Fun debate. Because there are other aspects you could get into that this doesn't even touch on. If two players have the exact same stats, in the same ballparks, but one player hit consistently longer home runs, is that player a "better hitter"? If two players have the same stats that Joe mentioned in the article, but one player got more of his value via hits vs. another who walked more, are they the same quality of "hitters"?
Obviously at the end of the day, what we care about is value brought to the team while in the batter's box, which essentially what is laid out in the article. But there are other fun questions to ask.
If two players have the same OBP but one got more hits versus one who walked more, the player with more hits was more valuable to their team and therefore a higher quality hitter, but both players would be equal at not making outs - the most important baseball skill (on offense anyway).
I'll hold judgment on Trout until he gets into his 30's and decline phase, but clearly the run he's had compares well with anyone's peak.
Anyway, let's say he does become the best righty of all time, it still seems likely that he would still rank behind the trio of lefties, does it not? I mean, he would probably have to continue to escalate and sustain what he's doing already to have a chance at all.
I love the "greatest hitter" debates! Taking defense, baserunning, all that out (and how can you *really* divorce baserunning from hitting - how many singles become doubles when Byron Buxton smacks a line drive sortakinda to the gap? And then up goes his slugging pct. because of how fast he is!). A great debate for the ages.
My only line in the sand: anybody pre-Jackie Robinson gets a big fat asterisk. We can talk about how good Hornsby was but not without context. After Jackie - and in particular, after integration had truly set in across all of baseball, perhaps a good arbitrary year for that would be 1960, the year after Pumpsie Green - any differences in competition become minimal arguments about the leagues expanding and whatnot, possibly with the exception of the Latin talent beginning to come in. But I think it's a different order of magnitude. I don't know, I could be wrong about that last part... but whereas I admit to some *doubt* on that, I have *NO* doubt that pre-integration baseball numbers from batting average to runs created get an asterisk the size of the area Mays could cover in center at his peak. A Polo Grounds centerfield asterisk.
Baseball is always changing. Willie Mays gets a big fat asterisk because he didn't have to face all the great Hispanic pitchers that have been around in the last 20 years. You're right that it's a different order of magnitude though... there have been far more great Hispanic pitchers than black pitchers, and of course there are far more Hispanic hitters now than there ever were black hitters. (The highest %age of black players ever is 25% in 1975.) And PED's give a big super-fat asterisk to Barry Bonds and his roid raging buds.
So probably every player in the discussion gets a big fat asterisk except for Trout and Miggy. And they'll have asterisks of their own someday, because they didn't have to face women pitchers.
Sure there are historically more great Hispanic pitchers than black pitchers. At the same time, when viewed purely through the lens of how many non-white players there are, it's pre-Jackie through somewhat arbitrary date that passes the eyeball test near 1960 vs post-said arbitrary date and that's the "order of magnitude" I'm getting at. Nobody is barred anymore, quite the opposite. The game is always changing in ethnic composition (let alone style) but that doesn't change the *huge* difference between all-white* and not-all-white for me.
*obviously a couple exceptions e.g. lighter-skinned Hispanics like Ted, those who identified as Indian like Bender, can't think of anyone else off the top of my head
I see, you just want to punish Hornsby et al. for having the misfortune of playing before 1960.
The fact is that if baseball in the 1920's had been as open to all races as it is now, it wouldn't change the dominance of Hornsby, Ruth, etc. one iota. The *worst* white players are who would be affected--they'd be out of the league, or bench players. Ruth would still be the greatest non-roidy player of all time.
You can make an argument for whomever the greatest Negro Leagues right-handed hitter was, I suppose. But, caution: the stats that have been uncovered so far don't look all that great for even the greatest Negro League hitters, so it'll take some work if you want to make a logical case for one of them.
"The fact is that if baseball in the 1920's had been as open to all races as it is now, it wouldn't change the dominance of Hornsby, Ruth, etc. one iota."
"The *worst* white players are who would be affected--they'd be out of the league, or bench players."
This logic is topsy-turvy. By extension, Hornsby, Ruth, etc. faced the *worst* white players instead of the best Negro Leagues/etc players who would have replaced them. I'll leave it to the imagination how that often must have gone for those poor guys against the likes of Hornsby!
Nobody is saying Babe Ruth would suddenly be Cecil Fielder if Hilton Smith, Satch, Bullet Joe Rogan bump the worst white pitchers (slightly off topic, didn't *somebody* say that, perhaps in a PosCast, Babe Ruth today would essentially be Cecil Fielder unless he made some serious lifestyle changes?). He'd be an all-time great!
But I'm shocked that anyone would think that the Hornsby/Ruth hitters would still have put up the same numbers they did... or be quite as dominant on both the field and in the conversation.
As for NBL stats, slightly off topic... I can't believe I'm typing this but I'll take the stats with a big grain of salt (not discounting - using caution) and give the anecdotes from the era a little more credence than I otherwise would. Even the MLB stats were inaccurate (how many hits does Ty Cobb have? RBIs for Hack Wilson in his record year? https://joeposnanski.substack.com/p/the-elasticity-of-numbers). I wouldn't use stats from the sepiatone days as my only load-bearing support of a baseball debate. A more holistic, comprehensive view makes more sense to me.
"But I'm shocked that anyone would think that the Hornsby/Ruth hitters would still have put up the same numbers they did... or be quite as dominant on both the field and in the conversation." -- Actually, the standard view is that Ruth et al. would indeed have put up almost the same numbers, and be equally as dominant. You just don't get it... that's OK, maybe next time you will. :)
IF: Ruth/Hornsby/etc face pitching that is X% better than they faced, because Negro leagues talent necessarily improves the overall quality of MLB pitching...
THEN: Ruth/Hornsby/etc put up numbers that are Y% worse than they historically did, with Y equalling a number greater than 0 but lesser than X.
And IF: Y is a number greater than 0 but lesser than X
THEN: Ruth/Hornsby/etc are some degree less "dominant". The talent floor of MLB is higher.
Don't know what "standard view" you're talking about but even if a majority of people who can't do simple math believe that, and we arbitrarily call that the "standard view", I have as much use for it as using pitcher wins to evaluate a pitcher. You might remember that that, too, was a "standard view".
I think not enough people appreciate that we are all contemporaneously watching/following the career of the greatest baseball player ever. In absolute terms, that conclusion is unassailable. But even in the usual, baseball analysis via comps between eras, he's still at the apex for anyone thru their first seven-and-a-half seasons. And based on his age and constant improvement across all skill sets, there's never been a player that gives greater hope to the quality of the second half of his career.
Greatest right-handed hitter ever? Hell, he's already the GREATEST PLAYER EVER. Period. And we're getting to see his career unfold in real time. He's a gift; we should appreciate him.
He's the best baseball player I've ever seen play with the possible exception of Bonds. Trout is Mays with slightly less defense, slightly more offense, and somewhat more interest in meteorology.
Without any reference books, when I saw the headline the first name that came to mind was Pujols. Several seconds later, Thomas. Then Mays, Hornsby, Aaron, eat all. I am perplexed that Trout never even Entered my mind.
Trout the best player who ever lived and this seems obvious and weird that there would be any dispute.
Seems weird anyone would make that argument already.
One metric Joe didn't use is wRC+, which adjusts for league and ballpark:
173 Rogers Hornsby
154 Willie Mays
153 Hank Aaron
145 Albert Pujols
Also in the mix with the top three from above:
173 Mike Trout
158 Jimmie Foxx
157 Mark McGwire
155 Dick Allen
154 Frank Thomas
154 Hank Greenberg
153 Aaron Judge
153 Frank Robinson
153 Manny Ramirez
153 Joe DiMaggio
That settles it for me: it's Hornsby and Trout in a landslide. I wouldn't have guessed that McGwire was ahead of Mays, though.
Fun debate. Because there are other aspects you could get into that this doesn't even touch on. If two players have the exact same stats, in the same ballparks, but one player hit consistently longer home runs, is that player a "better hitter"? If two players have the same stats that Joe mentioned in the article, but one player got more of his value via hits vs. another who walked more, are they the same quality of "hitters"?
Obviously at the end of the day, what we care about is value brought to the team while in the batter's box, which essentially what is laid out in the article. But there are other fun questions to ask.
If two players have the same OBP but one got more hits versus one who walked more, the player with more hits was more valuable to their team and therefore a higher quality hitter, but both players would be equal at not making outs - the most important baseball skill (on offense anyway).
I'll hold judgment on Trout until he gets into his 30's and decline phase, but clearly the run he's had compares well with anyone's peak.
Anyway, let's say he does become the best righty of all time, it still seems likely that he would still rank behind the trio of lefties, does it not? I mean, he would probably have to continue to escalate and sustain what he's doing already to have a chance at all.
I love the "greatest hitter" debates! Taking defense, baserunning, all that out (and how can you *really* divorce baserunning from hitting - how many singles become doubles when Byron Buxton smacks a line drive sortakinda to the gap? And then up goes his slugging pct. because of how fast he is!). A great debate for the ages.
My only line in the sand: anybody pre-Jackie Robinson gets a big fat asterisk. We can talk about how good Hornsby was but not without context. After Jackie - and in particular, after integration had truly set in across all of baseball, perhaps a good arbitrary year for that would be 1960, the year after Pumpsie Green - any differences in competition become minimal arguments about the leagues expanding and whatnot, possibly with the exception of the Latin talent beginning to come in. But I think it's a different order of magnitude. I don't know, I could be wrong about that last part... but whereas I admit to some *doubt* on that, I have *NO* doubt that pre-integration baseball numbers from batting average to runs created get an asterisk the size of the area Mays could cover in center at his peak. A Polo Grounds centerfield asterisk.
Baseball is always changing. Willie Mays gets a big fat asterisk because he didn't have to face all the great Hispanic pitchers that have been around in the last 20 years. You're right that it's a different order of magnitude though... there have been far more great Hispanic pitchers than black pitchers, and of course there are far more Hispanic hitters now than there ever were black hitters. (The highest %age of black players ever is 25% in 1975.) And PED's give a big super-fat asterisk to Barry Bonds and his roid raging buds.
So probably every player in the discussion gets a big fat asterisk except for Trout and Miggy. And they'll have asterisks of their own someday, because they didn't have to face women pitchers.
Sure there are historically more great Hispanic pitchers than black pitchers. At the same time, when viewed purely through the lens of how many non-white players there are, it's pre-Jackie through somewhat arbitrary date that passes the eyeball test near 1960 vs post-said arbitrary date and that's the "order of magnitude" I'm getting at. Nobody is barred anymore, quite the opposite. The game is always changing in ethnic composition (let alone style) but that doesn't change the *huge* difference between all-white* and not-all-white for me.
*obviously a couple exceptions e.g. lighter-skinned Hispanics like Ted, those who identified as Indian like Bender, can't think of anyone else off the top of my head
I see, you just want to punish Hornsby et al. for having the misfortune of playing before 1960.
The fact is that if baseball in the 1920's had been as open to all races as it is now, it wouldn't change the dominance of Hornsby, Ruth, etc. one iota. The *worst* white players are who would be affected--they'd be out of the league, or bench players. Ruth would still be the greatest non-roidy player of all time.
You can make an argument for whomever the greatest Negro Leagues right-handed hitter was, I suppose. But, caution: the stats that have been uncovered so far don't look all that great for even the greatest Negro League hitters, so it'll take some work if you want to make a logical case for one of them.
"The fact is that if baseball in the 1920's had been as open to all races as it is now, it wouldn't change the dominance of Hornsby, Ruth, etc. one iota."
"The *worst* white players are who would be affected--they'd be out of the league, or bench players."
This logic is topsy-turvy. By extension, Hornsby, Ruth, etc. faced the *worst* white players instead of the best Negro Leagues/etc players who would have replaced them. I'll leave it to the imagination how that often must have gone for those poor guys against the likes of Hornsby!
Nobody is saying Babe Ruth would suddenly be Cecil Fielder if Hilton Smith, Satch, Bullet Joe Rogan bump the worst white pitchers (slightly off topic, didn't *somebody* say that, perhaps in a PosCast, Babe Ruth today would essentially be Cecil Fielder unless he made some serious lifestyle changes?). He'd be an all-time great!
But I'm shocked that anyone would think that the Hornsby/Ruth hitters would still have put up the same numbers they did... or be quite as dominant on both the field and in the conversation.
As for NBL stats, slightly off topic... I can't believe I'm typing this but I'll take the stats with a big grain of salt (not discounting - using caution) and give the anecdotes from the era a little more credence than I otherwise would. Even the MLB stats were inaccurate (how many hits does Ty Cobb have? RBIs for Hack Wilson in his record year? https://joeposnanski.substack.com/p/the-elasticity-of-numbers). I wouldn't use stats from the sepiatone days as my only load-bearing support of a baseball debate. A more holistic, comprehensive view makes more sense to me.
"But I'm shocked that anyone would think that the Hornsby/Ruth hitters would still have put up the same numbers they did... or be quite as dominant on both the field and in the conversation." -- Actually, the standard view is that Ruth et al. would indeed have put up almost the same numbers, and be equally as dominant. You just don't get it... that's OK, maybe next time you will. :)
Let me math this for ya.
IF: Ruth/Hornsby/etc face pitching that is X% better than they faced, because Negro leagues talent necessarily improves the overall quality of MLB pitching...
THEN: Ruth/Hornsby/etc put up numbers that are Y% worse than they historically did, with Y equalling a number greater than 0 but lesser than X.
And IF: Y is a number greater than 0 but lesser than X
THEN: Ruth/Hornsby/etc are some degree less "dominant". The talent floor of MLB is higher.
Don't know what "standard view" you're talking about but even if a majority of people who can't do simple math believe that, and we arbitrarily call that the "standard view", I have as much use for it as using pitcher wins to evaluate a pitcher. You might remember that that, too, was a "standard view".
My first reaction was Trout.
I think not enough people appreciate that we are all contemporaneously watching/following the career of the greatest baseball player ever. In absolute terms, that conclusion is unassailable. But even in the usual, baseball analysis via comps between eras, he's still at the apex for anyone thru their first seven-and-a-half seasons. And based on his age and constant improvement across all skill sets, there's never been a player that gives greater hope to the quality of the second half of his career.
Greatest right-handed hitter ever? Hell, he's already the GREATEST PLAYER EVER. Period. And we're getting to see his career unfold in real time. He's a gift; we should appreciate him.
Bonds + Roid Rage was better than Trout is. But Natural Trout is a lot better than Natural Barry was.
Bonds rookie year to 1998 was every bit as good as Trout. Certainly more durable.
He's the best baseball player I've ever seen play with the possible exception of Bonds. Trout is Mays with slightly less defense, slightly more offense, and somewhat more interest in meteorology.
Yeah. May need to change his nickname to The Millville Meteorologist.
Does Trout have a collection of meteors at his mansion or something?
Assume you're joking, but in case not, he's apparently obsessed with weather.
I prefer imagining Trout's giant case of giant meteorites, but I suppose a collection of giant hailstones is pretty cool, too. :)
As a 43-year Yankees fan, I can tell you the guy who terrified me the most was Manny.
I don't know if meeting Manny in the parking lot after the game counts.
Without any reference books, when I saw the headline the first name that came to mind was Pujols. Several seconds later, Thomas. Then Mays, Hornsby, Aaron, eat all. I am perplexed that Trout never even Entered my mind.