Who is the greatest player of the Pre-War 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.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by BobC

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.

That's kinda like saying Mike Cameron was better than either one because he hit 4 in one game and had a 5th caught at the fence.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Tabe

That's kinda like saying Mike Cameron was better than either one because he hit 4 in one game and had a 5th caught at the fence.

Where in my post did I say one was better than the other? I specifically quoted and responded to TedZ's post about Cobb's batting grip and how he didn't hit many home runs, yet there is recorded proof that at least once in his career he was somewhat prolific in hitting home runs, which begs the question of if he just chose not to swing for the fences all the time like Ruth. For a hitter as good as Cobb, I would argue that him suddenly putting on such a power hitting display was more than just a fluke. Also that fact that during the height of the deadball era he could get the Triple Crown shows he could hold his own against others in the league as far as hitting home runs.

If anything, I was merely pointing out how Cobb and Ruth, though contemporaries, were decidedly different as hitters. And a lot of that may have had to do with choice as opposed to straight-up hitting ability.

And what the heck does Cameron have to do with any of this? He isn't even a pre-war player, which is the era this question is about. You totally did not understand the gist and purpose of my post, and made a bad assumption.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by BobC

Where in my post did I say one was better than the other? I specifically quoted and responded to TedZ's post about Cobb's batting grip and how he didn't hit many home runs, yet there is recorded proof that at least once in his career he was somewhat prolific in hitting home runs, which begs the question of if he just chose not to swing for the fences all the time like Ruth. For a hitter as good as Cobb, I would argue that him suddenly putting on such a power hitting display was more than just a fluke. Also that fact that during the height of the deadball era he could get the Triple Crown shows he could hold his own against others in the league as far as hitting home runs.

If anything, I was merely pointing out how Cobb and Ruth, though contemporaries, were decidedly different as hitters. And a lot of that may have had to do with choice as opposed to straight-up hitting ability.

And what the heck does Cameron have to do with any of this? He isn't even a pre-war player, which is the era this question is about. You totally did not understand the gist and purpose of my post, and made a bad assumption.

You implied it with your "Cobb did this thing that even Ruth couldn't do". That "thing", of course, was a fluke brought on by exceptionally strong winds. Since you were using a fluke to compare them, I brought up another similar fluke, the era of which is irrelevant.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by BobC

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.

Hi Bob

My gauge of the "greatness" of a BB player is his World Series performance. Ruth (and I include Mantle). Two significant s factors...... first, the fact that the Yankees played in 10 World Series while Ruth was on the team tells you a lot. He was an inspiration to his team which got them there. And his .326 BA, 15 HR's, and 33 RBI's stats far exceed what Cobb did in his three World Series appearances.


Incidentally,
I got a chuckle out of your "Cobb Triple Crown" comment. In 1923 Ruth batted .393....41 HRs....130 RBI's. Numbers much greater than Cobb's. But, Heilmann led the AL with .403 BA.
that prevented Ruth from being the Triple Crown winner in the AL in 1923.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Hi Bob

My gauge of the "greatness" of a BB player is his World Series performance. Ruth (and I include Mantle). Two significant s factors...... first, the fact that the Yankees played in 10 World Series while Ruth was on the team tells you a lot. He was an inspiration to his team which got them there. And his .326 BA, 15 HR's, and 33 RBI's stats far exceed what Cobb did in his three World Series appearances.


Incidentally,
I got a chuckle out of your "Cobb Triple Crown" comment. In 1923 Ruth batted .393....41 HRs....130 RBI's. Numbers much greater than Cobb's. But, Heilmann led the AL with .403 BA.
that prevented Ruth from being the Triple Crown winner in the AL in 1923.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

All due respect, the World Series alone is a nominal factor, at best, in determining how good an individual player is. Baseball is a team sport, and regardless of how good an individual is, they cannot single-handedly propel a team all by themself to always win. Now if you want to talk golf, tennis, or boxing, that's different. The teams that Ruth played on were stacked with other great players, so pitchers couldn't get by just pitching around Ruth all the time. They didn't nickname the Yankee's lineup back then as Murderer's Row for nothing. In fact, what other pre-war lineups can you name that were considered so good that they got their own nickname like that? Certainly none of Cobb's teams to my knowledge ever got anywhere near that kind of credit or acclaim.

Also, baseball has always been known as a grind, where players have to go through the long, hard season to even get to the playoffs or World Series. Not downplaying how important it is when a ballplayer does exceedingly well during a World Series, but to base one's opinion as to how great of a player they are largely on that factor seems quite disrespectful to all the other great ballplayers who have ever played, but were not fortunate enough to play alongside enough other great ballplayers to achieve overall team success. Plus, Ruth played for New York, the largest city and and arguably the biggest market at the time. The hype and exposure he received was unparralleled. Think about this, what if Ruth had ended up playing for a different team like Cleveland, and still hit all the home runs he did, but never went to and won all the World Series championships he did with the Yankees. Would he still be the mythical figure he is today and credited with supposedly saving baseball single-handedly after the Black Sox scandal? Or was at least some of that legend not also due to him being lucky enough to play on a team loaded with other great players and also being hyped by a media and market that were pretty much unequalled at the time?

In today's game, Mike Trout often gets called the best player of his time. His cards have sold for record amounts, and the media loves him, but he is not overly quirky or has any strange or unusual habits or stories that make him exceptionally memorable. Say Trout finishes out his career with the Angels and no major surprises or scandals, and ends up in several top 10 offensive categories all-time. Yet what has all that baseball ability gotten him while playing for the Angels, certainly no significant playoff or World Series exposure, and likely none in the future if he stays with them. Also, he's now got a new teammate with a much better story and hype than Trout ever had. So even if Trout continues putting up great numbers for several more years, is he possibly going to be overshadowed on his own team by Ohtani? And how will that be reflected in the way Trout is looked at and remembered by the general public 25, 50, 100 years after he's done playing? I'm not talking about SABR nerds or collector geeks like myself, but the general public. Chances are he may not be so well remembered, and largely forgotten, lacking any special story or circumstances that make him larger than life. I bring this up because it may help to further explain the difficulty in trying to not just compare players from different eras, but even compare contemporary players from similar times long past when we have no one with any first hand knowledge or observation of them still around today to give an honest, first hand comparison of how they really stacked up to each other. That is why I wonder if as an earlier poster already put forth, we should go with who many respected and knowledgable baseball people of that time time felt was the best player then.

And glad I gave you a laugh, but in all seriousness, that Cobb actually led the majors in home runs one season was the salient point I was most trying to get across. The fact that it was known he was not trying to hit home runs, as you aptly pointed out by his use of a choked-up batting grip, yet he still was able to lead the majors in that category one season during the height of the deadball era, points to Cobb having an ability that was ahead of most all others of his contemporaries. At least till the end of the deadball era. And again, look at the teammates Ruth had around him most of his career versus who Cobb, Wagner, and others were surrounded with. Aside from hitting a lot of solo home runs, you need other players to be on base when a player is up to bat if they really want to get their RBI totals among league leaders. Ruth's easiest categories to lead in the Triple Crown were HRs and RBIs, as no one else was trying (and able) to hit home runs like he was initially when the deadball era ended. And since RBIs are a direct by-product of HRs, it is a given that Ruth would normally be among the league's RBI leaders, year in and year out. Now the fact that he couldn't also get the top average one year to win the Triple Crown does not disparage Ruth in any way. There were a lot of great hitters back then to contend with, and Heilman was a great player in his own right, and very deserving of winning the AL batting average crown that year. But the manner in which you phrased your comment and made it a point to specifically compare Ruth's 1923 Triple Crown stats to those of Cobb in his Triple Crown season in a disparaging manner is disrespectful not only to Cobb, but to every other AL player during Cobb's Triple Crown season. Regardless of the fact that the two seasons you are comparing are only 14 years apart, the changes to how the game was being played, especially in terms of things like the banning of spitballs and the deadball era being over during Ruth's 1923 season, make the direct correlation you are hinting at less than appropriate and comparable. Instead of pointing to how Cobb only had 9 HRs in his 1909 Triple Crown season while Ruth had so many more as he hit 41 in 1923, perhaps a better question would be how come no one else hit as many as Cobb that year he won the Triple Crown? And not only did Cobb win the AL Triple Crown in 1909, which is a rare achievement unto itself, he is one of I believe only 5 or 6 others to have won the Triple Crown where his stats bested everyone in majors, and not just in the AL or NL. So that means Cobb was going against, and bested, the likes of Wagner, Lajoie, Speaker, and others considered as possibly the all-time best pre-war player, in their prime. By the time Ruth got to the Yankees, those players were already entering their mid to late thirties, and Joe Jackson was getting banned, yet he stll couldn't get that elusive batting average title when he needed it. So bottom line, what Cobb did is no mean feat, regardless of the gross numbers he put up compared to numbers Ruth put up years later, after banning spitballs, juicing up the formerly "dead" balls, and who knows what other little tweaks and rule changes to the game to squeeze more offense out of it so the owners could make more money.

Quite frankly Ted, I've read and followed your posts and marveled at your knowledge on this forum over many years, but was never so disappointed in you to see you make such a disparaging remark about Cobb, and by extension, every other player during the 1909 season. Obviously your comment that my mentioning Cobb's Triple Crown when Ruth did not ever win one caused you to chuckle implies you found that to be some type of humorous or funny comparison, or in other words, some type of joke. I was actually mentioning Cobb's Triple Crown season not so much for the fact that Ruth didn't win one, but to illustrate how even though he wasn't into hitting HRs, Cobb still managed to lead the entire majors in HRs at least one year during his career, a feat which Ruth accomplished numerous times.

I am not disparaging Ruth in the slightest, but neither am I discounting Cobb, Wagner, and others simply because the rules and equipment were much different when they played the bulk of their careers. Time and the media have played such a huge factor over all these years as to what players are remembered and revered for, and can easily distort modern opinions and thinking. Think about what i was saying before about Mike Trout, and HONESTLY ask yourself how he may be viewed 100 years from now, and keep that perspective in mind when trying to compare past players against each other today.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Ty Cobb led the league with 9 home runs in the dead ball era, it's true. All 9 were inside the park, so not particularly indicative of some hidden power he opted not to use.

That being said I do have to agree with you that as a team sport World Series performance just can't be the "be all, end all" by that logic Ted Williams was an abject failure as a baseball player and Billy Martin was an all-time great. You can't just throw out career accomplishments because the Red Sox (for one example) never had any pitching to speak of in Ted's career.

For my money Cobb, Ruth and Williams are the three greatest ball players ever. I'm not overly hung up on how one ranks them, or even if someone disagrees, but for me Ruth's pitching puts him over the top of a very tight race, and just for Ted Z, Ruth was also one of the greatest PITCHERS in World Series history. So he's got that going for him, which is nice.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by BobC

All due respect, the World Series alone is a nominal factor, at best, in determining how good an individual player is. Baseball is a team sport, and regardless of how good an individual is, they cannot single-handedly propel a team all by themself to always win.

Obviously, I cannot attest to stories about Ruth by his team-mates. I can attest to comments regarding Mickey Mantle by his team-mates which I've personally heard from (such as
Tommy Henrich, Yogi Berra, Don Larsen, Johnny Sain, Charlie Silvera and my hometown nearby neighbor Phil Rizzuto) all of which talked about how Mantle's everyday performance inspired the team to play the game better. This same type of inspiration has been suggested in books written about Babe Ruth's influence on his team-mates during the years 1920
to the early 1930's.

Originally Posted by BobC

And glad I gave you a laugh, but in all seriousness, that Cobb actually led the majors in home runs one season was the salient point I was most trying to get across. The fact that it was known he was not trying to hit home runs, as you aptly pointed out by his use of a choked-up batting grip, yet he still was able to lead the majors in that category one season during the height of the deadball era, points to Cobb having an ability that was ahead of most all others of his contemporaries. At least till the end of the deadball era. perhaps a better question would be how come no one else hit as many as Cobb that year he won the Triple Crown?

Come on Bob, for you to use such an anecdotal example during the Dead-Ball era regarding HR's which were subsequently ruled Ground-Rule Doubles is ridiculous. But if you insist,
on bringing up this "Triple-Crown" example of Cobb's, then I have to remind you that Ruth hit 11 HR's in 1918, and 29 in 1919 in the Dead-Ball era.

Actually, you are "grasping at straws" by using such a weak example to make your argument that Cobb was better than Ruth. I find this very disappointing. And, my discussion with
you ENDS here.....PERIOD.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[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!

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

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!

This basically says it all.... nothing more to add.
The opinion of contemporaries should carry the most weight, period.

Who are we to judge who was best when no one alive could see and experience these men play??

.... imagine in 100 years, people who never saw Mike Trout play stating how good he was, while ignoring, or worse, correcting the opinions of the actual people - US - that witnessed him play.
Let's all be honest here... the premise is laughable.

Cobb is King.

[Frankish]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

"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

All of the other testimonials and evidence aside, this made me chuckle. Admittedly we have the lens of history between us and that moment in time, but to claim that Al Simmons was a greater player than Ruth and to struggle with placing Ruth above Mickey Cochrane suggests and odd perspective. Connie Mack had a truly amazing career, but I can't help wondering if the constant struggle (financially and in the standings) compared to Ruth's larger than life success didn't result in a few sour grapes....

[SD]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

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!

Basically a full list of players that played in an era before Ruth or managed against and publicly despised him. Yet he still made their lists.

Sent from my SM-A716U1 using Tapatalk

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

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!

Contemporaries are probably the worst people to use. Contemporaries are the people who stuffed the HOF with mediocre players. Hell LaRussa browbeat a committee into putting Harold Baines in. You act like contemporaries are somehow impartial arbiters when in fact they are the most prejudiced.

[Huysmans]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Contemporaries are probably the worst people to use. Contemporaries are the people who stuffed the HOF with mediocre players. Hell LaRussa browbeat a committee into putting Harold Baines in. You act like contemporaries are somehow impartial arbiters when in fact they are the most prejudiced.

By that logic.... no one can fairly judge anyone they witnessed play??
So you're saying that it's up to the people that DID NOT see the individual play to give the only fair and best opinion on ability? C'mon! Get real!
This must be the most ridiculous thing I've read in this thread.
It's good that only NON-contemporary players always tell the complete truth with no biases Who knew???

This is the problem with these discussions... people take facts, and try to rationalize and marry them with self-serving opinions.
Making assumptions on how past players have commented to fit your own agenda and belief is no legitimate argument... ever.

As to your other point.... how good of a goaltender was Wayne Gretzky?
I guess he can't be the best hockey player of all-time

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Huysmans

By that logic.... no one can fairly judge anyone they witnessed play??
So you're saying that it's up to the people that DID NOT see the individual play to give the only fair and best opinion on ability? C'mon! Get real!
This must be the most ridiculous thing I've read in this thread.
It's good that only NON-contemporary players always tell the complete truth with no biases Who knew???

This is the problem with these discussions... people take facts, and try to rationalize and marry them with self-serving opinions.
Making assumptions on how past players have commented to fit your own agenda and belief is no legitimate argument... ever.

As to your other point.... how good of a goaltender was Wayne Gretzky?
I guess he can't be the best hockey player of all-time

It is very hard to take personal bias out of observation when there's no real reason to. The contemporaries have no reason to be unbiased therefore why would they be? Again these guys put players like Ted Lyons and Lloyd Waner in the HOF. Frankly I think players in general should not be counted on to give unbiased opinions. I would argue you need to go to the numbers for the unbiased truth.

You're other point is pretty poorly made because nobody has done what you're suggesting so it's irrelevant. If Bobby Orr, Mario Lemieux, Gordie Howe or Mark Messier played 4 outstanding seasons at goalie then switched and become the studs they were as position players, then yes it would greatly impact my opinion of who the greatest hockey player of all time is. Since nobody has done that, let alone someone in the argument for all time greatest player, saying what you said about Gretzky is pretty specious. In baseball Ruth actually DID it so you have to take that into consideration.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Contemporaries are probably the worst people to use. Contemporaries are the people who stuffed the HOF with mediocre players. Hell LaRussa browbeat a committee into putting Harold Baines in. You act like contemporaries are somehow impartial arbiters when in fact they are the most prejudiced.

All due respect, but voting for who goes into the HOF is a bit different than ranking who one thinks is the all-time greatest pre-war player. All of the possible people on that list are already in the HOF, except Jackson, so there is really no advantage or additional prestige to be given the title of greatest of all.

The list of people who ranked who they thought were the greatest pre-war players, that was put up by an earlier poster from a 1931 poll, included some pretty prominent and well known baseball people, Mack, McKechnie, McCarthy, Harris, McGraw, and so on. I believe most of those polled were, or had been, managers/players at the time, and would thus be considered to have a pretty good eye for baseball talent and ability. And this was several years before the HOF even existed so there really isn't a lot of bias from that institution playing into their decisions. Also, these people didn't all play with or manage the players that repeatedly kept getting named on this all-time greatest list. Now I did see that Joe McCarthy, who had actually managed Ruth, put him down as the all-time greatest, Cobb second. Couldn't that have involved some bias/favoritism as well? Of the others polled, Bucky Harris was the only other one to put Ruth first, and he also listed Cobb second.

Of the twelve people polled, seven listed Cobb first, three listed Wagner first, and only two listed Ruth first, including his own manager. And of the ones that listed Cobb first, I don't believe any of them ever managed or played with him. The rumours and stories about Cobb being despised by many in baseball are just that, stories perpetuated by the likes of Al Stumph and even Ken Burns. Still, I fail to see how the rankings by this group from back in 1931 displays any type of favoritism or bias for Cobb.

But of the twelve different people polled, the one that intrigued me the most was Walter Johnson's rankings. Of all the people on that list, I believe Johnson is the only one to have actually pitched extensively to Ruth, Cobb, and Joe Jackson, all when they were in their primes. Don't believe Wagner and Johnson ever faced each other in an actual game as they were in different leagues during their playing careers. Still found it somewhat surprising that Johnson would then rank Cobb as #1, Wagner as #2, and then Joe Jackson as #3, before finally listing Ruth as #4 followed by Eddie Collins at #5. Scott, forgive me, but if arguably one of, if not, the greatest pre-war pitchers of all-time says he feels Cobb and Wagner were better than Ruth, I think you at least have to listen.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

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.

Hey,
I am 80+ years old, and I seen a lot of Baseball since 1947. I may have an excuse for being "senile". So, what's your excuse ?

I can understand you favor Cobb since you live in Detroit, but tell us why he played in only three World Series, which he got only 17 hits in 17 games, and batted only .262 ?
Is that mediocre performance indicative of greatness ? ? Cobb's World Series numbers absolutely pale by comparison to Ruth's winning numbers.

Here's my all-time great team.....notice that Cobb is omitted (replaced in CF by Tris Speaker).

1st base..... Lou Gehrig
2nd base.... Rogers Hornsby
3rd base..... Mel Ott
S-S............ Honus Wagner
L-F............. Ted Williams
C-F............. Tris Speaker
R-F............. Babe Ruth
Catcher....... Jimmy Foxx
Pitcher........ Walter Johnson



TED Z
.

[SAllen2556]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Hey,
I am 80+ years old, and I seen a lot of Baseball since 1947. I may have an excuse for being "senile". So, what's your excuse ?

I can understand you favor Cobb since you live in Detroit, but tell us why he played in only three World Series, which he got only 17 hits in 17 games, and batted only .262 ?
Is that mediocre performance indicative of greatness ? ? Cobb's World Series numbers absolutely pale by comparison to Ruth's winning numbers.

Here's my all-time great team.....notice that Cobb is omitted (replaced in CF by Tris Speaker).

1st base..... Lou Gehrig
2nd base.... Rogers Hornsby
3rd base..... Mel Ott
S-S............ Honus Wagner
L-F............. Ted Williams
C-F............. Tris Speaker
R-F............. Babe Ruth
Catcher....... Jimmy Foxx
Pitcher........ Walter Johnson



TED Z
.

I know you're not arguing that just because the Yankees have bought just about every pennant they've ever won that that makes Babe Ruth the greatest all-time. Ha!

Cobb only played in 3 World Series because the Tigers never had any pitching. Check out the offensive stats of Cobb's Tiger teams and those around Cobb when he played. He absolutely made those around him better hitters. Gehringer, Bobby Veach, Heilmann, Heinie Manush, all players who credit Cobb. Who has ever claimed that Babe Ruth made him a better hitter?

And why, if we use your logic, is Ted Williams on your list? And Walter Johnson was only 3 and 3 in his (only) two world series.

As far as senility goes. I'd be willing to bet at 55 I'm more senile than you are at 80.

[obcbobd]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

N
McGraw: Wagner, Cobb, Keeler, Simmons, Terry

There was quite a bit wrong in your post, I've not time to go over everything. But if a contemporary like McGraw really though Keeler, Simmons and Terry, plus God knows how many other players, were better than Ruth - I am flabbergasted. More likely McGraw was ticked off that Ruth dramatically changed the game, or he was ticked off by some other thing Ruth had done. It was not hard to tick off McGraw.

[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.