Fever's Top 5 Hitters of All-Time.

[Bill Burgess]

I'd like us to narrow down our Top 5. Who are the Greatest Top 5 Hitters of All Time?

Who will make the cut?

Ruth, Williams, Hornsby, Cobb, Gehrig, Bonds, Charleston? Let's see who we choose.

Remember, hitting ONLY. Please excude for the one exercise: fielding, running, intangibles.

Bill

[Bill Burgess]

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 - 207 OPS+ - Need I say more? Nuff said.

2. Ted Williams - 154.9 - 9 SLG. titles - 9786 PA - 185 OPS+ - Takes 2nd nicely. Missing war yrs.? Offset by Babe's "missing pitching yrs."

3. Lou Gehrig - 154.0 - 2 SLG. titles - 9954 PA - 179 OPS+ - 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- 167 OPS+ - 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 - 175 OPS+ - High SLG. Ave./titles earn high ranking.

6. Barry Bonds - 148.4 - 7 SLG. titles - 10,963 PA - 182 OPS+ - 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 - 172 OPS+ - Too few titles over relatively weak sluggers.

8. Hank Aaron - 140.6 - 4 SLG. titles - 13,919 PA - 155 OPS+ - Too few titles over long career.

9. Willie Mays - 139.2 - 5 SLG. titles - 12,480 PA - 156 OPS+

10. Jimmie Foxx - 143.7 - 5 SLG. titles - 9,599 PA - 163 OPS+ - Too few PA relative to Aaron/Mays

11. Joe Jackson - 1.45.2 - 1 SLG. title - 5690 PA - 170 OPS+ - Too few PA to rank higher - Placed in top 5 SLG. all his 9 yrs.; 2nd 3 times, once 3rd, 2 4ths, 2 5ths.

12. Honus Wagner - 132.9 - 6 SLG. Titles - 11,731 PA - 150 OPS+

13. Stan Musial - 137.1 - 6 SLG. Titles - 12,712 PA - 159 OPS+

14. Tris Speaker - 134.3 - 1 SLG. Title - 11,988 PA - 158 OPS+

15. Nap Lajoie - 133.9 - 4 SLG. Titles - 10,460 PA - 150 OPS+

16. Mike Schmidt - 133.6 - 5 SLG. Titles - 10, 062 PA - 147 OPS+


Sluggers such as Greenberg, McGwire, DiMaggio, Mize and Brouthers all had PA fewer than 7,700. Honorable Mentions to Richie Allen, Frank Thomas.
----------------------
...............OPS+....EqA.....BRAR....BRAR/650 PA
Ruth..........207.....366......1600........97.97
Williams......185.....364......1391........92.35
Gehrig........179.....345......1219........82.02
Cobb..........167.....326......1394........69.32
Hornsby......175.....335......1095........75.12
Bonds.........182.....356......1742........93.35
Mantle........172.....341......1231........80.75
Aaron.........155.....326......1557........72.60
Mays..........156.....328......1418........73.78
Foxx...........163.....327......1012........68.02
J.Jackson.....170....323.......583.........66.60
Wagner.......150.....307......1003........55.54
Musial.........159.....332......1425........72.86
Speaker.......158....318.......1134.......61.49
Lajoie..........150....306........882........54.81
Schmidt.......148....314........940........60.72
F.Robinson...154.....325.......1257.......69.58
F.Thomas.....160.....342......1146.......81.31
DiMaggio......155.....327.......825........69.91
A.Rodriguez..145.....322.......812........67.89
McCovey.....148.....318.......960........64.42
D.Allen........156.....325.......801........71.19
Ramirez.......157.....334.......904........75.50
Brouthers.....170....324.......780........66.21
Pujols..........171....343.......515........82.41


All-Time list for OPS+ (baseball-Reference)
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/OPSplus_career.shtml

[Bill Burgess]

Today was weird, but hopefully, things are back to normal now.

I'll go first.

I vote:

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

With Honorable Mentions to Honus Wagner, Josh Gibson & Stan Musial.

[538280]

Bill, I want to finally get an answer-Why on earth do you insist on rating hitters based only on their slugging percentages????

[EvanAparra]

Bill, I want to finally get an answer-Why on earth do you insist on rating hitters based only on their slugging percentages????
It's all subjective, Chris. Everyone is going to use different things to come their conclusions -- especially in something like a top 5 hitters list.

[538280]

It's all subjective, Chris.

It's subjective, but what you do should be based on logic. There is a lot more to offense than just slugging and I know Bill knows that. If he's going to rely on a single metric, it should be something that is sophisticated and encompassing at least like EqA or BRAR or OWS or at least OPS+.

[EvanAparra]

I'm glad Hornsby gets some love -- for a second there I was the only vote for him.

Why didnt you vote for Oscar, Chris? I thought you were one of his biggest fans around here.

[AstrosFan]

Where is Frank Thomas? OPS+ of 160 through over 9000 PA - seems like he deserves a mention.

[Myankee4life]

My top 5

1. Babe Ruth
2. Ted Williams
3. Lou Gehrig
4. Rogers Hornsby
5. Ty Cobb

[Bill Burgess]

Bill, I want to finally get an answer-Why on earth do you insist on rating hitters based only on their slugging percentages????
Relax, Chris. I don't go by simply one stat. I've told you that before, but I guess you forgot. I use whatever I know of.

I simply used that crude form chart to give the members something to go by. If I had to put in all of the other things, it would have been a lot more complicated, instead of the brief thumbnail sketch I intended it to be.

Things are not always what they appear. But for your benefit in the future, if you're not sure, why not ask, instead of accuse?

Bill

[538280]

Relax, Chris. I don't go by simply one stat. I've told you that before, but I guess you forgot. I use whatever I know of.

I simply used that crude form chart to give the members something to go by. If I had to put in all of the other things, it would have been a lot more complicated, instead of the brief thumbnail sketch I intended it to be.

Things are not always what they appear. But for your benefit in the future, if you're not sure, why not ask, instead of accuse.

Bill

Bill, you can give whatever you want, but it doesn't even make sense to make a chart that just shows PA and their relative slugging percentage. Slugging percentage is just part of offense, it is not meant to stand alone and it is not meant to be a measure of a player's total contribution. You have to understand that. Based on your list it doesn't appear like you're going on much more than that. I have no idea why you even post that on the chart to begin with. At least go with OPS+.

[honestiago]

Bonds has to rank just behind Ruth and Williams. Steroids or not, it's STILL hard to but a bat on a ball, much less drive it out the park. Bonds also had to contend with night baseball, multiple relievers (fresh pitchers), and a lack of a decent hitter behind him (well, several years).

[mwiggins]

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

[KCGHOST]

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

[Bill Burgess]

Bill, you can give whatever you want, but it doesn't even make sense to make a chart that just shows PA and their relative slugging percentage. Slugging percentage is just part of offense, it is not meant to stand alone and it is not meant to be a measure of a player's total contribution. You have to understand that. Based on your list it doesn't appear like you're going on much more than that. I have no idea why you even post that on the chart to begin with. At least go with OPS+.
I was going to go back and add OPS+ today when I get the chance, when I return from work.

Tell you what though. You can assist me by contributing a post with all their OPS+ figures. That would speed me up.

I don't even know what EqA or BRAR or OWS are. I think BRAR means Batting Runs above Replacement, and OWS means Offensive WinS Shares.

If you want to compile those numbers too, I will insert the entire thing when I return home. That way the chart will be upgraded. If you want to be a part of the solution.

[LGehrigFan]

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

[Murderers Row]

Ruth
Williams
Bonds
Cobb
Gehrig

[DoubleX]

Good question. I have four players for sure, and the fifth is really a tossup:

Babe Ruth
Ted Williams
Ty Cobb
Lou Gehrig

The last spot comes down to a number of players for me - Rogers Hornsby, Jimmie Foxx, Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Stan Musial, and Barry Bonds. I feel like going with Hornsby today, so that's my 5.

[538280]

I was going to go back and add OPS+ today when I get the chance, when I return from work.

Tell you what though. You can assist me by contributing a post with all their OPS+ figures. That would speed me up.

I don't even know what EqA or BRAR or OWS are. I think BRAR means Batting Runs above Replacement, and OWS means Offensive WinS Shares.

If you want to compile those numbers too, I will insert the entire thing when I return home. That way the chart will be upgraded. If you want to be a part of the solution.

Here you go. OPS+, EqA, and BRAR. OPS+ and EqA are rate stats, BRAR is a counting stat. I did it for your top 10 hitters. Of these OPS+ is by far the least accurate, though it still gives a good thumbnail sketch. For precise work EqA is the best, and BRAR is basically EqA in a counting stat form. EqA and BRAR are the two best and most important, they correlate with run scoring much better and they also include baserunning. They are all big improvements on just relative slugging though. And BTW none of these things give out war credit or anything like that, so Williams and Mays also deserve some extra credit on the counting stats.

...............OPS+....EqA.....BRAR....BRAR/650 PA
Ruth..........207.....366......1600........97.97
Williams......185.....364......1391........92.35
Gehrig........179.....345......1219........82.02
Cobb..........167.....326......1394........69.32
Hornsby......175.....335......1095........75.12
Bonds.........182.....356......1742........93.35
Mantle........172.....341......1231........80.75
Aaron.........155.....326......1557........72.60
Mays..........156.....328......1418........73.78
Foxx...........163.....327......1012........68.02
J.Jackson.....170....323.......583.........66.60
Wagner.......150.....307......1003........55.54
Musial.........159.....332......1425........72.86
Speaker.......158....318.......1134.......61.49
Lajoie..........150....306........882........54.81
Schmidt.......148....314........940........60.72
F.Robinson...154.....325.......1257.......69.58
F.Thomas.....160.....342......1146.......81.31
DiMaggio......155.....327.......825........69.91
A.Rodriguez..145.....322.......812........67.89
McCovey.....148.....318.......960........64.42
D.Allen........156.....325.......801........71.19
Ramirez.......157.....334.......904........75.50
Brouthers.....170....324.......780........66.21
Pujols..........171....343.......515........82.41



I'd say going by the best measures Foxx is clearly out of place, he should not be anywhere near the top 10 best hitters. Outside of that you seem to have overrated Gehrig, Cobb, and Hornsby and underrated Bonds, Mantle, Aaron, and Mays. I would put Ruth #1, followed by Williams (would be Bonds if not for steroids), Mantle, and Mays. Mays and Aaron is basically a push, Mays is a little ahead on rates but Aaron lasted a bit longer. I went with Mays because giving him war credit makes the career edge for Aaron even smaller.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Well Chris, before you throw a fit, why don't you compare your top five to Bill's top five? I bet you'd find alot of similarities.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I'd say going by the best measures Foxx is clearly out of place, he should not be anywhere near the top 10 best hitters. Outside of that you seem to have overrated Gehrig, Cobb, and Hornsby and underrated Bonds, Mantle, Aaron, and Mays. I would put Ruth #1, followed by Williams (would be Bonds if not for steroids), Mantle, and Mays. Mays and Aaron is basically a push, Mays is a little ahead on rates but Aaron lasted a bit longer. I went with Mays because giving him war credit makes the career edge for Aaron even smaller.

Honestly, Aaron and Mays above the likes of The Iron Horse and Rajah? I would certianally say that they were better players than Hornsby, but not better hitters. What's next Joe Morgan ahead of Stan Musial?

BTW for me it's Ruth, Williams, Bonds, Cobb, and Gehrig

[538280]

Well Chris, before you throw a fit, why don't you compare your top five to Bill's top five? I bet you'd find alot of similarities.

The two similarities are Ruth and Williams.


Honestly, Aaron and Mays above the likes of The Iron Horse and Rajah? I would certianally say that they were better players than Hornsby, but not better hitters. What's next Joe Morgan ahead of Stan Musial?

BTW for me it's Ruth, Williams, Bonds, Cobb, and Gehrig

At least you have Bonds, so you're not pretending as if the past 50 years has been much lowe in hitting talent.

Yes, Aaron and Mays ahead of Hornsby and Gehrig. Aaron and Mays were only a very little bit behind them on career rates, and they both lasted a lot longer and have a lot more career value. Morgan would not be ahead of Musial on hitting, not even close, if I made it "offensive player" including everything they did for the offense Musial would still be ahead but it wouldn't be a blowout. When I include defense Morgan is the better player overall.

[ChrisLDuncan]

The two similarities are Ruth and Williams.

Well that's 40% also you aren't much on old timers, well how about top ten you may agree more

At least you have Bonds, so you're not pretending as if the past 50 years has been much lowe in hitting talent.

Yes, Aaron and Mays ahead of Hornsby and Gehrig. Aaron and Mays were only a very little bit behind them on career rates, and they both lasted a lot longer and have a lot more career value. Morgan would not be ahead of Musial on hitting, not even close, if I made it "offensive player" including everything they did for the offense Musial would still be ahead but it wouldn't be a blowout. When I include defense Morgan is the better player overall.


Really Mays and Aaron ahead of Gehrig as hitters? Come on, I understand career value but dude had an OPS of over 1.000, that's pretty rare. Also the reason why Gehrig didn't last as long is because of the diease that bears his name. Plus the decline year for him was .295/29/114 107 walks 75 ks .410 OBP .523 slugging...the year before he went .351/37/159 127 walks 49 ks, and .351/.473/.643 for the averages.

[mwiggins]

Here you go. OPS+, EqA, and BRAR. OPS+ and EqA are rate stats, BRAR and OPS+ are counting stats. I did it for your top 10 hitters. Of these OPS+ is by far the least accurate, though it still gives a good thumbnail sketch. For precise work EqA is the best, and BRAR is basically EqA in a counting stat form. EqA and BRAR are the two best and most important, they correlate with run scoring much better and they also include baserunning. They are all big improvements on just relative slugging though. And BTW none of these things give out war credit or anything like that, so Williams and Mays also deserve some extra credit on the counting stats.

...............OPS+....EqA.....BRAR
Ruth..........207.....366......1600
Williams......185.....364......1391
Gehrig........179.....345......1219
Cobb..........167.....326......1394
Hornsby......175.....335......1095
Bonds.........182.....356......1742
Mantle........172.....341......1231
Aaron.........155.....326......1557
Mays..........156.....328......1418
Foxx...........163.....327......1012

I'd say going by the best measures Foxx is clearly out of place, he should not be anywhere near the top 10 best hitters. Outside of that you seem to have overrated Gehrig, Cobb, and Hornsby and underrated Bonds, Mantle, Aaron, and Mays. I would put Ruth #1, followed by Williams (would be Bonds if not for steroids), Mantle, and Mays. Mays and Aaron is basically a push, Mays is a little ahead on rates but Aaron lasted a bit longer. I went with Mays because giving him war credit makes the career edge for Aaron even smaller.

Why would EQA and BRAR be valid when ranking hitters? The fact that they include basestealing would seem to rule them out for this purpose.

[JRB]

Here you go. OPS+, EqA, and BRAR. OPS+ and EqA are rate stats, BRAR and OPS+ are counting stats. I did it for your top 10 hitters. Of these OPS+ is by far the least accurate, though it still gives a good thumbnail sketch. For precise work EqA is the best, and BRAR is basically EqA in a counting stat form. EqA and BRAR are the two best and most important, they correlate with run scoring much better and they also include baserunning. They are all big improvements on just relative slugging though. And BTW none of these things give out war credit or anything like that, so Williams and Mays also deserve some extra credit on the counting stats.

...............OPS+....EqA.....BRAR
Ruth..........207.....366......1600
Williams......185.....364......1391
Gehrig........179.....345......1219
Cobb..........167.....326......1394
Hornsby......175.....335......1095
Bonds.........182.....356......1742
Mantle........172.....341......1231
Aaron.........155.....326......1557
Mays..........156.....328......1418
Foxx...........163.....327......1012

I'd say going by the best measures Foxx is clearly out of place, he should not be anywhere near the top 10 best hitters. Outside of that you seem to have overrated Gehrig, Cobb, and Hornsby and underrated Bonds, Mantle, Aaron, and Mays. I would put Ruth #1, followed by Williams (would be Bonds if not for steroids), Mantle, and Mays. Mays and Aaron is basically a push, Mays is a little ahead on rates but Aaron lasted a bit longer. I went with Mays because giving him war credit makes the career edge for Aaron even smaller.

Chris. I know your reply was directed to Bill, however I have a few comments on what you said, First, I think you may have made a typo when you referred to OPS+ as a counting stat, as it is rate stat as you mentioned in the earlier portion of the sentence.

It is my understanding the EqA state factors in base running, so it is not just a hitting stat, and is attempting to measure total offense not just hitting. The subject of this thread is who are the 5 top hitters.

Incidentally, the official Baseball Encyclopedia has Hornsby's OPS+ as 176 not 175, and Aaron's OPS+ as 156 not 155, and Mays' OPS+ as 157 not 156.. In addition, since Foxx, Hornsby, Mays, Wagner and Aaron are all right handed batters they were all batting at a disadvantage approximately 70% of the time, because that is approximately the usual percentage of right handed pitchers in the league. it should be noted that these stats fail to give them credit for the fact that they had to bat at a disadvantage most of the time. I believe that the stats should be adjusted for this factor the same as they are adjusted for ball parks. I think that if this were done all these right handed hitters would get bumped a few points.

You are also failing to consider league leaderships/black ink. Cobb lead the league in hitting Cobb 12 times, slugging 8 times, and OPS+ 10 times, and one triple crown. Hornsby lead the league in hitting 7 times, slugging 9 times, and in OPS+ 12 times, and also won 2 triple crowns. Wagner lead the league in hitting 8 times, slugging 6 times, and OPS+ 6 times. Mays lead the league in hitting 1 time and in OPS+ 5 times, while Aaron lead the league in hitting 2 times and in OPS+ 4 times. I know you claim to not to like considering league leaderships (except in the case of Ricky Henderson where I noted you gave him extra credit for his 12 league leaderships in stolen bases in your system), however I and a lot of other people also give some weight to that factor as well. Competition for league leaderships is one of the best measures of a hitters prowess. The best measure of a horse is in a race.

c JRB

[mwiggins]

Yes, Aaron and Mays ahead of Hornsby and Gehrig. Aaron and Mays were only a very little bit behind them on career rates, and they both lasted a lot longer and have a lot more career value.

They're about 15% behind Gehrig in career rates. And Mays is about 16% behind him in peak rates. Basicaly what you're saying is that Gehrig was a better hitter, but Mays and Aaron didn't contract fatal diseases when they were in their mid-30's, so they should rank ahead.

[JRB]

Just considering hitting, and not base running, I believe a strong case could be made that the top hitters rank as follows:

1. Babe Ruth
2. Ted Williams
3. Rogers Hornsby
4. Ty Cobb
5. Lou Gehrig
6. Honus Wagner
7. Mickey Mantle
8. Hank Aaron
9. Stan Musial
10. Jimmie Foxx
11. Willie Mays
12. Joe DiMaggio
13. Barry Bonds (pre-steroids, whenever that was?)
14. "Shoeless" Joe Jackson
15. Tris Speaker
16. Frank Robinson

[ChrisLDuncan]

They're about 15% behind Gehrig in career rates. And Mays is about 16% behind him in peak rates. Basicaly what you're saying is that Gehrig was a better hitter, but Mays and Aaron didn't contract fatal diseases when they were in their mid-30's, so they should rank ahead.

Well said.

[mwiggins]

Yes, Aaron and Mays ahead of Hornsby and Gehrig. Aaron and Mays were only a very little bit behind them on career rates, and they both lasted a lot longer and have a lot more career value. Morgan would not be ahead of Musial on hitting, not even close, if I made it "offensive player" including everything they did for the offense Musial would still be ahead but it wouldn't be a blowout. When I include defense Morgan is the better player overall.

The question is "who were the top 5 hitters", not "who were the top 5 players with the most career hitting value". Aaron and Mays racked up more career value with the bat than did Hornsby and Gehrig, but were they better hitters? That question has nothing to do with 'value'.

The fact that Mays and Aaron have more career hitting value than Hornsby and Gehrig is strictly due to the fact that they stayed healthier longer. How does staying healthy have anything to do with their ability as a hitter?

[Murderers Row]

Here you go. OPS+, EqA, and BRAR. OPS+ and EqA are rate stats, BRAR and OPS+ are counting stats. I did it for your top 10 hitters. Of these OPS+ is by far the least accurate, though it still gives a good thumbnail sketch. For precise work EqA is the best, and BRAR is basically EqA in a counting stat form. EqA and BRAR are the two best and most important, they correlate with run scoring much better and they also include baserunning. They are all big improvements on just relative slugging though. And BTW none of these things give out war credit or anything like that, so Williams and Mays also deserve some extra credit on the counting stats.

...............OPS+....EqA.....BRAR
Ruth..........207.....366......1600
Williams......185.....364......1391
Gehrig........179.....345......1219
Cobb..........167.....326......1394
Hornsby......175.....335......1095
Bonds.........182.....356......1742
Mantle........172.....341......1231
Aaron.........155.....326......1557
Mays..........156.....328......1418
Foxx...........163.....327......1012

I'd say going by the best measures Foxx is clearly out of place, he should not be anywhere near the top 10 best hitters. Outside of that you seem to have overrated Gehrig, Cobb, and Hornsby and underrated Bonds, Mantle, Aaron, and Mays. I would put Ruth #1, followed by Williams (would be Bonds if not for steroids), Mantle, and Mays. Mays and Aaron is basically a push, Mays is a little ahead on rates but Aaron lasted a bit longer. I went with Mays because giving him war credit makes the career edge for Aaron even smaller.

Why don't you use Palmer batting runs instead. You know how it's calculated, and it's above average, not average replacement.

[ReignInBlood]

I went with the top 5, with honorable mention to Tony Gwynn, I'm surprised he isn't on the list.

[ElHalo]

Top 5 is easy; gets a little murkier after that.

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

[DoubleX]

Even though I voted for the current leaders (Ruth, Williams, Cobb, Gehrig, Hornsby), I find that their leading, and leading by such a big margin, is pretty interesting. Can it really be that in the last 46 years, not one player would be among the 5 best of all time and that only one player (Williams) would be among the top 5 from the last 67 years?

[ChrisLDuncan]

Top 5 is easy; gets a little murkier after that.

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

Really Hornsby over Bonds?

[538280]

Why don't you use Palmer batting runs instead. You know how it's calculated, and it's above average, not average replacement.

Actually we do know how BRAR and EqA are calculated.

[538280]

They're about 15% behind Gehrig in career rates. And Mays is about 16% behind him in peak rates. Basicaly what you're saying is that Gehrig was a better hitter, but Mays and Aaron didn't contract fatal diseases when they were in their mid-30's, so they should rank ahead.

Mays and Aaron are behind Gehrig by 15% in OPS+. OPS+ is a good thumbnail sketch, but is not as good as metrics like EqA. Sorry, but it's not. EqA correlates much better with run scoring than OPS, and it has a lower RMSE:

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

I feel bad and sympathetic for Gehrig, but I will never give him credit for that.

[538280]

Why would EQA and BRAR be valid when ranking hitters? The fact that they include basestealing would seem to rule them out for this purpose.

You're probably right about that actually. I was looking more at best offensive player, in terms of what they contribute to the team scoring runs, rather than just pure hitting. If we're going on just pure hitting, with no attention to career value either, then Gehrig would be higher than Mays or Aaron. But not by what I would use to rank them in terms of contributions to the offense (scoring runs).

[538280]

Chris. I know your reply was directed to Bill, however I have a few comments on what you said, First, I think you may have made a typo when you referred to OPS+ as a counting stat, as it is rate stat as you mentioned in the earlier portion of the sentence.

Yes it is a rate stat. That was a mistake on my part.


It is my understanding the EqA state factors in base running, so it is not just a hitting stat, and is attempting to measure total offense not just hitting. The subject of this thread is who are the 5 top hitters.

Correct, and I just did realize that that is true.


Incidentally, the official Baseball Encyclopedia has Hornsby's OPS+ as 176 not 175, and Aaron's OPS+ as 156 not 155, and Mays' OPS+ as 157 not 156.. In addition, since Foxx, Hornsby, Mays, Wagner and Aaron are all right handed batters they were all batting at a disadvantage approximately 70% of the time, because that is approximately the usual percentage of right handed pitchers in the league. it should be noted that these stats fail to give them credit for the fact that they had to bat at a disadvantage most of the time. I believe that the stats should be adjusted for this factor the same as they are adjusted for ball parks. I think that if this were done all these right handed hitters would get bumped a few points.

They should not be adjusted for that factor at all. There is a key difference here-if a park suppresses run scoring then it makes less runs being scored and thus more value of each run. There is actual more value contributed by players if the park they play in is not favorable to hitters. But with RH/LH, if a player is right handed and they are disadvantaged by that, then that is less that they are doing for their team. That is less wins contributed. That is the key difference. You should never adjust for something like that, unless if you are just looking at "pure natural ability".


Competition for league leaderships is one of the best measures of a hitters prowess. The best measure of a horse is in a race.

Again, the league leads in stolen bases was meant to give credit to certain players who dominated the SB in less SB prevalent eras, but the more I think about that the more I start to think it was never a good idea to put that in in the first place.

As far as league leads in general, I still do not think they are a good measure of hitting at all. I still think they are a flat out horrible way to look at what a player contributes to his team through his hitting. If you understood how a plaeyr really contributes to his team, you would understand that. A player contributes to his team based on the amount of runs he produces for his team, given the context in which he plays (lower run context=more value for each run). That can be adjusted for by looking at the league average. How a player performs in certain categories versus the others in his league is TOTALLY irrelevent to what he is doing for his team.

More teams makes it harder to appear high in the league leaderboards, obviously. Does this make those players who played with more teams automatically less valuable, because they didn't do as well in league leadership. Of course not! It just means that there was more competiton for that, and of course that also shows how truly irrelevent that leaderboard is to the player's real contributions.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Look Chris, I hear you want to be a GM someday...if so doing things like picking Aaron and Mays over Gehrig as hitters will get you fired quickly...were not talking about career value or anything, just how good of hitters they are. Take another look at Gehrig's numbers

[538280]

Look Chris, I hear you want to be a GM someday...if so doing things like picking Aaron and Mays over Gehrig as hitters will get you fired quickly...were not talking about career value or anything, just how good of hitters they are. Take another look at Gehrig's numbers

If your standard is based on how they were at a point over their careers (career rates) then I would take Gehrig. But if I'm going the way I normally do, factoring in career value, Mays and Aaron are comfortably ahead IMO.

You never seem to realize that some player's stats are inflated by the time in which they played either. Gehrig's numbers are unbelieveable even in context, but they still are not as good as they look.

[JRB]

Even though I voted for the current leaders (Ruth, Williams, Cobb, Gehrig, Hornsby), I find that their leading, and leading by such a big margin, is pretty interesting. Can it really be that in the last 46 years, not one player would be among the 5 best of all time and that only one player (Williams) would be among the top 5 from the last 67 years?

DoubleX: Congratulations on nailing the picks for the top 5.

Interesting points you raise. Keep in mind we are dealing with an incredibly small portion of the population when we are discussing elite hitters. Also hitting a baseball is a very specialized skill, and not necessarily one of the stereotypical 'athletic skills" such as running, jumping, etc., and to a great extent such talents as eyesight and hand/eye coordination are much more important for the specialized skill of hitting a baseball than they are in many other sports. The stereotypical athletic skills probably are more important in other areas of baseball such as fielding and base running. This tends to narrow down the potential members of the group even further, and also somewhat changes the expectations as to who might likely be in such a group. When you end up dealing with such an infinitesimal percentage of the general population I don't think there should be any expectation at all as to who should be in your top 5. Also keep in mind that most, if not all, of these top 5 hitters were innovators, in other words they were in the vanguard of developing new styles or ways of approaching hitting. Because they were innovators they were able to separate themselves from their peers to a greater extent than others who played afterwords. Some might say that is unfair to those who played afterwords, however those who played afterwords had the benefit and example of the innovators effort so they are to some extent mere copycats. If the results demonstrate that a few innovators were able to dominate and separate themselves from their peers to a greater extent than some later copycats, than so be it. Why should it be insisted upon that the copycats be honored over the ones who made the mold?

c JRB

[ChrisLDuncan]

If your standard is based on how they were at a point over their careers (career rates) then I would take Gehrig. But if I'm going the way I normally do, factoring in career value, Mays and Aaron are comfortably ahead IMO.

You never seem to realize that some player's stats are inflated by the time in which they played either. Gehrig's numbers are unbelieveable even in context, but they still are not as good as they look.


Well they may not be as good as they look, still though IMO better than Aaron's or Mays'

[Bill Burgess]

I was just thinking today. If memory serves, we all recall how Chris used to try to close the gap between Joe Morgan/Rogers Hornsby. Well just today, I thought of an angle which might assist his Quest for the Holy Grail.

But before I embark on this line of reasoning, I want to state, for the record, that I will likely never believe that Joe was a greater ballplayer than Rogers. But be that as it may, here is what came to me today.

Hornsby's OPS+ is 175, and Joe's is 132. Now that is a whopping gap to try to close. But here's the thing. Just as Ruth's OPS+ is 207, both Ruth/Hornsby's OPS+ is driven by their Rel. Slg., which was extremely inflated in the 20's.

They were swinging modern, and had a superior tool in their better swing. The league was swinging contact, and Hornsby was not. So, he was on the cutting edge of a new technique, the 'grooved power swing'.

If the NL had all adjusted to the new game, Hornsby's slug. ave. would not have been even close to 175. That differential is artificially inflated, due to a league unwilling to adjust. If the league had adjusted en mass, Hornsby's massive OPS+ of 175 should have been closer to 160.

Joe Jackson is a 3rd player who I strongly believe would have separated from his league, due to his better 'swing tool'. Plus Hornsby had at least 3 ballparks which had short porches for him. Sportsman's Park (which was his home park), Polo Grounds (Giants), Baker Bowl (Phillies).

I am arguing against myself here, as I sometimes do. Like playing chess against myself. Feels a little weird speaking like a heretic. Please don't stone me for my heresy.

[AlecBoy006]

I tend to think Foxx is underrated. He probably won't get too much votes here. If this was top 5 homerun hitters of this list, we'd see more off Foxx.

[Bill Burgess]

Although it's early in the voting, at 37 voters, the order is:

Ruth - 36
Williams - 36
Cobb - 27
Hornsby - 20
Gehrig - 19

leading

Bonds - 11
Mantle - 6
Musial/Aaron - 5
Wagner/Mays - 4

Surprised Cobb is leading Hornsby. Surprised Mantle is doing so well, and Musial/Wagner are not. But the results are early and who knows what tomorrow has in store.

[ElHalo]

Really Hornsby over Bonds?

You won't find Bonds anywhere on any of my lists. Pre-2001 Bonds was great, but not a top 5 hitter.

[JRB]

I was just thinking today. If memory serves, we all recall how Chris used to try to close the gap between Joe Morgan/Rogers Hornsby. Well just today, I thought of an angle which might assist his Quest for the Holy Grail.

But before I embark on this line of reasoning, I want to state, for the record, that I will likely never believe that Joe was a greater ballplayer than Rogers. But be that as it may, here is what came to me today.

Hornsby's OPS+ is 175, and Joe's is 132. Now that is a whopping gap to try to close. But here's the thing. Just as Ruth's OPS+ is 207, both Ruth/Hornsby's OPS+ is driven by their Rel. Slg., which was extremely inflated in the 20's.

They were swinging modern, and had a superior tool in their better swing. The league was swinging contact, and Hornsby was not. So, he was on the cutting edge of a new technique, the 'grooved power swing'.

If the NL had all adjusted to the new game, Hornsby's slug. ave. would not have been even close to 175. That differential is artificially inflated, due to a league unwilling to adjust. If the league had adjusted en mass, Hornsby's massive OPS+ of 175 should have been closer to 160.

Joe Jackson is a 3rd player who I strongly believe would have separated from his league, due to his better 'swing tool'. Plus Hornsby had at least 3 ballparks which had short porches for him. Sportsman's Park (which was his home park), Polo Grounds (Giants), Baker Bowl (Phillies).

I am arguing against myself here, as I sometimes do. Like playing chess against myself. Feels a little weird speaking like a heretic. Please don't stone me for my heresy.

Bill, or should I call you Sir Percival:

Since you mention Ruth as well as Hornsby, maybe you are seeking the holy grail for your argument that Cobb tops Ruth?

In any event, as far as Hornsby is concerned, in all due respect I don't think the argument holds up. Hornsby's OPS+ is not just driven by his slugging average, it is also a result of both a great On base percentage (.434) and a very good slugging average (.557). Hornsby's on base percentage is a point higher than Cobb's and 39 points higher than Morgan's. In addition, Hornsby's OBP is hard in that it so high because he got a whole lot of base hits, while Morgan's OBP is soft and inflated because it is driven by walks which are not as good as hits.

I think you are way off base about the short porch argument for Hornsby. Hornsby was a classic straightaway hitter, and his power was to the alleys, right center and left center. You might recall the quote that Hornsby always wanted to hit the ball right at the pitcher. Sportsman's Park was 426 feet to center, 379 feet to left center, and 354 to right center, and 351 feet in left. It was right field in Sportsman's Park that had the short porch, 310 feet I believe. Retrosheet only has Hornsby's splits for the 1921 and 1922 seasons. In 1921 when Hornsby batted .397, he batted .419 away and .375 at home. He had a slugging average of .649 away and .628 at home, and an On base percentage of .482 away and .434 at home. In 1922 when Hornsby batted .401 and won the triple crown, he batted .403 at home and .400 away. He had a slugging percentage of .741 at home and .703 away, and he had an identical on base percentage of .456 at both home and away. Hornsby's hitting seems incredibly balanced, and I don't detect any advantage from the ballpark, which in any event would have already been accounted for in his OPS+ which is adjusted for ball park. In addition, Hornsby lead the league in OPS+ while playing for 4 different teams. He lead the league while playing for St. Louis, while playing for New York, while playing for Boston, and while playing for Chicago. He would have lead the National League no matter where he played, or when he played for that matter.

c JRB

[Edgartohof]

I tend to think Foxx is underrated. He probably won't get too much votes here. If this was top 5 homerun hitters of this list, we'd see more off Foxx.

And if this was a top 5 base stealers, we'd see Rickey Henderson, but that's not what this is. Though you are probably correct, Foxx did know how to hit HR's.

[ChrisLDuncan]

You won't find Bonds anywhere on any of my lists. Pre-2001 Bonds was great, but not a top 5 hitter.

What about that tear he went on afterwards??? Roids or not dude could hit.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

What about that tear he went on afterwards??? Roids or not dude could hit.

We know what freaky numbers he put up while on roids. Reversing the physical elevator, which should have been plummeting, while his experience/knowledge elevator was sky-high will do that for a talented hitter like him. We know what that dude did without roids too. Very impressive but hardly all-time great. Through '98 he was a .289 hitter and hit one of his 411 homers every 16.10 AB. His OBP topped .450 three times with the high being .461 and his SA top .650 (.677) once during that span. As a total offensive player he was a force due mostly to his stolen bases and pretty good OBP but his runs scored and RBI were never anything special. He only topped 150 RC once as well.

[CTaka]

I voted for Ruth, Williams, Hornsby, Cobb, and Mantle. Can't vote for Bonds because of the "tainted factor" (and my wife would kill me if she found out!).

[anton marko]

Ruth, Teddy Ballgame, Barry, and Hank. Number five is hard to pick between Cobb, Hornsby and Gehrig.

[ChrisLDuncan]

We know what freaky numbers he put up while on roids. Reversing the physical elevator, which should have been plummeting, while his experience/knowledge elevator was sky-high will do that for a talented hitter like him. We know what that dude did without roids too. Very impressive but hardly all-time great. Through '98 he was a .289 hitter and hit one of his 411 homers every 16.10 AB. His OBP topped .450 three times with the high being .461 and his SA top .650 (.677) once during that span. As a total offensive player he was a force due mostly to his stolen bases and pretty good OBP but his runs scored and RBI were never anything special. He only topped 150 RC once as well.

Well it doesn't change the fact that he still did it, I view baseball with a more cerebral approach than most people do I'm not much on this "sanctity of the game" I know the numbers are sacred...but I don't think that 714+ HRs makes you better than Babe, but that's a different topic now isn't it

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I voted for Ruth, Williams, Hornsby, Cobb, and Mantle. Can't vote for Bonds because of the "tainted factor" (and my wife would kill me if she found out!).

Sounds like a keeper ;)

[DoubleX]

DoubleX: Congratulations on nailing the picks for the top 5.

Interesting points you raise. Keep in mind we are dealing with an incredibly small portion of the population when we are discussing elite hitters. Also hitting a baseball is a very specialized skill, and not necessarily one of the stereotypical 'athletic skills" such as running, jumping, etc., and to a great extent such talents as eyesight and hand/eye coordination are much more important for the specialized skill of hitting a baseball than they are in many other sports. The stereotypical athletic skills probably are more important in other areas of baseball such as fielding and base running. This tends to narrow down the potential members of the group even further, and also somewhat changes the expectations as to who might likely be in such a group. When you end up dealing with such an infinitesimal percentage of the general population I don't think there should be any expectation at all as to who should be in your top 5. Also keep in mind that most, if not all, of these top 5 hitters were innovators, in other words they were in the vanguard of developing new styles or ways of approaching hitting. Because they were innovators they were able to separate themselves from their peers to a greater extent than others who played afterwords. Some might say that is unfair to those who played afterwords, however those who played afterwords had the benefit and example of the innovators effort so they are to some extent mere copycats. If the results demonstrate that a few innovators were able to dominate and separate themselves from their peers to a greater extent than some later copycats, than so be it. Why should it be insisted upon that the copycats be honored over the ones who made the mold?

c JRB

That's true, there is a lot to be said about being the first to be great at something. Still, one of my generally held views is that athletes improve from generation to generation. So part of me wonders - were there pound for pound better hitters in the last 50 years, but we just can't readily identify them because the improved talent pool around them makes it so they don't stand out as much as they would have at an earlier time.

[four tool]

Ruth
Williams
Cobb
Hornsby
Joe Jackson

In that order. If I voted for Charleston or Gibbie, I'd be tempted to include Oh or Ichiro based on their Japanese numbers.

[Bill Burgess]

Ruth, Teddy Ballgame, Barry, and Hank. Number five is hard to pick between Cobb, Hornsby and Gehrig.
Welcome to Fever, good friend. So, . . . you picked nobody as your 5th pick?

Bill

[Bill Burgess]

Bill, or should I call you Sir Percival:

Since you mention Ruth as well as Hornsby, maybe you are seeking the holy grail for your argument that Cobb tops Ruth?

:dance

In any event, as far as Hornsby is concerned, in all due respect I don't think the argument holds up. Hornsby's OPS+ is not just driven by his slugging average, it is also a result of both a great On base percentage (.434) and a very good slugging average (.557). Hornsby's on base percentage is a point higher than Cobb's and 39 points higher than Morgan's. In addition, Hornsby's OBP is hard in that it so high because he got a whole lot of base hits, while Morgan's OBP is soft and inflated because it is driven by walks which are not as good as hits.

Would you believe it is co-driven?

I think you are way off base about the short porch argument for Hornsby. Hornsby was a classic straightaway hitter, and his power was to the alleys, right center and left center. You might recall the quote that Hornsby always wanted to hit the ball right at the pitcher. Sportsman's Park was 426 feet to center, 379 feet to left center, and 354 to right center, and 351 feet in left. It was right field in Sportsman's Park that had the short porch, 310 feet I believe. Retrosheet only has Hornsby's splits for the 1921 and 1922 seasons. In 1921 when Hornsby batted .397, he batted .419 away and .375 at home. He had a slugging average of .649 away and .628 at home, and an On base percentage of .482 away and .434 at home. In 1922 when Hornsby batted .401 and won the triple crown, he batted .403 at home and .400 away. He had a slugging percentage of .741 at home and .703 away, and he had an identical on base percentage of .456 at both home and away. Hornsby's hitting seems incredibly balanced, and I don't detect any advantage from the ballpark, which in any event would have already been accounted for in his OPS+ which is adjusted for ball park. In addition, Hornsby lead the league in OPS+ while playing for 4 different teams. He lead the league while playing for St. Louis, while playing for New York, while playing for Boston, and while playing for Chicago. He would have lead the National League no matter where he played, or when he played for that matter.

c JRB

I got the small ballparks arguments from fan letters to Baseball Magazine.

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=296529&postcount=17

Oh, well. I tried to assist Chris in his Quest. Sometimes I win, sometimes I don't. :dance

Bill

[538280]

This is a little experiment I'm doing here, to rank the best hitters. I take the player's runs created in his career (based on the technical formula, not the basic one on BBRef, the formula for that is (H+BB+HBP-CS-GIDP)*(TB+(.26*(BB-IBB+HBP))+(.52*(SH+SF+SB)))/(AB+BB+HBP+SH+SF), and put that in a form of per one outs, RC per out, that can also be (RC/27)/27. For Joe Morgan, he created 1804 runs and 6.79 per 27 outs, .251 per one out. Then I can find the player's run context he played under by using the league average BA/OBP/SLG. I can do that by asking, "What offensive statistics would this player have with those BA/OBP/SLG?"

For example, the league average BA/OBP/SLG for Joe Morgan is .260/.326/.384. I set 600 PAs as the opportunity I am using. In 600 PAs the average player would have gotten on base 195.6 times (.327 times 600). They would have had about 142 hits and 53.6 walks, because that will make for a .260 batting average when you put it like this:

142/(600-53.6).

That equals .260 so that makes the leauge BA .260. By subtracting 53.6 from 600 we can also get the number of at-bats, and we can multiply the SLG by that number to get total bases. So in this case we have 546.4 ABs, and multiplying .384 by that 209.8 total bases.

So a player who hits .260/.326/.384 (the average in Joe Morgan's time) would have 142 hits, 53.6 walks, and 209.8 total bases per 600 PA. We can then put that into the basic RC formula to find the RC/27 outs league average for the player. That player will create 68.4 runs in that 600 PA, while making 404.4 outs. So that player averages 4.57 RC/27, .169 per each single out. We can then multiply that by Morgan's outs (7174) to find the number of runs the average player would have created in the same amount of outs. We come out with 1214. Thus Morgan, who created 1804 runs, is 590 runs above average, or, if you want a rate stat, is about 48.6% better than average.

That's just a little system you can use to look at the hitters if you want.

[EvanAparra]

I'd really like to know who left Ruth and Williams off their ballots?

[Murderers Row]

Actually we do know how BRAR and EqA are calculated.

I know how EQA is calculated. What's the difference b/t BRAR and Palmers?

[Bill Burgess]

I'd really like to know who left Ruth and Williams off their ballots?
The Real McCoy left off Ruth, Yankee Legend left off Williams.

[EvanAparra]

The Real McCoy left off Ruth, Yankee Legend left off Williams.

Jeez -- I just dont understand that. Yankee probably did it because of homerism, but even then, I hate the Yankees, I didnt leave off Ruth.

Both are easily deserving of being a top 5 hitter, its a shame they both arent at 100% -- I'd like to hear why Lajoie was a better hitter than Williams from YankeeLegend.

[Bill Burgess]

Jeez -- I just dont understand that. Yankee probably did it because of homerism, but even then, I hate the Yankees, I didnt leave off Ruth.

Both are easily deserving of being a top 5 hitter, its a shame they both arent at 100% -- I'd like to hear why Lajoie was a better hitter than Williams from YankeeLegend.
Maybe he just doesn't like Williams.

[538280]

I know how EQA is calculated. What's the difference b/t BRAR and Palmers?

BRAR is basically EqA in a counting form over replacement. From EqA you can get EqR, Equivalent Runs, which is the counting form of EqA, like this:

EqR = (2 * EqA/LgEqA - 1) * PA * (LgR / LgPA)

BRAR is just EqR over replacement level.

[EvanAparra]

Maybe he just doesn't like Williams.

That's fine if he doesn't like him, but give the man his due. I dont like Barry Bonds, but I still voted for him.

[Bill Burgess]

That's fine if he doesn't like him, but give the man his due. I dont like Barry Bonds, but I still voted for him.
You will learn that popularity plays more a part of this stuff than you thought.

[The Kid]

My top five hitters and reasons why:

1. Ted Williams-greatest hitter ever. Period.
2. Hank Aaron-all time leader in homers and RBIs.
3. Ty Cobb-Holds over 90 records.
4. Babe Ruth-Greatest slugger ever who could also hit for average.
5. Willie Mays-Baseball's all around best player, 600 homers and .300 career batting average.

[ChrisLDuncan]

My top five hitters and reasons why:

1. Ted Williams-greatest hitter ever. Period.
2. Hank Aaron-all time leader in homers and RBIs.
3. Ty Cobb-Holds over 90 records.
4. Babe Ruth-Greatest slugger ever who could also hit for average.
5. Willie Mays-Baseball's all around best player, 600 homers and .300 career batting average.


Mays???? Better than Mantle? Really? Hmmm, Williams and Aaron over Ruth...not really. I'd say that Hornsby belongs on that list sooner than Mays.

[Wade8813]

Even though I voted for the current leaders (Ruth, Williams, Cobb, Gehrig, Hornsby), I find that their leading, and leading by such a big margin, is pretty interesting. Can it really be that in the last 46 years, not one player would be among the 5 best of all time and that only one player (Williams) would be among the top 5 from the last 67 years? I think so. This is similar to the argument I've made dozens of times in other topics, where we're dealing with a small sample size. In this case, we have a large sample size (every single hitter in the history of Major League Baseball [with a few exceptions, like Mr. Steroids Suspect]). However, we're putting such stringent requirements on who is good enough, that it has much the same effect. Since we limited it to the Top 5, it's not unlikely that they all played several decades ago, or all played recently, or some combination thereof.

Also, when you look at the people in the top, some of them you'll notice some things that make them unique. For instance, Teddy Ballgame not only had immense skill (which a few recent players quite possibly match), but he was dedicated to hitting in a way that is almost unheard of. Modern players like Gwynn or Edgar Martinez, who were certainly dedicated to hitting, don't even approach Williams' fanaticism, IMO.

[Edgartohof]

1. Babe Ruth
2. Ted Williams

Those are the ones I have for sure, other than that, there are a few who deserve at least a mention, such as:

Mantle, Gherig, Thomas, Bonds*, Cobb, Schmidt (if he could have hit for better average, he'd be top 5 easily for me), and Hornsby to name a few.

Also, Joe Jackson, who was called by a few the greatest natural hitter ever seen, and Pujols today is up there as well, and he may crack the top 10 and even the top 5 some day.

[The Kid]

Mays???? Better than Mantle? Really? Hmmm, Williams and Aaron over Ruth...not really. I'd say that Hornsby belongs on that list sooner than Mays.
Mays was a better hitter than Hornsby because his power numbers are way better than Hornsby. Aaron has better numbers than Ruth even though he played more games. And Williams was simply the greatest hitter ever. Mantle had the advantage of playing with better teams than Mays.

[EvanAparra]

Mays was a better hitter than Hornsby because his power numbers are way better than Hornsby.

OPS+

Hornsby 175
Mays 156


Mays Slg% - .557 Lg Slg - .400
Hornsby Slg% - .577 Lg Slg - .390

Top 5 OPS+ Seasons

Hornsby - 222, 210, 207, 200, 190
Mays - 185, 176, 175, 175, 173

[brett]

OK so I was a little emotional but that's my top 5. Cobb a little lower, but batting over 100 over average is awe inspiring. Musial because he did it so long.


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

[ElHalo]

Mays was a better hitter than Hornsby because his power numbers are way better than Hornsby.

Hornsby led his league in slugging 9 times; Mays, 5. Hornsby led his league in RBI 4 times; Mays, never. Hornsby led his league in total bases seven times to Mays' three. What exactly are you talking about?


Aaron has better numbers than Ruth even though he played more games.

Ok, I'm confused here. Ordinarily, when somebody plays more games than somebody else, they get higher counting stats, but lower rate stats. You're saying that Aaron had better numbers than Ruth "even though" he played more games, so you must mean rate stats.

Ruth:
.342/.474/.690, 1.164 OPS, 12.93 RC/27

Aaron:
.305/.374/.555, .929 OPS, 7.65 RC/27

So what exactly are you talking about?

[ElHalo]

OK so I was a little emotional but that's my top 5. Cobb a little lower, but batting over 100 over average is awe inspiring. Musial because he did it so long.

That's something I've never understood. If you're talking about a greatest player of all time, and you have one guy who played at a 99 level for twenty years, and one guy who played at a 99 level for 15, then of course you give it to the guy who did it longer.

But if you're talking about "greatest hitter," or "greatest fielder," or "greatest baserunner," that's pretty much a skills competition, and skill level isn't dependant on how long you did it for. If Albert Pujols retired today, I'd have no problem saying he was one of the top ten best hitters of all time... because, on raw hitting ability, he is. How much he hit goes to value, but it doesn't really say anything about how good he was.

[pfairban]

I don't have time to read all the posts. First, I voted for Aaron over Hornsby and my excuse is simply because I'm tired or lazy. Hornsby is the 4th best hitter of all time. It's pretty easy to argue that he's higher than that.

[pfairban]

That's something I've never understood. If you're talking about a greatest player of all time, and you have one guy who played at a 99 level for twenty years, and one guy who played at a 99 level for 15, then of course you give it to the guy who did it longer.

But if you're talking about "greatest hitter," or "greatest fielder," or "greatest baserunner," that's pretty much a skills competition, and skill level isn't dependant on how long you did it for. If Albert Pujols retired today, I'd have no problem saying he was one of the top ten best hitters of all time... because, on raw hitting ability, he is. How much he hit goes to value, but it doesn't really say anything about how good he was.

I see it exactly the opposite. I would then say Pujols was, like Ted Williams, something of a flash in the pan. If the Cardinals had the option of taking a guy who gave them 7 great years or 17 great years, of course they'd go for 17 great years.

[EvanAparra]

I see it exactly the opposite. I would then say Pujols was, like Ted Williams, something of a flash in the pan. If the Cardinals had the option of taking a guy who gave them 7 great years or 17 great years, of course they'd go for 17 great years.
Ted Williams is a flash in the pan? :laugh

[pfairban]

Ted Williams is a flash in the pan? :laugh

Yes, a little bit of rhetorical hyperbole, please forgive me. But from 1950 on he was just a good player with great rates (excepting probably 1958). My point, made with a wee bit of exaggeration, is that a few great years don't match up to 17 great years.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

My point, made with a wee bit of exaggeration, is that a few great years don't match up to 17 great years.

Yes, how long he does it for, and at what level he continues to do it, will determine his career value. ElHalo's point is that his hitting skills are what they are right now. We've seen what he can do. Can he get a bit better, perhaps but not likely. Greatness wise, he's already legendary.

[pfairban]

Yes, how long he does it for, and at what level he continues to do it, will determine his career value. ElHalo's point is that his hitting skills are what they are right now. We've seen what he can do. Can he get a bit better, perhaps but not likely. Greatness wise, he's already legendary.

As a Cardinals fan, I hope that he does keep getting better, because I don't see us making the series again this decade if he doesn't, and we need at least one more win to make it a good even-numbered decade.

[Wade8813]

Ruth, Honsby, and Williams are top 3 (Ruth first by a small margin, then Williams and Hornsby basically tie). Bonds beats them all (by a lot) if you ignore the steroids. There's a bunch of players who are a lot less clear cut, and are all in running for the last two spots.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Bonds beats them all (by a lot) if you ignore the steroids.

He certainly should with all that help. The difference from where he ended up at that age, and where he should have been (and where everyone else was at the end of their careers) is HUGE. Still though, as it is, not so sure he does beat everyone by a lot when all is considered (giving Williams war years and Ruth lost hitting years as a pitcher in Fenway).

[Bill Burgess]

Ruth, Honsby, and Williams are top 3 (Ruth first by a small margin, then Williams and Hornsby basically tie). Bonds beats them all (by a lot) if you ignore the steroids.
Bonds had perhaps 4 yrs. on Mt. Olympus, while Babe Ruth had maybe 8. Does that sound comparable to you? Does numbers of super-seasons mean anything to you?

[ChrisLDuncan]

Ted Williams is a flash in the pan? :laugh

I'd compare Ted Williams more to a level five hurricane in a sink...

[538280]

Bonds had perhaps 4 yrs. on Mt. Olympus, while Babe Ruth had maybe 8. Does that sound comparable to you? Does numbers of super-seasons mean anything to you?

1. Bonds' 4 years were quite a bit better than Ruth's, sorry but they were. He did it agianst considerably stiffer competitoin, and as is his OPS+ are solidly higher.

2. I would also put Bonds' 1993 on the "Mount Olympus" level. Bonds that year was a great baserunner, a great outfielder, and also a historically great hitter with a 207 OPS+. He had 47 WS that year which isn't far off Ruth's years at all, and that's even without considering LQ.

If I made no steroid adjustment Bonds would be my #1 all time easily IMO.

[brett]

Good point, I didn't think about that, though Musial was able to do it against a broad variety of pitchers, and playing conditions-it just shows that he could remain constant in the face of gradual change.

So if you are talking about say, 2 years, I'd go with Ruth (20-21), Williams (41-42), Hornsby, Mantle (56-57) and probably Bonds '03-'04.


That's something I've never understood. If you're talking about a greatest player of all time, and you have one guy who played at a 99 level for twenty years, and one guy who played at a 99 level for 15, then of course you give it to the guy who did it longer.

But if you're talking about "greatest hitter," or "greatest fielder," or "greatest baserunner," that's pretty much a skills competition, and skill level isn't dependant on how long you did it for. If Albert Pujols retired today, I'd have no problem saying he was one of the top ten best hitters of all time... because, on raw hitting ability, he is. How much he hit goes to value, but it doesn't really say anything about how good he was.

[AlecBoy006]

Top 5 hitters


Ruth
Aaron
Mays
Cobb
Wagner

[ChrisLDuncan]

Top 5 hitters


Ruth
Aaron
Mays
Cobb
Wagner

Mays over Mantle man? I dunno about that, I think that Ted Williams needs to be there too

[CTaka]

1. Bonds' 4 years were quite a bit better than Ruth's, sorry but they were. He did it agianst considerably stiffer competitoin, and as is his OPS+ are solidly higher.

2. I would also put Bonds' 1993 on the "Mount Olympus" level. Bonds that year was a great baserunner, a great outfielder, and also a historically great hitter with a 207 OPS+. He had 47 WS that year which isn't far off Ruth's years at all, and that's even without considering LQ.

If I made no steroid adjustment Bonds would be my #1 all time easily IMO.

I'm not sure what the admission fee to enter Mount Olympus is, but if you use an OPS+ of 200 or more (well, at least 200 is a round number!) as a cutoff, then Bonds would have 6 seasons and Ruth would have 11 - with a couple of 194's on deck. Barry's cheating peak was higher than Ruth's peak, but I think Bill is correct that Ruth had more "Mount Olympus" years than Barry did. Barry's 1993 season was one of those 200+ years, but you are mixing apples and oranges when you add Barry's defense and total WS (including defensive WS) in a discussion solely focused on "Fever's Top 5 Hitters (not players) of All Time".

Based on career value, I'd still have Babe over Barry solely as a hitter even if I ignored blatant, revolting cheating. Barry would have the edge in peak without the steroid penalty, but Babe would still be #1 based on his career and nearly twice as many years in the "200 OPS+ club/Mount Olympus" category. I guess from my language you may surmise that I do impose a steroid penalty for Barry (and I'm a Giants season ticket holder!).

[JRB]

I'm not sure what the admission fee to enter Mount Olympus is, but if you use an OPS+ of 200 or more (well, at least 200 is a round number!) as a cutoff, then Bonds would have 6 seasons and Ruth would have 11 - with a couple of 194's on deck. Barry's cheating peak was higher than Ruth's peak, but I think Bill is correct that Ruth had more "Mount Olympus" years than Barry did. Barry's 1993 season was one of those 200+ years, but you are mixing apples and oranges when you add Barry's defense and total WS (including defensive WS) in a discussion solely focused on "Fever's Top 5 Hitters (not players) of All Time".

Based on career value, I'd still have Babe over Barry solely as a hitter even if I ignored blatant, revolting cheating. Barry would have the edge in peak without the steroid penalty, but Babe would still be #1 based on his career and nearly twice as many years in the "200 OPS+ club/Mount Olympus" category. I guess from my language you may surmise that I do impose a steroid penalty for Barry (and I'm a Giants season ticket holder!).

CTaka: I like your OPS+ 200 or better, Mt. Olympus analogy. Interestingly enough, the voting so far on who the top 5 hitters are hews fairly closely to which batters had the most Mt. Olympus seasons.

Number of Mt Olympus seasons (OPS+ of 200 or higher in full season)

Babe Ruth--------------------------11
Ted Williams-------------------------4
Rogers Hornsby----------------------4
Ty Cobb-----------------------------3
Lou Gehrig---------------------------3
Mickey Mantle-----------------------3
pre-steroid Bonds (perhaps)----------2
George Brett-------------------------1
Jimmie Foxx--------------------------1
Nap Lajoie---------------------------1
Willie McCovey-----------------------1
Frank Robinson-----------------------1
Honus Wagner-----------------------1
Hank Aaron--------------------------0
Joe DiMaggio------------------------0
Joe Jackson-------------------------0
Willie Mays---------------------------0
Stan Musial--------------------------0
Mel Ott------------------------------0
Mike Schmidt-------------------------0
Tris Speaker-------------------------0

[Edgartohof]

CTaka: I like your OPS+ 200 or better, Mt. Olympus analogy. Interestingly enough, the voting so far on who the top 5 hitters are hews fairly closely to which batters had the most Mt. Olympus seasons.

Number of Mt Olympus seasons (OPS+ of 200 or higher in full season)

Ted Williams-------------------------4


And there was a good possibility he would have 6 more if it were not for the wars, especially seeing what he did before and after those years that he missed.

[CTaka]

CTaka: I like your OPS+ 200 or better, Mt. Olympus analogy. Interestingly enough, the voting so far on who the top 5 hitters are hews fairly closely to which batters had the most Mt. Olympus seasons.

Number of Mt Olympus seasons (OPS+ of 200 or higher in full season)

Babe Ruth--------------------------11
Ted Williams-------------------------4
Rogers Hornsby----------------------4
Ty Cobb-----------------------------3
Lou Gehrig---------------------------3
Mickey Mantle-----------------------3
pre-steroid Bonds (perhaps)----------2
Jimmie Foxx--------------------------1
Willie McCovey-----------------------1
Frank Robinson-----------------------1
Honus Wagner-----------------------1
Hank Aaron--------------------------0
Joe DiMaggio------------------------0
Joe Jackson-------------------------0
Willie Mays---------------------------0
Stan Musial--------------------------0
Mel Ott------------------------------0
Mike Schmidt-------------------------0
Tris Speaker-------------------------0

Thanks JRB. If you use the Baseball Reference adjusted OPS+ numbers, there would be a few other Mount Olympus residents:

Fred Dunlap------------------------1
Ross Barnes------------------------1
Pete Browning----------------------1
Mark McGwire-----------------------2
Jeff Bagwell-------------------------1
Frank Thomas-----------------------1
Tip O'Neill---------------------------1
George Hall-------------------------1
Dan Brouthers-----------------------2
Nap Lajoie--------------------------2
George Brett------------------------1
Jason Giambi------------------------1
Norm Cash--------------------------1
Roger Connor-----------------------1
Sammy Sosa------------------------1
Dick Allen---------------------------1
Bob Caruthers-----------------------1
Stan Musial -------------------------1

Of course, many of these Mount Olympus residents would have their entrance passes denied if you penalize a) 19th century players b) suspected steroid cheaters, or c) both.

[JRB]

And there was a good possibility he would have 6 more if it were not for the wars, especially seeing what he did before and after those years that he missed.

And he just missed having a 5th with a 199 OPS+ one year.

[Wade8813]

He certainly should with all that help. The difference from where he ended up at that age, and where he should have been (and where everyone else was at the end of their careers) is HUGE. Still though, as it is, not so sure he does beat everyone by a lot when all is considered (giving Williams war years and Ruth lost hitting years as a pitcher in Fenway). I put more value on peak (compared to career) than most people. And with something like lost war years, I'm never sure how much credit to give someone, so I tend to err on the low side.


Bonds had perhaps 4 yrs. on Mt. Olympus, while Babe Ruth had maybe 8. Does that sound comparable to you? Does numbers of super-seasons mean anything to you? Number certainly matters, but Bonds' were so much more impressive. Ruth lived on Mt. Olympus. Bonds took the mountain by storm and kicked Zues out of his throne.

[Edgartohof]

Number certainly matters, but Bonds' were so much more impressive. Ruth lived on Mt. Olympus. Bonds took the mountain by storm and kicked Zues out of his throne.

Only because he used steroids...

You can't say that he would have done what he did without them.

[JRB]

Thanks JRB. If you use the Baseball Reference adjusted OPS+ numbers, there would be a few other Mount Olympus residents:



CTaka: Thanks for the supplemental list. I used the official baseball encyclopedia records not baseball reference. I was primarily focused on players who were listed on the thread poll, however I missed Nap, thanks for reminding me. The encyclopedia has him at one season with an OPS+ over 200., so I will amend my post to include him. The baseball encyclopedia has Musial's best OPS+ at 196. It's amazing that there would be that large a difference between the official encyclopedia and Baseball Reference.com. I've noticed in the past that Baseball reference had the career OPS+ numbers for Mays, Aaron, Mantle, etc a point lower, so I was surprised to see that in this instance that his numbers for certain other players was substantially higher than the encyclopedia.

[Wade8813]

Only because he used steroids...

You can't say that he would have done what he did without them. I know that. I'm continuing an earlier discussion where I stated Bonds would be #1 IF he had put up those numbers without steroids.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Babe Ruth corked his bat

Ahh..someone else who must have read Bill James BS writing on Ruth in his abstract.

No prob. He didn't bother to do any research but others did. One by one we'll educate.

Leigh Montville, author of "Big Bam" breaks this down nicely.

"In the middle of the 1923 season, an interesting controversy developed. The Babe's favorite new bat was ruled illegal.

Slumping slightly, he had been convinced by retired Tigers outfielder Wahoo Sam Crawford to try a new bat called 'the Besty Bingle,' which Crawford had invented and was trying to market. Selling for eight dollars, as opposed to two dollars for the normal bat, the Crawford bat was constructed of four pieces of wood. The effect was supposed to make the bat stronger on all sides. The hitter no longer had to position the bat a certain way to take advantage of the strongest grain in the wood. The grain on this bat ran sideways.

Ruth started using the bat on July 2, and the slump was done. He had 27 hits, including six homers, in his next 65-at bats. Superstition and performance merged. Ruth loved the Besty Bingle. He was hitting close to .400 and had 28 home runs when American League president Ban Johnson declared the bat illegal on August 11.

'I can see no reason why Johnson should bar the Crawford model bat,' Miller Huggins said, filing an appeal. 'The rules simply state that the bat must be round, made entirely of hard wood and conform to certain dimentions.

'The new bat used by Ruth is made of hard wood and is perfectly round. The rules do not state that the bat be made out of one piece of wood. Ruth's bat is not a trick bat, but simply an improvement on the old style. A four-piece bat is much stronger than a one-piece affair and of course has more driving power.'

The league office offered an explanation eight days later. The problem with the bat was not with the four pieces of wood, but with the glue. The glue increased the velocity of the ball off the bat. If the glue were allowed, other substances, such as rubber, might also be inserted into bats. The appeal was denied. The Babe had been using a forerunner of the corked bat. Nevermind. On August 12, the first day back to a normal bat, against the Detroit Tigers, he went 3-for-4, including his 29th homer."

[leecemark]

--You act like this story means Ruth couldn't have ALSO used a corked bat. The Babe could have used more than one and more than one type of illegal bat over the course of his career. The bat mentioned in the NBJHA was one with a plug in head, not one made of multiple pieces of wood. It was part of a Hall of Fame treveling bat exhibit.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--You act like this story means Ruth couldn't have ALSO used a corked bat. The Babe could have used more than one and more than one type of illegal bat over the course of his career. The bat mentioned in the NBJHA was one with a plug in head, not one made of multiple pieces of wood. It was part of a Hall of Fame treveling bat exhibit.

If you can find any writing by someone who has done research, that he used a corked bat then please present it. James took a story from a guy who saw a bat that was supposed to be Babe's. No telling if it was used or when it was used. The Crawford Bat incident is one. Another that I know of is him and a teammate playing a practical joke on Gehrig by rigging a bat at the end so crap would fly out the end when it struck the ball. They tried to hand it to Gehrig but he saw it was messed with right away and handed it back to them as he chuckled. End of story. Look, he used a heavy bat so he would feel like he had some weight behind it when he hit the ball. Corking the bat would do nothing except lighten the bat and take away barrel mass. Even if it WERE true, which it is not, it would have done no good in terms of power hitting. Another is him cracking a bat against the ground and busting the handle. It was his favorite bat so he tried to repair it with small nails and tape. He struck out and cracked it again on the ground where it busted for good. He then gave the bat to Harry Hooper and he apparently later donated to some exhibit.

[four tool]

The point is that Ruth was not deliberately cheating, so we can ignore the corked bat angle for him.

Thanks for the research and elucidation.

[leecemark]

--We don't know that Ruth was not cheating. Following the rules was definately NOT in character for the Babe.

[Mariano_Rivera]

I voted (in no order) Ruth, Wagner, Cobb, Mantle, and Williams but i missed Herig and would put Gehrig instead of Mantle. Who on earth didn`t vote for Wiliams?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--We don't know that Ruth was not cheating. Following the rules was definately NOT in character for the Babe.

We don't know about any other players either but yet your spotlight shines only on Babe. All others are in the same boat. We just don't know. All we know is that some bat ended up in an exhibit with Babe's name attached to it. Who knows if that was a bat that was messed with on a long train trip during a barnstorming tour. Or it was ever used at all. We just don't know. We know about the prank incident. That could be the bat. We know about the Crawford bat incident. Everything he did was detailed, scrutinized, and analyzed. Not in character to follow rules? Using the '22 barnstorming against him is weak. Landis was wrong, Ruth was doing good for the game. This should be a non-issue. If its an issue it shows your bias against Babe.

[pfairban]

I voted (in no order) Ruth, Wagner, Cobb, Mantle, and Williams but i missed Herig and would put Gehrig instead of Mantle. Who on earth didn`t vote for Wiliams?

Guilty. Top 10, yes, top 5, no.

[Bill Burgess]

Not in character to follow rules? Using the '22 barnstorming against him is weak.
I don't think that is what Mark had in mind, Randy. I think he's referring to team curfews on the road, cheating on Helen/Clair, Prohibition drinking, and sleeping with other men's wives.

I'm not saying this, but suspect Mark was. Could be wrong.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I don't think that is what Mark had in mind, Randy. I think he's referring to curfews, cheating on Helen/Clair, Prohibition drinking, and sleeping with other men's wives.

I'm not saying this, but suspect Mark was. Could be wrong.

Those could be said for a ton of other players as well.

Who's wife did he sleep with? Wonder if she told Babe she was married. Think she might have left that part out? People call him a womanizer but to be more accurate, all the women throwing themselves at him were "manizers."

[leecemark]

We don't know about any other players either but yet your spotlight shines only on Babe. All others are in the same boat. We just don't know. All we know is that some bat ended up in an exhibit with Babe's name attached to it. Who knows if that was a bat that was messed with on a long train trip during a barnstorming tour. Or it was ever used at all. We just don't know. We know about the prank incident. That could be the bat. We know about the Crawford bat incident. Everything he did was detailed, scrutinized, and analyzed. Not in character to follow rules? Using the '22 barnstorming against him is weak. Landis was wrong, Ruth was doing good for the game. This should be a non-issue. If its an issue it shows your bias against Babe.

--You think the barmstroming incident was Ruth's only rule breaking? How many times was he suspended by his team besides that suspension from Landis? Ruth was probably the most naturally talented baseball player ever born, but he was not a man concerned about anything but whatever he happened to want at any given moment. Contrary to your belief the sun did not shine out of his arse.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--You think the barmstroming incident was Ruth's only rule breaking? How many times was he suspended by his team besides that suspension from Landis? Ruth was probably the most naturally talented baseball player ever born, but he was not a man concerned about anything but whatever he happened to want at any given moment. Contrary to your belief the sun did not shine out of his arse.

I agree with that for the most part.

Have I ever claimed that the sun shone out from his arse? Do some in depth reading almighty Mark. You will see that he was made an example of. Taking his suspensions at face value is a huge mistake.

[Edgartohof]

People call him a womanizer but to be more accurate, all the women throwing themselves at him were "manizers."

Because THAT makes is so much better.

[four tool]

--We don't know that Ruth was not cheating. Following the rules was definately NOT in character for the Babe.

There is no evidence or suspicion that Ruth ever used cocked bats or illegal enhancers to help his play, aside from the incident previously dealt with.

Saying there is no evidence of innocence in practically a tautology, no one can prove innocence, only guilt.

[Edgartohof]

Saying there is no evidence of innocence in practically a tautology, no one can prove innocence, only guilt.

Well you CAN prove innocence. I have a video tape of me on a certan day at a certain time at a certain place, with many reliable witnesses, and indisputable proof that it is that day and time and place - that sure seems like proof of innocence to me.

But of course, in the situations we are talking about, yes it is harder to prove (one way or the other), but not impossible.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Because THAT makes is so much better.

Nope. Not at all. He gave in to his manly impulses like most of us would, and like most players do today. He is always singled out. His feats are made to look better and his faults are made to look worse. The curse that was him. How bout we get back to what this thread is supposed to be about. Not Ruth bashing by way of empty accusations.

[leecemark]

There is no evidence or suspicion that Ruth ever used cocked bats or illegal enhancers to help his play, aside from the incident previously dealt with.

Saying there is no evidence of innocence in practically a tautology, no one can prove innocence, only guilt.


--Cocked bats and illegal enhancers? Are we talking about Babe Ruth or Raffy Palmeriro:laugh . There is evidence of a different corked bat in a bat said to belong to Ruth now at the Hall of Fame. Really I don't care if he corked or not, I just don't think it is out of the question with Ruth. There is some pretty good evidence that corked bats don't actually help a player anyway.

[the flatbrush rep]

--Cocked bats and illegal enhancers? Are we talking about Babe Ruth or Raffy Palmeriro:laugh . There is evidence of a different corked bat in a bat said to belong to Ruth now at the Hall of Fame. Really I don't care if he corked or not, I just don't think it is out of the question with Ruth. There is some pretty good evidence that corked bats don't actually help a player anyway.

cork bats don't help??? tell that to sammy sosa.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--Cocked bats and illegal enhancers? Are we talking about Babe Ruth or Raffy Palmeriro:laugh . There is evidence of a different corked bat in a bat said to belong to Ruth now at the Hall of Fame. Really I don't care if he corked or not, I just don't think it is out of the question with Ruth. There is some pretty good evidence that corked bats don't actually help a player anyway.

Or anyone. But there is nothing there except wild speculation involving the most famous name; James was irresponsible to print such ******** without doing research.

[four tool]

Well you CAN prove innocence. I have a video tape of me on a certan day at a certain time at a certain place, with many reliable witnesses, and indisputable proof that it is that day and time and place - that sure seems like proof of innocence to me.

But of course, in the situations we are talking about, yes it is harder to prove (one way or the other), but not impossible.

All that video proves is that you were supposedly there and not somewhere else.
Would it stand up to Columbo's scrutiny, he asked grinning :-)?

[SHOELESSJOE3]

--You act like this story means Ruth couldn't have ALSO used a corked bat. The Babe could have used more than one and more than one type of illegal bat over the course of his career. The bat mentioned in the NBJHA was one with a plug in head, not one made of multiple pieces of wood. It was part of a Hall of Fame treveling bat exhibit.


Any reliable source for this plugged bat. You mean if there were such a bat that was discovered and used by such a noted player it would not be big news, we would not have been bombaded with all kind of talk when it was supposedly discovered.

Where is it now back in HOF?

[SHOELESSJOE3]

--We don't know that Ruth was not cheating. Following the rules was definately NOT in character for the Babe.
This is silly to say of anyone, we don't know if they cheated so it's possible they did, that leaves no one above suspicion. Further more, so just because he challenged authority and did break at least one that we know of barnstorming that makes it more likely he would be a rule breaker in the use of equipment.

[brett]

There is some pretty good evidence that corked bats don't actually help a player anyway.

Where is it?

It is pretty clear that a corked bat will not make a ball go any further, but if a hitter is struggling through a period where his swing is a little behind, a corked bat can help him keep up his bat speed while he waits for his bat speed to return. I think that hitters go through physiology based variations in bat speed over the course of every season.

Also, a corked bat will deform more, and therefore increase the size of the sweet spot.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

This is silly to say of anyone, we don't know if they cheated so it's possible they did, that leaves no one above suspicion. Further more, so just because he challenged authority and did break at least one that we know of barnstorming that makes it more likely he would be a rule breaker in the use of equipment.

Why bother. Same old song and dance from the same people. Makes a ton of sense for a player who uses a 48 ounce bat to cork it and knock off a couple ounces while losing crucial barrel mass :rolleyes: Hornsby had the right idea when he put nails into his barrel. We know that many players experimented all the time back then with all the down-time and exhibition games. Nothing to this story and this thread should either get back on track or be closed.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

This is neither to reinforce one side or the other, that Ruth did or did not use a corked bat just an article of interest while were on the subject of Ruth and his bat.

June 1927 in one game Ruth hit two mammoth home runs at Yankee Stadium one in the area of the scoreboard in deep right center field and another to centerfield where the fence was 480+ from home plate.

Cleveland catcher Luke Sewell demanded that umpire Hillebrand inspect the bat. Hillebrand checked both ends and the middle, ran his hand along the bat checking the grain and tapped the bat on home plate to detect a hollow sound. He gave the bat to Sewell to hold and examined it from a distance, told Sewell he could find nothing out of the ordinary. Before returning the bat Sewell gave the bat the sniff test, testing for the smell of an adhesive.

Ruth's comment after that episode, " Imagine Sewell to ask an umpire to look at a bat, like telling blind man to look at a balloon."
Hillebrand was the umpire in chief in a World Series game between the Giants and the Yanks that was called because of darkness in broad daylight.

Will Rogers on Hillebrand, " I've heard of umps who were near-sighted but never saw one that could not tell night from day."

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I know Frank Thomas isn't on this list, but does anyone have him as a top 5? Can a case be made for him?

[four tool]

Can't make a case for any modern player as top five hitter, partially because of the bandboxes they paly in.

OK, if a San Diego player put up Thomas/Pujols numbers.....

[plask_stirlac]

Well definitely consider Pujols, Miguel Cabrera, and others if that's your criterion. Pro Player is a classic pitcher's park, sea breeze and all. The new St. Louis park is a pitcher's park now, mabe not 40 years ago, but it counts.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Pro Player is a classic pitcher's park, sea breeze and all. The new St. Louis park is a pitcher's park now, mabe not 40 years ago, but it counts.

Pro Player is great for right handed pull hitters. Center is definitely deep and right to right center is about average. The idea that any park today is a "pitcher's park" is pretty amusing imo. Something may seem like a pitchers park because all the other ones are so hitter friendly but in and of themselves, no park is a pitchers park. I made the trip up to Safeco for the first time toward the end of the year to see the BoSox play. That park is notorious for being a pitchers park. In person you can see its nothing of the sort. Just bigger than all the rest.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Biggest difference in the older parks and todays is in CF, on average shorter in todays parks.

Some figures I did manage to dig up for one specific year.

--------------------------------LF------LCF------CF------RCF------RF
National League -1998---------333------375-----407-----375------334
American League 1961---------336------379-----422-----380------325
American League 1927---------339------388-----446-----386------329

[csh19792001]

Can't make a case for any modern player as top five hitter, partially because of the bandboxes they paly in.

OK, if a San Diego player put up Thomas/Pujols numbers.....

You don't think Pujols has a case as a top 5 alltime hitter, not in terms of value (he was born in 1980), but in terms of skill and talent?

I certainly think one could make that case.

[538280]

You don't think Pujols has a case as a top 5 alltime hitter, not in terms of value (he was born in 1980), but in terms of skill and talent?

I certainly think one could make that case.

Pujols is a graceful, impressive looking hitter. Frank Thomas, on the other hand was a bit less convential, more of just an out and out basher. He swung hard, hit the ball hard, and made contact often. He looked a lot more forceful than graceful. Pujols has been unbelieveable, but I tend to prefer Thomas' style. Just a matter of preference though.

[csh19792001]

Pujols is a graceful, impressive looking hitter. Frank Thomas, on the other hand was a bit less convential, more of just an out and out basher. He swung hard, hit the ball hard, and made contact often. He looked a lot more forceful than graceful. Pujols has been unbelieveable, but I tend to prefer Thomas' style. Just a matter of preference though.





You're right, it is preference in the end, but why be partial to the guy who is an awesome power hitter and mostly pulls the ball in attempt to hit homeruns, versus the all world hitter that can do it all?

Pujols can (and does) hit the ball to all fields, is willing to be selfless and routinely take the outside pitch the other way, never strikes out (for a power hittter) and yet will take the walk also. A guy who is willing to alter his approach situationally, sacrificing ego and not attempting to pull the ball for homeruns for the benefit of his team? He's one of the greatest young players ever. And certainly if not the greatest young hitter, than right there with Williams and Dimaggio in terms of first 6 seasons in the bigs in the entire history of baseball.

And as players....

Thomas was a truly great hitter his first 6 years- he was an incredible star and a surge the game needed. But he was never anything close to a great player because he never worked hard enough (or perhaps, possessed the physical skills) to become an all around great player. And as a hitter his first 6 years, not quite as "alltime great" as Albert has been. Pujols is also a top notch baserunner and an outstanding fielder- Thomas has had the tremendous benefit of having the opportunity to focus exclusively on hitting- which is a gratuity Albert has almost never been afforded. Thomas was a terrible fielder and a slow, inept baserunner (and, obviously couldn't steal a base to save his life, even in his youth).

There is no comparison between the two as baseball players.

As they say, there's no accounting for taste, though.

[plask_stirlac]

Pro Player is great for right handed pull hitters. Center is definitely deep and right to right center is about average. The idea that any park today is a "pitcher's park" is pretty amusing imo. Something may seem like a pitchers park because all the other ones are so hitter friendly but in and of themselves, no park is a pitchers park. I made the trip up to Safeco for the first time toward the end of the year to see the BoSox play. That park is notorious for being a pitchers park. In person you can see its nothing of the sort. Just bigger than all the rest.

It's bigger and on the coast, that has a pitcher-friendly effect.

Seattle, Oakland, San Fran, LA and Anaheim, San Diego, Yankee Stadium, Shea, Baltimore, Washington, and Miami all have pitcher-leaning or neutral parks. The exceptions are the somewhat unusual Fenway and Citizen's in Philly. Elevation matters.

[Bill Burgess]

So far, on December 24, 2006, 68 Fever members voted their Top 5 Hitters Ever thusly. Out of 68 total voters.

1. Ruth -------65 votes (95%)
1. Williams---- 65 (95)
3. Cobb------ 50 (73)
4. Hornsby--- 36 (52)
5. Gehrig----- 30 (40)
6. Bonds----- 25 (17)
6. Aaron----- 25 (17)
8. Musial---- 14 (20)
9. Mantle---- 19 (13)
10. Mays----- 7 (10)
11. Wagner--- 6 (8)

Nice going. Good job.

Bill

[Minstrel]

I voted:

Ruth
Williams
Cobb
Gehrig
Bonds

[Bill Burgess]

I'd like to resurrect this discussion about the very best hitters. I was inspired by the debate between Williams/Cobb.

In discussing the greatest hitters, I think the discussion can be limited to Ruth, Williams, Cobb, Hornsby, Gehrig and Bonds. And that's about it.



Relative stats, with Plate Appearances.

Name-----------------PA---------Onbase------Slg--------BA-------OPS+
Babe Ruth 10,504 134.5(2) 172.5(1)---119.2(30)---207(1)
Ted Williams 9,786 134.6(1) 154.9(2)---128.1(5)----185(2)
Ty Cobb 12,777 127.0(10) 141.4(14)--134.8(1)----167(9)
Rogers Hornsby 9,259 127.4(8) 147.3(5)---126.2(11)---175(5)
Lou Gehrig 9,554 126.4(11) 154.0(3)---117.2(42)---179(4)
Barry Bonds 12,606 133.3(3) 148.4(4)---113.3(100)--182(3)


1. Babe's Rel. Slg. is inflated by the L caught napping. Refused to make sensible adjustments to modern scoring/hitting concepts.

2. All of Ted's relative stats are lowered by missing many of his prime hitting seasons to service in the armed forces.

3. Rogers relative stats are inflated due to a lack of a real decline phase, plus he was a pioneer, like Babe, and profited from the L. refusing to adjust to the new power game.

4. Lou's stats are slightly inflated due to the lack of his actual decline phase. Plus, Lou also profited from the L. not adjusting to modern hitting concepts.

5. Barry Bonds' stats are seriously inflated due to his knowingly taking performance-enhancing steroids. Many of his peers also took them, but they were not the mass of L. average hitters, and few had Barry's state-of-the-art program, courtesy of Balco Laboratories in Belmont, CA.

6. Cobb's relative slugging averages are lowered due to his playing his first 2/3of his career in the deadball era, which lacked the HR weapon.

[Otis Nixon's Bodyguard]

1. Ruth
2. Williams
3. Gehrig
4. Hornsby
5. Cobb
-----------
6. Foxx
7. Bonds
8. Mantle
9. Musial
10. Aaron

I considered both peak and career value, but favored peak pretty heavily. I'm pretty sure about the guys I put at 6-10, but I'm really torn about the order they should go in. At the rate he's going, Pujols could find a spot on that list some day (probably in the 6-10 range rather than in the top 5).

[Bill Burgess]

Anyone else wish to participate? We haven't seen this one in a while.

[RyanExpress30]

1 Ruth
2 Gehrig
3 Williams
4 Cobb
5 Bonds

[swingman24]

I voted on this once before but I have changed my mind on my top 5. Well, I've always had Ruth at #1 and Williams #2 but lately I have been considering flip flopping them. So in this list I will be doing that.

Here is my top 5:

1.Ted Williams
2.Babe Ruth
3.Lou Gehrig
4.Ty Cobb
5.Stan Musial

[BigRon]

1. Babe Ruth
2. Ted Williams, with some war credit
3. Barry Bonds
4. Rogers Hornsby
5. Lou Gehrig, ever so slightly ahead of

6. Ty Cobb
7. Mickey Mantle
8. Willie Mays
9. Hank Aaron
10. Stan Musial

Foxx probably would be next for me, or Speaker.

[gman5431]

This is one of the hardest polls ive ever voted on. Ruth, Williams, Mays, Cobb, Aaron, not necessarily in that order.

G Man