I have yet to see this slow mo clip that happens in the first 30 seconds. The greatest. If your capable, emulate him.
Best Hack
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
There is no doubt in my mind that Williams was one of the greatest hitters ever but kids and instructors have to realize he did what he did because of the God Given gifts he had---most of which cannot be taught---isnt this typical of most great hitters ?
quote:Originally posted by TRhit:
There is no doubt in my mind that Williams was one of the greatest hitters ever but kids and instructors have to realize he did what he did because of the God Given gifts he had---most of which cannot be taught---isnt this typical of most great hitters ?
I would agree to a point BUT he also had KNOWLEDGE and we can all learn from him.
Amazing watching the bat after making contact. Guess Ted liked to follow thru to the fullest extent.
Nice find deemax
Nice find deemax
PGS, this is the first time I have seen this footage. Its by far the best clip I have seen of Ted Williams.
Notice how linear he is just before using PCR with shoulder tilt just before torquing the handle while using his middle (not hips).
(Start posting again Bluedog!)
Whatever he was doing sure was pretty to watch.
Notice how linear he is just before using PCR with shoulder tilt just before torquing the handle while using his middle (not hips).
(Start posting again Bluedog!)Whatever he was doing sure was pretty to watch.
quote:Originally posted by deemax:
I have yet to see this slow mo clip that happens in the first 30 seconds. The greatest. If your capable, emulate him.
Best Hack
Pretty good idea to immulate the most productive hitter of all time. With a lifetime.344 BA, 1.116 OPS and would have hit 836 HRs if he had Aaron's number of at bats, he also only struck out an average of every 10.86 at bats. AMAZING! Bond's would be 954HRs with the same number of at bats as Aaron. But who would be at the top given the same number of at bats??? I know the answer. Who else can tell me? I think HRs per at bat is a better measure of who is the greatest home run hitter of all time anyway. Just like batting average is a better indicator of who the best hitter was, not most hits.
quote:Originally posted by PGStaff:
Amazing watching the bat after making contact. Guess Ted liked to follow thru to the fullest extent.
Nice find deemax
Knob to the ball, keep the angle as long as possible, great torque, extension just happens as a result of all these things.
quote:Originally posted by TRhit:
There is no doubt in my mind that Williams was one of the greatest hitters ever but kids and instructors have to realize he did what he did because of the God Given gifts he had---most of which cannot be taught---isnt this typical of most great hitters ?
His eyesite was his gift, he WORKED at everything else! His mechanics (and even concentration, to some) CAN be taught, his vision and work ethic can't!
quote:Pretty good idea to immulate the most productive hitter of all time. With a lifetime.344 BA, 1.116 OPS and would have hit 836 HRs if he had Aaron's number of at bats, he also only struck out an average of every 10.86 at bats. AMAZING! Bond's would be 954HRs with the same number of at bats as Aaron. But who would be at the top given the same number of at bats??? I know the answer. Who else can tell me? I think HRs per at bat is a better measure of who is the greatest home run hitter of all time anyway. Just like batting average is a better indicator of who the best hitter was, not most hits.
Honestly, why do you feel Hank Aaron is inferior to todays players and his peers. You always seem to take a jab at him....
micmiester
quote:Hank Aaron had over 12,000 at bats and that is the only reason he is the all time home run leader. I think if he played today he would be at best a .200 hitter unless he changed his style.
quote:Originally posted by deemax:quote:Pretty good idea to immulate the most productive hitter of all time. With a lifetime.344 BA, 1.116 OPS and would have hit 836 HRs if he had Aaron's number of at bats, he also only struck out an average of every 10.86 at bats. AMAZING! Bond's would be 954HRs with the same number of at bats as Aaron. But who would be at the top given the same number of at bats??? I know the answer. Who else can tell me? I think HRs per at bat is a better measure of who is the greatest home run hitter of all time anyway. Just like batting average is a better indicator of who the best hitter was, not most hits.
Honestly, why do you feel Hank Aaron is inferior to todays players and his peers. You always seem to take a jab at him....
micmiesterquote:Hank Aaron had over 12,000 at bats and that is the only reason he is the all time home run leader. I think if he played today he would be at best a .200 hitter unless he changed his style.
Not at all! I believe he was a GREAT all around player and is with out a doubt a Hall of Famer. I don't, however, consider him to have been the greatest home run hitter of all time. I think he should be known for his durability, consistency, all around talent and the way he went about his job, not for being the GREATEST Home run hitter of all-time. I think he would be a great choice for Commissioner! I agree with what Joe Morgan said the other night, that it's a shame that the only recognition Hank Aaron has gotten was when he broke Ruth's record and now that Bonds is about to break his record. As far as my statement about him being a .200 hitter with the hitting mechanics he had back then, IMO it is true, but I think many player's mechanics from that era would struggle today. That was what the original post in that thread was refering to. I do, however, think he would have done what he needed to do to change and adapt, he was that kind of dedicated ballplayer.
quote:As far as my statement about him being a .200 hitter with the hitting mechanics he had back then, IMO it is true, but I think many player's mechanics from that era would struggle today.
What if you flip this around... Would the best pitchers of the 60's be able to pitch effectivly today? IYO.
At the moment the greatest Home Run pace is being run by the kid Shelly Duncan on the Yankees.
(5 HR in 22 AB's)
(5 HR in 22 AB's)
quote:Originally posted by deemax:quote:As far as my statement about him being a .200 hitter with the hitting mechanics he had back then, IMO it is true, but I think many player's mechanics from that era would struggle today.
What if you flip this around... Would the best pitchers of the 60's be able to pitch effectivly today? IYO.
Yes, some would. By changing speeds and hitting locations, they would still be effective, but IMO, they would not be strike out pitchers. I don't happen to think that is that important though. Some may still even be at the very top of today's pitchers as far as ERA and wins. Not sure Bob Gibson or Bob Feller would be as dominating, due to rule changes, but they would still be good. By the way, there is some good footage of Ty Cobb on the Youtube site as well. He would not be as effective today either. He would get his butt kicked if he tried to do some of the things he did. There is a great picture of him sliding into home with his spikes at waist height on the Catcher.
Oops! Just realized you said 60s. Kofax would still be very good, he's kind of like Dontrell Willis and he's effective.
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:
At the moment the greatest Home Run pace is being run by the kid Shelly Duncan on the Yankees.
(5 HR in 22 AB's)
I'm talking career and he would have to have at least 3,000 at bats.
quote:Oops! Just realized you said 60s. Kofax would still be very good, he's kind of like Dontrell Willis and he's effective.
In regards to Koufax I to think he would transcend and be dominant today. With that being said, Hank Aaron hit .372 with 7 hr in 113 ab's vs. Koufax.
Deemax,
here is how I see it:
Best hitters of all time:
1) Arthur Shamsky
2) Kenny Bosssssswelllllllllllll
3) Ted Williams
Ya Gotta Believe !!!
here is how I see it:
Best hitters of all time:
1) Arthur Shamsky
2) Kenny Bosssssswelllllllllllll
3) Ted Williams
Ya Gotta Believe !!!
Deemax,
And Ted barely beat out this dude for the #3 spot
Mr. Jerry Buchek
And Ted barely beat out this dude for the #3 spot
Mr. Jerry Buchek
Here is the Top 10:
1) Arthur Shamsky
2) Kennny Bosssswellllll
3) Ted Williams
4) Jerry Buchek
5) Don Clendenon
6) Cleon Jones
7) Tommie Agee
8) Ed Kranepool
9) Ty Cobb
10 ) Chico Esquela
Ya Gotta Believe!
1) Arthur Shamsky
2) Kennny Bosssswellllll
3) Ted Williams
4) Jerry Buchek
5) Don Clendenon
6) Cleon Jones
7) Tommie Agee
8) Ed Kranepool
9) Ty Cobb
10 ) Chico Esquela
Ya Gotta Believe!
11) Wayne Garrett
12) Ed Charles
13) Henry Aaron
14) Ron Swoboda
15) Jerry Grote
12) Ed Charles
13) Henry Aaron
14) Ron Swoboda
15) Jerry Grote
quote:Originally posted by deemax:quote:Oops! Just realized you said 60s. Kofax would still be very good, he's kind of like Dontrell Willis and he's effective.
In regards to Koufax I to think he would transcend and be dominant today. With that being said, Hank Aaron hit .372 with 7 hr in 113 ab's vs. Koufax.
That's still only 1 in 16 at bats for HRs. You know who #1 is?
quote:That's still only 1 in 16 at bats for HRs.
This is an incredible ratio off of Sandy Freaking Koufax......
quote:Originally posted by deemax:quote:That's still only 1 in 16 at bats for HRs.
This is an incredible ratio off of Sandy Freaking Koufax......
Bonds has 8 off of Schilling and Maddux.
Sandy Koufax's most brilliant move was to retire before he faced the 1969 Mets.
They would have made mince meat out of him.
They would have made mince meat out of him.
I was surprised to see that McGuire has the best HR/AB ratio.
Player................ AB* .....HR* AB/HR Ratio*
Mark McGwire........ 6,187 ..583..... 10.61
Babe Ruth............ 8,399 ..714..... 11.76
Barry Bonds........ ..9,507 ..734..... 12.95 ^
Harmon Killebrew.. ..8,147 ..573..... 14.22
Sammy Sosa.......... 8,401 ..588..... 14.29 *
Alex Rodriguez....... 6,767 ..464..... 14.58 *
Ken Griffey, Jr....... 8,298 ..563..... 14.74 *
Ted Williams......... 7,706 ..521..... 14.79
Mickey Mantle..... ..8,102 ..536..... 15.12
Jimmie Foxx........ ..8,134 ..534..... 15.23
Mike Schmidt...... ..8,352.. 548..... 15.24
Willie McCovey.... ..8,197.. 521..... 15.73
Hank Aaron....... ..12,364 ..755..... 16.38
Willie Mays....... ..10,881 ..660..... 16.49
Eddie Matthews... ..8,537 ..512..... 16.67
Frank Robinson.....10,006 ..586..... 17.08
Reggie Jackson... ..9,864 ..563..... 17.52
Ernie Banks....... ..9,421 ..512..... 18.40
Rafael Palmeiro...10,472 ..569..... 18.40
Mel Ott............ ..9,456 ..511..... 18.50
Eddie Murray......11,336 ..504..... 22.49
Player................ AB* .....HR* AB/HR Ratio*
Mark McGwire........ 6,187 ..583..... 10.61
Babe Ruth............ 8,399 ..714..... 11.76
Barry Bonds........ ..9,507 ..734..... 12.95 ^
Harmon Killebrew.. ..8,147 ..573..... 14.22
Sammy Sosa.......... 8,401 ..588..... 14.29 *
Alex Rodriguez....... 6,767 ..464..... 14.58 *
Ken Griffey, Jr....... 8,298 ..563..... 14.74 *
Ted Williams......... 7,706 ..521..... 14.79
Mickey Mantle..... ..8,102 ..536..... 15.12
Jimmie Foxx........ ..8,134 ..534..... 15.23
Mike Schmidt...... ..8,352.. 548..... 15.24
Willie McCovey.... ..8,197.. 521..... 15.73
Hank Aaron....... ..12,364 ..755..... 16.38
Willie Mays....... ..10,881 ..660..... 16.49
Eddie Matthews... ..8,537 ..512..... 16.67
Frank Robinson.....10,006 ..586..... 17.08
Reggie Jackson... ..9,864 ..563..... 17.52
Ernie Banks....... ..9,421 ..512..... 18.40
Rafael Palmeiro...10,472 ..569..... 18.40
Mel Ott............ ..9,456 ..511..... 18.50
Eddie Murray......11,336 ..504..... 22.49
I would opine that the players of the 50's and 60's would have even better numbers today.
With the machine wound baseballs of today players like Ruth would have at least 200 more home runs.
Baseball though would have to let pitchers pitch and not give in to the demands of the closer's contracts. I always think back to how many games Tommy John got a no decision because of the closer's contract.
All of these five inning pitchers wouldn't be making the cut in years past.
With the machine wound baseballs of today players like Ruth would have at least 200 more home runs.
Baseball though would have to let pitchers pitch and not give in to the demands of the closer's contracts. I always think back to how many games Tommy John got a no decision because of the closer's contract.
All of these five inning pitchers wouldn't be making the cut in years past.
Quincy,
Whatever - you face Shamsky and Boswell - and that is that.
No more Cy Young.
Throw in an Agee - a Cleon Jones and a Clendenon. - and your ERA is going into double digits.
Ya Gotta Believe!!!
Whatever - you face Shamsky and Boswell - and that is that.
No more Cy Young.
Throw in an Agee - a Cleon Jones and a Clendenon. - and your ERA is going into double digits.
Ya Gotta Believe!!!
Seaver probably would have blanked them.
You forgot "Fast Eddie" on that list.
You forgot "Fast Eddie" on that list.
Quincy,
Seaver was the best.
And he was one of their teammates
Thank God for Seaver that he didnt have to face the Shammer, Cleon - Kenny - Ed "The Glider" Charles, Al Weis and the rest of this wrecking crew.
Even Seaver would have been mince meat.
Seaver was the best.
And he was one of their teammates
Thank God for Seaver that he didnt have to face the Shammer, Cleon - Kenny - Ed "The Glider" Charles, Al Weis and the rest of this wrecking crew.
Even Seaver would have been mince meat.
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:
I would opine that the players of the 50's and 60's would have even better numbers today.
With the machine wound baseballs of today players like Ruth would have at least 200 more home runs.
Baseball though would have to let pitchers pitch and not give in to the demands of the closer's contracts. I always think back to how many games Tommy John got a no decision because of the closer's contract.
All of these five inning pitchers wouldn't be making the cut in years past.
You've got to wonder how many of Ruth's home runs were in the late innings when pitchers were done. Those guys used to pitch every 3 or 4 days for 9 innings at a time and some would even pitch extra innings.
May 2, 1917 Fred Toney and Hippo Vaughn pitched baseball's only double no-hitter, with Toney winning 1-0 in the 10th inning.
On April 23, 1964, Ken Johnson of the Houston Colt 45's became the only pitcher to lose a complete game no-hitter in nine innings when he was beaten 1-0 by Cincinnati. The winning run was scored by Pete Rose in the top of the ninth inning via an error, groundout, and another error.
In 1967, Steve Barber and Stu Miller of the Baltimore Orioles pitched a combined no-hitter, but lost 2-1 to the Detroit Tigers.
In 1959, Harvey Haddix of the Pittsburgh Pirates pitched twelve perfect innings before losing the no-hitter and the game to the Milwaukee Braves in the thirteenth inning.
Pedro Martínez, then a member of the Montreal Expos, was the last pitcher to lose a no-hitter in the tenth against the San Diego Padres in 1995.
Vaughn, Haddix, Martínez, and the other ten pitchers who lost no-hitters in extra innings are not credited with official no-hitters because they did not keep the opponent hitless for the entire course of the game.
These guys could pitch nine and still have some left.
On April 23, 1964, Ken Johnson of the Houston Colt 45's became the only pitcher to lose a complete game no-hitter in nine innings when he was beaten 1-0 by Cincinnati. The winning run was scored by Pete Rose in the top of the ninth inning via an error, groundout, and another error.
In 1967, Steve Barber and Stu Miller of the Baltimore Orioles pitched a combined no-hitter, but lost 2-1 to the Detroit Tigers.
In 1959, Harvey Haddix of the Pittsburgh Pirates pitched twelve perfect innings before losing the no-hitter and the game to the Milwaukee Braves in the thirteenth inning.
Pedro Martínez, then a member of the Montreal Expos, was the last pitcher to lose a no-hitter in the tenth against the San Diego Padres in 1995.
Vaughn, Haddix, Martínez, and the other ten pitchers who lost no-hitters in extra innings are not credited with official no-hitters because they did not keep the opponent hitless for the entire course of the game.
These guys could pitch nine and still have some left.
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:
May 2, 1917 Fred Toney and Hippo Vaughn pitched baseball's only double no-hitter, with Toney winning 1-0 in the 10th inning.
On April 23, 1964, Ken Johnson of the Houston Colt 45's became the only pitcher to lose a complete game no-hitter in nine innings when he was beaten 1-0 by Cincinnati. The winning run was scored by Pete Rose in the top of the ninth inning via an error, groundout, and another error.
In 1967, Steve Barber and Stu Miller of the Baltimore Orioles pitched a combined no-hitter, but lost 2-1 to the Detroit Tigers.
In 1959, Harvey Haddix of the Pittsburgh Pirates pitched twelve perfect innings before losing the no-hitter and the game to the Milwaukee Braves in the thirteenth inning.
Pedro Martínez, then a member of the Montreal Expos, was the last pitcher to lose a no-hitter in the tenth against the San Diego Padres in 1995.
Vaughn, Haddix, Martínez, and the other ten pitchers who lost no-hitters in extra innings are not credited with official no-hitters because they did not keep the opponent hitless for the entire course of the game.
These guys could pitch nine and still have some left.
Glavine 300 wins, may never be another. That should tell you something.
Sure does.
Tells me that the tall pitcher idea isn't panning out.
Tells me that the tall pitcher idea isn't panning out.
