Posted By:
Andrew ParksFor the sake of discussion ONLY and not to imply to anyone that they are wrong...
Some observations:
1) To me the best hitters are the ones who walk, hit and hit for power.
2) Sisler was way overrated in my opinion. He hit for a high average but never walked and had limited power.
3) Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, and Hornsby all look like top ten hitters when you look at the stats, but how can four (five counting Sisler) from the same era make it on the list? It reeks of inflated stats and sure enough, when you dig deeper, you will find the time between 1920 - 1939 had some of history's greatest offensive seasons (Ruth, Hornsby, Greenberg, Gehrig, Wilson, Foxx, etc etc). Lots of runs scored in that era. So I am always suspicious of those stats. So I take the best of the era - Ruth.
4)Cobb, Wagner and Speaker amassed some incredible numbers in an era when the ball was literally dead and fences were deep and the game was ruled by pitchers.
5) Bonds may have had the most unnatural help, but the guy still has to hit the round ball squarely with a round bat. Few have done it better.
6) I would love to add Gwynn, Carew, and Boggs to my list - those guys could get out of bed on Christmas morning and lace a two - strike double 9 times ouf 10...However, more power would make them more attractive to me.
7) Aaron, Mays, Musial, and Mantle put up some eye-popping stats again in eras when the pitchers ruled. The 50's - 70's are eras where some of the least amount of runs scored. Longevity also plays in Aaron's, Musial's and May's favors.
8) Pete Rose was an above average hitter for a LONG time. I never really considered him an outstanding hitter plus he had limited power.
COOL TOPIC!