Posted By:
Pennsylvania TedI was going to call it quits on this debate, as we are just talking past each other. But, your
last sentence blew me away ! You said....
"At the very least, I'm sure you can agree that my conclusion that Cobb was a better
overall player is at least based on logical, empirical evidence."
What "logical, empirical evidence" ? And, Cobb "better overall".......please tell me you are
joking.....aren't you Jeff ?
I'll spare you the details on Ruth's HR's....Runs....RBI's.....or, Ruth's amazing pitching record.
"Better overall", you say.....let's compare Fielding Averages:
Ruth.... .960 - .970
Cobb.... .950 - .960
Ruth (having been a pitcher) had the superior throwing arm over Cobb.
And, while we're at it, let's get down to the nitty-gritty by comparing World Series performances:
.............AB......Hits.....BA.......SLA.....HR. ....R......RBI
RUTH.....129......42.... .326.... .744.....15.....37.....33......(10 WS)
COBB.......65......17.... .262.... .354......0......7......11.......(3 WS)
I have read that Mr Cobb didn't fare too well batting against Ruth. When Cobb first faced Ruth
he would arrogantly taunt Ruth. And, the more Cobb taunted the 20-year old southpaw, the
more effective Ruth was in striking-out Cobb, or causing him to hit into a feeble out. It was
the young Southpaw against the mighty Left-handed hitter and it's my understanding that
Ruth won this battle many times more often than not.
We could go on, and on, with these comparisons....but, I think it's time for you to start cut-
ting your losses on this argument. The numbers are against Mr Cobb in virtually all departments.
Perhaps, you can win some points on Cobb's...."intangibles"....whatever they are ? ?
TED Z