Options
Harmon Killebrew.....best slugger ever!
JoeBanzai
Posts: 11,214 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Did a quick search and saw that of players with more than 500 home runs and 2000 hits Killebrew's percentage of home runs was .274. Best of all time! Jim Thome was next at .262.
When these guys hit the ball it was GONE!
What I saw that was more amazing is that Mark McGuire's was .358!!!!! He was a PED user and had less than 2000 hits but WOW! Bonds and Sosa ended up above Ruth who was at .248.
Kind of meaningless, but it's nice to see "The Killer" was the best off all time in this (narrow) definition.
When these guys hit the ball it was GONE!
What I saw that was more amazing is that Mark McGuire's was .358!!!!! He was a PED user and had less than 2000 hits but WOW! Bonds and Sosa ended up above Ruth who was at .248.
Kind of meaningless, but it's nice to see "The Killer" was the best off all time in this (narrow) definition.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
0
Comments
ABs per HR is much better, IMHO.
1. Mark McGwire (16) 10.61 R
2. Babe Ruth+ (22) 11.76 L
3. Barry Bonds (22) 12.92 L
4. Jim Thome (22) 13.76 L
5. Ralph Kiner+ (10) 14.11 R
6. Harmon Killebrew+ (22) 14.22 R
7. Sammy Sosa (18) 14.47 R
8. Ted Williams+ (19) 14.79 L
9. Manny Ramirez (19) 14.85 R
10. Adam Dunn (14) 14.90 L
11. Alex Rodriguez (21, 39) 15.05 R
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I think it's rather flawed to have 2,000+ hits minimum enter into the equation.
ABs per HR is much better, IMHO.
1. Mark McGwire (16) 10.61 R
2. Babe Ruth+ (22) 11.76 L
3. Barry Bonds (22) 12.92 L
4. Jim Thome (22) 13.76 L
5. Ralph Kiner+ (10) 14.11 R
6. Harmon Killebrew+ (22) 14.22 R
7. Sammy Sosa (18) 14.47 R
8. Ted Williams+ (19) 14.79 L
9. Manny Ramirez (19) 14.85 R
10. Adam Dunn (14) 14.90 L
11. Alex Rodriguez (21, 39) 15.05 R
I decided NOT to look at ABs, but to look at HRs per time the batter hit the ball and got on base. Everyone already knows HR per AB. I think it's interesting to see how many of a players hits went out of the park. 2000+ hits was just an arbitrary number (it also eliminated McGwire lol).
Let's skip the 2000 hit requirement. In your example, I would eliminate the steroid users and Kiner because of his lower HR total, but then Killebrew is third, he's my favorite player and I wanted to find a way to get him to the top of a "greatest sluggers" list with at least an arguable case.
He was also a right handed hitter and parks are usually harder for them to hit home runs, also more right handed pitchers to hit against. For much of his career he didn't have a great hitter behind him either. I think all things considered, Killebrew COULD be considered the best "pure slugger" of all time.
I wonder what McGwire would have done had he not used PEDs. Amazing HR frequency per hit or AB.
P.S. I started out saying it was "kind of meaningless" and "narrow"!
I doubt there can be a "greatest slugger"- It would be easier to have a list of 20-25 And even then it would be tough-
I totally agree most GOAT arguments cannot be proven. I do think you can narrow it down to less than 20-25 if you take the steroid boys out of the debate.
This thread won't be official until Dallas chimes in with some geek stats
I'd love to provide smoe geek stats, but "slugger" isn't a defined term.
The correct answer to "who was the best _______" is pretty much always Babe Ruth, and I think he's also the best "slugger", but I like Killebrew and if someone wants to define "slugger" so that Killer wins, that's fine with me. If I could figure out a way to make Gene Tenace the best I'd go with that, but I can't.
Lafayette Grading Set
I liked Killebrew and he did play for the Royals his last season. He was not the fastest to run out a hit that wasn't a homerun.
He was no Clemente
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
This thread won't be official until Dallas chimes in with some geek stats
I'd love to provide smoe geek stats, but "slugger" isn't a defined term.
The correct answer to "who was the best _______" is pretty much always Babe Ruth, and I think he's also the best "slugger", but I like Killebrew and if someone wants to define "slugger" so that Killer wins, that's fine with me. If I could figure out a way to make Gene Tenace the best I'd go with that, but I can't.
Outstanding reply, definately a bit different than I expected
As much as stats document a player's career, there are those characteristics that just don't record well such as those "sluggers" that were truly feared by pitchers.
Other issues include stadiums, pitching and the length of the career of those "sluggers" worthy of consideration.
Defining the eras of great, good and marginal pitching and how that factors into the stats of the day for those "sluggers".
These considerations should help in the creation of a list for those that choose to undertake the challenge
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
There are real challenges in defining the term "slugger".
I'd say it's easy to define, the challenge is in getting anyone else to agree with your definition.
To make perkdog happy, I'll say that there is a geek stat that makes one reasonable definition of "slugger". ISO (or isolated power) is the difference between a player's slugging percentage and batting average - or slugging percentage after subtracting out the singles. That makes sense to me - Rogers Hornsby has lots of seasons on the all-time slugging percentage leaders, but that's mostly because he hit an ungodly number of singles. I don't think of him as a "slugger" because he has a high slugging percentage, because singles aren't part of any definition of "slugger" that I think is worthwhile but they are a significant part of slugging percentage.
On that basis. the best slugger of all time is ... (drumroll please) .... Babe Ruth. His ISO is .348, and he's the only non-cheater over .300. Some other names that come to my mind when I hear slugger:
Greenberg - .292
Ryan Howard - .257
Killebrew - .252
Kingman - .242
Reggie - .228
Cecil Fielder - .227
Gorman Thomas - .223
Gene Tenace - .187
Ron Fairly - .142
But please don't take this stat too seriously; it's not park or era adjusted (most of the highest ISOs are from the 1920's, 1930's or 2000's), and both great (Killebrew) and mediocre (Kingman) hitters can have similar ISOs. There are also any number of deserving HOFers with ISO's half of Kingman's or less (Wade Boggs is at .115). But isolated power is more or less what I think of when I hear "slugger" and I thought others might agree.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
My apologies for my actuarial deficiencies... I suspect Ralph Kiner would score well here
Kiner was always number two behind Ruth in HRs per AB, but only had a ten year career. Amazing seven straight years leading his league, but a (back) injury ended his productivity.
Most "slugger" lists require the player to have 500 home runs or more. Kiner was very, very good. Kiner actually told Killebew to "get on top of the plate and pull the ball" so he not only had a great career, he was part of Killebrew's success as well.
My apologies for my actuarial deficiencies... I suspect Ralph Kiner would score well here
You don't have to be an actuary to dig into this stuff - just a geek. Kiner is 10th on the all time ISO list, and second behind only Ted Williams for the era from the 1940's through the 1990's.
This was posted by Dallas and I would have to disagree with this.
I don't think (actually I know) Ruth could not even play in today's game. Out of shape, slow and a bunch more.
And the short porch at Yankee Stadium helped his stats a bunch.
Just saying.
Anymore I just don't think you can compare players from different eras'. and
come up with who was better.
Babe Ruth, if playing today, would probably be a .250 hitter with power, nothing special.
Probably not even as good a DH as Ortiz.
But send todays' elite players back 100 years and you probably get the games first .450 hitters.
Brett, Carew, Boggs, Gwynn, Clemente, Musial, and probably several more hitters would
have hit .400 for at least one season back then, probably multiple seasons.
In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
The correct answer to "who was the best _______" is pretty much always Babe Ruth,
This was posted by Dallas and I would have to disagree with this.
I don't think (actually I know) Ruth could not even play in today's game. Out of shape, slow and a bunch more.
And the short porch at Yankee Stadium helped his stats a bunch.
Just saying.
Well, you aren't just disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with pretty much everyone who ever opened a stat book. Obviously nobody "knows" how Babe Ruth would have done playing today, so that doesn't make you wrong.
But that also doesn't make you right. Ruth hit a HR every 11 at bats at Yankee Stadium and every 12 at bats everywhere else. Yeah, it helped him, but not that much. If Yankee Stadium had been an average stadium he would have hit 686 home runs in his career instead of 714. He'd still be the Babe, and he'd still be the greatest who ever played the game.
And I don't know how you can call him "out of shape". The man swung a bat about a pound heavier than what players use today and I imagine could have killed me with his thumb. He had a beer gut, for sure, but he also hit 9 triples a year and, when he was young, had better than average range in the OF. If Ruth played today, I have no doubt that his manager would require him to keep his weight in line, to obey curfew, to take more batting practice, and so on. He'd have batting gloves, he wouldn't have to face spitballs, he wouldn't have to play in unlighted stadiums as the sun went down, and he'd get to face a nice, clean white ball every pitch instead of facing the same ball that had been put in play innings earlier and rubbed with dirt 10 times. He'd have a modern bat, a lighter uniform and better rehab from aches and pains. I think it's scary to think how much better he would be if got to play today. He wouldn't be as much better than everyone else as he was then because the competition is stiffer, but he would be better than he was in the 20's and 30's.
I don't know what you mean by "a bunch more", but I'll address it if you let me know. Whatever it is, though, I'm confident that Ruth will remain the greatest ever - and by a comfortable margin - once I do.
How many HR's do you think Reggie Jackson would have had if he played in NY his whole career. I know he struck out a lot, but he hit the ball farther than about anybody.
Assuming his career ratios stayed the same, he would have hit 602, 39 more than he actually did. But Reggie played in Oakland for years, and that cost him about 20 HR. Then he played a few years in Anaheim, which cost him close to 20 more. For his career, Reggie played in average park conditions; helped in NY, hurt in Oakland and Anaheim.
And as you note for Reggie, as also for Ruth, he hit the ball so far it made very little difference what park he was in. A short right field fence obviously is a benefit for left handed hitters. But its importance is usually overstated; players only play half their games there, only a percentage of their HR go down the line, and for power hitters, most of those that do clear the fence by quite a bit. For Ruth and Jackson, Yankee Stadium was "worth" about 2 extra home runs per year. In any other park, hard hits down the line are usually doubles. In judging the value of any player, replacing 2 HR per year with doubles is going to make very little difference. Both Jackson and Ruth were as good as their stats say they were.
I guess when anyone brings up a best "whatever" ever there is going to be disagreement. We will have to agree to disagree.
How many HR's do you think Reggie Jackson would have had if he played in NY his whole career. I know he struck out a lot, but he hit the ball farther than about anybody.
You could say the same things about Killebrew as Jackson. Harmon was actually contacted by the Red Sox before the Senators/Nationals signed him. How many home runs would he have hit in Fenway? Killer hit more there than any park other than his home fields.
By the way Killebrew is looked at as slow and fat like Babe Ruth is, but only by people who don't bother to look at photos of them earlier in their careers. One thing I will agree about statistics, you can't ignore the facts.
I don't think (actually I know) Ruth could not even play in today's game. Out of shape, slow and a bunch more.
And the short porch at Yankee Stadium helped his stats a bunch.
Just saying.
Dimeman - knower of the unknowable
Ruth wasn't fat for most of his career. Most of the footage of him comes from the last part of his career. Either way, Prince Fielder is proof that a modern baseball player can be overweight and still be a very good baseball player.
I don't think (actually I know) Ruth could not even play in today's game. Out of shape, slow and a bunch more.
And the short porch at Yankee Stadium helped his stats a bunch.
Just saying.
Dimeman - knower of the unknowable
Ruth wasn't fat for most of his career. Most of the footage of him comes from the last part of his career. Either way, Prince Fielder is proof that a modern baseball player can be overweight and still be a very good baseball player.
+1
It is a common misconception that Ruth was fat during most of his career, but misconceptions are difficult to overcome. The statistics show the true story. All one has to do is look them up.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.