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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

I don't need to give any specific reasons to show that some modern players might not do so hot back in the day. The whole argument about "they wouldn't do well in modern times because conditioning and technology is better" doesn't work at all if you are trying to make the argument that classic players wouldn't do well in today's world. Because what we have in modern times are more BENEFITS. Exposing these legends to the benefits that modern baseball has would only serve to make them better, not worse. On the contrary, it's a much easier argument to make that players now would do worse back then because of the DETRIMENTS and the loss of these benefits that they would have to endure to have played back then. Added benefits can only serve to make one better, case in point the latinos who grow up playing with milk carton gloves.

Again I should thank you for helping out my argument by raising that issue. One of the reasons why so many poor Latino players are so good and excel at baseball when they come to the majors is because they were raised playing the game with CRAPPY equipment on CRAPPY fields. When they come to the pros with all the fancy gear and technology and luxuries, they excel. This is exactly why I think some of the older players would also be successful in the modern era. When you are good and you play with crap, you have a large possiblity of being really good with all the extra benefits.

Some of his tips from his baseball book: - Don’t slug at full speed; learn to meet the ball firmly, and you will be surprised at the results. - Now, to hit as I ask, to right-center or center. You stand away from plate the distance you can see with mind’s eye that you can hit the ball that curves on inside corner, to center. This distance away from plate will allow you to hit the outside ball to right. In other words, you protect the plate both on inside pitches and outside. - Don’t pull a curve ball from a righthander. The ball is revolving away from you. Hit with the revolution and to right field. - Keep your left elbow cocked on level with your hands or even higher. Never let the elbow down below the hands, and keep your hands always well away from your body – keep pushing them out, even with your body or back. (When I began doing this I truly became a much much better hitter) - Take position at plate, especially against right-hand pitchers, back of plate, and against a man with a real curve, you can stay on back line of batting box. Now try to hit to right-center. I don’t mean you should place the ball in any one spot, but start now practicing to hit your righthanders to the opposite field. An inside ball from a right-hand pitcher you will naturally pull, say, to left-center. As well as he understood the game back then, If Cobb had the ability now to watch game film of upcoming pitchers, he would eat them alive.

That point actually works against his argument, in my opinion. Because you can easily flip that and say that the pampered players today, with their post and pre-game massages, sauna's, advanced medical treatment, proper equipment, manicured fields, couldn't be able to hack it back in the day when those types of things were unheard of. We as people tend to think that our time is the best, our generation is the best, brightest, strongest, fastest. Every generation feels that way, but when you boil it all down, people are people. My meaning is that the human body is the human body. A person could run just as fast back then as they can now, a person could throw a ball just as far or just as fast back then as they can now. The human body is limited. It is of course true that our athletes are better conditioned, but the majority of baseball is NOT conditioning, so much of it is mental and just inherent ability. How many awesomely conditioned players are ALWAYS going to be second-tier players? What separates the top tier from the second tier? It's natural ability and mental knowledge. All the strength conditioning in the world won't help you hit .380 if you don't have the inherent knowledge and skill.

Dude, that's the most absurd thing i've ever heard you say. You act like these guys were David Eckstein's or something. Ty Cobb was 6'2, 200 pounds, Babe Ruth was 6'2, 215; Honus Wagner was 5'11, 200; Gehrig 6', 200; Tris Speaker 5'11, 200; Walter Johnson 6'1, 200; 6'2, 195; Cy Young 6'2, 210; Joe Jackson 6'1, 200. As good as these guys were when they played with crappy equipment, horribly kept fields (Casey Stengal once disappeared from sight in the outfield one game because he felt into an abandoned well that caved in), they would have REALLY been good given today's training and batting cages and pitching machines, mechanics videos, scouting reports, etc. Cobb was good because of 2 things a) natural physical ability...when he was younger people wanted him to be an olympic track runner, and b) he UNDERSTOOD the game. Look at two of the men whom Cobb regularly gave advice to about hitting and they always talked about how he helped them: Dimaggio and Williams. His book "My Life in Baseball" has detailed chapters about baserunning, bunting, hitting to the outfield, where to stand at the plate on certain pitches, how to outthink pitchers, etc. I read this book like a madman when I was a JV player and I put alot of his techniques to work and they helped me tremendously all the way through college. Ty Cobb would be a bench player and wouldn't do anything in today's game ...what a joke. I mean really c'mon. With Cobb you are looking at a man who regularly hit OVER .100 points higher than the league average...and yet...well, he wouldn't do anything in today's game. That's hogwash Tree, and you must know it.

he played in an era with like 5 teams. That's a negative strike in my book. He played in the same era as babe ruth... So shouldnt that strike go against ruth too? exactly, and it was 16 teams not 5 teams. A career .366 average and over 4,000 hits, 900+ steals, and five seasons of .400+ gets you on the top 5 list. He was the best pure hitter in history, plain and simple. He played in an era where the league leading hitters were routinely above .380 because errors were rarely scored, players had teeny little mits, there were very few strikeout pitchers since pitches like sliders hadn't really been introduced yet, etc. A .366 average during that timeframe just isn't as impressive as if he were to do that in today's game. Well, i'm gonna have to come out and say that you are wrong on that point, in my opinion. 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 had to defend these deadball players constantly. The average batting average in 1910 was about the same as it is in 2005. Guys like Cobb and Wagner and Lajoie were just freaks. Here's some examples: DEADBALL ERA - AL only Top 5 hitters in 1910: Nap Lajoie: .384 Ty Cobb: .383 Tris Speaker: .340 Eddie Collins: .324 John Knight: .312 Players above .300: 7 in the AL, 9 in the NL out of 16 teams Top 5 in 1915: Ty Cobb: .369 Eddie Collins: .332 Jack Fournier: .322 Tris Speaker: .322 Stuffy McGinnis: .314 Players above .300: 7 in the AL, 5 in the NL out of 16 teams LIVEBALL ERA - AL only Top 5 in 1930: Al Simmons: .381 Lou Gehrig: .379 Babe Ruth: .359 Carl Reynolds: .359 Mickey Cochrane: .358 Players above .300: over 25 in the AL, over 25 in the NL out of 16 teams MODERN ERA - ML Top 5 hitters in 2001: Ichiro: .350 Larry Walker: .350 Jason Giambi: .342 Todd Helton: .336 Roberto Alomar: .336 Players above .300: 19 in the AL, over 25 in the NL out of 30 teams Top 5 hitters in 2005: Derek Lee: .335 Placido Polanco: .331 Michael Young: .331 Pujols: .330 Miggy Cabrera: .323 Players above .300: 16 in the AL, 15 in the NL According to those stats, the liveball era yielded the highest average batting averages. Tim, according to your theory that Cobb's .366 and 5 .400+ seasons isn't as impressive to today's standards, then you would have to say that Ruth should be viewed less favorably than even Cobb considering that he in his league with only 16 total teams, there were more .300+ averages than in any other time in those statistics.

he played in an era with like 5 teams. That's a negative strike in my book. He played in the same era as babe ruth... So shouldnt that strike go against ruth too? exactly, and it was 16 teams not 5 teams. A career .366 average and over 4,000 hits, 900+ steals, and five seasons of .400+ gets you on the top 5 list. He was the best pure hitter in history, plain and simple.

Pedro Martinez was hands down, the best pitcher of the 1990's. It's not even close. Look at his numbers in that decade. I don't think that's true. I think Maddux was much better in the 90's. Pedro didn't become a starter until 1994, as well. I don't know, for me, after looking at their stats, it's almost too close to call.

he definitely deserves consideration for top 5, it shouldn't shock anyone he's in top 5. His seasonal averages are also better than Koufax. And being shocked because he pitched in the 90's should only HELP the argument that he belongs on that list. With the offensive explosion of baseball in the past 15 years, it is even more amazing he has such great pitching stats.

Aaron had better offensive seasonal averages than Mays in every offensive category, why aren't you upset about Mays being included.

Barry Bonds would be in my Top 5, except for the fact that he felt the need to take roids and thus gain an unfair advantage, i.e. become a cheater later in his career. Barry Bonds is probably the best all around offensive player in history considering that his career average is 40 homers, 30 sb a year. But I just can't have someone like that on my list.

I know we've had threads like this before, but heck, we'll have a new one. Top 5 Offensive players 1) Babe Ruth 2) Ted Williams 3) Ty Cobb 4) Willie Mays 5) Hank Aaron/Stan Musial - tie Top 5 Pitchers 1) Walter Johnson 2) Christy Matthewson 3) Sandy Koufax 4) Cy Young 5) Warren Spahn hard list to make

I like that too, the AA Round Rock Express of the Astros used to be the Jackson Generals. So the "Generals" I guess is open now. Yes, I remember the Jackson Generals. I used to go watch them get beat by the Shreveport Captains. ahh, the good ole Texas League, Shreveport Captains, Jackson Generals, Tulsa Drillers, Arkansas Travelers, and Midland Angels...the good ole days.

I like that too, the AA Round Rock Express of the Astros used to be the Jackson Generals. So the "Generals" I guess is open now.

Exactly. Anyone ever heard of Ty Cobb? You know, First guy ever inducted into the hall of fame.... lets talk about some of the things he did: Spiked people One time, gashed the entire back of a mans leg open by spiking He SHARPENED his spikes as to have them inflict more damage He broke a womans (she was a member of his family) nose w/ a baseball bat Beat both of his wives Abandoned his children Claimed to kill (with the butt/scope of a gun) a man who tried to mug him, and from all accounts he's telling the truth Tried to kill a hotel manager when he was told to quiet down, others were sleeping. Carried a gun, and beleived it was his *right* to use it on anyone that pissed him off... The list goes on. . Yet Pete Rose isn't in for gambling, more MLB hypocrisy. In Cobb's defense, when he killed the guy it was in self defense, the thugs who jumped him on his way to the stadium did stab him several times in the back causing serious wounds. Cobb refused to see a doctor and played later that day with blood staining the back of his jersey, several newspapers at the time confirmed this story, and Cobb in the early 60's showed Al Stump his wounds on his back when Stump questioned him about the incident. But ya, Cobb was a serious douche-bag....nevertheless, he was one of the top 5 greatest players ever in my opinion. http://www.cmgworldwide.com/baseball/cobb/images/C5.jpg

let the jokes for new names begin.

RANTS!!, by god!