Who is the greatest player of the Pre-War Era?

[packs]

I don't see how anyone could not answer Babe Ruth. It doesn't matter how the sports writers voted. There has only been one player in the history of the game to single handedly outhit an entire league. That player is Babe Ruth.

As talented and great as Cobb was, he didn't change the game. He only did things better than the players around him.

But Ruth did change the game, and every player after him has been trying to live up to what he did.

[UKCardGuy]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't see how anyone could not answer Babe Ruth. It doesn't matter how the sports writers voted. There has only been one player in the history of the game to single handedly outhit an entire league. That player is Babe Ruth.

As talented and great as Cobb was, he didn't change the game. He only did things better than the players around him.

But Ruth did change the game, and every player after him has been trying to live up to what he did.

The question wasn't who most transformed baseball.... It was who was the greatest pre-war player. You said it yourself, Cobb did things better than the players around him. Isnt that the definition of "best"?

More than most on the list, Ruth benefited from the end of the dead ball era.

Considering that Wagner and Cobb played most of thier career when conditions were harder for batters and they have greater all around stats/skills... Cobb and Wagner are clearly ahead of Cobb. I know the modern romanticism is all about Ruth...but that doesn't make him the best.

For me, the list goes Cobb, Wagner then Ruth.

[darwinbulldog]

#1 Ruth
#2 WaJo

[Tabe]

Yeah, I can't really see how the answer would be anybody but Ruth. He destroyed pretty much every hitting record - other than average. He had an OBP over .500 five times. FIVE different seasons he was on base more often than not. And had four other seasons of .486 or above. He was on base nearly 10% more often than Cobb (.474 vs .433) AND slugged 35% higher than Cobb (.690 vs .512). AND he had 3+ outstanding seasons as a pitcher.

I'm a big fan of Ty Cobb and Honus Wagner but Ruth is so far out in front of both of them, they're fighting for 3rd place behind him*.

* - to be honest, I'd probably put Rogers Hornsby ahead of both Cobb and Ruth, too. Averaging .402 over a 5-year stretch while hitting for power tops anything Wagner or Cobb did.

[rats60]

In fairness to Wagner and Cobb, they slugged a lot lower than Ruth because they were hitting a dead ball and Ruth was hitting a juiced ball. I know I am one of the few that considers parks, but Ruth had a hitters friendly park 314 to right 385 to right center. Wagner 360 to left 462 to left center and 400 to left and 450 to center.

[clydepepper]

Amazing how many members didn't see 'Pre-War' in the poll's title.

Are we ALL home-skooled?


.

[UKCardGuy]

Originally Posted by rats60

In fairness to Wagner and Cobb, they slugged a lot lower than Ruth because they were hitting a dead ball and Ruth was hitting a juiced ball. I know I am one of the few that considers parks, but Ruth had a hitters friendly park 314 to right 385 to right center. Wagner 360 to left 462 to left center and 400 to left and 450 to center.

This!

And remember that the rules changed in 1921 so that balls were changed when they got dirty or worn or damaged. That combined with a "juiced" ball and smaller parks helps to explain some of Ruth's success.

Have a look at this comparison of Cobb and Ruth's stats. https://mlbcomparisons.com/babe-ruth...bb-comparison/

Except for the categories influenced by being a home run hitter, Cobb wins on almost all counts. That says to me that if you take away the benefits that Ruth had (fresh balls, juiced balls, parks etc) then Cobb is clearly the better player. Put it another way, if Cobb played ball from 1918-1938, his stats would be even better!

Ruth most definitely transformed baseball but that doesn't make him the best.

As an analogy, I'm a huge Beatles fan. They changed music when they came along. Like Ruth, they were the right people at the right time. But would I say that they were bigger musical geniuses than Mozart? Nope.

[Touch'EmAll]

Ruth came along at the absolute perfect time for his skills and style. This timing allowed him to become the larger than life player we all know and grant him title of best ever. What if Ruth came along 20 years earlier, or 20 years later - while still would have been awesome, probably not quite as awesome as it was. Ruth blossomed at the single biggest change ever to occur in the entire history of baseball.

The transition from Dead Ball era to Live Ball era makes it so very difficult, if not impossible to lump all Pre-War players together.

Stats aside, lets look at what the baseball community thought of the top players when the first Hall of Fame voting happened.

1. Cobb - 222 votes
2, tie. Ruth - 215 votes
2, tie. Wagner - 215 votes
4. Mathewson - 205 votes
5. Walter Johnson - 189 votes.

The largest percentage difference in voting was with Mathewson over Johnson.

Does this mean Cobb was better than Ruth - we don't really know, but overall the votes would put the feather in Cobb's cap. Same with Matty vs. Johnson.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by UKCardGuy

This!

And remember that the rules changed in 1921 so that balls were changed when they got dirty or worn or damaged. That combined with a "juiced" ball and smaller parks helps to explain some of Ruth's success.

Have a look at this comparison of Cobb and Ruth's stats. https://mlbcomparisons.com/babe-ruth...bb-comparison/

Except for the categories influenced by being a home run hitter, Cobb wins on almost all counts. That says to me that if you take away the benefits that Ruth had (fresh balls, juiced balls, parks etc) then Cobb is clearly the better player. Put it another way, if Cobb played ball from 1918-1938, his stats would be even better!

Ruth most definitely transformed baseball but that doesn't make him the best.

As an analogy, I'm a huge Beatles fan. They changed music when they came along. Like Ruth, they were the right people at the right time. But would I say that they were bigger musical geniuses than Mozart? Nope.

And how good a pitcher was Cobb?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by UKCardGuy

This!

And remember that the rules changed in 1921 so that balls were changed when they got dirty or worn or damaged. That combined with a "juiced" ball and smaller parks helps to explain some of Ruth's success.

Have a look at this comparison of Cobb and Ruth's stats. https://mlbcomparisons.com/babe-ruth...bb-comparison/

Except for the categories influenced by being a home run hitter, Cobb wins on almost all counts. That says to me that if you take away the benefits that Ruth had (fresh balls, juiced balls, parks etc) then Cobb is clearly the better player. Put it another way, if Cobb played ball from 1918-1938, his stats would be even better!

Ruth most definitely transformed baseball but that doesn't make him the best.

As an analogy, I'm a huge Beatles fan. They changed music when they came along. Like Ruth, they were the right people at the right time. But would I say that they were bigger musical geniuses than Mozart? Nope.

Ruth had two big seasons before that rule change, 1919 presumably non juiced ball, he hit 29hr and batted .322. nd 1920, presumably juiced ball, as total HRs was a lot higher than 1919 - 369 to 240 Ruth hit 54 HR and batted 376 still with the ball being used until it wore out. (and played in 12 more games) 54HR was more than any other AL team, and more than double the second place HR hitter.

looking at the top 10 HR hitters, some had similar increases, some didn't.
Even for 1921 with the clean ball and a lot more HR hit overall not everyone in the top 10 saw a major increase.

So Ruth was outpacing everyone for power even before the clean ball. and probably before the dead ball was gone completely.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by rats60

In fairness to Wagner and Cobb, they slugged a lot lower than Ruth because they were hitting a dead ball and Ruth was hitting a juiced ball. I know I am one of the few that considers parks, but Ruth had a hitters friendly park 314 to right 385 to right center. Wagner 360 to left 462 to left center and 400 to left and 450 to center.

Ruth hit 49 homers during the dead ball era while playing small parts of 3 seasons, half of another, and 80% of another. It took Cobb 10 seasons to do that - 7 full seasons plus parts of 3 others. Ruth led the majors in slugging and OPS both seasons he played in the outfield during the dead ball era.

While he may not have ended up with 714 homers if they hadn't changed the ball, there's no reason to think he wouldn't have continued to dominate. Look at 1919 - his first full season as something resembling a full-time outfielder and he set the single season home run record. Hitting a dead ball.

Yes, the HOF voting had Cobb ahead of Ruth. I'm not sure I'd put a whole lot of stock in that. Voters were picking from every player ever and Ruth had just retired. Plus, let's be honest, there were a lot of voters with bias against the modern style of play, favoring the high average and steals style of Cobb.

Bottom line, Ruth was a better hitter than Cobb even in the dead ball era.

[Touch'EmAll]

The dead ball era concluded at the end of the 1918 season. That year Ruth hit 11 total home runs - one per every 28.8 at-bats.

The next year, 1919, Ruth hit 29 home runs - one per every 14.8 at-bats.

Yes, Ruth may have been the better hitter. However, the OP was "who was the greatest player." Hitting aside, looking at all the other things that go into making a great player, Cobb might have the nod.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Eric72

Ted,

It was an absolute pleasure to chat with you today. Thanks for taking some time to speak with me. I greatly appreciate your willingness to share knowledge about the game and the hobby.

Best regards,

Eric

Hi Eric
It was great meeting you at the Philly Show this weekend, and we did have a very interesting conversation.....especially on this topic.


.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.