Is Miguel Cabrera the best hitter ever

[soxfan1468927]

No it isn't. If you look at Brett's stats from his peak seasons, he was still essentially a 20hr/90rbi guy. The difference is, without doing the math, he was proabably a .325 or .330 hitter. I never said Rice was a better pure hitter than Brett.

Consequently, (again without the exact math) Rice was a .305 hitter that hit about 33hr's and drove in about 110 in his peak seasons.

And yet in their primes (1975-1986 for Rice, 1976-1988 for Brett), Rice drove in 17.65% of the runners on base when he came up while Brett drove in 19.24%. So who was better at driving in runners?

 

[Brahmsian]

Those teams SHOULD have won WS's but didn't because they had an absolute idiot managing.

If Terry Francona had been Sox manager then...

The Sox of that era did get into the 1975 World Series but didn't win it. It wasn't until 2004 that they won one, finally.

 

[soxfan1468927]

Those teams SHOULD have won WS's but didn't because they had an absolute idiot managing.

If Terry Francona had been Sox manager then...

The Sox of that era did get into the 1975 World Series but didn't win it. It wasn't until 2004 that they won one, finally.

Thanks for the history lesson there. But anyone who would take Dwight Evans, Fred Lynn, Carlton Fisk, or Luis Tiant over Ted Williams should probably start watching a different sport, baseball isn't your thing

 

[Wazmankg]

Miguel is the best hitter CURRENTLY. His stats are a little below what Albert Pujols had at age 30, and we see how Albert has declined, so the verdict is still out.

It's so hard to compare eras. Previous generations didn't have the relief specialists. Starters stayed in for 7-9 innings regularly, even when they were getting shelled. But the starters weren't diluted by having 30 teams, either.

If I had to pick ONE best hitter for average and power, it would be Ted Williams. He hit .344 career with 521 home runs, but he missed 5 seasons due to World War II and the Korean War. If he had those seasons back, he easily tops 700 career home runs.

I agree except for the speculation about William's HR total had he not missed time due to the wars. Given his HR rate he would have fallen short of 700 even if he'd played a full season each of those years... he would have been close though.

 

[Wazmankg]

And yet in their primes (1975-1986 for Rice, 1976-1988 for Brett), Rice drove in 17.65% of the runners on base when he came up while Brett drove in 19.24%. So who was better at driving in runners?

Give it up. The guy is obviously not into rate stats.... except for BA.

 

[Howie115]

I agree except for the speculation about William's HR total had he not missed time due to the wars. Given his HR rate he would have fallen short of 700 even if he'd played a full season each of those years... he would have been close though.

Yeah, I did my math wrong. I was figuring about 32 HR a year, but he actually needed to average 36 a year. Still, .344 BA with upper-600s HR total puts him in rare air.

 

[Wazmankg]

Yeah, I did my math wrong. I was figuring about 32 HR a year, but he actually needed to average 36 a year. Still, .344 BA with upper-600s HR total puts him in rare air.

He would have almost certainly had the all time RBI total, though.... Runs Scored too. Those 5 years robbed him of about 600 RBI... and he might have played another year if he was only 20 or so short of Ruth. He hit 29 HRs & .316 in < 400 ABs his last season and the league expanded the year after he retired, 61 being the year Mantle & Maris went off.

 

[rokketmn]

Incorrect. We've argued that he wasn't a great hitter *for his career*. He obviously had some great seasons. No one's ever disputed that.

No. We stared the debate over Rice's place in the 1970's. it went to career because you said he only played half the decade. I then went a little further to show career stats versus some other players you were comparing Rice to.

You then said some players you mentioned didn't have the great seasons that Rice had but they were still somehow great without Rice being great. I am still trying to get me head around that one.

I said you were a fan of players that had long careers such as Winfield and Murray, which makes them appear to be better hitters than Rice because of their longevity.

I then brought up the MVP conversation to point out how Rice was viewed as compared to his peers when they were all in their prime years. That wasn't good enough for you either, as you think the MVP voting is biased. It can be. I sure as hell have my own issues with it but I think it was much less blatant in the '70's and prior.

If that is still not good enough for you, you can take a look at the stats of the players that were up for the award and tell me who you think should have won, or at least tell me why Rice shouldn't be included in the voting.

You have already said Rice deserved his MVP in 1978 (I am sure he is grateful for your approval). He was even top 5 in the voting in his last good season in 1986. That was as many times as Winfield and 1 more time than Murray or Brett. That just shows how dramatic his decline was and nothing more, but that decline was held against him in HOF voting.

I don't want to keep re-posting the discussion, so try to pay attention.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

No it isn't. If you look at Brett's stats from his peak seasons, he was still essentially a 20hr/90rbi guy. The difference is, without doing the math, he was proabably a .325 or .330 hitter. I never said Rice was a better pure hitter than Brett.

Consequently, (again without the exact math) Rice was a .305 hitter that hit about 33hr's and drove in about 110 in his peak seasons.

I'm still only seeing Triple Crown stats here. Can you actually provide something of substance?

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Why the hostility? You are clearly smarter than everybody, right? LOL.

Again, you are a fan of counting stats and the stats that the sabermetric people want you to believe, and they do have their place. Just not in this type of conversation.

You said it yourself Rice had a "few" really great seasons and that Winfield and Murray didn't have as many great seasons, but still had great seasons. Which is it? If Rice only had a few great seasons and Murray and Winfield didn't have as many, that would imply they had no great seasons or maybe just one. How can they be considered great hitters with that logic? Yes, they were very good hitters. Thank you for clarifying my point.

I look at production. You probably thought J.D. Drew was a great hitter because he walked so many times and had that pretty OBP. Well, I thought Drew sucked, especially with Boston.

If you are paid and expected to be a run producer, I don't want you taking pitches and drawing a walk if there are men on base and leaving it to the guy behind you when he is not a better hitter. Especially with two outs.

You think Brett, because he had a slightly higher average and OPS was WAY better than Rice. That is laughable. As I said before, I will take the .305 hitter that gives me 30 hr's and 100 rbi every season over the guy that hits .315 with 20 hrs and drives in 80, but walks 15 more times. I am getting more from the former, and the former is a bigger threat at the plate if I need that big hit.

People who probably never played the game such as yourself, think the latter.

Paragraph 1: Sorry if I come off as hostile. Nothing personal. I just get frustrated when someone's arguing tactic consists of sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling "blah, blah, blah". We're trying to help you here. I've never claimed to be smarter than anybody. It's just disrespectful when I put together a thorough, objective, fact-based argument, and you basically ignore it and see what you want to see.

Paragraph 2: What sabermetric people want me to believe? What does that even mean? I've only used one SABR stat, and that's OPS+. OPS+ is probably the one SABR stat that is most commonly accepted. And it's essential to this argument because we must adjust for park and league factors. It's extremely relevant to this and just about any conversation.

Paragraph 3: I dont' think you followed my logic. That statement was an admittedly over-complicated way of saying that the whole is equal to the sum of the parts. Not just a selection of them. A player like Winfield or Murray may not have had as many "wow" seasons as Rice, but they had a few of them and had a lot more very good seasons to accompany those dominant seasons. By my count, Rice had 5 "wow" seasons, compared to 4 for Winfield, and actually 6 for Murray (forgot how good he was in 1990). But Winfield and Murray have a lot of "very good" season

Paragraph 4: Please don't suggest you know what I think. I'm not sure you're really know what production is. It's a lot more than Triple Crown stats. I didn't think JD Drew was a great hitter. He was underrated by people like yourself, but he really wasn't anything special. He had a couple great seasons accompanied by a bunch of injury-plaged and unspectacular seasons. He was inconsistent to a fault.

Paragraph 5: Players are paid based on their overall value in relation to the market and their ability to put butts in the seats. They are not paid to "drive in runs" or "hit home runs". Those are clichés. And again, I'd suggest your definition of "production" is limited at best. There's a lot more to producing runs than just RBI and runs scored.

Paragraph 6: No, Brett was just way better on the whole. You realize that rate numbers trend down with increased plate appearances, right? Brett's career rate numbers are better than Rice's and that's without even accounting for the fact that Brett had 2,500 more plate appearances which drag his numbers down. Through the same number of plate appearances, Brett hit for a .310/.377/.501 line with a 142 OPS+. That destroys Rice. You also seem to think HR are the only measure of power. As you can see, Brett's SLG is every bit as good as Rice's. If you think you're getting more from Rice, I'd suggest that your idea of "more" is not in touch with reality.

Paragraph 7: Again, this is irrelevant, but I note that this is usually the sign of a defeated debater in a sports debate. You can't match wits, so you tout physical superiority and experience. Well, I'm not going to sit here and tout my baseball career, but I'll just gently state that you're barking up the wrong tree there.

 

[rokketmn]

And yet in their primes (1975-1986 for Rice, 1976-1988 for Brett), Rice drove in 17.65% of the runners on base when he came up while Brett drove in 19.24%. So who was better at driving in runners?

What does this really mean? Rice hit .308 w/RISP and Brett hit .307 w/ RISP. Given their career averages, Rice's performance is a little more impressive. Can Rice help it if Yaz couldn't score from second on a single?

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

No. We stared the debate over Rice's place in the 1970's. it went to career because you said he only played half the decade. I then went a little further to show career stats versus some other players you were comparing Rice to.

You then said some players you mentioned didn't have the great seasons that Rice had but they were still somehow great without Rice being great. I am still trying to get me head around that one.

I said you were a fan of players that had long careers such as Winfield and Murray, which makes them appear to be better hitters than Rice because of their longevity.

I then brought up the MVP conversation to point out how Rice was viewed as compared to his peers when they were all in their prime years. That wasn't good enough for you either, as you think the MVP voting is biased. It can be. I sure as hell have my own issues with it but I think it was much less blatant in the '70's and prior.

If that is still not good enough for you, you can take a look at the stats of the players that were up for the award and tell me who you think should have won, or at least tell me why Rice shouldn't be included in the voting.

You have already said Rice deserved his MVP in 1978 (I am sure he is grateful for your approval). He was even top 5 in the voting in his last good season in 1986. That was as many times as Winfield and 1 more time than Murray or Brett. That just shows how dramatic his decline was and nothing more, but that decline was held against him in HOF voting.

I don't want to keep re-posting the discussion, so try to pay attention.

Paragraph 1: Well, if you only play half a decade, how can you be the best hitter of that decade unless you put up insane numbers during the time you played (he didn't)?

Paragraph 2: Yeah, I was actually wrong about that. 5 for Rice, 4 for Winfield, 6 for Murray. That's a wash. But Winfield and Murray had more quality seasons accompanying those great seasons than Rice did. You can't just pick and choose what seasons you want to look at. My point was that consistency is an important part of greatness. Murray and Winfield were much more consistent.

Paragraph 3: I'm not a "fan" of one career or another. There are players who had brief but incredible careers that I value over players had long, consistent careers, but Rice certainly isn't one of those players. Not only were guys like Murray better in the short term, they were better in the long term too. He just never had that one season to net him an MVP, like Rice did in 1978.

Paragraph 4: I never said MVP voting is biased. I said it was subjective. Huge difference. Voters apply their own rules and their own standards. They also- especially back then- overvalued stats like AVG & RBI, ignored defense entirely except for rare instances, and didn't have valuable metrics like OPS+ at their disposal. The BBWAA has shown time and time again to be completely unreliable when voting on things, whether it be awards, of HOF balloting. Sorry if I don't have a ton of confidence in those mouthbreathers.

Paragraph 5: The quickness of his decline wasn't what kept him out. The fact that he was inconsistent and simply wasn't that great is what kept him out, and his selection remains one of the worst in recent history. I think he got in on a pity vote and nothing more.

Paragraph 6: I'm still just waiting for you to make a cogent argument. We're having a circular argument because you're bringing so little to the table.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

What does this really mean? Rice hit .308 w/RISP and Brett hit .307 w/ RISP. Given their career averages, Rice's performance is a little more impressive. Can Rice help it if Yaz couldn't score from second on a single?

Yaz only hit ahead of Rice for three seasons. Way to throw a legend under the bus.

As for career RISP numbers:
Rice .308/.371/.501
Brett .307/.410/.481

Men on:
Rice .305/.359/.509
Brett .314/.390/.496

RISP, 2 outs:
Rice .270/.358/.414
Brett .290/.422/.464

Late & Close
Rice .274/.337/.453
Brett .301/.391/.474

High Leverage:
Rice .304/.356/.488
Brett .321/.394/.508

I don't see Rice being the more impressive performer in these situations. I hope this can help dispel your misguided belief that Rice was the better clutch performer. Baseball-Reference is your friend.

All Rice did better was hit home runs (playing I Fenway Park helps that, but he was better at it regardless). Brett was better at every other aspect of hitting, and it's not particularly close. To suggest Rice was the better all-around hitter is laughable.

 

[navamind]

Those teams SHOULD have won WS's but didn't because they had an absolute idiot managing.

If Terry Francona had been Sox manager then...

The Sox of that era did get into the 1975 World Series but didn't win it. It wasn't until 2004 that they won one, finally.

If my aunt had balls...

 

[rokketmn]

A player like Winfield or Murray may not have had as many "wow" seasons as Rice, but they had a few of them and had a lot more very good seasons to accompany those dominant seasons. By my count, Rice had 5 "wow" seasons, compared to 4 for Winfield, and actually 6 for Murray (forgot how good he was in 1990). But Winfield and Murray have a lot of "very good" season

Please present these "WOW" seasons of Murray and Winfield. I have a feeling they are going to look a lot like Rice's "ho-hum" seasons. They had a lot of very good seasons. I have never disputed that.


I'm not sure you're really know what production is.

I know production is not drawing a walk when there is a man on 3rd and 2 outs and I have an inferior hitting coming up behind me. My job as a #3 or #4 hitter is to get that run home, not leave it for the next guy and increase my OPS.

You denigrate "Triple Crown" stats, but all you really offer in addition is OBP. Rice had his fair share of doubles and triples, and as I said, he hit them at a better pace than Winfield, and an equal or better pace than Murray. Brett had more doubles, but consequently fewer Hr's.

Throw all of that out, and it comes down to walks.

Players are paid based on their overall value in relation to the market and their ability to put butts in the seats. They are not paid to "drive in runs" or "hit home runs". Those are clichés. And again, I'd suggest your definition of "production" is limited at best. There's a lot more to producing runs than just RBI and runs scored.

This is hilarious. Please enlighten me. If we don't score runs, how do we produce them? If we lose a game 2-1, I see that we produced 1 run. Probably because a cleanup hitter drew a walk on a close 3-2 pitch and the #5 hitter grounded out to end the game. You know better, obviously.

I note that this is usually the sign of a defeated debater in a sports debate. You can't match wits, so you tout physical superiority and experience.

I didn't tout my own physical superiority. I just made an obsevation that I commonly see of people that were never between the lines, on the grid, or in the rink.

You are the one that has chosen the name calling, profanity, etc. Do ya think?

 

[navamind]

Rice was 11th in the 70's in wRC+. 7 of the guys ahead of him had more plate appearances. Lynn had a higher wRC+, but he had 421 fewer PA.

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.as...am=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=18,d

 

[rokketmn]

I don't see Rice being the more impressive performer in these situations. I hope this can help dispel your misguided belief that Rice was the better clutch performer. Baseball-Reference is your friend.

All Rice did better was hit home runs (playing I Fenway Park helps that, but he was better at it regardless). Brett was better at every other aspect of hitting, and it's not particularly close. To suggest Rice was the better all-around hitter is laughable.

No. I didn't say Rice was a better performer in those situations. You really have to keep up.

Also, playing in Fenway didn't help Rice's Hr's. Fenway is typically one of the more difficult park to hit a HR. Rice was a line drive hitter. He lost many HR's to the Green Monster. The other dimensions of Fenway were not beneficial to lefties or righties.

As I said, Brett was the better pure hitter. That has never been disputed and I even said as much in my original post. I said Rice possessed much more power, and i value that power. Do I need to re-post it for you?

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Further to my last post, I know you're one of those guys who dismisses walks. You've proved as much in this thread.

What does a team usually do when a great hitter comes up with runners on base? They pitch around them, usually, right? Don't give them anything to hit, right? Wouldn't that go to explain why Brett had such a higher OBP with RISP? They didn't want to give him anything to hit. What should he do, swing at bad pitches and make more outs?

Here's an eye-popping comparison: Rice was intentionally walked 77 times with RISP. Brett was intentionally walked TWO HUNDRED TWENTY-SEVEN TIMES with RISP. You don't think that cut into his RBI totals significantly? Should he have lunged at the pitchouts? You don't think he would have improved his average had some of those 227 pitchers actually pitched to him?

This speaks to the respect his opponents had for him and helps dispel the "fear" myth that follows Rice. Pitchers went at Rice because they knew there was a chance he'd get himself out. They stayed as far away from Brett as they could.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

No. I didn't say Rice was a better performer in those situations. You really have to keep up.

Also, playing in Fenway didn't help Rice's Hr's. Fenway is typically one of the more difficult park to hit a HR. Rice was a line drive hitter. He lost many HR's to the Green Monster. The other dimensions of Fenway were not beneficial to lefties or righties.

As I said, Brett was the better pure hitter. That has never been disputed and I even said as much in my original post. I said Rice possessed much more power, and i value that power. Do I need to re-post it for you?

If your only measure of power is HR, then I agree. He had much more power.

Unfortunately, that's not the only measure of power.

Ask Bucky Dent if Fenway Park is tough to hit HR for right-handed hitters. For every two line drives off the wall, I'm sure Rice had three flyouts that cleared the wall. Rice's SLG was .087 points higher at home than on the road, and he hit 34 more HR at home than on the road despite more plate appearances on the road.

 

[StanMarsh51]

No. I didn't say Rice was a better performer in those situations. You really have to keep up.

Also, playing in Fenway didn't help Rice's Hr's. Fenway is typically one of the more difficult park to hit a HR. Rice was a line drive hitter. He lost many HR's to the Green Monster. The other dimensions of Fenway were not beneficial to lefties or righties.

As I said, Brett was the better pure hitter. That has never been disputed and I even said as much in my original post. I said Rice possessed much more power, and i value that power. Do I need to re-post it for you?

Will we ever escape this "pure hitter" nonsense from people.

Brett was a better all-around hitter, period.