Joe Jackson and Pete Rose Should Be HOFers Because...

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Which explains why Rose is 179th in career Avg...

Behind luminaries such as Manny Mota, Hal Morris, Rusty Greer etc.

LOL

Touche' Scott. I can give you that, but in Rose's defense, he's also 14th on the all-time Walks list, and that definitely doesn't help his average. Also, most of those ahead of him on that all-time Walks list are considered HR hitters. Unfortunately, he is only 288th on the all-time OBP list, which doesn't seem to help him at all, but that is somewhat offset by him being 6th un the all-time Runs Scored list, which he wouldn't be if it wasn't for all his hits. Another thing to be considered regarding Rose's average is that he played in 24 seasons, the last 5 of which he wasn't even close to hitting .300 in any of them. Had he stopped at only 18 or 19 seasons, he'd be a bit higher on that all-time averages list. Plus, don't forget that Rose primarily played during an era when the overall player averages were a lot less than many other eras. In fact, his first 6 seasons in baseball were played before MLB finally decided to lower the pitcher's mounds due to the extreme dominance of pitchers back then.

And as far as home run hitters being so much better, if you take a look at the true all-time home run leader, after discounting the questionable PED and 'roid users, we're really talking about Hank Aaron. Aaron had 755 home runs over a 23 year career, but oddly enough, never hit even 50 home runs in a single season, which seems odd for someone who would be an all-time home run leader. In fact, during Aaron's most prolific season he hit a max of 47 dingers which put him tied for 80th on the all-time list of single season home run hitters. And that was his best year. The majority of his years, Aaron only hit 20-30+ dingers. So he really isn't much different than Rose in this regard. Unless you honestly want to give full credit to the steroid and PED cheaters.

So it seems to me that if you are going to disparage Rose, you're pretty much doing the same thing to Aaron.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by BobC

LOL

Touche' Scott. I can give you that, but in Rose's defense, he's also 14th on the all-time Walks list, and that definitely doesn't help his average.

Walks have no effect on his average.

Originally Posted by BobC

Also, most of those ahead of him on that all-time Walks list are considered HR hitters.

He's 14th on the walks list because he played for 500 years. He averaged 71 walks per 162 games, a very pedestrian amount, even moreso for a guy at the top of the lineup.

Originally Posted by BobC

Unfortunately, he is only 288th on the all-time OBP list, which doesn't seem to help him at all, but that is somewhat offset by him being 6th un the all-time Runs Scored list, which he wouldn't be if it wasn't for all his hits.

Well, yeah. He played 250 more games than anybody else while hitting at the top of the order. I would hope he'd be way up there in runs scored. To be fair, he did have some great seasons scoring runs, leading the league four times.

Originally Posted by BobC

Another thing to be considered regarding Rose's average is that he played in 24 seasons, the last 5 of which he wasn't even close to hitting .300 in any of them. Had he stopped at only 18 or 19 seasons, he'd be a bit higher on that all-time averages list.

If he quit after 1981, his last good season, he'd have a .310 career average. That would put him in a tie for 109th with Luke Appling, Jim O'Rourke, and Bob Meusel.

But he also would have been a couple hundred hits short of Ty Cobb and there's no way Pete was going to retire without passing Ty barring injury.

Originally Posted by BobC

Plus, don't forget that Rose primarily played during an era when the overall player averages were a lot less than many other eras.

A fair point.

Originally Posted by BobC

And as far as home run hitters being so much better

It's absolutely indisputable that it's better to be a home run hitter than a singles guy like Pete Rose. Rose and Hank Aaron had the same OBP (basically) but Hank did WAAAAAY more damage when he got on base. Aaron had more than 400 more extra base hits than Rose and all of those addition XBHs were home runs.

Put another way - every time somebody hits a homer, runs are scored. Not so much for singles.

Originally Posted by BobC

So he really isn't much different than Rose in this regard. Unless you honestly want to give full credit to the steroid and PED cheaters.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Originally Posted by BobC

So it seems to me that if you are going to disparage Rose, you're pretty much doing the same thing to Aaron.

This makes no sense. What are you trying to say?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Walks have no effect on his average.

They take away from times at bat where he could get a hit. I see your point though because he could not do as well with those extra at bats. Point taken!

Originally Posted by Tabe

He's 14th on the walks list because he played for 500 years. He averaged 71 walks per 162 games, a very pedestrian amount, even more so for a guy at the top of the lineup.

Agreed and already acquiesced to you in your first point.

Originally Posted by Tabe

Well, yeah. He played 250 more games than anybody else while hitting at the top of the order. I would hope he'd be way up there in runs scored. To be fair, he did have some great seasons scoring runs, leading the league four times.

Of course, that is a function of his playing for so long. But again, he wouldn't have played for so long if he wasn't able to still play.

Originally Posted by Tabe

If he quit after 1981, his last good season, he'd have a .310 career average. That would put him in a tie for 109th with Luke Appling, Jim O'Rourke, and Bob Meusel.

Agreed, but again, I said he'd move up a bit, not get into the top 10. Look at the major league averages over the time he was playing versus other eras in baseball.

Originally Posted by Tabe

But he also would have been a couple hundred hits short of Ty Cobb and there's no way Pete was going to retire without passing Ty barring injury.

Don't disagree. But the argument about singles being nothing compared to home runs was being brought up in this thread as more of a way to dis Rose and further the argument against him being in the HOF. That is the main reason I'm using Rose's stats to try to discourage the concept of singles not really being that important versus home runs. So i was using him in my counter arguments. Doesn't mean he's the be-all, end-all player to refer to, just that he was the one being mentioned in regards to this HOF thread and singles not being so important. Also, even if he missed Cobb, he still would have had close to 4,000 hits which normally would have gotten him HOF status regardless of catching Cobb or not.

Originally Posted by Tabe

A fair point.

Thank you for that.

Originally Posted by Tabe

It's absolutely indisputable that it's better to be a home run hitter than a singles guy like Pete Rose. Rose and Hank Aaron had the same OBP (basically) but Hank did WAAAAAY more damage when he got on base. Aaron had more than 400 more extra base hits than Rose and all of those addition XBHs were home runs.

Again, you're talking about Rose in this context, and now Rose versus Aaron. And I never said that hitting a home run wasn't better than hitting a single. This whole thing started because of my initial response to a post by cardsagain74 who said "Anything related to a home run is a more important record. At least I hope most see it that way. Glorifying base hits isn't much different than keeping track of just how many first downs a QB, RB, or WR produce." My response back didn't say yes or no, just maybe! And I put forth things in my response to him that were trying to show that maybe hits were a little more important to the game than he was letting on. I never even mentioned Rose in that response. It was then that Scott (Aquarian Sports Cards) made the funny post/response about Rose only being 179th on the career AVG. list, and the "luminaries" he was behind. I was just as jokingly coming back and basically agreeing with him, not defending Rose really, but pointing out some of his career stats overall to show he wasn't a complete schmuck!

Originally Posted by Tabe

Put another way - every time somebody hits a homer, runs are scored. Not so much for singles.

Yes, but there are still way more singles hit than home runs, and they will always be a huge part of the game. And again, going back to the original context based on what the original poster I was initially responding to was saying about homers, it almost sounded as though he'd prefer we do away with anything but home runs entirely. If that is the case, it almost sounded like he'd rather we turn baseball into a home run derby contest and make it a pitcher versus batter duel where if it doesn't go over the fence, its an out! The Home Run Derby is super popular during the All-Star game break, and just think, you don't need to worry about position players in the field then. Just find as many big studs as you can to pound the ball over the fence. Still have a nine inning game with the pitchers able to strike out the batters, but no walks. (Lord help us, those are even more boring than singles, right?) And just think how much faster the games would go by then if we didn't bother with overly glorified singles and other hits that aren't home runs, which is another thing MLB and fans have been complaining about for a lot years now.

Originally Posted by Tabe

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Really!?!?!? It is pretty obvious Bonds used PEDs to extend his career and become the all-time hone run leader, so if you properly don't count him, that leaves Hank Aaron as the true all-time home run leader. And Aaron got to that point by doing what Rose did, play for so many years to wrack up the numbers to finally pass Ruth. Again, how is it that the all-time (honest) home-run leader never once hit 50 in a single season? Remember, Aaron's most prolific home run season ever tied him for only 80th on the list of all time single season home run totals. Still, Aaron led the majors in home runs 4 times, runs scored 3 times, hits 2 times, and doubles 4 times. Rose led the majors in runs scored 4 times, hits 7 times, and doubles 5 times. Granted, Rose never led the majors in home runs or RBIs, whereas Aaron led in RBIs 4 times. But as previously mentioned, that RBI difference had a lot to do with Rose being primarily a lead-off hitter whereas Aaron was a middle-of-the-order guy with way more RBI opportunities. And to be fair, the most hits Rose ever had in a season only put him tied at 36th on the all-time single season hit list, whereas Aaron's best year had him tied for 71st most hits in a season on that same list. However, Aaron also only reached 200 hit seasons twice in his career, whereas Rose reached 200 hits 11 times. Bottom line is, the point you didn't get is that the (honest) all-time home run leader got his title the same way Rose got his all-time hits title, by hanging on and doing it over a very long period of time. Quite frankly, had Ichiro not spent so many years playing in Japan before coming to the majors, he likely would have easily eclipsed both Cobb and Rose as the all-time hits leader. And had Ruth not spent his first five years in the majors mostly just pitching for Boston, Aaron would have probably still been on a major league roster right up till the past season, still trying to catch Ruth. (And even better, we probably wouldn't have been concerned about Bonds and what he had done, as he likely wouldn't be the all-time home rune leader either!!!)

Originally Posted by Tabe

This makes no sense. What are you trying to say?

It's basically what I just got through saying. If you're disparaging Rose's all-time hits record because he batted more than anyone else, you basically have to say the same thing about Aaron. Ruth had his 715 home runs in 8,399 official plate appearances. It took Aaron 12,364 official plate appearances to get to 755 home runs. Rose had 14,053 plate appearances to get 4,256 hits lifetime, whereas Cobb had 11,440 plate appearances to get 4,189 hits. Aaron needed 3,363 more plate appearances to out homer Ruth by 40 dingers, and Rose needed 2,613 more plate appearances to get 67 more hits than Cobb.


Bottom line is, my posting was really about the disparagement of singles versus home runs and someone saying how unimportant they seemed to feel that singles were. I was merely trying to come back and argue that in the history of the game, and still today, regular hits, while maybe not always as important as home runs, are still pretty damned important as part of the game.

I'll leave you with this to think about. I remember hearing the story about how reporters and others used to bug Cobb about all the home runs being hit by Ruth and others, and how much better that was than all the singles that Cobb hit over his career, and so why didn't he hit more homers. So supposedly Cobb told some reporter one day he could hit homers if he wanted to, so watch him. And over the next two games he played on May 5th and May 6th of 1925, he preceded to hit a total of 5 home runs in those two games. He actually ended up going 9 for 12 over the two games, so hit for average as well. He then went back to his normal style of batting and ended up with 12 homers for the season, tying his all-time single season home run total from 1921. By the way, I believe he was 38 years old at the time, an age where many power hitters have already started to experience a severe decline in their ability to hit home runs. Oh, I forgot to add, that is still the major league record to this day for most homers ever in two back-to-back games. In fact, Kyle Schwarber just matched that record this past June 20, 1921. Now Cobb was not the first major league player to actually accomplish this feat, it was actually first set by Cap Anson back in 1884, but Cobb was the second ever to do it. But how about this, of the top ten all-time home run hitters in MLB, only Bonds and A-Rod have been able to match that record, and they are both known PED cheaters. McGwire at #11 on the all-time home run list actually matched the record twice, but again, a known PED user and cheater. Then you go all the way down to Manny Rameriz, #15 on the list, to possibly find a clean hitter that matched the record......oh wait, Manny was caught using PEDs as well. Finally you get down to Mike Schmidt at #16 on the all-time home run list before you finally find a known clean hitter that was able to match the same major league record that Cobb has held part of for almost 100 years now. Isn't that amazing?

So here's Cobb at 38 years of age in 1925 just turning on the home run hitting ability to shut up some reporter during the height of the initial home run craze in baseball, powered by Ruth no less. And then immediately after showing what he could do, Cobb goes right back to his normal batting style of getting hits and bats .378 for the season. He did lead the majors with a 1.066 OPS that year also. (Not too shabby, huh?) The whole story of what Cobb actually said, or didn't say, about suddenly hitting home runs can't be proven exactly, but the record is for real. Think about it, no one else in the 1920's could match this, not even Ruth or Gehrig. It wasn't till 1936 that Lazzeri was the next player to match the record, and after that it wasn't till 1947 when Kiner did it on two different occasion that one Summer.

So all you people talking about how home runs are so much more important than singles, I only wish Ty Cobb was still with us today to hear what he'd have to say to all of you about that!!! LOL Have a good 4th of July everybody..

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by BobC

It's basically what I just got through saying. If you're disparaging Rose's all-time hits record because he batted more than anyone else, you basically have to say the same thing about Aaron. Ruth had his 715 home runs in 8,399 official plate appearances. It took Aaron 12,364 official plate appearances to get to 755 home runs. Rose had 14,053 plate appearances to get 4,256 hits lifetime, whereas Cobb had 11,440 plate appearances to get 4,189 hits. Aaron needed 3,363 more plate appearances to out homer Ruth by 40 dingers, and Rose needed 2,613 more plate appearances to get 67 more hits than Cobb.

The difference is that Aaron was still great in 1973 and very good in 1974. He already owned Tyr record when he stopped being good and was just average. Rose stopped being good in 1981, playing 3 full seasons as a not good or even terrible player before playing another half season as a basically average player before finally breaking the record. And you could probably make the case he only got in the lineup because he was the one writing out the card. There's hanging around for a long time (Aaron) and the there's hanging on. Pete definitely hung on, to the detriment of his teams (.602 OPS at 1B in 1983? Yikes. Maybe Philly actually wins the title if they had an actual major league 1B that year.)

Originally Posted by BobC

I'll leave you with this to think about. I remember hearing the story about how reporters and others used to bug Cobb about all the home runs being hit by Ruth and others, and how much better that was than all the singles that Cobb hit over his career, and so why didn't he hit more homers. So supposedly Cobb told some reporter one day he could hit homers if he wanted to, so watch him. And over the next two games he played on May 5th and May 6th of 1925, he preceded to hit a total of 5 home runs in those two games.

They tell similar stories about Ichiro. Seems odd that a player would intentionally choose to be less successful. In other words, the story is nonsense.

[G1911]

We can tell the story about Cobb is fiction because it's source is Al Stump, who just completely lied through his teeth again and again in the book it is from.

I'd check his 1925 game log, but since as it's Stump...

[BobC]

Originally Posted by G1911

We can tell the story about Cobb is fiction because it's source is Al Stump, who just completely lied through his teeth again and again in the book it is from.

I'd check his 1925 game log, but since as it's Stump...

I had said the background story was questionable, but I didn't hear about it from Stump's book either. There is a lot of info online and there was mention of someone other than Stump talking about it. And anyway, your logic is waaaayyyy off. Just because Stump did make up a lot of stuff about Cobb for his book doesn't mean everything he wrote about in the book is fiction and a lie. And you made a very emphatic statement that the story isn't true because of that reason, and that reason alone. And then you said to check Cobb's 1925 game log, why? To see that he didn't hit all the home runs in the story????? I trust Baseball Almanac is a reliable enough source for you. They already had it updated for Kyle Schwarber tying the record a couple weeks ago.


https://www.baseball-almanac.com/recbooks/rb_hr5.shtml


So regardless of exactly what Cobb did or didn't say to anyone, he did do the feat and set a record that even Ruth never matched. And by the way, before anyone else jumps in to disparage Cobb, all 5 of the homers he hit in matching this record were over the fence. There were no inside-the-park homers or any that bounced over the fence.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BobC

I had said the background story was questionable, but I didn't hear about it from Stump's book either. There is a lot of info online and there was mention of someone other than Stump talking about it. And anyway, your logic is waaaayyyy off. Just because Stump did make up a lot of stuff about Cobb for his book doesn't mean everything he wrote about in the book is fiction and a lie. And you made a very emphatic statement that the story isn't true because of that reason, and that reason alone. And then you said to check Cobb's 1925 game log, why? To see that he didn't hit all the home runs in the story????? I trust Baseball Almanac is a reliable enough source for you. They already had it updated for Kyle Schwarber tying the record a couple weeks ago.


https://www.baseball-almanac.com/recbooks/rb_hr5.shtml


So regardless of exactly what Cobb did or didn't say to anyone, he did do the feat and set a record that even Ruth never matched. And by the way, before anyone else jumps in to disparage Cobb, all 5 of the homers he hit in matching this record were over the fence. There were no inside-the-park homers or any that bounced over the fence.

No one is disparaging Cobb? Doubting him hitting 5 home runs in 2 games whenever he simply decided to do so is hardly disparaging, unless one feels Cobb has superhuman powers and could homer purely at will. Yes, a story that traces it's first telling to Stump is a story that is almost certainly untrue. Yes, I'd check the game logs to see if it even happened as a first step. I'm happy to stand corrected if someone has earlier documentation on this tale before Stump. I've not seen any. I doubt it's veracity.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by BobC

I had said the background story was questionable, but I didn't hear about it from Stump's book either. There is a lot of info online and there was mention of someone other than Stump talking about it. And anyway, your logic is waaaayyyy off. Just because Stump did make up a lot of stuff about Cobb for his book doesn't mean everything he wrote about in the book is fiction and a lie. And you made a very emphatic statement that the story isn't true because of that reason, and that reason alone. And then you said to check Cobb's 1925 game log, why? To see that he didn't hit all the home runs in the story????? I trust Baseball Almanac is a reliable enough source for you. They already had it updated for Kyle Schwarber tying the record a couple weeks ago.


https://www.baseball-almanac.com/recbooks/rb_hr5.shtml


So regardless of exactly what Cobb did or didn't say to anyone, he did do the feat and set a record that even Ruth never matched. And by the way, before anyone else jumps in to disparage Cobb, all 5 of the homers he hit in matching this record were over the fence. There were no inside-the-park homers or any that bounced over the fence.

Bounced over the fence? Do you even baseball?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Tabe

The difference is that Aaron was still great in 1973 and very good in 1974. He already owned Tyr record when he stopped being good and was just average. Rose stopped being good in 1981, playing 3 full seasons as a not good or even terrible player before playing another half season as a basically average player before finally breaking the record. And you could probably make the case he only got in the lineup because he was the one writing out the card. There's hanging around for a long time (Aaron) and the there's hanging on. Pete definitely hung on, to the detriment of his teams (.602 OPS at 1B in 1983? Yikes. Maybe Philly actually wins the title if they had an actual major league 1B that year.)

I don't disagree that Aaron may have been a better player than Rose when comparing their last few years, but the truth is they had both lost quite a lot from their better days. And that is also not the relevant point and comparison I was referring to. Both Rose and Aaron had to play way beyond what a normal major league career is to be able to set their respective records. They both needed literally thousands of more at bats than the guys they were chasing, Cobb and Ruth. That is indisputable!!! And if you want to go even farther, the disparity is even worse. Remember, back when Ruth and Cobb played a season was 154 games, shorter than the 162 games it is now. And over the long career of Cobb, those missing games are likely the equivalent of another whole year's worth of at bats that he didn't get to add to his hit total. That could have easily been worth say another 200 hits to his all-time total. In which case, Rose may not have been able to hang on long enough to finally catch him. As for Ruth, I'd previously mentioned he didn't even bat full-time until he got to the Yankees in 1920. He was mostly pitching for the Red Sox from 1914 through 1919, even though he did start batting some more for the Sox in his last two season with them. In fact, it is funny how Ruth not even playing full-time still led the majors in home runs in both 1918 and 1919 for the Red Sox. Because of that, he didn't miss out on as many at bats as Cobb did because of the shorter schedule, but he still lost a lot of at bats from that also.

And I still point to the fact that Rose had so many years getting 200 or more hits, whereas Aaron seemed to have fewer years where he stood out as a home run hitter, and never hit 50 in a single season.

And to say Rose was chasing Cobb's record, yes of course. But you don't think Aaron wasn't also pushing to catch Ruth? You know MLB is always looking to pump up and advertise and bring interest to the sport. There was quite a lot of pressure on him to get that record. But to try and come out and now argue that because Aaron was a bit better player than Rose during their last few playing years does not change the fact that they both had to go and play a lot more to try and finally catch the people they were chasing. That was the valid and indisputable point I was making. Neither Aaron nor Rose over their careers completely dominated the area they hold their all-time records in. Certainly not like Ruth and Cobb did.

Originally Posted by Tabe

They tell similar stories about Ichiro. Seems odd that a player would intentionally choose to be less successful. In other words, the story is nonsense.

What story is nonsense, about Ichiro hitting home runs? I've also heard the stories that during batting practices Ichiro would change his swing to be like the home run guys and start belting shots all over the fences. And then after playing around and having fun he'd go right back to his normal swing and crank out singles and doubles, like he did over his entire career. A lot of his teammates had watched and seen him doing it, and felt that if he had wanted to, he could have hit a lot of home runs. But of course, he was mostly doing that during batting practices and not during actual games. Still, if you have major leaguers watching him and saying he could do it if he wanted to, I would tend to believe them more than you, unless by some chance you are a major leaguer and had actually seen Ichiro hitting in person and could honestly then tell everyone he couldn't do it if he wanted.

Now if you're saying the Cobb story is nonsense, what part of it? There is no dispute that Cobb hit 5 homers over back-to-back games, that is in the record books so that can't be it. Are you talking about the alleged story where he supposedly told some reporter beforehand he was going to hit home runs to show he could do it? If so, I'd already said there was no proof he actually said that to anyone, and it is possible someone had made it up after the fact, kind of like Ruth's called shot story. We'll never know the truth for either of them. But the fact remains that he did it, against major league pitching in back-to-back games. So regardless of what the actual story is and what was or wasn't actually said, for whatever reason, Cobb decided over those two days in 1925 to go for the fences, and boy was he successful!!!

Now here's the one thing you said that is really annoying. You said it seems odd that a player would intentionally choose to be less successful. Who are you talking about, Cobb or Ichiro, cause you didn't really say which story you find to be nonsense? Probably doesn't matter though because I'm not sure you'd find anyone to agree with you that either of them wasn't already as successful as they could be. So are you trying to say neither of them could really hit home runs if they wanted to, because if they could, they wouldn't have wasted their time hitting all the singles they did in their careers and would have been even better than they were? Is that it?!?!?! If the player with the all-time highest batting average in the history of baseball, who never hit more than 12 home runs in an entire season, suddenly decides to go for the fences in two games and knocks 5 homers out of the park, it sure ain't dumb luck on his part!!!!! And if it wasn't dumb luck on his part, then it had to be intentional, whether he told anybody he was going to do it or not. So are you effectively saying that Cobb chose to not be as successful as he could be?!?!?!? If that is the case, I wish he were alive today so you could stand in front of him and say that to his face. What I wouldn't give to be able to see his reaction to that! WOW!

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by BobC

Now if you're saying the Cobb story is nonsense, what part of it? There is no dispute that Cobb hit 5 homers over back-to-back games, that is in the record books so that can't be it. Are you talking about the alleged story where he supposedly told some reporter beforehand he was going to hit home runs to show he could do it?

Yes, that's the part that's nonsense.

Originally Posted by BobC

Now here's the one thing you said that is really annoying. You said it seems odd that a player would intentionally choose to be less successful. Who are you talking about, Cobb or Ichiro, cause you didn't really say which story you find to be nonsense?

Either one though I was specifically referring to Cobb.

Originally Posted by BobC

Probably doesn't matter though because I'm not sure you'd find anyone to agree with you that either of them wasn't already as successful as they could be.

Ah, but clearly that's not true since Cobb was able to hit over .500 with multiple homers per game when he was "trying". So clearly he could have been more successful because there's absolutely no way that the story about him trying wasn't just made up nonsense, right?

Originally Posted by BobC

So are you trying to say neither of them could really hit home runs if they wanted to, because if they could, they wouldn't have wasted their time hitting all the singles they did in their careers and would have been even better than they were? Is that it?!?!?!

Pretty much, yeah.

Originally Posted by BobC

If the player with the all-time highest batting average in the history of baseball, who never hit more than 12 home runs in an entire season, suddenly decides to go for the fences in two games and knocks 5 homers out of the park, it sure ain't dumb luck on his part!!!!!

Clearly he's highly skilled so it's not just luck but... you're trying to say he possessed the inate ability to hit multiple homers per game his entire career and chose not to. Think about that for a second.

Originally Posted by BobC

So are you effectively saying that Cobb chose to not be as successful as he could be?!?!?!?

If he truly had the ability to hit home runs all that time and chose not to then, yeah, he was choosing to be less successful intentionally.

Originally Posted by BobC

If that is the case, I wish he were alive today so you could stand in front of him and say that to his face. What I wouldn't give to be able to see his reaction to that! WOW!

I'd happily do that. Because my line of thinking - that Cobb absolutely maximized what he could do on the field - is far more charitable than your view which is that he chose to not help his team or perform to the best of his ability by intentionally NOT trying to hit the homers he could hit so easily.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Yes, that's the part that's nonsense.


Either one though I was specifically referring to Cobb.


Ah, but clearly that's not true since Cobb was able to hit over .500 with multiple homers per game when he was "trying". So clearly he could have been more successful because there's absolutely no way that the story about him trying wasn't just made up nonsense, right?


Pretty much, yeah.


Clearly he's highly skilled so it's not just luck but... you're trying to say he possessed the inate ability to hit multiple homers per game his entire career and chose not to. Think about that for a second.


If he truly had the ability to hit home runs all that time and chose not to then, yeah, he was choosing to be less successful intentionally.


I'd happily do that. Because my line of thinking - that Cobb absolutely maximized what he could do on the field - is far more charitable than your view which is that he chose to not help his team or perform to the best of his ability by intentionally NOT trying to hit the homers he could hit so easily.

Chris/Tabe,

It must really be nice to pick and choose statements and respond in such a way to twist someone else's words to your advantage, or did you not understand anything I said? And where do you get off saying my view is not "charitable" to Cobb and that I am somehow implying that he chose not to do his best to help his team? I said you'd have a hard time finding anyone to agree with you (not me, YOU) that Cobb and Ichiro weren't already as successful as they could be. So I'm saying that Cobb was as successful as he could be, and you somehow twist it to then say I'm now accusing him of not doing his best to help his team? You're the one that was implying Cobb wasn't doing his best to help his team because he didn't try to hit home runs, which you feel are so much more important than singles. So you think you're smart and going to put me in a Catch-22 huh?

So if I say Cobb could hit home runs if he wanted to, yet chose to hit singles instead, that counters your argument that everyone should think singles are worth so little compared to home runs. But instead of acknowledging that Cobb's opinion and what he does in his career puts down your thinking about the importance of singles, you're just going to ignore and deflect that by accusing me of implying that Cobb wasn't doing the best for his team and for himself then. And you make yourself look like you win the argument by accusing me of putting Cobb down and simply ignoring the fact that he was more for hitting singles.

But if on the other hand Cobb can't really hit home runs whenever he wanted to, aside from an occasional one here and there, then all he ever was is just a singles hitter and I can't use him and his choice to be a singles hitter to counter your argument that singles are worth so little compared to home runs. So then you again make yourself look like you win the argument because I don't have Cobb to counter it, and you still have the satisfaction of accusing me of implying that Cobb didn't do his best for himself or for his team.

Do I have it about right?

Seems you don't have an open mind and will only believe what you want to and you're right and anyone not agreeing with you is wrong. I never said Cobb wasn't the best and most successful he could be. That was what you were implying, and then you tried to turn it around and put it back on me to make yourself look right. The fact that Cobb did what he did in those two games in 1925 clearly shows he could change his swing if he wanted to and try to go for the fences. You keep saying the story isn't true about him telling some sportswriters beforehand that he was going to hit for home runs, and I've said I don't really believe the story either, but the fact is the home runs are in the record books. Whether or not he actually ever told anyone about trying to hit homers, he did it. So when you say you don't believe the story and therefore you don't believe he could hit for homers when he wanted to, then how do you account for and explain the sudden surge in power for just these two games in his entire career? I don't want your deflections, changing the subject, ignoring my direct question, or so on. Give me some logical thoughts, ideas, evidence, explanations, whatever you can come up with to then explain how hit hits 5 homers like that without him suddenly doing something different, and no more of the, "I just don't believe it" nonsense.

It is fairly well known, even today, there is always a lot of debate about whether batters should go for home runs or average (ie: more singles). You hear commentators make mention of guys changing their swings to try and elevate the ball more when they hit it, often at the expense of getting more strike outs, or suddenly popping it up or hitting weak grounders a lot more as well. A lot of times their batting averages will suffer as a result and they can end up going into slumps. All of which is not good, and can take time for a hitter to readjust their swing in some cases to get it back on track so they aren't always just swinging for the fences. Cobb was a great hitter with an almost unparalleled eye and bat control, He was also about 6'1", which was sizable for the players back then, and had some ooomph to his swing. He came up during the dead ball era and had shown he was the best player he could be for years, using his style of batting control and swing to set the all-time major league batting records he did. And then suddenly when he's already into his 30's, MLB decides to change the ball and make it more lively. Now it is something he's not used to and after all his prior years of playing ball, it isn't always easy to adapt and change one's swing and how you do things, especially when you've had the kind of success that Cobb had had, and was still continuing to have as long as he stuck to how he had always done things. It has also been commented on how Cobb was completely unpredictable in his hitting and baserunning, and that was one of his most valuable weapons. And it was also well known how Cobb despised the new live ball era, and Ruth especially with all the attention he was getting from his home runs. All of these could be contributing factors as to why Cobb may have experimented and tried changing his swing, and then went back to what it was almost immediately.

So, regardless of whether or not Cobb did or didn't say something about trying to hit home runs to anyone on the 5th and 6th of May, 1925, it seems pretty obvious that for whatever reason(s) he changed something about the way he batted those two days and went looking for the fences. This could have been part of his trying to be unpredictable, or maybe just an experiment to see if he could do it, and maybe he did just get lucky over those two days trying something different. But Cobb was anything but stupid when it came to baseball and hitting. He probably also knew that if he tried to keep going for the fences that his swing could get messed up and would ultimately start affecting his hitting and average, or maybe it wasn't comfortable and natural for him and he couldn't keep doing it like that. Also, once pitchers figured out that he was possibly changing his swing to try and elevate the ball more, the word would eventually get around and chances are he would start getting pitched to differently. You see it today even how batters first coming into a league oftentimes have an advantage because the pitchers don't know how to pitch to them yet. Whatever the reasoning and thinking, Cobb alone knew the truth, and whatever he did he was going to do for the success of himself and his team. To even think I'd second guess Cobb and imply he didn't do the best he could is utterly ridiculous. You had been the one saying it was so much better to hit homers than singles, which would imply that Cobb should have just tried hitting homers all the time. Cobb was the great hitter he was and knew better than either of us what was best for him and his team. So don't go putting words in my mouth and twisting what I gad said.

And if your logic about homers is so true, then why doesn't every major league player today do nothing but go for the fences? And if you're going to say it is because they also need fielders and the big studs can't all play the field, there are a lot of smaller guys that pound it out as well. So if you like homers so much more than singles and find them so much more important to the game, why don't you write to MLB and ask them to expand the DH rule to the max. Have nine designated batters so you can pick the biggest studs you can find to hit 'em out of the park, and then have eight different guys to play in the field. Would make sense from the team standpoint also because they wouldn't have their batters risking injury as much by playing in the field. Oohh, maybe they should have designated runners for the batters as well so the stud hitters don't injure themselves on the base paths either. That would certainly all make for a more fun game to watch and attend, based on your concept of how important home runs are, right?

I'll leave you with this. Cobb knew the importance of his hitting and singles, and despite all the changes in baseball over the years, there is still a lot today's game has in common with the game from back then. And even in the midst of the recent power surge baseball has seen over the past several years, I still don't feel home runs are as important to the game as you make them out to be. And believe it or not, there is a lot of statistical data to prove what I'm saying is true, even today.

https://www.samford.edu/sports-analy...Hitting-Period