Ruth or Cobb

Tomi

Which player do you think had the more impressive career statisticaly? I know quite a few collectors who put Cobb ahead of Ruth since he was a more complete player but both had ridiculous numbers. Just wondering what you guys think.

melvin289

Just a little side note here. In his private life Cobb was a very generous man. He contributed a lot of money to people in need. He never wanted this known so as not to ruin his image. Yes it is said he was a bigot. He was just a product of his environment and the times but from what I have read he helped anyone that that was in real need.

Ron

thenavarro

I've always liked Cobb over Ruth, however I don't necessarily agree with you that he is a more complete player. Ruth could dominate both offensively and defensively as he was a heck of a pitcher. To be able to single handily score runs if he needed to by blasting homers as well as pitching superbly and shutting down the other team, I almost have to say he was more of a complete player than my favorite Cobb

vladguerrero

i agree with Mike, Ruth being a pitcher and homerun king slams the door on the complete player debate... i prefer Ruth

JoeBanzai

Ruth all the way, he was quoted as saying he would hit .600 if he just went for singles. No way to prove that, but Ruth could have hit for a higher average and still been a great slugger, I don't think Cobb could have approached Ruth's slugging numbers without sacrificing the batting average. Ruth was also a top line if not HOF type pitcher.

Joe

CollectorAtWork

Here are some stats of Ruth (pitcher) vs Cobb (batter) that I am directly stealing from here: Link

Here is how they did during the years in which Babe Ruth pitched against Ty Cobb.

1915 – Boston won the pennant; Detroit was second, 2 ½ games back. Cobb led the league in batting with .369. Ruth was 18-8. Against Ruth, Cobb was 5-for-13 for .385.

1916 – Boston won the pennant; Detroit was third, 4 games behind. Cobb’s .371 was second to Tris Speaker’s .386. Ruth was 23-12. Against Ruth’s pitching, Cobb was 8-for-25 for .320.

1917 – Chicago won the pennant. Boston was second, 9 games out. Detroit was fourth, 12 ½ games back. Cobb led the league in batting with .383. Ruth was 24-13, his victory total second only to Chicago’s Eddie Cicotte, who had 28. Against Ruth, Cobb was 8-for-22 for .367.

1918 – Boston won the pennant; Detroit was 7th. Cobb led the league with .382. Ruth was 13-7. He had now started playing the outfield when he wasn’t pitching. Cobb was 2-for-7 for .286 in only two confrontations with Ruth the pitcher.

1919 – Chicago won the pennant. Detroit was fourth. Boston was sixth. Cobb led the league in batting with .384. Ruth was 9-5. In three meetings, Cobb was 8-for-12 against Ruth for .667. This was the last year Ruth was used regularly as a pitcher.

1921 – New York won the pennant. Detroit was sixth. Cobb’s .389 average was second to his teammate Harry Heilmann’s .394. Ruth was 2-0 as a pitcher, his final victory coming against Detroit as Cobb went 1-for-5.

TOTALS – Ruth was 12-9 with 14 complete games against the Cobb-led Tigers over six seasons. Cobb’s .381 average against Ruth’s pitching was 14 points better than his lifetime mark.

stevek

Ruth in my opinion shouldn't be compared to any other player. He was just one of those once a century, perhaps once a millenium type of freak athletes. I mean look at the way he swung the bat, like a slow pitch softball batter would swing, and yet he still connected like he did. And on top of that he was a great pitcher. Babe Ruth is a unique enigma and nobody is really that close if ya understand the game of baseball...and that's that...case closed.

Cobb was a great player in his own right, and in my opinion Cobb is the second best baseball player of all time.

Btw:

Third - Ted Williams

Fourth - Willie Mays

#5 thru around #15 can be a number of players, depending on your viewpoint.

Dialj

I'll take both of them on my team. Personally, I think it is impossible to compare them tit for tat, they played different positions, played a different role in the hitting lineup; and played in different parts of the country (NY was definately more glamorous than Motor-town). BUT, if I had to take just one, then it would be Ruth.

Tabe

Cobb won a Triple Crown - Ruth never did.

When challenged by reporters about hitting HRs, Cobb responded by hitting 5 during a doubleheader.

By the time the lively ball came around, Cobb was already 15 years into his career. Asking him to hit HRs after so long in the majors is a bit much to ask but he did still reach double figures twice in the '20s. He still had some huge seasons left in him - .401 avg in 1922, AL-leading 1.066 OPS in 1925, etc.

But the fact is, Ruth did more at the plate. His career OPS+ of 206 pretty much shuts the door on any discussion. Yeah, Cobb was a better outfielder but does it really matter? Ruth was simply Ruth.

Tabe

mcadams

Cobb 1a
Ruth 1b

And for Stevek- Go look at the voting results for the inaugural class of the HOF and then get back to me on your "case closed" comment. Cobb's peers of the era thought he was better than Ruth too.

Tabe

<< <i>Cobb 1a
Ruth 1b

And for Stevek- Go look at the voting results for the inaugural class of the HOF and then get back to me on your "case closed" comment. Cobb's peers of the era thought he was better than Ruth too. >>


A lot of that was bias against the home run. It was still seen by some as "not real baseball" at the time.

Tabe

coinkat

Sorry but I just do not see the need to compare them- they were different players with significant strengths

mcadams

<< <i>

<< <i>Cobb 1a
Ruth 1b

And for Stevek- Go look at the voting results for the inaugural class of the HOF and then get back to me on your "case closed" comment. Cobb's peers of the era thought he was better than Ruth too. >>


A lot of that was bias against the home run. It was still seen by some as "not real baseball" at the time.

Tabe >>



Whether or not that is true, it doesn't change the fact that Cobb and Ruth's peers who witnessed them play in person over their careers....thought Cobb to be the better player.

stevek

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>Cobb 1a
Ruth 1b

And for Stevek- Go look at the voting results for the inaugural class of the HOF and then get back to me on your "case closed" comment. Cobb's peers of the era thought he was better than Ruth too. >>


A lot of that was bias against the home run. It was still seen by some as "not real baseball" at the time.

Tabe >>



Whether or not that is true, it doesn't change the fact that Cobb and Ruth's peers who witnessed them play in person over their careers....thought Cobb to be the better player. >>



As I'm sure you know, the voters could only choose five players, and perhaps some felt obligated to pick the older players who had retired in earlier years, rather than Ruth who had just retired the year before - just a guess. Could be other reasons as well like the one mentioned by Tabe.

Hey, I'm not saying the voting for Cobb wasn't impressive...as stated, I have him on my all time list as #2 best...but Ruth is #1 and there really is no doubt about it.

jwgators

Ruth broke the mold for baseball. He changed the way the game was played and ushered in the live ball era. There is no doubt the list starts with him at the top.

stevek

Mcadams is biased towards the "Georgia Peach" Ty Cobb because he's a Braves fan and I think the Braves play somewhere in Georgia don't they?

markj111

1. Ruth was better. No it is not close.
2. Someone said Cobb was a bigot. He left out psychopath.

mcadams

Always interesting when people feel the need to call Cobb a bigot. You look in the mirror and ask yourself if you were born in the 19th century in rural Georgia, 1 generation removed from the Civil War, how would you likely view the world?

Also Ruth benefitted from the widespread influence of the NY media of the day, while Cobb did not. The relative "importance" of current Yankees was magnified then, as it is now. Not to say that Ruth didn't deserve any of the attention. But the NY media's love affair with the Yankees makes other town's homer-ish attitude toward their teams pale in comparison.

Tabe

<< <i>1. Ruth was better. No it is not close.
2. Someone said Cobb was a bigot. He left out psychopath. >>


It's also important to remember that a good number of the stories about Cobb have come from Al Stump (his biographer) - who has turned out to be a liar and fraud.

Tabe

Dialj

I found these number interesting when comparing hitting and fielding for both Cobb and Ruth. I used Cobb's 22 season stats instead of 24 because that was the number of seasons Ruth played. Granted there will be a difference because Ruth pitched early in his career which affects his stats somewhat. So really who was the the best all around complete player? Even though I have Cobb's quote on my replies, I used it in HS and College as the way to clear my mind at the plate. More times than naught it didn't work.

Cobb (Higheset season batting average .420)
G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS
2806 12101 10591 2088 3900 665 284 111 1805 869 188 1148 534 .368 .434 .516 .950 (Caught stealing 16% of the time)
(Struck out apprx. 5% of his at bats)
Ruth (Highest season batting average: .378)
2503 10617 8399 2174 2873 506 136 714 2213 123 117 2062 1330 .346 .474 .690 1.164 (Caught stealing 49% of the time)
(Struck out apprx. 15% of his a bats)
Cobb
Defense Chances Put Outs Assists Errors Double Plays Fielding %
7195 6507 410 278 113 .961 (Committed an error every 3.8 chances)

Ruth
5535 4787 569 179 86 .968 (Committed an error every 3.2 chances)

markj111

<< <i>Always interesting when people feel the need to call Cobb a bigot. You look in the mirror and ask yourself if you were born in the 19th century in rural Georgia, 1 generation removed from the Civil War, how would you likely view the world?

Someone must have felt differently. Things changed. Cobb did not.

BABERUTHJOEDIMAGGIO

Both great players

If I could travel back in time to watch them play I would want to see the Babe.

WeekendHacker

The pre-1950 voting public would probably vote Cobb - today it's Ruth hands down.

pmcollectour

I don't think it's fair to try and make conclusions about ballplayers we never saw play. Yes, we can look at stats, but that's about it.

mcadams

<< <i>The pre-1950 voting public would probably vote Cobb - today it's Ruth hands down. >>



The babe fans here are HUGE on the rhetoric. The term "hands down" and "case closed" have been used repeatedly. If that were true, threads like this wouldn't exist and leading sports authorities and authors wouldn't waste all thier time debating and writing about the topic.

stevek

<< <i>

<< <i>The pre-1950 voting public would probably vote Cobb - today it's Ruth hands down. >>



The babe fans here are HUGE on the rhetoric. The term "hands down" and "case closed" have been used repeatedly. If that were true, threads like this wouldn't exist and leading sports authorities and authors wouldn't waste all thier time debating and writing about the topic. >>



A good example of how perception is not reality. I am actually a huge fan of Ty Cobb...what baseball fan shouldn't be the way he played the game with such skill and enthusiasm. You see...I don't really give a chit about him or any other athlete and their off the field antics as far as what they do personally...I enjoy them and admire them for their talents and skills on the field. To me, professional sports is good entertainment, and should be taken as such. These guys aren't heros, unless it's like a Ted Williams whereby he served his country gallantly during WW2...they are just entertainers as far as I am concerned.

So Ty Cobb's exaggerated or real off the field problems, have led some to overall dislike him because of that, but not me. Yes, the Babe liked kids, and signed a lot of autographs, had an amazing persona and all that off the field good stuff, and that is wonderful...but still it was off the field and doesn't matter to me as far as analyzing who is the better player. So there is nothing to interfere with my judgement of why Ruth is clearly the best baseball player of all time. Case closed and sealed.

And if some disagree...hey that's okay, you're entitled to your opinion...it's just that your opinion is incorrect.

mcadams

I asked three people in my office today who won the Series in 08. No one could remember.

grote15

I asked three people in my office today who won the Series in 08. No one could remember.

I have an even tougher question for those people: ask them when the Braves last won a World Series title.

Hint: it's not too long after the Mets last won theirs..

stevek

<< <i>I asked three people in my office today who won the Series in 08. No one could remember. >>



Because they thought you meant 1908. LOL

BTW: The Cubs beat the Tigers and Ty Cobb in that World Series.

stevek

<< <i>I asked three people in my office today who won the Series in 08. No one could remember.

I have an even tougher question for those people: ask them when the Braves last won a World Series title.

Hint: it's not too long after the Mets last won theirs.. >>



The Mets WS record is at least understandable, the Phillies WS record is at least understandable. The Atlanta Braves WS record during a time when having perhaps arguably the best pitching staff of all time for that number of years...is absolutely pathetic...only one WS win during that time...I think if Jane Fonda was in charge of any team with that pitching staff, she coulda had better results. LOL

Tabe

<< <i>The Mets WS record is at least understandable, the Phillies WS record is at least understandable. The Atlanta Braves WS record during a time when having perhaps arguably the best pitching staff of all time for that number of years...is absolutely pathetic...only one WS win during that time...I think if Jane Fonda was in charge of any team with that pitching staff, she coulda had better results. LOL >>


Maddux in the World Series - career 2.09 ERA
Glavine - 2.16 ERA
Smoltz - 2.47 ERA

So, if there's blame to be had, it sure ain't the starting pitching. At least once they got to the World Series, that is.

Tabe

stevek

<< <i>

<< <i>The Mets WS record is at least understandable, the Phillies WS record is at least understandable. The Atlanta Braves WS record during a time when having perhaps arguably the best pitching staff of all time for that number of years...is absolutely pathetic...only one WS win during that time...I think if Jane Fonda was in charge of any team with that pitching staff, she coulda had better results. LOL >>


Maddux in the World Series - career 2.09 ERA
Glavine - 2.16 ERA
Smoltz - 2.47 ERA

So, if there's blame to be had, it sure ain't the starting pitching. At least once they got to the World Series, that is.

Tabe >>



Amazing in a negative way, only one WS win considering those pitching stats...almost hard to believe.

Maybe they needed Bridget Fonda.

Saberman

<< <i>I asked three people in my office today who won the Series in 08. No one could remember. >>




Ask three random people on the street who Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth were

mcadams

<< <i>

<< <i>I asked three people in my office today who won the Series in 08. No one could remember. >>




Ask three random people on the street who Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth were >>



Funny comment from the guy who condemns others for suggesting that popularity means anything. Sabre- Please enlighten us with some spreadsheet analysis to assist in this conversation (Seriously.....because right now its a beauty pageant). I'm surprised you've dodged this thread so far.

Dialj

For two of the oldest teams in the MLB, I thought this was interesting.

WS Appearances Team League Wins Losses %

9 Atlanta Braves NL 3 6 .333

7 Philadelphia Phillies NL 2 5 .286

Saberman

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>I asked three people in my office today who won the Series in 08. No one could remember. >>




Ask three random people on the street who Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth were >>



Funny comment from the guy who condemns others for suggesting that popularity means anything. Sabre- Please enlighten us with some spreadsheet analysis to assist in this conversation (Seriously.....because right now its a beauty pageant). I'm surprised you've dodged this thread so far. >>



When judging the abilities of a player, popularity means nothing. Your statement about asking people if they know who won the '08 World Series, and then passing the response off as it significant, was a folly.


Me posting that question about Ruth/Cobb was also an example of a meaningless statement...but it seemed to get you to understand the folly of your intiial statement. Mission accomplished.


In regard to me staying away from this thread....

I wouldn't get deeply involved in a thread if people were debating if today was Sunday or Monday, because the answer would be too easy and not worth the time

mcadams

My comment about the 08 World Series had nothing to do with Cobb or Ruth. It was a jab at Stevek and his continued use of the Phillies World Series logo on his Sig line. Sorry if that context was not clear.

stevek

<< <i>My comment about the 08 World Series had nothing to do with Cobb or Ruth. It was a jab at Stevek and his continued use of the Phillies World Series logo on his Sig line. Sorry if that context was not clear. >>



I'll be changing the 2008 to 2011 after this season.

Tabe

<< <i>

<< <i>My comment about the 08 World Series had nothing to do with Cobb or Ruth. It was a jab at Stevek and his continued use of the Phillies World Series logo on his Sig line. Sorry if that context was not clear. >>



I'll be changing the 2008 to 2011 after this season. >>


Changing the team logo, too, eh?



Tabe

stevek

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>My comment about the 08 World Series had nothing to do with Cobb or Ruth. It was a jab at Stevek and his continued use of the Phillies World Series logo on his Sig line. Sorry if that context was not clear. >>



I'll be changing the 2008 to 2011 after this season. >>


Changing the team logo, too, eh?



Tabe >>



Good point...I'll be adding an Eagles logo right next to it.

Tabe

<< <i>Good point...I'll be adding an Eagles logo right next to it. >>


Uh, that game was almost 7 months ago and the Eagles weren't in it*

Gonna have to get past the Lions first!

Tabe

* - Yes, I'm aware the 2011 NFL season champion gets determined in 2012, blah blah blah.

stevek

<< <i>

<< <i>Good point...I'll be adding an Eagles logo right next to it. >>


Uh, that game was almost 7 months ago and the Eagles weren't in it*

Gonna have to get past the Lions first!

Tabe

* - Yes, I'm aware the 2011 NFL season champion gets determined in 2012, blah blah blah. >>




I don't think the Eagles play Penn State this season.

Tabe

<< <i>
I don't think the Eagles play Penn State this season. >>


BWAHAHAHA. Well-played, sir.

Tabe

stevek

<< <i>

<< <i>
I don't think the Eagles play Penn State this season. >>


BWAHAHAHA. Well-played, sir.

Tabe >>



Well, the Lions are my favorite team...the Nittany Lions that is...I'm a Penn State grad.

mcadams

Tabe- Thanks for bringing some high level wit to this thread...it was sorely needed.

Stevek- Since you've brought Penn State into the mix....I guess you'll be in town when the Crimson Tide visit this Fall? At least the score is tied right now.....

stevek

<< <i>Tabe- Thanks for bringing some high level wit to this thread...it was sorely needed.

Stevek- Since you've brought Penn State into the mix....I guess you'll be in town when the Crimson Tide visit this Fall? At least the score is tied right now..... >>



I'll just watch and enjoy the game on TV...that's good enough for me.

ernie11

Ruth or Cobb is a question I'm very torn on. Both essentially played in different eras, deadball vs. liveball, with a few overlapping years in the other era. They each were predominant in their respective era, so I wonder how their careers would've panned out if it had been reversed, i.e, Ruth had been a deadball player, Cobb a liveball player. I usually lean toward Ruth as greater because of his power, but Cobb was a superlative on-bases hitter, runner and overall strategist.

I read one of Cobb's bio's, about how he used to confound other teams by stealing for home when they least expected it, and using his base-running as a way of totally rattling pitchers. One thing that puts Cobb in a little better light is that he accomplished what he did for mostly so-so Detroit teams, while Babe had a whole Hall of Fame's worth of great Yankees around him for many of his years.

The book I read also made Cobb out to be a total nut case. When you read some of the psychotic things he did, both on and off the field, you can see why he was hated, even by his teammates. I'm surprised someone didn't shoot him. In today's baseball world, he wouldn't last 2 days, MLB would have kicked him out of baseball.

Tabe

<< <i>Tabe- Thanks for bringing some high level wit to this thread...it was sorely needed. >>


It would seem you have a very, very, VERY loose definition of "high level" but I will humbly thank you for your compliment nonetheless. Sports topics should be fun and lighthearted, with non-serious trash-talking all around.

Tabe

Tabe

<< <i>Ruth or Cobb is a question I'm very torn on. Both essentially played in different eras, deadball vs. liveball, with a few overlapping years in the other era. They each were predominant in their respective era, so I wonder how their careers would've panned out if it had been reversed, i.e, Ruth had been a deadball player, Cobb a liveball player. I usually lean toward Ruth as greater because of his power, but Cobb was a superlative on-bases hitter, runner and overall strategist.

I read one of Cobb's bio's, about how he used to confound other teams by stealing for home when they least expected it, and using his base-running as a way of totally rattling pitchers. One thing that puts Cobb in a little better light is that he accomplished what he did for mostly so-so Detroit teams, while Babe had a whole Hall of Fame's worth of great Yankees around him for many of his years.

The book I read also made Cobb out to be a total nut case. When you read some of the psychotic things he did, both on and off the field, you can see why he was hated, even by his teammates. I'm surprised someone didn't shoot him. In today's baseball world, he wouldn't last 2 days, MLB would have kicked him out of baseball. >>


You are most likely referring to one of Al Stump's biographies of Cobb, or a book that used Stump as a source. Stump is a proven liar and fraud and nothing he says/said relating to Cobb can or should be believed.

Tabe

Tabe

mcadams

<< <i>Ruth or Cobb is a question I'm very torn on. Both essentially played in different eras, deadball vs. liveball, with a few overlapping years in the other era. They each were predominant in their respective era, so I wonder how their careers would've panned out if it had been reversed, i.e, Ruth had been a deadball player, Cobb a liveball player. I usually lean toward Ruth as greater because of his power, but Cobb was a superlative on-bases hitter, runner and overall strategist.

I read one of Cobb's bio's, about how he used to confound other teams by stealing for home when they least expected it, and using his base-running as a way of totally rattling pitchers. One thing that puts Cobb in a little better light is that he accomplished what he did for mostly so-so Detroit teams, while Babe had a whole Hall of Fame's worth of great Yankees around him for many of his years.

The book I read also made Cobb out to be a total nut case. When you read some of the psychotic things he did, both on and off the field, you can see why he was hated, even by his teammates. I'm surprised someone didn't shoot him. In today's baseball world, he wouldn't last 2 days, MLB would have kicked him out of baseball. >>



Out of 226 voters in the inaugural HOF class, 222 voted for Cobb. That doesn't quite fit with the notion that all of baseball hated him.