Your all time Top 10 Hitters !!

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris

One other thing Andrew, has anyone ever batted 400 and had 120 walks? That can't be a very long list. No disrespect Andrew but if you are going to make arguments for the types of hitters that would be better than someone else shouldn't that hitter exist. Yes I would love to have a guy on my time with a .700 OB % but who are those guys? I do however see where many would say Sisler is not one of tyhe greatest hitters of all time. I mean when I was making my list I was amazed at who I left off. I am curious as to what your list looks like Andrew. Who are your top ten? BTW, Ty cobb would have hated you!

[Archive]

Posted By: Andrew Parks

The examples I have used are merely attempting to illustrate certain points for which I seem to be failing miserably...

Anyway,

My top ten are in the second post of this thread. But here they are again:

1. Williams
2. Ruth
3. Cobb
4. Aaron
5. Musial
6. Mays
7. Wagner
8. Bonds
9. Speaker
10. Mantle

Notice that all these guys had power and got on-base a great deal compared to the era in which they played. Please note that this list was compiled using power, OBP, longevity, categories led league, park adjustment factors, era adjustments, among others...

I love this topic!

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

How do you measure power from pre 1920's guys? It seems the information we have to work off of is purely anecdotal. On the other side, again removing steroids, how can we measure power from post 1980's players to reflect some sort of equality with the players of the 20's-40's?

I'm still seeing lists heavy in players from the Ruth/Foxx era. I can't believe that apx 6 of the top 10 hitters all came from that era.

I'm playing devil's advocate from the stanpoint that of seeing some different analysis and justification. My list also included mainly prewar folks. But, I still feel that ARod or Manny would beat the living *&%^ out of the ball if we transported them back to the Ruthian days. So, do you consider quality of pitching, conditioning, travel, specialists, DH, new pitches, etc...into the equation? I hate to say it, but pitchers are a HELL of a lot better now than they were back then, overall.

[Archive]

Posted By: Shannon

I dont think the pitchers are any better today then they were back in the 20s-40s. The pitching today is diluted, much like a lot of the players in general. Only a couple pitchers stand out in my mind from todays era who I consider great ones. Clemens and Maddux. I also say put Randy Johnson on that list. He didnt have a great year, but for the past 10 years or so hes been awesome.Clemens could pitch in any era, he is without a doubt the best pitcher I have seen play.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Andrew, I agree that Sisler isn't a top 10 hitter, but his OBA is right in line with all the other .400 hitters of the 20c. Almost everyone is between .460-.500. Terry is the worst at .452 and Williams the best .553. Hornsby was the only other player to have an OBA over .500 when they hit .400.

I also agree with Andrew that there are far too many players on the list from 1920-30. The introduction of a new ball and changing it out often during the course of the along with the spitball being outlawed, gave hitters a huge advantage. It took pitchers a long time to catch up.

I also don't buy the contention of dilution of talent in the modern game. If this were true, then the truely great players should be putting even better numbers than the players when talent was susposed to be so much better. In a nutshell, the worst player today, would be a good player in the deadball era and the worst deadball era players wouldn't get out of the low minor leagues today. I won't go into detail on this since it been covered here before and be found if you do a search.

Jay

I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

ERA was significantly lower in the deadball era due to lack of homeruns. All earned runs had to be manufactured. While Mathewson, Johnson, and Young were all dominant during their time, they didn't have to contend with a guy walking and the following hitter mashing it out of the park = 2 earned runs in the blink of an eye.

Pedro Martinez,, Clemens, Randy Johnson, Maddux, Ryan, Carlton, etc would all have been extremely effective back then. To solidify my point, look at the best ERAs of the 20's-40's. You'll see that the BEST pitchers had 3.00-4.00 ERAs. I guess that tells us how really special Clemens and Pedro are.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris

Andrew, I agree that OB + slugging tells you a lot about the productivity of a hitter. If you actually compare Wagner's numbers to Sisler's with your criteria, they are very similiar. Very similiar OB and SLG. Neither drew a ton of walks. Honus averaged 15 more a season than Sisler. Similiar avg of RBI's per season. Not a big difference in the two stats wise. To sum it all up Andrew I can see where you are coming from with everything except for calling Sisler a free swinger. I just don't see how a guy that struck out so few times is labled a free swinger. Also, I don't think Sisler's manager was telling him to go up to the plate and take a walk. Do you? He probably told him to go up there and do what he does best. Get a hit. What are some of the things you think favored the hitters of this era? Jay mentioned the new ball. I believe the sac fly rule was changed sometime in the 20's also. What are some other things you think favored the hitters of this era?

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Anson, the reason for the lower ERA is not lack of power numbers. The reason for the lower ERA is high error rate. Lack of HRs is a small contributor, but ERA were kept down because of the huge number of errors committed.

Go out and get the computer baseball simulation Diamond Mind and play a deadball or 19c era game. You pull your hair out with the number of errors your players committ. I've been playing the 1887 season. Seeing games with 10 runs scored and 10 errors isn't uncommon.

Jay

I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

ERA was significantly lower in the deadball era due to lack of homeruns. All earned runs had to be manufactured.


Earned runs are runs that a pitcher allows w/o the benifit of errors and passed balls and in some case interference calls.

Lets say that the pitcher has 2 outs and the batter reaches on an error. The next 10 guys could all hit home runs and all those runs are Un earned.
The pitcher would have been out of the inning.


Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Chris,

You can't compare Sisler's and Wagner's stats at face value - two entriely different offensive eras.

1900's-1920 == few walks, few HR's, few strike-outs
1920-1939 == many more walks, more HR's, more K's, more runs.

Therefore, Honus's stats are far more valuable than Sisler's.

Somebody asked how to measure power from pre-1920. It's actually very easy == doubles and triples translate into pre-1920 power.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris

Well Andrew, If you can't compare those two eras you can't compare those two eras with today. Or those eras with the 50's. Or those with the 40's. Come on Andrew. All eras have some differences. Why is it acceptable for players in Honus' era to not walk but not acceptable in the 20's? I would think it would have been more important in the deadball era to draw a walk. You have convinced me of one thing though, since players tended to strike out more in the 20's, I stand corrected that Sisler must have been a free swinger for striking out a whopping 327 times during his career. Think about it Andrew, 327 career strikeouts. That is NOT a free swinger. You don't strikeout that few times by swinging at bad pitches. I guess you don't want to concede on that though so I will concede and say George Sisler was one of the great free swingers the game has known. Right up there with Dave Kingman. As far as triples and doubles equalling speed in the pre 20's, I don't know if I totally agree with that as the fields were so much larger then. I think it was more speed when you got douples and triples. That part of the game was different as well. A double or triple then is not what a double or triple now is in all cases. By the way since you can't compare one era to another let's just compare Sisler to his own error before his eye problem. 1917 2nd in league BA. 1918 3rd. 1919 3rd. 1920 1st. 1921 4th. 1922 1st. Lastly since you are such a big OPS guy as judging a players hitting ability. 1917-1919 4th. 1920 2nd. 1921 6th. and 1922 3rd. Do those stats make him a free swinger? George Sisler may not be one of the ten greatest hitters of all time but for you to call him a free swinger is just silly. There are no stats you can throw out to back that claim up. He didn't strike out much. He was among the league leaders in OPS, BA, hits, total bases. You don't have to call Sisler one of the 10 greatest hitters but please stop calling him a free swinger. It doesn't make sense.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Chris,

It doesn't make sense to you because I must not be explaining myself very well. I apologzie for that.

Let me try again.

On Free-swingers:

A free swinger swings at lots of pitches. That's it. I never said Sisler swung at bad pitches. I never said free-swingers strike out a lot. I already told you that a free-swinger is merely a guy who is very agressive at the plate - Vladimir, Yogi Berra, Gary Pettis - free swingers. Berra rarely struck out but he rarely walked. He was one of the great bad-ball hitters of alltime. He’s an example of a free-swinger who rarely struck-out. Sisler was an excellent free-swinger. Does that make sense now?

So here's my stat to support my claim that he's a free-swinger: Sisler walked once every five games. What does that mean? He swung at everything - borderline strikes, borderline balls, strikes, first pitch strikes, you name it - he was going to swing. This means that he would walk less. This means that he would make more outs. This means he was a less valuable .350 hitter than Babe Ruth or any other hitter who walked a lot.

On Comparing eras:

Let me be more clear. You can compare eras but you HAVE to adjust the stats so that they are all in-line. You can NOT compare Sisler's stats to Wagner's stats STRAIGHT UP. That's all I'm saying. A HR in Wagner's time is worth much more than a HR in Sisler's time. A walk in Wagner's time is worth much more than a walk in Sisler's time.

In 1909 (the year Wagner hit .339), the National League batted .244, had a league OBP of .305 and slugged .314 as a league.

In 1922 (the year Sisler batted .420), the American League batted .285, had a league OBP of .344 and slugged .398.

See the difference?

On His OPS finishes:

"1917-1919 4th. 1920 2nd. 1921 6th. and 1922 3rd"

That's weak if you ask me. We're talking about the ten greatest hitters EVER. And he was never first and only placed top ten 7 times?

Williams was first ten times. Ruth - 13. Cobb - 11. Wagner - 8. Aaron - 3. Mays - 5. Mantle - 8. Speaker - 1. Musial - 7. Bonds - 9.

Does all that make sense?

On Triples – speed vs. power
I never mentioned triples were a result of speed. It must have been someone else.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian H (misunderestimated)

Andrew's top 10 (except Speaker) all made my top 15.... I agree with his point on Sisler as well. I also gave repesetation to the current crop of hitters, regardless of whether or not hey benefitted from "unfair enhancement." Nonetheless Barry Bonds was the only one on my list that I have ever really heard accused of having an unfair advantage. Frank Thomas has never been seriously accused of steriod use to my knowledge.

http://www.baseballreference.com/s/sislege01.shtml

clearly a top notch hitter -- especially in his best seasons but, his On Base percentage + Slugging average (The stat gurus call this an "OPS") was, in the context of his era (this is called the "OPS+ Adjusted" with 100 equalling the average for the season), not on par with Honus'.

http://www.baseballreference.com/w/wagneho01.shtml

As the links above show, Sisler's best OPS+ Adjusted was 181 in 1920 and Honus' was 205 in 1908. This means basically that in 1920 Siler was 180% of the league average in 1920 and Wagner was 205 % in 1908. Because of era (i.e Babe Ruth et al) Sisler never led the league in OPS+ while Wagner did it 7 times between 1900-1909.


Babe Ruth, still the all-time king in this category was 1st in the league 13 years in a row starting in 1918. Ruth's lifetime OPS+ is still the only one over 200.

http://www.baseballreference.com/leaders/OPSplus_career.shtml

The top season ever: Barry Bonds 275 in 2002 (Bonds also placed second with 262 the year before).

http://www.baseballreference.com/leaders/OPSplus_season.shtml

Additonally Sisler didn't dominate nearly as long as Wagner (not many did). Sisler, unfortunately, suffered an eye injury or something that brought him back from the realm of the "truly great" to the merely "good" after 1922. In fact he missed the entire 1923 season recuperating.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bill Stone

1.Mantle
2.Ruth
3.Long
4.DiMaggio
5.Wee Willie Keeler
6.Foxx
7.Roger Doc Cramer
8.Mel Ott
9.Hornsby
10.Gehrig

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

1. T. Williams
2. B. Bonds
3. L. Gehrig
4. B. Ruth
5. W. Mays
6. J. DiMaggio
7. T. Cobb
8. W. McCovey
9. J. Jackson
10. J. Foxx

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris

No big deal Andrew. We just disagree. Before you call his OPS finishes "weak" you should look at the players in the AL finishing ahead of him. Ruth, Jackson, Cobb for example in 1919. Only Ruth in 1920. Don't forget he played in the same league in his prime years as Cobb, Ruth, Speaker, Heilmann, as well as many other greats so I think he was in pretty good company even finsihing 4th in OPS. Like I said though no big deal. I think Sisler was a great hitter. The fact he continued to hit after his vision problem makes me wonder how great he could have been as his vision problem was never fully corrected.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

These are the All-Time Leaders in adjusted OPS. This is an interesting list. It makes me want to re-think my picks. Wagner is way down the list.

http://www.baseballreference.com/leaders/OPSplus_career.shtml

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

OPSplus is a good indicator, but would you really rather have McGwire ahead of Musial? I could probably think of 100 hitters I'd rather have than Mac, yet he ranks 11th, tied with Foxx.

Jay

I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

Only 100, Jay?

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

Jay

Isn't the ops+ indicator that this list goes by flawed? it does not take into account era's played in? I mean how can (Browning) be higher then 86 other guys?

And like you said McGwire ahead of Stan the man?


I guess stats can be skewed to prove just about anything.


Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: Daniel Bretta

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Sam Thompson on any of their lists. He was the best power hitter of the 19th Century and averaged nearly an RBI/game. In 1895 He had 165 RBI in 119 games.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian H (misunderestimated)

No stat can ever be perfect but you have to recognize its definition before simply discarding it. Musial is behind Mac because he played much longer and for several years at the end his good but not great seasons brought down his OPS. Mac was injured so much in his last seasons (of which there were fewer) that his sub-par performances didn't bring down his lifetime average as much.... like any statistic OPS+ doesn't take off points for things like being a jerk, being a great teammate (or a poor teammate) or using performance enhancing drugs...

It also neglects RBIs and Runs, which explains why Sam Thompson, statisically the greatest RBI man is outshown by several other 19th Century players. Thompson, by the way got many of his RBIs during the high scoring 1890's and hit behind some pretty good scorers (Hamilton, the greatest runs/game player ever) and Delehanty, who was a better hitter than Big Sam. The three of them made up the only outfield to ever have 3 .400 hitters in a season in 1894, the year the mound was moved back to its presnt distance.

[Archive]

Posted By: PoorYorik

Steve, the reason why a guy like Browning, or David Orr sits very high upon the career OPS+ list is because OPS+ is a rate stat, and those guys didn't play after their prime years...Browning retired after age 33, orr after age 30! So they didn't have any old man years to bring down their OPS+, like most Hall of Famers go through. That is also why you see Dick Allen high on that list.

That is why you see those guys higher than somebody like Stan Musial, who played a very long time. A better stat to use are the linear weight stats, as those weight the TRUE value of each offensive event(BB, 1b, 2b, 3b, Hr, out). However, if you want to look at OPS+, and figure the value of a Browning vs. Musial, all you have to do to see who truly was the more dominant/better player was, is to look at how they ranked on a yearly basis in OPS+...The following list will tell a much clearer story between browning and Musial than what their career OPS+ number tells.

League Rankings in the top ten in OPS+
Musial...1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,4,4,4,6,7,7,7

Browning...1,1,2,2,2,3,5,6,6.

Browning was impressive, but as you can see Musial was much more impressive. Browning only has a higher OPS+ than Musial because he didn't play long enough for it to come down. His career rankings are actually pretty similar to a Dick Allen, who also didn't play very long, but was dominant when he did.


Can people manipulate the numbers any way they want? Yes, if they want to create an argument that is without merit they can. However, using the correct criteria which has been poured over, checked, re-checked, and re-checked again, you are gonna get their 95% of the way.

There has been considerbal debate on Sisler, and the people backing him are ignoring the context of his numbers. His best yearly rankings were 2,3,3,4,5,6, and 8. Good, but nowhere near the rankings I've seen him on these top ten lists. They are waaaay overvaluing NOT striking out. Here is a quick way to check how valuable Not striking out truly is...

Go through every game that Mike Schmidt played, and Bill Buckner played. "King K" vs. "NoN King K", and you will see how little Buckner's contact ability actually equated into moving runners up OR getting on base via error. One can check EVERY game of their career to see those results, and you will see what I mean. Then add in the fact more double plays will be hit because of more contact, and you will notice that striking out only costs a hitter(and team) about 2-3 runs per every 100 strikouts. There is a difference, but very small, and nothing remotely close to what I hear fans talk about. It's all in black and white.

Here is a teaser...Mike Schmidt Reached on error (ROE) 118 times in 8300+ at bats, Buckner 128 times in 9300+ at bats. Per at bat, virtually no difference between the K and NON K man. Buckner's contact netted him 247 GIDP, and Schmidt 156.

Reaching on error is more prevalent in Sislers time, but it is also more prevalent for all of Sisler's competitors as well .

Cross era comparisons? That is a book. That is for another day.


Sisler doesn't even come close to cracking the top ten in Pre War guys, let alone all-time. Yes, all those stats, even the relative to the league ones are slanted towards the 20's-30's, and this current era right now. They are skewed, as it is ridiculous that all those stats, as they presently sit, suggest that all of the best players ever came from the 20's or late 90's. Or that all the best pitchers ever came pre 1900, or late 90's, yet that is what those skewed stats say.

There are some adjustments to be made. When doing an all-time thing like this, always compare to their contemporaries, AMD THEN knock down even more the value any hitter or pitcher from the late 90's to now, any hitter from the 20's-30's, and any pitcher pre 1900. It can get involved, but if you want to know reality, as opposed to the lists that are normally posted, then make the proper measurements.

It was far easier for the superstars of the league to dominate pre war baseball, and to dominate this current time in baseball.

EVERYONE SHOULD FIND IT ODD THAT...If you just look at straight OPS that only ONE player from the late 60's trough the 80's cracks the top 100 hitting seasons of all time! So you should use OPS+ to make it relative to the league, well...

Only FOUR hitters from the late 60's through the 80's crack the top 100 OPS+ seasons of all time. Right there you should know something is wrong. It isn't just OPS+, all the best metrics do the same thing, unless they are corrected! ERA+ is only a smidge different, as pre 1919 has all the best, yes that is even relative to the league. Pre 1919 has about double the best seasons compared to 1966-1993!

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

Yorik Thankyou for answering many of my questions. Interesting.

Putting the ball into play does not have the importance/wght I thought it had. (as opposed to K'n. At least for those 2. Is that true basically across the board too?




the info regarding what some of these pre 1900 guys is very interesting as well.
thanks for taking the time in that reply.

Steve

edited typo

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Steve, it typically is true across the board. That 2 to 3 runs per 100 k's is based on EVERYBODY's hitting, not just those two players. That is the best example to highlight the discussion though...it really polarizes it.

However, that 2 to 3 runs per 100 strikeouts could change depending on how often a player does it in certain situations. Usually those situations even out over time though and fall back to the 3 runs per. But if you could find somebody that did do that, then sure it makes a difference.

That 2 to 3 runs also goes a little higher when the errors were made more often, but EVERYBODY struck out less than, so even if Sisler did make contact more often, so did everybody else in the league. It isn't like there were guys striking out 150 times a game like now. So the difference between Sisler striking out 20 times, and a stud HR hitter 80 times, is really minimal. Think about, half of those 60 extra k's will come with nobody on to begin with, so it doesn't matter much there. Only a few will come in the crucial 1st and 3rd less than two out situation. So you may be talking about 4 runs per 100 k's in that time. It does make a differnce, but only very little

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Brian H.,

I have often wondered why the Phillies were able to produce four .400+ hitting outfielders the year after the mound was moved to 60.5'; and the first year that the pitchers had to contend with that increased difference, there was no significant change in hitting performance.

Edited to add:

Actually, my statement is not entirely true. Upon reviewing the stats, the League BA increased about 30 pts. the year that the pitcher's mound was moved back, and another 30 pt. increase the following year.

Then following that 60 point BA increase, the pitchers regained a twenty point decrease in averages.

But still - I wouldn't have thought that following the moving of the mound to 60.5 feet - a two year, 30pts/yr. increase would result. Id have thought that the sixty points would be realized right away.

[Archive]

Posted By: TheBig6

1.Cobb
2.Ruth
3.Gehrig
4.Hornsby
5.Delahany
5.Wagner
6.Speaker
7.Lajoie
8.Brothers
9.Aaron
10.Williams
Honorable Mention Musial
I'm old School