Quote:
Originally Posted by cardsagain74
Anything related to homers is a much more important record.
At least I hope most see it that way. Glorifying base hits isn't much different than keeping track of just how many first downs a QB, RB, or WR produce.
|
Mmmmm, maybe! But not that easy and clear cut because you need base hits to get your average up there. Also, a homer isn't the only way to drive in runs. You can easily argue that a single or double with the bases loaded is more significant than a solo home run. Plus, how do the players most often get on base to score runs when someone does hit a multi-run homer? And don't forget there used to be a dead-ball era where few homers were hit at all, and up until 1931 a ball that landed in the outfield and then bounced over the fence also counted as a home run. Today that is just a double. MLB has done what they can to increase homers because modern fans seem to like the offense more than 1 - 0 pitching duels. Still, when you talk of offensive might in MLB, I don't think anyone would dare dispute the epitome of that to be someone who won the Triple Crown; most homers, most RBIs, AND highest batting average. And the last two of those Triple Crown items are going to definitely be dependent on hits (singles) to a very significant degree, either by that player trying to win the Triple Crown, or by his teammates.