 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Other Stuff » Sports Talk » Greatest hitter(s) ever...revisted
tm4559
in all fairness, they also did not haul off and practically re-invent the baseball for williams either.
December 02, 2008 at 09:12PM View BBCode
Originally posted by YarM80
Williams is an uber-stud and deserves the #2 spot. It's almost unfair to compare anyone to Ruth, however.
in all fairness, they also did not haul off and practically re-invent the baseball for williams either.
YarM80
Nor did they invent a candy bar for Williams, either. Poor Ted....no respect. However, Babe Ruth's corpse received much less attention than Ted's so he has that going for him.
December 02, 2008 at 09:22PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tm4559
Originally posted by YarM80
Williams is an uber-stud and deserves the #2 spot. It's almost unfair to compare anyone to Ruth, however.
in all fairness, they also did not haul off and practically re-invent the baseball for williams either.
Nor did they invent a candy bar for Williams, either. Poor Ted....no respect. However, Babe Ruth's corpse received much less attention than Ted's so he has that going for him.
dirtdevil
December 02, 2008 at 09:29PM View BBCode
you can argue that with him all you want, but he's dead on about rose. there's no way in the world that guy should be anywhere near a top 25 all-time best hitters list.
tm4559
ruth was number one in ops for 13 seasons, beginning with 1918 on 300 odd at bats. then at the end he was second, third and fifth.
williams was third in ops in 1939 and 1940, then led the league for eight straight seasons (and missed all those seasons for two different wars in there). second in 1956, and then first again in 1957 and 1958.
yes, ruth dominated his peers in hitting the home run, he practically invented the home run. williams did not dominate his peers in the same way ruth did in that respect. in every other facet of hitting, definitely he did. and he missed all those seasons when he was undoubtably in his prime and was the best hitter in baseball.
[Edited on 12-2-2008 by tm4559]
[Edited on 12-2-2008 by tm4559]
December 02, 2008 at 09:30PM View BBCode
also, if you look at how they ranked, in ops, against their peers,ruth was number one in ops for 13 seasons, beginning with 1918 on 300 odd at bats. then at the end he was second, third and fifth.
williams was third in ops in 1939 and 1940, then led the league for eight straight seasons (and missed all those seasons for two different wars in there). second in 1956, and then first again in 1957 and 1958.
yes, ruth dominated his peers in hitting the home run, he practically invented the home run. williams did not dominate his peers in the same way ruth did in that respect. in every other facet of hitting, definitely he did. and he missed all those seasons when he was undoubtably in his prime and was the best hitter in baseball.
[Edited on 12-2-2008 by tm4559]
[Edited on 12-2-2008 by tm4559]
tm4559
rose blows barry bonds and ty cobb away on the all-time douchebag list.
December 02, 2008 at 09:32PM View BBCode
Originally posted by dirtdevil
you can argue that with him all you want, but he's dead on about rose. there's no way in the world that guy should be anywhere near a top 25 all-time best hitters list.
rose blows barry bonds and ty cobb away on the all-time douchebag list.
happy
OPS+, still a rate stat. Bonds: more games. and FG pointed out, yes, you could make an argument for Williams (or very very very against bonds) using outside information.
also, the BP guys did a bonds vs ruth thing. not taking into account running skill, ruth edged bonds, taking into account running skill and defense, bonds edges ruth, taking into account ruth's pitching ruth edges bonds again. But of course these stats arent some be all end all of discussions. But the fact that they were close, to me, means that there can at least be an argument about which one is better. At least the saberheads disagree with your analysis.
December 02, 2008 at 09:44PM View BBCode
Originally posted by 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.
OPS+, still a rate stat. Bonds: more games. and FG pointed out, yes, you could make an argument for Williams (or very very very against bonds) using outside information.
also, the BP guys did a bonds vs ruth thing. not taking into account running skill, ruth edged bonds, taking into account running skill and defense, bonds edges ruth, taking into account ruth's pitching ruth edges bonds again. But of course these stats arent some be all end all of discussions. But the fact that they were close, to me, means that there can at least be an argument about which one is better. At least the saberheads disagree with your analysis.
barterer2002
They didn't invent a candy bar for Ruth either. The Baby Ruth was invented in the 1880s or 90s and named after President Cleveland's daughter.
December 02, 2008 at 09:47PM View BBCode
Originally posted by YarM80
Nor did they invent a candy bar for Williams, either. Poor Ted....no respect. However, Babe Ruth's corpse received much less attention than Ted's so he has that going for him.
They didn't invent a candy bar for Ruth either. The Baby Ruth was invented in the 1880s or 90s and named after President Cleveland's daughter.
barterer2002
Rose is undoubted a failure as a human being, as a baseball player though, he's not that far off the top 25.
December 02, 2008 at 09:50PM View BBCode
Since we're arguing Rose. You can discount him for being a prick but there is no doubt that he was a talented baseball player. I'd rate him a bit lower than the top 25 but not that much. For my list he's probably in the 30-35 range. If you think you can name that many players better try it and see. you can certainly make the arguments for probably 40 players to be better but you'd be stretching as much as FG was when trying to make the Williams argument.Rose is undoubted a failure as a human being, as a baseball player though, he's not that far off the top 25.
FuriousGiorge
December 02, 2008 at 09:56PM View BBCode
I stole the Williams argument from Bill James. He didn't make that specific argument, but he has written on multiple occasions that players who missed time because of war (WWII and the Korean War, especially) deserve to essentially have those years counted in career evaluations, because they never stopped being great players during those years. I don't think it's at all a stretch to say that Williams was a better hitter than Ruth - he has a higher career OBP, he played in a less hitter-friendly era, and he hit left-handed in a park that's pretty tough on lefties. Ruth was a better player, certainly, because of all the other stuff he did, but as a hitter you can easily make the argument that Williams was better. Not by much, maybe, but by a bit.
YarM80
There are actually multiple articles and references in books about this. Suffice to say that it's extremely doubtful that the candy bar was really named after the Pres's daughter, given that it came out in 1921, 15 years after the daughter died.
"Although the name of the candy bar sounds nearly identical to the name of the famous baseball player Babe Ruth, the Curtiss Candy Company has traditionally claimed that it was named after President Grover Cleveland's daughter, Ruth Cleveland. Nonetheless, the bar first appeared in 1921, as Babe Ruth's fame was on the rise and long after Cleveland had left the White House and 15 years after his daughter had died. Moreover, the company had failed to negotiate an endorsement deal with Ruth, and many saw the company's story about the origin of the name of the bar as merely a way to avoid having to pay the baseball player any royalties."
December 02, 2008 at 10:27PM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002
Originally posted by YarM80
Nor did they invent a candy bar for Williams, either. Poor Ted....no respect. However, Babe Ruth's corpse received much less attention than Ted's so he has that going for him.
They didn't invent a candy bar for Ruth either. The Baby Ruth was invented in the 1880s or 90s and named after President Cleveland's daughter.
There are actually multiple articles and references in books about this. Suffice to say that it's extremely doubtful that the candy bar was really named after the Pres's daughter, given that it came out in 1921, 15 years after the daughter died.
"Although the name of the candy bar sounds nearly identical to the name of the famous baseball player Babe Ruth, the Curtiss Candy Company has traditionally claimed that it was named after President Grover Cleveland's daughter, Ruth Cleveland. Nonetheless, the bar first appeared in 1921, as Babe Ruth's fame was on the rise and long after Cleveland had left the White House and 15 years after his daughter had died. Moreover, the company had failed to negotiate an endorsement deal with Ruth, and many saw the company's story about the origin of the name of the bar as merely a way to avoid having to pay the baseball player any royalties."
YarM80
December 02, 2008 at 10:30PM View BBCode
Shrug, I'm not married to the idea of Pete Rose being in the top 25. I felt that he belonged where I put him (where are all you guys' top 25 lists, anyways? You can dish it out but you can't take it, eh? ;)). His best qualities are longevity and consistency. I tend to prefer players that have better peaks than Rose, so I could definitely be convinced that he doesn't belong in the top 25. It's hard to say that he wasn't a great baseball player but it's also hard to separate Pete Rose, Uber Dickhead, from Pete Rose, Uber Baseball Player.
YarM80
Williams purposefully refused to hit against the shift (a Big Papi-like shift) and still hit .344 for his career. He refused out of stubborness, according to Ty Cobb. Additionally, if he was even an average runner (by all accounts he was brutally slow on the basepaths) he could have hit .360 for his career. Add in to that the fact that he missed a significant portion of his prime and you have a special player.
Bonds, uh "aided" or not, was the most feared batter since Williams. He set all sorts of records for IBB, for OPS+, etc etc. Moreover, he stole a sh!tload of bases. He was a beast in every respect.
Babe Ruth, however, totally changed the game into one that involved power. He so totally annihilated previous records as to make them look silly and to make the previous owners of said records look weak. He did this while hitting for an exceptionally high average (only 2 points less than Williams and 44 points higher than Bonds). He did all of this after beginning his career as an All-Star caliber pitcher (which I realize is irrelevant to this particular discussion).
It's still Ruth for me in a landslide, due in large part to historical importance of his feats, but you guys posit some good points.
I admit it, there are a couple "good" arguments against Ruth being the #1. There, you satisfied now?!?!?!?! :D
December 02, 2008 at 10:40PM View BBCode
I guess, for me, more than counting stats or rate stats or whatever, an important factor is to consider the transformative nature of the player, particularly Bonds, Ruth, and Williams. All three essentially changed the way the game was played and how pitchers and teams reacted to them at the plate.Williams purposefully refused to hit against the shift (a Big Papi-like shift) and still hit .344 for his career. He refused out of stubborness, according to Ty Cobb. Additionally, if he was even an average runner (by all accounts he was brutally slow on the basepaths) he could have hit .360 for his career. Add in to that the fact that he missed a significant portion of his prime and you have a special player.
Bonds, uh "aided" or not, was the most feared batter since Williams. He set all sorts of records for IBB, for OPS+, etc etc. Moreover, he stole a sh!tload of bases. He was a beast in every respect.
Babe Ruth, however, totally changed the game into one that involved power. He so totally annihilated previous records as to make them look silly and to make the previous owners of said records look weak. He did this while hitting for an exceptionally high average (only 2 points less than Williams and 44 points higher than Bonds). He did all of this after beginning his career as an All-Star caliber pitcher (which I realize is irrelevant to this particular discussion).
It's still Ruth for me in a landslide, due in large part to historical importance of his feats, but you guys posit some good points.
I admit it, there are a couple "good" arguments against Ruth being the #1. There, you satisfied now?!?!?!?! :D
dirtdevil
not at the same time, he didn't. when his head got big, his legs got slow. he really had two almost completely different careers, both of the hof calibre. it will be interesting to see if the steroid-free career will cancel out the steroid aided career. my guess is no.
December 03, 2008 at 04:09AM View BBCode
Originally posted by YarM80
Bonds, uh "aided" or not, was the most feared batter since Williams. He set all sorts of records for IBB, for OPS+, etc etc. Moreover, he stole a sh!tload of bases.
not at the same time, he didn't. when his head got big, his legs got slow. he really had two almost completely different careers, both of the hof calibre. it will be interesting to see if the steroid-free career will cancel out the steroid aided career. my guess is no.
happy
December 03, 2008 at 04:25AM View BBCode
Well, if he ever really gets caught with the 'roids, he might be inelgible like Rose, but i guess Pettite not only isnt ineligible, but they let him keep playing. I mean, if you wont even be kept from playing, why would they keep you from the HOF?
dirtdevil
[Edited on 12-3-2008 by dirtdevil]
December 03, 2008 at 04:27AM View BBCode
mcgwire isn't ineligible, but i don't see him in there yet. sometimes the writers have higher standards than bud selig. it doesn't happen often, but it does happen.[Edited on 12-3-2008 by dirtdevil]
happy
ill say this much: Clemens gets in no problem. im calling it.
December 03, 2008 at 04:31AM View BBCode
yeah. i know. he has the highest HOF monitor of a non HOFer. but still, he is 62nd of all time. Bonds is 7th.ill say this much: Clemens gets in no problem. im calling it.
happy
December 03, 2008 at 04:32AM View BBCode
in fact, Pettite might get in too, and he's a borderline case.
FuriousGiorge
December 03, 2008 at 04:35AM View BBCode
Pettite isn't getting in to the Hall of Fame.
dirtdevil
but...but...he's a...yankee! he...wore pinstripes!
December 03, 2008 at 04:37AM View BBCode
Originally posted by FuriousGiorge
Pettite isn't getting in to the Hall of Fame.
but...but...he's a...yankee! he...wore pinstripes!
happy
[Edited on 12-3-2008 by happy]
December 03, 2008 at 04:37AM View BBCode
he could. 100 is likely HOFer, he is 104. i can see it. see dirtdevil for more information.[Edited on 12-3-2008 by happy]
bobcat73
Then you fill in Ruth, Spliter, Mays, Joe D, Joe Morgan, Pete Rose, Kalin, Simmons, .
To have Cobb anywhere but first is to live in fairy land.
December 03, 2008 at 06:42AM View BBCode
Ty Cobb best ever.Then you fill in Ruth, Spliter, Mays, Joe D, Joe Morgan, Pete Rose, Kalin, Simmons, .
To have Cobb anywhere but first is to live in fairy land.
YarM80
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
December 03, 2008 at 06:48AM View BBCode
Originally posted by bobcat73
Ty Cobb best ever.
Then you fill in Ruth, Spliter, Mays, Joe D, Joe Morgan, Pete Rose, Kalin, Simmons, .
To have Cobb anywhere but first is to live in fairy land.
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.