http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...er-of-all-time
:rolleyes:
Printable View
If you have a poll that asks who the greatest hitter in baseball history is, and you don't even have Babe Ruth as an option, then you're either a ***** or a troll. Or most likely, both.
Derek Jeter was also not an option
He fell 65 hits shy of 3,000 and never had a 200 hit season (during the end of which he walked 175 plus times a year) is a great argument against him being the gr8est hittur eva...Quote:
Barry Bonds will never be considered the greatest hitter in baseball history because of a few things such as the steroid controversies surrounding him, but beyond that he did not get to 3,000 hits finishing his career with 2935, and never had a season with over 200 hits.
http://i989.photobucket.com/albums/a...g?t=1259480027
AND... Juan Pierre has FOUR 200 hit seasons, so that must mean he is FOUR TIMES THE HITTER THAT BONDS IS.
http://stopthecap.com/wp-content/upl...1209989155.jpg
score!
Where's Ruth on this list????
and then I said:Quote:
Steven Resnick 37211 N214900245_6048_comment posted about 5 hours ago 1259511746 1623914 1623497 Steven
@Jeffrey: I think I already did a good job explaining what the definition of the greatest hitter is and part of that criteria was their ability to get on base via the walk.
Would you say that Mark McGwire was a better hitter than Hank Aaron. Aaron's batting average is .305 with a .374 OBP while McGwire's career average was .263 but his OBP is .394.
The answer is no. Aaron was the better hitter because Aaron beat McGwire in other categories such as doubles, triples, hits, and Aaron had more career walks.
Agree? disagree?Quote:
Which is called slugging, which applies to OPS directly.
Again, more true value.
And actually, McGwire very easily can be argued to have been a more valuable hitter than Aaron. He played a lot less time than Aaron, and offered a higher value in less time. Aaron had a long sustainable and consistent career. McGwire had a short, injury plagued career. The big difference in the two players is that Aaron played seven more full seasons than McGwire. At McGwire's pace, he would have decimated Aaron's career offensive numbers if he had 7 more season of full health (especially if you subtract the 3 or so years he missed majority of time due to injuries. You can subtract value for not playing as long, but McGwire was an incredibly valuable hitter, especially late in his career when he went out of his mind on home runs. Aaron was a model of consistency and had excellent bat speed. But when you compare career numbers, one could very easily argue McGwire to have been more valuable....and many would. It isn't just based on OBP, it isn't just based on AVG, or on Home Runs. All these stats create a total value that lead to a players complete career.
You can't just say Aaron was more valuable because they guy have over 3700 hits, and over 750 homers while hitting a ton of doubles and triples.....he played a very very long time and was remarkably consistent during that time. It doesn't mean he was the most valuable.
Aaron>McGwire
I am not saying he wasn't. I am arguing that it can easily be said that McGwire offered more value.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
Aaron offered slightly less offensive value for a lot longer period of time....which I think puts him ahead of McGwire in my book. But McGwire had some seriously high value when he was healthy.
I read what you said, its almost like you are knocking Aarons value just because he was able to stay healthy though. I dont see how it increases one value because he is injury prone and when he is able to play hes just that much more valuable.
I say the healthy hitters value is higher because he is able to play everyday.
Aaron > McGwire, offensively.
Aaron played in a low offense era. Their career OPS+'s are a very close 155 for Aaron to 162 for McGwire.
McGwire had the higher peak, of course, so if you want to judge it by that, then McGwire had a higher offensive value. But overall offensive value, Aaron, easily.
I agree, Aaron over McGwire. But when McGwire WAS healthy, he was a better hitter than Aaron, that is all. And that provides some significant value. If McGwire had remained healthy, he would have likely torn past Aaron. But so many lost seasons, and not playing as long, he will never reach the overall career value as Aaron. But during his playing time, McGwire was the best offensive value, second to only Bonds.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
When McGwire was healthy and at his absolute peak, he was better than Aaron....but the same can be said for this guy. Longevity really can't be ignored. McGwire had one season better than Aaron's best season....so did Norm Cash.
I realize that, and am not ignoring, or disputing that. Aaron was more valuable, simply because he sustained his value longer than McGwire, thus moving his overall value ahead of McGwire's.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
If McGwire had had the same number of plate appearances as Aaron and had the same value throughout, he would have killed Aaron's numbers. Aaron's longevity makes him the clear winner. But it isn't because he had more career doubles and triples with a higher batting average as that guy said.
Yeah, but this goes for umpteen guys if you stretch it out. It's just....not even worth mentioning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Well yeah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25