We've all heard of a few select hitters described as a "pure" hitter...now, what exactly is a "pure" hitter?
Fungo
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
A hitter that is without sin?
quote:A hitter that is without sin?
Orlando, Now that team might be able to hit but will have a very short bench.
Pure hitter- good eye, good instincts, and mechanically consistant.
rz1
Short bench indeed.
All of the above and perhaps the ability to hit any "pitchers pitch"? Vlad Guerrero maybe?
Don't some consider a pure hitter a "Slappy" like Boggs or Gwynn?
Short bench indeed.
All of the above and perhaps the ability to hit any "pitchers pitch"? Vlad Guerrero maybe?
Don't some consider a pure hitter a "Slappy" like Boggs or Gwynn?
I think Rogers Hornsby for right handed hitters would fit the title and Ty Cobb for lefties. Others of course can be added but these two hit for power and average against all comers.
To me the "pure hitter" is the kid who you wake up in the morning and while still in his PJ's hits the first pitch in the gap
The pure hitter gets out of bed each morning swinging a bat that does nothing but get hits !!!
Can we say MANNY !!!!!
The pure hitter gets out of bed each morning swinging a bat that does nothing but get hits !!!
Can we say MANNY !!!!!
I think a "pure hitter" is one that has the ability to hit for power and average. They posess the ability to hit any pitch and utilize the whole field. As rz1 said, good eye, good instincts and consistent mechanics.
Interesting. The term seems like it is understood more on an intuitive level or gut feeling as opposed to some sort of definition.
It seems like it is usually applied to non-power hitters although pure hitters can hit for power - they just usually won't swing out of their shoes to try and do more with a pitch than what is actually there.
We all know them when we see them with some notables being Gwynn, Carew, Molitor, Boggs, Rose? (stylistically maybe not pure but results were), Brett, and so forth. Many members in the 3000 hit club probably fall into this category although there are some pure sluggers/hitters there too like Eddie Murray.
It seems like it is usually applied to non-power hitters although pure hitters can hit for power - they just usually won't swing out of their shoes to try and do more with a pitch than what is actually there.
We all know them when we see them with some notables being Gwynn, Carew, Molitor, Boggs, Rose? (stylistically maybe not pure but results were), Brett, and so forth. Many members in the 3000 hit club probably fall into this category although there are some pure sluggers/hitters there too like Eddie Murray.
...and the pure hitters are also "not-so-pure" about 2/3rds of the time. 
OPP
OPP
I tend to think like ClevelandDad..maybe more of a gut feeling than an actual "profile". I think “pure” is a misnomer because like OPP said... a hitter can't be "pure" all the time...can he?
Fungo
Fungo
Fungo and OPP,
We all know the axiom about baseball being a game of failure with even the best hitters being successful only about 2/3 of the time.
However, with that said, the "pure hitter" may often appear more successful or fluid (whatever you want to call the term pure) even though resulting batting averages may be comparable with so-called "non-pure hitters."
What I am imagining is, a pure hitter may very likely put the sweet spot of the bat on the ball way more often than the non-pure hitter. Thus, the pure hitter's average is somewhat of a function that there are many excellent defensive players that happen to catch their well-stroked line drives. The non-pure hitter may be more hit and miss but still manange to get 3 out of 10 hits (e.g, 3 hits/6 strikeouts).
I know I am splitting hairs to be sure, however, I believe this is an intuitive estimation of talent that people who have grown up with the game can understand and relate to.
In a current example, Michael Aubrey is a hot Cleveland Indians prospect out of Tulane who was taken in the first round of the draft. In the newspapers, the scouts always describe him as a pure hitter. The reason they cite is that he puts the sweet spot on the ball more often than anyone in the organization. Sean Casey was also described in these terms several years ago.
We all know the axiom about baseball being a game of failure with even the best hitters being successful only about 2/3 of the time.
However, with that said, the "pure hitter" may often appear more successful or fluid (whatever you want to call the term pure) even though resulting batting averages may be comparable with so-called "non-pure hitters."
What I am imagining is, a pure hitter may very likely put the sweet spot of the bat on the ball way more often than the non-pure hitter. Thus, the pure hitter's average is somewhat of a function that there are many excellent defensive players that happen to catch their well-stroked line drives. The non-pure hitter may be more hit and miss but still manange to get 3 out of 10 hits (e.g, 3 hits/6 strikeouts).
I know I am splitting hairs to be sure, however, I believe this is an intuitive estimation of talent that people who have grown up with the game can understand and relate to.
In a current example, Michael Aubrey is a hot Cleveland Indians prospect out of Tulane who was taken in the first round of the draft. In the newspapers, the scouts always describe him as a pure hitter. The reason they cite is that he puts the sweet spot on the ball more often than anyone in the organization. Sean Casey was also described in these terms several years ago.
ClevelandDad-You named a player that I had in mind when I read Fungo's question. All the players named are excellent choices but Carew stands out in my mind. I had the opportunity
to see him in Orlando in "A" ball around '66 or '67 and was amazed at his bat control. His stance was wide open-actually standing facing the pitcher-and adjusted during the wind up.
He was considered a singles/doubles hitter but I saw him hit one off the huge centerfield wall 420 ft from home. He could put out the power when he needed to but preferred to make solid contact to all fields-which he did his whole career. He was rarely fooled at the plate and when any pitcher struck him out they considered it a great accomplishment.
A "pure" hitter to me is one who sees a pitch and reacts to it, and makes solid contact
the majority of the time. He goes with the pitch as opposed to always pulling or always going the opposite way.
The Minnesota Twins had a run of great pure hitters with Oliva,Carew, and Lyman Bostock.
JMHO
to see him in Orlando in "A" ball around '66 or '67 and was amazed at his bat control. His stance was wide open-actually standing facing the pitcher-and adjusted during the wind up.
He was considered a singles/doubles hitter but I saw him hit one off the huge centerfield wall 420 ft from home. He could put out the power when he needed to but preferred to make solid contact to all fields-which he did his whole career. He was rarely fooled at the plate and when any pitcher struck him out they considered it a great accomplishment.
A "pure" hitter to me is one who sees a pitch and reacts to it, and makes solid contact
the majority of the time. He goes with the pitch as opposed to always pulling or always going the opposite way.
The Minnesota Twins had a run of great pure hitters with Oliva,Carew, and Lyman Bostock.
JMHO
Moc1,
I agree whole-heartedly with your "definition." Like I mentioned, I believe baseball people intinctually know what someone means when they use this term and it is usually reserved for special players.
Since you mentioned Minnesota, were Roy Smalley or Kirby Puckett pure hitters? I think I know what your answer will be.
I agree whole-heartedly with your "definition." Like I mentioned, I believe baseball people intinctually know what someone means when they use this term and it is usually reserved for special players.
Since you mentioned Minnesota, were Roy Smalley or Kirby Puckett pure hitters? I think I know what your answer will be.
ClevelandDad-I personally would not classify either player as a "pure" hitter although
Puckett certainly has the stats to argue that point. Smalley actually was a teammate
of my brother in the Rangers' organization in the mid 70's and basically stayed in the
bigs because of his glove(.250+ batting avg.).
Just curious-what made you choose those two?
BTW-not being a "pure" hitter does't mean they weren't great hitters. IMO
I think Carlos Beltran is another pure hitter.
Puckett certainly has the stats to argue that point. Smalley actually was a teammate
of my brother in the Rangers' organization in the mid 70's and basically stayed in the
bigs because of his glove(.250+ batting avg.).
Just curious-what made you choose those two?
BTW-not being a "pure" hitter does't mean they weren't great hitters. IMO
I think Carlos Beltran is another pure hitter.
"Pure hitter" is what novice baseball people call good hitters.
They don't have the right words to describe it but they see it.
They don't have the right words to describe it but they see it.
ClevelandDad,
I listened(via the internet) several times last season when my son faced Michael Aubrey.... he is goooood!
<---------- That is what a pitcher's dad does while listening to his son face off with Michael Aubrey.
OPP
I listened(via the internet) several times last season when my son faced Michael Aubrey.... he is goooood!
<---------- That is what a pitcher's dad does while listening to his son face off with Michael Aubrey.OPP
Moc1 and OPP,
Moc, I just thought of some other players in the Minnesota organization since you named a few (Was Orlando Cepeda also there?). Smalley I thought was considered a decent hitter but certainly not pure - I shouldn't have mentioned him in this context. Pucket is the debating point. You pretty much answered how I thought you would. I personally think Puckett was a good/excellent hitter but not a pure hitter. I guess I have similar feelings about Pete Rose to some extent - now I am going to get thrown off the site :-) I love Beltran too!
OPP,
Thanks for the feedback. Your son is obviously pretty good to be playing against that type of competition. The Indians are really really high on Aubrey! That must have been nerve racking to face him. Have you also heard him described as a pure hitter?
Thanks for both your comments.
Moc, I just thought of some other players in the Minnesota organization since you named a few (Was Orlando Cepeda also there?). Smalley I thought was considered a decent hitter but certainly not pure - I shouldn't have mentioned him in this context. Pucket is the debating point. You pretty much answered how I thought you would. I personally think Puckett was a good/excellent hitter but not a pure hitter. I guess I have similar feelings about Pete Rose to some extent - now I am going to get thrown off the site :-) I love Beltran too!
OPP,
Thanks for the feedback. Your son is obviously pretty good to be playing against that type of competition. The Indians are really really high on Aubrey! That must have been nerve racking to face him. Have you also heard him described as a pure hitter?
Thanks for both your comments.
In a conversation w/ Tex Sr, a few years back,
when his son, "lil" Tex was up with the 40 man roster, living near the stadium in Arlington, and hitting with Rudy J everday, I inquired with the simple "How is your son doing?"
The Dad's response: "Bear, Rudy J is teaching
my son to be a professional hitter."
Yes he is. And has done a remarkable job!
Regards
Bear
when his son, "lil" Tex was up with the 40 man roster, living near the stadium in Arlington, and hitting with Rudy J everday, I inquired with the simple "How is your son doing?"
The Dad's response: "Bear, Rudy J is teaching
my son to be a professional hitter."
Yes he is. And has done a remarkable job!
Regards
Bear
Interesting Bear. Who are these individuals in your post?