Quote:
Originally Posted by rats60
In fairness to Wagner and Cobb, they slugged a lot lower than Ruth because they were hitting a dead ball and Ruth was hitting a juiced ball. I know I am one of the few that considers parks, but Ruth had a hitters friendly park 314 to right 385 to right center. Wagner 360 to left 462 to left center and 400 to left and 450 to center.
|
This!
And remember that the rules changed in 1921 so that balls were changed when they got dirty or worn or damaged. That combined with a "juiced" ball and smaller parks helps to explain some of Ruth's success.
Have a look at this comparison of Cobb and Ruth's stats.
https://mlbcomparisons.com/babe-ruth...bb-comparison/
Except for the categories influenced by being a home run hitter, Cobb wins on almost all counts. That says to me that if you take away the benefits that Ruth had (fresh balls, juiced balls, parks etc) then Cobb is clearly the better player. Put it another way, if Cobb played ball from 1918-1938, his stats would be even better!
Ruth most definitely transformed baseball but that doesn't make him the best.
As an analogy, I'm a huge Beatles fan. They changed music when they came along. Like Ruth, they were the right people at the right time. But would I say that they were bigger musical geniuses than Mozart? Nope.