Is Miguel Cabrera the best hitter ever

[ImSmartherThanYou]

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.

This post makes little to no sense, and is not in line with my logic at all.

 

[rokketmn]

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.

Ryan Howard of his day? Wow! You lose a lot of credibility with that comment.

As for why Rice received the votes he did, please take this into account, because you are clearly ignoring it.

Fred Lynn was the MVP and ROY with a .331/21/105/103/10 line. Lynn received 22 1st place votes and Rollie Fingers received 2.

Rice hit .309/22/102/92/10 that season, and missed the final few weeks with a broken hand or wrist. he received no 1st place votes and nearly edged John Mayberry for 2nd place.

The league RBI leader was George Scott with 109.

A case could be made for John Mayberry winning the MVP that season. What also could have been taken into account was that the Sox were a playoff team. I don't agree with that thinking, but that is another discussion.

So, with those numbers out there, you can't say Rice didn't deserve to receive any votes. He clearly didn't get any for 1st place, and he and Mayberry battled it out for the rest.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

Ryan Howard of his day? Wow! You lose a lot of credibility with that comment.

As for why Rice received the votes he did, please take this into account, because you are clearly ignoring it.

Fred Lynn was the MVP and ROY with a .331/21/105/103/10 line. Lynn received 22 1st place votes and Rollie Fingers received 2.

Rice hit .309/22/102/92/10 that season, and missed the final few weeks with a broken hand or wrist. he received no 1st place votes and nearly edged John Mayberry for 2nd place.

The league RBI leader was George Scott with 109.

A case could be made for John Mayberry winning the MVP that season. What also could have been taken into account was that the Sox were a playoff team. I don't agree with that thinking, but that is another discussion.

So, with those numbers out there, you can't say Rice didn't deserve to receive any votes. He clearly didn't get any for 1st place, and he and Mayberry battled it out for the rest.

Yes, Ryan Howard. HR, RBI, and the "fear". Obviously, Rice had more longevity, and is rightfully considered the better historical player, but they were both overrated.

Luckily, you don't determine who does and doesn't have credibility, because I couldn't care less what you think after reading your posts in this thread. My posts have been thorough and well thought out. Yours have been... lacking.

You haven't provided a single shred of quality evidence for Rice being a great hitter, or being better than any of the hitters I've mentioned. All you've given are Triple Crown stats, which don't really tell you all that much, and MVP votes, which are subjective.

The reason Rice got MVP votes is because he had good Triple Crown numbers, which voters salivated over, and because his teams finished high in the standings (thanks mainly to the deep, quality teams the Sox had those years). He legitimately deserved the MVP in 1978, but otherwise, his MVP voting tallies are skewed by the voters' love of flawed statistics.

 

[steveringo]

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
.

OPS includes AVE, HR, 3B & 2B.... It is a nice attempt, and bravo for the work you put in, but it is a bit flawed... If you want to do another spreadsheet, start with OPS, then add SB, RS, and any other peripherals not included in OPS. Or just examine some SABR stats or advanced stats that have already done the work for you....

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

OPS includes AVE, HR, 3B & 2B.... It is a nice attempt, and bravo for the work you put in, but it is a bit flawed... If you want to do another spreadsheet, start with OPS, then add SB, RS, and any other peripherals not included in OPS. Or just examine some SABR stats or advanced stats that have already done the work for you....

I was going to say this, but didn't want to belittle the guy, who did obviously put some time and thought into his analysis.

 

[StanMarsh51]

Ryan Howard of his day? Wow! You lose a lot of credibility with that comment.

As for why Rice received the votes he did, please take this into account, because you are clearly ignoring it.

Fred Lynn was the MVP and ROY with a .331/21/105/103/10 line. Lynn received 22 1st place votes and Rollie Fingers received 2.

Rice hit .309/22/102/92/10 that season, and missed the final few weeks with a broken hand or wrist. he received no 1st place votes and nearly edged John Mayberry for 2nd place.

The league RBI leader was George Scott with 109.

.

Doesn't what you said draw an excellent comparison to Ryan Howard, in the sense that voters love his HR/RBI numbers and he got more votes over possibly more deserving guys?

You're boasting about his RBI totals....something that Ryan Howard supporters do (or rather, did) when highlighting his MVP credentials in certain years, while ignoring that his OPS, WAR and lack of defensive value were both not MVP caliber.

 

[rokketmn]

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.

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.

 

[DragonfromTO]

OPS includes AVE, HR, 3B & 2B.... It is a nice attempt, and bravo for the work you put in, but it is a bit flawed... If you want to do another spreadsheet, start with OPS, then add SB, RS, and any other peripherals not included in OPS. Or just examine some SABR stats or advanced stats that have already done the work for you....

The other problem I see with ranking players like that is that the separate category rankings are not all on the same scale. The gap between 10th and 100th on the triples list is only 73 triples, whereas the gap between 10th and 100th on the HR list is 248 home runs. The way the players are being ranked would suggest that these two differences are equal in value, but which would you rather have?

 

[soxfan1468927]

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 still not getting this idea that Rice was the best hitter of the 70s.

He put up a slash line of .310/.359/.552/.910, 141 OPS+ in the 70s, and averaged 35 HR/118 RBI per 162 games played over 3456 plate appearances.

Willie Stargell: .287/.374/.555/.928, 158 OPS+, with 39 HR/117 RBI per 162 games played over 5083 PA

So Stargell had 1627 more plate appearances, 15 points higher in OBP, 3 points higher in SLG, 18 points higher in OPS, 17 points higher in OPS+, and 4 more HRs per 162 games played. Rice had 23 points higher in BA and 1 more RBI.

Tell me, how is Rice the better hitter of the 70s?

 

[StanMarsh51]

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.

For all those more HR's, Rice had a SLG% a whopping 15 points higher, and that's with Brett having 700 more games played.

At the 2,100 game mark for Brett (the amount Rice had in his career), he had virtually the exact same SLG% as Rice (.501 to .502)...it's just that Brett played a few years longer and didn't have much power in those final few years.

And do we even consider bringing up the homefield advantage Rice had at Fenway? His AVG was 43 points lower on the road (.320 vs .277), and OPS 131 points lower on the road...yes, you read that right...OPS 131 points lower on the road

 

[rokketmn]

Doesn't what you said draw an excellent comparison to Ryan Howard,

Howard wasn't a .300 hitter.

 

[rokketmn]

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.

The above was my exact quote on the discussion. Where I take offense is that some are trying to discount Rice completely as a great hitter.

 

[Swangin]

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.[/QUOTE]



But if you just look at those RBI and say this guy is driving in more runs, doesn't really paint the entire picture. What if the guy with 80 RBI actually succeeded more when given the opportunity?

Example: 1975 Rice had more RBI than Stargell

Rice: .291 with RISP, .240 RISP with 2 outs

Stargell .331 with RISP, .377 RISP with 2 outs

 

[StanMarsh51]

Howard wasn't a .300 hitter.

He was when he won his only MVP....Howard probably should've finished 3rd that year.

 

[soxfan1468927]

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.

Here's a little fact about Jim Rice vs George Brett

In Jim Rice's career, he came to bat with a total 6435 runners on base and drove in 1117 of them for a total of 17.36%

In George Brett's career, he came to bat with a total of 7204 runners on base and drove in 1325 of them for a total of 18.39%

So when we actually look at facts, we can see that Brett actually took advantage of runners on base more than Rice did and drove them in at a higher rate.

 

[soxfan1468927]

The above was my exact quote on the discussion. Where I take offense is that some are trying to discount Rice completely as a great hitter.

If you actually take offense to someone "discounting" (I call it putting things into perspective) of your favorite player, then you have other issues.

 

[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.

HAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!!

Now I never played the game because I don't share your narrow and unintelligent view of how to analyze it? Great retort.

I LOVE IT!!!

And where does it say that I'm a fan of counting stats? They're valuable, but need to be placed in context.

 

[Howie115]

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.

 

[ImSmartherThanYou]

The above was my exact quote on the discussion. Where I take offense is that some are trying to discount Rice completely as a great hitter.

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.

 

[rokketmn]

it's just that Brett played a few years longer and didn't have much power in those final few years.

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.