Top 10 Hitters: Number 1

Discussion in 'Baseball' started by The_Kid, Sep 29, 2007.


Greatest hitter of all time?

Poll closed Oct 13, 2007.
  1. Babe Ruth

    0 vote(s)
  2. Ted Williams

    0 vote(s)
  3. Ty Cobb

    0 vote(s)
  4. Rogers Hornsby

    0 vote(s)
  5. Lou Gehrig

    0 vote(s)
  6. Barry Bonds

    0 vote(s)
  7. Mickey Mantle

    0 vote(s)
  8. Stan Musial

    0 vote(s)
  9. Hank Aaron

    0 vote(s)
  10. Willie Mays

    0 vote(s)
  1. The_Kid

    The_Kid Sexy Beast

    All right, I'm going to install the first edition of Fusion's top 10 hitters, 2007-08. We'll be doing it from the top down. Please vote for who you think is the GREATEST hitter of all time. The poll will be up for 2 weeks.

  2. Babe_Ruth

    Babe_Ruth Sultan of Swat Staff Member V.I.P.

    I selected Babe Ruth, the reason being is because he could do basically anything with a baseball bat, when people think of Babe Ruth they usally think of home runs, but they also tend to forget that this guy has a career .342 batting average. He doesn't have 4000 hits like Ty Cobb, he never hit .400 like Williams did but in my opinion he's the greatest hitter of all time, and he was paid to hit home runs. He once said if he knew the game was about hitting singles then he would of batted .500. Very scary thought.
  3. The_Show_Stopper

    The_Show_Stopper Registered Member

    I picked Ruth. There's no one better than the Babe, the Sultan of Swat. Just think, he started his career off as a pitcher. If he had been an outfielder his whole career, he would have had 800 plus homeruns without a doubt. And its like MJ said, he may not have had the super high average like Cobb and Williams but he hit the homeruns and he pulled baseball out of the water after the Black Sox scandal in 1919. Without Ruth, baseball wouldn't have excelled like it did.
  4. Millz

    Millz LGB Staff Member V.I.P.

    I choose Ted Williams as the greatest hitter of all time...

    I didn't just pick Williams to be different than those who picked Ruth, but it's how I truly feel. My order would be...


    I picked Williams for a number of reasons. Ted was one of those players who could do it all and had he not missed a number of seasons because of the war, would have put up even higher numbers than he did. Ted was a career .344 hitter, which is higher than Ruth's .342. Williams also had an on base % of .482...which is an unbelievable statistic to look at. I truly believe if not for WWII and the Korean War that Williams would have hit 700 homers like Ruth and probably would have had more than that. Ted Williams hit .400 three times in his career as well.

    Overall I would say Williams was a more rounded player than was Ruth. I think you could okay in saying either one, but my vote is for Williams.
  5. The_Kid

    The_Kid Sexy Beast

    I completely agree with kdmillz. Ted's career BA was .344 to Ruth's .342. Ted had a .482 OBP to Ruth's .474. While Ruth may have hit 714 homers, while Ted hit 521 with a lot of lost time to war. You may say that Ruth had 5 missed years pitching, but Ted's 3 years in war prevented him from even getting a single at-bat from 1942-45. On the pace Ted was going, he would have hit about 700 homers without missed time, and probably would have stuck around another year to hit another 15+ homers. He would have also probably topped Ruth hit total without lost war time. Also, Ruth had 1330 strike outs. Ted only had 709! He also had an .857 OWP, while Ruth had a .852. Ted had 2 MVPs, Ruth only had 1. Ted also had 525 doubles. Ruth had 506 doubles. While Ruth may have been the better slugger, I think Ted was a better "all around" hitter.

    SHOELESSJOE3 Registered Member

    This is a close call. These two guys are at the top of my list regarding greatest all around hitters for a career.
    I pick Ruth in a close call because Ruth is closer to Ted as a hitter then Ted is close to Ruth as a slugger.

    First as far as Ted losing out because of the military there is only 693 at bats difference between the two. Ruth had 693 more at bats which equals about a season and a third. There is no way Ted could even come lose to Ruth's 714 home runs with 693 more at bats, he is 193 behind Ruth.

    Ted gets the edge in less strikouts.

    Teds OBA .482 to Babe's .474 thats only .008 better than Ruth, not much difference.

    Ted's .344 to Babe's .342 again a close call, two points.

    According to the SABR Baseball Encyclopedia Ruth's OWP was .852 and Ted's was .832.
    One of our sources is not correct.

    MVP's award. In most of the years Ruth was playing a player could be voted only one MVP award. This changed in the early 1930s when Ruth was winding down his career. I am sure no one would debate if eligible Ruth may have had a half dozen or more MVP's.

    As for the doubles Ruth 506 and Ted 525 Ruth hit 239 at home and 267 on the road, a good split not much difference.

    With no intent to take anything away from Ted he played in a great doubles park. The configuration of the power alley in right center field and the short LF with the Green Monster.
    Take a look at some lefthanded hitters who played for the Red Sox, their doubles at home and away.

    Doubles--------------Home Fenway-----------the road away.
    Fred Lynn--------------138-----------------------79

    This cannot be a fluke lots of at bats go in to those numbers. No doubt Fenway was doubles heaven for LH hitters.

    Look at the whole picture Ted's edge in OBA .008 and his batting average two points higher than Ruth small edge. Ruth .690 slugging 56 points higher than Ted's .632.

    The clincher we are including Ruth's 4 years as a pitcher only 1914-15-16-17 when he was batting every 4th or 5th day not good to keep a hitters timing sharp, dead ball era and facing trick deliveries which were no barred until 1920. Until 1920 dirt stained, scuffed balls were left in the game for many innings. The average number of balls used ain a game before 1920 was 3 balls. In one game (1918) at Philadelphia one ball was used the entire game

    Take Ruth's stats from 1919 when he played more regular and his numbers are .346 batting average----.481 OBA and .705 slugging.
  7. Sultan_1895-1948

    Sultan_1895-1948 Registered Member

    A half dozen? It is reasonable to assume he'd have six before the '26 season ever got under way.

    Taking nothing away from the great Williams, he is second to Ruth imo. Those who mention Williams' war years should remember that Ruth's rate and counting stats are lowered by his pitching years, hitting a dead ball in a much more spacious Fenway than Williams enjoyed.
  8. Its a tough one but I will side with Ruth. Although with Williams there is also that big question of "what if?" Had he not taken a few years away to help with the war effort he might have had much higher numbers.

    But at the same time there are loads of questions like that to be asked about Ruth, Cobb or any of the others on there.

    Just something to think about though... what if Ruth had the luxury of the "small" Fenway park that Williams had?

  9. natnsoxfan

    natnsoxfan Guest

    Toss up between Ruth and Williams, couldn't go wrong either way, but I think its Ruth.

    3rd all time in homers, held or holds several hitting records. Definitely Ruth.
  10. The_Kid

    The_Kid Sexy Beast

    You know, records don't mean as much as most people make them out to be. Example: Would you rather have a man who holds the record for stolen bases, but only hits .150 a year, or would you want a player who can steal bases and hit .280 a year?

Share This Page