Greatest Baseball Swings

[TKO11]

Sharkey's already given the answer Big

How about a more conventional one - what pitcher holds the regular season record for consecutive wins, and how many straight decisions did he win?

I guess nobody can think of a "more homers in final season" than Kong?

[Sharkey]

I think Kong has it. The only others I can think of is Mac with 29, and Bonds with 28 I believe.

[Sharkey]

TKO, is this starts won? Or just wins. Hubbell, 24, over two seasons.

I think Andy Hawkins (wow) has the most consecutive starts won to start a season. 10.

[mrbig1]

One thing about baseball the stats don't lie. A great player has more to do with where he played. Lou Gehrig is a great player no doubt. Now conpare his stats vs Jimmy Foxx. They're almost the same but, When people talk about all time great player's where's Jimmy Foxx name? Stan Musial was another one. 4th in hits, 2nd in total bases, 3rd in doubles and 5th in RBI. Because he played in St.Louis his name is missing from the list of all time greats.

[mrbig1]

Sharkey's already given the answer Big

How about a more conventional one - what pitcher holds the regular season record for consecutive wins, and how many straight decisions did he win?

I guess nobody can think of a "more homers in final season" than Kong?

Forgive me sir. Dave McNally of the Orioles started the season with 15 straight wins one shy of the record. I forgot who it was. I know that's not really your question. You see this is not fair. I'm old and only have 2 brain cells left and one of them is sick.

[TKO11]

Sharks - I don't think it matters whether it was starts or not, just consecutive decisions. In either case it would be Hubbell's 24.

I remember Hawkins winning his first ten starts. It was 1985, and I was deep in my teenage love affair with baseball. Sports Illustrated did a big article on Hawkins winning his first ten, but then he only went 8-8 the rest of the way. I was already aware of Hawkins at the time because 1984 was a season where the Padres demended a little attention, and they had this young, chunky right-fielder who looked like shit standing at the plate but who hit anything they threw at him. As I recall, that chunky dude made a decent little career for himself.......

[TKO11]

Oh yeah, and Big - Stan the Man isn't missing fronm anybody's list of all-time greats that I am aware of. Universally known as one of the greatest players in the history of the national league. And double X gets plenty of dues as a great as well....

[Counter Jab]

Bags.

You the man T....

[mrbig1]

Oh yeah, and Big - Stan the Man isn't missing fronm anybody's list of all-time greats that I am aware of. Universally known as one of the greatest players in the history of the national league. And double X gets plenty of dues as a great as well....

I went to Youtube just to see for myself. One guy has his top ten list. Musial made that list. Another guy had his top 25 list and both of these guys miss the list. If fact the man had Sammy Sosa on the list!!

[Counter Jab]

Each has the first name "George"?

Sorry I'm late responding...you the man Shark....

[Counter Jab]

Sharks - I don't think it matters whether it was starts or not, just consecutive decisions. In either case it would be Hubbell's 24.

I remember Hawkins winning his first ten starts. It was 1985, and I was deep in my teenage love affair with baseball. Sports Illustrated did a big article on Hawkins winning his first ten, but then he only went 8-8 the rest of the way. I was already aware of Hawkins at the time because 1984 was a season where the Padres demended a little attention, and they had this young, chunky right-fielder who looked like shit standing at the plate but who hit anything they threw at him. As I recall, that chunky dude made a decent little career for himself.......

Hey T...

With all baseball's problems the last few years, one of the best shots in the arm for the sport was the multi-insurtion into the HOF of Ripken & Gwynn two years ago.....a breath of fresh air....two TOTAL COMPLETE LEGENDS...!

[TKO11]

Hey Big, you have to consider the source. Any 16 year old kid can post a list to the internet. But one who would call Sosa a top 20er and not mention Foxx OR Musial.... let's just say they're opinion isn't worth a whole lot.

I googled "best baseball players ever" and the first two lists I found looked like this, and are pretty typical of the informed:

Greatest Baseball Players
by SABR (1999)

1 Babe Ruth
2 Lou Gehrig
3 Ted Williams
4 Hank Aaron
5 Stan Musial
6 Joe DiMaggio
7 Ty Cobb
8 Willie Mays
9 Rogers Hornsby
10 Honus Wagner
11 Walter Johnson
12 Mickey Mantle
13 Christy Mathewson
14 Jimmie Foxx
15 Warren Spahn


Sporting News Greatest Players (1998)

1 Babe Ruth
2 Willie Mays
3 Ty Cobb
4 Walter Johnson
5 Hank Aaron
6 Lou Gehrig
7 Christy Mathewson
8 Ted Williams
9 Rogers Hornsby
10 Stan Musial
11 Joe DiMaggio
12 Grover Alexander
13 Honus Wagner
14 Cy Young
15 Jimmie Foxx

My biggest beef with the first list would be the inclusion of Mantle at all, and having Cobb SEVENTH (while Williams is third). Clearly that list puts more emphasis on power numbers than anything else. My biggest issue with the second list is (of course) leaving Joltin' Joe way down in 11th. But as you see, Musial is top ten on both, and Foxx is top 15 on both.

Counter - both Ripken and Gwynn were guys I respected the heck out of, but who never moved me much. Great, great ballplayers... just ballplayers who I paid far more attention to what they did in the boxscores than during the games.

More trivia: did you know that Gwynn was the only Hall of Famer at that time who had zero former teammates also enshrined? That ended when Goose got in, but I thought it was interesting.....

[mrbig1]

Hey Big, you have to consider the source. Any 16 year old kid can post a list to the internet. But one who would call Sosa a top 20er and not mention Foxx OR Musial.... let's just say they're opinion isn't worth a whole lot.

I googled "best baseball players ever" and the first two lists I found looked like this, and are pretty typical of the informed:

Greatest Baseball Players
by SABR (1999)

1 Babe Ruth
2 Lou Gehrig
3 Ted Williams
4 Hank Aaron
5 Stan Musial
6 Joe DiMaggio
7 Ty Cobb
8 Willie Mays
9 Rogers Hornsby
10 Honus Wagner
11 Walter Johnson
12 Mickey Mantle
13 Christy Mathewson
14 Jimmie Foxx
15 Warren Spahn


Sporting News Greatest Players (1998)

1 Babe Ruth
2 Willie Mays
3 Ty Cobb
4 Walter Johnson
5 Hank Aaron
6 Lou Gehrig
7 Christy Mathewson
8 Ted Williams
9 Rogers Hornsby
10 Stan Musial
11 Joe DiMaggio
12 Grover Alexander
13 Honus Wagner
14 Cy Young
15 Jimmie Foxx

My biggest beef with the first list would be the inclusion of Mantle at all, and having Cobb SEVENTH (while Williams is third). Clearly that list puts more emphasis on power numbers than anything else. My biggest issue with the second list is (of course) leaving Joltin' Joe way down in 11th. But as you see, Musial is top ten on both, and Foxx is top 15 on both.

Counter - both Ripken and Gwynn were guys I respected the heck out of, but who never moved me much. Great, great ballplayers... just ballplayers who I paid far more attention to what they did in the boxscores than during the games.

More trivia: did you know that Gwynn was the only Hall of Famer at that time who had zero former teammates also enshrined? That ended when Goose got in, but I thought it was interesting.....

That's a good stat. Didn't know that. My point was that Foxx has close to the same number as Gehrig. Even the number of at bats are close. Gehrig is much higher on the list because IMO he played in the big apple. Let me add Foxx didn't have Ruth on his team. To the non baseball fan Reggie Jackson was such a star but Frank Robinson goes unnotice. Once again NY comes into play.

[TKO11]

Yes Big, but Gehrig might have done a few more things than Foxx, wouldn't you say? His career average is 15 points higher, his overall slugging is 25 points higher, he struck out FAR less than Foxx, he won 6 World Series rings.....and he had this little streak of consecutive games that for 50 or more years they said was possibly the most impressive record in baseball. Gehrig is known as a great ballplayer for more than his homers and RBIs.

This comes back to a central argument I was having earlier in this thread - so many people want to judge guys solely on what the boxscore said. There is much more to being a great ballplayer than just the stats. And everything you need to be a great, Gehrig had in spades. That isn't to suggest in any way that Foxx wasn't a great ballplayer - he was. But he wasn't the Iron Horse.

And Reggie was a big star because of how big his mouth was. Yes, he could do it at the plate but he wouldn't have been nearly the star he was if he had Ron Guidry's personality. And IMO anyone who would suggest in ANY way that Reggie was a better ballplayer than Frank Robinson has to have their head up their ass. Reggie didn't do ANYTHING as well as Frank did, except for October performance. Reggie did better than Frank (offensively only) when their teams were in the postseason.

[Counter Jab]

this falls under the category of "you have to be pretty good to lose twenty games:"

in 1991, Rob Deer came within four strikeouts of matching his batting average. he struck out 175 times while hitting .179 in 134 games.

I believe it was Mike "Hit Man" Easler when he was Deer's teammate when asked about Rob's terrible .189 batting average at the time responded:
"...yeah, but its a hard, heavy .189!!..."

[mrbig1]

Yes Big, but Gehrig might have done a few more things than Foxx, wouldn't you say? His career average is 15 points higher, his overall slugging is 25 points higher, he struck out FAR less than Foxx, he won 6 World Series rings.....and he had this little streak of consecutive games that for 50 or more years they said was possibly the most impressive record in baseball. Gehrig is known as a great ballplayer for more than his homers and RBIs.

This comes back to a central argument I was having earlier in this thread - so many people want to judge guys solely on what the boxscore said. There is much more to being a great ballplayer than just the stats. And everything you need to be a great, Gehrig had in spades. That isn't to suggest in any way that Foxx wasn't a great ballplayer - he was. But he wasn't the Iron Horse.

And Reggie was a big star because of how big his mouth was. Yes, he could do it at the plate but he wouldn't have been nearly the star he was if he had Ron Guidry's personality. And IMO anyone who would suggest in ANY way that Reggie was a better ballplayer than Frank Robinson has to have their head up their ass. Reggie didn't do ANYTHING as well as Frank did, except for October performance. Reggie did better than Frank (offensively only) when their teams were in the postseason.

Well said sir.

[TKO11]

More trivial trivia....

Seven sets of brothers have homered in the same game in MLB:

Graig and Jim Nettles
Bret and Aaron Boone
Jose and Hector Cruz
Felipe and Cesar Crespo
Al and Tony Cuccinello
Joe and Dom DiMaggio
Rick and Wes Ferrell

In all seven cases the brothers played for the oppposing teams.

[Counter Jab]

More trivial trivia....
Seven sets of brothers have homered in the same game in MLB:

Bret and Aaron Boone *

* Bret was no doubt 'juiced' to the max in that one and, therefore
must be eliminated.

[GorDoom]

Since the subject of this thread is "Greatest Swings" not greatest ballplayers, I'll return to the original premise:

Greatest swing?

Ted Williams

End of story....

GorDoom

[Counter Jab]

Cooking dinner tonite, wife working late, too many Merlots but...
If anyone is into a board baseball game (during those cold winter nights without baseball) I heartily recommend the Sports Illustrated/Avalon Hill baseball superstars one.
Three dice (black, yellow, white) and cards from both sides of the plate for the hitters. Pitchers are starters/relievers or both. All the turn of the century guys thru 1950 plus a few moderns.
We were into the fantasy thing from 1977 forward and loved this one in the winter until my bud's ex-wife came home pissed and pitched it out the window during a blizzard (we got another one).
Pretty realistic, but some players were over/underrated.
The top players?
Pitchers:
Walter Johnson & Sandy Koufax were lights out! Always picked in the 1st round of our drafts.
Followed by Christy Mathewson & Lefty Grove (eligible at starter & reliever)
I always tried to get the strange Rube Waddell as my second/third starter, still holds our record for K's in a game w/ 16.
Hitters?
Hornsby & Ruth were top-flight. Followed by Williams, Wagner, Gehrig, Speaker, etc...
I thing the DiMaggio estate refused to allow the rights to him in this game...strange...
Jimmy Foxx was actually eligible at catcher! Tho his stolen base defense was horrific and you had to live with it.
I'm rambling, if you're into board baseball, this is the best one I've ever found...

[TKO11]

Here's one I'll ask to see if anyone has a better answer than my own.

What is the SMALLEST number of RBIs recorded by a hitter who had a minimum of 502 plate appearances for the season?

The best I can do off the top of my head is Willie Wilson, who had 30 for the Royals in 1987 (in over 600 ABs). But I would guess there must be someone that had less than 30.....

[The Real McCoy]

my guess was Chuck Diering. but his "best" year was 1954 with the O's, 29 RBIs in 491 PAs.

[Chuck1052]

Mickey Mantle is underrated on this thread. On a superficial basis, Mantle's batting statistics aren't as good as those of a number of top hitters of the 1920s and 1930s, but one should compare his stats to those of other top hitters of the 1950s and 1960s.

In fact, a very strong case can be made that Mantle was the best player in the major leagues during the 1950s and early 1960s. He certainly was the main linchpin in the lineup of a club when it was in its most dominant period of its storied history.

- Chuck Johnston

[mrbig1]

Mickey Mantle is underrated on this thread. On a superficial basis, Mantle's batting statistics aren't as good as those of a number of top hitters of the 1920s and 1930s, but one should compare his stats to those of other top hitters of the 1950s and 1960s.

In fact, a very strong case can be made that Mantle was the best player in the major leagues during the 1950s and early 1960s. He certainly was the main linchpin in the lineup of a club when it was in its most dominant period of its storied history.

- Chuck Johnston

no doubt Mantle was the best of that era. Could hit from both sides on the plate with power. He could also run like a Deer. The last 3 season of his career was played in pain. It was hard to watch this great player go down hill. If you took the best 5 years of a players career, I'll put Mantle against anybody.

[Sharkey]

Here's one I'll ask to see if anyone has a better answer than my own.

What is the SMALLEST number of RBIs recorded by a hitter who had a minimum of 502 plate appearances for the season?

The best I can do off the top of my head is Willie Wilson, who had 30 for the Royals in 1987 (in over 600 ABs). But I would guess there must be someone that had less than 30.....

Podsednik had 25 rbis in 509 ABs in 2005. Not sure if that is the record, but...

[Sharkey]

Dernier had a year where he qualified for the batting title and had 21 (or something like that) rbis (yes, RBIS..are-bee-eyes).. but not sure which year that was...or if he had 502 abs..

[TKO11]

Works for me Sharks - I just looked him up. 1985 - 21 ribbies, 514 plate appearances. 30% fewer than Wilson.

Incidentally - you don't need 502 ABs to qualify for the batting title, just 502 plate appearances (which is why I used that as a number).

[Counter Jab]

Here's one I'll ask to see if anyone has a better answer than my own.

What is the SMALLEST number of RBIs recorded by a hitter who had a minimum of 502 plate appearances for the season?

The best I can do off the top of my head is Willie Wilson, who had 30 for the Royals in 1987 (in over 600 ABs). But I would guess there must be someone that had less than 30.....

Hey T, I think I've got this one (by a mile!). Late 90's, I believe, Marlins 2nd baseman Luis Castillo played the entire season and managed only 17 ribs....

Always liked the little guy tho, scored a lot of runs out of the one hole, stole a lot of bases, hit for average and, I believe, was always in the top three in all of baseball for highest number of pitches thrown to him per at bat.

back to work...brad in indy

[Michael Frank]

Mickey Mantle is underrated on this thread. On a superficial basis, Mantle's batting statistics aren't as good as those of a number of top hitters of the 1920s and 1930s, but one should compare his stats to those of other top hitters of the 1950s and 1960s.

In fact, a very strong case can be made that Mantle was the best player in the major leagues during the 1950s and early 1960s. He certainly was the main linchpin in the lineup of a club when it was in its most dominant period of its storied history.

- Chuck Johnston

Chuck, I respectfully think Aaron and Mays were better players. Just my opinion. Mantle himself said that Mays was better than he in a 1983 or 1985 CBS piece on the two. Maybe if Mick hadn't partied so hard, to the point that he was often injured and his game was affected, I might feel differently. But I don't give him credit for what might have been.

I'd also add that your final point about his dominance in his lineup doesn't, at least for me, make the point of his individual superiority over greats on other teams like Mays and Aaron, but seems to make the opposite point. Mantle was on the best team of all, and they might well have won without him. Though that would be tough to determine.

If Mick didn't have Maris, Berra, and others hitting behind him, he wouldn't have gotten so many good pitches to hit. Ted Williams, for most of his career, suffered being pitched around much of the time. Pitchers couldn't do that with Mantle (or Ruth, or even Mays, who had McCovey batting behind him later on).

[Sharkey]

Works for me Sharks - I just looked him up. 1985 - 21 ribbies, 514 plate appearances. 30% fewer than Wilson.

Incidentally - you don't need 502 ABs to qualify for the batting title, just 502 plate appearances (which is why I used that as a number).

can't a guy mis-think and then type and claim mis-typing?