[BobC]

Originally Posted by Tabe

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 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?