Page 4 of 28 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 548

Thread: Ty Cobb General Thread

  1. #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.

  2. #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.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Long Island!
    Posts
    10,292
    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

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Long Island!
    Posts
    10,292
    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

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Long Island!
    Posts
    10,292
    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

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    mariners country
    Posts
    23,570
    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.

  7. #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.

  8. #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

  9. #69
    Pretty interesting idea. You have at thread for it here or something? I'd like to see the results.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    northeast Ohio
    Posts
    26,548
    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.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    mariners country
    Posts
    23,570
    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?

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    mariners country
    Posts
    23,570
    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?

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    pi::Heathrow, FL
    Posts
    1,457
    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

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    mariners country
    Posts
    23,570
    For the record it is Baby DOLL Jacobson. Baby FACE Nelson was a famous bank robber of the same era.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    pi::Heathrow, FL
    Posts
    1,457
    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

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    pi::Heathrow, FL
    Posts
    1,457
    Originally posted by leecemark
    For the record it is Baby DOLL Jacobson. Baby FACE Nelson was a famous bank robber of the same era.
    I knew that. Dohh!!
    Dave Kent

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    mariners country
    Posts
    23,570
    Bill, I would agree Cobb was an above average outfielder - better than Ruth, possibly Jackson, but definately not better than Carey. Max Carey was an exceptional outfiielder, most accounts I have read have him second only to Speaker amoung defensive outfielders of his time. Rouch also is usually rated above Cobb. I have read more than one account that describes Cobb as below average in the field., but I don't think the evidence supports that. I think his detractors were simply forced to concentrate on his defensive shortcomings becauue it would have been impossible for anyone to take criticism of his offense seriously. Before I make this last comment, I want to make absolutely clear I am not comparing Cobb's defense to Ted Williams. Cobb was an okay Centerfielder and a very good Rightfielder while Williams was a lousy Leftfielder, but the criticisms of them were very similar. Defense was not their priority and they didn't put nearly the work into it that they did their hitting and in Cobb's case running. Both were very unpopular in their playing days, though Williams became much more popular after he was done playing. Both were frequently described as selfish players much more concerned with their own stats than their team. - much of the same things are that are said of Bonds today. Some of that may be inevitable when you are single minded in your commitment to greatness and not skilled in PR, but there is probably some truth to it as well.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    northeast Ohio
    Posts
    26,548

    Cobb & GG

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

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

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

    3) In 1907, Ganley was even a better RF than Cobb, and Davy Jones (LF) was a better OF than Ganley, and we haven't even gotten to CF like Crawford, so no chance for Cobb here. I *KNOW* Cobb didn't have enough chances in 1905 and I figure not in 1906 either so that's it. That does give Cobb Gold Gloves in 1910, 1911 & 1924, although Ruth got his in 1921 & 1923. Now back to catch up the NL and continue with the project, and I'll try to dig up some data on GGers 35 years & older.
    Last edited by RuthMayBond; 05-07-2004 at 08:13 AM.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    northeast Ohio
    Posts
    26,548
    Originally posted by william_burgess@usa.net
    Cobb's gifts in the field were range, no one covered any more ground, not even Speaker, Lange or McAleer. He had great judgement in playing the hitters. He could run down and catch up to many long flies.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Speaker covered more ground if you think of the ground in front of him, but going back, Ty could run with him and go back with him. He was starting from farther back. So Speaker got his range factor numbers so high, due to his being able to pick of those shots that would normally fall in front of the OF.
    But Cobb could go all the way back just as well as Tris or Clyde.

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

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

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

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

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

  20. #80
    Re: Spoke off before the crack of the bat. Someone once asked Joe DiMaggio about going after a ball as soon as he heard the crack of the bat, and Joe replied "I go much sooner, the crack of the bat is too late."

Page 4 of 28 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... 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
  •