Is Ichiro Suzuki a truly great hitter?

[Amnorix]

This is a nice job. Good analysis. But he ignores the stolen bases.

Tell me how his total bases looks. There's no difference between a double and a single and a stolen base.

But yes, there' no doubt that Ichiro doesn't compare to a Ruth or Williams or Gehrig in terms of offensive impact. Don't need a ton of statistical analysis to figure that out.

The top ten Major League Baseball players in lifetime OPS, with at least 3,000 plate appearances through 2009

(active players in bold)

1. Babe Ruth, 1.1638
2. Ted Williams, 1.1155
3. Lou Gehrig, 1.0798
4. Barry Bonds, 1.0512 (note that even his ridiculous 'roided up years couldn't put him ahead of the top 3, because, you know, he didn't start using the 'roids until later in his career)
5. Albert Pujols, 1.051
6. Jimmie Foxx, 1.0376
7. Hank Greenberg, 1.0169
8. Rogers Hornsby, 1.0103
9. Manny Ramírez, 1.0019
10. Todd Helton, 0.9938

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

This is a nice job. Good analysis. But he ignores the stolen bases.

Tell me how his total bases looks. There's no difference between a double and a single and a stolen base.

But yes, there' no doubt that Ichiro doesn't compare to a Ruth or Williams or Gehrig in terms of offensive impact. Don't need a ton of statistical analysis to figure that out.

The top ten Major League Baseball players in lifetime OPS, with at least 3,000 plate appearances through 2009

(active players in bold)

1. Babe Ruth, 1.1638
2. Ted Williams, 1.1155
3. Lou Gehrig, 1.0798
4. Barry Bonds, 1.0512 (note that even his ridiculous 'roided up years couldn't put him ahead of the top 3, because, you know, he didn't start using the 'roids until later in his career)
5. Albert Pujols, 1.051
6. Jimmie Foxx, 1.0376
7. Hank Greenberg, 1.0169
8. Rogers Hornsby, 1.0103
9. Manny Ramírez, 1.0019
10. Todd Helton, 0.9938

And the top three really didn't play against blacks, save for the ass end of Williams' career.

Oh, and if you have a guy on in front of you, a double is worth a hell of a lot more than a single and a steal, because the guy on first in this case has a much better chance to score from 1st on a double, and will always score from second.

[chiefsnorth]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

And the top three really didn't play against blacks, save for the ass end of Williams' career.

Not to take too much away from this, but there aren't a whole lot of black pitchers today, and there never really have been.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by chiefsnorth

Not to take too much away from this, but there aren't a whole lot of black pitchers today, and there never really have been.

Depends what you mean.

There are fewer African Americans playing than at any time in about 50 years. There are far more Latin players of African origin than ever.

[chiefsnorth]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Depends what you mean.

There are fewer African Americans playing than at any time in about 50 years. There are far more Latin players of African origin than ever.

I know, I am just confused by the qualifications place on pre-Robinson hitters. If there had never been a color barrier, why would we assume that would have affected their numbers? There are not many blacks in the league today, but even in the 60s-70s, they weren't a huge number of the league's pitchers and they aren't still today.

Maybe back in the 30s before there were other sports they would have comprised a greater percentage of pitchers than they did in the 70s, but why would we assume that blacks would have been as a group significantly above league average as pitchers? Is there any historical data to support it?

If you are talking about pitching stats I could see the argument a little better but I don't think it would change a lot to these measures

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by chiefsnorth

I know, I am just confused by the qualifications place on pre-Robinson hitters. If there had never been a color barrier, why would we assume that would have affected their numbers? There are not many blacks in the league today, but even in the 60s-70s, they weren't a huge number of the league's pitchers and they aren't still today.

Maybe back in the 30s before there were other sports they would have comprised a greater percentage of pitchers than they did in the 70s, but why would we assume that blacks would have been as a group significantly above league average as pitchers? Is there any historical data to support it?

If you are talking about pitching stats I could see the argument a little better but I don't think it would change a lot to these measures

Well, it's undoubtedly true that hitters were far more predominant than pitchers for the first several years. However, the true measuring stick of baseball is how you did against your peers. We know that Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig put up awesome numbers. What we don't know is how many others would have performed if given those same opportunities.

So don't think of it as "Babe Ruth would have hit 100 fewer homeruns" but rather "How much different would Babe Ruth's production be in relation to his peers if his peers included African Americans and other minorities."

[chiefsnorth]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Well, it's undoubtedly true that hitters were far more predominant than pitchers for the first several years. However, the true measuring stick of baseball is how you did against your peers. We know that Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig put up awesome numbers. What we don't know is how many others would have performed if given those same opportunities.

So don't think of it as "Babe Ruth would have hit 100 fewer homeruns" but rather "How much different would Babe Ruth's production be in relation to his peers if his peers included African Americans and other minorities."

Ok. I'm following.

The thing about baseball here though is that I don't think blacks or whites have a significant advantage over anyone else.

In the NFL we see blacks dominate all but a few positions for whatever you believe the reason to be. In these other sports certainly you could call all into question on these grounds.

I guess I just don't believe that baseball would have been significantly different in a macro sense, by statistics. Ruth played in the segregated era, but there was only one of him. So you integrate the sport in the 20s and there is maybe one more Ruth as a result?

Of course there would be a few different individuals in our memories today, but I don't think there would be a lot more guys to compare Ruth or Williams to than there are currently. JMO

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

And the top three really didn't play against blacks, save for the ass end of Williams' career.

Errrummm, ok. But of all the differences in the game between the color barrier being broken, etc. that's kind of an odd one to pick.

There are many other things that changed also, and were likely more significant impacts on the hitters across the different eras, including not least the methods of utilization for relief pitchers and the change in the height of the mound.

I do agree, of course, that the exclusion of minorities somewhat lowered the overall average quality of pitching faced by hitters in the prior to the 50s. But to point to that one factor as opposed to mentioning some others, that's where you lose me.

Oh, and if you have a guy on in front of you, a double is worth a hell of a lot more than a single and a steal, because the guy on first in this case has a much better chance to score from 1st on a double, and will always score from second.

Yes. No argument. But that is going to come out by looking at RBIs as well as anything else, really. Though obviously one's position in the batting order is determined in large part by what type of hitter one is.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Errrummm, ok. But of all the differences in the game between the color barrier being broken, etc. that's kind of an odd one to pick.

There are many other things that changed also, and were likely more significant impacts on the hitters across the different eras, including not least the methods of utilization for relief pitchers and the change in the height of the mound.

I do agree, of course, that the exclusion of minorities somewhat lowered the overall average quality of pitching faced by hitters in the prior to the 50s. But to point to that one factor as opposed to mentioning some others, that's where you lose me.



Yes. No argument. But that is going to come out by looking at RBIs as well as anything else, really. Though obviously one's position in the batting order is determined in large part by what type of hitter one is.

I was merely pointing out that all players on that list have "warts" that one could dissect, very similar to Bonds (although many not as egregious).

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

I was merely pointing out that all players on that list have "warts" that one could dissect, very similar to Bonds (although many not as egregious).

No. This I disagree with.

Bonds and Manny and the steroid era is tainted because they intentionally cheated -- no different than league-wide corking of bats.

There are some great divides in baseball history. Pre-post '68 or whatever the year was when they changed the strike zone and lowered the mound, and the steroid era are two of them.

The breaking of the color barrier was a significant change, but not in the nature of the game itself, or how it was played.

The "wart" that Babe Ruth never faced a black pitcher is NOTHING like the wart of the steroids era. The former wasn't Ruth's doing, it's a wart on baseball as a whole, and society as a whole. The later was entirely cheating by the players in question.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

No. This I disagree with.

Bonds and Manny and the steroid era is tainted because they intentionally cheated -- no different than league-wide corking of bats.

There are some great divides in baseball history. Pre-post '68 or whatever the year was when they changed the strike zone and lowered the mound, and the steroid era are two of them.

The breaking of the color barrier was a significant change, but not in the nature of the game itself, or how it was played.

The "wart" that Babe Ruth never faced a black pitcher is NOTHING like the wart of the steroids era. The former wasn't Ruth's doing, it's a wart on baseball as a whole, and society as a whole. The later was entirely cheating by the players in question.

Regardless of who you would like to assign blame to (which wasn't the point of what I was saying), the fact of the matter is that any player from any era can have their numbers questioned.

What is particular about Ruth's era is that many talented players were not allowed to play. What is particular about Bonds' is the amount of steroid use.

Both can be called into question for various reasons, that doesn't mean that you are impugning Ruth's character, rather you are taking a holistic look about who his peers were.

WRT: facing pitchers, that is some of the equation, but a relatively small amount. What is more important to analyze are the Josh Gibsons who were left out and as a consequence had their potential remain unknown.

We don't have an accurate measuring stick for Ruth, IMO because of that. No one is saying that it's his fault. That's a gross misreading.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Regardless of who you would like to assign blame to (which wasn't the point of what I was saying), the fact of the matter is that any player from any era can have their numbers questioned.

What is particular about Ruth's era is that many talented players were not allowed to play. What is particular about Bonds' is the amount of steroid use.

Both can be called into question for various reasons, that doesn't mean that you are impugning Ruth's character, rather you are taking a holistic look about who his peers were.

WRT: facing pitchers, that is some of the equation, but a relatively small amount. What is more important to analyze are the Josh Gibsons who were left out and as a consequence had their potential remain unknown.

We don't have an accurate measuring stick for Ruth, IMO because of that. No one is saying that it's his fault. That's a gross misreading.

My analysis is simpler.

Barry Bonds intentionally cheated to inflate his numbers. His cheating was purposeful, systemic and affected every at bat over a significant number of years.

Babe Ruth did not.


Note that my disdain for the steroids era and players isn't limited to Bonds. He was an egregious example, but I have the same low opinion of Manny, McGuire, Clemens and the other cheaters of the era.

[Lex Luthor]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Tell me how his total bases looks. There's no difference between a double and a single and a stolen base.

A runner doesn't score from first on a walk, so there is a difference. It may not be huge, but it's a difference.

[rambleonthruthefog]

if by hitting, you mean swinging a bat at a pitch by a MLB pitcher and getting on base, then yes, he is great.

[rambleonthruthefog]

let me add, that baseball is boring and it sucks.