Is Ichiro Suzuki a truly great hitter?

[Deberg_1990]

Depends on how u view hitting singles.....Nice read from JoPo



http://joeposnanski.si.com/2010/09/2...iro/?eref=sihp





You already know all about Ichiro’s hit exploits. He is:

• The first player in baseball history to get 200 hits in eight, nine and now 10 consecutive seasons.
• About to lead the league in hits for the seventh time — and in his other three big league seasons he finished second.
• The only player in baseball history to get 675 plate appearances and hit .300 10 years in a row (Lou Gehrig was close but one year he fell three plate appearances short).

Let’s put it this way: Ichiro came to America when he was 27 years old. At that point, he had 1,278 hits in Japan. You cannot count those hits in the major leagues, of course, but I’d say if anything, 1,278 hits is probably FEWER than he would have had if he had started his career here. Anyway, for fun, let’s give him those 1,278 hits.

He doesn’t turn 37 until October, so that means that through his age 36 season, he has had 3,510 professional baseball hits. Here’s how that would rank in baseball history.

Hits through age 36:
1. Ichiro, 3,510
2. Ty Cobb, 3,453
3. Hank Aaron, 3,110
4. Robin Young, 3,025
5. Pete Rose, 2,966*

*Put it this way: When I talked to Pete for The Machine, he flat told me: “Hey, tell Ichiro he can even count his hits in Japan. I don’t care. He ain’t getting to 4,000 hits.” Yep, Pete was a big man then. But Ichiro has had something like 700 or 800 hits since then, and I now see interviews with Pete singing a different tune about how — COME ON! Japan is Triple A baseball! You can’t count those hits! You’ve got to be KIDDING ME! What, do you want to count my hits in MACON?


That little change sums up Pete Rose the man just about as well as anything else.

So, you know what kind of hit machine Ichiro has been. Well, you should also know that 81% — EIGHTY ONE PERCENT of his hits — have been singles. If that sounds high, well, yeah, it’s historically high. We’ll get to that in a minute. Ichiro is a singles man. He has four of the Top 10 singles seasons in baseball history, and half of those Top 10 seasons were in the 19th century.

If you start in 1901, the Top 5 singles seasons look like this:

1. Ichiro, 225 (2004)
2. Ichiro, 206 (2007)
3. Lloyd Waner, 198 (1927)
4. Ichiro, 192 (2001)
5. Wade Boggs, 187 (1985)

He has led the league in singles every single season he has been in the big leagues. Every single year. And not only has he led the league, he has DESTROYED the league.

2001: Led league by 53 singles (Shannon Stewart runner-up)
2002: Led league by 18 singles (Derek Jeter)
2003: Led league by 14 singles (Michael Young)
2004: Led league by 73 singles (Young)
2005: Led league by 5 singles (Jeter)
2006: Led league by 28 singles (Jeter)
2007: Led league by 48 singles (Young)
2008: Led league by 36 singles (Orlando Cabrera)
2009: Led league by 13 singles (Jeter)
2010: Leads league by 18 singles (Juan Pierre)

He is simply untouchable as a literal-sense “hitter.” He is the Nolan Ryan of hits. He is the Nolan Ryan of singles. Like with Ryan, you cannot help but feel awe watching the man perform. He’s absolutely amazing.

But, wait. Amazing is one thing. How GOOD an offensive player is Ichiro? And this takes us into more complicated territory. Because, like Ryan, it seems that Ichiro does big things a lot better than he does little things. Ichiro is probably the best at hitting ‘em where they ain’t since the speaker of that quote, Wee Willie Keeler. But that’s not all there is to being a great offensive player, is it?

No. It’s not. Yes, Ichiro has 200 hits every single season — he’s leading the lead for the seventh time — but do you know how many times he has led the league in times on base?

Once. That was 2004.

In fact, except for 2004, he has never finished second or third in times on base, either. His 260 hits in a season is a record, of course, but his career-high 315 times on base actually ranks in a tie for 58th all-time, just one ahead of Chuck Knoblauch’s 1996 season and one behind Mo Vaughn’s 1996 season.

And, more, that’s the ONLY time that Ichiro has gotten on base 300 times in a season. His next-best was 290 times on base in 2007 — and that ranks in a tie for 257th all-time (tied with, among others, Bobby Abreu in 2006, Tony Phillips in 1996 and Bernie Williams in 2002 — and those were not the career-high seasons for any of the three).

The big reason for the gap is that Ichiro doesn’t walk. He just doesn’t. He has led the league in hitting twice and finished second twice more. But he has never led the league in on-base percentage, only once finished in the Top 5, and three times finished in the Top 10.

His .376 on-base percentage is certainly good, but he’s hitting .331 — it’s almost all batting average. Put it this way; There are 25 players in baseball history with 3,000 or more plate appearances and a batting average of higher than .325. Twenty five super-high average players. Ichiro Suzuki has the lowest on-base percentage of any of them.

He is walking one time in 16 plate appearances. That’s just an extremely low number, especially for a good hitter.

So he doesn’t walk. That means that while his hitting is historically great, his on-base percentage is not. Among players with 3,000 or more plate appearances, his on-base percentage is tied for 131st.

OK, well, what about those hits? Well, as I mentioned, 81% of his hits are singles. Even among those relatively light-hitting players, that’s really high.

Here is the singles percentage for some players you might consider light-hitting greats:

• Ichiro, 81%
• Tony Gwynn, 76%
• Pete Rose, 76%
• George Sisler, 75%
• Wade Boggs, 75%
• Ty Cobb, 73%

Ichiro’s singles percentage is higher than Ozzie Smith’s. It’s higher than Jason Kendall’s (yes, it is). It’s higher than that of Luis Aparicio, Bert Campaneris, Bill Buckner and Kenny Lofton. It’s not the all-time mark — other very good hitters such as Richie Ashburn, Stuffy McInnis and Lloyd Waner have higher singles percentages. But in fact, those are probably the ONLY three good hitters who have higher singles percentages — maybe Maury Wills, depending on how good a hitter you think he was.

So, what’s wrong with a single? Nothing. But it ain’t a double. Ichiro’s .430 slugging percentage is certainly low for a .331 hitter, especially in today’s big-hitting era. Jeff Cirillo slugged .430. Hal Morris slugged .433.

So, mainly what Ichiro gives you are lots of singles — line drives, hard grounders up the middle, bloops, bleeders through the infield, high-choppers. Are these aesthetically pleasing? Absolutely. Are these valuable? You bet. Are these more valuable than walks? Yes, of course, well, somewhat. But do a barrage of singles without many walks put Ichiro in the luxury line of hitters with Albert Pujols or Miguel Cabrera or Josh Hamilton or Robinson Cano or those sorts of guys?

I’d have to say no.

And the numbers would say no even more forcefully. This year, Ichiro does not rank in the Top 50 in batting runs according to Fangraphs.

In 2009, Ichiro ranked 36th.
In 2008, he did not rank in the Top 50.
In 2007, he ranked 31st.
In 2006, he did not rank in the Top 50.
In 2005, he did not rank in the Top 50.
In 2004, he ranked 20th.

And so on. His career OPS+ is 117, which ties him for 367th all-time and ranks lower than, among others, Mickey Tettleton, who hit 90 points lower.

I hear from people in and out of baseball all the time that Ichiro could be a different kind of hitter if he wanted. He could take some points of the average and hit with more power. He could muscle up and hit 25 homers a year. He could attack pitchers differently and draw 100 walks a season. As I said at the top, I have no idea if this is true.

What I do think is that Ichiro Suzuki is one of most dazzling and unforgettable hitters I’ve ever seen. I get a jolt every time I see him step to the plate. And of course, here we’re only talking about his hitting — he’s an amazing base stealer and base runner; he’s an awesome outfielder with a terrific arm. I love watching Ichiro Suzuki play baseball. He’s a first-ballot Hall of Famer, no doubt in my mind.

Still, as we try to look honestly at his career, we are left with two questions and two seemingly conflicting answers:

1. Is Ichiro Suzuki one of the greatest hitters in baseball history? Absolutely.

2. Is Ichiro Suzuki one of the greatest offensive forces in baseball history? No, probably not.

[pr_capone]

A hitter in baseball has only one job. Get on base.

He does that at a ridiculous pace. Yeah... he is a great hitter. One of the best.

[chiefsnorth]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Depends what you mean.

There are fewer African Americans playing than at any time in about 50 years. There are far more Latin players of African origin than ever.

I know, I am just confused by the qualifications place on pre-Robinson hitters. If there had never been a color barrier, why would we assume that would have affected their numbers? There are not many blacks in the league today, but even in the 60s-70s, they weren't a huge number of the league's pitchers and they aren't still today.

Maybe back in the 30s before there were other sports they would have comprised a greater percentage of pitchers than they did in the 70s, but why would we assume that blacks would have been as a group significantly above league average as pitchers? Is there any historical data to support it?

If you are talking about pitching stats I could see the argument a little better but I don't think it would change a lot to these measures

[rambleonthruthefog]

if by hitting, you mean swinging a bat at a pitch by a MLB pitcher and getting on base, then yes, he is great.

[rambleonthruthefog]

let me add, that baseball is boring and it sucks.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by pr_capone

A hitter in baseball has only one job. Get on base.

He does that at a ridiculous pace. Yeah... he is a great hitter. One of the best.

He's tied for 26th among active players in OBP. When he does get it, it's generally in the form of a single or a walk, which is why he's 63rd in OPS.

He's a good hitter. He's not a great hitter.

[Amnorix]

Further to my last, also note the followign variations in rules/situation across eras.

1. shrinking of strike zone in the late 60s.

2. dramatic increase in number of teams, resulting in dilution of pitching quality.

3. elimination of the spitball.

You can go on and on. While many (not least me) love to pretend (or loved to pretend, until the steroid era screwed everything up) that you could do a good statistical analysis of diffferent players across the generations, the fact is that it's a completely different game.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

I was merely pointing out that all players on that list have "warts" that one could dissect, very similar to Bonds (although many not as egregious).

No. This I disagree with.

Bonds and Manny and the steroid era is tainted because they intentionally cheated -- no different than league-wide corking of bats.

There are some great divides in baseball history. Pre-post '68 or whatever the year was when they changed the strike zone and lowered the mound, and the steroid era are two of them.

The breaking of the color barrier was a significant change, but not in the nature of the game itself, or how it was played.

The "wart" that Babe Ruth never faced a black pitcher is NOTHING like the wart of the steroids era. The former wasn't Ruth's doing, it's a wart on baseball as a whole, and society as a whole. The later was entirely cheating by the players in question.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by chiefsnorth

I know, I am just confused by the qualifications place on pre-Robinson hitters. If there had never been a color barrier, why would we assume that would have affected their numbers? There are not many blacks in the league today, but even in the 60s-70s, they weren't a huge number of the league's pitchers and they aren't still today.

Maybe back in the 30s before there were other sports they would have comprised a greater percentage of pitchers than they did in the 70s, but why would we assume that blacks would have been as a group significantly above league average as pitchers? Is there any historical data to support it?

If you are talking about pitching stats I could see the argument a little better but I don't think it would change a lot to these measures

Well, it's undoubtedly true that hitters were far more predominant than pitchers for the first several years. However, the true measuring stick of baseball is how you did against your peers. We know that Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig put up awesome numbers. What we don't know is how many others would have performed if given those same opportunities.

So don't think of it as "Babe Ruth would have hit 100 fewer homeruns" but rather "How much different would Babe Ruth's production be in relation to his peers if his peers included African Americans and other minorities."

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

No. This I disagree with.

Bonds and Manny and the steroid era is tainted because they intentionally cheated -- no different than league-wide corking of bats.

There are some great divides in baseball history. Pre-post '68 or whatever the year was when they changed the strike zone and lowered the mound, and the steroid era are two of them.

The breaking of the color barrier was a significant change, but not in the nature of the game itself, or how it was played.

The "wart" that Babe Ruth never faced a black pitcher is NOTHING like the wart of the steroids era. The former wasn't Ruth's doing, it's a wart on baseball as a whole, and society as a whole. The later was entirely cheating by the players in question.

Regardless of who you would like to assign blame to (which wasn't the point of what I was saying), the fact of the matter is that any player from any era can have their numbers questioned.

What is particular about Ruth's era is that many talented players were not allowed to play. What is particular about Bonds' is the amount of steroid use.

Both can be called into question for various reasons, that doesn't mean that you are impugning Ruth's character, rather you are taking a holistic look about who his peers were.

WRT: facing pitchers, that is some of the equation, but a relatively small amount. What is more important to analyze are the Josh Gibsons who were left out and as a consequence had their potential remain unknown.

We don't have an accurate measuring stick for Ruth, IMO because of that. No one is saying that it's his fault. That's a gross misreading.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Regardless of who you would like to assign blame to (which wasn't the point of what I was saying), the fact of the matter is that any player from any era can have their numbers questioned.

What is particular about Ruth's era is that many talented players were not allowed to play. What is particular about Bonds' is the amount of steroid use.

Both can be called into question for various reasons, that doesn't mean that you are impugning Ruth's character, rather you are taking a holistic look about who his peers were.

WRT: facing pitchers, that is some of the equation, but a relatively small amount. What is more important to analyze are the Josh Gibsons who were left out and as a consequence had their potential remain unknown.

We don't have an accurate measuring stick for Ruth, IMO because of that. No one is saying that it's his fault. That's a gross misreading.

My analysis is simpler.

Barry Bonds intentionally cheated to inflate his numbers. His cheating was purposeful, systemic and affected every at bat over a significant number of years.

Babe Ruth did not.


Note that my disdain for the steroids era and players isn't limited to Bonds. He was an egregious example, but I have the same low opinion of Manny, McGuire, Clemens and the other cheaters of the era.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

There's no doubt that Bonds' infraction was worse on a personal level. No one is arguing that.

[chiefsnorth]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Well, it's undoubtedly true that hitters were far more predominant than pitchers for the first several years. However, the true measuring stick of baseball is how you did against your peers. We know that Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig put up awesome numbers. What we don't know is how many others would have performed if given those same opportunities.

So don't think of it as "Babe Ruth would have hit 100 fewer homeruns" but rather "How much different would Babe Ruth's production be in relation to his peers if his peers included African Americans and other minorities."

Ok. I'm following.

The thing about baseball here though is that I don't think blacks or whites have a significant advantage over anyone else.

In the NFL we see blacks dominate all but a few positions for whatever you believe the reason to be. In these other sports certainly you could call all into question on these grounds.

I guess I just don't believe that baseball would have been significantly different in a macro sense, by statistics. Ruth played in the segregated era, but there was only one of him. So you integrate the sport in the 20s and there is maybe one more Ruth as a result?

Of course there would be a few different individuals in our memories today, but I don't think there would be a lot more guys to compare Ruth or Williams to than there are currently. JMO

[pr_capone]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

He's tied for 26th among active players in OBP. When he does get it, it's generally in the form of a single or a walk, which is why he's 63rd in OPS.

He's a good hitter. He's not a great hitter.

I don't know about you but I would be thrilled to have a lead off hitter with these stats.

.316 BA, 41 SB, 205 Hits

The guy has 10 consecutive years of 200+ hits, has NEVER hit below .300 with a lifetime (MLB) BA of .331.

Show me a leadoff hitter with better numbers over the same period of time.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by chiefsnorth

Ok. I'm following.

The thing about baseball here though is that I don't think blacks or whites have a significant advantage over anyone else.

In the NFL we see blacks dominate all but a few positions for whatever you believe the reason to be. In these other sports certainly you could call all into question on these grounds.

I guess I just don't believe that baseball would have been significantly different in a macro sense, by statistics. Ruth played in the segregated era, but there was only one of him. So you integrate the sport in the 20s and there is maybe one more Ruth as a result?

Of course there would be a few different individuals in our memories today, but I don't think there would be a lot more guys to compare Ruth or Williams to than there are currently. JMO

Even if they are on the same playing field, you are cutting out 10% of your potential peer group.

But, even with that said, there doesn't have to be another Ruth, there could several additional 500+ HR guys. That makes what he did less astounding.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by pr_capone

I don't know about you but I would be thrilled to have a lead off hitter with these stats.

.316 BA, 41 SB, 205 Hits

The guy has 10 consecutive years of 200+ hits, has NEVER hit below .300 with a lifetime (MLB) BA of .331.

Show me a leadoff hitter with better numbers over the same period of time.

No one is saying he's not great at what he does, but there's a reason why your best hitters hit third and fourth: they give you the best combination of power and average.

If you look at Ichiro as just a hitter, he gives you great average, there's no doubt. He also gives you no power, he's not going to hit the ball in the gaps, and he doesn't get on base at all that astounding of a clip.

He does one aspect of hitting very, very well, but I don't think that makes him a great hitter.

I think to be a great hitter you need to be a guy who can consistently get on base (400+ OBP) and be able to hit 25+ HRs and 30+ doubles.