Greatest Player Ever

[BiggestYankeeFan_in_Memphis]

Define "Clutch." A celebrated hit or two?
Do i really need to define clutch? We all know what clutch is.

[BiggestYankeeFan_in_Memphis]

willie ruth!
Even better: willie lou ruth
Now thats a baseball name if i ever heard one

[BiggestYankeeFan_in_Memphis]

lol.. Very nice!!:clapping
Hey you watching your Mets? Man, i am watching that game and that was a homerun, gotta love blind officials.

[Bill Burgess]

Babe 'The Lord Almighty'.

Slugged like Babe, everything else like The Almighty!

[Wade8813]

Babe 'The Lord Almighty'.

Slugged like Babe, everything else like The Almighty!
Cheater. My brothers and I used to do something like that; we'd pick super heroes/villains from comic books etc to battle each other as. "I'm Spiderman" "I'm Superman" "I'm Darkseid" "I'm Doomsday" "I'm Galactus". It would almost invariably end up with one of us saying "Well, I'm God. I win";)


Anyway, back on topic -
Eye/patience - Ted Williams
Hitting - Hornsby
Hitting for Power - Bonds
Running - Rickey Henderson
Fielding - Ozzie Smith & Willie Mays

[Baseball Guru]

Hey you watching your Mets? Man, i am watching that game and that was a homerun, gotta love blind officials.


Of course:) I have the baseball package so I see most of the games anyways;)

Looked like a hr to me as well.. At least they still scored:clapping

Did you hear Stone say that would have been Woody's 3rd hr and if he looses the hr title by 1, he's gonna be real mad:laugh

Stone is funnier now that he's not a Cubs homer;)

[Bill Burgess]

Cheater. My brothers and I used to do something like that; we'd pick super heroes/villains from comic books etc to battle each other as. "I'm Spiderman" "I'm Superman" "I'm Darkseid" "I'm Doomsday" "I'm Galactus". It would almost invariably end up with one of us saying "Well, I'm God. I win";)
Yeppers! That be me!

[AstrosFan]

Babe Earl Clemens: "The Rocket Bambino Wizard"

I don't see how you can use Babe Ruth as a component of your ultimate player and not call the end product Babe something. I think that should be required.

[BiggestYankeeFan_in_Memphis]

Of course:) I have the baseball package so I see most of the games anyways;)

Looked like a hr to me as well.. At least they still scored:clapping

Did you hear Stone say that would have been Woody's 3rd hr and if he looses the hr title by 1, he's gonna be real mad:laugh

Stone is funnier now that he's not a Cubs homer;)
Though I don't like the Mets....That was a homer

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Hitting for Power - Bonds


At 16+ AB/HR and a sub .600 SA?


How bout *Babe Peter Willie*

[Eastvanmungo]

Ty Ruth for old school or Willie Clemens for the modern age...

or

BATTER
Swing - Will Clark
Contact - Ty Cobb
Power - Babe Ruth
Speed - Tim Raines
Defense - Willie Mays

ACE
Delivery - Dontelle Willis
Power - Walter Johnson
Longevity - Cy Young
Placement - Gregg Maddux
Pitching in the clutch - Bob Gibson

[BiggestYankeeFan_in_Memphis]

At 16+ AB/HR and a sub .600 SA?


How bout *Babe Peter Willie*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[yankillaz]

Active players:

BATTER
Swing - Albert Pujols
Contact - Ichiro
Power - Ryan Howard
Speed - Carl Crawford
Hitting in the clutch - no such thing

ACE
Delivery - Pedro Martinez
Power - Francisco Liriano
Longevity - Roger Clemens
Placement - Pedro Martinez
Pitching in the clutch - John Smoltz

I like this thing...

Active players:

BATTER
Swing - Joe Mauer
Contact - Ichiro
Power - Albert Pujols
Speed - Jose Reyes
Hitting in the clutch - Big Papi (He's a game changer)

ACE
Delivery - Johan Santana
Power - Felix Hernandez (Liriano strikes out with a slider not a fastball)
Longevity - Jamie Moyer
Placement - Brad Radke
Pitching in the clutch - Curt Schilling

[Brian McKenna]

If it's true that Eisenhower played minor league ball, would that make him the greatest?

[538280]

Do i really need to define clutch? We all know what clutch is.

Certain hits can be clutch. The question is whether or not certain players show propensity for getting more clutch hits than would be expected. And no study ever done has shown clutch hitting to be a consistent skill. There's such thing as clutch hits, but I'm not so sure there's such thing as a clutch player.

[digglahhh]

:laugh :laugh :laugh :clapping :clapping :clapping But his head is freakishly large.

Ty Lamar Ruth?:crazy

[drjjpdc]

Well I will stick with the Babe all by himself, w/o any added names. Reasoning, Ruth's average approximated Ty's (24 points), he had a higher OBP and would have had 5 or 6 Triple crowns had they been invented then. No one is even close. Stat wise Stan the Man was pretty damn impressive but not enough to displace Babe.

[CanadianKid]

Batters
Swing - Albert Pujols
Contact - Ty Cobb
Power - Babe Ruth
Speed - Ricky Henderson
Clutch - David Ortiz

Pitchers
Delivery - Hideo Nomo LOL
Power - Nolan Ryan
Longevity - Satchel Paige
Placement - Satchel Paige
Pitching in the clutch - Mariano Rivera

[AstrosFan]

Well I will stick with the Babe all by himself, w/o any added names. Reasoning, Ruth's average approximated Ty's (24 points), he had a higher OBP and would have had 5 or 6 Triple crowns had they been invented then. No one is even close. Stat wise Stan the Man was pretty damn impressive but not enough to displace Babe.

Triple Crowns occur when you lead the league in batting, HR, and RBI in the same season. Ruth never did that.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

would have had 5 or 6 Triple crowns had they been invented then.

Yeah, he just never had one. What he did do, was have an incredible TWO LEGS of the triple crown SEVEN different times. Hitting .393 and not getting one....priceless.

[Imapotato]

Certain hits can be clutch. The question is whether or not certain players show propensity for getting more clutch hits than would be expected. And no study ever done has shown clutch hitting to be a consistent skill. There's such thing as clutch hits, but I'm not so sure there's such thing as a clutch player.


Do you even own a glove?

Seriously

Big difference in stepping up knowing a game is on the line then not
Big difference if I get 2 strikes on you

Certain guys have the mentality (yes sorry mental makeup does not have a number attached to it) to approach the plate during big times knowing they will succeed and others get nervous

But if all ballplayers were computers with number orientated programs...you'd actually be correct

Oh, I so long for the day when robots play baseball

[yankillaz]

Do you even own a glove?


I wonder the same thing...

[drjjpdc]

Ok astros fan I stand corrected. But I have to elaborate on Sultan. From 1921-28 ruth led the league in HR/RBI 6 times. In those years he never batted less than .322 and his other years was .376;.378;.392;.372 & .323. In 1924 when he led the league in BA and HR's, he was a mere 8 RBI short. In 1927 he hit .356, led the league in HR's and was second to his teammate Gehrig by 11 RBI's.

The guys who averaged more than Babe were Cobb, Sisler, Heilmann and Manush from the dead ball era. Here's a last interesting fact. The Babe had a lifetime BA greater than all of them except for Cobb! This is the true greatness of the Babe, that while dominating the league in power, he was damn close in BA as well. Again in a class by himself.

[SamtheBravesFan]

How about a basic measure for clutch hitting is RISP AVG w/2 out + RBI?

[cbenson5]

Well I will stick with the Babe all by himself, w/o any added names. Reasoning, Ruth's average approximated Ty's (24 points), he had a higher OBP and would have had 5 or 6 Triple crowns had they been invented then. No one is even close. Stat wise Stan the Man was pretty damn impressive but not enough to displace Babe.


Don't understand the 5 or 6 triple crowns. Babe Ruth never won a triple crown. He led the league in hitting only once in 1924 with a .378 average. He fell short of Goslin in RBI's that year. Ty Cobb on the other hand won the triple crown in 1909. When it came time to vote for the hall of fame in 1936 the men who watched both Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth play gave more votes to Ty Cobb than Babe Ruth. That is as good of an indication as any that Cobb was better than Ruth.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Don't understand the 5 or 6 triple crowns. Babe Ruth never won a triple crown. He led the league in hitting only once in 1924 with a .378 average. He fell short of Goslin in RBI's that year. Ty Cobb on the other hand won the triple crown in 1909. When it came time to vote for the hall of fame in 1936 the men who watched both Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth play gave more votes to Ty Cobb than Babe Ruth. That is as good of an indication as any that Cobb was better than Ruth.

Or an incredible indication that many still had fond feelings toward the old style of ball and/or they fell victim and allowed his slugging to overshadow his all-around game. One thing is clear. They weren't voting on impact. And at the time, they had no standards. How were they to know a guy like Kirby Puckett would get in later. Going by memory, was it 223 for Cobb, and 215 for both Ruth and Wagner? Thats not too shabby.

[cbenson5]

The voting was 222 for Cobb(98.23 percent) 215 for Ruth/Wagner(95.13 percent). Of course everyone will never agree on the greatest player of all time, but I think Cobb is easily better than Ruth. I am not arguing impact on the game. Ruth certainly changed the way the game was played. As far as the voting Ty Cobb was by no means the most popular player. I think if the voters were voting simply on fond memories of old time baseball Honus Wagner would have gotten the most votes. Well anyway on to the statistics. Babe Ruth led the league in home runs twelve times, Ty Cobb once. Ruth is hands down the better power hitter no one will argue that. However, Ty Cobb won twelve batting titles. Cobb was the better overall contact/control hitter. Looking at career stats Ty Cobb has Ruth beat in Games, at bats, runs, doubles, triples, total bases, stolen bases and batting average. Ruth beats Cobb in Home Runs, RBI's, walks, on base percentage, and slugging. Ruth struck out far more often that Ty Cobb did. As fielders Cobb had far better range than Ruth and a similar arm although the nod would probably go to Ruth on arm strength despite Cobb leading in outfield assists. From the above listed stats they are fairly equal, despite Ruth playing in a far better offensive era than Cobb. For me the defining factor that makes Ty Cobb better than Ruth is baserunning ability. Unfortunately in the modern era many fans don't understand the impact that a truly great baserunner can have on the game. Nothing demorilizes a team more than a great baserunner. You can walk the slugger and deal with the next man up, but if you walk a Ty Cobb then your in serious trouble. On the base paths a great runner distracts the pitcher, cathcer, and infielders. You can disagree with me on who was the better hitter/outfielder, but I don't see how you can argue Ruth over Cobb in hitting and fielding to such an extent to even come close to making up for Cobb's superiority over Ruth on the base paths.

[drjjpdc]

After all this here is my basic opinion (and that's all it is) on what I would rather have in a player, because that is how a person considers greatness. I would rather have a Babe Ruth on my team averaging .342 with all his power than having a few more points at .366 with Ty Cobb. If the BA points were different by say 50 points it might be a different story. Or to put it another way (and maybe another thread) would a team with 8 Babe Ruths beat another team with 8 Ty Cobb's? I think the former team would prevail. Notice that being a National league guy there is no DH on these teams and the pitcher bats.

[Sliding Billy]

I think the former team would prevail. Notice that being a National league guy there is no DH on these teams and the pitcher bats.
Fair enough, so long as you restrict yourself to the National League Bambino of 1935.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Babe Ruth led the league in home runs twelve times, Ty Cobb once. Ruth is hands down the better power hitter no one will argue that. However, Ty Cobb won twelve batting titles.


League leads for Ruth in BA don't mean much. Not when going up against a league full of BA guys. Hitting .393 and not leading the league for example. Thats why you can't go by that. All that needs to be said, is that he hit .370+ six times and .350+ eight times.



Cobb was the better overall contact/control hitter.


Makes sense. And a motorcycle handles better than a Mustang GT.



Looking at career stats Ty Cobb has Ruth beat in Games, at bats


These numbers don't mean much. If anything they lead to higher counting stats.

Better to say:

Ruth had 16.5 AB/double and Cobb had 15.7 AB/double

Ruth had 61.7 AB/triple and Cobb had 38.7 AB/triple

Ruth had 11.7 AB/homer and Cobb had 97.7 AB/homer



As fielders Cobb had far better range than Ruth


Cobb held on to his range a bit longer which leads to him having a decided career long edge, but at their best, the edge isn't as large as you might think.



and a similar arm although the nod would probably go to Ruth on arm strength despite Cobb leading in outfield assists.


No contest here. The edge Ruth has in overall arm is larger than Cobb's overall edge in fielding imo. Not that it makes up for it, but just talking about the size of the edge.



For me the defining factor that makes Ty Cobb better than Ruth is baserunning ability.


Basestealing ability there is no contest. That wasn't Ruth's thing. Not an art he worked on and it wasn't his role. Though he did steal 50 bases in his first four years with the Yanks.

Baserunning wise, I think Cobb's career edge pretty large here, but again, at their best, the edge isn't as large as you'd think. Ruth was very aggressive, hustled, got great jumps, didn't hesitate, made the right decisions, and was incredible first to third or first to home (routinely scoring on doubles).

In the end it is simply two different styles of player.

Notice how I didn't bring up that silly pitching thing.

[Wade8813]

Hitting for Power - Bonds


At 16+ AB/HR and a sub .600 SA?

I'm talking single season - 6.5 AB/HR, and .863 SLG.

[drjjpdc]

Ok all you Ty Cobb fans, how about my last hypothetical, does a team full of Cobbs beat a teamful of Ruths?

[cbenson5]

Full team of Ty Cobbs v.s full team of Babe Ruth's. That's an interesting question to be honest I've never thought about it before. Obviously if Cobb and Ruth both have to pitch the Ruth's will win, but assuming their are eight Ty Cobb's and eight Babe Ruth's with an equal pitcher on the mound it's a difficult question. One of my main arguments that Ty Cobb is better than Ruth is that in many situations you can walk Ruth and deal with the next man up. Ruth is far less likely to steal than Cobb and far less likely to make it if he tries. WIth a team of all Ruth's walking him obviously does no good. Another question is what era does the game take place. In the deadball era I think the advantage definitely goes to the team of Ty Cobb's. Even Ruth would have a difficult time slamming home runs in the days of the spitball, shine ball, and softer uncorked ball. All of Babe Ruth's monster years came after the rules were changed, which created one of the greatest hitters era in the history of the game. Although on the downside of his career Cobb continued to have some great years after the rule change. At 34 years old in 1921 he hit .384 with 101 RBI's and 124 runs scored. Oh yeah his slugging percentage was .596 that year. When looking at Cobb's RBI's and Runs Scored you have to remember that he played on a team with far less talent around him than Ruth for the majority of his career. At 35 years old in 1922 he hit .401 with 99 RBI's and 99 runs scored. He had excellent years inbetween then and 1927 when he was 40 years old, but not to take up to much time on an already much lengthier posting than I intended he hit .357 with 93 RBI's and 104 runs scored at 40 years old. In his final year he hit .323 in only 93 games. To be honest I am not completely familiar with all of Ruth's stats, but I know that Babe Ruth could not maintain the excellence that Ty Cobb did at the end of his career. If memory serves he slipped to well below a two hundred batting average his final year with Boston. I also know that Ruth had one good year before they changed the rules mentioned above, but I know that all of his monster season came afterwards. My point being that Ty Cobb proved he could be a great player both before and after the rule changes governing pitching. Ty Cobb batted with his hands choked up on the batt and spread apart so that he had complete control of the bat to hit late breaking spit balls and shine balls. Had he played the prime of his career when Ruth did and batted with his hands at the handle of the batt and struck out over 1300 hundred times like Ruth did in an era of inferior pitching he very well might have blasted alot of home runs. Could he have hit 714, probably not, but during the dead ball era could Babe Ruth have batted .420 in 1911 and .410 the following year, I don't believe he could have. Also according to Walter Johnson Ty Cobb was the smartest man in baseball. Ty Cobb was said to have been fearless and played ball like it was war. I have to believe that a team of 8 Ty Cobb's would beat a team of 8 of any single player based not just on talent but on determination. If its a close play at the plate and Ty Cobb is flying around 3'rd at twenty miles and hour and Ruth knows he's coming in high and hard, I believe Cobb would be safe.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

In the deadball era I think the advantage definitely goes to the team of Ty Cobb's. Even Ruth would have a difficult time slamming home runs in the days of the spitball, shine ball, and softer uncorked ball. All of Babe Ruth's monster years came after the rules were changed, which created one of the greatest hitters era in the history of the game.


1918 and 1919 would have been monster years had he gotten enough AB and his attention not been split.

Waite Hoyt -

"There was nothing like Ruth ever existed in this game of baseball. I remember one time we were playing the White Sox in Boston in 1919, and he hit a home run off Lefty Williams over the left-field fence in the ninth inning and won the game. It was majestic. It soared. We watched it and wondered, 'How can a guy hit a ball like that?' It was to the opposite field and off a left-handed pitcher, and it was an incredible feat. That was the dead ball days, remember; the ball normally didn't carry. We were playing a doubleheader, and that was the first game, and the White Sox did not go into the clubhouse between games. They stood out there and sat on our bench and talked about the magnificence of that home run."

Buck Weaver -

"That was the most unbelievable poke I ever saw."

1918

May 4 - In Ruth’s fifth pitching start of the year, he hit his first homer of the year. It cleared the Polo Grounds roof in right field.

May 6 - Exactly three years to the day after his first Major League homerun, and in the same ballpark as that first homerun, Ruth hit his second in two games. (The May 4th game was on a Saturday, and there was no baseball played in New York on Sundays.)

This game marked the first time in Babe’s career, that he appeared in a Major League game at a position other than pitcher, and in a spot other than ninth in the order. He batted sixth and played first base.

May 7 - In Washington, Babe plays first base again but this time bats cleanup. For the third straight game he hit a homerun. This dinger was a majestic poke over the right field wall that went into a “war” garden where it scared a dog into barking. It was the first homerun anyone had hit in Washington that season.

The next day he hit a double. The day after that he pitched to a ten inning 4 – 3 loss, but had a perfect day at the dish. He had a single, three doubles, and a triple. His batting average after this game was .484.

May 10 - Babe plays outfield for the first time. Leads to his famous quote, “Gee, it’s lonesome in the outfield. It’s hard to keep awake with nothing to do.”

May 20 - Ruth came down with a bad cold. He had severe swelling of the larynx and was having trouble breathing and speaking. Rumors had him dying. He stayed in the hospital for a week, received flowers from Carrigan and the team captain, Hoblitzell. He pinch hit on May 30th.

June 2 - His first game back in the lineup, Babe pitched to a 4 – 3 loss, but hits a home run.

June 3 - Ruth plays centerfield in place of an injured Amos Strunk, and hits another dinger.

June 4 - Played centerfield again and hit another homer.

June 5 - Played centerfield again and hit another homer. His fourth in his first four games back from illness.

June 15 - The Bambino hits his 8th homer of the year and has 5 RBI.

June 25 - Babe hits his ninth home run of the year and was referred to in print for the first time as the “Home Run King.”

June 28 - Babe’s tenth clout of the year is the only hit the Sox have in a 1 – 3 loss in Washington.

June 30 - Hits number eleven off Walter Johnson. It comes with one man on in the tenth inning, and gives the Sox a 3 – 1 win. It’s the longest drive ever hit in Washington.

July 8 - He hits one two-thirds up into the bleachers with a man on first, in the 10th inning another game winner for the Bosox. However, he is credited with only a triple, different rules back then. Since the runner on first needed only 3 bases to score the "winning" run Ruth gets only 3 bases, a triple. Later that week he has one game with three doubles and two triples and one double in the very next game.

1918 Notes - Five of Ruth’s first 11 Major League homers were hit in the Polo Grounds. Ruppert was becoming increasingly aware of Babe’s popularity among New Yorkers and offered to buy him from Barrow. Barrow just shook his head and laughed.

Barrow came to manage the Sox in '18. Him and Ruth got off to a rough start. On the team train headed for Philadelphia, Babe, without asking, hopped off in Baltimore to visit his sister Mamie. This was on a day off; a Sunday. Barrow, assuming that Ruth could only be up to no good, became very irritated. A coach was eventually sent to retrieve Ruth, and the next day in front of the entire team, Barrow scolded him for his actions. This didn't make Babe happy. He threated to leave the team in favor of a shipyard team. He never did.

Barrow wanted him in the lineup because of the Sox’s offensive struggles, and because he had 50k of his own money invested in the team. He realized that the crowds were much bigger on days Ruth pitched, and they were coming out to see him hit.

After awhile, it took a toll on Ruth. He complained of being tired, but Barrow didn’t care much. He insisted that Ruth take his turn on the mound, claiming that if Babe got to bed on time, he wouldn’t be so tired. Any human, regardless of nightlife, would be worn out with that workload.

In 1918, he tied the A’s Tilly Walker for the home run title with 11, batted .300, and pitched the Red Sox to two wins against the Cubs in the World Series while setting a postseason consecutive scoreless innings record that would stand for 42 years.

He pitched his final game in the World Series with a badly bruised knuckle on the middle finger of his pitching hand. The finger became red and swollen, after horsing around on the train. Even though he tried to hide the injury from Barrow, he found out saying, “You damn fool. You know you’re supposed to pitch tomorrow, and you go fooling around like this.”

For only the second time that year, Ruth wasn’t able to complete a game but he did good enough to win, even picking a runner off at a key point. His scoreless streak came to an end in the eighth inning, leading 2 – 0, he gave up a walk and a single. An infield out brought in a Cub run, and another hit tied the score 2 – 2.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

1919

April 4 In a spring training game at the old fairgrounds in Tampa against McGraw’s Giants, Ruth smashed what Barrow called many years later, “the longest home run in history.”

At the Tampa fairgrounds, the baseball diamond was layed out in the middle of a huge infield, surrounded by a racetrack.

Ruth played left field and batted fourth. In the second inning, he got a hold of one of Smith’s high fastballs, and hit a tremendous drive deep to right center field. Ross Youngs was an amazing athlete and was the Giants right fielder that day. By all accounts, he looked like a little boy chasing after the ball.

The ball cleared the low rail fence by a good distance, bounced across the racetrack, and eventually ended up in a neighboring hospital yard. After the game, Youngs stood where he saw the ball land and a group of writers stood by as someone scrounged up a surveyor’s tape. They measured the distance from home plate to the spot at 579 feet.

Opening Day - Boston beats New York 10 – 0. Ruth bats fourth and had two hits, one of them a homer. The news reported that there was some luck with that Ruth home run. It was a hard line drive that bounced over the shoulder of Duffy Lewis, for an inside-the-park home run.

May 20 - Babe hits his first grand slam of his career in St. Louis. The shot touched town on Grand Avenue as was reported to be the second longest homer ever hit in St. Louis. The first longest came three years earlier, courtesy of Ruth.

June 28 - The Red Sox were trailing the Yankees 4 – 1 in the eighth inning. The Sox put two men on base with Ruth coming up. A homerun meant a tie score, so the Yanks brought in Bob Shawkey to face him. Shawkey struck Ruth out, and the huge Polo Grounds crowd went nuts, throwing programs and hats onto the field.

June 30 - Ruth faced Shawkey again but this time with the bases loaded he came through, hitting his second grand slam of his the year.

July 5 - Babe hits two homers in a game for the first time in his career.

July 12 - After blasting a home run in the previous game, Babe goes yard again. This was his eleventh homer of the year, and was “Ruthian” even by his standards, landing well beyond the fence just left of centerfield in Chicago. Based on where the ball landed, a paper the next day pointed out that the homer would have been a long one for even a right handed batter.

July 18 - He hits two homers in a game again. The second homer came in the ninth inning with the bases loaded and the Sox down 7 – 4. His third grand slam of the year gave the Sox a 8 – 7 win and upset Cleveland owner Leo Fuhl so much that he fired the manager. Tris Speaker got the gig after that.

July 21 - Babe hits the longest home run ever seen in Detroit.

July 24 - Playing at home against New York, Babe hits two homers in the game to give the Sox a 4 – 3 win.

Aug 14 - Ruth connects for home run #17 to set a new AL record. It came in Chicago against the White Sox's Erskine Mayer. The ball cleared Comiskey's right field wall with ease and landed in a nearby soccer field.

Aug 16 - Babe blasts another one of his “longest evers” in Chicago.

Aug 17 - Babe hits #19 in St. Louis. It’s his third homer in four games.

Aug 23 - His 20th homer comes with the bases full off Hooks Dauss. It was his fourth grand slam of the year, a single season record that would stand for more than forty years.

Aug 24 - Two homers.

Aug 25 - Another home run, #23. It’s his fourth in three games, and seventh in twelve days.

Sept 1 - The Red Sox play a double header at home against Washington, and as an added attraction, Ruth pitched in, and won the first game 2 – 1. He drove in one of Boston’s runs with a triple, and scored the other himself later that inning.

In the second game of the doubleheader, he hit #24 to tie Cravath’s modern major league record. Later in the week he hit #25 and nearly had another when a line drive hit just a couple feet below the top of the right field fence in Philadelphia. A few days later he hit # 26. After Ruth broke his record of 25, Freeman was quoted, "I must congratulate him on his great work. Look at his wrists and you will find that they are tremendous. A man that hits as hard as he does must have abnormal development of the wrist and forearm."

Sept 20 - Sox vs. Sox double header in front of a huge Saturday crowd. The Red Sox announced that it was Babe Ruth day, in honor of his superb hitting. The Pere Marquette Council of the Knights of Columbus presented Ruth with $600 in U.S. Treasury Savings Certificates, and he received other gifts, including a diamond ring he wore for years. After the game a reporter, thinking of the crowds Ruth had drawn all season, asked what Frazee had given him. “A cigar,” Babe said.

Just like in the Labor Day doubleheader, Ruth started on the mound as an added attraction. This time he didn’t pitch as well, only lasting into the sixth inning before jogging out to his left field post. In the ninth inning though, he gave the crowd their money’s worth, with his 27th homer of the season, tying Williamson’s record. The home run came from the arm of Lefty Claud Williams, and prompted Buck Weaver to comment between games, “That was the most unbelievable poke I ever saw.”

Boston Globe the next day : “He always rises to the occasion. The Knights of Columbus sponsored a Babe Ruth day at Fenway and the star did not let them down. Ruth hit home run 27, a terrific drive that sailed over the scoreboard in left center field breaking a window on a building on Landsdowne Street.”

Sept 24 - Homer 28 broke Williamson’s record, and according to accounts, was the longest ever hit at the Polo Grounds, clearing a distant section of the roof. As typical of Ruth, it came in dramatic fashion, in the ninth inning with the Sox down 1 – 0. It tied the score, but the Sox eventually lost the game.

Boston Globe the next day: " Babe Crashes Most Sensational Ever Hit at Polo Grounds. The ball cleared the roof and landed in Manhattan Field among a group of Native Americans playing lacrosse.”

Sept 27/28 - In the last road trip of the year, Ruth hit #29 in Washington off of Rip Jordan. The ball cleared the 45-foot right field wall by a good 20 feet. It was his first homer in Washington that year, and made him the only player ever to hit at least one homer in every city in the league in one season.

1919 Notes - Before he ever became a Yankee, Babe was touted as the greatest home run hitter the game had ever seen. He only had 49 career homers up to this point, but it was in the style, distance, and rate at which he hit them that simply amazed everyone.

He would pass Connor’s all time mark of 136 homers in 1921, just his third season as a full time player. Each of the nearly 600 home runs he would hit after that, only extended his own mark.

Babe’s 29 homers in 1919 soon became a modest figure. By the end of 1924, 30 or more home runs had been hit nine times, but five times by Ruth himself. By the end of 1928, 40 or more homers had been hit ten times, seven by Ruth himself. When he hit his 700th homer, only two other players had at least 300.

Reporters in 1919 began trying to out-do eachother in coming up with catchy nicknames for Babe. He became the "Clouting Hercules," "The Boston Battering Ram," "The Uncrowned King of Fenway Park." His mail at Fenway filled up clubhouse baskets, and Hollywood had already inquired about him making a film.



To be honest I am not completely familiar with all of Ruth's stats, but I know that Babe Ruth could not maintain the excellence that Ty Cobb did at the end of his career. If memory serves he slipped to well below a two hundred batting average his final year with Boston.


lol, his final year in Boston? Why would you judge anybody as a 40 year old who got around 75 AB or whatever it was?

He actually maintained very well at the plate even toward the end. In the field is a different story. Still, in this "what if" scenario, shouldn't we take their best 5 or 6 years and judge on that. We can leave all the 40 year old stuff out of it, huh.


Also according to Walter Johnson Ty Cobb was the smartest man in baseball. Ty Cobb was said to have been fearless and played ball like it was war.


Little known fact that you won't see in any Hollywood movie. While Cobb has no competition imo for smarts, instincts, and being downright sly as a fox, Ruth was widely considered a very smart and aggressive ballplayer.



If its a close play at the plate and Ty Cobb is flying around 3'rd at twenty miles and hour and Ruth knows he's coming in high and hard, I believe Cobb would be safe.

Depends on if catcher Ruth has the ball or not. On the ballfield, and in the heat of battle, Babe had a little Cobb in him believe it or not.

[Skin & Bones]

Cobb is not better than Ruth. He's not even the best Centerfielder ever, let alone the best player ever.

I believe Mays is superior to cobb ( and stats that make league quality adjustments back this up), and Mantle, while his career was certainly not as long as Cobb's, edges out Ty IMO, with his byfar more dominant peak. Mantle was a better hitter at his peak than Cobb, in a stronger league.

You'd certainly have to 100% IGNORE what the stats have to say to make a case for Cobb ahead of Ruth. You'd have to rely on the " opinions " of people who apparently thought Cobb was better. Besides that, it's not really close at all.

And to anwser the original question, the best player ever would be a mixture of Mays and Ruth.

[cbenson5]

Cobb is not better than Ruth. He's not even the best Centerfielder ever, let alone the best player ever.

I believe Mays is superior to cobb ( and stats that make league quality adjustments back this up), and Mantle, while his career was certainly not as long as Cobb's, edges out Ty IMO, with his byfar more dominant peak. Mantle was a better hitter at his peak than Cobb, in a stronger league.

You'd certainly have to 100% IGNORE what the stats have to say to make a case for Cobb ahead of Ruth. You'd have to rely on the " opinions " of people who apparently thought Cobb was better. Besides that, it's not really close at all.

And to anwser the original question, the best player ever would be a mixture of Mays and Ruth.

Considering that in far more at bats Ty Cobb's career average is 69 points higher than Mantle's and 65 point's higher than Mays, statistically you can certainly make an argument that Cobb is the bettter hitter. Ty Cobb's career number aren't inflated by playing on the best team in baseball year in year out like Mantle's. He drove in and scored more runs that Mays or Mantle, while playing in an era of far less runs scored. He stole over 700 more bases than Mickey Mantle and over 500 more than Willie Mays. I think you could make a far better argument for Speaker being better than Cobb than either Mantle or Mays, and Cobb was clearly a better Hitter/Baserunner than Speaker although Speaker is clearly the better fielder. When you state Mantle was in a stronger league, I feel the pitching was far better in Cobb's prime than Mantle's. Ruth ceartainly can be argued against Cobb but I don't believe that Mantle and Mays can.

Sultan, after reading your post I looked up Babe Ruth's stats and he had a far better year in 1919 than I remembered. Although in 1918 he .300 with 11 home runs and 66 RBI"s in 317 at bats so I believe he would have had a good year that year had he gotten more at bats, but not the incredible numbers he put up after the rule changes. He hit .322 in 1919 with 29 home runs (which is an incredible number for that era) 114 RBI's and 103 runs score in 432 at bats. He also made fifteen starts so he would have certainly had a great year had he been a full time hitter. He would have certainly had a shot at 35 home runs and 130 RBI's. I certainly agree Ruth is the greatest power hitter of all time and mean no disrespect towards him by giving the overall nod to Cobb. I think that overall Babe Ruth is the better hitter, Cobb the better fielder. I just think that the Cobb's clear superiority over Ruth in baserunning makes him the greatest, but I think that Ruth, Cobb, and Wagner are the only three people that deserve serious attention as the greatest postion player of all time. Nobody dominated play during their time the way that each of these three men did.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Do you even own a glove?

Seriously

Big difference in stepping up knowing a game is on the line then not
Big difference if I get 2 strikes on you

Certain guys have the mentality (yes sorry mental makeup does not have a number attached to it) to approach the plate during big times knowing they will succeed and others get nervous

But if all ballplayers were computers with number orientated programs...you'd actually be correct

Oh, I so long for the day when robots play baseball

You know, I object to the gratuitously nasty, ad hominem aspect of this post, but substantively, I think the post has quite a bit going for it.

I was strictly a City League player, and an atrociously slow runner with a TERRIBLE glove and arm at that, but I could hit the hell out of the ball. And I knew a number of guys who'd come right out and say they HATED batting in big situations, with all the pressure on them.

Brother, did it show. They would hit a lame ground out or pop out, time after time after time.

I won't claim I batted anywhere near 1.000 in such situations, but I'll tell you this: I hit the ball hard every time. My knees never buckled; I never let the pressure get to me; I always thrived on it; and I always looked for the fielder (including the pitcher) who looked most unhappy about the prospect of having the ball hit at him.

Now, there's an enormous difference between Little League, Babe Ruth League and City League Softball on the one hand, and Major League Baseball on the other hand, but I have to believe that the mental element is the same: Some people thrive on pressure situations; some people don't. Some people focus their best when it matters the most and the spotlight is on them; some people get an "oh, no, I'm going to blow it" attitude, which is, almost inevitably, a self-fulfilling prophesy.

It's a fact of human nature.

BHN

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Sultan, after reading your post I looked up Babe Ruth's stats and he had a far better year in 1919 than I remembered. Although in 1918 he .300 with 11 home runs and 66 RBI"s in 317 at bats so I believe he would have had a good year that year had he gotten more at bats, but not the incredible numbers he put up after the rule changes. He hit .322 in 1919 with 29 home runs (which is an incredible number for that era) 114 RBI's and 103 runs score in 432 at bats. He also made fifteen starts so he would have certainly had a great year had he been a full time hitter. He would have certainly had a shot at 35 home runs and 130 RBI's. I certainly agree Ruth is the greatest power hitter of all time and mean no disrespect towards him by giving the overall nod to Cobb. I think that overall Babe Ruth is the better hitter, Cobb the better fielder. I just think that the Cobb's clear superiority over Ruth in baserunning makes him the greatest, but I think that Ruth, Cobb, and Wagner are the only three people that deserve serious attention as the greatest postion player of all time. Nobody dominated play during their time the way that each of these three men did.

Hey no sweat. Everyone has their own opinions and value different things. Personally, I have Cobb second, for many of the same reasons you choose to put him ahead of Babe. Its like choosing a favorite between two kids for me, but really, one of the kids is a drug addict who steals money from my wallet, so its not that hard of a choice, know what I mean. There were really only a couple things I thought you were off on. Ruth certainly could hit in the deadball just fine if he'd had enough AB and wasn't pitching at all. Then you could throw him in a neutral stadium if you'd like. The arm thing you were way off on imo, and while I agree with your baserunning and fielding assessment, I believe the edge isn't as large as you might think (when they're both at their best, which is what these lineups would be made up of, right).

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Some people thrive on pressure situations; some people don't. Some people focus their best when it matters the most and the spotlight is on them; some people get an "oh, no, I'm going to blow it" attitude, which is, almost inevitably, a self-fulfilling prophesy.

BHN

Nice post Jim. Couldn't agree more.

Muscle coordination means very little if you don't have steady nerves. In baseball, even the slightest inconsistency, hesitation, alteration, you name it, can result in failure more often than that of your norm. As you said, some thrive and maintain despite pressure, some cave. Clutch baby.

[Skin & Bones]

Considering that in far more at bats Ty Cobb's career average is 69 points higher than Mantle's and 65 point's higher than Mays, statistically you can certainly make an argument that Cobb is the bettter hitter. Ty Cobb's career number aren't inflated by playing on the best team in baseball year in year out like Mantle's. He drove in and scored more runs that Mays or Mantle, while playing in an era of far less runs scored. He stole over 700 more bases than Mickey Mantle and over 500 more than Willie Mays. I think you could make a far better argument for Speaker being better than Cobb than either Mantle or Mays, and Cobb was clearly a better Hitter/Baserunner than Speaker although Speaker is clearly the better fielder. When you state Mantle was in a stronger league, I feel the pitching was far better in Cobb's prime than Mantle's. Ruth ceartainly can be argued against Cobb but I don't believe that Mantle and Mays can.

Well, I'm not really a big fan of batting average, Helton's is higher than Mantle's too, but I certainly don't believe he's a better hitter than Mantle was.

I also disagree that Speaker is the only CF in history who has a case ahead of cobb. Mays was a much better defender going by advanced fielding metrics that go that far back, and as hitters, pretty close, cobb may have been slightly better, but it certainly was no big difference. And Mantle in his prime WAS a better player than cobb. Every single offensive metric, or total player metric agrees with this. Cobb was great, mantle was just better.

And I also disagree that Honus, Cobb, and Ruth are the only players ever who have a case for the best player ever title. I can't fathom that ALL of the greatest players ever were white men who only faced other white men, and never played in fully intergrated leagues, but maybe that's just me.

These guy's IMO " stood out " more than others such as Mantle and Mays because of their competition. They were all-time greats in inferior leagues, so they stuck out like sore thumbs, IMO atleast.

[csh19792001]

You know, I object to the gratuitously nasty, ad hominem aspect of this post, but substantively, I think the post has quite a bit going for it.

Yes it does have quite a bit going for it. JT (Imapotato) was drafted by the Mets organization, and played in the minors, so he knows a thing or two about the game of baseball. So when people who probably never even played organized baseball seriously (and laughably, probably DON'T own a glove) lecture others incessantly on (and pontificate about) the intricacies of the game, it warrants this type of response. Gratuitous pedantry begets gratuitous animosity.

Do the same people who never even played profess such acumen to "Hiddengem" in the same manner? (Yes, he's a former Major League ballplayer with nearly 10 years of minor league experience, and he's a regular on this site.) I wouldn't even be surprised.



Some people focus their best when it matters the most and the spotlight is on them; some people get an "oh, no, I'm going to blow it" attitude, which is, almost inevitably, a self-fulfilling prophesy.

It's a fact of human nature.

BHN

Exactly.

I'm with you and Randy, who also played ball through college. 15 years of competitive experience in three sports confirms that the flight/fight mechanism is very much applied in the most crucial moments of sporting contests. I guess some things just need to be experienced a priori for years to be realized.

[cbenson5]

Well, I'm not really a big fan of batting average, Helton's is higher than Mantle's too, but I certainly don't believe he's a better hitter than Mantle was.



And I also disagree that Honus, Cobb, and Ruth are the only players ever who have a case for the best player ever title. I can't fathom that ALL of the greatest players ever were white men who only faced other white men, and never played in fully intergrated leagues, but maybe that's just me.

These guy's IMO " stood out " more than others such as Mantle and Mays because of their competition. They were all-time greats in inferior leagues, so they stuck out like sore thumbs, IMO atleast.

To be honest I think that Ty Cobb's twelve batting titles and .367 average is one if not the most underrated statistic in the game. In the era that Cobb played winning a batting title was the ultimate accomplishment for a hitter. In today's game its overlooked. To be honest I could list much farther down the line in career home runs than I could in career batting average from memory, but despite the way the game is played today I don't think we should overlook Ty Cobb's accomplishments and judge him by today's standard which generally favor home runs.

Your point about the three men I listed playing before integration is well taken. I mainly just considering statistical accomplishments related to these players time. If you were to pull players from their prime from all era's there is no way to know how they could perform. I personally believe that all of the greats would hold their own in any era.

To be honest with you I don't know what IMO is or how it is calculated. I love reading books about the game and the dead ball era is my favorite era to study. I was basing my opinions and arguments on traditional statistics and stories I've read about how the people that watched men like Cobb and Ruth play viewed them. I was also weighing career accomplishments over peak years, I would have to look up more statistics so say whether I would take Cobb in say is triple crown year of 1909 or his incredible years of 1911 and 1912 over Ruth, Mays or Mantle in their best years. Anyway its fun debating the greatest player of all time, but I will probably always stick with the Georgia Peach as the greatest.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

These guy's IMO " stood out " more than others such as Mantle and Mays because of their competition.


To be honest with you I don't know what IMO is or how it is calculated.

:laugh Too good, too good.

IMO is a toughy Benson. Everybody has their own ideas on what that is when they reference it. ;)

[Wade8813]

Yes it does have quite a bit going for it. JT (Imapotato) was drafted by the Mets organization, and played in the minors, so he knows a thing or two about the game of baseball. So when people who probably never even played organized baseball seriously (and laughably, probably DON'T own a glove) lecture others incessantly on (and pontificate about) the intricacies of the game, it warrants this type of response. Gratuitous pedantry begets gratuitous animosity. I disagree. This is no excuse to make such condescending remarks, especially since the reality of "'clutch hitting" is actually a debated subject. How many other things have been common knowledge among experts, only to be disproved later? Besides, I can guarantee there are hundreds of professional players who don't know what they're talking about, and got where they are by athletic ability, not baseball knowledge. I'm not saying this is true about Imapotato or anyone else specifically, since I don't know him, but your argument isn't particularly conclusive.

Also, it seems to me that you're arguing about two different aspects of clutch hitting - whether or not some people collapse under pressure (a given), or whether or not some people actually perform better under pressure. These are two different things.

[cbenson5]

IMO (In my opinion). I guess I should have looked up what it meant before I made a fool of myself. Oh well it won't be the last time.

[Honus Wagner]

how bout eddie gaedel?...lifetime OBP of 1.000

[BaseballHistoryNut]

I disagree. This is no excuse to make such condescending remarks, especially since the reality of "'clutch hitting" is actually a debated subject. How many other things have been common knowledge among experts, only to be disproved later? Besides, I can guarantee there are hundreds of professional players who don't know what they're talking about, and got where they are by athletic ability, not baseball knowledge. I'm not saying this is true about Imapotato or anyone else specifically, since I don't know him, but your argument isn't particularly conclusive.

Also, it seems to me that you're arguing about two different aspects of clutch hitting - whether or not some people collapse under pressure (a given), or whether or not some people actually perform better under pressure. These are two different things.

Well, OK, then let's hear from HIM. I was speaking from experience in Little League, Babe Ruth League and City League Softball. Randy can speak from College Baseball, which is a vastly higher level, but not nearly his level.

But I'll bet he's going to agree with Randy and me. I'll bet he's going to say that in the bigtimes, just as with 7-year-olds in Little League, there are some people who just love the pressure of a big at bat, and there are others who don't. Whose bat do you think is likelier to make solid contact with the ball?

[538280]

Do you even own a glove?

Seriously

Big difference in stepping up knowing a game is on the line then not
Big difference if I get 2 strikes on you

Certain guys have the mentality (yes sorry mental makeup does not have a number attached to it) to approach the plate during big times knowing they will succeed and others get nervous

But if all ballplayers were computers with number orientated programs...you'd actually be correct

Oh, I so long for the day when robots play baseball

As for your first question, yes I do own a glove.

As for your post after that, I think it is definitely true that on lower rungs of the game certain players approach clutch situations differently and it very well may make certain hitters do better in those situations. At the major league level, though, everyone adapts to those situations well (otherwise they wouldn't have made it through the minors, where every AB is "clutch"), and if you want to look at it that way I think everyone is "clutch". But when everyone is clutch, no one is really clutch. And that is probably why there has never been any proof of clutch hitting being a consistent skill (looking at ACTUAL game data, not computerized simulations).

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Well, OK, there it is.

None of us is qualified to speak to this. Randy is the closest, I guess, since he played college ball, but that's a far cry from bigtime ball.

ImaPotato, however, was apparently drafted by the Mets and played in the minors. Even assuming he never played one day of MLB, I'm willing to believe that what's true at AA and AAA is also true in MLB. That is, if there are large numbers of guys in AA and AAA who habitually choke under pressure, and whose swing mechanics go to hell under the hotlight of a two-on, two-out situation, I've got to believe there are players like that in the majors, too.

Or, if ImaPotato--who has a much better eye for such details than I do, and who knows a lot more about such things than I do--tells me there are many such players in the majors, and I have no reason to think he's a b.s.'er (which I don't), I'm going to believe him--just like I believed my previous Internet poker buddy about the epidemic of HGH in the majors.

BHN

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Not directly related to clutch hitting, but here's something I posted to Hiddengem awhile back.




HG,

I kinda brought this up on another thread, but I wanted to get your take on it. I've talked to people about how atmosphere can affect a player. Many of them are of the opinion that if a guy is good, then he is good, and it will show no matter what. While I agree with this to a degree, I think there's an impact of playing in a certain environment. Such as, the magnitude of a big game, or drawing a capacity crowd every game like the Yanks do. There's a buzz, an excitement.

Not sure what type of number to put on it, but as a player who's played in front of some decent size crowds, I felt more focused, and the added pressure helped me to perform better. You've played in front of much larger crowds than I have, but have probably also experienced the Tampa Bay Devil Rays "situation" of being able to hear a conversation in the crowd it was so dead. Can you give your thoughts on the minor benefits of playing in front of huge crowds, in big games etc., as opposed to a dull atmosphere? Thanks.




Well a big crowd most certainly raises your level of play. There is always first inning jitters, but once you get that first ground ball or that first base hit everything calms down. But playing at the higher levels in front of big crowds in big situations is often times tough on the ole ticker. You really need to be strong mentally and able to calm yourself down through breathing and visualizing or the situation can be overwhelming at times.

I don't think the average person understands this..maybe I'm wrong but I don't think so. This game is so easy to play from the living room chair or the bleachers but getting on that field is a whole different story.

Who's to say to what degree each situation will effect certain hitters, and what certain hitters will even consider pressure. They guy who has an incentive bonus of $10,000 if he bats .310, might be at .300 going into the final week of the season, and that's pressure to him.

I think we can make a general statement and agree that certain guys are able to handle pressure better than others, yes, even at the major league level. Many things might not necessarily be able to be seen through numbers, but they are very real. Players are not robots.

[drjjpdc]

Thanks guys for a very informative post. The answers to my hypothetical were most enjoyable.

Although maybe not the greatest player (argument for hitter is close and right-handed there is no argument) I think this thread needs a mention of what I consider the finest season a hitter ever had. Rogers Hornsby in 1922, 401 BA and 42 HR with plenty AB (600+) for no cheap year of hitting 400. Nobody ever combined power and average better.

[brett]

:laugh :laugh :laugh :clapping :clapping :clapping But his head is freakishly large.

That will just give him Biggio's ability to take one for the team.

[brett]

As far as skills, I'll mention that Mickey Mantle had the most raw skill of any polished player in my opinion. He may have been the fastest flat out runner ever and at the same time, may have hit the longest homerun in history.

As far as less polished ability, Deion Sanders is almost certainly the fastest all around player ever including both flat out speed, and ability to change direction. Every run-down with him he had a chance to break it.

Bo Jackson did things that no one else could and I truly believe that his 405 line drive throw to home without even winding up and not even really taking a step confirms he had the greatest arm ever.

[brett]

And as for clutch hitting, I think its more a matter of your opponent NOT having the mental makeup for the situation, and you just keep playing like you know how. Like Brett hitting an upper deck 3 run HR of that Pu**y Gossage.

[538280]

Although maybe not the greatest player (argument for hitter is close and right-handed there is no argument) I think this thread needs a mention of what I consider the finest season a hitter ever had. Rogers Hornsby in 1922, 401 BA and 42 HR with plenty AB (600+) for no cheap year of hitting 400. Nobody ever combined power and average better.

That was also in an extremely high run context and in a great hitter's park. Hornsby's season was great but in context it was not even close to the best of all time.

As far as Hornsby's overall rank, he is a player who has gone up for me because of my new rating system, but still I don't have him nearly as high as many do. I now have him around #15. He was a tremendous hitter, but his career is short for an all time great, he played 2B when it was an neutral to offensive (not defensive like today) position, and couldn't field the position well at all even then. He also was a complete jackass and his clubhouse antics probably hurt his team to some degree (how large this factor was is anyone's guess). He has now moved up about 6 or 7 spots and is now my #2 2B, but I still am not really high on him.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Hey Chris,

When you say "extremely high run context," are you already considering the huge amount of errors that lead to runs?

[538280]

Hey Chris,

When you say "extremely high run context," are you already considering the huge amount of errors that lead to runs?

Yes, I'm talking about the league average BA/OBP/SLG. It was .295/.352/.410. That's VERY high. Hornsby's relative BA in 1922 was 136, very, very good but not among the best figures of all time.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Read my posts on the consistency with which his teams improved without him and his flashy stats.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Yes, I'm talking about the league average BA/OBP/SLG. It was .295/.352/.410. That's VERY high. Hornsby's relative BA in 1922 was 136, very, very good but not among the best figures of all time.

Well "run context" would mean R/G right? That's what I was wondering about... if you subtract some points for the huge amount of errors or not when you make those comments.

[538280]

Well "run context" would mean R/G right? That's what I was wondering about... if you subtract some points for the huge amount of errors or not when you make those comments.

Well, stats like Win Shares and such usually deal with runs created per game. That makes a more accurate estimate of the run context, and counts errors as negatives.

[iPod]

Duane Kuiper said on a Giants broadcast one day that he and Krukow were looking on a site that had complete splits for both of them for their careers (probably retrosheet). He said he was absolutely shocked, shocked, to find that in fact, he hit "like 40 points better in the day" than at night, because he felt so much more comfortable and saw the ball a lot better at night.

As much intuitive sense as the existence of clutch hitting seems, I think the fact that a lot of very smart people have studied the subject and found virtually no trace of it is being dismissed too lightly. The idea presented several times on this board, that consistent nerve control is a prerequisite to becoming a major leaguer in the first place, may have some merit.

[csh19792001]

I haven't seen any reaction to Hiddemgem's musings about playing in the Major Leagues, the immense pressure inherent in certain situations, and how people react to it differentiallly.

Any thoughts? Anyone that played even college ball can really understand appreciate the incredible levels of talent and experience HG carries with him.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

The idea presented several times on this board, that consistent nerve control is a prerequisite to becoming a major leaguer in the first place, may have some merit.

Is it your assumption that the pressure it takes to make it to the majors, is the same level of pressure felt daily to stay in the majors?

HG would be the perfect person to ask. He's been up to the show. I will invite him through PM to post any of his thoughts on here when he has a chance.

iPod this isn't apples to apples, but lets say you take 20 of the world's best artists and put them in a room. First you give them as much time as they need to finish a high quality piece. Then for the next round, you tell them they have exactly 30 minutes and the best judged winner gets 10 million bucks. Nerves and muscle coordination would be more affected in some than the others, would it not?

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Duane Kuiper said on a Giants broadcast one day that he and Krukow were looking on a site that had complete splits for both of them for their careers (probably retrosheet). He said he was absolutely shocked, shocked, to find that in fact, he hit "like 40 points better in the day" than at night, because he felt so much more comfortable and saw the ball a lot better at night.

As much intuitive sense as the existence of clutch hitting seems, I think the fact that a lot of very smart people have studied the subject and found virtually no trace of it is being dismissed too lightly. The idea presented several times on this board, that consistent nerve control is a prerequisite to becoming a major leaguer in the first place, may have some merit.

Well, iPod, this is something I'll admit I've wondered about. It's plausible that MLB scouts, managers and GM's are keenly aware of this "Oh, s---, I'm going to screw up" mindset that many people get in clutch situations, and that they look for it in minor leaguers, and that such people get screened out either before they make it to MLB or very soon thereafter. Beyond that, I'll add that the advent of modern video equipment makes this a lot likelier today than it was 30 years ago, because they easily can see if a guy is changing his swing mechanics whenever he bats in clutch situations. A guy like that should be sent down to work on the mechanical problem(s), and if he can't get rid of them, au revoir.

But you and I are only speculating.

And what about a guy who is clearly good enough that he should play in MLB? Say, a guy who's a Gold Glove middle infielder with a .380 OBP. Should he be cut because he has a .340 OBP in clutch situations over his long career? Or should he pinch-hit for? Or should he be made to look at films of his swing's crumbling under pressure until he's ready to throw up?

What I really think is this: All we can really do is engage in armchair speculation. ImaPotato can tell us, if he wants to, the extent to which the MINOR leagues are infested with batters who have this problem of buckling under pressure. And, because he's at least talked with a lot of guys who went to MLB, he may have some pretty direct knowledge on the subject of how prevalent that problem is there, too.

Failing that, I'd like to hear from some guys who spent serious time in MLB. They will know for sure if this oh-hell-I'm-gonna-fail attitude paralyzes some MLB players in clutch situations.

My visceral feeling is that it does, but that feeling is worth precisely what you paid to read it.

BaseballHistoryNut

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Is it your assumption that the pressure it takes to make it to the majors, is the same level of pressure felt daily to stay in the majors?

HG would be the perfect person to ask. He's been up to the show. I will invite him through PM to post any of his thoughts on here when he has a chance.

iPod this isn't apples to apples, but lets say you take 20 of the world's best artists and put them in a room. First you give them as much time as they need to finish a high quality piece. Then for the next round, you tell them they have exactly 30 minutes and the best judged winner gets 10 million bucks. Nerves and muscle coordination would be more affected in some than the others, would it not?

I would love to hear what HG has to say about this, along with what anyone he met there might want to share about it.

[iPod]

Is it your assumption that the pressure it takes to make it to the majors, is the same level of pressure felt daily to stay in the majors?


I'm saying maybe people are looking at it backward. How on earth is someone going to get to the majors and stay there if they can't handle intense pressure? The odds of such a player putting up minor league numbers (or even high school or college for that matter) impressive enough for promotion are pretty low, I would think.



iPod this isn't apples to apples, but lets say you take 20 of the world's best artists and put them in a room. First you give them as much time as they need to finish a high quality piece. Then for the next round, you tell them they have exactly 30 minutes and the best judged winner gets 10 million bucks. Nerves and muscle coordination would be more affected in some than the others, would it not?


Yeah, you'd think so, but that's basically the entire argument for the existence of clutch hitting; how could it not exist if it makes so much intuitive sense? If you did this 30 minute test repeatedly, and each time took the art samples out on the street and had people judge them, and the people didn't think one artist consistently put out pieces of crap and one is a consistent genius under pressure... there didn't seem to be any order to the opinions at all, in fact... then where are you? In the baseball world, that's for the most part where we are in terms of clutch hitting, at least as far as I know. Maybe the people on the street are morons who know nothing about art, and if we just had more qualified opinions we'd get results that make more sense. It's certainly possible that the unimpressive amount of analytical evidence in favor of clutch hitting is because of poor analysis. But I don't think it's something you can just summarily dismiss.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

They will know for sure if this oh-hell-I'm-gonna-fail attitude paralyzes some MLB players in clutch situations.

I think you're overstating things a bit here. I just think in some situations, a player is more apt to doubt their abilities, which can lead to failure more often than their norm. The guys who either have no doubt, or who have doubt, but can learn to channel it and control the added adrenaline seem to maintain.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Dear Randy,

Well, you have me in a bear hug, of course. I'm a guy who's absorbed baseball history for almost half a century, but I never played it at anything resembling your level. So I'm in the position of not being able to argue with you, just as you would be in the position of not being able to argue with ImAPotato, and just as he would be in the position of not being able to argue with a 15-year MLB veteran DH who's known several hundred MLB hitters well.

I only know that a lot of guys in Little League, Babe Ruth League and my old city softball league teams would routinely choke when batting in pressure-cooker situations, and it would take a miracle for them to make solid contact with the ball, such were the hitches in their swings. I'm sure what you saw at the collegiate level was both less egregious and less prevalent, and I'm sure ImaPotato could say the same to you about players in AA and AAA, relative to players in the minors.

I think the late-night hour and today's events caught up with you in your writing quality on that post, Randy, because its clarity is not all it might have been and certainly not what you usually provide--the sort of literary degeneration I often churn out at this hour. But if I understand the post correctly, you are saying that hitters with self-doubt in pressure situations are merely likelier to fail, not guaranteed to fail, in such situations--if they play in MLB or perhaps AAA or AA. Right?

And of course I agree with you. One of the most important hits in baseball history was Kiki Cuyler's two-out double down the opposite field line to plate three unearned runs in the bottom of the 8th inning, and thereby win Game 7 of the 1925 World Series over Walter Johnson by a score of 9-7, aided immeasurably by yet another of SS Roger Peckinpaugh's errors. (B.T.W., though Johnson obviously stunk on that very wet day, when the game should have been cancelled, only 5 of his 9 runs were earned; and the Pirates' pitchers got knocked around real hard, with all seven of their runs being earned, and their starter giving up 3 walks, 2 hits and 4 earned runs in 1/3 of an inning. Do you suppose he was relieved to be gotten off of the hook?)

One rather doubts Cuyler smashed that ball down the right field line, especially with Johnson on the mound. Or, if he did, the power behind the ball was not his. Yet there it was, every bit as big a hit for the ages as Maz's blast over the 406 FT. sign in the 9th inning of Game 7 in 1960--still the most electrifying moment I've witnessed in a sporting event.

But it cannot be gainsaid that a guy who hits the ball hard has a much better chance of getting on than one who hits it soft, despite Cuyler's good luck. You probably saw my example of a player who has an OBP of .380 overall, but an OBP of .340 in pressure-cooker situations, over the course of a long career. Given a lengthy career and a large number of AB's in such situations, not to mention the words of numerous teammates to describe his demeanor in pressure situations, that cannot be ascribed to random luck.

So I guess we're saying the same thing: The guy's not going to strike out every time, and just because he's less likely to make a real good swing and clobber the ball, that doesn't mean he won't get on. Any rational list of the 10 most important hits in MLB history has to include Cuyler's double, so there you have it. And I'm not saying that at the level of MLB--unlike City League Softball, where the poor, talentless guy is trying to hit a pitch that's 15 feet high while he's telling himself he can't do it--the self-doubter will strike out or hit a dribbler to the pitcher every time in MLB.

Obviously not. But as you appear to agree, it's got to hurt him.

Jim

[drjjpdc]

Little Joe I am confused. Comparing him to Cobb and Ruth in 1922, there is little contest. He out homered and batted way higher than Babe. Although Ty tied him in average he out homered him and had 100 more at bats, which makes Hornsby's .401 better than Cobb's. Wasn't Ty and Babe in the same run context? Detroit Stadium was a hitter's park and Yankee Stadium's short right field porch gave Ruth an easy target, no?

And I strongly disagree about not even close to the best. Who had better years? The singular event of 40 HR's and .401 BA is unique. Plus there were other famous players hitting .400 with markedly reduced at bats. Care to give me specific examples?

[csh19792001]

Yeah, you'd think so, but that's basically the entire argument for the existence of clutch hitting; how could it not exist if it makes so much intuitive sense? .

What is clutch? During a particularly vituperative ad hominem rant, one disgrunled Red Sox fan here brought up the statistic "close and late" which is apparently the progeny of STATS, Inc. He was incessantly bashing Alex Rodriguez, bascially calling him an incredible choker, while exhorting and basically deifying the uber DH David Ortiz. While Double XX basically buried the guy in the argument (and put him in his place on a Yankee forum :) ), submerged underneath all of that Yankee hated and blatant jealousy, maybe the guy had the makings of an actual case here...

So just to play Devil's Advocate...

Close and late: 7th inning or later with the batting team either ahead by one run, tied or with the potential tying run at least on deck.

I haven't been able to locate career figures (or leaders) for this "close and late" stat, but I did look at Ortiz vs. Rodriguez out of curiosity. Since it went back to 2002 year by year, that's all I was able to access and amalgamate.

Ortiz 2002-2006:
Overall .285/.383/.591 (2396 at bats)
Close and Late: .297/.333/.700 (334 at bats)

Rodriguez 2002-2006:
Overall: .293/.391/.555 (2778 at bats)
Close and Late: .235/.342/.465 (367 at bats)

So it's not like we're talking about 40 at bats here- this is more than an entire half season's worth of hitting in these type of situations, where the game is on the line. The only other point I had to accept from that poster's harangue was the fact that Ortiz has 8 career walkoffs, with seven of them since coming to the Red Sox alone. Barry Bonds, who has 721 homeruns has 21 years under his belt, has 10 walkoffs, total. Ortiz has played one third of the games that Barry Bonds has in his career.

To put that in perspective, here are the alltime leaders:
Jimmie Foxx……….12
Mickey Mantle……. 12
Stan Musial……….. 12
Frank Robinson……12
Babe Ruth………….12
Tony Perez…………11
Dick Allen…………..10
Harold Baines …….10
Reggie Jackson……10
Mike Schmidt ……..10

Incidentally, does anyone know how many walkoffs Rodriguez has hit? Regardless, can we not, judging from all of this information, say with a strong degree of certainty that Ortiz is simply better than Rodriguez in key situations (for whatever reason, you can ascribe any personality traits you)

Or is all of Ortiz' brillance in these situations actually just luck and good timing? Is all of this nothing more than an exercise in randomness?

Whatever the case, in summary, I still think Ortiz would have been a bad choice as an MVP last year, and it has nothing to do with where I'm from. I like like my players to be able to play the field/run, and I hate the DH. Rodriguez had an outstanding year all around last year.

[csh19792001]

And one other little note, on "clutch":

Read this:

The Real King of Clutch (http://www.sportingnews.com/experts/shawn-reid/blog/) (Author, Shawn Reid, Posted Wednesday, July 12, 2006)

I know this might surprise you, but I'm about to say something a lot of people aren't going to agree with. Go figure, right?

David Ortiz is NOT the best clutch hitter in baseball, no matter how many times folks in Bristol, Conn. say he is.

There, I said it. Before you start drop kicking me like you're Walker, Texas Ranger, and I'm an evil Texan rancher with an unlimited supply of goons and a stash of AK-47s in the basement, let me tell you why.

It's because there's another hitter who has displayed a similar ability to deliver key hits, and his stats blow Ortiz's out of the water.

His name is Albert Pujols.

It's been said there are lies, damn lies and statistics. I'm a firm believer in that. Some things -- a speedy baserunner's impact, the ability to hit with the game on the line -- can't be quantified by stats. But there ARE a lot of statistics that can measure performance in crucial situations. Name a category that measures clutch-hitting ability -- with runners on, with runners in scoring position with two outs, hitting in the seventh inning or later -- and Pujols tops Ortiz in almost every category, often by a significant margin. Don't believe me? Take a look for yourself:


David Ortiz BA HR RBI SLG
Runners on: .302 17 73 .626
RISP: .280 8 52 .550
RISP w/ 2 outs: .295 4 23 .614
7th or later: .265 10 28 .612
Close and late: .250 8 19 .750


Albert Pujols BA HR RBI SLG
Runners on: .345 15 62 .739
RISP: .443 8 48 .869
RISP w/ 2 outs: .391 1 13 .522
7th or later: .306 10 21 .764
Close and late: .389 7 17 1.056

If you're not shocked Ortiz's numbers are that low, you're either a stat geek or you haven't been watching him play since he moved to Boston and became a media darling. Ortiz's numbers aren't bad, but they're not as unbelievable as you'd expect from a player with his reputation as a clutch hitter.

Pujols has shown that he is just as dangerous as Ortiz with the game on the line. Just ask Brad Lidge, who's completely unaffected by Pujols' home run in Game 5 of last season's NLCS, right? And the numbers clearly show that Big Papi might be the man in Boston (thanks in no small part to the media), but Pujols is his Big Daddy.

Obviously, Ortiz has proved he can deliver crucial hits. There's no disputing that. Ortiz simply has a penchant for hitting home runs in games that are televised (benefit of playing in Boston, I suppose). But Pujols has proved it, too, and his stats show that he is more consistent and more dangerous than Big Papi in game-changing situations.

That's why if the game's on the line, El Hombre is my hombre.

What do you baseball scribes think?

[drjjpdc]

Albert is just amazing. 30+ HR; 100+ RBI and >.300 BA every year including his rookie year! Nobody ever did that before (although Joe Di came close) and it looks like he can do it for his career, providing he doesn't get hurt.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

What is clutch? During a particularly vituperative ad hominem rant, one disgrunled Red Sox fan here brought up the statistic "close and late" which is apparently the progeny of STATS, Inc. He was incessantly bashing Alex Rodriguez, bascially calling him an incredible choker, while exhorting and basically deifying the uber DH David Ortiz. While Double XX basically buried the guy in the argument (and put him in his place on a Yankee forum :) ), submerged underneath all of that Yankee hated and blatant jealousy, maybe the guy had the makings of an actual case here...

So just to play Devil's Advocate...

Close and late: 7th inning or later with the batting team either ahead by one run, tied or with the potential tying run at least on deck.

I haven't been able to locate career figures (or leaders) for this "close and late" stat, but I did look at Ortiz vs. Rodriguez out of curiosity. Since it went back to 2002 year by year, that's all I was able to access and amalgamate.

Ortiz 2002-2006:
Overall .285/.383/.591 (2396 at bats)
Close and Late: .297/.333/.700 (334 at bats)

Rodriguez 2002-2006:
Overall: .293/.391/.555 (2778 at bats)
Close and Late: .235/.342/.465 (367 at bats)

So it's not like we're talking about 40 at bats here- this is more than an entire half season's worth of hitting in these type of situations, where the game is on the line. The only other point I had to accept from that poster's harangue was the fact that Ortiz has 8 career walkoffs, with seven of them since coming to the Red Sox alone. Barry Bonds, who has 721 homeruns has 21 years under his belt, has 10 walkoffs, total. Ortiz has played one third of the games that Barry Bonds has in his career.

To put that in perspective, here are the alltime leaders:
Jimmie Foxx……….12
Mickey Mantle……. 12
Stan Musial……….. 12
Frank Robinson……12
Babe Ruth………….12
Tony Perez…………11
Dick Allen…………..10
Harold Baines …….10
Reggie Jackson……10
Mike Schmidt ……..10

Incidentally, does anyone know how many walkoffs Rodriguez has hit? Regardless, can we not, judging from all of this information, say with a strong degree of certainty that Ortiz is simply better than Rodriguez in key situations (for whatever reason, you can ascribe any personality traits you)

Or is all of Ortiz' brillance in these situations actually just luck and good timing? Is all of this nothing more than an exercise in randomness?

Whatever the case, in summary, I still think Ortiz would have been a bad choice as an MVP last year, and it has nothing to do with where I'm from. I like like my players to be able to play the field/run, and I hate the DH. Rodriguez had an outstanding year all around last year.

How certain of this list are you? Dave Kingman hit three IN HIS FINAL YEAR ALONE. And that's not from a book. I can tell you the details of every one--against Toronto (in 10), against Ron Guidry and NYY (cost me $170!), and against Baltimore.

BHN

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Little Joe I am confused. Comparing him to Cobb and Ruth in 1922, there is little contest. He out homered and batted way higher than Babe. Although Ty tied him in average he out homered him and had 100 more at bats, which makes Hornsby's .401 better than Cobb's. Wasn't Ty and Babe in the same run context? Detroit Stadium was a hitter's park and Yankee Stadium's short right field porch gave Ruth an easy target, no?

And I strongly disagree about not even close to the best. Who had better years? The singular event of 40 HR's and .401 BA is unique. Plus there were other famous players hitting .400 with markedly reduced at bats. Care to give me specific examples?

The notion Yankee Stadium helped Ruth is a myth. It was 344 FT to right field, which was short, but not extraordinarily short, and the rest of the park (to the left of that) was outrageously deep. He hit more HR's on the road than he did at home, during the years he played there.

Also, Tiger Stadium had a HUGE right field during the years Ty Cobb played there.

BHN

[iPod]

I haven't been able to locate career figures (or leaders) for this "close and late" stat, but I did look at Ortiz vs. Rodriguez out of curiosity. Since it went back to 2002 year by year, that's all I was able to access and amalgamate.

Ortiz 2002-2006:
Overall .285/.383/.591 (2396 at bats)
Close and Late: .297/.333/.700 (334 at bats)

Rodriguez 2002-2006:
Overall: .293/.391/.555 (2778 at bats)
Close and Late: .235/.342/.465 (367 at bats)

So it's not like we're talking about 40 at bats here- this is more than an entire half season's worth of hitting in these type of situations, where the game is on the line. The only other point I had to accept from that poster's harangue was the fact that Ortiz has 8 career walkoffs, with seven of them since coming to the Red Sox alone. Barry Bonds, who has 721 homeruns has 21 years under his belt, has 10 walkoffs, total. Ortiz has played one third of the games that Barry Bonds has in his career.


David Ortiz is really bizarre, and certainly would be my main example of the existence of clutch hitting if that's what I was arguing. A-Rod has done poorly "close and late" from 2002-06, but a lot of that is from his absolutely brutal .192/.263/.308 line this year. In the "2003-05" feature on ESPN.com, it says his close and late averages were .276/.392/.553, with overall averages of .302/.398/.574. It's a lot easier to consider that just due to chance than the gaping splits you showed. Did A-Rod become more of a choker this year?

Derek Jeter comes off as a huge choker if you look at close and late numbers. His 3-year averages from '03-'05 are .249/.352/.392. In 2002, he hit .238/.330/.333 close and late. The supposedly better clutch hitter than Ortiz, Albert Pujols, is hitting .375 close and late this season, but last season hit .250/.365/.488. Bobby Abreu is supposed to be a big choker, and it seems so this season, with close and late averages of .216/.344/.373. But in 2005, he averaged .298/.422/.571 close and late. Pedro Feliz is considered by every Giants fan I know, a HORRIBLE, TERRIBLE hitter in the clutch. The type of guy who will make you want to tear you hair out when he comes to the plate late in a close game. I've felt that feeling dozens of times. But from 2003-2005, he averaged .283/.335/.562 close and late, with overall averages of .259/.296/.463.



Or is all of Ortiz' brillance in these situations actually just luck and good timing? Is all of this nothing more than an exercise in randomness?


That's not a very satisfying answer, although it is possible. If you assume you have a 50% shot of outpacing your overall averages close and late, 1 out of every 16 players will do it 4 years in a row. I agree, though, it's not very appealing just to dismiss everything he has done as chance. What I'm saying is that attributing clutch hitting to variations in close and late averages isn't an awesome explanation either, unless you want to believe guys can arbitrarily switch from being chokers to clutch guys and vice versa.

[brett]

Regarding clutch-perhaps it is more valuable to produce early than late. You may save your bullpen, afford starters a rest, or give your team a mental or strategic edge.

2 equal offensive producers: I think you could strongly argue that the one who produces EARLY is more valuable than the one who produces late, even in close games.

[brett]

And by the way, I'd be more interested to see how players produce late in the season with a title on the line. I remember George Brett hitting inside the park home runs in consecutive games at the end of '85 to clinch the division.

I also remember him taking over the division playoffs in '85.

[Wade8813]

Brett makes an interesting point - an early cushion can be very advantageous psychologically; your team can relax more, and your opponent is under more pressure. Besides, at the end of the day, a run is a run.

[Seattle1]

I disagree that there is no such thing as hitting in the clutch. Tell that to gibson, Dent, and Big Papi

How about Edagar Martinez's double to beat the Yankees in the '95 playoffs?

[Wade8813]

How about Edagar Martinez's double to beat the Yankees in the '95 playoffs? While I love that story as much as any M's fan, one lone example doesn't do much to prove the point. It has to be continued behavior over a period of time (by multiple people).

I think that's a big part of the problem - the difference between a .250 hitter and a .300 hitter is 5 hits in 100 at bats; clutch situations occur rarely enough that the data pool we have to work with is more likely to be skewed. It's often argued that lots of players have entire seasons that are a fluke (Norm Cash's highest batting average was .361 - 2nd highest was .286. Brady Anderson's career best in HRs jumps from 24 to 50 when looking at his best two years. There are plenty of other examples). If a season can be a fluke, then surely a set of stats that construes less than a full season can be just as much of a fluke.

[csh19792001]

That's not a very satisfying answer, although it is possible. If you assume you have a 50% shot of outpacing your overall averages close and late, 1 out of every 16 players will do it 4 years in a row. I agree, though, it's not very appealing just to dismiss everything he has done as chance. What I'm saying is that attributing clutch hitting to variations in close and late averages isn't an awesome explanation either, unless you want to believe guys can arbitrarily switch from being chokers to clutch guys and vice versa.

So how many at bats would we need (and how much of a spread would you require between performance in clutch situations and regulars ones) to say, "Ok, this guy definately gets extremely nervous, agitated (etc) and when the game is on the line, just isn't as good. He does lots of damage in late innings when the pitcher is more or less trying to get the ball over, but when it counts most, he consistently fails to come through".

What if we had the close and late data for their 20 year careers, and Rodriguez was still well behind Ortiz (and well below his overall numbers). Would that not be indicative of "clutch" hitting ability?

If not, what the hell would be? How well (and for how long) would someone have to do in the big situations before people could call him clutch and not be harassed and dismissed by sabermetricians?

[iPod]

So how many at bats would we need (and how much of a spread would you require between performance in clutch situations and regulars ones) to say, "Ok, this guy definately gets extremely nervous, agitated (etc) and when the game is on the line, just isn't as good. He does lots of damage in late innings when the pitcher is more or less trying to get the ball over, but when it counts most, he consistently fails to come through".


A good amount of my point was that I'm not convinced "close and late" is such an amazing measurement of clutch ability in the first place. Is Jeter a choker? Another problem I have with the italicized part of your argument is that choking is very, very relative and in large part doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. From 2003-05, Andruw Jones was better close and late than overall (.278/.366/.573 to .267/.343/.525). Albert Pujols was worse in close and late situations than overall over that same period (.324/.426/.622 to .340/.428/.644). I'd still much, much rather have Pujols in close and late situations.

Also, what other team factors could be skewing the numbers? If a guy hits on the best pitching team in the league, his close and late numbers might be artificially low, because odds are a disproportionate amount of games that are "close and late" would be low scoring ones, where the other team's pitchers are really on. How much protection does this guy have in the batting order? Are we sure it isn't that this guy is just getting nothing good to hit in late innings because the opposing pitcher doesn't consider walking the guy the worst thing in the world? Could it be something like, he and the two guys after him in the order are lefties and teams routinely are saving their lefty short relievers in case those 3 come up late in a tight game? Do both the guy in question and the team in general struggle on the road, creating lots of close games on the road as opposed to blowout wins at home, and that the poor close and late numbers are explained by the fact that he's really just a lot better in his home ballpark? A million things could be affecting these numbers, because close and late numbers don't have splits themselves. I can't believe that I would have to tell you that baseball is more complicated than what one number says.

[csh19792001]

A million things could be affecting these numbers, because close and late numbers don't have splits themselves. I can't believe that I would have to tell you that baseball is more complicated than what one number says.

You certainly don't have to inform me that baseball is more than a number or a series of numbers. To those who never played the game seriously, though, you might be required to do so. :o

Also, I'm not convinced that "close and late" is anything remotely approaching ineffable either, and you bring up several excellent (and absolutely germane) points and confounds regarding putting blind adherence in any number or set of numbers. I've been posting all of this information on "clutch" not to take a side, but to try to get people to articulate what they think about "clutch", and how it could/should be measured.

So, do you believe that "clutch" performance is a myth and nothing more than a romantic distortion of those caught up in the entertainment value of the game? Is what people label clutch performance just random fluctuations in the data, that, in and of themselves, evince nothing that is actually attributable to the character traits or abilities of the player in question? Is it luck?

How would you propose we define and measure clutch performance? That is, if you believe that there are tangible differentials in ability in key game situations....

And I'll pose the question again...how many years' worth of data would we need for you to feel confident in the implications borne out by it? If 350 AB's isn't enough, would 2000 be sufficient? What defines the threshold of reliability?

[iPod]

So, do you believe that "clutch" performance is a myth and nothing more than a romantic distortion of those caught up in the entertainment value of the game? Is what people label clutch performance just random fluctuations in the data, that, in and of themselves, evince nothing that is actually attributable to the character traits or abilities of the player in question? Is it luck?


My gut feeling is that there probably is clutch hitting. One thing that leads me to believe this is players who do well against certain franchises. There are so many Giant killers out there, who do well against the Giants in SF and out, high in the order and low, men on or not, early or late, against strikeout guys, flyball guys, groundball guys, practically anything you could think of, that it becomes harder and harder to reject the idea that it's just psychological, and if you entertain the possibility people could do better against certain teams because they psychologically can make themselves do so, it is basically impossible then to turn around and say people can't force themselves psychologically to do well in certain in-game situations. However, I highly doubt that clutch hitters and chokers are so vastly different in key situations that a ranking list could become dangerously off by omitting it.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

I've never seen his stats against the Giants, but the Dodgers' Reggie Smith was just brutal on them in the clutch. Then in 1982, when Smith was at the end of his line and playing for the Giants, he was terrific for us in the clutch. He and 39-year-old Joe Morgan carried that team, which was understandably predicted to stink, but which shot up from out of nowhere and was in it until the last Saturday of the season, and which eliminated the Dodgers on the final day... on a 3-run, 7th-inning HR off of Terry Forster--by Joe Morgan.

The HR happened right as the Atlanta Braves, who won the pennant as a result, were walking off the field following their robust butt-kicking by the Padres in San Diego. The TV cut from the Giants' game to the Braves' game very briefly, and showed the Braves' players very abruptly going from despondency to elation, as they saw Morgan's HR on the screen in San Diego. Reliever Greg Minton made it exciting, but the Giants held on and the Giants' fans then acted like the Giants had just won the World Series.

You'd have to know how much Giants' fans hate the Dodgers to understand....

BHN

[Seattle1]

While I love that story as much as any M's fan, one lone example doesn't do much to prove the point.

I know but he had other clutch hits too, that's just the one everyone remembers the most. You could really count on Edgar Martinez when the chips were down.

[Manny = Foxx]

Manny Ramirez = Jimmy Foxx = The 2 best all around right hand hitters in the history of baseball.

[Myankee4life]

Manny Ramirez = Jimmy Foxx = The 2 best all around right hand hitters in the history of baseball.


We currently have a Manny VS Jimmie poll.........put your info there.

[Outta Here]

For me, it's not possible to give an answer, I cannot decide! The same would also go for NFL, I would not know the best ever player as generally, there's not 1 guy who is the best at every aspect of the game.

There are so many aspects to choose from, too, like Pitching, Offensive Production, Defense, the list goes on..... Again, this goes for NFL.

[brett]

I'm not saying that these are the 5 greatest, but they are the 6 who I think could each possibly be considered the greatest. Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, Bonds, Mays, Williams.

Of these, it would take every stretch to put Mays equal to Cobb
a)war credit,
b) believing the people who say that Cobb was a below average fielder,
c) ignoring the argument that Cobb let himself get caught stealing bases.
All probability Cobb tops Mays

Ruth, Bonds and Cobb, and Williams given solid war credit are clearly the top 4 offensive players of all time. Williams is last, but could be #1 offensively given 3 near triple crown years, and 2 more good ones for Korea.

Currently Ruth and Bonds remain in a virtual tie using total production above average, including all available stats and using ballpark adjusted batting average, slugging and on-base% as the reference standard for an average player.

I, however do not trust ballpark adjustments any more. I have seen cases where they don't make sense, or change too much from one year to the next. They may be better over the course of a career, but then every season for a player must be evaluated individually rather than just getting a career total, and in that case, why not just evaluate every single freaking game? Like the Planck length, there is a limit to the precision with which we can analyze relative production.

There was more that does not show up in the stats from Cobb's time.

Using other methods of relativising the league (park adjusted team ERA for example) Cobb actually can just top Ruth on offense. Again, Williams could with war credit, butCobb clearly tops Williams.

Bonds and Cobb then are interchangeable on offense, or at least impossible to distinguish with likelyhood who is better. I also can't differentiate on defense. Bonds won 8 gold gloves and was a left field specialist, but a full time center fielder, even with a weak arm, matches a gold glove left fielder. A strong armed right fielder (Ruth) does not. Without pitching, Bonds and Cobb both probably edge Ruth due to fielding.

And Wagner, who knows how much to upgrade him due to defense? As an offensive player he is below Bonds, Ruth and Cobb by a significant, albeit not enormous amount. Defense could make up that difference, but that difference is roughly equal to the value of a borderline hall of fame player (50 games). If his defense gets him in, then we have to admit that Ozzie Smith is a near first tier hall of famer. Since people around here don't tend to do that, Wagner can not be #1.

Ruth's pitching bonus is roughly equal to half of the value of a borderline hall of fame player. Ruth also is the greatest post season player of all time. Including pitching, which I do, he is #1. Bonds and Cobb are indistiguishable in value at this time, and I am not going to consider character, or "cheating." As far as the record goes, all of Bonds' production helped his team win.

Ruth

Cobb-Bonds

Wagner-Williams-Mays

And in this case, they may be the top 6 of all time as well.

[wamby]

Calling Mattingly!!!! Calling Mattlingly!!! Calling Mattingly!!! This Is A Two Year Old Thread!!!! Please Shut Down Immediatly!!!
Thank You

[538280]

I'm not saying that these are the 5 greatest, but they are the 6 who I think could each possibly be considered the greatest. Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, Bonds, Mays, Williams.

Of these, it would take every stretch to put Mays equal to Cobb
a)war credit,
b) believing the people who say that Cobb was a below average fielder,
c) ignoring the argument that Cobb let himself get caught stealing bases.
All probability Cobb tops Mays

How is this? I look at their offense and I see Cobb ahead of Mays by 11 OPS+ points, but I don't see that being an insurmountable margin. With LQ adjustments I have them roughly equal, and then you get to the fielding. I don't trust people saying Cobb was below average, but he was significantly below Willie Mays.

As far as the baserunning, I don't buy that Cobb has this huge or even any real advantage people claim. Cobb played in the era in which baserunning was a huge part of the game, Mays played when it was a very small part of the game. Willie Mays was known to be extremely fast and a great baserunner despite the time constraints. I full think that if he played in a deadball setting, Mays would be every bit the baserunner Cobb was. In my rating system, I give Cobb a bit of an edge for baserunning since he probably did generate more value with it, but I see this huge baserunning advantage Cobb supposedly has to be non-existent, and this is even setting aside the run expectancies that all those CSs probably generated.

I just think that if you make the LQ adjustments, which is completely neccessary, then Mays is certainly and unquestionably better. I'm not the only one who has come to this conclusion either.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

How is this? I look at their offense and I see Cobb ahead of Mays by 11 OPS+ points, but I don't see that being an insurmountable margin. With LQ adjustments I have them roughly equal, and then you get to the fielding. I don't trust people saying Cobb was below average, but he was significantly below Willie Mays.

As far as the baserunning, I don't buy that Cobb has this huge or even any real advantage people claim. Cobb played in the era in which baserunning was a huge part of the game, Mays played when it was a very small part of the game. Willie Mays was known to be extremely fast and a great baserunner despite the time constraints. I full think that if he played in a deadball setting, Mays would be every bit the baserunner Cobb was. In my rating system, I give Cobb a bit of an edge for baserunning since he probably did generate more value with it, but I see this huge baserunning advantage Cobb supposedly has to be non-existent, and this is even setting aside the run expectancies that all those CSs probably generated.

I just think that if you make the LQ adjustments, which is completely neccessary, then Mays is certainly and unquestionably better. I'm not the only one who has come to this conclusion either.

Not completely disagreeing with you Chris. I agree that if Mays played back when Cobb did, he would have been able to show off his baserunning ability better. However I think you're selling the art of baserunning short by insinuating that all you need is a fast pair of legs. Cobb's two greatest weapons imo, were his willpower and his mind. Without those two things operating at full steam ahead, his footspeed wouldn't matter much. The Mays transporting scenario assumes a lot above the shoulders.

[Bill Burgess]

Jim (Wamby). Please stand down. Your nerve control med is wearing off again. This fossil may be aged, but the archaeologist who dug it up has benign intentions.

Despite this poll, I tabulate the running count totals and so far, they are thus:

1. Ruth 92
2. Cobb 49
3. Mays 11
4. Charleston 3
5. Williams 2
6. Wagner 2
7. Bonds 1

I think the only credible candidates for the top spot are Cobb, Wagner, Ruth, Mays. Charleston can't be credited for such an exalted spot due to his unverified stats. Same with Josh Gibson. If they had gotten their shot, maybe things would have been different. But as they stand now, what can we do?

As it stands now, Ruth pulls in most of the votes in all poll/surveys. Cobb's case is hypothetical (circumstantial). And Willie/Honus just don't have the stats to compete at this level. Yes, they most definitely had the skills set, but those who elevate Willie's case to the top spot are using LQ adjustments, that most of us feel are too severe to feel comfortable with, and awarding a massive Defense bonus points.

Two components of Cobb's hypothetical case include a massive base-running bonus points, and his uncredited "Taking Extra Bases". Due to their being undocumented, we cannot quantify his massive 'Bases Advanced" totals, so most members routinely (and conveniently) ignore their value in such cases.

Other difficulties include the adjusting for eras, and the inability to credit power stats to the pre-1920 candidates, Cobb/Wagner.

Bill Burgess

[Knick9]

It's the Babe, no question. Ty Cobb would be a distant second, followed by "Say Hey" Willy Mays.

However, Ruth wasn't quite the marathon man on the basepaths. Could you imagine him trying to steal a base? No, it's about the long ball with him. That's my biggest knock on him I guess performance-wise.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

However, Ruth wasn't quite the marathon man on the basepaths. Could you imagine him trying to steal a base? No, it's about the long ball with him. That's my biggest knock on him I guess performance-wise.

You realize he played before '31 right? Just checkin'.

[Blackout]

It's the Babe, no question. Ty Cobb would be a distant second, followed by "Say Hey" Willy Mays.

However, Ruth wasn't quite the marathon man on the basepaths. Could you imagine him trying to steal a base? No, it's about the long ball with him. That's my biggest knock on him I guess performance-wise.
well he managed to do it 123 times

granted he got caught quite a few times, but his SB/CS stats are unreliable since they also include getting picked off (how many times was he picked off? i have no clue)

[Blackout]

1-Babe
2-Cobb
3-Williams
4-Gehrig
5-Gibson
6-Dimaggio
7-Wagner
8-Lloyd
9-Mays
10-Mantle
11-Musial
12-Aaron
13-Hornsby
14-Foxx
15-Berra
16-Bench
17-Speaker
18-Charleston
19-A-rod
20a-Bonds*
20b-Henderson (clean choice)


I can't seperate Wagner/Lloyd, Berra/Bench, Mays/Mantle and Speaker/Charleston. It's impossible.

[Bill Burgess]

7-Wagner

You've raised Wagner from 8th in your last list to your present 7th. Kudos.:clapping

[leecemark]

well he managed to do it 123 times

granted he got caught quite a few times, but his SB/CS stats are unreliable since they also include getting picked off (how many times was he picked off? i have no clue)


--They also don't include all his caught stealing since they weren't completely recorded for his career. In any case, getting picked off is as bad (or worse) a baserunning failure than a caught stealing. Ruth was a reckless baserunner as a young player and a terrible one as an older one.

[538280]

Not completely disagreeing with you Chris. I agree that if Mays played back when Cobb did, he would have been able to show off his baserunning ability better. However I think you're selling the art of baserunning short by insinuating that all you need is a fast pair of legs. Cobb's two greatest weapons imo, were his willpower and his mind. Without those two things operating at full steam ahead, his footspeed wouldn't matter much. The Mays transporting scenario assumes a lot above the shoulders.

I agree with you that baserunning is about a lot more than just speed. What makes you think Mays didn't have those things though? Perhaps Cobb had a better "willpower and mind", but I find the assertion that it was so much better absurd to say the least. I understand how many of the people who have read everything in the world about Ty Cobb may disagree, but personally I think doing that kind of extensive reserach on a player makes you biased, or at least IMO. Willie Mays was an unbelieveably smart player.

[Erik Bedard]

As Dudecar said back on page 1, until someone comes along and hits 715 homers and wins 94 games, or hits 714 homers and wins 95 games, Ruth will always be the greatest.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--They also don't include all his caught stealing since they weren't completely recorded for his career. In any case, getting picked off is as bad (or worse) a baserunning failure than a caught stealing. Ruth was a reckless baserunner as a young player and a terrible one as an older one.

Couldn't be more wrong. There is a difference between being reckless and being aggressive. He was the latter. He wasn't one to sit around and wait for something to happen. He was one to force the defense to complete the play. Sometimes they did, sometimes they didn't. He was a very good baserunner early on and remained a good one even as his legs went due to him possessing other important factors beyond sheer footspeed. He routinely scored from first on doubles and from second on hard base hits. Flat out third gear speed isn't what allowed him to do that; it was his ability to read the situation in an instant, not hesitating, hustling, and taking perfect angles. Early on he ran much like Pujols does today but with more speed.

His stolen base numbers mean absolutely nothing to me. That was not his role and he never worked on the art of the stolen base. We do not know how often he got picked off, but my guess is not very often. By ALL accounts, he was always alert on the ballfield. We do not know how many of his "sb attempts" were on a hit and run where the hitter swung through, and the runner's primary objective is NOT to get a great jump as you would on a straight steal. We just don't know and it really doesn't matter. Doesn't matter that after being walked on four straight pitches in the '21 series, he stole second and third on successive pitches out of frustration. Doesn't matter one bit.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I agree with you that baserunning is about a lot more than just speed. What makes you think Mays didn't have those things though? Perhaps Cobb had a better "willpower and mind", but I find the assertion that it was so much better absurd to say the least. I understand how many of the people who have read everything in the world about Ty Cobb may disagree, but personally I think doing that kind of extensive reserach on a player makes you biased, or at least IMO. Willie Mays was an unbelieveably smart player.

He also made sure his hat flew off every time he ran the bases. Now THAT'S entertaining, is it not ;)

I'm not saying Mays didn't have what it took, I'm saying that assuming he had what it took to do what Cobb did, is a reach.

[538280]

As Dudecar said back on page 1, until someone comes along and hits 715 homers and wins 94 games, or hits 714 homers and wins 95 games, Ruth will always be the greatest.

I'm sorry, this is not a persuasive argument nor does it cover the things that need to be covered. If you're gong to say Ruth is the best, make a real case. This is not one.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I'm sorry, this is not a persuasive argument nor does it cover the things that need to be covered. If you're gong to say Ruth is the best, make a real case. This is not one.

He made his own case on the field. Three all-time tools and very good at his best in two others (baserunning, fielding). His case is not that of Williams, where you must ask yourself if his amazing offense is enough to make-up for other downfalls.

[ThePeach]

How is this? I look at their offense and I see Cobb ahead of Mays by 11 OPS+ points, but I don't see that being an insurmountable margin. With LQ adjustments I have them roughly equal, and then you get to the fielding. I don't trust people saying Cobb was below average, but he was significantly below Willie Mays.

As far as the baserunning, I don't buy that Cobb has this huge or even any real advantage people claim. Cobb played in the era in which baserunning was a huge part of the game, Mays played when it was a very small part of the game. Willie Mays was known to be extremely fast and a great baserunner despite the time constraints. I full think that if he played in a deadball setting, Mays would be every bit the baserunner Cobb was. In my rating system, I give Cobb a bit of an edge for baserunning since he probably did generate more value with it, but I see this huge baserunning advantage Cobb supposedly has to be non-existent, and this is even setting aside the run expectancies that all those CSs probably generated.

I just think that if you make the LQ adjustments, which is completely neccessary, then Mays is certainly and unquestionably better. I'm not the only one who has come to this conclusion either.

Not to debate this again, but you're selling Cobb short here. You know that the longer career brings the average down. And I think you remember when I posted the ten consecutive OPS+ years for these guys? Here they are again;

Centerfield

Ty Cobb- 195
Mickey Mantle- 188
Willie Mays- 166
Tris Speaker- 164
Joe DiMaggio- 161


NOW it becomes a big difference.

BTW, you can't take credit away for playing a long time... because he never hit below .300, and his 24 year career OPS+ is still higher then Mays' best ten-year run. :laugh

Sorry. :o

[538280]

Not to debate this again, but you're selling Cobb short here. You know that the longer career brings the average down. And I think you remember when I posted the ten consecutive OPS+ years for these guys? Here they are again;

Centerfield

Ty Cobb- 195
Mickey Mantle- 188
Willie Mays- 166
Tris Speaker- 164
Joe DiMaggio- 161


NOW it becomes a big difference.

BTW, you can't take credit away for playing a long time... because he never hit below .300, and his 24 year career OPS+ is still higher then Mays' best ten-year run. :laugh

Sorry. :o

My system does not use a 10 year OPS+, rather it uses career OPS+, and a hybrid of three year and five year peak. Applying the LQ adjustments they come out about even with OPS+. Then when I get to the fielding Mays moves ahead. That's basically why he's ahead in my system.

Mays is hurt in that sort of analysis because of when he was hitting the best. Mays had two hitting primes, 1954-1957 (sans 1956), and 1963-1965. Either way you're leaving some of his best years out, and including subpar ones. Cobb's best hitting years fall nicely into the 10 year pattern of 1909-1918.

[538280]

Hey, all this talk makes me wonder if anyone wants to have another greatest players poll? The last one we had started about a year ago. I like to have these sorts of things at least once a year. But if you're tired of that and you'd rather not, that's okay too.

[RuthMayBond]

Hey, all this talk makes me wonder if anyone wants to have another greatest players poll? The last one we had started about a year ago.On a subject like that, I'd be surprised if the last poll started more than a WEEK ago :laugh :laugh :laugh

[538280]

On a subject like that, I'd be surprised if the last poll started more than a WEEK ago :laugh :laugh :laugh

Actually the last one started the end of August last year, about a year ago.

[ThePeach]

My system does not use a 10 year OPS+, rather it uses career OPS+, and a hybrid of three year and five year peak. Applying the LQ adjustments they come out about even with OPS+. Then when I get to the fielding Mays moves ahead. That's basically why he's ahead in my system.

Mays is hurt in that sort of analysis because of when he was hitting the best. Mays had two hitting primes, 1954-1957 (sans 1956), and 1963-1965. Either way you're leaving some of his best years out, and including subpar ones. Cobb's best hitting years fall nicely into the 10 year pattern of 1909-1918.

OK, you're right, Cobb's ten best years were all consecutive. These are Mays' ten best years, picked out, and not in a row;

Mays- 185, 176, 175, 175, 173, 172, 166, 165, 160, 160= 171

BTW, Cobb's best three years were 209, 206, and 200 (and he only had one below 185, Mays' best year).

Whether you use OPS+ or Win Shares, Cobb's numbers are better (and Win Shares takes defense into account). Now, you can use all sorts of adjustments, but that's where a large subjective part comes in, since people have different views on the relative strength of those eras.

[Skin & Bones]

OK, you're right, Cobb's ten best years were all consecutive. These are Mays' ten best years, picked out, and not in a row;

Mays- 185, 176, 175, 175, 173, 172, 166, 165, 160, 160= 171

BTW, Cobb's best three years were 209, 206, and 200 (and he only had one below 185, Mays' best year).

Whether you use OPS+ or Win Shares, Cobb's numbers are better (and Win Shares takes defense into account). Now, you can use all sorts of adjustments, but that's where a large subjective part comes in, since people have different views on the relative strength of those eras.

Ofcourse, those are those two stats. BP's stats that supposedly make league quality adjustments ( how they do that is anyone's guess) sees Mays as the better ballplayer.

I guess it comes down to which set of stats you " trust " more, and how much stock you put into league quality adjustments.

[538280]

OK, you're right, Cobb's ten best years were all consecutive. These are Mays' ten best years, picked out, and not in a row;

Mays- 185, 176, 175, 175, 173, 172, 166, 165, 160, 160= 171

BTW, Cobb's best three years were 209, 206, and 200 (and he only had one below 185, Mays' best year).

Whether you use OPS+ or Win Shares, Cobb's numbers are better (and Win Shares takes defense into account). Now, you can use all sorts of adjustments, but that's where a large subjective part comes in, since people have different views on the relative strength of those eras.

I think LQ adjustments are enough to make up for that, and I'm far from alone in that assertion. Like S&B says, BP's LQ adjusted metrics actually have Mays ahead by a solid margin, and when applying LQ adjustments to WS and OPS+ my system agrees with them.

BTW, I've been doing some of these charts lately, using WARP3 and Win Shares. These are just for frame of reference, not to be taken as the be all end all or anything:





I do trust WS more than WARP3, because we know how it's calculated. However, I think it is wrong to use WS without acknowledging that it is not LQ adjusted and thus will favor old time players.

[538280]

BTW I also did the same thing with the 2Bmen:

[Goooooo]

Mays hands down. Shouldnt be a debate at all.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Well that settles that :rolleyes:

[Bill Burgess]

As far as the baserunning, I don't buy that Cobb has this huge or even any real advantage people claim.
Every single time you assert this uninformed, unread beleif of yours, your rep as a credible baseball person sinks lower, and lower, and lower, and . . . .

It's now at the point where not a single informed Cobb person gives you even a shred of credibility on him. Your present ranking of him in #7th sinks you into the fiery pit, and your repeated assertions concerning his running make you . . .

His running was his strongest skill. That's why they came to watch him play. Many industrialists moved to Detroit just to watch Cobb run.
--------------------------------
quote:
There are many leaders of business today who will confess that they came to Detroit during the first and second decades of the twentieth century so that they could watch Ty Cobb play. . . .

"I didn't know that you were a baseball fan, Jimmy." (Malcolm Bingay to Jimmy Doolittle, famous aviator.) "I'm not," he grinned; "just a Cobb fan. As a kid in St. Louis I never missed a game in which Cobb played, but | can't remember being interested in any others. What interested you in Ty Cobb?" "Speed!" said Jimmy. "Just speed! I wanted to see him go around those bases." "Would Ty have made a good aviator?" "Yes--a wonder! I have never known any other man who had such complete co-ordination of mind and body." (Detroit Is My Own Home Town by Malcolm Bingay, 1946, pp. 152, 154-155, 157-158, 163, 259-260.)

[Blackout]

You've raised Wagner from 8th in your last list to your present 7th. Kudos.:clapping

Yeah, its hard to really value him under Lloyd since his stats are more complete obviously

same goes for Gehrig/Gibson and Speaker/Charleston

I really wanted to put Mantle ahead of Mays based on peak, because I'm a huge peak guy, but I just couldn't.

[Blackout]

Mays hands down. Shouldnt be a debate at all.

very convincing arguement, i think based on these new facts I'll go switch my list

[538280]

Every single time you assert this uninformed, unread beleif of yours, your rep as a credible baseball person sinks lower, and lower, and lower, and . . . .

It's now at the point where not a single informed Cobb person gives you even a shred of credibility on him. Your present ranking of him in #7th sinks you into the fiery pit, and your repeated assertions concerning his running make you . . .

His running was his strongest skill. That's why they came to watch him play. Many industrialists moved to Detroit just to watch Cobb run.

Bill, this is completely unconvincing to me, sorry. Don't you see why baserunning was considered such a huge part of Cobb's game? It's because of the style of the game at the time. The style of the game had a real lot to do with one run strategies and baserunning, so Cobb put on a show out there. It is my firm belief that if Mays had played back then, he would have received the same accolades. Even in his own time Mays was considered a top flight baserunner.

[538280]

Chris,

"What do people think about this? Are all of us who consider the old timers deluding ourselves?? Do Cobb, Ruth, and Wagner really belong perhaps in the top 20, instead of 1,2,3 alltime because their competition was inferior?"

The answer is a very loud, "No". Not by any stretch, Chris. I know you are only playing a devil's advocate position here, in order to stimulate the others to think for themselves.

But you know me. Although I do indeed agree that each sucessive decade has seen the rise of the general level of play, it is only that, - the general level. The general level of play means that the worst, bottom third of the league's barrel gets better & better. The top level can only get so good. I firmly believe that the top of the league has remained rather constant and remarkablly stable since the 20's. The best players incorporate the more athletic and artistic elements of baseball playing.

So as technique improves, technology evolves, training progresses, the worst to average player just keeps rising upwards toward the top, towards the best players, who in theory can never catch. The best are like the horizon, it recedes before you as you continue advancing towards it. It's like you keep getting half way to it, but can't ever get there. Maybe in 100 yrs. everyone will be the best.

Test cases:
Was Sandberg or Alomar equal to Collins, Lajoie, Hornsby?
Is A-Rod equal to Wagner?
Has anyone matched Sisler or Gehrig?
Schmidt & Brett can match Traynor, Collins, but not Brooksie on defense, but who'se around now to equal Mike & George?
Are Ty, Babe & Tris equalled by Barry, Ken and Sammy? Only the rash, bold and foolish would go that far.

So, my boldly rash theory is that only the bottom worst players keep rising in better quality of play, while the top best have remained constant & stable all these decades.

Any dissenting views? Bring your well-analyzed defense to the council fire, o scarred surviving heroes of a thousand battles!

Bill Burgess

Wow, Bill, I can't believe you ever said something like this.

[Bill Burgess]

Wow, Bill, I can't believe you ever said something like this.
You know what? We're on such vastly different wave-lenths I doubt we'll ever be able to communicate smoothly.

Mays: Willie had the skill set to excel in small ball, but to the level of TC? I don't think so. Willie was great, but he never had the brutal attitude of Cobb.

Cobb routinely went for the next base. He took the longest leads on record. He stole home on veteran batteries. Willie lacked the unorthodox head. He lacked the fire. I can't see Willie deliberately getting into a rundown, just to show the other guys they couldn't 'get him'.

To match the Ty man, you had to have his smarts, and while Willie was by no means dumb, he wasn't brilliant in his tactics. Never showed the outrageous outbursts, the chutzpah. Cobb's edge was mental.

So, yeah, Willie would have been great, but more along the lines of Speaker/Wagner great, not Cobb great.

[leecemark]

--Are you sure (well of course YOU are) that Wagner great doesn't top Cobb great? My top 5 deadballers;
1) Wagner
2) Cobb
3) Speaker
4) Collins
5) Lajoie
--big drop off from there, but just for fun;
6) Crawford
7) Baker
8) Clarke
9) Wheat
10) the other Collins (Jimmy)
--or if you have a strong stomach then maybe Joe Jackson claims the 9th or 10th spot.

[Imapotato]

Also Cobb didn't hang on so long that he was stumbling around the field making a fool of himself

Not a shock to see Ruth run away with this...alot of people look at both his pitching and hitting...which is unfair to players who might have been good Pitchers but never got the chance

Just looking at overall tools, I always say Ty Cobb is #1 and Ruth #2

[Sultan_1895-1948]

which is unfair to players who might have been good Pitchers but never got the chance

Thats pretty funny. Have anyone in mind?

Trade you his pitching career for 5 full seasons as strictly an outfielder/hitter in any other park besides Fenway...deal?

[iPod]

Bill, this is completely unconvincing to me, sorry. Don't you see why baserunning was considered such a huge part of Cobb's game? It's because of the style of the game at the time. The style of the game had a real lot to do with one run strategies and baserunning, so Cobb put on a show out there. It is my firm belief that if Mays had played back then, he would have received the same accolades. Even in his own time Mays was considered a top flight baserunner.

If everyone was being sent on the basepaths and Cobb still absolutely blew everyone out of the water, is it possible that this is even more evidence of his greatness?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Just looking at overall tools, I always say Ty Cobb is #1 and Ruth #2

As much as we love to compare these two, its very difficult given their respective styles and eras.

What do we know.

Arm - Huge edge to Ruth

Baserunning - Huge edge to Cobb

Power - Huge edge to Ruth but this is where it gets tricky.

We know what Cobb could do when he was going all out for average and we know his SA was helped greatly by his legs and his aggressiveness.

We do not know how much Cobb's average would have fallen had he taken a full power approach. It would certainly go down imo, but who knows how much. Conversely, we don't know how much higher Babe's average would have been had he taken a full batting average approach.

I would prefer not changing how they played in order to compare them with one another. Accepting them for what they were and how they dominated their peers feels much better.

[Brownie31]

As much as we love to compare these two, its very difficult given their respective styles and eras.

I would prefer not changing how they played in order to compare them with one another. Accepting them for what they were and how they dominated their peers feels much better.

Very good point. Few, if any, would apply this to other fields.
As in, say, comparing Hemingway and Shakespeare.

Brownie31

[RuthMayBond]

If everyone was being sent on the basepaths and Cobb still absolutely blew everyone out of the waterYou're assuming he did this. Carey and Collins weren't far behind, and Hamilton (and maybe Wagner) before Cobb weren't half bad.

[ThePeach]

I think LQ adjustments are enough to make up for that, and I'm far from alone in that assertion.

Ehh, whatever you say. I can see why Bill doesn't feel like arguing with you anymore though. But when Cobb's tenth best OPS+ year is better then Mays' second, and when Cobb beats Mays in all Win Share categories (total, top 3, top 5, per 162) with healthy margins, then it seems like you're abusing league adjustments (not to mention I disagree with other things your list put out, and you saw my top twenty list; even between both pre-1950 and post-1950 guys).

[Imapotato]

Thats pretty funny. Have anyone in mind?

Trade you his pitching career for 5 full seasons as strictly an outfielder/hitter in any other park besides Fenway...deal?


Those are alot of conditions

How about give me his 5 years as a hitter IN Fenway

That is why I DO choose Cobb

I agree with the comparing to peers which is why I despise the "Byleven should be in the HOF because so and so is" debates that stink up the HOF forum

But you only choose 3 tools

Defense--Cobb
Contact---Cobb
Baseball smarts---Cobb
baserunning--Cobb
Discipline-Cobb (K'd way less then Ruth and walked a good amount for not being so overly pitched around like Ruth at times)

Ruth gets arm and power

It just seems to most back in the day and statheads now...OPS is everything and Ruth is the reason OPS was 'created'

[538280]

If everyone was being sent on the basepaths and Cobb still absolutely blew everyone out of the water, is it possible that this is even more evidence of his greatness?

No, the style of the game allowed a player's great baserunning skill to shine through. I think Cobb was one of the very best baserunners of all time, certainly. I just think that his era was a time in which he could look much more impressive, while Mays played at a time when it was virtually impossible to be SO impressive on the basepaths.

[538280]

Ehh, whatever you say. I can see why Bill doesn't feel like arguing with you anymore though. But when Cobb's tenth best OPS+ year is better then Mays' second, and when Cobb beats Mays in all Win Share categories (total, top 3, top 5, per 162) with healthy margins, then it seems like you're abusing league adjustments (not to mention I disagree with other things your list put out, and you saw my top twenty list; even between both pre-1950 and post-1950 guys).

My list has complete balance between the eras, I've shown that a number of times. If I'm showing balance, please tell me why the LQ adjustments are too extreme.

[538280]

You know what? We're on such vastly different wave-lenths I doubt we'll ever be able to communicate smoothly.

Mays: Willie had the skill set to excel in small ball, but to the level of TC? I don't think so. Willie was great, but he never had the brutal attitude of Cobb.

Cobb routinely went for the next base. He took the longest leads on record. He stole home on veteran batteries. Willie lacked the unorthodox head. He lacked the fire. I can't see Willie deliberately getting into a rundown, just to show the other guys they couldn't 'get him'.

That's the kind of ridiculous behavior on Cobb's part I read about all the time, and I have a hard time believing ANY of it helped his teams. I heard once he supposedly went 54 for 98 stealing home. The 54 times is nice, but the 44 times he got thrown out are far more costly. Almost every linear weights system would show that to be a HORRIBLE thing for his team overall. I still consider Cobb to be an extremely valuable baserunner, but when I read things like this it makes me wonder if his tactics really did anything.


To match the Ty man, you had to have his smarts, and while Willie was by no means dumb, he wasn't brilliant in his tactics. Never showed the outrageous outbursts, the chutzpah. Cobb's edge was mental.

I still think Willie didn't show the brilliance (though I still wonder-trying to steal home 98 times at a 55% or so percentage is NOT smart), because the era in which he played did not allow the players to go wild on the basepaths.

[538280]

BTW, Bill, about that earlier post I quoted and said "Wow, Bill, I can't believe you ever said something like this". Did you really once believe that? Sounds to me like you're advocating an LQ adjustment. Quotes like:


"I firmly believe that the top of the league has remained rather constant and remarkablly stable since the 20's."

That would mean the top level talent has not changed much though history. I would agree, but your other posts and your rankings don't reflect this at all. They're all HEAVILY biased towards the old players.


"So as technique improves, technology evolves, training progresses, the worst to average player just keeps rising upwards toward the top, towards the best players, who in theory can never catch. The best are like the horizon, it recedes before you as you continue advancing towards it. It's like you keep getting half way to it, but can't ever get there. Maybe in 100 yrs. everyone will be the best."

You're saying that while the true ability of the top level never changes, the middle and bottom just keeps on getting closer. Essentially what you're saying is that the modern stars won't post as good relative stats, but they're still just as good. This, again, is completely diffferent from everything else you've ever said.

[ThePeach]

My list has complete balance between the eras, I've shown that a number of times. If I'm showing balance, please tell me why the LQ adjustments are too extreme.

When 20 Non-HoF players are ahead of Joe Jackson, and when Joe Morgan is ahead of Lou Gehrig, the adjustments are too extreme. My subjectively chosen top 20 is just as balanced as your statistically chosen top 20.

[ThePeach]

I still think Willie didn't show the brilliance (though I still wonder-trying to steal home 98 times at a 55% or so percentage is NOT smart), because the era in which he played did not allow the players to go wild on the basepaths.

Oh come on, some players have worse records stealing second base. Think Babe Ruth (and then there are worse still).

[Sultan_1895-1948]

blew everyone out of the water

Quick question: anyone know where this saying came from and how far it goes back...just curious :atthepc

[Sultan_1895-1948]

How about give me his 5 years as a hitter IN Fenway

That is why I DO choose Cobb


So you're punishing Ruth for playing in a lefty hitters graveyard for 5 years? How is that his fault? He had 38 road, 11 home during that time.



But you only choose 3 tools

Defense--Cobb
Contact---Cobb
Baseball smarts---Cobb
baserunning--Cobb
Discipline-Cobb (K'd way less then Ruth and walked a good amount for not being so overly pitched around like Ruth at times)


Seems you're just making up tools to suit your boy.

What are the tools. I usually go with six.

Baserunning
Throwing
Average
Power
Fielding
Speed (bonus tool)

Already mentioned Cobb had a huge edge on the bases. Ruth has a huge edge in power.

Average is tricky. You would think Cobb, but given Ruth's chosen style and the averages he put up along with Cobb's all out average style and the average he put up...wash.

Fielding is a difficult one too, although I would give Cobb an edge for career and either call it even at their best or give Ruth a slight edge. There are metrics that show Ruth having a distinct edge in both but I'm just going by my personal feelings. That is not taking into account Cobb played a more difficult position, only how good they each were at theirs.

You chose to throw in "baseball smarts." The edge Cobb there isn't substantial imo. You used contact knowing full well the style Cobb chose would give him that tool. And discipline has to go to Ruth. The patience needed to show on a daily basis was incredible. Nobody wanted to give him anything to hit yet he was being paid to hit homers. Pretty much like Bonds in recent years, only seeing two or three good pitches per game to hit, but Ruth would often go out of the zone to produce.

Lets stick to the standard tools, eh.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I still think Willie didn't show the brilliance (though I still wonder-trying to steal home 98 times at a 55% or so percentage is NOT smart), because the era in which he played did not allow the players to go wild on the basepaths.

Why just focus on this Chris? Its just one small thing. You're griping about him being caught 44 times over a 24 year career where he created 100+ runs 17 times, created 120+ runs 9 times, and created 130+ runs 6 times....

There was a post by somebody awhile ago showing that he wasn't just stealing home with no thoughts about game situation and/or score. He knew what he was doing and as always, was using his head.

[RuthMayBond]

What are the tools. I usually go with six.

Baserunning
Throwing
Average
Power
Fielding
Speed (bonus tool)

Already mentioned Cobb had a huge edge on the bases. Ruth has a huge edge in power.

Average is tricky. You would think Cobb, but given Ruth's chosen style and the averages he put up along with Cobb's all out average style and the average he put up...wash.Geez, gotta defend Imapotato. If you want Ruth's power edge, you have to concede Cobb's edge in average. Ruth's average was great CONSIDERING his power but you can't use that twice, Cobb has the edge in average.

<Fielding is a difficult one too, although I would give Cobb an edge for career and either call it even at their best or give Ruth a slight edge.>

That pretty much covers it all. Maybe there's a reason Ruth was in RF.

<There are metrics that show Ruth having a distinct edge>

I'd like to know where

<That is not taking into account Cobb played a more difficult position>

Which you kinda have to do

<And discipline has to go to Ruth. The patience needed to show on a daily basis was incredible. Nobody wanted to give him anything to hit>

If he was given nothing near the plate he doesn't get a bonus for this, and discipline isn't a tool. And you forgot speed

[westfield]

Hi,
I recently voted for willie mays for greatest player ever. One of the many reasons why was his baserunning skills-which were smart and daring with plenty of attitude. I think his baserunning skills smarts/ability/ heart is every bit as good as anybody alltime- no need to adjust for era either. he could have held his own in any era with any baserunner.
1. Like Cobb- huge leads -would stare down pitchers and dare them to try and pick him off....he made pitchers crazy dancing off 1st or second. Pitcher makes a throwing error-often took two bases.
2. Advance extra base- yes-he was especially adept at this-especially on ground balls to the infield. 1st to third on groundouts.2nd to home on grounders to the right side. 3rd to home on grounders to 3rd. Then of course the "Mays Play"-Mays leads huge off 2nd-ball hit in front of him. He would just stand there and dare the shortstop or third baseman baseman to throw it behind him. if they were dumb enough to throw behind willie mays-he went to third. Throw to 1st to get the runner? went to third. Basically,you did not throw behind willie mays from the outfield or the infield- or he took an extra base.
3. 1st to home on doubles-ended up at home more often than he ended up at third for most of his career.example-1959-on first base 8 times when a double is hit. Scores 7 times from 1st.
4. 1st to home on a Single-saw him do it 4 times. 3 of the times the single was to left field-two of the times it was the winning run. the last time was in 1968 -he was 37 or 38 yrs old. I'd say scoring from 1st on a single shows some attitude/daring.

[RuthMayBond]

4. 1st to home on a Single-saw him do it 4 times. 3 of the times the single was to left field-two of the times it was the winning run. the last time was in 1968 -he was 37 or 38 yrs old. I'd say scoring from 1st on a single shows some attitude/daring.Dang, do you have the dates of these? I'm not sure I have all four instances, thanks

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Geez, gotta defend Imapotato. If you want Ruth's power edge, you have to concede Cobb's edge in average. Ruth's average was great CONSIDERING his power but you can't use that twice, Cobb has the edge in average.

<Fielding is a difficult one too, although I would give Cobb an edge for career and either call it even at their best or give Ruth a slight edge.>

That pretty much covers it all. Maybe there's a reason Ruth was in RF.

<There are metrics that show Ruth having a distinct edge>

I'd like to know where

<That is not taking into account Cobb played a more difficult position>

Which you kinda have to do

<And discipline has to go to Ruth. The patience needed to show on a daily basis was incredible. Nobody wanted to give him anything to hit>

If he was given nothing near the plate he doesn't get a bonus for this, and discipline isn't a tool. And you forgot speed

I wasn't using discipline as a tool. I was pointing out that Imapotato did and if he's going to use that, he's forgetting how Ruth was pitched to.

And I'm not "using" anything twice in regard to average. To not call Ruth's average a "tool" shows your bias. Makes no sense.

Speed is a bonus tool. Cobb's speed aided him in the field, on the bases, helped his average a ton, and helped his power numbers a ton. You want to talk about using something more than twice....geez.

Bottom line: Ruth had 3 ALL TIME career tools and at his best he was very good in two others.

[RuthMayBond]

And I'm not "using" anything twice in regard to average. To not call Ruth's average a "tool" shows your bias. Makes no sense.Ruth's average was impressive but in a faceoff he doesn't beat Cobb in average. Makes even less sense

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Ruth's average was impressive but in a faceoff he doesn't beat Cobb in average. Makes even less sense

Because why...because Cobb was going all out for average and Ruth was not. How you do you not understand that. Babe hit .370+ six times and .350+ eight times AS A SLUGGER and it would be more had he been a full-time outfielder from the start. In his 15 seasons with 100+ games he hit .352. Not giving him that tool...who's not making sense.

[RuthMayBond]

Because why...because Cobb was going all out for average and Ruth was not. How you do you not understand that.Why do you not understand that you're penalizing Cobb for NOT going for power in the power category (which is fine), then UPPING Ruth in the AVG category because he tried for power? Why can't each be better at their specialty?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Why do you not understand that you're penalizing Cobb for NOT going for power in the power category (which is fine), then UPPING Ruth in the AVG category because he tried for power? Why can't each be better at their specialty?

They each are better at their specialty but Ruth's edge in power is much greater than Cobb's edge in average imo. Cobb's speed aided his power.

I see what you're saying though. On their own they could have something as a tool but when comparing two titans like this, somebody has to get the nod in a certain category. Fair enough but its hardly a knock to barely lose a batting average tool to somebody who's game was ALL ABOUT going for average. :mad: ;)

[RuthMayBond]

They each are better at their specialty but Ruth's edge in power is much greater than Cobb's edge in average imo. Cobb's speed aided his power.

I see what you're saying though. On their own they could have something as a tool but when comparing two titans like this, somebody has to get the nod in a certain category. Fair enough but its hardly a knock to barely lose a batting average tool to somebody who's game was ALL ABOUT going for average. :mad: ;)I agree with everything you said. Just don't make yourself look foolish when, if we're talking ONLY about average, to say Ruth did better than Cobb. BTW, Cobb is 13th in relative SLG, Babe is only 28th in relative BA :eek:

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I agree with everything you said. Just don't make yourself look foolish when, if we're talking ONLY about average, to say Ruth did better than Cobb. BTW, Cobb is 13th in relative SLG, Babe is only 28th in relative BA :eek:

I didn't make myself look foolish RMB, I was adjusting for the fact that Ruth was going ALL OUT for power, and Cobb was going ALL OUT for average, and I called is a WASH (not that he was BETTER like you suggested I said).

Yeah, and if you eliminate guys who either played 19th century ball or retired early, the all-time batting average list looks like:

Cobb
(gap for obvious reasons)
Speaker
Williams
Ruth (not bad for a guy with 714/.690 eh?

As for the fielding, see Matt's PCA.

Btw: what's up with the Ruth part of your name? The next time I see you post anything positive about him or exhibit any sort of understanding regarding his style of play and his talents will probably be the first.

[ThePeach]

Yeah, and if you eliminate guys who either played 19th century ball or retired early, the all-time batting average list looks like:

Cobb
(gap for obvious reasons)
Speaker
Williams
Ruth (not bad for a guy with 714/.690 eh?

Where's Hornsby?

[RuthMayBond]

I didn't make myself look foolish RMB, I was adjusting for the fact that Ruth was going ALL OUT for power, and Cobb was going ALL OUT for average.Ruth may have been the most amazing combination, but you can't ADJUST a stat that's supposed to be taken by itself to "win" another category for Babe

<Yeah, and if you eliminate guys who either played 19th century ball or retired early, the all-time batting average list looks like:

Cobb
(gap for obvious reasons)
Speaker
Williams
Ruth (not bad for a guy with 714/.690 eh?>

But you do have to adjust BA for era

<As for the fielding, see Matt's PCA.>

I doubt Matt had ALL THREE possibilities ;)

<Btw: what's up with the Ruth part of your name? The next time I see you post anything positive about him or exhibit any sort of understanding regarding his style of play and his talents will probably be the first.>

I'm just saying don't make Ruth into something that he wasn't (such as a BETTER avg hitter than Cobb when we're ONLY talking average). Ruth doesn't need manipulation to be the best (and you're allowed to talk about his awesome pitching too)

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Where's Hornsby?

Wasn't he basically done at 33 or somethin?

[RuthMayBond]

Wasn't he basically done at 33 or somethin?He basically had almost ten thousand plate apps. Again, Ruth can STILL have a great avg even if he has to stand behind Hornsby in one category, you don't need to twist things

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I'm just saying don't make Ruth into something that he wasn't (such as a BETTER avg hitter than Cobb when we're ONLY talking average). Ruth doesn't need manipulation to be the best (and you're allowed to talk about his awesome pitching too)

Again, and I'M JUST TELLING YOU....I didn't say Ruth was BETTER than Cobb in average, I called it a WASH considering Cobb was going all out for average and Ruth was all out for power. You should know I'm the FIRST one to say he doesn't need manipulation, but anyone who's played ball knows how going for power affects your BA, so for him to do that with that approach, is just as impressive to me as Cobb hitting .367 with his approach. So that's where I was coming from on that.

ps. Don't need his pitching and would prefer to leave it out. Rather him have his first 5 years as a hitter and where his overall career as an outfielder would be viewed much different as well.

[iPod]

No, the style of the game allowed a player's great baserunning skill to shine through. I think Cobb was one of the very best baserunners of all time, certainly. I just think that his era was a time in which he could look much more impressive, while Mays played at a time when it was virtually impossible to be SO impressive on the basepaths.

It goes both ways though. How impressive is 35 home runs in this era, really? It takes 73 home runs, breaking the slugging percentage record, and arguably the biggest scandal in the sport's history for power really to impress us nowadays. If I could go out on a limb, and Bill, feel free to stop me if you disagree... I would guess that Cobb was more famous for his baserunning than anyone today is famous for his power, with the possible exception of Bonds. And remember: this wasn't a situation where people had gotten used to station-to-station baseball, baserunning had taken over, and people mistook this league as simply having better baserunners. You could maybe make that argument about power in today's league, or pitching in the 1960s, but not in this situation. Stealing arguably was at an all-time low during Cobb's day. It fell even further later, but Cobb was wowing a fanbase that had seen nothing but free running.

People occasionally will make arguments sort of like this, but in reverse, against Tony Gwynn and Babe Ruth. They dominated the league in their strengths because their strengths were largely ignored by the rest of the league, the argument goes. How much more impressive would Ruth be if he dominated today's league in home runs?

Throw in the career record for batting average, 3 times leading the league in extra base hits, and his defense, and I could absolutely see how someone could say he's the best ever.

[ThePeach]

Wasn't he basically done at 33 or somethin?

I checked. Hornsby had 8173 ABs for his career. Babe Ruth had 8398 ABs. If you gave Hornsby the exact same ABs as Ruth, but made them ALL outs, he would still have a better batting average then Ruth. :laugh If you're not counting Hornsby, then you canNOT count Ruth either.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

He basically had almost ten thousand plate apps. Again, Ruth can STILL have a great avg even if he has to stand behind Hornsby in one category, you don't need to twist things

You need to get off this kick of yours. I'm not twisting anything. Do a little reading around and you'll see that I'm the last person to twist sh*t and the first to promote what ACTUALLY happened regarding him and his career. So enough of that por favor.

Hornsby's last full season he hit .380 at age 33. His next highest season he played in 100 games and hit .331 as a 35 year old. After that he hardly played any games because he was managing and didn't deal with the grind of a long season and experience the same decline as others deal with. He picked and chose his spots to hit and as a result he hit .326, .304, and .321 in a handful of games each year. He hardly had the type of decline others do. Does that clear things up?

[westfield]

Dang, do you have the dates of these? I'm not sure I have all four instances, thanks

going from memory ..so a little rough

early may in 1961- connie mack stadium cepada single to left
mid july 1968 - candlestick against the astros-think it was a jimmy ray hart single to left
1959 june or july at seals stadium -against the reds. cant remember who hit it but it was a single to right.Giants won 8-5 i think-maybe 7-5?
1966 dodger stadium-september giants won in extra inninngs. single to right.
actually-just remembered one time against the dodgers at the polo grounds. itwas august and the giants won 9-5 or 9-4. It was a single to right.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I checked. Hornsby had 8173 ABs for his career. Babe Ruth had 8398 ABs. If you gave Hornsby the exact same ABs as Ruth, but made them ALL outs, he would still have a better batting average then Ruth. :laugh If you're not counting Hornsby, then you canNOT count Ruth either.

What was Hornsby doing from the ages of 20-24? Oh that's right. Hitting full time and getting tons of AB. Was was Ruth doing? What was Hornsby doing from age 35 on....oh nothing, that's right. Was was Ruth doing; getting tons of AB and experiencing a decline. Look at the bigger picture.

[ThePeach]

What was Hornsby doing from the ages of 20-25? Oh that's right. Hitting full time and getting tons of AB.

OK, Hornsby hit full-time young, then got injured/started to manage/play. Ruth was pitching young, then hit full-time old. So? Some people have more zip as youngsters, and others are like fine wines... who are we to judge what situation was better? Cobb suggested that Ruth, while pitching young, had time to get a "feel" for big league pitching, adjusting his swing until it was grooved well. Hornsby was thrown right into it as a young man. Maybe that was worse? Who knows. They still had relatively close to the same amount of ABs, and Hornsby hit .358 to Ruth's .342. You can discount Jackson, but Hornsby? He had a pretty full career.

EDIT/// what I'm saying is, Hornsby's career length was comparable to Ruth, only they had their times at opposing ends of their careers. It would be unfair to pick and choose what was better.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Cobb suggested that Ruth, while pitching young, had time to get a "feel" for big league ptiching, adjusting his swing until it was groved well.


I know Cobb's take on it, and I don't fully disagree with him, although I think he takes that theory too far. I believe Ruth would have benefitted much more by having a chance to hit and play every day early on; to get into a steady rhythm and gain a feel for how pitchers would work him on a daily basis.



EDIT/// what I'm saying is, Hornsby's career length was comparable to Ruth, only they had their times at opposing ends of their careers. It would be unfair to pick and choose what was better.

Hornsby's last full season was at 33 years old when he hit .380. Do you realize that if Babe retired after '31 he's a .350 hitter and that's including his early attention splitting pitching years. We just have differing opinions on this is all, no big deal. You would add Hornsby to that list based on his career AB totals and I would leave him off considering he stopped "playing" so early.

[cola]

close between mays and cobb.

[538280]

When 20 Non-HoF players are ahead of Joe Jackson, and when Joe Morgan is ahead of Lou Gehrig, the adjustments are too extreme. My subjectively chosen top 20 is just as balanced as your statistically chosen top 20.

No, that is evidence of nothing but your bias. You think that they can't be ahead no matter what, and that makes you think it's too extreme. There is no bias apparent in my LQ adjustments. Even if you disagree with it in some instances, you need to look at the whole picture. The whole picture suggest the LQ adjustments are anything but too extreme.

Joe Morgan rates about 50 points ahead of Lou Gehrig, which at anywhere but the top would be about 50 ranking sports. Even if I made no LQ adjustments at all he'd still probably rank ahead. BP's metrics have Morgan ahead running through James' system with them, James' system, which is only extremely crudely LQ adjusted, has Morgan exactly 2.6 points behind Gehrig :rolleyes:

[538280]

Oh come on, some players have worse records stealing second base. Think Babe Ruth (and then there are worse still).

And Babe Ruth certainly didn't help his teams through his basestealing either. But's it's more costly to get caught stealing home than it is getting caught stealing 2nd. Going 54 for 98 stealing home is NOT a good thing. It's claims like that and Cobb's getting into rundowns intentionally that make me wonder if his baserunning tactics were really all that helpful to his teams.

[ThePeach]

And Babe Ruth certainly didn't help his teams through his basestealing either. But's it's more costly to get caught stealing home than it is getting caught stealing 2nd. Going 54 for 98 stealing home is NOT a good thing. It's claims like that and Cobb's getting into rundowns intentionally that make me wonder if his baserunning tactics were really all that helpful to his teams.

:ughh :ughh

*speechless*

[538280]

:ughh :ughh

*speechless*

No, I do think Cobb was an all time great baserunner. I worded that incorrectly. I just wonder if occansionally his agression didn't cost his teams. His going 54 for 98 stealing home would be an example.

[RuthMayBond]

You need to get off this kick of yours. I'm not twisting anything. Do a little reading around and you'll see that I'm the last person to twist sh*t and the first to promote what ACTUALLY happened regarding him and his career. So enough of that por favor.

Hornsby's last full season he hit .380 at age 33. His next highest season he played in 100 games and hit .331 as a 35 year old. After that he hardly played any games because he was managing and didn't deal with the grind of a long season and experience the same decline as others deal with. He picked and chose his spots to hit and as a result he hit .326, .304, and .321 in a handful of games each year. He hardly had the type of decline others do. Does that clear things up?But you're insinuating a guy with almost 10,000 plate apps had a "short career"

[RogersMaris]

:ughh :ughh

*speechless*

Word from the wise Peach. Don't waste your time with a teenager who never played competitive baseball and learned about baseball via the internet, Bill James, and a bunch of dorks who only understand the game of baseball vicariously through stats. Use that otherwise wasted time to go to games or read a book on baseball history. Maybe the misled kid will follow your lead and get his head on straight someday.

[538280]

Word from the wise Peach. Don't waste your time with a teenager who never played competitive baseball and learned about baseball via the internet, Bill James, and a bunch of dorks who only understand the game of baseball vicariously through stats. Use that otherwise wasted time to go to games or read a book on baseball history. Maybe the misled kid will follow your lead and get his head on straight someday.

Wow, the 2nd person you've insulted in the last 5 minutes. I'm honored to be on your list of people to insult. It seems to be a long one, and that is almost all you do on here anyway.

[BoSox Rule]

I have a hard time believing that 538280 is a stat guy AND knows nothing about baseball history, since his favorite writer, I have to assume (:)) is Bill James.

[W_Marone]

I say Babe Ruth was the best player ever, why? Not only on his hitting alone do I rank him number one, I also rank him number one becuase he was a great pitcher as well. He had 94 wins in the full season he pitched. Had he pitched a full career he could and would have gone into the Hall as a pitcher. Then add in his career numbers, and add in his off the field contributions, yes I say he is the best ever.

[Bill Burgess]

No, the style of the game allowed a player's great baserunning skill to shine through. I think Cobb was one of the very best baserunners of all time, certainly. I just think that his era was a time in which he could look much more impressive, while Mays played at a time when it was virtually impossible to be SO impressive on the basepaths.
What a crock of BS. Where does your act stop? Wills, Brock, Henderson proved that great runners can steal regardless of era. Will your act EVER stop?

Please cease and desist posting on things you know virtually nothing about.

[538280]

What a crock of BS. Where does your act stop? Wills, Brock, Henderson proved that great runners can steal regardless of era. Will your act EVER stop?

Please cease and desist posting on things you know virtually nothing about.

Brock and Henderson both came from eras in which the SB was prevalent, Bill. Don't know what you're talking about here.

[Bill Burgess]

That's the kind of ridiculous behavior on Cobb's part I read about all the time, and I have a hard time believing ANY of it helped his teams. I heard once he supposedly went 54 for 98 stealing home. The 54 times is nice, but the 44 times he got thrown out are far more costly. Almost every linear weights system would show that to be a HORRIBLE thing for his team overall. I still consider Cobb to be an extremely valuable baserunner, but when I read things like this it makes me wonder if his tactics really did anything.

Chris. Stop. Just stop. You're so far over your head that you require a muzzle. Every time you post on Cobb's baserunning, you impress no one, and simply irritate those who are better read than yourself. Stick to what you know and stop all the blowing BS/smoke. It's not amusing anymore to hear how much of your essential reading you blew off. Either hit the books or quit posting on Cobb until you do. You're beyond a Cobb laughing-stock, and you're embarrassing yourself.

I still think Willie didn't show the brilliance (though I still wonder-trying to steal home 98 times at a 55% or so percentage is NOT smart), because the era in which he played did not allow the players to go wild on the basepaths.

If Cobb had NOT been smart, the history books would have painted a VERY different picture. Over 1000 quotes from ALL the right guys can't be wrong. They insisted he was the smartest ever. Collins, Sisler, Huggins, Anson, Stallings, Gleason, Mack, Hanlon, McGraw, Griffith, Briggs, Shibe, Ruth, All the umps, Speaker, Schalk, Cochrane, Pennock, Keeler, Cy Young, and a galaxy more. They all called Ty Cobb the smartest ballplayer they had ever seen. And you want to be thought of as knowing more than all of them put together collectively, who actually saw what we're talking about. Chris, you are absolutely insane. You need to get over yourself and learn what the word humility means, because you haven't a clue.

He won games by stealing home. He had baseeball judgment, and YOU DON'T.

You would not know what was smart in those cases, and HE WOULD. A stat system cannot evaluate a game situation, pitcher fatigue, the chances of the moment, etc. Please stop pretending you can judge things you can't. Not even Matt has your foolish confidence in numbers.

[538280]

Chris. Stop. Just stop. You're so far over your head that you require a muzzle. Every time you post on Cobb's baserunning, you impress no one, and simply irritate those who are better read than yourself. Stick to what you know and stop all the blowing BS/smoke. It's not amusing anymore to hear how much of your essential reading you blew off. Either hit the books or quit posting on Cobb until you do. You're beyond a Cobb laughing-stock, and you're embarrassing yourself.

It seems to me that anything negative posted about Cobb needs to be refuted by you. I HAVE read parts of your files on Cobb. Everytime I read it I feel I have to take it with a grain of salt. Now please tell me why going 54 for 98 stealing home is helpful for a team.


If Cobb had NOT been smart, the history books would have painted a VERY different picture. Over 1000 quotes from ALL the right guys can't be wrong. They insisted he was the smartest ever. Collins, Sisler, Huggins, Anson, Stallings, Gleason, Mack, Hanlon, McGraw, Griffith, Briggs, Shibe, Ruth, and a galaxy more.

I've seen these quotes. They refer to Cobb as a great baserunner, for sure, and I do not doubt that he was. If I came off that way earlier it was because of poor wording on my part. I said that often I think the extreme excitement generated by Cobb's actions may have blinded people to what is was ACTUALLY doing for the team. I've seen his going 54 for 98 stealing home being brought up by you as if it's a good thing.


He won games by stealing home. He had baseeball judgment, and YOU DON'T.

I have no doubts he may have won a few games stealing home. But a few isolated incidents do not make his exploits in stealing home all that valuable. If you can show me when exactly every one of those 98 attempts occured, as well as the situation in those 44 times which he got caught, and it does turn out he was using smart judgement, then I'll agree it's a good thing. But until then all I can do it look at it in a vacuum, and looking at it that way getting caught stealing there is EXTREMELY costly.


You would not know what was smart in those cases, and HE WOULD. A stat system cannot evaluate a game situation, pitcher fatigue, the chances of the moment, etc. Please stop pretending you can judge things you can't. Not even Matt has your foolish confidence in numbers.

I agree with you here, and that is why I do not always trust linear weights when applied to SBs. But I need you to show me the exact instances in which he attempted to steal home before I believe you.

[Bill Burgess]

Brock and Henderson both came from eras in which the SB was prevalent, Bill. Don't know what you're talking about here.
Stealing is not a function of era, but talent/inclination.

Both Aparicio, Mays, Minoso, Ashburn showed that bases could be stolen if the runner had an inclination to do so.

Never bought the premise that 'the game wasn't played that way'. If one man can do it, anyone else can. Managers wouldn't discourage a runner from running if he had the talent. Wills proved that for all time. Jackie Robinson ran. Managers only discourage it when they fear the runner lacks the gift.

Mantle was feared he'd hurt his injury-prone legs. DiMag could have ran but he never was perceived as a Cobb.

[538280]

Stealing is not a function of era, but talent.

Both Aparicio, Mays, Minoso, Ashburn showed that bases could be stolen if the runner had an inclination to do so.

Never bought the premise that 'the game wasn't played that way'. If one man can do it, anyone else can. Managers wouldn't discourage a runner from running if he had the talent. Wills proved that for all time. Jackie Robinson ran. Managers only discourage it when they fear the runner lacks the gift.

Mantle was feared he'd hurt his injury-prone legs. DiMag could have ran but he never was perceived as a Cobb.

No, I disagree. The SB wasn't stressed at the time, so they didn't do it. You saying this basically implies that no one from 1930-1960 had any skill for basestealing.

[Bill Burgess]

No, I disagree. The SB wasn't stressed at the time, so they didn't do it. You saying this basically implies that no one from 1930-1960 had any skill for basestealing.
Running wasn't stressed in the 50's, true, but Aparicio proved that it could be done. Mays too to a lesser extent. If Wills had played then, he could have proven it too, for all time.

Wills stole 102 in '61, and Willie had no excuse by then, yet he didn't go for them. He did some, but he just didn't want to do more. That was his choice. Running is a hard thing, and maybe he wanted to spare himself from trying for 60+ steals. I'm not calling Willie wrong in his decision to not go for big SB numbers, but when you say he could have been another Cobb if he played in the deadball, I can't see why he would have been any more inclined to run than he was in the 50's. Why didn't he go as often as Luis Aparicio?

[538280]

Running wasn't stressed in the 50's, true, but Aparicio proved that it could be done. Mays too to a lesser extent. If Wills had played then, he could have proven it too, for all time.

Aparicio stole, but he did not put up SB totals like people had in the past. He led the league because others weren't doing it. I feel if he played in an era where it was more stressed and encouraged, he would have done it more. Mays too.

Also, Bill, please be aware that in my system I do give Cobb more baserunning credit than Mays. I do this because my method is primarily value based, and while I do think Mays would have probably been just as good in the deadball era, Cobb did contribute more value on the basepaths. So I give him more baserunning points. This doesn't change the end result though.


Wills stole 102 in '61, and Willie had no excuse by then, yet he didn't go for them. He did some, but he just didn't want to do more. That was his choice. Running is a hard thing, and maybe he wanted to spare himself from trying for 60+ steals. I'm not calling Willie wrong in his decision to not go for big SB numbers, but when you say he could have been another Cobb if he played in the deadball, I can't see why he would have been any more inclined to run than he was in the 50's. Why didn't he go as often as Luis Aparicio?

He didn't go because it wasn't stressed. In the deadball era in order to be one of the best you had to steal. Willie would have done it then. By the time Wills supposedly brought back the SB Mays was already in his 30s, when it spread through the league he was in his mid 30s.

[RuthMayBond]

What a crock of BS. Where does your act stop? Wills, Brock, Henderson proved that great runners can steal regardless of era. Will your act EVER stop?

Please cease and desist posting on things you know virtually nothing about.What is with you guys tonight? :ughh :hp

[leecemark]

Running wasn't stressed in the 50's, true, but Aparicio proved that it could be done. Mays too to a lesser extent. If Wills had played then, he could have proven it too, for all time.

Wills stole 102 in '61, and Willie had no excuse by then, yet he didn't go for them. He did some, but he just didn't want to do more. That was his choice. Running is a hard thing, and maybe he wanted to spare himself from trying for 60+ steals. I'm not calling Willie wrong in his decision to not go for big SB numbers, but when you say he could have been another Cobb if he played in the deadball, I can't see why he would have been any more inclined to run than he was in the 50's. Why didn't he go as often as Luis Aparicio?


--Mays lead the league 4 years in a row in the 50s. He WAS running as much as anybody thought it prudent to - or had considered it good strategy for 30 years. When Wills brought the stolen base back into the lime light Mays was already 30 - which coincidentally was the age Cobb last led the league in stolen bases. Base running critical to Cobb's game and yet his last 30 SB season was at age 31.
--Faulting Mays for not changing his game to copy Maury Wills is at least as nonsensical as faulting Cobb for not changing his game to copy Babe Ruth. Probably moreso since adding power after age 30 is a common adaptation, while turning on the jets on the bathpaths is most definately not.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

But you're insinuating a guy with almost 10,000 plate apps had a "short career"

I laid out my reasoning RMB. You can disagree with it all you want, but that is my opinion. He would go on the list of guys who stopped playing at a premature age and never fully experienced a decline. One look at his baseball-reference sheet will show you how I come to that conclusion.

[leecemark]

--Hornsby didn't play that much as an older player and so didn't suffer the full effects of his declining years in his rate stats. That doesn't mean he had a short career though. His career was of above average length in terms of playing time. He just got alot of time in as a young player to make up for his limited duty as an old one.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Stealing is not a function of era, but talent.

And not only talent, but desire. Desire to work on the art. Studying and paying attention to several small factors that all add up to you having a better chance at success when you decide to steal. There have been fast players that never bothered to work on the art and there have been guys without blazing speed who pick and choose their spots wisely because they've done their homework (see Beltran). Its a choice.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--Hornsby didn't play that much as an older player and so didn't suffer the full effects of his declining years in his rate stats. That doesn't mean he had a short career though. His career was of above average length in terms of playing time. He just got alot of time in as a young player to make up for his limited duty as an old one.

B--I--N--G--O

[leecemark]

And not only talent, but desire. Desire to work on the art. Studying and paying attention to several small factors that all add up to you having a better chance at success when you decide to steal. There have been fast players that never bothered to work on the art and there have been guys without blazing speed who pick and choose their spots wisely because they've done their homework (see Beltran). Its a choice.


--It is also a function of era and team style. You'll read many quotes about Joe DiMaggio being the best baserunner of his generation (whether there is any truth to that or not I don't know, but it was often said by many people) and he virtually never stole a base. Not only did the league in general steal very few bases during his career but the Yankees (wisely) were even less interested in doing so. That mind set was still dominating baseball when Mays came up. He was running as much and as effectively as his team desired (or probably would have allowed) him to do.
--If Cobb had started his career in 1951 it is VERY unlikely he would have stolen anywhere near as many bases as he did in his own time. And it is certain he wouldn't have been able to practice his other disruptive baserunning tricks.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--It is also a function of era and team style. You'll read many quotes about Joe DiMaggio being the best baserunner of his generation (whether there is any truth to that or not I don't know, but it was often said by many people) and he virtually never stole a base. Not only did the league in general steal very few bases during his career but the Yankees (wisely) were even less interested in doing so. That mind set was still dominating baseball when Mays came up. He was running as much and as effectively as his team desired (or probably would have allowed) him to do.
--If Cobb had started his career in 1951 it is VERY unlikely he would have stolen anywhere near as many bases as he did in his own time. And it is certain he wouldn't have been able to practice his other disruptive baserunning tricks.

I stand by what I said 100%.

[AstrosFan]

Running wasn't stressed in the 50's, true, but Aparicio proved that it could be done. Mays too to a lesser extent. If Wills had played then, he could have proven it too, for all time.

Wills stole 102 in '61, and Willie had no excuse by then, yet he didn't go for them. He did some, but he just didn't want to do more. That was his choice. Running is a hard thing, and maybe he wanted to spare himself from trying for 60+ steals. I'm not calling Willie wrong in his decision to not go for big SB numbers, but when you say he could have been another Cobb if he played in the deadball, I can't see why he would have been any more inclined to run than he was in the 50's. Why didn't he go as often as Luis Aparicio?

It was 1962, and it was 104 steals.

I don't think the ability to steal changed much over the years. The skill might have, with players practicing it less, so players of the deadball era were probably better base stealers, adjusting for the CS rates. If you took Willie Mays, or even Luis Aparicio, and put them in the deadball era, they wouldn't put up the SB numbers Cobb did. But if those two had been trained on deadball era methods, they certainly had the speed and smarts to be up there.

[leecemark]

--Guys stole alot more bases in the deadball era, but their methods weren't neccessarily better. The caught stealing rates, so far as we've been able to determine, were awfull. Even the great Cobb's rates were mediocore by modern standards. I don't see any reason to believe Mays wouldn't have stole as many or more bases had he come up in a similar run wild type environment.

[AstrosFan]

I wasn't really arguing that the methods were better, just that if you adjusted the CS rates as well as the SB rates from all years to a historic norm, the players from the deadball era would come out ahead of the 1950s-60s players, since they practiced the art more often.
But that's just a guess. I have no proof, and I can't really try to prove it, since caught stealing is missing for so many years of early baseball. The point I was trying to make is really no point at all.

[westfield]

i dont think great baserunning or great baserunners need to be put into era adjustment or context-you either have the talent, smarts, and nerve to take or create the extra base or you dont...Cobb and Mays did(so did Jackie Robinson). I do think Mays' baserunning skills are sometimes overlooked because of all the other things he did so well. One person who did not overlook Mays' baserunning was...Ty Cobb. Cobb is quoted as saying that Mays restored the art of baserunning to baseball...high praise from the master himself.
However, I think Basestealing should be put into some kind of context for era, league, and the team one is playing for..... for Mays take a look at the Giants teams of 1955 thru 1960 for one good reason why he started stealing
bases, and look at the teams he is playing on in the early to late 60's when he
stopped stealing bases.
Era and league adjustment/context regarding Mays basestealing -in 1956 when he stole 40 bases it was the 1st time in decades since a national leaguer had stole 40 or more bases. It was nearly double the amount of steals of anybody in either league. Additionally, his 40 steals accounted for more than 10% of the league total(think he had 10% of league total as well in 1957).

[Bill Burgess]

He didn't go because it wasn't stressed. In the deadball era in order to be one of the best you had to steal. Willie would have done it then. By the time Wills supposedly brought back the SB Mays was already in his 30s, when it spread through the league he was in his mid 30s.
You just accidentally proved my point. Wills did it even though it wasn't 'stressed'. So could Willie have. Why didn't Willie 'bring it back', if he was so darned Cobb-like in his running?

Maury Wills proved it didn't matter. The depressed 60's 'deadball' style wasn't in effect in 1961. Brock and Henderson didn't care if it was in style! They didn't wait for someone else to 'bring it back'. Your point isn't well-taken, Chris.

And when Cobb ran, no one else was running as often as he. He didn't wait for others to show the way, or set the style. HE set the style.

If I sound really harsh with you in recent days, it's because he have really hit a nerve with your under-read musings.

I consider Cobb's running the glory of the game, with Wagner's all-around play next, and Babe's slugging a close 3rd.

Many of his peers opined that his running was his strongest skill, even more than his amazing hitting. And I agree. They used to say, "Let's go to the park today and see what Ty will do."

He so energized the fans that it instituted a huge round of ballpark building. That started in 1909, and continued throughout, so popular was the game at the time, and he was the most luminous star.

So when you opine that you wonder if his running helped his teams at all, I really lose it. I shouldn't have insulted you so much, but your obstinancy, in the face of your illiteracy concerning Ty boy is infuriating to better read Ty scholars.

I have countless quotes but you must bear in mind, Chris, that I can only use so many. Even in my Assessing Ty file, I can only use so many. I only use those quotes that say, unequivacobly, "I consider TC the greatest ever."

I have tons of softer quotes that I will not use, as they allow wiggle room. I only use the hardest quotes.

When I post them on Fever, I am constrained by space. I have so many quotes on his running that I lack space to put them.

You pound away on his 54 for 98 home steals. You question his judgment, wondering if he hurt his teams chances. He was the best person to consider the odds. For ANYONE to question his judgment is presuming you know the odds of those moments better than he. And I find that amusing. You don't.

Cobb played baseball obsessively from the age of 10. So he had a lot of experience in the game.

[Bill Burgess]

--Mays lead the league 4 years in a row in the 50s. He WAS running as much as anybody thought it prudent to - or had considered it good strategy for 30 years. When Wills brought the stolen base back into the lime light Mays was already 30 - which coincidentally was the age Cobb last led the league in stolen bases. Base running critical to Cobb's game and yet his last 30 SB season was at age 31.
--Faulting Mays for not changing his game to copy Maury Wills is at least as nonsensical as faulting Cobb for not changing his game to copy Babe Ruth. Probably moreso since adding power after age 30 is a common adaptation, while turning on the jets on the bathpaths is most definately not.
You're missing my point. I'm questioning why Mays wasn't the Wills of the 50's. If Wills brought it back, proving it wasn't a function of era, what was Willie problem? After all, Chris' point is that Willie would have been a Cobb back in the day.

[Bill Burgess]

For what it's worth, here are 2 remarks Ty said of Willie Mays.

1953 - While entertaining a 12 yr. old visitor, at his home in Atherton, CA, Ty made these remarks. Pointing to a photo of Tris Speaker, "That is Tris Speaker. Don't let anyone tell you I was not a good fielder; I was. But I could not compare to this man. Nor could anyone. The closest I have seen to him are the DiMaggio boys, [I assume he meant Joe and Dom] and the Negro who played for the Giants but is now in the Army. [Mays?] But Speaker is the best." (In the Shadow of the Babe: Interviews with Baseball Players Who Played With or Against Babe Ruth, by Brent Kelley, 1995, pp. 10)

Before his death in 1961, Ty declared, "Mays is the only man in baseball, I'd pay to see play." (Baltimore Afro-American, Saturday, August 20, 1966, pp. 18, column 5. "New Wave of Expletives greet Mays' homer feat, by Sam Lacy)

[ThePeach]

Before his death in 1961, Ty declared, "Mays is the only man in baseball, I'd pay to see play." (Baltimore Afro-American, Saturday, August 20, 1966, pp. 18, column 5. "New Wave of Expletives greet Mays' homer feat, by Sam Lacy)

Hillarious after hearing so many people call him a strong racist.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Cobb WAS a racist. He was a rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth, venomous racist.

But it bothers me that memories of him have become so occluded by this one aspect of his complex personality, that he's become remembered as an almost cartoonish villain, and that the idea his racism was amenable to change, as opposed to rock-solid and immutable, is incomprehensible to many people who have an almost personal stake in condemning the man as sports' all-time ultimate villain.

I've read three Cobb bios over my now 47+ years of studying baseball history, the best of which, by far, was History Professor Charles Alexander's book--written with help from baseball historians, so one gets the benefit of Alexander's erudition, outstanding writing skills and sense of history, along with some genuine baseball historians' work. And I've read one outstanding Tris Speaker bio, that of Timothy Gay... a real no-holds-barred, no-warts-covered book. I will tell you this:

It is my belief Speaker's racial, religious and national hatreds were both broader and deeper than Cobb's. This is a fact nobody ever addresses because Cobb, even though he never helped throw the 6th game of a World Series (compare Speaker, Game 6, 1912), makes a much handier one-dimensional, cartoon-like villain than Speaker does. But it's still a fact.

A N D . . . .

With Gay's outstanding bio of Speaker being so broadly read and reviewed in baseball history circles, folks like us now know that for all of Speaker's rabid bigotries and hatreds in his young adult years, the 60-year-old version of Speaker was a far different person. At age 60, for the sake of the Cleveland Indian team he once pulled from out of nowhere and player-managed to the 1920 World Series championship, and to (god only knows how) keep close to the 1926 Yankees until season's end, he spent many one-on-one hours converting Larry Doby, the American League's Jackie Robinson, from a 2Bman into a CF.

As a young man, Speaker was both fanatically bigoted enough and a bad enough teammate that his bigotries helped sow dissension on the great Red Sox teams into which young Babe Ruth stepped. I see absolutely no way a selfish bigot of that magnitude would ever have given Doby such lessons "for the good of the team." But the 60-year-old version of that dumb-ass young cracker did exactly that, to the great benefit of the Indians, who won the 1948 World Series and the 1954 pennant with a 111-43 record.

If Tris Speaker, of all people, could change like that, then why on Earth are people so loath to believe Cobb could change like that? Cobb's change was, in my opinion, a significantly LESSER change than the one Speaker underwent. But the cartoonishly depraved perception people have of Cobb--like the notion Ruth was a blimp from age 3 on--is so deeply instilled that the idea he could do what Speaker did, even though it represented a less far-reaching personal change than Speaker's, seems inconceivable to many people. It requires for many of them the diminution of a personal hatred they're not willing to diminish.

Baseball History Nut

[iPod]

With 2 out stealing of home might not be a bad play, it you're good enough to make it 55% of the time. If Wahoo Sam was batting behind him, he'd bat .300 or so, and if you've got a 55% chance of getting home on your own why leave it to someone who has only a 30% chance? Granted, Crawford could drive in 2 runs if a man is on second, or he could walk, but still, it's not necessarily a bad play.

What % of runners on third got stranded in Cobb's day? The other chance of it being a good play overall, other than saying the steals of home weren't independently and identically distributed, is if the chance on average of getting stranded is greater than 45%. I think it's lower than this but how much lower?

[Bill Burgess]

2 rather interesting tid-bits from Cobb's early days. Might surprise, or not.

And here is that evidence on the other side of the aisle.
1926 - Larry Brown, the great defensive Negro League catcher, 1919-1949, tells of a story about Ty. He says that while he was a member of the Detroit Stars in 1926, he went to Havana, Cuba to play ball there that winter. He says that Ty was there and that he threw Ty out 5 times in succession. After the game, he alleges that Ty offered to try to introduce him to the MLs and pass him off as a Cuban. Brown says he passed on the idea, due to the fact that he was so very well known all around the US as a member of the Detroit Stars. But this story is insisted on by Larry Brown himself. (Voices From The Great Black Baseball Leagues, by John Holway, 1975, pp. 207-209)

1929 - Negro League infielder Bobby Robinson, claims that while he was a member of the Negro League team, the Detroit Stars, 1929-31, Ty once paid them a visit, and sat next to him on the bench, and talked baseball the whole time. Here's the quote from the book.

"Former semipro and Negro League infielder Bobby Robinson (1916-44) told the author (Nick C. Wilson) that on one occasion he was surprised by a visit from Ty Cobb. He remembered that Cobb came to watch a game played by the Negro League Detroit Stars in the 1920s. Before the game was over Cobb had migrated down in to the Stars' dugout and sat next to Robinson, talking baseball the entire time. Robinson recalled that there wasn't a hint of prejudice in Cobb's attitude that day. They were just two ballplayers sharing stories." (Voices from the Pastime: Oral Histories of Surviving Major Leaguers, Negro Leaguers, Cuban Leaguers and Writers; 1920–1934, Nick C. Wilson, 2000, pp. 113)

[Sultan_1895-1948]

But the cartoonishly depraved perception people have of Cobb--like the notion Ruth was a blimp from age 3 on--is so deeply instilled that the idea he could do what Speaker did, even though it represented a lot less far-reaching personal change, seems inconceivable to so many people, and requires for many of them the diminishing of a personal hatred they're not willing to diminish.


Good point BHN.

[Bill Burgess]

Jim,

Racism/prejudice is a strange thing. That racists/prejudiced people were able to do many acts of kindness for those they were prejudiced against is one of the things that makes it so difficult to discuss.

Bill

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Jim,

Racism/prejudice is a strange thing. That racists/prejudiced people were able to do many acts of kindness for those they were prejudiced against is one of the things that makes it so difficult to discuss.

Bill

We often hear people say that racism was the norm back then, hopefully not to excuse those who held these beliefs, but to simply put things in context. We have come quite a ways.

Before the '25 season in Knoxville, Babe hit an exhibition home run to the opposite field. It was quite a blast that landed up in a tree that was occupied by several African American children. It hit a branch and sent the kids jumping from the tree in hopes of retrieving it.

How far have we come....?

This was 1925 in the south. Reports from that game were written for people in the north where things were supposed to be a little different.

From Big Bam, here are the reports

New York Times, unknown writer who handled the situation straight up...
"The nice white ball left the bat as if it had been shot from a cannon mouth, cleared the left centre field wall by thirty feet and knocked a limb off a dead tree from which a dozen boys were watching the game. Luckily it was not the limb on which they were sitting, but a smaller one some ten feet above their heads."

New York Evening World's Bozeman Bulger - Writing a few years later about the home run in the Saturday Evening Post, calling it "Ruth's funniest Home Run." - His lame attempt....

"Outside the park of Knoxville was a venerable oak tree...its great spreading limbs were crowded with little darkies perilously perched for a view of the hero. The picture from a distance was that of a tree full of blackbirds...even before the ball struck, darkies began dropping from the limbs...The game was interrupted while the crowd roared with laughter...'Boy, I'm tellin you,' exclaimed one of the Brooklyn players, a Southerner, 'that tree fairly rained pickaninnies for the next half hour."

Marshall Hunt of the Daily News, writing the next day...

"Lines of mahogany-hued humanity perched ape-like on the branches of a huge and stark elm tree outside of Caswell Park were imperiled this afternoon by your Herman Ruth, though not, assuredly, by any homicidal intent. Mr. Ruth declares with vehemence he bosoms no animosity against mahogany-hued humanity of any shade or proportions, temerament or previous conditions of servitude.

Six senegambians, clinging to the branches of that tree almost were shaken to earth like ripe apples today when a virile, he-man, honest-to-goodness home run was made by your Herman, his third in two days. The ball cleared the left field fence by twenty feet in the fifth inning of a game with Brooklyn's Dodgers, struck the tree resoundingly and brittle branches beat the senegambians to the ground by only a fraction of a second."

"This was 1925 humor. Nobody thought anything about it. Or at least nobody said anything. The next stop was Asheville, North Carolina." - Leigh Montville

We've come quite a ways.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

--Guys stole alot more bases in the deadball era, but their methods weren't neccessarily better. The caught stealing rates, so far as we've been able to determine, were awfull. Even the great Cobb's rates were mediocore by modern standards. I don't see any reason to believe Mays wouldn't have stole as many or more bases had he come up in a similar run wild type environment.

This is true, but there are three years from the heart of Cobb's and Speaker's careers for which SB's and CS's are available, and there are huge differences between the two men. Cobb's rates of success were OK. Speaker's were awful. Cobb was not merely a prolific basestealer, but a good one, as well as an excellent baserunner in other contexts, as Bill pointed out recently.

I didn't rate this guy #3, and in a virtual tie with my #2, Willie Mays, just to appease this site's huge Cobb section. Nor did I write my piece about his overstated racism, vis-a-vis Speaker's far greater racism, for such a purpose. Cobb was a legitimately tremendous player whose degree of greatness has been forgotten in most baseball circles because his degree of evil has been cartoonishly overstated.

He was, after all, THE person who financially supported the great Mickey Cochrane and the not-so-great Ray Schalk after they fell on brutal times in their final years. That fact gets little ink because it doesn't square with the Natasha and Boris image of The Georgia Peach.

BHN

[leecemark]

--Yes Cobb's rates were "okay" by modern standards and he WAS the best baserunner/stealer of his time. The question is how does that stack up against the guys who came along later.
--Cobb's racism is of absolutely irrelevant in evaluating him as a baseball player. Baseball was racist when Cobb played and there were no blacks in baseball for Cobb's issues with race to interfere with his game or his team. His problems getting along with members of his own race, who were his teammates (and opponents and umpires, etc) do give him at least a small (and it could be large depending on how you feel about such things) downward bump. Tyrus did not play well with others.

[538280]

You just accidentally proved my point. Wills did it even though it wasn't 'stressed'. So could Willie have. Why didn't Willie 'bring it back', if he was so darned Cobb-like in his running?

Maury Wills proved it didn't matter. The depressed 60's 'deadball' style wasn't in effect in 1961. Brock and Henderson didn't care if it was in style! They didn't wait for someone else to 'bring it back'. Your point isn't well-taken, Chris.

Well, if you expect Mays to go like Maury Wills did, start it up on his own, they why shouldn't I hold it to Cobb to hit like Babe Ruth? You're contradicting yourself on every turn, Bill.


And when Cobb ran, no one else was running as often as he. He didn't wait for others to show the way, or set the style. HE set the style.

While Cobb was the best basestealer of his day, it's flat out wrong to say he was the only one doing it. Cobb set a record with 76 SBs in 1909, Eddie Collins broke it the next year with 81. Cobb broke it again in 1911 with 83. Then Clyde Milan stole 88 in 1912, setting the record. Cobb broke it with 96 in 1915 and it was his until Lou Brock. Cobb was the best of his time, but it was probably the #1 basestealing time in the history of the game.


If I sound really harsh with you in recent days, it's because he have really hit a nerve with your under-read musings.

I consider Cobb's running the glory of the game, with Wagner's all-around play next, and Babe's slugging a close 3rd.

Many of his peers opined that his running was his strongest skill, even more than his amazing hitting. And I agree. They used to say, "Let's go to the park today and see what Ty will do."

This is what I mean. I still call Ty Cobb one of the greatest baserunners of all time, but it's things like this and the 54 for 98 stealing home that make me wonder. They say they want to watch what Ty will do, well it certainly may have been something unbelieveably exciting and fun to watch, but what did it actually do for his teams? That's what I'm looking for, not how exciting he was. Today Ichiro is lots and lots of fun to watch hit. I love to do it, but I realize that what he's doing is not extremely valuable.


He so energized the fans that it instituted a huge round of ballpark building. That started in 1909, and continued throughout, so popular was the game at the time, and he was the most luminous star.

I could use this argument for tons of players. It was Reggie Jackson's holding out for salaries and hitting 3 HRs in 1977 (justifying his huge contract he signed before the year in eyes of baseball men) that made baseball salaries escalate, and started the HUGE attendance boom that began in the late 1970s.


So when you opine that you wonder if his running helped his teams at all, I really lose it. I shouldn't have insulted you so much, but your obstinancy, in the face of your illiteracy concerning Ty boy is infuriating to better read Ty scholars.

I have countless quotes but you must bear in mind, Chris, that I can only use so many. Even in my Assessing Ty file, I can only use so many. I only use those quotes that say, unequivacobly, "I consider TC the greatest ever."

I have tons of softer quotes that I will not use, as they allow wiggle room. I only use the hardest quotes.

When I post them on Fever, I am constrained by space. I have so many quotes on his running that I lack space to put them.

This is another reason why I take everything you say on Cobb with a grain of salt. For example, on the Cobb vs. Mays thread you provided quotes about Cobb's fielding. Most of them said somethign like "He never was though to be such a great fielder, but I thought he was very, very good", or somethign like that. Well, if he wasn't though of as such a good fielder, like all those guys said, there HAD to be some quotes to the contrary, saying he wasn't so good in the field. You never show those to us.


You pound away on his 54 for 98 home steals. You question his judgment, wondering if he hurt his teams chances. He was the best person to consider the odds. For ANYONE to question his judgment is presuming you know the odds of those moments better than he. And I find that amusing. You don't.

In that era players were getting caught stealing ALL THE TIME. The mindset was different. Looking at the way the game was played then, we know now that stealing so many bases at such a low percentage was NOT a good way to play the game. People at that time were somethign caught up by the excitement of the steal, and all that. Unless you can show me the specific instances in which he tried to steal home, I will not think that that's a good thing at all.

[ThePeach]

Well, if you expect Mays to go like Maury Wills did, start it up on his own, they why shouldn't I hold it to Cobb to hit like Babe Ruth? You're contradicting yourself on every turn, Bill.

He does hold it against Cobb.


This is what I mean. I still call Ty Cobb one of the greatest baserunners of all time, but it's things like this and the 54 for 98 stealing home that make me wonder. They say they want to watch what Ty will do, well it certainly may have been something unbelieveably exciting and fun to watch, but what did it actually do for his teams? That's what I'm looking for, not how exciting he was. Today Ichiro is lots and lots of fun to watch hit. I love to do it, but I realize that what he's doing is not extremely valuable.

iPod made an excellent point; even if it was a pure numbers game, and Cobb made it 55% of the time (better then some runners going to second), then it still seems worth it. Afterall, NO batter has ever had a 55% chance of getting a hit. If it came down to the best batter in the world (well, it couldn't have since Cobb was on thirdbase, but pretend), or playing the odds with Cobb stealing home, it's much more valuble to set him loose.


In that era players were getting caught stealing ALL THE TIME. The mindset was different. Looking at the way the game was played then, we know now that stealing so many bases at such a low percentage was NOT a good way to play the game. People at that time were somethign caught up by the excitement of the steal, and all that. Unless you can show me the specific instances in which he tried to steal home, I will not think that that's a good thing at all.

May 12, 1911, NY 5, Det 6 (7th inning)
April 20, 1912, Det 6, Clev 5 (1st)
May 20, 1913, Det 8, Phi 7 (3rd)
Aug 25, 1913, Det 6, Was 5 (5th)
July 9, 1918, Det 5, Phi 4 (5th)
Apr 22, 1924, Chi 3, Det 4 (3rd)
Apr 27, 1924, Chi 3, Det 4 (5th)
Apr 26, 1927, Phi 9, Bos 8 (7th)

I don't have all of them, but of the ones I had, I posted where Cobb's team won by only one run.

[leecemark]

--Do you have the caught stealings where the Tigers lost? If Cobb was on third with 2 outs that is the only situation where 55% is a good percentage. Even then it is only good if you really need the one run since, while it improves the odds of scoring that run, it hurts the odds of scoring more than one.

[538280]

iPod made an excellent point; even if it was a pure numbers game, and Cobb made it 55% of the time (better then some runners going to second), then it still seems worth it. Afterall, NO batter has ever had a 55% chance of getting a hit. If it came down to the best batter in the world (well, it couldn't have since Cobb was on thirdbase, but pretend), or playing the odds with Cobb stealing home, it's much more valuble to set him loose.

No, this is not true at all. IPod's point would only work if there were two outs and they absolutely needed the one run. Overall stealing home is almost never a good move unless you make it almost all the time. Linear weights have shown this as well.


May 12, 1911, NY 5, Det 6 (7th inning)
April 20, 1912, Det 6, Clev 5 (1st)
May 20, 1913, Det 8, Phi 7 (3rd)
Aug 25, 1913, Det 6, Was 5 (5th)
July 9, 1918, Det 5, Phi 4 (5th)
Apr 22, 1924, Chi 3, Det 4 (3rd)
Apr 27, 1924, Chi 3, Det 4 (5th)
Apr 26, 1927, Phi 9, Bos 8 (7th)

I don't have all of them, but of the ones I had, I posted where Cobb's team won by only one run.

In all of those games when Cobb stole home his team was up by one run. Trying to steal home when your team is up by one run is NOT a good move AT ALL.

[Bill Burgess]

Here are some CS percentages for Cobb, Speaker, Collins, Milan.
The official records of Total Baseball do not list CS for 1912, but a piece in the Los Angeles Times does list them. (LA Times, January 26, 1913, pp. VIII 7) Got it via Proquest.

--------Cobb------------Speaker--------Collins-----------Milan
Year---SB------%--------SB-------%-----SB-----%--------SB-----%
1912---61-34-64.2%-----52-28-65.0%----63-22-74.1%-----88-31-73.9%
1914---35-17-67.3%-----42-29-59.1%----58-30-65.9%-----38-21-64.4%
1915---96-38-71.6%-----29-25-53.7%----46-30-60.5%-----40-19-67.7%
1916---68-24-73.9%-----35-27-56.4%----40-21-65.5%-----34-21-61.8%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

If you take the time to bother to notice, Ty's success rate was improving, showing he was getting better at his craft, stronger, more polished. I'd love to see his CS rates for 1917-19. This shows he was a better % stealer than the leading base stealers of his time. He had 2 seasons with better than 70% success. Speaker/Milan only once. But I concede, it doesn't prove the case.

The question has been asked, why don't we show the cases where Cobb was put out at home? If we had the data, we would show it. But in the past, I did post to the effect that when Cobb's team had a big lead, he run wild, to unnerve the opponent, for next time.

Is it such a stretch, just because we lack the documentation, that Cobb tried to steal home in such occasions, when the game was NOT in balance. When nothing was at stake? If he was thrown out, it didn't hurt his team, threw the other team into emotional disarray?

It was his stated intention to cause the opponent tension, to create errors for NEXT TIME. He wanted them to remember him as an irrational, unpredictable wild card. He wanted to be the X factor, the wild card in the deck. He was NOT intending to let them catch him. Someone posted that he let them tag him. He DID NOT. He never let anyone put him out.

On the other hand, he didn't care if they did, when his team was way ahead. He would learn what the catcher's arm was like under pressure, the pitcher's pick-off move, the fielder's tag, he could experiment with new slides, measure their nerve, learn who covered 2B in certain situations, etc. In other words, it was an exploratory expedition, and the unnerving of the opponent was an added bonus.

We do know that he won quite a few games by stealing home. And with his 55% success rate being better than any man's BA or onbase rate, it WAS a better percentage play than his cynics are trying to make it out to be.

Why was it not a better percentage move, if it was better than the chances of the batter getting a hit, or getting on?

[RuthMayBond]

No, this is not true at all. IPod's point would only work if there were two outs and they absolutely needed the one run. Overall stealing home is almost never a good move unless you make it almost all the time. Linear weights have shown this as well.



In all of those games when Cobb stole home his team was up by one run. Trying to steal home when your team is up by one run is NOT a good move AT ALL.Wrong. What does a player have a chance of getting on safely, maybe 40% of the time? And a walk won't bring the guy home from 3rd. If you got two out and can steal home 54% of the time, that's a smart move. Awesome move if it's a tie game

[leecemark]

The question has been asked, why don't we show the cases where Cobb was put out at home. If we had the data, we would show it. But in the past, I did post to the effect that when Cobb's team had a big lead, he run wild, to unnerve the opponent, for next time.

Is it such a stretch, just because we lack the documentation, that Cobb tried to steal home in such occasions, when the game was NOT in balance. When nothing was at stake? If he was thrown out, it didn't hurt his team, threw the other team into emotional disarray?



--If he only did this when the game was not on the line why would it throw the opposing team into disarray? If I'm blowing a team out and Cobb tries to steal home its no big deal if he makes it and he looks like a chump if we nail him. OTOH if the Tigers were blowing out the other team he looks like a jackass whether he makes it or not.

[Bill Burgess]

No, this is not true at all. IPod's point would only work if there were two outs and they absolutely needed the one run. Overall stealing home is almost never a good move unless you make it almost all the time. Linear weights have shown this as well.



In all of those games when Cobb stole home his team was up by one run. Trying to steal home when your team is up by one run is NOT a good move AT ALL.
You have misread the post, Chris. Cobb stole home when the game was tied up. His run won the game. And IPod didn't have the total number of how often this happened, out of the total 54. This shows that Cobb's judgment WAS spot on, and he won games by his bold moves.

And since his 55% success rate trumps any batter's BA/OBP, Cobb's success rate PROVES his boldness/talent WAS the better percentage play.

Even a statman can see that? Concede the point?

It would have been a horrible move to anyone else. No one else ever could approximate his success rate in this particular play. The most exciting, spectacular play possible on the field.

His chutzpah won games, Chris. And this proves it. Strange a so-called stat kid cannot accept the implacations of the simple numbers.

You pound away at 54-98. Pound away at no batter ever had a .550 BA/OBP!

[Bill Burgess]

--If he only did this when the game was not on the line why would it throw the opposing team into disarray? If I'm blowing a team out and Cobb tries to steal home its no big deal if he makes it and he looks like a chump if we nail him. OTOH if the Tigers were blowing out the other team he looks like a jackass whether he makes it or not.
Not quite sure of your meaning here. IPod has already shown us that he did win tie games, so that's that.

And if most of his home CS were in games of no consequence, no harm, no foul, but the other team has been duly notified that they can never relax, never let up. They have been served notice.

The data can be read either way, Mark, depending on if one admires Cobb or feels skeptical. Know what I mean?

You post in such a way, that I can seldom tell what camp you're in at any given moment. Does that mean you're balanced?

Bill

[leecemark]

--IF there are two out and IF it is a one run or tie game then 55% success makes this a good percentage play. If there are less than two outs then the chances of getting that runner home from third are better than 55%. If the team needs more than one run then the risk of giving up the out and the runner are not worth the increase in the chance of the run scoring. Without knowing the exact circumstances of each attempted steal of home it is impossible to say whether most were good risks or not. I'm sure they were exciting either way though:) .

[westfield]

Actually, I think it was Mays who brought back basestealing(with a huge assisst from Jackie Robinson) to post war prominence-not Wills. Wills took it to another level.Willie set it(him) in motion. I'll stick with the how and get to possible reasons why he stole and why he stopped for later.
1. Mays led all MLB in the 1950's in total steals.
2. He lead the MLB 3 of the 4 yrs. of the 4 yrs. he led the NL.
3. You have to go back to the 20's to find anybody who ripped off 4 straight titles in the NL.
4. You have to go back to George Case in 1939 -1943 (5) for the last person in mlb history to win more than 4 in a row.
5. 40 steals in 1956 was a big deal. A NL player hadnt done it for over 30 yrs. A MLB hadnt done it since 1944.(Stirnweiss with 55)
6. 10 % of the league totals in 56 and 57 show some kind of dominance/leadership-even if the total #'s are lower than other era's.
I don't think its a stretch that Mays would swipe some bases in any era.

[Bill Burgess]

Wrong. What does a player have a chance of getting on safely, maybe 40% of the time? And a walk won't bring the guy home from 3rd. If you got two out and can steal home 54% of the time, that's a smart move. Awesome move if it's a tie game
How sweet it is! Welcome aboard, partner!

BB

[leecemark]

The data can be read either way, Mark, depending on if one admires Cobb or feels skeptical. Know what I mean?

You post in such a way, that I can seldom tell what camp you're in at any given moment. Does that mean you're balanced?

Bill

--I try to be balanced and I am always skeptical. I DO admire Cobb (the ballplayer anyway), but that doesn't mean I set aside my skepticism when extreme claims are made on his behalf. Be they by his contemporaries or present day admirers.

[Bill Burgess]

Actually, I think it was Mays who brought back basestealing(with a huge assisst from Jackie Robinson) to post war prominence-not Wills. Wills took it to another level.Willie set it(him) in motion. I'll stick with the how and get to possible reasons why he stole and why he stopped for later.
I agree with this more than I disagree. I think it was Aparicio, along with Minoso/Mays, who kept the flame alive.

But Chris' larger point is that Willie had Cobb potential, and that is where I draw the line, even if Willie had a run-fest era to feel comfortable in.

Bill

[Bill Burgess]

--but that doesn't mean I set aside my skepticism when extreme claims are made on his behalf. Be they by his contemporaries or present day admirers.
Extreme claims on his behalf? By moi? Et tu, Brute? Perish the thought!

Bill the Balanced?

[538280]

You have misread the post, Chris. Cobb stole home when the game was tied up. His run won the game. And IPod didn't have the total number of how often this happened, out of the total 54. This shows that Cobb's judgment WAS spot on, and he won games by his bold moves.

And since his 55% success rate trumps any batter's BA/OBP, Cobb's success rate PROVES his boldness/talent WAS the better percentage play.

Even a statman can see that? Concede the point?

It would have been a horrible move to anyone else. No one else ever could approximate his success rate in this particular play. The most exciting, spectacular play possible on the field.

His chutzpah won games, Chris. And this proves it. Strange a so-called stat kid cannot accept the implications of the simple numbers.

You pound away at 54-98. Pound away at no batter ever had a .550 BA/OBP!

Bill, the .550 OBP example would be true in one situation-tie game or down by one with 2 outs in the late innings. That would be the ONLY situation in which it would be a smart play. I have seen there are some instances in which Cobb did that, but that is only a small fraction of his 98 attempts. Like Mark said the only way I can know for sure what it did for his teams is to see ALL of the times he broke for home. I am not convinced at all that it was good for his teams overall, and the only way I will be is if I see a breakdown of ALL 98 attempts.

[ThePeach]

In all of those games when Cobb stole home his team was up by one run. Trying to steal home when your team is up by one run is NOT a good move AT ALL.

No, actually, those were the FINAL scores.

[ThePeach]

I am not convinced at all that it was good for his teams overall, and the only way I will be is if I see a breakdown of ALL 98 attempts.

I don't have all of them... Al Stump has about... 36... if them... which is where I got it from. Still, you can see that there were times that he won games.

[538280]

No, actually, those were the FINAL scores.

Yeah, I realized that afterward.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

--Yes Cobb's rates were "okay" by modern standards and he WAS the best baserunner/stealer of his time. The question is how does that stack up against the guys who came along later.
--Cobb's racism is of absolutely irrelevant in evaluating him as a baseball player. Baseball was racist when Cobb played and there were no blacks in baseball for Cobb's issues with race to interfere with his game or his team. His problems getting along with members of his own race, who were his teammates (and opponents and umpires, etc) do give him at least a small (and it could be large depending on how you feel about such things) downward bump. Tyrus did not play well with others.

It is naive to say Cobb's racism is "absolutely irrelevant," except strictly in terms of his value as a player. I've seen many people on this site write that he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame because of his extreme racism, and you know there have to be at least hundreds of thousands of other baseball fans who share that view. THAT makes his racism relevant. And it was a great deal more virulent than the run-of-the-mill racism toward blacks for white Americans born in the 1880's and 1890's, like all 4 of my grandparents.

My points, however, are NOT that Cobb was a particularly loathsome and intense racist (which he was), but: (1) that Speaker was far more so, even though Cobb has become history's whipping post and cartoon-like villain in this regard; (2) that if someone as pathologically bigoted as Speaker could mellow in his later years, I have no trouble believing Cobb, who was both less bigoted and far more intelligent, did so; and (3) that a lot of people have a great deal emotionally, socially or politically invested in demonizing Cobb as a one-dimensional, cartoon-like villain, and thus never will give him credit for a change, even though the much more rabid, less intelligent Speaker changed at about the same time Cobb apparently did.

BHN

[Bill Burgess]

Like Mark said the only way I can know for sure what it did for his teams is to see ALL of the times he broke for home. I am not convinced at all that it was good for his teams overall, and the only way I will be is if I see a breakdown of ALL 98 attempts.
No, no, no. I completely disagree with both you & Mark. You are both incorrect in your assumption.

If Cobb is on 3B, his home steals success rate is hovering around 55%, and there are men on base, the critical factor still applies, whether or not there are other men on.

If Cobb can succeed more often than the batter can, that makes that particular bold move, the better percentage play.

The mere presence of others on the other bags does NOT in ANY way invalidate the percentages. Why can't a would-be stat whiz-kid see what a math disaster like me sees? Where's your baseball acumen here, Chris?

Sharpen UP! You too, Dr. Smarty Pants. I think Chris must be your son, you pamper/spoil him so much.

Old Lame Brain

[leecemark]

--Bill, if there are additional runners on base you are risking multiple runs for a slightly improved chance of getting one. Really even looking at OBP is not quite accurate for the odds of the batter getting the run home. Remember errors were much more common in this era, allowing for the batter to get the run home even while being charged with an out on his own record. Of course, this is even more true with less than 2 outs when a groundout or flyball can bring the run home. Attempting a steal of home is a good percentage play only in very narrow circumstances.
--I'm not saying it was a bad play most of the time Cobb attempted it, just that the simple 55% vs the chance of a hit is not the only factor to consider. Maybe Tyrus put an extra 20-30 runs on the board with those steals or maybe he ran his teams out of that many runs. More info is needed to know one way or the other.

[leecemark]

It is naive to say Cobb's racism is "absolutely irrelevant," except strictly in terms of his value as a player. I've seen many people on this site write that he shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame because of his extreme racism, and you know there have to be at least hundreds of thousands of other baseball fans who share that view. THAT makes his racism relevant. And it was a great deal more virulent than the run-of-the-mill racism toward blacks for white Americans born in the 1880's and 1890's, like all 4 of my grandparents.

My points, however, are NOT that Cobb was a particularly loathsome and intense racist (which he was), but: (1) that Speaker was far more so, even though Cobb has become history's whipping post and cartoon-like villain in this regard; (2) that if someone as pathologically bigoted as Speaker could mellow in his later years, I have no trouble believing Cobb, who was both less bigoted and far more intelligent, did so; and (3) that a lot of people have a great deal emotionally, socially or politically invested in demonizing Cobb as a one-dimensional, cartoon-like villain, and thus never will give him credit for a change, even though the much more rabid, less intelligent Speaker changed at about the same time Cobb apparently did.

BHN

--You keep saying Speaker was a bigger racist than Cobb. What is the basis for that claim?

[Bill Burgess]

--Bill, if there are additional runners on base you are risking multiple runs for a slightly improved chance of getting one. Really even looking at OBP is not quite accurate for the odds of the batter getting the run home. Remember errors were much more common in this era, allowing for the batter to get the run home even while being charged with an out on his own record. Of course, this is even more true with less than 2 outs when a groundout or flyball can bring the run home. Attempting a steal of home is a good percentage play only in very narrow circumstances.
--I'm not saying it was a bad play most of the time Cobb attempted it, just that the simple 55% vs the chance of a hit is not the only factor to consider. Maybe Tyrus put an extra 20-30 runs on the board with those steals or maybe he ran his teams out of that many runs. More info is needed to know one way or the other.
Alright. That is relevant data. But there is also data in favor of Cobb trying to steal home. Some depends on the batter's BA/onbase ave. If the batter is hitting .240 at the time, it is worth the attempt to get the run in.

But I do agree, more data is required to make a final determination.

Bill

[iPod]

Bill, the .550 OBP example would be true in one situation-tie game or down by one with 2 outs in the late innings. That would be the ONLY situation in which it would be a smart play. I have seen there are some instances in which Cobb did that, but that is only a small fraction of his 98 attempts. Like Mark said the only way I can know for sure what it did for his teams is to see ALL of the times he broke for home. I am not convinced at all that it was good for his teams overall, and the only way I will be is if I see a breakdown of ALL 98 attempts.

My immediate reaction is that with 2 out and no runner on second, a steal of home is a good play, given that you're good enough to make it 55% of the time. Being close and/or late seems to me seems irrelevant. With 2 out and a runner on second, I'm not sure. With less than 2 out, it seems like a poor play, unless the chance of being stranded on third with, say, 1 out was more than 45% in Cobb's day (which seems impossible but then again does anyone know for sure?), or, what I think Bill is sort of dancing around in this thread, that throwing away yourself on third occasionally is worth having the pitcher second-guess himself all the other times Cobb is on third. That the batter's numbers will improve as a result.

[Bill Burgess]

My immediate reaction is that with 2 out and no runner on second, a steal of home is a good play, given that you're good enough to make it 55% of the time. Being close and/or late seems to me seems irrelevant. With 2 out and a runner on second, I'm not sure. With less than 2 out, it seems like a poor play, unless the chance of being stranded on third with, say, 1 out was more than 45% in Cobb's day (which seems impossible but then again does anyone know for sure?), or, what I think Bill is sort of dancing around in this thread, that throwing away yourself on third occasionally is worth having the pitcher second-guess himself all the other times Cobb is on third. That the batter's numbers will improve as a result.
But then again, maybe I'm under-estimating a factor. If Cobb is truly effective, dancing off 3B, bluffing a charge, maybe the pitcher's effectiveness will decrease, and the batter's chances of walking might increase, or getting a hit on an ineffective pitch might result.

So, maybe Ty lessened his percentages, by being effective! Arguing against myself here. But what the hey? All in good fun.

Bill

[538280]

No, no, no. I completely disagree with both you & Mark. You are both incorrect in your assumption.

If Cobb is on 3B, his home steals success rate is hovering around 55%, and there are men on base, the critical factor still applies, whether or not there are other men on.

But if he gets caught that completely stops any chance of them scoring. If there's less than two outs, and the batter makes an out there would still be another chance. Another thing to remember is that the batter could make an out and still drive Cobb in, so using OBP isn't neccessarily accurate.

Again, with two outs I could definitely see the logic. Unless there's two outs and his team is tied or behind by one run I can't see the logic in breaking for home.


If Cobb can succeed more often than the batter can, that makes that particular bold move, the better percentage play.

The mere presence of others on the other bags does NOT in ANY way invalidate the percentages. Why can't a would-be stat whiz-kid see what a math disaster like me sees? Where's your baseball acumen here, Chris?

It matters that there are other runners on because Cobb would be stopping the opportunity for a possible two runs by breaking for home if he is caught. You should realize that.

[Hawkcat]

What about Rogers Hornsby? Single season BA .424; took St. Louis to their first World Series Championship in 1926; managed the Cubs to the World Series in 1929. Highest Lifetime Batting Average from the right side of the plate. Could hit with power. IInducted into the Hall of Fame same year as all the greats. Memeber of the St. Louis Cardinal and Chicago Cub Halls of Fame (including a bronze statue outside Busch Stadium. Arguably the second baseman on any All-Time All-Star Team.

[Bill Burgess]

If Cobb scores, AND the batter strikes out, does the run count?

[BaseballHistoryNut]

--You keep saying Speaker was a bigger racist than Cobb. What is the basis for that claim?

READ Timothy Gay's bio of Speaker. The intensity of Speaker's racism, xenophobia and hatred of Catholicism was very substantial. He meant serious business, and he caused problems on the Red Sox with it.

[westfield]

I agree with this more than I disagree. I think it was Aparicio, along with Minoso/Mays, who kept the flame alive.

But Chris' larger point is that Willie had Cobb potential, and that is where I draw the line, even if Willie had a run-fest era to feel comfortable in.

Bill

No disrespect to either player but they did not have the same impact on basestealing that Mays did.
Minoso never managed to lead the ML when he was leading the AL to his titles. He didnt come close to Mays in terms of dominating his league either.
Aparicio had his 1st ML title in 1959, several yrs after Willie brought the art of basestealing back to baseball. Aparicio impact was really felt in the 60's-not the 50's. Great impact when he really started to steal though!
Mays is the guy who made basestealing significant again.

I think Mays would have at least competed with Cobb for some of those basestealing titles. He had the skill, the baserunner nerve/heart, and the durability to pull it off.
thanks for the posts on Cobb-learning alot about a player I thought I knew everything about!

[Bill Burgess]

Mays is the guy who made basestealing significant again.

I think Mays would have at least competed with Cobb for some of those basestealing titles. He had the skill, the baserunner nerve/heart, and the durability to pull it off.
thanks for the posts on Cobb-learning a lot about a player I thought I knew everything about!
I read your comments with great interest. Ya know, maybe Willie could have done that at that. Just because I don't see the indications for his stealing capacity, certainly doesn't rule out that he could have pulled it off.

I remember Willie well. He created great impact/effect, by simply doing something. He was exciting. He was to a ballfield what Jackie Wilson was to performing onstage.

When Willie would go down to 2B, his cap would always fly off his head, and he had a funny, peculiar way of running. I imagine Wagner ran like Willie. His legs came out in an amusing way.

He achieved a good effect with one steal that someone else could not. He created an atmosphere of fun. I doubt if Luis Aparicio could impact a game with 3 steals that Willie could with one. I suspect that Jackie Robinson also had that same element of excitement/impact.

Concerning the TyMan, thanks for your kindness. If you want to see something that even I didn't know, check out the bottom of this post.

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=296299&postcount=3

Skip over my part and scroll down to Wesley Fricks part. He shares stuff even I didn't know. I consider Wesley the most knowledgeable Ty guy I know.

Bill

[Erik Bedard]

READ Timothy Gay's bio of Speaker. The intensity of Speaker's racism, xenophobia and hatred of Catholicism was very substantial. He meant serious business, and he caused problems on the Red Sox with it.

He never spoke to Harry Hooper and Duffy Lewis, the other two members of that famed outfield, because they were both Catholics. He was a member of the KKK. The list goes on and on...

[Bill Burgess]

He never spoke to Harry Hooper and Duffy Lewis, the other two members of that famed outfield, because they were both Catholics. He was a member of the KKK. The list goes on and on...
It was my understanding that he feuded with Duffy Lewis, because Duffy liked to sneak up behind him and tear the cap off his head, showing his balding/greying head.

That infuriated Spoke. Told him never to do it agian. Of COURSE, that makes it required to do, and Grey Eagle didn't talk to him after that.

But I thought he always enjoyed cordial relations with Harry Hooper. I know he spoke well of him.

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=466009&postcount=16

Bill

[BaseballHistoryNut]

He never spoke to Harry Hooper and Duffy Lewis, the other two members of that famed outfield, because they were both Catholics. He was a member of the KKK. The list goes on and on...

And this was at a time when an explicit tenet of the KKK was racial genocide. They meant business, and so did Speaker. As I said, he was a lot more virulent bigot than Cobb, and not nearly as intelligent, but history has hung the cartoon-villain racist tag on Cobb because he was so unlovable in so many ways.

[westfield]

I read your comments with great interest. Ya know, maybe Willie could have done that at that. Just because I don't see the indications for his stealing capacity, certainly doesn't rule out that he could have pulled it off.

I remember Willie well. He created great impact/effect, by simply doing something. He was exciting. He was to a ballfield what Jackie Wilson was to performing onstage.

When Willie would go down to 2B, his cap would always fly off his head, and he had a funny, peculiar way of running. I imagine Wagner ran like Willie. His legs came out in an amusing way.

He achieved a good effect with one steal that someone else could not. He created an atmosphere of fun. I doubt if Luis Aparicio could impact a game with 3 steals that Willie could with one. I suspect that Jackie Robinson also had that same element of excitement/impact.

Concerning the TyMan, thanks for your kindness. If you want to see something that even I didn't know, check out the bottom of this post.

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=296299&postcount=3

Skip over my part and scroll down to Wesley Fricks part. He shares stuff even I didn't know. I consider Wesley the most knowledgeable Ty guy I know.

Bill

Read the Fricks part - more good stuff I didnt know-thanks again! And Mays did have a funny way of running-he seemed to run slightly bow-legged and he was slightly pigeon toed-one writer described him as running like he was pumping a ten speed bike.
And he was exciting and dramatic-but I think sometimes that works against him..its often chalked up to being "flashy" when in fact he was a hard nosed player that played with great passion for the game.
Mays was the only player I saw whose baserunning(not basestealing) came close to what I had read and heard about Ty Cobb. (Jackie too). I think Cobb saw something in the way Mays played that reminded him of himself...hence his quotes about Mays.
Thanks

[Bill Burgess]

Just a couple of words on Willie. I love Willie Mays as a player. I had him ranked at #3 forever, after Ty/Honus, and just recently moved him down to 4th, because I promoted Babe from 4th to 3rd, due to my improved perception of his defensive work.

I once heard Willie give in interview. One thing stayed in my mind. Willie claimed that he functioned as the onfield captain of the Giants. He alleged that all the fielders would look towards him and he would quarter-back their defense from CF. The interviewer asked him what would happen if a Giant failed to look at him for his correct positioning on a given batter.

Willie gave the interviewer such a piercing glance that bespoke, "God help that player when we got back to the dugout." Willie did not say those words. That is just my own personal interpretation of his expression to the interviewer. But it's intriguing just the same.

Also, I saw a HR derby rerun about a year or two ago. That show staged in the California Wrigley Field, and Willie was being interviewed by Cincinnati sports announcer/narrator Mark Scott* and said;

"When I go for home runs, I either strike out, pop up or ground out. They come when I just try to meet the ball."

*Mark Scott: Announcer, actor; Voice of Holywood Stars, Cincinnati Reds Announcer, 1956, Host/Narator of Home Run Derby (1959 - July, 1960, death), 16 films,

[westfield]

To judge whether Mays would be a high total basestealer in other eras is up for interpetation, but I think you have to consider the era he played in and the teams he was playing for. Even as a rookie(1951) he was a basestealer-he won a crucial game in the last week of the pennant race against the Braves by stealing second and third and scoring on an infield hit to win 1-0.
In 1954 he lead his team for total steals(grand total 8). Additionally, he ranks top ten in NL 11 times in the 20 yrs he played full-time. Not bad.
One of the reasons I think he started stealing more 1955 and thru 1960 was the team he was playing for. The giants team in those yrs were not good hitting teams-for average or slugging. So not only could he steal a base but he should steal.His team needs him to steal. With those teams he has a much better chance of scoring from second or third. Basically, his Value to the team as a basestealer increased during these yrs.
The Giants teams in the 60's were much different. He has guys like Cepada and McCovey to hit around him. Percentage wise it makes sense not to steal as much...especially since he can still score from 1st on a double. So his value to his team as a basestealer isnt needed as much...Plus he is finding his second wind as a slugger.
Any furthur evidence needed for Mays basestealing I would pt to 1971.He steals more than 20 bases for the 1st time since 1960.(23 -ranks #8 In NL)
McCovey is hurt most of the season and Mays isnt seeing pitches he can drive...plus the team looks and hits alot more like late 50's Giants teams than the 60's Giants. He needs to steal more to increase his chance of scoring..and he does it at 89% clip.
Quick sidenote-when Mays stole 23 bases he was 40 yrs old.
Wagner at 40 stole 23 bases.
Ty Cobb at 40 stole 22 bases.

[westfield]

Just a couple of words on Willie. I love Willie Mays as a player. I had him ranked at #3 forever, after Ty/Honus, and just recently moved him down to 4th, because I promoted Babe from 4th to 3rd, due to my improved perception of his defensive work.

interesting -we share the same top 4 but have them in a slightly different order. Would you mind sharing your number 5 with me?
Thanks

[wamby]

It was my understanding that he feuded with Duffy Lewis, because Duffy liked to sneak up behind him and tear the cap off his head, showing his balding/greying head.

That infuriated Spoke. Told him never to do it agian. Of COURSE, that makes it required to do, and Grey Eagle didn't talk to him after that.

But I thought he always enjoyed cordial relations with Harry Hooper. I know he spoke well of him.

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=466009&postcount=16

Bill

I've read that it was the opposite, that Speaker liked to knock off Lewis's hat. I read in Fenway, that the three had their heads shaved as a spring training prank and Lewis's never grew back correctly after that.

[Bill Burgess]

interesting -we share the same top 4 but have them in a slightly different order. Would you mind sharing your number 5 with me?
Thanks
------------------------------------------
I can do a little better than that. I can share my Top 100. I presently only rank up to 100 for position players, and Top 50 for pitchers.


My Candidates for My Top 100 Position Players:

Negro Leagues = 10 Red
Pre-1900 = 11 Blue

Top 100 Players
1. Ty Cobb 5
2. Honus Wagner 2
3. Babe Ruth 1
4. Willie Mays 3
5. Oscar Charleston, NL 4
6. Buck Ewing -
7. Pop Lloyd, NL 22
8. Tris Speaker 10
9. Rogers Hornsby 18
10. Lou Gehrig 13
11. Barry Bonds 15
12. Eddie Collins 16
13. Stan Musial 9
14. Hank Aaron 11
15. Joe DiMaggio 12
16. Mickey Mantle 6
17. Ted Williams 7
18. Nap Lajoie 33
19. George Sisler -
20. Joe Jackson 52
21. Jackie Robinson 27
22. Mike Schmidt 17
23. Biz Mackay, NL -
24. Johnny Bench 36
25. Alex Rodriguez - SS17
26. Ivan Rodriguez - C13
27 George Brett 25
28. Mickey Cochrane 58
29. Roberto Clemente 60
30. Cap Anson -
31. Yogi Berra
32. Jimmie Foxx 29
33. Santop Loftin, NL -
34. Hank Greenberg 54
35. Josh Gibson, NL 8
36. Herman Long
37. Hughie Jennings
38. Ken Griffey, Jr. 59
39. Cool Papa Bell, NL 62
40. Frank Robinson 19
41. Eddie Mathews 29
42. Joe Morgan 14
43. Sam Crawford 74
44. Mike "King" Kelly -
45. Arky Vaughan 32
47. George Davis
48. Carl Yastrzemski 31
49. Charlie Gehringer 45
50. Al Simmons 57
51. Roy Campanella 40
52. Pete Rose
53. Al Kaline 75
54. Ed Delahanty 81
55. Bill Dickey -
56. Robin Yount 42
57. Gabby Hartnett -
58. Luke Appling -
59. Dan Brouthers -
60. Martin Dihigo, NL 78
61. Christobal Torrienti, NL 53
62. John Beckwith, NL -
63. Spot Poles, NL -
64. Wade Boggs 46
65. Pie Traynor -
66. Duke Snider 39
67. Edd Roush -
68. Bobby Wallace -
69. Rickey Henderson 21
70. Billy Williams 82
71. Richie Ashburn -
72. Bruce Petway, NL -
73. Zach Wheat -
74. Tony Gwynn 41
75. Ryne Sandberg 44
76. Bill Terry -
77. Rod Carew 50
78. Willie Keeler
79. Cal Ripken 38
80. Mel Ott 23
81. Paul Waner 69
82. Johnny Mize 48
83. Craig Biggio 30
84. Ernie Banks 63
85. Jeff Bagwell 37
86. Mike Piazza 65
87. Brooks Robinson 76
88. Ron Santo 72
89. Carlton Fisk 79
90. Ernie Banks 63
91. Bill Lange -
92. Frank Thomas 61
93. Sammie Sosa
94. Willie McCovey
95. Mark McGuire
96. Harmon Killebrew
97. Ken Boyer
98. Joe Cronin
99. Ralph Kiner
100. Ned Williamson

[538280]

------------------------------------------
I can do a little better than that. I can share my Top 100. I presently only rank up to 100 for position players, and Top 50 for pitchers.


My Candidates for My Top 100 Position Players:

Negro Leagues = 10 Red
Pre-1900 = 11 Blue

Top 100 Players
1. Ty Cobb 5
2. Honus Wagner 2
3. Babe Ruth 1
4. Willie Mays 3
5. Oscar Charleston, NL 4
6. Buck Ewing -
7. Pop Lloyd, NL 22
8. Tris Speaker 10
9. Rogers Hornsby 18
10. Lou Gehrig 13


Bill, you have all of one player in your top 10 who played significant time after 1940. You have all of one player in your top 20 who played mostly after 1970. Isn't there something wrong about that to you? If baseball is really been such a horrible shadow of it's fomer self, I wonder why you spend so much time with it.

[538280]

On another note, I see you have moved Joe Morgan ahead of Charlie Gehringer. Perhaps you are becoming more progressive, considering every context adjusted measure has it not being remotely close. :clapping

I must be more tired than I thought. I'll have to do something about that. Thanks for the heads up.

[westfield]

I can do a little better than that. I can share my Top 100. I presently only rank up to 100 for position players, and Top 50 for pitchers.
wow-we share the top 5 but we have them ranked in a different order. Thanks for posting your top 100 list.

[Bill Burgess]

wow-we share the top 5 but we have them ranked in a different order. Thanks for posting your top 100 list.
It's my pleasure, my friend.

Bill