General Discussion on Ruth, Williams, and Cobb

[ChrisLDuncan]

I cant rank Williams over Ruth. Because Ruth could hit and pitch.

Not as an overall player but just as a pure hitter.

[TRfromBR]

Not as an overall player but just as a pure hitter.

There's an excellent video tribute to Williams on YouTube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqxoIvxLpN8

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Ted Williams had an OPS+ over 200 FIVE times in his career


I count Williams with EIGHT such seasons. Anyway, Ruth was over 200 ELEVEN times, and over 220 SIX times compared to Williams' THREE.


and there are very strong arguments for him over the leader in the afore mentioned category, Babe Ruth.

He's the only one with any argument at all imo. Very strong might be an over-statement though.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I count Williams with EIGHT such seasons. Anyway, Ruth was over 200 ELEVEN times, and over 220 SIX times compared to Williams' THREE.

In seasons he played over 120 games, I'm sorry about not adding the quantifier

He's the only one with any argument at all imo. Very strong might be an over-statement though.

He has some strong arguments, they have to deal with LQ, and one could make the assertion that Ruth was helped by his park and Williams was hurt by his.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

1. Babe enjoyed a RF foul line of 252 ft. at the Polo Grounds, 1920-22. Yankee Stadium, 1923-34, 296 ft.


He got a few cheapies per year but the other HUGE dimensions cost him easily over a dozen per season.



2. The pitchers from Babe's era were not as fast as later eras. So Babe got to tee off on 75-90 mph fastballs.


I don't think the difference in speed is all that relative when comparing Williams and Ruth. Anyhow, Williams didn't need to face trick pitches, and yes, even after certain pitchers were grandfathered, others continued to throw them. Strike zone might have been a little larger for Ruth as well.



3. Babe was smart enough to hit to LF to discourage any shifts against him. Ted wasn't intelligent to hit to LF and clear his power field.


Maybe not so much about being smart, as doing anything and everything it took to win. Babe swung at a ton of bad pitches throughout his career. Some were hits and some were outs but he felt he could help the team more by swinging the bat.



4. 1919-1938 featured a hugely inflated ball, which 1938-1992 hitters never got to swing at. This also inflated Babe's fellow hitters, like Gehrig, etc.


You're forgetting that they added the cushioned cork center during this time, and later deadened the ball in '31.



5. During Babe's era, the league featured hitters who protected their BA., at the expense of their SLG. Ave. Ted's peers went for homers. Once and for all, Babe isn't 9th on the all time BA list. He is 29th. Williams is fifth. Unindexed, raw numbers AREN'T APPROPRIATE for discussions of this level.


Nah. Actually, he is 9th and Williams is 7th. Any considerations after that should include the fact that Ruth hit .370+ six times and was among the league leaders several times while taking the approach he did.

[Ubiquitous]

One thing you will notice in that line though is that while Ted's batting line went up at home it was almost all singles. His batting average went up 33 points yet his SLG went up 37 points. So if Fenway was an advantage to Ted the advantage only translated into singles. That is generally not the case for power hitters and park advantages

The second thing is that it might very well be possible that he faced few lefties at home.

For the records we do have (1957-1960) Ted Williams faced more lefties on the road then at home. 209 PA vs 141 PA.

So in otherwords his home splits might contain a good bit of lefty/righty bias and not really be showing a true reflection of park advantages and disadvantages.

[Ubiquitous]

Williams didn't need to face trick pitches, and yes, even after certain pitchers were grandfathered, others continued to throw them. Strike zone might have been a little larger for Ruth as well.


Williams did face trick pitches. That practice was alive and well during Williams time, plus he faced the slider.


You're forgetting that they added the cushioned cork center during this time, and later deadened the ball in '31.

The Cushioned Cork ball of 1926 was not a dramatic change in the ball nor did it cause a dramatic change in the offense. Offensive levels continued to rise after the introduction of the ball. Secondly I'll have to check but I believe the AL did not adopt the NL's ball until midway through the 30's.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Actually it wasn't that Ted wasn't smart enough to hit to the LF wall, he could have singled off the wall every time. Ted Williams answered this question after he retired, because everyone asked him why did he hit into the shift; he responded "Because no one wants to come to the ball park to see Ted Williams hit singles" so while he could have he just preferred not too.

[digglahhh]

Basically the case for Ted lies in the war years. With full war credit, one could argue that Ballgame would have produced equal counting stats and relatively comparable rate stats (slightly better OBP and lower, but not entirely incomparable SLG).

Of course, the counter is then that Babe can get pitching years.

That's not entirely analogous, IMO because at least Babe was playing. But the point is taken.

With full war credit for Ted, no pitching credit for Ruth and a LQ boost- Ballgame has a sensible case.

The point is that Ted is really the only one with any sort of case (I guess, Bonds if you take his numbers at face value). Having a case against Ruth is, in and itself, a profound statement of Theodore Samuel's greatness.

[csh19792001]

The point is that Ted is really the only one with any sort of case (I guess, Bonds if you take his numbers at face value).

Derek:
If that's truly how you feel, I don't think you're giving the issue full consideration. After reading basically everything in print (including 6 biographies), and everything on the internet I've been able to procure (including membership at forums dedicated to the study of Cobb's career), I have to say I clearly disagree that Ted Williams is the only one with any sort of case.

I don't want to turn this into a good old fashioned barking/stat throwing contest amongst the constituency here, though, so we can take it to PM if you wish to hear my reasoning.

[digglahhh]

Derek:
If that's truly how you feel, I don't think you're giving the issue full consideration. After reading basically everything in print (including 6 biographies), and everything on the internet I've been able to procure (including membership at forums dedicated to the study of Cobb's career), I have to say I clearly disagree that Ted Williams is the only one with any sort of case.

I don't want to turn this into a good old fashioned barking/stat throwing contest amongst the constituency here, though, so we can take it to PM if you wish to hear my reasoning.

Chris,

You think that Cobb has a case based on "hitting" alone. When I say hitting, I'm talking pure put the bat on the ball.

I'm not talking about "offense" which involves how many bases you can get on any given ball in play.

I want to be very specific here. I'm not talking just about Cobb's baserunning, I'm talking about removing speed itself, altogether. If Cobb gets three bases on the same ball that Ruth gets two on, I'm awarding Cobb no points for the extra base. I'm talking hitting, in a truly isolated form.

Now, if you want to say that Cobb could have hit for more "true" (strength-based, not leg-based power) and that he didn't feel the need to adopt that style because he just wanted to put the ball in play to make sure his menacing speed and guile were put to use as often as possible, now we get into much more of an abstraction. Would Cobb hit differently in this theoretical "hitting contest?..." Perhaps, in fact probably- to a degree, but he would not be Ruth or Williams with the bat alone.

[csh19792001]

Chris,
You think that Cobb has a case based on "hitting" alone.

When I say hitting, I'm talking pure put the bat on the ball.


Now I see the point you're making.

Maybe Ernie Lombardi belongs in the discussion if speed is completely removed from the discussion, then. He was by all accounts the slowest player that ever had a real major league career, yet hit .306 in 6400 PA with good power (and only 262 career strikeouts!) and all of that while playing every single game of his career at catcher. They used to play Schnozz all the way on the outfield grass, and he hit the ball so ridiculously hard and so consistently in the holes that he still managed to somehow hit .306. I've read several biographies of Ruth and Williams, and have absolutely no doubt that both were vastly quicker and/or faster than Ernie Lombardi. Look at Ernie's GIDP rate, and take into account the first two years are left off; I think he's the worst in history by a WIDE margin, further indicative of his impossible lack of speed.

How many players with absolutely no speed whatsoever have won batting titles? How about 2 batting titles? How many who have played long careers have hit .306 with good power (top 10 every year in slg%) and fantastic bat control, and from the catcher's spot? I think he's singular in his historical distinction. Lombo might be one of the top few greatest "hitters" in history, given your criteria.

If speed is completely irrelevant, other (serious) candidates for greatest hitter ever might be:
--Pujols (how much would that guy produce if he could run like Ty Cobb or Jose Reyes?) :crazy
--Greenberg (have you seen film of that guy run?)
--Frank Thomas...well, he's dropped off so much.....but boy was he awesome....

[csh19792001]

When I say hitting, I'm talking pure put the bat on the ball.


Who do you think was the best ever at simply hitting? Perhaps you believe between era comparisons are impossible to make with any semblance of certaintude (don't you agree for the most part?) The differences in conditions and context between guys who played 30, 60, 100 years apart may render direct comparisons irreconcilable. How about by era, then?

[Ubiquitous]

Actually it wasn't that Ted wasn't smart enough to hit to the LF wall, he could have singled off the wall every time. Ted Williams answered this question after he retired, because everyone asked him why did he hit into the shift; he responded "Because no one wants to come to the ball park to see Ted Williams hit singles" so while he could have he just preferred not too.


Neither answer is really true. People like to credit Babe Ruth for "being" smart enough to beat the shift. The problem is that Ted did the same thing and it didn't matter. The reason being the opposing manager thought he was a baseball god. Ted Williams the first time the shift was put on him destroyed it. Jimmy Dykes swore he would never use it again. It took someone like Lou Boudreau who was going to do it come hell or high water to get it to stick. Boudreau was a bit full of himself and sort of took the kid professor tag to heart. Heck he tried to do a shift on Mickey Mantle!

Secondly Ted did beat the shift often.

Third the shifts main benefit to the defense was taking away some singles from Ted. That is it. The shift didn't take home runs away from him, didn't turn line drives into outs. Besides some grounders that the extra fielder took away it did very little. To go back to what Ted said in terms of what he was paid to do the shift meant very little. If Ted hit a hard hit ball to right it was going to be a hit. Ted going to the right got his homers and got his doubles, he walked enough and went to the left enough that whatever groundball single he lost due to the shift he more then made up for it.

If Lou Boudreau was a manager during Babe's time the shift would not have been a one and done attempt. Lou would probably have routinely put the shift out there on him.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Ruth's case is solid. Would be even more solid if he enjoyed the bullpen and the 100 foot shorter center field fence. Check out Jenkinson's new book sometime. It confirms what we already knew. Ruth was murdered by Old Fenway, a much different one than Williams called home.

Here's a little something. Overlapping fields. The blue line is Yankee Stadium in '28, after they'd moved the plate out ten feet. The dark green is Old Fenway, and the Red is Williams' Fenway.

[csh19792001]

Would be even more solid if he enjoyed the bullpen and the 100 foot shorter center field fence. Ruth was murdered by Old Fenway, a much different one than Williams called home.


That's a great chart! Brutal old tyme park!!! Do we know how Babe did at Fenway for his entire career, not just pre 1920?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

You know I rate Cobb higher than most do, even as just a hitter. I do appreciate what he could do. Hit ability to place hit with authority goes a long way imo.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

That's a great chart! Brutal old tyme park!!! Do we know how Babe did at Fenway for his entire career, not just pre 1920?

For homers?

Five in '20
Four in '21
One in '22
One in '23
Two in '24
Three in '25
Two in '26
Eight in '27 (including five in two games)
Two in '28
Four in '29
Three in '30
One in '31
Two in '32
Two in '33
Two in '34

We could also mention how brutal Yankee Stadium's centerfield backdrop was for hitters. Williams said it was his least favorite park to hit.

[digglahhh]

Just to make it clear, I'm not at all saying that evaluating a player's offense without the speed quotient translates into understanding the strength of that player's overall game.

My comment was made because I said that Williams was the only one who had a case against Ruth (other than face-value Bonds) as a hitter. Chris questioned me, by bringing up Cobb. So, I was just clarifying that I was talking about hitting the ball as an isolated skill, not as a catchall for offense.

To be perfectly clear, Cobb has a case against any and everybody in terms of all around greatness, and even purely offensive greatness.

In fact, I find his case as a total player to be more compelling than all but one man.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Well, where it was 550' at the deepest point...they moved it in to 420' in 1934. Where it was 488' in center...they moved it in to 388' in 1934. Where it was 405 in deep right-center....they moved it in to 382' in '40, to 381' in '42, and to 380' in '43. Where right field was 313' in '21, and then 358' from '26-'30...they moved it in to 304' in 1940.

Homers in Fenway during '27....

4/29 - Off Slim Harriss
6/22 - Off Hal Wiltse
6/22 - Off Hal Wiltse
9/06 - Off Tony Welzer
9/06 - Off Tony Welzer
9/06 - Off Jack Russell
9/07 - Off Danny MacFayden
9/07 - Off Slim Harriss

[SHOELESSJOE3]

For homers?

Five in '20
Four in '21
One in '22
One in '23
Two in '24
Three in '25
Two in '26
Eight in '27 (including five in two games)
Two in '28
Four in '29
Three in '30
One in '31
Two in '32
Two in '33
Two in '34

We could also mention how brutal Yankee Stadium's centerfield backdrop was for hitters. Williams said it was his least favorite park to hit.


Randy, I came up with a total of 40 just as you did.
According to the Home Run Encyclopedia Babe hit a total of 38 at Fenway, as a Yankee from 1920 to 1934. The only thing I can figure is he may actually have hit 40 in Boston but 2 of the 40 may have been hit at Braves Field. Possible a Sunday game played at the Braves field or played there for some other reason.

For the record the most home runs hit at Fenway by a visiting hitter up till 1995.
Ruth------38
Mantle----38
Killibrew---37
Kaline-----30

In those years Fenway was tough on LH hitters, going for the long ball. Ruth did very good there. Killebrew, Kaline both RH hitters. Don't know how many Mantle hit RH and LH at Fenway.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

You are correct Joe.

Here is Jenkinson on '30....

April may have frustrated Babe Ruth, but the month of May would make amends. On the 4th, he blasted the first of thirteen homers, a shot that almost reached the top of the right field seats. Ruth played well through the rest of the long home stand, but was looking forward to returning to Philadelphia. He had to stop in Boston first, and passed the time by powering one of the longest drives ever seen. It was hit in a Sunday game at Braves Field and carried to the top of the right field bleachers known as the "jury box." That was 435 feet away, but the ball was still screaming at a height of about 40 feet. Most observers judged that if left unimpeded, the ball would have struck the armory across the street.

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

The other was on 9/1/29 at Braves Field and landed at the top of the bleachers in dead center.