Ty Cobb, etc. (split from Arod thread)

[Guest]

the '72 Dolphins a great analogy. That team gets revered for going undefeated but they wouldn't go 8-8 in today's game. Likewise, neither Cobb nor Ruth would be anything great in today's game.

 

I think it's impossible to compare those eras. There are hardships and advantages to both eras.

 

there are actually metrics to compare eras, i just don't have them available to me

 

Still can't compare what the technology that is currently available to today's players that wasn't available to players in the early 1900's. You can compare how those players did as compared to their contemporaries but the game is so much different now than it used to be.

[Productive Outs]

There's two different arguments, I think. One where you teleport Ted Williams from 1942 to 2007 or whatever and have him play a season. Then there's the question of how good would Ted Williams be if he was born in 1984 and pursued baseball.

 

yeah, that's what i always think about. personally, i think ted williams would still be awesome if you just teleported him. i don't think ruth would be nearly as good.

[Sammy Sofa]

OMC, I'm curious where you were reading about how Stump's work with and about Cobb has been "debunked" or whatever you're saying it's now being viewed as.

 

And looking at contemporary newspaper accounts for anything is good for confirming things like dates and details, but character studies? I'm not saying it's impossible, but the yellow journalism that was rampant in Cobb's time makes it very difficult, either for or against him.

[Roast]

OMC, I'm curious where you were reading about how Stump's work with and about Cobb has been "debunked" or whatever you're saying it's now being viewed as.

 

 

I've read this, too, actually. People have pointed out different statistical deficiencies in the book. Things as simple as Stump saying that Cobb stole X number of bases in a season, and then upon looking up his stats that turns out not to be true. Things like that.

[Sammy Sofa]

OMC, I'm curious where you were reading about how Stump's work with and about Cobb has been "debunked" or whatever you're saying it's now being viewed as.

 

 

I've read this, too, actually. People have pointed out different statistical deficiencies in the book. Things as simple as Stump saying that Cobb stole X number of bases in a season, and then upon looking up his stats that turns out not to be true. Things like that.

 

Cool...I'm not saying OMC is wrong, I just don't know where to start looking to find these points.

[imb]

Guys, the freaking NY TIMES backed him up.

 

THE NY TIMES

[Roast]

OMC, I'm curious where you were reading about how Stump's work with and about Cobb has been "debunked" or whatever you're saying it's now being viewed as.

 

 

I've read this, too, actually. People have pointed out different statistical deficiencies in the book. Things as simple as Stump saying that Cobb stole X number of bases in a season, and then upon looking up his stats that turns out not to be true. Things like that.

 

Cool...I'm not saying OMC is wrong, I just don't know where to start looking to find these points.

 

I didnt say you were saying that. I was just adding my $.02

 

I read the things I talked about just on reviews of Stumps book. Just go to any site that has a review of the book and you'll probably find stuff about it.

[OleMissCub]

OMC, I'm curious where you were reading about how Stump's work with and about Cobb has been "debunked" or whatever you're saying it's now being viewed as.

 

Richard Bak's "Peach: Ty Cobb in His Time and Ours" has an entire chapter dealing with Stump's book, Burns' Baseball documentary, and ESPN's Sportscentury series on Cobb. Statistician Bill Burgess also has written some articles about that subject.

 

And looking at contemporary newspaper accounts for anything is good for confirming things like dates and details, but character studies? I'm not saying it's impossible, but the yellow journalism that was rampant in Cobb's time makes it very difficult, either for or against him.

 

Indeed it is. Much of the anecdotal contemporary tales that exist about Cobb come from papers in rival cities who obviously had an interest at the time of making Cobb a villain. My earlier point about the NY Times was stated because I think it is interesting how a paper which despised the man so much would actually not seem to care too much about him jumping into the stands and whooping on one of their own spectators.

[Sammy Sofa]

OMC, I'm curious where you were reading about how Stump's work with and about Cobb has been "debunked" or whatever you're saying it's now being viewed as.

 

Richard Bak's "Peach: Ty Cobb in His Time and Ours" has an entire chapter dealing with Stump's book, Burns' Baseball documentary, and ESPN's Sportscentury series on Cobb. Statistician Bill Burgess also has written some articles about that subject.

 

And looking at contemporary newspaper accounts for anything is good for confirming things like dates and details, but character studies? I'm not saying it's impossible, but the yellow journalism that was rampant in Cobb's time makes it very difficult, either for or against him.

 

Indeed it is. Much of the anecdotal contemporary tales that exist about Cobb come from papers in rival cities who obviously had an interest at the time of making Cobb a villain. My earlier point about the NY Times was stated because I think it is interesting how a paper which despised the man so much would actually not seem to care too much about him jumping into the stands and whooping on one of their own spectators.

 

Fair enough...but the guy still jumped into the stand and started beating a fan. I have no doubt he was saying some vile things, but there's a reason why still today it's a big deal when an athlete crosses that line and physically attacks a fan.

 

I'll check out Bak's book. Is there anything else out there, print-wise?

[XZero771679666304]

 

There probably are. But things like how a player would react to improved medical treatment, better playing conditions, offseason training, etc are just so intangible that I don't think it can be measured by any metric. Cobb was a physical freak, I don't think a metric could fairly say how he would react to such things as I listed above.

 

That is very true, and significant.

 

However, by far the biggest factor in the whole discussion is the talent pool. Can you even imagine today's game with only white players?

 

Not only has baseball evolved to include all races, but the overall population has increased. Logic dictates that the level of talent has increased with the inclusion of all these new sources of great talent. You had guys like Ruth and Cobb who were head and shoulders above the vast majority of their peers. It seems to me that the gap between the superstar and the average joe has closed significantly.

 

It's the talent. Cobb didn't have to compete against the same level as guys like Bonds or even Aaron.

 

You can say that newer medical practices, training techniques and nutrition would make a difference, and they would.

 

But think of it this way: If you are a player at a Single A high school and are very successful, would you expect to have the same level of success against AAAA competition? Even though you have access to all the same amenities? Of course not. You might still be successful, but logic dictates that your performance would suffer to some degree. You can also look at it reversed: Go back to 1920 and infuse the league with latin and black talent, and watch the outliers come back toward the pack as the fillers are replaced by talent.

 

This is the factor that overshadows all others when comparing eras, though like the others it is difficult to quantify. I am not suggesting that guys like Cobb and Ruth would be terrible. What I am suggesting is that they wouldn't be as good. Perhaps not even nearly so.

 

I think it is difficult to argue against this when you compare the different eras, since not all hardships are equal.

 

And there are even personal factors, like with Ruth. The guy was obviously a hedonist, and even if he had access to modern conditioning, would he have even utilized it?

 

Lots of things to consider, but none bigger than the issue of overall talent level.

[OleMissCub]

One interesting thing about baseball is that, regardless of the era, batting averages have remained pretty consistent. There have obviously been ups and downs (late 60's for example), but on the whole, the average player is going to hit .260-.270 or so, whereas the "good" players always hit around .300 or a bit higher.

 

I think Cobb would have been a "good" to "great" hitter today, but he wouldn't have been the "excellent" hitter that he was more than likely, and I don't think it has so much to do with the talent level that surrounded him (a student of the game like him would have adjusted to different pitches and better pitchers), I think the difference moreso than anything else is the relief pitcher. We'll likely never see another .400 average or anything surpassing the 56 game hit streak because of that.

[VanceJergins]

I hate it when someone's entire argument is sarcasm and changing what the other person said....That's all.

[imb]

He wouldn't have lasted a season without getting suspended, what with all those uppity blacks running around. His racism+ stat would be off the charts in the modern game.

[Bote McBoteface]

My previous unidentified player basically is baseball's version of Jesus Christ, btw.

 

Neifi?

[illiniguy]

 

There probably are. But things like how a player would react to improved medical treatment, better playing conditions, offseason training, etc are just so intangible that I don't think it can be measured by any metric. Cobb was a physical freak, I don't think a metric could fairly say how he would react to such things as I listed above.

 

That is very true, and significant.

 

However, by far the biggest factor in the whole discussion is the talent pool. Can you even imagine today's game with only white players?

 

Not only has baseball evolved to include all races, but the overall population has increased. Logic dictates that the level of talent has increased with the inclusion of all these new sources of great talent. You had guys like Ruth and Cobb who were head and shoulders above the vast majority of their peers. It seems to me that the gap between the superstar and the average joe has closed significantly.

 

It's the talent. Cobb didn't have to compete against the same level as guys like Bonds or even Aaron.

 

You can say that newer medical practices, training techniques and nutrition would make a difference, and they would.

 

But think of it this way: If you are a player at a Single A high school and are very successful, would you expect to have the same level of success against AAAA competition? Even though you have access to all the same amenities? Of course not. You might still be successful, but logic dictates that your performance would suffer to some degree. You can also look at it reversed: Go back to 1920 and infuse the league with latin and black talent, and watch the outliers come back toward the pack as the fillers are replaced by talent.

 

This is the factor that overshadows all others when comparing eras, though like the others it is difficult to quantify. I am not suggesting that guys like Cobb and Ruth would be terrible. What I am suggesting is that they wouldn't be as good. Perhaps not even nearly so.

 

I think it is difficult to argue against this when you compare the different eras, since not all hardships are equal.

 

And there are even personal factors, like with Ruth. The guy was obviously a hedonist, and even if he had access to modern conditioning, would he have even utilized it?

 

Lots of things to consider, but none bigger than the issue of overall talent level.

Can you imagine how much harder it would be to be a standout player with at least half of the teams cut off? You know when you actually had to be a decent pitcher to make the big leagues?

Also Tony Gwynn had a pretty good career, he wasn't really utilizing all of the modern marvels of conditioning. To minimize what a person accomplished because of a perceived inferiority of his time is awfully brave.

[Chocolate Milk]

 

Racism is far worse than cheating at sports, do you not agree? :?

 

As a human being, yes. However, I don't admire Cobb as a person but as a baseball player, so that question is irrelevant.

Do you actually think anyone believes this? Seriously, you have bent over backwards here to defend this guy when his actions were totally despicable. You are being completely dishonest here.

[OleMissCub]

 

Racism is far worse than cheating at sports, do you not agree? :?

 

As a human being, yes. However, I don't admire Cobb as a person but as a baseball player, so that question is irrelevant.

Do you actually think anyone believes this? Seriously, you have bent over backwards here to defend this guy when his actions were totally despicable. You are being completely dishonest here.

 

What about him is there to admire OTHER (save for the fact that I do think it was admirable of him to give away all his millions to charity)than his playing ability ?

 

I've bent over backward to "defend" him because I don't think his terrible actions off the field should be the first thing that baseball fans think off when they think of Cobb. There are numerous other baseball authors and historians who feel this way as well.

 

I don't see how you aren't able to understand that people can separate someone's athletic and on the field ability, with their off the field behavior.

 

Not ONCE have I ever said Cobb was a good person, a nice guy, or even a half-decent person...but rather that his modern perception is overkill. He does deserve a tainted reputation for his awful actions, but just not to the extreme extent that exists today.

[ConstableRabbit]

Guys, the freaking NY TIMES backed him up.

 

THE NY TIMES

 

http://scottwax.com/rice/ratedr/attention%20whore3.jpg

[Guest]

 

There probably are. But things like how a player would react to improved medical treatment, better playing conditions, offseason training, etc are just so intangible that I don't think it can be measured by any metric. Cobb was a physical freak, I don't think a metric could fairly say how he would react to such things as I listed above.

 

That is very true, and significant.

 

However, by far the biggest factor in the whole discussion is the talent pool. Can you even imagine today's game with only white players?

 

Not only has baseball evolved to include all races, but the overall population has increased. Logic dictates that the level of talent has increased with the inclusion of all these new sources of great talent. You had guys like Ruth and Cobb who were head and shoulders above the vast majority of their peers. It seems to me that the gap between the superstar and the average joe has closed significantly.

 

It's the talent. Cobb didn't have to compete against the same level as guys like Bonds or even Aaron.

 

You can say that newer medical practices, training techniques and nutrition would make a difference, and they would.

 

But think of it this way: If you are a player at a Single A high school and are very successful, would you expect to have the same level of success against AAAA competition? Even though you have access to all the same amenities? Of course not. You might still be successful, but logic dictates that your performance would suffer to some degree. You can also look at it reversed: Go back to 1920 and infuse the league with latin and black talent, and watch the outliers come back toward the pack as the fillers are replaced by talent.

 

This is the factor that overshadows all others when comparing eras, though like the others it is difficult to quantify. I am not suggesting that guys like Cobb and Ruth would be terrible. What I am suggesting is that they wouldn't be as good. Perhaps not even nearly so.

 

I think it is difficult to argue against this when you compare the different eras, since not all hardships are equal.

 

And there are even personal factors, like with Ruth. The guy was obviously a hedonist, and even if he had access to modern conditioning, would he have even utilized it?

 

Lots of things to consider, but none bigger than the issue of overall talent level.

Can you imagine how much harder it would be to be a standout player with at least half of the teams cut off? You know when you actually had to be a decent pitcher to make the big leagues?

Also Tony Gwynn had a pretty good career, he wasn't really utilizing all of the modern marvels of conditioning. To minimize what a person accomplished because of a perceived inferiority of his time is awfully brave.

There may be twice as many teams now, but the talent pool to select from has grown at least 15 times.

 

1) there were around 76M people in the US in 1900 and there are over 300M today - a growth of close to 4X. This alone represents a talent pool growth of double that of the growth of teams.

2) Minorities were not allowed in baseball back then -- though this is a smaller impact than generally stated as minorities only accounted for around 12.5% of the US population at the turn of the century (1900). This means the talent pool at the time was more like 65M people compared to the 300M in the states today that can play baseball. (talent pool is now 4.6X bigger)

3) If you include the population of Latin America and Japan, the talent pool today consists of nearly 1B people (986M). That is over 15X the talent pool available in 1900.

4) The percentage of the population that had the free time to pursue athletics has changed dramatically over that time - a factor that is typically ignored. This is diluted in the case of Latin America today, but in the US and Japanese markets anyone who is athletically gifted will almost certainly play sports. I cannot come up with an accurate estimate for this factor, but I believe it is more than enough to compensate for the additional choices in sports to play other than baseball at this point.

5) This doesn't count other emerging baseball talent sources such as Korea, Australia, Europe or China.

 

Overall, the argument that there were fewer teams and therefore a higher talent level just doesn't hold any water at all.

[Guest]

To put this argument in perspective, this table lists how many teams you would have to have in baseball today to match up the talent pool given each of the factors above:

 

Growth Factor     Size of League
    4.0                64
    4.6                74
   15.0               240

 

So...Can everyone imagine what the talent level would be on each major league team if there were 240 teams in baseball? This is the league in 1900.

[illiniguy]

 

There probably are. But things like how a player would react to improved medical treatment, better playing conditions, offseason training, etc are just so intangible that I don't think it can be measured by any metric. Cobb was a physical freak, I don't think a metric could fairly say how he would react to such things as I listed above.

 

That is very true, and significant.

 

However, by far the biggest factor in the whole discussion is the talent pool. Can you even imagine today's game with only white players?

 

Not only has baseball evolved to include all races, but the overall population has increased. Logic dictates that the level of talent has increased with the inclusion of all these new sources of great talent. You had guys like Ruth and Cobb who were head and shoulders above the vast majority of their peers. It seems to me that the gap between the superstar and the average joe has closed significantly.

 

It's the talent. Cobb didn't have to compete against the same level as guys like Bonds or even Aaron.

 

You can say that newer medical practices, training techniques and nutrition would make a difference, and they would.

 

But think of it this way: If you are a player at a Single A high school and are very successful, would you expect to have the same level of success against AAAA competition? Even though you have access to all the same amenities? Of course not. You might still be successful, but logic dictates that your performance would suffer to some degree. You can also look at it reversed: Go back to 1920 and infuse the league with latin and black talent, and watch the outliers come back toward the pack as the fillers are replaced by talent.

 

This is the factor that overshadows all others when comparing eras, though like the others it is difficult to quantify. I am not suggesting that guys like Cobb and Ruth would be terrible. What I am suggesting is that they wouldn't be as good. Perhaps not even nearly so.

 

I think it is difficult to argue against this when you compare the different eras, since not all hardships are equal.

 

And there are even personal factors, like with Ruth. The guy was obviously a hedonist, and even if he had access to modern conditioning, would he have even utilized it?

 

Lots of things to consider, but none bigger than the issue of overall talent level.

Can you imagine how much harder it would be to be a standout player with at least half of the teams cut off? You know when you actually had to be a decent pitcher to make the big leagues?

Also Tony Gwynn had a pretty good career, he wasn't really utilizing all of the modern marvels of conditioning. To minimize what a person accomplished because of a perceived inferiority of his time is awfully brave.

There may be twice as many teams now, but the talent pool to select from has grown at least 15 times.

 

1) there were around 76M people in the US in 1900 and there are over 300M today - a growth of close to 4X. This alone represents a talent pool growth of double that of the growth of teams.

2) Minorities were not allowed in baseball back then -- though this is a smaller impact than generally stated as minorities only accounted for around 12.5% of the US population at the turn of the century (1900). This means the talent pool at the time was more like 65M people compared to the 300M in the states today that can play baseball. (talent pool is now 4.6X bigger)

3) If you include the population of Latin America and Japan, the talent pool today consists of nearly 1B people (986M). That is over 15X the talent pool available in 1900.

4) The percentage of the population that had the free time to pursue athletics has changed dramatically over that time - a factor that is typically ignored. This is diluted in the case of Latin America today, but in the US and Japanese markets anyone who is athletically gifted will almost certainly play sports. I cannot come up with an accurate estimate for this factor, but I believe it is more than enough to compensate for the additional choices in sports to play other than baseball at this point.

5) This doesn't count other emerging baseball talent sources such as Korea, Australia, Europe or China.

 

Overall, the argument that there were fewer teams and therefore a higher talent level just doesn't hold any water at all.

Tell me then if we have gotten so much better within said talent pool. Why is it that no one is throwing 120mph or hitting the ball 700 feet?

 

Also everyone wants to count what Ted Williams accomplished, yet disreguard what Cobb did because of the era he played in. Using a star that had a career that touches both Ted and Ty's careers I think you can disprove that the game, or the talent level changed all that much.

Using Baseball Reference I see that Gehrig put up these numbers while Cobb was playing.

1923 20 NYY AL 13 26 6 11 4 1 1 9 0 0 2 5 .423 .464 .769 218 20 1 0

1924 21 NYY AL 10 12 2 6 1 0 0 5 0 0 1 3 .500 .538 .583 189 7 0 0

1925 22 NYY AL 126 437 73 129 23 10 20 68 6 3 46 49 .295 .365 .531 127 232 12 2 MVP-24

1926 23 NYY AL 155 572 135 179 47 20 16 112 6 5 105 73 .313 .420 .549 152 314 18 1 MVP-10

1927 24 NYY AL 155 584 149 218 52 18 47 175 10 8 109 84 .373 .474 .765 221 447 21 3 MVP-1

1928 25 NYY AL 154 562 139 210 47 13 27 142 4 11 95 69 .374 .467 .648 194 364 16

So he was a great player while Cobb was still a great player. Then in the year he played with Williams before he got sick. He posted these numbers as a 35 year old.

 

1938 35 NYY AL 157 576 115 170 32 6 29 114 6 1 107 75 .295 .410 .523 132 301 1

 

Still a pretty darn good player. One I would take at first base for our Cubs next year.

 

So what gives? Why didn't Lou get so much worse once baseball emerged from its dark ages? In fact he maintained a level career that dipped with age according to what one would expect? So if Gehrig was able to do this, why is it so hard to believe that Cobb would not have been able to do the same?

[Guest]

Your reply convinces me that you didn't really understand my post.

[illiniguy]

Your reply convinces me that you didn't really understand my post.

No I get what you are saying. The sample size has gotten bigger. Much bigger. Thus the size of the league doesn't matter as much. That's fine. I guess I was replying to your post, but still trying to argue more with the general belief that Cobb's stats should be thrown out because of the era he played in.

[OleMissCub]

I wonder how many of our superstar athletes of today would have just washed out of the game in 1920 because they couldn't have hacked the physical demands. The old guys had to play on fields with rocks sprinkled in with the dirt. You routinely read stories of guys with huge gashes in their legs and blood on their uniforms from sliding and then continuing to play. There is a famous story of Wagner having a 6 inch open wound in his leg after he skidded across a rock on a steal attempt. He apparently got two of his teammates to spit their tobacco juice into the wound and went on playing the game, waiting till after it was over to get stitched up! :shock:

 

The older batters had to face pitchers who were, up until 1920, allowed to cheat and screw with the ball as much as they wanted before pitching it. They didn't have batting gloves or batting helmets, so I imagine the fear of the inside pitch was probably greater than it is now (recall Ray Chapman being killed by a pitched ball in 1920).

 

There was no video footage of pitchers to study before a game. Cobb apparently had a mental cache of all the American league pitchers he had faced and on best to hit against them. Players from opposing teams would often approach him and ask for advice on how to face a pitcher that they were to face in the next series. Casey Stengal once told a story about how Cobb spent an entire hour talking with him and explaining how to hit Grover Alexander. Stengal said he had 3 hits the next time he faced Alexander.

 

So, to me, I just don't think there is any way to truly compare the eras, there are pros and cons to each.

[Guest]

Personally, I don't view any single era of baseball as being superior to any other. They're different, to be sure, but the continual evolution of the game has been such that it is difficult (for me, at least) to see much point in playing the hypothetical game of figuring out how well a player of one era would perform if he were placed in another. Would Ty Cobb, Wahoo Sam Crawford, or Honus Wagner have put up such good numbers if they had to face much better-conditioned pitchers who were drawn from a vastly larger talent pool? Probably not. Conversely, would guys like Mark McGwire, Adam Dunn, and Ryan Howard perform any better if they were asked to hit a "juiced" baseball thrown by an inferior pitcher from 1915? (And I mean "juiced" literally; a ball so overloaded with tobacco juice, dirt, and who knows what else to the point that its break is unpredictable. Of course that was merely a secondary problem, as at that point the ball would have been so darkened/discolored as to render it virtually invisible when traveling at 90 MPH.) Probably not.

 

In the end, I believe the best we can objectively achieve is to accurately compare a player to his peers. Attempting to quantify the differences between two different eras just introduces too many subjective elements into the equation.