The Sluggers Thread: Check all you feel were 'True, Historical Sluggers'.

[Bill Burgess]

We have sometimes argued over the definition of the word slugger. Some have objected to deadballers who were required to use their legs to help their hitting.

So, I would like to discuss if there are categories of slugger.

How do you define slugger. Is it slugging ave, time leading in Slg. Ave.? Can a deadballer qualify? Are members of the 500 club automatically qualified? Do you go more by peak or career HRs, or some combination? Are relative stats required? Indexed to L. average? Is relative ISO critical to the question?

Let the voting begin! Would also appreciate seeing some good, nuanced analysis of what you consider when you define 'slugger' in your own minds. And why. Do you separate 'pure slugger', from garden-variety? Do Williams, Musial, DiMag qualify? Does high BA factor into the equation? Hope we see some in-depth, quality, deeper insights, instead of the usual, glossed-over, surface interpretation for a change.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I would define a slugger as a player with a lot of power, but not too good of a contact hitter. I don't think guys like Ted Williams, Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Mickey Mantle, Stan Musial, Joe DiMaggio, etc. qualify. I feel calling them a slugger really discounts their contact hitting skill, they are great hitters...not exactly what I'd call a slugger..

[Minstrel]

My definition is pretty vague and subjective. Basically, if they were best known for crushing the ball, IMO, I consider them a slugger, even if they had other skills.

[cardsfanatic]

The problem with this poll is that it's hard to determine what the question should be. I mean, I agree with ChrisLDuncan and Minstrel. I was conflicted on how to vote. On one hand, I think calling a guy like Babe Ruth a "slugger" is demeaning to how good of a contact hitter he was. Mark McGwire (my favorite player all-time) was a true slugger. Babe Ruth was also a sweet contact hitter to go along with a slugger's stroke that is unmatched. So, it's hard to consider him a slugger.

In the same breath, I voted for him because I figured most people would approach is like Minstrel. If the guy had the quality of a slugger even if he had other traits that weren't common among sluggers, they'd vote for him. So, me not voting for Ruth and only voting for players like Big Mac would throw the results off.

Anyway, I need to go ice my brain now.

[Bill Burgess]

The absence of a clear definition is deliberate. I wanted to provoke discussion. So far, lots of anti-deadball prejudice. But that's alright. I wanted to measure the degree of feelings, and how deep it is.

So, the results are what they are. Thanks for participating so far. Hope more join in the fun. I hope we can arrive at categories. Pure slugger, High ave. sluggers, deadball sluggers, leg-driven sluggers, etc.

So, this is good. It's all good. Thanks, guys.

Bill

[ChrisLDuncan]

For sluggers I atleast think the ball should leave the park...that's why I can't say yes to guys like Tyrus, Tristiam, and I can't vote for.

[Myankee4life]

I tend to think sluggers are usually players with high slugging percentages. Of course they must come with the results of a few homers.

[-Kyle-]

I tend to think sluggers are usually players with high slugging percentages. Of course they must come with the results of a few homers.

Then why didn't you (and Minstrel) vote Ted Williams?

[The Dude]

By the way the question was posed, I made a little mental criteria:
-Strong, muscular build
-Powerful swing
-Known as a home run hitting slugger, who probably doesn't have a high BA

Some prime examples
Ted Kluszewski

-Although he did have a high BA

Harmon Killebrew


Reggie Jackson

[Bill Burgess]

Some have omitted Kiner, Mantle, McGwire. I'm smiling.

Any explanations, fellas. Not criticizing. Let's discuss the reasons.

Bill

[538280]

To me, slugging is just hitting for power. I just judged these players based on how well they hit for power. A very good way a of measuring pure power, minus any migitating factors like hitting for average, is to use ISO (SLG-BA). That is essentially extra bases per AB. To be a "historically great slugger" for me you had to have a relative ISO above 175, controlling for other factors as well such as longevity. Here are the relative ISOs for all these players here:

Babe Ruth: 303
Hank Aaron: 187
Barry Bonds: 213
Lou Gehrig: 230
Jimmy Foxx: 214
Willie Mays: 186
Sammy Sosa: 171-Below the thumnail cutoff to begin with, and without probable use of steroids he'd be much lower than this. I didn't vote for him.
Frank Robinson: 180
Mark McGwire: 223
Harmon Killebrew: 190
Ken Griffey Jr.: 172
Ralph Kiner: 196
Joe DiMaggio: 197-I don't see how he isn't considered one of the all time great sluggers. In terms of his pure extra base power, his ISO speaks for itself. That is somewhat inflated by a short career, but it's still way far up there among the historical greats and high enough that he should be considered an all time great slugger. And also DiMaggio's park killing him, especially in terms of home runs, is something that is used quite often to raise his esteem as a ballplayer, if he hit the 400+ home runs that he is often projected to have hit were it not for Death Valley in old YS then his relative ISO probably goes well above 200 and is up there with just about anyone. In terms of slugging (extra base power), he is absolutely a historical great. Perhaps the issue is semantics and DiMaggio doesn't fit many people's molds of a sluggish slugger with him being a great fielder, very good baserunner, and overall a very graceful presence on the field. Maybe many aren't comfortable with describing him as a slugger-but his slugging is certainly worthy of all time great status.
Rogers Hornsby: 203
Joe Jackson: 187
Reggie Jackson: 181
Mike Schmidt: 205
Mickey Mantle: 198
Ted Williams: 220
Stan Musial: 168
Ernie Banks: 163
Johnny Bench: 169
Alex Rodriguez: 164-Don't be fooled by his super human counting stats, A-Rod far from blows away the field offensively (power or his total offensive game). He is a great player, but his counting stats are bound to very much overrate his real offensive value.
Mike Piazza: 156
Ty Cobb: 159
Honus Wagner: 167
Nap Lajoie: 159
Ed Delahanty: 166
Gavvy Cravath: 217-That's a very large relative ISO but I still didn't vote for him for two reasons. #1 was that his major league career was just VERY short. He played a long time in the PCL before he played in the majors. If anyone has more info about how he did there that would be helpful because it may change my opinion of him. But for now I see a guy with a great relative ISO, but with a career half as long as many of these guys here. Cravath didn't play long enough to see his numbers regress. His relative ISO wouldn't be that high if he had played as long as most of the guys here. The second factor is the park he played in. The Baker Bowl was one of the only stadiums where players did hit quite a few home runs in the deadball era. And it gave him a HUGE advantage in the area of isolated power. The league averages are park adjusted but with a park factor for runs that isn't specifically geared towards power hitting. I think Cravath benifitted more from that park than the average hitter and to HUGE amounts in the area of just power.
Sam Crawford-183
Willie McCovey-193
Eddie Mathews-171
Mel Ott: 196-Similar reason to Cravath, minus the short career. Ott benifitted hugely from the Polo Grounds in the area of power. He still would have been a very good bordlerline great overall hitters outside of the Polo Grounds, but he'd be different. He'd probably hit a few more singles for a higher BA, but his home runs would go WAY down.
Eddie Murray: 138
Frank Thomas: 169-Frank is one of the best overall hitters of all time, and while his power is very, very good, it's not quite on all time status. His biggest strength on an all time status are his on-base abilities.
Willie Stargell: 198-One of the underrated great power hitters IMO. This also came with part of his career at Forbes Field, which was great for singles spray hitters with mid range pop (Clemente), but awful for pure power guys like Stargell. 198 is awesome anyway but because of this he probably deserves more than that IMO.
Manny Ramirez: 175. Right at the cutoff, but I don't think I can vote for him with him still in mid career and getting into an age where 1. His best is most probably behind him (not to say he can't have many more really good seasons, but probably not ones better than he'd already had), and 2. He'll have a decline. I seriously doubt he'll be over a 175 ISO by the time he's retired.
Dave Winfield: 147
Carl Yastrzemski: 133
Johnny Mize: 207
Duke Snider: 168
Frank Howard: 177-A relatively short career put him just under the line for me. Upon second thought though maybe I shouldn't have. My favorite team today (the Nationals) has spent the last few years in RFK Stadium, and I can say it's easily the toughest park to hit in I've seen today even on appearance. Perhaps it wasn't as bad back then though, when parks in general which much more pitcher friendly. Looking at the park factors, they're pretty solidly below average though. Maybe I should've voted for him.
Dick Allen: 198
Hank Greenberg: 220
Mo Vaughn: 146
Tris Speaker: 163
Rafael Palmeiro: 149
Frank Baker: 163
Albert Pujols: 182
Fred McGriff: 151
Carlos Delgado: 168
Albert Belle: 177
Orlando Cepeda: 153
Rocky Colavito: 162
Ted Kluszewski: 137
Yogi Berra: 153

[Minstrel]

Then why didn't you (and Minstrel) vote Ted Williams?

Why would I vote for Williams, based on my "definition?" Williams is known best for being an all-around hitter, not for mashing huge home runs. Not that he didn't hit a lot of homers, but his legacy is that of being a pure hitter not a "slugger," IMO.

[cardsfanatic]

I can't believe Big Mac isn't 100%. I always thought he was the epitome of slugger. He was an average hitter when it came to contact hitting but he was a terrorizing slugger. When I close my eyes and think of a slugger a picture of him and Reggie Jackson comes to mind.

[Bill Burgess]

Relative ISO:

Babe Ruth: 303
Lou Gehrig: 230
Mark McGwire: 223
Hank Greenberg 220
Ted Williams: 220
Gavvy Cravath 217
Jimmy Foxx: 214
Barry Bonds: 213
Mike Schmidt: 205
Rogers Hornsby: 203
Mickey Mantle: 198
Joe DiMaggio: 197
Mel Ott 196
Ralph Kiner: 196
Harmon Killebrew: 190
Hank Aaron: 187
Joe Jackson: 187
Willie Mays: 186
Sam Crawford 183
Reggie Jackson: 181
Frank Robinson: 180
Manny Ramirez 175
Ken Griffey Jr.: 172
Sammy Sosa: 171
Johnny Bench: 169
Frank Thomas 169
Stan Musial: 168
Honus Wagner 167
Ed Delahanty 166
Ernie Banks: 163
Alex Rodriguez: 164
Ty Cobb 159
Nap Lajoie 159
Mike Piazza 156
Eddie Murray 138
George Brett 1.38
Carl Yazstremski 1.33
Joe Morgan 1.26
Eddie Collins 1.03

I put them in order.

[Bill Burgess]

This poll is an instructive exercise. Seems that many members feel that the so-called 'deadball sluggers', don't qualify as 'true' sluggers.

It has long been my contention, that without access to the HR, it is almost impossible for 'deadball sluggers' to compete in relative ISO.

If your era compels one to adopt a different tactic, it should not be held against several generations of hitters. Some of them were very brawny and well-developed physically. To go for the long ball in their time, would have been a losing hitting strategy. So, they did what the times dictated.

And are now being written off, even when they did all their times allowed. Isn't it peculiar, or odd, that the game couldn't produce even a single slugger until 1920? I don't get it. But that's alright. This is good to show us how we all perceive value.

[Seattle1]

I assumed Ken Griffey, JR. on this one.

[The Kid]

I define a slugger as one who can hit for power, this not being based by how many homers, but on stats like slugging % and era. In my book, a slugger does not have to have a good BA, but must be an above average contact hitter. My true sluggers are:

Babe Ruth
Hank Aaron
Lou Gehrig
Jimmy Foxx
Willie Mays
Frank Robinson
Harmon Killebrew
Mickey Mantle
Ted Williams
Stan Musial
Ty Cobb
Honus Wagner
Nap Lajoie
Eddie Mathews
Mel Ott
Duke Snider
Hank Greenberg
Frank 'Home Run' Baker
Rogers Hornsby
Joe Jackson

[Bill Burgess]

To not think high average hitters were sluggers, merely due to high average, is eccentric, to put it kindly.

[Minstrel]

Isn't it peculiar, or odd, that the game couldn't produce even a single slugger until 1920? I don't get it.

I'm sure the game, prior to 1920, produced plenty of guys who could have been sluggers. They just weren't able to realize it / show it in the deadball era, since the deadball era cut down big shows of power (many extra-base hits were liners and speed, rather than powerful blasts).

[AstrosFan]

Three players with above average BA, and Relative ISOs 175 or higher:

Charlie Keller: Relative ISO - 195, Relative BA, 106
Kevin Mitchell: Relative ISO - 175, Relative BA, 109
Bob Horner: Relative ISO - 175, Relative BA, 103

Others who don't have an above average BA include:

Dave Kingman: Relative ISO - 191
Darryl Strawberry Relative ISO - 186

[Myankee4life]

Keepthefaith.....you dont consider Dimaggio a slugger? He fits your definition perfectly.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

To go for the long ball in their time, would have been a losing hitting strategy. So, they did what the times dictated.

This is what is funny Bill. The times did dictate that, I agree. The ball and the fields dictated that. But then comes Ruth, a pitcher, who spits in the face of tradition, and shows off his slugging prowess with the same ball that Cobb and Jackson were using after 1910, and in the same fields. And you say he was just in the right place at the right time


Anyway, I think there should be a category for "one dimensional" sluggers that would include Mac, Kingman, and even Adam Dunn among others. Then as Bill was saying, something of a hybrid slugger, and then a "hit n run" slugger.

[csh19792001]

Keepthefaith.....you dont consider Dimaggio a slugger? He fits your definition perfectly.

Doesn't make any sense that less than half of the participants voted for JoeD here. Why??? Among players whose careers are finished (guys like Vlad, Helton, Manny are starting their decline phases and will drop off), Dimaggio is 7th alltime in career slugging percentage. And that's behind McGwire, whose numbers are, well....dubious at best. And we've already hashed out what Yankee Stadium did to right handed sluggers. It killed their HR totals and cut into their slugging resultantly. That only makes Dimaggio's slugging that much more impressive.

Also, Ty Cobb led in slugging 8 times- in history only Williams, Hornsby, and Ruth have led more often. Despite playing most of his career in an era and park which made homeruns basically impossible to hit in large numbers, he's still in the top 10 alltime in EBH and has the most doubles plus triples in baseball history.

Cobb led in Chris' stat (isolated power) in:
1908
1909
1910
1911
1917
1918
He even finished third behind Meusel and Gehrig in 1925.

And was in the top 5 several other years. Not bad, considering that statistic strips him entirely of his greatest skill. Those who didn't vote for him are misunderstanding the historical context of pre-1920 baseball. People must be fixating on raw slugging totals and/or homeruns if people aren't voting for him, Joe Jackson, Crawford, Wagner, Lajoie, etc. Clearly those guys were power hitters/sluggers, but obviously incapable of profiling as the players of the modern game have.

[Bill Burgess]

This is what is funny Bill. The times did dictate that, I agree. The ball and the fields dictated that. But then comes Ruth, a pitcher, who spits in the face of tradition, and shows off his slugging prowess with the same ball that Cobb and Jackson were using after 1910, and in the same fields. And you say he was just in the right place at the right time

And your point is . . . ?

Irregardless of Mr. George, it was STILL a VERY, LOSING HITTING STRATEGY TO GO FOR THE LONG BALL, BEFORE THE BALL WAS IMPROVED, THE PITCHING RULES WERE CHANGED, AND FRESH BALLS WERE KEPT IN PLAY.

TO FOLLOW MR. GEORGE'S EXAMPLE WOULD HAVE BEEN TRULY, TRULY FOLLY, SINCE NO ONE THAT I KNOW, OR THAT YOU KNOW HAD HIS UNIQUE COMBINATION OF TALENTS.

Anyway, I think there should be a category for "one dimensional" sluggers that would include Mac, Kingman, and even Adam Dunn among others. Then as Bill was saying, something of a hybrid slugger, and then a "hit n run" slugger.

With all that in mind, would it be in our interests, for the sake of accuracy, and era justice, to define those who did what the conditions required them to do, to refer to them as 'Deadball Sluggers', without the prejudice, implied sneers, and condescending tones? If some could not maintain a good relative BA, should we refer to them as 'strictly sluggers', to differentiate them from those who could?

No one born later could have done differently. With the exception of Ruth, and maybe Josh Gibson. I also doubt if Mantle could have hit for tape measure shots against a ball that was dancing, fluttering. Maybe Bonds on steroids could have.

To hold hitters to a standard that was not possible is era injustice. You guys are not adjusting your perceptions for conditions, and I think those generations of hitters deserve our respect. They did what they had to do, and did right by their jobs. So, why this unseemly disrespect by obviously educated people like yous guys. I still don't get it. You're normally brighter than this, fellas.

[Bill Burgess]

Cobb led in Chris' stat (isolated power) in:
1908
1909
1910
1911
1917
1918
He even finished third behind Meusel and Gehrig in 1925.

And was in the top 5 several other years. Not bad, considering that statistic strips him entirely of his greatest skill.

Seems you've hit the bulls eye, Chris. Some members have no concept of how to conduct their adjustments for context/conditions. And so they post like rookies just joining. Which is no disgrace because that is why we're discussing this subject.

Can we start to separate the hitters into categories? Would that make a little more sense? Make us communicate somewhat better? We need a common language.

What would you guys say to these categories?

1. Premier Sluggers - Hit for great power, say, career relative slugging ave. of 1.30, and maintained a career relative BA of 1.10.

2. Medium Sluggers - Hit for great power, of 1.20 - 1.30 career relative slugging ave., and maintained a career relative BA of 1.00 to 1.10.

3. Strictly Slugger - Hit for great power, of above 1.20 career relative slugging ave., and could not maintain a career relative BA of 1.10.

Would anyone care to comment on the usefulness of using career relative stats to categorize our sluggers? If my numbers seem too extreme, would you guys mind suggesting your own improved lines of separation?