Babe Ruth's Status as Number One

[AstrosFan]

AKA Not another Babe Ruth thread.

***

Okay, I am going to make this very clear. The poll is only for people who rank Ruth as the greatest player of all time. It is designed to express varying degrees of Ruth's status as Number One. I do not want you to whine to me that there isn't an option for people who don't believe Ruth is the greatest, because that is not what this poll is about. If you are in the Ruth is not the greatest camp, but still wish to discuss the topic, that is fine. But don't complain to me that the poll options don't include something you can vote on. Sorry to sound so harsh, but I have experienced this kind of problem in the past with people who didn't understand what the poll was about.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

For Bill Burgess:



"What! No Ty Cobb in the poll!!!!!!"





:rofl:

[Minstrel]

I voted for "Ruth is solidly #1, but I can see the argument for others." Based on the adjusted numbers, Ruth easily comes out #1, but I can see the numbers changing if different players played in different eras.

I don't see Ruth as a lock to be #1 if he played in a different era and various other amazing players (Cobb, Mays, Wagner, for example) played in different eras.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I'm not voting because I fall somewhere between the first and second options. Ruth is clearly #1 but "far and away" is a bit too strong.

[AstrosFan]

You're right, Randy. That should be an option. Would a mod mind sticking "Ruth is clearly #1, but not far and away the best" between the current first and second choices?

[EXCELSIOR]

Ruth was the greatest, far & away.

Only argument I see around it is if the criteria of "greatest" is carved down to what dead ballers thought of as "scientific baseball." Then, Mr. Cobb would have a case. Still, though, one would have to consider that Ruth could annihilate the ball, pitch with the very best, and field in the top tier - even at their own pre-1920's, "scientific" game.

(And don't even get me started on his positive "intangibles"!)

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I voted solidly number one................. but I could see the argument for others. Only because I could understand others maybe place a higher value on some other "types" of hitters, maybe devalue Babe's long ball hitting and bring other factors into a debate.

Now with that said I hold my previous and still my present thought, no one has yet convinced me he is not solidly number one.

[willshad]

I think that no matter how good you believe Ruth was, you will have to admit that an argument can be made for others, depending on the types of things you give credit for. If you give Ted Williams war credit, he's right there with Ruth. If you go with longevity and dominance, Cobb is Ruth's equal. If you dont think Barry took roids, and give him LQ adjustment, hes right there too. If you give more credit to defense and all around play, Mays is there with him.

[BSmile]

His persona and overall fame across the globe (to this day) put The Babe over the top. He's the greatest, far & away.

[brett]

I think that no matter how good you believe Ruth was, you will have to admit that an argument can be made for others, depending on the types of things you give credit for. If you give Ted Williams war credit, he's right there with Ruth. If you go with longevity and dominance, Cobb is Ruth's equal. If you dont think Barry took roids, and give him LQ adjustment, hes right there too. If you give more credit to defense and all around play, Mays is there with him.

And Mays lost 2 war years as well. Its hard for me to put Williams up there with Ruth because at best, he might have matched Ruth as a hitter-given more longevity. He had a better relative on-base percentage which is really the foundation of production.

Williams also was probably an above average left fielder for his first 7-8 years, and probably also at least an average base-runner for about that long.

I have Ruth #1 but I can see a case for Cobb and Mays, and Wagner.

If Wagner had played live-ball he might have had hitting numbers comparable to Musial, and for a top defensive shortstop, and baserunner-well, he is arguably the #1 draft choice in baseball history.

I believe now that Cobb probably did take around 30 extra bases a season with his baserunning that we don't see in the stats. He also had the best deadball OPS+ (180) of all time.

Mays lost what could have been 2 great years to the military and was an excellent defensive centerfielder for almost 20 years, which is unprecidented. Mays in Cobb's place and time would have been quite a player as well.

[Bill Burgess]

For those who support the Babe as the #1 Player of All Time, there is a safe way to express it. You couldn't go wrong with saying that he was arguably the greatest ballplayer who ever lived. And that wouldn't rankle anyone who disagreed with that opinion. That is, if someone wanted to play it safe.

But playing it safe loses half the fun. I understand that.

Another idea is to call Ruth the statistically greatest player. Which takes out all the fun altogether.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I think that no matter how good you believe Ruth was, you will have to admit that an argument can be made for others, depending on the types of things you give credit for. If you give Ted Williams war credit, he's right there with Ruth. If you go with longevity and dominance, Cobb is Ruth's equal. If you dont think Barry took roids, and give him LQ adjustment, hes right there too. If you give more credit to defense and all around play, Mays is there with him.

In hitting, I would agree with that but then you need to deal with Ruth's pitching, better fielding, running, and throwing than Williams. He lost out on hitting as well, and when he did hit as a pitcher, he dealt with a much different Fenway than Williams enjoyed.

[EXCELSIOR]

I think that no matter how good you believe Ruth was, you will have to admit that an argument can be made for others, depending on the types of things you give credit for. If you give Ted Williams war credit, he's right there with Ruth. If you go with longevity and dominance, Cobb is Ruth's equal. If you dont think Barry took roids, and give him LQ adjustment, hes right there too. If you give more credit to defense and all around play, Mays is there with him.

None of these guys could win like Ruth. In fact, I'd say only Cobb had the sheer desire to win like Ruth did, giving everything he had year after year to bring his team all the way. Williams, though maybe the greatest "pure hitter", did not have the equivalent fighting spirit of either Ruth, or Cobb (or DiMaggio). He was dramatically one-dimensional, especially in his early years. Mays gave everything he had, too - and that was alot, as he was so great at everything.

Bonds was totally self-centered, always putting himself so far ahead of teammates & team victory (and, indeed, the game itself) that he doesn't compare to any of the true greats above. Plus, his offensive advantages of massive steroid abuse, short fences, miniature strike zones, diluted pitching staffs, juiced balls & bats - as well as his unique body armor - render true comparison meaningless. If he had not taken steroids, his name would never be in this discussion. Ruth's achievements dwarf those of Balco Barry.

[west coast orange and black]

^^
thanx, excelsior. i had a particularly long, tough week.

[TigerNation]

In fact, I'd say only Cobb had the sheer desire to win like Ruth did

And you are basing this on what? He was a Yankee so therefore he was a winner?

[EXCELSIOR]

In fact, I'd say only Cobb had the sheer desire to win like Ruth did

And you are basing this on what? He was a Yankee so therefore he was a winner?

I don't recall Cobb being with the Yankees, TigerNation :). But I do conclude from all the evidence available that he gave his whole heart and soul to winning - every day, every year. He's proof that you don't have to win it all to be a winner. He played not only for his own glory, he did everything possible to help his team win. Mays, too, gave it his all. Despite failures to win the Series, there are no bigger winners than these guys. A ballplayer's greatness is not measured by how many Series rings he has, but by the totality of how great he was - individually, for his team, and for the game - and not in that order. That's why I rank Cobb & Mays so highly. They're two of the game's greatest treasures.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

In fact, I'd say only Cobb had the sheer desire to win like Ruth did

And you are basing this on what? He was a Yankee so therefore he was a winner?

Ty had his character flaws, so did others, he played the game hard, real hard. Many don't care for him but I could separate the man from the player on the field.

Who wouldn't want Ty Cobb on their team. Always thinking, always looking for the smallest advantage that might bring a win to his team.

Ty makes my team for sure.

[TigerNation]

I don't recall Cobb being with the Yankees, TigerNation :). But I do conclude from all the evidence available that he gave his whole heart and soul to winning - every day, every year. He's proof that you don't have to win it all to be a winner. He played not only for his own glory, he did everything possible to help his team win. Mays, too, gave it his all. Despite failures to win the Series, there are no bigger winners than these guys. A ballplayer's greatness is not measured by how many Series rings he has, but by the totality of how great he was - individually, for his team, and for the game - and not in that order. That's why I rank Cobb & Mays so highly. They're two of the game's greatest treasures.

I was talking about Ruth.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Bonds was totally self-centered, always putting himself so far ahead of teammates & team victory (and, indeed, the game itself) that he doesn't compare to any of the true greats above. Plus, his offensive advantages of massive steroid abuse, short fences, miniature strike zones, diluted pitching staffs, juiced balls & bats - as well as his unique body armor - render true comparison meaningless. If he had not taken steroids, his name would never be in this discussion. Ruth's achievements dwarf those of Balco Barry.

As a Giants fan who saw Bonds up close for 15 years and this is simply not true. Was Bonds self-centered, spoiled, and unlikable? Sure. Did he use PEDs to break Aaron all-time HR record? Sure. All these things are true but in no way show that Bonds didn't care about winning. There seems to be this false dilemma that if a ballplayer is self-centered he didn't care about winning or put himself above the team winning. With Bonds that is absolutely not the case. I've seen Bonds snatch victory from defeat many many times. here are just a few that I will always have fond memories.

October 1st, 1993 @ LA
The Giants are in LA playing the Dodgers with the Giants fighting the Braves for the NL West title. With the Giants down 4-1 Bonds hits a three-run HR to tie the game. In his next AB he hits another three-run HR to give the Giants the lead. In his next AB he hits a RBI double. Bonds goes 3-3, 2 HR, 7 RBI, 2 R, 2 BB. And the Giants need every one of those RBI as the squeak by 8-7.

July 26, 1999 vs StL
This is the most electrifying regular season game I have ever seen in person. Big Mac was the big name in town. He had top billing. When Mac came to bat there were literally thousands of flashbulbs going off. And Bonds decided to comply upstage the entire game. Bonds homers in the 1st inning to give the Giants a 2-0 lead. The Cardinals score seven runs in the second inning including a long HR by McGwire. In the Giants 2nd inning Bonds has an RBI single. In the third inning Bonds drives in two more runs with a double to help the Giants take a 8-7 lead. After just three innings Bonds was 3-3, HR, double, single, 5 RBI, 2 R.

And Bonds was just not about HRs and hitting. I remember a game in Wrigly Field, around '97 or '98. He chased a popup along the left field line. He was running hard all the way and literally smashed his face into the brick wall along the left field foul line. He staggered back a bit. He was clearly dazed The team trainers came out but Bonds waved him off. He took a few seconds to get his bearings again and played the rest of the game.

There are so many other games I can remember that I won't bother look up right now. I remember the game where he struck out three times swinging against the White Sox Bartolo Colon then hit a game tying HR off of Colon in the top of the 9th inning to lead a rally to beat the White Sox.

Then there was a three game series against the Braves in 2003 when Bonds won game 1 and 3 of the series with walk off HRs, In the second game Bonds was walked intentionally. The next batter, Marquis Grissom, hit a game winning single.

If people want to hammer on Bonds because of his surly personality (which is similar to Willie May's personality by the way) or his PED use I have no problem with that. But if people claim Bonds didn't care about winning I know they are 100% wrong.

[Minstrel]

There seems to be this false dilemma that if a ballplayer is self-centered he didn't care about winning or put himself above the team winning.

"Intangibles" are by and large a morality play. A way to ascribe nobility and villainy to athletes, rather than merely watching them play a game.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

"Intangibles" are by and large a morality play. A way to ascribe nobility and villainy to athletes, rather than merely watching them play a game.

Well put. We don't seem to put such judgments on say actors. Peter Seller was not a nice man in person, yet he was a brilliant comedic actor. No one would ever argue that he were not as good as actor because of his real life personality.

[Wade8813]

Intangibles are often a morality play, but I think there can be validity to those claims too. When going through Basic Training for the Army, my platoon was a mess, because we had some of the worst intangibles I've ever seen. Internal fighting, selfishness, sabotaging each other - it was ridiculous. I know for a fact that intangibles can have a huge impact. Of course, it doesn't mean they do have that much of an impact, and it doesn't mean there's any good way to measure them.

BTW, I'm pretty convinced that most of the time, when people are talking about intangibles, they're not talking about things that make enough of a difference to be worth mentioning.

[EXCELSIOR]

We don't seem to put such judgments on say actors. Peter Seller was not a nice man in person, yet he was a brilliant comedic actor. No one would ever argue that he were not as good as actor because of his real life personality.



Your posts are always so well thought out, Honus, and I greatly respect your tremendous knowledge of the game, as well as your willingness to share it - as, for example, with your extremely valuable first hand accounts attesting to Bonds' exceptional talents and performance. I believe witness reports like yours - and WCO&B, too - to be great, both for all of us,and for baseball history. Bonds deserves praise for all his true talents & accomplishments.

Peter Sellers presents an extremely interesting analogy. In my opinion, Sellers' career did suffer greatly because of his apparent anti-social behavior. I'm no expert on him, but I do recall reading years back of how he alienated friends, colleagues & directors, inter alia, to the point that his acting opportunities and output diminished severely. One of his closest friends, allies & advocates - George Harrison - had a hard time getting people to agree to work with Sellers, despite Harrison's considerable influence and connections. Sellers had reportedly became unbearable to work with, despite his sometimes comedic genius, in a way that ultimately hurt his professional work and achievements.

Hence, I see Sellers as one good comparison to the Bonds situation, as far as irascibility goes. And I doubt he selflessly fought for "the team" either. Bonds went much farther, though, by engaging in massive cheating, in order to make himself fraudulently appear the greatest home run hitter of all time. As far as I know, Sellers never did anything like that. We all know Sellers wasn't the greatest comedian of all time, and I don't believe he went around bragging that he was. Still, he's my favorite Gunga Din.

[EXCELSIOR]

If people want to hammer on Bonds because of his surly personality (which is similar to Willie May's personality by the way) or his PED use I have no problem with that. But if people claim Bonds didn't care about winning I know they are 100% wrong.



Naturally, I did not say Bonds didn't "care about winning", Honus. What I pointed out was that he always selfishly put himself above & before his team. Others have done this, but rarely, if ever, to the notorious extent that Bonds has. The end result was that he hurt not only his team, but the game itself. Sure, he wanted the ring - for himself.

[TigerNation]

Naturally, I did not say Bonds didn't "care about winning", Honus. What I pointed out was that he always selfishly put himself above & before his team. Others have done this, but rarely, if ever, to the notorious extent that Bonds has. The end result was that he hurt not only his team, but the game itself. Sure, he wanted the ring - for himself.

Again, maybe you could get a little respect if you could provide some sort of evidence to support your claim. Instead you just continue to throw out random statements as fact and say that you are right.

[Brad Harris]

It really comes down to preferences and subjective valuation of the various elements of the game. I've argued for Wagner or Cobb over Ruth at different times. Ultimately, I think Ruth gets the nod. Although I'm not an "asterisk" guy, knowing what we now know about Bonds' incredible career, I can no longer give him the nod over Ruth. Not only a legendary player, not only a great player, but a truly unique player, Ruth still takes the cake (if not quite by as much as many once presumed.)

[digglahhh]

Naturally, I did not say Bonds didn't "care about winning", Honus. What I pointed out was that he always selfishly put himself above & before his team. Others have done this, but rarely, if ever, to the notorious extent that Bonds has. The end result was that he hurt not only his team, but the game itself. Sure, he wanted the ring - for himself.

These types of statements just belie common sense. They're irrational to the point that reflect a bias against a player significant enough to mitigate the poster from expressing anything resembling an objective view of the player. Sorry, Excelsior.

Look, these aren't dudes working at Foot Locker, where some give a crap and some don't. This is the highest level of professional baseball in the world - every one of these guys is a world class athlete who have succeeded in their field to like the third or fourth standard deviation from the Bell Curve. Dispassionate, uncompetitive individuals who don't yearn to win above all else don't make it that far. If you're half-stepping, you're weeded out before The Show.

Personally, I doubt 1% of this board takes their job as seriously as Barry Bonds did; I doubt 1% of this board is emotionally invested in the success of their employer as a whole than Barry Bonds was about the Giants. Are some of those motives selfish - damn straight they are, most greats care about their legacies at least to some degree. How that makes him any different than any C-suite exec at a Fortune 500 company is beyond me though.

[EXCELSIOR]

These types of statements just belie common sense. They're irrational to the point that reflect a bias against a player significant enough to mitigate the poster from expressing anything resembling an objective view of the player. Sorry, Excelsior.

Look, these aren't dudes working at Foot Locker, where some give a crap and some don't. This is the highest level of professional baseball in the world - every one of these guys is a world class athlete who have succeeded in their field to like the third or fourth standard deviation from the Bell Curve. Dispassionate, uncompetitive individuals who don't yearn to win above all else don't make it that far. If you're half-stepping, you're weeded out before The Show.

Personally, I doubt 1% of this board takes their job as seriously as Barry Bonds did; I doubt 1% of this board is emotionally invested in the success of their employer as a whole than Barry Bonds was about the Giants. Are some of those motives selfish - damn straight they are, most greats care about their legacies at least to some degree. How that makes him any different than any C-suite exec at a Fortune 500 company is beyond me though.

If you're implying that all MLB players have displayed identical and/or near-monolithic levels and characteristics of team spirit & comraderie, then you are clearly wrong. Bonds was not a team player. Never was, apparently never will be. This was, and still is, one of his very obvious negative intangibles. Moreover, his huge, totally selfish disrespect for the others & the game, is what led him to fraudulently claim that which is is most (in)famous for - his (phony) home run titles. It is also what led to his unparalleled unpopularity.

Sorry, digglahhh - Bonds is one of baseball history's prime examples of a poor team player. He did not "yearn to win above all else" - he yearned above all else to pad his own stats. He put himself above his team. He was certainly in the top 1% in that regard.

Thanks for the tip on Foot Locker, though.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Look, these aren't dudes working at Foot Locker, where some give a crap and some don't.

True. But even among those who do give a crap, what they give more of a crap about, varies.

Say a player comes up with one out and the winning run on second. He strikes out. Any player would be pissed that he failed. If that player sits there sulking, even as his teammate then singles in the winning run with two outs, you have an issue. You find out what he cares most about.

Also, if he's extremely upset about not being pitched to, even as the team wins, you find out what he cares most about.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

If you're implying that all MLB players have displayed identical and/or near-monolithic levels and characteristics of team spirit & comraderie, then you are clearly wrong. Bonds was not a team player. Never was, apparently never will be. This was, and still is, one of his very obvious negative intangibles. Moreover, his huge, totally selfish disrespect for the others & the game, is what led him to fraudulently claim that which is is most (in)famous for - his (phony) home run titles. It is also what led to his unparalleled unpopularity.

Sorry, digglahhh - Bonds is one of baseball history's prime examples of a poor team player. He did not "yearn to win above all else" - he yearned above all else to pad his own stats. He put himself above his team. He was certainly in the top 1% in that regard.

Thanks for the tip on Foot Locker, though.
And this is the source of disagreement. Can a player "yearn to win above everything else "and be "selfish" at the same time? Did Pete Rose want to win all costs? Did he keep a daily track of his stats throughout his career? Did his dislike for Johnny Bench hurt the Reds? To me it's simple. Did Bonds being "selfish", or a supposed "cancer", or surliness cause the Giants to win fewer games than they would have if Bonds was a nicer person?

[yanks0714]

I can see valid arguments made for Cobb, Mays, and Wagner as the greatest ever. Not that I would accept them but I certianly wouldn't laugh at anyone trying to say that.
Other than those 3, no one.

[Bill Burgess]

It really comes down to preferences and subjective valuation of the various elements of the game. I've argued for Wagner or Cobb over Ruth at different times. Ultimately, I think Ruth gets the nod. Although I'm not an "asterisk" guy, knowing what we now know about Bonds' incredible career, I can no longer give him the nod over Ruth. Not only a legendary player, not only a great player, but a truly unique player, Ruth still takes the cake (if not quite by as much as many once presumed.)
Spoken like a true Daniel! But we miss your sage counsel at Camp Cobb! Maybe one day you'll veer back to us.:):dance

[Bill Burgess]

To say that Babe wanted to win more than anyone else is not to be criticized. Babe did have a deep, profound and abiding desire to help his team every single day, for years. But ultimately, to say such things merely shows one's passion for one's favorite.

How can one say that Babe wanted to win more than Eddie Collins did, or Honus Wagner did. Wagner let his team move him all over the field without complaining. So did Pete Rose.

Depending on one's favorite player, one could say that about Babe, Ty, Eddie, Honus, Pete or whoever else. Just shows our passion for our favorites. Cobb's desire bordered on almost being too competitive, too seriously-passionate. Almost turned a positive into a negative.

[EXCELSIOR]

To say that Babe wanted to win more than anyone else is not to be criticized. Babe did have a deep, profound and abiding desire to help his team every single day, for years. But ultimately, to say such things merely shows one's passion for one's favorite.

How can one say that Babe wanted to win more than Eddie Collins did, or Honus Wagner did. Wagner let his team move him all over the field without complaining. So did Pete Rose.

Depending on one's favorite player, one could say that about Babe, Ty, Eddie, Honus, Pete or whoever else. Just shows our passion for our favorites. Cobb's desire bordered on almost being too competitive, too seriously-passionate. Almost turned a positive into a negative.

All excellent points, Bill. To be clear, I don't believe and didn't say Ruth wanted to win more than anyone else ever. What I believe is that out of the all time top greats, he & Cobb had the most desire to win. Cobb likely more so. I'm sure there's many, many guys with their same desire - probably all over - but not with their superlative talents. I don't know enough about Wagner nor Collins to say, but DiMaggio had it. To me, Williams was far to focused exclusively on his individual hitting to whole-heartedly address the larger, more important objective of winning - like his early contemporary DiMaggio was, for instance. I see Mays as having superior natural gifts than Cobb, but not quite the same level of fighting spirit.

[KCGHOST]

The Bambino is the man. All the other greats usually need some kind of qualifier to even come close to him.

[Afterglow]

I see Mays as having superior natural gifts than Cobb, but not quite the same level of fighting spirit.

You cannot be serious?

There is no need to add that. Why? Because you cannot prove it.


Does fighting spirit surpass being a better all-round ballplayer?


O, and Ruth is number one. But I wouldn't say he destroys the competition like some may think.

[Bill Burgess]

Fighting spirit, competitiveness, aggression, desire to win, etc.:

This is actually an interesting subject. Since I've spent a lifetime reading about baseball players, I think I'm as entitled to talk about this as much as the next person.

From all my readings, the books tell me that Ty Cobb had the most superlative competitive spirit not only in baseball, but maybe all of sports. I can easily provide many quotes if anyone is interested. Hope someone asks me.

But just because the books tell me this, it does not follow that Ty wanted to win more than Babe Ruth, or Honus Wagner, or Buck Ewing. Please let me explain.

Yes, Cobb wanted to win games, and get his hits. Some shallow peers of his tried to cut him down by suggesting that this desire of his meant that he was only out for himself and was not 'a team player'. Which was nonsense, of course.

But I disagree that Ty's desire to win was any more intense than that of Ruth, Wagner, Ewing. My common sense tells me that those guys wanted to win games every bit as much as Ty.

After Tiger losses, Ty used to cry when he got alone. His nerves were just raw. I've never read that Wagner or Gehrig ever cried after team losses.

But here's my simple point. I think that most of the top ballplayers wanted to win games as much as Cobb. But something in them sometimes didn't allow them to manifest that desire as much as they wanted.

For example, one might suggest that if Babe wanted to win so much, why didn't he keep himself in better condition, so he could play at his optimum?

And that is not an especially hard question. Yes, Babe did want to win as much as Cobb, but Babe's desire to spend nights with women (pre-1929 when he married), caused him to break curfews, and not get his rest. His desire to experience food/drink also caused him to gain about 20 lbs. over his best playing weight, 1925-30. And more after that.

That doesn't mean that Babe's desire to win was less, but his compulsions prevented him from expressing his 'winning spirit' properly.

There are a lot of great players who also matched Cobb's desire to win, but whose 'good deportment', and civilized behavior, prevented them from fighting, yelling, insulting, trash-talking, and other forms of bad behavior.

This category is actually quite huge. Examples might be Collins, Musial, Sisler, A-Rod, Jeter, Gehrig, Greenberg, Foxx, Wagner, Ewing, Mathewson, Spahn, Seaver, Killebrew, Snider, Hodges.

Interestingly, there were others who didn't seem to be bothered by unleashing a 'New York mouth'. Examples of this group might include, Leo Durocher, Frankie Frisch, John McGraw, Rogers Hornsby, Eddie Stanky, Billy Martin, Ducky Medwick, Pepper Martin, Johnny Evers, Jackie Robinson (after his first 2 yrs.), Ty Cobb, Frank Chance, Mickey Cochrane, Al Simmons, Ross Youngs, Willie Keeler, Joe Tinker, Art Fletcher, Cap Anson, King Kelly, Rabbit Maranville, Frankie Crosetti, Jimmy Piersall, Jack Doyle, Steve Brodie, Babe Ruth, Art Irwin, Hughie Jennings, Joe Kelly, Fred Fitzsimmons, Adolfo Luque, Dick Bartgell, Pat Malone, Burleigh Grimes, Earl Whitehill, Solly Hemus, Nellie Fox, Hank Bauer, Clint Courtney, Johnny Temple, Lew Burdette, Al Dark, Charlie Dressen, Birdie Tebbetts, Bobby Bragen, Russ Meyer, Bobo Newsom, Ferris Fain.

I got a lot of these names from the book, The History of Baseball, edited by Allison Danzig/Joe Reichler, 1959, pp. 304.

They used to be called 'Holler Guys', a long time ago. One might notice that many of the above named 'holler guys' were not top-end, elite, marquee names.

[hellborn]

Pete Rose was a holler guy. Bouton wrote that Rose hollered, "FU, Shakespeare!!!", at him.
I'm amazed that Pete knew who Shakespeare was!!!
He also hollered that Nolan Ryan should throw him the curve in a critical at bat, if he was so Fing proud of it...Ryan obliged him by walking him on four straight curves.

No player ever had his team #1 at all times, ever. Ruth wasn't going to let the Yanks (or his wife) get in the way of him really enjoying his life...Cobb surely wasn't thinking of his team when he attacked a fan in the stands, ensuring an ejection.

[yanks0714]

To say that Babe wanted to win more than anyone else is not to be criticized. Babe did have a deep, profound and abiding desire to help his team every single day, for years. But ultimately, to say such things merely shows one's passion for one's favorite.

How can one say that Babe wanted to win more than Eddie Collins did, or Honus Wagner did. Wagner let his team move him all over the field without complaining. So did Pete Rose.

Depending on one's favorite player, one could say that about Babe, Ty, Eddie, Honus, Pete or whoever else. Just shows our passion for our favorites. Cobb's desire bordered on almost being too competitive, too seriously-passionate. Almost turned a positive into a negative.

This is gonna get to you, Bill, so I apologize beforehand.

Cobb was more concerned with his own stats. He had a chance to hit for more power after 1920 and decided not to because it would hurt his average. That is pretty selfish to me as opposed to being a competitive team player.

[Bill Burgess]

This is gonna get to you, Bill, so I apologize beforehand.

Cobb was more concerned with his own stats. He had a chance to hit for more power after 1920 and decided not to because it would hurt his average. That is pretty selfish to me as opposed to being a competitive team player.
No need to apologize, old bean. I'm a big boy and can defend my opinions like an adult. Some times.

If a player is 'concerned with their own stats', and is honestly trying to post their very best stats, how can that not help the team to the very best of his ability?

It wasn't that Cobb had a chance to hit for power and passed on it. He believed that that way to play baseball was bad for his sport. He believed that it was not in the best interests of the game and truly believed that the pitchers were going to soon 'get Ruth's number'.

He also believed that to go for distance was a 'bastardization' of the game, and absolutely loathed it. As did a lot of others.

Was Collins selfish? Or Speaker? Or Roush? Or Wheat? None of them went for homers. Some members have believed that Speaker went for power but that is not true. He got 17 homers only one year and I forget the reason but it wasn't a change in Spoke's style.

I'd say that 80% of the players of the 20's refused to alter their styles, and do you honestly think that they were all 'selfish'.

And most of the managers of the 20's also hated the power game. Mack, McGraw, Collins, Gleason, Sisler, W. Johnson, Huggins all preferred the old-style running, tactical game. They did try to evolve and go with the modern game somewhat. Mack/McGraw, Huggins did what they could.

I think you've missed the ball on this one, Yanks. I once created a thread on just this subject.

http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=71064

[leecemark]

--There is a pretty obvious flaw in the poll for this thread. No option for someone who doesn't think Ruth is number 1.

[AstrosFan]

AKA Not another Babe Ruth thread.

***

Okay, I am going to make this very clear. The poll is only for people who rank Ruth as the greatest player of all time. It is designed to express varying degrees of Ruth's status as Number One. I do not want you to whine to me that there isn't an option for people who don't believe Ruth is the greatest, because that is not what this poll is about. If you are in the Ruth is not the greatest camp, but still wish to discuss the topic, that is fine. But don't complain to me that the poll options don't include something you can vote on. Sorry to sound so harsh, but I have experienced this kind of problem in the past with people who didn't understand what the poll was about.

Gee, Mark, everyone else got it.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

And that is not an especially hard question. Yes, Babe did want to win as much as Cobb, but Babe's desire to spend nights with women (pre-1929 when he married), caused him to break curfews, and not get his rest. His desire to experience food/drink also caused him to gain about 20 lbs. over his best playing weight, 1925-30. And more after that.


Great post Bill. This portion right here reminds me of an incident Ruth had with Miller. As usual Huggins was in the midst of blaming Ruth when the team lost, namely, saying the night life was the cause, and looking the other way when the team was winning. I don't need to tell you this was his M.O.

Anyway, Miller sat Ruth down and had a serious talk that seemed to sink in. Ruth listened and decided that he would try things Miller's way. He went hitless after going to bed early the night before. He gave it one more try. Got plenty of rest, showed up to the park and went hitless. After that, Ruth jumped ship on that idea. He went out, tied one on, got very little rest, showed up to the park and had a few hits including a homer. One of those things you can't really explain, but for Ruth, playing loose, and living big off the field seemed to translate to big things on the field.

My point...you might just lose part of Ruth the player if you attempt to alter Ruth the man. Cobb was the same way. People ask what if he was nicer. Why couldn't he be a better guy. Well, his personality, and the way in which he channeled his desire and aggression, led to stellar play. Why would we want that to change.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Was Collins selfish? Or Speaker? Or Roush? Or Wheat? None of them went for homers.

I'd say that 80% of the players of the 20's refused to alter their styles, and do you honestly think that they were all 'selfish'.

Actually Wheat's homers increased a bit even as he entered his mid 30s. Do you mean to say that about 80% of the deadballers who also played into the 20's, didn't radically alter their approach?



And most of the managers of the 20's also hated the power game. Mack, McGraw, Collins, Gleason, Sisler, W. Johnson, Huggins all preferred the old-style running, tactical game.

And many, many more. Which is why I don't put a lot of stock into those early polls. Tons of bias and lack of information regarding where value lies.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--There is a pretty obvious flaw in the poll for this thread. No option for someone who doesn't think Ruth is number 1.

Yes Mark, we know you don't have Ruth #1. You did at one point, but on the "Better Than the Babe" thread (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=22358&), you convinced yourself to move Mays ahead of him, in part, based on gems like this.


Ruth was not noted for his intellect or his dedication to the team. He was frequently suspended for failure to follow team rules. He was also famous for his inability to remember even the names of many of his teammates.

Too good.


He did hit some inside-the-park HR, but how many triples did he turn into outs trying for them? How many doubles turned into outs at third? That combined with his extreme baseclogging as an older player makes me think his career value on the basepaths was negative.

Yeah. Ten inside-the-park homers and 136 triples. Must have just been running around reckless. :rofl:

And that extreme base-clogging. Was it the 150 runs scored as a 35 year old, the 149 as a 36 year old, or the 120 as a 37 year old that helped form that fantasy?

[leecemark]

--That still gets under your skin a couple years later? You need to lighten up a little. Ruth is the consensus number one and a solid choice for it. That does not change the fact that everyone does not have him there, which is a false assumption made by this poll.

[Afterglow]

Yes Mark, we know you don't have Ruth #1. You did at one point, but on the "Better Than the Babe" thread (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=22358&), you convinced yourself to move Mays ahead of him, in part, based on gems like this

That thread makes me giggle. I will not show which post. Cause I do not want someone saying that I am calling a poster out. But I laughed when someone in that thread said that Ruth was the biggest sports draw during his time.

Babe Ruth. That's a very interesting way to spell Jack Dempsey.

But I am not argueing that. It's just that you brought the thread up.

I still think he is #1. I just don't think he is #1 by miles like some think.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

--That still gets under your skin a couple years later? You need to lighten up a little. Ruth is the consensus number one and a solid choice for it. That does not change the fact that everyone does not have him there, which is a false assumption made by this poll.

What is false about it. Look at the numbers and your correct all do not agree, what is the problem with the poll. Some have him higher some have him lower.

[leecemark]

--Every answer in the poll assumes Ruth is #1. They just ask how far ahead of everyone else he is. If you rank anyone else number one then none of the choices work for you.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

--There is a pretty obvious flaw in the poll for this thread. No option for someone who doesn't think Ruth is number 1.

If you read from the beginning, there is no flaw, it was some simple options. Only for people who rank Ruth as the greatest.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--That still gets under your skin a couple years later? You need to lighten up a little. Ruth is the consensus number one and a solid choice for it. That does not change the fact that everyone does not have him there, which is a false assumption made by this poll.

lol, doesn't "get under my skin" at all. Makes me chuckle to this day, actually.

You still don't get the purpose of this thread? Maybe you need to smarten up a little.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Babe Ruth. That's a very interesting way to spell Jack Dempsey.

Not like we need another Babe Ruth thread topic, but I'd be curious..if you were to start a poll...and had only those vote who have done enough research on both to form an educated opinion, what they would say. Who had more drawing power? Tough to compare a one man sport with a team game, but Ruth drew mobs everywhere he went, even in the off-season, on the streets, in restaurants, didn't matter. Towns nowhere near the most western of the MLB cities, would call a holiday, the town shutting down because Ruth was coming to play. Train stations packed to just catch a glimpse of him. One time a president showed up at a train station and was pleasantly surprised at a huge crowd. It was then explained to him that they weren't there to see him...Babe Ruth was expected shortly.

[Afterglow]

Not like we need another Babe Ruth thread topic, but I'd be curious..if you were to start a poll...and had only those vote who have done enough research on both to form an educated opinion, what they would say. Who had more drawing power? Tough to compare a one man sport with a team game, but Ruth drew mobs everywhere he went, even in the off-season, on the streets, in restaurants, didn't matter. Towns nowhere near the most western of the MLB cities, would call a holiday, the town shutting down because Ruth was coming to play. Train stations packed to just catch a glimpse of him. One time a president showed up at a train station and was pleasantly surprised at a huge crowd. It was then explained to him that they weren't there to see him...Babe Ruth was expected shortly.


Britney Spears draws huge crowds wherever she goes.

Better put her on that list too.

:)

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Anyway, Miller sat Ruth down and had a serious talk that seemed to sink in. Ruth listened and decided that he would try things Miller's way. He went hitless after going to bed early the night before. He gave it one more try. Got plenty of rest, showed up to the park and went hitless. After that, Ruth jumped ship on that idea. He went out, tied one on, got very little rest, showed up to the park and had a few hits including a homer. One of those things you can't really explain, but for Ruth, playing loose, and living big off the field seemed to translate to big things on the field.

My fault for posting from memory. I missed some details from that 1921 incident. Here's that story as Wagenheim tells it.

But Miller Huggins tried to persuade Ruth to tone down his lifestyle. "You've got this country goofy, Babe," he said, "but all this success may spoil you, ruin your career." He gently counseled him to go to bed earlier and watch what he ate and drank. If he took off twenty-five pounds and got proper rest, Huggins promised, "you'll hit even more home runs." Disarmed by his manager's paternal approach, the Babe promised to give it a try. He went to bed at nine that night and was hitless the next day. He did this three nights running, with the same result. Finally, he exploded one night in Detroit. Ping Bodie walked up to reporter Arthur Robinson, who traveled with the Yanks at the time, and said, "Come on, we're goin' out. The Babe is in an uproar. The panic's on." They went out, came back and played cards all night. In between, said Robinson, "the Babe ate probably fourteen sirloin and hamburger sandwiches with some odds and ends thrown in." The next day, after only two hours' sleep, he hit two homers, one of them over the center field scoreboard.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Britney Spears draws huge crowds wherever she goes.

Better put her on that list too.

:)

lol...says more about our society than her, I think.