Teddy was no where near the hitter as Ruth was

[Mighty Bombjack]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

Ruth was unquestionably the better run producer, and the one I would take on my team in his prime. I will consider Williams' higher career BA and OBP (best all-time) and call him the better hitter.

this

Again, if you want career BA, why not pick COBB...

Was Cobb in your title? He was a better "hitter" than Ruth, too. The goal of baseball, in the end, is not hitting, it is scoring runs. That's why Ruth is king. But if you want to compare Ruth and Williams in "hitting," I take Williams.

Put simply:

We need a hit right now!!! Give me Williams.

We need a run right now!!! Give me Ruth.

 

[A_Pharis]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

I don't think you should compare BEST years to BEST years when one's BEST YEARS can be light years better than their OTHER YEARS and the other player's can only be SOMEWHAT BETTER than their OTHER YEARS.

If you are going to compare two players, you should compare their total years.

 

[sportscardtheory]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

I would argue that Slugging Percentage is actually the best way to gauge how good a "hitter" someone is, and that ranks Ruth and Williams one and two, respectively. Slugging Percentage is the most underrated and undervalued stat. It gauges a hitter's pure hitting effectiveness better than any other stat.

 

[hofautos]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

[quote="Mighty Bombjack":1digudd0]Ruth was unquestionably the better run producer, and the one I would take on my team in his prime. I will consider Williams' higher career BA and OBP (best all-time) and call him the better hitter.

this

Again, if you want career BA, why not pick COBB...

Was Cobb in your title? He was a better "hitter" than Ruth, too. The goal of baseball, in the end, is not hitting, it is scoring runs. That's why Ruth is king. But if you want to compare Ruth and Williams in "hitting," I take Williams.

Put simply:

We need a hit right now!!! Give me Williams.

We need a run right now!!! Give me Ruth.[/quote:1digudd0]

I agree, so depending on your definition of best hitter, you should pick Cobb or Ruth. In the original POLL I picked Cobb.
Williams shouldn't even be in the equation. Ruth had better AVG than Teddy over his best years also.

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

I would argue that Slugging Percentage is actually the best way to gauge how good a "hitter" someone is, and that ranks Ruth and Williams one and two, respectively. Slugging Percentage is the most underrated and undervalued stat, yet it gauges a hitter's pure hitting effectiveness better than any other stat.

Power hitting, not hitting. I agree that it is a better gauge of value as a hitter, but there is no better gauge of "hitting" than dividing hits by ABs (avg) or hits+walks by plate appearances (OBP) (which is more a gauge of "not getting out" than it is of hitting)

 

[TomMurry]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

Ruth didnt have anywhere near the amount of pitching quality to face that Williams did.
Williams was a better clutch hitter too.

I'd take Ruth if the bases were loaded and I was down by 3
I'd take williams if the game was tied and there was a runner on 3rd.

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

[quote="Mighty Bombjack":28iax0dq]Ruth was unquestionably the better run producer, and the one I would take on my team in his prime. I will consider Williams' higher career BA and OBP (best all-time) and call him the better hitter.

this

Again, if you want career BA, why not pick COBB...

Was Cobb in your title? He was a better "hitter" than Ruth, too. The goal of baseball, in the end, is not hitting, it is scoring runs. That's why Ruth is king. But if you want to compare Ruth and Williams in "hitting," I take Williams.

Put simply:

We need a hit right now!!! Give me Williams.

We need a run right now!!! Give me Ruth.

I agree, so depending on your definition of best hitter, you should pick Cobb or Ruth. In the original POLL I picked Cobb.
Williams shouldn't even be in the equation. Ruth's had better AVG than Teddy over his best 3,5,7, or 10 years too....[/quote:28iax0dq]

Wait, is this post about best hitter, or that Williams "isn't even close" to Ruth as a hitter? On my definition of best hitter, Williams>Ruth, as per this thread.

Ruth a more valuable offensive player to be sure.

 

[sportscardtheory]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

[quote="Mighty Bombjack":1iptnv0y]Ruth was unquestionably the better run producer, and the one I would take on my team in his prime. I will consider Williams' higher career BA and OBP (best all-time) and call him the better hitter.

this

Again, if you want career BA, why not pick COBB...

Was Cobb in your title? He was a better "hitter" than Ruth, too. The goal of baseball, in the end, is not hitting, it is scoring runs. That's why Ruth is king. But if you want to compare Ruth and Williams in "hitting," I take Williams.

Put simply:

We need a hit right now!!! Give me Williams.

We need a run right now!!! Give me Ruth.[/quote:1iptnv0y]

The effectiveness of a "hit" is more meaningful than the hit itself. A double is better than a single, a triple is better than a double and a homerun is better than a triple. That is why slugging percentage is the best gauge of a hitter's effectiveness, and ranks Ruth one and Williams two all-time. Babe Ruth was the most EFFECTIVE hitter of all-time and it's indisputable in my opinion. Williams is second, a CLOSE second.

 

[hofautos]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

I would argue that Slugging Percentage is actually the best way to gauge how good a "hitter" someone is, and that ranks Ruth and Williams one and two, respectively. Slugging Percentage is the most underrated and undervalued stat, yet it gauges a hitter's pure hitting effectiveness better than any other stat.

Power hitting, not hitting. I agree that it is a better gauge of value as a hitter, but there is no better gauge of "hitting" than dividing hits by ABs (avg) or hits+walks by plate appearances (OBP) (which is more a gauge of "not getting out" than it is of hitting)

Ruth's AVG > Teddy's AVG during each of their best years.
Teds AVG over his best years was .357 and Ruth's was .368

If you don't like the years I picked, pick any of Ted's best 3 to 10 years, and I will beat them with RUTHs best years.
If you want to say who had the highest average for just 2 years, then i will give you that to Ted...but again, if you just want BA, pick Cobb.
The only thing Teddy has over ruth was BA for maybe 2 seasons...whoop-di-doo.

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

The effectiveness of a "hit" is more meaningful than the hit itself. A double is better than a single, a triple is better than a double and a homerun is better than a triple. That is why slugging percentage is the best gauge of a hitter's effectiveness, and ranks Ruth one and Williams two all-time. Babe Ruth was the most EFFECTIVE hitter of all-time and it's indisputable in my opinion. Williams is second, a CLOSE second.

Everything you say is true. This comes down to the semantics of the word "hitter." We have had very similar discussions on these boards about Ichiro. He's a great hitter, but not a particularly effective or valuable one.

Of course, while we are on semantics, I will strongly agree with your last point and take umbrage with the OP's phrase "and it's not even close."

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

I would argue that Slugging Percentage is actually the best way to gauge how good a "hitter" someone is, and that ranks Ruth and Williams one and two, respectively. Slugging Percentage is the most underrated and undervalued stat, yet it gauges a hitter's pure hitting effectiveness better than any other stat.

Power hitting, not hitting. I agree that it is a better gauge of value as a hitter, but there is no better gauge of "hitting" than dividing hits by ABs (avg) or hits+walks by plate appearances (OBP) (which is more a gauge of "not getting out" than it is of hitting)

Ruth's AVG > Teddy's AVG during each of their best years.
Teds AVG over his best years was .357 and Ruth's was .368

Some of us HOF collectors still prefer a career. One year, five years, ten years, arbitrary; there was enough of that discussion in the other thread.

And there is the matter of WWII and prime years, but you don't like ifs.

I mean, lets take Hornsby for one year.

 

[hofautos]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

The effectiveness of a "hit" is more meaningful than the hit itself. A double is better than a single, a triple is better than a double and a homerun is better than a triple. That is why slugging percentage is the best gauge of a hitter's effectiveness, and ranks Ruth one and Williams two all-time. Babe Ruth was the most EFFECTIVE hitter of all-time and it's indisputable in my opinion. Williams is second, a CLOSE second.

Everything you say is true. This comes down to the semantics of the word "hitter." We have had very similar discussions on these boards about Ichiro. He's a great hitter, but not a particularly effective or valuable one.

Of course, while we are on semantics, I will strongly agree with your last point and take umbrage with the OP's phrase "and it's not even close."

CLose if you want to talk BA, not close if you talk power.
THe word close is subjective...maybe Teddy is close to the hitter as ruth, but not Close in debating who was better...It's very clear to me.

Ruth's AVG is slightly better, but his power numbers (SLG&HR) are easily superior...and not close enough imho to consider it a debate.

 

[ronfromfresno]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

Ruth didnt have anywhere near the amount of pitching quality to face that Williams did.
Williams was a better clutch hitter too.

I'd take Ruth if the bases were loaded and I was down by 3
I'd take williams if the game was tied and there was a runner on 3rd.

Really? No pitching quality how many pitchers are in the HOF from Ruths' era and from Williams'? My guess is roughly the same if not more from the '20's and '30's in Ruths' era. Ruth did things no one had ever done before or has done since. He was a monster in HR, more than entire teams, he was a king in RBI and his BA was outstanding. His image is of a fat lumbering guy, but he had a ton of triples and stole bases that Williams didn't. Ruth was a better hitter because of how much better he was compared to his peers, Williams was good but others in his era, DiMaggio, weren't far behind. We have all heard our entire lives how great a hitter Williams was and how uniquely great Ruth was. It has been pounded into us through baseball cards and MLB productions, but it doesn't make Williams the best of all time it just puts him on the list.

 

[hofautos]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

[quote="Mighty Bombjack":3i9o1dfz]

I would argue that Slugging Percentage is actually the best way to gauge how good a "hitter" someone is, and that ranks Ruth and Williams one and two, respectively. Slugging Percentage is the most underrated and undervalued stat, yet it gauges a hitter's pure hitting effectiveness better than any other stat.

Power hitting, not hitting. I agree that it is a better gauge of value as a hitter, but there is no better gauge of "hitting" than dividing hits by ABs (avg) or hits+walks by plate appearances (OBP) (which is more a gauge of "not getting out" than it is of hitting)

Ruth's AVG > Teddy's AVG during each of their best years.
Teds AVG over his best years was .357 and Ruth's was .368

Some of us HOF collectors still prefer a career. One year, five years, ten years, arbitrary; there was enough of that discussion in the other thread.

And there is the matter of WWII and prime years, but you don't like ifs.

I mean, lets take Hornsby for one year.[/quote:3i9o1dfz]

I said if you want to take career AVG i would accept Cobb as your definition of the greatest hitter.
Why, using your definition, is Williams better than Cobb?

No matter how you slice it, if you want the best hitter based on power, slugging (or even BA in their prime), pick RUTH.
If you want Career BA, pick Cobb.
Teddy shouldn't even be in the equation.

 

[Mighty Bombjack]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

CLose if you want to talk BA, not close if you talk power.
THe word close is subjective...maybe Teddy is close to the hitter as ruth, but not Close in debating who was better...It's very clear to me.

Ruth's AVG is slightly better, but his power numbers (SLG&HR) are easily superior...and not close enough imho to consider it a debate.

Very close if you want to talk BA, with Teddy's career BA being better, making me call him the better hitter.

Ruth is easily the superior offensive player and much more valuable.

Are we talking about best hitter? I thought this was about Williams and Ruth. Cobb and Williams were both better "hitters" than Ruth by my measurement. And Ruth is the greatest offensive player of all-time.

 

[hofautos]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

CLose if you want to talk BA, not close if you talk power.
THe word close is subjective...maybe Teddy is close to the hitter as ruth, but not Close in debating who was better...It's very clear to me.

Ruth's AVG is slightly better, but his power numbers (SLG&HR) are easily superior...and not close enough imho to consider it a debate.

Very close if you want to talk BA, with Teddy's career BA being better, making me call him the better hitter.

Ruth is easily the superior offensive player and much more valuable.

Are we talking about best hitter? I thought this was about Williams and Ruth. Cobb and Williams were both better "hitters" than Ruth by my measurement. And Ruth is the greatest offensive player of all-time.

Like i said, and as I believe we agree, it depends on what one's definition of "greatest hitter is".
If you want to use Career BA as the definition of "greatest hitter", then I will agree with you that Cobb has the highest career BA.
(Again, if you want to talk career BA, then COBB is it, and Ted shouldn't be in the equation).

Career numbers only go so far, declining years do not accurately measure one's greatness.

My definition of who was the greatest would be to compare the two in their best years, and Ruth would beat everyone hands down in that category, in all categories, and there really is no room to debate who was best in their best years, in slugging, Ba, OBP, or any other hitting measurement.

 

[1st4040]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

Barry Bonds was the greatest offensive player of all time.. roids or not he was a stud either way.

 

[uniquebaseballcards]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

Everything you say is true. This comes down to the semantics of the word "hitter." We have had very similar discussions on these boards about Ichiro. He's a great hitter, but not a particularly effective or valuable one.

Of course, while we are on semantics, I will strongly agree with your last point and take umbrage with the OP's phrase "and it's not even close."

Of course its all about semantics! The only way someone could say Williams was a better hitter would be to use semantics and pick the only category Williams was marginally better in and say that single category is most important to a hitter.

Given a choice between Ruth and Williams to put on their team, what "shouldn't be even close" is that more people should choose Ruth...but this isn't to say that Ruth is a considerably better hitter.

 

[hofautos]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

Barry Bonds was the greatest offensive player of all time.. roids or not he was a stud either way.

+1 I will run his best 10 year numbers and see if I agree.

 

[hofautos]

Re: Teddy was no where near the hitter as RUTH was

Everything you say is true. This comes down to the semantics of the word "hitter." We have had very similar discussions on these boards about Ichiro. He's a great hitter, but not a particularly effective or valuable one.

Of course, while we are on semantics, I will strongly agree with your last point and take umbrage with the OP's phrase "and it's not even close."

Of course its all about semantics! The only way someone could say Williams was a better hitter would be to use semantics and pick the only category Williams was marginally better and say that single category is most important to a hitter.

Given a choice between Ruth and Williams to put on their team, what "shouldn't be even close" is that more people should choose Ruth...but this isn't to say that Ruth is a considerably better hitter.

What category do you suggest that Williams was marginally better than Ruth in?
I don't agree he was better in any category.