MLB Top 32

[RickStain]

Pujols didn't have the best year for a hitter last year, and he's 31, so I don't think it's unreasonable to project he might not be the best hitter this year.

 

[MartinonMTV2]

Pujols didn't have the best year for a hitter last year, and he's 31, so I don't think it's unreasonable to project he might not be the best hitter this year.

These discussions often go nowhere, but I'll bite. Who was the best hitter? Cabrera?

 

[Mark McGwire]

In the NL, Votto had a very slight edge last season. As to whether you think Pujols is a better bet to "rebound" than Votto is to repeat his performance... That's arguable, I suppose.

 

[Boom_70]

Two things.

1. I don't care how much you claim it's, "Like, my opinion, man," if you say Albert Pujols isn't dominant, you're wrong. On the facts.

2. As good as Miguel Cabrera is -- and he is, and he is underrated -- he is not arguably the best hitter in baseball. Because Albert Pujols is the best hitter in baseball. He's No. 1. There's no 1A.

A lot depends on how you define "hitter", and I understand that power is a factor, but you can certainly make a case the Ichiro is the best hitter in baseball.

 

[JC]

Two things.

1. I don't care how much you claim it's, "Like, my opinion, man," if you say Albert Pujols isn't dominant, you're wrong. On the facts.

2. As good as Miguel Cabrera is -- and he is, and he is underrated -- he is not arguably the best hitter in baseball. Because Albert Pujols is the best hitter in baseball. He's No. 1. There's no 1A.

A lot depends on how you define "hitter", and I understand that power is a factor, but you can certainly make a case the Ichiro is the best hitter in baseball.

No you can't

 

[albert77]

[quote author=secretariat]
Because we don't use stolen bases to measure the best player. Otherwise, Juan Pierre wouldn't suck.

[/quote]

Funny you should mention this. We have a guy on our staff who just went through a huge big deal taking Juan Pierre's career stats over the 11 seasons he's been in the bigs and comparing them to the stats over the same period (first 11 seasons) for three players who are in the Hall of Fame (Lou Brock, Rod Carew and Ozzie Smith).

You would be astounded (I sure as hell was) to learn that Juan Pierre stacks up pretty favorably with all three. I'm not suggesting that Juan Pierre is anywhere close to being a Hall of Fame candidate, but the stats are what they are.

 

[MartinonMTV2]

Juan Pierre is one of those guys who's pretty good for three years and then sucks for two. Hard to gauge what he'll give you.

 

[JC]

Juan Pierre is one of those guys who's pretty good for three years and then sucks for two. Hard to gauge what he'll give you.

A lot of outs

 

[Michael_ Gee]

Baseball's stat Nazis, of whom there are more than a few on this board, will assure you that mere hits mean nothing. None of them ever stop to wonder why there have never been any players who can draw 200 walks in a season but only get 50 hits.

 

[RickStain]

Baseball's stat Nazis, of whom there are more than a few on this board, will assure you that mere hits mean nothing. None of them ever stop to wonder why there have never been any players who can draw 200 walks in a season but only get 50 hits.

Baseball's dumber fans will continue to gloss over outs, as if they don't matter, because 150 years ago some guy forgot to include them in the box score and they can't critically think beyond that.

 

[JC]

Baseball's stat Nazis, of whom there are more than a few on this board, will assure you that mere hits mean nothing. None of them ever stop to wonder why there have never been any players who can draw 200 walks in a season but only get 50 hits.

Michael, that is a riduculous analogy and you know it.
Hits are damn important, so is not making a lot of outs.

 

[Mark McGwire]

Baseball's stat Nazis, of whom there are more than a few on this board, will assure you that mere hits mean nothing. None of them ever stop to wonder why there have never been any players who can draw 200 walks in a season but only get 50 hits.

Damn them for figuring out the numbers to back up what every little league coach since the dawn of time has known. Walk or a knock, just need you on. Take you either way, here.
The logic in play here is just staggeringly bad. What can your negative hypothetical possibly prove?
Not making an out is not making an out. Wear one, walk, single, just get on. This is really some kind of blasphemy to some?

 

[MartinonMTV2]

A single drives in runners from second and third. A walk doesn't.

If it were me, I'd want walks from the top of my order and hits from most of the rest.

The Blues Brothers hate Illinois Nazis. I hate baseball stat Nazis.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

No, Mark, a walk is as good as a hit, most of the time, and people who draw walks have value. BUT without hits, there aren't any walks. If the pitcher thinks you can't hurt him, he throws strikes. In this case, we do know if the chicken or the egg comes first.

 

[JC]

A single drives in runners from second and third. A walk doesn't.

If it were me, I'd want walks from the top of my order and hits from most of the rest.

The Blues Brothers hate Illinois Nazis. I hate baseball stat Nazis.

and how does an out score those runners on second and third? Is anybody here saying they wouldn't prefer a hit in that situation? No, they are saying they just don't want an out.

 

[MartinonMTV2]

A single drives in runners from second and third. A walk doesn't.

If it were me, I'd want walks from the top of my order and hits from most of the rest.

The Blues Brothers hate Illinois Nazis. I hate baseball stat Nazis.

and how does an out score those runners on second and third? Is anybody here saying they wouldn't prefer a hit in that situation? No, they are saying they just don't want an out.

If the guy who's up is a .275 hitter with tons of RBI, and the next guy is a .220 hitter who strikes out, then I don't just want a walk.

Situations are what matter. Stat nazis don't grasp that, or at least they pretend not to.

 

[Mark McGwire]

No, Mark, a walk is as good as a hit, most of the time, and people who draw walks have value. BUT without hits, there aren't any walks. If the pitcher thinks you can't hurt him, he throws strikes. In this case, we do know if the chicken or the egg comes first.

This assumes facts not in evidence, two of which are glaring. One is that a pitcher can always control whether the pitch is a strike or a ball. The other is that there are hitters in the major leagues who cannot hit strikes hard enough to "hurt" the opposing pitcher. I don't think either assumption is true.

Regardless, if what you MEAN is that you have to be able to hit to draw walks, and that the players who can ALSO walk are more valuable, I think we're actually in complete agreement. They are different skills. Ichiro doesn't walk, and instead slaps a lot of ground ball, awkward singles. He hits 200 of them a year, and that makes him extremely valuable. All advanced statistics are going to tell you is that while Ichiro's value is well-known, there are some guys out there who will give you 80 walks and 20 doubles and 20 homers whose value has not been appreciated -- but who produce for your team, just in a different way.

Either way, the stat Nazis crap, the idea that anyone thinks hits mean nothing, etc. etc. All well beneath you.

 

[RickStain]

A single drives in runners from second and third. A walk doesn't.

If it were me, I'd want walks from the top of my order and hits from most of the rest.

The Blues Brothers hate Illinois Nazis. I hate baseball stat Nazis.

and how does an out score those runners on second and third? Is anybody here saying they wouldn't prefer a hit in that situation? No, they are saying they just don't want an out.

If the guy who's up is a .275 hitter with tons of RBI, and the next guy is a .220 hitter who strikes out, then I don't just want a walk.

Situations are what matter. Stat nazis don't grasp that, or at least they pretend not to.

The walk is still better.

 

[MartinonMTV2]

A single drives in runners from second and third. A walk doesn't.

If it were me, I'd want walks from the top of my order and hits from most of the rest.

The Blues Brothers hate Illinois Nazis. I hate baseball stat Nazis.

and how does an out score those runners on second and third? Is anybody here saying they wouldn't prefer a hit in that situation? No, they are saying they just don't want an out.

If the guy who's up is a .275 hitter with tons of RBI, and the next guy is a .220 hitter who strikes out, then I don't just want a walk.

Situations are what matter. Stat nazis don't grasp that, or at least they pretend not to.

The walk is still better.

Than the two-RBI hit? OK. Not sure I want to hear the explanation behind that, but ...

 

[RickStain]

A single drives in runners from second and third. A walk doesn't.

If it were me, I'd want walks from the top of my order and hits from most of the rest.

The Blues Brothers hate Illinois Nazis. I hate baseball stat Nazis.

and how does an out score those runners on second and third? Is anybody here saying they wouldn't prefer a hit in that situation? No, they are saying they just don't want an out.

If the guy who's up is a .275 hitter with tons of RBI, and the next guy is a .220 hitter who strikes out, then I don't just want a walk.

Situations are what matter. Stat nazis don't grasp that, or at least they pretend not to.

The walk is still better.

Than the two-RBI hit? OK. Not sure I want to hear the explanation behind that, but ...

A walk is better than the unknown outcome before the at-bat.

The average runs scored with a .220 hitter up with the bases loaded is higher than the .275 hitter with runners on 2nd and 3rd.