Is Miguel Cabrera the best hitter ever

[rokketmn]

I don't like quoting Gammons, but one thing I do agree with him on is that he generally likes to see at least 8 'HOF caliber' seasons on a player's resume along with a handful of other good seasons when voting them for the hall. With Rice, I don't see 8 great seasons nor 13 overall good seasons...obviously there are exceptions for players with historic dominance (ie - Pedro, Koufax), but Rice wasn't that, and he didn't have a long enough career to compensate for that.

Interestingly enough, as per BR for Rice:

Black Ink: 33 vs 27 for avg HOF
Gray Ink: 176 vs 144
HOF Monitor 146 vs 100
HOF Standards: 43 vs 50

If Rice were able to get to 400 hr's and/or 3000 hits he would have met the "standards".

Similarly, for Dave Winfield:

Black Ink: 4 vs 27 for avg HOF
Gray Ink: 152 vs 144
HOF Monitor 148 vs 100
HOF Standards: 56 vs 50

Eddie Murray:

Black Ink: 11 vs 27 for avg HOF
Gray Ink: 181 vs 144
HOF Monitor 154 vs 100
HOF Standards: 56 vs 50

George Brett:

Black Ink: 39 vs 27 for avg HOF
Gray Ink: 159 vs 144
HOF Monitor 210 vs 100
HOF Standards: 61 vs 50

Murray and Winfield make it because they had longer careers, and reached the milestone checkpoints. None of this changes the fact that Rice was a great hitter. He just didn't hang around long enough.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Interestingly enough, as per BR for Rice:

Black Ink: 33 vs 27 for avg HOF
Gray Ink: 176 vs 144
HOF Monitor 146 vs 100
HOF Standards: 43 vs 50

If Rice were able to get to 400 hr's and/or 3000 hits he would have met the "standards".

Similarly, for Dave Winfield:

Black Ink: 4 vs 27 for avg HOF
Gray Ink: 152 vs 144
HOF Monitor 148 vs 100
HOF Standards: 56 vs 50

Eddie Murray:

Black Ink: 11 vs 27 for avg HOF
Gray Ink: 181 vs 144
HOF Monitor 154 vs 100
HOF Standards: 56 vs 50

George Brett:

Black Ink: 39 vs 27 for avg HOF
Gray Ink: 159 vs 144
HOF Monitor 210 vs 100
HOF Standards: 61 vs 50

Murray and Winfield make it because they had longer careers, and reached the milestone checkpoints. None of this changes the fact that Rice was a great hitter. He just didn't hang around long enough.

Oh dear...

Those measures only take into account trends in past Hall of Fame voting and Hall of Fame players. The voters have made so many mistakes and there are so many unworthy players in the Hall that you can't really go by that stuff any more.

And if I recall, only the HOF Monitor takes position into account, which is obviously very important to a player's candidacy, though I can't remember. I know Black & Gray Ink don't take position into account.

But it's not a fact Rice was a great hitter. He was a great hitter for a few years. Not for his career. It's not like he had a protracted decline phase that inaccurately skewed his numbers downward. He had three bad years and was gone. His peak wasn't great enough for long enough.

 

[StanMarsh51]

Murray and Winfield make it because they had longer careers, and reached the milestone checkpoints. None of this changes the fact that Rice was a great hitter. He just didn't hang around long enough.

It's not just that they played longer, but they were productive for a large portion of that extra playing time.

I mean, Murray for instance had 11 seasons with a 130 OPS+ or better, compared to 6x for Rice. Murray also 5 had 5 seasons hitting the 150 OPS+ mark, compared to 2 for Rice.

Winfield hit the 130 OPS+ mark 10x, with 4x hitting 150


They played longer, but it's not as if they had crappy seasons merely compiling to their totals. They had a lot of good seasons.

Simply put, Rice's prime was too short, and it wasn't dominant enough (only 5 or so great years) to compensate for that....I put him in the same class as Dale Murphy for that.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

It's not just that they played longer, but they were productive for a large portion of that extra playing time.

I mean, Murray for instance had 11 seasons with a 130 OPS+ or better, compared to 6x for Rice. Murray also 5 had 5 seasons hitting the 150 OPS+ mark, compared to 2 for Rice.

Winfield hit the 130 OPS+ mark 10x, with 4x hitting 150


They played longer, but it's not as if they had crappy seasons merely compiling to their totals. They had a lot of good seasons.

Simply put, Rice's prime was too short, and it wasn't dominant enough (only 5 or so great years) to compensate for that....I put him in the same class as Dale Murphy for that.

This, this and this.

 

[da55bums]

Miggy is the BEST hitter currently over the last couple of year....every 5 to 10 years...someone says, its such and such the BEST HITTER EVER....Bond, Albert, yada yada...let him FINISH his career before casting it...ever heard of DALE MURPHY...at 32, he fell off the earth...after 2 MVP's...just saying.

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

Miggy is the BEST hitter currently over the last couple of year....every 5 to 10 years...someone says, its such and such the BEST HITTER EVER....Bond, Albert, yada yada...let him FINISH his career before casting it...ever heard of DALE MURPHY...at 32, he fell off the earth...after 2 MVP's...just saying.

Please don't put Dale Murphy in the same category as Cabrera. Cabrera already has as many RBI's as Murphy had in 18 seasons, even though he has only played in less than 11. Murphy also hit .260 for his career, while Cabrera is at .321 right now.

Cabrera is on another level right now. Since joining the Tigers -- he has won 2 homerun titles, 2 rbi titles, and 2 batting titles. Last year, he won the triple crown and MVP. the two years prior, I believe he finished 2nd behind Hamilton one year and 2nd behind Verlander the other year.

dale murphy's CAREER HIGH OPS was .933 in 1983. miguel cabrera has a CAREER .969 OPS over 11 seasons.

 

[Wazmankg]

2 for 3 with a 2 run bomb in the 1st today after last night's walk-off. The only time they got him out today he hit a rocket at the left fielder. 4 bombs behind Davis. He's only about 70% physically. I'm surprised teams aren't laying down bunts in front of him. He's at a whole other level at the plate. Another triple crown is a very real possibility if Chris Davis ever turns back into Chris Davis. He needs to do it for another 5 years at least before he can be seriously considered in this conversation though.

 

[JR Hart]

I disagree that it was the greatest 4 year stretch of all time, but I agree, anyone putting him in the top 5-10 of all-time is overrating him.

In 1961 Koufax broke Christy Mathewson's modern NL record. 61 to 66 is 6 years.

 

[StanMarsh51]

Please don't put Dale Murphy in the same category as Cabrera. Cabrera already has as many RBI's as Murphy had in 18 seasons, even though he has only played in less than 11. Murphy also hit .260 for his career, while Cabrera is at .321 right now.

Cabrera is on another level right now. Since joining the Tigers -- he has won 2 homerun titles, 2 rbi titles, and 2 batting titles. Last year, he won the triple crown and MVP. the two years prior, I believe he finished 2nd behind Hamilton one year and 2nd behind Verlander the other year.

dale murphy's CAREER HIGH OPS was .933 in 1983. miguel cabrera has a CAREER .969 OPS over 11 seasons.

While I do agree that Cabrera at this point is further along than Murphy was through the same # of games, you don't compare raw OPS like that across eras...Murphy played in a much more pitcher friendly era, so offensive numbers are lower than what they are today. Murphy for instance played numerous seasons where the league OPS was under .700, while for most of Cabrera's career, the league OPS was in the mid .700s

In other words, a .933 OPS in 1983 isn't the same as a .933 OPS in 2007.

Not to mention, Murphy played CF (a position where offense output isn't as highly expected since it's one of the more demanding positions). The difference between the two at this point in their careers probably isn't as big as you think it is (Murphy through about 1650ish games had a 46 WAR, while Cabrera currently has a 54 WAR), but Cabrera's still ahead by a good margin.

 

[broncosmitty]

Dale Murphy?

 

[navamind]

Please don't put Dale Murphy in the same category as Cabrera. Cabrera already has as many RBI's as Murphy had in 18 seasons, even though he has only played in less than 11. Murphy also hit .260 for his career, while Cabrera is at .321 right now.

Cabrera is on another level right now. Since joining the Tigers -- he has won 2 homerun titles, 2 rbi titles, and 2 batting titles. Last year, he won the triple crown and MVP. the two years prior, I believe he finished 2nd behind Hamilton one year and 2nd behind Verlander the other year.

dale murphy's CAREER HIGH OPS was .933 in 1983. miguel cabrera has a CAREER .969 OPS over 11 seasons.

Dale Murphy also played in an era that was a little more favorable to pitchers than Miggy's. You can't just compare OPSes across different eras.

That being said, Murphy's pretty overrated IMO. He had a nice run from 80-87, but he didn't really do anything outside of those years. Same with Nomar. He was a great player from 97-03. But he did very little outside of those years. Their peaks make up almost all of their career value (at least going by WAR).

 

[StanMarsh51]

Dale Murphy also played in an era that was a little more favorable to pitchers than Miggy's. You can't just compare OPSes across different eras.

That being said, Murphy's pretty overrated IMO. He had a nice run from 80-87, but he didn't really do anything outside of those years. Same with Nomar. He was a great player from 97-03. But he did very little outside of those years. Their peaks make up almost all of their career value (at least going by WAR).

And I cringe whenever a Braves fan claims it's a travesty that he's not in the HOF.

 

[navamind]

if we're gonna like solely at peak, I think Murphy's got a reasonable case. I wouldn't be upset if he got in. But I think longevity matters.

I think Dwight Evans is a tough guy to figure out. He only has a few years where you could say he was one of the best players in his league, but he was a very good player for a long time. He was a very good hitter and very good defender, but he was never really both simultaneously. He's a much better candidate than Rice was IMO.

 

[Logicallylethal]

Best hitters I have ever had the opportunity to see play are these guys (in no specific order)

Miguel Cabrera
Albert Pujols
Ken Griffey Jr.
Frank Thomas
Edgar Martinez

I love what Miggy is doing...but everyone claiming that Cabrera is "the best hitter of all time" are simply prisoners of the moment

Cabrera's first 11 years are spectacular...but compare them to Frank Thomas's first 11 years...and Pujol's first 11 years...and those guys trump what Cabrera has done (with the exception of the triple crown)

 

[dougplayer]

dam Miggy hit another one today. Plus 3 RBIs.

the guy is playing hurt and still is the MVP

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

In 1961 Koufax broke Christy Mathewson's modern NL record. 61 to 66 is 6 years.

What a strange post.

What record?

Also, why don't you look at '61 & '62. '61 was solid but unspectacular and '62 wasn't even a full season. Koufax's big run was 63-66, and 64 wasn't even a full season. So he had an amazing run of 3.75 seasons, and got into the HOF and is considered an all-time legend because of it.

 

[rokketmn]

But it's not a fact Rice was a great hitter. He was a great hitter for a few years. Not for his career. It's not like he had a protracted decline phase that inaccurately skewed his numbers downward. He had three bad years and was gone. His peak wasn't great enough for long enough.

When a guy is the league leader over a 12 year stretch in runs, hits, hr's, rbi, slugging, x-tra base hits, total bases, go ahead rbi, and multi hit games that shows some dominance. Not only that, but he was the MAJOR LEAGUE leader in many of those categories over that period, along with Michael Jack. Even though he didn't lead in batting average, he was still a .300 hitter over that period.

Granted, this stretch encompasses Rice's career and others may have had good seasons before 1975 and after 1986, but it still shows he was a great hitter when he played.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

When a guy is the league leader over a 12 year stretch in runs, hits, hr's, rbi, slugging, x-tra base hits, total bases, go ahead rbi, and multi hit games that shows some dominance. Not only that, but he was the MAJOR LEAGUE leader in many of those categories over that period, along with Michael Jack. Even though he didn't lead in batting average, he was still a .300 hitter over that period.

Granted, this stretch encompasses Rice's career and others may have had good seasons before 1975 and after 1986, but it still shows he was a great hitter when he played.

Yeah, but a lot of those stats are just fluff, and a lot of them are counting stats. I'd be willing to bet that he also led baseball in plate appearances over that stretch, and maybe led by a pretty wide gap. There's obviously value in that, but it also enables him to build the leads in those stats.

I'm impressed that he led the league in runs, slugging and total bases over that stretch. That's impressive and I gave you credit. The rest of it is just... nice, but not terribly impressive. I'd rather see how his rates compare to his peers.

 

[StanMarsh51]

Yeah, but a lot of those stats are just fluff, and a lot of them are counting stats. I'd be willing to bet that he also led baseball in plate appearances over that stretch, and maybe led by a pretty wide gap. There's obviously value in that, but it also enables him to build the leads in those stats.

I'm impressed that he led the league in runs, slugging and total bases over that stretch. That's impressive and I gave you credit. The rest of it is just... nice, but not terribly impressive. I'd rather see how his rates compare to his peers.

That's probably the case, or at least close to it...

Comparing Brett to Rice from '75 to '86:

Brett - .317/.382/.518
Rice - .304/.356/.520

So Rice having more hits for instance is certainly due to him having more plate appearances and at bats, given that his average is 13 points lower. He's also got 77 more runs than Brett, but that comes in slightly over 800 more PAs for Rice

Obviously it's not Rice's fault that Brett played in less games, but we can still take the counting stats in context.

 

[rokketmn]

I'm impressed that he led the league in runs, slugging and total bases over that stretch. That's impressive and I gave you credit. The rest of it is just... nice, but not terribly impressive. I'd rather see how his rates compare to his peers.

I took some data from 1975-1986 and compared Rice to Murray, Winfield, Schmidt, Reggie, and Brett.
Here's how it turned out:

For Hr's, only Schmidt hit more in that time frame (Rice 350; Schmidt 440; Reggie 330; Murray 275, Brett 207). This is not fair to Reggie, as Reggie had many good seasons before 1975. If I take out Reggie's 2 worst HR seasons in that period and replace with his best from prior (1969 and 1973), he would have hit about 366. Murray also didn't break in until 1977. If I add his 2 best HR seasons, he would be up to 340.

Only Schmidt and Reggie had better HR/AB ratios.

For RBI, Rice led all of the group with 1276. If I do the same with Murray again and add his 2 best RBI seasons, he would total 1255. For Reggie, he would go from 1030 to 1158 taking out his 2 worst RBI totals in that period and replacing them with his best (1969 and 1973). Schmidt had 1221, Winfield 1147, and Brett 1004.

Only Reggie and Schmidt had better RBI/AB ratios.

For Slugging, only Schmidt was better at .548. Rice was at .516. Reggie's adjusted (again) was .509. Winfield at .483; Murray at .506. Brett was at .518, but since I was averaging the SLG % over 12 seasons, his 1980 SLG of .664 carried more weight in the process, so it is not an accurate number.

Rice led in total bases with 3670. Schmidt had 3448; Winfield 3221, Brett 3201, Murray had 3475 if I add his top 2 total bases seasons in again to get to 12 seasons. Even swapping his 2 worst with his 2 best (1973 and 1969), Reggie still only gets to 3128.

Over this span, only Brett hit higher at .317. Rice was at .303; Murray .299; Winfield .288; Schmidt .273, Reggie .259.

Rice also played in a similar amount of games than his counterparts. Rice 1766; Murray 1800 (assuming he played 150 games in the 2 years missing, which was his norm); Winfield 1763; Schmidt 1800; Reggie 1631; and Brett 1595.

Now, Rice did have more AB's and plate appearances in this period, but he still killed it in hits, accumulating 200 hits 4 times. Brett did it twice. No other player was close. Winfield did have 193 hits in his 1984 season in which he hit .340. Rice also had 191 hits in 1983.

As much is said about Rice's lack of longevity, not much is said about Brett's brittleness during his prime years. In these 12 seasons, Brett played at least 140 games only 5 times. All of the other players were very durable in comparison. Rice did have his wrist broken (again) in 1980, which is why he only appeared in 124 games.

The end result is that no matter how you want to look at it, Rice was at least on par or better than his counterparts during this 12 year period. Better in more instances than not.

The argument against his longevity seems like sour grapes by a lot of people that just want to benefit players who played longer but didn't necessarily have the league dominance.

I would rather be the best or among the best for 12 seasons, than considered very good over 18 seasons, but never dominating my league.

Just to qualify that, I think all of these guys were great hitters. Guys like Schmidt and Reggie dominated their time in the game and were very feared hitters. Murray didn't have that dominance, but was always among the best in his league. George Brett could hit not like many around during his time.

I just think Rice needs to be brought into the conversation with these players.

I think you are either a geat hitter or you are not. It doesn't matter how many years you played.

An example: I don't think Don Mattingly is HOF worthy, but I still have to admit the guy was a great hitter. He just didn't last long.