Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: flinstones1 on November 07, 2013, 12:53:58 PM
-
Was he clean? I say fuck no, baseball needs a natural golden child ;D
but he's still my favorite player.
1:28 :o
-
Wasn't Michael Jordan, for at least a couple of games, the Michael Jordan of baseball?
-
Wasn't Michael Jordan, for at least a couple of games, the Michael Jordan of baseball?
boom!
[/youtube]
-
Was he clean? I say fuck no, baseball needs a natural golden child ;D
They have one - Mike Trout
-
They have one - Mike Trout
Ummm no dude. Mike is young and a great player...has great power but you need to realize ken Griffey was also at one time the fastest player in the game. He was the closest thing to bo Jackson,,,talent wise.
-
Ummm no dude. Mike is young and a great player...has great power but you need to realize ken Griffey was also at one time the fastest player in the game. He was the closest thing to bo Jackson,,,talent wise.
Ummmm - Tout stole 49 bases his rookie year, and has almost stolen half as many bases in 2 years than Griffey did in 22....
-
Ummm no dude. Mike is young and a great player...has great power but you need to realize ken Griffey was also at one time the fastest player in the game. He was the closest thing to bo Jackson,,,talent wise.
Injury prone though
-
Ummm no dude. Mike is young and a great player...has great power but you need to realize ken Griffey was also at one time the fastest player in the game. He was the closest thing to bo Jackson,,,talent wise.
Bo Jackson was a good (not a great) baseball player ... Ken Griffey was a great (though a tad overrated) baseball player ... Mike Trout has had a ridiculous first two years of MLB.
-
Ummmm - Tout stole 49 bases his rookie year, and has almost stolen half as many bases in 2 years than Griffey did in 22....
All Im going to tell you is this...I know alot of guys who played baseball at the highest level and.they all will tell you the same thing, griffey was the man.
Mike had two great years.not taking anything away from him but ..lets see him do it for 10 years. You guys all saw what happened to puljos
-
Ummmm - Tout stole 49 bases his rookie year, and has almost stolen half as many bases in 2 years than Griffey did in 22....
Mike Trout couldn't hold Ken Griffey's jock strap. Please, Miguel C eats his lunch and dinner. Only player better then Griffey was "Mr. Clean" Barry Bonds ;)
-
Mike Trout couldn't hold Ken Griffey's jock strap. Please, Miguel C eats his lunch and dinner. Only player better then Griffey was "Mr. Clean" Barry Bonds ;)
QFT. the guy's swing was just a thing of an art. Almost effortless.
-
Mike Trout couldn't hold Ken Griffey's jock strap. Please, Miguel C eats his lunch and dinner. Only player better then Griffey was "Mr. Clean" Barry Bonds ;)
Trout is better than Miguel Cabrerra since, in addition to being an elite hitter, also plays elite defense at a premium position, and is one of the best baserunners in the game. Cabrerra, despite being one of the best hitters in the game, is a butcher in the field and can't run.
-
will clark was a legend
rickey henderson was a true neegul
wade boggs and don mattingly were fags
-
Was he clean? I say fuck no, baseball needs a natural golden child ;D
but he's still my favorite player.
1:28 :o
griffey was on the fast track to the all time home run record too bad injury and age caught up to him. he may have been clean as he got older he got worse just as jim bunning said it should be. guys lose it quick once it starts to go. rumours of griffey sleeping in the batting cage during the last few games in the bigs were said.
-
All Im going to tell you is this...I know alot of guys who played baseball at the highest level and.they all will tell you the same thing, griffey was the man.
Mike had two great years.not taking anything away from him but ..lets see him do it for 10 years. You guys all saw what happened to puljos
This changing the argument. First you said he wasn't fast, but he's one of the fastest. Now you're talking about longevity. We'll have to see on that one, absolutely.
Trouts rookie season was one of the best season ever in MLB history, rookie or not. His second year was fantastic as well. He's off to a great start.
This takes nothing away from KGJ. He was friggin' awesome, and had one of the best swings EVER.
-
lets not forget DARRYL STRAWBERRY the neegar had the best golf club swing
-
lets not forget DARRYL STRAWBERRY the neegar had the best golf club swing
epic leans too.
-
He could play any sport top level and did not even lift.
-
This changing the argument. First you said he wasn't fast, but he's one of the fastest. Now you're talking about longevity. We'll have to see on that one, absolutely.
Trouts rookie season was one of the best season ever in MLB history, rookie or not. His second year was fantastic as well. He's off to a great start.
This takes nothing away from KGJ. He was friggin' awesome, and had one of the best swings EVER.
Well Im not taking anything away from mike, he does alot more with what he was given than Griffey.
I know someone who would time ken Griffey in the 90's when he was really young...he would run the 60 in 6.1 -6.2.... For a 6'3 guy That's nuts dude...world class speed brother. Mike is running a 6.6...still very good for a guy his size. I think the fastest guy in the MLB in the past 10 years was Ichiro and carl Crawford. they would run a 5.9 on occasion..
Griffey was also lazy....and would go around the club house preaching how he didn't believe in weight training even after everyone in the 90's was doing it once they saw what it did to Conseco.
-
Well Im not taking anything away from mike, he does alot more with what he was given than Griffey.
I know someone who would time ken Griffey in the 90's when he was really young...he would run the 60 in 6.1 -6.2.... For a 6'3 guy That's nuts dude...world class speed brother. Mike is running a 6.6...still very good for a guy his size. I think the fastest guy in the MLB in the past 10 years was Ichiro and carl Crawford. they would run a 5.9 on occasion..
Griffey was also lazy....and would go around the club house preaching how he didn't believe in weight training even after everyone in the 90's was doing it once they saw what it did to Conseco.
Not taking anything away from Griffey. But what Trout is doing is historical, and if he continues, he'll be one of the best ever. Tot your point though, that is not easy to do.
-
Bo Jackson was a good (not a great) baseball player ... Ken Griffey was a great (though a tad overrated) baseball player ... Mike Trout has had a ridiculous first two years of MLB.
If Bo Jackson only played baseball at an early age and stayed with it, he would have been one of the best ever...Jackson was still kind of raw at baseball. If he didn't go play football and concentrated on baseball alone, the upside of Jackson was through the roof...He may have been the fastest player to ever play. Just brutally fast...
-
Was he clean? I say fuck no, baseball needs a natural golden child ;D
but he's still my favorite player.
1:28 :o
I wrote a story on this. During the start of the "steroid era" McGwire and Sosa were on fire, first 60, then 70 HR. During that span one guy also had stats that kept pace with them and that was KGJ. During an era where pitchers were juiced to the gills, the only players that had big years were also the juicers. If KGJ was clean then the fact that he was able to keep pace with McGwire, Sosa et al would mean he was the greatest hitter in history. That he was able to hit the ball against all of the juicers and still get a shitload of homers clean. But the fact is that his stats rose and fell in perfect sequence with those that were caught juicing and that can lead you to believe one thing.
-
Looks clean.
-
From a pure technique stand point ken griffey junior was one of the best i say he was clean at least the bulk of his career he had the Ted Williams barber sign swing going on. His swing was nearly perfect don't have to be that strong really he was rumored to only bench 250
-
If Bo Jackson only played baseball at an early age and stayed with it, he would have been one of the best ever...Jackson was still kind of raw at baseball. If he didn't go play football and concentrated on baseball alone, the upside of Jackson was through the roof...He may have been the fastest player to ever play. Just brutally fast...
Deion was way faster. He could scoot.
-
well alls thats left to do is to get ken grifffy jr to post on getbig regularly
-
Deion was way faster. He could scoot.
Deion was extremely fast...But many believe Bo was even faster. Bo Jackson has the fastest 40m dash combine time of all time. When he ran a 4.12, people stated that there had to be something wrong with the clock...Then Bo ran a 4.18 a week later under a different testing system...
Wiki
In 1986, Auburn's Bo Jackson ran the fastest 40-yard dash at an NFL combine, with a reported time of 4.12. The time was scrutinized, but a time of 4.18 run by Jackson within the same week added some support to the legitimacy of the times.[8][9] Deion Sanders ran a 4.27-second 40-yard dash in 1989
-
Deion was extremely fast...But many believe Bo was even faster. Bo Jackson has the fastest 40m dash combine time of all time. When he ran a 4.12, people stated that there had to be something wrong with the clock...Then Bo ran a 4.18 a week later under a different testing system...
Wiki
In 1986, Auburn's Bo Jackson ran the fastest 40-yard dash at an NFL combine, with a reported time of 4.12. The time was scrutinized, but a time of 4.18 run by Jackson within the same week added some support to the legitimacy of the times.[8][9] Deion Sanders ran a 4.27-second 40-yard dash in 1989
Watched th both play in college, NFL and MLB. Yes I am old. And I think Deion was faster. Really dont care about combine times. Didnt they time Orlando Pace at 4.5? His fat ass couldnt outrun me.
-
Watched th both play in college, NFL and MLB. Yes I am old. And I think Deion was faster. Really dont care about combine times. Didnt they time Orlando Pace at 4.5? His fat ass couldnt outrun me.
Everyone that played baseball with Bo said he's the fastest they ever seen. Bo may not appeared faster than Deion because he was over 40 pounds heavier than Deion. These guys were also timed all the time from "out of the box" to first base. Stealing 2nd base and 1st to 3rd. Everyone says they never seen anyone beat Bo's times.
-
Here's a voice/video of Deion talking about how he caught up to Bo Jackson because of how fast Deion was...Only problem is the video clearly shows that Deion always had the angle on Bo. It wasn't like he caught him from behind. But Deion likes to think otherwise ;)
-
Everyone that played baseball with Bo said he's the fastest they ever seen. Bo may not appeared faster than Deion because he was over 40 pounds heavier than Deion. These guys were also timed all the time from "out of the box" to first base. Stealing 2nd base and 1st to 3rd. Everyone says they never seen anyone beat Bo's times.
Not doubting Bo was fast. I just think Deion was faster.
-
Griffey reportedly was very lazy, never worked out much. A true natural talent.
-
Griffey reportedly was very lazy, never worked out much. A true natural talent.
Probably why he was on the DL so much.
-
Everyone that played baseball with Bo said he's the fastest they ever seen. Bo may not appeared faster than Deion because he was over 40 pounds heavier than Deion. These guys were also timed all the time from "out of the box" to first base. Stealing 2nd base and 1st to 3rd. Everyone says they never seen anyone beat Bo's times.
exactly, deion was a skinny little shit. Bo was the strongest fastest guy in the game ....I just don't people just cant grasp how nuts it is for a 225 lb guy to be that explosive.
-
exactly, deion was a skinny little shit. Bo was the strongest fastest guy in the game ....I just don't people just cant grasp how nuts it is for a 225 lb guy to be that explosive.
Who said he wasnt fast or strong? But as much as Deion was called a pussy I remember your loverboy Bo pulling himself from a game vs Tenn with a "thigh bruise." ::)
-
I'm going to love arguing with Ape on this one...LOL!
In my opinion, and most baseball writers out there, Griffey is not the MJ of baseball. After all, would anyone here say that there were 55 basketball players better than MJ? Probably not. But according to modern baseball statistics, there were 55 baseball players who single handedly helped their teams win more games than Griffey. And the ability of one player to contribute to wins is what really measures the worth of any player in any sport. That's over their respective careers. Now, some might argue that many of those players enjoyed long careers, but then again, Griffey played well past his prime as well, milking his days with the Reds long after he was an average hitting outfielder. We can all speculate what might have been, had he not gotten hurt. Maybe he would have hit 700 homeruns. We can say the same about Pujols and his fascitis.
So let's try to take Ken's best season - 1996 - and compare it to Trout's best year. In that year, Ken had a 9.6 WAR value. Trout was 10.9.
Ken only had two years where his WAR stacked up over 9. Trout's done it his first two years. His first two years in the league have been better than any two Griffey years combined. So that's saying something about Trout, and about how decidedly "un-MJ" Griffey really was.
Some guys don't see the merit in WAR though. Understandable. What about adjusted OPS? Take Griffey's two best years, and they still don't match what Trout has done in his first two years.
Why the love for Trout? Far from it. I think Trout is great, but he's not the greatest. I'm simply using him as a yardstick with which to compare Griffey. We wouldn't run around saying Trout's years are the greatest ever. Nor should we say the same about Griffey. Now, Griffey did produce at a high level for a long time, and because of that, were I voting, he'd be a first ballot HOF'er on my list - no questions asked. But then, I would have also voted for Palmeiro and Bonds.
Griffey was great. But he was far from being the greatest ever, or even the greatest of his generation.
Oh, and if Griffey was so fast, how did he get caught stealing over 70 times on 180+ steals? Trout's been caught only just over 10% of the time. Maybe Griffey liked getting caught? Maybe the catchers in Griffeys day had better arms? Or maybe he's never been as fast as Trout.
-
I'm going to love arguing with Ape on this one...LOL!
Sorry, but I pretty much agree with all of it. ;D - I'm one of the ones who thought Trout should have won MVP last year.
My only issue is with the defensive metrics part of WAR. It's the best we have, but I find in more flawed than most stats (all are flawed in a way). I tend to use it directionally rather than an absolute number.
-
Sorry, but I pretty much agree with all of it. ;D - I'm one of the ones who thought Trout should have won MVP last year.
My only issue is with the defensive metrics part of WAR. It's the best we have, but I find in more flawed than most stats (all are flawed in a way). I tend to use it directionally rather than an absolute number.
Damn it - now we'll have to find something else baseball related to argue about! LOL!
I agree - the defensive metrics in WAR aren't the best. But then again, measuring defensive cababilities hasn't yet caught up to how we can quantify the impact of offense or pitching on runs. We still love scoring errors...god knows why.
I could play center field for the yankees and never make an error. By that metric, I'd be the greatest center fielder of all time. LOL...like measuring BA or RBIs.
-
I'm going to love arguing with Ape on this one...LOL!
In my opinion, and most baseball writers out there, Griffey is not the MJ of baseball. After all, would anyone here say that there were 55 basketball players better than MJ? Probably not. But according to modern baseball statistics, there were 55 baseball players who single handedly helped their teams win more games than Griffey. And the ability of one player to contribute to wins is what really measures the worth of any player in any sport. That's over their respective careers. Now, some might argue that many of those players enjoyed long careers, but then again, Griffey played well past his prime as well, milking his days with the Reds long after he was an average hitting outfielder. We can all speculate what might have been, had he not gotten hurt. Maybe he would have hit 700 homeruns. We can say the same about Pujols and his fascitis.
So let's try to take Ken's best season - 1996 - and compare it to Trout's best year. In that year, Ken had a 9.6 WAR value. Trout was 10.9.
Ken only had two years where his WAR stacked up over 9. Trout's done it his first two years. His first two years in the league have been better than any two Griffey years combined. So that's saying something about Trout, and about how decidedly "un-MJ" Griffey really was.
Some guys don't see the merit in WAR though. Understandable. What about adjusted OPS? Take Griffey's two best years, and they still don't match what Trout has done in his first two years.
Why the love for Trout? Far from it. I think Trout is great, but he's not the greatest. I'm simply using him as a yardstick with which to compare Griffey. We wouldn't run around saying Trout's years are the greatest ever. Nor should we say the same about Griffey. Now, Griffey did produce at a high level for a long time, and because of that, were I voting, he'd be a first ballot HOF'er on my list - no questions asked. But then, I would have also voted for Palmeiro and Bonds.
Griffey was great. But he was far from being the greatest ever, or even the greatest of his generation.
Oh, and if Griffey was so fast, how did he get caught stealing over 70 times on 180+ steals? Trout's been caught only just over 10% of the time. Maybe Griffey liked getting caught? Maybe the catchers in Griffeys day had better arms? Or maybe he's never been as fast as Trout.
Dude I will say this again. Ken Griffey was THE FASTEST GUY IN THE GAME AT ONE TIME. Remember all you and I see are stats on a paper, I'm repeating what I have been told by guys who played the game at the highest level in the 1980's and 1990's. the common theme among ALL of them is - there is a prime griffey and everyone else.
Mike Trout was a lot more aggressive and daring than Griffey and like someone else said, Griffey was lazy. There are guys in the mlb who steal a lot of bases and really aren't that fast...and vice verse. Jose Conseco in his prime COULD FLY.....he faster than Mike Trout, and would routinely run the 60 in 6.4 seconds. at 6'4! He was also bigger and stronger, a better athlete than mike...but Mike is obviously doing some crazy shit. obviously jose used drugs but that is besides the point.
probably a first ballet hall of famer? cmon brother the guy was voted on the all century team for fuck sake.
-
Why is it that lefties always have the prettiest swings?
-
If Griffey had an unlimited supply of Trenbalonie ACE, Humalog, and legit Kigs with the green top, would he have hit 763?
-
If Griffey had an unlimited supply of Trenbalonie ACE, Humalog, and legit Kigs with the green top, would he have hit 763?
Hell, if he'd just stayed healthy he probably would have beat Aaron's record.
-
Recent events have kind of put Bonds' record in perspective for me. He was juiced to the gills but so are Arod and Pujols and they aren't going to come near it.
-
Why is it that lefties always have the prettiest swings?
more of a natural motion as you sub consciously (body wants to) start moving towards first base anyways. I agree though, righties look choppy. A-rod's has a sweet swing for a right... .
prettiest swing in the game right now? id go with robinson cano.
-
Why is it that lefties always have the prettiest swings?
You can say that again. Will Clark, Ken Griffey Jr, and Barry Bonds all in my opinion have 3 of the greatest swings of the last 40 years
-
-
Dude I will say this again. Ken Griffey was THE FASTEST GUY IN THE GAME AT ONE TIME. Remember all you and I see are stats on a paper, I'm repeating what I have been told by guys who played the game at the highest level in the 1980's and 1990's. the common theme among ALL of them is - there is a prime griffey and everyone else.
Mike Trout was a lot more aggressive and daring than Griffey and like someone else said, Griffey was lazy. There are guys in the mlb who steal a lot of bases and really aren't that fast...and vice verse. Jose Conseco in his prime COULD FLY.....he faster than Mike Trout, and would routinely run the 60 in 6.4 seconds. at 6'4! He was also bigger and stronger, a better athlete than mike...but Mike is obviously doing some crazy shit. obviously jose used drugs but that is besides the point.
probably a first ballet hall of famer? cmon brother the guy was voted on the all century team for fuck sake.
Nobody's aruging KGJ isn't going to the HoF easily or that he wasn't fast. I'll say it again - he was AWESOME. Trout is 6'2"/230 and one of the fastest players in the game.
Remember, you originally said he wasn't fast:
Trout may be the fastest player in the game, though teammate Peter Bourjos could give him a run for his money in a 60-yard dash, Hunter said. In a 40, no one touches Trout, who has football speed. "He digs into the Earth,'' Hunter said.
Could Griffey have been a tick faster? Who cares - it didn't translate to the diamond, which is all that matters.
But stop saying you know some guys who played MLB. So do I. The point is, they were not measuring every player in MLB with a stopwatch at all times. They were not seeing every ball hit in every game of the year. They don't record every AB ever and track where the ball was hit.....The point is, pro athletes themselves have shown many times to be horrible judges of their own sport. I'm not saying it's your guys, but I hope you get the point.
-
Damn it - now we'll have to find something else baseball related to argue about! LOL!
I agree - the defensive metrics in WAR aren't the best. But then again, measuring defensive cababilities hasn't yet caught up to how we can quantify the impact of offense or pitching on runs. We still love scoring errors...god knows why.
I could play center field for the yankees and never make an error. By that metric, I'd be the greatest center fielder of all time. LOL...like measuring BA or RBIs.
Spot on - I don't think we'll be arguing much at all, unless we bring up foam rolling again.... >:( ;D
-
Dude I will say this again. Ken Griffey was THE FASTEST GUY IN THE GAME AT ONE TIME. Remember all you and I see are stats on a paper, I'm repeating what I have been told by guys who played the game at the highest level in the 1980's and 1990's. the common theme among ALL of them is - there is a prime griffey and everyone else.
Mike Trout was a lot more aggressive and daring than Griffey and like someone else said, Griffey was lazy. There are guys in the mlb who steal a lot of bases and really aren't that fast...and vice verse. Jose Conseco in his prime COULD FLY.....he faster than Mike Trout, and would routinely run the 60 in 6.4 seconds. at 6'4! He was also bigger and stronger, a better athlete than mike...but Mike is obviously doing some crazy shit. obviously jose used drugs but that is besides the point.
probably a first ballet hall of famer? cmon brother the guy was voted on the all century team for fuck sake.
I said he'd be an easy first ballot HOF'er...not probably. Definitely. So no misunderstanding there.
And at the end of the day, we have the conjecture of the old boys (guys you cite) versus what statistics and film bear out on him. Classic "Moneyball" discussion here. Do we value the "intangibles" or do we value what we can measure? It's a business (playing baseball), so if I were a GM, I'd value what I could measure and leave the "intangibles" to the old school scouts and fans.
Again - Griffey was one of the greatest of his generation. I believe in his prime he was the best 5-tool player at center field. But he's not one of the top 5 greatest players to ever play the game. For non-pitchers, that would be Ruth, Bonds, Gherig, Williams and Foxx, in my opinion (special place in my heart for Hornsby...the Rajah!). In that order.
-
Spot on - I don't think we'll be arguing much at all, unless we bring up foam rolling again.... >:( ;D
I'll foam roll more if you admit Foxx is the greatest right-handed hitter of all time! LOL!
-
I'll foam roll more if you admit Foxx is the greatest right-handed hitter of all time! LOL!
I would need to do my homework there! Manny is in my head for some reason.......
-
I have posted about this before and while I won't pretend to know who is the best overall player ever, Ted Williams is easily the best hitter of all time in my opinion.
-
I have posted about this before and while I won't pretend to know who is the best overall player ever, Ted Williams is easily the best hitter of all time in my opinion.
It's not a bad choice, especially when you consider how insane his numbers would be if he didn't have to go to the military.
-
It's not a bad choice, especially when you consider how insane his numbers would be if he didn't have to go to the military.
Yes exactly.
He was also by all reports a very slow runner (i.e. he wasn't getting hits by beating out grounders basically ever).
-
Yes exactly.
He was also by all reports a very slow runner (i.e. he wasn't getting hits by beating out grounders basically ever).
My only problem with that era is that most of the players' offseasons consisted of building skyscrapers and waiting in line for soup in the winter. The overall talent pool wasn't as great. Plus, the pitcher usually pitched the whole game, so hitters got to face pitchers who were bad/off 4-5 times instead of specialist relievers.
-
the MJ of baseball was Babe Ruth. Could pitch and hit (no homo). Held all the records for decades.
-
My only problem with that era is that most of the players' offseasons consisted of building skyscrapers and waiting in line for soup in the winter. The overall talent pool wasn't as great. Plus, the pitcher usually pitched the whole game, so hitters got to face pitchers who were bad/off 4-5 times instead of specialist relievers.
Right. And they did re-make Fenway to make it very, very friendly to Williams. He's still a top 5 guy for me all-time.
In many ways, reminds of Hank Greenberg. Had he not done military service and interrupted his amazing career, I wonder what would have happened...still, it's a far greater thing to be a soldier than a baseball player.
-
He never lifted.
-
The game will never see another .400 hitter because the defense got a whole lot better and faster...The routine plays players make today would be considered unbelievable back when Ted Williams played the game. Another thing is that batters are going up against a lot more taller pitchers(6'4 and up). Which means the balls are coming at different angles and harder(on average) then Ted Williams went up against. Back in the old days being a 6'4 pitcher was more of an oddity and although they may have been hard throwing, they didn't have the stamina to pitch many innings so team didn't use them much. These days, being tall is becoming the norm. The ball gets on the batter quicker than a shorter player and its harder to pick up the ball...As great as Williams was, he wouldn't have sniffed anything over .350 imop.
-
The game will never see another .400 hitter because the defense got a whole lot better and faster...The routine plays players make today would be considered unbelievable back when Ted Williams played the game. Another thing is that batters are going up against a lot more taller pitchers(6'4 and up). Which means the balls are coming at different angles and harder(on average) then Ted Williams went up against. Back in the old days being a 6'4 pitcher was more of an oddity and although they may have been hard throwing, they didn't have the stamina to pitch many innings so team didn't use them much. These days, being tall is becoming the norm. The ball gets on the batter quicker than a shorter player and its harder to pick up the ball...As great as Williams was, he wouldn't have sniffed anything over .350 imop.
See...I don't know about not getting over.350.
In his best years, I think he would have hit .370 to .380 against today's major league pitching. Certainly not .400, for all of the reasons you mentioned above, and more.
It puts Bonds year where he hit .370 and walked 200 times all the more up there in rarified air, doesn't it? I still marvel at how great he was that year. Same for 2004. The guy hit 45 HR's, in only 373 at bats. Let's factor back in the walks he took that weren't intentional, he still only had 485 real at-bats where maybe he saw a pitch he could hit. I don't know if any other batter, in any other year, did so much with so few pitches to hit. Literally, no one would throw him anything...there was so much film on him and so much fear. Only idiots threw to him, or they made a mistake. And he literally capitalized on just about every mistake a hitter could ever have been expected to. Steroids don't make you that great. Greatness makes you that great. It will be another 50 years or so before we see another hitter that dominant. Without the taint, he would go down as the modern day Babe Ruth. Because only Ruth was better.
-
See...I don't know about not getting over.350.
In his best years, I think he would have hit .370 to .380 against today's major league pitching. Certainly not .400, for all of the reasons you mentioned above, and more.
It puts Bonds year where he hit .370 and walked 200 times all the more up there in rarified air, doesn't it? I still marvel at how great he was that year. Same for 2004. The guy hit 45 HR's, in only 373 at bats. Let's factor back in the walks he took that weren't intentional, he still only had 485 real at-bats where maybe he saw a pitch he could hit. I don't know if any other batter, in any other year, did so much with so few pitches to hit. Literally, no one would throw him anything...there was so much film on him and so much fear. Only idiots threw to him, or they made a mistake. And he literally capitalized on just about every mistake a hitter could ever have been expected to. Steroids don't make you that great. Greatness makes you that great. It will be another 50 years or so before we see another hitter that dominant. Without the taint, he would go down as the modern day Babe Ruth. Because only Ruth was better.
Fantastic post which I will steal next time I have this discussion. Could not agree more.
-
The game will never see another .400 hitter because the defense got a whole lot better and faster...The routine plays players make today would be considered unbelievable back when Ted Williams played the game. Another thing is that batters are going up against a lot more taller pitchers(6'4 and up). Which means the balls are coming at different angles and harder(on average) then Ted Williams went up against. Back in the old days being a 6'4 pitcher was more of an oddity and although they may have been hard throwing, they didn't have the stamina to pitch many innings so team didn't use them much. These days, being tall is becoming the norm. The ball gets on the batter quicker than a shorter player and its harder to pick up the ball...As great as Williams was, he wouldn't have sniffed anything over .350 imop.
Please. In the strike shortened year of 96 Larry Walker was on fire and was close to 400 and a little over for early part of the season. He was having an amazing season then it just ended.
-
Please. In the strike shortened year of 96 Larry Walker was on fire and was close to 400 and a little over for early part of the season. He was having an amazing season then it just ended.
Strike was in '94 and he batted .322
You might be thinking of Gwynn.
-
the MJ of baseball was Babe Ruth. Could pitch and hit (no homo). Held all the records for decades.
;D ahead of his time for sure. he was a mutant. he was greater than mj.
-
;D ahead of his time for sure. he was a mutant. he was greater than mj.
Babe's stats are simply retarded.
-
I'll foam roll more if you admit Foxx is the greatest right-handed hitter of all time! LOL!
he burnt out at 32 years of age drinking and debauchery did him in too early.
-
Tony Gwynn I believe also hit near .400 a few times and he was a fat fuck.
Bonds in 2004 was ridiculous. He put up Little League numbers against the best in the world who were all on an all-you-can-eat PED buffet too.
-
Please. In the strike shortened year of 96 Larry Walker was on fire and was close to 400 and a little over for early part of the season. He was having an amazing season then it just ended.
Going by memory but Tony Gwynn, George Brett and Rod Carew all carried close to a .400 average into the last week(s) of a season. Closest I remember to someone coming to .400 in the last few decades.
-
Going by memory but Tony Gwynn, George Brett and Rod Carew all carried close to a .400 average into the last week(s) of a season. Closest I remember to someone coming to .400 in the last few decades.
Your memory is really good.
Gwynn's was the strike year. Brett was mid Sept, I believe.......not sure how long Carew stayed there.
-
Your memory is really good.
Gwynn's was the strike year. Brett was mid Sept, I believe.......not sure how long Carew stayed there.
gynn the closest .394, brett 390. carew .388. and before that mr williams .388 in 1957 the year the mick hit .363 and finished 2 nd in batting average.
-
Your memory is really good.
Gwynn's was the strike year. Brett was mid Sept, I believe.......not sure how long Carew stayed there.
I''m not sure either. Seemed like Carew stayed north of .350 late into the season a number of times. Seemed like that guy was a batting title lock for about a decade.
-
Lakers.
-
Those three are the only three since Williams retired (1960) to hit above .380 in a season
1941 Ted Williams 185/456 = .406 (played in 143 games)
1977 Rod Carew 239/616 = .388 (played in 155 games)
1980 George Brett 175/449 = .390 (played in 117 games)
1994 Tony Gwynn 165/419 = .394 (played in 110 games)
Williams was a badass 8)
Seventy years ago Wednesday, Sept. 28, 1941, Ted Williams confronted a similar situation, only much more historic in scope. The Splendid Splinter, a 23-year-old in his third year with the Boston Red Sox, entered the final two games of the regular season, a doubleheader, with a .3996 average. If he sat it out the rest of the way, as his manager Joe Cronin suggested, they would round his average off to .400.
Williams decided to play, saying, "If I can't hit .400 all the way, I don't deserve it."
Williams went six for eight, including a home run and a double. He ended up with a .406 average.
-
Please. In the strike shortened year of 96 Larry Walker was on fire and was close to 400 and a little over for early part of the season. He was having an amazing season then it just ended.
Walker's OPS+ isn't anywhere near comparable to Williams. Look at where Walker played. Compare his home and away numbers.
Walker was a great player in his generation. But he, more than most, benefitted greatly from the Coors field effect.
Let's put it into context: Walker's best adjusted OPS was 178. He never did better. Teddy Ballgame has an adjusted OPS over 200 an amazing 9 times in his career. In fact, Walker has had only two seasons that were BETTER than Williams' WORST season, when looking at adjusted OPS.
What is adjusted OPS? Here's an easy way to think about it. If you see an OPS+ of 180, it tells you that the player is likely to produce 80% more runs than the average player in the league (runs being the most important thing in baseball). So, an adjusted OPS of 200 means you'll produce 100% more runs than the average guy in a uniform.
Walker, in his best season, produced 78% more runs than the average guy. In his best year, Williams produced 135% more runs (the year he hit .400). So, if Walker were truly sniffing .400, how could his adjusted OPS have been so off-the-mark from Williams? The reason...he was never really in contention. He wasn't hitting well enough on the road to really be a .400 factor. He was a Coors field anomaly.
So Walker was never anywhere near as good, for as long, as Williams. So Walker, statistically speaking, never had a legit shot at .400. He sniffed it hitting .370, but that's with Coors field.
Walker, however, was a far better fielder than Williams could have ever hoped to be. Walker had a friggin cannon.
-
he burnt out at 32 years of age drinking and debauchery did him in too early.
The way a man SHOULD do it. LOL.
-
Those three are the only three since Williams retired (1960) to hit above .380 in a season
1941 Ted Williams 185/456 = .406 (played in 143 games)
1977 Rod Carew 239/616 = .388 (played in 155 games)
1980 George Brett 175/449 = .390 (played in 117 games)
1994 Tony Gwynn 165/419 = .394 (played in 110 games)
Williams was a badass 8)
Williams hit .400 for a season once in his career? Didn't Rogers Hornsby and Ty Cobb hit over .400 three (maybe four?) times in a season during their career? I know it's two different eras, but Hornsby did hit .424 one year.
-
Williams hit .400 for a season once in his career? Didn't Rogers Hornsby and Ty Cobb hit over .400 three (maybe four?) times in a season during their career? I know it's two different eras, but Hornsby did hit .424 one year.
Yes. But it had been 11 years since anyone had hit .400 when Williams did it. Baseball had changed, or at least was in the throes of major change, when Williams did it.
And yes, Hornsby was a machine. For my money, I would have taken him over Cobb any day.
-
Yes. But it had been 11 years since anyone had hit .400 when Williams did it. Baseball had changed, or at least was in the throes of major change, when Williams did it.
And yes, Hornsby was a machine. For my money, I would have taken him over Cobb any day.
Williams hit .406 in his third season, which was about 50 points higher than his first two seasons, and about 40 points higher than he ever hit again.
Without being sacreligious, maybe it was a bit of a fluke?
-
He hit .388 once late in his career.
-
He hit .388 once late in his career.
1957 see earlier post. ::)
-
1957 see earlier post. ::)
Nobody was talking to you spunkof51men.
-
Please. In the strike shortened year of 96 Larry Walker was on fire and was close to 400 and a little over for early part of the season. He was having an amazing season then it just ended.
The players in the 90's aren't close to the players today when it comes to speed and defense...Every other sport has evolved leap years in terms of speed compared to the 60s-70's-80's and even 90's...Everyone today works out and eats relatively good...The 90's were really the beginning of it. It's just harder to see the actually evolution of baseball today compared to other sports because it's such a slow game. But the evolution is there.
Watch a hockey game in the early 90's and watch one today. The speed of the whole game is unbelievable today...Players as a whole are so much faster. Well, its the same with baseball...Imop we won't see another .400 hitter. The defense is just too good today and will only continue to get better as a whole.
-
Williams hit .406 in his third season, which was about 50 points higher than his first two seasons, and about 40 points higher than he ever hit again.
Without being sacreligious, maybe it was a bit of a fluke?
I agree - it was a fluke year. He approached it again only once (as someone pointed out, in '57). He was as good in 57 as he was the year he hit .406. Most would say "how can a man who hits .388 be as good as when he hit .406". It's all when you adjust for the league's average production. When you look at how productive the average player was in 57 versus 41, you'll see that Ted was as good relative to the average ballplayer in 41 as he was in 57.
And it's not sacriligeous (sp?) to say it was a fluke year. He had two of them in his career. Now, his average years were ridiculously good for any player, ever.
How good was his '57 season? Well, he never came close to it (except in '41) and to put it into context, no one else did until Bonds came along. Bonds crushed Williams' best ever season an amazing 4 times in a row. Ridiculous. But we can all say "steroids".
So how many guys went over a 200 OPS+ between the year when Wiliams did it in 57, and the steroid era? It happened a grand total of 5 times. Once by Mantle, once by McCovey, once by Brett (the year he almost hit .400) and then twice by Bonds in the early 90s before the juice took hold. So yes, Williams' year was a fluke. Even amongst contemporaries in his era, the only guys who ever produced an OPS+ over 200 in a season were Ruth, Gherig, Foxx, Cobb and Hornsby.
Cobb did it only once. Hornsby did it 4 times. Ruth did it a ridiculous amount of times (LOL)...
So in a long-winded way, you're right to point out that Williams fluked out in 41, and in 57. Total flukes and anomalous years in even his great career. The only guys who didn't fluke out by crushing it with an OPS+ over 200...well, there's three guys. Ruth, Bonds, and Hornsby. Those men did it often enough to have one think they were truly that great...even greater than Williams.
Another interesting thing I point out above...no man had ever hit 200 OPS+ more than once after Williams did it. Only 3 guys had ever done it even once. Bonds did it twice before (some would argue) he ever touched the juice. That's why I think Bonds deserves to be in the HOF. His juice numbers were crazy, but he was HOF bound before he ever found the stuff. He was a once-in-a-generation hitter before his first needle - easily qualifying for HOF. The needle helped him become the second best ever.
Baseball writers are prissy bitches.
-
Babe's stats are simply retarded.
I'm a huge Ruth fan but there's no doubt the guy went up against a lot of cans. A lot of the pitchers back then and all the way up through the 60's and into the 70's threw over 300 innings a season. Most of these guys had nothing in the tank when they took the mound half way through the season. 3 days rest was the norm...In the Ruth days, pitchers would threw back to back days or every other day...The mindset was to just throw and eat up innings... So some guy who might have been able to throw 85 to 90 mph(which was fast back then), would be throwing in the mid 70's after the all star break...Most of the pitchers had to throw a shitload of off speed stuff and breaking balls. So much easier to hit when you know a guy has a rubber arm and is only going to throw off speed shit. Hell a 70+ mph fastball is basically batting practice pitching...But no doubt that's what Ruth faced more often than not...
-
Tony Gwynn I believe also hit near .400 a few times and he was a fat fuck.
Bonds in 2004 was ridiculous. He put up Little League numbers against the best in the world who were all on an all-you-can-eat PED buffet too.
When Bonds went from using a little test and deca in his early days to full on bodybuilding diet of gear after 2001, he was comically to watch...In 04 he basically didn't miss a pitch if it was near the zone. And like someone already mentioned, he was lucky to get one near the zone. I believe Bonds used a lighter and shorter bat than most. And choked up an inch or so. So that bat must have felt like nothing in his hands.
-
I'm a huge Ruth fan but there's no doubt the guy went up against a lot of cans. A lot of the pitchers back then and all the way up through the 60's and into the 70's threw over 300 innings a season. Most of these guys had nothing in the tank when they took the mound half way through the season. 3 days rest was the norm...In the Ruth days, pitchers would threw back to back days or every other day...The mindset was to just throw and eat up innings... So some guy who might have been able to throw 85 to 90 mph(which was fast back then), would be throwing in the mid 70's after the all star break...Most of the pitchers had to throw a shitload of off speed stuff and breaking balls. So much easier to hit when you know a guy has a rubber arm and is only going to throw off speed shit. Hell a 70+ mph fastball is basically batting practice pitching...But no doubt that's what Ruth faced more often than not...
I don't doubt this, but Ruth was hitting more home runs than most teams, which tells you what a giant he was in his day. Bottom line, they were all facing these same pitchers, but no one annihilated them the way Babe did. He certainly wouldn't put up those numbers against today's pitching, no. He'd still be head and shoulders above his contemporaries, though.
-
I'm a huge Ruth fan but there's no doubt the guy went up against a lot of cans. A lot of the pitchers back then and all the way up through the 60's and into the 70's threw over 300 innings a season. Most of these guys had nothing in the tank when they took the mound half way through the season. 3 days rest was the norm...In the Ruth days, pitchers would threw back to back days or every other day...The mindset was to just throw and eat up innings... So some guy who might have been able to throw 85 to 90 mph(which was fast back then), would be throwing in the mid 70's after the all star break...Most of the pitchers had to throw a shitload of off speed stuff and breaking balls. So much easier to hit when you know a guy has a rubber arm and is only going to throw off speed shit. Hell a 70+ mph fastball is basically batting practice pitching...But no doubt that's what Ruth faced more often than not...
Yeah, but Ruth's deviation from the mean at the time is still off the charts. Nobody was even in the same stratosphere, and they were facing the same pitching.