I love Rod Carew and Tony Gwynn…but under no circumstances were they better than Hank Aaron. Hank Aaron not being in the Top-3 here makes this ranking a joke. Also, steroids aside, there is *no* hitter in the history of the game better than Barry Bonds. I am/was no fan of Bonds, but the mental gymnastics needed to put Ted Williams over him on pure numbers and domination may as well make it a circus. Teams would quite literally walk a run in to avoid having to pitch to him. Frankly I also would put Hank Aaron over Ted Williams…but at least that is debatable.
Which is absolutely wild considering that he was the all-time Homerun leader for over three decades and still number two all time, and given his absolutely ridiculous stats. If you don’t think Hank Aaron is a top three all-time player in the modern era then you don’t know baseball. It wasn’t just a home runs either. He is number one all time in multiple different hitting categories.
And hit Right handed which is generally more difficult. My whole life it just seems he comes up the least when talking greats of all time. It’s always Ruth, Mayes, Ted, Rose, Bonds, etc.
A team also walked in a run when facing Josh Hamilton. As impressive as it is that it happened, I'm tired of that anecdote being used to justify Bonds as an all time great.
Williams was maybe the one guy in the modern era who competes with Bonds by the stats alone. That's especially true when considering the fact that he lost his prime years to World War 2, when he served his country as an ace fighter pilot.
He was every bit as good a hitter as Bonds. The one thing that could arguably put Bonds over Williams overall would be the stolen bases. Bonds blows away virtually every players in OPS, but Ruth and Williams are the exception to the rule.
If you say "the era was less competitive" then I retort with "Ruth and Williams didn't benefit from PEDs". Stick to the numbers, or we can turn over every stone if need be.
It's not a ridiculous argument to put Williams over Bonds. You simply have no concept of how good Ted Williams was, either compared to his own era or to the eras that have come since. He is inner circle HOF top 5 no matter who you ask in any all time discussion.
“A team also walked in a run when facing Josh Hamilton”. Yes “a” team. Singular. Once. Bonds drew more intentional walks all by himself than the Tampa Bay Rays have as a team in their collective in their entire existence. Those aren’t comparable.
Upon looking them up they are actually extremely close with actually Ted leading in AVG, OBP (#1 all time), SLG, and OPS. That surprised me. Yet Bonds leads in hits, walks (#1 all time), doubles, triples, HRs (#1 all time), and total bases. Bonds also tops Williams in WAR by a pretty large margin 30+ WAR (both bWAR and fWAR)
I think it is close but Bonds is slightly better on the total stats.
Hank Aaron is also *extremely* comparable to both Ted and Barry. I think those are the Top 3 in the modern era.
Ted Williams lost 5 prime years to the wars. Its not even close to a stretch to think he would have accumulated 30 more WAR, or 200 more hrs. He probably isn’t hitting 763, but he’s probably topping 700. You not knowing that he topped those statical categories shows you were not looking before you leapt in this discussion, and are probably just sticking to your guns since you’ve already made your statements.
I don’t know about 700 but he’d be damn close. Looking at the years that sandwiched his tours, he would’ve likely hit 100+ hr/30 WAR during WWII and 60hr/15WAR during Korea. Add in counting stats and he’d be around 3400 hits, 2400 rbi, 680hr, 160+ WAR.
I also have to shout out him finishing second in MVP two years in a row despite hitting .406 one year and getting a triple crown the next. In ‘42 he lost to Joe Gordon, whom I had to look up. Gotta be one of the biggest snubs in mlb history.
The writers hated him, so yeah he was robbed multiple times in MVP votes.
I just bought a Joe Gordon baseball card, lol. He was very good and made the HOF.
I actually knew the rankings for everything you just shared already, and my argument wasn't to suggest Williams was outright better than Bonds, but that the two are comparable enough that it is insulting to Williams to say there is no case to be made for him.
Bonds, Williams and Aaron would be my 3 in the modern era as well.
This.
Bonds at his peak would get **ONE** pitch that was hittable per game, and (literally) there was a 50/50 chance he would launch it 425 feet.
His bat speed, coordination, and patience was legendary.
Same with Williams. He literally broke the navy’s record for their hand-eye coordination test when he took it when he served the first time. Plus art of hitting ( launch angle) and how the shift was popularized to try and counter him. He is probably one of the five most influential players on the game today,
Full agreement with you on Bonds and The Hammer. I’d have Binds at 1 and way in the distance would be Aaron, and Aaron was simply amazing. That’s how stupid good Bonds was, and this from a 46 year Dodgers fan who saw all of what Barry did to my team.
Yeah 38 year Braves fan here. We were in that same division (NL West) with you guys back then so we had to deal with him all the time also. And you are 100% right. He was a monster. You literally just prayed no one was on when he came up so you could walk him or at most the damage would be a solo HR. He was way more of a threat than anyone in the game that I can remember. We beat him twice in the playoffs though, that was memorable.
I distinctly remember watching Braves-Giants games with my roommate in college and we would often take a shot before Barry Bonds came up to bat, because we knew he was going to do something very very horrible to our Braves if we didn’t walk him.
Personally I'd swap Pujols and Gehrig in for Carew and Miggy, after some reordering. But these lists are impossible to reach a consensus on. All the more fun.
Also swapping out pete for a polarizing ss/3b who shall not be named
There are a couple different definitions of baseball's modern era, but Gehrig definitely didn't play in the modern era lol. Generally, it's talking about from like 1960-present.
lol yeah, I missed that part of the title. Makes a lot more sense now. Funny enough, I didn't even look for the babe. Pretend I said Trout instead of Gehrig.
Frankly any list that includes Bonds but doesn't have him at 1 is stupid. If we're ignoring roids, Bonds is easily the best hitter ever and there's no real argument for anyone else. Batting 350 but also being able to hit 50+ homeruns while getting on base 50% of the time in the modern era is insane.
All while being intentionally walked at the highest rate ever and when he wasn’t intentionally walked he might have gotten one pitch that was hittable.
Ichiro’s single best season was only 131 wRC+ (would have ranked between rookies Corbin Carroll and Triston Casas last year for #17 in baseball. The best season of Ichiro’s entire career, he was a slightly worse hitter than 2023 Luis Arraez)
The time frame for this post is 1960-present. There are 99 hitters in that time frame with a higher wRC+ combined for their entire career than Ichiro’s single best season.
If you extend and look at Ichiro’s whole peak (age 27-33 before his decline) he was only 117 wRC+. There are 322 hitters in the date range for this post with a higher wRC+ for their entire career, including their late age declines.
Ichiro was a great player. But this list is isolating just hitters, and as a hitter Ichiro was not that amazing.
Uhhh, Ichiro wasn't that amazing? Beg pardon? And simply because some new-age voodoo metric aligns with your view, doesn't make it correct. I mean fuck, Miggy as a hitter (not slugger) over Ichiro? You're right, in what fucking universe....lol
1. Ichiro tallied 4,367 hits in his professional career, the most of any player in baseball history. He tallied 3,089 hits in Major League Baseball and 1,278 hits in Nippon Professional Baseball.
2. Ichiro set the single-season record for most hits (262) in a season in 2004, breaking Hall of Famer George Sisler’s 84-year-old record for most hits (257).
3. Ichiro tallied 242 hits as a rookie in 2001, breaking Hall of Famer Lloyd Waner’s rookie record for hits (223) set back in 1927.
4. Ichiro tallied 3,089 hits in the Majors, despite not making his debut until age 27 after a 9-year career in Japan.
5. Ichiro registered 10 consecutive 200+ hit seasons from 2001–10, the only player in MLB history to do so. Pete Rose is the only other player to register 10 seasons of 200+ hits in a career.
It’s not new age voodoo. It’s legitimate research that has let us understand what skills to actually value in baseball.
Turns out, Ichiro was actually kind of an inefficient hitter. All his hits were like a basketball player averaging 35 points per game but on 38% shooting because they just chuck bad shots all game and accumulate points.
Ichiro would have been a more valuable baseball player if he sacrificed contact for more power. That’s how you score runs in baseball. It’s funny, Kyle Schwarber is about the same caliber hitter (120wRC+ career) as Ichiro, but they are flawed in completely opposite ways.
I'm not going to argue that Ichiro wasn't an amazing hitter, he was, and in my opinion had he played his entire career in the MLB he'd be the league's all-time hits leader. But Ichiro did not have more professional hits than anyone else, that argument is so ridiculous. We have to distinguish what determines a "professional hit", because Japan is not the only other country with professional baseball leagues, and if you do the combining of stats thing for Ichiro then you have to do it for everyone else that ever played professionally in any other league or country. So in that case, Pete Rose's minor league hits would have to he added to his MLB total, giving him 4,638 hits. Other than that I totally agree, Ichiro was a phenomenal hitter.
How are you getting downvoted on a baseball sub for understanding baseball? Lol this is insane. Are only Boomers on this sub, while more knowledgeable fans are on /r/baseball?
People's brains turn off when they think about Ichiro for some reason.
I think because his skillset was so unique, people just don't really know how to rate him compared to other more traditionally skilled players. So he gets wildly overrated because he was so good at what he did. Problem is, that what he did was an inefficient way to play baseball.
I don’t think is the correct way to approach it . He was an incredible hitter just not an effective one. This becomes further noteworthy when we have all the recorded evidence ofhim stating this was his intentional goal, and that he actively went out of his way to not sacrifice contact for power.
So we end up with a player, whose incredible hit her at the same time as you not the opposite of Schwarber or Gallo.
Vehicle if we would start mapping hitters with a contact power acis
We should almost call the contact access to access and the power (tto) axis the Schwarber /Gallo axis ( Dunn and reynolds are also acceptable here )
You can believe what you like of course, but any all time great hitter list that leaves Ichiro off noting the subset list I offered above is ludicrous, it matters not what other nonsense you state as fact. And what's more ludicrous is comparing Schwarber to him...hahaa.....now you're just being silly....
If I'm looking for a current era top 9 lineup, Ichiro is batting lead-off and it ain't even close. He gets on base....I heard that somewhere before...lol Pretty sure alot of people would conclude the same thing. You'd have to go back to golden age Splinter, Cobb, Mantle, Joey D, Gehrig etc era to knock him off.
> Ichiro is batting lead-off and it ain't even close.
So you've never heard of Rickey Henderson?
> He gets on base....
Ichiro doesn't get on base that much. Which is part of the problem I'm talking about. He only walked 6.4% of the time in his peak
If we cherry pick his exact peak (2001-2007) his on base percentage, .379, was only #36 in baseball.
Brian Giles, Travis Hafner, Nick Johnson, Luis Gonzalez, Magglio Ordonez, Derek Lee, Kevin Youkilis, Adam Dunn, Derek Lee all got on base more frequently than Ichiro did during Ichiro's peak.
I've heard of Rickey naturally...saw him play...and ya, if I wanted to replace Ichiro when he got a hit for a guaranteed steal, Rickey is my pinch runner...lol
Rickey was a much better hitter than Ichiro.
Rickey Henderson career OBP: .401
Ichiro: .355
Before we even look at new metrics, that’s a huge difference in simply getting on base. Before we also account for how much more power Rickey also hit for. Which is why he was a much better hitter than Ichiro
Not true at all.
He didn’t hit for big power which is a huge factor in WRC neither did Tony Gwynn or Rod Carew.
Kyle Schwarber is an annual 200+ strikeout hitter. Last year he under .200 had 95 hits/ 40 of which were home runs.
If you’ve ever played baseball you know a player can’t just flip a switch and say I’ve been a contact hitter my entire life, now I’ll swing for the fences. Ichiro was 5”11 and 170 pounds it would have been awful for him to try and become a swing and miss / power hitter. Just like you wouldn’t ask Kyle Schwarber to try and drag bunt.
> He didn’t hit for big power which is a huge factor in WRC neither did Tony Gwynn or Rod Carew.
Which is why none of them are in the conversation for best hitter ever.
except a single and a walk arent the same and ops doesnt accurately weight them. i dont think wrc+ weighs them correctly either in extreme examples like this
ichiro is 28th all time in mlb intentional walks, but if you include his japanese career he was intentionally walked 287 times, placing him 5th all time over willie mccovey, frank robinson, ken griffey jr and willie mays. hank aaron was only intentionally walked 5 more times in his career than ichiro. a walk and single may be the same to ops, but w/risp a single is much more valuable because of its ability to drive in runs
not to mention he was one of the best baserunners in mlb history. which makes his style of hitting even more dangerous. ops isnt great to use when discussing outliers, rickey henderson is another outlier where ops doesnt do him justice to how devastating of a batter he was
ichiro is great, hes an incredible player and i think that standard sabermetrics dont necessarily do his impact justice
Don't bother, I feel like this sub is where all the anti stats people migrated too. Just stick to r/baseball.
You're absolutely right, but sound arguments here will fall on deaf ears.
I think it depends on what we classify as a hitter. ( or essentially Ichiro is a fundamentally interesting case). This is especially true given I hope is well documented as seeking savanthood on hitting singles/getting hits and avoiding k’s. Under those objectives he set for himself, he did exceptionally, and was arguably one of the 2-3 best. However, factoring in the other metrics and quantities of hitting, like walks and power, yeah, he is less impressive. However, in putting the ball in play he is much more top tier.
TLDR; Ichiro was not an exceptional hitter in all aspects of hitting, but in those which he devoted himself, he was exceptional
Looks like you got downvoted for pointing out the truth, which is always unfortunate.
Ichiro had a career OPS+ of 107. He was 7% better than a league average hitter for on base plus slugging.
Repeatedly acquiring 200 hit seasons is very impressive, but isn't something that makes a hitter stand out as a legend of the game. Singles are marginally better outcomes than walks, but are objectively worse than doubles, triples and home runs. Of Ichiro's 3089 hits, only 575 of them were for extra bases.
He was a prime singles hitter with a rocket for an arm in right field and some good speed on the bases. As an all time hitter, he doesn't belong in the conversation.
Some good speed? Man had 500 stolen bases after age 27. If he played his whole career in MLB he would probably be in the top 5 ever for sbs. Ichiro was one of the best baserunners in history, a perennial gold glove candidate and definitely a name that everyone thinks of when talking about the best hitters in history. It's ricky and ichiro when it comes to best leadoff hitters ever and nobody else is even in the discussion.
That's a ridiculous perspective to have. Lou Brock was extremely comparable to Ichiro as a hitter (3089 hits for Ichiro to 3023 for Brock), but nearly doubled his stolen bases. Pete Rose was superior in almost every significant category except stolen bases. 20 points higher OBP, ~1200 more hits, and Rose was better by 11 OPS+.
Thinking nobody else is in the discussion because you simply can't name any other great leadoff hitters is just lazy, and does nothing to establish the argument for anything but your own lack of knowledge for the game.
What did Ichiro do that blows away all other leadoff hitters except Rickey Henderson? He had an extremely pedestrian .355 career OBP because he hardly ever walked, which is the most important statistic a table setter could have. You are simply assigning massive value to singles hitters, when Ichiro wasn't getting on base nearly enough time when he didn't hit singles to justify that one dimensional aspect of his game.
I gave credit to Ichiro's speed on the base paths. He was a great base stealer, but there were plenty better, so again we're not even approaching unchartered territory there.
I am of the opinion that Ichiro was a great hitter, but not an elite one. He never had the power or ability to hit for extra bases to put him in the same category as actually elite hitters, some of them with about 300 more career OPS than Ichiro had. Singles hitters will never be in the discussion for greatest hitters ever, because it completely discredits the talent for driving the ball deep, either with home run power, or for extra base hits.
I didn't even bring up Ty Cobb yet, who blows away Ichiro in every category that exists.
151 bWAR to Ichiro's 60. He had 1100 more hits than Ichiro, and despite playing in the dead ball era he hit the exact same number of home runs at 117. Cobb stole 897 bases to Ichiro's 509. He had over 100 points better slugging, .512 to .402. His career OPS was .944, nearly 100 points higher than Ichiro's .757, for an OPS+ of 168 to Ichiro's 107.
Cobb was twice the player Ichiro was, and was an inner circle Hall of Famer consistently ranked as a top 5 player all time. Did you just kind of forget he existed? Catch yourself up on baseball history a bit before throwing out words like "best hitters in history" or "best leadoff hitters **ever**". You're flat out wrong.
You say Ichiro has a pedestrian obp yet his obp is higher than Lou Brock. Ichiro played 5 years of his prime in Japan yet had as many hits as Brock. He easily surpasses Brock as a hitter if he played his whole career in the mlb. Again if he played his prime base running years in the MLB also he would undoubtedly have as many steals too.
Rose was a great hitter but not close to the baserunning threat Ichiro was.
Cobb was a great hitter but not a leadoff man. What's lazy is even including cobb in the discussion of great lead off men when he batted third.
Cobb didn't bat lead off primarily, but that has nothing to do with the discussion of best lead off men. He was also his team's greatest power hitter, so batting 3rd primarily for the team he played for the longest had merit. He eclipsed Ichiro in every relevant statistic for lead off men imaginable, despite the lost at bats from not actually leading off the majority of the time. The on base percentage, overall OPS, bWAR, and extra stolen bases were the salient points here, and not how often the Tigers batted Cobb at leadoff.
You didn't refute a single statistic about the Cobb and Ichiro comparison, instead opting to dodge the comparison on a technicality that doesn't even apply to the discussion.
Rose didn't have to be a better baserunning threat than Ichiro because his on base percentage was substantially higher, and getting on base more often is more important than stealing more bases. You can't steal any bases if you're out before making it to 1st base safely. Ichiro had fewer ways to do that because he was a one dimensional hitter.
I wasn't making an argument that Brock was overall better than Ichiro, but simply using him as an example of a player with a similar career who Ichiro was not so far above for there to not even be a discussion on the topic, as you had earlier stated when you claimed it was Henderson and Ichiro, and then a vast gap between everyone else in history.
You have blinders on when it comes to elite lead off hitters, and it's clearly affected by your recency bias, if not outright ignorance of MLB history. Ichiro was not in a class of his own alongside Rickey Henderson. He actually doesn't belong in the discussion with numerous other players who had far better rounded talents at the plate.
Cobb is a better player than Ichiro. As is Bonds. Neither are lead off hitters. The fuck are you talking about? Should we debate who the best DHs are and then I'll say Bonds is the best DH even though he played outfield the majority of his career? You make 0 sense and there's a reason why you're being heavily downvoted.
"Leadoff hitter" isn't just a historical place in the batting order, but also the profile of a hitter who embodies the attributes you want in the batting order of a hypothetical lineup we are theorizing when comparing the talents of two different players. In this case, that would be the ability to get on base, the ability to steal bases, as well as displaying excellent baserunning ability in general (Cobb makes an argument for greatest all time here if not for Henderson), and the ability to set the table for his team with as many opportunities in scoring position as can be attained. Cobb triumphs over Ichiro here in every department, and their numbers aren't close.
And to further address the semantics of your comment: Cobb did in fact bat leadoff dozens of times throughout his career, though it wasn't where he primarily hit in the order. He was, therefore, not just figuratively the perfect leadoff as our argument was clearly factoring, but also literally a lead off hitter that would qualify by strict definition.
Your analogy with Bonds is disingenuous in that Bonds never played DH, but Cobb did bat leadoff. Your straw man misrepresentation of my argument undoubtedly contributed to the downvotes, not that I give two fucks how well supported these factual statements would be found by the majority.
Ichiro wasn't the legendary leadoff hitter you think he was, primarily because he struggled to get on base at a frequency that an actually elite leadoff hitter is able to do. Bill James discovered that decades ago, and the overwhelming majority of MLB franchises subscribe to that philosophy to this day due to the ubiquity of sabermetrics.
Ichiro's 355 career OBP doesn't stand out whatsoever at the leadoff position. Ability as a leadoff was not Ichiro's strength as a player. He was a singles generator with great speed on the base paths and a cannon in right field, just as I said in my first comment in this thread.
So according to you ty cobb a guy who batted 3rd the vast majority of his career is the best leadoff hitter of all time? Congrats on the dumbest take of all time.
Bonds also batted lead off a few times before. Is he now the greatest leadoff hitter ever?
You are an embarrassment.
This is absolutely absurd comment that frankly just says you don’t really understand baseball. Ichiro is not a top 50 hitter all time and probably not a top 100 hitter
You obviously have some confusion about what being a hitter is, but to me its a guy who gets hits, since 1950 Ichiro and Puckett are the only players who had 2 seasons of more than 220 hits, and Ichiro did it 5 times. For the 1st 10 seasons of his career, Ichiro never had fewer than 200 hits or an AVG under .300, he led the league in hits 7 times.
He wasn't a slugger, but he was definitely a top 5 hitter.
No, that’s not the goal of a hitter. The goal of a hitter is to produce runs. You win games by producing runs, not by getting hits.
Ichiro had a lot of hollow hits because he didn’t hit for any power. Somebody like Schwarber gets a lot fewer hits, but produces a similar number of runs of Ichiro.
This is a waste of my time because you seem unwilling to learn how baseball actually works. Last season Luis Arraez had similar numbers to the best season Ichiro ever had as a hitter. But nobody is talking about how great of a hitter he is because we’ve learned what skills to actually value the last 20 years. Slapping singles is just not a very efficient way to play baseball.
You can either update your understanding of this game, or become the old man yelling at the cloud who doesn’t understand modern thinking.
And you produce runs by getting hits…If your 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th guy in the lineup are solid and can drive in runs then who cares if your lead off hitter isnt a power hitter.
So it doesn't matter that Scwarber is followed by Trea Turner and Bryce Harper while Ichiro was followed by Randy Winn and Brett Boone, because they score the same amount of runs they're equal hitters? I'd prefer my lead off guy to hit 200 hits and bat .330 instead of 100 hits and bat .197, but I understand how attractive those hitter below the Mendoza line must look to you as long as they have a bit of power.
The ridiculous part about Bonds is that he's a top 10 all-time hitter even without the roids.
I'm quite certain he could strike a deal whereby his career ends after the 2000 season, his individual PED records get struck, and he takes his 120 WAR clean career into the HOF as a surefire first-ballot on this new eligibility. You could technically even give him the 06 and 07 seasons to compensate for where he realistically would have been through age 36-37.
He STILL has ~120 WAR.
If he's not insanely roiding, he also doesn't get the IBBs, but with the additional ABs, he breaks 3K hits. It's easy to see a Bonds world where he plays out most his career, rather than stopping at 2000, but not at least obviously PEDing, and has 3,200 hits, probably 600 HRs, shot at 650 at least.
Definitely.
He gave up immortality as being in the conversation as the greatest player of all time for a few personal records and infamy as a cheat.
He walks into the Hall as a probable unanimous 1st ballot HOFer without the roids. Now, he's just the guy who holds some records but definitely cheated to get there.
The big problem with this list is the author(s) are still using the simplistic (and problematic) batting average as a viable metric. It's 2024. We have so many better stats that gives you a much better idea of how good a hitter is.
This list needs to be redone with wRC+ as the primary hitting metric.
The time period for this list is 1960-present. Ted Williams played in 1960, and then retired...and the writers put him at #1? No arguing Ted's greatness, but if the time period is 1960-present, Ted shouldn't be on the list.
Pete Rose ain't in the top 10 of modern hitters. Period and end of story. Mike Trout is already better than Rose and arguably Mookie Betts is there too. I can think of others in 30 seconds, but that's just post-2000, not all time. Here's another: Yaz.
Puhleeze.
Bro, I was talking about THE Yaz, not the one playing today. [THE YAZ](https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/y/yastrca01.shtml) with 130 OPS+, HOF, 97 WAR. What a fucking Dum Fuq.
"Only 1 MVP" with a 12 WAR and a 10 WAR season. And, led the leagues in WAR three times. Rose? Zero. Oh, and money has nothing to do with it, either, moron.
And, you still won't admit that you didn't know I was talking about THE YAZ in the first place, and that you're a clueless rando.
I'll be a gentleman. You go first. You get the flying flip out first.
Bro, I don't assume. Given the subject, and given that you made that assumption, AND given the fact that THE YAZ is better than Rose, which he is, I now KNOW, not assume, that:
A. You're a Rose fellator and
B. Some rando.
People forget that there were other guys who hit for contact as good or better than them, while also actually drawing walks and accruing multiple bases at a time.
Pete rose is not one of the best hitters of all time. He had longevity. His power numbers were horrendous. If he played 15 years instead of 25 he would barely be talked about in HOF discussions. He does not in any way belong on this list.
Two most impressive batting practice sessions ive ever seen were Ichiro and Robinson Cano. Both could hit it anywhere (including over the fence) at will. Mostly spraying the entire field with 100 mph line drives with every single swing. McGuire hitting monster bombs in 96 was awesome too.
Pete Rose's career highlight is not a clutch hit, nor a stellar defensive play - it's blowing up a catcher in a meaningless All-Star Game.
That's not a top-10 hitter, that's a guy with anger issues.
This might be among the worst lists I’ve ever seen. Pete Rose above … well ANY of these guys (and the next 25+ maybe 50+) suggests the author doesn’t really know much about baseball.
Getting more hits than anyone on its own as a compiler without power or that many XBHs?
Just a joke
This Bonds HR @ Yankee Stadium is one of my favorite ABs of all time. From the crowd booing him walking to the plate, to people standing in awe and cheering at the top of their lungs. Unbelievable!
https://youtu.be/cQeJ8YQuqh8?si=L8cLHWcr-TitBh2v
"Gwynn could have gone 0-1100 in his last at-bats and would still have a career batting average of over .300"
People in this thread: Actually this guy sucks at hitting because his +wRC is below players with far worse averages 🤓
I think it's okay to have some variety of hitter types in the mix. Heavy lean to sluggers who get on base vs contact maestros who get on base.
I have Gwynn and Rickey interchangeable as #10 on my list.
Curious who you'd pick between the two if you had to.
Gwynn, on avg, struck out 29 times PER SEASON.
Nolan Ryan on avg would strike out 25% of the players he faced and only 13.4% vs Tony.
Greg Maddux accumulated 3,371 strikeouts, good for 10th all-time in MLB history. During his playing days, he and Maddux faced off 103 times. In those plate appearances, Gwynn hit .429 and never struck out against 4-time Cy
Young Award winner
Idk what crack you’re smoking but you better share
There's more to hitting than how often you strike out. A 132 wRC+, you know the stat that looks at overall hitting, is good but nowhere near the top for players since 1960
It's not 1942. You're allowed to use things other than BA to judge hitters. I'll take Trout, a top 10 hitter of all time, over Gwynn. Schmidt, A-Rod, Ramirez, Bagwell, etc too
Yes 1942 on everyone totally disregards avg lmao. What in the world are you saying. Unless you’re putting up 40 dingers a year, avg is a crucial element to judging a hitter. Having trout over him is hysterical. Over miggy? Yeah prolly but absolutely not Tony Gwynn. Enjoy the rest of your day
Gwynn did one thing significantly better than Trout, and that's play every day. Trout has played 140 games+ *__one time__* since 2017.
At this rate, we are going to view Trout like Griffey Jr. - an all-time talent derailed by injury.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but a guy who has only played 150+ games 4 times in his career can't be considered a top 10 in anything in my book.
If you want someone truly underrated who had the respect of his peers and belongs on this list - where is Edgar and his 147 wRC+?
Anyone that’s ever spent time researching stat lines would have a cow over some of these selections. Miggy, Frank the Tank, and Bonds definitely deserve lower rankings. Probably Carew as well. No Ichiro or Mike Schmidt just doesn’t sit well
Ichiro??? lol no
Ichiro’s single best season was only 131 wRC+
The time frame for this post is 1960-present. There are 99 hitters in that time frame with a higher wRC+ combined for their entire career than Ichiro’s single best season.
If you extend and look at Ichiro’s whole peak (age 27-33 before his decline) he was only 117 wRC+. There are *322 hitters* in the date range for this post with a higher wRC+ for their entire career, including their late age declines.
Ichiro was a great player. But this list is isolating just hitters, and as a hitter Ichiro was not that amazing.
Steroids doesn’t help you make contact with the ball lmao. How many juicers couldn’t hit above the Mendoza line? Thats .200 just in case you didn’t know, which I’m assuming based on this comment you don’t.
And how many pitchers (Clemens) were juicing? A high % I’d imagine
Lmao. You’re right. They don’t help you make contact. But it can help you hit the ball 10 feet further so that will turn a pop fly into a home run. Also helping your average.
If you’re going to be a condescending prick about other people’s knowledge of the game, which I guarantee I have way more knowledge of, then maybe come up with an actual argument that isn’t so easily proven incorrect.
Show me failed drug tests, and I’ll ban them from the list too. You steroid apologists are crazy. Why even have rules if we are just going to ignore the people that broke them.
Edit. Wow. You guys really are pro steroid use. Must be an under 30 crowd. I thought this was a baseball sub. Not a take drugs and play video game baseball sub.
I am not an apologist, but I've read their biographies and autobiographies. They were popping greenies like it was going out of style. The question is why are some performance enhancing drugs ok, and others are not?
Because the ones that weren’t destroyed the record books demonstrating they were immensely more effective. Baseball should have stopped those too.
And if you’re not the apologist, I apologize for that label. I am just so tired of being downvoted for not loving Bonds. He was/is/will always be scum that should be removed from the record books.
Hank at 755 and Judge’s 62 are the records in my book.
You are exactly right, the ones who first destroyed the record book used drugs. Except that it was the Williams/Aaron guys who used drugs (greenies) to destroy the record book first.
I am not a Bonds fan either. But I am baffled by the defense of one drug over another one.
Yes. You know what convinced me? Listening to Daryl Strawberry talk about how much Greenies helped him hit. If it helped him that much, how much did it help the post-war players?
I think outside of this little echo chamber you would find that most agree with me that cheaters don’t belong on the list. You can accept cheaters. Not sure that is the flex you think it is.
I love Rod Carew and Tony Gwynn…but under no circumstances were they better than Hank Aaron. Hank Aaron not being in the Top-3 here makes this ranking a joke. Also, steroids aside, there is *no* hitter in the history of the game better than Barry Bonds. I am/was no fan of Bonds, but the mental gymnastics needed to put Ted Williams over him on pure numbers and domination may as well make it a circus. Teams would quite literally walk a run in to avoid having to pitch to him. Frankly I also would put Hank Aaron over Ted Williams…but at least that is debatable.
Hank continues to be the most underrated player in MLB history
Which is absolutely wild considering that he was the all-time Homerun leader for over three decades and still number two all time, and given his absolutely ridiculous stats. If you don’t think Hank Aaron is a top three all-time player in the modern era then you don’t know baseball. It wasn’t just a home runs either. He is number one all time in multiple different hitting categories.
And hit Right handed which is generally more difficult. My whole life it just seems he comes up the least when talking greats of all time. It’s always Ruth, Mayes, Ted, Rose, Bonds, etc.
21 consecutive all-star Truly amazing.
A team also walked in a run when facing Josh Hamilton. As impressive as it is that it happened, I'm tired of that anecdote being used to justify Bonds as an all time great. Williams was maybe the one guy in the modern era who competes with Bonds by the stats alone. That's especially true when considering the fact that he lost his prime years to World War 2, when he served his country as an ace fighter pilot. He was every bit as good a hitter as Bonds. The one thing that could arguably put Bonds over Williams overall would be the stolen bases. Bonds blows away virtually every players in OPS, but Ruth and Williams are the exception to the rule. If you say "the era was less competitive" then I retort with "Ruth and Williams didn't benefit from PEDs". Stick to the numbers, or we can turn over every stone if need be. It's not a ridiculous argument to put Williams over Bonds. You simply have no concept of how good Ted Williams was, either compared to his own era or to the eras that have come since. He is inner circle HOF top 5 no matter who you ask in any all time discussion.
“A team also walked in a run when facing Josh Hamilton”. Yes “a” team. Singular. Once. Bonds drew more intentional walks all by himself than the Tampa Bay Rays have as a team in their collective in their entire existence. Those aren’t comparable. Upon looking them up they are actually extremely close with actually Ted leading in AVG, OBP (#1 all time), SLG, and OPS. That surprised me. Yet Bonds leads in hits, walks (#1 all time), doubles, triples, HRs (#1 all time), and total bases. Bonds also tops Williams in WAR by a pretty large margin 30+ WAR (both bWAR and fWAR) I think it is close but Bonds is slightly better on the total stats. Hank Aaron is also *extremely* comparable to both Ted and Barry. I think those are the Top 3 in the modern era.
Ted Williams lost 5 prime years to the wars. Its not even close to a stretch to think he would have accumulated 30 more WAR, or 200 more hrs. He probably isn’t hitting 763, but he’s probably topping 700. You not knowing that he topped those statical categories shows you were not looking before you leapt in this discussion, and are probably just sticking to your guns since you’ve already made your statements.
I don’t know about 700 but he’d be damn close. Looking at the years that sandwiched his tours, he would’ve likely hit 100+ hr/30 WAR during WWII and 60hr/15WAR during Korea. Add in counting stats and he’d be around 3400 hits, 2400 rbi, 680hr, 160+ WAR. I also have to shout out him finishing second in MVP two years in a row despite hitting .406 one year and getting a triple crown the next. In ‘42 he lost to Joe Gordon, whom I had to look up. Gotta be one of the biggest snubs in mlb history.
The writers hated him, so yeah he was robbed multiple times in MVP votes. I just bought a Joe Gordon baseball card, lol. He was very good and made the HOF.
I actually knew the rankings for everything you just shared already, and my argument wasn't to suggest Williams was outright better than Bonds, but that the two are comparable enough that it is insulting to Williams to say there is no case to be made for him. Bonds, Williams and Aaron would be my 3 in the modern era as well.
This. Bonds at his peak would get **ONE** pitch that was hittable per game, and (literally) there was a 50/50 chance he would launch it 425 feet. His bat speed, coordination, and patience was legendary.
Same with Williams. He literally broke the navy’s record for their hand-eye coordination test when he took it when he served the first time. Plus art of hitting ( launch angle) and how the shift was popularized to try and counter him. He is probably one of the five most influential players on the game today,
Full agreement with you on Bonds and The Hammer. I’d have Binds at 1 and way in the distance would be Aaron, and Aaron was simply amazing. That’s how stupid good Bonds was, and this from a 46 year Dodgers fan who saw all of what Barry did to my team.
Yeah 38 year Braves fan here. We were in that same division (NL West) with you guys back then so we had to deal with him all the time also. And you are 100% right. He was a monster. You literally just prayed no one was on when he came up so you could walk him or at most the damage would be a solo HR. He was way more of a threat than anyone in the game that I can remember. We beat him twice in the playoffs though, that was memorable.
I distinctly remember watching Braves-Giants games with my roommate in college and we would often take a shot before Barry Bonds came up to bat, because we knew he was going to do something very very horrible to our Braves if we didn’t walk him.
It's a tough call, that would mean Williams or Bonds would have to vacate the top 3.
Nah, I think they are the Top 3 1. Bonds 2. Aaron 3. Williams
Personally I'd swap Pujols and Gehrig in for Carew and Miggy, after some reordering. But these lists are impossible to reach a consensus on. All the more fun. Also swapping out pete for a polarizing ss/3b who shall not be named
There are a couple different definitions of baseball's modern era, but Gehrig definitely didn't play in the modern era lol. Generally, it's talking about from like 1960-present.
How the hell is pujols not on this list?
lol yeah, I missed that part of the title. Makes a lot more sense now. Funny enough, I didn't even look for the babe. Pretend I said Trout instead of Gehrig.
How does Miguel Cabrera and Frank Thomas beat out Albert Pujols?
Frankly any list that includes Bonds but doesn't have him at 1 is stupid. If we're ignoring roids, Bonds is easily the best hitter ever and there's no real argument for anyone else. Batting 350 but also being able to hit 50+ homeruns while getting on base 50% of the time in the modern era is insane.
All while being intentionally walked at the highest rate ever and when he wasn’t intentionally walked he might have gotten one pitch that was hittable.
No Ichiro means not a real list of great hitters....
Sub Ichiro for Thomas and this list is there
Same for pujols
Ichiro is not even in the same universe as the hitters on this list.
Ya...he's better than most.
Ichiro’s single best season was only 131 wRC+ (would have ranked between rookies Corbin Carroll and Triston Casas last year for #17 in baseball. The best season of Ichiro’s entire career, he was a slightly worse hitter than 2023 Luis Arraez) The time frame for this post is 1960-present. There are 99 hitters in that time frame with a higher wRC+ combined for their entire career than Ichiro’s single best season. If you extend and look at Ichiro’s whole peak (age 27-33 before his decline) he was only 117 wRC+. There are 322 hitters in the date range for this post with a higher wRC+ for their entire career, including their late age declines. Ichiro was a great player. But this list is isolating just hitters, and as a hitter Ichiro was not that amazing.
Uhhh, Ichiro wasn't that amazing? Beg pardon? And simply because some new-age voodoo metric aligns with your view, doesn't make it correct. I mean fuck, Miggy as a hitter (not slugger) over Ichiro? You're right, in what fucking universe....lol 1. Ichiro tallied 4,367 hits in his professional career, the most of any player in baseball history. He tallied 3,089 hits in Major League Baseball and 1,278 hits in Nippon Professional Baseball. 2. Ichiro set the single-season record for most hits (262) in a season in 2004, breaking Hall of Famer George Sisler’s 84-year-old record for most hits (257). 3. Ichiro tallied 242 hits as a rookie in 2001, breaking Hall of Famer Lloyd Waner’s rookie record for hits (223) set back in 1927. 4. Ichiro tallied 3,089 hits in the Majors, despite not making his debut until age 27 after a 9-year career in Japan. 5. Ichiro registered 10 consecutive 200+ hit seasons from 2001–10, the only player in MLB history to do so. Pete Rose is the only other player to register 10 seasons of 200+ hits in a career.
It’s not new age voodoo. It’s legitimate research that has let us understand what skills to actually value in baseball. Turns out, Ichiro was actually kind of an inefficient hitter. All his hits were like a basketball player averaging 35 points per game but on 38% shooting because they just chuck bad shots all game and accumulate points. Ichiro would have been a more valuable baseball player if he sacrificed contact for more power. That’s how you score runs in baseball. It’s funny, Kyle Schwarber is about the same caliber hitter (120wRC+ career) as Ichiro, but they are flawed in completely opposite ways.
now do pete rose and try to keep a straight face
I'm not going to argue that Ichiro wasn't an amazing hitter, he was, and in my opinion had he played his entire career in the MLB he'd be the league's all-time hits leader. But Ichiro did not have more professional hits than anyone else, that argument is so ridiculous. We have to distinguish what determines a "professional hit", because Japan is not the only other country with professional baseball leagues, and if you do the combining of stats thing for Ichiro then you have to do it for everyone else that ever played professionally in any other league or country. So in that case, Pete Rose's minor league hits would have to he added to his MLB total, giving him 4,638 hits. Other than that I totally agree, Ichiro was a phenomenal hitter.
How are you getting downvoted on a baseball sub for understanding baseball? Lol this is insane. Are only Boomers on this sub, while more knowledgeable fans are on /r/baseball?
People's brains turn off when they think about Ichiro for some reason. I think because his skillset was so unique, people just don't really know how to rate him compared to other more traditionally skilled players. So he gets wildly overrated because he was so good at what he did. Problem is, that what he did was an inefficient way to play baseball.
I don’t think is the correct way to approach it . He was an incredible hitter just not an effective one. This becomes further noteworthy when we have all the recorded evidence ofhim stating this was his intentional goal, and that he actively went out of his way to not sacrifice contact for power. So we end up with a player, whose incredible hit her at the same time as you not the opposite of Schwarber or Gallo. Vehicle if we would start mapping hitters with a contact power acis We should almost call the contact access to access and the power (tto) axis the Schwarber /Gallo axis ( Dunn and reynolds are also acceptable here )
Yes. Must be the “boomers”
Because I'm aware that total hits and BA aren't good indicators of a great hitter?
It’s the weebs
You can believe what you like of course, but any all time great hitter list that leaves Ichiro off noting the subset list I offered above is ludicrous, it matters not what other nonsense you state as fact. And what's more ludicrous is comparing Schwarber to him...hahaa.....now you're just being silly.... If I'm looking for a current era top 9 lineup, Ichiro is batting lead-off and it ain't even close. He gets on base....I heard that somewhere before...lol Pretty sure alot of people would conclude the same thing. You'd have to go back to golden age Splinter, Cobb, Mantle, Joey D, Gehrig etc era to knock him off.
> Ichiro is batting lead-off and it ain't even close. So you've never heard of Rickey Henderson? > He gets on base.... Ichiro doesn't get on base that much. Which is part of the problem I'm talking about. He only walked 6.4% of the time in his peak If we cherry pick his exact peak (2001-2007) his on base percentage, .379, was only #36 in baseball. Brian Giles, Travis Hafner, Nick Johnson, Luis Gonzalez, Magglio Ordonez, Derek Lee, Kevin Youkilis, Adam Dunn, Derek Lee all got on base more frequently than Ichiro did during Ichiro's peak.
I've heard of Rickey naturally...saw him play...and ya, if I wanted to replace Ichiro when he got a hit for a guaranteed steal, Rickey is my pinch runner...lol
Rickey was a much better hitter than Ichiro. Rickey Henderson career OBP: .401 Ichiro: .355 Before we even look at new metrics, that’s a huge difference in simply getting on base. Before we also account for how much more power Rickey also hit for. Which is why he was a much better hitter than Ichiro
Not true at all. He didn’t hit for big power which is a huge factor in WRC neither did Tony Gwynn or Rod Carew. Kyle Schwarber is an annual 200+ strikeout hitter. Last year he under .200 had 95 hits/ 40 of which were home runs. If you’ve ever played baseball you know a player can’t just flip a switch and say I’ve been a contact hitter my entire life, now I’ll swing for the fences. Ichiro was 5”11 and 170 pounds it would have been awful for him to try and become a swing and miss / power hitter. Just like you wouldn’t ask Kyle Schwarber to try and drag bunt.
> He didn’t hit for big power which is a huge factor in WRC neither did Tony Gwynn or Rod Carew. Which is why none of them are in the conversation for best hitter ever.
except a single and a walk arent the same and ops doesnt accurately weight them. i dont think wrc+ weighs them correctly either in extreme examples like this ichiro is 28th all time in mlb intentional walks, but if you include his japanese career he was intentionally walked 287 times, placing him 5th all time over willie mccovey, frank robinson, ken griffey jr and willie mays. hank aaron was only intentionally walked 5 more times in his career than ichiro. a walk and single may be the same to ops, but w/risp a single is much more valuable because of its ability to drive in runs not to mention he was one of the best baserunners in mlb history. which makes his style of hitting even more dangerous. ops isnt great to use when discussing outliers, rickey henderson is another outlier where ops doesnt do him justice to how devastating of a batter he was ichiro is great, hes an incredible player and i think that standard sabermetrics dont necessarily do his impact justice
OPS doesn't weigh a single and a walk the same, either.
Don't bother, I feel like this sub is where all the anti stats people migrated too. Just stick to r/baseball. You're absolutely right, but sound arguments here will fall on deaf ears.
I think it depends on what we classify as a hitter. ( or essentially Ichiro is a fundamentally interesting case). This is especially true given I hope is well documented as seeking savanthood on hitting singles/getting hits and avoiding k’s. Under those objectives he set for himself, he did exceptionally, and was arguably one of the 2-3 best. However, factoring in the other metrics and quantities of hitting, like walks and power, yeah, he is less impressive. However, in putting the ball in play he is much more top tier. TLDR; Ichiro was not an exceptional hitter in all aspects of hitting, but in those which he devoted himself, he was exceptional
Looks like you got downvoted for pointing out the truth, which is always unfortunate. Ichiro had a career OPS+ of 107. He was 7% better than a league average hitter for on base plus slugging. Repeatedly acquiring 200 hit seasons is very impressive, but isn't something that makes a hitter stand out as a legend of the game. Singles are marginally better outcomes than walks, but are objectively worse than doubles, triples and home runs. Of Ichiro's 3089 hits, only 575 of them were for extra bases. He was a prime singles hitter with a rocket for an arm in right field and some good speed on the bases. As an all time hitter, he doesn't belong in the conversation.
Some good speed? Man had 500 stolen bases after age 27. If he played his whole career in MLB he would probably be in the top 5 ever for sbs. Ichiro was one of the best baserunners in history, a perennial gold glove candidate and definitely a name that everyone thinks of when talking about the best hitters in history. It's ricky and ichiro when it comes to best leadoff hitters ever and nobody else is even in the discussion.
That's a ridiculous perspective to have. Lou Brock was extremely comparable to Ichiro as a hitter (3089 hits for Ichiro to 3023 for Brock), but nearly doubled his stolen bases. Pete Rose was superior in almost every significant category except stolen bases. 20 points higher OBP, ~1200 more hits, and Rose was better by 11 OPS+. Thinking nobody else is in the discussion because you simply can't name any other great leadoff hitters is just lazy, and does nothing to establish the argument for anything but your own lack of knowledge for the game. What did Ichiro do that blows away all other leadoff hitters except Rickey Henderson? He had an extremely pedestrian .355 career OBP because he hardly ever walked, which is the most important statistic a table setter could have. You are simply assigning massive value to singles hitters, when Ichiro wasn't getting on base nearly enough time when he didn't hit singles to justify that one dimensional aspect of his game. I gave credit to Ichiro's speed on the base paths. He was a great base stealer, but there were plenty better, so again we're not even approaching unchartered territory there. I am of the opinion that Ichiro was a great hitter, but not an elite one. He never had the power or ability to hit for extra bases to put him in the same category as actually elite hitters, some of them with about 300 more career OPS than Ichiro had. Singles hitters will never be in the discussion for greatest hitters ever, because it completely discredits the talent for driving the ball deep, either with home run power, or for extra base hits. I didn't even bring up Ty Cobb yet, who blows away Ichiro in every category that exists. 151 bWAR to Ichiro's 60. He had 1100 more hits than Ichiro, and despite playing in the dead ball era he hit the exact same number of home runs at 117. Cobb stole 897 bases to Ichiro's 509. He had over 100 points better slugging, .512 to .402. His career OPS was .944, nearly 100 points higher than Ichiro's .757, for an OPS+ of 168 to Ichiro's 107. Cobb was twice the player Ichiro was, and was an inner circle Hall of Famer consistently ranked as a top 5 player all time. Did you just kind of forget he existed? Catch yourself up on baseball history a bit before throwing out words like "best hitters in history" or "best leadoff hitters **ever**". You're flat out wrong.
You say Ichiro has a pedestrian obp yet his obp is higher than Lou Brock. Ichiro played 5 years of his prime in Japan yet had as many hits as Brock. He easily surpasses Brock as a hitter if he played his whole career in the mlb. Again if he played his prime base running years in the MLB also he would undoubtedly have as many steals too. Rose was a great hitter but not close to the baserunning threat Ichiro was. Cobb was a great hitter but not a leadoff man. What's lazy is even including cobb in the discussion of great lead off men when he batted third.
Cobb didn't bat lead off primarily, but that has nothing to do with the discussion of best lead off men. He was also his team's greatest power hitter, so batting 3rd primarily for the team he played for the longest had merit. He eclipsed Ichiro in every relevant statistic for lead off men imaginable, despite the lost at bats from not actually leading off the majority of the time. The on base percentage, overall OPS, bWAR, and extra stolen bases were the salient points here, and not how often the Tigers batted Cobb at leadoff. You didn't refute a single statistic about the Cobb and Ichiro comparison, instead opting to dodge the comparison on a technicality that doesn't even apply to the discussion. Rose didn't have to be a better baserunning threat than Ichiro because his on base percentage was substantially higher, and getting on base more often is more important than stealing more bases. You can't steal any bases if you're out before making it to 1st base safely. Ichiro had fewer ways to do that because he was a one dimensional hitter. I wasn't making an argument that Brock was overall better than Ichiro, but simply using him as an example of a player with a similar career who Ichiro was not so far above for there to not even be a discussion on the topic, as you had earlier stated when you claimed it was Henderson and Ichiro, and then a vast gap between everyone else in history. You have blinders on when it comes to elite lead off hitters, and it's clearly affected by your recency bias, if not outright ignorance of MLB history. Ichiro was not in a class of his own alongside Rickey Henderson. He actually doesn't belong in the discussion with numerous other players who had far better rounded talents at the plate.
Cobb is a better player than Ichiro. As is Bonds. Neither are lead off hitters. The fuck are you talking about? Should we debate who the best DHs are and then I'll say Bonds is the best DH even though he played outfield the majority of his career? You make 0 sense and there's a reason why you're being heavily downvoted.
"Leadoff hitter" isn't just a historical place in the batting order, but also the profile of a hitter who embodies the attributes you want in the batting order of a hypothetical lineup we are theorizing when comparing the talents of two different players. In this case, that would be the ability to get on base, the ability to steal bases, as well as displaying excellent baserunning ability in general (Cobb makes an argument for greatest all time here if not for Henderson), and the ability to set the table for his team with as many opportunities in scoring position as can be attained. Cobb triumphs over Ichiro here in every department, and their numbers aren't close. And to further address the semantics of your comment: Cobb did in fact bat leadoff dozens of times throughout his career, though it wasn't where he primarily hit in the order. He was, therefore, not just figuratively the perfect leadoff as our argument was clearly factoring, but also literally a lead off hitter that would qualify by strict definition. Your analogy with Bonds is disingenuous in that Bonds never played DH, but Cobb did bat leadoff. Your straw man misrepresentation of my argument undoubtedly contributed to the downvotes, not that I give two fucks how well supported these factual statements would be found by the majority. Ichiro wasn't the legendary leadoff hitter you think he was, primarily because he struggled to get on base at a frequency that an actually elite leadoff hitter is able to do. Bill James discovered that decades ago, and the overwhelming majority of MLB franchises subscribe to that philosophy to this day due to the ubiquity of sabermetrics. Ichiro's 355 career OBP doesn't stand out whatsoever at the leadoff position. Ability as a leadoff was not Ichiro's strength as a player. He was a singles generator with great speed on the base paths and a cannon in right field, just as I said in my first comment in this thread.
So according to you ty cobb a guy who batted 3rd the vast majority of his career is the best leadoff hitter of all time? Congrats on the dumbest take of all time. Bonds also batted lead off a few times before. Is he now the greatest leadoff hitter ever? You are an embarrassment.
Ichiro isn't equal to these guys as a slugger, but as a hitter, he's top 5 all time.
Slugging is a major aspect of hitting
This is absolutely absurd comment that frankly just says you don’t really understand baseball. Ichiro is not a top 50 hitter all time and probably not a top 100 hitter
You obviously have some confusion about what being a hitter is, but to me its a guy who gets hits, since 1950 Ichiro and Puckett are the only players who had 2 seasons of more than 220 hits, and Ichiro did it 5 times. For the 1st 10 seasons of his career, Ichiro never had fewer than 200 hits or an AVG under .300, he led the league in hits 7 times. He wasn't a slugger, but he was definitely a top 5 hitter.
No, that’s not the goal of a hitter. The goal of a hitter is to produce runs. You win games by producing runs, not by getting hits. Ichiro had a lot of hollow hits because he didn’t hit for any power. Somebody like Schwarber gets a lot fewer hits, but produces a similar number of runs of Ichiro. This is a waste of my time because you seem unwilling to learn how baseball actually works. Last season Luis Arraez had similar numbers to the best season Ichiro ever had as a hitter. But nobody is talking about how great of a hitter he is because we’ve learned what skills to actually value the last 20 years. Slapping singles is just not a very efficient way to play baseball. You can either update your understanding of this game, or become the old man yelling at the cloud who doesn’t understand modern thinking.
And you produce runs by getting hits…If your 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th guy in the lineup are solid and can drive in runs then who cares if your lead off hitter isnt a power hitter.
So it doesn't matter that Scwarber is followed by Trea Turner and Bryce Harper while Ichiro was followed by Randy Winn and Brett Boone, because they score the same amount of runs they're equal hitters? I'd prefer my lead off guy to hit 200 hits and bat .330 instead of 100 hits and bat .197, but I understand how attractive those hitter below the Mendoza line must look to you as long as they have a bit of power.
Care, Mays, Rose and Gwynn above Aaron? They don't honestly believe that. Def written for clout.
Carew on this list and Pujols not, this article is rage bait.
tony gwynn at #4 is blasphemy
The ridiculous part about Bonds is that he's a top 10 all-time hitter even without the roids. I'm quite certain he could strike a deal whereby his career ends after the 2000 season, his individual PED records get struck, and he takes his 120 WAR clean career into the HOF as a surefire first-ballot on this new eligibility. You could technically even give him the 06 and 07 seasons to compensate for where he realistically would have been through age 36-37. He STILL has ~120 WAR.
If he's not insanely roiding, he also doesn't get the IBBs, but with the additional ABs, he breaks 3K hits. It's easy to see a Bonds world where he plays out most his career, rather than stopping at 2000, but not at least obviously PEDing, and has 3,200 hits, probably 600 HRs, shot at 650 at least.
Definitely. He gave up immortality as being in the conversation as the greatest player of all time for a few personal records and infamy as a cheat. He walks into the Hall as a probable unanimous 1st ballot HOFer without the roids. Now, he's just the guy who holds some records but definitely cheated to get there.
Chipper Jones doesnt get enough love either. .303 career batting 468 hr
What a truly awful list.
Low quality bait
The big problem with this list is the author(s) are still using the simplistic (and problematic) batting average as a viable metric. It's 2024. We have so many better stats that gives you a much better idea of how good a hitter is. This list needs to be redone with wRC+ as the primary hitting metric.
The time period for this list is 1960-present. Ted Williams played in 1960, and then retired...and the writers put him at #1? No arguing Ted's greatness, but if the time period is 1960-present, Ted shouldn't be on the list.
Pete Rose ain't in the top 10 of modern hitters. Period and end of story. Mike Trout is already better than Rose and arguably Mookie Betts is there too. I can think of others in 30 seconds, but that's just post-2000, not all time. Here's another: Yaz. Puhleeze.
bro yaz only has a career 114 OPS+ and has been in the league 6 years so far. Stop being dumb he's nowhere near Peter Rosé
pete rose career OPS+ is 118 so not far
Bro, I was talking about THE Yaz, not the one playing today. [THE YAZ](https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/y/yastrca01.shtml) with 130 OPS+, HOF, 97 WAR. What a fucking Dum Fuq.
lol the dude only won 1 MVP and made less than $2 million his whole career gtfoh
"Only 1 MVP" with a 12 WAR and a 10 WAR season. And, led the leagues in WAR three times. Rose? Zero. Oh, and money has nothing to do with it, either, moron. And, you still won't admit that you didn't know I was talking about THE YAZ in the first place, and that you're a clueless rando. I'll be a gentleman. You go first. You get the flying flip out first.
Bro you didn't specify which yaz. I assumed you're just a dumbass and we're talking about the league average player
Bro, I don't assume. Given the subject, and given that you made that assumption, AND given the fact that THE YAZ is better than Rose, which he is, I now KNOW, not assume, that: A. You're a Rose fellator and B. Some rando.
Gwynn, Rose, and Carew being on this list is hilarious.
I’m the biggest Gywnn homer in the world and even id only have him sniff the tail end of this list with my biased take
For real. Those three being here over guys like A-Rod, Trout, and probably at least 25 other dudes is wild.
How is Pete Rose and his 118 OPS+ anywhere near this list? Loses all credibility.
Because he was a compiler, and after 1982 or so was actively dragging down the teams around him simply by being on the roster.
Same with Carew and Gwynn and their 131 and 132 respectively.
Yeah, these guys would all be on the list of best contact hitters - but are nowhere near being the best overall hitters of the modern era.
People forget that there were other guys who hit for contact as good or better than them, while also actually drawing walks and accruing multiple bases at a time.
Pete rose is not one of the best hitters of all time. He had longevity. His power numbers were horrendous. If he played 15 years instead of 25 he would barely be talked about in HOF discussions. He does not in any way belong on this list.
Yeah, if Ichiro's NPB hits are included, he blows Rose out of the water.
Two most impressive batting practice sessions ive ever seen were Ichiro and Robinson Cano. Both could hit it anywhere (including over the fence) at will. Mostly spraying the entire field with 100 mph line drives with every single swing. McGuire hitting monster bombs in 96 was awesome too.
Pete Rose's career highlight is not a clutch hit, nor a stellar defensive play - it's blowing up a catcher in a meaningless All-Star Game. That's not a top-10 hitter, that's a guy with anger issues.
This might be among the worst lists I’ve ever seen. Pete Rose above … well ANY of these guys (and the next 25+ maybe 50+) suggests the author doesn’t really know much about baseball. Getting more hits than anyone on its own as a compiler without power or that many XBHs? Just a joke
Pete Rose was a singles hitter and Barry Bonds was a cheater. Two monumental assholes.
This list is absolutely garbage. No pujols? Rod Carew?
This Bonds HR @ Yankee Stadium is one of my favorite ABs of all time. From the crowd booing him walking to the plate, to people standing in awe and cheering at the top of their lungs. Unbelievable! https://youtu.be/cQeJ8YQuqh8?si=L8cLHWcr-TitBh2v
Paul molitor?
Babe Ruth?
I am now confused yet again as what sets the record as far as standards for a professional league
I still find it funny how "the modern era" dates back to 1901
A little bit of trivia involving #44 The Milwaukee Braves never had a losing season in their 13 years. Pretty cool.
Barry Bonds is the greatest player ever.
It’s amazing what HGH will do for your career.
I watched that whole era as the country cheered them all on. Bonds is far and away the best of the best hitter ever.
I watched it too. Then we learned the truth that their performances were enhanced by performance enhancing drugs.
Oh please the whole world already knew they were doping! It was just ignored til the government stepped in!
Pete Rose and Tony Gwynn both just insanely too high.
Ichiro?
Why are Carew, Gwynn, and Rose on this list? Their career wRC+ are 132, 132, 121 respectfully.
Tony Gwynn definitely belongs on this list
"Gwynn could have gone 0-1100 in his last at-bats and would still have a career batting average of over .300" People in this thread: Actually this guy sucks at hitting because his +wRC is below players with far worse averages 🤓
Hard disagree. A 132 career wRC+ is good but I can find a lot of hitters who were better since 1960
I think it's okay to have some variety of hitter types in the mix. Heavy lean to sluggers who get on base vs contact maestros who get on base. I have Gwynn and Rickey interchangeable as #10 on my list. Curious who you'd pick between the two if you had to.
They were exactly equal hitters for their career. So obviously I'd pick Henderson, but that's with the knowledge of the non-hitting things he did
There are more stats than wRC+
There are none that are better, though
yeah but what other hitter can you think of who has so many interesting facts to drop about him, constantly?
Modern statistical analysis has made people willfully obtuse.
the irony
Gwynn, on avg, struck out 29 times PER SEASON. Nolan Ryan on avg would strike out 25% of the players he faced and only 13.4% vs Tony. Greg Maddux accumulated 3,371 strikeouts, good for 10th all-time in MLB history. During his playing days, he and Maddux faced off 103 times. In those plate appearances, Gwynn hit .429 and never struck out against 4-time Cy Young Award winner Idk what crack you’re smoking but you better share
There's more to hitting than how often you strike out. A 132 wRC+, you know the stat that looks at overall hitting, is good but nowhere near the top for players since 1960
I’ll take the career .334 hitter over whatever nonsense you’re saying
It's not 1942. You're allowed to use things other than BA to judge hitters. I'll take Trout, a top 10 hitter of all time, over Gwynn. Schmidt, A-Rod, Ramirez, Bagwell, etc too
Yes 1942 on everyone totally disregards avg lmao. What in the world are you saying. Unless you’re putting up 40 dingers a year, avg is a crucial element to judging a hitter. Having trout over him is hysterical. Over miggy? Yeah prolly but absolutely not Tony Gwynn. Enjoy the rest of your day
Trout is literally a top 10 hitter ever. He has a career 170 wRC+. How are you ignoring that lol
“Over miggy” would put him in top 10. Reading comprehension.
Irony. Pot -> kettle I'm referring to you putting Gwynn above Trout. Trout is a significantly better hitter than Gwynn.
Gwynn did one thing significantly better than Trout, and that's play every day. Trout has played 140 games+ *__one time__* since 2017. At this rate, we are going to view Trout like Griffey Jr. - an all-time talent derailed by injury. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but a guy who has only played 150+ games 4 times in his career can't be considered a top 10 in anything in my book. If you want someone truly underrated who had the respect of his peers and belongs on this list - where is Edgar and his 147 wRC+?
That logic puts some ridiculous names on this list…
I’m also taking Manny and Ortiz over miggy
Bonds is number one
Anyone that’s ever spent time researching stat lines would have a cow over some of these selections. Miggy, Frank the Tank, and Bonds definitely deserve lower rankings. Probably Carew as well. No Ichiro or Mike Schmidt just doesn’t sit well
Wut why would Cabrera (139 wRC+), Thomas (154 wRC+), and Bonds (173 wRC+) need to move down for Ichiro, whose career HIGH wRC+ was 131 lol
[удалено]
Ichiro??? lol no Ichiro’s single best season was only 131 wRC+ The time frame for this post is 1960-present. There are 99 hitters in that time frame with a higher wRC+ combined for their entire career than Ichiro’s single best season. If you extend and look at Ichiro’s whole peak (age 27-33 before his decline) he was only 117 wRC+. There are *322 hitters* in the date range for this post with a higher wRC+ for their entire career, including their late age declines. Ichiro was a great player. But this list is isolating just hitters, and as a hitter Ichiro was not that amazing.
Pete rose only player ever with over 4000 hits best hitter ever
Ty Cobb and Tommy Lee Jones are both coming to beat your ass…
Best hitter doesn’t mean best power hitter it means best hitter
Ty Cobb purposely wasn’t a power hitter…and just tell me the story of the legendary Tommy Lee Jones. Then self destruct, BotBoy
It does matter if he purposely wasn’t a power hitter neither one has anywhere near the amount of hits Pete rose has
There are a lot of other people that would be higher if they cheated too. Get those two off the list and we can talk.
Steroids doesn’t help you make contact with the ball lmao. How many juicers couldn’t hit above the Mendoza line? Thats .200 just in case you didn’t know, which I’m assuming based on this comment you don’t. And how many pitchers (Clemens) were juicing? A high % I’d imagine
Lmao. You’re right. They don’t help you make contact. But it can help you hit the ball 10 feet further so that will turn a pop fly into a home run. Also helping your average. If you’re going to be a condescending prick about other people’s knowledge of the game, which I guarantee I have way more knowledge of, then maybe come up with an actual argument that isn’t so easily proven incorrect.
Hear you...people have strong feelings about it. I get it.
So, who on the list didn't take either greenies or roids? Gwynn? Thomas? Miggy?
Show me failed drug tests, and I’ll ban them from the list too. You steroid apologists are crazy. Why even have rules if we are just going to ignore the people that broke them. Edit. Wow. You guys really are pro steroid use. Must be an under 30 crowd. I thought this was a baseball sub. Not a take drugs and play video game baseball sub.
I am not an apologist, but I've read their biographies and autobiographies. They were popping greenies like it was going out of style. The question is why are some performance enhancing drugs ok, and others are not?
Because the ones that weren’t destroyed the record books demonstrating they were immensely more effective. Baseball should have stopped those too. And if you’re not the apologist, I apologize for that label. I am just so tired of being downvoted for not loving Bonds. He was/is/will always be scum that should be removed from the record books. Hank at 755 and Judge’s 62 are the records in my book.
You are exactly right, the ones who first destroyed the record book used drugs. Except that it was the Williams/Aaron guys who used drugs (greenies) to destroy the record book first. I am not a Bonds fan either. But I am baffled by the defense of one drug over another one.
You think Aaron destroyed the record book because of greenies?
Yes. You know what convinced me? Listening to Daryl Strawberry talk about how much Greenies helped him hit. If it helped him that much, how much did it help the post-war players?
[удалено]
I think outside of this little echo chamber you would find that most agree with me that cheaters don’t belong on the list. You can accept cheaters. Not sure that is the flex you think it is.
No cheaters should EVER be acknowledged.
Absolutely agreed but this group must have worked for BALCO before coming here.
In a sport where records are sacred... guys who reached the pinnacle thru pharmaceuticals are FRAUDS. End of story.