Posted By:
Kenny ColeI think it is difficult to compare baseball during the 1900-1930 era to that of today. True, there are more teams and the pitching nowadays generally sucks after you get through the first two starters. However, you also have to consider that neither Cobb nor Ruth ever played a MLB game against any of the great black stars of the time. When they did play against them in exhibition games, they generally came out on the losing end of the deal. Consequently, I don't think its entirely fair to say that Cobb and Ruth were facing the BEST pitchers of their era, because they were only facing SOME of the best pitchers of their era.
If you go look at their records against Black and Cuban teams, neither Cobb nor Ruth did very well. In fact, they generally got their asses kicked. That doesn't say too much for their supposed superiority. Had they played against the top black players of their era, I don't think it can even be argued that their numbers would look as great as they now do. Didn't happen so we don't know. However, it seems to me that if Ruth was facing Paige or Smokey Joe Wiliiams as opposed to, say, Jack Quinn at the end of his career, he doesn't do as well. Same for Cobb. If he'd had to hit against either Mendez or Rube Foster on a regular basis, I don't think he hits .367 lifetime. Both Ruth and Cobb were the best of their generations (at least in MLB), but., unfortunately, they didn't play against all of the best from their generations. That sort of stuff has to factor into the equation.
Another thing to consider is the relief pitcher. I don't think it can seriously be argued that having a pitching staff of 6 people is superior to having a staff of 10. Yes, pitchers used to complete more games. At a gut level, I think that's the way it should be and I also think that today's starting pitchers are mostly a bunch of pu**ies. However, it cannot be denied that bringing in a fresh arm in the 8th or 9th inning has has a tremendous impact on the game. New arm, new look. Ruth and Cobb didn't have to contend with that too often. It makes a HUGE difference. Geez, today's game is substantially different from the game of the 1960s with the DH, the lower mound, the inability to dust anybody and whatnot.
There are many other factors to consider, such as training, conditioning, performance enhancing drugs, etc. Bottom line is that it is really difficult to say that Bonds would have done well in 1900 or that Cobb and Ruth would have done well today. They were (are) great talents during their respective eras of play. While it is easy to idolize a player you never saw based upon his statistics in a game/career you never observed because you weren't even born, I'm a little skeptical of that approach. I don't think there can ever be an agreed upon "best" when you talk about a game that evolves. Cobb and Ruth were the best during the period they played. Bonds is the most feared hitter now. Isn't that enough?
Kenny Cole