I'm not a baseball historian, but I'm still curious about this deadball vs liveball era? Why do people say that Cobb played in deadball, and Ruth played in the liveball era? Were the balls different, were the stadiums configured differently, where the mounds higher/lower? What about the game was different in deadball vs liveball? I had thought that Ruth created the liveball era all by himself when he decided that he didn't want to be a singles hitter like everybody else, but that he was going to swing hard for the fences. And when this happened, and he became a huge success, and other batters started copying him, the liveball era began. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
<< <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. >>
No contradiction. A player can be personally hated and still easily voted into the HOF. Cobb deserved everyone of those 222 votes.
<< <i>I'm not a baseball historian, but I'm still curious about this deadball vs liveball era? Why do people say that Cobb played in deadball, and Ruth played in the liveball era? Were the balls different, were the stadiums configured differently, where the mounds higher/lower? What about the game was different in deadball vs liveball? I had thought that Ruth created the liveball era all by himself when he decided that he didn't want to be a singles hitter like everybody else, but that he was going to swing hard for the fences. And when this happened, and he became a huge success, and other batters started copying him, the liveball era began. Please correct me if I'm wrong. >>
You're wrong
Sort of.
The balls were NOT different though there is a popular idea that they were. However, a number of rule changes were put in place to liven up the game starting with 1920:
- balls were replaced at the first sign of damage instead of being used until they unraveled, as in previous years. The result was the balls remaining hard unlike before where they would soften - and also easier to see.
- the spitball and all other methods of defacing the ball were eliminated
In addition, the ballparks of the early 20th century were gargantuan. Some had fences 550 (or even 635!) feet away from the plate.
And finally, yeah, there's the Ruth effect. Guys saw how effective (and rich) he was and copied him.
Comments
Lou Gehrig Master Set
Non-Registry Collection
Game Used Cards Collection
<< <i>
<< <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. >>
No contradiction. A player can be personally hated and still easily voted into the HOF. Cobb deserved everyone of those 222 votes.
<< <i>I'm not a baseball historian, but I'm still curious about this deadball vs liveball era? Why do people say that Cobb played in deadball, and Ruth played in the liveball era? Were the balls different, were the stadiums configured differently, where the mounds higher/lower? What about the game was different in deadball vs liveball? I had thought that Ruth created the liveball era all by himself when he decided that he didn't want to be a singles hitter like everybody else, but that he was going to swing hard for the fences. And when this happened, and he became a huge success, and other batters started copying him, the liveball era began. Please correct me if I'm wrong. >>
You're wrong
Sort of.
The balls were NOT different though there is a popular idea that they were. However, a number of rule changes were put in place to liven up the game starting with 1920:
- balls were replaced at the first sign of damage instead of being used until they unraveled, as in previous years. The result was the balls remaining hard unlike before where they would soften - and also easier to see.
- the spitball and all other methods of defacing the ball were eliminated
In addition, the ballparks of the early 20th century were gargantuan. Some had fences 550 (or even 635!) feet away from the plate.
And finally, yeah, there's the Ruth effect. Guys saw how effective (and rich) he was and copied him.
Tabe
<< <i>The balls WERE changed...in the mid 1990's, to usher in the new live ball era
Possibly in '87, as well.
Tabe
Tom Tango has a nice little article on the live ball idea