Best Hitters of all-time?

[Myankee4life]

We haven't had one of these in a while so lets see

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




* Steroid Cloud

[History Of Baseball Fan]

better make it just major league players, or else we'll have some stupid flame war over negro league players and white players...lol.

and bonds probably took steroids. ever since mcguire hit 70 HR in 1998, its funny how everyone started hitting 50 + HR since then.

mcguire, bonds and probably sosa took steroids. sosa also used a corked bat.

[julusnc]

Top 20 All-Time Batting Average
1. Ty Cobb .3664
2. Rogers Hornsby .3585
3. Joe Jackson .3558
4. Lefty O'Doul .3493
5. Ed Delahanty .3459
6. Tris Speaker .3447
7. Ted Williams .3444
8. Billy Hamilton .3443
9. Dan Brouthers .3421
Babe Ruth .3421
11. Dave Orr .3420
12. Harry Heilmann .3416
13. Pete Browning .3415
14. Willie Keeler+ .3413
15. Bill Terry .3412
16. George Sisler .3402
17. Lou Gehrig .3401
18. Jake Stenzel .3386
19. Jesse Burkett .3384
20. Tony Gwynn .3382

Top 20 All-Time Slugging Percentage
1. Babe Ruth .6897
2. Ted Williams .6338
3. Lou Gehrig .6324
4. Albert Pujols .6208
5. Barry Bonds .6109
6. Jimmie Foxx .6093
7. Todd Helton .6072
8. Hank Greenberg .6050
9. Manny Ramirez .5988
10. Mark McGwire .5882
11. Vladimir Guerrero .5865
12. Joe DiMaggio .5788
13. Alex Rodriguez .5772
14. Rogers Hornsby .5765
15. Frank Thomas .5677
16. Larry Walker .5652
17. Albert Belle .5638
18. Jim Thome .5621
19. Johnny Mize .5620
20. Ken Griffey .5609

Top 20 All-Time Homeruns
1. Hank Aaron 755
2. Babe Ruth 714
3. Barry Bonds 708
4. Willie Mays 660
5. Sammy Sosa 588
6. Frank Robinson 586
7. Mark McGwire 583
8. Harmon Killebrew 573
9. Rafael Palmeiro 569
10. Reggie Jackson 563
11. Mike Schmid 548
12. Ken Griffey 536
Mickey Mantle 536
14. Jimmie Foxx 534
15. Willie McCovey 521
Ted Williams+ 521
17. Ernie Banks 512
Eddie Mathews 512
19. Mel Ott 511
20.Eddie Murray 504

Top 20 All-Time Hits
1. Pete Rose 4256
2. Ty Cobb 4189
3. Hank Aaron 3771
4. Stan Musial 3630
5. Tris Speaker 3514
6. Carl Yastrzemski 3419
7. Cap Anson 3418 R
8. Honus Wagner 3415
9. Paul Molitor 3319 R
10. Eddie Collins 3315
11. Willie Mays 3283
12. Eddie Murray 3255
13. Nap Lajoie 3242
14. Cal Ripken 3184
15. George Brett 3154
16. Paul Waner 3152
17. Robin Yount 3142
18. Tony Gwynn 3141
19. Dave Winfield 3110
20. Rickey Henderson 3055

Top 20 All-Time On Base Percentage
1. Ted Williams .4817
2. Babe Ruth .4739
3. John McGraw .4657
4. Billy Hamilton .4552
5. Lou Gehri .4474
6. Barry Bond .4424
7. Bill Joyce .4349
8. Rogers Hornsby .4337
9. Todd Helton .4331
10. Ty Cobb .4330
11. Jimmie Foxx .4283
12. Tris Speaker .4280
13. Frank Thomas .4270
14. Eddie Collins .4244
15. Ferris Fain .4241
16. Dan Brouthers .4233
17. Max Bishop .4227
Joe Jackson .4227
19. Mickey Mantle .4205
20. Mickey Cochrane .4192

Top 20 All-Time OPS
1. Babe Ruth 1.1636 L
2. Ted Williams 1.1155
3. Lou Gehrig 1.0798
4. Barry Bonds 1.0533
5. Todd Helton 1.0404
6. Jimmie Foxx 1.0376
7. Albert Pujols 1.0372
8. Hank Greenberg 1.0169
9. Rogers Hornsby 1.0103
10. Manny Ramirez 1.0076
11. Frank Thomas .9947
12. Mark McGwire .9823
13. Mickey Mantle .9773
14. Joe DiMaggio .9771
Vladimir Guerrero .9771
16. Stan Musial .9757
17. Lance Berkman .9728
18. Jim Thome .9703
19. Larry Walker .9654
20. Alex Rodriguez .9625

[Myankee4life]

Top 20 All-Time Slugging Percentage
1. Babe Ruth .6897
2. Ted Williams .6338
3. Lou Gehrig .6324
4. Albert Pujols .6208


Woah, I never knew Pujols is 4th all-time in SLG%

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Ruth
Cobb
Williams
Gehrig
Wagner
Hornsby
Sh. Jackson
Aaron
Musial
Speaker


-- Any chance you could do a list of "relative" stats, or whatever would put deadballers' power numbers into perspective? Hardly fair to judge their power based on the All Time HR list. Same with hits, maybe we should list h/162 or somethin'. Just an idea.

[charlesblalack@yahoo.com]

1) Babe Ruth
2) Ted Williams
3) Barry Bonds
4) Ty Cobb
5) Rogers Hornsby
6) Lou Gehrig
7) Honus Wagner
8) Stan Musial
9) Frank Thomas
10) Mickey Mantle
Notables: Hank Aaron, Jimmie Foxx, Eddie Collins, Mike Schmidt, Tris Speaker

[538280]

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

[538280]

1) Babe Ruth
2) Ted Williams
3) Barry Bonds
4) Ty Cobb
5) Rogers Hornsby
6) Lou Gehrig
7) Honus Wagner
8) Stan Musial
9) Frank Thomas
10) Mickey Mantle
Notables: Hank Aaron, Jimmie Foxx, Eddie Collins, Mike Schmidt, Tris Speaker

Wagner really doesn't belong on that list. This is just about pure hitting, so the positional adjustment really shouldn't be factored in. When comparing him to the other best of all time, a 150 OPS+ in the 1900s leaves a bit to be desired.

Also, Eddie Collins as an honorable mention? Over Mays?

[Matthew C.]

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

[thenextsuperstar]

1. Ruth
2. Williams
3. Hornsby
4. Lou Gehrig
5. Joe Jackson
6. Foxx
7. Mantle
8. Stan Musial
9. Frank Thomas
10. Dan Brouthers/ Manny Ramirez

[leecemark]

1) Babe Ruth
2) Ted Williams
-------------gap
3) Mickey Mantle
4) Henry Aaron
5) Willie Mays
6) Rogers Hornsby
7) Ty Cobb
8) Joe DiMaggio
9) Frank Thomas
10) Dick Allen
--The last two don't make my top 50 players, but they sure could rake when they felt like it.
HM; Dan Brouthers, Joe Jackson, Lou Gehrig, Jimmie Foxx, Johnny Mize, Reggie Jackson, Mike Schmidt and Barry Bonds. Several of the HMs could easily bump the last 3.

[csh19792001]

1. Ruth
2. Williams
3. Hornsby
4. Lou Gehrig
5. Joe Jackson
6. Foxx
7. Mantle
8. Stan Musial
9. Frank Thomas
10. Dan Brouthers/ Manny Ramirez

This is a joke, right?

I'll allow a 13 year old kid to almost leave Ty Cobb off a list of top 10 greatest hitters, but I assume you're an adult with some historical/research background. This is silly, and I hope the indiscretion is the result of a typo.

[thenextsuperstar]

This is a joke, right?

I'll allow a 13 year old kid to almost leave Ty Cobb off a list of top 10 greatest hitters, but I assume you're an adult with some historical/research background. This is silly, and I hope the indiscretion is the result of a typo.


Actually it is typo he is suposed to be listed at number 8. my bad. I typed this pretty quick. Thomas, Manny, and Brouthers were supposed to be just at number 10.

I'll also take this time to note that list is just a quick ranking on players i consider to be the elite all time pure hitters. Bonds is left being left out on purpose. If look at the numbers before the using the "clear." he just misses the top group.

1. Ruth
2. Williams
3. Hornsby
4. Lou Gehrig
5. Joe Jackson
6. Foxx
7. Mantle
8. Ty Cobb
9. Stan Musial
10. Frank Thomas/ Dan Brouthers/ Manny Ramirez

[leecemark]

--Yeh, I 'm probably giving Allen too much credit for what he could have done, had he really applied himself. Great player in spite of wasting a huge chuck of his talent.

[Chisox]

I would rather not, but anyway. Including post-season,
01.Babe Ruth
02.Barry Bonds
03.Lou Gehrig
04.Hank Aaron
05.Ted Williams
06.Jimmie Foxx
07.Stan Musial
08.Willie Mays
09.Frank Robinson
10.Joe DiMaggio

My reason for leaving off Cobb, If he had made my top 10, I would have had him my #2 player ever. I don't, I have him #5, so considering it's his running and CF that push him ahead of others, I think outside of top 10 is justified. (Notice that they all combine power and pure-hitting, too.)

[leecemark]

--Ouch, Stan the Man is another omission from my list. Frank Robinson is also a worthy contender.

[pretorius]

1) Babe Ruth
2) Ted Williams
I agree with Leecemark when he inserts a gap here
3) Barry Bonds
4) Rogers Hornsby
5) Lou Gehrig
6) Ty Cobb
7) Stan Musial
8) Jimmie Foxx
9) Frank Thomas
10) Mickey Mantle/Hank Aaron/ Willie Mays tie........sue me:dance
11) Mel Ott
12) Harry Heilmann

This is incredibly hard to seperate mentally. Wagner is extremely close despite people protesting. Delahntly, Bill Terry, Johnny Mize, Hank Greenberg, Joe Dimaggio, The greatly despised George Sisler, Manny Ramirez are all in this list.

I do not count walks as a hitter thing. Everyone in my top 10 not only hit for high average but could slug......this includes Heilmann at 11.

When I think of hitter I think high average guy, high power guy. Your Killebrew/Boggs Hybrids.

[Brian McKenna]

1) Babe Ruth
2) Ted Williams
I agree with Leecemark when he inserts a gap here
3) Barry Bonds
4) Rogers Hornsby
5) Lou Gehrig
6) Stan Musial
7) Jimmie Foxx
8) Frank Thomas
9) Mickey Mantle/Hank Aaron/ Willie Mays tie........sue me:dance
10) Mel Ott over Harry Heilmann


I do not count walks as a hitter thing. .

a list without ty cobb should be sent straight to the recycle bin

what are walks? an umpire's thing??

[pretorius]

Actually I was saving Cobb and accidently omitted him. I will edit that post.

Walks do not factor into this. This is a specialty category. Who is the best hitter not greatest at getting on base. Or else Rickey Henderson would be top 3.

Walks are an umpire thing who do you think awards walks? Third base managers? Mascot's?

[The Catcher]

My first post, but here goes:

1) Babe Ruth by a wide margin

2) Ted Williams
3) Ty Cobb
4) Stan Musial
5) Willie Mays
6) Lou Gehrig
7) Hank Aaron
8) Rogers Hornsby
9) Joe Jackson
10) Joe DiMaggio

Perhaps Ichiro should be in there or George Sisler, but I think we have to consider how they were rated in their time, as well as how we view them now.

[runningshoes]

This is like deja vu all over again. :laugh

Babe Ruth
Ty Cobb
Ted Williams
Lou Gehrig
Jimmie Fox
Rogers Hornsby
Joe Jackson
Hank Aaron
Stan Musial
Willie Mays

Dishonourable mention: Barry Bonds.

Of course, we should scrap these lists and just recite from heart what Bill James tells us.

[runningshoes]

1) Babe Ruth by a wide margin

2) Ted Williams
3) Ty Cobb
4) Stan Musial
5) Willie Mays
6) Lou Gehrig
7) Hank Aaron
8) Rogers Hornsby
9) Joe Jackson
10) Joe DiMaggio

It's more like this:

Babe Ruth


Ty Cobb








The others.

I wouldn't be mentioning Ichiro in any all time top ten lists around here. You'll get yelled at. :laugh

BTW, welcome to BBF. :waving

[Wee Willie]

You're throwing Ted Williams into "the others" category? That's a knee-slapper.:laugh

[steveox]

Heres my top 5 Hitters.
1. Babe Ruth
2. Ted Williams
3. Hank Aaron
4. Frank Robinson
5. Mark McGwire

[thenextsuperstar]

Look at my rankings he is listed @ 8. Calm down big boy. I suppose i could have used "adroit," but would you have known the meaning?


good adj.
1) Worthy of respect; honorable
2) Of high quality
3) Being positive or desirable in nature


You are getting kind of wrapped up in semantics.
I case you have problem understaning the meaning of that word...

se·man·tics ( P ) Pronunciation Key n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
1) Linguistics. The study or science of meaning in language.
2) Linguistics. The study of relationships between signs and symbols and what they represent. Also called semasiology.
3) The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form: as in "We're basically agreed; let's not quibble over semantics."

[Captain Cold Nose]

Look at my rankings he is listed @ 8. Calm down big boy. I suppose i could have used "adroit," but would you have known the meaning?


good adj.
1) Worthy of respect; honorable
2) Of high quality
3) Being positive or desirable in nature


You are getting kind of wrapped up in semantics.
I case you have problem understaning the meaning of that word...

se·man·tics ( P ) Pronunciation Key n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
1) Linguistics. The study or science of meaning in language.
2) Linguistics. The study of relationships between signs and symbols and what they represent. Also called semasiology.
3) The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form: as in "We're basically agreed; let's not quibble over semantics."

Please drop the entirely disrespectful tone this thread is heading toward. While I can understand taking umbrage if someone questions the rationale behind your list, a personal attack, which I consider the above, is unnecessary and absolutely frowned upon here at Fever. You can dissect an argument without trying to dissect each other.

[Wee Willie]

Heres my top 5 Hitters.
1. Babe Ruth
2. Ted Williams
3. Hank Aaron
4. Frank Robinson
5. Mark McGwire
Outside of Ruth and Williams, Aaron is the only one who might have a case for top 5. Frank Robinson wasn't as good a hitter as Willie Mays. And how can you possibly put a steriod-enhanced Mark McGwire in the top 5? Even if his late-1990's numbers were completely legit, he still wouldn't be a top-10 hitter, let alone top-5. If McGwire is #5, then Barry Bonds should be #1.

[csh19792001]

Bill, I never said Dick Allen was a better hitter than Cobb. I said it was close. It is close.


I seriously can't believe you consider yourself a die hard.

I can't believe how little you actually know about baseball history.

And you wonder why people from all angles constantly chide you for your outlandish opinions and utter bravado in presenting them. You've comfortably replaced ElHalo here as the resident staunch poster sans any credibility and lacking any actual historical knowledge.

[Wee Willie]

1. Babe Ruth
2. Ted Williams
3. Lou Gehrig
4. Ty Cobb
5. Barry Bonds
6. Mickey Mantle
7. Rogers Hornsby
8. Stan Musial
9. Willie Mays
10. Hank Aaron

[History Of Baseball Fan]

Not a great endrossment of Cobb as "the best hitter ever" which is what we are trying to measure.

As a pure hitter there can be a case made for allen nearly as good cobb (not as a player but as a HITTER).

4,000 hits-what does this mean? That he had a lot of hits. Pete Rose has more hits but no one would put him any where near this conversation. It means that Ty bunt a lot (which he did) and then beat out the throws. Does that make him a great hitter? Only if you want to say Joey Gathwright will be a great hitter.

2,000 runs- more of a measure of his team. Johnny Damon has had 100 runs every year since '98. Does that put him in the conversation?

900 stolen bases- this measures how good a base runner he was and has nothing to do with hitting.

Cobb was a good hitter, but he and Ruth both admitted Jackson was "the greatest natural hitter" they had ever seen.

Pete Rose had more hits than Cobb yes, but he had 14053 at bats.
Cobb only had 11434 at bats.

thats like 2500 more at bats than Cobb, and he had less than 100 hits more.

he was barely a career .300 hitter.

[History Of Baseball Fan]

Heres my top 5 Hitters.
1. Babe Ruth
2. Ted Williams
3. Hank Aaron
4. Frank Robinson
5. Mark McGwire

Mark McGuire, ha !

if you like steroid users....

every time i saw macguire play, he rather hit a HR, struck out, or walked... i wouldn't put him in the 10.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I seriously can't believe you consider yourself a die hard.

I can't believe how little you actually know about baseball history.

And you wonder why people from all angles constantly chide you for your outlandish opinions and utter bravado in presenting them. You've comfortably replaced ElHalo here as the resident staunch poster sans any credibility and lacking any actual historical knowledge.

And how were you when you were 13, Chris?

While I will agree the comment about Cobb and Allen is, well, out there, instead of shooting down him, why not educate him. Discourse. In a lot of ways Allen has been underrated through history because of his surly reputation, and, thusly, he has been overrated in certain circles because he had such a wealth of talent and could deliver when he wanted to, even though it wasn't for consistent periods.

There is not a single poster here who has all the answers and whose view on things is flawless. None. Everyone has their pet theories, and when someone comes out with one that doesn't match your own, there is no need to turn into a schoolyard bully. Baseball Fever has set itself apart from all other baseball sites because the setup and intelligence of the board allows for people to respect and be respected. Please, everyone, don't take yourself so seriously that you can't post anything in response to somebody else without the bitter bite of bile behind it.

[Wee Willie]

My reason for leaving off Cobb, If he had made my top 10, I would have had him my #2 player ever. I don't, I have him #5, so considering it's his running and CF that push him ahead of others, I think outside of top 10 is justified. (Notice that they all combine power and pure-hitting, too.)
I've had Cobb as low as #5 once - but I've never had him lower than 6th as a hitter. Cobb's #1 strength is easily his hitting - not his running (his second strength), and certainly not his CF play. He was slightly above average in the field. Furthermore, Cobb also combined power and contact hitting - mainly in the form of doubles and triples in the dead-ball era. Cobb to me was easily a top-10 hitter, or else he wouldn't be a top-5 player.

[pretorius]

I consider the steroid discredit as being obsolete unless player is caught (Palmeiro) admits it (Canseco, Giambi, Caminitti) or who more or less admits it (McGwire refusing to give answers during congressional testimony.) or is outed by another player through first hand knowledge....possibly Bret Boone.

In regards to Bonds I heard stories in which his off season training regimen was so hard that Sheffield had to quit training with him after 1 day.

Bonds was by far the best player in baseball before the time when people accused him of taking roids.

His buildup in bulk has been gradual more so then explosive.

When he came back this year for that limited time we know he tested clean and in his first AB despite the lay-off and at his age was 2 inches away from a home run. He was still smashing balls at disgusting Home Run to AB rates.

I think it is quite possible that he combined his knowledge with his talent. I have never heard of another alleged steroid user start winning batting titles.

Roids do not make you significantly better then anyone in baseball. They do not make you the most patient hitter in baseball. Anyone who has watched Bonds has seen his swing selection as his AB's have improved over the years. Roids do not make you more patient.

I find it highly unlikely that he used steroids from 1998-to current. That type of cycle would do visible harm to someone's body and temperment. Barry's attitude has not changed since 1986. Aaron did not begin to break down with the bat until he was 40. Babe Ruth until 38-39 despite abusing himself like he did. Williams batted 388 at 38 and cracked 29 HR's and batted 316 in his final season at the age of 41 in only 113 games. Great players can play at extremely high levels that late in their career.

He started doing things that no one else could do and people had to put a steroid blanket around it to feel good as they slept at night. In 1993 he had a 47 WS season in 2002 49 WS and in 2003 39. He has always had those monster year capabilities in him.

If he took roids...I mean does that mean he is only 2 times better then anyone else instead of 3 times?

Babe Ruth was known to have corked his bats. That is altering equipment to improve power.

Despite that I am not defending Bonds. He had less then great affiliations (so did lance Armstronh and Lance was tested like a lab rat) b ut I do not understand why he is the focal point after players I deem morel likely to have juiced Sosa, Luis Gonzalez, Giambi, Jeff Bagwell, Mike Piazza to have more significant declines in numbers and health in the 2000's despite not being 40 like Bonds. Those guys numbers had drops as steroid allegation loomed over head as they have been throughout the 2000's....yet Bonds have not.

I do not assume guilt or prolonged steroid abuse by Bonds. He has been the best player in baseball for over a decade.

[538280]

I seriously can't believe you consider yourself a die hard.

I can't believe how little you actually know about baseball history.

And you wonder why people from all angles constantly chide you for your outlandish opinions and utter bravado in presenting them. You've comfortably replaced ElHalo here as the resident staunch poster sans any credibility and lacking any actual historical knowledge.

Thank you for your great insight. I appreciate comments like this. It helps this thread tremendously. :angry

Do you really think I lack any knowledge of baseball history?

I don't care the supposed greatness of Ty Cobb, and the great accounts about his hitting. While they were at their respective bests, Dick Allen was almost the equal of Cobb. Allen has very similar career rate stats, but that can obviously be discounted because of Cobb's longer career. But, Allen also played in a much, much, much stronger league.

Cobb was much more celebrated, definitely. But, the celebration around Cobb over Allen as hitters is mostly because Cobb played in a very weak league that allowed him to post seemingly superhuman relative stats, and Allen was always downplayed because of his attitude. Denying that it is close is lying to the statistical evidence:

OPS+
Cobb-167
Allen-156
(Cobb is ahead, but look at the single season leaderboard for all relative stats and see all the players from Cobb's era. Allen deserves a bit of a downplay because of the shorter career, but also deserves a big upgrade for league quality. What does this all equate to? Exactly what I said, Cobb is ahead, but it is close.)

EqA
Cobb-.323
Allen-.321
(Based on just the EqA, Cobb would move a few more points ahead because of his career length. But, I think there are reasons to believe that they are closer. From what I understand, BP's thinks quality of play has gone consistently up over the years, and they apply that to their stats. I think it was probably like that until the 1980s, when the game I think went down, because of other sports, declining black interest, and other factors. So, it is reasonable for me to adjust Allen's EqA up because I think he played in one of the strongest times for baseball. Also, EqA includes baserunning in their equation, which Cobb was tremendous at. But, this is about them as hitters only, so we can adjust Cobb down a bit for that as well. Again, this equates to a slight lead for Cobb.)

I'm not saying Allen was better than Cobb, but denying that it is close is ignoring statistical evidence or not making the proper league quality adjustments.

Chris, why not instead of insulting me just try to prove me wrong?

[plask_stirlac]

Ruth
Williams
Hornsby
Gehrig
Bonds
Foxx
Cobb
Musial
Jackson
Dimaggio

Did someone say stop at 10? Well, then probably Big Hurt and Manny, then Aaron, Ott, and Mays.

[Barnstormer]

Did someone say stop at 10? Well, then probably Big Hurt and Manny, then Aaron, Ott, and Mays.

All better than Dimaggio

[History Of Baseball Fan]

Thank you for your great insight. I appreciate comments like this. It helps this thread tremendously. :angry

Do you really think I lack any knowledge of baseball history?

dick allen only hit over .300 7 times. only had 1 season over 200 hits. hit less than .300 for his career....

those stats alone are wayyyyyyyyyyy below Cobb's.. :rolleyes:

[plask_stirlac]

dick allen only hit over .300 7 times. only had 1 season over 200 hits. hit less than .300 for his career....

those stats alone are wayyyyyyyyyyy below Cobb's.. :rolleyes:

And don't even get me started on their bunting... :rolleyes:

[csh19792001]

Chris, why not instead of insulting me just try to prove me wrong?

Because you've proven unworthy of all that time and effort again and again, and I'm a very busy person (grad student and full time placement) without that kind of extensive time to waste.

[yanks0714]

Mark McGuire, ha !

if you like steroid users....

every time i saw macguire play, he rather hit a HR, struck out, or walked... i wouldn't put him in the 10.


Well, how about Mark McGuire????

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Babe Ruth was known to have corked his bats. That is altering equipment to improve power.


Instead of throwing bullcrap out there, you should educate yourself on certain issues. This is utter nonsense. If you want to prop Bonds up and make a case for him, fine; but don't make stuff up.


edit: Sorry for the original language, but I've absolutely had it with this BS about corking a bat. Someone hears a rumor, or reads Mr. James uneducated account in his abstract, and takes it for fact. I don't understand why supporting Bonds immediately has to mean bashing Ruth, especially when using false ammo to do that bashing.

[leecemark]

--Yes we all know the Babe had way to much respect for the rules to have possibly cheated:rolleyes: :laugh .

[steveox]

Frank Robinson was a very Dangerous power hitter can hit the ball futher than Hank Aaron or Ted Willams could.Babe Ruth hit the ball 550 feet one time.Frank Robinson drove the ball out completely out of memorial stadium in one game.Frank Robinson put on a massive batting pratice shows like ruth and mark mcquire did.Babe Ruth hit almost everyball into the bleechers during his batting practice sessions.You realize Ruth,Frank Robinson,And Mark McGwire drew 25,000 fans early to watch BP? Nomaly during BP only 5000 show up during BP. Oakland A`s fans dont show up at the coliseum until 30 minutes before game starts.But when mark McGwire was an Oakland A`s player he drew 7,000 fans at the coliseum during BP.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--Yes we all know the Babe had way to much respect for the rules to have possibly cheated:rolleyes: :laugh .

Granted, he didn't take kindly to authority, however this cork bat BS is exactly that. Hope you're wearing a parachute after makin' that leap.

[Wee Willie]

Frank Robinson was a very Dangerous power hitter can hit the ball futher than Hank Aaron or Ted Willams could.Babe Ruth hit the ball 550 feet one time.
That's nice and all - but those aren't really compelling reasons why they should be in the top 5. Dave Kingman could probably hit the ball farther than Frank Robinson. Harmon Killebrew could probably hit it farther than Hank Aaron. Baseball games aren't won/lost in batting practice.

[steveox]

But BP is a show.In today baseball ticket prices are outrages high! you need more for your money then besides going to the game.I want a player to show off his skills during BP.Its not worth $35 just for 2 in a half hours for $35 you better give me more than 3 hours of entertainment.

[Wee Willie]

But BP is a show.In today baseball ticket prices are outrages high! you need more for your money then besides going to the game.I want a player to show off his skills during BP.Its not worth $35 just for 2 in a half hours for $35 you better give me more than 3 hours of entertainment.
That's certainly an interesting way to look at it. I saw a lot of Rangers games, and Royce Clayton would always impress me more than anyone when he was with them.

[Joltin' Joe]

The Legend of Babe & the Corked Bat.

I think it is possible that Babe might had experimented with a corked bat once or twice. Maybe in batting practice or in exhibition. Possibly even in a game or two. If he ever did, I'm sure it was very short lived.

The fact of the matter is there is no physical advantage to using a corked bat for a Homerun hitter. There may be some psychological advantage from gaining confidence. Yeah Babe really needed a confidence booster....:rolleyes:

As for physical advantage....

1. A corked bat has slightly less mass. Maybe 1-2 ounces. The center of mass is shifted closer to the handle. This makes the bat easier to swing. This also increases bat speed. The increased bat speed increases the batted ball speed.

2. The lowered mass which contributes to the slight increase in the bat speed also lowers the collision mass, hence reducing the batted ball speed.

3. So does the increase in batted ball speed from #1 overcome the reduction in batted ball speed from #2? Or vice versa? Without getting into a super complicated physics lecture, the answer is that they basically cancel each other out. There is no advantage in how far a ball travels from a corked bat.

4. So does a corked bat help any kind of a hitter? It does not help a hitter like Ruth but it probably would help a hitter like Cobb or Ichiro. A contact type of hitter. There is no scientific proof that it will help you hit more homeruns but the slight increase in bat speed would allow guys like Ichiro and Cobb to be able to watch the ball travel about 6 feet more before commiting to a pitch.

5. Actually the advantage described above and in #1 can just as easily(and legally) be achieved by choking up on the bat. :rolleyes:

6. Back to Babe....We all know he swung a big stick. Like 50 ounces or something. He obviously valued collision mass way over slight increase in bat speed. If you watch footages of the Babe hitting, you will notice that his bat speed is not lightening quick(how could it, with a 50 ounce bat), but upon inpact with the bat, the ball shoot out like a rocketship(due to the incredible collison mass generated by the super heavy lumber). It is the most amazing thing. I have never seen such lightening fast batted ball speed in relation to a relatively slow bat speed.
Babe definitely did not subscribe to the school of increasing bat speed at the expense of collision mass.
So why in the world would Babe use a corked bat??:confused:

[Bill Burgess]

Bill, I never said Dick Allen was a better hitter than Cobb. I said it was close. It is close.

Bill, maybe you shouldn't have any credibility with me either for rating Herman Long over Barry Larkin.

Alright Chris. We are drifting further apart as we go along.

I showed you that Herman Long was a top 10 hitter in his day, and the finest defensive SS of his era. So what's the problem?

[steveox]

If i built a time machine head back to 1927 id try out for the Philadelphia A`s and bring my corked bats with me show connie mack what i can do and then we could beat the yankees!

[leecemark]

--Bill, a few scattered appearances amoung the top 10 do not make you a "top 10 hitter" of your time. I'd wager most observers of the time would have named alot more than 10 names before getting to Long when discussing the best hitters in the game. He was actually below average for his career and ranks a lofty 298th in Grey Ink.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

The Legend of Babe & the Corked Bat.

I think it is possible that Babe might had experimented with a corked bat once or twice. Maybe in batting practice or in exhibition. Possibly even in a game or two. If he ever did, I'm sure it was very short lived.

He wouldn't, thats the point. Thanks for writing out the physics of it all, saves me the time. The accuser probably didn't know that corking does not help hit home runs, it only lightens the bat for greater contact and bat control. Ruth's 48 -52 ounce bats would be lightened by a couple ounces, but like you explained, he would lose barrel mass. The bat still would be heavy without the mass. Makes no sense.

To your point; I agree that during exhibitions, batting practice and just fooling around; that not only Ruth, but most players experimented with bats. Who wouldn't with all those long train rides and long afternoons at the ballpark. Ruth didn't use a corked bat during a league game. He messed with a bat during an exhibition game, and tried to give it to Gehrig. It was so obviously messed with though, that Gehrig laughed and turned it down. The only other incident I can think of is this: I'll paste from another post I made:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth always used the same dark ash wood bat. He carried it on and off the field himself, never allowing anyone, not even the batboys touch it.

One day when Harry Hooper asked Ruth to lend him a bat once he was through with it, Ruth replied, "I will like hell. I'll keep this baby as long as I live."

A few weeks later though, Ruth's little baby cracked. After the game he tried repairing it with a hammer, tiny nails, and some tape. He continued to use it, and a few days later he was called out on a third strike. Babe wasn't too happy about the call, and slammed the bat against the ground, breaking it for good.

Babe turned and walked toward the dugout, still angry from the call. Hooper was right there to once again ask about the bat.

"Babe, how about that bat?" he asked.

"Take the son of a bitch. I don't want to see it as long as I live!" Ruth said.

Hooper took the bat, and proved he had a sense of history. He later donated the bat to the National Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This subject shouldn't have even been brought up, its a shame to waste any time or energy on it. But it pisses me off when someone throws in a little sniper comment in the midst of their post, which is just plain false. Cheap attempt/throwin' crap against the wall; nothin' stuck, it all slid right down on your forehead.

[Bill Burgess]

--Bill, a few scattered appearances amoung the top 10 do not make you a "top 10 hitter" of your time. I'd wager most observers of the time would have named alot more than 10 names before getting to Long when discussing the best hitters in the game. He was actually below average for his career and ranks a lofty 298th in Grey Ink.

Mark,

His top 10 hitting marks were not few, they were many. And being thought of as a "top 10" hitter does not imply that there were only 10 better hitters in your league. If a hitter can finish in the top 10 in offensive categories that is enough to be a "top 10" hitter.

The best 10 hitters can not finish 1-10th in all the offensive categories. Just doesn't work that way.

[leecemark]

--To me calling somebody a top 10 hitter means he was one of the top 10 hitters in his league, not that he was amoung the 10 best in a few categories. Long was a slightly above average hitter in his best years and a below average hitter over the course of his career. If you were putting him on your honorable mention list I could see it, although not agree with it. Ranking him 5th all time is just crazy talk. There are 5 better SS playing right now.

[Bill Burgess]

Ranking him 5th all time is just crazy talk. There are 5 better SS playing right now.

That is your opinion. But we don't rank greatness that way. No one before Roger Bannister could break the 4 minute mile. Are all the guys today who do that and aren't among the top 20 milers today, better than all the champions before 1954?

Up to around 1930, Herman Long was considered one of the very greatest SS of all time. Second to Wagner, and Lloyd among those in the know.

Greater than Jennings, Wallace, Maranville, Glenn Wright, Tinker.

But it's alright. We use such different criteria to measure greatness that we will never come close to agreement. We can agree to disagree.

[leecemark]

--I didn't mean 5 in terms of they would be better then than Long (that would be more like 20 than 5). I mean 5 SS who have (or had) more value compared to their peers than Long did to his.
--To put Long ahead of Jennings, you have to really focus on career over peak because Hughie was a much greater player in their respective peaks (which were basically the same time). Davis and Dahlen were also contemporaries and had better peaks AND careers. Of the other SS you mention, I suppose it is remotely possible that Long's defensive edge over Wallace was big enough to make up Wallace's offensive edge. Tinker is comparable. Maranville I think was a greater defender, but was an even worse hitter (although his numbers are dragged down some by the length of his career). I'll give you Long over Wright, but don't see that as worth much. Wright isn't a top 50 SS.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Babe Ruth was known to have corked his bats. That is altering equipment to improve power.


This one came up in another thread on this board. I have to challenge anyone who can prove that Ruth used a corked bat, it never happened, Ruth using a corked bat, Ruth using such bat ( corked) when it was or was not against the rules.

What actually did take place, that in the 1923 season Ruth used the "Crawford Bat" over the period of a few weeks. This bat was used by others and was a laminated bat that there were no rules against at that time. I have the actual article that appeared in the New York Times. Ruth himself was surprised when informed by the commissioner that the bat was not to be used.

If you look at Ruth's numbers before 1923 and after you will see that he maintained the same high level in his offensive numbers.

In a game in 1927 Ruth hit two monster home runs just a little to the right of center field at Yankee Stadium 470 to 490 feet. The Cleveland catcher Luke Sewell pounced on Ruth's bat after the second home run believing no one could hit a ball that far with a legal bat, what he stated in a later inteview. He handed the bat to the ump demanded that it be looked over, Sewell even sniffed the bat looking for the smell of an adhesive. The ump could find nothing illegal.

I don't know everything about Ruth, but I have looked up all I could about him. I could be wrong, won't be the first or last time, can anyone prove he used a corked bat.

[leecemark]

--I don't know that anyone is saying Ruth's numbers were built on the use of a corked bat. I agree that corking will have little or no effect on a players success, but players often think it will help them and try it anyway. I don't think its outrageous to suggest Ruth may have tried an illegal bat (or bats). Whether he did or not really makes no difference in my ranking of him (#2 all time) or opinion of him (likeable, but totally amoral and irresponsible).

[SHOELESSJOE3]

--I don't think its outrageous to suggest Ruth may have tried an illegal bat (or bats).

It may not be outrageous but I think one should be able to prove that it took place. I would say the same if it were Aaron, Mantle, any hitter, why make an accusation that we never know of to happen. In that post it was specific, a corked bat.

[leecemark]

--There is, according to several sources, a corked bat belonging to Ruth at Cooperstown. Even Sultan has accepted that, but claims it was only used in exhibitons or batting practice. If a player has a corked bat, my assumption is that he used it. Could be wrong and I don't think its important either way, but the burden of proof I think is on those who say he couldn't/wouldn't have used a bat he altered in a game.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

--There is, according to several sources, a corked bat belonging to Ruth at Cooperstown. Even Sultan has accepted that, but claims it was only used in exhibitons or batting practice. If a player has a corked bat, my assumption is that he used it. Could be wrong and I don't think its important either way, but the burden of proof I think is on those who say he couldn't/wouldn't have used a bat he altered in a game.

Well, thats my next project, to find if there is a corked bat at the HOF that belonged to Babe Ruth. I have never seen it on my numerous trips to the HOF.

Not to say that it is not there, it may be there I could have missed it. I will find out.

Getting to your last paragraph I don't see it that way, for one to prove that something did not take place. How does one prove something did not take place, I see the burdon on any who did say an event did take place.

I also say I don't disagree with your closing in whole. I can't say with certainty that he would not or could not use altered bat. In fact I did say he used a laminated bat for a few weeks in 1923, used by others and not against the rules. My case is with use of a corked bat, stated by another poster.

[Chisox]

I've had Cobb as low as #5 once - but I've never had him lower than 6th as a hitter. Cobb's #1 strength is easily his hitting - not his running (his second strength), and certainly not his CF play. He was slightly above average in the field. Furthermore, Cobb also combined power and contact hitting - mainly in the form of doubles and triples in the dead-ball era. Cobb to me was easily a top-10 hitter, or else he wouldn't be a top-5 player.

So Cobb's not a better base-runner and more valuable defensively than the following:
Aaron, Foxx, Musial, Gehrig, Frank Robinson,
which would vault him higher as an all-around player?:confused: :confused: :confused:

[Captain Cold Nose]

Because you've proven unworthy of all that time and effort again and again, and I'm a very busy person (grad student and full time placement) without that kind of extensive time to waste.
Good luck with your studies, Chris. Perhaps you can learn how to get a personality while you earn your degree.

[runningshoes]

Yeah, wtf? Williams is a close second to Ruth (for best hitter it is, 1/1A).

Any reason we have to read wtf, from you?

What is it about this forum that gives you the impression that is acceptable behaviour?

[runningshoes]

You're throwing Ted Williams into "the others" category? That's a knee-slapper.:laugh

Yeah, it is pretty funny. I was being toungue-in-cheek. Didn't give it much thought. Williams is my favourite player.

[Wee Willie]

So Cobb's not a better base-runner and more valuable defensively than the following:
Aaron, Foxx, Musial, Gehrig, Frank Robinson,
which would vault him higher as an all-around player?:confused: :confused: :confused:
:confused: No, that's not what I'm saying. You can have Cobb in the top 10 in hitting and still have him behind guys such as Ruth, Mays, Wagner, and Williams. Like I said, I had him as low as 5th once. I had both Ruth and Williams as good enough hitters to offset Cobb's defensive value and baserunning performance. And I had Mays and Wagner as sufficiently better defensive players (with Mays getting a bump for being a more modern player). All I'm saying is, it's still quite logical to have Cobb in the top-5 overall and in the top-10 as a hitter.

[Chisox]

:confused: No, that's not what I'm saying. You can have Cobb in the top 10 in hitting and still have him behind guys such as Ruth, Mays, Wagner, and Williams. Like I said, I had him as low as 5th once. I had both Ruth and Williams as good enough hitters to offset Cobb's defensive value and baserunning performance. And I had Mays and Wagner as sufficiently better defensive players (with Mays getting a bump for being a more modern player). All I'm saying is, it's still quite logical to have Cobb in the top-5 overall and in the top-10 as a hitter.

And it isn't logical to have Cobb #5 (#4 position player), but have him just shy of a top ten hitter?

[Wee Willie]

And it isn't logical to have Cobb #5 (#4 position player), but have him just shy of a top ten hitter?
Possibly - I just think it's a bit of a stretch. For example, you have Cobb 2 slots ahead of Aaron, overall, but you've got Aaron as a #4 hitter (ahead of Ted Williams). If he's at least 7 spots ahead of Cobb in hitting, and was a better hitter than Ted Williams (according to you) - it seems to me Aaron should be ahead of Cobb overall. Aaron was a very good fielder and baserunner - sufficiently good enough, in my mind such that Cobb's advantage in baserunning and slight advantage in the field can't make up for Aaron's hitting lead.

I think Mays and Wagner are the only 2 guys that I can see being outside the top 10 in hitting - yet remain in the top 5 as overall players.

[The Big C]

1: Babe Ruth
2: Ted Williams
3: Ty Cobb
4: Willie Mays
5: Lou Gehrig
6: Rogers Hornsby
7: Hank Aaron
8: Jimmie Foxx
9: Stan Musial
10: Tony Gwynn

If this looks wrong or stupid in any way, feel free to let me know it. I just did it off the top of my head, and I tend to lose focus of historical perspective more than every once in awhile.

[mgervace]

ok, lets welcome me to the group...hope I can add some good quality baseball stuff....
top 10 hitters I'd want at the plate with the winning run @ 3rd and 2 down..

Statistically, the top 10 hitters, go by average, but who would you want to get that run in from 3rd....

These are tough calls, considering, historic players & current players but here goes....
In NO order mind you...

1) Manny Ramierez
2) Paul molitor
3) Reggie Jackson
4) Rod Carew
5) Ted Williams
6) Derek Jeter
7) Albert Pujols
8) Eddie Murray
9) Barry Bonds
10) George Brett

I should mention I'm 36..... timeline

[Bill Burgess]

mgervace,

You ARE a modern prince. But that's alright. Welcome to Fever, friend. Come, warm yourself by our campfire.

[mgervace]

Question to all:
What statistical book do you find most informative? Stats Inc, does a fine job on in depth stats, but where do you find the fun stuff.... like on Tuesday's, when the temp is 70-75 degrees, and it's a night game, with runners in scoring position, who's the best hitter? Stuff like that.....

or is this the stuff thats up to us, on doing "complete historical" research?


another example, who's fouled off the most consecutive pitchers.... I believe it's Alex Cora 2 years ago with the Dodgers.....It may have been 13-16 in a row...

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--There is, according to several sources, a corked bat belonging to Ruth at Cooperstown. Even Sultan has accepted that, but claims it was only used in exhibitons or batting practice.

The supposed bat at the hall of fame was donated by Harry Hooper. It was a favorite bat of Ruth's that cracked, so he used tiny nails and tape to repair it. He continued to use it, until finally cracking it against the ground. Then he gave it to Hooper.

The other issue that James describes in his abstract is a Louisville Slugger exhibit that claimed to have a bat of Ruth's. They don't know if it was even Ruth's, don't know if Ruth ever used it, and it wasn't corked. It was "made of multiple pieces of wood." Which does not mean corking. That would not help a hitter to have a bat of multiple pieces of wood.

The bottom line is that many players, not just Ruth, experimented from time to time with bats. Like Shoeless, I have read and researched all there is about Ruth, and have never heard of Ruth using a corked bat. Thats all there is to it. Like a few other Ruth relatated myths, a small incident was spiraled into a belief, and now people take it as fact. When in truth, he never used a corked bat.

[plask_stirlac]

All better than Dimaggio

I was going to change it anyway. Tried too hard to get non-Mantle hitters. He and Musial gave about the same if you just let them hit for 4 or 5 seasons, and were prett close. Mickey had more of an AL style and concentrated brilliance.

1 - Ruth
2 - Williams (could be argued for)
3 - Hornsby
4 - Gehrig
5 - Bonds
6 - Cobb
7 - Foxx
8 - Jackson
9 - Musial
10 - Mantle

Speaker's probably next best, actually. 158 OPS+ is awesome, played great into his late 30's, unlike Thomas, DiMaggio, etc.

It might work out like this, but not as perfect
Hurt and Manny, peak advantage against more outstanding production that sustained
Willie and Hank, same
DiMaggio and Ott, perhaps

[Bill Burgess]

Since I arrived at Fever in Oct., 2003, most members have suggested that Babe Ruth & Ted Williams represent the cream elite of hitters.

I have preferred Ty Cobb, while certain others like Hornsby, Bonds, Mantle, and Gehrig.

I doubt any of these historic debates will ever be resolved. Maybe they shouldn't be resolved but enjoyed for the fun they give us.

The stat community believes that they can "prove" their point with numbers. But they will not prove anything simply because we won't allow them to. We have free will and don't need to believe them.

These debates remind me of similar debates in chess. Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine were the original Big Three, joined later by Fischer and Kasparov.

Those debates will never be settled either.

It's like the subjective question, who gives you more pleasure? Beethoven, Shakespeare or Michaelangelo? Settling any of these cool debates would take too much fun out of living.

[Chisox]

And it isn't logical to have Cobb #5 (#4 position player), but have him just shy of a top ten hitter?

I obviously place more emphasis on defense than you (and most here, I've noticed). I also consider Cobb to be horrifically under-rated defensively here (but over-rated offensively). Cobb ranks #7 all-time in my offensive ratings with 70.76. Aaron ranks 5th all-time with 73.89. These are using raw stats, so factoring in the positional adjustments and dead-ball adjustments, Cobb comes out slightly ahead. I know very well of Aaron's defense, as when I first got here nearly five years ago, I touted Aaron better than Ruth as a result of it. I have since changed my mind dramatically with new rating formulas, but it's why he ranks ahead of Williams despite a 76.67 - 73.89 deficit and would beat Gehrig, despite a 79.64 - 73.89 deficit, if Gehrig hadn't had his post-season career.

[538280]

Since I arrived at Fever in Oct., 2003, most members have suggested that Babe Ruth & Ted Williams represent the cream elite of hitters.

I have preferred Ty Cobb, while certain others like Hornsby, Bonds, Mantle, and Gehrig.


Bill, I've said this many, many times, mostly to no avail. I'll give it one more shot, just because that post you just made reminded me of the issue.

It is my opinion that most of the people here who support Ty Cobb as their #1 player don't do it because of Cobb's actual skills, stats, or what he actually did. They support him because of what he represents. Deadball baseball, small ball, stealing bases, speed as a very important part of the game. We have many members here, yourself included Bill, who seem to like that style.

It also seems all those are the people who rate Cobb #1 all time. They're not doing it because of Cobb himself, but more because of what he represents. I don't even know if they realize they're doing it. It's just a bias within them.

You, Bill, like to show us results of various surveys of baseball men that showed Cobb being the #1 player of all time. Almost all of those surveys were done prior to 1950, because after that Ruth seemed to carry the polls.

Well, there's a reason for that, I think. It's because, before 1950 the people voting grew up with deadball baseball. It's the kind of baseball they knew from a young age, and most of them probably preferred it to the live ball, just because it's what they were brought up with. Well, rather than support Ruth, the live ball king, they supported Cobb. Even though the numbers didn't support it, they wanted to go with Cobb because of all the things he stood for, not because of Cobb the player, who was certainly behind the Babe.

Those are my thoughts. I think Cobb's supporters like what Cobb represents, not what he himself actually brings to the table. They may say that they don't, but I think even though they don't realize it, the bias is working inside them. Those are just my thoughts.

[Wee Willie]

I obviously place more emphasis on defense than you (and most here, I've noticed). I'm not so sure about that. I've got Wagner, Speaker, and Collins higher than you have them. My #1 2B is higher than your #1. I don't have Gehrig or Foxx nearly as high as you do. My reasoning in ranking Williams, Hornsby, and Mantle higher than you has more to do with me factoring in peak performance/WWII credit than me emphasizing hitting more. I'm not saying I value defense more than you - I just think we differ mainly on how much positional adjustment to give.

I also consider Cobb to be horrifically under-rated defensively here (but over-rated offensively). Cobb ranks #7 all-time in my offensive ratings with 70.76. Aaron ranks 5th all-time with 73.89. These are using raw stats, so factoring in the positional adjustments and dead-ball adjustments, Cobb comes out slightly ahead.
That's another area in which we differ. Using raw stats, a lively ball player tends to look much better offensively than a deadball-era player. I emphasize relative stats more because they are a better indicator of dominance above peers. Then I adjust for league quality - which will benefit more modern players. And if you're making any dead-ball adjustments for offense - they must not be very large if Cobb is not only behind Aaron, but behind Frank Robinson as a hitter. If Cobb and Aaron performed equally at their respective positions, then Cobb's positional adjustment would put him squarely above Aaron. But since I believe Aaron was a better RF than Cobb was a CF, much of Cobb's advantage gained through positional adjustment is lost.

[Bill Burgess]

It is my opinion that most of the people here who support Ty Cobb as their #1 player don't do it because of Cobb's actual skills, stats, or what he actually did. They support him because of what he represents. Deadball baseball, small ball, stealing bases, speed as a very important part of the game. We have many members here, yourself included Bill, who seem to like that style.

I can go along with this line of thought. Cobb is a symbol to me and as such, he has more value to me than Babe, Mickey, Willie, Barry.

But the argument is a 2 edged sword, Chris. It cuts both ways. Are you ready to admit that Babe, Willie or Oscar are also symbols to their fans?

There are folks here who have had the chutzpah to call dead ball baseball, "quaint", baseball's formative years. And that how a player would perform in deadball conditions isn't relevant. Baseball hasn't been played that way in 85 years, so why should anyone care if we send a player back then to see how they'd do.

And some of your analysis is flawed. I have broken down the 250 Cobb supporters, and it falls into 3 groups.

1. Pre-1900 persons who switched to Ty over their early heros.
2. Ty's own peers, 1906-1920.
2. Ty's liveball supporters.

Many like Fred Lieb, Shirley Povich, Casey Stengel were involved long into the liveball era. Lieb until 1978, Povich until 1998, and Stengel until 1975.

These men were not emotionally-crippled so that they couldn't appreciate liveball baseball. Even Connie Mack managed long into the liveball, 1920-50. He was able to successfully value modern players. So was Hornsby.

So your nice theory, while logical/rational, is not sufficient to discredit the Cobb Consensus. I will try to find my old post to give the numerical breakdowns.

So, while Cobb might be a symbol of something they liked, they were not so disabled mentally that they supported Cobb blindly. If that were true, they would have stocked their all time teams with exclusively early players, which we know they did NOT do. And for the record - the Cobb Consensus LOVED Babe Ruth. Sisler, Collins, Stengel, Hornsby, Cochrane, Mack, etc. All put Babe on their all time teams, and lauded him to the skies.

Now - the sword cuts your way. Just how prejudiced are you, Chris, against deadball, pre-1900 ball? Can you even imagine a deadball game?

How many here dismiss Ty Cobb as a player who dominated a league of inferior players, is irrelevant to our discussions, and probably couldn't dazzle anyone anymore, and probably couldn't then, if his league was any good.

Every argument you cited here, also applies to the Babe/Willie supporters.

Bill

[Bill Burgess]

It is my opinion that most of the people here who support Ty Cobb as their #1 player don't do it because of Cobb's actual skills, stats, or what he actually did. They support him because of what he represents. Deadball baseball, small ball, stealing bases, speed as a very important part of the game. We have many members here, yourself included Bill, who seem to like that style.

It also seems all those are the people who rate Cobb #1 all time. They're not doing it because of Cobb himself, but more because of what he represents. I don't even know if they realize they're doing it. It's just a bias within them.

You, Bill, like to show us results of various surveys of baseball men that showed Cobb being the #1 player of all time. Almost all of those surveys were done prior to 1950, because after that Ruth seemed to carry the polls.

Well, there's a reason for that, I think. It's because, before 1950 the people voting grew up with deadball baseball. It's the kind of baseball they knew from a young age, and most of them probably preferred it to the live ball, just because it's what they were brought up with. Well, rather than support Ruth, the live ball king, they supported Cobb. Even though the numbers didn't support it, they wanted to go with Cobb because of all the things he stood for, not because of Cobb the player, who was certainly behind the Babe.

Those are my thoughts. I think Cobb's supporters like what Cobb represents, not what he himself actually brings to the table. They may say that they don't, but I think even though they don't realize it, the bias is working inside them. Those are just my thoughts.

I will try to break down the 250 prominent BB figures who comprise the "Cobb Consensus".

1. 1800's Players:
Many of the old timers were bowled over by the young Cobb's dashing, daring "crazy" running, that they switched from Ewing, Anson, Kelly, etc., and called Ty Cobb the greatest who ever lived. Those who fit into that category, we'll came them old-timers, were:

Tim Murnane, Same Crane, Frances Richter, Charles Comiskey, Cap Anson, Ned Hanlon, Chief Zimmer, Connine Mack, Jake Morse, Kid Gleason, Clark Griffith, Bill Dinneen, Tom Connelly, Cy Young, Wilbert Robinson, Hughie Jennings, George Stallings, Nick Altrock, John B. Sheridan, Jimmie McAleer, Bill Phelon, Arlie Latham, MacLean Kennedy, Ban Johnson, Edson Brewston Henry Edwards, Ernie Lanigan, Hugh Fullerton, Gordon Mackay, Fred Logan, Mike Kilroy, Billy Alvord, Bobby Lowe, Harry Davis, Al Maul.

All told that is 36 out of 250 Cobb supporters, or 14.4%.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Next, there were the late comers. Let's call them the later fans. They should have been Babe Ruth followers. Many of these Ty supporters, didn't even see Ty play in his prime, only as an older veteran, running on fumes. They had much more in common with the Babe, and the modern game. Ty was before their time.
Some of these supporters were:

Hornsby, Simmons, Grove, Cochrane, Jimmie Dykes, Bing Miller, Mule Haas, Riggs Stevenson, Ted Lyons, Fred Haney, Joe Sewell, Stan Coveleski, Max Bishop, Muddy Ruel, Heinie Manush, Swede Risberg, Johnny Neun, Joe Hauser, Sherrod Smith, Willie Kamm, Ossie Bluege, Luke Sewell, Babe Pinelli, Lefty Leifield, Al Schacht, John Bogart, Lefty Shaute, Art Shires, Charlie Root, Dick Spalding, Stan Baumgartner, Jim Bagby, Frank Shellenback,
Kiki Cuyler, Bill Terry, Bob Johnson, Floyd (Pep) Youngs, Babe Herman,

There were 39 players above, all of whom didn't start playing until 1917.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
And let's not forget the sports writers who began after 1917:

Harold M. Grayson, Frederic S. (Feg) Murray, William G. (Bill) Dooly, Edwin J. Pollock, Emmet T. (Red) Ormsby, Rufus Stanley Woodward, Martene Windsor (Bill) Corum, Samuel Saunders Greene, James Renwick (Jim) Harrison, Francis J. Powers, William Aloysius (Bill) McGowan, Arch Burdette Ward, Paul William Gallico, Rutherford (Rud) Rennie, C. William (Bill) Duncan, Albert D. (Dolly) Stark, Albert Benjamin (Happy) Chandler, Ward Morehouse, Gordon R. (Cobby) Cobbledick, Ivan Hugh (Cy) Peterman, Jack McDonald, Joseph J. Krueger, Jr., Russ Newland, Kenneth D. Smith, John Durant, Leonard Gettelson, Thomas Austin, Yawkey Thomas, William Meany, Thomas (Tommy) Holmes, Robert Eugene (Bob) Ray, James Thomas Farrell, Arthur John Daley, Herman Wecke, Frederick James Corcoran, Shirley Lewis Povich, John K. Hutchens, Prescott Lawrence, Sullivan Henry McLemore, Edwin M. Rumill, Bernard (Barney) Kremenko, Harold Seymour.

There are 44 sports writer above, all of whom should have gone with Babe Ruth, since he was the big new thing for them, presumably.

So when we total up the 3 groups, we arrive at:

36 (14.4%) = 1800's
39 (15.6%) = post 1917
44 (17.6%) = post 1917 sports writers
-----------
119 total (47.6%)

So, when almost half of your sample size, by your "bias principle", should have either stuck to their early formative yrs. era heroes, OR . . . dumped Ty and switched to the more glamorous, glorified Babe. But they didn't. They didn't.

What actually happened would have frustrated the form charts predictors. Almost all of the old-timers, switched to Ty, some took longer. Almost all of the newcomers, also studied Ty and and adopted Ty, not Babe as their idol.

So, I pray that this little breakdown, provides a permanent answer to the so-called "bias defense", once and for all.

So, in the end, we're left with 119 Ty Cobb supporters, who don't comply with the "bias defense", and 131 others who were appropriately "in awe", of Ty, and went to their deaths, insisting that Ty was the best there ever was.

Incidently, someone recently posted that Cobb's supporters mostly died 50 yrs. ago. This is inaccurate. Here is the breakdown of when TC's supporters died away.

1910's - 4
1920's - 6
1930's - 20
1940's - 26
1950's - 45
1960's - 59
1970's - 49
1980's - 24
1990's - 11

So, TC's supporters lasted a long time, and had the occasion/opportunity to see the sweep of BB's long history. Just in case there was any confusion. One of the recent delights, was in 1998, when Washington DC sports writer, Shirley Povich, who started in 1922, was arguing in his active column, against the BB's Century Team, that left off Ty. Shirley was saying how nuts it was to support Willie Mays over Ty. His final remark. "Get over it". Don't cha just love it.

Another aspect of the "Cobb Consensus" is that it is far from complete. I would dearly love to have a reasonably accurate estimate of how many baseball players played in the AL from 1906-28. I would think that most of those who saw TC play ball between 1909-18, would consider him the best, assuming they saw a great deal of his play. I doubt if I have found even half of the true sample size.

The 7 books that interviewed the players from that era, and the Sporting News could only interview so many players. Many, I'd imagine would just disappear, once their playing days were over. Finding them would have been no mean feat. But the sample size is less than half of what it really is. And I'd guess that the ratio of 80% supporting Cobb, 9% supporting Ruth, and 10% supporting Wagner, would only go up for Cobb.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your theory, which I also happen to subscribe to, only covers 36 people,
(14.4% of the total 250 supporters), the old-timers.

36 - 1800's supporters

131 - Ty's era

83 - post 1917, modern era.

So even if we discount the 36 1800's TC supporters, we are left with 83 people, 33.2% of the total consensus, who arrived upon the scene after Ty had exited his prime, the live ball was in full swing. Most of those 83 supporters, for the most part, missed out the deadball era. They would get over it, and had no particular loyalty to deadball era ball, or those who played it. Those guys includedf:

Hornsby, Simmons, Grove, Cochrane, Charlie Gehringer, Johnny Bassler, Jimmie Dykes, Bing Miller, Mule Haas, Riggs Stevenson, Ted Lyons, Fred Haney, Joe Sewell, Stan Coveleski, Max Bishop, Muddy Ruel, Heinie Manush, Swede Risberg, Johnny Neun, Joe Hauser, Sherrod Smith, Willie Kamm, Ossie Bluege, Luke Sewell, Babe Pinelli, Lefty Leifield, Al Schacht, John Bogart, Lefty Shaute, Art Shires, Charlie Root, Dick Spalding, Stan Baumgartner, Jim Bagby, Frank Shellenback, Kiki Cuyler, Bill Terry, Bob Johnson, Floyd (Pep) Youngs, Babe Herman. The above are 39 players, or 15.6% of the total.

And I also will NOT allow you to forget about the other 44 sports writers/ non-players, who include:

Harold M. Grayson, Frederic S. (Feg) Murray, William G. (Bill) Dooly, Edwin J. Pollock, Emmet T. (Red) Ormsby, Rufus Stanley Woodward, Martene Windsor (Bill) Corum, Samuel Saunders Greene, James Renwick (Jim) Harrison, Francis J. Powers, William Aloysius (Bill) McGowan, Arch Burdette Ward, Paul William Gallico, Rutherford (Rud) Rennie, C. William (Bill) Duncan, Albert D. (Dolly) Stark, Albert Benjamin (Happy) Chandler, Ward Morehouse, Gordon R. (Cobby) Cobbledick, Ivan Hugh (Cy) Peterman, Jack McDonald, Joseph J. Krueger, Jr., Russ Newland, Kenneth D. Smith, John Durant, Leonard Gettelson, Thomas Austin, Yawkey Thomas, William Meany, Thomas (Tommy) Holmes, Robert Eugene (Bob) Ray, James Thomas Farrell, Arthur John Daley, Herman Wecke, Frederick James Corcoran, Shirley Lewis Povich, John K. Hutchens, Prescott Lawrence, Sullivan Henry McLemore, Edwin M. Rumill, Bernard (Barney) Kremenko, Harold Seymour.

There are 44 sports writer above, all of whom should have gone with Babe Ruth, since he was the big new thing for them, presumably.

So why didn't all these players jump on the Babe bandwagon. After all, all they had was hearsay from the previous players when they arrived. And their own eyes see TC struggling along, and Babe blasting away. These were prime Babe fans. Babe was easy to like, right in front of their eyes.

And yet, all these modern players, all adopted Cobb as their idol. All he had was perfect skill mechanics, but not the speed with which to pull off his old tricks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, Chris. While logical, your theory doesn't answer why so many post 1920 BB figures called Cobb the best. You have failed, as usual, to address your toughest issues. You are without answer as to why such men as Tom Yawkey, Walter Briggs and Clark Griffith all called Ty Cobb the greatest. They played decades into the liveball era, and were intensely proud of their teams. They prided themselves on the quality of their post 1920 "product".

So until you can come up with more mature, sophisticated theories of why such men chose Ty Cobb, we must conclude that they simply thought that he was more skilled, rounded, dynamic, competitive, better, more amazing ballplayer than anyone else they ever saw. And collectively, they saw a lot.

I'm still open to any other theories. Ones that make a little more sense.

Bill Burgess

[Sultan_1895-1948]

There are those of us here who can and do appreciate both styles of play. There is beauty to be found in both. Why would someone sway too far toward one side, when both styles are what has made the game so great over the years.

To me, Babe doesn't signify any "slugging" approach in the Reggie Jackson sense of the word. He was much more than that.

Having said that, I think Cobb deserved and earned every ounce of adulation he got from fellow players/sportswriters. For some it might be a matter of preference, of style, but let's give people more credit than that. Don't we admire what Nolan did just as much as what Maddux has done. Different styles, yet both brilliant in their own ways.

[charlesblalack@yahoo.com]

1 - Ruth
2 - Williams (could be argued for)
3 - Hornsby
4 - Gehrig
5 - Bonds
6 - Cobb
7 - Foxx
8 - Jackson
9 - Musial
10 - Mantle


IMO that's the best list so far in this forum

[History Of Baseball Fan]

IMO that's the best list so far in this forum

i'd leave Bonds off of the lists untill we know if he took steroids or not.

[plask_stirlac]

I'm glad you like it, Charles.

Hmm. Bonds was a 361-343 guy in the 90's (1 of... 1, any career actually), had a low OBP of .389 in a 102 game 1999 season otherwise went above .400 each year even in lower-offense 90-92, his low OPS+ was 161 and high was 206. He was really incredible in years like 1992, 1997, etc. even if they don't stand out as much.

It's reasonable to assume he didn't start taking steroids after 1993 going into the infamous 1994 season or even the year before when he won MVP. This was the son of an All-Star, not a guy like Canseco trying to just increase his talent from hapless Ozzie, to an extent. 2000 he could have pelted it like many other players or maybe he had started using something after his 1999 injury. Now after 2000, it's either this close from unprecedented (well, maybe the records put it at the top) or it might not be quite as impressive as what others have done. Or both, with THAT many IBBs.

I don't think highly of his body armor. I guess if they allow it, but it's kind of a fault. Playing in an era with the jump these balls have is not so good, but he has played in pitcher's parks and dominated them thoroughly, so that evens things out a bit. Pitching is less of a factor, it could be sort of like the Braves where there were the best pitchers (Big 3, rest of the league would be like Kevin Brown and Jose Rijo in stretches), quality guys like Neagle and Millwood that helped (i.e. Reynolds, Benes, etc.), and down to the setup man found in Japan or the lefty specialist.

[Chisox]

I'm not so sure about that. I've got Wagner, Speaker, and Collins higher than you have them. My #1 2B is higher than your #1. I don't have Gehrig or Foxx nearly as high as you do. My reasoning in ranking Williams, Hornsby, and Mantle higher than you has more to do with me factoring in peak performance/WWII credit than me emphasizing hitting more. I'm not saying I value defense more than you - I just think we differ mainly on how much positional adjustment to give.
I think that's it.


That's another area in which we differ. Using raw stats, a lively ball player tends to look much better offensively than a deadball-era player. I emphasize relative stats more because they are a better indicator of dominance above peers.
This is where I have to disagree strongly. Using relative stats, guys like Cravath and Stovey come out equal (or better) HR hitters as guys like Bonds and Aaron. The game was far too different to accurately judge what players would do with the live-ball. I firmly believe that only a few would ever be considered power hitters without adjusting their style of hitting. I tend to think of deadball HRs as equal speed to power for most, just like triples. (I base this on the idea that most XBH were line-drives and not hard flys. I need data for that, though. In other words, power hitters were swinging to the fences, not over them.) I used this in reason against using relative stats to Bill Burgess when comparing the deadball to liveball. He took it to mean the league was easier to dominate; I didn't mean it like that. I meant the styles were so different, they can be very decieving as to what a player was actually worth in a category.

Then I adjust for league quality - which will benefit more modern players. And if you're making any dead-ball adjustments for offense - they must not be very large if Cobb is not only behind Aaron, but behind Frank Robinson as a hitter. If Cobb and Aaron performed equally at their respective positions, then Cobb's positional adjustment would put him squarely above Aaron. But since I believe Aaron was a better RF than Cobb was a CF, much of Cobb's advantage gained through positional adjustment is lost.
I have Cobb far above Aaron in terms of defensive value because of his CF play compared to Aaron's RF. That combined with Cobb's advantages in stealing bases and run scoring (from on base) leads to rank Cobb higher. This is where I sway from the general thought. I don't think Cobb would have been a 30HR guy in the liv-ball era without dramatically changing his approach. (He had power, but he didn't use it.) I think Cobb would have benifited from the live-ball era, but not by any real significant value since the change would have come from power, and I don't think his power would have dramatically changed. This, combined with the fact that I don't value pure-hitting, and I value power hitters much more, leads to those rankings. His hitting value in my estimation is nearly all "inside-the park", "clutch/getting the man home" (1,820 RBI-HR), and getting on base are not enough to offset those who are nearly as good with more power that I have above him.

[Bill Burgess]

You, Bill, like to show us results of various surveys of baseball men that showed Cobb being the #1 player of all time. Almost all of those surveys were done prior to 1950, because after that Ruth seemed to carry the polls.

Not so my friend.

Only 4 were prior to 1950.
11 were during the 1950's.
2 were from the 1960's.
7 were from the 1990's.
1 is from 2005

And as proof, here they are again.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Historical Polls/Surveys:

As a service to the good guys of Fever, the best-informed fans I've had the good luck to run into, I'm going to dip deep into the storied Bill Burgess musty, dusty File Cabinet of Baseball Lore. I'd like to share some of my personal collection of past surveys/polls. So here is another Historical File. Hope you enjoy it. I have included it into my All-Time All-Star Teams File. Available to all who request it. Just provide a private email address & it will be emailed to that address.


1931 Poll, conducted by the Philadelphia Public Ledger, C. William Duncan. July, 1933;

Cobb 55 points, Wagner 38 points, Ruth 17 points, Lajoie 13, Collins 12, Keeler 7, Simmons 6, Speaker 4, Joe Jackson 3, Sisler 3, Klein 3, Hornsby 2,
Parent 2, Ferguson, Chase & Terry = 1 point.

(Voters: Connie Mack, John McGraw, Clark Griffith, Wilbert Robinson, Dan Howley, Bucky Harris, Joe McCarthy, Bill McKechnie, Kid Gleason, Walter Johnson, Jim Burke, Gabby Street)

Tabulation went thusly: 1st place vote = 5 points, 2nd place = 4 votes, 3rd place = 3 points, 2nd place = 2 points, 1st place = 1 point.


1936 --- Original Hall of Fame vote, Feb. 2, 1936, votes counted at the Commissioner's office in Chicago, IL.

226 Total Voters;
Cobb 222, Wagner 215, Ruth 215, Mathewson 205, Johnson 189, Lajoie 146, Speaker 133, Young 111, Hornsby 105, Cochrane 80, Sisler 77, E. Collins 60, J. Collins 58, Alexander 55, Gehrig 51, Bresnahan 47, Keeler 40, Waddell 33, Foxx 21, Walsh 20, Delahanty 17, Traynor 16, Frisch 14, Grove 12, Chase 11, Ross Youngs 10, Terry 9, Kling 8, Lou Criger 7, Evers 6, M. Brown 6, Chance 5, Schalk 4, McGraw 4, Simmons 4, Bender 2, Roush 2, Joe Jackson 2, and one each for Crawford, Baker, Bradley, Elberfeld, Connie Mack, Marquad, and Nap Rucker.

Sporting News staff, Jan. 20, 1938, 17 voters
1B Gehrig 8, Sisler 7, Chase 2
2B Lajoie 8, Collins 4, Hornsby 3, Gehringer2
SS Wagner 17
3B Collins 9, Traynor 8
LF Cobb 17
CF Speaker 14, Jackson 1, Delehanty 1, Clarke 1
RF Ruth 17
C Cochrane 12, Bresnahan 6, Ewing 4, Kling 4, Harnett 3, Dickey 2, Schalk 2, M. Kelly 1
P Johnson 13, Mathewson 12, Grove 8, Young 4, Alexander 4, Hubbel 4, Waddell 3, Plank 2, Coombs 1

1942 - Sporting News, April 2, 1942, 102 former players, managers.

Cobb 60, Wagner 17, Ruth 11, Hornsby 2, 10 players received 1 vote each: Delahanty, Gehrig, Speaker, DiMaggio, Ott, Sisler, E. Collins, Johnson, Mathewson, Jerry Denny.


1950 Christy Walsh Survey of 500 Sports Writers
Connie Mack, 7 spwr. Announced Jul.8, 19521B Sisler

2B Collins
SS Wagner
3B Traynor
LF Cobb
CF Speaker
RF Ruth
C Cochrane / Dickey
U IF Frisch, U OF DiMaggio
P Johnson, Mathewson, Young, Alexander
Hubbell, Grove


1950 Sports Writers Poll: Who Was the Greatest Baseball Player Ever?

Ruth 253, Cobb 116, Gehrig 8, Walter Johnson 7, DiMaggio 5, Wagner 2, Mathewson 2.


1952, Feb., Baseball Writers Ass. Of America, 164 spwr.
Big Time Baseball (Magazine), 164 Spwr. & 76 celebrities

1B Gehrig 124, Sisler 56, Terry, Chase, Foxx, Greenberg
2B Hornsby 107, Gehringer, Collins, Lajoie, Frisch, Gordon
SS Wagner 192, Marion, Cronin, Maranville, Rizzuto, Appling, Boudreau 27
3B Traynor 118, Collins 50, Baker, Rolfe, Dykes, Dugan
LF Cobb 224, Jackson
CF DiMaggio 107, Speaker 105
RF Ruth 234, Williams
C Dickey 109, Cochrane 92, Bresnahan 20, Schalk, Harnett, Kling, Ruel, Schang, Campanella
P Johnson 117, Mathewson 72, Alexander 16, Grove 11, Dean, Hubbell, Pennock, Waddell, Feller


Sport Magazine, May 1951
National League
1B Terry
2B Hornsby
SS Wagner
3B Traynor
LF Musial
CF -
RF Ott
C Hartnett
P Mathewson

Sport Magazine, May 1951
American League
1B Sisler
2B Lajoie
SS Boudreau
3B Collins
LF Cobb
CF DiMaggio
RF Ruth
C Cochrane
P Johnson



Complete Baseball (Magazine), Fall, 1951, AL, voted on by panel of 7 spwr.

1B Sisler, Gehrig, Foxx
2B Collins, Lajoie, Gehringer
SS Boudreau, Appling, Cronin
3B Collins, Baker, Kell
LF Cobb, DiMaggio, Keeler,
CF Speaker, Simmons, J. Jackson
RF Ruth, Simmons, Williams
C Cochrane, Dickey, Schalk
RHP Johnson
LHP Grove


Complete Baseball (Magazine), Summer, 1951, NL, voted on by panel of 7 spwr.

1B Terry, Chance, Bottomley
2B Hornsby, Frisch, Evers
SS Wagner, Marion, Bancroft
3B Traynor, Lindstrom, Hack
LF Musial, Ott, Wilson
CF Waner, Youngs, Hafey
RF Roush, Clarke, Medwick
C Harnett, Bresnahan, Kling
RHP Alexander, Mathewson, Dean
LHP Hubbell, Rixey, Marquard


Sporting News, Jan. 2, 1957

1B Sisler
2B Hornsby
SS Wagner
3B Collins
LF Cobb
CF Speaker
RF Ruth
C Cochrane
P Mathewson, Young, Johnson, Alexander



Sport Magazine, Oct., 1958, over 120 total votes
National League

1B Terry 89
2B Hornsby
SS Wagner
3B Traynor
LF Musial
CF Waner 54, Mays 46
RF Ott
C Harnett
P Mathewson, Hubbell 95



Sport Magazine, Sept., 1958, over 120 total votes
American League

1B Gehrig, Sisler
2B Collins
SS Cronin
3B Collins, Baker
LF Cobb 104
CF DiMaggio 48, Speaker 47
RF Ruth 107
C Dickey 59, Cochrane 50
P Johnson, Grove 105
M. McGraw 105, Stengel 53, Mack 35, McCarthy 33, Huggins


Baseball Writers Ass. Of America, Jul. 6, 1958, 238 total votes

1B Gehrig 124, Sisler 78
2B Hornsby 125, Collins 60, Gehringer, Lajoie, Frisch
SS Wagner 216, Cronin 7
3B Traynor 199, Collins 23
LF Cobb 211, Williams 40
CF Speaker 111, DiMaggio 52
RF Ruth 228, Musial
C Dickey 105, Cochrane 93, Harnett, Berra
P Grove 213, Johnson 196, Hubbell 173, Mathewson 135, Mathewson 135, Young 56, Alexander 36, Feller 29


Sept. 7, 1963: Academy of Sports Editors, a private survey organization which solicits votes from 100 sports editors of papers in the 100,000 plus class.

Greatest Ever Player: AL: Cobb 91%, Ruth 90%, DiMaggio, 63%; W. Johnson 48%, T. Williams 45%, Gehrig 43%, Speaker, 43%, Sisler 20%, E. Collins 18%, Feller 17%.

Greatest Ever Player: NL: Wagner 71%, Musial 70%, Mathewson 57%, Alexander 53%, Spahn 42%, Mays 38%, Terry 23%, Ott 20%, Frisch 15%.


1969 Sporting News Centennial, All-Time Team

1B Gehrig, Sisler, Musial
2B Hornsby, Gehringer, Collins,
SS Wagner, Cronin, Banks
3B Traynor, B. Robinson, J. Robinson
OF Ruth, Cobb, DiMaggio, T. Williams, Speaker, Mays
C Cochrane, Dickey, Campanella
RHP Johnson, Mathewson, Young
LHP Grove, Koufax, Hubbell

Oct., 1992 Sports Illustrated, Steve Wulf's personal team for Sports Illustrated

1B Gehrig
2B Robinson
SS Ripken
3B Schmidt
LF Cobb
CF Mays
RF Ruth
C Cochrane
RHP Mathewson
LHP Spahn
RP Eckersley
M; Stengel

1994, June, Inside Sport Magazine

Ruth, Cobb, Mays, Aaron, Williams, W. Johnson, DiMaggio, Gehrig, Foxx, Mathewson, Alexander, Musial, Mantle, Seaver, Feller, Young, Carlton, Rose, Ryan, Koufax


Baseball Digest's All-Time Top 10 by Position - 1994

1B - Gehrig, Foxx, Sisler, Greenberg, McCovey, Terry, Mize, Perez, Cepeda, Murray
2B - Gehringer, Sandbeg, Frisch, Hornsby, Morgan, Collins, J. Robinson, Lajoie,Herman, Mazeroski
SS - Smith, Aparicio, Wagner, Appling, Ripken, Boudreau, Banks, Cronin, Reese, Rizzuto
3B - Schmidt, B. Robinson, Brett, Mathews, Traynor, Nettles, Santo, Hack, Boggs, Kell
LF - Williams, Musial, J. Jackson, Henderson, Bonds, Simmons, Medwick, Yastrzemski, Brock, Goslin
CF - Cobb, Mays, DiMaggio, Mantle, Speaker, Snider, Combs, Roush, Puckett, Blair
RF - Ruth, Aaron, Clemente, F. Robinson, Winfield, Dawson, Kaline, R.Jackson, Ott, Gwynn
C - Bench, Campanella, Berra,J . Gibson, Dickey, Carter, Fisk, Harnett, Schalk
RHP - Johnson, Seaver, Gibson, Alexander, Mathewson, Feller, Palmer, Marichal, Young, Paige
LHP - Koufax, Carlton, Grove, Spahn, Hubbell, Plank, Ford, Waddell, Gomez ,Kaat
RP - Gossage, Fingers, Marshall, Sutter, Eckersley, Wilhelm, Radatz, Perranoski, Tekulve, Lee Smith

BBWAA - July, 1997 - All-Time All-Star Team (numbers show 1st place votes)

1B - Gehrig 31, Foxx3, Sisler 2, McCovey, Greenberg, Terry, Musial, Murray, McGuire, Thomas
2B - Hornsbby 17, Morgan 6, J. Robinson 6, Gehringer 4, Lajoie 3, Collins 1, Carew, Sandberg
SS - Wagner 23, Ripken 6, O. Smith 5, Banks 1, Boudreau, Appling
3B - Schmidt 21, B. Robinson 6, Mathews 4, Brett 1, Traynor, Rose, Baker, Rosen, Boggs
LF - Williams 32, Musial 4, Rose, Kiner, Henderson, Bonds
CF - Mays 25, Cobb 7, DiMaggio 3, Mantle 1, Speaker
RF - Ruth 31, Aaron 5, F. Robinson 4, Kaline, Clemente, Gwynn
C - Bench 24, Berra 4, Campanella 4, Cochrane 1, Dickey 1, Hartnett, 1 Fisk
RHP - Johnson 9, Young 12, Mathewson 5, Feller 4, Gibson 2, Ryan 2, Seaver 1, Maddux 1, Alexander, Marichal
LHP - Koufax 11, Spahn 11, Grove 8, Carlton 4, Hubbell, 6, Ford 1, Plank 1
RP - Eckersley 16, Fingers 9, L. Smith 4, Wilhelm 3, Gossage 3, Sutter 1, Quisenberry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
October, 1998
Sporting News, 100 Greatest Baseball Players
Only listed Top 55 of their 100.

1. Ruth
2. Mays
3. Cobb
4. W. Johnson
5. Aaron
6. Gehrig
7. Mathewson
8. T. Williams
9. Hornsby
10. Musial
11. DiMaggio
12. Alexander
13. Wagner
14. Young
15. Foxx
16. Bench
17. Mantle
18. Josh Gibson
19. Satchel Paige
20. Clemente
21. Spahn
22. F. Robinson
23. Grove
24. E. Collins
25. Rose
26. Koufax
27. Speaker
28. Schmidt
29. Lajoie
30. Carlton
31. Gibson
32. Seaver
33. Sisler
34. Bonds
35. Joe Jackson
36. Feller
37. Greenberg
38. Banks
39. Maddux
40. Berra
41. Ryan
42. Ott
43. Simmons
44. J. Robinson
45. Hubbell
46. Gehringer
47. Buck Leonard
48. Reggie Jackson
49. Gwynn
50. Campanella
51. Henderson
52. Whitey Ford
53. Clemens
54. Heilmann
55. Brett
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
25 Member Team
ML BB's 1999 All-Century Team

1B - Gehrig ( 1,207,992), McGuire,
2B - J. Robinson, Hornsby,
SS - Ripken (669, 033), Banks, Wagner,
3B - Schmidt, B. Robinson,
LF - Rose (629, 742), Williams, Musial
CF - Cobb, Mays, DiMaggio, Mantle, Griffey,
RF - Ruth (1, 1,158, 044), Aaron
C - Bench, Berra,
RHP - Ryan, Yong, Clemens, Gibson, W. Johnson, Mathewson
LEP - Koufax, Grove, Spahn,

In this fan survey, a special panel had to add Wagner, Mathewson,
Grove, Spahn, Musial,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1999, SABR ran a poll, and here are their results.


--Position Players-----------------Pitchers
1. Ruth -----2,743-----------------W. Johnson----591
2. Cobb------1,135-----------------Grove---------139
3. Mays--------964-----------------Mathewson-----118
4. Williams----711-----------------Young---------112
5. Wagner------611-----------------Joss-----------53
6. Gehrig------375-----------------Koufax---------52
7. Aaron-------270-----------------N. Ryan--------37
8. DiMaggio----213-----------------Maddux---------29
9. Mantle------115-----------------Spahn----------26
10. Musial-----102-----------------Alexander------20
11. Hornsby-----82
12. J. Robinson-58
13. Clemente----44
13. J. Jackson--44
15. Rose--------42
16. Bonds-------37
17. Lajoie------36
18. Foxx--------23
19. McGuire-----22
20. Bench-------20
20. Griffey-----20

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have tabulated our 2005 Fever votes. So far, here's what I've got for Fever.



Ruth ------------ 83 supporters (58%)
Cobb ------------ 41 supporters (28%)
Mays ------------ 10 supporters (07%)
Charleston-------- 3 supporters (02%)
Williams-----------2 supporters (01%)
Bonds--------------2 supporters (01%)
Gehrig-------------1 supporters (007%)
---------------------------------------
----------------142 total supporters

So at present, Babe is picking up almost 3 out of 5 Fever members support, as the best, while Ty is only picking up 1 every 4 members.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Wee Willie]

Using relative stats, guys like Cravath and Stovey come out equal (or better) HR hitters as guys like Bonds and Aaron.
I'm not isolating home runs when I use relative stats, though. I'm looking at OPS+, which is derived from many raw stats besides HR. Now - as for Cravath and Stovey - they each had a couple of high OPS+ years that came close to some of Aaron's best years (though not Bonds'). But the comparisons pretty much end there. Other factors, such as park effects and quality of competition come into play when comparing those players. For comparing careers - games played and/or plate-appearances come into play and of course will distance Bonds and Aaron from those guys.

I could just as easily say that using just raw stats, guys like Lefty O'Doul or Todd Helton come out equal to or better at hitting for average than Ted Williams. Christy Mathewson would come out MUCH better than Clemens. Relative stats DO take raw stats into account and put them into context. Some people almost treat them like they are mutually exclusive - they aren't. Relative stats - whether you use relative BA, relative SLG, relative OBA, or OPS - will give a better indication on how effective a hitter is vs. his peers. Then, AFTER that, we can do the comparisons across eras/leagues. Not before. It's just not as accurate to compare raw batting avgs., HR's, or even raw OPS for players from different periods (and sometimes in the same period) without figuring out relative performance first. Too many factors are in play that can affect those raw numbers.



The game was far too different to accurately judge what players would do with the live-ball. I firmly believe that only a few would ever be considered power hitters without adjusting their style of hitting. That argument cuts both ways, though. Adjustments for hitters who love to swing from their heels would have to make major adjustments (softer ball, cavernous ballparks) too, and it could very well be that no lively-ball hitter could hit anywhere close to Cobb if they were in his era. So since the games were indeed so disparate, to me it makes sense to first figure the relative performance of these players and then make your league quality/era adjustments. My adjustments happen to favor the modern players (since the game evolved in a Ruthian direction). This approach, I believe, acknowledges how the quality of play has improved - yet still gives deadballers their due.



I have Cobb far above Aaron in terms of defensive value because of his CF play compared to Aaron's RF.
I still don't understand...what was it about Cobb's actual "CF play" that was better than Aaron's RF play, other than that he played mostly CF? CF, as a position, has more defensive value than RF, obviously. But everything I've seen - both in stats and opinions - indicates that Aaron was a better RF than Cobb was a CF. What evidence do you have to the contrary?


I don't think Cobb would have been a 30HR guy in the liv-ball era without dramatically changing his approach.True. But changing your approach doesn't necessarily produce a negative change in effectiveness. Had he began his career 10 years later and had the same contact hitting skills plus his strength, I could definitely see him fusing the two such that he could still perform at the same (or even higher level) above his peers.


This, combined with the fact that I don't value pure-hitting, and I value power hitters much more, leads to those rankings.
All pure-hitting has value. And I value power hitting quite a bit. I just believe it manifests itself differently in different eras.

[Chisox]

I'm not isolating home runs when I use relative stats, though. I'm looking at OPS+, which is derived from many raw stats besides HR. Now - as for Cravath and Stovey - they each had a couple of high OPS+ years that came close to some of Aaron's best years (though not Bonds'). But the comparisons pretty much end there. Other factors, such as park effects and quality of competition come into play when comparing those players. For comparing careers - games played and/or plate-appearances come into play and of course will distance Bonds and Aaron from those guys.

I could just as easily say that using just raw stats, guys like Lefty O'Doul or Todd Helton come out equal to or better at hitting for average than Ted Williams. Christy Mathewson would come out MUCH better than Clemens. Relative stats DO take raw stats into account and put them into context. Some people almost treat them like they are mutually exclusive - they aren't. Relative stats - whether you use relative BA, relative SLG, relative OBA, or OPS - will give a better indication on how effective a hitter is vs. his peers. Then, AFTER that, we can do the comparisons across eras/leagues. Not before. It's just not as accurate to compare raw batting avgs., HR's, or even raw OPS for players from different periods (and sometimes in the same period) without figuring out relative performance first. Too many factors are in play that can affect those raw numbers.
#1.I can't figure out how O'Doul and Helton come out better than Ted Williams using raw stats. (I can't figure out how O'Doul comes out better than BILLY Williams using nothing but %s.)
#2.Again, I do adjust for era and ballpark. I just don't consider all factors the same for everyone like relative and home factors demand. Using relative stats comparing within live-ball eras or within dead-ball eras are fine, using them to compare the two I find very misleading.
#3.What does OPS have to do with power? Does that mean that Gwynn had as much power as Winfield?


That argument cuts both ways, though. Adjustments for hitters who love to swing from their heels would have to make major adjustments (softer ball, cavernous ballparks) too, and it could very well be that no lively-ball hitter could hit anywhere close to Cobb if they were in his era. So since the games were indeed so disparate, to me it makes sense to first figure the relative performance of these players and then make your league quality/era adjustments. My adjustments happen to favor the modern players (since the game evolved in a Ruthian direction). This approach, I believe, acknowledges how the quality of play has improved - yet still gives deadballers their due.
That's why I don't play that game of "what would this player do in this era". I just look at what they did.


I still don't understand...what was it about Cobb's actual "CF play" that was better than Aaron's RF play, other than that he played mostly CF? CF, as a position, has more defensive value than RF, obviously. But everything I've seen - both in stats and opinions - indicates that Aaron was a better RF than Cobb was a CF. What evidence do you have to the contrary?
You got what I meant. You just didn't know you got what I meant. CF is far more valuable than RF. Simple as that.


True. But changing your approach doesn't necessarily produce a negative change in effectiveness. Had he began his career 10 years later and had the same contact hitting skills plus his strength, I could definitely see him fusing the two such that he could still perform at the same (or even higher level) above his peers.
Never said he couldn't. Never said he could. Probably could, don't know. Again, that's why I don't play that game.


All pure-hitting has value. And I value power hitting quite a bit. I just believe it manifests itself differently in different eras.
Pure hitting has very little value over a career other than superficial. I don't believe for one second that Puckett was a better hitter than Killebrew or Keeler was a better hitter than Stargell, even though they were certainly better pure hitters.

[Wee Willie]

#1.I can't figure out how O'Doul and Helton come out better than Ted Williams using raw stats.Actually, because O'Doul's and Helton's (yet) careers aren't as long as Ted's, better examples would be Paul Waner vs. Rod Carew or Harry Heilmann vs. Tony Gwynn. Both Waner and Heilmann look like better "batting avg." hitters based on raw stats. But once the avgs. are normalized to lg. avg and home park, Carew's and Gwynn's avgs. come out better. I know you make home park adjustments also - but what I'm saying is that the relative batting average is more indicative of batting proficiency than the raw average. The same thing would apply for slugging, on-base pct., or OPS. I also gave the Mathewson example. Hugh Duffy has the highest single-season batting average. That doesn't necessarily mean he was the most proficient at "hitting for average" in a season than anyone else who ever played the game.


I just don't consider all factors the same for everyone like relative and home factors demand. Using relative stats comparing within live-ball eras or within dead-ball eras are fine, using them to compare the two I find very misleading.

I don't consider all those factors the same, either. Relative stats will determine one's performance among his peers. Someone in another era will perform at a certain level above his peers. From that, you try to find the difference of degree in the amount each player dominated. Then you try to find the quality of the talent pool that each player had to compete against. If you dominate against super competition, you are likely a better player than someone who dominates against a group with less talent. That's what I try to achieve in ranking players: their magnitude of dominance and the degree of difficulty under which they dominated.

#3.What does OPS have to do with power? Does that mean that Gwynn had as much power as Winfield?
It has a lot to do with power - for most hitters. Look at the OPS leaders - seasonal and career. Most of them are power-hitters. There's a strong correlation. Winfield had more power than Gwynn in terms of hitting homers, but Gwynn had enough power through other extra-base hits that his OPS ended up higher than Winfields. What does raw power have to do with being a great hitter? Dave Kingman is a perfect example.



That's why I don't play that game of "what would this player do in this era". I just look at what they did.
There's our fundamental disagreement. I believe relative stats are a better indicator of "what they did". It's evaluating them vs. their peers, and is not assuming any hypotheticals.



Pure hitting has very little value over a career other than superficial. I don't believe for one second that Puckett was a better hitter than Killebrew or Keeler was a better hitter than Stargell, even though they were certainly better pure hitters.I don't believe it for a second, either. Once again, Stargell and Killebrew both have the higher OPS+. But pure hitting I believe has more than just superficial value. It depends on how high the average is. If a guy hits all singles but hits .400 and leads the league in hitting with RISP, he has tremendous value as a hitter. Tony Gwynn had much more than superficial value as a hitter - but most of the ones who had more value are indeed power hitters. Plus, I count plate discipline as part of "pure-hitting", so having a high OBP is valuable.

[El Nino Linares]

1)Ted Williams
2)Babe Ruth
3)Lou Gerhig
4)Mickey Mantle
5)Joe Dimaggio
6)Ty Cobb
7)Pete Rose
8)Hank Aaron
9)Willie Mays
10)Barry Bonds

[El Nino Linares]

Not a great endrossment of Cobb as "the best hitter ever" which is what we are trying to measure.

As a pure hitter there can be a case made for allen nearly as good cobb (not as a player but as a HITTER).

4,000 hits-what does this mean? That he had a lot of hits. Pete Rose has more hits but no one would put him any where near this conversation. It means that Ty bunt a lot (which he did) and then beat out the throws. Does that make him a great hitter? Only if you want to say Joey Gathwright will be a great hitter.

2,000 runs- more of a measure of his team. Johnny Damon has had 100 runs every year since '98. Does that put him in the conversation?

900 stolen bases- this measures how good a base runner he was and has nothing to do with hitting.

Cobb was a good hitter, but he and Ruth both admitted Jackson was "the greatest natural hitter" they had ever seen.
Ty Cobb was the man but the best hitter of all time is Ted Williams... There is no doubt about it....
The reason that Ruth said that is bc he never saw Ted Williams....

[DoubleX]

1) Ted Williams: If he didn't lose almost 5 prime years to military service, he would rank at or very near the top in virtually every offensive category. Plus, he played a more talented league than Ruth.

2) Babe Ruth

3) Lou Gehrig: Despite all the praise he gets, I still think he is generally underrated. His last healthy season came at age 34 (1937), and his stats that year showed no signs of him slowing down. If not for the fatal disease, I think it's very plausible that Gehrig would have had 3-5 more very productive seasons (including replacing his last two in which he showed increasing signs of being slowed by the disease). If Gehrig had those year, he, like Williams would have put up absolutely monstrous career statistics and be at or near the top in every category, particuarly in RBI, where he probably would still have a huge margin on the next guy (Aaron).

4) Ty Cobb: Much to the chagrin of certain highly-respected members here, I do have a slight bias against the deadballers in these lists. However, I do bump Cobb up a spot (and sometimes two spots) in the overall rankings.

5) Barry Bonds

6) Rogers Hornsby

7) Stan Musial

8) Mickey Mantle

9) Jimmie Foxx

10) Hank Aaron - He gets longevity points to get the nudge over Mays.

The next ten: Willie Mays, Tris Speaker, Frank Robinson, Joe Jackson, Frank Thomas, Johnny Mize, Joe DiMaggio, Mel Ott, Manny Ramirez, Hank Greenberg

[Archie DeBunker]

MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL'S ALL TIME ALL ROUND GREATEST HITTERS (Minimum 1500 Games):
(BASED ON COMBINE CAREER RANKINGS FOR THE TEN MAJOR HITTING CATAGORIES: OBP / SLUG / AVG / HITS / 2B / 3B / RBI'S / TB / BB - Source MLB.COM)

COMPOSITE
RANKING

1. Musial 120
2. Ruth 170
3. Gehrig 183
4. Foxx 319
5. Hornsby 338
6. Mays 341
7. Aaron 421
8. Williams 511
9. Bonds (active) 542 (thru 2004)
10. Brett 603

CONSIDER:

Stan Musial is the only Major League player to rank in the top twenty-five of all 10 major hitting catagories. This achievement has stood for almost half a century and may go all the way back to the infancy of baseball. This feat will most likely never be duplicated.

Musial is the Major League's All Time Season League Leader in Different Offensive Categories - Career (16).

Musial is the only player in the history of baseball to bat .300 for more than 15 straight seasons (batting title eligible at bats).

400 HOME RUN CLUB (40 MEMBERS): Musial (475) is the only member with more than 6 batting titles; more than 700 doubles; more than 170 triples; and the only member with fewer than 700 career strike-outs.

BASEBALL'S "MAGIC NUMBER 3" HITTING CLUBS:

3000 HIT / .300 AVG CLUB (17 MEMBERS) -
Musial was the 8th player to join this club. He
ranks 1st in career SLG, 2nd in OBP/TB/RBI'S,
4th in HITS, 5th in HRS and 8th in AVG.

300 HR / 3000 HIT / CLUB (10 MEMBERS) &
300 HR / 3000 HIT / .300 AVG CLUB (4 MEMBERS):
Stan Musial is the Charter Member of both of these
clubs and he leads all members with the highest career
OBP/SLUG/AVG. In addition, Musial has the most doubles,
triples and fewest strike-outs and is the only member to
have won more than 6 batting titles.

Musial accumulated his career hitting numbers while playing
four different postions (1st Base 34%, LF 31%, RF 24%, CF 11%)
during his 3026 Major League Games and he registered an
amazing career fielding percentage of .989....one of the highest
in all of baseball.

FOOTNOTE:
Stan Musial earned the Rodney Dangerfield "No Respect Award" in 1999
when baseball fans passed over Stan (unlike Mark McGuire) in the voting
for the All Century Team. (Musial was later named an "Honorary Member"
by the Commissioner of Baseball.)

[Chisox]

Somehow I missed this yesterday, but here it goes.

Actually, because O'Doul's and Helton's (yet) careers aren't as long as Ted's, better examples would be Paul Waner vs. Rod Carew or Harry Heilmann vs. Tony Gwynn. Both Waner and Heilmann look like better "batting avg." hitters based on raw stats. But once the avgs. are normalized to lg. avg and home park, Carew's and Gwynn's avgs. come out better. I know you make home park adjustments also - but what I'm saying is that the relative batting average is more indicative of batting proficiency than the raw average.
I got both Carew and Gwynn higher as pure-hitters than Waner although not by much.


The same thing would apply for slugging, on-base pct., or OPS. I also gave the Mathewson example. Hugh Duffy has the highest single-season batting average. That doesn't necessarily mean he was the most proficient at "hitting for average" in a season than anyone else who ever played the game.
I never did any research into that, but I'd say I agree.


I don't consider all those factors the same, either. Relative stats will determine one's performance among his peers. Someone in another era will perform at a certain level above his peers. From that, you try to find the difference of degree in the amount each player dominated. Then you try to find the quality of the talent pool that each player had to compete against. If you dominate against super competition, you are likely a better player than someone who dominates against a group with less talent. That's what I try to achieve in ranking players: their magnitude of dominance and the degree of difficulty under which they dominated.
There's our fundamental disagreement. I believe relative stats are a better indicator of "what they did". It's evaluating them vs. their peers, and is not assuming any hypotheticals.
I really don't know how the last one is possible. By taking relative stats, you saying that if player A hit X times better against his competition, he would hit that same times better against competion of other eras, minus league league quality.
I did a study a while back comparing top HR hitters ever, and I can't remember the numbers, but Stovey and Cravath had higher HR% relative to their league (like 12X higher) then Bonds and Aaron (like 10x higher). Your way would say then that Stovey and Cravath would hit for a higher HR% in the same environment than Bonds or Aaron, without league quality adjustments, whether you truly believe that or not.
When I say I don't play that game of "what if", I mean that I don't just say player A would/could adjust or what-ever adjusting the style of play. If he was a contact hitter, I would still have him a contact hitter. If he was a power hitter, he would still be a power hitter in any era in my mind. This is why I can't use relative stats like that--they assume that because a player would hit X times better/worse against his era, he would increase/decrease his numbers that same number against another era. Eras a very different with different styles, particularly comparing deadball to liveball. I don't know what Cobb's relative numbers are for every stat, but I don't think his HR numbers would be as nearly high as his relative numbers would show, even without factoring in league quality.


It has a lot to do with power - for most hitters. Look at the OPS leaders - seasonal and career. Most of them are power-hitters. There's a strong correlation. Winfield had more power than Gwynn in terms of hitting homers, but Gwynn had enough power through other extra-base hits that his OPS ended up higher than Winfields. What does raw power have to do with being a great hitter? Dave Kingman is a perfect example.
I was talking HR hitting only as discussed above. When I say power, I almost always mean HR hitting.

I don't believe it for a second, either. Once again, Stargell and Killebrew both have the higher OPS+. But pure hitting I believe has more than just superficial value. It depends on how high the average is. If a guy hits all singles but hits .400 and leads the league in hitting with RISP, he has tremendous value as a hitter. Tony Gwynn had much more than superficial value as a hitter - but most of the ones who had more value are indeed power hitters. Plus, I count plate discipline as part of "pure-hitting", so having a high OBP is valuable.
Power hitting as a lot to do with a great hitter. It's more bases and guaranteed runs without makiing an out. As far as positive production, 4 HBP, Singles, or walks, have the same value as a HR just counting the bases. There is no way that is true. A single is nowhere near as valuable as a HR. When you factor in the negative value of making outs, it lessens the difference, but a single is still FAR from the same value as a HR. Factor in not making out in %s, not in true, positive, production.
Unless I specify otherwise, pure-hitting to me is soley hits. Yes, a high OBP is very valuable, but so is high actual production.
A .400 hitter with all singles would hit something like (200/500) with a .400Slug and 200TB. If he led the league in RISP with all singles, he'd drive in around 80 (I'm guessing. Remember, no HR, so subtract HR from RBI. Also no XBH so fewer runners from 2nd and 1st.) If he walked 50 times, he'd have an OBP of about .455. No XBH would mean he would be he wouldn't be as far along the basepaths to score Runs. He would be great at not making outs, but his actual production is very poor, so overall he would not be a tremendous hitter. He'd be valuable, but in no-way anywhere near the most valuable. (We're pretty much talking Ichiro Suzuki here.)

[Chisox]

Possibly - I just think it's a bit of a stretch. For example, you have Cobb 2 slots ahead of Aaron, overall, but you've got Aaron as a #4 hitter (ahead of Ted Williams). If he's at least 7 spots ahead of Cobb in hitting, and was a better hitter than Ted Williams (according to you) - it seems to me Aaron should be ahead of Cobb overall. Aaron was a very good fielder and baserunner - sufficiently good enough, in my mind such that Cobb's advantage in baserunning and slight advantage in the field can't make up for Aaron's hitting lead.

I think Mays and Wagner are the only 2 guys that I can see being outside the top 10 in hitting - yet remain in the top 5 as overall players.
To explain a lot further. My ratings. These are not adjusted, but at face value.


OFFENSE HITTING
1 Babe Ruth 77.99 1 Babe Ruth 85.65
2 BARRY BONDS 73.36 2 Lou Gehrig 79.92
3 Lou Gehrig 72.77 3 Ted Williams 78.47
4 Ted Williams 70.96 4 BARRY BONDS 78.09
5 Hank Aaron 69.49 5 Hank Aaron 75.73
6 Jimmie Foxx 66.49 6 Jimmie Foxx 73.11
7 Willie Mays 65.53 7 Stan Musial 71.43
8 Stan Musial 64.87 8 Willie Mays 70.72
9 JEFF BAGWELL 63.03 9 Mickey Mantle 68.35
10 Frank Robinson 62.61 10 JEFF BAGWELL 68.35
11 Mickey Mantle 62.60 11 Frank Robinson 68.19
12 Mel Ott 62.01 12 Mel Ott 68.18
13 Joe DiMaggio 61.45 13 Joe DiMaggio 67.85
14 FRANK THOMAS 61.15 14 FRANK THOMAS 67.51
15 RAFAEL PALMEIRO 60.48 15 RAFAEL PALMEIRO 66.44
16 Ty Cobb 60.41 16 Mark McGwire 66.43
17 Mike Schmidt 60.35 17 Mike Schmidt 65.75
18 Mark McGwire 60.03 18 Eddie Murray 64.21
19 SAMMY SOSA 58.51 19 Eddie Mathews 63.62
20 Eddie Murray 58.50 20 KEN GRIFFEY, JR.63.49
21 KEN GRIFFEY, JR.58.46 21 Carl Yastrzemski63.24
22 Carl Yastrzemski57.88 22 SAMMY SOSA 63.18
23 Eddie Mathews57.82 23 FRED MCGRIFF 62.78
24 Reggie Jackson 57.43 24 MANNY RAMIREZ 62.33
25 FRED MCGRIFF 57.08 25 Reggie Jackson 62.32
26 Hank Greenberg 62.18
27 Ty Cobb 62.03


Cobb's behind everyone in the batting column that he is ahead of in the overall offense column. He is 6.32 points behind the 10th spot in hitting, but just 2.21 behind 10th in overall offense. He is 13.7 points behind the 5th spot in hitting, but 9.08 in overall offense. I've got him 10th in offense, exiting Bagwell. Now, I've got Ruth, Bonds, and Mays ahead of Cobb as position players, leaving Gehrig (-12.36), Williams (-10.55), Aaron (-9.08), Foxx (-6.08), Musial (4.46), and Robinson (2.21) for defensive value (and all other adjustments not taken into account by the raw numbers that I've already done, just assigned numerical numbers to).
Gehrig: I can easily cut Gehrig's lead over Cobb's in half, if not more simply throuth era adjustments, and probably knock 8 points off, leaving 4.36 left. The defensive adjustments will easily make up that. Factoring in post-season, Gehrig gets a boost, but not quite enough.
Williams: Much of what I say about Gehrig, I can say about Williams. I can knock about 5 points off just based on era and another 5 comparing ballparks. I'm left with a .55 margin which defense makes up for quite easily, and there is no post-season advantage by Williams.
Aaron: I can cut that lead in half over Cobb by factoring in era. The defense takes care of the 4.5 advantage, although not by much.
Foxx: I can take at least 5 points off adjusting for era and ballpark, and probably more like 6, reducing Foxx's lead to about nothing, if a lead at all. Cobb's defense puts him significantly ahead. Foxx get's a post-season lift, but not nearly enough to put him near Cobb.
Musial: The difference in era makes up the difference, leaving defense. Easy win by Cobb. (War makes a big difference in ear.)
Robinson: Nearly ditto for Aaron, except Robinson isn't nearly as close on raw numbers. Easy win by Cobb.
With more league quality adjustments taken into account (I really don't have that much) Cobb could fare a little lower overall next time around, but I really don't think by much, except maybe Aaron. Possibly Gehrig.

Just thought of this last night.
Note: You said that Cobb's strength was easily hitting. Unless, you're Mendoza, everyone's strength is hitting, or at least it incorporates the vast majority of your value. But, we're comparing the best hitters ever against one another, so other areas make the difference. This is where Cobb's base-running plays a key factor, as well as his defense. Most of his hitting contemporaries don't have anywhere near the running value as Cobb and played lesser positions, having lower defensive value, as well. So while hitting may make up 80% of Cobb's value with base-running and defense 10 each, if you have other players whose hitting value is 90% of their package and their hitting just slightly better, Cobb would still have more value overall because of his running and fielding advantages.

[History Of Baseball Fan]

i don't understand why you people rate Cobb below #3.
the top ones should atleast have Cobb, Hornsby, Ruth, Williams, Gehrig, Mays.

but atleast have Cobb at # 1 or atleast # 2.

you can't beat his career AVG. 4000+ hit, 2000+ runs, 23 straight .300 seasons, 700+ doubles, almost 300 triples, 12 batting titles, 9 200+ hit seasons !! thats just to name some.

[westsidegrounds]

<...>I did a study a while back comparing top HR hitters ever, and I can't remember the numbers, but Stovey and Cravath had higher HR% relative to their league (like 12X higher) then Bonds and Aaron (like 10x higher). Your way would say then that Stovey and Cravath would hit for a higher HR% in the same environment than Bonds or Aaron, without league quality adjustments, whether you truly believe that or not.
When I say I don't play that game of "what if",<...>)

Perhaps relevant to point out that 78% of Cravath's Phillies HR were hit at home. In 1914, when he lead the majors in HR with 19? He hit 100% of those at home. (His teammates Fred Luderus & Sherry Magee were also right up there among the HR leaders during those years. Hmmmm.)

[Wee Willie]

By taking relative stats, you saying that if player A hit X times better against his competition, he would hit that same times better against competion of other eras, minus league league quality.The "minus league quality" is the key phrase. I don't think Cobb would dominate in today's game quite like he did in the 1910's (hence, my league quality adjustments), but the magnitude of domination over his peers (versus that of some modern all-time greats) redeems him enough to keep him rated higher than many of those players. I have no way of knowing for sure whether Cobb could dominate more or less in modern times. But the degree of domination over your peers is the most important telling sign of greatness, IMO.



I did a study a while back comparing top HR hitters ever, and I can't remember the numbers, but Stovey and Cravath had higher HR% relative to their league (like 12X higher) then Bonds and Aaron (like 10x higher). Your way would say then that Stovey and Cravath would hit for a higher HR% in the same environment than Bonds or Aaron, without league quality adjustments, whether you truly believe that or not.However, my league quality adjustments are not based on any isolated stat like HR %. They're based off OPS+, RC/27, or total player metrics. Home runs are probably the most widely varying stats in history. SLG does a better job (although not perfect) in determining consistent power-hitting proficiency across eras. Stovey's career relative SLG is 30% above his league (home park adjustments included), Cravath's is 35%. Compare with Bonds being 50% above league, Aaron 41% - and over much longer careers.



When I say I don't play that game of "what if", I mean that I don't just say player A would/could adjust or what-ever adjusting the style of play. If he was a contact hitter, I would still have him a contact hitter. If he was a power hitter, he would still be a power hitter in any era in my mind. Eras a very different with different styles, particularly comparing deadball to liveball. I don't know what Cobb's relative numbers are for every stat, but I don't think his HR numbers would be as nearly high as his relative numbers would show, even without factoring in league quality.That very well could be true, but Cobb might not have to hit tons of HR's to keep those relative numbers the same. He very well could've had an even higher BA. He almost certainly would've walked more - helping his OBP. Even 25 homers a year plus a fair amount of doubles and triples could do the trick. Aaron might have hit 12-15 HR's a year simply because his manager wouldn't let him swing from his heels. The point is - we don't know for sure. That's why dominance above peers (measured by relative stats) seems like the most even-handed way of measuring things.



Power hitting as a lot to do with a great hitter. It's more bases and guaranteed runs without makiing an out.The key phrase is "without making an out". Dave Kingman made way too many outs to be considered a great hitter, even though he had a LOT of raw power. I think a great hitter has to have at least some contact-hitting proficiency.



As far as positive production, 4 HBP, Singles, or walks, have the same value as a HR just counting the bases. There is no way that is true. A single is nowhere near as valuable as a HR. When you factor in the negative value of making outs, it lessens the difference, but a single is still FAR from the same value as a HR. Factor in not making out in %s, not in true, positive, production.Oh, I totally agree. I didn't mean to imply they had equal value. However, the value of a H, 2B, 3B, HR, BB, etc. has been determined historically as part of Runs Created calculations. And although many power hitters are among the leaders in Runs Created, a fair amount of contact-hitters are also.



Unless I specify otherwise, pure-hitting to me is soley hits. Yes, a high OBP is very valuable, but so is high actual production.
True. That's why I prefer power-hitters most of the time. But even someone like Ichiro Suzuki has good (although not great) production mainly by getting hits. His OPS+ is a respectable 121. Would I include him in my best hitters? No way, mainly because he's making too many outs. I guess you could define pure-hitting as the ability to get a hit, but I think pure-hitting is more of an "ability not to make outs" - and that can be accomplished through both hits and plate discipline. Suzuki is a good pure-hitter, even very good at times - but not great.


Note: You said that Cobb's strength was easily hitting. Unless, you're Mendoza, everyone's strength is hitting, or at least it incorporates the vast majority of your value..Right. Just to clarify, I was talking about Cobb's hitting in terms of his best skill rather than from a value standpoint.
Most of his hitting contemporaries don't have anywhere near the running value as Cobb and played lesser positions, having lower defensive value, as well. So while hitting may make up 80% of Cobb's value with base-running and defense 10 each, if you have other players whose hitting value is 90% of their package and their hitting just slightly better, Cobb would still have more value overall because of his running and fielding advantages.True. That's why I have him above Williams and Gehrig.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

BASEBALL'S "MAGIC NUMBER 3" HITTING CLUBS:

Musial was no doubt a stud, and a player who I feel is under-rated by some. But this 3000 hit club stuff means nothing. 3000 hits shouldn't be a milestone, or at least one that is as highly regarded as it is. It's a matter of getting enough AB, thats it. Getting to 3000 in and of itself speaks more of a players longevity then it does of their greatness.

Again, taking nothing away from Musial, he was amazing, I'm just talking about the 3000 "milestone" and how it relates to getting enough AB.

Musial - 10,972 AB
Ruth - 8,399 AB

Difference of 2,573 AB, or just over 4.5 years worth of AB based on 550 AB a season.

Musial - 3,630 Hits
Ruth - 2,873 Hits

Difference of 757 hits.

Ruth would only needed to average 165 hits a year over those 4.5 years of AB he was shorted. He averaged over 185 a year as it was.

Musial had over 540 AB 13 times in his career, and had over 600 four times. Ruth's career high in AB was 540. I'm just saying there's more that should be looked at then "magical 3000." And when you throw that number in with any "club" then the list is always going to be short. It's an overrated number, imo. Kaline is case in point. Needed over 10,000 AB, or else he wouldn't have sniffed 3000. Is he any better of a hitter because of 3000.

[csh19792001]

I still don't understand...what was it about Cobb's actual "CF play" that was better than Aaron's RF play, other than that he played mostly CF? CF, as a position, has more defensive value than RF, obviously. But everything I've seen - both in stats and opinions - indicates that Aaron was a better RF than Cobb was a CF. What evidence do you have to the contrary?


Well, perhaps he read Bill's research regarding Cobb's fielding. It obviously doesn't compare them directly, but it does assess his fielding in great depth.

And if you're talking about stats, look at fielding Win Shares. It deems Cobb a B+ and Hank Aaron as a C+. He might be working off of that, also.

B+ overall for Cobb is probably accurate- he was probably an "A/A-" earlier in his career, but faded as he neared and passed 40. Personally, though, the C+ for Aaron seems rather punitive... because it goes against everything I've read/heard about Aaron's fielding (most of which has been very positive).

[csh19792001]

What I'm saying is that the relative batting average is more indicative of batting proficiency than the raw average.


And this is a better indicator than either. :)

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=36722

[Wee Willie]

Well, perhaps he read Bill's research regarding Cobb's fielding. It obviously doesn't compare them directly, but it does assess his fielding in great depth.

And if you're talking about stats, look at fielding Win Shares. It deems Cobb a B+ and Hank Aaron as a C+. He might be working off of that, also.

B+ overall for Cobb is probably accurate- he was probably an "A/A-" earlier in his career, but faded as he neared and passed 40. Personally, though, the C+ for Aaron seems rather punitive... because it goes against everything I've read/heard about Aaron's fielding (most of which has been very positive).That's one of the assertions James makes that I disagree with. I think Aaron certainly was better than a C+, probably a B+/borderline A- as a right fielder. Cobb was above average, but not quite above his peers on the level Aaron was, IMO. I'd probably give Cobb a B-/B for his career.

[csh19792001]

That's one of the assertions James makes that I disagree with. I think Aaron certainly was better than a C+, probably a B+/borderline A- as a right fielder. Cobb was above average, but not quite above his peers on the level Aaron was, IMO. I'd probably give Cobb a B-/B for his career.

A B/B- would be an underestimate of his ability. I'm basing this off of 5 years of intensive reserach of the guy, Will. I've probably read close to everything that's ever been published on Ty Cobb, and I've learned an incredible amount from Wesley Fricks, who is the curator of the Cobb museum in Royston and runs a Cobb discussion forum on Yahoo, and Burgess, who spent 20 years in the Palo Alto library researching one person.

And again, Aaron was a RFer and Cobb a CFer. There's a very substantial disparity in value there just by virtue of the roles they're asked to (forced to?) assume.

[csh19792001]

Musial vs. Ruth

Somwhat tangential... but Sult, how do you think Ruth would do playing from 1942-63? I don't know if I ever asked you directly, and I consider ShoelessJoe and yourself to be the two most learned individuals regarding The Babe that I know.

[Wee Willie]

A B/B- would be an underestimate of his ability. I'm basing this off of 5 years of intensive reserach of the guy, Will. I've probably read close to everything that's ever been published on Ty Cobb, and I've learned an incredible amount from Wesley Fricks, who is the curator of the Cobb museum in Royston and runs a Cobb discussion forum on Yahoo, and Burgess, who spent 20 years in the Palo Alto library researching one person.

And again, Aaron was a RFer and Cobb a CFer. There's a very substantial disparity in value there just by virtue of the roles they're asked to (forced to?) assume.
Oh - I know about the positional difference. That helps Cobb in terms of defensive value.
I'll go back and read some of Bill's posts on Cobb's defense. Maybe that will raise my opinion. At any rate, he's still #2 on my overall list.

[Archie DeBunker]

Musial was no doubt a stud, and a player who I feel is under-rated by some. But this 3000 hit club stuff means nothing. 3000 hits shouldn't be a milestone, or at least one that is as highly regarded as it is. It's a matter of getting enough AB, thats it. Getting to 3000 in and of itself speaks more of a players longevity then it does of their greatness.


---------------------------------------------------------------
Sultan,
Are you therefore saying that 700 home runs shouldn't, in itself, be a milestone since it takes lots of AB to accumulate HR, just like it does to registar 3000 hits? If so, the only fair measurements of baseball performance would be by percentages. So, discount Aaron's 755 HRS that took 12364 AB and declare McGwire the greatest HR hitter because it only took him 6187 AB to hit 583 HR (one HR for every 10.6 AB, the best in the history of baseball). I don't think sooooo.

Like every statistic in baseball, the 3000 hit level has its place in measuring great hitters. It is more than just a factor of AB....you gotta be able to hit the ball, and consistently.

I'm not hung up on the "magic 3" thng anyway. People seem to like these little clubs that set players apart from others and my purpose was to windowdress Musial's achivements.

Rather, concetrate on the fact that Musial's composite career raking in the major hitting catagories is the best in all of baeball and he is the only player to rank in the top 25 of these catagories. When the day comes that someone pushes Musial to number 26 in home runs, he will then become the only player to rank in the top 30 of all catagories, and so on....
Finally, realize that it is virtually impossible that any future player will ever make such an across the board impact on hitting records as did Musial. He wasn't the best home run hitter, the best slugger or did he have the highest batting average...but he was and still is the best all round hitter in baseball.

[leecemark]

--Aaron played several years in CF (in mid-career) after the Braves traded Bill Bruton and appears to have been pretty good at it. Remember he came up a 2B and when he moved to the OF he was new at it and the Braves had a terrific CF already. Cobb was moved to RF for several years fairly early in his career. He did play much more CF over the course of his career than Aaron, but I'm not sure how much positional advantage he really deserves. I'd say B/B- is fair for Cobb. B+ at best. Aaron was an A- type RF. B+ at worst.

[The Bambino]

Why Shoeless Joe was not included in your lists guys?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Somwhat tangential... but Sult, how do you think Ruth would do playing from 1942-63? I don't know if I ever asked you directly, and I consider ShoelessJoe and yourself to be the two most learned individuals regarding The Babe that I know.

There are the top 1% from any era that would do great. Then there is Ruth. The top 1% of the 1% of the 1%. With his ability and the advantages a later era would bring, he would do just fine. You might point out "greater competition" and there might be something to be said for that overall, but it wouldn't affect the upper elites of the elites so much. He'd have better equipment, more luxury in every way, better travel situation, smaller parks, better knowledge of techniques and training. Would he stand out so far among his peers, of course not. The interesting thing though, is that if not for Ruth, 1942-63 wouldn't have been the same as we knew it to be.

Sorry if I was rambling there, but I'm pissed that the refs just screwed my Spurs spread, and I've been drinkin' Yukon Jack. Anyway, maybe I'll respond again when I'm more sober :D



Sultan,
Are you therefore saying that 700 home runs shouldn't, in itself, be a milestone since it takes lots of AB to accumulate HR, just like it does to registar 3000 hits? If so, the only fair measurements of baseball performance would be by percentages. So, discount Aaron's 755 HRS that took 12364 AB and declare McGwire the greatest HR hitter because it only took him 6187 AB to hit 583 HR (one HR for every 10.6 AB, the best in the history of baseball). I don't think sooooo.

I do discount Aaron's 755 because of the AB and take that into consideration.
3000 hits though, is a totally different thing than homers. I've always felt 3000 was overrated, even if Ruth had gotten there I'd feel the same. It's an accumulation of AB. Great players can get there, and mediocre players can get there with enough AB. That number, in and of itself does not measure greatness of a hitter, imo.

[ElHalo]

Why Shoeless Joe was not included in your lists guys?

Jackson is a touchie subject around here. Along with a few others (Reggie Jackson, George Sisler, Joe Morgan) he becomes a point of contention, a lightning rod if you will, with people either loving or hating him.

Just so you know, my top list goes:

1. Ruth
2. Williams
3. Gehrig
4. Hornsby
5. Cobb
6. J. Jackson

[Bill Burgess]

Oh - I know about the positional difference. That helps Cobb in terms of defensive value.
I'll go back and read some of Bill's posts on Cobb's defense. Maybe that will raise my opinion. At any rate, he's still #2 on my overall list.

To any who would like to see my Cobb, as defensive player quotes, here is where I keep them.

Go to this site: "www.baseballguru.com/bburgess"

Once you are there, scroll down the left side until you see the file listed as:
"Assessing Ty".

Once you are on there, I list the quotes for the defensive work of Ty, Babe Ruth and Joe Jackson. They are very entertaining. I hope you enjoy them.

I also cite my sources and when the quotes were given.

Bill Burgess

[Sultan_1895-1948]

To any who would like to see my Cobb, as defensive player quotes, here is where I keep them.

Go to this site: "www.baseballguru.com/bburgess"

Once you are there, scroll down the left side until you see the file listed as:
"Assessing Ty".

Once you are on there, I list the quotes for the defensive work of Ty, Babe Ruth and Joe Jackson. They are very entertaining. I hope you enjoy them.

I also cite my sources and when the quotes were given.

Bill Burgess

Someone should award you with a "gold-keyboard" for the work you put into that site Bill. Really, just a ton of info. You should post a few of those defensive quotes, just the "greatest hits" if you will.


ps. El Halo, good to see ya back ;)

[csh19792001]

ps. El Halo, good to see ya back ;)

I second that. Belated, warm welcome back to you, EH.

[Bill Burgess]

Someone should award you with a "gold-keyboard" for the work you put into that site Bill. Really, just a ton of info. You should post a few of those defensive quotes, just the "greatest hits" if you will.


ps. El Halo, good to see ya back ;)

Shucks, thanks, Randy. I live for praise (and women). Can't decide what feels better.

[ElHalo]

Thanks very much, everybody.

[Chisox]

Well, perhaps he read Bill's research regarding Cobb's fielding. It obviously doesn't compare them directly, but it does assess his fielding in great depth.

And if you're talking about stats, look at fielding Win Shares. It deems Cobb a B+ and Hank Aaron as a C+. He might be working off of that, also.

B+ overall for Cobb is probably accurate- he was probably an "A/A-" earlier in his career, but faded as he neared and passed 40. Personally, though, the C+ for Aaron seems rather punitive... because it goes against everything I've read/heard about Aaron's fielding (most of which has been very positive).

I always thought Cobb was a very good fielder before I ever read anything of Bill Burgess and certainly before I looked at Win Shares. Everything I've ever heard indicates that Cobb was a find fielder. I certainly think that Aaron was a fine fielder, but I've rated them about equal defensively in the field. I just give more credit to CF than most around here. Of course, all my rankings/ratings are a year old and contain nothing new I've heard since then. (I'm not going to update now based on old data when the new data is going to be here.)


--Aaron played several years in CF (in mid-career) after the Braves traded Bill Bruton and appears to have been pretty good at it. Remember he came up a 2B and when he moved to the OF he was new at it and the Braves had a terrific CF already. Cobb was moved to RF for several years fairly early in his career. He did play much more CF over the course of his career than Aaron, but I'm not sure how much positional advantage he really deserves. I'd say B/B- is fair for Cobb. B+ at best. Aaron was an A- type RF. B+ at worst.
I knew that about Aaron, but not about Cobb. That might play a significant factor in my rankings. I had both Cobb and Aaron around a B+ at their respective positions.



I do discount Aaron's 755 because of the AB and take that into consideration.
3000 hits though, is a totally different thing than homers. I've always felt 3000 was overrated, even if Ruth had gotten there I'd feel the same. It's an accumulation of AB. Great players can get there, and mediocre players can get there with enough AB. That number, in and of itself does not measure greatness of a hitter, imo.
I've got Aaron as the 4th best HR hitter ever behind Ruth, Bonds, and McGwire.

I totally agree with 3,000 hits. If a player gets 3,000 hits and all singles in 12,000 AB, what exactly is he worth? A .250 BA and .250 Slug? Granted nothing that extreme has ever happened, but take away Keeler's hits over 2,500 and add to his AB's and you get 2500/9023 for .277BA, .326OBP, .347Slug (Assuming his 432 hits taken away were all singles.) At that average it would take him 10,828 AB to get 3,000. Granted that's being unfair to Willie, but it does use a scenario that it entirely plausable in history. Brooks Robinson got 2,848 H in 10,654 AB for a .267 BA. If he had played another full season, he'd have gotten 3,000, (it would have taken him 11,223AB with a .267 average) but would that have made him better, or have been more of an accomplishment than Keeler, Sisler, Wheat, Hornsby ect. that all got close to 3,000 but never made it for one reason or another? 3,000 Hits is superficial on two levels.

[Archie DeBunker]

There are the top 1% from any era that would do great. Then there is Ruth. The top 1% of the 1% of the 1%. With his ability and the advantages a later era would bring, he would do just fine. You might point out "greater competition" and there might be something to be said for that overall, but it wouldn't affect the upper elites of the elites so much. He'd have better equipment, more luxury in every way, better travel situation, smaller parks, better knowledge of techniques and training. Would he stand out so far among his peers, of course not. The interesting thing though, is that if not for Ruth, 1942-63 wouldn't have been the same as we knew it to be.

----------------------------------------------
Sultan,

You are correct that one stat by itself is not an indicator of greatness. However, "greatness" is nothing but a subjective term if not backed up by some measurement other than speculation (Yes, Ty Cobb might have stolen 1500 bases if he had been equipped with cleted Nike's) or personal bias (DiMaggio was the greatest becaue I'm from NY).

Focus on the composite career rankings for all hitting catagories that I submitted in my initial response to the greatest hitter question. Going strictly by the rankings, Musial is agruably the greatest all round hitter....ever.

Archie DeBunker

[Archie DeBunker]

I always thought Cobb was a very good fielder before I ever read anything of Bill Burgess and certainly before I looked at Win Shares. Everything I've ever heard indicates that Cobb was a find fielder. I certainly think that Aaron was a fine fielder, but I've rated them about equal defensively in the field. I just give more credit to CF than most around here. Of course, all my rankings/ratings are a year old and contain nothing new I've heard since then. (I'm not going to update now based on old data when the new data is going to be here.)

________________________________________

Chisox,

Then I've got McGwire as the best HR hitter of all times.

2953 more AB would make McGwire equal to Ruth's AB of 9140. Based on McGwire's HR/AB ratio he would then have 861 career HR....best ever.

You can't have it both ways: Dismiss 3000 hitters with assumptions and projections and then subjectively crown the best HR hitters.

Archie DeBunker

[538280]

________________________________________

Chisox,

Then I've got McGwire as the best HR hitter of all times.

2953 more AB would make McGwire equal to Ruth's AB of 9140. Based on McGwire's HR/AB ratio he would then have 861 career HR....best ever.

You can't have it both ways: Dismiss 3000 hitters with assumptions and projections and then subjectively crown the best HR hitters.

Archie DeBunker

Now that's just silly. Comparing Mark McGwire's raw numbers to Babe Ruth's is beyond ridiculous. Try using an era adjustment, and I'm sure you'll arrive at a much differenct conclusion.

[Blackout]

________________________________________

Chisox,

Then I've got McGwire as the best HR hitter of all times.

2953 more AB would make McGwire equal to Ruth's AB of 9140. Based on McGwire's HR/AB ratio he would then have 861 career HR....best ever.

You can't have it both ways: Dismiss 3000 hitters with assumptions and projections and then subjectively crown the best HR hitters.

Archie DeBunker

Ruth only had 8399 ABs, not 9140

[BoSox Rule]

Now that's just silly. Comparing Mark McGwire's raw numbers to Babe Ruth's is beyond ridiculous. Try using an era adjustment, and I'm sure you'll arrive at a much differenct conclusion.
BP translated

Ruth: 1066 HR in 8716 AB
McGwire: 655 HR in 6003 AB

[SHOELESSJOE3]

________________________________________

Chisox,

Then I've got McGwire as the best HR hitter of all times.

2953 more AB would make McGwire equal to Ruth's AB of 9140. Based on McGwire's HR/AB ratio he would then have 861 career HR....best ever.

You can't have it both ways: Dismiss 3000 hitters with assumptions and projections and then subjectively crown the best HR hitters.

Archie DeBunker

I guess if we go by strictly the numbers, math alone you could make that claim. Mac the best home run hitter if we use AB/HR ratio alone.
Mac AT 10.61 over a 16 year career.
Ruth at 11.76 over a 22 year career.

If we factor in other facts, no one was as consistent as Ruth over a whole career, thats why many make the case for Ruth being the greatest home run hitter ever.

Mac made most of his gains when the home run derby started in the early to mid 1990s when balls were flying out of parks like never before. All of baseball was on a home run derby in the 1990s.

McGwire-------AB/HR ratio
1986-1995--13.20
1996-2001---8.26

Take Ruth out of the dead ball era, scuffed balls left in games,trick deliveries in use. Also consider Ruth was a pitcher only his first 4 season batting every 4th or 5th day, not the best schedule for maintaining a hitters timing.

Ruth AB/HR ratio
1915-1919-----22.44 dead ball era.
1920-1935-----10.91 not far behind Mac and we have to consider Ruth played more years, Mac most likely would have lost some points in AB/RH ratio had he stuck around longer.

First 5 seasons------------Ruth 49 career home runs
First 5 seasons------------Mac 156 career home runs

Number of seasons with 40 or more home runs.
Ruth 11 seasons.
Mac 6 seasons.

Even more remarkable when we consider that Ruth never hit 40 until his 7th season in 1920, his career already one quarter over. Mac had only two in his first 7 seasons, but he had the opportunity, the at bats to do it, Ruth did not, he pitched only his first 4 seasons.

Who has the best AB/HR ratio, Mark McGwire. My view and a great number of others, who was the greatest all around home run hitter, it's Ruth hands down over any hitter ever to play the game.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

----------------------------------------------
Sultan,

You are correct that one stat by itself is not an indicator of greatness. However, "greatness" is nothing but a subjective term if not backed up by some measurement other than speculation (Yes, Ty Cobb might have stolen 1500 bases if he had been equipped with cleted Nike's) or personal bias (DiMaggio was the greatest becaue I'm from NY).

Focus on the composite career rankings for all hitting catagories that I submitted in my initial response to the greatest hitter question. Going strictly by the rankings, Musial is agruably the greatest all round hitter....ever.

Archie DeBunker

My response that you quoted, was in response to something csh asked about.

Dude, I agree Musial was the man. My ony issue with your entire post was including 3000 hits in some "magical club." That was the only issue. 3000 hits is bogus imo, and shouldn't be a benchmark. Most people think batting average is over-rated, so what does that make the hit total. WAY more over-rated, right. That was the only issue. I'm sitting by the fire at the Musial camp, so no prob ;)

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I guess if we go by strictly the numbers, math alone you could make that claim. Mac the best home run hitter if we use AB/HR ratio alone.


Well done.

[four tool]

Shucks, thanks, Randy. I live for praise (and women). Can't decide what feels better.

Glasd that conumdrum doesn't effect your basaeball acumen:)

[Bill Burgess]

Glad that conundrum doesn't affect your baseball acumen:)

Me three, old buddy.

[Archie DeBunker]

Ruth only had 8399 ABs, not 9140

You are correct...I inadvertenly grabbed Bonds AB numbers from mlb.com, but I did correctly re-compute McGwire's career HR at 861 (using Ruth's AB.) By the way, I really don't believe it monkeying with statistics like this but rather participitate in it to point out the absurdity of the practice. The career stats are what thay are, no more, no less. Aaron is the all time HR hitter. Greatest?
Well, that becomes subjective, doesn't it?

Archie DeBunker

[Archie DeBunker]

My response that you quoted, was in response to something csh asked about.

Dude, I agree Musial was the man. My ony issue with your entire post was including 3000 hits in some "magical club." That was the only issue. 3000 hits is bogus imo, and shouldn't be a benchmark. Most people think batting average is over-rated, so what does that make the hit total. WAY more over-rated, right. That was the only issue. I'm sitting by the fire at the Musial camp, so no prob ;)

---------------------------------------------
Sultan,

Wish I'd never used that "magic 3" thing. It just served as a lightening rod to draw from the point I was trying to make about Musial and the impact he has had on hitting records that no other player, past, present or future can/will claim.

With regards to BA, let me see if I understand what you are saying. If in the 2006 season a ML player were to hit .439 with 550 AB, "most people" would think that to be an over-rated accomplishment? Furthur, if 20 years from now a player retires with 12,000 AB and 5100 hits, "most people" will say "bogus imo", right?

Archie DeBunker

[Sultan_1895-1948]

---------------------------------------------
Sultan,

Wish I'd never used that "magic 3" thing. It just served as a lightening rod to draw from the point I was trying to make about Musial and the impact he has had on hitting records that no other player, past, present or future can/will claim.

With regards to BA, let me see if I understand what you are saying. If in the 2006 season a ML player were to hit .439 with 550 AB, "most people" would think that to be an over-rated accomplishment? Furthur, if 20 years from now a player retires with 12,000 AB and 5100 hits, "most people" will say "bogus imo", right?

Archie DeBunker

We can let the "magic 3" thing be, don't let it keep you up at night ;) The 3000 hit thing just bugs me and I couldn't resist responding to only that. You had a great post, so sorry to nit pick at just that. I just can't get with that milestone.

I'm not understanding your question though. Of course if someone hit .439 in a season it would be a big deal. What I'm saying is that more should be looked at then a final hit total of someone's career.

On a smaller scale, to take a single season, we can look at Ichiro the year he broke Sisler's record. It was an amazing total, but Ichiro had 704 AB to get his 262 hits. Sisler only had 631 to get 257, and in '22 had only 586 to get 246 hits. What is more impressive.

People think that batting average is over-rated. Batting average actually looks at how many hits were achieved per AB. That is a much evolved system compared to just looking at a final hit total, so to me 3000 is somewhat bogus.

We can get off this subject. Like I said before, your Musial post was great and I'm a fan of his. But the 3000 hit thing is a quirk I have a hard time dealing with. Baseball enthusiasts like those on this board who have the time and knowledge to spend thinking baseball, should know better than to give 3000 too much credit. It's a rare club by circumstance, not by greatness, imo.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

You are correct...I inadvertenly grabbed Bonds AB numbers from mlb.com, but I did correctly re-compute McGwire's career HR at 861 (using Ruth's AB.) By the way, I really don't believe it monkeying with statistics like this but rather participitate in it to point out the absurdity of the practice. The career stats are what thay are, no more, no less. Aaron is the all time HR hitter. Greatest?
Well, that becomes subjective, doesn't it?

Archie DeBunker

Projections are always, almost always questionable. In this case McGwire, we're using his AB/HR ratio in his present condition and using that to project what he might hit in a certain number of at bats. The problem being that as he gets older he most likely will not hit home runs at the rate we factor in, AB/HR 10.61.

Mark retires at age 37 and would have to hit 278 more home runs to reach 861. An example, giving him even 4 more seasons, playing till the age of 41 he would have to hit 69.5 home runs per season, for 4 seasons to reach 861.

Ruth's strength, consistency at hitting for high numbers in home runs over many seasons. No one hit for high numbers for so many years as Ruth did, despite the fact that he never hit 40 in a season until his 7th season in 1920. His career was 1/4 over before he ever hit more than 30 in one season.

If one chooses to check the following they may. I'm to lazy to look it up but I can assure the following numbers are close, very close.

In seasons of at least 130 games played.

Ruth hit 40+ home runs 11 times. I believe 13 seasons with 130 or more games played.

Heavy hitters from the 1930s early 1940s, Hack Wilson, Jimmy Foxx, Hank Greenberg combined did not match Ruth's 11 seasons with 40+ and their number of seasons with 130 games totaled 30+ seasons played.

Barry Bonds and Hank Aaron the other two members of the 700 club hit 40+ around 16 times combined and their seasons with at least 130 games has to be close to 40 seasons.

When you look over the comparisons of these 40+ home run seasons and compare Ruth's number of seasons to the others, it's not even a contest. No disrespect to those longballers in the 1930s, Wilson, Foxx, Greenberg and the two greats, Hank and Barry, but Ruth leaves them behind, far behind.

As you say, the "most" when presented in numbers can't be debated, it's simple math, the "greatest" another story, debatable.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

With Stan Musial, I agree your right on. How did this guy not make the All Century Team in the voting. Well, I guess when the voting is in the hands of the fans, I can see it. Even at that a joke. Look at what this guy did, his numbers over all those years. I would guess that his number of triples is the highest for the era he played in. Triples were in great numbers before Stan came around.
Don't know if you anyone else made note of this. Career hits for Stan 1815 on the road and 1815 at home.

[Bill Burgess]

Don't know if you anyone else made note of this. Career hits for Stan 1815 on the road and 1815 at home.

Just think how much unbelievable planning that took for so many years!

[Archie DeBunker]

We can let the "magic 3" thing be, don't let it keep you up at night ;) The 3000 hit thing just bugs me and I couldn't resist responding to only that. You had a great post, so sorry to nit pick at just that. I just can't get with that milestone.

I'm not understanding your question though. Of course if someone hit .439 in a season it would be a big deal. What I'm saying is that more should be looked at then a final hit total of someone's career.

On a smaller scale, to take a single season, we can look at Ichiro the year he broke Sisler's record. It was an amazing total, but Ichiro had 704 AB to get his 262 hits. Sisler only had 631 to get 257, and in '22 had only 586 to get 246 hits. What is more impressive.

People think that batting average is over-rated. Batting average actually looks at how many hits were achieved per AB. That is a much evolved system compared to just looking at a final hit total, so to me 3000 is somewhat bogus.

We can get off this subject. Like I said before, your Musial post was great and I'm a fan of his. But the 3000 hit thing is a quirk I have a hard time dealing with. Baseball enthusiasts like those on this board who have the time and knowledge to spend thinking baseball, should know better than to give 3000 too much credit. It's a rare club by circumstance, not by greatness, imo.

----------------------------------------------------------
Sultan,

Well, out of the thousands of players that have gone to bat in the ML, only:
20 have hit 500 HR
26 have had 3000 HITS
3 have hit 700 HR
2 have had 4000 HITS
I'm impressed by all those numbers and choose not to discount but rather salute those players that had the talent, endurance and desire to play long enough to do what only a very few will ever accomplish.

Archie DeBunker

[Archie DeBunker]

Just think how much unbelievable planning that took for so many years!


However, planning doesn't always work out so well. Musial recorded a career 1951 ribbies but scored only 1949 runs.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

----------------------------------------------------------
Sultan,

Well, out of the thousands of players that have gone to bat in the ML, only:
20 have hit 500 HR
26 have had 3000 HITS
3 have hit 700 HR
2 have had 4000 HITS
I'm impressed by all those numbers and choose not to discount but rather salute those players that had the talent, endurance and desire to play long enough to do what only a very few will ever accomplish.

Archie DeBunker

All impressive accomplishments.

Which of those four have been accomplished by the most non-all time greats though? It's an accumulation stat, plain and simple.

[leecemark]

--You have to be very, very good to accumulate any of those numbers. Its not like somebody is going to get 150 hits or 30 HR a yearsfor 20 years (although if you did hit 30 HR a year for 20 years that would be great enough for me). Most players are going to have some developmental years and/or injury years and ALL players who reach those kind of numbers play into some decline. They have to have some outstanding seasons along the way to make up the difference.
--Brock is the only 3,000 hit guy who wasn't really a great hitter and he was a pretty good one. Nobody in the 600 HR club wasn't a fabulous player and none in the 500 club weren't elite power hitters in their day.

[Matthew C.]

--You have to be very, very good to accumulate any of those numbers. Its not like somebody is going to get 150 hits or 30 HR a yearsfor 20 years (although if you did hit 30 HR a year for 20 years that would be great enough for me). Most players are going to have some developmental years and/or injury years and ALL players who reach those kind of numbers play into some decline. They have to have some outstanding seasons along the way to make up the difference.
--Brock is the only 3,000 hit guy who wasn't really a great hitter and he was a pretty good one. Nobody in the 600 HR club wasn't a fabulous player and none in the 500 club weren't elite power hitters in their day.

I would say that Yount was a "pretty good" hitter and not great as well. Heck, Yount's OB% was .342, only .005 points higher than the guy some want out of the Hall because of his "dismal hitting" - Ozzie Smith.

[leecemark]

--Yount's OBP may have been only slightly better but his slugging was over 100 points better. He hit good enough to win a 2nd MVP after moving to the OF.

[Archie DeBunker]

All impressive accomplishments.

Which of those four have been accomplished by the most non-all time greats though? It's an accumulation stat, plain and simple.

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

Accumulation stats are good....all the greats have to have them, lots of them, in order to be great. It's the chicken before the egg.

Most of the all time greats are in the four. The rest are near-greats.

[four tool]

Yount's BA and OB are relatively low because he was adept at sacrificing himself to move a runner over. The owner once decribed a "perfect' inning as single, Yount sacrifices runner to third, and the next batter drives in the runner on third.

[Jidge708]

A bit off the subject here, some spoke of Stan Musial's hitting. A question about a pitching appearence Stan made. If I recall he did appear in one game as a pitcher but the stats showed no innings pitched, That I could understand, if he retired no hitters that makes sense.

The question, the stats also showed no batters faced. Any info on this one.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

A bit off the subject here, some spoke of Stan Musial's hitting. A question about a pitching appearence Stan made. If I recall he did appear in one game as a pitcher but the stats showed no innings pitched, That I could understand, if he retired no hitters that makes sense.

The question, the stats also showed no batters faced. Any info on this one.

Here is the line on that appearance by Stan.
Inn. Pitched------0
Hits--------------0
SO---------------0
BB---------------0

Stan came in from center field to pitch to Frankie Baumholtz a lefty who turned around and batted right handed against Stan. Baumholtz lined a ball to SS Solly Hemus who made an error on the play.Stan returned to center field. That took place in 1952 on the last day of the season.
Baumholtz and Musial were in a battle for the high batting average, Musial ended up at .336 and Baumholtz at .325

It seems that that last game really meant nothing asfar as to who had rhe high average, no way with a spread like that, 11 points up for Stan.

[yanks0714]

Shucks, thanks, Randy. I live for praise (and women). Can't decide what feels better.
How about praise from women?

[Bill Burgess]

How about praise from women?

Best possible scenario. That's when I live 100%. God bless women.

[four tool]

Just verbal praise?

[Bill Burgess]

At my age, I'm lucky to even receive email.

[four tool]

That explains why you post so much

[Bill Burgess]

You guessed my secret. Baseball Fever is my hobby/recreation. How I relax. You guys and researching. I can still clearly remember when I had a real life. Distinctly.

[four tool]

So what do you consider a real life?

I wish I had the resources to do serious baseball research

[Bill Burgess]

So what do you consider a real life?

I wish I had the resources to do serious baseball research

A real life? Hmm. Intriguing question, I must say. Depends on how one approaches it. For me, a girlfriend, at the minimum would have to figure in there somewhere. Going out, visiting friends, some social functions occasionally. Normal stuff like that.

Serious research? Today, all it takes is a SABR membership. Costs around $45. bucks annually. With it, you get a free subscription to Proquest, and half off your subscription to Sporting News online.

Each subscription should change you life forever. Just ask ShoelessJoe3.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

--Brock is the only 3,000 hit guy who wasn't really a great hitter and he was a pretty good one. Nobody in the 600 HR club wasn't a fabulous player and none in the 500 club weren't elite power hitters in their day.

That was exactly my point. Out all the "milestone" clubs, the 3000 hit club has the least number of All-Time Greats.

You have to be very fortunate health wise in order to accumulate 3000 hits. Greatness is not a requirement.

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

26 hitters in the 3000 hit club.

AB

14,053
12,364
11,988
11,551
11,434
11,336
11,008
11,003
10,972
10,961
10,881
10,835
10,472
10,430
10,349
10,332
10,277
10,195
10,116
9,949
9,589
9,459
9,454
9,315
9,288
9,180


14 of these hitter have a career B.A. under .310, and 9 of those are under .300.

Heck, even Brooks Robinson got within 152 hits of 3000 thanks to his 10,654 AB.

If Biggio plays two more years, he'll have over 10,500 AB and just barely get over 3000 hits with a sub .290 career avg.


Some great players who didn't get the "milestone" because of circumstance.

Hornsby - 2930 h / 8173 ab

Ruth - 2873 h / 8399 ab

Sisler - 2812 h / 8267 ab

Keeler - 2932 h / 8591 ab

S. Rice - 2987 h / 9269 ab

Simmons - 2927 h / 8759 ab

Wheat - 2884 h / 9106 ab

Foxx - 2646 h / 8134 ab

Williams - 2654 h / 7706 ab

It goes on and on. 3000 is just a meaningless total unless other more important numbers are looked at.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

A real life? Hmm. Intriguing question, I must say. Depends on how one approaches it. For me, a girlfriend, at the minimum would have to figure in there somewhere. Going out, visiting friends, some social functions occasionally. Stuff like that there.

Serious research? Today, all it takes is a SABR membership. Costs around $45. bucks annually. With it, you get a free subscription to Proquest, and half off your subscription to Sporting News online.

Each subscription should change you life forever. Just ask ShoelessJoe3.

Go ahead Four Tool, ask me and I'll tell you Bill is right on. Bill is the one who told me about that SABR membership. With that membership you have access to Proquest. You can look at daily news reports on anything, world events, entertainers, world figures you name it. With me I look on daily box scores, game recaps, the most accurate source there is. Written up the day after the game was played, not subject to exaggeration, faulty memories of events which can happen when one relies on accounts of games or events told years later.

You have access to the New York Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post and Chicago Tribune going back 70 to 80+ years.

Simple to use. Say you want to find any news articles dealing with Tris Speaker during a certain time span.
Type in a date, time span, example 04/06/1915--04/10/1917 and his name and you will any news article on Tris in that time period. This deal is gold mine of info, I would be lost without it.

[Bill Burgess]

Extremely Useful Reference Resources

1. Social Security Death Index, 1937-present, only really good from 1970 on. It's free online at roots.com and ancestry.com

2. New York Times Obituaries Index; There are 2 volumes, 1851-1969 and 1970-79. These 2 reference books are sometimes hard to acquire. All libraries have them.

3. Biography and Genealogy Master Index; This is an online index, created by Gale. You can usually access it through a city library. This is one amazing database. Gale company has indexed 12.7 million biographical sketches in more than 3,400 volumes

4. Biography Resource Center, - Similar to above. Access through library.

5. Ancestry.com, Has many dozens of useful databases, such as 1910, 1920 & 1930census. In fact, it has ALL census' from 1790 to 1930.

The 1900 Federal Census gives month/yr. of birth for everyone in US. The 1918 WWI Civilian Draft Registration database gives the exact date of birth, place of birth, full name, occupation for all US males born betrween 1873-1900. It includes all US males born between those years, regardless of whether or not that person was drafted or not. Incredibly useful reference resource.

6. Google.com; In addition to its search engine, which is the best to use, try its Google Answers. They have hired hundreds of independent contractors to personally search for your request.

7. SABR Bulletin's Research Needs, as well as their National Pastime, and Baseball Research Journal

8. The Sporting News online, available via Paper of Record, for $99./yr.; SABR makes this database available to it's members for $49./yr.

9. Proquest; has packaged into one database;

NY Times (1851-2002),
Washington Post (1877-1989),
LA Times (1881-1985),
Chicago Daily Tribune (1845-1985),
Boston Globe (1872-1922),
Atlanta Constitution (1868-1925).

with an excellent & fast search engine. (Proquest formerly was known as Bell & Howell, then UMI)

Proquest has just added to its roster of stellar newspapers, the Chicago Defender, a black newspaper, 1905-1975. Perfect for news items of deceased Negro League players.

SABR has made available to it's members the Proquest Database, for free, as a benefit of membership, which now is $50./yr.

[four tool]

Thanks guys. As soon as I geta spare $50 I'll join up, money has been seriously tight and I lost my job in Oct.

For me a real life includes a wife (have one) time for her (have plenty of that) enough money to cover the bills(oops) and some time to spend on hobbies. Well,three out of four ain't bad for now.

[Bench 5]

Extremely Useful Reference Resources

1. Social Security Death Index, 1937-present, only really good from 1970 on. It's free online at roots.com and ancestry.com

2. New York Times Obituaries Index; There are 2 volumes, 1851-1969 and 1970-79. These 2 reference books are sometimes hard to acquire. All libraries have them.

Thanks Bill!! That was excellent information. I just joined. It cost $60 but looking at all of the benefits, I can't wait to start using it. I am also very interested in using it for some family research. My brother has traced all of our family lines back to at least the early 1800s and some much further. A couple of the databases might provide us with some additional information. There are some baseball stories that I would like to research as well.

[christian gentleman]

hornsby
cobb
the babe
pete rose
joe jackson
nap lajoie
ted williams
joe dimaggio
lou gehrig
hank aaron
mickey cochrane

[Chisox]

hornsby
cobb
the babe
pete rose
joe jackson
nap lajoie
ted williams
joe dimaggio
lou gehrig
hank aaron
mickey cochrane

That is absolutely stranger than any Bill Burgess list I've ever seen.

[Wee Willie]

That is absolutely stranger than any Bill Burgess list I've ever seen.
I agree, Chisox. Perhaps that list wasn't done in any particular order. However - Cochrane, Rose, and Lajoie really don't have a case for top 10.

[538280]

I agree, Chisox. Perhaps that list wasn't done in any particular order. However - Cochrane, Rose, and Lajoie really don't have a case for top 10.

Nether does Joe Jackson. I've said this before, Joe Jackson would be an obscure figure to everyone but baseball historians if he didn't get banned from baseball. The sole reason he gets press as an all time great is because he intentionally tried to fix a World Series. That has greatly helped his name recognition, rather than hurt him. It's just plain ridiculous.

[Bill Burgess]

Nether does Joe Jackson. I've said this before, Joe Jackson would be an obscure figure to everyone but baseball historians if he didn't get banned from baseball. The sole reason he gets press as an all time great is because he intentionally tried to fix a World Series. That has greatly helped his name recognition, rather than hurt him. It's just plain ridiculous.

Chris,

Even if you were correct, did you ever hear the word, "allegedly". When a subject is in dispute, as the above is, we use the word, "allegedly".

Bill

[Bill Burgess]

That is absolutely stranger than any Bill Burgess list I've ever seen.

Ahem! Brother Chisox! I feel absolutely - complimented, I think.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Nether does Joe Jackson. I've said this before, Joe Jackson would be an obscure figure to everyone but baseball historians if he didn't get banned from baseball. The sole reason he gets press as an all time great is because he intentionally tried to fix a World Series. That has greatly helped his name recognition, rather than hurt him. It's just plain ridiculous.

That a shameful act, that of fixing, alledged or proven is one of the reasons that the name of Jackson keeps popping up is true. But, I say "but" if he could have continued to play at the level he did for a whole career or most of a career he would have been remembered and noted long past his playing years and deservedly.
Thats a part of the reason we keep him up front, not just because of the fix but also because many wonder, what kind of mark or legend might he have left on the game.
Why is he the one most know of, what about the others, even casuall fans know of him, the other fixers are not as recognizable.

You know, let me get off the subject of baseball for a moment and compare his status to James dean the actor. What if he had not died so young, would he still be a legend. My opinion same thing, the fact that he left the acting scene so young and the potential, what might have been is what made him a Hollywood legend. Who can say if he would have lived a full life and his creer just leveled off, would he still be a legend.

Both had different events cut their careers short, one his own doing the other an accident, other than that their careers parallel each other. What might have been, we will never know.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Nether does Joe Jackson. I've said this before, Joe Jackson would be an obscure figure to everyone but baseball historians if he didn't get banned from baseball. The sole reason he gets press as an all time great is because he intentionally tried to fix a World Series. That has greatly helped his name recognition, rather than hurt him. It's just plain ridiculous.

Two different lists can be made concerning hitters. One would be based on the actual career they had, and how they stack up against everyone else. The other would be them in a vacuum. Just them as hitters. As a pure hitter, Joe Jackson would rank very high on that list.

He gets extra attention because of the Black Sox issue and it's a hot topic to discuss how much guilt he actually should shoulder. He also gets much attention though, because of his greatness. One thing many on here take as near concrete evidence about players, is peers accounts. Jackson's peers, including the greatest players and pitchers of all time testify to his greatness as not just a hitter, but an all around player. Taking peers accounts into consideration is good, especially when the accounts aren't coming with a motive or strong bias, such as in the case of some Negro League accounts.

Imagine what Shoeless would have done with the livelier ball had he been allowed to finish his career. Joe was top notch as a pure hitter. He does get attention for the scandal, but he might prefer you only gave him the attention he deserves; his on field play.

[Archie DeBunker]

Two different lists can be made concerning hitters. One would be based on the actual career they had, and how they stack up against everyone else. The other would be them in a vacuum. Just them as hitters. As a pure hitter, Joe Jackson would rank very high on that list.

He gets extra attention because of the Black Sox issue and it's a hot topic to discuss how much guilt he actually should shoulder. He also gets much attention though, because of his greatness. One thing many on here take as near concrete evidence about players, is peers accounts. Jackson's peers, including the greatest players and pitchers of all time testify to his greatness as not just a hitter, but an all around player. Taking peers accounts into consideration is good, especially when the accounts aren't coming with a motive or strong bias, such as in the case of some Negro League accounts.

Imagine what Shoeless would have done with the livelier ball had he been allowed to finish his career. Joe was top notch as a pure hitter. He does get attention for the scandal, but he might prefer you only gave him the attention he deserves; his on field play.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Jackson played 1332 games during his career.
Musial played 1370 games through the 1951 season.

Compare their stats at that point in time:
Percent of games played - Jackson 93% / Musial 98%
Hits - Jackson 1772 / Musial 1829
HR - Jackson 54 / Musial 206
TB - Jackson 2577 / Musial 3074
OBP - Jackson .413 / Musial .429
SLG - Jackson .517 / Musial .584
AVG - Jackson .356 / Musial .347

Fair way of projecting Jackson's "full-career" hitting potential....no?

Archie DeBunker

[csh19792001]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Jackson played 1332 games during his career.
Musial played 1370 games through the 1951 season.

Compare their stats at that point in time:
Percent of games played - Jackson 93% / Musial 98%
Hits - Jackson 1772 / Musial 1829
HR - Jackson 54 / Musial 206
TB - Jackson 2577 / Musial 3074
OBP - Jackson .413 / Musial .429
SLG - Jackson .517 / Musial .584
AVG - Jackson .356 / Musial .347

Fair way of projecting Jackson's "full-career" hitting potential....no?

Archie DeBunker

Are you saying that Joe Jackson is vastly overrated?

You might have a point. I mean, how many people consider Stan Musial the equal of Jackson as a hitter? Especially considering Musial was doing his damage at the plate against better competition, maybe they should.

[Archie DeBunker]

Are you saying that Joe Jackson is vastly overrated?

You might have a point. I mean, how many people consider Stan Musial the equal of Jackson as a hitter? Especially considering Musial was doing his damage at the plate against better competition, maybe they should.

-------------------------------------------------
It's not that Jackson is overrated. It happens that Stan is one of the most underrated, or should I say under-appreciated, players in the game. If you don't believe me, compare DiMaggio's 13 year career to Musial's first 13 years....you won't believe the numbers, especially in light of all the press DiMaggio has received over the years.

I think Jackson, DiMaggio and Musial were all great hitters....with Stan holding the edge.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Jackson played 1332 games during his career.
Musial played 1370 games through the 1951 season.

Compare their stats at that point in time:
Percent of games played - Jackson 93% / Musial 98%
Hits - Jackson 1772 / Musial 1829
HR - Jackson 54 / Musial 206
TB - Jackson 2577 / Musial 3074
OBP - Jackson .413 / Musial .429
SLG - Jackson .517 / Musial .584
AVG - Jackson .356 / Musial .347

Fair way of projecting Jackson's "full-career" hitting potential....no?

Archie DeBunker

I don't understand why you would quote what I said, and then post that. When did I ever compare Shoeless to Musial? I was responding to something 538280 posted earlier which had nothing to do with Musial.

[csh19792001]

It's not that Jackson is overrated. It happens that Stan is one of the most underrated, or should I say under-appreciated, players in the game. If you don't believe me, compare DiMaggio's 13 year career to Musial's first 13 years....you won't believe the numbers, especially in light of all the press DiMaggio has received over the years.

I think Jackson, DiMaggio and Musial were all great hitters....with Stan holding the edge.

I might agree, but then, I might not entirely. No alltime great was hurt by their homepark NEARLY as much as Joe Dimaggio was. I covered this not too long ago when we were discussing Ott vs. Dimaggio. Here is what I posted.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=36740&page=4

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=432094&postcount=117

Dimaggio's numbers on the road were vastly depressed by his park and by Death Valley in left field, and he also lost what might very well have been his best 3 years (ages 28-30) to WWII.

You can't knock Musial, he was probably one of the top 5 greatest hitters ever, IMO. When everything is taken into account and reconciled, though, Dimaggio isn't far behind.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Jackson played 1332 games during his career.
Musial played 1370 games through the 1951 season.

Compare their stats at that point in time:
Percent of games played - Jackson 93% / Musial 98%
Hits - Jackson 1772 / Musial 1829
HR - Jackson 54 / Musial 206
TB - Jackson 2577 / Musial 3074
OBP - Jackson .413 / Musial .429
SLG - Jackson .517 / Musial .584
AVG - Jackson .356 / Musial .347

Fair way of projecting Jackson's "full-career" hitting potential....no?

Archie DeBunker

I think that shows how great a hitter Jackson was, comparing him to one of the greatest hitters in the game, look at the numbers.

I'm not here to say that Joe was as good as Stan although a case could be made when comparing them during those equal stretches of time, career at bats close in number.

Certainly not fair to Joe to compare home runs. Joe playing in the deadball era, trick deliveries allowed and hitting a ball that was left in the game as long as the cover remained intact. The average number of balls used per game at that time 3 or 4. Fans were obliged to return balls hit into the seating area, fair or foul. In one game 6 fans were arrested and booked for failing to return balls hit into the stands.

Also think of what that far greater number of home runs that Stan hit that go into slugging average, 4 bases in one at bat and also the number of total bases reached.
On one side you can argue higher level of competition in Stan's time but we can't ignore the great difference that Joe played in the deadball era.

I certainly hope that some are not out to say that Jackson was just an "average Joe", he was far better than that.

[ElHalo]

Are you saying that Joe Jackson is vastly overrated?

You might have a point. I mean, how many people consider Stan Musial the equal of Jackson as a hitter? Especially considering Musial was doing his damage at the plate against better competition, maybe they should.

Right, because one guy playing in the deadball era and one guy playing significant time against 15 year olds and the like while everyone else was away at war are the exact same things...

[christian gentleman]

I agree, Chisox. Perhaps that list wasn't done in any particular order. However - Cochrane, Rose, and Lajoie really don't have a case for top 10.


rose has more hits than cobb, and you wouldn't list him?
cochrane is a stretch
I do miss Josh Gibson.
go sox. put joe jackson in the hall.

[Captain Cold Nose]

rose has more hits than cobb, and you wouldn't list him?
cochrane is a stretch
I do miss Josh Gibson.
go sox. put joe jackson in the hall.
Yes, Rose has more hits than Cobb. And for every hit Rose had over Cobb, the distance between Cobb's batting average and Rose's batting average is about the same. Rose was a good hitter with a lot of opportunities to get hits. Not a great hitter.

[Archie DeBunker]

I don't understand why you would quote what I said, and then post that. When did I ever compare Shoeless to Musial? I was responding to something 538280 posted earlier which had nothing to do with Musial.

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

Sorry, didn't mean to confuse the discussion.......just wanted to join in since the issue, in part, was Jackson's shortened career and how great he might have been, etc. (Please re-read my last sentence.)

Hard to project a shortened career beyond playing time...easier to compare to another player at a similar stage in career to get an idea of "potential greatness". I though my comparison more or less supported your contention about Jackson.

[csh19792001]

Right, because one guy playing in the deadball era and one guy playing significant time against 15 year olds and the like while everyone else was away at war are the exact same things...

Actually, Musial had his best years after WWII, playing in a pre-expansion league that was beginning to integrate (in the much stronger of the two Major Leagues at the time). Musial also didn't play in 1945 (service), when the league was the most decimated by WWII.

Another thing with Jackson- he had a serious problem actually staying in the lineup. He played 6 quasi full seasons in his entire career... (actually, he only played TWO full seasons). Musial, on the other hand, played 900 games in a row, all the time at an incredibly high level. That's another problem with Jackson.

Look at Musial's 1948 season and tell me with a straight face that any of Jackson's were as great. You don't even have to consider improvements in competition (I know you wouldn't anyway, EH, because I don't even think you believe it to be true). Unless you completely ignore everything besides batting average, there's no way to say Jackson was a greater offensive player than Musial at their respective bests; and I'm not talking about their best season alone.

I don't even need to bring advanced measures into the discussion, but if I did, it would only serve to prove my point.

[Wee Willie]

rose has more hits than cobb, and you wouldn't list him? Absolutely not. His hits are a function of his longevity, not his dominance at the plate. He hit for little power, and his average - while very good - was not among the greatest.

[Bill Burgess]

Top 20 All-Time Batting Average
1. Ty Cobb .3664
2. Rogers Hornsby .3585
3. Joe Jackson .3558
4. Lefty O'Doul .3493


Andy,

The adjusted Relative Stats would have served the cause a lot better. Evened out the eras.

Bill

[Bill Burgess]

Here's an insanely ridiculous question. Anyone up for counting up this thread's results?

Since I joined Fever in Oct., 2003, Babe has consistently won both Greatest Player and Greatest Hitter laurels.

Cobb has come in second to Babe in Greatest Player polls.

But in hitting polls, it appears that Williams, Hornsby, Gehrig, Bonds, and others register on Fever better than Cobb. Wouldn't mind seeing how this thread ranks them all.

Bill Burgess

[Myankee4life]

I think Ruth, Williams, and Gehrig are clear cut above Ty
Foxx I think is also above

Hornsby is questionable but has a case

I'd rank Cobb around 5th now

Im biased towards sluggers :)

[Bill Burgess]

Despite our lengthy 8 pages and 193 post length, we only have 18 voters. Most of our posts are analysis & bluster. I assume Chritian Gentleman listed his list in order of preference.

Any count takers?

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I think Ruth, Williams, and Gehrig are clear cut above Ty
Foxx I think is also above

Hornsby is questionable but has a case

I'd rank Cobb around 5th now

Im biased towards sluggers :)

I guess that would all depend on what part of hitting you put the most or a higher value on. I usually go with the big guys that can hit with power and still carry a very high average.
With that said I can easily understand how others would put a great or a greater value on the brand of game that Cobb played, .366 over all those seasons WOW, .366 is great for one season in any era under any conditions.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I think many don't rank Cobb as high as he should be because:

A) They don't understand how much of a power hitter he really was.

B) They are of the opinion that his great hitting was more a product of his mental/strategic approach than raw hitting talent.

[four tool]

Cobb easily has the best SL and relative slugging of the deadball era. comparing him to players of the live ball era is the fun.

Ruth and Williams rank 1 and 2 in relative slugging, relative ob, relative ops and relative total average.
Cobb ranks 13, 3, 7 and 5 and of course 1 in relative BA, Ted is 5th ruth is 29th. Only Cobb, Williams, Hornsby, Speaker and Musial rank top 20 in all five categories!

Cobb and Williams are a close 1 and 2 in EQA

[csh19792001]

I guess that would all depend on what part of hitting you put the most or a higher value on. I usually go with the big guys that can hit with power and still carry a very high average.
With that said I can easily understand how others would put a great or a greater value on the brand of game that Cobb played, .366 over all those seasons WOW, .366 is great for one season in any era under any conditions.

.367 (or .366) carried out over a 24 year career (mostly the deadball era) is THE greatest career record in baseball history. It's so completely out of the realm of plausibility...how many singles hitters have there been that could never even dream of reaching that even at their peak?

And Cobb did all of this as a power hitter. He led in slugging 8 times and OPS+ 11 times. It seems impossible.

I figured out last year that Ichiro would need 6 straight .400 seasons (200 for 500) just to get his career average up to .367!!! Then I'd like to see him keep it there.

Hitting .387 (never dropping below .368) during a decade dominated by pitching is also one of the great feats in baseball history.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Cobb easily has the best SL and relative slugging of the deadball era. comparing him to players of the live ball era is the fun.

Ruth and Williams rank 1 and 2 in relative slugging, relative ob, relative ops and relative total average.
Cobb ranks 13, 3, 7 and 5 and of course 1 in relative BA, Ted is 5th Ruth is 29th. Only Cobb, Williams, Hornsby, Speaker and Musial rank top 20 in all five categories!

It's pretty obvious that I am a great fan of Ruth so I may be viewed by some of alibiing for Ruth and his position number 29 on the list of relative batting average. Nothing I can say about my image on that but I believe if you read what I have to say and be fair you might at least consider the merit of my view on that position he is ranked, 29th relative batting average.

Without taking anything away from Cobb, Williams, Hornsby, Speaker and Musial they were all playing the same game as all the others in their time, some contact, some going for the long ball.

Cobb, no way to diminish him. My point that was the era of contact hitters, that was the way the game was played. Same with Speaker much of his career in the contact era.

Williams in a class all his own, heads above the rest but all others were playing the same game, it was not the contact era of the teens and early to mid 1920s.

Musial was also playing the same game others were playing some contact but there was more going for the long ball.

Hornsby to me was stand out, hitting in the contact era and still hit 300 home runs, he was doing both.

To my point, Babe Ruth was the forerunner to the fence busters. Of all of these hitters, he was the only one swinging from the heels most of his career while 90 percent of the others were going to the plate, out to only make contact, meet the ball, don't strike out.

Is it not reasonable to realize that a long-baller is not going to carry the batting average of a great many when they are just going to the plate to make contact?

I can't say where Ruth would rank in relative batting average if we consider this but I would think 29th would be a bit low.

[Bill Burgess]

I have always asserted that if the Babe had played in any other era, his Relative BA would have climbed up, while his Relative Slugging Ave. came down.

To what degree? I have no idea.

I have always believed that Babe in 1923-24 represents a revealing snapshot into what the Babe would have done if he had eschewed going for the long ball in every AB, and I like to use his away figures to suggest what he might have done if playing in other time periods.

Good points, as usual, Joe.

Bill Burgess

[Bill Burgess]

Cobb easily has the best SL and relative slugging of the deadball era. comparing him to players of the live ball era is the fun.

Ruth and Williams rank 1 and 2 in relative slugging, relative ob, relative ops and relative total average.
Cobb ranks 13, 3, 7 and 5 and of course 1 in relative BA, Ted is 5th ruth is 29th. Only Cobb, Williams, Hornsby, Speaker and Musial rank top 20 in all five categories!

Cobb and Williams are a close 1 and 2 in EQA

Relative On Base Percentage
1. Williams
2. Ruth
3. Cobb
6. Hornsby
14. Gehrig


Relative Slugging Average
1. Ruth
2. Williams
3. Gehrig
6. Hornsby
11. Cobb
17. Mays

Relative BA.
1. Cobb
5. Williams
9. Hornsby
28. Ruth
41. Gehrig
79. Mays

[Blackout]

1-Ruth
2-Williams
3-Gehrig
4-Gibson (I consider Josh as the black Lou Gehrig)
5-Foxx
6-Cobb
7-Ramirez (yep, Manny is really that good in my opinion)
8-Bonds* (STERRRRRRRRRRRRROIIIIIIDDDDDDSS)
9-Hornsby
10-Thomas

hard to make room for Mantle, Dimaggio, A-rod, Wagner, Charleston, Aaron, Mays, Lloyd, Delahanty, Griffey, Musial etc.

[DiMag4Life]

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

Here's Ted Williams's list of 20 greatest hitters, for any of you curious:

1.Babe Ruth
2.Lou Gehrig
3.Jimmie Foxx
4.Rogers Hornsby
5.Joe DiMaggio
6.Ty Cobb
7.Stan Musial
8."Shoeless" Joe Jackson
9.Hank Aaron
10.Willie Mays
11.Hank Greenberg
12.Mickey Mantle
13.I forgot, so sue me.
14.Mel Ott
15.Johnny Mize
16.Frank Robinson
17.Tris Speaker
18.Harry Heilmann
19.Mike Schmidt
20.Ralph Kiner

What do you guys think of his and my list?

[Myankee4life]

I love you're list Dimag.....probably the best I've seen :clapping .

[PVNICK]

As long as that Jackson is Joe and not Reggie it's good. With only 10 to pick from there will be some phenomenal hitters left out. Bonds might be on there even stopping @1998.

[538280]

As long as that Jackson is Joe and not Reggie it's good. .

I think neither one of them deserve to be in the top 10, but I would take Reggie Jackson over Joe Jackson. Joe Jackson had a career about half the length of Reggie. I would say Joe Jackson was a little better at his absolute best (but not by THAT much because of the quality of competition they played against, I would take Reggie's 1969 over any of Joe's seasons). Joe Jackon's career is essentially 9 seasons, and he has a 170 OPS+. Reggie had 9 seasons of 187, 172, 166, 161, 155, 150, 150, 149, and 147, average of 160. The difference in just the league being integrated (getting another quarter of higher quality players in) makes that up. And beyond that-Reggie still has a number of quality seasons while Joe has nothing, and it doesn't make any sense, IMO, to give him credit for anything else when he was out of the game for being in with others in throwing a World Series.

I realize that J.Jackson gets a lot of credit from many great hitters such as Ruth and Cobb for people imitating his swing and as having the nicest swing which was modeled by many, but having picture perfect style and fundementals ("having no holes in his swing") doesn't necessarily make someone the best hitter, the best hitter is the one who does the most for the success of his team through his bat. And with those qualifications, there are literally tons of players who deserve to be on the list before Joe Jackson. Along with Reggie, Mike Schmidt, Willie Stargell, Willie McCovey, Harmon Killebrew, Dick Allen, Manny Ramirez, Jeff Bagwell, Frank Thomas, Gary Sheffield, and Mel Ott, to just name a few are players who never get mention on these lists (and probably shouldn't be top 10, to be honest) yet I think easily should outrank Joe Jackson. All of those guys had 9 seasons right with or only a little behind Joe Jackson, and they all have far more very good seasons beyond that.

[DiMag4Life]

What did you guys think of Ted Williams's list?

[538280]

This would be my list:

1. Babe Ruth
2. Ted Williams
3. Barry Bonds (pre-'99)
4. Mickey Mantle
5. Hank Aaron
6. Willie Mays
7. Ty Cobb
8. Stan Musial
9. Lou Gehrig
10. Rogers Hornsby

[TRfromBR]

What did you guys think of Ted Williams's list?

I think it's great. My only big disagreement is with the exclusion of Tehd himself, and with selection no. 13.

And yours is great, too, DiMag.

[DiMag4Life]

I think it's great. My only big disagreement is with the exclusion of Tehd himself, and with selection no. 13.

And yours is great, too, DiMag.

Yup, he didn't include himself so he wouldn't cause a comotion. Although, at the end of the book, he mentioned that Ruth was the greater hitter of the two.

[four tool]

What did you guys think of Ted Williams's list?


Ted deliberately left himself off the list, otherwise great for 1999 or whenever he did it.

[Babe is the best]

I have a spreadsheet measuring all of the offensive stats, including walks and steals, with rankings for career numbers, seasonal numbers, and leaderboard performance, and here are the results of that, through 2006.

1. Babe Ruth, by a wide margin, he scores 11, the lower the better.
2. Barry Bonds, scores 28, if he hangs on too long he will drop.
3. Ted Williams, scores 30.
4. Lou Gehrig, scores 32.
5. Ty Cobb, scores 34.
6. Stan Musial, scores 49.
7. Jimmie Foxx, scores 61.
8. Hank Aaron, scores 64.
9. Willie Mays, scores 67.
10. Rogers Hornsby, scores 78.

Next ten are Tris Speaker, Mickey Mantle, Frank Robinson, Mel Ott, Honus Wagner, Frank Thomas, Ed Delahanty, Dan Brouthers, Cap Anson, Eddie Collins. Joe Dimaggio is 21st. Modern players coming up quickly are Manny Ramirez at 25, Ken Griffey JR. at 26, and A-Rod at 35. In my system you have to have played 10 full seasons at least, so Pujols isn't ranked yet.

[538280]

How is your formula calculated? Is it adjusted for era and park? Does it use appropriate Linear Weight values? Do you incorporate any type of league quality adjustments? Is it a rate stat or a counting stat? I definitely don't agree with the usage of leaderboard performance. It is totally inexact and has little to do with how teams score runs. No extra is awarded because a player happens to be first in the league in an offensive category. You should just value each offensive event that a player contributes, based on its value towards scoring runs. There shouldn't be any incorporation of leaugue leaderboards because that automatically messes with the accurate run values.

[ChrisLDuncan]

This would be my list:

1. Babe Ruth
2. Ted Williams
3. Barry Bonds (pre-'99)
4. Mickey Mantle
5. Hank Aaron
6. Willie Mays
7. Ty Cobb
8. Stan Musial
9. Lou Gehrig
10. Rogers Hornsby

How is Mays over Musial.

[538280]

How is Mays over Musial.

Musial has a slightly higher OPS+ (I believe 159 to 156), but Musial played part of his career in a leauge that wasn't integrated, and had two great seasons during WWII. Mays also missed time due to the war which would make his games played equal to Musial. They're very close. Aaron through Musial, to me, could really go in any order, they're so close.

[Babe is the best]

Damn it, I had a long reply typed out and when I went to submit I was logged out? Oh well, here goes again, probably abbreviated this time.

My formula takes 5 different lists, then the composite list takes their ranking in each category. Ruth scored 11 by ranking first in two categories, and taking 3rd in three categories. I have two leaderboard categories, one for seasonal stats and one for career stats. I totally disagree with you that leaderboard placement is irrelevant. Leaderboard stats are a good way to gauge different eras. Would you say someone who led the league in home runs once, finished 2nd three times, and finished in the top ten ELEVEN times was a pretty good home run hitter? Ty Cobb did that. Now, Cobb played in the dead ball era, so his home run figures amount to pretty much zero in my 4 other charts. But, shouldn't Cobb get some credit for being one of the better home run hitters of his era? My system allows this. Where your idea of only sheer numbers wouldn't differentiate between someone hitting 117 home runs in mostly the deadball era, as Cobb did, or someone hitting 117 home runs in the 1990's. One of my other charts is what I call a "degree of dominance" ranking, that ranks players by how much they exceed the park-adjusted league averages. This listing is heavy on sluggers as the largest degree of separation comes from slugging percentage. But, if a player could hit a home run every time up, he would be better than a player that hit a single every time up, right? Another chart is career total bases+stolen bases+walks+runs+RBI. Another chart is what I call complete bases per game, which is total bases+steals+walks divided by games played. I didn't include errors, hit by pitches, and caught stealing since those stats aren't available for many of the old-timers.

So what is your system 538280? I think its strange you blast my system when we have 9 of the same players in the top 10. And, since you cut off Bonds at 1999, I think you would have to agree if his 2000-2006 stats are added, he would pass Ted Williams. I think Bonds cheated, but I am just analyzing the numbers. Our biggest difference is you have Mantle 4th and I have him 12th. I challenge you to prove to me and this board how Mantle is better offensively than Cobb, Gehrig and Musial.

[1905 Giants]

Roger Maris
Billy Williams
Joe Torre
Dom Dimaggio
Harry Hooper

[philipthegreat]

Babe ruth and ted williams then the the next eight are rather had hard to rank

[DiMag4Life]

Best hitters, every position:

C:Bill Dickey
1B:Lou Gehrig
2B:Rogers Hornsby
SS:Honus Wagner (you wonder what he would have done in the livery ball era with the way he was built.)
3B:Mike Schmidt
CF:Ty Cobb
RF:Babe Ruth
LF:Ted Williams

Second team:

C:Yogi Berra
1B:Jimmie Foxx
2B:Nap Lajoie
SS:Alex Rodriguez
CF:Joe DiMaggio
RF:Joe Jackson/Hank Aaron
LF:Stan Musial

[BoSox Rule]

Mike Piazza the (maybe) third best hitting catcher?

[538280]

Damn it, I had a long reply typed out and when I went to submit I was logged out? Oh well, here goes again, probably abbreviated this time.

My formula takes 5 different lists, then the composite list takes their ranking in each category. Ruth scored 11 by ranking first in two categories, and taking 3rd in three categories. I have two leaderboard categories, one for seasonal stats and one for career stats. I totally disagree with you that leaderboard placement is irrelevant. Leaderboard stats are a good way to gauge different eras. Would you say someone who led the league in home runs once, finished 2nd three times, and finished in the top ten ELEVEN times was a pretty good home run hitter? Ty Cobb did that. Now, Cobb played in the dead ball era, so his home run figures amount to pretty much zero in my 4 other charts. But, shouldn't Cobb get some credit for being one of the better home run hitters of his era? My system allows this.

I agree totally that the era a player plays in should be adjusted for-but not by using offensive leaderboards, by adjusting them to the league averages of their time. Basing it on offensive leaderboards makes it almost impossible to put proper weights on events and take into acount everything. A HR is about worth 1.4 runs and average and a double .85 (based on Total Baseball's Linear Weights). How do you take that into account using leaderboards? If you're going to use leaderboards you're going to end up with weights that are totally messed up and don't accurately reflect the game.

Besides that, where a player places in league leaderboards has nothing to do with his overall value. Yes, a player who finishes high in various leaderboards will more often than not have a higher offensive value than one who does not. However some players may have very spread out skill sets-with many offensive contributions coming from many different areas. They may not place high on many leaderboards, but in total, they could have more offensive value than players who may have done great in a few areas on the leaderboards. Plus, there is really no significance to the leaderboard in terms of winning games. A player's value is determined by the average runs per game in his time-that is what sets the value of all other events in baseball, because events in baseball have value relative to how much they help win the game, how much they help score more runs than the other team, and the league average runs/game shows what that context is. By using leadboards you completely miss this.

Also, two other points is that you cannot adjust for park using leaderboards. It will thus overrate players from hitter's parks, and underrate those from pitcher's parks. Also, it favors older players who played in a league with about half as many teams as player's today. Finishing 10th in a category them is similar to finishing 20th today.

It also will treat all league leading performances as if they are of the same prestige when they are not. Rod Carew gets the same credit for leading the league in BA in 1977 with a 146 relative BA as Bill Mueller gets for leading the league in 2003 with a 119 relative BA. Also a player may have a better BA season yet not lead the league, while a player with the same performance does lead the league. I'm sure there are tons of players who had better than Mueller's 119 relative BA in 2003 yet didn't win the batting title. Another example is Babe Ruth. Ruth won the batting title in 1924 with a 127 relative BA, yet in 1923 he had a better relative BA (135) and didn't win the batting title.

Also look at this:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=647417&postcount=1


Where your idea of only sheer numbers wouldn't differentiate between someone hitting 117 home runs in mostly the deadball era, as Cobb did, or someone hitting 117 home runs in the 1990's.

My idea is not sheer numbers-it is comparing them to the league average with park adjustments using proper Linear Weight values. That puts them in a valid context for value to their team (the league average runs/game), it adjusts for park, it isn't against modern players due to expansion (though it may be because of LQ, but that's another issue). It has valid weights of events, not just totally arbitrary values based on league leaderships, and it allows you to look at things specifically with definite degrees, rather than the totally arbitrary league leadership.


One of my other charts is what I call a "degree of dominance" ranking, that ranks players by how much they exceed the park-adjusted league averages. This listing is heavy on sluggers as the largest degree of separation comes from slugging percentage. But, if a player could hit a home run every time up, he would be better than a player that hit a single every time up, right?

I would agree with this more, because it is adjusted to a valid baseline (park adjusted league averages), but I'm still not sure what event weights you're using.


Another chart is career total bases+stolen bases+walks+runs+RBI.

What does that mean? That's just basically a jumble of numbers put together, and not even adjusted for era or park. IT doesn't use proper weights at all. It counts a stolen base and a walk equal to a single (a walk is worth about 70-72% of a single and a SB 47%). I also don't agree with the usage of runs and RBI, which has just as much to do with what a player comes up to as much as what he himself does, though that's not as big a criticism as the last two.


Another chart is what I call complete bases per game, which is total bases+steals+walks divided by games played. I didn't include errors, hit by pitches, and caught stealing since those stats aren't available for many of the old-timers.

Basically the same criticism as last time, not proper weights, not adjusted for era and park.


So what is your system 538280?

I don't have a definitive system which I used to make up my list, but if I were to make one up, it would use all proper Linear Weight Values (.33 for a BB or HBP, .47 for a 1B, .85 for a 2B, 1.02 for a 3B, 1.4 for a HR, .22 for a SB, -.38 for a CS, -.098 for a batting out), for every player, per out made (because teams score runs while not giving up outs). That would then be totally adjusted to the park adjusted league average of the same, so we would have relative rates for every player. I would also probably come up with something like "runs above replacement" based on the number of runs the average would produce in the same amount of outs, but scaled down to replacement level (probably about a .250-.300 level than .500 which is what average is). I'd probably then multiply the rate by the runs above replacement. I'd also find some way to take into account peak value, though I'm not totally sure how. Maybe I'd take the player's five best seasons by the method and somehow put them in as well. I'd then have a list, which would be pretty good, but I'd also have to take into account quality of competitoin. About half ot the top position players (just as a thumbnail top 20 in WS) since integration wouldn't have been allowed in the game prior to integration. This obvioulsy has a big effect on the quality of the average that they're being compared to. I would give the more modern players who played after integration some boost due to that, the amount would be admittedly subjective but doing that is still better than not adjusting for it at all.

That would be a ton of work, and I don't know how I'd do the league adjustmetns since I don't have a spreadsheet for that. But, while that be a tremendous guide for me, I don't always agree with the concept of having a system that makes up totally definitive answers for you. I also still like to be able to make up a list taking outside factors into consideration, more than just numbers, though the numbers are the most important factor, by far.


I think its strange you blast my system when we have 9 of the same players in the top 10.

I wasn't really blasting it, I just was interested exactly what you put into it, that's all. I commend the work you've done it, you've probably worked very hard to put it together. However I do disagree with the process. We may agree on the names on a list, but that doesn't mean i agree with the process behind making the list.


And, since you cut off Bonds at 1999,

I didn't exactly cut him off at 1999. I took his numbers through '99 and projected what he would do with a normal decline.


I think you would have to agree if his 2000-2006 stats are added, he would pass Ted Williams.

I think that he would absolutely if you took his numbers at full face value. Maybe he'd even pass Ruth depending on how much of a league quality adjustment you made (if we're counting SBs, which you were).


Our biggest difference is you have Mantle 4th and I have him 12th. I challenge you to prove to me and this board how Mantle is better offensively than Cobb, Gehrig and Musial.

I think Mantle played against somewhat stronger competiton than Cobb and Gehrig. For much of his career the AL was considered "half integrated", so I think he deserves some of a boost due to quality of competition. This would push his rates about equal to Gehrig and even further ahead of Cobb-this is based on OPS+ which is a good baseline measure. That puts him about equal to Gehrig-but in about 300 more games. Cobb he would be ahead of for rate, but his career would be shorter. I'm not always sure whether to take rate or longevity in a case like this, but at his absolute best I also think Mantle had better seasons (1956, 1957, 1961), and he's even further ahead with league quality. Musial is similar to Cobb-except Mantle has a little bigger rate edge, and an even bigger peak edge.

[Babe is the best]

Some excellent points 538280, unfortunately my job demands too much of my time to go into greater detail. We will have to agree to disagree on the systems. I disagree with the Linear Weight system, my high school baseball coach (an ex-minor leaguer in the Pirates system) always said a walk is as good as a hit, and I believe him. They are both worth one base. I also disagree with Bill James win shares. I think the basic baseball numbers, adjusted to the average of the era, is all you need. A double is two bases, a triple three, a home run four. If you walk and steal a base, you are on second base. That is the same result as a double, provided there were no runners on base. And, if you include RBI's, that picks up that.

Remember the seasonal leaderboards are only 20% of the equation. I disagree with your opinion of them being worthless. If you lead the league in everything, how could you not be the best player? Also, in my system, if a player leads the league in 2-3 even 4 categories, but performs poorly in all other areas, someone who is in the top ten of most categories will score higher. However, I do agree with you that the leaderboard doesn't do well in terms of dominance, as you pointed out in your Carew explanation. But, I do have another chart that does reward that, so it balances out. In my other chart, if a player finished 5th in batting, but was higher above the adjusted league average than a batting champion in another year, the 5th place finish gets more points. Here is the top ten offensive players in my seasonal leaderboard chart:

1. Ty Cobb
2. Stan Musial
3. Babe Ruth
4. Honus Wagner
5. Hank Aaron
6. Ted Williams
7. Rogers Hornsby
8. Tris Speaker
9. Willie Mays
10. Lou Gehrig

I think you'd have to agree, that's not a bad list in of itself. I do agree that the seasonal leaderboard does favor the older players, with fewer teams there weren't as many competitors, and today the game is so much more specialized, the home run hitters today basically just hit home runs, few doubles and triples. And, many of the high average hitters in modern times don't try for power at all, making it much more difficult for someone to lead the league across the board like Wagner, Cobb and Hornsby used to.

Okay, my "degree of dominance ranking" is taken by the number of points a player exceeds the park adjusted, league averages in on-base pct, slugging pct, and batting avg. The top ten in that list is:

1. Babe Ruth
2. Ted Williams
3. Lou Gehrig
4. Rogers Hornsby
5. Barry Bonds
6. Ty Cobb
7. Shoeless Joe Jackson
8. Dan Brouthers
9. Mickey Mantle
10. Jimmie Foxx
Stan Musial is 11th, Tris Speaker 12, Joe Dimaggio 13, Manny Ramirez 14, Hank Greenberg 15, Frank Thomas 16, Johnny Mize 17, Ed Delahanty 18, Willie Mays 19, Hank Aaron 20. A longer career hurts a bit here.

My career complete bases (TB+BB+SB) plus runs and RBI, admittedly has some drawbacks, but, it is 20% of the total, and is a way to reward career longevity, where some of the other formulas detract from that. My top ten there is:
1. Hank Aaron
2. Barry Bonds
3. Babe Ruth
4. Ty Cobb
5. Willie Mays
6. Stan Musial
7. Rickey Henderson
8. Carl Yastrzemski
9. Pete Rose
10. Frank Robinson
Now, since Henderson, Yaz and Rose don't make the top ten in any other ranking, they are not in the top 20 overall. But, this ranking does give them some credit for their longevity. And, in the end I think my overall system does a good job of balancing peak season numbers with career numbers.

The complete bases per game formula, had some real surprises in my mind, here goes:
1. Babe Ruth 3.19
2. Lou Gehrig 3.08
3. Barry Bonds 3.04
4. Ted Williams 3.023
5. Sliding Billy Hamilton 3.021
6. Hank Greenberg 2.91
7. Alex Rodriguez 2.84
8. Jimmie Foxx 2.80
9. Manny Ramirez 2.749
10. Joe Dimaggio 2.747

This measure favors players with shorter careers, and players who played in more highly offensive times. But, at 20% of the total, I think it balances out. Billy Hamilton may be suspect due to the scoring rules for stolen bases during his time. But, those are the numbers he is credited with, and, he hit for high averages, walked a lot, and stole a lot of bases. Sounds like a great leadoff man to me. But, since his career was only 10 years, he doesn't match up with the guys who were great over 20 years. Ditto Greenberg and Dimaggio, scoring well here due to shortened careers. Pujols would be really high here also, but I don't rank anyone until they have 10 full seasons.

Thankfully, Bonds will never pass Ruth, and hopefully will hang on too long and drop a few places.

Sorry, I don't see the argument for Mantle being better due to better competition, there is no way to measure that. You say its because the AL was "half-integrated" at that time? No doubt finally allowing black players into the majors brought in some more talent, but there's no way to define that. You have to just go with how they performed in their era. What is really sad is there is no way to rank the great black hitters due to the lack of stats, no doubt Josh Gibson would be in the top 5 or 10 hitters of all time, but don't have anything except opinion to prove that. And, I would argue Cobb, Musial and Gehrig all produced more than Mantle, so they should all rank higher. Mantle had basically 12 quality seasons. Gehrig had 14, Musial had 17, and Cobb had 20. And, I would put Cobb's best seasons (1909, 1911, 1912, 1915, 1916, 1917) and Gehrig's best seasons (1927,1930,1931,1934,1936) against Mantle's any day. Musial probably only has 1948 to stack against the Mick, but did have 5 more quality seasons.

Been fun, now I have to get some real work done unfortunately.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Musial has a slightly higher OPS+ (I believe 159 to 156), but Musial played part of his career in a leauge that wasn't integrated, and had two great seasons during WWII. Mays also missed time due to the war which would make his games played equal to Musial. They're very close. Aaron through Musial, to me, could really go in any order, they're so close.

A .333 EqA to a .328, Mays is great...but I think Musial is a better hitter. The thing that irks me about Musial is his low season HR totals.

[538280]

Some excellent points 538280, unfortunately my job demands too much of my time to go into greater detail. We will have to agree to disagree on the systems. I disagree with the Linear Weight system, my high school baseball coach (an ex-minor leaguer in the Pirates system) always said a walk is as good as a hit, and I believe him. They are both worth one base.

But a single can advance runners for more efficiently than a walk. A walk advances runners one at a time and only if they are in direct conflict with where the runner is going to go. A walk is the same as a hit with no one on base, that's it. In total a single is clearly worth more than a walk-as every statistical study done into the issue has shown. A walk, on average, is worth about 72% of a single. That's been proven.


I also disagree with Bill James win shares.

I don't particularly like Win Shares either and I did not mention using them at any point in my post-I just used them as an example for a thumbnail to determine what percentage of great players since integration have been black or hispanic. I would not include them in any system of offensive productivity.


I think the basic baseball numbers, adjusted to the average of the era, is all you need.

Sure, but giving those numbers appropriate weights in terms of their value in scoring runs. Your system doesn't do that at all. The only part of your system that I even remotely agree with (but I don't know what goes into it fully) is the 2nd list you described when players are compared to the park adjusted league averages-and that is only because that is a relevant baseline-which none of your other lists set.


A double is two bases, a triple three, a home run four.

They don't all have the same potential in terms of scoring runs that the number of bases they bring would suggest, necessarily. That's not a big issue, though.


If you walk and steal a base, you are on second base. That is the same result as a double, provided there were no runners on base.

It's only the same if there were no runners on base. Assuming that there are never any runners on base is not accurately reflecting the situations that come up in a baseball game. If you want to see the actual value of baseball events, you have to take into account all situations. That is what linear weights do. If there are runners on base, a double is clearly more valuable than a walk a stolen base. Think of it this way:

No runners on base: the exact same
Runners on base: A double is better.

A double is clealry better overall, and thus has to be weighted higher if you are accurately modeling how teams score runs in baseball.


And, if you include RBI's, that picks up that.

Not necessarily. Just because there happen to be runners on base doesn't make a player any better than he would be otherwise. Yes, a double is the same as a walk and a steal if there is no one on base, but overall a double is a more desirable result. Whether or not it is is totally up to a player's teammates (and thus not to be used in evaluating a player). But it doesn't mean a player who hits a double doesn't have more ability overall-because what he did is more valuable towards scoring runs, overall.


Remember the seasonal leaderboards are only 20% of the equation. I disagree with your opinion of them being worthless. If you lead the league in everything, how could you not be the best player?

That is not relevant in determining whether they are accurate in determining the fine points of a player's value. Once again, a player's exact value in terms of scoring runs can be figured by just using Linear Weights. Going into leaderboards is not going to do anything but surrender the accuracy of the whole calculation. They are totally inspecific and have no inherent value in of themselves. A player's productivity is based on eveyrthing he does and how it comes together. You are totally ignoring that by focusing on league leaderboards-even at all. Even if they're 20% of your system, you shouldnt' be considering it at all.


Also, in my system, if a player leads the league in 2-3 even 4 categories, but performs poorly in all other areas, someone who is in the top ten of most categories will score higher.

That doesn't make it any better, though. Someone could be just outside the top 10 in many categories-they would get nothing. While someone who is 10th gets credit. Once again, it is totally arbitrary. It doesn't give proper weights to offensive events in any way. It heavily favors older players before expansion. It makes no park adjustment. It doens't reflect good players in anything but a very oblique and simple way. You can't make any fine distinctions between players by focusing on leadeboards.


Here is the top ten offensive players in my seasonal leaderboard chart:

1. Ty Cobb
2. Stan Musial
3. Babe Ruth
4. Honus Wagner
5. Hank Aaron
6. Ted Williams
7. Rogers Hornsby
8. Tris Speaker
9. Willie Mays
10. Lou Gehrig

I think you'd have to agree, that's not a bad list in of itself

It doesn't matter what the list it generates looks like. The process that goes into it is what matters-and I couldn't disagree more with the whole process. It is totally arbitrary, gives false weights to events, and doesn't adjust for things like park which have to be adjusted for in any serious comparison.


Okay, my "degree of dominance ranking" is taken by the number of points a player exceeds the park adjusted, league averages in on-base pct, slugging pct, and batting avg. The top ten in that list is:

1. Babe Ruth
2. Ted Williams
3. Lou Gehrig
4. Rogers Hornsby
5. Barry Bonds
6. Ty Cobb
7. Shoeless Joe Jackson
8. Dan Brouthers
9. Mickey Mantle
10. Jimmie Foxx
Stan Musial is 11th, Tris Speaker 12, Joe Dimaggio 13, Manny Ramirez 14, Hank Greenberg 15, Frank Thomas 16, Johnny Mize 17, Ed Delahanty 18, Willie Mays 19, Hank Aaron 20. A longer career hurts a bit here.

This is the one of your processes that I think is somewhat credible. Putting batting average in does nothing but decrease its correlation with run scoring as I have already told JRB qute a few times with his combined relative averages, but overall this is the process that I think is most logical. Still. OBP and SLG together (OPS) do not have exactly proper weights, but they are a great place to start looking at a comparison and are in general very accurate. You also are using a valid baseline for which to determine a player's value with the park adjusted league averages.


My career complete bases (TB+BB+SB) plus runs and RBI, admittedly has some drawbacks, but, it is 20% of the total, and is a way to reward career longevity, where some of the other formulas detract from that. My top ten there is:
1. Hank Aaron
2. Barry Bonds
3. Babe Ruth
4. Ty Cobb
5. Willie Mays
6. Stan Musial
7. Rickey Henderson
8. Carl Yastrzemski
9. Pete Rose
10. Frank Robinson
Now, since Henderson, Yaz and Rose don't make the top ten in any other ranking, they are not in the top 20 overall. But, this ranking does give them some credit for their longevity. And, in the end I think my overall system does a good job of balancing peak season numbers with career numbers.

As I said, this portion has weights of events that are completely inaccurate towards how teams score runs. Again, your system provides no improvement over Linear Weights compared to the park adjusted league averages. You add in categories that are just plain inaccurate like this one, or that are completely arbitrary like the league leaderboards. This category also has no league or park adjustments, which invalidates it as well. All of a player's offensive events only have value because of the baseline of runs scored per game when they are playing.


The complete bases per game formula, had some real surprises in my mind, here goes:
1. Babe Ruth 3.19
2. Lou Gehrig 3.08
3. Barry Bonds 3.04
4. Ted Williams 3.023
5. Sliding Billy Hamilton 3.021
6. Hank Greenberg 2.91
7. Alex Rodriguez 2.84
8. Jimmie Foxx 2.80
9. Manny Ramirez 2.749
10. Joe Dimaggio 2.747

This measure favors players with shorter careers, and players who played in more highly offensive times. But, at 20% of the total, I think it balances out. Billy Hamilton may be suspect due to the scoring rules for stolen bases during his time. But, those are the numbers he is credited with, and, he hit for high averages, walked a lot, and stole a lot of bases. Sounds like a great leadoff man to me. But, since his career was only 10 years, he doesn't match up with the guys who were great over 20 years. Ditto Greenberg and Dimaggio, scoring well here due to shortened careers. Pujols would be really high here also, but I don't rank anyone until they have 10 full seasons.

Again, the same criticisms as the last one.


Sorry, I don't see the argument for Mantle being better due to better competition, there is no way to measure that. You say its because the AL was "half-integrated" at that time? No doubt finally allowing black players into the majors brought in some more talent, but there's no way to define that.

There is. Since integration as a I half (10) of the top 20 playes wouldn't have been allowed in the game. It's like having another 50% of stars coming into the league and bumping out those players who would have been stars otherwise. Overall, it's like another 20% of the league coming in and taking the place of players who were worse than them. It has a big impact-even when the league isn't fully integrated like the 1950s AL.


You have to just go with how they performed in their era. What is really sad is there is no way to rank the great black hitters due to the lack of stats, no doubt Josh Gibson would be in the top 5 or 10 hitters of all time, but don't have anything except opinion to prove that. And, I would argue Cobb, Musial and Gehrig all produced more than Mantle, so they should all rank higher. Mantle had basically 12 quality seasons. Gehrig had 14, Musial had 17, and Cobb had 20. And, I would put Cobb's best seasons (1909, 1911, 1912, 1915, 1916, 1917) and Gehrig's best seasons (1927,1930,1931,1934,1936) against Mantle's any day. Musial probably only has 1948 to stack against the Mick, but did have 5 more quality seasons.

Every full season Mantle played was a quality season. Even at the very end of his career he still put up OPS+ of 148 and 141. The context of the leagues that he played in were very, very low, and he played in a pitcher's park. He still got on base and ton and slugged well above the league average. Once again, Mantle had a 172 OPS+. Musial had 159, Cobb 167, and Gehrig 179. Mantle deserves at least some boost for quality of competiton over both Cobb and Gehrig. It is probably enough to bring him equal to Gehrig-and Gehrig played about 300 less games than Mantle in his career. Mantle would be quite a bit ahead of Cobb on career rates-but Cobb did play a lot longer. But I would take Mantle's best seasons over Cobb's. Mantle in his best years. The difference is Mantle had a huge 223 OPS+ season in 1957 and, again, played against a little better competition.