Ty Cobb discussion

[Bill Burgess]

Ty/Honus: Post 30 Slug. record.

Below is how both Ty/Hans did in Relative SLG. Ave. after the age of 30.

--------Ty------------Honus
1917--1.72-----------1904--1.54
1918--1.57-----------1905--1.44
1919--1.39-----------1906--1.39
1920--1.13-----------1907--1.59
1921--1.42-----------1908--1.70
1922--1.39-----------1909--1.45
1923--1.18-----------1910--1.21
1924--1.11-----------1911--1.34
1925--1.43-----------1912--1.31
1926--1.25-----------1913--1.06
1927--1.14-----------1914--0.93
1928--1.03-----------1915--1.23
---------------------1916--1.08
---------------------1917--0.86

[Bill Burgess]

Adam,

I have a question for you, Bill. Shouldn't "the greatest player ever" lead the league in at least a few offensive categories in his mid to late 30s? Ruth, Mays, Aaron, Musial, Rose, Wagner, Williams, and Bonds did.

(Bill - Oh you are slippery. To grant you the courtesy of an answer, YES. He should. And Ty did lead his league in OPS and Adj. OPS in 1925. But yes, a candidate should lead his league in offensive categories after 32.

But I could frame similar questions which are equally awkward. Shouldn't a candidate for "Greatest Ever" lead his league more than once in BA? Ruth didn't. He also failed to ever lead his league in hits, doubles or triples.

Shouldn't a candidate for "Greatest Ever" lead their league even once in RBIs? Willie Mays didn't. In fact, the Great Wille only led his league twice in onbase %, Runs, EBH, and once in BA, H, W, and NEVER in doubles, RBIs, or times on base.)

Did Cobb ever explain why he didn't adjust to the new hitting style of the 1920s? Given his skill I'm sure he cound have hit 30+ HRs minimum and hit .330 easily..

(Bill - Yes he did. He hated it. Despised it. But he, Speaker, Collins all thought it was a passing phase. When they saw, by 1924, that it wasn't, they were old men. Most of the kids of the 20's never embraced the new style either. Terry, O'Doul, Fonseca, Manush, Heilmann, etc. didn't accept the new style either. All passed on HRs. All continued to swing as they had since they were 10, level, controlled.

Adam, did you know that they didn't even compute Slugging average or onbase ave. until many decades later? Did you know that they didn't keep records of ERA until 1913? Caught Stealing not until 1920, Hitter strike-outs 1910 for NL, 1913 for AL, and Grounded Into DPs - 1935 for NL, 1939 for AL.

Up until 1940, very, very few hitters went for HRs. Very small percentage. So the better question might be, "Why did a whole generation pass on Babe Ruth's style of swinging?"

Bill Burgess

[Blackout]

What holds me back on calling Cobb the greatest ever is his performance after age 32. It just doesn't jive with being the greatest ever. But I a nopen-minded. I'm willing to change my mind if I see strong evidence...

cobb not good after age 32? what are you talking about?

age 33--.334
age 34--.389
age 35--.401
age 36--.340
age 37--.338
age 38--.378
age 39--.339
age 40--.357
age 41-.323



the only thing that keeps Cobb from being the GOAT is existance of a certain person nicknamed the Sultan of Swat

[Honus Wagner Rules]

cobb not good after age 32? what are you talking about?

age 33--.334
age 34--.389
age 35--.401
age 36--.340
age 37--.338
age 38--.378
age 39--.339
age 40--.357
age 41-.323



the only thing that keeps Cobb from being the GOAT is existance of a certain person nicknamed the Sultan of Swat

I've addressed this before in previous posts. Though, his BAs look superfically impressive, if you take into account the offensive era of the 1920s they BA are not that impressive. His .401 BA in 1922 is not even remotely comparible to Cobb's other two .400 seasons in the dead ball era.

Also, I DiDN"T say Cobb wasn't good in the 1920s. I actaully said that Cobb wasn't dominant in the 1920s. His performace after age 32 when compared to other alltime greats is poor.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Bill,
You slightly altered my argument you sly dog you. Though Ruth only won one batting title he did lead in many other categories after age 32, as did Mays. That is a key difference. Cobb didn't lead in any major offensive categories.

You also might want to take a quick look at the HR leaders after 1920 through 1940. Lots of guys hitting 30+ and 40+ HRs

National League

1922: Hornsby 42
1923 Cy Williams 41
1925 Hornsby 39
1927 Williams 30, Wilson 30
1928 Bottomley 31, Wilson 31
1929 Klein 43, Ott 42, Hornsby 39, Wilson 39, O'Doul 32 ,Hurst 31
1930 Wilson 56, Klein 40, Berger 38, Hartnet 37, Herman 35
1931 Klein 31
1932 Klein 38, Ott 38
1934 Collins 35, Ott 35, Berger 34
1935 Berger 34, Ott 31
1936 Ott 33
1937 Medwick 31, Ott 31
1938 Ott 36, Goodman 30
1940 Mize 43

National League 1922-1940:
1 50+ HR season
6 40+ HR seasons
25 30+ HR seasons




American League
1920-Ruth 54
1921-Ruth 59
1922-Williams 39, Walker 37, Ruth 35
1923-Ruth 41
1924-Ruth 46
1925-Meusel 33
1926-Ruth 47
1927-Ruth 60, Gerhig 47
1928-Ruth 54
1929-Ruth 46, Gerhig 35, Simmons 34, Foxx 33
1930-Ruth 49, Gerhig 41, Foxx 37, Goslin 37, Simmons 36
1931-Gerhig 46, Ruth 46, Averill 32, Foxx 30
1932-Fox 58, Ruth 41, Simmons 35, Gerhig 34, Averill 32
1933-Foxx 48, Ruth 34, Gerhig 32
1934-Gerhig 49, Foxx 44, Trosky 35, Johnson 34, Averill 31
1935-Foxx 36, Greenberg 36, Gerhig 30
1936-Gerhig 49, Trosky 42, Foxx 41
1937-DiMaggio 46, Greenberg 40, Gerhig 37, Foxx 36, York 35, Trosky 32
1938-Greenberg 58, Foxx 50, Clift 34, York 33, DiMaggio 32, Johnson 30
1939-Foxx 35, Greenberg 33, Williams 31, DiMaggio 30
1940-Greenberg 41, Foxx 36, York 33, DiMaggio 31, Johnson 31, Gordon 30

American LEague 1920-1940:
7 50+ HR seasons
19 40+ HR seasons
40 30+ HR seasons


So from 1920-1940 total:

8 50+ HR seasons
25 40+ HR seasons
65 30+ HR seasons


A whole generation didn't pass on Bath Ruth's style of hitting. Ruth inspired an entire generation. Players likes Foxx, Greenberg, Trosky, Johnson, DiMaggio, York, Berger, etc., were kids when Ruth was mashing 50-60 HRs...

[Imapotato]

You guys are failing to see the advantage every other GREAT player had over Cobb

He came into a time when the league changed DRASTICALLY. Average players became very good players, very good players became average or were out of the game.

Wagner, Lajoie and Jackson were gone before, and Mays, Williams et al did not have to contend with Baseball's Ice Age

Take a look at the offensive leaderboards in 1917 and then look at the leaderboards in 1924 and tell me how ALL those players 20 year olds are gone in so little time?

[leecemark]

--Any 7 year period is going to see alot of turnover at the top of the leaderboards. There were some deadball stars who maintained or even increased their value in the 20s though. Wheat, Rousch and Cy Williams - not to mention Hornsby in the NL. Speaker was the only huge deadball star that that stayed atop the AL leaderboards, but that was partly because Jackson and Felch, who showed every sign of adapting well, were banned after 1920 and Sisler was turned into an average player by his sinus problems after 1922.

[BigStellyPADRES4LIFE]

Cobb in the 1920s didnt hit for power because he didnt believe thats how the game was supposed to be played(his bigotry spread into his style of play...) Late in the 1920s in the very end of his career he announced for a week or something like that(forgive me i dont have the data with me but its on the 9 innings of baseball a TV series done in the early 90s) he would be hitting only for power... the result something like 6 HR in 5 games and Ruthian like slugging numbers. Part of the reason he didnt chage was not because he wasnt good enough to but because he didnt want to.

[Bill Burgess]

Adam,

I'm not duckin' your concerns, I'm fighting as hard as I know how to fight, but I'm fightin' tough & clean. You're throwing 95 mph fastballs, up n in, and I'm defending my inside corner. If I have to foul a few off, guys gotta do what guys gotta do.

I'll give you your love, Adam. You're cuttin' the corners with some nasty breakin' stuff on Ty's vulnerable decline, so I'm firing back whatever arguments I got in his defense.

So far, I feel as if I'm winning. You said that lots of guys were goin' with Babe's new style, but I can't see where you proved your case. You showed me 16 guys in the NL, and 17 in the AL. But . . . the bar was low at 30 HRs/season, and how many hitters are 33 total hitters out of how many? I contend that that is a VERY low percent of the hitters.

Now, I must defend TC's claim to the "Greatest Ever", by posing questions to you, Adam. If TC didn't hold on as well in his decline as his rivals for the title, did they go as high as he did in their glory days? Mays sure can't claim any bragging rights, and neither can Honus. Willie's lack of league leads lets him out as a viable candidate for top honors, same as Mickey Mantle. Did you see where I compared their declines via Relative Slugging? Not as dramatic as you'd have me believe.

Babe did outperform Ty in their declines, and he also outproduced Ty in their salad days, but only with the aid of about a million advantages, which I've itemized in dozens of past posts.

Hypothetically, it one were to equalize them with the same ball, short porches, quality of team mates, WS opportunities, same size markets to cheer them on, number of newspapers to organize their grand old ballyhoo & sing their praises, etc., and THEN, we'd see who outperformed who!

Who do you nominate for the Greatest Ever?

Bill Burgess

[leecemark]

--Market size and media may help publicize how well a player performs, but they don't actually help a player perform. If anything its the opposite. Many good players have crumbled when thrust into the spotlight. New York isn't for everyone and with Cobb's personality he may well have been better off in the hinterlands of Detriot.

[Bill Burgess]

Mark,

Market size and media may help publicize how well a player performs, but they don't actually help a player perform. If anything its the opposite. Many good players have crumbled when thrust into the spotlight. New York isn't for everyone and with Cobb's personality he may well have been better off in the hinterlands of Detroit.

Mark, when you mess it up, you really let it all hang out. You got to be kiddin' me! When Cobb arrived in NYC when he managed his troops, they often beat the much better Yanks. Selling out Yankee Stadium is a REALLY hard thing to do, and that didn't happen often. But when the Cobbmen arrived there, they often played to the largest crowds in that era, 50,000 to 80,000. Because Cobb had them so fired up! Below are some numbers of how well Cobb did in the old Polo Grounds. So I guess you're wrong about Cobb, again. He loved the crowds. Bigger the better.

Year	games	hits	Batting Ave.
1913	11	14	0.341
1914	8	13	0.433
1915	12	19	0.421
1916	12	21	0.421
1917	-	19	0.432
1918	-	10	0.303

Media do make a difference. They get your fans to the park. And players play better with more folks to cheer.

Bill Burgess

[leecemark]

--We'll have to disagree on this one. I think you're just grasping at straws to drag Ruth down.

[Bill Burgess]

Mark,

You always feel that is my motive. My motive is to show justice, via equal conditions. I think I've posted sufficient pro-Babe posts by now to invalidate your suspicions.

Bill Burgess

[leecemark]

--Some of your posts are balanced enough. If you were arguing the MY media helped build Ruth's legend that would be impossible to argue with. Arguing that it made Ruth a better player is impossible not to argue with. Absolutely no logical basis for it.

[Bill Burgess]

Mark,

What is so outlandish to suggest that playing before 20,000 fans on average, (and up), is an advantage, compared to playing before 12,000 fans on average?

NYC had the fan base, the volume of 25 newspapers, to organize the ballyhoo to turn that fan base out, and oversell a sports product.

Detroit had a vastly smaller fan base, 3 newspapers to organize THEIR ballyhoo, to turn their fans out.

The size of your audience IS a major impetus to your performance. I know. I was once an onstage performer. In a night club. From 9PM - 11PM, the house was relatively empty, and I didn't feel that motivated to go nuts dancing. Come midnight, when the house was packed, and every eye on me on my little stage, in the spotlight, I was invincible.

Size of your audience makes no difference to your motivation/effort? Mark, you're just, plain, wrong.

Bill Burgess