Michael Lewis Quotes

Most of the managers are lifetime .220 hitters. For years pitchers have been getting these managers out 75% of the time and that's why they don't like us.

When I get the record, all it will make me is the player with the most hits. I'm also the player with the most at bats and the most outs. I never said I was a greater player than Cobb.

That's one of the great oddities of baseball: Success is relative. A hitter who fails 70 percent of the time at the plate is a potential member of the National Baseball Hall of Fame, and many World Championship teams lose more than 70 games during their title-winning seasons.

To compare players at different stages in their career shouldn't happen.

I care about runs scored and RBIs. Those are the most important things for me.

Moise Kean is Moise Kean and Lukaku is Lukaku. It doesn't make sense to make these comparisons.

You have so many at-bats, and obviously if you go three out of 10, you're doing well for the season, so you try to forget every at-bat you have that's not a good one and try to stay positive.

The higher up the rugby ladder you go, the differences between winning and losing games get smaller and smaller.

I don't like to compare players, particularly to myself.

I feel like, in general, lefties hit fastballs from right-handed pitchers better than right-handers hit fastballs from right-handed pitchers.

It isn't that hard to get RBI's when you're hitting home runs, you generally get a least one.

You hit .350 you're a leader. You hit .250 and you're not.

The difference between the top performers and the average or mediocre performers is not a great, massive difference. It is just a tiny difference because the top performers do things just a tiny bit.

Rick Miller hit only one home run last year, and that's like hitting none.

The difference between winning nineteen games and winning twenty for a pitcher is bigger than anyone out of baseball realizes. It's the same for hitters - someone who hits .300 looks back on the guy who batted .295 and says 'tough luck buddy.

I've always been baffled by how much we over-rate the statistically insignificant differences that separate competitors at the top end of the distribution.

Parker's grand slam is the same as going 4 for 4, even though he went 1 for 4.

You're only as smart as your ERA.

We have three kinds of guys on our team. We have guys that get it; they play good; they understand how to play winning football. We have some guys that are trying to get it, and they are working hard every day? We are supporting them, and we want the guys that have it to support them. Then we have some guys that don't get it and don't know that they don't get it. We are trying to replace them. We only have a couple left.

I can't imagine Joe DiMaggio was a better all-around player than Dale Murphy.

Jerry Lumpe looks like the best hitter in the world until you put him in the lineup.

In baseball, even the best hitters fail seven of ten times, and of those seven failures there are different reasons why. Some are personal failures, others are losses to the pitcher. You just get beat. In those personal failures, I felt I could have done better.

It's just strange to think that so much of our enjoyment from sports comes from the elevation of arbitrary differences.

Third ain't so bad if nothin' is hit to you.

If you got a hit every third time that you went up to bat in the major leagues, you'd be the greatest hitter of all time. I think my average is a little better than that.