Best Cubs Hitter ever?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

WTH is a "pure" hitter?[

So slugging is different from hitting?

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

 

 

I never said it wasn't possible to be a good hitter that doesn't slug. However, you implied that a slugger isn't necessarily a good hitter. That is where you are wrong. Hitting for power is as much a part of hitting as making contact. So, to say Sosa wasn't a good "pure hitter" as a way to discount his accomplishments is ludicrous.

[illiniguy]

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.

Ted Williams would be Joe Mauer with more power in todays game. Keep in mind he would also be doing better weight training now than he ever did. Actually he would prolly be Pujols.

[OleMissCub]

I think 100+mph fastballs and nasty Carlos Marmol sliders make a little difference.

 

Yes, because 100+mph fastballs and Marmol sliders are the norm nowadays. Some people have the ability to throw extreme heat but most don't and that applies to 2009 the same way it does to 1939. If there are gangly high schoolers with little training out there that can sometimes hit 95mph, I'd guarantee you that there were grown men who were professional athletes 60 years ago who could do the same. These guys faced a choice back then: get guys out at the big league level or grab your lunch pail and go back to the coal mines. I'm pretty sure they did their best to maximize their arm strength. The laws of physics and the human arm haven't changed in 60 years. Some pitchers today might be trained to have better mechanics, but that only accounts for so much.

 

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.

 

That works both ways. Teddy Ballgame and Willie Mays didn't have the access to the film of their upcoming pitchers either.

 

Good question.

 

Then answer it.

 

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?

 

As far as stats are concerned, I begin to look at stats legitimately that were posted AFTER the rules changes of 1903 such as when the foul-strike rule was adopted.

 

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.

 

and why not? Williams hit over .380 the same years Mays and Mantle were winning MVP's. They were still kicking butt when Pete Rose started making AS teams. Rose was still kicking butt when George Brett started making his AS teams. Brett was still kicking butt when Gwynn made his AS teams. Gwynn was kicking butt when ARod started making his teams. Do you think they'd all be mediocre players in today's game as well?

[Derwood]

I would like a 2009 example of a "pure hitter"

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

When people say "pure hitter" they are talking guys like Ichiro, Gwynn, Rose.

 

It's a stupid Morganesque term. I could probably close my eyes and imagine Tim McCarver talking about it too.

[Sosa21MVP]

Yes I'm sure the great hitters of past eras would totally not take advantage of modern advances in sports medicine and workout routines if they happened to be born a few decades later. :scratch:

[Cubbie Swagger]

Yes I'm sure the great hitters of past eras would totally not take advantage of modern advances in sports medicine and workout routines if they happened to be born a few decades later. :scratch:

That's a good point, but that's basically what I was trying to say. I think that players in the 1900's and 1950's had just as much potential ability (considering our species has not evolved). But, my point is this: if you took Ted Williams in his prime exactly the way he was then (physically, and skill-wise) and sent him to the plate to face Pedro in his prime (exactly as he was), Williams wouldn't have a chance. How is a guy who's never seen a 100mph fastball or a nasty breaking pitch supposed to just go up there and start raking? I think it would require a great deal of practice and training before he would be effective.

 

I would like a 2009 example of a "pure hitter"

Ichiro.

[illiniguy]

Yes I'm sure the great hitters of past eras would totally not take advantage of modern advances in sports medicine and workout routines if they happened to be born a few decades later. :scratch:

That's a good point, but that's basically what I was trying to say. I think that players in the 1900's and 1950's had just as much potential ability (considering our species has not evolved). But, my point is this: if you took Ted Williams in his prime exactly the way he was then (physically, and skill-wise) and sent him to the plate to face Pedro in his prime (exactly as he was), Williams wouldn't have a chance. How is a guy who's never seen a 100mph fastball or a nasty breaking pitch supposed to just go up there and start raking? I think it would require a great deal of practice and training before he would be effective.

 

I would like a 2009 example of a "pure hitter"

Ichiro.

Great point. Even though Bob Feller who pitched in the American League is believed to have thrown the hardest ever in the big leagues. ](*,)

[Cubbie Swagger]

Yes I'm sure the great hitters of past eras would totally not take advantage of modern advances in sports medicine and workout routines if they happened to be born a few decades later. :scratch:

That's a good point, but that's basically what I was trying to say. I think that players in the 1900's and 1950's had just as much potential ability (considering our species has not evolved). But, my point is this: if you took Ted Williams in his prime exactly the way he was then (physically, and skill-wise) and sent him to the plate to face Pedro in his prime (exactly as he was), Williams wouldn't have a chance. How is a guy who's never seen a 100mph fastball or a nasty breaking pitch supposed to just go up there and start raking? I think it would require a great deal of practice and training before he would be effective.

 

I would like a 2009 example of a "pure hitter"

Ichiro.

Great point. Even though Bob Feller who pitched in the American League is believed to have thrown the hardest ever in the big leagues. ](*,)

One guy? Wow.

 

Not to mention, a guy throwing hard back then must have been a pretty big deal if you're still talking about it all these years later.

 

Doesn't seem like this debate is going anywhere. You guys think baseball players were just as good 50-100 years ago as they are today, and I disagree. I guess we'll just have to leave it at that... I also don't wanna hijack this thread anymore.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The hardest-throwing pitchers are about the same across eras. Today's big leagues have far more 90+ guys than the past ever did.

[OleMissCub]

How is a guy who's never seen a 100mph fastball or a nasty breaking pitch supposed to just go up there and start raking?

 

Nonsense.

 

This photo of Walter Johnson's pitching grips was taken literally 100 YEARS ago.

 

http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh153/OleMissCub17/walterpitch.jpg

 

That's a 4 seamer, slider, sinker, changeup, knuckleball, and curve.

[Cubbie Swagger]

How is a guy who's never seen a 100mph fastball or a nasty breaking pitch supposed to just go up there and start raking?

 

Nonsense.

 

This photo of Walter Johnson's pitching grips was taken literally 100 YEARS ago.

 

http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh153/OleMissCub17/walterpitch.jpg

 

That's a 4 seamer, slider, sinker, changeup, knuckleball, and curve.

Then you have to consider the fact that breaking pitches in 2009 travel faster than fastballs did in 1909.

 

I also never said that breaking pitches hadn't been invented yet.

[OleMissCub]

Then you have to consider the fact that breaking pitches in 2009 travel faster than fastballs did in 1909.

 

lol, do you know anything about the physics of pitch speed and pitch break??

[Derwood]

Then you have to consider the fact that breaking pitches in 2009 travel faster than fastballs did in 1909.

 

lol, do you know anything about the physics of pitch speed and pitch break??

 

Olde Thyme players threw underhand in the National League.

 

In the American League, they just set the ball on a tee.

[OleMissCub]

Olde Thyme players threw underhand in the National League.

 

Come to think of it, Carl Mays, the pitcher who killed Ray Chapman in 1920, threw submarine:

 

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/9610/carlmays2vl7.gif

 

 

note: That gif is in real time, not slow motion. That's actually how slow they threw back then. Chapman just had a really thin skull.

[javy knows my name]

Pretty good thread

[Backtobanks]

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.

 

A great hitter like Williams, Mays, Aaron, Ruth, Gehrig, etc. would be a great hitter in any era. These guys had the hand-eye coordination and timing to be great no matter who they would be facing.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

How is a guy who's never seen a 100mph fastball or a nasty breaking pitch supposed to just go up there and start raking?

 

Nonsense.

 

This photo of Walter Johnson's pitching grips was taken literally 100 YEARS ago.

 

http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh153/OleMissCub17/walterpitch.jpg

 

That's a 4 seamer, slider, sinker, changeup, knuckleball, and curve.

Then you have to consider the fact that breaking pitches in 2009 travel faster than fastballs did in 1909.

 

I also never said that breaking pitches hadn't been invented yet.

 

I really don't think you have a clue of what you are talking about.

[OleMissCub]

Pretty good thread

 

Indeed. Very educating. I learned that if you took a mediocre player from today like Clint Barmes and sent him in a time machine 50 years ago and let him play, he'd be beating out guys like Mays and Mantle for the MVP's. That .388 that Ted Williams hit at age 38 would probably be .488 if it were Barmes up there.

[Soul]

I'll add my voice to Sosa. He's got a bad reputation now because of the roids, but I've never seen anything like that in a Cub uni, before or since.

 

There are an awful lot of great Cub players in the past who I would have liked to be able to follow on a daily basis. I can look at the stats they posted, but I like to see them play.

[UK1679666180]

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?

 

It is the ability to hit for avg.

[UK1679666180]

When people say "pure hitter" they are talking guys like Ichiro, Gwynn, Rose.

 

It's a stupid Morganesque term. I could probably close my eyes and imagine Tim McCarver talking about it too.

 

It's a fair term and one that has validity even in today's game despite the trend towards fantasy baseball. Financially, it makes sense sometimes to have cheaper guys come up thru the system that hit for avg. more than power.

[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?

 

It is the ability to hit for avg.

 

What's pure about it?

[inari]

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?

 

It is the ability to hit for avg.

 

What's pure about it?

 

It's not tainted by base clogging and selfish rally-killing home runs.

[Derwood]

My team of 9 Sammy Sosa's will beat your team of 9 Ichiro's every day of the week