Best hitter of the 90's?

[flagshipchromecollector]

It has nothing to do with my opinion. The title of the fracking thread says "best HITTER".

Not "best POWER hitter". Not "guy most likely to get on base". Not "clutch RBI guy".

Two words.

Best

Hitter

And for a variety of reasons, Frank Thomas was the best hitter of the 90s.

 

[ROLLTIDE4LIFE]

Best hitter encompasses much more than just amount of hits or hit divided by at bats. Best hitter has to consider a number of other factors which makes someone the best. The implication of the OP was not to find who had the highest avg or most hits in the 90s. These stats become more and more worthless each and every year when trying to determine if someone is an asset at the plate aka good hitter. The OP was looking to find the Best hitter all things considered.

 

[KOBEARODLT]

can someone show me the stats that anybody in the 90's was better than bonds?

 

[Cobra29svt]

I've said it before, I'll say it again.

Reading comprehension is at an all time low.

As is common sense & general knowledge.

can someone show me the stats that anybody in the 90's was better than bonds?

I doubt it.

 

[kdailey4315]

can someone show me the stats that anybody in the 90's was better than bonds?

Read the first sentence of my original post.

 

[ChasHawk]

can someone show me the stats that anybody in the 90's was better than bonds?

Watching the Giants game and they had a great poll question. Who was the best hitter of the 90s not named Barry Bonds. Keep in mind this is a Giants game hence Excluding Bonds.
Griffey Jr.
Gwynn
Piazza
Ivan Rodriguez

My vote is Gwynn even if Bonds was an option. He's the best pure hitter Ive ever seen.
I would make an actual poll but I'm on my iPhone.

 

[Card Magnet]

I guess it's all relative to how you define hitter. If you're narrowly looking at most hits (or any one other stat), you get one answer. If you look at all of the aspects of being a hitter, you get another.

If it were looking for the guy with the most hits or the highest AVG or something, it wouldn't have been a poll. It would have been a trivia question. That alone to me means that the answer is not simply the guy with the highest _____ stat.

can someone show me the stats that anybody in the 90's was better than bonds?

Bonds was excluded. So technically, the question is who is the second best hitter behind Bonds.

 

[KOBEARODLT]

oh ok well in that case i would go frank thomas as well, i thought you were including bonds in the discussion as well

 

[ChasHawk]

So basically, I am to understand that in order to be the best hitter in baseball for any given time, you have to be able to hit HRs and drive in runs?

So if a guy were to hit .407 this season, but only hit 3 HRs and had 48 RBI, he wouldn't be considered the best hitter?

 

[MojoDan]

Something else to consider.

If we are going to reward some hitters for having people on base for them to knock in, we can't punish those who weren't so fortunate to have a strong line up or have those chances. It doesnt make them less of a hitter imho if they didnt get the chance, but thats just me. All of the names in this thread are worthwhile for a myriad of reasons. I didnt realize we were singling out 1 player like the title says, after I saw 3-4 names in a couple of replies.

 

[jbhofmann]

Well, I guess it really depends on what the OP was asking.

I didn't see any mention of HRs or RBIs or OPS+ or VORP or MVP trophies.

Title of the thread says "best hitter of the 90's"

To me that would either be the guy with the most hits, or the guy with the highest batting avg.

If you want to talk about the best power hitter of the 90's, there's a simple solution.

Start another thread. :mrgreen:

It's amazing that people can really be so short sighted.
If the thread were truly about the guy with the most hits, or highest average it could be answered by going to b-r.com and looking it up. It's more subjective than that. I'm a Cincy fan through and through but I could never say that Pete Rose is the greatest hitter ever based on the most hits for a career.

Ted Williams is. He did more things at a high level than anyone else did all while losing 5 prime years to two different wars. We all have opinions some are just, well, wrong.

 

[ChasHawk]

Well, I guess it really depends on what the OP was asking.

I didn't see any mention of HRs or RBIs or OPS+ or VORP or MVP trophies.

Title of the thread says "best hitter of the 90's"

To me that would either be the guy with the most hits, or the guy with the highest batting avg.

If you want to talk about the best power hitter of the 90's, there's a simple solution.

Start another thread. :mrgreen:

It's amazing that people can really be so short sighted.
If the thread were truly about the guy with the most hits, or highest average it could be answered by going to b-r.com and looking it up. It's more subjective than that. I'm a Cincy fan through and through but I could never say that Pete Rose is the greatest hitter ever based on the most hits for a career.

Ted Williams is. He did more things at a high level than anyone else did all while losing 5 prime years to two different wars. We all have opinions some are just, well, wrong.

Again

So basically, I am to understand that in order to be the best hitter in baseball for any given time, you have to be able to hit HRs and drive in runs?

So if a guy were to hit .407 this season, but only hit 3 HRs and had 48 RBI, he wouldn't be considered the best hitter?

 

[MojoDan]

Well, I guess it really depends on what the OP was asking.

I didn't see any mention of HRs or RBIs or OPS+ or VORP or MVP trophies.

Title of the thread says "best hitter of the 90's"

To me that would either be the guy with the most hits, or the guy with the highest batting avg.

If you want to talk about the best power hitter of the 90's, there's a simple solution.

Start another thread. :mrgreen:

It's amazing that people can really be so short sighted.
If the thread were truly about the guy with the most hits, or highest average it could be answered by going to b-r.com and looking it up. It's more subjective than that. I'm a Cincy fan through and through but I could never say that Pete Rose is the greatest hitter ever based on the most hits for a career.

Ted Williams is. He did more things at a high level than anyone else did all while losing 5 prime years to two different wars. We all have opinions some are just, well, wrong.

Agreed.

 

[Cobra29svt]

So basically, I am to understand that in order to be the best hitter in baseball for any given time, you have to be able to hit HRs and drive in runs?

So if a guy were to hit .407 this season, but only hit 3 HRs and had 48 RBI, he wouldn't be considered the best hitter?

Come on man. Wouldn't it depend on what the other hitters did?
If another guy hit .379 w/ 54HRs, & drove in 162 it be up for debate wouldn't it?

 

[jbhofmann]

Well, I guess it really depends on what the OP was asking.

I didn't see any mention of HRs or RBIs or OPS+ or VORP or MVP trophies.

Title of the thread says "best hitter of the 90's"

To me that would either be the guy with the most hits, or the guy with the highest batting avg.

If you want to talk about the best power hitter of the 90's, there's a simple solution.

Start another thread. :mrgreen:

It's amazing that people can really be so short sighted.
If the thread were truly about the guy with the most hits, or highest average it could be answered by going to b-r.com and looking it up. It's more subjective than that. I'm a Cincy fan through and through but I could never say that Pete Rose is the greatest hitter ever based on the most hits for a career.

Ted Williams is. He did more things at a high level than anyone else did all while losing 5 prime years to two different wars. We all have opinions some are just, well, wrong.

Again

So basically, I am to understand that in order to be the best hitter in baseball for any given time, you have to be able to hit HRs and drive in runs?

So if a guy were to hit .407 this season, but only hit 3 HRs and had 48 RBI, he wouldn't be considered the best hitter?

Was Harry Heilmann ever mentioned as the best hitter of his generation? No. Babe Ruth was. It's really that simple.

 

[flagshipchromecollector]

Making arguments in hypotheticals is pointless when you actually have a set of facts upon which to base your opinion.

 

[thefatguy]

Making arguments in hypotheticals is pointless when you actually have a set of facts upon which to base your opinion.

This is the internet! There are no facts, just opinions. :lol:

Of course I'm biased, look at my avatar, but here's my facts:

He is part of an elite group of four players (including Mel Ott, Babe Ruth and Ted Williams) to have at least a .300 batting average, 500 home runs, 1,500 RBI, 1,000 runs and 1,500 walks in a career

End of discussion. Sure that's career, but come on! Ott, Williams, Ruth and Thomas.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Funny that in the late '90s most people wouldn't have thought of Bonds first, they would've said Thomas or Griffey. Remember looking back at the old Beckett price guides? Thomas and Griffey were on the top tier of listed superstars, Bonds was on the third tier of superstars if I correctly recall along with Bagwell. People really shouldn't forget Belle, he was a monster IMO almost as good as Thomas, he was scary.

 

[kdailey4315]

It would be interesting to look up that thread that was talking about huge stars of this generation that will be forgotten by the next. Frank Thomas' name came up a lot. I wonder if the same people saying he's the best hitter of the 90's in this thread also said he will be forgotten.

 

[fengzhang]

So basically, I am to understand that in order to be the best hitter in baseball for any given time, you have to be able to hit HRs and drive in runs?

So if a guy were to hit .407 this season, but only hit 3 HRs and had 48 RBI, he wouldn't be considered the best hitter?

No, but if you can't hit HR's and drive in runs, you'd better be damn good at hitting singles.

4 singles out of 10 at-bats is not better than 3 homeruns out of 10 at-bats.