Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hitters of the past.
Right now I don't have the time to address all of the so-called baseball history that you claim to have. Your credibilty also seems to be lacking, in more than one area. Do you actually believe that Joe D.'s 56 game hitting streak was luck? Hasn't it occurred to you that of the thousands of hitters before and after not one was close to 56 games? Woudn't you think at least one, by sheer numbers, would come close? Do you know anything about the law of averages? Do you know that Joe D. had even a longer hitting streak in the minors? What are the odds of it happening at two levels of baseball and being luck?
At least you didn't write that Williams' 406 was luck, which would have made a little more sense. (Did you know that in 1941 they counted sac flies as at bats. By today's rule Williams would have been credited with a 412 batting average.) You don't seem to have a clue why Williams is regarded generally as the best hitter of all time, in spite of his 406 year I will try to enlighten you in the near future.
You also need to be enlightened about performance enhancing drugs. I suggest that you start with the March 28,2005 Sports Illustrated issue. In fact, that might be all you need to read. It's that informative.
The fact that you blow off good pitchers in the past and capitalize a word doesn't prove every present day pitcher is a great quality pitcher and every past pitcher that you didn't name was "crappy".
Post a followup: