Your top 10 hitters ever

[ElHalo]

Curious. Don't think I've seen this one before.

Picture this. Everyone's a DH. They never touch a glove. If they hit one in the gap, they'll have to leg out the double or triple, but once they get on base, they'll be pulled for a pinch runner, so their base stealing acumen is not a factor.

Who are your top 10 players of all time under these circumstances? Purely hitting, nothing else. Not their position. Not their intangibles. Just their hitting.

As always, leaving Bonds out:

1. Ruth
2. Williams
3. Gehrig
4. Hornsby
5. J. Jackson
6. F. Thomas
7. Mantle
8. Cobb
9. M. Ramirez
10. Musial

[charlesblalack@yahoo.com]

1. Babe Ruth
2. Ted Williams
3. Barry Bonds
4. Lou Gehrig
5. Ty Cobb
6. Jimmie Foxx
7. Rogers Hornsby
8. Mickey Mantle
9. Stan Musial
10. Honus Wagner

[Gooch]

1. Babe Ruth
2. Ty Cobb
3. Rogers Hornsby
4. Ted Williams
5. Joe Jackson
6. Lou Gehrig
7. Stan Musial
8. Joe DiMaggio
9. Henry Aaron
10. Rod Carew

[ElHalo]

Can't believe I left Foxx off my list...

[Gooch]

I substituted Foxx with Carew on my list because I needed at least another singles hitter (after Cobb)!!

[charlesblalack@yahoo.com]

Couldn't Tony Gwyn or Honus Wagner serve as a better singles hitter than Carew?

[Blackout]

edit: wow my old list sucked

based on hitting alone

1-Babe Ruth
2-Ted Williams
3-Josh Gibson
4-Ty Cobb
5-Lou Gehrig
6-Stan Musial
7-Rogers Hornsby
8-Hank Aaron
9-Barry Bonds*
10-Manny Ramirez (too bad he can't do anything else)

[Wee Willie]

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

[Sultan_1895-1948]

1. Ruth
2. Williams
3. Gehrig
4. Lajoie
5. Mantle
6. Shoeless
7. Pujols
8. Cobb
9. A Rod
10. Hornsby

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Dang, Wagners getting a raw deal. Its tough to only pick 10 :(

[Gooch]

Couldn't Tony Gwyn or Honus Wagner serve as a better singles hitter than Carew?

A very subjective choice, I agree. I grew up admiring Carew -- the guy seemed to effortlessly hit .350 every year and he had the coolest batting stance. Gwynn never looked like a ballplayer to me (too squat!).
No complaints with Honus Wagner, though.

[leecemark]

1 ) Ruth, 2) Williams, 3) Gehrig. After that the going gets tougher. The candidates in chornological order - Brouthers, Cobb, Hornsby, Foxx, Musial, Mays, Mantle, Aaron, Allen and Thomas. To trim it down to 10, the cuts are Brouthers, Foxx and Allen. Honorable mention to Mike Piazza for being by far the best hitter ever to play his position (although Josh Gibson could claim that honor and a top 10 spot).

[Gooch]

1 ) Ruth, 2) Williams, 3) Gehrig. After that the going gets tougher. The candidates in chornological order - Brouthers, Cobb, Hornsby, Foxx, Musial, Mays, Mantle, Aaron, Allen and Thomas. To trim it down to 10, the cuts are Brouthers, Foxx and Allen. Honorable mention to Mike Piazza for being by far the best hitter ever to play his position (although Josh Gibson could claim that honor and a top 10 spot).

Do you mean RICHIE Allen??

[leecemark]

--I think he prefers to be called Dick, but yes. He isn't one of the top 10 players - or even 10 most accomplished hitters of all time - or even close to it. Based on the criteria of this thread I think he qualifies though. Several other players on my list here rank much further down when using my normal criteria (I am not a fan of Rogers Hornsby or Frank Thomas).

[charlesblalack@yahoo.com]

I've seen Willie Mays mentioned once on a list at #9. I always see him in the top 3 in player lists but hes often non-existant on offensive lists. Does his defense and baserunning really make up THAT much?

[Gooch]

--I think he prefers to be called Dick, but yes. He isn't one of the top 10 players - or even 10 most accomplished hitters of all time - or even close to it. Based on the criteria of this thread I think he qualifies though. Several other players on my list here rank much further down when using my normal criteria (I am not a fan of Rogers Hornsby or Frank Thomas).

I loved Richie (Dick) Allen, and I would place him among the top 20 hitters of the post-war era. But I wouldn't place him so high on the all-time list.
Hornsby's offensive numbers are just too overwhelming to ignore.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Assuming they each faced off-handed pitchers, and played in a symmetrical stadium, who would score more runs: An ALL LEFTY team, or ALL RIGHTY team?

The obvious answer is lefties, yeah?

Mays
Wagner
Hornsby
Lajoie
DiMaggio
Aaron
Foxx
A Rodriguez
Frank Robinson
Pujols

[charlesblalack@yahoo.com]

Assuming they each faced off-handed pitchers, and played in a symmetrical stadium, who would score more runs: An ALL LEFTY team, or ALL RIGHTY team?

The obvious answer is lefties, yeah?

Mays
Wagner
Hornsby
Lajoie
DiMaggio
Aaron
Foxx
A Rodriguez
Frank Robinson
M.Ramirez
the obvious answer is lefites.
Ty Cobb
Tris Speaker
Ted Williams
Babe Ruth
Barry Bonds
Lou Gehrig
Stan Musial
Shoeless Joe
Eddie Collins

[Sultan_1895-1948]

yeah, you're right. I was tryin' to go against the grain and see what the righties would look like. Hard to overcome the 1-2-3 of Ruth, Gehrig, Williams. The righties might be better on D, but thats not what this is about, so nevermind.

[charlesblalack@yahoo.com]

I wonder how an all-switch hitting lineup would look like.....

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I wonder how an all-switch hitting lineup would look like.....

Hmmm off the TOMH,

Mantle
Murray
Chipper
Berkman
Rose
Howard Johnson
Raines
Furcal
Bobby Bonilla

[538280]

1.Babe Ruth
2.Barry Bonds
3.Ted Williams
4.Mickey Mantle
5.Lou Gehrig
6.Ty Cobb
7.Frank Thomas
8.Jimmie Foxx
9.Hank Aaron
10.Willie Mays

[Honus Wagner Rules]

1. Babe Ruth
2. Ted Williams
3. Ty Cobb
4. Honus Wagner
4. Joe Jackson
5. Barry Bonds
7. Tony Gywnn
8. Frank Thomas
9. Lou Gerhig
10. Jimmie Foxx

[Bill Burgess]

1. Cobb
2. Hornsby
3. Jackson
4. Ruth
5. Williams
6. Gehrig
7. Bonds
8. Wagner
9. Josh Gibson
10. Mantle

Honorable Mentions: Charleston, Lajoie, Sisler, Foxx, Mays, Aaron, Musial, DiMaggio, Keeler, Crawford, Delahanty. This is off the top of my head. I didn't consult any of my various lists.

[RuthMayBond]

Hmmm off the TOMH,

Mantle
Murray
Chipper
Berkman
Rose
Howard Johnson
Raines
Furcal
Bobby BonillaI think I'd like Reggie Smith/Bernie Williams and maybe Caminiti over Furcal/HoJo

[Brian McKenna]

I don't think today's fans give Ty Cobb enough respect. The Dead Ball Era spawned many ridiculous pitching numbers which we can't fathom today. In my estimation the relative value of Cobb is increased and conversely the value of Mathewson, Alexander, Johnson, Walsh, Brown, Joss, Ruth, Young, Plank and the like are decreased because of the era.

[flash143817]

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

[Buzzaldrin]

Just pure DH?

Ruth
Williams
Cobb
Hamilton
Carew
Barnes
Lajoie
Hornsby
Keeler
Pujols

Leaving Hamilton off this list should be a capital crime.

Do I need to defend my choices?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I don't think today's fans give Ty Cobb enough respect. The Dead Ball Era spawned many ridiculous pitching numbers which we can't fathom today. In my estimation the relative value of Cobb is increased and conversely the value of Mathewson, Alexander, Johnson, Walsh, Brown, Joss, Ruth, Young, Plank and the like are decreased because of the era.

In relation to this thread, I don't think Cobb is getting under-valued. As a natural hitter, Cobb wasn't among the greatest of all time. However, as a specialist, manipulator, strategist, and executionist, he was second to none. His determination, study, and desire are what catapulted him to legendary status, not pure hitting ability. Bill will tell you as much if you need a second opinion.

As far as the other players' values going down...its weird that you'd lower Ruth's value because of the era, when he was responsible for the game being the way it was. He was responsible for baseball making the rule changes, once they realized from attendance records that Ruth's style of hitting is something fans craved.

[Bill Burgess]

bkmckenna,

Have I got a thread for you. Also, check out,

"www.baseballguru.com/bburgess"

[Wee Willie]

Just pure DH?

Ruth
Williams
Cobb
Hamilton
Carew
Barnes
Lajoie
Hornsby
Keeler
Pujols

Leaving Hamilton off this list should be a capital crime.

Do I need to defend my choices?
Well - Hamilton, Carew, Lajoie, and Keeler were all very good hitters - but all except Lajoie didn't hit for much (and in Keeler's case, any) power. Hamilton's BA is inflated somewhat by the early days of pitchers trying to adjust to 60 feet, 6 inches. Same for Keeler. Lajoie benefitted from hitting against lesser talent for at least the first couple of years in the AL, and hardly ever walked. Carew was Tony Gwynn with a little less power, but even Tony Gwynn wouldn't make my top 10. Barnes - he was great at taking advantage of the fair/foul bunt rule before 1877. I'm not saying that his BA came mostly from that, but I think it was a significant percentage since his BA declined so much after the rules changed. To be in my top 10 you have to be dominant under more or less the same rules as in today's game. Pujols is off to a good start, but I still think it's too early to put him in the top 10.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Pujols is off to a good start, but I still think it's too early to put him in the top 10.

To me, this was about a hitters ability, not career achievement. We've only seen 5 or so years of Pujols, but from what he's shown, he clearly belongs. I think we can judge him right now, because his approach will not change. He's shown what he can do and will only get better. If pitchers haven't exploited weaknesses by now, they never will. His discipline, adjustments, and consistency are remarkable. He's this era's combo of power and average. Not Adam Dunn, and not Ichiro, but rather a combination. He's Arod without the strikeouts and a higher B.A. I'm stickin' with Phat Albert :D

[Buzzaldrin]

Well - Hamilton, Carew, Lajoie, and Keeler were all very good hitters - but all except Lajoie didn't hit for much (and in Keeler's case, any) power. Hamilton's BA is inflated somewhat by the early days of pitchers trying to adjust to 60 feet, 6 inches. Same for Keeler. Lajoie benefitted from hitting against lesser talent for at least the first couple of years in the AL, and hardly ever walked. Carew was Tony Gwynn with a little less power, but even Tony Gwynn wouldn't make my top 10. Barnes - he was great at taking advantage of the fair/foul bunt rule before 1877. I'm not saying that his BA came mostly from that, but I think it was a significant percentage since his BA declined so much after the rules changed. To be in my top 10 you have to be dominant under more or less the same rules as in today's game. Pujols is off to a good start, but I still think it's too early to put him in the top 10.

I don't think it's fair to put down Hamilton quite like that. The three years before the mound was moved back he finished second, first, and second in the league in hitting, then led the league as soon as the plate was moved. He was also amazingly consistent in an inconsistent era and never had a bad season (unless you count his half season finale when he still managed to hit .287, his only time under .300). He had one of the all-time best eyes for a walk, leading the league 5 times, and with his insane speed on the base paths- five sb titles, he remains one of the most deadly men to ever come to the plate.

And actually, if you're going to discount the players who had good stats in the mid 1890's, you may as well discount good stats in the late 20's and early 30's and make Foxx and Gehrig ineligible. I don't think anyone's quite ready for that. It was really ONLY 1894 until 1897 that hitting stats were inflated anyhow, the league average dropped back to .271 in 1898. By contrast, the NL hit .303 in 1930, and league batting averages from that era were routinely in the .280's and 90's. The NL hit .309 in 1894, but that was the only year of those four inflated ones about .300.

Keeler still had some fabulous years after 1897, and with his style of play he wasn't really affected too much by the era and would've done well anytime.

Lajoie I included more from affection than anything. I suppose I do think Brouthers was a better hitter, but perspectives change. I found a reference to an article from 1910 called "who is the greatest hitter who ever lived" that proposes five candidates- Cobb (impressive since he'd only played a few years at that point), Lajoie, Hamilton, Tip O'Neill, and Harry Stovey. Is anyone today willing to put O'Neill and Stovey on their lists?

Hamilton still makes mine. As does Barnes. He was one of the best pure hitters ever. His style did indeed cause the fair-foul rule change, but his career was ended by injuries. His 1876 campaign was possibly the most dominant ever (he had 138 hits and 20 walks and scored 126 times. I love that; it's just insane), but he only played 22 games in 1877 and was out the whole season in 1878 and 1880. He'd lost it. Another what might have been story.

[Buzzaldrin]

Sorry to double post, but I was curious and did some checking. Every single year from 1921 to 1930, both the AL and NL averaged at least .280, and usually quite a bit higher. In Jurassic days, only those years 1893-1897 had league averages over .280 (and in 1893 it was exactly .280).

So, Wee Willie, if you're not going to count players from the 1890's as some of the greatest hitters ever, then you definitely can't count anyone from the 20's. Hornsby, Sisler, Gehrig etc. That can't be right.

That was quite eye-opening actually. I always figured the 90's were even more lively than the 20's but I was mistaken.

[ElHalo]

Sorry to double post, but I was curious and did some checking. Every single year from 1921 to 1930, both the AL and NL averaged at least .280, and usually quite a bit higher. In Jurassic days, only those years 1893-1897 had league averages over .280 (and in 1893 it was exactly .280).

So, Wee Willie, if you're not going to count players from the 1890's as some of the greatest hitters ever, then you definitely can't count anyone from the 20's. Hornsby, Sisler, Gehrig etc. That can't be right.

That was quite eye-opening actually. I always figured the 90's were even more lively than the 20's but I was mistaken.

Not counting anyone from the 1890's has nothing to do with it being an overly offensive-focused era. It has to do with the game being underdeveloped, and the competition level lower.

[Buzzaldrin]

Actually, the competition level in the 1890's was, if anything, higher than the 20's since the best players of three leagues had been consolidated into one by 1893, and remained that way until the American League came around. Are you seriously telling that the 1890's game was somehow less worthy than the game after 1900? Which year is the magial cutoff year? And does this mean that Lajoie and Wagner weren't among the best all time because they began playing in the 1890's, although neither won a batting title till after 1900.

The game before 1900 was the same game it was in the 20's. They're more similar to each other than either of them are to today's game, with the larger rotations, shorter pitching spells, and prominence of the reliever and the DH.

How exactly, was the game undeveloped in the 1890's anyhow? The players playing had lived in a world of professional ball all their lives (for the most part), and after 1893 all of the modern rules were in place. What was undeveloped that suddenly became developed a handful of years later?

[Wee Willie]

I don't think it's fair to put down Hamilton quite like that. The three years before the mound was moved back he finished second, first, and second in the league in hitting, then led the league as soon as the plate was moved.
I wasn't putting Hamilton down. I'm just trying to put things in perspective. He was an excellent offensive performer, but he (as well as others) did have a traditional-stat benefit from the adjustment period pitchers faced when the mound was moved. In the 3 years before the mound was moved, his OPS+ was 139, 152, and 152. Those numbers are hardly worthy of top-10 status.
He was also amazingly consistent in an inconsistent era and never had a bad season (unless you count his half season finale when he still managed to hit .287, his only time under .300). He had one of the all-time best eyes for a walk, leading the league 5 times, and with his insane speed on the base paths- five sb titles, he remains one of the most deadly men to ever come to the plate.
Consistency alone is only part of the formula, though. His 5 consecutive best OPS+ seasons are 152, 152, 169, 157, and 154. While that's very consistent, many others have performed at a much higher level, and for a much longer period of time. As for his stolen bases, those are inflated because he was given a stolen base by going from first to third on a single until 1898. He does have 5 titles though, which is a feather in his cap. But I doubt his speed was "insane" compared to modern players.



And actually, if you're going to discount the players who had good stats in the mid 1890's, you may as well discount good stats in the late 20's and early 30's and make Foxx and Gehrig ineligible. I don't think anyone's quite ready for that. It was really ONLY 1894 until 1897 that hitting stats were inflated anyhow, the league average dropped back to .271 in 1898.
As for the 1890's, might want to go back and check your league stats. The league average was .282 in 1899 and .279 in 1900. And even .271 is a high league average, relatively speaking. The offensive stats from the entire 1890's are inflated - some pitchers were figuring things out in the second half of the decade, but others were still struggling with the adjustment.

As for Gehrig and Foxx, it's a totally different situation than with Hamilton. This is where relative stats become more important. Gehrig and Foxx were much more dominant relative to their leagues than Hamilton was. This was mainly due to their power, but they also hit for a high average. They also did it for a longer period of time than Hamilton.


Keeler still had some fabulous years after 1897, and with his style of play he wasn't really affected too much by the era and would've done well anytime..
That may be true, but his lack of power alone keeps him out of the top 10.


As does Barnes. He was one of the best pure hitters ever. His style did indeed cause the fair-foul rule change, but his career was ended by injuries. His 1876 campaign was possibly the most dominant ever (he had 138 hits and 20 walks and scored 126 times. I love that; it's just insane).
Sure, the numbers look insane - doesn't necessarily mean he had insane hitting ability per se. Injuries certainly took their toll on Barnes, but I just think the bunting was a big part of his game, too much for him to be considered one of the greatest "pure" hitters.

[Wee Willie]

Actually, the competition level in the 1890's was, if anything, higher than the 20's since the best players of three leagues had been consolidated into one by 1893, and remained that way until the American League came around. Are you seriously telling that the 1890's game was somehow less worthy than the game after 1900? Which year is the magial cutoff year? And does this mean that Lajoie and Wagner weren't among the best all time because they began playing in the 1890's, although neither won a batting title till after 1900.

The game before 1900 was the same game it was in the 20's. They're more similar to each other than either of them are to today's game, with the larger rotations, shorter pitching spells, and prominence of the reliever and the DH.

How exactly, was the game undeveloped in the 1890's anyhow? The players playing had lived in a world of professional ball all their lives (for the most part), and after 1893 all of the modern rules were in place. What was undeveloped that suddenly became developed a handful of years later?
The game was undeveloped in many, many ways in the 90's - even compared to the 20's. For one thing, the process of scouting and identifying the best players in America was very crude and unorganized in the 19th century. The process still wasn't nearly as refined in the 20's as it is today, but there was a much more concerted and organized effort to find and train the best talent. Many players were spending a greater period of time learning the game and refining their skills in the minors by the mid-20's as well.
Even though there was only one major league in 1895, there were 12 teams, as opposed to 16 teams (from two leagues) in 1925. The U.S. population was about 70 million in 1895, and about 115 million in 1925. So, I'm sure there was a broader talent pool in the 20's. Plus, scouts could travel more easily and more widely in the 1920's to find the talent. Also, pitchers had learned a wider array of pitches by the 20's. Catchers had better equipment by the 20's, and defensive play had improved greatly. In general, an average player of the 20's was much more skilled and had higher performance standards to meet in order to make a team.

[538280]

I don't think today's fans give Ty Cobb enough respect. The Dead Ball Era spawned many ridiculous pitching numbers which we can't fathom today. In my estimation the relative value of Cobb is increased and conversely the value of Mathewson, Alexander, Johnson, Walsh, Brown, Joss, Ruth, Young, Plank and the like are decreased because of the era.

I think today's fans (at least on this board) give Ty Cobb too much respect. They look at his Relative BA (which is impressive, no doubt), and take it without adjusting for quality of play. You'll find almost everyone on here who supports Cobb as their #1 player is biased towards old timers and make almost no quality of play adjustments. To prove even more how much his Rel. BA isn't as impressive, his average didn't raise at all the 1920s when averages went up. That, to me, is alarming.

Also, they claim Cobb had great power. Cobb did have decent power, and probably would hit around 25 HRs today, but why didn't his power increase in the 1920s? That also alarms me. Cobb goes very overrated on this board. I have yet to see a good argument for him over Mays as the #1 MLB CFer. Mays was a better fielder, and virtually the same as a hitter.

Many would say Cobb was far superior as a hitter, but I'd take Mays. Mays has a similar OPS+, he faced better competition, and is more of my style (that's subjective, but it does factor into my rankings).

[Buzzaldrin]

As for the 1890's, might want to go back and check your league stats. The league average was .282 in 1899 and .279 in 1900. And even .271 is a high league average, relatively speaking. The offensive stats from the entire 1890's are inflated - some pitchers were figuring things out in the second half of the decade, but others were still struggling with the adjustment.

As for Gehrig and Foxx, it's a totally different situation than with Hamilton. This is where relative stats become more important. Gehrig and Foxx were much more dominant relative to their leagues than Hamilton was. This was mainly due to their power, but they also hit for a high average. They also did it for a longer period of time than Hamilton.

Well, during Barnes' day, he was regarded as the premier hitter of both the NA and the beginning NL, but I think his inclusion or exclusion on the all-time list is a matter of personal opinion, and really unprovable one way or the other.

I don't however, believe that a player needs power to be on the all-time list. Hamilton's career OBP depends on his walking ability as much as his average, and with his speed he used that to an incredible advantage to run up his run totals. To take them with a grain of salt because of higher league averages in the 1890's is unfair. Every single year from 1921 to 1930 in both leagues the league average was above .280.

As to relative stats- have you looked at www.baseballprospectus.com? Enter a player and scroll down to translated stats. That puts things in perspective pretty well, I think at least, when trying to compare players from different eras. Deflating Hamilton's stats still gives him a lifetime .326 average. Look at his deflated stats for the late 1890's, though. They're still remarkable. Type in Gehrig and he gets deflated further, to a lifetime .317 with a high of .355 in 1934. His homers, however, go through the roof. Foxx makes out the worst- his lifetime BA drops to .299, although his 32, 33, and 38 seasons still rule.

I firmly believe that batting averages from the 20's and 30's are at least as inflated as the second half of the 90's, and I don't think that either Gehrig or Foxx dominated their league any more than Cap Anson or Dan Brouthers who were, if you think about it, remarkably similar to them. Gehrig and Anson are the all-time RBI guys, I don't think anybody will argue that, and they were iron men (in different senses, but the word applies to both). Brouthers and Foxx were big sluggers who hit for high average. I just think Brouthers did a better job of dominating the competition (5 batting titles and 7 slugging titles).

[Wee Willie]

Well, during Barnes' day, he was regarded as the premier hitter of both the NA and the beginning NL, but I think his inclusion or exclusion on the all-time list is a matter of personal opinion, and really unprovable one way or the other.

I don't however, believe that a player needs power to be on the all-time list. Hamilton's career OBP depends on his walking ability as much as his average, and with his speed he used that to an incredible advantage to run up his run totals. To take them with a grain of salt because of higher league averages in the 1890's is unfair. Every single year from 1921 to 1930 in both leagues the league average was above .280.
I can understand your preference to place some non-power hitters on your list. But again, I'm not taking Hamilton's accomplishments with a grain of salt - just putting them in what I see is in their proper historical context. For what it's worth, he's in my top 75 players and is a bona fide HOF'er. And batting average only tells part of the story as a hitter. I just think Foxx's and Gehrig's power/average combo trumps Hamilton's high average/speed.

I go to baseballprospectus a lot. I think their EqA and WARP figures, however flawed, are somewhat helpful in assessing performance. The translated stats are interesting but I don't take the translated HR's seriously. They have Tris Speaker hitting 50 homers in one year, I believe.

I've always liked Brouthers, much more so than Anson. Actually, I like Connor even more than Anson. Brouthers in particular probably did dominate his league to a greater extent than Foxx did, although not as much as Gehrig. I just think the quality of play/player was better in Gehrig's and Foxx's time. Some people (like Bill James) almost completely discount the 19th century players and leave guys like Brouthers off their top-10 1B's. But I definitely think Brouthers is a top 6-or-7 1B, and Connor has a case for top 10, too.

[Bill Burgess]

You'll find almost everyone on here who supports Cobb as their #1 player is biased towards old timers and make almost no quality of play adjustments.

This is a generalzation which may or may not have merit. My list.
1. Cobb 2. Wagner 3. Mays 4. Bonds 5. Ruth 6. Charleston.

I believe you will find the lists of ElHalo/Imapotato do not confirm to your stereotype either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------It seems like many of us here at Fever favor the same players at the top of our Top 20 lists. To demonstrate the similarity of our lists, here are some of our top players.


Bill--------Nolan--------Mark--------Zeth------ElHalo------BillyF29-----
Cobb--------Ruth---------Ruth--------Bonds-----Ruth---------Ruth-----
Wagner------Cobb---------Mays--------Wagner----Cobb---------Cobb
Mays--------Wagner-------Cobb--------Mays------Mays---------Wagner
Bonds------ Mays---------Wagner------Cobb------Wagner-------Williams
Ruth--------Williams-----Williams----Ruth-------------------Mays
Charleston--Bonds--------------------Charleston-------------Bonds
------------Charleston----------------------------------------------------
------------Speaker--------------------------------------------------------


BoSox----Torez77----Prof93------DoubleX-----Baseball Guru----Lou Gehrig
Bonds------Ruth-----Cobb--------Ruth--------Ruth-------------Cobb
Williams---Mays-----Ruth--------Mays--------Musial-----------Ruth
Ruth-------Cobb-----Wagner------Cobb--------Bonds------------Wagner
Cobb-------Gehrig---------------Bonds-------Mays--------------------
Mays-------Williams-------------Wagner------Williams------------------
--------------------------------Williams----Cobb--------------------



Mr.Russ--EdgarHoF---Catfish---Pretorius-----Bump11--MetsFan---Abacab---------------Ruth-------Ruth--------Ruth------Ruth---------Ruth------Ruth------Ruth
Williams--Cobb-------Cobb------Mays--------Mays------Mays------Mays
Cobb------Mays-------Mays------Bonds-------Aaron-----Williams--Cobb
Bonds-----Wagner-----Williams--Cobb--------Bonds-----Hornsby---Wagner
Musial----Bonds------Bonds-----Williams----Williams--Wagner----Williams
Mays---------------------------Wagner----------------Cobb-----------


Catcher24--dudecar----Chancellor---4Tool-
Ruth---------Mays------Cobb--------Ruth
Mays---------Cobb------Ruth--------Cobb
Cobb---------Ruth------Williams----Wagner
Wagner-------Gehrig----Mays
Williams-----Wagner----Mantle
Bonds--------Musial----Bonds
-------------Williams

It would appear from these 24 posters, that the top players still are:
Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, Mays, Bonds, Williams.

[leecemark]

--Bill, assuming I am who you mean by "Mark" your list is badly out of date. Currently; 1) Mays, 2) Ruth, 3) Aaron, 4) Williams, 5) Schmidt, 6) Mantle, 7) Musial, 8) Wagner, 9) Cobb, 10) Bonds or Charleston. This is how I have been voting in the current series of polls on best all time position players. Some of the other posters on your list disappeared from this board long ago, so whether their old opinions reflect current sentiment at BBF is debateable.

[Bill Burgess]

More evidence to the contrary of Chris' point.
----------------------------------------------------
ElHalo

1. Ruth
2. Williams
3. Gehrig
4. Hornsby
5. J. Jackson
6. F. Thomas
7. Mantle
8. Cobb
9. M. Ramirez
10. Musial
---------------------------------------------------------------
charlesblalack@yahoo.com

1. Babe Ruth
2. Ted Williams
3. Barry Bonds
4. Lou Gehrig
5. Ty Cobb
6. Jimmie Foxx
7. Rogers Hornsby
8. Mickey Mantle
9. Stan Musial
10. Honus Wagner
-----------------------------------------------------
Gooch

1. Babe Ruth
2. Ty Cobb
3. Rogers Hornsby
4. Ted Williams
5. Joe Jackson
6. Lou Gehrig
7. Stan Musial
8. Joe DiMaggio
9. Henry Aaron
10. Rod Carew
------------------------------------------------------
blackout805

1-Babe Ruth
2-Ty Cobb
3-Joe Jackson
4-Ted Williams
5-Manny Ramirez
6-Tony Gwynn
7-Lou Gehrig
8-Barry Bonds
9-Rogers Hornsby
10-Frank Thomas
---------------------------------------------------
Wee Willie

1. Ruth
2. Williams
3. Gehrig
4. Bonds
5. Cobb
6. Hornsby
7. Mantle
8. Musial
9. Mays
10. Aaron
--------------------------------------------------------
Honus Wagner Rules

1. Babe Ruth
2. Ted Williams
3. Ty Cobb
4. Honus Wagner
4. Joe Jackson
5. Barry Bonds
7. Tony Gywnn
8. Frank Thomas
9. Lou Gerhig
10. Jimmie Foxx
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, Chris. I'm sincerely searching for the heavy preponderance for old-timers here. Looks pretty well-balanced to me.

Sure, we do have Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, Jackson, but we also have balanced them out with Williams, Bonds, Mantle, Thomas, Ramirez, Musial, DiMag, Aaron, Gwynn, .

[Bill Burgess]

Mark,

I hear you. Point noted. But, is the list you give relevant to this particular thread, for hitting only? I'd hesitate to think you'd rank Willie #1 HERE.

Or would I be surprised?

Bill

[leecemark]

--No. I posted a list based strictly on the criteria of this thread earlier. However, the lists you posted were not taken from this thread either. I assume they were people's all time player lists you have collected over the years.

[Bill Burgess]

That is correct. I was responding to Chris' allegation that Cobb supporters are unbalanced in their support of "old-timers".

That was what I was attempting to address. We are a rather balanced, motley crew.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

1. Cobb
2. Hornsby
3. Jackson
4. Ruth
5. Williams
6. Gehrig
7. Bonds
8. Wagner
9. Josh Gibson
10. Mantle

Honorable Mentions: Charleston, Lajoie, Sisler, Foxx, Mays, Aaron, Musial, DiMaggio, Keeler, Crawford, Delahanty. This is off the top of my head. I didn't consult any of my various lists.

Bill, this list surprised me. Considering your esteemed baseball mind, I can't believe how you'd have Cobb #1 and Ruth #4. This is about natural hitting ability, is it not? Cobb was amazing, but even by his own admission, he was not a born hitter. His success came through strategic hitting preceded by study and evaluation, and what he could to do the team once he reached base. If it were a list of "bat control", then I could see him being right up there.

[csh19792001]

I think today's fans (at least on this board) give Ty Cobb too much respect. They look at his Relative BA (which is impressive, no doubt), and take it without adjusting for quality of play. You'll find almost everyone on here who supports Cobb as their #1 player is biased towards old timers and make almost no quality of play adjustments. To prove even more how much his Rel. BA isn't as impressive, his average didn't raise at all the 1920s when averages went up. That, to me, is alarming.

Also, they claim Cobb had great power. Cobb did have decent power, and probably would hit around 25 HRs today, but why didn't his power increase in the 1920s? That also alarms me. Cobb goes very overrated on this board. I have yet to see a good argument for him over Mays as the #1 MLB CFer. Mays was a better fielder, and virtually the same as a hitter.

Many would say Cobb was far superior as a hitter, but I'd take Mays. Mays has a similar OPS+, he faced better competition, and is more of my style (that's subjective, but it does factor into my rankings).

Chris,

On public opinion:
I think that if believe that Cobb gets too much credit/respect on this board, your belief probably stems in large part from the fact that you probably haven't been privy WORLD of recondite information available on Ty Cobb. Some of us have spent years studying Cobb and have formed our opinions based on everything we've come across.

On contemporary/expert accounts:
You're a huge Oscar Charleston supporter (probably his biggest partisan here), so you certainly have a great deal of reverence for (and give a great deal of weight to) expert opinion/observation). This should only greatly increase your esteem for Cobb!! But again, it's going to be based on a thorough study of Bill's files, as well as the bios by people like Richard Bak, Mark Okkonen, and Charles Alexander.

Now, if you read all of Bill's files and all of the Cobb biopics with an open mind and still feel the same way, I think your musings here about Cobb being overrated would carry a great deal of weight. In that case, you'd be as neo Cobb scribe). I believe that right now, you're still only getting a portion of the story (numbers on a page).

As to what you said about OPS+:
Cobb had a 167 OPS+, Mays had a 156. That isn't very close- and certainly not as close as it appears at face value. One guy is 9th, one 19th all-time, but more importantly, at that exalted level, each point means a hell of a lot more than it does when we're talking about two guys, say, one with an OPS+ of 100 and the other 111. Just as the separation in IQ between someone with a 100 and 111 is a far less difference as that between someone with a 156 IQ vs. a 167. Adjusting for era, it would be closer, but I doubt it would draw Mays even.

As to Cobb having "decent" power
That's a complete injustice to him. He led the league in slugging 8 times (only 3 players have led the league in more seasons). He also led in OPS+ 11 times. Only Hornsby (12), and Ruth (13) led the league more often.

Cobb was the premier hitter for average AND power for just over a decade. How many players have done that?

Cobb vs. Mays:
Heads up, Cobb vs. Mays (some cogent arguments were made here, and the final vote tally was 27 for Cobb and 11 for Mays).

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=29371

Cobb has been elected ahead of Mays (and pretty handily at that) in both of the "greatest position player" threads we've had over the past 2 years.

But just taking the numbers approach....

This thread (below) directly addresses the issue at hand. It might be the most comprehensive and accurate assessment to date. You've expressed that you don't give WARP any credence, so maybe you'll like (and understand) Schell's system of derivation better.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=26497&highlight=schell%27s+fully+adjusted+stats

Ty Cobb
.336 BA; 22 HR; .406 OBP; .550 SLG; 63 SB

Willie Mays
.308 BA; 29 HR; .391 OBP; .566 SLG; 49 SB

Not too difficult a choice here- even with a very steep timeline adjustment that augments Mays' numbers, Cobb still comes out with better seasonal averages. Of course, Mays' fielding would draw him closer, but would it make up for the gap in offensive value? Doubtful.

Cobb, the 1920's, and swinging for homeruns:
As to the "lack of going for homeruns" criticism Cobb is always levied with.... I'll ask: how many top players from the previous generation that lasted into the 1920's completely changed their style and "started going for homeruns"? Speaker? Wheat? Collins? Cobb grew up learning a completely different style of baseball. He played it to the highest possible level for almost 15 years before one guy in the entire world came along and was successful at playing a heretical style of ball.

You're essentially saying that Cobb should have simply repudiated his INCREDIBLE success during the 1907-19 period, dropped everything, and one day start swinging all out for homeruns every time up (in a park with a 390 ft right field wall, no less). Does it sound like a winning proposition to not only try to revamp your entire approach mid-career, but also doing so while playing in a park like that?

There wasn't a compelling reason for him to try to become Babe Ruth. I'm sure he believe he had a lot more to lose than he had to gain by trying to become an entirely different kind of player... and can we blame him?

Summary:
I can see very strong arguments for Mays as the greatest ever (more so than for Ruth), but I still see more evidence for Cobb as the greatest ever. I make timeline adjustments all the time and have no qualms about Mays holding the #1 spot in the eyes of many astute baseball aficionados. Mays has moved ahead of both Ruth and Wagner on my alltime list in the past 2 years. I've learned a great deal about competitive balance and SD based player/league evaluations, and have many "modern" players in my top 20.

[csh19792001]

--Bill, assuming I am who you mean by "Mark" your list is badly out of date. Currently; 1) Mays, 2) Ruth, 3) Aaron, 4) Williams, 5) Schmidt, 6) Mantle, 7) Musial, 8) Wagner, 9) Cobb, 10) Bonds or Charleston.

Are you at all serious about this as a top 10 greatest players ever?

[538280]

That is correct. I was responding to Chris' allegation that Cobb supporters are unbalanced in their support of "old-timers".

That was what I was attempting to address. We are a rather balanced, motley crew.

Bill, I think you're misunderstanding my point. My point was that Cobb supporters are being biased by ranking Cobb #1 in the first place. I honestly see absolutely no evidence for rating Cobb over Mays unless you don't make nearly enough era adjustment.

As far as I'm concered, most of the Cobb supporters are the "there's nothing better than 1910s baseball" types. To many of them, the deadball era is their favorite era, and they wish the game went back to that style. They don't like sluggers for some foolish reason. They long for 50 stolen bases to be commonplace. Cobb supporters, don't get me wrong, I'm not insulting you, but your opinions are heavily biased.

[csh19792001]

Bill, I think you're misunderstanding my point. My point was that Cobb supporters are being biased by ranking Cobb #1 in the first place. I honestly see absolutely no evidence for rating Cobb over Mays unless you don't make nearly enough era adjustment.

As far as I'm concered, most of the Cobb supporters are the "there's nothing better than 1910s baseball" types. To many of them, the deadball era is their favorite era, and they wish the game went back to that style. They don't like sluggers for some foolish reason. They long for 50 stolen bases to be commonplace. Cobb supporters, don't get me wrong, I'm not insulting you, but your opinions are heavily biased.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=389762&postcount=49

What did I just put all that effort in for? LOL. :o

[Bill Burgess]

Randy,

I would never expect anyone to fathom the workings of my inner mind. I am probably alone in how I assess players/hitters/pitchers.

I am all about hypotheticals. And some members completely disallow that. I don't criticize others for not understanding me. I'm a peculiar mind. I look how a player would fit in with any era, 1880's or 2000's.

I do not particularly get excited by what actually happened. Only by what would have likely happened in any given scenario. I think that Ty, if dropped into any time slot, would have had the best chance to excel, due to his enlarged skill set. True, his tools were not the very finest, (Ruth, Wagner, Mantle, Jackson, Bonds), but we do not play on tools alone, but on how well those tools are honed and ready to use.

Those players who blow me away, with their skill sets were Ty, Honus, Willie, Tris.

The reason I place Ty #1 here is his hyper-competitive approach. He could take whatever they threw at him, and didn't break. When only 19, 165 lbs, he survived an entire team piling on him, and even though he suffered a nervous breakdown mid-season, 1906, he still posted the high BA of his team!

I can see no reason why he couldn't adjust to today, with leading the league in BA, and coming in 3rd-5th in homers. Even though Mark Leece won't agree, I truly, deep in my heart, feel that Ty would hit 160% of league BA, and perhaps hit 35-40 HRs to suppliment his high-average work. And perhaps throw in 50 strategic SB, when it counts, not simply to run for the sake of running.

Babe? Yes, I do feel he'd do well also today. But Babe would need to adjust his stroke, and keep his weight down. Which I feel he could do. I give Babe the lead in HRs and perhaps 130% of league BA.

And based on those stats, I'd give Ty the edge in value. I may be the only one, but I doubt it. We have 41 members who rate Ty #1 ever.

Bill Burgess

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Randy,

I would never expect anyone to fathom the workings of my inner mind. I am probably alone in how I assess players/hitters/pitchers.

I am all about hypotheticals. And some members completely disallow that. I don't criticize others for not understanding me. I'm a peculiar mind. I look how a player would fit in with any era, 1880's or 2000's.

Dude, Bill, I think you misunderstood my question/point. That was a very well written piece btw. When it comes to Ty supporters, I'm right there. One of the reasons I'm right there on it, is because I've played baseball for so long, and understand what it takes to be successful. The skills, the tools, the desire, the hard work, everything. Thrown on top of all that were the obstacles Cobb faced, which no young player today faces. Hell, 75% of the young hot shots today would cave and crumble under the pressure and treatment Cobb received. I have much respect and admiration for Cobb, so lets not get that cross.

I wasn't questioning whether Cobb's abilities would translate, I know they would. We have to look at what players back then were able to do with what they were handed. Then, assess the many advantages that today would afford them, and make an adjustment. This is all good.

Maybe I was wrong about the point of this thread. My understanding was that it wasn't about "ballplayers" but rather just hitters. Just natural hitting ability. My point was that what made Cobb such a great hitter was his mind, his strategic nature, his place hitting, his adjustments, his psych jobs. Those were his weapons, not just pure natural hitting ability. Like I said, maybe I misunderstood the thread point, sorry if I did. No disrespect to Ty at all, believe me man, I've got 4 framed pictures of him on my walls, so know where I'm coming from. But even you would admit Bill, that his greatness was not reliant on pure hitting ability. Thats all.

[Bill Burgess]

Randy,

Here's a former post I did, attempting to compare Ty/Babe today. It shows some of my present thinking. Hope it's worth the read.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd like another crack at estimating how Ty/Babe might do if they'd been born later, with their same skill sets, but applied them to a later era.

1st Ty. In later eras I assign him a Relative BA in his best yrs. of 150%. He exceeded that around 9 times, so I top him out around 150% as his best in later times, due to improved competition. He would normally come in first in his league.

I also assign a Relative SLG. ave. of 1.60%. His leading ratios in his career were: 1.72, 1.65, 1.64, 1.64, 1.58, 1.57, 1.54, 1.50, 1.49, 1.44, 1.44, 1.43, 1.42, 142. So, from these ratios, I assign him a 1.60 in his best yr. and from 1.55-1.60 in his best seasons. Again bowing to improved competition.

So, I assign TC a BA of 1.50%, and a SLG. of 1.55-1.60. And those ratios are not subject to fluctuation due to deadball/liveball. All of his peers would be subject to the same conditions, and would be equalized evenly together. Ty would come in the top 5 in HRs. He came in the top 5 in HRs 7 times in his career & was in the top 5 in HRs up to 1919.

And inserting blacks into the equation should be balanced by black pitchers/hitters evenly. But the improved competition would be comprised of black, hispanic, Asian and better prospects due to scouting covering the entire nation, west coast, Latin America, etc.

Now Babe. I assign him a Relative BA around 1.30. I got that figure in a most non-scientific manner. Here's what I did. I scoured his away BA for his career from Total BB, 1st ed. I selected his 1924 season as his representative season. In 1924, Babe hit .375 away/.381 home.

Beginning with 1920, Babe ripped off BA. at away ballparks of .358, .354, .332, .377, .375. He dipped in '25, and came back with .378 in '26. So I feel his '24 .375 is representative. And it comes out to 1.30%

I assign Babe a .721 SLG. ave. due to his 1924 figure. It comes to 1.81%. Beginning with 1920, Babe ripped off away SLG. figures of .736, .772, .739, .728, .721. I chose his 1924 figure for a solid reason. His 1920-21 seasons, he went for HRs more than he did in '23-24. So, I wanted to select a Babe season which showed what he could do when he wasn't going all out to hit HRs.

Babe would normally lead his league in HRs/SLG./Walks

So here we have Ty/Babe in later eras. Who would you take?

Cobb: 1.50% BA, leads league. 1.60 SLG. comes in top 3 after Ruth, Williams.
Ruth: 1.30% BA, top 5 league. 1.81 SLG. leads league. Leads L. in HRs also.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------Instead of my original .400/40 HRs, I now project estimates of 150% of league BA. and 3rd to 5th in league HRs. More realistic and reasonable. Allows for ebb/flow of league highs & lows. Greater flexibility.

Babe, with leading his league in HRs, with an estimated 160% of league slugging ave., and 130% of league BA.

If they'd both played in 2003, in the AL, their figures might have looked something like this, according to my estimates.

-----------------------BA---------SLG--------HRs
Cobb-----------------.400--------.684--------38
Ruth-----------------.347--------.774---------55

The only variants which I feel could vary is Babe's SLG. He might come in with a lower SLG. ratio if he was surrounded by a league of other rival sluggers. Babe would probably lead, but his 1.81 figure might well be whittled down a notch or two.

I also did Wagner's Relative SLG. His leading ratios were: 1.70 (1908), 1.59 (1907), 1.54 (1904), 1.50 (1900), 1.45 (1909), 1.44 (1905), 1.41 (1903), 1.39 (1906), 1,38 (1902), 1.35 (1901), 1.34 (1911), 1.31 (1899), 1.31 (1912).

So I feel that Honus Wagner would be able to post a Relative SLG. ave. of 1.50 in later eras, due to improved competition. He exceeded that 3 times with poor competition. He'd probably come in the top 10 in HRs.

Bill Burgess

[538280]

Are you at all serious about this as a top 10 greatest players ever?

I think Mark's list makes perfect sense. It closely models my own, except I'd put Williams lower and Charleston higher.

[538280]

-----------------------BA---------SLG--------HRs
Cobb-----------------.400--------.684--------38
Ruth-----------------.347--------.774---------55



Bill,

Do you honestly think Cobb would do basically just as good today as he did in the 1910s? It seems to me you give Ruth's stats a small hit, but you improve Cobb's. I don't see your reasoning for that. I think Babe would excel in today's type game. I think Cobb would probably be arrogant and refuse to play like a slugger as he did in the 1920s. And, no, I don't give Cobb credit because he supposedly could hit 40 HRs if he wanted to.

[Bill Burgess]

Cool Ty 1939 Interview:

Continuing with cool Ty stuff, I'm finding new things all the time on Proquest & Sporting News.

"Mind you, I'm not squawking. If I were playing today I wouldn't be the same kind of player I was. I mean I wouldn't be stealing all those bases, and doing anything to get on base, or trying to punch a single through those infielders.

"I'd be out there like the rest of them - swinging for the fences.

"Mightn't do bad at that home run business, either," the blue-eyed man chuckled. "Don't forget I led the American League one year in home runs. Hit nine." (Editors note: He might have bragged that he came in 2nd in HRs twice, 3rd twice, while coming in first in SLG. 8 times, 2nd 3 times, 3rd 3 times, and 4th once.)

. . . "But nowadays the teams almost pamper the kids with instruction and help.
No wonder they aren't as tough - though I've got to say that mechanically they're as good as any of us ever were. (Washington Post, June 14, 1939, pp. 19, "On the Line With Considine")

Bill Burgess

[Bill Burgess]

I do NOT assign a slight hit to the Babe. I assign him his 1924 away slugging ave. AND his 1924 away BA. I give him his due.

I also assume Babe would lead in HRs, Walks, slugging ave. So where is the hit? I went to pains to not do that, Chris.

Bill

[538280]

I do NOT assign a slight hit to the Babe. I assign him his 1924 away slugging ave. AND his 1924 away BA. I give him his due.

I also assume Babe would lead in HRs, Walks, slugging ave. So where is the hit? I went to pains to not do that, Chris.

Bill

But Bill, you should give Babe a small hit. You adjusted Babe's numbers properly. However, you didn't give Cobb's numbers enough of a hit. You basically said Cobb would have the same value today as he did in the 1910s, which is obviously not anywhere near the truth.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

In regards to translation, you know whats sorta interesting;

Ruth and Cobb weren't afforded helmets, body armor, batting gloves, the small strike zone, or ligher-harder bats. Yet the pitchers could throw inside and dust them off at will, never allowing them to get comfortable at the plate. Umpires warnings rarely came, generally only when there had been an open fued between two certain players. This is one of the most over-looked factors between eras. Aside from all the technological advances, its small things like this, that allow for huge offensive numbers. Playes today can dig in, and dive out over the plate, never worrying about an inside pitch. This level of comfort as a hitter is absolutely huge, a comfort level that Cobb, Ruth, or even Frank Robinson didn't enjoy. It makes a huge difference. Seems like MLB would get a clue and allow pitchers to have more freedom, but then again, why would they want offensive numbers to decrease. If they wanted that, they could just call the true strike zone, move some fences back, outlaw body armor, closely monitor bat manufacturers, raise the seams up to a normal level, and get rid of the hitters backrop.

[pjf]

Randy,

I would never expect anyone to fathom the workings of my inner mind. I am probably alone in how I assess players/hitters/pitchers.

I am all about hypotheticals. And some members completely disallow that. I don't criticize others for not understanding me. I'm a peculiar mind. I look how a player would fit in with any era, 1880's or 2000's.


Bill, As our resident Ty Cobb expert (I mean this in a flattering way) please take a shot at answering this. Reading your posts it's been puzzling me when you speak of Cobb and his handling " an entire team piling on him". You say he suffered a nervous breakdown but that "he took whatever they threw at him but didn't break".


Here's my problem and it really has nothing to do with Ty's performance and the evaluation of it. You obviously admire that trait but you present it as if Cobb was a man picked on and conspired against and it was his courage and intestinal fortitude that prevailed.


My initial and little informed take is that perhaps he brought this on himself. If so, why admire him as if he was treated unfairly? Logic tells me that that if were just one or two guys then perhaps Cobb was the victim. But what little reading I've done Cobb had individual problems with several team members. As a guy who played a lot of team sports I would tend to see Cobb as the problem not the victim. That would not be something I admire.


Rather than go on I would be interested in hearing your point of view. Was most of the team just prejudiced or envious of Cobb or was Cobb just a cancer in the clubhouse? Was he just an individually and statistically, great player or can you make a case for him as a team leader? In fact, how successful were the teams he played on?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Bill, As our resident Ty Cobb expert (I mean this in a flattering way) please take a shot at answering this. Reading your posts it's been puzzling me when you speak of Cobb and his handling " an entire team piling on him". You say he suffered a nervous breakdown but that "he took whatever they threw at him but didn't break".

I'm sure Bill is typing as I type this, and will respond with a well written, lengthy, informative, and sensative reply. But let me just say that Cobb didn't bring anything on himself. He was a youngster competing for the third spot in the outfield, when 3 others were more than capable. There would have to be an odd man out, and there was a large "clique" on the team that did everything they could to break Cobb's spirits. To send him waddling home with his tail between his legs. He didn't though. He took everything they gave him, and in the end their harshness proved to be the best thing for him. He ate alone, roomed alone, had pranks played on him. He had much alone time to study pitchers, to think about how to succeed. He should have thanked them, and secretly probably did.

[Bill Burgess]

Pete,

Thanks for your apt question. After all these years of stereo-typing, I am not put off at all at your excellent question. I have taken the time to take the major controversies of Ty's career, and have stored them in my Ty Cobb Thread, like a refrigerator. It is my 4th post, "Did All of Ty Cobb's Team Mates Hate Him?" I take it slowly and try to do it justice. I don't want to post it here, due to it's length. But it is just back of this 1 page of topics. Many of Ty's early team mates thought he wasn't right in the head.

In those days, it was normal for a team of vets to haze rookies right back to the minors. If they wanted to protect/reserve a starting slot for a buddy, they'd make it too tough for the rookie who got an invite to team try-outs. Ty couldn't take the easy way out, and leave. His Dad's unexpected death left the family in desperate straights. Could have easily lost their homestead. So he had to take it.

Yes, he did suffer a nervous breakdown. Mid-July, he was hitting with league leaders around .350. Suddenly, dropped to .320, hands shook, could hardly hold the bat, etc.

Management shipped him home to a sanitarium, outside Detroit for about 5 weeks. When he returned, he stabilized and led the team in hitting, around .316. Yes, he did snap, crack, broke. But he didn't stay that way. He came back and never let them see him cry.

Let me know what you think of my article.

Bill

[ElHalo]

Many would say Cobb was far superior as a hitter, but I'd take Mays. Mays has a similar OPS+, he faced better competition, and is more of my style (that's subjective, but it does factor into my rankings).

How much of an era adjustment you give is, of course, a question of preference. Personally, I'd say that the marginal difference in league quality between, say, 1910 and 1960 would be somewhere between 5 and 10%. In other words, it's definitely something to take into consideration, but it's far, far from determinative.

Another thing you have to realize... OPS+ will always, always, ALWAYS underrate contact hitters. Just think about it. For SLG, one HR is equivalent in value to 4 singles. One HR in 1960 was worth nowhere NEAR as much as four singles in 1910. 40 HR are just plain not worth 160 singles. But for SLG, it is. So a guy who doesn't hit homers (or plays in an era where a lot of homers aren't hit) will always be underrated using OPS+.

Also, last I checked, 156 wasn't really similar to 167. It's the same difference as between, say, your boy Reggie Jackson, and David Justice.

From where I sit, it goes like this: Cobb wasn't anywhere near as good a fielder as Mays. Cobb was a MUCH better baserunner (though still probably overrated as a baserunner). Cobb was a MUCH better hitter. Mays is #3 in my rankings, but Cobb's 2.

[Bill Burgess]

But Bill, you should give Babe a small hit. You adjusted Babe's numbers properly. However, you didn't give Cobb's numbers enough of a hit. You basically said Cobb would have the same value today as he did in the 1910s, which is obviously not anywhere near the truth.
Chris. You didn't read my post carefully enough. If you had, you would have seen that I DO assign Ty a small hit. And here is was, again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I assign him a Relative BA in his best yrs. of 150%. He exceeded that around 9 times, so I top him out around 150% as his best in later times, due to improved competition. He would normally come in first in his league.

I also assign a Relative SLG. ave. of 1.60%. His leading ratios in his career were: 1.72, 1.65, 1.64, 1.64, 1.58, 1.57, 1.54, 1.50, 1.49, 1.44, 1.44, 1.43, 1.42, 142. So, from these ratios, I assign him a 1.60 in his best yr. and from 1.55-1.60 in his best seasons. Again bowing to improved competition.

So, although he hit 157% BA in his day, I lower him to 150% today, due to improved league quality.

Same thing for Rel. Slg. Ave. He hit 1.72 in his day, and I lower him to 160% today, again due to improved league quality.

Your critique is unfair. And you also fail to consider his almost psycho competitive attitude. He was the most competitive thing in sports during his prime.

Bill Burgess

[pjf]

I'm sure Bill is typing as I type this, and will respond with a well written, lengthy, informative, and sensative reply. But let me just say that Cobb didn't bring anything on himself. He was a youngster competing for the third spot in the outfield, when 3 others were more than capable. There would have to be an odd man out, and there was a large "clique" on the team that did everything they could to break Cobb's spirits. To send him waddling home with his tail between his legs. He didn't though. He took everything they gave him, and in the end their harshness proved to be the best thing for him. He ate alone, roomed alone, had pranks played on him. He had much alone time to study pitchers, to think about how to succeed. He should have thanked them, and secretly probably did.


Sultan, Actually, Cobb is not my greatest fascination so I've read little. However, what you post is obviously one side of the story which I've heard before. Somehow, it just goes counter to my instincts. As a guy who has played baseball I'm sure you've seen some jealousy as have I. But by and large it almost always works the other way. On every team that I've played on if a guy could help us that was all we wanted to know. Given that a persons personality is pretty much set early on and that Cobb's was pretty much known throughout his entire life I find the picked on, jealous story to be only the tip of the iceberg.


Cobb had problems with many of his teammates including the supposed good natured catcher Charley Schmidt. It wasn't just limited to McIntyre and the other outfielders. Most of this is really irrelevant anyway but Bill certainly has a point of view that I am interested in. There just seems that there is a lot more here than a simple explanation.

Also, since I've done little reading on the era (my interest are elsewhere) I really would like to know about Cobb's intangibles. Sure he was a great player but was he a positive team influence ? Even if he was an SOB he still could have had a positive effect on his team. On the other hand some of his antics could have irritated teammates. As you know team chemistry and attitude is more important than many realize.


Eddie Lopat on the 1951 Yankees: " Hell, I didn't give a damn if Raschi won forty games or Reynolds won fifty. I didn't give a damn who won, just as long as New York won. We had a esprit de corps on that ball club. That's what amazed Stengel, too. He never saw that before. Also, older players used to reprimand the younger ones ... We were a team and didn't tolerate individual play...Once a young Yogi Berra asked out of the second game of a doubleheader. DiMag says to Yoge, 'What the hell's wrong with you?' So Yoge says 'What do you mean?' DiMag says 'You're 23 years old and you can't catch a doubleheader? My ass'. And boy you could have heard a pin drop in that clubhouse...Mickey Mantle and Whitey Ford used to say that they thought we were the meanest men they ever knew."


Obviously, the point of the Lopat quote was to reinforce how important team attitude is to winning. DiMaggio,in fact, claims that he admired Gehrig more than any other ballplayer for exactly the same thing. Relating this to Cobb you'll forgive me if I have trouble swallowing that three or more jealous teammates were the sole cause of the problem. Maybe, Bill can convince me otherwise.

[Bill Burgess]

Pete,

You do bring up a great point. Was Cobb never in the wrong? Hell, no. He was human and he sometimes was the biggest jerk to ever take the field. I will give you an example.

Once, a pitcher was giving Cobb a problem, and he wanted out of the game. So, Davey Jones was on first, and Cobb steps out of the batter's box, and yells down to first, "Can't you see the 'hit & run' sign?"

He had not given it, but wanted to embarrass Jones. Next pitch, he does it again. Steps out of the box and calls down, "Ah ain't gonna play with no man who misses the 'hit & run' twice in a row! He sulks off.

Now Jones is furious. He tells Cobb, "You gutless *******! You're chicken to bat against that pitcher! I won't be your patsy!"

So, Cobb was the problem there, not the victim. And he also had the problem of not being able to relax, laugh, soften a tense atmosphere, etc.

So I will conduct no white-washes ever. Ty did cause a lot of his own messes. But once the rep was made, a whole lot of it was forced on him. But he was the problem maybe half the time. Just couldn't bend, couldn't lose an argument. Had to be right all the time.

So, Pete is quite right about this.

Bill

[pjf]

Pete,

You do bring up a great point. Was Cobb never in the wrong? Hell, no. He was human and he sometimes was the biggest ******* to ever take the field. I will give you an example.

Once, a pitcher was giving Cobb a problem, and he wanted out of the game. So, Davey Jones was on first, and Cobb steps out of the batter's box, and yells down to first, "Can't you see the 'hit & run' sign?"


Bill, thanks for you honesty. You saved me a lot of reading. Truthfully, if I were McIntyre and the rest of them I might have given Cobb and his attitude a hard time also. Certainly, your comments puts everything in perspective. Cobb's personality and veteran players, not a good mix.

The more important questions are: #1 How did this affect the team and it's potential to win championships #2 Was Cobb just an individually great player (Chamberlain) or did he add something extra to the team (Russell)? #3 Was Cobb more interested in winning than personal performance? Thanks, I'll read your article tomorrow and get back to you. LOL

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Sultan, Actually, Cobb is not my greatest fascination so I've read little. However, what you post is obviously one side of the story which I've heard before. Somehow, it just goes counter to my instincts. As a guy who has played baseball I'm sure you've seen some jealousy as have I. But by and large it almost always works the other way. On every team that I've played on if a guy could help us that was all we wanted to know. Given that a persons personality is pretty much set early on and that Cobb's was pretty much known throughout his entire life I find the picked on, jealous story to be only the tip of the iceberg.
I was in no way trying to give one big blanket idea into why Cobb was how he was. He's far too complex for that.
His first taste of big league life though, cannot be over-looked, as we know first impressions last forever. He realized just how cut throat the league was, even on his own team, and this pushed him even harder to succeed, but also shaped his outlook. One of the biggest incidents had to be the Kid Elberfeld play, where his knee pushed Cobbs head into the ground. A professional "teach" as Cobb called it I think. From that point on, he knew that it was survival of the fittest, at all costs.

[four tool]

Ruth
Williams
Cobb
Gehrig
Hornsby
shoeless Joe
Speaker
Wagner
Aaron
Mays
Mantle

[csh19792001]

In regards to translation, you know whats sorta interesting;

Ruth and Cobb weren't afforded helmets, body armor, batting gloves, the small strike zone, or ligher-harder bats. Yet the pitchers could throw inside and dust them off at will, never allowing them to get comfortable at the plate. Umpires warnings rarely came, generally only when there had been an open fued between two certain players. This is one of the most over-looked factors between eras. Aside from all the technological advances, its small things like this, that allow for huge offensive numbers. Playes today can dig in, and dive out over the plate, never worrying about an inside pitch. This level of comfort as a hitter is absolutely huge, a comfort level that Cobb, Ruth, or even Frank Robinson didn't enjoy. It makes a huge difference. Seems like MLB would get a clue and allow pitchers to have more freedom, but then again, why would they want offensive numbers to decrease. If they wanted that, they could just call the true strike zone, move some fences back, outlaw body armor, closely monitor bat manufacturers, raise the seams up to a normal level, and get rid of the hitters backrop.

ABSOLUTELY.

And what historical great has benefitted from this more than anyone?

Balco Barry Bonds, replete with full body armor, hanging that elbow out over the plate and taking away a large portion of the pitcher's strike zone (people seem to have totally forgotten that yes, the plate is FOR THE PITCHER). Bonds digs in nice and comfy without fear of recourse, and no fear of death or serious injury.

How much would Cobb's, Ruth's, and Williams' numbers have improved if they could have gotten get nice and comfortable, hanging their bodies over the plate with impunity like Bonds? In the old days there were notorious head hunters like Carl Mays and Grove... later on Early Wynn, then guys like Gibson and Drysdale.

Where are those guys today? Today pitchers get tossed just for suspected INTENT to hit a batter, much less repeated actual offenses.

Today, pitchers have been totally divested of a fundamental component of the pitching arsenal. Just another factor conspiring to form the bloated post 1993 homerun epoch.

[Bill Burgess]

Chris,

My good buddy, and great ally. Just as I got a rep as the anti-Ruth, you are in danger of becoming the anti-Bonds.

Yes, Barry cheated. Yes, his stats are inflated beyond recognition, since 2001

But I've never heard you take Mark McGwire to task, and he also had the body armour, as do Sammy Sosa, and all the others. They all have the body armour today.

I do wish that the pre-1990 players had all had that too. Would have made them less vulnerable to injuries. But Barry has done things that the other armoured, steroid abusers have not. I do not defend Barry from his just critics. He earned his hard knocks, and history will discount him massively.

His legacy will forever carry either a visible or invisible asterisk. Either on the page or in our minds. He WILL pay for his sins, of that I assure you. I am one of the few who have yet to downrate him in my lists. But almost all of the others have returned him to his pre-2001 level. He is probably listing around 15th on most people's lists.

I just wish you would broaden your broadsides and include Barry in a select group of abusers, and not always isolate him as the prime offender, just because he was better. But even buddies disagree on lots of stuff. Still cool, good brother.

Old buddy,
Bill (last of the Barry lovers)

[RuthMayBond]

Chris,

My good buddy, and great ally. Just as I got a rep as the anti-Ruth, you are in danger of becoming the anti-Bonds.It's way past "in danger of"

<Bill (last of the Barry lovers)>

How soon they forget West Coast, and moi

[Bill Burgess]

No, no. Didn't forget you have 1,000 Barry cards. Just didn't want to put you in anyone's line of fire. You and Chris clash for some unknown reason. Hope that evolves in time. You're both such great guys.

Just on opposite sides of the Barry abyss/chasm/ravine.

Old peace-making referee

[pjf]

Chris,

My good buddy, and great ally. Just as I got a rep as the anti-Ruth, you are in danger of becoming the anti-Bonds.

Yes, Barry cheated. Yes, his stats are inflated beyond recognition, since 2001

But I've never heard you take Mark McGwire to task, and he also had the body armour, as do Sammy Sosa, and all the others. They all have the body armour today.
Bill, cut csh some slack here. I think the reason he mentions Bonds aside from McGuire and the others is that they are not the point of contention Bonds, is. Bonds appears on many lists not those other guys, so he is the point of the entire debate.

I've already stated my position so I have no need to disparage those of you who rate Bonds in the top ten. It really all comes down to a bottom line opinion. However, let me tweak you a bit by saying that my method is not to downgrade Bonds from what he was. It's just that I refuse to upgrade him to something I believe he was not.

[Bill Burgess]

Pete,

Point noted. I was taking my great friend Chris to task for isolating my favorite current player. I live in the SF Bay area and watch him every time he plays. He's fun to watch.

Chris knows I bear him unlimited love. He's a fantastic young man, with unlimited capacity to drive himself in school. He was the man who first told me about this site, and 2 others before this one. We will always be great buds, but the Barry issue is one even the best of buds can agree to disagree on. Friends live with their differences.

Bill

[csh19792001]

Bill, cut csh some slack here. I think the reason he mentions Bonds aside from McGuire and the others is that they are not the point of contention Bonds, is. Bonds appears on many lists not those other guys, so he is the point of the entire debate.

I've already stated my position so I have no need to disparage those of you who rate Bonds in the top ten. It really all comes down to a bottom line opinion. However, let me tweak you a bit by saying that my method is not to downgrade Bonds from what he was. It's just that I refuse to upgrade him to something I believe he was not.

Exactly. Thank you for asking Bill to cut me slack, pj. :)

Bill, I don't give Sosa and McGwire any slack either. They were both juicers too and I don't consider their numbers on anywhere near face value.

But Bonds is "the greatest ever" according to so many here, and it's a completely bogus assertion. He was never anything approaching the greatest player ever before steroids, and drugs are the only reason he's involved in these disucssions. If McGwire and Sosa were coming up here, I'd be pointing out the same steroid caveat there, too, as well as the body armor and everything else Sultan so incisively pointed out in his previous post.

[csh19792001]

Pete,

Point noted. I was taking my great friend Chris to task for isolating my favorite current player. I live in the SF Bay area and watch him every time he plays. He's fun to watch.

Chris knows I bear him unlimited love. He's a fantastic young man, with unlimited capacity to drive himself in school. He was the man who first told me about this site, and 2 others before this one. We will always be great buds, but the Barry issue is one even the best of buds can agree to disagree on. Friends live with their differences.

Bill

Agreed. It's nothing personal between us, Bill. :o

Thank you for extending your warmth and caring, as well as the supportive comments. :waving

Your friend,
Chris

[buckthis]

And what historical great has benefitted from this more than anyone?

Balco Barry Bonds, replete with full body armor, hanging that elbow out over the plate and taking away a large portion of the pitcher's strike zone (people seem to have totally forgotten that yes, the plate is FOR THE PITCHER). Bonds digs in nice and comfy without fear of recourse, and no fear of death or serious injury.

"Full body armor" ? :laugh That's funny, and an silly exaggeration and you know it.

Going into 2005:

1. - 256 Craig Biggio
2. - 177 Jason Kendall
3. - 157 Fernando Vina
4. - 129 Larry Walker
5. - 127 Jeff Bagwell
6. - 122 Carlos Delgado
7. - 111 Damion Easley
8. - 110 Gary Sheffield
9. - 97 Jeff Kent
10. - 93 Barry Bonds

And that's with Barry playing more seasons than the 1-9 players. "Hey, no fair! Balco Barry's been hanging out over the plate without any fear of death!" OKay, let's just keep it to 1998-2004, the years of Barry's large elbow guard.

Barry was hit 43 times during that time. Kent was hit 49 times during that same time. Golden Boys Jeter and Rolen 73 and 78 times. Biggio 137 times.

What are your nicknames for Jeter, Rolen, and Biggio? For that matter, include Frank Robinson - 41 hbp in his final 7 seasons, not coming anywhere near Barry's plate appearances. Got a problem with John Olerud? He wears a batting helmet at first base for a good reason. If anyone would have reason to not get hit it would be him. He got drilled 51 times the previous 7 seasons.

Randy Winn just hit a leadoff homer. :D

[Sockeye]

1. Babe Ruth
2. Ted Williams
3. Barry Bonds
4. Lou Gehrig
5. Mickey Mantle
6. Jimmie Foxx
7. Mark McGwire
8. Frank Thomas
9. Stan Musial
10. Willie Mays

[Myankee4life]

1. Babe Ruth
2. Ted Williams
3. Lou Gehrig
4. Rogers Hornsby
5. Ty Cobb
6. Jimmie Foxx
7. Stan Musial
8. Mickey Mantle
9. Frank Thomas
10. Barry Bonds**

[hogwashed]

Cobb
Williams
Ruth
Gehrig
Aaron
Bonds
Mantle
Mays
Foxx
Wagner

[Neilios]

Ted Williams
Joe DiMaggio
Joe Jackson
Ty Cobb
Albert Pujols
Hank Aaron
Babe Ruth
Pete Rose
Roberto Clemente
Edgar Renteria

[brett]

Top 9 CAREER hitters-assuming that generating hits with speed counts
Ruth
Williams
Bonds
Cobb
Mantle
Musial
Aaron
Mays
Wagner

#10: Hornsby, Gehrig, Speaker or Pujols.

I would have to go with Hornsby based on hitting alone.

[Myankee4life]

Ted Williams
Joe DiMaggio
Joe Jackson
Ty Cobb
Albert Pujols
Hank Aaron
Babe Ruth
Pete Rose
Roberto Clemente
Edgar Renteria

Nice to see Dimaggio there:o

Not so Renteria :mad:

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

Pick your top 10 hitters When I say this, I mean the ones with many hits and good batting averages. My top ten hitters:

1) Ty Cobb
2) Rogers Hornsby
3) Nap Lajoie
4) Ted Williams
5) Stan Musial
6) Tris Speaker
7) Honus Wagner
8) Pete Rose
9) Hank Aaron
10) Babe Ruth
Honarable Mentions: Paul Waner, Lou Gehrig, Willie Mays, Harry Heilman, Roberto Clemente, George Sisler, Tony Gwynn, Hank Greenburg.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Pick your top 10 hitters When I say this, I mean the ones with many hits and good batting averages. My top ten hitters:

1) Ty Cobb
2) Rogers Hornsby
3) Nap Lajoie
4) Ted Williams
5) Stan Musial
6) Tris Speaker
7) Honus Wagner
8) Pete Rose
9) Hank Aaron
10) Babe Ruth
Honarable Mentions: Paul Waner, Lou Gehrig, Willie Mays, Harry Heilman, Roberto Clemente, George Sisler, Tony Gwynn, Hank Greenburg.

Pete Rose higher than Babe Ruth? :faint:

[natsnsoxfan]

In roughly this order although not exactly

1)Nap Lajoie
2)Ty Cobb
3)Ted Williams
4)Roger Hornsby
5)Stan Musial
6)Honus Wagner
7)Babe Ruth
8)Hank Aaron
9)Pete Rose
10)Ichiro

[Bill Burgess]

I'm unclear as to the thread criteria. Are you asking us to rank high BA hitters, overall? Please be more specific, so we can all get on the same page.

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

I'm unclear as to the thread criteria. Are you asking us to rank high BA hitters, overall? Please be more specific, so we can all get on the same page.

BA and good hitters. Combine these two qualities. For example, Rose didn't hit a very good average(well, it was pretty good) but he did get the most hits. Nap Lajoie was great and would have gotten 3000(maybe 4000) hits had he played a longer career, but he didn't even though his BA is still great. Some people believ that if he had better speed, he would have batted .500.

Anyway, just combine the player's ability to get hits and hit for average. Then make the list of who can do this the best.

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

Pete Rose higher than Babe Ruth? :faint:

Now that I think about it, I should change it.
My new list is the same but the last three are:

8) Hank Aaron
9) Babe Ruth
10) Pete Rose

Thank-you HWR. I should have reviewed my list more precisley. Ruth was a better hitter than Rose.

[DoubleX]

Pick your top 10 hitters When I say this, I mean the ones with many hits and good batting averages. My top ten hitters:

1) Ty Cobb
2) Rogers Hornsby
3) Nap Lajoie
4) Ted Williams
5) Stan Musial
6) Tris Speaker
7) Honus Wagner
8) Pete Rose
9) Hank Aaron
10) Babe Ruth
Honarable Mentions: Paul Waner, Lou Gehrig, Willie Mays, Harry Heilman, Roberto Clemente, George Sisler, Tony Gwynn, Hank Greenburg.

If you're using BA as criteria, there really is no reason to leave out Tony Gwynn from the top 10. He has the highest BA relative to league since Ty Cobb. That is astounding and pretty much means that in terms of BA, Gwynn is the best hitter since Ty Cobb, and Gwynn did it amidst a higher level of competition. Rod Carew and Wade Boggs should also get mention.

[TRfromBR]

If you're using BA as criteria, there really is no reason to leave out Tony Gwynn from the top 10. He has the highest BA relative to league since Ty Cobb. That is astounding and pretty much means that in terms of BA, Gwynn is the best hitter since Ty Cobb, and Gwynn did it amidst a higher level of competition. Rod Carew and Wade Boggs should also get mention.

Tony better than Teddy, Double X? Could you please explain what you mean by that?

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

If you're using BA as criteria, there really is no reason to leave out Tony Gwynn from the top 10. He has the highest BA relative to league since Ty Cobb. That is astounding and pretty much means that in terms of BA, Gwynn is the best hitter since Ty Cobb, and Gwynn did it amidst a higher level of competition. Rod Carew and Wade Boggs should also get mention.

I do tip my hat to Carew and Boggs. But i don't just use BA as criteria. It is ability to hit. Aaron batted a litttle over .300, but he has the third highest amount of hits (3771) so he is in my list.

[DoubleX]

Tony better than Teddy, Double X? Could you please explain what you mean by that?

If we're using just BA as the criteria here, Gwynn had a higher BA relative to league than Ted Williams. Gwynn hit .338 for his career when the adjusted league BA was .262. That gives Gwynn a +129 BA. Williams on the other hand hit .344 when the adjusted league average was a very healthy .277. That gives Williams a +124 BA. Thus Gwynn's BA was higher relative to league than Williams'.

Now I wouldn't say Gwynn was a better all around hitter, as Williams has that far and away and Williams is the only hitter, IMO that can legitimately challenge Ruth as greatest overall hitter ever; but the simple fact is that relative to league, Gwynn hit for a better BA than Williams. Moreover, no single player has hit higher relative to league than Gwynn since Ty Cobb. So if we're talking just about who is the best hitter for average all time, that is a conversation that must necessarily include Gwynn, IMO (though Williams would also be in the conversation).

[IrishEyes12]

These are the most remarkably stupid lists I have ever seen. None of you know anything about baseball.

Ruth HR-714, AVG.342, SLG-.690

Try to compare anyone else to his numbers. You can't. It is him and far and away, then everyone else a very distant second. The rest of your lists are wrong too.

1.Ruth
2.Williams
3.Cobb

[Chisox]

These are the most remarkably stupid lists I have ever seen. None of you know anything about baseball.

Ruth HR-714, AVG.342, SLG-.690

Try to compare anyone else to his numbers. You can't. It is him and far and away, then everyone else a very distant second. The rest of your lists are wrong too.

1.Ruth
2.Williams
3.Cobb
I really hope you are kidding. Either that or have no clue what the thread was about--the 10 best at collecting hits.

[yankeesfan8926]

1. Ty Cobb
2. Rogers Hornsby
3. Honus Wagner
4. Ted Williams
5. Tony Gwynn
6. Joe Jackson
7. Tris Speaker
8. Willie Keeler
9. Nap Lajoie
10. George Sisler

[BiggestYankeeFan_in_Memphis]

1. Ty Cobb
2. Rogers Hornsby
3. Honus Wagner
4. Ted Williams
5. Tony Gwynn
6. Joe Jackson
7. Tris Speaker
8. Willie Keeler
9. Nap Lajoie
10. George Sisler

Nuts you people are NUTS!!!!
1. Babe Ruth
2. Babe Ruth
3. Babe Ruth
4. Babe Ruth
5. Babe Ruth
6. Ted Williams
7. Ty Cobb
8. Lou Gerhig
9. Mickey Mantle
10.Honus Wagner

[BiggestYankeeFan_in_Memphis]

I really hope you are kidding. Either that or have no clue what the thread was about--the 10 best at collecting hits.

Collecting hits isn't sononymous with great hitter. Title of thread top 10 hitters;
with your mention of hits, A HR is still a hit.

[yankeesfan8926]

Collecting hits isn't sononymous with great hitter. Title of thread top 10 hitters;
with your mention of hits, A HR is still a hit.

Hitting a bunch of HR's doesn't make you one of the best pure hitters in baseball history. Every man on my list could hit anything, singles, doubles, triples ... AND average. That's what makes a Top 10 hitter of all time.

[Chisox]

Collecting hits isn't sononymous with great hitter. Title of thread top 10 hitters;
with your mention of hits, A HR is still a hit.
From the first post:


Pick your top 10 hitters When I say this, I mean the ones with many hits and good batting averages.:waving
Reading ALL the post is a good thing.

[Agent001]

Cobb
Hornsby
Williams
Lajoie
Speaker
Ruth
Wagner
Aaron
Gehrig
Rose