Fever Consensus Top 25: #1 Player Ever [Archive]

yanks0714

12-01-2006, 06:03 PM

I've never posted my Top 25 before so here goes.
I prefer Career over Peak although if someone has a great peak I give it serious consideration. I also value longevity. Another that I highly value is consistancy, no serious peaks/valleys.
I take into considertion defense (less than hitting) and base running (not just SB's).
I try to stay away from ranking strictly on numbers alone taking what has been said about the player, especially those from yesteryear (before my time)....but the metrics are the highest value I give.
I give war credit but not baseball injury related lost time.

Top 25:
1) Babe Ruth > I debate anybody else being first.
2) Willie Mays > Complete package. Best in most competitive era.
3) Honus Wagner > Nobody remotely close to him at SS.
4) Ty Cobb > I won't argue anybody having Ty over Willie...but I do think they're wrong.
5) Hank Aaron > Incredible consistancy. Wind him up in spring training and you knew pretty much what you were getting.
6) Tris Speaker > Tris was Ty's real competition, not Jackson.
7) Ted Williams > Ranking based almost exclusively on hitting.
8) Mike Schmidt > Greatest 3B ever. Best player of his era.
9) Stan Musial > Like Aaron, great consistancy. Long career. Played all OF positions and 1B for the good of the team not to hide his D.
10) Mickey Mantle > One of the greatest offensive peaks ever.
11) Lou Gehrig > Played in Ruth's shadow somewhat. So-so D holds him back.
12 ) Rogers Hornsby > Hitter deluxe like Williams most of ranking based on hitting.
13) Barry Bonds > I penalize his steroid years but he was great even before that.
14 > Johnny Bench > Greatest C ever. Challenges Schmidt as best of era.
15 > Joe DiMaggio > Hurt by home field. His HR/K ratio is simply incredible.
16 > Frank Robinson > Overshadowed by Mays and Aaron but was a complete ball player.
17 > Yogi Berra > Only his good D to Bench's great D holds him behind Bench.
18 > Rickey Henderson > Greatest leadoff man in baseball history...even if he was a jerk.
19) Jimmie Foxx > Lou Gehrig lite.....but only by just so much.
20) Eddie Collins > Much more than a punch and judy hitter than I used to think.
21) Eddie Mathews > Was greatest 3B until Schmidt came along. People forget how good this guy really was.
22) Ed Delahanty > Possibly the best 19th century player.
23) Jackie Robinson > Short career not his fault and I give him credit. Plus, where couldn't he play. Adequate to excellent D everywhere he was needed.
24) Mel Ott > I strongly believe he tailored his swing to his home park. Can't hold that against him taking advantage.
25) Nap LaJoie > Early years hitting terror. D is overrated.

HM: Hank Greenberg, Joe Morgan, George Brett, Billy Hamilton, Duke Snider, Reggie Jackson, and Mickey Cochrane.

brett

12-01-2006, 06:09 PM

brett

12-01-2006, 06:11 PM

I would also have Berra, McCovey, and Ott (I'm not big on splits) right outside your top 25.

honestiago

12-01-2006, 07:08 PM

The Babe HAS to be #1 because he was a top flight pitcher, as well as the greatest HR hitter the game had ever seen. Bonds is underrated by most people. Juice or not, he's the greatest power/speed combination to ever play the game. He was a HOF'er before he got on the 'roids. The only strike against him is not playing a key defensive position, but then neither did Ruth. Bonds is #2.

EvanAparra

12-01-2006, 07:13 PM

#2 player is going to be pretty interesting

-Kyle-

12-01-2006, 07:46 PM

Babe's peak is roughly equal to Mantle's, with the most career win shares and was a pitcher as well. Not that hard in my opinion.

csh19792001

12-02-2006, 12:08 AM

Babe's peak is roughly equal to Mantle's, with the most career win shares and was a pitcher as well. Not that hard in my opinion.

Since you mention Win Shares.....is that's your main criteria? If Barry Bonds plays another year (plus) at a rate comprable to this year, he'll surpass Cobb (#2 alltime by Win Shares) as the most statistically valuable player ever by James' calculations. He may even pass Ruth (#1), if he can have a few more good years.

Where would you rank him then?

Also, I seriously doubt it, but a sidebar question......does anyone know if Win Shares gives extra credit for player-managing? Cobb was at the helm for 6 grueling seasons, and probably gets absolutely nothing for it on paper- although he damned well should- as should the other greats who did the same for an extended period of time. It's a hellish, incredibly taxing job, especially when we're talking about many years taking on the role.

plask_stirlac

12-02-2006, 12:34 AM

I voted Ruth, unless we have a Delorean and Jimmie Foxx can sign with a team that doesn't have a Cochrane-type, thus catching like he showed he could, Ruth is the best position player.

The Yankees passed on Foxx, Connie snatched him up for $2500. But Mack was extremely loyal to Mickey C, Foxx took the infield corners.

ChrisLDuncan

12-02-2006, 01:25 AM

Is this supposed to be a debate here aswell?

leecemark

12-02-2006, 06:16 AM

Is this supposed to be a debate here aswell?
--Of course. What would be the fun in it if we didn't.

Mariano_Rivera

12-02-2006, 09:18 AM

I recently changed from Honus back to Ruth

plask_stirlac

12-02-2006, 10:15 AM

I think if Ruth had gotten tired much earlier, well before 1930, rather than dominating into the 1930s then he might be more suitable to be moved around from 1 to 2 to 3, not that it's a sin if you have someone else #1. The fast living and years pitching might have worn him down.

ChrisLDuncan

12-02-2006, 10:53 AM

--Of course. What would be the fun in it if we didn't.

Ahh yes, I just thought were creating the Fever top 25 or something.
BTW: It's Ruth by a mile.

csh19792001

12-02-2006, 11:08 AM

-- OTOH, he was extremely unpopular with his teammates to the extent that it was a serious clubhouse problem.

Before making blanket statements about Cobb as a teammate or a manager, you should read this... all of Bill's files- in their entirety, actually, if you're going to speak with both authority and accuracy on Ty. The quotes- what his teammates and contemporaries actually had to say about him as a person and player- are certainly not confined to this Excel file. If people choose not to do the reading, they'll be working off of popular, commonly unfounded hype and myths that have snowballed over the years; as the image grows but the facts and the actual people involved fade to gray.

That will result in blanket statements like the one above. Why not look into what people ACTUALLY said and felt?

DID ALL OF TY COBB'S TEAM MATES HATE HIM? (http://baseballguru.com/bburgess/analysisbburgess04.html)

Fred Haney - 1929: " I personally know of many attempts Cobb made to help players out -- veterans who were slipping both professionally and financially, -- but, in each case the player coached by some of the soreheads, would be warned off. On one occasion, Cobb offered to invest $3,000. for a player about to be waived out of the league. The player wanted to accept the generous offer, but some other player, among them one who has since come to disrepute, advised him strongly against it, and he took their advice, only to be sorry later. This talk about his not being for his players was pure bunk, There was nothing he didn't try to do to make everyone happy. As I said, there were those who just wouldn't or couldn't see anything good in Ty. He had his share of battles, on and off the diamond, did Ty, but, in all of them, he was a square shooter and a square fighter." (Sporting News, April 25, 1929)

Fred Haney - 1961 - "Ty Cobb was a great manager. He took a bunch of punks and finished third in 1922, second in '23 and third in '24, when he should have been deep in the second division. He was a wonderful fellow to play for --if you hustled and did your best all the time. He was very demanding, but quick to give you a pat on the back, too. (Sporting News, Nov. 8, 1961, pp. 10, column 3)

Bert Cole - 1970 - But, As Cole says, he got along better with Cobb than most. He discounts the stories about Cobb's being penurious, mean and selfish. "Cobb wasn't inherently mean or really stingy. He was just fanatical about winning. When we won, nothing was too good for us. There was steak for everybody. When we lost, he wouldn't even give you conversation. When I broke in, he and Harry Heilmann were having a helluva race for the batting title, and suddenly Harry went into a month-long slump. "Ty had Harry off in the corner of the park everyday for hours before each game trying to figure out ways to break him out of that slump. Well, Ty was a tremendous batting instructor, and he pulled Harry out of it." That was the year Heilmann hit .394, Cobb .389, and Heilmann took the batting title.

Frank Baker - 1961 - "The burning desire to excel. That was Ty Cobb, the greatest ball player who ever lived." Upset by a magazine writer's (Alvin Stump) bitter presentation of Cobb's last days, Baker wanted to go on record that "there wasn't a mean bone in Ty's body." Cobb had a fiery temper, sure. And there was that overpowering urge to win that brought him into violent contact with opponents and sometimes teammates. But always there was an underlying decency that quickly brought praise and kind words after he had chewed you out. That even prompted him to help recruits quietly in a day and time in baseball when they got little assistance in winning away jobs from old regulars. There'll never be another Cobb, Anybody who saw him or knew him will agree with that."

(Sporting News, Jan. 10, 1962, pp. 14, column 4)

Rip Collins, - 1929 - Ty's teammate, 1920-26; AL P, 1920-27, 29-31
1929 - "Ty Cobb and I are supposed to be enemies. That might have been true once; but it's not true now. We've had our share of differences, I'll admit. There were times when I couldn't even see Ty's face through the red haze that sprung up between us. I hated to work for him, and I am frank to say I wouldn't like to work for him now. But working for Ty and recognizing his good points on another ball club are two different things. . . There's a pretty general impression, I think, that Cobb was not an able manager. It is true he never won a pennant. But now that I'm no longer with the club, I'll go on record that if Connie Mack had managed the Tigers, with John McGraw for his coach and Joe McCarthy for his bat boy, he wouldn't have done any better than Ty. . . Cobb was not a failure as a manager. He was not a bad manager. In many ways he was a brilliant manager. He knew more baseball than anybody I ever saw. And chain lightning was no faster than the working of Ty's mind. He was always a fighter and he had a fighting ball club. that's what the public wants. He was as full of tricks as a coyote is full of fleas. they weren't parlor tricks, either. Ty was out to win ball games. . . Ty was a great coach. I doubt if his equal has ever lived. . . he did as well, with the material they gave him, as anybody could have done. So why call him a bad manager?. . . Ty never had a good pitching staff. His outfield was bad defensively), and his infield was worse. As a fielding combination, the Tigers were like an old sieve.

But how those boys could hit and score runs? Ty coached them and he kept them on their toes.

They were about as dangerous a team to stop as the New York Yankees. As for pennants, it makes little difference how many runs you score, as long as the other fellow scores more. But I haven't noticed many pennants waving from that old flag pole at Detroit since they gave Ty the gate. He drove the boys up as high as second place one year. They haven't roosted in that berth since.

So why not give Ty his due? Why saddle him with a failure that was not his, or blame him for something that nobody could help?

Ty is entitled to get sore at that kind of criticism. Frankly, I don't blame him." (Baseball Magazine, April, 1930, pp. 493)

Ty Cobb was supremely successful as a baseball player. He achieved supreme financial success after his career ended. It has been said that he who laughs last, laughs best. If there is any relationship between admiration and affection, Ty was sucessful there. Ty was called the best by the following of his team mates.

Ty's Detroit teammates who called him the Greatest Baseball Player Ever:

Hughie Jennings, ML SS,1B, 1891-1902 Detroit manager, 1907-20, Giants coach,'21-25

"Wild Bill" Donovan, (Ty's teammate, '05-12, 18); NL P ( 1898-02),; AL P ('03-12, 15-16, 18) NL man. 1921, AL man. '15-17, Det. c '18, Player's L. ump. 03, 06

Red Corriden, (Ty's teammate, 1912); AL SS, (1910, 12); NL SS,1913-15; White Sox manager, 1950; NL coach, 1932-46, AL coach, 1947-48, 50

Ralph Works, (Ty's teammate,'09-11); AL P, 1909-12, NL P, 1912-13

Oscar Vitt, (Ty's teammate, '12-18, 21); AL 3B (1912-21), Cleveland. manager (1938-40)

Jack Coombs, (Ty's coach, 1920); AL P, 1906-14, Detroit coach, 1920

Ed Ainsmith, (Ty's teammate,1919-21)

John Bogart, Detroit P, 1920

George Cutshaw, (Ty's teammate, 1922-23); NL 2B, 1912-21, Tigers 2B, 22-23

Johhny Bassler, (Ty's teammate, '21-26); AL catcher, 1913-14, '21-27

Charlie Gehringer, (Ty's teammate, 1924-26); Detroit 2B, (1924-42), Det. coach,('42), Det. GM & VP, (1951-59)

Donie Bush, (Ty's teammate, '08-21); AL SS, 1908-23, AL manager, 1923, 27-31, 33

George Moriarty, (AL 3B, 1906-17) AL ump (1917-41, except for Detroit manager,1927-28)

Johnny Neun, (Ty's teammate, 1925-26); Yankee coach (1944-46), Yankee manager (1946), Reds manager (1947-48); NL 1B (1930-31), Reds manager (1947-48

George Henry Burns, (Ty's teammate 1914-17); AL 1B, 1914-29

Harry Heilmann, (Ty's teammate, '16-26), AL OF, 1914-29; (Cinc. coach, '32), (Detroit announcer, '33-50)

Eddie Wells, (Ty's teammate, 1923-26); Det. P, 1923-27, Yankees P, 1929-32, Browns P, 1933-34

Bert Cole, (Ty's teammate, 1921-25); AL P, 1921-1925, 27

Heinie Manush, (Ty's teammate, 1923-26); AL OF ('23-36), NL OF ('37-39)

Del Baker, (Ty's teammate,1914-16); Detroit catcher, 1914-16; Detroit manager 1936-42, Det. coach, 1933-38; Cleveland coach, 1943-44; Red Sox coach , 1945-48, 53-60

Dan Howley, (Ty's coach,1919, '21-22); Browns' manager, 1927-29; Phillies catcher, 191

Fred Haney, (Ty's teammate,1922-25); AL 3B,2B, 1922-27, NL 3B, 1927,29; Browns manager, 1939-41; Pirates manager, 1953-55; Braves manager, 1956-59

George McBride, (Ty's teammate,1925-26) AL 3B ('08-20), NL 3B ('05-06); Wash. manager ('21), Det. coach ('25-26, 29)

Ira Thomas, (Ty's teammate, 1908); AL catcher, 1906-15; Phil. A's coach, 1925-28

Ty's Athletics teammates who called him the Greatest.

Mickey Cochrane, (Ty's teammate,1927-28); AL catcher (1925-38); Detroit Manager, (1934-38), A's coach (1950), Detroit VP (1961-62); Yankee scout (1955), Detroit scout (1960)

Al Simmons, (Ty's teammate,1927-28) AL OF, 1924-41, 43-44

Bing Miller, (Ty's teammate, 1928) AL OF, 1921-36, AL coach, 1937-53

Max Bishop, (Ty's teammate, 1927-28) AL 2B, 1924-35; (Ty's teammate, 1927-28)

Eddie Collins, (Ty's teammate,1927-28)

Tris Speaker, (Ty's teammate,28) (AL OF,07-28)(Clev.man.19-26)

Kid Gleason, (Ty coach, 1927-28) NL pitcher (1888-11,exc.,'01-02); AL coach ('12-17, 26-32, exc.15), AL manager, '19-23) NL 88-11,exc.01-02

Connie Mack, (Ty's manager,1927-28) NL catcher (1886-96) Philadelphia Athletics' manager, 1901-50

thekid9

12-02-2006, 11:08 AM

Ty Cobb is the 1st and best player elected to the HOF.

ChrisLDuncan

12-02-2006, 11:10 AM

Ty Cobb is the 1st and best player elected to the HOF.

He was one of the original five

Ty Cobb
Honus Wagner
Walter Johnson
Babe Ruth
Christy Matthewson

Dodgerfan1

12-02-2006, 11:15 AM

Ty Cobb is the 1st and best player elected to the HOF.

Cobb wasn't the first player elected to the HOF, but he did receive the most votes (222 of 226), outpolling the others. They were all voted in at the same time, though. As for the best? No. It was Ruth.

ChrisLDuncan

12-02-2006, 11:17 AM

Cobb wasn't the first player elected to the HOF, but he did receive the most votes (222 of 226), outpolling the others. They were all voted in at the same time, though. As for the best? No. It was Ruth.

Alot of voters didn't want Ruth to get in the "deadball" era class; they wanted the first one to be for players of that era and the selections, other than Ruth, demonstrate it

thekid9

12-02-2006, 11:17 AM

Didn't Cobb steal home 38 times?
Not something you see much of anymore.

Dodgerfan1

12-02-2006, 11:20 AM

Alot of voters didn't want Ruth to get in the "deadball" era class; they wanted the first one to be for players of that era and the selections, other than Ruth, demonstrate it

True, Cobb was the best player in the Dead Ball Era. I'll grant that.

W_Marone

12-02-2006, 11:48 AM

Foe me it was a toss between Ruth and Cobb

Sultan_1895-1948

12-02-2006, 12:49 PM

I'm still wondering what it is, that pushes Mays to the top for some. A LQ adjustment perhaps?...something that penalizes other players for not being born 40-50 years later and having a chance to prove what they could do in a later era, as well as ignoring advances Mays enjoyed technical and approach wise.

Maybe a large positional adjustment and too much credit for defense and baserunning? Mays was certainly a very good fielder who put up a couple great seasons but nothing outstanding or all-time exceptional, and others in the running with the exception of Williams were by no means slouches on the paths or in the field.

Basically, it seems to me, that Mays' non-stellar hitting is excused through LQ and his fielding and baserunning are being given too much weight. Have yet to hear a well thought out, rational case for him being #1. One Fever member convinced himself through a post where he argued for Mays over that #3 guy for the Yanks, but it was full of inaccuracies and meaningless factors.

Willie Mays DEFENSE

Ps Yr EqG Wins PCA-BA
CF 1951 125 2.42 0.279
CF 1952 44 0.6 0.258
CF 1954 154 4.56 0.317
CF 1955 154 4.32 0.311
CF 1956 154 1.74 0.250
CF 1957 152 2.18 0.261
CF 1958 152 3.97 0.304
CF 1959 146 2.58 0.273
CF 1960 152 3.69 0.297
CF 1961 152 3.05 0.282
CF 1962 161 4.77 0.317
CF 1963 153 3.28 0.287
CF 1964 150 4.21 0.311
CF 1965 143 5.75 0.356
CF 1966 143 3.20 0.290
CF 1967 122 2.79 0.292
CF 1968 126 3.15 0.300
CF 1969 90 1.89 0.285
CF 1970 117 1.85 0.266
CF 1971 76 2.04 0.307
CF 1972 44 0.44 0.244
CF 1972 12 0.07 0.230
CF 1973 34 0.71 0.285
Career Average: .292

Total PCA-BA (offense and defense)

----Ty Cobb----Willie Mays

-----23.63-------19.98
-----22.70-------19.55
-----22.33-------18.19
-----21.50-------18.11
-----20.94-------17.46------TOP 5 (111.1 vs 93.29)
-----18.91-------17.21
-----17.47-------16.89
-----16.20-------15.78
-----14.84-------15.36
-----12.80-------15.33------TOP 10 (191.32 vs 173.86)
-----12.62-------14.67
-----12.48-------14.22
-----12.14-------13.00
-----11.26-------12.52
-----10.21-------10.60------TOP 15 (250.03 vs 238.87)
-----8.88---------9.15
-----8.68---------8.35
-----7.00---------7.04
-----6.27---------6.16
-----5.72---------3.99------TOP 20 (286.58 vs 273.56)
-----3.84---------2.25
-----1.21---------1.83

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

Offensive PCA-BA CAREERS

Bonds ('86-'04), Ruth ('18-'35), Mays ('51-'73; no '53 of course), Williams ('39-'60; no '43-'45, and no '52 - only 12 PA)

csh19792001

12-02-2006, 01:37 PM

I'm still wondering what it is, that pushes Mays to the top for some.

Well, in statistical terms only (which is all most people here seem to care about/consider anyway)......the bottom line is, only a VERY steep league quality adjustment could put Mays #1 alltime. He's not close to Ruth or Cobb otherwise.

brett

12-02-2006, 01:48 PM

For Mays to be #1, he has to get all the breaks: credit for military time, a big boost for defense AND at least a little league quality. With ALL of this, he is one of 5 players who could conceivably rank #1. His military time, in my opinion, would make him the 5-6 best offensive player behind Ruth, Bonds, Cobb and Williams (with military credit) and about equal with Mantle. He would surpass Wagner offensively with Military credit. His defense is the best among Ruth, Bonds, Cobb, Williams and Mantle, and given the importance of CF he could move up, AND stay ahead of Wagner with HIS defensive boost. Williams drops to the back of this pack due to defense, and Mantle drops next so you have Ruth, Bonds, Cobb, Mays and Wagner with an ability to make an argument for any of them as #1. Really, no statistical attempt can show anything but that those 5 are in a zone of some overlap, but I think Mays has the narrowest path because he needs all of the boosts to the max.

Well, in statistical terms only (which is all most people here seem to care about/consider anyway)......the bottom line is, only a VERY steep league quality adjustment could put Mays #1 alltime. He's not close to Ruth or Cobb otherwise.

leecemark

12-02-2006, 02:46 PM

Basically, it seems to me, that Mays' non-stellar hitting is excused through LQ and his fielding and baserunning are being given too much weight. Have yet to hear a well thought out, rational case for him being #1. One Fever member convinced himself through a post where he argued for Mays over that #3 guy for the Yanks, but it was full of inaccuracies and meaningless factors.

--Mays non-stellar hitting? He couldn't hit with Ruth or Williams and a few other guys (Mantle, Hornsby, ?) topped his peak, but you don't need any kind of adjustment to see Willie as one of the 10 best hitters of all time. That seems pretty stellar to me. He was a better fielder than any of the other guys who might make the top 10 and a better baserunner than all, except probably Cobb. That is a pretty nice package to build a best ever argument around.
--BTW, I was the member who made the theoretical post for Mays over Ruth in a challenge type thread. I didn't exactly convince myself with that one post, but it did get me considering the possible that Mays total package was better than the Babe's. It was quite awhile later when I actually made the change in my rankings. I don't expect to convince a majority of that any time soon, but Mays did move past Wagner to 3rd place in the subsequent poll (4th in the previous round). I expect him to give Cobb a good fight for the 2nd spot this time.

Sultan_1895-1948

12-02-2006, 03:25 PM

--Mays non-stellar hitting? He couldn't hit with Ruth or Williams and a few other guys (Mantle, Hornsby, ?) topped his peak, but you don't need any kind of adjustment to see Willie as one of the 10 best hitters of all time.

He is far behind those other guys. You need LQ to excuse that.

He was a better fielder than any of the other guys who might make the top 10 and a better baserunner than all, except probably Cobb.

Probably Cobb? Anyway, I agree with you about the fielding but A) He wasn't all-time great and B) The others weren't all-time bad or below average

--BTW, I was the member who made the theoretical post for Mays over Ruth in a challenge type thread. I didn't exactly convince myself with that one post, but it did get me considering the possible that Mays total package was better than the Babe's.

Glad to hear that one post didn't convince you, but its strange that it would lead to anything at all. The points you brought up were meaningless and your assessment of GHR's fielding and baserunner were off. Anyway, to each his own. Mays is certainly someone with a case so its not an outlandish position you hold, by any means. A bit of a reach though, certainly imo.

-Kyle-

12-02-2006, 04:17 PM

Since you mention Win Shares.....is that's your main criteria? If Barry Bonds plays another year (plus) at a rate comprable to this year, he'll surpass Cobb (#2 alltime by Win Shares) as the most statistically valuable player ever by James' calculations. He may even pass Ruth (#1), if he can have a few more good years.

Where would you rank him then?

Also, I seriously doubt it, but a sidebar question......does anyone know if Win Shares gives extra credit for player-managing? Cobb was at the helm for 6 grueling seasons, and probably gets absolutely nothing for it on paper- although he damned well should- as should the other greats who did the same for an extended period of time. It's a hellish, incredibly taxing job, especially when we're talking about many years taking on the role.

I like to take other things into account, and Bonds I'm not really sure what to do with him yet. Win shares with LQ adjustment, his 2000-2004 is probably one five best ever, but you have to take steroids into account.

No, it doesn't tale into account that, they should be adjusted for intangibles though.

538280

12-02-2006, 04:58 PM

I'm still wondering what it is, that pushes Mays to the top for some. A LQ adjustment perhaps?...something that penalizes other players for not being born 40-50 years later and having a chance to prove what they could do in a later era, as well as ignoring advances Mays enjoyed technical and approach wise.

Maybe a large positional adjustment and too much credit for defense and baserunning? Mays was certainly a very good fielder who put up a couple great seasons but nothing outstanding or all-time exceptional, and others in the running with the exception of Williams were by no means slouches on the paths or in the field.

Basically, it seems to me, that Mays' non-stellar hitting is excused through LQ and his fielding and baserunning are being given too much weight. Have yet to hear a well thought out, rational case for him being #1. One Fever member convinced himself through a post where he argued for Mays over that #3 guy for the Yanks, but it was full of inaccuracies and meaningless factors.

I don't see how you could come up with Mays anything less than one of the top 10 hitters, Sultan, even with NO LQ adjustments he's got to be at least top 10 all time with just hitting. Ruth was a better hitter than that, he's either #1 or #2 with maybe Williams up there with hitting, while Mays is top 10 and maybe top 5 with LQ adjustments. Ruth has a pretty big hitting advantage, but I would not necessarily say it is insurmountable.

I do not know how you infer in my system that his fielding is given too much weight. My system basically has two fielding evaluations, the fielding part of WS and the subjective fielding ratings. A CFer in my system gets between 20-40 points, and I give Mays 39. RFs get a max of 30 and a minimum of 10, Ruth gets 22, I have changed that a bit, he is basically an above average but not great RF over his career. WS has Mays with 4.11 DWS/1000, Ruth with 2.29. Is that overrating Mays' defense to you?

Baserunning, Mays gets about 20 baserunning points in my system, Ruth gets about 6. Is that an overly huge advantage-14 points? You tell me. I personally don't see how it is.

I am SO sick of hearing how modern players are "excused" through LQ adjustments. Look, I firmly think that LQ adjustments are necessary adjustments which have to be made at least in some form to make a credible list. I don't think it's possible that the white population of 1900-1940 could produce 13 times as many great players as the entire population in the years 1970-2005, as I've seen before. I think anyone who claims that is lying to themselves or is just very heavily biased. I don't think modern players are being excused through that process at all-I think that the more accurate statement would be that old players are being excused if you refuse to make those adjustments.

AlecBoy006

12-02-2006, 05:01 PM

plask_stirlac

12-02-2006, 06:08 PM

Bonds on this poll makes me cringe. True to the point, he's a Hall of Famer in his pre steroid years. But being juiced is still cheating, and as I have mentioned before. We are not gonna think of the Barry Bonds who won an MVP with the Pirates. Or had 400 homers while still skinny. We are gonna think of controversial Bonds sadly.

Who, this forum because you were talking about the poll? You said it was those who will have an interest in baseball's past, right? Please don't decide what I will think of. Because I don't like a lot of the whole Pedro Gomez era of ancillary stuff on Bonds, I'm looking into his entire career. And when I look at 2001-04 I'm not as much disgusted as I am ready to look into other seasons that aren't so obviously dominant looking at pretty much every stat.

Sultan_1895-1948

12-02-2006, 07:42 PM

I don't see how you could come up with Mays anything less than one of the top 10 hitters, Sultan, even with NO LQ adjustments he's got to be at least top 10 all time with just hitting.

Back end perhaps.

You still giving Mays' OPS+ a boost because of the defensive position he played?

Ruth has a pretty big hitting advantage, but I would not necessarily say it is insurmountable.

Nothing is insurmountable to you. No matter what the flaw you find a way to boost your favorite black players.
Ruth's pitching and defense while pitching are hardly accounted for, along with the offense he lost during those years. Its all good.

Baserunning, Mays gets about 20 baserunning points in my system, Ruth gets about 6. Is that an overly huge advantage-14 points? You tell me. I
personally don't see how it is.

6.Baserunning-I multiply career stolen bases by career SB%, and divide by 50. Then I add a number from 1 to 10 to that to give credit for contributions beyond SB, or for the era they played in. For players' who don't have CS for part or all of their career, I use a number 1-20, and of course use the SB data to arrive at that number. I also award two points for each season a player led his league in SBs.

Too much weight on SB's for your base-running category. You don't know when the SB's came and how much they contributed. You don't know the circumstances of the CS and how much they hurt the team. A guy swings a misses at a hit and run pitch, runner gets tossed out. How does that reflect poorly on the runner? A straight CS in a 10-0 game means very little and so does a successful SB down 10-0. You're about adjustments. Do you make any adjustment for the overall lower SB% in certain eras? But yes, 6 is too low if 10 is average.

btw: 9.This is the "intangilbles" part. It is a subjective number 0-25 where I try to account for things I think my system has missed about the player, and on his clubhouse influence/off field contributions. Average score is 15

Mind giving your subjective numbers for your top 10 in this category?

538280

12-02-2006, 08:17 PM

Back end perhaps.

You still giving Mays' OPS+ a boost because of the defensive position he played?

I leave it exactly how it is, because he is a CF, which has a positoinal adjustment at zero. But do I still believe in positional adjustments? Yes. I was somewhat persuaded that they should be smaller than they are though, and have started making some changes in that regard. But it is not bringing Ruth up above Mays.

Nothing is insurmountable to you. No matter what the flaw you find a way to boost your favorite black players.

There are things that are insurmountable. Such as the difference in hitting between Babe Ruth and Ozzie Smith, or between Ruth and even someone like Roberto Clemente. The difference between the best or 2nd best hitter ever and the 6th or 7th though is not insurmountable.

Too much weight on SB's for your base-running category. You don't know when the SB's came and how much they contributed. You don't know the circumstances of the CS and how much they hurt the team. A guy swings a misses at a hit and run pitch, runner gets tossed out. How does that reflect poorly on the runner? A straight CS in a 10-0 game means very little and so does a successful SB down 10-0. You're about adjustments. Do you make any adjustment for the overall lower SB% in certain eras? But yes, 6 is too low if 10 is average.

You can quarrel with SBs being the main part of that and you might be right. But I do not think an SB is weighted too much at all. The weight of one SB is 1/50, which is 0.02. If you steal 500 bases, you're close to the top 10 all time, and you get all of 10 points for that. Is that really too much? I think trying to steal bases isn't really a good thing most of the time if you can't do it at 75% or more, because the risk of getting thrown out is worse than the gain of the extra base. I think SBs can be very important, but more often than not are negligible.

Ruth has CS for most of his career, so I try to guess what he would have for CS based on data we have then give 1-10 (I may not have been clear but many times that is what I will do). Ruth gets 6 on a 1-10 scale. If I were going 1-20 he'd probably get 11 or 12.

Mind giving your subjective numbers for your top 10 in this category?

Not quite sure what you mean by "top 10 in this category", but 15 is the generic number that I give to about 85-90% of players, and Ruth/Cobb/Mays all get 15.

Sultan_1895-1948

12-02-2006, 08:20 PM

You can quarrel with SBs being the main part of that and you might be right. But I do not think an SB is weighted too much at all. The weight of one SB is 1/50, which is 0.02. If you steal 500 bases, you're close to the top 10 all time, and you get all of 10 points for that. Is that really too much? I think trying to steal bases isn't really a good thing most of the time if you can't do it at 75% or more, because the risk of getting thrown out is worse than the gain of the extra base. I think SBs can be very important, but more often than not are negligible.

Ruth has CS for most of his career, so I try to guess what he would have for CS based on data we have then give 1-10 (I may not have been clear but many times that is what I will do). Ruth gets 6 on a 1-10 scale. If I were going 1-20 he'd probably get 11 or 12.

So basically you don't have a baserunning category. You only have a stolen base category. Got it, thanks.

There are things that are insurmountable. Such as the difference in hitting between Babe Ruth and Ozzie Smith, or between Ruth and even someone like Roberto Clemente. The difference between the best or 2nd best hitter ever and the 6th or 7th though is not insurmountable.

It is when the players in question were above average in the areas Mays was great at.

brett

12-02-2006, 08:26 PM

Here is my offensive only ranking. No league quality. No positional adjustment, no peak considerations but with a conservative amount of wartime credit. It is based soley on a best estimate of runs produced per out versus the projected number of runs scored for that players park for the period.

1) Bonds: 229.8
2) Ruth: 229.3
3) Williams: 220.4 (161.0 without war credit)
4) Cobb: 219.0
5) Mays: 175.5 (156.7 without war credit)
6) Musial: 168.4
7)Aaron: 162.3
8) (tie) Mantle: 157.6; Henderson: 157.6
10) (tie) Speaker: 156.3; Wagner: 156.3; Gehrig: 157.5

Actually 13 total players who break 150 game equivalents in offense above the league average.

Mays is a solid #5 with any war credit, although a stretch below the top 4. I do believe that playing center field has enough value to offset a lot. Centerfielders make about twice as many plays as right or left fielders, and it is mostly due to ability. If a right fielder was fast, he'd just be taking plays away from the centerfielder. Mays, Speaker and Wagner are the three big PLUS fielders from the group. Ruth gets +26 games for pitching. A centerfielder is probably (best estimate based on win shares) +2 games per season on a corner outfielder. Give Mays +40, and an extra +20 for his excellence at his position and he comes close without league quality.

538280

12-02-2006, 08:32 PM

Mays could hit #1 on my list if he got every plus in the book: wartime credit, the maximum defensive value and a little league quality factor. I don't see Cobb out of the top 5. I do see Speaker above Musial, and even Hank Aaron though I don't count league quality.

Speaker would be ahead of Aaron without league quality, but with it I think Aaron is clearly better. With it Aaron is definitely better offensively, not a HUGE gap but certainly a significant one. Speaker was quite a bit better defensively, but Aaron was good and fielding is much less important than hitting. Aaron was also a better baserunner than Speaker IMO. Speaker's SB% are pretty bad when we have data, even compared to the league average. His SB totals were never anything special for his time either. Aaron was an excellent percentage basestealer and by all accounts a fast runner and about as heads up on the bases as anyone.

We are pretty much on the same general page, but I tend to rank Gehrig lower. Truth is, from #8 to #18 guys could go almost anywhere depending on defense, league quality and war credit.

Yeah, they could probably go anywhere. I'm tempted to put Gehrig lower as well, because to be honest that is what my statistical evidence would indicate. But most people actually think where I have him now is way too low!

I do have a question about Ripken though. He may be in the top 25 or even 20, but I just can't get him more than a borderline hall of famer based on offense. No matter how I evaluate offense, he is way behind the rest of your top 25. If he gains enough to make up that gap due to defense, then wouldn't Ozzie Smith be right outside the top 25? Or am I evaluating Ripken too low on offense? While the middle of your pack-everyone from Robinson to Mantle (except Cobb) comes out around +150 to +170 in my offensive system, and Brett and Dimaggio are around +90, Ripken is a mere +38 (about the same as Rice on offense) and Ozzie Smith is actually +16. Ripken is basically getting boosted about 100 game equivalents based on defense and position, and if Smith got a similar boost, he would be very close to Brett and Dimaggio, maybe a little lower.

I think a problem with your system manifests itself in Cal Ripken. Your system is based on being above average. But the fact is that a player can contribute a lot offensively while being slightly below average, and especially when you're playing a key defensive position like SS. Ripken spent the last part of his career as basically an average offensive player, but he still was filling the SS slot and hitting quite a bit better than the average SS.

Also Ripken has three seasons IMO in which he deserved the MVP, a pretty high peak, and league quality and positonal adjustments are both in his favor. I think he is still probably overrated by casual fans who think he's better than Wagner, but I think he ranks as one of the most underrated on this forum.

538280

12-02-2006, 08:35 PM

ElHalo

12-02-2006, 10:37 PM

I don't see how you could come up with Mays anything less than one of the top 10 hitters, Sultan, even with NO LQ adjustments he's got to be at least top 10 all time with just hitting.

I'll give it a shot.

1. Ruth
2. Williams
3. Gehrig
4. Hornsby
5. Cobb
6. F. Thomas
7. J. Jackson
8. Mantle
9. Foxx
10. Musial
11. M. Ramirez
12. Mize
13. Speaker
14. Mays or Aaron

I think that's an entirely reasonable list of all-time hitters, and Mays doesn't catch the top 10 (and that's without Barry, and even if you insist on kicking Joe Jackson out).

JRB

12-02-2006, 11:07 PM

This looks very solid to me. It is very similar to the list I came up with with my old offensive system. I would make LIQ adjustments to move Mays only perhaps slightly below Cobb and move Aaron and Henderson up a bit as well with that.

Chris. We've had this debate before on another thread. Mays is a great all around player. However, Mays is not in the top ten of all time great hitters, let alone in the top 5. Mays is a great enough hitter, that his excellence in other areas such as fielding, base running, historical importance etc, can elevate him over a number of the even better hitters ahead of him. I think you and your allies are exaggerating Mays' ranking as a hitter in order to boost him beyond greater players such as Ruth, Cobb, and Wagner, because if you ranked Mays where he legitimately belongs as a hitter, it would be impossible for you to make a claim that he is the best all time player. In this regard, I think you and Leecemark are using the dubious league quality adjustment gimmick as a ploy to catapult him over Ruth, Cobb etc. I think quite a few people now see through that gimmick, and I don't think that dog will hunt anymore.

I believe a strong case can be made that the top hitters, in the pre steroid era, would rank as follows:

1. Babe Ruth
2. Ted Williams
3. Rogers Hornsby
4. Ty Cobb
5. Lou Gehrig
6. Honus Wagner
7. Mickey Mantle
8. Hank Aaron
9. Stan Musial
10. Jimmie Foxx
11. Willie Mays
12. Joe DiMaggio

Myankee4life

12-02-2006, 11:35 PM

Mines

1. Ruth
2. Williams
3. Gehrig
4. Hornsby
5. Cobb
6. Mantle
7. Bonds*
8. Foxx
9. Musial
10. Mays

An argument for Mays could be made for #10 and # 9

leecemark

12-03-2006, 07:26 AM

--These are the top 15 hitters of all time by my system. Please note this is a career ranking. It would look a little different based on peak value.

1) Babe Ruth 234
2) Ted Williams 227
3) Barry Bonds 223
4) Willie Mays 210
5) Hank Aaron 209
5) Stan Musial 209
7) Mickey Mantle 207
8) Lou Gehrig 202
9) Ty Cobb 201
10) Frank Robinson 200
11) Rogers Hornsby 195
12) Frank Thomas 191
13) Jimmie Foxx 189
14) Mike Schmidt 186
14) Willie McCovey 186

yanks0714

12-03-2006, 07:48 AM

I believe a strong case can be made that the top hitters, in the pre steroid era, would rank as follows:

1. Babe Ruth
2. Ted Williams
3. Rogers Hornsby
4. Ty Cobb
5. Lou Gehrig
6. Honus Wagner
7. Mickey Mantle
8. Hank Aaron
9. Stan Musial
10. Jimmie Foxx
11. Willie Mays
12. Joe DiMaggio

This based strictly on hitting, right? If so, I can agree that this is a very solid list in good order.
But I consider the 1950's and 1960's to be baseball's strongest most competitive era.
In that respect Ruth, Hornsby, Cobb, Wagner, Foxx, and DiMaggio have to 'give' a bit to Aaron and Mays in a LQ adjustment. This would would boost both of them up the scale.
Williams and Musial also have to 'give' a bit because their leagues, for most of their careers, were not of the strength that Mays and Aaron played.
Mantle takes a lesser hit because while he was contemp of Willie's his league was decidedly weaker.
When you throw in Mays' outstanding fielding (and throwing) at a critical postion as well as his outstanding base running, he can concieveably jump on the list quite a few spots.
I don't think anybody can argue that Willie's league and era was not stronger than those of the others mentioned, besides Aaron.

brett

12-03-2006, 08:04 AM

The ranking that I showed was "Offense Only" which has Mays 5th with war credit. Simply stated Mays had the 8th most TOTAL relative offensive production above the average player of his period. Some of it was due to lasting. Some was due to the league numbers in his era and ballpark being lower, and therefore the same production was worth more. If he gets 2 decent seasons for war credit-not great but good, he definitely moves to #5 for TOTAL OFFENSE including steals.

Take out War Credit and steals and he slips into a pack of about 10 guys behind Ruth and Bonds in hitting only. Then again, Williams is right there in that pack without war credit, and so is Cobb without any steals. If you want an easy gauge of hitting, I would use OPS+ x Plate appearances. Its not great, but it does put players into the right "slot".

I prefer a simple stat that takes (OPS+ -1)/2 X Plate appearances. This does give a bigger boost to the very high OPS+ guys.

Perhaps even better is (OPS+ -0.6)/2 X Plate appearance which basically gives career value above a replacement player.

Chris. We've had this debate before on another thread. Mays is a great all around player. However, Mays is not in the top ten of all time great hitters, let alone in the top 5. Mays is a great enough hitter, that his excellence in other areas such as fielding, base running, historical importance etc, can elevate him over a number of the even better hitters ahead of him. I think you and your allies are exaggerating Mays' ranking as a hitter in order to boost him beyond greater players such as Ruth, Cobb, and Wagner, because if you ranked Mays where he legitimately belongs as a hitter, it would be impossible for you to make a claim that he is the best all time player.

I believe a strong case can be made that the top hitters, in the pre steroid era, would rank as follows:

1. Babe Ruth
2. Ted Williams
3. Rogers Hornsby
4. Ty Cobb
5. Lou Gehrig
6. Honus Wagner
7. Mickey Mantle
8. Hank Aaron
9. Stan Musial
10. Jimmie Foxx
11. Willie Mays
12. Joe DiMaggio

brett

12-03-2006, 08:07 AM

Sorry, but I think Speaker has to be in there. I have moved him down a little on total offense lately because I suspect now that he only was successful about 60% in stolen base attempts for his career.

--These are the top 15 hitters of all time by my system. Please note this is a career ranking. It would look a little different based on peak value.

1) Babe Ruth 234
2) Ted Williams 227
3) Barry Bonds 223
4) Willie Mays 210
5) Hank Aaron 209
5) Stan Musial 209
7) Mickey Mantle 207
8) Lou Gehrig 202
9) Ty Cobb 201
10) Frank Robinson 200
11) Rogers Hornsby 195
12) Frank Thomas 191
13) Jimmie Foxx 189
14) Mike Schmidt 186
14) Willie McCovey 186

brett

12-03-2006, 08:12 AM

Foxx simply is not there when you look at park adjusted production for his career. Mays could be as low as 9th all time HITTING. Again, just based on hitting, once you get past Ruth, Bonds and Williams with military credit, there are 9 guys who fall within a few weeks of each other in career offensive production above average.

Mines

1. Ruth
2. Williams
3. Gehrig
4. Hornsby
5. Cobb
6. Mantle
7. Bonds*
8. Foxx
9. Musial
10. Mays

An argument for Mays could be made for #10 and # 9

leecemark

12-03-2006, 08:17 AM

leecemark

12-03-2006, 09:13 AM

--Honus was a great player, but strictly as a hitter he doesn't come close to being in the top 10. His OPS+ of 150 is lower than any of the above, even before you consider the weak quality of the league he accomplished it against. He makes up some ground for having done it over such a long period of time, but not enough ground to make the top 20.
--What puts Honus near the top as an overall player are some of the adjustments you dislike. His OPS+ is back aways amoung all hitters, but #1 for his position (that is his biggest selling point for me). He was also a terrific defender and baserunner and has an intangibles boost (although not a huge one).

brett

12-03-2006, 09:18 AM

By the way, I have never been a proponent of "league quality" adjustments, but it is pretty obvious that it has to factor into player ranking somewhere. What if we suddenly removed 1/2 the offensive players from todays game and filled their slots with the next available replacements in a teams system?

Well, we would get league OPS drop about 20 points. The top players OPS+ would go up about 20 points.

But what if we also replaced 1/2 the pitchers with replacements? League average OPS+ would rise back up about 20 points, BUT the top hitters would rise PROPORTIONALLY-in other words, no back effect.

Is is valid to consider what the league would be like if 1/2 of the players were replaced by the next replacements? Yes, because while there are twice as many major leaguers today as in 1920, the pool of available talent is almost exactly 4x greater.

I don't agree with micromanaging every decade, but I can accept that there has been about a 20 point OPS+ downshift due simply to the baseline player being better, since 1920, and this is based only on available talent pool-not "standard deviations." Well, they do factor in, because today a replacement player would be better than in the past.

So I can see giving players from 1900-1920 about a 20 point OPS+ cut, and players from 1920-1950 about a 15 point cut, and up until 1970 about a 10 point cut. I have never done this, but it makes sense. Even in a value based system, a championship today involves 4x the fan base as in 1920. It is quickly becoming a true "world championship"

pfairban

12-03-2006, 09:26 AM

Williams and Musial also have to 'give' a bit because their leagues, for most of their careers, were not of the strength that Mays and Aaron played.

But Musial was one of the top 5 players in the 50's, too.

Sultan_1895-1948

12-03-2006, 06:06 PM

The baserunning ranking should have nothing to do with stolen bases imo. Tired of reading how some factor that in. Completely off. Some type of extra-base hit evaluation should carry more weight in the baserunning ranking than SB imo. Chris, your "system" awards two points for league leads in SB so Mays picks up eight points for having whopping totals of 40, 38, 31, and 27.

pfairban

12-03-2006, 06:20 PM

By the way, I have never been a proponent of "league quality" adjustments, but it is pretty obvious that it has to factor into player ranking somewhere.

I agree, but I think the only way you can do it is ad hoc and with guestimations -- looking at how potent offenses were, whether there seemed to be a lot walks or strike outs, or whatever. The best thing to do, in my opinion, is to place the player in the context of the league, rather than trying to place his league that year in the context of every other league ever.

Imapotato

12-04-2006, 07:19 AM

Due to the wording....I have to say Babe Ruth, because he pitched

Just as position players...it's Cobb

Bill Burgess

12-04-2006, 07:25 AM

538280 posted this yesterday, but it ended up at the beginning of the thread, and can't be deleted.

In this regard, I think you and Leecemark are using the dubious league quality adjustment gimmick as a ploy to catapult him over Ruth, Cobb etc. I think quite a few people now see through that gimmick, and I don't think that dog will hunt anymore.

Yes, it is primarily an LQ adjustment which lifts Mays higher and I still have no inclination whatsoever to believe that that isn't necessary. To be honest I find it rather silly and perhpaps even impossible that the white population and the white population only in the years 1900-1940 could produce nearly as many all time greats as the total population, all races, 1970-2005. I have been over why a number of times-and I have not seen any explanation for why that is even remotely possible.

The ONLY thing that has ever been brought up is that there were other sports out there taking up more athletes. But then before salaries were high and before baseball got a lot more business like it was not a respected profession by many people. Lou Gehrig's parents almost stopeed him from playing baseball when he was younger because they thought he could be much more sucessful in other areas. Who knows how many players were lost to that.

Bill Burgess

12-04-2006, 07:25 AM

538280 posted this yesterday, but it ended up at the beginning of the thread.

--These are the top 15 hitters of all time by my system. Please note this is a career ranking. It would look a little different based on peak value.

1) Babe Ruth 234
2) Ted Williams 227
3) Barry Bonds 223
4) Willie Mays 210
5) Hank Aaron 209
5) Stan Musial 209
7) Mickey Mantle 207
8) Lou Gehrig 202
9) Ty Cobb 201
10) Frank Robinson 200
11) Rogers Hornsby 195
12) Frank Thomas 191
13) Jimmie Foxx 189
14) Mike Schmidt 186
14) Willie McCovey 186

I like your list except I think Henderson should definitely be in there, unless you're talking just hitting and not total offensive value (not entirely sure if you are, different people seem to be doing different things). When you steal 1406 bases at an 80% clip that can contribute a lot to what you do for your team, Rickey also suffers in OPS+ (which I believe is what this is based on) because it will always very much underrated OBP in comparison to SLG.

leecemark

12-04-2006, 07:28 AM

--That this is for hitting only. Baserunning is a separate component of my system. Cobb would get a boost with that figured in and Henderson and Wagner would have a better shot at making an offensive player list than a strictly hitting one.

Sultan_1895-1948

12-04-2006, 10:50 PM

Due to the wording....I have to say Babe Ruth, because he pitched

Just as position players...it's Cobb

For what its worth...

According to Matt's GI, even if you completely ignore Ruth's pitching (and the offensive and defensive numbers he would have gained had he not), he still comes in at 869.50, exactly 31.06 points ahead of Cobb.

torez77

12-04-2006, 11:31 PM

Chris, your "system" awards two points for league leads in SB so Mays picks up eight points for having whopping totals of 40, 38, 31, and 27.

Translate those numbers to the '80s or deadball era, and they could very well read 80-100 SBs.

Sultan_1895-1948

12-04-2006, 11:44 PM

Translate those numbers to the '80s or deadball era, and they could very well read 80-100 SBs.

Right. We should be ranking on guesstimated translations. Sounds sound.

The point wasn't so much about the ridiculously low totals he led with...although you can steal 25 bags by pretty easy if you pick your spots and aren't Cecil Fielder. Chris is awarding points for leading the league in a rather meaningless category and attributing that category to baserunning. It is a role and an art to achieve high SB totals, and we have no idea how much these SBs meant; the situation and score. You could say that Mays could have stole 80 bases but we just don't know how it would affect other aspects of his game or if he might have suffered an injury from the wear and tear. But points for league leads, especially in SB?...Might as well give two points for league leads in drag bunting or something and attribute that to hitting. Coming from him of all people (notorious for disliking any league lead considerations) it is just strange imo.

torez77

12-04-2006, 11:57 PM

Right. We should be ranking on guesstimated translations. Sounds sound.

The point wasn't so much about the ridiculously low totals he led with...although you can steal 25 bags by pretty easy if you pick your spots and aren't Cecil Fielder. Chris is awarding points for leading the league in a rather meaningless category and attributing that category to baserunning. It is a role and an art to achieve high SB totals, and we have no idea how much these SBs meant; the situation and score. You could say that Mays could have stole 80 bases but we just don't know how it would affect other aspects of his game or if he might have suffered an injury from the wear and tear. But points for league leads, especially in SB?...Might as well give two points for league leads in drag bunting or something and attribute that to hitting. Coming from him of all people (notorious for disliking any league lead considerations) it is just strange imo.

I don't know about Chris' point system, but as far as Mays is concerned, it's a well-known fact he was a terrific baserunner, and looking throughout history, the best baserunners usually are among the SB leaders. Mays led his league 4 straight times, and had a great % to boot. True, we don't know exactly how his SB numbers would've looked in a totally different era, but I think it's safe to say they would've looked noticeably different considering that in Mays' era, SB totals were at an all-time low. And basestealing aside, I believe he'd be a top 5 all-around baserunner in any era.

Sultan_1895-1948

12-05-2006, 07:18 AM

I believe he'd be a top 5 all-around baserunner in any era.

So do I, but not because of stolen bases.

Bill Burgess

12-05-2006, 07:35 AM

For what its worth...

According to Matt's GI, even if you completely ignore Ruth's pitching (and the offensive and defensive numbers he would have gained had he not), he still comes in at 869.50, exactly 31.06 points ahead of Cobb.

But not in Win Shares. I'm told that Babe needs his pitching credit to come in first, in Win Shares.

Isn't this nice? We're both reduced to using systems we'll never fathom to come in first! Duh?

Math Wizisn't

mwiggins

12-05-2006, 07:46 AM

But not in Win Shares. I'm told that Babe needs his pitching credit to come in first, in Win Shares.

Isn't this nice? We're both reduced to using systems we'll never fathom to come in first! Duh?

Math Wizisn't

Not to be a Ruth homer...but the Win Shares thing is a bit misleading. Yes, I think Cobb's WS total is higher than Ruth's non-pitching WS's, but Ruth spent a lot less time as a full-time OF than Cobb did as a full time OF. In reality, WS do show Ruth as an OF to be better than Cobb, it's just that he didn't become a fulltime OF until age 24, while Cobb became a full-timer at age 20, so Cobb's offense/defensive WS career total is higher.

Bill Burgess

12-05-2006, 08:03 AM

Not to be a Ruth homer...but the Win Shares thing is a bit misleading. Yes, I think Cobb's WS total is higher than Ruth's non-pitching WS's, but Ruth spent a lot less time as a full-time OF than Cobb did as a full time OF. In reality, WS do show Ruth as an OF to be better than Cobb, it's just that he didn't become a fulltime OF until age 24, while Cobb became a full-timer at age 20, so Cobb's offense/defensive WS career total is higher.
I agree that if you subtract Babe's pitching WS from his total, that would leave a void, as if he didn't play at all. But we all know that he might have played as an OF, giving him credit to make up for the lost pitching time.

How much? Who knows? Might have been more than Cobb. Because he probably would have developed as a hitter much faster due to more work, and also more polish in his OFing work. So, I agree BR would have ended up with more WS than Cobb. Damn!! Hate when that happens!

leecemark

12-05-2006, 08:09 AM

--I don't consider Ruth's pitching when comparing him to other position players, but I do give him extra longevity credit to account for those seasons. He gets 4 seasons worth of credit in the same fashion that I give it for players who missed seasons for military service.

mwiggins

12-05-2006, 08:09 AM

I agree that if you subtract Babe's pitching WS from his total, that would leave a void, as if he didn't play at all. But we all know that he might have played as an OF, giving him credit to make up for the lost pitching time.

How much? Who knows? Might have been more than Cobb. Because he probably would have developed as a hitter much faster due to more work, and also more polish in his OFing work. So, I agree BR would have ended up with more WS than Cobb. Damn!! Hate when that happens!

Sorry Bill.:p

You could always just feel comforted by the fact that WS probably doesn't capture all of Cobb's baserunning greatness, and that if it did, he WOULD come out ahead. ;)

538280

12-05-2006, 12:14 PM

But not in Win Shares. I'm told that Babe needs his pitching credit to come in first, in Win Shares.

Isn't this nice? We're both reduced to using systems we'll never fathom to come in first! Duh?

Math Wizisn't

If you set up WS in a system similar to Matt's GI, Ruth would go ahead of Cobb by WS as well. It's career WS in which Cobb would be ahead if it were nto for pitching, but if you put in in a "rating method" like Matt's GI Ruth would be comfortably ahead because his per game rates and peak seasons are both much higher than Cobb's by WS.

538280

12-05-2006, 12:19 PM

Right. We should be ranking on guesstimated translations. Sounds sound.

The point wasn't so much about the ridiculously low totals he led with...although you can steal 25 bags by pretty easy if you pick your spots and aren't Cecil Fielder. Chris is awarding points for leading the league in a rather meaningless category and attributing that category to baserunning. It is a role and an art to achieve high SB totals, and we have no idea how much these SBs meant; the situation and score. You could say that Mays could have stole 80 bases but we just don't know how it would affect other aspects of his game or if he might have suffered an injury from the wear and tear. But points for league leads, especially in SB?...Might as well give two points for league leads in drag bunting or something and attribute that to hitting. Coming from him of all people (notorious for disliking any league lead considerations) it is just strange imo.

The part for leading the leauge was put in mainly for players (like Mays) who dominated stealing bases in times when not many bases were being stolen. Part of my system is taking stolen bases and multiplying by SB%, since more or less bases were stolen in certain eras I thought it would be good if I somehow gave credit to those who were stealing some bases even when others weren't.

But thinking about it some more, I think that should be more something which should go into the subjective part and not give extra points for leading the league. Now, here's the tricky part. If I take off that eight points from Mays' score in my system, he comes in behind Ruth by three points. I would probably add in two points for subjective after that was taken out, to give some compensation for the low SB era, but he'd still probably be one point behind Ruth. Not totally sure I want to change my mind on who's #1, but that is certainly worth mentioning.

Bill Burgess

12-05-2006, 05:35 PM

Haven't done Ty/Babe in a while. But as most here know, I am not a stat person (bad math non-skills), and not likely to evolve into one. I go with TC as the best/greatest ever, because I truly believe he played the game the best in the most ways.

And he was not simply the best in the most ways, but significantly so. His hitting was among the best, his running was the best, and his fielding was very, very good. His intangibles were off the chart. Many other great players, like Speaker, Jackson, Collins, Sisler, Ruth were in such awe of his mechanical skills and sheer determination that the entire league watched his every move on the diamond like a hawk, to learn to improve their own mechanics.

So, that is why I go with TC. His play serves my inner, emotional/mental needs more than any other. So, I admit it. There you go.

I also will never believe that many people go with others, because others serve their needs better than some other player. I sincerely believe that if by some miracle, all of TC's undocumented 'extra bases advanced' were 'discovered', and a valid 'runs formula' could be constructed to give sabrmetric credit to TC, it wouldn't make a bit of difference to many BR supporters.

I further believe that if, again, by some miracle, written documentation were 'discovered', giving detailed information on all of his steals, and the opposition's errors, etc., citing TC's effect on the enemy players, it would also not make a bit of difference to many BR supporters.

BR is obviously a powerful symbol to some members. He obviously serves their inner emotional/mental needs, just as TC fills mine. When such powerful psychological factors are at work, it little matters what happened on the field, if someone's work on the field fails to sparkle, resonate for you.

Cobb's work didn't always have magic for me. It was reading his book in 1961 that did it. Before that, Dad had told me stories, but I still had my feet on the ground. But the thing that nailed his claim down was the research I did. Hearing his peers speak about him was a revelation.

Most players will give a certain amount of credit to their peers, because to do so makes their era have credibility. But when it came to certain players, like Cobb, Ruth, Wagner, W.Johnson, the old-timers tone shifted appreciably. And when it came to TC, all reservations ended. It was obvious that the awe lasted their entire lives. Carl Mays named his cranky dog, Tyrus.

I don't blame anyone for not believing me. One is required to read the file to get the sense of what I am referring to here. I didn't have the commitment myself until I read the actual words.
------------------------------------------------

If you go to this site, you can then download for free which will allow one to then open and view Excel files. Here it is. Then, for the very first time, Fever folks could see my work.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=c8378bf4-996c-4569-b547-75edbd03aaf0&displaylang=EN

----------------------------------
Assessing Ty: Deposing the witnesses. What Ty's peers actually said.

http://baseballguru.com/bburgess/analysisbburgess10.html

Bill Burgess

12-05-2006, 05:37 PM

If you set up WS in a system similar to Matt's GI, Ruth would go ahead of Cobb by WS as well. It's career WS in which Cobb would be ahead if it were nto for pitching, but if you put in in a "rating method" like Matt's GI Ruth would be comfortably ahead because his per game rates and peak seasons are both much higher than Cobb's by WS.
Both Randy/I admit we aren't that into stats. I sometimes wonder if others truly understand Win Shares. They say that if you can teach something, you understand it. I wonder if Chris could teach WS in a simple, clear way.

I know he doesn't get PCA, because Matt refuses to disclose it until he copywrites it.

mwiggins

12-05-2006, 05:45 PM

Bill Burgess

12-05-2006, 06:27 PM

Did Cobb really do more for his team because he was more versatile than Ruth, though? Not all areas have equal impact. If that's really what you value, then Mays should be far ahead of Ruth on your rankings.
Did Cobb really do more for his team? I do not know. That is my belief. But my reason for supporting TC's claim is not based on this. My reason is based on his ability to do more skills significantly better than anyone else. I use a very different definition than others. I don't care about who produced the most runs. I don't care about whose one skill helped their teams the most. Babe Ruth's supreme gift was able to make up for his lack of other skills because the game has evolved in a Ruthian direction, as opposed to a Cobbian one.

Would Ruth's supreme gift have allowed him to be the very best player, if the rules were not changed to showcase his talents? I am convinced he would have been a very great, amazing player. But not on the level of Cobb. That is my personal perception. You are all allowed your own opinions.

I support TC because I am persuaded he mastered more skills, and performed them extremely better than any other one person.

We know that Ty Cobb didn't adjust to the liveball as he should have. Could he have, if he were younger? That case is hypothetical. A might-have-been. A what-if. And many can't base their decisions on that. Some of us go by our beliefs. And I am not ashamed of that. I am proud of that.

We know that Babe Ruth would have had to adjust to the deadball if he were to be the best. Could he have? We know that he was great player in 1918/1919.

It was said that you couldn't name a skill in anyone, that TC didn't do extremely well. I am obviously not referring to pitching, catching, or throwing with one's other hand.

I am referring to the many batting, running, fielding skills.

Here is a quote from John B. Foster:

John B. Foster, NY sportswriter (1888-1941)
Editor-in-Chief of the Official Spalding Base Ball Guide(1908-41)
NY Giants business manager & secretary (1912-1919)
----------
"Who is the greatest ball player? It has been said that if you pick the best men the game ever has known, you will find Ty Cobb among the first four in every department of baseball and no man could do everything in baseball as well as he. Perhaps it's because he never lets up--he wants to make a play on every ball pitched. There are a few men who, at their climax, can beat him at base running and there are a few others who, at their best, can beat him in certain other points. But Cobb puts something into his play every minute that makes him outrank all others. His brain, his nervous energy are never idle. That's why fellows who play with him think he is the best that ever lived." (Spalding NL Baseball Guide, 30's)

mwiggins

12-05-2006, 06:45 PM

Did Cobb really do more for his team? I do not know. That is my belief. But my reason for supporting TC's claim is not based on this. My reason is based on his ability to do more skills significantly better than anyone else. I use a very different definition than others. I don't care about who produced the most runs. I don't care about whose one skill helped their teams the most.

I support TC because I am persuaded he mastered more skills, and performed them extremely better than any other one person.

It was said that you couldn't name a skill in anyone, that TC didn't do extremely well. I am obviously not referring to pitching, catching, or throwing with one's other hand.

I am referring to the many batting, running, fielding skills.

Here is a quote from John B. Foster:

John B. Foster, NY sportswriter (1888-1941)
Editor-in-Chief of the Official Spalding Base Ball Guide(1908-41)
NY Giants business manager & secretary (1912-1919)
----------
"Who is the greatest ball player? It has been said that if you pick the best men the game ever has known, you will find Ty Cobb among the first four in every department of baseball and no man could do everything in baseball as well as he. Perhaps it's because he never lets up--he wants to make a play on every ball pitched. There are a few men who, at their climax, can beat him at base running and there are a few others who, at their best, can beat him in certain other points. But Cobb puts something into his play every minute that makes him outrank all others. His brain, his nervous energy are never idle. That's why fellows who play with him think he is the best that ever lived." (Spalding NL Baseball Guide, 30's)

It does seem ironic that when it comes to Wagner vs. Cobb you'll proclaim that hitting trumps everything else to put Cobb ahead; but when it comes to Cobb v. Ruth, you'll proclaim that a well rounded game trumps great hitting.

But most baseball folks prefer a well-rounded game. It's just more fun to watch, and just seems more impressive. The numbers clearly say Williams was better than DiMaggio, but I don't see how anyone could watch both of them play and not say that DiMaggio was better. A player with weakness's just doesn't appear as impressive as a player who can do it all. But appearances can often be deceiving.

Still, though, why Ruth or Mays? Pretty much anything you say about Cobb you can say about Mays. He's a great hitter, fielder, and baserunner. If you're not going to let Ruth's massive hitting edge trump Cobb's versitile greatness, and as you've said, it's not even close, then how can you say that Ruth's massive hitting edge trumps Mays's versitile greatness? Certainly if you take out hitting, and just look at defense and baserunning, Mays would trump Cobb.

brett

12-05-2006, 06:47 PM

Some interesting points in your post. Do you think that the evolved "live ball" game was a better game? I think it created the need for more diversity of skills and also required pitchers to use their better stuff most of the time.

Also, if Ruth was as good a pitcher as man suggest, why didn't he continue to start 30+ games in 1918 and 1919. In 1918 he only started 19 games, but he also only had 380 PA's which meant he was only playing about 1/2 the time he didn't pitch.

Let's say though that we stayed in the dead ball era and he was able to go 15-8 with say a 2.50 ERA and also was able to get in for 450 ABs and hit .330 with 20 home runs for 15 years. Say he went about 260-140 and also racked up 2400 hits 7000 ABs and 300 home runs and 1200 RBI and a .540 slugging percentage where could he rank?

Did Cobb really do more for his team? I do not know. That is my belief. But my reason for supporting TC's claim is not based on this. My reason is based on his ability to do more skills significantly better than anyone else. I use a very different definition than others. I don't care about who produced the most runs. I don't care about whose one skill helped their teams the most. Babe Ruth's supreme gift was able to make up for his lack of other skills because the game has evolved in a Ruthian direction, as opposed to a Cobbian one.

Would Ruth's supreme gift have allowed him to be the very best player, if the rules were not changed to showcase his talents? I am convinced he would have been a very great, amazing player. But not on the level of Cobb. That is my personal perception. You are all allowed your own opinions.

I support TC because I am persuaded he mastered more skills, and performed them extremely better than any other one person.

We know that Ty Cobb didn't adjust to the liveball as he should have. Could he have, if he were younger? That case is hypothetical. A might-have-been. A what-if. And many can't base their decisions on that. Some of us go by our beliefs. And I am not ashamed of that. I am proud of that.

We know that Babe Ruth would have had to adjust to the deadball if he were to be the best. Could he have? We know that he was great player in 1918/1919.

It was said that you couldn't name a skill in anyone, that TC didn't do extremely well. I am obviously not referring to pitching, catching, or throwing with one's other hand.

I am referring to the many batting, running, fielding skills.

Here is a quote from John B. Foster:

John B. Foster, NY sportswriter (1888-1941)
Editor-in-Chief of the Official Spalding Base Ball Guide(1908-41)
NY Giants business manager & secretary (1912-1919)
----------
"Who is the greatest ball player? It has been said that if you pick the best men the game ever has known, you will find Ty Cobb among the first four in every department of baseball and no man could do everything in baseball as well as he. Perhaps it's because he never lets up--he wants to make a play on every ball pitched. There are a few men who, at their climax, can beat him at base running and there are a few others who, at their best, can beat him in certain other points. But Cobb puts something into his play every minute that makes him outrank all others. His brain, his nervous energy are never idle. That's why fellows who play with him think he is the best that ever lived." (Spalding NL Baseball Guide, 30's)

Bill Burgess

12-05-2006, 07:04 PM

It does seem ironic that when it comes to Wagner vs. Cobb you'll proclaim that hitting trumps everything else to put Cobb ahead; but when it comes to Cobb v. Ruth, you'll proclaim that a well rounded game trumps great hitting.
Is that how I sound? I think Cobb is more rounded than Wagner, and by a good amount, too. Just because Honus fielded better, by a large degree, does not make Honus better rounded.

Cobb played a very, very good CF, and a great RF. It can only be expressed as in favor of Wagner, if we define hitting/running as 2 skills, when in fact they both consist of a large number of independent skills. Each one required a lot of arduous practice.

Hitting is not only BA/power. It includes place hitting, stretching hits, knowing when to go for the next base, pitch judgment, plate discipline.

Hitting also including skills never thought of before. It includes crowding the plate, knowing the pitcher will come inside to drive you off it, and letting you pretend to be hit, or get in the hole. Hitting has so many aspects it would take a long article to cover only several. Cobb had these aspects covered to the last degree.

Running also includes many sub-set skills. Taking a lead, reading a pitcher's moves to 1B, different kinds of slides, skills such as watching the fielder's eyes instead of their glove. Stealing home was a set of skills all their own. All of these skills require emotional control and chutzpah. Sometimes courage, fortitude, tenacity. Cobb was MUCH more rounded than Wagner.

But most baseball folks prefer a well-rounded game. It's just more fun to watch, and just seems more impressive. The numbers clearly say Williams was better than DiMaggio, but I don't see how anyone could watch both of them play and not say that DiMaggio was better. A player with weakness's just doesn't appear as impressive as a player who can do it all. But appearances can often be deceiving.

Still, though, why Ruth or Mays? Pretty much anything you say about Cobb you can say about Mays. He's a great hitter, fielder, and baserunner. If you're not going to let Ruth's massive hitting edge trump Cobb's versitile greatness, and as you've said, it's not even close, then how can you say that Ruth's massive hitting edge trumps Mays's versitile greatness? Certainly if you take out hitting, and just look at defense and baserunning, Mays would trump Cobb.
It was a very difficult decision to promote Ruth over Mays. I had had Mays higher for 30 years. But I did it after re-evaluting Ruth's defense. He was said to field balls right at him like an infielder, by the 'right people'. People I respect.

Willie was more rounded than Babe, but even in that comparison, Babe had some advantages. Hitting is more than just BA/power. But in both cases, Babe beats Willie. Willie beats him in defense/running, but running was negligible in its effect, unless your name was Cobb/Brock/Henderson.

mwiggins

12-05-2006, 07:22 PM

Is that how I sound? I think Cobb is more rounded than Wagner, and by a good amount, too. Just because Honus fielded better, by a large degree, does not make Honus better rounded.

It was more in terms of "look at how much better Cobb's hitting is than Wagner's. Defense is not important enough for Wagner's edge to make up that difference." I didn't mean it in terms of Honus being more well-rounded. But I think a case can be made for him being more well-rounded. But I would rate Cobb lower in hitting and defense than you do, so that would make the difference.

I've been tweaking my rankings, but I still have Cobb #2, by a good margin over Mays and Wagner.

Bill Burgess

12-05-2006, 07:30 PM

But I would rate Cobb lower in hitting and defense than you do, so that would make the difference.
I am recently surprised to see Fever rank Cobb 3rd all time as a hitter. I would have thought Fever ranked Hornsby higher. But Fever is ranking TC 3rd after Ruth, Williams.

Bill

mwiggins

12-05-2006, 07:35 PM

Cobb gets a lot of love here. I'm not sure exactly where I'd rank him. Not in the top 6. (Ruth, Williams, Mantle, Gehrig, Hornsby, Bonds...). I haven't figured out the rest of my top 10 hitters yet, though I expect he'll be in the back half of the top 10.

But there's a large gap between him and Ruth/Williams as hitters, IMO.

torez77

12-05-2006, 08:48 PM

In terms of black and gray ink, and league domination, Cobb is second only to Ruth as a hitter. In terms of advanced hitting stats such as OPS+, there are a handful of hitters ahead of him. That said, I rank Cobb as the #5 hitter all-time, behind Ruth, Williams, Gehrig and Hornsby.

However, as a total offensive player, I might very well rank him #2.

brett

12-05-2006, 09:22 PM

I agree. If you remove stolen bases and other baserunning from Cobbs offense, Cobb was about 85% as good a hitter versus the league and about 70% as much above the league average as Ruth and Williams (and Bonds) but he still ranks clearly in group 2 as a hitter behind the big 3, and that is a lot considering the baserunning would be a large plus.

I actually originally, 2-3 years ago evaluated Cobb as the #1 career value offensive player in history at about +262 with Ruth at +240 and Williams at +226, and Bonds, based on the old system coming out now at about +240 as well. That was with no war credit for Williams, and he was projected as high as +282 with war credit.

Cobb and Williams both dropped when I got "accurate" values for park effects. Now Ruth and Bonds are at +239, Cobb at +211 and Williams dropped a lot to +162 because I had the Fenway park effects to use. Williams still could move up to about +225 with war credit.

Mays is at +170 with war credit.

Now Ruth is about +26 for his time as a pitcher putting him at +265 for pitching and offense.

To be clear, even if I rate Ruth as good a right fielder as Cobb was at center, Ruth drops about 20 for positional value to +245 and Cobb rises to +231. Cobb may pick up as much as 30 for defensive excellence and Ruth only about 15, which actually puts Cobb at +261 and Ruth at +260. I am hesitant to give Cobb much for "unaccounted for bases" because I think that taking these bases gets overrated AND we don't know what his success rate is, but I do rate Ruth and Cobb as the top 2 and I have always tended to rate Cobb as the most valuble player, but I do consider the live ball game to be a better game, requiring a wider variety of skills.

Mays, if he was the absolute best center fielder in history for his entire career could move up 90 games to +260, but he couldn't have been that good his whole career. Even if he was, without league quality adjustments, Mays could not quite reach #1 in a best case scenario.

Look, it comes down as a virtual wash between Ruth and Cobb for #1 and the only thing I have left is that Ruth performed in the world series which has to count for something.

Cobb gets a lot of love here. I'm not sure exactly where I'd rank him. Not in the top 6. (Ruth, Williams, Mantle, Gehrig, Hornsby, Bonds...). I haven't figured out the rest of my top 10 hitters yet, though I expect he'll be in the back half of the top 10.

But there's a large gap between him and Ruth/Williams as hitters, IMO.

Sultan_1895-1948

12-05-2006, 09:28 PM

Ty did not have power as a tool. His legs help mask that fact. The results were great because of his legs and what he had inside of himself, imo. I also don't believe Ty had a great or even very good arm, even before the injury. Right there you have two tools that Babe had all-time levels at. Cobb's BA is amazing but that is also a product of his legs and his approach. Considering Ruth's approach, to hit over .370 six times is pretty impressive. Probably call that a push. Cobb gets an edge with the leather mostly due to position, and of course a pretty large edge in baserunning, about the same gap as in either the power or the arm imo.

They both were great at certain things. When you focus solely on Ruth's home runs, you fall prey to the same thing everyone else usually did and does. And that's not building up the Almighty, he doesn't need that, its being accurate. As we know, Cobb made himself into a machine. A blood-thirsty machine, the likes of which hasn't been seen before or since. He's my #2 for a reason. Btw: Do you feel Babe was just there to ride the tidal wave created by baseball? Johnny on the spot? That last sentence sounds like a chicken or the egg situation.

Sultan_1895-1948

12-05-2006, 09:39 PM

True, he had a lot less hitting skills than Ty did, but still, his 1 supreme gift allowed him to be more productive after they changed the rules to showcase his talents.

False.

What did they change in '18? Sounds like the old Bill talking here. You might need to reconsider this opinion. His talents smacked the game up-side the head and forced them to consider changes. He showcased himself with no help.

Bill Burgess

12-05-2006, 09:45 PM

Look, it comes down as a virtual wash between Ruth and Cobb for #1 and the only thing I have left is that Ruth performed in the world series which has to count for something.
Does being a managerial genius/world's greatest hitting coach increase one's value? Yeah, it's hard to measure, but does value count in your dugout in other ways?

Bill Burgess

12-05-2006, 09:55 PM

False.

What did they change in '18? Sounds like the old Bill talking here. You might need to reconsider this opinion. His talents smacked the game up-side the head and forced them to consider changes. He showcased himself with no help.

I think more informed people agree that the ball was wound tighter for the 1919 season than disagree with that opinion. Bill James agrees with that also.

But that wasn't done for Babe. It was done to improve the ball itself, and the liveliness was an unintended result. Hitting rates went way up in 1919 despite the low counting totals, which were a result of the shortened season.

But the ban on trick pitches for 1920, and keeping fresh balls in play for 1921 were to increase offense.

Don't know which you are disagreeing with.

Are you disagreeing with:
1. Ty had more hitting skills than Babe.
2. The rules changes had nothing to do with Babe.
3. The rules didn't showcase his power.

I'm not the 'old Bill'. I am simply trying to be accurate. And after I spent half the post, lauding Babe Ruth, it still wasn't even close to satisfying you, simply because I pose the possibility that Cobb might have been better? You're frustrating me, brother Randy. Must we agree that Ruth was better by a huge margin before you can relax?

torez77

12-05-2006, 09:59 PM

To say that Ruth had a lot less hitting skills than Cobb is just a false statement. That aside.....

I'm willing to accept that if Cobb had started his career with the liveball, he'd have put up Hornsby-like hitting numbers. That, coupled with his speed, would've made him a terror, and closer to Ruth offensively. However, his SB totals would've naturally declined due to less of a need for that, and he wouldn't have been quite as aggressive on the basepaths. Still, he would've been the best baserunner in the league.

However, we can only theorize about this. Didn't actually happen.

Sultan_1895-1948

12-05-2006, 10:09 PM

I think more informed people agree that the ball was wound tighter for the 1919 season than disagree with that opinion. Bill James agrees with that also.

But that wasn't done for Babe. It was done to improve the ball itself, and the liveliness was an unintended result. Hitting rates went way up in 1919 despite the low counting totals, which were a result of the shortened season.

But the ban on trick pitches for 1920, and keeping fresh balls in play for 1921 were to increase offense.

Don't know which you are disagreeing with.

Are you disagreeing with:
1. Ty had more hitting skills than Babe.
2. The rules changes had nothing to do with Babe.
3. The rules didn't showcase his power.

I'm not the 'old Bill'. I am simply trying to be accurate. And after I spent half the post, lauding Babe Ruth, it still wasn't even close to satisfying you, simply because I pose the possibility that Cobb might have been better? You're frustrating me, brother Randy. Must we agree that Ruth was better by a huge margin before you can relax?

I'm completely relaxed Bill. Just trying to figure out why you're resorting back to your old ways, or at least are letting a hint of it spill out. These comments like its "True, Babe had less hitting skills than Cobb." I understand that's your opinion but its anything but true IMO.

The comment that the game was tailored for him to show his talents is false as well imo. Look at what he did at the plate in his pitching years when he completely shattered every standard notion regarding approach. Who changed something back then? And we think the approach was shattered as it was; imagine if he'd not been in Fenway and had full seasons worth of AB. Then some wouldn't have the "tighter yarn" theory to fall back on. His hitting, and the frenzy it caused all around the league led to the changes. Before Chapman even got hit, changes were being discussed. I just think you implying that he was simply strolling along and happened upon this offensive league is false. He was the cause of the tidal wave; hell, he was the tidal wave.

And for the record, I never stated that Ruth is greater than Cobb by a huge margin. Some formulas may give that result but personally I don't have a large gap there at all. If anyone has a case imo, he does. I acknowledged his edge in fielding (although metrics show only an advantage caused by position) and his large edge in baserunning. From there though, we probably disagree on the average department, shouldn't disagree on the large edge in Babe's arm and power. I have seen your "Ty's power case" post and its very nice. It goes further to show me what a great baserunner he was, rather than what a great power hitter he was. His legs were very dangerous, by FAR his most important asset imo. Take those away and what do you have at the plate, on the bases, and in the field?

Bill Burgess

12-05-2006, 10:30 PM

Those same respected people that caused you to re-evaluate Babe's fielding would also tell you how great his hustle and instincts were, in ALL facets of the game.
Understood & agreed.

Ty did not have power as a tool. His legs help mask that fact. The results were great because of his legs and what he had inside of himself, IMO. I also don't believe Ty had a great or even very good arm, even before the injury. Right there you have two tools that Babe had all-time levels at. Cobb's BA is amazing but that is also a product of his legs and his approach. Considering Ruth's approach, to hit over .370 six times is pretty impressive. Probably call that a push.
Disagree partially. True, he made his legs drive his 'power', but so did all the other 'sluggers' of the day. Lajoie, Wagner, Crawford. It was the only approach that wouldn't have led to ruination as a hitter.

Cobb gets an edge with the leather mostly due to position, and of course a pretty large edge in base running, about the same gap as in either the power or the arm IMO.
I give Babe much more credit now for his glove than previously. He had his good points in his sure hands (once caught a ball bare-handed), and his judgment in playing his hitters allowed him to be placed so that he didn't often need to resort to flashiness. I'd feel a lot more sure of myself with respect to his total overall fielding if his management had expressed more confidence in him by allowing him to play CF in the Polo Grounds/Yankee S.

Why they didn't must tell me at least something that his acceleration was not thought of as inconsequential. After all, little Earle wasn't the fastest man in the league. Was a quick little guy, but his arm wasn't all that impressive, and his batter instincts might have been less than Babe's.

(I always feel I'm in the doghouse when I'm addressed as 'William'. Blame Mom and girlfriends. )

They both were great at certain things. When you focus solely on his "supreme gift" you fall prey to the same thing everyone else usually did and does. Much, much more than that William. And that's not building up the Almighty, he doesn't need that sh*t, its being accurate. As you know, Cobb made himself into a machine. A blood-thirsty machine, the likes of which hasn't been seen before or since. He's my #2 for a reason. BTW: Do you feel Babe was just there to ride the tidal wave created by baseball? Johnny on the spot? That last sentence sounds like a chicken or the egg situation.
I am well aware of the many gifts of GHR, Randy. After all, I do promote him over the more rounded Mr. Mays, and second only to my 2 BB Gods, whom I've been burning incense to for 30 yrs. (Figuratively).

I remember the article by William B. Hanna, one of my favorites, and you posted it here. Don't you remember where you got those articles? I read them often. Know them almost by heart. So, the gifts of King Babe are not lost to me. And I'm not back-sliding on my support of him. So please do not mistake my advocacy of King Tyrus as slams against the Babe.

I have long believed that the owners didn't intend to goose offense with the new ball of 1919. Know you don't believe in that 'theory'. But once they saw how fans reacted to the new offense, they didn't hesitate to try to facilitate the trend by banning the trick pitches in 1920, and keeping fresh balls in play. The given party line that the fresh balls were due to the Chapman death was boiler plate pap.

Just like assigning Babe the 'sun field' was Yankee boiler plate for public consumption. These are silly things, Randy. Not worthy of a Bill/Randy debate.

But, I'm giving the Babe as much as I can. I've admitted he might have been a better hitter, he had the better arm, was a much better drawing card, got screwed out of his managerial shot, was a much better fielder than history credits him as being, was a great pitcher.

The only points we diverge on is I think 2 players were better all-around players, I think his running was more guts than brains, and he was fortunate in having an owner willing to spend any amount to create a winner. The teams took him to the WS and not the other way around. But once there, he covered himself in glory.

We also probably disagree on the 'called shot'. To me, the important thing is that he came through in a moment of high drama, when many others might choke under pressure. He could have too, but he didn't. I never scold him for being thrown out to end the '26 series, as some do. I know well he wanted to position himself in scoring position, because Alex was mowing the Yankee's down.

What more can I do for Babe, Randy? I just can't agree that he was as great as Ty/Honus. Does that make me the 'old Bill', my brother? Please, say it ain't so.

Bill

Bill Burgess

12-05-2006, 10:51 PM

I'm completely relaxed Bill. Just trying to figure out why you're resorting back to your old ways, or at least are letting a hint of it spill out. These comments like its "True, Babe had less hitting skills than Cobb." I understand that's your opinion but its anything but true IMO.
I don't know why you sound as if you're disagreeing with me on the number of hitting skills. I am only trying to be factual. I am not chiseling Babe. I don't want to chisel Babe Ruth. I like him a lot and have gone to great lengths to show others, including you, how many homers he would have hit in both 1918/1919, under normal conditions. Might even pull them out, if I can find them quickly.

The comment that the game was tailored for him to show his talents is false as well IMO. Look at what he did at the plate in his pitching years when he completely shattered every standard notion regarding approach. Who changed something back then?
Not at all, because he wasn't hitting often enough to create the later hysteria.

And we think the approach was shattered as it was; imagine if he'd not been in Fenway and had full seasons worth of AB. Then some wouldn't have the "tighter yarn" theory to fall back on. His hitting, and the frenzy it caused all around the league led to the changes. Before Chapman even got hit, changes were being discussed. I just think you implying that he was simply strolling along and happened upon this offensive league is false. He was the cause of the tidal wave; hell, he was the tidal wave.
Randy!!! You are agreeing with me and don't know it! Yes, I do believe the ball was wound tighter for 1919, and hitting rates bear that out. But when the owners saw the results of 1919, they cashed in. Made themselves a huge fortunes in 1920. Went from millionaires to multi-millionaires.

Babe was their cash cow, and the hysteria he caused was immense. Wasn't lost on the moguls at all. The NL attendance increase was due to the increase in offense. Fans like hitting. So, yes, he was the cause of the tidal wave, but the changes for 1920/21 were in his interests. And they did showcase his gifts in stark relief. So, how can you not agree? The changes didn't cause Ruth, but he did benefit, like everyone else, and probably more than anyone else, since a better ball helps the one who can hit it the further the most. A less fluttering ball, due to banning messing with the ball also did nothing but assist him in his blasting. Didn't make him, but did showcase him.

And for the record, I never stated that Ruth is greater than Cobb by a huge margin. Some formulas may give that result but personally I don't have a large gap there at all. If anyone has a case IMO, he does. I acknowledged his edge in fielding (although metrics show only an advantage caused by position) and his large edge in base running. From there though, we probably disagree on the average department, shouldn't disagree on the large edge in Babe's arm and power. I have seen your "Ty's power case" post and its very nice. It goes further to show me what a great base runner he was, rather than what a great power hitter he was. His legs were very dangerous, by FAR his most important asset IMO. Take those away and what do you have at the plate, on the bases, and in the field?
We do disagree that Cobb lacked power as a tool. He had it but didn't choose to go with it as his chief asset. I am not saying he had it like Ruth, Foxx, Mantle or Killebrew. I'm simply saying that he could put the ball outside the ballpark. Several of his shots approached 500 feet. But speed was his main asset, as power was Babe's. Agree Babe's arm was much superior, even in Ty's younger day.

Bill

Bench 5

12-05-2006, 10:57 PM

I went with the Bambino as numero uno. Here's my top 15:

Babe Ruth
Mickey Mantle
Hank Aaron
Ty Cobb
Ted Williams
Willie Mays
Rogers Hornsby
Stan Musial
Barry Bonds
Mike Schmidt
Hans Wagner
Johnny Bench
Josh Gibson
Frank Robinson
Lou Gehrig

torez77

12-05-2006, 10:58 PM

And for the record, I never stated that Ruth is greater than Cobb by a huge margin. Some formulas may give that result but personally I don't have a large gap there at all.

I'm surprised to hear you say this, Sultan. You mean I actually rank Ruth higher than you, Mr. Babe Ruth biographer?! ;)

I have Ruth #1 with no close second. I also have Cobb ranked #2 with no close third. I used to rank Williams close to Cobb, but he was way too one-dimensional. Still, that one dimension was great enough for me to rank him #3. It's shaky, though. Wagner's right on his heels at #4, and the only reason he doesn't surpass Teddy is cuz his league had probably the most shallow level of competition. Mays or Mantle have the potential to pass Honus, and when it's all said and done Mays and Mantle could end up #3 and #4. I'll try to make my final decision when we get that far in our rankings.

Ruth and Cobb ain't going nowhere, though.

Sultan_1895-1948

12-05-2006, 11:02 PM

He had his good points in his sure hands (once caught a ball bare-handed),

If you're referring to the dog running out on the field incident...there is at least one more that I know of, possibly two. Recall something in Babe in Red Stockings. Doesn't mean much though, his hands were as big as the glove he used, lol.

I'd feel a lot more sure of myself with respect to his total overall fielding if his management had expressed more confidence in him by allowing him to play CF in the Polo Grounds/Yankee S.

Well he did play a bit in center early on, but nah, he wasn't a centerfielder. And nor should he have to be imo, to be rated as a good outfielder. Each outfielder has their own strengths and weaknesses. Great instincts, hustle, solid glove, and a rocket arm are more fitting for left or right, especially in those huge centerfields back then.

(I always feel I'm in the doghouse when I'm addressed as 'William'. Blame Mom and girlfriends. )

All apologies then, Bill.

Just like assigning Babe the 'sun field' was Yankee boiler plate for public consumption. These are silly things, Randy. Not worthy of a Bill/Randy debate.

What point would it serve to make something like that up Bill?

Lee Allen apparently bought it hook, line, and sinker when he wrote...

“So Babe could do everything required of a player. His strong left arm provided a wonderful weapon when he became an outfielder, and few were the runners who dared test it. In most ball parks right field is the sun field and in order to prolong his career, the Yankee management usually played him in left field when the club was on the road. But at Yankee Stadium it is left field that bears the heaviest burden of the sun, so when the New York team was at home, Babe could most often be found in right.

Owing to the necessity for avoiding the rays of the afternoon sun as much as possible, the grandstand of Yankee Stadium had to face the northeast. This made left field the sun field, and Ruth was to be used mostly in right when the Yankees were at home.”

He played left in Sportsmans Bill, which contradicts your assessment that he played the short field to hide his lack of speed. Just not true.

Would you believe if a fellow Yankee outfielder from '30 to '34 told you...

"I had some disagreements with Babe because he would always make me play the sun field. If it was right field, then I played there. I really didn't mind as long as I was getting to play every day." - Ben Chapman

The only points we diverge on is I think 2 players were better all-around players

Actually we don't disagree on this. I agree that both Mays and Cobb had more all-around skills, but you need to look at the levels of each to come to an accurate conclusion, as consider the role Cobb's legs played in his other areas.

We also probably disagree on the 'called shot'. To me, the important thing is that he came through in a moment of intense drama, when many other choke under pressure. He could have, but he didn't.

Actually we don't disagree on this and I kind of take offense that you'd insinuate I hold that position. As if I blindly accept all Ruthian myths thrown our way. Figured you'd know by know my motives are completely against such a mind-set. I've written at length about that moment. Here is an example from 5-5-06 in the Yankee Forum.

Prefaced a long post about the called shot with..

It's important to note that while he may not have actually called his shot, his intentions were well known.

And three days later on 5-8-06...

Except we do know that is Ruth in the video, we do know the surrounding events regarding the series and the AB, and we do know the result. The grey area only comes from whether he actually lifted his arm and pointed toward centerfield (which I don't believe). Regardless of that, his intentions were clear, and in the face of 50,000 jeering fans, along with a dugout full of chumps yelling names at him, he came through. That to me, is much larger than the physical gesture of lifting his arm up to point. Hollywood has had chances to fix this myth and show the deeper truth, but they continue not to. Not enough "shine" for them I suppose.:rolleyes:

What more can I do for Babe, Randy? I just can't agree that he was as great as Ty/Honus. Does that make me the 'old Bill', brother? Say it ain't so.

Bill

Not asking for anything. Just some adjusting of opinions on your part if possible, but that of course, is only my opinion. You still haven't answered about what the league did for Babe during '18 when he hit all eleven homers on the road and all eleven before July even started. The changes helped him and they helped all players, but what I'm saying is that if this was the chicken and the egg question, Ruth and his new approach came first and destroyed conventional wisdom WITH NO HELP. The cards fell from there.

Sultan_1895-1948

12-05-2006, 11:06 PM

I'm surprised to hear you say this, Sultan. You mean I actually rank Ruth higher than you, Mr. Babe Ruth biographer?! ;)

lol, well I'm more surprised that you have Williams at #3, than that you have a large gap between Ruth and Cobb...but still...no, I don't have a large gap there at all.

torez77

12-05-2006, 11:11 PM

lol, well I'm more surprised that you have Williams at #3.

Williams is losing his grip on that position as we speak.....

Sultan_1895-1948

12-05-2006, 11:16 PM

Williams is losing his grip on that position as we speak.....

How far will he fall? Will he lose his window seat in the All-Time station wagon? Perhaps he falls to number 6 and resembles Marty McFly grabbing the hitch while skateboarding behind as the titans merrily roll down the street. The onlookers might just think, "There goes the greatest skateboarder that ever lived." :D

torez77

12-05-2006, 11:29 PM

How far will he fall? Will he lose his window seat in the All-Time station wagon? Perhaps he falls to number 6 and resembles Marty McFly grabbing the hitch while skateboarding behind as the titans merrily roll down the street. The onlookers might just think, "There goes the greatest skateboarder that ever lived." :D

:laugh Man, we got a lot in common! You like Ruth, Hulk Hogan, and now Back To The Future, one of my top 2 favorite movies ever (along with American Graffiti). I love the whole BTTF trilogy, in fact.

I can guarantee Teddy won't fall any lower than #6. It's entirely possible he'll hold on to #3, cuz Wagner's inferior league quality likely prevents him from moving ahead. Right now, I'd say Mays and Mantle have a better shot. Wagner could fall as low as #6. Then again, he could stay at #4, and my rankings could stand pat.

Sultan_1895-1948

12-05-2006, 11:42 PM

cuz Wagner's inferior league quality likely prevents him from moving ahead.

I see what you're saying. How large of an adjustment do you make? Do you hand out a percentage adjustment across the board or do you give the elite upper tier guys less of a hit?

Keeping Wags where you have him and bumping Ballgame out? No complaints here. I have Honus #4 and he would be #3 if not for his league. He takes a little hit but not much at all. Would have dominated in any era imo. What are your thoughts on Tristam? Would he be a better fit at 3 than Mays or Mantle? Three seems awful high for Mantle..hmm.

torez77

12-05-2006, 11:58 PM

I see what you're saying. How large of an adjustment do you make? Do you hand out a percentage adjustment across the board or do you give the elite upper tier guys less of a hit?

Keeping Wags where you have him and bumping Ballgame out? No complaints here. I have Honus #4 and he would be #3 if not for his league. He takes a little hit but not much at all. Would have dominated in any era imo. What are your thoughts on Tristam? Would he be a better fit at 3 than Mays or Mantle? Three seems awful high for Mantle..hmm.

I don't have a set system. Just looking at the talent pool of the 1900s, it's getting harder for me to believe that Wagner would've dominated as much in another era. Of course, no player probably would've dominated as much if they were automatically moved to another era. If we just look at it as how much they dominated their own era, Wagner's top 4 all-time there. Plus, his DiHigo-like versatility also gives him some points.

I have Speaker 7th or 8th, I believe. One of the greatest combos of power, speed and defense. Perhaps I should rank him higher. I don't think he'll break my top 5, though, cuz he didn't dominate his league as much as the other guys we mentioned. Where do you rank Speaker?

I wouldn't argue with someone if they wanted to rank Mantle #3. At his peak, he was awesome and one of the top 5 most dominant players ever. I'd rank Mays slightly ahead of him, however, cuz he lasted longer and did play in a tougher NL.

There has been no mention of Bonds yet cuz I'm not quite sure what to do with him. I'd say he's just outside my top 10 right now. Without the roids issue, he'd be #3 easily.

Sultan_1895-1948

12-06-2006, 12:18 AM

I have Speaker 7th or 8th, I believe. One of the greatest combos of power, speed and defense. Perhaps I should rank him higher. I don't think he'll break my top 5, though, cuz he didn't dominate his league as much as the other guys we mentioned. Where do you rank Speaker?

Umm...8th.

Ruth
Cobb
Mays
Wagner
Aaron
Gehrig
Musial
Speaker
Williams
Hornsby
F. Robinson
Mantle
Schmidt
R. Henderson
Morgan
Bonds

There has been no mention of Bonds yet cuz I'm not quite sure what to do with him. I'd say he's just outside my top 10 right now. Without the roids issue, he'd be #3 easily.

With a natural decline after his initial 411 homers and 16.1 AB/HR, .289 BA? Or if he did what he did, but without help?

btw: I agree about Mantle's peak. Simply incredible. Helps his career case, but afterall it is just a peak and can only carry so much weight.

Imapotato

12-06-2006, 02:50 PM

For what its worth...

According to Matt's GI, even if you completely ignore Ruth's pitching (and the offensive and defensive numbers he would have gained had he not), he still comes in at 869.50, exactly 31.06 points ahead of Cobb.

It's not worth much

I don't know or care about Matt....I don;t care about his GI
I could care less what 869.50 or 31.06 represents.

It's all about people with a calculator and too much time on their hands

I go by tools and what they did on the field...and Cobb could beat you in more ways then Ruth as a position player, while being close to him w/o the benefits of HRs

There have been 10x more Ruth like figures in baseball then Cobb like figures as well.

See simple, and I didn't need Excel and a macro
;)

brett

12-06-2006, 04:37 PM

I disagree. Cobb played in a one dimensional era. Hit the ball and run. Ichiro had comparable hitting skills. So did Rod Carew. Cobb did what the other stars in his time were doing, only a little better.

The reason that there are fewer Cobb like figures is because we know now that a guy who hits .300 with few home runs and without a TON of walks, and who may have cost as many runs through his base-stealing attempts as he gained, are not that valuable.

It's not worth much
There have been 10x more Ruth like figures in baseball then Cobb like figures as well.
;)

brett

12-06-2006, 04:44 PM

I'm not big on LQ adjustments, but I think you misunderstand what low LQ does to the best players. It greatly drops the league averages, so the BEST hitters take the biggest hit in relative BA, OBP, SlG, OPS+ AND because they face better pitchers, their non-relative stats are lower too.

Again, I don't give a damn who the greatest player is, but just messing around with the numbers, the top players today get about a 20 point OPS+ cut due to playing in a more talent dense league.

I see what you're saying. How large of an adjustment do you make? Do you hand out a percentage adjustment across the board or do you give the elite upper tier guys less of a hit?

mwiggins

12-06-2006, 04:56 PM

There have been 10x more Ruth like figures in baseball then Cobb like figures as well.

Because baseball has suited 'ruth like figures' much more than 'cobb like figures' since about 1920 or so. If we went back to the deadball rules, you'd see a lot more 'cobb like figures'.

Cobb could beat you in more ways then Ruth as a position player

If you want to talk skills, not stat production, I'd still put Ruth ahead.

Contact hitting - Cobb
Power hitting - Ruth
Getting on base - Ruth
baserunning - Cobb
defense - Cobb

So yes, Cobb was better in more areas, but the two that Ruth is superior in are probably the two most important categoires. Just Ruth's superior power hitting outweighs both Cobb's edge on the bases and his edge in the field. And Ruth's edge in getting on base about cancels out Cobb edge in concact hitting.

So I'd say in terms of being you with many skills, Cobb has the quanity, but Ruth has the quality. The only way I can see Cobb over Ruth is if he was comparable to Tris Speaker on defense. Ruth has such an edge at the plate that Cobb needs to be both a great baserunner AND a great defender to counter him. And I don't think he is, so I think he falls a little short as a position player, and Ruth's pitching gives him a clear edge as an overall player.

brett

12-06-2006, 05:03 PM

Yes. Look, I am not all about stats. I believe that a carefull look at stats reveals some misconceptions such as the "greatness" of Foxx, when he wasn't that dominant for his period. Look at Stan Hack versus Pie Traynor

(who by the way, as you bring up Cobb being considered the greatest until around the 60's, Traynor was voted greatest 3B of all time in 1969. People learn.)

Stats show me that Joe Morgan gets underrated because a lot of people totally ignore some important stats just because he hit .271.

I give Brett a little boost for basically carrying the offense on an expansion team that went on to win 6 division titles. (I rate him a little lower because I think that an injury plagued season hurts a team more than just the games missed).

Cobb was the closest any player will ever come to being perfect at least in the game he played prior to 1920. There will never be a perfect player again because the game is more complex in terms of the variety of talents a player may possess.

If he was such a good hitting coach, I would want to see decades of teams he coached for and which outhit the league adjusted OPS.

Its close, but it almost sounds like you guys want me, or others to go one way or another and vote Cobb or Ruth, and what I'm telling you all is that they are in an area of overlap. At this point, its almost like voting for who's the best supermodel.

All things considered, when two players are that close, I would prefer to go with the guys who played a more modern game-a game that requires more skills-all 5 tools rather than just 4. A league where pitchers had to throw hard to everyone.

Imapotato

12-06-2006, 05:03 PM

I disagree. Cobb played in a one dimensional era. Hit the ball and run. Ichiro had comparable hitting skills. So did Rod Carew. Cobb did what the other stars in his time were doing, only a little better.

a 'little' better? And mentioning Carew and Ichiro is a slap in the face of how Cobb was. Try Rickey Henderson and Rogers Hornsby.

So if Carew was close to Cobb then Babe Ruth was doing what Sam Crawford was doing in HIS era....only a 'little' better. Wahoo Sam, the triple leader (the HR of deadball) and still the single season record holder with 12 ISPHR.

The reason that there are fewer Cobb like figures is because we know now that a guy who hits .300 with few home runs and without a TON of walks, and who may have cost as many runs through his base-stealing attempts as he gained, are not that valuable.

Mwiggins, you like many stat guys missed the "2 most important"
Baseball intelligence---COBB
Work Ethic----COBB

You know those 2 things, the 2 things that make you lash out at Derek Jeter as being 'average' (well that and envy of his adoration by many MANY fine women)

We?
You have a mouse in your pocket?

It's so simple to someone who never played...you put 9 OBP machines in a lineup...they will fail, because no way will everyone of them be able to look at pitches. It takes a wide array of players with different strategies and tendencies to win.

It's all about game situations...not just looking at baseball reference and reading Bill James

brett

12-06-2006, 05:14 PM

My summary of the greatest would be this.

Ruth or Cobb end up being rated #1 in about 80% of the scenarios I can put together, (what counts for what, defense, intangibles, how much was Ruth's pitching worth).

Ruth comes out #1 in about 40% of the scenaria, and Cobb in about 40%.
Wagner, Mays and Bonds all creep in with other scenaria.

Bonds gets #1 in the next greatest number of methods. He matches Ruth on offense (including steals), he was a better fielder by a small margin, and Ruth's pitching almost certainly overcomes that.

Wagner is next and Mays is the long shot-he has to get all of the adjustments, but I don't discount that those adjustments may be valid, just that if you plug in estimates 50 different ways, only a couple say Mays, 4 or 5 say Wagner.

The strike against Cobb is that I believe the player who thrives in the more evolved game-dominance being equal-is the "greater" player.

What I am saying, and I don't mean to sound harsh, is that as fielding improved, and as players entered the league to be power hitters, there were more ways that a player could contribute. No one would hit .366 in todays game-there just are not enough holes in the defense. Cobb was able to be the only "perfect" player for any era because power hitting was not part of the game. And yes, he tended to hit the ball with far more authority that the pure contact guys.

If Cobb had come up in a power era, he would have been a good power hitter, a good hitter for average etc. but when you have to do more things, you can not dominate any one or two as much.

Let's say Cobb adjusted and started to hit for power. Say he still hit .340, and 25+ home runs a year and stole 50 bases a year. Each skill takes a little away from what you can do in other areas.

If a player comes up, and is not going to hit home runs, he has to have everything else. If a player has 40 home runs power, he can make up for lacking a lot of other skills.

mwiggins

12-06-2006, 05:26 PM

Mwiggins, you like many stat guys missed the "2 most important"
Baseball intelligence---COBB
Work Ethic----COBB

Those aren't skills, potato. They're attributes. They're what made Cobb such a great hitter and baserunner. Because of his natural ability, his baseball intelligence, and his work ethic he was the best contact hitter and the best baserunner ever.

Besides, how much credit can we give Cobb for his 'baseball intelligence' when it failed him so greatly during the transition to the live ball. It was very 'baseball stupid' to continue to try and play deadball era baseball post-1919.

But if you want to rant your way through the debate, then fine. Enjoy the Cobb worship. :confused:

Edgartohof

12-06-2006, 05:35 PM

Cobb was the closest any player will ever come to being perfect at least in the game he played prior to 1920. There will never be a perfect player again because the game is more complex in terms of the variety of talents a player may possess.

There will never be a perfect player, but there have been a few who have come close, such as Mays, (Mantle?), and Bonds (say what you will, but he did have it all).

Imapotato

12-06-2006, 06:52 PM

Those aren't skills, potato. They're attributes. They're what made Cobb such a great hitter and baserunner. Because of his natural ability, his baseball intelligence, and his work ethic he was the best contact hitter and the best baserunner ever.

Besides, how much credit can we give Cobb for his 'baseball intelligence' when it failed him so greatly during the transition to the live ball. It was very 'baseball stupid' to continue to try and play deadball era baseball post-1919.

But if you want to rant your way through the debate, then fine. Enjoy the Cobb worship. :confused:

Then McGraw and the NL were idiots....even though the Giants were dominant. The 20's HR era for the most part was the AL...look at the NL leaders....that was slightly above deadball

and intelligence is an attribute....baseball intelligence is a skill, it must be learned.
ethics are an atrribute, work ethics must be learned.

mwiggins

12-06-2006, 06:56 PM

Then McGraw and the NL were idiots....even thought the Giants were dominant. The 20's HR era for the most part was the AL...look at the NL leaders....that was slightly above deadball

and intelligence is an attribute....baseball intelligence is a skill, it must be learned.
ethics are an atrribute, work ethics must be learned.

No offense potato, but Cobb played in the AL. :lookitup

If you want to go with baseball intelligence as a skill, then I'll give that to Ruth as well. Cobb could do nothing but fall into step with the rest of the deadballers. Ruth had the baseball smarts to find a better way, to buck the grain, and rise to the top. Cobb lacked the baseball intelligence to adapt to anything other than the deadball era. I'm sorry, but agressive baserunning, being mean, and spiking people does not equal baseball intelligence.

Let's face it, the only reason Cobb is even in this discussion is becuse he happened to play most of his career in the old era where his one great talent - this agressive baserunning - could carry to the top. If they were all born 4 years later; Jackson, Speaker, and Collins would have all been better players than Cobb.

torez77

12-06-2006, 07:11 PM

With a natural decline after his initial 411 homers and 16.1 AB/HR, .289 BA? Or if he did what he did, but without help?

btw: I agree about Mantle's peak. Simply incredible. Helps his career case, but afterall it is just a peak and can only carry so much weight.

I'd rank Bonds #3 assuming he didn't take steroids and still performed on a gargantuan level in the 21st century. If I just rank him pre-2000, he's top 20.

The thing about Mantle is his peak lasted for most of his career. He was a great player his entire career. He hit his peak in the late '50s early '60s but was great on both sides of that as well.

Imapotato

12-07-2006, 08:21 AM

No offense potato, but Cobb played in the AL. :lookitup

Ok,this 'debate' is useless, obviously you cannot comprehend my very obvious point, or just don't read others' post, you just wish to rant for the sake of creating controversy. Which is what Baseball-Fever is becoming.

I suggest you open a book and look at the NATIONAL LEAGUE, during the 1920's...they played 'deadball' until the late 20's

W_Marone

12-07-2006, 09:23 AM

Ok,this 'debate' is useless, obviously you cannot comprehend my very obvious point, or just don't read others' post, you just wish to rant for the sake of creating controversy. Which is what Baseball-Fever is becoming.

I suggest you open a book and look at the NATIONAL LEAGUE, during the 1920's...they played 'deadball' until the late 20's

I think it's a combination of misreading and posting at the first sentence without truely understanding the poster's remarks....current events is full of that....here it's more of a my calculator says this compared to how you rate things....so I'm right discussions....we all have our own rating systems....I, for one, dont use winshares, warp, Florp, Zorg, Ding Dongs, and all that jazz, I use BA., HR, OBP, OPS, SB, etc. etc. I think it would be much more fun and enjoyable if people would argue the baseball aspect, instead of shooting off thier comments after reading he first three words of someone's post.

As for my opinion, I just went with Ruth, and for the main reason being he was a good pitcher when he did pitch, sure he didnt hit .400+ like Cobb was a customed to, but he changed the way the game is played, he's probably the most historic of all baseball players and in all of sports, no one will ever forget the name of Babe Ruth, nor do I think they should forget another great like Ty Cobb, both were outstanding ball players, who I dont think skills could ever be match 100%. But, anyway....I just pick Ruth because of his pitching, which if he continued, most likely, could have landed in the hall of fame as a pitcher.

Take it easy

Ken

Imapotato

12-07-2006, 04:35 PM

Well my big beef is that outside from the opinions we had Gomes, we had humor, ESPECIALLY in the Philly forum.

We had bitter old donzblock, who we would get on, we had Hardiman, who would crack a joke in a very Dennis Miller manner.

It just has become less about talking about a great GAME, and more about "I have a new formula I just read a short blog about...it sounds good, so it HAS to be right" and if you disagree...flames rise

Bill Burgess

12-07-2006, 07:00 PM

As for my opinion, I just went with Ruth, and for the main reason being he was a good pitcher when he did pitch, sure he didnt hit .400+ like Cobb was a customed to, but he changed the way the game is played, he's probably the most historic of all baseball players and in all of sports, no one will ever forget the name of Babe Ruth, nor do I think they should forget another great like Ty Cobb, both were outstanding ball players, who I dont think skills could ever be match 100%. But, anyway....I just pick Ruth because of his pitching, which if he continued, most likely, could have landed in the hall of fame as a pitcher.
I think Ken feels as a great many fans do. Babe gets their vote, because he is almost more than a baseball player. One of the few to transcend their game. Most famous, most influential, most impact, most loved, most everything. And in that light, I'd like to show how some of the sports writers in the past, wrestled with the same issues as we do here. Can you hear it in their voices? I can.

Bill Corum,
NY spwr, 1920-58
1958 - "As a figure in baseball, as must have been written down this side of this sports page at least a thousand times, Babe Ruth was to the writer "The Old Guy Who Stood Alone." The description was mine and is, I think, still apt.

Yet, there is a difference between being the greatest figure in the game--the game's Jumbo and most celebrated star-- and being the greatest player of the game.

What would you be looking for? A Ruth, who could pitch with the best, play first base, and beat your brains out with the home run? Or a player who might play only one position and yet might be superlative as a hitter, base runner, defensive star, and a winner of games.

Because Babe was so superb and I was writing pieces in his years of glory, and while I believed and still know that in one sense, he "Stood Alone," I still never wrote that opinion of him without somehow thinking of Ty Cobb. Because, you see it's difficult to make a comparison between the sort of players, that Babe and Ty were.

That I saw Big George play many games must go without saying. I, also, saw Cobb play quite a few games at Sportsman's Park--before it got around to living every golden minute as Busch Stadium." Bill then went on to say that Mays might go on to exceed all other players who ever lived. (NY Journal-American, Wednesday, July 25, 1958)

Joe Falls,
Detroit spwr. 1951-1990's
1969 - "Mr. (Dick) Young asks us to name the greatest single player in history, and this has to be either Ruth or Cobb and you can argue long into the night over the merits of these two players, and finally I came up with Ruth because he seemed to have more of an impact on the game, though for sheer ability, Cobb probably had an edge on The Bambino." (Sporting News, July 5, 1969, pp. 2) (note: ripped Ty off through double-talk. Falls now in 2001 puts Ruth #1 again in a personal letter to Bill Burgess.)

Fred Lieb,
Phil., NY, FL, St. Louis spwr. 1910-77
1970 - "But Fred, though "deep in my heart" regarding Cobb as the best player, was able to make a case for Ruth as the greatest complete player because of his great pitching ability, his fine arm, his running and fielding skill and the fact that he revolutionized the game by ushering in the home-run era. (Sporting News, April 11, 1970, pp. 45, column 3)

1977 - "At least as late as 1930, Ty Cobb and Hans Wagner generally were regarded as the greatest players of all time. However, now that Ruth's contributions to baseball can be fully evaluated, Mr. Babe looms up as number one."

"Shortly after Ruth's death in 1948, Taylor Spink, publisher of The Sporting News, asked me to take the Ruth side in a debate with Harry Salsinger of the Detroit News on the subject "Who was the greater--Ty Cobb or Babe Ruth?" As a matter of fact, up to that time I myself had considered Cobb to be number one. In arguing for Ruth, I made my case on the larger meaning of the word "great."

I pointed out that while Ruth had hammered out 714 home runs and had a lifetime batting average of .342, a remarkable combination, he had, more importantly, revolutionized the entire game of baseball. Rather than playing for one run via the sacrifice bunt and the stolen base, a team could now play for one, two, three, or four home runs with one swing of a Ruthian at.

Ruth also gave the game of baseball more publicity than it had ever enjoyed before. The Babe was known in Japan, the Caribbean countries, England, Ireland, and Italy. . . So great was his attraction that people who never had been inside a big league park and knew little of baseball paid their money at box offices just to see this phenomenon.

By attracting many more fans not only to Yankee Stadium in New York, but also on the road, Ruth raised the pay of ballplayers all along the line, in both major leagues and the strong minor leagues of that period. With two years after Babe turned the game into a home-run frenzy, the pay checks of the average players were up 33 1/3 percent. (Baseball As I Have Known It, by Fred Lieb, 1977, pp. 168-169.)
----------------------------------------------------
So, here are but 3 small examples of the conflict within these sports writers. Were they even answering the same question? Evidently, they were changing the meaning of the word "greatest", and re-interpreting it to say, "Who was the most famous ballplayer, the most important person, who changed the game more, who was the most influential person, who had the most impact on the game?