Our love with Wagner

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

cmoking: do you think that ARod would be as fearsome at the plate if he was swinging at bean bags rather than baseballs? Are you sure that players "back then" didn't know what they were doing? For example: please advise me of the player since John McGraw who has a better OBP.

Does recent research really indicate that strikeouts didn't matter that much "back then"? Remember cmoking that baseball gloves were not always as effective as they are today. In the earlier part of last century and before, there was a greater than 10% chance of getting on base if you simply put the ball in play.

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

the game has changed and you have a couple of good points. I'm not saying those guys in the past were dumb, no way. But there are a few things that no one understood clearly until the advent of statistical research. Clearly they valued a single more than a walk in the past, moreso than the difference should be (correct me if I'm wrong there, maybe that is an incorrect assumption, and yes, a single is worth more than a walk, but not by too much). Even today there are many that don't understand some of these issues, the ones that don't understand it today given the availability of research are the dumb ones.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

preferences are based on affinity, and people site whatever reason they pleasse to support their own argumrent.

"Chicks like the long ball.," huh?

This bleeding-heart radical chick casts one vote for T.R. Cobb.

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

Julie - during the 1998 Home Run race, there was a few humorous commercials with Tom Glavine, Greg Maddux and Randy Johnson trying to hit home runs...and they would cite the reason they were taking so much batting practice because "chicks dig the long ball". That's what I was referring to.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhett Yeakley

Don't get me wrong about Bill James. I think that a lot of what he has to say is true, if not interesting. I just feel he is biased, and has his favorites-both players and eras.

James' books are great resources full of valuable information. But whenever people are discussing past baseball greats his name always comes up as the end-all source on how to interpret statistics.

This is just my opinion, and I know it is shared with many people out there, perhaps not the majority though.

-Rhett

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

Williams and Ruth have a higher OBP than McGraw. Cobb ranks 8th while Wags isn't even in the top 100!

Even Tony Gwynn squeezed in on that list (someone who NEVER struck out)

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Regarding Williams and Ruth having a higher OBP than that of McGraw: some think that HRs should be backed out of the computation, and getting on base due to errors, HBP, etc. should be included.

If this approach is used, McGraw has the highest OBP, if not, McGraw is third behind Williams and Ruth - not so bad for a player from back when " ... people didn't know that back in 1910. AVG was the only thing they were thinking about. So can we blame a player for purposely increasing his AVG at the detriment of SLG and OBP?"

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

If you're going to manipulate statistics, you need to look at rule changes with fouls, walks, mound height, etc...too. The game evolved and the dynamics changed. Nevertheless, I still put my money on Cobb, even though he was a jerk.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

I really can not disagree with you there, Mr. E101.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

That's what we do now, but baseball was much more of a team game in the past - Wagner was a TEAM player and had additional value that was much more highly regarded by his generation of players (and fans), Cobb was much lower in the "intangibles" area.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

I won't disagree that Wagner was more popular and liked better among his peers. Cobb's raw style of play and on-field (and off-field)antics ticked off just about everyone. But, it probably contributed to his success too.

If you take HRs out of RBIs, you're left with teammates batted in or TBI. Again, Cobb leads all-time with 1843. Cobb was known to play sick, injured, and literally do anything to help his team win. Whether or not he was appreciated, he was the best of the best. Wagner was an awesome talent with a very approachable personality, as his own teammates and opposing players enjoyed spending time around him. I would guess that they would hold Wagner over Cobb any day of the week, simply from fondness and apprecaition of his character.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Putting errors into the OBA computation would 19c players OBA that would be just silly. 8 errors, per team per game as close to the norm.

I have Diamond Mind Baseball and have been playing the 19c seasons. When I first started playing, I was pulling my hair out in frustration because of all the errors and trying to manage the team with a modern philosphy. Once I learned how to manage to take advantage of the 19c conditions, the games became much more enjoyable once you realized that an error an inning a game was the norm and changed your strategy accordingly.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Well Jay, if you hit the ball in fair territory there is a better chance of getting on base than if you strike out (and hope the catcher drops the ball).

Many think that if you hit the ball on the ground there is a better chance of getting on base than if you hit it in the air.

Hitters are currently penalized for getting on base due to an error, regarding their OBA. Now Jay: that is what is silly.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

That's not what I said. Again, he was a TEAM player - that was what puts him ahead of Cobb, not the fact that he had a prettier smile.

[Archive]

Posted By: Darren J. Duet

If I were building a winning baseball team, I'd pick Cobb.

If I were building a family, I'd pick Wagner.

If I were building a dynasty, I'd pick Ruth.

[Archive]

Posted By: Lyle

I agree 100% with you .

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

Scott, I guess it's all about what you consider a TEAM player. I don't believe Cobb played for his own statistics. He played to win games. Many times, he did so on his own out of need. No, he wasn't a team player from the standpoint that he ticked off the other players, coaches, umpires, etc. He wasn't known for making close personal relationships with too many people.

"I recall when Cobb played a series with each leg a mass of raw flesh," Grantland Rice wrote. "He had a temperature of 103 and the doctors ordered him to bed for several days, but he got three hits, stole three bases, and won the game. Afterward he collapsed at the bench."

I would call that a team player. I do understand where you're coming from and I would certainly love to field a team with Wagner. Successful teams seem to work much better without poor attitudes and baggage. Skills don't always outweigh behaviors.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

...at least read the last paragraph. Maybe I'm just not communicating.

The argument as to who was more of a team player is NOT a black and white issue. Cobb did a lot of things for his team and I never said that he played for stats - in fact, I don't really believe that.

But creating disruption on a team causes BIG problems - if you don't believe me, look at the 1915 New York Giants - their wives started arguing, team morale dropped, and they lost badly, despite having basically the same team they had the year before.

Cobb's antics, fights with team-mates, racism, etc., surely had a detrimental effect on his team that partially offset the positive effects of his talent.

If this isn't true, why did the Tigers try to trade Cobb straight up for Elmer Flick, and why did Cleveland refuse?

(BTW - I normally hate people to play "Devil's Advocate", so I apologize - personally, I would take Cobb)

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

I agree Scott. In fact, the last sentence of my previous post sums up exactly what you just said.

The same can be said for business or any other team, for that matter.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

"If I were building a winning baseball team, I'd pick Cobb.

If I were building a family, I'd pick Wagner.

If I were building a dynasty, I'd pick Ruth."

Unless it is the deadball era. Wagner and Cobb would have been great in any era where as I think Ruth would have been just another face in the deadball era.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

Damn, I didn't read your last paragraph after accusing you of skimming my post! I just gave myself a virtual wrist-slap and banned myself from posting for an hour.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

How did Bancroft get in the Hall... read James' Politics of Glory... a must read. Really.

Musial under-rated, absolutely.

In the dead ball era, I pick Wagner to build a winning team. I'd pick Cobb for batting titles only, and I'd pick Ruth only for fly outs, partying, and maybe some pitching in the dead ball era.

Again, the value and fascination of the Wagner T206 has pushed up the value and demand for Wagner's other cards, a bit.

[Archive]

Posted By: Darren J. Duet

I'd dedicate Ruth to pitching.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

If anyone wants to trade some baseball books, let me know - media mail is cheap and I'm sure a few of us have books we wouldn't mind putting into circulation among Forum members.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

How about a Forum library? The person who takes the book out pays the freight both ways. Everyone keeps their own books, but lists what they have as available for lending.

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

I'd be happy to lend or trade "Josh Gibson: A life in the Negro Leagues" by William Brashler. It was published in 1978 and re-printed in 2000, paperback. Tomorrow is the last day I can send the book out until late September, so please let me know tonight if you want it. I would say the book is about a PSA 8, with some of the corners very slightly frayed, but only if you are looking for it. Luckily, it is not encased in plastic

I'd be happy to trade for any book on pre-war baseball or just to send this out to anyone that wants to borrow it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Sherman

I think it was pretty cool back in the day that Wagner disregarded cigarettes so much he wouldn't allow his image to be portrayed in the packs. I don't think anyone would have a problemendorsing anything today.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

Yes, it could be he didn't like cigarettes but he loved cigars. Plus they only offered him $10 for the use of his image. Not much money to one of the richest paid players. He turned down much more lucrative offers than that.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Bryan

"Ruth would have been just another face in the deadball era".

Hmmm....didn't Ruth start as a pitcher? Are you forgetting that
in his short pitching career he was one of the best Lefthanded
pitchers ever? Some of his World Series pitching records still
stand.
I have to think if he was born just a few years earlier and
pitched during the real deadball era, he would have been even
more awesome as a pitcher.
But it was not just Ruth's prodigious accomplishments,it was
also his "bigger-than-life" personality that endeared him to
the American public. I don't get where you are coming from.

I really think you should re-consider what you said.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

As Beethoven is given credit for transitioning the Classical period of music to Romantic era, many credit the Babe for bringing an end to the deadball era. .671 win percentage, .342 lifetime average, 714Hr, 2213Rbis, the list goes on. You can't take anything away from Ruth.

[Archive]

Posted By: David McD

"Did you know Babe Ruth was a woman? Real name was Ruth Herman. Wouldn't have believed it either if I hadn't seen the proof with my own eyes. Got a tryout with the Baltimore club, this would be 1905. Same year Ty Cobb came up to the Tigers, I remember. They called me "another Ty Cobb" down in the Mediocre Association, and the Orioles were going to give me a good look. But nobody paid any attention that day, everybody was watching this ugly little fat girl in a dirty white pinafore just ripping Hell out of the ball. The kids on the sidelines said, "Oh, don't mind her, that's Baby Ruth Herman from the neighborhood." Well, we did mind her. I can tell you! Manager sent her on home, of course, baseball then being strictly a man's game. God amighty, never forget the shock about ten years later up in Boston! Never had the heart to squeal on her, and neither did anyone else. Amazing thing, Ruth Herman, "the Babe." . . . My, I haven't thought about the old days in so long. Thinking of Cobb and Ruth Herman, say, that brings back the memories. Good memories. Those ballplayers then, they were a grand bunch of fellows, with only one or two exceptions. Did you know Honus Wagner was a fairy? Him and Walter Johnson. I could tell tales. Both of them in an upper berth; you dreaded those long overnights.
But I never was a knocker and I won't start now. You ask me about Major League ball in the old days. I'd just say that was the life and I'd leave it at that. Let sleeping dogs lie. Let the dead stay buried. Probably gabbed too much for my own good already. Get out!"
- Zube LaRue, "The Glory of Their Hindsight," National Lampoon, ca. 1975

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

Who is Zube LaRue? I don't know National Lampoon, sounds like a satiric magazine (is it the same National Lampoon as Chevy Chase's Vacation movies?), so I'm guessing it's a joke and not a real person or real inteview.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

My understanding is that Wagner wasn't so much against cigarettes as he was FOR money. He was the first player with an outside endorsement contract, his likeness and signature on bats... I left the website above in a prior response. I figure he'd have allowed any aversion to cigarettes fall to the side, if dollars were sufficiently stacked in front of him. It was about the money.

And it still is for some of you (us)... what is a card worth? A card is worth more to me if I can touch it, hold it.... not if it is imprisoned in plastic. If you only value your stuff by what you can sell it for, then you really aren't deriving the full value or full pleasure of ownership. So why not sell it? That's why the good lord put hacksaws on this planet... to open up those PSA holders.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

Ted you said it yourself, "in Ruth's short pitching career." Smokey Joe Wood had a great short pitching career too. He isn't remembered as one of the greats. Plus Ruth hated pitching. That is no secret. Who is to say he would have lasted.

Ruth made his fame hitting homeruns for the Yankees. That would not have happened in the dead ball era. I really don't think I need to take back my statement.

On top of that, without those homeruns in the dead ball era he probobly would not have been the media darling that he was, rather just another drunk. But the fact is Ruth was the right player at the right time and the rest is history.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Bryan

OK, do you dislike Ruth because as you said "he was the
media darling" ?
Or are you such a "Yankee hater" ? Which might explain why
you have such disdain for this man; which is obvious by
your derisive "drunk" comments?

From 1914-19 Ruth was an outstanding pitcher, who won 90 and
lost only 46 (his ERA = 2.28). In three World Series starts he
not only won all of them, he pitched 29 consecutive scoreless
innings , and had an incredible 0.87 ERA.

In 1916, the 1st of these WS games he pitched 13 scoreless innings.
Really, I do not understand where you are coming from?

You seem to be "hung up" on Ruth's HRs; OK, let's just compare
him with some of the major HOFers who have approx. 3000 Hits
(or more). Do you realize that Ruth's Batting Average (.342) is
greater than Wagner's....Cap Anson....Stan Musial....Geo. Sisler
Jimmy Foxx....Nap. LaJoie....and is equal to Tris Speaker; and,
Ruth's BA is even equal to Ted Williams (acknowledged as one
the game's greatest hitters).

Ruth's pitching statistics and his basic hitting statistics prove
to anyone with a reasonably open mind that he would have
been a tremendous ballplayer in the 19th Century.... the
20th Century (as history proves)....or the 21st Century.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

It seems that getting 3000 hits was about the only thing Ruth didn't do. I'm not a Yankee fan, but who can take away from what Ruth did? He was an amazing talent that DID party too much, didn't take care of his body, and still was heads above the rest. I can't imagine what today's conditioning and a little dietary discretion would have done for him.

Claiming that Ruth wouldn't have been successful in the Dead-Ball era is like saying that Clemens wouldn't have success during the post-WWI era. I believe that the top players of any era would stand out, regardless of when they played. The physical body is only a small part of what's responsible for their success. The knot on top of their necks is where it's all at.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakisc

Anson

I really appreciate your comments. Ruth fell short of 3000
hits by only 127. But, if you look at his BB column, you will
understand why. He was walked an unbelievable 2056 times.

The closest players to this figure are Williams (2019) and
Yaz (1845) and Mantle (1734). All four of these guys could
have achieved even greater hitting numbers if it wasn't for
all these Walks.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

My problem with Ruth is the pedestal he is put upon. Half of his fame is due to dumb luck. He was a strong man with a powerful swing to take advantage of the new baseball in the largest city in the greatest country which also happened to be the center of the media world and baseball world from the 1920s to the late 1950s.

Nevermind the FACT that he was a womanizing drunk. The media covered that up for him and called him a "large personality." If Ruth wasn't such a friendly guy to everyone I think a very different picture would have been painted of Ruth. Besides covering up his off field behavior they sometimes elavated his play to levels it probobly didn't deserve. Take the called shot incident. Everyone involved said the only thing he called was the fact that he had only two strikes. Ty Cobb was a villian in the media. Not saying what Cobb did was justified. I know there is a double standard and the the Ruth lovers are ignorant to that. If Cobb had Ruth's personality and Ruth had Cobb's personality there probobly wouldn't even be much discussion on Ruth.

As far as his pitching goes, he did have a good, short run at it. But it is kind of hard to be a bad pitcher on a great team. He pitched on the Red Sox's greatest team. Let's see him on the Washington Senators. Ruth was no Walter Johnson. Like I said Ruth has a similar pitching career to Smokey Joe Wood. He was a fireballer who had an incredible short career until an injury forced him to the outfield.

As far as his batting average is concerned it is absolutely impossible to compare Ruth's average to Speaker, Wagner, Anson, Lajoie, or Ted Williams. Ruth played in the most hitter friendly era ever. The NL average was .301 in the early 1930s. It isn't like he was playing in 1968. That argument holds no water what so ever. A better way would be to compare batting titles. Ruth has one in 1924. And yes I am hung up on his HRs since that is what he is famous for. Not like I am comparing the number of triple he hit.

I give Ruth his credit as being one of the baseball greats but he needs to take his place behind Ty Cobb and Honus Wagner in the list of baseball players. They were all around players. Ruth was a one trick pony.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

A one trick pony? Ruth was an outstanding pitcher and hitter. Can't say that about Cobb or Wagner. Ruth not only hit HRs, he hit for average, hit for power and stole bases. He didn't steal 500+ like Cobb and Wagner, but he stole a lot more than people think. I was also lucky enough to talk to a number of former major leaguers that player with and against Ruth. They all mentioned that he was one of the smartest baserunners they ever say play the game. He also had 136 triples. Since Ruth retired, only 20 players have hit more triples than he did.

Ruth was not the large, oafish man that could only hit HRs that you seem to think he is. I think you've confused him with Mark McGwire.

There is no arguing he was the right man, in the right place, at the right time, but you can say this about pretty much any other great athlete. Would we talk about Magic and Bird the way we do if they hadn't played for 2 of the most storied NBA fanchises in history?

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

I just get a kick how people take personal shots at me when all I am doing is presenting some facts and some arguments about Babe Ruth especially when they can't back up what they say or present any argument otherwise.

So here we go again. Everyone hit for average in the 1920s to 30s. Ruth won one batting title in his career and he was tied for having the second lowest average of the decade out of the players who won it over that decade.

He had 123 stolen bases out of 240 tries. Not too impressive over a 22 year career.

He had 3 good years pitching and two average years on a WORLD CHAMPION ballclub. If you look at the stats of the other pitchers on the team you will see they have similar numbers (Dutch Leonard, Rube Foster) with Carl Mays having better numbers than Ruth. Ruth isn't the great pitcher that everyone thinks. Probobly just average at best.

Ruth was an average fielder. Ty Cobb and Honus Wagner are considered all time greats at their position.

I am not arguing he was a bad player. I believe he was a great player. He just isn't the greatest that people absentmindedly believe him to be. I will give him the nod that he was one of the best things that could have ever happened to the game. He also benefitted greatly from being in the right place at the right time (pitching in Boston, playing in NY with all of the other greats.) But yes, so do many others have that benefit in some shape or form. On the flip side, Ty Cobb fought hard for everything he got.

I still believe Ruth to be a one trick pony. Take away his powerful swing and the only threat he poses is to a hotdog or glass of beer.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Bryan, someone disagreeing with your opinion is not a personal attack. Questioning your partentage, or something alse about you that has nothing to do with this topic, that is a personal attack.

Since you seems to like to talk about things being normalized (for those that don't know what them means, it's how much better or worse a player is than the league average), let's look at how Ruth fares that way then. All-time ranking in parenthesis.

.........Ruth...........Cobb.............Wagner
OBA +33.0% (2).. 28.0% (7)... 19.5% (28)
SLG +70.7% (1).. 44.1% (13).. 35.1% (24)
AVG +18.8% (13). 34.7% (1)... 24.1% (9)

Based on these numbers, Ruth is far and away the better player when you naormalize their numbers for league average.

you claim Ruth was an overrated pitcher all you want, but you don't go and throw 29 consecutive scoreless innings by being a mere mortal on a good team. If that were the case, there should have been a bunch Yankees pitchers beating that record.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

Your right Jay, not sure what I was thinking. I reread the posts and not much for personal attacks. (Although you did remove the "what color is the sky where you are from comment.") No big deal though.

Good job on comparing the stats. Only problem is those three stats paint a very small picture. There is so much more to a baseball player than that. I would like to see the comparison for stats across the board (fielding, base stealing, strikeouts, ect...)

I am stiking to my guns on him being a pitcher. Compare the pitchers of that time period and you will see Ruth is not one of the best. And someone please look up Joe Wood. His short stint at pitching blows Ruth out of the water.

Although on the other hand if Ruth stayed as a pitcher he may have gone on to become one of the greats. You never know. Just like he may have been a failure if he played 15 years earlier.

This whole debate came from my comment on how I thought Ruth isn't necessarily the best player to build a dynasty. He had a lot of help in accomplishing what he did. Having the rest of the Yankee line up probobly helped is cause greatly. I think Ruth was a man who definately made the best out of the situation he was in. Guess that is all that anyone can ever expect of somebody.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I jsut went with the three obvious one, trying not to bore everyone to death. Here are some more, all normalized...


Isolated power (this is 2B, 3B and HR divided by AB)
Ruth 199.0%(1) Cobb 58.8%(78) Wagner 68.9%(43)

Gavvy Cravath was tops for deadball era players and was 6th overall. Joe Jackson was second and 13th overall. Third is Sam Crawford. He was 23th overall. Wagner was 8th overall for BDers and Cobb was 17th.

The only normalized numbers I have for SBs are Pete Palmers linear weighted numbers. Ruth was -1.2, Cobb +0.2 and Wagner was 0.0. (The number is the number wins the player's base stealing was responsible for. This means that Ruth's base stealing actually cost his team a win over the course of his career.

The only normailized fielding numbers are also Palmer's Defensive wins. Ruth was -2.0, Cobb +5.0, Wagner +8.8.

As for Ruth pitching, once again referning to Palmer's linear weights. Ruth never have fewer than 6.5 wins in a year during the years he pitched. An average of 6.0 wins over 10 years would have landed him in the top 100 pitcher of all time.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Jay B.

While I understand and appreciate all your statistics, you are
not going to in any way sway Bryan (much less convince him
that his thinking on Ruth is totally way "out in left field").

In my posts on this thread I have presented the very basic and
easy to comprehend statistcs and facts of Ruth's career. Yet,
Bryan just ignores them, and then his discussion degenerates to
Ruth being a "drunk" or "womanizer". And, that the "media" back
then covered it all up. GIVE Me A BREAK....everyone back in the
1920's and '30s knew of Ruth's personal "escapades".

However, he is quick to criticize you for what he claims are
your personal attacks on him. It's apparent that Bryan does not
want to be "Confused by the Facts". So, he just simply detests
Ruth for whatever emotional reasons; and, we should just leave
it at that. The last time I met someone that disliked Ruth with
such intensity, was many years ago when I lived in Maine and
this guy was a Red Sox fan.

But, I will add to the "mix" another favorable Ruth statistic. The
comment was made that Cobb and Wagner were better all-around
players. I guess this impied that Ruth was not a good fielder.
Well, when you do the math:

Ruth in the OF averaged 8.5 errors per year.

Cobb in the OF averaged 12.8 errors per year.

And, while it is not fair to compare Wagner since he was a SS;
he averaged 36.4 errors per year. Finally, I will add that Ruth
being a former pitcher, made some great throwing plays from
his RF position. A fact that never shows up in the record book.

OK, we can all argue "raw statistics" on this thread till we set
a new record for posts on this Forum. But, I don't believe any-
one on this Forum ever saw Ruth play (and certainly not Cobb
or Wagner).

But, my Father-in-Law saw Ruth play (live at Yankee Stadium
and old Shibe Park in Philly). The stories he tells us of seeing
Ruth in action are exciting, and how the fans reacted to the
"Babe" (even in Philly) was amazing. He still recalls all these
fond memories as if they were just yesterday.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Fielding is a rela nebulous thing. If you look at the errors, Ozzie Smith doesn't look that great. He commited 281 errors with approximately 13k chances in 19 years. Cal Ripken on the other hand made 225 errors on 10k chances in 21 years. No one would would ever confuse Ripken with a great fielding SS, yet according to to these numbers, he was.

Part of the reason that Ozzie's numbers don't look great is because his range was such that he could get to balls that no other SS could get to. Ozzie had 684 chances per year, where as Ripken only had 487. That's more than hit a game getting past Ripken that Ozzie Smith turns into an out.

I'm willing to be that Cobb's range was much greater than that of Ruth's. You also need to factor in changes in equipment. Gloves had improved from the time Cobb came into the game until Ruth retired. Parks had also change dramtically in this time too.

I will agree with you that I probably won't change Bryan' mind since his dislike for Ruth seems to be for the type of type he was and not as a player. Which doesn't make a lot sense since Cobb was a truly dispicable person on so many more levels than Ruth.

Jay

My place is full of valuable, worthless junk.

[Archive]

Posted By: Darren J. Duet

Ruth filled the stands like no one else.

To build a dynasty more than a great player is needed. A great player with flair and popularity is what is needed. Fill the stands, fill your coffers, afford the best players.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

I fully understand what you are saying about Fielding Stats.
and how you cannot take them literally in comparing
players' performance in the field. And, you certainly
do not get any argument from me regarding Ozzie Smith.
I was at Cooperstown when he was inducted into the HOF.
I met him and what a great guy and what a great story.

Ruth played RF in the old Yankee stadium and it was not
as easy a field to play in. Cobb roamed the spacious CF
of the old Briggs Stadium; and having been there, I can
tell you it was easier ground to cover.

It's subtle factors like these that you have to consider
when comparing ballplayers. But, like I mentioned in my
last post, actual eyewitness accounts are the only true way
to judge how well these oldtimers played their position.
And, my wife's Father saw Ruth close up, as he always made
sure he had seats between 1B and the RF foul post. He re-
calls Ruth unleashing throws from deep RF and throwing out
runners who dared to take an extra base.

[Archive]

Posted By: John

Ruth, even today, is the symbol of American baseball. In his time he was bigger than the game. The culture of the 1920's thrived on feats and accomplishments. Ruth was in the right place at the right time. There is no doubt that Ruth took care of his own needs, but he was also good to his fans. Wagner was recognized in his time as a great player, but never became the larger than life icon like Ruth. Pittsburgh still embraces Wagner as one of their own. My "love" with Wagner stems from his loyalty to the city of Pittsburgh.

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

Cobb fought every pitch, pitcher, base and every obstacle between him and scoring a run. So did Wagner.

Ruth played baseball. Effortlessly, carelessly and skillfully. Perhaps the most talented thus far.

[Archive]

Posted By: Patrick McHugh

I think that the T206 does influence the values of all Wagner cards. With all sports it turns into a popularity contest. Not alway's who was or is better. Babe Ruth is the most popular player, card values overall reflect this. Was Ruth the best player? I can't say.It can be alot of fun to try to compare players of back then or now but because stats happen in different situations - meaning compared players did not face same pitchers, teams, parks, equipment, etc. there is really no way to know who is better.