-
Looking Back — And Forward
May 15, 2013 | 19 comments
-
Lies About Libya
May 14, 2013 | 80 comments
-
Bouncing Ball Politics
May 8, 2013 | 16 comments
-
Words That Replace Thought
May 7, 2013 | 57 comments
-
Is Thinking Obsolete?
May 1, 2013 | 36 comments
Sports Arena
All-Time All-Stars
Who was the all-time greatest hitter?
Nothing is likely to get an argument started among sports fans faster than attempts to name the all-time greatest in any sport, or even the all-time greatest in a particular aspect of a sport. However, in baseball, we can at least narrow down the list of possibilities — considerably, in fact — when it comes to hitting.
Who was the all-time greatest hitter?
A lot depends on how much weight you give to batting average versus power hitting. But it would be hard to consider someone for the title of the all-time greatest hitter if someone else had both a higher lifetime batting average and a higher lifetime slugging average. That narrows down the list considerably.
The highest lifetime batting average was Ty Cobb’s .367. But Rogers Hornsby hit .358 and, being far more of a home-run hitter, Hornsby had a higher lifetime slugging average than Cobb. No one had both a higher lifetime batting average and a higher lifetime slugging average than Cobb or Hornsby. Both of them therefore belong on the short list of candidates.
Babe Ruth had by far the highest lifetime slugging average — .690. Batting averages count how many hits there are in how many official times at bat. Slugging averages count how many total bases there are from these hits — counting a single as one base and a home run as four, for example.
If you get two singles and a double every 10 times at bat, then your batting average is .300, and your four total bases mean that your slugging average is .400. If you get two singles and a home run, then your six bases give you a slugging average of .600.
Babe Ruth’s lifetime slugging average of .690 means that he averaged nearly 7 total bases every 10 times at bat. That would mean something like a single, a double and a home run every 10 times at bat — over a span of 22 years.
Some great sluggers, in their best seasons, have had slugging averages of .700 or more, usually once or twice in a lifetime. Only two players — Babe Ruth and Barry Bonds — ever had a slugging average over .800 in a season. That’s equivalent to two singles, a double and a home run every 10 times at bat, all season long.
But if we are talking about the all-time greatest hitters, we usually mean over the course of a career, not just in a particular season when a batter was hot.
To put the Babe’s .690 lifetime slugging average in perspective, even such great sluggers as Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Joe DiMaggio and Hank Greenberg, in their greatest seasons, never had a slugging average as high as the .690 that Babe Ruth had for his whole career. So the Babe makes the short list.
Ted Williams is best known for batting .406. What is not nearly as well known is that he had a lifetime slugging average exceeded only by Babe Ruth’s — and Williams’ lifetime batting average of .344 was two points higher than the Babe’s. So no one had both a higher lifetime batting average and a higher lifetime slugging average than Ted Williams. He too makes the short list.
There is another important dimension to batting, the ability to come through in the clutch. This is not so easily quantifiable. However, there is one batter who stands out above all others when it comes to runs batted in — Lou Gehrig.
Despite a career shortened by the disease that bears his name, Lou Gehrig still holds the record for the most seasons with more than 150 runs batted in — seven seasons, one out of every two full seasons in his career. Babe Ruth is second with three seasons of 150 or more runs batted in. Gehrig had 184 RBIs in 1931.
Lou Gehrig also set the lifetime record for the most home runs with the bases loaded, a record recently tied by Alex Rodriguez. Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron and Barry Bonds, in their longer careers, hit over 200 more home runs than Gehrig, but none of the three hit as many homers with the bases loaded.
Lou Gehrig’s lifetime slugging average is third on the all-time list, just one point behind Ted Williams’. Gehrig’s lifetime batting average of .340 is 2 points lower than Babe Ruth’s and 4 points lower than Ted Williams’. But, if clutch hitting counts, Gehrig also belongs on the short list of all-time great batters.
We can argue about how to weigh various aspects of hitting, in order to pick the one all-time greatest batter, but at least we can narrow down the list of possibilities to five.
COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM
About the Author
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com. To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
JP| 7.9.12 @ 9:17AM
I wasn't alive during baseball's golden age. But, during the last 40 years I would have to say Pete Rose should be mentioned (even though he shouldn't make the Hall of Fame), Barry Bonds (even before his juiced years he was one of the best all around hitters), and of course Albert Pujols.
Doctor Right| 7.9.12 @ 9:44AM
Ted Williams.
Let's not forget that Ted left baseball not once, but twice, to serve his country as a jet fighter pilot.
Greatest pure hitter EVER.
cuban pete| 7.9.12 @ 12:29PM
End of story.
I'm a White Sox fan with no love for the Red Sox but Teddy "Ball Game" was the best.
CJW| 7.9.12 @ 4:36PM
Ted missed five or six years due to WWII and Korea. These were his prime years. Had he played he would have probably hit another 200 home runs. Mays also missed two years in his prime when he served in the Armey. He also would have hit another 80 home runs . Musial also was in WWII.
Stuart Koehl| 7.9.12 @ 9:03PM
See below.
Bob K| 7.9.12 @ 9:58AM
Pete Rose also holds the record for the most outs made over a career. It's a stat that doesn't receive much publicity but he is 1st in it never the less. He also is 1st in games played, plate appearances, at bats and hits. His BA is .303, OBP .375 and Slugging is .409. The 1st 2 could have been much better if he had taken more walks.
RJ| 7.9.12 @ 10:16AM
Looks like a good top five list. Of course, one other issue regarding power is that all baseball parks are not the same. Ruth, truly a great power hitter, still had the advantage of a 296 foot right field corner in Yankee Stadium. Ted Williams, also truly a great power hitter, also had an advantage playing in Fenway. Nonetheless, if given the chance to pick one or the other, you couldn't go wrong.
Stuart Koehl| 7.9.12 @ 9:08PM
As a left-hander playing in Fenway, and an habitual pull hitter, Williams couldn't really benefit from the layout of Fenway, particularly the 315-foot Green Monster left field wall. Rather, he had to deal with "Death Valley", the 380-foot right field wall and 420-foot center field wall.
Stuart Koehl| 7.9.12 @ 12:07PM
Sowell leaves out that Ted Williams missed close to five seasons to military service (1943-45, 52-53) in the prime of his career. In the three years prior to his World War II service, Williams averaged 32 home runs, 123 RBIs, and 188 hits per season. If we assume this as his average performance for the years 1943-54, then Williams would have compiled an additional 96 home runs, 369 RBIs and 564 hits.
In the three seasons before his Korean War service, Williams averaged 34 home runs, 127 RBIs and 156 hits per season (Williams played only 89 games in 1950 due to injuries). If we assume this is his average production for the years 1952-53, then he would have compiled an additional 68 home runs, 254 RBIs and 312 hits.
Stuart Koehl| 7.9.12 @ 12:08PM
Put together, his military service probably cost Williams 164 home runs, 623 RBIs and 876 hits. Add these to Williams' historical figures, and you get 685 homers, 2093 RBIs and 2966 hits. I would say this is a low estimate, as Williams was still improving in 1942, and had not yet reached his peak.
If you go by his nominal 162-game season average, Williams lost 185 home runs, 650 RBIs and 940 hits, for a total of 706 homers (very close to Ruth), 2489 RBIs (vs.2213 for Ruth) and 3594 hits (fifth on the all-time list).
On the other hand, Ruth spent five seasons as a pitcher and part-time outfielder, so who knows how many more homers, RBIs and hits he would have gotten if he had (a) played outfield from the beginning; and (b) taken as much care of his body as Ted Williams did?
CJW| 7.9.12 @ 4:37PM
Agree. Should have read your comment before I wrote. Williams and Mays would have beaten the 714 record if they had not served.
Stuart Koehl| 7.9.12 @ 9:09PM
Willy would have taken a lot more games to do it, though.
Occam's Tool| 7.9.12 @ 12:44PM
Not only did Ruth play as a pitcher, but his winning percentage and ERA as a pitcher, had it been continued, was HOF material itself.
The greatest hitter of all time was Ruth. Teddy hit .344, but Ruth hit .342. Gehrig batted fourth, with TWO HOFers as 1 and 3 in front of him. And Ruth, early to mid career, had wheels. The boy could run.
Hornsby hit .358, but had 400 or so fewer homers than Ruth. Teddy hit marginally better in batting average over his career, but he wouldn't have been able to catch Ruth if he had been allowed to play full time as a hitter those 1st 5 years. (In addition, all Teddy was was a hitter---he wasn't much with a glove.)
The taking care of his body situation wouldn't really have applied here, Stuart, as we are talking about his FIRST 5 years, and pitching is exhausting.
Stuart Koehl| 7.9.12 @ 1:39PM
Hornsby's career was short-tracked by a degenerative eye condition. He might have made up those 400 homers if he had played longer.
As regards Teddy Pallpark--the analysis I presented above shows that, using the three-year average of the seasons preceding his military service as a guide, Williams would have gotten about 685 home runs--but Williams was injured in one of the seasons prior to his Korean War service.
If, on the other hand, you use the 162-game average to compile a nominal "Ted Williams season", then restoring the lost five years gets you to 706 homers, 2489 RBIs and 3594 hits.
As regards Ruth's physical condition, I was thinking of his bouts with VD and gastroenteritis, which made his 1925 season such a bust. On the other hand, considering how the Bambino lived, his record is even more incredible.
Petronius| 7.9.12 @ 12:46PM
The pantheon of hitting stars from the days before expansion will always outshine those who came after with the dilution of talent. But we've been here before. I have known a few journeymen players who were in the major leagues during the 40's and 50's who were far superior to top players now who will never get a Hall of Fame vote. Ever hear of Art Oliver? This man played for the Boston Braves for 9 seasons and made several All Star teams. Threads like this prove that you don't have to be 2nd string to avoid notoriety. Let's examine the bigger picture. Pitching is the yin of the yang. Fine. What about a Gold Glove player like Dal Maxville. He rarely hit well, but if he was on the field and the ball was hit in his zip code that hitter was Out. Everyone talks about athletes who dominate their sports, but much more gets missed or dismissed. We all have a favorite or a few who have always been under the radar and unheralded. Name one.
Stuart Koehl| 7.9.12 @ 1:42PM
It is my firm belief that the quality of baseball is limited by the inherent pool of major league pitching talent, which in nature is just large enough to sustain sixteen teams in total. The subsequent waves of expansion diluted the pitching talent pool, which resulted in inflated numbers of home runs. The concomitant drop in batting averages was not due so much to improvements in pitching, as in every batter, no matter how puny, swinging for the fence at every at bat.
RJ| 7.9.12 @ 11:49PM
Thanks for your above comment about Fenway Park.
Regarding pitching, I agree that the talent is diluted with the substantial expansion of the major leagues. One thing that helps the pitchers though is the wonders of modern surgery. So many of the major league pitchers have had their careers extended following an injury by surgery that wasn't possible in the 1960s. I wonder what career stats Sandy Koufax would have had if he had the benefit of modern medicine.
Who Knows?| 7.9.12 @ 1:23PM
Come on, man.
I saw Eddie Basinski, in the bottom of the ninth, bat in the winning run, for the Portland Beavers, in the 50’s.
Why is he the “greatest”?
The pitcher was trying to intentionally walk him, but Eddie managed to stick the bat out and get a hit.
Seriously, though, hitting a baseball thrown by the best pitchers is almost certainly the most amazing physical feat humans can do.
In summary, the game is a forum for pitchers. When around 75% of the time, the batter goes out---well?
At least baseball “scores” more than soccer, which has to be THE most boring game extant.
I was the pitcher of a slow pitch softball team in the army. We won our league, and in the playoffs at Ft. Ord, we won two out of four.
We faced this team with a huge slugger, and the strategy was to just walk him. I couldn’t resist, though, thinking my high arching tosses might be too hard for him, but he blasted one way out of the park.
Come to think of it, slow pitch softball played by Ted Williams types, would be the opposite of baseball. The true hitters game.
Probably be no one who could be put out!
Tom Kyba| 7.9.12 @ 1:26PM
I go with Ted Williams. I may have a bit of a bias re: Ruth just because any old film of him makes him look like a waddling penguin when he runs and I think, that guy can't be considered the greatest ever. I've had pot-bellied uncles who ran better than that.
Stuart Koehl| 7.9.12 @ 1:46PM
On the other hand, bandy-legged, pot-bellied Babe was deceptively fast, as the number of his doubles and triples shows. He stole more bases than one might think, too (117 in all). He was also able to cover the huge outfield in Yankee Stadium and was an excellent fielder.
The Big E| 7.9.12 @ 2:08PM
Ruth, Gehrig, Williams, Cobb and Hornsby were all great hitters, but:
How often did they hit at night? It is a fact that batting averages drop significantly after the sun goes down. The first night game in the bgues was played in 1935. To my knowledge, Ted Williams is the only one you listed who ever took a swing in a big league game at night.
How often did they face a fresh pitcher in the late einnings? In the "golden age" of baseball, the practice was to leave the starter out there till the bitter end. Complete games were common, even in losing efforts, and relief pitchers rarely saw the field. Today, often the most powerful pitchers on a big league roster are closers, who comone in only in the 8th or 9th to finish off a game. At that point, during the careers of Ruth, Williams, etc., they would have been facing a physically exhausted starter.
I just don't think you can fairly compare hitters today to their pre-night game, pre-closer forbears. Its just a different game now.
cuban pete| 7.9.12 @ 3:30PM
Great point.
Anthony| 7.9.12 @ 3:12PM
This Yankee fan votes Ted Williams. Sad that some wonderful talent that has come along since, sucumbed to the vices that gets them, if they're not careful.
Strawberry had the most beautiful swing I've ever seen in a major leaguerer, but sadly, Strawman, fell to the vices. He could have been great.
Robinson Canoe has all the makings for greatness, as long as he follows Jeter's lead, and doesn't stray.
Stuart Koehl| 7.9.12 @ 4:17PM
Sowell speaks of Gehrig. Gehrigs ALS began to manifest itself in the 1938 season, when his batting average dropped from .351 the previous year, to just .295. Gehrig was only 35 at the time, and until that year had shown no signs of slowing down. His batting averages from 1934-37 were .363, .329, .354 and .351 respectively.
If we assume that without ALS, Gehrig would have continued to play at his usual level until he was 40 in 1943, and we use his nominal 162-game average, then from 1939 to 1943, he would have compiled an additional 148 home runs, 596 RBIs, and 816 hits, which would have given him a total of 644 home runs, 2591 RBIs, and 3365 hits.
Considering his age, Gehrig would probably not have been drafted, and may have elected to continue playing through 1945. Considering the talent dearth of the period, even a 44-year old Gehrig could have continued racking up impressive numbers, meaning that he could have surpassed Ruth in home runs.
The Big E| 7.9.12 @ 5:08PM
You cannot use Gehrig's 162-game average because, when Gehrig played, there were only 154 games in a season.
Stuart Koehl| 7.9.12 @ 9:12PM
You miss the point of the 162-game average. Its purpose is to create a canonical "season" by which to compare the performance of players before and after the expansion of the season. Thus, it becomes possible to say how an "average" Ty Cobb, Ted Williams or Lou Gehrig season would compare to an "average" Jim Rice, Barry Bonds, or Derek Jeter season.
Occam's Tool| 7.9.12 @ 4:27PM
You know, I once had a stratomatic baseball game, or whatever the equivalent was, HOF version. Just for grins, I once set up a game where EVERY batter was Ruth versus Cobb, with equalized fielding and, I believe, Koufax as the pitcher. Ruth kicked Cobb's behind, even with Cobb's great baserunning. It's a question of power---there really isn't that much difference in terms of number of hits between a .367 hitter and a .342 hitter over the course of, say, 41-43 at bats over a game, and Ruth was always hitting much more powerfully than Cobb. (Ruth would get 14 hits, Cobb would get, say, 16 hits (it's actually around 15.5)---14/41, 16/43)---and there you are. Cobb was not surrounded with the talent Ruth was---Gehrig doesn't really count because NOBODY got to pitch around Gehrig because he was THIRD in the order and we all know who number 4 was.
The Big E| 7.9.12 @ 5:12PM
Actually, Occam, I think you have it backwards. Ruth batted third in the Yankee's "Murderers Row" batting order, Gehrig batted fourth. You couldn't pitch around Ruth because of Gehrig, not the other way around.
Occam's Tool| 7.9.12 @ 6:42PM
I looked it up on Wiki. I could be wrong. Here's the way they had it:
# Player Position Games AB H BA OBP SLG HR RBI
01 !1 Combs, EarleEarle Combs† Center fielder 152 648 231 .356 .414 .511 6 64
02 !2 Koenig, MarkMark Koenig Shortstop 123 526 150 .285 .320 .382 3 62
03 !3 Ruth, BabeBabe Ruth† Right fielder 151 540 192 .356 .486 .772 60 164
04 !4 Gehrig, LouLou Gehrig† First baseman 155 584 218 .373 .474 .765 47 175
05 !5 Meusel, BobBob Meusel Left fielder 135 516 174 .337 .393 .510 8 103
06 !6 Lazzeri, TonyTony Lazzeri† Second baseman 153 570 176 .309 .383 .482 18 102
07 !7 Dugan, JoeJoe Dugan Third baseman 112 387 104 .269 .321 .362 2 43
08 !8 Collins, PatPat Collins Catcher 92 251 69 .275 .407 .418 7 36
However, I see differences in other citations. It would have made more sense to have had Ruth third, as he was faster afoot than Gehrig. Thank you, sir.
But Ruth was still the greatest. I mean, seven bases per every 10 at bats?
Stuart Koehl| 7.9.12 @ 9:20PM
I had that game, too--subscribed both to the modern cards, as well as to the Hall of Fame edition with the greatest teams of all time.
In the 27 Yankees lineup, Murder's Row was usually as follows:
1. Earl Combs (CF)-Batting Average .356, 6 HR
2. Mark Koenig (SS)-.285, 3 HR
3. Babe Ruth (RF)-.356, 60 HR
4. Lou Gehrig (1st)-.373, 47 HR
5. Bob Muesel (LF)-.337, 8 HR
6. Tony Lazzeri (2nd)-.309, 18 HR
7. Joe Dugan (3rd)-.269, 2 HR
8. Pat Collins (C)-.275, 7 HR
Stuart Koehl| 7.9.12 @ 9:19PM
I had that game, too--subscribed both to the modern cards, as well as to the Hall of Fame edition with the greatest teams of all time.
In the 27 Yankees lineup, Murder's Row was usually as follows:
1. Earl Combs (CF)-Batting Average .356, 6 HR
2. Mark Koenig (SS)-.285, 3 HR
3. Babe Ruth (RF)-.356, 60 HR
4. Lou Gehrig (1st)-.373, 47 HR
5. Bob Muesel (LF)-.337, 8 HR
6. Tony Lazzeri (2nd)-.309, 18 HR
7. Joe Dugan (3rd)-.269, 2 HR
8. Pat Collins (C)-.275, 7 HR
CJW| 7.10.12 @ 9:55AM
Stuart ,OT, Anthony, All baseball fans:
Did you ever use or read the Bill James abstracts he used to put out every year? What did you think about them?
bigbrother | 7.10.12 @ 2:27PM
I have wondered for a long time how many more home runs the Babe would have hit if he had accepted the fact from physics that bat speed matters more than bat weight. The man took a tree trunk to the plate and still held the career home run mark for decades.
With a lighter bat, a cooler head, and a career that started as an every day player, I am betting he would have hit close to 900 home runs.