He's the best hitter ever. No doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tater
Like you say, all were loaded, including some already in the HOF.
Printable View
He's the best hitter ever. No doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tater
Like you say, all were loaded, including some already in the HOF.
Bonds hit 28 at age 42 and struck out 54 times! While being tested and investigated. We all know he wasn't loaded then.
We all know he saw some lesser players breaking records and he said watch this, i'll do the same shit and show you what I can do.
Best ?power? hitter. Mr Padre was the best all around hitter.Quote:
Originally Posted by SPMT
- in the modern era atleast
I'm gonna say the title of best all around hitter goes to Ted Williams and if he hadnt missed 4 years of his prime due to military service no telling what his stats would look like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dak Holliday
Agree. It?s why I edited to add the caveat- in the modern era. Still, if you look at how difficult it was to strike Gwynn out, it?s staggering to think about. Averaged like 22 strike outs a year for his 20 season career. He had more 4 hit games than multiple strikeout games, I believe. He was a hitting machine against some all time great pitchers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Commercecomet24
"Sometimes hitters can pick up differences in spin. They can identify pitches if there are different release points or if a curveball starts with an upward hump as it leaves the pitcher?s hand. But if a pitcher can change speeds, every hitter is helpless, limited by human vision. Except for that (expletive) Tony Gwynn." -Greg Maddux
Gotcha. Sorry I didn't see the edit. Teddy Ballgame didn't strike out very much either and considering he was a power hitter even more impressive. He averaged 37 strikeouts per season and the year he hit 406 he struckout 27 times that's insane! He was the best and knew more about hitting than anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dak Holliday
Ted was the complete hitter. High average, power, didn't strikeout much, walked a lot. Crazy what he was able to do.
He was well before my time, but still highly regarded. One of the most impressive videos I?ve ever seen of someone hitting was of him. Ball had 4 numbers on it. Bat had dye of some sort. He would hit the pitched ball and tell them what number he hit, and when they checked, he was right. The ink proved him true. It was awesome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Commercecomet24
Of course, he and Gwynn were said to be great friends and Tony always said Ted was the greatest. Gwynn was so unbelievably good, though.
When he was a manager of the senators so the story goes one day in spring training he chalked his bat and told his players he could tell them which seam on the ball he hit as he took bp. Sure enough he would hit and call out the seam and they'd check the ball and he was right. Dude had crazy eye sight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dak Holliday
Yeah when they opened the hitters hof in Florida Espn classic broadcast it and watching Gwynn and Williams talk hitting was amazing. Gwynn was in awe of him. 2 of the best ever!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dak Holliday
100%Quote:
Originally Posted by Commercecomet24
Context in each era matters. This is part of the problem with the writers. They rely on stats too much and they want stats to be the same across the board. Why? Because they truly don't understand the game and the talent of those who play it. Hence a guy like Don Sutton is automatically in because "Well, he won 300 games". And he should be in. My point is the writers rely way too much on the "magic numbers" 300 wins, 3K strikeouts, 500 home runs, 3K hits, and etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot Rock
At the same time Sandy Koufax is the best pitcher I have ever seen. Period. But because he only played 12 years and then retired at 30 he was only able to get 150 wins, and about 24K strike outs. But he is a no doubt HOF player. I'm 100% sure that there were people who didn't vote for him because his career was "too short".
You can't compare Bonds and Aaron to Ruth. Different eras. Ruth outhomered entire TEAMS. He basically invented tape measure home runs. If he played today he would be Shohei Ohtani with Mark McGwire power and would probably be a front line starter. There were different rules and bigger ball parks. If you hit the foul pole in Ruth's day it was ruled a foul ball. Someone went back and adjusted what Ruth would have done in 1990's/2000's baseball conditions with the current rules for that time and found that he would have hit 104 home runs one season when I think he only hit 54 that season.
That's not entirely true. He was an older player who was essentially a DH only at that time and wanted a ton of money and would have been a major distraction. He wasn't a fit for any MLB team. It's similar to Albert Pujols now and why he will have trouble finding a team. Minus the major distraction part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tater
Believe me- if he was blackballed from MLB he wouldn't have been able to come back as a hitting coach for the Marlins.
Williams is another example of why stats need context. Of course with him it's because of his military service.Quote:
Originally Posted by Commercecomet24
Exactly. You have to compare players against the era they played in. Every era is different whether it's the dead ball era, live ball era, era before the mound was lowered by 6 inches, steroid era, etc. Its why the players need to do the voting not the dang writers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd4State
They hired him 8 years later. He was blackballed 100% from playing. The OBP league leader was still worth the money. They stopped him from becoming a 3K hitter, the runs king, the XBH king, among many others. Pujols is a funny comparison. He had 0 seasons with a higher OBP than 2007 Bond's .480Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd4State
In fact, let's look at 2007 Bonds vs. 2007 Pujols:
BA .276 vs. .329
OBP .480 vs. .429
SLG .565 vs. .568
HR 28 vs. 32
Pujols is in no way comparable now to Bonds at 42. His peak was comparable to bonds. Bonds absolutely was worth being paid a top 10 hitter in the league. No one signing him is 10X worse than kaepernick.
they might be worried about space if they put Portrait Bust of Bond's head.
This guy's gotta interesting take; good read and not long.
https://townhall.com/columnists/dere...-joke-n2602398
Very good read, especially the last paragraph. They have botched who's in and who's out for too long. Rep!Quote:
Originally Posted by OLJWales
All they have to do to fix it is let the all living HOFers vote for induction and eliminate the writers. Peer voting would be the most accurate and equitable way to do it.
800? What a freaking joke. He barely hit 30 most years when he wasn't juicing. He would have had to play into his 50's to reach Hank. Hank hit 40 plus many years and he did it clean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tater
Bonds was a great hitter and I will say the best hitter in the game of his era but to say Homerun King? You have to be clean to make that claim and that man was not. He cheated the game and those that came before him. I get it that everyone was doing it but no way should his hitting records be compared to those that played clean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dak Holliday
Tony Gwynn is no doubt one of the best hitters ever. I think there's no question he was the best during his playing time and possibly until now. I've got a special place for Ichiro. I think since 2000 Ichiro is the best I've had the pleasure of seeing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Commercecomet24
Before Gwynn I would say Pete Rose was the best of his time then Ted Williams before him. Can't forget Cobb and Wagner before all of them. There have been some great hitters but some guys like these just stand out above the rest.
Agreed. Good post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt3467
And one more point, at the end when he stopped taking them:
There are studies showing that you retain an advantage years after you stop taking steroids. All that muscle mass gained by cheating doesn't just leave right away. It sticks around for awhile and takes years to wear completely away.
Nope, Bonds would have been out the game years before he was out by several years and probably never even makes the 500HR club if he had remained clean his whole career.
You have to judge baseball by the era's in which the players played.
Cobb really starts it all. Outstanding hitter
Babe Ruth changed the game of baseball. He was hitting more HR's than most teams did in the league. But he also did these things in an era when pitchers threw 80 mph and pitched 3 times a week- so you know they werent bringing it each time out
Ted Williams was a phenom. Amazing hitter that lost 4 years of his prime because he loved his country and flying airplanes. This was also the era in which pitching staffs began to expand
Mickey Mantle, Henry Aaron, and Willie Mayes are the next group. The best of their Era filled with good baseball players
Pete Rose was the posterchild for hitting the ball and playing hardnosed baseball
Gwynn was the modern day Cobb without making the other players in the league hate him. Wade Boggs was pretty damn good for awhile as well- but Gwynn was more solid.
Bonds was very good but the roids made him great. Griffey Jr was awesome but couldnt stay healthy while also avoiding the roids.
Pujols would be the latest of the great hitters and his time has come to an end.
The Writers are full of themselves and BS. Roids were legal and had they been available- others in past eras would have partaken. And you know this man!
Great post and I agree ! I would add Rod Carew and George Brett in the 70s and 80s as 2 of the greats and Frank Thomas who put up Ruthian like stats for quite awhile!Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach34
These threads and discussions like this are awesome!
You also have to remember that ballparks were a lot bigger in the 'Old Days'.
Two guys a lot of people forget because they played in small markets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Commercecomet24
For a four year stretch, Don Mattingly was one of the best ever - he was chasing Boggs for average while leading the league in doubles and hitting 30+ HR. If his back hadn't failed at 27 he's a sure HOF. And don't forget Chicken Man. Mattingly was my guy, but Boggs could hit with the best of them.
I was going to mention this in my first post but thought better of it but the "evolution" of the baseball has to be taken into account as well as for the most part over the course of time the baseball has become more hitter friendly than pitcher friendly. Also spitballs were a big deal prior to the 20's and I read that it was commonplace to use the same ball for the entire game which had an impact on hitters as the ball got softer with use. I tend to lean toward the balls being a little juiced in the 90's but I don't guess that's ever been proven but it was clear something was going on and heck maybe it was just steroids but everyone started hitting more home runs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach34
Also while I agree the pitchers back in the day were absolute work horses and that had to work to the hitters advantage I don't think it's quite fair to say they were only hitting 80mph. It's hard to judge anyway since radar wasn't even used until the 80's but I've read before that it's been estimated Walter Johnson could throw a 100mph fastball. Even though Gibson was a little later he was throwing heat too.
When I think of steroids in baseball I always think of two people: Brady Anderson and Javy Lopez. Both very similar careers with similar numbers with one outrageous anomaly of a year. That's what I see steroids as being capable of.
And the pitcher's mound was lowered in 1968. ( Commerce24 post )Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt3467
This has been an entertaining post for sure, Ruth did play in an era where 85 was considered throwing smoke but you can’t tell me the likes of Satch, Rucker and Joe Wood were throwing 85 mph. They measured speed differently back then. They took the reading a good 50 feet away from the pitcher. Today it is measured within 3 feet of release. That is why the guns are reading higher now. I am sure that advancements in medicine and preventive care has a lot to do with it plus the fact that we as a race (human) are bigger and stronger due to diet and knowledge of macros BUT any of those mentioned above would still to this day be lights out.
I had the privilege of spending several years both in the organization and away with the likes of Larry Dierker, The Buck and the amount of baseball IQ of the major leagues vs a fan is absolutely staggering. The absolute smartest baseball mind I ever knew was Brad Ausmus. This guy could tell if his pitcher was feeling it by watching 4 pitches to the pen catcher. He explained it to me one day and after having over 23 years of actual playing ball and helping with 2 different organizations I never ever remotely picked up on how a catcher sits receiving a pitch. Brief example is if catcher is on his toes or insides of his feet. If a catcher is on his inner soles he is not overly confident on approach of ball. On his toes to mid arch he is not protecting himself as much. This is where the bullpen catcher is so essential, most of those guys are the ones that end up as pitching coaches.
There's no doubt that Walter Johnson and a few others threw hard and was probably around 90 consistently. But these guys were throwing on 2 days rest constantly or even B2B days. There's no way they were hitting 88-90 on their 3rd start of the week. Plus the size of players was different. Lots of pitchers 5'8-5'11. Babe Ruth is always talked about being such a big guy back then but was only 6'2. These small players were swinging heavier bats as well.
Bob Gibson was awesome but Gibson also pitched from a higher mound. These guys today throwing 100 from an 18 inch mound would be sick.
The physics of a pitch is ever 8 feet of travel a ball loses 1mph, so that alone can account for almost 8 mph on a reading at home plate and one that is recorded out of the pitchers hand.
Bonds should be in, but like everyone else is saying he is a product of his era. Pete Rose should be too.
I meant to say Bob Feller not Bob Gibson but it doesn't change the point much. Bob Feller was supposedly clocked at way over 100mph I think 106 or 107.
I agree that is why I said they are a product of their era. Can you imagine seeing Rucker throw off todays mound with todays ball? He would probably be hitting 105 consistently. Not to mention if you put him in program that actually protects its players especially pitchers like they do today.
You had to be an absolute man to play back in the day that is why I hold them to such a high regard. Bonds would have been successful then as he was in the early 2000s. Ortiz not so much. Biggio was very Nap like and that is why o loved watching him play.
I agree with you though. Ty Cobb was and is the bar for baseball. That guy was awesome.
I've been trying to find research on how lowering the pitching mound would affect a pitcher/hitter but I've not been able to find any except one place saying it has no effect. That same year in 1968 didn't they also make the strike zone smaller? I'm sure that had more of an effect than the mound height.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach34
Edit: I found one place saying it's thought to help pitcher momentum but it's just a thought.
My favorite hitter that I ever personally saw play though has to be Todd Helton. I unfortunately never got to watch Tony Gwynn in person. Saw Larry Walker a bunch but that guy was a pure “see ball hit ball guy.” Helton prided himself on BP and putting balls to all parts of the field. One time I saw him bet Larry Walker that he could put a oppo ball in a garbage can in the left field corner on the fly in 10 swings. He won $250 that day. Then he doubled down and said he could do it on a bounce, Walker won his money back. But Todd Helton was “the professional hitter,” in 2000.
I pitched until the age of 35 and I can tell you I threw harder from a higher mound. It 100% helps with momentum.
Absolutely no doubt about it. A higher mound also changes the angle at which the pitch is delivered. Bigger break on breaking ball and a fastball looks like it's actually coming straight down hill to a hitter, making a huge difference. 18 inch mound was huge advantage for a pitcher. It's why manfred has even toyed around with lowering the mound again and moving it back to increase offense which like most of his ideas are stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach34