Quote:
Originally Posted by tschock
To be a noodge, you are using specific qualifying stats for a 'type' of hitting (as it relates to run production) to prove somewhat of a generalization. Taken to the extreme, would you continue to use those same stats to 'prove' someone as a worse hitter if that someone came to bat 5000 time, had 5000 hits, but drove in no runs? I would argue that someone batting 1.000 over their entire career (assuming that career lasted more that a handful of plate appearances) would be the better 'hitter'.
I get what you are driving at, but I don't think one came claim to determine the best 'hitter' in the game without providing the qualifications as to what they mean by 'best hitter'. With that in mind, Kahn may still have been correct without understanding the qualifying characteristics of his claim.
Sort of like your dismissal of Mays defensive skills and merely focusing on 'hitting' as the qualifications of an overall 'player'. I'm not claiming you are right or wrong in who was the better player. Just that it isn't enough for proof in order to claim "cased closed".  |
Incorporating my entire previous post herein as though fully set forth, I can only truthfully and accurately say once more, "case closed." Games are won by determining who scored the most runs--hence, run production irrefutably, indisputably rises to the forefront--the "best" hitter has nothing whatsoever to do with any "hitting type". He who is the best is the one who produces the most runs relative to the league average under the conditions of his era (OPS+ is really shorthand for that, while Bill James formula for runs created, which led to offensive win shares, takes into account other factors and thus carries a higher degree of accuracy). You are free to believe whatever you choose. However, until they start counting up hits or some other figure instead of runs, the actual fact remains that the best hitter is the one producing the most runs. My comment on Mays vs. Mantle was limited to offensive value during the period they both played, without taking into account Mays' undisputed superior fielding ability. As to what I was alluding to, however, there is no room for any factually supportable dispute. If you say Mays was a better hitter when they were both playing, all you are really saying is that you like Mays better, because all of the factual evidence is to the contrary. I am speaking with reference to quality, of course, rather than quantity. Did Mays produce more runs in the course of a significantly longer career? Of course, and that was simply due to better longevity. At the risk of redundancy, once more, case closed.
Regards,
Larry