Man it bugs the shit out of me when....

[mac0822]

People argue that Bonds, Aaron, Mays, Williams, whoever are the best baseball player of all time.

How the fuck can people say anyone except for Babe Ruth was the best player of all time? The guy outhomered TEAMS. He left the game with 714 HR's & #2 was like 400 behind him. He was an excellent pitcher on top of this.

I was having this discussion at work & guys were tossing out other names. Wow that pissed me off. If people don't say Ruth wasn't the best of all time, they should be banned from watching MLB.

[9]

I totally see your point, Mac. The one thing people can bring up is the fact that there are players that are more complete, especially in terms of fielding. But there has never been a player who dominated the sport like Ruth did in his day. And the fat bastard could fucking pitch, too!

[Chris]

All I know is, I wonder what these conversations would have been like had Griffey Jr. been even mildly healthy since leaving Seattle. 600 Home Runs for an injury marred career astounds me.

[$heriff Tom]

I'd give the nod to Ruth, but Ty Cobb is right up there with him.

My favorite Cobb story was when he snarled that Ruth was only hitting so many homers cause Cobb was playing a different game. He then told reporters he would play Ruth for a day, and swing for the fences. He went out and hit 3 homers that day, and another 2 the next day. He then said "told ya" and went back to doing what he normally did.

You can look it up.

[jwmcc]

"After enduring several years of seeing his fame and notoriety usurped by Ruth, Cobb decided that he was going to show that swinging for the fences was no challenge for a top hitter. On May 5, 1925, Cobb began a two-game hitting spree better than any even Ruth had unleashed. He was sitting in the dugout talking to a reporter and told him that, for the first time in his career, he was going to swing for the fences. That day, Cobb went 6 for 6, with two singles, a double, and three home runs.[55] His 16 total bases set a new AL record. The next day he had three more hits, two of which were home runs. His single his first time up gave him 9 consecutive hits over three games. His five homers in two games tied the record set by Cap Anson of the old Chicago NL team in 1884.[55] Cobb wanted to show that he could hit home runs when he wanted, but simply chose not to do so. At the end of the series, 38-year-old Cobb had gone 12 for 19 with 29 total bases, and then went happily back to bunting and hitting-and-running. For his part, Ruth's attitude was that "I could have had a lifetime .600 average, but I would have had to hit them singles. The people were paying to see me hit home runs."[56]"

From wikipedia.

[MSBNYY]

Awesome comeback by Ruth. That's what people tend to forget about the man--he wasn't just HRs. The man hit for average too. His lifetime average was .342. 10th all time.

In 1923, he hit .393.

Cobb was the man, but Ruth definitely is the best of all time.

[drock2006]

Forget how many Griffey would have hit, imagine the homers Ruth would have hit if he didn't start as a pitcher.

The man outhomered teams..the argument should end there.

[$heriff Tom]

The man outhomered teams..the argument should end there.

And Cobb showed he could have done the same thing.

The argument continues.

[9]

But could Cobb swim upstream?

[whalerfan]

Remember, though, Cobb and Ruth played in an white-only league. They were still all-time greats, no doubt, but we'll never know if others would've approached their standards.

[Chris]

I have a hard time with this concept that had baseball always been integrated, we'd be talking about an entirely different set of records...as if we're worshiping false idols in people like Ruth and Cobb because they didn't play against black players.

Any sociologist worth his salt will tell you that the perceived dominance of African Americans in sport is a function of socio-economics and not an issue of biology. African Americans are not superior physical specimens....they tend to come, in larger numbers, from poverty, and as a whole don't feel as though typical avenues of success (education and promotion through the corporate world) are available to them - so they look in greater frequency toward sports and entertainment as a means to a better future. That also explains why baseball players from poor Latin countries are so prevalent, that's why boxers from impoverished areas all over the globe are so prevalent.

So spare me if I don't buy into the idea that baseball would have had inundated with far superior physical specimens during the turn of the century had blacks been allowed to play.

[jwmcc]

Wow, no ignorance in that post...
Jw

[Chris]

Ignorance? You're the STAT guy John. Why don't you post stats regarding what percentage of the African American population lives below the poverty level as compared the percentage of the Caucasian population below the poverty level. Why don't you post the percentage of all citizens in the major latin countries living below the poverty level. Why don't you post the percentage of African American applicants to colleges and universities across the country (applicants...not athletic scholarship awardees) Why don't you post those same stats for the turn of the century. Why don't you post the average income of professional athletes and/or their families prior to becoming professional athletes (white or black). Why don't you post the percentage of African American/Latin athletes who come from low-income backgrounds that make up MLB, NFL, NBA?

But, that's just ignorance right...clearly there are no correlations to be made, right?

I guess it's safe to assume that people who RELAY stats don't always understand why they're useful.

[Chris]

The point I am trying to make is that it is not a safe assumption to make that, had pro sports been integrated, the stats would be vastly different. It's not safe to say that we'd have had much BETTER athletes....it's probably more accurate to state that we'd have DIFFERENT athletes. Babe Ruth is a 700 home run guy period...regardless of who was pitching to him. Ty Cobb is a 4000 hit guy period, regardless of who might have been opposing him in the field.

Where there black ballplayers who might have had HOF caliber skill that were denied a chance to show their wares...SURE...undoubtedly....but that doesn't mean that their records would have come at the expense of the stats of guys like Ruth and Cobb.

[jwmcc]

Now that the sociology lesson is out of the way....

"So spare me if I don't buy into the idea that baseball would have had inundated with far superior physical specimens during the turn of the century had blacks been allowed to play."


Blacks weren't allowed to play, but their best players had their own professional league for decades. And when those players, while I don't have the official win/loss record would go and play the MLB all-stars of the day, especially the 30's, they flat out dominated. Not to mention several players in MLB admitted that blacks would have made their teams and the league better if there wasn't segregation.

So in the end, yes players like Ruth, DiMaggio, Gehrig would have played in a tougher level of competiton had there been no ban. No sociology numbers are needed, just look at the history of MLB and of the Negro leagues.
Jw

[MSBNYY]

I think too much stock is placed on Cobb's alleged power spurt. Let's not forget that Ruth hit for HRs AND average.

From 1920-1928 Cobb had the following averages:

1920-- .334
1921-- .389
1922-- .401
1923-- .340
1924-- .338
1925-- .378
1926-- .339
1927-- .357
1928-- .323

Ruth over the same period:

1920--.376
1921-- .378
1922-- .315
1923-- .393
1924-- .378
1925-- .290
1926-- .372
1927-- .356
1928-- .323

I chose that era because they were both playing at the same time, and despite Cobb's retirement, he was still very effective as a hitter and arguably retired YEARS too soon. In those 8 years Ruth outhit Cobb during 4 of them. In 1927, Ruth was just 1 point lower than Cobb and in 1928, they were tied.

In 2 of those 8 years, Ruth's stats are low due to injury and/or suspensions.

Ruth basically beat Cobb at his own game, AND hit for power.

[jwmcc]

"and despite Cobb's retirement, he was still very effective as a hitter and arguably retired YEARS too soon."

Years too soon? He was 41 when he retired, and had played less than 100 games 2 of the last three years of his career. Besides, players didn't last as long in the game like they do today.

[MSBNYY]

Yeah, but look at what he was hitting when he retired. Still hitting .323.

He probably could have at least hit .300 for 2-3 more years.

[jwmcc]

"Cobb returned again in 1928. He played less frequently due to his age and the blossoming abilities of the young A's, who were again in a pennant race with the Yankees. On September 3, 1928, Ty Cobb pinch hit in the 9th inning of the first game of a double-header against the Senators and doubled off Bump Hadley for his last career hit. Against the Yankees on September 11, 1928, Cobb had his last at bat, popping out against pitcher Hank Johnson to shortstop Mark Koenig as a pinch hitter in the 9th inning.[5] He then announced his retirement, effective at the end of the season.[5] Cobb ended his career with 23 consecutive seasons batting .300 or better (the only season under .300 being his rookie season), a Major League record not likely to be broken.[25]"

From wikipedia.

[MSBNYY]

Why the heck did Detroit let him go? The guy hit .339. Even in half a season, that's outstanding.

[jwmcc]

From the same article:

Cobb finally called it quits from a 22-year career as a Tiger in November 1926. He announced his retirement and headed home to Augusta, Georgia.[5] Shortly thereafter, Tris Speaker also retired as player-manager of the Cleveland team. The retirement of two great players at the same time sparked some interest, and it turned out that the two were coerced into retirement because of allegations of game-fixing brought about by Dutch Leonard, a former pitcher of Cobb's.[60]

Leonard accused Wood and Cobb of betting on a Tiger-Cleveland game played in Detroit on September 25, 1919, in which they allegedly coerced a Detroit victory to win the bet. Leonard claimed proof existed in letters written to him by Cobb and Wood.[60] Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis held a secret hearing with Cobb and Speaker as well as former pitcher and outfielder Joe Wood.[60] A second secret meeting amongst the AL directors led to Cobb and Speaker resigning with no publicity; however, rumors of the scandal led Judge Landis to hold additional hearings.[60] Leonard subsequently refused to appear at the hearings. Cobb and Wood admitted to writing the letters, but they claimed it was a horse racing bet, and that Leonard's accusations were the result of Cobb's earlier release of Leonard from the Tigers to the minor leagues.[60] Speaker denied any wrongdoing.[60]

On January 27, 1927, Judge Landis cleared Cobb and Speaker of any wrongdoing because of Leonard's refusal to appear at the hearings.[60] Landis allowed both Cobb and Speaker to return to their original teams, and both became free agents.[60] Speaker signed with the Washington Senators for 1927; Cobb signed with the Philadelphia Athletics. Speaker then joined Cobb in Philadelphia for the 1928 season. Cobb says he came back only to seek vindication and so that he could say he left baseball on his own terms.

[$heriff Tom]

That Cobb/Speaker/Landis imbroglio was quite the interesting read, in the tome "Judge and Jury" about Judge Landis that is nestled on my bookshelf at home.

Balls, stop disparaging Cobb.

[MSBNYY]

I'm praising him, you dolt. The guy clearly had plenty left in the tank when he walked away. But he's no Ruth.

[grover]

While Ruth may be the best for now, I don't think it's outlandish to put others from his time and those from generations after in the argument since the game has changed so much over the ages.

[MSBNYY]

I don't think it's possible for Ruth to have a peer. It's kind of like Cy Young's wins record. For someone to be as far above the pack as Ruth is pretty much impossible.