Who are the greatest players ever?

[XZero771679666304]

 

If you transported players like Pujols and ARod back in time, they would be elite. While the facilities and equipment were substandard when compared to today, a lot of innovation has taken place since then, such as new pitces, etc.

.

 

What new pitches??

 

And besides, how does saying "alot of innovation" has occured since then help your argument? All you are doing is handicapping the modern players by saying that they have advantages that the old guys didn't have. If you sent them back in time, they wouldn't take their advantages with them.

 

Yes they would. Isn't the argument that if you sent Ty Cobb as he was into today's game he wouldn't be very good, and if you sent Pujols to 1912 he'd shatter records?

 

Pujols would have a size and power advantage, that's about it. You give him crappy cleats, a lumpy field to play on, gravel and rocks as an infield on which to field his position, no scouting reports, a distorted black blob of a baseball hurtling towards him, a uniform that hasn't been washed in weeks, and a tiny crappy glove, and I doubt he'd shatter any records. He'd do extremely well because Pujols is someone who "understands" the game and has some amazing natural ability, much like a Cobb or Williams.

 

On the contrary, as good as a Cobb or Honus Wagner was when they played in all those dreadful conditions, you give them all the amazing benefits that today's players have and I think given their mental knowledge and natural ability, they would do very well.

 

"When I began playing the game, baseball was about as gentlemanly as a kick in the crotch. " - Ty Cobb, 1960

 

Pujols would also have the advantage of having made it to the bigs by succeeding against a stronger level of talent, and having put his numbers up against better overall pitching.

 

Unless of course you are arguing that Pujols would go back in time never having played an inning of baseball.

[OleMissCub]

For the most part, I think that an All Star now would be an All Star then and vice versa. Obviously there are some exceptions, but I think a player is what he is.

 

Then you must have changed your view, because two pages ago you were agreeing with Tree that Cobb would have "done nothing" today and that not a single player before 1940 could play in the bigs today.

 

I said that if you took the old players as they were and didn't give them any of the amenities the players have now that they would be unlikely to succeed. My last point was that if you gave Cobb or Ruth the amenities that players have now, that they would still be All Stars. The same goes for taking everything away from the best players of today, that they would be All Stars back in the 1920's if they didn't have everything they do have.

 

Again, I don't buy that. If you plucked Mr. Cobb from 1909 playing the World Series against the Cubs and gave him a bat and threw him up to the plate in a 2006 MLB game, you think he wouldn't be able to hit the pitcher? Do you think he'd just sit there and shake and pee his pants and say, OH MY GOD!!!! The speed of the game has not evolved that much. Humans throw just as hard now as they did then, and ran just as fast.

[soccer10k]

However, exceptional talent is exceptional talent and Cobb, Speaker, Hornsby, Williams, Wagner, Ruth, they all had exceptional talent, and give these same people all the benefits that modern players enjoy, and they would AT THE VERY LEAST be playing. Tree said Cobb would have "done nothing" and no player before 1940 would be playing on a modern team.

 

Tree said that if the old players DID NOT HAVE the same benefits that they wouldn't be playing. He never mentioned what he thought if the old players did have those same benefits. Read his statement correctly.

[XZero771679666304]

 

If you transported players like Pujols and ARod back in time, they would be elite. While the facilities and equipment were substandard when compared to today, a lot of innovation has taken place since then, such as new pitces, etc.

.

 

What new pitches??

 

And besides, how does saying "alot of innovation" has occured since then help your argument? All you are doing is handicapping the modern players by saying that they have advantages that the old guys didn't have. If you sent them back in time, they wouldn't take their advantages with them.

 

There are more pitches today than there were in the 1920's, you know that. Plus, the pithces that there were have been refined. But that whole issue is a side to the talent pool issue, which there is no logical argument against.

 

In all of my research concerning the deadball era for my thesis and personal enjoyment, i've come across every pitch we have now, except the slider, which didn't officially come about until the 1950's-60's. If a ball can be thrown a certain way by a human hand, it's naive to think that someone in the past wouldn't have already figured out how to throw it. Satchel Paige had like 8 pitches he threw and Walter Johnson had several different types of fastballs.

 

I understand the talent pool argument, and i'm not going to argue against that because that argument DOES make alot of sense. However, exceptional talent is exceptional talent and Cobb, Speaker, Hornsby, Williams, Wagner, Ruth, they all had exceptional talent, and give these same people all the benefits that modern players enjoy, and they would AT THE VERY LEAST be playing. Tree said Cobb would have "done nothing" and no player before 1940 would be playing on a modern team.

 

Okay, I can agree with that.

 

I think Ty Cobb would have been a .290 - .300 hitter today. I think that Babe Ruth would have hit 450-500 home runs. I contend that about 90% of big leaguers in 1940 wouldn't have a roster spot today. Sure, the legends would be good today, but not what they were.

[soccer10k]

For the most part, I think that an All Star now would be an All Star then and vice versa. Obviously there are some exceptions, but I think a player is what he is.

 

Then you must have changed your view, because two pages ago you were agreeing with Tree that Cobb would have "done nothing" today and that not a single player before 1940 could play in the bigs today.

 

I said that if you took the old players as they were and didn't give them any of the amenities the players have now that they would be unlikely to succeed. My last point was that if you gave Cobb or Ruth the amenities that players have now, that they would still be All Stars. The same goes for taking everything away from the best players of today, that they would be All Stars back in the 1920's if they didn't have everything they do have.

 

Again, I don't buy that. If you plucked Mr. Cobb from 1909 playing the World Series against the Cubs and gave him a bat and threw him up to the plate in a 2006 MLB game, you think he wouldn't be able to hit the pitcher? Do you think he'd just sit there and shake and pee his pants and say, OH MY GOD!!!! The speed of the game has not evolved that much. Humans throw just as hard now as they did then, and ran just as fast.

 

I said that they "wouldn't be likely to succeed" not that they for sure would not succeed. Of course the great players would succeed in any era but without the amenities, I don't think that a majority of the old time players would succeed in today's game.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Hitters can hit, pitchers can pitch. Their era may dictate their overall dominance by the stats they put up, but to say that today's players are somehow more gifted or talented is crazy. Ty Cobb would likely have hit Pedro. Ruth would likely have taken Clemens deep. However, Clemens would likely have struck out Mantle and ARod would likely have an 1100 OPS against Lefty Grove.

 

Players are different because their eras dictate that's how players should be during that particular timeframe. If the 1920s were a "juiced" era, things would be a lot different.

[OleMissCub]

 

I think Ty Cobb would have been a .290 - .300 hitter today. I think that Babe Ruth would have hit 450-500 home runs. I contend that about 90% of big leaguers in 1940 wouldn't have a roster spot today. Sure, the legends would be good today, but not what they were.

 

I think Cobb would have hit higher than .300. Todd Walker hits .300 for goodness sakes. With Cobb we are talking about the greatest pure hitter in the history of the game. This man wrote books about the science of hitting. The player today that I see who most resembles the way Cobb played is Ichiro. People often say that it seems like Ichiro is playing with a tennis raquet...he just places the ball where he wants to. Cobb also received the same type of praise during his time. When Ruth came along and the press was hounding Cobb because they suggested to him that the reason he didn't hit homers like Ruth is because he couldn't, Cobb went and hit 4 straight home runs...having proved his point he went back to hitting his slap singles and drag bunts and perfectly placed doubles.

[XZero771679666304]

 

I think Ty Cobb would have been a .290 - .300 hitter today. I think that Babe Ruth would have hit 450-500 home runs. I contend that about 90% of big leaguers in 1940 wouldn't have a roster spot today. Sure, the legends would be good today, but not what they were.

 

I think Cobb would have hit higher than .300. Todd Walker hits .300 for goodness sakes. With Cobb we are talking about the greatest pure hitter in the history of the game. This man wrote books about the science of hitting. The player today that I see who most resembles the way Cobb played is Ichiro. People often say that it seems like Ichiro is playing with a tennis raquet...he just places the ball where he wants to. Cobb also received the same type of praise during his time. When Ruth came along and the press was hounding Cobb because they suggested to him that the reason he didn't hit homers like Ruth is because he couldn't, Cobb went and hit 4 straight home runs...having proved his point he went back to hitting his slap singles and drag bunts and perfectly placed doubles.

 

Talent level. Ty Cobb didn't face the pitching he would today. Ty Cobb was a great hitter, but let's not get too romantic here. He might well hit better than .300, but he wouldn't win many batting titles, IMO.

[XZero771679666304]

Hitters can hit, pitchers can pitch. Their era may dictate their overall dominance by the stats they put up, but to say that today's players are somehow more gifted or talented is crazy. Ty Cobb would likely have hit Pedro. Ruth would likely have taken Clemens deep. However, Clemens would likely have struck out Mantle and ARod would likely have an 1100 OPS against Lefty Grove.

 

Players are different because their eras dictate that's how players should be during that particular timeframe. If the 1920s were a "juiced" era, things would be a lot different.

 

Todays players are not more gifted. However, there are a lot more gifted players in the show today than there were in Ruth and Cobb's time. If the league were open to blacks and the world talent pool in first 50 years of MLB like it is today, there would have been a whole lot more statistical parity.

[OleMissCub]

 

Talent level. Ty Cobb didn't face the pitching he would today. Ty Cobb was a great hitter, but let's not get too romantic here. He might well hit better than .300, but he wouldn't win many batting titles, IMO.

 

Cobb hit .435 against Walter Johnson, who many consider to be the greatest pitcher in history...certainly a pitcher on par with ANY elite pitcher who is pitching today.

 

Talent level doesn't matter when you understand how the game works. He clearly was able to understand how a hitter can defeat any pitcher.

[OleMissCub]

Just thought i'd throw in some good Cobb sliding stuff:

 

 

"The base paths belonged to me, the runner. The rules gave me the right. I always went into a bag full speed, feet first. I had sharp spikes on my shoes. If the baseman stood where he had no business to be and got hurt, that was his fault. "

 

http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/al/detroit/CobbSpikes.JPG

 

http://artletics.com/images/baseball_vp_cobb_lord_pv.jpg

 

http://www.mrbaseball.com/images/archive/Photo-49.jpg

 

http://www.thedeadballera.com/Photos/cobb3.jpg

 

http://www.cmgworldwide.com/baseball/cobb/images/C5.jpg

 

Dude was scary

[soccer10k]

With Cobb we are talking about the greatest pure hitter in the history of the game.

 

Not to nit pick but I consider Ted Williams the best hitter of all time.

Edited February 22, 2006 by soccer10k

[soccer10k]

The last time I checked, we weren't talking about who was the scariest player of all time.

[XZero771679666304]

 

Talent level. Ty Cobb didn't face the pitching he would today. Ty Cobb was a great hitter, but let's not get too romantic here. He might well hit better than .300, but he wouldn't win many batting titles, IMO.

 

Cobb hit .435 against Walter Johnson, who many consider to be the greatest pitcher in history...certainly a pitcher on par with ANY elite pitcher who is pitching today.

 

Talent level doesn't matter when you understand how the game works. He clearly was able to understand how a hitter can defeat any pitcher.

 

With all due respect, talent level does matter. You can have a complete understanding of the game, but when you are overmatched, you are overmatched. Did Cobb hit .435 for his career? No. If Johnson was so much better than his peers, shouldn't Cobb have had a career average over .435? What matters is the overall average. The average pitcher today is better than the average pitcher in any of Cobb's 24 seasons. It's easy to get amped up and focused when you are facing the elite, but it is far more difficult to maintain that intensity. So Cobb hit .435 agains Johnson (whether Johnson is as good as any of today's elite pltchers is highly debatable)? So what? His career average is 70 points lower. Now there a lot more talented Walter Johnson-caliber pitchers, and the rest of the pack is much better.

 

Cobb was a great hitter, but he wouldn't have sniffed his .366 average today.

[OleMissCub]

With Cobb we are talking about the greatest pure hitter in the history of the game.

 

Not to nit pick but I consider Ted Williams the best hitter of all time.

 

even so, he had a good mentor. Cobb actually got mad at Williams often times and thought he swung for the fences too much. Cobb had a serious dislike for home runs, he thought they cheapened the thrill of the game.

[soccer10k]

With Cobb we are talking about the greatest pure hitter in the history of the game.

 

Not to nit pick but I consider Ted Williams the best hitter of all time.

 

even so, he had a good mentor. Cobb actually got mad at Williams often times and thought he swung for the fences too much. Cobb had a serious dislike for home runs, he thought they cheapened the thrill of the game.

 

Wouldn't that make Williams a better hitter because he hit more homeruns? His average didn't suffer and he hit home runs. I think that makes him better than Cobb. That was why I put Gehrig and Ruth ahead of Cobb also.

[OleMissCub]

 

With all due respect, talent level does matter. You can have a complete understanding of the game, but when you are overmatched, you are overmatched. Did Cobb hit .435 for his career? No. If Johnson was so much better than his peers, shouldn't Cobb have had a career average over .435? What matters is the overall average. The average pitcher today is better than the average pitcher in any of Cobb's 24 seasons. It's easy to get amped up and focused when you are facing the elite, but it is far more difficult to maintain that intensity. So Cobb hit .435 agains Johnson (whether Johnson is as good as any of today's elite pltchers is highly debatable)? So what? His career average is 70 points lower. Now there a lot more talented Walter Johnson-caliber pitchers, and the rest of the pack is much better.

 

Cobb was a great hitter, but he wouldn't have sniffed his .366 average today.

 

The complete lack of appreciation for how good players were in the past is appalling sometimes. Are you going to make that same argument against Ted Williams? You gonna say that Williams wouldn't sniff a .344 average today? Or what about Stan the Man, I don't guess his lifetime BA would be .330 today?

[XZero771679666304]

With Cobb we are talking about the greatest pure hitter in the history of the game.

 

Not to nit pick but I consider Ted Williams the best hitter of all time.

 

even so, he had a good mentor. Cobb actually got mad at Williams often times and thought he swung for the fences too much. Cobb had a serious dislike for home runs, he thought they cheapened the thrill of the game.

 

Wouldn't that make Williams a better hitter because he hit more homeruns? His average didn't suffer and he hit home runs. I think that makes him better than Cobb. That was why I put Gehrig and Ruth ahead of Cobb also.

 

I'm not sure who I consider the best hitter of all time, but I would take Williams over Cobb every day and twice on Sundays.

[OleMissCub]

With Cobb we are talking about the greatest pure hitter in the history of the game.

 

Not to nit pick but I consider Ted Williams the best hitter of all time.

 

even so, he had a good mentor. Cobb actually got mad at Williams often times and thought he swung for the fences too much. Cobb had a serious dislike for home runs, he thought they cheapened the thrill of the game.

 

Wouldn't that make Williams a better hitter because he hit more homeruns? His average didn't suffer and he hit home runs. I think that makes him better than Cobb. That was why I put Gehrig and Ruth ahead of Cobb also.

 

I never said Cobb was a better all-around hitter than Williams. Clearly Williams or Ruth are the best all-around hitters of all time and that's why i put them higher on my list than Cobb. Cobb is just the best pure hitter ever, in my opinion. And as much as this man knew about the science of hitting, I refuse to think that he'd be overmatched by any pitchers today. He was intelligent enough to hit any pitcher back then, and I have no doubt he'd study up and do the same today.

[Guest]

With Cobb we are talking about the greatest pure hitter in the history of the game.

 

Not to nit pick but I consider Ted Williams the best hitter of all time.

 

even so, he had a good mentor. Cobb actually got mad at Williams often times and thought he swung for the fences too much. Cobb had a serious dislike for home runs, he thought they cheapened the thrill of the game.

 

Wouldn't that make Williams a better hitter because he hit more homeruns? His average didn't suffer and he hit home runs. I think that makes him better than Cobb. That was why I put Gehrig and Ruth ahead of Cobb also.

 

I never said Cobb was a better all-around hitter than Williams. Clearly Williams or Ruth are the best all-around hitters of all time and that's why i put them higher on my list than Cobb. Cobb is just the best pure hitter ever, in my opinion. And as much as this man knew about the science of hitting, I refuse to think that he'd be overmatched by any pitchers today. He was intelligent enough to hit any pitcher back then, and I have no doubt he'd study up and do the same today.

Not to discount your point (as I also believe Cobb is among the game's all-time greats) but I'm pretty sure Cobb didn't even consider himself the best pure hitter of his era. I don't want to dig out any of my bioraphies on him to verify it, but I'm almost positive he said that honor should have gone to Shoeless Joe Jackson.

[XZero771679666304]

 

With all due respect, talent level does matter. You can have a complete understanding of the game, but when you are overmatched, you are overmatched. Did Cobb hit .435 for his career? No. If Johnson was so much better than his peers, shouldn't Cobb have had a career average over .435? What matters is the overall average. The average pitcher today is better than the average pitcher in any of Cobb's 24 seasons. It's easy to get amped up and focused when you are facing the elite, but it is far more difficult to maintain that intensity. So Cobb hit .435 agains Johnson (whether Johnson is as good as any of today's elite pltchers is highly debatable)? So what? His career average is 70 points lower. Now there a lot more talented Walter Johnson-caliber pitchers, and the rest of the pack is much better.

 

Cobb was a great hitter, but he wouldn't have sniffed his .366 average today.

 

The complete lack of appreciation for how good players were in the past is appalling sometimes. Are you going to make that same argument against Ted Williams? You gonna say that Williams wouldn't sniff a .344 average today? Or what about Stan the Man, I don't guess his lifetime BA would be .330 today?

 

The complete blindness to logic in favor of historic romanticism is equally appalling. I said Cobb would be a .300 hitter today, and considering the repsective talent pools of the eras, that is giving Cobb credit. I said Ruth would probably hit 500 homers, and that is hardly disrespect. Williams would likely have been better than Cobb because the talent level late in Ted's career was on the rise, but not quite a .344 hitter.

 

Yes, the numbers of all players prior to the 60's and 70's would significantly suffer in todays competitive atmosphere. The overall talent level is better, and there is no logical argument against that fact. The desparity in facilities and equipment are not nearly enough to negate that. When you stand out in a mediocre crowd and move on to more talented competition, you will have less success. Are great high school players always great college players? Are all minor league players great major league players? Like it or not, that is the kind of desparity there is between the talent level in the early stage of MLB and the talent level in MLB today.

 

I appreciate your respect for history, but sometimes you take your reverence a bit to far. I think your borderline worship of Ty Cobb in this thread is proof of that.

 

I am not disrespecting the legends, I am just thinking logically instead of romantically.

[Fred Hornkohl]

For the most part, I think that an All Star now would be an All Star then and vice versa. Obviously there are some exceptions, but I think a player is what he is.

 

Then you must have changed your view, because two pages ago you were agreeing with Tree that Cobb would have "done nothing" today and that not a single player before 1940 could play in the bigs today.

 

I said that if you took the old players as they were and didn't give them any of the amenities the players have now that they would be unlikely to succeed. My last point was that if you gave Cobb or Ruth the amenities that players have now, that they would still be All Stars. The same goes for taking everything away from the best players of today, that they would be All Stars back in the 1920's if they didn't have everything they do have.

 

Again, I don't buy that. If you plucked Mr. Cobb from 1909 playing the World Series against the Cubs and gave him a bat and threw him up to the plate in a 2006 MLB game, you think he wouldn't be able to hit the pitcher? Do you think he'd just sit there and shake and pee his pants and say, OH MY GOD!!!! The speed of the game has not evolved that much. Humans throw just as hard now as they did then, and ran just as fast.

 

Just a minor point of information, Ole Miss. After losing the World Series to the CUBS in '07 & '08, Ty Cobb and his Tigers played and lost the 1909 Series to the Pittsburgh Pirates. The CUBS, even though they won 104 games, finished 6 games behind world champion Bucs.

[OleMissCub]

 

The complete blindness to logic in favor of historic romanticism is equally appalling. I said Cobb would be a .300 hitter today, and considering the repsective talent pools of the eras, that is giving Cobb credit. I said Ruth would probably hit 500 homers, and that is hardly disrespect. Williams would likely have been better than Cobb because the talent level late in Ted's career was on the rise, but not quite a .344 hitter.

.

 

Ah, I see, so if we transplant Todd Walker with his .305 average back in time, then he'd be a Ty Cobb? He'd win over 10 batting titles?

[XZero771679666304]

With Cobb we are talking about the greatest pure hitter in the history of the game.

 

Not to nit pick but I consider Ted Williams the best hitter of all time.

 

even so, he had a good mentor. Cobb actually got mad at Williams often times and thought he swung for the fences too much. Cobb had a serious dislike for home runs, he thought they cheapened the thrill of the game.

 

Wouldn't that make Williams a better hitter because he hit more homeruns? His average didn't suffer and he hit home runs. I think that makes him better than Cobb. That was why I put Gehrig and Ruth ahead of Cobb also.

 

I never said Cobb was a better all-around hitter than Williams. Clearly Williams or Ruth are the best all-around hitters of all time and that's why i put them higher on my list than Cobb. Cobb is just the best pure hitter ever, in my opinion. And as much as this man knew about the science of hitting, I refuse to think that he'd be overmatched by any pitchers today. He was intelligent enough to hit any pitcher back then, and I have no doubt he'd study up and do the same today.

 

This is true, but the thing you seem to be glossing over about the good pichers of his time is that there were far fewer of them. Today, there are a lot more good pitchers, and as much as you study, you cannot maintain the intensity that allows you to hit .435 against a guy like Johnson as well for far greater periods of time.

 

Today there are better pitchers, more great pitchers and you have to face them more often. Expecting a player, no matter how tenacious, skilled or studious, to transition from weak to strong competion while maintaining his performance is just unrealistic, IMO.

[OleMissCub]

 

Just a minor point of information, Ole Miss. After losing the World Series to the CUBS in '07 & '08, Ty Cobb and his Tigers played and lost the 1909 Series to the Pittsburgh Pirates. The CUBS, even though they won 104 games, finished 6 games behind world champion Bucs.

 

Ah, but c'mon, I was one year off. That's not so bad off the top of my head. I should have remembered though, that 1909 was the great Wagner v. Cobb series.

 

http://www.vintagecardtraders.org/virtual/pc796/pc796-07.jpg