Is Miguel Cabrera the best hitter ever

[ImSmartherThanYou]

On a list of greatest hitters.. Edgar Martinez is somewhere in the realm of 150... There are so many hitters better than him its not even funny... You might as well of put Victor Martinez in the list... Seriously.. sometimes people try to hard... Miggy isn't there yet and I am a huge fan... if he keeps this up for the next 10 yrs.. he will be there.. not yet...

Cobb
Ruth
Williams
Musial
Gerhig

Top three are pretty much a lock to be on any legit list.. after that.. its all opinion

Funny stuff.

 

[wood20ks]

It wasn't a "poor power hitting era". Do you people have no understanding of baseball history? Hitters simply didn't try for home runs, parks were huge, and the conditions of the equipment made it all the more challenging. Additionally, home runs aren't the only measure of power. In the absence of HR, you look at SLG relative to league average to determine who was or wasn't a power hitter. Is that such a difficult concept?

hmmmmmmmmmmmm,I wonder what I was trying to say in post #98.

Oh thats right,I think the word I used was "interest"

and with the rest of the underlined statement,does that still mean Cobb was a hr hitter,or does that mean he just didn`t care with rest of league about hitting them out?

I`d have to go with,there were no LEGIT hr hitters till Ruth came along.

 

[wood20ks]

You obviously didn't read the story.

And you did?

This why the story used the word "supposedly".

cause theres a 50/50 chance that it may not have been true.......and it also shows you as i said in my above post that cobb had no interest in hitting the ball out of the park.
Just don`t believe everything you hear...........

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

hmmmmmmmmmmmm,I wonder what I was trying to say in post #98.

Oh thats right,I think the word I used was "interest"

and with the rest of the underlined statement,does that still mean Cobb was a hr hitter,or does that mean he just didn`t care with rest of league about hitting them out?

I`d have to go with,there were no LEGIT hr hitters till Ruth came along.

I completely agree, there were no legit HR hitters until Ruth arrived. That doesn't mean there weren't power hitters. It's a relative term.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

And you did?

This why the story used the word "supposedly".

cause theres a 50/50 chance that it may not have been true.......and it also shows you as i said in my above post that cobb had no interest in hitting the ball out of the park.
Just don`t believe everything you hear...........

No, you completely misinterpreted the story in your follow up post. That's what I was referring to. Your response made no sense. Whether or not the anecdote is true (that Cobb "swung for the fences") is of little consequence to your follow-up post, where you mangled the events.

 

[dirtboy068]

JUST WAIT UNTIL HES BUSTED

 

[Brahmsian]

If you're talking strictly about hitting "Teddy Ballgame" Williams would be hard to beat.

If you'retalking about complete ballplayers it's another matter.

Williams never worked at anything BUT hitting, and my Red Sox suffered for it.

Many later Red Sox players, that I have actually watched in my nearly 40 years of living in Boston,
were more complete players than Williams, and helped their teams actually win WS because of that.

I would rather have a 2nd Fred Lynn, Dwight Evans, or Carleton Fisk than a 2nd Williams.

Not to mention another pitcher like Luis Clemente Tiant, Jr., who was frequently referred to as "El Tiante"

 

[soxfan1468927]

If you're talking strictly about hitting "Teddy Ballgame" Williams would be hard to beat.

If you'retalking about complete ballplayers it's another matter.

Williams never worked at anything BUT hitting, and my Red Sox suffered for it.

Many later Red Sox players, that I have actually watched in my nearly 40 years of living in Boston,
were more complete players than Williams, and helped their teams actually win WS because of that.

I would rather have a 2nd Fred Lynn, Dwight Evans, or Carleton Fisk than a 2nd Williams.

Not to mention another pitcher like Luis Clemente Tiant, Jr., who was frequently referred to as "El Tiante"

Yeah because Williams lack of effort in the field took THAT much away from what he brought to the plate. And the Red Sox won so many WS with Fred Lynn, Dwight Evans, Carlton Fisk, and Luis Tiant.

If you would rather have any of those guys instead of Williams, you are an idiot.

 

[rokketmn]

I don't know if Rice would even be top 10 since the '70s...

I didn't say top 10 since the '70's. I was putting the players in their generation. I said I thought Rice was the best of the '70's. There is obvious debate there because as I said I have Sox bias, but Rice has to be in the conversation as an all around hitter of his generation.

Different eras are going to produce different stats. In the 70's, if you hit 20 hr's that was considered good. If you hit 30, you were a true power hitter. If you hit more than that, then it was really something.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

I didn't say top 10 since the '70's. I was putting the players in their generation. I said I thought Rice was the best of the '70's. There is obvious debate there because as I said I have Sox bias, but Rice has to be in the conversation as an all around hitter of his generation.

Different eras are going to produce different stats. In the 70's, if you hit 20 hr's that was considered good. If you hit 30, you were a true power hitter. If you hit more than that, then it was really something.

Rice only had 3 great seasons in the 1970s, so I don't see any way he could be considered the best, or among the best hitters of the 1970s.

As for best all around hitter of his generation, that depends on your definition of "all around". To me, an all-around hitter does everything. Rice walked too little and struck out too much to be considered a great "all around hitter". Yes, it was a pitcher's era, so his numbers are more impressive than they appear at first glance, but there were still numerous hitters who were great in all facets of hitting. George Brett, Mike Schmidt, Rod Carew, Eddie Murray, and Dave Winfield were all clearly better hitters than Rice, and Dave Parker and Dwight Evans were every bit as good.

 

[Maverick426h]

Best Hitters in Baseball

First off, I dislike baseball in general, but I'm a numbers guy and I can analyze them as well as anyone.

lol So, I guess I have way too much time on my hands since I managed to make a whole fucking spreadsheet on this. I took the top 35 players in batting average to start. I added up their all-time MLB ranks in average, home runs, triples, doubles and OPS. Obviously, the lower the number, the higher the overall rank.

My Top 15:

1. Stan Musial
2. Lou Gehrig
3. Babe Ruth
4. Rogers Hornsby
5. Jimmie Foxx
6. Al Simmons
7. Joe DiMaggio
8. Ted Williams
9. Harry Heilmann
10. Ty Cobb
11. Tris Speaker
12. Paul Waner
13. Dan Brouthers
14. Bill Terry
15. Ed Delahanty

So, Stan is indeed 'The Man.' He was the only player in the top 30 in every category. Honorable mention goes to Honus Wagner. Cobb and Speaker were dropped significantly due to their lack of home runs. I do not know whether or not that is just, but they at least still made the list.

 

[StanMarsh51]

I didn't say top 10 since the '70's. I was putting the players in their generation. I said I thought Rice was the best of the '70's. There is obvious debate there because as I said I have Sox bias, but Rice has to be in the conversation as an all around hitter of his generation.

Different eras are going to produce different stats. In the 70's, if you hit 20 hr's that was considered good. If you hit 30, you were a true power hitter. If you hit more than that, then it was really something.

I'm well aware of the difference in stats between eras....one of the reasons I like OPS+, since it compares a player to the league average of their day (also adjusted for ballparks as well).

His career OPS+ of 128 was pretty good for a corner OF, but I don't think it was HOF worthy....he also played just 1/2 of the 1970s, and even if we took his OPS+ that decade, it wasn't as good as that of Stargell or Reggie.

 

[rokketmn]

Rice only had 3 great seasons in the 1970s, so I don't see any way he could be considered the best, or among the best hitters of the 1970s.

Since Rice broke into the league in 1975 and finished 2nd in the AL ROY and 3rd in the MVP voting with a .309/22/102/92/10sb line, and then went on with .282/25/85/75/8 in '76, then proceeded to hit .320, .315, and .325 to finish out the decade with 39, 46, and 39 hr's in that period.

He won the MVP in 1978, and was top 5 in 1977, and 1979. I would say he was among the best in the decade.

 

[StanMarsh51]

Since Rice broke into the league in 1975 and finished 2nd in the AL ROY and 3rd in the MVP voting with a .309/22/102/92/10sb line, and then went on with .282/25/85/75/8 in '76, then proceeded to hit .320, .315, and .325 to finish out the decade with 39, 46, and 39 hr's in that period.

He won the MVP in 1978, and was top 5 in 1977, and 1979. I would say he was among the best in the decade.

What smarther said seems accurate...his 1975 and 1976 were good (128 and 120 OPS+ respectively), but nothing great. Don't know how he finished 3rd in MVP voting in 1975, considering he didn't finish top 10 in OPS/OPS+ nor WAR (voters must've been enthralled with his RBI total).

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Since Rice broke into the league in 1975 and finished 2nd in the AL ROY and 3rd in the MVP voting with a .309/22/102/92/10sb line, and then went on with .282/25/85/75/8 in '76, then proceeded to hit .320, .315, and .325 to finish out the decade with 39, 46, and 39 hr's in that period.

He won the MVP in 1978, and was top 5 in 1977, and 1979. I would say he was among the best in the decade.

You can say that, but you'd be wrong. He only played 5 full seasons in the decade. There are players who played the entire decade and thus amassed much more impressive stats for the decade.

Rice went .310/.359/.552 with a 141 OPS+ in 3,456 plate appearances. Very good, but not better than:

Carew .343/.408/.454 with a 142 OPS+ in 5,916 plate appearances
Stargell .287/.374/.555 with a 156 OPS+ in 5,083 PAs
Jackson .275/.363/.508 with a 148 OPS+ in 5,913 PAs
Schmidt .255/.374/.511 with a 141 OPS+ in 4,506 PAs
Allen .284/.377/.513 with a 148 OPS+ in 3,624 PAs
Aaron .278/.373/.527 with a 145 OPS+ in 3,414 PAs
Morgan .284/.404/.455 with a 140 OPS+ in 6,320 PAs
R. Smith .292/.374/.507 with a 142 OPS+ in 5,352 PAs
D. Parker .317/.370/.521 with a 143 OPS+ in 3,607 PAs
Singleton .289/.398/.447 with a 139 OPS+ in 5,778 PAs


when you take the plate appearances into account. If you're looking for the best hitter in the decade of the 70s, these are your guys.

You also have:
McCovey .256/.371/.478 with a 136 OPS+ in 4,340 PAs
Lynn .309/.383/.526 with a 142 OPS+ in 3,035 PAs
Foster .287/.352/.517, 139 OPS+ in 4,063 PAs, and guys like Rose, Bonds and Cedeno who didn't have quite as impressive rates, but did it over the course of the entire decade, as opposed to just half of it.

Even Dick Allen, who went .284/.377/.513 with a 148 OPS+ in 3,624 PAs

 

[rokketmn]

George Brett, Mike Schmidt, Rod Carew, Eddie Murray, and Dave Winfield were all clearly better hitters than Rice, and Dave Parker and Dwight Evans were every bit as good.

Rice out hit, had more hr's, and rbi than Winfield in the time they played together in the '70 and '80's. Where Winfield beat Rice was SB's. And SB's has nothing to do with hitting prowess. And of course, longevity. Rice even had more triples!!

Winfield led his league in a category just once, and that was RBI in 1979. He was a very good player for a long time. He was not a better hitter than Rice. Better all-around player? Yes. But better hitter. No.

It seems you favor longevity as your benchmark for greatness.

Eddie Murray was a great player and definitely HOF worthy, but he wasn't a better hitter than Rice either.

I never said that Brett and Carew weren't better hitters than Rice. They were. Rice just added more power than both of those guys. I would take the dropoff in average from Rice to get his added power over the other two.

Schmidt was one of the best power hitters I ever saw, but he wasn't a great hitter. Isn't that what we are talking about? A hitter that brought not just average, but also power. Schmidt was a good hitter for the amount of Hr's he hit, and he was truly feared. Still, I can't really exclude a guy with his resume from the conversation just because he wasn't a .290-.300 hitter or better, so I'll go along with his inclusion.

When you bring in guys like Parker and Evans (and Winfield), you are clearly talking about better all around players, not hitters.

Rice led his league in a major category 5 times, just counting avg, hr's, rbi, runs, and sb's. He led the league in total bases 4 times. Rice won an MVP and was top 5 five other times.

Winfield:1 category (rbi) - no MVP's and top 5 three times
Murray: 2 (hr and rbi in the strike shortened '81 season) - no MVP's and top 5 six times
Parker: 2 (Bavg) - 1 MVP and top 5 four times
Evans: 1 (tied w Murray for HR lead in '81) -no MVP's and top 5 two times

That doesn't mean that these guys weren't great. I use the MVP voting to see who was considered among the best among their peers. The rest of the counting stats can speak for themselves.

The problem Rice had was that he didn't have the athleticism of some of these other players and his career faded rapidly in the late '80', so he didn't reach the "counting stats" that so many use to judge greatness as opposed to how that player truly measured up when he played.

Rice finished with 389 hr's and a .298 career average. If he didn't have that dramatic tail off in 1987-1989, he would have made 400hr's, 1500 rbi and maintained the .300 career average he had in his other 12 seasons.

If you think Rice wasn't a great hitter, then you don't know much about hitting.

 

[Swangin]

You can say that, but you'd be wrong. He only played 5 full seasons in the decade. There are players who played the entire decade and thus amassed much more impressive stats for the decade.


To me that's the biggest thing it comes down to, it would be very hard for me to ever justify calling someone the best hitter of a decade when they only played half of it.

Surprised Morgan hasn't been mentioned more. Finished top 3 in oWAR 6 consecutive seasons, leading the league 3x, 2nd 2x, 3rd once.

 

[rokketmn]

You can say that, but you'd be wrong. He only played 5 full seasons in the decade. There are players who played the entire decade and thus amassed much more impressive stats for the decade.

You are clearly impressed with the counting stats. What does it matter how many years the player played? The guys was either a better hitter or he wasn't. If someone asks me if Albert Pujols was a better hitter than Dave Winfield, I am not going to look at Winfields career counting stats versus Pujols'. I am going to say, "Hell Yeah!" If Pujols never played another game again does that make him a lesser hitter than Winfield?

If a player plays 20 seasons and has the following line: .290/420 hr's/1600 rbi, you seem to think he is better than the guy who played 15 seasons but hit .305/380/1400

I like the 162 game average stat from BR. It is not perfect, but I think it is a good comparison tool.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

What smarther said seems accurate...his 1975 and 1976 were good (128 and 120 OPS+ respectively), but nothing great. Don't know how he finished 3rd in MVP voting in 1975, considering he didn't finish top 10 in OPS/OPS+ nor WAR (voters must've been enthralled with his RBI total).

Well, obviously they didn't have the benefit of OPS+ or WAR back then, and they're still in love with the triple crown stats now. Back then, that was all that mattered, which is why Rice had good showings (the Ryan Howard of his day???). But it's clear Rice didn't deserve to receive the votes he received in '75. In '77, '78, & '79, he was a legitimately great hitter, and deserved his votes, but '75 and '76 were good but nothing special.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Rice out hit, had more hr's, and rbi than Winfield in the time they played together in the '70 and '80's. Where Winfield beat Rice was SB's. And SB's has nothing to do with hitting prowess. And of course, longevity. Rice even had more triples!!

Winfield led his league in a category just once, and that was RBI in 1979. He was a very good player for a long time. He was not a better hitter than Rice. Better all-around player? Yes. But better hitter. No.

It seems you favor longevity as your benchmark for greatness.

Eddie Murray was a great player and definitely HOF worthy, but he wasn't a better hitter than Rice either.

I never said that Brett and Carew weren't better hitters than Rice. They were. Rice just added more power than both of those guys. I would take the dropoff in average from Rice to get his added power over the other two.

Schmidt was one of the best power hitters I ever saw, but he wasn't a great hitter. Isn't that what we are talking about? A hitter that brought not just average, but also power. Schmidt was a good hitter for the amount of Hr's he hit, and he was truly feared. Still, I can't really exclude a guy with his resume from the conversation just because he wasn't a .290-.300 hitter or better, so I'll go along with his inclusion.

When you bring in guys like Parker and Evans (and Winfield), you are clearly talking about better all around players, not hitters.

Rice led his league in a major category 5 times, just counting avg, hr's, rbi, runs, and sb's. He led the league in total bases 4 times. Rice won an MVP and was top 5 five other times.

Winfield:1 category (rbi) - no MVP's and top 5 three times
Murray: 2 (hr and rbi in the strike shortened '81 season) - no MVP's and top 5 six times
Parker: 2 (Bavg) - 1 MVP and top 5 four times
Evans: 1 (tied w Murray for HR lead in '81) -no MVP's and top 5 two times

That doesn't mean that these guys weren't great. I use the MVP voting to see who was considered among the best among their peers. The rest of the counting stats can speak for themselves.

The problem Rice had was that he didn't have the athleticism of some of these other players and his career faded rapidly in the late '80', so he didn't reach the "counting stats" that so many use to judge greatness as opposed to how that player truly measured up when he played.

Rice finished with 389 hr's and a .298 career average. If he didn't have that dramatic tail off in 1987-1989, he would have made 400hr's, 1500 rbi and maintained the .300 career average he had in his other 12 seasons.

If you think Rice wasn't a great hitter, then you don't know much about hitting.

Yeah, you wrote all this to say nothing. I took a shit this morning that contained more hitting knowledge than was possessed in that post. All I see here is Triple Crown stats and subjective measures like MVP votes. Where are the slash lines, which is what really tells you about a hitter? A great hitter is the sum of the parts, not just the highlights. Rice had a few really great seasons and a bunch of decent seasons. A guy like Winfield or Murray may not have had quite as many "really great" seasons (they still had them even if they didn't get MVP awards), but also had a bunch of very good to great seasons in between. And Mike Schmidt may not have had a great batting average, but he was one of the toughest outs of his generation, and hit for a ton of power. You're also completely fucking clueless about George Brett, apparently.

I'll be generous to Rice and only look at one of his down years at the end of his career (as opposed to all three):

Rice (1975-1987): .302/.356/.514, 132 OPS+ in 8213 PA
Brett (1975-1987): .316/.383/.517, 146 OPS+ in 7460 PA (Brett looks way better to me, and had three more quality seasons from 1988-1990 which aren't included here. Look at that, he also had a better slugging percentage)
Murray (1977-1987): .296/.372/.502, 141 OPS+ in 7109 PA (Murray looks better to me)
Schmidt (1975-1987): .273/.386/.546, 153 OPS+ in 8270 PA (Schmidt looks way better to me)
Carew (1975-1985): .331/.404/.436, 135 OPS+ in 6219 PA (Looks pretty even to me until you realize that this stretch contained Carew's entire decline phase and doesn't include several of his greatest seasons)
Winfield (1975-1987): .287/.357/.482, 135 OPS+ in 8137 PA (Winfield looks slightly better to me, and that doesn't even include his excellent 1988, and a few of the quality seasons he had in the 1990s after his back injury)
Parker (1975-1987): .298/.348/.489, 127 OPS+ in 7586 PA (edge to Rice)
Evans (1975-1987): .272/.372/.487, 130 OPS+ in 7537 PA (edge to Rice, but this doesn't include several prime years that Evans put together in 1988 and 1989, which were bad years for Rice)

Rice was a very good hitter, and for a few seasons, he was excellent. But as a whole he was not a great hitter. He was too inconsistent, and that's reflected in his 128 OPS+, which is not great. If you think it is, then I'd suggest it's you that doesn't know much about hitting.