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

[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.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

First of all, I wasn't saying that YOU doubting Cobb hitting 5 homers in two games was disparaging. The reason I put that in my post was as a pre-emptive strike against someone else posting and saying that Cobb's 5 homers probably included ones that were inside-the-park homers or had bounced over the fence and counted as homers, and that therefore his piece of this MLB record was tainted because they weren't all hit over the fence on a fly like they had to be after 1930 to count as a home run.

Cobb had hit 12 homers in a season only twice in his career, once in 1925, that included the 5 he hit over a two day period, and also in 1921. In 1921 however, 4 of those were inside-the-park homers. And back in 1909 when Cobb actually won the MLB Triple Crown, he did so hitting a total of 9 home runs, all of which were inside-the-park homers, not a single one over the fence. Supposedly all 12 of Cobb's homers in 1925 were the "over the fence" variety.

I figured I'd save myself time and not have to respond to posts from people who would just jump on and question Cobb's home runs without doing their own research first, but that doesn't appear to have worked. So, here are some articles/sources out there that include info on Cobb's home runs and also info about the story of him telling people he was going to purposely hit home runs back in 1925. Though one of these stories does mention Stump's book, it also names of a couple sportswriters who supposedly heard Cobb's comments about hitting home runs. And it is even more interesting that one of those two sportswriters eventually became a Director of the baseball HOF in Cooperstown (and is therefore someone whom you would think and hope is a little more respected and reliable source than Stump ever would be), and yet he, nor the other named sportswriter, apparently never disputed the Cobb story. So it isn't all just coming from Stump. Even after all that, I too still wonder and doubt if Cobb ever really said he was going to purposely hit home runs all of a sudden, and lean towards the myth side of that story myself. Just like the Ruth called home run shot story.

However, that doesn't change the indisputable fact that Cobb did hit the 5 homers, so I'm not sure what you meant when you said, "Yes, I'd check the game logs to see if it even happened as a first step." Are these ESPN and Baseball Almanac articles and stories that follow good enough for you, or do you still need more authoritative collaboration?


https://www.espn.com/blog/sweetspot/...hree-home-runs

https://www.vintagedetroit.com/ty-co...s-well-anyone/

https://www.baseball-almanac.com/pla...php?p=cobbty01

https://radicalbaseball.blogspot.com...ns-in-two.html

https://www.barstoolsports.com/blog/...nside-the-park

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



And this whole thing with Cobb and the home runs really goes back to an earlier poster talking about how singles were so less important than home runs. That is the reason I originally brought up the Cobb home run story to try and show another side to the argument. I thought it was kind of funny that someone would come out and actually say they cared so much less for singles than home runs. So here's Cobb, one of the greatest hitters in MLB history (if not arguably the greatest), who had by virtue of these two games in 1925, late in his career and at a somewhat advanced age for a ballplayer, shown that he apparently could hit homers if he wanted. And yet he still chose not to over his entire career, save for these two games. That earlier poster then went on in a later post to say - "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." This was in reference to the story of Cobb supposedly saying he was going to hit home runs all of a sudden, and that was this guy's way of trying to dispute that story. But he missed my point entirely. It didn't have anything to do with the story of whether or not Cobb ever really said he was going to do it to a couple sportswriters, the truth is that he actually did it!!!! And for a hitter as good and as consistent as Cobb, over a career as long as his, to suddenly have a couple games like that out of nowhere means that he must have decided to go for the fences in those two games, whether he said he was going to beforehand to someone else or not. That was no dumb luck fluke, not for someone with Cobb's batting eye and hitting ability. So it had to be intentional on his part. And if it was intentional, my whole point was how ironic is it that this earlier poster would say it is odd for a player to intentionally choose to be less successful (meaning they would consciously choose to hit singles rather than home runs I believe) and yet it appears that is exactly what Ty Cobb chose to do throughout his career. So it seems to me that this earlier poster, to put it bluntly, is saying that if Ty Cobb could have hit more homers if he wanted to, but didn't, that he was basically stupid! And that is why I also said I wish Cobb were still around today for this earlier poster to have said exactly what he posted about choosing to be more successful to Cobb's face, as I think Cobb would would have taken it just like I bluntly put it. I can easily envision Cobb's reaction being on a level like Brett's pine tar incident, or worse!!!

Forget the story, Cobb's apparent choice to hit singles instead of going for home runs I felt was the biggest counter to the earlier poster's argument that home runs were so much more important than singles. I'm not saying that homers aren't more important than singles (just not at the disparity that that earlier poster seemed to imply) or that Cobb could have ever come close to hitting home runs like Ruth did. Just saying that he's one huge proponent for singles still meaning something pretty important to the game, and to therefore not discount them so quickly, even when compared to home runs.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by BobC

Forget the story, Cobb's apparent choice to hit singles instead of going for home runs I felt was the biggest counter to the earlier poster's argument that home runs were so much more important than singles. I'm not saying that homers aren't more important than singles (just not at the disparity that that earlier poster seemed to imply) or that Cobb could have ever come close to hitting home runs like Ruth did. Just saying that he's one huge proponent for singles still meaning something pretty important to the game, and to therefore not discount them so quickly, even when compared to home runs.

It should be noted that Cobb's offensive style was to get on base and then use his aggressiveness, brains, and unpredictability to not only manufacture runs, but distract the pitcher and defense into making mistakes. A single is a single.... unless it was Cobb.

Nobody else in baseball history was able to weaponize a single like Ty Cobb.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

It should be noted that Cobb's offensive style was to get on base and then use his aggressiveness, brains, and unpredictability to not only manufacture runs, but distract the pitcher and defense into making mistakes. A single is a single.... unless it was Cobb.

Nobody else in baseball history was able to weaponize a single like Ty Cobb.

Rickey Henderson.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Mark17

It should be noted that Cobb's offensive style was to get on base and then use his aggressiveness, brains, and unpredictability to not only manufacture runs, but distract the pitcher and defense into making mistakes. A single is a single.... unless it was Cobb.

Nobody else in baseball history was able to weaponize a single like Ty Cobb.

Just saw before I hit submit that Peter beat me to it. Add in walks for Rickey too.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mark17

It should be noted that Cobb's offensive style was to get on base and then use his aggressiveness, brains, and unpredictability to not only manufacture runs, but distract the pitcher and defense into making mistakes. A single is a single.... unless it was Cobb.

Nobody else in baseball history was able to weaponize a single like Ty Cobb.

Agree, along with some of the other posters regarding Henderson, Wills, and Brock. Just having someone on base changes the way most pitchers would then pitch to home run hitters, and also can effect the positioning of infielders as well.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BobC

First of all, I wasn't saying that YOU doubting Cobb hitting 5 homers in two games was disparaging. The reason I put that in my post was as a pre-emptive strike against someone else posting and saying that Cobb's 5 homers probably included ones that were inside-the-park homers or had bounced over the fence and counted as homers, and that therefore his piece of this MLB record was tainted because they weren't all hit over the fence on a fly like they had to be after 1930 to count as a home run.

Cobb had hit 12 homers in a season only twice in his career, once in 1925, that included the 5 he hit over a two day period, and also in 1921. In 1921 however, 4 of those were inside-the-park homers. And back in 1909 when Cobb actually won the MLB Triple Crown, he did so hitting a total of 9 home runs, all of which were inside-the-park homers, not a single one over the fence. Supposedly all 12 of Cobb's homers in 1925 were the "over the fence" variety.

I figured I'd save myself time and not have to respond to posts from people who would just jump on and question Cobb's home runs without doing their own research first, but that doesn't appear to have worked. So, here are some articles/sources out there that include info on Cobb's home runs and also info about the story of him telling people he was going to purposely hit home runs back in 1925. Though one of these stories does mention Stump's book, it also names of a couple sportswriters who supposedly heard Cobb's comments about hitting home runs. And it is even more interesting that one of those two sportswriters eventually became a Director of the baseball HOF in Cooperstown (and is therefore someone whom you would think and hope is a little more respected and reliable source than Stump ever would be), and yet he, nor the other named sportswriter, apparently never disputed the Cobb story. So it isn't all just coming from Stump. Even after all that, I too still wonder and doubt if Cobb ever really said he was going to purposely hit home runs all of a sudden, and lean towards the myth side of that story myself. Just like the Ruth called home run shot story.

However, that doesn't change the indisputable fact that Cobb did hit the 5 homers, so I'm not sure what you meant when you said, "Yes, I'd check the game logs to see if it even happened as a first step." Are these ESPN and Baseball Almanac articles and stories that follow good enough for you, or do you still need more authoritative collaboration?


https://www.espn.com/blog/sweetspot/...hree-home-runs

https://www.vintagedetroit.com/ty-co...s-well-anyone/

https://www.baseball-almanac.com/pla...php?p=cobbty01

https://radicalbaseball.blogspot.com...ns-in-two.html

https://www.barstoolsports.com/blog/...nside-the-park

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



And this whole thing with Cobb and the home runs really goes back to an earlier poster talking about how singles were so less important than home runs. That is the reason I originally brought up the Cobb home run story to try and show another side to the argument. I thought it was kind of funny that someone would come out and actually say they cared so much less for singles than home runs. So here's Cobb, one of the greatest hitters in MLB history (if not arguably the greatest), who had by virtue of these two games in 1925, late in his career and at a somewhat advanced age for a ballplayer, shown that he apparently could hit homers if he wanted. And yet he still chose not to over his entire career, save for these two games. That earlier poster then went on in a later post to say - "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." This was in reference to the story of Cobb supposedly saying he was going to hit home runs all of a sudden, and that was this guy's way of trying to dispute that story. But he missed my point entirely. It didn't have anything to do with the story of whether or not Cobb ever really said he was going to do it to a couple sportswriters, the truth is that he actually did it!!!! And for a hitter as good and as consistent as Cobb, over a career as long as his, to suddenly have a couple games like that out of nowhere means that he must have decided to go for the fences in those two games, whether he said he was going to beforehand to someone else or not. That was no dumb luck fluke, not for someone with Cobb's batting eye and hitting ability. So it had to be intentional on his part. And if it was intentional, my whole point was how ironic is it that this earlier poster would say it is odd for a player to intentionally choose to be less successful (meaning they would consciously choose to hit singles rather than home runs I believe) and yet it appears that is exactly what Ty Cobb chose to do throughout his career. So it seems to me that this earlier poster, to put it bluntly, is saying that if Ty Cobb could have hit more homers if he wanted to, but didn't, that he was basically stupid! And that is why I also said I wish Cobb were still around today for this earlier poster to have said exactly what he posted about choosing to be more successful to Cobb's face, as I think Cobb would would have taken it just like I bluntly put it. I can easily envision Cobb's reaction being on a level like Brett's pine tar incident, or worse!!!

Forget the story, Cobb's apparent choice to hit singles instead of going for home runs I felt was the biggest counter to the earlier poster's argument that home runs were so much more important than singles. I'm not saying that homers aren't more important than singles (just not at the disparity that that earlier poster seemed to imply) or that Cobb could have ever come close to hitting home runs like Ruth did. Just saying that he's one huge proponent for singles still meaning something pretty important to the game, and to therefore not discount them so quickly, even when compared to home runs.

None of those sources you cite pre-date Stump, they are just other sources repeating Stump's story decades later. A blog post summarizing the incident from his book is not a new source. Your Baseball Almanac source even gives the page numbers in Stump's pile of manure they got it from. Later writers citing a fictional book does not mean they become a new source; it all comes back to the same original source. I am happy to be proven wrong if an earlier source for this story can be found. As it's source is a discredited book that is so far away from fact it belongs in the fiction section and nobody has come up with other evidence, no, I don't think it is reasonable to believe it at this time. Even if he did say it, it was still pretty clearly luck.

I said I'd check the game logs to see if he even hit 5 in two games, but as it's from a well-known liar, I didn't bother because that he hit 5 home runs in two games doesn't prove the story (that he chose to do so and could homer at will) anyways.

Cobb hitting 5 home runs in 2 games is, obviously, dumb luck. Is Dale Long a great home run hitter? Do you truly believe Cobb could homer at will and chose not too because singles are good too? Of course it's luck. I think Cobb was the greatest pre-Ruth player, but nobody can homer at will. He did not choose to hit singles instead of home runs; that makes no logical sense and assigns him a superhuman ability.

I agree with the other poster, singles ARE less important than home runs. I think this is pretty obvious. There is no situation, ever, in which a single is more valuable than a home run. It's a good story, reason tells us it is probably not true, and that if he did say it, Cobb obviously could not homer at will. If he could, if he did have this god-like ability, he sure didn't choose to use it often at all.

[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 Aquarian Sports Cards

Bounced over the fence? Do you even baseball?

??????

Do I even baseball what?

Were you trying to ask me - Do I even KNOW baseball? Because if you are, you need to go look in a mirror. You do know that up till 1930 the MLB rule was that if a ball was hit to the outfield and landed and then bounced over the fence it was counted as a home run, right? And if that wasn't your question, i have no idea what - "Do I even baseball?" - is asking.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by BobC

??????

Do I even baseball what?

Were you trying to ask me - Do I even KNOW baseball? Because if you are, you need to go look in a mirror. You do know that up till 1930 the MLB rule was that if a ball was hit to the outfield and landed and then bounced over the fence it was counted as a home run, right? And if that wasn't your question, i have no idea what - "Do I even baseball?" - is asking.

I will eat my slice of humble pie.

Though I will also point out that the AL changed the rule prior to the 1929 season, which I found out by checking your assertion.

Sorry I jumped on you, even us know-it-alls can still learn something!

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I will eat my slice of humble pie.

Though I will also point out that the AL changed the rule prior to the 1929 season, which I found out by checking your assertion.

Sorry I jumped on you, even us know-it-alls can still learn something!

Admitting you were mistaken, bro? Do you even internet?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I will eat my slice of humble pie.

Though I will also point out that the AL changed the rule prior to the 1929 season, which I found out by checking your assertion.

Sorry I jumped on you, even us know-it-alls can still learn something!

LOL

Scott,

No harm, no foul. I honestly wasn't really aware of that late date for the rule change until very recently either. By the way, I didn't realize there was a difference in the Al and NL, so thanks for correcting me as well. I saw the 1930 date somewhere and it didn't register with me that the two leagues could have different start dates for that particular rule.

As noted in a different post in this thread, I mentioned that rule and inside-the-park home runs so no one would need to call me out and say Cobb probably hadn't hit all 5 over the fence, and therefore argue they weren't true home runs. I found it interesting in some research that a very large number of Cobb's homers were inside-the-park (ITP) ones. When he hit 12 homers in 1921, apparently 4 of those were ITP. What I found astounding though was that in 1909 Cobb won the Triple Crown and led the majors with 9 home runs, all ITP homers. I never knew that till just a couple days ago. That is an insane statistic.

So given Cobb's history, I pointed out about the ITP and bouncing over the wall homers so that people couldn't argue that the 5 he hit in two games may have been a fluke. Think about it, if say 3 of the 5 had been ITP homers, and maybe another one had bounced over the fence, that would have left only one true homer hit out of the park. That would honestly make it look like pure dumb luck he had so many all at once then. But all 5 on a fly, over the fence, means they weren't a fluke and he must have done something those two days to hit that many homers all at once. They still talk today about how some players will consciously change their swings to elevate the ball and go for more homers, and how it can sometimes really screw up a hitter and their ability to get on base. They say they'll often strike out more or sometimes go into slumps where they seem to just pop or ground out all the time as well then. Thing is, that hitting part of the game hasn't really changed that much, but Cobb just suddenly doing what he did lets you know he must have consciously changed something with his swing those two games to hit all those home runs. There really is no other plausible explanation for it.

[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

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by BobC

which you feel are so much more important than singles.

It's not just me - it's everyone. Home runs are FAAAAAARRRRRR more important than singles. That's absolutely indisputable.

Originally Posted by BobC

So you think you're smart and going to put me in a Catch-22 huh?

If I can, sure

Originally Posted by BobC

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.

No, it doesn't counter my argument. What it does is provide another example of what Ichiro was criticized for throughout his career - prioritizing his average over everything else, to the detriment of his team. Ichiro after his first season (with some exceptions) basically stopped trying to hit the ball hard. This resulted in a guy hitting .320 with great speed somehow only getting 20 doubles a year.

Originally Posted by BobC

But instead of acknowledging that Cobb's opinion and what he does in his career puts down your thinking about the importance of singles

If Cobb truly thought singles were anywhere close to the value of home runs, he was wrong. Period. I can acknowledge that opinion, if he held it, and say it's wrong - because it is.

Originally Posted by BobC

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?

Originally Posted by BobC

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.

Well, naturally I believe anybody who disagrees with me is wrong. Literally every single person on the planet feels that way. If you think something is correct and someone disagrees with you, you think they're wrong until they show you otherwise. If that weren't true, then you are admitting you believe something you know isn't true. Doesn't make sense, does it?

Also, I do have an open mind.

Originally Posted by BobC

how do you account for and explain the sudden surge in power for just these two games in his entire career?

The same way I account for Mark Lemke slugging .708 in the 1991 World Series. Or Dave Stieb throwing back-to-back 26-out no-hitters. Sometimes guys have a couple good days.

Originally Posted by BobC

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's simple - he made good contact and the ball went out. He needn't have changed anything for that to happen - he'd hit home runs before.

Originally Posted by BobC

maybe just an experiment to see if he could do it

"Yep, that experiment was really successful. Don't wanna ever do that again!"

Originally Posted by BobC

To even think I'd second guess Cobb and imply he didn't do the best he could is utterly ridiculous.

You're the one who said Cobb could hit homers when he wanted to and still chose not to.

Originally Posted by BobC

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.

If he was able to hit them at will, as the 1925 story claims, yes, he should have tried hitting them all the time - because home runs are BETTER.

Originally Posted by BobC

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?

Because not every guy can hit them?

Originally Posted by BobC

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.

I didn't say I like home runs more - now who's putting words in whose mouth? I said they're more important. I like variety - singles, doubles, stolen bases, home runs, the whole nine yards. But it's pretty obvious which of those is the best outcome for an AB.

Originally Posted by BobC

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.

FWIW, I hate the DH.

Originally Posted by BobC

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

I mean, if you're going to do an analysis about home runs without controlling for a team's pitching quality, you're going to come up with a flawed analysis that somehow still comes up with the right result (more home runs = more wins), just as that article does.



Alright, just to be clear here:

1) Home runs are better than singles - by a LOT.
2) I don't believe Cobb said anything to any reporters that he could hit homers if he wanted because...
3) I don't believe Cobb could just hit homers whenever he wanted. He was a singles hitter.
4) Because of #3, I don't believe Cobb was intentionally performing worse by not trying to hit more home runs. I believe he recognized his own limitations and performed his best within those. It's nonsensical to believe he made a change in his swing or approach, HIT FIVE HOME RUNS IN TWO DAYS, and STILL decided that that approach wasn't the right way to do things.

[Mark17]

Cobb played in the deadball era, but early in his career he was a home run hitter. In the A.L., here's where he finished on the HR leader board:

1907 second
1909 first
1910 second
1911 second
1912 third

So Cobb finished in the top 3 in home runs 5 of his first 6 full years in the majors. Relative to his time, and his peers, he was an outstanding home run hitter.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Cobb played in the deadball era, but early in his career he was a home run hitter. In the A.L., here's where he finished on the HR leader board:

1907 second
1909 first
1910 second
1911 second
1912 third

So Cobb finished in the top 3 in home runs 5 of his first 6 full years in the majors. Relative to his time, and his peers, he was an outstanding home run hitter.

Misleading - in 1909, for example, all of his home runs were inside-the-park.

[chadeast]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Cobb played in the deadball era, but early in his career he was a home run hitter. In the A.L., here's where he finished on the HR leader board:

1907 second
1909 first
1910 second
1911 second
1912 third

So Cobb finished in the top 3 in home runs 5 of his first 6 full years in the majors. Relative to his time, and his peers, he was an outstanding home run hitter.

Remember that hitting a ball over the outfield fence and hitting a home run were not as well correlated back then. Huge outfields made inside-the-park home runs much more common back then. So yes, Cobb led the league in home runs in 1909 with nine, but all nine were inside-the-park homers. It had as much to do with his speed as his extra-base power.

EDIT: Tabe beat me to it! I'll add that of Cobb's 117 HRs, 46 were inside-the-park variety, which is now and probably forever the AL record. 71 over-the-wall homers in 11,440 ABs.