Would you rather hit over .500+ over a 20 year career or would you rather have hit over 100+ HR ever season for 20 season ending a career with over 2000 HR.
2007-04-30 13:01:43 · 10 answers · asked by Jack 93 3 in Sports ➔ Baseball
Interesting question! Both would be extremely nice, but I'm going to have to go with the Avg. God. One reason is because, like someone said before, I wouldn't want people to accuse me of using roids! Secondly, the key to a good hitter is a base hitter, and .500 is definetly a base hitter. I would love to hit the homers, but to be that consistent with a .500 would be a dream come true.
2007-04-30 13:32:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The HR king. The numbers there are so a lot more advantageous positive than something all people has extremely hit for usual as to cause them to well worth drooling over. 500 is basically about a million/3 more advantageous positive than Ty Cobb extremely hit; one hundred HR a 12 months is a minimum of two times as sturdy as all people's usual season. also, the HR king might want to immediately have one hundred runs and one hundred RBI. you would possibly want to also get walked only a tiny bit, so your OBP would not be too shabby. Oh, and the theory that usual will immediately equivalent wins is incorrect. Williams hit 406 in 40-one--they did not win. Cobb hit 400 3 circumstances with no WS crown. similar for Hornsby, Joe Jackson in 1908, bill Terry in three hundred, and so on. 400 isn't 500, yet plenty and many singles at the instantaneous are not extremely more advantageous positive than loads of residing house runs with computerized runs scored.
2016-11-23 18:32:53 · answer #2 · answered by louria 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If I hit 100 homers in 600 at-bats every season, even with no other hits, I'm slugging .667 -- the writers would have headaches every fall justifying either voting, or NOT voting, for me for MVP, because I'm also batting .167.
Plus everyone is convinced I'm on roids, though my awesome and unique power is based on good nutrition, sensible exercise, sound sleep, legal maple bats, and daily prayer. But none of that makes for exciting sound bites.
100+ HR guy makes lotsa munny.
Super-singles guy, however, puts up with a lot less BS.
2007-04-30 13:42:00 · answer #3 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Idk why this is so, but I always see HR Kings getting more respect then players who consistently hit for average so I'd rather be the HR King. You can change the way an entire team pitches to you and your lineup, just like Bonds did a few years ago, as opposed to being like Todd Helton now who basically never falls below a .300 average but is considered less of a threat in his lineup then say Matt Holliday or Garret Atkins.
2007-04-30 14:10:57 · answer #4 · answered by master of disasters 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's a good question. As much as I'd love to get 2-3 hits every game, the thought of hitting a homer every 6-7 at-bats is just too tempting. I'd imagine that being able to hit home runs that frequently, that you'd probably be batting over .300 unless you've get a huge hole in your swing. 2000 homers is crazy; I gotta with with that choice.
2007-04-30 13:25:29 · answer #5 · answered by Joe 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First of all, I hope you realize your numbers are ridiculous. Just wanted to get that straight.
I would rather be the HR king. Mr. .330 will have batting titles, but the HR king will be immortal.
2007-04-30 14:33:38 · answer #6 · answered by D-Low 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would rather hit .500 because HR kings usually get indicted for steroids. lol
2007-04-30 13:06:27 · answer #7 · answered by jason j 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
HR king....Fat guys like me don't like running....I'd rather trot
2007-04-30 13:36:27 · answer #8 · answered by IvanDrago 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i would rather be a 5 tool player. like rickey henderson was and like barry bonds was and like willie mays was. like a rod is,.
2007-04-30 13:29:16 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
chicks dig the long ball
2007-04-30 13:05:06 · answer #10 · answered by Harry the Wise 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋