In response to:

All-Time All-Stars

wmou Wrote: Jul 09, 2012 12:37 PM
Pitching is far better today than pre-1960. One of the things that makes comparing one era to another difficult.
PatV Wrote: Jul 09, 2012 12:48 PM
Pitching was much more dominent in the 60s. After Gibson's 1.18 ERA season, MLB lowered the mound and a few years later, the American League introduced the Designated Hitter. These efforts were designed to give the game a more offensive look. Why, because of the dominence of pitching. Pitchers today with a few exceptions (Verlander) have a higher ERA and pitch fewer innings. complete games are a thing of the past (almost).
sheepdogII Wrote: Jul 09, 2012 3:55 PM
Verlander is one of those rare pitchers who when pitching late into a game still has enough juice in the tank to rare back and throw a 95-100MPH fastball. The funny thing is, his average speed on pitches with no one on base is lower than when he pitches with runners on.
RepubRob2 Wrote: Jul 09, 2012 4:14 PM
Verlander's a good one, but having a lower average pitch speed when no one's on base is pretty common since pitchers tend to throw more fastballs with runners on base. This is to minimize the time the pitch takes to get to the plate, and to reduce the probability of a wild breaking pitch getting past the catcher.
Nothing is likely to get an argument started among sports fans faster than attempts to name the all-time greatest in any sport, or even the all-time greatest in a particular aspect of a sport. However, in baseball, we can at least narrow down the list of possibilities -- considerably, in fact -- when it comes to hitting.

Who was the all-time greatest hitter?

A lot depends on how much weight you give to batting average versus power hitting. But it would be hard to consider someone for the title of the all-time greatest hitter if someone else had both a higher lifetime batting...