Page 3 of 21 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 510

Thread: Ty Cobb General Thread

  1. #51
    Roy Hobbs,
    You have a good point on #1 of your last post. Mr. Burgess, if you're intending to win the argument that Cobb is indeed the greatest player that ever lived, you may or may not realize that you may be working against him if you bring ethics of a player to the table, because Cobb really was a brutally bad man, and even though there are shades of grey to the argument, his actions may affect how people see him as an overall player.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    mariners country
    Posts
    23,578
    I think anybody who knows much about either man would have to agree both Cobb and Ruth were extremely flawed human beings and extremely great ball players. To a large degree, picking between them is as much a choice of styles as it is about talent. Roy, I don't think Bill really needs my help here, but comparing raw RBI and run totals for Ruth and Cobb doesn't tell the whole story. Runs were MUCH easier to come by in Ruth's day. Bill, don't give up on converting me. I'm actually going through somewhat of a change of heart on how to wiegh the total ball player vs hitter in evaluating greatness.
    Babe was a decent fielder in his younger days, okay range with a good arm. He was also an agressive baserunner -to the point of recklessness. I picture Hal McRae when trying to imagine a young Ruth on the basepaths. By the late 20's though he was a liability in the field and on the basepaths, frequently being lifted for pinch runners or defensive replacements (they didn't call Sammy Byrd "Babe Ruth's Legs" for nothing). Babe is still holding the #1 spot for me while I mull this over, but I could see a move of a better rounded player such as Ty or Honus or Willie or Bonds to number 1. Pure hitters like Williams and Hornsby would have to beat Babe on that basis and I can't see that.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Long Island!
    Posts
    10,307
    Originally posted by leecemark
    I think anybody who knows much about either man would have to agree both Cobb and Ruth were extremely flawed human beings and extremely great ball players.
    Here I disagree. I agree that both were extremely great ball players. But I disagree that Ruth was an extremely flawed human being. Ruth was a heavy smoker, an alcoholic, a womanizer, a carouser... in short, exactly the kind of guy you'd want to have as a friend. Always quick with a smile and a dollar for the bartender. Loved children, loved women, loved liquor, loved life... in short, all of the qualities that one could hope to portray in themselves.

    How was he a flawed human being?
    "Simply put, the passion, interest and tradition surrounding baseball in New York is unmatched."

    Sean McAdam, ESPN.com

  4. #54
    For the number crunchers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    mariners country
    Posts
    23,578
    El Halo, I'll agree Babe was probably alot more fun to be around than Ty. I suppose if you don't think being a drunk, a whoremonger, a glutton, an an extremely ignorant, foul mouthed man who had absolutely no respect for authority and couldn't even be bothered to learn his teammates names are character flaws, then no he wasn't flawed in any way.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Long Island!
    Posts
    10,307
    Originally posted by leecemark
    El Halo, I'll agree Babe was probably alot more fun to be around than Ty. I suppose if you don't think being a drunk, a whoremonger, a glutton, an an extremely ignorant, foul mouthed man who had absolutely no respect for authority and couldn't even be bothered to learn his teammates names are character flaws, then no he wasn't flawed in any way.
    Oddly, I consider those all to be positive character traits. Except the ignorance part, of course.
    "Simply put, the passion, interest and tradition surrounding baseball in New York is unmatched."

    Sean McAdam, ESPN.com

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Troy, NY
    Posts
    2,828
    Originally posted by ElHalo
    Oddly, I consider those all to be positive character traits. Except the ignorance part, of course.
    I don't know whether to life or cry at that statement...from the irony of saying all are positive traits except ignorance by using an ignorant statement such as this...have you ever lived with an alcoholic? It's NOT a positive trait.

    Here's something to ponder over.

    Change

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

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

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

  8. #58
    "2) You can call Cobb "Mr. Intangibles" all you want. But there's only a few statistics I think matter in this debate:

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

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

    Now lets look at that.

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

    Wow. 71 more runs in thousands more attempts.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Chris
    Last edited by csh19792001; 05-02-2004 at 06:55 PM.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    mariners country
    Posts
    23,578
    Bill, you love to throw that home/away disparity in Ruth's 1921 season around. In the interest of fairness I think you might add that that was by no means typical of his career and his road slugging that season still lead the league by a wide margin. Ruth was helped by the Polo Grounds and later by Yankee Stadium, but to suggest he was a product of his park or that he wouldn't have been a tremendous slugger elsewhere cheapens the debate.

  10. #60
    On to Cobb's personality, they are based off the following accounts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

  11. #61
    Originally posted by Roy Hobbs
    I'm in the same boat as you (Im assuming)- FINALS. So we'll wait, and those numbers won't change in the meantime, I don't think........

    Although Ill be busy even when this semester is over, it won't be like now, and Ill look into the comparative runs/game and respective stats (for the American League, for their careers) when I have time to take a breath. Team performance is part of it, but entire league performance might give us another part of the picture. Even computing to the Nth degree won't "solve" everything, though- perhaps just the quantifiable part, which the gentlemen poster at another messageboard (named "Barzilla") calls "value". This is as opposed to "greatness".
    Last edited by csh19792001; 03-26-2005 at 08:20 PM.

  12. #62
    Using runs and BI is good, but do we know where in the lineup Cobb hit? Babe was cleanup for lots of years, then third with Gehrig as cleanup. Obviously men on base and protection figure in.

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Long Island!
    Posts
    10,307
    Hey Mr. Burgess,

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

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

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

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

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

    They finished in the first half of the league EVERY SINGLE YEAR in runs scored, leading the league three times in the decade. Are you trying to tell me that it's all Cobb? Without him, they would have finished last every year?
    Last edited by ElHalo; 05-03-2004 at 06:46 PM.
    "Simply put, the passion, interest and tradition surrounding baseball in New York is unmatched."

    Sean McAdam, ESPN.com

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Long Island!
    Posts
    10,307
    Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net

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

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

    So please, I'm begging you. BEGGING you. Why, other than you're strange fixation over what happened during two particular years playing at a stadium that he called home for all 14% of his years in the league, WHY do you claim that Ruth's home stats are invalid?
    "Simply put, the passion, interest and tradition surrounding baseball in New York is unmatched."

    Sean McAdam, ESPN.com

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Long Island!
    Posts
    10,307
    Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
    I have a request for anyone on this thread. If anyone has a beef with me, keep it to yourself, and go somewhere else. I'm trying hard on this thread to post new stuff, hopefully entertaining stuff, and it does take me a long time to put the material together.

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

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

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

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

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

    Bill Burgess
    Woof, harsh words.

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

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

    Sean McAdam, ESPN.com

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    mariners country
    Posts
    23,578
    Bill, I have a suggestion that might save you some frustration. Make your historical entries on this thread to be shared and enjoyed with those interested and your arguments regardiing Ruth vs Cobb elsewhere. When you mix the two its inevitable that people are going to argue back on the latter. A suggestion for everyone - try to build your case without getting personal. It wouldn't be much fun if we all agreed on everything, but it will be more enjoyable for all if you make your points with well thought out ideas and/or good research. Thanks and I'll put my soapbox away now.

  17. #67
    Also, I notice a lot of references to ProQuest. You might want to check out the local library and see if it subscribes to any databases.

    I'd recommend:

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

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

    EbscoHost in particular combines like 34 other databases.

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

  18. #68
    Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
    I have a request for anyone on this thread. If anyone has a beef with me, keep it to yourself, and go somewhere else. I'm trying hard on this thread to post new stuff, hopefully entertaining stuff, and it does take me a long time to put the material together.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  19. #69
    Pretty interesting idea. You have at thread for it here or something? I'd like to see the results.

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    northeast Ohio
    Posts
    26,728
    Originally posted by Roy Hobbs
    Pretty interesting idea. You have at thread for it here or something? I'd like to see the results.
    No thread. I started with the infield (minus pitcher) and got that done from 1966 back to 1876. Now I'm on the outfield. I started on pitchers but too much to wade through for one award per league so it'll have to wait. Then I'd like to go back and see if there were any questionable awards from 1967 on forward
    I did find out one interesting thing. From 1913 to 1922 when Veach and Cobb pretty much both played full-time, Cobb was probably not even the best outfielder on his TEAM (though Cobb was in 1924).
    Last edited by RuthMayBond; 05-05-2004 at 12:31 PM.

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    mariners country
    Posts
    23,578
    I have never really thought Cobb was a great defensive player. Not a liability or anything, but not outstanding either. I've read some contemporary observers who thought Tris Speaker was a better overall player because his defensive edge over Cobb was greater than Cobb's offensive edge over him. Never bought that myself, but wondered how that played out in your statistical analysis. Did Cobb ever deserve a Gold Glove? Was the gap between him and Speaker wide enough to come close to closing the gap at the plate and on the bases?

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    mariners country
    Posts
    23,578
    I'd be inclined to think there is some sort of statistical anomoly to Cobb being one of the 3 best defensive outfielders in the AL at age 37 if he didn't have a very strong track record to that point. Most outfielders have lost significant range by then and his declining stolen base totals suggest he was losing speed at a normal rate. In the course of your research have you found many post-35 Gold Glovers at any position?

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    pi::Heathrow, FL
    Posts
    1,391
    Originally posted by RuthMayBond
    Definite anomaly but maybe other OFers were bad & Cobb had learned where hitters might hit. What can I say, he was 2nd in PO, very good in A & E & DP that year. I haven't really done an age thing but I'm sure there's few over 35 except maybe pitchers & guys who win forever (Ashburn, McPhee, etc.)
    I am not sure how you are trying to measure outfield defense, but Baby Face Jacobson was much better in 1924 than Cobb. They are almost tied in fielding % - Cobb .9862 - Jacobson .9861 - but in range factor Jacobson blows him away - 3.26 to 2.77. In defensive win shares Cobb is not even in the top 3 - Jacobson leads with 6.36 - Cobb has 4.72.

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

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

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    mariners country
    Posts
    23,578
    For the record it is Baby DOLL Jacobson. Baby FACE Nelson was a famous bank robber of the same era.

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    pi::Heathrow, FL
    Posts
    1,391
    Originally posted by RuthMayBond
    Originally posted by wrgptfan
    I am not sure how you are trying to measure outfield defense, but Baby Face Jacobson was much better in 1924 than Cobb. They are almost tied in fielding % - Cobb .9862 - Jacobson .9861 - but in range factor Jacobson blows him away - 3.26 to 2.77. In defensive win shares Cobb is not even in the top 3 - Jacobson leads with 6.36 - Cobb has 4.72.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 3 of 21 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •