 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » Greatest hitter(s) ever...revisted
whiskybear
Bryan pretty much nailed it. I question a few choices (DiMaggio is too low; Ed Delahanty and Nap Lajoie do not merit a mention; Al Simmons is way too high). But the Top 6 are perfect and the Top 10 are pretty good. For me:
1.-6. See above.
7. Hornsby
8. A-Rod
9. Musial
10. Aaron
DiMaggio is probably No. 11;Shawn Green Jay Buhner is totally No. 12.
[Edited on 11-28-2008 by whiskybear]
November 28, 2008 at 05:31PM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002
OOOhhhhhh, another list for me to do. How fun
1. Ruth (don't be stupid here)
2. Bonds
3. Williams
4. Cobb
5. Mays
6. Gehrig
7. Musial
8. Hornsby
9. A-Rod
10. Wagner
11. Foxx
12. Aaron
13. Mantle
14. Speaker
15. F. Robinson
16. J. Jackson
17. Delahanty
18. A. Simmons
19. DiMaggio
20. Griffey
21. Lajoie
22. Gwynn
23. Henderson
24. Schmidt
25. Bench
Bryan pretty much nailed it. I question a few choices (DiMaggio is too low; Ed Delahanty and Nap Lajoie do not merit a mention; Al Simmons is way too high). But the Top 6 are perfect and the Top 10 are pretty good. For me:
1.-6. See above.
7. Hornsby
8. A-Rod
9. Musial
10. Aaron
DiMaggio is probably No. 11;
[Edited on 11-28-2008 by whiskybear]
happy
i need to do groceries but dont know what i need. come over.
November 29, 2008 at 07:47AM View BBCode
barterer is good at lists.i need to do groceries but dont know what i need. come over.
ironhorse2ko
Hmm...good point. I would have added Mays between Aaron and A-rod. Looks like I have 2 revise my list folks.
November 29, 2008 at 02:11PM View BBCode
Originally posted by whiskybear
Originally posted by ironhorse2ko
lets pick at least 5.
The best part about your list is, had you adhered to this limit, you would have left Babe Ruth off completely. The second-best part is that Willie Mays is nowhere to be seen.
Hmm...good point. I would have added Mays between Aaron and A-rod. Looks like I have 2 revise my list folks.
barterer2002
Beer
Ketchup
Mustard
Mayonaise
Salt
Paper plates
That's what a bachelor needs
November 29, 2008 at 03:09PM View BBCode
Originally posted by happy
barterer is good at lists.
i need to do groceries but dont know what i need. come over.
Beer
Ketchup
Mustard
Mayonaise
Salt
Paper plates
That's what a bachelor needs
happy
(i already got the paper plates covered. bought like 10,000 last time i was at Costco)
November 29, 2008 at 06:22PM View BBCode
lol. codiments and beer? good to know. ill go shopping now.(i already got the paper plates covered. bought like 10,000 last time i was at Costco)
YarM80
My top 25 of all time:
1. Ruth
2. Williams
3. Cobb
4. Bonds
5. Gehrig
6. Aaron
7. Musial
8. Hornsby
9. Foxx
10. Wagner
11. Mays
12. Ott
13. Speaker
14. F. Robinson
15. Griffey
16. Anson
17. Lajoie
18. Man-Ram
19. Mantle
20. E. Collins
21. E. Delahanty
22. DiMaggio
23. Rose
24. R. Connor
25. Yastrzemski
The last few are pretty tough and could be replaced by a number of others (Gehringer, Kaline, Goslin, Sosa, Schmidt, Berra, Bench, etc).
I'd like to see one good argument why Babe Ruth isn't the #1 hitter of all time (and by a good margin at that).
December 01, 2008 at 08:06PM View BBCode
Babe Ruth is the unquestioned #1 hitter of all time. It's not even close. Consider his era, consider the numbers he put up, and consider that he hit for both extreme power and an extremely high batting average. Ruth annihilates the competition.My top 25 of all time:
1. Ruth
2. Williams
3. Cobb
4. Bonds
5. Gehrig
6. Aaron
7. Musial
8. Hornsby
9. Foxx
10. Wagner
11. Mays
12. Ott
13. Speaker
14. F. Robinson
15. Griffey
16. Anson
17. Lajoie
18. Man-Ram
19. Mantle
20. E. Collins
21. E. Delahanty
22. DiMaggio
23. Rose
24. R. Connor
25. Yastrzemski
The last few are pretty tough and could be replaced by a number of others (Gehringer, Kaline, Goslin, Sosa, Schmidt, Berra, Bench, etc).
I'd like to see one good argument why Babe Ruth isn't the #1 hitter of all time (and by a good margin at that).
YarM80
In 1920, his first year with the Yankees, Ruth hit 54 home runs and batted .376. His .847 slugging average was a Major League record until 2001, when it was broken by Barry Bonds. Aside from the Yankees, only the Philadelphia Phillies managed to hit more home runs as a team than Ruth did as an individual, slugging 64 in hitter-friendly Baker Bowl.
On July 18, 1921, Babe Ruth hit career home run #139, breaking Roger Connor's record of 138 in just the eighth year of his career. (This was not recognized at the time, as Connor's correct career total was not accurately documented until the 1970s. Even if the record had been celebrated, it would have been on an earlier date, as Connor's total was at one time thought to be only 131.)
As impressive as Ruth's 1921 numbers were, they could have been more so under modern conditions. Bill Jenkinson's 2006 book, The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs, attempts to examine each of Ruth's 714 career home runs, plus several hundred long inside-the-park drives and "fair-foul" balls. Until 1931 in the AL, balls that hit the foul pole were considered ground-rule doubles, and balls that went over the wall in fair territory but hooked foul were ruled foul. Many fields, including Ruth's home Polo Grounds, had exceptionally deep center fields--in the Polo Grounds' case, nearly five hundred feet. The author concluded that Ruth would have been credited with 104 home runs in 1921, if modern rules and field dimensions were in place. Still, Ruth set Major League records in total bases (457), extra base hits (119) and times on base (379), all of which still stand to this day.
Ruth's impact on American culture still commands attention. Top performers in other sports are often referred to as "The Babe Ruth of ______." He is widely regarded as one of the greatest baseball players in history.[34] Many polls place him as the number one player of all time.[35]
His single season HR high of 60 more than doubles the previous record holder's total of 27.
He has the highest OPS and SLG % of all time, the 9th highest BA, 2nd highest OBP, 3rd most HR, 4th most runs, highest OPS+, 2nd most RBI, most batting wins, 4th most XBH, and that's not even mentioning his All-Star pitching capabilities (which aren't relevant to this conversation). :)
December 01, 2008 at 08:17PM View BBCode
A couple things about Babe Ruth, a la Wikipedia:In 1920, his first year with the Yankees, Ruth hit 54 home runs and batted .376. His .847 slugging average was a Major League record until 2001, when it was broken by Barry Bonds. Aside from the Yankees, only the Philadelphia Phillies managed to hit more home runs as a team than Ruth did as an individual, slugging 64 in hitter-friendly Baker Bowl.
On July 18, 1921, Babe Ruth hit career home run #139, breaking Roger Connor's record of 138 in just the eighth year of his career. (This was not recognized at the time, as Connor's correct career total was not accurately documented until the 1970s. Even if the record had been celebrated, it would have been on an earlier date, as Connor's total was at one time thought to be only 131.)
As impressive as Ruth's 1921 numbers were, they could have been more so under modern conditions. Bill Jenkinson's 2006 book, The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs, attempts to examine each of Ruth's 714 career home runs, plus several hundred long inside-the-park drives and "fair-foul" balls. Until 1931 in the AL, balls that hit the foul pole were considered ground-rule doubles, and balls that went over the wall in fair territory but hooked foul were ruled foul. Many fields, including Ruth's home Polo Grounds, had exceptionally deep center fields--in the Polo Grounds' case, nearly five hundred feet. The author concluded that Ruth would have been credited with 104 home runs in 1921, if modern rules and field dimensions were in place. Still, Ruth set Major League records in total bases (457), extra base hits (119) and times on base (379), all of which still stand to this day.
Ruth's impact on American culture still commands attention. Top performers in other sports are often referred to as "The Babe Ruth of ______." He is widely regarded as one of the greatest baseball players in history.[34] Many polls place him as the number one player of all time.[35]
His single season HR high of 60 more than doubles the previous record holder's total of 27.
He has the highest OPS and SLG % of all time, the 9th highest BA, 2nd highest OBP, 3rd most HR, 4th most runs, highest OPS+, 2nd most RBI, most batting wins, 4th most XBH, and that's not even mentioning his All-Star pitching capabilities (which aren't relevant to this conversation). :)
Hamilton2
The first list in the thread ... well, thanks for starting the topic!
December 01, 2008 at 10:11PM View BBCode
I think that Bryan (Bart) did an excellent job with his top 25, as did Yarm.The first list in the thread ... well, thanks for starting the topic!
FuriousGiorge
Ted Williams has a higher career on-base % than Ruth and lost a shitload of his prime to wars (in 1941 and 1942 he OPSed 1288 and 1147 and then he didn't play again until 1946, and he also lost the bulk of the 1952 and '53 seasons). In all, Williams lost about 5 years of his career, not at the beginning or the end but smack-dab in the middle, to wars, and without those lost years not only would his career totals be quite a bit higher, but his percentages would probably be higher too.
December 02, 2008 at 01:50AM View BBCode
Originally posted by YarM80
I'd like to see one good argument why Babe Ruth isn't the #1 hitter of all time (and by a good margin at that).
Ted Williams has a higher career on-base % than Ruth and lost a shitload of his prime to wars (in 1941 and 1942 he OPSed 1288 and 1147 and then he didn't play again until 1946, and he also lost the bulk of the 1952 and '53 seasons). In all, Williams lost about 5 years of his career, not at the beginning or the end but smack-dab in the middle, to wars, and without those lost years not only would his career totals be quite a bit higher, but his percentages would probably be higher too.
tm4559
the fact that dimaggio came in at two clicks above yastremski makes me believe this list should be taken out and killed.
December 02, 2008 at 06:57PM View BBCode
Originally posted by YarM80
Babe Ruth is the unquestioned #1 hitter of all time. It's not even close. Consider his era, consider the numbers he put up, and consider that he hit for both extreme power and an extremely high batting average. Ruth annihilates the competition.
My top 25 of all time:
1. Ruth
2. Williams
3. Cobb
4. Bonds
5. Gehrig
6. Aaron
7. Musial
8. Hornsby
9. Foxx
10. Wagner
11. Mays
12. Ott
13. Speaker
14. F. Robinson
15. Griffey
16. Anson
17. Lajoie
18. Man-Ram
19. Mantle
20. E. Collins
21. E. Delahanty
22. DiMaggio
23. Rose
24. R. Connor
25. Yastrzemski
The last few are pretty tough and could be replaced by a number of others (Gehringer, Kaline, Goslin, Sosa, Schmidt, Berra, Bench, etc).
I'd like to see one good argument why Babe Ruth isn't the #1 hitter of all time (and by a good margin at that).
the fact that dimaggio came in at two clicks above yastremski makes me believe this list should be taken out and killed.
YarM80
True, but if you're playing "what if" with Williams and Ruth, surely you have to take into account that Ruth began his career as a pitcher (and a damn fine one at that). Moreover, Ruth lost a ton of HRs (I can't remember the actual number) by the fact that HRs that either hit the foul pole or landed foul after curving out were counted as foul balls. Additionally, a walk off HR was not considered a HR (iirc) if any of the runners to cross the plate ahead of the guy who hit the ball out scored the winning run.
December 02, 2008 at 07:49PM View BBCode
Originally posted by FuriousGiorge
Originally posted by YarM80
I'd like to see one good argument why Babe Ruth isn't the #1 hitter of all time (and by a good margin at that).
Ted Williams has a higher career on-base % than Ruth and lost a shitload of his prime to wars (in 1941 and 1942 he OPSed 1288 and 1147 and then he didn't play again until 1946, and he also lost the bulk of the 1952 and '53 seasons). In all, Williams lost about 5 years of his career, not at the beginning or the end but smack-dab in the middle, to wars, and without those lost years not only would his career totals be quite a bit higher, but his percentages would probably be higher too.
True, but if you're playing "what if" with Williams and Ruth, surely you have to take into account that Ruth began his career as a pitcher (and a damn fine one at that). Moreover, Ruth lost a ton of HRs (I can't remember the actual number) by the fact that HRs that either hit the foul pole or landed foul after curving out were counted as foul balls. Additionally, a walk off HR was not considered a HR (iirc) if any of the runners to cross the plate ahead of the guy who hit the ball out scored the winning run.
YarM80
Other than longevity, I see no reason to put Yaz ahead of Joe D. However, like I said, the last few are pretty interchangeable.
December 02, 2008 at 07:50PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tm4559
Originally posted by YarM80
Babe Ruth is the unquestioned #1 hitter of all time. It's not even close. Consider his era, consider the numbers he put up, and consider that he hit for both extreme power and an extremely high batting average. Ruth annihilates the competition.
My top 25 of all time:
1. Ruth
2. Williams
3. Cobb
4. Bonds
5. Gehrig
6. Aaron
7. Musial
8. Hornsby
9. Foxx
10. Wagner
11. Mays
12. Ott
13. Speaker
14. F. Robinson
15. Griffey
16. Anson
17. Lajoie
18. Man-Ram
19. Mantle
20. E. Collins
21. E. Delahanty
22. DiMaggio
23. Rose
24. R. Connor
25. Yastrzemski
The last few are pretty tough and could be replaced by a number of others (Gehringer, Kaline, Goslin, Sosa, Schmidt, Berra, Bench, etc).
I'd like to see one good argument why Babe Ruth isn't the #1 hitter of all time (and by a good margin at that).
the fact that dimaggio came in at two clicks above yastremski makes me believe this list should be taken out and killed.
Other than longevity, I see no reason to put Yaz ahead of Joe D. However, like I said, the last few are pretty interchangeable.
YarM80
I didn't penalize anyone for perceived or real cheating. Rose is the all-time hits leader and is 6th in all-time runs scored. He also was a 13 time All-Star who played six different positions.
December 02, 2008 at 07:53PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tm4559
and you snuck pete rose in there. shame on you.
I didn't penalize anyone for perceived or real cheating. Rose is the all-time hits leader and is 6th in all-time runs scored. He also was a 13 time All-Star who played six different positions.
tm4559
you missed my point, such as it is. dimaggio is too far down, and Yaz shouldn't be there at all.
and pete rose is a steaming pile of dogshit.
[Edited on 12-2-2008 by tm4559]
December 02, 2008 at 07:56PM View BBCode
Originally posted by YarM80
Other than longevity, I see no reason to put Yaz ahead of Joe D. However, like I said, the last few are pretty interchangeable.
you missed my point, such as it is. dimaggio is too far down, and Yaz shouldn't be there at all.
and pete rose is a steaming pile of dogshit.
[Edited on 12-2-2008 by tm4559]
FuriousGiorge
You said there wasn't a good argument. I made it. I didn't say it's true, only that it exists.
December 02, 2008 at 07:57PM View BBCode
Originally posted by YarM80
Originally posted by FuriousGiorge
Originally posted by YarM80
I'd like to see one good argument why Babe Ruth isn't the #1 hitter of all time (and by a good margin at that).
Ted Williams has a higher career on-base % than Ruth and lost a shitload of his prime to wars (in 1941 and 1942 he OPSed 1288 and 1147 and then he didn't play again until 1946, and he also lost the bulk of the 1952 and '53 seasons). In all, Williams lost about 5 years of his career, not at the beginning or the end but smack-dab in the middle, to wars, and without those lost years not only would his career totals be quite a bit higher, but his percentages would probably be higher too.
True, but if you're playing "what if" with Williams and Ruth, surely you have to take into account that Ruth began his career as a pitcher (and a damn fine one at that). Moreover, Ruth lost a ton of HRs (I can't remember the actual number) by the fact that HRs that either hit the foul pole or landed foul after curving out were counted as foul balls. Additionally, a walk off HR was not considered a HR (iirc) if any of the runners to cross the plate ahead of the guy who hit the ball out scored the winning run.
You said there wasn't a good argument. I made it. I didn't say it's true, only that it exists.
happy
Ruth: 2503 games (note: some of these games he was pitching and did not bat for all the innings)
Bonds: 2983 games
Another thing, Bonds was faster than ruth. And I decided to include baserunning skill along with "hitting", because otherwise you would have to discount doubles and triples as not being "hitting skill", or for that matter, infield singles. so my argument is for Bonds over Ruth as far as "offensive performance" goes. But it's certainly close, and i can see the argument for ruth.
If Ruth had not pitched, most likely I'd be arguing for ruth. but again, its the "what if's" that make Williams a good argument.
December 02, 2008 at 08:18PM View BBCode
Bonds had a higher peak than Ruth. Also, he played more games. Rate stats arent all that matter. when you are the best, playing more games is more and more important because of the huge dropoff between you, and the player who plays when you are out.Ruth: 2503 games (note: some of these games he was pitching and did not bat for all the innings)
Bonds: 2983 games
Another thing, Bonds was faster than ruth. And I decided to include baserunning skill along with "hitting", because otherwise you would have to discount doubles and triples as not being "hitting skill", or for that matter, infield singles. so my argument is for Bonds over Ruth as far as "offensive performance" goes. But it's certainly close, and i can see the argument for ruth.
If Ruth had not pitched, most likely I'd be arguing for ruth. but again, its the "what if's" that make Williams a good argument.
FuriousGiorge
December 02, 2008 at 08:21PM View BBCode
Ted Williams doesn't need what-ifs. He didn't stop being an awesome hitter when he went to war. It's not like an injury, where you can't play for some period of time at your usual high level - Williams was the same hitter in 1943 that he was in 1942, but circumstances kept him from demonstrating that in the majors.
happy
December 02, 2008 at 08:26PM View BBCode
yes, this is true. But then it just gets into the semantics of the thing.
YarM80
While I am swayed by your eloquence, I stand by my list. :)
December 02, 2008 at 08:56PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tm4559
Originally posted by YarM80
Other than longevity, I see no reason to put Yaz ahead of Joe D. However, like I said, the last few are pretty interchangeable.
you missed my point, such as it is. dimaggio is too far down, and Yaz shouldn't be there at all.
and pete rose is a steaming pile of dogshit.
[Edited on 12-2-2008 by tm4559]
While I am swayed by your eloquence, I stand by my list. :)
YarM80
I said good! ;)
I still feel that, particularly given their performance relative to their peers, Babe Ruth far overshadows any other hitter. Williams did have a higher OBP, it's true. But Ruth betters him in every other respect, particularly in those stats that eliminate era-specific inflation, like OPS+.
It's not that Williams was bad (hey, he's the #2 hitter on my list!) or that the 1940s were a hitter's decade (they weren't), it's just that Babe Ruth was that good.
To put it in perspective, Ted Williams would have had to hit more than 152 HRs in 1949 (his highest HR output hear, with 43) in order to duplicate what Babe Ruth did in 1920.
Williams is an uber-stud and deserves the #2 spot. It's almost unfair to compare anyone to Ruth, however.
December 02, 2008 at 09:03PM View BBCode
Originally posted by FuriousGiorge
Originally posted by YarM80
Originally posted by FuriousGiorge
Originally posted by YarM80
I'd like to see one good argument why Babe Ruth isn't the #1 hitter of all time (and by a good margin at that).
Ted Williams has a higher career on-base % than Ruth and lost a shitload of his prime to wars (in 1941 and 1942 he OPSed 1288 and 1147 and then he didn't play again until 1946, and he also lost the bulk of the 1952 and '53 seasons). In all, Williams lost about 5 years of his career, not at the beginning or the end but smack-dab in the middle, to wars, and without those lost years not only would his career totals be quite a bit higher, but his percentages would probably be higher too.
True, but if you're playing "what if" with Williams and Ruth, surely you have to take into account that Ruth began his career as a pitcher (and a damn fine one at that). Moreover, Ruth lost a ton of HRs (I can't remember the actual number) by the fact that HRs that either hit the foul pole or landed foul after curving out were counted as foul balls. Additionally, a walk off HR was not considered a HR (iirc) if any of the runners to cross the plate ahead of the guy who hit the ball out scored the winning run.
You said there wasn't a good argument. I made it. I didn't say it's true, only that it exists.
I said good! ;)
I still feel that, particularly given their performance relative to their peers, Babe Ruth far overshadows any other hitter. Williams did have a higher OBP, it's true. But Ruth betters him in every other respect, particularly in those stats that eliminate era-specific inflation, like OPS+.
It's not that Williams was bad (hey, he's the #2 hitter on my list!) or that the 1940s were a hitter's decade (they weren't), it's just that Babe Ruth was that good.
To put it in perspective, Ted Williams would have had to hit more than 152 HRs in 1949 (his highest HR output hear, with 43) in order to duplicate what Babe Ruth did in 1920.
Williams is an uber-stud and deserves the #2 spot. It's almost unfair to compare anyone to Ruth, however.
tm4559
the Veterans' Committee (of the HOF) actually has cleared the slate for its past transgressions by signalling, quite clearly, that it will never consider Rose for induction. it is quite awesome.
December 02, 2008 at 09:05PM View BBCode
everyone is entitled to their own list, of course. this is america.the Veterans' Committee (of the HOF) actually has cleared the slate for its past transgressions by signalling, quite clearly, that it will never consider Rose for induction. it is quite awesome.