Who are the greatest players ever?

[OleMissCub]

 

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.

 

I showed statistics earlier that showed that in 1910 and 1915 there were less than 20 people in all of baseball who had over .300 averages. Either the pitchers were good or the majority of players weren't worth a dang.

[XZero771679666304]

 

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?

 

Walker is a career .290 hitter, and I concede that Cobb may hit better than .300, optimistically somewhere dead even between his .366 and my original .290, probably around .325. If you moved Walker back in time, you could probably add .020 to his career average, which isn't as good as Cobb was.

 

But the point is that the legends would not perform today at the same levels they did yesterday.

[XZero771679666304]

 

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.

 

I showed statistics earlier that showed that in 1910 and 1915 there were less than 20 people in all of baseball who had over .300 averages. Either the pitchers were good or the majority of players weren't worth a dang.

 

Bingo. The same applies to the pitchers. Tim said it a few pages ago, and that's all I have been saying. The great players were great, but were godlike only by contrast to their peers, who were lousy. And handful of legends, a few greats, and a whole lot of mediocre players. A few big fish in a small pond.

 

It isn't romantic, but it is true.

 

How many players hit .400 anymore? Or win 30+ games? The talent level rising doesn't allow as much for anamalously high stats, like .420 batting averages, or 500 wins. Pitchers can't win that many because they can't pitch without rest against the increased number of quality hitters. Hitters can't hit over .400 because there are more good pitchers. It is harder for hitters to get locked in on pitchers when they see the half as much, and the average pitcher is twice as good.

 

Babe Ruth hit more homers than the roster of entire teams. Do you think he could maintain that today? Hell no. If he came down to anywhere near the production of his peers (and NO ONE in todays game plays that far above the mean), he wouldn't have gotten a look at 714 homers. Could Cy Young win 511 games? No. Less teams, fewer quality players, fewer games. It was easier for the greats back then.

 

And AGAIN, I'm not saying they could be good or even great in today's game. Just that they wouldn't be as great.

 

 

It's late, and this argument isn't going to end anytime soon, so I am out.

Edited February 22, 2006 by XZero77

[Fred Hornkohl]

 

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.

.

 

As I'm sure you are well aware, Cobb and Wagner were not only amazing players, but they lead two amazing teams. Cobb's Tigers had the second best record in the fledgling American League, being aced out by the Yankees by a mere 4 games total over 24 seasons....

 

          1905 thru 1928                            World Series
team                        W       L     pct    PA     W     L
Detroit Tigers           1910    1725   0.525     3     0     3

 

Honus Wagner's Pirates had an outsanding .570 winning percentage during his time there, being bested only by the Chicago CUBS and the New York Giants, who were clearly the class of baseball in those early years.

 

          1900 thru 1917                            World Series
team                        W       L     pct    PA     W     L
Pittsburgh Pirates       1538    1161   0.570     2     1     1

[rjchapma]

Dude I dont think anyone is really aruging that Pedro was the best of the 90's, but you put him as the best pitcher of all time that is ridiculous. Don't get me wrong hes a great pitcher, but number one and even in the top 5 im not sure if he makes my list.

[erik316wttn]

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.

 

Not true.

 

The Cubs maybe will face Pedro twice this coming year. Same with Hudson, Peavy, etc.

 

Even with the good pitchers within our division (Perez, Carpenter, Oswalt, etc) we'd only face about 4-5 times on average. Back then with your team facing only 7 other teams during the season, and 3-4 man pitching rotations, you could realistically face a guy 8 times during a season.

[OleMissCub]

 

Even with the good pitchers within our division (Perez, Carpenter, Oswalt, etc) we'd only face about 4-5 times on average. Back then with your team facing only 7 other teams during the season, and 3-4 man pitching rotations, you could realistically face a guy 8 times during a season.

 

Dude, but those pitchers only threw like 40 mph! And they only had like one or two pitches. :roll:

[Tim]

 

Even with the good pitchers within our division (Perez, Carpenter, Oswalt, etc) we'd only face about 4-5 times on average. Back then with your team facing only 7 other teams during the season, and 3-4 man pitching rotations, you could realistically face a guy 8 times during a season.

 

Dude, but those pitchers only threw like 40 mph! And they only had like one or two pitches. :roll:

Is it necessary to belittle the position of others like this to make a point? Mischaracterizing someone's argument so that you can demean it does nothing to make your position stronger.

[Guest]

For the most part I find discussions along the lines of "if player X from era Y had instead played in era Z..." to be a little silly. Debates start with such hypothetical suppositions tend to provide little illumination. Then again, sometimes it's fun to wonder what might happen in a parallel universe.

[USSoccer]

Dude I dont think anyone is really aruging that Pedro was the best of the 90's, but you put him as the best pitcher of all time that is ridiculous. Don't get me wrong hes a great pitcher, but number one and even in the top 5 im not sure if he makes my list.

 

His ERA plus (the best way to compare pitchers from a given era) is something like 30 points clear of whoever is in 2nd place. He's easily top 5, and the only thing that will keep him from being remembered universally as the best ever was his longevity.

[treebird]

now that i think about it, if you transported ty cobb to the future, he'd probably just commit suicide due to having to play with black players.

[rjchapma]

Ha Ha :lol: PEDRO IS NOT THE BEST PITCHER OF ALL TIME. Ill give you top 5 if you insist, but of all time no way. Probably the best of the 90's though.

[rawaction]

Ha Ha :lol: PEDRO IS NOT THE BEST PITCHER OF ALL TIME. Ill give you top 5 if you insist, but of all time no way. Probably the best of the 90's though.

 

Don't know why it's so laughable. Being the best pitcher in the best hitting era in baseball is an amazing accomplishment. And he was so much better than the rest, with all due respect to Greg Maddux and Roger Clemens.

[rjchapma]

I was laughing at the Ty Cobb comment sorry.

[OleMissCub]

now that i think about it, if you transported ty cobb to the future, he'd probably just commit suicide due to having to play with black players.

 

you'd be surprised about Cobb's views on black ballplayers. The thing to understand about him is that he didn't just hate blacks, he hated ALL people. Was he a racist? Of course he was and an unashamed one at that. However, he did attend many Negro league games and was indeed impressed with their skill. There is of course a famous incident where Cobb and the Tigers played 12 exhibition games against a Negro team and Cobb sat out for several of those games. Some sources say it's because he didn't want to be overshadowed by the greatness of the black players. However, he did hit .370 in the 7 games he played and I chalk his not playing some of the games to his sulky and selfish nature. If he was pissed off about something he would just sit out for a week during the regular baseball season in protest and sulk. He was really a massive douche-bag.

 

However, shortly before his death he was asked what players he liked in the bigs and he said "Mantle, Henry Aaron, and Ernie Banks, they play like we used to, and I like that."

 

Throughout his career he served as a freelance journalist for many papers and sports journals, and in 1923 he wrote in The Sporting News:

 

" It matters not what branch of mankind the player sprang from with the fan, if he can deliver the goods. The Mick, the Sheeney, the [expletive], the Dutch and the Chink, the Cuban, the Indian, the Jap, the so-called Anglo-Saxon--his nationality is never a matter of moment if he can pitch, or hit, or field."

[treebird]

Link

 

The best athletes in that sport today would completely thrash the best athletes in the sport from the early 20th century. Why should baseball be different?

[OleMissCub]

Link

 

The best athletes in that sport today would completely thrash the best athletes in the sport from the early 20th century. Why should baseball be different?

 

What does that prove? All it proves is that athletes now have better shoes, tracks, equipment and physical training. Again, by pointing out "how much better" people are today does nothing except make a point that the really good back then, would have been EXCEPTIONAL given today's advancements.

 

The only reason so many athletes are such good specimens these days is their training. The human body hasn't changed in the last 100 years. It's striking to me that some people are so willing to discredit the athletes of yesteryear. If anything they should be admired MORE for being able to succeed as they did, without the benefit of modern advancements.

[fromthestretch]

The only reason so many athletes are such good specimens these days is their training. The human body hasn't changed in the last 100 years. It's striking to me that some people are so willing to discredit the athletes of yesteryear. If anything they should be admired MORE for being able to succeed as they did, without the benefit of modern advancements.

 

One thing to think about with respect to sports like baseball, basketball, football, etc., is that players of a specific era are pretty much all playing in the same conditions. Ty Cobb, for example, didn't have advanced weight training, advanced supplements (legal or otherwise), video of every pitcher he was facing, finely manicured fields to play on, etc. However, the pitchers he faced and the other players in the legaue didn't have any of those things either.

 

Cobb and the like put up their numbers against guys who were in the same boat as them. Plus, as someone mentioned, with fewer teams and pitchers who started more often and went deeper into games, hitters back then most likely faced the same pitchers more often. Bonds and other modern players are facing pitchers who have had their mechanics refined by experts, went through targeted strength training, have access to the same supplements (for some reason, people tend to focus primarily on position players when talking about steroids and similar things), have advanced scouting reports, etc. Likewise, pitchers are facing hitters that are in great shape, have studied video on them, etc.

 

It's because of this that makes it very difficult to predict who would do what in different eras.

 

NOTE: Edited to add the bolded line.

Edited February 22, 2006 by grassbass

[OleMissCub]

It's because of this that makes it very difficult to predict who would do what in different eras.

 

Indeed, I think in the end, it's all relative.

[badgercub]

It's because of this that makes it very difficult to predict who would do what in different eras.

 

Indeed, I think in the end, it's all relative.

 

Ole Miss, I totally agree with your assessment. In fact I think guys like Cobb and Williams would hit for as high an average if not higher. The pitching talent is really watered down and if these guys faced the middle relievers and 4th and 5th starters of today's game I think they would eat them alive. Ted Williams' hand/eye coordination would not be any worse today than it was back when he played, his bat speed would not be any different. I don't care what pitches are thrown today that werent thrown back then. Do today's athletes have to hit against guys that throw a spitter or a scuffed ball?

 

Again you can make the argument that specialization and not facing the same pitchers time and again would have an adverse affect on their stats, but that is why these arguments are so interesting.

[Stu]

Since my college thesis was on Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, and Joe Jackson and how they coped with life in industrial northern cities having come from the rural south...

 

 

I would love to read that. Any chance you could email a copy of it? Or do you have it posted anywhere? I am a baseball history freak.

[OleMissCub]

Since my college thesis was on Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, and Joe Jackson and how they coped with life in industrial northern cities having come from the rural south...

 

 

I would love to read that. Any chance you could email a copy of it? Or do you have it posted anywhere? I am a baseball history freak.

 

Sure I'll try and find it for you!

[erik316wttn]

One pitcher from back in the day who I think would be elite today is Walter Johnson. He threw gas, and with the strength training and everything of today, I think he'd still win 20+ games every year.

 

I wonder how a hitter like Lou Gehrig would have been in today's game. He was just as good if not better than Ruth for a few seasons. It's too bad ALS slowed him down.

[jjgman21]

not sure if this point has been covered but...

 

anyone ever thought of how good Alex Rodriguez would be if facing a three man rotation and no bullpen?

 

the fact that pitchers used to rack up massive amounts of starts and innings tells me that they didn't throw nearly as hard back then. the human animal simply could not withstand throwing 350 innings of 90+ fastballs.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/SOp9_career.shtml

 

the first contemporary of Ty Cobb on the all time K/9 list is Rube Waddell at 64th. nearly every single one of the pitchers on this list played after the 1960's.

 

old timey's can bring up Christy Mathewson and Walter Johnson all they want, but pitching has gotten infinitely better in the past 40 years.

[badgercub]

 

old timey's can bring up Christy Mathewson and Walter Johnson all they want, but pitching has gotten infinitely better in the past 40 years.

 

While I would tend to agree with you on the front end of the rotation, I would say the #4 and #5 pitchers in most rotations are not infinitely better, in fact I would think they are infinitely worse (for the most part).