Greatest of all time

[Cozumeleno]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I'm curious to know where the participants in this discussion would place Tony Gwynn. Outstanding defender and base stealer before his knees began to give out. Never a real power hitter, or big RBI guy. But you can't argue with his eight batting titles. Since 1965, Gwynn's .338 average is 10 points higher than the next best hitter (minimum 5,000 at bats), Wade Boggs. And after meeting with Ted Williams for the first time (1992 All Star Game), Gwynn was an incredible .356 hitter for the last nine seasons of his career.

I'd really have to take a closer look but for me, he'd be pretty far down the list (in comparison here ... I'm saying he wouldn't be in my top 20 or so if we're including pitchers). As you mention, he was a stolen base threat and a very good defender, but only for a relatively small part of his career. Easily the best hitter since Ted Williams, but he'd rank behind a lot of guys that simply did more for longer stretches of time. So many great players that didn't make my top five (i.e. Stan Musial) fit that category.

The things that amaze me are that he was so much better than everyone else in his generation and that he was hitting over .320 still at the age of 41. He was still an above average hitter that late into his career. Nothing but respect for that.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Cozumeleno

I'd really have to take a closer look but for me, he'd be pretty far down the list (in comparison here ... I'm saying he wouldn't be in my top 20 or so if we're including pitchers). As you mention, he was a stolen base threat and a very good defender, but only for a relatively small part of his career. Easily the best hitter since Ted Williams, but he'd rank behind a lot of guys that simply did more for longer stretches of time. So many great players that didn't make my top five (i.e. Stan Musial) fit that category.

The things that amaze me are that he was so much better than everyone else in his generation and that he was hitting over .320 still at the age of 41. He was still an above average hitter that late into his career. Nothing but respect for that.

Easily the best hitter since Ted Williams? Easily a better hitter than Bonds, Pujols, A-Rod, Schmidt, and Boggs? Only if singles count for more than home runs.

[Cozumeleno]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Easily the best hitter since Ted Williams? Easily a better hitter than Bonds, Pujols, A-Rod, Schmidt, and Boggs? Only if singles count for more than home runs.

I put Bonds ahead of him on my all-time player list (and would list several of those guys above him as well). But they all fall short for me in terms of comparing their overall hitting to Gwynn.

Gwynn, IMO, is far more than a singles hitter. He had more (other than Bonds, significantly more) triples than anyone in that group and his doubles stack up pretty favorably against most, too - in fact, he has more than Schmidt and AROD (for now).

The only people on that list even close to him in batting average (to me, probably the top criteria) were Pujols and Boggs. Boggs had as little pop in his bat as he did and while Pujols is a career .315 hitter now, that number is dropping by the day...he hasn't hit that well since 2009 and he could play for another five years or so.

And when you consider that Gwynn never struck out more than 40 times in a season, he's an easy pick for me. If you factor in things like strikeouts and batting titles, I'd take him over anyone else.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Cozumeleno

I put Bonds ahead of him on my all-time player list (and would list several of those guys above him as well). But they all fall short for me in terms of comparing their overall hitting to Gwynn.

What you're saying is that if Gwynn had been equal to Bonds on defense and on the basepaths, without otherwise changing anything, Gwynn would easily have been the better player overall.

[Cozumeleno]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

What you're saying is that if Gwynn had been equal to Bonds on defense and on the basepaths, without otherwise changing anything, Gwynn would easily have been the better player overall.

Not at all - Bonds was leaps and bounds better than him as a power hitter and that counts for a lot if you're talking about him being a better player. Bonds is a better power hitter, was better defensively, and a better base stealer - you add it all up and he's a better player.

Bonds was the better power hitter, but Gwynn, for me, is a better hitter overall when you factor in the things I mentioned. Hit for a much better average, struck out less, won batting title after batting title, and was still hitting well over .300 into his 40s.

[Joshchisox08]

Originally Posted by Cozumeleno

Not at all - Bonds was leaps and bounds better than him as a power hitter and that counts for a lot if you're talking about him being a better player. Bonds is a better power hitter, was better defensively, and a better base stealer - you add it all up and he's a better player.

Bonds was the better power hitter, but Gwynn, for me, is a better hitter overall when you factor in the things I mentioned. Hit for a much better average, struck out less, won batting title after batting title, and was still hitting well over .300 into his 40s.

+ 1

Gwynn get's no respect. Power is overrated. Gwynn hit a HR in the WS against the Yankees. Bonds is a cheating a$$h0le. And no you don't know exactly when he started roiding up and no he WASN'T a HOF'er before the Roids because you don't know when he started, fact is it doesn't matter. He cheated. To quote Hawk "He Gone".

I guess that yeah Gwynn was a nicer and better human being than Bonds. Hitting he WAS a better hitter. He like Cobb had a science to hitting Cobb sought out his advantages in players weaknesses. Gwynn did the same while using recordings of at bats and making it all about the thought process of hitting. If people were going to give him the Gwynn hole in between SS and 3B why wouldn't he keep attacking ??? Boring sure if you're too worried about Home Runs.

Don't get me wrong who doesn't like a HR but to overall hitting, and a guy who only sniffed a .330 average once in his so called "clean years" proves that Gwynn was a smarter/better hitter. He wasn't worried about Home Runs. Nor should he, he knew what type of player/hitter he was. When it isn't broken don't fix it.

Bonds got jealous of McGwire and then that's when he supposedly started juicing. He took an unfair advantage whether or not you view it as one it is a debatable subject in it's own. But MLB sees it as an unfair advantage. Therefore IMO he shouldn't even be a contender to be considered greatest player.

He is the greatest of something but I won't say that out loud on here. Not going to get in trouble again.

P.S. Next thing I'll see is someone claiming Clemens was the greatest pitcher ever

[Peter_Spaeth]

Gwynn is nowhere close to Bonds, IMO. Steroids aside, Bonds is one of the best five players of all time, easily. Gwynn might be top 25. How on earth is power overrated in baseball?? And you could certainly make a strong argument that Clemens is the best ever.

[brewing]

Originally Posted by Cozumeleno

And when you consider that Gwynn never struck out more than 40 times in a season, he's an easy pick for me. If you factor in things like strikeouts and batting titles, I'd take him over anyone else.

Wow! Wow!

Isn't that like saying if you factor in SB's and runs scored (runs and run prevention being the most important things), then Rickey Henderson is the greatest baseball player of All Time?