Best Cubs Hitter ever?

[illiniguy]

Here is the only stat you ever need to end this discussion:

 

Times saved us (entire season):
Neifi Perez:                       1
Anyone else to ever play for Cubs: 0

Dude he saved us for like 3 seasons, but your point remains.

 

Notice how he didn't even bother to ask who our best defender ever was. Anyone else glove in runs? Didn't think so.

[Exile on Waveland]

Sosa.

[apete6]

Sosa, hands down. He carried the entire team for about 5 seasons. His 2001 almost defies logic, steroids be damned, because of the crappiness that surrounded him in that lineup. A ton of the pitchers were on the juice, too, and he was just owning them while playing on a terrible offense.

[rrudd2]

Gary Scott

[Wrong Sider]

Thanks alot guys. While talking with my co-worker, I thought of Anson & Williams off the top of my head. We talked about Sosa, but as other people here have said, his involvement with PED's taint what he has done, but for 5+ years, he was an awesome hitter enough to make us lean towards Williams & Anson.

 

Even though I am not a Stathead like most of you guys, I do appreciate your input on this one.

[bhogg]

Jody Davis.

 

Followed closely by....

 

Ron Cey

 

 

Actually Jody Davis was much faster than Cey. . . . . .and that's saying something.

[mcgoobs]

Z?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Thanks alot guys. While talking with my co-worker, I thought of Anson & Williams off the top of my head. We talked about Sosa, but as other people here have said, his involvement with PED's taint what he has done, but for 5+ years, he was an awesome hitter enough to make us lean towards Williams & Anson.

 

Even though I am not a Stathead like most of you guys, I do appreciate your input on this one.

 

http://www.geocities.com/stimpysvideotrading/bandb.jpg

"Hee hee hee, he said taint."

[Guest]

I assume we're leaving out Sam Fuld due to a lack of time with the team, right?

[NCCubFan]

No love for Todd Hundley? I'm shocked.

[Cubbie Swagger]

I think Sosa might have put up the best numbers, but I still don't think much of Sosa. I didn't when he was a Cub, and I still don't. I never thought he was that great of a "hitter". I think A-Ram has got to be pretty high up on the list, though. He's a hell of a hitter.

 

Honestly, though... I think Pujols is the best hitter to ever play the game. As much as I hate to admit it since he's a Cardinal. I just think that if guys like Ted Williams, Ruth, etc, were to play in 2009, their numbers would drop significantly. They might have been the best of their time, but in today's game, they would be nothing special.

[OleMissCub]

They might have been the best of their time, but in today's game, they would be nothing special.

 

they'd have been like aaron boone and stuff if they played today. probably wouldn't even make it past like advanced A league or something. willie mays might have made it to AA, but even then, i totally don't know. those pitchers in the 50's who pitched against Mays only threw like 40 mph or something like that.

[Guest]

I think Sosa might have put up the best numbers, but I still don't think much of Sosa. I didn't when he was a Cub, and I still don't. I never thought he was that great of a "hitter".

 

Uh, what?

[illiniguy]

I think Sosa might have put up the best numbers, but I still don't think much of Sosa. I didn't when he was a Cub, and I still don't. I never thought he was that great of a "hitter". I think A-Ram has got to be pretty high up on the list, though. He's a hell of a hitter.

 

Honestly, though... I think Pujols is the best hitter to ever play the game. As much as I hate to admit it since he's a Cardinal. I just think that if guys like Ted Williams, Ruth, etc, were to play in 2009, their numbers would drop significantly. They might have been the best of their time, but in today's game, they would be nothing special.

This is an amazing post.

[illiniguy]

They might have been the best of their time, but in today's game, they would be nothing special.

 

they'd have been like aaron boone and stuff if they played today. probably wouldn't even make it past like advanced A league or something. willie mays might have made it to AA, but even then, i totally don't know. those pitchers in the 50's who pitched against Mays only threw like 40 mph or something like that.

Come on, he's right. Those fools then weren't even juicing. How could they possibly be as good?

[CyHawk_Cub]

I think Sosa might have put up the best numbers, but I still don't think much of Sosa. I didn't when he was a Cub, and I still don't. I never thought he was that great of a "hitter". I think A-Ram has got to be pretty high up on the list, though. He's a hell of a hitter.

 

Honestly, though... I think Pujols is the best hitter to ever play the game. As much as I hate to admit it since he's a Cardinal. I just think that if guys like Ted Williams, Ruth, etc, were to play in 2009, their numbers would drop significantly. They might have been the best of their time, but in today's game, they would be nothing special.

 

wut?

[rocket]

I think Sosa might have put up the best numbers, but I still don't think much of Sosa. I didn't when he was a Cub, and I still don't. I never thought he was that great of a "hitter". I think A-Ram has got to be pretty high up on the list, though. He's a hell of a hitter.

 

Honestly, though... I think Pujols is the best hitter to ever play the game. As much as I hate to admit it since he's a Cardinal. I just think that if guys like Ted Williams, Ruth, etc, were to play in 2009, their numbers would drop significantly. They might have been the best of their time, but in today's game, they would be nothing special.

 

wut?

 

what he's saying is that sosa wasn't a great hitter as a cub, despite his .284 batting average and .569 slugging percentage as a cub.

[CyHawk_Cub]

I think Sosa might have put up the best numbers, but I still don't think much of Sosa. I didn't when he was a Cub, and I still don't. I never thought he was that great of a "hitter". I think A-Ram has got to be pretty high up on the list, though. He's a hell of a hitter.

 

Honestly, though... I think Pujols is the best hitter to ever play the game. As much as I hate to admit it since he's a Cardinal. I just think that if guys like Ted Williams, Ruth, etc, were to play in 2009, their numbers would drop significantly. They might have been the best of their time, but in today's game, they would be nothing special.

 

wut?

 

what he's saying is that sosa wasn't a great hitter as a cub, despite his .284 batting average and .569 slugging percentage as a cub.

 

Yeah, I was just trying to wrap my mind around the post.... I assume Sosa, regardless of production, just wasn't a "pure" hitter.....I guess? Not that I even know what a "pure" hitter even is.... IMO, about the only defensible thing in his post is his opinion about Pujols...and I can see a reasonable argument for A Ram..... Oh, & Ted Williams could hit in ANY era, thank you very much.

[SpongeWorthy]

1998 Gary Gaetti

[Cubbie Swagger]

So all you guys are disagreeing with my statement that Sosa was not a great hitter? That's what's wrong with my post?

 

I just mean that I always saw him as more of a slugger, and not such a great pure hitter. He did strike out quite a bit.

 

EDIT: I was just looking back at some of his SLG and OPS numbers from back in his prime... WOW.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

So all you guys are disagreeing with my statement that Sosa was not a great hitter? That's what's wrong with my post?

 

I just mean that I always saw him as more of a slugger, and not such a great pure hitter. He did strike out quite a bit.

 

EDIT: I was just looking back at some of his SLG and OPS numbers from back in his prime... WOW.

 

WTH is a "pure" hitter?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

So all you guys are disagreeing with my statement that Sosa was not a great hitter? That's what's wrong with my post?

 

I just mean that I always saw him as more of a slugger, and not such a great pure hitter. He did strike out quite a bit.

 

EDIT: I was just looking back at some of his SLG and OPS numbers from back in his prime... WOW.

 

So slugging is different from hitting? It's all about production as a hitter, and Sosa did that better than anyone the Cubs have ever had.

[OleMissCub]

So all you guys are disagreeing with my statement that Sosa was not a great hitter? That's what's wrong with my post?

 

The Sosa stuff didn't bother me so much as your temporal-centric point of view about players in the past...and you weren't talking about Cap Anson types who played 130 years ago, you were talking about Ted freaking Williams.

 

Williams hit .388 in 1957 and Hank Aaron hit .322. In 1971 Aaron hit .327 and Pete Rose hit .301. In 1981 Rose hit .325 and Rickey Henderson hit .319. In 1990 Henderson hit .325 and Ken Griffey Jr hit .300. In 2005 Griffey hit .301 and Mark Teixeira hit .301.

 

You see what I'm doing there? When do baseball players and their baseball talent become legit to you? 1995 or something? To think that an UNGODLY hitter 50 years ago would be some scrub today is completely stupid.

 

Is Rickey Henderson legit in your mind? If so, then you have to say Pete Rose is legit because they both co-existed and were successful in the same season against the same competition. If Pete Rose is legit to you then Aaron must be legit. If Aaron is legit to you then Ted Williams should be legit.

 

The basic elements of the game (to which real baseball talent applies) haven't changed all that much in 100 years. The talent pool is bigger and the players are obviously more athletic than they used to be, only a fool would deny that, but that principle applies to guys who played in 1985 just like it applies to those who played in 1915. So when do you stop being a snob toward players in the past?

 

If Ted Williams was 30 years old playing in the game today he'd still be hitting the absolute piss out of the ball. Would he have a .400+ season like he did in 1941? Probably not, but I imagine he'd still be in the running for a batting title.

[Coach C]

kevin orie imo

 

Rick Wilkins

[Cubbie Swagger]

WTH is a "pure" hitter?

The fact that you have to ask that question is sort of shocking.

 

So slugging is different from hitting?

Yes. It is possible to be a good hitter that does not slug.

 

To think that an UNGODLY hitter 50 years ago would be some scrub today is completely stupid.

I didn't say they would be a scrub. I just meant that they would not be considered legends like they are.

 

The basic elements of the game (to which real baseball talent applies) haven't changed all that much in 100 years. The talent pool is bigger and the players are obviously more athletic than they used to be, only a fool would deny that, but that principle applies to guys who played in 1985 just like it applies to those who played in 1915.

I think 100+mph fastballs and nasty Carlos Marmol sliders make a little difference. I think that scouting has advanced a great deal over the years as well. Teams have a better understanding of how to pitch guys now that they have instant access to basically any split stat possible.

 

So when do you stop being a snob toward players in the past?

Good question. What would be your answer? I'm getting the vibe that you feel there was a large difference in the game between 1900 and 1950, for example, but not between 1950 and 2000? So where does the line get drawn?

 

If Ted Williams was 30 years old playing in the game today he'd still be hitting the absolute piss out of the ball. Would he have a .400+ season like he did in 1941? Probably not, but I imagine he'd still be in the running for a batting title.

I would say that Williams would have a better shot than most of those guys in today's game. I still don't think he'd be anywhere near a batting title though.