I was at the Last Game at Connie Mack....[/QUOTE
A friend of mine has two "bleacher seats" from the Mack. I guess the Phils are back to the Bobby Wine, Clay Dalrymple level
Although, I think Wine had the best arm EVER at SS.
"Greatest hitter that ever lived" ....
- Thread starter dawgduice
- Start date
There are also twice the amount of Americans to pool your players from and also a huge influx of talented Latin American players combined with way better nutritional and training techniques. Also relievers really were not part of the game back then. I always thought the watered down majors theory was bogus.
I have to agree. Actually, I think the pitching across the board is better than ever. Hence the lower offensive numbers. Teams all have a number of pitchers that throw in the 90s MPH. In the past, they were few and far between. Because of the lack of "quality relief" pitchers, the old "rule" was "starters" pitch till you drop
The year Hank Greenberg hit 58 homers, pitchers stopped giving him anything good to hit in the final two weeks. He drew lots of walks.
Greenberg was the first major leaguer to enlist in WW2. Five days after he was discharged, Pearl Harbor was bombed. He immediately teen listed and lost 4 seasons as a player.
For Ryan Howard, I think it was the last month he saw nothing but balls, the year he hit 58. His RBIs dropped from 42 in August to 20 in September--while his batting average rose by 14 points.
It's impossible to compare eras, so I think you should just judge an athlete against peers.
The US population is twice what it was when Williams played, three times when Ruth played. Blacks didn't play until after the prime of both. Latins were also few and far between. Pitchers throw harder than ever and with modern relief pitching they throw every pitch hard. And it's hard to doubt that baseball is any different from every other sport, where the athletes are obviously better.
On the other hand, baseball is no longer the first choice of athletes, especially among blacks, and the spit ball is outlawed.
In today's game Williams would get 150-200 walks per year. He knew and saw the strike zone better than anyone - ever. He wouldn't be 'home-run or pull-swinging' at the low and outside junk on which today's pitchers routinely get today's over-swinging homer-crazy "hitters" out. He'd intentionally foul off anything that looked close, waiting for the pitcher to give him something he liked Then - BAM! His on-base percentage would be .500 today.
You may be right. Ted's career On Base Percentage was .482, which was better than Ruth's .474.
Statements like Williams had "better vision than any player ever" is are so unprovable as to be ridiculous. Part of the myth he helped perpetuate.
Because of his rep, umpires were probably reluctant to call strikes on Williams. He took great pride in refusing to swing at a bad pitch, even if the game was at stake.
That is part of the reason he was known as an uncommonly selfish player. His general attitude may be one reason why his team participated in one WS game in his entire career.
BTW, here is the list of career leaders for Offensive Wins Above Replacement (WAR) according to baseball reference.com (and its not even close):
1. Ruth
2. Cobb
3. Bonds
4. Mays
5. Aaron
6. Williams
7. Musial
8. Speaker
9.Wagner
10. Hornsby
Since offensive WAR includes base running and accounts for position, it does not measure hitting only.
Williams had 3 pretty fair hitters behind him as well over his career...Jimmie Foxx, Vern Stephens and Jackie Jensen. They're not Gehrig, but protection's still protection. Full disclosure I'm a Yanks fan but I consider Williams very nearly Ruth's equal as a hitter. But, the only reason Williams is close because he worked very hard at it. Hitting is where the comparison stops. Ruth was pretty much the finest player ever. There simply was not one thing on a baseball field at which Ruth didn't excel. Heck Ruth even had 136 3B and 123 stolen bases. He could RUN. He was baseball's only 6 tool player, Hit for average and power, speed, throwing, fielding, AND pitching.
If you trust WAR, then it would be more meaningful to evaluate average WAR per season, not career totals. (Unless you consider it a greater achievement to be very good for 24 seasons than to be great for 15.)
Pretty much every baseball expert/statistician agrees. Many casual fans think Williams was the greatest hitter ever because (1) he said so and (2) they want to "reward" his military record. The stats simply don't bear it out, though he probably was #2. Also, "missing" seasons don't count, no matter how noble the reason. (If you want to argue "what-ifs", how do we know if someone played those missing seasons they would not have had career-ending injuries or would burn out sooner?)
If it's a question of sheer talent, who is to judge that? You have to go with stats.
I guess you could claim baseball during the Williams era was better than during Ruth's, but that ignores the fact that minorities played in neither era and if you start considering history you would have to say athletes today are better than ever so you would have to go with a more modern player.
Ruth played 22 years, including several as a pitcher, Williams 19 years.
Ruth had 8399 ABs, Williams 7706.
Not very much difference.
That's fine, but it's more meaningful to show WAR per season, in which case, I'm sure Ruth still comes out ahead. I would say Ruth had more impact during his era than Williams did in his. But the competition may have been better during Williams era. Hard to say. I don't think it's as clear cut as people make it out to be.
TW was in only one WS because of because of a poor surrounding cast. The Yankees they were not. The 'spoiled' Boston press treated him poorly because he wouldn't give these bozos the time they thought they were entitled to. They got back at him by emphasizing and enlarging on his negatives, tarnishing his reputation. He didn't give a damn, which really pissed them off. (In the end he won. He's in the HOF and they aren't.) Service to country cost him four seasons in his prime. With them he'd have perhaps the greatest 'numbers' of all time. Umpires 'afraid' to call a strike on him? Puhleeze. If he was as disliked as you indicate they'd have been more likely to call strikes on him. Last: Anyone wanting to know who the best hitters are need only to ask the pitchers. Everyone else's opinion, including mine, is meaningless.
Poor surrounding cast? Yeah, Dom DiMaggio, Johnny Pesky, Bobby Doerr, Jimmie Foxx, Rudy York, Joe Cronin, Jackie Jensen and Vern Stephens were real bums.
Dom wasn't Joe. Let's be real. Decent players all, but not a match for the Yankees of those days.
'Bums' is your categorization, not mine. The equal of the Yankee lineups? Not in my opinion. Perhaps I should have said, "A surrounding cast that was poorer than the Yankees." In any case Williams made the Red Sox far better than they otherwise would have been and they were still unable to win AL pennants. The proof of his value to the team is how they fared when he was in the service.
If you go strictly by statistics. It should be Ruth. I would mention that their respective ballparks should be brought into the conversation. Fenway is death to LH power hitters. Yankee Stadium had an awfully short porch for the Bambino. You can dismiss Ted's service in a statistical argument. But, you can't if you're making an opinion based on stats/parks/lost years. No prob with someone arguing either. Both, great former Red Sox
When analyzing best hitter, the best statistic is comparison to other hitters in the decade, then SP + OBP, and finally circumstances beyond their control. Based on that here are the best hitters of all time:
1. Babe Ruth - note all time BA was 342, but 355 as a Yankee.
2. Ted Williams - lost seasons due to war.
3. Ty Cobb - played in dead ball era. Can make argument for greatest all time.
4. Rogers Hornsby - factor in both first years in dead ball era and stats went down when became player/coach.
5. Honus Wagner - dominated his decade.
6. Lou Gehrig - odd peers considered Sisler greatest 1st baseman. Sisler hampered by disease.
7. Bobby Bonds - factor in that others on steroids too. Possibly most feared batter of all time.
8. Jimmy Foxx - also hampered by disease (alcohol),
9. Hank Greenberg - injuries and war years and then never bounced back
10a Joe DiMaggio - war years and never bounced back except for one year
10b Manny Ramirez - even though I would rather nominate Albert Pujols, because of his character.
From what I read Greenberg, Wagner, Pujols and Gehrig were all quality high character teammates. I am not so sure about the rest.
1. Babe Ruth - note all time BA was 342, but 355 as a Yankee.
2. Ted Williams - lost seasons due to war.
3. Ty Cobb - played in dead ball era. Can make argument for greatest all time.
4. Rogers Hornsby - factor in both first years in dead ball era and stats went down when became player/coach.
5. Honus Wagner - dominated his decade.
6. Lou Gehrig - odd peers considered Sisler greatest 1st baseman. Sisler hampered by disease.
7. Bobby Bonds - factor in that others on steroids too. Possibly most feared batter of all time.
8. Jimmy Foxx - also hampered by disease (alcohol),
9. Hank Greenberg - injuries and war years and then never bounced back
10a Joe DiMaggio - war years and never bounced back except for one year
10b Manny Ramirez - even though I would rather nominate Albert Pujols, because of his character.
From what I read Greenberg, Wagner, Pujols and Gehrig were all quality high character teammates. I am not so sure about the rest.
Yeah, that ("Bums") was sarcasm on my part. I agree that "poorer than the Yankees" is a better choice of words. They're not the 2015 Phillies.
