They've been better pitchers than Z. Pitching is done on the mound. His effectiveness on the mound = his effectiveness as a pitcher. Z has been a better hitter. What you're saying is tantamount to saying that, I don't know, Mike Piazza was a better catcher than Charles Johnson. It makes far more sense to say that Piazza is a better hitter than to say he's a better catcher. Sure, it wouldn't be entirely inaccurate, because it would be no different than saying something like, "Manny Ramirez is one of the top left fielders in the league." Phrases like that are pretty commonly accepted, even though they're obviously referring to the much more important skillset at the plate than his actual abilities as a left fielder. But intuitively, I don't think it makes much sense. Cliffs: Even if you think that Z has been more valuable because of his hitting, which seems to be the point LoK is making, it makes more sense to say that Hill and Lilly have been better pitchers. Z is a better hitter and perhaps better overall.