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
Well that is why i was sharing :pQuote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
wow .. it amazing that he only mentions Ruth once in an article about the best hitter of all time .... how is the article simply not . "Prove that Ruth isn't the best hitter of all time"
His choice of Musial is.. odd .. or at the very least a homer pick ... Musial was an an amazing hitter and generally forgotten, but really, he not in the disussion for "best hitter of all time"
But really by what metric is Ruth not the best hitter of all time?
it's a bleacher report article. Not a credible writer. He explains in the comments why he left Ruth off. and yes, Musial is a very homer pick by the guy.
I want to see someone argue that Ruth isn't the greatest hitter of all time. Because I really don't think you can. And only Williams can be said in the same sentence as Ruth. Maybe Bonds during his peak years.
Yeah, you might be able to reasonably argue that Mays or Wagner or Aaron and maybe one or two other guys were better all-around players than Ruth, but as hitters, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Oh, so they were good pitchers as well? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by dps
in my conversation with the author
Quote:
Jeffrey Lage 192879 N500590040_7105_comment posted about 6 hours ago 1259801506 1636260 Jeffrey
The problems I have with this article
1. You give too much weight and credibility to career hits and batting averages
2. You omitted Babe Ruth, who is mathematically, easily the greatest hitter ever, and your reasoning is that the game has been integrated, yet you have Ty Cobb on there
3. Poor grammar spots
4. You put so much weight on career numbers and rankings, that you are ignoring basic rate stats that simply answer the question
5. Why does a guy have to have 3000 hits, or a 200 hit season to be the best hitter? You said earlier that walks are an integral part to be an offensive force. Well no one walked more than Bonds!
6. Your logic is just terrible.
The only argument I can see is the evolution of the game when discounting someone like Ruth. And if you do that, than the might honor maybe goes to Williams or Bonds. Being the greatest offensive force ever carries many requirements, and you failed to hit any of the actual logical reasons.
The problems I have with this article 1. You give too much weight and credibility to career hits and batting averages 2. You omitted Babe Ruth, who is mathematically, easily the greatest hitter ever, and your reasoning is that the game has been integrated, yet you have Ty Cobb on there 3. Poor grammar spots 4. You put so much weight on career numbers and rankings, that you are ignoring basic rate stats that simply answer the question 5. Why does a guy have to have 3000 hits, or a 200 hit season to be the best hitter? You said earlier that walks are an integral part to be an offensive force. Well no one walked more than Bonds! 6. Your logic is just terrible. The only argument I can see is the evolution of the game when discounting someone like Ruth. And if you do that, than the might honor maybe goes to Williams or Bonds. Being the greatest offensive force ever carries many requirements, and you failed to hit any of the actual logical reasons.
* Reply
* 0 likes
*
* Options
Steven Resnick 37211 N214900245_6048_comment posted about 4 hours ago 1259808019 1636583 1636260 Steven
A. Too much weight and credibility to career hits and averages. The job of a batter is to get a hit. So, if you put someone who has 2600 hits and someone with 3300 hits there's a huge difference.
A .340 hitter beats out a batter who hits .250.
2. I've never considered Ruth as the greatest hitter in baseball history because he has been dethroned. You're putting words in my mouth I agreed with Andrew with respects to how the game has changed on why one may not consider Ruth the greatest hitter ever.
I included Cobb because he had over 4100 hits and his batting average is the highest in baseball history.
3. Oh well there's some grammar issues. It's not as bad as your hypothetical hitter.
4. I'll take the numbers that were actually produced over a modern stat. It's almost like basing a player on a quarterback rating. It's pretty much a meaningless stat.
5. It's easy to see why a player who has over 3,000 hits for their careers or 200 hits in a season is more valuable than a player that walks a bunch of times because of the fact that player will not have the opportunity to get to hit in certain situations or even with the bases empty.
Yes, Bonds walked the most! Number two in walks is Rickey Henderson, but as I mentioned before Henderson was the greatest leadoff hitter that the game has ever seen, but he would never be considered the greatest hitter of all-time.
6. Obviously it wasn't terrible because you've gotten yourself riled up over it.
By the way there are plenty of other names that I omitted that baseball fans would probably want to see on the list as well.
Continued....
Too harsh?Quote:
Jeffrey Lage 192879 N500590040_7105_comment posted 3 minutes ago 1259823258 1637128 1636583 Jeffrey
1A. Obviously, I never said that it wouldn't matter. But career number of hits points to longevity, if a career .250 hitter plays long enough, he will get 5000 hits.
1B. Obviously as well, but batting average is a pretty meaningless stat in comparison to several other stats that show true value. Being a .300 hitter really doesn't necessarily mean a great hitter anymore, we have come to the point that we understand value better now. Just because Schumaker bats .300 doesn't mean he is as valuable as Bonds, an almost career .300 hitter.
2. Then you are ignoring a plethora of facts.
2A. But if Ruth has been dethroned because of the era that he played, and yet is second all time in homers, first in slugging, etc, and has a career .342 average, how are his numbers ignored because the game has evolved since he played, when Cobb played before him? You do realize the gigantic error in your logic right? You can't put one up without the other, it makes literally no sense that Ruth was omitted from this article because the game has evolved when a lesser hitter in Cobb, who played before him is on here. Cobb has the career average, and the career hits, Ruth has the career.....well everything, every single rate stat that we use to measure offensive value, over Cobb except for batting average, which again, you are giving way to much credit to. Not only did Ruth get on more, he slugged better, hit for more power, and created more runs. Cobb was an incredible player, but he wasn't Babe Ruth, and it isn't even close. Having a high batting average is like being the smartest kid with down syndrome, it doesn't really matter.
3. Bad grammar is not only annoying for a reader, but is a sign that you do not care about what you are writing, or you don't have the intelligence to understand how to write, please take the time to not only spell check, but proofread. Passing basic 8th grade grammar studies is essential to being a talented writer, no matter what the issue. My hypothetical hitter has no bearing in the annoyance of poor grammar skills.
4. Than you are putting too much weight on the wrong stats and not fully understanding which numbers mean more. Having a high batting average doesn't mean you are a great hitter.
If you can acknowledge that there are meaningless stats in football, than surely you can understand that there are meaningless stats in baseball. Batting average, wins by a starting pitcher etc.
5. What does it matter if a guy gets a hit and raises his batting average or draws a walk and his average stays the same? They helped the team win in the exact same manner. This is why we do not care about batting averages (or shouldn't) because drawing a walk, reaching on an error etc, has the exact same value as getting a single. If nothing else, having a high batting average can be misleading. Having a high on base percentage is incredibly valuable to any team. It isn't about getting a hit, it's about not making an out. Any avid baseball scout, coach, or teacher will tell you that. Having discipline at the plate is incredibly valuable. From 01-04 Bonds had an incredibly high value because of the enormous amount of walks that he drew, coupled with his high number of home runs and extra base hits. Over half the time that he stepped to the plate, he got on. The rate stat in that simple factor tells you how incredibly valuable he was. He rarely made any outs! Ruth the same. And Henderson is second all time, look at how long he played! And he drawing a walk, or getting a leadoff single still ended in the same scenario...and he would not have all those stolen bases without all those walks. I don't think anyone will say he was the greatest hitter of all time, but he was the best at doing his job which was leading off the game by getting on base. Any avid baseball follower, or anyone who understands the game will tell you that having a high obp is significantly more valuable than having a high batting average. I will take the guy that bats .280 with a .370 obp over the guy that bats .300 with an obp of .350 any day. One is clearly, and obviously more valuable than the other. Denying it just means you completely ignore logic.
6. Yes, reading something that is supposed to be credible that has completely poor logic annoys me. Especially when it comes to baseball. It riles me up, because you have blatantly ignored facts in your argument. If it was accidental, than okay, do more research next time. If you actually fully believe what you have said above, than you either do not know enough about baseball, the topic that you are writing on, or you completely ignore facts. These aren't opinions, these are simply facts. Ruth put up ridiculous numbers throughout his career, and you ignored them with very poor logic, and have attacked anyone that disagrees with you.
Either learn more about the subject, or don't write on it anymore.
Not too harsh Jeffy. You make an intelligent point. Anybody who is willing to write an article on the internet for all to see is allowing others to have and post an opinion on what they wrote. When said person then counters a point made by somebody else with pure idiocy, well...
I kind of feel like I was a bit of dick, writer's remorse I guess. But why on earth are you a "senior writer" on a bleacher report when you don't know what anyone that studies the game does? God I love this mogul forum, here we at least have a majority of intelligent posters. It's frustrating....it shouldn't be, but it is.
Try visiting the Braves MLB.com forums.
oh god..the worst fans ever..;)Quote:
Originally Posted by free2131
I dont think you were harsh either Jeffy. Its the truth, truth hurts sometimes. :)
Why the hell did I visit that site...
Quote:
Unfortunately for you it'd take more than Sizemore to get Hanson in a trade, considerably more actually. Sizemore and LaPorta would like be a jump off point.
Quote:
James Parr, Kelly Johnson and Jordan Schaffer for Grady. What do you think of that?
Quote:
You know, there may not be a player in the entire league I would trade Tommy for. Maybe Pujols but I'd have to thing long and hard about it.
Quote:
we dont need sizemore, jordan schafer is basically grady sizemore.
Quote:
call up tampa bay, offer up medlen and schafer and plug carl crawford into our leadoff spot. call up washington and offer up a couple decent pitching prospects and plug Dunn into 1st base
Q: How Does One Define The Greatest Hitter Of All-Time?
A: You Define What Makes A Hitter The Greatest Hitter Of All-Time
Why doesn't Atlanta's GM take these ideas and run with them????? I mean come on!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by free2131
First, I agree with your main point.
However,
Wow...that's funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy
P.S.
Than
ThenQuote:
conj.
1. Used after a comparative adjective or adverb to introduce the second element or clause of an unequal comparison: She is a better athlete than I.
2. Used to introduce the second element after certain words indicating difference: He draws quite differently than she does.
3. When. Used especially after hardly and scarcely: I had scarcely walked in the door than the commotion started.
prep. Usage Problem
In comparison or contrast with: could run faster than him; outclassed everyone other than her.
Quote:
adv.
1. At that time: I was still in school then. Come at noon; I'll be ready then.
2. Next in time, space, or order; immediately afterward: watched the late movie and then went to bed.
3. In addition; moreover; besides: It costs $20, and then there's the sales tax to pay.
4. Used after but to qualify or balance a preceding statement: The star was nervous, but then who isn't on the first night of a new play.
5. In that case; accordingly: If traffic is heavy, then allow extra time.
6. As a consequence; therefore: The case, then, is closed.
n.
That time or moment: The bus leaves at four; until then let's walk.
adj.
Being so at that time: the then chairman of the board.
Idiom:
then again
From another standpoint; on the other hand: I need a vacation. Then again, so do my coworkers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy
**********Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Since I know what a stickler you are for having correct information, you might want to read up on Down's Syndrome. It's also quite possible that you're just a piece of **** who feels better insulting people. Either way...Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy
http://www.cdadc.com/ds/cognitiv.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndromeQuote:
IQ scores in the 70 to 85 range is considered to be low average functioning. kids with Down Syndrome with such intelligence scores are expected to go on to live 'normal' lives and to benefit from normal schooling. Mostly, people with Down Syndrome in this IQ range will have lower paid jobs and jobs of a more menial type, but they will partake in what life has to offer - hold a job and work well, marry, be a parent...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._curve.svg.pngQuote:
Most individuals with Down syndrome have mental retardation in the mild (IQ 50–70) to moderate (IQ 35–50) range,[7] with individuals having Mosaic Down syndrome typically 10–30 points higher.
You see, Jeffy, that the smartest people with Down's Syndrome are of average intelligence. So, you might want to be careful, the smartest person with Down's Syndrome just might be smarter than you.
One more thing you might want to remember.
http://www.pujolsfamilyfoundation.org/foundation.htm
http://stlouis.cardinals.mlb.com/ima...4/BytcTeCw.jpgQuote:
As you may know, Albert and Deidre Pujols have a beautiful daughter with Down syndrome. Since this is so close to their hearts, this Foundation is dedicated to the love, care and development of people with Down syndrome and their families. Our goal is to promote awareness, provide hope and create supportive and memorable events for the families and children who live with Down syndrome.
sigh, fili....it's an insult i took from a tv show :rolleyes:
And whoops on then and than...I usually have it correct.....mind you, I was commenting, not writing an article that I tried to publish.
Which player would you rather have?
Player A
AVG. 280, HR 30, OBP. 400, SLUG. 500, OPS. 900
Player B
AVG. 300, HR 40, OBP. 330, SLUG, 540, OPS. 870
Player A draws a lot of walks, plays in PetCo and plays a corner outfield spot.
Player B plays in Coors Field, hits for more power and average, but strikes out a lot and doesn't draw very many walks.
To anybody that knows anything about player evaluation, the answer is Player A.
Sigh, jeffy...that makes it all better then. As long as insults were spewed by some other ****head first then they are ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
:rolleyes:
i'm sorry that you are such a sensitive nancy fili. I will try to ease up so that I never hurt your feelings anymore.
My feelings are fine Mr. Lage, but thanks for your concern...
A lot of people toss around insults (nancy for example) without much thought. You could call me any name in the book and I couldn't care less.
What most people forget is that when they choose to try and insult someone by calling them 'nancy' or 'retard' is (that they just come off as jackasses) that they are insulting that group. I don't think you really meant to insult people with Down's syndrome. Did you? But that is what you are doing.
I've known a lot of people with Down's and I don't appreciate anyone making light of their condition. People with Down's are just as human as you, or me, or your kid and I think if someone were to insult Kaden you'd stand up for him as well.
Obviously not attacking those with Down's syndrome. I have an uncle with it, my cousin, Tom Henke, retired to take care of his son who has it, my nephew has it. Sometimes, light-hearted jokes need to be taken as such. Don't take it too seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
No the answer is player B as he is a member of the Colorado Rockies.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Duh.
I do take it seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
Would you make these 'light-hearted' jokes in front of your uncle, Tom Henke's kid, or nephew?