Who was the better hitter?

[SaveMeTheGum]

Originally Posted by Peties Army

Gwynn has 2500 more ABs. Five McGwire those and I’d assume we wouldn’t be bringing this up as support for Gwynn

Depends where you put those 5 seasons. At the end -- he'd be hitting .100 and his precious OBP and OPS numbers would take a serious hit. Pre-steroids -- see his 1989-1991 stats (his age 25, 26, 27 years -- supposedly his prime).

I love when longevity and availability get discounted...

[Peties Army]

Originally Posted by itradeerrors

With out having to look at stats I can call BS on Boggs. He is by far my favorite player and he sucked near the end of his career. Also Wade had his best 4 years by far from age 27-30 like normal human beings.

Ted IMHO finish with such great #s near the end of his career because of his time off twice to go serve in the military. I believe that let his body recover from the beating you get from playing every year. Also anybody that does not vote for Teddy Ballgame as the best hitter ever is wrong.

So wait you think flying in the Korean War was easier on his body then playing baseball?

[Peties Army]

Originally Posted by SaveMeTheGum

Depends where you put those 5 seasons. At the end -- he'd be hitting .100 and his precious OBP and OPS numbers would take a serious hit. Pre-steroids -- see his 1989-1991 stats (his age 25, 26, 27 years -- supposedly his prime).

I love when longevity and availability get discounted...

Who is discounting longevity?

Last two years Mcgwire ops was 1.229 and .808. Seemed still productive to me

[no10pin]

Originally Posted by Peties Army

Gwynn’s 34-37 were not his best. I don’t know what metric you can say that. It isn’t true

War 24-27 26.8
34-37 3.4

In fact those last 4 years were his worst four years he had (not counting his rookie year of 209 PA and 2Nd year of 334)

I’m sorry you are just incorrect.

You are confusing his 34-37 years with the last 4 years of his career. He won the batting title every year from age 34-37 and had way more than 3.4 WAR.

[SaveMeTheGum]

Originally Posted by Peties Army

Who is discounting longevity?

Last two years Mcgwire ops was 1.229 and .808. Seemed still productive to me

LOL... yeah. 2001 was a great year for him. It's a shame he retired. 2002 on would have been epic!

[Peties Army]

Originally Posted by no10pin

You are confusing his 34-37 years with the last 4 years of his career. He won the batting title every year from age 34-37 and had way more than 3.4 WAR.

It was said the last four years of his career, how am I confusing anything, I looked at the last four.

And it would still be wrong. War 12.9.

He not only was better earlier he was twice as good.

Sorry it just isn’t true

[marchillo]

Originally Posted by Peties Army

Gwynn has 2500 more ABs. Five McGwire those and I’d assume we wouldn’t be bringing this up as support for Gwynn

Of course I would

McGwire had 83 runs produced his last season and a .187 batting average. It would take McGwire another 4.7 seasons to hit those runs produced numbers that Gwynn had, assuming he didn't get any worse. Imagine how much his ratio stats would have plummeted. He was done. He didn't have another 2500 AB's in him.

So is your argument he was a better hitter in a smaller sample size or across his career? You use counting stats when its in his favor, but any counting stat he losses you bring up AB's.

[Peties Army]

Originally Posted by SaveMeTheGum

LOL... yeah. 2001 was a great year for him. It's a shame he retired. 2002 on would have been great!

That’s not what you said.

I love this place. Someone makes a point you counter that point and then they just move on to something else.

The internet!

[erock28]

Originally Posted by Big35Hurt

Don't forget the expansion that happened in 93 with the Rockies and Marlins. That diluted pitching somewhat as now 2 entirely new pitching staffs (roughly 22 pitchers?) were in the majors when they wouldn't have been pre-expansion. I wonder if the overall league batting averages went up as a result.

That is a GREAT call, and you are 100% correct. Taking it a step further, it allowed Gwynn an extra 8-10 games per year in Coors, versus LA or some other pitchers Park. Easy to explain the Gwynn uptick post-‘94

[no10pin]

Originally Posted by Peties Army

It was said the last four years of his career, how am I confusing anything, I looked at the last four.

And it would still be wrong. War 12.9.

He not only was better earlier he was twice as good.

Sorry it just isn’t true

OK, all I'm saying is that his age 34-37 seasons and the last 4 years of his career are two different time periods.

I know you just like to poke people, but calling him 'twice as good' just because his WAR is twice as high during the earlier era is just nuts. WAR is not the end all to every conversation. No one is twice as good as Gwynn was from 1994-1997.

[Peties Army]

Originally Posted by marchillo

Of course I would

McGwire had 83 runs produced his last season and a .187 batting average. It would take McGwire another 4.7 seasons to hit those runs produced numbers that Gwynn had, assuming he didn't get any worse. Imagine how much his ratio stats would have plummeted. He was done. He didn't have another 2500 AB's in him.

So is your argument he was a better hitter in a smaller sample size or across his career? You use counting stats when its in his favor, but any counting stat he losses you bring up AB's.

His ops was .808 he was still very productive

And you are just adding the stats to the back end. At 29 and 30 he had under 300 total Pa. probably another 1000 in his prime he missed.

[SaveMeTheGum]

Originally Posted by Peties Army

That’s not what you said.

I love this place. Someone makes a point you counter that point and then they just move on to something else.

The internet!

I clearly said if you add those 5 years on to the end, it would hurt the numbers you are using for your argument.

You countered that his last 2 year were productive, implying that adding to the end wouldn't hurt.


I laughed at your point.

Originally Posted by Peties Army

His ops was .808 he was still very productive

And you are just adding the stats to the back end. At 29 and 30 he had under 300 total Pa. probably another 1000 in his prime he missed.

His body was already breaking down at this point -- luckily for him he found a work around.

[Peties Army]

Originally Posted by no10pin

OK, all I'm saying is that his age 34-37 seasons and the last 4 years of his career are two different time periods.

I know you just like to poke people, but calling him 'twice as good' just because his WAR is twice as high during the earlier era is just nuts. WAR is not the end all to every conversation. No one is twice as good as Gwynn was from 1994-1997.

Your right it isn’t end all be all, but it provides context and when someone’s war is twice as good during one time period as another it’s safe to assume that the time period he was better.

Not sure how I’m poking anyone. People say stuff and I show them they are probably wrong. I’m teaching here!

[Peties Army]

Originally Posted by SaveMeTheGum

I clearly said if you add those 5 years on to the end, it would hurt the numbers you are using for your argument.

You countered that his last 2 year were productive, implying that adding to the end wouldn't hurt.

I laughed at your point.

I didn’t say it wouldn’t hurt but just to assume they would is just as wrong.

You don’t think if he got 450 ABs for 5 years he wouldn’t add roughly 80 runs to the total every year? Puts them dead even

[jpaul4631]

Seems like a landslide amongst readers here.
101 Gwynn to 3 votes McGwire, even votto (6) has more votes than McGwire

[babybull]

Originally Posted by Peties Army

Why? A team full of McGwire a would get on base more and hit for more power. Why would you take a team of Gwynn’s over that?

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. That's 8...all day long

[21Pittsburgh58]

Being a hitter means to put the ball in play. What was done with that ball after being put into play is a separate argument (i.e. HR, 2B, etc.)

Tony G for the win!

[Peties Army]

Originally Posted by babybull

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. That's 8...all day long

#ScrewYouMath

[Peties Army]

Originally Posted by 21Pittsburgh58

Being a hitter means to put the ball in play. What was done with that ball after being put into play is a separate argument (i.e. HR, 2B, etc.)

Tony G for the win!

Says you. Many disagree

[jpaul4631]

^^^ considering the poll results, seems like most agree?

[SaveMeTheGum]

Originally Posted by Peties Army

I didn’t say it wouldn’t hurt but just to assume they would is just as wrong.

You don’t think if he got 450 ABs for 5 years he wouldn’t add roughly 80 runs to the total every year? Puts them dead even

To play the "if" game, I would say "If McGwire didn't juice, would he even have HOF quality numbers looking at his trend starting in his age 25 season"

Take out "if", and you have a guy with 1500 more hits and almost 400 more runs produced who also got a hit 75 more times out of 1000 than the other guy.

[Peties Army]

Originally Posted by jpaul4631

^^^ considering the poll results, seems like most agree?

Must have missed the part where i said “most disagree”

[babybull]

Originally Posted by Peties Army

#ScrewYouMath

Heck, I'm even a huge Cardinal fan. His 1998 fake home run chase was one of the most exciting things to watch in my lifetime. Gwynn is still the better hitter.

[LCM1223]

105/92.11%

[jpaul4631]

Most disagree being 3 people? Yeah missed it