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

[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.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

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

Rickey (and Brock, and Wills) would use their raw speed and technique to turn singles into doubles (and maybe triples.) What Cobb did was more psychological - delayed steals, taking the unexpected extra base, sliding hard (clean, but hard,) and generally keeping the other team wound up tight, wondering what he would do next.

Henderson was a truly great player and play maker. His talent on the bases was speed and technique. You knew he was running. With Cobb, it was different - you never knew just what he would do next, or when, or how.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Rickey (and Brock, and Wills) would use their raw speed and technique to turn singles into doubles (and maybe triples.) What Cobb did was more psychological - delayed steals, taking the unexpected extra base, sliding hard (clean, but hard,) and generally keeping the other team wound up tight, wondering what he would do next.

Henderson was a truly great player and play maker. His talent on the bases was speed and technique. You knew he was running. With Cobb, it was different - you never knew just what he would do next, or when, or how.

I dunno, pitchers talk a lot about how disruptive Henderson was on base. I think the idea of all that effort to hold him, and the full knowledge that he was going anyway had to make things considerably easier for whoever was batting after him.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Mark17

What Cobb did was more psychological - delayed steals, taking the unexpected extra base, sliding hard (clean, but hard,) and generally keeping the other team wound up tight, wondering what he would do next.

It's the gnats vs the bee sting theory. Bee sting hurts but gnats are consistently more distracting and annoying.

[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.

[JollyElm]

As a baseball fan, I feel fortunate that my existence coincided with the career of Rickey Henderson. What an absolute monster he became once he reached first base. He was a human aneurism to whoever was on the mound pitching that day, just screwing their head up. As others have said, you knew NO MATTER WHAT he was going to bolt for second. Everyone in the world knew it, yet there was no way to stop the inevitable. Pitchers had no clue who was batting, because they were 100% focused on the vain attempt to keep Rickey from swiping second. And after he stole second? That monstrous lead he took left him seemingly only a few feet away from third base, and it gave pitchers the jitters as he dared them to try to pick him off. "Come on, I dare you." I imagine Cobb had that same effect on the fans and his opponents. This type of stuff can't be accounted for or captured in all the theoretical newfangled stats. You had to witness Rickey Henderson to really understand what an incredible game changer he was.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Not baseball related, but speaking of breaking rules, I just heard some good news. They decided to leave that rule-breaking Sha'carri Richardson off the US Olympic team for her marijuana use. She knew the rules, now she faces the consequences.

[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?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

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

LOL. Kinda hard to fight facts. For some of us anyway.

Don't know why I thought that rule changed around the turn of the century.

[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.