English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-01-09 12:07:11 · 4 answers · asked by smitty 7 in Sports Baseball

WHAT I DON'T LIKE IS THE MEDIA KEEPS MENTIONING RIPKEN THEN SAYING GWYNN AS AN AFTER THOUGHT. I THINK THAT GWYNN WAS A BETTER PLAYER!!!

2007-01-09 12:20:37 · update #1

4 answers

He hit over .300 in 19 seasons. In 4 of those seasons (1983, 1999-2001) he did not have enough plate appearances to qualify for a batting title, so you could say that he hit over .300 15 times over the course of a full season.

2007-01-09 16:58:58 · answer #1 · answered by JerH1 7 · 0 0

19 times in his twenty year career from 1983 to 2001. His highest was .394 in 1994. Career average was .338. Simply amazing. I'd like to give the small handful of people who didn't vote for him a piece of my mind. Regardless who people say is better both are deserving, but before i actually looked at his stats I might have argued that Ripkin was better. Now, I realize that both should have gotten 100%. Probably the best pair of hall-of-famers to be elected in the same year.

2007-01-09 20:49:45 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

18 times

2007-01-09 20:15:18 · answer #3 · answered by chrisorrrobinson 2 · 0 1

19 of his 20 seasons.

He hit .289 his rookie year.

If that isn't amazing enough, he only struck out 434 times.

Tony gets penalized in part because San Diego is a backwater baseball town. He quietly banged away on mostly terrible teams with little notoriety. He also took a beating for his weight, and "fitness." He's nothing short of remarkable.

2007-01-09 20:11:43 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers