Who is the best hitter of all-time?

Im a big fan of hank aaron... thats the name that popped into my head when i read the title. but you put up a good argument Child. Ty Cobb was an amazing player... wht other records did he hold?

Teddy Ballgame deserves to be mentioned, as does Barry Bonds.

I really don't think there is a single "best" hitter, pitcher, ect. of all time. There's too many variables to look at.

slappy you say what i try to say yet dont have the talent to say...

From a slugging percentage perspective, I believe Bonds wins hands down.

Stolen Bases, Hits, Walks, OBP, and other more obscure records.

Most opponents sent to hospital with high spike marks...

I think the power pitcher factor will carry over to hitting too. Home Runs are pretty, Ichiro infield singles aren't. That is why you won't see much support for Ichiro, Boggs, and Cobb in the best hitter debate.

Cool thread. I have no idea who it is, but I like the thread. It gave me a good idea for another one.

Nice story:

Ty Cobb was drinking with a former opponent one night and the former opponent told Cobb that he once missed a tag one Cobb during a stolen base attempt and the ump still called Cobb out. Rather than laughing, Cobb punched the guy and yelled more than a few expletives.

What a surprise, a Bostonian loves Ted Williams

But he should be considered, especially since he lost prime years in order to fight in a War.

I think here, as in all baseball debates, we have to kind of divvy up the years of baseball, say either before and after 1950 or perhaps before 1940, then 1941 - 1979 and then 1980 - present.

The bifurcation (before and after 1950) keeps Cobb from competing with Bonds, as they played very different games. It's also close to pre- and post- Jackie Robinson and pre- and post-expansion.

The trifurcation (is there such a word. Well, there is now. Anyway, it's pre-1940, then 1941 - 1979 and then 1980 - present) is (1) pre-WWII and also pre-Jackie Robinson and pre-expansion; (2) Jackie Robinson's transition, WWII and the players who lost time (like Ted Williams), Don Larsen and Pete Rose's heyday; and (3) Rose is banned for life, the big strike and the rise of free agency.

Actually, this website http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/chronology/ argues for seven separate eras:

• The Early Years (1845-1900)
  
• The Dead-Ball Era (1901-1919)
  
• Baseball Between the Wars (1920-1941)
  
• The War Years (1942-1945)
  
• Baseball in Transition (1946-1960)
  
• Owner-Managed Growth (1961-1975)
  
• The Free-Agent Era (1976-present)

Personally I like the trifurcation, so I'd go with Ruth, Aaron and Bonds, but then again I enjoy having my cake and eating it, too. :-D

I don't buy into the division of years in a baseball debate. Maybe it is because I am a simpleton and division makes me sad, but I think if you dominate your competition, you should be recognized just as much for doing so as someone else who did it against a wider variety of competition.

I am just trying to see how comparing, for example, the pre-Jackie Robinson era, or the pre-expansion era, to today can be at all meaningful. Who knows how dominating Satchel Paige and Josh Gibson would have been? Would Paige have shut down Cobb? Would Gibson have outhit Mantle, even though he (Gibson) was older? We'll never know, so we can't say that any of those guys were properly challenged by the best of the best, since separating the players by race was an artificial construct.

Today, players of all races compete and the name of the game is competition (and dough, let's not kid ourselves), so the comparisons are, imho, more meaningful. After all, consider the two teams playing in the World Series, and consider what their makeup would be like if these were the pre-Jackie Robinson days.

The Cardinals would have to dump all of their players except for pitchers Haren, Marquis, Morris, Suppan, Williams and Isringhausen, catcher Matheny, infielder Rolen, and outfielders Edmonds, Mabry and Walker.

Renteria is gone. Closer Ray King is gone. Pitcher Calero is gone. Possible future Hall of Famer Albert Pujols is gone. Cedeno is gone. Taguchi is gone.

The Red Sox would be left with pitchers Embree, Foulke, Leskanic, Lowe, Myers, Schilling, Timlin and Wakefield, both catchers (Varitek and Mirabelli), infielders Bellhorn, Mientkiewicz, Millar, Mueller and Youklis, and outfielders Damon, Kapler and Nixon.

Manny Ramirez (last night's hero) is gone. David Ortiz (hero of the LCS) is gone. Orlando Cabrera is gone. Possible future Hall of Famer Pedro Martinez is gone.

The point I'm making is that these teams' talent is gutted when the teams have to be lily white. Yes, if Jackie Robinson never happened, teams would get by somehow, they would hire the best men who they could, and the competitive level would be adjusted accordingly, but the best possible baseball would not be played. Plus, I doubt there would have been as much expansion - who would populate the newer teams?

Actually, this gives me a good idea for a topic.

When I read the title and before I saw any of the posts, I thought Ty Cobb. I still do.