O/T Ted Williams Was the Best Hitter

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

babe ruth changed the game because he was the first batter to realize that swinging as hard as you can/with an upper cut,while holding the bat as low as you can and timing a pitch would propel the ball out of the park. the babe was the first to do this with regularity and get results(home runs!) the babe invented the power stroke. imitators soon followed and every team had a power hitter, but ruth started the trend. so my vote for best ever is ruth

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Bonds did it all from 2001-04 -Batting average, slugging percentage, home runs per at bat, total home runs, walks, RBI's, cheating...you name it!

[Archive]

Posted By: howard

Carew was outstanding for many years but with the possible exception of 1977 he was never the best hitter in baseball (I actually think he was slightly better than Foster that year so I'll give him credit for that). The list of players who were better hitters than Carew during his career would be much longer than those for Ruth, Williams, Bonds, etc.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

One of the best hitters I saw in his prime was George Brett. What he used to do to the Yankees was just frightening.

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

If it was a top 5 or top 10 then Bonds would be on the list.
I have him #2 or #3.

Bonds is the most feared hitter ever. There is a reason he has held the career intentional walks record for over 8 years now. He passed Aaron in 1999.

#1 Bonds 645
#2 Aaron 293
#3 McCovey 260
#4 Brett 229
#5 Stargell 227

#8 Griffey Jr. 226
#28 R.Jackson 164
#38 McGwire 150
#66 Mantle 126
#91 Ripken 107

[Archive]

Posted By: RC McKenzie

I wrote a paper on this for a freshman English class at Tulane in 1987. I think my exact title was 'Ted Williams was the best hitter'. It was a 101 or 102 class and the teacher said that we could choose any topic for a persuasive essay. I have it here somewhere in a drawer and I'll post my arguments for the splinter from 1987. Right now, I'm busy hitting refresh on an auction.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim James

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned Stan Musial. The thread would indicate "pure" hitters, and Stan would easily fit into this group. 22 years with a .331 BA would get any stat. oriented fan's attention. He is, and would without a doubt, be considered a pure hitter along with Williams, DiMaggio, and others who came in the "post war" era . I'm not saying he's the best, I just thought he should get honorable mention as one of the post war "pure" hitters.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

TIM

Great point......Musial is viewed by most (except Cardinals fans) as the "quiet Superstar". He was an
amazing hitter and there was an inter-league rivalry between Musial and Williams for the batting title
every year in the 1940's and throughout the '50s, I recall as a kid reading The Sporting News.

Although Musial hit 475 HR's, he is not remembered for his HR's and this keeps him "under the radar".
Musial was asked by a NY sports reporter back in the '50s......"why don't you hit more HR's ?"......
Musial was at Ebbetts Field, playing a Doublheader, and he really answered that reporter that day.
He hit 3 HR's in the 1st game....and 2 HR's in the 2nd game. He used to "murder" the Dodgers, and
the nickname of "Stan the Man" was given to him by the Dodgers players, or the NY press.
But, going for HR's was not really his style.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: howard

Since BA keeps getting brought up, see if you can answer my favorite baseball trivia question:

Which player with seventy-five or more career at bats has the highest lifetime BA?

Two hints: he's not pre-war and it's not Bob Hazle.

Howard

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

is that had he played in New York, he would have been a superstar. He still made the Hall but most of the teams he played on were atrocious and he was constantly pitched around and not given much to hit.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Carew was a beautiful hitter but he didn't have the power numbers. There were others with similar batting averages and many more home runs.

Howard, nobody seems to know the answer to your question and I am curious. Are we allowed to give up?

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark Burke

Howard, is it Paul Gavigan?

[Archive]

Posted By: howard

No, it's not Paul Gavigan. I've actually never even heard of him.

I'm sorry to throw in a post-war question on a pre-war board. As soon as I hear an official "give up" from any poster I will spill the beans (although it might not be for a few hours because I'm going out in a few minutes).

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Howard, Guys,

Official give up. Is that sufficient, or do I need to get a document stamped by Leon.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: Matthew

I have argued for years that Rogers Hornsby is the greatest hitter of all time.
When compared to his contemporaries, nobody compares so well.

In Hornsby’s best 5 years, he hit .424, .403, .401, .397, .384.

Hornsby also had incredible power for his era.

Hornsby hit 149 homers in that 5-year run while the entire league hit just 2663 home runs.

Hell, he had 5 ½ % of the entire league’s home runs.

You know what feat will never be duplicated...40 & 400.
In 1922 Rogers hit .401 with 42 home runs.
He almost dit it again in 1925 when he batted .403 with 39 homers.

Hands down, Hornsby.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

MATTHEW

I share your admiration of Hornsby....he is certainly on my list of the 10 top HOFers.
And, your 400/40 stat. is very interesting; but, consider Babe Ruth's numbers in 1923.
He fell short of .400.....needing only 7 more Hits.....or, 7 more Walks instead of Outs
(as it was he set a record with 170 Walks).

Ruth batted .393 that year and hit 41 HR's....there just isn't enough that can be said
of the Babe.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

I think the only way to compare players of different eras is to compare them to the average player in the league during their playing careers. Therefore, which of the top alltime hitters had an average with the largest difference from the average player in the league? Which HR hitter hit HRs at a higher clip than the average player in the league? Etc., etc. Has anyone done this research? I suspect when all is said and done, Ruth will have the most impressive numbers in all categories but average.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Jeff,

You have a good approach. I believe that there's a book that came out in the last few years that takes that approach and also adjusts for the baseball park and a few other factors. For the life of me I can't remember the name of the book. If anybody knows the name of the book, feel free to let us know.

But according to the book, and after making all the adjustments, I believe the Bambino came out the top hitting outfielder which means basically he was the top hitter.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: bill

WAS IT TY COBB

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Ted- when Ruth hit .393 he would have needed only 3 or 4 hits for .400...check your math. He would have needed 7 hits if he had 1000 at bats.

And as far as duplicating Hornsby's .400/40, nobody could even do .400/0!

[Archive]

Posted By: howard

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/F/Terry-Forster.shtml

No document neccessary, Pete : ). Barry kinda gave up earlier, anyway.

Good guess, Bill. If I upped the minimum AB requirement to eighty you'd be correct.

No power, hardly any walks and no speed but I still wonder why he wasn't given more of a chance to hit.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

It was a pitcher! Never would have gotten it. The BB Encyclopedia doesn't give pitcher's batting stats..do you have the exact AB/H/AVG?

[Archive]

Posted By: howard

31/78/.397

If you want to check out his overall stats, Barry, just hit the link in my last post and scroll down below his pitching stats.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Back in the 1980s David Letterman used to pick on Terry Forster nearly every night for months...calling him a "fat tub of goo".

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I always neglect to scroll all the way down. That's a pretty impressive record- you can't hit .397 for 78 at bats by pure luck. Obviously, the guy could hit, but he rarely had more than 20 at bats in a season. They probably never used him as a pinch hitter.