Who is the greatest player of the Pre-War Era?

[rats60]

In fairness to Wagner and Cobb, they slugged a lot lower than Ruth because they were hitting a dead ball and Ruth was hitting a juiced ball. I know I am one of the few that considers parks, but Ruth had a hitters friendly park 314 to right 385 to right center. Wagner 360 to left 462 to left center and 400 to left and 450 to center.

[clydepepper]

Amazing how many members didn't see 'Pre-War' in the poll's title.

Are we ALL home-skooled?


.

[UKCardGuy]

Originally Posted by rats60

In fairness to Wagner and Cobb, they slugged a lot lower than Ruth because they were hitting a dead ball and Ruth was hitting a juiced ball. I know I am one of the few that considers parks, but Ruth had a hitters friendly park 314 to right 385 to right center. Wagner 360 to left 462 to left center and 400 to left and 450 to center.

This!

And remember that the rules changed in 1921 so that balls were changed when they got dirty or worn or damaged. That combined with a "juiced" ball and smaller parks helps to explain some of Ruth's success.

Have a look at this comparison of Cobb and Ruth's stats. https://mlbcomparisons.com/babe-ruth...bb-comparison/

Except for the categories influenced by being a home run hitter, Cobb wins on almost all counts. That says to me that if you take away the benefits that Ruth had (fresh balls, juiced balls, parks etc) then Cobb is clearly the better player. Put it another way, if Cobb played ball from 1918-1938, his stats would be even better!

Ruth most definitely transformed baseball but that doesn't make him the best.

As an analogy, I'm a huge Beatles fan. They changed music when they came along. Like Ruth, they were the right people at the right time. But would I say that they were bigger musical geniuses than Mozart? Nope.

[Touch'EmAll]

Ruth came along at the absolute perfect time for his skills and style. This timing allowed him to become the larger than life player we all know and grant him title of best ever. What if Ruth came along 20 years earlier, or 20 years later - while still would have been awesome, probably not quite as awesome as it was. Ruth blossomed at the single biggest change ever to occur in the entire history of baseball.

The transition from Dead Ball era to Live Ball era makes it so very difficult, if not impossible to lump all Pre-War players together.

Stats aside, lets look at what the baseball community thought of the top players when the first Hall of Fame voting happened.

1. Cobb - 222 votes
2, tie. Ruth - 215 votes
2, tie. Wagner - 215 votes
4. Mathewson - 205 votes
5. Walter Johnson - 189 votes.

The largest percentage difference in voting was with Mathewson over Johnson.

Does this mean Cobb was better than Ruth - we don't really know, but overall the votes would put the feather in Cobb's cap. Same with Matty vs. Johnson.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by UKCardGuy

This!

And remember that the rules changed in 1921 so that balls were changed when they got dirty or worn or damaged. That combined with a "juiced" ball and smaller parks helps to explain some of Ruth's success.

Have a look at this comparison of Cobb and Ruth's stats. https://mlbcomparisons.com/babe-ruth...bb-comparison/

Except for the categories influenced by being a home run hitter, Cobb wins on almost all counts. That says to me that if you take away the benefits that Ruth had (fresh balls, juiced balls, parks etc) then Cobb is clearly the better player. Put it another way, if Cobb played ball from 1918-1938, his stats would be even better!

Ruth most definitely transformed baseball but that doesn't make him the best.

As an analogy, I'm a huge Beatles fan. They changed music when they came along. Like Ruth, they were the right people at the right time. But would I say that they were bigger musical geniuses than Mozart? Nope.

And how good a pitcher was Cobb?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by UKCardGuy

This!

And remember that the rules changed in 1921 so that balls were changed when they got dirty or worn or damaged. That combined with a "juiced" ball and smaller parks helps to explain some of Ruth's success.

Have a look at this comparison of Cobb and Ruth's stats. https://mlbcomparisons.com/babe-ruth...bb-comparison/

Except for the categories influenced by being a home run hitter, Cobb wins on almost all counts. That says to me that if you take away the benefits that Ruth had (fresh balls, juiced balls, parks etc) then Cobb is clearly the better player. Put it another way, if Cobb played ball from 1918-1938, his stats would be even better!

Ruth most definitely transformed baseball but that doesn't make him the best.

As an analogy, I'm a huge Beatles fan. They changed music when they came along. Like Ruth, they were the right people at the right time. But would I say that they were bigger musical geniuses than Mozart? Nope.

Ruth had two big seasons before that rule change, 1919 presumably non juiced ball, he hit 29hr and batted .322. nd 1920, presumably juiced ball, as total HRs was a lot higher than 1919 - 369 to 240 Ruth hit 54 HR and batted 376 still with the ball being used until it wore out. (and played in 12 more games) 54HR was more than any other AL team, and more than double the second place HR hitter.

looking at the top 10 HR hitters, some had similar increases, some didn't.
Even for 1921 with the clean ball and a lot more HR hit overall not everyone in the top 10 saw a major increase.

So Ruth was outpacing everyone for power even before the clean ball. and probably before the dead ball was gone completely.

[mrreality68]

Great Arguments

Always amazes me (and enjoying it) that so many stats and can be presented to able to make a good argument either way about many players and their greatness

Also great to learn some of the lesser know stats and stories about these Great Players

[Snowman]

I think the more interesting conversation to me is Babe Ruth vs Willie Mays. I think the distinction between pre and post dead ball era is more important than pre and post war is, as far as being able to compare players against each other is concerned.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by rats60

In fairness to Wagner and Cobb, they slugged a lot lower than Ruth because they were hitting a dead ball and Ruth was hitting a juiced ball. I know I am one of the few that considers parks, but Ruth had a hitters friendly park 314 to right 385 to right center. Wagner 360 to left 462 to left center and 400 to left and 450 to center.

Ruth hit 49 homers during the dead ball era while playing small parts of 3 seasons, half of another, and 80% of another. It took Cobb 10 seasons to do that - 7 full seasons plus parts of 3 others. Ruth led the majors in slugging and OPS both seasons he played in the outfield during the dead ball era.

While he may not have ended up with 714 homers if they hadn't changed the ball, there's no reason to think he wouldn't have continued to dominate. Look at 1919 - his first full season as something resembling a full-time outfielder and he set the single season home run record. Hitting a dead ball.

Yes, the HOF voting had Cobb ahead of Ruth. I'm not sure I'd put a whole lot of stock in that. Voters were picking from every player ever and Ruth had just retired. Plus, let's be honest, there were a lot of voters with bias against the modern style of play, favoring the high average and steals style of Cobb.

Bottom line, Ruth was a better hitter than Cobb even in the dead ball era.

[Touch'EmAll]

The dead ball era concluded at the end of the 1918 season. That year Ruth hit 11 total home runs - one per every 28.8 at-bats.

The next year, 1919, Ruth hit 29 home runs - one per every 14.8 at-bats.

Yes, Ruth may have been the better hitter. However, the OP was "who was the greatest player." Hitting aside, looking at all the other things that go into making a great player, Cobb might have the nod.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Touch'EmAll

The dead ball era concluded at the end of the 1918 season.

Baseball Reference and Wikipedia both disagree with you. They, like everything else I've read over the last 40 years, put the end of it being the start of the 1920 season.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Deadball_Era

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead-ball_era

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Touch'EmAll

Yes, Ruth may have been the better hitter. However, the OP was "who was the greatest player." Hitting aside, looking at all the other things that go into making a great player, Cobb might have the nod.

Ruth was so far out in front as a hitter no amount of stolen bases or defense could possibly make up the difference. Not to mention he was a world class pitcher for multiple years.

[Touch'EmAll]

Sorry, I was off a tad saying deadball era ended at conclusion of 1918 season, should of said 1919 (based on Wikipedia).

Per Wikipedia - first line: "In baseball the deadball era was the period from around 1900 to the emergence of Babe Ruth as a power hitter in 1919."

Also from same Wikipedia: "The yarn used to wrap the core of the ball was changed prior to the 1920 season."

And yeah, Ruth was the man, all others fall short.

[tedzan]

Hey guys,

Specifically, those of you who favor Cobb over Ruth. Cobb was about the same height as Ruth, but he didn't have the weight to generate the power in his swing that Ruth had.
Besides, if I recall correctly, Cobb held his bat with sort of a "choked-up" grip. No-way, with that kind of grip, could match the long-distance drives that Ruth hit.

Furthermore, Cobb's impressive Batting Average would not be the topps in the Majors if Ted Williams had not been so "stubborn" by constantly pulling his drives to Right-Field.
With the "Williams' O-F shift", Ted could have sliced the ball into the gap in Left-Field 440 times instead of taking a Walk. Then Ted would have hit an amazing .400 career BA.
And, Cobb would not be the leader in that stat.

In 1919, Ruth hit 29 HR's (the last year of the "Dead Ball" era). Then followed that up in 1920 with 54 HR's, and 59 HR's in 1921.

Me thinks that Cobb is overrated

Whatever, there is an excellent book by Tom Stanton titled "Ty and the Babe".
I highly recommend it. In the Appendix you'll find all the At-Bats of Ty Cobb versus Babe Ruth pitching to him.



1949 LEAF

. . .


--------


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Hey guys,

Specifically, those of you who favor Cobb over Ruth. Cobb was about the same height as Ruth, but he didn't have the weight to generate the power in his swing that Ruth had.
Besides, if I recall correctly, Cobb held his bat with sort of a "choked-up" grip. No-way, with that kind of grip, could match the long-distance drives that Ruth hit.

Furthermore, Cobb's impressive Batting Average would not be the topps in the Majors if Ted Williams had not been so "stubborn" by constantly pulling his drives to Right-Field.
With the "Williams' O-F shift", Ted could have sliced the ball into the gap in Left-Field 440 times instead of taking a Walk. Then Ted would have hit an amazing .400 career BA.
And, Cobb would not be the leader in that stat.

In 1919, Ruth hit 29 HR's (the last year of the "Dead Ball" era). Then followed that up in 1920 with 54 HR's, and 59 HR's in 1921.

Me thinks that Cobb is overrated

Whatever, there is an excellent book by Tom Stanton titled "Ty and the Babe".
I highly recommend it. In the Appendix you'll find all the At-Bats of Ty Cobb versus Babe Ruth pitching to him.

It is known that Cobb wasn't crazy about the home run style of play, much preferred the deadball era style he grew up with. Yet, there is the fact that Cobb is tied for the all-time major league record for the number of home runs hit in two consecutive games, along with the story he said something to a reporter about proving he could hit home runs if he really wanted to. A lot of speculation and debate about it, but the fact is he does hold part of an all-time major league home run record that still stands today. And one that Ruth couldn't equal. Also, Cobb did win the Triple Crown one year, Ruth never did that. Oh, and the home run record Cobb co-owns, none of the home runs he hit to match the record were inside-the-park home runs or were ones that bounced over the outfield wall. All were legit, over the fence homers.

Williams was really more of a post-war player, though he did start in the majors just before WWII began. Always considered him as post-war since that is when he played the bulk of his career.

[SAllen2556]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Hey guys,

Specifically, those of you who favor Cobb over Ruth. Cobb was about the same height as Ruth, but he didn't have the weight to generate the power in his swing that Ruth had.
Besides, if I recall correctly, Cobb held his bat with sort of a "choked-up" grip. No-way, with that kind of grip, could match the long-distance drives that Ruth hit.

Furthermore, Cobb's impressive Batting Average would not be the topps in the Majors if Ted Williams had not been so "stubborn" by constantly pulling his drives to Right-Field.
With the "Williams' O-F shift", Ted could have sliced the ball into the gap in Left-Field 440 times instead of taking a Walk. Then Ted would have hit an amazing .400 career BA.
And, Cobb would not be the leader in that stat.

In 1919, Ruth hit 29 HR's (the last year of the "Dead Ball" era). Then followed that up in 1920 with 54 HR's, and 59 HR's in 1921.

Me thinks that Cobb is overrated

Whatever, there is an excellent book by Tom Stanton titled "Ty and the Babe".
I highly recommend it. In the Appendix you'll find all the At-Bats of Ty Cobb versus Babe Ruth pitching to him.



1949 LEAF

. . .


--------


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Now sir, I understand you've been around a while and your opinion carries more weight, and I do, in fact, respect your opinion. However, in this particular instance I think your senility has finally gotten the best of you! If anyone is overrated, it's Ruth not Cobb. I present the following evidence for Cobb:

Tris Speaker once said, "Babe was a great ballplayer, but Cobb was even greater.

The people who really knew baseball still favored Cobb, according even to Ruth's own manager, Miller Huggins.

First Hall of Fame Vote: Cobb received 222 out of a possible 226 votes. Ruth and Wagner each received 215 votes, Mathewson had 205 votes, and Johnson finished with 189.

"Make no mistake about that. The old boy was the greatest player I ever saw or hoped to see." - Babe Ruth

"I never saw anyone like Ty Cobb. No one even close to him. He was the greatest all time ballplayer. That guy was superhuman, amazing." - Casey Stengel

1961 - "Cobb was the greatest ball player of all time and will never be equaled. Most record books simply talk about his hitting and base stealing. But he was a great outfielder with a great arm." (immediately after Ty died in July,'61) - Rogers Hornsby

"I haven't had the chance to see many of the great stars of the other league, but picking the greatest player that ever lived is easy, I think. I pick Ty Cobb. I guess every one will do the same. Cobb was a good fielder, the greatest baserunner in the game's history, the fastest thinker and the most consistent hitter. How can you name any one else? Eddie Collins, the keystone of my great infield of the old Athletics, is my second choice. Eddie was a marvelous ball player. I can't say too much for him. I'll name Lajoie third. Of the present-day players I pick Al Simmons first, and he is my fourth man of all time. I hate to leave off Mickey Cochrane, but I must name Babe Ruth, so he goes fifth.
-Connie Mack

Cobb received another first-place vote from Walter Johnson. Johnson was lavish in his praise of the "Georgia Peach." He gave Wagner second place and
then named Jackson, Ruth and Collins.

In July,1931, C. William Duncan conducted survey of Phil. Public Ledger of who is the greatest all-time:

B. Shotten: Cobb, Lajoie, Klein, Wagner, Ruth, Cochrane
Mack: Cobb, Collins, Lajoie, Simmons, Ruth
K. Gleason: Cobb, Wagner
B. McKechnie: Wagner, Cobb, Speaker, Lajoie, Hornsby, Ruth
J. Burke: Wagner, Cobb, Lajoie, Collins, Hornsby
J. Mccarthy: Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, Collins, Lajoie
Howley: Cobb, Wagner
W. Robinson: Cobb, Keeler, Ruth, Wagner, Ferguson
G. Street: Cobb, Wagner, Collins, F.Parent, Chase
B. Harris: Ruth, Cobb, Sisler, Simmons, Speaker
W. Johnson: Cobb, Wagner, Jackson, Ruth, Collins
McGraw: Wagner, Cobb, Keeler, Simmons, Terry

Now please stop with this Ruth madness. He was popular - very popular. Mythically popular. And that's great. He may have saved the sport of baseball after the Black Sox scandal. But listen to his contemporaries and please just stop this "Ruth is the Greatest" madness now!

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by tedzan

...Cobb is overrated...

I've heard and read many words used to describe Ty Cobb. This may be the first time the word was "overrated."

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Ruth was so far out in front as a hitter no amount of stolen bases or defense could possibly make up the difference. Not to mention he was a world class pitcher for multiple years.

Ruth was a world class pitcher for 1 season. He had a couple above average seasons and his last season that he pitched in 1919, he was an average MLB pitcher.

Saying that Ruth was better than Cobb and Wagner is a valid opinion, but the difference is small. Saying Hornsby was better than Wagner and Cobb is a hot take. Bill James ranks Wagner #2 and Cobb #5, but Hornsby only #22.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by rats60

Ruth was a world class pitcher for 1 season. He had a couple above average seasons and his last season that he pitched in 1919, he was an average MLB pitcher.

Saying that Ruth was better than Cobb and Wagner is a valid opinion, but the difference is small. Saying Hornsby was better than Wagner and Cobb is a hot take. Bill James ranks Wagner #2 and Cobb #5, but Hornsby only #22.

Ruth had a WAR as a pitcher one year of 8.8, another of 6.5, and then 2.3 in half a season. That's world class.

I know putting Hornsby over those guys is unusual but I made my case.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Ruth had a WAR as a pitcher one year of 8.8, another of 6.5, and then 2.3 in half a season. That's world class.

I know putting Hornsby over those guys is unusual but I made my case.

The other site disagrees. 2.5, 4.5, 3.3, 1.5 were his WAR for 1915-1918. That is not world class outside of 1916.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Eric72

Ted,

It was an absolute pleasure to chat with you today. Thanks for taking some time to speak with me. I greatly appreciate your willingness to share knowledge about the game and the hobby.

Best regards,

Eric

Hi Eric
It was great meeting you at the Philly Show this weekend, and we did have a very interesting conversation.....especially on this topic.


.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.