Best / Greatest baseball player ever, redux

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenneth A. Cohen

Though good arguments can be made for either, when you consider Ruth's run production PLUS his pitching (he has as many career shutouts as Pedro Martinez), Ruth is the clear choice in my view.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

No question that Ruth's numbers surpass Cobb's; however, Cobb played in a different era (granted Ruth singlehandedly created the HR era). Finishing first in steals and HRs in the same year is a pretty amazing feat -- along with winning the Triple Crown.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

To be clear, my thinking is still that Wagner was the best player of all time.


This 1942 Sporting News thing was seeking the opinion of 100 former players and managers. I don't know who they all were. I'd think their mental faculties at the time would have been ok, I don't think they were any more addle-minded than we here are now. TSN was asking about who the BEST PLAYER was, ever.

I perceive Walter Johnson as the greatest pitcher ever. Walter pitched to Cobb, Ruth, and Wagner. In 1942 Johnson voted Cobb the best player all time.

As I stated at the start, I first thought Cobb the best, then after several years I considered Ruth the best. Now I think that Wagner was the best. The stats folks look at are deceptive... but if you go by what contemporary baseball men thought, that seems more meaningful. I still think Wagner the best, but this 1942 TSN think has me leaning back to Cobb.


You have to know that TSN isn't asking a bunch of knuckleheads on a baseball card board who was the best. The were asking many current and soon to be HOFers... Connie Mack, Walter Johnson, Tris Speaker, Eddie Collins... 60 guys of that caliber voted for Cobb. Put your record books down and ask if the Babe was the best, why are they voting for Ty? It isn't because he was a good friend of theirs. Maybe Ty was the best. Not the best home run hitter. Not the best pitcher + player. Not the biggest personality. Maybe not the best stats. Just the best player.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob D.

Gee, Frank, you're brandishing the TSN poll like it's the definitive answer to a question that really can't be answered.

One flaw in putting all your eggs in the TSN-poll-basket is that many of the players you cite either broke into the majors during the dead-ball era and/or played the majority of their careers in that era. Given the fact that Ruth was a threat to that style of play and pretty much single-handedly changed the way the game was played -- or at least provided another successful style of playing baseball -- and Cobb epitomized the dead-ball era, is it really a surprise that your all-knowing collection of baseball people would pick Cobb over Ruth?

I'm not even debating whether Ruth or Cobb or Wagner should receive your mythical title of "best ever." All I'm suggesting is you don't rely so much on one poll conducted more than 60 years ago that obviously has its flaws to try to prove your point.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Rob D, since I've read Puddin' Head Wilson, I like his logic, to which you refer... but I'm not sure you knew that you were.

Still, I pick Wagner.

Having said that, if we dug up and revived these antiquated deadball ballplayers, and accepting that they might have a deadball bias against the home run, and therefore against Ruth (although I don't consider Simmons or Sisler deadball era players), I think if we asked them today, 60% of them vote for Cobb. I'd still choose Wagner. But I'd think those guys like Connie Mack would be more authoritative than we happy few here. Yet it reassures me that most of the folks here think differently than those guys did in 1942. For me, I think Walter Johnson would be a better judge of who was the 'best player'.



Maybe I drop the Greatwake moniker, and change it to The Spoon. Since I seem to occasionally stir things a bit.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob D.

I think if we asked them today, 60% of them vote for Cobb.

Now you're using some fine logic, Frank.

Not to change the subject, but what are your feelings toward graded cards?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim T

Best Player - Babe Ruth, his stats and his contribution to his team make it pretty simple.

Greatest Player - Jackie Robinson, his contribution to the game of baseball make this a no brainer.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike

Here is Cobb's All-Time Team:

C - Mickey Cochrane and Ray Schalk
1b - George Sisler
2b - Eddie Collins
SS - Honus Wagner
3b - Pie Traynor
OF - Joe Jackson
OF - Babe Ruth
OF - Tris Speaker
Right Handed Pitchers (4) Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson, Ed Walsh and Pete Alexander
Left Handed Pitchers ( 2) - Eddie Plank and Lefty Grove

Not a bad team !!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike

In 1935-36 The Baseball Writers Association of American devised a formula to elect the greatest players of all-time for the Hall of Fame (opened in 1939). These included players from 1901 to the present. This is right after the Babe was done playing. After the dead ball era had been replaced with the home run. Players had to be named on 75% of the ballots. The maximum number of votes available was 226.

Cobb received 222 votes,Babe Ruth and Honus Wagner each received 215 votes, Christy Mathewson received 205 votes and Walter Johnson 189 votes.

Even after all the home runs etc. they still gave Cobb the most votes. He must have been great and something to see. All the above 5 must have been something to see in person.

[Archive]

Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted

For all that HITTING and RUNNING, how come Cobb is no where near Ruth in producing that most important STAT....RUNS ?
For example, let's compare their best year....check-out their RUNs + RBIs.
Ruth's dominance in this department is true for any year you choose.

You guys can have Cobb on your team....I'll take Ruth on my team....and, my team will beat your team every time.

...............Ruth (1921)........Cobb (1911)

AB's............540..................591
Hits............204..................248
BB's............144....................44
HR's..............59.....................8 (deadball era)
Runs...........177..................147
RBIs............171..................144
BAvg......... .378................ .420
SlAvg........ .846................ .621
Stol Bases.....17....................83


T-Rex TED

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Ted, the numbers don't lie obviously. But why did so many of their contemporaries claim that Cobb was the better player?

[Archive]

Posted By: Ryan Christoff

Jim Creighton probably used to be considered the greatest player ever at one time. Just like Anson or Delahanty after Creighton. Just like Cobb after that. Then came Ruth, unfortunately for Cobb. And that was that.

If you disagree with Creighton, Anson or Delahanty having been considered the greatest ever, I'm sure you can still understand my point. Replace those guys with whoever you want. Then Cobb came along. And then Ruth.

Ted brings up a point that everyone seems to ignore when discussing the greatest players. Ted's team of 9 Ruth's would definitely beat a team of 9 Cobbs because Ty Cobb was not a winner. Babe Ruth was. And not just because he was on the Yankees. Your Cobb team would have a higher batting average, though. So congrats. But you still lost. And don't try to tell me how terrible Cobb's teams were and how it wasn't his fault and blah blah blah. Replace Cobb with Ruth and there are several Tiger championships that would have materialized in all those years. Walter Johnson won a championship with the lowly Washington Senators, after all.

Personally, I don't even consider Cobb to be the greatest player of his era because of that Wagner guy.

If Cobb was such a great competitor, why didn't he win? He won lots of batting titles and had great personal accomplishments. But I thought he was playing for a team. In team sports, the objective is to win. Maybe Cobb should have been a boxer or a tennis player or a golfer. That way he would have won when he performed better as an individual than his opponent, also an individual.

I'm also shocked at how diverse Cobb's picks on his all-time team were. You usually don't hear Cobb being described as tolerant or open-minded, but the melting pot he's thrown together with his picks tells the real story. Cobb's team has fat white guys, skinny white guys, white guys with blonde hair, white guys with brown hair, white guys with freckles, alcoholic white guys, white guys who like to gamble, white guys who like to go to church, and everyone in between. You name it, this team has it. With such a crazy mix of different kinds of people I think his team name would have to be "TY COBB'S RAINBOW COALITION."

The answer to the original question, of course, is Babe Ruth.

Oh, and my team of 9 Martin Dihigos would absolutely crush your team of 9 Ruths or Cobbs or any other player in the history of the game.

-Ryan

[Archive]

Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted

Good question....and, my uncomplicated answer is....just look at who voted....

Collins‚ Coombs, Johnson‚ C. Mack‚ Sisler‚ Speaker, etc. For the most part, all these guys were Cobb's contemporaries.
They regarded Ruth as an "upstart", a new generation player that didn't fit the old "deadball" era mold. His prodigious HR's
were not yet quite fashionable.

And yes, they did vote in 1942; however, these "oldies" had a mindset "stuck" back in early the 20th Century game. And,
nothing since then was going to change their thinking.

It's like me, here we are in the 21st Century....but, in my mind the greatest Baseball that I ever saw was played in the
late 1940's, thru the 1950's, and into the 1960's. Think about this, I bet you that when you reflect back to your youth,
you probably think a better calibre of BB was played back then, than is now ?

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted

Thanks for making my point in quite a "dramatic" way.

As a Softball team manager (at my workplace) for many years, I always tried to field a winning team. I had some tough decisions
to make. Most of my players were my upper management types, with big egos and certainly having an influence on my career at
my job.

Of course everyone wanted to win, and everyone wanted to play, and then go to our favorite "watering-hole" and have some cold
beers. I was very diligent in keeping Stats on all my players. So to be fair, I would grind their numbers every week and play the guys
who were producing in terms of RUNS (scored and driven in). I was called a "Billy Martin" by some, but they accepted my managing
practices.
After all, it paid off, we won 1st place Trophies 6 out of 10 years.

TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob

I don't buy the argument that Ruth was better than Cobb because "Cobb was not a winner". Ted Williams never won a championship, so I guess he wasn't a winner either. Ernie Banks ... not a winner. Arod, Killebrew, McCovey? Charles Barkley? Elgin Baylor? Stockton/Malone? Barry Sanders? Marino? Nope none of them are/were winners.

Its a team sport - 9 vs 9. I don't think you're a "winner" because you win a championship, nor are you NOT a winner because you don't win one. Even with the incredible stats that Barry Bonds put up - better than RUTH! - he still didn't win. Is it cuz he's not a winner? Or maybe cuz the other 8 guys on the field just weren't as good as the opposing 9 players. If Bonds was on a team w/great pitching and they won a championship we wouldn't necessarily be calling him a winner, we'd still be calling him a cheater.

why does today still feel like a monday?

Rob

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave

Wasn't Ruth something like 6-2 against Mathewson? ERA under 2? Not too shabby for the greatest slugger of all time.

Remember nostalgia for the dead ball era was a lot higher back then when these polls were conducted. It's kind of like how we yearn for the pre-roids era. The people voting probably remembered the game from when they were children, and favored that style of play over the big-bopper style that Ruth himself created. Just hypothetical on my part, but it's always easier to see historical significance the further away you are from something. So yeah... to them Wagner probably WAS the best.

No one will ever match Ruth in baseball, or any other sport for that matter. Period.
He changed the history of the game by himself, and to some extent, the history of our country.

EDITED: MEANT WALTER JOHNSON, NOT MATHEWSON.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ryan Christoff

Rob,

It is obviously not as black as white as saying anyone who wins a championship is a winner and anyone who doesn't is a loser. It takes a special player to actually qualify as a loser, because we're talking about some of the greatest athletes in the history of team sports here. A player's career should be evaluated in the proper context, meaning it is not right to compare Ernie Banks to Alex Rodriguez. For example, the players you mentioned who didn't win championships are all different:

TED WILLIAMS - You are exactly right. Ted Williams is not a winner. A Loser? No. Great hitter? Absolutely. In the top 2 or 3 ever to swing a bat. Winner? Not so much. He had a chance to step up when it mattered and he flat out choked. All because of his classic Ted Williams stubbornness, which I love. But it cost him AND HIS TEAM the World Series. Of course, there's no guarantee the Red Sox would have won the '46 series if he could have swallowed his pride and bunted a few times and slapped a few singles to left instead of hitting directly into the shift. In the 1946 regular season, Ted Williams hit .342 with 38 HRs and 123 RBI. His on base percentage was .497. His slugging percentage was .667. He was the MVP of the American League. In the World Series he hit .200 with zero HRs and 1 RBI. His slugging percentage was .200. Yes, 5 singles in 25 ABs. And what impact do you think it had on the rest of the Red Sox for them to watch that happen? Not exactly clutch. So, yes, Ted Williams gets knocked down quite a bit for that when I look at his career. And I'm a Ted Williams fan. Which is saying something considering how much I hate all things Red Sox.

BARRY BONDS: Gets knocked down huge in my eyes for his early playoff performances. Almost entirely redeemed himself with the greatest postseason performance in my lifetime and probably off all-time. Still, is he a winner? No. Not a loser, either.

ERNIE BANKS - Come on, now. Just bad teams.

BARRY SANDERS - (see Ernie Banks)

HARMON KILLEBREW - Exactly which of those Senators/Twins teams are you saying should have won the World Series?

WILLIE MCCOVEY - Exactly which of those Giants teams are you saying should have won the World Series?

CHARLES BARKLEY - He had bad luck on several fronts. His best 76ers teams were in his first year or two in the league where he wasn't even the "Go To" guy yet because Moses Malone was still there. After that, exactly which 76ers team are you saying should have won the championship? Then when he was finally on a good team, he became one of the many victims of Michael Jordan's Bulls. He was still incredible, though. He had a chance with Houston at the end of his career, but once again, more Jordan. I do not fault Barkley at all for not winning a championship. Ditto for Allen Iverson in his 76ers career.

ELGIN BAYLOR - He averaged 27 points and 12.9 rebounds per game in 134 career playoff games. As impressive as that is, he was on championship-caliber teams for most of his career and never won, although he did play 9 games for the 1971-72 Lakers who eventually won the championship. All the players on those Lakers teams get knocked down a bit. All of them, including Baylor, also get a partial break for being victims of the Celtics dynasty.

STOCKTON/MALONE - Winners? No way! In spite of playing in the Jordan era, they were together long enough and on enough good teams that they should have won at least one championship.

DAN MARINO - Bad teams. When they were good, it was all because of him. That just wasn't enough, though. I don't blame Marino for not winning the Super Bowl.

ALEX RODRIGUEZ - I really can't believe you brought Arod into this discussion. He is the only true loser of the players you mentioned. I could go on, but just do a Net54 search and you'll probably be able to figure out my true feelings regarding the biggest loser in the history of organized sports. Actually, throw unorganized sports in there as well. There's only one Alex Rodriguez.

So, Rob, judging by your list of winners, I take it you consider talent to be the determining factor as opposed to actual winning? Does that mean you consider The Professor, Hot Sauce, and Skip To My Lou to be winners as well?

In case you're curious, what I mean by a winner is someone more like Joe Montana, Bill Russell, Michael Jordan, Derek Jeter, and so on. A little less like Alex Rodriguez and a little more like Jerry Rice or Magic Johnson.

-Ryan

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob

well written response, Ryan.

I guess I'm questioning the idea of what a "winner" is, and I think many of the players who we deem "winners" benefit from having talent on their team. Jordan, Montana, Ruth, etc all played with talent on their team. If Montana played on the same Dolphins teams that Marino played on (no defensive talent like Ronnie Lott, no running game like Roger Craig), and didn't win a superbowl, would we still call Montana a winner?

I agree ... Arod is not a winner. Nor is everyone w/talent a winner. But WHAT IS a winner? Is winning a championship one qualification of being termed a winner? Is being a nice guy, giving back to the community, being a good teammate, talking to the media also necessary?

No, I wouldn't call The Professor, Hot Sauce, etc winners necessarily (nor would i call them all losers), but they are certainly fun to watch!

Rob

[Archive]

Posted By: steve

I am most intrigued with Ruth's pitching career with Boston.

In the AL, he must have pitched head-head with Walter Johnson, yes? And he pitched against Cobb on Detroit. And I saw something that said he went head-head with Mathewson, although Matty was NL.

I would love to see ALL of these particular head-head game stats individually, perhaps the box scores?

Any guidance for research, or even answers?

Thanks, steve

edited - above post, Ruth was 6-2 vs Matty head-head. Really, WOW!

[Archive]

Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted

STEVE

I don't know where that 6-2 number comes from. They never faced each other in World Series play.
Here are their W.S. pitching records....

Mathewson

............W-L......ERA.......IP

1905......3-0......0.00......27

1911......1-2......2.00......27

1912......0-2......1.57......28

1913......1-1......0.95......19

Ruth

1916......1-0......0.64......14

1918......2-0......1.06......17

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave

Sorry bout that typo above (I'll fix)... I meant Walter Johnson not Mathewson... typed it a little too quickly before I had my coffee. Here's a very telling stat about Mr Ruth and him abusing Johnson both on the mound and at the plate: from Wiki

Ruth had unusual success against Washington Senators star pitcher Walter Johnson, beating him four times in 1916 alone, by scores of 5-1, 1-0, 1-0 in 13 innings, and 2-1. Johnson finally outlasted Ruth for an extra-inning 4-3 victory on September 12; in the years to come, Ruth would hit 10 home runs off Johnson, including the only two Johnson would allow in 1918-1919.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave

Steve... full context of Ruth's pitching days...

Ruth appeared in five games for the Red Sox in 1914, pitching in four of them. He picked up the victory in his Major League debut on July 11; ironically, Duffy Lewis scored the winning run after pinch-hitting for Ruth. The Red Sox had many star players in 1914, so Ruth was soon optioned to the minor league Providence Grays of Providence, Rhode Island for most of the remaining season. Behind Ruth and Carl Mays, the Grays won the International League pennant.

During spring training in 1915, Ruth secured a spot in the starting rotation. He joined a pitching staff that included Rube Foster, Dutch Leonard, and Smokey Joe Wood. Ruth won 18 games,[10] lost eight, and helped himself by hitting .315. He also hit his first four home runs.

In 1916, after a slightly shaky spring, he went 23-12, with a 1.75 ERA and 9 shutouts. On June 27, he struck out 10 Philadelphia A's, a career high. On July 11, he started both games of a doubleheader, but the feat was not what it seemed; he only pitched a third of an inning in the opener because the scheduled starter Rube Foster was having trouble getting loose. Ruth then pitched a complete game victory in the nightcap. The Red Sox made it to the World Series again. They defeated the Brooklyn Robins four games to one. This time Ruth made a major contribution, pitching a 14-inning complete-game victory in Game Two.

Ruth went 24-13 with a 2.01 ERA and 6 shutouts in 1917, and hit .325, but the Sox finished second, nine games behind the Chicago White Sox. Ruth's most memorable game of the season was one he had very little part in playing. On June 23 against the Washington Senators, after walking the leadoff hitter, Ruth erupted in anger, was ejected, and threw a punch at the umpire (he'd be suspended for 10 games). Ernie Shore came into the game as an impromptu replacement, and pitched a perfect game the rest of the way. Ruth's outburst was an example of self-discipline problems that plagued Ruth throughout his career, and is regarded as the primary reason (other than financial) that Frazee was willing to sell him to the Yankees two years later.

Less than three weeks later, June 11 was an example of why Ruth was so valuable to Boston. The left-hander was pitching a no-hitter in a 0-0 game against the Detroit Tigers, before a single deflected off his glove in the 8th inning. Boston finally pushed across a run in the 9th, and Ruth held onto his 1-0 victory by striking out Ty Cobb. In 1942, Ruth called this game his greatest thrill on the field.

In 1918, Ruth pitched in 20 games, posting a 13-7 record with a 2.22 ERA. He was mostly used as an outfielder, and hit a league-leading 11 home runs. His statistics were curtailed slightly when he walked off the team in July following an argument with Boston's manager.

Ruth threw a 1-0 shutout in the opener of 1918 World Series, then won Game Four in what would be his final World Series appearance as a pitcher. In three games, Ruth was 3-0 with an 0.87 ERA, allowing 19 hits in 31 innings. Ruth extended his World Series consecutive scoreless inning streak to 29⅔ innings.

[Archive]

Posted By: steve

Dave, Thanks, great read. steve

[Archive]

Posted By: Louis Bollman

It has to be Ruth; just open up the Baseball Almanac. Legue leading stats are printed in bold type. Ruth's stats show a sea of bold print. The fact that I like the most is that after nearly a decade of being off the mound Ruth pitched and won in 1930 and again in 1933.

For the Ross Youngs bashers; the guy started playing early and died young. He could have easily played another 5+ years. A fierce hitter and a menace on the basepath, not to mention his tremendous stats in the field.

I was unaware of Ross Youngs' stats until someone just recently pointed them out.

Louis Bollman

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Actually, it's not Ruth or Cobb -- it's the entire lineup of the 2008 Detroit Tigers.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Look at the stats.
1915 and 1916 were great years on the mound for Ruth.
By 1917 he was walking nearly as many as he was striking out.
After 1917 he never struck out more than he walked.
He was winning, and his ERA was down; but I wonder how long that would have lasted.
Look at the stats.

[Archive]

Posted By: howard

It was I that "bashed" Ross Youngs (actually I was bashing the two voters who chose Youngs as the best ever). I know that he was an outstanding player (football as well as baseball) but if any reasonable argument can be made that he was the greatest pre-war player ever I would sure like to hear it.

Howard

[Archive]

Posted By: Craig W

Along the same lines as Ted posted above, I like to use a stat called Run Production Rate (RPR). Add Runs Scored and Runs Batted In. Subtract Home Runs, since they count as both a Run and an RBI. Then divide by Plate Appearances.

Ruth's Career RPR was (2174+2217-714)/10616 = 0.3464 So, The Babe would produce a run every 2.89 times he came to the plate.

Cobb's career RPR was (2246+1937-117)/13072 = 0.3110 The Georgia Peach "only" produced a run every 3.22 times he came to the plate.

In other words, Ruth was over 11% better at producing runs than Cobb.

(note- career stats taken from www.baseball-reference.com)

Regards,
Craig

[Archive]

Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted

I would not even rate Cobb next to Ruth. In my opinion Cobb is overrated.....and, his cards are overpriced.

My 2nd choice for the greatest is a tie between Wagner and Anson. Like Ruth....Adrian Constantine Anson
was a winner.



He played 1st base for most of his 22 year career with Chicago (NL). In 1879, at the young age of 27,
he became their Manager. During his 22 years of being the player/manager, his Chicago team won the
NL Championship 1880, 1881, 1882, 1885 and 1886. Also, they came in 2nd place in 1883, 1888, 1890,
and 1891.

His career Stats......Hits = 3041.....HRs = 96.....BA = .334.......in 1884 he hit an amazing 21 HRs.

I certainly want Anson on my team. He is a real winner. So far, I have Ruth in RF.....Wagner at SS.....
and Anson at 1B.

T-Rex TED

[Archive]

Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted

To your....."He was winning, and his ERA was down; but I wonder how long that would have lasted."

By 1918, Ruth was doing double duty, he pitched in 20 games and played the field in 72 games; and,
this had to affect his pitching performance. But, we will never know, had Ruth continued as a pitcher,
if he would have made the enormous impact on BB that he did as a player.

We can thank Miller Huggins (while Manager of St Louis, NL 1913-17) who had a keen eye for talent,
and scouted Ruth from his start. Upon becoming Manager of the Yankees (1918), Huggins convinced
Ruppert and Houston to acquire Ruth. Huggins instantly converted Ruth to an outfielder.

Ruth's first 3 years as a Yankee were played at the Polo Grounds (1920-22), which had a very short
distance to the RF stands. He instantly changed the game forever, by his HR hitting of 54, 59 and
35 (110 games)....respectively.

The WWI shortened 126-game BB season in 1918......followed up by the 1919 World Series scandal,
brought attendance down by the start of the 1920 season. Ruth's dramatic performance in 1920
significantly revived the game. Fans flocked to major league ballparks in enormous numbers again.

T-Rex TED

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob

"I like to use a stat called Run Production Rate (RPR). Add Runs Scored and Runs Batted In. Subtract Home Runs ... "

Couldn't one argue that Runs Scored and RBIs are (at least SOMEWHAT) dependent upon who bats in front and behind you in the batting order? The better your teammates, the better opportunity you will have to score a run or knock one in. I'm sure some players' RPR are higher or lower because of their teammates. I don't feel thats an equal measuring stick for all players.

Rob

[Archive]

Posted By: Wil Jordan

If you look at the numbers you would have to say that the Babe was the greatest player of his era. However, I feel that the greatest player of all time was Willie Mays. He was a five tool player with a great baseball I.Q. Like Michael Jordan in Basketball Mays was born to play baseball and he could impact a game in so many ways.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Regarding the issue of what their peers thought of Ruth v. Cobb, keep in mind that the first HOF class, voted in by writers, gave Cobb 7 more votes than Ruth -- and this occurred after Ruth retired.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

"We can thank Miller Huggins (while Manager of St Louis, NL 1913-17) who had a keen eye for talent, and scouted Ruth from his start. Upon becoming Manager of the Yankees (1918), Huggins convinced Ruppert and Houston to acquire Ruth. Huggins instantly converted Ruth to an outfielder."

No, he didn't. It was a certain fellow in Boston named Barrow (maybe you've heard of him?) who converted Ruth to a position player.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

David, is this recounted in detail in the new book on Barrow?

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

To be honest, I didn't know there was a new book on Barrow.
But if there is (I'll check Amazon) it has to be in there.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

Thanks for the heads-up, Jeff. I just ordered the book.

[Archive]

Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted

Both Ed Barrow and Miller Huggins appreciated Ruth's tremendous hitting ability. Huggins was closely following Ruth when Ruth
played for Boston and Huggins was Managing St Louis (NL).

I reiterate....Huggins was very influential in bringing Babe Ruth to the NY Yankees.

[Archive]

Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted

Since when....do we judge the overall performance of a baseball player by a "consensus" vote ?

I will reiterate what I have previously posted here....you can have eight Cobb's on your team and pick your best Pitcher.

I will take one Babe Ruth....and, my team will beat yours everytime....he is a winner and he motivates his teammates to
be winners. You don't need me to tell you this, look it up......the numbers don't lie. Check this out......

Ruth's teams' records

1915.....BOS.....AL Champs
1916.....BOS.....World Champs
1917.....BOS.....2nd place
1918.....BOS.....World Champs
1920.....NYY.....2nd place
1921.....NYY.....AL Champs
1922.....NYY.....AL Champs
1923.....NYY.....World Champs
1924.....NYY.....2nd place
1926.....NYY.....AL Champs
1927.....NYY.....World Champs
1928.....NYY.....World Champs
1929.....NYY.....2nd place
1930.....NYY.....3rd place
1931.....NYY.....2nd place
1932.....NYY.....World Champs
1933.....NYY.....2nd place
1934.....NYY.....2nd place



Finally, JEFF......these words by Ruth says it all......

A sportswriter pointed out to Ruth "that Cobb was the better hitter, since he batted .367". To which Ruth replied with....

"You know, I could bat .370 if I wanted to, but you see all these people sitting in the stands, they didn't come out here
to see me hit Singles....they came here to see me hit Home Runs".


Regards buddy,

T-Rex TED

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

"I reiterate....Huggins was very influential in bringing Babe Ruth to the NY Yankees."

Yes, he was. But, by the time he did, Ruth was already pretty much a position player.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Ted, Cobb was neither popular with his teammates, opponents nor reporters. Ruth was, in fact, popular with all of those. Yet, both their contemporaries and reporters -- who, unlike us, actually watched the two men play -- voted Cobb the better player. I'll take that consensus over our 80 year hindsight any day of the week.

[Archive]

Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted

I was 9 years old when Ruth died in the Summer of '48. From then till now, I have read many books and
articles on Ruth.....no hindsight here, I feel like I was there when he played, I've read that much.
He was an amazing man, bigger than life itself.

I am a lifelong Yankees fan.....so, I guess I'm partial to winners like Ruth, Anson, DiMag, Jackie Robinson,
Mantle.
You are a Mets fan....and, for whatever reasons you favor Cobb....and, that's fine with me.

I'm an Electronics Engineer....and, I appreciate numbers (Stats) and how they reflect the value of a BB
player to his team.
You're a Lawyer....and you appreciate "consensus".

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Ted, your reading about Ruth -- but not witnessing a single game of his career -- with all respect, has as much value as someone born in the year 2098 who reads the same books. That's the thing about good books: they tend to transport readers to the times that are contained therein.

As for my being a Mets fan, I actually grew up a Dodgers fan, though I'm not sure how either is relevant to my thoughts on Cobb/Ruth. I happen to like the Yankees as well (honestly). As for "winners", how many World Series titles did Jackie Robinson have? One -- and he lost 5 others. That hardly makes him a loser. I don't think that how many rings you have totally defines your value as a player just as I don't believe that Don Zimmer was a better player than Ted Williams.

As for my legal training, again, I'm not sure how that impacts on my ability to clearly see that the groups of baseball writers and greatest players who watched Ruth and Cobb both were wrong in picking Cobb over Ruth. Numbers ain't everything -- though I did get an A in my Consensus class in law school so you may be on to something.

I think in the end it is easy to be impressed by the gargantuan numbers and giant shadow that Ruth cast over the game -- deservedly so. I just think that Cobb's game was filled with more intangibles than Ruth's which don't show up in boxscores. And finally, your belief that Ruth was better than Cobb is based partly, as you admit, on what you read: books written by people that saw Ruth play. Well, the great writers that wrote those books wrote about what they saw and they also talked to Ruth's contemporaries for their opinions -- and both the writers and players (by an unscientifically small margin) agree that Cobb was a better player. Perhaps you misinterpreted what you read? 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.

[Archive]

Posted By: Stephen Mitchell

Having read a good many of these posts I must admit my mind (for now) is changed. I now believe Babe Ruth was the greatest baseball player of all time. It is hard to argue with Ruth's bold black marks in the baseball encyclopedias and his teams' collective finishes - not to mention his superiority on the mound.

I have a problem, however: thirty years ago I worked with author John McCallum to produce a card set promoting Mr. McCallum's latest book, TY COBB (Praeger Publishers). The title of the card set was "Ty Cobb - Baseball's Greatest Player". Chalk it up to youthful inexperience, but I still think Cobb may be considered a reasonably close second to The Babe.

[Archive]

Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted

I 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

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Ted, a baseball player is not measured solely by numbers. If that were the case, the sportswriters and baseball players of the eras of Ruth and Cobb would have easily voted Ruth the better player. They didn't -- in fact, while they unanimously liked Ruth more, they voted Cobb the better player. I trust their first-hand and more educated opinions more than I trust either yours or mine on this subject. Therefore, I'm stuck agreeing with the experts instead of novices like you and me -- so I have to stick with Cobb on this one.

[Archive]

Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted

Ahhhh, those numbers....those stubborn darn numbers....but, that's the beauty of Baseball....talking numbers,
comparing stats. No other American sport enjoys the significance of numbers as BB does. But, I'll not further
this discussion using numbers.

So, if you are alluding to the 1942 The Sporting News poll of 100 former major leaguers and managers, then I
will simply offer....in 1942, it was too soon to judge Ruth in the proper perspective. On the other hand Cobb
had been retired for approx. 15 years; and, it is human nature to evaluate others in a better light as time
passes. I still recall the tremendous out-pourring of grief when Ruth died in 1948. The enormous processions
of young and old fans that attended his funeral all saw Ruth PLAY....and if you are so concerned about polls....
then this was the true "poll". The American people voted with their presence.

As they did when Ruth was playing, when 60,000 fans would fill the seats in Yankee Stadium every day for 12
years (1923-1934).