Best hitter of the 90's?

[kdailey4315]

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.

Please show me 1 person who ever hit HR's every 3.3333 at bats.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Singles would be better than homers if you're driving in more runs

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.

 

[thefatguy]

-Take it away again, ESPN: "But here's the thing: Frank's peak years actually had no precedent. Between 1991 and 1997, he became the only player ever to score 100 runs, drive in 100, hit 20 or more homers, draw 100 walks, and bat .300 for seven consecutive seasons. His lowest on-base percentage during those seasons was .426." Dude, you are rad.


THEFATGUY, OUT

 

[muskiesfan]

This is all subjective and is not easy by any stretch. Yes, some people are using facts for their opinions, but others are using different facts for theirs.

It's a general question and different people are going to give different answers. Not everyone is going to look just at OPS+, or hits, or home runs, or BA, or, or, or (you get the picture). If someone bases it off of the highest OPS+, that does not mean their opinion is right or better than someone who uses any of the other many possibilities used to make an informed decision.

As for the comment about Rose, a lot of people like to hold the ban against Pete which had absolutely nothing to do with his playing career. He's the all-time hits leader and after playing 24 seasons still has a career BA over .300 (.303). That's pretty impressive to me. He didn't hit many home runs and he wasn't a big RBI guy, but he was still a great hitter. Personally, I don't think he's the greatest hitter ever, but I don't think it's that hard for someone to make a case for him.

 

[Card Magnet]

I baked 5 pies yesterday. Robert baked 2 pies yesterday. Who is the better pie maker? Is it me because I made more?

 

[steve-a-reno]

If people can't accept the fact that everyone is going to have a different opinion and not all agree they're beyond help anyway.

fatguy (Jesse)- next chas is going to say that walks aren't even a part of "hitting" b/c you don't make contact w/ the ball. :lol:

 

[fengzhang]

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.

Two reasons for that:

1) Bonds was perceived as having a "bad attitude." That made him unpopular. This shouldn't have anything to do with his on-the-field performance but inevitably how people perceived him as a character affected how they perceived him as a player.

2) Bonds never had a lot of at-bats. While Griffey and Arod were racking up 50+ HR's in 630 at-bats in the 1990's and early 2000's, Bonds was hitting 40 HR's in 500 at-bats. The production was the same but 40 HR's doesn't stand out as much as 50 homeruns and no one gets excited over intentional walks and OBP. As a slugger, in my opinion, Bonds was just as good as Griffey or Alex Rodriguez, especially if you factor in the lineup he had around him and the parks he hit in. As a run scorer, he was better due to superior speed and OBP.

 

[ChasHawk]

If people can't accept the fact that everyone is going to have a different opinion and not all agree they're beyond help anyway.

fatguy (Jesse)- next chas is going to say that walks aren't even a part of "hitting" b/c you don't make contact w/ the ball. :lol:

See, dammit?!?

At least somebody understands me.

Btw: ~I also think that Frank Thomas is the suckiest suck that ever sucked.~

 

[Card Magnet]

If people can't accept the fact that everyone is going to have a different opinion and not all agree they're beyond help anyway.

fatguy (Jesse)- next chas is going to say that walks aren't even a part of "hitting" b/c you don't make contact w/ the ball. :lol:

See, dammit?!?

At least somebody understands me.

Btw: ~I also think that Frank Thomas is the suckiest suck that ever sucked.~

Well now any arguments you'll ever make just lost their weight :lol:

 

[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.

Please show me 1 person who ever hit HR's every 3.3333 at bats.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players ... =stuarlu01

Not saying he's the best hitter ever but just giving you what you asked for.

 

[Card Magnet]

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.

Please show me 1 person who ever hit HR's every 3.3333 at bats.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players ... =stuarlu01

Not saying he's the best hitter ever but just giving you what you asked for.

::facepalm:: :lol:

 

[JoshHamilton]

Six pages and no one has mentioned Rusty Greer?

Stick to prospecting, folks. You clearly no nothing about real baseball

 

[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.

Please show me 1 person who ever hit HR's every 3.3333 at bats.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players ... =stuarlu01

Not saying he's the best hitter ever but just giving you what you asked for.

::facepalm:: :lol:

See? Two can play the "let's take each other super literally and make stupid posts" game.

 

[donrusscrusademan]

Six pages and no one has mentioned Rusty Greer?

Stick to prospecting, folks. You clearly no nothing about real baseball

he started in '94... and that wasnt even a full season. great player, but for the decade he was nowhere near a Griffey jr or Thomas IMO

 

[JoshHamilton]

Six pages and no one has mentioned Rusty Greer?

Stick to prospecting, folks. You clearly no nothing about real baseball

he started in '94... and that wasnt even a full season. great player, but for the decade he was nowhere near a Griffey jr or Thomas IMO

If anything, that further proves my point.

All players' stats and records from 1990-94 should have an asterisk beside them because they didn't have to compete with the awesomeness that is Rusty Greer

 

[donrusscrusademan]

Six pages and no one has mentioned Rusty Greer?

Stick to prospecting, folks. You clearly no nothing about real baseball

he started in '94... and that wasnt even a full season. great player, but for the decade he was nowhere near a Griffey jr or Thomas IMO

If anything, that further proves my point.

All players' stats and records from 1990-94 should have an asterisk beside them because they didn't have to compete with the awesomeness that is Rusty Greer

lmao.. true, very true..

if memory serves me correctly, I recall the whole league going on strike because Greer wasnt playing yet. they must have wanted to play with that guy really bad :lol:

 

[Cobra29svt]

if memory serves me correctly, I recall the whole league going on strike because Greer wasnt playing yet. they must have wanted to play with that guy really bad :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[leatherman]

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.

Please show me 1 person who ever hit HR's every 3.3333 at bats.

Here are 6: http://www.baseball-reference.com/play- ... reit/hu7JE

 

[kdailey4315]

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.

Please show me 1 person who ever hit HR's every 3.3333 at bats.

Here are 6: http://www.baseball-reference.com/play- ... reit/hu7JE

Well then I apologize. I didn't think I would actually have to put a disclaimer for at bats in there.

 

[minors4me]

best hitter? most feared Frank Thomas