Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>That is not really accurate. There are only about 15-18 Asian players in MLB at any given time, most of whom are mediocre at best. That in no way offsets the talent dilution of 125 additional players brought on by expansion over the past 20 years. >>
The 125 additional players is met with the roughly 60 million new people in the country. The league has been expanding slower than the talent pool creating a much more competitive environment. >>
Proportionately, though, 60 million people do not necessarily equate to 125 major league ballplayers, especially in a country where much fewer athletes even aspire to play major league baseball.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
You can not compare players in different eras for many of the reasons listed. Another reason you can not is because Ty Cobb, born in Pete Rose's era, may not have been the same Ty Cobb. His eating habits, his work out habits, who influenced him all would have been different. What was an advantage would not be, and what was a disadvantage would not be. Basically, you have to compare to players of their era. If Ty Cobb was born in any era, he would have been a top 7 player of all time. If Pete Rose was born in any other era, he would have been a top 30 player of all time.
<< <i>Of course 60 million Americans equal 125 major league players.
There are 310 million people in this country and 750 starting MLB players or 1 MLB player for every 413,333 Americans.
If there were 60 million more Americans and 125 more MLB players that's 1 MLB player for every 480,000 Americans. >>
Total population cannot be used as an accurate gauge though--how many of those 60 million people even qualify to be eligible for major league play? You'd have to take a closer look at the demographics. Back in 1990, there were 650 major league players and 260 million people in U.S. Today there are 325 million people in US and about 775 major league players.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>You can not compare players in different eras for many of the reasons listed. Another reason you can not is because Ty Cobb, born in Pete Rose's era, may not have been the same Ty Cobb. His eating habits, his work out habits, who influenced him all would have been different. What was an advantage would not be, and what was a disadvantage would not be. Basically, you have to compare to players of their era. If Ty Cobb was born in any era, he would have been a top 7 player of all time. If Pete Rose was born in any other era, he would have been a top 30 player of all time. >>
That is a valid assertion and one I agree with. Enough with the foolishness that Cobb was not one of the top players of all time. He was a vile individual but one of the all time greats without question.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Total population cannot be used as an accurate gauge though--how many of those 60 million people even qualify to be eligible for major league play? You'd have to take a closer look at the demographics. Back in 1990, there were 650 major league players and 260 million people in U.S. Today there are 325 million people in US and about 775 major league players.
Of the 775 MLB players, how many are foreign born? 20%? If we used that number, then 155 players are not American, which leaves only 620 American players to cull out of the roughly 160 million males in this country. That equates to about 4 out of every 1 million males.
<< <i>That is a valid assertion and one I agree with. Enough with the foolishness that Cobb was not one of the top players of all time. He was a vile individual but one of the all time greats without question. >>
I would argue that he was one of the most dominant players of his generation, but if all else were the same and I was building a team today to face pitchers of today and play by the rules of today, I would take Rose over Cobb.
<< <i>Total population cannot be used as an accurate gauge though--how many of those 60 million people even qualify to be eligible for major league play? You'd have to take a closer look at the demographics. Back in 1990, there were 650 major league players and 260 million people in U.S. Today there are 325 million people in US and about 775 major league players.
Of the 775 MLB players, how many are foreign born? 20%? If we used that number, then 155 players are not American, which leaves only 620 American players to cull out of the roughly 160 million males in this country. That equates to about 4 out of every 1 million males. >>
What is the % of American 18-year-olds aspiring to be a MLB player in 2014 vs the % of American 18-year-olds aspring to be a MLB player in 1964? Is the national pasttime as popular today as it was 50 years ago among our youth?
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
What is the % of American 18-year-olds aspiring to be a MLB player in 2014 vs the % of American 18-year-olds aspring to be a MLB player in 1964? Is the national pasttime as popular today as it was 50 years ago among our youth?
Knowing what we know about concussions and repetitive head trauma sustained in every level of football, the number of athletes opting to play baseball will only increase. As far as basketball is concerned, the vertically challenged, which include most of us, cannot consider hoops as a viable alternative. The important point is that it really doesn't matter if fewer Americans play baseball, because the number of imported players will only go up, due to lower costs in developing and training.
<< <i>What is the % of American 18-year-olds aspiring to be a MLB player in 2014 vs the % of American 18-year-olds aspring to be a MLB player in 1964? Is the national pasttime as popular today as it was 50 years ago among our youth?
Knowing what we know about concussions and repetitive head trauma sustained in every level of football, the number of athletes opting to play baseball will only increase. As far as basketball is concerned, the vertically challenged, which include most of us, cannot consider hoops as a viable alternative. The important point is that it really doesn't matter if fewer Americans play baseball, because the number of imported players will only go up, due to lower costs in developing and training. >>
That is interesting. All studies and articles I've seen in recent years suggest that fewer young men pursue playing baseball than in years past.
Personally, I think the level of play (on average) was higher years ago, when players also weren't widely using PEDs, as well.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
So if I transported rose to 1900 and put him those conditions with that style of play and training do you honestly think he'd be anything other than the slap hitter he was in the sixties and seventies? On the other hand you transport Cobb to Rose's era ( keeping in mind Cobb was not a small man) with that era's style of play and training I'm thinking he is closer to 215 to 220 instead of the 190 of his day. All those triples and doubles become a few more home runs. How can we leave out the fact that Cobb was one off the best sluggers of his era? Rose would be a slap hitter in any era. I can't see any logical Argument for Rose. Play with population numbers all you want. Even advance metrics (which give me a headache) plainly show Cobb was far superior.
I think was was a great player but in all honesty when I think if Rose the first thing that comes to mind is Mantle's comment about if he hit like that he'd wear a dress.
He played in a more competitive era in my opinion and he led his teams to 6 World Series, and shined during the post-season where it counts. >>
As Ted Williams proved, no matter how good you are, you will never win a World Series without very good teammates. Having very good teammates is luck. >>
Most anything in life is luck. Its called the hall of fame and everyone remembers a winner. Rose shined in the post season. Cobb did not.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
What I find head scratching is that people can state, with certainty, that Cobb was clearly better than Rose, when in fact, almost nobody alive ever saw him play.
<< <i>What I find head scratching is that people can state, with certainty, that Cobb was clearly better than Rose, when in fact, almost nobody alive ever saw him play. >>
Evaluating a player based on watching him play is basically the worst method upon which to gauge the level of a player, as perception is subjective. That is why players like Jim Rice are as overrated as they are. The data and advanced statistics (other than the most obvious ones) paint the real story and depict players in what can be truly determined as closest to an objective evaluation.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Yeah, I guess that's like saying you're skilled at diplomacy on the world stage because, when you look out the window, you can see Russia. ;-) >>
Yes, that is a perfect analogy right there, lol..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Yeah, I guess that's like saying you're skilled at diplomacy on the world stage because, when you look out the window, you can see Russia. ;-) >>
Yes, that is a perfect analogy right there, lol.. >>
Observing a player is actually quite a good way to evaluate their abilities, as long as you are also observing ALL (or at least all comparable players) the players in that sport.
Statistics are another good way to evaluate players.
Neither actually PROVES who is better if the players are nearly equal or are from different eras, you can get some very good indications, but no actual proof.
With all the changes in the game between the time Cobb played and Rose came along, it's pretty hard to compare them. No one can KNOW how either would have performed in the others era.
Cobb was obviously MUCH more dominant player who has the highest batting average of all time as well as several other more impressive statistical records.
Rose has the record for most hits, primarily because he was a very good hitter with an extremely long career.
Based on general knowledge from reading books and looking at stats, Cobb would appear to be a vastly superior player.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
<< <i>What is done in hockey in comparing great ones from each generation is to compare stats of those great players to the players in their era.
For example, in hockey Bobby Orr always seems to win the argument over Gretzky because Orr's numbers overmatched the players of his era. While Gretzky and Lemieux both had the same points per game during their era, yet no one was close to Orr during his dominance. Though most will say Gretzky was greater because he did it over a long period of time.
My point is that Cobb was a great hitter, but Shoeless Joe Jackson was hitting .400 right along with Cobb, and other players were in the .380's while Cobb was putting up his sick numbers.
I think the only player of his time (and don't quote me on this) that distanced himself over his contemporaries was Ted Williams, although it wasn't by that much to put Teddy Ballgame above Ruth or Cobb. But I still believe Ted was the best hitter ever. No way to prove it though. >>
I would say Orr wins the argument because he was such a good scorer while playing defense. You could then come to the conclusion that he was BOTH the best defensive and offensive player during his prime. Gretzky was an unbelievable assist and goal scorer, Lemieux most likely a better all around player than Wayne, but his injury problems reduces his ranking. I think if we only look at scoring (as some are reducing the baseball argument to hitting) Gretzky's numbers make him #1.
Getting back to baseball, on hitting alone, the numbers I have seen would rank Ruth and Williams as the best two hitters of all time. Cobb didn't have the home runs, but he stole so many bases his value increases as an overall player. No way of proving it, but Cobb could have probably hit many more home runs had he tried.
A couple of other great hitters that don't get mentioned as often are Jimmie Foxx and Rogers Hornsby.
Babe Ruth was NOT a "fat slob" for most of his career. Just at the end, like many players who got bigger near the end of their playing days.
When discussing the segregation aspect of baseball, I don't see it as nearly as much of a benefit for Cobb as some do. There were a few superior black players who certainly would have excelled if given the chance, but it looks to me like there were not the percentage of minorities in the U.S. at the time, so I don't see it making a huge difference, but as has been stated, speculation is just that.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
When I see debates like this involving players of two totally different eras I try to imagine how each would fare in the other's era, all other things equal- including personality and playing style.
Cobb is the superior player on paper... but that said, his numbers would not have been as good had he played in the Rose era imo because of his playing style. Cobb was a spikes-up hothead and would have ridden the pine a lot in Rose's era and thus not gotten the same numbers IMO.
Rose was a hard worker though not as well rounded as Cobb...but I think he could have done well in Cobb's era as his style was compatible with the hard nosed play of that time.
All that said...Both were great players but I think the rankings (Cobb top 10, Rose top 30) are pretty accurate... and if there's any justice, Rose will make the HOF at some point.
On that subject...since we're playing "what-if"....does anyone think Cobb would have a prayer if the HOF vote for him were taken in today's uber-PC world, given his violent/racist personality?
[iOn that subject...since we're playing "what-if"....does anyone think Cobb would have a prayer if the HOF vote for him were taken in today's uber-PC world, given his violent/racist personality?]
It is irrelevant, really, because had Cobb grown up in today's society, his entire viewpoint and perceptions and opinions would likely have been very different from those in 1910. It took Branch Rickey and till 1947 for the game to even allow integration...how many of those same owners from that time would have said no to black major league players in today's "uber-PC world"? The answer: none.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Rose shined in the post season. Cobb did not. >>
Rose - .269 in the World Series. Cobb -.262.
Why would you put so much stock in such a meaningless sample size? Cobb had *65* post-season ABs. Over 11,000 in the regular season. Would Cobb be the best player ever had he hit .420 in those 65 ABs?
<< <i>Gretzky was an unbelievable assist and goal scorer, Lemieux most likely a better all around player than Wayne, but his injury problems reduces his ranking. I think if we only look at scoring (as some are reducing the baseball argument to hitting) Gretzky's numbers make him #1. >>
Even though Lemieux started his NHL career only 5 years after Gretzky, Gretzky still played in somewhat significantly higher-scoring era. When you adjust their point totals for the era, Lemieux scored more points per game than Gretzky.
<< <i>[iOn that subject...since we're playing "what-if"....does anyone think Cobb would have a prayer if the HOF vote for him were taken in today's uber-PC world, given his violent/racist personality?]
It is irrelevant, really, because had Cobb grown up in today's society, his entire viewpoint and perceptions and opinions would likely have been very different from those in 1910. It took Branch Rickey and till 1947 for the game to even allow integration...how many of those same owners from that time would have said no to black major league players in today's "uber-PC world"? The answer: none. >>
Ah, but that's not the question! I asked if anyone thought he had a prayer if the VOTE were taken today...not if he had grown up in today's society.
<< <i>[iOn that subject...since we're playing "what-if"....does anyone think Cobb would have a prayer if the HOF vote for him were taken in today's uber-PC world, given his violent/racist personality?]
It is irrelevant, really, because had Cobb grown up in today's society, his entire viewpoint and perceptions and opinions would likely have been very different from those in 1910. It took Branch Rickey and till 1947 for the game to even allow integration...how many of those same owners from that time would have said no to black major league players in today's "uber-PC world"? The answer: none. >>
Ah, but that's not the question! I asked if anyone thought he had a prayer if the VOTE were taken today...not if he had grown up in today's society. >>
He would get in today anyway unless he were on the permanently ineligible list like Rose. Cobb is still very highly ranked in any modern day poll of ballplayers and his numbers are undeniable. You don't have to like the guy to acknowledge his talent and ability. In fact, you can hate the guy and still acknowledge that. If all players had to be "re-voted" into the HOF today like you propose, Cobb would be be in, no question. Even the often clueless writers wouldn't mess that one up.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>[iOn that subject...since we're playing "what-if"....does anyone think Cobb would have a prayer if the HOF vote for him were taken in today's uber-PC world, given his violent/racist personality?]
It is irrelevant, really, because had Cobb grown up in today's society, his entire viewpoint and perceptions and opinions would likely have been very different from those in 1910. It took Branch Rickey and till 1947 for the game to even allow integration...how many of those same owners from that time would have said no to black major league players in today's "uber-PC world"? The answer: none. >>
Ah, but that's not the question! I asked if anyone thought he had a prayer if the VOTE were taken today...not if he had grown up in today's society. >>
He would get in today anyway unless he were on the permanently ineligible list like Rose. Cobb is still very highly ranked in any modern day poll of ballplayers and his numbers are undeniable. You don't have to like the guy to acknowledge his talent and ability. In fact, you can hate the guy and still acknowledge that. If all players had to be "re-voted" into the HOF today like you propose, Cobb would be be in, no question. Even the often clueless writers wouldn't mess that one up. >>
You're probably right...unless, say, the commissioner developed a personal hatred of Cobb like a certain commish arguably did for Rose...
<< <i>Rose shined in the post season. Cobb did not. >>
Rose - .269 in the World Series. Cobb -.262.
Why would you put so much stock in such a meaningless sample size? Cobb had *65* post-season ABs. Over 11,000 in the regular season. Would Cobb be the best player ever had he hit .420 in those 65 ABs? >>
Rose batted .321 in the post-season. Cobb .262. Advantage Rose. Many NFL players are in the hall for what they did in the post-season. I think what a player did in the post season in any sport should be taken in consideration.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
<< <i>[iOn that subject...since we're playing "what-if"....does anyone think Cobb would have a prayer if the HOF vote for him were taken in today's uber-PC world, given his violent/racist personality?]
It is irrelevant, really, because had Cobb grown up in today's society, his entire viewpoint and perceptions and opinions would likely have been very different from those in 1910. It took Branch Rickey and till 1947 for the game to even allow integration...how many of those same owners from that time would have said no to black major league players in today's "uber-PC world"? The answer: none. >>
Ah, but that's not the question! I asked if anyone thought he had a prayer if the VOTE were taken today...not if he had grown up in today's society. >>
He would get in today anyway unless he were on the permanently ineligible list like Rose. Cobb is still very highly ranked in any modern day poll of ballplayers and his numbers are undeniable. You don't have to like the guy to acknowledge his talent and ability. In fact, you can hate the guy and still acknowledge that. If all players had to be "re-voted" into the HOF today like you propose, Cobb would be be in, no question. Even the often clueless writers wouldn't mess that one up. >>
You're probably right...unless, say, the commissioner developed a personal hatred of Cobb like a certain commish arguably did for Rose... >>
Rose has only himself to blame for being on the permanently ineligible list. Rose voluntarily agreed to such a ban in exchange for baseball not pursuing its investigation and findings against him. Who knows what more baseball would have uncovered had they continued their investigation but it must have been rather embarrassing or damning for Rose to agree to be permanently banned in order for it to be stopped.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Gretzky was an unbelievable assist and goal scorer, Lemieux most likely a better all around player than Wayne, but his injury problems reduces his ranking. I think if we only look at scoring (as some are reducing the baseball argument to hitting) Gretzky's numbers make him #1. >>
Even though Lemieux started his NHL career only 5 years after Gretzky, Gretzky still played in somewhat significantly higher-scoring era. When you adjust their point totals for the era, Lemieux scored more points per game than Gretzky. >>
Yes, well you if you want to start adjusting numbers, then you have to adjust the numbers in Wayne's favor as he had a MUCH longer career.
Gretzky played in 1487 games compared to Lemieux's playing in 915 (unless I am missing something) you really think using adjusted PPG makes any sense? Seems to me that it is harder to perform at a dominant level over a long period of time than a shorter period. In this case a very significant number of games.
The way I look at it with such a huge disparity in games played Mario should have a much higher PPG number than Wayne to be considered equal as a scorer.
I will stick with my opinion. Mario was a better hockey player, but with an injury/illness shortened career he simply doesn't measure up to Wayne as a point generator. Gretzky was the point leader in 10 out of 12 years, and assist leader an amazing 14 out of 15 years, most while Mario was active. In his last three years (old man years!) he was still able to lead the league in assists twice! Regardless of the era, Wayne was just a better scorer.
Very unfortunate Mario wasn't able to have a longer career, otherwise it might be a different story.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
<< <i>Rose shined in the post season. Cobb did not. >>
Rose - .269 in the World Series. Cobb -.262.
Why would you put so much stock in such a meaningless sample size? Cobb had *65* post-season ABs. Over 11,000 in the regular season. Would Cobb be the best player ever had he hit .420 in those 65 ABs? >>
Rose batted .321 in the post-season. Cobb .262. Advantage Rose. Many NFL players are in the hall for what they did in the post-season. I think what a player did in the post season in any sport should be taken in consideration. >>
Everything should be taken into consideration. But, it seems like you're giving an awful lot of weight to the post-season. Cobb was far better than Rose in the regular season. Rose was just a little better in the post-season.
The sample size is so small in the post-season that it only takes 5 fewer hits to bring Rose's post-season average down to .303, which was his regular season average.
<< <i>Rose has only himself to blame for being on the permanently ineligible list. Rose voluntarily agreed to such a ban in exchange for baseball not pursuing its investigation and findings against him. Who knows what more baseball would have uncovered had they continued their investigation but it must have been rather embarrassing or damning for Rose to agree to be permanently banned in order for it to be stopped. >>
Thank you for posting this. Should (but of course won't) put an end to the debate. Pete's behavior and decisions are what's keeping him out of the HOF.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
<< <i>Gretzky was an unbelievable assist and goal scorer, Lemieux most likely a better all around player than Wayne, but his injury problems reduces his ranking. I think if we only look at scoring (as some are reducing the baseball argument to hitting) Gretzky's numbers make him #1. >>
Even though Lemieux started his NHL career only 5 years after Gretzky, Gretzky still played in somewhat significantly higher-scoring era. When you adjust their point totals for the era, Lemieux scored more points per game than Gretzky. >>
Yes, well you if you want to start adjusting numbers, then you have to adjust the numbers in Wayne's favor as he had a MUCH longer career.
Gretzky played in 1487 games compared to Lemieux's playing in 915 (unless I am missing something) you really think using adjusted PPG makes any sense? Seems to me that it is harder to perform at a dominant level over a long period of time than a shorter period. In this case a very significant number of games.
The way I look at it with such a huge disparity in games played Mario should have a much higher PPG number than Wayne to be considered equal as a scorer.
I will stick with my opinion. Mario was a better hockey player, but with an injury/illness shortened career he simply doesn't measure up to Wayne as a point generator. Gretzky was the point leader in 10 out of 12 years, and assist leader an amazing 14 out of 15 years, most while Mario was active. In his last three years (old man years!) he was still able to lead the league in assists twice! Regardless of the era, Wayne was just a better scorer.
Very unfortunate Mario wasn't able to have a longer career, otherwise it might be a different story. >>
My post was not about who had the better career. It's obviously Wayne.
Better scorer though? It's quite close... Wayne .60 goals/gm, 1.32 assists/gm, 1.92 total Mario .75 goals/gm, 1.13 assists/gm, 1.88 total When adjusted for era, Mario moves ahead.
<< <i>In his last three years (old man years!) he was still able to lead the league in assists twice! Regardless of the era, Wayne was just a better scorer. >>
In those "old man years", Wayne was age 36 and 37. He averaged 1.18 and 1.10 pts/gm.
Do you know what Mario averaged when he was 36 and 37? 1.29 and 1.36. (Only 91 games total in those 2 years, but still...not bad).
<< <i>The answer comes down to whether you'd rather have a salad named after you or a flower. >>
Baseball, I think it is time for you to get back into the fray, and take this issue on
1. Cobb was better
2. Rose's longevity is a bonus, however, it is a small one compared to Cobb, as Cobb did have 13,000 career plate appearances. So it isn't nearly enough to cut away the 168 to 118 OPS+ lead Cobb has over Rose...a very large lead indeed.
3. Cobb did play in an era where it was easier for the elite to separate from the league average player, as the overall league ability(and the lower number of available MLB players in the US population) was worse in Cobb's time...but that advantage comes down to something like a 10% advantage...still not enough to chip away at that huge lead. I put some threads on this a while back...population studies etc..
It really isn't close enough to have to dig much deeper.
If somebody is going by total hits as their measure, then that is where they are going wrong, because that is such a poor method of evaluation as it does not include important information(ignores outs made, and ignores BB), and weighs hits improperly (it gives equal weight to a SINGLE as to a TRIPLE). In short, HIT TOTAL is among the worst ways to evaluate a hitter...that is if you want to do it accurately at least.
<< <i>3. Cobb did play in an era where it was easier for the elite to separate from the league average player, as the overall league ability(and the lower number of available MLB players in the US population) was worse in Cobb's time...but that advantage comes down to something like a 10% advantage...still not enough to chip away at that huge lead. I put some threads on this a while back...population studies etc.. >>
I think 10% is vastly understating the level of competition in the early 1900's.
Almost 40% of players today are minorities, meaning, if league integration happened yesterday 40% of the white players were sent down to the minor leagues. So yesterday, 40% of the league consisted of minor league caliber players when compared to today. The same can be said about 1910. It's not a coincidence that the majority of .350 hit seasons happened before 1940. I'm sure Cobb was great (he was one of the most dominant players of his era), but Rose was better.
I batted over .500 in my company softball league, it doesn't mean I'm better than Pete Rose.
<< <i>If this can be proven, then George Brett's chase for .400 was off the charts.
Let me ask a question if you buy into this integration theory (which I'm not sure I do). What hurlers from the 50's, 60's, or 70's that were black or latin American would have held Ty Cobb down ? >>
Without looking it up I immediately think of two Hall of Fame NL pitchers Pete Rose had to face on several occasions, Jaun Marichal and Bob Gibson.
Comments
<< <i>100 (and Cobb, again) >>
+1
It's not even debatable, really.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>That is not really accurate. There are only about 15-18 Asian players in MLB at any given time, most of whom are mediocre at best. That in no way offsets the talent dilution of 125 additional players brought on by expansion over the past 20 years. >>
The 125 additional players is met with the roughly 60 million new people in the country. The league has been expanding slower than the talent pool creating a much more competitive environment. >>
Proportionately, though, 60 million people do not necessarily equate to 125 major league ballplayers, especially in a country where much fewer athletes even aspire to play major league baseball.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
There are 310 million people in this country and 750 starting MLB players or 1 MLB player for every 413,333 Americans.
If there were 60 million more Americans and 125 more MLB players that's 1 MLB player for every 480,000 Americans.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>Of course 60 million Americans equal 125 major league players.
There are 310 million people in this country and 750 starting MLB players or 1 MLB player for every 413,333 Americans.
If there were 60 million more Americans and 125 more MLB players that's 1 MLB player for every 480,000 Americans. >>
Total population cannot be used as an accurate gauge though--how many of those 60 million people even qualify to be eligible for major league play? You'd have to take a closer look at the demographics. Back in 1990, there were 650 major league players and 260 million people in U.S. Today there are 325 million people in US and about 775 major league players.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>You can not compare players in different eras for many of the reasons listed. Another reason you can not is because Ty Cobb, born in Pete Rose's era, may not have been the same Ty Cobb. His eating habits, his work out habits, who influenced him all would have been different. What was an advantage would not be, and what was a disadvantage would not be. Basically, you have to compare to players of their era. If Ty Cobb was born in any era, he would have been a top 7 player of all time. If Pete Rose was born in any other era, he would have been a top 30 player of all time. >>
That is a valid assertion and one I agree with. Enough with the foolishness that Cobb was not one of the top players of all time. He was a vile individual but one of the all time greats without question.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Of the 775 MLB players, how many are foreign born? 20%? If we used that number, then 155 players are not American, which leaves only 620 American players to cull out of the roughly 160 million males in this country. That equates to about 4 out of every 1 million males.
<< <i>That is a valid assertion and one I agree with. Enough with the foolishness that Cobb was not one of the top players of all time. He was a vile individual but one of the all time greats without question. >>
I would argue that he was one of the most dominant players of his generation, but if all else were the same and I was building a team today to face pitchers of today and play by the rules of today, I would take Rose over Cobb.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>Total population cannot be used as an accurate gauge though--how many of those 60 million people even qualify to be eligible for major league play? You'd have to take a closer look at the demographics. Back in 1990, there were 650 major league players and 260 million people in U.S. Today there are 325 million people in US and about 775 major league players.
Of the 775 MLB players, how many are foreign born? 20%? If we used that number, then 155 players are not American, which leaves only 620 American players to cull out of the roughly 160 million males in this country. That equates to about 4 out of every 1 million males. >>
What is the % of American 18-year-olds aspiring to be a MLB player in 2014 vs the % of American 18-year-olds aspring to be a MLB player in 1964? Is the national pasttime as popular today as it was 50 years ago among our youth?
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Knowing what we know about concussions and repetitive head trauma sustained in every level of football, the number of athletes opting to play baseball will only increase. As far as basketball is concerned, the vertically challenged, which include most of us, cannot consider hoops as a viable alternative. The important point is that it really doesn't matter if fewer Americans play baseball, because the number of imported players will only go up, due to lower costs in developing and training.
<< <i>What is the % of American 18-year-olds aspiring to be a MLB player in 2014 vs the % of American 18-year-olds aspring to be a MLB player in 1964? Is the national pasttime as popular today as it was 50 years ago among our youth?
Knowing what we know about concussions and repetitive head trauma sustained in every level of football, the number of athletes opting to play baseball will only increase. As far as basketball is concerned, the vertically challenged, which include most of us, cannot consider hoops as a viable alternative. The important point is that it really doesn't matter if fewer Americans play baseball, because the number of imported players will only go up, due to lower costs in developing and training. >>
That is interesting. All studies and articles I've seen in recent years suggest that fewer young men pursue playing baseball than in years past.
Personally, I think the level of play (on average) was higher years ago, when players also weren't widely using PEDs, as well.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
So if I transported rose to 1900 and put him those conditions with that style of play and training do you honestly think he'd be anything other than the slap hitter he was in the sixties and seventies? On the other hand you transport Cobb to Rose's era ( keeping in mind Cobb was not a small man) with that era's style of play and training I'm thinking he is closer to 215 to 220 instead of the 190 of his day. All those triples and doubles become a few more home runs. How can we leave out the fact that Cobb was one off the best sluggers of his era? Rose would be a slap hitter in any era. I can't see any logical
Argument for Rose. Play with population numbers all you want. Even advance metrics (which give me a headache) plainly show Cobb was far superior.
<< <i>
<< <i>Pick: ROSE
He played in a more competitive era in my opinion and he led his teams to 6 World Series, and shined during the post-season where it counts. >>
As Ted Williams proved, no matter how good you are, you will never win a World Series without very good teammates. Having very good teammates is luck. >>
Most anything in life is luck. Its called the hall of fame and everyone remembers a winner. Rose shined in the post season. Cobb did not.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
<< <i>What I find head scratching is that people can state, with certainty, that Cobb was clearly better than Rose, when in fact, almost nobody alive ever saw him play. >>
Evaluating a player based on watching him play is basically the worst method upon which to gauge the level of a player, as perception is subjective. That is why players like Jim Rice are as overrated as they are. The data and advanced statistics (other than the most obvious ones) paint the real story and depict players in what can be truly determined as closest to an objective evaluation.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Yeah, I guess that's like saying you're skilled at diplomacy on the world stage because, when you look out the window, you can see Russia. ;-) >>
Yes, that is a perfect analogy right there, lol..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>Yeah, I guess that's like saying you're skilled at diplomacy on the world stage because, when you look out the window, you can see Russia. ;-) >>
Yes, that is a perfect analogy right there, lol.. >>
Observing a player is actually quite a good way to evaluate their abilities, as long as you are also observing ALL (or at least all comparable players) the players in that sport.
Statistics are another good way to evaluate players.
Neither actually PROVES who is better if the players are nearly equal or are from different eras, you can get some very good indications, but no actual proof.
With all the changes in the game between the time Cobb played and Rose came along, it's pretty hard to compare them. No one can KNOW how either would have performed in the others era.
Cobb was obviously MUCH more dominant player who has the highest batting average of all time as well as several other more impressive statistical records.
Rose has the record for most hits, primarily because he was a very good hitter with an extremely long career.
Based on general knowledge from reading books and looking at stats, Cobb would appear to be a vastly superior player.
<< <i>What is done in hockey in comparing great ones from each generation is to compare stats of those great players to the players in their era.
For example, in hockey Bobby Orr always seems to win the argument over Gretzky because Orr's numbers overmatched the players of his era.
While Gretzky and Lemieux both had the same points per game during their era, yet no one was close to Orr during his dominance. Though most will say Gretzky was greater because he did it over a long period of time.
My point is that Cobb was a great hitter, but Shoeless Joe Jackson was hitting .400 right along with Cobb, and other players were in the
.380's while Cobb was putting up his sick numbers.
I think the only player of his time (and don't quote me on this) that distanced himself over his contemporaries was Ted Williams, although it
wasn't by that much to put Teddy Ballgame above Ruth or Cobb. But I still believe Ted was the best hitter ever. No way to prove it though. >>
I would say Orr wins the argument because he was such a good scorer while playing defense. You could then come to the conclusion that he was BOTH the best defensive and offensive player during his prime. Gretzky was an unbelievable assist and goal scorer, Lemieux most likely a better all around player than Wayne, but his injury problems reduces his ranking. I think if we only look at scoring (as some are reducing the baseball argument to hitting) Gretzky's numbers make him #1.
Getting back to baseball, on hitting alone, the numbers I have seen would rank Ruth and Williams as the best two hitters of all time. Cobb didn't have the home runs, but he stole so many bases his value increases as an overall player. No way of proving it, but Cobb could have probably hit many more home runs had he tried.
A couple of other great hitters that don't get mentioned as often are Jimmie Foxx and Rogers Hornsby.
Babe Ruth was NOT a "fat slob" for most of his career. Just at the end, like many players who got bigger near the end of their playing days.
When discussing the segregation aspect of baseball, I don't see it as nearly as much of a benefit for Cobb as some do. There were a few superior black players who certainly would have excelled if given the chance, but it looks to me like there were not the percentage of minorities in the U.S. at the time, so I don't see it making a huge difference, but as has been stated, speculation is just that.
<< <i>
Looks like Shea in backdrop! LOL!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Cobb is the superior player on paper... but that said, his numbers would not have been as good had he played in the Rose era imo because of his playing style. Cobb was a spikes-up hothead and would have ridden the pine a lot in Rose's era and thus not gotten the same numbers IMO.
Rose was a hard worker though not as well rounded as Cobb...but I think he could have done well in Cobb's era as his style was compatible with the hard nosed play of that time.
All that said...Both were great players but I think the rankings (Cobb top 10, Rose top 30) are pretty accurate... and if there's any justice, Rose will make the HOF at some point.
On that subject...since we're playing "what-if"....does anyone think Cobb would have a prayer if the HOF vote for him were taken in today's uber-PC world, given his violent/racist personality?
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
It is irrelevant, really, because had Cobb grown up in today's society, his entire viewpoint and perceptions and opinions would likely have been very different from those in 1910. It took Branch Rickey and till 1947 for the game to even allow integration...how many of those same owners from that time would have said no to black major league players in today's "uber-PC world"? The answer: none.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Shouldn't Nightcrawler's eyes be blinking?
Awesome!
<< <i>Rose shined in the post season. Cobb did not. >>
Rose - .269 in the World Series. Cobb -.262.
Why would you put so much stock in such a meaningless sample size? Cobb had *65* post-season ABs. Over 11,000 in the regular season. Would Cobb be the best player ever had he hit .420 in those 65 ABs?
<< <i>Gretzky was an unbelievable assist and goal scorer, Lemieux most likely a better all around player than Wayne, but his injury problems reduces his ranking. I think if we only look at scoring (as some are reducing the baseball argument to hitting) Gretzky's numbers make him #1. >>
Even though Lemieux started his NHL career only 5 years after Gretzky, Gretzky still played in somewhat significantly higher-scoring era. When you adjust their point totals for the era, Lemieux scored more points per game than Gretzky.
<< <i>[iOn that subject...since we're playing "what-if"....does anyone think Cobb would have a prayer if the HOF vote for him were taken in today's uber-PC world, given his violent/racist personality?]
It is irrelevant, really, because had Cobb grown up in today's society, his entire viewpoint and perceptions and opinions would likely have been very different from those in 1910. It took Branch Rickey and till 1947 for the game to even allow integration...how many of those same owners from that time would have said no to black major league players in today's "uber-PC world"? The answer: none. >>
Ah, but that's not the question! I asked if anyone thought he had a prayer if the VOTE were taken today...not if he had grown up in today's society.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>
<< <i>[iOn that subject...since we're playing "what-if"....does anyone think Cobb would have a prayer if the HOF vote for him were taken in today's uber-PC world, given his violent/racist personality?]
It is irrelevant, really, because had Cobb grown up in today's society, his entire viewpoint and perceptions and opinions would likely have been very different from those in 1910. It took Branch Rickey and till 1947 for the game to even allow integration...how many of those same owners from that time would have said no to black major league players in today's "uber-PC world"? The answer: none. >>
Ah, but that's not the question! I asked if anyone thought he had a prayer if the VOTE were taken today...not if he had grown up in today's society. >>
He would get in today anyway unless he were on the permanently ineligible list like Rose. Cobb is still very highly ranked in any modern day poll of ballplayers and his numbers are undeniable. You don't have to like the guy to acknowledge his talent and ability. In fact, you can hate the guy and still acknowledge that. If all players had to be "re-voted" into the HOF today like you propose, Cobb would be be in, no question. Even the often clueless writers wouldn't mess that one up.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>[iOn that subject...since we're playing "what-if"....does anyone think Cobb would have a prayer if the HOF vote for him were taken in today's uber-PC world, given his violent/racist personality?]
It is irrelevant, really, because had Cobb grown up in today's society, his entire viewpoint and perceptions and opinions would likely have been very different from those in 1910. It took Branch Rickey and till 1947 for the game to even allow integration...how many of those same owners from that time would have said no to black major league players in today's "uber-PC world"? The answer: none. >>
Ah, but that's not the question! I asked if anyone thought he had a prayer if the VOTE were taken today...not if he had grown up in today's society. >>
He would get in today anyway unless he were on the permanently ineligible list like Rose. Cobb is still very highly ranked in any modern day poll of ballplayers and his numbers are undeniable. You don't have to like the guy to acknowledge his talent and ability. In fact, you can hate the guy and still acknowledge that. If all players had to be "re-voted" into the HOF today like you propose, Cobb would be be in, no question. Even the often clueless writers wouldn't mess that one up. >>
You're probably right...unless, say, the commissioner developed a personal hatred of Cobb like a certain commish arguably did for Rose...
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>
<< <i>Rose shined in the post season. Cobb did not. >>
Rose - .269 in the World Series. Cobb -.262.
Why would you put so much stock in such a meaningless sample size? Cobb had *65* post-season ABs. Over 11,000 in the regular season. Would Cobb be the best player ever had he hit .420 in those 65 ABs? >>
Rose batted .321 in the post-season. Cobb .262. Advantage Rose. Many NFL players are in the hall for what they did in the post-season. I think what a player did in the post season in any sport should be taken in consideration.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>[iOn that subject...since we're playing "what-if"....does anyone think Cobb would have a prayer if the HOF vote for him were taken in today's uber-PC world, given his violent/racist personality?]
It is irrelevant, really, because had Cobb grown up in today's society, his entire viewpoint and perceptions and opinions would likely have been very different from those in 1910. It took Branch Rickey and till 1947 for the game to even allow integration...how many of those same owners from that time would have said no to black major league players in today's "uber-PC world"? The answer: none. >>
Ah, but that's not the question! I asked if anyone thought he had a prayer if the VOTE were taken today...not if he had grown up in today's society. >>
He would get in today anyway unless he were on the permanently ineligible list like Rose. Cobb is still very highly ranked in any modern day poll of ballplayers and his numbers are undeniable. You don't have to like the guy to acknowledge his talent and ability. In fact, you can hate the guy and still acknowledge that. If all players had to be "re-voted" into the HOF today like you propose, Cobb would be be in, no question. Even the often clueless writers wouldn't mess that one up. >>
You're probably right...unless, say, the commissioner developed a personal hatred of Cobb like a certain commish arguably did for Rose... >>
Rose has only himself to blame for being on the permanently ineligible list. Rose voluntarily agreed to such a ban in exchange for baseball not pursuing its investigation and findings against him. Who knows what more baseball would have uncovered had they continued their investigation but it must have been rather embarrassing or damning for Rose to agree to be permanently banned in order for it to be stopped.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>Gretzky was an unbelievable assist and goal scorer, Lemieux most likely a better all around player than Wayne, but his injury problems reduces his ranking. I think if we only look at scoring (as some are reducing the baseball argument to hitting) Gretzky's numbers make him #1. >>
Even though Lemieux started his NHL career only 5 years after Gretzky, Gretzky still played in somewhat significantly higher-scoring era. When you adjust their point totals for the era, Lemieux scored more points per game than Gretzky. >>
Yes, well you if you want to start adjusting numbers, then you have to adjust the numbers in Wayne's favor as he had a MUCH longer career.
Gretzky played in 1487 games compared to Lemieux's playing in 915 (unless I am missing something) you really think using adjusted PPG makes any sense? Seems to me that it is harder to perform at a dominant level over a long period of time than a shorter period. In this case a very significant number of games.
The way I look at it with such a huge disparity in games played Mario should have a much higher PPG number than Wayne to be considered equal as a scorer.
I will stick with my opinion. Mario was a better hockey player, but with an injury/illness shortened career he simply doesn't measure up to Wayne as a point generator. Gretzky was the point leader in 10 out of 12 years, and assist leader an amazing 14 out of 15 years, most while Mario was active. In his last three years (old man years!) he was still able to lead the league in assists twice! Regardless of the era, Wayne was just a better scorer.
Very unfortunate Mario wasn't able to have a longer career, otherwise it might be a different story.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Rose shined in the post season. Cobb did not. >>
Rose - .269 in the World Series. Cobb -.262.
Why would you put so much stock in such a meaningless sample size? Cobb had *65* post-season ABs. Over 11,000 in the regular season. Would Cobb be the best player ever had he hit .420 in those 65 ABs? >>
Rose batted .321 in the post-season. Cobb .262. Advantage Rose. Many NFL players are in the hall for what they did in the post-season. I think what a player did in the post season in any sport should be taken in consideration. >>
Everything should be taken into consideration. But, it seems like you're giving an awful lot of weight to the post-season. Cobb was far better than Rose in the regular season. Rose was just a little better in the post-season.
The sample size is so small in the post-season that it only takes 5 fewer hits to bring Rose's post-season average down to .303, which was his regular season average.
<< <i>Rose has only himself to blame for being on the permanently ineligible list. Rose voluntarily agreed to such a ban in exchange for baseball not pursuing its investigation and findings against him. Who knows what more baseball would have uncovered had they continued their investigation but it must have been rather embarrassing or damning for Rose to agree to be permanently banned in order for it to be stopped. >>
Thank you for posting this. Should (but of course won't) put an end to the debate. Pete's behavior and decisions are what's keeping him out of the HOF.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Gretzky was an unbelievable assist and goal scorer, Lemieux most likely a better all around player than Wayne, but his injury problems reduces his ranking. I think if we only look at scoring (as some are reducing the baseball argument to hitting) Gretzky's numbers make him #1. >>
Even though Lemieux started his NHL career only 5 years after Gretzky, Gretzky still played in somewhat significantly higher-scoring era. When you adjust their point totals for the era, Lemieux scored more points per game than Gretzky. >>
Yes, well you if you want to start adjusting numbers, then you have to adjust the numbers in Wayne's favor as he had a MUCH longer career.
Gretzky played in 1487 games compared to Lemieux's playing in 915 (unless I am missing something) you really think using adjusted PPG makes any sense? Seems to me that it is harder to perform at a dominant level over a long period of time than a shorter period. In this case a very significant number of games.
The way I look at it with such a huge disparity in games played Mario should have a much higher PPG number than Wayne to be considered equal as a scorer.
I will stick with my opinion. Mario was a better hockey player, but with an injury/illness shortened career he simply doesn't measure up to Wayne as a point generator. Gretzky was the point leader in 10 out of 12 years, and assist leader an amazing 14 out of 15 years, most while Mario was active. In his last three years (old man years!) he was still able to lead the league in assists twice! Regardless of the era, Wayne was just a better scorer.
Very unfortunate Mario wasn't able to have a longer career, otherwise it might be a different story. >>
My post was not about who had the better career. It's obviously Wayne.
Better scorer though? It's quite close...
Wayne .60 goals/gm, 1.32 assists/gm, 1.92 total
Mario .75 goals/gm, 1.13 assists/gm, 1.88 total
When adjusted for era, Mario moves ahead.
<< <i>In his last three years (old man years!) he was still able to lead the league in assists twice! Regardless of the era, Wayne was just a better scorer.
>>
In those "old man years", Wayne was age 36 and 37. He averaged 1.18 and 1.10 pts/gm.
Do you know what Mario averaged when he was 36 and 37? 1.29 and 1.36.
(Only 91 games total in those 2 years, but still...not bad).
<< <i>The answer comes down to whether you'd rather have a salad named after you or a flower. >>
Baseball, I think it is time for you to get back into the fray, and take this issue on
1. Cobb was better
2. Rose's longevity is a bonus, however, it is a small one compared to Cobb, as Cobb did have 13,000 career plate appearances. So it isn't nearly enough to cut away the 168 to 118 OPS+ lead Cobb has over Rose...a very large lead indeed.
3. Cobb did play in an era where it was easier for the elite to separate from the league average player, as the overall league ability(and the lower number of available MLB players in the US population) was worse in Cobb's time...but that advantage comes down to something like a 10% advantage...still not enough to chip away at that huge lead. I put some threads on this a while back...population studies etc..
It really isn't close enough to have to dig much deeper.
If somebody is going by total hits as their measure, then that is where they are going wrong, because that is such a poor method of evaluation as it does not include important information(ignores outs made, and ignores BB), and weighs hits improperly (it gives equal weight to a SINGLE as to a TRIPLE). In short, HIT TOTAL is among the worst ways to evaluate a hitter...that is if you want to do it accurately at least.
<< <i>3. Cobb did play in an era where it was easier for the elite to separate from the league average player, as the overall league ability(and the lower number of available MLB players in the US population) was worse in Cobb's time...but that advantage comes down to something like a 10% advantage...still not enough to chip away at that huge lead. I put some threads on this a while back...population studies etc.. >>
I think 10% is vastly understating the level of competition in the early 1900's.
Almost 40% of players today are minorities, meaning, if league integration happened yesterday 40% of the white players were sent down to the minor leagues. So yesterday, 40% of the league consisted of minor league caliber players when compared to today. The same can be said about 1910. It's not a coincidence that the majority of .350 hit seasons happened before 1940. I'm sure Cobb was great (he was one of the most dominant players of his era), but Rose was better.
I batted over .500 in my company softball league, it doesn't mean I'm better than Pete Rose.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>If this can be proven, then George Brett's chase for .400 was off the charts.
Let me ask a question if you buy into this integration theory (which I'm not sure I do).
What hurlers from the 50's, 60's, or 70's that were black or latin American would have held Ty Cobb down ? >>
Without looking it up I immediately think of two Hall of Fame NL pitchers Pete Rose had to face on several occasions, Jaun Marichal and Bob Gibson.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss