This basically says it all.... nothing more to add.
The opinion of contemporaries should carry the most weight, period.

Who are we to judge who was best when no one alive could see and experience these men play??

.... imagine in 100 years, people who never saw Mike Trout play stating how good he was, while ignoring, or worse, correcting the opinions of the actual people - US - that witnessed him play.
Let's all be honest here... the premise is laughable.

Cobb is King.

All of the other testimonials and evidence aside, this made me chuckle. Admittedly we have the lens of history between us and that moment in time, but to claim that Al Simmons was a greater player than Ruth and to struggle with placing Ruth above Mickey Cochrane suggests and odd perspective. Connie Mack had a truly amazing career, but I can't help wondering if the constant struggle (financially and in the standings) compared to Ruth's larger than life success didn't result in a few sour grapes....

Hi Bob

My gauge of the "greatness" of a BB player is his World Series performance. Ruth (and I include Mantle). Two significant s factors...... first, the fact that the Yankees played in 10 World Series while Ruth was on the team tells you a lot. He was an inspiration to his team which got them there. And his .326 BA, 15 HR's, and 33 RBI's stats far exceed what Cobb did in his three World Series appearances.


Incidentally,
I got a chuckle out of your "Cobb Triple Crown" comment. In 1923 Ruth batted .393....41 HRs....130 RBI's. Numbers much greater than Cobb's. But, Heilmann led the AL with .403 BA.
that prevented Ruth from being the Triple Crown winner in the AL in 1923.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Of course Cobb's colleagues, who played a decade before Ruth are going to go with their generation's star. Plus Ruth was primarily a pitcher for most of the dead ball era. Bottom line the stats don't lie.

Reality is Wagner had similar offensive production during the dead ball era and was hands down the best SS in baseball. Cobb wasn't even the best CF of his era (Speaker). SS is a much more premium position then CF. We know this by the lack of offensive production from SS in the HOF compared to OF. Cobb also played well into the live ball era while Wagner did not. Yet Cobb's only produced 3 seasons of 10 or more HR (12 2xs) towards the end of his career and he was no longer a great base stealing threat, getting caught about as frequently as he was successful. Regulating him to a station to station ball player towards the end.

Was Cobb the best singles hitter of his time, yes. Did his 76% successful base stealing ability allow him to dominate, yes. The total base aspect has to come into play. Ruth had more in alot fewer Ab's and his WAR reflects his value (183.1 to Cobb's 151.5). Ruth averaged a rbi 77% of the time he got a hit compared to 46% for Cobb. Runs are the most important thing in the game. No one drive in runs better then Babe.

I'll take Ruths total bases and RBIs in a shorter career over Cobb all day everyday. Cobb was great but his impact, by the numbers wasn't greater then Ruths. Why Ruth's WAR is the highest of all time.

Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

Basically a full list of players that played in an era before Ruth or managed against and publicly despised him. Yet he still made their lists.

Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

And how good a pitcher was Cobb?

Contemporaries are probably the worst people to use. Contemporaries are the people who stuffed the HOF with mediocre players. Hell LaRussa browbeat a committee into putting Harold Baines in. You act like contemporaries are somehow impartial arbiters when in fact they are the most prejudiced.

By that logic.... no one can fairly judge anyone they witnessed play??
So you're saying that it's up to the people that DID NOT see the individual play to give the only fair and best opinion on ability? C'mon! Get real!
This must be the most ridiculous thing I've read in this thread.
It's good that only NON-contemporary players always tell the complete truth with no biases :D Who knew???

This is the problem with these discussions... people take facts, and try to rationalize and marry them with self-serving opinions.
Making assumptions on how past players have commented to fit your own agenda and belief is no legitimate argument... ever.

As to your other point.... how good of a goaltender was Wayne Gretzky?
I guess he can't be the best hockey player of all-time :rolleyes:

It is very hard to take personal bias out of observation when there's no real reason to. The contemporaries have no reason to be unbiased therefore why would they be? Again these guys put players like Ted Lyons and Lloyd Waner in the HOF. Frankly I think players in general should not be counted on to give unbiased opinions. I would argue you need to go to the numbers for the unbiased truth.

You're other point is pretty poorly made because nobody has done what you're suggesting so it's irrelevant. If Bobby Orr, Mario Lemieux, Gordie Howe or Mark Messier played 4 outstanding seasons at goalie then switched and become the studs they were as position players, then yes it would greatly impact my opinion of who the greatest hockey player of all time is. Since nobody has done that, let alone someone in the argument for all time greatest player, saying what you said about Gretzky is pretty specious. In baseball Ruth actually DID it so you have to take that into consideration.

Hey,
I am 80+ years old, and I seen a lot of Baseball since 1947. I may have an excuse for being "senile". So, what's your excuse ?

I can understand you favor Cobb since you live in Detroit, but tell us why he played in only three World Series, which he got only 17 hits in 17 games, and batted only .262 ?
Is that mediocre performance indicative of greatness ? ? Cobb's World Series numbers absolutely pale by comparison to Ruth's winning numbers.

Here's my all-time great team.....notice that Cobb is omitted (replaced in CF by Tris Speaker).

1st base..... Lou Gehrig
2nd base.... Rogers Hornsby
3rd base..... Mel Ott
S-S............ Honus Wagner
L-F............. Ted Williams
C-F............. Tris Speaker
R-F............. Babe Ruth
Catcher....... Jimmy Foxx
Pitcher........ Walter Johnson



TED Z
.

It's such an interesting point, something we saw this season with Ohtani, as well, because pitchers in baseball can also hit.

Any of the hockey players mentioned would not only have had to be good/great goalies early in their career but also able to score in those same season for the argument to make sense.

Well it's not apples to apples because unless you're Ron Hextall goalies don't really score. While a pitcher HAD to bat (and still does in one league)

Yes, exactly my point. It's a bad analogy.

All due respect, the World Series alone is a nominal factor, at best, in determining how good an individual player is. Baseball is a team sport, and regardless of how good an individual is, they cannot single-handedly propel a team all by themself to always win. Now if you want to talk golf, tennis, or boxing, that's different. The teams that Ruth played on were stacked with other great players, so pitchers couldn't get by just pitching around Ruth all the time. They didn't nickname the Yankee's lineup back then as Murderer's Row for nothing. In fact, what other pre-war lineups can you name that were considered so good that they got their own nickname like that? Certainly none of Cobb's teams to my knowledge ever got anywhere near that kind of credit or acclaim.

Also, baseball has always been known as a grind, where players have to go through the long, hard season to even get to the playoffs or World Series. Not downplaying how important it is when a ballplayer does exceedingly well during a World Series, but to base one's opinion as to how great of a player they are largely on that factor seems quite disrespectful to all the other great ballplayers who have ever played, but were not fortunate enough to play alongside enough other great ballplayers to achieve overall team success. Plus, Ruth played for New York, the largest city and and arguably the biggest market at the time. The hype and exposure he received was unparralleled. Think about this, what if Ruth had ended up playing for a different team like Cleveland, and still hit all the home runs he did, but never went to and won all the World Series championships he did with the Yankees. Would he still be the mythical figure he is today and credited with supposedly saving baseball single-handedly after the Black Sox scandal? Or was at least some of that legend not also due to him being lucky enough to play on a team loaded with other great players and also being hyped by a media and market that were pretty much unequalled at the time?

In today's game, Mike Trout often gets called the best player of his time. His cards have sold for record amounts, and the media loves him, but he is not overly quirky or has any strange or unusual habits or stories that make him exceptionally memorable. Say Trout finishes out his career with the Angels and no major surprises or scandals, and ends up in several top 10 offensive categories all-time. Yet what has all that baseball ability gotten him while playing for the Angels, certainly no significant playoff or World Series exposure, and likely none in the future if he stays with them. Also, he's now got a new teammate with a much better story and hype than Trout ever had. So even if Trout continues putting up great numbers for several more years, is he possibly going to be overshadowed on his own team by Ohtani? And how will that be reflected in the way Trout is looked at and remembered by the general public 25, 50, 100 years after he's done playing? I'm not talking about SABR nerds or collector geeks like myself, but the general public. Chances are he may not be so well remembered, and largely forgotten, lacking any special story or circumstances that make him larger than life. I bring this up because it may help to further explain the difficulty in trying to not just compare players from different eras, but even compare contemporary players from similar times long past when we have no one with any first hand knowledge or observation of them still around today to give an honest, first hand comparison of how they really stacked up to each other. That is why I wonder if as an earlier poster already put forth, we should go with who many respected and knowledgable baseball people of that time time felt was the best player then.

And glad I gave you a laugh, but in all seriousness, that Cobb actually led the majors in home runs one season was the salient point I was most trying to get across. The fact that it was known he was not trying to hit home runs, as you aptly pointed out by his use of a choked-up batting grip, yet he still was able to lead the majors in that category one season during the height of the deadball era, points to Cobb having an ability that was ahead of most all others of his contemporaries. At least till the end of the deadball era. And again, look at the teammates Ruth had around him most of his career versus who Cobb, Wagner, and others were surrounded with. Aside from hitting a lot of solo home runs, you need other players to be on base when a player is up to bat if they really want to get their RBI totals among league leaders. Ruth's easiest categories to lead in the Triple Crown were HRs and RBIs, as no one else was trying (and able) to hit home runs like he was initially when the deadball era ended. And since RBIs are a direct by-product of HRs, it is a given that Ruth would normally be among the league's RBI leaders, year in and year out. Now the fact that he couldn't also get the top average one year to win the Triple Crown does not disparage Ruth in any way. There were a lot of great hitters back then to contend with, and Heilman was a great player in his own right, and very deserving of winning the AL batting average crown that year. But the manner in which you phrased your comment and made it a point to specifically compare Ruth's 1923 Triple Crown stats to those of Cobb in his Triple Crown season in a disparaging manner is disrespectful not only to Cobb, but to every other AL player during Cobb's Triple Crown season. Regardless of the fact that the two seasons you are comparing are only 14 years apart, the changes to how the game was being played, especially in terms of things like the banning of spitballs and the deadball era being over during Ruth's 1923 season, make the direct correlation you are hinting at less than appropriate and comparable. Instead of pointing to how Cobb only had 9 HRs in his 1909 Triple Crown season while Ruth had so many more as he hit 41 in 1923, perhaps a better question would be how come no one else hit as many as Cobb that year he won the Triple Crown? And not only did Cobb win the AL Triple Crown in 1909, which is a rare achievement unto itself, he is one of I believe only 5 or 6 others to have won the Triple Crown where his stats bested everyone in majors, and not just in the AL or NL. So that means Cobb was going against, and bested, the likes of Wagner, Lajoie, Speaker, and others considered as possibly the all-time best pre-war player, in their prime. By the time Ruth got to the Yankees, those players were already entering their mid to late thirties, and Joe Jackson was getting banned, yet he stll couldn't get that elusive batting average title when he needed it. So bottom line, what Cobb did is no mean feat, regardless of the gross numbers he put up compared to numbers Ruth put up years later, after banning spitballs, juicing up the formerly "dead" balls, and who knows what other little tweaks and rule changes to the game to squeeze more offense out of it so the owners could make more money.

Quite frankly Ted, I've read and followed your posts and marveled at your knowledge on this forum over many years, but was never so disappointed in you to see you make such a disparaging remark about Cobb, and by extension, every other player during the 1909 season. Obviously your comment that my mentioning Cobb's Triple Crown when Ruth did not ever win one caused you to chuckle implies you found that to be some type of humorous or funny comparison, or in other words, some type of joke. I was actually mentioning Cobb's Triple Crown season not so much for the fact that Ruth didn't win one, but to illustrate how even though he wasn't into hitting HRs, Cobb still managed to lead the entire majors in HRs at least one year during his career, a feat which Ruth accomplished numerous times.

I am not disparaging Ruth in the slightest, but neither am I discounting Cobb, Wagner, and others simply because the rules and equipment were much different when they played the bulk of their careers. Time and the media have played such a huge factor over all these years as to what players are remembered and revered for, and can easily distort modern opinions and thinking. Think about what i was saying before about Mike Trout, and HONESTLY ask yourself how he may be viewed 100 years from now, and keep that perspective in mind when trying to compare past players against each other today.

Ty Cobb led the league with 9 home runs in the dead ball era, it's true. All 9 were inside the park, so not particularly indicative of some hidden power he opted not to use.

That being said I do have to agree with you that as a team sport World Series performance just can't be the "be all, end all" by that logic Ted Williams was an abject failure as a baseball player and Billy Martin was an all-time great. You can't just throw out career accomplishments because the Red Sox (for one example) never had any pitching to speak of in Ted's career.

For my money Cobb, Ruth and Williams are the three greatest ball players ever. I'm not overly hung up on how one ranks them, or even if someone disagrees, but for me Ruth's pitching puts him over the top of a very tight race, and just for Ted Z, Ruth was also one of the greatest PITCHERS in World Series history. So he's got that going for him, which is nice.

My biased opinion is Ty Cobb. Weirdly I have never been a fan of the home run.

I agree, Cobb should've stopped at third, damn show-off.

Cobb vs. Ruth

I will take either one as the Greatest Player Pre-War Era

You can use stats to argue your cause for either player.

IT is just amazing how great both players were and how much they both positively made a lasting impact on Baseball and its popularity.

All due respect, but voting for who goes into the HOF is a bit different than ranking who one thinks is the all-time greatest pre-war player. All of the possible people on that list are already in the HOF, except Jackson, so there is really no advantage or additional prestige to be given the title of greatest of all.

The list of people who ranked who they thought were the greatest pre-war players, that was put up by an earlier poster from a 1931 poll, included some pretty prominent and well known baseball people, Mack, McKechnie, McCarthy, Harris, McGraw, and so on. I believe most of those polled were, or had been, managers/players at the time, and would thus be considered to have a pretty good eye for baseball talent and ability. And this was several years before the HOF even existed so there really isn't a lot of bias from that institution playing into their decisions. Also, these people didn't all play with or manage the players that repeatedly kept getting named on this all-time greatest list. Now I did see that Joe McCarthy, who had actually managed Ruth, put him down as the all-time greatest, Cobb second. Couldn't that have involved some bias/favoritism as well? Of the others polled, Bucky Harris was the only other one to put Ruth first, and he also listed Cobb second.

Of the twelve people polled, seven listed Cobb first, three listed Wagner first, and only two listed Ruth first, including his own manager. And of the ones that listed Cobb first, I don't believe any of them ever managed or played with him. The rumours and stories about Cobb being despised by many in baseball are just that, stories perpetuated by the likes of Al Stumph and even Ken Burns. Still, I fail to see how the rankings by this group from back in 1931 displays any type of favoritism or bias for Cobb.

But of the twelve different people polled, the one that intrigued me the most was Walter Johnson's rankings. Of all the people on that list, I believe Johnson is the only one to have actually pitched extensively to Ruth, Cobb, and Joe Jackson, all when they were in their primes. Don't believe Wagner and Johnson ever faced each other in an actual game as they were in different leagues during their playing careers. Still found it somewhat surprising that Johnson would then rank Cobb as #1, Wagner as #2, and then Joe Jackson as #3, before finally listing Ruth as #4 followed by Eddie Collins at #5. Scott, forgive me, but if arguably one of, if not, the greatest pre-war pitchers of all-time says he feels Cobb and Wagner were better than Ruth, I think you at least have to listen.

Obviously, I cannot attest to stories about Ruth by his team-mates. I can attest to comments regarding Mickey Mantle by his team-mates which I've personally heard from (such as
Tommy Henrich, Yogi Berra, Don Larsen, Johnny Sain, Charlie Silvera and my hometown nearby neighbor Phil Rizzuto) all of which talked about how Mantle's everyday performance inspired the team to play the game better. This same type of inspiration has been suggested in books written about Babe Ruth's influence on his team-mates during the years 1920
to the early 1930's.



Come on Bob, for you to use such an anecdotal example during the Dead-Ball era regarding HR's which were subsequently ruled Ground-Rule Doubles is ridiculous. But if you insist,
on bringing up this "Triple-Crown" example of Cobb's, then I have to remind you that Ruth hit 11 HR's in 1918, and 29 in 1919 in the Dead-Ball era.

Actually, you are "grasping at straws" by using such a weak example to make your argument that Cobb was better than Ruth. I find this very disappointing. And, my discussion with
you ENDS here.....PERIOD.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

I know you're not arguing that just because the Yankees have bought just about every pennant they've ever won that that makes Babe Ruth the greatest all-time. Ha!

Cobb only played in 3 World Series because the Tigers never had any pitching. Check out the offensive stats of Cobb's Tiger teams and those around Cobb when he played. He absolutely made those around him better hitters. Gehringer, Bobby Veach, Heilmann, Heinie Manush, all players who credit Cobb. Who has ever claimed that Babe Ruth made him a better hitter?

And why, if we use your logic, is Ted Williams on your list? And Walter Johnson was only 3 and 3 in his (only) two world series.

As far as senility goes. I'd be willing to bet at 55 I'm more senile than you are at 80. :)

True they were all inside the park home runs, but that had much to do with the size of the fields and if they even had a fixed outfield wall. And again I ask, how come no one else matched or beat that number then? Ruth had all the advantages of smaller parks, a "live" ball, the banning of spitballs, and a major league ownership group supported by by New York media/marketing that wanted him to keep hitting more and more home runs so they'd keep packing the fans in. And don't forget, during the bulk of Ruth's career what is today considered a ground rule double when a fair ball bounces over an outfield fence, back then was counted as a home run.

And it was because of all these changes that I had also previously brought up in an earlier post the major league record Cobb shares with many others by having hit 5 HRs over two consecutive MLB games. Cobb was the second person to ever do this, achieving the feat in 1925 when he was already 38 years old. And by the way, all 5 five were over the fence. Ruth never equalled this feat despite all his home run prowess. And it wasn't equalled again till Tony Lazzeri matched the feat in 1936. It didn't happen again till Kiner did it on two separate occassions in 1947. The story/myth is that Cobb didn't really care for Ruth and all his HRs and supposedly told some reporter he could hit HRs if he wanted to. It's a bit like the Ruth "Called Shot" story, but regardless, Cobb does still hold a piece of a HR record that Ruth couldn't best or ever match.

Oh, and the first person to actually create the initial record of 5 HRs over two consecutive games was Cap Anson who set it in 1884. How much you want to bet at least one of Anson's HRs was similar to what Cobb did in 1909? If so, that would make Cobb the first person to have set/met that record by actually hitting 5 balls over the fence, at the age of 38. Cobb was too good of a hitter for that to have been some lucky fluke. Whether he said something to a reporter or not, he obviously did something different with the way he batted over those two games in 1925. Could he have so many HRs like Ruth, probably not. But could he have hit more runs over his career, that seems a lot more possible.

Ted,

I never said Cobb was better than Ruth. I'm also not grasping at straws and merely pointing out how you seemingly laughed at Cobb and put down his Triple Crown performance in comparison to Ruth's 1923 season. It is not an apples to apples comparison you were making and points out all the problems in trying to compare players from different times and eras, and Ruth and Cobb clearly are in playing in different eras due to all the aforementioned changes that occured before and after Ruth went to the Yankees.

The fact that you would laugh at something that Cobb accomplished and Ruth couldn't is just appalling to me, especially when I know how much you care for the T206 set, of which Cobb is such an integral and important part. No one is right or wrong in any of their opinions as to who was best because there is no way to prove it one way or another. But of all people on here, I thought with your experience and wisdom you would be of a more open mind and absolutely understand the differences in the rules and how the game was played and changed over time, and how that makes for senseless arguments 100 years later as to who was the best.

And what does Mantle and his teammates have to do with Ruth? If you are implying they both inspired their teammates to be the best possible players and thus win championships with them, okay. But you do realize they both had great teammates to begin with, and Mantle and Ruth alone did not insure victory? In fact, isn't inspiring players to do their best and win what teams hire managers to do? It is well known that Ruth wanted to manage in the majors, especially for the Yankees. And he had some options and chances to maybe manage during his last few years in the majors, but seemed to squander and sabotage them all by his actions. He ended up not managing anywhere, which according to your thinking makes no sense because he was apparently so good in always gettting his fellow players to do their best to win, which is exactly what a Manager is hired to do. If that were truly the case, then why didn't he have multiple teams knocking on his door to manage them? Was all of major league baseball wrong and only you are right?

Or what about all those 1931 managers who were polled and said that they would rank Cobb and Wagner higher than Ruth. And I don't think you can really count McCarthy's picking Ruth as #1 as necessarily legit since he was managing Ruth at the time, and if it ever got back to Ruth he'd picked someone else at #1, who knew how Ruth may have reacted. And that list of people polled even included Walter Johnson, who apparently had Cobb, Wagner, and even Joe Jackson all ranked ahead of Ruth. But what would Walter Johnson know about how good of a baseball player someone may be, right?

Asking who is the greatest of all-time in any sport is a trick question with generally no perfect and/or single answer. The biggest problem is there will never be an agreed upon definition of what "greatest of all-time" actually means and stands for, especially when dealing with team sports. I was merely providing some factual, statistical information to show how Cobb stood in relation to things done by Ruth, and to illustrate how there can be things that people sometimes forget or miss in such comparisons. I had interpreted your comment regarding Cobbs' Triple Crown season as you feeling it was a joke to even think of comparing it to one of Ruth's seasons because of his "bigger" overall numbers. And by dispaging Cobb, you do indeed disparage everyone else in 1909 because he was arguably the best offensive player in the majors that year. I wasn't really looking for a reply from you, but had you come back and said you were not intending to dismiss Cobb's accomplishments and were not making fun of his Triple Crown in light of Ruth's accomplishments and realized the differences in how the game had changed so drastically between those two years, I would have apologized for misinterpreting your meaning. But based on how you did respond, it seems fairly clear what your intent was all along, and that truly saddens me.

Ruth had a WAR as a pitcher one year of 8.8, another of 6.5, and then 2.3 in half a season. That's world class.

I know putting Hornsby over those guys is unusual but I made my case.

You implied it with your "Cobb did this thing that even Ruth couldn't do". That "thing", of course, was a fluke brought on by exceptionally strong winds. Since you were using a fluke to compare them, I brought up another similar fluke, the era of which is irrelevant.

I enjoy Fluke Fishing.

But not as much as these conversations about History and the Greats of the Game

and that is not a Fluke

Nate Colbert hit 5 home runs in a double header. Clearly better than Ruth...

I implied nothing and merely stated a fact that Ruth did not equal a particular HR record that Cobb held. But what exactly is "it" you assume I implied? And please don't say I'm implying Cobb was better than Ruth as I have not said that anywhere, and have already stated I was not implying it either. So unless I'm missing something, you really can't understand and comprehend what I'm saying, or you can, but choose to just ignore it and denigrate what I'm saying (and me) anyway for simply stating known facts about certain records and achievements of Cobb in relation to Ruth?

All I'm doing is pointing out facts. Pro-Ruth people always point out his unparralleled ability to hit HRs. I merely pointed out that when it comes to HRs, Cobb is not entirely bereft of some distinction in that area. Thus the mention of Cobb's Triple Crown season where he led the majors in HRs and of the consecutive game home run record he shares with many others, but not including Ruth. But then I get people like Scott and Ted saying Cobb did it with only 9 homers, and they were all inside-the-park home runs, while in 1923 noting how Ruth would have won the Triple Crown with his 41 HRs and .393 batting average had it not been for Heilmann hitting over .400 that year. Meanwhile, Cobb only hit .377 to win his Triple Crown, and had about 20-30 fewer RBIs than Ruth had in 1923, so to bring it up and compare Cobb's Triple Crown season to Ruth's 1923 season caused TedZ to "chuckle". He thinks it is laughable that Cobb's Triple Crown season could be compared to Ruth's. Gee, would he also "chuckle" if trying to compare records and achievements of people like Jesse Owens, Jim Thorpe, Bobby Jones, and George Mikan to more recent players and athletes who are now faster, stronger, have better equipment, perform under different rules, and so on. I would certainly hope not as that is demeaning and belittling to all such legendary athletes and their achievements and records they set in the times and under the circumstances they set them in. When Cobb won his Triple Crown he beat everyone else in those categories, something Ruth never could do.....period.

As for Cobb's consecutive game HR record being a fluke, there are quite few players that have equalled it over the years, including the likes of Kiner, Musial, Lazzeri, Bonds, McGwire, Arod, Schmidt, and others. Are they all "flukes", or just some of them? And if just some of them are, how exactly do you tell the difference? And please, give me actual facts and empirical evidence, because without that it is just your opinion, nothing else. You state that a possible contributing factor to Cobb's "fluke" were high winds. Well, do you know exactly how high they were, which direction(s) they were blowing in exactly when Cobb hit each homer, where did he hit each homer in the park so we can tell if the winds actually aided any of them, were these winds so high that Cobb never batted in similar conditions ever during the rest of his entire career, if these winds were so helpful to Cobb those two games, how come no one else playing for either team had even close to the same hitting performance he had, and, didn't Ruth ever in his career have a chance to bat in similar high wind conditions, and if so, why didn't he take advantage of it like Cobb did? I would hope you can agree these are all good questions deserving of factual answers before just summarily dismissing Cobb's achievement as a "fluke". And as contributory information, Cobb does have the all-time highest career batting average (ahead of Ruth), so he definitely knew how to get the bat on the ball and put it in play, so actually getting that many hits to even have 5 HRs over two games is no "fluke" in and of itself, right? Your contention is the "fluke" is that 5 of them actually went over the fence. Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most modern hitters recognize wind conditions when playing, and if possible, try to take advantage of such and maybe hit balls into such prevailing winds to hopefully get them to carry out of the park more? And if true, and Cobb was lucky enough to get such a favorable set of circumstances over those two days back in 1925, wouldn't this actually be more of a testament to Cobb's hitting ability and brilliance to take advantage of the situation to his advantage when everyone else in those games couldn't, and even more so make it anything but a "fluke"? I have to believe Ruth would likewise have taken advantage of similar conditions and circumstances if/when given the chance, just like HR hitters take advantage of favorable ballpark dimensions and aim for the shortest fences when possible. And don't forget Cobb was 38 when he did this. All this does is add more speculation to the question of whether or not Cobb could have hit more HRs if he wanted, not whether he was better or worse than Ruth.

And for clarity and understanding, what the the heck does - "Since you were using a fluke to compare them, I brought up another similar fluke, the era of which is irrelevant.". I get that you feel Cobb hitting 5 HRs over two consecutive games is a fluke (which I await your answers to my various questions on to see if this really does qualify as a "fluke"), but what is this similar fluke you say you brought up? Are you talking about your reference of there supposedly being high winds during the games Cobb hit 5 HRs? If so, it sounds like you are saying a "fluke" was caused by another "fluke", and if so, one of the dumbest things I ever heard. You are already declaring the 5 HRs is a "fluke", so the possibility of high winds being a contributing factor to that is not another "fluke", it is just a potential contributing factor to what you already think is a "fluke". But if that is the "similar fluke" you are referring to, okay, I'll play along.

There are going to be winds at virtually every game played back in those days, some high, some low, some virtually non-existent. You still haven't put on your meteorologist hat yet to show us how fast and which way the winds were blowing back then when Cobb hit his 5 HRs. For all we know, the winds could have been blowing in. In any event, how is having wind during a ball game a "fluke", unless they were gale force type winds carrying everyone's balls out of the park (which wasn't the case as only Cobb had the phenomenal two days at bat)? And if the winds were that bad, that would likely be indicative of a storm, and one would have normally expected the game(s) to have been cancelled or postponed then. So again, how are these winds a fluke?

By the way you are stretching the definition of the word "fluke", I could argue that all 714 of Ruth's HRs are "flukes". The definition of "fluke" is an unlikely chance occurrence, or a surprising piece of luck. I could argue that there were contributing circumstances in all his HRs, such as the wind was blowing out, or there was no wind blowing in, or the pitcher's grip slipped, the pitcher missed his spot, Ruth luckily guessed exactly where the pitcher was going to put it, Ruth slipped and luckily got more bat on the ball than he would have otherwise, the catcher messed up the signs, the ball bounced just right to make it over the fence, he was still hung over from the night before and didn't overswing on a change-up, and on and on. The hitting of a home run is not a simple, single act. It involves a myriad of related and interconnected factors and circumstances that all have to happen in a specific sequence with almost perfect timing for us to see a ball go over the fence. And neither Ruth nor Cobb controlled all those factors, they were just better/luckier than almost everyone else around them in getting hits and home runs. In fact, when compared to everyone else, you could probably say Ruth and Cobb were themselves flukes.

And if the "similar fluke" you were referring to wasn't the high winds, then what was it?

You asked "Where in my post did I say one was better than the other? " My reply was "You implied it with your "Cobb did this thing that even Ruth couldn't do". " I'm not sure how much more clear I can than that.

And yet I'm not the only to interpret your words that way. Perhaps you're the one being unclear or saying things you don't intend as opposed other being unable to comprehend?


Yes, they are all flukes.

LOTS of people hit 5 home runs over the course of two games during their careers. The fluke is doing that over back-to-back games.

Ask Tom Stanton, author of a book on Cobb & Ruth's friendship.

The wind has no part in it being a fluke as I stated above.

You complained about my use of Mike Cameron because he played in a different era than Ruth or Cobb. I was pointing out that his era didn't matter because his feat was a fluke just like Cobb's.

I specifically named the fluke but I'll name it again for you:

Mike Cameron hitting 4 home runs in a single game with a 5th fly ball in the same game being caught right up against the fence.

Asking a question and then, in the exact same post, complaining you haven't gotten an answer to your question makes no sense.

See answer above and then ponder your ironic criticism of my comprehension skills since I specifically gave the fluke in my earlier post AND you commented on it.

Scott,

I don't know if you are joking or being sarcastic. I never said Ruth or Cobb was better than the other. Simply stating factual information and getting crap for it from mostly pro-Ruth people who obviously don't like any information that doesn't completely agree with their thinking. For all the crap I've gotten, I'm still waiting for an honest and logical response from at least one of the pro-Ruth people regarding the all-time best player rankings of the various managers polled in 1931. Cobb was the clear victor, with Wagner just edging out Ruth. The only response that posting got was something about it being biased and showing favoritism, like how all the not so deserving players were being put into the HOF. And yes, you were the poster that said all that.

If my memory serves me correctly, Frisch was considered the original ringleader in getting friends inducted into the HOF, and understand about LaRussa, but neither of them were included in that poll. So to make the blanket statement like you did seems a little out there, don't you think? The only potential bias I could see in that group was of McCarthy voting for Ruth as #1, and being his then current manager. And I'm still waiting to see how someone could disparage Walter Johnson's opinion of Cobb, Ruth, and Jackson, all being better players than Ruth.

Maybe they were thinking more in terms of an overall best all-around player, like what is referred to as a five-tool player today. Which could make some sense. So if the five-tools are as follows, here's how they may go:



SPEED

Cobb had 897 stolen bases over his career, which I believe still has him at #4 all-time today, to only 123 for Ruth. Cobb led the Majors in stolen bases 6 times, but also led the majors in getting caught stealing 3 times, which was a function of how often he'd try to steal. This is an easy one. - COBB



ARM STRENGTH

Hard to determine. With Ruth being a pitcher you would expect him to be able to throw well with great arm strength. That being said, I think the attribute really has more to do with making throws in the field, at which Cobb excelled. Over his career Cobb had 392 assists, putting him at #2 all-time in that category I believe. And in viewing online sites looking for the best OF arms in baseball, Cobb and Ruth both can be ranked in the Top 20 lists of all-time. In comparison, Ruth only had 204 career assists, but that is also a function of him having played a few years as a pitcher and thus having fewer opportunities to make such plays. On the the surface, based on the Assist stat alone, many might say Cobb. But because of the disparity of chances between the two, and Ruth's obvious strength as a pitcher, I think this is more of a push. - TIE



FIELDING ABILITY

Another tough one, with Ruth a very slight edge over Cobb in fielding percentage career-wise of .968 to .961. However, Cobb did play the bulk of his career in CF, normally a more defensively demanding position, whereas Ruth was mostly in RF or LF, along with being a pitcher his first few years with Boston. On a gross basis, Cobb had 271 OF errors (278 overall), which puts him about 14th on the all-time list for errors made, and not necessaarily good. Ruth meanwhile made 155 OF errors (179 overall) during his career. However, with Cobb's speed and aggression playing CF, it can expected Cobb tried to make plays on a lot more hit balls than Ruth would have, and thus a few more errors. This is borne out by the fact that Cobb had 7,195 fielding chances to only 5,535 for Ruth during their careers. And despite the big difference in total gross number of errors, their career fielding percentages were stilll only .007 apart. I can easily see Cobb making up that slight difference on the increased difficulty factor he likely had on many more plays than Ruth due to his aggressive nature, speed, and style of play. Too close otherwise, i'd call this a push also. - TIE



HITTING FOR AVERAGE

Cobb all-time highest ever career batting average of .366 and Ruth a little down the list at .342, which isn't shabby. Meanwhile, Cobb led the Majors in BA 12 times overall (and 9 times in a row at one point), and batted over .400 three times, all still major league records. Ruth only led the Majors in BA once. Cobb also finished with 4,189 hits in his career (still #2 all-time behind Rose) to 2,873 hits for Ruth. However, Ruth also had 2,062 walks in his career, leading the majors in that category in 11 different seasons. Cobb meanwhile had 1,249 walks in his career, but never once led the majors in that category. And to cover the negative side of things, Ruth had 1,330 trikeouts in his career, leading the majors in that category 5 times, while Cobb struck out only 680 times in his career, never leading the majors once. The next level is to look at their OBPs as opposed to just straight batting averages. In this case Ruth had a career OBP of .474, leading the majors in that category 10 times. Cobb's OBP was actually lower at only .433 for his career, but still having led the majors 7 times in that category. Despite Ruth having a higher OBP, the tool is called HITTING FOR AVERAGE, so I'd have to follow that and end up going with the highest batting average. - COBB



HiTTING FOR POWER

Here's where Ruth will shine. HRs all-time, 714, leading the majors in that category 12 times overall (6 in a row at one point), and came in/tied for 2nd 3 more times. That puts him at #3 on the all-time career HR total list, but still at #1 for the number of seasons leading the majors. Cobb meanwhile had only 117 HRs in his career, but still did manage to lead the Majors in that category the one year he won the Triple Crown, and surprisingly came in/tied for 2nd in another 4 seasons. In SLG and OPS Ruth shines again, with career totals of .690 and 1.164 respectively, which are both #1 all-time for MLB. Cobb has career SLG and OPS numbers of .512 and .944 respectively, which has him down around 85th and 28th on those respective all time lists after including Negro League players. Not surprisingly, Ruth also led the Majors in both SLG and OPS over 13 different seasons, which is also #1 all-time in MLB for both categories.. But not to be completely outdone, Cobb surpringly led the Majors in SLG 8 times during his career, and led in OPS 10 times, including 1925 when he broke Ruth's string of OPS titles. Cobb actually had more career Total Bases than Ruth, with 5,845 versus 5,793, but took way more ABs to do it, 11,440 versus 8,399.

Though he still wouldn't get close to Ruth, I would point out during his career Cobb had 897 steals and was caught stealing only 212 times, for a net positive steals number of 685. If you consider this the same as if 685 times he had hit a double or triple, instead of just a single or double, that would considerably improve his SLG and OPS numbers in relation to Ruth's. Even though Ruth stole 123 bases during his career, he was also caught 117 times, resulting in a net positive steals number of only 6, versus Cobb's 685 total. You might also consider adding the net positive steals numbers to their career Total Bases amounts as well for a better comparison.

And though not generally POWER type stats, I'll throw RBIs and Runs Scored in this area as well. Over his career Ruth had 2,174 Runs Scored and 2,214 RBIs, putting him tied for #4 all-time on the Runs Scored list, and #2 on the all-time RBI list (he does have Pujols closing in on his RBI spot though). He then led the Majors in Runs Scored and RBIs for 8 and 5 years, respectively. Meanwhile, Cobb in his career had 2,245 Runs Scored and 1,944 RBIs, putting him at #2 and #9 on those all-time MLB lists, respectively. And Cobb then led the Majors in Runs Scored and RBIs for 5 and 4 years, respectively.

Ruth did a lot more damage in a lot fewer fewer ABs, though Cobb more than holds his own for the period and type of ball being played during the bulk of his career when it comes to his POWER numbers. Fairly clear who still gets this category though. - RUTH


Not necessarily an exact way to do this, but throw in that Cobb also managed teams whereas Ruth ended up never doing so, and you may begin to see how this may not be so cut and dried as many may think as to who was actually better. Throw in the further complicating fact that they both split their careers playing in both the dead and live ball eras, witn Cobb's prime in the deadball era and Ruth's prime in the live ball era, after other rule changes and changes to field dimensions among oher things.

The pro-Ruth people will obviously tout his slugging and home run hitting abilities and say that and his WAR trumps everythingg else. Others may look at some of these facts and statistics I and others have listed and surmise he isn't even a 5-tool player, or that he wasn't thought of as a good enough leader and ballplayer for anyone to really want to pick him as a manager, unless it was more of a publicity stunt to increase the gate for some owner. He does have the great outlier of starting out as a fabulous pitcher before becoming a slugging phenom, but never really did them both full-time for very long like Ohtani is trying to do, and look at all the health issues he's been having. Truth is, they're both great for the specific times and circumstances during and under which they played. And instead of just talking and arguing about a single greatest pre-war player, maybe we have to finally further break down the eras for a pre-war deadball era from 1900-1920, and a pre-war live ball era from 1921-1941. Nineteenth century would/could be considered as their own deadball era then I guess. Maybe then you'll stop all this nonsense and get back to all the more important things on this forum......complaining about TPGs, AHs, card doctors, Ebay, PWCC, Probstein, rising prices, shill bidding, the Registry, AI grading, all the crappy dealers/sellers you don't like, all the crappy buyers you don't like, and anything else I've missed. :D

Somebody post a card please, I don't have a scanner.........

The question was "greatest." Who changed the game more than Ruth? Which franchise built the (at the time) biggest, grandest new ballpark based largely on the attendance driven by one single player?

Ask your average person on the street if they know the name "Ty Cobb" or "Babe Ruth." Just about everyone has heard of Ruth, but lots of non-sports fans maybe haven't heard of Cobb.

He swung big, he hit big, he missed big, he lived big. Babe Ruth is hugely bigger than life.

I've stated multiple times now that I never said or implied that Cobb was better than Ruth, and explained the references to Cobb's HR record and Triple Crown season were in response to TedZ's comments about Cobb's HR hitting abilities, not who was better. Did I also state that Ruth didn't equal Cobbs home run record or win a Triple Crown, yes, because it was TedZ who originally referenced Cobb against Ruth as a HR hitter, not me. So I merely noted those items that Ruth hadn't done as added evidence for Cobb possibly being better at hittinbg HRs than was being implied. But you keep on just saying that it was me implying something else, and assume and believe whatever you want. Apparently no matter how many times I tell you the sky is blue, you'll keep saying it is green because that's what you want to believe.

And you're right, there oddly are more than one of you thinking that my response to TedZ was somehow implying what I've said multiple times is not the case. Just shows how people often fail to read or comprehend things, and/or jump to conclusions and then stubbornly refuse to ever admit they could be wrong. In this instance it is pro-Ruth people only that seem to be jumping to conclusions. Hmmm, wonder what that could mean?


Okay, so you feel anyone hitting 5 homers in consecutive games is a fluke. So does that mean you also agree with the thinking that everyone hitting even 1 home run then is also a fluke? Because if so, then all 714 of Ruth's HRs are flukes and he's not good, just lucky, and he's not necessarily the best pre-war player then. And if hitting just 1 home run isn't a fluke, but hitting 5 in consecutive games is, where's the line between a fluke or non-fluke? Is it 2 homers, 3 homers, what? And please explain your answer.

And why would I ask Tom Stanton anything? Have no idea who he is or how to contact him, nor do i want to. YOU brought up high winds in regards to Cobb's consecutive games home run record, so I asked YOU very specific questions in that regard to hopefully be able to get answers and information that everyone could then use to determine for themselves whether or not Cobb hit the home runs on his own or if they were a fluke and only happened because of these so-called high winds. I tried to be very specific and clear with the questions so we wouldn't get a lame-ass or non-responsive answer back, and look what we got!!!


So if the wind is no part of the "fluke", why did you ever bring it up? Or is this how you're going to get around not answering my questions in regards to the high winds now in case your "Ask Tom Stanton.", ploy doesn't work? And then you wonder how someone cannot comprehend what you're trying to say when you throw in this high wind reference for no apparent reason. You specifically wrote "The wind has no part in it being a fluke as I stated above.", and then elsewhere wrote, "That "thing", of course, was a fluke brought on by exceptionally strong winds.". Well, the "thing" is a reference to Cobb having matched a record by hitting 5 HRs over 2 consecutive games, which is the same event being referred to as "it" in your other statement I quoted. Those two statements of yours I quoted above are clearly contradicting one another, so forgive me if I seem confused and can't understand what you're talking about. Or are you going to try and say that both quotes aren't referring to Cobb's consecutive game HR record now?

Okay, I now get what you meant by the Mike Cameron reference in regards to the different eras, thank you for finally answering at least one of my questions. But that wasn't what was causing my initial confusion. I didn't realize the "fluke" you were referring to was that Mike Cameron statement because of the other references you were making to the fluke being brought on by exceptionally high winds. As stated and pointed out above, you were making contradicting statements which don't make sense and created the confusion.

Yes, I now understand what this "fluke" is you were referring to. And again point to the confusion being caused not by miscomprehension, but by contradictory and misleading statements by you, as pointed out above.

Was not asking a question and then complaining in the same post about not yet getting an answer. Was using that as a sort of strategic reinforcement reminder to emphasize to you that I was asking specific questions in regards to the high winds you had originally referred to. And look how well that worked out. You made a point to question me about that statement, but still failed to answer any of those questions I had asked about the high winds, and instead blew me off by telling me to call someone I don't know or have any contact info for. Let me try this strategic reinforcement reminder technique again. Hey, I asked you those questions about the high winds, not some guy named Tom Stanton. You going to bother answerng or just blow it off because now you're saying it doesn't matter?

And as for my ironic criticism and alleged inability to comprehend, go back up to where I previously discussed the contradictory and confusing statements you were making in regards to the "fluke", the high winds, and so on.

Aside from having addressed each of your responses, I guess we'll see if there is anything coming back finally answering all my current and earlier questions that remain unaddressed. And if you're just going to say nothing matters because everything is a fluke and not address any of my questions with facts or even the semblance of well thought out and logical arguments, don't even bother responding. I've seen and had enough of the "because I'm right and you're wrong" stuff to last for a while.

The other site disagrees. 2.5, 4.5, 3.3, 1.5 were his WAR for 1915-1918. That is not world class outside of 1916.

Here's a card of - unquestionably - the greatest pre-war player to appear as my avatar. :D

There was quite a bit wrong in your post, I've not time to go over everything. But if a contemporary like McGraw really though Keeler, Simmons and Terry, plus God knows how many other players, were better than Ruth - I am flabbergasted. More likely McGraw was ticked off that Ruth dramatically changed the game, or he was ticked off by some other thing Ruth had done. It was not hard to tick off McGraw.

Nope.

If somebody does something 714 times - in the case of Ruth, it's actually more than that, as he had some wiped out by rain, etc - it's not a fluke. What's the line? There's no objective standard, unfortunately. Heck, even doing something 714 times could be a fluke if it's out of 50,000,000,000 tries.

And why would I ask Tom Stanton anything? Have no idea who he is or how to contact him, nor do i want to. YOU brought up high winds in regards to Cobb's consecutive games home run record, so I asked YOU very specific questions in that regard to hopefully be able to get answers and information that everyone could then use to determine for themselves whether or not Cobb hit the home runs on his own or if they were a fluke and only happened because of these so-called high winds. I tried to be very specific and clear with the questions so we wouldn't get a lame-ass or non-responsive answer back, and look what we got!!!


[QUOTE=BobC;2149466]
So if the wind is no part of the "fluke", why did you ever bring it up? Or is this how you're going to get around not answering my questions in regards to the high winds now in case your "Ask Tom Stanton.", ploy doesn't work? And then you wonder how someone cannot comprehend what you're trying to say when you throw in this high wind reference for no apparent reason. You specifically wrote "The wind has no part in it being a fluke as I stated above.", and then elsewhere wrote, "That "thing", of course, was a fluke brought on by exceptionally strong winds."

Tom Stanton is a highly-regarded baseball author. I'm surprised you're not familiar with him.

Cobb hit 5 homers in 2 consecutive games. Doing that feat is ALWAYS a fluke. In Cobb's case, it happened because there were high winds that day. Yes, both things can be true - that it's always a fluke and that it only happened in Cobb's case because of the wind.

No, I don't have the meteorological reports from St. Louis 1925 in front of me. I'm relying on the research of Tom Stanton.

It's weird that you're now claiming I made contradictory statements yet understood perfectly what I was talking about the first time I mentioned Cameron. You were put off by the era in which he accomplished his fluke feat.

Now who's making contradictory statements? You understood perfectly the first time but now you're claiming confusion because I made contradictory statements (even though I didn't)?

Actually, that's exactly what you did - which is why I quoted you when I said that.

Yep, the irony continues.

Babe Ruth - has anyone ever had 3 days like that....
 

1930 vs the World Champion Philadelphia Athletics May 21, 22, & 24 (23 was a travel day). 3 Double-headers in a row!

May 21 DH at Phil.:
Game 1 - Ruth goes 3 for 4 - 6 RBI - 3 Home Runs - 1 off Lefty Grove. Ruth bats righty in his last at bat. Not sure why, maybe he was having a little fun.
https://thisdayinbaseball.com/babe-r...ee-loss-to-as/
Game 2 - Ruth goes 1 for 4 - only game w/o a HR.

May 22 DH at Phil.:
Game 1 - Ruth goes 3 for 5 - 3 RBI - 2 Home Runs
Game 2 - Ruth goes 1 for 4 with 3 Walks - 1 Home Run (Gehrig hits 3 Home Runs FYI)

May 24 DH Home vs Phil.:
Game 1 - Ruth goes 2 for 3 with 3 walks - 1 Home Run
game 2 - Ruth goes 2 for 3 with a walk - 1 Home Run

This was the first of 2 times he hit 3 home runs in a regular season game (he was 35), seems odd it took that long, granted he did it twice in 2 World Series '26 & '28. As you know the 2nd time he did it was his last week in baseball for the Braves at Pittsburgh. (but counting WS games he did it 4 times).


But 8 home runs in 3 days! Not counting the off day. 6 Home Runs in 2 days at Philadelphia DAMN!

https://www.baseball-reference.com/t...e-scores.shtml

Why would you expect a group that makes up 12% of the population to be 50% of the league?

Also, not all Negro League players were actually American. Jose Mendez, Cristobal Torriente, Martin Dihigo and others were Cuban.

Ruth had two big seasons before that rule change, 1919 presumably non juiced ball, he hit 29hr and batted .322. nd 1920, presumably juiced ball, as total HRs was a lot higher than 1919 - 369 to 240 Ruth hit 54 HR and batted 376 still with the ball being used until it wore out. (and played in 12 more games) 54HR was more than any other AL team, and more than double the second place HR hitter.

looking at the top 10 HR hitters, some had similar increases, some didn't.
Even for 1921 with the clean ball and a lot more HR hit overall not everyone in the top 10 saw a major increase.

So Ruth was outpacing everyone for power even before the clean ball. and probably before the dead ball was gone completely.

For the same reason they make up over half of the NBA and the NFL, Olympic Track and Field, etc?

Great Arguments

Always amazes me (and enjoying it) that so many stats and can be presented to able to make a good argument either way about many players and their greatness

Also great to learn some of the lesser know stats and stories about these Great Players

I think the more interesting conversation to me is Babe Ruth vs Willie Mays. I think the distinction between pre and post dead ball era is more important than pre and post war is, as far as being able to compare players against each other is concerned.