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

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by BobC

Where in my post did I say one was better than the other? I specifically quoted and responded to TedZ's post about Cobb's batting grip and how he didn't hit many home runs, yet there is recorded proof that at least once in his career he was somewhat prolific in hitting home runs, which begs the question of if he just chose not to swing for the fences all the time like Ruth. For a hitter as good as Cobb, I would argue that him suddenly putting on such a power hitting display was more than just a fluke. Also that fact that during the height of the deadball era he could get the Triple Crown shows he could hold his own against others in the league as far as hitting home runs.

If anything, I was merely pointing out how Cobb and Ruth, though contemporaries, were decidedly different as hitters. And a lot of that may have had to do with choice as opposed to straight-up hitting ability.

And what the heck does Cameron have to do with any of this? He isn't even a pre-war player, which is the era this question is about. You totally did not understand the gist and purpose of my post, and made a bad assumption.

You implied it with your "Cobb did this thing that even Ruth couldn't do". That "thing", of course, was a fluke brought on by exceptionally strong winds. Since you were using a fluke to compare them, I brought up another similar fluke, the era of which is irrelevant.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by Tabe

You implied it with your "Cobb did this thing that even Ruth couldn't do". That "thing", of course, was a fluke brought on by exceptionally strong winds. Since you were using a fluke to compare them, I brought up another similar fluke, the era of which is irrelevant.

I enjoy Fluke Fishing.

But not as much as these conversations about History and the Greats of the Game

and that is not a Fluke

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Tabe

You implied it with your "Cobb did this thing that even Ruth couldn't do". That "thing", of course, was a fluke brought on by exceptionally strong winds. Since you were using a fluke to compare them, I brought up another similar fluke, the era of which is irrelevant.

I implied nothing and merely stated a fact that Ruth did not equal a particular HR record that Cobb held. But what exactly is "it" you assume I implied? And please don't say I'm implying Cobb was better than Ruth as I have not said that anywhere, and have already stated I was not implying it either. So unless I'm missing something, you really can't understand and comprehend what I'm saying, or you can, but choose to just ignore it and denigrate what I'm saying (and me) anyway for simply stating known facts about certain records and achievements of Cobb in relation to Ruth?

All I'm doing is pointing out facts. Pro-Ruth people always point out his unparralleled ability to hit HRs. I merely pointed out that when it comes to HRs, Cobb is not entirely bereft of some distinction in that area. Thus the mention of Cobb's Triple Crown season where he led the majors in HRs and of the consecutive game home run record he shares with many others, but not including Ruth. But then I get people like Scott and Ted saying Cobb did it with only 9 homers, and they were all inside-the-park home runs, while in 1923 noting how Ruth would have won the Triple Crown with his 41 HRs and .393 batting average had it not been for Heilmann hitting over .400 that year. Meanwhile, Cobb only hit .377 to win his Triple Crown, and had about 20-30 fewer RBIs than Ruth had in 1923, so to bring it up and compare Cobb's Triple Crown season to Ruth's 1923 season caused TedZ to "chuckle". He thinks it is laughable that Cobb's Triple Crown season could be compared to Ruth's. Gee, would he also "chuckle" if trying to compare records and achievements of people like Jesse Owens, Jim Thorpe, Bobby Jones, and George Mikan to more recent players and athletes who are now faster, stronger, have better equipment, perform under different rules, and so on. I would certainly hope not as that is demeaning and belittling to all such legendary athletes and their achievements and records they set in the times and under the circumstances they set them in. When Cobb won his Triple Crown he beat everyone else in those categories, something Ruth never could do.....period.

As for Cobb's consecutive game HR record being a fluke, there are quite few players that have equalled it over the years, including the likes of Kiner, Musial, Lazzeri, Bonds, McGwire, Arod, Schmidt, and others. Are they all "flukes", or just some of them? And if just some of them are, how exactly do you tell the difference? And please, give me actual facts and empirical evidence, because without that it is just your opinion, nothing else. You state that a possible contributing factor to Cobb's "fluke" were high winds. Well, do you know exactly how high they were, which direction(s) they were blowing in exactly when Cobb hit each homer, where did he hit each homer in the park so we can tell if the winds actually aided any of them, were these winds so high that Cobb never batted in similar conditions ever during the rest of his entire career, if these winds were so helpful to Cobb those two games, how come no one else playing for either team had even close to the same hitting performance he had, and, didn't Ruth ever in his career have a chance to bat in similar high wind conditions, and if so, why didn't he take advantage of it like Cobb did? I would hope you can agree these are all good questions deserving of factual answers before just summarily dismissing Cobb's achievement as a "fluke". And as contributory information, Cobb does have the all-time highest career batting average (ahead of Ruth), so he definitely knew how to get the bat on the ball and put it in play, so actually getting that many hits to even have 5 HRs over two games is no "fluke" in and of itself, right? Your contention is the "fluke" is that 5 of them actually went over the fence. Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most modern hitters recognize wind conditions when playing, and if possible, try to take advantage of such and maybe hit balls into such prevailing winds to hopefully get them to carry out of the park more? And if true, and Cobb was lucky enough to get such a favorable set of circumstances over those two days back in 1925, wouldn't this actually be more of a testament to Cobb's hitting ability and brilliance to take advantage of the situation to his advantage when everyone else in those games couldn't, and even more so make it anything but a "fluke"? I have to believe Ruth would likewise have taken advantage of similar conditions and circumstances if/when given the chance, just like HR hitters take advantage of favorable ballpark dimensions and aim for the shortest fences when possible. And don't forget Cobb was 38 when he did this. All this does is add more speculation to the question of whether or not Cobb could have hit more HRs if he wanted, not whether he was better or worse than Ruth.

And for clarity and understanding, what the the heck does - "Since you were using a fluke to compare them, I brought up another similar fluke, the era of which is irrelevant.". I get that you feel Cobb hitting 5 HRs over two consecutive games is a fluke (which I await your answers to my various questions on to see if this really does qualify as a "fluke"), but what is this similar fluke you say you brought up? Are you talking about your reference of there supposedly being high winds during the games Cobb hit 5 HRs? If so, it sounds like you are saying a "fluke" was caused by another "fluke", and if so, one of the dumbest things I ever heard. You are already declaring the 5 HRs is a "fluke", so the possibility of high winds being a contributing factor to that is not another "fluke", it is just a potential contributing factor to what you already think is a "fluke". But if that is the "similar fluke" you are referring to, okay, I'll play along.

There are going to be winds at virtually every game played back in those days, some high, some low, some virtually non-existent. You still haven't put on your meteorologist hat yet to show us how fast and which way the winds were blowing back then when Cobb hit his 5 HRs. For all we know, the winds could have been blowing in. In any event, how is having wind during a ball game a "fluke", unless they were gale force type winds carrying everyone's balls out of the park (which wasn't the case as only Cobb had the phenomenal two days at bat)? And if the winds were that bad, that would likely be indicative of a storm, and one would have normally expected the game(s) to have been cancelled or postponed then. So again, how are these winds a fluke?

By the way you are stretching the definition of the word "fluke", I could argue that all 714 of Ruth's HRs are "flukes". The definition of "fluke" is an unlikely chance occurrence, or a surprising piece of luck. I could argue that there were contributing circumstances in all his HRs, such as the wind was blowing out, or there was no wind blowing in, or the pitcher's grip slipped, the pitcher missed his spot, Ruth luckily guessed exactly where the pitcher was going to put it, Ruth slipped and luckily got more bat on the ball than he would have otherwise, the catcher messed up the signs, the ball bounced just right to make it over the fence, he was still hung over from the night before and didn't overswing on a change-up, and on and on. The hitting of a home run is not a simple, single act. It involves a myriad of related and interconnected factors and circumstances that all have to happen in a specific sequence with almost perfect timing for us to see a ball go over the fence. And neither Ruth nor Cobb controlled all those factors, they were just better/luckier than almost everyone else around them in getting hits and home runs. In fact, when compared to everyone else, you could probably say Ruth and Cobb were themselves flukes.

And if the "similar fluke" you were referring to wasn't the high winds, then what was it?

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by BobC

I implied nothing and merely stated a fact that Ruth did not equal a particular HR record that Cobb held. But what exactly is "it" you assume I implied?

You asked "Where in my post did I say one was better than the other? " My reply was "You implied it with your "Cobb did this thing that even Ruth couldn't do". " I'm not sure how much more clear I can than that.

Originally Posted by BobC

And please don't say I'm implying Cobb was better than Ruth as I have not said that anywhere, and have already stated I was not implying it either.

And yet I'm not the only to interpret your words that way. Perhaps you're the one being unclear or saying things you don't intend as opposed other being unable to comprehend?

Originally Posted by BobC

As for Cobb's consecutive game HR record being a fluke, there are quite few players that have equalled it over the years, including the likes of Kiner, Musial, Lazzeri, Bonds, McGwire, Arod, Schmidt, and others. Are they all "flukes", or just some of them?

Yes, they are all flukes.

LOTS of people hit 5 home runs over the course of two games during their careers. The fluke is doing that over back-to-back games.

Originally Posted by BobC

You state that a possible contributing factor to Cobb's "fluke" were high winds. Well, do you know exactly how high they were, which direction(s)

Ask Tom Stanton, author of a book on Cobb & Ruth's friendship.

Originally Posted by BobC

I would hope you can agree these are all good questions deserving of factual answers before just summarily dismissing Cobb's achievement as a "fluke".

The wind has no part in it being a fluke as I stated above.

Originally Posted by BobC

And for clarity and understanding, what the the heck does - "Since you were using a fluke to compare them, I brought up another similar fluke, the era of which is irrelevant.".

You complained about my use of Mike Cameron because he played in a different era than Ruth or Cobb. I was pointing out that his era didn't matter because his feat was a fluke just like Cobb's.

Originally Posted by BobC

I get that you feel Cobb hitting 5 HRs over two consecutive games is a fluke (which I await your answers to my various questions on to see if this really does qualify as a "fluke"), but what is this similar fluke you say you brought up?

I specifically named the fluke but I'll name it again for you:

Mike Cameron hitting 4 home runs in a single game with a 5th fly ball in the same game being caught right up against the fence.

Originally Posted by BobC

There are going to be winds at virtually every game played back in those days, some high, some low, some virtually non-existent. You still haven't put on your meteorologist hat yet to show us how fast and which way the winds were blowing back then when Cobb hit his 5 HRs.

Asking a question and then, in the exact same post, complaining you haven't gotten an answer to your question makes no sense.

Originally Posted by BobC

And if the "similar fluke" you were referring to wasn't the high winds, then what was it?

See answer above and then ponder your ironic criticism of my comprehension skills since I specifically gave the fluke in my earlier post AND you commented on it.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Tabe

You asked "Where in my post did I say one was better than the other? " My reply was "You implied it with your "Cobb did this thing that even Ruth couldn't do". " I'm not sure how much more clear I can than that.


And yet I'm not the only to interpret your words that way. Perhaps you're the one being unclear or saying things you don't intend as opposed other being unable to comprehend?



Yes, they are all flukes.

LOTS of people hit 5 home runs over the course of two games during their careers. The fluke is doing that over back-to-back games.


Ask Tom Stanton, author of a book on Cobb & Ruth's friendship.


The wind has no part in it being a fluke as I stated above.


You complained about my use of Mike Cameron because he played in a different era than Ruth or Cobb. I was pointing out that his era didn't matter because his feat was a fluke just like Cobb's.


I specifically named the fluke but I'll name it again for you:

Mike Cameron hitting 4 home runs in a single game with a 5th fly ball in the same game being caught right up against the fence.


Asking a question and then, in the exact same post, complaining you haven't gotten an answer to your question makes no sense.


See answer above and then ponder your ironic criticism of my comprehension skills since I specifically gave the fluke in my earlier post AND you commented on it.

I've stated multiple times now that I never said or implied that Cobb was better than Ruth, and explained the references to Cobb's HR record and Triple Crown season were in response to TedZ's comments about Cobb's HR hitting abilities, not who was better. Did I also state that Ruth didn't equal Cobbs home run record or win a Triple Crown, yes, because it was TedZ who originally referenced Cobb against Ruth as a HR hitter, not me. So I merely noted those items that Ruth hadn't done as added evidence for Cobb possibly being better at hittinbg HRs than was being implied. But you keep on just saying that it was me implying something else, and assume and believe whatever you want. Apparently no matter how many times I tell you the sky is blue, you'll keep saying it is green because that's what you want to believe.

And you're right, there oddly are more than one of you thinking that my response to TedZ was somehow implying what I've said multiple times is not the case. Just shows how people often fail to read or comprehend things, and/or jump to conclusions and then stubbornly refuse to ever admit they could be wrong. In this instance it is pro-Ruth people only that seem to be jumping to conclusions. Hmmm, wonder what that could mean?


Okay, so you feel anyone hitting 5 homers in consecutive games is a fluke. So does that mean you also agree with the thinking that everyone hitting even 1 home run then is also a fluke? Because if so, then all 714 of Ruth's HRs are flukes and he's not good, just lucky, and he's not necessarily the best pre-war player then. And if hitting just 1 home run isn't a fluke, but hitting 5 in consecutive games is, where's the line between a fluke or non-fluke? Is it 2 homers, 3 homers, what? And please explain your answer.

And why would I ask Tom Stanton anything? Have no idea who he is or how to contact him, nor do i want to. YOU brought up high winds in regards to Cobb's consecutive games home run record, so I asked YOU very specific questions in that regard to hopefully be able to get answers and information that everyone could then use to determine for themselves whether or not Cobb hit the home runs on his own or if they were a fluke and only happened because of these so-called high winds. I tried to be very specific and clear with the questions so we wouldn't get a lame-ass or non-responsive answer back, and look what we got!!!


So if the wind is no part of the "fluke", why did you ever bring it up? Or is this how you're going to get around not answering my questions in regards to the high winds now in case your "Ask Tom Stanton.", ploy doesn't work? And then you wonder how someone cannot comprehend what you're trying to say when you throw in this high wind reference for no apparent reason. You specifically wrote "The wind has no part in it being a fluke as I stated above.", and then elsewhere wrote, "That "thing", of course, was a fluke brought on by exceptionally strong winds.". Well, the "thing" is a reference to Cobb having matched a record by hitting 5 HRs over 2 consecutive games, which is the same event being referred to as "it" in your other statement I quoted. Those two statements of yours I quoted above are clearly contradicting one another, so forgive me if I seem confused and can't understand what you're talking about. Or are you going to try and say that both quotes aren't referring to Cobb's consecutive game HR record now?

Okay, I now get what you meant by the Mike Cameron reference in regards to the different eras, thank you for finally answering at least one of my questions. But that wasn't what was causing my initial confusion. I didn't realize the "fluke" you were referring to was that Mike Cameron statement because of the other references you were making to the fluke being brought on by exceptionally high winds. As stated and pointed out above, you were making contradicting statements which don't make sense and created the confusion.

Yes, I now understand what this "fluke" is you were referring to. And again point to the confusion being caused not by miscomprehension, but by contradictory and misleading statements by you, as pointed out above.

Was not asking a question and then complaining in the same post about not yet getting an answer. Was using that as a sort of strategic reinforcement reminder to emphasize to you that I was asking specific questions in regards to the high winds you had originally referred to. And look how well that worked out. You made a point to question me about that statement, but still failed to answer any of those questions I had asked about the high winds, and instead blew me off by telling me to call someone I don't know or have any contact info for. Let me try this strategic reinforcement reminder technique again. Hey, I asked you those questions about the high winds, not some guy named Tom Stanton. You going to bother answerng or just blow it off because now you're saying it doesn't matter?

And as for my ironic criticism and alleged inability to comprehend, go back up to where I previously discussed the contradictory and confusing statements you were making in regards to the "fluke", the high winds, and so on.

Aside from having addressed each of your responses, I guess we'll see if there is anything coming back finally answering all my current and earlier questions that remain unaddressed. And if you're just going to say nothing matters because everything is a fluke and not address any of my questions with facts or even the semblance of well thought out and logical arguments, don't even bother responding. I've seen and had enough of the "because I'm right and you're wrong" stuff to last for a while.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by BobC

Okay, so you feel anyone hitting 5 homers in consecutive games is a fluke. So does that mean you also agree with the thinking that everyone hitting even 1 home run then is also a fluke?

Nope.

Originally Posted by BobC

Because if so, then all 714 of Ruth's HRs are flukes and he's not good, just lucky, and he's not necessarily the best pre-war player then. And if hitting just 1 home run isn't a fluke, but hitting 5 in consecutive games is, where's the line between a fluke or non-fluke? Is it 2 homers, 3 homers, what? And please explain your answer.

If somebody does something 714 times - in the case of Ruth, it's actually more than that, as he had some wiped out by rain, etc - it's not a fluke. What's the line? There's no objective standard, unfortunately. Heck, even doing something 714 times could be a fluke if it's out of 50,000,000,000 tries.

And why would I ask Tom Stanton anything? Have no idea who he is or how to contact him, nor do i want to. YOU brought up high winds in regards to Cobb's consecutive games home run record, so I asked YOU very specific questions in that regard to hopefully be able to get answers and information that everyone could then use to determine for themselves whether or not Cobb hit the home runs on his own or if they were a fluke and only happened because of these so-called high winds. I tried to be very specific and clear with the questions so we wouldn't get a lame-ass or non-responsive answer back, and look what we got!!!


[QUOTE=BobC;2149466]
So if the wind is no part of the "fluke", why did you ever bring it up? Or is this how you're going to get around not answering my questions in regards to the high winds now in case your "Ask Tom Stanton.", ploy doesn't work? And then you wonder how someone cannot comprehend what you're trying to say when you throw in this high wind reference for no apparent reason. You specifically wrote "The wind has no part in it being a fluke as I stated above.", and then elsewhere wrote, "That "thing", of course, was a fluke brought on by exceptionally strong winds."

Originally Posted by BobC

Well, the "thing" is a reference to Cobb having matched a record by hitting 5 HRs over 2 consecutive games, which is the same event being referred to as "it" in your other statement I quoted. Those two statements of yours I quoted above are clearly contradicting one another, so forgive me if I seem confused and can't understand what you're talking about. Or are you going to try and say that both quotes aren't referring to Cobb's consecutive game HR record now?

Tom Stanton is a highly-regarded baseball author. I'm surprised you're not familiar with him.

Cobb hit 5 homers in 2 consecutive games. Doing that feat is ALWAYS a fluke. In Cobb's case, it happened because there were high winds that day. Yes, both things can be true - that it's always a fluke and that it only happened in Cobb's case because of the wind.

No, I don't have the meteorological reports from St. Louis 1925 in front of me. I'm relying on the research of Tom Stanton.

Originally Posted by BobC

Okay, I now get what you meant by the Mike Cameron reference in regards to the different eras, thank you for finally answering at least one of my questions. But that wasn't what was causing my initial confusion. I didn't realize the "fluke" you were referring to was that Mike Cameron statement because of the other references you were making to the fluke being brought on by exceptionally high winds. As stated and pointed out above, you were making contradicting statements which don't make sense and created the confusion.

It's weird that you're now claiming I made contradictory statements yet understood perfectly what I was talking about the first time I mentioned Cameron. You were put off by the era in which he accomplished his fluke feat.

Now who's making contradictory statements? You understood perfectly the first time but now you're claiming confusion because I made contradictory statements (even though I didn't)?

Originally Posted by BobC

Was not asking a question and then complaining in the same post about not yet getting an answer.

Actually, that's exactly what you did - which is why I quoted you when I said that.

Originally Posted by BobC

And as for my ironic criticism and alleged inability to comprehend, go back up to where I previously discussed the contradictory and confusing statements you were making in regards to the "fluke", the high winds, and so on.

Yep, the irony continues.

[Shoeless Moe]

1930 vs the World Champion Philadelphia Athletics May 21, 22, & 24 (23 was a travel day). 3 Double-headers in a row!

May 21 DH at Phil.:
Game 1 - Ruth goes 3 for 4 - 6 RBI - 3 Home Runs - 1 off Lefty Grove. Ruth bats righty in his last at bat. Not sure why, maybe he was having a little fun.
https://thisdayinbaseball.com/babe-r...ee-loss-to-as/
Game 2 - Ruth goes 1 for 4 - only game w/o a HR.

May 22 DH at Phil.:
Game 1 - Ruth goes 3 for 5 - 3 RBI - 2 Home Runs
Game 2 - Ruth goes 1 for 4 with 3 Walks - 1 Home Run (Gehrig hits 3 Home Runs FYI)

May 24 DH Home vs Phil.:
Game 1 - Ruth goes 2 for 3 with 3 walks - 1 Home Run
game 2 - Ruth goes 2 for 3 with a walk - 1 Home Run

This was the first of 2 times he hit 3 home runs in a regular season game (he was 35), seems odd it took that long, granted he did it twice in 2 World Series '26 & '28. As you know the 2nd time he did it was his last week in baseball for the Braves at Pittsburgh. (but counting WS games he did it 4 times).


But 8 home runs in 3 days! Not counting the off day. 6 Home Runs in 2 days at Philadelphia DAMN!

https://www.baseball-reference.com/t...e-scores.shtml