Ty Cobb General Thread

[Bill Burgess]

Friends All,

I'd like to have a thread where I can ruminate, move around and mix it up on Ty Cobb stuff. There are things yet, that are probably not common knowledge on this strangest of all sports stars.

Did Ty Cobb Once Fix a Game?

Every once in a while, in baseball discussion groups, one is asked, "Didn't Cobb once fix a game?", or "Wasn't Ty accused of throwing a game?" And I was recently asked about the Leonard/Cobb/Speaker controversy. This was one of the traumas of Cobb's career. Although he & Speaker were totally exonerated by Judge Landis, there remained many critics, who sneered that Landis had looked past their "misdeeds". Allow me to give my understanding here. You will find no whitewash here.


Dutch Leonard had been a good pitcher in the AL. Boston, '13-18, and Detroit, '19-21, '24-25. In '14 he had an ERA of 0.96 for 224 innings, and 19-5. Of course, he had Speaker, Hooper & Lewis performing their circus catches in the OF, to make the whole staff look real good, but still 0.96 IS startling! By '25, he was on Cobb's Detroit staff, and not getting along with his manager. He rep was that he ducked the good teams and loaded up on the weak sisters. Cobb's lost it when Leonard refused to take the mound when ordered to, to help the team. So Cobb put him on the market, for $7,500., and no one claimed him. So he passed out of the league. And he blamed Cobb and also Speaker who he hoped would pick up his waiver. Speaker had been his teammate and friend on the '13-15 Red Sox. But Tris passed on him. There is no doubt in my mind that Tris would have called Cobb and gotten Ty's version of why he was trying to unload Dutch. Dutch burned with frustration and held Ty & Tris responsible for railroading him out of the league and his career. He was only 33 yrs. old. He withdrew to his home in Fresno, California.

In May, 1926, Dutch came East and contacted the office of the Tigers and informed Detroit owner, Frank Joseph Navin, that he held proof that Ty & Tris had fixed and bet on a game, played on Sept. 25, 1919. He contacted Ban Johnson's office as well. After traveling back and forth, Navin & Johnson, believed Leonard's story, and agreed to buy him off for $20,000, the amount that Leonard believed that Detroit owed him. So, Dutch surrendered his 2 letters to them. They, in turn, notified Judge Landis of the events, as a courtesy.

Next, Johnson contacted the 2 players and called them into his office. Cobb and Speaker denied the charges and Johnson totally thought they were lying. He told them they had to quit. On Nov. 2, Ty left a letter of resignation at Navin's office. The next day he boarded a train and left for Atlanta, where he told the press that he had resigned. On Nov. 29, 1926, Speaker's resignation was announced, with no explanation given. The BB world buzzed and wondered what was going on. In the meantime, 2 newspapers had gotten wind of the controversy, and threatened to publish what they had. Judge Landis had conducted his own investigation. Dutch refused to come back to Chicago, saying pople "got bumped off there", so Landis went to Cal. He bided his time for the moment. By this time, Cobb & Speaker, who originally had acquiesced to being coerced into the railroad to keep the story from breaking in the national media, now realizing that the story was going to break anyway, changed their minds and decided to fight the charges. They hired attorneys and began commencing their legal defense in tandem. They demanded that Landis release whatever he had.

That, on top of the 2 newspapers giving him a deadline to announce everything, forced his hand, and he made the announcement on Dec. 21, 1926. What a jolt that was to the BB community!!

Leonard's Accusation
Before he could rule on that case, another case exploded in his face. So he dealt with another big scandal before he got back to the Leonard/Cobb case.
Where Leonard had accused the others (and himself) of fixing the game in question, he had no evidence outside of his word, that there had been a plan to pre-arrange the results of the game. His only evidence, the 2 letters, strangely never referred in any way to a fix. They only referred to betting.
Leonard's accusation was based on his hope that people would assume that where there is smoke, there is fire. This was his basic charge.


Dutch accusation was based on the hope that people would assume that if there was evidence of betting, then the betters probably fixed the results.
So, that was Dutch Leonard's thinking, and the entire premise of the accusation. Betting was beyond question. Fix? His word against 2 teams.
The day before the game in question, Cleveland had clinched 2nd place for the '19 season. On the day of the game in question, Leonard was talking under the grandstand with Joe Wood and Tris Speaker, and they plotted to fix the game for Detroit to win. Just then, according to Leonard, Cobb came along, joined the conversation and agreed to plan for Detroit to win, and they all agreed to bet $2,000. on the game. That was Dutch Leonard's accusation. The only thing missing is that he had no evidence of anything, except his own word, along with 2 letters, which spoke clearly of a bet, but not on what the bet was based on. It could have been a bet about anything. And he had no evidence whatsoever of any fixing of anything. So, Dutch was desperately hoping that others would make assumptions, and draw conclusions based on his version of events.

By January 27, 1927, Landis had finally dealt with & gotten clear of the other scandal, and he announced his verdict in the Leonard/Cobb affair. He said that he could not find any proof of any fix at all. He exonerated both Cobb & Speaker, completely. He implied that they had bet, when he said that what they had done was inappropriate & reprehensible, but not corrupt.

Landis vs. Johnson
There were so many sub-plots going on. Ban Johnson had tried to coerce both players out of his league. He said neither would play in the AL ever again. And when he did that, he didn't know it, but he saved them. Because it was a pre-ordained forgone conclusion, that whatever he proclaimed, was sure to be reversed by Landis. Landis ordered both men restored to their teams, which instantly gave them their unconditional releases, making them free agents. Ban Johnson's handling of this affair was so shockingly incompetent, that the other owners voted him out of office.

It ended his career. He had stated that he knew they were innocent of any wrongdoing, but had to be sacrificed due to appearances. Ban, the Autocrat, never reticent at flexing his authority, took the draconian extreme of quietly muscling Baseball's 2 most glittering superstars out of BB. And therein lay his self-created, well-deserved downfall. For he was running up against Baseball equivalent of a brick wall. One who was easily his equal as an arbitrary, autocratic, authoritarian power broker. Judge Landis. For whatever Johnson was to decree, Landis was pre-ordained to undecree. So, it's very fortunate that Johnson tried to coerce them out of BB, without the approval of Landis.

Here is my personal take. When Cleveland clinched 2nd place, they intended to break training and carouse late into the wee hours. Wood told this to Leonard, and they both felt it would be an opportunity to cash in, due to Cleveland being ill-prepared to contest the next day's battle at full strength. Cobb also felt no big deal in betting. Although he always claimed to not having bet, I don't believe him. I believe he bet.

I believe that Speaker may or may not have had anything to do with anything. But Joe Wood, his best friend and team mate did accuse Tris & Ty of having put up part of the betting money. Leonard lied about everything except the bet. So, Speaker involvement, if any, isn't clear-cut. But Wood's accusation, in conjunction with Leonard's does look as if it tips the balance in favor of Tris betting against his own team. Which, if true, would look more damaging than Cob betting on his own team to win. But Joe Wood's statements in his Lawrence Ritter interview's is inconsistent.

In his letter to Leonard, he wrote that Cobb told him he didn't bet, and that he believed him. However, in his Ritter interview, he says that both "Cobb & Speaker had put up some of this money to make the bet". So, if they had, and Wood was the one holding the betting money, he would have known this before he wrote his letter to Leonard, in which he seems NOT to have known, whether Cobb put up money.

So, Joe Wood impeaches himself somewhat here. And that is death as a credible witness. So, due to this inconsistency in Wood's statements, I consider Speaker's involvement as unclear & questionable.

Furthermore, at that moment, BB had no rule against betting. So no rule was broken. No fix was ever thought of. And Cobb, not being the manager, was in no position to direct Tiger pitching. In '19, Cobb was just another player on Detroit, albeit their supreme star.

So, I don't believe there ever was an attempt to fix a game, only bet on one, upon hearing that the Indians were going to party long into the night. And no rule was broken. Leonard took the $20,000. he got for selling his letters, and started a grape vineyard in Fresno, Cal. and became a millionaire by selling wine. But he died early in life, July 11, 1952, at the age of 60. These are the main events. Charles Alexander gives a concise account of this controversy in his book, Ty Cobb, in the chapter, "Is there any decency left on Earth?", pp. 185-194.

But Landis' problem with that was the simple fact that they had broken no BB law, rule, regulation, whatever. He had no nail on which to hang them, so to speak, even if he had wanted to. Which he clearly didn't want to. Landis had been a lawyer, before he became a Federal judge, and he thought in legal terms. And he realized that he had nothing. No club with which to bludgeon them with. But his problem went much deeper than legalities.

Judge Landis actually liked both Cobb & Speaker. And he loved the institution of baseball. All the way. In 1915, he had told the Federal League that he would not look kindly upon anything that harmed the institution of baseball. He opposed the Federal League because he mistakenly thought that it was, for some reason, an "outlaw" league. Apparently, he had forgotten that the American League, in 1901, was once an "outlaw" organization, according to the National League. While he had been wrong in his opposition to the Federal L. in '15, he was right about Cobb/Speaker in Dec., '26.

He knew that to hurt them would harm BB. And he would never have done that unless he believed in his heart that they had done something to truly betray or sell out BB. Judge Landis "looked past" nothing. It wasn't in his character to protect anyone who betrayed BB. And even though he did really love and admire Speaker & Cobb, that wouldn't have saved them, if Landis had believed them to have been corrupt. He liked them but he loved BB more.

And what did Landis really have anyway. The word of a man, who had motive to lie. HUGE motive to lie. So much motive, that he incriminated himself to bring down the objects of his hatred. And his letters, if true, should have mentioned a fix. But they didn't.

An item I haven't mentioned here, it that this bombshell, had caused huge headlines across the land. And it was all pro-players, and anti- Navin, Johnson & Landis. Landis may have been high-handed and arbitrary in his rulings before and after, but he wasn't a fool or stupid. He probably knew that if he expelled the biggest stars, without good reason, he would have harmed BB in a way that was unacceptable to him.

And lest we forget. To hurt Cobb & Speaker, would have supported Ban Johnson, who had given the 2 players the back of his ungrateful hand.
Landis and & Johnson had nothing but utter contempt for each other. The most helpful thing Johnson did for Speaker and Cobb was to announce that neither would ever play in his league ever again. And therein laid their salvation! Landis was not about to let that stand. In some ways, it appeared as if both Johnson & Landis treated this incident as a canvas on which to play out their personal power struggle for who ruled baseball, than about the fates of 2 superstars. And the proof of that, is when McGraw tried to sign Ty, Landis wrote him, "Lay off Cobb." Landis was totally in earnest about rubbing Johnson's nose in it. He insisted that they be returned to their teams' reserve lists.

Ultimately, Landis comes out looking much more credible than Johnson. Landis, at least called in 2 entire teams, and questions them as to whether or not the game in question had been played on the up & up. Johnson did almost nothing. Johnson's private detectives would not be able to inform him on whether or not the game was fixed. Did Johnson care? Apparently not a whit.

I personally believe that what Ty, Joe and Dutch did was very wrong and should not have been done. It was tasteless, class-less, inappropriate, reprehensible, lamentable, regrettable, unethical, immoral, unprincipled, etc. But not illegal, criminal or corrupt. They tried to turn a quick buck over inside information. Similar to insider trading today. Like Martha Stewart. One should not try to take advantage, profit, or cash in on highly classified, inside, secret information. I would not have fined or suspended them, since they technically broke no rule. Shameful as it was, it would be also wrong to enforce retroactively a rule which didn't exist yet. I believe in the subsequent rule against betting on baseball, regardless if it's for or against your team. Pete Rose did wrong. There SHOULD have been a rule against betting in Ty's time.

But John McGraw OWNED a gambling casino in Havana. Hornsby was betting on horses every day at the track. Cap Anson had been a betting man. In fact, Landis had once called Hornsby into his office and demanded that he stay away from the track and horses and Hornsby told him his betting on horses was none of his business and to go to hell. Landis backed down. What else could he do? Rogers was quite right, morally and legally. Morally, Landis was not a stickler for morality. Every day he served as Commissioner, he looked the other way at the owners' gentlemen's agreement not to allow blacks into the MLs. So he wasn't a stickler on moral issues.

Ty & Tris were initially cowed by Ban Johnson, who sat there behind his big desk, and smugly read them their "Miranda rights". They were probably shocked and embarrassed and furious that Johnson refused to believe them. Johnson gave them an ultimatum. Quit quietly and we'll keep this all hush-hush, and no one will know. Who will believe you after seeing these letters? The riot act worked. Ty & Tris were bluffed into going quietly into the night. Or so it appeared for a short while. But not for long. Because once 2 newspapers caught wind of the story, they threatened Landis that they'd break the story if he didn't. And they gave him a deadline to announce whatever he had. One of them was the Chicago Tribune.

Back to controversy. Later, when the sports community lined up behind Cobb & Speaker, Ban Johnson put out this fantastic message at a press conference in Chicago, IL, Jan. 17, 1927;

"I don't believe Ty Cobb ever played a dishonest game in his life. If that is the exoneration he seeks, I gladly give it to him. But it is from Landis that Cobb should seek an explanation. The American League ousted Cobb, but it was Landis who broadcast the story of his mistakes.

I love Ty Cobb. I never knew a finer player. I don't think he's been a good manager, and I have had to strap him as a father straps an unruly boy. But I know Ty Cobb's not a crooked ball player. We let him go because he had written a peculiar letter about a betting deal that he couldn't explain and because I felt that he violated a position of trust.

Tris Speaker is a different type of fellow. For want of a better word I'd call Tris cute. He knows why he was forced out of the management of the Cleveland club. If he wants me to tell him I'll meet him in a court of law and tell the facts under oath.

The American League is a business. When our directors found two employees whom they didn't think were serving them right they had to let them go. Now isn't that enough? As long as I'm President of the American League neither one of them will manage or play on our teams."

"I have men working for me, on my personal payroll, whose business it is to report on the conduct of our ball players. We don't want players betting on horse races or ball games while they're playing. We don't want players willing to lay down to another team either for friendship or money. That's why I get these reports. This data belongs to me, and not to Landis. The American League gave Landis enough to show why Cobb and Speaker were no longer wanted by us. That's all we needed to give him. I have reports on Speaker which Landis never will get unless we go to court.

"Judge Landis need not worry over the correctness of that interview. I made that statement then, I'm making it again, and I'll make it when he calls me Monday.

"I only hope he holds an open meeting. I want the public to know what the American League did and what Landis did.

"I sent a detective to watch the conduct of the Cleveland club two years ago. I learned from him by whom bets were made on horse races and ball games. I learned who was taking the money for the bets. I learned the names of the bookmakers who accepted the wagers and how much money was won or lost. I was gathering the evidence. Now, I watched Ty Cobb, too. I watched him not because I thought he was crooked, but because I thought he was a bad manager. Frequently, I have called him down. I gave Ty an interview just before he went on his hunting trip last Fall. He talked to me for two hours. He was heart-broken and maintained his innocence in that alleged betting deal which his letter tells about. I told him that whether guilty or not, he was through in the American League. I didn't think he played fair with his employers or with me. The actual facts which caused this whole explosion came to me early last Summer.

"Dutch Leonard had a claim against the Detroit Club. He threatened to sue for damages. He asserted that he had sworn statements of five men stating that Cobb had declared he would drive Leonard out of baseball. Ty always has been violent in his likes and dislikes. Those statements of his, if carried to court, would have been damaging to the Detroit Club. Frank Navin, the owner, also faced the possibility that, should he refuse to settle with Leonard, the latter would sell two letters, One, of course, was that one written by Cobb, and the other was that letter of Joe Wood.

"You know the contents. Both indicate knowledge on the part of the writers of a plan to bet on a framed ball game. Cob denies he bet, and I don't think he did. I say again I think Ty is honest. But as he couldn't explain the letter satisfactorily, it was a damaging document. So on that letter alone the American League would have been forced to let Cobb go. Now Speaker was implicated in the deal by statements by Leonard. I also have the data of my detective. I called a meeting of the directors of my league. My own illness and the pressure of their business delayed the meeting until Sept. 9, 1926. We met in a prominent Chicago club. We wanted secrecy, not because it meant anything to us but because we felt we should protect Cobb and Speaker as much as we could. They had done a lot for baseball. We had to let them out, but we saw no reason for bringing embarrassment upon their families. We wanted to be decent about it. The directors voted to turn the results of the Leonard investigation over to Landis. We did that in compliment to him, not to pass the buck. We had acted. We thought he ought to know about it.

When Landis released that testimony and those letters, I was amazed. I couldn't fathom his motive. The only thing I could see behind that move was a desire for personal publicity. I'll tell him that when I take the witness stand. The American League is a business. It is a semi-public business to be sure, and we try to keep faith with the public. Certainly we had the right to let two employees go if we felt that they had violated a trust.

But Landis had no right to release the Leonard charges. He had taken no part in the ousting of the two men. It was purely a league, not an inter-league matter, and there was nothing to be gained by telling the world that we felt Cobb and Speaker had made mistakes which made them unwelcome employees. When I take the stand Monday I may tell the whole story of my relationship with the Judge. If he wants to know when I lost faith in him I'll tell him this. When the Black Sox scandal broke the American League voted to prosecute the crooked players. Landis received the job. After several months had passed I asked him what he was doing, and he replied: 'Nothing'. I took the case away from him, prosecuted it with the funds of the American League and never asked him for help. I had decided he didn't want to cooperate. My second break with Landis came over a financial matter. I do not care to discuss it now, but I will tell about it Monday, if he wants him to. This statement of mine probably means a new fight with Landis. But he has chosen to make the public think the American League passed the buck to him on the Speaker and Cobb case. That's not true, and I don't intend to let the public keep on thinking that way.

Johnson also said that his observations of the Cleveland club showed that players as late as 1925 were continually betting on horse racing during the baseball season. One report, Johnson said, details the story of a pool by the players that netted a profit of $4,200. We have no objections to players attending horse races," Johnson said. "We do object to them betting on races while they are supposed to be giving their best efforts to the baseball games." End of press conference. (New York Times, Jan. 18, 1927, pp. 18, "Johnson Accepts Landis Challenge")

And more self-contradictory, convoluted, hypocritical garbage has not been seen in this part of the world until recently. And if good luck holds . . .

Bottom line. Johnson was perfectly willing to sacrifice 2 of America's heroes due to appearances. Well, America wasn't, and let him know in no uncertain terms!

All throughout the country, since the first announcements were made, support for the 2 players came from every spectrum of the BB community.
On Dec. 23, Dan Howley went on record with this statement. "I would stake my life on Cobb's integrity, and the same goes for Tris Speaker. Dan had been a coach with the Tigers from 1919-22, & room mates with Dutch Leonard on the road for 2 years.

President Navin also showed himself to not be up to handling anything but bookkeeping with aplomb or finesse. He actually came out and stated that the reason for his releasing of Cobb as player and manager was due to his bad managing of the team, and that 11 Tigers had come to him and asked to be traded. Sports writers were taken aback at this news. One said that if that were the case, there were a few other managers that were due to be publicly hung in a town square. Detroit President Frank Joseph Navin's handling of the whole affair smacked of such Machiavellian machinations of such epic proportions, that's it's a wonder that the Tigers' fans allowed him to continue to own the team, so crude was his incompetence. President Navin may have been many things. A competent keeper of books & records. Raised frugality in investing in his team to an artistic high. But as an adept, adroit manager of a difficult human situation, he was lost, out to sea, over his head, and out of his sedentary element. His bumbling, unctuous, supercilious, pedantic, crude manner of conducting this tricky, delicate circumstance left him bewildered, annoyed and at a loss as what to do.

I also have 4 CDs of the Glory of their Times. The CDs give many little tid-bits, such as this discourse on the Cobb/Speaker/Leonard affair, which never made it into the book, incredibly! One of the men interviewed was Joe Wood, who gave good inside details. He burns Leonard pretty good. When interviewer Lawrence Ritter tells him about Ty coming clean in his autobiography, Woods acts very surprised. Here is what he has to say, I'm transcribing the tape here;

Ritter: "The other book I read was a biography by, uh, Ty Cobb, and at the end of the book, he has a whole section, and it was all news to me, on some mess-up, with him, you, and Tris Speaker & Dutch Leonard. Would you tell me what that was all about?

Wood: "I will. I'm not going to tell you details, because I wouldn't tell you too much about this thing because it stinks. When Dutch Leonard got through in Detroit, Cobb was manager. And for that reason he had a gripe against Cobb, and then he wanted Speaker to take him on over in Cleveland, & Spoke wouldn't take him on. For that reason he got sore at both of them. Well, in '20, there was a dispute over some betting, & in order to get even, Leonard claimed this & that, and so on, and, there was a bet placed on the ballgame, but it wasn't against our club, it was on our club. I was the guy who bet the . . . I had charge of the money. Well, I handled this through a gate tender, in Detroit, who contacted the bookies, and the money was bet, the money was collected, & this little son-of-a-gun come down, I know him very well, this gate tender, & brought this money down to the train as we were leaving Detroit, and I gave him, after keeping equal splits, for 3 fellas, I gave him, the extra money, which amounted to about $30. or $40. bucks, for placing the bet. This was just the same as betting on a prize fight or anything else. We bet on ourselves. There was nothing crooked about it on our part.

Ritter: "How often did teams bet on themselves?

Wood: "Never! Never, that's the only bet I ever made in my life. And just because someone else wanted to bet on it & I handled the money. But this thing in '20 (Black Sox scandal), it wasn't exactly on the up & up, I have to admit that. Because I knew from what Cicotte had told me in Cleveland that the White Sox didn't dare win. But I didn't know through a couple of other fellas on the Detroit ballclub that they weren't going to play their heads off trying to beat us. I'm not saying that they were going to lay down and give us the game, (garbled).

Well anyhow, I knew that the White Sox didn't dare win that year. And this got back to Landis, and he had a letter that I had written, and, uh, Landis called me over to New York says, 'You write that letter', I said I sure did, there was my name on it, and Leonard had black-mailed Navin in Detroit for so much for that letter, and he still kept copies of it, & then he went ahead and tried to black-mail, I don't know how the hell he, small amount of money somebody out there, by going after Cobb & spilling this whole story. Which was true. I was at a World Series, with Landis down in NY & he says, I know Landis very well, Judge says, 'We gonna have any trouble over this thing, Joe', I said 'I don't think so'. 'You let me know and if ya do, I'll come make a trip up to New Haven.'

Ritter: "What was the letter you wrote?"

Wood: "Leonard. Here he kept this letter that I had written him, after I got home here one winter, I wrote him, out in Fresno, a letter, same as I write to my brother, I trusted him, I wrote him this letter, he kept it & cashed in on it. I understand he got $12-15,000. the 1st from Navin in Detroit, then they closed it for awhile and came out with it again. And he kept the letter through all of that.

Ritter: "The letter had that much dynamite in it?"

Wood: "Yeah. The letter quoted me the amount of money was bet, his share was enclosed in the letter. I loaned that son-of-a-bitch $200. to buy his 1st motor-cycle in Boston when he 1st joined us. And he made the crack that he didn't mind what he was doing to Cobb and Speaker but he hated to hurt Woodie. But never the less he did it. That dirty little son-of-a bitch of a Leonard. He died a millionaire, but he died young (60). A great little pitcher too. But he was a 1st class . . . crook.

Ritter: "How did Speaker & Cobb get involved on it?

Wood: "Cobb & Speaker put up some of this money to make the bet. And Leonard broadcast this thing, because Cobb let him go, and Speaker wouldn't take him on.

Ritter: "Is it for this reason that both Cobb and Speaker left their jobs at Cleveland & Detroit?

Wood: "Yeah, yeah. But they didn't get out of baseball. They went to the Athletics. I'd like to see what Cobb had to say about it, because (garbled). They got together with an attorney in Detroit, my greatest friend, Spoke & Cobb, and they got a bunch of stuff written up, type-written & deposited in a vault in a bank in Cleveland, & if they'd a chased Cobb & Speaker outta baseball this would'a all come out.

Ritter: "Cobb has a whole chapter on it. He doesn't hide it at all.
Wood: "Well, he didn't hide some of it. But he doesn't tell it as it was, I'll bet you a million dollars. I don't think Cobb could afford that to tell the story. Cause I know the story. I never told that to a soul in my life. I haven't even told it to my . . . brother. Well I didn't tell you anything that wasn't straight & on the level, I'll tell you that. That's one reason why this thing did really hurt me. It's the first and only accusation in my life that I ever had against me, that I know of."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

So that's Joe Wood talking to Lawrence Stanley Ritter, famed author of The Glory of Their Times, 1966. This interview was taken on October 1, 1965.

Larry Ritter passed away Feb. 15, 2004, at the age of 84, at his Manhattan apt. after a series of strokes. I had corresponded with him once. He said Babe Ruth was the Greatest Player. He only made $35K on the book, because he shared his royalties with those he interviewed.

Lawrence Stanley Ritter May 23, 1922 - 2004, Feb.15, age 81, Died, NYC; BB author: Main claim to fame - his superb book, "The Glory of Their Times".
He took the title from the passage in Biblical Ecclesiastics: "All these were honored in their generations and were the glory of their times." Grad. Indiana U. , Doctorate from Wisconsin. Also wrote text for "The Babe: A Life in Pictures", with Mark Rucker (1988).

After Ty Cobb died in 1961, Lawrence traveled 75,000 around the country with a reel-to-reel tape recorder, and interviewed 22 ballplayers from Ty's era. He made only about $35,000 profit from around 360,000 book sales, due to his sharing his royalties with those players he interviewed. He turned the original tapes over to the BB Hall of Fame. They are now available in excerpt form in CD or tape cassette format. Professor of Finance and Economics at NYC for 30 yrs. "I don't like the players, I don't like the umpires, I don't like the owners, but I love the game." Interested in BB since 1931. d. at his Manhattan apt., after a series of strokes.

What did Joe Wood mean when he said, "Well, he didn't hide some of it. But he doesn't tell it as it was, I'll bet you a million dollars. I don't think Cobb could afford that to tell the story. Cause I know the story. I never told that to a soul in my life."?

Simply put, here is my interpretation of what Wood referred to. Ty Cobb went to his grave insisting that he had never made the bet. I think he did.
I believe he lied. And that is what I believe Joe Wood referred to. That Ty did indeed make the bet.

I sincerely believe that there are some things which people can not find the intestinal fortitude to face up to. OJ will never cop. Bill Clinton lied for a long time.

There are some things perhaps which Ty couldn't face. Perhaps he felt that the act of betting was so heinous that he believed no one would have forgiven him. Who knows? But I believe he bet, Joe Wood insinuates that too, so that's what I believe happened.

What do I think Joe Wood meant? I don't think a fix was possible for obvious reasons. Landis had called in both teams, all of them. And grilled them. It was Leonard's word against the word of almost 50 other men. Landis had specifically asked each and every man on both the Tigers and Cleveland if the game was on the up & up and square, and everyone agreed it was. They also were asked if anyone had ever known or heard of a single case where Cobb did anything wrong or suspect. And unbelievably not a single player could think of anything. And Ty had plenty of guys pissed at him.

Risberg actually went so far as to say that he thought Cobb was the greatest and most honest player in the MLs. Quite a thing to say about an enemy player.

Upon reflection on Ty and his bet, I realize that that was what he meant when he said in one of the letters. "It was quite a responsibility and I don't care for it again, I can assure you."

He then tells how he was too late to place the bet. He was even too ashamed to tell Joe Wood! He must have felt such guilt over this one small act, that he suffered guilt pangs the rest of his life.

He even kept up the cover-up in his book with Stump. Why such undue and unseemly extremes over such a minor act, for which he broke no rules? I think it is answered because he went against his conscious. He was many things unpleasant, but he was not dishonest. His upbringing was southern, which was very much akin to Japan, entirely based on a very middle ages morality based on a perverted, deformed sense of "Honor". They would rather commit suicide rather than lose their "honor". How weirdly feudal. Very, very strange, and it made Cobb look strange by extension.

For many years, I believed that Ty didn't place the bet. Mostly because Joe Wood said in his letter to Dutch Leonard that Ty had claimed to him (Wood) that he hadn't arrived in time to get his bet placed. So I thought that was convincing. But I've changed my mind based on the following 3 statements, which I don't feel are the statements of a person in the consciousness of innocence.

1. Ty Cobb - "It was quite a responsibility and I don't care for it again, I can assure you." From Joe Wood's letter to Dutch Leonard.

2. Joe Wood - "Well, he didn't hide some of it. But he doesn't tell it as it was, I'll bet you a million dollars. I don't think Cobb could afford that to tell the story. Cause I know the story. I never told that to a soul in my life. I haven't even told it to my . . . brother. Joe Wood talking in interview with Lawrence Ritter in 1965.

3. JG Taylor Spink - "Ty Refuses To Discuss Incident - From time to time, this old canard has come up in print. It did a few years ago. I wrote Ty and asked him for comment. "Taylor, even to the most wonderful friend I have in the world, which you are," he wrote, "my lips are still sealed on this matter. This is an honor thing with me," he went on. "It is just too distasteful to talk about. I think it is too late now to stir up things. Most of the people involved are now dead. It almost killed me to suffer such dishonor in a game which I loved so much and to which I think I gave so much. I admit the whole thing rankles me and I talk too much. Some day I'll tell the story which has some twists which would intrigue even your reportorial heart, but not now."

That was enough for me. I never pressed the issue. Had Ty maintained his health, I'm sure he would have talked, but even then, he was going downhill. That letter, written Dec. 27, 1958, was in wavering handwriting. (end of quote by JG Taylor Spink) (Sporting News, Dec. 20, 1961, pp. 12, column 5)
Ty was also inaccurate in that not all had died. In '58, Leonard & Wood were still alive. Ban Johnson, Landis, Navin & Speaker had passed.

So the above are the reasons I've changed my mind as to whether Ty bet on the game. Ty's quote, Wood was his great friend, Spink was more like his brother than his best friend. Ty's quote is just not compatible with that of someone who was merely a non-participating conduit of information. Joe Wood's quote, 4 yrs. after Ty died, indicates that something was hidden. Wood did say that Ty put up money.

Ty's refusal to confide in JG Taylor Spink, his best friend, bears a word or two. Who was Spink to Ty? Spink had inherited The Sporting News in 1914, after his father, Charles Claude Spink died. In 1914, Ty bestrode the Baseball firmament, like a bejeweled, Oriental conqueror. An unstoppable force. Like a Terminator, who's breached the outer defense perimeter.

So when Taylor Spink became the owner & editor-in-chief, of Sporting News, oh, how Cobb strode & conquered. And it is always to your advantage to be on the inside track, and hopefully an intimate friend, of the best player in the Land. And this Spink set out to do with Ty.

And to the best player of a sport, it is also to your great advantage, to have as your allies, and hopefully your own best buddies, those best-positioned strategically to help your career. And this, Taylor Spink, obviously was. His newspaper was the most influential, all-important sports newspaper that ever existed. Especially so, for Baseball. Which it billed itself as "The Bible of the Sport". Taylor Spink considered his good friend, Ty Cobb, to be the best & greatest ballplayer who ever lived, as almost all of his generation did.

Babe Ruth? Spink, like the rest of his peers, considered the Babe to be the sport's greatest slugger, and it's most powerful drawing card, but a specialist, even considering his pitching. Never to be compared to Ty Cobb as an all-around complete player.

And down through the decades, the 30's, 40's, 50's, JG Taylor Spink looked out for his friend, Ty's interests in TSN. Always keeping his name in the news. Twice having Harry Salsinger, doing 15-20 part retrospectives on Ty's career. Always interviewing players from the 1800's to 1930's. Always asking for their all-time teams. Always finishing the interviews with, "Who's your greatest player?" Which was the approved, historically correct way to conduct an interview.

Thanks to him, we have all that great historical content. We'd be much the poorer, if not for JG Taylor Spink's phenomenal work. So when Ty refused an accommodation to his closest friend in the world, in the most private of all communicadi, the mail, one must wonder why. What was he afraid of? His friend, although a newsman, a publisher, would never have betrayed him, or given him up to his enemies.

And yet Cob held back. Couldn't bring himself to reveal his innermost thoughts to his virtual brother. And this speaks volumes, as to his pain, and his guilt. He could have merely lied to cover up. Yet, his personal code forbade his lying to his closest friend & ally in all the world. He still just couldn't bring himself to face his over-whelming sense of guilt at having done such a minor wrong. As he saw it. To those who are his enemies, & attack him as unprincipled. Look at his guilt at betting on a game a single time in his life.
Correction. He claimed to Judge Landis that he bet on one of the 1919 World Series games. And lost. His usual business acumen cannot be faulted in that particular case!! So this is one of the main reasons, I've come to believe, right or wrong, that Ty did indeed bet on that game in question.

In Summation:
Spink's quote in 1961, was only a yr. before his own death. He referred to a 1958 letter. I find it odd, if Ty didn't bet, why he felt so uncomfortable, almost 40 yrs. later, confiding in his very best friend, during private correspondence, almost to a brother, that he didn't place a bet. That is just strange, if he were non-participating. Even though there had been no rule against it, Ty's sense of integrity was so highly-principled, that I believed that he suffered great guilt & angst over this minor incident.

His southern upbringing was so based on feudal honor, like Japan's, that he must have felt that he might have brought dishonor to his family name, which he took so seriously. His personal code was so self-condemning whenever he went against his conscious, that he never forgave himself, and believed that no one else should have either. Strange are the ways of feudal honor & morality. And then again, possibly he didn't bet, and simply suffered like hell, upon being accused of being dishonorable. Anything is possible, but I feel the preponderance of the scant evidence points more strongly to the former possibility.

Although originally I had not intended to include some of the sub-plots, I've decided to add on what I had, for the sake of full disclosure.

Meanwhile, over in Detroit, idiot Navin was similarly covering himself in ludicrosity. As soon as Cobb was restored to his teams list, he instantly gave him his release and declared him a free agent. Between them, Navin and Johnson made so many half-ass crazy comments it's hard to believe.
Navin came out with, "I fired him, not because I thought he did anything wrong or dishonest, but because he failed as a manager. He couldn't win and during the year 11 of our players came to me and asked to be traded because of him."

What nerve!!! Navin had made only 2 sizable investments in the team since '21. Cobb was playing with 6th and 7th place material and coming in 2nd once, 3rd twice in his 6 yrs. managing. The lying sack of hypocritical fresh manure!! Cobb couldn't win with an owner who sand-bagged him. After the '24 season, Ty's 4th, where he brought the Tigers in 3rd, 6 games back, after having been in the thick of it all year, no less an authority than Christy Mathewson, named a all star team for the year, A and B. And he named Ty Cobb as the manager of the B team. As well he should, for Ty's warriors had beaten Ruppert's Yankees, 13-9 on the year. And Babe had had one of his very finest seasons and won the league MVP.

So, Navin was speaking through his anus, as usual for him. Cobb had done his job, and did it with almost no help from his management. Why he was fired was probably his $50K per annum. After Ty's firing, whenever those 2 would pass each other in a corridor, they'd each snarl, "I made you rich!" at each other. And the comment was much more credible coming from Ty, than vica versa.

As for Johnson, NY Times sports writer John Kieran wrote this on Jan. 22, 1927. "The AL owners tried a muzzle on Johnson and it didn't fit. This time they may try a catapult."

So, if no bet was laid, where's the case? Frankly, I believe that Ty DID lay down a bet, and was smart enough to lie to Joe Wood. Either way, he broke no rule and there was simply no legal case against him. I, however, do hold him responsible for doing an immoral, reprehensible, and cheesy act. I think he did wrong, and shouldn't have. But ban him from the game? For a single asinine, ignorant error of judgment? After a lifetime of desperately honest labor? Is someone insane? He made a error of judgment, and boy did he pay through the nose. More than he ever deserved.

Landis had heard for 30 days from all across America. The baseball public was so solidly behind Cobb and Speaker, that I feel Landis felt, he had no choice. High-handed & arbitrary though he was, he wasn't stupid. And he realized that there was no legal basis on which to expel either super-star. Not that he needed one. He was the Czar. But he also had his finger to the wind of BB's public opinion. And it was in no way, shape or form, divided. It was rock solid across the board - Pro-players. But most of all, he was intensely aware of there having been no BB rule against betting. And Joe Wood's letter claimed that Cobb had claimed he didn't bet. And the letter states that Wood believed him. That right there was enough to exonerate Cobb in a court of law, in a possible defamation case against BB. So, legal thinking Landis didn't fear much, but one of the few things he would have feared is losing a court case for huge bucks. For a former judge, that would have been the ultimate humiliation.

His evidence stunk. It would have been a case of one man's word against the word of not only Cobb & Speaker, but the entire teams of Detroit &
Cleveland. The accuser had huge motive to lie, and the defendants were hugely popular BB royalty of the highest caliber. All in all, a real legal dog of a losing case. Landis saw the writing on the wall. And then there was the sweet prospect of letting Johnson remember his place on BB's totem pole.

If in terms of arbitrary, authoritarian arrogance, if Johnson was Attila, Landis was Genghis Khan. And one was preparing to show the BB world who was at the top of BB's food chain. If there were to be any summary executions at the grand old ballpark, the Judge wanted all to realize that he was perfectly competent to hire the firing squad and offer the last cigarettes. And Johnson had dared to presume he had the chops to expel two of Landis' favorite stars without his permission or approval. And set him (Landis) up for an extremely humiliating court loss. So I can't imagine the Judge appreciating being put in that horrible, legally compromising position. And he was soon to let Ban know
who sat atop the BB food chain. He would soon have BB's 2nd in line in the power-brokering food chain for an after-dinner mint.

He had no good evidence, he heard BB's public weigh in behind the stars, and he himself happened to have liked them very much. And he also knew that they didn't have to be innocent to sue BB. All they needed was no LEGAL case against them. Landis knew very well that Cobb was not Joe Jackson. He wouldn't go meekly into the NIght. He'd rage, rage against the dying of the Light! And more importantly, he'd sue the hell out of the Light!

Epilogue
After he was cleared by Judge Landis, Ty signed with Connie Mack's Philadelphia Athletics, after generous offers from the Giants, Senators, Dodgers, and the Browns. McGraw offered $60,000 for 2 seasons and threw in a private hotel room on the road. Clark Griffith offered $50,000 "just to show up at his park and appear on the field when I felt like it." and also to match any other offer, & threw in a $10,000. signing bonus. Phil Ball of the Browns, with his new manager, Dan Howley, Ty's friend and former coach, offered around $30,000. Even Jack Dunn, of the Baltimore International Club offered around $25,000. If Ty had wondered if he had marketability, these offers surely put his anxieties to rest. John J. McGraw's offer, after a lifetime of antagonism, represented one of the finest compliments of Cobb's life.

As it turned out, Ty signed with Connie Mack for an unprecedented amount. Salary = $40,000, signing bonus = $30,000. Spring exhibition games receipts = $15,000. Special bonus if A's won the pennant = $20,000. As it turned out, the A's came in 2nd to the '27 Yankees by 19 games. But Mack was so pleased with Ty's contribution to the team, that he gave Ty the $20,000. anyway, and he announced that later in his 1950 auto-biography, pp. and he never regretted it.

As well he shouldn't have. Ty recorded the 5th highest BA in the league, just above Babe Ruth, and 2nd highest on the team, 5th OBP in the league, and 3rd in SB. So Ty's $105,000 total package of '27 remained the MLs record until exceeded so many long years later, by Ted Williams in 1958. And showing why he was the smartest ballplayer ever, Ty insisted in keeping his package confidential, knowing that if word got out, Babe Ruth would have demanded and gotten more from his owner, Jake Ruppert. Ruth never heard, didn't ask, and hence Ty got another record. Proving that sometimes discretion is wisest.

Bill Burgess
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another article on whether or not Cobb/Speaker bet/fixed that game is given below:

Access provided by George Mason University

[Access article in PDF]
The Cobb-Speaker Scandal
Exonerated but Probably Guilty
Lowell L. Blaisdell
In 2002-2003 David Nathan's Say It Is So: A Cultural History of the Black Sox Scandal appeared. It illustrates anew how much and for how long the 1919 "fixed" World Series scandal has dogged baseball.1 In the same vein Pete Rose's disbarment from the Hall of Fame continues to be a topic of major interest to fans. 2 Another scandal—the 1926-27 Ty Cobb-Tris Speaker one—warrants examining in relation to the Black Sox and Rose cases. However, the denouement in the Cobb-Speaker instance differed quite markedly from the other two. In the latter, full exposure of the scandal's circumstances led to the principals' full exclusion from baseball. In the former, the key figures emerged unpunished.3

Cobb's and Speaker's alleged misdeed consisted of being leading participants in the fixing of the Cleveland-Detroit game played on September 25, 1919. Regrettably, the circumstantial evidence indicates that the encounter—a 9-5 Detroit victory—was, as their accuser Dutch Leonard insisted, most likely a prearranged Motor City triumph.

The Cobb-Speaker affair had several important facets. One is the particular playing environment of September 25, 1919. By this date the American League had long since established itself as a second major circuit, and so-called "modern" baseball, with its two-leagues format, had evolved its rules and customs. Within this framework one headache that beset the game's owners was that there were occasional signs or hints that games of questionable integrity were played and that players of doubtful loyalty were tolerated.4

The owners were reluctant to turn to the law to punish suspects. The Major Leagues were effectively a cartel or monopoly. 5 The players had no opportunity to negotiate salaries outside the confines of the two leagues. This, along with the Reserve Clause, gave the magnates the advantage in salary negotiations with the players. However, fearful that both the cartel and the player contracts might be challenged if they went to court on the issue of corrupt performance, [End Page 54] the owners shied away from this potential avenue for solving the problem.

Equally, the law itself made it difficult to prosecute game fixers. Errors and misjudgments are commonplace in games. How can anyone say for certain that either is the result of nefarious intentions rather than inferior performance or impetuous play? When the Black Sox scandal was finally exposed, the White Sox' opponents—the Cincinnati Reds players—were astounded to learn that the series had been thrown. 6

With this peculiarity of baseball as an occupation, it was to the advantage of a culprit to lie his way through the charge that he had helped his team lose. Brazen deceit usually was sufficient to ensure that the matter would be dropped or that, at worst, the player would be traded. If, however, his superiors hailed him before some sort of baseball tribunal, his appearance with his lawyer threatening suit made his reinstatement a virtual certainty.7 Hal Chase, baseball's most corrupt player ever, is a striking case in point. Despite the long series of scrapes in which he became involved, the most he ever conceded was betting on his own team, the Cincinnati Reds, but only to win. Otherwise his standard practice was to admit to nothing. Instances of player banishment occurred only in the comparatively rare cases in which accused parties confessed or left telltale tracks too obvious to be denied.8

The Black Sox scandal illustrates these tendencies especially well. When suspicion directed at several of the players became very strong, owner Charles Comiskey's lawyer advised him against prosecution. In his semiclassic Eight Men Out, Eliot Asinof describes the type of advice Alfred Austrian offered: "Without firsthand confessions, how could they amass evidence at all? Hearsay, of course was inadmissible.... For who was about to talk? Certainly not the gamblers with their closed mouth traditions. Why would anyone want to incriminate himself?" 9

Whatever brought the players to confess? It was not ill conscience. Only when the semioutsider Billy Maharg, a disgruntled betting loser, revealed the story did three or four of the players then—and only then—admit their complicity.10 Similarly, in the lesser cases preceding the Black Sox scandal, it was all to the advantage of a suspect to lie his way out of his predicament.

The Mysterious Disappearance
That only full confessions would suffice became abundantly clear in the 1921 trial of the Black Sox. By that time, to the defense's great convenience, the players' grand jury confessions had mysteriously disappeared. Although eventually the judge decided that the defendants had made their confessions voluntarily, [End Page 55] enough doubt had been created about their authenticity that the defendants benefited. Thus when the "Clean Sox" gave their testimony, the defense lawyers openly dared them to state their views as to whether their teammates had thrown the World Series games. The prosecution, afraid that some of its own best witnesses could do no more than express their opinions, objected. The trial judge sustained. 11

In 1919 the circumstances for chicanery were strong. Unease permeated the Major League scene, especially in the American League. In the Junior Circuit during midseason, the New York Yankees acquired the irascible but valuable Carl Mays by means of an injunction. League president Ban Johnson and rival pennant contenders Detroit, Cleveland, and Chicago deeply resented the Yankees' resort to the courts as the means to upgrade their pitching.12

Player morale was also especially low in 1919. In the immediate aftermath of World War I, the owners feared that few fans would return to the ballparks. Accordingly, they shortened the season by 10 percent and cut most players' salaries proportionally.When fans did return enmasse at once, the owners did not restore the pay cuts. 13 Partly to assuage the players' wrath, in midseason the owners decided to grant second- and third-place Þnishers a small share in the World Series revenues.14 Despite the owners' minor concessions concerning World Series shares, player discontent remained. The general dissatisfaction may have tempted a few to indulge in a little game shading as a salary supplement. Certainly it heightened their inclination at the end of the season to wind up games as expeditiously as possible. There long had been an occasional indulgence in season-ending, meaningless games among going-nowhere teams, simply to play them out as entertainment or amusement.15 Signs of this practice were especially noticeable at the close of the 1919 season. Such was the atmosphere within which the September 25 game took place.

Suddenly for fandom, on December 22, 1926, in the middle of winter seven years later, the box score of this seemingly utterly insignificant game appeared in the sports sections of all the major newspapers across the country.16 This was simply the most obvious artifact of the second, or Landis, aspect of the Cobb-Speaker case. It was the articles accompanying the box score that launched the "scandal" facet of the affair, although in actuality it had been unfolding since the summer.

Dutch Leonard
Back in that summer former pitcher Hubert (Dutch) Leonard had visited several American League executives—most notably, league president Ban Johnson—to recount a tale of the September 25, 1919, game having been set up for [End Page 56] a Detroit triumph. Leonard claimed that Cobb and Speaker, along with himself and one-time pitching ace and later part-time outfielder Joe Wood, had chanced to meet under the stands after the September 24 game. There they agreed that Detroit would win the next day and to bet a large sum of money on the result.17 To support his story Leonard submitted letters that he had received from Cobb and Wood not long after the September 25 game. These letters made evident that Leonard and Wood had bet on the game and perhaps implied that more than betting had been involved. 18

American League executives led by Ban Johnson found Leonard's story and his letters convincing. Although both stars flatly denied Leonard's charges, on September 9 the American League Board of Directors secretly agreed to expel Speaker and Cobb from the league's ranks. Johnson then met with them. He convinced the two, in exchange for Leonard's charges being kept secret, to accept unannounced involuntary retirement. The American League forwarded the gist of its findings to Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis for his consideration.19

Landis's handling of the problem determined the ultimate outcome. What convinced him to become involved was not the information that the American League provided him but Cobb and Speaker's request for clarification of their status.20 Since privately the American League had made the players' expulsion very clear, the stars' query amounted to seeking a reexamination of their case.

Endowed by ownership with absolute power, Landis, in dealing with players suspected of game tampering, established his own rules from case to case. His method in the Cobb-Speaker one did, however, resemble somewhat his handling of the Jimmy O'Connell scandal two years earlier. In both the commissioner fixed on the testimony of those directly involved as decisive and relied on little else.21

The commissioner initiated his investigation with a trip to Leonard's home in California. On October 29 Landis obtained the accuser's testimony. Both then and later, the ex-pitcher refused to return to the East to present his arguments. He likely feared that the tigerish Cobb would do him physical injury. Cobb, Speaker, and Wood—Wood was out of baseball but desired to support the other two—wanted to confront their accuser face to face. In addition to his fear of Cobb, Leonard may have realized that in any verbal confrontation, he would be bound to be the loser, since three denouncing one as a liar would have a much greater impact than the reverse. At any rate Leonard's adamancy caused Landis to place little faith in his word.22

In his testimony Leonard furnished some details on the September 24 under-the-stands meeting that he insisted had occurred. He claimed that [End Page 57] Speaker had mentioned Cleveland's second-place position was secure and that Leonard need not worry about the game the next day because Detroit would win it. Since this was going to be the case, the four decided to bet on the game. Cobb was to put up $2,000, Leonard $1,500, and Wood and Speaker each $1,000. Such sums amounted to roughly 10percent of the average player's annual salary. 23 The bets agreed upon, the four split up. Since Leonard had pitched that day, he considered the season over for him. Later he left by train.24

In taking Leonard's testimony Landis did not raise several important questions regarding Speaker. As Cleveland's playing manager why would Speaker do anything but try to beat Detroit? Had the question been asked, Leonard's answer would have been that Speaker wanted to do a favor for him as his former teammate. He, Wood, and Speaker had been friends since their days as teammates on the Red Sox several years before. 25

Another obvious question should have been to ask Leonard to explain his actions in the aftermath of his bet. Among gambling people it is common knowledge that of all the team sports, betting on an individual baseball game is the most risky. Leonard had departed after giving Wood a check for $1,500.26 Anyone else who had made so large a wager would have been on hand for the September 25 game, watching every pitch with an acute state of jitters. Yet so unconcerned was the Tiger pitcher that he did not even stay on for the game. Why was he so confident that he could leave without a worry? Leonard's answer would have had to be that, since Speaker had plainly indicated Detroit would win, he could leave without a care. Third, while Leonard could tell from Wood's letter that Cobb had not bet on the game, how had he learned that Speaker had not? Had he ascertained Speaker's reason for not doing so?

After returning to Chicago, Landis took the testimony of the other principals on November 29. The group comprised Cobb, Speaker, Wood—by then Yale's baseball coach—and Fred West, a ballpark employee who had placed Leonard's and Wood's bets for them. West's testimony meant little. He verified that he had handled the bet-making process. More broadly as the Detroit players' errand runner, he supported Cobb, Speaker, and Wood.27

Landis showed a surprising lack of perspicacity in the questions he asked and of curiosity in the ones that he did not. He focused primarily on gambling. While at the time the owners severely frowned on player betting, it was not contractually forbidden. Though the betting on this game certainly was a serious matter, whether or not the game had been Þxed was an even more pressing question. Obviously any such indulgence was absolutely prohibited. Yet, given the emphasis the commissioner placed on gambling, he thought otherwise.

Landis seemed to regard his questioning of Cobb as more important than his queries to Speaker. Possibly because neither letter contained a reference to [End Page 58] the Cleveland great, Landis felt that this omission made his role less significant. Yet surely as the manager of the team alleged to have thrown the game, Speaker's actions should have been minutely examined.

Cobb's Vague Answers
In querying Cobb, his questioner—much to the witness's exasperation—pursued him at length concerning the ramifications of his letter to Leonard. Cobb denied that any meeting of the quartet had occurred after the September 24 game. However, a reader of the two letters—and especially Wood's—could gather that Leonard was close enough to the others that his intention of betting a large amount had to be explained. Consequently, Cobb admitted that he and the pitcher had met but only because Leonard had asked him to find a go-between to handle the hurler's bet. Cobb referred him to West, and that concluded their conversation. Several of Cobb's answers were vague or evasive, but his interrogator did not press him. At one point Cobb stated not only that had he avoided betting but that he did not even intend to bet. Though Cobb's own letter contradicted this assertion, Landis gave no sign that he realized it.28

Landis seemed uninformed about many aspects of the case. Commenting on Detroit's position in the standings at the time of the game, Cobb opined that the Tigers had been running third. Landis's response was "Yes, that is the indication. I don't remember the details." 29 In fact, on the morning of September 25, Detroit was in fourth, but pressing close to the Yankees in third. 30 This detail made the game significant to the Tigers and the standings.

In questioning Speaker, Landis made his only reference to the game accounts, and this solely with regard to a minor aspect. The commissioner remarked that one of the newspapers commented on the brevity of the clash—only an hour and six minutes.31 Although this was noticeably short, it was not strikingly so when compared to several other games that week. 32 The commissioner asked Speaker to explain why it had been so brief. The Cleveland manager stated that his players were anxious to return to Cleveland that evening rather than stay overnight in Detroit. They had played quickly in order to make a 6:00 or 6:30 train back to Cleveland.33 Even though the game did not start until 3:00 P.M., it would seem that they could have played a two-hour game and still have made the train. Landis, however, did not point this out. More important, even if the Cleveland players wanted to hurry along, why did the Detroiters—for whom playing carefully would have been in order—so readily cooperate?

During Speaker's testimony, the box score of the questionable game received [End Page 59] some attention. A 9-5 Detroit triumph did not on its face reveal anything suspicious. On any given day a fourth-place team can defeat a second-place one. Speaker, noting that he hit two triples and a single while Cobb had made only a single in five tries, made an interesting point. If the game had been fixed, he claimed, Cobb should have hit well while he did poorly. This certainly seemed plausible, and Landis appeared to accept it as such. Speaker also pointed out that Wood had not played. If there were skullduggery afoot, would not one of the conspirators be sure to play in order to help the fix along?34

Wood's testimony confirmed Speaker's and Cobb's statements. Wood conceded that he and Leonard had met and that, in partnership with Leonard, he had bet on the game. This had involved only Wood and Leonard, not the other two. There had been a third participant, but Wood refused to divulge his name other than to say that it was not Speaker. Wood also claimed that since he knew he would not play, he felt free in betting on Detroit.35

On this note testimony ended. Landis failed to ask Wood several potentially entangling questions. For instance, did Wood have any conscience pangs in betting against his own team? Was it not outrageously suspicious for a player to try to bet $1,000 that his own team would lose? Did he do so very often? If seldom, why then did he choose to bet on this particular game?

Meanwhile, rumors flew as to why such scintillating stars should retire so suddenly, unceremoniously, and quietly.36 The increasing gossip virtually compelled Landis, with Cobb's and Speaker's approval, to release the results of his investigation on December 21. This move infuriated Ban Johnson. Making the evidence public undercut his solution to the Cobb-Speaker problem. 37

The information that the press received added up to the testimony of the five principals counting West, the letters to Leonard from Cobb and Wood, and the box score.38 A careful reader would find in Speaker's testimony Landis's references to the game descriptions. However—significantly—the accounts themselves were not included. Also, in releasing his data, Landis did not hold a press conference, at which his methods could have been queried.

Once the newspapers became a factor, the case acquired a public dimension and "scandal" became the reigning word. Fans tend to identify with stars in trouble, as the Rose case has made evident. In the Cobb-Speaker example matters were made worse by the public reaction to the accuser. Dutch Leonard happened to be a particularly cantankerous, obstreperous person. He offended almost everybody: opposing batters who regarded him as a "beanballer"; umpires who saw him as a ball-and-strikes whiner; his own pitching teammates, to whom he was a shirker; each manager because he would leave the team whenever he felt so inclined; and owners who were outraged by what they viewed as his exorbitant salary demands.39 Somehow, however, until 1925 he had succeeded in retaining the friendship of Speaker and Wood. [End Page 60]

Lurking in the Shadows
In 1925 Leonard's intense dislike of Cobb turned to hate. In that season Cobb, his manager since 1921, forced him to pitch with a sore arm, thus ruining what remained of his pitching skills. 40 To get even with Cobb, Leonard then revealed in 1926 what he knew of the September 25, 1919, game, hoping to ruin what Cobb had left of his career, just as the manager had done to him. Leonard's way of doing it struck the public as especially dubious and underhanded. It looked as if Leonard, lurking in the shadows, had stalked Cobb for seven years until at last opportunity had presented itself. In the words of well-known sports columnist Francis J. Powers, Dutch Leonard was the sports personality most "cordially hated by the American public."41 Leonard's personality and reputation deflected attention from the central issue: was he or was he not telling the truth?

While fan attachment to the accused and revulsion against the accuser grew rapidly, Landis made no effort to supplement the information he had gathered.42 He did not, for instance, release the game descriptions. Nor, when press reports suggested the availability of other relevant data, did he follow them up. Had he done so, the direction in which the case was heading may have changed fundamentally.

Had Landis released the game accounts in full, the press reaction would have been valuable to assess. At first sight the game reports seem to suggest that the September 25 encounter resembled the usually harmless end of the season, play-for-fun game. With few fans in attendance, players would typically change their defensive positions, make ridiculous plays, or run the bases recklessly. If a batter needed to improve his average, an easy out might be allowed to drop for a hit. Apparently the Cleveland Press saw the game in this light. Rather than offer even a brief game account, it printed the box score only, under the caption "This Doesn't Matter"—as indeed, for the Indians, it did not. 43

The Detroit Free Press correspondent saw the game in a similar light: "Everybody took a shot at the first ball pitched or if he didn't the guilty one was regarded as a criminal." 44 Another reporter offered a different shading: with "nothing at stake, Pitchers Boland and Myers did not appear to exert themselves and the batsmen hit the apple to unfrequented portions of the park."45

Since, for the Detroit players, something was at stake, why did the Indians' Elmer Meyers serve up easy pitches to the Detroit batters? Even more, since it was important for the Tigers to keep Indian scoring at a minimum, why was the Detroit pitcher doing likewise?

One of the reporters, judging from the enigmatic way he phrased a sentence, may have had a tip on what was taking place. An oddity of the game was that, [End Page 61] although it was a high-scoring one, neither side scored more than 2 runs in one inning. Remarking on this the scribe wondered whether there "must have been a rule that neither team would score more than two runs in an inning." 46

The Detroit News reporter most clearly perceived what was unfolding: "The Indians are safely in second place. Therefore when they saw the contest going against them, they kindly encouraged Detroit batters to improve their clubbing records." Further, "Cleveland batters didn't care much whether it won or lost and the Tigers catching the visitors in that mood smashed their way to the top and held the advantage to the finish."47

Batting Practice Pitches
In this charade, Indian batters also benefited from batting practice pitches, but only after Detroit had racked up a 4-run lead in the first two innings: "In the fourth inning for instance Elmer Smith of Cleveland tried to bunt to third base. The ball rolled foul. Bobby Jones moved far back on the turf. Boland grooved one and Smith beat out a bunt that Jones could have gargled had he been playing in." Similarly, "Graney is notoriously a right field hitter. Chick Shorten backed up clear to the right field screen. Graney rapped a fly that Shorten could have caught flat-footed had he been in position. Chick ran in languidly on it and it fell for two bases." 48 In this connection it is noteworthy that the 2 triples that Speaker clouted were hit in the fifth and seventh, not in the first and third.

Why would Detroit players hand cheap hits to the Indian swingers? Cleveland batters such as Smith and Graney would not have gained much from another hit or two.49 What else could it have been, then, than return for a favor rendered?

That this was indeed the case emerges most tellingly in the Press correspondent's description of Bernie Boland's relationship to Speaker: "Tris Speaker displayed a gratitude to Boland, who had presented the Cleveland manager earlier in the game with two triples. Boland hit to deep center. By running across the field and heading the drive off, Tris could have caught it or at least held it to a single. But instead he ran with the ball and it rolled away for three bases." 50 Why would Speaker, widely regarded as baseball's premier defensive outfielder, allow Boland a gift triple? 51 And why had Boland earlier "presented" Speaker, an excellent hitter, with a pair of triples? What reason could it possibly have been other than gratitude to the Cleveland manager for a gift of something else? In light of the standings what could it have been other than repayment by a Tiger representative for an effortless addition to the Detroit win column? [End Page 62]


A further comment by the Detroit News columnist negated Speaker's argument that his hitting well while Cobb did poorly demonstrated the authenticity of the game. The reason Cobb had an off day at the plate was that, largely disliked by the players on other teams, Myers bore down on him: he "was the only man who was not assisted towards a boost in his batting. Myers and the Cleveland fielders figured Ty didn't need any hits so they worked hard on him every time he came up." 52 Thus the box score was deceiving in that it created the impression of legitimate play by showing the leading hitter of the losers doing well and the best on the winners as hitting pallidly.

Ignoring Suspicious Signs
In addition to ignoring these suspicious signs in the game accounts, Landis ignored additional evidence that appeared after his December 21 press release. Three of the leads seemed important enough to require reopening the investigation. On December 21 Ernest S. Barnard, president of the Cleveland club, declared, "There is conclusive evidence to prove there was something wrong with the game in question." 53 However, that a Major League executive who was president of one of the clubs involved would say that there was "conclusive" proof that something was amiss did not suffice to order a meeting so that Barnard could explain himself.

The second item related to Bernie Boland, the Detroit pitcher in the by this time infamous game. A number of the Detroit players and former players had emerged to volunteer their recollections. As always in the absence of immediate direct evidence of misconduct, all except Boland, who fudged slightly, assured the public that the September 25 game had been fairly contested. Several directly defended Speaker and Cobb. 54

Of this group Boland was an unusually voluble representative. He let it be known that if there were anything wrong that day, he had nothing to do with it. As for how he dealt with Speaker as batter, he did not ease up on him, much less toss soft ones to him to hit for triples. 55 Boland privately probably felt that the newspaper accounts describing him as having "grooved" pitches, as not having "exerted him" himself, and as having "presented" Speaker with two triples lay buried in the papers' morgues.

Though as a retiree Boland was beyond Landis's demands, oddly the commissioner had the opportunity to pursue him regarding these statements. As a spinoff from the Cobb-Speaker controversy, another old rumor concerning questionable player integrity resurfaced in January 1927 to harass Landis. It had to do with a 1917 Labor Day weekend back-to-back set of doubleheaders between the Tigers and the Chicago White Sox. The Detroit players performed [End Page 63] abysmally, thereby contributing to a 4-game White Sox sweep. This created the suspicion of chicanery. Landis held hearings at which many of the participants testified. As usual, all denied any subterfuge. One who volunteered to testify—and who, incidentally, had pitched very poorly in his one appearance against the White Sox—was Bernie Boland.56 Though the opportunity was at hand, Landis did not raise the issue of the 1919 game with him. Thus the contradiction between his 1926 version of how he had pitched and the actual immediately postgame descriptions of his performance went unnoticed.

Four Significant Rules
Incidentally, Landis resolved the 1917 Chicago-Detroit series dispute by deciding that the games had been untainted. Having done so, he strongly recommended that the Committee of the Major and Minor Leagues adopt four signi Þcant rules: first, old scandals should have a statute of limitations attached to them. Second, the growing tendency for one team to promise a reward to another for playing especially hard against a third club should be strictly forbidden. Third, a player who bet on a game should be suspended for a year. Fourth, anyone who bet against his own team should be permanently expelled from baseball. 57 While the second of the recommendations applied to the White SoxÐTigers series, the others related to the Cobb-Speaker case. It is noteworthy that some six decades later it was the gambling violations that Pete Rose violated with compulsory recklessness. Thus, in a sense, the very rules that the Cobb-Speaker case inspired, Rose had occasion to break.

The third news piece with a Cobb-Speaker focus had stunning implications. One of the reasons Leonard's version of what had occurred in the 1919 game found such few believers was the absence of an independent agent who could testify under oath as to the validity of his assertions. In George Barres, scoreboard operator and public address announcer at Navin Field in Detroit, there surfaced one who was willing to substantiate Leonard's charge of a fixed game. While admitting that his dislike of Cobb underlay his offer to make a statement, he declared his willingness to give sworn testimony as to what he knew.58

Stating first that this was the only game played at the Detroit park of which he was aware that had not been fairly contested, he had no doubt that the September 25 one was not.

Nearly every player on the [Detroit] Club knew that Cleveland was going to throw that game.... Chick Shorten [the outfielder who had let Graney's fly drop for a double] gave me $60 to bet on Detroit about 2 o'clock that afternoon. He told me to make a bet myself, too, because Cleveland is going to throw the game! I placed the bet with a bookie downtown and bet $20 myself at 4 to 5.[End Page 64]

Doc Ayers, pitcher, and Ben Dyer, third baseman for Detroit were in on the bet I placed for Shorten that day. Ayers told me to keep quiet about it.59

Though Barres's revelation was in the most influential newspaper in the very city in which Landis maintained his office, there is no indication that Landis sought to obtain a sworn statement from the ballpark employee.60

Two weeks after his decision concerning the Detroit-Chicago series, Landis, on January 27, 1927, issued his statement exonerating superstars Cobb and Speaker. If they desired to resume playing, they were to remain in the American League, but each would have to join a club other than the club with which he had been long associated. Other than this minor inconvenience, they had emerged unscathed.61

Numerous commentators have pointed out the most likely reasons for Landis's chosen course. For one, the crisis enabled Landis to land a decisive blow against his persistent enemy Ban Johnson. By exonerating the accused and ruling that they must stay in the American League, he entirely reversed his rival's solution to the problem.

Second, here was a case that had emerged suddenly seven years after the time appropriate for its airing. That it had come to life was for no better reason than one person's grudge against another. Unlike the Black Sox scandal, in which a World Series had been sold out, this one resulted in nothing worse than some players making a few hundred dollars off the game. The probable motive of the chief suspect amounted to nothing more than a hasty decision to do a friend a favor. Fortunately, the game in question had ended up devoid of significance. 62 Why not stretch justice by freeing the accused in return for what they had contributed to baseball in other aspects?

Thus, third, in the broader interests of the national game, was baseball's future not better served through exoneration rather than expulsion?63 It surely represented a better solution than Ban Johnson's ukase.

But to return to the underlying question, why did Landis forgo conducting a thorough investigation? It would have been the most honest thing to do. What would have been the result had he questioned the witnesses much more vigorously, confronted them with the game descriptions, and sought out the testimony of Bernard and Barres? He would have emerged with a reasonably convincing commonsense case of circumstantial but not legally assured body of evidence, demonstrating that the accused were guilty as their enemy had charged.

And what would the data have included? Landis's only unchallengeable evidence consisted of the Wood and Cobb letters that arouse suspicion but are inconclusive. As for the leads that the commissioner overlooked, their import would have been to increase the verbal testimony to the disadvantage of the [End Page 65] appellants. However, Cobb's and Speaker's many teammates would have neutralized this effect by means of their own testimony favorable to the defendants. The game descriptions look very compromising, but a capable defense attorney could explain them away as nothing more than accounts of an "entertainment" game. Given this likely scenario, what if Cobb and Speaker had sued baseball? 64 Cobb in particular threatened to reveal much more dirty linen if he were not reinstated.

Commentators have always had difficulty in fathoming Landis's thought processes in his expulsion or exoneration decisions. In this instance his long experience as a federal judge may have convinced him of the difficulty of obtaining convictions in instances of fraud when written evidence and confessions are lacking. If Landis had confirmed Ban Johnson's banishment decree, it could have led to continuing litigation without much hope of success. Moreover, it may easily have resulted in a huge loss in prestige for himself as commissioner and for baseball. As for a middling solution, such as the imposition of a fine and penalty for each—but greater for Speaker—it would have invited litigation to an equal degree. Besides, the commissioner had invariably followed an exoneration or expulsion solution to such problems.

To sum up, unless all the indicators, the clues, and the hints are misleading, Cobb and Speaker, though exonerated, were probably guilty. By exonerating the famous pair, Landis continued an injustice inflicted on Buck Weaver and one or two others. They had prior knowledge of the Black Sox fix. For this, they were expelled for life. For the same offense, Cobb and Speaker received absolution.

The Cobb-Speaker affair leaves in its wake two disconcerting ironies. One is that it was very likely not the despised Leonard who was the dissembler, but the two stars so admired by the fans. Second, just as the players more than likely arranged the game's outcome, so too did the commissioner see to it that his investigation came out the popular way and not its dangerous opposite. Such thoughts could cause a person of meditative disposition to redouble his ruminations on the riddle of the human condition.

Lowell L. Blaisdell is emeritus professor of history at Texas Tech University in Lubbock. He has published articles in SABR's Baseball Research Journal and guest lectured in and advised the teachers of the "Baseball: A Mirror on American History" course at Texas Tech. A lifelong Cubs fan, he approaches each new season with extreme caution that is the result of many decades of disappointments.
Endnotes
1. David Nathan, Saying It's So: A Cultural History of the Black Sox Scandal (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2003).

2. See especially James Reston Jr., The Lives of Pete Rose and Bart Giamatti: Collision at Home Plate (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1991).

3. The guilt of Cobb and Speaker has long been debated. Contemporary sportswriters Fred Lieb and Grantland Rice judged them guilty. See Fred Lieb, Baseball As I [End Page 66] Have Known It (New York: Grossett and Dunlap, 1977), pp.61-63. Not surprisingly Rice chose poetry to convey his view, in his famous ditty "We Ain't Gonna Steal No More." See Grantland Rice, New York Herald Tribune, December 22, 1926, quoted in William A. Harper, How You Played the Game: The Life of Grantland Rice (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1999), pp.424, 572.

Also of note, J. G. Taylor Spink, editor of The Sporting News, offered a summary of the case but withheld judgment as to guilt or innocence. See J. G. Taylor Spink, Judge Landis and 25 Years of Baseball (St. Louis: The Sporting News, 1974), pp.135-57, which Lieb may have ghostwritten. On the other hand a later sportswriter, Bob Broeg, long the St. Louis Post Dispatch's leading baseball commentator, felt that the evidence against the duo ran so thin as to make it a near insult to confront them. Column in The Sporting News, May12, 1973, in Dutch Leonard file, National Baseball Hall of Fame archives, Cooperstown NY. Historians have divided, with Cobb biographer Al Stump and Mark Alvarez implying guilt, while Cobb biographer Charles C. Alexander, Judge Landis biographer David Pietrusza, and Daniel Ginsburg, author of a leading study of gambling, lean toward acquittal; Eugene C. Murdock, historian and Ban Johnson biographer, holds a neutral stance. Al Stump, Cobb (Chapel Hill NC: Algonquin, 1994), pp.370-84; Mark Alvarez, The National Pastime: A Review of Baseball History, vol.13 (Cleveland OH: Society for American Baseball Research, 1994), pp.21-28; Charles C. Alexander, Our Game: An American Baseball History (New York: Henry Holt, 1991), pp.144-45; David Pietrusza, Judge and Jury: The Life and Times of Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis (South Bend IN: Diamond Communications, 1998), pp.285-311; Daniel E. Ginsburg, The Fix Is In: A History of Baseball Gambling and Game Fixing Scandals (Jefferson NC: McFarland, 1995), pp.198-208, especially p.206; Eugene C. Murdock, Ban Johnson: Czar of Baseball (Westport CT: Greenwood, 1982), pp.215-18. Another implier of guilt is Clark Nardinelli, "Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis and the Art of Cartel Enforcement," in Baseball History: An Annual of Original Baseball Research (Westport CT: Meckler Books, 1989), pp.103-15, especially p.110.

4. For an excellent overview of the gambling-fixing problem in pre-Black Sox days, see Harold Seymour, Baseball: The Golden Age (New York: Oxford University Press, 1971), pp.275-310.

5. Nardinelli, "Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis."

6. Eliot Asinof, Eight Men Out: The Black Sox and the 1919 World Series (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963), pp.206-7.

7. As an example, see Lowell L. Blaisdell, "Trouble and Jack Taylor," National Pastime (1996): pp.132-36, especially p.135.

8. Martin D. Kohart, "Saint Matty and the Prince of Darkness," National Pastime (2000): pp.124-32, especially p.128; Joseph E. King, "Hal Chase," Biographical Dictionary of American Sports: Baseball (Westport CT: Greenwood, 1987), pp.89-90. An instance of career-ruining honesty is the Jimmy O'Connell case. See Lowell L. Blaisdell, [End Page 67] "Mystery and Tragedy: The O'Connell-Doland Scandal," Baseball Research Journal 2 (1982): 44-49.

9. Asinof, Eight Men Out, p.128.

10. Three players admitted their guilt before a grand jury and one in the press. Asinof, Eight Men Out, pp.168-69, 170-74, 175-81, 184-88, 189-92.

11. Asinof, Eight Men Out, pp.257, 260, 263-65.

12. Seymour, Baseball: The Golden Age, pp.264-68.

13. Seymour, Baseball: The Golden Age, p.255; Bill Veeck, The Hustler's Handbook (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1965), p.256.

14. New York Times, July18 and 30, 1919.

15. Mark K. Judge, Damn Senators: My Grandfather and the Story of Washington's Only World Championship (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2003), p.38, offers a description of a typical end-of-season farcical game, as does Dennis De Valeria and Jeane Burke De Valeria, Honus Wagner (New York: Henry Holt, 1995), p.105.

16. New York Times, Chicago Tribune, and many others. Copies of the Cobb and Wood letters and box score referenced here are from the St. Louis Post Dispatch, December 21 and 22, 1926.

17. New York Times, December 22, 1926; St. Louis Post-Dispatch, December 26, 1926.

18. New York Times, December 22, 1926; St. Louis Post-Dispatch, December 26, 1926.

19. Murdock, Ban Johnson, pp.216-17; Spink, Judge Landis, pp.135-41.

20. Spink, Judge Landis, p.155.

21. In the O'Connell case Landis's resistance to broadening his investigation produced a great deal of criticism, but it did not recur in the Cobb-Speaker one. Pietrusza, Judge and Jury, pp.270-71, 274, 276-79.

22. New York Times, January 28, 1927; Spink, Judge Landis, p.156; Lieb, Baseball As I Have Known It, p.62.

23. Robert F. Burke, Never Just a Game: Players, Owners, and American Baseball to 1920 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994), p.243; Robert F. Burke, Much More Than a Game: Players, Owners, and American Baseball since 1921 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001), pp.16, 23.

24. Testimony, New York Times, December 22, 1926; Chicago Tribune, December 22, 1926.

25. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, January 13, 1927.

26. New York Times, December 22, 1926.

27. New York Times, December 22, 1926.

28. New York Times, December 22, 1926.

29. New York Times, December 22, 1926.

30. New York Times, September 25, 1919.

31. Landis's exact words were: "Now, in one of the newspaper accounts of that game, the statement was made that the game was played in an hour and six minutes." [End Page 68] Clearly, the commissioner had read the press descriptions. Chicago Tribune, December 22, 1926.

32. In the last ten days of the 1919 season, in the National League, the Cubs defeated the Phillies, 3-1, in fifty-eight minutes, on September 21; the Dodgers defeated the Reds, 3-1, also on September 21, in fifty-five minutes, and in the first game of a final-day doubleheader, on September 29, the Giants defeated the Phillies, 6-1, in a record fifty-one minutes. On September 28 Boston crushed Brooklyn, 14-6, in what was described as a "comedy" game. New York Times, September 22, 29, and 30, 1919.

33. Chicago Tribune, December 22, 1919. Speaker's entire testimony is not so easy to find. Even the New York Times offered only a synopsis of it. The Tribune gave the testimony of all the attestants in full.

34. Chicago Tribune, December 22, 1919.

35. Chicago Tribune, December 22, 1919.

36. New York Times, November 30, 1926, commenting on Speaker's resignation as manager, reported that "in the opinion of local baseball men, there is more to the resignation than meets the eye." Other such observations appeared elsewhere.

37. Pietrusza, Judge and Jury, pp.293, 302-4.

38. Chicago Tribune, December 22, 1926.

39. Various clippings in Dutch Leonard file, Baseball Hall of Fame, Coopers- town NY.

40. Various clippings in Dutch Leonard file, Baseball Hall of Fame, Coopers- town NY.

41. Quoted in the New York Times, January 6, 1927.

42. Pietrusza, Judge and Jury, pp.294-95, offers examples of support from prominent figures and fans. One poll showed the fans at 1,430 to 41 in their favor.

43. Cleveland Press, September 26, 1919.

44. Detroit Free Press, September 26, 1919.

45. Cleveland Plain Dealer, September 26, 1919.

46. Cleveland Plain Dealer, September 26, 1919.

47. Detroit News, September 26, 1919.

48. Detroit News, September 26, 1919.

49. That year Smith hit .278 and Graney .234. John Thorn and Pete Palmer, eds., Total Baseball (New York: Warner Books, 1989), pp.1459, 1143.

50. Detroit News, September 26, 1919.

51. As for Boland's batting skill, he had a career .138 batting average. In 1919, with the help of the free triple, he hit 108. The Baseball Encyclopedia (New York: Macmillan, 1979), p.1590.

52. Detroit News, September 26, 1919.

53. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, December 22, 1926. The newspapers at the time asserted that the American League had much more evidence relating to Cobb and Speaker than [End Page 69] it had offered to Landis. As an example see the Chicago Tribune, January 13, 1927. However, no one has ever found such evidence in the league's archives.

54. New York Times, December 22, 1926; The Sporting News, December 30, 1926.

55. Stump, Cobb, pp.373-74, quoting the Detroit News, December 27, 1926; New York Times, December 23, 1926.

56. Chicago Tribune, January 2-7, 1927; New York Times, January 6, 1927.

57. New York Times, January 13, 1927.

58. Chicago Tribune, December 24, 1926, quoting a news item out of Detroit.

59. Chicago Tribune, December 24, 1926.

60. It is barely possibly that Barres did speak to Landis. A single source (Lieb, Baseball As I Have Known It, p.62) has a sentence saying that when, on November 29, Landis took the testimony of Cobb, Speaker, Wood, and West, "several employees of the Detroit club... were supposedly there." If so, Barres's words went unheeded.

61. New York Times, January 28, 1927.

62. Actually, it is possible that the game was not insignificant. It may have led to a quid pro quo a year later. After the Black Sox scandal broke, Major League owners employed private detectives to ferret out other suspect games. One that raised doubts was the Cleveland-Detroit 4-game, season-ending series of the 1920 season. Detroit won the first and last games but lost the important middle two. Cleveland won the first of these 10-3. It clinched at least a pennant for them. Detroit made 4 errors. The next day Cleveland triumphed 10-1. This one clinched the pennant for them. Detroit fielded poorly again, and the starting pitcher gave up 5 walks. Veeck, The Hustler's Handbook, p.296; New York Times, October 1-4, 1920.

63. The summary paragraphs represent a synthesis of the views expressed by the authors cited most frequently among the secondary sources in the notes.

64. In the Black Sox scandal, the bulk of the prosecution evidence necessarily went no further than duly sworn verbal assertions, but these did not suffice. The defense won an acquittal for all the defendants quite easily. The defense lawyers did not have to urge their clients to testify, and they did not. Since their grand jury confessions were widely known to the public, to have done so would have been awkward to say the least. Asinof, Eight Men Out, pp.244-57, 265-72.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[/COLOR]B]


(Table of contents for TC General Thread.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 1 - Leonard/Cobb/Speaker/Wood Affair(Message 1); Joe Wood transcript (Message 1); Gehringer's wife's letter (19); Buck Ewing (8); John B. Sheridan / catcher/SS/Chase / J.Collins, Herman Long (9); Sheridan/player's value (10); BB concensus', Old/Modern Advantages (12); Cobb/Wagner/Hornsby/Ruth's hitting stats (13); ElHalo/TC's 6 TPR (15)

Page 2 - Changes In History I Would Have Made (32); Greatest Pitching Seasons (37); 10 Greatest Pitching Seasons (38); Babe: 1918-19 (39); Greatest Offensive Seasons (40); Rose/R.Jackson (44); Top 5 All-Time All-Positions (46); Cobb/Mays, Cobb's Power Case (47); Reggie Jackson (48);

Page 3 - Mathewson/Grove (51); Ruth/Williams As Hitters Only (55); Bigger, Stronger, Faster Isn't Everything (56); Most Feared Hitters (58); All time teams of (Cobb, Mack, Foster, McGraw, Rice) (59); Pittsburgh Courier Negro L. A & B teams (60); Best Guys Not in the H of F (61); Ty's Case, Ty also did well/Ruth's Lack of 12 Skills (62); Black Ink Leaders, Single Seasons (63); Great Cobb Moments (65); My Best Current All-Around Players (66); SO ratios (Cobb, Jackson, Collins, Sisler, Hornsby) (67); Cobb/Ruth never be resolved (69); Cobb/Ruth (Cobb did well also), how many yrs. his records lasted, 12 skills Ruth lacked, couldn't steal worth a damn (70); Deadball sluggers/Modern slugger's Walks With Respect to era/ RBIs With Respect to era (71); The Babe: A Personal Glimpse (72); Long Bulova post/Bingay/BR Hitting 1915-19/Contact/Sluggers-20's, 20's hitters didn't adjust (73);

Page 4 - Babe/Pitchers (76); Cobb's % of L. BA (79); Judge Landis (81); Southern Boys (82); Cobb supporter's tribute quotes (84, 85, 86, 90); (125); Public Ledger poll/Duncan (88); McGraw's letters (87); Harry Hooper on TC running (89); TC Lost Support as Greatest, 1906 season (96); McGraw's Views on Pitching Batteries (97); 1984Tigers/PumpsieGreen's Kind Words of Support (134);

Page 5 - 10 Greatest PP NL Ever Produced / 10 Greatest PP AL ever Produced(101); Your Best All-Time OF Ever (104); Your Greatest Pitching Staffs Ever (118); Your Best All-Around IF Ever (119); Greatest Right-Handed Hitters / Best DP Combos / Best Ride-Side IF Ever (127)

Page 6 - Most Devastating Death In BB Ever (Spink) (128); Cobb Had a Good Side (130); Ty/Babe (135); Drummers / Beatle's Buried Treasures / Rolling Stones' Buried Treasures (142);

Page 7 - Ty/Babe Defense (157); Babe's decline phase (159); Historical Defensive CFs (162); ElHalo/RMB: TC's TPR RMB's Cobb's GG analysis (164); Sluggers who kept Rel. BA. Up (166); Chase's supporter's / Sisler's supports (171); Cobb's HRs with runners on (69.2%) (202);

Did Cobb Once Kill a Man / How Racist Was Ty? / Leo Durocher / Hip / Did Cobb's Team Mates Hate Him? (186) Baker incident / Cobb's will (187); Cobb GG analysis (185, 190);

Page 10 - TC go for HRs (203); DiMag / Here comes God (213); Miller Huggins all time team (222); All Positions Form Chart, incl. pitchers / relievers (225); A Word on Wagner, Honus/Babe, Off/D. Combo, Wagner Over Mays, Ruth / Mays, Cobb/Wagner, Lloyd/Wagner, "Bullet Joe" Rogan, Joe Williams, J. Gibson, B. Mackey, Gibson/Mackey, John Lloyd, black profiles (231);

Page 10 - BR questions (239); Ty's Decline Phase (246)

Page 11 - TC estimated SO rates, based on curve 248);

Page 12 - TC's racism/US Pres. slave-holding (270, 272, 276); Cobb/Williams (281)
Page 13 - ElHalo/Catcher24's walks analysis re:eras; (My pre-'20/post '20 Era Walk totals for certain, select sluggers) (295)

Page 13 - TC's Most Fervent Suporters (302); Rogers Loved TC (305); Historical polls/surveys (306);Sisler's All-Time Team analysis (312); Nomasusko's positive feedback (314); McPhail/Babe (319); Sports Writers (321);

Page 14 - Bill James' Negro L./pre-1900 Top 100 (327); Urban Shocker (328); Sisler's power (349); Ruth/Cobb - How long their records lasted? (337); Form chart for all 8 positions (342); Imapotato form chart (343); RMB's Lange, McAleer OF analysis (348); Pennock (335);

Page 15 - My 3 eras catcher's Form Chart (352); Lange/McAleer (355); only hitting Catchers? (352); 1920 hitters didn't adjust (364); Lange (367); Sad Story of Martin Bergen (368); McAleer/Archer/Bennett (370); Best Sports Writers died since 1988 (375); Sporting News (376);

Page 16 - DiMaggio quote:1969/Cobb high up there (378); Joe Falls (392); Bill/Leecemark Top 20 1B (393); Sisler's 1931 all time team analysis (409); 1B chit-chat;

Page 18 - My Top 10 BB moments (414); Torez71 - A game TC/BR (416); Reference Sheet (421); Voices From the Great Black Baseball Leagues (423); Negro L. lists (425);

Page 18 - Talent Pools; Bullet Joe Rogan (445); Long Smokey Joe Williams post (446); Am I Too Invested in TC (449)

Page 19 - OFs Defensive stats chart (452); Integration - who integreated what team (460); Crawford on Wagner/TC (465); Sheridan - Jennings, Long, catchers D. (466); Ty/Granny Rice (475);

Page 20 - Mack/McGraw grew/evolved (476); 17 of Cobb's Concensus' Big Ballers on their all time teams (479); My Top 10 pitchers seasons (483);My Top SS (484); My Top LF, CF, RF (485); My Top 3B (486); My Top 2B (487); My Top 1B (488); My Top Catchers, Final tally for Top 10 Catchers (489); Gibson/Mackay/Lloyd (490); Fever's individuals Top 5 Players (491); Fever's Top 10 by Position (500)

Page 21 - TC/Larry Brown/racism Cobb/BB's pensions (502); BB's popularity (504); Ty/Babe's 2 colorful OF D. (505); Mantle/Stengel/Lieb/Lopez (507); Fastest pitch (522); Steroids (523);

Page 22 - 1933 # newspapers per city (529); Write-Ups: Richter, Foster, Phelon (535); Which Leagues' Stars Glitter More? (536); 3 Ty Groups (545); Ty's Fielding (550).

Page 23 - Backward Flight/Joe D's Defense (552); 8 Fever voters Top 100 (554); 1927 Yankees pitchers (557); Greatest WS pitchers (558); (Weak Sisters, 1927 Yankees/1929 Athletics) (560); Ottawa Citizen: Koozma Tarasoff (568); Certain, limited Ty topics - defense, arm, managing (572); Top 20 Managers, McGraw/Mack, Top 10 Smartest Hitters, Top 10 Sluggers, Top 10 All-Around Hitter After Ruth (573);

Page 24 - Joseph Durso (576); Brett/Mathew, Kaline/Clemente (579); Most Lethal Lineup Possible (580); Changes in BB affecting society 581); Greatest Defensive CFers (584); Page 25 -

Page 26 -

Page 27 -

Page 28 - TC's yearly Relative BA% (680);

Page 29 -

Page 31 -

Page 32 - Candidates For Best Peak (782)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Hall of Fame: How to Revive Its Relavancy. - Dec. 5, 2003 - 37
2. [B]Defensive All-Time Team - December 10, 2003 - 312
3. Wagner Still #1. Is A-Rod pulling on Him? - Dec. 21, 2003 - 20
4. Speed Down to 1B - Jan. 2, 2004 - 11 posts
5. Most Feared 1-2 Punch - January 16, 2004 - 70
6. Did Babe Ruth Really "Win" 7 Pennants & 5 WS for his Team? - Feb. 23, 2004 - 23
7. Ty Cobb General Thread - February 27, 2004 - 670
8. All-Time All-Star Team, A & B - March 2, 2004 - 180
9. DiMaggio/Speaker: March 28, 2004 - 12
10. Smartest Pitcher Ever: April 24, 2004 - 29
11. Which League's Stars Glitter the Most? - June 1, 2004 - 16
12. Who Was the Greatest Player With the Shortest Career? - June 27, 2004 - 38
13. Why Isn't Urban Shocker In the Hall? - July 3, 2004 - 12
14. All time Black Team, A & B - July 3, 2004 - 9
15. Was Bert Blydeven a Famer? July 15, 2004 - 11
16. Your Worst Hall of Famers? - July 15, 2004 - 32
17. Poll: Best Fastball/Curveball combo? - July 31, 2004 - 2
18. Clash of the Teams - August 4, 2004 - 70
19. How Good Was Pie? - August 14, 2004 - 231
20. The Triple Threat - August 19, 2004 - 23
21. How Good Was Traynor? - August 21, 2004 - 19
22. Hall of Fame: Honorable Mention: September 4, 2004 - 152
23. Top 20 2B - October 11, 2004 - 55
24. All-Time AL Team vs. All-Time NL Team - December 17, 2004 - 52
25. Mainstream All-Time Team - December 24, 2004 - 27
26. Your Most Lethal Line-Up Ever - January 2, 2005 - 59
27. Your Top 20 Managers - January 2, 2005 - 28
28. Best Left Side of IF Ever - January 18, 2005 - 33
29. Best DP Combo Ever - January 28, 2005 - 11
30. Best Right Side of IF Ever - January 29, 2005 - 8
31. Best All-Around IF Ever - February 2, 2005 - 9
32. Best All-Around OF Ever - February 2, 2005 - 17
33. Greatest Position Players Ever Produced by the NL - Feb. 3, 2005 - 38
34. Greatest Pitching Staff - February 3, 2005 - 11
35. Greatest Position Players Ever Produced by the AL - February 4, 2005 - 16
36. John McGraw's Views on Pitchers/Batteries - February 7, 2005 - 7
37. Johnny Kling and the Cubs - February 9, 2005 - 11
38. Cool Stats - February 15, 2005 - 6
39. Wow! - March 1, 2005 - 43
40. Pete Rose/Reggie Jackson - March 3, 2005 - 24
41. Check the Players You Feel Are Great - March 5, 2005 - 9
42. Who Are We? I'd Really Like To Know - March 23, 2005 - 92
43. Was Reggie Jackson a Great Player? - March 28, 2005 - 235
44. Which Player Do You Feel Were Great? - March 28, 2005 - 57
45. Negro League Player Profiles - March 30, 2005 - 6

[Zeth]

I believe this to be a true account. I will say that the men who bet should have been rather stiffly punished for having done so, even Cobb for betting on his own team. A year's suspension, probably. That said, Judge Landis's ruling seems acceptably appropriate to me. To throw out of the game two players of that magnitude, even at the end of their careers, would require overwhelming evidence against them, and it wasn't there.

And I believe Ty Cobb (and Tris Speaker too, to a lesser extent) was so hyper-competitive (not to mention rich) that I doubt he would fix a baseball game. (That's just my personal input, irrelevant to the case itself.)

[Imapotato]

One thing on the betting scandal William

I used to think that he did...too many of his actions afterwards presumed guilt.

However, on nagging question...motivation?

By the time of the scandal, Cobb was getting the benfits of his Coca Cola stock, why bet...on time...if you don't need the money, also Tris was one of the highest paid managers/players in the league.

[Imapotato]

Originally posted by RuthMayBond
Opposite ends of intelligence spectrum, don't be so sure. Character? Only if you're limiting it to baseball terms

????

Cobb made a fortune of the stock market, gave back to his community, has a hospital and scholarship in his name

Rose, is in the WWE (pro wrestling) HOF...and said "If you had to choose between drugs, murder, hitting your wife or gambling...I'd recommend you choose gambling"

[RuthMayBond]

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net


RMB:
YEAR Scored Allowed Record
1921 883 852 71-82
1922 828 791 79-75
1923 831 741 83-71
1924 849 796 86-68
1925 903 829 81-73

My point was that if Tigers were outscoring teams like that, they should have had better records, ESPECIALLY in '21, '23 & '25.
The '85 Reds barely outscored their opponents 677-666 but their record was an amazing 89-72. The '86 Reds barely outscored their opponents 732-717 & still had a good 86-76 record. Just saying that Rose wasn't a dummy as a manager.

[Imapotato]

Yes I have them Bill

Chris sent them, we email each other every so often, although I am so busy at work I slack sometimes...seems Chris and I both live in the Albany, NY area.

P.S. You really should redo your files in .pdf format using adobe acrobat

[csh19792001]

Originally posted by RuthMayBond
Same as Rose, because of the challenge, and Cobb was up to challenges

Rose needed money because of compulsive gambling problems- Cobb was frugal to a T, and was already a millionaire by 1919. He had no reason to risk his career by betting a paltry 2,000 on a meaningless game.

On the other hand, he was probably nasty to Dutch Leonard at some point. Leonard, (I'm fairly certain) hated Ty Cobb, and wanted vengance. He said something to the effect that Cobb "ran him out of baseball". So Leonard tried to scourge him and destroy his character and career in the most vociferous way. Wrath makes the only sense here- Cobb was way too shrewd and sagacious to risk everything for nearly nothing.

[RuthMayBond]

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
3. In 1922, he was 1st in the ML in TPR, with 6.3.

RMB:
So was Hornsby, about, uh, EIGHT times
(Bill - You seem to not understand why I wrote this about Sisler. I was show-casing his greatness BEFORE his eye problem of '23, which totally undercut his before '23 greatness. I believe that if not for his affliction, Sisler would have proved himself fully the hitting equal of Hornsby, and far superior as an all-around player, due to his holding parity with Rogers in the battier's box, and far exceeding his work on the bags and afield.)

RMB:
I"m not saying he didn't have eye problems, but because he did, he wasn't as good. You're only speculating what you think he might have done.

5. In 1920, he led Ruth in total bases, 399 to 388, despite Ruth's 54 HRs to George's 19.

RMB:
Sisler did have a slight 631 AB to 458 AB advantage.
(Bill - That's just lame and you well know it! Babe was taking walks, while Sisler was swinging at bad balls. He just wanted to hit the ball. Sizzler was known as impatient, and he should have had more plate discipline.

RMB:
So is he supposed to be rewarded for his lack of discipline

RMB:
Forget RBIs, runs and eras. Let's talk averages vs. league.
Gehrig
OBP-five black inks, seven gray inks
SLG-two black inks, ten gray inks
And this having to go against Ruth.

Sisler
OBP-no black inks, five gray inks
SLG-no black inks, six gray inks
(Bill - This is so, due to the Sizzler's eye problems which cut his yrs. of greatness off at '22.)

RMB:
Yes, so he wasn't as great

Foxx, Greenberg, Hack Wilson, Hornsby, DiMag, Al Simmons, all were turning out RBI seasons above 150, year after year.

RMB:
Yeah, Greenberg had 2, Wilson had 2, Hornsby did have 1, DiMag had 2 & Simmons had 3.
(Bill - RMB! What's the matter with YOU?! From your retort, other posters would get the impression that 150 RBI seasons were not more common from 1920-1938. And that impression is just plain WRONG!)

RMB:
I'm not doubting that 150 RBI seasons were more common then, but when you make a mistake of facts, your solution is to blame me. I was hoping you could do better.

[ElHalo]

I don't know how TPR is calculated. So I can't answer what their thoughts are.

Without spending too much time at the moment (kind of busy), a quick perusal tells me that I'd probably pick Cobb as the best player in...

1907 (though I can see an argument for Crawford)
1908 (though I can see an argument for Crawford)
1909 (though I can, again, see an argument for Crawford... and it wouldn't upset me greatly if Crawford got one of these years as a reward for being so close to Cobb for all of them)
1911 (even though Jackson had a heck of a year)
1915 (though Crawford an Fournier are in the running)
1917 (Cobb wins pretty easily)

Of the other years you mention, I give 1910 to Lajoie, 1912 to Jackson...

And I thought about 1918 long and hard, very long and hard... and it wouldn't upset me at all if you said Cobb was the best that year... but I'm gonna go with my gut and give it to Ruth (who was second to Cobb in OBP, 8th in BA, first in SLG, first in OPS, third in doubles, fifth in triples, first in homers, third in RBI's, first in extra base hits, first in power/speed number... despite playing 16 fewer games than Cobb and going 13-7 with a 2.22 ERA as a pitcher). To me, Ruth and Cobb were very, very close offensively that year... and Ruth did it despite the distraction of having to pitch a good portion of the time. So he gets my vote.

[csh19792001]

Originally posted by RuthMayBond
O,h you want my Best Postion Players for those years (as opposed to MVPs)? No problem:
1907-I have Cobb, but not convincingly so
1908-Cobb again, again not convincingly so
1909-Cobb, pretty convincingly
1910-Lajoie
1912-Speaker, fairly convincingly
1915-Cobb, pretty convincingly
1918-Cobb, pretty convincingly
So
1) I'd have to say Cobb was deprived of at least 4 TPR titles and
2) Maybe you'll stop saying that I'm anti-Cobb/pro-Total Baseball at all costs

Agreed.

Here is why TPR is bogus, and why Cobb is derprived of several titles. I believe he was the best player in baseball at least 5 years, (09,11,15,17, 18) almost for sure.... Bill cited that he dominated all the categories the Total Baseball and SABR can come up with.....so what's the deal?

The problem is that it compares position players to pitchers, which is bogus and impossible to do. Since people weren't having seasons like Matty in 08', or Pete in 16', or Johnson in 13' during the 20's Ruth leads every year. Pitching was way, WAY behind from 20-39 because of the rules/equipment changes, and guys just didn't dominate like they did. So it seems that the old timer position players (pre 1920) probably are at a disadvantage, and probably in a somewhat linear fashion as you go back to 1871, because of the increasing influence/dominance of pitchers as you go back.

I don't see any other valid explanation as to why Cobb only wins 2 TPR titles. It's just silly.

[ElHalo]

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
Everyone conceeds that Bill James has a huge personal problem with Cobb, as manifested in his ranking him 5th all-time, instead of 2nd. But you must remember, that in his 1st Historical Abstract, James had Cobb ranked 14th over-all, & 10th (!) among position players.


And you must not forget, that we STILL don't have documentation of Taking Extra Bases, Caught Stealing prior to 1920, SOs prior to 1913, DPs prior to 1939.

All of those will tend to boost Cobb ever higher, while continuing to chisel away & erode Ruth's numerical edge, which now is only ahead due to his pitching.


I wouldn't call myself anti-Cobb by any stretch of the imagination... and I personally rate Cobb 6th all time among MLB players (behind Ruth, Mays, Williams, Hornsby, and Gehrig). That has more to do with my personal de-valuation of defense and baserunning in favor of pure hitting than any anti-Cobb bias.

And as far as the stats we don't have... I'm one of those people who doesn't believe a strikeout is really any worse than a groundout, that CS numbers will only hurt Cobb, and that extra bases taken and DP's aren't a huge enough statistical difference to really make all that much of a change between the relative rankings of Ruth and Cobb.

[ElHalo]

Mr. Burgess,

All time OPS+ leaders:

1. Babe Ruth 207
2. Ted Williams 190
3. (tie) Barry Bonds 179
Lou Gehrig 179
5. Rogers Hornsby 175
6. Mickey Mantle 172
7. (tie) Dan Brouthers 170
Joe Jackson 170
9. Ty Cobb 167
10. (tie) Jimmie Foxx 163
Mark McGwire 163

...

20. Willie Mays 156

Rogers gets ranked that high largely for leading the league in BA, OBP, and SLG SEVEN TIMES, including 6 straight. Cobb did this 3 times, in 1909, 1914, and 1917. I'm not quite sure where you got your numbers, but by my reckoning, Hornsby has an OBP+ of 127.273, Cobb has an OBP+ of 126.979... either way, Cobb and Hornsby are very close on that number, and Hornsby's relative slugging is obviously much better than Cobb's (though Cobb's relative BA is much better than Hornsby's). I put Hornsby higher than Cobb largely because Hornsby could hit for average, if not quite as good as Cobb, then almost as good (and better than anyone else ever). And Hornsby could slug with the best of them... Cobb, while a great doubles and triples hitter, couldn't. In 1921-22, when Cobb was still a great hitter young enough to dominate people, and the lively ball was catching on... he hit 12 and 4 HR's, respectively. Hornsby hit 21 and 42... after being just as much of a dead ball slap hitter as Cobb earlier. Cobb didn't have the ability, or the desire, to adapt to the lively ball once it came around... and so Hornsby gets some extra credit in my mind that Cobb doesn't.

I will admit, though, that I'm slightly biased when it comes to Rogers Hornsby. His numbers just absolutely blow me away, just completely shock me (just try and find another 2nd baseman, or another anybody, who hit over .400 with 40 homers, 150 RBI's, 140 runs scored, and double digit steals... go ahead, I'll wait). But here's the thing: Most baseball fans have NEVER HEARD OF HIM. Go into your average bar, sit down with some guys watching a baseball game. Bring up Cobb's name. Bring up Ted Williams' name. Bring up Honus Wagner's name. You'll at least get a spark of recognition. But bring up Rogers Hornsby's name... and all you're going to get is blank stares, at least 3 times out of 4. It just shocks me. So I might be a little biased with respect to him.

Willie Mays... well, I'll admit to being a little bit of a sheep here, but I put him that high because everyone says he should be that high. I put Mickey Mantle's peak value as just about the highest of any player ever (take away guys named Ruth, Bonds, and Williams, and Mantle's 1957 season is the best season anyone's had since 1900, based on OPS+). But everybody says Mays was better than Mantle at his peak, and Mays lasted longer. So I'm just kind of following the crowd there.

Gehrig, now... number 17 in BA, 5 in OBP (3 amongst 20th century players), 3 in SLG, 3 in OPS, fourth (if you put Barry Bonds ahead of him) in adjusted OPS+. Top 10 in BA 10 times in his 14 seasons, top 10 in OBP and SLG 12 times each. Didn't actually lead the league in as many things because he had Ruth to contend with (finished 2nd to Ruth in OPS four times... that's insane), and then ended his career early... I think we can all agree that he's at least one of the greatest hitters of all time... and he gets major, major bonus points for the consecutive games streak.

Williams... he played at least part of 19 seasons. And had an OPS over 1.000 in EIGHTEEN of them. Counting only years he played, he led in OPS 8 straight years... and 10 overall. I admit that, like you, I have an anti-walk bias... but still. Take away Babe Ruth, and Williams' OBP is THIRTY FIVE points higher than the next highest 20th century player (Gehrig). Imagine if Cobb's BA was 35 points higher than the all time third place finisher. He did all that, and STILL managed to hit 500 HR's despite missing all that time to injury and war. I almost can't believe it.

And Ruth... well, I think you know why I put Ruth ahead of Cobb.

And there you go. The five people I put ahead of Cobb all time, and why I put them there. Like I said, the only one I'll admit to having a personal bias towards is Hornsby... so maybe I'm not entirely being objective with respect to him. But I like to think he deserves his spot with me.

[csh19792001]

Originally posted by ElHalo
I wouldn't call myself anti-Cobb by any stretch of the imagination... and I personally rate Cobb 6th all time among MLB players (behind Ruth, Mays, Williams, Hornsby, and Gehrig). That has more to do with my personal de-valuation of defense and baserunning in favor of pure hitting than any anti-Cobb bias.

And as far as the stats we don't have... I'm one of those people who doesn't believe a strikeout is really any worse than a groundout, that CS numbers will only hurt Cobb, and that extra bases taken and DP's aren't a huge enough statistical difference to really make all that much of a change between the relative rankings of Ruth and Cobb.

"I'm one of those people who doesn't believe a strikeout is really any worse than a groundout"

Halo- for your own edification-

http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/submit/Friend_Harold3.stm

"and that extra bases taken and DP's aren't a huge enough statistical difference to really make all that much of a change between the relative rankings of Ruth and Cobb"

As for this, well, I can't explain it to you on here, just how much extra bases matter- you just have to read books like "The Ty Cobb scrapbook"(Okkonen, 2001), where you will read (it documents, a paragraph or so each) about 800 of Cobb's games. You'll see for yourself how many games Cobb won by taking extra bases, and by advancing guys along the basepaths (neither of which show up, of course, in runs, RBI's, or any other convenient stat system yet devised).

A groundout to the right side with a guy on second, or any hitting move that involves moving the runner up is NOT credited- yet it helps win ball games. So does going from 1st-3rd on a single or scoring from second on a bunt. Cobb EARNED those bases advanced (and bases he advanced others), yet gets NO credit for it.

As for the grounding into double plays thing, Yes, Ruth has another huge advantage in that it was not kept back then. I know GDP's are quite deleterious to one's team.

[csh19792001]

Originally posted by RuthMayBond
I don't know WHAT you're talking about, but Ruth was getting walks AND getting MANY bases on his EXTRA-BASE hits

I was correcting you. You said that "Ruth was busy getting walks while Sisler was busy swinging at bad pitches". Obviously, he wasn't.

I thought that was ridiculous right away, and looked into it a bit more. Ill agree that Ruth was more productive, in the SABR "the offensive stats we deem to be connoting production" sense of the word, sure.

His SLG and OBP were through the roof, because he was Ruth (greatest slugger and HR hitter), because he was playing at the Polo Grounds, were he slugged 200 pts higher than he did on the road, and because pitchers walked him incessantly.

And as to the walks- This is largely because they had never faced a HR hitter before, didnt know how to deal with him, and realized he was fat, fairly slow, and inept on the basepaths, and COULD be disposed of (via walks) as opposed to a guy like Cobb, with whom the trouble was ONLY BEGINNING when you put him on first.

[RuthMayBond]

Originally posted by csh19792001
I was correcting you. You said that "Ruth was busy getting walks while Sisler was busy swinging at bad pitches". I thought that was ridiculous right away, and looked into it a bit more. Ill agree that Ruth was more productive, in the SABR "the offensive stats we deem to be connoting production" sense of the word, sure.

His SLG and OBP were through the roof, because he was Ruth (greatest slugger and HR hitter), because he was playing at the Polo Grounds, were he slugged 200 pts higher than he did on the road, and because pitchers walked him incessantly.

And as to the walks- This is largely because they had never faced a HR hitter before, didnt know how to deal with him, and realized he was fat, fairly slow, and inept on the basepaths, and COULD be disposed of (via walks) as opposed to a guy like Cobb, with whom the trouble was ONLY BEGINNING when you put him on first. SHOW me where I ALLEGEDLY said this

[ElHalo]

Originally posted by csh19792001
"I'm one of those people who doesn't believe a strikeout is really any worse than a groundout"

Halo- for your own edification-

http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/submit/Friend_Harold3.stm



That article's all well and good, but it doesn't prove any point. It talks about the stigma against strikeouts going away, and how it should be back, but it doesn't offer any objective evidence about the awful qualities of the strikeout. He talks about how some power hitters used to have low strikeout rates, but he doesn't offer any proof of why it's bad that hitters do now. Sure, you can't have a sacrifice fly or a runner moved over on a strikeout, but you most certainly can get on base on a strikeout, something you absolutely CAN NOT DO on a flyout or a groundout. And you can't hit into a double play on a strikeout. Until I see some statistical evidence to the contrary, I'm going to believe you've got a wash there.

Now, I've heard people argue that "at least when you put a ball in play, there's a chance of a fielder committing an error." That's undoubtedly true, but it's completely irrelevant to this discussion. If the fielder commits an error on a ground ball, and you get on base, then nobody's out... and, by definition, a groundout has not occurred. So, when you get a groundout, or a flyout, or a strikeout, the result is the same. You're out. Except on a strikout, you're not posing the risk of forcing the guys you already have on base into forceouts for double plays and triple plays.

[csh19792001]

Originally posted by RuthMayBond
SHOW me where I ALLEGEDLY said this


LOL. I thought this one odd of you, esp. knowing what you know in statistics. It was in your post, and since you put everything in bold, and Bill has a way of answering the other person's question (potential response) before they make it (and then people quoting that, and so on) it gets more and more abstruse.

My fault, RMB. I apologize. As a result of the hurlyburly, I thought you were speaking in your post, when it turns out you were quoting him.

Why do you put everything in bold like that? I dont see anyone else who does that.


(Bill - That's just lame and you well know it! Babe was taking walks, while Sisler was swinging at bad balls. He just wanted to hit the ball. Sizzler was known as impatient, and he should have had more plate discipline.)

I don't think a guy should have more plate discipline if he is hitting .400 with 230 hits a year and extreemly LOW strikeout totals. I could be wrong, but I doubt it in this instance.

[ElHalo]

Originally posted by csh19792001
His SLG and OBP were through the roof, because he was Ruth (greatest slugger and HR hitter), because he was playing at the Polo Grounds, were he slugged 200 pts higher than he did on the road, and because pitchers walked him incessantly.

And as to the walks- This is largely because they had never faced a HR hitter before, didnt know how to deal with him, and realized he was fat, fairly slow, and inept on the basepaths, and COULD be disposed of (via walks) as opposed to a guy like Cobb, with whom the trouble was ONLY BEGINNING when you put him on first.

Um... what?

Since you're talking about the Polo Grounds, I must assume you're talking about 1920-22, the only years Ruth played in the Polo Grounds.

So you say Ruth was "fat, fairly slow, and inept on the basepaths" then? Again, I say... Um... what?

In 1920, Babe Ruth led the Yankees in stolen bases. He was second to Wally Pipp in triples (Ruth had 12, Pipp had 14). In 1921, Babe Ruth led the Yankees in stolen bases AGAIN, and also led the Yankees in triples (tied with Bob Meusel at 16). In 1922, Ruth was injured for a good amount of time, so his stolen bases were down, but he still hit 8 triples, good for third on the team.

So, I ask again... how was Ruth "fat, fairly slow, and inept on the basepaths"?

[csh19792001]

Originally posted by ElHalo
That article's all well and good, but it doesn't prove any point. It talks about the stigma against strikeouts going away, and how it should be back, but it doesn't offer any objective evidence about the awful qualities of the strikeout. He talks about how some power hitters used to have low strikeout rates, but he doesn't offer any proof of why it's bad that hitters do now. Sure, you can't have a sacrifice fly or a runner moved over on a strikeout, but you most certainly can get on base on a strikeout, something you absolutely CAN NOT DO on a flyout or a groundout. And you can't hit into a double play on a strikeout. Until I see some statistical evidence to the contrary, I'm going to believe you've got a wash there.

Now, I've heard people argue that "at least when you put a ball in play, there's a chance of a fielder committing an error." That's undoubtedly true, but it's completely irrelevant to this discussion. If the fielder commits an error on a ground ball, and you get on base, then nobody's out... and, by definition, a groundout has not occurred. So, when you get a groundout, or a flyout, or a strikeout, the result is the same. You're out. Except on a strikout, you're not posing the risk of forcing the guys you already have on base into forceouts for double plays and triple plays.

A Strikeout: The Cruelest Out of All

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Harold Friend

"There is nothing worse than a strikeout. A strikeout is not just another out. It is an out that is a completely wasted at bat for the offensive team. Almost nothing positive can occur when a batter strikes out, and the few good things that can happen are so rare in today’s game that they can virtually be discounted.

A strikeout can help the offensive team if the batter reaches base safely after striking out. With fewer than two outs and first base unoccupied, or with two outs and first base occupied, a strikeout victim can reach first safely if the catcher misses the third strike and beats a throw to first base. Baserunners can advance at their own risk if a third strike gets by the catcher. That just about summarizes the good things that can happen when a batter strikes out, with one exception.

There is an instance in which a strikeout can be as good as a base on balls. When the batter has two strikes and the next pitch is clearly wild and going to get by the catcher, an alert batter can intentionally swing at the pitch, knowing he will strike out, but also realizing that he will stand an excellent chance of reaching first base.

Almost none of today’s players ever attempts such a play. The reason players give is that it will break their rhythm for future plate appearances, and that is a valid point. But there are times when there is a dire need to get something going offensively, and paradoxically, it can be a strikeout.

When a batter strikes out, runners do not advance and runs do not score. A strike out eats up an out. That’s it. Even a double play can be better than a strikeout, and depending on the situation, can actually be productive.

In 1962, the Yankees and Giants split the first six games of the World Series. The seventh game at Candlestick Park was a scoreless pitching duel between the Yankees’ Ralph Terry and the Giants’ Jack Sanford until the Yankees came to bat in the top of the fifth inning. Bill Skowron singled, Clete Boyer singled, and pitcher Ralph Terry drew a base a ball.

It was a great opportunity for the Yankees to break the game open, but leadoff man Tony Kubek grounded into a double play, scoring Skowron. That was it. There was no more scoring. The only run of the game, and the run that was the margin of victory for the Yankees to win the World Championship, scored as the result of a double play.

Double plays kill rallies, but at least the ball is in play. Kubek made contact and hit the ball well, but it was hit to the fielder. A batter can’t direct the flight of the ball. But striking out is failure, because contact is not made."

SNIP

"Today, it is a different game. Some sportscasters and former baseball players have stated that “an out is an out” and a strikeout is simply another way of a batter being retired. Many players also subscribe to the false belief that a strikeout is no worse than any other type of out. Do they really believe that a strikeout is just as good as a fly ball to the outfield when there is one out and a runner on third? Would the arbitrator at a salary hearing agree with the concept that “an out is an out?

New York Mets broadcasters Tom Seaver and Gary Thorne discussed whether or not McGwire, with all the strikeouts, was helping St. Louis. Thorne felt that McGwire was a detriment because if he didn’t hit a home run, he would do nothing to start a rally, continue a rally, or move a runner along. His strikeouts had killed many rallies.

Seaver agreed, but put in the disclaimer that McGwire’s home runs helped the team, and he concluded that McGwire was more of a positive than a negative. Home runs are good. Implicit in the discussion was the fact that no out is worse than a strikeout.

Scoring runs is important and wins games, but preventing the other team from scoring runs is even more important. Pitching and defense, not home runs, win championships. Players who strike out simply strengthen their opponents pitching and defense and ruin their team’s offense. A strikeout is the worst play in baseball."


I'm presenting you with logic and expecting you to use your intuitive baseball knowledge to understand this. It should be self-implicit and self revealed from all your years of watching baseball. Again, do I have stats to show how much worse? No, because stats arent applicable here.

Most of the time, a strikeout is the worst out that can happen, and the most selfish.

[csh19792001]

Originally posted by RuthMayBond
I put my quotes inside what I quote so I don't have to keep bolding and un-bolding. So you CAUGHT Burgess, the guy on YOUR side? :laugh Justice is served :laugh

yeah, i nabbed Bill!! :laugh

i know how much he supports Gorgeous George, so it surprises me that he would say it.

[csh19792001]

Originally posted by ElHalo
Um... what?

Since you're talking about the Polo Grounds, I must assume you're talking about 1920-22, the only years Ruth played in the Polo Grounds.

So you say Ruth was "fat, fairly slow, and inept on the basepaths" then? Again, I say... Um... what?

In 1920, Babe Ruth led the Yankees in stolen bases. He was second to Wally Pipp in triples (Ruth had 12, Pipp had 14). In 1921, Babe Ruth led the Yankees in stolen bases AGAIN, and also led the Yankees in triples (tied with Bob Meusel at 16). In 1922, Ruth was injured for a good amount of time, so his stolen bases were down, but he still hit 8 triples, good for third on the team.

So, I ask again... how was Ruth "fat, fairly slow, and inept on the basepaths"?

Yes- 20-22, because we were talking about him in comparison to Sisler.

Perhaps I've overstated it on "fairly slow", but I don't think so. Maybe people can tell me that is untrue. The other two assumptions seem to hold.

1. Marshall Smelsler "The Life That Ruth Built" pgs. 340-41. (On the 26' World Series debacle, due to Ruth's incompetence. A microcosm of a career.

2. 123 stolen bases, lifetime, and 117 CS.

3. Reading quotes from contemporaries about Ruth's baserunning various places, such as Bill's files. He was better than one would expect from someone so heavy, but still far from good.

4. On "fat" and also on "farily slow"- seeing film of him and him running, and reading about him weighing close to 250 at various points in his career (Robert Creamer).

[ElHalo]

Originally posted by csh19792001

I'm presenting you with logic and expecting you to use your intuitive baseball knowledge to understand this. It should be self-implicit and self revealed from all your years of watching baseball. Again, do I have stats to show how much worse? No, because stats arent applicable here.

Most of the time, a strikeout is the worst out that can happen, and the most selfish.


I read the article. I just didn't agree with it.

I've watched baseball for many years, yes. And yes, there are times, in close games with less than two outs and a guy on third, that I'm praying for just a popout.

But there are just as many times, when a guy's taken a weak swing at a pitch and sailed a lazy chopper to short, starting an inning ending double play, that I've wished they would have just taken the third strike.

Sorry, but until I see some kind of statistical evidence showing me that productive groundouts/flyouts are more prevalent than double/triple plays and advancing to first on dropped third strikes, I'll continue to believe that one is just as good as the other.

[bf-lurker]

Originally posted by csh19792001
I'm presenting you with logic and expecting you to use your intuitive baseball knowledge to understand this. It should be self-implicit and self revealed from all your years of watching baseball. Again, do I have stats to show how much worse? No, because stats arent applicable here.

Most of the time, a strikeout is the worst out that can happen, and the most selfish.

It seems as if this argument is just wrong. Check out this article http://premium.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2617

[ElHalo]

Originally posted by csh19792001
Yes- 20-22, because we were talking about him in comparison to Sisler.

Perhaps I've overstated it on "fairly slow", but I don't think so. Maybe people can tell me that is untrue. The other two assumptions seem to hold.

1. Marshall Smelsler "The Life That Ruth Built" pgs. 340-41. (On the 26' World Series debacle, due to Ruth's incompetence. A microcosm of a career.

2. 123 stolen bases, lifetime, and 117 CS.

3. Reading quotes from contemporaries about Ruth's baserunning various places, such as Bill's files. He was better than one would expect from someone so heavy, but still far from good.

4. On "fat" and also on "farily slow"- seeing film of him and him running, and reading about him weighing close to 250 at various points in his career (Robert Creamer).

Well, he's listed at 6'2" and 215"... which doesn't really seem all that fat to me. And as far as him weighing close to 250... Roger Clemens weighs close to 250, but I don't think anyone would really call him "fat."... Sure, Ruth was overweight at times, but he was never a David Wells.

And as for the SB's... he had a career SB% of 51. Not great, sure. Let's look at the league numbers (that we have CS' for...). I'll start with 1920... the CS numbers are shady before then.

1920: 51.5%
1921: 55.6%
1922: 56.9%
1923: 55.0%
1924: 56.3%
...

You get the idea. The SB% numbers hovered right around 55%... meaning that Ruth was below average, but hardly incompetent, at basestealing.

[csh19792001]

Originally posted by ElHalo
Well, he's listed at 6'2" and 215"... which doesn't really seem all that fat to me. And as far as him weighing close to 250... Roger Clemens weighs close to 250, but I don't think anyone would really call him "fat."... Sure, Ruth was overweight at times, but he was never a David Wells.

And as for the SB's... he had a career SB% of 51. Not great, sure. Let's look at the league numbers (that we have CS' for...). I'll start with 1920... the CS numbers are shady before then.

1920: 51.5%
1921: 55.6%
1922: 56.9%
1923: 55.0%
1924: 56.3%
...

You get the idea. The SB% numbers hovered right around 55%... meaning that Ruth was below average, but hardly incompetent, at basestealing.

Halo-
Where did you get the league numbers? What are they for Babe's career, vs. his career pct? Interesting stuff.

Two things seriously missing are strikeouts and CS. They had to go back and figure out RBI's before the 20's, even!!

I don't put hardly any stock in the listed weights- they have Frank Howard at 255- when everyone agrees that he was closer to 280, at surely more at the end of his career. They have Cobb at 175, when in his prime he was never under 190. They have Mo Vaughn at 230 and Fielder at 240- both of which, you and I know to be ridiculous.

Their listings for Mantle and Gehrig seem to be way off, too.

I'm getting the weight info from just seeing pics of the Babe (and some film, esp from 25' on), and from what I read in the Smesler and Creamer biopics. Clemens is a fitness fanatic, btw. He is famous for his hellish, 3 hour workouts. He doesn't have a huge belly, like Ruth did, esp. (look at pics of him on the 27 and 28 Yanks). I think Clemens was always just built like a football player- just husky. They babe (according to Smesler), was 185 when he came up. He grew fat early. I don't think Clemens ever weighed under 220. He's put on weight as he has gone on, to be sure.

So Babe was never really obese, like Wells or Fielder, (or the guys that played him in the movies :)), but he was pretty close at times, from what I've seen. Certainly a far, far cry from a somebody with great speed.

[ElHalo]

Baseballreference.com has SB and CS numbers for each league for each year... once you have those, it's pretty easy to calculate SB% (SB / (SB + CS)).

And yeah, admittedly, Ruth was a pretty hefty guy... but then again, so am I, so maybe I have a soft spot for him.

But yeah, while Ruth was probably heavier and more out of shape than a lot of other ballplayers... he was also a far, far cry from John Goodman, which is the image a lot of people have of the Babe (i.e., an obese, lumbering oaf).

[ElHalo]

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
RMB,

I do appreciate anyone who rates Ty well. But I also asked ElHalo how he comes to his conclusions. Which makes me curious, as stats place Cobb in 2nd at the worst.

It kind of got buried, Mr. Burgess, but if you check the post at the top of the 4th page in this thread, I explained why I put Hornsby, Williams, Mays, and Gehrig ahead of Cobb. Ruth... well, I figure you know those reasons.

[csh19792001]

Originally posted by ElHalo
Baseballreference.com has SB and CS numbers for each league for each year... once you have those, it's pretty easy to calculate SB% (SB / (SB + CS)).

And yeah, admittedly, Ruth was a pretty hefty guy... but then again, so am I, so maybe I have a soft spot for him.

But yeah, while Ruth was probably heavier and more out of shape than a lot of other ballplayers... he was also a far, far cry from John Goodman, which is the image a lot of people have of the Babe (i.e., an obese, lumbering oaf).


Oh, for sure. The movies are a joke. Even if he was fat, you dont have all those XBHits without being able to run fairly well.

[csh19792001]

Originally posted by bf-lurker
It seems as if this argument is just wrong. Check out this article http://premium.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2617

Interesting scatterplots.

However, this disproves none of the points in the Harold Friend article. This is on a MACRO level, or team wise.


I'm talking micro level (eliminating many, many extraneous (potentially confounding) variables) In other words, what we are talking about here is in individual instances, and most plausible scenarios show (by logic) that a K is worse than a hit-out far more often than not.

FROM THE ARTICLE- "Of course, causation is a sticky subject, so try not to misinterpret the above data as "proof" that increased strikeouts cause an improvement in a player's secondary skills. It's just that where one group shows up, often so does the other."

And also, it deleteriously effect PRIMARY skills!!! Forget the tenuous link between this and SECONDARY skills.

For instance, this does not take into account era differences, where runs per game were higher, creating more at bats, creating more strikeouts (more possibilities)!!! It amalgamates 1950-2000, which is specious and dissmissive.

If you abide by this metric, however.... Notice, the distinct negative correlation between K's and BA and K's vs. OBP. Quite detrimental.

PURIST perspective objections (the artistic, visceral, NON STATISTICAL side of the game)-

Besides, strikeouts are usually boring!!!!!!! Walks are frequently boring. This is antithetical to the original intent of the game- to put the ball in play, make contact, and make things happen. The reason a K is an embarrasment is because it is a selfish failure and the worst out one can make. You arent giving anything a chance. Very little good can come of it.

[csh19792001]

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net


So, when you adjust things, Cobb is about 20 points ahead of everyone else, LIFETIME. That's fairly ridiculous, on the scale that batting average is based on. And the only guys within 20 points are Gwynn, who was hitting singles for 20 years while everyone else was going for homers, and Ted Williams, who many consider to be the greatest hitter ever.

I think it's time for people to realize how ridiculous and impossible .367 is, for a career. And this is WITHOUT even realizing (in addition) that he led in slugging 8 times, OPS+ 11 times, and was a top notch CFer and the greatest baserunner of all time. EVEN if he just went for singles and/or focused entirely on hitting, it would be incredulous.


Only 2 people have even hit over .360 THREE YEARS IN A ROW since 1931. And one was Larry Walker, who has a lifetime .393 BA at Coors Field.

A little perspective.... Todd Helton (.337 lifetime). First, he is in mid-career (BA almost always drops 10-30 points during the decline phase), and playing in Colorado (Helton's career BA is .378 at Coors, .294 away). He is the ONLY GUY WITHIN THIRTY POINTS playing right now. The NEXT guys are at .323 lifetime (and again, mid career, before the decline phase).

The only guy within the last 45 years to come within 25 points of Cobb was Williams. Best record in baseball, especially considering everything else Ty endured (and accomplished) while accomplishing it. And you wonder why 230 experts called him the greatest ever.

[ElHalo]

Originally posted by csh19792001
PURIST perspective objections (the artistic, visceral, NON STATISTICAL side of the game)-



Wait... there's a non statistical side of baseball?

Since when? Why did no one ever tell me?

[ElHalo]

One thing I'll interject in there...

It's a little difficult sometimes to establish a players' greatness until long, long after they've retired... which is of course the only explaination I can see for putting Collins over Hornsby.

Then again, he was definitely one of the old school of baseball, not a big reader of Moneyball ... Me personally, now, if I had the chance to create an all time team... my first wish would be to be able to use cloned players, so I can have multiples of one guy. And I'd set up my teams like this:

1st team:
C: Babe Ruth
1B: Babe Ruth
2B: Babe Ruth
SS: Babe Ruth
3B: Babe Ruth
LF: Babe Ruth
CF: Babe Ruth
RF: Babe Ruth
P: Babe Ruth

2nd team:
C: Ted Williams
1B: Ted Williams
2B: Ted Williams
SS: Ted Williams
3B: Ted Williams
LF: Ted Williams
CF: Ted Williams
RF: Ted Williams
P: Walter Johnson (Teddy can't pitch, so I had to cheat a little)
DH: Ted Williams

Now, I know my teams would have some defensive problems, especially at Catcher in the infield... but I more than think that their offensive attributes would more than make up for it.

And I think, in all seriousness and all honesty, that either one of these teams would beat any team you could possibly make up of any players ever. The offensive prowess would be more than enough to make up for defensive liabilites.

[ElHalo]

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
ElHalo,

If you truly believe that either of those two teams could actually win a game, the only physician who might POSSIBLY assist you, is presently incarcerated. His name is Dr. Kervorkian.

If either of your two "teams" were ever in the field, the innings would never, ever end. Seriously. I could see one of your OF Babes calling, "I'll take it", and all nine of them, crash together and crack their skulls.

Bill Burgess

Like I said, not only do I believe that they could actually win a game, I believe that they'd never lose a game.

I really do mean it when I say that I believe hitting is far, far, far more important than defense and baserunning.

[ElHalo]

Originally posted by RuthMayBond
Not that a Yankee fan is any prize, but I actually have to stick up for Burgess on this one. I'd be bunting on Teddy at third and first all day. Then when they all spit at the crowd and all get tossed :laugh

Here's how I think about it:

Sure, the difference between this team and your average team on defense is pretty striking. But even so... the difference between this team and an average team on defense would be, at most... three runs a game? More some games, less others. I can't possibly imagine it being any higher than that.

The difference in offense between this team and your typical team will be far, far greater than three runs a game.

So we win. A lot.

[ElHalo]

One of these days, I'll really have to do a mathematical study of this.

But it really is my firm, firm, FIRM belief that unless a guy throws the ball into the stands every time he touches it, Chuck Knoblauch style, or snares up every ball that's hit even remotely near him, Mazeroski style... their defense is largely irrelevant. The difference between the tenth percentile of major league defender and the ninetieth percentile, fielding wise, isn't all that relavent. A few runs a month.

And if they can hit like Babe, you overlook a few runs a month.

Now, admittedly, Babe might have a hard time learning catcher... but I'd love to see him try.

[RuthMayBond]

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
During the '26 series, Babe couldn't touch Alexander with a 10 foot pole.

RMB:
Maybe but he hit .300 w/4 HR in the series

During the last game, no Yankee could put the ball out of the infield.

RMB:
But they almost won the game. I don't think a Cobb man wants to be talking about someone else's World Series problems :laugh

[ElHalo]

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
Do you think your team of Babes could beat my team of Wagners?

Bill Burgess

Well, see, there's a question now. As you said, Wagner did indeed field a bunch of different positions, and he was at least halfway decent at most of them. And Wagner was quite a hitter.

Here's the basic point I'm trying to make with my team full of Babe's, though: If you rate every player on a scale of 0-100 at hitting, and 0-100 at fielding...

I'd argue that if you've got a choice between a player who's a 90 at hitting and an 80 at fielding, or player who's a 95 at hitting and a 20 at fielding... you pick the second guy, because hitting really is that much more important.

It is entirely possible, however, that Wagner would be a 90 at most positions on the field, and Babe would be a 0 at Catcher or SS. We're not really sure. I'm inclined to think the Babe had enough natural ability that if you gave him a year or two to work at it, he could be at least as good a middle infielder as, say, Tony Lazerri... and then yeah, I'd take him over Wagner (because even if Wagner could hit at 95 and field at 90, Babe could hit at 100 at field at 20... and that's more valuable, in mind).

[ElHalo]

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
Most importantly, could Babe have did what he did, without such a formidable bulkwark hitting behind him, in Lou Gehrig? Not too likely.

I'm not gonna comment on your other assertions, but this one I'll tackle.

Lou Gehrig's rookie year was 1925. Before 1925, Babe did this for the Yankees:

1920: .376/.532/.847 158 R, 54 HR, 137 RBI
1921: .378/.512/.846 177 R, 59 HR, 171 RBI
1922: .315/.434/.672 94 R, 35 HR, 99 RBI (missed 44 games to injury)
1923: .393/.545/.764 151 R, 41 HR, 131 RBI
1924: .378/.513/.739 143 R, 46 HR, 121 RBI

You can do better than that, come on.

[Imapotato]

Originally posted by ElHalo
Well, see, there's a question now. As you said, Wagner did indeed field a bunch of different positions, and he was at least halfway decent at most of them. And Wagner was quite a hitter.

Here's the basic point I'm trying to make with my team full of Babe's, though: If you rate every player on a scale of 0-100 at hitting, and 0-100 at fielding...

I'd argue that if you've got a choice between a player who's a 90 at hitting and an 80 at fielding, or player who's a 95 at hitting and a 20 at fielding... you pick the second guy, because hitting really is that much more important.

It is entirely possible, however, that Wagner would be a 90 at most positions on the field, and Babe would be a 0 at Catcher or SS. We're not really sure. I'm inclined to think the Babe had enough natural ability that if you gave him a year or two to work at it, he could be at least as good a middle infielder as, say, Tony Lazerri... and then yeah, I'd take him over Wagner (because even if Wagner could hit at 95 and field at 90, Babe could hit at 100 at field at 20... and that's more valuable, in mind).


Actually you intrigued me...so I did a simulation

10 wagners vs 10 Ruths
I used an average pitcher for both

for both I used a scale of A-E on fielding range and if they did not play the position I gave them a .900 F% (deadball average)

IN 100 games...Wagner's team won 65-68-72-74-76 of those games.

Honus when using his Fielding stats at Baseball reference was a D .985 at 1b, D.952 at 2b, C .920 at 3B, A .940 at SS, D 961 at OF

Ruth was a D .960 at OF and E .966 at 1B

Honus stole at will, and Ruth's generic pitcher had a nice average ERA of 1.23 since over half his Runs were unearned.

I used 1950 type offense

Babe averaged about a 1.700 OPS and about 70 HRS...but that was about it...

Honus averaged 85 2bs, 28 3bs and 25 hrs...plus 70 sbs.

I'd say defense is important, especially at SS, 2b and CF

[ElHalo]

To give our most serious consideration to the fans, is utter folly. Babe's fans were almost all new to BB and understood what they were seeing the least. Is that would you would have us pay the most attention to, Bulova? You surely aren't asking us to surrender our jugement to the lowest common denominator are you? Please remember, good friend, the Beatles easily outsold Beethoven, Shaesespeare is annually outsold by Michael Crighton, Agatha Criste, Grisham, Harry Potter author, and romance pulp writers.

Your other point that Cobb was preferred by only those who were deadballers was 100% incorrect. Almost every single star of the 1920's in on record as favoring Cobb over Ruth. Every one. And I mean all of them, not only the earlier ones. So just for your personal benefit, I will list those players who came into the league after 1920, played ONLY modern ball, and rate Ty first.



You should also remember, this is simply all the quotes I've been able to find. The belief that Ty was the best was so prevelant, that few felt the need to verbalize it. I forgot to include Babe himself, of 4 occasions, called Ty the best he had ever seen, or HEARD ABOUT. I haven't included the owners like Comiskey, Briggs, Yawkey, Shibe, etc. I might also mention that, personally, they might have liked Babe more than Ty. So no soft Cobb votes.

Your suggestion that NONE of them could properly evaluate the relative gifts and greatness of these two gentlemen strikes me as cruel. To disallow their imput, and yet, let later generations, who were TOTALLY IGNORANT of them, weigh in, is somehow a form of baseball hatred. Would you exclude witnesses to a crime from testifying.

Mr. Burgess, there were so many things I disagreed with about your post, I hardly know where to begin. But I'll start here.

You say Ruth had 2 gifts out of 12? I'd really love to see how you define gifts. I guess one is pitching, one is power hitting/average hitting/drawing walks? What are the other 10?

And why does somebody have to be good at all of them to be the best? I think that everyone would agree that Albert Pujols is not particularly good at fielding or baserunning, but Carlos Beltran is. And I think you'd be very, very, VERY hard pressed to find a person who'd rather have Carlos Beltran on their team than Albert Pujols. Does the best pitcher have to throw a fastball, splitter, curveball, slider, screwball, knuckleball, changeup, curve ball, etc., etc., etc., or can dominance with three or four pitches be enough? I'll tell you what, I'll take Mariano Rivera in 1999 throwing his cut fastball ahead of... well, pretty much any pitcher you can throw at me with four pitches working. Sometimes, being good at one thing, if you're really THAT good at it, can be enough to more than overcome an inability to dominate other facets.

Next off, one of your lovely quotes. "Babe's fans were almost all new to baseball." So you're saying that Babe Ruth drew new fans into baseball. Fans who'd never seen the sport before. And droves of them, evidently.

Isn't that the very definition of having a huge impact on the game? Drawing in new fans who'd never seen the sport before? Isn't baseball, after all, a business, designed to make money? And wasn't Babe better at acheiving that goal than any other player in history?

Next up. Ask any casual baseball fan, and they'll tell you that the greatest living baseball player is Barry Bonds. Ask any informed baseball fan, and they're likely to tell you it's Willie Mays. Bonds himself would tell you Mays is better than him. I'd most certainly say Mays is better than him.

But fifty years from now, how many people do you think are actually going to say that Willie Mays was better than Barry Bonds? My guess is, not too many. And you know what? They'll probably be right.

Most of the baseball world, including myself, have a pre-conceived notion that Willie Mays is the greatest living ballplayer. And that pre-conceived notion prevents us from admitting to ourselves what's plain in front of our noses: Bonds is better. If you asked me where Bonds ranks in the all time pantheon of baseball players, I'd probably say somewhere around the twentieth spot. And it's just blatantly, PATENTLY obvious that he's better than that... but I've already got the heirarchy in my head, and it's a whole lot harder to change the hegemony than it is to get in before the heirarchy's cemented itself.

In much the same way, ballplayers growing up in the 05-15 time KNEW that Ty Cobb was the greatest ballplayer. It was just plain as daylight to them. And no matter what anybody did, no matter what feats anybody accomplished, nothing was going to change that in their minds, because he already had that slot. You couldn't take it away from him.

So yeah, it's entirely possible that people couldn't fully appreciate the relative greatness of Ruth and Cobb while they were watching them. In the same way that it's entirely possible that the baseball world won't be able to tell how truly great Barry Bonds is until everyone who's seen him play is tottering in a nursing home somewhere.

And please, come on now. If you're going to make an argument about Cobb being a better player, go ahead and do so, but bringing up his war enlistment? If we really want to get into character issues, Babe has Cobb licked like a lollipop. So please don't EVEN start that nonsense.

Next issue: Babe's lack of a decline was strictly the result of increasing offense in the 30's, not a matter of him actually having great longevity.

You know how not true this is, right? From 1930 on, Babe's OPS+'s look like this:

1930: 211
1931: 219
1932: 201
1933: 176
1934: 161

So while, yes, league offense was higher from 30-34 than from 25-29 (though not that much... 4.92 rpg for the first period, 5.18 rpg for the second period, for a total increase of 5.3%), Babe was STILL unbelievably ahead of everyone else. Just for comparison's sake, his 1933 OPS+, when he was 38 years old, is ahead of the career OPS+ of all but... 3 other people ever. Williams, Bonds, Gehrig. That's it. And his 1932 OPS+ was better than anyone's ever done for a career, by a wide margin. Even his 1934 OPS+, when he was a tottering old 39 year old dodger, was better than the career totals of all but 13 other men in the history of the game.

So no, Ruth's decline period isn't illusory.

And one final note. Don't knock Harry Potter. I consider myself a pretty well read person. Some of the most dog eared and lovingly read and re-read volumes on my shelf are widely considered to be the greatest classics in literature; Dante, Dickens, Kafka, Shakespeare, Nabakov, Marlowe, Joyce. And Harry Potter's good stuff.

[ElHalo]

Is my above post showing up to anyone? It's not time stamping for some reason...

[ElHalo]

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
Yeah, he had it all, all right. Babe Ruth had 2 skills which were world-class. He could hit & he could throw. All the rest of his skills were easily matched by half of the league.

Bill Burgess

I'll repeat again: so what? As I said before, Carlos Beltran is a 5 tool player, and Albert Pujols is a 2 tool player, or possibly 3 (I don't know how his arm is). But could you really find me a manager who'd rather have Beltran than Pujols? Or (say three years ago when both were healthy) a manager who'd rather have Kendall than Piazza? Piazza's an awful fielder who can't run at all and can't throw out the garbage. Kendall can field, run, hit, throw, and hit for power. But I think you can fit all the baseball guys who'd rather have had Kendall than Piazza in a closet with room left over for spare linens.

How many times in a season will a player get caught in a rundown? 2, tops? What difference does it make if one guy's the worst in the world and one guy's the best in the world at it? If somebody can get on base like Ruth and hit homers like Ruth, when would you ever possibly want him to bunt? With no outs and a runner on second in extra innings of a tie game at home? How often does that situation arise? The skills you're saying Ruth didn't have weren't skills that he even remotely needed ever. Sure, maybe they would have been worth two or three runs over the course of a year. But Ruth's hitting was worth much, much, much more than that.

Oh, and as far as running down balls... Ruth's range factor in the outfield (where he played mostly in rightfield, with its short porch and resultant fewer defensive opportunities for right fielders) hovered right around or above league average until 1929... when he started to get slower because of age. Sure, it happens.

Mr. Burgess, I've noticed that your last few posts to me seem to reflect a little... hostility. Please understand that I'm not trying to be antagonistic to you, or anything like that. Just trying to have a discussion here.

[ElHalo]

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net

No hostility intended. I like to point out those skills which Babe was not world-class, because so many people here post as if he were so amazing at all matters baseball. I really question if they knew how limited on a ballfield he really was.

ElHalo:
Taken in isolation, these skills like getting down to first in a hurry to beat out a throw, or running down a long line drive between FR & CF, might not seem important to you, but taken in total, all these skills are what wins or loses games in the real world.

Bill Burgess

I'm pretty sure fans know that Babe wasn't Cobb on the basepaths or Speaker in the field. But he was MORE than proficient at hitting and pitching, and hitting a pitching are 95% of baseball.

And as for those skills losing or winning games in the real world... I guess that's why Babe's teams had such lousy winning percentages.

Is it nice if somebody can do those things? Sure. Do you care if they can't do them if they hit .380 with fifty homers and 140 RBI? No, not a lick.

[RuthMayBond]

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
(Bill - That 95% figure is just so wrong. The 1930 Phillies were a bruising offensive team and came in last, due to lousy pitching & defense.

RMB:
I think he's referring to that hitting is 95% of a BATTER's worth

The 1923-25 Tigers outhit & outscored the Yankees, yet came in behind them, due to poor pitching & god-awful defense.

RMB:
The 1925 Tigers did not come in behind the 1925 Yanks

Even with a minimum of offense, as the '08, & '63 Dodgers proved.

RMB:
If you're referring to the 1908 Tigers, they had more than a minimum of offense, as did the '63 Dodgers (3rd in adjusted BER & OPS)

[ElHalo]

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
ElHalo,

But he was MORE than proficient at hitting and pitching, and "hitting a pitching are 95% of baseball.

Is it nice if somebody can do those things? Sure. Do you care if they can't do them if they hit .380 with fifty homers and 140 RBI? No, not a lick."

(Bill - That 95% figure is just so wrong. The 1930 Phillies were a bruising offensive team and came in last, due to lousy pitching & defense.

Get over your obsession with "hitting is 95% baseball", ElHalo. It's been disproved for over 140 yrs. of BB history. Both Bonds & A-Rod have been disproving your pet theory for 5 yrs. now. Superstars without the supporting cast don't win pennants.

Bill Burgess

It doesn't help that there was a typo in my original post, of course. It's supposed to say "hitting AND pitching are 95% of baseball." Of course you need good pitchers to win. In my opinion, good pitchers are more important than good hitters to winning ball games. Pitching wins ballgames, especially in the postseason.

But pitchers really are responsible, in my opinion, for about 90% of how many runs a team gives up. If you think defense is really all that important, then let's see you put Walter Johnson up in front of a defense for 80 games, and then put, oh, I don't know, Jason Jennings up in front of that same defense for 80 games. If defense is so important, shouldn't they both give up about the same number of runs? But of course they won't. Because pitching is what determines how many runs a team gives up, for the most part. Not how rangy their right fielder is. That's certainly a part of it, but not a a huge part.

Those 1930 Phillies (while not really a bruising offensive team... they finished 4th in the NL in runs) did so poorly because they had awful pitchers on their team... a team ERA of 7.69. And would you believe this? 14 different pitchers started a game for those 1930 Phillies.... and exactly one of them, Grover Cleveland Alexander, had a career ERA less than league average. And his ERA that year was 9.14! I don't care if you've got Tris Speaker, Richie Ashburn, and Roger Maris in the outfield, with Ozzie Smith, Brooks Robinson, Bill Mazeroski, and Don Mattingly in the infield, and Johnny Bench at the plate... with pitchers like that, you're not going to win a lot of ballgames.

And can one guy win a pennant by himself? Of course not, and I never meant to imply that they can. I'm just saying that if Babe Ruth was hurting his team so much by not being able to, uh, bunt, then they wouldn't be winning so many games, would they? Because five times a game, when they really needed Babe to lay down a drag bunt, they just wouldn't be getting what they need.

Is hitting 90% of baseball? Of course not. But it's certainly 90% of offense. And is pitching 90% of baseball? No, but it's certainly 90% of defense. If you've got a team full of Walter Johnsons pitching, and a team full of Ted Williams's hitting, do you really think you're going to lose that many ballgames? If fielding and baserunning were really what won ballgames, then guys like Ray Ordonez and Tony Womack would be having their doors knocked down by major league GM's, instead of bouncing around the minors.

[ElHalo]

Mr. Burgess;

How long have you had this Ty Cobb obsession? Has he always been your favorite player?

I know, personally, I hated Ty Cobb from the very first time I read about him... he was a racist and he never touched alcohol, and those are two things I absolutely cannot abide in a human being.

But I know that to me, it was never the best players that I always had as my favorites. Babe Ruth, as great as he was, was never my favorite player... though I always loved him, more for his personality than his hitting feats. Pepper Martin and Billy Martin were always my favorites (odd that they've got the same last name...)... guys who were scrappy, spent most of their time drunk, and were as likely to fight you as look at you. I've always respected that, in a ballplayer and in a human being.

[RuthMayBond]

In some instances players can move a team up three to four places but the 1963 NL race is NOT a typical example. I'm laughing about where you say you're a big fan of the "rest of the team" then you say that one guy can make his team win twenty games just by himself.

[1984Tigers]

Bill,

I have to thank you for all the insight and great stories.

I grew up living and breathing Detroit Tiger baseball (and George Brett), and Ty Cobb was always my favorite (after George Brett). Honestly I never knew about any of the 'bad stuff' about him until I was probably a late teenager. So I guess I was too young to realize he shouldn't be my favorite player because he was supposedly such a bad person or whatever???

Anyway, I've been reading your posts here and find them VERY INTERESTING. I can see, agree or disagree, you have put a great amount of time and study into what you are saying. Thank you, it's great to see somebody with so much passion for what they speak of. I definately plan to check out some of the books you mentioned.

Now I have to get off this thread before I end up not getting any work done ;)

--S.R.

[leecemark]

My goodness, theres a lot of material to work throught in this thread. Bill, I applaud the effort you've put in to collecting your collections of Ty Cobb tributes. Some interesting reading, but do you really think it proves Cobb was better than Ruth? I think if anybody wanted to put in the effort (not volunteering myself thanks) they could come up with hundreds of equally glowing quotes about Ruth. Also, isn't it possible alot of the old timers picking Cobb over Ruth were as much expressing their preference the old "scientific" ball over the new live ball as anything else?
El Halo, I think you drastically underestimate defense. Your Walter Johnson vs Jason Jennings comparison "wouldn't they give up the same amount of runs with the same defense behind the" is a classic strawman. NOBODY thinks defense is the only factor in preventing runs. If it was, all pitchers on every staff would have the same ERA. There is a theory floating around that pitchers only control strike outs and home runs and defense determines almost everything else. I personally don't buy that, but I think defense is more like 30-40 of run prevention than the 10 percent you estimate. If you go with 30% that would make 15% of a position players value defensive. I would double that for middle of the diamond guys and half it for corner guys (just rough numbers here). If you check out a few pitchers that moved from good defensive teams to poor ones I think you'll be surprised by how much their ERA is impacted.
Total Baseball is a great reference in many ways, but I take their TPR with a grain of salt. Even though I respect defense more than some, I think they weigh it wrong and have some other conclusions that are hard to buy into. Bill Dahlen 20th all time? Tim Raines better than Joe DiMaggio? Art Fletcher better than Willie Stargell? I can't take that seriously.

[PumpsieGreen]

Mr. Burgess,
I cannot fathom the amazing information and writing on Cobb you've done in this forum. In my history on baseball fever, I've never seen a better dissection and collection of research than what you've amassed on a singular player. You could write a book with all of your information! I give you much respect, and you deserve some kind of award for what you've done, because you're more than just a poster-you're a true baseball historian. I just wanted to comment on the fascinating job you've done, and I hold high respect for you on these boards. You bring extensive arguments to the table, and give every post some interesting information.

Keep up the great work,
Pumpsie

[PumpsieGreen]

Roy Hobbs,
You have a good point on #1 of your last post. Mr. Burgess, if you're intending to win the argument that Cobb is indeed the greatest player that ever lived, you may or may not realize that you may be working against him if you bring ethics of a player to the table, because Cobb really was a brutally bad man, and even though there are shades of grey to the argument, his actions may affect how people see him as an overall player.

[leecemark]

I think anybody who knows much about either man would have to agree both Cobb and Ruth were extremely flawed human beings and extremely great ball players. To a large degree, picking between them is as much a choice of styles as it is about talent. Roy, I don't think Bill really needs my help here, but comparing raw RBI and run totals for Ruth and Cobb doesn't tell the whole story. Runs were MUCH easier to come by in Ruth's day. Bill, don't give up on converting me. I'm actually going through somewhat of a change of heart on how to wiegh the total ball player vs hitter in evaluating greatness.
Babe was a decent fielder in his younger days, okay range with a good arm. He was also an agressive baserunner -to the point of recklessness. I picture Hal McRae when trying to imagine a young Ruth on the basepaths. By the late 20's though he was a liability in the field and on the basepaths, frequently being lifted for pinch runners or defensive replacements (they didn't call Sammy Byrd "Babe Ruth's Legs" for nothing). Babe is still holding the #1 spot for me while I mull this over, but I could see a move of a better rounded player such as Ty or Honus or Willie or Bonds to number 1. Pure hitters like Williams and Hornsby would have to beat Babe on that basis and I can't see that.

[ElHalo]

Originally posted by leecemark
I think anybody who knows much about either man would have to agree both Cobb and Ruth were extremely flawed human beings and extremely great ball players.

Here I disagree. I agree that both were extremely great ball players. But I disagree that Ruth was an extremely flawed human being. Ruth was a heavy smoker, an alcoholic, a womanizer, a carouser... in short, exactly the kind of guy you'd want to have as a friend. Always quick with a smile and a dollar for the bartender. Loved children, loved women, loved liquor, loved life... in short, all of the qualities that one could hope to portray in themselves.

How was he a flawed human being?

[Roy Hobbs]

For the number crunchers.

The 24 seasons that Cobb played in the major leagues his teams averaged 712 runs a season. Cobb averaged 13% of his team's runs overall.

The difference between league total run averages in Cobb's career and Ruth's is 540.

If we disperse that average across the league, each team scores on average 67 runs more in Ruth's era than in Cobbs.

So, add 67 to the 712/season average for Cobbs team and you've adjusted it basically.

Multiply that number by .13, you get 101.335, multiply that by 24 and you get Cobb's adjusted runs which = 2,432.

Even with the adjustment Cobb scores a run every 4.7 ABs and Ruth scores a run every 3.8.

[leecemark]

El Halo, I'll agree Babe was probably alot more fun to be around than Ty. I suppose if you don't think being a drunk, a whoremonger, a glutton, an an extremely ignorant, foul mouthed man who had absolutely no respect for authority and couldn't even be bothered to learn his teammates names are character flaws, then no he wasn't flawed in any way.

[ElHalo]

Originally posted by leecemark
El Halo, I'll agree Babe was probably alot more fun to be around than Ty. I suppose if you don't think being a drunk, a whoremonger, a glutton, an an extremely ignorant, foul mouthed man who had absolutely no respect for authority and couldn't even be bothered to learn his teammates names are character flaws, then no he wasn't flawed in any way.

Oddly, I consider those all to be positive character traits. Except the ignorance part, of course.

[Imapotato]

Originally posted by ElHalo
Oddly, I consider those all to be positive character traits. Except the ignorance part, of course.

I don't know whether to life or cry at that statement...from the irony of saying all are positive traits except ignorance by using an ignorant statement such as this...have you ever lived with an alcoholic? It's NOT a positive trait.

Here's something to ponder over.

Change

Ty Cobb DID change, he built a hospital in a predominately black community in GA. He has a scholarship that is given not based on race but based on income. He fought many of his demons and won...many he still held. His mom killed his dad at 18 that is something no one can speculate what it would do to you, plus right afterwards he got hazed but his teammates and became paranoid.

Babe NEVER learned from his mistakes, and they eventually took a toll on his health, decimated what could have been an even more eye popping career...and eventually killed him. When he was passed over for a managing job, he pointed fingers instead of looking in the mirror and pointing one at himself. He had everything handed to him on a silver platter for so long, he couldn't see how much of a terrible, dependent person he was.

I'd rather be friends with Ty Cobb, because at least for the most part he saw many of the errors of his ways...unlike Babe. I think after the 3rd intervention with Babe I would have to walk away.

[csh19792001]

"2) You can call Cobb "Mr. Intangibles" all you want. But there's only a few statistics I think matter in this debate:

Ty Cobb had 2,245 R, 1,937 RBI in his career. This is over 11,434 AB, 3,035 G, 24 seasons.

Babe Ruth had 2,174 R, 2,213 RBI in his career. This is over 8,399 AB, 2,503 G, 22 seasons.

Now lets look at that.

All that baserunning ability, all that stealing, all the ferocity, all of that, gave Cobb 71 more runs than Ruth. Seventy-one more runs in 3,305 more ABs and 532 more games. Wow Cobb, that's amazing. Your baserunning skills, your stealing, so impressive.

Wow. 71 more runs in thousands more attempts.

So what if Cobb was a great runner and Ruth wasn't. Ruth did much better at what REALLY COUNTED, getting back to home plate, simple as that. That is the point to baserunning, setting yourself up in the position to score a run. Cobb did a lot to score runs but realistically Ruth was obviously better at it.

Ruth had many more RBIs and RBIs/AB than Cobb. I'm loathe to use RBI as a stastic of comparison because overall it is more of a team factor than an individual. But since you were talking about "place hitting" and contributing to the team... Well, all that place hitting et cetra didn't allow Cobb to drive in more runs.

And sure, Ruth had typically a better supporting cast than Cobb did (although the Tigers were no slouches.) But that doesn't account for Cobb scoring only 71 more runs in thousands of more ABs."


What are the runs/game, BA, SLG, and OBP for the American League during Ruth's career 1919-34 (as a regular) vs. Cobb's 1905-28???

Ruth played in an era DRASTICALLY more offensively oriented (overall) than Cobb.

Cobb never had anyone on any of his teams hit more than 21 homeruns, and most years nobody with CLOSE to even that weak figure.

On "71 more runs"... if Ty had a guys AVERAGING 150 RBI'S a A YEAR BATTING BEHIND HIM for 10 years, I think the disparity would be SLIGHTLY more. Just speculation, though. lol

He was on the top run scoring team of alltime (even with 154 games), and many others (murderers row) that were stacked with tremendous hitters, both power and for average.

You have to look a lot harder at this one (way past raw numbers). Adjust and normalize everything first, then take into account the teams the players were on. Then take into account the equipment improvement and rule changes that favor Ruth tremendously (as a HR hitter). Then playing in parks with a 256 ft. right field line, and later in one with a short porch and a 296 ft. right field line.

Ty Cobb had a 370 ft. right field line to contend with, conversely.

Ruth had many huge advantages that Ty was never afforded, yet Cobb was better alot longer and put up a record that stands up to anyone's.

And that's just ON PAPER, where Ruth shines. Read Bill Burgess' files to get some perspective on all the things Cobb did vastly better which by nature CANNOT show up in quantitative analysis. Baseball isn't a science, it's a game. And anyone who played most of their life (or was an astute observer) can tell you that there is a ton that happens on a baseball diamond that cannot show up in a stat book.

Chris

[leecemark]

Bill, you love to throw that home/away disparity in Ruth's 1921 season around. In the interest of fairness I think you might add that that was by no means typical of his career and his road slugging that season still lead the league by a wide margin. Ruth was helped by the Polo Grounds and later by Yankee Stadium, but to suggest he was a product of his park or that he wouldn't have been a tremendous slugger elsewhere cheapens the debate.

[Roy Hobbs]

On to Cobb's personality, they are based off the following accounts:


One day while walking in Detroit, he stepped in freshly poured asphalt and was yelled at by Fred Collins, a construction worker who happened to be black. Cobb responded by slapping Collins, knocking him to the ground, and continuing on his way. He was charged with assault and battery and found guilty, but received a suspended sentence. Collins then filed a civil suit, which Cobb settled out of court for $75.

and


An unfortunate incident in Cleveland's Hotel Euclid forced Cobb to go through Canada to avoid arrest during the 1909 World Series in Pittsburgh. Late one Friday night, Cobb got in an argument with the elevator operator and slapped him. The night manager, a black man named George Stansfield, came to aid the elevator operator and ended up in a shouting match with Cobb. Stansfield then hit Cobb with his nightstick, and the two rolled on the floor. Cobb drew his knife and slashed Stansfield, while Stansfield drew his pistol and hit Cobb again with the nightstick. Stansfield filed both criminal and civil suits against Cobb, but later dropped the criminal suit. But the case was still pending during the World Series, with an arrest warrant out for Cobb. Police waited for the Tiger train through Ohio en route to Pittsburgh for the World Series to arrest him, but Cobb was going through Canada. The civil suit was settled for $100 and court costs.

and


These incidents pale in comparison with what happened at Hilltop Park in New York in May 1912, and what that episode triggered. A fan whom Cobb recognized as a regular heckler was sitting behind the Tigers' dugout verbally abusing Cobb. He and Cobb traded insults for a while, but Cobb wanted to avoid trouble, so he stayed in center field carriage park area during the second inning. In the third, he went by the New York dugout to look for the owner to ask to have the fan removed. When he got back to the Tigers' bench, he yelled something to the fan about his sister. The fan, Claude Lueker, responded to Cobb by calling him a "half-[racial epithet]." Sam Crawford asked Cobb if he would take that from the fan, at which point Cobb charged twelve rows into the stands and began to beat the fan vigorously. .

The first incident is completely inexcusable. If you walk on freshly poured concrete you should most assuredly expect the construction worker who just took the time to pour it to say something to you. Cobb would be in the wrong there whether the man was black or white, and I don't know how Cobb would have replied if the man had been white. But I see how he replied when the man was black.

The second incident in the elevator is hard to say. He was already engaged in a fight when the black man became involved so I can't say the whole incident was racially motivated.

The third incident, Cobb's most famous incident, stems from nothing but racism since he proceded to actually climb into the stands because someone had had the gall to suggest Cobb was black.

[csh19792001]

Originally posted by Roy Hobbs


I'm in the same boat as you (Im assuming)- FINALS. So we'll wait, and those numbers won't change in the meantime, I don't think........

Although Ill be busy even when this semester is over, it won't be like now, and Ill look into the comparative runs/game and respective stats (for the American League, for their careers) when I have time to take a breath. Team performance is part of it, but entire league performance might give us another part of the picture. Even computing to the Nth degree won't "solve" everything, though- perhaps just the quantifiable part, which the gentlemen poster at another messageboard (named "Barzilla") calls "value". This is as opposed to "greatness".

[four tool]

Using runs and BI is good, but do we know where in the lineup Cobb hit? Babe was cleanup for lots of years, then third with Gehrig as cleanup. Obviously men on base and protection figure in.

[ElHalo]

Hey Mr. Burgess,

I've noticed you've been bringing up that 1921 home/away split for the Babe every... oh... single post recently... could you maybe do me a favor, and every time you mention that split, mention the BB/PA analysis I did a couple months back comparing 1910-15 with 1928-32?:laugh

And http://TyCobb.yahoo.com/ doesn't exist. Where exactly is this website? I'd really like to see it.

And... why do you say Cobb had poor offensive teammates from 1910- 1919?

Here's the Tigers' AL rank in runs scored for each year of that period. Out of 8 teams:

1910: 1
1911: 2
1912: 3
1913: 4
1914: 2
1915: 1
1916: 1
1917: 2
1918: 4
1919: 3

They finished in the first half of the league EVERY SINGLE YEAR in runs scored, leading the league three times in the decade. Are you trying to tell me that it's all Cobb? Without him, they would have finished last every year?

[ElHalo]

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net

(Bill - You didn't confine yourself to away games, and you also failed to index you final figures, which always favors Ruth. AND YOU KNOW THat!)


Failing to index, absolutely unforgiveable. Failing to give only away games?

Ruth, home: .347/.480/.699
Ruth, away: .338/.463/.682

So please, I'm begging you. BEGGING you. Why, other than you're strange fixation over what happened during two particular years playing at a stadium that he called home for all 14% of his years in the league, WHY do you claim that Ruth's home stats are invalid?

[ElHalo]

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
I have a request for anyone on this thread. If anyone has a beef with me, keep it to yourself, and go somewhere else. I'm trying hard on this thread to post new stuff, hopefully entertaining stuff, and it does take me a long time to put the material together.

I search through a vast volume of my material, and to have those who either don't like me, my style, my content or anything else about my stuff, to come into my house to bitch, whine, complain, attack me personally for expressing views with which you don't agree is not only unnecessary, but rude, and boring.

And I'm referring here specificly to Roy Hobbs in particulay but anyone else who feels as he does.

It's like some one who hates a certain TV show. Instead of bitching about it to anyone around you, just don't watch it.

If my stuff bothers Hobbs so much, why does he read me? Just change the channel. Don't hang around and sh_t on the furniture. Just get out and go somewhere else and read those who you admire, or like better.

I have a mission. I'm an advocate on 1 player, which is not to say I don't have a lot of other issues. I don't usually get this heavy, but I'm fed up with malevalent malcontents, who don't have either the background, courtesy or brains to recognize good historical content if it bit them in the ass. Thank you so much for your kind understanding. And by this rant, I am not referring to my great friends, 2Chance, Eddie Collins, Csh19792001, four tool, Seth, leecemark, PumsieGreen, RuthMayBonds, Imapotato, and so many more. Please forgive the rant, but I'm sick of it.

Bill Burgess

Woof, harsh words.

And I'm sure that you mean this to apply at least partially to me, but please understand something. I have no argument with you as a person. I respect the time and effort you put into researching and presenting your arguments. I have no beef.

I disagree with you, quite strongly, on two points. Your undervaluing of Babe Ruth, and your overvaluing of Ty Cobb. That's it. Nothing more. I disagree with you on those points, and we argue back and forth. As much as I appreciate your historical work, I'd hope you appreciate my statistical work. Sometimes, quite a lot of time goes into the number crunching that I put forth. Sometimes not so much. But don't think you're the only one working at the arguments. And don't expect everyone to simply agree with you out of hand. I don't. And I don't believe I ever will. But just because people disagree with you doesn't mean you have to pack up your toys and leave. I understand the frustration of being antagonized and being dismissed so summarily by someone who doesn't put the time and effort into their posts. But some of us do.

[leecemark]

Bill, I have a suggestion that might save you some frustration. Make your historical entries on this thread to be shared and enjoyed with those interested and your arguments regardiing Ruth vs Cobb elsewhere. When you mix the two its inevitable that people are going to argue back on the latter. A suggestion for everyone - try to build your case without getting personal. It wouldn't be much fun if we all agreed on everything, but it will be more enjoyable for all if you make your points with well thought out ideas and/or good research. Thanks and I'll put my soapbox away now.

[Roy Hobbs]

Also, I notice a lot of references to ProQuest. You might want to check out the local library and see if it subscribes to any databases.

I'd recommend:

The 19th Century Masterfile
Academic Search Elite*
ArchivesUSA
EbscoHost*
Lexis-Nexis*
Sports Discuss

All good databases and they have a lot of stuff that Proquest can miss. Because no database is truly complete. I haven't done much baseball research but I've done tons of other research and typically for whatever reason I can find things in those that I can't in Proquest or vice versa et al. I tend to use Lexis-Nexis, ASE, ProQuest, and EbscoHost the most but the others are valuable resources.

EbscoHost in particular combines like 34 other databases.

All that is far too expensive to buy for just recreational purposes, so check your local libraries.

[four tool]

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
I have a request for anyone on this thread. If anyone has a beef with me, keep it to yourself, and go somewhere else. I'm trying hard on this thread to post new stuff, hopefully entertaining stuff, and it does take me a long time to put the material together.

I search through a vast volume of my material, and to have those who either don't like me, my style, my content or anything else about my stuff, to come into my house to bitch, whine, complain, attack me personally for expressing views with which you don't agree is not only unnecessary, but rude, and boring.

And I'm referring here specificly to Roy Hobbs in particulay but anyone else who feels as he does.

It's like some one who hates a certain TV show. Instead of bitching about it to anyone around you, just don't watch it.

If my stuff bothers Hobbs so much, why does he read me? Just change the channel. Don't hang around and sh_t on the furniture. Just get out and go somewhere else and read those who you admire, or like better.

I have a mission. I'm an advocate on 1 player, which is not to say I don't have a lot of other issues. I don't usually get this heavy, but I'm fed up with malevalent malcontents, who don't have either the background, courtesy or brains to recognize good historical content if it bit them in the ass. Thank you so much for your kind understanding. And by this rant, I am not referring to my great friends, 2Chance, Eddie Collins, Csh19792001, four tool, Seth, leecemark, PumsieGreen, RuthMayBonds, Imapotato, and so many more. Please forgive the rant, but I'm sick of it.

I have to say that some of vitriol does make the posts hard to read, please people, no personal stuff. Thanks for saying I'm OK Bill, even though I am in the Ruth camp.
Bill Burgess

[Roy Hobbs]

Pretty interesting idea. You have at thread for it here or something? I'd like to see the results.

[RuthMayBond]

Originally posted by Roy Hobbs
Pretty interesting idea. You have at thread for it here or something? I'd like to see the results. No thread. I started with the infield (minus pitcher) and got that done from 1966 back to 1876. Now I'm on the outfield. I started on pitchers but too much to wade through for one award per league so it'll have to wait. Then I'd like to go back and see if there were any questionable awards from 1967 on forward :lookitup
I did find out one interesting thing. From 1913 to 1922 when Veach and Cobb pretty much both played full-time, Cobb was probably not even the best outfielder on his TEAM (though Cobb was in 1924).

[leecemark]

I have never really thought Cobb was a great defensive player. Not a liability or anything, but not outstanding either. I've read some contemporary observers who thought Tris Speaker was a better overall player because his defensive edge over Cobb was greater than Cobb's offensive edge over him. Never bought that myself, but wondered how that played out in your statistical analysis. Did Cobb ever deserve a Gold Glove? Was the gap between him and Speaker wide enough to come close to closing the gap at the plate and on the bases?

[leecemark]

I'd be inclined to think there is some sort of statistical anomoly to Cobb being one of the 3 best defensive outfielders in the AL at age 37 if he didn't have a very strong track record to that point. Most outfielders have lost significant range by then and his declining stolen base totals suggest he was losing speed at a normal rate. In the course of your research have you found many post-35 Gold Glovers at any position?

[wrgptfan]

Originally posted by RuthMayBond
Definite anomaly but maybe other OFers were bad & Cobb had learned where hitters might hit. What can I say, he was 2nd in PO, very good in A & E & DP that year. I haven't really done an age thing but I'm sure there's few over 35 except maybe pitchers & guys who win forever (Ashburn, McPhee, etc.)

I am not sure how you are trying to measure outfield defense, but Baby Face Jacobson was much better in 1924 than Cobb. They are almost tied in fielding % - Cobb .9862 - Jacobson .9861 - but in range factor Jacobson blows him away - 3.26 to 2.77. In defensive win shares Cobb is not even in the top 3 - Jacobson leads with 6.36 - Cobb has 4.72.

Who do you have winning in 1911? There is a good case that Cobb should win that year.

(Note: Just came back for the BBF HoF voting. I may drop by next month.)

[leecemark]

For the record it is Baby DOLL Jacobson. Baby FACE Nelson was a famous bank robber of the same era.

[wrgptfan]

Originally posted by RuthMayBond
Originally posted by wrgptfan
I am not sure how you are trying to measure outfield defense, but Baby Face Jacobson was much better in 1924 than Cobb. They are almost tied in fielding % - Cobb .9862 - Jacobson .9861 - but in range factor Jacobson blows him away - 3.26 to 2.77. In defensive win shares Cobb is not even in the top 3 - Jacobson leads with 6.36 - Cobb has 4.72.

RMB:
Correct, that is why Jacobson was by far the best OF in '24 but they award THREE GG per year, so Cobb got the second one & I sorta settled on Goslin for the third one. I have no stats on Win Shares and I'm not even sure if I agree with them or how they could figure them out.

Who do you have winning in 1911? There is a good case that Cobb should win that year.

RMB:
I'm not back near that far, and as I said, Cobb will probably get at least one more, unlike Ruth.
The problem, as I see it, with your approach is that is almost a certainty that the 3 outfield gold gloves will go to center fielders - their range factor is much larger than that of RF and LF. Outfield assist and double plays are of some interest, but the number of balls that a outfielder gets to is of primary importance in determining his value. Since there were only 8 regular AL center fielders in Cobb's era, I would find it extremely unlikely that his range factor was such that he could not be one of the top 3 at least a few times.

What the hell...I'll check it out.

I will check only those players with 100+ G in the OF.

1905 - Cobb - only played 41 games
1906 - Cobb - only played 96 games
1907 - Cobb - RF - 2nd in RF for RF (5 of top 6 were CF)
1908 - Cobb - RF - 1st in RF for RF (5 of top 7 were CF)
1909 - Cobb - RF - 1st in RF for RF (4 of top 5 were CF)
1910 - Cobb - CF mostly- 3rd in RF for OF (top 6 were CF)
1911 - Cobb - CF - 1st in RF for OF (7 of top 8 were CF)
1912 - Cobb - CF - 4th in RF for OF (top 4 were CF although Amos Strunk split time between LF and CF)
1913 - Cobb - CF - 3rd in RF for OF (top 3 were CF)
1914 - Cobb - only played 98 games
1915 - Cobb - CF - 6th in RF for OF (top 6 primarily CF)
1916 - Cobb - CF - 7th in RF for OF (top 5 were CF)
1917 - Cobb - CF - 3rd in RF for OF (top 3 were CF)
1918 - Cobb only played 95 games in the OF
1919 - Cobb - CF - 5th in RF for OF (4 of top 5 were CF)
1920 - Cobb - CF - 9th in RF for OF (top 4 were CF)
1921 - Cobb - CF - 5th in RF for OF (top 4 were CF)
1922 - Cobb - CF - 5th in RF for OF (top 5 were CF)
1923 - Cobb - CF - 4th in RF for OF (6 of top 7 were CF - the exception being Ruth who was 3rd in RF)
1924 - Cobb - CF - 3rd in RF for OF (top 7 were CF)
1925 - Cobb - CF - 7th in RF for OF (top 5 were CF)
1926 - Cobb only played 55 G in the OF
1927 - Cobb - CF/RF - 18th in RF for OF (5 of top 6 were CF)

Looking at the numbers, it seems as if Cobb was a very good RF and a reasonably good CF. He seems to have lost a step in his 30's as who of us hasn't/didn't.

I think that you would be better off giving gold gloves to each outfield position, otherwise the LF and RF are going to get shafted. With my very simplistic methodology (i.e. based solely on range factor), Cobb was in the top 3 OFers 5 times - all as a CFer. Meanwhile he was the best RFer in 1908 and 1909 and gets no credit for that.

[wrgptfan]

Originally posted by leecemark
For the record it is Baby DOLL Jacobson. Baby FACE Nelson was a famous bank robber of the same era.

I knew that. Dohh!!

[leecemark]

Bill, I would agree Cobb was an above average outfielder - better than Ruth, possibly Jackson, but definately not better than Carey. Max Carey was an exceptional outfiielder, most accounts I have read have him second only to Speaker amoung defensive outfielders of his time. Rouch also is usually rated above Cobb. I have read more than one account that describes Cobb as below average in the field., but I don't think the evidence supports that. I think his detractors were simply forced to concentrate on his defensive shortcomings becauue it would have been impossible for anyone to take criticism of his offense seriously. Before I make this last comment, I want to make absolutely clear I am not comparing Cobb's defense to Ted Williams. Cobb was an okay Centerfielder and a very good Rightfielder while Williams was a lousy Leftfielder, but the criticisms of them were very similar. Defense was not their priority and they didn't put nearly the work into it that they did their hitting and in Cobb's case running. Both were very unpopular in their playing days, though Williams became much more popular after he was done playing. Both were frequently described as selfish players much more concerned with their own stats than their team. - much of the same things are that are said of Bonds today. Some of that may be inevitable when you are single minded in your commitment to greatness and not skilled in PR, but there is probably some truth to it as well.

[RuthMayBond]

I caught up my NL OF paper back through 1921 so let's finish up Cobb from 1907-1909

1) In 1909, Cobb was probably the best RF in the AL . . . but he had LF to deal with. Speaker & Engle tangled for the best OF, and number three is a tangle between Crawford & Hinchman, who were almost certainly better than Cobb, who just misses again.

2) In 1908, Cobb again didn't have the opportunities to have a chance at a GG, so ...

3) In 1907, Ganley was even a better RF than Cobb, and Davy Jones (LF) was a better OF than Ganley, and we haven't even gotten to CF like Crawford, so no chance for Cobb here. I *KNOW* Cobb didn't have enough chances in 1905 and I figure not in 1906 either so that's it. That does give Cobb Gold Gloves in 1910, 1911 & 1924, although Ruth got his in 1921 & 1923. Now back to catch up the NL and continue with the project, and I'll try to dig up some data on GGers 35 years & older.

[RuthMayBond]

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
Cobb's gifts in the field were range, no one covered any more ground, not even Speaker, Lange or McAleer. He had great judgement in playing the hitters. He could run down and catch up to many long flies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaker covered more ground if you think of the ground in front of him, but going back, Ty could run with him and go back with him. He was starting from farther back. So Speaker got his range factor numbers so high, due to his being able to pick of those shots that would normally fall in front of the OF.
But Cobb could go all the way back just as well as Tris or Clyde.

RMB:
OK, if Cobb could go back the same as Speaker, but Speaker could come in better, doesn't that make Speaker better?

I didn't remember that Max Carey was that good on defense.

RMB:
Carey led his league in assists FOUR times, double plays FIVE times, and putouts NINE times. His range factor is 2.77 compared to league average of 2.17! Not many guys come close to this.

I haven't re-installed my files to my hard drive, so you will be spared historical quotes today, James.

RMB:
This IS a good day :laugh How did you like my GG research?

[four tool]

Re: Spoke off before the crack of the bat. Someone once asked Joe DiMaggio about going after a ball as soon as he heard the crack of the bat, and Joe replied "I go much sooner, the crack of the bat is too late."

[four tool]

I've been following the threads, but only contributing when I have something to say. I did see an analysis that claims 5 strikeouts cancel one HR. so if we divide a player's Ks by five, for Cobb 349/5=69. round up to seventy. Subtract 70 from his HR 117-70=47 net HR. I'll do Ruth also and then use the net HR to calculate SL for both. The results should be interesting.

[leecemark]

Do 2 groundouts cancel one single or a double play cancel a double? You will see analysis claiming alot of things based on flawed logic by someone trying to push an agenda. Whoever wrote the 5 strikeouts cancel a home run simply was an anti-strike out advocate. The truth is strike outs are just another out. If they are worse than any other kind of out at all its maybe 5% worse. If you really want to devalue a guy for the kind of outs they make look to guys with unusually high GIDP rates.

[leecemark]

RMB, your points are definately valid, although I think some guys are more prone to hitting into doubleplays on their own merit. Any one year you can chance into a big DP total. You sustain that over the course of a career, then its probably you. My point though wasn't that we should be seeking out and labeling DP guys. My point was that strike outs are not the worst kind of out and we shouldn't be discounting guys based on their striking out more than somebody else. It is especially misleading when comparing guys from different points in history. Strikeouts have gone up steadily from 1920 thru today. In fact, virtually everyone strikes out more today than anybody did in the deadball era. That doesn't tell us anything about the players, just about the way the game was played then and now.

[four tool]

Boy am I glad I didn't crunch the numbers yet!!!!!!!!!!!!

[HitchedtoaSpark]

Speaking of Cobb and crunching numbers, here's an interesting little factoid I discovered perusing SABR's Home Run Encyclopedia, the significance of which I will leave to others to figure out: Did you know that of all the players who have at least 100 lifetime home runs, Ty Cobb has by far the highest percentage of home runs with runners on base (81) out of his career total (117)--69.2%? The only one who comes close is 19th century slugger Sam Thompson, at 65.9%. After these guys, the next best figures almost all fall in the mid-50% range.

[Roy Hobbs]

I don't know what to make of that. I mean, I don't think Ty could hit home runs whenever he wanted (does the anectdotal story of him mimicing the Babe's bat grip and knocking three out in one game have any ground in truth?) so I think it's maybe just statistical anomaly.

[Roy Hobbs]

I'm going to break my vow not to read your posts anymore, just this once.

1) I didn't know what to make of that statistic. Some 60% of Cobb's home runs occured when runners were on base.

What do you make of that Bill? I mean, the originally poster decided to "leave it in the open." So I considered the facts, and came to the conclusion that only two things could be implied. One, Cobb was lucky and had a moderately high (very high relatively) percentage of home runs with runners on base. Or two, Cobb could hit home runs whenever he chose, or almost whenever he chose, which explains why he hit them so often when runners were on base.

I don't agree with number one. I don't think anyone can hit home runs at will. If someone could hit home runs at will, they would have 1,000+ home runs, guaranteed. No one claims Ruth can hit home runs at will. I can't imagine any one seriously claiming Ty Cobb can hit home runs at will.

Do you believe that Ty Cobb could hit home runs *at will* Bill?

2) I was asking a sincere question when I asked about Ty Cobb and the story about him hitting the home runs. I've only read one account of that incident, it was on a geocities page ran by some Ty Cobb fan, there was no proof, no references et cetra. I don't have access to the Sporting News, period. I don't subscribe to it, I don't have access to their archive, and the local newsstand doesn't sell it.

That was the only time I have ever heard of Ty Cobb, "proving" to some journalist that he could hit homers whenever he wanted. So, obviously I'm going to refer to it as anectdotal, I had only heard it anectdotally. To me, it was nothing other than an anectdotal story.

And, what was I ignoring there Bill? I wasn't "ignoring" anything. In fact I'm the only who has offered any opinion on the stats at all. I said, "I don't think Cobb could hit home runs at will" I don't think anyone can hit home runs at will.

IF the original poster didn't intend to imply that Cobb could hit home runs at will, what the hell was he implying? How do you interpret the stats Bill? For once how about you actually say something of substance, not ignore the statistical argument, and actually make a point.

Tell me, without a bunch of BS and innuendo, how you interpret the fact that 69.2% of Cobb's home runs occured with runners on base.

[RuthMayBond]

Originally posted by wrgptfan
The problem, as I see it, with your approach is that is almost a certainty that the 3 outfield gold gloves will go to center fielders - their range factor is much larger than that of RF and LF. Outfield assist and double plays are of some interest, but the number of balls that a outfielder gets to is of primary importance in determining his value.Interestingly enough, in awarding 1914 NL Gold Gloves, not one was won by a CF. Zack Wheat, Chief Wilson & Max Carey were getting CF-quality stats at the corners.

[RuthMayBond]

Originally posted by leecemark
I'd be inclined to think there is some sort of statistical anomoly to Cobb being one of the 3 best defensive outfielders in the AL at age 37 if he didn't have a very strong track record to that point. Most outfielders have lost significant range by then and his declining stolen base totals suggest he was losing speed at a normal rate. In the course of your research have you found many post-35 Gold Glovers at any position? Looks like I've found a few that were at least 35 or very near 35: Carey in '25, Speaker in '26, Melillo in '34, BTerry in '34, Gehringer in '38, BWalters in '44, Hack in '45, Rizzuto in '52, MDickson in '56

[HitchedtoaSpark]

Boy, you make a post and stay away for awhile and see what transpires!

All I was trying to do by posting that information was maybe stimulate a little speculation as to its significance so as to aid my own mental processes in deciding what it means. After thinking it over some more, I've decided that if there's anything the fact that 69.2% of Cobb's home runs came with men on base can tell us is simply that Cobb seldom went for a big swing with the bases empty, preferring instead to play his peculiar brand of small ball. In this, he can be seen as baseball's peerless situational hitter. With no one on, he saw his job as that of a table-setter, exploiting all his faculties toward the goal of getting on base and upsetting pitcher and defense. With ducks on the pond, however, his role frequently morphed into that of a slugger, with driving in runs his chief aim. Of course, score, count, and situation dictated how he acted in a much more complex manner than this generalization suggests, but the main idea is there. In his own words, Cobb tried to be "all things to all pitchers," to which we can add the phrase "in all situations."

[csh19792001]

Originally posted by HitchedtoaSpark
Boy, you make a post and stay away for awhile and see what transpires!

All I was trying to do by posting that information was maybe stimulate a little speculation as to its significance so as to aid my own mental processes in deciding what it means. After thinking it over some more, I've decided that if there's anything the fact that 69.2% of Cobb's home runs came with men on base can tell us is simply that Cobb seldom went for a big swing with the bases empty, preferring instead to play his peculiar brand of small ball. In this, he can be seen as baseball's peerless situational hitter. With no one on, he saw his job as that of a table-setter, exploiting all his faculties toward the goal of getting on base and upsetting pitcher and defense. With ducks on the pond, however, his role frequently morphed into that of a slugger, with driving in runs his chief aim. Of course, score, count, and situation dictated how he acted in a much more complex manner than this generalization suggests, but the main idea is there. In his own words, Cobb tried to be "all things to all pitchers," to which we can add the phrase "in all situations."


OUTSTANDING!

Good to finally meet some people with some NOVEL, trenchant insight on Ty Cobb, or anything else for that matter. Most people on these boards are busy plagarizing (directly or indirectly) the work of stat mongers like Bill James and Pete Palmer.

Kudos to you, Spark. You've done your homework. :)

[HitchedtoaSpark]

:o

[Mattingly]

Bill Burgess, since you'd previously compared Cobb to Ruth in many discussions on another thread, I figured this would be an appropriate place to share this information with you. Here are home/road, LHP/RHP splits for each of Messrs Aaron, Ruth, Mays and Bonds:

Hammerin' Towards Hank (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/features/hammer).

Thank you. :)

[csh19792001]

This is a great page... but the problem is that I don't have the At-Bats for these guys home vs. road, RHP vs. LHP.

Guys usually have at least 3-400 more at bats on the road for their career- just the raw splits aren't telling the whole story. This is because you don't hit in the ninth inning if your team is ahead at home, and do at away. Over thousands of games, this makes a significant difference in at bats.

So if a guy has as many homers at home as on the road (or more), you know he had a home field advantage. This increases in a linear fashion with more at bats, also.

Anyway, I have em for Barry, and did an analysis the other day

"So I think, many at bats did he have in 2001, 02, and 03 home vs. away?

From 2001-2003, Barry had 662 at bats on the road and 85 homers. That's a homer every 7.8 at bats.

At home, 607 at bats and 79 homers. Homer every 7.7 at bats.

LIFETIME- (through last year)
Home- 4019 at bats, 323 homers

Away- 4359 at bats, 329 homers


So over his career, he's had a distinct home advantage, but apparently, not over his best 3 seasons.

However THIS YEAR, he's had NINE homers and home and ONE away. So now he has more homers at home, in far fewer at bats."

[RuthMayBond]

Originally posted by Mattingly
Bill Burgess, since you'd previously compared Cobb to Ruth in many discussions on another thread, I figured this would be an appropriate place to share this information with you. Here are home/road, LHP/RHP splits for each of Messrs Aaron, Ruth, Mays and Bonds:

Hammerin' Towards Hank (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/features/hammer).

Thank you. :) Looks like Ruth had a home DISadvantage :laugh

[csh19792001]

That's possible, which would be incredible and yet another feather in Babe's cap. Again, we need the home vs. road at bats for all these guys (which someone awhile back was providing, I forgot where- maybe you or Bill remember) It might have been fourtool.

Also, slg and other figures home vs. away would be a huge help in evaluating things fairly- because homeruns are a small part of overall offensive value/production.

[four tool]

Player...........Home AB............Road AB
Aaron............5972.................6392
Ruth..............4033.................4366
Mays..............5239.................5642

[csh19792001]

Originally posted by four tool
Player...........Home AB............Road AB
Aaron............5972.................6392
Ruth..............4033.................4366
Mays..............5239.................5642

Nice work!!!! What's your source here? Do you have other splits, like BA, SLG, OBP home vs away for historical figures???

Chris

[four tool]

I have them, for some people, from the original Total Baseball encyclopedia. Will post details H/R breakdowns in a day or two

[csh19792001]

Originally posted by RuthMayBond
Looks like Ruth had a home DISadvantage :laugh

Not a disadvantage- he still had a better homer percentage at home- but only very slight. I suppose it is a disadvantage compared to the other guys, though.

Mays and Aaron (VERY surprisingly) have almost exactly the same percentage home vs. away. Negligible difference in park effects on their particular career homer totals.

Barry seems to have the largest career home advantage of the top 4 guys.

[Roy Hobbs]

Originally posted by csh19792001
Mr Hobbs-
One other thing I thought of (one more final left this week- in a 680 level psychometric STATISTICS (sadistics?) class, ironically).....

If you are going to NOT use runs/game and compare Ruth's TEAMS vs. Cobb's teams, you have to take Cobb and Ruth's runs and RBI's out for each year. Otherwise you are comparing them to themselves which negates the validity of the measure.

The way you are doing it probably inflates Ruth because his teams generally scored more runs pre year without him than did Ty's. Probably most years. So this way of doing it is more fair. Maybe Ill get to this when all this is over.

It's been some days now so I cannot remember perfectly, and I haven't waded back through the thread... but, I believe I indexed and adjusted Cobb's numbers both on a team/league basis.

And the numbers actually came out surprising, because if you adjust the average run's of Cobb's teams to the average runs of a team in the era of Ruth's play, it adjusts the Tigers to scoring some 802 runs or something, a good 80 or so more than the Babe's teams.

[Roy Hobbs]

Here's the pertinent info I crunched, from page 9 of this thread:


The AL from 1905-1928 averaged 4,991 R. The AL from 1914-1934, the NL in 1935, averaged 5,709 R. We come up with a differential of 718 runs. Now, divide that amongst the 8 teams and each team will average 90 more R (I round to the whole number, for simplicity.) So to adjust that, we take the average team R for Cobb’s teams, 712 and add 90 to it = 802. Multiply 802 by .13 (the percentage of team runs Cobb accounted for on average throughout his career) and you get 104 avg runs a season. Multiply by 24 = 2,496. That is Ty Cobb’s “adjusted” R. With league factored in.

This brings us to this:

Ty Cobb had in his career 13,072 PA.

He had 2,496 AR.
That comes to a run every 5.24 PA.

Babe Ruth had in his career 10,617 PA.

He had 2,174 R.

That comes to a run every 4.88 PA.

The only mistake in that is probably I just distributed the 718 run differential out evenly amongst the 8 teams, instead of distributing them based on the PROPORTION of leage runs each team averaged. I don't think the difference would be monumental though, and the leg work required to make that correction is just too much work to spend on an old argument me and Bill have already laid to rest.

There's really no point in going any further because he knows my stance on Ruth home stats and I know his.

And going in to it any further will just stir up old tensions.

[four tool]

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
A post from the past, which broke my heart.

Ytown Tribe fan; Senior Member; Registered: Aug 2002
Location: Scrappers territory; Posts: 112; 11-08-2003 08:36 PM

The thing about Ruth is simple, and I agree with James about it: when devising a ranking system, you'd better have Ruth at the top (unless you're ranking pitchers or defense only). That is the basic test of whether the system is any good at all; not the ONLY test, but the FIRST test. If you're ranking hitters using a new system, and Ruth isn't at the top -- your system is flawed, period.


Another post which broke my heart. I've just re-printed the last paragraph.


DaytonDogg; Registered: Oct 2003; Location: Dayton; Posts: 32
Location: Dayton; Posts: 32; 11-11-2003 03:52 AM

If the question is truly the greatest BASEBALL PLAYER OF ALL TIME I don't think that there should be any talk past the words Babe Ruth. The man was a baseball player, a hitter, a pitcher, a celebrity, a historical figure, he is baseball, and there should be no more argument there.

__Bill I understand about your broken heart, closed minds are a shame. Just think of those people as invincibly ignorant. That is, since their minds are already made up, there's no use confusing them with facts. and as the ancient Greeks said "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves labor in vain."
Bill Burgess

[csh19792001]

Originally posted by four tool


I have a better one for you, fourtool- illegitimati non carborundum

;)

[csh19792001]

Originally posted by Roy Hobbs
Here's the pertinent info I crunched, from page 9 of this thread:



The only mistake in that is probably I just distributed the 718 run differential out evenly amongst the 8 teams, instead of distributing them based on the PROPORTION of leage runs each team averaged. I don't think the difference would be monumental though, and the leg work required to make that correction is just too much work to spend on an old argument me and Bill have already laid to rest.

There's really no point in going any further because he knows my stance on Ruth home stats and I know his.

And going in to it any further will just stir up old tensions.

Ill do the numbers, both league wise and team wise, from 06-28 (05' wasn't a full season for Ty), and from 18' to 34' for Ruth (it would be unfair to him to add in an entire season of great offense, when he hardly played.) Lo mismo, not right to add in seasons where a guy had 92, 132, and 136 at bats. Not enough sampling size. (the weighting, internal consistency, and validity of the metric would be thrown off). Hence leaving 05' out also.

But it might be a few days.

[csh19792001]

Ill do the numbers, both league wise and team wise, from 06-28 (05' wasn't a full season for Ty), and from 18' to 34' for Ruth (it would be unfair to him to add in an entire season of great offense, when he hardly played.) Lo mismo, not right to add in seasons where a guy had 92, 132, and 136 at bats. Not enough sampling size. (the weighting, internal consistency, and validity of the metric would be thrown off). Hence leaving 05' out also.

But it might be a few days.


Actually, Roy-
In the meantime (speaking of indexing) here are a few links I think you'll find interesting. Quite germane.

http://www.exploratorium.edu/baseball/1921_TC.html

Put Ty starting his offensive career in 1920, and see what happens.....

http://www.exploratorium.edu/baseball/1905_BR.html

[csh19792001]

Bill-
Much simpler than SO/AB seems to be just averaging things. I figured out that (given the strikeout numbers we have), Cobb would have K'd about 560 times for his career (if the numbers had been kept from 1905-12). Still not bad for a guy who batted 11,429 times and led in slugging 8 times!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)

So of course Jackson, Speaker, and Collins K'd less per at bat. Not one of them was the slugger Ty Cobb was, or near the hitter.

[Imapotato]

In my baseball simulation replay...Ty Cobb K's about 30 times a year...not bad at all.

Oh yeah...he was drafted by the St. Louis Browns...lol

Cobb's first year in the league

123 games
478 ABS
93 runs
184 hits
20 doubles
14 triples
4 hrs
69 rbis
73 sbs
19 Caught stealing
49 walks
29 k's
.385 avg
.444 obp
31.7 offensive win shares
3.6 defensive win shares

Won AL MVP award
Won AL ROY award
Won AL CF Gold Glove Award

Too bad that Ty will probably never win a World Series unless the Browns let him go...

[four tool]

Hi Guys,

Illigtimi non carborundum is good, but the ones we say it to may think that we qualify from their perspective. That's why I choose the other comments, an open mind is more important than the perspective of who's a %*&$#*!

Bill, I'm glad you appreciated my comments. That just shows the joy of this forum, a Ty Guy and a Ruth Rooter can agree to disagree and still support each other.

Mark aka four tool

[four tool]

When I got here, I was arrogant, insufferable, condescending and too proud. I thought I was the smartest person in the room.


Being arrogant etc.has nothing to do with whether you are the smartest guy or not:D Look at Ty's and Babe's approaches to the game, opposite yet one or the other is the best ever.

[four tool]

Yep, a baseball ball. there's a book out by Louisville Slugger that uses bases to determine the best hitter. they basically take total bases and see how much over the league TB a given player was in his time. Yes Ruth is #1 and Ted is #2. Cobb is 9th. BUTTTTT.....

Ruth's bases are about 3150 Cobbs about 1950. If Cobb has even 1200 baserunning bases, guress who wins? If it's the 1500 you once claculated, even if Ruth also gets more, it's so close that the numbers are not enough, or possibly Cobb wins outright.

Here's something statistical which gives Cobb a real chance once all the numbers are counted.

Yes guys I still need to do the home/road splits, had a sick puppy for a few days, they are coming.

[Imapotato]

UPDATE on TY COBB in my Historic Replay

Ok, 1st Ty almost single handed brought the Browns to the WS...with help from Bobby Wallace and Larry Schafly (Larry didn't last long in real life, but his limited time showed a walking defensive player)

Ty hit this in 1907

149 games
618 ABs
102 runs
251 hits (New AL and MLB record besting Nap Lajoie's 237 in 1901)
34 doubles
10 triples
5 hrs
109 rbis
83 SBs (beating his ML record 73)
19 CS
47 bbs
29 K's
45.7 OWS!!!!!
3.5 DWS

Won his 2nd MVP Award
2nd GG
and made the All Star team this year, unlike last year when he had a slow start
Lost the Triple Crown by just hitting 5 HRs behind Dusty Miller (8) of the Red Sox and Harry Davis (7) and Tommy leach (7) of the A's

Ty doesn't exactly have a 'terrible' team around him

C Branch Rickey---.255 1st GG at C
1b Tom Jones-----.279 27 sbs
2b-Larry Schlafly---72 bbs 56 sbs .289 2 time GG in 1904 and 1905 All Star in 1907
3B-Bill Coughlin---.283 lost his HR power after hitting 7 HRs last 3 years
SS-Bobby Wallace---only played 95 games, unable to get his 5th GG award at SS
LF-George Stone---.317 64 rbis
RF Charlie Hemphill and Dave Fultz (need an upgrade)

Again it's pitching and that's why St. Louis was only good for 3rd behind the Red Sox AWESOME staff of
40 yr old Cy Young 32-16 2.24 184 ks 31.6 PWS
Bob Wicker 26-17 2.33 226 ks (1st in AL)
Chief Bender 25-13 1.82 (1st)

and the White Sox have
Doc White 31-16 2.09
Ed Walsh Sr 25-20 2.48
and the surprising
Bob Rhoads 27-18 2.18

I hope you enjoy this Bill, I know Ty being on the Browns is a stretch but Cy Young HAS to retire someday and then I think the Browns might give Ty a World Series!

and bad news since I know you love Rube Waddell as much as I...

Poor Rube with the invariables that I have suffered a Career Ending Injury at 27 with a torn back muscle (probably from carrying that stove out of the burning building)

He still has the ML record with 337 ks but jis final career is
67-64
3.51 ERA
98 CGS
5 SHO
303 bbs
1195 ks (13th all time in only 4 seasons!)
69.5 PWS

[leecemark]

Bill, if you haven't already seen today's new "best offensive player of all time" thread, check it out. It will make your day.

[julusnc]

I read an interesting article in a sportscard publication today.

It was about a elderly man in Cobb County GA and how he had a 36 oz sterling silver baseball bat that was given to Ty Cobb in 1922 by a local business as a salute for what Cobb had done for the local community.

The elderly man said as a small boy in the 1930's his father took the bat in exchange for some car and truck repair Cobb needed.
The man's father never sold it saying one day anything that belonged to the greatest baseball player ever would be worth a fortune.

The old timer was right!


I thought this was interesting.I wonder if many of Cobb's awards he won over his long career have since been destroyed after using them as trade bait.

How many tangible awards did Cobb win?

How many of these are in museums?

Just was an interesting topic I thought and worthy of placing and asking on the Ty Cobb thread.


Have a good day friends - Jeremy

[RuthMayBond]

Originally posted by julusnc
I read an interesting article in a sportscard publication today.

It was about a elderly man in Cobb County GA and how he had a 36 oz sterling silver baseball bat that was given to Ty Cobb in 1922 by a local business as a salute for what Cobb had done for the local community.

The elderly man said as a small boy in the 1930's his father took the bat in exchange for some car and truck repair Cobb needed.
The man's father never sold it saying one day anything that belonged to the greatest baseball player ever would be worth a fortune.

The old timer was right!


I thought this was interesting.I wonder if many of Cobb's awards he won over his long career have since been destroyed after using them as trade bait.

How many tangible awards did Cobb win?At least one Chalmers automobile, right?

[julusnc]

Yes I have heard of the automobile he won and also a crown that was made for him by the Tiffany Company and presented by Ford Motors back in the 1920's to Mr Cobb......

I just thought it would be interesting to hear from people that might have seen his displays in museums around the country.

[csh19792001]

Ok-
We we're comparing the run scoring of the TEAMS of Cobb vs. Ruth, in order to show how much their stats are bolstered by not only their era, but the team batting around them. But Roy forgot to take out their respective contributions, and hence compared each player to themselves, which is not statistically sound and provides an innacurate picture.

So, I took the runs each player produced each year (from Total Baseball) out of their teams aggregate runs scored each year. I ommited years when either player didnt play 100 games (05, 06, 14, 26, and 28 for Cobb), (1914-18 and 1935 for Ruth). I did this because it would unfairly weight the measure.

In 15 seasons with 100 or more games played, Ruth's teams scored 659 runs/year WITHOUT him.

In 19 seaons where his teams played 100 or more games, Ty Cobb's teams averaged 503 runs/year WITHOUT him.

So 503 vs. 659- this is 31% more runs per year without him. That's an enormus advantage. Ruth was on much better offensive teams, even without his tremendous contributions.

We can do overall, en masse era comparisons, (runs/game, or BA, OBP, SLG) for 1919-34 vs. 1906-27, also. That also shows Ruth with a huge advantage as well.

AND- the links above (from the Exploratorium) don't even factor in team performance- and look at Cobb playing his entire career against the liveball.

[ElHalo]

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
How racist Was Ty?


Here is a brief piece that went out today from Wesley Frick.



Home > News > Opinion

Ty Cobb's label as racist is undeserved, baseball historian says

Web posted Thursday, May 20, 2004

Letter to the Editor
The people of Augusta need to be educated on Ty Cobb. And the NAACP
needs to revisit its position on Mr. Cobb. Augusta's commissioners
need to consider naming the city's minor league baseball stadium
after the great Hall of Famer.


Here is what the NAACP doesn't know: Mr. Cobb's father was a Georgia
state senator from the 31st District who voted against a bill
introduced and approved by the Senate that allowed taxes deriving
only from black properties to finance the black schools. This was in
1900.

Ty Cobb set more records in baseball than any other player. He was
the first player inducted into baseball's Hall of Fame in 1936. He
was the most celebrated athlete in baseball history.

In 1950, Cobb dedicated a new hospital in Royston, Ga., to provide
medical attention to the region. In Dr. J.B. Gilbert, Mr. Cobb found
one of the finest African-American doctors to serve the black
population. Before desegregation, Dr. Gilbert also serviced white
patients and later became chief of staff at Cobb Memorial Hospital.

In 1953, Mr. Cobb established the Ty Cobb Educational Foundation to
give scholarships to needy students in Georgia. Hundreds and hundreds
of young black students have become beneficiaries of this educational
fund.

Alexander George Washington Rivers was a black employee of Mr. Cobb's
for 18 years and named his first-born Ty Cobb Rivers. "Even if it
would have been a gal, I would have named her the same," Mr. Rivers
said in an interview with The Detroit News.


Bill Burgess

Uh... this article doesn't really prove anything at all. There could have been any number of reasons why his father voted that way... and his father wasn't Tyrus. And if I worked for somebody famous, and was sufficiently dim-witted to be overawed by their fame, I could see myself naming a kid after him just to show everybody that I had worked for some famous guy. Whether or not I could stand the guy personally. I tend not to be a fan of journalistic articles that set out a statement and then offer facts that only tangentially or not at all relate to the assertion made, let alone support it.

[Imapotato]

I have a theory on why Ty was racist during his youth.

Either two things

1) His house was robbed by a black person before, and thus when his mother shot his father, he jumped to conclusions and stereotyped that if a black man didn't rob his house the 1st time, his father wouldn't have died.

2) His mother was having an affair with a black man, and his father was trying to catch her with this man, and when caught, she shot him, rather than be kicked to the curb.

Far fetched, but usually intense hatred comes from a traumatic experience.

Ty did grow as a man, and kept evolving like some people do, and probably saw the many errors of his ways, but we will never know, he really didn't talk alot about that incident later in life...but he must have come to terms with it.

Now, as for Babe Ruth and the mysterious circumstances involving his 1st wife's death...why doesn't anyone question that?

[Roy Hobbs]

Well, I'll put it in kinder terms, but it still doesn't prove anything.

I don't know the percentage of black children in the regions where Cobb created his scholarships.

It just says "a number of black children" have benefitted. It's highly possible Cobb just set the scholarships up because he wanted to contribute something to his region in general. Of course if he was still highly racist at that time, why wouldn't he preclude blacks from receiving the scholarship?

Well, mainly because the political climate of that era would have looked very unkindly on it. And maybe Cobb was intentionally trying to change his image.

And lots of rich white people that regard blacks as inferiors kept black servants, so him having a black employee doesn't prove anything, either.

I've always heard that Cobb reformed his old racist ways somewhat in later life, but this article alone doesn't disprove the long standing perception that Cobb was a racist.

I'd say Cobb was almost definitely at least prejudiced against blacks during his playing career, I think it just is almost certainty considering where he was born. How deep set that prejudice was, how bad it was in comparison to others of his day and other players of his day, and how much of it was overblown simply because of Cobb's well known stature I do not know.

And the piece about is father starts the whole article off on bad footing because it is completley irrelevant.

[leecemark]

Ty Cobb grew up in a racist society and it would be remarkable if he WASN'T racist. Whether he was more or less racist than the average person who grew up in 19th century Georgia I couldn't say and don't really care. I am interested in Ty Cobb the ballplayer and his personnal demons are only relevant to me where they affect his play or his team. It might be worthwhile to speculate how he might have adapted if baseball had integrated while he was active if we must talk about his racism.
As to whether he evolved in his old age, I'd say the evidence presents a mixed picture. He did give away alot of money to worthy causes. He also became an alcoholic and was prone to fits of rage right up to the time of his death. I suspect there was never a time in his life when he was an easy man to get along with. As he never had to deal with a mixed race clubhouse, I'd say his inability to control his rage and the effect of that on his ball clubs is a more important issue to judging Ty Cobb, ballplayer, than his racism.

[Roy Hobbs]

The only person insane here in this regard is you Bill Burgess.

When was the last time a man as insignificant as a pathetic little baseball player led a revolution that established this country?

When was the last time a man as insignificant as a baseball player drew up a Constitution that has stood the test of time and been a model to governments around the world?

When was the last time a man as insignificant as a baseball player won the civil war for the union, freeing American slaves for all time?

My god man you need to check your head.

And I didn't think political discussions like this were appropriate for this forum.

[Roy Hobbs]

For one I find it highly inappropriate to be talking politics on a baseball forum.

Secondly, nothing you have posted had anything to do with baseball.

Washington, Grant, Jefferson, Madison et al. never lived in the same time as Ty Cobb. They were not his contemporaries, they weren't part of the same society he was.

So you cannot even say you are comparing him to others from his era to show that "he wasn't such a bad guy."

It's like comparing Al Gore to Ty Cobb. Both southerners, yet one was (in your admissions) at least as racist as was normal for his times. Al Gore isn't really racist at all from anything I've seen. Of course, that doesn't put Gore on a higher plane of "morality" than Cobb because Al grew up in a time when racism was actively being taught as an evil.

Just as Ty Cobb grew up in a time when it was commonly accepted.

And Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were growing up in a time when they were taught that SLAVERY was acceptable.

I'd actually put Jefferson and Washington far ahead of Cobb in terms of morality in their own time. By the time Cobb came around we'd fought a war and passed three amendments saying that blacks are the political equals of whites. Yet Cobb certainly did not treat them as such.

There was no such provisions/creations during the time of Jefferson and Washington. In fact, they were taught by the leading men of science in their day that negros actually need to be enslaved, that it is preferable to their health.

They honestly believed that blacks were an inferior species of man, not out of racism or hatred, but out of what they thought was a genuine scientific fact. You fail to recognize how primative we were scientifically in the 18th century.

It was widely held as a commonly accepted fact that slavery was good for the black man, with their inferior intellect they wouldn't be able to survive without the controlling influence of the white man.

And to justify this reasoning, one only had to point to Africa, were by and large people were living in the BC era of technological and social development.

Furthermore the slavery issue with President's has long been discussed and denounced by academia. Everyone says and accepts that they were doing wrong, but everyone still values them imminently as a person.

Cobb was, as I have stated, nothing more than a baseball player, a trifling nothing on the world stage who hasn't had one millionth the effect on the world as the foundign fathers.

To compare him to our nation's leaders is not only ludicrous, it shows that you don't have a healthy appreciation of baseball and you take it far too seriously to be considered normal.

[wrgptfan]

I just wanted to see who was elected in the BBF HoF this month and I find out that that info is not yet available. I thought the elections ended on the 25th of the month, but maybe I was wrong. So let's see what's happening in the BBF History forum.

Oh my God! Burgess has completely gone off the deep end - or he is just trying to be controversial. Trying to compare Ty Cobb's racism with the owning of slaves by presidents of the US when such a practice was common defies belief.

Just for Bill's edification, owning slaves was not an option during Cobb's lifetime. Owning slaves prior to the 1850's was almost ubiquitous in many parts of the US. Cobb's not owning slaves does not make him a better human being than Washingotn, Jefferson, and many other slave owners. For you to suggest that such is the case is repugnant to me.

When posters say to Bill Burgess as they did in post #137 (and then some) in reply to his posting the same post almost 100 times on baseballprimer (see posts 45 thru 165 at http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/newsstand/newsblog_discussion/the_new_and_improved_hall_of_fame_better_players_h igher_standards_25_percen/ ) "My god! Bill Burgess is without a doubt the biggest idiot ever!", who are we to disagree.

[Roy Hobbs]

He's not an idiot by any means but after his last post I don't think he has a very grounded sense of reality and a good perspective on the important/non-importance of compared to society as a whole.

Slave owning was nearly ubiquitous prior the 1850s for all of the landed gentry of the South. If you were wealthy at all (as almost every President in our history has been prior to getting elected) and lived in the South, you owned slaves, period.

[Roy Hobbs]

So Bill if you were going to disprove that Ted Williams was a better batter than Cobb how would you go about it.

I'm in a debate just like that on another message board, and despite showing that Cobb had better contact numbers relatively AND absolutely speaking they assert that Cobb was good because he was playing against a weaker talent pool than Williams.

[Roy Hobbs]

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
Gentlemen,

Mr. Kent:
"Owning slaves prior to the 1850's was almost ubiquitous in many parts of the US. "

Mr. Roy Hobbs:
"Slave owning was nearly ubiquitous prior the 1850s for all of the landed gentry of the South. If you were wealthy at all (as almost every President in our history has been prior to getting elected) and lived in the South, you owned slaves, period."


May I restore historical clarity to your outlandish distortions?

The 1860 census states that in 1860, there were 27 million white persons living in the US, 8 million of which lived in slave-holding states.

Fewer than 385,000 individuals owned enslaved persons, 1.4%.
Or, 4.8% of the Southern whites. The majority owned 1-5 enslaved persons. Individuals who owned over 50 enslaved persons were the top 1%, and known as "slave magnates".

So much for your historical accuracy, gentlemen. I had estimated 10%. The slave owner may well have been "ubiquitous", or randomly distributed throughout the south, but they were far, far fewer than you suggested by your use of the word. Have I proven the point, gentlemen? Even an amateur historian/researcher like me, took seconds to look up on google.com.

Bill Burgess

You're hopelessly overmatched here, however much you may know about baseball, I've been studying "real" history for 30+ years.

I said the landed GENTRY of the south almost to the man owned slaves. Obviously the landed aristocracy of the South is going to be a very small group of people, but among them it was ubiquitous that you owned slaves.

And just like now, back then only the wealthy became President's as a rule. Even "poor" Andrew Jackson had a manor house.

[Roy Hobbs]

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
Roy Hobbs,

If you have read my posts carefully, I do not make the claim that Ty Cobb was a better hitter than Ted Williams. (But I do BELIEVE that he is by a very great amount.)

1. Ty Cobb had many more plate appearances than Ted. 13,072-9791. Ted's lost war yrs. accounted for them. It is very possible that Ted's counting stats would have been much better. But since no one on earth will allow me to create the scenario of what Cobb would have done if he hadn't been enslaved by the deadball, I will not allow anyone to speculate what DiMag or Williams might have done if not for their lost yrs.

2. Ty piled up 150 black ink, and 417 grey ink.
3. Ted piled up 122 black ink, and 326 grey ink.

4. Ty had Hall of Fame standards of 74.9.
5. Ted had Hall of Fame standards of 73.0

6. Ty had Hall of Fame, batting of 451.
7. Ted had Hall of Fame, batting of 348.

8. To those who cry that Ted lost out on the Hall of Fame standards, I say a heart-felt Boo-Hoo.

9. To those who say that Williams out-hit Cobb, I call them shallow analysts.

Ted's OBP was higher: Ted took walks, Ty blasted singles, doubles and triples, which OBP hides.

Ted led in Relative SLG. ave. The only reason Ted could do that is that HRs were unavailable in good numbers for 2/3 of Ty's career. And that is the only reason, since Ted was never a true slugger. He hit over 40 HRs only once, since he was too busy taking walks.

If Cobb had been born into Williams time, he'd have hit as many HRs as Williams.

Williams never had to swing at crazy blackened flutterballs, the kind that he hated. Ted liked fastballs. Ted had many modern advantages that Cobb couldn't dream of. Of course so did the pitchers of Ted's day.

Finally, I'd tell the other side, that hitting is only part of offense, & Williams couldn't & didn't bring the missing part of his offense with him. Ty could & did bring the most effective strategic running game to the table.

So Ted wasn't a complete offensive threat. And much less so a player. And the fact that Williams was far too ignorant & egotistical to hit to left field, proved for all time that he was just fine with hurting his team for his entire career.


Bill Burgess

I wasn't accusing you of saying Ty Cobb > Williams. I don't think I've ever even seen you do the comparison.

However I think Cobb was a better hitter than Williams was and you're the one man I know who I can definitely count on to have a lot of ammunition to help me prove my point against some friends of mine.

[Roy Hobbs]

It's interesting that we are talking about the 1860 census as I was talking about it on a political forum I frequent just the other day.

I assume you're using the UVA report on it? It's really the best source fo the 1860 census info as it has the complete raw data as well as some good analysis tools.

Going by slaveholding states is a bit deceptive.

Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri had large populations but proportionally speaking owned few slaves. They owned about 90,000 amongst all three of them and represented a good 2m in white population.

IN the future confederacy there were 5.47m whites and 3.52m slaves.

There were 316,638 slaveholders which represented 5.81% of the white population.

The single largest group of slave holders were those owning 2-4 slaves at 98,928.

The single largest concentration of SLAVES was in the 20-49 group, 981,360 slaves lived under a master who owned 20-49 slaves.

A very interesting bit of info:

98,537 men owned 10+ slaves, that's 3.1% of all slaveholders and 1.8% of the population.

2,331 men owned 398,650 slaves among them, represented 11% of all slaves concentrated in the hands of only .7% of the slaveholding population and .04% of the general population.

That's all tangential to the point, though.

The point I was making was this.

1) The President of the United States is almost always born into a wealthy family (then and now.)

2) When this is not the case he becomes wealthy at some point prior to becoming President (then and now.)

3) In the South, where a great many of our Presiden's before 1860 came from, being wealthy was ubiquitous with owning slaves.

Very few wealthy southerners were not slave owners.

4) Since being wealthy was a necessity for the Presidency, and a majority of our Presidents were Southern prior to the ACW, it only stands to reason a lot of our early presidents were slaveholders.

[Roy Hobbs]

Well you know my position on Ruth.

But the Williams argument was exasperating me because they basically would concede that Cobb was better all around because of his fielding and baserunning.

But they'd maintain that contact hitting was definitely Williams > Cobb.

Which is exasperating because you know the only reason Williams gets so much credit is that one .400 year, Cobb had three .400 years and never hit under .300 (and rarely low .300s) in a full season. AND if you index it to league batting averages BAs were 4 points LOWER in Cobb's era.

[prof93]

I don't think its fair to say that Williams gets credit just for that 1941 season.

MVPs-2
Triple Crowns-2
Batting Titles-6
All-Star-17
BA-.344

I am not saying Williams is better, but be fair in your comments.

[leecemark]

Bill, I'm not sure I understand why the lack of home runs is a problem with relative slugging for deadball players. Obviously it hinders their raw slugging statistics when comparing them to live ball hitters. That comparison really doesn't tell us anything. Relative slugging, however, only compares a player to other hitters in his own league in the year(s) he played. The supressed home run totals effect all players Cobb would have compared to.
Ty led the league in slugging 8 times - only Ruth, Hornsby and Williams did it more often. It should be a good stat for him. Maybe not quite as good a stat for him as it was for Willimas though.
--As far as contact hitting, I don't see the arguement for Williams - or anybody else - over Cobb. He is pretty clearly #1 in that category. I think he probably wouldn't have hit for much, if any, higher average if had he come along 10-20 years later. As he said himself, he would have altered his approach to hit more home runs. He was a big strong guy and I think he probably could have been a Triple Crown threat in his best years. Of course he did win one anyway, but I'm not sure anybody really cared about the HR crown then. The batting champ was considered the best hitter in the dead ball days, pretty much end of story.

[Roy Hobbs]

Originally posted by prof93
I don't think its fair to say that Williams gets credit just for that 1941 season.

MVPs-2
Triple Crowns-2
Batting Titles-6
All-Star-17
BA-.344

I am not saying Williams is better, but be fair in your comments.

I'm not saying Williams never did anything else I'm saying he gets credit because of that one thing, and I think I'm right.

Lou Gehrig gets noticed almost exclusively because of his game streak, not many casual fans realize he was one of the greatest offensive forces of all time.

Sort of like Ruth gets attention for the numbers 60 and 714 and a good number of fans probably never knew he pitched and probably have no idea as to what his career batting average is.

[ElHalo]

It always makes me sad to see how much difference there is between some baseball fan's political views and my own (good, socialist) political values... oh well.


Pre- 1919, a slugger received no extra walks over his fellow contact hitters. Their OBP will be pretty much equal. So it's fine to compare pre-1919 sluggers with their contact hitting peers.

Post-1919, sluggers, DID receive a very great numbers of extra walks over their fellow contact hitters. So, we can fairly compare post 1919 sluggers with any other post 1919 hitter.

Ok, more numbers time.

Let me take a look at guys who led their leagues in slugging%, with the number of walks they drew per AB, vs. the regular BB/AB for the league (Bill, note that BB/AB is just as good as BB/PA, since HBP and SF aren't all that huge of an issue... and since I have AB numbers for each league, but no PA numbers, it'll have to suffice.

I'll go with every five years, starting in 1910, through 1930.

1910: NL SLG leader Sherry Magee drew 0.181 BB/AB. League average, 0.099. BB/AB premium of 0.082 BB/AB
1910: AL, Ty Cobb, 0.126, league average, 0.083. Premium of 0.043 BB/AB

1915: NL, Gavvy Cravath, 0.165. League average, 0.080. Premium of 0.085.
1915: AL, Jack Fornier, 0.152. League average, 0.105. Premium of 0.047.

1920: NL, Rogers Hornsby, 0.102. League Average, 0.071. Premium of 0.031.
1920: AL, Babe Ruth, 0.323. League Average, 0.091. Premium of 0.232.

1925: NL, Rogers Hornsby, 0.165. League Average, 0.081. Premium of 0.084.
1925: AL, Ken Williams, 0.090. League Average, 0.101. Premium of -0.011.

1930: NL, Hack Wilson, 0.179. League Average, 0.084. Premium of 0.095.
1930: AL, Babe Ruth, 0.263. League Average, 0.093. Premium of 0.170.

So ranking all of the premiums, we get:

1920:AL
1930:AL
1930:NL
1915:NL
1925:NL
1910:NL
1915:AL
1910:AL
1920:NL
1925:AL

There was a premium EVERY TIME except... 1925, coming during the so called "live ball" era, when Ken Williams drew fewer walks than league average. Except for the freak of nature that is Babe Ruth, the walk premiums seem pretty well distributed between dead ball and live ball eras.

AND NOTE: This is only a 5 year sample of different dead and live ball era years, but the BB rates for the various years seem fairly constant over the time period from 1910 to 1930. The highest BB rate, in fact, came during 1915, in the middle of the dead ball era.

Sorry Bill... this walk bonanza that you're talking about for live ball era sluggers just did not exist. Except for Babe Ruth. He just got far, far more walks than any other slugger, of ANY time period.

[ElHalo]

Bill,

I wasn't showing just that league walks failed to increase. They did fail to increase, but that wasn't my point there.

My point was, the guys with the highest SLG% always got more walks... be it 1910, 1920, or 1930.

Sherry Magee got a lot more walks than your average contact hitter, the same way Hack Wilson got a lot more walks than your average contact hitter. Gavvy Cravath has one of the best isolated plate discipline numbers in league history.

I'm not arguing that homers and offense didn't increase after 1919. That's obviously untrue.

But BB's, and BB's to sluggers not named Babe Ruth, didn't increase dramatically after 1919.

Looking at the National League, which had no Babe Ruth, the average number of walks it took to lead the league was:

1900-1904: 106.2
1905-1909: 91.2
1910-1914: 116.8
1915-1919: 77.8
1920-1924: 85.2
1925-1929: 92.2
1930-1934: 90.8

If there's a dip here, it's between 1915 and 1925. But even after 1925, the walk rates for the leaders in BB's didn't get back up to the level they showed before 1915.

I don't know what else you want me to show you. I showed you that the difference between the walk rates for sluggers vs. league average was no greater in the live ball era than in the dead ball era. I showed that the number of walks the top walks guys got in the live ball era was no greater than the number of walks handed out in the dead ball era.

Even as home runs started to ramp up sharply, walks... didn't. For guys not named Babe Ruth.

Ruth drew a lot more walks, comparatively, than anyone had before. But there was no big bright line in 1919 where walk rates for sluggers ramped up. I'll try this again:

National league slugging percentage leaders, with BB/AB.

1905: Seymour, 0.085
1906: Lumley, 0.099
1907: Wagner, 0.089
1908: Wagner, 0.095
1909: Wagner, 0.133
1910: Magee, 0.181
1911: Schulte, 0.132
1912: Zimmerman, 0.068
1913: Cravvath, 0.105
1914: Magee, 0.101
1915: Cravvath, 0.165
1916: Wheat, 0.076
1917: Hornsby, 0.086
1918: Rousch, 0.051
1919: Myers, 0.045
1920: Hornsby, 0.102
1921: Hornsby, 0.101
1922: Hornsby, 0.104
1923: Hornsby, 0.130
1924: Hornsby, 0.166
1925: Hornsby, 0.165
1926: Williams, 0.113
1927: Hafey, 0.104
1928: Hornsby, 0.220
1929: Hornsby, 0.145
1930: Wilson, 0.179
1931: Klein, 0.099
1932: Klein, 0.092
1933: Klein, 0.092
1934: Collins, 0.095


Ok Bill. I just did 30 years worth of SLG leaders and their BB rates. And with the exception of Hornsby in 1928, the highest rate was Magee in 1910... in the middle of the dead ball era. Other than a dip between 1916 and 1919, the BB rates for SLG leaders seems pretty constant over this 30 year period.

Sorry, but there just is no reason for saying that the added home runs and offense of the dead ball era led to an excesive number of walks for the top sluggers. It's just not true.

In the AL, of course, there was this freak of nature named Babe Ruth... who drew walks at a rate that far outstrip anybody else ever. If you want to make the argument that pitchers were so afraid of Babe Ruth that they didn't pitch to him that much, and so he got a lot of walks that he didn't really earn, in the same way Barry Bonds does today... I could see that as something you might be able to argue. I'm not positive of it, of course, but I could see the argument.

In 1917, yeah, Ruth's BB and HR numbers were low... but he was a pitcher, concentrating on pitching. Of course his hitting would suffer for it.

In 1918, when he was still primarily a pitcher, but also started to play the outfield, and before pitchers started to get afraid of him... he put up a BB/AB rate of 0.183. Note that in that entire 30 history of the NL that I gave above... only Hornsby in 1928 drew walks at a more prodigous rate than that among SLG leaders. You yourself asserted that Ruth wasn't a HR deamon that year... but he still drew walks at an incredible rate.

I'm sorry, Bill. Ruth was a monster for drawing walks, an absolute monster... but it wasn't directly attributable to his home runs.

Sorry, but walks just don't follow home runs, as you stated. That's simply not true.

[ElHalo]

Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net

Only once in the first group does a hitter achieve 100 walks. Only twice in my second group fails to achieve that level. Do you REALLY believe that the second group could have sustained those walk totals if they played 1900-19? ElHalo, you're working way too hard to prove a point of much greater scope than I'm trying to show.

Bill Burgess

Do I think they could have sustained such a prodigous walk rate? Maybe, not entirely sure.

Of the 30 years that I did the research for before, only two... Hornsby in 1928 and Wilson in 1930... had SLG leaders who topped 100 BB's. And neither of them topped 110 BB's.

And you're right, in saying that guys like Gehrig, Foxx, Ruth, etc., racked up more walks than guys like Lajoie, Crawford, etc.

But I really do think that, had Gehrig, Ruth, and Foxx played in the pre-1920 era, they would have racked up very prodigous BB numbers.

As you said, there were certain hitters who hit the ball very well for contact, but didn't draw so many walks. However, there were also guys who did draw walks in the dead ball era... Jimmy Sheckard (his 147 BB's in 1911 was topped by Ruth only twice), Huggins, Roy Thomas, were able to draw a whole ton of walks... even while they were in the dead ball era.

I just think that Ruth, Gehrig, and Foxx would have been able to draw a ton of walks in the dead ball era as well. Even after he stopped bopping home runs, Jimmie Foxx was drawing walks like a madman...

From 1941 on, when Foxx never topped 20 homers, and his slugging percentage fell to 200 or so points below his career average... He drew 0.153 BB's/AB. Babe Ruth, pre 1919, when he was still concentrating mostly on his pitching and had yet to become a home run threat, drew walks at a 0.131 rate. Those are very high numbers... by contrast, Alex Rodriguez, a current slugger who draws walks, has a career BB/AB rate of 0.112.

As opposed to the contact hitters you mentioned... Lajoie, for example, was at 0.051 for his career. Wagner was at 0.092. Compare that to Cravath, a dead ball slugger, at 0.142.

The stat I'd really like to see is pitches/PA for all of these guys... but I'm fairly certain those numbers don't exist.

I really do believe that it simply comes down a player's willingness to wait on pitches, and hit ones they really like, rather than simply hitting anything they could get to. Guys like Cravath, Ruth, Foxx, etc., were just able to sit back and wait on pitches, and only swung at the ones they liked. Guys like Cobb and Lajoie jumped on whatever they could get their bats to, and put a lot more balls in play.

It really isn't an era thing. It's a mentality thing. Ruth might not have hit 40 homers a year if he played fifteen years earlier, but I'm fairly confident he still would have had over 100 BB's a year. He was just that kind of hitter... as was Huggins, as was Thomas.

Cobb, and Wagner, and Lajoie, just weren't that kind of hitter. They loved making contact, putting the ball in play, on relying on their ability to beat out throws to get on base. It's just a different approach to hitting. Ruth, Gehrig, Greenberg, et al, happened to take the same kind of approach as Huggins... they were just much better at it.

[leecemark]

Bill, I think your theory sounds fairly logical, but it doesn't seem to hold up under scrutiny. El Halo's research seems pretty conclusive to me. If you want to look at this from a different angle check the walk rates for guys with 400+ HR. While many of them have very good walk rates, there are some top HR hitters who had poor ones. Drawing walks is a talent which isn't directly correlated to power hitting. Take a look at the leaders for bases on balls from the live ball era and many -Kamm, Bishop, Vaughn, Fletcher, Galan, Stanky, Yost, Ashburn, Temple, Gilliam, Boggs and Henderson - were not power hitters.

[leecemark]

Here's a few 400+ Hr guys with below average walk rates per 162 games: Dawson 36, Gonzalez 44, Banks 49, Kingman 51 and Sosa 64. Joe Carter homered 396 times and averaged only 39 walks per 162. Those are just the guys with worse BB rates than Cobb (67 per 162). The are as many more who were less than 10 better per 162. I wouldn't say there isn't anything to your theory, just that the effect isn't as strong as you might think. BB rates arelmore dependent on the hitters approach than any other factor. Although I'll concede Bonds would have to be really reaching to avoid alot of his walks.

[ElHalo]

Agreeing with Leecemark there. A good many of Bonds' walks are attributable to pitcher fear. Some of Ruth's walks may be the same. But not most of them. If Babe Ruth were playing in 1905, sure, he might have only hit 10 or 15 homers a year... but I still say he'd get over 100 BB's a year.

As for home run hitters without a lot of walks... again using the BB/AB rate, here's some guys who hit a lot of home runs, but walked less often than Honus Wagner, who you admit was a free swinger who didn't often go for the walk (he had a career ratio of .092)

Ernie Banks: .081
Dave Kingman: .091
Dawson: .059
JuanGone: .069
Galaragga: .076
Joe Carter: .063

Of the guys who finished in the top 10 in both leagues in HR last year, we've got:

Javy Lopez: .072
Andruw Jones: .089
Preston Wilson: .090
Alfonso Soriano: .056
Aubrey Huff: .083
Vernon Wells: .062

Now, I agree with you, a majority of home run hitters also do pretty well for themselves in the walking business. But it's not a directly correlative skill. Babe Ruth was a great walker before he ever became a great home run hitter.

[Roy Hobbs]

Joe DiMaggio has to be on there somewhere. Wasn't he pals with Ty Cobb when he was younger, and wasn't he the one who referred to Ty Cobb as god (unsarcastically)?

[leecemark]

--If Hornsby was a fan of Cobb's it was very one sided. Cobb couldn't stand Hornsby and thought he was overrated. Cobb and Ted Williams were friends and late in Williams career he visited Cobb's home in the offseason. They were naming their all time teams and when Williams suggested Hornsby, Cobb made some strong objections. It led to such a fight that Cobb threw Williams out of his home and never spoke to him again.

[Roy Hobbs]

So why did Hornsby refer to Ruth's lifetime BA of .342 as bad?

Is it as high as Rogers' or Cobb's? No, but it is *ninth* all time, and a man that can get that high on the lifetime BA list *and* hit 714 home runs is pretty impressive.

[ElHalo]

Oh, I think I got pretty clearly what Rogers meant. Something along the lines of this:

"Now, Babe Ruth was no slap singles hitter. He was a power hitter, pure and simple, a guy who knocked balls out of the park. He wasn't trying to make contact, he was trying to make the ball come out of its stitching. And he still has a career batting average of .342. For somebody to be a pure power hitter, not concerned at all with being an average hitter, and still have an average of .342... that's mighty impressive."

Bill,

Those teams are absolutely fascinating. It's so interesting how, right after Rogers retired, people put him behind Collins and Lajoie, but 15 years later, he had leapfrogged everybody. I guess they were still swayed by his winning personality in 1938.

Similarly, it's nice to note how EVERYBODY picked Joe DiMaggio over Speaker in 1952... today, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a single baseball historian worth his salt who would put DiMaggio over Speaker. I guess it's just another example of the haze we look through when we evaluate players when the dirt's still fresh in their spikes.

[Roy Hobbs]

Roy,

I have no idea why he said that! But truthfully, Babe is only 29th all-time, when we index to league average, which we absolutely MUST do, to not pretend 1908 and 1930 are on equal terms. We call it Relative BA. (Total Baseball, 7th ed., pp. 2294)

But hey, 29th all time ain't swiss cheese. It marks you as an all-time high average hitter! I accept that. You'd have to ask Rogers what he meant.

Bill Burgess

That's an important distinction overall.

But considering Hornsby played during almost exactly the same years as Ruth (Hornsby 1915-1937; Ruth 1914-1935, although Hornsby mostly in the NL) I don't think he was very justified in dissing a guy who didn't hit much worse than Hornsby himself over roughly the exact same historical period. And of course hit a lot more dingers than Rogers.

[nomarwho]

Bill,

I have read many of your posts and enjoy them thoroughly, I think you are
a dearth of baseball knowledge and agree with you alot of the time. I agree
Ty Cobb is/was the greatest hitter of all time (apologies to the Williiams fans
out there). Was he flawed?, yes but aren't we all. I love what he brought to
the field in terms of running, and fierceness. I've heard you argue that he
single handedly put the fear of God into pitchers on the bases and that
this type of base running/play was unheard of prior to Ty. I think you may
have forgotten about the 1890's Baltimore teams with McGraw and Jennings,
etc...I know those teams and specifically John Mcgraw played the same
brand of Baseball as Ty (whatever it takes, or as my old coach used to say
Cobbin' it). Now even with the reference to Cobbin' it I'd still contend that
those Baltimore teams did it first...I'm sure Ty had at least ONE Baltimore
chop in his day. You hear references to the pugnacious John Mcgraw
fighting, spitting, and spiking (whatever it takes right?) in order to gain the
advantage. Does this kind of Baseball sound familiar?? I would NEVER in a
million years try and tell you that Ty didn't bring that style of play to
the forefront but he was hardly the innovator here.

"In playing or Managing, the game of ball is only fun for me when I'm out in
in front and winning. I don't give a hill of beans for the rest of the game"
John Mcgraw

Here's where we depart...if as you contend; Ty Cobb was the greatest all-
around player of all-time. Then how do you confront the arguments that
Wagner was his equal if not better?...in World Series play (head to head)
Wagner blew him away; AND he was truly unafraid of Ty unlike most guys
of the time. I'm sure I've heard more than a few people suggest over the
years that they were at the very least equals...Now at the same time
never really heard much argument as to who was better than Babe Ruth
during his time, aside from the few year streches here and there. I'm not
denegrading those other players from that era but NOBODY touches Ruth
here and there really is no signifigant argument on the issue. But there is/
was an argument for Ty's time, amd that argument is Wagner. I guess my
point is that how can one be considered the greatest all-time player when
there is a contention that he may not have been the best of his era?
Mind you I'm not trying to prove one or the other I'm justng posing the
question to you Bill.

Ok, another thing you talk about is the New York "media" bias in reference to
Ruth...but doesn't the same apply to Cobb in your eyes? In every poll for
all-time teams that you have referenced here on this thread Wagner's name
usually is a fixture on them until fairly recently. Could that have to do with
alot of post career press that Ty always seemsto garner as opposed to
the guy who had during their playing days been considered at the very least
to be his equal? I think so...

I will be the first to admit there is at the very least a Ruth "curve" when it
comes to cosidering the best ever if you will at least consider the fact that
there is a cult of Cobb that seeks to convert everybody to the gospel of
the "inside" game. With Ty Cobb as the foremost proponent of this style of
play. Well I contend that others did it as well; during his day and before.

Were those Baltimore teams not considered some of the best ever? Was
Wagner not considered at least Ty's equal?? Was John Mcgraw not as fierce
a competitor as Ty Cobb; I give you these quotes...and refer you to the
above quote.

"He (Honus Wagner) was the nearest thing to a perfect player no matter
where his manager chose to play him"--John Mcgraw

"I name (Honus Wagner) first on my list, not only because he a great
batting champion and base-runner, and also baseball's foremost shortstop,
but because Wagner could have been first at any other position, with the
possible exception of pitcher. In all my career, I never saw such a versitle
player."--John Magraw

"You can have your Cobbs, your Lajoies, your Chases, your Bakers, but I'll take Wagner as my pick of the greatest. He is not only a marvelous mechanical player, but he has the quickest baseball brain I have ever observed." - John McGraw

If you notice a trend in the choice of quotes it is because I consider Mcgraw,
not Cobb to be the true trendsetter in style of play. Was he not not the first
manager to call pitches from the dugout? did he not use relief pitching
earlier than most? Was he not a member of those furious Oriole teams of
the 1890's as a player AND a manager? Were those teams not famous for
for winning "dirty", or "Cobbin' it" as my old caoch said?

I want to say that I would never contend Wagner was better than
Cobb nor that Mcgraw was the greater force of nature. I only seek to
contend that at the very least Wagner was his equal and that Mcgraw
and The Orioles played the same brand of Baseball with similar amounts
of feirceness and competiveness as did Cobb and his contemporaries.

Ruth can never be compared with anybody, not even Cobb as he really has
no peer in terms of Baseball worth. I contend that his effect on the game
WAS greater than that of Cobb or Mcgraw for that matter...how many suicide
squeezes do you see today? (my favorite play btw) Conversely, how many
two-run moon shots do you see today? Not that this is better Baseball
either. I am just making the point that one's effect on the game has
endured while the other's has not...

I realize this post is long winded and maybe a tad convoluted but hopefully
you can see my point about Cobb in general...mainly that he wasn't a "'true"
innovator, that he had an equal in his time, and that Ruth had no equal in his
time or after and that what he did had not been done before, at least not
like that anyway. As to whether Ruth would be as great if he had played
during the "deadball" era...while I certainly think the numbers would not be
as high as they were I sure think he would've outshone the other stars of
the day. He was a beast, a monster, and a true force of nature. Great is
great in any era and he (Ruth) was the most special of all. I'm sure you will
come back at me with a well reasoned response along with plenty of numbers
to back them up with, (on both issues Ruth and Wagner) and I welcome the
education oon the subject. I enjoy reading you even though sometimes we
disagree....I welcome any criticisms of what I have said here from Bill or
otherwise...thank you

[Roy Hobbs]

As much as I like Ruth and prefer him over Cobb, I don't really think he had any place in baseball after his retirement.

Is it sad? Yes.

But Ruth never struck me as a man of the intellectual ability or the discipline to really contribute effectively in a managerial role.

Ruth wanted very much to be a manager, and I wish Ruth had been gifted with the discipline and skills it required, but he was not. Ruth, as his contemporaries said, could barely manage himself, it would have been folly for him to be manager long term (and I'm amazed the Braves let him be player-manager.)

It's an inevitable truth of the sport that you either contribute or leave, it's a tough sport and I don't think guys like Cobb or Ruth would have it any other way looking back on things.

[ElHalo]

Wasn't Babe the pitching coach for the Dodgers for a while? I've never really heard the full story on that.

[nomarwho]

Doh!! sorry Bill I do know what dearth means and thought I had changed
that didn't mean that one. I have this strange little quirk where words I
know the meaning of get used improperly sometimes.

Now to Baseball...I think Ruth was handicapped in his post-baseball life
by his reputation as the larger than life Manboy. Cobb too was written off
after awhile as were many others which is indeed sad. Would Ruth have been
a good Manager? I'm afraid we'll never know about that one....the real
question is would Ruth have been as utterly inept a Manager as Ted WIlliams
was??? :D :D :D ;)

"If I'd just tried for them dinky singles I could've batted around .600." -Babe Ruth

"I am intense, no question about it. Every time I toe the rubber, it's no different for me than it was in the World Series. That might be somebody's only chance to see me pitch. They might have driven four hours to get there. I'm going to be out there if I can help it." -Roger Clemens Sport Magazine (May 2000)

[ElHalo]

So, it could be estimated that he left around $2.5m. to his college scholarship foundation for needy Georgian college kids. He had stipulated that in order to qualify for it, the child had to finish his 1st yr. unassisted, to demonstrate tenacity and ambition.


Just one sentance plucked from your very well researched post, Bill, but this seemed very... odd to me. Only give scholarship money to people who can already pay for it? Seems a little on the harsh side.

I know that, when I went to college, the tuition, room and board, fees, etc., added up to about $45,000 a year (to say nothing of grad school, where it was closer to $60,000). Now, nobody in my family had ever made $45,000 in any two years together, and if I hadn't been able to get scholarships, there's no way no how that I would have been able to go to college. Just couldn't have happened. I worked a full time job while I was in high school, at night (at a McDonald's no less! ugh), just to be able to have enough money to buy myself food and necessaries... there's no way, no how, that I could have come up with $45,000 for a first year of college... $4500 would have been stretching it. Luckily for me, some of the richer schools thinks it makes them look better if they provide full scholarships to poor people just for being poor... so I lucked out. If I hadn't... well, I guess I'd still be in McDonald's.

On a side note about Ty... I had no idea he had that many run ins with the law. That's insane. I know plenty of honest to God criminals that haven't been in court that many times. Interesting thing to learn about the man.

And on a completely seperate note... what was it about Ty Cobb that made you so interested in him? I love the game of baseball as much as the next guy, but I've never felt the need to go into that kind of detail about any one player in particular.

Now, there are subjects that I have studied in obsessive, ridiculous detail (beyond just baseball in general)... but I've generally had a reason. I'm fiercly proud of my ethnic background, so I've studied Ireland and her history to the point where I could easily teach graduate school courses in it, and I know more about Michael Collins, the greatest man Ireland ever produced, than I know about my own father (which isn't hard, since I don't even know his name :laugh). But there's a reason for that: I was raised by grandparents that had fierce pride in their culture and love of their native soil, and not much else to be proud of. It rubbed off.

What rubbed off on you, to make you so interested in a man who played his last before you were born?

[four tool]

Men like Mack, McGraw and Hughie Jennings all called him among the best players in BB history. In various yrs., he often hit around .450.

Ultimately, I have to give it to Wagner, since without verifiable stats against qualified opposition, I can't assume Lloyd was better, or even as good. This brief summary was culled from Marty Appel's fantastic book, Baseball's Best, 1980, pp. 413-414.

Bill, what you said about Lloyd is why I can't say Gibson is the best catcher, not enough data against the MLs

[ElHalo]

Shocker, despite possibly having the best name in the history of professional sports, was a very quiet, unassuming type. He was never flamboyant, he was never outgoing with fans or the media, and so he just kind of dissappeared... reminds me a lot of Mike Mussina, a guy who had an excellent career in relative obscurity for a while, then came to the Yankees and had an excellent finish to his career... wound up with very impressive numbers, but was so quiet and unassuming, and so eager to shrink from the media spotlight, that he was never really thought of much in his own time, but more taken for granted... and was forgotten within a few years of retiring.

I believe the same thing will happen with Mussina... thirty years from now, unless he somehow gets a Hall plaque in the interim (which I doubt), most people probably won't remember who he was... because he never really stuck out in any particular way, was never the very best pitcher in the league, but was just excellent in a very stealthy, under the radar sort of way.

[bf-lurker]

Why isn't Urban Shocker in the Hall?

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

For 10 yrs. Urban Shocker was a extremely fine pitcher. For 2 yrs. he was a great one. And strangely, he blossomed in 1920, just when things should have gotten tough for him. He was with the St. Louis Browns from 1919-24, and a Yankee from 1925-27. Then he died prematurely.

Here is his record:

-Year-W-L,----ERA+--Team finish
1916---4-4,---110-----4th
1917---8-5,---103-----6th
1918---6-6,---152-----4th
1919--13-11,--123-----5th
1920--20-10,--145-----4th
1921--27-12,--126-----3rd
1922--24-17,--139-----2nd
1923--20-12,--122-----5th
1924--16-13,--107-----4th
1925--12-12,--117-----7th
1926--19-11,--114-----1st
1927--18-6,---136-----1st


Then why not Jimmy Key?


------Key---Shocker
W-----186----187
L------117----117
ERA+--122----124
IP-----2592---2682


Black Ink - 15-15
Grey Ink - 179-96 for Shocker
HOF Standards - 33-33
HOF Monitor - 66-65 for Key

WS - 0-1 for Shocker - 2-0 for Key (that is WS won, not pitching record)

Top 5 ERA+ Seasons (150+ IP)
Shocker - 144, 140, 136, 127, 123
Key - 161, 141, 141, 140, 138

If Urban Shocker goes in, so do a lot of pitchers that I don't think belong.

[leecemark]

--The Browns weren't a very good team when Shocker was with them (or any other time). However, they lost because they had no pitching except for Shocker. He had a very good line up around him pretty much his entire career. The Browns had George Sisler, Ken Williams, Baby Doll Jacobson, Jack Tobin, Marty McManus and scored plenty of runs. I expect most people know about the 1926-27 Yankees without me running down their lineup. If Key had a team advantage it wasn't much.

[four tool]

Part of the reason shocker is not in the hall is that many people don't wnat the entire 1927 Yankee team in there. Why the other pitchers and not him may have to do with who was on the committee at the time. I'm not entirely sure which pitchers from the 27 Bombers should or should not be in. As people may have noticed, rating pitchers is not my strong point. :D

[four tool]

Thanks Bill,

It is good to be back. I post when I have time and have soimething to say. some of the threads cover the territory fine without me. However, I'm having some fun on the best hitter thread and the Rice/Perez stuff in the hall of fame threads.

[RuthMayBond]

By contrast, Babe Ruth's 11 most famous records.

Career Walks - 71 yrs. - from 1930 to 2001, when Rickey Henderson broke it, and is still adding to it.
Correction, Rickey's probably done adding to it, but my man Barry ain't giving it back :clapping

[RuthMayBond]

RMB,

Oh my God! I forgot about Barryman. What day did he brake it. As you can see, I'm not up to the moment.Don't have a cow, he just broke it Sunday :waving

[Imapotato]

As a tool to guide us, I'd thought I'd put up a crude formchart. Very rough, I grant that, but better than nothing at all. These are NOT listed in order of preference in any way at all. Mostly chronological, but sometimes just from memory. And in this exercise, we need not worry about putting OFs in the positions they historically played. If you like 6 CFs on your teams, so be it.

C - Ewing, King Kelly, Charlie Bennett, Bresnahan, Kling, Schalk, Cochrane, Dickey, Harnett, Josh Gibson, Berra, Campanella, Bench, Carter, Fisk, Piazza, Rodriguez

C-Ewing, Jack Clements, Orator Jim O'Rourke, Deacon McGuire, Kling, Dooin, Schalk, Hartnett, Cochrane, Berra, Campy, Bench, Fisk, Rodriguez, Pudge



1B - Anson, Chance, Chase, Sisler, Gehrig, Foxx, Greenberg, Terry, Mize, Kluszewski, Cepeda, McCovey, Garvey, Cooper, Perez, Hernandez, Murray, Mattingly, Will Clark, McGwire, Giambi, Buck O'Neil


Man you missed alot of early guys including the guy who held the career HR title the longest...but put Hal Chase? blah

1b-Joe Start, Anson, ROGER CONNOR, Dan Brothers, Jake Beckley, Fred Tenney, Frank Chance, Ed Konetchy, Jake Daubert, Sisler, Gehrig, Terry, Foxx, Greenberg, Mize, McCovey, Rose, Hernandez, Mattingly, Delgado



2B - Lajoie, Collins, Hornsby, Gehringer, Frisch, J. Robinson, Carew, Morgan, Sandberg, Alomar, Biggio


Ahhhh, again, read up on 19th century, you missed some good players

2b-Ross BArnes, Jack Burdock, Fred Pfeffer, Cupid Childs, BID MCPHEE, Lajoie, Jimmy Williams, Collins, Larry Doyle, Hornsby, Gehringer, Robinson, Morgan, Carew, Sanberg, Biggio, Soriano



SS - Wagner, Glenn Wright, Bobby Wallace, Vaughan, Boudreau, Cronin, Yount, Banks, Ripken, Trammell, Aparicio, George Davis, Rodriguez, Concepcion, Pop Lloyd


SS-George Wright, Ed Mckean, John Montgomery Ward, Jack Glasscock, Bill Dahlen, Herman Long, George Davis, Wagner, Bobby Wallace, Donie Bush, Maranville, Vaughn, Boudreau, Cronin, Reese, Rizzuto, Banks, Ripken, Trammell, Jeter



3B - McGraw, Collins, Baker, Bill Bradley, Willie Kamm, Bluege, Traynor, Robinson, Mathews, Schmidt, Brett, Boggs, Bill Madlock, Molitor, Santo, Boyer, Judy Johnson


3b-Ezra Sutton, Levi Meyerle, Bob Ferguson, Arlie Latham, Ned Williamson, McGraw, Jimmy Collins, Tommy Leach, Bradley, Baker, Traynor, Mathews, Santo, Schmidt, Brett, Rolen



LF - Ted Williams, Musial, Bonds, Henderson, Yasztrzemski, Joe Jackson, Simmons, Billy Williams, Kiner, Fred Clarke, Zack Wheat, Jimmy Sheckard, Duffy Lewis


lf-Harry Stovey, Pete Browning, Delahanty, Fred Clarke, Jesse Burkett, Sheckard, SHERRY MAGEE!!, Wheat, Jackson, Simmons, Medwick, Kiner, Williams, Yaz, Stargell, Henderson, Yount, Manny Ramirez, Bonds



CF - Cobb, Mays, Speaker, DiMaggio, Mantle, Snider, Griffey Jr., Roush, Ashburn, Carey, Milan, Beaumont, Pete Reiser, Bill Lange, Happy Felsch, Amos Strunk, Oscar Charleston, Cool Papa Bell


CF-Harry Wright, Paul Hines, Lip Pike, Tom Brown, Dummy Hoy, Billy Hamilton, Hugh Duffy, Chick Stahl, Van Haltren, Ollie Pickering, Cobb, Speaker, Milan, Carey, Roush, Kauff, Bob Meusel, L.Waner, DiMaggio, Mays, Appling, Mantle, Snider, Ashburn, Brett Butler,



RF - Ruth, Aaron, F. Robinson, Ott, Rose, Gwynn, R. Jackson, Clemente, P. Waner, Crawford, Kaline, Winfield, Heilmann, Oliva, Guerrero, Cravath, King Kelly, Keeler, Klein, Hooper, Sosa, Ross Youngs, Strawberry


RF-Mike Tiernan, King Kelly, Keeler, Crawford, Hooper, Ruth, Youngs, Klein, P.Waner, Heilmann, Ott, Kaline, Aaron, Maris, Gwynn, Dale Murphy


Pitchers just choose a couple per era...

George Zettlein, Al Spalding, Pud Galvin, Tim Keefe, Mickey Welch, Nichols, Cy Young, Phillippe,Mathewson, Big Train, Joss, Mordecai Brown, Rucker, Walsh, Alexander, Babe Adams, Faber, Dazzy Vance, Grove, Hoyt, Hubbell, Cooper, Roberts, Spahn, Feller, Koufax, Drysdale, Ford, Wilhelm, Paige, Gibson, Seaver, Marichial, Carlton, Ryan, Gooden, Clemens, Maddux

[Imapotato]

Hey I live in Troy, NY

Most of the greatest 19th century players lived or were born here...King Kelly, George Davis...I know alot about 19th century.

That's ok...I kinda went along with your list for 40's-60's that's kinda my weak spot

and I always liked Brett Butler...underrated leadoff man if you ask me

[csh19792001]

Hey I live in Troy, NY

Most of the greatest 19th century players lived or were born here...King Kelly, George Davis...I know alot about 19th century.

That's ok...I kinda went along with your list for 40's-60's that's kinda my weak spot

and I always liked Brett Butler...underrated leadoff man if you ask me

Not 19th century (but was deadball), but give it up for Capital Region Johnny Evers!! :)

Butler- one of my alltime favorite players- holds the record for bunt hits in a season (although the record keeping is truncated). Scored 100 runs a year, led in triples several times, hustled his a** off. Played old-school baseball, really.

[four tool]

At his peak, Sizzler also had a better BA than the Rajah most years. Not saying he would have kept up with Roger in either Ba or Sl after 22, but it's possible.

[leecemark]

--Its true we can't know what Sisler might have done, but we do know what he actually did. He was a below average hitter for a firstbaseman his last 7 years, finishing below league average in slugging 4 times and only 2 points over a fifth - at a position where you expect much higher than average slugging. He did finish 2nd in HR in 1920, but never came close to doing it again although he played thru 1930 - and two of those season were before his eye problems. His second best HR season was only 12. Call me unsentimental, but I base my evaluations on what a player did, not what he might have done. That leaves Sisler out of my top 10 firstbasemen.
--Sisler acually had two misfortunes in evaluating his career. The eye problem is well known, but almost as signigicant is he peaked at a time when the expectations for firstbasemen were changing to something he was not. When Sisler broke in, batting average was - with some justification - the most important offensive statistic. That was never true again after 1920. Firstbase was also a more important defensive position in the deadball era. With a higher percentage of balls live in the infield and LOTS of bunts to be fielded, teams were looking for more athletic players at 1B. With the live ball the importance of being able to field a bunt was minimized and hitting the long ball became the number one job of a firstbaseman. Sisler was the best of the deadball firstbasemen and would have had a greater value if he had played his entire career under those circumstances.
--To illustrate how quickly teams priorities changed in regards to firstbasemen, check out Jack Fournier. He was 6th in the league in slugging in 1914 and led in 1915 for the White Sox. In spite of that he had trouble staying in the lineup and ended up back in the minors by 1917 - because he was lousy with the glove. He didn't make it all the way back until 1920 and was one of the best hitters in the NL through most of that decade. Can you imagine a slugging firstbaseman of his caliber being unable to find a job at any point in the live ball era because of his glove? Thats how much of a difference there was in the defensive expectations between a deadball and liveball 1B (even more so at 3B).
--So anyway, I consider Sisler the best deadball firstbaseman and don't really think much of him as a "modern" firstbaseman . Part of my problem with Sisler is that he just doesn't fit the image of what I'm looking for in a firstbaseman. Thats not as much of a problem as his mediocore play over the second half of his career, but its definately a factor. He was the best firstbaseman between 1901-25 and thats pretty good, I just like a dozen or more who've played since better.

[Imapotato]

Bill

I really think you are getting Marty confused with his brother Bill

Bill was regarded as the defensive wizard...how else could he be the MLB with the lowest BA of all time?

As for 19th century...Duke Farrell, Jack Ryan and chief Zimmer come to mind as guys that were mentioned moreso than Marty Bergen.

King Kelly is known as a RF and baseball's 1st idol, not as a C

Lou Criger was probably the most popular C of 1901-1910, he started over Ossee Schrenkgost, John Warner Duke Farrell and other good C until Bill Carrigan came along.

and John Warner...Roger Bresnahan had to play OF because John Warner was considered a better C

as for Jimmy Archer and Del baker, you are the only one I've heard mention them as a top C...

and Gabby Hartnett is hardly named...it's a shame becaause I believe Gabby Hartnett is the greatest player to ever don the tools of ignorance, and he was my motivation in becoming a C in the 1st place.

[leecemark]

--Bill, Kling sat out the 1909 season both in a salary dispute and playing professional billiards. The Cubs, who had won the pennant the previous 3 years, came up short (behind a great Pirates team) with Archer behind the plate. Many people blamed their second place finish on Kling's absence. Kling returned in 1910 and the Cubs won again. Kling was a great catcher and you can make a reasonable arguement he was more valuable to those Cub teams than Tinker, Evers or Chance. Do you mean Charles Comminsky when you say "Commie"? If so, right city wrong team.
--On the subject of do we judge great catchers on their offensive records, my answer would be a qualified yes. The true greats, such as Hartnett, Cochrane, Campanella, Bench and Rodreguez were outstanding defensively and at the plate. Berra, Carter and Fisk were not quite at that level defensively, but were amoung the best defensive catchers of their era. Dickey was pretty good with the glove too. The only catcher in my top ten in spite of his defensive is Piazza who is far and away the best hitting catcher ever. Even then, he ranks lower than the best hitter at any other position.
--I'd take a great defensive defensive catcher like Schalk, Lopez, Hegan or Boone on my real team anytime - just not my all time team.

[Imapotato]

well Bill on the 19th century catchers...1st it was a very hard position...no protection...and even with that ball try taking a foul tip off the face.
Another thing is Jim O'Rourke was the 1st C, plus he played until he was 56 in the high minors actually being called up in 1904 by John McGraw.

There were not alot of games played int the 1880s, hence why they didn't play as many.

Jack Clements and Deacon White were considered top catchers of the 19th century from all accounts. Charlie Bennett was the most consistent C and actually had one of the best F% among C's of his time. and the least amount of Passed Balls...a vital stat back then

Do you realize that until the 20's even the best Catchers over 154 allowed 20 or more passed balls per game? The others allowed 30 or more?

As for Criger, despite his .180 average he started for the Pilgrims and hung on until 40...almost un heard of for a C in those days.

Bill Bergen, despite his .170 BA in 518 AB...hung on until 33...if that doesn't show how respected he is...I don't know what does.

Kling, had nothing to do with Commie, he just loved Billards more than Baseball, and with the team mainly intact they couldn't get to the WS until Kling returned...shows even with a higher BA Jimmy Archer wasn't the C Kling was...because it's all about winning.

The catcher of Frank Chance's great Cub teams of 1906-10, Kling was the NL's premier defensive catcher and a capable hitter. Batterymate Ed Reulbach called him "one of the greatest catchers who ever wore a mask." In the years 1902-08, Kling led the league in fielding four times, putouts six, assists twice, and double plays once. On June(e-h)h)h)21, 1907, he threw out all four Cardinal runners who attempted to steal second base. In the WS that fall, Kling nabbed seven Tigers in 14 tries, with Ty Cobb unable to steal a single base. In the winter of 1908-09, Kling won the world pocket billiard championship and decided to forsake the baseball diamond for the pool table. Defeated in his attempt to retain the title, he rejoined the Cubs in 1910 but was a part-timer thereafter.

Dublin-born Archer took over as the Cubs' catcher in 1909 when star Johnny Kling was a season-long holdout. Archer, perhaps the best-throwing catcher of his time, made Kling expendable in 1911. Archer's right arm had been terribly burned by hot tar in an industrial accident. In healing, the muscles shortened but were left with a unique strength, enabling him to throw from the squat. This became his trademark. He led NL catchers in assists in 1912.
Seems like teammate Mordecai Brown...Archer's 'talent' was because of an accident...makes me want to simulate his accident so I can make the Majors

But Kling was older and rusty when he came back...

As for your Lange argument...I still believe the best CF of the 19th century was Dummy Hoy

Hoy was the reason umpires adopted hand signals to go along with the vocal calls of "out," "safe," and "strike." The 5'4" 148-lb outfielder was a deaf-mute, but he overcame adversity to have the greatest career of any seriously handicapped player, accumulating 2,054 hits. He hit .300 three times and scored 100 runs eight times. He also stole 30 or more bases in his first twelve ML seasons, and totaled 597 in an era when runners were credited with stolen bases for taking an "extra base" (going from first to third on a single, for example). Hoy led the NL with 82 steals in his first season and set NL rookie records for games, at-bats, hits, singles, and walks. He walked frequently, leading his league with 119 in 1891 and 86 in 1901. His on-base average topped .400 four times. In the field, the centerfielder led NL outfielders in putouts and total chances per game in 1897. On June 19, 1889, he threw out three runners at the plate in one game - one of only three players ever to do that.

Dummy Hoy chose baseball as a career in 1885 because, as an amateur playing for his hometown Findlay, Ohio, team, he got four hits against a professional pitcher. He figured playing ball for a living would be easy money.

Well, if you want to call $60 a month "easy money," it would have been. That is what the Northwestern League Milwaukee Brewers offered the barehanded catcher after he had impressed them in a try-out. Although Hoy had no pro experience, he had sufficient respect for his talents to consider the offer an insult.

He heard nearby Oshkosh needed an outfielder, so he asked for a try-out there. Center field was his natural position, and the Oshkosh people quickly saw that he was a quality player. Nearly as quickly, the Brewers saw their error and dispatched a representative to counter-offer the $75 a month Oshkosh had agreed to pay Hoy with one of $85.

One can imagine the young man from Ohio, sitting across the table from the Milwaukee representative pushing a note pad back and forth between them. "How about $85 a month?," the Brewers' man scribbled.

Hoy, grabbing the pad and pencil, answered "I wouldn't play for you for a million a month!"

The pad was necessary, you see, because Dummy Hoy got his nickname not because of his lack of intelligence. He had been profoundly deaf from, age 2, when he suffered spinal meningitis.

That first season with Oshkosh, Dummy was everything his employers had hoped he would be - on defense. Like Tris Speaker, who came along 20 years later, and Jimmy Piersall 50 years after that, Hoy played a shallow center field. His lightning speed and strong arm turned many base hits and extra bases into outs.

But at the plate he struggled. The man who retired in 1902 with a .288 lifetime batting average, dipped to a miserable .219 in '85, lowest of his career.

The reason? Pitchers learned to quick pitch Hoy as he glanced back after every pitch to read the umpire's lips and get the call.

Dummy may have been dumb in one sense but not in the other. The next season he told the third base coach to signal the call to him on each pitch. His BA zoomed to .367. The system worked out between coach and batter proved to be serendipitous. Umpires realized that here was a good way to let everybody know what was happening. From that time on the men in blue have been making obvious hand and arm gestures so that all players and fans can get each call.

It would not be fair to a great ballplayer for him to be known only by this footnote to his career. And the recent movement to have the Veterans Committee elect him to the Hall of Fame indicates that among baseball historians he is more than just, "Oh, yeah, the deaf guy."

One wonders what kind of a career William H. Hoy might have had if he had not lost his hearing to spinal meningitis in 1864. We are not talking about his baseball career. After he figured out a way to avoid the quick pitch, there is nothing to indicate that he was any less a player deaf than he would have been with normal hearing.

No, we are referring to what a normal William Hoy might have done rather than being a shoemaker turned ballplayer. He had a son who became a judge and a grandson who was an attorney. After his playing days were over he became a successful dairy farmer in his native Ohio. In 1924 he sold the farm and became personnel director for the Goodyear Rubber Co.

In 1961 the old ballplayer, then 99 years old, was asked to throw out the first ball before Game Three of the Yankees-Reds World Series. As it had been during his noteworthy career on the field, he could not hear the cheers of the crowd. Did they stand and wave their arms as fans of an earlier time had learned to do so that the swift outfielder who lived in a world of silence could know their appreciation?

We hope so, for it was truly Dummy Hoy's last hurrah. He did not make it to his 100th birthday. He died five months short of that event on December l5, 1961

And Bill
Dummy Hoy when he retired was 2nd in walks behind Billy Hamilton, 4th in steals, top 10 in runs, hits and top 5 in OBP.

He also had a range factor .50 better than league average during his prime...same as Lange
Averaged .23 assists per game with a high of 29 (2x) and 9 double plays compared to Lange's .18
Lange beats him in F% but since Hoy handled more chances thats a given

Plus Hoy came in at 26..and lasted until 40...while Lange was right at his baseball prime

Add the fact that Dummy Hoy overcame a handicap...and Bill Lange gave up baseball cause he was whooped...then Hoy is the man...in CF

Giving up Baseball for a woman...your kids I can see...HR Frank Baker did that when his wife died...but just a woman??

I would never give up baseball for a woman ;)
I have my priorities straight!

Plus he wound up w/o baseball or the woman...irony

[Imapotato]

well Bill on the 19th century catchers...1st it was a very hard position...no protection...and even with that ball try taking a foul tip off the face.
Another thing is Jim O'Rourke was the 1st C, plus he played until he was 56 in the high minors actually being called up in 1904 by John McGraw.

There were not alot of games played int the 1880s, hence why they didn't play as many.

Jack Clements and Deacon White were considered top catchers of the 19th century from all accounts. Charlie Bennett was the most consistent C and actually had one of the best F% among C's of his time. and the least amount of Passed Balls...a vital stat back then

Do you realize that until the 20's even the best Catchers over 154 allowed 20 or more passed balls per game? The others allowed 30 or more?

As for Criger, despite his .180 average he started for the Pilgrims and hung on until 40...almost un heard of for a C in those days.

Bill Bergen, despite his .170 BA in 518 AB...hung on until 33...if that doesn't show how respected he is...I don't know what does.

Kling, had nothing to do with Commie, he just loved Billards more than Baseball, and with the team mainly intact they couldn't get to the WS until Kling returned...shows even with a higher BA Jimmy Archer wasn't the C Kling was...because it's all about winning.

The catcher of Frank Chance's great Cub teams of 1906-10, Kling was the NL's premier defensive catcher and a capable hitter. Batterymate Ed Reulbach called him "one of the greatest catchers who ever wore a mask." In the years 1902-08, Kling led the league in fielding four times, putouts six, assists twice, and double plays once. On June(e-h)h)h)21, 1907, he threw out all four Cardinal runners who attempted to steal second base. In the WS that fall, Kling nabbed seven Tigers in 14 tries, with Ty Cobb unable to steal a single base. In the winter of 1908-09, Kling won the world pocket billiard championship and decided to forsake the baseball diamond for the pool table. Defeated in his attempt to retain the title, he rejoined the Cubs in 1910 but was a part-timer thereafter.

Dublin-born Archer took over as the Cubs' catcher in 1909 when star Johnny Kling was a season-long holdout. Archer, perhaps the best-throwing catcher of his time, made Kling expendable in 1911. Archer's right arm had been terribly burned by hot tar in an industrial accident. In healing, the muscles shortened but were left with a unique strength, enabling him to throw from the squat. This became his trademark. He led NL catchers in assists in 1912.
Seems like teammate Mordecai Brown...Archer's 'talent' was because of an accident...makes me want to simulate his accident so I can make the Majors

But Kling was older and rusty when he came back...

As for your Lange argument...I still believe the best CF of the 19th century was Dummy Hoy

Hoy was the reason umpires adopted hand signals to go along with the vocal calls of "out," "safe," and "strike." The 5'4" 148-lb outfielder was a deaf-mute, but he overcame adversity to have the greatest career of any seriously handicapped player, accumulating 2,054 hits. He hit .300 three times and scored 100 runs eight times. He also stole 30 or more bases in his first twelve ML seasons, and totaled 597 in an era when runners were credited with stolen bases for taking an "extra base" (going from first to third on a single, for example). Hoy led the NL with 82 steals in his first season and set NL rookie records for games, at-bats, hits, singles, and walks. He walked frequently, leading his league with 119 in 1891 and 86 in 1901. His on-base average topped .400 four times. In the field, the centerfielder led NL outfielders in putouts and total chances per game in 1897. On June 19, 1889, he threw out three runners at the plate in one game - one of only three players ever to do that.

Dummy Hoy chose baseball as a career in 1885 because, as an amateur playing for his hometown Findlay, Ohio, team, he got four hits against a professional pitcher. He figured playing ball for a living would be easy money.

Well, if you want to call $60 a month "easy money," it would have been. That is what the Northwestern League Milwaukee Brewers offered the barehanded catcher after he had impressed them in a try-out. Although Hoy had no pro experience, he had sufficient respect for his talents to consider the offer an insult.

He heard nearby Oshkosh needed an outfielder, so he asked for a try-out there. Center field was his natural position, and the Oshkosh people quickly saw that he was a quality player. Nearly as quickly, the Brewers saw their error and dispatched a representative to counter-offer the $75 a month Oshkosh had agreed to pay Hoy with one of $85.

One can imagine the young man from Ohio, sitting across the table from the Milwaukee representative pushing a note pad back and forth between them. "How about $85 a month?," the Brewers' man scribbled.

Hoy, grabbing the pad and pencil, answered "I wouldn't play for you for a million a month!"

The pad was necessary, you see, because Dummy Hoy got his nickname not because of his lack of intelligence. He had been profoundly deaf from, age 2, when he suffered spinal meningitis.

That first season with Oshkosh, Dummy was everything his employers had hoped he would be - on defense. Like Tris Speaker, who came along 20 years later, and Jimmy Piersall 50 years after that, Hoy played a shallow center field. His lightning speed and strong arm turned many base hits and extra bases into outs.

But at the plate he struggled. The man who retired in 1902 with a .288 lifetime batting average, dipped to a miserable .219 in '85, lowest of his career.

The reason? Pitchers learned to quick pitch Hoy as he glanced back after every pitch to read the umpire's lips and get the call.

Dummy may have been dumb in one sense but not in the other. The next season he told the third base coach to signal the call to him on each pitch. His BA zoomed to .367. The system worked out between coach and batter proved to be serendipitous. Umpires realized that here was a good way to let everybody know what was happening. From that time on the men in blue have been making obvious hand and arm gestures so that all players and fans can get each call.

It would not be fair to a great ballplayer for him to be known only by this footnote to his career. And the recent movement to have the Veterans Committee elect him to the Hall of Fame indicates that among baseball historians he is more than just, "Oh, yeah, the deaf guy."

One wonders what kind of a career William H. Hoy might have had if he had not lost his hearing to spinal meningitis in 1864. We are not talking about his baseball career. After he figured out a way to avoid the quick pitch, there is nothing to indicate that he was any less a player deaf than he would have been with normal hearing.

No, we are referring to what a normal William Hoy might have done rather than being a shoemaker turned ballplayer. He had a son who became a judge and a grandson who was an attorney. After his playing days were over he became a successful dairy farmer in his native Ohio. In 1924 he sold the farm and became personnel director for the Goodyear Rubber Co.

In 1961 the old ballplayer, then 99 years old, was asked to throw out the first ball before Game Three of the Yankees-Reds World Series. As it had been during his noteworthy career on the field, he could not hear the cheers of the crowd. Did they stand and wave their arms as fans of an earlier time had learned to do so that the swift outfielder who lived in a world of silence could know their appreciation?

We hope so, for it was truly Dummy Hoy's last hurrah. He did not make it to his 100th birthday. He died five months short of that event on December l5, 1961

And Bill
Dummy Hoy when he retired was 2nd in walks behind Billy Hamilton, 4th in steals, top 10 in runs, hits and top 5 in OBP.

He also had a range factor .50 better than league average during his prime...same as Lange
Averaged .23 assists per game with a high of 29 (2x) and 9 double plays compared to Lange's .18
Lange beats him in F% but since Hoy handled more chances thats a given

Plus Hoy came in at 26..and lasted until 40...while Lange was right at his baseball prime

Add the fact that Dummy Hoy overcame a handicap...and Bill Lange gave up baseball cause he was whooped...then Hoy is the man...in CF

Giving up Baseball for a woman...your kids I can see...HR Frank Baker did that when his wife died...but just a woman??

I would never give up baseball for a woman ;)
I have my priorities straight!

Plus he wound up w/o baseball or the woman...irony

Oh btw...Bill here is a link to my historic replay I thought of you and put Bill Lange back in the game at 1901 on the Cubs...

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/board/showthread.php?t=69319

Bill Lange won the CF Gold Glove in 1901...but only hit .256 and he's been shipped around



Year G AB H 2B 3B HR RBI R BB K SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS Teams
1893 117 469 132 8 7 8 88 92 52 20 47 13 .281 .353 .380 .733 CHN
1894 111 442 145 16 9 6 90 84 56 18 65 17 .328 .404 .446 .849 CHN
1895 123 478 186 27 16 10 98 120 55 24 67 15 .389 .452 .575 1.027 CHN
1896 122 469 153 21 16 4 92 114 65 24 84 18 .326 .408 .465 .873 CHN
1897 118 479 163 24 14 5 83 119 48 32 73 16 .340 .400 .480 .881 CHN
1898 113 442 141 16 11 5 69 79 36 30 22 8 .319 .370 .439 .809 CHN
1899 107 416 135 21 7 1 58 81 38 26 41 12 .325 .381 .416 .797 CHN
1901 136 571 146 15 9 3 70 57 28 89 21 12 .256 .290 .329 .620 CHN WS1
1902 34 38 6 1 0 0 1 9 2 11 5 3 .158 .200 .184 .384 WS1 BRO
1903 38 100 21 0 1 0 11 12 3 27 1 0 .210 .231 .230 .461 BRO NYA
Total 1019 3904 1228 149 90 42 660 767 383 301 426 114 .315 .376 .431 .807


His stats thus far...

[four tool]

Re catchers. Most of the all time greats seemed to both hit and have very good or better defensive abilities. I would put Berra in the first tier defensively and he and Bench were perhaps the best at handling pitching staffs--the # of post season trips with Yogi behind the plate almost defy belief. He was truly the heart of the 1949-1964 Yankees dynasty.

As for good defense no hit. Bill are you advocating defense!? :eek: That is a switch for you as far as I can tell :)

I could make a case for great defense, but given our respective stands re Mazeroski I'm floored by your comments.

[four tool]

The question of why others didn't follow Ruth right away may be the wrong question. Let's try this. Why did Ruth go against conventional wisdom and go for the "fences" in a pitcher's park? No one was hitting HRs in Fenway in those days--e.g. 1919 total HR all teams 13 9 were hit by George Herman.

Also, reinventing a batting stance is hard--look at the troubles most players have when they move into new home parks for any reason. Fred Lynn comes to mind, no6 to mention the Brooklyn/LA Dodgers of the late 1950s.

Those who adjust and keep up their average or power or both are truly great hitters. And even on bill's list of notable hitters from the 20s, how many were truly great?

[AG2004]

I think we might need to consider the possibility that Ruth didn't change his batting stance to go to the fences.

He had hit 11 home runs, all on the road, in 1918, and hit 20 on the road in 1919 (in 35% more at bats). In 1917, his SLG of .472 and OPS+ of 162, if obtained by a full-time player, would have been good enough for third in the AL, which isn't bad for a 22-year-old; he led the league in slugging in in 1918 at 23 years old. His 1919 performance could very well be a result of getting better at what he was already doing, instead of the result of a change in batting style.

So this might be what happened:

1) Ruth is in the minor leagues. Everyone "knows" that if you hit the way he does, you might pick up a few more home runs, but get a lot more fly balls and outs. If you're a position player batting that way, the coaches are going to work hard to change your batting style so you get on base more often. But Ruth's a pitcher, so coaches decide that changing his style isn't worth it.

2) Ruth arrives in Boston as a pitcher. Since he's a pitcher, the Red Sox staff don't try to change his hitting style, either.

3) After the 1917 season, Boston trades Tilly Walker and some other players to Philadelphia for Stuffy McInnis, while Duffy Lewis enters the military. Boston has now lost two outfielders, and needs to replace them.

4) The Red Sox struggle to fill their open outfield positions. Ruth bats well enough, even though they think his swing is terrible, so they move him to the outfield. There's no time to adjust his swing, so it stays as it is.

5) Ruth is getting more extra-base hits and home runs in 1918. His batting average of .300 is good for eighth in the league. It turns out that what everybody "knew" was actually wrong; you actually don't lose that many outs with Ruth's batting style, and those extra outs are balanced by the extra bases you get.

My guess is Ruth never did bat "properly" according to the conventional wisdom of the 1910s, and thus never changed his style in order to swing for the fences at Fenway.

[baclightning]

Here's a very interesting speculation about how Ty Cobb's career would have progressed if he'd been born 80 years later...

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-baseball-time-machine-toby-cobb/

[baclightning]

Charlie Bennett, of course had the singular honor of having Bennett Park in Detroit named in his honor...

[csh19792001]

Here's a very interesting speculation about how Ty Cobb's career would have progressed if he'd been born 80 years later...

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-baseball-time-machine-toby-cobb/

http://www.thebaseballpage.com/past/pp/cobbty/default.htm


Run Producer
No player in baseball history drove in more teammates than did Cobb. When you subtract home runs from RBI, you have the number of teammates batted in (TBI), Cobb leads all-time with 1,843.

To put it another way, Ty Cobb produced more runs for his team than anyone in baseball history. The list is in Total Baseball (2001), but is stargely omitted in the 2004 edition. In any case, Cobb is way ahead of everyone else.

[ElHalo]

ESPN today had a little blurb about each of the people voted onto the All Century team... Ty Cobb's blurb was particularly... interesting.

Ty Cobb: Hall of Fame Jerk
Irritating, vile and racist, Cobb was the Georgia Peach who was anything but. He didn't fully appreciate his on-field success unless his opponents were either humiliated or injured in the process. Good thing Pete Rose broke Cobb's all-time hits record, so that a louse doesn't have his name attached to that hallowed mark.

They spoke of Ted Williams as the greatest player to never win a ring... Cobb didn't even get mentioned in that conversation. Apparently, Paul Katcher, the article's author, wasn't too big a fan of Tyrus.

[four tool]

[QUOTE=william_burgess@usa.net]It's always depressing to see reputable news outlets allowing amateurs to write pieces on subjects that are such a closed mystery to them.

I've seen more and better BB erudition here on The Fever than I've EVER seen in Sports Illustrated, ESPN, any BB announcer, or almost anywhere else, and that includes all the other BB websites I've visited.

Most BB books are a click better, but not much.

I'll tell you a great writer, John Kuenster, at BB Digest. The best writers I know of still alive are: Al Thoney, Herman L. Masin, Bob Broeg, Ernie Harwell,
Furman Bisher, Jesse Outlar, Jerome Holtzman & Joe Falls. Sports Writers are a special interest of mine.
I'd add Barras to the best current sportswriters, especially for his one on one comparisons like Clement/Grove and Gary Cooper/John Wayne--aka Jolting Joe and Teddy Ballgame

[ElHalo]

Bill,

One of these days I'm going to have to get your files. I apologize for my flippant refusal to entertain the notions contained therein when I first joined up with the Fever... very juvenile of me.

I'm glad JoeD picked Traynor... it's always hard being the only person alive who believes that a particular individual was the best person at a position (though technically JoeD isn't alive, and I suppose you might know the feeling with Ewing at C).

[RuthMayBond]

since Pie outhit him by a lot, Pie is much to be prefered to Brooks overall.Brooks Robinson, 105 OPS+; Pie Traynor, 107 OPS+ so I guess it depends upon how you define "a lot" :laugh

[leecemark]

RMB, this issue was discussed in considerably more depth in a side trail on the Honus Wagner 4th best SS thread. If your interest extends beyond a quick one liner, you might weigh in there. Personally I can see it either way between Robinson and Traynor, but neither is near the top of the heap at 3B for me.

[RuthMayBond]

RMB, this issue was discussed in considerably more depth in a side trail on the Honus Wagner 4th best SS thread. If your interest extends beyond a quick one liner, you might weigh in there. Personally I can see it either way between Robinson and Traynor, but neither is near the top of the heap at 3B for me.I've seen it, and the guy who ranks Schmidt out of AT LEAST the top three 3B is a joke

[leecemark]

--I think Schmidt is so much better than every other thirdbaseman who ever lived that its difficult to even come up with a reasonable arguement for anybody else. Sure I'd prefer it if he hit for higher average. If he'd hit .300 for his career we could be arguing about him as one of the greatest PLAYERS who ever lived (top 5 or 6) instead of the best 3B. As it is, I see him as one of the 15 best ever. Its one thing to have a preference for high average players. Its unfortunate if your bias is so strong that it blinds you to the greatness of a player who does EVERYTHING else well and has that one shortcoming in his resume. Even in BA Schmidt finsished right at league avaerage in spite of some terrible BA years to start and finish.

[prof93]

Eddie Mathews really doesn't take a back seat to Schmidt in my opinion. There numbers for their careers are very close. I would have no problem taking Mathews.

[RuthMayBond]

Eddie Mathews really doesn't take a back seat to Schmidt in my opinion. There numbers for their careers are very close. I would have no problem taking Mathews.But did Mathews lead his league like Schmidt did? Was his glove close to Schmidt's?

[leecemark]

--As a hitter Mathews was fairly close to Schmidt, although as RMB says he wasn't as dominant in comparison to his league. What really separates them is Mathews was average with the glove and on the bases. Schmidt was one of the top defensive thridbasemen ever and a very good baserunner.

[prof93]

At 3rd base, yes his glove was comparable. Did he lead his league the Schmidt did, that would depend on if you feel the NL was stronger in Mathews time. Mathews outhomered Aaron while they were in Milwaukee, and the battle for offensive numbers in Mathews time was much tougher than in Schmidts

[bf-lurker]

The Library of Congree has quite a few "Spalding Base Ball Guides". The years they have are 1889, 1894, 1895, 1906, 1910-13, 1915, 1917, 1922, 1929-30, 1934 and 1939.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/spaldinghtml/spaldingbibTitles1.html

[ElHalo]

Bill,

Not sure if you forgot about him or just rate him lower than I do, but Hal Trosky is better than more than half the guys you mentioned.

[four tool]

Gehrig over Sisler for career value. He played literally every day and his numbers are phenomenal. Also, his home park actually hurt his stats.
For peak, George all the way, and if he hadn't had the eye problem, he could well be the best ever.

PS I love the phrase "so and so light" great way to put it

[leecemark]

--I've kocked Sisler plenty before so I'll chip in something positive this time. His only real competition for the best baserunning 1B of all time is Frank Chance and I'd have to give the nod to Sisler. He also has the reputation of being one of the best fielding 1B of all time. Personally I'd vote for Hernandez, but George was no doubt slick with the leather. I like more power and at least a few walks from my 1B, but for hitting for average his only competition would be Carew if you considered him there.
--As for Trosky, Bill you have probably read some about the all time sim league we were discussing on clash of the teams. I just finished the 1B scoutign rports and Trosky looks more good than great. Adjusted for era he comes up 270/327/489 with an average glove. Of course, that isn't the definative word on him, but remember even at his peak he you'd have a hard time arguing he was better than the 4th best 1B in an 8 team league. Tough field though with Gehrig, Foxx and Greenberg. He had his carrer cut short by chornic migraines, so his career totals are nothing special.

[ElHalo]

Mark,

You're right on Trosky only being the fourth best 1Bman in the AL, but... come on. Miguel Tejada was probably only the fourth best SS in the AL the last few years, but he's still pretty darn good, and has a right to rank somewhere in the top 20 all time, probably.

Trosky's glove was slightly above average, but nowhere on par with Sisler, certainly. He wasn't a Cecil Fielder/ Mo Vaughn 1Bman, though... he was all right.

And he was a short career guy... but he was very, very good for that short career. Not on par with Gehrig and Foxx, of course... but probably better than Garvey or Fielder.

[four tool]

More on Sisler, all thanks to the original Historical Abstract: :clapping

Rookies in 1915: Sisler, Ruth, Hornsby
Rookie 1916 Heilmann

Through 1922, Sisler outhit Hornsby every year except 1916 and 1920!
Same time frame, he outhit Heilmann every year except 1921!

Brock2 using 1920-1922 would have George at about 3,800 hits .357 average for his career (without the optic problem of course).

Bill James thinks that Brock2 might be underestimating Sisler and mentions 4,000 hits and 362 lifetime average.

Bill, you don't have to apologize for rating George as #1 :D

[Windy City Fan]

Bill, I can understand your stance completely. I too have a few choices for my all time team that are probably not the absolute best player at the position. When I rank 1st basemen, I put Gerhig at the top without a second thought. As you have said, the numbers clearly justify it. Yet, when forming my all time team, I put Sisler at first without hesitation. Why? Because I believe that while Gerhig is probably a more dangerous hitter in any given at bat, Sisler is a better player to have for an entire game. Sisler can win a game for you a number of ways, with his bat, with his glove, or with his speed.

The same is true for 3rd basemen. In your Pie Traynor thread, I ranked Schimdt 1st, but had Wade Boggs at 4th (or maybe 5th, not sure) for third basemen. Schimdt is a great hitter and for any given at bat, he is the best guy to have. But over the course of a game or a series of games, I'll take Wade's contact hitting and exceptional eye. Wade can help wear down a pitcher, and either get him tired or get into the weak middle relief section of the bullpen. Plus both he and his teammates get a better look at the pitcher for their next at bats. Wade can make an out and still move a runner over. Those little things add up to wins over the course of a game, a series or a whole season - especially when players like Boggs and Sisler are paired with players playing the exact same style of game.

So I can rectify the difference between saying, "He is the most productive first basemen ever." and "This other guy is m pick for my team."

[prof93]

Just for you Bill!!!
Just simmed a season on DiamondMind's Greatest Players CD and Ty Cobb was something else.

Cobb's Season against the best ever: Overall finish on (LeaderBoard)
G-162(tied 1st)
AB-673(18th)
HITS-245(1st)
2B-39(11th)
3B-15(tied 10th)
HR-19(didn't feel like figuring it out)
RUNS-124(7th)
RBIs-112(15th)
BB-49
K's-69
SB-45(11th)
CS-20
BA-.364(1st)
OBP-.405(9th)
SLG%-.551(9th)

Cobb also had the longest hitting streak at 27 games.

[prof93]

Bill you really should join our DiamondMind Classic League that Mark is starting. All you have to know is the players through out history(and you got that covered) ans then set your managerial preferences. We would help you out!!! Check out http://www.diamond-mind.com/you would like it!!!

[prof93]

First, post in Mark's DiamondMindClassic League and let him know your in!!
Second, goto the Diamond-Mind website and check it out.
Third, begin to prepare your Draft Board, and at least go 10-12 deep at every position.

Fourth, follow along in Mark's topic for the upcoming draft date, once he has everything, you just wait for his updates and see how your team does.

[RuthMayBond]

Here is my top 20 for 1B, for all around, both offense/defense.

1. Sisler - '20-22 - was thought the best PLAYER in BB. Best fielding 1B in ML, won 4 SB titles, hit over .400 2 of 3 yrs.
3. Terry - Superb fielder, best-fielding 1B in NL, hit over 1.26 of L. aver. 2 yrs. running.
6. Mattingly - Great glove, hit great too for a few yrs. Injured messed up career. Good leadership.
11. Will Clark - Slickest glove reminds us of Snow today. Good bat initially, then lost bat, like Mattingly. Sweet, fluid stroke.
13. Garvey - very consistnent hitter over long time, good fielder.Sisler & Terry were better fielding 1B than Hernandez & Power? My hypothetical Gold Glove project has neither found that out nor that Mattingly nor Snow were that great. Garvey seems to be the dilemma, either guys hate his glove or love it.

[RuthMayBond]

From '20-22, Sisler was arguably the finest hitter, fielder, runner in the game. I only use the word arguable due to Babe Ruth did achieve a nice little peak there also

Here are his remarks concerning his choices for 2B.

"Hornsby has one or two weaknesses. He doesn't shine in going back after pop flies. But he has the best throw to first base that I ever saw. And he's also a good man on double plays. Hornsby was never a base-stealer, but he's really a great base-runner. His speed has never been recognized by the public, but he was phenomenally fast, in his prime. As a hitter, Hornsby stands out. He is doubtless the greatest hitter the National League has produced since the days of Hans Wagner, if not beyond.
But Hornsby's long range hitting far excelled anything that Collins ever showed, and I would prefer him on all round form at second base."

In the field Terrry is fast and mechanically a great performer. There are a few minor defects about his work, but he seems to realize them and worked hard last season to overcome them. Undouubedly he's the greatest first baseman in the game. (Author's note: By 1954, he had replaced Terry with Gehrig, on his all time team.)

"You need more than one pitcher, however, and I'd make a place for Dazzy Vance. Vance has received a good deal of publicity from time to time. But at that I doubt if his ability has been as widely recognized as it deserves. Vance, at his best, had nearly as much sheer stuff as Walter Johnson. And he had a far better curve than Johnson ever knew.

1) You're talking Sisler for THREE years
2) You don't give much evidence about Terry
3) The Hornsby stuff confirms the statistical record that he wasn't a horrible glove as some claim
4) Why wasn't Terry replaced with Gehrig BEFORE 1954?
5) Vance? as the second best pitcher ever?

[RuthMayBond]

And I HAVEN'T been ranting about Sizz for 3 yrs. now. I only joined Fever in Oct., 2003, a mere 10 months ago. It just feels like 3 yrs.What I meant was, you're contending that Sisler was the best defensive (and possibly overall) 1B based on three years of his career. That's worse than the Koufax gang :laugh But it would explain the Lange thing :laugh

[prof93]

I am here every day, sometimes for long periods of time and sometimes only for a minute. It seems odd that some do not seem to grasp the concept that in Cobb's time baseball was a "chess match". The games often decided on the ability of the hitter to put the ball in play, the runner to steal a base, or take a extra base by challenging the defense. Durning his long career Cobb led his league in an offensive category 55 times, if you take Barry Bonds thru 2003, he has led his league in an offensive category 17 times. In Cobb's time, a great season was one in which a player scored a 100 runs, drove in 90-100 runs, stole 50+plus bases, and hit .350 or better. Cobb produced 10 such seasons. Think about it just for a moment, you have a player who will hit .350 drive in and score 90 to 100 runs, steal 50+bases. Many people would say that would make that guy the best ever to play the game, that player is Cobb!!

[four tool]

Glad I had coffee beofre I read that last post!

Bill, you overstate Cobb's BA possibilities just a bit--but the case is solid, we don't need to quibble with the details.

The short of it is Cobb had more offensive tools, Babe had pitching.

Could Ruth have adapted to Cobb's era? I think so, but no he wouldn't be regarded as one of the greats of all time if he did, no baserunning for one thing. But he could have hit doubles and triples--16 triples in 1920 isn't too shabby.

If they were both playing today, what would we have? Cobb leading the league in BA and SB and they'd start tracking baserunning not just base stealing.
Ruth leading in HR and slugging with a very good batting average. Forget his pitching.

[four tool]

Thanks Bill, another thought just popped into my head--Cobb and Ruth on the same team, and they are both the same age! Cobb gets on base, Ruth hits HR, Cobb scores.
Cobb gets on base, steals, Ruth strikes out, Cobb steals again and steals home, Cobb scores.

Would Cobb score more when Ruth made an out or when Ruth got a hit?
Cobb's so competitive I'd bet he'd steal/advance every time he could just to say, see I can score without waiting for any SOB to hit a HR behind me. :D

[four tool]

Good post Bill, great to see the numbers as known.

The problem with rating the negro leaguers is that we don't have enough data to compare them to the white hall of famers. We can look at the careers of Berra and Bench, for instance, and say overall, one was better than the other and this is why I think so. Can't do that with Josh Gibson. Did Josh have all the tools? Absolutely. Does he belong in the Hall? No question.
All the negro league players in the hall belong, but their contemporaries can't even agree on who was the best in some cases--Coll Papa or Oscar? Martin Dhigo or Judy Johnson? Was Mule Suttles a better HR hitter than Josh? The numbers seem to say so, so does that effecxt our rating of Gibson as a catcher?
Add in these questions:
How does his major league career compare to white of fame catchers? Park effects? Deadball vs, liveball? Did he use his tools or dissipate them a la Mantle? If we could answer these questions, then we could rate the negro league players, but right now it's impossible.

I've love to do an Oscar or Ty on the clash of the titans thread, but how can we even begin?

[csh19792001]

Bill,
Excellent points. You're onto something here- I made that post awhile back and nobody said hardly anything about it....

I think this is the article from long ago.

http://espn.go.com/page2/s/wiley/030715.html

Or this,
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/mike_fish/news/2003/05/15/straight_shooting/
Black Americans comprise about 10% of the bigs now, down from 25% in 1975. Hispanic Americans comprise about 28% of the big leagues.

[four tool]

People have been saying all year how the numbers of blacks is down in the majors. I didn't realize it was that low. In a few years, baseball could be 90% Latin/Hispanic.

[ElHalo]

Thanks Chris.

I find those numbers astounding. I had thought that blacks might comprise over 40% of todays players. Shows how out of it I am. Is anyone else surprised, or am I the only dunce?

Bill Burgess


I'm personally not surprised at all.

Try to think of all the black American starting pitchers in today's game. You've got Dontrelle Willis, C.C. Sabathia, and... um... uh...

On the Yankees' 25 man roster, I believe that there's a grand total of 1 black American. Flash Gordon. Oh, and half of Derek Jeter.

Just not the same game it used to be.

[four tool]

The Yankees didn't strive for blacks until after the collapse of the dynasty in 1964--they weren't quite the Red Sox for lack of integration, but close.

They only changed when they "had" to.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I'm personally not surprised at all.

Try to think of all the black American starting pitchers in today's game. You've got Dontrelle Willis, C.C. Sabathia, and... um... uh...

On the Yankees' 25 man roster, I believe that there's a grand total of 1 black American. Flash Gordon. Oh, and half of Derek Jeter.

Just not the same game it used to be.

Don't forget Gary Sheffield and Tony Clark.

[The Only Nolan]

I suspect that the Yankees, of all teams, would be a poor example to use. They have never been high on using black players. I can remember Elston Howard, Al Downing, Soriano, Reggie Jackson, Darryl Strawberry, Luis Arroyo, Reuben Amaro, Felippe Alou, Matty Alou, Bobby Bonds, Luis Tiant, Dave Winfield, Ken Griffey, The Rickey, Doc Gooden, Mariano Rivera, Derek Jeter, A-Rod?Some others they've had are Roy White, Chris Chambliss, Oscar Gamble, Mickey Rivers, Rudy May, Willie Randolph, Bob Watson, Roberto Kelly, Danny Tartabull, and of course, Bernie Williams. But they've probably had a lower-than-average number of black players overall.

[2Chance]

originally posted by Bill Burgess
Why has the % of blacks in BB, plunged from 27% in 1975....to 10.5% for last season?
Before I get started, these answers are just as true of whites as they are of blacks. And both numbers are dropping in favor of hispanic and Asian players.
A. Our culture has changed
One thing is, you used to hear stories of players coming out of the "mean streets" to the diamond. Well, in those days, mean streets usually meant you could get into a "rumble." Nowadays it means bullets could be flying in the neighborhood.

A lot of kids today grow up in broken homes. Often this means they go to a latchkey place for an hour or two before they go home. That's not usually enough time to get a group together and play, even if the facilities were available. (Although it would have been plenty in my old neighborhood! Priorities, man, priorities.)

There are not as many vacant lots where you can get a group together and play...much less a corner lot, which was preferred. Even if those lots exist, so many people are lawsuit-crazy that there is a big NO TRESPASSING sign, so you can't play there.

B. The business of baseball
When I was a kid, baseball was a game. Now it's "entertainment" or a business. A pitcher has a "job" to come in and get the left-hander out; a hitter's "job" is to move this runner over. Over and over, it's referred to as their job. You can follow their financial transactions in the paper. You can't send your shortstop to the minors to learn to hit a curve because he's "out of options." How many strikes have we had since the early 70s? That kind of :grouchy leaves a bad taste in your mouth. And if I'm a parent, I wouldn't push my kid into sports because of stuff like this.

C. Other offerings
Before the 1970s, baseball was king. Now there are other sports that take kids' attention: Football and basketball mean big money, too, and you can go to college on scholarships and retire sooner in those sports. (At least that's the perception. If I made major league baseball's minimum for five years, I could hang up my cleats forever!) Soccer, which is less expensive to manage, competes with baseball too.

TV, Nintendo, X-Box, Video games, computers and other things that keep kids inside and not developing in their sport. And I am all for education, but it seems like kids have more homework today than I ever did. That means less time to play baseball and all these other offerings. (This should affect football & basketball more, but still....have you noticed this?)

As to your other question...."Chicks dig the long ball." Not everybody can hit it. And if you have to pitch into a teeny tiny strike zone, they're going to hit them off of you if you pitch. Forget that!

[RuthMayBond]

I kind of believe that those who were pre-disposed to go into BB, would have been physically disadvantaged in football/basketball. One would think that the typical proto-type of a BB player, would be something like 5'10, 180, while a typical FB player would be 6'2-64, 220 and up. I have heard of very few BB players over 6'3.Just on the current Indians roster, there are Jason Davis, Scott Elarton, Bob Howry, CC Sabathia, Rick White. That's on one 30-man roster, one team, one year.

[RuthMayBond]

So, what's your point? Are you telling me those guys would have fit in, had they chosen FB or Basketball? Is that your point?

Are you also saying you believe that the general talent pools between these 3 sports, are all the same? C'mon, Jeff. Get real here.

Bill BurgessThat wasn't my point at all. YOU said that there weren't very many baseball players over 6'3" as if that was a qualification for football. If it is, as you imply, I just said that there are more than you think. I don't think the talent pools are identical but there is some overlap. Baseball is probably closer to football's than it is to basketball's. Unless you're a pitcher, 6'6" and up leaves a LOT of strike zone for a batter to cover. That is, until the recent strike zone :laugh

[four tool]

2Chance,

Very nice. I like most of your points, but one. And I've only come to this opinion in the last few days. While I agree in principle, that pre -1960, BB enjoyed a hegemony of having the playing field to itself, lack of competition from other major sports, I think that may be overstated just a little.

By that, I mean, that I don't really believe that a lot of athletes have chosen football or basketball over BB as careers. I just can't believe that the drawing pools of eligible athletes are the same pools. I kind of believe that those who were pre-disposed to go into BB, would have been physically disadvantaged in football/basketball. One would think that the typical proto-type of a BB player, would be something like 5'10, 180, while a typical FB player would be 6'2-64, 220 and up. I have heard of very few BB players over 6'3. Dick Radatz, Cal Ripken, Sam McDowell, Randy Johnson, Frank Howard. So, I don't think that BB players draw from the same talent pool as football or basketball. These three sports draw upon very different talent pools as each other.



John Elway, Deion Sanders, Bo Jackson and that's off the top of my head! Baseball does not come out on top with some major atheletes. How many kids decide on anything but baseball as kids and take it from there. In the fifties there were sandlots, now there are basketball hoops--and you can shoot baskets with just you and the ball--hitting practice without a pitcher (THAT IS, ANOTHER PERSON AROUND) or expensive equipment is a bit challenging

[four tool]

Bill the point is what sports kids decide to get into when they are young. if the blacks were choosing baseball, the per cents would not be down so much. Since there are fewer blacks in baseball why are there fewer is the question--if it isn't another sport that attracts them, then what keeps them from baseball?

[csh19792001]

William-
I'm not here to judge your investment/attitudes, but I'm glad you moved Ruth up to 4th from 11th (and closer to reality). :)

However, Ruth wasn't the most prolific run producer in history. Ty Cobb produced more runs (Total Baseball, 2001). Cobb also "created" almost an identical number of runs (looking at it a slightly different way).

And yes, Cobb had more plate appearances, but, then, this is only to Ty's credit. While, at 40 years of age, Ty Cobb was busy hitting .357, scoring over 100 runs, and coming in fifth in the league in steals, Babe Ruth at 40 was completely washed up and finished as a player, because he hadn't taken care of himself. So Ty played longer because he was still great and still DRIVEN, and he should recieve all due credit for that.

So you could Ruth is greater in runs produced, "per game", but a career spans two decades, not one day.

But even this is misleading.

When talking about run production, it HAS to be noted that Ruth played in a much better run scoring era (overall) and on far better run scoring TEAMS (even without Babe in the lineup). What would Ty's numbers have been if he'd had an alltime great hitter (averaging 140+ RBI's/year) batting behind him for 10 years? I've elucidated this using the exploratorium and doing calculations by hand. Any way you slice it, it's the truth.

[prof93]

Ty Cobb

The Georgia Peach


At .367, he has the highest lifetime major-league batting average.
He also is second in runs scored with 2245.(broken by Rickey henderson)
He stole home 35 times.
He held the record of 4191 hits for 57 years --(until Pete Rose broke it in 1985.)
He was the first player to be inducted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame with 222 out of 226 possible votes.
He won a record 12 batting titles in 13 years, including 9 in a row from 1907 through 1915.
He led the American League in hits 8 times.
He led the American League in runs scored 5 times.
He is third in stolen bases with 892.
He scored 100 runs 11 times in his career.
He played for 24 years: 22 years with Detroit and 2 with Philadelphia.
He reached 1,000 hit level by the age of 24 -- the youngest of any major league player.
He batted under .320 only once in his career -- his first season.
He batted over .400 three times (1911, 1912 & 1922).
He batted over .320 for 23 straight seasons.
He won the prestigious Triple Crown in 1909.

Six times in his career, Cobb reached base and proceeded to steal second, third and home. The first time he did it was in 1907, the final time was in 1924... On May 5, 1925, Cobb blasted three homers, a double and two singles in one game, for a then-record 16 total bases. The next day he hit two more homers.

No player in baseball history drove in more teammates than did Cobb. When you subtract home runs from RBI, you have the number of teammates batted in (TBI), Cobb leads all-time with 1,843.

His resumé of accomplishments reads like "The Twelve Days of Christmas:" He led the American League in slugging percentage and hits eight times, in steals six, in runs five, in triples and RBI four, in doubles three, and in homers once. Three times he batted above .400 and in one four-year span he averaged .401.

When he retired in 1928, he had set some 90 records. Seven decades later, he still holds many. Nobody has yet bettered his .367 lifetime average, his 12 batting titles, or his hitting at least .320 for 23 consecutive seasons

[prof93]

Cobb

LED MAJOR LEAGUES IN RUNS, 1910S: 1050
LED MAJOR LEAGUES IN HITS, 1910S: 1948
LED MAJOR LEAGUES IN SINGLES, 1910S: 1427
LED MAJOR LEAGUES IN TRIPLES, 1910S: 161
LED MAJOR LEAGUES IN RBI, 1910S: 828
LED MAJOR LEAGUES IN STOLEN BASES, 1910S: 577
LED MAJOR LEAGUES IN AVERAGE, 1910S: .387
LED MAJOR LEAGUES IN SLG, 1910S: .541
LED MAJOR LEAGUES IN OBA, 1910S: .457
LED MAJOR LEAGUES IN OPS, 1910S: .998
LED MAJOR LEAGUES IN RUNS CREATED, 1910S: 1366
LED MAJOR LEAGUES IN RCAA, 1910S: 807
LED MAJOR LEAGUES IN RCAP, 1910S: 723
LED MAJOR LEAGUES IN OFFENSIVE WINNING PERCENTAGE, 1910S: .840
LED MAJOR LEAGUES IN RUNS CREATED/GAME, 1910S: 10.73
LED MAJOR LEAGUES IN TOTAL BASES, 1910S: 2724
LED MAJOR LEAGUES IN SECONDARY AVERAGE, 1910S: .366
LED MAJOR LEAGUES IN BPA, 1910S: .675

[RuthMayBond]

Ty Cobb

The Georgia Peach

At .367, he has the highest lifetime major-league batting average.

He stole home 35 times.

He batted under .320 only once in his career -- his first season.

He batted over .320 for 23 straight seasons.

He won the prestigious Triple Crown in 1909.
Technically, his BA is .366
I was even closer to the times he stole home, check with Burgess :laugh
He batted over .320 for 22 straight seasons.
If you're counting 1914 as a complete season for purposes of the consecutive records, then you should count 1906, which gives him another season under .320. And counting 1926 as a full season is pushing it.

[julusnc]

I read an interesting tidbit about Mr Cobb that can be added to the thread for historical reference for the future.

Everyone knows that Cobb was a shrewd (lucky) business man for much of his life.It is also well known he was one of the first athletes to be a spokesperson for a soft drink company with Coca-Cola.Did you know that when he died in 1961 that Cobb owned one and one half of a percent of Coke?

In todays monies that would be equal to estimate 74.3 million dollars.

Not to shaby for a preachers son :)

[julusnc]

I got the info I posted from the Coca-Cola History : Building of a giant....Its a brand new book I picked up in Atlanta a couple months ago.

[RuthMayBond]

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/remembering_honus_wagner/

[csh19792001]

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/remembering_honus_wagner/

Considering everything, and that Wagner was playing an incredible SS, he probably did have the greatest single season in history.

Re: The Cobb quote- where's the citation, anyway? It also says Cobb was a left fielder here....

We already knew Crawford felt that way- he vouched for Wagner all along.

The long standing enmity between Cobb and Crawford was well known, and I think this contributed to Crawford choosing Wagner- Hans was a lovable guy and a hell of a player.

This is similar to Babe Ruth, who never put Lou Gehrig on his alltime team at 1st base because of their feuding (Hal Chase got the nod out of spite).

[RuthMayBond]

He did not technically have "no friends in baseball", but how many baseball people came to his funeral?

[RuthMayBond]

Fair enough, although I wonder why three went against the family's wishes anyways, and if it was ok, why more didn't do that. And fifteen isn't that big of a number anyway.

[2Chance]

Originally posted by RuthMayBond
Fifteen isn't that big of a number anyway.
It may also be noted that Ty passed away roughly 35 years after he wore any kind of uniform. When Cobb played, southerners in the league were very rare indeed. People's lives change, they move about. Lots of the guys he played with were gone already (see Bill's post above). How many do you think could have made it?

[RuthMayBond]

Bill, you didn't cite your sources for the Tigers cheering Luecker's beating. Perhaps McIntyre was let go because he was slipping (Killian, Siever, Schmidt never played for anyone else. It wasn't like they were Hornsby in the late '20s or anything)

[KHenry14]

Bill, wasn't Ty good buddies with Grantland Rice the sportswriter who was from his neck of the woods? I have Rice's biography, which is an interesting read if anyone wants to look at the sporting world of the first half of the 20th century, and in it he has a lot of good things to say about Cobb.

But the book also seems like Rice is dropping a lot of names too( Bobby Jones, Bill Tilden), but then again, sportwriters then got closer to their subjects than they do nowadays. But I was pretty sure that he had a good relationship to Cobb. True?

KH14

[RuthMayBond]

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

In the 1930's, Connie switched from Sisler to Gehrig, as his all time 1st baseman. Sisler represented Connie early values, Gehrig his later values, which Connie DID embrace.

So those are 2 valid examples of emotional growth and maturation. Both show that while Jim's theory is valid up to a certain extent, it is not without a goodly amount of exceptions.

Another person who evolved was Mr. John J. McGraw. In a Sporting News piece from Nov. 20, 1930, McGraw, for his all time team, had switched from Sisler to Gehrig at first, Hugh Duffy to Babe Ruth in LF.

Ty himself had switched his all time 3B, Buck Weaver to Pie Traynor for his last all time team of 1961.

Ned Hanlon switched his greatest player ever to Cobb in 1909.They are evidence for your point, although anybody who wouldn't have made the changes you mentioned would be in more denial than the Egyptians :laugh
As for Hanlon, his pick turned out to be ok, but anybody who chooses a greatest player ever after the guy has played (we'll ASSUME it was after the 1909 season) three full seasons shows really questionable judgment, which is what I've been trying to tell that even eyewitnesses can have. Herb Score happens

[RuthMayBond]

Jeffrey,

I so sincerely hope the big picture is not escaping you. You DO have a tendency to never conceed on the big picture and then focus on some quibbling little point.

Cobb himself refused to play small ball when he managed, '21-26. Didn't even have a sign for stealing! He taught his guys to hit, and relied on high-average hitting. He didn't let his guys go for homers, that's true, but his guys may not have been gifted with that rare gift.And you have a tendency to ignore facts. Cobb's team was SECOND in SB in 1921, third in 1923, third in 1924, third in 1925 and in '26. And high-average hitting with few HR is small ball. I agree that you may have a point, and then you complain :noidea :confused:

[2Chance]

Warren Brown - 1916-1974 - chose team, 1946 - Grimm, Hornsby, Frisch, Ruth, Cochrane, Hartnett, Dean, Gomez, Ruether, Van Lingle Mungo
Mr. Brown is a true original.

[four tool]

Hi guys, been away so long I missed this entire top 20 thing. (I'm working full time, fianlly and taking 2 courses a week for a masters--whew).

Bill great work as usual withthe info on players.

Catchers:
Berra is rated too low--he has some defensive numbers that are great--most games without an error, etc and was top 5 in a lot offensive categories over the years. And he earned some MVPs on teams with people like Mantle and Dimaggio. See The orginal BJ Historical Abstract

First Base

Foxx--Red Sox put him back behind the plate in 1941 and he never recovered. Of course his drinking didn't help.

Greenburg, like Mize lost time to WWII--otherwise 500 HR.

[Edgartohof]

EdgarHoF
Ruth
Cobb
Williams
Mays
Wagner


1. Ruth
2. Cobb
3. Mays
4. Wagner
5. Bonds

I've been reworking my all-time list

[Edgartohof]

Four Tool,
I was only be skeptical that FB or Basketball were the offending culprits. And I do expect the numbers to turn around, due to the big money now being paid out in BB. As long as a kid can expect to earn $10. m and up per yr. in BB, I can't see as how that won't act like a magnet in bringing back blacks in numbers. But I may turn out all wrong, due to social dynamics that I'm not picking up on. That was all I was trying to say. I was't too clear I guess. Sorry about that Four Tool.

Bill Burgess

You have said that sports draw from different "pools" of athletes, and that is true to a point, but I know many athletes who can and do play several sports. Of course you do see less 6'-5'' 300 Lb. players in BB than in Football, but that is not the dimensions of all Football players.

Of course, to play at the professional, you do have to more or less focus on one sport, but not 100%, and not for everybody.


Also to answer your question as it has been said several times by others, basketball is more accessible in this day and age, and with one or two players, you can get a game going.

But with the expansion of ALL sports, the talent pool for all of them is getting more spread out. Certain numbers are changing, but that is what they do, they change. And give it some time, the numbers will be back up and someone will be asking why less white players are playing BB.

[leecemark]

--Bill, the percentage of Blacks in other sports has not declined. Baseball simply doesn't seem to have as much appeal to African-Americans for whatever reason. Since they are over-represented both in terms of raw numbers and top players in most other sports - as they were in baseball from the 50s to 70s - in might be fair to say that the decline in the number of black baseball players has resulted in a decline in the overall quality of play in the last 15-20 years. That has been offset somewhat by the rise in the number of Latin and Asian players, but I'm by no means convinced that completely closes the gap in black talent lost.
--I don't think we're just losing the black athlete either. I went to high school in the 70s and playing baseball got me no part of the attention that football and basketball players got. It just wasn't as popular and many of the best athletes choose to spend their spring running track rather than playing baseball. I think the situation has gotten worse since then. I know my son has little or no interest in baseball, although he did play footbal and run track in high school. You see some speculation that baseball hiy a low point in the 70s and 80s. I'm more inclined to think the baseball stopped improving in that era and has declined since.
--Standard deviations hit an all time low in the 70s and 80s and we have since seen some players put up soem huge relative numbers. Generally speaking the higher the level of competition the more difficult it is to achieve a large degree of separation from the pack. The increidble OPS+ and ERA+ numbers put up by a number of players in the last 10 -15years may be an indication that we have an unusual number of extremely great players active or recently active. They could also mean the average player isn't quite as good as they were 20 years ago. I'm not completely sure which, but I think the latter is a little more likely.

[AG2004]

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

....

Bill Burgess

Or the lack of encouragement may simply have been because Detroit wasn't the best place to hit home runs. Cobb hit 82 home runs on the road, but only 35 at home during the course of his career. While Navin Field was more of a pitcher's park during Cobb's managerial tenure, I don't have the home-road HR splits for the Tigers and their opponents during the course of those seasons.

[RuthMayBond]

10. Another important factor in attracting the fans to come out is to have attractive, competitive teams, featuring good players.

Around the turn of the century, BB lacked competitive balance. In the AL, the Browns, Senators, Highlanders, were the weak sisters in the league, upon whom the others beat up on. It was hard for those teams to compete for fans.

In the NL, the Phillies, Braves, Dodgers, Reds, Cards were the weak sisters. The Cubs, Giants, Pirates, were the strong teams.

And that lack of competitive balance contributed to low attendance.Weak sisters? Anyone heard of Tampa Bay, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Montreal, Kansas City, Texas for the most part. Strong teams? Anyone heard of the Yanks, Braves, Twins, Oakland, Boston?

[RuthMayBond]

Mickey Mantle:

In 1954, the Indians, under Al Lopez won, in 1959, the White Sox, under Al Lopez won.

Al Lopez was a NL catcher from '28, '30-46, & AL manager, '51-65, '68-69.
He chose his all time team in 1986, and his OFs were Ruth, Cobb, and for CF, he chose Paul Waner/Al Simmons. No Mick.

Fred Lieb was a sports writer from 1910-77. In his 1977 book, he broke his all time teams into 1876-1900, 1901-25, 1926-50, 1951-75.
His 1951-75 team, his OFs are: Aaron, Mays, Clemente, Mantle. In that order.

Lopez, and Lieb. Authorities who should have been among the Mick's strongest supporters, since they saw so much of him, all passed on him.

Bill BurgessJust shows you how unreliable eyewitnesses can be. PAUL WANER over Mantle? :eek:

[nightal]

Just shows you how unreliable eyewitnesses can be. PAUL WANER over Mantle? :eek:


Again, as I've said before; Paul Waner is from my hometown. But over Mickey Mantle. PLEASE!!!
On a side note though: Paul Waner should absolutely be one of the 10 best rightfielders of all time.

[HDH]

Thanks for all of great info here. Its hard to imagine how great a fielder that Hal Chase must have been. I've read so many who saw him play, including Cobb, comment about it. They knew he was throwing games and they still gave im chance after chance. Also, I thought Ray Schalk had a good arm. There's a reference here that calls him weak armed. Cobb named him on his greatest team and is considered by some the weakest member of the HOF.

[csh19792001]

Thanks for all of great info here. Its hard to imagine how great a fielder that Hal Chase must have been. I've read so many who saw him play, including Cobb, comment about it. They knew he was throwing games and they still gave im chance after chance. Also, I thought Ray Schalk had a good arm. There's a reference here that calls him weak armed. Cobb named him on his greatest team and is considered by some the weakest member of the HOF.

he's certanly not in the HOF, but along with Cobb, Babe Ruth also called Chase the greatest fielding 1st baseman ever (and puts him on his alltime team).

[ElHalo]

Hard to argue there, though I've never gotten the whole Schalk love in, but why Plank over other A's? Why not Waddell or Bender?

[RuthMayBond]

he's certanly not in the HOF, but along with Cobb, Babe Ruth also called Chase the greatest fielding 1st baseman ever (and puts him on his alltime team).And how many times do you think the Babe saw Keith Hernandez :laugh

[RuthMayBond]

Also, I thought Ray Schalk had a good arm. There's a reference here that calls him weak armed. Cobb named him on his greatest team and is considered by some the weakest member of the HOF.I don't know about Schalk's arm but he is consistently among the leaders in putouts, assists, DP, range factor, I think fielding%

[RuthMayBond]

Even if you disagree, can you at least admit that the problem travels in both ways? If you have any suggestions to bridge the problem, the world would love to hear it.
1) I admit the problem travels both ways
2) Suggestions? Maybe old-timers could admit that a guy who led the league in PO four times, assists five times, and DP six times (E only once) *might* be as good as one who, other than one year, only led the league in errors, and that SEVEN times.

[RuthMayBond]

Here are a few remarks by Harry Hooper.

You can go back as far as you want and name all the great ones--Tris Speaker, Eddie Roush, Max Carey, Earle Combs, Joe DiMaggio. I don't care who you name, Mays is just as good, maybe better. He's a throwback to the old days. A guy who can do everything, and plays like he loves it. And that Koufax. You name a better left-hander in the histroy of baseball and I'll eat my hat." (The Glory of Their Times, by Lawrence S. Ritter, 1966, pp. 131)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mays is "MAYBE better" than Roush or Combs?
Of course then Hooper went overboard about Koufax. Has he ever heard of Grove?

[Schadenfreuder]

Hello Bill...
well, enough with the chit chat :D I have a question for you or whomever else might know: I caught the Best Pitching Seasons Ever list, and was curious as to how hard the Big Train threw? It seems absolutely inconceivable to me that he had power all through his 400+ W's. Yeah, The Ryan Express threw fire for what seems like an eternity, but he didn't do the downright silly things that Johnson accomplished. Here's the thing; when discussing this with people who couldn't give a rat's ass, I always say, with embellishment, that no-one back then could throw like they throw nowadays, and start a game 3 out of 5 days, while making relief appearances in the other 2. Now, I know I'm stretching the truth, but I'm wondering how big the gap is between my storytelling and reality? Was Walt a genetic marvel, along the lines of a Nolan or Randy? How are Walter Johnson's numbers so far ahead of everyone else's these days? :confused:
That's enough for me right now.
As always, thanks for listening.
Ry

[RuthMayBond]

Cleveland's down to one paper

[julusnc]

Tyrus Raymond Cobb

[julusnc]

Detroit Tigers Superstar

[julusnc]

Ty Cobb-Major League Baseball Hall of Famer

[four tool]

Bill, are you talking on the forums. or generally? I don't see that big a difference, Mays, Aaron, McGwire, Bonds et all get lots of ink. Hornsby, Schimdt, the list goes on. Most all time teams include Wagner, Mays, Schmidt, maybe Aaron, either Morgan or Hornsby, Bench. That's a mostly NL starting lineup.

Here's a question: all time NL all stars vs. all time AL all stars, who would win?I think the NL would take it, and I'm an AL rooter from birth in Massachusetts.

Add Clemente and Musial for outfield, J. Robinson for infield and Maddux Matthews, Spahn, Koufax, Gagne and Sutter. Don't think the AL could handle that lineup.

[prof93]

Bill, are you talking on the forums. or generally? I don't see that big a difference, Mays, Aaron, McGwire, Bonds et all get lots of ink. Hornsby, Schimdt, the list goes on. Most all time teams include Wagner, Mays, Schmidt, maybe Aaron, either Morgan or Hornsby, Bench. That's a mostly NL starting lineup.

Here's a question: all time NL all stars vs. all time AL all stars, who would win?I think the NL would take it, and I'm an AL rooter from birth in Massachusetts.

Add Clemente and Musial for outfield, J. Robinson for infield and Maddux Matthews, Spahn, Koufax, Gagne and Sutter. Don't think the AL could handle that lineup.


Really?? Mantle,Williams,Ruth,Collins,Gehrig (or Foxx),Berra (or Cochrane)A-Rod, Brett, and a staff of Walter Johnson,Grove,Clemens, Feller,Ford, or whoever)

I wouldn't be so quick to think the NL would be defeat the AL in season or a 7 games series. It would be close, very close. When we are talking about this level of talent the difference is really minimal

[four tool]

It seems every best of poll picks Bench over Berra, Mays over Mantle, Bonds over Williams,and NLs for best SS and 3B all time, but somehow the AL is better? Maybe we need to do the polls again-- ;)