All-Time Underrated Hitters

Post #1 » by **Basketball Jesus** » Tue Apr 3, 2007 12:49 pm

Just like the pitcher thread, sound off on some of your favorite all-time underrated hitters*.

Probably the most underrated hitter of all time:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/raineti01.php

Some other truly underrated hitters:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/phillto02.php

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/downibr01.php

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/butlebr01.php

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/singlke01.php

Also, remember to bitch about this guy not making the Hall of Fame:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/martied01.php

*Note: excludes fielding prowess

bigboy1234 · Post #2 » by **bigboy1234** » Tue Apr 3, 2007 1:27 pm

Very easy question with only one answer: Harry Heilmann

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/heilmha01.php

OSBB · Post #3 » by **OSBB** » Tue Apr 3, 2007 2:21 pm

bigboy1234 wrote:Very easy question with only one answer: Harry Heilmann

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/heilmha01.php

Heilman might be overrated.

Post #4 » by **mizzoupacers** » Tue Apr 3, 2007 2:24 pm

Frank Thomas. He hit(s) for average, for power, draws tons of walks, his lifetime OBP and OPS numbers are incredible...he is one of the best hitters of all-time, but seldom seems to be included in discussions of who the best hitters of all-time are.

A similar player/situation when I was younger was Dave Parker. Parker was one of the toughest outs in MLB, and he had plenty of power, and he never quite got his due (maybe because he was kind of an ****). But Parker wasn't as good as Thomas, so I'll go with Thomas as my answer.

OSBB · Post #5 » by **OSBB** » Tue Apr 3, 2007 2:25 pm

Sam Crawford >>>>>>>>>>> Heilman, when you adjust their numbers.

Mel Ott is pretty underrated.

Post #6 » by **Basketball Jesus** » Tue Apr 3, 2007 2:35 pm

Maybe I

bigboy1234 · Post #7 » by **bigboy1234** » Tue Apr 3, 2007 2:37 pm

OldSchoolBBall wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Heilman might be overrated.

Uh no, have a poll and see how many people have ever heard of him.

Sam Crawford >>>>>>>>>>> Heilman, when you adjust their numbers.

LOL, no, not even close.

Top 7 seasons of EQA, even adjusted for you:

Heiilmann
.355
.342
.330
.324
.321
.318
.313

Crawford
.316
.311
.313
.309
.309
.306
.306

I actually agree with BBJ on Edgar, but I didn't want him to get a big head. I also feel Barry Bonds is/was actually kinda underrated as a hitter.

Post #8 » by **HCYanks** » Tue Apr 3, 2007 2:38 pm

Basketball Jesus wrote:Also, remember to bitch about this guy not making the Hall of Fame:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/martied01.php

*Note: excludes fielding prowess

Oh hell yes. Why the hell isn't he, anyway? Because he wasn't a prolific HR hitter? Overshadowed by Griffey?

I feel like Jeff Bagwell doesn't get the love he deserves. I think he's a shoe-in first ballot HOF, but a lot of people don't seem to.

Post #9 » by **Basketball Jesus** » Tue Apr 3, 2007 2:49 pm

HCYanks wrote:
Oh hell yes. Why the hell isn't he, anyway?.

Because he was a DH and HoF voters are crusty dinosaurs that believe a man must also play the field, cure the common cold, and save a burning baby from a building in order to be HoF-worthy. It

Post #10 » by **Lane1974** » Tue Apr 3, 2007 3:12 pm

yeah, its frustrating with the elitist HOF - Buck O'Neill can't get the lifetime achievement award? Guys like Gary Carter & Ryne Sandberg had to wait and wait to get in, guys like Goose Gossage -- when you were a kid, was there a question that they were not going to be HOFers? Jim Rice can't get a whiff? What makes him better the longer he's retired? Why do his voting numbers shift?

The holier than thou crew will bar McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, etc because of alleged steroids, but then look down on offensive totals of guys like Dawson, Rice, Dale Murphy who were great in their eras. Even other guys who get lower votes, like Alan Tramell, Dave Parker, Steve Garvey have better #s than many HOFers already inducted.

Post #11 » by **studcrackers** » Tue Apr 3, 2007 4:34 pm

edgars not in b/c he retired 2 years ago, will he get his due? that remains to be seen but he was key in the mariners push to make the playoffs.

Post #12 » by **Basketball Jesus** » Tue Apr 3, 2007 5:06 pm

bigboy1234 wrote:Very easy question with only one answer: Harry Heilmann

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/heilmha01.php

More correct answer:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/belleal01.php

GreenDemon · Post #13 » by **GreenDemon** » Tue Apr 3, 2007 5:11 pm

Yeah so many people overlook or just pass over Albert because all of the off the field issues that he had, I can remember espesially as a fan of the Indians that he was one of the most dominantt players that I have ever seen.

OSBB · Post #14 » by **OSBB** » Tue Apr 3, 2007 5:12 pm

bigboy1234 wrote:
OldSchoolBBall wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Heilman might be overrated.

Uh no, have a poll and see how many people have ever heard of him.

Sam Crawford >>>>>>>>>>> Heilman, when you adjust their numbers.

LOL, no, not even close.

Top 7 seasons of EQA, even adjusted for you:

Heiilmann
.355
.342
.330
.324
.321
.318
.313

Crawford
.316
.311
.313
.309
.309
.306
.306

I actually agree with BBJ on Edgar, but I didn't want him to get a big head. I also feel Barry Bonds is/was actually kinda underrated as a hitter.

The average person has very little historical baseball knowledge and even alot of the more casual fans here would have trouble picking Honus Wagner out of a lineup.

Adjust Crawford's stats so that his career begins in the beginning of the live ball era and he hits almost 500 home runs.

Ty Cobb said that Crawford would hit 40 HRs a year if he had played in the live ball era.

2/3 of his triples would've been HRs and he ranks #1 in that category with over 300.

Plus (even thoug it doesn't count in this case), Heilmann was garbage defensively whereas Crawford was a star.

Post #15 » by **Bleeding Green** » Tue Apr 3, 2007 5:28 pm

Dwight Evans, although only in the sense that he's better than Jim Rice.

bigboy1234 · Post #16 » by **bigboy1234** » Tue Apr 3, 2007 5:46 pm

Basketball Jesus wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

More correct answer:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/belleal01.php

He's actually the first guy I thought of, but didn't want to say him because people have actually heard of him, outside a handfull people no one has heard of Harry.

The average person has very little historical baseball knowledge and even alot of the more casual fans here would have trouble picking Honus Wagner out of a lineup.

Adjust Crawford's stats so that his career begins in the beginning of the live ball era and he hits almost 500 home runs.

Ty Cobb said that Crawford would hit 40 HRs a year if he had played in the live ball era.

2/3 of his triples would've been HRs and he ranks #1 in that category with over 300.

Plus (even thoug it doesn't count in this case), Heilmann was garbage defensively whereas Crawford was a star.

OldSchool, I adjusted the numbers like you said to do, don't get mad because they weren't what you were looking for.

And like you said defense doesn't matter.

Does it really matter what Cobb said?

And I'm not debating whether Crawford was a great player, because he was and he is a probably a better overall player than Heilmann. But Heilmann was a great hitter no doubt about it.

OSBB · Post #17 » by **OSBB** » Tue Apr 3, 2007 6:05 pm

bigboy1234 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

OldSchool, I adjusted the numbers like you said to do, don't get mad because they weren't what you were looking for.

And like you said defense doesn't matter.

Does it really matter what Cobb said?

And I'm not debating whether Crawford was a great player, because he was and he is a probably a better overall player than Heilmann. But Heilmann was a great hitter no doubt about it.

I'm not mad at all, Heilmann played the majority if his career in the live ball era, and Crawford didn't. If you adjust for this, it clearly shows Crawford as the better hitter (power + average).

I'll take 500 HRs and a .310 BA over 200 HRs and a .340 BA any day, but het, that's just me.

And it kinda does matter what Cobb said, he's one of the greatest of all time, so his eye for talent, I'm guessing, is pretty sharp. Plus, he actually saw both play, lots of times, neither of us have seen Crawford or Heilmann play.

bigboy1234 · Post #18 » by **bigboy1234** » Tue Apr 3, 2007 6:10 pm

If you adjust for this

I don't really get what you mean by that, because I used the translated EQA's which showed Heilmann as a lot better hitter. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what your saying or your adjusting in some other way, not sure.

And it kinda does matter what Cobb said, he's one of the greatest of all time, so his eye for talent, I'm guessing, is pretty sharp. Plus, he actually saw both play, lots of times, neither of us have seen Crawford or Heilmann play.

Eh, just because you see someone play doesn't mean that much. I'm sure there are tons of great players who misjudge players all the time. Not saying thats the case here but it could defintely be. Really there adjusted EQA's say more about there hitting than Cobb could really tell me.

OSBB · Post #19 » by **OSBB** » Tue Apr 3, 2007 6:11 pm

Hope I'm not coming off as a dick here. If so, I don't really mean to.

And Crawford v Heilmann is really close anyway. So, it's kinda subjective anyway.

Post #20 » by **Basketball Jesus** » Tue Apr 3, 2007 6:14 pm

Bleeding Green wrote:Dwight Evans, although only in the sense that he's better than Jim Rice.

Why Dewey never received any kind of HoF campaign from hoi polloi is rather intriguing. He has a much better case than Rice.