Jump to content


Photo

los 10 mejores bateadores de la historia MLB


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
10 replies to this topic

#1 Radikal4u

Radikal4u

    Palcos Especiales

  • Miembr@s
  • 3054 posts
  • Twitter:@Fmadera08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Santo Domingo, Zona Oriental
  • Interests:Baseball, Debate, Licey, Cine , Amistad, Musica. Actividades, Virtual compartir y personal compartir.
  • Sexo:Carajito
  • Baseball Dominicano:Liceísta
  • Baseball MLB:Variado

Posted 14 October 2009 - 04:55 PM

10. Mickey Mantle

In 1960 Mantle struck out 100 times for the fifth time in his career. That was a record and a very recent development. Up until the end of World War II, striking out 100 times in a season was an enormous embarrassment, and it had only happened 13 times. The strikeout pioneer was probably Dolph Camili, who first struck out 100 times in 1935 and then did it three more times before the World War II began.

But what interests me is that another player had done the dirty 100 K's four times as well ... Vince DiMaggio. Now, seriously, how does that happen? His brother Joe was famous for almost never striking out -- he had more homers than strikeouts six times and just missed pulling it off in 1950 at age 36. Dom was a moderate strikeout guy. And Vince, wow, he led the league in whiffs six times and he had more strikeouts than CAREER homers in 1938 and 1943.

Well, you can never tell about brothers. The only set of baseball brothers that really made sense to me were the Giambi brothers. You watched them play and you could ... both of them wanted to HIT when the family went out to play some ball. You have to figure whichever one wasn't hitting took a bat with him to the outfield.
9. Ty Cobb

I love that in 1922, at the age of 35, Cobb hit .401... and didn't even come CLOSE to winning the batting title. That was the year George Sisler hit .420. Sisler is a fascinating player in a lot of ways -- he hit .340 in his career, but as Bill James has pointed out, his career on-base percentage is lower than, among others, Alvin Davis, Mark Grace, Keith Hernandez, Gene Woodling, J.D. Drew, Merv Rettenmund, Tim Salmon, Bernie Carbo and Gene Tenace.

8. Jimmie Foxx

You might know that Foxx won the Triple Crown in 1933. He hit .356, hit 48 homers and drove in 163 runs. Yeah, a pretty nice year.

But here's an interesting tidbit: Foxx TWICE had near Triple Crowns. In 1932 he hit .364 with 58 homers and 169 RBIs -- he had the most homers and RBIs, but lost the batting title to the much-forgotten Dale Alexander, who hit .367. What's interesting is that Alexander had only 454 plate appearances that year -- if they had the rule then that a hitter needed 3.1 plate appearances per team games played, he would not have qualified for the title. So, we should give Foxx the Triple Crown retroactively that year.

In 1938 Foxx led the league with a .349 average and 175 RBIs. But he finished second with 50 home runs. This time it was legit though... Hank Greenberg hit 58.
7. Albert Pujols

I tried all I could to push Albert down because he only just crossed that 6,000-plate appearance limit. But no matter how many points I penalized him, he kept popping into the Top 10. He's that good. Though it should be noted that after he hit two home runs in Milwaukee in early September this year -- that gave him 47 for the season -- he was asked about being a home run hitter. And he adamantly said that he's NOT a home run hitter.

And, sure enough, he did not hit a home run for the rest of the season.
6. Stan Musial

Bernie Miklasz, my good friend at the St. Louis Post Dispatch, tells a great story about Stan the Man. Pujols' very first game was April 2, 2001, in Colorado. And on that day, Musial just showed up at the park. He was in town for a card show or something, and for some reason he just decided to go to the ballpark. He did not call ahead or anything... he just showed up and said, "Hi, I'm Stan Musial. I was hoping I might get in to see the game." Of course, they treated Stan like the royalty he is -- asked him to throw out the first pitch and so on -- and he was happy to do it. And then he settled into his seat and watched the game.

Now what inspired Stan Musial to go out to the game? It could have been anything, of course. Maybe he just wanted to relax and watch a baseball game -- one of those things to do in Denver. But yeah, as much as I love the numbers and as much I try to stay based in reality, sure, I have a little Field of Dreams in me. And, sure, I can feel that maybe Stan the Man was meant to be there to see Albert Pujols start his career.
5. Rogers Hornsby

You might recall he was the one who called Tom Hanks a "talking pile of pig [bleep]" when his parents had drove all the way down from Michigan to see him play the game. From what I can tell about Hornsby's personality, that sounds about right. But, he was one amazing hitter. And he also might be a distant relative of Bruce Hornsby. The stuff you learn on Wikipedia.*

*Should there be an adjective called 'Truthiki?" We have truth, of course. And Stephen Colbert gave us truthiness. Well, what about truthiki -- and that is what you call any fact you learn on Wikipedia. It may be true. It may not. It's probably true. It kind of sounds true. Is Rogers Hornsby really related in some way to Bruce Hornsby? I don't know. But it sounds truthiki to me.

4. Lou Gehrig

According to the official Lou Gehrig Web site, the Yankees offered to trade Gehrig to the Red Sox in 1925 for the unforgettable Phil Todt. The site says that this was, at least in part, to make up for the Babe Ruth trade. I fear this is something I should have already known, something everyone knows, but I don't recall ever hearing this. Seriously, isn't this in some ways WORSE than the Babe Ruth trade? Shouldn't it be the curse of Lou Gehrig? I mean, hey, the Ruth deal was awful, but there seem to be extenuating circumstances. And here was their chance to make up for it. This was like the Beatles going back to Pete Best and saying, "OK, look, we're not going to take you back, but we've put in a good word for you with this guy we know, Mick Jagger, who is in this band that might do pretty well, all you gotta do is call."

And the Red Sox said, "No thank you. We are quite happy with Phil Todt."
3. Barry Bonds

In case you're wondering, Barry Bonds from 1986 to 1999, before he, er, "bulked up," would have ranked somewhere around 14 -- on either side of Frank Thomas. And remember, that's just as a hitter. That Bonds was a great base stealer and perennial Gold Glove winner. When Bonds comes up for the Hall of Fame vote, I'm sure we'll try to break this down better, but I would say he was pretty close to a Top 10 player before 1999.

And so it's weird that his next five years -- and the 241 OPS+ he punched up in 3,000 plate appearances; nobody ever did anything quite like it -- are what, in the minds of many, will diminish him forever.
2. Ted Williams

I do think there's a strong argument to be made for Ted Williams over Babe Ruth. He had the better on-base percentage. He missed three prime seasons because of World War II and most of two seasons in his young 30s when he went to Korea -- there seems little doubt that with those years his numbers would have been even better. He walked more than Ruth and struck out a lot less. The main thing that Ruth could do better than Williams was hit home runs. That's not a bad advantage to have -- especially because Ruth was so good at the things that Williams was good at (hitting for average, drawing walks, consistently putting up jaw-dropping numbers).

In the end, I could not quite put Ted at No. 1 -- at least not this time. The home run advantage has to count. And Ruth really invented a whole new way of hitting a baseball.

1. Babe Ruth

You have heard the various rumors about Babe Ruth corking his bat. Well, what would happen if tomorrow someone wrote a book proving that Ruth absolutely used a primitive form of steroids? I'm just wondering -- I remember that Leigh Montville, the author of the excellent Babe Ruth book The Big Bam. told me once that he thinks Ruth would have taken steroids in a heartbeat. Let's be honest: The Babe was not a man known for restraint or any romantic notions about fair play.

I'm pretty sure there were no steroids for Ruth to take. But my question is: If we found out that he did, would that change the way baseball fans everywhere view Babe Ruth's career? Would everyone say: Well, NO WONDER he put up those ridiculous numbers? I mean the guy hit more home runs than ENTIRE TEAMS for crying out loud. We should have known.

Or would a discovery like that just spark yawns of disinterest? Who cares? It was a long time ago. It was a different era.

I don't know. It's just something to think about. Then again, Babe Ruth on steroids (and with a better workout plan) might have hit 100 home runs in a season. And Josh Gibson, with no color barrier, might have hit 120. And Walter Johnson with a split-fingered fastball might have struck out 400 in a season. And Zack Greinke, transported to 1968 Detroit, might have had 30 wins and a 1.33 ERA. And Duane Kuiper, in Coors Field, might have hit .300. It's a great game, this baseball. So many possibilities

#2 Radikal4u

Radikal4u

    Palcos Especiales

  • Miembr@s
  • 3054 posts
  • Twitter:@Fmadera08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Santo Domingo, Zona Oriental
  • Interests:Baseball, Debate, Licey, Cine , Amistad, Musica. Actividades, Virtual compartir y personal compartir.
  • Sexo:Carajito
  • Baseball Dominicano:Liceísta
  • Baseball MLB:Variado

Posted 14 October 2009 - 04:57 PM

Bueno!!!! miren bien la lista !!!!

eso esta en si.com parte de mlb..

#3 georg4re

georg4re

    Bleachers

  • Miembr@s
  • 478 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NYC, USA, N.America, America, Earth,M.W.
  • Sexo:Carajito
  • Baseball Dominicano:Aguiluch@
  • Baseball MLB:NY Yankees

Posted 14 October 2009 - 07:12 PM

El problema de las listas, es que son subjetivas. Por mas objetividad que se quiera poner, porque tu me vas a decir a mi que Joe Dimaggio no debe estar en cualquier lista en donde se hable de los mejores bateadores? Un tipo que se poncho 369 veces en TODA SU CARRERA? En TODA SU CARRERA solo se poncho 369 veces. Tuvo 361 HRs, y era un bateador derecho en una sabana, con 415'en Left Field y 457' en Left Center. Con un OBP de 400 y un SLG de 580. Y eso, que parte de sus mejores años estuvo en la guerra.

#4 EL LEON ROJO

EL LEON ROJO

    Palcos Especiales

  • Miembr@s
  • 3241 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:atlanta
  • Baseball Dominicano:Escogidista

Posted 14 October 2009 - 08:28 PM

todo depende de quien haga la lista !
MI #1 ES TY COBB;
UN TIPO QUE GANO 11 TITULOS DE BATEO
Y TIENE UN AVERAGE DE POR VIDA DE .366, (NADIE NUNCA SUPERARA ESE RECORD)

ADEMAS GANO LA TRIPLE CORONA JUGANDO EN UNA EPOCA DE "PELOTA MUERTA".

3 VECES BATEO SOBRE .400 (.420 EN EL 1911)

GANO TITULOS DE BATEO A LOS 20,21 Y 22 AÑOS !

8 VECES BATEO MAS DE 200 HITS.

Y SI SIGO NO ACABO ....... //aplauso3d

#5 CENTERFIELD

CENTERFIELD

    Preferencias de Ampliación

  • Miembr@s
  • 533 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida, USA
  • Sexo:Carajito
  • Baseball Dominicano:Aguiluch@

Posted 14 October 2009 - 08:38 PM

El beisbol es sumamente complicado de encasillar, tanto por lo larga, rica y diversa de su historia, como por los cambios significativos q ha tenido de una epoca a otra.
Abarcar toda la historia en una clasificacion es sumamente dificil, con su consecuencia de injusticia.
Que dificil es dejar a Henry Aaron o a Willy Mays fuera de esta lista, no?.
En lo personal siempre he creido q Babe Ruth no podria hacer ni siquiera el equipo de muchas universidades el dia de hoy, mucho menos brillar al nivel de Liga Grande con las exigencias del baseball moderno... pero eso es casi un sacrilegio, al punto tal q esta lista lo considera el No. 1. ALABAO SEA EL SANTISIMO!!

#6 EL LEON ROJO

EL LEON ROJO

    Palcos Especiales

  • Miembr@s
  • 3241 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:atlanta
  • Baseball Dominicano:Escogidista

Posted 14 October 2009 - 10:00 PM

El beisbol es sumamente complicado de encasillar, tanto por lo larga, rica y diversa de su historia, como por los cambios significativos q ha tenido de una epoca a otra.
Abarcar toda la historia en una clasificacion es sumamente dificil, con su consecuencia de injusticia.
Que dificil es dejar a Henry Aaron o a Willy Mays fuera de esta lista, no?.
En lo personal siempre he creido q Babe Ruth no podria hacer ni siquiera el equipo de muchas universidades el dia de hoy, mucho menos brillar al nivel de Liga Grande con las exigencias del baseball moderno... pero eso es casi un sacrilegio, al punto tal q esta lista lo considera el No. 1. ALABAO SEA EL SANTISIMO!!

===

OK OK PERO QUE ME DICES DE ESOS JUGADORES DE AHORA EN LOS TIEMPOS DE BABE RUTH ????

SIN GIMNASIOS, ESTEROIDES, TRAINNERS PERSONALES, COMPUTADORAS, VIDEOS Y TV, SPRING TRAINNINGS, LIGAS MENORES,
Y UN SIN FIN DE COMODIDADES QUE TIENEN HOY EN DIA LOS PELOTEROS!

#7 CENTERFIELD

CENTERFIELD

    Preferencias de Ampliación

  • Miembr@s
  • 533 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida, USA
  • Sexo:Carajito
  • Baseball Dominicano:Aguiluch@

Posted 14 October 2009 - 10:50 PM

Mi estimado Leon, por desgracia en materia de realidades, es imposible restar a lo actual. Entre esas "ventajas" de la modernidad no se nos puede escapar los viajes de costa a costa, 162 juegos en 180 dias, el relevo de set-up y el cerrador, mayor exposicion tanto a la prensa como al fanatico y todo lo q es la innegable realidad de una epoca de atletas mas grandes, rapidos y fuertes que nunca. Vio Ruth alguna vez una recta a 80 millas?. Esta modernidad obliga a poseer superiores condiciones atleticas y etica de trabajo de todo el año, cualidades no muy caracteristicas del Bambino. La lista es larga de jugadores con sobrado talento, pero de carreras efimeras.
Es un tema muy espinoso y el cual los entendidos tratan de evitar en publico, por lo sensible q podria resultar para el deporte q mas religiosamente respeta, cuida y conserva sus tradiciones.
No hay dudas de que un Vladimir Guerrero hubiese malogrado la carrera y posiblemente la vida misma de varios infielders y lanzadores de otra epoca. Creeme q estamos comparando manzanas con naranjas.
Con todo lo interesante y fascinante del debate, siempre quedara la incertidumbre de las suposiciones, otra de las bellezas del beisbol. Pero la realidad es solo una.

Edited by CENTERFIELD, 14 October 2009 - 10:53 PM.


#8 E Doble D I E

E Doble D I E

    Bleachers

  • Miembr@s
  • 443 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NY Long Island
  • Sexo:Carajito
  • Baseball Dominicano:Aguiluch@
  • Baseball MLB:Atlanta Braves

Posted 14 October 2009 - 10:52 PM

===

OK OK PERO QUE ME DICES DE ESOS JUGADORES DE AHORA EN LOS TIEMPOS DE BABE RUTH ????

SIN GIMNASIOS, ESTEROIDES, TRAINNERS PERSONALES, COMPUTADORAS, VIDEOS Y TV, SPRING TRAINNINGS, LIGAS MENORES,
Y UN SIN FIN DE COMODIDADES QUE TIENEN HOY EN DIA LOS PELOTEROS!


Si pero los pitchers tienen las mismas comodidas y tambien antes los pitchers no tenias nada de eso, osea que eso es debatible, tambien para el tiempo de babe ruth la bola no se movia como se mueve en estos tiempos babe ruth sabia que era una recta lo que venia casi seguro! y yo se que la primera curva se tiro en en el 1860 pero como quiera no es lo mismo que ahora con tantos lanzamientos que cutter que 2seem fastball, slider y monton de jodiendas.

#9 SANGRE AZUL

SANGRE AZUL

    Clubhouse

  • Moderadores
  • 8260 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:U S A
  • Sexo:Carajito
  • Baseball Dominicano:Liceísta

Posted 15 October 2009 - 12:44 AM

BARRY BONDS ???

FUE BARRY BONDS QUE YO LEI ???

YA SE VE LO BIEN HECHA QUE ESTA LA LISTA ESA.


#10 DostinGTL

DostinGTL

    Clubhouse

  • ClubHouse
  • 13971 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sto Dgo...
  • Baseball Dominicano:Liceísta

Posted 15 October 2009 - 01:32 AM

esa lista ta cuestionable...
ruth fue mejor bateador k ty cobb... 0pero y en donde, si se habla de bateo ty cobb no es segundo de nadie...

#11 Radikal4u

Radikal4u

    Palcos Especiales

  • Miembr@s
  • 3054 posts
  • Twitter:@Fmadera08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Santo Domingo, Zona Oriental
  • Interests:Baseball, Debate, Licey, Cine , Amistad, Musica. Actividades, Virtual compartir y personal compartir.
  • Sexo:Carajito
  • Baseball Dominicano:Liceísta
  • Baseball MLB:Variado

Posted 15 October 2009 - 10:22 AM

El beisbol es sumamente complicado de encasillar, tanto por lo larga, rica y diversa de su historia, como por los cambios significativos q ha tenido de una epoca a otra.
Abarcar toda la historia en una clasificacion es sumamente dificil, con su consecuencia de injusticia.
Que dificil es dejar a Henry Aaron o a Willy Mays fuera de esta lista, no?.
En lo personal siempre he creido q Babe Ruth no podria hacer ni siquiera el equipo de muchas universidades el dia de hoy, mucho menos brillar al nivel de Liga Grande con las exigencias del baseball moderno... pero eso es casi un sacrilegio, al punto tal q esta lista lo considera el No. 1. ALABAO SEA EL SANTISIMO!!


Willy mays es verdad ciertamente

dostin opino igual Cobb ni Ted pueden ser 2do de nadie.. creo esa lista se basa mas en poder.. es lo opino por q jamie Foxx lo mas tenia era poder