Who's the best hitter in MLB history?

[AnotherAlias]

Originally Posted by mlyons

709 would still be fewer than Ruth -- and Ruth missed a whole pile of offensive time early in his career due to the Red Sox not using him as a position player. While I certainly understand the reasoning behind attempting to project Williams' war year stats, shouldn't the same thing be done with Ruth's Red Sox stats if you're using the "missing" stats to make a comparison between the two?

Yes, good point.

I'd like to see those numbers, if anyone can figure it out.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by AnotherAlias

Yes, good point.

I'd like to see those numbers, if anyone can figure it out.

if I recall Ruth would have missed five eyars (1914-1919), which would help his hits total, it'd probably drag down his SLG and not help his HR totals....remember it' the dead ball era

[Faroo6]

Pujols!!!

[Gorilla Shakespeare]

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

if I recall Ruth would have missed five eyars (1914-1919), which would help his hits total, it'd probably drag down his SLG and not help his HR totals....remember it' the dead ball era

There was nothing different about the baseballs in 1919 when he hit 29 homeruns in a little over half a season and 1914. Ruth introduced a new philosophy to the game. He didn't change the materials the game was played with.

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

if I recall Ruth would have missed five eyars (1914-1919), which would help his hits total, it'd probably drag down his SLG and not help his HR totals....remember it' the dead ball era

As some bright soul pointed out to me, Ruth smacked the **** out of the ball in 1919 and 1920, seasons that came directly BEFORE the lively ball was introduced.

[darkhorse]

dola,

Just looked it up at BB Prospectus, and Ruth hit 83 home runs in 890 at bats in 1919-1920.

[CTSoxFan]

Its hard to talk about what could have been, because its impossible to know. Based on the stats that did happen, Ruth has to be called the best.

Williams could possibly have been better and may have been a better pure hitter, but we will never know because of those years he lost, just like we will never know if Ruth could have done even better if he had not lost years as well.

[disposableheros]

if, if, if.

Ruth IS the best hitter ever. no guessing, estimating, speculating involved.

[Erik W.]

Originally Posted by Faroo6

Pujols!!!

Interesting that you posted that today, given what he went on to do.

[Jason Moyer]

Ruth was a great hitter, but I'm not really sure you can say that he was the best of all time. Aside from not playing against African Americans, he didn't play against all of the best white players either since a good portion of them were content playing in the PCL or other minor leagues. I'm skeptical of the whole pre-integration and pre-Branch Rickey era.

[blgoblue2]

Bronson Arroyo

[sean-patin]

Other... someone who will surpass all of them by the end of his career.... Albert Pujols!

My #2 isn't on the list either because A-Rod will pass most of those guys I think as well....


JUST MY OPINION THOUGH!

[Boss]

Teddy Ballgame

[disposableheros]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

Ruth was a great hitter, but I'm not really sure you can say that he was the best of all time. Aside from not playing against African Americans, he didn't play against all of the best white players either since a good portion of them were content playing in the PCL or other minor leagues. I'm skeptical of the whole pre-integration and pre-Branch Rickey era.

is that his fault? do we discredit his accomplishments because of the state of baseball? i vote, no.

should we discredit all accomplishments that didnt happen in the "perfect" baseball environment? has that perfect environment even occured? what about all the talented athletes who decided to play a different sport? does that mean no accomplishment should be acknowledged because all the best athletes havent/dont play baseball?

again, if, if, if.

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by disposableheros

is that his fault? do we discredit his accomplishments because of the state of baseball? i vote, no.

should we discredit all accomplishments that didnt happen in the "perfect" baseball environment? has that perfect environment even occured? what about all the talented athletes who decided to play a different sport? does that mean no accomplishment should be acknowledged because all the best athletes havent/dont play baseball?

again, if, if, if.

You're looking at it wrong. It's very clear that today's baseball has a much, much, much higher difficulty level than that of the 1910's. It's only fair to Bonds (and the other players playing today) to take that into account, since they face a much tougher opposition than Ruth did. It's not "if, if, if" at all, on the contrary.

What we're doing is not "Well anyone who played in the 1910's cannot possibly be the best ever because the competition was easier back then". What we're saying is that Bonds and Ruth both dominated their sport during their respective eras, and put up fairly similar statistics. However, it would be unfair to Bonds not to aknowledge that his output came against a much, much, much harder competition than Ruth's did. I agree with you that automatically eliminating old timers from the debate is stupid; however, it's also stupid not to recognize the disparities observable between the two eras in terms of talent.

[Gorilla Shakespeare]

It's nobody's "fault". Are you "punishing" Josh Gibson because he played his career in a league that excluded white players (well, they didn't really exclude, but for obvious reasons the Negro Leagues weren't hiring a lot of white players either) and didn't keep stats as diligently? FWIW I voted for Ruth as well but I can certainly see the "didn't play against blacks or Hispanics" argument, especially since Ruth himself IIRC said that Josh Gibson was the best player he'd ever seen. That's not as good as looking at Gibson's stats, I know, but like I said it's problematic to judge Negro Leaguers on just their stats.

[WrightWing]

Originally Posted by Long_Long_Name

It's very clear that today's baseball has a much, much, much higher difficulty level than that of the 1910's.

Really? The 1910's were played with batters trying to hit a dingy, dirty sockball doctored in any number of ways out of 500 foot CF parks in an afternoon double-header after spending the better part of the previous night on a train to get to the city they were playing in.

The defense played on rugged sandlots compared to today's perfectly manicured fields, trying to field the ball with an oven mitt for a glove while the guy on the mound was making his 40th start of the season, with well over 300 innings and 30+ complete games pitched.

One could also argue that with expanded rosters and nearly double the teams now, the talent today is diluted in comparison.

Today's players may be more physically fit, but they're not nearly as tough. They may be more athletic, but they don't have nearly the fundamentals of baseball (bunting, advancing runners, etc.). Players today play on vastly superior fields with vastly superior equipment, and get from place to place via vastly easier and improved travel.

I'm not trying to discount today's game by any means, merely pointing out that it's wrong to say that the game of the 1910's was somehow "easy" in comparison to today. It's still baseball, so athletic ability as well as size and strength aren't nearly as important as the skills required to play it. A guy with those requisite skills can play in any era. It's really not that different in terms of difficulty...

[disposableheros]

Originally Posted by Long_Long_Name

You're looking at it wrong. It's very clear that today's baseball has a much, much, much higher difficulty level than that of the 1910's. It's only fair to Bonds (and the other players playing today) to take that into account, since they face a much tougher opposition than Ruth did. It's not "if, if, if" at all, on the contrary.

What we're doing is not "Well anyone who played in the 1910's cannot possibly be the best ever because the competition was easier back then". What we're saying is that Bonds and Ruth both dominated their sport during their respective eras, and put up fairly similar statistics. However, it would be unfair to Bonds not to aknowledge that his output came against a much, much, much harder competition than Ruth's did. I agree with you that automatically eliminating old timers from the debate is stupid; however, it's also stupid not to recognize the disparities observable between the two eras in terms of talent.

not to me it aint. its pretty muddy. there are great arguments for and against what you state is absolute fact.

im not discrediting the disparities. im just not punishing Ruth or giving extra credit to Bonds for something they cant control.

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by WrightWing

They may be more athletic, but they don't have nearly the fundamentals of baseball (bunting, advancing runners, etc.).

I was enjoying your post until this part. Anyone who thinks that guys who play organized baseball from ages 5 to 40 don't know the fundamentals is buying too much into nostalgia.

Oh yeah, that's another reason why the competition level in modern baseball is higher. People are playing organized baseball from the time they can walk now, and good players are immediately recognized and pushed further into the system. Who was the last guy you can think of who played in the majors and didn't play little league and high school ball? Larry Bowa, maybe? In Ruth's era it was common for guys in the major leagues to have no experience other than the occasional sandlot game.

That makes 3 fairly obvious reasons why it's harder to dominate the modern game. a.) black and international players b.) minor leagues that are subservient to the majors and c.) an organized method of finding and developing talent from an early age

People like to cite the fact that Ruth hit more homeruns in some years than some teams did. To me, that's not an argument for him as much as an argument against him. The fact that it was possible to do that shows the immature state of baseball in the early 20th century.

[AnotherAlias]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

People like to cite the fact that Ruth hit more homeruns in some years than some teams did. To me, that's not an argument for him as much as an argument against him. The fact that it was possible to do that shows the immature state of baseball in the early 20th century.

Yeah, it really just points to the fact that he was the greatest hitter in baseball, bar none.