Who is the #2 hitter in the MLB?

[cmdavid]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Manny has more than twice as many strikeouts as Pujols does in less the number at-bats...

Strikeouts are not that much different than any other out. The fact that Bonds or Manny have more strikeouts than Pujols doesn't mean much at all.

thats not true.. strikeouts are the ultimate defamation to a hitter... grounding out or flying out are much more respectable than striking out...

i can't believe you would even try saying that they're the same...

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: cmdavid

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Manny has more than twice as many strikeouts as Pujols does in less the number at-bats...

Strikeouts are not that much different than any other out. The fact that Bonds or Manny have more strikeouts than Pujols doesn't mean much at all.

thats not true.. strikeouts are the ultimate defamation to a hitter... grounding out or flying out are much more respectable than striking out...

i can't believe you would even try saying that they're the same...

How are they different for the team or for winning?

You're saying that they're the ultimate 'defamation' - but that's just your opinion. I don't think they are that much different. I don't care about 'defamation'. I don't care if a player pulls down his pants and takes a sh!t right on the field. That doesn't mean that his production as a player just went down because of this act.

It has been said in statistics that strikeouts are not that much different than any other out. They are very very very slightly worse than any other type of out. Do you realize why? One of the reasons is that a strikeout means that you do not ground into a double play.

Let's look at Bonds and Pujols.

Strikeouts:
Bonds: 30 (318 AB)
Pujols: 42 (507 AB)

GIDP:
Bonds: 4
Pujols: 15

Not that the large difference in these GIDP is a result of Bonds striking out at a very very slightly larger rate. However, this shows that when counting K's and GIDP, Bonds is more productive than Pujols.

 

[faenix]

30 strikeouts and 42 strikeouts. What are you arguing here?

If statistics is what you're arguing, around 4-5 posts above summed it up well.

And your argument that Pujols can hit any pitch but Barry Bonds can only hit strikes? What the hell does that have to do with anything?

Do pitchers intentionally walk Pujols as much as Bonds? Why? Pujols has so much protection with his lineup, he will get much better pitches than Bonds.

Bonds isn't stupid, he doesn't swing at bad bitches. Why does that make him "bad?"

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[preslove]

Wow, Bonds already has 196 walks? Jesus christ.

 

[Soccer55]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Not productive enough? Ichiro has not had a season with less than 100 R, 200 H, 30 SB, and a .312 AVG. I think that's pretty damn productive. Save the last 3 or 4 years, Bonds couldn't dream of saying the same thing. IMO, Bonds has only gotten to be a very good hitter in the past few years.

Yes, not productive enough. He is 'pretty damn productive', but doesn't contribute enough to be declared the second best overall batter in the game. Bonds of hte 1990's was a far superior batter than Ichiro as well. Your statemetn saying that Bonds has only been a very good hitter in the past few years is completely wrong. He was one of the best hitters of the entire 1990's. Any way you look at the numbers shows that Bonds destroys Ichiro.

The funny thing is that you're comparing Ichiro now to Bonds now and saying that Ichiro is close? Do you realize how wrong that is in a statistical sense? Barry Bonds is putting up one of the best seasons of all time!

Let's look at their numbers this season:

OBP:
Bonds: .611 (this would be the highest single season OBP of all time if the season ended today)
Ichiro: .417 (not even ranked in the top 100 for a single season)

SLG:
Bonds: .832 (this would be the 4th highest single season SLG)
Suzuki: .472 (not even ranked in the top 100 for a single season)

OPS (OBP+SLG)
Bonds: 1.443 (#1 all-time for a single season)
Ichiro: .890 (not even ranked in the top 100)

It's not even close and anyone that understands statistics would understand.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but above you say that it's wrong in a statistical sense for me to compare Ichiro now to Bonds now, then you go and do the same with OBP, SLG, and OPS. I'm confused. Should we compare Ichiro's first 4 years in the league to Bonds' first 4? If so, then I think it's safe to say that Ichiro would destroy Bonds in that comparison (except for in HR).

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

I disagree. This would also depend on how you define production. If you look at the numbers I've provided, I think most would agree that Ichiro is a pretty productive hitter. Remember, a leadoff hitter is productive if he gets hits, steals bases (ie: get into scoring position), and scores runs. Bonds is a #3/cleanup hitter. His productivity is defined mostly by his ability to drive people in. So HR, RBI, and extra base hits are the prominent categories that define his productivity.

I define production by how much a player contributes to a team as given by statistical formulas. Ichiro is a pretty productive hitter this season - nobody is denying it. However, he has done nothing to warrant calling him the 2nd most productive hitter in the game. There is no statistical basis for such a claim.

A leadoff hitter contributes by by being a productive hitter - just like any other position in the game. The fact that Ichiro has little power makes him a leadoff hitter. There is no doubt that Bonds would be a far superior leadoff hitter to Ichiro for the simple fact that he gets on base at an unprecedented rate.

All hitters are judged of their productivity through the same methods - a statistical analysis. The fact that you're talking about runs, RBIs, and such really tells me that you don't know much about baseball statistics at a higher level.

So basically what you're saying is that no matter where a hitter hits in the lineup, his productivity is determined in the same way and by the same formula that everyone else's is? I don't agree with that at all. Again, because different spots in the lineup have different jobs. The leadoff hitter is responsible for getting hits, advancing to scoring position, and scoring. His job isn't to get many RBI or hit many HR, that's what the #3,4,5 hitters are for. So where does the fact that Ichiro helps generate offense through his SB contribute to his productivity? Stealing 2nd could mean the difference between scoring on a single and having a scoreless inning. I think the definition of productivity has to adjust to match the responsibilities that come with that position in the lineup instead of simply applying a formula. Don't get me wrong, statistics are good indicators of performance, but they do not tell the whole story.

-Tom

 

[YBS1]

Sorry RabidMongoose, I just scrolled up and read your post above and I had posted almost that exact thing.

A leadoff hitter contributes by by being a productive hitter - just like any other position in the game. The fact that Ichiro has little power makes him a leadoff hitter. There is no doubt that Bonds would be a far superior leadoff hitter to Ichiro for the simple fact that he gets on base at an unprecedented rate.

 

[faenix]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but above you say that it's wrong in a statistical sense for me to compare Ichiro now to Bonds now, then you go and do the same with OBP, SLG, and OPS. I'm confused. Should we compare Ichiro's first 4 years in the league to Bonds' first 4? If so, then I think it's safe to say that Ichiro would destroy Bonds in that comparison (except for in HR).

Why are we comparing the first 4 years of their careers? The question in doubt is NOW. GET YOUR DATES STRAIGHT.

So basically what you're saying is that no matter where a hitter hits in the lineup, his productivity is determined in the same way and by the same formula that everyone else's is? I don't agree with that at all. Again, because different spots in the lineup have different jobs. The leadoff hitter is responsible for getting hits, advancing to scoring position, and scoring. His job isn't to get many RBI or hit many HR, that's what the #3,4,5 hitters are for. So where does the fact that Ichiro helps generate offense through his SB contribute to his productivity? Stealing 2nd could mean the difference between scoring on a single and having a scoreless inning. I think the definition of productivity has to adjust to match the responsibilities that come with that position in the lineup instead of simply applying a formula. Don't get me wrong, statistics are good indicators of performance, but they do not tell the whole story.

-Tom

They do not tell the whole story but productivity does. Ichiro cannot carry the Mariners. Bonds is carrying the Giants. 'Nuff said.

 

[Soccer55]

Originally posted by: faenix

Correct me if I'm wrong, but above you say that it's wrong in a statistical sense for me to compare Ichiro now to Bonds now, then you go and do the same with OBP, SLG, and OPS. I'm confused. Should we compare Ichiro's first 4 years in the league to Bonds' first 4? If so, then I think it's safe to say that Ichiro would destroy Bonds in that comparison (except for in HR).

Why are we comparing the first 4 years of their careers? The question in doubt is NOW. GET YOUR DATES STRAIGHT.

It has nothing to do with me needing to get dates straight, I was confused by what RabidMongoose meant by it being wrong for me to compare Ichiro now and Bonds now in a statistical sense. So I threw out the first 4 years of their career thing as a possible interpretation.

-Tom

 

[RabidMongoose]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but above you say that it's wrong in a statistical sense for me to compare Ichiro now to Bonds now, then you go and do the same with OBP, SLG, and OPS. I'm confused. Should we compare Ichiro's first 4 years in the league to Bonds' first 4? If so, then I think it's safe to say that Ichiro would destroy Bonds in that comparison (except for in HR).

I'm saying it's wrong to compare Bonds to Ichiro now because Bonds is putting up one of the best seasons of all time and Ichiro isn't putting up any of the top 100 seasons of all time. Any comparison is absolutely foolish and shows a complete lack of understanding in basic statistics.

I'm not sure if Ichiro would destroy Bonds in comparisons of their first 4 seasons, but then you are comparing an Ichiro in his statistical prime ages to a 21-24 year old Bonds. Compare them at the same ages then Ichiro looks like nothing against Bonds.

So basically what you're saying is that no matter where a hitter hits in the lineup, his productivity is determined in the same way and by the same formula that everyone else's is? I don't agree with that at all. Again, because different spots in the lineup have different jobs. The leadoff hitter is responsible for getting hits, advancing to scoring position, and scoring. His job isn't to get many RBI or hit many HR, that's what the #3,4,5 hitters are for. So where does the fact that Ichiro helps generate offense through his SB contribute to his productivity? Stealing 2nd could mean the difference between scoring on a single and having a scoreless inning. I think the definition of productivity has to adjust to match the responsibilities that come with that position in the lineup instead of simply applying a formula. Don't get me wrong, statistics are good indicators of performance, but they do not tell the whole story.

Every hitter is responsible for being the most productive hitter possible. Ichiro is a leadoff hitter because he has no power. Him being a leadoff hitter does not mean that he is not allowed to display any power whatsoever. A homerun is better than a single in every situation, even at the leadoff spot. Besides, how often does Ichiro lead off an inning? He is only guaranteed a single leadoff spot per game. If he did have power then he would be batting elsewhere in the lineup. Besides, Bonds would undoubtedly be a better leadoff hitter than Ichiro.

Ichiro steals bases, but his SB success rate is not anything great.

You cannot excuse a player's lack of performance due to his position in the lineup. Are you going to say that a #8 hitter is good because he's good relative to his place in the lineup? No. All hitters have the same responsibility - to be as productive as they can be. Their inherent production determines where they bat in the lineup. Their lineup does not determine their production. This is a poor excuse.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: YBS1
Sorry RabidMongoose, I just scrolled up and read your post above and I had posted almost that exact thing.

A leadoff hitter contributes by by being a productive hitter - just like any other position in the game. The fact that Ichiro has little power makes him a leadoff hitter. There is no doubt that Bonds would be a far superior leadoff hitter to Ichiro for the simple fact that he gets on base at an unprecedented rate.

No problem! Two is better than one

 

[Soccer55]

Originally posted by: faenix

So basically what you're saying is that no matter where a hitter hits in the lineup, his productivity is determined in the same way and by the same formula that everyone else's is? I don't agree with that at all. Again, because different spots in the lineup have different jobs. The leadoff hitter is responsible for getting hits, advancing to scoring position, and scoring. His job isn't to get many RBI or hit many HR, that's what the #3,4,5 hitters are for. So where does the fact that Ichiro helps generate offense through his SB contribute to his productivity? Stealing 2nd could mean the difference between scoring on a single and having a scoreless inning. I think the definition of productivity has to adjust to match the responsibilities that come with that position in the lineup instead of simply applying a formula. Don't get me wrong, statistics are good indicators of performance, but they do not tell the whole story.

-Tom

They do not tell the whole story but productivity does. Ichiro cannot carry the Mariners. Bonds is carrying the Giants. 'Nuff said.

This is exactly my original point. Is there a single definition for productivity that applies to all batters? I say no, it depends on the slot in the lineup and the responsibilities that come with batting in that position.

-Tom

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Soccer55

Originally posted by: faenix

So basically what you're saying is that no matter where a hitter hits in the lineup, his productivity is determined in the same way and by the same formula that everyone else's is? I don't agree with that at all. Again, because different spots in the lineup have different jobs. The leadoff hitter is responsible for getting hits, advancing to scoring position, and scoring. His job isn't to get many RBI or hit many HR, that's what the #3,4,5 hitters are for. So where does the fact that Ichiro helps generate offense through his SB contribute to his productivity? Stealing 2nd could mean the difference between scoring on a single and having a scoreless inning. I think the definition of productivity has to adjust to match the responsibilities that come with that position in the lineup instead of simply applying a formula. Don't get me wrong, statistics are good indicators of performance, but they do not tell the whole story.

-Tom

They do not tell the whole story but productivity does. Ichiro cannot carry the Mariners. Bonds is carrying the Giants. 'Nuff said.

This is exactly my original point. Is there a single definition for productivity that applies to all batters? I say no, it depends on the slot in the lineup and the responsibilities that come with batting in that position.

-Tom

Production determines where they bat in the lineup. Their lineup does not determine their production. This is a poor excuse.

If Ichiro was capable of being a #3 hitter then he would be one.

 

[cmdavid]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: cmdavid

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Manny has more than twice as many strikeouts as Pujols does in less the number at-bats...

Strikeouts are not that much different than any other out. The fact that Bonds or Manny have more strikeouts than Pujols doesn't mean much at all.

thats not true.. strikeouts are the ultimate defamation to a hitter... grounding out or flying out are much more respectable than striking out...

i can't believe you would even try saying that they're the same...

How are they different for the team or for winning?

You're saying that they're the ultimate 'defamation' - but that's just your opinion. I don't think they are that much different. I don't care about 'defamation'. I don't care if a player pulls down his pants and takes a sh!t right on the field. That doesn't mean that his production as a player just went down because of this act.

It has been said in statistics that strikeouts are not that much different than any other out. They are very very very slightly worse than any other type of out. Do you realize why? One of the reasons is that a strikeout means that you do not ground into a double play.

Let's look at Bonds and Pujols.

Strikeouts:
Bonds: 30 (318 AB)
Pujols: 42 (507 AB)

GIDP:
Bonds: 4
Pujols: 15

Not that the large difference in these GIDP is a result of Bonds striking out at a very very slightly larger rate. However, this shows that when counting K's and GIDP, Bonds is more productive than Pujols.

for you to even think that K's and groundouts are equivalent is just ridiculous... its not only my opinion that K's are much worse than groundouts/flyouts but also the opinion of anybody who plays baseball as well as any analyst..
if that were true, why would pitchers be noted for their K's so significantly, but not for their forced ground outs or forced fly-outs?

All GIDPs have to do with is that his team gets on base more... Bond's fans use the whole "supporting cast" scenario all the time to make excuses for bonds not having RBIs and not seeing good pitches, well my excuse for pujols is that of course he's going to GIDP more often if he has players on base more often than Bonds does...
edit: also, we're not talking about the team or for winning are we? i thought we were talking about being a better hitter...

You don't know what you're talking about.

well if you're not even going to repeat my arguments properly then thats fine...
do you really not see what hitting balls and out-of-strike zone pitches well has to do with being a better hitter?? being a better hitter.. meaning he can hit more pitches.. and doesn't totally depend on the ball being in the perfect place.. meaning he can adjust better to the pitcher.. this is one of the stronger indicators of hand strength and accuracy.. his ability to control his hands far surpasses bonds when he's at the plate... especially considering bond's strike zone is so much smaller than pujols? i didnt say that bonds was "bad".. why are you quoting something i never said?? i said that pujols is a better hitter because of his ability to adjust...

and the 30Ks/250ABs vs 42Ks/500ABs is quite clear... bonds strikes out roughly 12% of the time he has ABs and Pujols Ks roughly 8% of the time... if you don't understand how striking out less frequently makes him a better hitter then i dont know what to tell you..

i'll give you the whole pujols sees better pitches than bonds argument.. it is true that the cardinals lineup is stacked compared to bond's supporting cast...

 

[Soccer55]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Correct me if I'm wrong, but above you say that it's wrong in a statistical sense for me to compare Ichiro now to Bonds now, then you go and do the same with OBP, SLG, and OPS. I'm confused. Should we compare Ichiro's first 4 years in the league to Bonds' first 4? If so, then I think it's safe to say that Ichiro would destroy Bonds in that comparison (except for in HR).

I'm saying it's wrong to compare Bonds to Ichiro now because Bonds is putting up one of the best seasons of all time and Ichiro isn't putting up any of the top 100 seasons of all time. Any comparison is absolutely foolish and shows a complete lack of understanding in basic statistics.

I'm not sure if Ichiro would destroy Bonds in comparisons of their first 4 seasons, but then you are comparing an Ichiro in his statistical prime ages to a 21-24 year old Bonds. Compare them at the same ages then Ichiro looks like nothing against Bonds.

Ok, I get what you mean now. I stand corrected.....well, as far as what you meant that is.

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

So basically what you're saying is that no matter where a hitter hits in the lineup, his productivity is determined in the same way and by the same formula that everyone else's is? I don't agree with that at all. Again, because different spots in the lineup have different jobs. The leadoff hitter is responsible for getting hits, advancing to scoring position, and scoring. His job isn't to get many RBI or hit many HR, that's what the #3,4,5 hitters are for. So where does the fact that Ichiro helps generate offense through his SB contribute to his productivity? Stealing 2nd could mean the difference between scoring on a single and having a scoreless inning. I think the definition of productivity has to adjust to match the responsibilities that come with that position in the lineup instead of simply applying a formula. Don't get me wrong, statistics are good indicators of performance, but they do not tell the whole story.

Every hitter is responsible for being the most productive hitter possible. Ichiro is a leadoff hitter because he has no power. Him being a leadoff hitter does not mean that he is not allowed to display any power whatsoever. A homerun is better than a single in every situation, even at the leadoff spot. Besides, how often does Ichiro lead off an inning? He is only guaranteed a single leadoff spot per game. If he did have power then he would be batting elsewhere in the lineup. Besides, Bonds would undoubtedly be a better leadoff hitter than Ichiro.

Ichiro steals bases, but his SB success rate is not anything great.

You cannot excuse a player's lack of performance due to his position in the lineup. Are you going to say that a #8 hitter is good because he's good relative to his place in the lineup? No. All hitters have the same responsibility - to be as productive as they can be. Their inherent production determines where they bat in the lineup. Their lineup does not determine their production. This is a poor excuse.

It doesn't make a player a better hitter, but I do think it changes the way you view productivity. Think about the #9 slot in an NL lineup (usually the P). Pitchers are rarely good hitters, but productivity for them could be defined as the ability to advance runners whether it be through sacrifices, hits, or walks. Usually a P is a free out, but the team can still get something productive out of it. A pitcher could be batting a woeful .150, but be productive if he's dropping down loads of sacrifices that advance runners into scoring position. This is where I think we are butting heads so to speak. I feel that there are factors that do not get taken into consideration when dealing purely with statistics that change the view of how productive a hitter is.

-Tom

 

[msparish]

For overall statistical production, I think runs created is the best metric. According to espn.com, Bonds has created 160.8 runs this year, compared to Pujols at 128.4 in second place. Ichiro is eighth, with 116.7. Also, if you look at the runs produced per 27 outs (simulating a lineup of the same player), Bonds scores nearly twice as many runs as Todd Helton in 2nd place. A lineup of only Barry is calculated to score over 20 runs per game!

Stats

 

[RabidMongoose]

for you to even think that K's and groundouts are equivalent is just ridiculous... its not only my opinion that K's are much worse than groundouts/flyouts but also the opinion of anybody who plays baseball as well as any analyst..
if that were true, why would pitchers be noted for their K's so significantly, but not for their forced ground outs or forced fly-outs?

Where is your proof that a K is somehow significantly more costly than any other out?

A pitcher is noted for his K's because that is under his control and not partially under the control of his defense.

All GIDPs have to do with is that his team gets on base more... Bond's fans use the whole "supporting cast" scenario all the time to make excuses for bonds not having RBIs and not seeing good pitches, well my excuse for pujols is that of course he's going to GIDP more often if he has players on base more often than Bonds does...
edit: also, we're not talking about the team or for winning are we? i thought we were talking about being a better hitter...

Yes, and if you strikeout then you cannot get a GIDP. It is to show why a strikeout is not that much more costly than any other type of out. Either way, your bringing up strikeouts when comparing Bonds and Pujols means nothing.

 

[Soccer55]

Originally posted by: msparish
For overall statistical production, I think runs created is the best metric. According to espn.com, Bonds has created 160.8 runs this year, compared to Pujols at 128.4 in second place. Ichiro is eighth, with 116.7. Also, if you look at the runs produced per 27 outs (simulating a lineup of the same player), Bonds scores nearly twice as many runs as Todd Helton in 2nd place. A lineup of only Barry is calculated to score over 20 runs per game!

Stats

That is rather interesting.....I've never seen that stat. Thanks

-Tom

 

[RabidMongoose]

It doesn't make a player a better hitter, but I do think it changes the way you view productivity. Think about the #9 slot in an NL lineup (usually the P). Pitchers are rarely good hitters, but productivity for them could be defined as the ability to advance runners whether it be through sacrifices, hits, or walks. Usually a P is a free out, but the team can still get something productive out of it. A pitcher could be batting a woeful .150, but be productive if he's dropping down loads of sacrifices that advance runners into scoring position. This is where I think we are butting heads so to speak. I feel that there are factors that do not get taken into consideration when dealing purely with statistics that change the view of how productive a hitter is.

You are assuming that a batter's spot in the lineup determines his production. I am saying that a batter's production determines his spot in the lineup. Which one do you think is more reasonable?

Your way of thinking is to forever pigeonhole someone in one lineup spot forever. My way of thinking says that if a player improves then he needs to be placed elsewhere in the lineup.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: msparish
For overall statistical production, I think runs created is the best metric. According to espn.com, Bonds has created 160.8 runs this year, compared to Pujols at 128.4 in second place. Ichiro is eighth, with 116.7. Also, if you look at the runs produced per 27 outs (simulating a lineup of the same player), Bonds scores nearly twice as many runs as Todd Helton in 2nd place. A lineup of only Barry is calculated to score over 20 runs per game!

Stats

RC is a good stat, but the only problem with RC is that it is a counting stat. Therefore any player with a significantly larger number of ABs will have an advantage. For rate based statistics I suggest BaseballProspectus' EQA, which is park and league adjusted.

 

[SP33Demon]

You could easily argue that Ichiro is a better PURE hitter than Bonds, and that Bonds is a better slugger. Bonds is barely above .300 for lifetime after this season, and will probably end up under .300 when he retires and his final seasons dip all of his numbers. Ichiro is a better pure hitter in that he hits for high avg and can control where he hits the ball through holes much better than Bonds. But, no way in hell Ichiro could hit for the power that Bonds has (even if he juiced like Bonds), he's just not built that way.

 

[faenix]

I for one am glad RabidMongoose is on my side in this argument.

I'd hate to go against him.

Cheers for the night crowd and Bonds. :beer:

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
You could easily argue that Ichiro is a better PURE hitter than Bonds, and that Bonds is a better slugger. Bonds is barely above .300 for lifetime after this season, and will probably end up under .300 when he retires and his final seasons dip all of his numbers. Ichiro is a better pure hitter in that he hits for high avg and can control where he hits the ball through holes much better than Bonds. But, no way in hell Ichiro could hit for the power that Bonds has (even if he juiced like Bonds), he's just not built that way.

Bonds already has a .300 career batting average. I don't think he'll get under .300 ever again at this rate.

 

[msparish]

RC is a good stat, but the only problem with RC is that it is a counting stat. Therefore any player with a significantly larger number of ABs will have an advantage. For rate based statistics I suggest BaseballProspectus' EQA, which is park and league adjusted.

That's why I put in RC27, which estimates the runs produced per game (27 outs) by a lineup composed of the same player, not just what he has produced this season. Thus, according the the stats, a lineup composed only of Bonds would score 20+ runs before he was put out 27 times. Of course with him it is rather arbitrary, seeing that he wouldn't be intentionally walked in that lineup.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: SP33Demon
You could easily argue that Ichiro is a better PURE hitter than Bonds, and that Bonds is a better slugger. Bonds is barely above .300 for lifetime after this season, and will probably end up under .300 when he retires and his final seasons dip all of his numbers. Ichiro is a better pure hitter in that he hits for high avg and can control where he hits the ball through holes much better than Bonds. But, no way in hell Ichiro could hit for the power that Bonds has (even if he juiced like Bonds), he's just not built that way.

Bonds already has a .300 career batting average.

He got it a maybe 1-3 weeks ago.

If managers actually pitched to him, I question whether he would even be able to hold that average. History says, "no". Anyone can get hot in a half a season of real AB's.

 

[Soccer55]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

It doesn't make a player a better hitter, but I do think it changes the way you view productivity. Think about the #9 slot in an NL lineup (usually the P). Pitchers are rarely good hitters, but productivity for them could be defined as the ability to advance runners whether it be through sacrifices, hits, or walks. Usually a P is a free out, but the team can still get something productive out of it. A pitcher could be batting a woeful .150, but be productive if he's dropping down loads of sacrifices that advance runners into scoring position. This is where I think we are butting heads so to speak. I feel that there are factors that do not get taken into consideration when dealing purely with statistics that change the view of how productive a hitter is.

You are assuming that a batter's spot in the lineup determines his production. I am saying that a batter's production determines his spot in the lineup. Which one do you think is more reasonable?

Your way of thinking is to forever pigeonhole someone in one lineup spot forever. My way of thinking says that if a player improves then he needs to be placed elsewhere in the lineup.

I'm saying that it CAN affect what is considered production, not that it absolutely does.

-Tom