Greatest Player Ever

[RuthMayBond]

Are you aware we here in California have laws against stalkers? I'm not sure how it works online.Bill, you can do better than this :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[538280]

Are you aware we here in California have laws against stalkers? I'm not sure how it works online.

Uhhh, whatever. You can accuse me all that you like to avoid answering the question.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

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.

There's another thing which held his base-stealing down in the early 50's, but not in the late 50's: Roy Campanella.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

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.

Chris, you know I share your belief Morgan is the #1 second baseman. I've believed that since BEFORE I first read it in James' 1985 Abstract.

But there's no need to be nasty about this. Charlie Gehringer was one hell of a second baseman. I rank him ahead of Nap Lajoie, Ryne Sandberg and Rod Carew, which is saying a lot. Yeah, I know Lajoie's numbers are better, but I also know when he got them and specifically when his monster year was.

If your system shows that Morgan was worth 5 Gehringers, then your system is wrong.

[RuthMayBond]

There's another thing which held his base-stealing down in the early 50's, but not in the late 50's: Roy Campanella.And how do we know this? (and yeah, he played against Campy a seventh of the time)

[BaseballHistoryNut]

And how do we know this? (and yeah, he played against Campy a seventh of the time)

You "know" this because Campy had a fabulous, legendary throwing arm, and because, as you yourself concede, 1/7 of Mays' games, i.e., 22 per year, were played against Campy. That added up to about 100 games in Mays' career from 1951-1956, making allowances for the number of games Mays missed against Brooklyn due to military service.

[538280]

You "know" this because Campy had a fabulous, legendary throwing arm, and because, as you yourself concede, 1/7 of Mays' games, i.e., 22 per year, were played against Campy. That added up to about 100 games in Mays' career from 1951-1956, making allowances for the number of games Mays missed against Brooklyn due to military service.

I question Campanella's defensive greatness. First of all, I question how much defensive value a catcher can have at that time, when so few players were stealing. Campanella was supposed to have an awesome throwing arm, but what was it really doing for his teams? Also, Matt's PCA, which I do trust some, sees Fisk as the TREMENDOUSLY superior catcher. He posted in in the stat forum earlier today.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

So you see the first-hand observations of Lou Gehrig about Campy's phenomenal defensive value, and of myself about Fisk's limited defensive value--which freakin' paled in comparison to the defensive values of his peers Bench and Sundberg--as less meaningful than statistics calculated by another person who never saw any of these people play? (And never mind the two stats I posted, which very strongly support the position that Campy was not only better, but much better.)

If so, please say "yes," so that both L.G. and I can see your hubris for ourselves.

And you see the expert commentaries of the N.Y. Times and other N.Y. sportswriters who covered Campy in his time, and whom Lou Gehrig read on a daily basis when Campy was playing, and who had regular access to Campy and his teammates, as meaning less than an abstract formula about "defensive win shares?" If so, again please say "yes," so we all know where your priorities in evaluation lie.

BHN

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Also, Matt's PCA, which I do trust some.

When it happens to support one of your beliefs, sure, why wouldn't you. :cool: If it didn't, you'd be quick to point out a flaws in PCA, regardless of how meaningful they are.

Consistent - Reliable; steady. Holding true as a group; not contradictory: a consistent set of statements.

[RuthMayBond]

You "know" this because Campy had a fabulous, legendary throwing arm,Wow, there's some proof

<and because, as you yourself concede, 1/7 of Mays' games>

Again proving absolutely nothing. If Mays hardly stole against BROOKLYN in that time, that might prove something

[BaseballHistoryNut]

I've posted so much about Campy in the past week, I'm kind of tired of this. Why not chat with Lou Gehrig about this? He has a lot to say on the subject.

[Imapotato]

Bill

I love your #1

But despise 5-7

[Bill Burgess]

JT,

I know. We discussed it about 10 times before. Curisously, we haven't battled over it in a long time.

I respect members who don't rank NeL. players. But I thought you liked Ewing as a catcher, even if you don't rank him like I do. Where is he on your Top 100? Or should I ask, is he on your Top 100. He hit far better than Charlie Bennett or Mike Kelly you know?

[westfield]

There's another thing which held his base-stealing down in the early 50's, but not in the late 50's: Roy Campanella.
good point. Not sure what Mays' breakdown of steals vs. Roy is, but I would guess its low. Roy had a great arm...and everyone in the league had alot of respect for it.
Nobody ran against Campy unless they really had to because of that respect for his arm -pretty quick release to go with it as I remember .

[538280]

When it happens to support one of your beliefs, sure, why wouldn't you. :cool: If it didn't, you'd be quick to point out a flaws in PCA, regardless of how meaningful they are.

Consistent - Reliable; steady. Holding true as a group; not contradictory: a consistent set of statements.

I have always said that I greatly respect Matt's work. Sometimes I agree with it, sometimes I disagree. Is it against the rules of "consistency" to bring it up every once in a while?


And you see the expert commentaries of the N.Y. Times and other N.Y. sportswriters who covered Campy in his time, and whom Lou Gehrig read on a daily basis when Campy was playing, and who had regular access to Campy and his teammates, as meaning less than an abstract formula about "defensive win shares?" If so, again please say "yes," so we all know where your priorities in evaluation lie.

You are so quick to belittle such formulas without seeing whether they have any validity. They are complex, well thought out measures which don't miss very much. They certainly deserve to be considered, along with the contemporary opinion. Fisk was known by the Red Sox brass to be quite the defensive guy (although he was known for taking one hell of a long time back there, making games longer). I certainly do think eyewitnesses are important, especially for defense, but I do think it's important to, like James says, "let some of the hot air" out of those press clippings, and especially when you're dealing with a New York player from the 1950s.

[Sockeye]

I'm not sure how Babe Ruth can be anything but #1 on the list

[Bill Burgess]

Ah, and yet, only 58.78% of Fever members feel as you do. Others select Cobb, Mays, Wagner, Bonds, Williams or Oscar Charleston. Funny how the universe often disagrees with one's 'Eternal Verities', isn't it?

Bill Burgess

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Ah, and yet, only 58.78% of Fever members feel as you do. Others select Cobb, Mays, Wagner, Bonds, Williams or Oscar Charleston. Funny how the universe often disagrees with one's 'Eternal Verities', isn't it?

Bill Burgess

Williams - Williams' case in any ranking system requires one to ask if his offense makes up for his other areas. Even if that answer is "yes" goin' up the ladder, the answer becomes "maybe" right around the 8 spot and become a definite "no" around #5 imo. Just offensively he only has a case against Ruth, and in the other areas its not particularly close. No case.

Bonds - No natural case and no unnatural case imo.

Oscar - He could have a case, but we just don't know.

Wagner - This one gets me Bill. I'm a huge Wagner guy. Have him #4 overall but his case is entirely based on him being a shortstop. His league was inferior to Ruth's; probably just above NgL level, he wasn't hurt by his home-park at all in fact is suited his style, his offense and baserunning is great but not enough to make up for Ruth's pitching/offense/defense/arm/baserunning/dominance combo imo. They were both men amongst boys but Wagner's 150 OPS+ pales in comparison to Ruth's 207. I know, I know, that's 150+ from a shortstop...that's what I mean. Btw: has there ever been a Wagner vs. Ruth thread?

Mays - I have him #3 overall but not a strong case that doesn't rely heavily on LQ adjustments and over-the-top positional consideration imo.

Cobb - He's gotta case imo.

[iPod]

I question Campanella's defensive greatness. First of all, I question how much defensive value a catcher can have at that time, when so few players were stealing. Campanella was supposed to have an awesome throwing arm, but what was it really doing for his teams? Also, Matt's PCA, which I do trust some, sees Fisk as the TREMENDOUSLY superior catcher. He posted in in the stat forum earlier today.

Bill James made this exact argument when he wrote about Campy vs Fisk. It didn't make sense to me when I first read it and it still doesn't make sense to me. In my opinion, that argument is like the one you criticized Bill (Burgess, not James) for about Ty Cobb's running, but in reverse. The fact that people didn't steal as much during Campy's day isn't his fault, nor does it make his arm any less valuable.

[RuthMayBond]

Bill James made this exact argument when he wrote about Campy vs Fisk. It didn't make sense to me when I first read it and it still doesn't make sense to me. In my opinion, that argument is like the one you criticized Bill (Burgess, not James) for about Ty Cobb's running, but in reverse. The fact that people didn't steal as much during Campy's day isn't his faultYou are absolutely correct on the first part . . .

<nor does it make his arm any less valuable.>

. . . and unfortunately not as correct on the second part. If no one runs at all, you can't get any CS. It doesn't make his arm less skillful, maybe you meant?

[iPod]

You are absolutely correct on the first part . . .

<nor does it make his arm any less valuable.>

. . . and unfortunately not as correct on the second part. If no one runs at all, you can't get any CS. It doesn't make his arm less skillful, maybe you meant?

If I'm building a team, and I have a choice between Campanella and Fisk as my catcher, and I'm thinking about which guy is going to win more games for me with his mitt, I think the fact that people ran less in Campanella's day is irrelevant. If he was prevented from having as much impact on the game as Fisk had because of forces outside his control, it makes no sense to penalize him for that.

[RuthMayBond]

If I'm building a team, and I have a choice between Campanella and Fisk as my catcher, and I'm thinking about which guy is going to win more games for me with his mitt, I think the fact that people ran less in Campanella's day is irrelevant. If he was prevented from having as much impact on the game as Fisk had because of forces outside his control, it makes no sense to penalize him for that.Now if you're talking building an team Campy might be more valuable because he might be trying to throw out Cobb, Henderson, Brock, Wagner ...

[Bill Burgess]

Williams - Williams' case in any ranking system requires one to ask if his offense makes up for his other areas. Even if that answer is "yes" goin' up the ladder, the answer becomes "maybe" right around the 8 spot and become a definite "no" around #5 imo. Just offensively he only has a case against Ruth, and in the other areas its not particularly close. No case.

Bonds - No natural case and no unnatural case imo.

Oscar - He could have a case, but we just don't know.

Wagner - This one gets me Bill. I'm a huge Wagner guy. Have him #4 overall but his case is entirely based on him being a shortstop. His league was inferior to Ruth's; probably just above NgL level, he wasn't hurt by his home-park at all in fact is suited his style, his offense and baserunning is great but not enough to make up for Ruth's pitching/offense/defense/arm/baserunning/dominance combo imo. They were both men amongst boys but Wagner's 150 OPS+ pales in comparison to Ruth's 207. I know, I know, that's 150+ from a shortstop...that's what I mean. Btw: has there ever been a Wagner vs. Ruth thread?

Mays - I have him #3 overall but not a strong case that doesn't rely heavily on LQ adjustments and over-the-top positional consideration imo.

Cobb - He's gotta case imo.

I have long believed that the only players with a legitimate claim to the #1 spot have been Cobb, Wagner, Ruth, Mays, Charleston.

1. Cobb has it locked up in my ming at least, but I agree his case is hypothetical. Strictly by stats, Babe takes it. Cobb's support really started to slide downhill when he died, and his biggest, most influential supporter, Taylor Spink died, Dec., 1962. As editor of Sporting News, he had always pushed Ty's case.

2. Wagner - He has a claim depending on how we define the greatest. It says a lot about us that we can't even define the term - the greatest, to everyone's satisfaction. Wagner actually had more support than Babe up to around Babe's death. At that time, Babe was starting to be re-evaluated.

3. Babe started to gain traction around his death. He picked up steam after the death of Taylor Spink, but really exploded mid 1970's with Bill James/sabremetrics. Numbers alone really pushed his case over Cobb, which was heavily based on eye-witness reports.

4. Mays - Now considered the best modern player. He reminds me so much of Wagner in the breath/width of his skill set.

5. Charleston - The Negro L. equivalent of Mays, but sans legit stats, we just cannot anoint him with the sacred oils of #1. Terrible shame too. He was just so good, categorically across the board. Many insist he was a composite of Ty/Babe.

I am perhaps committing a disservice to Josh Gibson, by not including him. A good defensive catcher who could slug so massively would be priceless in today's game!

Bill

[538280]

Bill James made this exact argument when he wrote about Campy vs Fisk. It didn't make sense to me when I first read it and it still doesn't make sense to me. In my opinion, that argument is like the one you criticized Bill (Burgess, not James) for about Ty Cobb's running, but in reverse. The fact that people didn't steal as much during Campy's day isn't his fault, nor does it make his arm any less valuable.

It really depends on whether you're talking about value of the player's ability. Since so few people were running then, the importance of catcher throwing was diminished. It doesn't mean Campy didn't have a strong arm, it just means that the importance of that wasn't huge in that era, because he didin't get to put it to use that often.

[538280]

A good defensive catcher who could slug so massively would have been priceless in today's game!

Bill

Can you say Joe Mauer? Mauer isn't the huge slugger Gibson was, but his BA is extremely high, and he is top notch defensively. I really think Mauer has a legit shot to be the best player ever, he just needs to keep up his performance and do it for a long time (a big "just", but if he can do it he very well could be the best).

[leecemark]

I

3. Babe started to gain traction around his death. He picked up steam after the death of Taylor Spink, but really exploded mid 1970's with Bill James/sabremetrics. Numbers alone really pushed his case over Cobb, which was heavily based on eye-witness reports.



Bill


--Ruth was widely considered the best player ever by the time I started following baseball in the 60s - and I grew up a Tiger's fan where Cobb's legacy was probably stronger than elsewhere. Nobody heard of Bill James until the 1980s and I don't think he started to have wide spread influence until the first Historical Abstract came out.

[Ichiro1321]

Other: Ichiro Suzuki, a HOF for sure because he can hit, run, field, throw, and think. He's already over 1,200 hits in only 5-6 years.

[1905 Giants]

Other: Ichiro Suzuki, a HOF for sure because he can hit, run, field, throw, and think. He's already over 1,200 hits in only 5-6 years.
I agree he will get in the Hall of Fame, he's awesome, but what about his lack of walks?

[RuthMayBond]

I really think Mauer has a legit shot to be the best player everWith that ONE full season and 25 career HR under his veteran belt, I'd say it's a lock.

[Bill Burgess]

--Ruth was widely considered the best player ever by the time I started following baseball in the 60s - and I grew up a Tiger's fan where Cobb's legacy was probably stronger than elsewhere. Nobody heard of Bill James until the 1980s and I don't think he started to have wide spread influence until the first Historical Abstract came out.
This is wholly consistent with my post.

He first started to gain traction in 1948, and his case was much facilitated by Cobb's death in '61 and Spink's death in '62.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I agree he will get in the Hall of Fame, he's awesome, but what about his lack of walks?
A concern, to be sure, but as long as he was productive and did reach base as he has, the lack of walks only prevents him from possibly being better, but not enough to cancel out all he has done.

[leecemark]

This is wholly consistent with my post.

He first started to gain traction in 1948, and his case was much facilitated by Cobb's death in '61 and Spink's death in '62.

--That part may well be true, but the Bill James part was not. Ruth was overwhelmingly considered the best before Bill printed his first work. Once the guys who remembered and loved the deadball style had passed on it was envitable that The Babe would ecilpse The Peach.

[wamby]

As a kid in the 70s, I remember that it seemed like Ruth was considered the greatest of all-time and that Cobb was considered the greatest of the deadballers.

When I got the Historical Baseball abstract arpund 1985, I didn't find it surprising that Ruth was ranked as the all-time greatest.

[csh19792001]

-- Once the guys who remembered and loved the deadball style had passed on it was envitable that The Babe would ecilpse The Peach.

Right, all of Cobb's supporters were just ancient deadball romanticists. :rolleyes:

Bill's file on the Cobb, Ruth, and Wagner supporters shows this is completely untrue. You should give it a read sometime.

Once the people had only a set of numbers to stare at instead of the players and the times themselves were long, long gone, yeah, things changed.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Right, all of Cobb's supporters were just ancient deadball romanticists. :rolleyes:


Lets not pretend that doesn't have a lot to do with it. A simple matter of style preference. They had there bias. Some of those guys left Ruth out of the top 5 :eek: Kinda shows ya somethin' doesn't it. We even have people today who have their bias toward dead ball players. Personally I respect both styles, hence Ruth/Cobb #1 and 2 with Mays #3. I could see a case for Cobb over Ruth and that, in and of itself doesn't scream dead ball bias to me, but when I see Cobb AND Wagner ahead of Ruth, well, that kinda does.

[Bill Burgess]

Lets not pretend that doesn't have a lot to do with it. A simple matter of style preference. They had there bias. Some of those guys left Ruth out of the top 5 :eek: Kinda shows ya somethin' doesn't it. We even have people today who have their bias toward dead ball players. Personally I respect both styles, hence Ruth/Cobb #1 and 2 with Mays #3. I could see a case for Cobb over Ruth and that, in and of itself doesn't scream dead ball bias to me, but when I see Cobb AND Wagner ahead of Ruth, well, that kinda does.

Maybe. But now we're referring to 'era loyalty'. I'm enough of a realist to realize the some of the 256 of Cobb Consensus reflected some 'era loyalty'. But let's not smear them with too broad a stoke. If some of the 256 Cobb supporters were merely emotionally connected to the deadball style, then we must counter-balance that with the Babe supporters who, for their part, didn't prefer the deadball style.

I give you leecemark as my example. Mark has often opined that the deadball style, which governed baseball from 1876-1918, was too different, too quaint, too far removed for us to seriously consider too greatly. But that was 46 years of ballplaying. We have 88 years since then. Why should we completely dismiss 46 years of baseball, and many good players, just because we don't like how they played?

If Cobb supporters were guilty of any degree of era loyalty, then Babe supporters are equally guilty of era loyalty to the liveball, and hence, they dismiss greatness in the earlier style, merely because the game has evolved in a Ruthian direction.

So, I submit that the Cobb prejudice is vastly outweighed by the Ruth prejudice, in favor of his style of play. Below is some of my earlier arguments that the Cobb guys were not nearly as beholden to the past as one today might presume. Mack, McGraw, Griffith stayed fresh, kept their all time teams abreast with the times. Behold some good, strong material to that effect.
----------------------------------------------------


Vigorous Defense of the "Cobb Consensus":

Some members have expressed the logical-sounding opinion that my "Cobb consensus" of 256 folks who assert that Cobb was the best, might have been prejudiced in selecting TC. They fear that that consensus was weaned on small ball, and hence unable to emotionally "break free", and see Babe, modern ball and the BB scene in general in a clear, free way. Unfettered from the psychological affinities of their youths.

And while I can see their very logical case, I'd like to submit evidence to the contrary. I'd like to submit the case of Connie Mack. Mack was a ML catcher from 1886-1896. He managed the A's from 1901-50. Now one might well suspect him of prejudice. Right? Old fogie Cobb supporter? Right? Secretly longed for the "good old days"? Right?

Well, here is my evidence that even Connie never fossilized. He stayed fresh. He stayed open. Below is my "evidence".

In 1931, Connie switched from his boy-hood idol, Buck Ewing, to Mickey Cochrane, on his All Time All Star Team.

Around 1936, Connie switched from Sisler to Gehrig, as his all time 1st baseman. Sisler represented Connie's early BB values, Gehrig his later values, which Connie DID come to embrace.

So those are 2 valid examples of emotional growth and maturation.

But now, the cou'de tat for Connie Mack. This next quote proves he stayed open and fresh.

"An outfield composed of Cobb, Speaker and Ruth, even with Ruth, lacks the combined power of DiMaggio, Musial and Williams." (The Tumult and The Shouting, by Grantland Rice, 1954, pp. 17) Rice states that that quote was told to him by Mack in the early 1940's. Does that sound as if Connie had fossilized? Sounds like to me it proves quite the opposite.


Another person who evolved was John J. McGraw. In a Sporting News piece from Nov. 20, 1930, McGraw, for his all time team, had switched from Sisler to Gehrig at first, Ewing to Bresnahan for catcher, Hugh Duffy to Babe Ruth in LF, Collins to Hornsby at 2B. All his switches were towards Big Ball.

McGraw's previous team was given in "My 30 Years in BB", 1923. So in 7 yrs., that most committed small baller of all had switched his 1B, 2B, C, LF.

Ty himself had switched his all time 3B, Buck Weaver to Pie Traynor for his last all time team of 1961. He was also lauding Mays and Campanella! Talk about growth!!

Francis Richter switched his greatest player, Buck Ewing, to Cobb in 1925, after he had hung with Ewing from the 1880's until 1923.

Ned Hanlon switched his greatest player ever to Cobb in 1909.

So I hope all of these examples of previously committed small ballers, to Big Ballers, on their all time teams, represent an acceptable, permanent refutation that they were helplessly shackled to their childhood values, to where their support of Cobb as the best, was tainted with overwhelming prejudice.

This is not to prove that prejudice didn't exist in any degree, just not enough to invalidate the case. I purposely used extreme examples of committed small ballers.

My over-reaching picture is that the "Cobb Consensus" is well and intact. To try to chisel at it piecemeal, accusing those good men of prejudice is a disservice to both them and ourselves. Think it over. Mack evolved his C, 1B;
McGraw evolved his C, 1B, 2B, LF;

Another point which you may not be aware of, is that so many of Ty's supporters, managed modern. Connie, from 1925 on, played modern ball. He used Foxx, Simmons, Cochrane, etc. So his mind never closed. He was as open to change as a child. To smear this angelic man with broad strokes of prejudice is not only untrue but cruel. Consider deeply his quote about the OF/power.

McGraw also managed modern since 1920. Look at his teams; Frisch, Youngs, Bancroft, Lindstrom, Mel Ott. Dumped small ball around 1920.
His 1st basemen in '23 was Sisler, then he switched to Bill Terry in '31, then to Gehrig before he died, in 1934. So even such a staunch small baller as McGraw stayed open to the game.

Cobb himself refused to play small ball when he managed, '21-26. Didn't even have a sign for stealing! He taught his guys to hit, and relied on high-average hitting. He didn't let his guys go for homers, that's true, but his guys may not have been gifted with that rare gift. So even he was trying to stretch his game, within limits, I must admit.

Clark Griffith, who played from 1893, also outgrew his early days. His all time team from 1952, included Gehrig, Traynor, Ruth, Cochrane, Dickey, and Grove.

In fact, if one were to go over my All-Time All-Star Teams file, one could go over the "Cobb Consensus", and see that almost all of them had all teams which included players from the last 10 yrs. from the time they chose their teams.

So, before anyone accuses the "Cobb Consensus" of prejudice, I'd wish they would go over my "All-Time All-Star Team" file first. You just might be surprised at their flexibility and good judgment.

Some members have surmised that the historical consensus that "Ty Cobb was the greatest player who ever lived", was comprised of older peers of Ty's. They suspect that they were very likely suseptable to having chosen him because he was the prime exemplar of their favorite, most approved/admired style of playing ball.

So, to re-assure them that this is hardly the case at all, I'd like to share some of Ty's supporters All-Time teams. Would not one expect such supporters to load up their teams with their older peers, small-ball players, like Ty? Would that not be consistent with their old-fashioned values?

Well, one might suspect so, but one would be wrong. Here is just a brief sampling of Ty Cobb's supporters, giving their all time teams personnel. You may judge for yourselves, if this appears to contain any kind of prejudice towards small ball.

Since I don't want to do a complete surveillance of my 137 teams, I just jotted down a few items to show that a big majority of Ty's supporters were not limiting their all time teams to the small ballers of their youths.

Those members of "Cobb's Consensus" were not so psychologically disabled that they chose Cobb as best, due to he being the prime exemplar of their originally preferred style of play. Some never even preferred small ball. But my demonstration here is to show that if they were that enfeebled, they would not have been able to put big ballers on their all time teams.

But they were well able to stay up to date, fresh, open. I could have shown a lot more examples, if I wanted to bore everybody more than I already am.

So my original questions remains. Are you guys yet capable of recognizing that Ty's supporters were not old fogies, but honest men, who happened to believe that Ty was actually the greatest player, overall, that they'd seen, after giving all due consideration and deference to modern ball?


The following folks all saw Babe/Ty play, and called Ty the best ever. Here are a sampling of their all time teams, with non-small ball players.

Dan Daniels - 1910-60's - chose team, 1953, - Gehrig, Hornsby, Traynor, Ruth, Dickey.

Arlie Lathan - 1883 - 1950's - chose team, 1954 - Gehringer, Traynor, Ruth, DiMaggio, Dickey, Hubbell

George Sisler - 1915-30 - chose team 1953 - Gehrig, Hornsby, Ruth, Cochrane, Dickey, Grove

Casey Stengel - 1912-1965 - chose team, 1961 - Mize, Gehrig, Hornsby, J. Robinson, Frisch, Gehringer, Traynor, Cronin, Musial, Williams, Mays, Snider, DiMaggio, Ruth, Campanella, Hartnett, Lombardi, Berra, Cochrane, Dickey, Feller, Hubbell, Grove, Dean, Spahn, Raschi, Reynolds, Vance.
(Old Casey chose 25 from the NL, and 25 from the AL.)

Walter Briggs - 1935-52 - chose team, 1952 - Gehringer, Ruth, Cochrane,

Warren Brown - 1916-1974 - chose team, 1946 - Grimm, Hornsby, Frisch, Ruth, Cochrane, Hartnett, Dean, Gomez, Ruether, Van Lingle Mungo

Tom Yawkey - 1933-1976 - chose team, 1945 - Gehrig, Ruth, Cochrane, Dickey, Grove.

Del Baker - 1914-1960 - chose team, 1942 - Gehrig, Gordon, Rolfe, Ruth, Cochrane, Grove, Feller.

Kamm - 1923-35 - chose team, 1985 - Gehrig, Gehringer, Bluege, Cronin, Ruth, Simmons, Cochrane, Earnshaw, Grove.

Jimmie Dykes - 1918-1958 - chose team, 1966 - Gehrig, Gehringer, Dugan, Scott, Ruth, Cochrane, Grove, Pennock. (He also chose a team for the 20's, and the 30's-60's.)

Hornsby - 1915-1962 - chose team, 1962 - Traynor, Ruth, Cochrane, Dickey, Hartnett, Grove, Hubbell.

Schacht - 1919-1936 - chose team, 1971 - Traynor, Ruth, Cochrane, Spahn.

Fred Lieb - 1910-1980 - chose team, 1977 - Gehrig, Traynor, Ruth, Cochrane, Dickey, Grove, Koufax, Feller.

Shirley Povich - 1922-1997 - chose team, 1997 - Gehrig, Hornsby, Schmidt, Ruth, T. Williams, Cochrane, Koufax.

Bob Broeg - 1946-1985 - chose team, 1998 - Frisch, Schmidt, Musial, Mays, Bench

Buck Jordan - 1927-1938 - chose team, 1987 - Gehrig, Hornsby, Traynor, Cronin, Ruth, Cochrane, Hubbell.

Charlie Gehringer - 1926-42. '51-59 - chose team, 1987 - Gehrig, Hornsby, Traynor, Boudreau, Ruth, Cochrane, Feller, Grove.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So above are 17 examples of Ty's supporters, giving their all time teams. These are hardly exceptional. These are typical of Ty's supporters. So I hope that these samples, provide a permanent answer to the charges of prejudice against them. I did NOT go carefully to find only those who had lots of Big Ballers. If I had done so, I would have listed another 20 of Ty's supporters who chose their teams in the 1980's.

Many of Ty's supporters had to overcome era loyalty. Players from before 1900 had to switch over from their Ewing, Anson, Kelly, etc., to support Ty Cobb as the greatest who ever lived. Those who fit into that category, we'll came them old-timers, were:

Tim Murnane, Same Crane, Frances Richter, Charles Comiskey, Cap Anson, Ned Hanlon, Willie Keeler, Chief Zimmer, Connine Mack, Jake Morse, Kid Gleason, Clark Griffith, Bill Dinneen, Tom Connelly, Cy Young, Wilbert Robinson, Hughie Jennings, George Stallings, Nick Altrock, John B. Sheridan, Jimmie McAleer, Bill Phelon, Arlie Latham, MacLean Kennedy, Ban Johnson, Edson Brewston Henry Edwards, Ernie Lanigan, Hugh Fullerton, Gordon Mackay, Fred Logan, Mike Kilroy, Billy Alvord, Bobby Lowe, Harry Davis, Al Maul.

All told that is 37 out of 251 Cobb supporters, or 14.4%.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Next, there were the late comers. Let's call them the later fans. They should have been Babe Ruth followers. Many of these Ty supporters, didn't even see Ty play in his prime, only as an older veteran, running on fumes, but still retained perfect mechanics. They had much more in common with the Babe, and the modern game. Ty was before their time.
Some of these supporters were:

Hornsby, Simmons, Grove, Cochrane, Jimmie Dykes, Bing Miller, Mule Haas, Riggs Stevenson, Ted Lyons, Fred Haney, Joe Sewell, Stan Coveleski, Max Bishop, Muddy Ruel, Heinie Manush, Swede Risberg, Johnny Neun, Joe Hauser, Sherrod Smith, Willie Kamm, Ossie Bluege, Luke Sewell, Babe Pinelli, Lefty Leifield, Al Schacht, John Bogart, Lefty Shaute, Art Shires, Charlie Root, Dick Spalding, Stan Baumgartner, Jim Bagby, Frank Shellenback, Kiki Cuyler, Bill Terry, Bob Johnson, Floyd (Pep) Youngs, Babe Herman,

There were 39 players above, all of whom didn't start playing until 1917.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
And let's not forget the sports writers who began after 1917:

Harold M. Grayson, Frederic S. (Feg) Murray, William G. (Bill) Dooly, Edwin J. Pollock, Emmet T. (Red) Ormsby, Rufus Stanley Woodward, Martene Windsor (Bill) Corum, Samuel Saunders Greene, James Renwick (Jim) Harrison, Francis J. Powers, William Aloysius (Bill) McGowan, Arch Burdette Ward, Paul William Gallico, Rutherford (Rud) Rennie, C. William (Bill) Duncan, Albert D. (Dolly) Stark, Albert Benjamin (Happy) Chandler, Ward Morehouse, Gordon R. (Cobby) Cobbledick, Ivan Hugh (Cy) Peterman, Jack McDonald, Joseph J. Krueger, Jr., Russ Newland, Kenneth D. Smith, John Durant, Leonard Gettelson, Thomas Austin, Yawkey Thomas, William Meany, Thomas (Tommy) Holmes, Robert Eugene (Bob) Ray, James Thomas Farrell, Arthur John Daley, Herman Wecke, Frederick James Corcoran, Shirley Lewis Povich, John K. Hutchens, Prescott Lawrence, Sullivan Henry McLemore, Edwin M. Rumill, Bernard (Barney) Kremenko, Harold Seymour.

There are 44 sports writer above, all of whom should have gone with Babe Ruth, since he was the big new thing for them, presumably.

So when we total up the 3 groups, we arrive at:

37 (14.4%) = 1800's
39 (15.6%) = post 1917
44 (17.6%) = post 1917 sports writers
-----------
119 total (47.6%)

So, when almost half of your sample size, by your "bias principle", should have either stuck to their early formative yrs. era heroes, OR . . . dumped Ty and switched to the more glamorous, glorified Babe. But they didn't, Jim. They didn't.

What actually happened would have frustrated the form charts predictors. Almost all of the old-timers, switched to Ty, some took longer. Almost all of the newcomers, also studied Ty and and adopted Ty, not Babe as their idol.

So, I pray that this little breakdown, provides a permanent answer to the so-called "bias defense", once and for all.

So, in the end, we're left with 119 Ty Cobb supporters, who don't comply with the "bias defense", and 131 others who were appropriately "in awe", of Ty, and went to their deaths, insisting that Ty was the best there ever was.

Incidently, someone recently posted that Cobb's supporters mostly died 50 yrs. ago. This is inaccurate. Here is the breakdown of when TC's supporters died away.

1910's - 4
1920's - 6
1930's - 20
1940's - 26
1950's - 45
1960's - 59
1970's - 49
1980's - 24
1990's - 11

So, TC's supporters lasted a long time, and had the occasion/opportunity to see the sweep of BB's long history. Just in case there was any confusion. One of the recent delights, was in 1998, when Washington DC sports writer, Shirley Povich, who started in 1922, was arguing in his active column, against the BB's Century Team, that left off Ty. Shirley was saying how nuts it was to support Willie Mays over Ty. His final remark. "Get over it". Don't cha just love it.

Another aspect of the "Cobb Consensus" is that it is far from complete. I would dearly love to have a reasonably accurate estimate of how many baseball players played in the AL from 1906-28. I would think that most of those who saw TC play ball between 1909-18, would consider him the best, assuming they saw a great deal of his play. I doubt if I have found even half of the true sample size.

The 7 books that interviewed the players from that era, and the Sporting News could only interview so many players. Many, I'd imagine would just disappear, once their playing days were over. Finding them would have been no mean feat. But the sample size is less than half of what it really is. And I'd guess that the ratio of 80% supporting Cobb, 9% supporting Ruth, and 10% supporting Wagner, would only go up for Cobb.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark's response:

--There is another factor in play besides childhood hero worship. Almost all the old time men who pick Cobb over Ruth grew up watching the "scientific" style of ball practiced during the deadball era. Ty Cobb was almost the perfect offensive machine for that style of play. Those men continued to believe until the day they died that "scientific" baseball was real baseball and the long ball era ushered in by Babe Ruth was some vulgar fad. The preference for Cobb over Ruth was as much a judgment on their relative styles of play as it was the players themselves. That goes double for those who continued to pick Sisler over Gehrig long after it was apparent to any impartial observer that Gehrig was the much better player.
--It seems that there are still some people who believe the deadball style of play was better than the modern game. Whether that is true or not is open to debate, but 85 years after the introduction of the live ball it seems to be more than a fad. Ruth dominated a game that would be recognizable to the modern fan. His game is the one that we all grew up watching and the one which our grandchildren are still likely to be watching. That most Ruth supporters came along after Cobb was finished shouldn't be taken to and mean that Ruth is better only by the numbers and those who saw them both and prefered Cobb are the only ones qualified to judge. Move them both forward to the current era playing side by side and I expect most who both see them play are going to prefer Ruth. Of course, we can't do that and it is unprovable speculation.
--BTW did either Ruth or Cobb ever catch a game?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darza's response:

Actually, no , there's more to it than simply being in "awe" of a player. There is also the degree of "awe". So let's say you witness some 19th century play and are in "awe" of player X. Cobb come alongh and you are bowled over by him and in "awe" twice as much as you were in "awe" of player X, so you switch to Cobb. Now comes Ruth. You are in "awe" of Ruth, but you are are not struck by him doubly as you were struck doubly when Cobb came along. Maybe you're in "awe" of Ruth "only" 40% more. You're first experience with Cobb is going to hang on because of the higher degree of change in "awe".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill's response to Mark:

Your post is well-written and composed with keen intuition. But it always feels as if we will be on opposite sides of a unbridgeable abyss. Why is it that so many otherwise objective observers on Fever, will do whatever it takes to chisel away at "Cobb's Consensus"? You, ElHalo, and RMB are among the posters, whom I respect the most, and yet, and yet, you guys refuse to accept that Cobb's Consensus was well-founded. The most I've been able to nudge you guys is to prove that it existed, and all 3 of you have insisted that those 250 TC supporters were wrong for whatever reason. But still, I will try to assist you 3, and Dgarza, to find the true path to enlightenment.

leecemark:
--There is another factor in play besides childhood hero worship. Almost all the old time men who pick Cobb over Ruth grew up watching the "scientific" style of ball practiced during the deadball era. Ty Cobb was almost the perfect offensive machine for that style of play. Those men continued to believe until the day they died that "scientific" baseball was real baseball and the long ball era ushered in by Babe Ruth was some vulgar fad. The preference for Cobb over Ruth was as much a judgment on their relative styles of play as it was the players themselves. That goes double for those who continued to pick Sisler over Gehrig long after it was apparent to any impartial observer that Gehrig was the much better player."


(Bill - Ok. I can see your point. It's a variation of the "bias defense." You're simply invoking a different bias. It goes something like this. "Ok. Ty isn't from our era, but he's still deadball. He still plays the way we were taught, adheres to our basic principles, but is simply a faster, more daring kind of player."

So, while not from the preferred era, he did play the preferred, approved style. Simply perfected/refined it with greater speed, daring and brains.

In other words, he attended anothor denomination of church, but was still in the same religion. While Ruth was a heretic from outside the religion altogether.

I can agree with this flank attack, and see the truth of it. In fact, I was going to suggest this to ElHalo. But still, even if we agree with this angle of undermining does not address or cover the 3rd group, the new-comers.

Your theory, which I also happen to subscribe to, only covers 36 people, (14.4% of the total 250 supporters), the old-timers.

36 - 1800's supporters

131 - Ty's era

83 - post 1917, modern era.

So even if we discount the 36 1800's TC supporters, we are left with 83 people, 33.2% of the total consensus, who arrived upon the scene after Ty had exited his prime, the live ball was in full swing. Most of those 83 supporters, for the most part, missed out the deadball era. They would get over it, and had no particular loyalty to deadball era ball, or those who played it. Those guys includedf:

Hornsby, Simmons, Grove, Cochrane, Charlie Gehringer, Johnny Bassler, Jimmie Dykes, Bing Miller, Mule Haas, Riggs Stevenson, Ted Lyons, Fred Haney, Joe Sewell, Stan Coveleski, Max Bishop, Muddy Ruel, Heinie Manush, Swede Risberg, Johnny Neun, Joe Hauser, Sherrod Smith, Willie Kamm, Ossie Bluege, Luke Sewell, Babe Pinelli, Lefty Leifield, Al Schacht, John Bogart, Lefty Shaute, Art Shires, Charlie Root, Dick Spalding, Stan Baumgartner, Jim Bagby, Frank Shellenback, Kiki Cuyler, Bill Terry, Bob Johnson, Floyd (Pep) Youngs, Babe Herman. The above are 39 players, or 15.6% of the total.

And I also will NOT allow you to forget about the other 44 sports writers/ non-players, who include:

Harold M. Grayson, Frederic S. (Feg) Murray, William G. (Bill) Dooly, Edwin J. Pollock, Emmet T. (Red) Ormsby, Rufus Stanley Woodward, Martene Windsor (Bill) Corum, Samuel Saunders Greene, James Renwick (Jim) Harrison, Francis J. Powers, William Aloysius (Bill) McGowan, Arch Burdette Ward, Paul William Gallico, Rutherford (Rud) Rennie, C. William (Bill) Duncan, Albert D. (Dolly) Stark, Albert Benjamin (Happy) Chandler, Ward Morehouse, Gordon R. (Cobby) Cobbledick, Ivan Hugh (Cy) Peterman, Jack McDonald, Joseph J. Krueger, Jr., Russ Newland, Kenneth D. Smith, John Durant, Leonard Gettelson, Thomas Austin, Yawkey Thomas, William Meany, Thomas (Tommy) Holmes, Robert Eugene (Bob) Ray, James Thomas Farrell, Arthur John Daley, Herman Wecke, Frederick James Corcoran, Shirley Lewis Povich, John K. Hutchens, Prescott Lawrence, Sullivan Henry McLemore, Edwin M. Rumill, Bernard (Barney) Kremenko, Harold Seymour.

There are 44 sports writer above, all of whom should have gone with Babe Ruth, since he was the big new thing for them, presumably.

So why didn't all these players jump on the Babe bandwagon. After all, all they had was hearsay from the previous players when they arrived. And their own eyes see TC struggling along, and Babe blasting away. These were prime Babe fans. Babe was easy to like, right in front of their eyes.

And yet, all these modern players, all adopted Cobb as their idol. All he had was perfect skill mechanics, but not the speed with which to pull off his old tricks.

So your theory, Mark, while good and valid, doesn't cut all the way across the Cobb Consensus.)

Mark:
--It seems that there are still some people who believe the deadball style of play was better than the modern game. Whether that is true or not is open to debate, but 85 years after the introduction of the live ball it seems to be more than a fad.

(Bill - You talkin' about me? The live ball is here to stay, since those fans far outnumber small ball fans. The only question is if they up the ante to hyper-live ball. Some fans seem to believe it already arrived in the early '90's.)

Mark"
"Ruth dominated a game that would be recognizable to the modern fan. His game is the one that we all grew up watching and the one which our grandchildren are still likely to be watching."

(Bill - Probably. Since 1920, the game only looks the same way. Actually, 1920-38, was one way. '60-69 another, and '93-present another. The attractive packaging remains the same. The on-field game just keeps evolving. Deadball will NEVER return due to the small ratio of fans who'd prefer running, low-scoring, pitcher's duels, tactical, small ball tactics. Owners would go bankrupt if they tried to revive it. 1960's wasn't real deadball. Glossy simulation of same. Your own characterization sounds biased in favor of live-ball. Most fans are. Most fans today probably couldn't be persuaded to sit through a small ball style game.)

Mark:
"That most Ruth supporters came along after Cobb was finished shouldn't be taken to and mean that Ruth is better only by the numbers and those who saw them both and prefered Cobb are the only ones qualified to judge.


(Bill - Ruth's fans didn't come along until the 1970's! The small band led by Bill James, were NOT small ball fans. They were slam-bam, thank you mam, budda, bing, budda bang, HR-loving stat men.

You guys continue to pound me on my "Cobb Consensus" as if bias doesn't extend both ways. What about the anti-deadball bias here on Fever. Or in America. What about all the anit-small ball fans, who like Ruth cause they like Big Ball. Why isn't their bias raked over the coals? Is it possible Ruth is such a sacred cow, cause he's modern? Is it possible that most modern stats are created by modern stat men, to whom Ruth was the God to be worshiped when they were boys? Was OPS created by a small ball enthusiast?

Move them both forward to the current era playing and I expect most who both see them play are going to prefer Ruth. Of course, we can't do that and it is unprovable speculation.

(Bill - Typical suggestion. Move both to a game where conditions favor the skill possessed by Ruth, and not Cobb. How predictable!

Better suggestion. Move both to today, BUT dejuice the ball, and return conditions to 1915, and then see whose skill set shines.

Could it be possible that when the "Cobb Consensus" call Ty the best, all they were doing was saying that his skills exceeded those of the Babe. Since they didn't have the stats to see who created the most runs, is it possible that all they were saying is that Ty, with all his skills, was capable of playing the game at an infinitely higher level. Was a better, more complete, more skilled player? Is that possible?

The one theory no one here at Fever dares examine/explore. Was the Cobb Consensus merely observing the simplistic truth, that, in his era's conditions, Cobb was just the best player that they had even saw, or heard about.

Bill Burgess
--BTW did either Ruth or Cobb ever catch a game?

Yes, Ruth did catch when he was at the Baltimore Correctional Institude. There are photos of him holding his catcher's mit.

Gehrig is only the better player than Sisler if you place both in the modern setting. Otherwise, Sisler was much the better player, due to those conditions favoring his type of player. Speed, brains, defense. So perhaps all those voters down the years were not conceding to you the conditions. Ever think of that?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim's (ElHalo's) response to Bill:

Bill,

Think of it this way. Guys like Hornsby, Cochrane, Grove, etc., were, as kids, bombarded with the greatness of Ty Cobb. When he was wrecking shop in 1910-1915, they were all in their impressionable, young, growing-up-baseball-fans stage. So of course they were going to say that Cobb was the greatest thing since sliced bread... when they were kids, and were forming their opinions about baseball, and about who the great players in baseball were... well, there was one staring them right in the face.

As to the 1800's players... think of it this way: Right now, freestyle motocross (that thing they show on ESPN2 on occassion where guys do 80 foot jumps on motorcycles with various contortive body motions thrown in for style points) is a popular fringe leisure activity. It's got a following, it's shown on tv, people have their favorite riders... but when it really comes down to it, your average guy on the street is going to have a hard time explaining to you what it's all about. Right now, the best freestyle motocrosser is probably a 28 year old kid named Mike Metzger, who's known as "The Godfather of Motocross." Think of him as the Buck Ewing of motocross. He impresses everybody, and everybody thinks he's the best at it, and the best there's ever been.

Now, let's assume that, five years from now, a guy comes along in the freestyle Motocross ranks... let's call him "Ty Cobb." And Mr. Cobb is so good, so unbelievably great at it, that people come from all of the country just to watch him ride. They have to build huge new arenas to hold the tens of thousands of people who want to see Mr. Cobb jump on his motorcycle. Matter of fact, Mr. Cobb is so good, that freestyle motocrossing becomes more popular than NFL football... becomes the single most popular and lucrative sport in America. The back page of the New York tabloids and the cover of USAToday show Cobb in full jump. Kids wear Cobb motorcycle jerseys everywhere. Bedlam.

Now, the old timers who followed Mike Metzger... well, obviously they're going to say that Cobb's the best. He took the game to a whole different level... they had to build new arenas all around the country just to accomodate his fans!

But then one day, somebody else comes along. Let's call him "Ruth." Now, Ruth is an even better freestyle motocrosser than Cobb... he can do triple backflips, he can completely let go of his bike 80 feet in the air and do summersaults next to it, he can land jumps in full out handstands on the handlebars. Absolutely amazing, and easily the best rider that there's ever been.

But the 40,000 seat arenas are already built. The motocrossers are already on the cover of Newsweek. They already have their multimillion dollar sponsorship deals. Ruth didn't do all that. Cobb did all that.

So, from the perspective of the old timers, the Mark Metzger fans... of course Cobb is the greatest. He got the whole thing started.

Follow?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cobb's Consensus:

The following individuals believed that Ty Cobb was the greatest player who ever lived. Most of them opined on multiple occasions throughout the decades- this includes Connie Mack, George Sisler, Rogers Hornsby, Babe Ruth, Eddie Collins, Tris Speaker, and most of the other great baseball players and minds of the era.

1. Here are the opinions of the players who saw both he and the Babe play extensively.

Name Years of Opinion
Connie Mack 1925, 1931, 1938, 1942, 1950
Eddie Collins 1931, 1942, 1950
Tris Speaker 1920, 1925, 1942, 1944, 1950
George Sisler 1931, 1942, 1956
William J. (Kid) Gleason Phil. Public Ledger,Jul.5, 1931
Walter Johnson 1931 Ph.P.LedgerJul
Clark Calvin Griffith Sporting News Apr.2,1942
George Moriarty 1930
Ray Schalk 1961
Jimmie Dykes 1942, 1967, 1976
Charles Albert Comiskey 1910, 1919
Mickey Cochrane 1939, 1942
Al Simmons Sporting News,Apr.2,1942
Charlie Gehringer 1987
Carl Mays 1919, 1942, 1971
Herb Pennock June, 1939
Harry Heilmann 1934, 1947
Nick Altrock Sporting News,Apr.2,1942
Bob Shawkey 1976
Babe Ruth 1934, 1936, 1946
Ted Lyons 1942, 1974
Fred Haney 1928, 1964, 1975
Joe Sewell 1978
Leo A. (Lee) Fohl June,1926
Clyde Milan Sporting News,Apr.2,1942
Stan Coveleskie 1961
George McBride 1964
Roger Peckenpaugh 1976
Max Bishop Sporting News,Apr.2,1942
Red Faber SN, Dec.20,1961, pp14, colunist3
Muddy Ruel 1934
Steve O'Neil Sporting News,Apr.2,1942
Everett Scott Sp. News, Oct.29,1942
George Henry Burns Los Angeles Times, My.24,'31,pp.F4
Ed Walsh BBM 1933,1940
Heinie Manush 1969
Art Fletcher
Johnny Bassler LA Times, May 26, 1937, pp. A13
Joe Jackson 1942
Swede Risberg SP N. Dec. 1926
Johnny Neun SN Apr.9,49
Joe Hauser 1969
Sherrod Smith BBM Oct.1923
Owen Joseph (Donnie) Bush 1962
Willie Kamm BBM Feb. 1928
Bing Miller Sporting News,Apr.2,1942
George Mogridge Sporting News,Apr.2,1942
Dan Howley Phil. Public Ledger, July, 1931
Ossie Bluege 1957
Luke Sewell 1987
Larry Gardner Sporting News,Apr.2,1942
Amos Strunk Sporting News,Apr.2,1942
Babe Pinelli Sp. N. Sept. 5, 1951, pp.16, col.3
Charley O'Leary Sp. News, Dec. 26, 1935, pp.2, col.5
Al Maul 1934
Albert (Lefty) Leifield July, 1961
Al Schacht Jan.,1962, Mar.21,1971
Harry Hooper Sporting News,Feb.20,1957,pp.15
Riggs Stevenson Forgotten Fields, 1884, pp. 85
John Bogart Cobb Would Have. . . 1982, pp.147
Leslie Ambrose (Joe) Bush SN Jan. 28, 1967, pp. 23
Joe "Lefty" Shaute Abington Journal (Ohio) 1938-43
William Adolph Wambsganss


Name Yr. of Opinion
Ed Ainsmith Sporting News,Apr.2,1942
William Francis (Bill) Carrigan Sporting News,Apr.2,1942
Ira Thomas Sporting News,Apr.2,1942
Hugh Jennings BBM March 1921
George Cutshaw Sporting News,Apr.2,1942
Jack Coombs Sporting News,Apr.2,1942
Art Shires BBM Feb. 1931
Charlie Root Sporting News,Apr.2,1942
Dick Spalding Sporting News,Apr.2,1942
Stan Baumgartner Sp. N. May 5,1948
Del Baker Sp.N. Jan. 10,1962
Russell Aubrey (Lena) Blackburne Sporting News,Apr.2,1942
Joe Wood 1963 &1975
Duffy Lewis Sporting News,Apr.2,1942, 1945
Frank Baker Sp. N. July,1961
Oscar Vitt Sp. N. July,1961
Raymond Bloom (Rube) Bressler Tapes 1964

Name Year of Opinion
Cap Anson 1922
Chief Zimmer Sp. N. Jan 12, 1949
Ned Hanlon Wash. Post, Sept. 3, 1909, pp.8
Wilbert Robinson BBM July 1931
Mike Kilroy Sporting News,Apr.2,1942
Billy Alvord Washington Post, Aug.9,'25,pp.25
Cy Young Sp.N. My.23, 1951, pp7
Bobby Lowe 1911
Harry Davis Sporting News,Apr.2,1942
James Joseph (Jimmy) Callahan Aug. 29,1925('26 Reach Guide)
Dave Fultz Sp.N.Jan. 27,1944
David Lewis Fultz Sporting News, August
"Wild Bill" Donovan Wash. Post, Feb. 26, 1915, pp. 8
Bill Bradley 1950
Jimmy McAleer BBM Jan. 1913
Gabby Street 1931
Nap Rucker 1950
John Knight 1961
Gavvy Cravath Sporting News,Apr.2,1942
Jim (Death Valley) Scott Sporting News,Apr.2,1942
Ralph Works 1919
Red Corriden Sporting News,Apr.2,1942
Ray Fisher Sporting News,Apr.2,1942
Burt Shotton 1931,SN 1950
Steve Yerkes Sporting News,Apr.2,1942
Chet Hoff Sept.2,1998
Lefty George SN July 22,1943
George J. Burns Sporting News,Apr.2,1942
Casey Stengel 1975
Benny Kauff LA Times, April 18, 1916, pp. III4
Billy Southwood Sporting News,Apr.2,1942
Tom Daly Sporting News,Apr.2,1942
Stanwood Fulton Baumgartner SN 5-5-1948
Rogers Hornsby 1962
Jim Bagby BBM 1920
Frank Shellenback Sporting News,Apr.2,1942
Kiki Cuyler Sporting News,Apr.2,1942
Bill Terry 1961
Bob Johnson Sporting News,Apr.2,1942


Sportswriters:
Name- Yr. of Opinion

Timothy Hayes Murnane
Samuel Newhall Crane Apr.1918 Baseball Magazine
Francis Charles Richter 1925 AL Reach Baseball Guide
Jacob Charles (Jake) Morse 1913, Sporting News
Byron Bancroft Johnson Mar. ,1929, Sporting News
Edson Smith Brewster SN 6-30-38, Baseball Magazine
Irving E. (Sy) Sanborn Oct.,1922, Baseball Magzine
Charles Martin Conlon 1937, Sporting News
John Brinsley Sheridan Feb.1929, Sporting News
Robert James Aloysius Quinn SN 12-6-45
Thomas Henry Connolly 1950, 1954, 1958
Frank Joseph Navin Aug. ,1925 Reach Baseball Guide
Henry Pierrepoint Edwards Nov. ,1926, Sporting News
William Arlie Phelon July, 1920, Baseball Magazine
Ida Virginia Shibe SN 5-21-52, Sporting News, obits
Ernest John Lanigan SN 1-14-1953, Sporting News
Herbert E. (Bert) Walker
Hugh Stuart Fullerton, Sr. Jan.,1936, Baseball Magazine
John Edward Wray late 50's
Ernest Sargent Barnard (LA Times, Aug. 19, 1928, pg. A3)
Edgar Forrest Wolf (Jim Nasium) SN Feb. 19,1931, pp. 3, column 6
Harvey T. Woodruff Chicago Tribune Sept. 23, 1928
Melville E. Webb Jr. 1936, Boston Globe
William Edward Friel Sporting News,Apr.2,1942
William Henry Dinneen Chicago Daily Tribune, Jun. 16, 1938, pp. 19
William J. Guthrie SN 1950
Charles Emmet Van Loan July, 1912, Munsey's Magazine
Harry B. Smith Sp. N., May 3, 1950, pp.42, col.5
Walter Owen Briggs SN 1-23-1952
Gordon J. Mackay SN, Sept. 1928, pp.4, col.3
Bozeman Bulger My. 1928
Richard Francis (Dick) Nallin SN 9-19-1956
James Arnot Crusinberry Apr.,1951
Clarence Henry (Pants) Rowlands Dec.20,1961
Frederick Wheatley Logan 1938
Edward F. Bang Jan.,1962
James Campbell Isaminger AL Reach BB Guide, Feb.,1926
Harry C. Bullion
James M. Gould Jun. ,1940
Edgar Vincent (EV) Durling LA Times, Mar.1,1936, pp. A1
Edward A. Batchelor, Sr. SN 1962, 1965
William George Evans Sporting News,Apr.2,1942
Alfred Damon Runyon Nov. ,1922
Malcolm Wallace Bingay 1946
Ringgold Wilmer Lardner 1933
Henry W. Morrow SN Jan., 1953
Clarence B. (Brick) Owens LA Times, Mar. 14, 1936, pp. 14
Henry George (Harry) (Sal) Salsinger SN9-7-1955
Wilton Simpson (Bill) Farnsworth Atlanta Georgian, January, 1912
James E. (Jim) O'Phelan Sp.N. Nov. 11, 1926, pp. 2, col. 5
Ferdinand Cole Lane 1937 & 1981
Rodger H. Pippen 1959
Frederick George Lieb 1948
Robert Denman Thompson Wash.P., Jul.20,1969, pp. 45
Frank G. Menke 1926
Sidney Clarence Keener SN 8-1963
Edgar G. Brands Sport. N., Jan.3,1962, pp. 13, col.2
John George Taylor Spink Sporting News, Apr.2,1942, pp. 1
Heywood Broun NY Morning Telegraph, Oct.,1910
Mark Irving Vaughan 1926, 1961
Arthur Bosworth McGinley 1960
William J. O'Connor SN 10-10-1914
Joseph P. Williams, Sr. 3/21/1945
William S. (Willie) Hennigan
Leland Stanford (Larry) MacPhail (Sp. N., Feb. 15, '50, pp.3, col. 4)
Daniel (Markowitz) Daniel 7/18/1961
William M. (Bill) Henry, LA Times, Jul. 31, 1926, pp. 11
John Drebinger Jul. 1961
John M. (Jack) Malaney BBD 4-1951
John Charles Manning
James Roy Stockton SN 8-22-1940
Wilbur W. Wood SN 1961
Abe Kemp Jul. 1961
Clifford Bloodgood BBM, May, 1951, pp. 405
Harold M. Grayson 1944 1939
William G. (Bill) Dooly SN,N18,1926
George Martin Weiss SN 7-17-1961
John C. (Jack) Kofoed 1925, 1933
Edwin J. Pollock 1934, BB Digest,'61,pp.67-72
Emmet T. (Red) Ormsby SN Dec.20,1961
Rufus Stanley Woodward SN 7-17-1961
Martene Windsor (Bill) Corum NY Journal Amer., Jun.25,'58
Samuel Saunders Greene Aug.1925, Dc.1939
James Renwick (Jim) Harrison NY Times, My. 17, 1925, pp. S1
Francis J. Powers
William Aloysius (Bill) McGowan SN 1950
Arch Burdette Ward
Paul William Gallico 1965
Rutherford (Rud) Rennie 1927
C. William (Bill) Duncan SN Jan.17,1962
Albert Benjamin (Happy) Chandler 1983, Baseball Magazine
Ward Morehouse 1942
Gordon R. (Cobby) Cobbledick 1960
Ivan Hugh (Cy) Peterman 1933
Jack McDonald 1986
Russ Newland Wash.P., My.7, 1954, pp. C2
Kenneth D. Smith 1962
John Durant 1947
Leonard Gettelson BBM Mar.,1926
Thomas Austin Yawkey SN Jul.,1961
Thomas William Meany 1953, 1964
Thomas (Tommy) Holmes 1954
Robert Eugene (Bob) Ray LA Times, Mar. 14, 1940, pp.24
James Thomas Farrell 1957, Aug.11,1966
Arthur John Daley NYT- Jun.4,1957
Herman Wecke SN,D9,1926
Frederick James Corcoran 1961
Shirley Lewis Povich 1934, 1959, 1964
John K. Hutchens Apr. 1955
Prescott Lawrence Sullivan SN, Feb.25, 1953, pp.11, col. 1
Henry McLemore LA Times, Jul. 26, 1946, pp. 5
Edwin M. Rumill 3-48,1972
Bernard (Barney) Kremenko
Harold Seymour Jan.28,1990
Robert William (Bob) Broeg Sporting News, March 8, 1969
Lamont Buchanan 1951
Arthur G. Keeney Jul. 1927
J. Newton Colver Aug. 1927
Robert W. Beall Jul. 1930
Ivan Gadhis Oct. 1935
John J. Ward Jul. 1937
W. R. Hoefer Jun. 1939
Arthur O.W. Anderson My. 1941
Dwight Freeburg Aug. 1941
Hub Miller Mar. 1952
Edward Browning SN 1948
Joseph J. Krueger 1942
MacLean Kennedy Sp. N., Jan.5, 1933, pp. 5, col. 1
Matt Gallagher LA Times, Nov. 29,1925, pp. A4
Feg Murray LA Times, Apr.27,1926, pp. B2
Jack Gallagher LA Times, May 8,1927, A4



In addition to individual persons endorsing Ty Cobb's right to be acknowledged as the greatest baseball player who ever lived,
the following newspapers, upon hearing the news of Ty's death on July 17, 1961, also supported Ty's claim to that title.
1. The Sporting News
2. The New York Times
3. New York World & Telegraph
4. New York Herald Tribune
5. New York Evening Post
6. Chicago Tribune

Ty Cobb supporters ----------254 80.37%
Babe Ruth suppports ----------28 8.86%
Honus Wagner supporters -----34 10.75%
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above post refers to the "Cobb Concenus" of 250 prominent baseball figures. This list can be viewed in its entirety at:

The Cobb Consensus: 254 Ty Supporters; 28 Babe Supporters; 34 Honus Supporters

http://bluestreak.pbwiki.com/f/Cobb%2C+Ruth%2C+Wagner+supporters.xls

I call the above database: Cobb, Ruth & Wagner Supporters.
-----------------------------

Yet, even better & more relevant are the actual quotes of the supporters, which can be viewed at this following database, which I refer to as, "Assessing Ty".


Deposing the witnessess: 254 Ty Supporters Actually Speak; Their quotes with references. http://bluestreak.pbwiki.com/f/Assessing+Ty.xls
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walkaway for Speedster Cobb as 'Greatest Player of All Time'

Former Stars Cast Overwhelming Majority of Votes for Ty as Performer 'Who Could Do Everything Better;' Tributes Paid to His Fiery Competitive Spirit; Wagner Second, Followed by Ruth; One Ballot Each for Ott and DiMaggio


By J. G. TAYLOR SPINK

FOR MANY years we have been asked the same question over and over: "Who was the greatest player of all time?" For just as many years we have evaded the issue involved. We didn't know. We continued receiving the same query and so, finally, we decided to put it up to the ball-players themselves. We addressed letters to more than 100 former major league stars and managers and asked them the question. One hundred and two votes were cast and the answer is: TYRUS RAYMOND COBB.

Not alone did the old ace players and pilots of the nation select Cobb as the greatest player of all time, but they made him their choice by an overwhelming majority. He received 60 of the votes cast; the remaining 42 were divided among 14 players.

John Henry (Honus) Wagner ran second to Cobb, with a total of 17 votes. George Herman Ruth was third, with 11. Rogers Hornsby was picked by two voters, and so was Ross Youngs. Ten players, Ed Delahanty, Lou Gehrig, Tris Speaker, Jerry Denny, Joe DiMaggio, Mel Ott, George Sisler, Eddie Collins, Walter Johnson, and Christy Mathewson, polled one vote each.

Collins in Briefest Reply, Names Cobb as "Obvious"

The letter that The Sporting News sent to the players read as follows: "Who do you consider the greatest ball player of all time? Why?"

The reasons given for the selections were many, varied and illuminating. The shortest, or briefest, explanation came from Eddie Collins. He named Cobb and gave his reason: in one word: "Obvious."

Other selectors were more expansive Clark Griffith voted for Cobb "because he was a hitter, a base-runner, a great fielder, and possessed the indomitable will to win and the aggressiveness that thrilled those who watched him play."

Walter Johnson gave as his reason: "He could do everything better than any player I ever saw. He was always the first one to detect weaknesses or mistakes of the opposition and benefit by the same."

Tris Speaker picked Cobb because "he could do all that any player should do and had, besides, great competitive spirit and the willingness to take chances at all times."

George Sisler's reason for voting for Cobb was: "If you played during the years that he was burning up the league, you could never forget the Georgian. I know that I never will."

I'll quote from some of the other players and managers who voted Cobb the game's all time greatest:

Connie Mack: "He surpassed all the players that I remember."

John Wesley (Jack) Coombs: "You know what he could do. I don't have to tell you."

Billy Southworth: "Cobb's base-running and all-round ability match Ruth's slugging."

Bill Carrigan: "I have yet to see anybody else who could do the things that he used to do."

Donie Bush: "He loved to win."

George J. Burns: "One of the most marvelous baseball machines I have ever seen. I never expect to see his equal."

Roger Peckinpaugh: "He wasn't the slugger that Babe Ruth was , but he could do everything else."

Al Simmons: "I never expect to see another player like him."

Larry Gardner: "He had the finest coordination I ever saw in a player. Because of his mental and mechanical ability and his marvelous application of the two, he could do everything exceptionally well."

Del Baker: "He went out and made his own breaks. He was a battler."

Steve O'Neill: "He could do everything asked of a ball player."

Clifford Clarence (Cactus) Cravath: "He could do everything a little better than the rest of the herd. He had color and the will to win. And he would chase half of the present-day players out of the park with his spikes today. He could dish it out and he could take it."

Steve Yerkes: "He was the greatest competitor who ever lived."

Bing Miller: "He had the baseball sense to grasp any situation."

Jimmie Dykes: "He did everything perfectly."

Ted Lyons: "He was a combination of everything."

Hazen (Kiki) Cuyler: "He not alone had natural ability, but baseball brains and the incentive to win."

Charles (Dick) Spalding: "He could run, field, throw, hit and think faster than anybody else, and that's about all a ball player needs to have to be great."

Clyde Milan: "You never knew what he was going to do next."

Charlie Root: "He was tough to pitch to. I don't think any pitcher ever found a successful way to pitch to him. I know that I didn't."

Ossie Bluege: "He was quick on the trigger and ten jumps ahead of you."

Carl Mays: "Cobb could do everything--bunt, drag, hit, run bases, field and think faster than a dozen ordinary ball players. He made no errors of judgment and was a fighter who never heard the word 'quit.' Babe Ruth was the greatest from the standpoint of drawing power, but he had many weaknesses."

Bill Friel: "All you have to do is look at the records."

Ira Thomas: "He was not only a great ball player, but he disrupted the other team's morale by the chances he took and usually got away with. Once he got on the bases, I would rather give him credit for a run than let him get around the bases and cause anywhere from four to five runs damage before he was through."

John (Red) Corriden: "He had baseball intuition. He was a hard, clean ball player. Sure, he was tough, but you had to be in those days."

Mickey Cochrane: "He had everything that goes to make up a great ball player."

Crafty, Brainy, Ty Starred in Era of Close Scores

Billy Evans: "Cobb was the brainy, crafty, sensational performer, who starred in the era of close scores when one run was usually the decisive margin. Ruth starred in the era of swat. Power was his greatest asset, although he had all the other attributes of a great ball player."

Jim (Death Valley) Scott: "Because he had no weakness."

Mike Kilroy: "He outguessed the other fellow all the time. There will never be another Cobb."

George Edward (Duffy) Lewis: "The greatest ball player was Ty Cobb--though none of us was crazy about him when he played. However, you had to admire him for his ability. Once he got on the bases, he had the pitchers up in the air until he got off. There didn't seem to be anything that he couldn't do."

Harry Davis: "He loved to play baseball for all he was worth every second of the game, regardless of the score. He was very fast and very smart."

Casey Stengel: "I think he was the most sensational base-runner who ever lived. He could get more base hits than any competitor simply by worrying the pitchers to desperation and crossing up the infielders."

Frank Shellenback: "I was only a kid when I came up with the White Sox, and here is what I heard at one of the first players' meetings I ever attended: 'Leave the George Peach alone. Don't ride him or he'll beat you single-handed.' And maybe you don't think that he couldn't!"

Max Bishop: "He may not have been a great fielder, but he could hold up his end."

Bob Johnson: "He appeared to be head and shoulders over anyone else."

Lena Blackburne: "He was good in the pinch. He could do everything but throw."

Amos Strunk: "His dash, color, aggressiveness, hitting and speed on the bases were beautiful to watch."

George Cutshaw: "He had the finest competitive spirit of any player I ever saw or heard about."

Floyd (Pep) Young: "He was a quick thinker, which enabled him to do things at an advantage."

Nick Altrock: "His never-say-die spirit and his nerve predominated."

George Mogridge: "He had everything, believe me."

Tom Daly: "Maybe he didn't have the best disposition in the world, but all great ball players are afflicted with crabbiness, I think."

Ray Fisher: "I never saw his equal in any department of baseball."

Sheckard for Wagner As "Most Valuable Player"

JIMMY SHECKARD, Cubs' outfielder of their pennant-winning years under Frank Leroy Chance, picked Wagner and gave his reasons: "Ty Cobb and Tris Speaker were two wonderful outfielders, but I think that Wagner was the most valuable. He could accept three chances to their one, maybe four to one. He could play anywhere too."

Wagner is also the choice of George (High Pockets) Kelly, a Giants first baseman under John J. McGraw. Reason for his choice: "He made everything look so easy, was always in front of the ball, and in the right place. He knew the batters and played them well."

One of the 11 who picked Babe Ruth was Bucky Harris, manager of Washington. His reason: "He could beat you single-handed, had good baseball instinct and brought into the game something that nobody else had."

Rube Walberg also cast his vote for Ruth and commented: "He could hit any kind of pitching and field with the best of the outfielders. If the score was tied and the Yankees needed a stolen base to put them in scoring position, the Babe would be the boy to deliver it although he wasn't a Ty Cobb on the base paths."

Waite Hoyt: "I pick Ruth for all-round unlimited general skill and drawing ability."

Lawton (Whitey) Witt, another former teammate of the Babe's, casts his vote for him, with the comment: "He made few mistakes on the playing field, and how he could hit."

Quoting from Jimmie Foxx's comments: "Ty was about washed up when I came up, while Ruth was the hottest man in the majors. I'd say Babe Ruth."

Bill McKechnie's choice is Hans Wagner, but he qualifies his selection with: "I'm going to stick to the National League because I didn't see many of the great players in the American League. And my choice is Wagner. I never knew him to do anything wrong, mentally or otherwise, on a playing field."

Carl Owen Hubbell ranks Rogers Hornsby first, commenting: "He gave me many a tough moment. I don't think there was ever another player who cold match his hitting, fielding and speed."

Frankie Frisch cast one of the two votes for Ross Youngs, explaining "From a standpoint of all-round team play, team spirit and team loyalty, and the will to win, never saw a man with more of those qualities than Ross Youngs had. His career wasn't long but is was brilliant while it lasted.

Bill Killefer also cast his vote for Youngs and recalled: "There was one fellow John McGraw had who always impressed me as a great runner, hitter, fielder and hustler. His name was Ross Youngs. He was a ball player of the old school."

John Walter Cooney believes that "as far as the greatest hitter goes, I'd pick Rogers Hornsby, and for all-around ability I don't think you can ignore George Sisler."

Stan Hack cast the lone vote for Joe DiMaggio and accompanied his ballot with the following prophecy: "In a couple more years, Joe DiMaggio will make the fans forget fellows like Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth with his all-round feats."

Eddie Collins got the vote of Carroll W. Brown, who used to pitch for the Athletics and the Yankees. He wrote: "When you get around to picking the best, you have to consider everything, including disposition, and while Ty Cobb was a great hit, Collins had the better disposition."

Charles (Big Jeff) Tesreau picked Tris Speaker, commenting: "He was the best, a great outfielder, thrower and hitter."

The vote for Lou Gehrig was cast by his teammate and friend, Vernon (Lefty) Gomez, who added: "He was a timely hitter, never knew what it was to take a day off, was a good team player, and was there when you needed him."

John (Bucky) Freeman came to the front for Ed Delahanty and paid him the following tribute: "He was the best right-handed hitter in the old days and there is no one in his class today. If the bleachers in the left field of the Philadelphia park had been where they are today, they would never have heard of Babe Ruth or myself." (Bucky Freeman hit 25 home runs with Washington in 1899--Editor's Note.)

From the more distant past, John Wesley (Pebbly Jack) Glasscock stepped to the ballot box and boldly cast his vote for Jerry Denny, a stranger to the present generation. He bolstered his choice with the following statement: "When I played, the distance between the pitcher and the batter (pitching rubber to home plate) was only 45 to 50 feet. Then, too, nobody but the catcher wore a glove. I guess I would pick Jerry Denny, a third baseman, as the greatest player of all time."

So, there you are. You know how the players stand. You know how they voted and why and and we sincerely hope that it will supply a lasting answer to the question. (Sporting News, April 2, 1942, by J. G. Taylor Spink, pp. 1 & 13)

[leecemark]

Right, all of Cobb's supporters were just ancient deadball romanticists. :rolleyes:

Bill's file on the Cobb, Ruth, and Wagner supporters shows this is completely untrue. You should give it a read sometime.

Once the people had only a set of numbers to stare at instead of the players and the times themselves were long, long gone, yeah, things changed.


--I've read Bill's files (or most of them anyway). Guys who grew up in the deadball era tended to view that as "real Baseball". Even if they adapted to the modern game, as many, did its hard not to have some bias toward the style of play you grew up with.

[Bill Burgess]

--I've read Bill's files (or most of them anyway). Guys who grew up in the deadball era tended to view that as "real Baseball". Even if they adapted to the modern game, as many, did its hard not to have some bias toward the style of play you grew up with.
If we concede that some bias is all but impossible to keep out, why can't you deal with the counter balance. The bias for Babe, and against Cobb, due to bias against the earlier deadball style.

Can you concede that some Babe supporters resist calling a deadballer #1, due to anti-deadball prejudice? I wonder.

Bill

[538280]

Can you concede that some Babe supporters resist calling a deadballer #1, due to anti-deadball prejudice? I wonder.

Bill

No, or at least the bias wouldn't be nearly as large. The deadball bias is primarily fuled by people complaining how the game wasn't played the way it had been played "back in the day". The live ball people wouldn't be thinking that way about the deadball game.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I give you leecemark as my example.


Regardless of Marks feelings about that particular era, I have not seen him show an ounce bias toward Ruth.

I give you myself as an example. Someone who does not feel the need to make a choice either way, in fact, I actually prefer small ball. Certainly prefer it much more than what we see today. My having Ruth 1 and Cobb 2 does not come down to era preference or style preference like it does with you and so many others Bill. Go read back through that "Ruth Short Porch" thread, where your bias is out there for all to see. Talking about Ruth not having an impact on the game and about 50 other pieces of nonsense that I would never have guessed in a million years, would come from your brain and down to your fingers. But its right there. I know your bias and its fine. Home runs ruined the game and all that jazz. I do not feel the need to come down on Cobb. He is #2 for a reason.


So, I submit the the Cobb prejudice is vastly outweighed by the Ruth prejudice, in favor of his style of play.


No way. Not even close. Cobb's style came first and many people always looked back upon that fondly, and of course Cobb and others did their part to bash the new style. What's the prejudice with Ruth's style of play? That its more valuable? If anything, Babe's all around play was completely overshadowed by his slugging and drawing prowess.
[/QUOTE]

[Bill Burgess]

Regardless of Marks feelings about that particular era, I have not seen him show an ounce bias toward Ruth.

When Mark first arrived here, he had Babe #1, and it took a while for him to muster his fortitude and break with the Fever mainstream. His switch to Willie took a little bit of chutzpah on his part. Now, he's an 'independent free thinker'.


I give you myself as an example. Someone who does not feel the need to make a choice either way, in fact, I actually prefer small ball. Certainly prefer it much more than what we see today. My having Ruth 1 and Cobb 2 does not come down to era preference or style preference like it does with you and so many others Bill. Go read back through that "Ruth Short Porch" thread, where your bias is out there for all to see. Talking about Ruth not having an impact on the game and about 50 other pieces of nonsense that I would never have guessed in a million years, would come from your brain and down to your fingers. But its right there. I know your bias and its fine. Home runs ruined the game and all that jazz. I do not feel the need to come down on Cobb. He is #2 for a reason.

I find you to be rare, Randy. Completely unbiased, fair. I have never detected the slightest era bias in any of your posts. In fact, you are so fair, Chris the Younger accuses you of favoring old style, back when. As did Adam (HonusWagnerRules).

No way. Not even close. Cobb's style came first and many people always looked back upon that fondly, and of course Cobb and others did their part to bash the new style. What's the prejudice with Ruth's style of play? That its more valuable? If anything, Babe's all around play was completely overshadowed by his slugging and drawing prowess.

Well, we're actually talking about 2 different things here.

1. Cobb Consensus, where 257 of those who saw both Ty/Babe supported Ty, while 32 supported Babe. 33 Supported Wagner.

2. Modern experts/SABR/Fever members.

I do believe that the anti-deadball bias is not as pronounced on Fever as I once feared when I arrived. 96 support Babe, 49 support Cobb.

Chris the Younger is a fair example of era bias. Yes, he does rank them fairly, in a way. But when he posts, he bashes the early guys unfairly.

He often cites sluggers as more valuable than composite players, and bashes players unfairly.

He undervalues Wagner due to league, Sisler due to not walking, and Cobb for not changing his style after 1920. I find all these things a sign of immaturity, and shallow perceptions. Fortunately, most Fever members don't share his analysis. I think he is a prime example of modern ball bias.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

When Mark first arrived here, he had Babe #1, and it took a while for him to muster his fortitude and break with the Fever mainstream. His switch to Willie took a little bit of chutzpah on his part. Now, he's an 'independent free thinker'.


It took a ton of adjustments.



Chris the Younger is a fair example of era bias. Yes, he does rank them fairly, in a way. But when he posts, he bashes the early guys unfairly.

He often cites sluggers as more valuable than composite players, and bashes players unfairly.

He undervalues Wagner due to league, Sisler due to not walking, and Cobb for not changing his style after 1920. I find all these things a sign of immaturity, and shallow perceptions. Fortunately, most Fever members don't share his analysis. I think he is a prime example of modern ball bias.
[/quote]

I understand. That's all he can really go on though. That isn't so much being bias as it is being naive imo.

[ThanksTheo]

I'm going to pipe in a few comments, keeping in mind that I'm not a true student of the game as most of you are, but I do consider myself one who enjoys the game as much as anybody can. And I gain tremendous enjoyment from reading about the history of the game.

No spears please.

I voted on this poll before reading the (lengthy) thread, and I voted Ruth. Primarily based on his impact on the game, contributions to the game, and his stats as we view them today.

It has always seemed that when Ruth came on the scene (offensively), he alone virtually ended the deadball era (contribution, for better or worse). I've since gained some perspective, and have begun to realize that it took just as much inner strength for Cobb to not change his style of playing, as it did for Ruth to play to his own strengths (pun). It has been difficult to understand and appreciate that most players from the pre-Ruth era simply weren't interested in HRs; it just wasn't important to them, because in our lifetime, the HR king is just that: a king. It's part of the coveted triple crown. The HR king receives more accolades than the RBI king, the ERA king, even the BA king. Deservedly or otherwise. (My opinion is otherwise).

So I research the stats of the top contenders, using my own weighting system, which consists primarily of common sense, appreciation, and understanding, woven around raw statistics. I also read historical and biographical articles and books to gain further insight into the players, the teams, and the times.

Great discussion, thanks to all who have been contributing. BTW.... Wagner and Cobb are looking a whole lot better than Ruth, as I continue my research.

[leecemark]

--Here is my take measuring guys only against their contemporaries. This takes LQ adjustments and changes in the style of play out of the mix. It provides a rough starting point for best ever discussion.
19th century (Anson is 25th for me)
1) Cap Anson: best of the 1870s and best career of the century (though far from the best peak)
2) Ed Delahanty
3) Dan Brouthers
4) Buck Ewing
5) Billy Hamilton
Deadball (2 top 10 and 4 top 20)
1) Honus Wagner (by a sliver)
2) Ty Cobb
3) Tris Speaker
4) Eddie Collins
5) Sam Crawford
--Lloyd beats out Crawford if you include Nel)
Between the Wars (1 top 10 and 4 top 20)
1) Babe Ruth
2) Lou Gehrig
3) Rogers Hornsby
4) Joe DiMaggio
5) Jimmie Foxx
--Charleston and Gibson beat out DiMaggio and Foxx w/NeL)
The Golden Years/Integration-Divisional play (5 top 10!)
1) Willie Mays
2) Hank Aaron
3) Ted Williams
4) Stan Musial
5) Mickey Mantle
--plus Robinson and Berra in my top 20 and Mathews in my top 25. Truley the golden era or my bias?
The Modern Era/69-92 (1 top 10 and 3 top 20)
1) Mike Schmidt
2) Johnny Bench
3) Joe Morgan
4) Rickey Henderson
5) Gerorge Brett
The Current Era (2 top 20, but obviously lots of room for growth)
1) Barry Bonds
2) Alex Rodriguez
3) Ken Griffey Jr
4) Mike Piazza
5) Jeff Bagwell/Frank Thomas and Pujols with a bullet

[westfield]

It's my pleasure, my friend.

Bill
pleasure is all mine-I do have a question for you. How do you decide where to rank Negro League players? This is always a big stumbling block for me when I'm trying to compile my own top 100. Any advice or guidance would be appreciated.
thanks

[Bill Burgess]

pleasure is all mine-I do have a question for you. How do you decide where to rank Negro League players? This is always a big stumbling block for me when I'm trying to compile my own top 100. Any advice or guidance would be appreciated.
thanks
To be gut blunt, I have no system. I go by gut, opinions, readings, etc.

I insert the top 10 Negro Leaguers into my Top 100 (as well as top 10 pre-1900 players), simply due to justice, respect, and common decency.

I don't know where they should be, and accept that their stats cannot be a reliable guidepost to light our way in this darkened, murky area.

So, I just sprinkle them around. No system, no stats to guide me. I fully realize I am being 100% arbitrary, and subjective. But I feel that because they were so arbitrarily and forcibly denied their fair opportunities to prove themselves the old-fashioned way, by competitively playing their white counter-parts, I am not ashamed to unabashedly insert them into my Top 100.

I limit myself to around 10 from each group, and hope this representative sampling does justice to them. You might consider what leecemark does. He inserts them without a ranking. Leaves no number alongside their name.

Recently, the Hall of Fame inducted a number of them, en masse, in order to correct a lifetime of unfair discrimination against an entire class of citizens.

I wish I could be more helpful. But I must be brutally honest, even when it diminishes and damages my credibility.

Bill

[Bill Burgess]

Between the Wars (1 top 10 and 4 top 20)
1) Babe Ruth
2) Lou Gehrig
3) Rogers Hornsby
4) Joe DiMaggio
5) Mel Ott
--Charleston and Gibson beat out DiMaggio and Ott w/NeL)
The Golden Years/Integration-Divisional play (5 top 10!)
1) Willie Mays
2) Hank Aaron
3) Ted Williams
4) Stan Musial

Some fairly nice work here, Mark. I appreciate when you take the time to do one of your more extensive posts. But I have only a couple of remarks.

Foxx should fairly slaughter Ott. I'd also put Simmons ahead of Mel, but only just barely, due to much better peak.

And Musial deserves to outrank Williams/Aaron, IMHO.

But still, nice work. Good job. Always appreciate good research skills.

[Myankee4life]

You wont find many people at the time claiming Ott more dominant than Foxx. I agree with Bill. This is shown by Foxx's 3 MVP's and triple crown award. I'd also put Foxx ahead of Dimaggio. The only way IMO that Ott goes ahead of Foxx is if you give him credit for playing RF, I guess not since Gehrig is #2 on your list

Ruth
Gehrig
Foxx
Dimaggio

[westfield]

To be gut blunt, I have no system. I go by gut, opinions, readings, etc.
Big help-thanks for taking the time to respond.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

It has been difficult to understand and appreciate that most players from the pre-Ruth era simply weren't interested in HRs; it just wasn't important to them,


They weren't interested in trying to hit them over the fence on a daily basis because it would have impacted the main number that was valued above all others back then. Batting average. It would have meant sacrificing that, especially when you consider how deep most of the fences were. Their approach fit things very nicely. Even after 1919, those players needed to stick to their old approach. Why destroy your BA legacy by adding a few more homers here and there. One thing is for sure. Aside from those old dead-ballers who experienced the liveball during their decline, there were many others who at one time or another tried to emulate Ruth. Most just couldn't do it without sacrificing BA.



Great discussion, thanks to all who have been contributing. BTW.... Wagner and Cobb are looking a whole lot better than Ruth, as I continue my research.

Cobb was playing just as different a brand of game as Ruth was. His approach was unique because his abilities were unique, much like Ruth's. Both masters at their particular style. I do not hold that against him the way most hold it against Babe and heavily adjust his relative power numbers down. Doing that, assumes that others could just do what Ruth was doing, or even close and that isn't the case; not with him, or with Cobb. I do not see a case for Wagner over Ruth. He's #4 overall for me.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

You wont find many people at the time claiming Ott more dominant than Foxx. I agree with Bill. This is shown by Foxx's 3 MVP's and triple crown award. I'd also put Foxx ahead of Dimaggio. The only way IMO that Ott goes ahead of Foxx is if you give him credit for playing RF, I guess not since Gehrig is #2 on your list

Ruth
Gehrig
Foxx
Dimaggio

With Sandy Koufax, to use an example, it wasn't until well after his career that people became aware of--and really started discussing--the huge degree to which Dodger Stadium helped him. And then, at long last, his ranking on most all-time lists, and his Adjusted ERA, suffered accordingly.

I obviously wasn't around in the mid-to-late 1930's, but I do not believe it was thus with Mel Ott. I believe everyone always knew that Ott was fattening up on the Polo Grounds. I do not believe they needed to wait for the end of his career to say, "Oh, wow, he had 323 HR's at home and only 188 on the road." I believe everyone knew he was a "home-town HR hitter" in the Chuck Klein tradition, only a much better all-around player.

Foxx was also helped a lot by his home parks, but nothing like 323/188. And Ott didn't put up total numbers anything like those of Foxx. Foxx had a 14-point edge in career OBP and a whopping 76-point edge in career slugging average.

I cannot imagine many people AT THAT TIME considered Ott a better player than Foxx. Yeah, he was a very good RF by most accounts, and really knew how to play the treacherous wall in the Polo Grounds, but no way was that enough to overcome Foxx's edges and the fact so much of Ott's reputation as a HR slugger was manufactured by that park and its preposterous foul lines and upper-deck overhang.

BHN

[538280]

Chris the Younger is a fair example of era bias. Yes, he does rank them fairly, in a way. But when he posts, he bashes the early guys unfairly.

Whatever, Bill, if having the exact same amount of players from each era is "bias" then you should look up the word in the dictionary. I "bash" older players simply because most people on here don't have even close to nearly the same amount from each era, they have ridiculously more old players than modern ones.


He often cites sluggers as more valuable than composite players, and bashes players unfairly.

Well, if you took the time to study values in baseball, you would also learn that this is generally true. Perception and reality are NOT the same thing.


He undervalues Wagner due to league, Sisler due to not walking, and Cobb for not changing his style after 1920. I find all these things a sign of immaturity, and shallow perceptions. Fortunately, most Fever members don't share his analysis. I think he is a prime example of modern ball bias.

To you having a modern bias is treating every era fairly. And you can check my lists too BTW, they are completely fair. For you to say it's naive to penalize those guys for the above things is completely naive of you, Bill.

[538280]

--Here is my take measuring guys only against their contemporaries.

This is how my lists would look like that, Negro Leaguers excluded:

19th Century, 1871-1899
1.Ed Delahanty
2.Roger Connor
3.Dan Brouthers
4.Buck Ewing
5.Billy Hamilton

Deadball, 1900-1919
1.Honus Wagner
2.Ty Cobb
3.Tris Speaker
4.Eddie Collins
5.Nap Lajoie

Between the Wars, 1920-1942
1.Babe Ruth
2.Lou Gehrig
3.Rogers Hornsby
4.Arky Vaughan
5.Jimmie Foxx

Intergration/Divisional Play, 1943-1969
1.Willie Mays
2.Mickey Mantle
3.Hank Aaron
4.Ted Williams
5.Stan Musial

Modern Era, 1970-1992
1.Joe Morgan
2.Rickey Henderson
3.Mike Schmidt
4.Johnny Bench
5.Cal Ripken

Current Era, 1993-Present
1.Barry Bonds
2.Alex Rodriguez
3.Frank Thomas
4.Mike Piazza
5.Jeff Bagwell

[538280]

Foxx should fairly slaughter Ott. I'd also put Simmons ahead of Mel, but only just barely, due to much better peak.


Only if you fail to adjust for the offensive environments of the two leagus at the time. Simmons was an RBI machine, but many people, yourself included, fail to look at opportunities involved with RBI. Simmons was an impatient hitter as well, while Ott drew 100 walks a year. You don't have to look past their peak OPS+ to realize this is true:

Ott-178, 178, 174, 174, 171
Simmons-176, 176, 171, 159, 149

That's even ignoring how after that short peak Ott has a ton of years at or near that level while Simmons tails off right away. No reasonable justification for rating Simmons ahead of Ott, unless you're brought in by raw, unadjusted numbers. I generally think Ott is an overrated player too.

I would also put Foxx ahead of Ott, though it's much closer than most people are willing to realize. Ott was not quite a Foxx's level in his best hitting seasons, but then he sustained his performance longer and played a more important defensive position.

[leecemark]

--I've got Foxx in the mid-20s all time and Ott in the early 30s so they are pretty close. Foxx had the higher peak, but Ott made up considerable ground with consistent performance.

[leecemark]

Some fairly nice work here, Mark. I appreciate when you take the time to do one of your more extensive posts. But I have only a couple of remarks.

Foxx should fairly slaughter Ott. I'd also put Simmons ahead of Mel, but only just barely, due to much better peak.

.

--Foxx was actually an oversight. I do have him a little ahead of Ott (see above post). I have Ott WAY ahead of Simmons though. Bucketfoot Al's best years were comparable to Ott's, but Master Melvin had alot more good ones.

[538280]

--Foxx was actually an oversight. I do have him a little ahead of Ott (see above post). I have Ott WAY ahead of Simmons though. Bucketfoot Al's best years were comparable to Ott's, but Master Melvin had alot more good ones.

Were Lajoie and Henderson oversights too? I realized you didn't have them listed.

[leecemark]

--Yeah they were. Henderson actually had already been inserted (4th in the modern era). Lajoie will be inserted in the 5th spot amoung deadballers (bumping Crawford).

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Ott was not quite a Foxx's level in his best hitting seasons, but then he sustained his performance longer and played a more important defensive position.

A more important defensive position indeed. However Ott, unlike most right fielders back then, had things extremely easy; not Ted Williams left field at Fenway easy, but easy nonetheless. The two corners at the Polo Grounds jetted straight out and the wall was 11 foot of solid concrete. This allowed the corner outfielder to position themselves closer to the centerfielder, while at the same time being aided from the ball down the line ricocheting off, toward him. Now, I'm not trying to knock Ott, just pointing out a fact. By all accounts he was very good at playing the carum, so that's a plus for him; any time someone can master a particular art, more power to them. But I don't think his defensive value in right field can be viewed the exact same as other right fielders. Also, the huge amount of fout territory at the Polo Grounds should effect their third and first baseman positively.

[leecemark]

--Ott was a good enough outfielder to slide over to CF when the Giants needed him too. Even better he moved to 3B when they needed that. He definately gets a defensive bump over Foxx.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

His only significant time at center was in '31 with 77 games there. The same factors that make life easier for corner outfielder in the Polo Grounds, also make life easier for the centerfielder. Wasn't their fault, that stadium was just funky.

btw: I not saying he shouldn't be ahead of Foxx defensively. I'm saying that more should be considered than just saying "right fielder vs. first baseman"...right fielder wins.

[Myankee4life]

Foxx was the best fielding 1B in his time and also played 3B, C, and LF....he even pitched!

[538280]

His only significant time at center was in '31 with 77 games there. The same factors that make life easier for corner outfielder in the Polo Grounds, also make life easier for the centerfielder. Wasn't their fault, that stadium was just funky.

btw: I not saying he shouldn't be ahead of Foxx defensively. I'm saying that more should be considered than just saying "right fielder vs. first baseman"...right fielder wins.

Ott also did spend some time at 3B, so there's more time at another position. BTW, Sultan, it may have been easier to play out there but it actually has an adverse effect on his statistics, because he catches less balls with the very short fence. I don't think Ott was a great fielder by any means, but he was probably better than Foxx, and yes it has mostly to do with positional importance.

[538280]

Foxx was the best fielding 1B in his time and also played 3B, C, and LF....he even pitched!

His most games caught in any seaosn was 42, and statistically he was a pretty bad defensive catcher. He deserves credit when he played there for more defensive value, but it doesn't play a big part in an evaluation of him.

[Bill Burgess]

Whatever, Bill, if having the exact same amount of players from each era is "bias" then you should look up the word in the dictionary. I "bash" older players simply because most people on here don't have even close to nearly the same amount from each era, they have ridiculously more old players than modern ones.
I did say that your list ranked the eras fair in one way, but . . . a list is not the only relevant issue.

You bash the early players in your postings almost every chance you get. So, your list cannot be your shield that gives you license to shred the early guys.

It seems that whenever there is a older/modern comparison, you invariably support the modern one. Even in terms of the issue of popularity, you support today over yesterday.

Here is your top 12:

1.Willie Mays
2.Babe Ruth
3.Barry Bonds
4.Honus Wagner
5.Mickey Mantle
6.Oscar Charleston
7.Ty Cobb
8.Joe Morgan
9.Hank Aaron
10.Ted Williams
11.Rickey Henderson
12.Mike Schmidt


As long as you rank Mantle/Bonds over Cobb, you are using LQ adjustments, which is your device of choice to downvalue early players with better records.

Even though Wagner/Charleston have cases as better than Cobb, it is a case they most definitely lose, and lose HUGE. It's especially galling to see Oscar ranked over Cobb. By a would-be stat-kid!! And to put Morgan/Henderson/Schmidt that close to Cobb is also without any justification or foundation in reality or stats.

Another example of your extremism in applying your LQ adjustments. So so out of line with all I understand of the game.

So, a ranking list that has the same number of players from the eras does not, in and of itself, render justice. It's how you rank, their order, and the reasons. And its not just me, but a lot of other members have told you as much. But you will just keep ignoring us, and we will just keep on calling your opinions as we see them.

Bill

[538280]

As long as you rank Mantle/Bonds over Cobb, you are using LQ adjustments, which is your device of choice to downvalue early players with better records.

Even though Wagner/Charleston have cases as better than Cobb, it is a case they most definitely lose, and lose HUGE. It's especially galling to see Oscar ranked over Cobb. By a would-be statkid!! And to put Morgan/Henderson/Schmidt that close to Cobb is also without any justification or foundation in realtiy or stats.

Well, Bill, apparently my system very much disagrees with you, and this is the system you lauded, and is completely fair to every era in terms of number of players. Charleston is a separate issue that I've explained a million times and dont' want to get into here.


Another example of your extremism in applying your LQ adjustments. So so out of line with all I understand of the game.

Well, to me there being 1/13 of the amount of top 20 players in the last 35 years as there were in the first 40 yeras of the 20th century is out of line. That's just to me. Your list shows 13 post 1940 players in the top 20, one post 1970 player.


So, a ranking list that has the same number of players from the eras does not, in and of itself, render justice. It's how you rank, their order, and the reasons. And its not just me, but a lot of other members have told you as much. But you will just keep ignoring us, and we will just keep on calling your opinions as we see them.

Bill

I have never ignored you. I have always answered what you've said, and I have always said I find your assertion that the first part of the century produced about 8 times as many great players as the 2nd part ridiculous and out of touch with reality. Just me.

[Bill Burgess]

I have always answered what you've said, and I have always said I find your assertion that the first part of the century produced about 8 times as many great players as the 2nd part ridiculous and out of touch with reality. Just me.
It's a draw. We're in stalemate. I agree to disagree.

[Myankee4life]

His most games caught in any seaosn was 42, and statistically he was a pretty bad defensive catcher. He deserves credit when he played there for more defensive value, but it doesn't play a big part in an evaluation of him.

But Foxx in his career played

1919 -1B
141- 3B
108- C
21- OF
10- P
1- SS

He basically played all the positions in his career. And although 42 games in a season isn't much (according to you) 282 games at other positions in his career is a sizable sample to give him credit for. The idea that Foxx was this lumbering heavy-breathing slugger is crazy. As a youngin he won many track awards while being all-state every year througout his late teens. And from what I read (I read everything there is too read about Foxx) all of them said Foxx was a great game caller and had a cannon arm. Also I dont think Matt has his DEF PCA-BA for his years at C, 3B, or OF but he has a career .288 DEF PCA-BA and was the best in the league in the early 30's. Like him or not this guy had talent and I have no doubt that he'd be more than adequate as a C or 3B.

[leecemark]

--If Foxx was more than adequete at 3B or C he would have played there. Generally guys move down the defensive spectrum because they displayed an inability (or lost the ability) to successfully play the spot they are being moved from. Foxx ended up a pretty good defensive firstbaseman, but he; a) wasn't a great defender even there and b) ended up there because he wasn't working out at more demanding spots.

[Myankee4life]

--If Foxx was more than adequete at 3B or C he would have played there. Generally guys move down the defensive spectrum because they displayed an inability (or lost the ability) to successfully play the spot they are being moved from. Foxx ended up a pretty good defensive firstbaseman, but he; a) wasn't a great defender even there and b) ended up there because he wasn't working out at more demanding spots.

Nope because Foxx usually filled in for injured players. Once the player came back it only made sense to put Foxx back at first. Also not much chance of staying a catcher when you have Mickey Cochrane on the team and Jimmie Dykes who certainly wasn't a slouch. Once Foxx went to Boston he was an older player so permanent moves to either C or 3B were out of the question. If Foxx was such a bad C or 3B then why would his manager's keep playing him there when he was needed. Mack had him as an utility and so did Cronin. According to Matt's DEFENSIVE PCA-BA, Foxx scored .288 and was the best defensive 1B in the early 30's....so I dont know where you got the idea that he wasn't a great 1B.

[leecemark]

--Those PCA scores equate to BA. Assuming Matt has it right then Foxx's defense at first was equal in quality to a guy hitting .288. That is pretty good, but hardly great. Foxx actually was signed as a catcher and then moved to 3B and finally to 1B.
--Looking at his record he did fill in occasionally at 3B (and less often elsewhere) after settling at 1B, so give him a little extra credit for versatility. The bizarre mid-career partial season at catcher I don't know what to think about. I guess he does deserve some credit for not telling the Red Sox to take that mask and shove it, but it was crazy to move a superstar 1B to C so long after he given it up. If they had won with the experiment I'd give him monster bonus points (more than Ott/Rose/Killebrew for their moving to 3B mid-career to boost their teams to pennants), but it didn't work out for him or the team.

[Myankee4life]

According to PCA these are Jimmie's high marks

.348,.337,.329,.325, .323

he had a couple of seasons in the .290's and a few in the .280's

then he had a horrible decline

.223,.224,.214,.208

Like his batting once he suffered with his sinuses his whole game fell apart, the sinuses got so bad that it left him blurred vision when he try to focus below the belt. No doubt I say it affected his groundball fielding or any type of scoop play.

Remove his decline years and you have a .325 career fielder....

[Blackout]

using LQ adjustments doesn't explain how Charleston ranks above Cobb

and Joe Morgan ahead of Aaron??

[leecemark]

using LQ adjustments doesn't explain how Charleston ranks above Cobb

and Joe Morgan ahead of Aaron??

--LQ adjustments modify relative stats. Since Negro Leaguers don't have reliable stats then you can't really make LQ adjustments. Really all you can do is guess at where they should rank.

--Who has Morgan ahead of Aaron? LQ couldn't explain that since they played mostly in the same leagues.

[Bill Burgess]

Just came across an old SABR pulication article, which I thought you guys might find intriguing.

SABR's 'Baseball Research Journal', 1975, "Home Park Effects on Performance in the American League, by Pete Palmer, pp. 50-60.


It concerns some home/away breakdowns for certain ballparks for some well-known hitters. Hope you like it.

If anyone wants to put them next to each other, that might be easier to view. Or even all 3 side by side, if that is possible.

[Bill Burgess]

Continuing on.

[Bill Burgess]

More of the same.

[BaseballHistoryNut]

Who is responsible for the order in which those players were ranked? Goslin was twice the player Rice was, as well as arguably every other player in Washington/Minnesota history (including Killebrew), except Walter Johnson.

[Hammerin Hank]

95. Mark McGuire

It's spelled "McGwire".

[leecemark]

Who is responsible for the order in which those players were ranked? Goslin was twice the player Rice was, as well as arguably every other player in Washington/Minnesota history (including Killebrew), except Walter Johnson.

I rank Killebrew comfortably ahead of Golsin. OTOH, I consider Washinton and Minnesota two completely different franchises, so each is the best position player in the hisotry of one:) .

[538280]

--Who has Morgan ahead of Aaron? LQ couldn't explain that since they played mostly in the same leagues.

My system does. I made a decision from the beginning to go with what my system says, and it says Morgan is ahead of Aaron (as well as Ted Williams). That may be changing though. I like my system and all but subjectively I can't see any reason to rank Morgan ahead. Basically my system has him ahead because it likes his peak quite a bit more.

[538280]

According to PCA these are Jimmie's high marks

.348,.337,.329,.325, .323

he had a couple of seasons in the .290's and a few in the .280's

then he had a horrible decline

.223,.224,.214,.208

Like his batting once he suffered with his sinuses his whole game fell apart, the sinuses got so bad that it left him blurred vision when he try to focus below the belt. No doubt I say it affected his groundball fielding or any type of scoop play.

Remove his decline years and you have a .325 career fielder....

His fielding was VERY good for a 1Bman, Myankee, I've never said it was. DWS gives him an A grade I belive, and that seems to be in line with other metrics. In my system I gave him a 17/20 for 1B fielding. I think that's about right.

[rrfsr360]

Actually, we should even include Pete Rose and let me tell you I am not a big fan of his, but let's face it... he got the job done! Amen

[Bill Burgess]

I like my system and all but subjectively I can't see any reason to rank Morgan ahead. Basically my system has him ahead because it likes his peak quite a bit more.
I encourage you to adjust your system to rank Peak less heavily.

We all like Peak. It shows who was better in an ideal moment of time. But just as I cannot in good conscience rank Sandy Koufax over Warren Spahn, so we all must ultimately judge a player according to career. That was why I was forced to drop George Sisler from 6th to his present 19th on my Top 100, and also had to drop Joe Jackson from 7th to 20th.

My heart wasn't in it at all, but I had to recognize that neither, for different reasons, had the necessary longevity to remain in my Top 10. Sometimes love hurts.

In fact, I just did something I absolutely hated to do. I recognized that my greatest ever catcher, with only 12 years behind the plate, Buck Ewing, just couldn't stay in it with the others of much longer careers. So I had to drop him into the 20's. Also moved down Sisler, Jackson, J. Robinson. My new Top 25:

1. Ty Cobb 5
2. Honus Wagner 2
3. Babe Ruth 1
4. Willie Mays 3
5. Oscar Charleston, NL 4
6. Pop Lloyd, NL 22
7. Tris Speaker 10
8. Rogers Hornsby 18
9. Lou Gehrig 13
10. Barry Bonds 15
11. Eddie Collins 16
12. Stan Musial 9
13. Hank Aaron 11
14. Joe DiMaggio 12
15. Mickey Mantle 6
16. Ted Williams 7
17. Nap Lajoie 33
18. Mike Schmidt 17
19. Biz Mackay, NL -
20 Johnny Bench 36
21. Buck Ewing - C17
22. George Sisler -
23. Joe Jackson 52
24. Jackie Robinson 27
25. Alex Rodriguez - SS17

Man did I hate doing that, but I respect reality more than my own, personal subjective favorite feelings.

[ThePeach]

Tris Speaker was really helped out by his home ballparks.

[538280]

I encourage you to adjust your system to rank Peak less heavily.

We all like Peak. It shows who was better in an ideal moment of time. But just as I cannot in good conscience rank Sandy Koufax over Warren Spahn, so we all must ultimately judge a player according to career. That was why I was forced to drop George Sisler from 6th to his present 19th on my Top 100, and also had to drop Joe Jackson from 7th to 20th.

My heart wasn't in it at all, but I had to recognize that neither, for different reasons, had the necessary longevity to remain in my Top 10. Sometimes love hurts.

In fact, I just did something I absolutely hated to do. I recognized that my greatest ever catcher, with only 12 years behind the plate, Buck Ewing, just couldn't stay in it with the others of much longer careers. So I had to drop him into the 20's. Also moved down Sisler, Jackson, J. Robinson.


How exacty does my system weight peak more heavily than career? :confused: And why do you think I rate koufax ahead of Spahn? I don't at all.


My new Top 25:

1. Ty Cobb 5
2. Honus Wagner 2
3. Babe Ruth 1
4. Willie Mays 3
5. Oscar Charleston, NL 4
6. Pop Lloyd, NL 22
7. Tris Speaker 10
8. Rogers Hornsby 18
9. Lou Gehrig 13

Man did I hate doing that, but I respect reality more than my own, personal subjective favorite feelings.

Well, what can I say. I've been over it a million times. It still is in heavy contention for the single most ridiculous list I've ever seen on here.....but to each his own. I still feel that claiming 8 of the top 9 players ever played in the short 1900-1940 window completely farcial, but I've been over that SO many times.

[Bill Burgess]

How exacty does my system weight peak more heavily than career? :confused: And why do you think I rate koufax ahead of Spahn? I don't at all.

And why exactly do you always put questions in my mouth that I didn't ask? I never said your system weighted peak more heavily than career, did I? Go back and reread my words.

I said that I encouraged you to weight Peak less heavily. And I said that in reaction to what you wrote on Morgan/Aaron.

Well, what can I say. I've been over it a million times. It still is in heavy contention for the single most ridiculous list I've ever seen on here.....but to each his own. I still feel that claiming 8 of the top 9 players ever played in the short 1900-1940 window completely farcial, but I've been over that SO many times.
Do you really think I care about how many times you opine wrongly? If I did, I wouldn't still be addressing you. My list is 'still is in heavy contention for the single most ridiculous list I've ever seen on here'?

With your present ranking of Cobb/Morgan? Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Killing me, Chris. Get a list.

[538280]

And why exactly do you always put questions in my mouth that I didn't ask? I never said your system weighted peak more heavily than career, did I? Go back and reread my words.

I said that I encouraged you to weight Peak less heavily. And I said that in reaction to what you wrote on Morgan/Aaron.

You said you encouraged me to weight peak less heavily. To me that implies that you feel it weights peak too much. Mabye I misunderstood if that was not what you meant.


Do you really think I care about how many times you opine wrongly? If I did, I wouldn't still be addressing you. My list is 'still is in heavy contention for the single most ridiculous list I've ever seen on here'?

With your present ranking of Cobb/Morgan? Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Killing me, Chris. Get a list

No, that was not meant to be a joke. It was serious. Enough though, no use in arguing more. We're not going to go anywhere.

[Bill Burgess]

You said you encouraged me to weight peak less heavily. To me that implies that you feel it weights peak too much. Maybe I misunderstood if that was not what you meant..


My system does. I made a decision from the beginning to go with what my system says, and it says Morgan is ahead of Aaron (as well as Ted Williams). That may be changing though. I like my system and all but subjectively I can't see any reason to rank Morgan ahead. Basically my system has him ahead because it likes his peak quite a bit more.

This is what I was referring to. If your system has a 'slight' flaw, perhaps adjusting it to not weight Peak so heavily might correct it.

No, that was not meant to be a joke. It was serious. Enough though, no use in arguing more. We're not going to go anywhere.
It's a draw. We're in stalemate. I agree to disagree. Since you believe my top players list is so ridiculous, you have obviously lost respect for my judgments/evaluations, so why continue to dog me?

[RuthMayBond]

My system does. I made a decision from the beginning to go with what my system says, and it says Morgan is ahead of Aaron (as well as Ted Williams). That may be changing though. I like my system and all but subjectively I can't see any reason to rank Morgan ahead. Basically my system has him ahead because it likes his peak quite a bit more.Please explain how Morgan's peak > Ted Williams' peak

[BoSox Rule]

As long as you rank Bonds over Cobb, you are using LQ adjustments
Not exactly. He's the better player with or without. However, you can use a steroid adjustment to make it the other way around, which I don't, but wouldn't entirely disagree.

[538280]

Please explain how Morgan's peak > Ted Williams' peak

Well my system includes a number of peak components-fielding, baserunning ratings, peak Win Shares (LQ adjusted), and peak OPS+ (LQ and positional adjusted). This what I"ve got for them in those categories, you can read the explanation thread ("New Rating System") for the exact explanations on how exactly I get the numbers you see:

Peak WS
Morgan-86.83
Williams-88.33

Peak OPS+
Morgan-82.77
Williams-93.1

Fielding
Morgan-37 (above average 2B)
Williams-15 (average LF)

Baserunning
Morgan-19.16
Williams-6.28

Total
Morgan-225.76
Williams-202.71

Basically what my system is saying is that while Williams was certainly a better hitter-adjusting for positional importance the difference was no insurmountable-and Morgan's other advantages are just enough to overcome it. I like my system a lot, but I don't ALWAYS trust it completely. I'm split on whether I should trust it or not here.

[538280]

Not exactly. He's the better player with or without. However, you can use a steroid adjustment to make it the other way around, which I don't, but wouldn't entirely disagree.

My system does have a steroid adjustment to penalize Bonds, and he still comes out about 40 points ahead of Cobb. Bonds has about a 10% LQ advantage on Cobb-with NO LQ adjustment whatsoever (but still the steroid adjustment) he'd probably be very slightly ahead.

[EvanAparra]

Im taking Williams here. I know he was average defensively... But the best ever with the bat, hands down, IMO.

[MantleFan911]

he was the greatest all-around player. he was one of if not the best defensive cf ever and on top of that, hit 660 hrs!!!!!! i will argue if mantle didnt drink and wouldnt have had those major injuries he would b the greatest!!!!!

[Dr.Detroit]

I'm not gonna sit here and pull stats crunch numbers and talk of shares. I'm gonna speak of factors outside numbers that cause many to believe that the fat man is a better ballplayer than Mr. Cobb.

First I'm a little biased, being that I'm a Detroit boy. Yet, I somewhat understand the power of the press, as well as popular opinion.

We Americans are often blinded by dominant opinions. Basically we often are sheep. Many people follow the ideals of pop culture.

First, I'm not gonna spit on the Babe's career. He is without a doubt one of the greatest. On my list I place him 3rd behind the Say Hey Kid. But to compare him to Cobb in my eyes is ludicrous.

Media in my eyes have created this belief that Ruth was better than Cobb. New York has the largest media outlet in the U.S. Not to mention it's the largest city. Ruth was loved, Cobb feared. Ruth often was pictured with sick children, passing money out to the poor, and everybody loves a rags to riches story. One of the most well-known stories about Ruth is how he hit two home runs for a sick kid. Yes, Ruth had a big heart. The media ate it up. We as a society have eaten it up. Thus, due to popular belief, people, the slate is already slanted in favor of Ruth. The Yanks are on ESPN all the time. They always speak of the rich baseball traditions in New York. Almost every nationally televised Yankee game has the image of Ruth's plaque in the stadium. If your look at sheer population numbers of New York, you will see millions upon millions more Yankee and Ruth fans than Cobb. As a society we are bombarded with images of New York, and consequently we are bombarded with the Yankees.

When you think of Detroit, most people think of cars............and CRIME. Thus, in my eyes Cobb is already at a disadvantage. Now think about one of the most well know stories about Cobb...................He sharpened his cleats. Well ya he did, but there always was a method behind his madness. Common sense would tell you it helps with traction, as well as a psychological advantage over would-be defenders. But Cobb is portrayed as doing that just to hurt people. Many people say Cobb killed a would-be mugger by pistol-whipping him to death. This was never proven, in fact many say Cobb was lying, as Wayne County death records never show a death of this manner in that year. In this politically-correct world we cannot like a Racist! Again, yes he was, but does that make him any less of a ballplayer. But the media is often torn on this. Do they show Cobb in a positive light and just talk numbers. Nah..... they usually have a disclaimer along the lines of "Ty Cobb, one of the greatest yet most violent baseball players of all time" Upon reading this, people already have a negative image of him. We must also look at the photos. There are not many photos of Cobb. Not nearly as many as the Babe. This is due to tech advances. I bet more kids today know of what the Babe looks like than Cobb. Think of the great photo of Ruth's lefty swing, eyes glaring upward at a home run ball, then think of Cobb's photo as he flys in the air spiking a catcher in the stomach. As a parent, are you gonna tell your kids about Ruth or Cobb who assaulted his wife with a bat?

I think the greatest testament to the debate is the Hall of Fame voting in 1936. Yes Yankee lovers, your Babe was greatly out-voted by people who saw the both of them play. These people clearly felt, that upon playing against them and or watching the both of them play.........Cobb was far superior. No matter what we argue today, that is clearly the Knockout Blow in the Cobb vs. Ruth debate.

As well.........Can you say 'deadball era'? Ruth's numbers jumped drastically after banning of the spit/dirty ball, changing of the ball during the game, and fouls counting as strikes. We also must remember the home run-friendly parks that Babe played in. Bennett/Navin field at one point in Cobb's career did not have a wall as to which a home run could be hit over. We also must look at playing styles. When Cobb entered the league the style was base by base, for more action. Babe created a whole new style. There is another famous story where Cobb told a reporter that today will be the first time he will swing for the fences. He went 6 for 6, with three home runs!

Did I mention 90+ records at the end of Cobb's career.

Popularity says Ruth was the greatest ever...........Logic demands that COBB is the greatest ever!!!!!!!!!

[538280]

Dr. Detroit,

Considering just about every statistical system ever made favors Ruth ahead of Cobb, I think claiming Ruth is only thought to be better because of media hype is an unfounded and ridiculous claim.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Babe Ruth. No one really dominated his era like he did. And that has probably been repeated on this thread a whole bunch. :D

[Bill Burgess]

Dr. Detroit,

Wow! Wonderfully insightful post. Perceptive observations. Boy are you going to enjoy my Ty Cobb Thread! Our conclusions are identical. So, far, Babe leads Ty on Fever, about 90-50, but new additions like yourself shows we're closing fast. I just added a great photo gallery at the end of Ty Cobb Thread.

Bill

[SamtheBravesFan]

Dr. Detroit,

Considering just about every statistical system ever made favors Ruth ahead of Cobb, I think claiming Ruth is only thought to be better because of media hype is an unfounded and ridiculous claim.

That's absolutely right.

[Bill Burgess]

More to baseball than numbers, lads. Ever hear of a hypothetical?

[538280]

Dr. Detroit,

Wow! Wonderfully insightful post. Perceptive observations. Boy are you going to enjoy my Ty Cobb Thread! Our conclusions are identical. So, far, Babe leads Ty on Fever, about 90-50, but new additions like yourself shows we're closing fast. I just added a great photo gallery at the end of Ty Cobb Thread.

Bill

All right then Bill. Tell me how Ruth is only considered better than Cobb because of media hype. That's basically what that post is saying, summarized.

[SamtheBravesFan]

I can see both sides of the argument here, though, but I still have to go with Ruth. I can't find a REALLY compelling reason to say Ty Cobb was better.

[leecemark]

Point A: Ruth is ranked ahead of Cobb only due to media hype
Point B: The "proof" Cobb was better is he got more votes in the first Hall of Fame ballot
Problem: the voting was done by the media who supposedly hyped Ruth into the top spot

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Dr. Detroit,

Wow! Wonderfully insightful post. Perceptive observations. Boy are you going to enjoy my Ty Cobb Thread! Our conclusions are identical. So, far, Babe leads Ty on Fever, about 90-50, but new additions like yourself shows we're closing fast. I just added a great photo gallery at the end of Ty Cobb Thread.

Bill

The fact that you embrace a post which starts out by calling Ruth a "fat man" and then proceeds with more inaccuracies is disturbing but not surprising. Using the deadball? You know his hitting ratios AS A PITCHER with the deadball, and what he did against the deadball/trick pitches in '19 in a horrific park for HR. Is it any wonder he did what he did in '20 as a full time player? Using the HOF vote against Ruth? Funny. Not only were most people back biased toward the deadball era, but they knew very little at that time about true value and just how much of it Ruth brought to the table. His career had just finished. When you consider everything, its extremely impressive that he was able to get as many votes as he did. Its a good thing Ruth had that media to fabricate all those feats. They turned a very good player into a legend :crazy

[leecemark]

--Welcome back, Randy.

[538280]

The fact that you embrace a post which starts out by calling Ruth a "fat man" and then proceeds with more inaccuracies is disturbing but not surprising. Using the deadball? You know his hitting ratios AS A PITCHER with the deadball, and what he did against the deadball/trick pitches in '19 in a horrific park for HR. Is it any wonder he did what he did in '20 as a full time player? Using the HOF vote against Ruth? Funny. Not only were most people back biased toward the deadball era, but they knew very little at that time about true value and just how much of it Ruth brought to the table. His career had just finished. When you consider everything, its extremely impressive that he was able to get as many votes as he did. Its a good thing Ruth had that media to fabricate all those feats. They turned a very good player into a legend :crazy

I completely agree with you, Sultan! ;)

[overhandgas53]

I chose Wille Mays becuase he came up about 2 or 3 years after JAckie robinson came up to the big leagues. He is in the top 10 in home runs, had a great glove, and played with class.

[Bill Burgess]

All right then Bill. Tell me how Ruth is only considered better than Cobb because of media hype. That's basically what that post is saying, summarized.
Although I didn't say that, I will defend it as a partial explanation of why Babe is thought of as 'better'.

Before the advent of William Randolph Hearst, newspaper mogul, NYC had around 30 daily newspapers in 1920. Detroit had 3. New York's papers were often world class, Detroit's were small time regional.

By 1933, after much Heart-sponsored consolidation, here is the breakdown by 1933. So by 1933, NYC had already lost about 10 papers, and yet had 7 times more publicity, than Detroit could possibly muster.

(Detroit - 3 ( News; Free Press; Times)

New York - 20 (World-Telegram; Sun; Evening Post; Journal; American; Daily News; Herald-Tribune; Times; Mirror; Ass. Press; United Press; Bronx Home News; Al Munro Elias Baseball Bureau; International News Service; Chicago Tribune(NY office); Christy Walsh Syndicate; North American Newspaper Ass.; Consolidated Press; Bell Syndicate; George Mathew Adams Service)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here, I wish to call upon a snippet of a post I did a while back. I'm sure you remember the name of John B. Sheridan, don't you, Chris? He was the St. Louis sports writer, 1888-1929, who flamed George Sisler for not waiting out a pitcher. So I'm sure you'll agree the man knew his stuff. Here is a snippet from a piece he did for The Sporting News, December 8, 1927, pp. 4, column 6.
-----------------------------------------------------
The newspaper ballyhoo is of enormous importance. True, to draw, to create interest, to make ballyhooo possible, you must have (1) a winning team; (2) play an attractive style of baseball; (3) possess players who make good copy for the newspapers; (4) be fortunate enough to have with you baseball writers who are capable of putting on a good ballyhoo. A pleasant, commodious, clean, comfortable accessible park, has decided values in drawing power.

What value would Ruth have in the small Cubs' park at Chicago, compared to the enormous value he possesses in the huge Yankee Stadium? One-half, I believe, because Wrigley Field can accommodate only one-half as many people as the Yankee Stadium.

What is the value of the mere name New York as a drawing card? Considerable. That is a New York team will draw more people than a St. Louis, Detroit, Washington or Cincinnati team of equal standing and playing attractiveness. The words New York Cast have a distinct drawing value.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth certainly does draw large additional sums at the gate as a component part of a potential world's championship team, of a New York team, as the best "ballyhooed" man in the world. What percentage of Ruth's unquestionable drawing power are attributable to (1) Ruth himself; (2) a world's championship team; (3) New York Cast; (4) the ballyhoo; (5) good teams to play against; (6) good parks to play in?

The fact that an attractive player, who does possess a drawing value of his own is a member of a New York team confers enormous drawing values upon him. The very name New York--the metropolis--has a distinct value. New York is the center of an enormous stable and floating population; of an amusement seeking population; such as no other city in the United States has. New York is the center of news distribution, of features, special stories, cartoons and all the rest of the ballyhoo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The attractive player on a New York team gets the benefit of all this huge volume of publicity, of the enormous concentrated population, of the metropolitan district of the huge buying crowds, convention-attending crowds, of the crowds attracted by the general ballyhoo, which has attained infinitely greater volume in New York than anywhere else in the world. Surely, no one would claim that the ballplayer, individually, is entitled to cash in on these things

If you enjoyed this snippet, here is the link to the entire article. I keep it warehoused in my Ty Cobb Thread, post 144.

http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=299547&postcount=144
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The importance of the media concentration is of vast importance to the Babe Ruth story. Just what kind of coverage would Babe have received in St. Louis, Cincinnati, Detroit or Pittsburgh? Not nearly as much, I'd venture to say. It's not that Babe didn't deserve it, so much as they couldn't provide it.

I am not saying that the media created Babe Ruth the player. But I think Dr. Detroit is very spot on when he says that the media very much created Babe Ruth the Myth. They have successfully turned a real life, flesh and blood, historical person into Paul Bunyan. A larger than life cultural Superman. They made Babe into an adjective. Ruthian in now part of our lexicon. If I described someone as Cobbian, no one would know what I was referring to.

Yes, Babe was one of the greatest all around ballplayers the game has ever produced. Still the mightiest slugger and drawing card. Babe did that without needing publicity. But the media helped him more than any other player. That and Sabremetrics.

But Dr. Detroit's sage comments that virtually all who saw both players actually play baseball were of one mind. Cobb was the most supreme playing instrument ever produced, and there never was a close second. Most of the NYC sports writers supported Cobb as the best. Most of the players of the 1920's supported Cobb as the best. Same for managers, coaches, umpires, owners, etc. Even most of the fans of the era supported Cobb as the best, despite the vast publicity awarded the more glamorous, glorified Babe.

The issue here, Christopher is PERCEPTION. Babe was never considered the best player while he lived. Survey polls conducted in 1931 (Philadelphia Public Ledger), 1936 (Hall of Fame), 1942 (Sporting News) all showed Cobb as having overwhelming support as the greatest ever, followed by Wagner. It wasn't until after 1950 that perception started to change.

With the advent of the black player in 1947, the beginnings of social awareness of racism in the 1950's, and Cobb's public persona as a racist all factored in. But a huge contributing factor was that the game evolved in a Ruthian, as opposed to a Cobbian direction.

The cherry atop the whipped cream was the death of Cobb in 1961, closely followed by the death of Sporting News chief, Taylor Spink in Dec., 1961. With the demise of Spink, one of Ty's most ardent supporters, Ty would no longer receive the necessary support in publicity in the one media outlet that counted, The Sporting News. Spink's successor at the helm, CC Johnson Spink, couldn't hold a candle to Taylor.

This is all about publicity, Christopher. A subject you would do well to study in depth. It does color all of our perceptions even until this very day.

It dictates what is 'in' to wear, what media events in the way of films, stage shows, reality TV shows to watch, and yes, even what baseball players we should believe are better than others.

Media has a huge influence over almost everybody. But not me, and not a lot of other stubborn non-conformists. I am a Maverick, an eagle, and I go my own way, dance to my own inner-directed drummer. Both my politics/religious beliefs are radically minority. I am a minority within a minority, within a minority. So media disgusts me more than it influences me. I can't even watch the disgusting news, it's so horrible.

Bill

[Bill Burgess]

The fact that you embrace a post which starts out by calling Ruth a "fat man" and then proceeds with more inaccuracies is disturbing but not surprising. Using the HOF vote against Ruth? Funny. Not only were most people back biased toward the deadball era, but they knew very little at that time about true value and just how much of it Ruth brought to the table. His career had just finished. When you consider everything, its extremely impressive that he was able to get as many votes as he did. Its a good thing Ruth had that media to fabricate all those feats. They turned a very good player into a legend :crazy
Quoted me quite a bit out of context but that's alright. I post pro-liveball/HRs and you're nowhere to be found. I welcome a Ty Brother to Fever, and you suddenly materialize out of thin air?!

Just because I express joy at the arrival of a Tyman, does not mean that I must endorse every single word, comma or iota of his post. I did not endorse 'fat man', and I have not criticized Babe since your arrival so long ago, have I?

And I don't think I criticized Babe anywhere in that post. I dredged up an old post by one of my favorite writers, John Sheridan, because it was one of the finest pieces on the relative value of players I've ever read.

But from what I remember, you hated it even back then. Why? Because Sheridan used Babe as an example of how a player benefited from the structure of organized baseball? He could have used Cobb, Johnson, Waddell, etc., but he used Babe, because in 1927, Babe was the most conspicuous example, by far. But all his points were right on.

How much publicity could he have received in a small city? The question is not how much he deserved, but how much they could give. And I think the point was well-honed.

BTW - I hope you are back. The BR Thread needs you desperately. I get emails about Babe and I post them there. I was hoping you'd take on the reorganization of the Babe Ruth Discussion. I'll turn them over to you if that's what you require. Would take a load off of me.

Bill

[Dr.Detroit]

Wow, sensitivity reigns supreme on the on this web site!!!!!!!! I apologize for calling the Babe a "fat man." First and foremost he was FAT so guess what, I'll call him fat in true Cobbian fasion...... "Ruth you fat FOOL, can u count to 20!". Forget him and you over sensitive New York cry babies, I'm not saying all New Yorkers are cry babies, but I feel that anyone that questions the Babe gets unfounded criticism. YES, I called him fat!!!!!!!!!! Hey, New Yorkers. Guess what? He was!!!!!!!! You guys fell into mt trap! Omg how dare you say anything about the drunken, womanizing, fat man! American popular belief would not approve!!!!!!!!!!!! Guess what, you have no rebuttal except that maybe he had a thyroid problem and suffered from depression from his misspent youth.

So what...................... get over it, Cobb did, and on his death bed he said he would not change anything in his past.

I'm not here to make friends.......... just prove points!

Oh..... BTW......... not only reporters but players got to vote in the first class of Cooperstown. So yes, you Ruthian supporters can stand down!!! Your media-biased opinions of the Fat Man will be slowly but surely be unfounded, yet Ruthian records are fast being broken!

The Babe is a dying icon...... I'm sorry that his records are fast being broken. Just maybe you're upset that Bonds IS gonna beat him! Thats not Cobb's fault!

Still I hear no factual-based argument against the "deadball". Give it up, Ruthian fanatics. Lets face it, science is even on our side. The sheer mass of a baseball is truly different today than in Cobb's era. Cobbian baseballs were soft, half as dense as Ruthian balls. Sheer logic will tell you that a "soft, tobacco stained ball, covered in spit, thrown unorthodoxly, will cause less home runs!"

My bad, really.............I'm sorry............ that some people are blinded by pop culture. Let me guess.....the Beatles are one of the most complete musicians of all time! I BET YOUR MOMMY TOLD YOU THAT!>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>This is my point!

Media as wells as history books distort fact! John Brown historically is pictured as a crazed fanatic.......kind of like Yankee fans....... but he was never diagnosed as insane. All photos or drawings of him show a man with waxy hair. So WHAT?! My bad, you mean to tell me that a man who died to make the world realize that slavery was wrong.....had to be insane! It's a crock as well as the people who believe Ruth was better.

Numbers, numbers, numbers. I bet I could create a formula that would show Cobb as the best! Your nerdian no sexual contact-getting numbers mean nothing! Still no true rebuttal against the dead ball era, as well as the fact that Cobb's early ballparks had no wall......................Wait, I bet if you divide the speed of Ruth's swing times Pie, with the square root of Cobb's number, subtracted by the hairs on Moses face, added to the density of the fresh new ball era, multiplied by fourteen pounds of horse crap.....Ruth is the better all around player.

Hey Sultan.....guess what........... I'd hate say it...... but........... a Yankee.....is not the greatest of all time. I think New York can handle the fact that a Detroiter beat them out in the game of baseball.

Cry Cry Cry, .............................The Babe was not from New York! Nor Italian, nor the greatest ever. Maybe this topic should be considered the greatest power hitter of all time. Look people...........being fat has a negative effect on physical performance...........................I say stick his rotund butt at shortstop or center field (I do believe Cobb played this position) and see how many errors he would have racked up. Remember, Cobb ran EVERY base until he retired, at the end of his career, Ruth, even when a home run was hit, could not run past first base.

Wow! Ruth must have been a better athlete!

Like I said.................................Ruth is a dying icon.........................................As is the evil empire..................Just think...................................when the time come for a salary cap...................How good will the Yankees be?............................................... .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...............Smart money tells you that George will sell the team at that point!


Oh my bad, STILL no rebuttal against media favoritism?

Mr. Burgess you are a gentleman and a scholar, I have not heard a well devised defense or rant that can compare to your logical responses! KEEP IT UP...............Maybe one day we will defeat the national bias towards THE FAT MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kill me.......once again I called the German you claim to be Itallian.............Fat. Ask yourself? Was he fat?

Yes, yes, I attacked our nationally beloved Babe, yes I was unfair, just like bias and national media has been to the true king of the diamond.

[Ytown Tribe fan]

Let's ask the BBWAA!

... and the answer is: Tom Seaver!

Here are the top-10 HoFers, based on the percentage of votes they received from BBWAA writers:

Tom Seaver, 1992, 98.84% of voters
Nolan Ryan, 1999, 98.79
Ty Cobb, 1936, 98.23
George Brett, 1999, 98.19
Hank Aaron, 1982, 97.83

Mike Schmidt, 1995, 96.52
Johnny Bench, 1989, 96.42
Steve Carlton, 1994, 95.82
T-Honus Wagner, 1936, 95.13
T-Babe Ruth, 1936, 95.13


I take this as official and final, since baseball writers never make mistakes about anything, and never have.

[Mariano_Rivera]

Can a mod please delte the last two posts by "dr. Detroi or at least edit them?

[SamtheBravesFan]

I chose Wille Mays becuase he came up about 2 or 3 years after JAckie robinson came up to the big leagues. He is in the top 10 in home runs, had a great glove, and played with class.

That's good. :) Though I don't think that's what this thread is about anymore. ;) :laugh

[SamtheBravesFan]

@Dr. Detroit

I don't believe for a second that you're merely pointing out that Ruth was fat.


I'm not gonna sit here and pull stats crunch numbers and talk of shares. I'm gonna speak of factors outside numbers that cause many to believe that the fat man is a better ballplayer than Mr. Cobb.

I think you're implying here, as part of your arsenal, that because Ruth was fat and Cobb was skinny, that he can't possibly be a better ballplayer.

[Blackout]

dr detroit looks like a jackass

why is this thread still opened? all it's doing is embarassing Bill Burgess and all the non-jackass Cobb supporters

[Bill Burgess]

Wow, sensitivity reigns supreme on the on this web site!!!!!!!! Over-sensitivity doesn't, in and of itself, make an assertion incorrect. I apologize for calling the Babe a "fat man." No, you are most definitely not apologetic. You continue to call Babe fat throughout this post, and in fact, that is not 100% accurate. He was, in fact, quite svelte until 1925, and after that he was only fat in comparison to very fit persons. I will post a photo showing Babe in 1922. First and foremost he was FAT, so guess what, I'll call him fat in true Cobbian fasion...... "Ruth you fat FOOL, can u count to 20!". Forget him and you over sensitive New York cry babies, I'm not saying all New Yorkers are cry babies, but I feel that anyone that questions the Babe gets unfounded criticism. YES, I called him fat!!!!!!!!!! Hey, New Yorkers. Guess what? He was!!!!!!!! You guys fell into my trap! Omg! How dare you say anything about the drunken, womanizing, fat man?! American popular belief would not approve!!!!!!!!!!!! Guess what, you have no rebuttal except that maybe he had a thyroid problem and suffered from depression from his misspent youth.

Randy is not a New Yorker, but an Oregonian. Not even sure he's a Yankee fan. But guess what Dr.? I AM A NEW YORKER!!! AND EXTREMLY PROUD TO BE ONE TOO!!! Proud to say I'm mighty proud to say. Born in Brooklyn, 1951, and it's painful I'm not there now. New York City is the greatest place God ever saw fit to create. I stand by that. But I am an anti-NY Yankee fan.

So What...................... get over it, Cobb did, and on his death bed he said he would not change anything in his past.

Inaccurate. He told his life-long friend, comedian, Joe E. Brown, that if he had a chance to do it all over again, he'd not have been as antagonistic and he have gone out of his way to make more friends.

I'm not here to make friends.......... just prove points!

But why go out of your way to make enemies? Why post so antagonistically, and poke your fingers in people's eyes. Perhaps if you wouldn't post so shrilly, and stridently, more members would take you seriously. I had to edit your posts, just to read them without my eyes crossing. Hope you don't mind I had to proof-read it for spelling, grammar, capitalization, etc. It looked like a kinder-garden child had written it.

Oh..... btw......... not only reporters but players got to vote in the first class of Cooperstown. So yes, you Ruthian supporters can stand down!!! Your media biased opinions of the Fat Man will be slowly but surely be unfounded, yet Ruthian records are fast to be broken!

No. Only sports writers got to vote on the original Hall election. Babe's records being broken fast? Hardly. Actually, Babe's/Ty's records have lasted the longest. Here's a sampling.
http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=296316&postcount=10

The Babe is a dying icon...... I'm sorry that his records are fast to be broken. Just maybe you're upset that Bonds IS gonna beat him! That's not Cobb's fault!

I doubt Babe Ruth's legend will ever die. Isn't that part of your rant? That Babe's legend persists to this very day?

Still I hear no factual based argument against the "deadball". Give it up Ruthian fanatics. Lets face it science is even on our side. The sheer mass of a baseball is truly different today than in Cobb's era. Cobbian baseballs were soft, half as dense as Ruthian balls. Sheer logic will tell you that a "soft, tobacco stained ball, covered in spit, thrown unorthodoxly, will cause less home runs!"

My bad, really.............I'm sorry............ that some people are blinded by pop culture. Let me guess.....the Beatles are one of the most complete musicians of all time! I BET YOUR MOMMY TOLD YOU THAT!>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>This is my point!

Hold on here! Wait a minute! The Beatles are one of my favorite groups all time. Why spit/crap on The Beatles too? ! They gave us some very great music! In fact, why spit/crap on Babe? Must one dishonor/discredit him to praise The Peach? Isn't there room for both on Baseball's Mt. Olympus? Are they running out of room at the top?

Media as wells as history books distort fact! John Brown historically is pictured as a crazed fanatic.......kind of like Yankee fans....... but he was never diagnosed as insane. All photos or drawings of him show a man with waxy hair. So WHAT?! My bad, you mean to tell me that a man who died to make the world realize that slavery was wrong.....had to be insane.! Its a crock as well as the people who believe Ruth was better.

Numbers, numbers, numbers. I bet I could create a formula that would show Cobb as the best! Your nerdian no sexual contact-getting numbers mean nothing! Still no true rebuttal against the dead ball era, as well as the fact that Cobb's early ballparks had no wall......................Wait, I bet if you divide the speed of Ruth's swing times Pie, with the square root of Cobb's number, subtracted by the hairs on Moses face, added to the density of the fresh new ball era, multiplied by fourteen pounds of horse crap.....Ruth is the better all around player.

Perhaps if we avoided the shrill tone, the insults, the over-the-top hyperbole, things would be much better. Hmm? What you say, Dr.? In fact, why not apologize to Randy, and the other Babe admirers here (I am one of those), and tone it down a few dozen decibels? Is that possible?

Hey Sultan.....guess what........... I'd hate say it...... but........... a Yankee.....is not the greatest of all time. I bet that with tons of counseling, maybe for seventeen years, you'll get over it. Its OK! I promise, that shooting yourself is not the answer! I think New York can handle the fact that a Detroiter beat them out in the game of baseball.

Again. Randy (Sultan) does not live in The Big Apple, is not necessarily a Yankee fanatic whatsoever. Your cross-hairs are extremely distorted and blurred, Dr.

Cry Cry Cry, .............................The Babe was not from New York! Nor Italian, nor the greatest ever. Maybe this topic should be considered the greatest power hitter of all time. Look people...........being fat has a negative effect on physical performance...........................I say stick his rotund butt at shortstop or center field (I do believe Cobb played this position) and see how many errors he would have racked up. Remember, Cobb ran EVERY base until he retired, at the end of his career, Ruth, even when a home run was hit, could not run past first base.

Cobb is not from Detroit either. He was from the Deep South. Royston, GA. And whoever implied that Babe was Italian? And Babe did run out all his HRs, even at the end.

Wow! Ruth must of been a better athlete!

Like I said.................................Ruth is a dying icon.........................................As is the evil empire..................Just think...................................when the time come for a salary cap...................How good will the Yankees be?............................................... .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ...............Smart money tells you that George will sell the team at that point!


Oh my bad, Still no rebuttal against media favoritism?

Mr. Burgess you are a gentleman and a scholar, I have not heard a well devised defense or rant that can compare to your logical responses! KEEP IT UP...............Maybe one day we will defeat the national bias towards THE FAT MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dr. You make me cringe at being a Tyman. In fact, you make me ashamed. We real Tymen do not need to throw dirt on Babe Ruth to make our case that Ty was #1. When I arrived on these fair shores in Oct., 2003, I didn't know that. I felt compelled to discredit The Babe to make my case for Ty. But thanks to Sultan/ShoelessJoe3, I was able to get my act together, screw my head on straight, and lighten up. I have tried to make amends for my former immaturity by contributing as best I can to the Babe Ruth Thread, and the Babe Ruth Discussion Thread. I even wrote a mini-bio on Babe. So, please try to tone it down, and post more sensibly while you're here. It might make your stay here more enjoyable for you. It would certainly make it more so for the rest of us.

Kill me.......once again I called the German you claim to be Itallian.............Fat. Ask yourself? Was he fat?

Yes, yes, I attacked our nationally beloved Babe, yes I was unfair, just like bias and national media has been to the true king of the diamond.

------Whew!
---------------------------------------
--------Babe Ruth, Red Sox, P/OF, 1918, Road-------Yankees' RF, 1923-24, Yankee Stadium

[Appling]

I think the greatest testament to the debate is the Hall of Fame voting in 1936. Yes Yankee lovers, your Babe was greatly out-voted by people who saw the both of them play. These people clearly felt, that upon playing against them and or watching the both of them play.........Cobb was far superior. No matter what we argue today, that is clearly the Knockout Blow in the Cobb vs. Ruth debate.

!!!
Ruth's last MLB season was 1935, so I would expect many voters not to vote for him the very next year (1936). (Look at DiMaggio.) Yet I suspect without Ruth there would have been little interest in forming a baseball museum in Cooperstown.

That Ruth got 96% of the votes his first year after retirement is amazing.

Did I mention 90+ records at the end of Cobb's career.
It is easier to set MLB records when the game was young -- only Wagner was viewed at truly great before Cobb came along. How many of those 90+ records still stood after Ruth retired?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

A pretty cool book I would highly recommend...Babe Ruth's Incredible Records and The 44 Players Who Broke Them

Gives several players' career records, how long they lasted, who broke them, etc.

Ruth's number of records established (206 - first)

Cobb's number of records established (146 - second)

What does this mean. Not much imo. Just interesting.

[Bill Burgess]

dr detroit looks like a jackass

why is this thread still opened? all it's doing is embarassing Bill Burgess and all the non-jackass Cobb supporters
Dr. Detroit reminds me of me when I first got here. He's just getting his Inner Jackass out of his system before he sobers up and gets down to serious discussion. I hope.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Nah. He showed his true colors in his first post and continued the nonsense from there. Wishful thinking Bill.

[four tool]

Sorry I'm late to the poll, but for some reason I stopped getting the notices about recent postings and am trying to catch up.

I picked Babe because

1. He choose to hit HR and still maintained a high average--third best of the 1920s, in fact.
2. AND because he was a pitcher as well as a fielder and a hitter. The best TOTAL (as opposed to "just" hitting and baserunning and fielding) package ever.

[Bill Burgess]

May I remind everyone that no personal attacks/insults are allowed. I just noticed that on Dr. Detroit's 2nd post, he did insult Randy personally, not just Babe Ruth. I deleted it.

If I catch any others, they will be deleted too. I will not permit myself a repetition of my last sad/sorry screw-up here. If I am home, and things spin out of control, insults will disappear as fast as I am made aware of them. No exceptions. If threads must close, so be it. Everyone has been warned.

Dr. Detroit? You must clean up, sober up, and scrub your posts of any insults. Or else. You are already on extremely thin ice here. :(

Bill Burgess

Randy. Any chance of a Babe Ruth Discussion reorganization? Just asking.

[Bill Burgess]

Sorry I'm late to the poll, but for some reason I stopped getting the notices about recent postings and am trying to catch up.
Me too. I've been not getting a LOT of notices to threads for about 6 months now. Don't know why. Anybody else having this problem?

Bill

[RuthMayBond]

May I remind everyone that no personal attacks/insults are allowed. I just noticed that on Dr. Detroit's 2nd post, he did insult Randy personally, not just Babe Ruth. I deleted it.

If I catch any others, they will be deleted too. If I am home, and things spin out of control, insults will disappear as fast as I am made aware of them. No exceptions. If threads must close, so be it. Everyone has been warned.

Dr. Detroit? You must clean up, sober up, and scrub your posts of any insults. Or else. You are already on extremely thin ice here. :(
Thank you Bill, for keeping this a decent place :clapping :clapping

[Bill Burgess]

Thank you Bill, for keeping this a decent place :clapping :clapping
Thank you, Jeffrey. And I must apologize once again, profusely, for any harm that my recent lame/inexcusable lapses in Mod diligence that I may have caused. It will not be repeated, ever. I hope. I will clean up too.

Bill

[four tool]

Kudos, Bill forsorting things out and reminding all of us about civil behavior. :clapping

But I have to wonder, how would we handle Ty himself if he posted?:D

[Bill Burgess]

But I have to wonder, how would we handle Ty himself if he posted?:D
Well, if he insulted someone, I'd have to delete his insults. If he went nuts on us, he'd have to get a time-out. If the downtime didn't settle him down, we might have to take up a pool, hire Dog to track him down, and beat him up.

If that didn't sedate him, we might have to dig up Babe and have him sit on Ty for a while. If all else failed, we could have RMB send him one line PMs until he went out of his goard. We'd find something.

You asked.

Bill

[Ytown Tribe fan]

If Ty Cobb posted here, we would show proper deference, I would hope. Hell, I would welcome a post from Albert Belle or Dick Allen or even Dave Kingman.

OK, maybe not Kingman.

[soberdennis]

Let's ask the BBWAA!

... and the answer is: Tom Seaver!

Here are the top-10 HoFers, based on the percentage of votes they received from BBWAA writers:

Tom Seaver, 1992, 98.84% of voters
Nolan Ryan, 1999, 98.79
Ty Cobb, 1936, 98.23
George Brett, 1999, 98.19
Hank Aaron, 1982, 97.83

Mike Schmidt, 1995, 96.52
Johnny Bench, 1989, 96.42
Steve Carlton, 1994, 95.82
T-Honus Wagner, 1936, 95.13
T-Babe Ruth, 1936, 95.13


I take this as official and final, since baseball writers never make mistakes about anything, and never have.
Cute. But I doubt Seaver would have beaten any of the first five had they all been eligible at the same time.
And I think Tom Terific was one of the best.

[soberdennis]

Well, if he insulted someone, I'd have to delete his insults. If he went nuts on us, he'd have to get a time-out. If the downtime didn't settle him down, we might have to take up a pool, hire Dog to track him down, and beat him up.

If that didn't sedate him, we might have to dig up Babe and have him sit on Ty for a while. If all else failed, we could have RMB send him one line PMs until he went out of his goard. We'd find something.

You asked.

Bill
I love it.

[soberdennis]

------Whew!
---------------------------------------
--------Babe Ruth, Red Sox, P/OF, 1918, Road-------Yankees' RF, 1923-24, Yankee Stadium
Thank you Bill for trying to restore some civility here.
I chose Ruth because he wass good at both pitching and hitting. Did Cobb ever win 23 games as a pitcher or lead the league in ERA?
If I was just looking for the greatest hitter, I would look at one number and stop, .367.
So, IMO, Ruthis the greatest player, but Cobb is the greatest hitter.
And Dr., I am a lifelong Yankee fan. But I am a baseball fan first and always keep an open mind. A friendly suggestion, you should try it.

[Bill Burgess]

Just came in today. Thought you guys might get a kick out of it. I sure did.
------------------------------------
------ Original Message ------
Received: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:29:59 PM PDT
From: mike mclaren <unclegoaty@yahoo.com>
To: william_burgess@usa.net
Subject: great grandson of Ty Cobb

> Hello, I am Ty's great grandson and I just wanted to thank you for helping
to help people really understand Ty as a person and not just a mean baseball
player. I have heard many stories about him and just got married at our Lake
Tahoe house he built and was misinterpreted i n the movie Cobb. If you have
any questions or know people that have questions feel free to drop me a line.
I want to go out and visit Gerogia and see all the history he has greated
there. Michael Mclaren

[Williamsburg2599]

Just came in today. Thought you guys might get a kick out of it. I sure did.
------------------------------------
------ Original Message ------
Received: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:29:59 PM PDT
From: mike mclaren <unclegoaty@yahoo.com>
To: william_burgess@usa.net
Subject: great grandson of Ty Cobb

> Hello, I am Ty's great grandson and I just wanted to thank you for helping
to help people really understand Ty as a person and not just a mean baseball
player. I have heard many stories about him and just got married at our Lake
Tahoe house he built and was misinterpreted i n the movie Cobb. If you have
any questions or know people that have questions feel free to drop me a line.
I want to go out and visit Gerogia and see all the history he has greated
there. Michael MclarenIs that guy for real?:eek:

[Bill Burgess]

Why would I doubt him?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

So, IMO, Ruthis the greatest player, but Cobb is the greatest hitter.


Interesting. Many would flip flop those, considering that while Cobb was an outstanding hitter in his own right, his legs and brain made up the majority percentage of his success as the plate.

If one factors in Ruth's pitching into their rating of him, I think it can go a couple ways. The first is accounting for all his success even as a youngster who hadn't yet fully developed, and the second is looking at the pitching years and how they detracted from his overall hitting and fielding legacy. Those early years are pretty crucial for an outfielder forming their reputation (just ask Andruw) and Babe lost out on some great outfielding years early on. So his late start as a hitter (49 homers at age 25) and being in his mid 20's when he first became an outfielder hurt him. Many angles and many things to consider. Can't go wrong with either Tyrus or Babe imo, they are set in stone at 1/2 for me, and won't see any contenders unless Pujols keeps this up for another 15 years while becoming a gold glove third baseman along the way. Even then, the decision would be Pujols or Willie for me.

[SABR Matt]

Why is Joe DiMaggio even on this poll? I just noticed that.

Personally...I think the greatest player of all time is Mark McLemore. He just made himself look cool even when he was hitting .240.

[Bill Burgess]

Did anyone see the article recently that Pujols was tested in a lab to see if he had much the same physical attributes as Babe. He tested very similar.

[CTaka]

Why is Joe DiMaggio even on this poll? I just noticed that.

The bigger question is how did DiMaggio actually get a couple of votes??:noidea

[Bill Burgess]

DiMag should have been replaced with Oscar Charleston. Just my 2 cents.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Or the Easter Bunny :cool: (just kidding-partly)

[Bill Burgess]

Bunnies run great, but hit like crap, and field worse.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

But this bunny played center his whole career.

[four tool]

Let's hope he's for real, but at least he's a Cobb fan.

Yes, Bill, I asked, and I never ask a question if I don't want an answer. Glad you have a handle on how to handle The Peach.:) :)

[RuthMayBond]

If all else failed, we could have RMB send him one line PMs until he went out of his goard.Just the THREAT of this would work

[RuthMayBond]

Did anyone see the article recently that Pujols was tested in a lab to see if he had much the same physical attributes as Babe. He tested very similar.I don't want to know how they tested the Bambino :ughh

[Bill Burgess]

I don't want to know how they tested the Bambino :ughh

Here's an article on the testing. What'd ya thunk?

http://news-info.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/7535.html

Bill

[Bill Burgess]

Just the THREAT of this would work
Sure keeps Fever members in line.

[four tool]

But this bunny played center his whole career.

And kept laying eggs

[Captain Cold Nose]

Can a mod please delte the last two posts by "dr. Detroi or at least edit them?
Can you worry about what you post instead of trying to tell the mods how to do their jobs?

[SABR Matt]

CCN..that's not even remotely cool. The posters have a right to request that the moderators take actions to improve the quality of this forum. You do NOT have the authority to tell us not to worry about what goes on here at Fever outside of our own posts.

[gdank]

Ty Cobb #1

Honus Wagner #2

Babe Ruth # 3


Hands down no Brainer:grouchy

[EvanAparra]

Thats everything but a no brainer.

[gdank]

Im going on Stats only. Im a big Babe Ruth fan But I would Take Ty Cobb over him everytime. People always look at the Babe' home runs but stat for stat Ty is the better player:p

[EvanAparra]

deleted post.

[Tony Robbins]

This probably has been done before, but I dont know how many of the players were listed. I looked back and found one poll, but it was limited. It also had Joe Dimaggio, who some believe has no business being discussed when it comes to this debate. I will add more players.

Feedback is greatly appreciated.

[Tony Robbins]

Just incase I missed someone, could a mod add other

[mwiggins]

This probably has been done before, but I dont know how many of the players were listed. I looked back and found one poll, but it was limited. It also had Joe Dimaggio, who some believe has no business being discussed when it comes to this debate. I will add more players.

Feedback is greatly appreciated.

I agree that DiMaggio shouldn't be in this debate, but why Griffey, Jr.?

[Old Sweater]

Ah, I see my favorite player got 1 vote. I had to go for that other 1951 rookie tho.

[Tony Robbins]

I agree that DiMaggio shouldn't be in this debate, but why Griffey, Jr.?

I remember in the 1990s there was talk about it. I know things have changed now, but I put him there anyway. It's not like he will recieve any votes, unless it's for sympathy.

[Myankee4life]

Not Dimaggio but Griffey :laugh

[STLCards2]

Not Dimaggio but Griffey :laugh

Griffey, but no Musial? :laugh

[EvanAparra]

Griffey, but no Musial? :laugh

Neither Griffey, DiMaggio, nor Musial belong on this list.

[Disgruntaledmarinerfan]

Griffey. A great player: yes
Griffey. The greatest player: Not a chance, Whatsoever.

[STLCards2]

Neither Griffey, DiMaggio, nor Musial belong on this list.

I totaly agree. Neither do about 12 other people on the list. However, if you are to include that many players, at least put the guys who are better than Griffey.

[EvanAparra]

Well, just excluding Griffey all together would have been fine. Half decent cases can be made for some of the rest of the guys.

[KCGHOST]

Neither Griffey, DiMaggio, nor Musial belong on this list.

Musial ranks in the Top Six in career RCAA and WARP3.

It's The Babe to me.

[EvanAparra]

Musial ranks in the Top Six in career RCAA and WARP3.

It's The Babe to me.

Ok? :confused:

[Seattle1]

I don't know how you could exclude Ken Griffey, Jr. Speaking of which, could a moderator please correct the spelling on his first name?

[538280]

I don't know how you could exclude Ken Griffey, Jr.

All right then, give me an argument for why Ken Griffey Jr. is the best player of all time. There has to be one if you don't think there's any way he could be excluded from the poll.

[yanks0714]

To me, there are only three contenders to the title of Greatest Ever: Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, and Willie Mays.

Personally, I voted for Babe Ruth. I think he's clearly the Greatest. Wagner and Mays take 2nd and 3rd.

I think the maximum would be 8 players on the list. If you're 2nd best at any position....you sure can't be the Greatest. With that in mind, my picks would be: Gehrig; Hornsby; Wagner; Schmidt; T. Williams; Mays; Ruth; and Bench.

Out of those 8, only Gehrig, Wagner, Williams, Mays, and Ruth qualify. Gehrig gets the boot because he is clearly behind Ruth when they played together. Williams' D and base running handicap him greatly. That leaves only Wagner, Mays, and Ruth. Some may pick Ty Cobb over Mays in CF but I go with Willie.

[538280]

To me, there are only three contenders to the title of Greatest Ever: Babe Ruth, Honus Wagner, and Willie Mays.

Personally, I voted for Babe Ruth. I think he's clearly the Greatest. Wagner and Mays take 2nd and 3rd.

I think the maximum would be 8 players on the list. If you're 2nd best at any position....you sure can't be the Greatest. With that in mind, my picks would be: Gehrig; Hornsby; Wagner; Schmidt; T. Williams; Mays; Ruth; and Bench.

Out of those 8, only Gehrig, Wagner, Williams, Mays, and Ruth qualify. Gehrig gets the boot because he is clearly behind Ruth when they played together. Williams' D and base running handicap him greatly. That leaves only Wagner, Mays, and Ruth. Some may pick Ty Cobb over Mays in CF but I go with Willie.

Wow! It's great to see you back, yanks!

[brett]

Bonds actually just passed Ruth as the statistically most valuable offensive player in history this season.

Bonds stands at +229.6 to
+227.0 for Ruth and
+211 for Cobb.

After that there is a big gap, (again offense only) with a pack of Mantle, Williams, Mays, Wagner, Gehrig, Musial, Henderson and Speaker, Aaron and finally Frank Robinson ALL in the 151-164 range.

Then the next tier of Schmidt, Hornsby Morgan and about a half dozen others in the +100 range.

Now, of the second tier, Williams and Mays separate themselves from the rest due to war time. Williams could rise to about 220+ and Mays to about 170+. With defense factored in, Mays is still in the ballgame, but Williams would not be able to top the others.

And finally Wagner gets the biggest boost for position and defense.
Ruth gets +27 games for pitching so

That means that there are 5 players in contention:

Ruth: +254

Bonds: +229.6 (with an adge on defense over Ruth)

Cobb: +211 who I'd put about equal to Bonds on defense but I will give an edge for intangibles such as taking extra bases that don't show up in the stats.

Mays: +170 who gets an edge on the other 4 for defense and on Cobb and Ruth for playing in an integrated league and

Wagner: +154 who gets the big edge for position and defense.

One of these 5 is the most valuable of all time though they are not necessarily 1-5, (it all depends on the value fo defense, intangibles and integration/league quality, and perhaps for post season.

Personally, I count Ruth's postseason games as about double value, and they of course were excellent. He probably picks up 8-10 games here so lets say +9, and playing a slightly below mid level position, and assuming he was an average right fielder he would get a small deduction of about -20 for position so I put him at +244

Bonds gets a little bigger cut for position, but was good for LF. Lets say -30 for position and +24 for fielding and +6 for post season so he's stable at +229.6

Assuming the most generous "unaccounted for" base bonus for Cobb I give him +16 games. He certainly picked up many extra bases, but also was certainly caught trying to go from first to third which actually takes away 2 bases because he could have been safe at second. Lets say he did take 1500 extra bases this way and that he WAS the only player who consistently did this. If he was successful roughly the same rate at which he stole bases, he was caught about 500 time, which would count a double hit (for losing a man on second) and an extra hit of about .5 for costing an out so I would dock him about 1250 of the 1500 plus bases. That generously gives him about +250 bases which would be about +550 runs or 16 games (a man on third is not that much better than a man on second). I give him +6.7 for position and +6 for defense (an upper 25% centerfielder versus an average one) for a total of +239.7. I also get +2-3 for post season so lets say +240.2 Really, I don't think that he and Ruth could be separated being this close. I could boost Ruth for changing the game, but his stats already take advantage of the changes more than anyone-he got to pitch in the dead-ball era but hit in the live.

Mays at +170 would get +6.7 for position but +24 for defense (a top 2% defensive center fielder versus the pack) so +200.7. I would give him a 20%boost on the league average due to integration so +241 Give him 1-2 for post season and again, virtually inseparable from Ruth or Cobb at +242.5.

Finally, Wagner at +154 gets about +60 for position and +18 for defense at that position so +222. 3-4 for post season.

I think I have to say the Ruth's pitching, Cobbs "extra bases" and Mays defense and the integrated league keep them as the top 3-a virtual toss-up.

Wagner, I just don't think makes up that difference. Bonds should get some boost for league, but there are of course "other" factors. Bonds might just match the top 3 for value.

Whoops, I left out Ruth's world series pitching. For me, that is the only "remainder" that I can come up with and I probably give him about 2 games for that.

So I voted for Ruth.

When you consider his bonus as a pitcher, his World Series hitting AND his WS pitching, he did the most, on the most stages to be considered #1.

[Blackout]

I agree that DiMaggio shouldn't be in this debate, but why Griffey, Jr.?
there's only one person who should be in this debate, and his name is at the top

[Bill Burgess]

there's only one person who should be in this debate, and his name is at the top
Ha ha ha. Good one. The name at the top might be the winner, but Fever has proven that it will not be without challenge. The Ty/Babe debate has raged since 1920. From 1920 - 1960, Ty was the universal winner. Babe has been the consensus choice since the 1970's. The tide first started to turn around 1950, when Babe won his first ever survey/poll. One is the consensus for 80% of whom saw them play, the other is the choice of those who have not, and for those who are guided by stats.

BTW - This debate will never be resolved, nor should it be. Funny how we fight over the same BB subjects our grandfathers did. I think that's way cool.

[grey eagle]

there's only one person who should be in this debate, and his name is at the top
Hardly. While I agree Ruth is the greatest, there are several who should be IN THE DEBATE - Cobb, Mays, Williams, Charleston, Bonds, and Wagner all have solid credentials for being in the discussion.

[AstrosFan]

Ha ha ha. Good one. The name at the top might be the winner, but Fever has proven that it will not be without challenge. The Ty/Babe debate has raged since 1920. From 1920 - 1960, Ty was the universal winner. Babe has been the consensus choice since the 1970's. The tide first started to turn around 1950, when Babe won his first ever survey/poll. One is the consensus for all who saw them play, the other is the choice of those who have not, and for those who are guided by stats.

BTW - This debate will never be resolved, nor should it be. Funny how we fight over the same BB subjects our grandfathers did. I think that's way cool.

Well put, Bill. It doesn't matter who you pick as the greatest ever, as long as your argument is reasonable. Certainly Babe and Tyrus are good choices for best ever.

[BigStellyPADRES4LIFE]

there's only one person who should be in this debate, and his name is at the top


You only say this because he wore pinstripes..... but its a tough case either way, it depends on what you value in a player who you pick here, i tend to value what cobb did more than ruth, Cobb wasnt known for being a slugger by any stretch but he still has a really high slg pct if you look at it in a raw sense. Being he played deadball its tough for ruth to overcome him, the only things Ruth did better were hit for power and pitch/throw, cobb by reputation had a decent arm and covered far more ground in addition to being almost infinitely better on the basepaths. I dont think anyone could approach what he did on the basepaths with the exception of possibly jackie robinson.

[Bill Burgess]

Cobb wasn't known for being a slugger by any stretch but he still has a really high slg pct if you look at it in a raw sense.
Thanks, Big Stelly. I know you're a Ty man. Just wanted to fortify you with some tid-bits on Cobb slugging.

He came in top 3 in his league in slugging 14 times, and won 8 titles. And if we index his slg. ave. to league, here is how the all time list appears. But bear in mind those ahead of him in their PA. So many fewer PA does matter. Hope this ammo fortifies you. He is now 14th and usually hovered around 10th, after many hitters with so fewer PA. 6 had fewer than 8,000 PA.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rel Rel Through 2003, over 5,000 PA, indexed and park adjusted.

Pro+ OBA Slg Rel Rel
Rank Rank Rank Player PA Pro+ OBA Slg
----------------------------------------------------------------

1 2 1 Babe Ruth 10504 207.0 134.5 172.5
2 1 2 Ted Williams 9786 189.5 134.6 154.9
3 11 3 Lou Gehrig 9554 180.4 126.4 154.0
4 3 4 Barry Bonds 10963 180.0 131.6 148.4
5 8 5 Rogers Hornsby 9259 174.7 127.4 147.3
8 16 6 Joe Jackson 5559 168.7 123.9 144.8
16 102 7 Hank Greenberg 6061 157.3 113.5 143.9
6 5 8 Mickey Mantle 9895 172.1 128.3 143.8
11 40 9 Mark McGwire 7657 162.8 119.0 143.8
13 43 10 Jimmie Foxx 9599 161.6 117.9 143.7
21 122 11 Joe DiMaggio 7657 155.6 112.7 142.9
17 78 12 Johnny Mize 7351 157.0 114.9 142.1
7 4 13 Dan Brouthers 7656 170.9 129.4 141.4
9 10 14 Ty Cobb 12777 168.4 127.0 141.4
22 83 15 Hank Aaron 13919 155.2 114.6 140.6
18 54 16 Dick Allen 7295 156.7 116.8 140.0
20 53 17 Willie Mays 12480 156.0 116.8 139.2
25 52 18 Mike Piazza 6007 154.7 117.0 137.7
14 24 19 Stan Musial 12677 158.2 121.1 137.1
38 192 20 Willie Stargell 9017 147.1 110.0 137.1
19 36 21 Manny Ramirez 5910 156.5 119.8 136.7
26 41 22 Frank Robinson 11726 154.0 118.5 135.5
12 9 23 Frank Thomas 8167 162.6 127.3 135.3
10 6 24 Pete Browning 5315 163.2 128.0 135.3
15 18 25 Tris Speaker 11679 157.4 123.0 134.3
23 25 26 Mel Ott 11228 155.0 120.9 134.1
48 215 27 Albert Belle 6669 142.9 108.9 134.0
33 60 28 Nap Lajoie 10239 150.0 116.1 133.9
35 86 29 Ralph Kiner 6247 148.0 114.4 133.7
40 111 30 Mike Schmidt 10046 146.8 113.2 133.6
41 131 31 Sam Thompson 6497 145.4 111.9 133.5
29 42 32 Ed Delahanty 8340 151.5 118.1 133.4
42 159 33 Ken Griffey Jr. 8161 144.0 110.9 133.1
32 48 34 Honus Wagner 11518 150.4 117.6 132.9
36 77 35 Willie McCovey 9681 147.7 114.9 132.9
43 153 36 Alex Rodriguez 5671 143.9 111.1 132.7
24 21 37 Roger Connor 8834 154.9 122.2 132.6
46 158 38 Sam Crawford 10353 143.5 110.9 132.5
93 514 39 Juan Gonzalez 7014 133.3 100.8 132.5
49 163 40 Frank Howard 7346 142.8 110.7 132.2
57 226 41 Jeff Heath 5540 140.4 108.6 131.8
64 272 42 Wally Berger 5636 138.8 107.2 131.6
39 66 43 Harry Heilmann 8683 147.0 115.7 131.2
30 35 44 Jim Thome 6420 150.9 119.8 131.0
27 20 45 Jeff Bagwell 8626 153.4 122.3 131.0
44 118 46 Hack Wilson 5454 143.7 112.8 130.9
50 125 47 Harry Stovey 6832 142.8 112.5 130.3
58 165 48 Babe Herman 6134 140.2 110.6 129.6
66 205 49 Darryl Strawberry 6325 138.6 109.3 129.3
102 419 50 Sammy Sosa 8462 132.4 103.1 129.3

[brett]

I think that Cobb was one of 3 guys to lead the MAJORS in slugging percentage 4 straight seasons...


You only say this because he wore pinstripes..... but its a tough case either way, it depends on what you value in a player who you pick here, i tend to value what cobb did more than ruth, Cobb wasnt known for being a slugger by any stretch but he still has a really high slg pct if you look at it in a raw sense. Being he played deadball its tough for ruth to overcome him, the only things Ruth did better were hit for power and pitch/throw, cobb by reputation had a decent arm and covered far more ground in addition to being almost infinitely better on the basepaths. I dont think anyone could approach what he did on the basepaths with the exception of possibly jackie robinson.

[jeterMVP]

Mickey Mantle is the best player ever :clapping

[Deebo]

I went with Willie just a tad over Cobb. I only did so because Mays lost some years to WWII, and faced better competition. It's really close tho.

[leecemark]

--Korea actually, but you made the right choice anyway;) .
--Its obvious that the vocal minority for Cobb is neither going to sway people away from Ruth or be swayed themselves so I'm not going to try. There is one outrageous bit of information that needs to be corrected though.
--Bill James had absolutely nothing to do with the average fan beleiving Babe Ruth is the best baseball player who ever lived. Until about 20 years ago very few people had any idea who Bill James was. I'm not sure most casual fans do now. I had been a baseball fan for the better part of 20 years before I ever heard his name, yet I grew up beliving Babe Ruth was the greatest ever. Everyone I knew beleived that and I grew up in Tigers country less than 50 miles north of Detroit - what should have been Cobb's support base. James did not invent the myth of the Babe, he grew up with it. I don't know the man, but I assume he started from a position of beleiving Babe was the best - because everyone did - and the more he studied the issue the more reason he had to believe it was true.
--It seems to me that even Cobb's strongest supporters don't really believe he was more valuable than Ruth. He is always referred to as "the greatest all around player" rather than simply the greatest player period. My take on that is they don't believe he was more valuable than Ruth, just better balanced. Depending on how you define that, most would probably agree that Cobb WAS the better balanced player. For that matter, Andre dawson may have been a more balanced player than Ruth if that is what you mean by "all around". Who cares?
--IMO what Ruth did best, he did so much better than anyone that his advantage is virtually impossible to make up elsewhere. However, if balance is what we're looking for here there are two ways to look at that.
--The two most difficult and valuable skills on a baseball field are hitting and pitching. Ruth was a outstanding pitcher. There have certainly been better, but none of those can hope to compare with Ruth the hitter. I think Ruth was the best hitter ever. Even if you don't agree, the few contenders for that claim (really only Cobb and Williams and maybe now Bonds) have no credentials at all as pitchers. So if mastering the two most difficult and valuable skills is how you define best all around (and it would be a valid way of doing so) then Ruth is clearly #1 by an enormous margin.
--If you stick to the more conventional 5 tool evaluation it gets a little more murky. If you rate each of the 5 tools equally Ruth comes out behind. I don't think anyone seriously believes running, throwing or fielding are quite equal in value to hitting for average or power, but if you are looking to put someone other than Ruth on top it gives you an angle to work.
--My personal top 5 are Ruth, Wagner, Cobb, Mays and Bonds. Here's my rating of them by the five tools:
Running.........Throwing.........Fielding......... ....Power............Average
Cobb.............Mays..............Wagner......... ....Ruth..............Cobb
Wagner..........Wagner...........Mays............. ...Bonds............Wagner
Mays.............Ruth...............Bonds......... ......Mays..............Ruth
Bonds............Cobb...............Cobb.......... ......Cobb..............Mays
Ruth..............Bonds.............Ruth.......... .......Wagner...........Bonds
--Cobb is #1 in 2 skills and last none. Ruth is #1 in 1 and last in two. Personally I don't rate the skills equally but if Cobb fans are looking for a concession this is the best I can do. Really, if I rank someone in the top 5 all time I don't exactly look at that as an insult. If someone wants to take it that way or see my ranking Cobb anywhere but #1 as a reflection of my ignorance, I'll guess I'll get over it.

[Victory Faust]

I pick Cobb over Ruth for a number of reasons. First and foremost, I listen to the eyewitness experts.

The people who played in the same era as Cobb and Ruth usually say Cobb was a better ballplayer. And you've got to remember: Cobb wasn't exactly loved by everyone in baseball. Neither was Ruth, but if there was a popularity contest among contemporaries, the Babe would win in a landslide.

But even players who disliked Cobb had to give him his due as the greatest ever.

Cobb brought qualities to ballgames that cannot be measured in statistics; qualities that can't truly be understood unless seen. In baseball, there often are certain plays that change teams' momentum; certain "moments" in ballgames that have a huge psychological effect on each team.

For instance, a box score may merely that a batter flew out to left field to end the 8th inning. But that play went beyond what the box score says: in reality it was a two-out line drive with the tying run on 2nd that would have been a double 9 times out of 10, but the left fielder made a great play to kill a promising rally. The play was much more than FO-7. That play had a huge psychological effect on both teams.

Cobb brought more of this intangible to the field than any man who ever put on a baseball uniform. At bat or on base, he was outright intimidating. He would "take over" ballgames, and demoralize opponents.

Ruth brought that "something" also, and I'm sure a lot of pitchers lost sleep worrying about how to pitch to Babe Ruth.

But the psychological effect of the Babe wasn't as pervasive as the terror Cobb brought. Babe Ruth would bludgeon you and it would be over with. If Gehrig, Muesel, etc. hadn't been in the same lineup, pitchers could just walk Ruth and he wouldn't have been a huge concern (although we all know the Babe was a fine baserunner in his own right).

You couldn't pitch around Cobb. If you did, he'd have you right where he wanted you. Cobb on the basepaths would humiliate you; he'd tell you he was going to steal, then he would do it. He completely took over ballgames, and demoralized opponents.

I think that's why contemporaries usually pick Cobb. As mind-boggling as his statisitics are, his greatness went far beyond mere numbers.

[Bill Burgess]

I went with Willie just a tad over Cobb. I only did so because Mays lost some years to WWII, and faced better competition. It's really close tho.
Willie arrived on the scene a little late to take on The Fuhrer. But he was right on time for the Korean 'police action'.

[Bill Burgess]

I pick Cobb over Ruth for a number of reasons. First and foremost, I listen to the eyewitness experts.

I think that's why contemporaries usually pick Cobb. As mind-boggling as his statisitics are, his greatness went far beyond mere numbers.
:clapping :clapping Nice posting, VF. Haven't seen you around these parts for a while. Nice to see you back. Missed you.

While Babe has all he did on the field safely in the stat bank, a huge chuck of Cobb's value is MIA, lost at sea, forever. Taking the Extra Base was his signature move and will never be credited to his stat record. Real pity.

Here's a nice quote from the Bambino himself. Worth a listen.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1945 - "Babe Ruth Calls Ty the Greatest Player Ever To Don Spikes--New York, Aug. 24 (AP).--Babe Ruth worshippers might be shocked to learn that the old Bambino himself considers Ty Cobb the greatest ball player ever to don spikes. The two ancient rivals are on opposing sides again. Cobb having come here from his California home to manage the Western All-Stars against Babe Ruth's Easterners in Esquire's boy's baseball game at the Polo Grounds Tuesday night. "Make no mistake about that," bellowed the home-run king. The old boy was the greatest player I ever saw or hope to see.

When I was pitching I had fair success against all the other great hitters, but Cobb was one guy I never could get out. I had a reputation as a slugger and I guess I could him 'em pretty far at that, but that guy Cobb could do everything -- better than any player I ever saw. Old Georgia Peach was a great hitter, a spectacular fielder, a wonderful thrower and oh boy, how he could run. You think I set a lot of records," the Babe went on, wiping his brow, "why the old boy still owns, how many records is it, Ty? Forty-two?"

"They say I used to scare pitchers just by strolling to the plate but those guys always had a remedy for me. Whenever they were afraid I'd knock one out of the park, they'd walk me and their worries would be over. But once Cobb got on base then their worries really began. He would upset not only the pitcher or catcher, but the infield as well by going from, first to third on a sacrifice bunt, scoring from second on an infield out, taking two bases on an outfield fly and making delayed steals.

"One of the biggest thrills I ever got out of baseball was to watch Cobb head into a base. He always reminded me of Man-of-War tearing through the homestretch. Fans still talk about the home run I hit in the 1932 World Series off Charlie Root of the Cubs after I pointed to the right-field stands.

Well I once remember Cobb beating out 4 bunts down the third base line in one game against Billy Bradley, a wonderful third baseman for Cleveland. That was after Cobb warned Bradley he would bunt to him every time he got up. Another time Cobb warned Lou Criger, a great catcher with Boston, that he would steal second, third and home on him first chance he got. Well, the first time up, Cobb walked and on three pitches stole second, third and home against the dumbfounded Criger.

"Yes, add that to the fact Cobb led the league 12 times in 13 years, three times with over .400 averages, finished with a lifetime mark of .367 and tops all hitters in total hits, runs, triples, total bases and stolen bases and you have the greatest player of them all. (Washington Post, Aug. 24, 1945, pp. 12)

[plask_stirlac]

You only say this because he wore pinstripes.....

He's Babe Ruth!

Bill, your article subtly remind us Babe was an exceptional pitcher, and the greatest of all hitters.

I assume we're also talking about greatest, not most outstanding career, most overall production, or any number of focuses. He changed the game, revitalized it, and was like a folk hero. His Yankees has four titles, up there like many others and unlike Cobb and his issues in the WS. It's not awful that Cobb's team never won the World Series, as players don't win them, but certainly there have been better results.

This isn't that hard. I'll go to sleep tonight with the security of Babe as the greatest in baseball, Gretzky on the ice, The Bible as the most-read book, Blizzard as the top games company, and Donald Bradman in cricket statistics.

[brett]

If it wasn't for Ruth, we might not care who wore pinstripes.


You only say this because he wore pinstripes.....

[Bill Burgess]

His Yankees has four titles, up there like many others and unlike Cobb and his issues in the WS. It's not awful that Cobb's team never won the World Series, as players don't win them, but certainly there have been better results.

This isn't that hard. I'll go to sleep tonight with the security of Babe as the greatest in baseball, Gretzky on the ice, The Bible as the most-read book, Blizzard as the top games company, and Donald Bradman in cricket statistics.
If we really want to give just credit of WS, we should clap Jake Ruppert on the back, for investing so much in his team. We should b---- slap Harry Frazee as the fool of the century for accepting a crippling mortgage on his ballpark, and kick Frank Navin in the crotch for investing so much in the ponies instead of better players for his team. Or . . . we can blame Sam Crawford for not being better.

[538280]

While Babe has all he did on the field safely in the stat bank, a huge chuck of Cobb's value is MIA, lost at sea, forever. Taking the Extra Base was his signature move and will never be credited to his stat record. Real pity.


You might be interested in a recent devlopment by Baseball Prospectus, Bill. They explain much of it in their book Baseball Between the Numbers With PBP data they have been able to come up with a statistic (BSR I think they called it, can't remember for sure), which looks at extra bases taken by a player in every game. It gives a very good idea at the extra bases contributed by each player on the basepaths. They need PBP data for it, so it's only available since the 70s I believe, but if new PBP data can be recovered they could go back and do it for guys like Cobb. That stuff is not necessarily lost to the stats after all.

[-Kyle-]

For me it is Babe, and Cobb, Mays, Wagner, and Bonds for 2-5.

[plask_stirlac]

Think about it... if I were to tell you that Joe Mauer was going to hit better and better as a catcher, DH for an entire season and hit .450 or something ridiculous like he did this year (in only 60 AB, drastic longshot he would stretch it out), keep hitting, then have some bizarre injuries (eye damage? broken left wrist?) and become a Top 15 starter or closer, that would be like some of the greatness of Ruth.

(Maybe catching makes up for some lack of league dominance)

[Bill Burgess]

You might be interested in a recent development by Baseball Prospectus, Bill. They explain much of it in their book Baseball Between the Numbers With PBP data they have been able to come up with a statistic (BSR I think they called it, can't remember for sure), which looks at extra bases taken by a player in every game. It gives a very good idea at the extra bases contributed by each player on the basepaths. They need PBP data for it, so it's only available since the 70s I believe, but if new PBP data can be recovered they could go back and do it for guys like Cobb. That stuff is not necessarily lost to the stats after all.
That would be a very intriguing development indeed if it is possible. The problem is that the box scores didn't record it in the first place.

But here is a long shot possibility. With the new development in newspapers being put online via Proquest, there might have been perhaps a single paper in the entire country which did record such rare data. And if that becomes available as all newspapers become digitalized, and the search engines get more and more powerful, it might be discovered.

Recently historians were able to cull through and scan old black-owned newspapers and recovered a lot of Negro L. data that was thought to be undocumented. So one never knows. Maybe even they will find old data for CS, and strike outs for hitters before 1913. We can keep our fingers crossed.

[Seattle1]

All right then, give me an argument for why Ken Griffey Jr. is the best player of all time. There has to be one if you don't think there's any way he could be excluded from the poll.

Well, Griffey's only problem was the strange injury bug that kept biting him after going to Cincinatti. That has obviously taken a toll on the numbers he would have otherwise been putting up.

[runningshoes]

Only one player belongs on that list and we all know who he is. ;)

[Bill Burgess]

Only one player belongs on that list and we all know who he is. ;)
Ah, shucks now. Don't embarrass me by bringing up my own career. How mortifying! :D :dance :waving

The Shameless, but GREATEST ONE

[four tool]

Your career? I thought it was Michael Jordan's:D :D :D

[Old Sweater]

Not 1 vote for Hornsby. This is a surprise.

[CTaka]

Only one player belongs on that list and we all know who he is. ;)


Yes, but Ray Schalk has already been mentioned enough in different threads! :laugh

[BigStellyPADRES4LIFE]

Thanks, Big Stelly. I know you're a Ty man. Just wanted to fortify you with some tid-bits on Cobb slugging.

He came in top 3 in his league in slugging 14 times, and won 8 titles. And if we index his slg. ave. to league, here is how the all time list appears. But bear in mind those ahead of him in their PA. So many fewer PA does matter. Hope this ammo fortifies you. He is now 14th and usually hovered around 10th, after many hitters with so fewer PA. 6 had fewer than 8,000 PA.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rel Rel Through 2003, over 5,000 PA, indexed and park adjusted.

Pro+ OBA Slg Rel Rel
Rank Rank Rank Player PA Pro+ OBA Slg
----------------------------------------------------------------

1 2 1 Babe Ruth 10504 207.0 134.5 172.5
2 1 2 Ted Williams 9786 189.5 134.6 154.9
3 11 3 Lou Gehrig 9554 180.4 126.4 154.0
4 3 4 Barry Bonds 10963 180.0 131.6 148.4
5 8 5 Rogers Hornsby 9259 174.7 127.4 147.3
8 16 6 Joe Jackson 5559 168.7 123.9 144.8
16 102 7 Hank Greenberg 6061 157.3 113.5 143.9
6 5 8 Mickey Mantle 9895 172.1 128.3 143.8
11 40 9 Mark McGwire 7657 162.8 119.0 143.8
13 43 10 Jimmie Foxx 9599 161.6 117.9 143.7
21 122 11 Joe DiMaggio 7657 155.6 112.7 142.9
17 78 12 Johnny Mize 7351 157.0 114.9 142.1
7 4 13 Dan Brouthers 7656 170.9 129.4 141.4
9 10 14 Ty Cobb 12777 168.4 127.0 141.4
22 83 15 Hank Aaron 13919 155.2 114.6 140.6
18 54 16 Dick Allen 7295 156.7 116.8 140.0
20 53 17 Willie Mays 12480 156.0 116.8 139.2
25 52 18 Mike Piazza 6007 154.7 117.0 137.7
14 24 19 Stan Musial 12677 158.2 121.1 137.1
38 192 20 Willie Stargell 9017 147.1 110.0 137.1
19 36 21 Manny Ramirez 5910 156.5 119.8 136.7
26 41 22 Frank Robinson 11726 154.0 118.5 135.5
12 9 23 Frank Thomas 8167 162.6 127.3 135.3
10 6 24 Pete Browning 5315 163.2 128.0 135.3
15 18 25 Tris Speaker 11679 157.4 123.0 134.3
23 25 26 Mel Ott 11228 155.0 120.9 134.1
48 215 27 Albert Belle 6669 142.9 108.9 134.0
33 60 28 Nap Lajoie 10239 150.0 116.1 133.9
35 86 29 Ralph Kiner 6247 148.0 114.4 133.7
40 111 30 Mike Schmidt 10046 146.8 113.2 133.6
41 131 31 Sam Thompson 6497 145.4 111.9 133.5
29 42 32 Ed Delahanty 8340 151.5 118.1 133.4
42 159 33 Ken Griffey Jr. 8161 144.0 110.9 133.1
32 48 34 Honus Wagner 11518 150.4 117.6 132.9
36 77 35 Willie McCovey 9681 147.7 114.9 132.9
43 153 36 Alex Rodriguez 5671 143.9 111.1 132.7
24 21 37 Roger Connor 8834 154.9 122.2 132.6
46 158 38 Sam Crawford 10353 143.5 110.9 132.5
93 514 39 Juan Gonzalez 7014 133.3 100.8 132.5
49 163 40 Frank Howard 7346 142.8 110.7 132.2
57 226 41 Jeff Heath 5540 140.4 108.6 131.8
64 272 42 Wally Berger 5636 138.8 107.2 131.6
39 66 43 Harry Heilmann 8683 147.0 115.7 131.2
30 35 44 Jim Thome 6420 150.9 119.8 131.0
27 20 45 Jeff Bagwell 8626 153.4 122.3 131.0
44 118 46 Hack Wilson 5454 143.7 112.8 130.9
50 125 47 Harry Stovey 6832 142.8 112.5 130.3
58 165 48 Babe Herman 6134 140.2 110.6 129.6
66 205 49 Darryl Strawberry 6325 138.6 109.3 129.3
102 419 50 Sammy Sosa 8462 132.4 103.1 129.3

Thanks Bill, you made me aware of the actual ability of Cobb to post some decent slugging stats, what i more meant was his legacy for the most part is not pictured as a slugger.

[Bill Burgess]

Thanks Bill, you made me aware of the actual ability of Cobb to post some decent slugging stats, what i more meant was his legacy for the most part is not pictured as a slugger.
Yes, this is very true. The popular picture of Ty is as a glorified singles hitter, who spiced his hitting with a goodly amount of doubles/triples. Pity.

When the generic fan merely scans the books, it's like shopping for a quality item by window shopping. To really measure anything, one needs to do a minimum of looking into things. And if one is willing to do a minimum of work, everything can change for the better.

Good job, Stelly.

Bill

[EvanAparra]

Not 1 vote for Hornsby. This is a surprise.
But there is a vote for Griffey and A-Rod!

[Goooooo]

Ruth and Cobb with the most votes, Aaron none, and Gehrig and Griffey have more then hank?

People never learn.

[EvanAparra]

Ruth and Cobb with the most votes, Aaron none, and Gehrig and Griffey have more then hank?

People never learn.
Are you saying that Aaron deserves it over Ruth and Cobb?

[leecemark]

--Over Griffey and Gehrig anyway.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Thanks Bill, you made me aware of the actual ability of Cobb to post some decent slugging stats, what i more meant was his legacy for the most part is not pictured as a slugger.

Cobb's "Slugging Average" is at least a 85/15 product of his legs/brain IMO; if not 90/10. His SA is impressive nonetheless and in regards to relative SA, its one of the reasons he's my #2 player.

[Bill Burgess]

Have been asked to restart the survey/poll, in order for all to see who voted for who. Hope y'all remember who you voted for. Let the Games Begin!

[Victory Faust]

:clapping :clapping Nice posting, VF. Haven't seen you around these parts for a while. Nice to see you back. Missed you.


Thanks, Bill. Being a lifelong Detroiter, I've been caught up in the Tigers glorious run (that ended decidedly ingloriously!) In fact, I was even picked by my editor to cover the playoffs and World Series, even though I'm a police reporter by trade. So I had the incredible privilege of getting to go to the games -- and get paid for it -- along with going on the field, etc. It was a dream come true.

But now that all that is over, I'm feeding my baseball jones by coming onto this wonderful site!

So thanks for the kind words....

[Captain Cold Nose]

I don't know how you could exclude Ken Griffey, Jr. Speaking of which, could a moderator please correct the spelling on his first name?
His last few seasons have greatly diminished his all-time ranking.
Name is fixed, as well as the Other option added.

[Goooooo]

Are you saying that Aaron deserves it over Ruth and Cobb?

Consider everything Aaron had to go through, and the strength of his league compared to Ruth and Cobb's, that's what I'm saying. It's because of Bigot's like Cobb that blacks, or minorities in general were never able to play in MLB for many many years.

[EvanAparra]

Consider everything Aaron had to go through, and the strength of his league compared to Ruth and Cobb's, that's what I'm saying. It's because of Bigot's like Cobb that blacks, or minorities in general were never able to play in MLB for many many years.
I wasn't aware this was the "nice guy" award. Aaron's league was much harder than Ruth's and Cobb's?

[Bill Burgess]

Consider everything Aaron had to go through, and the strength of his league compared to Ruth and Cobb's, that's what I'm saying. It's because of Bigot's like Cobb that blacks, or minorities in general were never able to play in MLB for many many years.
In one way, yes. But every issue has it's counter side. Thought you might be interested in seeing what Wesley Fricks had to say on this. He is the most knowledgeable person I know on Ty Cobb.

http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?p=480633#post480633

[pfairban]

Stan Musial Ty Cobb Babe Ruth

Probably three pitchers belong there, too, but I just don't know enough about pitchers.

[538280]

Aaron's league was much harder than Ruth's and Cobb's?

You don't think it was?

[EvanAparra]

You don't think it was?
Not as much as i've seen it made out to be.

[538280]

Not as much as i've seen it made out to be.

If you were to make decade by decade LQ adjustments, what would they look like? Just curious. Follow the same type model that I did with my system.

[EvanAparra]

If you were to make decade by decade LQ adjustments, what would they look like? Just curious. Follow the same type model that I did with my system.
I'm actually not very familiar with your system, Chris. But i'll look into it and let you know.

[pfairban]

Ha ha ha. Good one. The name at the top might be the winner, but Fever has proven that it will not be without challenge. The Ty/Babe debate has raged since 1920. From 1920 - 1960, Ty was the universal winner. Babe has been the consensus choice since the 1970's. The tide first started to turn around 1950, when Babe won his first ever survey/poll. One is the consensus for 80% of whom saw them play, the other is the choice of those who have not, and for those who are guided by stats.

BTW - This debate will never be resolved, nor should it be. Funny how we fight over the same BB subjects our grandfathers did. I think that's way cool.

I argue, with the first Bill James book as my source, that the same could be said of the Musial/Williams debate.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Well I say Ruth, but mind if I try to make an argument for A-Rod or Mantle, but yet say that Ruth was the best ever?

[EvanAparra]

Well I say Ruth, but mind if I try to make an argument for A-Rod or Mantle, but yet say that Ruth was the best ever?
A-Rod has no real case at this point in time, unless you are predicting he will become the best player ever.

[ChrisLDuncan]

A-Rod has no real case at this point in time, unless you are predicting he will become the best player ever.

Would you like to see me try and make one? By the way it will take me some time to get the research done aswell, if you guys want to see one I will provide one.

[EvanAparra]

Would you like to see me try and make one? By the way it will take me some time to get the research done aswell, if you guys want to see one I will provide one.
Go ahead, but I don't think you'll have anything but criticism trying to tell people that Alex is better than Babe Ruth at this point in time. (Just like my Pedro Martinez arguments) But sure, i'd like to hear it.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Would you like to see me try and make one? By the way it will take me some time to get the research done aswell, if you guys want to see one I will provide one.

Go for it. Spin those numbers. That's why the stats are there, right.

[Blackout]

no John Henry Lloyd?

[four tool]

I can't see saying any player who did not actually play in the majors is the best of all time, no lloyd, not Gibbie not even Satch because he came into the Majors so late in his career.

[AstrosFan]

Oh yeah, I can't see how the best black players pre-1947 could be equal to the best white ones either.

[four tool]

They may be equal, they may be the best, but we have no basis for comparison. Suppose Gibbie came up and hit 400 HR as a catcher because the longer seasons wore him down.How do we evaluate him then? We do not have the career stats for a fair evaluation.
No major leaguers, white or otherwise, get credit for potential, so ranking the non major league players on potential (that is, their skills) is invalid.

[Bill Burgess]

They may be equal, they may be the best, but we have no basis for comparison. Suppose Gibbie came up and hit 400 HR as a catcher because the longer seasons wore him down.How do we evaluate him then? We do not have the career stats for a fair evaluation.
No major leaguers, white or otherwise, get credit for potential, so ranking the non major league players on potential (that is, their skills) is invalid.
I truly sympathize with your position, Mark. And I would not assign those who disagree with me to Hell for any length of time.

But there might be a reasoned compromize. Here is how leecemark handles the Negro Leaguers.

He arbitrarily inserts them into his lists, as a way to avoid historical injustice, but he doesn't actually assign them numbers in the list. And he always makes a notation at the top, that these placings are merely unconfirmed suppositions.

[four tool]

That system is fine and probably the best anyone can do without actual major league games to evaluate, but the lister should also include Japanese and Latin players. Does Ichiro get credit for his batting titles in Japan, and thus go higher? He should if the Negro Leaguers are listed.

[AstrosFan]

Hey, four tool, sorry about the sarcasm.

Regarding your point that there is no basis for comparison, I agree with that. But you cannot say that a player who wasn't given a chance to play in the majors does not deserve consideration as the best ever. The Negro Leagues stars were not just great black players, they were great players, period. I am not saying they had the potential to be great; I am saying they were great. They are every bit as deserving of the title of best ever. No, we can't know if they were, but so what? We don't know if a white player was the greatest either. The greatest player ever is not a single player, it is a group of elite players. Anyone you can make a reasonable argument for is in that group. And to give an example of a Negro Leagues star, Oscar Charleston is in that group.

[runningshoes]

Not 1 vote for Hornsby. This is a surprise.

As the greatest player ever?

Why does that surprise you?

[four tool]

Actually, we don't know that the pool of greatest players is limited North Americans of the late nineteenth through 21st centuries and the Latin and Japanese players we are aware of. There could be current Cuban players or Latins from the 1910s, etc. who are as great or better.
Maybe the best player ever never played after high school.How would/do/can we know?

That's why I stick to major league players when I list the greatest, because the information just isn't available for comparison for EVERYone else.

[plask_stirlac]

I'm wary of taking Ichiro's batting titles into account. First wouldn't be enough unless it was an impressive margin/adjusted BA.

He has two here, and he'll get two more if he's lucky. I love the guy for his versatile excellence and batting titles aren't much of a measure, but he has been scorching hot in 2001 and June-on 2004, otherwise not often putting two or more hot months together.

And if someone is getting on base more in Japan, that should also be a factor.

[AlecBoy006]

Gotta be Ruth. Pitcher- AND hit 714 homeruns. However, I forget his name, but this one guy won a 100 games and 2,000 hits.

[cubsfan1073]

I'm surprised there's not a thread going around about this, but who do you think is the greatest player of all time
is it babe ruth
willie mays
hank aaron
honus wagner
ty cobb
ted williams
or someone else

[cubsfan1073]

i would have to say babe ruth
his stats are just phenomenal and was a great power hitter during a period of baseball history when home runs were scarce and he changed the game

[Edgartohof]

I'll play along, and say Babe Ruth, but this topic is always around here.

And it'll go something like this:

70% - Ruth
20% - Cobb
8% - Mays
2% - Misc.

(I just pulled the numbers out of thin air, but it seems about right)

[Mariano_Rivera]

I have Wagner because I believe the pitching in the 1920's (Ruth's time) was very weak

[Skin & Bones]

I'll play along, and say Babe Ruth, but this topic is always around here.

And it'll go something like this:

70% - Ruth
20% - Cobb
8% - Mays
2% - Misc.

(I just pulled the numbers out of thin air, but it seems about right)

The ranking of Cobb ahead Mays may very well change - In the last Poll I seen comparing the two, Mays had ten more votes than Cobb.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=53645

[pfairban]

The ranking of Cobb ahead Mays may very well change - In the last Poll I seen comparing the two, Mays had ten more votes than Cobb.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=53645

Which is silly. Cobb held more records longer than anybody. And as many have pointed out, he was considered the greatest baseball player longer than anybody.

My vote is for a triumvirate of Ruth/Cobb/Musial. Those three guys were more dominant in their leagues than any other players ever and were more consistent, too. You put the other all-time greats up against them, on a one to one basis, and the other all-time greats fall into a second class. The thing is, you have to really look at them each individually.

[cubsfan1073]

sorry i figured there was a thread like this out there, but i ddint see one so i started it

[Mariano_Rivera]

Can someone change my vote on the poll from Ruth to Wagner. I have changed my mind since then.

[pfairban]

Stan Musial/Babe Ruth/Ty Cobb. On Musial, greatest consistency, ability in most categories, most dominant in his league, most dominant individual years, great clutch hitter, greatest ebh hitter -- see my thread.

[Bill Burgess]

I'll play along, and say Babe Ruth, but this topic is always around here.

And it'll go something like this:

70% - Ruth
20% - Cobb
8% - Mays
2% - Misc.

(I just pulled the numbers out of thin air, but it seems about right)
I actually tabulate this stuff. So far, here are the numbers I've been able to extort.

Ruth - 103 votes- 58%
Cobb - 51 - 28%
Mays - 11 - 6%
Wagner - 4 - 2%
Williams - 3 - 1%
Charleston - 3 1%
Bonds - 1 - .05%
------------
Total Fever Voters - 176
---------------------------------
And just for fun, here are the Voters! After their names is their order of others.

Bonds
NickG

Charleston
MikeCameronfan
Etheridge2
christian gentleman-TC,BR,HW,WM

Ted Williams
Mr. Russ
cubbieinexile
Keepthefaith3-BR,TC,HW5,WM6

Honus Wager
KHenry14- TC-2
AG2004-BR,OC,WM,TC,JGibson,
Tyrus Raymond Cobb-TC2
Rickey_Henderson-BR,TW,TC,WM

Mays
leecemark, BR, Aaron, TW,HW5,TC6,
538280-BR,BB,HW4,MM,OC,TC7
Metal Ed -TC,BR
Zeth -TC2
Bump11 -
Metsfan -
Say Hey -
BC227
It's Over The Wall!
Ex Expo fan
Teddy Ballgame
Goooooo
Tony Robbins
DoubleX-BR,TC3,HW6

Cobb
Eddie Collins-BR-2
Brad Harris-BR-2
LouGehrig-BR2
Prof93-BR-2
Splendid Splinter-BR2,HW,WM,OC
Dudecar00-BR,LG,HW4,WM6
The Peach-BR2,HW3
Tavish-BR2,HW,BB, WM
ReignInBlood-BR2,BB,WM,HW
hbinways-BR,BB,WM,HW6
BigStellyPadres4Life-BR2,HW3,WM5
Sashag-BR2
SeaverGooden-BR,HW,WM8
HDH-Ruth, Hornsby,Williams,Mays
Roger Maris-WM,BR3,HW7
csh1979-2001--WM2,BR-3,HW4
Bill Burgess-HW2,BR3,WM4,Charleston5
Mason/Dixon-HW2, BR3,WM4
Windy City Fan-WM,BR,TW,HW
cbenson5-HW,BR,WM
Dr.Detroit-WM,BR
Wolverineman-Gibson,HW,BR4
blighty baseball bloke
TXRangerfan
George Steinbrenner
Chad
Dizzy (HS in '04)
Tearforamariner
bkmckenna
Brian2944
Eric Got Munsoned
OldEnglishD
2Chance
Impotato
AcesDJD
Ize19
Victory Faust
riverhawk
barnstormer
bleacherbee
kelo80
Sandman
mpacy
Murph8283
Chanceron
Rottengazebo
History of BB Fan
Zito75
EvanAparra
William Lee
Greerman29

Ruth
ElHalo--------TC2, WM,RH,LG,HW6
four tool player--TC2
Sultan, 1895-1948-TC2,WM3,HW4
SABR Matt-TC2,TW,WM,BB,HW6
RuthMayBond-TC2,WM4,HW6
Jalbright-TC,HW4,WM6
Captain Cold Nose-TC,WM,HW
Julusnc--TC-2,HW,WM
Edgartohof--TC2,WM3,HW5
dgarza-TC2,Gibson, WM10
blackout805-TC2,HW7,WM9
ShoelessJoe3
Sirmudgeon,TC,WM3,HW6
Flash143817--TC2,TW3,WM4,HW5
CyNOtSoYoung-TC2,WM3,HW5
pacewon-TC2,WM3,HW7
rockin500-TC,WM,HW
uthminsta-TC2
BoofBonser26-TC2,WM4,HW6
NeverJustAGame-TC2,HW,WM,TS,BB
coasttocoast-TC2,WM,HW,OC
dudeman-TC2,HW,WM
TheOnlyRyan -TC-2
Catfish--TC-2
Wee Willie-TC2,WM3,HW5
baseball bum-TC2,WM,HW
runningshoes53--TC2
Myankee4life, TC2,WM3,HW8
Chisox73-TC,WM,HW4
give it a ride-TC2,WM,HW
baseball Pap-TC,HW3,WM7
StLCards2,TC2,WM3,HW5
Yankee Legend-TC,WM,TW,BB,HW13
Cyclone792-TC,HW,TW,BB,WM
torez77-TC,HW4,WM5
Pghfan987-TC2, WM3,HW4
Murderer's Row-TC,TW,HW,WM9
Kyle-TC, HW,WM,BB,OC7
Sockeye-TC,WM10,HW14
abacab---WM2,TC3,HW4
pjf-LG,TC3,WM
Baseball Guru-WM,TC3,HW7
catcher24--WM, TC3
Luke Appling-HW2,TC-3,WM7
moviegeekjan-WM,TC3,HW
Plask Stirlac-TW,TC3,HW10
Pretorius -WM,TC3,BB,HW5
The Amazing Met-WM2,TC3,HW4
Dodger-WM,TC3,HW5
darkplague17-BB,TC3,HW9
Honus Wagner Rules-HW,WM,TC4
Don’tworry-WM3,TC4,HW5
ChiSox-BB,WM,TC4,HW7
sschirmer-WM,HA,TC4,HW6
Mac195---WM,TW,TC4,HW5
CharlesBlalack,TW,HW,TC4,WM6
Astro-Bonds,Cobb
wrgptfan------Ruth, TW,BB,LG,TC5,HW8
BillyF29-MM,TW,WM,TC5,HW7
BoSox Rules-BB,WM,TC5,HW6
Naliamegod-HW,WM,TW,TC5
Babe Is The Best-TC5
Metsfan11--TC-6
west coast orange and black
Jackie42
NeverJustAFan
whatswailing
BABBMALLEY29
bluezebra
Santotohof
WLH99raiders--
depstein
basebll79
nationalpastime1980
MikeCameron
westsidegrounds
Dayton Dog
froshman2002
doublepar
Halos
nascaran5
714 on beer and dogs
Exposfan556
Bluesteve32
Brooklyn
barzilla
Schlabotnik
Hoffy
tonjes
Mordeci
RedSoxVT92
64 Cards
Knick9
Tony Starks
SamtheBravesFan
piwvolk
carnivore
ballparks
KCGhost
Mwiggins
AstorsFan
ChrisLDuncan
Skin and Bones

[Colorado Express]

I find it too hard to vote against the Babe.

[four tool]

Have to go with the Babe, he would have been a hall of fame pitcher, did have some speed and baserunning sense and he deliberately sacrificed some average for power.