To play devil's advocate, Killebrew flirted with 50 homers on multiple occasions at a time when there had been roughly the same number of 50 homer season as there had been .400 seasons, and isn't power a part of being a good hitter? Wouldn't someone who hits .300 with 30 homers, 40 doubles and 100 walks be considered a better hitter than a .300 hitter with 5 homers, 20 doubles, 50 walks? If so, then the next question might be, which is better -- .280 with 30 homers, 40 doubles and 70 walks vs. .310 with 10 homers, 30 doubles, and 70 walks. And so on. I think the definition of "best hitter" does take power into play, as well as the good eye that generates walks. That's where OPS is helpful. It blends the combination of getting on base and demonstrating power in a way that values both. Similarly, isn't someone who hits .300 in 1968 in the American League, when .301 led the league, better than someone who hits .300 in the 1930 National League, when the league average was .303. Context matters. That's the advantage of an indexed number like OPS+. It allows comparing across eras. It says that when you take the season, the league, and the ballpark into effect, Killebrew was on average 48 percent better than the average hitter in the league. Great as he was, Carew was "only" 37 percent better than the average player. Because of his power, Killebrew was being more effective with his hits, and he was doing it in a slightly harder context. Don't get me wrong -- I'll take a lineup of nine Rod Carews any day of the week! I just think I'll score more runs with nine Harmon Killebrews.