How Does One Define The Greatest Hitter Of All-Time?

I agree on your point on Rose. I disagree on the Bonds point...

but to point further on the Rose point, if you look at the comments on this article, this guy wrote this article because Yankee fans were telling him that Jeter was a greater offensive player than Rose....which he was techinically right on, but Jeter technically isn't done yet, and if Jeter were to keep his pace up and reach the same total plate appearance totals as Rose, he would beat Rose in pretty well every category (although very unlikely, since he is bound to age).

And then he said he would never consider Ichiro in the same breath as the greatest hitters of all time, even though Ichiro is Rose with speed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet

And Free for the win

---

Yeah. That's the great thing about the internet. It expands people's balls so they feel free to say a lot of things that they probably wouldn't in person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

I agree on your point on Rose. I disagree on the Bonds point...

but to point further on the Rose point, if you look at the comments on this article, this guy wrote this article because Yankee fans were telling him that Jeter was a greater offensive player than Rose....which he was techinically right on, but Jeter technically isn't done yet, and if Jeter were to keep his pace up and reach the same total plate appearance totals as Rose, he would beat Rose in pretty well every category (although very unlikely, since he is bound to age).

And then he said he would never consider Ichiro in the same breath as the greatest hitters of all time, even though Ichiro is Rose with speed.

---

I think you're underrating Rose because you're failing to consider context. Rose had 8 seasons of 130 OPS or greater. Jeter and Ichiro have 4 such seasons combined between them.

http://fffuuucomics.com/big.jpg?im=0040.jpg

Sorry, came across this, couldn't help myself.

HGM bringin the funny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filihok

Yeah. That's the great thing about the internet. It expands people's balls so they feel free to say a lot of things that they probably wouldn't in person.

---

Would I intentionally say something hurtful to someone's face? Of course I wouldn't. Just because something is offensive or mean spirited doesn't mean it isn't funny. There is nothing wrong with cracking jokes and saying things around friends that you wouldn't say back to certain individuals.

You make not like that kind of humor, but you are smart enough to understand why it would be funny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by free2131

Would I intentionally say something hurtful to someone's face? Of course I wouldn't. Just because something is offensive or mean spirited doesn't mean it isn't funny. There is nothing wrong with cracking jokes and saying things around friends that you wouldn't say back to certain individuals.

You make not like that kind of humor, but you are smart enough to understand why it would be funny.

---

By 'nothing wrong' I think you mean 'is socially acceptable'.

I'm probably a big hyper-sensitive to it since I spent some years of my life working in the field and dealing first hand with the social acceptableness of discriminating against people based on a genetic disorder and trying to help people live a meaningful life despite the fact that some people think it is ok make these kinds of comments (and worse) right in front of them, or directly to them.

I, being an imperfect human, make other kinds of jokes. I wouldn't have a problem (I hope) if someone were to tell me 'Hey man, I don't think that's funny. And here's why'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-_Qe...eature=related

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-_Qe...eature=related

---

Faktiskt, är jag stolt at du tror så :)

I think you guys all have valid points about the definition of the greatest hitter ;)

First of all that article stunk. I am no stat head, but please, the lack of any solid back-up for his claims makes the article a joke.

I do think eras make this a tougher question than it may first appear.

IMO the greatest hitter has to be the one that was furthest above his peers. (those he played with and against).

Stan Musial was a contemperary of Williams and Mays (among others) It is hard to say that Stan was heads above those two.

Rose and Aaron played along side Frank Robinson, Yaz, Clemente, Morgan and others. They both had very long careers, but at no time did you think they should be moved to a higher league. They were great but, there were others around them who had similar seasons, just not as many of them.

Cobb did what was expected of a player in his generation better than anyone else. The knock on him is his lack of power, but no one hit homers back then. Cobb is a legitimate contender for the title except he wasn't as far ahead of his crowd as someone else was.

Bonds played in an era of explosive power, yet was he that much better than his contemperaries A-Rod, McGuire, Sosa, Puljois, Manny etc. ?

Ruth, more than any other hitter, changed the game, Ruth was peerless, he thrust great hitters like Lou Gehrig into his shadow. Ruth put up stats so far beyond his peers that he must be considered the greatest hitter ever, IMO.

Just a little nitpicking because I'm bored

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldYankFan

Cobb did what was expected of a player in his generation better than anyone else. The knock on him is his lack of power, but no one hit homers back then. Cobb is a legitimate contender for the title except he wasn't as far ahead of his crowd as someone else was.

---

Nobody should knock Cobb for a lack of power. Cobb was one of the premier power hitters of his time. He led his league in slugging 8 times, which is one more time than Barry Bonds did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldYankFan

Bonds played in an era of explosive power, yet was he that much better than his contemperaries A-Rod, McGuire, Sosa, Puljois, Manny etc. ?

---

Yes, he was much better. :_

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldYankFan

Ruth, more than any other hitter, changed the game, Ruth was peerless, he thrust great hitters like Lou Gehrig into his shadow. Ruth put up stats so far beyond his peers that he must be considered the greatest hitter ever, IMO.

---

Absolutely.

Re: Cobb, I was refering to his lack of power compared to later generations. There is no doubt he was the premier hitter of his time.

Re: Bonds, this is a relative comparison. In 1924 (an example) Ruth hit as many homers as the next two American League hitters combined. In 1926 he hit 10 more than the next two hitters combined. In 1927 he hit more than 3 times as many as the 3rd best home run hitter in his league. In 1927 Ruth individually hit more home runs than any other team in the American League! In 1928 he hit double the homers of the second best hitter. Bonds just wasn't that much better than the other players of his generation. I am using homeruns because both men are known primarily as homerun hitters. In 2001 Bonds hit 73 homers, Sosa 64 and L. Gonzalas 57. To be as dominate as Ruth was in 1926 Barry would have had to hit 131 homers! #1 = #2 + #3 + 10. To be as dominate as Ruth in '27 ( 3 times the #3 homer hitter 57x3= 171). Barry Bonds second best home run season (2000) he hit 49 one less than Sosa. In Ruth's 3rd best homerun season, 1921 he out homered the second best in his league by 35 homers! Bond's closest conteparary carreer wise is Ken Griffey Jr. 132 behind and still playing. Ruth's closest conteparary is Jimmy Foxx 170 behind. (though Foxx and Ruth's careers did not overlap by much, sort of like Bonds and Pujols.)

Ruth led the league in homers 12 times! Bonds 2 times
Ruth led in RBI 6 times, Bonds once
Ruth led in Runs scored 8 times, Bonds once
Ruth in walks 11 times, Bonds 12 times
Ruth in batting average once, Bond 2 times
Ruth in on base% 10 times, Bonds also 10 times
Ruth in slugging 13 times, Bonds 7 times
Ruth in OPS 13 times, Bonds 9 times
Ruth in Total bases 6 times, Bonds once.

So in almost every major stat, Ruth was much more dominate over his peers than Bonds was.

I wasn't comparing Bonds and Ruth. I was just saying that Bonds was much better than his peers, particularly at his peak.

Now the author is sating Josh Gibson in the comments section