I beg to differ. If people had that attitude then we would never have had the works of Aristotle, or Plato. It is to spur discussion, to see how people see things, what they focus on, and maybe change your perspective. And asking this one question, will lead to a discussion about something else, and then something else, and so on and so on. Just because a question doesn't have an answer doesn't mean it shouldn't be asked or is a waste of time. Philosophical debate, be it about life and death, or baseball is what makes you really think. To use a cliche, it is not about the destination but the journey. Interesting to see how people see things. It is easy to say what is the point.
we would've been much better off without a few of those insane philosophers. :lol: I just don't see how you can possibly discuss this question rationally. Go ahead. I'll be glad to be convinced otherwise.
Really how do you know? It is just like Schrodinger's Cat, a basic question posed in metaphysics. He proposed that if you put a cat in a sound proof box, the cat would be both dead and alive. You cannot see it, so how do you know if it really exists outside of your perception? If you are not there to see the tree fall, or receive the soundwaves via your eardrum, how do you know?. You assume it makes a sound, based on your experience. Okay this getting a little too metaphysical. Anyway this was just to spur discussion not an argument, so nevermind.
you didn't. you approached it as one would approach a debate about a great hitter vs. a great pitcher. A perfect player does not have weaknesses. that's my opinion on what "perfect" means. Because a tree falling always produces sound waves. Whether or not ears hear it is irrelevant.
Until shown otherwise, the pitcher should win the battle because of the lack of familiarity. The less times you faced a certain pitcher, the less likely you are to get a hit because you do not know what to expect. This is proven by the fact that almost all pitchers in terms of ERA by inning start out with a really low ERA in the early innings and it starts rising as the game goes in to the later innings.
you see that with pitchers who have unusual styles often. but can't you also argue that a pitcher becomes less effective as the game goes on because of fatigue? it takes a toll on a pitcher to throw a lot of pitches.
If the hitter is Jeremy Burnitz he strikes out on three pitches out of the zone. Then he becomes a free agent and pittsburgh gives him 15 mil.
The pitcher, no question. Hitting major league pitching is the hardest thing in sports, and if he's perfect, it will be that much harder. Good pitching always beats good hitting. It's like if you have perfect gold and perfect silver. The silver may be as perfect as any silver has ever been, but the gold will still be worth more.
Pitcher would win just on accuracy, if the ump isn't a dick the pitcher could get the bottom corner nearest the hitter on 3 pitches, if the batter backs off the the pitcher can easily adjust the location.
Well, on a normal basis, you are absolutely correct. However, the question posed was regarding a hitter far and beyond what any MLB player has ever achieved. To me, that's why this is an interesting discussion to have. You can't use the normal rules of logical baseball thought to get to the answer. In reality, the best of the best hitters will get the ball on the ground in fair territory, away from a fielder enough to reach first before the ball, 40% of the time, at most. In this case, the hitter has made it on base every single time he has appeared at the plate in his career. He's a hitter far beyond our comprehension of what an immortal hitter would be, against a pitcher who has thrown nothing but perfect games his entire career.
I'm gonna go against the grain here and say the hitter wins this matchup. There have been much larger slices of perfection from pitchers then hitters over the years. The ML record for most consecutive AB's with a hit is 12 set back in the 1950's. If a hitter was able to get a hit every time he came to the plate, even a pitcher who had been able to get everyone else out couldn't stand in his way.
The hitter would win. The perfect pitcher would throw everything in the zone, and the perfect hitter would crush anything in that zone, whatever the speed or movement of the pitch.
3rd and 10P, you make really good points. If ever there were a hitter that was so undeniable that no pitcher could get him out, then he just might be good enough to beat even the most perfect pitcher, who has to throw strikes to get him out. Which leads into 10P's point that no matter what the movement, if the ball was close enough to the strike zone, that hitter would easily make contact. I think the fastest pitch is clocked at something like 109 isn't it? So that's only another 20MPH faster than the better pitchers in the league, and 15 or less from the elite. I guess a truly immortal hitter would be able to see, and catch up to that. Then again, that pitcher doesn't necessarily need to use the strike zone. That pitcher, if he has truly unbelievable stuff, could throw breaking pitches that died at 60 feet, and fell all the way to the hitter's ankles on the break. In that case, the best the hitter could do was walk, if he were patient enough to not swing at what might look like the perfect pitch. And then, to further complicate matters, the hitter has another advantage today that no one has mentioned. Film. That hitter could watch enough film to know how much a breaking ball breaks from that pitcher, and solely concentrate on not being fooled by it. All the hitter has to do is be patient, and force the pitcher to throw strikes. He still wins the battle if he walks. The pitcher has a huge disadvantage in this situation. Here's an interesting twist then. What if the condition of this encounter was not in a game setting? What if the pitcher had to get the out, and the hitter had to get at least a base hit? Balls and HBP don't count. I think the advantage would switch to the pitcher. He could throw anything he wanted, without fear of being called for a ball. With the pressure on the hitter to get the hit, he would eventually have to swing at pitches he might not be able to catch up to. ------------------ See? This can be an interesting conversation. Kudos to dabrowsk1 for making it. We need some lighthearted conversation around here for once.
depends on the umpire, too. The perfect pitcher would never leave a pitch in the middle. He'd put nasty pitches in difficult places to hit (like down and in). so it somewhat depends on the umpire's strike zone. OK, I concede the point. :grin: by the way, if balls don't count, the pitcher gets a huge advantage. he can throw anything and if the hitter doesn't swing, what does he care?
Right, that's why I suggested the twist. The thing is, the pitcher still needs to find a way to get the hitter out. He obviously couldn't throw pitches in the dirt over and over, eventually, his arm will tire out, since the hitter would never swing. I guess that sort of shifts the advantage back to the hitter anyway. If the pitcher has to throw at least close, he is eventually going to make a mistake, and most good .300 hitters capitalize on mistakes, nevermind what a player who was a perfect hitter would do. The trick would obviously be to throw some breaking stuff or high and tight, in order to fool the hitter into making a mistake of his own. --------------------- Nice to see you join the conversation bro! :up:
The problem with that is a perfect pitcher would NEVER make a mistake. Everything would go exactly where he wanted it. Also, there's another part to pitching, changing speeds. A perfect pitcher would be able to use the exact same motion for his fastball and any offspeed pitches, making it nearly impossible to get proper timing to hit them.
Getting someone out while pitching is much easier then getting a hit off someone while batting. By necessity a perfect hitter would have to be so awesome that we couldn't even really contemplate it. I mean, a great season by a pitcher and he succeeds 8 out of 10 times. The greatest season by a hitter they succeed 4 out of 10 times. The perfect hitter would be absolutely unstoppable.
