Hello back. Thomas > Pujols I can see, but WRT McGwire, all things being equal I'd rather have the hitter whose BA is a larger component of is OBP. (And of course, all things aren't equal; Pujols' OBP is a fair bit higher.)

Once again, it appears to be a case of crediting a player (Pujols) with something he hasn't done yet. Not that there's anything particularly wrong with that in a trivial exercise like this. But bear in mind that Mac, in his best years, was better that what Albert has done so far. Comparing Mac's peak OPS+ to Albert's career so far (full seasons only):

Mac - 216 196 177 176 170 164 143 Mac also has 2/3 of a season (422 PA) at 200 and 1/2 a season (321 PA) at 202

AP - 187 178 172 168 157 157 151 Albert also has 1/2 a season, this season, at 189.

While AP is a good bet to continue his excellence, Mac has a significant advantage so far, an average of 11 OPS+ points per season for 7 1/2 seasons plus the 422 PA at 200 season.

Here's another try: hitting = H/(PA). Basically, it's the fraction of the time you see a batter that he gets a hit.

It's kind of a cool list, so I'll show everybody over .275 in the lively ball era.



That's a really neat list, if I do say so myself. A nice mix of great and semi-great hitters. Lots of players with great reputations who don't make leaderboards in more value-oriented stats.

I'm just saying that evidence as it stacks up now suggests he didn't, and I'm evaluating him based on that calculation. It's open to revision.

that's cool. My position is that I don't care whether or not he did. Frank Thomas hit a certain way. Barry Bonds did. Barry Bonds did it MUCH MUCH better. Barry Bonds did not have any help. Steroids atren't some magical substance. Far too many people have taken them and there's nothing to indicate they create the monster that was Barry Bonds. Maybe it was just right for him, but Even after Balco, Bonds was a monster, and Giambi was not. It's not remotely as simple as people want to make it.

And personally if you "disqualify" Bonds from any ranking due to steroids, then you are sying that the steroids were "cheating".

Misirlou-

OPS+ overrates McGwire because it doesn't account for hte games he constantly missed for injuries. (Does health count in the "greater hitter" discussion? Depends on definitions, I guess, but it's worth bringing up.)

Here are their top BRAR numbers:

105, 90, 88, 86, 76, 75, 69 - Pujols
119, 82, 77, 73, 70, 60, 59 - McGwire

McGwire's 60 is in strike-shortened '95, so one could give him a 12% boost up to 68 or so, but still the numbers looks pretty good for Pujols.

(And of course there's steroids and whatnot.)

SoSH, I am curious why you would prefer the higher BA. My understanding was that, for fixed values of OBP and SLG, a LOWER BA was actually preferable, at least in high scoring environments. See, for instance, the table at the end of http://www.tangotiger.net/ops2.html

First, there's really no preference involved in my part. Given the question, I'd say Bonds.

But the examples I was giving were not specifically related to the value an offensive player creates and instead looking at hitting as a technical skill (Gwynn's ability to consistently hit the ball hard) or even artistic (Ichiro's ability to do myriad things with a pitched ball) one.

At any rate, the point stands: why would Bonds be disqualified - he's either the best hitter or he isn't. Why he is the best hitter dosn't seem relevant.

Maybe not to you. You're entitled to your personal opinion. I don't so much as disqualify Bonds as view what he accomplished post 1999 as something beyond his normal ability.

On a level playing field, without chemical enhancements, I think we've seen the best Barry could do and the best Frank could do, and I rank the big hurt just slightly ahead of Bonds. If there were reason to change my opinion on whether Frank used steroids, then I'd give the edge to Bonds.

I'm not interested in punishment for Bonds. While I have no doubt he cheated, I believe in due process and he hasn't been caught in a way that the rules of baseball would allow a punishment. I don't like seeing him blackballed or denied entrance to the HOF. But I don't like the use of steroids in the sport, and Bonds most certainly benefitted from his use of them.

So when I consider the question of who was the greatest, I try and look at how great they were without cheating.

Steroids atren't some magical substance. Far too many people have taken them and there's nothing to indicate they create the monster that was Barry Bonds. Maybe it was just right for him, but Even after Balco, Bonds was a monster, and Giambi was not.

Even more to the point here is what Bonds accomplished before 1999. And though I see his juicing as a HOF disqualifier due to the character clause, that thought shouldn't apply to a discussion like this. And I don't see any way to get around the conclusion that even if you put a huge steroid discount on all of his post-1998 numbers, Bonds is still the best living hitter. I'd probably like to say otherwise, but facts are facts.

I don't so much as disqualify Bonds as view what he accomplished post 1999 as something beyond his normal ability.

So he gets no credit for those years?

And he didn't cheat. He did something some don't like, but the playing field was completely level. Well, excepting the crown for drainage.

Come on, there's not question here, is there?

Barry all day long.

I've been getting into Michael Schell's work lately. It isn't the be-all and end-all, but his method shows Bonds as the GLH followed by Musial, Mays, FRobby, Aaron, Hurt, Schmidt, Bagwell(!), McGwire, and Reggie.

Depends on how much you discount the post 1998 numbers. Look at Bonds through 1998 (age 33), and then Frank Thomas for the same ages. Thomas has a slight edge (167 to 164 OPS+). I think that's the easiest and fairest way to do it because you are including the player's natural peak in both instances.

Throw in Thomas's post 33 numbers and compare to some steroid-adjust Bonds numbers, and the conclusion depends on what kind of adjustment factor you use.

Even more to the point here is what Bonds accomplished before 1999. And though I see his juicing as a HOF disqualifier due to the character clause, that thought shouldn't apply to a discussion like this. And I don't see any way to get around the conclusion that even if you put a huge steroid discount on all of his post-1998 numbers, Bonds is still the best living hitter. I'd probably like to say otherwise, but facts are facts.

Right. You have to apply a 25% discount to Barry's post 1999 numbers to get them down to the "merely as good as Frank Thomas at his very best" level. And even then you're left with Barry at 6 seasons of 200+ and 2 more over 180, to Frank's one over 200 (compiled in a short season), and 7 between 174 and 181. As much as I love Frank, it's no contest.

And he didn't cheat. He did something some don't like, but the playing field was completely level. Well, excepting the crown for drainage.

Damn Chris. No wonder Bonds was so good. All those pitchers facing him were throwing off flat ground, while the guys facing Frank, Mac and others got to throw off mounds.

And he didn't cheat. He did something some don't like, but the playing field was completely level.

We can go on for days like this (and have). It's personal opinion. I say steroid use was cheating, it was against MLB rules even if there was no enforcement or testing provision. But I'll respect your opinion on this if you respect mine. I think it's cheating, you don't. Fine, leave it that way. I'm not going to try and convert you from voting for Bonds as GLH, but my vote goes to the big hurt.

SoSH, I am curious why you would prefer the higher BA. My understanding was that, for fixed values of OBP and SLG, a LOWER BA was actually preferable, at least in high scoring environments.

I've played around with this in a couple discussions. I would say that the low BA player is better, but then be presented with an example by linear weights which refutes it. It took me a while to figure out what was going on, but here it is:

For players close to the league average OBP/SLG or below, the low BA player is usually better by linear weights. For elite players, well above the league OBP/SLG, the high BA player is usually better. The best living player discussion obviously would be looking at the second group of players, and thus the high BA players are to be preferred.

I've played around with this in a couple discussions. I would say that the low BA player is better, but then be presented with an example by linear weights which refutes it. It took me a while to figure out what was going on, but here it is:

For players close to the league average OBP/SLG or below, the low BA player is usually better by linear weights. For elite players, well above the league OBP/SLG, the high BA player is usually better. The best living player discussion obviously would be looking at the second group of players, and thus the high BA players are to be preferred.

Why?

I'm not going to try and convert you from voting for Bonds as GLH, but my vote goes to the big hurt.

I am fine with where you want to stand on steroids, but I am still going to try to convert you from Hurt to Bonds. See Misirlou's 114.

For elite players, well above the league OBP/SLG, the high BA player is usually better. The best living player discussion obviously would be looking at the second group of players, and thus the high BA players are to be preferred.

The high BA and low BA do get closer together as OBA/SLG increase, but its only a difference of a few runs over the course of a season anyway, even at the extremes, so we're kind of nitpicking anyway. Normal LW have enough error in them as a measurement tool that 2-3 runs is basically meaningless.

#118:

Why?

Because that's what the data say. Pick a linear weights estimator, and make up high and low BA players with below-average, average, above-average, and elite OBP/SLG. Try it for yourself.

Zach,
could you email me (or post) how you made that table and how you psoted it?

Thanks.

WRT 118 and 121:

Treating the relationship between offensive components and runs scored as linear (which is what linear weights do) is effective over the range of normal team performance, but breaks down at the extremes. There is no team which hits as well as elite hitters do, and when you start looking at elite hitters, you start getting into the range where the effects become non-linear.

-- MWE

SoSH, I am curious why you would prefer the higher BA. My understanding was that, for fixed values of OBP and SLG, a LOWER BA was actually preferable, at least in high scoring environments. See, for instance, the table at the end of http://www.tangotiger.net/ops2.html

I would see McGwire vs Pujols as pretty close, but I would probably take McGwire (although obviously Pujols is better overall).

Holding all other things constant, that might actually work, but as you may notice, the difference is miniscule and not everything else is held constant. A 2 run difference over the course of a full season is probably more than made up in the difference in productive outs, which the higher average hitter SHOULD have more of.

Also, one more measure which I'm shocked nobody has mentioned is consistency. A great hitter should be able to hit great year in and year out. It's probably the main reason why Pujols pops into my head long before McGwire, who was obscenely inconsistent.

Danny Jackson
Mario Mendoza
Luis Pujols
Tony Pena Jr.
Rey Ordonez
Neifi Perez
Billy Ripken
Ozzie Guillen
Joey Gathright
Joe Giraldi

(wait, I might have the wrong list here)

Did you even READ my comment about Randy Tate?

Did you even READ my comment about Randy Tate?

Least Living Hitter with a career is probably one of the following: Ed Brinkmann, Ozzzie Guillen, Alfredo Griffin, or Sandy Alomar Sr..

Also, one more measure which I'm shocked nobody has mentioned is consistency. A great hitter should be able to hit great year in and year out. It's probably the main reason why Pujols pops into my head long before McGwire, who was obscenely inconsistent.

But again, this is another way that the comparison is biased toward a guy like Pujols who's still in his prime. McGwire was never consistent, of course, but to go back to the other guy who's been compared to Pujols in this thread - look at Frank Thomas. Over his first 7 full seasons (Pujols has played 7 full seasons), Frank Thomas never missed more than 21 games in a season (2 of his first 7 seasons were the strike years of 1994-95, when he played in all of his team's games both seasons) and had career LOWS to that point of 102 runs scored, 101 RBI, .308 BA, .426 OBP, .536 SLG, and an OPS+ of 174.

So even for consistency, The Big Hurt is right there with Pujols. Except that Thomas then added 1,219 games where he hit .277/.391/.521/OPS+ of 135 on top of the 7 consistent years.

127 gets it exactly right.

A lot of people use rate stats above all else, to the extent that every season someone like Frank Thomas plays with an OPS+ of 125 makes him LESS worthy of the Hall of Fame in their eyes. Perhaps if he had retired after the 2004 season he would be the Greatest Living Hitter.

SoSH, sorry, I don't think I was clear. I was not arguing with you in general--I actually agree with your position--but merely commenting on Pujols vs McGwire.

There is only one caveat I would mention about splitting the question up the way you do. While Gwynn may be the best living "pure hitter" by your definition, and that is something kind of cool, it should not be used as a point in favor of arguing that he was "better" than anyone else. It is a neat curiosity, more analogous to Willy Taveras being the "best living bunter for hits" than being to Bonds being the best overall hitter. Gwynn is not a greater player for his very good hitting taking the particular shape that it did. I know you didn't make that argument, but all too many commentators on Gwynn seemed to make the slide from "best pure hitter" to "best hitter".

DCA, you are right, I got it exactly wrong in my initial statement. For high values of OBP/SLG, a higher BA is better. In the comments to the article I linked to, Tango played around and found the "break even" point, where BA was completely irrelevant, was .360/.450, which of course is worse than anyone we are talking about here. So I was wrong, higher BA is better for these guys. Of course, the difference are so small that it there is really no reason to look at BA in thinking about the best overall hitter.

And I actually think Frank Thomas had a somewhat abnormal decline phase. I think he started to drop off a few years before you would've expected and his 30s mixed some quite dreadful years with a couple of mini-renaissances.

Are you sure you're looking at the right Frank Thomas? He lost a couple of seasons to injury, but his lowest OPS+ in a full season is 118. That's probably average for a DH, not "quite dreadful."

Perhaps if he had retired after the 2004 season he would be the Greatest Living Hitter.

Only if Bonds had quit in 1998.

OPS+ is not a complete picture, a stat that takes no account of games played (or fielding).

If you are using it exclusively to rate players, your analysis is faulty.

OPS+ is not a complete picture, a stat that takes no account of games played (or fielding).

Games played has to figure in somewhere, or else John Paciorek is the greatest hitter of all time. But fielding's got nothing to do with "greatest living hitter".

But fielding's got nothing to do with "greatest living hitter".

Does baserunning?

Does baserunning?

I'd argue no, but I'll concede it's a debatable point. I intepret "Greatest Living Hitter" to be, who did the most damage while they were in the batter's box.

edit: or more accurately, "who did the most damage during their own plate appearances" if you want to give players credit for hitting doubles and triples instead of singles.

Hello back. Thomas > Pujols I can see, but WRT McGwire, all things being equal I'd rather have the hitter whose BA is a larger component of is OBP. (And of course, all things aren't equal; Pujols' OBP is a fair bit higher.)

Pujols is mostly peak, since he's in mid-career. He's had a hell of a 7.5-year peak, but McGwire's level of performance at his best was higher.

I don't think Pujols will have a "normal" decline phase. He'll decline, obviously. But I expect him to produce well for many years. I freely admit that is an educated guess.

It's just too speculative at this point. As a great hitter, he certainly has a better chance than most to sustain a high performance level as he ages; but he's already been dealing with significant injuries and has already had to slide over on the defensive spectrum.

If he gets 5,000 more official AB in his career (he currently has 4317), he'll need to hit .290 the rest of his career to finish up at .310.

Thomas's average dropped more than that, as you noted. So did Giambi's. Of course, there's no law that says it has to happen to Pujols; but the point is that it's difficult to maintain a batting average that high as a slugger ages. The nice thing is that a hitter at Pujols's level can still produce even if his batting average drops to .260, like Thomas's and Giambi's did.

Not that it's a real measure of greatness or anything, but I find it amusing that in Zach's list in #104, down at the bottom of the list, soon-to-be Hall-of-Famer Jim Rice is listed immediately below consensus-worst-Hall-of-Famer-ever George Kelly.

Frank Thomas risked his career for a more rigorous testing regime. I generally agree with the "why pick on him--everyone was using" argument, but this is taking one of the few people in the era who DID take a stand against steroids, ignoring that and then disparaging their name.

"Risked his career" by kissing up to the owners? Anyway, I presume precisely nothing about whether Thomas used PEDs. I don't care that he's taken a vocal anti-PED position; we know nothing about what these people do when nobody's looking.

I put fielding in parentheses, but my point stands. I don't like 'hitter' debates because they encourage narrowing our perception of ballplayers.

But don't let me stop you. ;

edit: or more accurately, "who did the most damage during their own plate appearances" if you want to give players credit for hitting doubles and triples instead of singles.

But that's the point: there _is_ a speed component to hitting. It's built in to singles, doubles, and triples, and therefore shows up in OPS in that respect. But obviously steals don't show up in OPS, so we need to at least make a mental adjustment for them. Otherwise, it would make no sense to talk about "hitting" in terms of OPS -- thereby conceding that there's a speed component to hitting -- and then ignore that speed component when it comes to steals.

"Hitting" = "Offense". People can talk about "pure" hitting, and ignore walks and steals and the like -- but then they're not talking about hitting. They're talking about something else.

Not that it's a real measure of greatness or anything, but I find it amusing that in Zach's list in #104, down at the bottom of the list, soon-to-be Hall-of-Famer Jim Rice is listed immediately below consensus-worst-Hall-of-Famer-ever George Kelly.

And Mike Greenwell is right behind him. I felt old this weekend when I heard Greenwell on the radio and he was talking about his som in the Indians system.

But that's the point: there _is_ a speed component to hitting.

Sure, of course. There's also a speed component to fielding, but that doesn't mean that therefore one has to include fielding when you're talking about hitters. I think one can draw a perfectly reasonable line between what one does as a <u>batter</u> and what one does as a <u>baserunner</u> and call the former "hitting" and the latter "baserunning".

But I'm not married to this argument, and it's not all that relevant to anything being discussed here. Barry Bonds is the greatest living hitter if you give him any credit at all for anything he did after 1999. And while Albert Pujols is a better baserunner than Frank Thomas ever was, it would be very hard to convince me that it's enough to offset Thomas's advantages in peak, prime, and career (add fielding, though, and you've got yourself a good debate).

"Risked his career" by kissing up to the owners? Anyway, I presume precisely nothing about whether Thomas used PEDs. I don't care that he's taken a vocal anti-PED position; we know nothing about what these people do when nobody's looking.

I don't think you are in proper possession of the facts, so if you are interested, I'll elaborate. I suppose that my comment may have been a minor stretch, but Thomas and the other 15 on the Sox were as directly active against steroids as any player on Earth.

If you want a real chuckle, check out who their main critic was. :)

Of the plan to refuse testing, Yankees first baseman Jason Giambi said: ''It sounds kind of stupid. The whole idea of testing is to see if there is a problem. If they'd failed the test deliberately, it would have given a bogus percentage. And in that case, why would you want to implement testing if it's not a problem?''

The greatest living Hitler? The trendy choice is George Bush, but he's overrated because of all the media attention. Gotta go with Mugabe.

Here's the query. There's probably a faster way to do this -- any sql experts care to comment?

select namefirst,namelast,(sum(h))/(sum(ab)+sum(bb)+sum(sh)) as hitting,sum(h) as hits from master inner join batting on master.playerid=batting.playerid where batting.yearid>1919 group by batting.playerid having hits>1000 and hitting > .275 order by hitting desc;

I printed the output using the code tag. The pre tag never works very well for me, for some reason.