Cobb vs. Ruth

[Archive]

Posted By: Gary B.

This is rather a famous story about Cobb that I have a question about:

"After enduring several years of seeing his fame and notoriety usurped by Ruth, Cobb decided that he was going to show that anybody could hit home runs if he chose to. On 5 May 1925, Cobb began a two-game hitting spree better than any even Ruth had unleashed. He was sitting in the dugout talking to a reporter and told him that, for the first time in his career, he was going to swing for the fences. That day, Cobb went 6 for 6, with two singles, a double, and three home runs. His 16 total bases set a new AL record. The next day he had three more hits, two of which were home runs. His single his first time up gave him 9 consecutive hits over three games. His five homers in two games tied the record set by Cap Anson of the old Chicago NL team in 1884. Cobb wanted to show that he could hit home runs when he wanted, but simply chose not to do so. At the end of the series, 38-year-old Cobb had simply gone 12 for 19 with 29 total bases, and then went happily back to bunting and hitting-and-running."

My question to you all is, first of all, is there any proof to this story being true, like has anyone seen a newspaper clipping from the reporter that Cobb said this to with the statistics of that day or two next to it, but more so, if Cobb really could hit like that when he wanted to, why would he ever NOT want to hit like that? Was it really better to go for a style of trying to get base hits to gaps, stealing bases, etc., rather than get a home run if one had the ability to do so? Isn't a home run always preferable to getting a single or double, and perhaps not getting a run or getting the player(s) on base a run? Why did Cobb abhor Ruth's style? Was it jealousy? What was so bad about Ruth's way of playing, that is, if one could even play like Ruth, which few could. One would think that almost anyone who COULD get home runs regularly, would go for it, and the only reason I could think of where that would be a bad idea is if a person could only rarely get home runs, and was always swinging away and striking out when they could be getting a higher average if they didn't try so hard. This was obviously NOT Ruth's problem, as he had a phenomenal batting average, and he got PLENTY of hits that weren't 4-baggers. Anyone have any commentary?

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

The story is definitely nonsense, for the reasons you said. I can understand
Cobb not wanting to hit homeruns IF it would lower his average. But, according to the story, he went 6 for 6 with 3 homers. Swinging for the fences actually increased his average. If the story was true, Cobb would have kept swinging for the fences.

I suspect the story was started by Cobb's fans, not Cobb.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

If I am correct - Cobb STILL holds the AL record for total bases in a game with 16 as well (of course there are some NL players who have hit 4 HR's in a game - I don't know the NL record for total bases - I did see the game years ago when Bob Horner hit 4 HR's. It wasn't televised, but the Turner Channel played the game delayed so people could see Bob Horner hit the 4 HR's).

You have to remember, Cobb was a "Deadball" player. He was not use to playing HR ball. Cobb was also intelligent (as proven by his stock purchases). Cobb probably liked to "out-think" opponents. Like hitting a single and stealing 2nd, then stealing 3rd, and finally stealing home!

I stated in the message title the story is true - I don't know that for a fact and can't prove it. However, I do know Cobb had a 16 total base game. AND, if anyone who could have a .366+ lifetime batting average told me he could hit the ball where he wanted (over the fence or a bunt down the first base line), I would HAVE to believe him!

Also, I don't think Cobb was "Jealous" of Ruth. I think he was just mad that some people thought Ruth to be greater than him. But, Ruth wasn't! And, as Cobb would say, "Ruth couldn't hold his jockey strap!". If you don't believe me that Cobb was greater, just look at the game of Baseball today. Players like Sosa, McGwire and Bonds who hit 60 and 70 plus HR's in a season - far more than Ruth, and McGwire hit them more frequently. NOBODY has hit over .400 since Ted Williams - Cobb did it THREE seasons!

Like I stated earlier - don't know for certain that Cobb said he was swinging for the fences. BUT, IF TY COBB SAID IT, HE COULD DO IT!

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

A question like this is a great reason to join SABR http://sabr.org
You could get this answered in no time on the Deadball Era committee mailing list.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

Cobb didn't win over 90 games pitching. Ruth was the greatest talent the game has ever seen. As a hitter, I would take Ruth, with his .690 slugging average and 2nd to Williams OB% over Cobb.

Cobb's basic intelligence and notoriously well-documented competitiveness disprove any theory that he would have decided not to hit homers. As a player manager, his salary was dictated by his success on the field, his team's success on the field and his team's financial successes. All 3 would be bettered by him being a slugging player as opposed to a singles hitter. Like they say, singles hitters drive Fords, home run hitters drive Cadillacs. Do you really believe that he would not have challenged Ruth if he was capable of doing it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brad Freeman

I know that Joe Adcock of the Braves hit 4 home runs and a double on July 31, 1954 for a total of 18 bases. Not sure if that still stands or not as the MBL record.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

For the life of me I cannot find anything on web or in my library that lists single game records. I do seem to remember that Mark Whiten or someone else had broken that record.

If anyone knows a web site with single and double header records, please let me know.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: GatorDave

Shawn Green of the Dodgers currently holds the single game record. He had 19 total bases on May 23, 2002. For the game he hit 4 home runs, 1 double and 1 single.

[Archive]

Posted By: GatorDave

The following website has a detailed listing of career, season, single game and doubleheader records.

http://baseball-almanac.com/rb_menu.shtml

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason

You people are comparing apples to oranges. Both were great and there is no way to compare different players of different eras. You simply cannot compare Bonds to Ruth or Williams or Clemens to Young. Ruth was probably the best of his era, but so was Cobb of his arguably. I love all the history and think both are great. I also think neither could replicate those numbers today and possibly players of today can't replicate their successes back then. Who knows what pitching was like? I would say like anything else it progressively gets better. Maybe Ruth could only hit 20 HRs against pitching of today and Cobb .200. Who knows? The truth is that we will never know.

Jason

[Archive]

Posted By: Gary B.

While I do believe that players are adapted to their eras, if you took Cobb or Ruth and put them in baseball today, I believe they would do exceedingly well after an adjustment period to all the changes in style, etc. Talent is talent. I don't however think Cobb could last in today's game with the attitude he had. The game wouldn't have it today, and he'd have to become a bit more socially acceptable or incur heavy fines, suspensions and intense public hatred (of course he had intense public hatred in his day, but it didn't stop fans from coming to see him in action).

So does anyone have any definitive information based on my original post on the veracity of this legendary story of Cobb and what he said to a reporter? I don't think verifying that he did get so many bases over a two day period proves anything, other than the story has somewhere it could fit, but it doesn't say whether or not that really happened. The Cobb site I lifted it from seemed pretty sure about it's information, but it's too bizarre and legendary a thing to just accept out of hand. What about the famous Ruth story where he pointed and then hit a home run where he pointed? Any truth behind this legend?

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Hi Gary,
The Homerun story comes from the Book COBB by Al Stump. It has been repeated in several other publications and is most likely true. Stump dug fairly deep on Cobb and printed the "real truth" about Cobb in his second effort. Be well Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

There were less teams in Cobb and Ruth's days. Pitchers pitched more innings. Hitters had to face the BEST pitchers of their time more often! Today, there are so many teams and tons of pitchers who would NOT be in MLB were there less teams. Hitters today face less talented pitchers.....PERIOD! Bonds would not have hit 73 HR's hitting a DEADBALL and facing Cy Young, Christy Mathewson, Walter Johnson, Addie Joss, Mordecai Brown, Ed Walsh, etc.!!!!!!! NO WAY! Also, spitters were common in the deadball era - a player of today would not be able to hit those pitches. That is why they are illegal - to benefit the batters and produce more runs, so there are more tickets sold! Hell, Cobb batted almost .400 in his career against Walter Johnson!!! If that is not a sign of the Greatest, I don't know what is! Cobb would not hit .400 against the mediocre pitchers of today - he would hit .500+++!!!!!!!!!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: ty_cobb

If you check GatorDave's link under Hits, you will
indeed see that Cobb went 6 for 6 on May 5, 1925.

While HRs are the talk of the day, not too many people
care about the old HR leaders like Cravath. In those days
hitting for average was the big deal. Cobb was obsessed
with keeping ahead of the likes of Shoeless Joe.

Cobb was a great batter, but was no home run hitter.
Hitters like Cobb, Rose, Ichiro, they did/do have great bat
control and at times can seemingly hit the ball where they
want. The story has credence, but it is mostly bravado on
Cobb's part to think he could be a HR hitter like Ruth.

Cobb was the greatest hitter for average, not power.

[Archive]

Posted By: steve k

I agree with some other posters about if looking strictly at offense, Cobb was overall better than Ruth. But the fact that Ruth was a terrific pitcher can't be ignored. That clearly makes him the greatest of all time, with Cobb clearly the second greatest. Third greatest can get very, very tough with Williams, Mays, Bonds and a few others but I go with Williams as third greatest. Don't forget Williams lost three prime baseball years because of serving in WW2.

I completely don't believe this Cobb "story" at all. Did Cobb tell the story to Stump - yes, probably. Was the story true - most probably not. Even if disliking Cobb, everyone agrees that he was extremely intelligent but he was also an incorrigable egomaniac. I can easily envision Cobb making up a story such as this strictly for his own entertainment/amusement purposes. In a slightly similar fashion as Ruth never denying or verifying the story about "pointing at the stands before the homerun" which absolutely was not true but the Babe always playfully "beat around the bush" whenever asked about it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenny Cole

I think it is difficult to compare baseball during the 1900-1930 era to that of today. True, there are more teams and the pitching nowadays generally sucks after you get through the first two starters. However, you also have to consider that neither Cobb nor Ruth ever played a MLB game against any of the great black stars of the time. When they did play against them in exhibition games, they generally came out on the losing end of the deal. Consequently, I don't think its entirely fair to say that Cobb and Ruth were facing the BEST pitchers of their era, because they were only facing SOME of the best pitchers of their era.

If you go look at their records against Black and Cuban teams, neither Cobb nor Ruth did very well. In fact, they generally got their asses kicked. That doesn't say too much for their supposed superiority. Had they played against the top black players of their era, I don't think it can even be argued that their numbers would look as great as they now do. Didn't happen so we don't know. However, it seems to me that if Ruth was facing Paige or Smokey Joe Wiliiams as opposed to, say, Jack Quinn at the end of his career, he doesn't do as well. Same for Cobb. If he'd had to hit against either Mendez or Rube Foster on a regular basis, I don't think he hits .367 lifetime. Both Ruth and Cobb were the best of their generations (at least in MLB), but., unfortunately, they didn't play against all of the best from their generations. That sort of stuff has to factor into the equation.

Another thing to consider is the relief pitcher. I don't think it can seriously be argued that having a pitching staff of 6 people is superior to having a staff of 10. Yes, pitchers used to complete more games. At a gut level, I think that's the way it should be and I also think that today's starting pitchers are mostly a bunch of pu**ies. However, it cannot be denied that bringing in a fresh arm in the 8th or 9th inning has has a tremendous impact on the game. New arm, new look. Ruth and Cobb didn't have to contend with that too often. It makes a HUGE difference. Geez, today's game is substantially different from the game of the 1960s with the DH, the lower mound, the inability to dust anybody and whatnot.

There are many other factors to consider, such as training, conditioning, performance enhancing drugs, etc. Bottom line is that it is really difficult to say that Bonds would have done well in 1900 or that Cobb and Ruth would have done well today. They were (are) great talents during their respective eras of play. While it is easy to idolize a player you never saw based upon his statistics in a game/career you never observed because you weren't even born, I'm a little skeptical of that approach. I don't think there can ever be an agreed upon "best" when you talk about a game that evolves. Cobb and Ruth were the best during the period they played. Bonds is the most feared hitter now. Isn't that enough?

Kenny Cole

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

I think there are two interpretations here about what it means for the Cobb story to be "true." I agree with everyone who says that Cobb actually hit three home runs in one game. That's a documented fact. What I doubt is that Cobb told anyone that he could do it anytime he wanted to and just preferred to hit singles.

[Archive]

Posted By: Greg Ecklund

While I agree that players such as Cobb and Ruth not facing the great black players of the day holds some water, I think many people have taken it overboard.

One thing that must be taken into account is where the greatest athletes of the day go to play - back in Ruth and Cobb's day if you were going to play a sport professionally, baseball was the really one of the only ways to go. In those days it was likely one of the only games kids followed, and the only game they really dreamed of playing professionally. As a result of this, Ruth and Cobb faced the absolute cream of the crop, at least with regards to white athletes.

Today, an athlete has a great amount of choices if they want to play pro sports - there are the four majors as well as many other sports where one can make a nice living. Because of this, how many potentially great baseball players are playing wide receiver in the NFL or point guard in the NBA instead of baseball? In other words, our sports are now diverse, but the athletes are given many more options with regard to the sport they want to play. It's difficult to measure the impact of this on baseball, but I would argue that it has nearly the impact on the quality of today's game as not allowing black players did on the quality of the game before the 1950's.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason

In response to Scott Elkins post I disagree. I would venture to say that pitching back then would be very substandard of today. I would say that I could have hit .400 back then. Like anything else baseball has progressed. I also agree that there was probably alot of better negro players that we never knew about. I would think MLB teams of last year would probably compare to college level or low level minor league baseball of today.........maybe AA at best. Just my opinion. You guys just simply cannot compare different eras. You can have your opinions, but there is no way to know who was the best.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

you can have your players of today. I'll take the vintage ones with Johnson on the mound and shut you out! And, if you can hit .400 against Johnson and the rest of the vintage pitchers, you had better be calling George (not Costanza, but his boss - the one who owns the Yankees now)!

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

The thing that most people forget about supposed dilution of talent is that the population of the US was about 100-120 million in the deadball era and this including blacks and other minorities, so the actual talent pool was much smaller. Maybe 80-90 million. Now move forward to today. The US population is 275 million or more, plus you have all the Latin American countries, South America, Australia and much of the Far East. So you are looking at a talent pool of something close to 1.5 BILLION people. Even with more sporting options, you have a larger pool of talent to work with than you did in the Deadball Era.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: prewarsports

The game of toda is tailored toward the hitter, and back in the early part of the century it was tailored toward the pitcher. Being able to throw hard is a naturla ability. I have no doubt that if Billy Wagner can throw 106 MPH than Walter Johnson could probably throw similarly hard. Imagine the movement on a 100 MPH fastball which is all scuffed up from being used all day. Then throw in the fact that it was hard to see, and that the occasional spit ball could be coming, or the old ball could be coming at your head, and you wear NO PROTECTION. If you take pitchers of 1910 and bring them into the mix today, they would have to adjust the same as pitchers would if they had to go back in time and play in 1910. Pitchers ruled the diamond then and I would be willing to bet Barry Bonds would have a career Batting Average of about .250 if he had played back in the early 1900's.

As far as the Cobb story goes, what I had always heard was that he felt like trying to hit home runs was not "sporting" and I think he still longed for a return to the days of station to station ball and he thought hitting home runs was sort of like a fad. He was correct in that a single does more potential damage in a bases loaded no out situation than a home run does etc. I would equate it to fishing with dynamite, sure you get more fish, but that is not the objective to everybody.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gary B.

Steve,

You said, "I completely don't believe this Cobb "story" at all. Did Cobb tell the story to Stump - yes, probably. Was the story true - most probably not."

I'm inclined to agree with you here. I didn't read the book, but I did see the Cobb movie, and if Cobb was even 1/4 the raving egomaniac and lunatic he was portrayed in the movie to be around the time Stump spent some time with him, I think anything he said to Stump would have been at least a little bit suspect. The way the story goes is this:

"He was sitting in the dugout talking to a reporter and told him that, for the first time in his career, he was going to swing for the fences. That day, Cobb went 6 for 6, with two singles, a double, and three home runs."

NOW, if someone can produce for me a newspaper or magazine clipping from that week where the reporter says that Cobb told him that before the fact, and then went on to hit the home runs, then and only then would I believe this story to be irrefutable fact (of course even then someone could have paid off the reporter to create a legendary myth, but we have to suspend disbelief somewhere along the line). With the absence of third party verifiable proof, the story, while wonderful and romantic, remains to me, extremely suspicious - an gigantic and stupendous myth.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I hope you don't honestly believe Bonds would only hit .250. That's as silly as the other person claiming that Cobb would hit over .500 if he played today.

If anyone has ever read Bill James Historical Abstract or books by Pete Palmer and Jim Thorn, then you know that these guys all agree that the great from that era were truely great, but the bad players were truely bad. I think was James that explained talent on a bell curve and that in the early years the curve was fairly flat. But as you move to the modern era, the curve becomes very steep with the greats remaining on the same spot in the graph, but the median and poor players moving further right all the time.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason

BIlly Wagner doesnt throw 106 and Walter Johnson never threw 100 MPH. Besides fastballs are the easiest pitch to hit. I would rather face 90+ MPH fastballs all day long over any breaking pitches. Also the offspeed pitches, breaking balls, etc. have been mastered over time and I would say are alot better........hence alot more movement. Johnson maybe threw hard (maybe up to 90) but I doubt they could make those deadballs move like the live ones of today. As far as the Cobb fabrication goes......if that would have happened every newspress in the country would have printed it just like Babe's called shot.

Jason

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhett

Jason, you are a raving lunatic. You have no basis for what you are saying. If you could hit .400 back then why the heck aren't you playing professional baseball. Your arguments are baseless (except for your diluted opinions of yourself) and are childish. You have your opinion, one which nobody in their right mind will agree with, and are just trying to push your agenda. Stop, before you start looking clueless, TOO LATE...

About a homerun always being better than a single, double, or triple that is absolutely NOT true. While I am not saying homeruns aren't good, a base-hit can actually be more beneficial. When there are runners on base, no longer can one pitch out of the stretch, and anyone that has played organized baseball knows that you pitch to a player far differently when there are runners on base (even more so when they are in scoring position.) A homerun essentially clears the bases and actually gives the pitcher an advantage over the subsequent batters. I would almost go as far to say that with 0 to 1 out it would be more beneficial to simply get a "regular" base hit as opposed to a homerun, because you are "starting something" that your teammates can build upon.

I have no doubt that people 75 to 100 years ago could pitch just as hard as they do today. What is so magical about the last fifty years that has allowed players to suddenly start throwing so much faster, it doesn't really make sense that natural ability to throw hard has suddenly changed over the past 100 years (evolution doesn't happen that fast-look it up.) A player doesn't necessarily "learn" to throw 90-100 mph, being a pitcher and being able to throw fast enough to play professional ball is much more about natural ability than training.

I personally think it would be so much fun to watch a player of today try to hit against Burleigh Grimes, I would give anything I had to see how that would turn out. Especially when the players of today are subject to the actual strike-zone mentioned in the rule book, who know that strike zone that extends from the knees to the chest.

If a team of today played a team from yesteryear it would be an amazing thing to watch, and I think it would be a lot closer than any of us can imagine, especially in some of those huge parks Cobb played in. I don't profess to know who would win, but I think everyone on this board would be able to appreciate the possibilities (except maybe Jason).

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason

Rhett-

Your comments make you sound like a complete moron. Anyone in their right mind would know that the best possibly run production is a home run. You are not serious? I did play organized baseball and QUIT on my terms for reasons that are nobody's business but my own and I was a PITCHER too. I know what to throw in every situation so you can stick your ridiculous opinions where the sun dont shhine. You OBVIOUSLY have never played the game at any level. Get some real basis before you make ignorant ramblings. Nobody in their right mind would rather step into a big league batter's box and choose to hit a single over a long ball. You should quit now before I really make you sound stupid.

Jason

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Elsass

Jason,

At least proofread what you write and then cut it from the page and place it in Word and do a grammar and spell check, that is what my 11 year old does when he has a problem with his writing and grammar. Your post makes no sense at all; maybe a few bat splinters hit you when you were pitching all that so called "heat" to your opponents back in your professional baseball days.

One thing that you need to realize is that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion and you have no right to discredit that right. Secondly, at least have enough tact to sign in via a log-on so that you are not hidden behind an anonymous log-on. Last thing is, this is just a debate, it will never be answered to everyone’s satisfaction nor can it ever be proven who was the better ballplayer. As I said, it is up to the individual to decide and not up to you to jam down their throat.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason

I am not hiding. How do I log on? I am putting in my email for those who dont know me. My typing is bad yes I agree......but I am right. I agree with what you said on opinoins and I am in no way trying to jam anything down someone's throat. I am simply responding to his post of calling me a raving lunatic and saying that my OPINIONS WERE WRONG! Read the post! And no not many bat splinters came my way. I can spell well just not type well because I do not care about proofreading......just ask the Wentz's. Simply nobody in a sain mind can say that a single is preferrable over a 4 bagger as a hitter. Anyone who has made that statement has never played the game.

Jason

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason

Bill-

How do I "log in" and become OFFICIAL?

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

top of the Forum page.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason

Thanks Julie!

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

I'm not going to take any sides in this debate, but for the record, Jason was an outstanding left-handed pitcher (and a decent hitter) who player professional baseball at a pretty high organized level and competed against many current major league players. In my opinion, he was probably good enough to someday make it to the major leagues himself but his life's path led him elsewhere. Don't discount what he says about the nature of today's game -- he has a great deal of practical knowledge about many aspects of the sport.

[Archive]

Posted By: prewarsports

It is only .045 away from is lifetime average. Without being able to crowd the plate with his arm thing, and without being able to dig in against pitchers not afraid of him because they will throw at his head, yes Bonds would only hit .250. His career average before steroids was only in the .280's now with all his advantages so it not crazy to think that he would hit .250, but crazy to think he would do any better. He plays in a hitters era and has a lifetime batting average which is only slightly above average for his time (career). Throw him back in a time when the average hitter in the league was knocking around .235 and take away his armour and you have a .250 hitter. You can argue this based on his numbers over the last couple of years, but over his career his average is only a touch above the average starting outfielder in major league baseball in the 1990's.

[Archive]

Posted By: prewarsports

I Led my high level league in hitting with a .459 average in 1997 and was scouted by the Kansas City Royals but tore my rotator cuff before anything could be made of it, competed against many future major leaguers (including the guy who gave up Bonds' #660) and I am officially saying, on the record, that there are SOME situations when a single is better than a home run. Bases Loaded, no outs, middle of a game. Get 2 runs in, instead of four, but now 2 players are on base, force the pitcher to throw uncomfortably from the stretch, dont give him the chance to shake it off, keep a man in scoring position and keep the inning alive. You will also force the pitcher to make more cautious pitches to prevent the runner from advancing too far and also be on the watch for a wild pitch. This all spells better pitches to hit for the guys at the plate. I am speaking as a guy with only a handful of career home runs in any league, and yes they are more fun for the player, but there are some situations where a single is better than a home run. While I never played a game of professional baseball, I know I had the skill to easily do so, at least in the minors. I think that qualifies as playing the game

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason

Prewar-

Are you smoking crack? No it must be meth.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Elsass

Yes Jason, we are all on meth and crack and whatever else you want us to be on. And once again, you are not logged on.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

/.......

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Elsass

Julie,

Yes, I totally agree with you, however, this guy is not putting his email either.

Cobb vs Bonds is a no win argument. Cobb was, is and always will be better than "The Juiceman"

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

You guys seem to forget that Bonds is putting up these incredible numbers in a PITCHERS park. His numbers against the league are already remarkable but once you figure in the park factor, his numbers become ridiculous. Taking away his body armor is not going to all the sudden make swing at bad pitches. You also seem to think that Bonds would facing a steady diet of MAtty and Johnson. There is also the parade of really bad pitchers too. And lets not forget that Bonds would get look at these pitchers for the whole game, rather than see them 2 or 3 times and then have look at a different reliever each time later in the game. Bonds would be feasting on Deadball Era pitching if got look at the same few pitchers over and over again.

I love the history of the game as much or more than most people here, but some of you need to stop romanticizing greatness of the players of the era so much realize that every era has its pros and cons and that a great player in any era would be a great player in any other era.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred

It's difficult to compare different eras. Cobb was before Ruth and in a different style of play. I realize that their careers overlapped but Cobb started in the dead ball era and was the greatest during that time. Ruth was without a doubt the greatest in his era and if you count his overall abilities as a player (pitching and hitting) is probably the greatest ever.

Bonds is putting up phenomenal numbers but I wonder what kind of numbers Aaron or Mays would have put up if they "juiced" it up a bit. Give Bonds his due because he is one of the most feared sluggers of this era (the number of intentional walks says it all). I watched him play in college and he was a wirey kid that had a bit of pop in his bat but the homerun numbers weren't quite what they are now. I wonder just how much the juice has helped him, we'll never know.

Overall, Ruth gets my vote.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason

OOPS! I thought once I logged on it would happen automatically from now on. I sincerely apologize to the LOG IN police. As far as it goes it would be safe to say that both Ruth and Bonds would do well in any era. Cobb would probably be just average today. He may hit for a little better average but we will never know.

Jason

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Thomas

Clearly Ruth

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

I might as well put my few sense in here too.

I imagine if Cobb could hit HRs like Ruth, he would have. However, if Ruth could have maintained the batting average of Cobb, I don't think he would have changed anything. Actually, Ruth may have been able to hit for better average than Cobb. He "only" finished up about 25 points lower, but with about 600 more homeruns.

Their styles were totally different. Cobb once said "Baseball is a red-blooded sport for red-blodded men. It's no pink tea, and mollycoddles had better stay out. It's a struggle for supremacy, survival of the fittest". Ruth once said "Gimme a beer and a dog, and where's the ..."?

Cobb was a man who devoted himself to the sport, quite successfully.

Ruth was a man who had fun, quite successfully.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

I think it would be fun just to put these three guys on the same team in the same lockerroom at the same time...

and see which ego wins out.

All three deserve to think of themselves as the "best" ...

but it would be cool to see what they would do to each other head to head every day.

[Archive]

Posted By: prewarsports

Bond's average is only slightly above average for an average outfielder in the 1990's. If you use that same formula and put him in an era where the average outfielder is hitting .230, and he is slightly better than average then what do you get? Around .250!

I find it interesting that someone mentions that I am "on something" in a thread about Barry Bonds. The guy is good, I am not saying he sucks, he won MVP awards before he started taking steroids and is a great player, probably the 15th best outfielder ever or so, but you can not deny the fact that he would not even be in the same paragraph as these other guys without his recent surge in the homerun category. How many people were talking about him being the best player ever in his PRIME when his lifetime average around .285, he single handedly lost a chance at the Pirates going to a World Series and he hit about 35 homers a year? Nobody.

This thread is getting old and I think everyone here knows where I stand, if you take away Bonds' arm thing, and his ability to crowd the plate, then take away his steroids, he is at best a .285, 35 home run, 115 rbi type player at this stage in his career, which would translate to about .255 12 home runs and 80 rbi's in around 1910. You can debate it all you want but his presteroid career numbers are far inferior to either Ruth or Cobb, or about 50 other hitters in the history of baseball. I am done.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

glad to see you either did not read my post about park factor, etc, or just plain ignored and dismissed it. The worst thing you can do amongst a bunch of knowledgable baseball fans, especially with so many SABR members around, is to start making statiscal claims you cannot back up or use faulty analysis to make the comaprison.

If you are going to start making comaprisons across eras, then you better start taking into account park factor, normalized numbers, etc. Otherwise, all you are doing is blowing a bunch of smoke.

Jay