Ty Cobb discussion

[Bill Burgess]

I am creating this thread as a companion to my new Ty Cobb thread. All comments can be delivered here. Thanks, guys.

Bill

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Originally Posted by william_burgess@usa.net

I am creating this thread as a companion to my new Ty Cobb thread. All comments can be delivered here. Thanks, guys.

Bill

Bill,

I've read a lot of your posts. You make a pretty good case for Cobb being the greatest player ever. It is well research and soundly argued. I have some questions for you. I have two "issues" that lead me to believe that Cobb is NOT the greatest player ever. I wanted to get your perspective on these issues.

1) Cobb decline in the 1920s
2) Cobb's "power" stats in his prime


1) Cobb's Decline

Looking at Cobb's record I am startled to uncover how poorly Cobb aged with respect to other great players. His level of play in his 30s for an all-time great is unusually poor. Just looking at his play from 1920-1928 (age 33-41) it's quite obvious to me that he was not a dominant player. I ran a check on Cobb and several other players to see how what their Black Ink Score was from age 33 forward:

Wagner 53 (109)
Ruth 45 (161)
Bonds 34 (65)
Rose 30 (64)
Mays 16 (57)
Musial 14 (116)
Aaron 13 (76)
Cobb 0 (150)

The number in parenthesis is the player's career Black Ink Score. Wager, Bonds, and Rose age especially well. They all gained about half of their Black Ink Score after age 33, Ruth almost 30% .

Cobb's Black Ink score of 150 is the second highest total in baseball history and he reached this total by age 32. But from age 33 on Cobb didn't lead the AL in any major offensive category (though he did lead in OPS and OPS+ in 1925.). Cobb was fortunate that just as he was entering his decline phase the live ball was introduced. This allowed him to keep his career BA extremely high. If the live ball had ben introduce a few seasons later, Cobb's decline would have been much more obvious. Cobb still hit for a BA in the 1920s but Cobb's relationship to the rest of AL shrank significantly. Take his 1922 season in which Cobb hit .401/.462/.565. His OPS+ was 170 which is a great season for most players. For Cobb it was his 11th best season in terms of OPS+. It barely beats his 1908 season (169 OPS+) in which he hit .324/.367/.475. That gives an inkling on how much baseball had changed from 1908 to 1922. Cobb needed to hit .401 to match his 1908 season.


2) Cobb's "power" numbers

This applies to all the great Dead Ball era players. Are Cobb's "power" numbers a function of his "power" hitting in the modern sense of what we mean "power" hitting or is Cobb's "power" more a function of his great speed? Given the ballparks of Cobb's time, the defensive skills of outfielders in Cobb's time, and baseball gloves of Cobb's time, Cobb was able to use his great speed to hit lots of doubles and triples. This obviously boosted his slugging percentage. Today, a player's slugging average is largely a function of HRs hit and the number of walks drawn. Walks lower a player's AB total, hence increasing his slugging percentage. I haven't studied this issue at length so I haven't been able to drawn any hard conclusions.


There are a handful of players in baseball history that can be considered the greatest ever. I believe for a player to be in the discussion for greatest ever they MUST age well. They must show themselves to be a dominant player to at least their late 30s. Cobb didn't dominate in his mid to late 30s.

Bill, I look forward to your response...

[SABR Matt]

Ooooh...great point Honus Wagner Rules...although your name suggests you do have an agenda.

Cobb's decline phase was in fact somewhat more sharp than most great players...and that ties into my growing theory that players who rely exclusively on one skill (hitting for contact...or hitting for just power...) don't last as long as players who have many tools (drawing walks AND hitting for contact or drawing walks AND hitting for power or all three...etc)

I believe Cobb had difficulty adjusting to the changes in the game as he aged...and that is a significant negative comment.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Me?..an agenda? Doesn't everyone here on Baseball Fever have an "agenda"?

It's my understanding that Cobb refused to change. I think Bill once mentioned that Cobb as the Tiger's manager went so far as to fine his players who uppercutted the ball. I don't know if Cobb had the ability to adjust. Given Cobb's abilities I think he could have adjusted. If Cy Williams cound hit 41 HRs as a 35 year old in 1923, I don't see why Cobb couldn't adjust also.

[westsidegrounds]

The thing with that is, if TC had simply announced his retirement during his 33d birthday party he still would have been one of the First Five HOFers, and he still would have been in the running as "Greatest Baseball Player Ever".

Whatever he did after compiling those 150 points is ... icing, or gravy, take your pick - that is, peripheral, not to say irrelevant.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I think peak value is much more important than "career value."

[Honus Wagner Rules]

In terms of "The Greatest Player Ever" peak value AND career value are equally important. There are too many players that had had high peak AND career values. How can a player be considered the greatest if other players had higher "career value"? I believe that Cobb's poor performace after age 32 disqualifies him as being considered "The Greatest Player Ever".

[BoSox Rule]

I believe that Cobb's poor performace after age 32 disqualifies him as being considered "The Greatest Player Ever".

From age 33-41, Ty hit .357 (1476-4133) with a .431 OBP and he slugged .498. He hit 50 HR, drove in 726 runs, had a 512/145 (3.53) BB/K ratio. His OPS+ was 142.

WARP3/162
Age 18-32: 11.5
Age 33-41: 8.3

A pretty nice dropoff, but 8.3 is still very, very good.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

His performance after age 33 is poor compared to other all-time greats. Given the offensive environment of the 1920s his stats are not impressive. Basically Cobb went from being Babe Ruth in terms of domination (in the teens) to being Luis Gonzales of the 1920s. He was still a very good player in the 1920s but other all time great players were still dominating in their mid to late 30s.

[leecemark]

--HWR, I've always thought he simply was too proud and stubborn to change with the times. Interesting question as to whether that is true or he couldn't adapt to the new style and masked that by expressing contempt for the new power game.
--In projecting Cobb forward I've always assumed he could and would have been a power hitter (power/average that is) if he came along later in history. However, if his slugging was actually done more with his legs then that wouldn't apply and he would not have been as great a player in the live ball era. I'm not ready to accept that as accurate just now, but it is an interesting line of thought you bring up.

[SABR Matt]

Cobb by PCA...ages 18-32 he scored 161.04 Offensive and 25.32 defensive wins for a total of 186.36 Wins in 4844 Batting Outs (a rate of 18.7 Wins per 486 outs (3*162)).

ages 33-41, he scored 69.58 Offensive and 10.67 defensive wins for a total of 80.25 Wins in 2874 batting outs (a rate of 13.6 Wins per 486 outs).

So actually...my bad...his decline is about what you'd expect for someone his age.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

leecemark,

I'm sure Bill can enlighten us on Cobb's views of the power hitting of the 1920s. Didn't Cobb hit five HRs in a doubleheader once? I don't have any real sense on how physically strong Cobb was. I know he was about 6'1"- 6'2" and weighed about 175-180 lbs in his prime. Cy Williams is listed at 6'2" 180 lbs on Baseball-Reference.com, essentially the same size as Cobb. Williams started his career in the dead ball era and had a career high of 9 HR through age 31. He hit 41 HRs in 1923 at age 35. Obviously, Cobb was a far better hitter than Williams...

[leecemark]

--Cobb was a big strong man for the time. Which is why I've always assumed he could have adapted to the power game. And that may be true, but your suggestion that maybe he couldn't could seriously effect how I rate him if I bought into it.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

At this point I'm not sure. I was just pointing out that using the argument that since Cobb was a great "power" hitter in the teens then he would have been a great "power" hitter in the 20s may not be a good argument given that Cobb's "power" in the teens may have been a result of speed not strength.

[Bill Burgess]

Why don't you guys just pile on, why don'tcha? I'm ready. Let's dance.

Adam (Honus), you first. I thought we were allies. Et tu, Brute?

You're hitting where it hurts, in TC's decline phase, but that's alright. Yes, Mr. Cobb was dominant up to 1919, due to the ball favored his particular speed/brains type style. But while he couldn't dominate after 1919, he continued to be one of the top 3-5 players in the league, after Ruth, Sisler, Heilmann.

Let me see if I can cobble an argument together in his defense. What is throwing you off-track Adam, is that you're obviously looking at Ty's page in the record book and seeing no bold-faced black numbers jumping at you after the age of 32. But what that book doesn't show is 2nds or 3rds, which would be relevant to the discussion. If you could see those 2nds and 3rds, which show he did keep pace somewhat with the league in '21, '22 and 25, you might have seen the numbers below.

1921----2nd (BA, OBP, TPR), 3rd (SLG), 4th (SB, T), 5th (R), 7th (EBH), 8th (H, TB), 9th (D, HR, RBI)
1922-----2nd (H, BA, OBP, D, T), 4th (TPR), 6th (SLG, RBI, EBH), 7th (R),
1923-----6th (D), 8th (BA, H), 9th (OBP, R)
1924-----2nd (R, G), 3rd (BA, H), 4th (TB, SB, AB), 5th (W), 7th (T), 8th (TB, D), 9th (OBP),
1925-----2nd (OBP), 3rd (SLG), 4th (BA), 5th (TPR), 7th (T, EBH), 8th (RBI)
1926-----6th (BA)
1927-----3rd (SB), 5th (BA, OBP), 6th (R), 10th (RBI)
1928-----6th (BA)

Other stats:
Times on base: 9th in '21, 3rd in '22, 8th in '23, 2nd in '24, 6th in '27. Baseball Reference gives many other exotic stats which are less sexy so I don't feel like posting stuff like OPS, adj. OPS, Runs Created, Power/Speed Number, At Bat per SO.

So, even without league-leading black ink, he did hobble around with top 5 grey ink. He had had a debilitating injury in 1920, resulting from an OF collison, and missed a huge number of games in 1920.

He was made manager of his team in 1921, and we know from his interviews that that was where the lion's share of his attention went. He also benched himself quite often to play his other OFers, Veach, Manush, Wingo, Fothergill, and Flagstad. He saw his future in managing, and he had also lost around 2 steps getting down to 1st.

So those are the valid reasons he couldn't dominate the league anymore.
1. He had aged and slowed down.
2. The game wasn't designed to favor his type style anymore.
3. He was focusing on managing.
4. He was giving himself less playing time to develop his young talent. (Something Rose would have done well to emulate.)
5. He was still one of the top 5 premier players in the league, though not the intimidating dominator of yesteryear.

Bill Burgess

[Bill Burgess]

Cobb's Power Case:

When Cobb retired following the '28 season, he held the ML records for:
G, AB, BA, Hits, Runs, RBIs, TB, SB, steals of Home, EBHs, singles, runs produced. He was second in: doubles, triples, extra bases on hits. A collection truly Ruthian, or should I say Cobbian.

Overall, Ty set more records than the Babe, or anyone else, 90. His records lasted the longest. 30 still stand. Using traditional stats, Ty led his league more often than anyone else, I think around 60.

Today 75 yrs later, he is STILL:

1st: BA, Relative BA, Runs Produced
2nd: hits, runs, triples, OF assists, OF DPs,
3rd: Relative OBA for this century
4th: SB, G, AB, doubles, triples, OF putouts
8th: OBA unadjusted, extra bases,

But there's more. Mr. Cobb hung up these impressive achievemets.

HRs - top 3 in the league - 5 times, won 1
RBIs - top 3 in the league - 7 times, won 4
TBs - top 3 in the league - 10 times, won 6
SLG. - top 3 in the league - 14 times, won 8

Looked at from another angle, Mr. Cobb led his league in the following years, in the following categories.

1907---BA, SLG, TB, RBI, H, OPS, OPS+, BR+,
1908---BA, SLG, TB, RBI, H, D, T, OPS, OPS+, BR+,
1909---BA, OBP, SLG, TB, RBI, R, H, HR, OPS, OPS+, BR+, SB,
1910---BA, OBP, SLG, R, OPS, OPS+,
1911---BA, SLG, R, H, D, T, RBI, SB, OPS, TB, OPS+, EBH,
1912---BA, SLG, H, OPS, OPS+, BR+, SB,
1915---BA, OBP, TB, R, H, OPS, OPS+, BR+, SB, SBR,
1917---BA, OBP, H, D, T, SLG, SB, OPS, TB, EBH, OPS+,
1918---BA, OBP, T, OPS, OPS+, BR+,

Power? Let's talk about it. From the 1893-1919 era, here is the Career HR list:

1. Zack Wheat ------132---short porch
2. Gavvy Cravath---119---short porch
3. Jimmy Ryan------118
4. Tilly Walker------118
5. Ty Cobb--------117
6. Tris Speaker-----117
9. Ed Delahanty----101
9. Honus Wagner---101
11. Sam Crawford---97
12. Frank Baker-----96
14. Herman Long----91

My most impressive stat is that Ty came in the top 3 in SLG. ave. 14 times! He won 8. That is a record that I don't think Willie can compete with. Willie's power case cannot withstand that level of firepower!

Willie came in the top 3 in SLG. 8 times, and won 5.

Willie's peers tougher in power? Oh really.

Ty's peers: Ruth, Lajoie, Joe Jackson, Crawford, Speaker, Frank Baker, Sisler, Harry Heilmann, Bobby Veach, Bob Meusel, Ken Williams, Bob Fothergill, Leon "Goose" Goslin, Tillie Walker.

Willie's peers: Aaron, Clemente, Musial, Frank Robinson, Banks, Snider, Ralph Kiner, Big Klu, Eddie Mathews, Orlando Cepeda, Willie McCovey, J. Robinson, Campanella.

I've lost it? Maybe. I'm not trying to be personal or argumentative. Just calling them as I see them. I don't see why my arguments are so invalid.

Yeah, Cobb leads Mays in power? It's just my opinion, Nod. Doesn't make me right, or you wrong. I'm just sharing my gut. Hope I don't come across as rude or hostile. I feel neutral.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ty/Willie: Power

Willie's Home Run Record:

Year-number of HRs-placed in HRs for yr.
1954-41-3
1955-51-1
1956-36-5
1957-35-4
1958-29-6
1959-34-5
1960-29-6
1961-40-2
1962-49-1
1963-38-3
1964-47-1
1965-52-1
1966-37-3
1968-23-9

Ty's Home Run Record:

Year-number of HRs-placed in HRs for yr.
1907-5-2
1908-4-6
1909-9-1
1910-8-2
1911-8-2
1912-7-3
1913-4-8
1916-5-5
1917-6-4
1918-3-7
1921-12-9

Willie 14 times came in the top 10 in HRs. Ty did that 11 times. Obviously, Ty hurt himself in the 20's, when he chose not to go for HRs, when others did. Still, Willie came in his top 3, 8 times, Ty 5 times, when he was not even trying for homers.
Bill Burgess

[Bill Burgess]

Adam,

You asked about the nature of power. In pre1919 baseball, it was not only a matter of speed, although that was a component of it. It was the ability to combine power with your speed.

Like Wagner, Crawford, Jackson and Speaker, Cobb used his resources to maximum effect. The idea was to center the ball on the sweet spot, drive it as forcefully as you could between the OFers, and run like hell.

So your speed is a vital component, but so is the ability to hit the ball. So is the ability to get yourself around the bend. Any deficiency will screw the procedure. So it took 3 skills to be an effective "power hitter" before Ruth.
Hitting, driving, running.

Bill Burgess

[Bill Burgess]

Just in case some members might not have gotten the message on the versatility of Mr. Cobb's game, below are a couple of nuggets from Ty's admirers, concerning "his power".

Stan Baumgartner,
AL P (1924-1926),
NL P (1914-16, 21-22
Philadelphia sportswriter, (1927-1955)

1948 - "This is a story of Ty Cobb, the greatest ball player of all time--and Cy Perkins, one of the finest receivers of his day, who now coaches the Phillies. Cobb and Perkins became fast friends in later years. Ty took a fancy to the young, slim, quiet catcher--made him a companion. They dined together, chinned together around the batting cage.

One day, Lefty Grove was throwing in batting practice for the Athletics. "You think Ruth is a great home run hitter, don't you?" asked Cobb, then nearing the end of his career. Perkins nodded. "The greatest I ever saw," he replied. Cobb picked out a bat. "Watch me," he said as he stepped to the plate. He hit Grove's first pitch over the right field wall, his second into Twentieth st., his third onto the rooftops, and his fourth bouncing into the streets beyond the roofs. Ty turned around grinning, then shook his head. "But that's not for Cobb. This is Cobb," he said, and shortened his grip on the bat. He hit four in succession on a line over third base. (Sporting News, May 5, 1948, pp. 12, column 3)

Next quote by Branch Rickey.

Branch Rickey
:
ML catcher, OF, 1905-07, 1914
Browns manager, 1913-1915
Cardinals manager, 1919-1925
Cardinals VP & Buss. manager, 1925-1942
Dodgers Pres. & GM, 1942-50
Pirates VP & GM, 1951-59
Cardinals adviser, 1963-65
1965 - "The great unrealized and almost never-mentioned contribution of Cobb to the winning of games was his constant wrecking of pitcher concentration on the pitch. With Cobb on first, or any base for that matter, many pitchers over a period of, say, twenty years became simply "throwers." He caused catchers to call for more pitch-outs by far than any player in the history of the game, thereby setting up constantly the three-and-one and two-and-nothing situations for the next batsman and giving repeated opportunity for the batsman to hit the "cripple.". . . I never knew of any player other than Cobb practicing sliding with the intent of using the loose foot to kick the ball out of the baseman's hand. He actually practiced that movement. And Cobb could and did concentrate on it with great effect. It led to the general charge throughout the American League that, on occasion, he intentionally spiked the tagged. I don't think he ever spiked anyone intentionally. . . But he was not a cruel player - not in my book. One more word on Cobb on the subject of his hitting. I may have left the impression that Cobb was not a power hitter. On several occasions he would engage in a pre-game exhibition contest of power hitting. It is said that he never lost a single contest. He could drive a ball for tremendous distance when that was his only purpose. I don't believe that Cobb, when batting, ever had a home run in his mind. . . . Cobb is to be understood rather than maligned unjustly. . .

The truth is that Cobb is the greatest one-game player in all baseball history. He was the most positive character in the game. He was baseball's most earnest and assiduous learner. He was the greatest perfectionist, both on offense and defense.
No player could come close to Cobb's record. Probably no one will ever equal it. Who's the greatest player that ever performed in the major leagues? The vote would surely be Cobb or Wagner. Take your pick. Cobb had a psychological effect on
opponents which Wagner did not have. Wagner had a morale value among his teammates which Cobb did not have. If I had first chance in making up an all-time All-American team for a season's play of 154 games, I would be compelled to choose Wagner. But for the game today: Ty Cobb. (American Diamond, A Documentary of the Game, Branch Rickey, 1965)

So I hope these quotes shed some light on the prevelant attitudes towards hitting in the '20's.

Bill Burgess

PS. Any further questions, Adam? I'd be delighted to continue clarifying fine points. Mark? You always enjoy chiseling away at Mr. Cobb's monument. Had enough yet?

[SABR Matt]

Boy...when you answer a challenge...you answer it! Very interesting reading Bill...I'll stand by PCA's conclusion that Cobb was in fact the 7th most valuable player of all time...but I recognize that I'm in the minority there.

[leecemark]

--Matt, I have him 4th (Mays, Ruth, Wagner). Who are the 6 you have ahead?

[BoSox Rule]

I know he's making changes to his system, but this is one of his posts from MLB Center where Cobb was 10th.

MOV = Marginal Offensive Value
MPV = Marginal Pitching Value
MDV = Marginal Defensive Value
TMV = Total Marginal Value = the sum of the first three componants

PlayerID  	MOV	MPV	MDV	TMV
ruthba01 	7866	504	867	9237
bondsba01	6495	0	901	7396
mayswi01	5905	0	1283	7188
mantlmi01	6324	0	801	7125
willite01  	6390	1	699	7090
henderi01	5641	0	1439	7080
musiast01	5828	0	1247	7075
aaronha01	5999	0	889	6888
speaktr01	4797	-1	1949	6745
cobbty01	5590	1	1090	6681

[leecemark]

--Well, I don't agree with that but can at least sorta kinda see all but Henderson. I've often wondered (but never come up with a yes to) whether Speaker defensive advantage over Cobb could make up Cobb's offensive advantage over Speaker. However, even if it could Cobb also has a big baserunning edge. For several of the others it depends how strong a timeline you feel is appropriate.

[csh19792001]

First, to clear things up, Cobb went about 190 at his peak (the 175 listing is somewhat misleading, as is Ruth's "215" listing; the baseball encyclopeida always had a penchant for listing oldtimers as lighter than their actual weight). Over Ty's last few years in the bigs he weighed a bit over 200.

As to the two so called "HR" hitters to rival Ruth in the early 20's (Williams and Williams)... Ken Williams played in St. Louis- have you seen Hornsby and Sisler's splits from that park? Hornsby hit over .475 there two years in a row in the mid 20's, and his power splits were miles apart. The data we do have on George Sisler show that he garnered a huge advantage from his park, also.

Cy Williams played in the Baker Bowl- see Gavvy Cravath's splits if you have any doubts as to what that park did to power numbers- Cravath had more than a couple years where he hit ALL of his HR's at home. I believe Cravath hit something like 82 of his 119 career homers at home (even with more at bats on the road, of course)- perhaps the figure is higher- I don't have the new Abstract handy.

Honus-
(To answer your question)- Cobb hit 5 homeruns in 2 games (may 5-6, 1925)- the first game he had three homeruns and went 6-6, setting the record for total bases in one game (he is STILL the only American Leaguer to go 6-6 with three home runs in a game). The next day he tacked on two more homers, setting the record for total bases in two games, also. It should also be noted that Cobb hit two doubles off the top of the wall in St. Louis during this frenzy, meaning he was not far from 7 homeruns in two games (and 4 in a single game).

As to the speed/power issue, does it really matter if he legged them out or not? A triple is a triple- Honus Wagner was a big, powerful guy also, and played in the biggest parks in baseball. Are we going to say he wasn't a great power hittter because he played in two huge parks and had a ton of doubles and triples (getting robbed of MANY homeruns in the process, as did Cobb)? Exposition Park had 400 foot lines and was 450 to center (and this is with the DEAD ball). Navin Field was 470 to center and 390 down the right field line. The best players acclimate to conditions; whether done with brute force or speed a triple is three bases for your team- and power was defined (and carried out) differently then in comparison to today. Even with the liveball, (which wasn't nearly as live as it is today, nor were the bats nearly as hard), I can't imagine it would be very profitable for a lefthander to swing from the heels with a 390 right field LINE and a 470 CF wall.

As to not making a massive change in how he swung the bat- after more than a decade of domination, and 2000 games of playing inside baseball, I wouldn't have expected Cobb to overhaul his entire thinking and playing style because one guy was hitting ridiculous numbers of homeruns for the Yankees. Should he be blamed for not completely changing his style later on, as a player manager in a poor home run park in his late 30's? Perhaps. He did lead in OPS+ in 1925, as a 38 year old player-manager having already played 2600+ tool and nail games in the bigs.

[leecemark]

--A triple is a triple when you are comparing Cobb to his deadball peers. I think pretty much all of us already agree he was the best hitter of his era anyway. The question on whether his power numbers came from his legs or from his bat only becomes relevant if we are trying to project him into the modern game.
--Of course Cobb dominated much longer than Ross Barnes, but most of us discount Barnes because so much of his value came from a game condition that ceased to exist 130 years ago. If a large part of Cobb's value was limited to playing conditions which ceased to exist 85 years ago that would be damaging to his argument as the best of all time.
--I think if this is true it is only margnally true. That is to say I think Cobb would have been a great player under any conditons. However, it isn't unreasonable to suggest he would have been less great had his prime come in the live ball era (that without even considering level of competition).

[Bill Burgess]

Originally Posted by leecemark

However, it isn't unreasonable to suggest he would have been less great had his prime come in the live ball era (that without even considering level of competition).

I also believe that the level of superiority of all pre-1947 stars would have flattened out with respect to the league, had they played post-1947, due to improved competition.

But tell me why must a player with all the skills been less great if they had been born into the liveball era. Seems that if you're great when conditions are at their worst for offense, they you would only improve with a better ball, ballpark, less trick pitches, fresh balls, better equipment, larger market, etc.

How do you get the reversed result? What can't I see?

Bill Burgess

[leecemark]

--Bill, I actually didn't reach that conclusion. I was merely speculating on the question HWR raised and what it might mean to Cobb's place amoung the all time greats. I have always believed Cobb would have been a great power hitter had he been born later. However, its possible he wouldn't have been and if he couldn't hit for HR power in the modern fashion that would exclude him for consideration for best of all time.