Legends of the Batter's Box: The Ultimate Top 10 Hitters in MLB 

You are absolutely correct, but I was afraid of back lash for his cheating scandal. Kind of like I was hesitant to consider Barry Bonds. Thank you for watching my video and leaving a comment

He didn't have the power numbers (135 HR, .459 SLG %) to be Top 10, but certainly in the Top 20. His .388 OBP % was good, but the Top 10 all had .400+ % OBP. Gwynn shined with his .338 BA, 319 SB, and 790 BB-434 SO more than his other stats (ex, only 1,138 RBI) the author was using to figure the Top 10 Ultimate Hitters.

Ruth's first HR was batting (as a pitcher with the Red Sox, 0 HR in 10 AB in 1914) , 4 in 1915, 3 in 1916, 2 in 1917, 11 in 1918 (leads AL), and then 29 in 1919 (leads AL) his last season with Boston, and you know how he exploded to 54 with the Yankees in 1920, etc. He had 20 before his 29 in 1919, giving him 49 total, with Boston before his 54 in 1920. His 1935 with Boston (Braves, NL) with his final 6 in 72 AB with his slash line: .181/.359/.431 .789 OPS and still over 100 at 119 OPS+. His .474/.690 (OBP/SLG 1.164 OPS), and 206 OPS+ is far above Williams at #2 .482--#1 OBP/.634 SLG, 1.116 OPS),, for 191 OPS+, and nobody will ever get remotely close to 200 OPS+ or over it again as those two did! Ruth's batting, and his #2 OBP, #1 SLG will never be approached with his keen batting eye, and ability to hit more frequent HRs than anyone else, while still having an incredible .342 BA, while K'ing less often than modern "sluggers" who strikeout over 2x as much in a year as he did, is nothing short of amazing! He swung for the fences/walls, yet K'ed far less often than his pale imitators! An amazing, naturally talented player, who admitted he patterned his powerful swing after (.356 BA, #3 all-time Joe Jackson, behind good-friend Cobb's .366 and Hornsby''s .358). Jackson would have joined him in the Hall of Fame if he had only reported the 1919 Black Sox cheating (to lose) scheme!

@@freeguy77 thanks for your information. the OPS is not something i am familiar with.

@@marvindupree5390 Glad I could let you know about that OPS and OPS+ that he has the #1 record on, with OPS+ normalizes the OPS (incl. ballpark hitting/pitching advantage) for batters, and for Pitchers the equivalent is ERA+.

@@freeguy77 just so that you know, i am 82 and quit playing baseball after high school. i gave up watching about 20 years ago but still have a soft spot for baseball. when in little league in the mid 1950s i was the catcher on my team. we had a pitcher that was extremely good. in fact, he made the majors in the mid 60s, playing i think for the san francisco team. check it out name Bobby Etheridge. thanks for your responses and may you always get a good hit.

But they could only pick 10 players. So who do you leave of this list. Going to be a lot of great players left out.

@@waynejohanson1083 Clemente had better # than some of the guys mentioned there, besides Clemente played in an era of a lot better hurlers than most of the on that list.

@@carlosm.gonzalezgonzalez9427 Let's say he is 11th on the list. That is still impressive. Still puts him in the 1% tile. But I agree with you on the era played in was dominated by great pitching which would mean even Mays and Aaron would have great numbers. But either way Clemente is still a hall of famer and a legend.

@@waynejohanson1083 negative, he was better than 2or 3 you have in that list

@@carlosm.gonzalezgonzalez9427 Name the guys on that list you think Clemente was better then. For the record I am not knocking Clemente at all. To me he was awesome and of the all time greats but I would put Bonds, Aaron, Mays, Cobb, Williams, DiMaggio, Mantle, Wagner, Musial and Gwynn ahead of him. There is 10 names for you.

You waste my time then that waiting for traffic lights.