCOB said, he is underappreciated. But in terms of just hitting, he likely ranks behind quite a few players:

For Sure
Babe Ruth
Ted Williams
Lou Gehrig
Ty Cobb
Rogers Hornsby
Willie Mays
Mickey Mantle
Stan Musial

Possibly (Aaron probably ranks ahead of at least some of these, if not Most)
Tris Speaker
Barry Bonds
Frank Thomas
Mike Piazza (Gets bonus points for being a catcher)
Jimmie Foxx
Frank Robinson
Honus Wagner
Alex Rodriguez
Joe Jackson
Joe DiMaggio
Dick Allen
Hank Greenberg
Johnny Mize
Manny Ramirez

Of course, Aaron gets longevity points, and that pushes him ahead of most (and perhaps all) of the aforementioned players. So in all, I'd say Aaron is at best the 9th best hitter of all time, and could be as low as 12-15.

Imapotato

02-17-2006, 03:19 PM

538280

02-17-2006, 03:30 PM

Hank Aaron and Cy Young have longetivy as a NEGATIVE in most stat analysis

Potato, you really don't sound like you have any idea what you're talking about. I agree with you Aaron deserves more hype, I think he's probably top 5 or so all time. But how can his longevity be a negative in stat analysis? That doesn't make any sense. What, do you think statistical analysts are penalizing him for for sticking around so long. No, they're crediting him for it. The knock on Aaron is his lack of a peak, of course. I think Aaron actually, when league quality is taken into account, has a VERY strong peak as it is, may be equal or just below Cobb's.

Bench 5

02-17-2006, 06:35 PM

The only guys I have clearly ahead of Hammer are Ruth and Williams. I also would take Cobb and Musial over him but not by much. Other than that I don't think anyone is head and shoulders above him. I can respect anyone who thinks he is the best because that's a legitimate argument.

He had 2 batting crowns, 4 x Slugging Champ (top 5 x 15), 4 times RBI champ, 4 time HR champ, and 8 time Total Base champ. That was in a great era.

I think Hank is like the Emmitt Smith of baseball. Both were awesome players for a long time and have some of the coveted all time records. But neither is considered THE best.

Edgartohof

02-17-2006, 07:51 PM

DoubleX

02-17-2006, 08:42 PM

Hank Aaron and Cy Young have longetivy as a NEGATIVE in most stat analysis

They are both truly underrated and easily could be argued as the #1 player in their respective fields

I don't get how consistentcy, work ethic, determination can be a nagative but as people pointed out HR/AB, peak season et al...seems that is the majority

Henry Aaron should get alot more hype then Mays, Williams, Ruth and Cobb...but he just doesn't, because he never had the eye popping % factor

I am not saying Aaron is better then them, just saying he should get some of that hype

Imapotato, I generally agree very strongly with much of what you said. I think people too often hold longevity against Aaron, but that should really be something to his credit. If it was so easy to stay around for as long as Aaron did and be as productive as he was for that long, then there would be a ton of guys who did it, but that's not the case (and the only example I can really think of are Ty Cobb and Stan Musial). And it's not like Aaron just stuck around putting up ok numbers, he stuck around putting up great numbers for over 20 years. That's something.

But this conversation is strictly within the context of hitting. When assessing overall value as a player, I do give Aaron extra credit for his unique longevity and production, not to mention that he was a very good all-around player too. But purely on hitting ability, I think he falls behind a few more guys (though he'd beat most if you conditioned it to be longevity hitting).

DoubleX

02-17-2006, 08:47 PM

Aaron was not the greatest hitter ever, but he sure is up at the top.

Off the top of my head, I would say that the following were better hitters:

Williams
Ruth
Hornsby
Cobb
Mantle
and there could be a couple others as well.

He is probably just above some other greats such as:
Musial
Mays
F. Thomas (yes, as a pure hitter, he's up there)
and several others as well...

so by this, he could be as high as 4th or so, but if I thought about it some more, maybe closer to 7th, which isn't exactly too shabby, to be considered one of the top 10 greatest hitters in baseball history, but he just wasn't the greatest hitter ever, but darn near it, and on a good day, I could see a case for him being made, but I just had a long day at work in the freezing cold, so this probably isn't my best day, so try me tomorrow :D

No Gehrig? I think you're the second or third person I've seen in this thread to leave off Gehrig? Gehrig was phenomenal, and was still at the top of his game at age 34 when he became ill (177 OPS+ that season, 190 the year before). If not for the disease that took his career and life, Gehrig could easily have finished with 600-650 homeruns, 3300-3400 hits, and still be the all-time leader in RBI and Runs by significant margins. Not to mention an OPS+ of 170 and a BA around .330-.340.

leecemark

02-17-2006, 08:59 PM

--The only two hitters I am absolutely certain were better than Hank Aaron are Babe Ruth and Ted Williams. There are several others whose best years were better than Hank's, but none but those two who were clearly better over the course of their career. The others with better rate stats have quality of competition and/or much shorter career issues that give Aaron an arguement.

Blackout

02-17-2006, 11:05 PM

Sure Ruth had all those Home runs, as did Aaron.
And I know Ruth had a higher BA. But if you subtract Aaron’s 755 HR from his 3771 hits, he still had over 3000 hits.
If you subtract Ruth’s HR from his hits, he barely has 2100 hits.

what about the fact Aaron had 4000 more at-bats just for those 900 extra hits

Williams career is what it is. He was a hitter, but the greatest ever? He is like Ruth, if you take away his home runs, he has about 2100 hits. He does have a higher BA as well, but he is also known primarily for power. What clips of Williams are always shown? The All-Star game home run and the homer in his last at-bat.
He is the last player to hit over 400, but that was a one shot deal. Hornsby hit over .400 four times in his career.

Williams hit .388 in 1957, thats probably just as impressive as hitting .400 in the 1920s

csh19792001

02-17-2006, 11:25 PM

--The only two hitters I am absolutely certain were better than Hank Aaron are Babe Ruth and Ted Williams.

Add Ty Cobb to that list and you're all set. ;)

--There are several others whose best years were better than Hank's, but none but those two who were clearly better over the course of their career. The others with better rate stats have quality of competition and/or much shorter career issues that give Aaron an arguement.

I'd say Aaron is one of the top few most consistent hitters in history. Also, his 1959 season goes under the radar for whatever reason, but it was a monster. 400 total bases in that era is incredible, and he led in most of the important offensive categories going up against Mays, Musial, Snider, Robinson, Banks, Mathews, et al.

csh19792001

02-17-2006, 11:29 PM

Williams hit .388 in 1957, thats probably just as impressive as hitting .400 in the 1920s

Probably much more so, actually. The AL batting average was .255 in 1957. For the 1920's, the AL batting average was .286.

So not even factoring in the strength of the league, just in terms of adjustments Williams might have been up around .420 playing in that rabid offensive environment.

Imapotato

02-18-2006, 10:35 AM

Potato, you really don't sound like you have any idea what you're talking about. I agree with you Aaron deserves more hype, I think he's probably top 5 or so all time. But how can his longevity be a negative in stat analysis? That doesn't make any sense. What, do you think statistical analysts are penalizing him for for sticking around so long. No, they're crediting him for it. The knock on Aaron is his lack of a peak, of course. I think Aaron actually, when league quality is taken into account, has a VERY strong peak as it is, may be equal or just below Cobb's.

Uhhh ditto for you

You say I have no idea what I am speaking of...yet say Peak season is why he doesn't get any props

That is a negative...WinShares, Inks, OPS, et al rely heavily on % of a season or against other players

Imapotato

02-18-2006, 10:40 AM

Imapotato, I generally agree very strongly with much of what you said. I think people too often hold longevity against Aaron, but that should really be something to his credit. If it was so easy to stay around for as long as Aaron did and be as productive as he was for that long, then there would be a ton of guys who did it, but that's not the case (and the only example I can really think of are Ty Cobb and Stan Musial). And it's not like Aaron just stuck around putting up ok numbers, he stuck around putting up great numbers for over 20 years. That's something.

But this conversation is strictly within the context of hitting. When assessing overall value as a player, I do give Aaron extra credit for his unique longevity and production, not to mention that he was a very good all-around player too. But purely on hitting ability, I think he falls behind a few more guys (though he'd beat most if you conditioned it to be longevity hitting).

It should be...much as Cy Young should be

But today's analysis want peak seasons, or a high % stats like OPS to determine greatness when a guy like Aaron never had a bad season, yet never had an "eye popper" gets lost in the shuffle

I think Hank Aaron is an enigma to todays fantasy baseball mentality and is clearly a top 10 player

Yes as far as talent goes...I think ALOT of players might bypass Hank on that respect...ALOT of players

Yet you can take the more talented but lazy/bad luck/inconsitent hitter
I'll take the less talented, determined, hard working Hank Aaron

He just took what he had and made it better by being smarter and harder working then alot of others

That shouldn't be lost when discussing Aaron, even if you can't put a number on it

digglahhh

02-18-2006, 12:38 PM

Potato,

I pretty much agree. Aaron was a blue collar player, that's lost in our era of pandered-to primadonnas. I'm not waxing romantic about yesteryear, as there are plenty of guys who exemplify that work ethic today as well.

One determinant of how well a player ages, IMO, is whether he actually took the time to learn his craft or if he relied primarily on his talent. Health issues aside, a guy like Pedro Martinez, has adapted his game to his age and newfound limits. Pedro can be dominant and still strike guys out barely topping 90 on the gun. That's because Pedro is a cerebral pitcher. I've said this before, but the anomoly of Pedro is that his K numbers look like he's a Randy Johnson type, but in reality he's more of a Greg Maddux type.

Anyway, Aaron is the same way. His hard work and studious approach benefitted him in terms of being productive long after his physical gifts had gone into decline. For a little while you can compensate for your initial decline in physical ability by gained experience, savy and mental approach. Once the skills begin to really go, that's all you have left and how long you can hang on when you are no longer at your physical peak is largely determined on how much effort you spent perfecting your craft as opposed to letting the talent steer the car on cruise control.

Movinng to the Launching Pad didn't hurt either.

I always thought that Griffey lacked that mental toughness. From some accounts that I read he was reluctant to put in the extra work. He also seemed a little spoiled, overly sensitive and not humble enough. Its rare you find a guy with the Griffey talent and the Aaron drive because not being the "best" often motivates harder work. But were you to develop some sort of hybrid of the two, you would have one hell of a player.

ElHalo

02-18-2006, 02:43 PM

Potato, you really don't sound like you have any idea what you're talking about. I agree with you Aaron deserves more hype, I think he's probably top 5 or so all time. But how can his longevity be a negative in stat analysis? That doesn't make any sense. What, do you think statistical analysts are penalizing him for for sticking around so long. No, they're crediting him for it. The knock on Aaron is his lack of a peak, of course. I think Aaron actually, when league quality is taken into account, has a VERY strong peak as it is, may be equal or just below Cobb's.

Obviously, I'm in the VAST minority in not having Aaron as one of my top 20 position players of all time. There's a good posssibility that that's unfair to him. I will, however, have to agree with Potato in saying that it's very true that he gets penalized for sticking around longer, as do most players. In its simplest form:

Aaron, career:
.305/.374/.555/.928, 155 OPS+.

Aaron, through age 37:
.313/.377/.569/.946, 159 OPS+.

So, like pretty much every other player ever, he gets penalized for sticking around.

digglahhh

02-19-2006, 09:30 AM

I think, in terms of his legacy, he's pretty happy with trading 4 OPS+ points for the all time homerun record.

Naliamegod

02-19-2006, 03:06 PM

Dontworry

02-19-2006, 04:17 PM

No.

It's as simple as that.

Aaron was a great hitter, throughout the course of his career one of the best ever, but certainly not the BEST ever.

The title goes to Babe Ruth, no question.

538280

02-19-2006, 08:26 PM

It wasn't like he was Pete Rose who was a below average hitter for the most part after leaving Cincinatti. He had two (albiet short) years and two bad years. Almost all players have a couple down years past their primes, I don't see Hank should be noticebly hit harder then others.

Pete Rose was a pretty horrible hitter after he left Cincy. He had one more good year in 1979, and then after that it was pretty ugly. He provided some of the worst offense from first base in the league. He salvaged another year in 1981 still as an okay hitter, and then after that he was done. He had two horrible years with the Phillies, especially for a first baseman. Imagine having your regular first baseman post an OPS+ of about 80? That's what the Phillies had in '82 and '83. After that in normal circumstances most players woudl have quit.

But that wasn't it for Pete Rose. He was shooting for a record, and he wasn't looking back. The Expos wanted the gate, they took him. But, they were soon wise that he wasn't helping them at all. Any help with attendance he generated was negated by his horrible play. They had had enough. Then he got his chance as a player manager. This was his true opportunity. He spent the next few years literally KILLING his own team with horrible production from an offensive position. In other words, he was hurting his own team so that he could break the hit record. Congrats, Pete, you got your record. Too bad you needed to make a disgrace of the game, your teams, and even yourself to do it.

The same was not true of Aaron. Hank remained a good player when he broke the HR record. Aaron retired at a natural time. Pete's natural time to retire would be after 1983, or maybe stretching it to '84. By going to Cincy for that second period as the manager, he extended his normal playing limits to break a record.

Edgartohof

02-19-2006, 08:30 PM

No.

It's as simple as that.

Aaron was a great hitter, throughout the course of his career one of the best ever, but certainly not the BEST ever.

The title goes to Babe Ruth, no question.

Actually, a lot of people would question that, he very well may be the best, but several others have a case, as in: Cobb, Williams, Hornsby, etc... So it may not be so straightforward as you say, but you are not nessecarily wrong (it would be hard to be wrong, going with Ruth for anything).

538280

02-19-2006, 08:33 PM

Dontworry

02-19-2006, 09:28 PM

Actually, a lot of people would question that, he very well may be the best, but several others have a case, as in: Cobb, Williams, Hornsby, etc... So it may not be so straightforward as you say, but you are not nessecarily wrong (it would be hard to be wrong, going with Ruth for anything).

You really cant make a case against ruth as the greatest hitter ever over the course of a career. Some might use segregation as an arguement, it could be used, but it doesnt hold much merit, considering the fact all ERA'S have pro's and con's.

As for peak, sure, Bonds and wagner are the two best choices.

538280

02-19-2006, 09:31 PM

As for peak, sure, Bonds and wagner are the two best choices.

Mickey Mantle knocks on the door....

Wagner really doen't have a case unless you use a full positional adjustment. I don't think that's appropriate when discussing who is the best hitter. If you do make a full positional adjustment, then Wagner is probably the man.

Sultan_1895-1948

02-19-2006, 09:35 PM

A good case could also be made for Wagner as the greatest hitter ever. Do you realize Honus had an RC/game 166% better than the average shortstop 1900-1909 while Ruth had one 117% than the average RF 1920-1929?

You're confusing two issues there. Comparing them to the rest of their position is great for determining their value in statworld, but it says nothing about them as overall hitters. Two different things, and no case can be made based on position relative stats.

Dontworry

02-19-2006, 09:36 PM

Mickey Mantle knocks on the door....

Wagner really doen't have a case unless you use a full positional adjustment. I don't think that's appropriate when discussing who is the best hitter. If you do make a full positional adjustment, then Wagner is probably the man.

As Great as mantle was at his peak, ruth was simply better. As for wagner, his 1908 season he compiled 59 winshares, which has a lot to do with defense, but even so he compiled slightly more batting WS than ruth.

Cobb does have a 30 point lead in terms of offensive winshares careerwise, but Cobb had more PA's and played in more games (as a full-time hitter) than Ruth.

Ruth is still the all-time leader in batting Win Shares per game, by a good margin.

leecemark

02-19-2006, 09:48 PM

--I think Mantle might have been the best player ever in 56-57, but that is because he was a significantly better defensive player and baserunner than Ruth. Ruth was the better hitter.

Bill Burgess

03-25-2006, 11:08 AM

---------------------Hank Aaron, 1963-67

Bill Burgess

10-14-2006, 03:28 PM

The other thread about who could be considered among the best players ever got me to thinking. Who could be considered among the greatest hitters ever. So, along those lines, I thought I'd post some of the Relative numbers, among those hitters who compiled over 8,000 PA.
----------------------------------------------

Rel Rel Through 2003, over 8,000 PA, indexed and park adjusted.
Pro+ OBA Slg Rel Rel
Rank Rank Rank Player PA Pro+ OBA Slg
----------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 1 Babe Ruth 10504 207.0 134.5 172.5
2 1 2 Ted Williams 9786 189.5 134.6 154.9
3 11 3 Lou Gehrig 9554 180.4 126.4 154.0
4 3 4 Barry Bonds 10963 180.0 131.6 148.4
5 8 5 Rogers Hornsby 9259 174.7 127.4 147.3
6 5 8 Mickey Mantle 9895 172.1 128.3 143.8
13 43 10 Jimmie Foxx 9599 161.6 117.9 143.7
9 10 14 Ty Cobb 12777 168.4 127.0 141.4
22 83 15 Hank Aaron 13919 155.2 114.6 140.6
20 53 17 Willie Mays 12480 156.0 116.8 139.2
14 24 19 Stan Musial 12677 158.2 121.1 137.1
38 192 20 Willie Stargell 9017 147.1 110.0 137.1
26 41 22 Frank Robinson 11726 154.0 118.5 135.5
12 9 23 Frank Thomas 8167 162.6 127.3 135.3
15 18 25 Tris Speaker 11679 157.4 123.0 134.3
23 25 26 Mel Ott 11228 155.0 120.9 134.1
33 60 28 Nap Lajoie 10239 150.0 116.1 133.9
40 111 30 Mike Schmidt 10046 146.8 113.2 133.6
29 42 32 Ed Delahanty 8340 151.5 118.1 133.4
42 159 33 Ken Griffey Jr. 8161 144.0 110.9 133.1
32 48 34 Honus Wagner 11518 150.4 117.6 132.9
36 77 35 Willie McCovey 9681 147.7 114.9 132.9
24 21 37 Roger Connor 8834 154.9 122.2 132.6
46 158 38 Sam Crawford 10353 143.5 110.9 132.5
39 66 43 Harry Heilmann 8683 147.0 115.7 131.2
27 20 45 Jeff Bagwell 8626 153.4 122.3 131.0
102 419 50 Sammy Sosa 8462 132.4 103.1 129.3

Rel Rel Through 2003, between 5,000 - 8,000 PA, indexed
and park adjusted.

Pro+ OBA Slg Rel Rel
Rank Rank Rank Player PA Pro+ OBA Slg
8 16 6 Joe Jackson 5559 168.7 123.9 144.8
16 102 7 Hank Greenberg 6061 157.3 113.5 143.9
11 40 9 Mark McGwire 7657 162.8 119.0 143.8
21 122 11 Joe DiMaggio 7657 155.6 112.7 142.9
17 78 12 Johnny Mize 7351 157.0 114.9 142.1
7 4 13 Dan Brouthers 7656 170.9 129.4 141.4
18 54 16 Dick Allen 7295 156.7 116.8 140.0
25 52 18 Mike Piazza 6007 154.7 117.0 137.7
19 36 21 Manny Ramirez 5910 156.5 119.8 136.7
10 6 24 Pete Browning 5315 163.2 128.0 135.3
48 215 27 Albert Belle 6669 142.9 108.9 134.0
35 86 29 Ralph Kiner 6247 148.0 114.4 133.7
41 131 31 Sam Thompson 6497 145.4 111.9 133.5
43 153 36 Alex Rodriguez 5671 143.9 111.1 132.7
93 514 39 Juan Gonzalez 7014 133.3 100.8 132.5
49 163 40 Frank Howard 7346 142.8 110.7 132.2
57 226 41 Jeff Heath 5540 140.4 108.6 131.8
64 272 42 Wally Berger 5636 138.8 107.2 131.6
30 35 44 Jim Thome 6420 150.9 119.8 131.0
44 118 46 Hack Wilson 5454 143.7 112.8 130.9
50 125 47 Harry Stovey 6832 142.8 112.5 130.3
58 165 48 Babe Herman 6134 140.2 110.6 129.6
66 205 49 Darryl Strawberry 6325 138.6 109.3 129.3

I'd select Ruth, Hornsby, Williams, Cobb as the leaders of the best.

For those with at least 8,000 PA.

-----------------------Rel.Slg.---------Rel.Onb-----------Rel.BA
Ruth---------------------1---------------2----------------20
Williams------------------2---------------1-----------------2
Hornsby------------------5---------------5----------------7
Cobb---------------------8---------------7----------------1
Gehrig--------------------3--------------11--------------42* (haven't subtracted those with less than 8,000 PA.

Myankee4life

10-14-2006, 08:14 PM

Ruth
Williams
Gehrig
Bonds*
Hornsby
Cobb

Then you could add in Foxx, Mantle, Mays, Aaron, etc.....

Skin & Bones

10-14-2006, 08:17 PM

1.) Ruth
2.) Williams
3.) Bonds
4.) Mantle

There's others, but these four are the best, IMO.

Bill Burgess

10-14-2006, 09:22 PM

I'm so swamped with stuff I just don't have the time to do all the stuff I want to do. Ya know what would be great? If anyone has the time to identify all the following players who have less than 8,000 PA.

I would be so appreciative. If I had the time, I'd look each up myself on baseball-reference. Thanks a bunch if anyone can spare the time. I started it already. The ones in blue lack 8,000 PA.

BA+ Player (thru '05) baseball-reference.com (courtesy of RuthMayBonds)
Currently active players are high-lighted in RED.

1. 134.8 Cobb CF
2. 133.1 JJackson
3. 130.8 Browning
4. 128.1 TWilliams LF
5. 127.8 Dan Brouthers
6. 127.7 Gwynn RF
7. 127.4 Lajoie 2B
8. 127.2 Ichiro
9. 127.0 Carew
10. 126.2 Hornsby
11. 125.4 Speaker
12. 125.3 Pujols
13. 124.4 Tip O'Neill
14. 124.4 Keeler
15. 123.9 Musial 1B
16. 123.7 Boggs 3B
17. 123.6 Donlin
18. 123.1 Wagner SS
19. 122.8 Anson
20. 122.7 Hamilton
21. 122.6 Delahanty
22. 121.8 ECollins
23. 121.6 Burkett
24. 121.0 Puckett
25. 120.7 Clemente
26. 120.4 Oliva
27. 120.3 SThompson
28. 119.4 Heilmann
29. 119.2 Ruth
30. 118.9 Sisler
31. 118.8 Crawford
32. 118.5 KKelly
33. 118.1 Connor
34. 117.9 MoAlou
35. 117.8 Piazza C
36. 117.8 Medwick
37. 117.8 PWaner
38. 117.7 O'Rourke
39. 117.4 Flick
40. 117.3 BTerry
41. 117.2 Gehrig
42. 117.1 JDiMaggio
43. 117.0 Beaumont
44. 116.9 EMartinez
45. 116.9 Mattingly
46. 116.7 Garr
47. 116.4 Mota
48. 116.3 Brett
49. 116.3 DMitchell
50. 116.2 JMcGraw
51. 116.2 LWalker v
52. 116.0 Aaron
53. 115.6 Rose
58. 115.4 Al Simmons
59. 115.4 Frank Baker
65. 115.0 Mantle
66. 115.0 Johnny Mize
71. 114.9 Wheat
82. 114.3 Mays
75. 114.6 FThomas
90. 113.8 Foxx
92. 113.8 Roush
99. 113.4 Frank Robinson

brett

10-14-2006, 10:10 PM

If you want to rate hitting value, I would divide the Relative OB and SLG by the league OB and SLG again because having a high relative Pro+ translates into more games if there is less offense in those games. Lets take a guy with a .550 SLG and .400 OB in a period where the league averages were .400 and .330. Take 550/400=1.375 and 400/330=1.212. Subtract the "1" to get .375 and .212. You can add them, or average them (which I would prefer). Adding them gives .587. Divide by .730 to relativise it to the amount of offense produced per hypothetical team game to get .804 then multiply it by Plate appearance to adjust for longevity. The number itself would mean nothing but it would place players in order of relative game value contribution as a hitter.

The other thread about who could be
considered among the best players ever got me to thinking. Who could be considered among the greatest hitters ever. So, along those lines, I thought I'd post some of the Relative numbers, among those hitters who compiled over 8,000 PA.
----------------------------------------------

Rel Rel Through 2003, over 8,000 PA, indexed and park adjusted.
Pro+ OBA Slg Rel Rel
Rank Rank Rank Player PA Pro+ OBA Slg
----------------------------------------------------------------
1 2 1 Babe Ruth 10504 207.0 134.5 172.5
2 1 2 Ted Williams 9786 189.5 134.6 154.9
3 11 3 Lou Gehrig 9554 180.4 126.4 154.0
4 3 4 Barry Bonds 10963 180.0 131.6 148.4
5 8 5 Rogers Hornsby 9259 174.7 127.4 147.3
6 5 8 Mickey Mantle 9895 172.1 128.3 143.8
13 43 10 Jimmie Foxx 9599 161.6 117.9 143.7
9 10 14 Ty Cobb 12777 168.4 127.0 141.4
22 83 15 Hank Aaron 13919 155.2 114.6 140.6
20 53 17 Willie Mays 12480 156.0 116.8 139.2
14 24 19 Stan Musial 12677 158.2 121.1 137.1
38 192 20 Willie Stargell 9017 147.1 110.0 137.1
26 41 22 Frank Robinson 11726 154.0 118.5 135.5
12 9 23 Frank Thomas 8167 162.6 127.3 135.3
15 18 25 Tris Speaker 11679 157.4 123.0 134.3
23 25 26 Mel Ott 11228 155.0 120.9 134.1
33 60 28 Nap Lajoie 10239 150.0 116.1 133.9
40 111 30 Mike Schmidt 10046 146.8 113.2 133.6
29 42 32 Ed Delahanty 8340 151.5 118.1 133.4
42 159 33 Ken Griffey Jr. 8161 144.0 110.9 133.1
32 48 34 Honus Wagner 11518 150.4 117.6 132.9
36 77 35 Willie McCovey 9681 147.7 114.9 132.9
24 21 37 Roger Connor 8834 154.9 122.2 132.6
46 158 38 Sam Crawford 10353 143.5 110.9 132.5
39 66 43 Harry Heilmann 8683 147.0 115.7 131.2
27 20 45 Jeff Bagwell 8626 153.4 122.3 131.0
102 419 50 Sammy Sosa 8462 132.4 103.1 129.3

Rel Rel Through 2003, between 5,000 - 8,000 PA, indexed
and park adjusted.

Pro+ OBA Slg Rel Rel
Rank Rank Rank Player PA Pro+ OBA Slg
8 16 6 Joe Jackson 5559 168.7 123.9 144.8
16 102 7 Hank Greenberg 6061 157.3 113.5 143.9
11 40 9 Mark McGwire 7657 162.8 119.0 143.8
21 122 11 Joe DiMaggio 7657 155.6 112.7 142.9
17 78 12 Johnny Mize 7351 157.0 114.9 142.1
7 4 13 Dan Brouthers 7656 170.9 129.4 141.4
18 54 16 Dick Allen 7295 156.7 116.8 140.0
25 52 18 Mike Piazza 6007 154.7 117.0 137.7
19 36 21 Manny Ramirez 5910 156.5 119.8 136.7
10 6 24 Pete Browning 5315 163.2 128.0 135.3
48 215 27 Albert Belle 6669 142.9 108.9 134.0
35 86 29 Ralph Kiner 6247 148.0 114.4 133.7
41 131 31 Sam Thompson 6497 145.4 111.9 133.5
43 153 36 Alex Rodriguez 5671 143.9 111.1 132.7
93 514 39 Juan Gonzalez 7014 133.3 100.8 132.5
49 163 40 Frank Howard 7346 142.8 110.7 132.2
57 226 41 Jeff Heath 5540 140.4 108.6 131.8
64 272 42 Wally Berger 5636 138.8 107.2 131.6
30 35 44 Jim Thome 6420 150.9 119.8 131.0
44 118 46 Hack Wilson 5454 143.7 112.8 130.9
50 125 47 Harry Stovey 6832 142.8 112.5 130.3
58 165 48 Babe Herman 6134 140.2 110.6 129.6
66 205 49 Darryl Strawberry 6325 138.6 109.3 129.3

I'd select Ruth, Hornsby, Williams, Cobb as the leaders of the best.

For those with at least 8,000 PA.

-----------------------Rel.Slg.---------Rel.Onb-----------Rel.BA
Ruth---------------------1---------------2----------------20
Williams------------------2---------------1-----------------2
Hornsby------------------5---------------5----------------7
Cobb---------------------8---------------7----------------1
Gehrig--------------------3--------------11--------------42* (haven't subtracted those with less than 8,000 PA.

brett

10-15-2006, 07:35 AM

Sorry, I made an error. When using a percentage that is already a ratio of the league average then you should not divide 2x to arrive at game value. OPS+ is still real messed up.

A simple and non-messed up value would come from the following:

Find a players bases per plate appearance using simply:

Slg% x ((OB%-1)/(BA-1)) + 1 - (OB%-1)/(BA-1)

Do the same for the league adjusted numbers and you get a ratio although of course walks equal singles in the system but its an improvement.

I would still take a players margin (their value - 1) and multiply it by plate appearances. That way you don't have to decide if PAs make up for rate because you are using margin above the league instead of ratio to the league (A player 15% above the league for 20 years would equal someone 30% above for 10 years).

Bill Burgess

10-15-2006, 11:36 AM

Here is a crude Form Chart, which guided me in my analysis. From an old post.

Relative SLG. Ave. is the 1st number, and serves as presumption unless I note mitigating factors.

1. Babe Ruth - 172.5 - 13 SLG. titles - 10,504 PA - Need I say more? League refused to adjust. But still . . . Nuff said.

2. Ted Williams - 154.9 - 9 SLG. titles - 9791 PA - Takes 2nd nicely. Missing war yrs.? Offset by Babe's "missing pitching yrs."

3. Lou Gehrig - 154.0 - 2 SLG. titles - 9954 PA - Ave. held up well, of course due to lack of decline phase, hence low PA. Only won 2 titles.

4. Ty Cobb - 141.4 - 8 SLG. titles - 12,777 PA- Ranks above others with higher SLG. AVE., due to more titles, over a much longer career, higher PA, extended decline phase. Differences in PA with Hornsby equals 7 full seasons of decline.

5. Rogers Hornsby - 147.3. - 9 titles - 9259 PA - High SLG. Ave./titles earn high ranking.

6. Barry Bonds - 149.0 - 7 SLG. titles - 12,129 PA - I had him ranked 2nd, but his admitted steroid usage drops him IMHO. Had too great an advantage over his peers.

7. Mickey Mantle - 143.8 - 4 SLG. titles - 9895 PA - Too few titles over relatively weak sluggers.

8. Hank Aaron - 140.6 - 4 SLG. titles - 13,919 PA - Too few titles over long career.

9. Willie Mays - 139.2 - 5 SLG. titles - 12,480 PA -

10. Jimmie Foxx - 143.7 - 5 SLG. titles - 9,599 PA - Too few PA relative to Aaron/Mays

11. Joe Jackson - 1.45.2 - 1 SLG. title - 5690 PA - Too few PA to rank higher - Placed in top 5 SLG. all his 9 yrs.; 2nd 3 times, once 3rd, 2 4ths, 2 5ths,

Sluggers such as Joe Jackson, Greenberg, McGwire, DiMaggio, Mize and Brouthers all had PA fewer than 7,700. Which is not the same thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff James contributed a nice compliment to my above post on January 17, 2005, 01:14 AM
Join Date: Jan 2004; Location: northeast Ohio; Posts: 7,402

OUTSTANDING work trying to balance plate apps & SLG+ (Thank you, Jeff.)

Bill Burgess

JRB

10-15-2006, 11:52 AM

Bill: I agree with your original premise that Ruth, Hornsby, Williams, and Cobb are the best of the best, however I would also add Wagner as he was just as dominant in his era. Gehrig is very close.

-Kyle-

10-15-2006, 12:54 PM

2. Ted Williams - 154.9 - 9 SLG. titles - 9791 PA - Takes 2nd nicely. Missing war yrs.? Offset by Babe's "missing pitching yrs.

I agree that Babe is the best hitter, but to say that his pitching years offset Ted's war years doesn't make sense in my opinion. Ruth didn't hit his stride until 1921, two years after he began hitting. Ted missed three years in his prime 43-45, and came back from the war with a season of 50 win shares. :eek:

Sultan_1895-1948

10-15-2006, 01:01 PM

Ruth didn't hit his stride until 1921, two years after he began hitting.

Couldn't be more wrong.

He did miss out on crucial early years of hitting which affected his offensive rate and counting stats. Not only the missed AB's but the split focus factor from the AB's he did get need to be accounted for in any comparison with Williams.

-Kyle-

10-15-2006, 01:08 PM

Couldn't be more wrong. Well I could....

He did miss out on crucial early years of hitting which affected his offensive rate and counting stats. Not only the missed AB's but the split focus factor from the AB's he did get need to be accounted for in any comparison with Williams.
Aw shucks, I didn't notice how he was spliting time between the pitching and hitting in both '18 and '19. :waving

538280

10-15-2006, 05:08 PM

Ruth's missing pitching years do not make up for Williams' missing war years in any stretch of the imagination. Ruth would have been an awesome hitter if he was full time in his pitching years, his part time numbers prove that, but they also just about prove he would not have been nearly as dominant as he was starting in '20. If you add on Williams' war years, his rates go up, if you add on Ruth's pitching years his rates go down. And that is a big difference.

Williams also played later, when the league was stronger than it was in Ruth's time. Because of this and the 4 missing war years I can see a peferctly good case for Williams as a better hitter than Ruth.

If we're taking numbers at face value, Bonds would be the #1 guy, with by far the best hitting peak ever. But I don't really agree with doing that.

If I'm rating them my top five are:

1. Ruth or Williams (haven't really made up my mind
3. Bonds
4. Mantle
5. Gehrig or Thomas

Bill, why do you rely so heavily on rel. SLG? It really isn't very good from a comprehensive analysis standpoint. Slugging percentage measures just that-slugging. There are other very important parts of offense, most importantly the ability to get on base, OBP. OPS+ is better, though that still gives way too much of a weight to SLG. Measures like EqA give a much more appropriate weight to OBP, and include everything a player does offensively that isn't encompassed in OPS+, and those things can be VERY important. This article explains EqA:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2596

Here are all time leaders in that statistic from BoSox Rule:

# Player EqA
1 Babe Ruth .364
2 Ted Williams .363
3 Barry Bonds .354
4 Frank Thomas .344
5 Lou Gehrig .344
6 Albert Pujols .338
7 Mickey Mantle .337
8 Mark McGwire .334
9 Manny Ramirez .333
10 Rogers Hornsby .333
11 Stan Musial .330
12 Edgar Martinez .329
13 Jason Giambi .328
14 Jim Thome .328
15 Jimmie Foxx .328
16 Joe DiMaggio .326
17 Mel Ott .326
18 Dan Brouthers .325
19 Hank Greenberg .325
20 Johnny Mize .325
21 Willie Mays .325
22 Hank Aaron .323
23 Ty Cobb .323
24 Alex Rodriguez .323
25 Brian Giles .322
26 Charlie Keller .322
27 Frank Robinson .322
28 Jeff Bagwell .322
29 Dick Allen .321
30 Joe Jackson .320
31 Lance Berkman .319
32 Albert Belle .318
33 Carlos Delgado .318
34 Gary Sheffield .318
35 Ken Griffey .318
36 Mike Piazza .318
37 Ralph Kiner .318
38 Todd Helton .318
39 Vladimir Guerrero .318
40 Eddie Mathews .315
41 Tris Speaker .315
42 Willie McCovey .315
43 Rickey Henderson .314
44 Bobby Abreu .313
45 Chipper Jones .313
46 Lefty O'Doul .312
47 Mike Schmidt .312
48 Wade Boggs .312
49 Will Clark .312
50 Arky Vaughan .311

Sultan_1895-1948

10-15-2006, 05:16 PM

538280

10-15-2006, 05:18 PM

How can you say that Ruth's rates would go down if he was a full time player? That makes no sense. Let's leave out the fact that Ruth was hitting in a completely different Fenway than Williams enjoyed...those missed AB and split focus numbers tell us something. The numbers that he DID put up would be even better if he was a full time player, and then from there you need to consider a full seasons worth of AB. Absolutely absurd to not take into account a guy basically starting his hitting career at 25 years old. That would be like wiping all of Pujols stats clean right now and starting his career from here. Babe's rate stats would have gone up much higher. He would have been hitting 25-40 homers with a deadball. His batting average would go up and his slugging would go up as well imo.

If Ruth had his best stretch before age 25, as you seem to think he would, he would be one of very few in baseball history (and those who do usually only do so because of injury problems or something like that). Ruth would have been awesome in that time, I agree, and he would have probably been the best hitter in the league. But his OPS+ be consistently over 205? No way.

Sultan_1895-1948

10-15-2006, 05:35 PM

If Ruth had his best stretch before age 25, as you seem to think he would, he would be one of very few in baseball history (and those who do usually only do so because of injury problems or something like that). Ruth would have been awesome in that time, I agree, and he would have probably been the best hitter in the league. But his OPS+ be consistently over 205? No way.

Who ever said he'd have his best stretch before 25 years old? This is about fairness, not outlandishness.

We know what he DID DO in limited AB during that span, so all I'm saying is that it should be taken into account. His dominance would have been there early on, in fact probably even more so considering it was true dead-ball days. In '15 he had four bombs in only 92 AB and the league leader had 7 in 384 AB. In '16 the league leader had 12 in 545 AB. In '17 the league leader had 9 in 587 AB. In '18 Ruth hit all eleven on the road and had them by his 139th AB, finishing with only 317 AB. We could easily be talkin' about 15 HR titles along with three second place finishes.

538280

10-15-2006, 05:41 PM

Who ever said he'd have his best stretch before 25 years old? This is about fairness, not outlandishness.

We know what he DID DO in limited AB during that span, so all I'm saying is that it should be taken into account. His dominance would have been there early on, in fact probably even more so considering it was true dead-ball days. In '15 he had four bombs in only 92 AB and the league leader had 7 in 384 AB. In '16 the league leader had 12 in 545 AB. In '17 the league leader had 9 in 587 AB. In '18 Ruth hit all eleven on the road and had them by his 139th AB, finishing with only 317 AB. We could easily be talkin' about 15 HR titles along with three second place finishes.

So how does this mean his career rates would go up? Yeah, he would be dominant. But I'm sure his career rate statistics (rates, not counting totals) would go down, rather than up, if he played those years. If you think they would go up then you think he would be a better hitter before age 25 than he was over the rest of his career, and I don't think that's logical or supported by his part time statistics.

His OPS+ up through 1918 was 171-I think that's a good estimation of what it probably would have been if he got full time play in that time. That would have been a great hitter and would have increased his value tremendously, but it would have brough his rates down while Williams getting his war seasons back would have brought them up. That's just what I'm saying. There's no parallel, Williams lost true prime seasons while Ruth lost beginning of career seasons.

Sultan_1895-1948

10-15-2006, 05:55 PM

So how does this mean his career rates would go up? Yeah, he would be dominant. But I'm sure his career rate statistics (rates, not counting totals) would go down, rather than up, if he played those years. If you think they would go up then you think he would be a better hitter before age 25 than he was over the rest of his career, and I don't think that's logical or supported by his part time statistics.

His OPS+ up through 1918 was 171-I think that's a good estimation of what it probably would have been if he got full time play in that time. That would have been a great hitter and would have increased his value tremendously, but it would have brough his rates down while Williams getting his war seasons back would have brought them up. That's just what I'm saying. There's no parallel, Williams lost true prime seasons while Ruth lost beginning of career seasons.

See here's the problem. Maybe I'm off on this because as you know, I'm not stat guy....but

You're taking what we know his career OPS+ to be, and saying "well there's no way he could put up that number in those years (which I agree with), so his rate stats would go down."

I'm looking at JUST THOSE YEARS and saying, "if you replace what we know those years to be, with what would be better years, then his overall OPS+ would have no choice but to go up."

And why would you take his OPS+ up through '18. You're not factoring in the split focus factor.

538280

10-15-2006, 05:58 PM

See here's the problem. Maybe I'm off on this because as you know, I'm not stat guy....but

You're taking what we know his career OPS+ to be, and saying "well there's no way he could put up that number in those years (which I agree with), so his rate stats would go down."

I'm looking at JUST THOSE YEARS and saying, "if you replace what we know those years to be, with what would be better years, then his overall OPS+ would have no choice but to go up."

The second part doesn't make any sense. OPS+ is a rate stat, he would not have done as well prior to 1920 if he had full time play. It would go down. There is no disputing that.

And why would you take his OPS+ up through '18. You're not factoring in the split focus factor.

I'm not sure exactly what the "split focus" factor is, but is it because he was pitching at the same time and couldn't focus on hitting? There's no doubt that may have an effect, but I seriously doubt it's a 34 point OPS+ effect. Maybe 10 points at the most.

Sultan_1895-1948

10-15-2006, 06:07 PM

The second part doesn't make any sense. OPS+ is a rate stat, he would not have done as well prior to 1920 if he had full time play. It would go down. There is no disputing that.

Seriously though. If I'm wrong I'm wrong, but I still don't understand why that doesn't make any sense.

Let's say someone's career HR numbers look like this.

10
15
10
15
40
40
40
40
50
50
50
50

You have 410 career HR and an average of 34 a season. Now, if you replace one of the first 4 seasons with a higher number (even if that number is lower than 34), the avg per season has no choice but to go up. Why doesn't this work the same? OPS+ is relative to the league and during those years, the amount above the league (from what we know him to have been) would go up.

I'm not sure exactly what the "split focus" factor is, but is it because he was pitching at the same time and couldn't focus on hitting? There's no doubt that may have an effect, but I seriously doubt it's a 34 point OPS+ effect. Maybe 10 points at the most.

I know you'd love for it to be that way Chris, but you can't always put a number on something. Even a "ballpark" number could be way off. From the numbers he did put up while pitching, there's a huge split focus factor at play. Not to mention the numerous pinch hitting assignments which brought his numbers down even more as he was coming in cold off the bench, out of the rhythm of the game.

EvanAparra

10-15-2006, 06:14 PM

Sultan, what happened to Ruth in '25? I saw he only played in 98 games, and his production was down when he did... Was this a nagging injury, or what was the case?

-Kyle-

10-15-2006, 06:34 PM

Sultan, what happened to Ruth in '25? I saw he only played in 98 games, and his production was down when he did... Was this a nagging injury, or what was the case?
He had a serious cold I think.

538280

10-15-2006, 06:34 PM

Seriously though. If I'm wrong I'm wrong, but I still don't understand why that doesn't make any sense.

Let's say someone's career HR numbers look like this.

10
15
10
15
40
40
40
40
50
50
50
50

You have 410 career HR and an average of 34 a season. Now, if you replace one of the first 4 seasons with a higher number (even if that number is lower than 34), the avg per season has no choice but to go up. Why doesn't this work the same? OPS+ is relative to the league and during those years, the amount above the league (from what we know him to have been) would go up.

That only works with counting stats. Since OPS+ is a rate stat, it would have more weight on his career figure if he was playing more in those seasons. That is why it would go down-because he would be playing more.

I know you'd love for it to be that way Chris, but you can't always put a number on something. Even a "ballpark" number could be way off. From the numbers he did put up while pitching, there's a huge split focus factor at play. Not to mention the numerous pinch hitting assignments which brought his numbers down even more as he was coming in cold off the bench, out of the rhythm of the game.

I know, it's almost impossible to put a number on it, and no doubt that was a factor. But it's not going to make up 34 points.

Sultan_1895-1948

10-15-2006, 07:09 PM

That only works with counting stats. Since OPS+ is a rate stat, it would have more weight on his career figure if he was playing more in those seasons. That is why it would go down-because he would be playing more.

Of course he would be playing more. That's the whole point. Playing more equals greater totals and a more impressive relative gap. If you replace his early OPS+ seasons with a higher OPS+, then I don't see any way his career OPS+ doesn't go up. Maybe I'm just statistically retarded, but seems pretty cut and dry to me.

538280

10-15-2006, 07:12 PM

Of course he would be playing more. That's the whole point. Playing more equals greater totals and a more impressive relative gap. If you replace his early OPS+ seasons with a higher OPS+, then I don't see any way his career OPS+ doesn't go up. Maybe I'm just statistically retarded, but seems pretty cut and dry to me.

No, statistically speaking, if he played as a regular from 1913-1918 and put up a 181 OPS+ in those years (10 points higher than what it actually was because of split focus) his OPS+ for those particular years would go up, but his CAREER OPS+ would go down because he would be playing a lot more time at a lower level. That is a statistical fact. You can test it if you want.

EvanAparra

10-15-2006, 07:13 PM

He had a serious cold I think.

Thanks, KYLE.

Sultan_1895-1948

10-15-2006, 07:20 PM

No, statistically speaking, if he played as a regular from 1913-1918 and put up a 181 OPS+ in those years (10 points higher than what it actually was because of split focus) his OPS+ for those particular years would go up, but his CAREER OPS+ would go down because he would be playing a lot more time at a lower level. That is a statistical fact. You can test it if you want.

I think I'm starting to understand. Your "more time at a lower level" kinda made sense. It would be a lower level counting stats wise, compared to what he'd do later on, but RELATIVE to the competition in '15-'19 he would still be a monster, which is what OPS+ is all about, right.

Sultan_1895-1948

10-15-2006, 07:28 PM

Sultan, what happened to Ruth in '25? I saw he only played in 98 games, and his production was down when he did... Was this a nagging injury, or what was the case?

Didn't see this question, sorry. He collapsed at a train station and hit his head. He was taken into an ambulance (have a pic of him being loaded if you want to see it) and was operated on by a Dr. Stewart. He had an intestinal issue that left him with a long scar on the left side of his stomach. There were rumors of it being VD, but an operation is not how that's treated. He basically had just let himself go.

EvanAparra

10-15-2006, 07:30 PM

Didn't see this question, sorry. He collapsed at a train station and hit his head. He was taken into an ambulance (have a pic of him being loaded if you want to see it) and was operated on by a Dr. Stewart. He had an intestinal issue that left him with a long scar on the left side of his stomach. There were rumors of it being VD, but an operation is not how that's treated. He basically had just let himself go.

I'd like to see that picture. So was there a resounding injury from hitting his head or was it just the intestinal issue?

Goooooo

10-15-2006, 07:34 PM

Mantle
Mays
Aaron
Arod
Bonds
Pujols
Rose
Schmidt
Thomas

ESPNFan

10-15-2006, 07:38 PM

Just Wanted to insert a question here for people to weigh in on. Even given the less than rock solid nature of Negro League stats where do you guys think Josh Gibson would fall in these lists?

Sultan_1895-1948

10-15-2006, 07:43 PM

The initial collapse happened in Ashville right after he got off the train. He collapsed but didn't hit the ground since people where there to catch him. He was seen by a doctor and the initial diagnosis was severe instinal attack and flu symptoms. He was laid up for a couple days, and then they took a train to New York so he could rest. Just before the train got to New York, he collapsed again in the bathroom and hit his head on the sink. An ambulance was supposed to be waiting when they arrived, but it broke down and a second one had to be sent. I'll look for that picture, but as for being knocked out in the second collapse, I'm sure it affected him when he came back. Barrow and Ruppert actually suggested he sit out the rest of the year he looked so bad, but Babe insisted on coming back and playing.

wu-tang clan

10-15-2006, 08:03 PM

ted williams. good average, better at hitting eephus than anyone else

EvanAparra

10-15-2006, 08:10 PM

Wow, thats an amazing picture. Thanks Sultan.

Bill Burgess

10-15-2006, 10:15 PM

Does anyone worry about correlating stats to PA? Whether it's Rel. Slg. or a different stat? Does anyone worry about that?

grey eagle

10-17-2006, 01:17 PM

Does anyone worry about correlating stats to PA? Whether it's Rel. Slg. or a different stat? Does anyone worry about that?It depends on the stat. A relative stat like OPS+ (of which Relative SLG is a part) must correlate to PA to give an accurate career figure or figure over a given time interval.

538280

10-17-2006, 03:40 PM

Does anyone worry about correlating stats to PA? Whether it's Rel. Slg. or a different stat? Does anyone worry about
that?

With rate stats like OPS+, of course you worry about that. With counting stats you don't have to.

I asked you this earlier, I'm afraid it's gotten caught behind everything else. What's the deal with rel. SLG? All that measures is power (slugging), why do you use it as the be all end all of offensive evaluation? You have to include another important part of hititng, getting on base. OPS+ is good though it still gives too high a weight to SLG. EqA is very good, it correlates with run scoring better than anything else. Here's an article about it:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2596

Also see my previous post.

Bill Burgess

10-17-2006, 11:11 PM

The reason I asked the question about Plate Appearances is expressed in my Post 1

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=706015&postcount=1

& 7 (http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=706753&postcount=7). I am concerned about career productivity/PA.

I like Relative Slg., for the exact reason some others don't. It doesn't measure walks. I strongly believe that pre-1920 hitters were disadvantaged by the deadened ball, which caused sluggers to not be as feared as post-1920 sluggers. And that lack of fear consequently resulted in their relative shortage of walks.

So, Rel. Slg. takes no notice of that, and merely shows whose hits piled up more bases. OPS+ takes notice of walking, and the deadball sluggers are hindered in their quest to hold their own with later sluggers.

Walking is somewhat, (not totally) era based. I require a less discriminatory stat, with respect to era.

Relative Slugging does not show mere power, but productivity, or the lack of it.

To say it another way, post-1920 sluggers walked more than their contact hitting peers, while pre-1920 sluggers did not. Pre-1920, both sluggers/contact hitters walked about the same. McGraw/Huggins demonstrated that. It's that simple.

But here's my thrust. If a hitter achieved a certain Rel. Slg. average of .530 with 11,000 PA, and a rival achieved the same .530, but with only 7,000 PA, does anyone feel that the 2 hitters are on an equal plane of hitting excellence?

Does anyone feel that the fewer PA are an advantage, with a shorter career?

Anyone?

Bill

Bill Burgess

10-18-2006, 07:06 AM

So, if Ruth, Williams, Hornsby, Cobb deserve to go Top 4, by consensus, as historical hitters, who deserves to go 5th? Who is YOUR 5th man?

I humbly submit the name of Louis Gehrig. From among a contestant list that must include: Bonds, Mantle, Foxx, Aaron, Mays.

I also submit that Joe Jackson, Greenberg, McGwire, DiMaggio, Mize and Brouthers had to few PA to compete statistically.

What say the brothers/sisters of the Clan Fever?

Bill

leecemark

10-18-2006, 07:28 AM

mwiggins

10-18-2006, 07:34 AM

So, if Ruth, Williams, Hornsby, Cobb deserve to go Top 4, by consensus, as historical hitters, who deserves to go 5th? Who is YOUR 5th man?

I humbly submit the name of Louis Gehrig. From among a contestant list that must include: Bonds, Mantle, Foxx, Aaron, Mays, Joe Jackson.

I also submit that Greenberg, McGwire, DiMaggio, Mize and Brouthers had to few PA to compete statistically.

What say the brothers/sisters of the Clan Fever?

Bill

Gehrig. But I'd put him ahead of Cobb.

1. Ruth
2. Williams
3. Hornsby
4. Gehrig
5. Cobb

Bill Burgess

10-18-2006, 07:35 AM

--Some (all?) of the guys who "had too few PA" to qualify had more than one of the guys you list as a contender. I think Gehrig could rank as high as 3rd just as a hitter so he has to be on your list. Ruth and Williams are 1/1A and then the competition starts for the rest.
Oops. You refer to Jackson. I forgot to reassign him to the lower line. You are quite right. My mistake. Thanks Mark.

Could you be persuaded to submit your Top 10 Hitters list?

Bill

Bill Burgess

10-18-2006, 07:36 AM

Gehrig. But I'd put him ahead of Cobb.

1. Ruth
2. Williams
3. Hornsby
4. Gehrig
5. Cobb
Thanks, Mark. Nice listing. Like your sequencing.

BB

torez77

10-18-2006, 10:15 AM

1. Ruth
2. Williams
3. Hornsby
4. Gehrig
5. Cobb

That sounds about right. Except I may put Mantle in there, and move Cobb out. Maybe. Bonds blew it otherwise he'd be a lock.

EvanAparra

10-18-2006, 10:21 AM

1. Ruth
2. Williams
3. Hornsby
4. Cobb
5. Gehrig
6. Mantle
7. Jackson
8. Foxx
9. Speaker
10. Mays
11. Musial
12. DiMaggio
13. Lajoie

mwiggins

10-18-2006, 10:38 AM

That sounds about right. Except I may put Mantle in there, and move Cobb out. Maybe. Bonds blew it otherwise he'd be a lock.

I thought about that long and hard. Mantle had a 4 pt edge in relative slugging, but Cobb beat him in relative BA by 1.34 to 1.16, so I couldn't see Mantle ahead of him. Since it was a question about hitting, I didn't factor in Mantle's edge in walks and ignored OBP. Otherwise, I'd put him ahead of Cobb. If the question would have been greatest offensive player, I'd put Mantle ahead of Cobb (just looking at their peaks).

I think if Mantle wouldn't have been so focused on hitting tape measure home runs, he'd have been in the Williams/Hornsby range as far as hitting goes.

Sultan_1895-1948

10-18-2006, 10:54 AM

Bonds blew it otherwise he'd be a lock.

Lock for top 10 or 15?

Even before the steroids you're talking about a guy who hit 40+ HR only three times and had a sub .300 BA. His OBP was always pretty good, but even his best pre-steriod single season OBP wasn't within 12 points of Ruth's career OBP, or within 20 of Ballgames career OBP. Pure hitting wise, with a natural decline, not sure you could make a legit top 10 argument; certainly not top 5 imo

EvanAparra

10-18-2006, 01:43 PM

Lock for top 10 or 15?

Even before the steroids you're talking about a guy who hit 40+ HR only three times and had a sub .300 BA. His OBP was always pretty good, but even his best pre-steriod single season OBP wasn't within 12 points of Ruth's career OBP, or within 20 of Ballgames career OBP. Pure hitting wise, with a natural decline, not sure you could make a legit top 10 argument; certainly not top 5 imo

Say you never heard Barry and Steriods in the same sentance, and he plays out the rest of his career however you think he will, where do you rank him?

mwiggins

10-18-2006, 01:50 PM

Say you never heard Barry and Steriods in the same sentance, and he plays out the rest of his career however you think he will, where do you rank him?

He'd be #2. If he retired in 1999, he wouldn't be top ten.

LostWorld

10-18-2006, 01:58 PM

1. Ruth
2. Williams
3. Barry
4. Gehrig
5. Mantle
6. Frank Thomas

BoSox Rule

10-18-2006, 02:21 PM

1. Ted Williams
2. Babe Ruth
3. Barry Bonds
4. Lou Gehrig
5. Mickey Mantle
6. Rogers Hornsby
7. Stan Musial
8. Hank Aaron
9. Willie Mays
10. Ty Cobb
11. Frank Thomas
12. Manny Ramirez

Skin & Bones

10-18-2006, 02:26 PM

1. Ruth
2. Williams
3. Hornsby
4. Cobb
5. Gehrig
6. Mantle
7. Jackson
8. Foxx
9. Speaker
10. Mays
11. Musial
12. DiMaggio
13. Lajoie

Evan, I can't see how you could have any of these guy's ahead of Bonds even only counting through 1999.

EvanAparra

10-18-2006, 02:29 PM

Evan, I can't see how you could have any of these guy's ahead of Bonds even only counting through 1999.

To tell you the truth i'm not sure where to put him yet, he may well be ahead of those guys, but i'm not sure yet, where do you have him? Also, I have Jackson really high on pure hitting ability, even if his career wasn't as storied as some of the others.

Skin & Bones

10-18-2006, 02:35 PM

To tell you the truth i'm not sure where to put him yet, he may well be ahead of those guys, but i'm not sure yet, where do you have him? Also, I have Jackson really high on pure hitting ability, even if his career wasn't as storied as some of the others.

Third, and would probably be number 1 if not for allegations of illegal PED use. I base this on my knowledge of the drugs and it's benefits, and what I know it could do for a ballplayer. I also adjust for other things, like one factor being Bonds most assuredly faced juiced up pitchers who were using and benefitting from illegal drugs.

Be that as it may, even if I were to only rate his career through 99, there's no way in hell that Jackson, Dimaggio, and Nap belong ahead of him.

EvanAparra

10-18-2006, 02:39 PM

mwiggins

10-18-2006, 03:03 PM

Third, and would probably be number 1 if not for allegations of illegal PED use. I base this on my knowledge of the drugs and it's benefits, and what I know it could do for a ballplayer. I also adjust for other things, like one factor being Bonds most assuredly faced juiced up pitchers who were using and benefitting from illegal drugs.

Be that as it may, even if I were to only rate his career through 99, there's no way in hell that Jackson, Dimaggio, and Nap belong ahead of him.

I don't see a problem with JoeD being ranked higher than Bonds through 99. Joe's career relative slugging is 1.43, and that would be somewhat higher if you give him credit for the WWII years. Bond's relative slugging is 1.49 though '06. I'm not sure how much it would drop just going through '99, but I'm sure a few points. And even including all of Bond's career, DiMaggio's relative BA is higher, 1.18 vs 1.14. And with his war years and taking out Bonds' 2000-2006, the gap would grow. Bonds kills him on OBP because of his walks, but we're ranking hitters, not offensive players.

Sultan_1895-1948

10-18-2006, 04:01 PM

Say you never heard Barry and Steriods in the same sentance, and he plays out the rest of his career however you think he will, where do you rank him?

Ruth
Cobb
Mays
Wagner
Aaron
Gehrig
Musial
Speaker
Williams
Hornsby
F. Robinson
Mantle
Schmidt
R. Henderson
Morgan
Bonds
Collins
DiMaggio
Foxx
Bench
Lajoie
Arod
Mathews
Ott
Vaughan
Delahanty
Brett
Brouthers
Hamilton
B. Robinson

I have him at #16 right now, and that's assuming he experienced a natural decline. Tough to say though. Through '98 (yes, '99 is when he showed up to camp incredibly freakish in size, and when his steroid induced workouts led to an injury) he was a very good player, but his OBP and SA would be just pretty darn good, not incredible like they rose to with PED's.

EvanAparra

10-18-2006, 04:06 PM

Wait, I was speaking about including his career past 99, all the way through, assuming steroid questions were never brought up... Did you use years past 99 in your ratings?

Sultan_1895-1948

10-18-2006, 04:08 PM

Wait, I was speaking about including his career past 99, all the way through, assuming steroid questions were never brought up... Did you use years past 99 in your ratings?

That is my rating of his career, or how I think it would have gone, had he never used steroids. That means taking into account everything that he did through '98 at face value, and then assuming from there on out.

If you mean, take his steroid numbers at face value, I just cannot do that, in no way, shape or form. Would be absurd.

Bill Burgess

10-18-2006, 04:41 PM

In post 37, I wrote the following. Must have fallen through the cracks. Anyone want to deal with it?
--------------------The reason I asked the question about Plate Appearances is expressed in my Post 1

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=706015&postcount=1

& 7 (http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=706753&postcount=7). I am concerned about career productivity/PA.

I like Relative Slg., for the exact reason some others don't. It doesn't measure walks. I strongly believe that pre-1920 hitters were disadvantaged by the deadened ball, which caused sluggers to not be as feared as post-1920 sluggers. And that lack of fear consequently resulted in their relative shortage of walks.

So, Rel. Slg. takes no notice of that, and merely shows whose hits piled up more bases. OPS+ takes notice of walking, and the deadball sluggers are hindered in their quest to hold their own with later sluggers.

Walking is somewhat, (not totally) era based. I require a less discriminatory stat, with respect to era.

Relative Slugging does not show mere power, but productivity, or the lack of it.

To say it another way, post-1920 sluggers walked more than their contact hitting peers, while pre-1920 sluggers did not. Pre-1920, both sluggers/contact hitters walked about the same. McGraw/Huggins demonstrated that. It's that simple.

But here's my thrust. If a hitter achieved a certain Rel. Slg. average of .530 with 11,000 PA, and a rival achieved the same .530, but with only 7,000 PA, does anyone feel that the 2 hitters are on an equal plane of hitting excellence?

Does anyone feel that the fewer PA are an advantage, with a shorter career?

Anyone?

Bill

Sultan_1895-1948

10-18-2006, 04:47 PM

Does anyone feel that the fewer PA are an advantage, with a shorter career?

Seems pretty obvious that fewer PA's are an advantage with rate stats.

Bill Burgess

10-18-2006, 05:05 PM

One would think so, Randy, but no one is dealing with that inconvenient detail. Everyone is focusing on Peak, or so it would seem if no attention is paid to career PA. Just so disappointed with the lack of nuance to detail.

Bill

leecemark

10-18-2006, 05:50 PM

1) Ruth
2) Williams
(Bonds w/o steroid discount)
3) Mantle
4) Gehrig
5) Cobb
6) Musial
7) Hornsby
8) Mays
9) Aaron
10) Thomas
11) Robinson
12) Foxx
13) Bonds
14) Pujols (could move up or down over time, its a small sample still)
15) Ramirez
16) Allen
17) Brouthers
18) Greenberg
19) Mize
20) DiMaggio

Skin & Bones

10-18-2006, 05:52 PM

I don't see a problem with JoeD being ranked higher than Bonds through 99. Joe's career relative slugging is 1.43, and that would be somewhat higher if you give him credit for the WWII years. Bond's relative slugging is 1.49 though '06. I'm not sure how much it would drop just going through '99, but I'm sure a few points. And even including all of Bond's career, DiMaggio's relative BA is higher, 1.18 vs 1.14. And with his war years and taking out Bonds' 2000-2006, the gap would grow. Bonds kills him on OBP because of his walks, but we're ranking hitters, not offensive players.

Those walks have value, and because of them he made a great offensive contribution. I really don't see a case for Dimaggio ahead of Bonds as a hitter. Bonds clearly was the better hitter in his best seasons pre 1999. Dimaggio NEVER had a season as good as Barry Bonds 1993. Not many players have.

mwiggins

10-19-2006, 07:21 AM

Those walks have value, and because of them he made a great offensive contribution. I really don't see a case for Dimaggio ahead of Bonds as a hitter. Bonds clearly was the better hitter in his best seasons pre 1999. Dimaggio NEVER had a season as good as Barry Bonds 1993. Not many players have.

The walks have a lot of value, but the question was "hitter", not "offensive player". Bonds pre 1999 was clearly the better offensive player. But he wasn't clearly the better hitter. He was the better offensive player because of his plate discipline and his baserunning.

I agree with you on '93, but his hitting that season was barely better than DiMaggio's 1939 & 1941 seasons.

Barry 1993 - Relative BA - 1.26, Relative SLG - 1.67, K's 79
Joe D 1939 - Relative BA - 1.34, Relative SLG - 1.60, K's 20
Joe D 1941 - Relative BA - 1.30, Relative SLG - 1.60, K's 13

Bill Burgess

10-19-2006, 07:49 AM

Skin & Bones

10-19-2006, 06:07 PM

The walks have a lot of value, but the question was "hitter", not "offensive player". Bonds pre 1999 was clearly the better offensive player. But he wasn't clearly the better hitter. He was the better offensive player because of his plate discipline and his baserunning.

I agree with you on '93, but his hitting that season was barely better than DiMaggio's 1939 & 1941 seasons.

Barry 1993 - Relative BA - 1.26, Relative SLG - 1.67, K's 79
Joe D 1939 - Relative BA - 1.34, Relative SLG - 1.60, K's 20
Joe D 1941 - Relative BA - 1.30, Relative SLG - 1.60, K's 13

Ah, I see, your talking about a so called " pure hitter ". Well then I guess Gwynn deserves to be mentioned, as well as Vlad.

Still, I'd rather take the guy who creates more runs for my team, and is a better OVERALL contributor. And that guy is clearly Barry Bonds.

538280

10-19-2006, 06:12 PM

I like Relative Slg., for the exact reason some others don't. It doesn't measure walks. I strongly believe that pre-1920 hitters were disadvantaged by the deadened ball, which caused sluggers to not be as feared as post-1920 sluggers. And that lack of fear consequently resulted in their relative shortage of walks.

This is ridiculous, Bill, there is no relative shortage of walks, there's only a shortage of walks if you're looking at the raw numbers. It's strange you say deadball players weren't as feared, when it's you who is always talking about how highly regarded players like Cobb were. If they were so highly regarded they why weren't they feared? I think that power was different then than it is now, but the best hitters were still just as feared. To rate hitters solely on their slugging percentages is completely blasphemous-and any statistical study would show it to be so.

Bill Burgess

10-19-2006, 09:50 PM

This is ridiculous, Bill, there is no relative shortage of walks, there's only a shortage of walks if you're looking at the raw numbers. It's strange you say deadball players weren't as feared, when it's you who is always talking about how highly regarded players like Cobb were. If they were so highly regarded they why weren't they feared? I think that power was different then than it is now, but the best hitters were still just as feared. To rate hitters solely on their slugging percentages is completely blasphemous-and any statistical study would show it to be so.
No, no, no, Chris. You misunderstand. Yes, Cobb was feared in an all-around way, because once on base, he was so distracting.

But in general, the sluggers: Wagner, Crawford, Lajoie, were not feared to where they couldn't pitch to them. Like Bonds, Ruth, Mantle.

So, the deadball sluggers were not being pitched around. Not being walked out of fear. This all changed post 1920.

Lajoie:------60, 47, 35, 33
Wagner:------67, 66, 59, 59,
Cobb:-------118, 85, 78, 66, 65 (85, 66, 65 were all post '20)
Crawford:----69, 66, 61, 52, 50
Brouthers:---99, 87, 84, 1, 68
Delahanty:---86, 77, 65, 62
Cravath:-----86, 83, 70, 64, 55

Now, look at post '20.

Ruth:-------170, 148, 144, 144, 140
Gehrig:-----132, 130, 122, 122, 117
Foxx:-------119, 116, 114, 111
Greenberg:--119, 104, 102, 93, 91

The above chart is actually understated, because I did not include some of the premier post-1920 walkers, Williams, Mantle, Bonds. And the irony is that the 4 post-1920 sluggers I listed were not that particularly patient. Babe was especially not that patient. But they garnered huge walk totals due to pitcher fear/dread/respect. Pre-1920 sluggers simply couldn't inspire that kind of dread, due to the sluggish ball composition.

I have my reasons for things, Chris. We just have different baseball values. And you don't like mine. I've accepted that a long time ago. Not trying to change you anymore. Can't.

The Kid

11-12-2006, 04:49 PM

Ted Williams was the best hitter ever. period.

Sultan_1895-1948

11-12-2006, 05:00 PM

He certainly has a case, but falls short. period.

CTaka

11-12-2006, 05:03 PM

He certainly has a case, but falls short. period.

But a good argument could be made that Teddy Ballgame only falls short to just one man. That's pretty rarified air.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=48990

CTaka

11-12-2006, 05:05 PM

I'll even go way out on a limb and predict that Wee Willie Keeler will not win this poll. :D

The Kid

11-13-2006, 02:42 PM

Ted Williams was the greatest hitter ever IMO. and this is for overall hitting

W_Marone

11-13-2006, 02:46 PM

hitter overall? Or for average? HR?

Colorado Express

11-13-2006, 03:04 PM

I think the best overall hitter has to be Teddy Ballgame.

Honus Wagner Rules

11-13-2006, 03:44 PM

Kelly Leak, he hit .841 in his best season...

Appling

11-13-2006, 04:43 PM

I myself consider only "modern era" players (1900 and later) -- but even then this is a tough choice. My top three are:
* Rogers Hornsby (three Triple Crowns; only player to hit 40 Hr and bat over .400)
* Babe Ruth (more homeruns than most TEAMS -- and career BA of .342)
* Ted Williams (great combination of BA and HR; outstanding OBP even before the concept was "invented")

538280

11-13-2006, 07:20 PM

I have my reasons for things, Chris. We just have different baseball values. And you don't like mine. I've accepted that a long time ago. Not trying to change you anymore. Can't.

You've shown that chart a number of times, Bill, it does not even begin to prove that post 1920 hitters had better relative walk rates. Remember everything is relative, indexed to the league average. The overall walk rates were much lower in deadball.

torez77

11-13-2006, 08:36 PM

Ted Williams was the greatest hitter ever IMO. and this is for overall hitting

I think the only aspect of hitting where Ted beats Babe is plate discipline. I believe Williams has the best K/BB ratio ever. Babe had plate discipline and walked alot, but alot of his walks were a product of the pitchers' fear of him, as they tried to pitch around him, thus throwing him alot of junk. Intentional walks weren't recorded back then, but Babe had quite a few of them. Pitchers were afraid of Williams too, but not as much as they were the Babe, as Williams was not as much of a threat to go long-distance. Williams had the best batting eye the game has ever seen. His strikeout percentage for a slugger is just phenomenal.

Sultan_1895-1948

11-13-2006, 09:26 PM

I think the only aspect of hitting where Ted beats Babe is plate discipline. I believe Williams has the best K/BB ratio ever. Babe had plate discipline and walked alot, but alot of his walks were a product of the pitchers' fear of him, as they tried to pitch around him, thus throwing him alot of junk. Intentional walks weren't recorded back then, but Babe had quite a few of them. Pitchers were afraid of Williams too, but not as much as they were the Babe, as Williams was not as much of a threat to go long-distance. Williams had the best batting eye the game has ever seen. His strikeout percentage for a slugger is just phenomenal.

I agree with this but when comparing these two...how much of an edge is it for Ballgame, really. To me, it seems I'd want Ted swinging at the pitch an inch high, low, in or out, rather than have him walk where he's only average on the bases. The OBP crowd won't agree, but I want my most talented hitter to swing the bat. Not go fishing way out of the zone; big difference...not talking about that, just being a hitter.

EvanAparra

11-13-2006, 09:31 PM

I agree with this but when comparing these two...how much of an edge is it for Ballgame, really. To me, it seems I'd want Ted swinging at the pitch an inch high, low, in or out, rather than have him walk where he's only average on the bases. The OBP crowd won't agree, but I want my most talented hitter to swing the bat. Not go fishing way out of the zone; big difference...not talking about that, just being a hitter.

You're talking about wanting your most talented hitter to swing the bat, when Ruth has more career walks than Williams? Obviously its because he played longer, but he walked a TON. Granted, is was probably because he was pitched around a great deal. I want my most talented guy swining as well, but I dont want him to go fishing. If you look at Ted's chart, how great of a hitter was he on those balls an inch off the plate? I think waiting for his pitch was what made him great, not one of his defficiencies. (sp?)

torez77

11-13-2006, 09:42 PM

I agree with this but when comparing these two...how much of an edge is it for Ballgame, really. To me, it seems I'd want Ted swinging at the pitch an inch high, low, in or out, rather than have him walk where he's only average on the bases. The OBP crowd won't agree, but I want my most talented hitter to swing the bat. Not go fishing way out of the zone; big difference...not talking about that, just being a hitter.

That's a valid point. Ruth was a great bad-ball hitter, and turned alot of crap into gold. Babe wins that skill over Teddy, if you can call that a skill. Ted rarely swung at bad pitches, so the skill of plate discipline goes to Teddy. Not much of an edge for Teddy I guess, as Ruth got awesome results doing what he did. They both did what they did best. I was just comparing them by the basic tools of hitting.

Sultan_1895-1948

11-13-2006, 09:58 PM

You're talking about wanting your most talented hitter to swing the bat, when Ruth has more career walks than Williams? Obviously its because he played longer, but he walked a TON.

lol, I realize this. Ruth had a good eye but he was also willing to extend the plate when the situation called for it. He could and would go the other way with power and place hitting ability. Tons of his walks were intentional or unintentionally intentional as well.

Sherry Smith, pitcher -

"Ruth's eye was so good, there was little alternative. If Babe got balls somewhere near where he liked to hit them, he would bat .450. He seldom gets a good ball. A pitcher is foolish to give him a good ball, especially with men on base."

-----------------------------

George Dauss

“I have pitched a ball to Ruth that was at least a foot and a half off the plate on the outside. But Babe reached out with those long arms of his and pulled the ball into the right field stand.”

--------------------------------

Joe Sewell, Yanks 3B

"When Babe hit sixty home runs in 1927, no one even pitched to him. I played for the Indians back then, and we threw the ball in the dirt, behind his back, over his head, anywhere but over the plate. If everyone pitched to him, he would've hit 100."

--------------------------------

Bill Dickey

"I was scared to death of Ruth and Gehrig. I was trying to hit the ball as far as them, and I could never do that as long as I live. Miller Huggins came up to me and said, "You're trying to hit the ball as far as Ruth and Gehrig, aren't you?" I said, "Yes sir." Huggings then told me to get an Earle Combs model, choke up on the bat, and hit to all fields. It really helped me."

-------------------------------

Urban Shocker - 1923

"Babe is a hitter who cannot be fooled very long with anything you give him. He isn’t supposed to like slow curves, but if you keep on feeding him slow curves, sooner or later you will find a ball coming back at you in a straight line off Babe’s bat and there won’t be anything slow about his motion either.

Two or three seasons ago Babe would hit at anything he could reach. Now he won’t do that. He has grown too foxy. If you give him bad balls he will let them go by.

It always makes the crowd sore when you pass Babe. But very often he isn’t passed deliberately. The pitcher was taking no chances with Babe. He was keeping them outside and they strayed a little over the line. A pitcher hasn’t perfect control and can’t always put the ball exactly where he wants to. It’s never safe to groove the ball for Babe and you can’t always hook the corners when you want to , particularly when you are in the hole. Babe used to hit at all those things once. Now he waits and takes his base.

I don’t mean to say that Babe is never passed deliberately. On the contrary this happens more often in his case than with any other batter. I don’t usually pass him deliberately myself, but I do sometimes. There are times when it would be foolish to do anything else. But Babe sometimes interferes with your plans even when you are trying to pass him. I well remember an incident which happened two seasons ago. It was the best kind of good policy to pass Babe and I was trying to do that very thing. I shot a ball over way wide of the plate, at least a foot outside. But Babe was in a hitting mood that day so he reached over, caught that ball with his long, heavy bat and drove it into the centerfield bleachers for the longest hit ever made on the ball field."

-----------------------

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=651894&postcount=58

------------------------

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=651915&postcount=62

SHOELESSJOE3

11-13-2006, 10:02 PM

Even if Ruth had less plate discipline than Williams he did just fine.
He may have struck out at a greater rate but his career OBA .474 was only .008 behind Ted's .482 and he hit 193 more home runs.

Now it will be brought up that Ted did miss some years in the military and thats a point to be considered. With that 193 more home runs Ruth had around 700 more career at bats than Ted, no way Ted could come close to even up that 193 home runs in 700 more at bats. Could he do do it if we give him his lost years in the military, maybe but than he would have close to 2000 more at bats than Ruth and then that would have to be factored in.

We shouldn't forget about Ruth's beginning only 1110 at bats in his first 6 seasons, 49 career home runs and only 184 career walks.

Take Ruth out of the deadball era and the fact that for the first 3 seasons he was batting every 4th or 5th day and his OBA 1920-1935 was .483.

These two are close, very close but Ruth's slugging and home runs take him to the top. What would his OBA be if not for the fact that Lou Gehrig was batting behind him. Sure with more walks his home run total would be lower and probably not that bad but his OBA would be off the chart.

Sultan_1895-1948

11-13-2006, 10:10 PM

EvanAparra

11-13-2006, 11:02 PM

Edgartohof

11-13-2006, 11:18 PM

1a. Ruth
1B. Williams
.
.
.
.
.....Heck, no one else comes close :D

As much as I really want to say that Williams was the greatest hitter (and he definitely has a good argument for that), I can't seem to bring myself to say it. If you give Williams his war credit, then I would feel obligated to give Ruth credit for his pitching years, and they would still be in the same place. Ruth's greater power numbers is what JUST puts him on top.

But if one were to speculate (and I do every once in a while), what if Williams could have .400 again in one of those missed years? And I will also say that even if you do not give him "war credit", it should be noted that for someone to take the amount of time away from the game as Ted did, and still come back and dominate in the fashion that he did is amazing, and I do believe that if he had continued playing, and his focus had solely been on baseball, and hitting, that he could have reached much higher heights than he did.

Bill Burgess

11-13-2006, 11:21 PM

You've shown that chart a number of times, Bill, it does not even begin to prove that post 1920 hitters had better relative walk rates. Remember everything is relative, indexed to the league average. The overall walk rates were much lower in deadball.
My chart was never intended to 'prove' my point. My sample was too small.

It's purpose was to 'dramatize' that without the live ball, deadball sluggers could not get the same level of walks.

And I know about Relative walks rates. But if you notice, for the deadballer to have the same scale as the later sluggers, the norm for walking in the deadball era would have been somewhere from 20-30 walks. And that just wasn't happening. So, your premise is off, again.

If you disagree, prove it. Show those hitters and compare their walk rates with the post-1920 hitters I showed. Compare their Relative walk rates & you'll quickly discover the error of your beliefs.

Bill Burgess

11-14-2006, 10:24 AM

Looks as if I'm the only member here who thinks that Cobb has a case for best hitter. ??? Why is that?

OK. I once before over a year ago, posed a question, which no one dared touch. No one dared go near it. But, I'll ask it again.

Let's say that I give Babe Ruth credit for being better than Cobb in every single game in which he hit a home run. And let's say that I also give Babe Ruth credit for being better than Cobb in every single game he ever pitched, even the ones he didn't fare so well in.

So, if he add up 714, plus another 100 games for his pitching, we have about 800 games, give or take a few. Now, if you are still with me, that leaves about 2,000 games where Babe Ruth didn't homer or pitch.

And don't forget. Babe sometimes hit more than one homer in a game. Don't know how many games that was. So his HR games are actually a little less than 714.

Who do you think helped their teams more in those 2,000 games, Ty or Babe?

Bear in mind, Ty's contributions were distributed pretty evenly. His running/hitting/fielding, hitting coaching, managing, intangibles all went into helping his teams to win. And his teams were a lot more under-financed than were the Babe's. Not as sterling a supporting cast of characters.

So, in about 2,000 games, we're comparing Ty's stuff with Babe's walking, non-homer hitting hitting, running, fielding, intangibles.

And also, don't forget that if we subtract Babe's homer games, we're also taking with them his R, RBIs, walks, slugging rate stats, etc., for those 1,000 games! Don't forget that all that goes with the 1,000 games we're giving to Babe, off the top.

So, that is my question to the house. This is a very different kind of question than one normally hears.

Who helped their teams more in MORE games, Ty or Babe?

Any other arguments not dealing with this directly, will not be responded to. I'm tired of fighting on the terrain of your choosing. You will fight on mine for a change, or there will be no exchanges.

mwiggins

11-14-2006, 10:54 AM

Bear in mind, Ty's contributions were distributed pretty evenly. His running/hitting/fielding, hitting coaching, managing, intangibles all went into helping his teams to win. And his teams were a lot more under-financed than were the Babe's. Not as sterling a supporting cast of characters.

So, in about 2,000 games, we're comparing Ty's stuff with Babe's walking, non-homer hitting hitting, running, fielding, intangibles.

Interesting take, but why would Cobb's running, fielding, and intangibles be factored in when looking at who was the better hitter? And isn't the goal of a hitter to help your team score the most runs, not to make a positive contribution in as high a % of games as possible? And even when Ruth wasn't homering, he was getting on base more than Cobb (1.34 to 1.27 relative OBP edge). I would guess that his OBP 'contribution' woud be as evenly spread out as Cobb's contributions at the plate. Ruth wasn't just a 'slugger' who only contributed with the longball.

Bill Burgess

11-14-2006, 11:14 AM

Interesting take, but why would Cobb's running, fielding, and intangibles be factored in when looking at who was the better hitter? And isn't the goal of a hitter to help your team score the most runs, not to make a positive contribution in as high a % of games as possible? And even when Ruth wasn't homering, he was getting on base more than Cobb (1.34 to 1.27 relative OBP edge). I would guess that his OBP 'contribution' woud be as evenly spread out as Cobb's contributions at the plate. Ruth wasn't just a 'slugger' who only contributed with the longball.
I was broadening the debate, to say who helped their teams to win 'in more games'.

Yeah, I broke the rules. Kill me. I was bringing in a different debate. I was trying to bring some creativity from the same old arguments.

But even 'playing by the thread rules', I think you have successfully avoided my question 100%. Which hitter helped their teams in the most games, subtracting their 'best games'.

And since a slugger helps most when he slugs, the question seems obvious. But I guess not to you.

1.34 to 1.27, after we subtract their best games? You don't think walks follow homers? Huh? Where did you get that figure? I hypothesized, 'after subtracting their best games'. Knew you wouldn't address my question directly.

538280

11-14-2006, 11:57 AM

My chart was never intended to 'prove' my point. My sample was too small.

It's purpose was to 'dramatize' that without the live ball, deadball sluggers could not get the same level of walks.

And I know about Relative walks rates. But if you notice, for the deadballer to have the same scale as the later sluggers, the norm for walking in the deadball era would have been somewhere from 20-30 walks. And that just wasn't happening. So, your premise is off, again.

Here you can find walks per game and how it developed through major league history:

http://home.istar.ca/~mbein/baseball.html

If you look at the chart there you'll see in the deadball era the walks per game was around 2.75, and it raised up to around 3.5 for the 20s/30s. That was a big sudden jump. Over 162 games that is 567 walks for the 20s, 445 for the deadball. If you divide by 9, for each player, that means the average per player per season was about 63 for the 20s and about 49 for deadball. If you say those players you showed averaged about 80 walks, then they're 63% above average. If you say the 20s/30s players averaged 110, then they're 75% above average. There is a difference there but it NOT really significant, given that it is only a very small sample of players.

Bill, seriously, you can set your biases aside. We can respect the deadball stars very highly based on just their relative stats. You don't have to push it as if it was SO much harder for them to post high relative stats (it wasn't even really harder at all. You said earlier it was harder for them to put up high slugging relative stats as well, then I showed you that league leaders from then were NOT posting lower relative slugging percentages AT ALL. Here are links for that:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=679760&postcount=117

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=680324&postcount=120

It is completely ridiculous to claim that relative stats are made unfairly towards deadball stars, as you seem to think they are. I think Mark was correct when he said that if you ever made a system that fit your beliefs one of its components would be a HUGE boost to deadball players.

mwiggins

11-14-2006, 12:08 PM

I was broadening the debate, to say who helped their teams to win 'in more games'.

Yeah, I broke the rules. Kill me. I was bringing in a different debate. I was trying to bring some creativity from the same old arguments.

But even 'playing by the thread rules', I think you have successfully avoided my question 100%. Which hitter helped their teams in the most games, subtracting their 'best games'.

And since a slugger helps most when he slugs, the question seems obvious. But I guess not to you.

1.34 to 1.27, after we subtract their best games? You don't think walks follow homers? Huh? Where did you get that figure? I hypothesized, 'after subtracting their best games'. Knew you wouldn't address my question directly.

I would agree that Cobb probably helped his team in more games as a hitter than did Ruth, though not by a huge amount. But that in the games that Ruth DID help his team at the plate, he probably helped them to a greater level than did Cobb in the game he helped his team. If that's not too rambling. :rolleyes:

But much of the reason that Cobb was probably a more consistent offensive threat was the non-hitting piece of offense - his baserunning. I could certainly see an argument that Cobb was a better offensive player than Ruth, but as a hitter Ruth, to me, has the clear edge. But that's just me.

Tell me Bill, wouldn't it seem unlikely that someone could both be the best hitter AND best baserunner of all-time? That someone would, at the same time, have the slugging/power ability required to be the greatest hitter of all-time AND be fast/quick enough to be the greatest baserunner? That seems a little unrealistic to me. The fact that he's even a top 5 hitter all-time (and probably the best contact hitter of all-time) is a huge testament to his greatness.

Rookie1914

11-14-2006, 12:17 PM

Well you're right and you're wrong....

Williams did bat .400 in 1952 and 1953, but he only had 10 ABs in 1952 and 91 ABs in 1953. That's hardly anything. He was fighting in the Korean War during those years and that's why he barely made an appearance.

His only real .400 season was in 1941 when he batted .407. In that season he had 456 ABs (he also walked 147 times).

This is true.

Side note: His last day was a double header. He could have sat and had .400 in his back pocket, but chose to play. I think he went 4-6 and ended up batting .406. What a guy.

I spent a year in Korea [Army] and I cannot imagine fighting a war on that mountainous terrain. My hat is off to Mr. Williams.

JRB

11-14-2006, 01:56 PM

I have been reading the very interesting discussion between Bill and mwiggins, both of whose insights I greatly respect, on the relative merits of Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb as hitters. A while back I researched the batting averages of a number of great hitters in comparison to the league average. There were at least 13 seasons where Ty Cobb's average was over 100 points higher than the league average, 3 occasions where Cobb's average was 142 points or more higher than the league average, and 6 occasions where his average was 133 points or more higher than the league average. Cobb was the best in history at hitting for average relative to the league he played in. However, as has been demonstrated in a number of different threads, when you look at Babe Ruth's slugging average year by year compared to the league he played in, Ruth was simply on another planet. Cobb was far and away the greatest relative average hitter in history, while Ruth was far and away the greatest relative slugger in history. I guess each person can name their own poison.

I thought that was a very creative approach Bill was taking in arguing Ty helped his team more in the games that Babe didn't hit a home run. My main problem with that argument is that I strongly suspect that there were many games in which Babe didn't hit a home run simply because the teams deliberately pitched around or walked him. I don't think that the fact that a team deliberately pitches around or walks (semi-intentional walks) a slugger like Ruth (or Mantle) should be used as a basis for finding them to be a lesser hitter. If Ruth hadn't been deliberately pitched around or walked so many times, he undoubtedly would have hit many more home runs, and therefore if one were to use a hypothetical system where Ruth is deemed the best in games where he hit a home run, Ruth would be getting arbitrarily deprived of additional games through no fault of his own. This is the same reason I have always argued that walks given to sluggers such as Ruth, Mantle, Williams, etc, are quite often not of the same nature as walks obtained by short players with small strike zones and good batting eyes such as Joe Morgan or Eddie Yost. Ruth and Mantle were being walked to prevent them from hitting a home run or extra base hit, while players such as Morgan and Yost were oftentimes getting the best result they possibly could obtain by receiving a walk and were not being deprived of home runs or extra base hits. When a slugger is walked to simply prevent his being able to hit a home run or extra base hit I don't think it proves they are somehow a lesser hitter.

c JRB

Bill Burgess

11-14-2006, 02:11 PM

I would agree that Cobb probably helped his team in more games as a hitter than did Ruth, though not by a huge amount. But that in the games that Ruth DID help his team at the plate, he probably helped them to a greater level than did Cobb in the game he helped his team. If that's not too rambling. :rolleyes:

Now let's go slow, Mark. OK? I agree that Babe helped his team more, but in fewer games. So, that's that. Babe helped more in his best 1,000 games than Ty did.

But . . . why is it so far fetched to imagine that Ty helped his team more than Babe did in their worst 2,000 games. Which is twice as many games as Babe. That was the nature of their skills. Babe was more of a 'specialist' than Ty was. Ty was more like Wagner. Their skills were more evenly distributed across the board. More generalized, more even.

Even in his worst games, Ty was running, hitting, fielding, bunting, etc. In Babe's worst games, he was walking, singling. It just doesn't seem like so from out of left field to me.

And even if Babe was helping his teams more in their best games, it was excess. Any runs over the winning run just doesn't matter, does it? Winning by a lot doesn't really count more than winning by a little.

And Cobb was helping his teams win by a little in twice the number of games than Babe was.

But much of the reason that Cobb was probably a more consistent offensive threat was the non-hitting piece of offense - his baserunning. I could certainly see an argument that Cobb was a better offensive player than Ruth, but as a hitter Ruth, to me, has the clear edge. But that's just me.

But Mark? I'm already giving you the best 1,000 games! Isn't that enough. And I'm giving it to Babe, even if his team lost when he hit a HR, and even if his team lost when he pitched. And yet, I'm giving you 100% of all those best games, regardless.

Tell me Bill, wouldn't it seem unlikely that someone could both be the best hitter AND best baserunner of all-time? That someone would, at the same time, have the slugging/power ability required to be the greatest hitter of all-time AND be fast/quick enough to be the greatest baserunner? That seems a little unrealistic to me. The fact that he's even a top 5 hitter all-time (and probably the best contact hitter of all-time) is a huge testament to his greatness.

Well, that is why I rank Cobb #1. 13 BA titles, 8 Slugging titles, 4 SB titles, plus the rep of all who saw him as the supreme player of the ages, and most intimidating, disruptive runner. Yes, quite a package of value. And we're not even discussing yet his proven ability to maximize your other hitters hitting potential, brilliant managing, excellent fielding.

Yessirsee, quite a total package, and his hitting is winning more games, 2,000 than Babe is winning, 1,000.

Why is my argument so 'out there'? Don't get it, Mark.

Bill

mwiggins

11-14-2006, 02:11 PM

This is the same reason I have always argued that walks given to sluggers such as Ruth, Mantle, Williams, etc, are quite often not of the same nature as walks obtained by short players with small strike zones and good batting eyes such as Joe Morgan or Eddie Yost. Ruth and Mantle were being walked to prevent them from hitting a home run or extra base hit, while players such as Morgan and Yost were oftentimes getting the best result they possibly could obtain by receiving a walk and were not being deprived of home runs or extra base hits.
c JRB

Yost was actually only 1 inch shorter than Mantle, and he had 3 inches on Morgan. Very underrated player, IMO, but I'll agree that his walks were not exactly the result of pitchers pitching around him.;)

Eddie Stanky was much more in the 'short guys with lots of walks' mold than Yost was.

We need a Yost vs. Stanky vs. Max Bishop thread..:D

mwiggins

11-14-2006, 02:25 PM

Yessirsee, quite a total package, and his hitting is winning more games, 2,000 than Babe is winning, 1,000.

Why is my argument so 'out there'? Don't get it, Mark.

Bill

I don't think it's 'out there'. But you're using a lot of things that go beyond the pale of hitting to argue for your vote of Cobb as the greatest hitter of all-time. As a total offensive player, he's much closer to Cobb and Williams and Hornsby, and I could see the case that his total offensive game is #1 all-time, but Cobb as the #1 hitter, I don't buy it.

And the 2000 games vs. 1000 - that just seems WAY too much of a simplistic assumption, and once again you included things that give Cobb and edge like fielding and running. Neither has any relevance to justifying Cobb's position as the #1 hitter of all-time. I'm not saying they're not true and important, but if the debate is greatest hitter, they don't really belong.

But . . . why is it so far fetched to imagine that Ty helped his team more than Babe did in their worst 2,000 games. Which is twice as many games as Babe. That was the nature of their skills. Babe was more of a 'specialist' than Ty was. Ty was more like Wagner. Their skills were more evenly distributed across the board. More generalized, more even.

Even in his worst games, Ty was running, hitting, fielding, bunting, etc. In Babe's worst games, he was walking, singling. It just doesn't seem like so from out of left field to me.

And even if Babe was helping his teams more in their best games, it was excess. Any runs over the winning run just doesn't matter, does it? Winning by a lot doesn't really count more than winning by a little.

And Cobb was helping his teams win by a little in twice the number of games than Babe was.

That's a HUGE leap of faith to assume that sort of thing. And once again, what does fielding and running have to do with Cobb's greatness as a hitter?

538280

11-14-2006, 02:26 PM

JRB, the walks Ruth received due to his extreme power do not make him a lesser hitter-they actually make him a better hitter. Even Babe Ruth-the most prolific HR hitter of all time-only hit a HR once in every 11.76 at bats. Even for him it was a rather rare event. By walking Ruth the other teams were making there be less chance that he would hit an HR, true, but they were also putting him on base FAR more times than he would have been otherwise. Putting a player on base is another chance to score a run, it is another chance to keep the inning alive. After all even Ruth was probably going to make an out most of the time. The extra walks probably do bring down his HR total, but they make him a much more valuable hitter than he would have been otherwise. Barry Bonds 2002-2004 is a good example of that. Bonds' HR numbers those years were very good, but not astronomically high (46, 45, and 45), because of the frequency the other teams were walking him. But those walks still make him a BETTER hitter than he would have been if they pitched away because of the extra frequency of getting on base. In my opinion Bonds' 2002 and 2004 seasons were actually superior to his 2001, when he hit 73 homers, because he was getting on base quite a bit more. (.582 and .609 OBP compared to .515 for 2001)

Making outs is what prevents teams from getting opportunities to score. Personally I think avoiding outs is one of the most underrated skills for a ballplayer. Ruth's walks he got from his power are not outs and another chance for a run-they make him more valuable than he would be if they pitched away at him. The intentional walk IMO is also usually a bad strategy. BP does a good job showing that in their last book. There are few situations, where it truly does decrease the likelihood of the hitting team scoring runs.

Now please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that a walk is better than a HR or a hit. It is not. Statistical studies have shown that a walk is 72% as good as a single in terms of potential for scoring runs. That is its actual value. What I am saying is that the number of walks Ruth got, in total, were CERTAINLY more valuable than what he would have done otherwise. As good a hitter Ruth was, if they pitched away at him the most probable outcome was still an out. If the other team walked Ruth every time he came up and never pitched to him the team Ruth was on would score way more runs than they did normally.

Bill Burgess

11-14-2006, 02:29 PM

My main problem with that argument is that I strongly suspect that there were many games in which Babe didn't hit a home run simply because the teams deliberately pitched around or walked him. I don't think that the fact that a team deliberately pitches around or walks (semi-intentional walks) a slugger like Ruth (or Mantle) should be used as a basis for finding them to be a lesser hitter. If Ruth hadn't been deliberately pitched around or walked so many times, he undoubtedly would have hit many more home runs, and therefore if one were to use a hypothetical system where Ruth is deemed the best in games where he hit a home run, Ruth would be getting arbitrarily deprived of additional games through no fault of his own.

No fault of his own? JRB, You sound as if Babe had no choice but to go for HRs. I disagree, respectfully. Walking a very feared hitter has always been the remedy that pitchers have for sluggers. Not only for Babe, but for Barry, Mickey, etc.

That is the beauty of Cobb's arsenal. Couldn't walk him! And those pitchers knew it! It was virtually impossible for the pitcher to concentrate on Sam Crawford, and later Heilmann, with a weird, wired man dancing off 1B, insulting your catcher, calling you 2Bman a sissy and worse.

But even walking Babe was not a terribly good solution. Walks result in runs, over the long term. I realize that. But it is still the smart, best strategy.

Babe became a hostage to his own supreme gift. His fans refused to allow him to go for high BA, choke up, swing level, etc.

His fans, until the day he retired, were so messed up, that they would rather see him strike out, trying to give them that homer, than punch a double and win the game.

Why? Because many of his fans were new to the game. They had been told that a man existed who could hit a ball out of your sight. The ball would go up, float like suspended on a string, and finally after getting smaller and smaller, finally disappear from your vision.

So, if pitchers walked him, they were booed. Over and over and over. They hated pitching around Babe. And Babe struck out often, trying to give his fans what they had come for.

Babe was human. He knew why they were in the park. He was one of the few who could hit a ball over the roof. They didn't only want to see him hit a line drive homer, but a true Ruthian clout. Up and over the roof. High, wide and handsome. 75 degree trajectory, to tomorrow.

Babe did try to hit more balanced in 1923-24.

Personally, I don't think that either Cobb or Ruth fulfilled their potential. I wish Ruth had continued on his career path like 1923-24. His natural power would have insured 40 homers, but maybe an extra 30 points to his BA.

I truly believe Ruth could have hit .400/40 homers routinely. And proven himself better than Cobb, without argument. He HAD the talent. But like I said, his talent was hostage to his power gift. His fans/owner wouldn't let him.

And Cobb failed to see the obvious. In the 20's he had the potential to hit homers without compromising his BA, but his nerve/courage failed him. So, he became angry at the thought of trying. Worst judgment of his career.

So, even the best players can commit terrible judgment. I'm not saying they should have tried to be the other. Just make a very measured, enlightened step in the other's direction. Babe proved that good power was the way to go. Ty proved that high average was also the way to go.

Both fulfilled most of their potential. Neither came close to maximizing themselves 100%. Just my 2 cents.

Bill Burgess

mwiggins

11-14-2006, 02:43 PM

I truly believe Ruth could have hit .400/40 homers routinely. And proven himself better than Cobb, without argument. He HAD the talent. But like I said, his talent was hostage to his power gift. His fans/owner wouldn't let him.

Bill Burgess

He DID prove himself better than Cobb (as a hitter), though. You yourself have stated more than once that Ruth has the better stats than Cobb. Cobb may be the better all-around player, but just about any statistical measurement out there offers 'proof' that Ruth was a better hitter than Cobb. Even after he went away from his more balanced approach in 1923/1924, he was still regularly putting together hitting seasons as good or better than any that Cobb ever had (1926, 1927, 1930, 1931).

Maybe he could have been even better, but as it was he was superior at the plate to Cobb.

JRB

11-14-2006, 05:42 PM

JRB, the walks Ruth received due to his extreme power do not make him a lesser hitter-they actually make him a better hitter.

Chris, please read the posts you are responding to. I wrote in my post the following : "When a slugger is walked to simply prevent his being able to hit a home run or extra base hit I don't think it proves that they are somehow a lesser hitter.". In you reply you try to act like I said the exact opposite, which is not correct.

Bill Burgess

11-14-2006, 05:54 PM

He DID prove himself better than Cobb (as a hitter), though. You yourself have stated more than once that Ruth has the better stats than Cobb. Cobb may be the better all-around player, but just about any statistical measurement out there offers 'proof' that Ruth was a better hitter than Cobb. Even after he went away from his more balanced approach in 1923/1924, he was still regularly putting together hitting seasons as good or better than any that Cobb ever had (1926, 1927, 1930, 1931).

Maybe he could have been even better, but as it was he was superior at the plate to Cobb.
Yeah, I don't disagree with that, Mark. But . . . what if Cobb had the live ball in his prime, a 252/296 short porch, not stuck swinging at weirdly fluttering blackballs, twice the numbers of fans cheering him on, much better team mates, etc.

But I suppose none of that has any effect on one's hitting. Sigh.

538280

11-14-2006, 06:55 PM

Chris, please read the posts you are responding to. I wrote in my post the following : "When a slugger is walked to simply prevent his being able to hit a home run or extra base hit I don't think it proves that they are somehow a lesser hitter.". In you reply you try to act like I said the exact opposite, which is not correct.

Your post sounded as if hitting value was really being subtracted from them, though, and that despite that you shouldn't be penalizing them. Really they were getting a lot more value.

538280

11-14-2006, 06:56 PM

Yeah, I don't disagree with that, Mark. But . . . what if Cobb had the live ball in his prime, a 252/296 short porch, not stuck swinging at weirdly fluttering blackballs, twice the numbers of fans cheering him on, much better team mates, etc.

But I suppose none of that has any effect on one's hitting. Sigh.

The live ball and not swinging at "fluttering blackballs" would have nothing to do with how he comes in statistically. You still seem to confuse raw numbers with relative numbers. When comparing the best hitters ever just about no one is looking at raw numbers. They have to be context adjusted. While Cobb's numbers would be superficially better if he played with the liveball they would not be better in the context of his time.

JRB

11-14-2006, 07:21 PM

Your post sounded as if hitting value was really being subtracted from them, though, and that despite that you shouldn't be penalizing them. Really they were getting a lot more value.

What in the world are you talking about? It's clear that you didn't carefully read my iniital post, and you misrpresented what I said in your reply. When I pointed this out to, you now reply by making up something I never said.:crazy

538280

11-14-2006, 07:29 PM

What in the world are you talking about? It's clear that you didn't carefully read my iniital post, and you misrpresented what I said in your reply. When I pointed this out to, you now reply by making up something I never said.:crazy

Okay then, disregard what I said.

Bill Burgess

11-14-2006, 07:41 PM

The live ball and not swinging at "fluttering blackballs" would have nothing to do with how he comes in statistically. You still seem to confuse raw numbers with relative numbers. When comparing the best hitters ever just about no one is looking at raw numbers. They have to be context adjusted. While Cobb's numbers would be superficially better if he played with the liveball they would not be better in the context of his time.
Huh? Counting stats have stopped existing? No one thinks 714 HRs counts? Geesh, it must be great to be a dreamer. I don't confuse anything, Sir Christopher. I simply still use both. Each in their own way.

Cobb wouldn't have been better in liveball? For one thing, he wouldn't have had his pathological aversion to the long ball. If you could be persuaded to read, perhaps these 'details' would no longer be such a mystery to you, Chris.

I like Relative stats too, but please stop saying that raw numbers don't matter. In many ways, they still do. The old values still apply, because we will apply them. We still refer to 40 homers, 20 wins, 3,000 hits, 500 HRs, 2,600 Strike outs by Reggie, Ryan's SOs, in naked raw numbers.

So when I refer to Cobb hitting 35 homers/.400 BA in the 20's, if he were in his prime, most understand what I'm talking about.

And if Cobb had played liveball in his prime, and included 35 homers in his portfolio, yes, Chris, it would have raised his hitting value, and allowed him to separate from the pack even better than he could in deadball tar pits.

Need to read to learn these new things, Christopher.

Sultan_1895-1948

11-14-2006, 07:43 PM

Dont know if you saw it, Sultan, but I added something in your previous post, but you had already started your response. About that famous hit chart of his. You said something like that you wanted him to not take all those pitches an inch or two off the plate, but if on the corner of the chart hes hitting .250 and .230, why should he swing when if he takes it he has a much better chance of getting on base, even moreso than if the ball was in the middle of the plate.

btw, I wasn't implying you didn't know Ruth walked, just thought you were coming off a little hypocritical (as if im calling you the Babe himself)

No worries, its all good. I've seen that amazing chart and actually posted in here once before. In all fairness, I believe Teddy put that together himself, so who knows how accurate it is. My guess is that when he did swing at those pitches, he had two strikes on him, and he might have been trying to foul off a close one (there is a skill to that btw), and in those cases he got out more than the norm. I still say though, I want that dude swingin' his stick. If he took the approach of going the other way; had that mindset, then I believe those "just off the plate" numbers would be much higher.

538280

11-14-2006, 07:44 PM

Huh? Counting stats have stopped existing? No one thinks 714 HRs counts? Geesh, it must be great to be a dreamer. I don't confuse anything, Sir Christopher. I simply still use both. Each in their own way.

Cobb wouldn't have been better in liveball? For one thing, he wouldn't have had his pathological aversion to the long ball. If you could be persuaded to read, perhaps these 'details' would no longer be such a mystery to you, Chris.

I like Relative stats too, but please stop saying that raw numbers don't matter. In many ways, they still do. The old values still apply, because we will apply them. We still refer to 40 homers, 20 wins, 3,000 hits, 500 HRs, 2,600 Strike outs by Reggie, Ryan's SOs, in naked raw numbers.

So when I refer to Cobb hitting 35 homers/.400 BA in the 20's, if he were in his prime, most understand what I'm talking about.

And if Cobb had played liveball in his prime, and included 35 homers in his portfolio, yes, Chris, it would have raised his hitting value, and allowed him to separate from the pack even better than he could in deadball tar pits.

Need to read to learn these new things, Christopher.

No, Bill. Raw stats are really fun to look at and it is fun to browse through the record books sometimes. I agree with you there. But if you want to know about a player's value to his team? You have to look at him the context of his time. And Cobb would NOT have appeared any better in the context of his time in liveball than he did in deadball. It would not increase his value because Cobb would all of the sudden have a .380 average instead of .366 because it wouldn't be any better versus the league.

Bill Burgess

11-14-2006, 07:52 PM

I am not trying to be rude to you, Chris, or overly agressive, but you talk to me as if I just joined and am a complete nincompoop. Why do you talk down to me so? I'm just trying to be a little bit creative.

Sultan_1895-1948

11-14-2006, 07:54 PM

Just reading through some of this and wanted to mention something. Ruth is being talked of as if the HR weapon was his only weapon. "Specialization" as Bill likes to call it. Couldn't disagree more. He has 1517 (going by memory, is that right? I know its over 1500) career singles and we know about his double and triple numbers. He was extremely gifted at walking the line of being patient and taking the walk, and extending the plate in certain situations where a hit (or potential xtra base hit) could help the team more than the BB.

I believe MWiggins asked Bill if it seems unlikely that the best baserunner could also be the best hitter. What made Cobb such a great hitter WAS his baserunning ability. His hitting, in and of itself was not marvelous. He strategized and manipulated his way to great hitting numbers, and while he could place hit with the best of them, his legs, heart and brain were responsible for the majority imo. That's part of his total package and it takes nothing away from him in my eyes, he rates #2 in large part because of it all...but if you're talking just hitting...then he lags behind Ruth.

Bill Burgess

11-14-2006, 08:00 PM

No, Bill. Raw stats are really fun to look at and it is fun to browse through the record books sometimes. I agree with you there. But if you want to know about a player's value to his team? You have to look at him the context of his time. And Cobb would NOT have appeared any better in the context of his time in liveball than he did in deadball. It would not increase his value because Cobb would all of the sudden have a .380 average instead of .366 because it wouldn't be any better versus the league.
If I want to learn value? See, Chris? There you go again. Talking down to me as if I'm an idiot. If you really want to learn about value, or players, you are required to read about them, what made them tick, what might have motivated them under different conditions, etc.

I have. And that is why I feel I can speculate intelligently. I know Cobb didn't go for homers and why. And if he had come up in a different climate, and incorporated them into his arsenal, things would have changed, his value would have gone up.

Refusing to read outside stat studies is a handicap that you are not enough of a genius to overcome.

This is as if you are trying to read without learning the alphabet. You need to go back and catch up. There will be no other option, if you ever hope to get behind the issues, and become more interesting than a mere comparison of numbers. Most here have read a ton. No alternative to old-fashioned homework.

Keep saying the same things about value. We heard you last season. Can't fool the experts.

Bill Burgess

11-14-2006, 08:12 PM

What made Cobb such a great hitter WAS his baserunning ability. His hitting, in and of itself was not marvelous. He strategized and manipulated his way to great hitting numbers, and while he could place hit with the best of them, his legs, heart and brain were responsible for the majority imo. That's part of his total package and it takes nothing away from him in my eyes, he rates #2 in large part because of it all...but if you're talking just hitting...then he lags behind Ruth.
As a matter of fact, I am in complete agreement with you, good Randy. Cobb himself, and Walter Johnson also believed that Ty was basically a .320 hitter, who by his head, speed and chutzpah, made himself into a great hitter.

His speed and smarts let him stretch single into doubles, doubles into triples. It let him beat out bunts, and some infield bounders.

I also agree that Babe was a much greater and better and more naturally gifted ballplayer. Babe didn't require nearly as much practice.

And for the record, strictly as a hitter, Babe did compile the best stat record on record. And by far. No close second.

But I also happen to believe that Ty helped his team win more games. Ty helped his teams win by a single run. Babe by a boatload. But that is a hidden thing. If one piles up a lot of runs in games, the number of runs is in necessarily fewer games. Is that not a given? Does that not follow as an inflexible stat result.

By the nature of his skill set, Cobb's help to his teams are more evenly distributed. Subtract HRs, and the leftover singles, doubles, triples, walks play out in TC's favor, or don't you see that as what naturally follows?

I'm not trying to chisel Babe down a single digit. Only trying to see behind the high-lights.:) :waving

Sultan_1895-1948

11-14-2006, 08:31 PM

As a matter of fact, I am in complete agreement with you, good Randy. Cobb himself, and Walter Johnson also believed that Ty was basically a .320 hitter, who by his head, speed and chutzpah, made himself into a great hitter.

His speed and smarts let him stretch single into doubles, doubles into triples. It let him beat out bunts, and some infield bounders.

I also agree that Babe was a much greater and better and more naturally gifted ballplayer. Babe didn't require nearly as much practice.

And for the record, strictly as a hitter, Babe did compile the best stat record on record. And by far. No close second.

But I also happen to believe that Ty helped his team win more games. Ty helped his teams win by a single run. Babe by a boatload. But that is a hidden thing. If one piles up a lot of runs in games, the number of runs is in necessarily fewer games. Is that not a given? Does that not follow as an inflexible stat result.

By the nature of his skill set, Cobb's help to his teams are more evenly distributed. Subtract HRs, and the leftover singles, doubles, triples, walks play out in TC's favor, or don't you see that as what naturally follows?

I'm not trying to chisel Babe down a single digit. Only trying to see behind the high-lights.:) :waving

I see what you're saying. Now you've moved on to "Ty helped his teams win more games."

I'm assuming you mean "Other than World Series Games."

Cobb played in 3035 games and Ruth in 2503.

I don't think what you're saying is completely fair or accurate. Can't tell you how many of Ruth's hits either tied a game, brought them close, or won the ballgame, but its a ton. And how many times was the bat taken out of his hands when the game was on the line. Its no mistake that the majority of his homers came in the first few innings.

How would you go about measuring your claim anyway? If your thinking is that Ruth "homered when it didn't matter"...then I couldn't disagree more. You know he didn't swing from the heels every AB Bill. He was constantly thinking about the situation and the score and went from there. Very heady, unselfish player.

Cobb played in an era when one run mattered more, so I suppose you could say what you're saying. But you could also say that the opposing teams in Ruth's time were scoring more runs, so Ruth's huge RC totals were needed. Who knows.

Bill Burgess

11-14-2006, 08:50 PM

I see what you're saying. Now you've moved on to "Ty helped his teams win more games."

Since my post #248, I thought I'd resurrect this old arguing point of mine. Raised it about 2 years ago, and it went to hell.

I'm assuming you mean "Other than World Series Games."

Ha ha. Got me there old friend. But you of all people should know that sometimes in a WS, crap happens. Unlike Babe, Ty never got another shot in his prime. Might have improved. Who knows?

Cobb played in 3035 games and Ruth in 2503.

I don't think what you're saying is completely fair or accurate. Can't tell you how many of Ruth's hits either tied a game, brought them close, or won the ballgame, but its a ton. And how many times was the bat taken out of his hands when the game was on the line. Its no mistake that the majority of his homers came in the first few innings.

But isn't that the natural remedy for ALL sluggers, not just Babe? If I were a GM, I'd not pitch around anyone. Because after all, the best slugger only connected about once every 14 times at bat, and they are likely to hit about between 3-4 times per 10 at bats.

So statisticly, I think pitching to sluggers is a better stategy than walking them automaticly whenever there are runners on, or the game is on the line.

How would you go about measuring your claim anyway? Can't. Just using logic, and creativity. If your thinking is that Ruth "homered when it didn't matter"...then I couldn't disagree more. When did I ever say that? It always matters. You know he didn't swing from the heels every AB Bill. He was constantly thinking about the situation and the score and went from there. Very heady, unselfish player.

Yes, I think Babe was about as unselfish as anyone else. But didn't you see my post in #259? I spoke about Babe becoming a hostage to his gift. I think he would have been booed if he didn't go for the long ball. That's why his fans were there. Not to see him punch a double and win the game.

I think those neophite fans would have preferred to see him strike out trying to homer than win the game with a deftly place single. That is why he was cheered when he cork-screwed and fell over striking out. They knew he was trying to give them what they paid their money for. Know what I mean?

And that is why the pitchers were booed when they pitched around him.

Cobb played in an era when one run mattered more, so I suppose you could say what you're saying. But you could also say that the opposing teams in Ruth's time were scoring more runs, so Ruth's huge RC totals were needed. Who knows.
I hope you don't think I'm trhying to be unfair to Babe. This is NOT a cheap shot. Just trying to be creative, Randy.

Sultan_1895-1948

11-14-2006, 09:09 PM

Doesn't win shares tell us who helped their teams more?

EvanAparra

11-14-2006, 09:16 PM

Doesn't win shares tell us who helped their teams more?
You should know you cant just use winshares. Has too much to do with how many wins the team actually had.

Ubiquitous

11-14-2006, 09:20 PM

You should know you cant just use winshares. Has too much to do with how many wins the team actually had.

What does it have to do with how many wins the team actually had?

EvanAparra

11-14-2006, 09:22 PM

A win share represents one-third of a team win, by definition. If a team wins 80 games in a season, then its players will share 240 win shares.

One criticism of this metric is that players who play for teams that win more games than expected, based on the Pythagorean expectation, receive more win shares than players whose team wins fewer games than expected. Since a team exceeding or falling short of its Pythagorean expectation is generally acknowledged as chance, some believe that credit should not be assigned purely based on team wins.

Sultan_1895-1948

11-14-2006, 09:28 PM

You should know you cant just use winshares. Has too much to do with how many wins the team actually had.

Actually don't know any better, sorry. I'm a moron when it comes to advanced stats. Thought WS were about what that player contributed and I was just searching for something that could either prove or disprove what Bill is claiming. Anyone have a solution?

If a team wins less games, there are less players contributing. So if a player does contribute, won't he stand out just as much as...ahh nevermind...already told ya that ain't my bag. :o

EvanAparra

11-14-2006, 09:32 PM

Actually don't know any better, sorry. I'm a moron when it comes to advanced stats. Thought WS were about what that player contributed and I was just searching for something that could either prove or disprove what Bill is claiming. Anyone have a solution?

If a team wins less games, there are less players contributing. So if a player does contribute, won't he stand out just as much as...ahh nevermind...already told ya that ain't my bag. :o

Actually, I dont know why I said it like that, I'm pretty clueless when it comes down to it, I just started reading stuff about these metrics.

If a team wins more games, the more chances a player has to help that team win. Another player could be contributing just as much, but the team around him isn't very good, so he doesn't get as many winshares as he could if he was on a better team... At least that's what I got from it.

Ubiquitous

11-14-2006, 09:33 PM

But all of that goes on the assumption that pythagorean formula is more accurate and more right then real world results, and the problem you speak of is not exlcusive to win shares but to all uber-metrics that use seasonal data. All of those metrics whether it be TPR, Win Shares, WARP or anything else all use an assumption on how wins are achieved based on runs and on assumptions on how runs are achieved. Now yes these assumptions are based on data but they are still assumptions that are applied to all teams and all players. But one size does not fit all which is why you find differences in pyth totals and real world totals.

Just because a team wins a game based on "chance" does no meant that they were lucky to win a game, therefore they shouldn't get credit. The "chance' part comes in when you are talking about the variance. Offense score 10 runs but they lose because the pitching allows 12 runs. 9 times out of 10 they win that game but this time because the variables aligned just so, they lost. That is chance or I should say probabilities but that is not "luck". It wasn't the lottery.