Who's the best hitter in MLB history?

[Jestor]

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.

Nope. It shows his greatness as a hitter. That kind of dominance is incredible and is a feat rarely matched in sports.

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by Jestor

Nope. It shows his greatness as a hitter. That kind of dominance is incredible and is a feat rarely matched in sports.

I think Ruth was a great player, but I'm not particularly impressed about the fact that he was able to dominate something that no one else was trying to do against competition that didn't represent the best the world had to offer. I think the level of domination by Williams and Bonds is far more impressive when it's put into the context of an integrated game with mature farm systems and tons of players attempting to play the game in the same fashion. The reason Williams couldn't out-homer other teams had nothing to do with his lack of ability and everything to do with the fact that every team had a bunch of players who tried to hit homeruns. I credit Ruth with a shift in strategy the same way I credit Aparicio with sparking the return of the stolen base, but just because Aparicio had more steals in 1959 than 6 of the 8 AL teams doesn't mean he was a better base stealer than Rickey Henderson or Ty Cobb.

[ctorg]

I think it's really difficult to compare players from different eras. There are lots of tools for it, but really, it's impossible to say how one player would do in another's era. I'm not even sure that's particularly relevant, since the game has been pretty different at different times.

But, based on what I know, I'd go with Williams.

[Spielman]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

I think Ruth was a great player, but I'm not particularly impressed about the fact that he was able to dominate something that no one else was trying to do against competition that didn't represent the best the world had to offer. I think the level of domination by Williams and Bonds is far more impressive when it's put into the context of an integrated game with mature farm systems and tons of players attempting to play the game in the same fashion. The reason Williams couldn't out-homer other teams had nothing to do with his lack of ability and everything to do with the fact that every team had a bunch of players who tried to hit homeruns. I credit Ruth with a shift in strategy the same way I credit Aparicio with sparking the return of the stolen base, but just because Aparicio had more steals in 1959 than 6 of the 8 AL teams doesn't mean he was a better base stealer than Rickey Henderson or Ty Cobb.

Out of curiosity, how would you rank Ruth, were your feet held to the fire? Is the on the level of a Stan Musial, who was just a little below his contemporary, Ted Williams, as a hitter? Lower than that? Lots lower? A little lower?

[darkhorse]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

In Ruth's era it was common for guys in the major leagues to have no experience other than the occasional sandlot game.

I've little doubt that players of today are better trained, but........

Oh, rly? Could you point out just one such player?

[WrightWing]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

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.

I don't mean to imply that today's players don't have fundamentals. They most certainly do, else they wouldn't be in the big's.

However, with the comparitive lack of bunting and hitting behind the runner in today's game, their fundamentals aren't quite as well-rounded as players of the past was my point. My apologies for not being clearer there.

Doesn't mean the players today couldn't do it, they just don't have to because of the different style of todays game...

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by WrightWing

Doesn't mean the players today couldn't do it, they just don't have to because of the different style of todays game...

You mean, because people today have better methods than that to get on base?


Picture a lacrosse player, far superior to any other lacrosse player. Like, really really really superior to the next best player in the world. His feat is somewhat diminished by the fact that not that many people play lacrosse today, and if in 100 years it somehow becomes the most popular sport in the world, to claim that he's the best player because he dominated like nobody else ever did is a bit shady to me.

[jaxmagicman]

Originally Posted by WrightWing

I don't mean to imply that today's players don't have fundamentals. They most certainly do, else they wouldn't be in the big's.

However, with the comparitive lack of bunting and hitting behind the runner in today's game, their fundamentals aren't quite as well-rounded as players of the past was my point. My apologies for not being clearer there.

Doesn't mean the players today couldn't do it, they just don't have to because of the different style of todays game...

Probably because the game is changing, bunting and hitting behind a player probably falls into the outdated catagory. It simply helps your team more to not get out. So getting out on purpose is kind of stupid.

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by WrightWing

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...

The only point I'll agree with here is that expansion dilutes talent. While it's true that playing conditions weren't as great in the 1910's... so what? It's the same game for everyone, and even if disadvantaged Ruth, it also disadvantaged every other player in the league, so I'm not sure what your argument is. Baseball was a different game to play back then? Probably, but it doesn't change anything to the level of competition the players played in, and it doesn't give them a positive handicap. Kids that play baseball with a broomstick and a rock in the Dominican Republic play in harder conditions than their American counterparts, but as far as I know few of them made it to the Big Leagues compared to people that have had a more "traditional" training. Playing conditions do not affect the level of talent in the league is what I am saying, I guess.

"International" players accounted for more than 25% of MLB players in 2004. Can we claim that black american players form about 25% of MLB? I honestly don't know, but I think that you could probably take all the white MLB players in MLB today and fit them into 16 organizations, which destroys the expansion changing things a lot. Moreover, if you take into account the fact that baseball was not as organized as it is now, tons of players who were of Major League caliber never got discovered. That means that... I don't know, maybe a quarter of today's players would have had access to MLB back in the 1910's? Wasn't it Zack Wheat who just got randomly discovered on a team owner's personal vacation? If players like Wheat can be discovered under such circumstances, it's fait to assume that there were tons of white American boys, especially outside the direct MLB influence zones, that never got a chance to play in MLB. If you take out all the Blacks, the Non-Americans and the South/Western American players out of MLB today, you'll end up with superstars that have much, much better statistics than they have now, dominating the league heavily. That's what happened in Ruth's time: the competition wasn't as good, and it was thus easier to dominate.

I somewhat agree with Jason when he says that Ruth's domination shows how poor the talent level was. Again with my lacrosse example, if you went to a lacrosse game and saw the best player in the world absolutely dominate the rest of the players, you'd think there's something fishy and that the league really isn't that great. It's the same with Ruth and MLB. There is certainly something to be said about dominating the best baseball league in the world, and Babe Ruth is far from a bad player, he's even one of the best to ever play the game. However, him dominating baseball at a time where the talent level around him was weaker and when dominating outrageously was easier than it is today does not automatically make him the best player in the history of baseball.

[Luis_Rivera]

Originally Posted by WrightWing

However, with the comparitive lack of bunting and hitting behind the runner in today's game, their fundamentals aren't quite as well-rounded as players of the past was my point. My apologies for not being clearer there.

That's because we now know that it isn't as important as was once believed.

[jaxmagicman]

Originally Posted by Luis_Rivera

That's because we now know that it isn't as important as was once believed.

Stop copying me.

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by jaxmagicman

Stop copying me.

Stop copying me, too.

[Gorilla Shakespeare]

"Greatest hitter" argument, 50 years from today:

"Today's hitters don't know how to inject steroids into their butt the way old-time ballplayers did. Look at Ken Griffey the 4th. He looks like a marathon runner, not the Incredible Hulk. In my day, it wasn't enough just to know how to play the game. You had to wreck your body with semi-legal "supplements" as well. Today's players can expect to live 30, 40 years after they retire. That shows that they clearly do not have the love for the game that they used to have. If you love something, you will die for it.

[jeheinz72]

The only correct answer is Chris Shelton.

[Bobbuttons]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

The only correct answer is Chris Shelton.

"

[Spielman]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

The only correct answer is Chris Shelton.

Does this mean that he's replaced the Gload?

[Tribe Fan 24]

Originally Posted by Splitter24

I refuse to take part in this "poll" until Duane Kuiper is an option.

roffle

[KC]

What? I voted for Ty Cobb?? I was soo going to vote for Ted Williams just now. But, now, I think I was right the first time.

[sporr]

Gotta be Ruth.

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by Spielman

Out of curiosity, how would you rank Ruth, were your feet held to the fire? Is the on the level of a Stan Musial, who was just a little below his contemporary, Ted Williams, as a hitter? Lower than that? Lots lower? A little lower?

I'd rate Ruth as the best hitter and player (in the MLB) of his generation. I just don't necessarily think he was any better than the other "best hitter/player of his generation" people like Honus Wagner, Joe Dimaggio, Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle, Mike Schmidt, Barry Bonds, etc. I think it's fairly obvious no one in major league baseball could touch him, but I also think that there were numerous reasons why he was able to dominate the game to such an overwhelming extent. As far as a Musial to Ruth's Williams, I'd probably go with Gehrig.

As far as ranking him alongside the all-time greats, I don't feel confident that it's possible to gauge the relative difficulty of dominating in different eras with enough accuracy to say. I tend to feel that the 1970's and 1980's probably had the most level playing field in baseball history, so maybe I'd take the homer pick and rank Ruth somewhere below Schmidt.