I don't know if this was question was ever asked or written about by some editor. I have never seen it, so I figured I would ask. I was sitting around not being able to do able to do anything with this dreary crappy weather. Who would win in a match-up between the PERFECT hitter and the PERFECT pitcher? The pitcher has a 0.00 ERA, has never walked a bitter, has never had a balk, never had a hitter reach base. The hitter has a 1000 batting average. He has never struck out, or popped out, or flied out. He has always reached base (whether by walk, single, double, triple, or HR). He has always driven home every runner. Now I don't want this to turn into a discussion about the premise, or who would be considered the perfect hitter or pitcher. On a crappy Monday morning with shitty weather, this is just intended to be a fun discussion. To get people to think and see how they think. It is purely for intellectual discussion, so you have to include your reasoning (Just saying "The hitter/pitcher will win" is not allowed).
My answer, as much of a cop-out as it may sound, is: it depends. Is the pitcher an off-speed guy? A knuckleballer? A two-seam fastball guy? Does he pitch inside, or outside? High or low? Same goes for the hitter. Does he like them up? Does he like to golf them? Does he see fastballs better? Or does a curveball look like a grapefruit? I think it's an impossible discussion, but if I had to pick one, I'd go with the pitcher. The pitcher has the advantage of 6 chances to get one past the batter. The hitter must make fair contact with one of those in order to be successful. The reason we don't see more dominant pitching in the majors is because there is far more talent for offense than the watered down pitching. But the guys like Santana, or Rivera are all but automatic.
This is like saying "what would happen if an unstoppable force hit an immovable object?" or "Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that even he could not eat it?".....I would say that the pitcher would throw 3 strikes, but then the catcher would let the ball get by him on that 3rd strike and the runner would get to first base.
The hitter is always in position to win. The game only ends when a run is scored. So the pitcher could never really win the match up.
Of course it it is, actually the "what would happen if an unstoppable force hit an immovable object?" question is what spurred my thought process about this. There is no right or wrong answer, it is just to provoke thought and discussion. Sometimes the impossible questions are the most interesting.
if he's perfect, he sees everything well. this thread is silly. there is no such thing as a perfect pitcher or a perfect hitter, and there never will be. what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?
Christ...Of course there is no such thing. That is the point. The point of questions like this is to spur debate, thought, discussion. It is easy to say it is impossible so what is the point. Sometimes the point is just to ask the question and listen to the various answers. Nevermind, sigh....
it's not that I don't like theoretical questions. It's just that asking something like this is pointless. If the pitcher is perfect, he has no weaknesses. If the hitter is perfect, he has no weaknesses. So it's impossible to give any kind of real attempt at an answer, just like many paradoxes cannot be answered. If you look at how Alio tried to answer it, he said "What are the strengths and weaknesses of each?" saying that one could take advantage of a weakness of the other. No. If they're perfect, there are no weaknesses to exploit. So yes, I feel this is a total waste of time, but if someone wants to waste their time on it, I'm not stopping them.
No, we all got it. Greatest hitter vs. Greatest pitcher would be like heads vs tails. but hitter will always have the statistcal advantage...he faces the pitcher 10 times, and goes 5/10, the hitter looks amazing.
If a tree falls in the forest and noone is there to hear it, does it make a sound? It's just a question. It doesn't matter what the "real" answer is. All that matters is the generation of discussion. Considering how much arguing occurs around here these days, and how many of them are usually fueled by the use of actual statistical measurements, or factual information, twisted to suit the purposes of the person presenting them, I thought this was a refreshing change of pace. *shrug* Ah well, to each his own.
If he said greatest vs. greatest, then we could actually argue it (like what would happen if [x hall of famer] faced [y hall of famer]). He said perfect.
